The Bf-109 Thread

[AVI]

Does anybody have any copies of Messerschmitt factory engineering drawings of the Bf 109 rudder and/or photographs showing the construction of the bare metal rudder frame in detail? Any model from Bf 109E thru Bf 109K.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think if you search the forum you might find them. I will see if I can find the threads but I think we had a Bf-109K manual. I remember translating one for someone but I could not remember if it had any drawings of what you are looking for or not.

[Denniss]

Nice article but needs some corrections:

D-Series:
No Bf 109D production version got the DB 600 engine - have you ever seen a Bf 109D image ?
-> large Jumo-style cooler below the engine (as with Bf 109 B/C), only two-bladed prop
They reverted back to the Jumo 210.

E-series:
If you speak of the DB 601A-1 or Aa then please never use the 1100PS for the A-1 or 1175PS for the Aa as this 1-min-rating was not available in the Bf 109. The A-1 had max 990PS and the Aa 1045PS (Take-off Power, 5-min-rating)

The E-2 was not produced for an unknown reason, the -3 did not have an engine cannon.
The E-4 got some armor improvements and the improded MG FF/M cannons available to fire the new high-capacity HE shell called minengeschoss (mine shot)
It's somewhat safe to assume the E-1/B and E-4/B got the uprated DB 601Aa engine instead of the standard 601A-1.
Was there really the E-3/B (never heard of nor seen)
DB 601N in the E-4/N and E-7/N did have 1175PS take-off power and not 1200.
There was also a E-4/BN version, the fighter-bomber version of the E-4/N
E-5 is the recon version of E-3, E-6 the recon version of the E-4/N
E-7 is basically an E-4 with drop tanks, same with E-7/N and E-4N; The E-7Z should better be called E-7/NZ as it required a DB 601N engine.
There was never ever a DB 601E in the Emil, the E-8 was a MG-armed recon version of the E-7 or of alder machines upgraded to E-7 standard.
The E-9 was the recon version of the E-7N

F-series:
The 109F-1 did use a MG FF/M engine cannon
There was no F-2/Z, cancelled in favour of the DB 601E-engined F-4/Z
All DB 601E engined variants did receive a new prop with wider blades (something the brits didn't know at the time they calculated the F-4 performance based on their F-2 with not fully working engine)

G-series:
There's no Galland-hood, it's called the ERLA-haube (with Galland head-armor). And it was not standard, it was only used in Erla-built machines (AFAIK introduced with G-4) and on most G-5/AS, G-6/As and G-14/AS.
All /AS conversions (see above) received the new wooden tail with larger rudder and a streamlined engine cover without MG 131 bulges.
AS macines did not have a bigger turbocharger but a bigger mechanical supercharger taken from the DB 603
The G-10 used the 605DM, later 605DB, the first with ~1700PS, the latter with 1850PS (later reduced to 1800PS due to malfunctions and overheating), all with MW-50). the G-10 also had the new wooden tail with larger rudder as standard.
The G-14 was an attempt to standardize all the improvements made to the G-6, it's practically a late-production G-6. Most of them had the Erla-canopy and all of them had the new tail as well as MW-50 injection.

K-series
The K-4 should have used the MK 108 as standard armament but due to shortages the MG 151/20 was possible too.
The K-4 reached a maximum speed of 715 km/h (~445 mph), a prototype with a special prop reached the well-known 728 km/h (~452mph)

[Civettone]

I remember Kurfürst saying something like the K-4 getting clearance to use the DB 605 at 1.98ata and with MW 50 which delivered 728 kmh? (Must have been the 605DSC engine then)



But what I want to know ... did the Bf 109K-6 have wooden wings? (I read this a LEMB before it went offline.)

Kris

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont know but I dont think so. I have never read anything to say they did.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Denniss

E-series:
If you speak of the DB 601A-1 or Aa then please never use the 1100PS for the A-1 or 1175PS for the Aa as this 1-min-rating was not available in the Bf 109. The A-1 had max 990PS and the Aa 1045PS (Take-off Power, 5-min-rating)

That`s half-correct. The DB 601A and Aa had 1100 and 1175 PS output cleared for them at the start of the war, but that was a 1-min special overload function, appearantly for low-level flights and/or takeoff purposes.

Mike Williams has claims on his site stating otherwise, but those are fairly baseless, using selective quoting of manuals. Even French papers of captured Emils from 1939 note to 1100 HP rating. Speaking of it, the absance of Aa powered variants or the claims regarding the DB 601N are baseless as well.

The G-10 used the 605DM, later 605DB, the first with ~1700PS, the latter with 1850PS (later reduced to 1800PS due to malfunctions and overheating), all with MW-50). the G-10 also had the new wooden tail with larger rudder as standard.

The G-10 used the same engines as the 109K.

a, DB 605 DM, with 1800 PS output at SL, at 1.75ata.

b DB 605DB/DC, the same engine as a matter of fact, but it could be set for either DB or DC configuration for B-4 or C-3 fuel.

ba, When set to DB, output was 1850 PS, either with B-4 + MW-50 or on C-3 fuel alone.
bb, When set to DC, there were a number of possibilities:
bba, Set to 1.98ata, running at 1.98ata with C-3 + MW 50 : 2000 PS
bbb, Set to 1.98ata, running at 1.80ata with C-3, no MW50: 1725 PS
bbc, Set to 1.8ata, running at 1.80ata with C-3 w/woMW50: 1800 PS

The DB and DC merely differed in the latter having more power at below rated altitude (6000m static), due to running on higher boost.

The K-4 reached a maximum speed of 715 km/h (~445 mph), a prototype with a special prop reached the well-known 728 km/h (~452mph)

Yes, that`s correct. Max. speed of the 109K was 715 km/h using the serial production propeller, either at 1.8 or 1.98ata (the latter had extra performance below rated alt though) and tests were made with thin bladed propeller resulting 727 km/h, and swept back propeller resulting 741 km/h - but these latter props were not standardized before the war ended.

Re: 109K wooden wings, I think the idea of wooden wings to simplify production came up with the 109G already and was tested, but it was found that wooden wings do not yield a reduction in labour hours needed to produce them, so it was dropped. As for the K-6, there were wooden mock ups made, but I don`t think it was meant for production, only easy-to-produce 'models' used in the design phase. Even the Tiger I had wooden mock-ups.

[Morai_Milo]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

That`s half-correct. The DB 601A and Aa had 1100 and 1175 PS output cleared for them at the start of the war, but that was a 1-min special overload function, appearantly for low-level flights and/or takeoff purposes.

Mike Williams has claims on his site stating otherwise, but those are fairly baseless, using selective quoting of manuals. Even French papers of captured Emils from 1939 note to 1100 HP rating. Speaking of it, the absance of Aa powered variants or the claims regarding the DB 601N are baseless as well.

Mike does? Where?

The graph shows ~1140hp @ ~4000ft. The French report only gives HP with no other relevent info, like the 1100hp was a 1 minute rating. Not really that useful as it was obtainable for only a short duration and at low atltitude.

For those who want to read the article, Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

Please read reference source #116 with a comment by noted 109 expert O. Lefebvre on the DB601N.

Got German proof that 1100PS was cleared at the start of the war.

[Kurfürst]

I don`t think you have seen the French report I am talking about.

Hardly anyone takes Mike`s articles seriously, he lacks credibilty, and the bias in those articles is obvious. The quotation of Olivier is a classic, sometimes Olivier is quoted when fits him, sometimes not when it does not fit him, he selects between what to show and what not to show from Olivier. As for Olivier`s commens on the DB 601Aa, he repeatadly stated ever since a revised his position ever since, which is ignored of course, ie. recovered LW Emils show the Aa engine was used in them. In any case, some 1/3 of all DB 601s were Aa models according to Olivier, this means several thousend, odd to say they were not fitted to LW Emils, given that less than 200 109Es were were exported.

As I said, it`s difficult to take seriously any statement from Mike in his articles. He always wants to compare 109s on the lowest possible power, and Spitfires on the highest possible power, so he downplays the power outputs. Who cares.

[Morai_Milo]

What, no proofs? Why am I not surprised. I saw nothing on your 'cut and paste' site with details about the French and the 1100hp.

You are well known for your hatred of Mike but you still like to use his site for reference. You to are well known for your lack of credibility and absolute total bias when it comes to the 109. Many say even worse than what you say of Mike's credibility and bias.

You seem to care for you are always ragging on Mike. Even when Mike does update his site, you still rag on him.

O.Lef. Jan 1 2005

Nope Kurfurst there were simply too few Aa/Ba produced for equiping the whole Emil production as well as the other aircraft using it. Keep in mind taht about 1800 were produced including about 200 for export. Leaving just 1600 at most (if we discount those sent as spare or for equiping other a/c), which is fairly low, probably 1000 ended up being mounted in LW Emils the rest being A-1 (more than 7000 of them being produced during the same time frame).

Since this engine was introduced early on, it could have been mounted on some E-1 as soon as 1939 and up to the very last Emil produced. But this engine cost much more than the A-1 (around 20% IIRC) for a performance gain which was not so incredible. One must never discount the economic PoV when considering the RLM at that time, this is really important so as to understand why so choices were made.

That it was mounted on LW Emil is now certain as i have traced several Aa in LW 109s but they were a rarity compared to the most common A-1s. So far i haven't found a trend in unit/area of operation/versions on which it was used. It seems that it was used if available that's all.

[Udet]

Mr Milo: you seem to be well acquainted with both Kurfurst and Mr. Williams.

Had the opportunity to read on both websites as the links were provided here some time ago.

After reading on both sites, and also after reading your comments aimed at Kurfurst i can say that if "bias" -not sure about "hatred" though- is the issue then the awards goes to Mr. Williams´site. There is a section in his website that was even funny.

Mr. Kurfurst is kind of new here and by the way it´d seem he is not a frequent visitor or at least i do not get too read that much from him.

To make the long story short, it´s been a while since i got warned regarding the style displayed by Williams: he is not to be trusted. Kurfurst only came to repeat what i had heard in the past.

[Soren]

Agreed Udet.

[mad_max]

Some rose colored glasses here. They both are biased and one just seems to never
forget and always jabs at the other.

Just take what you can from the sites and go on. Haven't seen a site from anyone
who is just as adament about their favorite ride and not be biased in one way or another.

Most choose wisely what to quote/paste to make the favored plane look the best.

Funny thing not many can see this as most sites do this , but are blinded by their bias.

Carry on.

Regards,

[Kurfürst]

I think the quote from Olivier puts another claim of Mike to rest. Ironic that it`s quoted by someone who wish to push forward the myths and agendas that is created on that site.

Another interesting case is the selective quoting of the V15a report in that site. Performance at 1.33 ata is shown, and it is claimed that it is running 'above the accepted German limit' (true reason is probably it is perhaps 2 km/h faster than the Spitfire there, and it causes unbearable pain for some).

Truth is, and anyone can see the V15a report on my site, the aircraft was running below the engine`s rated power, as the engine was bench tested before the trials. The report gives a corrected (higher) curve for normal power guaranteed by the manufacturer, but this is of course is ommitted from Mike`s graphs.

Similiarly, his statements on DB 601N deployment are baseless. The first DB 601N powered Emils (E-4/N) were delivered prior the Battle of Britain, not 'towards the end', though priority for receiving these engines were initially or Bf 110s, and of course the 109F that entered production in the summer would use these engines as well.

[Morai_Milo]

Posted by Kurfurst on another board today:

On the Generalluftzeugmeister meeting on the 22nd January 1941, the Generalstab pointed out the following figures on the number of 'active' DB 601N installed, referring to reports from the units on 1st of January, thus giving us a good picture on the number of Bf 109E-../N types in frontline serviceon the 1st of January :

in Bf 109s
Bf 109E-1 : 16 pcs, Bf 109E-3 : 1 pc, Bf 109E-4 : 54 pcs, Bf 109E-6 : 1 pc, Bf 109E-7 : 34 pcs, Bf 109E-8 : 2pcs. Bf 109F-1 : 5 pcs.

Total 112 Bf 109E with DB 601N present in service, plus 5 Bf 109F.

in Bf 110s
Bf 110C-1 : 4 pcs, Bf 110C-4 : 40 pcs, Bf 110C-5 : 12, Bf 110C-7 : 14 pcs, Bf 110D-0 : 18 pcs, Bf 110D-2 : 20 pcs, Bf 110D-3 : 8 pcs, BF 110E-1 : 176 pcs, Bf 110E-2 : 14 pcs.

Total : 306 engines, ie. 153 Bf 110s with DB 601N present in service.

in Misc. types
He 111P : 8 pcs, Do 215 : 68 pcs.

Note the date, Jan 1941. Kurfurst tries to infer that the 601N powered 109s were in widespread use here. Why did he not post it here? Note there was 208 F-1s built and only 5 had 601N engines in service (1/2 a staffel).

O.Lef Board Message

I'll post production data later on, but indeed the E-7 were not all fitted with the DB601N, especially the ones coming straight out of the production lines, the shift towards E-7/N came late 1940 when the engine was reliable enough. But early E-7s were definitely not equipped with the DB601N or at least not many of them.
Beware of the Lieferplans, i noticed severe innacuracies compared to the production listings and RLM delivery reports.

The Lieferplan has 3437 109Es built as of Oct 31 1940. It also shows 35 109E-4/Ns built, penny pocket numbers(~ 2-3 staffels but in reality only 1 staffel with losses). Note in Jan 1941 only 54 109E-4/Ns. Note also only 34 109E-7/Ns of the supposed 452 built. That is some loss rate during BoB for such an uber a/c against the crappy Spits, and Hurries, that some claim!

Truth is, and anyone can see the V15a report on my site, the aircraft was running below the engine`s rated power, as the engine was bench tested before the trials. The report gives a corrected (higher) curve for normal power guaranteed by the manufacturer, but this is of course is ommitted from Mike`s graphs.

No mention of any flight testing, only theoretical. Mike"s graph is of the test and is within 4% of the nominal output, so only 1.5% off the guaranteed low side output of +/-2.5%. Some like to make a big deal out of this but would be typical for an operational used engine. Just to be fair (no bias), the Merlin also would be simular.

As to being selective, and biased, Kurfurst totally ignores the 12lb boost Spits. Note that during BoB, 12lb boost and 100PN fuel was used by Spitfires. Then there is the quote by Molders on his site about the 2 pitch prop which had been replaced by CS props by BoB. No mention by Kurfurst on his site of the CS prop.

Ironic that it`s quoted by someone who wish to push forward the myths and agendas that is created on that site.

No Kurfurst not at all.

Unlike you Kurfurst, and a few others, as mad_max stated,

Funny thing not many can see this as most sites do this, but are blinded by their bias.

I read Mike's site with an open mind. I am not blinded like Kurfurst of the uber German nor how perfect the Spit was, as some claim.

Udet, I am very familular with Kurfurst, or Barbi** as some call him, being exposed to his 'uber German, all other is crap' agenda, how he twists, manipulates, misinterprets data/info and lies for some 5-6 years. You have not seen the unkind words, to be polite, Kurfurst has said about Mike, so yes hatred. As I stated, even when Mike updates his site, correcting any errors, Kurfurst still dumps on him, and not even a thank you. No wunder Mike is not in any rush to make corrections to his huge site, is it? Sugar is better than sour grapes.

** Barbi from his old nick Barbarrosa Isegrim.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Allright Morai cool it down! That goes for everyone else as well. I dont care if you have a problem with Kurfurst or Mike. This forum is not to be used to bash Mike or Kurfurst.

If you all disagree with each you can debate it like adults and not make sissy ass comments to each other like school girls!