A Better Messerschmitt Bf 109

Well, the 30's design were similar in many ways:


109 Yak-1 MC202 Spit XIV Yak-9
Length 8,95 8,5 8.85 9.14 8,55
Wingspan 9,93 10,0 10,58 11,23 9,74
Height 2,6 2,64 3,49 3,05 3,00

Not a lot of difference, really.

I read somewhere that some pilots did prefer the tight 109 cockpit as it prevented them from being pushed around in the cockpit by g-forces when flying combat. Don't know how reliable it is.

Where LW went wrong was not to start to develop newer types. Compare this to Typhoon (which started as the replacement for the hurricane) and others:

Typhoon Tempest P-47D FW-190 ME-262
L 9,73 10,26 11,0 10,2 10,6
W 12,67 12,49 12,42 10,5 12,6
H 4,66 4,9 4,47 3,35 3,5

So, I think it is a safe bet to conclude that the 109 was at its sell-by date.

The wing was always a problem and seriously getting to modify that would entail a new machine.

Solution: move on.

Interesting to see that that (in my opinion) the spit also overstayed its welcome.The very last types were hardly comparable to the late 1940's design (Tempest, P-47, Corsair, Me-262, etc).

Keeping on "improving" the design might be a stop-gap measure, but does not gain anything in the longer run. Of course Germany hardly had any "longer run" when we are lookig at 1943 onwards.

Ivan
 
that came out as rubbish, sorry:

109 L: 8,95..........W: 9,925.........H: 2,6
Yak-1......L: 8,5...........W10,0.............H 2,64
MC 202....L 8,85...........W 10,58..........H 3,49
Spit XiV...L 9,14...........W 11,23..........H 3,05

Typhoon:.......L: 9,73............W: 12,67.......H:4,66
Tempest:.......L: 10,26..........W: 12,49.........H: 4,90
P47D:............L: 11,0.............W 12,42........H4,47
190: ............L: 10,2.............W: 10,5........H 3,35
262:............L10,6..............W:12,6..........H: 3,5

sorry
 

trajen777

Banned
The undercarrage - lots of damage -- bigger drop tank that is used (already mentioned)

Then the key additional would to have the 20 mm cannons be hi volocity (what was origionally the spec) on the plane --- many of the hits scored by the 109 20 mm did not down Brit planes -- a HV shell on the 20 mm would have done this
 
The undercarrage - lots of damage -- bigger drop tank that is used (already mentioned)

Then the key additional would to have the 20 mm cannons be hi volocity (what was origionally the spec) on the plane --- many of the hits scored by the 109 20 mm did not down Brit planes -- a HV shell on the 20 mm would have done this


The Battle of Britain Bf-109E was armed with the Oerlikon build 20mm FF, while from the Bf-109F serries the MK-151 20mm of Mauser was used, which was slightly heavier as a weapon, but had a higher musslevelocity and higher rate of fire. The Mauser gun was the better and more modern, as the Oerlikon FF gun actually dated back in origin to the late 20's and was also the base for the Japanese Type 99-1 20mm gun used in the A6M Zero.

The real factor the shells occasionally failed in battle was not so much the gun, but the quality of the ammunitions, as the 20mm shells of the 1940 period were a bit unreliable and did not explode when hitting a target. This German problem might have to do with the origin of the ammunitions, comming from occupied Czech factories primarily.
 
Two things come immediately to mind: the main gear (already mentioned), which needed to be stronger, but also wider track, & the armament. AIUI, the wing could only mount guns in the roots, which meant the 109 was effectively limited to cowl/nose guns. (Now, why nobody thought to add cheek & belly guns, IDK...:rolleyes:)

I also agree, the canopy needed work: the thick frames did no 109 pilots any favors...

Cutting down the aft fuselage would be good, too, tho you probably need to add a razorback ahead of the fin.
 
Bubble canopy
Wide track inward retracting undercarrige
Larger tailfinn.
Designed from the start with fittings for a drop tank or 250kg bomb.

For it's day there wasn't much wrong with the 109. It's just as well that apart from the 108, 109, the Gigant and the 262 everything else Willie Meserschmitt designed was a dog.
 
Bubble canopy
Wide track inward retracting undercarrige
Larger tailfinn.
Designed from the start with fittings for a drop tank or 250kg bomb.

For it's day there wasn't much wrong with the 109. It's just as well that apart from the 108, 109, the Gigant and the 262 everything else Willie Meserschmitt designed was a dog.

The P1011 sweep wing fighter was arguably the most influencial design of the war. Had the proposed HeS 011 engines worked it could have led to a German sabre analogue in 1946. And this not a Luft 46 crazy claim.:cool:
 
From informed posts in another forum the narrow undercarriage, whilst tricky, was not as bad as is popularly assumed and some of the blame must be laid at the quality of pilot training later in the war.

The essence of the Me109 was that it was a minimum size, almost racing, design that was appropriate for the larger inline engines at the time. If we look at the last developments, the K and Avia S99, we can see that it could still accommodate later engines to give an adequate 1945 performance by using enlarged tail surfaces. Avia dealt with the visibility issue with a blown canopy on the existing frame.

What clearly did become a problem was finding somewhere to put an effective armament. Hence cannon going into underwing pods and the retention of synchronised over engine light guns.

Putting heavy cannon in the wings will compromise the philosophy of the design and beefing up the wings will lead us to a different,larger and heavier design in the model of it's 1945 opponents.

What it needs is a single engine mounted cannon that can bring down a bomber with just a few hits. This needs a coordinated design together with the engine designers and a better MK103 could fit the bill and x2 synchronised MG131s may as well go above it. Larger alternatives will not fit but maybe something could be done to bump up the MG131 performance and/or remove one to increase the ammunition supply and, if matched to MK103 ballistics, use it as an aiming device to conserve MK103 ammunition to best effect.

If the Luftwaffe accepted that pilot training needed the quality to be maintained or raised, not just crank up the numbers, then this would be enough for a good pilot to get close enough for this armament to do the job. A look at the Finnish practice would be a good guide.

To sum up, the Me109 was well developed to remain competitive throughout the war but would have benefitted from improvements in the MK103 and MG131 combined with a more thorough pilot training regime to maximise the effective use of the lightweight design.

Better pilots mean more survive so gain more experience and become more effective so you need less production so you can afford to improve at the cost of slowing output so each pilot/aeroplane combination becomes even more effective. A virtuous circle, if one discounts the lack of virtue of the regime.
 
Two things come immediately to mind: the main gear (already mentioned), which needed to be stronger, but also wider track, & the armament. AIUI, the wing could only mount guns in the roots, which meant the 109 was effectively limited to cowl/nose guns. (Now, why nobody thought to add cheek & belly guns, IDK...:rolleyes:)

I also agree, the canopy needed work: the thick frames did no 109 pilots any favors...

Cutting down the aft fuselage would be good, too, tho you probably need to add a razorback ahead of the fin.


The bf-109 airframe was constructed with a wing allowing gunsports in the middle of each wing, not the root. The FW-190 though was fitted with spece in the wingroot, but also a second possition halfway in the wing, outside of the landinggear. The Bf-109 could not be fitted with wingrootweapons, due to its narrow gauge undercarriag, folding up outwards, needing the hydraulics to be placed in teh wingrootarea.
 
that came out as rubbish, sorry:
If you want to do tables then use the code tags, it's the # button just above the text box, as it keeps all the spaces you use rather than editing out multiples ones after the first like the board does with normal text.
 

amphibulous

Banned
I don't thionk anyone has talked about real design and performance fundamentals - eg drag coefs, roll and climb rates, wing loading etc. Can I suggest people taking a look at eg the following - the opinion of "Kit" Carson, a Mustang Squadron Leader famous for making ace in a single day over Germany?


http://sturmvogel.orbat.com/breed.html

....In size the Me 109, all models, was the smallest fighter produced by Germany or the Allies. That gave it a high wing loading for that time, about 32 lb./sq. ft. for the "E". The Spit I and the Hurricane I were about 25 lb./sq. ft. at their normal combat weight. The 109-G was about 38 lb./sq. ft. as compared to 35 lb./sq. ft. for the P-51B.

..This means that the 109 had the range of an interceptor like the Spitfire, but the compromised turning ability of an escort fighter like the Mustang - the worst of all worlds.

...The first surprise you get in planning a test hop in the Me-109 is that you're limited to about an hour with some aerobatics at combat power, because the internal fuel capacity is only 88 gallons; with the drop tank, the "G" carried a total of 154 gallons. I'll never understand why the fuel capacity designed in Luftwaffe fighters was so limited. It was a major design deficiency that contributed to the loss of the air war, but even more puzzling is the fact that it could have been quickly changed anytime after 1940 onward, but it wasn't.

...The absense of a rudder trim control in the cockpit was a bad feature at speeds above cruise or in dives. Above 300 mph the pilot needed a very heavy foot on the port rudder pedal for trimmed flight with no sideslip which is absolutely essential for gunnery. The pilot's left leg quickly tired while keeping this load on, and this affected his ability to put on more left rudder for a turn at 300 mph or above. Consequently, at high speeds the 109 could turn far more readily to the right than to the left.

..A series of mock dogfights were conducted by the British in addition to the flight test and the following was revealed:

If the airplane was trimmed for level flight, a heavy push on the stick was needed to hold it in a dive at 400 mph. If it was trimmed into the dive, recovery was difficult unless the trim wheel was wound back, due to the excessive heaviness of the elevator forces.

At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph. At 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:

(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.

(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.

(3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter.

Elevator: This was a good control at slow speeds but became too heavy above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneurverability became seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to black himself out. The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick.

At low speeds the rudder was light, but sluggish in response. At 200 mph the sluggishness disappears, at 300 mph the absense of trim control in the cockpit became an acute problem. The pilot's leg force on the port rudder above 300 mph to prevent sideslip became excessive and unacceptable.

Loops had to be started from about 280 mph when the elevator forces were getting unduly heavy; there was also a tendency for the wing slats to bang open the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatch and loss of direction.

Below 250 mph the airplane would roll quickly, but there was a strong tendency for the nose to fall through the horizon in the last half of the roll and the stick had to be moved well back to keep the nose up.

Upward rolls were difficult, again because of elevator heaviness at the required starting speed. Due to this, only a moderate pull out from a dive to build up speed was possible and considerable speed was lost before the upward roll could be started.

The very bad maneuverability at high speed of the Me 109 quickly became known to the RAF pilots in 1940. On many occasions 109 pilots were led to self-destruction when on the tail of a Hurricane or Spitfire at moderate or low altitudes. The RAF pilot would do a snappy half roll and "split ess" pull out, from say 3,000 feet. In the heat and confusion of the moment the 109 pilot would follow, only to discover that he didn't have enough altitude to recover due to his heavy elevator forces and go straight into the ground or the Channel without a shot being fired.

Turning Radius:
At full throttle, at 12,000 feet, the minimum turning radius without loss of altitude was about 890 feet for the Me 109E with its wing loading of 32 pounds per square foot. The corresponding figure for the Spit I or Hurricane was about 690 feet with a wing loading of 25 pounds.

Summary:
Good points:
(1) Reasonable top speed and good rate of climb.
(2) Engine did not cut out under negative "g," also reliable.
(3) Good control response at low speeds.
(4) Easy stall, not precipitous.
Bad Points:
(1) Ailerons and elevator far too heavy at high speed.
(2) Poor turning radius.
(3) Absence of rudder trim control in cockpit.
(4) Aileron snatch (grabbing -- uneven airflow) when slats opened.
(5) Cockpit too cramped.
(6) Visibility poor from cockpit.
(7) Range and endurance inadequate.

As for improving the 109, there wasn't anything big you could do:

The Spitfire was an aerodynamically clean airplane to start with, having a total drag coefficient of .021 at cruise. The Me-109 had a coefficient of .036; drag coefficiency and of the horsepower required to haul 'em around. Like golf scores, the lower the better, and no fudging.

This is a HUGE difference! An Me109 had a disgraceful 70% higher drag than a Spitfire - despite a much higher wing loading.


The British, in particular the staff at Vickers Supermarine, had done their homework in aerodynamics and put out a clean airplane that had the potential of longevity and increased performance. They had only to wait for Rolls-Royce to pump up the horsepower on the Merlin, which they did by going from 790 hp in 1934 to well over 2,000 by 1945. The Merlin, in my (Col. Carson's) opinion, was the best achievement in mechanical engineering in the first half of the century.

Messerschmitt practically ignored the subject of low-drag aerodynamics and one can tell that by an inspection of the 109E or G. The fact is evident even in close-up photographs. It was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. That's a puzzling thing when one realizes that much of the original work on high speed drag and turbulent surface friction was done in Germany in the '20s and '30s. Messerschmitt was surrounded by it. Further, the work in England and the U.S. in this field was in the open literature, at least until 1938.

But there were some tweaks that should have been done:

Having gone this far, let me carry this affront to Messerschmitt's engineering reputation one step further.

An airplane factory can get things done awfully fast, in any country and in any language, once the engineers and sheet metal benders understand what is wanted. Every factory has a "development shop" or its equivalent, which is a full scale model or prototype shop with 100 or 200 old pros in every skill. Having that many coffee drinkers, pipe smokers and "yarn spinners" around on the payroll, let's clobber 'em with a bundle of shop drawings on a clean up of the Me 109. Object: to make it a 400 mph plus airplane. Time... 30 days. The information and techniques required are currently available as of 1940. It's all written up in unclassifed reports.

(1) Cancel the camouflage paint and go to smooth bare metal. Besides the weight, about 50 pounds, the grain size is too large when it dries and it causes turbulent friction over the entire airplane surface. That may take a phone call to the brass. They're emotional about paint jobs. "Image," you know.

(2) Modify the cockpit canopy. Remove the inverted bathtub that's on there now and modify as necessary to fit the Me 209V-1 canopy. That's the airplane that set the world speed record in 1939.

(3) Get rid of the wing slats. Lock them closed and hand-fit a strip, upper and lower surface, that will close the sheet metal gaps between the slat and wing structure. That gap causes the outboard 15 feet of each wing to be totally turbulent.

(4) As aerodynamic compensation for locking the slats, setup jigs and fixtures on the assembly line to put in 2 degrees of geometric twist from the root to tip, known as "washout."

(5) Modify coolant scoop inlet fairings. The square corners that are there now induce an unnecessary amount of drag. Also lower the inlet 1 to 2 inches below wing surface to get it out of the turbulence of the wing surface.

(6) Install complete wheel well farings that cover the openings after the gear is retracted.

(7) Retract tail wheel.

All of the above could have been done in 30 days but it wasn't. I don't know why.
 
Two things to add: the 109 lacked a gyrocompass and an artifical horizon, making it ill-suited to IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) flying.
 
The '109 couldn't have a laminar flow wing because NACA wouldn't send them the data. Many attempts at achieving it weren't as successful as the Mustang anyway, with the data.

The Malcolm company wouldn't build a canopy for nazis, but the Erla Haube Company did build the improved "Galland Hood".

.

Yeah I was thinking less of an actual Malcolm company design and more something that operates on the same concept to allow better visibility. OTL 190s had a near bubble canopy.
 
Top