WI: Bf 109 copied by other countries?

The following passage kinda led to this thread:

...
By any criteria, the Bf-109 was a STEN fighter, with ease of production and low parts count being foremost in the decision to make it the prime Luftwaffe single-seater fighter.
...

Premise here being: other countries, capable for producing aircraft, produce Bf 109 for their and friendly countries. Candidates mostly being France, USA, UK, USSR, Japan, Italy, Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Sweden, Romania. Engines being either loacaly-produced V12s, or V12s from import, perhaps even a suitable radial, in vein of the Twin Wasp-powered Bf 109 prototype.
Both licensed and non-licensed production of Bf 109 can apply.
 

Archibald

Banned
We already know what a Merlin-powered 109 would be like, thanks to postwar Spain. I wonder about a 109 powered by an Hispano Suiza 12Y-31 - it would be halfway between the B/C/D and the Emil.
More power than the Jumo, but less than the DB (860 hp MS-406)
An Allison V-1710 109 would be intriguing.
 
Yugoslavia seems like the most obvious candidate to me. They bought 70-odd Bf109s and it would have been logical for them to buy another 24 plus a licence on the Bf109 and the DB601 engine instead of the OTL Hurricanes and Merlins. They did build the Do17 under licence and while we're at it the He111 instead of the Blenheim. However, if they did build the He111 under licence instead of the Blenheim that might mean that they buy the He112 instead of the Hurricane and Bf109.

Hungary is the next most likely to me with them building the Bf109 and DB601 instead of the Italian fighters that they built under licence.

Romania third. However, they did buy some He112s IOTL so it would be logical for them to buy more instead of the OTL hurricanes and build the He112 under licence instead of the IAR80 and 81.
 
The US might be interested, but the lack of range would IMO, be a negative factor in it's acceptance. Saying this off the cuff, without a lot of thought put into it or digging out references. Another nation that might be happy to do this would have been Hungary. Make the license cheap enough, and I think the Hungarians would jump on it.

Edit: Looks like my thoughts on the Hungarians was ninja'd....:)
 
The Japanese, while not an actual licensed version, built the Ki 61 around the same engine, to the point the Allies in the Pacific thought they were fighting Bf 109s. There is also the Czech Avia S-199 built post-war with the Junkers Jumo, which was apparently a complete beast to fly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avia_S-199
 
We already know what a Merlin-powered 109 would be like, thanks to postwar Spain. I wonder about a 109 powered by an Hispano Suiza 12Y-31 - it would be halfway between the B/C/D and the Emil.
More power than the Jumo, but less than the DB (860 hp MS-406)
An Allison V-1710 109 would be intriguing.

The slight advantage with V-1710 and HS-12Y is that they were being produced both for clock-wise and counter-clock-wise rotation of the prop, thus revving the engine up will be easier counterable even without reworking the fin offset. HS 12Y and it's Soviet off-springs offer the capability for a motor cannon, plus the respective countries have very useful cannons to use that advantage. Americans installing 4 .50 HMGs in wings, plus a drop tank or two?
The Jumo 210 was not that great at altitudes, eg. at 4 km the 211D offered around 530 PS. The 210G was somewhat better, with perhaps 650-670 PS at 4 km (obviously it was better under that altitude). Compared with RR Kestrel that made 640 HP at 14000 ft (Mk.V, on 87 oct fuel; ~4.25 km) and later marks that were doing 745 HP at 14500 ft (~4.4 km). The French can install the HS-12Y-45, with 920 HP at 4.2 km once available.
British connection - one of the companies purchases the license in 1937, with intention to install Kestrel initially, as an insurance against Merlin being a flop? Looking at Miles Kestrel, that was doing almost 300 mph on 745 HP, despite the thick & big wing, the British 109 does 320+ mph? Once the word about the Emil is out, install the Merlin.
 
and the Arab countries willing to destroy Israel used panzers, panthers, and tigers. Plus nazi advisors.

Syria had Pz.IVs and Jagdpanzers. I've never heard of anyone attempting to use Panther or Tigers post war though (except the French who had a small number of Panthers for a few years).
 

Archibald

Banned
The slight advantage with V-1710 and HS-12Y is that they were being produced both for clock-wise and counter-clock-wise rotation of the prop, thus revving the engine up will be easier counterable even without reworking the fin offset. HS 12Y and it's Soviet off-springs offer the capability for a motor cannon, plus the respective countries have very useful cannons to use that advantage. Americans installing 4 .50 HMGs in wings, plus a drop tank or two?
The Jumo 210 was not that great at altitudes, eg. at 4 km the 211D offered around 530 PS. The 210G was somewhat better, with perhaps 650-670 PS at 4 km (obviously it was better under that altitude). Compared with RR Kestrel that made 640 HP at 14000 ft (Mk.V, on 87 oct fuel; ~4.25 km) and later marks that were doing 745 HP at 14500 ft (~4.4 km). The French can install the HS-12Y-45, with 920 HP at 4.2 km once available.
British connection - one of the companies purchases the license in 1937, with intention to install Kestrel initially, as an insurance against Merlin being a flop? Looking at Miles Kestrel, that was doing almost 300 mph on 745 HP, despite the thick & big wing, the British 109 does 320+ mph? Once the word about the Emil is out, install the Merlin.

Good point, I forgot the Soviet 12-Y derivatives (M-100 / M-103 / M-105 / VK-107)
 
Yes it was. Ask the Israelis (yes, a 109 was Israel first combat aircraft. Talk about a baffling irony)
For extra irony most of their pilots were Allied, primarily American, veteran pilots of WW2. I saw a documentary about them where they said they called the Avia S-199 the "Messershit", apparently it was extremely hazardous to fly and they ditched them as soon as they could.
 
For extra irony most of their pilots were Allied, primarily American, veteran pilots of WW2. I saw a documentary about them where they said they called the Avia S-199 the "Messershit", apparently it was extremely hazardous to fly and they ditched them as soon as they could.

It's what happens when you try to kitbash a bomber engine into a fighter.
 
It's what happens when you try to kitbash a bomber engine into a fighter.

Sometimes it worked better than that
F4U%2B4360%2Bvs%2B2800%2Bweb%2Bcrop.jpg

3000HP Wasp Major powered Corsair.
 
Sometimes it worked better than that
F4U%2B4360%2Bvs%2B2800%2Bweb%2Bcrop.jpg

3000HP Wasp Major powered Corsair.
The above has made me think that from 1942 the German satellites would have been better off making Fw190s instead of Bf109s.

It would be interesting to me to see how far the Fw190 could have been developed. For example would it have been feasible for the Romanians to have built the Fw190A with licence built BMW801 engines instead of the I.A.R.80 and 81?
 
It's what happens when you try to kitbash a bomber engine into a fighter.

The separate categories for 'bomber engine' and 'fighter engine' take a big grain of salt to swallow. Merlins were installed in fighters ad bombers alike, so was the BMW 801, so were the Klimov and Shvetsov types, and different American or Japanese engines. If the engine developes desired power, with decent power-to-weight and power-to-size, and it is reliable enough, it will find it's way on both bombers and fighters.

The above has made me think that from 1942 the German satellites would have been better off making Fw190s instead of Bf109s.
It would be interesting to me to see how far the Fw190 could have been developed. For example would it have been feasible for the Romanians to have built the Fw190A with licence built BMW801 engines instead of the I.A.R.80 and 81?

The Fw 190 as a fighter has several advantages over the Bf 109 - better rate of roll, pilot's field of vision, much greater internal volume (but still in a small-ish size) for fuel, firepower and whatnot, much stronger constrution that lend itself well for installation of much bigger & heavier engines than it could be fitted easily on the 109, no vices with big power during take off and landing, firepower installed, excellent performance under 5 km.
Shorcomings migh include a much later timing, unreliable engines before late 1942, bigger drag and weight (as-is), less range due to much bigger consuption of the BMW 801 and bigger weight and drag, rate of climb above 6 km against some notable Western aircraft, speed from mid/late 1943 on vs those Western A/C, necessity of use of C3 fuel from early 1942 on. Pehaps also the purchase price?

The earlier availablity of the 109 and it's lower cost to own and operate might weight more in eyes of cash-strapped Romania, Hungary or Japan than the good sides of the 190?
Though it migh be a good idea for the Japanese to fit the Ha-109 on their license-produced Fw 190 had they attempted it? Conversely, the Italians have had, from production standpoint, complicated fighter designs. The 109 was the 'STEN' of Axis fighters, produce it ASAP? Or - install the DB 601/605 on Fw 190 (predominatly for the Germans themselves)?
 
Syria had Pz.IVs and Jagdpanzers. I've never heard of anyone attempting to use Panther or Tigers post war though (except the French who had a small number of Panthers for a few years).
Czechoslovakia had up to 50 Panthers in reserves. Some were reworked as kind of Bergpanther and later were used by Czechoslovak railways. Last seen in use sometimes in late 60-ties or 70-ties during huge railway accident. At least one Cs Panther had T-34 engine.
 
Top