Time Machine Consultant : Maximizing the Bf-109 in January 1943

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Bronc

[B]]

Apparently they were also dangerous to land on a bright, sunny day, at an airport on a paved strip. But enough about the
Bf-109's undercarriage. Everyone keeps ignoring (and making up excuses for) the obvious and discussing it any further
is going to get me banned.

I have a new VERY INTERESTING question that is suitable for a new post. (See below.)

Bronc

the 109 was designed to use turf rwys , and I'll wager most losses of any WW2 fighter was during the landing phase

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Bronc

[. Everyone keeps ignoring (and making up excuses for) the obvious and discussing it any further
is going to get me banned.

Bronc

Stop being a twit - the only reason why I jumped on your case was because of your first post and the way you tried to shove this crap into Kurfurst's face. You have a valid discussion, at the same time there were THOUSANDS of pilots who mastered the -109.


Stop bolding your posts as if you need attention, you can make your points without being an ass.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

the 109 was designed to use turf rwys , and I'll wager most losses of any WW2 fighter was during the landing phase

I wonder. Take Off always seemed to be the moment of truth for me as speed and altitude were low and options limited.

Bad weather is the wildcard between the two circumstances of take off and landings.

I suspect you are right for combat ops simply because the aircraft often experienced battle damage, or was flying for several hours giving a higher statistical probability for a system or component failure..or pilot fatigue or unanticipated weather condition changes

[Bronc]

1 & 2) Where did my Avatar come from AND what in the hell is it???

3) If there is an Avatar God out there, will they please replace it with the attached Ta-152 picture?

4) The second picture is of a Bf-109G-5(?) and what I think is a 30mm Mk-108 belly pack.
(I've never seen one of these before.) Now, if we also have a 30 mm Mk-108 firing through the
hub (motor mount) plus the 30mm belly pack, might we dispense with (permanently remove)
the two 15mm nose guns and ammo boxes (to save weight) to end up with something much
more lethal than hanging (2) two 20mm MG-151/20's outboard on the wings??

Having (2) two center-line 30mm's hitting right next to each other would be pretty devastating
I think. Tell your pilots that they have about (3) three seconds of ammo for both cannon.
We expect you to make (1) one frontal or diving pass--and only one pass--on each mission. After
that you can Split-S and run for home, (we want you to get free and clear) but in each pass, you
have to fire (3) seconds within range and on target. Give us (3) seconds of accurate 30mm
Mk-108 fire on target and then run for home...

Bronc

[FLYBOYJ]

The image is too big to be added as an avatar.

[Shortround6]

Picture is much more likely to be a 20mm MG 151 which was expermented with but rejected beause it used different ammo than the engine mounted cannon. electric primed vrs percussion primed.

The 109 never had two 15mmguns, did you mis type 13mm?

Even with a pair of of MK 108 if all that is expected is one 3 second firing pass you have a very expensive interceptor.
Most late Western fighters having firing times of 12 seconds or more, some with more than 20 seconds.

You also have the fuel issue. Which is going to take more fuel;

1, doing a head on pass on a plane at the edge (leading or side) of the formation, going past and winding up behind the formation, turning and passing the formation and then turning again for another head on pass (the 109 should have about a 100-120mph speed advantage even without using emergency power) or

2. flying back to the feild, landing, rearming, going to take off power and then climbing back up to 20,000ft ft+.

If number two not only is it not fuel effecient but you need more fighters to get the same number of firing passes per allied attack.

[Bronc]

I get the 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131 machine guns and the MG 151 (MG 151/15) confused all the time.
Meant to say 13mm.

It does look like a 20mm belly cannon, but the idea is still the same, what if it was a 30mm?

I'm trying to figure out a way to put more 30mm MK-108 on target. Everyone has heard
the: "it only took 3 or 4 hits with the MK-108 to down a bomber" wisdom. What they haven't
heard is how many fired rounds of 30mm it took to get those 3 or 4 on target.

Here is the Luftwaffe chart I have on MK- 103 30mm cannon performance: (Don't know the source document.)

A (4) engine bomber can be shot down with 50% certainty if:

40 rounds are fired at it from 500 meters
104 rounds are fired at it from 1000 meters
308 rounds are fired at it from 1500 meters

A (4) engine bomber can be shot down with 95% certainty if:

76 rounds are fired at it from 500 meters
203 rounds are fired at it from 1000 meters
650 rounds are fired at it from 1500 meters

Given its rainbow trajectory, I don't think the MK-108 would have any better numbers,
most likely they were worse, much worse.

These numbers are pretty illustrative of what we are seeing in gun camera footage.
From a thousand meters, it took A LOT of shooting at one bomber to bring it down.
(And with 20mm the numbers must have been even worse.) Unless it was flying last
or a straggler, not many bombers got 104, much less 203 rounds fired at it. In the
gun camera film, it looks a lot more like "spray and pray" shooting at the bomber
formations.

So we are working with the Bf-109G series. What do we have to do to get
more 30mm actually on the target, as opposed to fired at the target?

Bronc

[Civettone]

I have read that the blast of the 30mm cannon could damage the prop. They tried it with one or another aircraft but for the life of me I can't remember which... Maybe the Hs 123 or Ju 87?
But perhaps that was because the muzzle was too close to the prop?

And Bronc, I do not appreciate you taking things out of its context and misusing it for your convictions. We are all here because we want to learn. But providing blatantly distorted information while ignoring any counterevidence kindly provided by others and then complaining how everyone is ignoring you ... ?
So I hope this last post of yours is a new start

Kris

[Civettone]

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/wea...ic-6368-5.html (Luftwaffe Cannons and Machineguns topic.)



Kris

[tomo pauk]

Back to the original question:
The most expedient way to maximize 109 in 1943 is to produce Bf-109Z (yep, here I go again ). It was to make almost 700km/h, plenty of cannons, and with 2nd crew member & radar should've make a good nignt fighter. The second crew member in a day fighter version could be a pupil needing an introduction to combat, while looking no enemy fighter sneek behind for an easy kill. Much harder to destroy, while one crew member could've land the plane if another one is badly wounded, and/or one engine is destroyed. Since 109 is cheap anyway, and produced in numbers, the price would remain reasonable. Moreso since I'd delete the hull MGs and sinchro gear.
All availavle in 1943 with off-the-shelf components.
What's there not to love?

Hmm...got me thinking about thread coverng other possible twin-hull planes. Yak-1 & 9, P-40, Hurricane, MC-200 come to mind...

[Shortround6]

Originally Posted by Bronc

So we are working with the Bf-109G series. What do we have to do to get
more 30mm actually on the target, as opposed to fired at the target?

Bronc

Better training for the pilots?

A better gun sight?

Failing that approach you have two avenues left.
1. mount the MK 103 for flatter trajectory and less time of flight for a higher percentage of hits but unless you can really speed up development of the motor cannon version over what was done historicly this isn't going to yeild any worthwhile results. and the extra 90kg of weight isn't going to help performance any.
2. go back to "as opposed to fired at the target"
Keep the same percentage of hits to rounds fired but just fire more rounds. Barring deveopment of the revolver cannon this means more guns which the 109 has difficulty fitting in.

[davebender]

Do you think Me-109Z performance would be superior to the Fw-187 when powered by the same engines?

[tomo pauk]

The performance would've been better for the Zwlling, since it had smaller span & wing area, plus Falke had 3 'bodies' (2 engines plus hull) to pirece through air, while Zwilling had only 2. The 109Z with two pilots would've be in further advantage.
Falke would have been more maneuvrable, though.

But main advantage Zwilling has over Falke was that 109 was in large-scale production and use.

[riacrato]

I agree with Tomo, producing a twin engined version of ANY 109 would've given the LW a good heavy fighter without the need for extensive development.

And please forget about the MK 103. There is a reason it was never used large scale: It was expensive,large, heavy, low rate of fire and the increased range is largely academical for obvious reasons.

[davebender]

Does anyone have production data for the Fw-187? I have no idea as to whether it was dirt cheap like the Me-109 or expensive like the P-38.