Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Where does this nose-wheel go? There's no room for it in the cowl, and it would have to extend in length from thefront of the cowl back to the firewall. Not to mention the additional weight associated with it. You'd need to move the wing further aft to maintain CG (which doesn't appear to have been donewith this hypothetical a/c)Yes, I agree! But once again, I did not start the P-40 argument, but certainly did contribute to it. So did others. I have a valid point to make about how to improve the Me-109. See;
Me-109 images - Google Search
Now this image has several GREAT ideas and several not so good parts. In detail; The engine model should be changed from that shown to some clone of the DB-624 Turbocharged type, based on the DB-601 block bore and stroke at least as long as you are going to change the nose gear case for CR Props. The CR Props are the single biggest improvement in the entire plane and make the most effective change possible! Eliminate the side engine air scoop and Siamese it with the one underneath the engine which is moved much farther back to clear the nose wheel? Change the under wing coolant radiators to leading edge types and move the main gear behind the spar and convert to inward retracting types. Note the absence of cowl mounted guns and install a larger, scaled up Motor Kannon based on the MK-151-20 with both a much more pointed shell and a larger powder charge for a MV of 1050 M/S at 1,200 Rounds per minute! Lead the ammo train out into the inner wing if required to store at least 200 rounds, but not much more.
Then comes the new canopy and wind shield. Raise the pilot's position to give at least 7 degrees view down over the nose CL and then fair the bubble canopy into the turtle deck neatly! Lastly, install trim tabs on all the moving surfaces.
These changes would have made the Me-109 into a revolutionary combat plane, far and away better than anything that actually flew in WW-II
Reproductions, sale, or disclosure of the contents in any form and in any media (especially in electronic and printed) are prohibited.
Willy Messerschmitt must be turning in his grave. "Where does the nose wheel go?", it goes where Willy designed it to go, under the centre section. As for all the other suggested modifications of the BF109, Willy called it the Me 309, been there done that.
It doesn't matter how many pages of argument or discussion people dream up, the aircraft is what it was and will never be changed. That goes for all the aircraft of WW2. Remember it was time of war, a time of massive transition from rag wing to metal, from 100hp to 2000hp motors, machine guns to cannons. As for production, the US will always have the largest production figures (except for the IL2 production), but it must be remembered that their factories were not being bombed regularly, didn't have forced labour or unskilled labour. The US also converted their auto production facilities for aircraft production. Doesn't matter which way you cut it, its comparing apples to oranges and you can never get a sensible conclusion. Finally, the aircraft were designed by slide rule and hand drawings, all time consuming, not computer generated as today, turn your minds back 80 years.
I am working on the graphic of the "top secret" spitfire powered by 2 Rolls Royce Spey jet engines which would have changed the war if not for political in fighting in the MoD.That blue contraption is a tail dragger.
Only the Me309 (and proposed Bf109TL & Me509) had nose gear.
How about if you stay on topic?How about if I fly along on a helicopter at 5000' and hose sharks basking in the Gulf of Tonkin with an M-60?
A LW aircraft attacking a US bomber formation faced 1000 x 0.5 cal MGs and they suffered about 10% losses when no escorts were present.How about if I fly along on a helicopter at 5000' and hose sharks basking in the Gulf of Tonkin with an M-60?
The rest of your post wasn't even relevant to the Spitfire which was a match for the 109 throughout the war. In the key battles where the Spitfire and 109 were adversaries the BoB and Malta the RAF prevailed.But none of this is relevant to the Me-109 which was demonstrably the most effective fighter plane of the war.
I think that was because the RAF had a total failure of the thought processes when it came to fighter attributes. They hated the Full spec American version of the P-38 because it was to slow in the roll. But never mind that the Spit was slower than snails compared to the Nazi planes. The Spit was a modern incantation of the very best WW-I plane they could make. It turned WO burning a lot of energy, but was not very fast for the power and had a relatively low SEP and the single worst gun platform in the entire war. But the plane they had with four 20s was also a turd designed, IIRC for very high altitude?
But none of this is relevant to the Me-109 which was demonstrably the most effective fighter plane of the war.
The Spit was a modern incantation of the very best WW-I plane they could make.
Another great myth. The British (and French) ordered (or explored) P-38 variants not only without turbochargers but with the same long nose engines used in the early P-40s instead of the Spur gear engines used in the the early P-38s. They did this in the interest of simplifying the spare engine/spare parts situation. Allison Factory was over 3000 miles away. it also meant the engines both rotated the same direction.The RAF refused their initial order for the P38 because the US wouldn't allow the aircraft to be exported with their secret 'turbocharger'. The aircraft were useless at altitude and relegated to training in the US as P322. When the P38 did arrive in the theatre with turbocharger, they were not that much better. Again comparing apples to oranges and facts of no relevance.
It is an allegory based on the planes attributes being biased just like a WW-I plane! Turn performance before speed. The ability of RCMGs to kill the unarmored pilot. Flimsy construction to save weight over strength of the air frame. Narrow track landing gear to save weight at a horrendous accident rate that supposedly destroyed more planes than the enemy? Single Spar wing to save weight which let the wing twist on application of Aileron. Short range over Combat Persistence, etc...
How many things do I have to list?
Then Compare it to the Me-109 and all the attributes the RAF likes are absent from the -109, but the 109 was unquestionably the most efficient killing machine of the war! The second and third closest place killers were different models of the Me-109 and fourth was not even a fighter plane at all, but the B-17!!! ( The B-24 was fifth!)
You have to go a long way down the list to find the Spitfire and it was the second, or very close third in numbers produced! More or less tied with the Fw-190 at about 20,000 made...
So, adjusted kills about 4200, or 4400, I can not remember, for 20,000 made and how many lost in combat, or to all causes? Right!
Long live the Me-109!
The Germans were the ONLY ones to have figured it out and the best plane of the war, which could have been the most magnificent winner of all had it had the correct tactics from the start was an accident! But America had it's collective head up it's rectum and failed to learn the lessons of WW-I and ignored the rust to war, so did not spend the money to have the world beater from the get go. They were as far as I know, the only National Air Force to recognize that the stronger plane would need bigger guns and do the testing to find out what worked. But even then, we listened to England, France and the rest of Europe and then ignored our own knowledge! Boy did we screw the pooch!
Gentlemen, it might well be that, in aeronautical engineering terms, the Spitfire wing was referred to as a "single-spar design," but, in purely physical terms, it also contained two spars. The mainspar attached to frame 5, with 7 bolts, while the rear spar used a single bolt; however, before somebody says that it did nothing, at the end of the war, Park, in the Far East, was told not to use certain Mk.VIII XIVs, because their rear spar attachment points were faulty, and the wings could fail during heavy manoeuvring.
Drawings 30008 sheets 2509, 2425, 2427, 2428 show the construction, and assembly of the component parts of the "rear spar," which was attached to the wingribs, wingtip, and fuselage frame 10. These drawings, and their annotations, must have come from Shenstone and Mitchell.
There are general assembly drawings, which refer to a rear spar, and drawing 30027 sheet 12, for frame 10, also shows "rear spar attachment points," so all this argument would seem rather pointless.
It is an allegory based on the planes attributes being biased just like a WW-I plane! Turn performance before speed. The ability of RCMGs to kill the unarmored pilot. Flimsy construction to save weight over strength of the air frame. Narrow track landing gear to save weight at a horrendous accident rate that supposedly destroyed more planes than the enemy? Single Spar wing to save weight which let the wing twist on application of Aileron. Short range over Combat Persistence, etc...
How many things do I have to list?
Yes, I agree! But once again, I did not start the P-40 argument, but certainly did contribute to it. So did others. I have a valid point to make about how to improve the Me-109. See;
Me-109 images - Google Search
Now this image has several GREAT ideas and several not so good parts. In detail; The engine model should be changed from that shown to some clone of the DB-624 Turbocharged type, based on the DB-601 block bore and stroke at least as long as you are going to change the nose gear case for CR Props. The CR Props are the single biggest improvement in the entire plane and make the most effective change possible! Eliminate the side engine air scoop and Siamese it with the one underneath the engine which is moved much farther back to clear the nose wheel? Change the under wing coolant radiators to leading edge types and move the main gear behind the spar and convert to inward retracting types. Note the absence of cowl mounted guns and install a larger, scaled up Motor Kannon based on the MK-151-20 with both a much more pointed shell and a larger powder charge for a MV of 1050 M/S at 1,200 Rounds per minute! Lead the ammo train out into the inner wing if required to store at least 200 rounds, but not much more.
Then comes the new canopy and wind shield. Raise the pilot's position to give at least 7 degrees view down over the nose CL and then fair the bubble canopy into the turtle deck neatly! Lastly, install trim tabs on all the moving surfaces.
These changes would have made the Me-109 into a revolutionary combat plane, far and away better than anything that actually flew in WW-II