Time Machine Consultant : Maximizing the Bf-109 in January 1943 - Aircraft of World War II

Bronc · 10-25-2009, 12:59 AM

(To make this question/topic digestible for one and all, we must ignore the moral and ethical considerations of assisting the Nazi effort. Also, the Manhattan Project does not exist so WW II is not necessarily going to be over in August, 1945.)

You are transported via time machine back to January 1943 as a consultant for the Luftwaffe/RLM. Because the moral and ethical questions of assisting the Luftwaffe no longer exist, you have agreed to help and give it your best shot.

The first issue you are asked to address is the Bf-109. (Ending its construction and converting production over to the FW-190 or Me-262 has been rejected out of hand by Adolf Hitler. You can do anything else, you will have the complete cooperation of Milch/Speer, you just can't cancel it.)

Beginning in January 1943, what do you do to make the Bf-109 more competitive in the fighter and anti-bomber missions? (Because you know what's coming in 1944 and '45.)

Does your answer change if you arrive in January, 1942?

Bronc

FLYBOYJ · 10-25-2009, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronc

(
Beginning in January 1943, what do you do to make the Bf-109 more competitive in the fighter and anti-bomber missions? (Because you know what's coming in 1944 and '45.)

Kill it and build more FW 190s and Me 262s.

proton45 · 10-25-2009, 03:15 AM

Convert to an underground production system...disperse sub-component assemblies, like what was done with the FW190 production...protect qualified factory workers, and provide for them. Keep quality control as high as possible, and keep away from "forced labor"...

tomo pauk · 10-25-2009, 07:59 AM

Produce the 109-H:

Messerschmitt Bf 109H

It had firepower, speed & range Luftwaffe neded.

Bronc · 10-25-2009, 08:45 PM

First, I would insist that all Bf-109 production be converted to the Me-155 (sans the folding wings and tail hook.) The design work was complete in early-autumn 1942.

The Me-155 was identical in the fuselage as the G-1 variant. However it had a completely new wing that featured a wide-tracked INWARD retracting, long stroke landing gear, larger wheels, plus a span increase of 4 feet. Also, the wing was thick enough to hold the Mg 151/20.

A HUGE percentage of Bf-109 loss and damage was due to landing and take-off accidents from the narrow
tracked undercarriage and the wing loading/structural issues of the old wing would have been solved as well.

The Me-155 called for the DB-628 with MW-50. The new wing and increased perfomance would have resulted in a 425+ mph aircraft.

I would have given the aircraft a Galland canopy with a requirement for a bubble canopy within a year.

I would have given it a K series tail in metal.

I would have built it in two variants: The anti-bomber armed with a single (weight-reduced) Mk-103 30mm cannon in a motor mounting. I would have moved that fire-wall and/or motor mounts to make it fit. The pure fighter would have been armed with three 20mm cannon.

I would have mandated that a/the 1000 rpm / 3000 fps 25mm Mk-213 revolver cannon be in series production within in six months or everyone gets shot. After the revolver cannon came on, everything would have converted over to one 25mm.

Bronc

Bronc · 10-25-2009, 08:58 PM

A good-looking, fine-performing aircraft that was available in 1943!! Even without the Mk-213,
it would have been a dangerous opponent. Bronc

davebender · 10-25-2009, 09:39 PM

I agree with this solution but we need a bit more refinement.

The wonder weapon R4/M Orkan ("Hurricane")
Put the R4/M folding fin rocket into mass production. The Me-155 will come standard with connections for a discardable rack of 14 rockets under each wing. Produce at least 1,000 Me-155s per month and R4/M rockets by the millions. These dirt cheap fighter aircraft can handle the entire daylight air superiority mission.

Now you can forego production of the Fw-190A and instead produce lots of Fw-190Fs for CAS. The R4/M works well in that role also. Furthermore the Me-410 light bombers can do what they were designed for instead of being pressed into service as bomber killers. Landser will leap for joy when they start receiving tactical air support just like their American and British opponents.

MikeGazdik · 10-26-2009, 01:17 AM

While I agree with this modification. (side note- never even heard of the Me 155, love it!!!) My main concern would be produce it, as is. That thing has to have more range right??? Tactics! Let the current Me 109 and Fw 190 continue to fight the allied bombers. The Luftwaffe HAS to go back on the offensive and strike England. With fighters ( the Me 155) that can escort the bombers all the way to the target, take on the enemy, and fly back, thats a war winner. alah- Mustang!

Bronc · 10-26-2009, 01:32 AM

The R4M would have been an even more wicked surprise to 8th Air Force bomber crews in late 1943 than in April '45.

Now several major questions: Everyone has seen that famous photograph of the outline of a B-17 painted on a German hanger and the Germans had 8-10 flyable B-17's, but beyond brief mentions of the Wulf Hound "touring bases to acquaint German pilots with the B-17" did the Luftwaffe actually get "hands-on" training (in the air) to successfully attack the B-17 and B-24 bomber formations?

Did German fighter pilots circa January 1943 ever get a chance to shoot at towed aerial targets?

Did German fighter pilots ever get a chance to mock attack a box formation of He-177's to get
their timing, distances and angles down?

Were German ground-crews extra careful about keeping guns and cannons sighted in?

Does anyone have insights on these important questions?

Bronc

davebender · 10-26-2009, 08:08 AM

This is directly related to fuel availability. By 1943 it's too late for large increases in synthetic fuel production. However it's not too late to protect existing synthetic fuel plants from being attacked by RAF Bomber Command.

Perhaps some of the Me-410s should be used for intruder missions against RAF Bomber Command. That should help.

proton45 · 10-26-2009, 08:37 AM

I still think its all moot as long as Bomber command is hammering away at the industrial complex...if you can't keep fighter production high (along with quality), it don't mean anything. How many RLM projects where changed, canceled and compromised by production losses?

davebender · 10-26-2009, 10:04 AM

German aircraft production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Germany did not run out of aircraft. They produced over 35,000 during 1944, as many as 1942 and 1943 combined. As for fighters, they averaged over 1,000 Me-109s and over 600 Fw-190s per month during 1944.

The problem was fuel. The bottom fell out when the synthetic fuel plants were bombed during 1944. After 5 years of trying RAF Bomber Command finally managed to make a serious contribution to the allied war effort. Perhaps Germany was lulled into a false sense of security by the bombing failures of 1939 to 1943.

renrich · 10-26-2009, 12:05 PM

Jack up a new airplane under it which does not need gasoline.

davebender · 10-26-2009, 02:48 PM

That's what the Volksjäger program of 10 September 1944 was all about.

However if January 1943 is our starting point I think steps can be taken to to protect the synthetic fuel plants from bomb damage.

Civettone · 10-26-2009, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronc

First, I would insist that all Bf-109 production be converted to the Me-155 (sans the folding wings and tail hook.) The design work was complete in early-autumn 1942.

The Me-155 was identical in the fuselage as the G-1 variant. However it had a completely new wing that featured a wide-tracked INWARD retracting, long stroke landing gear, larger wheels, plus a span increase of 4 feet. Also, the wing was thick enough to hold the Mg 151/20.

A HUGE percentage of Bf-109 loss and damage was due to landing and take-off accidents from the narrow
tracked undercarriage and the wing loading/structural issues of the old wing would have been solved as well.

Huge percentage? That's the kinda bull you find on the internet.

Bf 109H suffered from wing flutter and instability and was cancelled. Too bad, it could have been great.

Me 155? The DB 628 resulted in a change in centre of gravity and extensive changes were needed, essentially leading to a new aircraft, the BV 155. So you can easily scrap that of your list. Again ... too bad, it might have been awesome.

MG 213? That's going to take at least two more years to get it ready for production. The Germans invested a lot of time and money in the project and in the end had nothing to show for it.

R4M is also far from production in January 1943. Even if they speed it up it would take at least one more year for operational testing.

It's better to keep it simple guys.

In January 1943 the Bf 109G-5/6 was on its way so let's start from there.
Its main problem was the aerodynamical picture. They were partially solved at the end of 1944. These changes could possibly have been introduced much sooner. An aerodynamical hood instead of the bulges. A retractable tail wheel with a long strut.
One more option is adding wheel bay covers which would make the aircraft substantially faster.

Another main shortcoming was the 1.3 ata level of the DB 605. Daimler Benz should make it priority nr 1 to at least bring the ata level back to the level of the DB 601.

These simple changes would bring the max speed of the Bf 109G to at least 670 kmh. Also range would be improved.

Other changes are the Erla Haube and the standard fitting of the cheap MK 108 cannon.

Kris

and Bronc, use the standard font please

10-25-2009, 12:59 AM	#1
Bronc Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 57	Time Machine Consultant : Maximizing the Bf-109 in January 1943 (To make this question/topic digestible for one and all, we must ignore the moral and ethical considerations of assisting the Nazi effort. Also, the Manhattan Project does not exist so WW II is not necessarily going to be over in August, 1945.) You are transported via time machine back to January 1943 as a consultant for the Luftwaffe/RLM. Because the moral and ethical questions of assisting the Luftwaffe no longer exist, you have agreed to help and give it your best shot. The first issue you are asked to address is the Bf-109. (Ending its construction and converting production over to the FW-190 or Me-262 has been rejected out of hand by Adolf Hitler. You can do anything else, you will have the complete cooperation of Milch/Speer, you just can't cancel it.) Beginning in January 1943, what do you do to make the Bf-109 more competitive in the fighter and anti-bomber missions? (Because you know what's coming in 1944 and '45.) Does your answer change if you arrive in January, 1942? Bronc Last edited by Bronc; 10-25-2009 at 01:02 AM.

10-25-2009, 07:59 AM	#4
tomo pauk Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 588	Produce the 109-H: Messerschmitt Bf 109H It had firepower, speed & range Luftwaffe neded. __________________ Last edited by tomo pauk; 10-25-2009 at 08:04 AM.

10-25-2009, 08:45 PM	#5
Bronc Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 57	Build a de-navalized version of the navalized Bf-109 First, I would insist that all Bf-109 production be converted to the Me-155 (sans the folding wings and tail hook.) The design work was complete in early-autumn 1942. The Me-155 was identical in the fuselage as the G-1 variant. However it had a completely new wing that featured a wide-tracked INWARD retracting, long stroke landing gear, larger wheels, plus a span increase of 4 feet. Also, the wing was thick enough to hold the Mg 151/20. A HUGE percentage of Bf-109 loss and damage was due to landing and take-off accidents from the narrow tracked undercarriage and the wing loading/structural issues of the old wing would have been solved as well. The Me-155 called for the DB-628 with MW-50. The new wing and increased perfomance would have resulted in a 425+ mph aircraft. I would have given the aircraft a Galland canopy with a requirement for a bubble canopy within a year. I would have given it a K series tail in metal. I would have built it in two variants: The anti-bomber armed with a single (weight-reduced) Mk-103 30mm cannon in a motor mounting. I would have moved that fire-wall and/or motor mounts to make it fit. The pure fighter would have been armed with three 20mm cannon. I would have mandated that a/the 1000 rpm / 3000 fps 25mm Mk-213 revolver cannon be in series production within in six months or everyone gets shot. After the revolver cannon came on, everything would have converted over to one 25mm. Bronc Last edited by Bronc; 11-02-2009 at 03:51 PM.

10-25-2009, 09:39 PM	#7
davebender Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Michigan, USA Posts: 613	Bf-109 production be converted to the Me-155 I agree with this solution but we need a bit more refinement. The wonder weapon R4/M Orkan ("Hurricane") Put the R4/M folding fin rocket into mass production. The Me-155 will come standard with connections for a discardable rack of 14 rockets under each wing. Produce at least 1,000 Me-155s per month and R4/M rockets by the millions. These dirt cheap fighter aircraft can handle the entire daylight air superiority mission. Now you can forego production of the Fw-190A and instead produce lots of Fw-190Fs for CAS. The R4/M works well in that role also. Furthermore the Me-410 light bombers can do what they were designed for instead of being pressed into service as bomber killers. Landser will leap for joy when they start receiving tactical air support just like their American and British opponents.

10-26-2009, 01:32 AM	#9
Bronc Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 57	AGREED on the R4M - Now: Pilot Training The R4M would have been an even more wicked surprise to 8th Air Force bomber crews in late 1943 than in April '45. Now several major questions: Everyone has seen that famous photograph of the outline of a B-17 painted on a German hanger and the Germans had 8-10 flyable B-17's, but beyond brief mentions of the Wulf Hound "touring bases to acquaint German pilots with the B-17" did the Luftwaffe actually get "hands-on" training (in the air) to successfully attack the B-17 and B-24 bomber formations? Did German fighter pilots circa January 1943 ever get a chance to shoot at towed aerial targets? Did German fighter pilots ever get a chance to mock attack a box formation of He-177's to get their timing, distances and angles down? Were German ground-crews extra careful about keeping guns and cannons sighted in? Does anyone have insights on these important questions? Bronc

10-25-2009, 03:15 AM	#3
proton45 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 414	Convert to an underground production system...disperse sub-component assemblies, like what was done with the FW190 production...protect qualified factory workers, and provide for them. Keep quality control as high as possible, and keep away from "forced labor"...

10-26-2009, 01:17 AM	#8
MikeGazdik Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ohio Posts: 240	While I agree with this modification. (side note- never even heard of the Me 155, love it!!!) My main concern would be produce it, as is. That thing has to have more range right??? Tactics! Let the current Me 109 and Fw 190 continue to fight the allied bombers. The Luftwaffe HAS to go back on the offensive and strike England. With fighters ( the Me 155) that can escort the bombers all the way to the target, take on the enemy, and fly back, thats a war winner. alah- Mustang!

10-26-2009, 08:08 AM	#10
davebender Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Michigan, USA Posts: 613	Pilot training This is directly related to fuel availability. By 1943 it's too late for large increases in synthetic fuel production. However it's not too late to protect existing synthetic fuel plants from being attacked by RAF Bomber Command. Perhaps some of the Me-410s should be used for intruder missions against RAF Bomber Command. That should help.

10-26-2009, 08:37 AM	#11
proton45 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 414	I still think its all moot as long as Bomber command is hammering away at the industrial complex...if you can't keep fighter production high (along with quality), it don't mean anything. How many RLM projects where changed, canceled and compromised by production losses?

10-26-2009, 10:04 AM	#12
davebender Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Michigan, USA Posts: 613	can't keep fighter production high German aircraft production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Germany did not run out of aircraft. They produced over 35,000 during 1944, as many as 1942 and 1943 combined. As for fighters, they averaged over 1,000 Me-109s and over 600 Fw-190s per month during 1944. The problem was fuel. The bottom fell out when the synthetic fuel plants were bombed during 1944. After 5 years of trying RAF Bomber Command finally managed to make a serious contribution to the allied war effort. Perhaps Germany was lulled into a false sense of security by the bombing failures of 1939 to 1943.

10-26-2009, 12:05 PM	#13
renrich Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Montrose, Colorado Posts: 3,271	Jack up a new airplane under it which does not need gasoline.

10-26-2009, 02:48 PM	#14
davebender Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Michigan, USA Posts: 613	new airplane which does not need gasoline That's what the Volksjäger program of 10 September 1944 was all about. However if January 1943 is our starting point I think steps can be taken to to protect the synthetic fuel plants from bomb damage.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode