Bf 109 F series

Greg agree totally.

I just take the case of Supermarine (and for others reading this this is not a 'Spit vs 109' rant' and what was better), this is evolutionary production engineering stuff. And the endless fixes and changes they made throughout the Spit's life. And North American and the Mustang .. and the Mosquito .. and the 190 ... like all the 'greats'.

Feedback from operations, work out a fix and then include it into the next production batch sort of stuff. It doesn't have to be perfect, just good enough and better than what went before.

Again, my great admiration of Kurt Tank and his team (in my opinion Germany's Mitchell, not just a great engineer in himself, as he was, but a great leader of a technical team). You contrast the 190 development vs the 109 and you see good teamwork, where R&D worked closely with requirements and production. Continually improving the plane and producing much needed variants as needed, without the chaos and 'perfectionism' that crippled so much of Germany's efforts (in all areas not just planes). Sadly, again let down by the German engine manufacturers far too often.

The UK and the US has a lot to thank Rolls Royce for, for never deviating from, despite much political pressure at times, from the 'main game'. Plus without RR creating and pushing it the Merlin Mustang would never have happened (the US was not interested, the British Air Ministry was against it ... and Portal was very against it).

Hives, that very great man. a very 'unsung' hero and the architect of why RR was the antithesis of (say) Daimler Benz. As he would say, in his own inimitable way, "a good engine NOW is worth far more than a 200% better engines THEN'.

So even if Willy had been interested (which he wasn't in the least) in future 109 development he would still have been up against DB and the like (oh the games they played, DB promising the earth about the 603 as a political play to do down Jumo, got a whole factory allocated .. then did nothing, in their minds they had won by crippling the opposition ...hmm sounds familiar as Mark Twain said "history rhymes").

Was there any growth potential left in the 109 though?

It was designed as a small, lightly built aircraft, was there any realistic development left, the late G and K were basically tinkered adjustments rather than evolutionary steps, should the 109 have been made obsolete earlier, replaced by the newer 190 designs?

Kryten said:

Was there any growth potential left in the 109 though?

It was designed as a small, lightly built aircraft, was there any realistic development left, the late G and K were basically tinkered adjustments rather than evolutionary steps, should the 109 have been made obsolete earlier, replaced by the newer 190 designs?

Click to expand...

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I think the 109 F was the nadir of the type, in that it was the last 109 model that was the equal of anything the allies had, and in 1941 'anything' was the Spitfire. That said, through to 1943 it could be argued that the later marks of the 109 were still as good as anything EXEPT the Spitfire IX, and not hopelessly outclassed then. And over most of Europe it wasn't going up against Spitfires anyway, it was dealing with mid war models of the P-47 and P-38 which were still struggling to achieve parity at that stage.
Then came the P-51 and improved models of the Thunderbolt and, to a lesser extent, the Lightning. I think by this time the pattern of sticking more and more powerful engines into that small 109 airframe really began to run into the law of diminishing returns. The Messeschmitt got faster and faster climbing, but it got more much more unforgiving too. No surprise there. I'm an averagely good driver, but give me a five hundred horsepower Mini and tell me to drive it fast around a racetrack and pretty soon I'd be a hole in the scenery. Give me a five hundred horsepower Corvette and I might not set any records, but I'd at least survive the experience. If the Germans hoped to maintain parity with the new allied fighters, the Fw190 was the way to go.
Still, hot rod versions of the 109 like the G-10 and K still made sense. They might not have been quite the equal of the latest Allied fighters, but they were still in the ball park. They were also cheap and fast to produce. Looks good on paper, but I suspect there wasn't another late war fighter that asked so much of its pilots when they had less and less to give.

How was the Bf 109K not as good as the latest Spitfires or Mustangs??

Its controls were rather heavy, other than that, an excellent machine with a superior flight performance, speed/climb rate as well as manoeuvrability.

I think this intuitive idea of too much horsepower for such a small frame is terribly misleading. There is nothing which indicates this. Did it suffer from excessive vibrations? Mechanical defects due to the too much power? I have never heard of any such thing.

Kris

i agree they should have probably made the 109 a little bigger all the way around. it should have morphed like the 51. the H model looks like a 51 but as i understand shares none or very few parts of a D model. its a completely different ac. in order to keep the sleek lines of the 109 and accomidate a larger engine or the supercharger unit it should have had a major overhaul/redesign....only problem was did germany have the resources to run 2 simultaneous productions lines? one to keep the older version replacements flowing while the newer version was being built and ramped up?

I like the Bf 109K except for the intrinsic weaknesses that I have touched on already.

1) I covered the windscreen / canopy thing. It might be lighter than the existing unit.
2) Fix the toe-in. No weight gain.
3) Add rudder trim. Very small weight gain.
4) Have to make the plane handle better in aerobatics and at speed. Not for the sake of aerobatics, but for combat maneuvers. Most test reports I have seen state the 109 was difficult to fly in aerobatic maneuvers, even combat maneuvers. This might be due to relatively small tail surfaces or something else, but I'm SURE it could be corrected. This is from reading maybe 10 flight reports, probably 7 of them of British origin.
5) I've never been sure the slats were needed. Might be able to eliminate them and add some washout ... might not. I'm also sure Willy put them there for a reason. This might or might not make the plane better but, before I hear it, it has NOTHING to do with CL max at combat speeds. If you were above 250 mph the slats, almost regardless of g-load, were closed. They were primarily for the lower-speed regime, where combat seldom took place. So, I'm not sure they were needed ... but maybe so. A simple, easy experiment would settle the question in a test flight or two at alomst no cost. Just wire them shut and see what changes in flight characteristics. If low-speed handling suffers. add some washout to one set of wings and repeat the test. Easy and a quick answer would be forthcoming.
6) I've always wondered why complete gear doors were not used. Had to cause drag. Add them and see what effect it has.
7) I'd experiment witrh 4-bladed props.

So, basically, I'd go back to the F model from the K and incorporate some changes. If nothing else, al LEAST make one as a test mule and try the changes out to see what the result would be. That shouldn't interrupt production. Just take one off the line and start on the mods. 1 or 2 guys could do some of them all by themselves except for changing the wing mounts to 4 points. That would need an engineer and a small bit of effort to accomplish.

The reason I'd go back to the F model is to save weight.

With better visibility from the new canopy, rudder trim to ease pilot fatigue, better control surface leverage for more agility at speed, slightly larger tail surfaces, fully enclosed gear, fixed toe-in, and maybe 20 more gallons of fuel, the F could solider on for quite awhile. The better handling at speed would make it into a new threat. Some of the changes might add a few percent to the speed, and a better propeller might help both climb and speed, while maybe slightly dropping the weight of fire per second.

This is not to denigrate the Bf 109F or K which were good flighters. It is all in response to the question of how the Bf 109F could have been changed to make it better and maybe add some development potential.

The main issue would be to make the changes with minimum weight inpact, or even to make the changes while simultaneously making it lighter.

One last time for clarification, make the changes to a test muile and let the operational pilots fly it against their own mounts. If they like it, maybe the changes are worth incorporating. If they don't, keep making what you are already making. So none of this had to be a big effort ... it could involve one (or two or three) new F model airframe(s) only ... until such time as the changes are proven or shown to be not worth the effort. Either way, you have NOT crippled the Bf 109 line or used a great deal of resources.

That's a far cry from 60+ prototypes for the Ju 88's trials at modifications to suit all tasks in the entire Luftwaffe.

That's a far cry from 60+ prototypes for the Ju 88's trials at modifications to suit all tasks in the entire Luftwaffe.

Click to expand...

What is this suppose to mean?

Civettone said:

How was the Bf 109K not as good as the latest Spitfires or Mustangs??

Its controls were rather heavy, other than that, an excellent machine with a superior flight performance, speed/climb rate as well as manoeuvrability.

I think this intuitive idea of too much horsepower for such a small frame is terribly misleading. There is nothing which indicates this. Did it suffer from excessive vibrations? Mechanical defects due to the too much power? I have never heard of any such thing.

Kris

Click to expand...

I suspect the 109K is something of the great white hope of the 109 enthusiasts. This site gives some information comparing it to the Spit XIV. The site notes that the performance figures for the K are estimated, assuming several factors that seldom if ever occurred in actuality, and should be accepted with caution.

Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K

It would seem the 109k matches the spit up to 25000 ft, then falls behind. The Spit out climbs the 109 almost everywhere.

1. Out turn the 109. I Know there is a body of opinion that holds an excellent pilot in a 109 could turn with a Spit, but in the real world the great majority of pilots on both sides accepted the Spitfires superiority in this respect across all marks
2. Had much better visibility. The Galland hood might have helped, but the 109k had worse visibility by far than any allied fighter of its time. Visibility is vital
3. Handled better at speed. Unless something major was done to the 109k in this respect it would have been much like the later G variants. Allied testing of these used somewhat harsher terms than 'a little heavy' at high speed.
4. Had better armament. The 109 was limited to a centreline arangement. It's 30mm was ill suited to fighter v fighter combat. Sure there was the option of going back to a 20 mm, but that would have left it at a real firepower disadvantage against the allied fighters of the time in the ETO.
5. The spit was much better built. The poor quality control of the Germans was not a fault of the 109 per se, but it was a fact of life. To disregard it when considering the 109k moves us from the real world that existed into a 'what if' scenario.

The 109 was a great fighter and effective to the end. but by 1944 it was no longer top of the heap.

Hi Milosh,

It means that I have seen it written that there were 104 prototypes built to support 60 different versions of the Ju 88 as they kept trying to adapt it for different roles. That might or might not be accurate, but it DOES show a LOT of prototypes for that aircraft. There is amlost no air force task they didn't try out the Ju 88 for except troop transport and they DID try towing troop gliders with it, so maybe they DID try it out as a troop transport, in essence.

For the Bf 109F thread above, I am proposing 1 - 3 airframes, each modified the same or almost the same. Perhpas some mod could be tried on 1 airframe and, if not liked, could be removed. The reason for having up to 3 is so they could be flown by more pilots for assessment when the mods were completed.

CobberKane said:

I suspect the 109K is something of the great white hope of the 109 enthusiasts. This site gives some information comparing it to the Spit XIV. The site notes that the performance figures for the K are estimated, assuming several factors that seldom if ever occurred in actuality, and should be accepted with caution.

Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K

It would seem the 109k matches the spit up to 25000 ft, then falls behind. The Spit out climbs the 109 almost everywhere.

1. Out turn the 109. I Know there is a body of opinion that holds an excellent pilot in a 109 could turn with a Spit, but in the real world the great majority of pilots on both sides accepted the Spitfires superiority in this respect across all marks
2. Had much better visibility. The Galland hood might have helped, but the 109k had worse visibility by far than any allied fighter of its time. Visibility is vital
3. Handled better at speed. Unless something major was done to the 109k in this respect it would have been much like the later G variants. Allied testing of these used somewhat harsher terms than 'a little heavy' at high speed.
4. Had better armament. The 109 was limited to a centreline arangement. It's 30mm was ill suited to fighter v fighter combat. Sure there was the option of going back to a 20 mm, but that would have left it at a real firepower disadvantage against the allied fighters of the time in the ETO.
5. The spit was much better built. The poor quality control of the Germans was not a fault of the 109 per se, but it was a fact of life. To disregard it when considering the 109k moves us from the real world that existed into a 'what if' scenario.

The 109 was a great fighter and effective to the end. but by 1944 it was no longer top of the heap.

Click to expand...

THIS ARTICLE IS FULL OF LIES. iTS WORTHLESS
Mr Kurfust has written an article that presents all the lies and manipulations of evidence of the known person that wrote the article that you mention.
Mr Kurfust proves that K4 was better than Spit XIV. Find his response on the net to the articles that you mentioned.
Your article ,and the site were is posted , are more than unreliable sources.

jim said:

THIS ARTICLE IS FULL OF LIES. iTS WORTHLESS
Mr Kurfust has written an article that presents all the lies and manipulations of evidence of the known person that wrote the article that you mention.
Mr Kurfust proves that K4 was better than Spit XIV. Find his response on the net to the articles that you mentioned.
Your article ,and the site were is posted , are more than unreliable sources.

Click to expand...

WE ARE NOT GETTING INTO THIS CRAP, thank you very much - if you want to be partisan so be it, but don't make accusations about other forum members without good evidence - Mike Williams has long been a valuable contributor to this forum, while your Mr Kurfurst was banned long ago and for very good reasons. OVER AND OUT!

Folks, several of you have been warned to keep this thread civil, if I see any more BS I'm shutting it down and banning those behaving like idiots WITH NO WARNING!

My one and only warning!!!!!!

It's not got a whole lot to do with the Bf 109 F series either
Cheers
Steve

OldSkeptic said:

Again, my great admiration of Kurt Tank and his team (in my opinion Germany's Mitchell, not just a great engineer in himself, as he was, but a great leader of a technical team). You contrast the 190 development vs the 109 and you see good teamwork, where R&D worked closely with requirements and production. Continually improving the plane and producing much needed variants as needed, without the chaos and 'perfectionism' that crippled so much of Germany's efforts (in all areas not just planes). Sadly, again let down by the German engine manufacturers far too often.

Click to expand...

I am very curious on this. 190 development, what was that? The 190 airframe was barely changed at all between the A-1 and the A-9, it only got aerodynamically worse.. contrast the performance of the early A-5 vs that of the A-8 and you will see. Of course it was improved in capabilities - better guns, more fuel, but weight crept up and performance went down... Even the D-9 was little more than sticking a new engine in the same airframe and adding an extra ring of metal sheet to the fuselage. The Ta 152 series was the only serious development of that aiframe. The Bf 109 was upgraded at least three times (A-D to E, E to F/G, G to K) in the same time period...

I completely agree with that. In fact, the Ta 152 was chosen over the Ta 153, because it was not a new design, but based on the Fw 190. I have read that the Ta 152 was a completely new aircraft, yet the prototypes were rebuilt Fw 190s.

Also, I have often ranted about Tank's unexplainable lack of progress on the Fw 190C/D. The C flew already in 1942. How you could need two more years (til late 1944) before coming up with the Fw 190D is quite beyond me. Even the celebrated annular radiator does not impress me: is it that different from the Jumo 211 naceless of the Ju 88?


Kris

Good grief, if I'd known that questioning the 109K as an uber-fighter was going to get such a vitriolic response I would have stayed quiet. On the other hand, I go all weak at the knees when Flyboy get all alpha male, so I guess it was worth it...
Re relevance to the 109F, I see the 109K as about as far as you can get from the 109F's ideal compromise between the designs strengths - ease of production and maintenance, performance - and it's potential weaknesses - armament limitations, deteriorating flight characteristics etc.
When I think of the 109F I invariably also think of it's great rival, the Spit V. My understanding is that the 109 out-performed the Spit at lower altitude but as most combat took place at higher altitude the Spit was able to hold its own. But it occurs to me that there was one other RAF fighter of the time that might have outperformed the 109F when they met. That's my teaser - off to post another thread.

Tante Ju said:

I am very curious on this. 190 development, what was that? The 190 airframe was barely changed at all between the A-1 and the A-9, it only got aerodynamically worse.. contrast the performance of the early A-5 vs that of the A-8 and you will see. Of course it was improved in capabilities - better guns, more fuel, but weight crept up and performance went down... Even the D-9 was little more than sticking a new engine in the same airframe and adding an extra ring of metal sheet to the fuselage. The Ta 152 series was the only serious development of that aiframe. The Bf 109 was upgraded at least three times (A-D to E, E to F/G, G to K) in the same time period...

Click to expand...

Ever thought about the FACT, that the base of the FW 190 was very much better then that of the first Bf 109 series and later of the Bf 109G series, so is wasn't necessary to change anything on the aerodynamic. The FW 190 was in all it's life much much easier to fly as any Bf 109 series and it was much much better to the sticks from the beginning till the end at high speed maneuvers. This can you easily see at flight school report and many statements from LW experts.

Also, I have often ranted about Tank's unexplainable lack of progress on the Fw 190C/D. The C flew already in 1942. How you could need two more years (til late 1944) before coming up with the Fw 190D is quite beyond me. Even the celebrated annular radiator does not impress me: is it that different from the Jumo 211 naceless of the Ju 88?

Click to expand...

Very very easy no engines were available! Alone this statement shows me how minor is your knowledge about the development and production of the LW engines.

Neither any DB 603 was produced in numbers till end 1943, beginning 1944 nor the Jumo 213 was entering mass production before end of 1943.
The DB 603 engine was strictly for the Me 410 and Do 217 at the beginning and only with the mass produced Jumo 213 was an engine available.
You should look at the produced engines and the timeline, the production of 1942 (DB 603, Jumo 213), was a blow in the wind and at 1943 the production and tooling was changed, but the produced numbers were very smal!

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Even if I get a bann for this statement,
Mark Williams reports about german aircrafts were often disproved from primary german sources, not only from Kurfüst, but also from delcyros and other members. So personally I think it should be allowed to point out, that Mr. Williams reports about german aircrafts should be taken with a grain of salt.

Aozora said:

WE ARE NOT GETTING INTO THIS CRAP, thank you very much - if you want to be partisan so be it, but don't make accusations about other forum members without good evidence - Mike Williams has long been a valuable contributor to this forum, while your Mr Kurfurst was banned long ago and for very good reasons. OVER AND OUT!

Click to expand...

Mike puts all the data on his website. By definition he cannot be a liar... a real liar would not make all the stuff available to anyone
I've said it before, he shows real intellectual honesty by putting all the data up for everyone else to see and use (and pays for it himself).

Now it is ok to disagree with his analysis and conclusions (heck I do about somethings), but you have to do your own analysis and write it up based on the facts.
And be polite. Now Mike is perfectly capable of dealing with 'rigorous debate' as anyone (we can all get hot under the collar but we are adults), but outrageous and completely untrue claims about him are simply not acceptable.

If you find any further information from original sources, pass it on to Mike, I'm sure he'll put it up on his website (after the usual checking of course).

And a bit of thanks and recognition from people here would be nice about the immense amount of work he (and his collaborators) have done in collecting, converting and loading all the data.

Take the kind of person he is, not forgetting he actually has a life and other commitments, when on another thread some comments came up about the DH Hornet he posted lots of data on it .. and then onto his website.
He didn't have to do that, he is not being paid to do it, he does it because he has a great love of all this.

Thanks for the support gentlemen; it's much appreciated.

DonL said:

Even if I get a bann for this statement,
Mark Williams reports about german aircrafts were often disproved from primary german sources, not only from Kurfüst, but also from delcyros and other members. So personally I think it should be allowed to point out, that Mr. Williams reports about german aircrafts should be taken with a grain of salt.

Click to expand...

This constant, partisan, über-109 disparagement of decent people who go to the time, trouble and considerable expense of providing information that would otherwise stay hidden is just pathetic. Like I say, we don't need this crap!