It would take rather more than a Solomon to judge which was the best of the fighter aircraft used by the combatant nations during World War II. But as it is virtually impossible to arrive at a fair basis of comparison - having regard to a number of variables - it is safe to say that the Bf 109 (designed by Willy Messerschmitt) was not only one of the great fighter aircraft of the war, but almost certainly the most famous of all German aircraft ever built. If numbers constructed was the criterion, it would have been in first or second place, for it has been estimated that about 35,000 were built, which is not far short of the total production figure estimated for Russia's Ilyushin IL-2 Shturmovik.
Design of the Bf 109 was initiated by Bayerische Flugzeugwerke in late 1933, following issue by the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) of a specification for a monoplane fighter to replace the Arado Ar 68 and Heinkel He 51 in Luftwaffe service. The need was not then urgent, but the RLM believed that by competitive evaluation and with reasonable time available for development, they would have a worthwhile fighter when the moment came for it to enter operational service. Submissions were made by Arado, Bayerische Flugzeugwerke, Focke-Wulf and Heinkel: those of the second and last companies were selected for construction and evaluation, with each initially to build ten examples. Heinkel's He 112 was the first to fly (in the summer of 1935) but it was the Bf 109 (first flown in mid-September 1935) that was to be built in very large numbers. Strangely both of these prototypes made their first flight under the power of a Rolls-Royce Kestrel in-line engine, as the Junkers Jumo 210 in-line engine - around which both had been designed- was not available in time.
First production version to enter service with the Luftwaffe was the Bf 109B-1 powered by a 473.2kW Jumo 210D engine, followed by the 109B-2 with a 477kW Jumo 210E and later with a 499kW Jumo 210G. A single-seat fighter of all-metal construction, the Bf 109 was a cantilever low-wing monoplane, the wing having automatic leading-edge slots, large slotted trailing-edge flaps, and ailerons which drooped when the flaps were right down. The main landing-gear units were retractable but most versions had a non-retractable tailwheel. The tail unit was conventional, but the tailplane was braced by struts until a tailplane of cantilever structure was introduced with the Bf 109F.
Bf 109B-2 and variants of the Bf 109C were flown by the Condor Legion in the Spanish Civil War. The Daimler-Benz DB 600 engine was introduced in the Bf 109D version: more than 200 of these being in service with the Luftwaffe at the outbreak of war. It was followed into service by the Bf 109E with 820kW DB 601A engine. In addition to production for the Luftwaffe, some 300 examples of this type were exported. The Bf 109E was the principal version
used in the Battle of Britain and was followed by the Bf 109F with an 894.2kW DB 601N or 969kW DB 601E engine. Considered to represent the peak of development of this superb aeroplane, the Bf 109F had much cleaner aerodynamic lines, introducing the unbraced tailplane and retractable tailwheel.
Most extensively built version was the Bf 109G which was inferior in performance to the version which had preceded it, although introducing a more powerful Daimler-Benz engine. Despite the effects of strategic bombing by the Allies, Bf 109G were still being produced in very large numbers right up to the end of hostilities in Europe. Last versions to see limited use were the increased-span Bf 109H and a refined version of the Bf 109G, designated Bf 109K. Production of the Bf 109 continued in Czechoslovakia and Spain during early post-war years, and some Czech-built S-99 were used in a training role until 1957.
In reply to the question of a. machiaverna,yes, Edgar Schmued did work for both Messerschmitt and Fokker before coming to work at North American. According to William Green in his book "Famous Fighters of the Second World War", Schmued and Raymond Rice headed the design team in 1939 that developed the model NA-73 which later became known as the Apache, and still later, the Mustang. North American had very little previous experience in designing fighters up until that time, having produced only the NA-50A for Siam. The sharp, angular lines of the NA-73 seem to reflect the German design philosophy of efficiency rather than esthetics. The squared wing and tail simplified production but had no effect on aircraft performance, according to Green.
360 turn time ranged from 25 sec. for the Emil to under 20 for the Fredriech and 20.8 for the Gustav-2; 22.5 sec. for the 5 gun model. The later 109Gs ran it back up to 25 sec. But they say the Kurfurst could out-turn the Fw 190D that did 22 flat. In any case, the Russian Yaks and La-5 /7s could comfortably turn much tighter except at high altitude generally speaking.
Rumour has it that an aeronautical engineer named Schmued worked for Messerschmitt and left that firm for employment with North American. He and a designer named Rice designed the P-51. Anyone know if Schmued worked at Messerschmitt prior to No. American? The history is mixed, but usually notes that Schmued did work for the great Willy Messerschmitt at one time.
Naga, Thanks for the input. These insights are what we need on this sight to flesh out the official data. It is rare to find this published anywhere. Thanks again.
Hey Ron, I think you tend to lean more towards written statistics. Most people do becuase honestly how many 109 pilots are there out there left? I actually had the pleasure of meeting a 109 pilot, a E-4, F and G-3 pilot named Walther Piroska. We had nearly a three-hour conversation, and one of our topics was the nose-mounted cannon. I made a comment similar to yours about what a Mustang would have been like if they had a cannon in the nose. you wouldn't believe the reaction! He teared up and said very quietly "we might have had a chance in our damn Gs then." Apparently, their statistics and what they could actually do were very far apart. When you read a technical readout, remember these are PROJECTED and INTENDED statistics, seldom actuals. Pilots hated the G model for a variety of reasons even though historians claim somewhat perversley that it was their favorite. The hub mounted cannon impeded the output power of the engine. If you're familiar with basic physics, the amount of force taken to spin the propellor is bled off when extra force is required to spin the gears around a centerline cannon. Not only does room have to be placed in the center of the engine for extra ammunition, it makes assembling and disasembling the engine and gun even harder. According to most pilots, the best variant was the E-4. It had two machineguns and two lighter cannons, but had much better performance because of it. Walther also told me how the mechanics had a nightmare keeping the Gs in operational condition because of the complexities of the cannon in the centerline. In truth, I only think the Soviet and Italian aircraft with similar configurations had any success was becuase they were so much better in design. The P-51 was a bad enough aircraft as it was without making it worse, let's just be thankful none of our engineers decided to put one of those guns in, or we'd have taken longer to gain the advantage in the air war. I agree with Kadesh on this one. You should really talk to a luftwaffe pilot some time, they can tell you the real truth.
Is there a diagram of the engine and 20 mm sit up of the 109? The v12 is inverted and has no oil pan in the way. I heard the crankshaft was geared to the the prop shaft with the 20 mm through the center.
Hi Ron, Yes, I agree with you, I made a confusion as the MG 151 /15 and the MG 151 /20 are the same guns (only caliber is different and it must be said that the MG 151 /15 is longer by 25 cm than the MG 151 /20). It has been proven for a long time that the Bf 109 K-4 had by no way those guns in the cowls. Bf 109 K-4 was armed with two MG 131 gun cowls (Ref. Bf 109 K-4 Manuals) Bf 109 K-6 couldn't go back to MG 131 as no K-6 at all has been built... Only some 300 set of wooden wings of the K-6 were built. Concerning the MG 151, this cannon until the year 1945 had no synchronisation. When synchronisation was adopted for being mounted in the cowls of the Ta 152 C the rate of fire falled to between 550 and 750 rounds per minute. As hub or underwing cannons the rate for fire without synchronisation was 780 to 800 rounds per minute. On another side, I remarked it often made reference to William Green's "Planes of the third Reich". This book is very old and in connexion with the Bf 109 is totally obsolete. There is another book of William Green entitled "Augsburg Eagle, the story of the Messerschmitt 109". In the 1971 edition W. Green wrote the Bf 109 K-4 had two MG 151 /15 gun cowl, but in the 1980 edition he recognized he had made a mistake and writes the Bf 109 K-4 had two MG 131 gun cowls, this latter fate beinng the accurate one...
Jicehem, I don't think anyone here said the Bf 109K-4 had MG 151 /20 cowl guns. I did post that it had the twin MG 151 /15s in the cowl. Then it reverted back to the MG 131 /13 in the K-6. I would say there is a big difference between the 15 mm and the 20 mm MG 151, wouldn't you? Still, the bullistics and potency of the 15 is far better than the 13.
The Soviets had the 20 mm cowl guns in the Lavochkin 5 and 7 and the Yak-9P ...etc for perspective.
Iv've read all the comments and have picked up some mistakes. -- Cowl guns of the Bf 109 K-4 were MG 131, not MG 151 /20 which were far too long. -- the standard armament of the Bf 109 G-10 (appeared AFTER the K-4) was : 2 x MG 131 (cowl) and 1 x MG 151 /20 (hub cannon) -- Bf 109 G-10 /U4 (as G-14 /U4 and G-6 /U4) had a MK 108 in place of the hub MG 151 /20. U4 = MK 108 (feed mechanism through compressed air and electric firing) -- Heinkel He 100 was not chosen because it was too much difficult to maintain on the field, not beacause of the speed world record breaking of the Me 109 R, which was in fact the Me 209 V1, a totally different plane... --Different engines for the Bf 109 were as follows : Jumo 210 engine (various variants) on Bf 109 A-1, B-1 (there was no B-2 at all), C-1 (no C-2 and C-3) and D-1. DB 600 only on prototypes for the E variant (carburattor), DB 601 A (injection) on E-1 through E-7. DB 601 N on some E-7 and on Bf 109 F-1 and F-2, DB 601 E on Bf 109 F-4. Some F-2 and F-4 had GM-1 and were designated Bf 109 F-2Z and F-4Z. DB 605 A on the G variant. Other DB 605 engines were DB 605 AM with MW 50 (Bf 109 G-6 /MW and Bf 109 G-14), DB 605 AS with DB 603 compressor (Bf 109 G-6 /AS), DB 605 ASM (Bf 109 G-6 /AS /MW and Bf 109 G-14 /AS), DB 605 ASB /C (Bf 109 G-14 /AS, from January 1945 onwards)and DB 605 D for Bf 109 G-10 and Bf 109 K-4. -- The Bf 109 G-10 and G-14 had too the Morane antenna for FuG 19 ZY under the port wing. The "galland hood", actually the ERLA HAUBE (Erla hood) was also on Bf 109 late G-6, G-10 and G-14. -- On the Bf 109 K, the entirely retracted tailwheel had covers and was not semi-retracted as shown on the colored drawing. The drawing shows a retracted tailwheel à la Bf 109 F -- The engine was not constructed AROUND the cannon because it was located at the rear end of the engine, the breech inside the cockpit protruding between the pedals. The angle of the cylinder banks was 60° and totally adequate for space for the gun barrel.
No-one will disagree that an airplane is only as good as its engine, regardless of armament or aesthetic design. Consider that during WW2 the Luftwaffe was using aviation gasoline rated at 87 octane when at the same time Allied aircraft enjoyed the luxury of no less than 100 octane gas, using special fuel additives. Such a difference could be very meaningful in the flight performance of military fighters, especially. This was true even in Rumania, land of the Ploesti oil fields, where the Axis' Rumanian Aeronautica Regala Romana (Royal Rumanian Aeronautics) was limited to 87 octane. Higher octane numbers for fuel mean higher compression, higher performance, engines and an edge over your opponent's machine.
Kadesh, I'd like you to tell me more. The Fiat G. 55 and Reggiane Re. 2005 of 1943 had the hub cannon with a Italian version of the DB engine and had competent speed like the Bf 109 - and the 1941 Mig-3, Lagg-3 and all the Yaks. All these had hub guns to good effect. Pilots chose some of these over non hub gun inlines like the Spitfire or Mustang. The Yak-9U was fast like the P-51D but had a hub cannon as well. Likewise for the Bf 109K. Imagine if the P-51 had a 20-mm bad boy in the nose spinner too! More punch than a P-38 or P-47! It could then drop 2 wing guns to improve it's agility as well. Did the advantage of center-line firepower outweigh a speed penalty to them? Maybe. What are your thoughts?
the bf-109 was a better airplane than p-51, p-47 , p-38,spitfire,hurricane,tempest, typhhoon, bf-109k-6 kicks ass!!!!! Germans kick butt with airplane building!i.e.ME-262!
Ron, sorry to tell you, but the hub-nosed cannon is what pretty much doomed the 109. The engine would have to be built around it,the ammunition boxes, and the fire control. Back in the '30s, engines just weren't meant to wrap around things. It was much slower becuase of the gun.
I'd like to add my opinion to the controversy about which models are shown here: Comparing the 3-view drawing to those shown in William Green's book "Famous Fighters of the Second World War" (1960), I believe the 3-view is of the Bf109C-1 due to the prominant under-the-nose radiator and the slight nose bump shown just above the propeller spinner. The colored side view seems to be of the Bf109K-4 since it uses the "Galland hood", the tail wheel is retracted, and there's what looks like a radio antenna hanging straight down beneath the port wing which,in Green's book, is identified as a K-4, the G varient not having this feature. The specification just below the colored side view, however, references the Bf109G-6, and there's virtually no real difference between the K and the G models so it might also be a Bf109G6 we're looking at. As far as identifying the model in the photograph, it's not possible given the view shown. We can't see the cockpit canopy type or whether the tailwheel retracts or the type of radiator or wing configuration etc. etc. in the photo. However, since the specification references the Bf109G-6, we'll have to assume that's what's shown in the photograph.
Am I correct is assuming the bf109 was variously referred to as the ME109 by the allies?. Or was there a point in the model progression when the aircraft designation was changed across the board.
