Time Machine Consultant : Maximizing the Bf-109 in January 1943

[Shortround6]

Picture is much more likely to be a 20mm MG 151 which was expermented with but rejected beause it used different ammo than the engine mounted cannon. electric primed vrs percussion primed.

The 109 never had two 15mmguns, did you mis type 13mm?

Even with a pair of of MK 108 if all that is expected is one 3 second firing pass you have a very expensive interceptor.
Most late Western fighters having firing times of 12 seconds or more, some with more than 20 seconds.

You also have the fuel issue. Which is going to take more fuel;

1, doing a head on pass on a plane at the edge (leading or side) of the formation, going past and winding up behind the formation, turning and passing the formation and then turning again for another head on pass (the 109 should have about a 100-120mph speed advantage even without using emergency power) or

2. flying back to the feild, landing, rearming, going to take off power and then climbing back up to 20,000ft ft+.

If number two not only is it not fuel effecient but you need more fighters to get the same number of firing passes per allied attack.

 

[Bronc]

I get the 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131 machine guns and the MG 151 (MG 151/15) confused all the time.
Meant to say 13mm.

It does look like a 20mm belly cannon, but the idea is still the same, what if it was a 30mm?

I'm trying to figure out a way to put more 30mm MK-108 on target. Everyone has heard
the: "it only took 3 or 4 hits with the MK-108 to down a bomber" wisdom. What they haven't
heard is how many fired rounds of 30mm it took to get those 3 or 4 on target.

Here is the Luftwaffe chart I have on MK- 103 30mm cannon performance: (Don't know the source document.)

A (4) engine bomber can be shot down with 50% certainty if:

40 rounds are fired at it from 500 meters
104 rounds are fired at it from 1000 meters
308 rounds are fired at it from 1500 meters

A (4) engine bomber can be shot down with 95% certainty if:

76 rounds are fired at it from 500 meters
203 rounds are fired at it from 1000 meters
650 rounds are fired at it from 1500 meters

Given its rainbow trajectory, I don't think the MK-108 would have any better numbers,
most likely they were worse, much worse.

These numbers are pretty illustrative of what we are seeing in gun camera footage.
From a thousand meters, it took A LOT of shooting at one bomber to bring it down.
(And with 20mm the numbers must have been even worse.) Unless it was flying last
or a straggler, not many bombers got 104, much less 203 rounds fired at it. In the
gun camera film, it looks a lot more like "spray and pray" shooting at the bomber
formations.

So we are working with the Bf-109G series. What do we have to do to get
more 30mm actually on the target, as opposed to fired at the target?

Bronc

 

[Civettone]

I have read that the blast of the 30mm cannon could damage the prop. They tried it with one or another aircraft but for the life of me I can't remember which... Maybe the Hs 123 or Ju 87?
But perhaps that was because the muzzle was too close to the prop?

And Bronc, I do not appreciate you taking things out of its context and misusing it for your convictions. We are all here because we want to learn. But providing blatantly distorted information while ignoring any counterevidence kindly provided by others and then complaining how everyone is ignoring you ... ?
So I hope this last post of yours is a new start

Kris

 

[Civettone]

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/we...ftwaffe-cannons-machineguns-topic-6368-5.html



Kris

 

[tomo pauk]

Back to the original question:
The most expedient way to maximize 109 in 1943 is to produce Bf-109Z (yep, here I go again ). It was to make almost 700km/h, plenty of cannons, and with 2nd crew member radar should've make a good nignt fighter. The second crew member in a day fighter version could be a pupil needing an introduction to combat, while looking no enemy fighter sneek behind for an easy kill. Much harder to destroy, while one crew member could've land the plane if another one is badly wounded, and/or one engine is destroyed. Since 109 is cheap anyway, and produced in numbers, the price would remain reasonable. Moreso since I'd delete the hull MGs and sinchro gear.
All availavle in 1943 with off-the-shelf components.
What's there not to love?

Hmm...got me thinking about thread coverng other possible twin-hull planes. Yak-1 9, P-40, Hurricane, MC-200 come to mind...

 

[Shortround6]

So we are working with the Bf-109G series. What do we have to do to get
more 30mm actually on the target, as opposed to fired at the target?

Bronc

Better training for the pilots?

A better gun sight?

Failing that approach you have two avenues left.
1. mount the MK 103 for flatter trajectory and less time of flight for a higher percentage of hits but unless you can really speed up development of the motor cannon version over what was done historicly this isn't going to yeild any worthwhile results. and the extra 90kg of weight isn't going to help performance any.
2. go back to "as opposed to fired at the target"
Keep the same percentage of hits to rounds fired but just fire more rounds. Barring deveopment of the revolver cannon this means more guns which the 109 has difficulty fitting in.

 

[davebender]

Do you think Me-109Z performance would be superior to the Fw-187 when powered by the same engines?

 

[tomo pauk]

The performance would've been better for the Zwlling, since it had smaller span wing area, plus Falke had 3 'bodies' (2 engines plus hull) to pirece through air, while Zwilling had only 2. The 109Z with two pilots would've be in further advantage.
Falke would have been more maneuvrable, though.

But main advantage Zwilling has over Falke was that 109 was in large-scale production and use.

 

[riacrato]

I agree with Tomo, producing a twin engined version of ANY 109 would've given the LW a good heavy fighter without the need for extensive development.

And please forget about the MK 103. There is a reason it was never used large scale: It was expensive,large, heavy, low rate of fire and the increased range is largely academical for obvious reasons.

 

[davebender]

Does anyone have production data for the Fw-187? I have no idea as to whether it was dirt cheap like the Me-109 or expensive like the P-38.

 

[Juha]

Hello Kurfürst
Now Spit F. IX with Merlin 61 and +15lb boost had almost same speed as Bf-109G-1/2 with 1.3 ata up to 5.500m, between 5.500m and 8.000m 109G was clearly faster but above 9.000m Spit was clearly faster

And in fact Typhoon IB was clearly faster than early 109Gs even after take-off and emergency power, 1.42 ata, was allowed to latter in late 43. Typhoon was even faster than Fw 190A-5 at low level so it wasn't simply " competitive with German fighters in terms of speed" but simply faster at low level, markedly so when compared to 109G.

Juha

 

[Civettone]

I agree with Tomo, producing a twin engined version of ANY 109 would've given the LW a good heavy fighter without the need for extensive development.

And please forget about the MK 103. There is a reason it was never used large scale: It was expensive,large, heavy, low rate of fire and the increased range is largely academical for obvious reasons.

Agree on the Bf 109Z. It would have made an excellent Zerstoerer, Jabo and Aufklaerer. The second crew member would definitely have to go though because you need the extra fuel ! That also means that as a night fighter it has to be restricted to an anti-Mosquito fighter. It does not have the range to be the main night fighter. The Me 210C and later Me 410 is a better option here.

Also agree on the MK 103. It was a decent gun but it was heavy and bulky. Given the fact that the average Luftwaffe pilot had mediocre gunnery abilities, a couple of MK 108s shot from close range ws probably better. The Bf 109 could carry 3 MK 108s for a speed reduction of less than 10 kmh.

Does anyone have production data for the Fw-187? I have no idea as to whether it was dirt cheap like the Me-109 or expensive like the P-38.

That's not really what it is about. The Bf 109 was cheaper than the Falke because it was already in production. Starting the Fw 187 development over again and putting it in production could be a costly move.

Kris

 

[davebender]

Bf 109 was cheaper than the Falke because it was already in production.

The Me-109 was cheap right from the beginning because it was designed to be inexpensive to produce. Like everything else it got even cheaper after producing a few thousand copies.

The P-38 and P-47 were expensive to produce and remained expensive even after being in production for years. Production experience cannot compensate for a design that is inherently difficult to build.

If the Fw-187 was inherently inexpensive then why not place it into mass production? You won't disrupt Me-109 production as they are built by different corporations. Engine supply is not an issue as the Fw-187 is powered by the same inexpensive engines as the Me-109. In my opinion Germany could place the Fw-187 into production during 1940, cancel the Fw-190 program at the same time and do at least as well as what happened historically. But this applies only if the Fw-187 is inherently cheap to mass produce.

 

[tomo pauk]

Think that we could agree that Germans had a winner in a shape of FW-187 even before war started, yet allowed it to vanish.

 

[davebender]

Yup.

Cancel the Fw-190 program during 1940. Cancel the problem plagued BMW801 engine program at the same time. The Me-109 / Fw-187 combination can perform all fighter missions until the Me-262 shows up. Put 4 cannon in the nose (i.e. similiar to Me-262) and the Fw-187 will make a fine bomber killer.

When the larger DB603 and Jumo213 engines appear they all go to bombers and night fighters.

You need to increase production of the existing DB601 / DB605 engine but that's a lot easier and less expensive then designing the BMW801 from scratch and then placing it into production.

 

[riacrato]

Cancelling the 190 would be pretty nuts. Relying on a single fighter design to carry you through a decade of world war usually is. Building the FW 187 would mean a serious reduction in the availability of bomber engines, or would result in the cancellation of the Bf 110. Which in turn would leave you without a useful night fighter unless you start converting your Ju 88s early again leading to a cut in bomber production. And all that in 1940-42 where you still have massive offensives to support.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Cancel the 190??? It was a much better machine than the 109 and as mentioned in the beginning of all this, 109 production should of stopped in favor of the 190 and subsequent models as well as the 262.

There's nothing ground breaking about the FW 187. If offered slightly lower wing loading than the Me 110 ad was a few miles an hour slower. In the end it would of been mauled in the same manner the 110 was.

 

[Altea]

Hello Altea
no P-39Ns in front line units? Maybe because the main difference between N and Q was the wing armament and Soviet pilots often removed the wing armament so maybe Soviets lumped them together under Q?

juha

Hello Juha

Really i don't know. It looks like a forgetfulness or a type mismatch from the original article. Even the Q version is quoted as O. I would rather classify the N in the K , L , M category, it was not a new plane in 1945!

But it's only my supposal....

 

[tomo pauk]

There's nothing ground breaking about the FW 187. If offered slightly lower wing loading than the Me 110 ad was a few miles an hour slower. In the end it would of been mauled in the same manner the 110 was.

However, FW-187 had 1400HP onboard, against 2200 early Bf-110s had. And 110 with almost 3000HP was not capable for 600km/h in clean configuration.
With DB-601E (same as Bf-109F4 had, for example) on board, the power is almost doubled for FW-187. My guestimate is that speeds well beyond 650km/h would've been easily achievable. Not bad for 1941, with off-the shelf parts.

 

[Juha]

Hello Altea
my logic was based on the fact, that botn N and Q had the same version of V-1710 engine, -85 and the only difference betwen N and early Q was the wing armament, without it they were practically same. Q-20 got 4 blade propeller etc.

Tomo
problem with single-seat 2 engine planes was that usually engineproduction was a bottleneck. Also they tended to be bigger than singleseaters.

Juha