First half of '43, the 109 Gustav is still one of top fighters in the field?

stona · Oct 28, 2012

I'm not an engineer. I can only repeat the minutes of a meeting at the RLM on 26th February 1943,which was held to address the various problems of the DB 605. This is the part relevant to the Bf 109.

"A further problem is that of foam build up,which is particularly noteable in the Bf 109 and can be traced back to the oil reservoirs,which are too small. Working together with Messerschmitt efforts will be made to increase the container capacity by six to ten litres. DB's authorised oil pressure of a minimum of 2.6 ata within the airframe cannot be met by the Bf 109 with its 2.3 ata but was accepted due to the pressure of getting sufficient numbers to the front. The people at Messerschmitt have as yet been unable to modify the Bf 109 so that the minimum acceptable standard of 2.6 ata can be achieved."

My italics

A little further on.

"DB would welcome efforts to retroactively increase oil tank pressure on all airframes already produced,as well as all new Bf 109 deliveries."

The problem is clearly laid firmly at Messerschmitt's door and is not Daimler-Benz's. This is what Nallinger was complaining about.

Cheers

Steve

tyrodtom · Oct 28, 2012

cimmex said:
High oil temperature will only cause low pressure when bearings are already bad, otherwise the pressure remains the same.
Cimmex

It's been my experience with both race engines and aircraft engines that when you have a engine with both a oil pressure gauge and oil temp. gauge that oil pressure will decreasel with a rise in oil temperture, especially when oil temps rise above certain levels.

tomo pauk · Oct 28, 2012

Hi, steve,

A further problem is that of foam build up,which is particularly noteable in the Bf 109 and can be traced back to the oil reservoirs,which are too small.

Do the minutes say anything about the per-requisites for the oil tank of increased capacity for the DB-605, that was obviously needed once the 109 went from Fs to Gs?

"DB would welcome efforts to retroactively increase oil tank pressure on all airframes already produced,as well as all new Bf 109 deliveries."

Do you have a good info on how the Mtt managed to increase the oil pressure in the 109s in second half of 1943?

The problem is clearly laid firmly at Messerschmitt's door and is not Daimler-Benz's. This is what Nallinger was complaining about.

Would you be so kind to post about what Mtt was complaining about wrecked engines, hopefully from the same miutes?

stona · Oct 28, 2012

The point is that Messerschmitt,in the view of Daimler Benz,were cutting corners with the lubrication and cooling systems on the engines of their fighters for an aerodynamic advantage.

There are plenty of complaints about the DB 605. Messerschmitt first tested one in a couple of Bf 110s (W.Nrn. 4622 and 4623) in the summer of 1942. The first report stated that blower intakes,radiators,fuel pumps and spark plugs were not working properly.
Messerschmitt's complaints are not generally noted in the minutes from Milch's meetings at the RLM,though he recieved reports about the engine and its problems from other sources. The reason that we see Nallinger's defence of the engine is because he was being summoned to the RLM to explain what was going on.

On 21/1/43 the take off rating was reduced after 20 new built aircraft had to land at Erla's field with piston damage. It was reported that pilots were even refusing to get into the cockpits!

On 7/9/43 Nallinger again defended the DB 605 as installed in Messerschmitt aircraft saying that the oil back pressure and water back pressure had been too high from the out set and had been approved under protest in the face of delivery quotas.
He claimed that Messerschmitt had accepted markedly poorer operational safety in favour of minor,theoretical aerodynamic benefits. Anybody familiar of the history between Milch and Messerschmitt will understand why this argument might resonate.

Goering asked whether the DB 605 was still needed as the DB 603 was soon coming and was told by Milch that it was needed as long as the Bf 110 and Bf 110 continued.

The pre-requisite from Daimler Benz for oil pressure was 2.6 ata.
DB didn't tell Messerschmitt (nor did other engine manufacturers tell other aircraft companies) how to achieve this or how big and where they should fit the oil tanks. It is not Daimler Benz's fault that Messerschmitt were unable to meet the requirement and they were clearly unhappy about being forced to compromise on this.

I don't know if Messerschmitt did increase the pressure in the oil system. Daimler Benz were looking at various adaptations themselves.

Cheers

Steve

GregP · Oct 28, 2012

The 109 was a great diver? No way. It had to rudder trim and was, in fact, difficult to control at high speed and difficult to get out of the dive in a controlled fashion. Almost any other WWII fighter was a better diver in terms of controllability and ease of pull out.

In 1945, almost all Allied fighters outclassed the Me 109K which was fast, but retained the classic Me 109 faults at high speed. If you wanted to dogfight an Me 109G or K, you were going to do so between 250 - 330 mph. At anything faster than about 340 mph, all Allied fighters were more maneuverable and better gun platforms. The Me 109always had issue with roll at high speed due to thevery tall stick and the lack of room to appply leverage on it. At 400 mph, you could not apply more than about 1/5 of the full aileron travel, so it was a notoriously slow roller at high speed, but was pretty decent at 2801 mph, which is why Allied fightgers stayed fastn and didn't get into the Me 109's best envelope when fighting them.

The Me 109G was the start of the end of the 109 series and was a step backward from the F. Even visiting German pilots have said so.

As far as the 109 being given any credit for Erich Hartmann's victories, I deny that. He would have been a great pilot in any machine. The vast majority of his kills were ambush kills when the victim didn't know he was under attack until he was being hit. That's the way it SHOULD be planned. Giving your opponent anything like a fair chance was simply stupid.

I dislike the 109 from the G onward mainly because glaring faults were never corrected, though they COULD have been. It always retained a good climb and a decent turn of speed, but if it were going over 400 mph, it was running to or from a fight, and not actually fighting much.

Vincenzo · Oct 28, 2012

330 mph IAS are around 460 mph TAS at 20k...

davebender · Oct 28, 2012

If you are referring to the non-retractable tail wheel, I suspect that was for wartime production purposes and probably mandated by RLM. During peacetime production I think the retractable tail wheel would have been retained.

Tante Ju · Oct 28, 2012

stona said:
The point is that Messerschmitt,in the view of Daimler Benz,were cutting corners with the lubrication and cooling systems on the engines of their fighters for an aerodynamic advantage.

I would believe that if it wasn't the case that every other manufacturer having trouble with the DB 605's lubrication system. To me it seems that after the scandal broke out, DB/Nallinger was pointing at others.

Claims that it's all due to badly executed oil or coolant radiators are all fine, or due to a too small oil tank, or to too small oil pressure. That's all fine and believe but to my best knowledge NONE of these systems were changed.

What was changed was the oil deaerator of the engine in the automn of 1943 and suddenly the engine was OK. They did not enlarge the oil tank as standard with the exception of high altitude variants and so on.

It's also amusing that such problems with the 109 was only with the DB 605A.... in short, I saw Nalliger's points, but to me they never seem to have been convincing. Engine guy pointing at the airframe guy when the engine does not work as it should... the 7/9/43 meeting is revealing. There's talk about the newly tested Ölschlauder working well. No more talk about the airframe manufacturer at that point... and no more talk of DB 605 problems afterwards.

DonL · Oct 28, 2012

That's not the facts, they changed a lot at the engine (spark plugs and the ignition system with an other ignition sequence)and to me and my sources DB was working very hard on the engine to make it more suitable to Messerschmitt and the Bf 109. Messerschmitt did very little to nill, because they weren't interested.

At the whole oil issue, the joint responsibility was at Messerschmitt and to my sources it wasn't very interesting to Messerschmitt, because they were at 1942/43 not so much interested in the Bf 109, because the G-model was ready and at production and redesignment was only annoying, they were much more interested in the Me 309, Me 262 and Me 210 and 410.

davebender · Oct 28, 2012

What do those components have to do with the Me-109 airframe? If spark plugs are poor or wrong type they will cause problems even if the engine is running on a Daimler-Benz test stand.

DonL · Oct 28, 2012

It has to do with overheating, what was the whole issue, the engine was running to hot the spark plugs were running to hot, the oil was to hot, the whole DB 605 was not enough cooled in the airframe of the Bf 109.

I have more then enough sources about this issue there were home made DB problems as there were home made problems from Messerschmitt, anybody could built his own opinion, but all I have read, it was a joint venture from DB and Messerschmitt that the DB 605 had a bundle of problems especially with the oil cooling and oil foam generation.

That's the facts and also to my sources DB invest much more to get this issues fixed and sorted out as Messerschmitt.
Also there were much much pressure of the RLM late 1943/44 to Messerschmitt to get the worse aerodynamic from the G-model fixed which maintained in the Erla hood and the G-14 to K-4. Messerschmitt has done near one year nil to nothing at the Bf 109, because they were busy with other projects and the Bf 109 wasn't prio1.

davebender · Oct 28, 2012

Messerschmitt to get the worse aerodynamic from the G-model fixed which maintained in the Erla hood and the G-14 to K-4. Messerschmitt has done near one year nil to nothing at the Bf 109

You've got to freeze airframe design if you want mass production, which Germany desperately needed during 1942.

Look at it from RLMs point of view. The Fw-190 was a newer, more advanced airframe. In the long run the Fw-190 would probably replace the Me-109 entirely so the Focke-Wulf was worth serious development work. The Me-109 was a legacy aircraft that remained in production as a war emergency measure to bulk out numbers. Just as the USA produced about 5,000 inferior P-40 fighter aircraft during 1943 to bulk out numbers. Despite being a war emergency design the Me-109G6 was still pretty good and superior to many contemporary aircraft such as the P-40 and Spitfire V.

CobberKane · Oct 28, 2012

GregP said:
The 109 was a great diver? No way. It had to rudder trim and was, in fact, difficult to control at high speed and difficult to get out of the dive in a controlled fashion. Almost any other WWII fighter was a better diver in terms of controllability and ease of pull out.

In 1945, almost all Allied fighters outclassed the Me 109K which was fast, but retained the classic Me 109 faults at high speed. If you wanted to dogfight an Me 109G or K, you were going to do so between 250 - 330 mph. At anything faster than about 340 mph, all Allied fighters were more maneuverable and better gun platforms. The Me 109always had issue with roll at high speed due to thevery tall stick and the lack of room to appply leverage on it. At 400 mph, you could not apply more than about 1/5 of the full aileron travel, so it was a notoriously slow roller at high speed, but was pretty decent at 2801 mph, which is why Allied fightgers stayed fastn and didn't get into the Me 109's best envelope when fighting them.

The Me 109G was the start of the end of the 109 series and was a step backward from the F. Even visiting German pilots have said so.

As far as the 109 being given any credit for Erich Hartmann's victories, I deny that. He would have been a great pilot in any machine. The vast majority of his kills were ambush kills when the victim didn't know he was under attack until he was being hit. That's the way it SHOULD be planned. Giving your opponent anything like a fair chance was simply stupid.

I dislike the 109 from the G onward mainly because glaring faults were never corrected, though they COULD have been. It always retained a good climb and a decent turn of speed, but if it were going over 400 mph, it was running to or from a fight, and not actually fighting much.

I think this is a pretty fair summary. The 109 was one of the great designs and even at the end of the war it was a tough proiposition in the hands of a pilot who could stick to it's strengths and fly around its weaknesses. The trouble was, by that time the strengths were getting more and more specific and the faults more difficult to avoid because the 109 was at the end of a decade of continuous development that basicaly consisted of jamming more and more horsepower into one of the smallest airframes of any WWII fighter. Drop a V8 into a Mini Cooper and it will certainly be faster and accelerate harder, but at what price?

stona · Oct 29, 2012

Tante Ju said:
It's also amusing that such problems with the 109 was only with the DB 605A....

Not true of all Messerschmitt types though.
There were problems with oil pressure and foaming much earlier with the DB 601 F installed in the Bf 110 (23/12/41). There were early problems with oil pressures in the DB 603 installed in the Me 410. I don't have time to look up other examples now. There was an ongoing battle between DB who wanted their engine installation criteria met and Messerschmitt who thought that this compromised their aircraft aerodynamically.

On 27/6/41 Udet wrote a letter to Messerschmitt which seems almost incredible today.

"Dear Messerschmitt!
The problems encountered with your 109/110/210 and Warschau Sud designs prompt me to speak to you plainly on the matter.
As much as I acknowledge the performance of your designs,which have made such a decisive impact in front line operations,I feel compelled to impress on you in the strongest terms that I believe you are going down the wrong path.
With military aircraft one must,particularly in time of war,design with safety in mind and not be forced to constantly add time consuming reinforcing measures after the fact...........
I am reminded of the wing reinforcements to the 109,the undercarriage problems with the 109 and 210,and the delays rectifying problems with the control surfaces of the 110..........
If I may give you some good advice:use the experience and recommendations coming from the field and from my colleagues so that the Messerschmitt company can preserve its good name.
Heil Hitler
Udet!"

That had to hurt.

Steve

drgondog · Oct 29, 2012

GregP said:
The 109 was a great diver? No way. It had to rudder trim and was, in fact, difficult to control at high speed and difficult to get out of the dive in a controlled fashion. Almost any other WWII fighter was a better diver in terms of controllability and ease of pull out.

Greg - maybe a little too bold. Until the P-38 got dive flaps it was perhaps the worst diver in Allied inventory and certainly worse than the 109. Having said that the P-38 was the only one I can recall that did Not require huge rudder pedal forces to offset yaw..The 109 had a proven dive speed 'near' the P-51 and P-47 (Brown says so but haven't seen the data). If so, the 109 was faster in a controllable dive than the F4U, maybe the P-63 if you believe "America's 100K" (and I do).

In 1945, almost all Allied fighters outclassed the Me 109K which was fast, but retained the classic Me 109 faults at high speed. If you wanted to dogfight an Me 109G or K, you were going to do so between 250 - 330 mph. At anything faster than about 340 mph, all Allied fighters were more maneuverable and better gun platforms. The Me 109always had issue with roll at high speed due to thevery tall stick and the lack of room to appply leverage on it. At 400 mph, you could not apply more than about 1/5 of the full aileron travel, so it was a notoriously slow roller at high speed, but was pretty decent at 2801 mph, which is why Allied fightgers stayed fastn and didn't get into the Me 109's best envelope when fighting them.

Except for engaging from a dive most air combats were well below 400mph TAS and if you lost surprise and forced into a manuevering dogfight - you lost energy and eased into a 109's strike zone for a good pilot. Once there you weren't forcing the 109 to roll and turn >380mph so those 'deficiencies' weren't as dominant.

The Me 109G was the start of the end of the 109 series and was a step backward from the F. Even visiting German pilots have said so.

It was with respect to flying qualities - as a P-51D was inferior to a P-51B (or moreso an A) in flying qualities - But as a combat machine with greater power, climb and firepower the 109G series IMO was better by far than an F - at least in context of battling 8th AF in daylight.

As far as the 109 being given any credit for Erich Hartmann's victories, I deny that. He would have been a great pilot in any machine. The vast majority of his kills were ambush kills when the victim didn't know he was under attack until he was being hit. That's the way it SHOULD be planned. Giving your opponent anything like a fair chance was simply stupid.

I dislike the 109 from the G onward mainly because glaring faults were never corrected, though they COULD have been. It always retained a good climb and a decent turn of speed, but if it were going over 400 mph, it was running to or from a fight, and not actually fighting much.[/QUOTE

I also have spent some time with the surviving Experten and none of them felt 'outclassed' per se in the 109G vs the 51 or 47 but all acknowledged that the US pilot skill and the range/speed and general manueverability made the P-51 the LW's most dangerous adversary in 1944-1945.

davebender · Oct 29, 2012

Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 1933 the RLM published the tactical requirements for a single-seat fighter
The fighter needed to have a top speed of 400 km/h (250 mph) at 6,000 m (19,690 ft), to be maintained for 20 minutes

IMO that's the crux of the issue.

Me-109 was designed at a time when 250mph was the fastest thing in the sky. Messerschmitt did a good job updating the airframe so it could handle speeds up to 400 mph but that's as fast as the aircraft will comfortably fly. Most WWII aerial combat happened at speeds below 400 mph and altitudes below 20,000 feet so that wasn't a terrible handicap. F4Fs, F6Fs and P-40s were produced by the thousands during 1943 and they couldn't even achieve 400 mph in level flight.

drgondog · Oct 29, 2012

DonL said:
Also the Bf 109 G was very clearly a step back from aerodynamics compare the F model.
The F-model was much cleaner then the G model. Only the Erla hood and later the Bf 109 G14 and K-4 were near back to the clean aerodynamic of the F-model!

Anyway the Bf 109 G and K model had also other significant disadvantages compare to the other topfighters at 1944 and 1945.

Thje Bf 109 G was in a disadvantage from speed, altitude, diving and she was much more worse to the sticks then for example a P51, P47, Spitfire or F4U-4, the big advantage was it's acceleration and climb performance but that wasn't by far enough at 1944 and 1945!

One must be a little careful when comparing relative Drag or Drag Coefficients between aircraft.

While the 109G had a slightly higher drag coefficient, the dominant contrast were the 'bumps' while the main drag contributors were the lifting surfaces (same) and the other parasite drag (paint, wheel well openings, radio mast, gaps between aileron/elevator and rudder, inlet ducts for carb and radiator (same). The 109G had more power (Thrust) which was more than enough to make it a faster climber and in level flight. The 109G had better armament and capable of still greater armament in form of external gondolas. The 109F remained a better turner but because the 109G had more Hp (thrust) it had a slight energy advantage.

I would be surprised if the increased drag of the 109G was more than 2% and offset by much more HP by the time the G-6 and G-10 arrived. The wetted and wing areas are the same but thrust much higher by 1944.

IMO the 109F was more 'fun to fly' and the 109G was a 'better killer'. It is fun to speculate what the 109F would have achieved in fighter-fighter capability had the engine continued to evolve with the airframe - but it didn't.

Vincenzo · Oct 29, 2012

bumps there were not on G-1/4

p.s. with bumps i thinked mg-131 setting, if you're refering other things, what are?

tomo pauk · Oct 29, 2012

The G got the bumps when the HMGs replaced LMGs (beginning with G-6). Further bumps were added to wing, to make room for wheels of incresed size (G-10/K-4 got those 1st?). The fixed tail wheel also contributes to drag, the G-6 got those 1st IIRC.
So the G-5 and earlier were as streamlined as the Fs?

Vincenzo · Oct 29, 2012

G-5 is a G-6 with pressurized cockpit

First half of '43, the 109 Gustav is still one of top fighters in the field?

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Banned

Banned

1st Lieutenant

Banned

1st Lieutenant

Banned

Major

Major

1st Lieutenant

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads