Qualities that made for a great aircraft that don't show up in performance stats.

The problem for the 109F was that it had to hold the fort for a bit too long - pretty much all of 1941 and well into 1942 (109G being introduced in small numbers initially- in June 1942 in North Africa, and I think it first appeared in September 1942 in Russia). I would argue that the Bf 109F series was substantially ahead of all Allied designs in 1940, but Allied fighters were coming closer to parity by the end of 1941 and were challenging Luftwaffe supremacy by mid or late 1942.

Of course Franz were upgraded steadily to the F-4 standard which was certainly much improved over the F-1 or F-2. But by mid 1942 it is contending with Spit Vc, P-38s, merlin engined P-40F/L, souped up P-40K, and Yak-1B and the La-5... in the fall you also saw Yak-9s and La 5 FN coming online, Spit IX at least over England. The gap was surely closing.

Meanwhile the G series, or most of them anyway, were really more optimized for the high altitude fight over Northern Europe and destroying bombers. I know people would debate this but I'm not sure a 109G-6 is actually better against fighters, especially at low altitude, than a 109F-4. The Fw 190 owned the Spit V but that advantage disappeared with the Spit IX.

Kevin J said:

I think you'll find there were a lot of early teens working maybe even younger. When someone's trying to exterminate you all, you're not going to need pressure to go and help wherever you can. Every family in the USSR lost someone in that war.

Click to expand...

Yes, teenagers under 18 y.o. represented 13% of the aviation industry labour in 1945. And women - about 40% average and over 50% on some factories.

No, not every family in the USSR lost someone in that war. Many and probably most (if we include cousins and uncles, etc.). Just not every one.

fliger747 said:

am a few blocks from the amazing Opera House her sin Novosibirsk, the Russians do this sort of thing very well, The most amazing part about it? Finished in April 1945, as if they weren't otherwise busy?

Click to expand...

The building itself was completed before the war. Very interesting piece of architecture indeed.

Dimlee said:

Yes, teenagers under 18 y.o. represented 13% of the aviation industry labour in 1945. And women - about 40% average and over 50% on some factories.

No, not every family in the USSR lost someone in that war. Many and probably most (if we include cousins and uncles, etc.). Just not every one.

Click to expand...

There is no word for cousin in the Russian language, your cousins are your brothers and sisters.

Kevin J said:

There is no word for cousin in the Russian language, your cousins are your brothers and sisters.

Click to expand...

That's Norfolk I believe.

pbehn said:

That's Norfolk I believe.

Click to expand...

There too.

Schweik said:

Well I'd say it was miles ahead of most of the aircraft available in 1940, maybe not those designed in 1940.

Lets explore it a bit...

Bf 109F is arguably more sophisticated, if not actually better, than a Spitfire Mk I or II, (were any Mark V in combat units in 1940? I would have guessed 1941). 109F is certainly better than a Hurricane II, or a Hawk-75, or a Yak-1. Arguably better than a Ki-43 (especially the early models which still had some bugs). Let alone the older 1930's designs still in combat units like the Hurricane I, F2A Buffalo, Fairey Fulmar, Gloster Gladiator, P-11 / P-24, I-153, I-16, Cr 42, MC 200, G. 50, Ki -27, MS. 406, Bloch 152 and so on.

The leading edge slats, combat flap settings, excellent streamlining, fuel injected engine, multi speed supercharger, excellent radios, advanced gunsight, good instrumentation, pilot armor and self-sealing tanks, reliable (albeit small) cannon, electrically controlled constant-speed propeller (with a manual override), low drag thermostat regulated cooling system - all these factors make the 109F very sophisticated IMO for 1940.

I don't think P-40B / C got into combat until early 1941 (with RAF units) and that design, while still competitive, was certainly a step behind the 109F for sure, a closer match for the older 109E. F4F Wildcat may be close in some measures of sophistication, partly because it's a carrier aircraft, but is clearly a step behind as well (though again, still competitive). Same for the LaGG-3 which was maybe two steps behind, and the MiG 3 which was probably 3 steps behind. Spit V much closer to parity but surely it too was a bit ahead of it's time. And even the Spit V still has the gravity aspirated carb and doesn't have combat maneuver flaps and a few other features you see in the Franz.

Maybe the only plane I can think of which is comparable in sophistication in terms of design, other than arguably the Spitfire, would be the A6M Zero which was amazingly in production (just prototypes) in 1939, and the A6M2 in 1940. Dewoitine D.520 is in the ball park but I'd say a step or two behind.

The A6M2 may have been as effective and certainly innovative as a design, but it was not as sophisticated in terms of all of it's features since it lacked armor and in many cases, a radio, and didn't have as good of high altitude performance.

Click to expand...

In regards to the bolded items, these items were hardly unique or advanced in 1940 or are not really applicable to the 109. Items in italics are also debatable.
1. Many people go on and on about 109s leading edge slats, crediting them capabilities that would require a set of blue long johns, a big yellow s on the bottom the plane and a red cape.
They helped maintain aileron control near the stall, that is it, end of story, period.
2. Excellent streamlining? compared to a 109E yes, Compared to a Spitfire or P-40? not really, It shouldn't be that hard to get a small plane to go fast with a big engine. Getting bigger heavier planes to go just about as fast on the same power is superior streamlining.
3. The fuel injection on the DB601 was a double edged sword. It helped in something's and hurt in others. Please note that not all carburetor equipped engines cut out under negative Gs.
4. The multi speed supercharger eliminated the "notch" in the power curve of a two speed supercharger, It didn't really add anything to to hight. Please note that at least two engines were used on the "F"s and the one used in 1940 wasn't that great at altitude. 1175PS at 16,100ft ? and that was for one minute and not 5 minutes (or longer) It's 30 minute rating probably wan't much different than the Merlin XII
5. Not sure the 109 had better instruments than western planes although it had better than Russian planes, Italian and Japanese planes could go either way?
6. American and British planes were getting armour and self-sealing tanks in 1940, fits changed. The I-16 had had pilot armor for years.
7. Not sure why the German propeller makes it so advanced? By late 1940 the British had given up their fetish for two pitch props and were fitting constant speed. The Americans had been using constant speed for years and not that half way thing used on the 109E. You can have a controllable pitch prop but that does not mean it is constant speed. Having to constantly futz with the prop pitch while in combat was not a good idea.

as for this. "Spit V still has the gravity aspirated carb and doesn't have combat maneuver flaps and a few other features you see in the Franz"

If the Spitfire V will out turn the Franz without using combat flaps then fitting them is a waste of time and money. Adding trick features just so you can say you have them is not good engineering. I would also note that anytime these aerodynamic aids are used they increase drag. Or in the case of leading edge slats means you are pulling an angle of attack near stall and creating a heck of alot of drag that way.

Schweik said:

Well I'd say it was miles ahead of most of the aircraft available in 1940, maybe not those designed in 1940.

Lets explore it a bit...

Bf 109F is arguably more sophisticated, if not actually better, than a Spitfire Mk I or II, (were any Mark V in combat units in 1940? I would have guessed 1941). 109F is certainly better than a Hurricane II, or a Hawk-75, or a Yak-1. Arguably better than a Ki-43 (especially the early models which still had some bugs). Let alone the older 1930's designs still in combat units like the Hurricane I, F2A Buffalo, Fairey Fulmar, Gloster Gladiator, P-11 / P-24, I-153, I-16, Cr 42, MC 200, G. 50, Ki -27, MS. 406, Bloch 152 and so on.

The leading edge slats, combat flap settings, excellent streamlining, fuel injected engine, multi speed supercharger, excellent radios, advanced gunsight, good instrumentation, pilot armor and self-sealing tanks, reliable (albeit small) cannon, electrically controlled constant-speed propeller (with a manual override), low drag thermostat regulated cooling system - all these factors make the 109F very sophisticated IMO for 1940.

I don't think P-40B / C got into combat until early 1941 (with RAF units) and that design, while still competitive, was certainly a step behind the 109F for sure, a closer match for the older 109E. F4F Wildcat may be close in some measures of sophistication, partly because it's a carrier aircraft, but is clearly a step behind as well (though again, still competitive). Same for the LaGG-3 which was maybe two steps behind, and the MiG 3 which was probably 3 steps behind. Spit V much closer to parity but surely it too was a bit ahead of it's time. And even the Spit V still has the gravity aspirated carb and doesn't have combat maneuver flaps and a few other features you see in the Franz.

Maybe the only plane I can think of which is comparable in sophistication in terms of design, other than arguably the Spitfire, would be the A6M Zero which was amazingly in production (just prototypes) in 1939, and the A6M2 in 1940. Dewoitine D.520 is in the ball park but I'd say a step or two behind.

The A6M2 may have been as effective and certainly innovative as a design, but it was not as sophisticated in terms of all of it's features since it lacked armor and in many cases, a radio, and didn't have as good of high altitude performance.

Click to expand...

Excellent streamlining?

No. The Bf109 had a zero-lift drag coefficient of higher than the majority single-engined, ww2 monoplane fighters. I wouldn't be surprised if it had, for example, significant separation around the canopy.

I show the Bf 109F development beginning in 1939, with F-model bits on earlier Bf 109E airframes. There were plenty of Bf 109Fs flying in 1940, but they didn't start being deployed in combat until early 1941. The Bf 109 V21, V22, V23, and V24 were Bf 109F development models. The Bf 109F-0 was in production and ready in 1940, but was delayed when a few tail sections were lost in-flight.

They had to investigate that (with Bf 109 F-0 airframes and test pilots), and they had to propose, make, and verify a new, stronger tail repair and production fix before they could be released en masse for combat. Naturally, that took some time, even in wartime. The production"fix" turned into the Bf 109F-1, released for use in early 1941, and the F-0 units were refitted with the "fix" and were released a bit later. The early Bf 109Fs had the DB 601E engine.

I seem to recall the Bf 109 F-2 was the first variant with the DB 601N engine, and the F-0 and F-1 had the DB 601E ... mostly. I'm sure some "Ns" crept in there along the way. The Bf 109F-3 was a Bf 109F-2 with the DB 601E engine. The Bf 109 F-4 introduce the 20 mm cannon. The F-5 was a recon variant. The F-6 was an F-5 with better cameras.

Here's a link to the Bf 109 V-23, which was an "E" model with some "F" model features:

https://discourse-cdn-sjc1.com/infi...0b9126d9093812a99f44e1bbc17778e_1_690x284.jpg

So, yes, they were flying the F model in 1940. But no, it was released to units until early 1941.

The Bf 109 has a legitimate claim to "the war's best fighter," especially if you look at enemy aircraft shot down as a variable in the equation for that title, and it wasn't "too late" for the war, like models such as the P-51H which flew during the war, but not in combat (and so has no kills). Naturally, the Brits would say "Spitfire," with some serious justification. But even they won't likely claim it shot down as many enemies as the Bf 109 series did. Well, not if they want to be truthful, anyway. The F model was the ONLY Bf 109 variant after the initial A/B units that had a serious issue when initially built. But it WAS flying in mid 1940, and was being flown in modified prototype forms in 1939. When it was released, it "upped" the "best fighter" ante considerably, and took that title away from the Spitfires for awhile.

Shortround6 said:

In regards to the bolded items, these items were hardly unique or advanced in 1940 or are not really applicable to the 109. Items in italics are also debatable.
1. Many people go on and on about 109s leading edge slats, crediting them capabilities that would require a set of blue long johns, a big yellow s on the bottom the plane and a red cape.
They helped maintain aileron control near the stall, that is it, end of story, period.

Click to expand...

Frankly this seems like a rather weak, not to mention unnecessary rebuttal.

I never did claim that all or for that matter any of the traits I listed were unique. Some of them were rare, all of them were pretty advanced for 1940. I think what made the Bf109F rather outstanding for as early as it was- was that it had all these traits. Many other aircraft had one or two, some had several, I can't think of any others that had all of them though.

But I don't really want to descend into the weeds over it. I stand by what I said.

If the Spitfire V will out turn the Franz without using combat flaps then fitting them is a waste of time and money. Adding trick features just so you can say you have them is not good engineering. I would also note that anytime these aerodynamic aids are used they increase drag. Or in the case of leading edge slats means you are pulling an angle of attack near stall and creating a heck of alot of drag that way.

Click to expand...

Here... I would say you aren't thinking from the point of view of a fighter pilot. The Ki-43 could almost certainly out-turn a Bf 109 before they added combat flap settings, and yet they did anyway. There were probably reasons why they kept the flaps the way they were on the Spit, with just 'full up' and 'full down' settings, but the fact is most fighters, including very maneuverable ones, either had combat flap settings or the equivalent.

Automatic maneuvering flaps like on the N1K2 were more rare of course.

The carb on the Spit definitely caused problems, and cost lives. Are you really arguing that it didn't?


As for the Bf 109 more generally, I think it's kind of meaningless to talk about a best aircraft of the war. It was certainly an excellent fighter design, and in many ways ahead of it's time, but the head-start that this design specifically and the German aircraft in general diminished rapidly from the 'tipping point' in the war. It's impressive that the Bf 109 was still "in the game" so to speak by say 1943, but I don't think you can really say that by then it's the best fighter in the world any more if it ever really was. It had a lot of excellent qualities but so did many of the other top fighters flying around by then.

S

Shortround6 said:

1. Many people go on and on about 109s leading edge slats, crediting them capabilities that would require a set of blue long johns, a big yellow s on the bottom the plane and a red cape.
They helped maintain aileron control near the stall, that is it, end of story, period.
.

Click to expand...

As I read "stuff" on the Bf109 wing, it wasn't a leap forward in technology to gain an advantage in aerodynamics and performance, it was an engineering compromise to maintain control at stall and be easy to produce. It was certainly better than the thick wings of the Hurricane in terms of speed, whether it was or wasn't better than the Spitfire is a debate that has been held many times. What is not debatable is that the Bf109 wing was easier to produce and also it couldn't contain weapons within it, which is what the engineering compromises and solutions were all about.

The 109 could hold a weapon in the wing, just not a big one or more than one (two 7.9s maybe????)
I just get tired of hearing about how advanced the 109 wing was because of the slats (which were licenced from Handley Page) while the British had stuck them on a crap load of aircraft and were in fact turning away from them in the very late 30s and early 40s.


Claims that the British didn't know about them or didn't know how to fly planes equipped with them are nonsense. The above Westland was hardly the first British plane with slats.It certainly wasn't the last.

Shortround6 said:

Claims that the British didn't know about them or didn't know how to fly planes equipped with them are nonsense. The above Westland was hardly the first British plane with slats.It certainly wasn't the last.

Click to expand...

Hey, if you get rid of the top wing and all that wire and undercarriage stuff that baby could have been a winner, just like a Spitfire in a low light lol.

pbehn said:

Hey, if you get rid of the top wing and all that wire and undercarriage stuff that baby could have been a winner, just like a Spitfire in a low light lol.

Click to expand...

From the location of the exhaust stacks it looks like the engine is back there aways, which means there must be an extension drive shaft with the pilot sitting above and forward of it. Remind you of any other popular fighter, offhand? A definite improvement; no long spindly nose gear strut to shimmy or break.
Cheers,
Wes

XBe02Drvr said:

From the location of the exhaust stacks it looks like the engine is back there aways, which means there must be an extension drive shaft with the pilot sitting above and forward of it. Remind you of any other popular fighter, offhand? A definite improvement; no long spindly nose gear strut to shimmy or break.
Cheers,
Wes

Click to expand...

Seems like Westland had things sorted, a pity they were swamped with all their other winning designs like the Lysander and Whirlwind.

pbehn said:

Seems like Westland had things sorted, a pity they were swamped with all their other winning designs like the Lysander and Whirlwind.

Click to expand...

Well, you can't have winners without losers, can you?

Claims that the Bf 109 wing could not hold decent weapons turn out to be incorrect.

The Planes of Fame has one nearing completion of restoration, and we also have the drawings. The Hispano Ha.1112 is EXACTLY a Bf 109 G-2 from the firewall aft with the exception of the wing. The wing has exactly three modifications in it that are different from the standard Bf 109 G-2:

1) There are holes in the spar for two 20 mm Hispano-Suiza 404/408 cannons, mounts for same, with provision for ammunition.
2) It has an outer-wing fuel tank that cut into the spar, and the tank provided the outer spar strength.
3) The fin is airfoiled for the Hiapano-Suiza engine, which turns opposite from the Merlin and DB 600 series engines ... which accounts for all the horror tales of handling on takeoff from paved runways.

So, the wing could EASILY hold two 20 mm cannons because it DID.

Of course, the lower cowling is different, but that is forward of the firewall ...

GregP said:

Claims that the Bf 109 wing could not hold decent weapons turn out to be incorrect.

The Planes of Fame has one nearing completion of restoration, and we also have the drawings. The Hispano Ha.1112 is EXACTLY a Bf 109 G-2 from the firewall aft with the exception of the wing. The wing has exactly three modifications in it that are different from the standard Bf 109 G-2:


So, the wing could EASILY hold two 20 mm cannons because it DID.
..

Click to expand...

Thank you, We have no idea why the Germans didn't use internal wing guns on the post E 109s. even though they would use under wing guns.
The Spanish were forced into fitting wing guns when their initial engine choice fell through and the choice of propeller supplier didn't make a prop suitable for a hub gun. (The Hispano powered Ha. 1111s used a DeHavilland prop and the Merlin powered used Rotol)

The 109 starting from the "E" onward was able to mount cannon in the wing, just outboard of the maingear bay.
The original design called for the MG FF.

This is Speyer's Bf109E-1 of 6./JG52 and if you look to the right of the maingear bay, you'll see a hole in the leading edge of the wing. This was for the cannon, although it appears to have been removed. The bulge seen on the underwing was for the rotary magazine.

The Germans could fit a machine gun into the wings of the early Jumo 210 powered 109s. I don't know if they had room enough for two guns in each wing but perhaps with only 700hp (give or take) they didn't want the the weight of 6 guns total.

The Es with 20mm cannon in the wing tipped the magazine into what had been the machine gun bay on the earlier aircraft Or so it appears, actual photos/drawings are hard to come by.
There may have also been an air bottle for the pneumatic charging system used on the guns in the rear of the old machine gun bay.

The Fs and Gs with under wing guns held part/most of the ammo in a magazine/container inside the wing in the area of the old guns bay/s.

Just because late planes didn't have a hole through the spar/s (possibly because of production reasons?) doesn't mean one could not have been put in at the factory should it have been wanted.

The Spanish built fighters are real can of worms. Yes they figured out how to put a Hispano cannon in each wing. On the other hand by the time they got the planes built and flying they were totally obsolete as fighters and the Spanish intended them for use as ground attack machines even while under construction. Spanish industry was in such bad shape in the late 40s and early 50s that many parts could not be produced in Spain and had to be purchased in some cases from Switzerland (landing gear forgings/casting) and in other cases they had to wait for the original german companies to be rebuilt to supply the needed parts (like wiring harnesses).

I have no idea if the Spanish built versions were intended for the same ultimate load factors as the German planes or not or if the Spanish were willing to accept lower performance or changes in roll response that the Germans in WW II were not. Speculation on my part.

The book "Hispano Suiza in Aeronautics" by Manual Lage makes no mention one way or the other but goes into more detail on the production problems and explains the switch to the Merlin engine.