Question For Those Who Know Alot About WW2 Fighters

The 109H had a much bigger increase in span than the one I suggest.

There would be a little increase in weight (and drag), but I think that the advantages would easily outweigh that.

 

Didn't German pilots gripe about the bulges in the nose of the "G" saying it committed some sort of aerodynamic sin (compared to the "F") which caused some airflow problems/speed loss ? Streamlining the fuselage and thickening wings might have produced a "zippy" dog fighter with the firepower of an FW-190 A/8. Bomber killer.
Give & take, perhaps more = less somewhere else though.

 

Yes they called them warts !

 

great name, for an unwanted deffect!

 

at the time it was necessary due to the engine used plus the mg 131 ammo bays-feeds, streamlined later with a new engine cowling for the AS engine of the G-5 and G-6/AS.

 

Much like the current roof or deck mounted XM antennas.

 

I don't think the 109 had a air firepower issue, especialy against bombers or well protected planes, except for the F-2 and,to some extent, the F-4 versions.

I'd say it reached the top with the G-2 version, at least equal if not superior to allied planes, but the gap closed and starting from fall or the end of 1942, it would have trouble to keep the pace, even with subsequent versions with the G-6 (the G6A/S being an exception in the high alt area) the following G versions improved only slightly and were often inferiors to their allied counterparts, until the K version which was not available until very late in the war.

Overall I'd say that the Bf-109 was with the best fighters until fall 1942, and then was often matched or bested by its opponents (save the G6 A/S in a particular domain) until fall 1944 and the last versions. (This of course does not take in account the ability of the Luftwaffe to put fuel and experienced pilots in the planes )

I believe its airframe and wings were so small, that it was hard to make this plane evolve by fitting more powerfull guns, engine etc as time passed. It also made it a tricky plane to fly, but a maneuverable one, at both low or fast speeds.

But on the other hand, the small airframe gave him stellar acceleration and climb rate, and the late K version (K-4) was one of the very best fighters at high altitude in 1945 performance wise.

That's the reason why I'd say the only way it could have been significantly improved, without heavy modifications, would have been a limited airframe or wing enlargment like the one Mr Williams suggests.

 

MY FIRST POST!!! 3 things would have made the 109 more competative at wars end... #1 Bubble canopy- The 109 is BLIND at the critical 6 O'clock! #2 Large airframe- This means more range, armor for durability and firepower. If you look at US vs. German or Jap planes we won with rate of fire from heavy MG's over cannons. #3 Wider track for improvised damaged fields Check your 6 man!!

 

But are you talking about the 109 or the P-47 Bubble canopy

 

But at wars end the main task for the 109 was to shoot down bombers, not fighters - for which the 2-cm cannon was more effective than a .50 cal machine-gun.

 

I don't know. I suspect the Mustangs 6 or P-47's 8 .50 cals would make a mess out of a B-17 in a hurry. 3,600+ rounds a minute will wreck anything that flies. The importance of shooting bombers late was a result of the Germans LOSS of air superiority, something a more robust 109 would have helped preserve while the FW190 was developed. Besides, Krupp liked building cannons better than machine guns! Jeff

 

maybe to give you guys some clarity but by mid-January 45 nearly all LW Geschwader were posted to the Ost front, JG 53 and the Reichs defense units JG 300 and JG 301 bore the brunt of taking on the US heavies and losing at too a rapid rate, the high flying 109's as protection squadrons were ordered to take on the US P-51 escorts and only battle the bombers if no US escorts were in the vicinity. the Fw 190A's did the dirty work or tried to bring down Viermots but were slaughtered

 

Scrapping the design in 1940.
Having a replacement in place in 1940
And lastly,
Making sure its replacement was not designed primarily as a limited range interceptor.

 

But did .50s explode ?

 

No doubt, but it is probable that a plane armed merely with .50s would have to sit, firing away, behind a target as tough as a B-17 for many seconds to bring it down...weight for weight, cannon armament was far more destructive than MGs, so targets could be destroyed by shorter bursts of fire. Rather handy if you're worried about an escort fighter getting on your tail.

No, the importance of shooting down bombers was the result of them flying over Germany to drop bombs. They were not escorted by fighters for much of the war; German air superiority was not threatened until the P-51 was able to escort the bombers all the way.

Krupp? They didn't build aircraft guns. They came from Rheinmetall-Borsig and Mauser. And they built what the Luftwaffe asked for. Which, as the war went on, was more powerful cannon, because they had found out the hard way that these were much more effective.

I suggest that you read this: WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS

 

Ahh yes RM, My bad, I even knew that RM did aircraft cannons... I just like the word "Krupp"! Short bursts of cannon fire from 6 O'clock could be effective, with MG's I would come from the front and aim for crew and engines. Change weapon change strategy. You can debate forever about this or that variable but remember the Germans LOST with the strategy and equipment they used. Back to the point... A bigger 109, with better visibility, would still have been a better plane.