PDA

View Full Version : How would you improve the Me109?



luftluuver
03-06-2007, 04:50 PM
If you were a designer for Mtt, how would you?

Me, I would start by giving it a bubble canopy to give the pilot a better 360* vision. Next increase the wing span by 1m or so and have inward retracting gear. This would allow wing root cannons to be installed and give better landing and take off safety.

What else?

Phas3e
03-06-2007, 04:52 PM
add a radial and you would have a 190^

VW-IceFire
03-06-2007, 04:56 PM
I'm not an expert in aerodynamics but I think removing the gun bulges from the heavy machine guns by any means necessary, increasing the track of the landing gear or using a tricycle design, bubble canopy (total agreement there), and reducing wing loading by either increasing span or area of the wings. Oh and a total redesign on the elevator and rudder section to something more effective for a higher powered fighter.

I think I'm basically asking for a Me309...

http://www.luft46.com/mess/309-5.jpg

...which they should have put into production in 1942. Aside from being a really cool looking fighter I think it would have taken them much further. I think the tricycle landing gear above all else would have been a huge boon and cut the number of 109 losses just by making it less of a problem on the ground.

You know I wouldn't have minded having something based on one of these in IL-2 1946.

Bremspropeller
03-06-2007, 04:59 PM
I'd have turned it into a Fw 190.

XyZspineZyX
03-06-2007, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
If you were a designer for Mtt, how would you?

Me, I would start by giving it a bubble canopy to give the pilot a better 360* vision. Next increase the wing span by 1m or so and have inward retracting gear. This would allow wing root cannons to be installed and give better landing and take off safety.

What else?

...but you can change a wing on the 109 while it sits on it's own gear!

I would make a longer range variant, earlier in the war. More time over English soil in the summer of 1940

MB_Avro_UK
03-06-2007, 05:07 PM
hmmm..

Increased the fuel capacity? But not before the Battle of Britain 1940... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Bellator_1
03-06-2007, 05:10 PM
About the Me-309, well too bad the airplane it was intended to replace [Bf-109] out-performed it.

BSS_CUDA
03-06-2007, 05:13 PM
I think a couple of 20mm in the fuel tank would improve it quite nicely http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

VW-IceFire
03-06-2007, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
About the Me-309, well too bad the airplane it was intended to replace [Bf-109] out-performed it.
I'm not sure of the whole history of the 309 but I suspect that many of the problems could have been worked out and performance improved overall, however, the driving force in Nazi Germany for weapons procurement seemed to be in the 1930s and during the war the driving force seemed to be for weapons systems that were very much in advance but not ready. I know that they were hoping that Russia would be a pushover and that they could then refocus their efforts on the west with a significant technological edge. But they missed the middle...and the 309, just like the 210 and some of the other designs, were just not considered as important.

309 or not...I think some major changes should have been put in place that weren't and the tricycle landing gear and bubble canopy would have been a huge benefit I think. The former even more than the latter...so many 109s lost for no other reason than mishandling while landing or taxiing.

tigertalon
03-06-2007, 05:25 PM
One small, little, cheap improvement could (purely IMO of course) change the course of WW2:

Giving the 109E-3/4 ability to carry drop tank(s).

Snow_Wolf_
03-06-2007, 05:33 PM
Tricycle gear and sweep the wings forward....also create holes under the wing that will channel the airflow under the wing to the trailing edge (end) of the wing to rejuvate the airflow turbulent airflow ..also maybe some winglets

Viper2005_
03-06-2007, 05:34 PM
I'd fit an elevator.

faustnik
03-06-2007, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I'd have turned it into a Fw 190.

Exactly! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

AKA_TAGERT
03-06-2007, 05:55 PM
Kit Carson had some good sugestions on how to improve the 109

John_Wayne_
03-06-2007, 06:00 PM
C'mon guys. How can you improve perfection? The 109 had a cockpit big enough to take J-Lo and her butt up for a spin on your lap, superb visibility, matchless aerodynamics, the best armament, incomparable streamlining, could carry drop tanks, turn on a dime, those slats, those tabs,could go higher, could go faster, the best gas and so much of it - hell it even had better paint. Someone must feel like he's been wasting his time here proving all this to you.

Frequent_Flyer
03-06-2007, 06:04 PM
Have it fly only against the VVS.

domenlovrec
03-06-2007, 06:17 PM
Two-handed joystick.

MEGILE
03-06-2007, 06:54 PM
A beer cooler in the cockpit

AVGWarhawk
03-06-2007, 07:04 PM
Install a CD player and beer cooler http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Brain32
03-06-2007, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I'd fit an elevator.
I would do that to the in-game one as it's obviously mising it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
As for the Real thing, which version are we talking about??? I thikn we should go by 109K4(heck it even incorporates Carsons ideas(that poor guy probably only ever heard of early G6 with gunpods) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ). In that case I would install a boosted elevator on the K4 so it can apsolutely pwnzor at all speeds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Waldo.Pepper
03-06-2007, 08:20 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/mustard/mustarduptherear.jpg

I know the picture doesn't show a Messer, but I think that if you added some MUSTARD up its butt, that would have been fun!

FE_pilot
03-06-2007, 08:33 PM
I would add one of these babies under the hood:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_Wasp_Major


Along with a bubble canopy and longer wingspan. 13mm guns in the engine cowling and 1 20mm shooting through the propeller on the BF-109's D, and E models that served in the battle of Brittan. Also most important is a bigger fuel tank to increase range to 1,500km at cruise speed. Also a engine boost would be good.



I can imagine that after adding all of the above parts you might have a uberplane that could be a match for even the late mustangs, spitfires, Laggs, Lavochkins, lightnings, thunderbolts etc.

gkll
03-06-2007, 11:44 PM
The 109 is a nice ship, good power climb and turn. My style of bird. Add fowler flaps and fix the elevator, theres a couple of things probably could have been done if they wanted.
Steal some fuel from somewhere and crank the boost on a few motors in specially lightened ships, with the above aero mods you'd have a
real hot ship. Real hot... we'd hear no more talk of 'spacefires' and uber spits.... ha ha it would be slaughter in the streets with the above tweaks.

Could fowlers reasonably have been designed into the 109 wing? .... to get some extra lift without increasing drag woud be the objective. And what <is> the problem with that elevator? Some effort and it could have been fixed? Or something inherent to the layout of the bird.....

EDIT< considering range use droptanks... just like gear placement we see type development in ww2 stuck with certain basics... gear layout and general internal combat range being two of these basic design features. And I would avoid lengthening the wingspan in favor of doing a detail clean up to help roll rates, increasing span is v likely going to increase roll rates.>

Xiolablu3
03-07-2007, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by John_Wayne_:
C'mon guys. How can you improve perfection? The 109 had a cockpit big enough to take J-Lo and her butt up for a spin on your lap, superb visibility, matchless aerodynamics, the best armament, incomparable streamlining, could carry drop tanks, turn on a dime, those slats, those tabs,could go higher, could go faster, the best gas and so much of it - hell it even had better paint. Someone must feel like he's been wasting his time here proving all this to you.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

'...even had better paint' lmao.


Are you trying to summon the 'Queen of the One-oh-whiners' here? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Cajun76
03-07-2007, 01:09 AM
I'd increase the power of the deflector screen.

FritzGryphon
03-07-2007, 01:43 AM
Bf-109E with 2xMK108 and rocket in the tail.

Manu-6S
03-07-2007, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
In that case I would install a boosted elevator on the K4 so it can apsolutely pwnzor at all speeds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

It should be an improvement, but probably not needed as priority... we are talking about RL, not the ingame truck.

I agree for the mod to the landing gear...

mrsiCkstar
03-07-2007, 04:25 AM
I would put holes near the tips of the wings to give increased roll rate... now I don't even know if it would work but I don't see why not. less air resistance is faster right?

alert_1
03-07-2007, 04:41 AM
I would clone some more Erich Hartmann... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Matz0r
03-07-2007, 04:52 AM
Rudder trim....

ImpStarDuece
03-07-2007, 05:00 AM
Trade it in for a Spitfire HF Mk VII in 1943...

More seriously:

Ergonomic rework of the "straight jacket" cockpit.

Spitfire style 'Malcom Hood' canopy, with pyrotechnic emergency release.

Insert 2 x 40 cm wing fillets, moving the landing gear off the undercarriage, increasing the foward sweep of the landing ear and reversing it to point 'toes out'.

Install trimmable tabs on flight surfaces

JG52Karaya-X
03-07-2007, 05:20 AM
Install the landing gear mechanism of the Me309 that rotated the wheel outwards when deployed and rotated them back to a parallel position with the wheel leg when retracting --> no more wing bumps necessary

Install hydraulic flaps, the only reason the Bf109 actually didnt have that is costs... simple as that :-(

flakwagen
03-07-2007, 05:42 AM
It's always fun to ponder what we would've done in retrospect. But I think it misses the point that the ME109 was never a highly adaptable design. That's why weird things like cowling bulges were instituted in the first place. It was the best they could do with the existing airframe and available sub-systems.

I think the lack of drop tanks and bomb racks from the inception of the type says it all. The original design was meant to fill a very specific role for a very specific type of warfare against specific types of enemy forces. Everything that came after that was an awkward kluge that enahnced one aspect of performance at the expense of another.

Such is the nature of high performance machines.

Flak

Brain32
03-07-2007, 05:50 AM
That's why weird things like cowling bulges were instituted in the first place. It was the best they could do with the existing airframe and available sub-systems.
Disagree 110% + WEP, later models kept mg131 and the bulges magically dissapeared http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I think the lack of drop tanks and bomb racks from the inception of the type says it all.
Only the very early ME109Emils couldn't take droptanks or bombs so this also does not "hold the water".
If you look at the Spitfire and ME109, they were VERY similar in general, constantly improved and developed and always in the very top of all the nations fighters. However Spitfire was on the winning sides so it's percieved as God's gift to mankind in aviation, and 109 was on the loosing side so it's overdeveloped cr@p obsolete by 1942 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Pirschjaeger
03-07-2007, 06:37 AM
How would you improve the Me109?

Easy, I'd put my name just below the canopy and paint many little P-51s on the tail. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

P-51 won teh paint! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

p-11.cAce
03-07-2007, 07:00 AM
Easy, I'd put my name just below the canopy and paint many little P-51s on the tail.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

The -109 is as close to perfect as any fighter aircraft ever, be sure!

JG53Frankyboy
03-07-2007, 07:12 AM
- introducing a bubble canopy. like the prototype Bf109 V21 had

- earlier introduce of the higher tailwheel

- replacing the slats with fences , like the spanish did with their Buchons.

BSS_AIJO
03-07-2007, 07:42 AM
hmm
lets see...

Bubble canopy
rear view mirror
better elevator
do whatever it takes to get rid of the bulges and clean up the lines.
rudder trim!

finally,
carbon fiber and titanium parts wherever possible. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif What its a fantasy plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


BSS_AIJO

Vike
03-07-2007, 08:14 AM
EDITED

Vike
03-07-2007, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
If you were a designer for Mtt, how would you?

Me, I would start by giving it a bubble canopy to give the pilot a better 360* vision. Next increase the wing span by 1m or so and have inward retracting gear. This would allow wing root cannons to be installed and give better landing and take off safety.

I don't see any good idea in this post. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I remember some informations about the bubble type canopy i found on the AAW forum sometimes ago... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Vike
03-07-2007, 08:20 AM
Here it is...

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j32/Vike01/canopyinfo.jpg

And by the way,in this video:

Messerschmitt (http://youtube.com/watch?v=gUw1opCo56g), at 2'50" we can see how hard it could (should) be for a Spit pilot to bail out safely. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

A crow-bar key to map + a bail in no less than 3mn for all allied planes equipped with sliding canopies in the next patch (ie P51Ds,P47Ds,Tempest,all Spits),anyone? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Anyway,i think the Me109 was the best designed fighter from the late 1930s till 1942,then simply one the best from 1943 till mid-1944,then,the Kurfurst version made it back to the top of all fighters of the Era,especially in experienced hands IMHO. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@+

luftluuver
03-07-2007, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Disagree 110% + WEP, later models kept mg131 and the bulges magically dissapeared http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The bulges were still there. They just got more streamlined. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Vike, bubble canopies had emegency jettison mechanism. The 109 had some problems jettisoning the canopy. There was a report written on this problem. Tell me how does one escape from a 109 that is upsidedown after a crash landing?

Nice vid of Merlin powered Buchons. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
03-07-2007, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
If you were a designer for Mtt, how would you?

I'd make it a Focke Wulf. If I couldn't I'd exchange the wing coolers with a fuselage cooler. I'd also put more emphasis on surface finishing and other aerodynamic details. Better rear vision with a larger canopy would also be nice.

Brain32
03-07-2007, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Disagree 110% + WEP, later models kept mg131 and the bulges magically dissapeared http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The bulges were still there. They just got more streamlined. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Even the non stremlind bulges were smaller than those bumps on the Griffon engined Spit, but I guess different laws of aerodynamic are valid for a Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Originally posted by luftluuver: Nice vid of Merlin powered Buchons. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I must say and I know it will be a shocker, but I don't really like Buchons, that is simply NOT a ME109 and it's even ugly, for God's sake even the Spitfire looks better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

luftluuver
03-07-2007, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Even the non stremlind bulges were smaller than those bumps on the Griffon engined Spit, but I guess different laws of aerodynamic are valid for a Spitfire Better take a closer look then Brain. The Griffon's streamlined bulges presented less area to the airstream than the bulges on the 109G. If you hadn't noticed, the Merlin Spits had slight streamlined bulges as well.

Why not start a thread on how to improve the Spitfire instead of polluting this 109 thread?

mynameisroland
03-07-2007, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by Vike:
Here it is...

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j32/Vike01/canopyinfo.jpg

And by the way,in this video:

Messerschmitt (http://youtube.com/watch?v=gUw1opCo56g), at 2'50" we can see how hard it could (should) be for a Spit pilot to bail out safely. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

A crow-bar key to map + a bail in no less than 3mn for all allied planes equipped with sliding canopies in the next patch (ie P51Ds,P47Ds,Tempest,all Spits),anyone? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Anyway,i think the Me109 was the best designed fighter from the late 1930s till 1942,then simply one the best from 1943 till mid-1944,then,the Kurfurst version made it back to the top of all fighters of the Era,especially in experienced hands IMHO. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@+

A lot of allied pilots had revolvers or automatic side arms to shoot throught their canopy if need be.

I suppose you also need to factor in that the superb visibility offered by the bubble canopy found on the Tempest,Mustang, Yak 3 ... Fw 190 ect in comparison to the 109s framed canopy hugely reduced the chances of being shot down in the 1st place.

I respect the fact that you love the 109 but in all seriousness the Fw 190 replaced it as premier Luftwaffe fighter then it was superseded by Allied types such as the Mustang and Tempest which offered superior performance, range, visibility and handling. The 109 suffered from control authority at speed, elevators and aerilons that were unresponsive above 400mph.

Down low and up high the 109 had well and truely met its match by 2nd Gen allied fighters. Think about the Tempest V we have in game (Late 43 perormance) then meausure it with the Bf 109 G6 Late or even G2 in reality. We are talking 40/60 mph speed difference at the 109s worst heights.

mynameisroland
03-07-2007, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
If you were a designer for Mtt, how would you?

I'd make it a Focke Wulf. If I couldn't I'd exchange the wing coolers with a fuselage cooler. I'd also put more emphasis on surface finishing and other aerodynamic details. Better rear vision with a larger canopy would also be nice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Goering should have taken up Gallands suggestion in 1940. Or focused 100% on Fw 190 making it in 2 main versions : normal variety and 50% devoted to the ugly brute you posted with the supercharger intakes.

fighter_966
03-07-2007, 09:21 AM
Galland just made joke He didint like G÷ering

Brain32
03-07-2007, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Even the non stremlind bulges were smaller than those bumps on the Griffon engined Spit, but I guess different laws of aerodynamic are valid for a Spitfire Better take a closer look then Brain. The Griffon's streamlined bulges presented less area to the airstream than the bulges on the 109G. If you hadn't noticed, the Merlin Spits had slight streamlined bulges as well.

Why not start a thread on how to improve the Spitfire instead of polluting this 109 thread? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's just my view on focusing and constant ME109 bulges-b1tching http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

tigertalon
03-07-2007, 09:33 AM
The question is too broad. It's easy to say: I'd fit it a 3000hp radial, teardrop canopy, laminar flow wings, 2stage 2speed supercharger, quad Mg151 battery in nose... but that's essentially building a new fighter. Something that limits the ability of altering a plane must be stated, something like: if you could change ONE thing in particular, which one would it be? My choice would most likely be cut down rear fuselage together with teardrop canopy.

CarpeNoctem43
03-07-2007, 09:38 AM
Gotta consider, that a plane - any plane, is built to be 'good enough' with the goal of being better than the other guys' 'good enough'.

It's easy to implement sweeping and ground breaking enhancements that make your flavor the fastest, most manueverable, hardest hitting, easiest to fly, whatever, etc.

But then you must produce that plane in mass quantities. The 109, in all flavors was 'good enough' for the period and was super easy to produce. Anything more would have made it 'not as easy'.

-Rick

PS. if I had my wishes, I wish it had better visibility. But I am just a simmer.

p1ngu666
03-07-2007, 10:00 AM
a engine starter that doesnt require 2 lackies to manualy turn over the engine.

trim.

powered flaps

additional fuel tankage

get kurfy and brain to write the manual, just for a giggle http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VR_High5
03-07-2007, 10:26 AM
~S~ all,

I couldn't resist this nice thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

What I would like for the 109?;

- better visibility all round.
- Ailerons and a rudder that do respond at high speeds.
- Maybe a bigger fuel tank and longer range but that is not a big issue for me.
- a hook so I can land it on a carrier http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif (and a tougher landing gear)

Otherwise I think its perfect.

Abbuzze
03-07-2007, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by flakwagen:
It's always fun to ponder what we would've done in retrospect. But I think it misses the point that the ME109 was never a highly adaptable design. That's why weird things like cowling bulges were instituted in the first place. It was the best they could do with the existing airframe and available sub-systems.

Flak

It┬┤s the same for the spit, bulges everywhere, wing, cowling, with the free addon

http://www.engelbraeu.de/images/bierkiste.gif

as a cooling system under each wing... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif No spitfire bashing! These early planes just have their limitations, but this is not realate to Me-engeneers alone.

What I would do? I would use metall covered ailerons. The spitfire nearly rolled as bad as a 109 even with metall ailerons. This would give this old lady a nice improvement I think.

fighter_966
03-07-2007, 11:00 AM
Better ground control

Klemm.co
03-07-2007, 12:14 PM
A jet-engine under each wing and enlarged wings and an bubble canopy and bigger fuel tanks and stronger armament and a good high-speed handling.
Oh, wait. That would be a Me-262 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Ugly_Kid
03-07-2007, 12:32 PM
But then you must produce that plane in mass quantities. The 109, in all flavors was 'good enough' for the period and was super easy to produce. Anything more would have made it 'not as easy'.


There is something to this. It is easy to throw around improvements just like that - however, we are talking about a running series that was running like no other, implementing changes is not that trivial.

Someone said 309 was more or less that - yes, perhaps rather 209 - even the plan for conversion was good, because of the shared components - 209 was even more promising from the performance point of view than 309. Only thing was that they did not go and do it...

Well anyway changes for 109 - Wide tracked landing gear - also fine but would have required redesign of wings and weight. Tricycle landing gear? would not do that easily since there is no room in the front for nose landing gear - it is all taken by DB (main landing gear has the same problems as the wide tracked landing gear + all over heavier). One possible improvement might have been moving the landing gears backwards a bit and improve the relation to the c.g, but this might have had a place problem (Radiators and so on). It was a small compact aircraft and everything had it's place and there was none of it left over. MAybe move the whole wing along with the landing gear backwards but then the c.g would have been in the wrong location in resoect to wing. Now wider cockpit - right, bulges for the shoulder or what? All of this would have impacted the production numbers and in most cases performance. I think there would have been place for avionics improvements, trims for all controls and electrically operated in that. Same for flaps, but possibly it would have only made the plane more complicated and less robust. I think there are many possible things that might have been "improvements", but there are plenty of reasons why they did not take Nike slogan that lightly...

Monty_Thrud
03-07-2007, 12:45 PM
Still ugly, even after a makeover... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//g.jpg

JtD
03-07-2007, 12:56 PM
Uhh, that's ugly.

p-11.cAce
03-07-2007, 01:17 PM
There is something to this. It is easy to throw around improvements just like that - however, we are talking about a running series that was running like no other, implementing changes is not that trivial.
Exactly right - there is a reason for everything and those reasons were generated by men trained in engineering, aeronautics, and mass production.
The gear was designed so that fuselages could be moved down the production line easily, and has been pointed out already, a wing swap in the field could be accomplished with little specialized equipment. Hydraulics (and electrics)are VERY easy to damage (not to mention heavy), and any change in guns, power, or anything else invariably affects weight, balance, and survivability. Imho the -109 was a breakthrough aircraft that was YEARS ahead of anything else available at its fighting debut in the SCW - and the fact that it soldiered on until the bitter end is a testament to the greatness of its design.

stalkervision
03-07-2007, 02:02 PM
I would attach a big as-s rocket fired grappling hook to it just like the Batmobile used in the Batman movie so it could turn corners better then the stupid spit! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.chickslovethecar.com/images/thebatmobile.jpg

Ugly_Kid
03-07-2007, 02:20 PM
Is that the genuine azz-grabbing bat-****** in the pic? I think 109 could use one, indeed.

AVG_WarHawk
03-07-2007, 03:07 PM
Remove the bulges? I like bulges http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y270/AVG_WarHawk/Bulges.jpg

Xiolablu3
03-07-2007, 04:10 PM
Although you could say that the Spitfire and Bf109 were similar concepts, the Spitfire had a lot of advantages over the Bf109.


Spitfire has much nicer cockpit and control layout. Pilots often comment on just how fantastic the cockpit of the Spitfire was compared to the cramped pit and poor visability of the Bf109.

Elevator on the Spitfire works at high speeds. Bf109's locked up. SPitfires elevators are extrememly light.

Spitfire carried heavier armament which was better for all round fighter work (Mk108 only really good for bomber destroying IRL) Of course you could have gunpods but these lowered performance.

Bf109 was very poor on the ground and this resulted in many many more Bf109's lost on the ground.

Spitfire is usually referred to as the nicest WW2 warbird to fly by pilots today and in WW2 frompeople who have flown many types. Not many call the Bf109 'the best'

Spitfire turns better than the Bf109 without the need for slats.

No rudder trim on the Bf109 makes it hard on the pilot for long flights.

Spitfire 'The better close in dogfighter', according to Mark Hanna who has flown them both, BUT they are sufficiently close in this repsect for the pilot to win out. Still, he does regard the Spit the better of the 2.


Bf109 also has some advatanges over the Spitfire, like dive speed and top speed of course, but if you list all round pros and cons, then the Spitfire wins out quite overwhelmingly IMO.

Nothing to do with which side its on, simply facts.

The SPitfire is regarded so highly because of it charactersitics, ease of flying, and amazing handling, not because it was on the Allies side. Ask any pilot who has flown a Spitfire about it compared to other WW2 warbords. The Mark Hanna interview about MH434 is a good source on why the SPitfire is so highly thought of, and its nothing to do with where it was built.

The Me262 is also very highly thought of by everyone over the world, does it make any difference that it was German? No it doesnt. People from all coutries praise it as probably the most advanced design in WW2 and a fantastic plane.

Of course which was the best combat plane depeneds on which marks. The 109F4 was superior in combat perormance than the Spitfire Vb in my opinion.

Flying the Griffon Spitfire (worse handling than the earlier marks) by one of America's leading aviation writers, historians, and combat-aircraft experts, Jeff Ethell:


With enough warmth in the coolant and oil, a flip of the parking brake catch releases the brake lever on the spade control grip and the aircraft is taxiing with minimal power. The first time I had the opportunity to fly a British aircraft with this hand operated air brake system I was sceptical about it being very effective compared to hydraulic toe brakes. Within a very few minutes I was completely won over. It is far easier to manage, particularly on run up when one has to really stand on most American fighter rudder pedals. The source of high-pressure air is controlled by the brake lever on the spade control grip, or stick. The rudder pedals modulate the distribution of pressure to the left and right main wheel brakes. If the pedals are even, equal braking is applied to both sides; as one rudder pedal is applied then more brake pressure is fed to that side. Strength of application is delivered by the hand lever on the grip. The major benefit to all this is having one's feet and legs almost completely relaxed most of the time.
Lining up for take-off is intimidating with that Rolls-Royce engine sticking way out in front. There is no sense in thinking too much about it. Throttle up slowly to prevent a lurch to the right (if in a Griffon Spit where the propeller turns the opposite direction from American aircraft)...left foot moves forward almost in concert with the left hand to keep the nose straight. Monster torque shoves the right wing down rapidly, very much like the P-40, until full left aileron and full (give or take a minuscule amount) left rudder is held. The Rolls is a wounded dragon bellowing horrendously.
There is so much raw power and noise, and you are so tightly focused on keeping everything under control, the actual lift-off at around 90 kts goes by almost unnoticed. Switch hands, move the gear lever down to disengage it from the slot, inwards through the gate and then smartly all the way forward, hold momentarily, then let go. If all is well, the lever snaps outwards through the upper gate, then springs back into the upper slot. Its easy to spot a new Spitfire pilot...the aircraft porpoises as the pilot changes hands and works the gear lever.
Sitting behind this demon V-12 churning out so much power is intoxicating...the earth falls away at a rapid rate, at least for something with a propeller. A look around reveals the excellent visibility out of the bubble canopy. This lessens, to a degree, the impression of being buried within a Spitfire, though that feeling of being a part of the machine does not change. *THE ELEVATOR IS VERY LIGHT* while the rudder is stiff and the ailerons even more so. Every Spitfire I've flown takes a bit more muscle to roll than most fighters. As speed increases both rudder and ailerons get heavier, resulting in a curious mismatch at high speed...*ONE HAS TO HANDLE THE ALMOST OVERSENSITIVE ELEVATORS WITH A LIGHT FINGERTIP TOUCH* while arm-wrestling the stiff ailerons. Pilots had to keep this in mind during combat, particularly when going against the FW 190 which had a sterling rate of roll and exceptionally well harmonised controls. That being said, the aircraft is very well balanced and delightful to manoeuvre. Whipping a Spit around the clouds ranks right up there at the top of aviation's great experiences.
The aircraft stalls like a Piper Cub. Though a wing tends to drop, there isn't the slightest mean streak in it unless you cob the power, which produces a very violent torque roll. Power off, gear and flaps down, main fuel tanks full, it stalls at 65 kts, which is ridiculously slow. Add a slight bit of power and that drops to 60 kts. With that enormous snout, I try to make a curving approach to landing at about 100 kts in order to keep the runway in sight as long as possible. By the time I'm rolling out across the field boundary, if at max landing weight, I should be no faster than 85 kts with power and 95 kts in a glide. At lighter weights these speeds can be reduced by 5 kts.
All Spitfires are exceptionally easy to land with no inherent tendency to swerve or groundloop. Just reduce power to idle, flare to a three point attitude and she sets down on a feather almost every time. This is a great surprise to most considering the narrow track undercarriage and full swivel, non-locking tailwheel. Why doesn't it drop a wing violently or make the pilot stomp on the rudders? I wish I knew. *THE GENIUS OF MANAGING TO COMBINE LIGHT AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS WITH SUCH HIGH PERFORMANCE IS NOTHING SHORT OF MIRACULOUS COMPARED TO MOST OTHER WARTIME TAILWHEEL TYPES.* One or two landings in the Spitfire and you are in love for life.

Of course he may be lying... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The SPitfire was one of the best handling WW2 planes, its not hard to find out this fact from reading pilot reviews and comments on flying hte aircraft. All pilots who have flown one talk about its beautiful handling and ease of flying compared to other types. The fact that its one of the easiest planes to fly, and best dogfighters in the sim is not surprising, its correct with the actual plane.

This does NOT make it the best WW2 prop combat plane in my opinon tho, for that plane see my sig. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

MB_Avro_UK
03-07-2007, 05:00 PM
Hi all,

This factual documentary clip may help...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hjz8pAGRvsg&mode=related&search=

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Viper2005_
03-07-2007, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by AVG_WarHawk:
Remove the bulges? I like bulges http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

*pretty picture removed to save space*


Her aerodynamics are something of a moot point since nobody in their right mind would drop her from a great height...

But you have somewhat overstated your point IMO...

Pirschjaeger
03-07-2007, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/mustard/mustarduptherear.jpg

I know the picture doesn't show a Messer, but I think that if you added some MUSTARD up its butt, that would have been fun!

Thank you for the warning. If I ever meet a guys named "Waldo" grinning while holding an empty jar of mustard I'll stak back 500m. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Lunix
03-07-2007, 08:19 PM
I would reach under the dash and unplug the flaps down warning klaxon.

Pirschjaeger
03-07-2007, 11:56 PM
http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/FritzFranzen/bf109f4withnewcanopy.jpg

Kurfurst__
03-08-2007, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

A lot of allied pilots had revolvers or automatic side arms to shoot throught their canopy if need be.

I suppose you also need to factor in that the superb visibility offered by the bubble canopy found on the Tempest,Mustang, Yak 3 ... Fw 190 ect in comparison to the 109s framed canopy hugely reduced the chances of being shot down in the 1st place.

This is not reflected in the combat record, though.

Bubble canopy offers certain advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are obvious, but depends on the execution. IMHO the Yak-3 was the best which employed a rear armored glass panel.

The disadvantages are increased drag, difficulties for making pressurized cocpits for high altitude fighters (without which altitude flight is extremely exhausting), distortion from the rounded pglass surfaces, safety (problems in bailing out or turnover, due to lack of supporting structure) and directional stability problems in flight. The last is the real problem IMHO, the others are a matter of preference. However directional stabilty is much more of an issue and not easy to correct for. And, as much as I like the Yak-3s visibility, I'd certainly not wanting to be in one if it turns over or when flying against bombers - it lacks frontal armor glass.

IHMO the canopy of the 109 was perfectly good for the purpose after the introduction of the Galland Panzer and the Erla canopy. It's entirely satisfactory for me, and I guess it would be even more with 6DOF. Perhaps I'd substitute it would with an enlarged, late-war 190F style blown canopy, but even that doesn`t seem to be that much of an improvement. It's a tiny bit taller and at points wider than the Erla. I miss the Galland Panzer from this particular execution though.
http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/StarSide_S199_KB_02.jpg

I would certainly not go with a bubble if possible, as it requires a serious redesign of the fuselage, then fixing/accepting resulting stability problems.. all this means delays and loss of production. The worst idea of all is possibly to replace it with a 'Malcolm-hood', the why is obvious if you know the actual dimensions of the two. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


I respect the fact that you love the 109 but in all seriousness the Fw 190 replaced it as premier Luftwaffe fighter then it was superseded by Allied types such as the Mustang and Tempest which offered superior performance, range, visibility and handling. The 109 suffered from control authority at speed, elevators and aerilons that were unresponsive above 400mph.

Hmmm... the LW records show the FW 190 had shorter avarage lifespan in 1942-1943 than the Me 109 (ca half), and was about 50% more expensive to produce. The range of the two was identical.

The FW 190s basic advantage was more rugged contruction and heavier armament, and better suited for ground attack, ie. more suited for multirole task. The 109 was generally cheaper, and made a better altitude fighter and in some ways, more manouverable. They made a great pair, and the only justifyable reason to replace it in production was the ME 262.

Now regarding 'control authority', your observations are obviously based on the game engine, and I think you don`t truely understand the term IAS. 400 mph IAS is at the normal combat altitudes is pretty much the same as the Vne of most of these fighters in the era. Some sort of limitation in authority is good in this speed regime as it prevents you from breaking the plane.


Down low and up high the 109 had well and truely met its match by 2nd Gen allied fighters. Think about the Tempest V we have in game (Late 43 perormance) then meausure it with the Bf 109 G6 Late or even G2 in reality. We are talking 40/60 mph speed difference at the 109s worst heights.

Uhhm, since when was the Tempest V truely a contemporary of the G-2 (production started May 1942) and the G-6 (February 1943), or when was it anywhere near widespread in service as these common frontline fighters...? The true, common adversaries of the G-2/G-6 were early Laggs, Yak-9s, Spitfire Vs or P-40s. They were hardly outclassed by these.

Overall I don`t think much could be added to the 109 design, frankly all that was practical was done, only that I'd only do it earlier, there were a couple of missed opportunites : the wheel well doors that were meant to be present on the 109G already, the tall tail took a bit long to introduce. I'd introduce sooner the tall tailwheel and the Erla+Galland sooner - basically introduce the 109K airframe in 1943 already with all it`s refinements, and add the more powerful engines progressively as they become available. Apart from that, I can't reallly think how to fix something that ain't broken. I'd not touch the landing gear because there's nothing wrong with it, the swinging tendency rooted in the fact that the aircraft had rear a rather rear CoG, but that`s a founding stone of the design. In any case, the larger tires and first and foremost, the tall tailwheel was a solution to this problem. The firepower was scalable to a very heavy one with the gunpods, and really installation in the wing themselves would not be more advantageous performance-wise, it's still the same weight, and the gondolas themselves, in contrary to popular belief, added very little drag, about 8 km/h, and the same could be expected from built-in-the-wing gun as well.

Maybe I'd add a removable, non-self sealing light alloy 100 liter wing tank in each wing in the place of the gun gondola bay, when the latter are not used, but frankly I don't see a reason why they would not do that themselves if they'd need more range they already had.

Apart from that, perhaps an electrically operated flap and tailplane control, but curiously, Allied pilots seems to like the manual system because 'it's not likely to go wrong'. I guess flight safety, or having to land a damaged plane with it`s hydraulics shot up and flaps ain't working meant a lot more to them than to us.

slipBall
03-08-2007, 02:49 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gifI would not change anything

Sergio_101
03-08-2007, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gifI would not change anything

Improvments would be simple.
Stop production in 1941 and change over to
Fw-190 and Me-262 production.

The 109 was largely obsolete by 1943, the
best thing was to cancel it outright.

If you start improving the Bf-109 design, adding
fuel, improving vision and reducing drag
you end up with a P-51.
I am not making fun of it.
The 109 was excellent for a 1936 design.
Obsolete by 1943.
There is no improving it except replacing it.

Sergio

tigertalon
03-08-2007, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Improvments would be simple.
Stop production in 1941 and change over to
Fw-190 and Me-262 production.

The 109 was largely obsolete by 1943, the
best thing was to cancel it outright.

Sergio

Problem is, such a switch would greatly reduce the daily flow of new fighters to the front... something germany couldn't afford in 1943, so they kept producing 109s while trying to increase percentage output of 190s as much as they could. Similar situation as the one Japanese faced later in the war.

Kurfurst__
03-08-2007, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Improvments would be simple.
Stop production in 1941 and change over to
Fw-190 and Me-262 production.

Sergio

Hmmm... and what would you do with those thousends of Me 262 airframes laying all over the place for 3 years until Junkers finishes the development of the Jumo 004 in mid-1944...? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG52Karaya-X
03-08-2007, 06:48 AM
I love these "109 was obsolete by 43" sayers...

You cant replace the Bf109 with the FW190 or the other way around, both had their advantages over each other, the Bf109 outclassing the FW Anton at high alts by a big margin, whereas the FW was better suited for low-med alts and provided the better fighter bomber.

Me I'd never trade my G10/14 for a 190A8/9... never

DIRTY-MAC
03-08-2007, 10:28 AM
Teardrop like hood
tail filÚ, like something on a tempest or mustang
hydraulic assisted rudders
increased wing area
Trim tabs
put the radiators in the front edge of the wing
like it on a Mosquito
and make the landing gears retract inwards

Chivas
03-08-2007, 12:08 PM
I would remove the flaps on a slider Hotas Control. My 109 would last seconds longer not having to fight a Spit with combat flaps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

anarchy52
03-08-2007, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
Teardrop like hood

- con: more expensive, no protection in case of aircraft flipping over, more likely to jam, loss of stability (as in P-51D vs P-51C)

- pro: better visibility


Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
tail filÚ, like something on a tempest or mustang

why add aditional weight? Vertical stabilizer extension was an attempted fix for the problem introduced by - bubble canopy.


Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
hydraulic assisted rudders

You probably ment ailerons?

Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
increased wing area

- con: weight, drag
- pro: lower wingloading = lower landing speed and better turn rate which would probably not be very useful. 109's horizontal maneuverability was sufficient. In game anyone can pull 6G turns all day long. Pilot skill and endurance ment much more then theoretical values (unlike the game situation).

And BTW, they did that on F model.


Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
Trim tabs

You probably mean in-flight adjustable trim tabs?

Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
put the radiators in the front edge of the wing
like it on a Mosquito

I doubt that it would offer much advantage, would require entirely new radiators, and the space in the wing was not sufficient to fit radiators sufficient for cooling the 1400-2000HP engine.

All in all, 109 was competitive to the very end, fast, excellent climb, good dive, rugged, cheap, sufficient maneuverability although not as maneuverable as Spit or 190. It wasn't the best fighter Germany could produce, but it was the best fighter Germany could afford.

JG52Karaya-X
03-08-2007, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
increased wing area

- con: weight, drag
- pro: lower wingloading = lower landing speed and better turn rate which would probably not be very useful. 109's horizontal maneuverability was sufficient. In game anyone can pull 6G turns all day long. Pilot skill and endurance ment much more then theoretical values (unlike the game situation).

And BTW, they did that on F model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wing area actually decreased from Emil to Friedrich slightly!

DIRTY-MAC
03-08-2007, 01:31 PM
Well. why don┬┤t we just dip it in vaseline then!

DIRTY-MAC
03-08-2007, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
Teardrop like hood

- con: more expensive, no protection in case of aircraft flipping over, more likely to jam, loss of stability (as in P-51D vs P-51C)

- pro: better visibility


Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
tail filÚ, like something on a tempest or mustang

why add aditional weight? Vertical stabilizer extension was an attempted fix for the problem introduced by - bubble canopy.


Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
hydraulic assisted rudders

You probably ment ailerons?

Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
increased wing area

- con: weight, drag
- pro: lower wingloading = lower landing speed and better turn rate which would probably not be very useful. 109's horizontal maneuverability was sufficient. In game anyone can pull 6G turns all day long. Pilot skill and endurance ment much more then theoretical values (unlike the game situation).

And BTW, they did that on F model.


Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
Trim tabs

You probably mean in-flight adjustable trim tabs?

Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
put the radiators in the front edge of the wing
like it on a Mosquito

I doubt that it would offer much advantage, would require entirely new radiators, and the space in the wing was not sufficient to fit radiators sufficient for cooling the 1400-2000HP engine.

All in all, 109 was competitive to the very end, fast, excellent climb, good dive, rugged, cheap, sufficient maneuverability although not as maneuverable as Spit or 190. It wasn't the best fighter Germany could produce, but it was the best fighter Germany could afford. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thanks for clearing all that out for me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ElAurens
03-08-2007, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Hmmm... and what would you do with those thousends of Me 262 airframes laying all over the place for 3 years until Junkers finishes the development of the Jumo 004 in mid-1944...? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Strafe them with P-47s.

ElAurens
03-08-2007, 04:36 PM
The Luftwaffe should have purchased a license to build the Ki-61, add the DB-605 engine and end up with an all around better fighter than the Bf-109.

Abbuzze
03-08-2007, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
The Luftwaffe should have purchased a license to build the Ki-61, add the DB-605 engine and end up with an all around better fighter than the Bf-109.

And also get bulges because of the bigger supercharger of the late DB605┬┤s

BfHeFwMe
03-08-2007, 08:28 PM
Put some floats on it, and remove all the junk out of the back trunk so fishing rods would fit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Vike
03-09-2007, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by Boemher:
A lot of allied pilots had revolvers or automatic side arms to shoot throught their canopy if need be.

I respect the fact that you love the 109 but in all seriousness the Fw 190 replaced it as premier Luftwaffe fighter then it was superseded by Allied types such as the Mustang and Tempest which offered superior performance, range, visibility and handling. The 109 suffered from control authority at speed, elevators and aerilons that were unresponsive above 400mph.

Down low and up high the 109 had well and truely met its match by 2nd Gen allied fighters. Think about the Tempest V we have in game (Late 43 perormance) then meausure it with the Bf 109 G6 Late or even G2 in reality. We are talking 40/60 mph speed difference at the 109s worst heights.


Boemher,i understand partially your point but let me clarify some things. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Untill very late 1943,the Luftwaffe was MAINLY facing the outclassed VVS planes.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif
The MG-131/13 that was introduced on the Me109-G5 then G6,was a volunter step back in performances,to make Me109 pilots be able to handle other targets than fighters,like bombers (ie IL2s,IL4s etc...). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Indeed,why having an Uberrrrrrrrrrrrrr Me109-G2/G4 to take down Yaks and Las by dozens if it isn't possible to catch IL2s and IL4s? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

In this purpose,the Messerschmitt engineers did,i think voluntarily,a light performance degradation in the Me109 design to make it more versatile. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (bigger wheels,MG-131,etc...)

But,when in early 1944,USAAF introduced long range escort fighters,the excellent attrition made by the Me110/210s to protect Germany in 1943 from B17 raids couldn't go anylonger. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

The Luftwaffe had to send its primary fighters to do all the job...

...Primary fighters that was STILL designed for the russian front and its more or less outclassed VVS planes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

At this precise time,in 1944,when USAAF reinforced its strategy on Germany (escorted bombing Raids,operation Overlord),the Luftwaffe adapted its primary fighters to face not solely the VVS planes that were going better,but also the american high alt fighters. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I.E.=> Introduction of the DB603 supercharger on the DB605,giving the Me109-G6/AS onwards.

At this time,YES,we can talk about Tempest etc,but not before,at a time when the whole Luftwaffe was looking at the East front Boemher! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

And btw,guess what plane between Me109 and Fw190 was the more efficient in high alt?
=>The Me109,obviously,thanks to its DB605 engine,more suited for the high alt tasks against escort fighters especially,while Fw190A did what they could at those heights to intercept the B17 bombers with their stronger armament.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

To sum-it up:

A threat,then a adaptation to the threat.
Talking about Tempest vs Me109-G6 is irrelevant,as those planes were'nt built at the same time or built to face each other. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif

AFAIK,in WWII German army never did things by chance,they were simply taken by the time...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Compare any Me109G/AS with the Tempest,if you want http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

To conclude,firing with a gun inside a compact room (thanks for the ears http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif ) on a bloked sliding canopy to bail-out,while your P51D/Spit/Tempest is falling down due to a flak or an MK108 shell is really optimistic...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

I try imagine the scene...In all seriousness...No,sorry i can't. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Vike
03-09-2007, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
All in all, 109 was competitive to the very end, fast, excellent climb, good dive, rugged, cheap, sufficient maneuverability although not as maneuverable as Spit or 190. It wasn't the best fighter Germany could produce, but it was the best fighter Germany could afford.

I agree http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Furthermore,i read on this thread some curious ideas about modifying the Me109 radiators. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
IRL,from the F to the K version,their design was to produce a thrust,via a thermodynamic reaction,exactly like we see on the P51-D:

" After the re-design that occurred with the Friedrich, the Me 109 fully employed the Meredith effect. It's radiator had boundary layer separation with separate discharge, a continously adjustable intake and a continously adjustable outlet that was automatically regulated to create thrust. That's the same degree of sophistication as found on the Mustang. The thermodynamic effect of the engine cooling was well-known in the 1920s and 1930s and in fact had been first pointed out by Hugo Junkers in 1915 when he acquired a patent for the "DŘsenkŘhler" ('jet radiator'). Thermodynamics probably were the most advanced science in the late 19th/early 20th century due to their tremendous economical value in a society that based its wealth primarily on steam engines. The "Meredith" effect probably was painfully obvious to Junkers, who included it right in the first aircraft he ever built."

- Here (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/) -

Better than that? I really don't think. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Now,concerning this canopy:

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/StarSide_S199_KB_02.jpg

As a perfectionist,http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif,I would prefer a less good around vision in order to keep as much kph as possible,rather than seeing "all the world around" and risking to expose my head directly to the enemy bullets. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
In this regard,the original Erla hood seems to be the best compromise between speed and visibility,IMHO.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j32/Vike01/51K4.jpg

Now,to make an answer to the thread:

If i had been a member of the Messerschmitt engineers staff,i would have done my best for making the late Me109 more "noob-friendly",considering the fact that there were young pilots joining the Luftwaffe,young pilots that had not the BOB & Barbarossa experience.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

- In this regard,i think i would have search a solution to enlarge the "fire zone" for example by including two MG151/20 canons (or MGFF/M) or even two light MG-131/13 inside the leading edge of the wings in a way like the Emil,knowing the fact that the landing gear system would prevent an inner wing installation.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif
But changing the landing gear system would have modify one of the best Me109 qualities: Its fast maintenance still on its gears on fields,so i think it had to be kept like that.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

- I also would have incited D-Benz to use -if possible- lighter materials for building the DB605 engines,in order to keep the global weight acceptable for such a compact airframe. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

- For some refinement,i also would search a solution to integrate the air intake somewhere inside the Me109 nose,still for less drag and gaining some more kph.

Otherwise,nothing to add.
The whole plane is already near to the perfection in my mind,in its F and,above all, K version.
Historical facts show numerous experienced German pilots having good time in it,by using the "handy" handwheels for trim and flaps in fights,although they were outnumbered by 1 vs 10 till 1 vs 60 in the very War end...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif
Facts that would incite to believe the Me109 was VERY valuable. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

@+