Bf 109 F series

So the G-6 to G-14 style bumps cost 9kmh in level speed, while the revised cowling of the G-10 and K-4 dropped that penalty to 3kmh. Is that correct?

If the "Galland cowling" is used, the speed penalty would - I expect - be minor enough to be acceptable for the increased firepower. Even MG 131s in the outer wings would be a nice increase and far less of a weight penalty than 151s. (For example, two cowling MG 131s, two outer wing 131s, and the MG 151/20 motor cannon. I dunno - just throwing out ideas...)

Tante Ju,

You amaze me. Where do you FIND this stuff? Great pics of the modified Bf 109F! The rear portion of the bump needs to taper to eliminate turbulence (drag). It isn't all that difficult.

I appreciate the close up. Great pic of Galland in his mount, too. I always THOUGHT the parachute would put your head into the top of the canopy once I sat in one. Now I know.

Keep it up!

I still think the F was the best of the series from a pilot's perspective, given the opinions I've seen from the people who flew them all. Truly a great plane if ever there was one. My suggestions above do not detract from its greatness at all. They are merely suggestions for improvement, and it is very possible that one or more would not be possible without an excessive weight gain. In that case, I'd forego the mod for lightness ... except for the battery for the electric starter. I'm thinking it would fit just fine right behind and to the bottom of the fuel cell. Not far from the CG and plenty of room there since I can sit right there inside a 109 fuselage in a pinch.

It might have been a good thing if the Germans used the Hispano wing, too. It had two guns internally and was just as strong. But ... that would also add weight and the real question is how heavy is too heavy? Certianly the G-model was. Maybe leave the armament alone ... and let it go with fixing the primary weaknesses, such as they were. It probably would have tipped from teh Spitfire the balance back to the Bf 109 side. They DID tend to trade being "the best" back and forth.

A German redesign of the Reggiane Re.2005, Macchi C.205, or Fiat G.55 might wasily have been a good replacement. The Germans would have simplfied them and made them lighter, smoother, and faster ... in my vision ... maybe. Or a totlally new design. But the Bf 109 wasn't necessarily done as a design with the F model. The problem with the G was the weight. There is surely SOME subset of the mods that would result in a plane better than the F and lighter than the G ... WITH some of the fixes proposed. If the K could go in the mid 400 mph range, then so could a cleaner F model. I KNOW the radiators weren't all that great. Maybe a new radiator along the lines of the P-51 unit that eliminated a lot of cooling drag. By that time they had info on it.

Or, as a last resort, increase the wing area so the wing loading for the G was the same as for the F. It might have taken only a small increase in chord or span, but it could be done without a major weight penalty.

I reaching here, so I'll stop. Cheers.

It was the pinnacle of the basic design and a superb fighter aircraft, if not the absolute best it definitely shared 1st place at the time and place it became operational.

But, and here is the but, the fundamental weakness of the 109 was it's size. It was the smallest package that you could build around a good engine and decent guns.
That meant there was little left to grow and if you added something there, you lost something elsewhere.
As operational requirements grew it simply couldn't be altered enough to meet them.
Therefore the superb F became the much poorer G.

Everyone compares it with the Spit, but I'd rather compare it with that other superb design the 190 and, more importantly, the design and manufacturing team.

While Willy had basically washed his hands of the 109 (and the 209, et al were failures). Tank (as did his counterpart at Supermarine Smith) kept developing the 190 with more and more power and then, when the engine became available (after much prodding) he stretched to 190 into the excellent 190D.

Willy was a purest, he wanted perfect designs, he ran things like an autocrat, made many mistakes but played his political cards well. He had some great successes, the 109, the 110 (though not for the original purpose), the 262. His failures he, by and large, managed to avoid any criticism of (the 210, the 410, et al).
His biggest failure, unlike the great Kurt Tank, Mitchell, Smith, (etc) was he never wanted to get into the hard business of continual development (or even just delegate it, that autocrat in him got in the way, teamwork was not his style).

So with all that background , improve the 109F? Impossible. As I said it was the pinnacle of the superb basic design with the engines available at the time (though note even then the rot was starting, with ever more vague promises of 'better' engines, 'if only' the Govt would do something).

The 109G .. now that is another story entirely.... that is when it all turned to custard.

I've always thought that the 109F was a significant plane in that it was the last model that could really be said to be every bit as good as the contemporary version of its arch-foe, the Spitfire. From all accounts there was really nothing between the 109F and the Spit V. By the time the Spit IX came along, the 109 was no longer the most feared German fighter in the sky. The G models remained dangerous opponents, particularly for the earlier American fighters, but from 1943 on every German pilot who met a Spit IX or XIV was, at least to some degree, at a disadvantage. The German pilots who had flown the 109 from right back to the Spanish Civil war through to the 109F could be confident they were in a machine could best almost any other fighter in the world, and equal the one it couldn't. In that respect the 109F really was the nadir.

Just to leave the topic slightly, can anyone tell me what generally happened to older models of the Me109 when newer ones came along? I know that some were used for second line duties or sent to less competitive fronts but were for instance F's modified into G's and were the F's kept in front line service until they were just either worn out or destroyed? I think the D model was upgraded into the E?

Tante Ju said:

The 13mm bumps decreased top speed by 9 kph at SL, ironically the wing 20mm gondolas - only by 8 kph. The gondolas (with ammo) also added some 215 kg weight (the HMGs only + 40 kg), which meant about -2 m/sec decrease in climb rate and ca. + 2 sec slower turns.

Kurfürst - Leistungzusammenstellung Me 109 G.

The 13mm bulges were far from ideal, the later revised cowling decreased the loss to only 3 km/h. Its amusing why they were designed so badly. The question why the solution on Gallands personal ride was not adopted is interesting, but it might have not been so ideal for feeding/aerodynamics perhaps. The reason for the cowl bulges was that the guns were not fed from outwards on the serial planes, so perhaps Gallands mod was not feeding reliably enough.

Here is a picture of Gallands modded 109F(-2/U). Note the teardrop shaped bulges for the HMG.

Click to expand...

Ah Ha! There's the reason for the smaller bulges - Galland's F-2 had ejector chutes for the cases and links on the sides of the cowlings, whereas the Gs had ejector chutes directing them below the forward fuselage; chances are the ejected casings could potentially damage the airframe, particularly the tailplanes and rudder on Galland's aircraft.

Tante Ju said:

Another of Galland 109F he has modded with wing MG FFs and the "Galland Panzer", named after him, which placed a transparent armor glass into the standard and bulky armored headrest.

Click to expand...

Interesting photo - now we can see why it was named after him...

pattle said:

Just to leave the topic slightly, can anyone tell me what generally happened to older models of the Me109 when newer ones came along? I know that some were used for second line duties or sent to less competitive fronts but were for instance F's modified into G's and were the F's kept in front line service until they were just either worn out or destroyed? I think the D model was upgraded into the E?

Click to expand...

Most of the above - for instance, the Luftwaffe kept their 109Ts (carrier versions of the 109E with extended wings etc) operational until August 1944; at least three B-17s were shot down over Norway by 109T's of 11./JG11 on February 22 1944. The last operational T flew its last op in August.

davebender said:

Me-109F was designed for a level speed of about 400mph. Might be a good time to introduce Flettner tabs to improve high speed handling rather then waiting until Me-109G series.

Click to expand...

Could this have been done in the field? (I would think not, but mechanics can be pretty ingenious.)

That is about the last thing an Air Force would want to happen.

While some mechanics ARE pretty ingenious they don't all do things the same way so Pilot Adolf who is used to flying plane #7 in Squadron A with tab designed and installed by mechanic Hans gets transferred to squadron B and draws plane #6 with tab designed and installed by mechanic Otto?
What happens then? each different Tab set up is going to require a different amount of control force (input) to get the same result. And who gets to test fly the 'new' tabs to see if the mechanic got it right and didn't over do it so the plane over controls?

Existing aircraft could have been refitted in the field with a standardized kit.

Many planes were field fitted. An example would be the paper drop tanks made in England and used by P-51's and P-47's. They said at the factories it could not be done even they were being used on missions.

Modifications to the airframe might well have been tried in the field. But, if they had come up with a possible improvement, it would have been shared almost immediately if it had worked well. The planes were placed right next to each other and you could not "hide" airframe or sheet metal work very easily. If a control surface suddenly sprouted a tab, the next guys in line would have seen it almost as soon as it was fitted.

Somebody at the factories had short memories.

GregP said:

Hi Civettone,

You won't get that from me. I thought the intent of the thread was to suggest improvements for the Bf 109F, not to trash it.

The controls did NOT freeze. Above 330 mph they were objectionably heavy and there was a remedy that was never implemented. Stop living with the weaknesses and FIX it. That way, the Bf 109 would not be so unmaneuverable at higher speeds.

The landing gear WAS narrow and the geometry was wrong. The intent is to fix it. By all means try the geometry fix first. If that did the trick, go with it. If it was still dicey, MOVE THE DAMNED GEAR OUTWARD AND FIX IT. Doesn't mean the 109F was bad, it wasn't. It means there was room for improvement.

I never mentioned the armament but could. It was light but effective. To avoid a heavy "solution" simply supply more ammunition for the existing armament and FIX IT.

The range WAS too short. If anyone doesn't see that as a major fault, then you would have lost just as many Bf 109's to fuel exhaustion as happened in real life. It was a crime that was preventable. FIX IT.

The Bf 109F was the pinnacle of the 109's in the eyes of many of its former pilots and was a very good fighter. My suggestions do NOT insinuate it wasn't … they are suggestions to make it better than it was in real life since that was the subject of this thread.

If you think it was as good as it could be, then you simply have no suggestions for improvement to the Bf 109F. I do have suggestions and all would have been welcomed by the WWII Luftwaffe Bf 109 pilots.

No suggestion that the Bf 109 was a poor representative of German fighters, it wasn't. It was VERY good but, like many fighers, could have been better with a few relatively minor changes that were desired by the pilots ... who never seem to get listened to by the people in command.

Click to expand...

I reject all your claims. These 'problems' are mainly based on Western reports. Most German pilot accounts do not mention these. For instance, the track was not too narrow, it was similar to the Spitfire. There was a tendency to ground loop and this was fixed with the lengthened tail wheel of the G-10/-14. The Bf 109 was a handful for untrained pilots, but this can hardly be the fault of the Bf 109. Until 1943, training was good. There were no more landing/take off accidents with the Bf 109 than with the Fw 190.
Also, the controls, heavy but not a major problem. If you are sure it was easy to fix, then why did Mtt not see a reason to change it? The only logical explanation is that it was not a major problem.
Similar story with the cockpit. Western accounts will tell you the cockpit was too small. Maybe Luftwaffe pilots were midgets??
The Bf 109 range was good enough. We had a discussion about the Bf 109 range just last month. Western reports even showed that it had better range that the British fighters of its time.
Armament? The Bf 109F-4 had 1 MK and 2 MGs, which was effective for what it was hunting: lightly armoured fighter planes. The heavies only became a problem in 1943/1944.
The Bf 109F is considered to be the perfect Bf 109, while the Bf 109G suddenly becomes sluggish and slow... Check the facts. The Bf 109F-4 weighed around 2,400 kg while the Bf 109G-1 was around 2,550 kg with 100 hp extra combat power. (Of course Notleistung was not available on the Bf 109G until 1943).

Until we find clear data from Messerschmitt itself that improvements for the Bf 109F/G were required, I think we should be very careful about trying to fix what is not broken.
Kris

on the topic of cockpit size, I saw a modern documentary comparing the 109 to another fighter.

When the "comparer" climbed in to the 109, he closed the canopy and commented on how little room there was.

When he climbed into the other plane, he never closed the canopy and proceeded to comment on how much less restrictive that plane's cockpit was.

As far as the size of Luftwaffe pilots, maybe they were smaller. I can't imagine Germany's between-war economic woes could have led to a healthy diet for kids growing up (kinda like N Korea today - bunch of twerps from poor nutrition).

Civettone said:

I reject all your claims. These 'problems' are mainly based on Western reports. Most German pilot accounts do not mention these. For instance, the track was not too narrow, it was similar to the Spitfire. There was a tendency to ground loop and this was fixed with the lengthened tail wheel of the G-10/-14. The Bf 109 was a handful for untrained pilots, but this can hardly be the fault of the Bf 109. Until 1943, training was good. There were no more landing/take off accidents with the Bf 109 than with the Fw 190.
Also, the controls, heavy but not a major problem. If you are sure it was easy to fix, then why did Mtt not see a reason to change it? The only logical explanation is that it was not a major problem.
Similar story with the cockpit. Western accounts will tell you the cockpit was too small. Maybe Luftwaffe pilots were midgets??
The Bf 109 range was good enough. We had a discussion about the Bf 109 range just last month. Western reports even showed that it had better range that the British fighters of its time.
Armament? The Bf 109F-4 had 1 MK and 2 MGs, which was effective for what it was hunting: lightly armoured fighter planes. The heavies only became a problem in 1943/1944.
The Bf 109F is considered to be the perfect Bf 109, while the Bf 109G suddenly becomes sluggish and slow... Check the facts. The Bf 109F-4 weighed around 2,400 kg while the Bf 109G-1 was around 2,550 kg with 100 hp extra combat power. (Of course Notleistung was not available on the Bf 109G until 1943).

Until we find clear data from Messerschmitt itself that improvements for the Bf 109F/G were required, I think we should be very careful about trying to fix what is not broken.
Kris

Click to expand...

IMHO Finnish pilots agree with most of so called 'problems'
The main reason with the u/c was that it was rather weak and because the CG was rather far behind the main u/c there was a tendency to ground loop, a good point was that one could brake rather hard without fear of a nose-over. In Spit it was opposite, it was easy to land but it was also easier to get the propeller blades hit to ground by harsh braking. And 109 landing accidents happened also to good, experienced pilots.
Finns thought that the stiff controls at high speed were intentional, the purpose being to protect the structure from overstressing at high speed manoeuvres at low altitude.
Small cockpit made it more difficult to look behind, maybe one reason that didn't went to bulged canopy in 109, and made it more difficult to put max muscle to the stick in sideway movement, making still worse the high speed rollrate at lower altitudels.
The range might be better than that of Spit IX, which was a short range plane, but less than that of Tempest V or even Spit Mk VII and VIII
Notleistung was permanently accepted in Oct 43 and the t/o weight of 109G-6 was 3100 - 3196kg (depending the docu one looks)

Juha

Well Civetone,

I suppose we'd make different decisions if we were running the Bf 109 program, wouldn't we? That's OK since neither of us will ever get to run it. So, we're probably stuck with what was historically flown.

And if I had one, it would be restored to stock condition, without and modifications.

Minor- install some sort of bubble canopy, such a Malcom type hood. Major- complete redesign of wing structure. Much like the Mustang. Two spars, fuel carried between, inward retracting gear, 2 machine guns outboard of fuel tanks. You can keep the basic shape of the wing, just internally vastly different...and stronger...and more useful.

MikeGazdik said:

Minor- install some sort of bubble canopy, such a Malcom type hood. Major- complete redesign of wing structure. Much like the Mustang. Two spars, fuel carried between, inward retracting gear, 2 machine guns outboard of fuel tanks. You can keep the basic shape of the wing, just internally vastly different...and stronger...and more useful.

Click to expand...

But also heavier and one of the strong points of 109 was its excellent roc, more weight, lower roc. There is always trade-offs.

"roc"? What is that?

Rate of Climb ...

Roc roll, 2 very important characteristics for a fighter

Good one, Juha!

Maybe rot, roc, and roll ...

Turn is also quite important ... but you came up with a GOOD one!