Could Sweden have produced the Bf 109 under license?

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by Clay_Allison, Sep 6, 2009.

  1. Clay_Allison

    Clay_Allison Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    #1 Clay_Allison, Sep 6, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2009
    One of the many things that has mystified me about WWII is the seeming lack of a Swedish aircraft industry, which led to silly things like ordering the P-66 Vanguard and then having it seized because Britain and the US were mad about them selling raw materials to Germany.

    In my view Sweden was doing the smart thing for themselves in making that deal with the devil, they saw what happened to Norway and Poland when they didn't play ball. The thing I don't get is, they didn't have a fighter plane and they had a big brother that did.

    Why couldn't Saab and Volvo have made the Bf-109 and DB-601 under license respectively? Sweden was a pretty modern country with pretty smart engineers and craftsmen. The Bf-109 was a mass-production friendly aircraft. Why didn't it happen?
     
  2. B-17engineer

    B-17engineer Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    14,953
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    model builder
    Location:
    Revis Island.
    You know I'm not sure. But I do know that. I do know though Czechoslovakia did make a copy so to speak of the 109. It was called the AVIA S.199 'Mule'. It took the 109's Daimler Benz engine and replaced it with a 1350 HP Junkers Jumo inline engine. The big engine made the plane heavy in the nose area which was bad for landing, obviously.

    Whether it was under license or not I do not know.
     

    Attached Files:

  3. imalko

    imalko Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,669
    Likes Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vojvodina, Serbia
    Czechoslovak versions of Bf 109 called Avia S.99 (powered by DB engines) and S.199 "Mule" (powered by Jumo engines) were both build post war in Czechoslovakia when getting licence for production from defeated Germany wasn't an issue any more. Bf 109 was build in occupied Czechoslovakia for the Luftwaffe during the war and production was simply continued after the war for new Czechoslovak AF. Only reason why they replaced DB with Jumo engines is because DB engines were in short supply. Czechoslovak industry also build Me 262 for their Air Force after the war.

    As for Sweden I trully don't know and can't even began guessing. Maybe Jan (Lucky13) would be able do give answer to that question...
     
  4. B-17engineer

    B-17engineer Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    14,953
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    model builder
    Location:
    Revis Island.
    Oh thanks imalko for clearing things up!
     
  5. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,778
    Likes Received:
    802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
  6. fastmongrel

    fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,343
    Likes Received:
    409
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motor Mechanic
    Location:
    Lancashire
    Bailing out of the Saab 21 would have been fun how on earth were they supposed to get out
     
  7. Juha

    Juha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki
    Hello
    SAAB 21, probably they first blow out the blades of the propellor and the jumped.

    Sweden got after long negotiations rights to license build BD 605s for the SAAB 21, so they could have built Bf 109s if allowed by Germans.

    Juha
     
  8. Lucky13

    Lucky13 Forum Mascot

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    36,730
    Likes Received:
    1,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Nightshift picker
    Location:
    A Swede living in Glasgow, Scotland
    Home Page:
    Ejection seat my good man....one of the first! 8)

    Edit: SAAB would have built the aircrafts themself, since Volvo was busy building tanks, trucks etc. etc.
     
  9. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,771
    Likes Received:
    687
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    Do different than any other pusher prop aircraft. The Saab 21 was not unique in that regards.
     
  10. Lucky13

    Lucky13 Forum Mascot

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    36,730
    Likes Received:
    1,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Nightshift picker
    Location:
    A Swede living in Glasgow, Scotland
    Home Page:
    #10 Lucky13, Sep 7, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2009
    Chris, the SAAB 21 used a ejection seat. We tested a version using compressed air in.....'41, I think, a gunpowder ejection seat was developed by Bofors and tested in '43 for the same crate.

    J 19 - Saab L-12 A Swedish "Zero"
    This fighter was meant to replace our Gloster Gladiators. The project was worked on by Saab, in collaboration with US engineers here to aid with licence production of our Northrop 8-A 1:s and NA-16-4 M:s. It was presented to the Ministry on Sep 4:th 1939, and work must have been started at least a year earlier.
    What stopped this project was in fact the outbreak of the war, as the intended engine was to be a Bristol Taurus II, giving 1400 hp with 100-octane fuel. The British had to concentrate on known engines (and the Taurus would have been overweight and underpowered anyway), and as a replacement P&W Twin Wasp was considered (and well, the US didn't want to sell us any engines at that time). Also, Saab had to concentrate on B 17 and B 18, so there was never even a wind tunnel model built.

    It looked very much like a Zero, and was an all-metal construction with fabric covered control surfaces. Span 10.5 m; Empty weight 2015 kg; Operational weight 2690 kg; Max speed 605 km/h; Engine 1065 hp Bristol Taurus; Armament four wing-mounted 13.2 mm guns and possibly two 8 mm MG:s on top of the engine.



    J 23 - Saab L-23 A Swedish "Bf 109/Mustang"
    In March 1941 Saab was given the task to design a better fighter than the Seversky Republic P-35:s and Reggiane 2000:s we had been able to buy. (The Mitsubishi Zero had also been considered.) This resulted in the twin-boom pusher J 21 (which hardly was a fighter, but became a passable ground attack aircraft). This was a technological risk, with ejection seat and all, so a more conventional fall-back design with the same engine was needed. In December 1941 the fall-back design was cancelled, as it was considerably less manoueverable than the J 21. Both designs were to use the same engine, DB 603, and interestingly the J 23 was to have an ejection seat too!
    In front of the wing trailing edge it was just like a Bf 109, except the canopy which looked like the J 21's and that the landing gear folded the other way. Rear of that it was just like a P-51B, but with a slimmer oil cooler.

    Span 11.3 m; Empty weight 2535 kg; Operational weight 3445 kg; Max speed 626 km/h; Armament one 20 mm engine-mounted gun and four 13.2 mm wing mounted.



    B/J 24 - Saab L-24 A Swedish "Bf 110"
    Similar to a Bf 110 with nose gear. Was to have two licence produced DB 605 engines. Changing requirements made it heavier and its tasks could be fulfilled by other aircraft, so it was cancelled in 1943.
    Span 15.6 m; Armament as a bomber 1000 kg + four 8 mm MG:s and two 20 mm guns, as a fighter six 13.2 or 20 mm guns and a radar.
     
  11. Clay_Allison

    Clay_Allison Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I was saying Volvo would build the DB engines. Unless Saab could build engines?
     
  12. Lucky13

    Lucky13 Forum Mascot

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    36,730
    Likes Received:
    1,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Nightshift picker
    Location:
    A Swede living in Glasgow, Scotland
    Home Page:
    D*mn! I know this one....! :oops: :lol: Back then, I think that SAAB built the whole cake, airframe, engine the lot. Think that Volvo started first in the early jet era to build engines, need to check though....:oops: :lol:
     
  13. Clay_Allison

    Clay_Allison Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I said Volvo because it seemed like the better car companies (BMW, Daimler Benz, Packard, Rolls Royce) were more likely to be the engine makers.
     
  14. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,778
    Likes Received:
    802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
  15. Elvis

    Elvis Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Little Norway, U.S.A.
    Wow, nice synopsis, Lucky! :thumbright:
    That basically takes us from just before the war, through about the 1/2 way point.
    Next aircraft would probably be the FFVS J-22, which entered production in '43, althogh I think design work first started around '40.


    Elvis
     
  16. Clay_Allison

    Clay_Allison Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I heard this when I was discussing the J 22 in another thread. Why the hell do you want a bomber when you don't have fighters? For one thing they were a neutral country whose biggest worries were defensive (from all sides). For another thing we all know what happens to unescorted bombers.

    The Germans needed Sweden and they should have been willing to send advisers to help them set up production lines for Bf 109s, especially with the legitimate possibility that Sweden could produce some for the Finns as well.
     
  17. Graeme

    Graeme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    2,729
    Likes Received:
    170
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    My understanding is that as part of the modernisation and expansion programme for the Flygvapnet the Linkoping-based design office was to concentrate solely on the bomber design and the importation of Republic EP-1s and Vultee Vanguards was to take care of the fighters. As you mentioned, the importation plan went foul.
    As a result, CR.42s and Reggiane Re.2000s were ordered from Italy but they were considered a stop-gap measure and even the J-22 was regarded only as an interim fighter. On 19 March 1941 Sweden obtained a licence to manufacture the DB-601 and later on the DB-605. Frid Wanstrom elected to design a radical fighter (21A) instead of the 109 because (my theory now)...he could?!

    IF the 21A design presented insurmountable development difficulties, then the back-up plan was to fall back to the SAAB 23 fighter design (see Lucky's post on the previous page), which in my opinion, looks very similar to the 109...

    [​IMG]
     
  18. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,778
    Likes Received:
    802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands

    Just maybe to:

    Bomb attacking ships/ troop transports?
    Bomb landing/staging areas?
    Bomb advancing troop/supply columns?
    Anti-sub patrol?
    Use the longer ranged/higher endurance 2 engine planes for recon?

    An as noted above they thought they had the fighter supply situation covered.

    Sweden also used Junkers Ju86 bombers and some were licence built, first product of SAAB?
    Powered them with Lincenced or Polish built Bristol Pegasus engines.
     
  19. Clay_Allison

    Clay_Allison Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Importing your fighters and domestically producing bombers is thinking in reverse. Fighters can bomb and bombers can't fight. Depending on a country that doesn't like you to sell you weapons is a bewildering idea.
     
  20. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,778
    Likes Received:
    802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    800-1100hp fighters don't bomb very well.

    Which country didn't like Sweden?
    THe British when they sold them the Pegasus licence or Gladiators?
    The Americans when we sold them Northrop attack bombers

    Model 8A-1
    Export version for Sweden. Fixed undercarriage. Two Douglas built prototypes (Swedish designation B 5A), followed by 63 licensed built (by ASJA) B 5B aircraft powered by 920 hp (686 kW) Bristol Mercury XXIV engine. 31 similar B 5C built by SAAB.

    Italy when they sold them CR 42s and Re 2000s?

    Jut because a country that is not at war will sell you airpanes and then stop delivery when they are in a war does't mean they don't like you. It just means their own needs /priorities have changed.
     
Loading...

Share This Page