Hurricane & Spitfire control characteristics

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Sandstone

I can't really agree with this. The Bf-109 was a typical late 1930s design in whch significant compromises were made that ultimately affected its performance as a weapon for the Luftwaffe. Its principle weaknesses were:

1. Small size required a narrow track undercarriage. Fine for a peace-time airforce when pilots can be trained at leisure. Not a good idea when pilot training is reduced under war-time conditions.

Hi Sandstone,

I have disagree on this. The narrow undercarriage was not a result of the small airframe size, but a result of two factors: 1, Messerschmitt credo was to keep the airframe the lightest possible, and wings light, so the main load bearing element would be the fuselage, not the wing. Thus the wing had to take less stress and could be lightened. 2, It was seen beneficial from production and maintaince so that the wings could be quickly replaced without removing etc. the undercarriage.

The narrow undercarriage itself did not contribute much to the ground looping tendencies of the plane, these were related to other design features, not related to airframe size: the geometry (toe-in) of the undercarriage and the relative rearward CoG of the airframe.

2. Poor visibility. The aircraft structure was not capable of being adapted to the excellent bubble canopies used on later Allied types.

True, a bubble canopy would have offered better vision, but I doubt it would have been impossible to do. The British seem to have little problem of fitting one to the Spitfire (or the US with the P-47/-51), which had a similiar razorback fuselage/canopy arrangement as the 109. It would have required a change in fuselage shape (production delays) and likely the same stability problems as encountered on the Spit / 51. The vision was only restricted to rear, after the introduction of the pilot's steel headpiece, but since this was fixed in late 1942 by the introduction of the transparent Galland headpiece, the vision to the rear was again acceptable.

3. Limited range, restricting it to use an interceptor with limited success as an escort fighter. This would not have been a problem if the Luftwaffe had a good, long-range single-engined escort fighter, but they were unable to produce one.

I guess the definition of 'limited range' is depends on the operational requirements.

While the 109E had indeed limited range (660 km), adding droptanks extended this range to ca 1300 km, and the engine and airframe improvements of the 109F-K increased this to 1600km. The K's rear tank could be used as an extra fuel tank, increasing internal capacity by 25%, so I guess the K could get as far as 1800-2000 km. While not as good as the Mustang, I would say this was more than sufficient for German operational needs. If it would be really needed, I would guess the internal capacity could have been increased further.

4. Limited size prevented the wings carrying large/heavy internal weapons. All other fighter aircraft moved towards batteries of wing mounted guns (and particularly cannons). The Bf-109 couldn't do this. Latter versions of the aircraft were effectively reliant on a single cannon at a time when other interceptors were moving towards quad-mounts of 20 mm or 30 mm cannons.

Nope, the 109 was quite capable of carrying heavy armament (3x20 + 2x13mm) with gondola attachments. Contrary to popular belief, these were not any more degrading to perfomance than internal installations, as the details of Spitfire/ Fw 190 installations I have examined show. Drag and weight costs were identical.

The airframe was also quite capable of carrying them inside the wings, see 109K-6 - K-14, which could carry an MK 108 (or MG 151) in each wing, or post-war Spanish versions of the 109G, which carried a Hispano in each wing. However the Germans typically favoured fuselage armament for the advantages in concentrated firepower it offered. With the 109 (or any other aircraft with H-P slats) the usable space within the wing for armament installation was also rather limited, since the slats covered much of the wing, while the wheel bay took up the roots. Any gun installation was only possible between the one or two section confined between these two.

Quad 20mm is of course probably the most ideal armament for a WW2 fighter, but you really have to ask yourself wheter these planes (Fw 190, Typhoon/Tempest) could offer the same climb or turn performance as the 109. The answer is no.. and with extra armament, the 109 was definietely not worse than any of these.

Also, you describe as if there was a movement towards wing mounted guns, as if things were evolving that way. There was no such thing, whenever possible, everyone went to fuselage mounted guns, because of the obvious advantages: more space for ammo, better concentration and effectiveness of fire. The only designs that went for wing guns were those which's engine installations did not permit enough guns to be mounted in the fuselage - Merlins, Allisons could not take engine cannons, which is why the Spitfire always had wing mounted guns only, as the supercharger was mounted behind the engine and was in the way, the Sabre was quite simply too big, and radials rule out the thing completely, apart from some smaller cowl guns.

5. Not designed for mass production (here, the analogy with the T-34 is particularly wide of the mark). The Bf-109 was designed to be produced by a skilled workforce. However, as the war progressed the German aviation industry lost men from the workforce who were withdrawn to bolster the front lines. They were replaced with significant volumes of slave labour where the intention was as much to kill the workforce through overwork and poor treatment as to produce aircraft. The skilled workers were thus replaced with "Jewish housewives and teenage girls picked up from places like Auschwitz". As a result, productivity was poor, those directing production became hopelessly morally compromised and aircraft were delivered to a poor standard by a reluctant, unskilled workforce who on occasion would sabotage their own products.

I have to strongly disagree on this one. The 109 was indeed designed for mass production, by the merit of smart design, enabled by smartly designed generous tolerances.

I direct you to the French report on the 109E they have captured, it strongly contradicts any thesis of the need for a skilled workforce.

Also, this analogue with the He 162:

I posted here because I saw someone claim that the Bf-109 was the aircraft equivalent of the T-34 tank. But as far as I can see, this is the exact opposite of the truth. Interestingly, the Germans did try to develop a cheap fighter aircraft that could be mass produced by unskilled labour using non-strategic materials and so might be a better analogue of the T-34. This was the Heinkel-162 jet fighter. It was cheap, used a wooden airframe, could be built by unskilled and slave labour and was supposed to be easy to fly and operate. The unit cost was ~ 75,000 RM, compared to ~ 144,000 RM for a Ta-152 or ~ 150,000 RM for an Me-262. Of course, it was a disaster because the industry was attempting something far beyond its abilities.

Compared to the 'cheap' He 162 unit cost of ~ 75.000,- RM, you might find it interesting that the unit cost of the 109E-3, produced by Erla was 59.000,- RM in 1940, but kept decreasing during the war, as the 109F brought further simplifications to production. F-4s produced by Erla were produced at a unit cost of 50.400,- RM, while 109G were reduced to about 43-45 000 RM. G-10, G-14, K-4 were produced at 43.700 RM at the war's end.

Also of interesting are the ridiculusly low man hours required for production compared to any other type. The 109E was produced at 5400 man hours in 1940 (compare to 10 000 hours for the Hurricane and 15 000 hours for the Spitfire...),but by the war's end a 109G/K was produced in just 1600 hours while a Fw 190 required about 3100 hours. On avarage it seems that a 109 could be produced at about 2/3 the man hours required through the war. IIRC the Mustang, even with the peacetime conditions and mass production techniques in the

The very simple reason why the 109 was not replaced is that nobody could come up with a fighter with the same qualities, while also being as cheap as the 109. The Germans for example considered some of the Italian types, but those required about 3 times the labour to produce one. And a choice between one similiar or slightly superior design or three 109s is a very simple one to make.

Overall, the Bf-109 was a good design for a peace-time late 1930s airforce. It was poorly suited to the war of national survival that the fascists actually initiated. It was unsuitable for low-hours pilots, it was overly complicated compared to other designs and in the face of actual German production capabilities, it had limited potential for development (because no realistic development could overcome some of the poor design decisions made early in its design cycle) and because the German aircraft industry in any event was unable to move to effective mass production and so was greatly out-produced by its opponents.

The 109 had some design limitations I agree, but for the task it was conceived these were not restricting and was aduquate until the arrival of the jets. Its own domestic rival, the Fw 190 while heavier, was also of very small size. It traded some qualities of the 109 (high altitude performance, horizontal manouverability and climb performance) for extra load carrying capability and ruggedness. The two designs complemented each other but neither could - or did - replace the other.

As for mass production - the 109 was the most produced fighter in history.. so what are you talking about..? I think you'd also find that the WNF plant erected during the war strongly implemented mass production techniques (conveyor line production etc.)

By the end of the war, fighter aircraft were becoming larger, able to be flown by relatively inexperienced pilots, had good visibility and often carried batteries of cannon. The Bf-109 had none of these things.

True, but the coin had two sides, larger airframes could not offer the same performance or be as cost effective either. For the very same reason the Spitfire was not replaced by the overall more advanced Tempest, the 109 was not replaced by the 190. It had qualities that could not be found elsewhere.

This isn't to say it was a bad aircraft and it still remained a dangerous opponent until the end of the war, but it was typical of the generation of fighters like the Hurricane, Spitfire and P-40 that the Allied nations replaced or complemented with better types as the war progressed. The Luftwaffe's inability to replace the Bf-109 says more about its disasterous R&D and procurement policies than it does about the strengths of the Bf-109.

I would not mention the P-40 or Hurricane in the same generation. The Hurricane was an obsolate transitional airframe, and the P-40 was clearly a dead-end. Simply too large which curtailed its performance, without offering anything worthwhile in exchange. And unlike those designs, the 109 had room to grow, exactly because the basic recipe of a light, cheap and clean airframe with benign flying characteristics tolerant for pilot errors, was made right in the beginning. This ensured that with any given powerplant, maximum performance was obtained.

The Spitfire had similar performance through the war - and similar limitations - but as far as production techniques go, it was half a generation behind the 109. I do not think the 109 could be replaced by any other type. Certainly not one as dirt cheap as it was, and I doubt that overall superior qualities could be achieved. If you think so, I'd like to hear what type you believe had these qualities.

[winny]

Just a thought on narrow undercarriage.

I thought another reason for this was that the the original spec drawn up by the Germans stated that the aircraft had to be easily transportable by train? To fit in with the whole ethos of mobility.

Hence the design that enabled the wings to be taken off without need for lifting equipment. They could just roll them onto a flatbed truck.