Replace Me-109 with Me-155?
- Thread starter davebender
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
Thank you Tomo.
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
found a site about the freeman army airfield with a ton of different stuff...and it seems they got a at least one bv 155. this is what that site had to say and some of the pics.
the original link is: Freeman Army Air Field
you can go down the left column and see what they had/tested in the way of all allied and axis ac.
this accompanied the pic of the dismantled 155...
The origins of the Blohm Voss Bv 155 lay in a meeting held at the Messerschmitt's Augsburg plant in May 1942 to discuss the "Special High Altitude Fighter". Both Messerschmitt and Fock-Wulf expressed interest in developing a special high altitude fighter, Messerschmitt had already done some design work on a related project. Messerschmitt's preliminary study, known as the Bf 109 ST, which had been allocated the official RLM 8-series aircraft designation Me 155. The number 155 had previously been assigned to the Klemm firm but since it had not taken up the number the RLM reassigned it to Messerschmitt. At the same time, numbers 152, 153 and 154, which had also been allocated to Klemm but not used, were reassigned to Focke-WuIf. The original Me 109 ST was advanced in three variants; A, B C (version A) called for a carrier/aircraft fitted with the DB 605, while (version B) called for a similar fighter powered by the high altitude DB 628. In order to relieve his already over committed design bureau and to speed development, Messerschmitt decided to transfer the Me 155B to Paris. Due to various problems work progressed only slowly throughout the remainder of 1942. By early 1943 things were starting to go wrong with the project, whares Fock-Wulf were progressing well with their Ta 152, little had been achieved with the Me 155B. During the first half of 1943, Messerschmitt's design engineers had evolved basic parameters of an (extreme high altitude fighter) design study under the company designation Me P1091. By mid 1943 the Messerschmitt people were vacillating as ever pursuing the Me 209H in competition with the Ta 152H and turning there Me P1091 in to the Me 155B.
Though this prototype of the Blohm and Voss 155 was far from complete, there was enough interest in this aircraft to warrant bringing it to Freeman Field. (NASM)
FE-505 Bv-155B V3 This prototype was captured before it was completed , and came to the US by way of the Royal Aircraft Establishment in Farnborough , England, where it was on display in fall 1945. It was probably shipped to the US in early 1946, going to Park Ridge that summer, and subsequently to Silver Hill. It is presently in storage at the Paul E. Garber Facility.
the original link is: Freeman Army Air Field
you can go down the left column and see what they had/tested in the way of all allied and axis ac.
this accompanied the pic of the dismantled 155...
The origins of the Blohm Voss Bv 155 lay in a meeting held at the Messerschmitt's Augsburg plant in May 1942 to discuss the "Special High Altitude Fighter". Both Messerschmitt and Fock-Wulf expressed interest in developing a special high altitude fighter, Messerschmitt had already done some design work on a related project. Messerschmitt's preliminary study, known as the Bf 109 ST, which had been allocated the official RLM 8-series aircraft designation Me 155. The number 155 had previously been assigned to the Klemm firm but since it had not taken up the number the RLM reassigned it to Messerschmitt. At the same time, numbers 152, 153 and 154, which had also been allocated to Klemm but not used, were reassigned to Focke-WuIf. The original Me 109 ST was advanced in three variants; A, B C (version A) called for a carrier/aircraft fitted with the DB 605, while (version B) called for a similar fighter powered by the high altitude DB 628. In order to relieve his already over committed design bureau and to speed development, Messerschmitt decided to transfer the Me 155B to Paris. Due to various problems work progressed only slowly throughout the remainder of 1942. By early 1943 things were starting to go wrong with the project, whares Fock-Wulf were progressing well with their Ta 152, little had been achieved with the Me 155B. During the first half of 1943, Messerschmitt's design engineers had evolved basic parameters of an (extreme high altitude fighter) design study under the company designation Me P1091. By mid 1943 the Messerschmitt people were vacillating as ever pursuing the Me 209H in competition with the Ta 152H and turning there Me P1091 in to the Me 155B.
Though this prototype of the Blohm and Voss 155 was far from complete, there was enough interest in this aircraft to warrant bringing it to Freeman Field. (NASM)
FE-505 Bv-155B V3 This prototype was captured before it was completed , and came to the US by way of the Royal Aircraft Establishment in Farnborough , England, where it was on display in fall 1945. It was probably shipped to the US in early 1946, going to Park Ridge that summer, and subsequently to Silver Hill. It is presently in storage at the Paul E. Garber Facility.
Attachments
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #244
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Just so we are clear....
I am proposing a land based version of the Me-155A CV fighter. The Bv-155 was an entirely different aircraft except that it retained the "155" aircraft designation.
I am proposing a land based version of the Me-155A CV fighter. The Bv-155 was an entirely different aircraft except that it retained the "155" aircraft designation.
The whole Bf-155/Me-155/Bv-155 thing seems like a typical WW2 German miision creep design debacle. First, ask Messerschmitt to design a follow on Bf-109 based carrier fighter to replace an earlier "Bf-109T" before you even know Messerschmitt has any clue about designing and producing shipborne aircraft and no assurance the carrier in question will ever be finished (instead of negotiating an agreement with Japan to license-build A6Ms if and when the carrier is ready). Then, because you've wasted effort on this design and it does have a slightly extended span, decide it can be transformed into a high altitude interceptor, making it even uglier, and finally give the whole thing to Blohm und Voss and they turn it into a monstrosity that looks like it would fall apart the first time it enters a high-G turn All the while the Focke Wulf company is churning out fighters that, with much less radical modifications in the "D" and Ta-152 models, are better at any missions planned for the 155 than the 155 would be.
Shortround6
Major General
In all fairness to the guys at Blohm und Voss, they got handed that mission creep thing you were talking about.
The Germans for some reason decided to skip the 30-40,000ft band of the sky and jump to aircraft for the 40,000 to 55,000ft band. At least for the most part.
And to get piston planes to fly at 50,000ft plus, you need so many compromises in wing area, superchargers and radiators, that the plane becomes almost useless at 30,000ft and below.
BV also probably got handed the project because the RLM was still ticked off that the Bv-141 could fly!
- Thread starter
- #248
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I don't think that's fair to Messerschmitt. Despite being a rush job I think the Me-109T conversion of the Me-109E1 was pretty good.
WW2 Warbirds: the Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Frans Bonn
- Larger wing. 11.84 sq ft more area then the Me-109E wing.
- Extendible spoilers added to the upper surfaces of the wing to steepen the approach angle for CV landings.
- The new wing had folding tips for easier CV storage.
- Wing leading edge slots increased in span.
- Trailing edge flaps given greater travel.
- Ailerons interconnected with the flaps.
- Catapult attachment points under the fuselage.
- Arrester hook under the rear fuselage.
You do know that the 109T was launched from a cradle?
- Thread starter
- #250
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I wasn't aware the Me-109T ever operated from a CV. When did this take place?
It wasn't, and I too have always believed it would have been catapult launched. Perhaps Milosh is referring to some sort of test launch system using a cradle?
- Thread starter
- #252
davebender
1st Lieutenant
That makes sense. Thanks to Lufthansa experience with catapult ships the German Navy had all sorts of catapult experience to draw upon.
When did all this take place? During the testing of the 109 for carrier operations.
On pg 107 of the Radinger/Schick 109 book there is a photo of TK+HM, WNr 301, just after it left the take off dolly/cradle/sled.
"The catapults used launching sleds, which would accelerate the aircraft forward"
On pg 107 of the Radinger/Schick 109 book there is a photo of TK+HM, WNr 301, just after it left the take off dolly/cradle/sled.
"The catapults used launching sleds, which would accelerate the aircraft forward"
This could have merely been tests of how well the aircraft structure was stressed to withstand the sudden acceleration of a catapult launch, and or to provide prospective pilots with the experience of a catapult launch. I'm pretty sure "Graf Zeppelin" was intended to be equipped with two steam catapults following British practice, so it is hard to imagine operational Bf-109Ts would not have been launched in the same manner as British carrier planes. Germany also requested and obtained some technical advice from Japan on the use of carriers. It's hard to imagine they would then ignore the practical examples provided by people who actually knew a lot more about naval aviation than they did. If this was actually the planned method of carrier operations (which I strongly doubt), the Germans were going in a tangent nobody else did.
The fwd lift was exclusively used for the transportation of the planes from the hangardeck to the catapults. They were set on rails with their trolleys and rolled over a switch alternating to the catapults.This procedure was unique and was intended to make possible a very short takeoff sequence
From the start of the launching procedure by the operator to the completion of the take-off normally 3 seconds were needed (according to the handling instructions): 1,5 seconds for retardation in the system and 1,5 seconds for the acceleration of the trolley and aircraft.
After the launch of the aircraft the catapult went back into starting position and the trolley was transported by an inclined elevator at the top of the flightdeck downward to the hangardeck for the next use. [p. 65]
In case of the DWK [Deutsche Werke Kiel AG] catapults new technical solutions were developed, making it possible to make them shorter and lighter than those of other manufacturers. Other than in catapults known so far with a fix glideway, DWK designed a device which made it possible to shorten the length of the catapult by moving the glideway as well during the launch.
The compressed air moved a mobile cylinder opposite a firm piston. The cylinder was connected with the mobile part of the glideway, on the rear end of which the trolley with the aircraft was.
After the beginning of the lauching procedure the introduction of the compressed air into the cylinder caused that when the trolley with the aircraft moved forward, the rear mobile end of the glideway as well moved forward over the fix forward part (therefore the term "telescope-catapult").
Thus the two motions added up: the motion of the trolley on the glideway and that of the mobile part of the glideway. After passing a certain distance, the lock of the aircraft on the trolley was released and the aircraft remained connected to the trolley only due to the acceleration [...]
By a suitable shaping of the valve slots in the cylinder acceleration up to the maximum value ran gradually increasingly and then up to the stop with the deceleration gradually removing. Rise and waste of acceleration caused a approximately around 20 % longer acceleration distance than due to the technical possibilities would have been possible. [p.107/108]
Axis History Forum • View topic - Just how good or bad was the Graf Zeppelin
Notice the number of times 'dolly' is mentioned.
There are some photos on pg 7 of the thread.
From the start of the launching procedure by the operator to the completion of the take-off normally 3 seconds were needed (according to the handling instructions): 1,5 seconds for retardation in the system and 1,5 seconds for the acceleration of the trolley and aircraft.
After the launch of the aircraft the catapult went back into starting position and the trolley was transported by an inclined elevator at the top of the flightdeck downward to the hangardeck for the next use. [p. 65]
In case of the DWK [Deutsche Werke Kiel AG] catapults new technical solutions were developed, making it possible to make them shorter and lighter than those of other manufacturers. Other than in catapults known so far with a fix glideway, DWK designed a device which made it possible to shorten the length of the catapult by moving the glideway as well during the launch.
The compressed air moved a mobile cylinder opposite a firm piston. The cylinder was connected with the mobile part of the glideway, on the rear end of which the trolley with the aircraft was.
After the beginning of the lauching procedure the introduction of the compressed air into the cylinder caused that when the trolley with the aircraft moved forward, the rear mobile end of the glideway as well moved forward over the fix forward part (therefore the term "telescope-catapult").
Thus the two motions added up: the motion of the trolley on the glideway and that of the mobile part of the glideway. After passing a certain distance, the lock of the aircraft on the trolley was released and the aircraft remained connected to the trolley only due to the acceleration [...]
By a suitable shaping of the valve slots in the cylinder acceleration up to the maximum value ran gradually increasingly and then up to the stop with the deceleration gradually removing. Rise and waste of acceleration caused a approximately around 20 % longer acceleration distance than due to the technical possibilities would have been possible. [p.107/108]
Axis History Forum • View topic - Just how good or bad was the Graf Zeppelin
Notice the number of times 'dolly' is mentioned.
There are some photos on pg 7 of the thread.
- Thread starter
- #256
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Nice pictures! I suppose that catapult trolly would work but it looks overly complicated.
http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com...700-carrier-catapult-bridle-i-didnt-know.html
With a bit more experience I suspect German CVs would adopt a simple catapult bridle system similiar to that used by the USN and RN. Perhaps the Me-155A was designed that way from the beginning. Without detailed specifications there is no way to tell.
http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com...700-carrier-catapult-bridle-i-didnt-know.html
With a bit more experience I suspect German CVs would adopt a simple catapult bridle system similiar to that used by the USN and RN. Perhaps the Me-155A was designed that way from the beginning. Without detailed specifications there is no way to tell.
Well, Milosh, it looks like you were correct about what the Germans were planning for the Graf Zeppelin's catapult system...and the thread has loads of fascinating information and outstanding pictures BTW, thanks.
Why on earth the Germans were apparently taking this route is a harder thing to understand. It seems as if they deliberately ignored what little they could discover about Japanese and British practice and went to what they already new about - catapult systems on other surface ship types where use of the trolly system made sense when you are launching only one plane (a floatplane). For a carrier, however, it seems to be extremely complicated and, if I followed the discussion in the thread accurately, the carrier would have been unable to launch planes by rolling takeoffs. This drastically limits the flexibility a ship that is designed solely to operate airplanes.
Why on earth the Germans were apparently taking this route is a harder thing to understand. It seems as if they deliberately ignored what little they could discover about Japanese and British practice and went to what they already new about - catapult systems on other surface ship types where use of the trolly system made sense when you are launching only one plane (a floatplane). For a carrier, however, it seems to be extremely complicated and, if I followed the discussion in the thread accurately, the carrier would have been unable to launch planes by rolling takeoffs. This drastically limits the flexibility a ship that is designed solely to operate airplanes.
- Thread starter
- #258
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Not necessarily. Nothing prevents lightly loaded fighter aircraft from conducting a deck launch. RAF and U.S. Army Air Corps fighter aircraft did this all the time during ferry operations.
You are right, rolling takeoffs are possible on a normal aircraft carrier. But was the GV a "normal" carrier? When you read some of the posts on the thread, and look at the pictures of the incomplete GZ, it appears GZ was being built in such a way that the catapults mightbe the only possible means of takeoff (unlike US and UK catapults, they were not flush with the deck and would present dangerous obstacles to any pilot attempting a full length rolling takeoff). Given the fact that the Germans would be operating the ship in the pitching north sea or north atlantic with pilots with no real experience, it would be practically impossible to do this even if it was technically feasible. It's possible that, when compketed, GZ would have had its deck built up to be flush with the catapults, but that didn't seem clear to me.
Sorry for answering so late, I was going to let it rest originally, but I am bored atm
I think there was a special force cooled 2800 available, either way I am sure a cowling for a R2800 powered Fw 190 would look different from the historical one. I simply don't believe the thin inlets would work when all historical R2800 applications I can think of had a wide open cowling usually not even incorporating a streamlined spinner. I'm not saying this or that solution was better but the engine and the cowling are closely linked imo.
Neither do I but I read they used more forgings for example. This input would be required though to judge whether or not the R2800 was better suited to German fighters than the DB 603.
Speculative, as already menioned the Fw 190 powered by the much more similar BMW139 looked very different to the Fw190 A, but some of those changes were not solely linked to the engine swap, so it's speculation. Hence my "may look".
Since this was in no way possible sooner than the late Doras or the Ta 152, why bother?
They reverse engineered the airframe and used homegrown engines. Go figure.
I highly doubt this. The modified areas of the fuselage are the same for either a larger radial or an inline engine with the radiator used. Everything I read so far points out how easy it was to modify the airframe of the Fw 190 for the DB 603 or Jumo 213. Sorry but where is your source for that claim? And you are again blatantly ignoring impacts on drag. I don't remember which thread here it was posted in, probably drgondog will know, but the VSAERO models for the Fw 190 A and D show considerable differences. IIRC the cd for the Fw 190 D was about the same as that of the Spitfire IX and the Fw 190 A was much worse. This is not the ultimate bible, but the effects were certainly there in reality.
In which way is the jumo 213 more complex than other V12s of the era?
... whereas I heard it had serious teething issues. I'm going to check the E power curve later.
Last edited:
