PDA

View Full Version : Bubble Canopy on a 109



blakduk
04-05-2005, 07:49 PM
I'm curious if anyone has information re a bubble canopy on a Bf109. I know a lot of pilots complained of restricted vision from the cockpit of these fighters, and whereas most other aircraft of the period began with panelled canopies they modified them considerably. This doesnt seem to have happened with the 109- does anyone know why?

VW-IceFire
04-05-2005, 08:28 PM
There was some modification...the late G-6's and on had the "Galland Hood" which boosted the visibility somewhat. Nothing like the Spitfire's impressive "Malcom Hood" or the late model Spitfire/Mustang/Thunderbolt/Typhoon/Tempest with the full bubble canopy and cut down rear fuselage.

p1ngu666
04-05-2005, 08:35 PM
209 or 309 was gonna have one i think

p1ngu666
04-05-2005, 08:38 PM
http://149.142.139.138/Web/JC/cat%202/Me309.jpg

309, seems it wasnt as good a canopy as fw190, typhoon etc, more like the japanease ones, abit greenhousy

blakduk
04-05-2005, 08:43 PM
Thanks guys- it just seems odd that modification never seemed to happen, despite the Germans experiences with these canopies on the Me262 and especially the Fw190.
I can stand flying the 109 with the cockpit 'on'- cant seem to see a d**n thing (I happen to be very good at tricking the enemy into sitting on my 6)

p1ngu666
04-05-2005, 08:47 PM
kick rudder http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

alot of bubble canopy planes miss the advantage because theres no camera movement

zoomar
04-05-2005, 08:56 PM
No service Bf109 had an all-around vision canopy or anything close. But for a real odd duck, check out the "Me109X" (Not a formal designation) as used on the website "The 109 Place" to describe two experimental 109s which both had an all-round canopy and BMW radial engines!

Both a photo and two 3-view drawings of this plane are provided, which looks like nothing else German! Maybe Japanese, maybe Russian, but certainly not German.

www.xs4all.nl/~tozu/me109/index.htm (http://www.xs4all.nl/~tozu/me109/index.htm)

zoomar
04-05-2005, 08:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blakduk:
Thanks guys- it just seems odd that modification never seemed to happen, despite the Germans experiences with these canopies on the Me262 and especially the Fw190.
I can stand flying the 109 with the cockpit 'on'- cant seem to see a d**n thing (I happen to be very good at tricking the enemy into sitting on my 6) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually, I rather like all the canopy struts on the 109. I fly alot with padlock on and the struts keep me oriented. As opposed to the P-51, which is a killer.

JG53Frankyboy
04-05-2005, 09:08 PM
http://www.messerschmitt-bf109.de/php-bf109v/bf109v21.php?sortby=geschwader

blakduk
04-05-2005, 09:12 PM
Thanks for the link Zoomar- that only deepens the mystery for me. So they had in 1939 a prototype version of the 109 with a bubble canopy!!!!! BUT chose not to pursue it.
When you see some of the wacky designs they actually produced you have to wonder about the mental state of the guys in charge of the reich.
Still, that's what you get when the guy in charge is a vegetarian, animal rights nut who instigates the slaughter of millions of human beings.

woofiedog
04-05-2005, 10:55 PM
IAF Museum. Avia S-199 Mezek
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/7934/mezek5c.jpg

The Avia S-199 at the Kbely Aviation Museum outside Prague, Czech Republic below.

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/PortSide_S199_KB_02.jpg

The Cockpit

Here are various views of the new cockpit canopy. Note the larger, bulged, all Plexiglas sliding rear section and the head armor with support struts.


http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/PortSide_S199_KB_03.jpg

JR_Greenhorn
04-05-2005, 11:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blakduk:
When you see some of the wacky designs [the Reich] actually produced you have to wonder about the mental state of the guys in charge of the reich. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's what it takes to make you wonder?!?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blakduk:
Still, that's what you get when the guy in charge is a vegetarian, animal rights nut who instigates the slaughter of millions of human beings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, right. Carry on then.



@woofiedog,
Are those your shots of the Mezek? Do you have any from a further away vangtage point?
I would like to see more of the engine/prop installation and the aircraft changes overall.

Badsight.
04-05-2005, 11:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blakduk:
I'm curious if anyone has information re a bubble canopy on a Bf109. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Grrr P1ngu beat me too it

the Me309

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/Badsight/MesserschmittMe-309.jpg

blakduk
04-05-2005, 11:21 PM
Badsight- Now that is something that looks lethal!!!
I want to fly that

Badsight.
04-05-2005, 11:26 PM
was a prototype experiment only

TAGERT.
04-05-2005, 11:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blakduk:
I'm curious if anyone has information re a bubble canopy on a Bf109. I know a lot of pilots complained of restricted vision from the cockpit of these fighters, and whereas most other aircraft of the period began with panelled canopies they modified them considerably. This doesnt seem to have happened with the 109- does anyone know why? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, as Kit Carons pointed out.. Mr. Messerschmit was just too busy climbing the nazi ladder to be bothered with updating his planes

TAGERT.
04-05-2005, 11:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blakduk:
Badsight- Now that is something that looks lethal!!!
I want to fly that <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you like that you will love http://www.luft46.com/ there are alot of dream planes there to drool over.. Problem is 99% of them never made it off of the napkin they were scribled on let alone a blue print let alone a prototype let alone production.. But if you like what if dream planes that is the place to go

Badsight.
04-05-2005, 11:30 PM
as if Kits opinion is worth anything when it comes to Messerschmitt's , he may be right , but is way too biased to even be considered as a source (& theres plenty hes totally wrong on too)

TAGERT.
04-05-2005, 11:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
as if Kits opinion is worth anything when it comes to Messerschmitt's , he _may_ be right , but is way too biased to even be considered as a source (& theres plenty hes totally wrong on too) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>not true.. Well.. cant really say that.. Let me put it this way.. YOU have never presented anything here that proves him wrong let alone biased.

Badsight.
04-06-2005, 12:38 AM
others HAVE

besides that his bf109 bias literally oozes out of his website

the guys an idiot

Abbuzze
04-06-2005, 02:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Well, as Kit Carons pointed out.. Mr. Messerschmit was just too busy climbing the nazi ladder to be bothered with updating his planes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes of course, cause the "Messerschmidt AG" was a one man company...


For the question bubble canopys are less aerodynamical, thats why the P51D was a few mph slower with the same engine than the B and needed a dorsal fin to fix stability problems caused by the canopy.

At the end with the new Galland hood the backwardview was not that worse anymore like in the early G with the big armoured behind the pilot.
Keep also in mind that the pilots were belted very tight, so they couldn´t move their shoulders very much, now try to look backwards without doing it, the biggest advantages of a real bubble canopy is the lack of struts. At least I think so.


Photo of a Galland Hood from an similar view like the S.199
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/Manchi9.jpg

For the 309 it was a nice looking plane, but the performance was not as good.
In mockdogfights vs a G6 it was slightly faster but climbed and turned worse. So not a real improvement, cause it also was heavier used new technics it was more expensive to build I think.
And money was allways an important factor in wartimes. P51 was cheaper, so it was used for groundattacks in corea instead the Jug...

woofiedog
04-06-2005, 06:00 AM
JR_Greenhorn... Here is the Link: http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/s199ng_1.html

Jasko76
04-06-2005, 06:13 AM
I think they were too busy making thousands of Bf 109s to make any drastic changes to it. Look at Bf 109F-G-K... not much difference at first glance, right? Introducing the bubble canpoy would have introduced problems with retooling at the factories, loss of production and so on. And Germans could ill afford any slow down in their fighter production.

My 2 cents.

Blutarski2004
04-06-2005, 07:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
others _HAVE_

besides that his bf109 bias literally oozes out of his website
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I'm confused. Are you talking about Carson or Kurfurst?

AWL_Spinner
04-06-2005, 09:41 AM
That 309 looks a lot like... a Yak.

p1ngu666
04-06-2005, 10:09 AM
funny, mr yak met willy before the eastern front kicked off, he wasnt impressed by the german planes...

stathem
04-06-2005, 02:14 PM
Has no-one pointed out that when the 109 was first built, pilots complained they couldn't see out of the back, but Messerschmit reckoned it was so fast, they wouldn't need to see behind them. I guess he'd not heard about Merlins at that point.

TheGozr
04-06-2005, 03:49 PM
http://www.french.themotorhead.com/il2/viewtopic.php?t=284

Abbuzze
04-06-2005, 04:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stathem:
Has no-one pointed out that when the 109 was first built, pilots complained they couldn't see out of the back, but Messerschmit reckoned it was so fast, they wouldn't need to see behind them. I guess he'd not heard about Merlins at that point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They mainly complaind about the closed canopy, cause they were biplane pilots with nothing behind their head.

Maybe that was the cause while the I16 got the canopy removed, cause some versions had it...

Backwardview in SpitI wasn´t better than in the Emil.

stathem
04-06-2005, 04:09 PM
I know, and I think in fb the view out of the back of a Bf is better than that from a I-16 or 153, or Glad for that matter: I was just pointing out the quote, tomorrow, i'll look up where it came from.

telsono
04-06-2005, 04:43 PM
Both the FIAT G.50 and Macchi MC 200 initially were equipped with all around canopies, but the pilots complained about them since they had such a bi-plane open cockpit bias. This went to such an extreme that the first Italian squadron equipped with MC 200's traded them to another squadron for their FIAT CR.42's. I guess the Gladiator with its enclosed canopy gave the British pilots a taste for the enclosed canopies prior to the Hurricanes and Spitfires.

Shakthamac
04-06-2005, 04:47 PM
I have a special issue of the Flight Journal that came out in 2000 that talks about WW2 fighters. In addition to many great reads in the mag, there is a sidebar that deals specifically with the 109 and its flaws. It's written by a test pilot who worked for Grumman named Corky Meyer. In this bit of writing, Mr. Meyer describes how in 1946, a man named Joe Hubert came to work for Grumman. Hubert had worked for Messerschmitt during the war as an aerodynamicist. When Meyer asked Hubert why obvious glaring issues with the 109 weren't fixed (including the hood and landing gear), Hubert replied that:

"if you hadn't worked with the overblown personality of Willi Messerschmitt, you would never understand why they hadn't been fixed. He said that no cohort ever challenged this man's unilateral "wisdom."

Grummanites called it the "NIH" (not invented here) factor.

Edit: which I guess is why they call it the "Galland" hood, instead of just marking it as a new 109 variant

zoomar
04-06-2005, 08:27 PM
Actually, quite a few experimental immediate prewar fighters had all-round vision canopies...or of course lacked canopies. I think one reason they were not favored as planes advanced is pilot protection. In a period when armored seats and head rests were not all that common, even light alloy fuselage decking with a radio receiver crammed in behind the pilot's head offered better protection than nothing. In this context (pilot protection) it is perhaps interesting to note that Japan introduced all-round vision canopies on their first modern low wing monoplane fighters (Ki-27, Ki-43, and A6M series) well before such canopies appeared on US, Soviet, or British planes...and of course the Germans never got to full all-round vision canopies on the 109 or 190.

LLv34_Stafroty
04-06-2005, 09:10 PM
also, keep in mind that germany´s air force was builded up from nothing in 5 years. that is something. in some degree in other military areas as well.

JR_Greenhorn
04-06-2005, 10:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LLv34_Stafroty:
also, keep in mind that germany´s air force was builded up from nothing in 5 years. that is something. in some degree in other military areas as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's definately not a disadvantage. Considering the pace of aircraft development in the 1930s, existing aircraft were a liability. Just look at the USAAC's problems going into the war. The Germans were able to have an airforce based on the cutting edge of technology because they started with nothing. Other factors include doctrine, attitudes, conservative leadership; all are avoided with a fresh start.

TAGERT.
04-06-2005, 11:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
others _HAVE_

besides that his bf109 bias literally oozes out of his website

the guys an idiot <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok, well I guess it is time to make a choice.. Should I take Badsight's word for it.. A nameless, faceless, nobody on the web or a WWII pilot who made it to the rank of Col, Was an ace severl times over, After the war got a degree in engineering, Went to work at an aerospace companay designing aircraft and then later wrote a book where he said how BAD the 109 was and said how GOOD the 190 was (yet some say he was oozing bias?).

Ok.. decission.. decission..

Well.. Sorry Badsight, in light of the fact that you presented nothing to support your claims, and the FACT that Mr. Carson said how good the 190 was Ill have to conclude that you are full of S#IT as usaul and pick Mr. Carson over you.

Please dont take it personal! Im sure you were just too busy to present anything to suport your claims and that you have more time you could have presented something that would have made the decsion much harder to make.... NOT! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

TAGERT.
04-06-2005, 11:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Yes of course, cause the "Messerschmidt AG" was a one man company... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well maybe Willy just didnt step up to the plate like Truman did when he said the buck stops here?

Badsight.
04-06-2005, 11:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Please dont take it personal! Im sure you were just too busy to present anything to suport your claims and that you have more time you could have presented something that would have made the decsion much harder to make.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>well if you didnt look the last time you aint going to now

good luck with your freind ignorance

woofiedog
04-06-2005, 11:48 PM
JG53Frankyboy... Mint Link. Thank's

http://www.messerschmitt-bf109.de/pics-merkmale/galland-haube.jpg

TAGERT.
04-06-2005, 11:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
well if you didnt look the last time you aint going to now <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I looked, just nothing to see.. Unless your defintion of BIAS means he is BIAS if he says ANYTHING negative.. Which Im pretty sure is NOT the general definition.. But the ONLY one that would work in light of the FACT that Mr. Carson spoke very highly of the 190. So, how does you ozzing bias account for that?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
good luck with your freind ignorance <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If he is ignorat, that must make you less than ignorant imho. In light of the FACT you dont even know what the word BIAS means.

Badsight.
04-06-2005, 11:58 PM
poor assumptions

& all wrong

apart from the fact that Kit Carson is a biased ignoramus , your 100% correct on that

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 12:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
poor assumptions

& all wrong

apart from the fact that Kit Carson is a biased ignoramus , your 100% correct on that <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah see.. Now I asked you real nicly not to take it personal! Now look at you, your all upset and just blabbering out the same stuff over and over.. Im sorry, I take back what I said, I think your a smart guy.. There, feel better?

Grendel-B
04-07-2005, 01:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stathem:
Has no-one pointed out that when the 109 was first built, pilots complained they couldn't see out of the back, but Messerschmit reckoned it was so fast, they wouldn't need to see behind them. I guess he'd not heard about Merlins at that point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny. How did the first Me 109s have Merlin engines, then, if he hadn't heard of them?

Abbuzze
04-07-2005, 02:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
... a WWII pilot who made it to the rank of Col, Was an ace severl times over, After the war got a degree in engineering, Went to work at an aerospace companay designing aircraft and then later wrote a book ....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don´t see anything avoiding being an idiot in the the text abouve...

And the fact that he like the 190 don´t change the low quality of wild unsystematic facts he mixed at his 109 text.
Beside did he say something about the Spit? A lot of the "facts" making the 109 cr@p are the same for the spit, but who cares, Carson of course not....

tigertalon
04-07-2005, 02:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grendel-B:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stathem:
Has no-one pointed out that when the 109 was first built, pilots complained they couldn't see out of the back, but Messerschmit reckoned it was so fast, they wouldn't need to see behind them. I guess he'd not heard about Merlins at that point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny. How did the first Me 109s have Merlin engines, then, if he hadn't heard of them? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They didn't. They had Kestrels, not Merlins. Brits would never sell merlins to germans in late 30s, it was top secret.

Grendel-B
04-07-2005, 03:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tigertalon:
They had Kestrels, not Merlins. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

D'Oh! You're right! My bad, apologies.

Kurfurst__
04-07-2005, 04:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
There was some modification...the late G-6's and on had the "Galland Hood" which boosted the visibility somewhat. Nothing like the Spitfire's impressive "Malcom Hood" or the late model Spitfire/Mustang/Thunderbolt/Typhoon/Tempest with the full bubble canopy and cut down rear fuselage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Malcolm hood was hardly any better than the early 109 canopies, it was installed because the original Spit hood gave literally no sideways headspace for the pilot. The rear view provided by the Malcolm could be only desribed as completely blind, why do you think they had those rear view mirrors installed? Why soviets complained about the rear view? The blown canopies were good, save that only a handful of Spits ever got those in late 44/45 (not speaking of the other a/c).

The Erla canopy with the transparent armor was in fact quite good, I have seen some picture taken from the inside of it, you can see all the way back to the rear, you see ca 3/4 of the horizontal stabiliser. Thats quite satisfactory, esp. if you step on the rudder. The early 109s were just as good, read the US pilots words on the virtualpilots site. Problem was that after the BoF in 1940 they installed those big, curved steel pilot head armors that offered protection from wide angles, and of course blocked the view to the rear as well. Thats what the transparent Galland Panzer head armor solved in mid-1943. Simpliest answer, they didnt fix it after that as it wasnt broke!

WTE_Ibis
04-07-2005, 07:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Badsight.:
poor assumptions

& all wrong

apart from the fact that Kit Carson is a biased ignoramus , your 100% correct on that <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah see.. Now I asked you real nicly not to take it personal! Now look at you, your all upset and just blabbering out the same stuff over and over.. Im sorry, I take back what I said, I think your a smart guy.. There, feel better?[/QUOTE
-------------------------------------------------

God you're a pain in the behind Tagert.

p1ngu666
04-07-2005, 08:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
There was some modification...the late G-6's and on had the "Galland Hood" which boosted the visibility somewhat. Nothing like the Spitfire's impressive "Malcom Hood" or the late model Spitfire/Mustang/Thunderbolt/Typhoon/Tempest with the full bubble canopy and cut down rear fuselage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Malcolm hood was hardly any better than the early 109 canopies, it was installed because the original Spit hood gave literally no sideways headspace for the pilot. The rear view provided by the Malcolm could be only desribed as completely blind, why do you think they had those rear view mirrors installed? Why soviets complained about the rear view? The blown canopies were good, save that only a handful of Spits ever got those in late 44/45 (not speaking of the other a/c).

The Erla canopy with the transparent armor was in fact quite good, I have seen some picture taken from the inside of it, you can see all the way back to the rear, you see ca 3/4 of the horizontal stabiliser. Thats quite satisfactory, esp. if you step on the rudder. The early 109s were just as good, read the US pilots words on the virtualpilots site. Problem was that after the BoF in 1940 they installed those big, curved steel pilot head armors that offered protection from wide angles, and of course blocked the view to the rear as well. Thats what the transparent Galland Panzer head armor solved in mid-1943. Simpliest answer, they didnt fix it after that as it wasnt broke! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

malcom was better in other areas, like view over the sides, because u can move your head into the curve i guess.

the rear view thing was also there on the first typhoons, because people thought they would be so fast.... and would attack in formation too... bnz in formation... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

i16 suffers, irl u stuck your head out till u saw the tail wheel http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
I don´t see anything avoiding being an idiot in the the text abouve... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ill bet there are alot of things you dont get.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
And the fact that he like the 190 don´t change the low quality of wild unsystematic facts he mixed at his 109 text. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, I dont recall saying Mr. Carson was non-human and thus some sort of god that does not make mistakes.. But the FACT that he liked the 190 DOES prove he was not biased as most of the trully biased tards here would have us belive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Beside did he say something about the Spit? A lot of the "facts" making the 109 cr@p are the same for the spit, but who cares, Carson of course not.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My guess it had alot to do with him shooting down 109s and not shooting down Spitfires.. But that would be a guess on my part.

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 04:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
God you're a pain in the behind Tagert. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I can not begin to tell you how much satisfaction I get knowing that I got to you so bad so long ago that you still hold such a grudge againts me! But, you really should let it go, your going to pop a gasket! And if that were to happen I wouldnt have you here to kick arond anymore in the future.. And we can not have that! Now, count to 10 and take a nap! It will do you a world of good!

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The Malcolm hood was hardly any better than the early 109 canopies, it was installed because the original Spit hood gave literally no sideways headspace for the pilot. The rear view provided by the Malcolm could be only desribed as completely blind, why do you think they had those rear view mirrors installed? Why soviets complained about the rear view? The blown canopies were good, save that only a handful of Spits ever got those in late 44/45 (not speaking of the other a/c).

The Erla canopy with the transparent armor was in fact quite good, I have seen some picture taken from the inside of it, you can see all the way back to the rear, you see ca 3/4 of the horizontal stabiliser. Thats quite satisfactory, esp. if you step on the rudder. The early 109s were just as good, read the US pilots words on the virtualpilots site. Problem was that after the BoF in 1940 they installed those big, curved steel pilot head armors that offered protection from wide angles, and of course blocked the view to the rear as well. Thats what the transparent Galland Panzer head armor solved in mid-1943. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is this leading up to the part where you and yours claim that the 109 had a better rear view than the bubble canopy of the P51? If so, please let me know in advance so I can clear some HD space to save this thread.. The last one was a hoot!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Simpliest answer, they didnt fix it after that as it wasnt broke! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well somebody should have told these silly bastageses

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/PortSide_S199_KB_03.jpg

Before they went and waisted all that time fixing what was not broke! What were they thinkin? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

blakduk
04-07-2005, 05:34 PM
Thanks for the info guys- I hadnt really seen much about the Galland hoods before. It seems to indicate they noted the problem but insituted a half-a*sed solution to it. Not unusual, especially if your industrial setup is under strain and you dare not intefere too much with a system that is producing at optimum capacity.
From what i've seen of the setup of the Nazi regime, it seemed ideally suited to strong personalities dominating their own little empires to the detriment of the overall force. Hence, you have so many different calibre weapons being produced, multitudes of experimental weapons programs without any view to eventually rationalising and actually producing field-ready equipment in sufficient numbers.
The more i read about Willi Messerchmidt, the more parrallels i see with other geniuses who developed groundbreaking technologies. They often become convinced THEY have the answer and become ever more firm in the belief they are ultimately right and wont take any criticism. Henry Ford was similar- he revolutionised the manufacturing industry but then became stuck and refused any further innovation, to the detriment of the company. While he refused to change, his competitors took his concepts further.
The Germans were the same- they revolutionised many facets, especially the use of aircraft in war, but then became blinded by their own dogma. The allies learned some very hard lessons early on, then came back far stronger to ultimately win.

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 05:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blakduk:
Thanks for the info guys- I hadnt really seen much about the Galland hoods before. It seems to indicate they noted the problem but insituted a half-a*sed solution to it. Not unusual, especially if your industrial setup is under strain and you dare not intefere too much with a system that is producing at optimum capacity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That seems like good reasoing, in light of the fact that after the war, when there was no pressure, some countrys that continued to use the 109 put bubble canopys on them. Even though some say you dont fix what aint broke.. Some clearly saw it as broken.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blakduk:
From what i've seen of the setup of the Nazi regime, it seemed ideally suited to strong personalities dominating their own little empires to the detriment of the overall force. Hence, you have so many different calibre weapons being produced, multitudes of experimental weapons programs without any view to eventually rationalising and actually producing field-ready equipment in sufficient numbers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! No real focus, more ego driven then goal driven. Seems odd too, when you consider the big diff between captilism and fashism.. both had private ownership, but, under fashism there was supose to be more direction from the goverment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blakduk:
The more i read about Willi Messerchmidt, the more parrallels i see with other geniuses who developed groundbreaking technologies. They often become convinced THEY have the answer and become ever more firm in the belief they are ultimately right and wont take any criticism. Henry Ford was similar- he revolutionised the manufacturing industry but then became stuck and refused any further innovation, to the detriment of the company. While he refused to change, his competitors took his concepts further.
The Germans were the same- they revolutionised many facets, especially the use of aircraft in war, but then became blinded by their own dogma. The allies learned some very hard lessons early on, then came back far stronger to ultimately win. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In a nut shell that fit Carson assesment of willy too.

WTE_Ibis
04-08-2005, 01:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
God you're a pain in the behind Tagert. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I can not begin to tell you how much satisfaction I get knowing that I got to you so bad so long ago that you still hold such a grudge againts me! But, you really should let it go, your going to pop a gasket! And if that were to happen I wouldnt have you here to kick arond anymore in the future.. And we can not have that! Now, count to 10 and take a nap! It will do you a world of good! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

----------------------------------------------------

I don't hold a grudge old chap,sorry to disappoint you after you being satisfied and all.
Cheers, Ibis.

Kurfurst__
04-08-2005, 09:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
That seems like good reasoing, in light of the fact that after the war, when there was no pressure, some countrys that continued to use the 109 put bubble canopys on them. Even though some say you dont fix what aint broke.. Some clearly saw it as broken. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhum, and for the same reason they replaced their 'broken' 2000 HP DB 605D engines in those leftover G-10 airframes with some silly 1300 HP bomber engine from Junkers, that made it a pig. For the same reasons they started to put on all sort of canopies they could find after stores run out, from 190Ds, engines from Junkers bombers, gondola guns etc.

p1ngu666
04-08-2005, 09:33 AM
thats a malcom hood style canopy. imo thats better for view than other normal 109 canopies

TAGERT.
04-08-2005, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Uhum, and for the same reason they replaced their 'broken' 2000 HP DB 605D engines in those leftover G-10 airframes with some silly 1300 HP bomber engine from Junkers, that made it a pig. For the same reasons they started to put on all sort of canopies they could find after stores run out, from 190Ds, engines from Junkers bombers, gondola guns etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And the price of tea in china is what?

TAGERT.
04-08-2005, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
I don't hold a grudge old chap,sorry to disappoint you after you being satisfied and all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, good, would hate to see you go, I so enjoy pulling your chain from time to time!

Monty_Thrud
04-08-2005, 05:39 PM
What i dont understand is why he said the 109 was POOP, but the FW was fantastic...why did Germany come out with the Fw190...if the Bf109 was so good .Personally i think the Bf was a good aircraft, but not as good as it is in game...maybe oneday we'll truely find out, exactly how these wonderful machines performed...cause the bloody pilots arn't much help...but still the best CFS ever.

wayno7777
04-08-2005, 10:55 PM
Me309
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/wayno77/Me309-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/wayno77/Me309-5.jpg
Me209
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/wayno77/ME209-1.jpg

Fehler
04-09-2005, 03:00 AM
Adding a true "bubble" canopy would have been quite problematic. It would probably require a complete redesign of the tail assembly of the 109 to install a true bubble canopy, much like the changes the P-51 underwent.

Aerodynamics would change (Like it did in the P-51) and quite possibly the entire rudder section.

Now think of making those changes with an industrial machine that was *Stressed* to say the least, and the Galland Hood looks like a great compromise.

Oh, for the Willie haters out there, if he was such a bad aircraft designer, why was he allowed to put work into the Euro Fighter? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And for those people.. how many aircraft have you designed? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jasko76
04-09-2005, 04:07 AM
Willy Messerschmitt was involved in Eurofighter's development? I thought he was long dead!

As a designer, I'd put him in the same category as Sydney Camm, RJ Mitchell, Kurt Tank and Kelly Johnson.

carguy_
04-09-2005, 04:21 AM
Hmmm,Willi haters put up a picture of him being the author of one of the most unsuccsesful designs of WWII-the Me109.

Wonder why Me109 even managed to shoot down far more advanced designs as Spitfire or P51 heheh

woofiedog
04-09-2005, 06:19 AM
wayno7777... Excellent Photo's!
Thank's

TAGERT.
04-09-2005, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Adding a true "bubble" canopy would have been quite problematic. It would probably require a complete redesign of the tail assembly of the 109 to install a true bubble canopy, much like the changes the P-51 underwent.

Aerodynamics would change (Like it did in the P-51) and quite possibly the entire rudder section. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Now think of making those changes with an industrial machine that was *Stressed* to say the least, and the Galland Hood looks like a great compromise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yet, was it late 44 or early 44 that 109 production actully went up? Which kind of blows that *stress* theory.. But I digress.. Eitherway there are many reasons as to why it was not done, but at least you agree that it should have been done and not falling back on the "if it aint broke dont fix it" attitude (denile) as proof that it didnt need to be done.. And thank god your not trying to say that the galland hood provided a better view than the P51 or P47 bubble canopys like *some* were saying not too long ago.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Oh, for the Willie haters out there, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But? You just made the same observation that Carson did! So does that mean you HATE willie? Or just made an observation? As to why it was not done, there were surly many factors, some ego some economic, but at least you agree with Carson that it should have been done.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
if he was such a bad aircraft designer, why was he allowed to put work into the Euro Fighter? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Did he? Cool, didnt know that. Wonder why the US is not buying them? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
And for those people.. how many aircraft have you designed? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont know how many designs Carson worked on after the war? Hmmm Ill see what I can find out.

p1ngu666
04-09-2005, 12:32 PM
to troll slightly

yak got bubbleish canopy .... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

RedNeckerson
04-09-2005, 02:19 PM
Hey TARGET,

Here's a clue:

NOBODY LIKES YOU.

Agreed 100%!

LOL!

kthxbye.

wayno7777
04-09-2005, 03:00 PM
Np, woofiedog.

Fehler
04-09-2005, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Yet, was it late 44 or early 44 that 109 production actully went up? Which kind of blows that *stress* theory.. But I digress.. Eitherway there are many reasons as to why it was not done, but at least you agree that it should have been done and not falling back on the "if it aint broke dont fix it" attitude (denile) as proof that it didnt need to be done.. And thank god your not trying to say that the galland hood provided a better view than the P51 or P47 bubble canopys like *some* were saying not too long ago. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remember that thread. A lot of great pictures were posted in it (Too bad the search engine is blown http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif)

The pictures that were once posted in the forum are a bit deceiving, but from them I can only gather that the Galland Hood was a big improvement on earlier G model rear view. Better than the P-51? Well, I will leave that up to each person to decide that for himself (No way in my book).

If only I can find a FW190 to sit in.. I really want to see for myself about this bar business.. (Oops, said the B word)

Oh, the increase in production of Bf109's in 44 is also a bit deceiving. Production numbers were taken from aircraft assembled, but what about parts actually manufactured? From the G Model onwards there were only a handfull of design changes. Think of the immense effort it would take to retool for a completely new tail assembly, not just rework a section. Look at the P-51 for example, there was a lot of work done to the tail, and the plane had a very clean design originally! Now think of the Bf109's design and one can only imagine the aerodynamic problems that would have come with just inserting a bubble canopy.

Would it have been worth it to get say 5% better rearward viewing over the Galland hood? Obviously Messerschmitt didnt think so, and since the plane had fairly good success throughout the war, my guess is that the problems associated with redesign far outweighed the benefits. (But that is my opinion, and it could be wrong)

In my life I have had the opportunity to look in (Although not sit in) a Bf-109E, and actually sit in a P-51(Late model, but cant recall which 15 years later). I have to say the Bf109 is a small plane compared to the P51, (3 or 4 feet shorter and like 5-6 more narrow in the wing) and the cockpit is as well! I can only imagine how that would effect rear view as well, being strapped tightly into a pilot's chair, one in a confining cockpit, one in a more spacious ride. If these two were cars, the 109 would be a nice Porsche 911, the P-51 a Cadillac! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

No, I would have to say that anyone that has seen both of these birds side by side would immediately realize the bubble canopy of the P-51, combined with the larger interior is a huge improvement over the Bf109. I just think the Galland Hood was the *Best fix* they could come up with - a compromise of sorts.

Reworking the plane after the war? What was the use? The airframe had outlived it's usefulness in my opinion..

Aaron_GT
04-09-2005, 04:49 PM
"Yet, was it late 44 or early 44 that 109 production actully went up? Which kind of blows that *stress* theory.."

Not really, you could argue it supports it. It was considered that large numbers of a mid 1930s monoplane fighter design (109, same as the Spitfire and P36-40) were required, as evidenced by increasing numbers. Retooling for a bubble canopy in such a first generation design may have led to shortfalls compared to numbers required. In the meantime there was a second generation design (190) and first generation jets.

The same sort of thing happened in the West too with the likes of the P40 being continuing to be built. The West had the advantage in being able to choose the fight rather more after 1942 and of better production capacity allowing changes to be made and still produce sufficient numbers.

Aaron_GT
04-09-2005, 04:54 PM
Kurfurst:

The view from the Malcolm Hood was considered to be good for a WW2 plane, and some pilots felt it was superior to the teardrop hood on the P51D as it allowed more lateral movement to look past the armour (when not maneouvering).

With regards to the mirror on early Spitfires it made up for the poor rearview which was partly due to the turtledeck and partly due to the cramped cockpit conditions. Ihilst a teardrop of Malcolm or Galland Hood is good for rearward view when cruising under low G load as you can then turn your head it isn't much help when you are under high G. In that situation being able to quickly glance at a mirror to get a rearview is helpful. It's the same as in a car - you could turn your head and look behind and see out the car, but a mirror is a lot easier. There's a performance hit of course.

TAGERT.
04-09-2005, 05:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedNeckerson:
Hey TARGET,

Here's a clue:

NOBODY LIKES YOU.

Agreed 100%!

LOL!

kthxbye. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, some people do hate the truth! Thus, I guess it is a good thing that I dont care what you and yours thinks about me.

TAGERT.
04-09-2005, 06:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
I remember that thread. A lot of great pictures were posted in it (Too bad the search engine is blown http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif)
The pictures that were once posted in the forum are a bit deceiving, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A bit? LOL! Those drawings where comic at least! The selective zoom to pic the worst P47 view vs. the best zoom of the 109 view.. Not to mention the fact that the sim does not take into the account that you could LEAN and look around in the pit of the P47 and P51, where as in the 109 your could not. That is to say, what you *see* in the sim is about what you get in the 109.. Because you could not lean very far anyways, but, what you *see* in the sim relitive to the bubble P47 and P51 is FAR LESS that what you would get in RL!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
but from them I can only gather that the Galland Hood was a big improvement on earlier G model rear view. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:Better than the P-51? Well, I will leave that up to each person to decide that for himself (No way in my book). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nor my book.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
If only I can find a FW190 to sit in.. I really want to see for myself about this bar business.. (Oops, said the B word) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As would I like to sit in an early P47 with the bar down the center and not how it disapears as I look beyound it.. As with lean, limitations of the PC makes some things much harder than they were in real life.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Oh, the increase in production of Bf109's in 44 is also a bit deceiving. Production numbers were taken from aircraft assembled, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Whoops! My bad, we are only supose to bring up the fact that the 109 production number increased when we want to argue that the 8ths bombing campain had no effect on the outcome of the war.. But when making excusess for Willy we are supose to forget that and pretend that production was a problem! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
but what about parts actually manufactured? From the G Model onwards there were only a handfull of design changes. Think of the immense effort it would take to retool for a completely new tail assembly, not just rework a section. Look at the P-51 for example, there was a lot of work done to the tail, and the plane had a very clean design originally! Now think of the Bf109's design and one can only imagine the aerodynamic problems that would have come with just inserting a bubble canopy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont see it as being any harder than what they did with the 109K. Easy is a relitive word though, what might have been easy for P51 engineers may have been hard for 109 engineers? In light of the fact that they retooled for the 109K under some of the wosrt conditions during the war and still managed high production numbers.. You have to ask yourself why?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Would it have been worth it to get say 5% better rearward viewing over the Galland hood? Obviously Messerschmitt didnt think so, and since the plane had fairly good success throughout the war, my guess is that the problems associated with redesign far outweighed the benefits. (But that is my opinion, and it could be wrong) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope, that mind set seemed to be rampid at messer.. Sad thing was instead of making modificatins to improve it.. they just kept building what they had.. So build 100 of what you got, instead of 90 improved ones.. Sad part is at that time they only had more planes than compted pilots. Who knows how many died due the lack of that 5% improvment, only to be replaced by some younger pilot with 95% less experance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
In my life I have had the opportunity to look in (Although not sit in) a Bf-109E, and actually sit in a P-51(Late model, but cant recall which 15 years later). I have to say the Bf109 is a small plane compared to the P51, (3 or 4 feet shorter and like 5-6 more narrow in the wing) and the cockpit is as well! I can only imagine how that would effect rear view as well, being strapped tightly into a pilot's chair, one in a confining cockpit, one in a more spacious ride. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Funny.. your sounded more and more like Carson! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif People think Carson hated the 109 and Willy.. It was not hate of either but respect and being able to relate to the pilots that had to fly the 109.. He felt sorry for them, one pilot to another.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
If these two were cars, the 109 would be a nice Porsche 911, the P-51 a Cadillac! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not a bad analogy.. if your were to remove the glass from the back of the 911 and replace it with tin. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
No, I would have to say that anyone that has seen both of these birds side by side would immediately realize the bubble canopy of the P-51, combined with the larger interior is a huge improvement over the Bf109. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! But, to be honest, the P51 had to be, it had a differnt roll, it had to fly 6 hours to get to the fight to fend off other fighters.. The 109 only had to scramble, climb hard, take some shots at some bombers, land and have lunch.. about a hour round trip. You dont need a real pilot freindly plan when your only going to fly for about an hour.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
I just think the Galland Hood was the *Best fix* they could come up with - a compromise of sorts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Best they could do under the guidence of willy anyways. Because it was not some re-tooling fear and or production problems because they re-tooled alot for the 109K and had higher production. So, they could have re-tooled and had a little less production.. In light of the fact they had more planes than pilots.. it would have been a smart move imho.. But what would willy say to the big boss at the next party if he could not have bigger numbers than the last party. Dont blaim him really for not having the brass to stand up to the boss.. In the US had someone done that the worst thing is they would have lost a contract or two.. In Germany boss man hitler would have had you hung.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Reworking the plane after the war? What was the use? The airframe had outlived it's usefulness in my opinion.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True, for supper powers after the war.. But all the little 3rd world S holes, the 109 was 50 ahead of anything they had, so, why not do what you can do to improve that valiable asset and put a bubble canopy on it like they did in those pictures

TAGERT.
04-09-2005, 06:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"Yet, was it late 44 or early 44 that 109 production actully went up? Which kind of blows that *stress* theory.."

Not really, you could argue it supports it. It was considered that large numbers of a mid 1930s monoplane fighter design (109, same as the Spitfire and P36-40) were required, as evidenced by increasing numbers. Retooling for a bubble canopy in such a first generation design may have led to shortfalls compared to numbers required. In the meantime there was a second generation design (190) and first generation jets. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Seems to be the mind set, F the pilots! Sad part is, that higher production didnt do much good near the end, they had more planes than pilots. Had they changed the mindset a few years sooner who knows how many pilots might have survied due to a better rear view?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The same sort of thing happened in the West too with the likes of the P40 being continuing to be built. The West had the advantage in being able to choose the fight rather more after 1942 and of better production capacity allowing changes to be made and still produce sufficient numbers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>IMHO, Germany would have stood a better chance producing a little less and providing more for the TRULLY LIMITED SUPPLY OF PILOTS!

RedNeckerson
04-09-2005, 07:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Roger, some people do hate the truth! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


AGREED 100%! LOL!

BTW, who is Roger? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Abbuzze
04-10-2005, 07:24 AM
What about a real bubble canopy at a 109??
Ok If we already starting to change something give it a radial too! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.afwing.com/intro/Me109/v21.jpg

zlin
04-10-2005, 10:14 AM
Hi Tagert http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif I just hope you are not serious with your "little 3rd. world S holes" do you realy think, that let say CZECHOSLOVAKIA before Hitler took over have been little 3rd. world S hole http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif . Unfortunately Czechoslovakia have been huge target for Hitlers industrial and factory producing with a lot of resources. Look what have been left all over Europe , many has to start from scratch all over again . Quite insult to many from you BTW take better look at history http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

TAGERT.
04-10-2005, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zlin:
Hi Tagert http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif I just hope you are not serious with your "little 3rd. world S holes" do you realy think, that let say CZECHOSLOVAKIA before Hitler took over have been little 3rd. world S hole http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif . Unfortunately Czechoslovakia have been huge target for Hitlers industrial and factory producing with a lot of resources. Look what have been left all over Europe , many has to start from scratch all over again . Quite insult to many from you BTW take better look at history http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey zlin.. I personally dont know what the criteria a country has to meet to be considered a 3rd world country, I dont set those definitions, my only ponit is that after the war, things that were considered obsolet to the super powers were consited top of the line to *lesser that super-power* countrys, where 3rd world S hole would be the least of the lesser! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

zlin
04-10-2005, 10:47 AM
Hi Tagert http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Between 1918 -1938 Czechoslovakia under presidency of T.G.Masaryk has been on of the most prosperous country in Europe with their economic ,industry and also in science and technology. Hitler changed course of many countries and they had to start from whatever has been left including those bf 109 unless you
could have financing new development in country with many places reduced to rumble. It is like you stole money from me and then you tellin' me that i'm stupid ,poor, nobody http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Please don't blame so called "3rd world countries" they helped (with no other choice) a lot to keep Luftwafle in the air http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

TAGERT.
04-10-2005, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zlin:
Hi Tagert http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Between 1918 -1938 Czechoslovakia under presidency of T.G.Masaryk has been on of the most prosperous country in Europe with their economic, industry and also in science and technology. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zlin:
Hitler changed course of many countries and they had to start from whatever has been left including those bf 109 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As did many

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zlin:
unless you could have financing new development in country with many places reduced to rumble. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is what Im saying.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zlin:
It is like you stole money from me and then you tellin' me that i'm stupid ,poor, nobody http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Me? As you pointed out, You got Germany to thank for that.. And then the USSR.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zlin:
Please don't blame so called "3rd world countries" they helped (with no other choice) a lot to keep Luftwafle in the air http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not blaiming them, just pointed out that a country in that state would consider the 109 top of the line.

zlin
04-10-2005, 12:19 PM
Hello Tagert http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Top of the line ? Maybe for some , but still we cannot forget that their (many 3rd. countries) have been stopped in their airpower development for years to come and before the War they have been building many good planes and projects. It's more about this "3rd. world S holes" you used.
Life can be so unfair to some

TAGERT.
04-10-2005, 01:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zlin:
Hello Tagert http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey Zlin, how's it hangin?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zlin:
Top of the line ? Maybe for some , <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, I think for all.. All that meet the 3rd world S hole definition that is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zlin:
but still we cannot forget that their (many 3rd. countries) have been stopped in their airpower development for years to come <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What ever the reason, if they meet the 3rd world S hole definition I think it is safe to say they would consider the 109 top of the line in 1946 and for many years to follow.. In that they did not have nor could they make anything better.. for what ever reason.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zlin:
and before the War they have been building many good planes and projects. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well before does not mater much really imho. In that we are talking about the 109 after the war and the state of the countrys that used them after the war.. The state of those countrys before the war and today does not change the state of them at that time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zlin:
It's more about this "3rd. world S holes" you used. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To you maybe, and your reaching pretty hard to make it something it is not. Put away your "what if" and your "time machine" and consider the statement for what it was relitive to the actully time and it holds up well.. A country, FOR WHAT EVER REASON, that was of 3rd world S hole class at the end of WWII would consider the 109 a great modern plane to have in thier air force.. Where as the USA, USSR, UK, (aka Allieds) would not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zlin:
Life can be so unfair to some <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%!

zlin
04-10-2005, 01:39 PM
Hey Tagert how ya doin' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

Whatewer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif . Hope that someone else will shred more light in to this discussion, I for now goin' to gave up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

TAGERT.
04-10-2005, 02:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zlin:
Hey Tagert how ya doin' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Same Ol, Same Ol, and you?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zlin:
Whatewer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zlin:
Hope that someone else will shred more light in to this discussion, I for now goin' to gave up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You Nice?

zlin
04-10-2005, 02:57 PM
Hello TAGERT , i'm cool http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif but I just can't resist to ask you how's the weather in neighborhood ?


http://images5.theimagehosting.com/tzr29663.gif (http://www.theimagehosting.com)

Kurfurst__
04-10-2005, 03:09 PM
Hate to step in as a voice of reason when you all get along so nicely... but here are a few good shots on the visibility of the new Erla canopy of the later 109s (used from 1943 onwards). I think they make a good case why they probably felt a bubble canopy would not give enough practical advantage to justify a redesign.

The first one is taken in some finnish museum, and shows the pilot`s rearview to the 5 o clock region. Notice that you can see most of the horizontal stabiliser of your own plane. Also notice this is the view that is provided just peeking back at the sides of the transparaent head armor, not taking advantage extra angle provided by looking through the rear armor glass.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1113166942_resizeof123-2364_img.jpg

Here`s the canopy itself, view from the rear.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1113167131_26-bf109g_610937_evergreen_rds0026.jpg

p1ngu666
04-10-2005, 04:01 PM
i never liked the hinged hood tbh, much rather have hood on a slider.

maybe thats why czech one has blown canopeee and sliderness.

czech and other places, there not "3rd world" they just arent as "rich" as some other places, this isnt always a bad thing...

czech stuff is cool http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

blakduk
04-10-2005, 06:21 PM
Nice pics Kurfurst!
Have you got any other angles of that canopy?
Its interesting to see the transparent armour- i've never the seen it in real life. As a rule i tend not to trust photos from in the canopy to give an indication of the vision that's possible- too many factors can unduly influence the impression. For example the use of wide-angle lenses, aperture, even a narrow deviation from the actual line-of-sight can grossly misrepresent. Its the same reason i never trust 'before and after' pictures in magazines telling me how gorgeous i can look if i go on a diet.
I agree with p1ngu666 about the hinge, they are a real pain in the a*se. Its much more convenient to use a slider.
I also agree with him about Czech stuff- they made great speedway bikes (the Jawa's are scary beasts to ride), and the women are stunning (except Zsa Zsa Gabor!), although their beer is a little disapointing.

TAGERT.
04-10-2005, 09:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zlin:
Hello TAGERT , i'm cool http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's cool!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zlin:
but I just can't resist to ask you how's the weather in neighborhood ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Today, it was very nice, not too hot, not too cold, worked a little on the lanw and cleaned some of my guns, and finished my taxes

PS thanks for the picture! Do you have it in color? I would love to be able to see my house!

TAGERT.
04-10-2005, 09:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Hate to step in as a voice of reason <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFLMAO!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
when you all get along so nicely... but here are a few good shots on the visibility of the new Erla canopy of the later 109s (used from 1943 onwards). I think they make a good case why they probably felt a bubble canopy would not give enough practical advantage to justify a redesign.

The first one is taken in some finnish museum, and shows the pilot`s rearview to the 5 o clock region. Notice that you can see most of the horizontal stabiliser of your own plane. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Than Think again.

Easy to lean with all that room
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/P51/buldge.jpg

So much room you can put a mirror on the inside
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/P51/collins1.jpg

And in color
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/P51/dusty3.jpg

And just encase your not convinced, this guy could not only see the tips of the elevators but the rudder too
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/P51/P51DView.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Also notice this is the view that is provided just peeking back at the _sides_ of the transparaent head armor, not taking advantage extra angle provided by looking through the rear armor glass. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, so your saing they could look straight back threw the head rest.. What kind of circus acts did they have flying these planes? Rubber men?

BEFOR
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/nonrubbernecker.jpg
AFTER
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/rubbernecker.jpg

p1ngu666
04-10-2005, 09:58 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif! @ longnecked 109 driver

and yes, czech woman are HOT. i knew two, and daaaamn they was fine.

iirec hitler hated slav's. never saw czech and slav woman http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

he also, on a slightly more amusing note, thought slav's and communism was very dangerous http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

woofiedog
04-11-2005, 01:56 AM
TAGERT... Nice Shots, I like the last one!
Thank's

Grendel-B
04-11-2005, 02:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Oh, for the Willie haters out there, if he was such a bad aircraft designer, why was he allowed to put work into the Euro Fighter? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And for those people.. how many aircraft have you designed? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about Eurofighter, but Willy and his company was deeply involved with the production of Fiat G.91R3, in development and production of the F-104G, production of various Luftwaffe/NATO helicopters and airplanes, Phantom II production and Tornado production. Messerschmitt's Manching factory built 357 Tornados by 1991 and the historical Messerschmitt Augsburg factory produced 929 Tornado fuselages. His post war designs included Me 300 (Ha 300) supersonic jet fighter designed for Spain/Egypt and the world's first VTOL fighter plane VJ 101, which made first flight on 10th April 1963. The plane flew 132 test flights.

What you mean, I think, was how Messerschmitt's company, now Messerschmitt-B¶lkow-Blohm was/is deeply involved with Airbus and Eurofighter designs and developments.

It IS interesting, however, how mr. Messerschmitt was still involved with the designs until the end of his life. I real engineer, wonderfully talented man, whose creations were not only related to aerial warfare but to civilian life inventions as well. The Messerschmitt houses in the 50s, for rebuilding of Germany, were quite interestinging http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

zlin
04-11-2005, 07:14 AM
Hi TAGERT http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Nice pictures http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
I read somewhere in history book about the ace pilot in last picture http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif he used to teach yoga before war.

ps: don't have other pictures in color or bigger so you can see your house http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif