Me 209 - any worth in it?

[Juha]

... To the contrary it appears Luftwaffe was pleased with performance and low cost of late war Me-109 variants.

I really doubt that the LW was pleased with performance of 109G-6 during the early part of 1944, numerically inferior LW would really needed something better, in the late summer 44 arrived the partial solutions (G-14 and G-6/AS) which somewhat easied the quality problem but not enough to solve the quantity problem.

Germans produced massive amount of 109G-6s because they had not anything better at that time, not because they were very satisfied with it anymore.

 

[Greyman]

Germans produced massive amount of 109G-6s because they had not anything better at that time, not because they were very satisfied with it anymore.

That's basically what Generalleutnants Galland and Schmid said during postwar interrogation as well.

"Our technical development program was not planned far enough into the future ... This was a mistake of tremendous scope. For example, the Me 262, the further development of the Fw 190, the gyro computing sight, engines of more than 2000 hp and many other developments were thus all delayed.

In the effort to raise production figures of items in series production, new developments were not forced into series models with the necessary pressure ... In addition, there was a certain dangerous (and partly unwarrented) self-satisfaction at every new technical advance.

For this reason the Me 109 was not taken out of series production for years, although this was absolutely necessary on the basis of performance figures from 1943 on. Similarly the beginning of the new series of Fw 190 and of the Ta 152 was so delayed as to be almost ineffective."

In their ideal scenarios there would have been a faster conversion to the Fw 190 and less use of the Me 109 in 1942, replacement of the Me 109 introduced in 1943, and complete phase out by 1944.

 

[yulzari]

A lot depends on timing. The small cylinder but many cylindered engine has several advantages over a large cylinder engine.
1. The small cylinders offer better cooling. Both due to a higher cylinder wall to volume ratio and and a shorter path for the heat to travel from center of piston to cylinder walls. This allows for higher compression or higher boost than the big cylinder engine can use.
2. The smaller reciprocating parts allow for higher rpm. The DB 604 could turn about 18% more rpm than the DB 603.
3. The smaller cylinders should show higher volumetric efficiency than large ones.

rt
Hence the Napier Dagger whose air cooling problems and solutions were identified too late to be used.

 

[Shortround6]

The Dagger threw in the change from liquid cooling (old Lion) to air cooling. But yes, the concept of using many small, fast running cylinders was there. And shows some of the advantage, it's short stroke (95.5mm) cylinders allowed it turn 4200rpm at the same piston speed as a DB 601 turning 2400rpm. It used a 7.5 compression ratio at the same 6lbs boost that the larger cylinder Merlin used but at a 6.0 compression ratio using 87 octane fuel.

 

[davebender]

During early 1944 USA was flying P-51B and early model P-47s. Many RAF squadrons were still flying Spit V.

DB605 engine technical problems were finally fixed and water injection was being introduced. I don't think German aircraft performance was a problem. The real issue was a huge fuel shortage for operations and pilot training.

 

[Juha]

During early 1944 USA was flying P-51B and early model P-47s. Many RAF squadrons were still flying Spit V.

DB605 engine technical problems were finally fixed and water injection was being introduced. I don't think German aircraft performance was a problem. The real issue was a huge fuel shortage for operations and pilot training.

But most of those Spit sqns within range of Continental Europe were flying Spit VII, IX or XII. And MW system seems to have been very rare with 109G-6s, when it became common the plane was called 109G-14 and the time was mid-44. And P-51B was definitely faster than G-6 at altitudes used by 8th AF bombers.

 

[davebender]

Most German daytime aerial combat took place at 2,000 meters. An altitude where standard model Me-109G6 was right at home.

JG2 and JG51 should have gotten high altitude engines but high altitude engines would have been pointless for most Me-109Gs.

 

[bobbysocks]

2000 meters??? think your finger slipped or something...might want to triple or quadruple that. 2000m is about 7000 feet. in the beginning fighters were not allowed to leave the bombers....after doolittle changed things..it still started at bomber height but fighting was all over the place and usually ended up on the deck.

 

[Juha]

Most German daytime aerial combat took place at 2,000 meters. An altitude where standard model Me-109G6 was right at home.

JG2 and JG51 should have gotten high altitude engines but high altitude engines would have been pointless for most Me-109Gs.

Bad thing was that it was the best altitude for La-5F and La-5FN but the best altitude for 109G-6 was higher, at 5 - 7 km.

 

[GrauGeist]

...but high altitude engines would have been pointless for most Me-109Gs.

I will assume this is reference to the Eastern front air war, because the airwar over the western front could range from treetop level to roughly 5 miles high...

 

[Shortround6]

During early 1944 USA was flying P-51B and early model P-47s. Many RAF squadrons were still flying Spit V.

DB605 engine technical problems were finally fixed and water injection was being introduced. I don't think German aircraft performance was a problem.

Hmmm, In Nov 1943 water injection is being fitted to P-47D-20s on the production line and modification kits are being fitted to "older" aircraft in England. Most aircraft are refitted by the end of 1943.
Dec, 1943 sees "older" P-47s in England being refitted with paddle-blade props, one squadron at a time. Wonder how the 109G-6 does against an "old" P-47 with water injection and a paddle-blade prop?
First "early" P-47Ds showed up in England May of 1943 and by June were in service with 3 different fighter groups in the 8th Air Force even if not fully replacing P-47Cs.
In Feb 1944 preparations were being made to increase boost on existing engines in the field from 56in MAP to 64in MAP by refitting the water injection system with large jets and modifying other parts (fuel pumps, water pumps and turbo regulators)
But the 109s should have no trouble dealing with such "early model" aircraft...... right?

 

[dedalos]

The Me 209 II was not a good investment
It required a large engine to have decent performance. Germany already had the 190 to use the jumo 213 and db603.(And still barely such vertions entered service)
What germany needed by a replacement of the 109 was a fighter able to achieve better performance, posses better handling,carry more fuel, mounting at least 2 Internal 20 mm cannons USING THE DB605. It would be unacceptable to waste alll this production capacity of the db 605.Could be done? The italians did it. All 3 series 5 italian fighters appear to make much better use of the Db605 than the Bf109. German should only try to make them easier to produce

 

[tomo pauk]

Better handling on greater fuel means a bigger wing is needed. This is what Italian fighters achieved (at least the G.55 and Re.2005). Bigger wing also means lower speed, as it can be seen when we compare the Series 5 fighters one with another and then with Bf 109. 109 was fastest, along with MC.205N, but MC.205N could not carry the 2 cannons in the wings. Hence the MC.205V, with bigger wing, cannons, and also some 10 km/h speed loss.
Basically, there ain't such thing as a free lunch.

 

[dedalos]

Better handling on greater fuel means a bigger wing is needed. This is what Italian fighters achieved (at least the G.55 and Re.2005). Bigger wing also means lower speed, as it can be seen when we compare the Series 5 fighters one with another and then with Bf 109. 109 was fastest, along with MC.205N, but MC.205N could not carry the 2 cannons in the wings. Hence the MC.205V, with bigger wing, cannons, and also some 10 km/h speed loss.
Basically, there ain't such thing as a free lunch.

I am not sure. All series 5 fighters appear to be much cleaner than the Bf 109 and with more advanced wing profiles. The inferior speed of the tests could be result of derated italian DB 605s plus inferior propellers.
If you add under wing guns in to 109 to have the same armament as the italian fighters ,the 109 is clearly inferior. Also with their greater fuel capacity the series 5 fighters can operate at higher power levels longer than the 109.
Finally with their overall bigger size could recieve easier additional cooling devices to allow more powerful vertions of the DB605

 

[EKB]

DB605 engine technical problems were finally fixed and water injection was being introduced. I don't think German aircraft performance was a problem. The real issue was a huge fuel shortage for operations and pilot training.

" In the five years between between the Battle of Britain and the end of World War II, the number of hours that an Me 109 engine could be run without major work decreased from 100 to 10."

Johannes Steinhoff
JG 77

See p.236
Philip D. Caine. Eagles of the RAF (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Publications, 1991).



" I should point out the enormous problems caused by the unreliability of our supercharged Daimler-Benz 605 AS engines. They would barely make it beyond the fateful 50 hour mark ... In my Staffel, it was frequently the case that engines would have to be changed two or three times before finding one which ran satisfactorily ... We were astonished to read in 'Interavia' that the Russians had complained to the Americans that the engines that had been supplied had a life of only 300 hours instead of the 350 hours promised!"

Karl Mitterdorfer
JG 300

See p.325-326
Lorant, Jean-Yves and Richard Goyat. Jagdgeschwader 300 "Wilde Sau": A Chronicle of a Fighter Geschwader in the Battle for Germany. Volume One, June 1943 - September 1944 (Hamilton, MT: Eagle Editions, 2005).



" Low oil pressure plagued the DB 605 engine throughout its operational career. Daimler-Benz maintained that the horseshoe oil tank was at fault while the Messerschmitt people claimed that the hydraulic supercharger trapped air bubbles in the oil. Eventually the DB people developed and installed a de-aerator but when no improvement was found the de-aerator was discarded. The oil pressure problem was never satisfactorily solved."

See p.17
Beaman, John. Messerschmitt Bf 109 in Action, Part 2 (Carrollton, TX: Squadron-Signal, 1983).

 

[Milosh]

LOL EKB. You just made a friend of a Hungarian lawyer, NOT.

 

[kool kitty89]

That's basically what Generalleutnants Galland and Schmid said during postwar interrogation as well.

"Our technical development program was not planned far enough into the future ... This was a mistake of tremendous scope. For example, the Me 262, the further development of the Fw 190, the gyro computing sight, engines of more than 2000 hp and many other developments were thus all delayed.

In the effort to raise production figures of items in series production, new developments were not forced into series models with the necessary pressure ... In addition, there was a certain dangerous (and partly unwarrented) self-satisfaction at every new technical advance.

For this reason the Me 109 was not taken out of series production for years, although this was absolutely necessary on the basis of performance figures from 1943 on. Similarly the beginning of the new series of Fw 190 and of the Ta 152 was so delayed as to be almost ineffective."

In their ideal scenarios there would have been a faster conversion to the Fw 190 and less use of the Me 109 in 1942, replacement of the Me 109 introduced in 1943, and complete phase out by 1944.

Given who it was who made those remarks, I assume they were most heavily leveled from the perspective of experienced pilots and raw aircraft performance. The Fw 190 had the additional advantages over the 109 in easier handling on the ground and in the air, reducing accidents for all but especially novice pilots.

Hmmm, In Nov 1943 water injection is being fitted to P-47D-20s on the production line and modification kits are being fitted to "older" aircraft in England. Most aircraft are refitted by the end of 1943.
Dec, 1943 sees "older" P-47s in England being refitted with paddle-blade props, one squadron at a time. Wonder how the 109G-6 does against an "old" P-47 with water injection and a paddle-blade prop?
First "early" P-47Ds showed up in England May of 1943 and by June were in service with 3 different fighter groups in the 8th Air Force even if not fully replacing P-47Cs.
In Feb 1944 preparations were being made to increase boost on existing engines in the field from 56in MAP to 64in MAP by refitting the water injection system with large jets and modifying other parts (fuel pumps, water pumps and turbo regulators)
But the 109s should have no trouble dealing with such "early model" aircraft...... right?

Given the added weight and drag on later P-47 models, wouldn't retrofitted C and (especially) Early D models have BETTER performance than later models, particularly ones lacking the expanded fuel capacity and wing pylons. (sure it limited operational range and bombload, but IF they came into contact with 109s, they'd be more potent fighting machines aside from the poorer situational awareness of the razorback configuration retaining the birdcage canopy -still better visibility than the 109G)

I am not sure. All series 5 fighters appear to be much cleaner than the Bf 109 and with more advanced wing profiles. The inferior speed of the tests could be result of derated italian DB 605s plus inferior propellers.
If you add under wing guns in to 109 to have the same armament as the italian fighters ,the 109 is clearly inferior. Also with their greater fuel capacity the series 5 fighters can operate at higher power levels longer than the 109.
Finally with their overall bigger size could recieve easier additional cooling devices to allow more powerful vertions of the DB605

Given the overall size, weight, and armaments carried, wouldn't a DB-605 powered Fw 190 derivative (particularly with the lighter, earlier A models as the basis) have a lot in common with the G.55, and especially R.2005? (possibly MC.205 if you go back to the older, smaller wing of Fw 190 prototypes and early A-0 airframes, or MC.202 with the DB-601)

The He 100 with a longer span wing would be closer to the Italian fighters. (a modification that would have been pretty much inevitable had the design actually continued development) Granted, Heinkel's focus on racing/speed record goals for the He 100 didn't expedite more practical development progress for the design either.

 

[kool kitty89]

A lot depends on timing. The small cylinder but many cylindered engine has several advantages over a large cylinder engine.
1. The small cylinders offer better cooling. Both due to a higher cylinder wall to volume ratio and and a shorter path for the heat to travel from center of piston to cylinder walls. This allows for higher compression or higher boost than the big cylinder engine can use.
2. The smaller reciprocating parts allow for higher rpm. The DB 604 could turn about 18% more rpm than the DB 603.
3. The smaller cylinders should show higher volumetric efficiency than large ones.

In this regard (and in terms of the X layout) the DB-604 is rather like Rolls Royce's Vulture, with the DB-603 more akin to the Griffon (or R), though Development priority at Rolls Royce proceeded a fair bit differently.

I do wonder if a V-16 arrangement would have been any easier to work with, more a compromise between larger displacement V-12s and more complex multi-bank configurations. (plus should have lower frontal area than similar displacement V-12s, X-24s, or H-24s)
An inverted V-16 using the DB-601's bore and stroke would have given slightly higher volume than the 603 and (in theory) significantly better volumetric efficiency at given compression/boost and fuel grade as well. (ideally, similar or better than what the DB-601 managed)

 

[wuzak]

The DB 609 was essentially a V-16 version of the DB 603. It had similar power to the DB 604, but using larger capacity (62l vs 46l) and heavier weight.

V-16s will be longer than an equivalent V-12. The length of the crankshaft and camshafts potentially cause problems. That's why the Chrysler IV-2220 used a central gear drive, essentially making the engine two V8s.

The DB 609, however, had the power take-off at the front.

The frontal area will be lower, but the length will be greater.

 

[Shortround6]

In this regard (and in terms of the X layout) the DB-604 is rather like Rolls Royce's Vulture, with the DB-603 more akin to the Griffon (or R), though Development priority at Rolls Royce proceeded a fair bit differently.

I do wonder if a V-16 arrangement would have been any easier to work with, more a compromise between larger displacement V-12s and more complex multi-bank configurations. (plus should have lower frontal area than similar displacement V-12s, X-24s, or H-24s)
An inverted V-16 using the DB-601's bore and stroke would have given slightly higher volume than the 603 and (in theory) significantly better volumetric efficiency at given compression/boost and fuel grade as well. (ideally, similar or better than what the DB-601 managed)

AS Wusak has said, the V-16 had some significant drawbacks to the basic layout. Most of the basic drawbacks were known as engine designers had at least doodled various layouts for years. The X-24s offered a shorter crankshaft and crankcase than the V-16. You can build decent V-16 engines, the trouble is that the way to avoid some of the problems with the long crankshaft (like torsional vibration) is to use both a heavier crankshaft in proportion to length and a heavier crankcase.

AS for the comparison of the DB 603 and Griffon, the relationship to the smaller engines is there but the size comparison is not. The Griffon being much closer in size to the DB 605. The DB 603 was close in displacement (cylinder size) to the Russian AM-35/38 series of engines.

Some engine designers obsessed a bit too much about frontal area. A seated pilot, even in the position of having the legs go almost straight out in front has a bigger "frontal" area than many (most) V-12 engines (not including radiator). On a twin engine bomber you have the frontal area of the fuselage being much larger than all but the biggest engines even on a small bomber. Obviously there is a big difference between a 5-6sq ft V-12 and a 16sq ft radial but the difference between a 5-6 sq ft V-16 and a 7-8sq ft V-12 isn't really going to be that great once you add in everything else.