PDA

View Full Version : bf109 = dead end...?



MOhz
10-09-2004, 08:31 AM
hi guys, i was thinking about the bf109 and the fw190 and came to the conclusion (i am no the first nor the last) that even though the bf was revolutionary in design at the beginning of its era and maybe till the G2 (afaik (later models seeming to be too heavy even though they did have to have adv. over other planes like in climb rate, but even that has been hotly discussed recently and in the past), it is a design with no future.

example: the 190 devoloped on to the dora and the 154 and if the war had continued the allies would have had to face the 154C (i am not saying this plane would have changed the out come). kurt tank had a lot of genouis other ideas that never saw action or limited, but coming back to the point, i havent heard anything about the next generation of messerschmitts (not necessarily the next generation of 109s) i mean the 109H was just a mistake itself...

what da ya sink??
translation (for those who dont get it: what do you think?)

ASM 1
10-09-2004, 08:40 AM
I see what you are saying... but remember the Spitfire Design was pretty old too - first prototype - K5054 appeared in 1936and the last RAF Spitfire offensive sorties anywhere were flown by the FR.18s of No 60 Squadron on 1 January 1951.

The prototype made its first flight in September, 1935 - so age wise there's not much between them (design wise, yeah ok... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)
After the end of the war, some Me 109s were produced in the CSSR (Czechoslovakia) as the Avia S-99 and Avia S-199, modified Me 109G-14s, the latter with a Junkers Jumo 211F engine. In Spain, a modified Me 109G-2, called the Hispano Ha 1112 was built with various engines fitted.

Also the original Bf 109, produced before 1945, remained in service a long time after the war. The former German allies, Romania and Hungary, used their Bf 109s until 1955. The Finnish air force did not retire their Bf 109 Gs until the mid 1950s. In Israel, the Czech Avias were used in combat against Egyptian Spitfires until 1949. The Spanish Hispanos, however, flew longer. Some were still in service in the middle of the 1970s.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif


so to say that it was a dead end after the G2 perhaps isnt quite fair. But I take your point.

RevvinUK
10-09-2004, 08:42 AM
If the war had continued into 1946 with Germany still having enough resources the allies would have been faced with more jet fighters and bombers, later variants of the 109 and 190 were influenced heavily by the success of the Allied bomber campaign's so they were equipped with larger guns and engines to help them climb to meet the threat so I guess you could say the early G variants were the last real dogfighters for the 109. 109's and 190's would have been re-cycled or reduced to a training role for new pilots once the jets were available. Look out for a programme called Luftwaffe '46 on the history channel.

carguy_
10-09-2004, 08:44 AM
Duh!Why do you think they needed the FW190 or the Me262?Anyway the Me109 had the biggest numbers and good modofications took place.It had no range but you can`t just say 'switching to Ta152 mass production' while in a war.Maybe it had no future,that`s why better aircraft were developed but don`t forget late 109 were superior to most USAF,RAF,VVS fighters.


Combat conditions and lack of trained pilots is another tale.

Heavy_Weather
10-09-2004, 09:02 AM
most Luftwaffe Aces said they liked the 109F-4 and G-2 models the best cause they were more agile and lighter. Gunter Rall even said the more they modified the 109 the heavier it got.

MOhz
10-09-2004, 09:15 AM
ASM!! nice to see ya in my post lol!!

carguy, i love your beginning, really! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

but yes i see your points. revvin, i forgot about the bombers for a while... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif even though that did change some tactics of the germans.

carguy, i would be careful about your last sentence. supposedly the spit14 climbed better than the K but that is just things i have been picking up in the "forum war raging" that has been going on about ueber planes and under planes.

3.JG51_BigBear
10-09-2004, 09:26 AM
The 109 was a great bird but after the F and G models the feus and wing designs stayed the same for the most part, with bumps showing up when new equipment was added. The plane was really a poorly harmonized fighter to begin with (a good fighter should have light ailerons, medium elevators, and a heavy rudder) and with so much extra power and weight the 109's shortcoming were definitely becoming noticeable by the end of the war.

The spitfire on the other hand changed dramatically over the course of the war and the models that flew during the 50s were nothing like the models that took to the sky during the Batte of Britain. Major modifications were made to the feus and even the famous spitfire wing went through some changes.

Another thing to consider about the two AC is the jobs they had to do during the war. For the most part the spitfire was allowed to be a fighter. Flying at high altitude it left the ground pounding, for the most part, to planes like the P-47, the P-38, the Tempest, etc. The Luftwaffe kept trying to place the 109 in all these different roles where it didn't belong. It was made into a bomber, a night fighter and a heavy bomber interceptor.

MOhz
10-09-2004, 09:35 AM
good point bear!!

not to mention that you credited the FW190! it is the supreme multi-role aircraft (def., that the germans had)!

bear i think that was what i was trying to say without understanding myself. the FW is just capable of a lot more of tasks even if it aint always better at specific tasks than its enemies it was in multi tasking (woman's plane i guess (no i am not sexist, it is proven that women multitask better than men, dont even think about starting a debate about it)). so that is one reason why the BF just couldnt last in my eyes in that kind of war. i mean it would have been different if the germans had enough resources that the BF could have remained a pure fighter

3.JG51_BigBear
10-09-2004, 10:10 AM
Thanks MOhz but I'm not sure if the 109 would have even seen service after 42 if Germany had had the resources. The original plan was for the 109 to first be supplemented and then replaced by the Focke Wulf. There was a time when Goering thought the F model would be the last of the 109s. Because of problems with the engine, the FW was delayed and even when it first began to see service the planes were often stuck in the workshops for field modifications and repairs. The 109G was put into production to give the Jagdwaffe a viable fighter until the FW was fully ready for service. Obviously the phasing out of the 109 never took place. In late 43 some of the western fron 109 Gruppen were given the designation of "light fighter group" giving the impression that they were being used as escorts and high altitude cover for the Focke Wulfs but that really wasn't case as every fighter was need to combat the Allied bombers.

MOhz
10-09-2004, 10:33 AM
thank YOU bear http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif!!!

3.JG51_BigBear
10-09-2004, 10:58 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I have all this worthless information in my head and absolutely nothing worthwhile to do with it.

ASM 1
10-09-2004, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MOhz:
ASM!! nice to see ya in my post lol!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No probs m8 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Anytime... havent seen you around in a while.

Also lets not forget this bad boy:
http://www.il2skins.com:8080/skins/screenshots/9873.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

.... well we are talking about the evolution of the 109's here right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG7_Rall
10-09-2004, 02:58 PM
Good theory, but it's not exactly original http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Atomic_Marten
10-09-2004, 03:13 PM
Of course, Messerschmitt fighter is a fighter with no much space for further improvement (after Kurfurst version). I have noticed quite a few observations about how Me109 is obsolete. The only problem (vs. other fighters of the time) IMO was lack of visibility in all directions from canopy, but not really a big problem.

By entering in serial production in factories, jet fighters were render all piston fighters obsolete.

WOLFMondo
10-09-2004, 04:24 PM
I think the difference between the Spitfire and BF109 at the end of WW2 was the BF109 had reached the end of its development cycle (the FW190 clearly hadn't), the Spitfire had a few years left in it and more performance could be squeezed out of its airframe and the Griffon engine. Just look at the performance of the Mk21,22 and 24 spitfires. They were incredible given the planes age.

Notice also the FW190 drove improvements in British aircraft development more than the BF109 did after the 190 appeared. I guess people can draw there own conclusions from that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
The spitfire on the other hand changed dramatically over the course of the war and the models that flew during the 50s were nothing like the models that took to the sky during the Batte of Britain. Major modifications were made to the feus and even the famous spitfire wing went through some changes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The last version to fly was the PR XIX. Basically an unarmed version of the XIV, the last major production variant during WW2. It had a different engine and much of the internals were reworked for this version but the wing was essentially the same as previous versions just with a few more variations on waht it could put in them but not much difference to the early MK's. The Mk21/22 has a slightly different wing to the previous versions, its more angled and the wings look like there slightly clipped.

LEXX_Luthor
10-09-2004, 06:17 PM
On a higher level, think of Fw~190 as the offensive aircraft, with the range to escort tactical bombers as well as being an attack plane itself while the Bf~109 was a defensive aircraft, with the range to allow only short range interception but which it did very well but that is still a defensive role. By 1943 Germany was losing the WAR and so had to rely on Defense instead of Offense. Other things too like Bf~109 cheaper to make but that itself is a sign of being pushed to the wall into Defense (On the offensive, the Soviets chose Yak~9 over Yak~3 for the greater mass production, why?).

F19_Ob
10-10-2004, 04:18 AM
Obviously the 109 was a bit obsolete at the end of the war but remember that it still was an equal opponent to the p51d.
Generally the 109 still was a modern design and the addition of the 30mm cannon and the boost systems made it valid in any battle.

The luftwaffe had lost many of its best pilots at the end and everything was in short supply.
The novice and half experienced pilots was no match for the allied in the long run since the germans were heavily outnumbered.

Generally they say that the 109 was too heavy in the end but I wonder how many of these mean that they hung extra cannons and other ordonance on it making it "too heavy".

I think it still leans towards that the 109 was an experts plane and that rookiflyers had a hard time in it ( all the Takeoff and landing accidents for example).
And as I understand it the experts still used it well although they were few.

There ofcourse were skillfull allied flyers aswell, but they they won because of their superior numbers in the end when Germany planned to send up 14 yearold boys in oneway missions in salamanders and such.

I think its fair to say that the 109 was inferiorto yak3's and La7 in the end so perhaps in that respect a dead end.


my thoughts

OMK_Hand
10-10-2004, 05:14 AM
Hi.
Messerschmitt were determined to provide the successor to the Bf109 and a competitor for the Fw190D and Ta152 fighters, right up to the end of the war.
After testing a couple of entirely new types, namely the early (1937) 'High speed' Me209V4, and the later (1941) Me309 (which looked a bit like a Me262 with a propeller), which were both ultimately terminated, they decided to in effect stick with what they knew and develop designs that used a large proportion of standard Bf109 components in them.
This approach would also hopefully accelerate the development and production times since time was rolling on...

One design was the Me209-II (no relation to the 209V4, above). It was 65% Me109, had a DB603G engine, and it looked like a 109G with a wide wingspan, an exceptionally wide-track undercarriage, and a Dora nose.
First flown on November 3rd 1943 by Flugkapitan Fritz Wendel, it was found to possess excellent performance, and overcame most of the Bf109's shortcomings.
Several production variants were proposed, and operational trials of the Me 209A-2 started in April 1944.
The whole thing was then dropped because of the introduction into service of the FW 190D-9 with Jagdgeschwader 3, which had a speed advantage of 30m.p.h at altitude, plus the introduction of a new type at that time would disrupt fighter deliveries at a crucial stage of the war.
So that was that.

Production specs for the Me209-A2:
1,750 h.p. Junkers Jumo 213 12 cylinder inverted-vee liquid cooled engine.
One 30-mm MK108 and two 20-mm MG151 cannon
Max speed: 410 m.p.h. at 19,685 ft. 458 m.p.h at full boost altitude. Cruising speed: 302 m.p.h.
Ceiling: 42,650 ft.
Span: 35 ft. 11 in
Length: 31 ft. 6 3/4 in.
Height: 11 ft. 8 in.
Wing area: 184.6 sq. ft.

In 1943, Messerschmitt were for some reason ordered to submit another type they had in development over to Blohm und Voss.
Originally perceived as a shipboard fighter early in 1942, it was developed as a bomber, and ended up as a high altitude fighter.
Designated Bv155, again it was basically a Bf109G married to a new massive 67 ft. wing, with a 1,475 h.p. engine.
At one point it had no less than eight under wing radiators. No wonder it is described as 'The most bizarre piston-engined fighter evolved by the German aircraft industry during the second world war'.
An order was placed for thirty Bv155C-0 fighters when the end came. When the British occupied Hamburg, one semi-completed example was discovered and shipped to the UK for examination.

Production specs for the Bv155V2 (a Versuchs number of the 155C-0 type):
1,610 h.p. Daimler-Benz DB603A 12 cylinder inverted-vee liquid cooled engine.
One 30-mm MK103 or MK108 with 60 rounds, and two 20-mm MG151 with 200 rounds per gun, OR three MK103s or MK108s with 60 rpg.
Max speed: 261 m.p.h. at sea level. 373 m.p.h at 32,810 ft, 429 m.p.h. at 52,490 ft.
Ceiling: 55,610 ft.
Span: 67 ft. 3 in
Length: 39 ft. 4 1/2 in.
Height: 9 ft. 9 1/2 in.
Wing area: 419.792 sq. ft.

Messerschmitt had many irons in the fire, with the development of twin engined, rocket and jet aircraft all on the go at the same time.
The development of the 109 series wasn't halted because the 109 was 'bad' in some way, it just all came to late.

MOhz
10-10-2004, 08:58 AM
cool, everyone, really interesting info going around here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

now to the most question yet, how does one edit ones message??

hand, i find the 309 really sexy, not like the 190 or even as mean as the 109, but still not bad. the BV155 looks really interesting; especially when one thinks of the eight coolers. man it must beat the spit in cooling http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif! nice armament as well.

was the 262 in you guys High opinion more friendly user?? if careful with the engines and lets say the landing strip is long enough in comparison the 109 and maybe the 190?? the 190 i know def is no easy piece of cake.

jeeze, i never knew there were so many spit series. when i was young and naive (only 5 yrs ago) i had absolut no clue about the spit. and now my mouth is gaping. i thought it won the BoB and then it was history http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif!

no kidding about the view martin!! why didnt they ever fit it with bubble canopy? if i remember correctly, the spit didnt have one and then they added it on mk9(no clue which mark)

what does mark mean? i mean is it just like version or is there more to it?

ASM, yeah i havent been posting much because i had too coold down and tell myself not to get sucked into the hot discussion that are going on... now that i have been purified i will start my posting career http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

LStarosta
10-10-2004, 09:56 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif La7 won the war.

KaRaYa-X
10-10-2004, 01:13 PM
Well the argument of late Bf109s being too heavy (which can be found in literature pretty often) is only relative.
You have to keep in mind that MOST Bf109s that left the factory lines beginning with early 1944 were outfitted with Rüsts¤tze like the R6 (2xMG151/20 Gondolas) or the twin Wgr.21 rocket propelled grenades for bomber intercept missions as soon as possible - to deal with the monstrous waves of allied heavy bombers which flew over the Reich at will and started to bomb Germany's industrie into submission.

So there was only a small number of "clean" Bf109Gs and Ks which fought the allied air forces. Furthermore fighters got strict orders to ONLY engage bombers and to rather fly back home than to fight back in case of a dogfight... So I don't think we can really judge wether late 109s were obsolete dogfighters or not.

To my mind a CLEAN Bf109G10 or K4 is more than a fearsome enemy for any Spit/Mustang/Thunderbolt pilot - but only very few fought with this setup

Oh and: Yeah, I gotta admit - I love this bird ;-)

LuftLuver
10-10-2004, 02:35 PM
Good for the allies the Germans didn't have the Forgotten Battles Bs109 available.

We would all be speaking German. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

1 - Overdone turn rate
2 - Instant power chop
3 - Instant E recovery
4 - Hang from the prop Luftcopter
5 - Yak3 like stall-fighter

VW-IceFire
10-10-2004, 08:07 PM
La-7 is a good example actually http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Originated in the LaGG-1 and in many ways still bears resemblance just as the Spitfire Mk I resembles the Mark 22. LaGG-1 to La-7 and La-9...I can see it.

I think the Bf-109 definately expired the end of its useful design. They were definately in need of something new but they didn't have the time to switch production.

JG53Hunter
10-11-2004, 12:42 AM
Little Lufthater again.
Why do you keep on posting? Nobody listens to you anymore http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Jasko76
10-11-2004, 03:22 AM
Boy, I just love these threads in the morning!

JG7_Rall
10-11-2004, 07:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
Good for the allies the Germans didn't have the Forgotten Battles Bs109 available.

We would all be speaking German. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

1 - Overdone turn rate
2 - Instant power chop
3 - Instant E recovery
4 - Hang from the prop Luftcopter
5 - Yak3 like stall-fighter <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

awww, did somebody get shot down again and mommy wasn't around to whipe your tears?

WOLFMondo
10-11-2004, 08:16 AM
1 thing that does strike me about USSR fighters like the Yak and Lagg's/La7 is the similarity of wing design that doesn't seem to be used by any other countries planes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jasko76:
Boy, I just love these threads in the morning! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im shocked theres only a couple of posts that could be considered flames! Its an almost sensible discussion!

MOhz
10-11-2004, 01:08 PM
bloody hell, how does one get a quote??

but for now i will just do it this way:

Its an almost sensible discussion!

you were saying.... kidding, but lets keep it going, please...

i was going to say, i dont understand how the germans would have wanted to replace the 109 with the 190, because i mean then they would have had only one fighter going... they would have probably come up with more new ones or? that is one thing that really surprises me: they had to face soooo many different fighters and bombers with only two main fighters...

the other thing that bothers me is that the FW has what is in my eyes, dont know what i am speaking of though, a poor climb rate for intercepting. i mean the antons def. but did the doras have addiquit climb rate? or did it not really matter since the FW were used mainly on the western front where they were warned in advance by radar etc and could get enough alt to intercept where as on the eastern front the 109 was cool because it could get up there in time and didnt need to climb as high anyway since eastern front warfare was lower down...

to make it simple for you guys here are my question http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif :
1. did the fw; doras antons and 154 have enough climb rate to be good intercepters?
2shouldnt the germans should have had more atleast a third fighter? or fighter/bomber? not lame like the 110 though.

VW-IceFire
10-11-2004, 01:23 PM
WOLFMondo, about the Yak and La wing designs. I had read somewhere that the slight sweep to the edge of the wing was largely designed to give them better performance at low altitudes. Not sure how true that is...but the similarities in design are definately there and seem to be shared by all of the low alt Russian fighters.

On the other hand...even the Mig-3 is a bit like that and it was considered more of a "high alt" aircraft.

The Luftwaffe I think passed up an enourmous opportunity with the He-100. That would have been a good replacement for the Bf-109 with what I think may have been better longevity.

Definately the FW190 was not a replacement to the 109...it was a complementary aircaft. The 109 was still the better altitude fighter and interceptor.

Von_Zero
10-11-2004, 01:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
We would all be speaking German. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
german is a very nice language btw...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 1 - Overdone turn rate
2 - Instant power chop
3 - Instant E recovery
4 - Hang from the prop Luftcopter
5 - Yak3 like stall-fighter <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
that's right! how do does 109 jocks dare to even start the engine and takoff, knowing they will be confronted with the awesome alied pilots? How do they dare to AIM, not to mention shoot at an alied plane, instead of bailing out at the first sight of an enemy? that is outrageous!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

MOhz
10-11-2004, 01:40 PM
i do not agree with your "definately" because the 109 was to be replaced, but circumstances altered the plan. and the 190 can hold its own ground. while in the 109 it is harder to shoot down heavy bombers because of lack of firepower (they had to have gondels if they wanted an easy time, but that bogged down the plane (this is one reason why some pilots said the 109 was too heavy)) and both the antons and the 109 were struggling up there that's why the 154 appeard in the picture, well almost any way

OMK_Hand
10-11-2004, 02:28 PM
Kurt Tank's designs seemed to do the job ok.
(Did you know that the 'Ta' designation was a reward to Dr. Tank in recognition for his work with the Fw190? If you do, sorry I mentioned it...)

As to other types in service, the Luftwaffe was designed for blitzkrieg. The strategic decisions that were taken regarding the commissioning of new aircraft were for years taken with the requirements for blitzkrieg - local air superiority and pinpoint close air support - in mind.
By the time the war had gone beyond what was originally forseen, and the Americans had added their industrial weight behind the allied cause, really it was too late for the Luftwaffe to do anything but struggle to keep up.
They were well into crisis management.
On the whole, aircraft developers reacted well to the new demands made on them, quickly developing new technologies to meet their needs. In most things military, the Reich led the world in technical innovation, unfettered as it was by things like principles and ethics.
What it didn't have were rescources, or time.
Bad management.

Wallstein
10-11-2004, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver
We would all be speaking German. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh...what´s wrong with Germany? We all have to learn english anyhow (LOL - don´t take me seriously; I`m a finn and only 6-7 million people in the world speak my language, finnish). If France would have won the war against the Great Britain by the end of 1700 -century, we all would spek France unless the Nazy-Germany would have won and thereby changed the language to Germany. THIS IS MORE OR LESS A JOKE!

But about the Bf-109: One very interesting and important thing is the FUEL. Think about what the Russian, British and American fighters consumed: 90, 100- and 110, perhaps 120 octans. Focke Wulf 190 consumed (if I remember right) 90+ octan gasoline. But how was it with the Messerscmitts? The Messerschmitt-Daimler-Benz engine consumed 87 octan gasoline.

I`m not familiar with engineering, but as far as I have understood, this issue is both a) very ignored and b) essential conscerning the performance of different aeroplanes. And then comes the pending question of the oil production in the Third Reich. They never had enough resources to motorize their army as largly as was needed not to mention their lack of heavy bombers. And during the year 1944 all oil consuming was strictly restricted for to save gasoline for Luftwaffe.

Germany could not afford produce enough of high-octan gasoline. Their synthetic industrial engineering, oil output, was less the higher the octan. The lower the octan, the more gasoline and the higher the octan, the less gasoline. So they needed less rawmaterial to produce 1000 flying hours with Bf-109:s than with - say - Focke Wulf-190:s.

So, what about developing the Messerschmitt Bf-109? The next step should have been (I think)to improve the gasoline and thereby the capacity of the engine. And they could not afford doing that. But that is not all. Allso so the engine itself was too heavy. The reason was lack of raw-materials and expecially certain lightmetals. Daimler Benz engine allready suffered from bad metal. The engine had to be built heavy to compensate the weakness of the framework, crank axel etc. Had they have more lightmetals, they would have been able to build the engine itself lighter (like the Merlin) and the capacity of the Bf-109 would have been quite different (and with higher octan gasoline, even better!).

For example in Finland we used high-octan gasoline with the old wartime Daimler-Benz engines. (We had the Bf-109 G-types) With better gasoline they flew better, but the engines could not take it due to the fact that they were wartime production, low quality, too heavy etc.

My very message here is, that as far as I have understood, the question of development of the Bf-109 (compared to anything else in the reich or what the enemies had) must be dealed with bearing in mind the lack of industrial rescourses that plagued Germany. It means that the study in this matter is not that easy. Yet they knew that she was getting old or outdated, but at the same time, as some other writers just told before, the more powerfull engine made that aeroplane fearfull opponent when piloted well and when NOT equipped with the underwing cannons.

I myself don´t quite believe, that the Focke Wulf-190 would have replaced the Bf-109 AS A FIGHTER just like that...but as a jabo, yes, but not as a fighter.

Interesting topic, thank you,
Wallstein

WOLFMondo
10-12-2004, 01:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MOhz:
i was going to say, i dont understand how the germans would have wanted to replace the 109 with the 190, because i mean then they would have had only one fighter going... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAF and USAAF had it easy because they were fighting 2 types of German fighters. The Germans were fighting RAF and USAAF types of all designations at all altitudes as well as VVS planes at low and medium altitudes. The LW had the 109 and 190 between them had to combat all of these plane types at all altitudes. While they did it well they had there work cut out for them to compete with lots of specilised plane whereas the RAF and USAAF had numerous planes for specific tasks which they were well suited and in many cases designed for. The LW planes had to incorporate other tasks into there existing designs under more and more pressure. The allies had more time and resurces to build new types. Look at the Typhoon and Tempest. The FW190 appears and the Spitfire, which is already an interceptor get beefed up and then quickly complimented by 2 new planes as well as P51's. All those planes will fight the 190/109 but all work at various altitudes and have different styles of fighting to combat.

KaRaYa-X
10-12-2004, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The RAF and USAAF had it easy because they were fighting 2 types of German fighters. The Germans were fighting RAF and USAAF types of all designations at all altitudes as well as VVS planes at low and medium altitudes. The LW had the 109 and 190 between them had to combat all of these plane types at all altitudes. While they did it well they had there work cut out for them to compete with lots of specilised plane whereas the RAF and USAAF had numerous planes for specific tasks which they were well suited and in many cases designed for. The LW planes had to incorporate other tasks into there existing designs under more and more pressure. The allies had more time and resurces to build new types. Look at the Typhoon and Tempest. The FW190 appears and the Spitfire, which is already an interceptor get beefed up and then quickly complimented by 2 new planes as well as P51's. All those planes will fight the 190/109 but all work at various altitudes and have different styles of fighting to combat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, and that's one of the things that really impresses me when looking at both, the Bf109 and the FW190 - their versatility concerning different combat environments and changing Rules-of-Engagement. As you said these two fighters had to face a large number of highly specialized planes but still managed to achieve better combat results (ok, pilot training is also a factor - but it's only ONE of many). For example russian fighters (except the Mig3 which only saw combat action in 1941 till the end of 1942; very very few were remaining in 1943) were designed for low-alt combat where they sometimes had the speed-advantage and most of the times a clear turning advantage, too. On the other hand fighters like the P51 were dedicated high-alt escort fighters - designed for this specific type of mission. Still both the 109 and 190 kept up with them... that's really impressive to my mind.

I also have to agree with Wallstein about the impressive engineering feets. Could any of you imagine a Spit, Mustang, Thunderbolt, Lightning, etc. fly with 87 or 90 octane fuel?

Jasko76
10-12-2004, 06:27 AM
Bf 109 is a classic fighter, it achieved remarkable results flying against incredible odds. The only true weakness was it's flimsy landing gear design which it shared with the Spit. Other than that, 109 was a superb fighter. Decent maneuverability, excellent performance, especially climb and devastating armament on later models. Amazing adaptability to different roles and requirements. What else is there to say?

WOLFMondo
10-12-2004, 06:29 AM
Spitfires often flew with 100 octane but remember the merlin was 26 litres which was quite small for a high performance engine, German engines often were much larger to offset the lower grade fuel. Had the British and USA only had the same fuel the Germans had there engines would have been allot larger also. Only when the Griffon appeared did the British have an engine with a similar displacement but was running on 100-150 grade fuel. No wonder it was so **** powerful. Still what the Germans came up with was very impressive none the less.

*edit*

WTH! d-a-m-n is a banned word?

MOhz
10-12-2004, 09:20 AM
wallstein, np, i myself am surprised how positive this dis. is going on, a proof that not everyone has gone wonkers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

i also dont really get much of the mechanics behind the engines an so forth but now i do have better understanding, thanks wallstein!

hand, i think most of do know about the TA designation, but we dont mind that you repeat it, because for surely someone might cross up who didnt know that so thanks!!

how do i quote???

i dont think that what you said about the languages is a joke, it is just true. i was born in Sierra Leone, and that was an english colony so the official language is english. that counts for all colonies and as for that matter for any conquered country (okay not every single but i would guess 98%).

but wallstein you also have to be careful about which FW you is talkin about. i mean i think at the time they were thinking about replacement only the antons excisted but later on dora and 154 came along.

yeah me as 190 jockey will be scared to piss i think when the tempest or the typhoon or which ever one of them it was or both or whatever appears. i mean from what i hear those things just sound like buther birds http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif!!

mondo you are quite right! and because they had to do all those different tasks, they were of course overstressed

but even though i am impressed mostly by the german constructions, i also respect the capabilities of the allied fighters. and for me as an black, it would be impossible to live in germany today if the allies hadnt defeated hitler. but now i am straying off into politics...

Chuck_Older
10-12-2004, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MOhz:
hi guys, i was thinking about the bf109 and the fw190 and came to the conclusion (i am no the first nor the last) that even though the bf was revolutionary in design at the beginning of its era and maybe till the G2 (afaik (later models seeming to be too heavy even though they did have to have adv. over other planes like in climb rate, but even that has been hotly discussed recently and in the past), it is a design with no future.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have two comments

1) the Bf109 underwent an airframe design change during the war. It was the right aircraft at the right time, initially, but as time wore on, it had limitations. The reasons are many, but new aircraft types were routinely dismissed as 'such types will not be needed after the war'

But the Bf109 had enough potential to undergo a design change to the airframe. Seems like a design with longevity from that standpoint.

Germany caught the 'tide' of aircraft innovation at the right time to fight a short war well. The Bf109 served until it was not a very advanced design because it had so much raw potential, which to me is also a sign of longevity

2) All military aircraft end up at a dead end, sooner or later. You could say that even the most advanced British, American, and Soviet fighter designs all were dead ends because of the advent of jet powered aircraft. Even the Me 262 was a dead end. The F-16 was a dead end, as was the A-6. The F-4 and A-4 were dead end aircraft as well. The F-14 is being supplanted. Even the F-18 is getting upgraded to the F/A-18 E/F SuperHornet. Progress makes everything obsolete eventually.

Chuck_Older
10-12-2004, 10:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jasko76:
Bf 109 is a classic fighter, it achieved remarkable results flying against incredible odds. The only true weakness was it's flimsy landing gear design <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That flimsy landing gear allowed the wings to be replaced in the field, as the fuselage could stand up on it's own without wings! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

OMK_Hand
10-12-2004, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by MOhz:
how do i quote???

Bottom of each post, right side, little icon of yellow folder with black quote marks.
Next to the yellow triangle-with-exclamation-mark icon.
"Reply with quote".

VW-IceFire
10-12-2004, 04:49 PM
MOhz...definately the Tempest will be a very deadly match for the FW190D-9 except with more firepower and speed but less roll rate. Typhoon was never quite as good as the FW190 overall but it was faster which counted for something.

I think with the dead end argument...you have to qualify it a bit. Obviously everything reaches an end. A change in technology can make something obsolete.

The question is...did the 109 represent an effort by the Luftwaffe and the parent company who designed the fighter to eek out every last bit of performance rather than design a new plane? I think the general feeling is that the Luftwaffe focused on those two types...allowing a number of prototypes from all companies to come into being (all the different jets and radical designs) but they didn't push for new aircraft.

On the other hand...the RAF did the same (except the Spitfire seemed to last longer in its usefulness). The Spitfire was used from beginning to end just like the 109. It ranged in weight, engine horsepower, and firepower. It never really got a major redesign either. Then you had the Hurricane which was then taken over by the Typhoon and then the Tempest. You can see Hawker reusing the same designs as they went along...so perhaps under the german naming scheme it just would have been Hawker (random number) A B and C.

The Soviets were similar. They produced Yaks and La(GG)s primarily as their fighter. The I-16 having been made obsolete.

Really...only the US had the industry capacity to field not 2 but 7-8 major types (and then sell a good number to their allies). Thats pretty impressive.

Wallstein
10-13-2004, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MOhz:
"...it would be impossible to live in germany today if the allies hadnt defeated hitler. but now i am straying off into politics..." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We both are lucky, since I`m partly jude, so..., we would be in the same trouble if the allied would not have beaten Hitler. But, no more politics. We are different generation and WE ARE LUCKY unlike poor people of those days long ago.

Take care, pal,
Wallstein

HART_dreyer
10-13-2004, 03:32 PM
All propeller aircraft were generally a dead end.