Me 209 - any worth in it?

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

OK we have possible location of a conventional, auxiliary oil cooler.

Now of course the oil seepage can not possibly be from the prop reduction gear case or prop pitch change mechanism can it.

If you are referring to the opening in the wing root on the port side inboard of the MG opening



That is the supercharger air intake.
 
I really wish there were more detailed photos of the later production series - well, for that matter, it would be awesome of Heinkel had not lost all their documentation in the bombing raids...

By the way, Schnautzer came across a photo of an He100 that had a yellow nose (much like the early war Bf109) that I have never heard of nor seen. See it here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/heinkel-he100d-1-a-43135.html#post1198913

This tends to make a point that the aircraft was truly an enigma...
 

Yes, that's the problem, we could say "maybe, ok, could be, not sure" but that was my overall point because blueskies (seemed to me at least) say it definitely that it was not. But what I was talking about was this (this is the same photo the author wrote the caption to):





Now to the broad overall question of would it have been good to produce the He 100? The author has this to say page on 45):

 
Last edited:

That's all very true, but the V4 (which the author compared on a table to the Bf 109 E on page 46) did have a retractable radiator.
 
Yes, V4 (WkNmr 1903) D-IRCN, had a retractable radiator, but it was smaller and still relied on the evaporative system. This airframe was the first to be test-fit for armament and was also one of the early series airframes that had the problematic under-carriage and small horizontal stabilizer.

It was one of the He100s sold to the Soviet Union, too.
 

All very true. I'm going to try to contact the author to see if any built He 100's had a full combat dress as I cannot find anywhere that any of them did nor did not.
 
The Germans didn't really have a problem replacing the Me 109 technically, they had a problem replacing the Me 109 production system which manufactured 34,000 Me 109, most in the latter half of the war.

They were so fussy about keeping up production the Me 109G was produced without retractable tail wheel and with gun bulges which both could have been 'fixed' for a gain of about 10mph of precious speed and therefore manoeuvring power.

One can maybe shut down the Me 109 production system in favour of a new type once: say either the Me 262 or the Me 209 but surely not both.

The other problem is that the engines they needed to replace the Me 109 were the Jumo 213 and DB603 and due to decisions made in the late 1930s they just weren't ready till late 1943 or even 1944. Between 1937 and 1940 the DB603 was effectively parked on a low priority development program. This would be equivalent to telling Pratt and Whitney to 'park' the R-2800 while the R-4360 and R-1830 twin wasp received priority. Imagine US aircraft without the R-2800. For the RAF it would be equal to parking the Griffon for longer or the Sabre.

The Germans couldn't move on a Me 109 replacement till the DB603 and Jumo 213 were ready: that sets the pace.

Consider the replacements:

Me 309: it offered vastly increased range, a laminar profile wing, advanced radiator, and a very powerful armament. With the DB603G engine it offered a very high speed of 462mph it had some things stacked against it, minor handling issues: a slight yaw instability (usually cured by a loner tail or more fin area) and supposedly it was less manoeuvrable than the Me 109. I suspect this was really a power to weight ratio issue that came out of shortages of the DB603 and substitution of the DB605 and place little value on claims of high wing loading (which makes a aircraft much faster). I doubt these were serious issues so on the basis that it flew in June 1942 and allowing it 9 months to debug handling and a further 9 months to get into service the Me 309 could be in squadron use by January 1944.

Too late to buildup production. The Germans might handle introduction of a few new types eg Me 262 but would need to be cautious.

Me 209-II: It offered a larger wing area, ability to handline the big DB603 engine thus providing the range and fire power the Me 109 lacked. It supposedly took advantage of the Me 109 parts bin but it wasn't apparently enough.
The aircraft was a little slow, due to incomplete debugging of the always sensitive radiator airframe integration issues and the Luftwaffe gave up on it before Messerschmitt could dedbug.

Heinkel He 100: too small, it should have been produced as a photo recon to maintain the Luftwaffe's ability to photograph Britain.

Heinkel He 112: likely to have 'grown' better than the Me 109 due to its more powerull armament of twin 20mm guns but still too small post 1942.

Italian Serie 5 fighters:

Maachi 205: Too small, lacking in fire power, can not handle the DB603 engine. Not worth considering.
Fiat G.55: excellent can handle the DB603 engine in the guise of the G.56 could handle the DB603 engine.
Reggiane 2005: excellent can handle the DB603 engine in the guise of the R 2006.

However the Italian fighters weren't perfect: they weren't a big improvements in range, they had lacklustre roll rate (probably could be fixed) nevertheless they had no vices and were in production by early 1943. Had Italian Fascist Republic survived they could have been introduced with the DB605A engine, progressed to the more powerfull DB605AM and ASM engine followed by a clean transfer of production to the DB603 versions.
These aircraft would have been better than A Griffon Spitfire, Tempest V or P-51H Mustang in most respects: as fast or faster and likely more manoeuvrable and destructive.

The Germans however had an alternative: The Fw 190 could be adapted to the DB603 engine and the Jumo 213 engine. Furthermore the Ta 152 could be built with a great deal of commonality to the Fw 190 allowing a smooth transition.

If we assume that DB603 engine development is not 'parked' we could get the following development schedule:

In early 1940, when the DB601A is producing 1050hp the DB605 might be producing 1600hp on the basis of power to weight ratio and swept volume.
In late 1941, when the DB601E is producing 1260hp on 1.3ata the DB603 might be producing 1900hp.
In early 1942, when the DB605A is producing 1350hp on 1.3ata the DB603 might be producing 1750hp but this is pessimistic as the DB603 is actually more mature than the DB605.

Historically the DB603A is in service mid 1943 on Me 410 and Dornier Do 217 but it is not regarded as debugged for 6 months (late 43 early 1944)
This is for service ready engines. It had been offered to the Luftwaffe as a 1575hp engine prewar. This changes Do 217 development and the development of a lot of aircraft.

The DB603 can be advanced by around 2-3 years and make a 1900hp Fw 190D8 available in qantity at the same time the Mustang is entering service and proably a 2200hp version with MW50 in early 1944.
 
Last edited:
SpicyJuan11 said:
All very true. I'm going to try to contact the author to see if any built He 100's had a full combat dress as I cannot find anywhere that any of them did nor did not.
Click to expand...
Of the D series, the three D-0 pre-production airframes were sold to Japan, the 12 production series, the D-1 were fully combat ready and were retained by Heinkel as "point protection" by being stationed at Heinkel's airfield at Rostock-Marienehe.

These 12 were also used extensively as propaganda and featured in various propaganda photos and "news" reports and either referred to as the He112U or the He113.
 
By the way, while this is a great discussion regarding the He100, I suppose Tomo would be alot happier if we got back in track with the Me209

And by the way, He100 related, the Me209 V4 did had evaporate cooling during it's testing. But that system, much like Heinkel's, did not provide sufficient cooling and was replaced with a conventional system...
 
Part of the problem with replacing the 109 once it was selected was the investment in tooling and training. For example out of 647 of the Jumo 210 powered aircraft (C and D) only 62 were made by Augsburg. 123 were made by Focke-Wulf, 168 by Erla, 80 by Fiesler, 128 by AGO and 144 by Arado. The mix changed for the E models with Messerschmitt adding the Regensberg factory and Focke-Wulf dropping out. Arado, Erla and Fiesler stayed in the production group and Wiener-Neustader Flugzeugwerke replaced AGO (?). I don't know how much of the D production tooling carried over to the E but obviously there was a crap load of production tooling in existence for the 109 even in 1938.
I haven't looked up F and G production but I am guessing it was similar (could be wrong) with many more plants/companies besides Messerschmitt tooled up for it. This could be a big reason for the 209-II trying to retain as much as possible of 109 structure and once the common parts had fallen below a certain point the project became unattractive.
 

Of course, I know about the D series but as Short has pointed out earlier, did they have armor, self-sealing tanks, etc.?

GrauGeist said:
By the way, while this is a great discussion regarding the He100, I suppose Tomo would be alot happier if we got back in track with the Me209
Click to expand...


Yeah I suppose so, should I start a He 100 thread?
 
SpicyJuan11 said:
Of course, I know about the D series but as Short has pointed out earlier, did they have armor, self-sealing tanks, etc.?
Click to expand...

The Winter between the Attack on Poland and the Attack on France is a general dividing line between protected planes and unprotected in northern Europe (I don't know when the Italians got it) There are obvious exceptions and it does vary with your definition of "protected", some planes getting a steel plate behind the pilot several years earlier. British fighters in France being refitted over the winter or in the Spring of 1940. Many if not most of the 109s that attacked Poland in Sept 1939 lacked protection so the likelihood of He 100s built in 1938 having the full "suite" of protection ( self-sealing tanks, back armor and bullet proof windscreen) are pretty slim.
 
Interesting, thanks for the info!


GrauGeist said:
There's already quite a few
Click to expand...

Ok, but let me ask this one question: What if the RLM doesn't manage to increase DB production more than they did historically, but instead is extremely impressed with the He 100 and gives it the priority for DB 601's and tells Messerschmitt to make the Jumo 211 work with the Bf 109? How would this Bf 109 perform, especially compared to its historical equivalent, the Bf 109 E?
 
*if* the RLM decided that the He100 was to be introduced into service, I seriously doubt they would have the current backbone of the Luftwaffe derailed for an engine that's producing much less horsepower and would require a redesign of the mounting and plumbing, costing production delays.

It would be more likely that the RLM would either lean on Daimler to up production or have additional production from another manufacturer.
 
Regarding the streaking on the underprop vent.

1. there are many things that can cause oil streaking like that. It is not proof of a conventional oil cooler.

2. We have photos of planes with the exact same vent, in both size and shape, and photos of these aircraft with the engine cowling open. It is clear that at least these A-0 series did not have a conventional radiator.

3. Looking at the open cowl pics it is evident that there is very little space for much of anything.

4. Where is the exit for this oil cooler?

From these points I think one can ask the following questions;

If the A-0s that did not have an oil cooler had this vent, then what purpose did it serve?

And if it did do something, as it must have, then wouldn't cramming a conventional oil cooler in there impair the original function of the vent?

And why wouldn't this vent be redesigned if it was having an oil cooler added? This same vent went through multiple revisions on the prototypes, so why not change it now?

And just how did they fit this in?

I think that on the whole, the most sensible estimation is the one that is most obvious: it is oil that could have been forced out of dozens of parts.

Until concrete evidence is shown, photo of the cooler installed on the plane, drawings of such an installation or documents from heinkel describing this. For now I view it as a lot of speculation over what amounts to very tepid evidence in a best case scenario.

SpicyJuan11 said:
All very true. I'm going to try to contact the author to see if any built He 100's had a full combat dress as I cannot find anywhere that any of them did nor did not.
Click to expand...

In He-100 Record Breaker?

There are photos of He-100s with streaking under the gun ports. There is a photo of a he-100 sitting in a hangar with the tripod mounted head armor visible.

There are also heinkel documents mentioning armament on test flights.


The V-4 was actually meant to be the pattern aircraft of sorts for the production series.

It possessed the following improvements;

Lighter stronger fuselage
New landing gear with the interchangable struts.
Wing condensers refined
Steam pipes in wings improved
Many minor modifications to the aircraft and assembly method
Retractable auxiliary radiator (meant for takeoff, taxi, climb and slow speed flight)
(4 gun wing development stopped with this machine)

There is one known potential photo of the V-4, which looks very much like an A-0(or D series if you will)

The Soviets purchased six He-100s - v1,v2, v4,v5,v6,v7

Those last three are the first A-0 block of production, which was upgraded mostly to block II standards by the time they were sent to the Soviets. A-0 block II being what you call the D-1 series.

This is known by Heikel records confirming delivery.


There were 19-20 A-0 series machines making a total of 24-25.

Six went to the USSR as described above, and three went to Japan.

The Japanese received at least one block II series, which is known because of Japanese documents showing tests of a He-100 with the block II style tail.
 

Yes I know about guns and ammunition being fitted, but I was referring to armor, self-sealing tanks, etc.

So what do you propose the vent is? Why did it continue to get larger (if you look on page 86 onwards, you'll see the V1 did not have it at all, the V8 did, and the A-0 block was even larger, it's hard to tell but the A-0 block II might've been even larger)?
 
Last edited:
a lot of planes needed a little "extra" cooling air around the engine or for accessories. Early BF 110s used the hole in the prop hub and tube for the "motor canon" has a duct for cooling air to the generator for example. The "motor guns" on the 109 and He 112 gave quite a bit of trouble do to over heating and various vents/cooling schemes were tried. Look at good Pictures of a Hawker Hurricane, Not only does the prop hub look like a rather 'sloppy' fit but there are a few bulges/scoops and holes (starter handle?) in the cowling. P-38s had little scoops to pick up air to be directed at the spark plugs, these are smaller and separate from the scoops used to cool the exhaust manifolds. AS has been said, the Bf 109 has a similar vent in the about the same position with oil cooler behind it. AS engine power went up they just made the oil cooler bigger not added extra ones.
 

What makes you think that the G.56 and R.2006 would be better than the Griffon Spits, Tempest V and P-51H. With DB 603 the G.56 was to reach a calculated speed of 685 kmh (not sure with or without MW50). That's as fast as the Fw 190D-9 without MW50 injection, with which the Dora achieved 704 kmh.
The Griffon Spitfires reached 714 kmh.
The G56 is not faster than the Tempest V which is at least as fast as the D-9 and all are are much slower than the final evolution of the Mustang which is the P-51H which does 784 kmh.
The G.56 most probably turns as good as the Griffon Spits and thus better than the other fighters (P-51H not sure as it was lighter than the D).
It does not match the D-9 in rate of roll, which is also an important part of manoeuverability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

An early 'Me 209' instead of the Me 309?
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
TM06
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Why was it?
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
yulzari
B
Roald Dahl RAF Logbook : anyone has it ?
Replies
4
Views
591
bobolex
B
Z
Large gun Me 109
2 3
Replies
47
Views
4K
Engineman
E
Menu
Log in
Register