PDA

View Full Version : Anybody Know Something About this Me-109???



woofiedog
07-11-2007, 11:55 PM
http://pds2.egloos.com/pds/1/200603/26/87/b0038887_11582086.jpg

http://pds1.egloos.com/pds/1/200603/26/87/b0038887_11582915.jpg

And why didn't they go into production with this canopy design with all following models of the Me-109???

Akronnick
07-12-2007, 12:28 AM
Because Kurt Tank threatened to sue for tradmark infringement?

slo_1_2_3
07-12-2007, 01:00 AM
it looks very japanese to me

leitmotiv
07-12-2007, 01:07 AM
I've never seen that creature in 40 odd years of 109 exploring. Stumped completely. It is a fraud.

Ratsack
07-12-2007, 01:21 AM
It's for real. Another shot of it was posted here not very long ago. It looks like a good idea.

I have no idea why they didn't go with that canopy, though.

cheers,
Ratsack

Waldo.Pepper
07-12-2007, 01:23 AM
This crops up every once in a while. Here, read and learn.

http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Etozu/me109/index.htm

Click on family tree then on 109X

Feathered_IV
07-12-2007, 01:28 AM
109X? Why did Oleg skip this one and go straight for the Z? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Manu-6S
07-12-2007, 01:35 AM
Anyway it's awful... it's like a little Jug.

woofiedog
07-12-2007, 01:49 AM
Me109X-0 (1940) ; The second radial engined 109 was a modified F-1 airframe, fitted with a fuselage similar to the V-21 with the BMW 139 engine. The Me-109X used the BMW 801 however. The aircraft flew in September 1940 and was tested by the RLM. The RLM decided however that the FW-190 was performing well and that there was no need for a similar powered fighter. Therefore the program was ended in 1941.

Akronnick... Very close! LoL

Waldo.Pepper... Thank's for the info and link. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Still amazed that they did not continue with the canopy style over the regular 109 canopy that blocks your rear view even with the Galland Hood that came out with the G-14 model.

Another 109 Link: http://jg26.proboards32.com/index.cgi?action=display&bo...06&page=1#1160396206 (http://jg26.proboards32.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=ojfocus&thread=1142355306&page=1#1160396206)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v735/KG26Oranje/Luftwaffe-Axis/Me-109X.jpg

JG53Frankyboy
07-12-2007, 02:13 AM
i also wondering every time why the didnt use this canopy for later versions - espacially with the higher rudder.............
propably production reasons , the changes would reduce the amount, even if only for a short time.

ake109
07-12-2007, 02:17 AM
The second pic looks very much like a Hayabusa or Hayate.

K_Freddie
07-12-2007, 02:26 AM
It looks like a KI with a FW engine and wings with an ME fuselage. Judging by the KI's performance this plane might have eclipsed both FW190 and ME109's had they developed it further.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

woofiedog
07-12-2007, 06:08 AM
JG53Frankyboy... this canopy with 360 degree viewing would have save a few pilots for the Luftwaffe ranks. That blind rear spot of the Me-109 is a killer.

ake109... or a bit like the J-22 Swedish fighter.

http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/Jakt/113J22_113-1358.jpg

Kurfurst__
07-12-2007, 06:42 AM
It's amazing that there appears to be no engine/weapon/airframe combination that Willy hadn't drawn up at least a few sketches on... you keep finding new ones all the time.

There was some info on this 109/801 project on LEMB a while ago. http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=2730

p-11.cAce
07-12-2007, 07:23 AM
That blind rear spot of the Me-109 is a killer.
SO is not having a nice thick slab of armor between your head and the bullets from the guy behind you.

The Messerschmitt Bf 109E-4 introduced a more angular cockpit with an armoured windscreen and an angled armour plate behind the pilot's head. The 8 mm armour plate was also retrofitted to older models. The later G-model introduced a cockpit canopy with even more armour and a 90 mm thick windscreen. The heavily framed and armoured Bf 109 canopies were criticised for restricting the view of the pilot, but they offered good protection.

luftluuver
07-12-2007, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by woofiedog:
Me109X-0 (1940) ; The second radial engined 109 was a modified F-1 airframe, fitted with a fuselage similar to the V-21 with the BMW 139 engine. The Me-109X used the BMW 801 however. The aircraft flew in September 1940 and was tested by the RLM. The RLM decided however that the FW-190 was performing well and that there was no need for a similar powered fighter. Therefore the program was ended in 1941. A P&W Twin WAsp was the first engine installed in the a/c.

The 1st flight with a known date was Aug 18 1939 (Augsburg) with Dr Wurster and F Wendel each flying. The 1st flight of the 801 powered a/c was Sept 2 1940.


i also wondering every time why the didnt use this canopy for later versions - espacially with the higher rudder.............
propably production reasons , the changes would reduce the amount, even if only for a short time. From what I understand, Mtt was very slow to incorperate any changes in its a/c. Still it would have saved many LW pilots lives, dispite a claim I read here in an old post that the 'regular' 109 allowed great 360* vision for the pilot.

Hawgdog
07-12-2007, 07:30 AM
Maybe if we whine and complain non-stop for 6 weeks, with charts, graphs and more photos, it will be in the 1947 add-on!

woofiedog
07-12-2007, 07:56 AM
luftluuver... There is nothing better than the sound of one of those Pratt&Whitney powered Fw-190! LoL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

p-11.cAce... I agree about the armor plate... but other Bubble Top fighters had armor plate also.

Armor plate of the P-47N can be seen below.

http://www.aviation-history.com/republic/p47-10.jpg

Hawgdog... You did mind if instead of whining... I just grab a bottle of Bakers Bourbon and wait it out for the "1950" release. It should be ready for my retirement in a year and a 1/2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hawgdog
07-12-2007, 07:58 AM
LOL, 1950....no doubt a BoB add-on

luftluuver
07-12-2007, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by woofiedog:
luftluuver... There is nothing better than the sound of one of those Pratt&Whitney powered Fw-190! LoL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif I thought it was a Russian engine they used. Off to search.

JG53Frankyboy
07-12-2007, 08:15 AM
yes, the Flugwerk Fw190 has a chinese build Ash-82FN , the engine that is also in the La-5FN

darksky1986
07-12-2007, 09:40 AM
Cool, looks like a cross between a Hellcat and a Zero - would never have guessed at it being a 109 though.

StG2_Schlachter
07-12-2007, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
yes, the Flugwerk Fw190 has a chinese build Ash-82FN , the engine that is also in the La-5FN

And the Engine which was very similar, if not a copy of the BW801. That's what I heared. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Vike
07-12-2007, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
i also wondering every time why the didnt use this canopy for later versions - espacially with the higher rudder.............
propably production reasons , the changes would reduce the amount, even if only for a short time.

The reasons are quite numerous and relevant http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif,see below:

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

Found in AAW forum sometimes ago. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

It's a compromise between speed,visibilty and survivability.
I quite agree with it,as Speed is life...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

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

I prefer keeping going fast with my head behind some metal with a slight decrease of visibility rather than exposing my head to enemy bullets! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

BTW,I wonder how long would last a P51D pilot head in a battle with an unfavourable ratio of 1 versus 10 till 60 enemies.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

@+

R_Target
07-12-2007, 10:32 AM
The radial 109 reminds me of a Shoki for some reason.

woofiedog
07-12-2007, 01:03 PM
JG53Frankyboy... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

In the 1930s, BMW took out a license to build the Pratt & Whitney Hornet engines. By the mid-30s they had introduced an improved version, the BMW 132.

Also... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

At the time, use of radial engines was unusual in Europe because of their large frontal area and the belief that they caused too much drag to allow for a competitive design. Tank was not convinced of this, having witnessed the success of the Pratt & Whitney Wasp radial engines used by the US Navy, and designed a highly streamlined mounting for the engine.

Like I stated... There is nothing like the sound of those Pratt & Whitney powered Fw-190's! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Vike... Seeing the Enemy before they see you is Life! LoL

You still can't see out the back of the Bf-109 and there is just as Good piece of armor plate behind your head in the P-47 pictured here and you can see out the back.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/5/5a/650px-1P-47N_sx_146_by_Giovanni_Paulli.jpg

luftluuver
07-12-2007, 01:15 PM
woofiedog, just another one who thinks the 109 was the greatest fighter ever produced. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The Spit had a jettison lever that would get rid of the canopy just like on the 109. Trouble was the 109 had canopy jettison problems which are documented.

berg417448
07-12-2007, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Vike:
\\
I prefer keeping going fast with my head behind some metal with a slight decrease of visibility rather than exposing my head to enemy bullets! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif


So...are you saying Willy got it wrong on the Me-262? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

woofiedog
07-12-2007, 01:31 PM
luftluuver... I'll raise a glass or two to that! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Quote...

Closer examination reveals a crazy-looking, knock-kneed undercarriage, a very heavily framed, sideways-opening canopy.

Directly above this and in line with the canopy seal is the red hood-jettison lever. Pulling this releases two very strong springs in the rear part of the canopy and causes the rear section to come loose

If you are any bigger than me (six feet tall), it all starts to get a bit confined. Once you are strapped in and comfortable, close the canopy to check your seating position. If you haven't flown the 109 before, you usually get a clout on the head as you swing the heavy lid over and down.

I'm sitting as high as I can, and my head is touching the canopy. I am not wearing goggles, as they scratch and catch the hood if they are up on your head. A large bone dome is out of the question and, in my opinion, is a flight-safety hazard in this aircraft.

leitmotiv
07-12-2007, 03:00 PM
I forgot all about this Willi projekt---huge custard pie in my face. What a pig it was! What an aesthetic nightmare! Whomever drew up the plans for this squalid thing let down the side badly. Kurt Tank must have been laughing his head off when he saw this. Looks like a 109E nine months preggers by an XB-15!

leitmotiv
07-12-2007, 03:17 PM
I am a 6'4" American, and my inclinations, naturally, are towards the P-47, the Hellcat, and the Corsair, but, especially, the great beast Thunderbolt . I was offered an opportunity to sit in the Shuttleworth Spitfire VC, and I tried, and I failed, and I am lightly framed, not a bruiser like Boyington---he probably could not have got one leg in the airplane. However, I understand the Italian, German, and British inclination toward sports models exemplified by the Macchis, Fiats, Messerschmitts, Focke-Wulfs, and Supermarines. Note: the British have a contrary traditon provided by the the Hawker Typhoon, Tempest, and Fury, by the way.

Grand_Armee
07-12-2007, 04:10 PM
"Still amazed that they did not continue with the canopy style over the regular 109 canopy that blocks your rear view even with the Galland Hood that came out with the G-14 model."

Woofiedog,
There were attempts made by Messerschmidt to replace the ageing bf-109 with a 209 or a 309 model. The 309 actually has the bubble canopy. I've never seen a picture of the 209.

However, the 309's performance improvements weren't considered good enough by the RLM to warrant replacement.

When it came to aircraft, both Goering and Hitler preferred mass to quality. Complete replacement of the Ju-88 night-fighter by the fantastic He-219 Uhu was disallowed because of man-hours of production for the 219 was so much higher than the Ju.

As for changing the bf-109 to a bubble-hooded configuration, you have to remember that the fuel cell was a large L-shaped tank directly behind the pilot.

....so, you'd be building a new plane entirely

Vike
07-12-2007, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
So...are you saying Willy got it wrong on the Me-262? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I didn't know Me262 jets had to dogfight with P51/47s... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
One desgin,one purpose. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif


Originally posted by woofiedog :
Vike... Seeing the Enemy before they see you is Life! LoL

Erla haub canopy is sufficient for that IMHO,lol.


Originally posted by luftluuver :
woofiedog, just another one who thinks the 109 was the greatest fighter ever produced.

For sure it was a bad design,so bad that the highest scoring Aces of the world were flying P51/47 during WWII,it is a well known fact indeed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

@+

VW-IceFire
07-12-2007, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Note: the British have a contrary traditon provided by the the Hawker Typhoon, Tempest, and Fury, by the way.
I think the RAF and Hawker managed to get away with that contrary tradition because fighters were considered unimportant in the 1930s and that bombers were the real future so the Hurricane and Spitfire were allowed to develop on their own and by the time fighters were recognized as being important the Typhoon and the later Spitfires were already being developed and there was nothing that the official opinion from the upper ranks could do about them... plus there was a war on.

If they had paid more attention to the fighters than bombers then perhaps we would have seen all large British fighters or all small British fighters.

luftluuver
07-12-2007, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Vike:
For sure it was a bad design,so bad that the highest scoring Aces of the world were flying P51/47 during WWII,it is a well known fact indeed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif@+ Who said it was a bad design? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Put your German aces in any other fighter and they would have still would have been aces, and might have had even higher scores.

Anyways, not hard to have high scores when you fly 5-15 times as many mission.

luftluuver
07-12-2007, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Grand_Armee:
When it came to aircraft, both Goering and Hitler preferred mass to quality. Complete replacement of the Ju-88 night-fighter by the fantastic He-219 Uhu was disallowed because of man-hours of production for the 219 was so much higher than the Ju.

As for changing the bf-109 to a bubble-hooded configuration, you have to remember that the fuel cell was a large L-shaped tank directly behind the pilot.

....so, you'd be building a new plane entirely German NF pilots did not think the 219 was that great an improvement, if any, over their Ju88s. In fact, iirc, NJG1 refused to fly it.

The same size fuel tank still would not have been a problem with a cutdown fuselage. It was no higher than the back of the pilot's seat.

Ratsack
07-12-2007, 08:08 PM
Does anybody have anything on the performance of the BMW 801 powered version?

It looks to me to be a sensible idea. If you could marry the 1,600 hp of the BMW 801 to the Bf 109 airframe in 1940/41, I would expect a nasty little low altitude beast. The increase in weight would probably make it something of a ******* on landing, and decrease its turning performance. But on the other side of the ledger, you'd expect it to be faster, and the improved power loading might offset the higher wingloading to some extent.

I'd be interested to see some data for this animal.

cheers,
Ratsack

Waldo.Pepper
07-12-2007, 08:32 PM
Allow me to introduce another possibility in to the "why did they never adopt a bubble canopy" discussion.

I expect because they didn't need it.

The pilots who's opinion would have been asked had hundreds perhaps thousands of hours on the type and had developed their skill with the Bf to such an extent that the bubble canopies advantages would not be worth the disruption of production.

I can imagine the discussion.

Q. What do you think, 100 kill ace. Should we mount a bubble on the next production block of the Bf-109?

A. "What for? The visibility is poor but it is easily compensated for. Turn your head as far as you can... wiggle the rudder pedal... There I can see perfectly to the rear. It is fine! We don't need a bubble canopy. What we need is even more of the same plane. Do everything you can to increase production.'

But if they had asked a sprog pilot right out of school with under five hours on the Bf-109. I expect that due to his lack of hours he may agree with the Allied pilots who flew the Bf when they evaluated it - when they said that it was claustrophobic and had horrible view to the rear. (In other directions as well.)

It is all in how you look at it.

Daiichidoku
07-12-2007, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Allow me to introduce another possibility in to the "why did they never adopt a bubble canopy" discussion........................................ ..........It is all in how you look at it.

+1



i think it was also practical, as the normal 'skinny' DB-109 would likely not fit the dimensions of the new canopy

the larger fuselage accomidates its nicely

i wouldnt be surprised if the case would be as the jug and mustang, a 'bubble' on a 109 would result in less stability, viz lost keel area

the 109X perhaps, from its apparantly larger fuselage cross section makes up for the area lsot behind the old pit, giving it acceptable stability?

Vike
07-13-2007, 12:49 AM
Waldo and Daichidoku,i quite agree with your statements http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@+

Ratsack
07-13-2007, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Does anybody have anything on the performance of the BMW 801 powered version?

It looks to me to be a sensible idea. If you could marry the 1,600 hp of the BMW 801 to the Bf 109 airframe in 1940/41, I would expect a nasty little low altitude beast. The increase in weight would probably make it something of a ******* on landing, and decrease its turning performance. But on the other side of the ledger, you'd expect it to be faster, and the improved power loading might offset the higher wingloading to some extent.

I'd be interested to see some data for this animal.

cheers,
Ratsack

Anybody?

Ratsack

mynameisroland
07-13-2007, 03:11 AM
Ratsack the main delay in the introduction of the Fw 190 in to service was getting the BMW 801 to work reliably. The Fw 190 was in squadrons as early as it could be - so that means that the little Bf 109 hybrid wouldnt arrive any earlier and as said in the history of that plane the Fw 190 was better peforming anyway so why waste the effort of placing the Bf 109 in to production? A BMW 132 version might have arrived earlier but then you'd arguably be better off having a BMW 132 powered Fw 190 in service in 40/41 as it was designed for the engine from the beginning.

Its kind of like the Jumo 213 engined Bf 109. Was it good ? Yes. But the Fw 190 D9 was better so they scrapped it too.

mynameisroland
07-13-2007, 03:16 AM
This whole argument about whether having good rear visibility was preferable to having bad rear visibility is stupid.

Bubble canopies are obviously better. Visibility is life, especially when you dont have any rear warning radar and when flying against bad odds visibility becomes even more important.

The argument that having a conventional 'razor back' hood/fuselage layout is preferable is nonsense. Surely Allied forces could better afford to have no dead 6 visibility because there were more of them ? Why did they make the effort to get the bubble hood in to production?

Also that the Bf 109 is too small doesnt stand up to scrutiny. The Yak series and the Spitfires both developed workable bubble canopys and they had small narrow fuselages too.

Im afraid to say it but this is just more manical Bf 109 patronage than a real discussion from logical view points.

Kurfurst__
07-13-2007, 04:57 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
I expect that due to his lack of hours he may agree with the Allied pilots who flew the Bf when they evaluated it - when they said that it was claustrophobic and had horrible view to the rear. (In other directions as well.)

I don't think any 109 tested by the Allies from the commonly known reports had the transparent Galland Panzer behind his head, even though it was in use from the spring of 1943. Visibility was just fine with that, as was with the early 109s up to mid-1940 which lacked the steel armored headrest.

And yup, razorback is preferable from the aerodynamic POV. Less drag, more stability. It's not as good for the view, but then they probably decided it's already satisafactory and it doens't worth to disrupt production.

Pilot safety is also a factor. Cut down fuselages are death sentence for the pilot of the a/c turns over, there's nothing to support the aircraft lying on it's back.

Ratsack
07-13-2007, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Ratsack the main delay in the introduction of the Fw 190 in to service was getting the BMW 801 to work reliably. The Fw 190 was in squadrons as early as it could be - so that means that the little Bf 109 hybrid wouldnt arrive any earlier and as said in the history of that plane the Fw 190 was better peforming anyway so why waste the effort of placing the Bf 109 in to production? ....

Yep, I know that they had over heating problems with the BMW 801 until the end of 1941 / beginnig of 42, so I'm not arguing this type was better than the Fw 190.

In fact, I'm not arguing any position at all.

I'm merely asking if anybody knows what the performance of this little monster was. To my eye, it looks interesting, and it also seems a good idea. If the Fw 190 had proved disappointing for other reasons than the motor, this thing might have seen the light of day.

cheers,
Ratsack

Abbuzze
07-13-2007, 05:41 AM
This version of the 109 was unstable, a result of the big engine and also the bubble canopy. Like the bulges of the MG131 a bubble canopy cost a few MPH/kmph, because it disturbs the aerodynamic.

A lot of people "complaining" about the increasing drag of later 109´s so this kind of canopy would made it even worse. The late Galland hood was a good compromise between speed and backward view. Without the need of a big redesign.

Daiichidoku
07-13-2007, 06:04 AM
Also that the Bf 109 is too small doesnt stand up to scrutiny. The Yak series and the Spitfires both developed workable bubble canopys and they had small narrow fuselages too

perhaps thier internal structure allowed for this, and the 109 didnt

up in theair (no pun) until someone does a study of all 3

Polyperhon
07-13-2007, 08:17 AM
First of all, I need to make something clear...the fact that was called 109X doesn't make it a 109 by itself.Ok it has enough family resemblence to be one of the 9s family (like 209,309,209 II) but in fact is so different that it is essentially a new plane.In reality very little parts should have been similar with the Bf 109.My guess is that thety tried to use the same number because they wanted to pass it yest another version of the known liquid-cooled plane, so it can get easier a production order.It's possible that when Willy understood that it was inferior than kurt's design, he played his cards on the supposed similarity of the two designs.
And yes this applies on the dispute about the canopy.In the Spit the "0" shape made things easier but in the 109 Willy designed it trying to get out the most possible advantages of the such a canopy arrangement.It's not just a fashion between the desingers.If is done properly it can reduce greatly the fitness ratio.The problem is although many tried to make it work properly, only in 2 planes it was desinged correctly:In the Bf 109 and in the P-51.
At the ends depends on the plane.In the spitfire and the LaGG-3 (and flying with an open canopy ridiculed the whole idea) the gains were marginal and it was silly in the P-47 and Yak-1.When you design something you look all the factors and you decide what is the best option for each particular case.As the war progressed all the designers made the sufficient changes where these were needed.In the case of the Bf 109 I think that it was a combination of substantial design alterations and superior drag that didn't make that idea appealing, and I think for a good reason.The case of the P-51 between "malcom" hood and bubbletop is interesting too.I think that the drop in performance was justified,but was a very close call.I can note only 2 cases that I wonder about the designer's choices,both american:The razorback fixation with the F6F and the car-like door in the P-63.Both don't make any sense to me.

luftluuver
07-13-2007, 11:00 AM
[/QUOTE]It was a regular 109 that from Frame 7 forward was modified to accept a radial engine. Some changes were made to the wing-fuselage junction due to the new forward fuselage.

There was hardly any change in the performance between a razorback anf bubble Pony. And what there was, was due to different engines being fitted.

Daiichidoku
07-13-2007, 11:24 AM
didnt the bubble Ds "suffer" from lift generated by its semi-airfoil shape of the canopy, in addition to the stability probs?

(i think Jug was the same with its bubbles)

Abbuzze
07-13-2007, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:

There was hardly any change in the performance between a razorback anf bubble Pony. And what there was, was due to different engines being fitted.

Are you sure about this? IRC the Razorback was the fastest version, with about 706km/h and the bubble versions with around 695km/h. Not much in but similar to the difference of 7.92 and 13mm equiped 109.

woofiedog
07-13-2007, 01:16 PM
Daiichidoku...

The early "bubble-canopy" Thunderbolts had suffered from some directional instability as a result of the loss of aft keel area. From the P-47D-27-RE production lots onward, a dorsal fin was fitted just ahead of the rudder. This innovation successfully restored the stability.

luftluuver
07-13-2007, 02:12 PM
Both the P-51B/C and P-47B/C suffered directional stability and both had fin fillets aded like on the D models.

luftluuver
07-13-2007, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Are you sure about this? IRC the Razorback was the fastest version, with about 706km/h and the bubble versions with around 695km/h. Not much in but similar to the difference of 7.92 and 13mm equiped 109. That is within the 5% tolerance for new a/c.

Daiichidoku
07-13-2007, 03:20 PM
i know about the stability isues, guys (tx anyhow)

i was interested in anyone knowing anythgin of the teardrop canopies generating lift

and just how much, if there are any figures floatin about, would be bonus

MEGILE
07-13-2007, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Pilot safety is also a factor. Cut down fuselages are death sentence for the pilot of the a/c turns over, there's nothing to support the aircraft lying on it's back.

The 109 had this problem even without cutdown rear.

Abbuzze
07-14-2007, 03:16 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 Abbuzze:
Are you sure about this? IRC the Razorback was the fastest version, with about 706km/h and the bubble versions with around 695km/h. Not much in but similar to the difference of 7.92 and 13mm equiped 109. That is within the 5% tolerance for new a/c. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, no doubt about this, I will quote you the next time someone complains about the inefficenc of the 109 because of the bulges http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

To be serious, of course the difference is not big, but we have to calculate the +/- 5% tolerance from 695 or 706 km/h. The tolerance for a battle used fighter is even higher.

We are talking in this forum about perfect planes. If we start to take tolerances into this discussions... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif 5% is a lot.

luftluuver
07-14-2007, 07:15 AM
There was hardly any change in the performance between a razorback and bubble Pony. Do you have trouble with the word hardly?

From your numbers, there was only a 1.5% difference or in other words, hardly any change.

Abbuzze
07-14-2007, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There was hardly any change in the performance between a razorback and bubble Pony. Do you have trouble with the word hardly?

From your numbers, there was only a 1.5% difference or in other words, hardly any change. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry I´m not a native english - so yes, such nuances in the english language are not allways apperant for me, or I simply don´t notice them, when reading it the first time.
I don´t want to offend you in any way. Sorry if you felt shirty.

Kurfurst__
07-14-2007, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Pilot safety is also a factor. Cut down fuselages are death sentence for the pilot of the a/c turns over, there's nothing to support the aircraft lying on it's back.

The 109 had this problem even without cutdown rear. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, sure, Megile, whatever your infinitive powers of fantasy can support. Yet, pilots survived all sort of extremeties in that heavy framed canopy. I have one instance where one guy survived a taxying accident involving one 109 chopping another 109's cocpit with it's propellor blades. Guy got out without scratch.

The 109 had this problem with the pilot sometimes being stuck in the cocpit if the aircraft nosed over and it was difficult to get him out - therefore standard procedure was to jettison canopy before emergency landings, outlined in the manual. In bubble top cocpits there was no need to hasten rescuing the pilot from turnover plane, he would be already dead, the aircraft crushing on him.

luftluuver
07-14-2007, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Sorry I´m not a native english - so yes, such nuances in the english language are not allways apperant for me, or I simply don´t notice them, when reading it the first time.
I don´t want to offend you in any way. Sorry if you felt shirty. NP Abbuzze. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif (no beer smilie or I would have used it)

'shirty'??

Blutarski2004
07-14-2007, 11:17 AM
I think that the trend line of WW2 fighter design makes it difficult to argue the suitability or desirability of the razorback cockpit configuration. A lot of pre-war designs did feature a razorback, presumably in the interest of reduced drag. But as the war progressed and combat experience was gathered, the razorback clearly lost the battle with the all-round vision bubble canopy.

Almost all Japanese fighters had all-round vision canopies, except for in-line Ki-61 - which adopted adopted it in its Ki-100 configuration. The Russians used all-round vision canopies in all their war-designed fighters (IIRC). The Brits fitted them to the Spitfire, Typhoon, and Tempest. The P38 had one and the USAF fitted them to their two principal fighter types - P47 and P51. The Germans used it on the FW190.

Only the 109 and the P40 families kept their razorback cockpits in the European theater and the Hellcat and Corsair in the Pacific (noting, however, that the end-of-war Bearcat went to a bubble canopy and the Corsair to a "Malcolm-style" canopy which offered improved rearward visibility.

It seems clear to me that the buble canopy was definitely considered superior to the razorback configuration.

MEGILE
07-14-2007, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

The 109 had this problem with the pilot sometimes being stuck in the cocpit if the aircraft nosed over and it was difficult to get him out - therefore standard procedure was to jettison canopy before emergency landings, outlined in the manual. In bubble top cocpits there was no need to hasten rescuing the pilot from turnover plane, he would be already dead, the aircraft crushing on him.

Obviously no Messer pilot ever got suck in an upside down plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

horseback
07-14-2007, 11:44 AM
There's more than one way to skin a cat, gentlemen.

The designers of WWII fighter aircraft had to take a lot of factors into account: aerodynamic efficiency, pilot turnover protection (especially on grass fields), and the pilot's field of view. Each made different compromises, according to what his air force's priorities were.

Look at the designs of the early war Macchi and Fiat monoplanes, whose pilots placed a higher premium on the pilot's forward view than streamlining during prewar discussions with the design teams. Their pilots sat at the top of a fuselage that was less efficient, but the man could see in front of him just fine...

The bubble/teardrop canopies of the Allies seem to me to have had a bit of a 'gee whiz' element to them, the way everybody suddenly HAD to have them. They were, to a degree, the fashion statement of the moment.

The western aircraft companies were still, after all, in the business to make a profit, and they were in competition with each other nearly as much as they were trying to best the Axis' aircraft. When Hawker's Typhoon got its bubbeltop, it already had a cutdown fuselage, so it lost nothing in exchange for vastly better FOV for its pilot.

Other manufacturers must have seen it as the Next Big Thing in fighter design, and jumped on it. The fighter generals must have loved the idea of being able to see all the way around your fighter; it must have seemed like a return to the old open cockpits they started their own careers in. The aerodynamic price would have seemed minimal.

A good example would be the P-51D. Most 8th AF Mustang pilots, if polled, might well have preferred a blown Malcolm hood on their razorback Pony combined with the new six-gun wing; it is instructive to see how long the razorbacks with the sliding canopies stayed in service after the bubbletops arrived, while the clamshell canopy types quickly disappeared. They could still be seen almost six months after the June '44 debut of the D model, a lifetime in terms of combat service. Early Mustang ace Richard Turner wrote that the Malcolm hood provided better side & rear view below than the bubbletop, and he held onto his razorback until another pilot wrecked it.

The bubbletop Thunderbolt's major charm was its greater fuel capacity and range; had it not offered that advantage, I doubt it might have been as popular if it was going to throw off your aim, or made it harder to run down your intended victim, and not give you an increased loiter time over Germany.

Neither the P-51 nor the P-47 was particularly prone to crush a pilot in a rollover, because most young men of the day could curl up inside their more capacious (than their WWII contemporaries) cockpits, and the rollover was less likely with their widely spaced gear (the Jug was extremely stable on its gear; I've seen training films show it being intentionally spun around at speeds over 100kph on a cement runway), especially on hardened paved runways in England. Steel matting was another thing though.

Messerschmitt probably already had the advantage of knowing the costs of a cut-down fuselage to his aircraft from the experiment with the radial engined 109X, so the blown 'Galland' hood was a better choice for his design, particularly when it was seeing use on 'soft' fields and using that narrow gear.

It's simply a matter of priorities, and if the customer was happy with the results, then it must have worked for them.

cheers

horseback

PS-note that both the Corsair and the Hellcat's most numerous versions had bulged canopies whose virtues would be similar to the Malcolm hood on the Mustang, but are not apparent in the current version of the game. The Bearcat was designed from the start for a bubbletop, and they still gave it a taller tail in follow-on models.-HB

Ratsack
07-14-2007, 08:06 PM
When the Wild Sau missions began, they intitially used Fw 190s because of their more stable landing gear. However, there were some nasty accidents with nose-overs, and after that the 109s were introduced in increasing numbers. This is from a history of the German nightfighter force: sorry, can't remember the title or author. It was more than 15 years ago.

It may also be that the Bf109 G had a better instrument panel for night flying than the Fw 190 A-3 or A-4.


cheers,
Ratsack

horseback
07-14-2007, 08:34 PM
Exhaust glare may be the answer there; the 109's inverted V with exhaust pipes at the bottom of the nose and shielded from above view might have done less damage to the pilot's night vision than the 190's side mounted pipes.

It would get even worse on a misty night as you were trying to make your approach to a darkened field.

cheers

horseback

luftluuver
07-15-2007, 12:00 AM
Don't know if it was a production item but the 190 had covers fitted over the exhaust. Believe it got the nick coal shovel/box.

The /U2 had 'blinders' fitted above the exhaust.