improving the 109??

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

Look at the Bf109's original design, then look at the Spitfire's original design...and the Fw190 and the P-39 and all other warplanes that had their designs rooted in the late 1930's.

They were designed with elements of the world's fastest aircraft of the day:

Hughes H-1 - 1935
Messerschmitt Bf109 - 1935
Supermarine Spitfire - 1936
de Havilland T.K.4 - 1937
Folkerts SK-3 - -1937
Bell P-39 - 1938
Crosby CR4 - 1938
Messerschmitt Me209 - 1938
Bugatti Model 100 - 1939
Heinkel He100 - 1939
 
Because Wuzak it makes for a good faerie tale. It is a distance of ~40mi with Hue ~10 mi further.
 
Phu Bai (or Camp Hotchmuth) was south of Hue. It was in use from 1962 until overrun in 1975. It is now in use as Phu Bai International Airport. Going between them would be along water most of the way. If you went down there, I doubt you'd be allowed to join the Gulf of Tonkin Yacht Club since you'd be in the South China Sea or perhaps, technically in the East Vietnam Sea, depending on how you look at it. Either way, the choppers mostly stayed out to sea because it was more unlikely you'd get shot at a couple of miles out to sea as opposed to over the coast.

Everyone who shoots knows to shoot high or low if the angle down or up is very steep, but that's if you are standing still. If you are in a cruising LOACH, you'd have to shoot behind the target with a shoulder-fired rifle if it is within effective range to compensate for the forward velocity. At least it works that way shooting from a Huey at 100 mph and 500 feet high. Same in a Piper Cub at the same speed with a rifle. Not too much I'll grant, but the down angle only makes you shoot high if you are stationary or traveling very slowly. All it takes is maybe 4 - 5 shots to figure that out. After that, you'll at least be close on the first shot. I'm sure the guys in WWII / Korea L-4s and L-19s in Vietnam figured it out.

What service and outfit were you with in what timeframe?
 

Shooter8 claims " artistic license " on the location of that episode.
I think most of us are concluding that pretty much describes everything he posts.
 
Only a few late war 109s got aileron Flettner tabs. It was not a standard fitment.
 
pbehn said:
Not to disagree with anything in your post but the Me109 was designed around a circa 1000BHP engine as was the spitfire, many of the later issues they had reflect this.
Click to expand...

Pbehn,
You are correct on the HP changes during its lifespan. However I was talking about it's designed for mission. Air supiority, but not far from the flag pole. In 1935 it was vastly superior, while in 1945 not so much. Yes it more than doubled its HP so did its enemies. And those enemies made sure generally after a rather long commute.
Cheers,
Biff
 
James W. said:
Indeed, the XP-47K got a Typhoon bubble canopy transplant, & the razorbacks were history, (why did the P-38 miss out though?).
Click to expand...

I suspect that the size and shape of the P-38's crew nacelle precluded the sliding bubble canopy. And/or the framework around the canopy formed part of the structure.

But mostly, probably, because the view from the P-38 was deemed sufficient and the change in the production line would cause too much delay.
 
James W. said:
Indeed, the XP-47K got a Typhoon bubble canopy transplant, & the razorbacks were history, (why did the P-38 miss out though?).
Click to expand...
The P-38 didn't need a "bubble" canopy.

James W. said:
& oddly the radial engined Bf 109 prototype also got a similar canopy, as did the late FW 190s adopting the blown/bulged type..
Click to expand...
If you look at the Bf109V21 and the Bf109X, you'll notice extensive fuselage modifications to accommodate the radial engines. At this point, they could afford to introduce cockpit and canopy alterations.
However, the Erla canopy on the production airframes was a vast improvement and as has been stated earlier, a reworking of the Bf109's fuselage to accommodate a "bubble" canopy would have slowed production at a time that the Bf109 was desperately needed.

Also, note that the canopies on the Bf109V21 and Bf109X were not true "bubble" canopies, either:
Bf109V21


Bf109X


In regards to the Fw190 canopy, it offered a great degree of visibility over the Bf109 and some Allied fighters, but the side "bulges" introduced to the F series was to improve the forward view, since the Fw190F was designed for ground attack. Some of the A series, as well as some G series were fitted with this type as well, but it was not adopted as a full production feature except for the F-9. Even the Fw190D had the A-8 style canopy instead of the "bulged" canopy.
 
I know about the flettner tabs on the Hellcat, but the real fix was to eliminate dihedral entirely. They were not allowed to as it would have interrupted production. You COULD introduce minor changes, but anything that stopped the flow of aircraft was disallowed by the War Production Board. The thought was the planes were "good enough."

I was speculating the Germans may have been under similar pressures. Perhaps not. But, if not, then why weren't improvements made? Surely they were desired by the Luftwaffe pilots who KNEW their legs were tired on the rudder and stick forces were high. I can't believe Messerschmitt never heard of it.
 
You have to consider the amount of effort to modify an airframe for such a modification.
The P-47, for example, had it's fuselage modified to accept the Bubble canopy. The P-51 transitioned from the Malcom Hood to the Bubble canopy, at which point it's fuselage was modified to accept that change as well.

Herein lies the problem: The U.S. could afford to change it's production midstream, the Germans could not.

The Me262 had it's canopy designed from the start, but it wasn't in production until the war was well under way.

The Bf109 was desperately needed from 1941 onward and any halt in production was a setback to front line operations - in short, they were between a rock and a hard place.

Minor alterations, such as the Erla canopy was not a major problem, as the airframes were able to roll off the assembly line without delay.

If you look at the P-47 or P-51, you will see that the "razorback" instance on the frame has been altered, allowing for the bubble canopy to be utilized. Now this would apply to the Bf109 as well, requiring a change in the airframe's design which in turn would require testing and reassigning such things as the rear fuel tank, radio equipment, CoG issues and such. Germany simply could not afford such a delay in production for that to happen.
 
James W. said:
So, why do you think it took so long for even the 'Erla' canopy for the 109 to show up?
Click to expand...
The initial 'fix' was the armoured glass in the head armour. Having sat in a 109 (with no head armour fitted) I can't imagine how a pilot could turn enough to actually see through this. I don't believe that the Erla hood improved the view to the rear significantly, there is just too much stuff in the way. The 'Erla haube' certainly improved the more general view by removing a lot of metalwork, but compared to a genuine clear view canopy (as we Brits called them) it comes a distant second.
From the E to the G the view from the Bf 109 got progressively worse, not better! Ever heavier framing was the principle culprit. 'Galland panzer' and the 'Erla haube' were quick and easy improvements, requiring little or no alteration to the air frame, even if the improvement was not huge.
Cheers
Steve
 

James, that is my thinking on the 109 improvements, just enough to keep it viable but there's no point taking too much effort as it's going to be replaced by the next generation of aircraft.

Except it never was.
 
Many thousands of victories say otherwise with regards to the 50-cal. I've seen literally hundreds of victories on film where the fire was very quick after 50-cal hits. So although it COULD be that it wasn't universal, it was quite lethal in a LOT of cases.

I have shot a 105 mm recoiless rifle with a 50-cal spotting gun on several occasions. When the 50 hit a 55-gallon drum, it literally flew 20 feet or more, end over end. They were tracers, but the impact would not have been affected much as the drums were empty and had no gas fumes in them as evidenced by no explosions or flames.

When the 105 hit, they blew apart or vaporized, but we DID set the ground behind us on fire many times. It was a reminder to watch your backblast carefully. Pay attention to where the crew are standing ...

The entire 105 (105 & .50) pivots with the knobs and you pull one of the knobs to shoot the 50 and push to shoot the 105. It's easy to aim and hits where the .50 tracer hit.
 
Last edited:
The Galland panzer was supposed to allow better rear vision. I may have been a bit hard on the Erla hood. In conjunction with the Galland panzer it probably did allow a better rear view because there would be less metalwork in the way. I still rate it as a marginal improvement compared to a well designed clear view hood.
Cheers
Steve
 
The .50 cal round used in the spotting gun was a bit different than the normal .50

Since the idea, as Greg said, was to use the spotter round to show where the big shell was going to hit, it made since to use a round that matched the ballistics/trajectory of the big round.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the Germans resisted adding trimmers to the plane for two reasons.
1. being production. While changing the production line equipment/fixtures has been mentioned several times even after you design and build the tooling you still have to spend a number of man-hours building the parts and more importantly fitting and adjusting them. Don't you need some sort of cables/rods going to each trimmer from the cockpit?
2. is ease of flying. Without trimmers flying the plane is physically difficult, but mentally simple. With fewer things to adjust (little wheels/levers) there was less for the pilot to remember while flying. Perhaps a benefit to low time pilots? Just a thought (and the Arado Ar 96 does seem to have tabs on all control surfaces although I have no idea if they are ground adjusted or adjustable in flight.)
 
From the Vultee report on the fuselage of Bf 110, which used the same construction technique as the Bf 109.

"the fuselage structural design involves bands of aluminium alloy sheet about 19 inches wide [Bf 110] with the edges of each alternate band rolled over into a Z-section to form integral bulkhead rings. Bands adjacent to the formed sheets are simply flat sheets sprung into place, with the whole joined by flush riveting and joggled joints to form a structure free of internal bracing members....
These sections form half the fuselage and splice at top and bottom. The joggles are long enough to allow ample shop tolerances, and the space between skin and joggle ends is filled with a substance similar to glaziers putty."

It was a very clever construction technique, well adapted to mass production, admired by both British and American engineers who examined it (though the British raised questions about the overall strength of the structure and suggested means for strengthening it). Altering it in any significant way was not such a straightforward undertaking.

Cheers

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
10K
GregP
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Bf 109 everything
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
3K
special ed
S
J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
785
Jerrybandit67
J
Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
11
Views
819
Jabberwocky
J
Menu
Log in
Register