Bf109 - why no bubble canopy ?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

That prototype radial powered Bf109 may appear to have a regular Bf109 wings and tail, but the fuselage is completely different, much wider, even in the cockpit area.

Look at the angle between the canopy sides and fuselage, compare it with a V12 powered Bf109.
 
It was a prototype powered by a captured Pratt WHitney R-1830 as far as I have found out. I understand the fuselage was modified ... and that's the point.

It didn't seem all that hard to make major changes for the prototype, so why not make some changes that would have been relatively minor for the production planes? If they can cut down the rear fuselage for a prototype, why not on the line?

I'm sure there were reasons, possibly even valid ones, but the result could have been better for the Luftwaffe pilots had they purseued some of the fixes for the Bf 109.
 
I'm surprised they didn't at least try something like the Malcolm hood. It would have required no redesign of the aircraft itself, probably could have been fitted to aircraft in the field after production.

Maybe Willy Messerschmitt was more interested in selling his new designs (Me209, 309) to the RLM, instead of improving his old products to where the new ones wouldn't be needed.
 
making a cut and fit change on a single aircraft is one thing and ties up only a few men and a machine shop. Changing a production line complex machine requires the changing or resetting of hundreds if not thousands of machines in the supply train. If production facilities are at maximum output (like The German war industry was) you have to shut down other projects to divert the resources needed. There are delays while the new parts are designed, logistic systems are set up and the supply system is filled with the new parts. Personnel have to be trained on the new assembly techniques and the bugs worked out to get a smooth rapid assembly system up and running, and during that time you are not producing the aircraft you desperately need
 
i am surprised they didnt at least put a rearview mirror so the pilots could do a quick check of their six every so often without having to kick rudder or turn.
 
I doubt Messerschmitt had any say in the matter. RLM probably looked at the price tag for development and production of Me-109 bubble canopy and declined to fund the project.
 
I've heated and vacuumed Lexan into molds myself, in my garage, it ain't rocket science.

The plexiglass they had in that era, isn't that different.
 
Hey norab,

They made the Bf 109A, B, C, D, F, G, and K. There were three rather complex airframe changes in that series. Putting in a few fixes could NOT have been all that much more difficult, could it?

I think Willy was just stubborn, but have no proof of it other than seeing it in writing in some possibly-questionable publications. So I don't really know, but the changes we're talking about are much easier than going from a Bf 109E to a Bf 109F.
 

My guess would be the redesigned 'Erla' canopy with Galland armour was considered to be enough of an improvement; interesting though that the Czechs developed a frameless blown canopy for the Avia S-199





speaking of frameless...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I douht a rear view mirror will do much good in a heavily vibrating machine

If an aircraft is in the rear view mirror then he is right behind you and got you. The wingman system was designed so he is looking after your 6. Maybe the 109 was accidently continued so real efforts to improve were never planned.
 
So it could be done, Messerschmitt just didn't take the time to do it.
I wonder if Avia developed that on their own, or if it was in Messerschmitt's plans, but they just didn't get the time to do it?
 
Messershmitt did in fact work on a bubble canopy and it was tried on the Me309 prototype. The canopy still opened to the side like the Bf109 models, but it was never adopted.

In order to put a bubble canopy (like the Me262 or Me309) on a Bf109 airframe, you would need to do extensive airframe changes much like they did with the P-51 or P-47 when converted from the "razorback" design.
 
A true bubble canopy would have required major redesign of the fuselage, but just a Malcolm hood design, like the Avia, could have been done with no redesign of the fuselage.
And much better than the Erla version.
 
tyrodtom said:
A true bubble canopy would have required major redesign of the fuselage, but just a Malcolm hood design, like the Avia, could have been done with no redesign of the fuselage.
And much better than the Erla version.
Click to expand...

Note that the canopy did slide backwards, so it could have been opened while taxiing or in flight - the inability to even crack open the canopy in those situations was sometimes a complaint of 109 pilots, especially those who had flown Fw 190s. See also: Avia S-199.178 walkaround by Norman Graf
Canopy, starboard
Canopy, port

The head armour was redesigned to be less obstructive on the S-199 and it was, of course, fixed.
 
The original Bf109 had a sliding section on the side, or both sides, but only half of the framed part.

I don't remember if the forward part slid back, or the rear half slid forward. But if you look close at some pictures, you can see the plexiglass grip.
 
I have just read about the Czech built Avia s 199's - and the pilots who flew them did not like them at all.
They could not open the canopy whilst in the air - it had to be jettisoned to bail, the propeller was frequently shot by its own guns, and the narrow landing geart track caused lots of problems.
 
The Jumo made more power at low altitudes than the DB, but less at altitude. So the torque at takeoff was worse than for the BF 109 while the power fell off more quickly as you climbed.

There were several other aircraft that also could not open their cockpits in flight, including the Fw 190. The Germans fitted the cockpit framing with two blanks 20 mm cartridhes that coiuld be fired to push the canopy to jettison it for bailout. That wasn't the only one, either. Our (museum) Bell YP-59A Airacomet had a standard-looking sliding canopy, but it can't be opened in flight any more than about 2 inches. If you do, you can't close it until you land. There were more ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Why was it?
Replies
19
Views
690
SaparotRob
S
Canopy aerodynamics
2 3
Replies
52
Views
6K
Snautzer01
S
Why no Fw 190H but the Ta 152H?
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
8K
Denniss
D
A
Why no heavier RAF machine gun calibres?
13 14 15
Replies
295
Views
15K
Reluctant Poster
R
Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
11
Views
895
Jabberwocky
J
Menu
Log in
Register