Quote:
Originally Posted by harrison987
Yes, I already said that the standard Erla Haube could not be pressurized, due to the steels used.
The prototype H model was made at the end of 1943, which is why I referenced it...I was not referring to this specific aircraft, but rather the initial design (which was based on an F initially)...so that was not me misquoting anything. I was simply stating that when it was initially designed, the pressurized Erla Haube was not even on the drawing board.
Just because an Erla Haube was said to have been installed on a G5 airframe, does not mean that they kept the pressurization. It could started WITH a pressurized cockpit (and standard canopy)...and then adapted later to take the Erla (pilot preferred) with no pressurization.
After all...none of these aircraft NEEDED pressurization. The B-17 was at mega high altitudes and was unpressurized. Though it was "convenient" for the German pilots to have this...they were already flying at high enough altitudes without it.
If it was something they "had" to have...they would have made the G3 and G5 in mass numbers.
I suspect it originally had the standard canopy, but was later changed out to the Erla...and they dropped the pressurization as it was not needed, really not that great to begin with, and had its problems.
|
Actually, I think we are mostly in agreement. My comment about the standard Erla Haube was in reply to Graham Boak’s suggestion that it might have been modified for pressurization – something I agree with you would have been impossible because of its construction.
I took your 1943 reference to be with regard to 110073 at Guyancourt, hence the misunderstanding. While, strangely, the 1942 Sofort-Programm to produce a high-altitude fighter was based on the 109 F (which had ceased production in April 1942, with the G-1 entering production in February of that year), the Schnellösung of 1943 which gave rise to the 109 H was based on the G-5/U2 from the outset, with projected production versions being derived from the 109 K. Two drawings of the production 109 H based on the K fuselage both show an Erla Haube. Unfortunately, I do not have a date for those drawings, but I would assume they are from early 1944, given that the 109 H was essentially shelved by the middle of that year.
I agree that the V49 may have lost its pressurization – see my reply to Graham Boak. However, both the DB 628 and the Bf 109 H had design altitudes of 14 000 – 15 000 m. So, for testing the full envelope of both this engine, and the airframe, a functioning pressure cabin would have been indispensable. The V54 was tested extensively, also at high altitudes, and the Guyancourt W.Nr. 110073 was used for high-altitude reconnaissance. So, at least both these two airframes would have required functioning pressure cabins.
I also agree that for combating bombers over Europe, pressurized fighters were not required – which is also a reason why pressurized versions of the 109 were abandoned after the G-5 (of which about 550 were built, not an insignificant number). However, cabin pressurization is indispensable for high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, which was one of the main roles envisaged for the 109 H besides that of extreme altitude fighter (where it could have been used to combat allied high-altitude reconnaissance machines). Remember, the 109 H was intended to operate at altitudes around 14 000 m, where cabin pressurization is a necessity.
In any case, to get back to the Guyancourt machine W.Nr. 110073: this aircraft definitely had a functioning pressure cabin, given its intended role and the quoted altitude of 14 200 m it achieved (Nick Beale's Ghostbombers website). Planning for the conversion dates at least to January 1944 (see the Bauzustand posted by piero, with a date of 24.1.44). The machine was converted at Guyancourt in Spring 1944, with Fritz Wendel making the first test flights on 5-6 April 1944 (test report by Wendel). In May it was transferred to 5.(F)/123 for operational testing, and on 12 July it was shot down by friendly FlaK (Ghostbombers website, courtesy of Nick Beale). So, while I consider it most likely that this aircraft was fitted all the time with a standard three-piece pressurized canopy, in my opinion, this timeline does not entirely exclude the possibility that it *might* have been equipped at some point with a pressurized Erla Haube. The same also goes for the V54, which made its first flight on 2 November 1943, and was damaged in a forced landing on 29 June 1944, marking its final flight (it was intended to be repaired and slated to undergo further modifications, but it seems this was never finished – see Nick Beale’s Ghostbombers page).