bf-109 and its upgrades

[cristian.hidalgo]

so do eny one know of any upgrades of the german bf-109 becuse my granpas dad siad it was more wepons payload

[HoHun]

Hi Cristian,

>so do eny one know of any upgrades of the german bf-109 becuse my granpas dad siad it was more wepons payload

Actually, it was almost all about more engine power (A..D -> E -> F -> G -> K versions), with one major improvement in aerodynamics (E -> F) and another improvement in aerodynamics coupled with a standardization of production (G -> K).

Weapons and payload were MGs (A..D), two low-velocity cannon (E), one high-velocity cannon (F->G), then one heavy low-velocity cannon (G->K). Underwing cannon could be added as a kit (F->K, though only used on G).

Bomb load was 250 kg or 4 x 50 kg (E->G), with 500 kg cleared for the K due to its larger tailwheel. (Even the E could carry a 500 kg bomb too, but the fins almost scraped on the ground, and so it was not cleared for operations.)

That's Messerschmitt in a nutshell for you

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[kool kitty89]

The 2x nose MG's were also upgraded from 7.92 mm MG 17 to 13 mm MG 131 in the Me 109G series (though up to the G-2 the 7.92 mm's were carried iirc)

Provisions for drop tanks also extended range in later models. (starting in late 109E Jabos -fighter bomber- iirc) Trials had been carried out with drop tanks in the 1930's, but no producion a/c had it standard until 1941 iirc. Too late for the BoB.

[Kurfürst]

The droptank carrying E-7 entered service end of August, 1940. I guess there were too few of them initially, so the first references/photos of droptanks on Emils are from October/November 1940. Could have been earlier, but there`s no evidence of it (yet), Stukas has been using those droptanks since the Ju 87R, ie. in service since Norway the latest.

HoHun, the gondolas were definietely used on the F-4 (/R1 model) and Caldwell suggest also on JG 26`s 109Ks. I`ve seen G-10 with it, too. It was definietely possible, and even used sometimes, but indeed rarely, given the overall situation. It was a ready-to-go kit for all but a few specialized versions of the G and K, but of the F series only the F-4/R1 model could mount it.

[Njaco]

Christian, as you can see, the Bf 109 went through alot. Efforts to put newer and more effective weapons on the plane, it was realized that more powerful engines would be needed which made new sub-types and weapons and engines and weapons....

Just about every warbird went through that type of evolution.

[kool kitty89]

I wonder why thy didn't put (internal) wing guns back on it, like with the 109E. (earlier models had 7.92 mm wing guns too iirc, at least the D did)

The K-14 was supposed to mount internal wing mounted MG 151/20's iirc.

[Kurfürst]

I guess because using the gondolas was a much simplier and flexible option, while weight and drag was apprx. the same as with wing guns.

Yes the K-6 and K-14 had wing mounted MK 108s, an alternate configuration with MG 151/20s was also considered. These aircraft were heavily armored variants against bombers, though.

[Velius]

Does anyone know if any attempts were made to make the 109 safer to land thru the landing gear? The undercarriage was so narrow, they say 5% of all 109s were destroyed during takeoff, landing, and ground handling.

[Sgt. Pappy]

The Bf109H had a wider landing gear track but the plane was never put into production.

The largest mods in 109 gear assembly didn't widen the track by any significant amount. The most important thing for the 109 next to performance was still ease of maintainability and this was best gained through gear attached to the fuselage so the wings could be removed for repair.

[HoHun]

Hi Velius,

>The undercarriage was so narrow, they say 5% of all 109s were destroyed during takeoff, landing, and ground handling.

I'd like to know where that figure originates from. I've read it often, but never with an original source listed. I even found it in Bungay's fairly new and well-researched "The Most Dangerous Enemy" - without any source, once more.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Kurfürst]

Olivier posted some actual figures a while ago about TO/L incidents from his extensive archieves containing something like 26 000 records of the service history of individual Bf 109s.

IIRC it said that something like 1,5% of the 109s were involved in some kind of incident (ie. in many cases these are simply damages to the aircraft, nobody was badly hurt, the a/c was then repaired and not written down, or lost), but I dont have it right here, I will post it later if I dont forget.

I dont think the 109 was particularly bad in this regard, though one would need to see comparable figures for other aircraft. I did some analysis on Mossie fates, and I found that surprisingly large number had ground looping incidents as well (which was a surprise to me, as I have believed its more troublesome with SE fighters..). So I dont think its anything special, people usually underestime the true extent of non enemy related accidents vs. enemy related combat losses during the war..

[pbfoot]

Guys surprisingly the undercart the on the 109 was 6" wider then the Spit on both aircraft the wheels were toed out 1/2" . I believe more aircraft were written off by training accidents then by combat I have no statisical evidence but just putting two and two together from reading

[Velius]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Velius,

>The undercarriage was so narrow, they say 5% of all 109s were destroyed during takeoff, landing, and ground handling.

I'd like to know where that figure originates from. I've read it often, but never with an original source listed. I even found it in Bungay's fairly new and well-researched "The Most Dangerous Enemy" - without any source, once more.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hi HoHun

This may or may not be the most reliable source, but I got that figure from "Flight- The Complete History" by R.G. Grant. In this book there is a two page illustrated description of a Messerschmitt Bf 109E-3 (pages 178 and 179). A section labeled "Narrow Undercarriage" states-

"A narrow undercarriage coupled with a tendency to swing to port, led to some 5 percent of all Bf 109s being destroyed on takeoff and landing".

Velius

[claidemore]

Israeli airforce lost nearly all of their 109s to accidents of one sort or another. Some to low level flying accidents, some to takeoff and landing.

I wonder if that 5% figure comes from the Czech airforce use after WWII?

[HoHun]

Hi Velius,

>This may or may not be the most reliable source, but I got that figure from "Flight- The Complete History" by R.G. Grant.

Thanks for the information! :-) Sounds like Grant doesn't mention the primary source either? Then at least we've verified his book as a "dead end" :-/

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)