What if the Me109Z instead of Bf110?

[wiking85]

Me 109 Zwilling

This experimental aircraft was essentially two Bf 109F airframes joined together by means of a new wing centre section and new tailplane, both of constant chord. In the preproduction model, the...

www.nevingtonwarmuseum.com

Messerschmitt Me 109Z Luft '46 entry

Several other Me 109Z designs were planned, developed around the 109G fuselages. The Me 109Z was to use around 90% of pre-existing 109 parts, with only the new main wing and tailplane, modified landing gear mountings, slightly larger wheels, extra fuel tanks in place of the starboard cockpit and a few other components needed to complete the aircraft.

Historically this was a real aircraft, but the project was not started until 1942. What if it had been started pre-war (handwave the reason) and due to performance and cost (economies of scale due to commonality with the regular Me109) it supplanted the Bf110? It would fulfill all the same roles of the Bf110, but with better performance and lower cost due to sharing 90% of Me109 parts. The 1943 version was projected to have a top speed of 462mph and a cruise of 354 with the DB601-E engine (basically a less crappy DB605) or DB605, which was about 300hp more than the standard DB601 engine of 1940. Range was estimated to be just below 2000km. That coupled with the Me109E being a less refined version of the 109F-4 variant the historical 109Z was based on, a top speed of ~380-390mph and 1200km for a 1939/40 version seems reasonable.

For comparison:

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E performance comparison, wartime flight trials and data analysis. Spitfire flight tests.

www.spitfireperformance.com

The Spitfire with 100octane fuel had a top speed around 360mph in 1940. The BF110 historically in 1940 had about 336mph at top speed due to the DB601N engine not working out for a variety of reasons.

So what happens if the Luftwaffe has considerably more fighter aircraft with higher performance than any single engine fighter in the world at the time, plus firepower at least equivalent to the Bf110? Especially if it had the range to act as a proper escort and fighter-bomber.

 

[Shortround6]

Me 109 Zwilling

This experimental aircraft was essentially two Bf 109F airframes joined together by means of a new wing centre section and new tailplane, both of constant chord. In the preproduction model, the...

www.nevingtonwarmuseum.com

Messerschmitt Me 109Z Luft '46 entry

Historically this was a real aircraft, but the project was not started until 1942. What if it had been started pre-war (handwave the reason) and due to performance and cost (economies of scale due to commonality with the regular Me109) it supplanted the Bf110? It would fulfill all the same roles of the Bf110, but with better performance and lower cost due to sharing 90% of Me109 parts. The 1943 version was projected to have a top speed of 462mph and a cruise of 354 with the DB601-E engine (basically a less crappy DB605) or DB605, which was about 300hp more than the standard DB601 engine of 1940. Range was estimated to be just below 2000km. That coupled with the Me109E being a less refined version of the 109F-4 variant the historical 109Z was based on, a top speed of ~380-390mph and 1200km for a 1939/40 version seems reasonable.

For comparison:

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E performance comparison, wartime flight trials and data analysis. Spitfire flight tests.

www.spitfireperformance.com

The Spitfire with 100octane fuel had a top speed around 360mph in 1940. The BF110 historically in 1940 had about 336mph at top speed due to the DB601N engine not working out for a variety of reasons.

So what happens if the Luftwaffe has considerably more fighter aircraft with higher performance than any single engine fighter in the world at the time, plus firepower at least equivalent to the Bf110? Especially if it had the range to act as a proper escort and fighter-bomber.

TANSTAAFL.

You have the rather crappy 109E fuselage and tail. You also have limited fuel. Solved by filling the 2nd cockpit with fuel. But you have the crappy summer of 1940 109 radio, and no radio operator for long range missions. You have the 1940 armament. drum feds for the 20mm cannon and no rear seater to change drums.
Maybe the four landing gear legs help carrying bombs across rough airfields. What does not help in front line airfields is the wing that is only 42% larger than single engine 109.
Germans had trouble making enough engines, not airframes. Saving costs/aluminum not making 110s doesn't mean you get more DB 601 engines even if you can make more airframes.

I have no doubt that such a machine will be faster than the 110 using the same engines. What I really doubt is if such a machine can really do many of the missions that the 110 actually did. 110 carried around 1270-80 liters of fuel. Maybe you can fit 300 or more in the cockpit and the small airframe doesn't need as much.

I doubt the range figures from most of the accounts for the 109Z are for a clean aircraft. They are claiming twice the range of a 109G carrying a 300 liter drop tank. Something sure seems off.

 

[MiTasol]

Agree.

My first thought was to carry extra fuel in the wing centre section but looking at that four view the landing gear and radiators effectively take up that whole area so that will not work unless they come up with a whole new two leg landing gear.

 

[Civettone]

The Bf 109 Zwilling was never fully pursued. It was a bit of a curiosity project which was allowed to run for a while as it didn't require too many resources. All it took was the destruction of the prototype to stop the project. Unfortunately, this also means not much is known about it. We see rather fantastic ideas of powering it with a Jumo 213 or hauling a 1,000 kg bomb. It was rather typical of Messerschmitt to present his designs in the most promising way but it should be clear to us that re-engining the Bf 109 was far from simple. (Just look at how the Me 209 was supposed to be based on existing Bf 109 parts.)

It's only with hindsight of the Twin Mustang, we can imagine what the possibilities could have been. In my book, they were plentiful, and more than Willi or the Reichsluftministerium could have imagined.

As you mentioned, it offers two major advantages compared to the existing twin-engined heavy fighters: ease of production and much improved performance. But to me it's the versatility which would have allowed it to replace the Bf 110 and Me 210/410, thereby freeing production capacity for other aircraft.

The Bf 109 had an internal fuel tank of 400 liters but the empty cockpit on the right could carry at least three times that amount. That results in a total of 1600 liter. (The Twin Mustang had 2180 liters.) This should give it a range of 1,500-2,000 km. This would make it an excellent long-range fighter but even more so as a long-range photo-reconnaissance aircraft, with both fuselages carrying a camera. With a reduced armament a speed of 700 km/h at medium altitude would have been likely, making it virtually impossible to intercept until 1945.

Another important role in the Luftwaffe was that of the Zerstörer, especially in the air defence role. The central wing of the Bf 109 could have been used to carry 1 MK 103 or 2 MK 108s, coupled with the standard armament of two Bf 109s, giving it an impressive armament.

And as said, it could also serve as a long-range Jabo, carrying a 500 kg bomb under the central wing, or with reduced fuel load, an additional 250kg under both fuselages. With its great speed, it would have been very successful on the Eastern front. I also see it excel in tip-and-run attacks on the British coast which were more successful than the Germans were ever aware of. However, I'd probably say the Fw 190 F was a cheaper option.

That all said and done, I think the real value of the Bf 109 Z, and a game changing one at that, would have been as a night fighter. It would have been the only one capable of intercepting the Mosquito until the arrival of the Me 262 night fighter.

However, it would have necessitated a larger central wing, capable of carrying additional fuel as the right-side cockpit would have been taken over by the radar operator. Probably a 500 l fuel tank to get the endurance up to 2 hours at combat speeds, 3 hours with drop tanks. One easy way to clear the central wing would have been to change the landing gear arrangement from 4 to 2 struts where both wheels would retract into the outer wings (as happened on the Twin Mustang). The edge of the outer wings would have been carrying the radar antennas.

As said, the Bf 109 Z could easily have taken the place of the Bf 110, and later the Me 410. As the Bf 109 could have been produced in as little as 5,000 hours, and as standardisation with the Bf 109 would have aided both production, maintenance and training, valuable resources would have been freed up. And in case of the Me 410, a couple of thousand DB 603s.

Finally, I see the Bf 109 Z as an ideal stopgap until the Me 262 is in mass production as a heavy fighter, reconnaissance aircraft, fighter bomber and night fighter.

 

[Denniss]

109Z would never happen n mid/late 1930s with the 109 (and it engines) not even fully developed

 

[Admiral Beez]

Wouldn't a single-engine fighter based on the Bf 109 but with added internal and external fuel suffice?

 

[SaparotRob]

Wouldn't a single-engine fighter based on the Bf 109 but with added internal and external fuel suffice?

Wouldn't that give up some performance edge against a same-time Spitfire?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Wouldn't that give up some performance edge against a same-time Spitfire?

If the Mustang can carry more than twice the fuel of a Spitfire and remain competitive, so can a Bf 109.

 

[Shortround6]

If the Mustang can carry more than twice the fuel of a Spitfire and remain competitive, so can a Bf 109.

define remain competitive.
British loved the Mustang I for it's low level speed and range, however the twice the fuel of the Spitfire didn't occur until late 1943.
Early Mustangs, Allison and early Merlins carried about 78% more internal fuel (150 Imp gal) .
And the early Mustangs with Allisons didn't climb well and had a higher wing loading and couldn't turn as well.
By late 1943 the Mustangs had the two stage Merlins and 100/130 fuel which gave them enough power (still couldn't out climb or out turn the Spitfires of late 1943, they just had to beat the 109s and Fw 190s).

109 was planed around a 700hp engine, and 270 liters of fuel. They crammed bigger engines into it. and more fuel. But they ran out of room in 1939/40.
There is only so much "stuff" you can fit in 170sq ft wing. Maybe the Germans could have stuffed some fuel tanks in the wing. But that means redesigning the wing, adding cost (man hours) and Mustang had a lot more volume in the wing. It is not just the area, large wing (with the same thickness percentage ) is actually thicker and has more volume.
Spitfire actually had a large wing than the Mustang.

 

[Admiral Beez]

define remain competitive.
British loved the Mustang I for it's low level speed and range, however the twice the fuel of the Spitfire didn't occur until late 1943.

I believe the Bf 109Z was a post-1943 concept, so we're about right for the long-range Merlin-powered Mustang.

Wouldn't a single-engine fighter based on the Bf 109 but with added internal and external fuel suffice?

I'm not suggesting we cram in fuel in excess of the Bf 109's internal volume. Instead I suggest a new design, based on the Bf 109 but with greater internal volume.

 

[tomo pauk]

British loved the Mustang I for it's low level speed and range, however the twice the fuel of the Spitfire didn't occur until late 1943.
Early Mustangs, Allison and early Merlins carried about 78% more internal fuel (150 Imp gal) .

Spitfire in the best part of 1942-43 was the one with more fuel, since the Mustang was unable to carry drop tanks (unless we count the A-36 as a Mustang). Even accounting for the additional fuel cells for ferry purposes on the Mustang Is, the Spitfire carried more. Situation changed with the Mustang II/P-51A, that was plumbed for the wing drop tanks.

109 was planed around a 700hp engine, and 270 liters of fuel. They crammed bigger engines into it. and more fuel. But they ran out of room in 1939/40.
There is only so much "stuff" you can fit in 170sq ft wing. Maybe the Germans could have stuffed some fuel tanks in the wing. But that means redesigning the wing, adding cost (man hours) and Mustang had a lot more volume in the wing.

It is not like the MTT was shy in redesigning the wings for the Bf 109, or making the new wings' designs And in a quick succession - the -F was with two wing types (one type remained a prototype, another carried on to the -G and -K), -X was with another, -T was again with another, A to E were with the initial design, while the H was to be with F/G extended wings. Bf 109 was dirt cheap in manhours anyway.

The 2-seat Buchons were with wing tanks, so the drop tank was not a necessity for the 'normal' training sessions, unlike with the G-12; both 2-seaters lost a good deal of the fuselage tankage so the second cockpit can fit.

Spitfire actually had a large wing than the Mustang.

Mustang's wing was thicker, and the internals were compartmentalized in a more convenient way.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Spitfire actually had a large wing than the Mustang.

What was the heaviest single-seat, single-engine aircraft to use the Merlin? The P-51D had a max takeoff weight of 12,100 lbs., which is about a ton heavier than the two-seat Fairey Battle, albeit with a much earlier Merlin.