If the RAF had been defeated in the Battle of Britain

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

The different varieties Bf 109s used in the BoB campaign (E1,E3,E4 & E7) used 4 different engines.
The DB601A0 (often simply 601A), DB601A1, DB601Aa and in the latter part of the fight an early version of the DB601N that used higher octane C2/C3 fuel of about 94/115 octane was introduced.

The Aa was an export version, for Switzerland I believe, which had a higher supercharger setting I think 4500m instead of 4000m but saw Luftwaffe service. The DB601N closed some of the power gap that 100/130 fuel had created. The DB601N used in the Me 109F1 was a more refined version of this engine with a better supercharger.

I don't tend to use 109 data from ww2performancetesting as it tends to compare aircraft maintained by the RAE/RAF with beat up captured aircraft. I'd rather go to German data or other data than wade through it. The site is an excellent collection of data but on the 109 issue there is a certain amount of patriotic fervor inherited from the previous Spitfire testing site.

Without 100/130 the Dornier Do 17 or Do 215 could outrun and outmaneuver a Hurricane.


This aircraft could achieve 316mph or 510 km/h. Note the rotating gun blisters, also used on the He 111 nose etc. Most Dorniers didn't get the 1100 hp Daimler Benz engine but made do with 800hp. This seems to be a Dornier corporate video. Crew is in civies.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91z4V_mZEfk

The above video seems to have been deleted. A version spliced into this clip a 5m30s is the same.
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k_N4TI1Li6Y

 
Last edited:
Shortround6 said:
While what you say is true it is also true that the engines (jumo 210, perhaps the 211 and certainly the DB 600 series) were all designed to have a gun firing through the prop hub from the start.
...
Click to expand...

Jumo 211, at least the B and D versions, were outfitted with a tube where the gun's's barrel was supposed to pass through.
 
Regarding the 'motor cannon' in the early Bf109's, or more correctly, the intended use of such a weapon in the early Bf109's, most accounts attribute its omission being due to problems with vibration, rather than the weapon itself, which, not only being at a very unacceptable level, inevitably lead to stoppages.
It would seem that the weapon worked OK, but the 'balance', for want of a better description was insufficient to counter the extreme vibration, a problem which was not fully solved even after the introduction of a 'motor cannon' on the Bf109F which, as we know, tried a 20mm weapon, then a 15mm weapon, before reverting to the improved 20mm weapon and associated mounting.
Even though no Bf109E mounted such a weapon during the BoB, there are still accounts from RAF pilots describing this weapon being fired in their direction - perhaps understandable if a) it was generally believed that such a weapon existed, and b) seeing only muzzle flashes in a small, rear-view mirror, in the heat of combat and possibly pure terror !
The 'myth' still persists today, with some relatively recent books stating that the Bf109E series, during the BoB, was so armed.
 
Airframes said:
The 'myth' still persists today, with some relatively recent books stating that the Bf109E series, during the BoB, was so armed.
Click to expand...

It was repeated by Douglas Bader, along with Bob Stanford Tuck who did not contradict him, in a famous '70s documentary. It just goes to show how fallible memory can be.

Such 'recollections', from such eminent participants in the fighting at the time, do much to reinforce such myths, though entirely unintentionally. Producers were also less likely to challenge such assertions in those days.

Cheers

Steve
 
oh boy, another super German plane.

Please see; Wayback Machine

The top speed of the Do 215 is in serious dispute, but there seems to be at least a 15kph difference between the bomber version and the nightfighter, advantage to the nightfighter despite aerial due to better shaped nose?


The early do 17s used BMW V12s of the same type used in the He 51 biplane and a lot of other early German aircraft, it was about 750hp. Later Do 17s used both BMW and Bramo 9 cylinder radials of various powers. I would note in the engine chart in above website that the numbers next to the BMW VI engines (6.4 and 7.5) are not the displacement but the compression ratio. The engines actually being of about 47 liters displacement but without superchargers and low rpm.

I Kind if like the Do 17 and think there are some interesting "what If's" that could be done with it but again, some of the claimed performance numbers for it look a little suspicious.
 

The DB 601Aa was with better low-alt performance than contemporary (1940 production) DB 601A, trading for that a bit of hi-alt performance. Small letter a denotes 'ausland' - 'for export', however plenty of those engines ended up in Jabos. The DB 601A of 1940 was with rated altitude of 4500m (1020 PS there), the Aa have had rated altitude at 3700m, but making 1100 PS there.
I'm all ears about the improved DB 601N used on the 109F. Yes, there is a footnote on the datasheet, but still all of the datasheets list 4.9 km as rated altitude, 1175 PS there. 601N used 96 oct fuel (sometimes called 100 oct fuel); nobody used 100/130 grade fuel in 1940; that engine improved situation vs. SPitfire II and Hurricane II that were also introduced during the BoB. One minute duration of max rating is woefuly short, though.


Whether the data from Willaims' site is okay, or it is not?
At any rate, Do 17 was lucky if it beat 410 km/h mark at best altitude, the Do 215 is better but not as good as Hurricane.

 
Koopernic said:
Without 100/130 the Dornier Do 17 or Do 215 could outrun and outmaneuver a Hurricane.
Click to expand...

I think you're overstating things just a wee bit there. The account you cite indicates the aircraft frequently changing places because the Dornier fires at the Hurricane with both the front and rear guns...hardly possible unless the Hurricane is actually outmanoeuvering the Dornier. The Hurricane also "pulls the tit" and breaks off the engagement, which contradicts your contention of the Dornier outrunning the Hurricane. Yes, German bombers were fast when empty and going downhill, and hence were difficult for Hurricanes to tail-chase...but I think hyperbole is outrunning or outmaneuvering the reality here.


Koopernic said:
Note the rotating gun blisters, also used on the He 111 nose etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah...clumsy and awkward to use, as ably demonstrated by the "gunners" in this clip. What designer thought it would be a good thing to demand a gunner use one hand to spin the blister while trying to aim and shoot the gun with the other? Hardly the most stable gunnery platform!
 
I believe the performance of Hurricanes was improved a lot after France with fuel and prop. changes.
 
Certainly with prop changes - many Mk1 Hurricanes in France, at least in the early days of the war, still had the two-blade prop. This was replaced initially by the DH prop, and then the Rotol CS prop. Also, by the BoB, the majority of Hurricanes had the metal-skinned wing, although there were still some early, fabric-skinned examples around. Haven't got the figures to hand, but the metal wings also improved performance, if even just marginally.
 

Couldn't agree more, watching the video it seems whoever took the footage thought that Rube Goldberg affair was the Beez Kneez. That's just dreadful.
 
It seems that with the cancellation of the Ural bomber program the design of manned turrets came to an abrupt halt and was replaced by the fancier remote barbettes intended for the Ju 288, Me 210 and He 177, a case of trying to run before learning to walk it seems...

I wonder if by persevering with the twin 20mm turret they would have managed to develop a belt feed for it earlier.
 
JAG88 said:
I wonder if by persevering with the twin 20mm turret they would have managed to develop a belt feed for it earlier.
Click to expand...

Germans have had a belt-fed 20 mm cannon in service from mid-1941 on - MG 151/20.

Perhaps a good idea would've been to develop the belt feed mechanism for the MG FF(M), like the Japanese managed for the Oerlikon FF and L. Complemented by earlier introduction of the 90 rd drum should much improve duration of fire, allowing easy installation on the Bf 109, while not paying too much of weight penalty.
 
On a sort of related topic, Hurricane pilots started fitting armour to their planes in France which resulted in tests about its CoG. When did pilot armour become included in specifications? Was it in the original Mustang P51 spec?
 
What is this 100/130 fuel the British used I keep seeing in some posts?

Sure a change from the British hardly used 100 fuel during the BoB by a couple of ex members here.
 
Shortround6 said:
While what you say is true it is also true that the engines (jumo 210, perhaps the 211 and certainly the DB 600 series) were all designed to have a gun firing through the prop hub from the start. Gun development faltered. Badly.
Click to expand...

Yep, hence my statement saying the Emil was designed for it. The V 3 prototype was sent to Spain with the centre gun, but the gun refused to play ball. Talk of C or D model '109s fitted with the gun are also rubbish.

Shortround6 said:
This is harder to predict as in the late 30s and 1940 the Germans had everybody building everybody else's designs.
Click to expand...

Whilst you're right, SR, something has to give; the Germans are not going to magic a production line out of thin air, so something is not going to be built and I'm thinking the '190 since it took priority at Fw. If the '187 was put into production, then it can be assumed that it too, would take priority. Resources that were devoted to getting the Fw 190 into production - remember it suffered severe overheating, would have been devoted to the Fw 187, so again, something has to give and something is not going to be worked on as extensively as it traditionally was; likely the Fw 190.
 

Yeah, that is what I was talking about, they designed a turret with two MG FFs for the Do 19 in 1936 IIRC, couldnt make it work, and dropped it along with the bomber. They did develop a belt feed fro the MG FF eventually and used it on a few nightfighters, but by then the MG151/20 had covered the spot for such a gun.

So, it was more of a what if they did it earlier actually, when it could have had an impact.

A Bf 109 with 3xMG FFs doesnt seem too far fetched...
 
But but but the Bf109 eventual had 2 MG151/15s, or was it /20s, mounted in the cowling and a Mk103 center mounted. Yes one can read that some places.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

FW-190 and The Battle of Britain
2 3
Replies
40
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
S
Battle of Britain:
Replies
15
Views
1K
fubar57
M
USAAF aircraft lost through transport sinkings during Battle of the Atlantic?
Replies
2
Views
375
fubar57
M
Why Didn't The RAF use Beaufighters Instead of Typhoons In The ETO
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
MIflyer
M
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
619
CHen10
Menu
Log in
Register