The 109
- Thread starter bob44
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
meatloaf109
1st Lieutenant
It pains me to say it, but, scrap it and pour everything into the 262.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
match production 1 for 1 and make sure there are enough fully qualified pilots to fly it.
Pretty much nothing, the Bf 109 was close to completely tapped in terms of its design potential by the G-series in '43-44. K-4 was the fastest (440 mph) and had the best climb rate among piston engine fighters (850 m/min) by the end of WWII but suffered a number of limitations for that excellent performance, including much less range. It was a specialized point defense interceptor at that point and not really a well-rounded fighter.
I would say both the Fw 190D and Me 262 should've taken priority by '43. Only advantage the 109 had over them was the price tag.
I would say both the Fw 190D and Me 262 should've taken priority by '43. Only advantage the 109 had over them was the price tag.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
P-51s didn't arrive in large numbers before 1944. By then Me-109s had DB605ASM and DB605D engines producing 1,800 to 2,000 hp.
What's the problem (besides a shortage of fuel for pilot training)?
What's the problem (besides a shortage of fuel for pilot training)?
GregP
Major
I believe they could quite easily have done the following:
1) Add a blown canopy and eliminate the heavy framing and almost non-existent visibility forward-left or right.
2) Improve the wing mounting to be 4 bolts instead of 3. with wing integrity being guaranteed for any three remaining bolts.
3) Move the gear out onto the wing for a wider stance. It could still retract outward or move further out and retract inward.
4) Put in 50% more fuel; there wasn't much to start with.
5) To handle these changes, the airframe would have to grow about 10% in wing area and some percentage in tail area. Not sure if length would be an issue as I have done no calculations.
6) Add rudder and Aileron trim.
7) Change the leverage ratio so the pilot could apply more than 1/3 or less aileron at anything over 250 mph.
8) I'd try an Fw 190-style wide-blade prop, but it wouldn't be a game changer since the Me 109 was competitive right until the end anyway.
The changes above WOULD be a game changer and could make the 109 the premier fighter ... perhaps. I'd love to see one so modified but, at this late date, if I had a 109, I'd restore it to stock wartime condition for the sake of posterity and historical significance.
1) Add a blown canopy and eliminate the heavy framing and almost non-existent visibility forward-left or right.
2) Improve the wing mounting to be 4 bolts instead of 3. with wing integrity being guaranteed for any three remaining bolts.
3) Move the gear out onto the wing for a wider stance. It could still retract outward or move further out and retract inward.
4) Put in 50% more fuel; there wasn't much to start with.
5) To handle these changes, the airframe would have to grow about 10% in wing area and some percentage in tail area. Not sure if length would be an issue as I have done no calculations.
6) Add rudder and Aileron trim.
7) Change the leverage ratio so the pilot could apply more than 1/3 or less aileron at anything over 250 mph.
8) I'd try an Fw 190-style wide-blade prop, but it wouldn't be a game changer since the Me 109 was competitive right until the end anyway.
The changes above WOULD be a game changer and could make the 109 the premier fighter ... perhaps. I'd love to see one so modified but, at this late date, if I had a 109, I'd restore it to stock wartime condition for the sake of posterity and historical significance.
Last edited:
proton45
Senior Airman
I think your right about this....the IJN wanted Jiro Horikoshi and his team at Mitsubishi to continue developing the A6M, so that it could more effectively meet the "changing" requirements of air warfare. The IJN wanted to stretch the usefulness of the A6M beyond realistic expectations because it was cheaper and faster, then starting from scratch. But as we know...this never really worked out.
I don't think the late model Bf 109s were the problem. In the right hands they were a competitive fighter. They were not easy to fly,particularly fast,and the Luftwaffe didn't have enough pilots capable of flying them efficiently.
Interesting list from Greg P.
Towards the end some aircraft did get rudder trim in the form of a Flettner tab,certainly a couple of hundred K-4s and probably others,I'd have to check.
The inability to move the ailerons at high speed in the Bf 109 was a function of the cockpit design. The pilot simply couldn't exert enough force on the stick due to his position.
I remember a comparison between an Emil and a Spitfire I which showed that the forces needed to move the ailerons at a certain speed were very similar on both aircraft. In the Sptfire the pilot could apply much more force on his stick (well,spade grip/yoke) than his colleague in the 109.
If all of a sudden you enable the pilot to make substantially larger aileron deflections at high speed other factors,particularly relating to the rigidity of the wing,come into play.
Similar caveats apply to other "improvements". Fitting a bubble top on other types led to serious problems with longditudinal stability for example.
Some of the other ideas,good though they are in terms of making a better fighter,would need serious redesign and therefore take time,a lot of time,which the Luftwaffe didn't have.
These things are usually easier to write than to do
Steve
Interesting list from Greg P.
Towards the end some aircraft did get rudder trim in the form of a Flettner tab,certainly a couple of hundred K-4s and probably others,I'd have to check.
The inability to move the ailerons at high speed in the Bf 109 was a function of the cockpit design. The pilot simply couldn't exert enough force on the stick due to his position.
I remember a comparison between an Emil and a Spitfire I which showed that the forces needed to move the ailerons at a certain speed were very similar on both aircraft. In the Sptfire the pilot could apply much more force on his stick (well,spade grip/yoke) than his colleague in the 109.
If all of a sudden you enable the pilot to make substantially larger aileron deflections at high speed other factors,particularly relating to the rigidity of the wing,come into play.
Similar caveats apply to other "improvements". Fitting a bubble top on other types led to serious problems with longditudinal stability for example.
Some of the other ideas,good though they are in terms of making a better fighter,would need serious redesign and therefore take time,a lot of time,which the Luftwaffe didn't have.
These things are usually easier to write than to do
Steve
Simply incorporate all the changes: the Erla canopy, larger supercharger from DB 603A, aileron Flettner tabs, the aerodynamic improvements which were proposed since the early G-series like a more streamlined cowling, fully retractable tailwheel and wheel well covers. All these things were readily available by mid-late 1943 the latest but were not put into production and standardized fast enough. Even without MW boost (that can be added at a later time) it will result in a very capable fighter - but still doesn't solve the main problem of lack of enough fighter pilots and fuel. IMHO the decision to put all efforts into the fighters should have been made much earlier, at the expense of level bombers, which consumed extremely high amounts of fuel.
I agree with you,but one of the many reasons that standardisation was so difficult for the Germans was the supply situation. Aircraft were being assembled with whatever tail,tailwheel,wing/main gear,engines,etc were available from the various plants.
It's easy to say add Flettner tabs to the ailerons but the aircraft industry was struggling and simply didn't have the means to achieve even such modest objectives. For example,such tabs on late production Me 262s were not connected to anything but screwed in a fixed neutral position.
I doubt that the Erla hood was what GregP had in mind as a bubble canopy. It was an improvement,marginally,over the earlier heavy framed hoods.
Steve
All the Flettner did was ease the force required by the pilot when using rudder.
There was some experimenting with Flettners on the ailerons.
The 109 did get a bubble canopy and wide spaced l/g in the form of Me309.
Absolutely,but it went a long way to easing the "heavy leg" caused by flying with the constant rudder pressure required just to keep pointing in the right direction at high speed. Some Flettner fitted late war rudders had no static trim tabs at all.
A discussion about the variations in late war Bf 109 rudder configurations could fill another thread
The Flettner tab deflects in the opposite direction to the rudder and was supposed to stay parallel to the direction of flight no matter what the deflection of the rudder.
Steve
Last edited:
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Those aren't trivial changes. You've created an entirely new airframe which will be more capable but also more expensive to produce.
Historically most Germany fighter pilots liked the Me-109 right up to the end of the war. But if the Me-109G airframe is deemed inadequate then don't piddle around. Me-309 was a low priority project which began development during 1940. Kick the Me-309 program into high priority and it will supercede the Me-109 in production by 1944. Stick with readily available DB605 engines rather then asking for scarce DB603s. The 1,800 hp DB605ASM engine (available late 1943) is perfectly adequate for a lightweight fighter aircraft. The 2,000 hp DB605D (available late 1944) is better yet.
The 2000hp was only obtained with 1.98ata boost and using C3 fuel. It was cleared use, iirc, in late March 1945.
DB 605 DM First DB 605 D version, standard MW-50 equipment, up to 1700 PS
DB 605 DB Improved 605 DM, standard MW-50 equipment, first version up to 1850 PS, later reduced to 1800 PS, B4 fuel
DB 605 DC Improved 605 DM, standard MW-50 equipment, up to 2000 PS, C3 fuel
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Even 1,700 PS is plenty for a lightweight fighter aircraft.
What matters most is to pick a readly available engine. Using the same engine as the superceded Me-109 insures that will be the case. I would also opt for readily available MG151/20 cannon rather then asking for a weapon still in development that might never enter production.
What matters most is to pick a readly available engine. Using the same engine as the superceded Me-109 insures that will be the case. I would also opt for readily available MG151/20 cannon rather then asking for a weapon still in development that might never enter production.
March 20th 1945. A bit late to have any effect. There is speculation that some units were already running with the increased boost but it had been forbidden as recently as January 1945.
Steve
It was being tested from late (?) Dec 1944 with a unit of JG11. Some sources say II./JG11 but as from what I have found only 12 a/c, which means 2./JG11. Somewhere someone mixed up the Roman and the Arabic 'two'.
Whatever no one should totally believe what is on the Kurfurst web site.
The January prohibition came after failiures in engines being tested by Daimler Benz. Those documents are available in places besides Kurfurst's site. I'm sure he himself wouldn't claim to have an unbiased opinion of the Bf 109. He certainly has an extremely biased view of the Spitfire.
There is no convincing evidence that anyone was actually using the higher boost operationally before the end of the war. Some protagonists of the DB 605 D powered 109s choose to believe that they were being run at 1.98 ata which is their perogative.
Anyway it's nit picking. It certainly wasn't a meaningful possibility in 1944. As Davebender said there were plenty of powerful enough engines available for prospective fighters without needing to blow them up with increased boost pressures.
The effort to increase the performance of these engines,even for ten minutes at a time,smacks of the general desperation which seems to have pervaded the entire Luftwaffe at this time.
Steve
There is no convincing evidence that anyone was actually using the higher boost operationally before the end of the war. Some protagonists of the DB 605 D powered 109s choose to believe that they were being run at 1.98 ata which is their perogative.
Anyway it's nit picking. It certainly wasn't a meaningful possibility in 1944. As Davebender said there were plenty of powerful enough engines available for prospective fighters without needing to blow them up with increased boost pressures.
The effort to increase the performance of these engines,even for ten minutes at a time,smacks of the general desperation which seems to have pervaded the entire Luftwaffe at this time.
Steve
kettbo
Senior Airman
I'd
delete the nose machineguns and put 20s in the wings. even if only 60 rds per gun
I do believe the fuel tank could be enlarged some or put a tank where the nose MG ammo was
better gunsight earlier
DB601ASM
RETRACTABLE AND COVERED TAIL WHEEL AND OTHER SMOOTHING
big problem was lack of fuel and the decline of replacement pilot quality. All the new growth attrition in 43/44 that could have been reduced considerably
delete the nose machineguns and put 20s in the wings. even if only 60 rds per gun
I do believe the fuel tank could be enlarged some or put a tank where the nose MG ammo was
better gunsight earlier
DB601ASM
RETRACTABLE AND COVERED TAIL WHEEL AND OTHER SMOOTHING
big problem was lack of fuel and the decline of replacement pilot quality. All the new growth attrition in 43/44 that could have been reduced considerably
davebender
1st Lieutenant
That's a single problem. 1942 and later Germany could not provide replacement pilots with enough flight hours due to a shortage of aviation gasoline.
