improving the 109??

[pbehn]

Seriously?

This thread swings wildly between extremely informative and complete nonsense.

 

[pbehn]

Quite right and if they wanted the British aircraft to be world-beaters, they should have stuck a big white star on the side...this would have shown a marked increase in performance!!

Do you have any sources for that? All the literature I have read says that white stars increase range but no other aspects of performance.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Vision is so much more important than miniscule increases in drag. Furthermore, the 109 was already one of the fastest "practical" speed planes in service. Remember that the top speed is almost totally irrelevant! Most planes can not get to it on engine power alone as the maximum power is limited to 5 minutes or less. It often takes that long, or more to go from "Max Continuous" to top speed and so the plane was dived to gain speed and then leveled out for the measurement.
In combat, Max Power was mostly used to maintain a greatly reduced from top speed, speed during maneuvers. Start at 320 MPH, see a target, or attacker and open the throttle, with all that it pertains, and yank the stick. Such violent maneuvers used up speed at a prodigious rate and the only way to maintain speed even at full throttle was to trade altitude for speed. All dog fights descended to Ground Level and CFIT was a very real worry. A WW-II Fighter plane's top speed while pulling four G was about, or less than 300 MPH. At 6 Gs, it was about 245 MPH! So what happened to all that wonderful 450 MPH of top speed? It was eaten up by induced drag. Planes like the later Spitfire Mk-IX and P-47 with their elliptical wings and big engine power, the Mustang with it's superior aerodynamics and the twin engined P-38 were SLIGHTLY better, but not much!
That is why top aces did not "Dog Fight" at all! They saw a target, attacked it and left to fight again another day. All other strategies were less effective in the long run and should be avoided at all cost. Thus ALL planes built to maneuver were on the wrong side of the equation and planes built for speed were on the right side of the problem. Back then it was absolutely impossible to have your cake and eat it too. The ONLY plane of the time that was even half way successful at trying to bridge that gap was the P-51, but it was, in the last word, a failure. It's K/L Ratio was not much better than most of the rest of the planes of WW-II! Only the Me-109 was the best fighter plane of WW-II and then by such a huge margin that second and third places went to different models of that plane before a single other plane shows up on the list!

 

[GrauGeist]

Do you have any sources for that? All the literature I have read says that white stars increase range but no other aspects of performance.

Well, I thought that was common knowledge...plus the fact that metric hardware caused much more drag than standard hardware - which is probably the reason for the difference in range

 

[Ascent]

Unfortunately what we are seeing here is a prime example of the "Agenda".

With the"Agenda" the conclusion is reached before the discussion begins and any facts that fail to support that conclusion should be ignored or rubbished and any facts that support it emphasised.

Should the facts not fully support your conclusion then creative interpretation is encouraged and misdirection through the use of irrelevant but important sounding data.

 

[Milosh]

It Is A Waste Of Time Debating This Knucklehead..

Shooter/NeoCon is a troll and he is catching a lot of suckers.

 

[stona]

More wing area means more drag and a lower speed. This was compensated by much more power.

Far too simplistic. I touched on this in earlier posts.
I will give a rather simple reply. The 'small wing is best' theory doesn't work in all scenarios. We should consider the small, square tapered wing of the Bf 109 and the double ellipse wing of the Spitfire in terms of lift quality and lift induced drag. The Bf 109 wing does have less size and therefore less cross sectional drag area, but it does not have the more efficient, lower induced drag and longer lifting properties of the Spitfire wing. The Bf 109 wing has to resort to leading edge slats to remain in the air under certain conditions and has higher induced drag, higher wing loading and a more turbulent boundary layer. The area to lift efficiency ratio (on which I think your argument is based, though you might not know it) is not THE defining factor.
Small wing theorists would have to explain why the Spitfire I was 26 Km/h faster than the Bf 109 E at 20,000ft. It's because the Spitfire had less drag of all types, induced and parasitic or profile related.
Cheers
Steve

 

[stona]

Shooter/NeoCon is a troll and he is catching a lot of suckers.

Maybe, but he is making some of us, me included, post some genuine information which others may find useful, interesting or helpful
I actually don't mind!
Cheers
Steve

 

[pbehn]

Far too simplistic. I touched on this in earlier posts.
I will give a rather simple reply. The 'small wing is best' theory doesn't work in all scenarios. We should consider the small, square tapered wing of the Bf 109 and the double ellipse wing of the Spitfire in terms of lift quality and lift induced drag. The Bf 109 wing does have less size and therefore less cross sectional drag area, but it does not have the more efficient, lower induced drag and longer lifting properties of the Spitfire wing. The Bf 109 wing has to resort to leading edge slats to remain in the air under certain conditions and has higher induced drag, higher wing loading and a more turbulent boundary layer. The area to lift efficiency ratio (on which I think your argument is based, though you might not know it) is not THE defining factor.
Small wing theorists would have to explain why the Spitfire I was 26 Km/h faster than the Bf 109 E at 20,000ft. It's because the Spitfire had less drag of all types, induced and parasitic or profile related.
Cheers
Steve

Good post but you ignore the effect of black crosses.

 

[The Kohler]

It had black crosses on the wing, Karl...

This gave the aircraft an instant increase in performance, just as the RAF roundels imposed a decrease in performance on any aircraft they were applied to

too funny!

Actually to make a real world beater out of a German or French airplane, you have to paint a white cross on it. And red/white stripes will beat anything.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Maybe, but he is making some of us, me included, post some genuine information which others may find useful, interesting or helpful
I actually don't mind!
Cheers
Steve

Agreed! My understanding of FC in the BoB was laughable at best, I've learned much from this thread, both about the BoB and the P-40. Thanks guys.

 

[Peter Gunn]

This thread swings wildly between extremely informative and complete nonsense.

Amen.

 

[Shortround6]

Never claimed to be an EXPERT! I just repeated things I saw on the internet, or much more importantly did myself. Some of the confusion comes from the use of WW-II ammo, specifically the M-8, IIRC, which is better than the ammo listed in most books, or from Wiki below;

I don't need a wiki quote on the history of the .50 cal. You had stated an armor penetration you had achieved using a "ball" lead cored bullet.
There were NO lead cored "Ball" military bullets, at least until recently when they may possibly be adapting commercial bullets for military use for sniper rounds.

But since you like wiki lets see what it has to say about the M-60.
" However, to achieve the maximum effective range, it is recommended that a bipod-steadied position or a tripod-mounted position be used and fired in bursts of 3–5 rounds."
"The M60 is often used with its own integrated bipod or with the M122 tripod. The M60 is considered effective up to 1,100 meters when firing at an area target and mounted on a tripod; up to 800 meters when firing at an area target using the integral bipod; up to 600 meters when firing at a point target; and up to 200 meters when firing at a moving point target. United States Marine Corpsdoctrine holds that the M60 and other weapons in its class are capable of suppressive fire on area targets out to 1,500 meters if the gunner is sufficiently skilled."

And just so we are perfectly clear here is photo of an M60 on a tripod.

Gun is supported at two points and the rear support can be locked in place for elevation and traverse. Effective range from a pintle mount is going to be much less.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
Small wing theorists would have to explain why the Spitfire I was 26 Km/h faster than the Bf 109 E at 20,000ft. It's because the Spitfire had less drag of all types, induced and parasitic or profile related.
Cheers
Steve

Wing is a very important variable, but not the only one. Wing of the Spitfire was with smaller thickess-to-chord ratio, that means a lot for reducing the wing-related drag. The Merlin III gave more power above 15000 ft than DB 601A, when both engines were operating on 87 oct fuel. Bf 109E was a quick & dirty installation of the DB 601A on the airframe previously powered by a smaller & less powerful engine, the nose ending up angular & draggy because of that, and two underslung radiators didn't helped with streamlining. Struts supporting the empenage also don't help, nor did the ram air intake now sticking out to the side.

Germans were very much aware of the shortcomings, hence the major clean-up with 109F series - streamlined nose, shallower radiators, no struts, retractable tailwheel. One cannon less also helped with streamlining. Coupled with better engines it allowed either same speed as the Spit V despite the power deficit, or more speed with same power.

We can also note that Re.2005 and G.55 were not as fast as MC.205, on same engine power, the MC.205 sporting far smaller wing.

 

[The Kohler]

Okay, here are the facts about the Swiss Gustafs. As you might know the Swiss Air Force purchased 10 Bf-109 D1 and some 90 Bf-109 E3a in 1939 and early 1940.



In April 1944 a Bf-110 G-4, C9+EN, was forced to land at the Duebendorf airdrome. This Bf-110 was equipped with a SN-2 Lichtestein radar and the Germans feared that this equipment will fall into the hands of UK/USA. Germany demanded that Switzerland shall destroy this plane which was done in May 1944. During this affair, Switzerland was given the right to buy 12 Bf-109 G-6 for a price of CHF 500,000 per piece. They were delivered by late May 1944. Unlike the D-1 and E-3a types, the G-6 weren't customized. These planes came straight from the assembly lines in Regensburg.



The Swiss Air Force rated the Gustav as a very superior airplane compared to the Emils and the D-3801. However, they had a lot of troubles with the DB605 engines. Most of these issues can be explained by very poor assembly quality and some acts of sabotage during the production run. A lot of the German industry was using slave labors either from the KZs or through forced labor from occupied countries. This type of worker force doesn't deliver the highest quality standard. Hence, one can assume the engine quality was more or less what the German Luftwaffe got in 1944. These 12 DB605 were produced by three different companies and weren't specially marked for Switzerland, therefore I would suggest to exclude the idea that Germany sabotaged these engines. See also attached excel sheet for detailed information. All Swiss Messerschmitts were replaced by P-51D and retired in 1947 till 1949.



My source on Swiss Messerschmitts comes from Georg Hoch's book "Messerschmitt Me 109 in Swiss Air Force Service".



Please let me know if you have any questions or remarks. Thanks and greetings from Texas!

 

[Ascent]

I must admit this thread has been very informative. Some stuff I knew, some stuff I was vaguely aware of and a lot of stuff I'm learning.

Certainly didn't realise that the 109 had such a cramped cockpit. Knew visibility wasn't great but not to what extent.

 

[GregP]

Most of us seem to realize the Bf 019 could have been improved somewhat from the standpoint of pilot visibility and some extra performance and/or safety enhancements. I'm pretty sure that if we applied this to any British, American, or Soviet planes designed in the mid 1930's, we could do the same.

To pick two, the Bf 109K was a far cry from the early Bf 109E, much as a Spitfire XIV or 21 was from a Spitfire I. I'm a bit amazed that both German and British designers came up with similar-performance airframes at nearly the same time using different engine / prop combinations. For most the service life of both the Spitfire and the Bf 109, they were fairly close to one another on overall performance and frequently swapped position on the performance scale. That says a lot for the real-world choices that were made and the ability of both to be improved.

Technically, at the end of the war, a late model Bf 109 or Spitfire was a still one of the more dangerous enemies you could run across if it was competently flown.

 

[GrapeJam]

Every suggestion so far seem to be all about improving performance without touching the 109's biggest weakness in the late war period where high speed combat was the normal : extremely heavy stick force at high speed, the 109 wasn't lacking in performance compared to it's opponents, what it lacked was (practical) maneuverability. It was the primary reason why the 190 was preferred over the 109, the 190 was more maneuverable that the 109 at combat speed.

 

[GregP]

That could have been addressed as well. The fact that it wasn't has always baffled me, along with lack of at least rudder trim.

It certainly wasn't beyond the Germans. It's just that either Willy Mersserschmitt didn't address it or was not allowed to address it, one or the other, and I'n not too sure which was the case. In the case of the U.S.A., the Hellcat had a slow rate of roll that could easily have been addressed, but Grumman was not allowed to make any change that would impact the production levels. It could be that Germany was working under much greater pressure due to bombing and needed every fighter they could get, so it just wasn't allowed. It could also be that Willy felt the 109 was a completed project and didn't bother with improving it ... I don't know which.

 

[wuzak]

Then you must know that shooting at a steep down angle increases range tremendously! Also, artistic license about the "Gulf of Tonkin" is not be a problem for me. I do not know where exactly it stops and do not care. I flew weekly missions from Phu Bai to Danang, 3+ miles out to sea, and was allowed to shoot up the ammo for the trip down on the way back. That way I got to have fun and the other gunner could practice. It was a LOCH, or Md-500? in civilian terms? Light Observation Combat Helicopter, and we sat on the floor with out feet on the rail and a cargo strap under our arm pits. I have pictures if I can find them out of the thousands I took during my 13 years of active duty.

Having given some place names I had to check since I have no clue of the geography of the Vietnam war..

Phu Bai is north of De Nang. Is that right - US bases north of enemy strong holds?

Phu Bai is also South of teh Gulf of Tonkin. By some way.

And why would you have to fly over water at all on that journey?

And why the f... were you shooting at sharks? Weer you scared they were going to jump right out of the water and eat you?