Me-309: how good was it?

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

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
14,503
4,754
Apr 3, 2008
Seems the data about the Me-309, German prototype fighter design, is a conflicting one - eg. 1st it's noted that speed was way above 700 km/h, then it was claimed the performance (once armament is installed?) is lower than contemporary German prop-driven fighters.

So how good was it? Is there a definite resource about the plane? Was it a missed opportunity for the LW/RLM not to produce it use?
 
One of the mystery aircraft of WW2. Not much solid data from primary sources seems to be available. I guess all we can say is that it didn't really impress anyone at the time.
 
4 real prototypes built but many features tested on bf 109 airframes. It seems a case of trying to stuff a quart (liter) into a pint (500ml) pot.

A lot of changes to radiator and tail planes, Wing was almost the same size as a Bf 109 but a pressure cabin, nose wheel, about the double the internal fuel of the 109 and, on the last prototype four 13mm mg 131s, two 20mm mg 151s and two 30mm MK 108s measn the take off weight was roughly 50% more than a 109 using the same engine. Poor performance is not hard to predict. Better aerodynamics will only get you so far.
 
It wasn't very good at all which is why it was binned in late 1942.
The project went the same way as V-1s nose wheel!



Cheers

Steve
 
What I read its speed advantage compared with the Me 109 was not that much to warrant production. The Me 309 was less manoeuverable (at what speed?). It could not do what a Fw 190D couldn't. And the Dora did not need completely new rigs and tools for mass production.
It used the DB 603 instead of DB 605.
 
And the very good performance without armament may have been flown with the DB 603G, an engine that was not accepted for serial production.
 
To make matters worse RLM cancelled funds for testing and development a year after the first prototype.

How many WWII era aircraft were production ready after only 4 prototypes and a year of testing? Not many I can think of. So we will never know for sure how a production model Me-309 would perform.

If looks mattered Me-309 would have been a world beater. But they don't.
 
The P-51 went into production from one prototype, the F4U also. The P-38 went into limited production from 1 prototype, the Zero went into limited production from 3 prototypes.
The list goes on, evidently everybody could do it except Messerschmitt. Of course after the Me210 debacle Messerschmitt knew he'd better not release anymore duds for production.
 
Not strictly correct Tyro.

The P-38 may have had only the one XP-38, but there were several "pro-production" prototype YP-38s, which were significantly different to the XP-38.
 
Messerschmitt was also able to do Bf-109 110 rather smooth from prototype to mass production.
 
Mustang Mk.1 went into mass production after 1 prototype. It wasn't exactly a world beater. About 1,500 Mustang variants were produced prior to P-51B, which is generally considered the first really good Mustang.

P-38E is generally considered the first combat capable variant. 80 P-38s were produced prior to P-38E.

The list goes on.....
 
One big difference, the P-51, P-38, etc. all showed enough promise to be developed into a successful series of aircraft.
The Me309 evidently, didn't show enough promise.
Or is this going to be explained away as another one of those inexplicable decisions made by the 3rd Reichs air ministry?
 
Last edited:
The 309 offered nothing new and so was not followed.

He 100? Hee hee. But the Me 309 I like the canopy and trike undercarriage but war is no time to play with new fighters. The 109 was adequate and jets were the money so lets go there instead.
 

Yes it does.........but........How many of the first few hundred Bf 109s would have judged "combat capable" in 1941?? Or even a "E-1" with four machine-guns and no armor or protected tanks?

Those NOT "really good Mustang"s saw extensive combat in three theaters. While not "world beaters" they seemed to stand up to FW 190s at low level pretty well, Guess that means the Fw 190 wasn't a world beater? They were not phased out until about 1 to 1 1/2 years after they left the factory and the British were still flying 2 squadrons of them at VE day. Well over two years after they were built. I guess they weren't very good.

The German system of ordering several prototypes was better because it avoided lost time if something happened to a single prototype. But claiming fully combat capable aircraft that were delivered to fighting squadrons were prototypes or development aircraft for later models is not being honest.
 
I think that hits close to the truth.

Erich Hartmann shot down 158 enemy aircraft during 1943. How can anyone suggest his inexpensive Me-109G needed to be replaced with a Me-309?
 
HIS inexpensive Me-109G doesn't need to be replaced.

However, Sgt. Schmidt, killed on 2nd operational flight might have survived with a better plane, likewise Sgt. Klaus and Sgt. fill in the blank________ and the hundreds of other new pilots lost in their first few weeks or months of operations.

Picking your best 2 or 3 pilots and saying that NOBODY needs a better plane because they are doing so well is a sure way to fall behind the development curve and lose the war.
 
From the details I've read the 309 offered nothing over the Gustav and was problematic as well.

The Fw 190D was better bet and an hour spent on the 309 was an hour lost on the 262.

The Germans made mistakes but cancelling the 309 was a sound move And even the best prop job was only marginal at best against the latest allied fighters.
 
davebender said:
How many WWII era aircraft were production ready after only 4 prototypes and a year of testing? Not many I can think of.
Click to expand...

Can I nominate the Spitfire.
One prototype (K5054) first flew March 1936. First production order issued for 300 aircraft at the end of July 1936 (28th?),backdated to 3rd June.
Of course the Spitfire will feature on most lists of "clunkers"
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

F
Just how good was the Mitsubishi F1M 'Pete'
Replies
12
Views
2K
cammerjeff
An early 'Me 209' instead of the Me 309?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
TM06
How good a plane was the P-40, really?
23 24 25
Replies
493
Views
39K
Think Tanker
How good was the soviet air force?
22 23 24
Replies
474
Views
37K
Thumpalumpacus
P-51D vs F/G vs H: how good was good enough/how good was actually great?
Replies
18
Views
2K
BarnOwlLover
Menu
Log in
Register