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

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

Civettone said:
I don't think the C3 ...
Kurfurst had a say about it ... Axis History Forum • View topic - 87 octane fuel vs. 100 octane !

Kris
Click to expand...

Kurfurst said you say... but from

- P.Wilkinson, Aircraft engines of the world, NY 1944. the german C3 has 93 octanes number
- from TsAGI the C3 it's quoted 94
- from TsIAM it's measured at 93, from soviet CFR test (variable volume cylinder)

So the so called 100 octanes german fuel behavior reminds highly questionnable, at least...
 

Thank's for good common sense.

Just my five cents: There is some compress loss from the supercharger to cylinder, transformed to turbulence losses, that means extra heat...So i would say 10.13 for the first case, 10.8 for secund if you don't mind...

Regards
 
If the Me 155 of davebender was to get the enlarged wing and heavier weight of the guns it would be slower than the standard Bf 109. Right dave?
Click to expand...
That depends on aerodynamic issues. The P-51D was heavier then a Me-109G6 yet it was a bit faster.
 
As the rest of the Bf 109 was left unchanged (perhaps except for a taller tail) )but the wing area increased while the chord did not diminish I find it logical that the speed would decrease.
The P-51 was faster because it had laminar wings, the Monroe effect and a good aerodynamical profile in general.

Kris
 
The CV version had a greater wing area in order to lower the stall speed, making it easier to land on an aircraft carrier. However nothing requires a land based Me-155 to be exactly the same. It could have clipped wings in an effort to keep the wing area similiar to the Me-109G. You still have wide track landing gear and room in the wing root for a cannon.
 
Putting the landing gear out in the wings retracting inwards would require slightly heavier wing structure to handle the load. The heavier armament will increase weight. Performance will not be as good as a standard 109 but perhaps better than a 109 with underwing gondolas?
 
Performance will not be as good as a standard 109 but perhaps better than a 109 with underwing gondolas?
Click to expand...
That's pretty much what we are aiming for. We also improve capability to operate from rough and/or muddy airfields.

Personally I would delete the 2 cowl mounted machineguns. You don't need them if you have 3 x MG151/20 cannon. That will save a bit of weight and possible allow for aerodynamic improvements.
 
Quoted from Messerschmitt Bf-109 by Robert Grinsell, specifically writing about the
Bf-109G:

"...the increased weight of the [engine] and added armament reduced speed and handling
characteristics and made the landing of the aircraft extremely hazardous to fly in inclement weather,
especially at night. [...] Equipment malfunctions, structural failures due to fatigue, and pilots bailing
out rather than trying to land in dangerous and potentially fatal conditions, rapidly reduced the available planes..."

Fellars, when your combat fighter pilots would rather JUMP OUT of their airplanes instead of trying
to land them, THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT AIRPLANE. PERIOD.

The Me-155B with the DB-628: was 50-75 mph faster than the Bf-109G, was armed with (3) three 20mm MG-151/20 cannons, was operating routinely
in test flights at 50,000 feet, COMPLETELY ELIMINATED the Me-109's NOTORIOUS takeoff and landing characteristics and it was ready for series production in January 1943.

The RLM chose not to build the Me-155B, but also, and most incredibly, they walked away from the
DB-628 as well...

Bronc
 

Attachments

  • ME155B with DB628.jpg
    47.7 KB · Views: 136
The underwing gondalas created a 8 kmh decrease in maximum speed.
Though extra guns are nice for attacking the bombers, I find it unncessary to change Bf 109 production completely to the Me 155. On the front lines they didn't need a fighter with great high altitude performance nor with better armament.
That's why a standard Bf 109 with removable underwing gondalas was sufficient.
I suppose that's also why the Germans later went for the Bf 109H with only had the longer wings and the new engine.


Now, one more time about the Me 155B (with the DB 628 ). The Bf 109H was similar as both got an added wing section.

The Bf 109H was an attempt to design a high-altitude fighter to fill a gap in the Luftwaffe inventory left by the failure of the earlier Me 155 and Me 209 projects. The 109H was based on the same fuselage as the Bf 109G. It was to be equipped with a high-altitude pressurized cockpit. The standard 109 wings were lengthened from 9.92m to 13.25m by the addition of a rectangular central section. The Bf-109H-1s were evaluated by the Luftwaffe in France in early 1944. The trials went well, except for the fact that the aircraft demonstrated an unhealthy wing flutter in dives. Tests were conducted on some of these aircraft back in Augsburg, and in April 1944 one lost a wing during a dive. This apparently stalled the program, which was then presently cancelled in favor of the Focke-Wulf Ta-152H.

I have also read an account by one the pilots who were testing the Bf 109H in France. He thought it was the most idiotic idea ever. But I don't know why he was opposed to it. It could also have been due to the GM-1 and flying at extreme high altitude...

Now as to the DB 628. I have also said this before. The DB 628 was longer. It shifted the centre of gravity in such a way that a redesign of the wing placement was required. This led to even more changes until the design was too altered to still use a standard Bf 109 which was required for production. I have seen the diagrams of the Bf 109H with DB 628. It is quite clear. Also the DB 628 was far from ready. DB only managed to complete the DB 605D and the DB 603A during the war. All other projects failed to reach production. All of this is quite unfortunate because I think the Bf 109 with a DB 628 could have been great.



http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/cannons-friedrich-15884.html
This thread also showed that the later Bf 109K-6 managed to get two cannons inside the wing, not as gondolas.
Kris
 
Last edited:
Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance

635 to 660 kph. Me-109F4 Max speed. The German data sheets do not agree.
632 to 664 kph. 652 kph average. Me-109G1 Max speed.

3 kph. Speed reduction from cowl mounted MG131s. With enlarged cowl made for MG131 installation.
8 kph. Speed reduction from 2 x MG151/20 wing cannon and ammunition. 215 kg additional weight.
12 kph. Speed reduction from non-retractable tailwheel.

652 kph. Me-109G14/U Max speed.
.....1 x Mk108 3cm engine mounted cannon.
.....2 x MG131 13mm cowl mounted machineguns.
.....2 x MG151/20 wing mounted cannon.
.....DB605 AM engine with MW-50.

It appears to me the Luftwaffe decided the 652 kph / 405 mph max speed of the Me-109G1 was fast enough. Higher HP engines were matched with additional firepower so max speed remained around 652 kph throughout 1942 to 1945. The Me-109G14 has plenty of firepower for knocking down heavy bombers while retaining more then adequate performance vs P-51D escort fighters. All this talk about the Me-109 series falling behind in performance is much ado about nothing.

If I were going to change something....
- Delete the two cowl mounted machineguns. Wiith three cannon you don't need them.
- Keep the retractable tailwheel. This will probably increase aircraft cost slightly.

With both these changes late war Me-109s will be 15 kph / 9 mph faster. A worthwhile performance increase with no drawbacks that I can see.
 
Which aspect of performance?

Top straight line speed at the optimum altitude for the engine? Which maybe several thousand feet lower than the optimum altitude for the opposing fighters?

Climb?

Which sufferes much more from weight increases than straight line speed.

Rolling ability?

Turning ability?

Both wing loading and power loading. The latter helping the fighter sustain speed in a turn.

And of course the ever popular landing and take-off performance.

Not to mention the 109s heavy controls at high speeds. Not much sense in going really fast if your control forces are so high that you have trouble out manuvereing your oposition.

Straight line performance is a rather simplistic way of comparing fighters or judging if an aircraft was passed it's prime.
 
I think the problem with the 109 when equipped with the wing cannons was more to do with handling in particular the climb, acceleration and the rate of roll. So as long as the bombers were not escorted and you have enough warning to climb to the bombers you were OK.
If they were escorted or you didn't have time then you were in trouble.
 
davebender said:
Perhaps this is part of the reason someone decided 652 kph is fast enough for the Me-109G.
Click to expand...

...which leads to the another question: by what time we could remove the 109 away from the Premier league of fighters? Early or late 1943? Early 1944?
 
we have number of force on stick on 109 and on other fighter for compare it?
imho 109 is in premier league for all the war
 
what time we could remove the 109 away from the Premier league of fighters?
Click to expand...
The original Me-109 design dates to 1934. I think it was outdated by early 1945 when newer generation aircraft like the Ta-152, Me-262, Tempest, Ki-84 and P-51H started to enter service in quantity.
 
tomo pauk said:
...which leads to the another question: by what time we could remove the 109 away from the Premier league of fighters? Early or late 1943? Early 1944?
Click to expand...

1943 and 1944 certainly not. She was competitive through to the end of the war even in 1945. By 1944 her design had certainly run its course though with much more advanced piston engined aircraft such as the Ta 152, Fw 190D, F8F, etc taking shape.

By 1945 anyhow piston engined aircraft had already reached their pinnacle, with Jet aircraft in service.
 
NOW I'm puzzled.
We have a 10 page thread to 'maximize the 109 in January 1943', yet at least two (edit: three) people think that it was a top-notch bird up to the end of war.
Weren't the F4-U P-47C much better planes during 1943 then a contemporary 109? And much better to save all those pilots, experten novices alike?
Not to mention the 1944 competition (P-51B/D, Tempest, Spit XIV)...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Bf 109 everything
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
3K
special ed
S
J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
755
Jerrybandit67
J
J
BF-109K-4 aerial victories
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
CHen10
617th squadron and the bunkers in Ijmuiden.
2
Replies
23
Views
811
DerAdlerIstGelandet
M
First JATO Flight in the USA Anniversary
Replies
13
Views
1K
MIflyer
M
Menu
Log in
Register