Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

Two points immediately jump out:
Why did Willi not redesign the wing to accomodate armament in later versions of the 109? If the Allied powers and Italy and the Japanese could design a fighter airplane wing that could accomodate armament, why not the Germans. I dare say that if the 109F/G/K wing had been redesigned , fewer German aviators would have died becuase of the inherent speed penalty in underwing guns.
Also, why did they not incorporate a starter? I bet the German mechanics would have applauded. Or would that have made them lazy?
Finally, I read somewhere that one version of the 109F had a cut off valve that would conderve coolant in case of a leak. This was only used in the 109F and not in later versions?

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

Messerschmitt was perfectly capable of designing a wing with guns, as the Bf 109E had such. However, he is not the only designer to avoid such, the Russians being perhaps the most obvious and Yakovlev is on record as giving at least partial reasons. Placing guns in the wings (inside or outside) increases the inertias in roll and yaw, making the aircraft less agile. The wings twist during flight, making accurate firing even more difficult.

A wing without guns can also be made simpler and lighter, which brings its own advantages. Once a wing has been designed without guns, then finding room for the weapon, ammunition, case ejection storage or chutes, and heating, is not a simple problem. Redesigning a wing to achieve this would mean major disruptions to the factory lines, with significant lost production. The gondolas may have penalised the 109 in speed, but even more so in agility, and this would have been the same with internal guns. As it was, the gondolas could be removed and the fighter returned to its optimum agility: with internal carriage much of the penalty would have been retained at all times.

Hopefully, of course, the gondola-equipped aircraft would be limited to bomber destruction, with the clean examples taking care of any enemy fighters. Messerschmitt did produce an internal fitting for the stubby MK108 for very late Ks, but this can only be regarded as a specialist bomber destroyer.

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

I guess my point is that the added weight to the wing structure would be more than compensated by the additional speed over gun gondola Bf-109s.
While the Germans did try to specialize, AKA the high Altitude Escort Staffel which always flew Bf-109s, it would have been better for the type of war they were fighting to use standardized Bf-109s with interior guns. Plus, any reinforcement to the Bf-109 wing would not be a bad thing (see BAlthasar JG-2)
asfar as the other two, it would have helped a great deal.

Oh well, the Luftwaffe probably thought the He-177 was the weapon that would win the war...Too bad they did not assign those resources towards Bf-109 improvements.

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

Hi kaki3152, I think you are overestimating the speed lost due to the gondolas. Here's a test of a 109 with Mk108 gondolas, only 6 km/h speed loss is reported:

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/...08gondies.html

Since also inner guns would result in increased wing drag, I would say that the variation between gondolas/integrated should be negligible.

The weight is really the issue here.

In fact, I would say that, in the 109 case, the gondolas is a better solution, allowing more flexibility

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

I understand the loss in speed due to the gondolas as more than that: I have 15 in my memory, but whether that was kph, mph or knots I can't say! kph probably. The loss in speed due to the drag of internally mounted guns would be significantly less than that of the gondolas. Weight has a negligible effect on maximum speed.

The 109 wing wasn't significantly weak, and there's no guarantee that fitting extra open spaces would have strengthened it at all. Carrying weight outboard on the wing does reduce the bending moment at the root, but the penalty on agility would over-ride that.

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

I know from Guenther Rall that he hated wing cannons, no matter if gondola-mounted or integrated. They reduced roll rate and jammed in tight turns, thus making the whole system inoperable. Whenever he had been assigned a 109 with wing armament, he did not fly it in combat before these guns were removed. The opinions of aces like Guenther had a considerable influence on the Messerschmitt engineers, so they tended toward concentrating firing power as close as possible around the longitudinal axis of a fighter.

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

Here is a thread from late last year on the wing/wing guns of the Bf 109. Enjoy:
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/fo...showtopic=2566

Re: Gunther Rall and wing guns. As Adolf Galland noted, there were a few pilots like Werner Moelders who could get by with minimum armament because they were deadly accurate in their shooting. But, for most pilots, the more lead they could get in the air, the better chance they had of hitting something.

And here's a comment about the effectiveness of the 109/190 from someone who should know, a gunner on a B-24. This is by Crumpp in "All about warfare II -- Aviation Board."

"Just thought I would give a round up from some of the main points with my conversations with some of the Veterans recently.

"I have been talking with Oscar Boesch and Forest S. Clark about signing a painting to raise money for the White 1 Foundation.

"Forest S. Clark served in the 8th AF, 44th Bomber Group as a gunner onboard a B24.

"Some interesting highlights from Forest:

"1. He loved the B24 naturally as it always brought him home. The Davis wing was not his favourite feature as he says the aircraft could not glide far at all. If they lost more two engines, chances were they would not make it to the North Sea to ditch.

"2. The B24 constantly smelled of avaition fuel inside. Fire was there biggest concern.

"3. When threat ID training, the FW190 was stressed as the more dangerous of the two German fighters. He witnessed several air battles between fighters and was impressed with the FW190. It was a 190´s that shot him down. They were attacked by Me109´s on several occasions but none ever came close to bringing them down.

"4. He is writing an article for the White 1 Foundations members section on the FW190. I look forward to reading it.

"I encourage you to drop in and check out the 8th AF museum in GA. It is a wonderful experience.

"Highlights from Oscar:

"1. When turning the FW190 at high speed, it only took one hand on the stick to control the plane. This allowed him to get a much better feel for the aircraft compared to the 109 he flew until 1943. In the 109 it took two hands and a lot of strength to make a tight turn if you had some speed. This destroyed the feel for flying the aircraft.

"2. He restated that the stall on the FW190 did have warning and you could feel the plane burble through the stick.

"3. He confirmed the boost he was using was Alkohol-Einspritzung in December ´44.

"4. The USAAF fighters attacked usually on their climb up when they reached altitudes above 6000 meters. They knew the 190´s performance fell off. We talked about the supercharger at length and he provided some nice details.

"5. On the differences between the Kommandogerät and the 109´s system he had some interesting comments. From the pilots point of view there was little differences. As an experienced 109 pilot, he felt the 190 seemed to run better. He rarely flew the FW190 on manual except for take-off and landing as per manual instructions. His opinion of the Kommandgerät was that it did a much better job of keeping the engine and prop at optimum settings than any pilot could do manually."

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

Every German pilot I have spoken to said they HATED the Wing Gondolas...though it did not affect speed, manueverabilty WAS terribly hampered.

The Me109K6, K10, and K-14 all were designed to have 1 30mm Mk108 IN the wings, (same way as thethe Me109E had). I believe the the K-10 and K-14 also were to have a MK103 as the nose cannon.

keep in mind the Germans used explosive cannons, while the Americans were not. 1 shot from a 30mm would blow the wing right off...a .50cal woould not do even close, so the extra weaponry would not have been needed anyway...

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

Due to the low rate of fire of the 30mm cannon, a hit on anything during a dogfight was highly problematic. That's why the MK 108 was a bomber killer, and considered useless against fighters.

Remember, the idea behind the wing weapons on the 109 was for the increased firepower, generally for use against bombers rather than against other fighters. But, without the wing weapons, the firepower of the 109F/G was pathetic. That's why US bombers were generally able to laugh it off, whereas they never laughed at the firepower of the Fw 190!

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/...09myths/#myths

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Carson.html

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

Carson is not the best reference, further the worst problem is not a design one is that it will be necessary to hv at least 2 much more of them I mean of bf109, nd the pilots to drive them nd the gasoline to feed them,you don't win a war with best fighter but with the greater number, even against the P51, 1 to 1, the P51 hv soon diseappear of the european skies..


remi

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

This must be a joke. P-51 outclassed any German fighter available and ruled the sky over Germany since spring 1944. The one cannot agree with Carson's arguments though.

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

Nobody contest that the P51 was the second best fighter of WWII, I just try to put emphasis in qty vs qly, the same qty of 109 waiting for same qty of mustangs, would lead to losses that USAF would not sustain for long, pls see the lesson of the BoB, the hurricane if enought of them would win it even alone

remi

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

Mustang did not win the war because of quantity but because of range and quality of a system they were part of. There were numerous dog fights in the later part of war when Allied aircraft were outnumbered, nonetheless beating the Germans. Luftwaffe, even if triple sized, was just enough hopeless, not to be able to win the air war. Rather low quality of their aircraft was just one of the factors.

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

The facts are, that without air superiority, the allies could not land nd so not win the war, no necessity to count on the soviets, air superiority is the number, at 1 against 10 there is no dogfights just butchery, I admit that even with the judgement we hv today 60 years after, a bit easier, they probably not achieved to hv air-superiority or share this one

rémi

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

So what do you think was the best, then?

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

Had the Western Allies no numerical superiority in aviation, they would win the airwar anyway. It would only take a little more time. Apart of that, Germans could build up their numbers as well, but they did not. Not the first case of their incompetence in strategical planning.

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

You're not thinking this through, Franek. If the Western Allies hadn't achieved air superiority when they did, there would have been no Normandy invasion, and the Soviets would ultimately have taken all of Germany, and with it western Europe.

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

In it's class the P51 or the corsair, in the upper class the 262.

Franek, You are right they could increase nd increase but, is the victory worth of such expenses to put on the knee the victor ??, would people in a "democraty" accept that ? The planers were better for sure in a non-administred economy that in an administred one, like germany or russia

George, if german achieved air-superiority, in that game, they achieve it in whole europe, so russian stay quite around koursk, the later step if no decision on the track, is to make separate "waffen-stillstände'', or due to no offensive intiative from both side a de facto, waffen-stillstand

rémi

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

Yeah and Spitfire won the BoB... :rolleyes:

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

Apart from the lack of relevance of the BoB, a better case can be made that the Hurricane won it. Hence the Hurricane was the best fighter of WW2?

But if we are being serious, the British defence system won it, rather than any single weapon. Can we now get back to the design features of the 109?

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

I agree that the Me 262 represented the next stage in technology but its actual achievements in combat were not so spectacular and nor did its pilots have a markedly better chance of survival. (There is an analysis of this in Manfred Boehme's book "Jagdgeschwader 7").

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

We return to the first point the qty, Me262 don't won the war because, there is no in strength in 1942/43 2000 of them, 1944 need 4000 of them

Hurricane ? nd because they would hv enought of them

remi

Maybe the war hs been won by the liberal economy, so strange idea they hv to back-up the most anti-liberal system

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

The war was won by superior economies and superior weapon systems. Mustang was only a part of a system but it was a high quality part, outclassing respective German pieces. There is a general tendency trying to prove German superiority in several areas, but mostly it is not justified at all.
Returning back to Me 109, it generally lacked development potential and it was not possible to put as much war load as necessary into it. No room for more weapons, more fuel, teardrop canopy, etc.

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

trying to prove German superiority in several areas, but mostly it is not justified at all.
?????

At least they are the first to put a radar on a horse...



http://cgi.ebay.de/WWII-Foto-Funker-...QQcmdZViewItem

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

Ah yes... the famous "Nacht Cavalry" with the steed camouflaged in late-war overall hellblau.

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

Here's a recent post of mine on the subject, copied over from LEMB, for what it's worth :

Contrary to popular belief, the gunpods were not so hurting to performance, Soviet trials showed the following results with a clean and gondie G-2 : top speed 666/650 km/h at 7000m, time for a 360 degree turn at 1000m 20 sec vs. 22.6 sec, time to 5000m 4.4 vs 5.1 min.

Messerschmitt's specs for gunpods with ammuntion added 215 kg (135kg w/o ammuniton) to the takeoff weight, and a decrease of speed by 8 km/h at SL.

The weight increase was comparable to normal (inside-) wing installations, taking into account the weight of ammunition boxes, mounting rails for guns which the cannon gondolas contain in one single unit. As noted the gondola guns complete with housing etc., but without ammunition weight 135 kg for a pair of MG 151/20. In comparison, Fritz Hahn gives the installation weight of a pair of MG 151/20 complete with all accessories, but without ammo into the FW 190A-4/U8 as 126.7 kg.

As far as the drag goes, it would be interesting see the drag penaly for a internally mounted MG 151/20 in FW 190, but I've no such data; I have it for Spitfires though, which is detailed for various installations, understood for the change of speed at 360 mph. It goes as, as far as cannon armament concerned compared to the 'ideal' Spit, for our purposes, a Mk I without the cannons in the wing :

Two cannons : - 6.25 mph (ie. B-Wing :)
Two cannons and two cannon stubs : -8 mph (ie. C-wing)
Small bulge over wing : - 0.5 mph (late C-wing)
Large bulge over wing : - 1.5 mph (early C-wing)

This being compared to about 15 kph (~9mph) measured by the Soviets as speed penalty for gondolas at rated altitude of 7000m on G-2, and the 8kph@SL/~12 kph@VDH given by Messerschmitt in Leistungzusammenstellung Me 109G, here :
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/...ragitems_table

The 109K-6's speed with the internal wing MK 108 cannons is given as apprx. 10 km/h slower than the K-4's at altitude.

Overall, it doesn't occur to me using gondolas were any heavier or draggier than using internal armament which would have resulted in some distruption of the aiflow near the surface, and some additional blisters on the wings. The gondolas may have been of greater surface area, but they pushed the gun well below of the boundary layer and probably made up for their greater size by causing less turbulance in the airflow. This was probably a very deliberate choice by Messerschmitt, who probably considered the need for such a heavy firepower involving three fast firing 20mm cannons only required in special cases, as so opted for removable gondolas which does not seem to hurt performance any more than internally placed cannons. When carrying gondolas, the early Me 109Gs could match the FW 190's firepower, as well as speed at altitude, rate of climb and turn.

PS : Spanish 109G 'Buchon' airframes had carried Hispano cannons inside the wings, so it was certainly technically possible..

Kurfürst! - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

Getting out of the boundary layer would have increased the drag, so that argument is self-defeating. In a boundary later the flow is slower, hence any protrusion creates less drag inside than outside. However, this near the leading edge the the boundary layer is insignificant. A gondola is just a large blister, of considerably greater cross-sectional area and poorer aerodynamic profile: the increased surface area is only one contribution to drag.

The prime contribution to drag (in either kind of installation) was likely to be the barrel, with cross-flow separating from the downstream side and creating base drag. Circular sections are poor. This may point at one possible benefit from the Messerschmitt installation. The airflow near the leading edge of the wing is flowing from the stagnation point, which is behind the leading edge, and so flow at the base of the barrel (Spitfire mounting) would have a considerable cross-flow element - around the barrel rather than along it. With the barrel mounted below the wing, it may have avoided this particular condition. I'm not completely convinced by this argument - we are looking for drag forces along the aircraft axis not an extra force upwards. However, the lowest drag for an engine installation, or store carriage, is found below and in front of the wing, and that is where the barrel is on Messerschmitt's installation.

This may have been an inadvertent result of the decision to use easily-removable gondolas, for Messerschmitt's twin and multi-engine types don't demonstrate knowledge of this effect. It was discovered at the RAE between the design of the Halifax and the Lancaster.

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

The 190 with the dual 20mm gunpods had a loss of speed of between 19 and 25mph, depending of the height.

One must really question the 109 speed loss with gondolas as the tiny bomb racks on a P-51 resulted in a greater speed loss.

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

TIn spite of the increased firepower of those dual 20mm gunpods, it was not popular because it reduced maeuverability, speed, and ceiling.

This was the problem with the 109 gondolas. They may not have done much to reduce speed or ceiling, but they certainly reduced maneuverability. And, without the gondola-mounted guns, the firepower of the 109 was pretty pathetic.

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

"the firepower of the 109 was pretty pathetic"

Hmmmm strange that it managed to shoot down so many enemy aircrafts with such pathetic firepower.

Best
Olve

Re: Messerschmitt 109 Design Problems
 

Actually, I was mainly thinking about their effectiveness against the USAAF heavy bombers. But, as Galland said, they would have done far better with more weapons. As it was, the great fliers and fighters did well, the less well fliers and fighters quickly faded from the scene.

And, sadly, that was only one aspect of the Bf 109. It could have been so much better. But, as we pig farmers might say: "It was always left sucking the hind tit." And, only minimal effort was expended in making it a more effective a/c because the major effort was always being spent on its successors, which never worked out. It is hard to realize just how many improvements, that could have made the 109 more deadly, easier to control in high speed flight, and easier to land and take-off, had been tested early in the war, and not instituted until near war's end, and sometimes not even then.