Could Sweden have produced the Bf 109 under license?

Elvis · Sep 28, 2009

I see both Clay and Shortround making a good point here, but wouldn't it have been smarter for Sweden to simply agree to assist covering another country's particular "area-of- interest" (that would've been local to Sweden) by stating that while they had the facilities to produce parts and maintain aircraft (and pilots to fly them), the aircraft used would have to belong to the country needing/wanting Sweden's assistance.
...thus Sweden is given rights to produce parts for whatever aircraft the other country wants to use in that region, and her pilots get some "cockpit time", to boot, while essentially remaining a "neutral nation"...or am I missing something here?

Elvis

Shortround6 · Sep 28, 2009

I am not sure but I think a neutral Nation that buys aircraft/parts from a belligerent country (or sells parts) might still be considered neutral, particularly if it buys/sells to and from both sides.

Allowing basing rights and/or operating aircraft in support of a belligerant nation's operations probably wouldn't be seen as neutral even if only as mundane as maritime patrol.

there had been plenty of shenanigans over ownership and crewing of various aircraft during the Spanish civil war on both sides in addition to some "polite fiction" over funding for some of the fighters going to China before Pearl Harbor.

Perception might be just as important as actual facts in the case of both Swedish and Swiss neutrality. Niether could hope to win, only to be more trouble than they were worth.

At the risk of "skewing" the thread I will note that the Swedes were exporting ball and roller bearings to the British for a good part of the war and that Bristol Hercules production would have been in serious trouble without those Swedish exports

Elvis · Sep 28, 2009

Shortround6 said:
I am not sure but I think a neutral Nation that buys aircraft/parts from a belligerent country (or sells parts) might still be considered neutral, particularly if it buys/sells to and from both sides.

No-no, read my post again.
I mentioned nothing about "buying" anything, but rather, being given manufacturing rights, because they already had the ability to manufacture.
This would help the "other" nation, because it would take some load off of their production quota's.

Shortround6 said:
Allowing basing rights and/or operating aircraft in support of a belligerant nation's operations probably wouldn't be seen as neutral even if only as mundane as maritime patrol.

there had been plenty of shenanigans over ownership and crewing of various aircraft during the Spanish civil war on both sides in addition to some "polite fiction" over funding for some of the fighters going to China before Pearl Harbor.

Perception might be just as important as actual facts in the case of both Swedish and Swiss neutrality. Niether could hope to win, only to be more trouble than they were worth.

At the risk of "skewing" the thread I will note that the Swedes were exporting ball and roller bearings to the British for a good part of the war and that Bristol Hercules production would have been in serious trouble without those Swedish exports

As for the rest of this, yes, I suppose one would seem "less neutral" in that regard, however, they would still be "neutral", because the only other choices are to either side with that nation and thus they're still allowed to do what they were granted anyway, or side with the opposing nations and bar the nation from your "sector" altogether.
Either way, you're now in the war and no longer neutral.
By giving up your neutrality, you're essentially saying "one side is right and the other is wrong".
By staying neutral, you're essentially saying, "I'm not too sure about all y'all, so I am choosing to simply stay out of the conflict".
This, apparently, does not neccessarily mean you can't offer some indirect aid to nations on either side, such as your mention of supplying the Brits with bearings....but I could see how one would go from being viewed as Neutral, to, "Neutral".

...oh yeah and, LOL! on "Skewing the thread".

Elvis

Clay_Allison · Sep 28, 2009

Shortround6 said:
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.

Many of the allies were very upset with Sweden over supplying Germany wit raw materials. I believe Great Britain considered invading them to cut off deliveries. Winston Churchill called Sweden "that small coward country". The US also had to be annoyed with Sweden being Hitler's "Iron and Steel Warehouse".

Sweden wasn't an ally of Germany, but they made deals with the devil and they shouldn't have expected good will and fighter deliveries from the USA.

In any case, with war looming you have to assume that all fighter production would be taken up with little room for export.

Shortround6 · Sep 29, 2009

When were the allies upset with Sweden?

In June of 1939 when they ordered the first batch of P-35s (which they did get) or later?
Like in June of 1940 when the P-35s started to be delivered.
February of 1940 when the Vultee Vanguards ( J 10) were ordered or Sept, 1941 when they were embargoed when ready for delievery?

Were they really upset with Sweden or were they worried that because of Sweden's location that the aircraft shipments would be seized in transit by the Germans? or both?

Or was the US upset with Sweden in 1936 when they refused to export the Douglas DB1 (B-18) and Sweden had to take the JU 86 from Germany instead?

See:Swedish Propeller Fighters

read through the site.

You don't build an aero industry almost from scratch over night.

Sweden had to trade raw materials to Italy for the Italian planes they were allowed to purchase, which in some cases were not what Sweden wanted but what they were offered without much other choice.

The US didn't exactly leap to the defense of Belgium and Holland either so maybe Sweden could be excused for making deals with the devil ( at least they didn't trade away another country like Chamberlain) rather than depend on the US.

Needing planes of all types they made what they could make given the resources available (tooling, engines , knowledge, etc) and tried to buy what they could.

Clay_Allison · Sep 30, 2009

Shortround6 said:
When were the allies upset with Sweden?

In June of 1939 when they ordered the first batch of P-35s (which they did get) or later?
Like in June of 1940 when the P-35s started to be delivered.
February of 1940 when the Vultee Vanguards ( J 10) were ordered or Sept, 1941 when they were embargoed when ready for delievery?

Were they really upset with Sweden or were they worried that because of Sweden's location that the aircraft shipments would be seized in transit by the Germans? or both?

Or was the US upset with Sweden in 1936 when they refused to export the Douglas DB1 (B-18) and Sweden had to take the JU 86 from Germany instead?

See:Swedish Propeller Fighters

read through the site.

You don't build an aero industry almost from scratch over night.

Sweden had to trade raw materials to Italy for the Italian planes they were allowed to purchase, which in some cases were not what Sweden wanted but what they were offered without much other choice.

The US didn't exactly leap to the defense of Belgium and Holland either so maybe Sweden could be excused for making deals with the devil ( at least they didn't trade away another country like Chamberlain) rather than depend on the US.

Needing planes of all types they made what they could make given the resources available (tooling, engines , knowledge, etc) and tried to buy what they could.

They could have traded raw materials to Germany for jigs and tools. I'm not saying they should have woken up in 1940, rolled out of bed and built a factory the decision would have had to be made in 1936 or so. If Czechoslovakia could build 109s, so could Sweden.

Shortround6 · Sep 30, 2009

Clay_Allison said:
They could have traded raw materials to Germany for jigs and tools. I'm not saying they should have woken up in 1940, rolled out of bed and built a factory the decision would have had to be made in 1936 or so. If Czechoslovakia could build 109s, so could Sweden.

The decision to rearm was made in 1936. The 109 made it's first public apearance at the Berlin Olympics in Aug 1936 and that plane might have been the V1 protoype. The Swiss don't get any 109s until the D model.

THe site I listed above may have a bit of revisionist history in it, I don't know. But it claims there was a reluctance to buy German designs in the 1930s.

The Swede's may have been able to build 109s but why? What does a 109B-D really offer them if the decision has to be made in 1937-8?

Sweden also apparenty had much closer ties with the Heinkel factory.

Germans didn't deliever all the Heinkel 115s the Swedes ordered once the war started, what makes you believe they would have continued to supply parts and especially engines once the war started?

Just how many different engines do you think the Swedes could make at one time?
Since they had made Bristol Jupiters under licence it wasn't that big a trick to move on to the Mercury and Pegasus (under licence) and even the P&W R-1830 might not have been that hard to make even without licence if they could make radial engines to begin with. Making their own V-12 might have been a bit harder. yes they did eventually do it but that was after they got the R-1830 going. What year did they actually produce production 605s?

By the way (Thread skew alert) Czechoslovakia probably had one of the more sophisiticated industrial complexes in Europe outside of Germany,France and Italy. Counting England out. They probably were bigger than Sweden, Bofors not withstanding.

Clay_Allison · Sep 30, 2009

Shortround6 said:
The decision to rearm was made in 1936. The 109 made it's first public apearance at the Berlin Olympics in Aug 1936 and that plane might have been the V1 protoype. The Swiss don't get any 109s until the D model.

THe site I listed above may have a bit of revisionist history in it, I don't know. But it claims there was a reluctance to buy German designs in the 1930s.

The Swede's may have been able to build 109s but why? What does a 109B-D really offer them if the decision has to be made in 1937-8?

Sweden also apparenty had much closer ties with the Heinkel factory.

Germans didn't deliever all the Heinkel 115s the Swedes ordered once the war started, what makes you believe they would have continued to supply parts and especially engines once the war started?

Just how many different engines do you think the Swedes could make at one time?
Since they had made Bristol Jupiters under licence it wasn't that big a trick to move on to the Mercury and Pegasus (under licence) and even the P&W R-1830 might not have been that hard to make even without licence if they could make radial engines to begin with. Making their own V-12 might have been a bit harder. yes they did eventually do it but that was after they got the R-1830 going. What year did they actually produce production 605s?

By the way (Thread skew alert) Czechoslovakia probably had one of the more sophisiticated industrial complexes in Europe outside of Germany,France and Italy. Counting England out. They probably were bigger than Sweden, Bofors not withstanding.

I just read today that the Hawker Hurricane was available for purchase, and possibly (re-engined perhaps?) could have been produced under licence. What do you think of that alternative?

Elvis · Sep 30, 2009

Shortround6 said:
The Swede's may have been able to build 109s but why? What does a 109B-D really offer them if the decision has to be made in 1937-8?
Sweden also apparenty had much closer ties with the Heinkel factory.

Don't mean to butt into the conversation, but if that's so, you'd think Sweden would then vie for the He.100.
Had that had happened, there may not have ever been a need to develop an indigenous fighter, such as the J-22 (or maybe the He.100 would fill either the "J-22" or "J-21" designation slot).

Elvis

Clay_Allison · Sep 30, 2009

Elvis said:
Don't mean to butt into the conversation, but if that's so, you'd think Sweden would then vie for the He.100.
Had that had happened, there may not have ever been a need to develop an indigenous fighter, such as the J-22 (or maybe the He.100 would fill either the "J-22" or "J-21" designation slot).

Elvis

If you read deep into the He-100, it is a very complicated machine. The cooling system alone is something of a scary gimmick. I don't think the Germans necessarily made a mistake in ditching the idea.

Shortround6 · Sep 30, 2009

A problem is still the engine.

Would the Germans have delievered the needed Diamler Benz engines even if the Swedes could build the airframes?
Please note troubles both the Italians and Japanese had in making licensed copies of DB engines even with much larger and more experienced aircraft engine production.

Making liquid cooled V-12s requires both different tooling and different exertise than making aircooled radials. As in casting the much larger crankcases and cylinder blocks among other things. And just becasue you can cast iron doesn't mean you can cast aluminium right away. Mercedes was supposed to have had trouble with aluminium engine blocks in cars in the 1950s.
Maybe the Swedes could do it, maybe they couldn't. They did do it at the end or after the war. Making the machines that make the parts takes time.

Look at the number of embargoed fighters. the Swedes weren't looking for 12 or 20 fighters. They wanted more like 200.
Same thing with Merlins. Could they get or make enough?

Clay_Allison · Oct 1, 2009

Shortround6 said:
A problem is still the engine.

Would the Germans have delievered the needed Diamler Benz engines even if the Swedes could build the airframes?
Please note troubles both the Italians and Japanese had in making licensed copies of DB engines even with much larger and more experienced aircraft engine production.

Making liquid cooled V-12s requires both different tooling and different exertise than making aircooled radials. As in casting the much larger crankcases and cylinder blocks among other things. And just becasue you can cast iron doesn't mean you can cast aluminium right away. Mercedes was supposed to have had trouble with aluminium engine blocks in cars in the 1950s.
Maybe the Swedes could do it, maybe they couldn't. They did do it at the end or after the war. Making the machines that make the parts takes time.

Look at the number of embargoed fighters. the Swedes weren't looking for 12 or 20 fighters. They wanted more like 200.
Same thing with Merlins. Could they get or make enough?

Ok, how about door number three? Licensed production of the A6M Zero? The Zero was, IMO, a very good plane that suffered more from a late war scarcity of good pilots and materials than from actual obsolescence. The article said it was available but hard to deliver, if they had produced it rather than ordering it, would that have been a legitimate option? Certainly it could have been re-engined with P&W R-1830s, it's been done in surviving aircraft.

Elvis · Oct 1, 2009

Clay,

Thanks for clarification on He.100. I admit that I dont' know a lot about that plane, so I'll capiulate to your knowledge on this one.
Also, I like the "Zero idea", but I like the idea just as well with an Oscar. Would they have been any easier to obtain?
-------------------------------------------------

Shortround6,

Good post. I agree, 100%.
In fact, just creating the different molds for the casting of the inline parts is $$$$$$$$$, all by itself.
If you're setup to cast and build radial engines, and you don't neccessarily have a "plethora" of wealth, then you build radial engines.
...and given that, if you're setup, better, for radial engine production, then maybe the idea of BMW 801 (or whatever that one was called) production should be entertained as well?
This would open up the idea of Sweden using early 190's, or possibly BMW powered Japanese planes (would that even work?).

Elvis

Clay_Allison · Oct 1, 2009

Elvis said:
Clay,

Thanks for clarification on He.100. I admit that I dont' know a lot about that plane, so I'll capiulate to your knowledge on this one.
Also, I like the "Zero idea", but I like the idea just as well with an Oscar. Would they have been any easier to obtain?
-------------------------------------------------

Shortround6,

Good post. I agree, 100%.
In fact, just creating the different molds for the casting of the inline parts is $$$$$$$$$, all by itself.
If you're setup to cast and build radial engines, and you don't neccessarily have a "plethora" of wealth, then you build radial engines.
...and given that, if you're setup, better, for radial engine production, then maybe the idea of BMW 801 (or whatever that one was called) production should be entertained as well?
This would open up the idea of Sweden using early 190's, or possibly BMW powered Japanese planes (would that even work?).

Elvis

Changing the R-1830 to R-2000 would be easier and yield a very nice power increase without changing what planes it could go in.

Elvis · Oct 2, 2009

Clay,

I see where you're going and that would be the easiest route, from the standpoint of modifying the engine you're producing, with the least amount of shock to the production system.
However, while the change to R-2000 would be the easier mod, I think producing the 801 is the smarter move, IF, you're going to be using a plane that normally used that engine.
Otherwise, just produce an R-2000 powered J-22 and be done with it.

Elvis

Clay_Allison · Oct 2, 2009

Elvis said:
Clay,

I see where you're going and that would be the easiest route, from the standpoint of modifying the engine you're producing, with the least amount of shock to the production system.
However, while the change to R-2000 would be the easier mod, I think producing the 801 is the smarter move, IF, you're going to be using a plane that normally used that engine.
Otherwise, just produce an R-2000 powered J-22 and be done with it.

Elvis

Problem with the J22 is it wasn't available until 1943.

Elvis · Oct 2, 2009

...so we're back to...an early 190?

Elvis

Clay_Allison · Oct 2, 2009

The 190 has teething problems and was still more expensive and complicated than the 109 at any point in its' development. We're probably at Swedish Zero/Ki-43.

Elvis · Oct 3, 2009

...and to that end, it might just be easier to use the R-1830 in those planes.
Gotcha.

Someone here reminded me of something I'd completely forgotten about...and Clay, this should make you happy...the J-21.
Swedish pusher prop fighter that was powered by a...(say it with me) DB605.
Assuming they built those engines (as opposed to buying complete engines from Daimler and simply installing them in the J-21), this would give creedence to Clay's original query about Swedish built Me-109's, since, apparently, the Swedes could, and were, setup for inline engine production, as well.

Elvis

Shortround6 · Oct 3, 2009

Please note the dates at which the DB 605 engined aircraft went into service or production versions were first delivered.

Dec of 1945 for the J21 after the protoype flew in July of 1943.

THe First production SAAB 18 flies with Swedish R 1830s in Sept of 1943 but it is Oct of 1945 before the first SAAB 18 with DB 605 engines is delievered.

I have never said the Swedes couldn't or didn't make DB 605s, the question is when?

If Clays question is why didn't they make 109s in 1945-48 I would say they figured they had something better.
IF the question is why didn't they make them in 1942-43 I would say it was becasue they couldn't get/make the engines at that time in addition to any political questions.
Just how many DB 605s did the Italians Get from Germany for their fighters and they were allies not a "neutral" country

Could Sweden have produced the Bf 109 under license?

1st Sergeant

Lieutenant General

1st Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Lieutenant General

Staff Sergeant

Lieutenant General

Staff Sergeant

1st Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Lieutenant General

Staff Sergeant

1st Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

1st Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

1st Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

1st Sergeant

Lieutenant General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads