Bf 109 everything (2 Viewers)

bf109xxl · Monday at 5:27 AM

tomo pauk said:
Agreed all the way.
The MG FFMs in the wings are the least problematic choice for a cannon setup, and by the time of the 109G, the 90 rd drum is in the play. By 1943(?), the belt-fed FFM is on use on the nightfighter Do 217s, so that is another thing to explore wrt. installation in the wing of a 109.

It was only possible to place the cannons in the existing wing outside the wheel wells, this would have created large moments of inertia, the roll would have dropped sharply.
By the way, installing a droplet-shaped canopy on the Bf-109 would require a radical redesign of the fuselage's structural elements. Technologically, this would mean changing the manufacturing tools, which is a very expensive.
In my humble opinion, it was much easier to design a new aircraft than to redesign the Bf 109 - it had exhausted its modernization resources by 1944. The "Kurfürst" did not change the situation radically, the higher speed was achieved at the expense of climb rate and maneuverability if you consider the data of production aircraft, not prototypes.

bf109xxl · Monday at 5:45 AM

tomo pauk said:
Depends on the standpoint? If your fighter is down by 30 km/h vs. the enemy's fighter, adding 15 km/h helps in making the speed difference indeed a trivial matter.

Independently on the startpoint. The most important thing was to spot the enemy in time and prevent a surprise attack. When this condition was met, the importance of the maximum speed was reduced (as distinct from the really achievable combat speed).

tomo pauk said:
Notleistung will not add 50+ km/h just on it's own vs. the next lower power setting (Kampfleistung typically for the German engines) - see this for example, gain is of some 20 km/h.

I know. MW-50 injection was assumed by default.

tomo pauk said:
The limit of 7 km was absolutely important in the ETO, where Luftwaffe gotten the worst in-combat beating.

There is no arguing with that, but to fight heavy bombers its armament was insufficient and it was almost unrealistic to upgrade it to a satisfactory level.

tomo pauk said:
Hence the introduction of the DB 605 AS and ASM engine, to close the gap vs. the better Allied fighters above 7 km, as well as to make it more useful in downing the B-17s above that altitude.

I doubt that an acceptable result could have been achieved in the geometric dimensions of the Bf 109. And changing them would actually mean creating a new airplane. The reserves for modernization of the Bf 109 were exhausted by 1944.

z42 · Monday at 6:00 AM

bf109xxl said:
It was only possible to place the cannons in the existing wing outside the wheel wells, this would have created large moments of inertia, the roll would have dropped sharply.

Sure, but it worked well enough on the 109E, which was competitive with its peers, no?

By the way, installing a droplet-shaped canopy on the Bf-109 would require a radical redesign of the fuselage's structural elements. Technologically, this would mean changing the manufacturing tools, which is a very expensive.

Probably? What kind of manufacturing tools are we talking about here? Forms etc. to cast/bend/press the frames and stringers into the correct shapes, or?

Expensive or not, it seemed doable and worthwhile for the Brits and Americans, considering the Mustang, Thunderbolt, Spitfire, and Typhoon, at least. Then again, at that point in the war the Allies weren't with their backs to the wall to the same extent, so maybe they were better able to afford such changes.

tomo pauk · Monday at 6:02 AM

bf109xxl said:
It was only possible to place the cannons in the existing wing outside the wheel wells, this would have created large moments of inertia, the roll would have dropped sharply.

Not by installing the very light cannons with their light ammo. A far, far smaller problem than with double the number of cannons on many British fighters, with much heavier cannons and with their more numerous and heavy ammo.

bf109xxl said:
By the way, installing a droplet-shaped canopy on the Bf-109 would require a radical redesign of the fuselage's structural elements. Technologically, this would mean changing the manufacturing tools, which is a very expensive.

Soviets managed to outfit their fighters with a better canopy than what was originally installed pretty seamesly wrt. the mass production issues. Same with NAA and Republic.
But there was also a middle ground to that, namely a 'blown' part of the canopy for many of fighters, like the Spitfire, Mustang ('Malcom hood' for the two), or Corsair. Improves the pilots ability to scan the airspace without the need to go for the cut-down rear fuselage. Here is the similar, if not even better canopy on the Avia S.199.

bf109xxl said:
In my humble opinion, it was much easier to design a new aircraft than to redesign the Bf 109 - it had exhausted its modernization resources by 1944. The "Karl" did not change the situation radically, the higher speed was achieved at the expense of climb rate and maneuverability if you consider the data of production aircraft, not prototypes.

MTT found it harder to design a new fighter to replace the 109, not easier.
The 109K changed the situation by being a more clean aircraft the later 109Gs.
How do you figure that the 109K sacrificed the RoC and maneuverability vs. the 109Gs?

bf109xxl · Monday at 6:29 AM

z42 said:
Sure, but it worked well enough on the 109E, which was competitive with its peers, no?

Ballistic and RoF were insufficient, the ammunition capacity of 60 20mm rounds was too little for 1944. In addition, high dispersion during firing. And nothing else could be fit.

z42 said:
Probably? What kind of manufacturing tools are we talking about here? Forms etc. to cast/bend/press the frames and stringers into the correct shapes, or?

Exactly.

z42 said:
Expensive or not, it seemed doable and worthwhile for the Brits and Americans, considering the Mustang, Spitfire, and Typhoon, at least.

There was a big difference between the situations in German and US/UK industry.

z42 said:
Then again, at that point in the war the Allies weren't with their backs to the wall to the same extent, so maybe they were better able to afford such changes.

Exactly.

tomo pauk · Monday at 7:16 AM

bf109xxl said:
Independently on the startpoint. The most important thing was to spot the enemy in time and prevent a surprise attack. The most important thing was to spot the enemy in time and prevent a surprise attack. When this condition was met, the importance of the maximum speed was reduced (as distinct from the really achievable combat speed).

Too much of money, time and human resources was spent in order to gain that extra 10 or 20 km/h just for you to to disqualify all of that on a whim.
A biplane with perfect canopy was a far worse fighter than a 'razorback' monplane of a day.

bf109xxl said:
I know. MW-50 injection was assumed by default.

Assumed by whom?

bf109xxl said:
There is no arguing with that, but to fight heavy bombers its armament was insufficient and it was almost unrealistic to upgrade it to a satisfactory level.

Staring out with three cannons is a better thing than starting out with a cannon and two LMGs, or even with one cannon and two MG 131s.

bf109xxl said:
I doubt that an acceptable result could have been achieved in the geometric dimensions of the Bf 109. And changing them would actually mean creating a new airplane.

The AS/ASM engine were able to fit within the geometric dimensions of the Bf 109.

bf109xxl said:
The reserves for modernization of the Bf 109 were exhausted by 1944.

So we disagree.

bf109xxl · Monday at 7:46 AM

tomo pauk said:
Not by installing the very light cannons with their light ammo.

And who needs them in 1944? Only the Soviets.

tomo pauk said:
A far, far smaller problem than with double the number of cannons on many British fighters, with much heavier cannons and with their more numerous and heavy ammo.

If I remember correctly, even the Spitfire had a thicker wing than the Bf 109 in absolute terms. Size matters. It was impossible to fit everything into the geometry of the Bf 109 at the same time - for example, a powerful engine and a powerful armament.

tomo pauk said:
Soviets managed to outfit their fighters with a better canopy than what was originally installed pretty seamesly wrt. the mass production issues. Same with NAA and Republic.

The Soviets used simpler technologies that did not require major tooling changes. The Americans had incomparably greater capabilities in industry - they could change tooling without reducing the rate of production. This would hardly have been possible for the Germans in 1944.

tomo pauk said:
But there was also a middle ground to that, namely a 'blown' part of the canopy for many of fighters, like the Spitfire, Mustang ('Malcom hood' for the two), or Corsair. Improves the pilots ability to scan the airspace without the need to go for the cut-down rear fuselage. Here is the similar, if not even better canopy on the Avia S.199.

I guess that option was possible. At least, I can't point out what complications might have arisen.

tomo pauk said:
MTT found it harder to design a new fighter to replace the 109, not easier.

Basically, neither the modernization of the Bf.109 nor the development of a new aircraft yielded the expected result. Geometry imposed constraints on modernization, the introduction of a new aircraft reduced the quantitative factor.

tomo pauk said:
The 109K changed the situation by being a more clean aircraft the later 109Gs.

Not radically. "Being more clean" does not mean "better overall performance".

tomo pauk said:
How do you figure that the 109K sacrificed the RoC and maneuverability vs. the 109Gs?

RoC 6.0 min to 6km vs. 5.8 min for G-10, turn time 23-24 s vs. 20-21 s - test results for production aircraft

bf109xxl · Monday at 7:53 AM

tomo pauk said:
Too much of money, time and human resources was spent in order to gain that extra 10 or 20 km/h just for you to to disqualify all of that on a whim.

Not for me - for the pilots.

tomo pauk said:
A biplane with perfect canopy was a far worse fighter than a 'razorback' monplane of a day.

It depends. The Soviets seriously discussed resuming production of the I-153 in 1941 having enough 'razorback' monoplanes which were not significantly better at the end of the day!

tomo pauk said:
Assumed by whom?

By me.

tomo pauk said:
Staring out with three cannons is a better thing than starting out with a cannon and two LMGs, or even with one cannon and two MG 131s.

"Better" does not mean "sufficient for ETO".

tomo pauk said:
The AS/ASM engine were able to fit within the geometric dimensions of the Bf 109.

Sure. But not with powerful armament simultaneously.

tomo pauk said:
So we disagree.

As you wish.

bf109xxl · Monday at 8:06 AM

tomo pauk said:
Unfortunately for the Bf 109 drivers, it was only the Soviets that concluded that the 'three gunned' 109G-2 was good for 660-670 km/h on Kampfleistung (2600 rpm, max 1.30 ata = max power at 5.7 km of 1250 PS). Germans tested the same thing as being good for up to 650 km/h.

By the way, there is a simple explanation for this: Soviet engineers filled the 109 with the best gasoline available - it had a higher ON than the German one.

Admiral Beez · Monday at 12:15 PM

Did the V-tail version really exist?

Notes On Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-0,<br>Werknummer 14003, V-Tail Trials Aircraft

One of three known photos of Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-0, VJ+WC, Werknummer 14003, as featured as part of report no. 109 08 E 43, issued by Mes...

luftwaffereviews.blogspot.com

tomo pauk · Monday at 1:13 PM

bf109xxl said:
<>

Seems like we're disagreeing on too many things, so I will not try to debate with you anymore in this thread.

bf109xxl · Monday at 1:23 PM

tomo pauk said:
Seems like we're disagreeing on too many things, so I will not try to debate with you anymore in this thread.

I can't promise I won't comment on your postings.

tomo pauk · Monday at 1:32 PM

bf109xxl said:
I can't promise I won't comment on your postings.

Let me make it even more convenient.

Admiral Beez · Monday at 1:40 PM

tomo pauk said:
Let me make it even more convenient.

Love it. The best function on most forums.

bf109xxl · Monday at 1:57 PM

tomo pauk said:
Let me make it even more convenient.

That's unnecessary. Better focus on the arguments. I don't aim simply to contradict you. I am genuinely interested in how you argue your ideas. But unfortunately, you prefer to leave the podium proudly rather than to respond to your opponent's quite adequate remarks. If you do not find them so, I am ready to consider your claims. However, if you do not respond, my heart will not burst from grief, sorry.

peceed · Monday at 2:41 PM

bf109xxl said:
By the way, there is a simple explanation for this: Soviet engineers filled the 109 with the best gasoline available - it had a higher ON than the German one.

Not really. Fuel doesn't matter as long as the boost level is the same. And higher boost from higher octane fuel lowers the critical height, more or less canceling out the speed gains.

bf109xxl · Monday at 6:59 PM

peceed said:
Not really. Fuel doesn't matter as long as the boost level is the same. And higher boost from higher octane fuel lowers the critical height, more or less canceling out the speed gains.

For engines with direct fuel injection, additional power can be gained by using fuels with higher volatility to improve combustion conditions. For radial engines, for example, power gain can exceed 10%.

Shortround6 · Tuesday at 10:12 AM

bf109xxl said:
By the way, there is a simple explanation for this: Soviet engineers filled the 109 with the best gasoline available - it had a higher ON than the German one.

Or not so simple.
Simply putting higher octane fuel in the tank won't do much.
Higher octane fuel will allow you to use more boost, which will increase power, but you have to use the higher boost, which should be noted in the test.
Octane rating has nothing to do with amount of BTUs per gallon (or liter or kg of fuel).

Now maybe the Soviet fuel had a little bit different number of Btu's per kg than the German fuel did but it is unlikely to be very different.
Allied fuels had a minimum of 18700 Btu's per pound regardless of grade, regardless of octane/fuel grade.

This was a problem with blending fuels. Most of the additives (compounds) that boosted the octane rating had less Btus per pound than regular gasoline. You needed more fuel to get the same power. Most western fuels were limited to under 20% additives in order to meet the 18700 Btu limit. Using low Btu fuel meant less range.

Bf 109 everything (2 Viewers)

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Staff Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Major

Creator of Interesting Threads

Staff Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Staff Sergeant

Airman

Staff Sergeant

Major General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads