- Thread starter
- #41
Bf-109 in 1941: what should be realistically upgraded/installed?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Me-109F wings and fuselage were quite a bit different from the Me-109E. So assembly lines had to be retooled.
The historical Me-109G was a relatively minor change from the Me-109F. But if you make major airframe changes (i.e. stretched fuselage, new wings) factories must be retooled a second time. If you are going to change production jigs again it might make sense to retool for a DB605 powered version of the more modern Fw-190 during 1943.
The historical Me-109G was a relatively minor change from the Me-109F. But if you make major airframe changes (i.e. stretched fuselage, new wings) factories must be retooled a second time. If you are going to change production jigs again it might make sense to retool for a DB605 powered version of the more modern Fw-190 during 1943.
- Thread starter
- #43
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Then you won't have wing fuel tanks, changed wing armament or changed landing gear. All of those things require wing structural changes.
I think you'll find that Me 109G-1 with engine power restricted to 1.3 ata managed 400.5 mph.
In terms of speed it was downhill from there as the following items reduced speed:
1 Gun bulges as 13.2mm MG were added.
2 The tail wheel lost the abillity to be retracted due to the need to enlarge the diameter and the unwillingness to compromise production by increasing the landing gear flap.
3 Bulges in wing.
4 New aierial for FuG 25 long range radio and becon.
It should be pointed out that even in the basic Me 109G that the gun bulges could have been streamlined (speed increase given on kurfust site).
It seems the combined effect of the gun bulges and tail wheel was around 10-12 mph. Quite a sacrifice.
In terms of speed it was downhill from there as the following items reduced speed:
1 Gun bulges as 13.2mm MG were added.
2 The tail wheel lost the abillity to be retracted due to the need to enlarge the diameter and the unwillingness to compromise production by increasing the landing gear flap.
3 Bulges in wing.
4 New aierial for FuG 25 long range radio and becon.
It should be pointed out that even in the basic Me 109G that the gun bulges could have been streamlined (speed increase given on kurfust site).
It seems the combined effect of the gun bulges and tail wheel was around 10-12 mph. Quite a sacrifice.
- Thread starter
- #46
Wings do not receive any armament, while landing gear retracts exactly as it did before - check out the picture better.
The wing of -Fs and -Gs was already pretty 'empty', and a part of that space was used for ammo for gondola cannons. In this case that will be used for fuel.
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
just because there is space doesnt make it structurally sound. now you hae X gallons of fuel in a wing @ ~6 lbs per gallon....not only do you have that weight but also that of the fuel tank and brackets, cap and door, tubing and vents, and bladder ( or what ever LW ac used for self sealing) a significant increase in weight. then factor in the expected G forces and you may have a problem with either maneuverability or damage.
like as was suggested before the 109 had seen its hayday. you need to look to newer designs. you could put a better canopy on it, drop tanks, trim tabs, guns....but those are stop gap measures. it would have been like the us sticking with the p 40. yeah you could have made a really nice P 40 but it was no thunderbolt or mustang. needs and scope of war change and the ac have to reflect to meet that change. is it going to cost you....indeed but at this stage of the game you cant afford not to. they had the top ac early in the war....that is an edge they never should have lost.
like as was suggested before the 109 had seen its hayday. you need to look to newer designs. you could put a better canopy on it, drop tanks, trim tabs, guns....but those are stop gap measures. it would have been like the us sticking with the p 40. yeah you could have made a really nice P 40 but it was no thunderbolt or mustang. needs and scope of war change and the ac have to reflect to meet that change. is it going to cost you....indeed but at this stage of the game you cant afford not to. they had the top ac early in the war....that is an edge they never should have lost.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #48
The wing was structurally sound enough to support gondola cannons + their ammo - 50 kg + 30 kg, per wing?
110 kg is 240 lbs, and 30 gals of fuel makes 180 lbs, also per wing. We can add perhaps 70 lbs, per wing, to cater for fuel tank and it's accessories weight, makes 250 lbs.
The 30mm gondola cannons are some 20 kg heavier, almost 290 lbs per wing.
I agree that LW needed a brand new fighter for 1943 and later, that could be stuff for another thread?
110 kg is 240 lbs, and 30 gals of fuel makes 180 lbs, also per wing. We can add perhaps 70 lbs, per wing, to cater for fuel tank and it's accessories weight, makes 250 lbs.
The 30mm gondola cannons are some 20 kg heavier, almost 290 lbs per wing.
I agree that LW needed a brand new fighter for 1943 and later, that could be stuff for another thread?
Last edited:
davebender
1st Lieutenant
US Warplanes
We did stick with the P-40 even though it was considerably inferior to the Me-109G. Over 5,000 P-40N and Kittyhawk Mk.IV were produced during 1943 to 1944. 1,097 went shipped to the Soviet Union. That leaves about 4,000 new P-40s for the western allies during 1943 to 1944. We produced a roughly similiar number of P-51A/B/C during the same time frame.
We did stick with the P-40 even though it was considerably inferior to the Me-109G. Over 5,000 P-40N and Kittyhawk Mk.IV were produced during 1943 to 1944. 1,097 went shipped to the Soviet Union. That leaves about 4,000 new P-40s for the western allies during 1943 to 1944. We produced a roughly similiar number of P-51A/B/C during the same time frame.
Shortround6
Major General
From 1943 on the P-40 was either an advanced trainer, for lend lease, or in very small numbers used as replacements for units already equipped with it. No new US units were equipped with it. Several hundred (minimum) P-40s went straight from the factory to the scrap yards.
kettbo
Senior Airman
Stuff that could have been done to the 109 earlier
add the 13mm guns with the later refined cowl as standard
add the wheel well covers and get that tail wheel retracted
Flettners on earlier
I believe there was the oppty to go to a gyro gunsight in 42/43
Even 10 gal larger main tank would have been nice
Erla canopy or something with a higher seat and blown canopy
IIRC, the Fw was quite a bit more expensive to build
add the 13mm guns with the later refined cowl as standard
add the wheel well covers and get that tail wheel retracted
Flettners on earlier
I believe there was the oppty to go to a gyro gunsight in 42/43
Even 10 gal larger main tank would have been nice
Erla canopy or something with a higher seat and blown canopy
IIRC, the Fw was quite a bit more expensive to build
- Thread starter
- #52
How about a gondola-equipped F-4 (like real F4/U-6), with LMG's deleted? That would reduce max speed by some 10 km/h, but almost triple the firepower. The space claimed by removal of LMGs could ammo could've added perhaps 30 gals of fuel - increase of more than 25%.
By late 1943 a wing that can hold an internal cannon, and a fully operational 605A on board, so we should be back to 660 km/h, akin what G-2 was capable of.
People at Supermarine considered that even small wing leading edge tanks were worth to bother for their Spitfires.
By late 1943 a wing that can hold an internal cannon, and a fully operational 605A on board, so we should be back to 660 km/h, akin what G-2 was capable of.
People at Supermarine considered that even small wing leading edge tanks were worth to bother for their Spitfires.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
3,500. Me-109
5,400. Fw-190. 54% more then Me-109.
A DB601 / DB605 engine cost about half as much as a BMW801 engine and it was a lot more reliable.
Add the economic factors together and it's easy to see why the Me-109 remained in production for the entire war. Inexpensive military equipment produced in huge numbers such as Me-109 fighter aircraft, MG42 machineguns and Panzerfaust provided Europe with almost enough weapons to fight Britain, the Soviet Union and the U.S.A. simultaneously. Switching Me-109 production over to a more expensive aircraft type would leave many Jagdgeschwader without aircraft.
5,400. Fw-190. 54% more then Me-109.
A DB601 / DB605 engine cost about half as much as a BMW801 engine and it was a lot more reliable.
Add the economic factors together and it's easy to see why the Me-109 remained in production for the entire war. Inexpensive military equipment produced in huge numbers such as Me-109 fighter aircraft, MG42 machineguns and Panzerfaust provided Europe with almost enough weapons to fight Britain, the Soviet Union and the U.S.A. simultaneously. Switching Me-109 production over to a more expensive aircraft type would leave many Jagdgeschwader without aircraft.
kettbo
Senior Airman
thanks for the numbers Dave, proof in this instance that I am not senile
