Replace Me-109 with Me-155? (1 Viewer)

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

Galland: From our experience the Italians have always forgotten something in their fighter aircraft, either the armour or guns.
:lol:
 
Damn...took a while to type that lot out! :rolleyes: :)

B.B, I reckon the Bf 109 WAS replaced where possible with something better - THE FW 190!!! :D :D :D

A4, I suggest you take a look at the man-hours per plane and cost in RM per plane comparision between the 109 and the 190.

Then you will see why Speer, in spite of his inclination to the 190, kept the 109 in production until the end of the war...

you see, cancelling all 109 production in favour of the 190 would have meant something like six 190 produced for every 10 109 cancelled.

And as good as the 190 was, ten 109s were still a better deal than six 190s.

And this is an ADMIRER of the Wurger speaking!
 
The Me-155 should have been production friendly also as it used the same engine and essentially the same fuselage (except for tail hook) as the Me-109G. The main differences are wide track landing gear and more internal wing space allowing one MG151/20 cannon in each wing root as standard equipment. I assume a land based variant would eliminate the tail hook and wing folding.
 
Yep, BB, you're right in terms of man hours. my comment was made as a joke mostly...:D

The Fw 190 was alot more complicated in design than the Bf 109, so naturally required a longer poduction time. Focke-Wulf tried to compensate for this by recycling damaged airframes, an earlier variant often receiving a new Werk Nummer in it's new guise.

While most Bf 109's were fine aircraft in their own right (with the exception of types like the G-2 and G-10 which received alot of criticism from pilots), the FW 190 was by far the superior of the two (IMO).
 
Last edited:
What should have been done for the 109 is, perhaps, an armament package which I have described in my thread 'could you have designed a better aircraft' thread.

Reverse the gun philosophy. Put one 20 mm in the cowl on top, and have another 20 mm in the bottom as a belly pack. Since there is only one gun on top, even if it is much bigger than the historical 13 mm, it will blend smoothly into the airframe and not cause vision impairing bulges on each sice.

To get around the problem of the lower 20 mm interfering with the oil cooler, have the engine come with a raidial cowl integrated at the engine factory similar to the FW 190 D. Hve both engine and oil cooling integrated in that cowl. Have the lower 20 mm blend smoothly into the lower engine hatch and cowl lower lip with a fairing. Have it swing together with the lower engine hatch sideways so that the lower gun will not interfere at all with access to the engine.

Now, for the engine mounted gun, put two MG 13 Zwilling mounted on top of each other so that four 13 mm barrels are firing through the propeller boss.

In the space in the wings vacated by the deletion of the wing radiators, put two 30 gal blister tanks, with a smooth and pointed rear end.

Result:

Minimal change to the cheap 109 airframe.
DOUBLE the firepower of the historical 109 G.
60 gallons more fuel.

Are four 13 mm barrels actually going to fit inside the 70mm tube through the engine?
not just the barrel dimensions but just how close can you pack the recievers which is going to control barrel spacing.
How is the airplane going to handle with the oil and coolant radiators move as far forward as they can go and the new fuel tanks empty?
If the Germans had been able to make enough electic primed ammo the simple solution would have been a single 20mm/mg 151 in a belly mounted pod with a pair of small under wing drop tanks.
Least amount of changes.
doubling of the cannon armament.
less drag and handling problems than under wing guns even if less firepower.
under wing tanks restore endurance of belly tank if needed.
 
Are four 13 mm barrels actually going to fit inside the 70mm tube through the engine?
not just the barrel dimensions but just how close can you pack the recievers which is going to control barrel spacing.


The receivers will be behind and outside the engine, as historically was the case with the 20mm engine mount.
How close can we pack the receivers? Well, if we offset the bolts so that they are not symetrical relative to the barrel, we can pack the recivers - and their barrels - until they almost touch each other.

How is the airplane going to handle with the oil and coolant radiators move as far forward as they can go and the new fuel tanks empty?

Better IMHO. You will remember that one of the problems of the G series was that it was tail heavy. The nose heaviness resulting from my modifications will make this a better handling aircraft. Oh, and it will make it much faster in the initial dive as well!
 
This is one of my favourite subjects. And I also wonder if the Me 155A wouldn't have been a good option.
My conclusion is that it was a promising design but then they started bringing in that DB 628 which meant the whole design had to be changed. That proved too much of a problem as it was in fact the same as designing a new aircraft which was more than Messerschmitt could handle. The project then went to B&V which saw that this was going nowhere anc changed pretty much everything. The idea that the eventual BV 155 was derived from the Bf 109 is staggering. A bit like Superman from Clark Kent ;)

So I wonder what would have happened if they had stuck to the Me 155 design - so a Bf 109 with different wings and two extra wing root guns - and made that into the standard interceptor. Coupled with the later DB 605AS it would have been quite capable. Spped would have been reduced somewhat though.

One question though ... would the extended wing have seen the same problems as the Bf 109H ??? Wing flutter and instability that is... I'm not an engineer so I can only guess that it is possible ...

That won't work for the same reason the Me-209 II won't work. There weren't enough DB603 and Jumo213 engines. If the Me-109 is to be superceded with something else the replacement aircraft must be powered by the DB605 engine.
Nonsense. By 1944 DB 603 production was taking over the DB 605. I have figures from the USSBS report to prove that the DB 603 production was widespread. Not in 1943 though.

Kris
 
By 1944 you may as well forget the project and concentrate on rushing the He-162 into mass production. The Me-155A design was supposedly ready during the fall of 1942. If it is to enter production it should be early 1943.

I wonder if the land based variant would shorten the wings a bit? Low wing loading was desirable on a CV aircraft to lower the stall speed. High speed and firepower are more important when intercepting heavy bombers.
 
The need for a higher altitude interceptor only really emerged in 1943. So earliest use would have been late 1943. One can speculate on what-ifs but let's keep the historical perspective please.

On the DB 603, there was little use for them: relatively few Do 217s, He 219s and Me 410s flew with them. Once a larger production was needed, the Germans could have switched to production sooner. As a side note, that is why I'm no fan of the Fw 190D. Tank should have gone ahead with what was available: the Fw 190C-1 with a DB 603A. Stop modifying and start producing, Kurt!

As to the shortening of the wings. I agree that speed was important. But handling and climb rate were also issues. And those longer wings would have been good to take care of the heavier weight. You have to remember this: the Germans were expecting the Americans to start producing B-29s which would fly 600 km/h above 10 km high.
Then again, shortening them somewhat - but still larger than the original 109s - could well have been a good idea.

As to the He 162 ... that request happened at the end of 1944. And the BMW 003 wasn't ready until then. So no point in dragging that in the conversation.
Perhaps you are confusing it with the Me 262, that would make sense! Right? :)

Kris
 
need for a higher altitude interceptor only really emerged in 1943
If the historical size wings are retained the Me-155 may be capable of turning inside a Spitfire Mk IX. That would be a nasty surprise for RAF pilots.
 
I think that a 109 with wide track landing gear and maybe a higher pilot seat and a bubble canopy would have been all you'd want.
 
I'm all in favor of a bubble canopy. However I assume there are sound engineering reasons why the F and later variants of the Me-109 did not get this feature. Since the Me-155A uses essentially the same fuselage as the Me-109G it won't have a bubble canopy either. :cry:
 
A4, I suggest you take a look at the man-hours per plane and cost in RM per plane comparision between the 109 and the 190.

Then you will see why Speer, in spite of his inclination to the 190, kept the 109 in production until the end of the war...

you see, cancelling all 109 production in favour of the 190 would have meant something like six 190 produced for every 10 109 cancelled.

And as good as the 190 was, ten 109s were still a better deal than six 190s.

And this is an ADMIRER of the Wurger speaking!

I believe Bandit's response aims at the crux of this question. It is the same reason that the P-40 was still being produced after becoming obsolete.
 
Bubbly canopy increases drag. We decided it was worth it. Seems like they didn't.

I'm all in favor of a bubble canopy. However I assume there are sound engineering reasons why the F and later variants of the Me-109 did not get this feature. Since the Me-155A uses essentially the same fuselage as the Me-109G it won't have a bubble canopy either.
 
I believe Bandit's response aims at the crux of this question. It is the same reason that the P-40 was still being produced after becoming obsolete.
Exactly! It's something which people either forget or either don't realize. When it comes to wartime production, numbers matter, and often over quality.

I can understand that people say the Fw 190 was better than the Bf 109, but was it 40% better (that is 6 fw's vs 10 bf's) ? That's the question one must ask!


Kris
 
When it comes to wartime production, numbers matter
That does not explain why the Me-155A did not supercede the Me-109. It wa essentially the same fuselage with an improved wing.
 
Well, I never claimed that that was the reason. That point was about the Bf 109 vs Fw 190...


But as to why the Me 155A didn't supercede the 109, I think the reasons have already been given. I'll summarize and elaborate a bit.

The Me 155 was designed as an aircraft carrier fighter, the design was then modified to become a bomber and a high altitude fighter. It was never intended to be a regular fighter like the Bf 109. Until 1942, the Bf 109 was considered to be doing fine, after that the Me 209-II was the dedicated successor. This too was to be merely a modified Bf 109 like the Me 155.

In hindsight it would make sense to skip the Me 209 and go for a modified Me 155 but it's clear that at that time, it would have made no sense: the Me 155 didn't offer any advantage over the Me 209.

In fact, they have more in common than it might seem: both started as simple adaptations from the basic Bf 109 but once they chose to put a different engine in it more elements had to be changed and in the end, it didn't resemble the basic Bf 109 anymore.

Again in hindsight, smaller steps would have been a better option. Just keep the engine and use the enlarged wings with broad-tracked landing gear. But then one final question ... what's to prevent it from suffering from the same problems as the Bf 109H ?? That's the question !!

Kris
 
You're missing the point.

I'll try one more time. The Me 155 was not meant as a successor of the Bf 109. The Me 209 was. The Me 155 design didn't have any advantage over the Me 209. That the DB 605 was widely available is not an argument for a future design. All new fighters were designed with the DB 603 in mind. It would make no sense to stick to the DB 605 because it was widely available. From a production point of view it would but not with an aircraft which is still in the design phase.
Also, there was no need for a successor of the Bf 109 in 1942.

The point is that back in 1943 the Me 209 was the LOGICAL path, and the Me 155 a very strange choice. In hindsight it could have been a good idea but back in 1942/1943 it would have been very bizarre to go with the Me 155 instead of the Me 209.

And one still has to wonder what the Me 155 would have been like: would it have suffered from the same problems as the Bf 109H? In that case, the end of 1942 would see no production of the Me 155 and likely not ever.

Kris
 
All new fighters were designed with the DB 603 in mind.
The Me-155 would not be a new fighter. Just an improved version of the Me-109G that would enter production during early 1943.
- Wide track landing gear.
- Room for a Mg151/20 cannon in each wing root.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back