Messerschmitt 109 Improvements

[JuniorJarhead09]

My point exactly.

36,000 built but over 12,000 lost on take-off or landings? Hindisghts 20/20, who's gonna tell Willy, hey buddy this is what you'll be known for, 109's are great for vertical and stall fights, but you are gonna lose 1 in 3.

1. Landing Gear
2. Cockpit and everything to do with it. ask Kurt Tank for advice on that.
3, Bro, I'm tired of trimming the aircraft CONSTANTLY with rudder. it's alike a Gnat that won't go away and it's there subconsciously

let's invert the landing gear, like with the VL Pyorremyrsky,

 

[bada]

36,000 built but over 12,000 lost on take-off or landings? Hindisghts 20/20, who's gonna tell Willy, hey buddy this is what you'll be known for, 109's are great for vertical and stall fights, but you are gonna lose 1 in 3.

Urban Legend/ collective brainwashing.

official luftwaffe losses reports contradicts it.
For more info, check the Bama records and plot them manually into an sql DB:

Besondere Vorkommnisse - Flugzeugunfälle und Flugzeugabstürze 1934 - 1939

Bd.1 RL 6_112 - 17.Dez.1934 - 15.März.1935
Bd.2 RL 6_117 - 6.Okt.1937 - 5.Jan.1938
Bd.3 RL 6_119 - 13.Jan - 18.März.1938
Bd.4 RL 6_122 - 2.Mai - 15.Juni.1939
Bd.5 RL 6_121 - 15.Juni -14.Juli, 5&6.Okt.39

Tägliche Verlustmeldungen- Flugzeugunfälle bei Schulen und sonstigen Dienststellen

RL 2-III_769 Bd. 1 - 28.Aug.40 - 31.Jan.41
RL 2-III_770 Bd. 2 - 01.Feb - 30.Jun.41
RL 2-III_784 Bd.4 - 01.Okt.43 - 29.Feb.44

Tägliche Verlustmeldungen.- Flugzeugunfälle und Verluste bei allen Verbänden

RL 2-III_184 Bd. 1 - 1.Sept.39 - 2.März.40
RL 2-III_752 Bd. 1 - 31.Aug - 31.Dez.40
RL 2-III_753 Bd. 2 - 1.Jan - 30.Mai.41
RL 2-III_754 Bd. 3 - 3.Jun - 31.Juli.41
RL 2-III_755 Bd. 4 - 1.Aug - 15.Okt.41
RL 2-III_756 Bd. 5 - 16.Okt.41 - 15.Jan.42
RL 2-III_757 Bd. 6 - 16.Jan - 18.Febr.42
RL 2-III_758 Bd. 7 - 19.Febr - 20.Mar.42
RL 2-III_759 Bd. 8 - 21.Marz - 17.Apr.42
RL 2-III_760 Bd. 9 - 18.Apr - 15.Mai.42
RL 2-III_761 Bd. 10 - 16.Mai - 10.Jul.42
RL 2-III_762 Bd. 11 - 11.Jul - 31.Aug.42
RL 2-III_763 Bd. 12 - 01.Sep - 14.Okt.42
RL 2-III_764 Bd. 13 - 15.Okt - 15.Dez.42
RL 2-III_765 Bd. 14 - 16 - 31.Dez.42
RL 2-III_1173 Bd. 2 - 3.März - 2.Juni.40
RL 2-III_1174 Bd. 3 - 3.Jun - 2.Sept.40
RL 2-III_1175 Bd. 4 - 3.Sept.40 - 2.Jan.41
RL 2-III_1176 Bd. 5 - 3.Jan. - 29.Mai.41
RL 2-III_1177 Bd. 6 - 30.Mai - 2.Aug.41
RL 2-III_1178 Bd. 7 - 3.Aug - 2.Nov.41
RL 2-III_1179 Bd. 8 - 3.Nov.41 - 2.Febr.42
RL 2-III_1180 Bd. 9 - 3.Febr - 2.Mai.42
RL 2-III_1181 Bd. 10 - 3.Mai - 2.Juli.42
RL 2-III_1182 Bd. 11 - 3.Juli - 2.Sept.42
RL 2-III_1183 Bd. 12 - 3.Sept - 2.Nov.42
RL 2-III_1184 Bd. 13 - 3.Nov.42 - 2.Jan.43
RL 2-III_1185 Bd. 14 - 3.Jan - 2.Febr.43
RL 2-III_1186 Bd. 15 - 3.Febr - 2.Mar.43
RL 2-III_1187 Bd. 16 - 3.März - 2.Apr.43
RL 2-III_1188 Bd. 17 - 3.Apr.-2.Mai 1943
RL 2-III_1189 Bd. 18 - 3.Mai - 2.Jun.43
RL 2-III_1190 Bd. 19 - 3.Jun - 2.Jul.43
RL 2-III_1191 Bd. 20 - 3.Jul - 2.Aug.43
RL 2-III_1192 Bd. 21 - 3.Aug - 2.Sep.43
RL 2-III_1193 Bd. 22 - 3.Sep - 2.Okt.43
RL 2-III_1194 Bd. 23 - 3.Okt - 2.Nov.43
RL 2-III_1195 Bd. 24 - 3.Nov- 2.Dez.43
RL 2-III_1196 Bd. 25 - 3.Dez.43 - 2.Jan.44

Tägliche Verlustmeldungen.- Flugzeugunfälle und Verluste bei den fliegenden Verbänden

RL 2-III_766 Bd.1 28,29..Jan-1-15.Feb.45
RL 2-III_767 Bd.2 16-28. Feb.45
RL 2-III_1199 Bd.4 16.März - 1.Apr.45

Or get "

Losses of the Deutsche Luftwaffe: Messerschmitt Bf 109 Vol 1

" by Michael Balss on Amazon.

 

[pinehilljoe]

From 1976 July Airpower Magazine, article by Leonard Kit Carson:
Object: to make the Me-109 a 400
mph plus airplane. Time ... 30 days. The
information and techniques required are
currently available as of 1940. It's all written
up in unclassified reports.
(1) Cancel the camouflage paint and go to
smooth bare metal. Besides the
weight, about 50 pounds, the grain
size is too large when it dries and it
causes turbulent friction over the entire
airplane surface. That may take a
phone call to the brass. They're emotional
about paint jobs. "Image," you
know.
(2) Modify the cockpit canopy. Remove
the inverted bathtub that's on there
now and modify as necessary to fit the
ME-209-VI canopy. That's the airplane
that set the world speed record in
1939.
(3) Get rid of the wing slats. Lock them
closed and hand fit a strip, upper and
lower surface, that will close the sheet
metal· gaps between the slat and wing
structure. That gap causes the outboard
15 feet of each wing to be totally
turbulent.
(4) As aerodynamic compensation for
locking the slats, set up jigs and fixtures
on the assembly line to put in 2
degrees of geometric twist from root
to tip, known as "washout."
(5) Modify coolant scoop inlet fairings.
The square corners that are there now
induce an unnecessary amount of
drag. Also lower inlet 1 to 2 inches below
wing surface to get it out of the
turbulence of the wing surface.
(6) Install complete wheel well fairings
that cover the openings after the gear
is retracted.
(7) Retract tail wheel.
All of the above could have been done in
30 days but it wasn't. I don't know why.
Someone would have to ask Willy ... it's
for him to say.

 

[nuuumannn]

From 1976 July Airpower Magazine, article by Leonard Kit Carson:
Object: to make the Me-109 a 400
mph plus airplane. Time ... 30 days. The
information and techniques required are
currently available as of 1940. It's all written
up in unclassified reports.
(1) Cancel the camouflage paint and go to
smooth bare metal. Besides the
weight, about 50 pounds, the grain
size is too large when it dries and it
causes turbulent friction over the entire
airplane surface. That may take a
phone call to the brass. They're emotional
about paint jobs. "Image," you
know.
(2) Modify the cockpit canopy. Remove
the inverted bathtub that's on there
now and modify as necessary to fit the
ME-209-VI canopy. That's the airplane
that set the world speed record in
1939.
(3) Get rid of the wing slats. Lock them
closed and hand fit a strip, upper and
lower surface, that will close the sheet
metal· gaps between the slat and wing
structure. That gap causes the outboard
15 feet of each wing to be totally
turbulent.
(4) As aerodynamic compensation for
locking the slats, set up jigs and fixtures
on the assembly line to put in 2
degrees of geometric twist from root
to tip, known as "washout."
(5) Modify coolant scoop inlet fairings.
The square corners that are there now
induce an unnecessary amount of
drag. Also lower inlet 1 to 2 inches below
wing surface to get it out of the
turbulence of the wing surface.
(6) Install complete wheel well fairings
that cover the openings after the gear
is retracted.
(7) Retract tail wheel.
All of the above could have been done in
30 days but it wasn't. I don't know why.
Someone would have to ask Willy ... it's
for him to say.

The question that always applies to what-if scenarios is, precisely when do you do this and what impact does it have further down the line, timewise - that's when what-ifs usually fall apart. The answer probably lies in the fact that the Bf 109 was being built in large numbers on production lines around the country and interrupting those would have taken too much time out of providing numbers of aircraft to the front lines. Following the Battles of France and Britain, the Germans lost a lot of aircraft and the industry struggled to replenish the Luftwaffe's stocks. At the time the Fw 109 is gaining traction - it's still got issues, the BMW engine overheats terribly, but it is an excellent design.

Firstly, the Bf 109's construction method made changing production line processes difficult. The fuselage was built in two halves on jigs before being mated together. The design was compact, deliberately so to enable rapid progression down the production line, but also, to do some of what is being suggested cannot be done without redesigning the aircraft internally and externally. As we know, the strong point on the aircraft was the firewall, to which the engine and fuselage was mounted. The wheels also attached to the firewall, so if you want to fit them to the wings, the wings need to be strengthened, probably redesigned and one of the advantages of transporting the Bf 109 was that its wings could be removed while the gear was down. You can't do that when the gear is on the wings. I'm not saying that's what is being suggested here, but it cannot be done without redesigning the firewall and the wings.

The wing slats could be wired shut, but the Bf 109 has very high wing loading and not having those slats increases stall speed at vital times, which makes flying the aircraft on a knife edge at coffin corner; the stall speed comes real close to speed during a tight turn and so forth. The slats enabled a rather benign stall in the type. Removing them makes it almost impossible to fly in tight manoeuvres. Messerschmitt had to apply for a licence to fit the Handley Page, nee Lachmann slats to the Bf 108 and Bf 109 and so on. Designing the wing with washout could be done, but again, how much redesign do you need to do of the wing's internal structure and what effect will this have on the production lines?

Modifications to the inlets will give a little in terms of drag reduction, but not much. A repositioning of the radiators is probably going to do more than just redesigning the inlets, but again, where do you put them on such a small airframe? Such a thing requires a complete redesign of the interior, and the issue with changing the volume of the fuselage is where the fuel tank gets fitted and what that does to the CG. When Bf 109s were fitted with stuff aft of the armoured bulkhead behind the cockpit the aircraft's CG was affected. Recon aircraft with cameras and nitrous tanks fitted in this space affected the aircraft's handing. The other issue with messing with the aircraft's internals is that there is simply no room in the wing for fuel tanks, so the tank was in the fuselage under the cockpit, the only place it could be.

Making the tailwheel retractable is an easy one, it was designed to be so, but in a lot of aircraft of the time, the structure collapsed and often proved faulty, so the tailwheels were made fixed to remove complexity and simplify manufacture. Likewise, adding centre retracting doors increases complexity and weight. The trade-off is not worth doing, really.

Now, could what you are suggesting be done in 30 days? Some of it, yes, but some, I sincerely doubt it, simply because some things like the application of washout to the wings for example does not take the aircraft's original design into consideration. As I have said, some that are suggested elsewhere simply cannot be done without redesigning the aircraft internally and externally, which requires massive changes on the production line. The simple fact is that the Bf 109 was designed in the early 1930s - 1934/35, there were technicalities inherited from the Bf 108, the variable incidence tailplane, the removable wings with the undercarriage legs fitted to the fuselage, the flap and variable incidence trim wheels in the cockpit and so on. The airframe wasn't designed for too much modification and extra bumps and things resulted in poor handling and low aerodynamic efficiency as the airframe has more added to it, which results in below par performance. Take a look at Bf 109Gs with field mods, bumps over the wings, on the fuselage and so forth and it could no longer keep up with Allied fighters from 1943/1944 on. A redesign of the airframe is required to get anything more out of the Bf 109. What impact such changes has on production cannot be predicted, and if these changes are made, is the result gonna be a better aircraft that could match Allied fighters? Finally, is it even worth doing, when around mid 1940, Messerschmitt is carrying out wind tunnel tests on a jet powered Bf 109 derivative that eventually evolved into the Me 262?

 

[tomo pauk]

A complete 'yes' for the wheel well covers and retractable tailweheel; not just because a host of new fighter designs were getting that by 1940/41, but also because the retractable tailwheel was a feature as early as late 1940 on the Bf 109F, and because the wheel well covers + retractable tailwheel were finally incorporated for the 109K for late 1944 - a major contribution in making it faster than the 109G-10 by some 20 km/h.

'Wiring shut' of the slats and redesigning the wing to restore the turning and low speed abilities in the specified time frame is probably asking too much , IMO.
MTT tried to reduce the drag of the radiators with the 109F, both with changing the shape of the radiators (so the greater % of them is buried in the wing) and by adding the 'tunnel' to redirect the boundary layer away. Seems like the tunnel was not working as advertised, so perhaps make the tunnel deeper?
The annular radiator might've helped wrt. the lower drag (also incorporate the ram air intake, like it was done on the Ju 88 installations), but that will mess up the CoG.

After everything is said and done, it will take the Bf 109F to get close to the 400 mph mark, not the bumpy & lumpy 109E. The 109F-4 with wheel well covers should beat the 400 mph, IMO.

 

[wrathofatlantis]

From 1976 July Airpower Magazine, article by Leonard Kit Carson:
Object: to make the Me-109 a 400
mph plus airplane. Time ... 30 days. The
information and techniques required are
currently available as of 1940. It's all written
up in unclassified reports.
(1) Cancel the camouflage paint and go to
smooth bare metal. Besides the
weight, about 50 pounds, the grain
size is too large when it dries and it
causes turbulent friction over the entire
airplane surface. That may take a
phone call to the brass. They're emotional
about paint jobs. "Image," you
know.
(2) Modify the cockpit canopy. Remove
the inverted bathtub that's on there
now and modify as necessary to fit the
ME-209-VI canopy. That's the airplane
that set the world speed record in
1939.
(3) Get rid of the wing slats. Lock them
closed and hand fit a strip, upper and
lower surface, that will close the sheet
metal· gaps between the slat and wing
structure. That gap causes the outboard
15 feet of each wing to be totally
turbulent.
(4) As aerodynamic compensation for
locking the slats, set up jigs and fixtures
on the assembly line to put in 2
degrees of geometric twist from root
to tip, known as "washout."
(5) Modify coolant scoop inlet fairings.
The square corners that are there now
induce an unnecessary amount of
drag. Also lower inlet 1 to 2 inches below
wing surface to get it out of the
turbulence of the wing surface.
(6) Install complete wheel well fairings
that cover the openings after the gear
is retracted.
(7) Retract tail wheel.
All of the above could have been done in
30 days but it wasn't. I don't know why.
Someone would have to ask Willy ... it's
for him to say.

Let's just say L. K. Carson had zero understanding of the Me-109.

As an example, he claims the 109 had only one hour or so of endurance on internal fuel without drop tank, the famous "short Range": In fact, all the G models with WM-50 option had a simple switch to convert the MW tank to fuel (and a lot of them did just that) giving around 2 hours on internal fuel alone for most late 1944 models.

As Erich Brunotte stated, WEP (MW-50) was almost never used in combat, and the typical amount of power he used during combat, on his FW-190D-9, ranged from 0.9 to 1.2 ATA (out of an available 1.9 ATA!!!!)...

And no, the above quote is not about a cruising context: We are talking strictly combat... 13:17 "You knew it was on normal power but you pulled back even from there as you did not need that much in a fight."



View: https://youtu.be/kOuVqP89058?si=1df2pyLkRuUQVyJK


I theorise this is because more power flattened the turn-induced deflection squeezing the air between the low wing and the prop. (Squeezed air, unlike traffic, accelerates). Accelerated air over a low wing increased lift. You can see the effect on finnish LaGG-3 tests where cruise power cuts 50-60 meters to the radius without any real change in turn times, and I think the swept wing leading edges on Russian types made the prop-wing squeezing effect much weaker...

This would explain why lowering power during turns, on low wing types, was such a universal WWII obsession...:

(Kyösti Karhila, 32 kill Fin ace, most on Me-109G-6 with gondolas): "I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power. When the enemy decreased power, I used to throttle back even more." Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association


Deflection squeezing the air between wing and prop explains why the FW-190A out-turned pretty much anything, but only at low speeds and reduced power: Shorter fatter radial noses squeezed the turn-deflected air even more...

LK Carson's suggestion of removing the wing slats is awful. Turning at low speeds was increasingly important by 1944, since Hit and Run was found to mostly require an unaware target and point-blank fire...

As to the turning qualities of the Me-109, let me quote Clostermann on the Me-109 vs Spitfire debate:

Audio from the Past [E16] - WW2 - Pierre Clostermann Interview (French)

(From 12:44)

Translation: "So there are legends about the Spitfire... Aaaahh the legends... Legends are hard to kill... One of those legends is that the Spitfire turned better than the Messerschmitt 109, or the FW-190. Well that is a good joke... In fact all those who found themselves with a 109 turning inside them, at low speeds, well those in general did not come back to complain about the legend... Why? Above 280 to 300 knots, the Spitfire turned better than the Me-109. But, first and foremost, in a turning battle, the speed goes down and down and down and down, and at one point there comes a time, when the speed has gone down below 200 knots, that the Me-109 turns inside the Spitfire."


Contrary to legend, the gear design allowed a more forward position on the wing, which allowed using full power for shorter take offs from rough strips: All Allied types nosed over at full power without crews sitting on the tail...

This gear made the 109 more suitable from rough short fields.

Not to mention the ease of recovery from woods (the gear acted like a trolley without the wings), where salvaging Soviet types required cutting down dozens of trees...

Despite the 2 bolt removable wing attachment system, the Me-109 strength exceeded the P-51's fixed wings at 13 G absolute to just 12 G on the Mustang.

The Me-109s pilot protection was also way, way above average, with both the fuel and pilot having armour plates, one of them being an aluminium rear fuselage bulkhead made of 30 skin sheets bolted together, giving a 20 mm total thickness (but actual 18 mm thickness in solid aluminium). (The FW-190A's fuel protection was inferior, though I still think it was a better low altitude fighter)

As pointed out in the video below, unlike steel, aluminium armour is not weakened by extreme cold temperatures encountered as early as 15 000 feet. In addition to that, the pilot had his own steel armour...


View: https://youtu.be/uIw_STlQCq8?si=Zrjb5_09dOhlE-5P


The only thing the Me-109G really needed was to carry more firepower. It already could do so with underwing 20 mm gondolas, but these had only 120 rounds which is ok but not great... (They also sometimes jammed in harsh turns)

The 30 mm nose cannon was (probably?) a good thing, despite the low round count.

I think the biggest improvements to the Me-109 would have been reliable underwing gondolas with 30 mm Mk 108s, with at least 75-100 rounds each, and maybe a slightly bulged canopy in the manner of the Avia S-199.

Beyond that, radial engines made for better dogfighters at low-medium altitudes, and certainly the large Spitfire wing was superior at extreme altitudes (above 25 k). The Me-109 had many qualities that are not emphasized enough (in particular its toughness), and I think its only serious limitations were its firepower and ammo count. It was just plain inferior in this regard. The nose 20 mm could not even reliably carry its full 180 rounds with good reliability: They had to cut the belt to 150 or so rounds, with a wood spacer. Russian nose guns (and the Spitfire wing guns) were even lower at 120 rounds... That being said I would still choose a Spitfire over a gondola-less Me-109 just based on the firepower alone.

I would definitely want my Me-109G always with underwing 20 mm gondolas: This is what Karhila always chose to fly, and despite a dense combat environment his aircraft was never hit... US .50 6 gun batteries were probably a better idea in actual use, but they certainly jammed a lot on the P-51B through D (500 to 1100 mrbf). The P-38 had 3600 mrbf (mean rounds between failures) and that, plus the centralised location, gave it the best armament of them all, though I am not a fan of the type. The P-47 was around 1500-2100 mrbf.

The importance of firepower is not understood enough because of the effect of videogames: The 480 rpm rate of fire of the A6M Zero wing guns was probably its biggest overall downfall.... Saburo Sakai even claimed most of its kills were achieved using the 7.7 mm guns alone...

 

[GregP]

Rectactible tailwheels were going to be a problem for the Luftwaffe. Not because of the mechanism, they were as good as anyone else at design. It was much more due to weather and terrain.

Germany was being attacked on a daily basis after daylight bombing started and the fighters (and bombers and everything else) were scattered about in what were basically farmer's fields. They were soft and muddy and not prepared for aircraft use, and rectactible tailwheel mechanisms were getting plugged up with mud on a regular basis. Not so much on main wheels that were bigger and quite a distance from the wheel well, but definitely from smaller wheels that were only a short distance from the tailwheel bay.

It wasn't insumountable and could be made to work, but it DID cause a lot of problems and took labor that was otherwise needed on the airframes and engines. When they GOT recractible tailwheels, they often disabled them if they proved to be difficult. Got that from from a former Luftwaffe mechanic more than 20 years ago.

I have no personal knowledge that confirms or refutes the assertion, but it seems like a good place to throw it in here for consideration.

 

[BiffF15]

Let's just say L. K. Carson had zero understanding of the Me-109.

As an example, he claims the 109 had only one hour or so of endurance on internal fuel without drop tank, the famous "short Range": In fact, all the G models with WM-50 option had a simple switch to convert the MW tank to fuel (and a lot of them did just that) giving around 2 hours on internal fuel alone for most late 1944 models.

As Erich Brunotte stated, WEP (MW-50) was almost never used in combat, and the typical amount of power he used during combat, on his FW-190D-9, ranged from 0.9 to 1.2 ATA (out of an available 1.9 ATA!!!!)...


View attachment 821727

And no, the above quote is not about a cruising context: We are talking strictly combat... 13:17 "You knew it was on normal power but you pulled back even from there as you did not need that much in a fight."



View: https://youtu.be/kOuVqP89058?si=1df2pyLkRuUQVyJK


I theorise this is because more power flattened the turn-induced deflection squeezing the air between the low wing and the prop. (Squeezed air, unlike traffic, accelerates). Accelerated air over a low wing increased lift. You can see the effect on finnish LaGG-3 tests where cruise power cuts 50-60 meters to the radius without any real change in turn times, and I think the swept wing leading edges on Russian types made the prop-wing squeezing effect much weaker...

This would explain why lowering power during turns, on low wing types, was such a universal WWII obsession...:

(Kyösti Karhila, 32 kill Fin ace, most on Me-109G-6 with gondolas): "I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power. When the enemy decreased power, I used to throttle back even more." Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association


Deflection squeezing the air between wing and prop explains why the FW-190A out-turned pretty much anything, but only at low speeds and reduced power: Shorter fatter radial noses squeezed the turn-deflected air even more...

LK Carson's suggestion of removing the wing slats is awful. Turning at low speeds was increasingly important by 1944, since Hit and Run was found to mostly require an unaware target and point-blank fire...

As to the turning qualities of the Me-109, let me quote Clostermann on the Me-109 vs Spitfire debate:

Audio from the Past [E16] - WW2 - Pierre Clostermann Interview (French)

(From 12:44)

Translation: "So there are legends about the Spitfire... Aaaahh the legends... Legends are hard to kill... One of those legends is that the Spitfire turned better than the Messerschmitt 109, or the FW-190. Well that is a good joke... In fact all those who found themselves with a 109 turning inside them, at low speeds, well those in general did not come back to complain about the legend... Why? Above 280 to 300 knots, the Spitfire turned better than the Me-109. But, first and foremost, in a turning battle, the speed goes down and down and down and down, and at one point there comes a time, when the speed has gone down below 200 knots, that the Me-109 turns inside the Spitfire."


Contrary to legend, the gear design allowed a more forward position on the wing, which allowed using full power for shorter take offs from rough strips: All Allied types nosed over at full power without crews sitting on the tail...

This gear made the 109 more suitable from rough short fields.

Not to mention the ease of recovery from woods (the gear acted like a trolley without the wings), where salvaging Soviet types required cutting down dozens of trees...

Despite the 2 bolt removable wing attachment system, the Me-109 strength exceeded the P-51's fixed wings at 13 G absolute to just 12 G on the Mustang.

The Me-109s pilot protection was also way, way above average, with both the fuel and pilot having armour plates, one of them being an aluminium rear fuselage bulkhead made of 30 skin sheets bolted together, giving a 20 mm total thickness (but actual 18 mm thickness in solid aluminium). (The FW-190A's fuel protection was inferior, though I still think it was a better low altitude fighter)

As pointed out in the video below, unlike steel, aluminium armour is not weakened by extreme cold temperatures encountered as early as 15 000 feet. In addition to that, the pilot had his own steel armour...


View: https://youtu.be/uIw_STlQCq8?si=Zrjb5_09dOhlE-5P


The only thing the Me-109G really needed was to carry more firepower. It already could do so with underwing 20 mm gondolas, but these had only 120 rounds which is ok but not great... (They also sometimes jammed in harsh turns)

The 30 mm nose cannon was (probably?) a good thing, despite the low round count.

I think the biggest improvements to the Me-109 would have been reliable underwing gondolas with 30 mm Mk 108s, with at least 75-100 rounds each, and maybe a slightly bulged canopy in the manner of the Avia S-199.

Beyond that, radial engines made for better dogfighters at low-medium altitudes, and certainly the large Spitfire wing was superior at extreme altitudes (above 25 k). The Me-109 had many qualities that are not emphasized enough (in particular its toughness), and I think its only serious limitations were its firepower and ammo count. It was just plain inferior in this regard. The nose 20 mm could not even reliably carry its full 180 rounds with good reliability: They had to cut the belt to 150 or so rounds, with a wood spacer. Russian nose guns (and the Spitfire wing guns) were even lower at 120 rounds... That being said I would still choose a Spitfire over a gondola-less Me-109 just based on the firepower alone.

I would definitely want my Me-109G always with underwing 20 mm gondolas: This is what Karhila always chose to fly, and despite a dense combat environment his aircraft was never hit... US .50 6 gun batteries were probably a better idea in actual use, but they certainly jammed a lot on the P-51B through D (500 to 1100 mrbf). The P-38 had 3600 mrbf (mean rounds between failures) and that, plus the centralised location, gave it the best armament of them all, though I am not a fan of the type. The P-47 was around 1500-2100 mrbf.

The importance of firepower is not understood enough because of the effect of videogames: The 480 rpm rate of fire of the A6M Zero wing guns was probably its biggest overall downfall.... Saburo Sakai even claimed most of its kills were achieved using the 7.7 mm guns alone...


View attachment 821726

So if I'm to understand, your theory is that lowering power on a piston engined WW2 made it turn better due to air being compressed between the lower wing and the prop?

 

[GregP]

So if I'm to understand, your theory is that lowering power on a piston engined WW2 made it turn better due to air being compressed between the lower wing and the prop?

Cruise power means lower speed and any aircraft turns better at lower speed than at higher speed. By "turn better," I mean a smaller turn fadius. It is speed-induced, not power-induced.

Ask the man who has flown the F-15 in dissimilar air combat.

That would be BiffF15.

 

[spicmart]

Rectactible tailwheels were going to be a problem for the Luftwaffe. Not because of the mechanism, they were as good as anyone else at design. It was much more due to weather and terrain.

Germany was being attacked on a daily basis after daylight bombing started and the fighters (and bombers and everything else) were scattered about in what were basically farmer's fields. They were soft and muddy and not prepared for aircraft use, and rectactible tailwheel mechanisms were getting plugged up with mud on a regular basis. Not so much on main wheels that were bigger and quite a distance from the wheel well, but definitely from smaller wheels that were only a short distance from the tailwheel bay.

It wasn't insumountable and could be made to work, but it DID cause a lot of problems and take labor took was otherwise needed on the airframes and engines. When they GOT recractible tailwheels, they often disabled them if they proved to be difficult. Got that from from a former Luftwaffe mechanic more than 20 years ago.

I have no personal knowledge that confirms or refutes the assertion, but it seems like a good place to throw it in here for consideration.

I imagine Russian and Japanese fighters operated in similarly adverse conditions yet their tailwheels were much smaller. Wonder why that was so?

 

[JuniorJarhead09]

I wouldn't mess with retractable landing wheel, just have one like the 190's that are tucked and give steering control regardless of gear situation.

 

[GregP]

I imagine Russian and Japanese fighters operated in similarly adverse conditions yet their tailwheels were much smaller. Wonder why that was so?

Not too sure they generally operated in similar conditions. The Japanese were known to build airfields in many places wherever they went with prepared runway surfaces. They were pretty good at it.

The Russians were more noted for operating wherever they could and improvised local airfields.

My bet is that with the well-known range of Japanese warplanes, they operated MUCH more frequently from prepared airfields than the Russians ever did once the Russians were away from home airfields. But, yes, I'm sure they sometimes operated in similar conditions. When you mention smaller tailwheels, are you thinking of IJN aircraft that operated mainly from carriers and many times had small, solid rubber tailwheels? IJA airplanes didn't necessarily especially have small tailwheels as there was no requirement for carrier landings.

But, that subject seems like a decent thing to look into. I have never especially paid any attention to relative tailwheel size of IJN versus IJA aircraft. I CAN say that the Planes of Fame has a flying A6M-5 Model 52, a static J2M, a static D4Y and a D3A awaiting restoration. All are Naval aircraft. All except the D3A have small, solid rubber tailwheels. The D3A has what looks like the same size tailwheel as the Bf 109, which is considerably larger than the others.

 

[spicmart]

Not too sure they generally operated in similar conditions. The Japanese were known to build airfields in many places wherever they went with prepared runway surfaces. They were pretty good at it.

The Russians were more noted for operating wherever they could and improvised local airfields.

My bet is that with the well-known range of Japanese warplanes, they operated MUCH more frequently from prepared airfields than the Russians ever did once the Russians were away from home airfields. But, yes, I'm sure they sometimes operated in similar conditions. When you mention smaller tailwheels, are you thinking of IJN aircraft that operated mainly from carriers and many times has small, solid rubber tailwheels? IJA airplanes didn't necessarily especially have small tailwheels as there was no requirement for carrier landings.

But, that subject seems like a decent thing to look into. I have never especially paid any attention to relative tailwheel size of IJN versus IJA aircraft. I CAN say that the Planes of Fame has a flying A6M-5 Model 52, a static J2M, a static D4Y and a D3A awaiting restoration. All are Naval aircraft. All except the D3A have small, solid rubber tailwheels. The D3A has what looks like the same size tailwheel as the Bf 109, which is considerably larger than the others.

The explanation with small, solid rubber tailwheels on carrier aircraft is sound.

Russian planes must have operated especially during Rasputitia (muddy season) and yet many of their planes had smaller tailwheels of which some were even retractable with covers.

 

[special ed]

As I recall from one of my Russian aircraft books, the prototype Yak-15 had a problem with jet exhaust setting fire to the solid rubber tail wheel. I no longer remember the solution for the 15, but the Yak-17 solved it with a nose wheel ( tric gear).