Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You can streamline the 109 but unless a few other things are fixed (and some are not easily fixable) you don't gain a whole lot.
Aleron response was already getting poor in the upper speed ranges, adding 30-50kph just makes things worse, you have a straight line fighter.
I don't know about rudder response/control, they were fitting rudder tabs near the end?
The 109 was too lightly armed to be a good bomber interceptor (3 gun versions) going faster really doesn't change that.
While a more streamlined plane may increase the range a bit it doesn't do much for endurance. You fly further in the same amount of time.
I am assuming the aerodynamic improvements only. I also believe that the later 1800-2000hp DB605 engines only ran at those power levels for a few minutes at a time and that max continuous power (non combat climb) was the same as the 1425-1475hp engines, endurance wouldn't change that much. I could be wrong.
Is there an English translation?
A bit more than just "some", I count ~1.8K AS versions vs ~2.9K non-AS
Could you explain why? For a given cruising speed a more streamlined air frame requires lower power setting and thus lower fuel consumption. Am i wrong?You can streamline the 109 but unless a few other things are fixed (and some are not easily fixable) you don't gain a whole lot.
An aerodynamic improvement that would result 60km/h speed increase would give a noticeable improvement in sustained turned rate . Also marginally better acceleration at high speeds
Aleron response was already getting poor in the upper speed ranges, adding 30-50kph just makes things worse, you have a straight line fighter.
You exaggerate the problem. Operational pilots reported the problem and the Bf 109 was demanding physical strength at speed but did fight at those speeds.
50km/h would be a huge improvement . On the eastern front would be able to engage and disengage at will the russian fighters even at low altitude. On the western front would match the speed of the latest fighters
Anyway, by that stage of the war , all that Luftwaffe could do was hit and run attacks ,in which straight line speed was most important. Dog fighting was suicidal against the huge numbers of the allied forces
I don't know about rudder response/control, they were fitting rudder tabs near the end?
Occasionally yes, when supplies permitted but that was not a major flaw in the Bf 109
The 109 was too lightly armed to be a good bomber interceptor (3 gun versions) going faster really doesn't change that.
A better ability to avoid the escorts through greater speed would be invaluable
Klaus Mietusch, CO of III/JG26 until his death, claimed that the Mk108 did deserve his weight penalty because gave the Bf109 a good ability to destroy heavy bombers.
I would say that Bf109 s main mission was/should be air superiority .
While a more streamlined plane may increase the range a bit it doesn't do much for endurance. You fly further in the same amount of time.
Basically it says why increase engine power when that increase in power is negated by crappy manufacturing.
You are not wrong but then I am not sure you are really right. It depends so much on the speed chosen, by that I mean if the speed desired was, say 500kph and the throttle/s of the fighter group were adjusted to give that speed then both range and endurance would be increased. So you are right.Could you explain why? For a given cruising speed a more streamlined air frame requires lower power setting and thus lower fuel consumption. Am i wrong?
An aerodynamic improvement that would result 60km/h speed increase would give a noticeable improvement in sustained turned rate . Also marginally better acceleration at high speeds
I know this list but it seems incomplete, especially if you look at the single Bf 109G-6/AS in itNot according to Post #26, Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45 - Page 3 - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum
Dedalos, there you have it, straight from a combat pilot.Cleaning up an airframe will give you an incre upase in speed, or an improvement in fuel burn / mileage but I don't think it will give as much of an improvement in rate. To turn you roll and pull, deflecting the elevator up, creating drag. The drag rise or bleed rate will go down but not enough in my opinion to give you a noticeable change in rate.
No, G-5/AS were conversions (Erla Antwerpen), the 325 G-6/AS were new-builtThere was only one (1) G-6/AS built. All others were conversions.
The 109 had reached the max it's design could really allow. You can only squeak more performance out so much.
That does not take anything away from it. It was a solid design. It was a mid 1930s design though. I think that says a lot (same for the Spitfire) that it was able to remain competative and dangerous right up to the end.
The difference was that the Spitfire was still flyable by the average pilot. The later Me109s were still lethal weapons in the hands of the Experten but deathtraps for new pilots.
No, G-5/AS were conversions (Erla Antwerpen), the 325 G-6/AS were new-built
Some sources say that the Luftwaffe lost one third of all 109s to accidents.I think you are over exaggerating a bit here...
Some sources say that the Luftwaffe lost one third of all 109s to accidents.
Can you direct me to that discussion? Thanks.And that has been thoroughly discussed, and if I recall found to be not entirely accurate, as the numbers didn't match up.
Can you direct me to that discussion? Thanks.