Messerschmitt bf109F to k Radinger-Wolfgang [schiffer's military history] by Joe Te

Willy Radinger & Wolfgang Otto

Contents

6 Dedication 7 Foreword 8 Introduction 14 Bf 109 F-1 and F-2 16 High speed trials 19 Bf 109 F-4 20 Testing of underwing armament 23 The Bf 109 Gustav series 33 The Bf 109 H high-altitude fighter 35 Bf 109 K 39 Bf 109 L 40 Me 109 Z/Me 609 42 Preliminary experiments for the Me 209 43 The Messerschmitt Regensburg factory, aircraft production Bf 109 G 50 Color section 65 Photo section 151 Trials with 660 x 150 wheels

Dedication

I was associated with the Bf 109 from the first stroke of the pen until (he test flights to determine its terminal diving speed. And this is how it happened: after my final examination as a machine construction engineer in 1931 and my subsequent employment in a textile machine factory, in 1934 I moved to the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke at Augsburg-Haunstetten. There I was initially employed in the design bureau, "wing department." under the direction of Dipl.-Ing. Robert Prause. It was there that I first came into contact with the Bf 109. which was then being worked on under Project Number P 1034. Among other things I designed the wing cutouts for the retractable main undercarriage. Then from 1937 I was active as group leader in the preparation bureau, where I was involved exclusively with the development of the Messerschmitt variable-pitch propeller (Me P 6, Me P 7, Me P 2). From October 1937 up to and including June 1938 I earned my military pilot's license at the "Flight Practice Station Munich-Oberwiesenfeld." Back to Messerschmitt â&#x20AC;&#x201D; the BFW GmbH became the Messerschmitt AG in

1938. At first I continued working on the variable-pitch propellers, but I also conducted individual and endurance trials with these. Because of this the management moved me to the flight test department as an engineer-pilot. Since I had amassed a large number of hours testing propellers, virtually all of the flight tests associated with the development of this type were given to me. Through these many and varied missions I came into intimate contact with the Bf 109 and its variants. Approximately 80% of all my flights were in the Bf 109. As well. I made similar test flights with the Bf 108 (propeller), Bf 110, Me 210, Me 309, Me 410, and toward the end of the war also in the twin-engined Me 262 jet. I remember one test flight, which will be the subject of its own chapter, especially well: determining the terminal dive velocity of the Bf 109 (G-series). Carrying out this task was the high point of my flying activities in general, and with the Bf 109 in particular. I wish this Bf 109 book many readers, especially younger ones who have grown up in the "jet age," so that they might gain some idea of what "propeller flying" was like back then. Augsburg, 12 June 1996 Lukas Schmid

Foreword

The first volume on the early versions of the legendary Bf 109 has proved very popular with readers. Now the second volume on the Bf 109 F to K plus several special developments up to the preliminary experiments for the Me 209 record-breaking machine and the Me 309. Messersehmitt's last propeller-driven fighter, is ready. This volume, too, concentrates on the technical aspects and testing of this remarkable aircraft. First several comments on type designation: since this aircraft was created by the Bayerischen Flugzeugwerke, it was designated the Bf 109. In 1938 the Bayerischen Flugzeugwerke became the Messerschmitt AG, however, the earlier designation continued to be widely used. However, the designation Me 109 also came into use, including in official documents, and it became very popular, especially outside Germany. For reasons of simplicity, in this book all series are identified as Bf 109. while the subsequent new developments are designated Me 209 and Me 309. The Bf 109 F to K were the most potent versions of this successful standard Luftwaffe fighter. Few other fighters remained in production for more than ten

years and were built in such a plethora of variants, and the development potential of the basic Bf 109 concept of 1935 is astonishing. But, as the Allies introduced newer, more potent fighters during the course of the Second World War the limits of the Bf 109 became increasingly apparent. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that Willy Messerschmitt had created a groundbreaking design in the Bf 109. The Bf 109 is one of the most interesting and important aircraft in aviation history. This is underlined by the fact that several air forces, including those of Czechoslovakia. Spain, and Israel, used the Bf 109 with great success in the postwar period. Co-author of this volume is Herr Wolfgang Otto, who carefully evaluated the extensive original sources and documents. My thanks also go to Herr Dieter Herwig, who made available many photographs and technical material. This book is enriched â&#x20AC;&#x201D; as was the first volume â&#x20AC;&#x201D; by the outstanding drawings of GĂźnter Sengfelder. In selecting the photos and proof-reading the book I was again able to rely on the support of Hanfried Schliephake, whom I would like to thank most sincerely at this point. I hope that this volume, too, will find much interest among readers. Willy Radinger Augsburg, October 1998

Introduction

Bf 109 Bf 109 F to K The Messerschmitt Bf 109 in its many versions and prototypes from "Friedrich" to "Konrad." The Messerschmitt Bf 109 is one of the most significant designs produced by the German aviation industry. Designed by Willy Messerschmitt, its basic design was adapted to accept engines with outputs of 600 to 2,000 H.P. during its production life and achieved speeds from 450 kph to 720kph.

List of Variants Organized according to Type Compared to the Bf 109 E, the Bf 109 F was much improved in terms of aerodynamics. To achieve this the entire aircraft, including the wing, was redesigned. Bf 109 F-01 V21 D-IFKQ; CE + BN Werk-Nr. 5602 Bf 109 F-02 V22 D-IRRQ; CE + BO Werk-Nr. 1800 Bf 109 F-03 V23 CE + BP Werk-Nr. 5603 Bf 109 F-04 V24 VK+AB Werk-Nr. 5604

Bf 109 F-0

10 pre-production machines Motor: DB 601 N 2 MG 17,1 MG FF/M (motor cannon) Armament: Radio equipment: FuG VIIa R/T Supercharger air intake of "Emil" variant. Werknummer blocks from 5605 to 5620, all built at Regensburg.

Bf 109 F-1

Surviving specification from 16 June 1941 Motor: DB 601 N Armament: 2 MG 17,1 MG FF/M (motor cannon) Radio equipment: FuG VIIa First version with larger supercharger air intake (more aerodynamic)

Bf 109 F-2

Surviving specification from 16 June 1941 Motor: DB 601 N Armament: 2 MG 17,1 MG 151/15 (motor cannon) Radio equipment: FuG VIIa Werknummer blocks from 5758 beginning in March 1942

Bf 109 F-2/B

Fighter-bomber version of the F-2 Motor: DB 601 N Armament: 2 MG 17,1 MG 151/15 (motor cannon) Radio equipment: FuG VIIa ETC 250 bomb rack

Bf 109 F-2/Z

Surviving specification from 18 September 1941 Motor: DB 601 N Armament: 2 MG 17,1 MG 151/15 (motor cannon) Radio equipment: FuG VIIa GM 1 system installed

Bf 109 F-2/trop Surviving specification Motor: DB 601 N 1,175 H.P. for takeoff at 2,600 rpm Armament: 2 MG 17, 1 MG 15 1/15 (motor cannon) Radio equipment: FuG VIIa Sand filter in front of supercharger air intake. Tropical equipment such as rifle, rations, water, flare pistol Bf 109 F-3

Bf 109 F-4

Bf 109 F-4/B

Project only Motor: Armament: Radio equipment:

DB 601 E, 1,350 H.P. for takeoff 2 MG 17,1 MG 151/15 (motor cannon) FuG VIIa

Fighter Motor: Armament: Radio equipment:

DB 601 E, 1,350 H.P. for takeoff 2 MG 17,1 MG 151/20 (motor cannon) FuG VIIa

Fighter-bomber equipment Motor: DB 601 E, 1,350 H.P. for takeoff Armament: 2 MG 17,1 MG 151/20 (motor cannon) Radio equipment: FuG VIIa

Bf 109 F-4/trop Fighter Motor: Armament: Radio equipment:

Bf 109 F-4/Z

DB 601 E, 1,350 H.P. for takeoff 2 MG 17,1 MG 151/20 (motor cannon) FuG VIIa Sand filter in front of supercharger air intake. Tropical equipment such as rifle, rations, water, flare pistol

F-4 with GM 1 system Motor: DB 601 E, 1,350 H.P. for takeoff Armament: 2 MG 17,1 MG 151/20 (motor cannon) Radio equipment: FuG VIIa

Bf 109 F-4/R1 Bomber destroyer with underwing armament (1 MG 151/20 beneath each wing) Motor: DB 601 E 1,350 H.P. for takeoff Armament: 2 MG 17,1 MG 151/20 (motor cannon) Radio equipment: FuG VIIa Bf 109 F-4/R6 ETC rack for 295-l drop tank or 1 SC 250 bomb or with ER 4 adapter 4 SC 50 bombs Motor: DB 601 E 1,350 H.P. for takeoff Armament: 2 MG 17, 1 MG 151/20 (motor cannon) Radio equipment: FuG VIIa Bf 109 F-4/B

Reconnaissance version, existed only as prototype Motor: DB 601 E 1,350 for takeoff Armament: 2 MG 17 Radio equipment: FuG VIIa Rb 20/30 mounted in fuselage

Bf 109 F-6

Reconnaissance version of the F-4, existed only as prototype Motor: DB 601 E 1,350 H.P. for takeoff Armament: none Radio equipment: FuG VIIa Rb 20/30, Rb 50/30, Rb 75/30 mounted in fuselage behind the cockpit. The only existing "F-6" was Galland's personal machine with additional armament of 2 x MG/FF

Bf 109 G-0

VJ + WA

Bf 109

Light fighter with pressurized cockpit, data sheet from 8 March 1943 Motor: DB 605 A Armament: 2 MG 17 and 1 MG 151/20 Radio equipment: FuG VIIa + XXV

G-1

12 prototypes

Bf 109 G-1/R2 Light fighter with pressurized cockpit, data sheet from 8 March 1943 DB 605 A Motor: Armament: 2 MG 17 and 1 MG 151/20 Radio equipment: FuG VIIa No underwing armament, no head or back armor, no light metal armor, no protected tanks, no bombs or drop tank Bf 109 G-1/U2 Light fighter with pressurized cockpit and GM 1 Data sheet from 8 March 1943 Motor: DB 605 A Armament: 2 MG 17 and 1 MG 151/20 Radio equipment: FuG 16Z Equipped weight: 2600 kg

Bf 109 G-2

Light fighter without pressurized cockpit, data sheet from 8 March 1943 Motor: DB 605 A Armament: 2 MG 17 and 1 MG 151 /20 Radio equipment: FuG VIIa Equipped weight: 2520 kg

Bf 109 G-2/R2 Reconnaissance aircraft with Rb 50/30, data sheet from 8 March 1943 Motor: DB 605 A Armament: 2 MG 17 and I MG 151/20 Radio equipment: FuG 16Z Equipped weight: 2619 kg Bf 109 G-3

Light fighter with pressurized cockpit, data sheet from 8 March 1943 Motor: DB 605 A Armament: 2 MG 17 and 1 MG 151 /20 Radio equipment: FuG 16Z Equipped weight: 2545 kg Built in small numbers (50 examples)

Bf 109 G-4

Light fighter without pressurized cockpit, data sheet from 8 March 1943 Motor: DB 605 A Armament: 2 MG 17 and 1 MG 151/20 Radio equipment: FuG 16Z Equipped weight: 2585 kg

Bf 109 G-4/R2 Reconnaissance aircraft with RB 50/30 no pressurized cockpit data sheet from 8 March 1943 Motor: DB 605 A Armament: 2 MG 17 and 1 MG 151/20 Radio equipment: FuG 16Z 2695 kg Equipped weight: 1 x 300-l drop tank Bf 109 G-4/R3 Armed reconnaissance aircraft with Rb 50/30, no pressurized cockpit, data sheet from 8/3/43 Motor: DB 605 A Armament: 1 MG 151/20 Radio equipment: FuG 16Z Equipped weight: 2 595 kg 2 x 300-l drop tanks and additional 15-l oil tank in place of MG 17 ammunition boxes

Bf 109 G-4/U1 Light fighter with braking propeller, data sheet from 8 March 1943 Motor: DB 605 A Armament: 2 MG 17 and 1 MG 151/20 Radio equipment: FuG 16Z Equipped weight: 2585 kg P6 braking propeller and steerable tailwheel for braked landings Bf 109 G-4/U3 Tactical reconnaissance aircraft without pressurized cockpit, data sheet from 8 March 1943 Motor: DB 605 A Armament: none Radio equipment: FuG 17 Equipped weight: 2695 kg With 2 x Rb 12.5/7x9 cameras Bf 109 G-5

Light tighter with pressurized cockpit; converted from G-6, data sheet from 8 March 1943 Motor: DB 605 A Armament: 2 MG 131 and 1 MG 151/20 Radio equipment: FuG 16Z Equipped weight: 2600 kg

Bf 109 G-5/U2 Light fighter with pressurized cockpit. data sheet from 8 March 1943 Motor: DB 605 A + GM 1 system Armament: 2 MG 131 and 1 MG 151/20 Radio equipment: FuG 16Z Equipped weight: 2600 kg as per G-5 Bf 109 G-6

Light fighter without pressurized cockpit, data sheet from 8 March 1943 Motor: DB 605 A Armament: 2 MG 17 and 1 MG 151/20 Radio equipment: FuG 16Z Equipped weight: 2600 kg

Bf 109 G-6/R2 Reconnaissance aircraft with Rb 50/30, data sheet from 8 March 1943 Motor: DB 605 A Armament: none Radio equipment: FuG 16Z Equipped weight: 2710 kg Bf 109 G-6/R3 Armed reconnaissance aircraft with Rb 50/30, data sheet from 8 March 1943 Motor: DB 605 A Armament: 2 MG 17 and 1 MG 151/20 Radio equipment: FuG 16Z Equipped weight: 2610 kg

Bf 109 G-6/R6 Heavy fighter with underwing MG 151/20 armament Motor: DB 605 A Armament: 2 MG 131 and 1 MG 151/20 Radio equipment: FuG 16Z Equipped weight: 2610kg 2 x MG 151/20 in underwing gondolas Bf 109 G-6/U1 Light fighter with braking propeller. data sheet from 8 March 1943 Motor: DB 605 A Armament: 2 MG 17 and 1 MG 151/20 Radio equipment: FuG 16Z Equipped weight: 2600 kg with P6 braking propeller and steerable tailwheel for braked landings Bf 109 G-6/U3 Tactical reconnaissance aircraft without pressurized cockpit, data sheet from 8 March 1943 Motor: DB 605 A Armament: 2 MG 17 and 1 MG 151/20 Radio equipment: FuG 16Z Equipped weight: 2695 with 2 x Rb 12.5/7 x 9 cameras Bf 109 G-8

Light fighter without pressurized cockpit, data sheet from 8 March 1943 Motor: DB 605 A Armament: none Radio equipment: FuG 16Z Equipped weight: 2600 kg (as G-6/U3 but new-build aircraft)

Bf 109 G-10

Light fighter without pressurized cockpit DB 605 AS/D/D-2/DC/DB Motor: 2MG 131 and 1 MG 151/20, in some cases MK 108 Armament: FuG 25 Radio equipment: 2600 kg or greater, depending on equipment Equipped weight:

Bf 109 G-12

Two-seat training aircraft, conversions of single-seat machines Motor: DB 605 A/AS and others Armament: usually removed Radio equipment: FuG 16Z and RB10-A intercom Equipped weight: from 2550 kg

Bf 109 G-14

Light fighter without pressurized cockpit Motor: DB 605 AM/AS Armament: 2 MG 131 and 1 MG 151/20, in some cases MK 108 Radio equipment: FuG 25, in some cases 16ZY Equipped weight: from 2600 kg depending on equipment

Bf 109 F-1 and F-2

Compared to the earlier Bf 109 E, the Bf 109 F was much improved aerodynamically. The entire engine section was redesigned. The propeller spinner was enlarged and now blended smoothly into the entirely new engine cowling. Including spinner, hub, blades, and blade mounts, the threeblade VDM 9-11207 propeller used for the Bf 109 F-1 and F-2 weighed 138 kg. This propeller underwent further development, resulting in broader blades and a reduced diameter of 3 meters from the F-4 version. Furthermore, the entire wing was redesigned, the most obvious change being the new elliptical wingtips. The wing radiators were shallower and set farther back on the wing. The split flaps located behind the radiators were thermostatically controlled. As before, dihedral was 6째 32'. The second mean chord was 1732 mm. The entire aerodynamic win area was 16 m2 with the landing flaps accounting for 2 x 0.522 m2, the radiator flaps 2 x 0.4 m2 and the leading edge slats 2 x 0.311 m2. The surface area of the ailerons was 2 x 0.387 m2. The undercarriage used VDM 8-278705 oil-damped oleos, each filled with 1.1 liters of "shock-absorber fluid green." At 650 x 150, wheel size was the same as on the "Emil." The tailwheel, on an EC or Kronprinz hub, was fitted with a 290 x 110 lire. Another obvious change was the deletion of the bracing struts for the horizontal stabilizer. While this was an obvious aerodynamic improvement, there were static problems. As a result of the aircraft's increased performance and following several crashes, external stiffeners, so-called reinforcing strips, were fitted externally over the em-

pennage attachment points. These were necessary because of tail nutter at high speeds, which usually resulted in structural failure. Power plant was the DB 601 N. which, with a displacement of 33.91 and a compression ratio of 1 : 8.2/8.5 (left/right), developed a maximum output of 1,175 H.P. Maximum revolutions for takeoff/emergency power were 2600 for a maximum of three minutes at a boost pressure of 1.35 ata. Resulting fuel consumption was 215 to 225 g/PSh. Reduction gearing was 1:1.55. The Bf 109 F-1 weighed 2 0 1 5 kg empty, all-up weight in the fighter role was 2762 kg, in the fighter-bomber role with 1 x 250 kg bomb 3 041 kg, and in the fighter role with a 295-1 drop tank 3 026 kg. The empty weight of the Bf 109 F-2 was exactly the same as that of the Bf 109 F-1. All-up weight in the fighter role was 2,795 kg, and in the fighter-bomber role with 1 x 250 kg bomb 3073 kg. These weights were applicable for Load Class H4. For the fighter role only, 2820 kg was the maximum allowable gross weight for Load Class 5. For all other operational roles the maximum allowable gross weight was 3100 kg for Load Class H4. Wing loading was 176.2 kg/m2 at 2820 kg and 193.75 kg/m2 at 3100 kg. Power-toweight ratio was 2.76 kg/H.P. at 2820 kg and 3.03kg/H.P. at 3100 kg. The power-to-weight ratio improved at an altitude of 4800 meters at an output of 1050 H.P. to 2.68 kg/H.P. (at 2820 kg) and 2.95 kg/H.P. If the transmitter or receiver was removed, trim weights of 10 or 8 kg respectively had to be fitted in its place. Maximum speed in level flight at ground level was 530 kph. Pilots were warned not to exceed the maximum allowable airspeed

of 750 kph, as this would overstress the airframe. This was not always possible in air combat, since no altitude-compensating airspeed indicator was installed, and therefore the true airspeed based on height could not be determined exactly. As a result, there were repeated crashes not due to enemy action. As a result of demands from the frontline units, trials were resumed to determine the aircraft's maximum diving speed. Armament was limited to two MG 17 machine-guns synchronized to fire through

the propeller disc and one unsynchronized MG 151/20 firing through the propeller hub. This "light" total armament came under much criticism, especially from Adolf Galland. The result was a so-called special conversion with an additional MG/FF cannon in each wing, similar to the installation used in the Bf 109 E-3. This machine was supposedly designated the F-6/U. In terms of handling characteristics the Bf 109 F was probably the most capable version of the Bf 109.

High-Speed Trials

Initial high-speed trials were carried out by the E-Stelle Rechlin, by Heinrich Beauvais, among others. Later, after protests by Ernst Udet in June 1941 (two letters to Messerschmitt personally), these trials were handed back to the Messerschmitt company's test pilots. This was probably due to the prevailing opinion in the RLM that the manufacturer should determine an aircraft's maximum speed. An accident on 17 July 1938 involving Dr. Jodlbauer (vertical crash) and the near crash of Heinrich Baeuvais in early 1941 undoubtedly played a part in this decision. At first Messerschmitl shelved this theme and nothing happened. The existing do-not-exceed speed of Bf 109 variants to date was in the area of 750 kph at all heights. But after the front-line units experienced an increase in accidents, for example, 20 within a two-month period, the investigation into maximum speed had to be resumed. From Willy Messerschmitt came the personal message: "The terminal diving speed of the Bf 109 is to be determined." Therefore, from January to March 1943 socalled "high-speed stress analysis experiments" were carried out. These experiments were conducted by test pilot Lukas Schmid using Bf 109 F-2 Werknummer 9228, code TH + TF. The aircraft underwent minor modifications in preparations for the experiments.

An ejection seat was installed, and later aileron deflection was reduced to 50 percent of normal. The machine was subsequently brought to the flight test department for installation of the necessary instrumentation. This included an automatic camera for photographing the instrument panel and two ASKANIA recorders for airspeed and altitude. The first factory test flights now took place. The following is Lukas Schmid's description of his experiences: "On 29 January all was ready, it was time to carry out the first diving flight. Karl Bauer thought that, having already carried out the factory test flights, that I should also begin the next phase. During the first flights I climbed to an altitude of 7000 to 8 000 meters. At the very outset it proved impossible to trim the horizontal stabilizer for pull-out. It turned out that the grease used to lubricate the horizontal stabilizer adjusting jack could not withstand the cold and froze in temperatures of -30 to -40 degrees. This was surely the cause of many of the reported accidents. Cold-proof grease was immediately specified for the frontline units. With the stabilizer trim now in order. I conducted a test flight to find a stabilizer position in which the elevator control force was manageable; this position was limited by a stop. As speed was increased â&#x20AC;&#x201D; I was in the area between 850 and 890 kph â&#x20AC;&#x201D; an aileron

over-balance became apparent. Aileron deflection was subsequently limited by half, which certainly prevented a later crash. At certain intervals, after new information had been amassed. I issued flight reports. Like all such reports, these were distributed in house and to the RLM. One of these reports prompted stress analyst Behrbohm, who was responsible for statics on the Bf 109, to inform me that he could no longer assume responsibility for safety and that a further increase in speed would be my responsibility. The director of the department which had to evaluate the high-speed flights. Kurt Zeiler, didn't want to allow Behrbohm to see me, because he feared that I would not go along any more. I overheard this argument, which took place in front of the pilots' room, joined in, and reassured Behrbohm that I would feel safe in the present phase of testing. Thus, I was able to carry on, for I was by now curious to determine The terminal dive speed. I achieved this after peeling off into an 80Â° dive from an altitude of 10700 meters, reaching 906 kph and Mach 0.80 (see flight report). Now, no fighter pilot could claim, as had often happened, that he had exceeded 1 000 kph. The high Mach number came as a surprise â&#x20AC;&#x201D; it had not been thought that the Bf 109 could reach such a figure. It should also be mentioned that there was an enormously strong aileron over-balance during this last dive, almost ripping the stick from my hand. Had it not been for the limit on the aileron this would have led to disaster. I had already become used to the reversal of force on the elevator with the vertical stabilizer against the stop that had been installed. In order to hold a dive of about 80 degrees I first had to pull back strongly, push forward after speed had increased, and then after a further increase pull back again to recover. Altogether during the

course of these experiments I made about 30 diving flights over a period of two months. It should also be mentioned that in the beginning the advisor for these trials, Kalinowsky, wanted me to wear a face mask so that my face would not be torn apart should I have to bail out using the ejector seat, which was then newly introduced. I refused, however, as this would have hindered me. They really took everything into account during these trials. After evaluating the last flight a relieved Kalinowsky came to me to let me know that the trials were over, the terminal diving speed had been reached. The aircraft then sat around for a long time in the hangar waiting for the instruments to be removed. Then one day a young Leutnant wearing the Knight's Cross came to see if we had anything new. He had been in hospital and used his home leave for this visit. When he asked to be allowed to fly a Bf 109 they gave him 9228. I watched to see what would happen. He almost ground-looped on takeoff, and the landing was even worse. There was nothing to ensure that the undercarriage had locked in place and would remain retracted at high speed. I should mention that at very high speeds one of the Bf 109's undercarriage legs was sometimes sucked out of its lock, which could have catastrophic consequences. Consequently, Asam1 carried out a thorough check before each diving flight. During the trials I always tried to land softly to avoid any deformation. A few days after the Leutnant's flight Zeiler came to me and wanted me to repeat the last flight because they wanted to learn more about the aileron over-balance. I was ready immediately, provided that the aircraft first went back to Asam for a detailed inspection and adjustment of the undercarriage. I heard nothing more about it, but I

Asam, Moritz; workshop foreman in the experimental shop.

also received no bonus for these risky flights. Such bonuses were standard. For example, I received 3,000 Reichsmarks for a diving flight in a Bf 109 with wooden tail assembly to 850 kph and a 6 g pull-out. Hermann Wurster received 10.000 Reichsmarks for the first flight in the Bf 110. At a

time when a bread roll cost 3 Pfennigs, that was a lot of money." As a result of the lessons learned in these trials the entire vertical tail, including the rudder, was heightened by 135 mm. Both metal and wooden versions of the larger vertical fin and rudder were introduced.

Bf 109 F-4

The next variant, the Bf 109 F-4, entered service in June 1941. It used the revised VDM 9-12010 three-blade propeller, whose diameter had been reduced to 3 meters. Total weight, including blades, blade mounts, and spinner was 132.6 kg. Externally the F-4 was similar to the F-2, however, a new Daimler-Benz engine using Pz.Art.Rgt. BR fuel was installed. This was the DB 601 E which produced 1,350 H.P. for takeoff or emergency power at 2,700 rpm at 1.42 ata. Output was initially restricted to 1,200 H.P. at 2,500 rpm. During production changes were made to the supercharger air intake. This was made larger in diameter and more teardrop shaped. The fighter's empty weight rose to 2086 kg. Gross weight was 2860

kg. The highest permissible gross weight in Load Class H5 was 2870 kg. For the extended-range version only Load Class H4 at 3123 kg was allowable. The GM-1 system was installed in the Bf 109 F-4/Z. This system increased engine output above the engine's rated altitude. This increase in performance was achieved by injecting so-called laughing gas (oxygen carrier) prior to the supercharger. As a result, a short-term performance increase could be achieved for a maximum of ten minutes. The system was installed in the wing between nose ribs 6 and 8, The fluid was contained either in eight so-called LUTZ bottles or in two circular tanks. Weight of the fluid was either 34 or 42 kg. Total weight of the system was 46 and 75 kg.

Testing of Underwing Armament

The weak basic armament of the Bf 109 made it necessary to increase firepower for the anti-bomber role. One Bf 109 F-4 was therefore equipped with R체sts채tze (equipment sets). Bad weather prevented the machine from being ferried to Tarnewitz for firing trials, however. Consequently, the equipment sets had to be sent there by rail. They were then installed on Werknummer 7449. The first static firing trials also produced the first problems, such as belts breaking. After modifications

to the drum and ammunition feed, as well as the installation of a guide tray on the feed side of the weapon, it performed satisfactorily on the test stand. When installed in the aircraft, however, new problems arose. With the left weapon the belt kinked before reaching the weapon, while with the right the empty belt failed to disintegrate. These problems were eliminated after modifications to the feed chute. The first air firing trials were carried out on 24 March 1942. During the course of these

Testing of Underwing Armament Air firing with 2 x MG 151/20 W.Nr. 13149 Date:

Flight No Ammo load

Left weapon L R belt j a m after 60 shots

Right weapon

28/5/42

135/135

29/5/42

30/5/42

135/135

empty belt jam after 80 shots

normal

left spent belt chute modified

135/135

belt kinked

normal

left belt feed reset

30/5/42

135/135

normal

30/5/42

135/135

normal

31/5/42

135/135

normal

31/5/42

135/135

normal

31/5/42

135/135

normal

double load after 95 shots

01/6/42

135/135

normal

01/6/42

135/135

weapon failure (extractor)

normal

02/6/42

135/135

normal

02/6/42

135/135

double load after 116 shots

normal

02/6/42

135/135

normal

02/6/42

135/135

normal

02/6/42

135/135

normal

Remarks

normal

trails new problems arose which at first could not be identified. Sixty flights were required to identify the cause of the irregular stoppages, namely failure of the empty belts to disintegrate. The end of the belt hanging from the ejection chute was seized by the slipstream and pulled so forcefully from the weapon that it was no longer able to function properly. A horizontal extension was therefore applied to the spent belt ejector chute. As a result of this arrangement the empty belt could no longer be immediately seized by the slipstream and was better able to disintegrate. During the course of subsequent testing at Rechlin four aircraft were fitted with these modifications. Of a total of 27 air firing tests, 16 were completed with no stoppages of the left weapon and 17 with none of the right weapon. On the basis of these results the aircraft were ferried to Wiener-Neustadt for conversion to produc-

tion standard and introduction of the changes into production. The four aircraft were converted during the period from 11 to 16 May 1942. Since the unit was about to be transferred to the front, air firing trials could only be carried out with one service aircraft. The modifications were subsequently applied to Werknummer 13149 (E-Stelle Tarnewitz), and leather flaps were installed on the spent belt and shell chutes to keep out sand and dust. The flaps were closed on the ground during takeoff and landing and were only opened during firing by the spent shell casings or belt links. After being ferried to Tarnewitz. Werknummer 13149 was used for firing trials with the MG 151/20 in various flight altitudes. A minor modification to the spent belt chute near the weapon almost completely eliminated the jamming of spent belts, which was still a problem, and the system was deemed reliable enough for installation.

Air firing with 2 x MG 151/15 Date:

Flight no.

Ammo load

Left weapon

Right weapon

Remarks

05/6/42

135/135

belt jammed

normal

flight aborted after 12 shots

05/6/42

100/100

spent belt blockage

normal

05/6/42

100/100

normal

05/6/42

100/100

gun stoppage after 60 shots

normal

05/6/42

100/100

normal

12/6/42

100/100

belt jammed after 65 shots

normal

12/6/42

100/100

normal

12/6/42

100/100

normal

12/6/42

100/100

normal

12/6/42

100/100

normal ejector broke after 90 shots

normal

The ammunition supply for one MG 151/20 is 135 rounds. It takes two men ten minutes to load the weapon. The weight of the armament equipment set is: without ammunition 158 kg, with ammunition 208 kg. Trajectory chart Bf 109 F-4/R1 and Bf 109 G.

The installation of a continuous belt rack in the drum in place of the previous cartridge holder spring made loading much easier and ensured a problem-free ammunition feed. Further problems arose during trials with 15-mm ammunition, for example, jamming of the ammunition in the drum on account of its smaller diameter, caused by the limited radius of the ammunition belt. The problem was eliminated by loading just 100 rounds per drum and taking particular care in installation. (The drum had to be shaken to prevent the ammunition from piling up.)

At a range of 100 m with 21 rounds fired, the shot pattern of the MG 151/20 was 60 x 39 cm for the left weapon and 48 x 49 cm for me right weapon. The final phase of testing was cold trials at minus 60 degrees. Problems were again encountered, for example, belts breaking, which were attributable to roughness of the drum. Following modifications (drum opening enlarged, inner drum wall thinned, etc.) and checking with a tolerance belt the weapon functioned satisfactorily. As a result, it was determined that: "The MG 151/ 20 wing gondola armament performs satisfactorily."

The Bf 109 Gustav Series

The G-series, or Gustav, was a further development of the F-series. It seemed that all development possibilities had already been exhausted with the Bf 109 F. Then, at the end of December 1941, the new DB 605 A became available. This power plant was first installed in the G-1, while the Bf 109 G-0 pre-production series was powered by the DB 601 E. Designed in 1940, the DB 605 was a logical development of the DB 605 A 601 E. The most significant difference was an increase in displacement from 33.9 liters to 35.7 liters through boring out the cylinders. plus an increase in compression from 7.2 to 7.5. The resulting performance of the DB 605 A was 1,475 H.P. for takeoff at 1.42 atmospheres of boost. The initial installation of this engine produced some cooling problems, which resulted in the first of the so-called "bulges" which were to become synonymous with the Gustav. These were intake scoops to provide cooling air for the ejector exhausts and spark plugs. The scoops were installed on both sides of the engine cowling and were riveted to the metal skinning over the oil tank. Much larger bulges appeared later, the result of larger wheels and, from the G-5, the replacement of the MG 17 by the MG 131 machine-gun. Bf 109 G-1 The Bf 109 G-1 was designed as a light fighter with a pressurized cockpit. Prob-

lems with the pressurized cockpit made series production impossible at that time, however, and this version was built in several small batches. Production began at Regensburg in November 1941. Twenty machines were also built by Erla (Leipzig). The standard power plant was the DB 605 A using B4 (87 octane) fuel. The engine's compression ratio was 1 : 7.3/7.5. Takeoff and emergency power of 1,475 H.P. was achieved with 1.42 ata of boost at 2,800 rpm. This output was initially banned by VT-Anw.Nr. 2206 and was not reinstated until 8 June 1943 when DaimlerBenz issued a technical directive. Gearing ratio was 1 : 1.685. Engine weight was 700kg plus 3 percent. The main undercarriage used engine cowling wheels with channel rims for the 650 x 150 tires. Until December 1942 (when the G-4 was introduced) the tailwheel was fitted with an EC flat rim with a 290 x 110 tire. The propeller was a three-blade VDM 9-12087 A variable-pitch type with a diameter of 3 meters. Pitch control was either "electro-mechanical"" (automatic) or "manual-electric" using a thumb-switch on the throttle lever. The basic 12 o'clock position on the pilch indicator equated to a blade angle of 25 degrees. This pilch indicator in the cockpit was fitted with an analogue clock. Takeoff position was 11:45.

Original Extract: Flight Performance Altitude km 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Max. speed True Indicated kph kph 525 544 563 583 602 622 642 649 648 643 630 609 555

525 517 510 502 492 482 470 452 424 398 367 332 280

Climb speed

Time lo climb

Climb rate

kph

min./sec.

m/sec

280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 275 270 265 260 255

0/47 1/35 2/24 3/16 4/11 5/14 6/23 7/46 9/36 11/54 15/41 24/02

21 21 21 19.8 18.6 17.4 15.8 13.3 10.9 8.3 6.0 3.5 1.0

The performance figures shown are based on battle and climb power, or 2.600 rpm, 1.3 ata of boost. At present the DB 605 A is not cleared for takeoff and emergency power. For effect of bombs, tanks and underwing weapons on speed see range table. Maximum boost altitude at full throttle, horizontal flight Maximum boost altitude in climb Takeoff run to height of 20 m, normal Takeoff run to height of 20 m, with bomb Landing run from height of 20 m, normal braking

Bf 109 G-3 Only fifty examples of the G-3 were built at Regensburg during the period from January to February 1943. It was similar in design to the G-1 and was fitted with a pressurized cockpit. Like the G-1, it could be identified by the air scoop on the left side of the engine cowling above the supercharger air intake. Radio equipment consisted of a FuG 16Z in place of the earlier FuG VIIa. Equipped weight for the fighter role, which did not include the pilot, fuel, and ammunition, was 2545 kg. On the whole, performance was similar to that of the G-1. More Directionally-Stable 300-1 Drop Tank For drag-reduction experiments with the 300-1 drop tank the FAV performance

6.4 km 5.7 km 585 m 740 m 770 m

branch installed a metal fairing between the fuselage and the drop tank. Flight tests conducted by Fritz Wendel with Bf 109 Werknummer 15939 revealed serious static instability about the vertical axis, both in high and low speed flight. A modified version of the fairing was supposed to be tested in an attempt to overcome this instability. Finally, after various experiments, a metal streamer was welded onto the fairing, which was attached to the underside of the fuselage by a bolt at its rear upper end and to the rear end of the lank by means of a clamping ring. The machine test flown with this modified fairing displayed full stability about the vertical axis. Testing took place between 16 August and 16 September 1943, however, the modified tank was never introduced into service.

Trials with Fixed Rudder Trim Tabs Rudder ineffectiveness at small deflections had an unfavorable effect on firing passes and aiming corrections. This led in early June 1944 to the testing of so-called "bent rudder tabs." Werknummer 110039 served as a test-bed, and in several practice gunnery flights it proved the effectiveness of the rudder labs. These tabs consisted of two 1-mm-thick Dural sheets of varying width and depth. The upper tab was bent to the right, the lower to the left. After several flights with labs of various depths it was discovered that effectiveness was fully sufficient at a depth of 30 mm. The distance between the tab and the trailing edge of the rudder was 10 mm. A BSK 16 gun camera was used to photograph the experiments. Elevator Vibration on the Wooden Tail of the Bf 109 On 10 July 1944 Regensburg Messerschmitt director Lindner reported to the handling characteristics project bureau that vibration was being encountered in aircraft with the wooden tail. Regensburg reported that since the prolonged rainy period at the beginning of July and the use of elevators with doubled fixed trim strip length (wooden elevators), a greater number of machines had been experiencing vibration in elevator control at speeds above 600 to 700 kph. The vibration appeared after several trouble-free flights. An immediate investigation was ordered. On 10 July 1944 Herr Nürnberg and Herr Baumann of the stress bureau and Herr Blümm of the project bureau of the Obernminergau research institute were sent to Regensburg to investigate these incidents. Herr Bosch (design bureau—tail section) and Herr Blümm (project bureau) followed on 17 July. At that lime the following types of elevator were held in the Messerschmitt AG Regensburg's stocks: First, the standard metal elevator with short fixed trim strip; second, the wooden elevator built by the Wolf Hirth Firm of

Nabern (WHN) with 1.5-mrn skinning between Ribs 2 and 6; and third, the wooden elevator built by the DEAG Firm of Butschowitz with 1-mm skinning between Ribs 4 and 6. plus wooden elevators by WHN of the same type as those made by DEAG. The control surfaces made by the WHN Firm were preserved according to Lackkette 33. while those by the DEAG Firm were preserved using the method of the Warnecke and Böhm Firm. All of the control surfaces which had produced vibration and were removed in Regensburg were subsequently examined. There were 29 in total, all built by DEAG. All exhibited serious damage as a result of weather. In most cases glued joints had failed, especially on Rib 1 and along the rim strip. One of the elevators was sent to Oberammergau for an investigation of the preservation process. It was determined that painting had been carried out without the prescribed fabric covering, which was contrary to procedure. This system (Warbecke and Böhm) was always rejected by materials testing on account of the fact that it allowed through too much water. This was not the main reason for the vibration, however, rather it was the inadequate conservation protection of the glue. Reference was made to earlier investigations in March 1943. At that time the wooden tails built by Fokker in Amsterdam also used a skinning of 1-mm between Ribs 4 to 6. The then confirmed speed of 750 kph produced none of the current complaints. Further investigations saw several Bf 109 G-14s exposed to simulated rain overnight in order to evaluate the effects of dampness. Then on 18 and 19 July 1944 test flights were conducted at various times of day by Hauptmann Obermaier of BAL2 Regensburg. These resulted in vibration at speeds of 680 to 750 kph with elevators with 1-mm skinning and the DEAG type, as well as several built by WHN. By far the majority of complaints involved the elevators produced by DEAG. 2

BAL = Bauaufsicht Luftwaffe (Luftwaffe quality control)

However, Regensburg's original assumption that the cause of the vibration was the long fixed trim strip applied to these control surfaces was proved to be wrong by an experiment at Regensburg. Reducing the size of the trim strip and finally cutting it off completely failed to eliminate the vibration. As a result, it was determined that the cause of the vibration clearly lay in the elevator itself. The vibration only appeared in elevators with 1-mm plywood skinning between Ribs 4 to 6, but not in all such elevators. Ultimately, rudders were only permitted to be installed with 1.5-mm skinning between Ribs 2 to 6. The elevators by the DEAG Firm with 1-mm skinning and the unreliable Warnecke and Bรถhm preservation without fabric covering could no longer be used at all, on account of their permeability to water and the resulting effect on glued joints. All production was immediately switched to 1.5-mm skinning. In spite of all these measures there continued to be accidents involving wooden tail units, such as the one involving Bf 109 G-14 W.Nr. 460 628 at Stargard on 19 October 1944. The machine crashed from a height of 2 000 meters after

several parts of the aircraft broke away. The subsequent investigation revealed that the likely cause was the separation of the horizontal stabilizer from the tail section bearer. Other complaints were registered with the following: Bf 109 G-14 W.Nr. 464 396 (ERLA). Bf 109 G-14 W.Nr. 464 365 (ERLA), and Bf 109 G-6 W.Nr. 412 373. This was only the tip of the iceberg, however. A report to the E-Stelle Rechlin revealed that a total of 154 aircraft were examined by JG 27 and one Gruppe of JG 26 during the period from 8 to 13 December 1944. A significant number of problems with the wooden tails were found, and 36 machines could not be found airworthy. The probable cause was the inability of the wood to withstand the prevailing bad weather (dampness), and in particular bad or inadequate preservation. Among the most pressing demands to come from this was that ground crews be better trained in regard to the wooden components, and that a more expeditious way be found to transmit technical directives and announcements (in spite of the overall war situation!).

Report No. 109 11 E 44

Date 29/7/44

Weather

Clear, hot

Machine Pilot Date Time of day

109 G-14 W.Nr. 165 706

109 G-14 W.Nr. 166 277

109 G-14 W.Nr. 165 721

109 G-14 W.Nr. 165 699

109 G-6 W.Nr. 166 249

18/7/44 morning

18/7/44 afternoon

WHN formation of step on leading edge

WHN 1.5 mm betw. Ribs 2-6

Lackkette 33 satisfactory

DEAG 1.0 mm betw. Ribs 4-6 Warnecke & Böhm without fabric covering Rib 1 separated

0 mm

4 mm

WHN 1.5 mm betw. Ribs 4-6 Warnecke & Böhm without fabric covering Rib 1 beginning to Separate 0 mm

(2) 0, ( 4 ) - 2 , ( 6 ) - 1 . 5 -0.5 0 0 -1 -2 +0.5 -0.5 0 0

(2)-1 ( 4 ) - 3 . 5 ( 6 ) - 2 -0.5 +2 0 -0.5 -0.5 0 +0.5 0 0

( 2 ) + 1.5 (4) 0 (6) 0 -1.5 0 -1.5 0 -0.5 0 0 +0.5 0

(2) 0 (4) -6 (6) 0 +1 0 -1,5 0 +0.5

Bulges

right bottom 5 mm otherwise good

right bottom 4 mm otherwise good

deep impressions bottom

Trim strip

short

Result

satisfactory

Horiz. Stab. Manufacturer Complaint

Elevator Manufacturer Skinning Method of Preservation Gluing Dihedral Loft Upper side Lower side Upper side Lower side

left left right right

long

—

-2 -0.5 -0.5 0

long

Page II

DEAG As well, on 18/7/44 ten machines were counted with WHN elevators and 1.5-mm skinning between Ribs 2-6 which were satisfactory.

Test Reports

Messerschmitt AG Augsburg Test Report No. 109 18 E 43 Canopy Jettisoning 109 G Flight Test Dept. Date 2/11/43 Cause: In spite of repeated improvements to the canopy jettisoning system of the 109 G, complaints were still being received that the canopy refused to jettison at all or did not do so without problems. Further jettison trials were subsequently carried out, the results of which appear below. Test Procedure: A normal G canopy with the markings No. 109.135-135-002 and 109.117-003 was installed on the test-bed. In addition, the canopies were fitted with a relief spring with the marking No. A 17729 Z. Jettison trials were conducted with the above-named canopy. Result: The experiments were carried out as follows based on various theoretical considerations. First, the normal canopy lock was opened and then the jettison lever pulled. This sequence was chosen in spile of the fact that there is a placard in the cockpit which specifies that the lever be operated in exactly the opposite sequence. Theoretically, it is impossible to first pull the jettison lever and then unlock the canopy, since when operating the jettison lever the pilot must place his head in the forward part of the cockpit for safety. It is then no longer possible to operate the canopy lock, since the canopy center section may fly off to the

side at any lime after the jettison lever is pulled. In the first experiment the canopy lock was activated at a speed of 350 kph and a yaw angle of 10 degrees. The canopy center section jammed. When the center section was knocked over the limiting wire snapped and the canopy struck the side of the fuselage and then remained hanging. As a result of the impact the two pins on the right side of the canopy were so stressed and bent that releasing the jettison lock was no longer possible. Subsequently, a forced landing was made at Lechfeld with the canopy section hanging to the side. The jettison procedure may be seen on Page 4. After the normal jettison procedure failed to function smoothly, additional jettisoning assistance was installed based on a proposal from flight testing. As depicted in Illustrations 1 and 2, the upper end of the lever on the rear part of canopy 109.117003. which activates the locking bolts, was lengthened. A cable was attached to the lengthened lever and the rear wall of the canopy (Illustration 3). At a specified opening angle (after the limiting wire is broken) this pulls the locking pin. This ensures that the center section cannot swing out and bend the locking pins. At the same time, the cockpit center section is placed in the wing's downdraft and is thus guaranteed to fly away beneath the wing. The following page contains a description of the jettison procedure with the additional release mechanism. Installation of the additional pull cable is seen only as an interim solution to be retrofitted in the 109 G cockpit. It can easily be installed by the units themselves. For an eventual series introduction Herr Caroli's

proposal will have to be adopted. This calls for the two pins on the right side with which the canopy center section is mounted in the front and rear sections of the canopy to be replaced by two claws. At certain opening angles the claws no longer retain their grip on the front and rear sections of the canopy, and thus the canopy center section can fly away below in the same way as shown in the jettisoning procedure. A memo has already been sent to BAL 109 informing them of the above proposal and the interim solution by means of a pull cable. It is to be assumed that the above improvement can be introduced by the units quickly. Herr Kรถnig of Erla Antwerp has already designed and flight tested a jettisoning mechanism for the improved view canopy, in which the center and rear sections are replaced by a single piece. It appears that this type of jettisoning mechanism will offer certain advantages, provided a design solution can be found to prevent the pilot becoming hung up on the levers while entering or leaving the cockpit. Augsburg, 2/11/43 FAV-A/Kal/Ka.

Canopy Jettisoning Process Canopy is depicted as per Drawing No. 109.135-002 and 109.117-003. Also, the relief spring drawing-number A 17729 Z is installed. The jettisoning procedure depicted below took approximately 0.3 sec. Canopy Jettisoning Process Canopy is depicted as per Drawing No. 109.135-002 and 109.117-003. Also, the relief spring drawing-number A 17729 Z and the flight department's additional release mechanism are installed. The jettisoning procedure depicted below took approximately 0.7 sec. Flight Report No. 980/298 Bf 109, W.Nr. 160031, CM + ZD. Pilot: Willemsen Assignment: To demonstrate trouble-free jettisoning of canopy. (Complaints from front-line units) 1st Test (23/9/43) State of aircraft: Canopy center section with rubber sealing and compensating spring. Airframe otherwise standard. Result: The canopy lock was released in straight and level flight at a speed of 350 kph. Afterwards the folding canopy immediately opened to the right, the restraining wire immediately broke, and as a result the canopy struck the right side of the fuselage. Jettisoning the canopy by pulling the emergency jettison lever was no longer possible, because the forceful opening of the canopy bent the locking bolts. The subsequent landing with the canopy hanging to the side

was uneventful. On the ground great force was required to pull the emergency jettison lever. 2nd Test (5/10/43) State of aircraft: Additional cable on the canopy, which opens the lock after the limiting wire is broken. Otherwise as in 1. Result: The canopy lock was released in straight and level flight at a speed of 350 kph. Afterwards, the folding canopy immediately opened to the right and the restraining wire immediately broke. As the canopy opened further, the additional cable released the locking bolts and the canopy with rear section was jettisoned smoothly. A detailed report on the experiment with photos of the jettisoning is being issued by FAVA1. Augsburg, 7/10/43 FAFb/Wi/He.

FAVA = Flight operations department/experimental section

Messerschmitt Flight Department Testing of Tail wheel Locking on tall tailwheel Me 109 - tailwheel Qualities Group Test Report No. 109 20 E 44 Date 8/11/44 Copy 12 Cause: Frequent occurrence of swinging, especially on landing, during factory test flights with aircraft with the tall tailwheel, device No. 8-2926 G-5. There the cause was seen as imprecise installation of the tailwheel, while the FAM placed most of the blame on the uncommanded unlocking of the tailwheel, which could occur with minimal lateral forces on account of the rake of the locking bolt and its limited locking path. Procedure: First tailwheel track deviations were measured using several Me 109s, and a test flight was conducted with the aircraft which produced the highest value. As the tailwheel delivered with W.Nr. 330 105 unlocked after a short time, leading to a strong swing, during the course of repeated modifications a version of the lock was developed, which so far has not led to further complaints. At the same time a tailwheel delivered by the Waiblingen Firm is under test on W.Nr. 167 227.

Results to Date: The greatest measured deviation of the neutral tailwheel position to the side was 1.2° to the left, furthermore, the tailwheel had sideways play of up to ±1.8°. Takeoffs and landings were possible without difficulty with a toe-in of 1.2°. Flight tests with eccentric locking bolts with up to 5° toe-in are now in process in order to more closely examine the effect of tailwheel track deviation on takeoff and landing behavior. The lock now installed in W.Nr. 330 105, with 5° angle of pressure on the locking bolts, external unlocking spring, lengthened tension spring in the pull cable plus lengthened cable length has so far not yielded any complaints in 20 flights. The new Elma tailwheel installed in Me 109 W.Nr. 163 227 with supplementary retraction spring on the connecting lever has not produced a complaint in 27 flights to date. The details of the modifications and dimensions of the new parts are contained in the following section.

Conveyor Line Production of the Bf 109 G Wing In the beginning the airframe sector of the German aviation industry was forced to build using the production line method because the numbers were initially lacking for conveyor line production. Wartime conditions resulted in a change in the fighter program which required consideration of mass production techniques. Although other aircraft were built in large numbers, it was generally acknowledged that conveyor lines could only be used for pure assembly work. The decision was made to also produce the 109 G wing on the conveyor line. The greatest difficulties arose from the fact that the Bf 109 was a type which had not been designed for conveyor line production. This means that the wing lacks the design breakdown, which is standard today. An attempt now had to be made to build the wing on the assembly line without design changes. In addition, use of the assembly line was of vital importance to increased production and had to begin by a certain deadline. Thus, no experiments were possible. Furthermore, because of the stage the program was at, it was necessary that numbers produced should increase continuously from the very first day. The conveyor line had to work from the very outset, and in particular produce interchangeable wings. Further difficulties were encountered in the spaces available, which were in no way suitable for conveyor line production. Available hall space was similar in Regensburg and Leipzig at 40 x 100 m (4000 m2), while at Wiener-Neustadt Hangar 58 with 8100 m2 was available. There the conveyor line fixtures had to be arranged to permit a reasonable line division. Furthermore, it was necessary to build the structural frames stiff enough so that the continuous forward movement had no effect whatever on assembly precision of the wings.

As a further condition a significantly more precise component part production had to be achieved so that no fitting or adjustment work was necessary during assembly. More precise presswork tools were required, plus inspection gauges with which to check the ribs after manufacture. Since interchangeability was of particular importance, it was necessary to install the mounting points for fuselage, ailerons, landing flaps, slats, and wingtips in the structural framing. Furthermore, new uses had to be found for construction jigs rendered superfluous by the raw materials shortage. A work platform was attached to the construction framing so that the workers could move with it. Moving the construction frame back posed a particular problem, as there was very little room available and idling the production line had to be avoided if at all possible. The construction frame ran on a track and was moved forward by means of a roller chain. Propulsion was by gear drive, whose revolutions could be adjusted by changing a set of gears. The resulting line speed was 4.1 to 24.5 cm per minute, which equaled to the output of 90 to 525 sets of wings for a monthly operating time of 220 hours (status at the end of 1942). Altogether, three months after start-up of the line total time saved was 300 hours, which after the line got broken in was reduced a further 300 hours to 940 hours.

Reconnaissance Aircraft with Jumo 213 E In September 1944 a G-series Bf 109 was converted into a high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. It was powered by a Jumo 213 E engine using E-4 fuel plus MW 50. The four-blade propeller, which had a diameter of 3.1 meters, was housed in a VS 19 hub. The greater engine output meant that the radiator had to be enlarged. A radiator with an area of 60 dm2 was selected. which only increased the CWK value to 1.6 compared to the 1.45 of the smaller radiator (42 dm2). Theoretically, this should have resulted in a maximum airspeed loss of 10 kph. Expected maximum speed with climb/combat power and MW 50 was 780 kph at an altitude of 9 800 meters. Without power boosting maximum speed was 780 kph at 10 800 meters. These figures do not take into account the Mach effect! This would produce an approximate loss of speed of 25 kph at an altitude of 10800 meters and 40 kph at 9800 meters. The airframe was equipped with larger horizontal and vertical tail surfaces. The main undercarriage had no mainwheel fairings, however, the tailwheel was re tractable. No armament was planned, instead the aircraft was to carry a Type Rb 50/30 or Rb 75/30 camera. Takeoff weight was 3 700 kg. This machine. Werknummer 410 528, was tested at Berlin Staaken on 12 October 1944. Unfortunately, no further information is available.

The Bf 109 H High-Altitude Fighter

The RLM's demands for improved high-altitude performance were becoming ever more urgent, since the operating altitudes of enemy bomber and fighter formations and combat altitudes continued to increase. In the spring of 1942 Messerschmitt AG received a contract from the RLM to develop simultaneously with the "Special Carrier Single-Seater" a "Special High-Altitude Fighter." Since lack of production capacity made the prospects of initiating two special aircraft programs almost nil, especially if a rapid start-up of carrier aircraft production was to be achieved, a version of the Bf 109 G with a lengthened wing and sturdier undercarriage was chosen. At the same time it was planned to bolster the aircraft's armament by installing two MG 151s in the wing roots. By exchanging the DB 605 for a DB 628 and adding extended wingtips, it was believed that a high-aititude fighter could be produced which met all of the current requirements (ceiling 14 km). Development of this type, which was designated the Me 155, proceeded very slowly in Paris. This was due in part to the recently formed design bureau of the SNCAN firm, and also to the inadequate support provided by the local representative from the Augsburg project bureau, which at that time was completely overtaxed with development work on the Me 309. When, in January 1943, the carrier program and with it the Me 155 carrier aircraft was halted, the high-altitude version based on the Me 155 became the basis of the Me 209, which had by then taken the place of the Me 309. (On

instructions of the RLM the Me 155 project was transferred to Blohm & Voss in Finkenwerder where it continued as the Bv 155.) On 23 April 1943 the proposal "Me 209 high-altitude fighter with DB 628" was submitted to the RLM. The performance figures for the project were almost the same as those of the Me 155 high-altitude version. The RLM suggested to Messerschmitt verbally that it investigate ways to achieve even greater high-altitude performance, even if it increased costs. The result was the Messerschmitt Projekt 1091 (extreme high-altitude fighter). Anticipated power plants were the DB 628 and the DB 603 with TKL 15 (exhaust-driven turbosupercharger 92279 by Hirth). In a report by Messerschmitt AG dated 26 July 1943 it was also proposed that a development series of high-altitude aircraft be produced in three stages. The first stage consisted merely of modifying a few components, especially the installation of a win center-section. Also given consideration was installing the DB 603 supercharger on the DB 605. In the second phase the wingspan was to be increased by lengthening the wing center-section, and the fuselage lengthened, as well. The third stage was to see the installation of the DB 603 power plant with turbo-supercharger. This would involve widening the fuselage in the area of the exhaust and supercharger air lines. Since the associated planning indicated that series production of this type could not begin before the end of 1944, in summer 1943 the Messerschmitt AG received a development

and construction contract from the RLM for a "high-altitude fighter quick solution" based on the Bf 109 G. The intention was to increase the service ceiling of the Bf 109 with as little cost as possible. The main operational role of this type was to be the interception of enemy high-altitude bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. A reduction in structural strength and a possible degradation of handling qualities in order to achieve improved high-altitude performance was accepted for both of these operational tasks. In order to save weight, the pilot's back armor was deleted and armament was limited to three weapons. Bf 109 G-3 W.Nr. 16281, which had been built at Regensburg in February 1943, was fitted with the DB 628 V8 and became prototype V 49. In trials the aircraft failed to achieve the predicted performance. On 22 December 1943 Heinrich Beauvais took the DB 628-powered V 54 (code DV + JB. Werknummer 15708) up on a flight which lasted from 14:42 to 15:00 hours. He assessed the flight, which took place at Augsburg, as follows: "The Messerschmitt AG company wanted an evaluation of yaw axis characteristics. The test was hampered by the loo small horizontal tail in conjunction with the lateral moment, which was known to be loo great. The vertical tail was insufficient for a production version! The lateral oscillations were uncomfortably high. Rudder effectiveness was poor, and, as mentioned, an enlargement of the entire vertical tail is necessary. In no case should the standard production ailerons be used." The production state of the aircraft was as follows: G-5 fuselage; wingspan 13.26 m; wing area 21.9 m2 aspect ratio 1:8.5; ailerons 2.12 m, normal ailerons extended outboard by 1.46 m; standard G horizontal tail; vertical tail raised by 125 mm, no horn, with Flettner, gross weight approximately 3.4 tons.

In the attempt to achieve an optimum high-altitude fighter the idea of installing a Jumo 213 A in the 109 was also discussed. As at the department heads conference with Gen. Feldm. Milch on 29 October 1943, there was a lively debate concerning the expected performance and the considerable cost involved. But in the end no significant advantage could be seen for installing the Jumo 213 in the Me 109. At the beginning of 1944 several officials of the Messerschmitt AG proposed adopting the 109 H as a universal fighter. In a letter dated 2 February 1944 Project Director HĂźgelschĂ¤ffer detailed the reasons against this idea. The performance of the Bf 109 H was compared to that of the Bf 109 K. The Bf 109 K was approximately 20 kph faster at ground level, furthermore, the K's speed advantage continued to rise to about 25 kph at maximum boost altitude. The Bf 109 H had in its favor a greater service ceiling and a somewhat better rate of climb. The H's roll rate was significantly lower than that of the Bf 109 K. According to flight tests the Bf 109 H required 6 seconds to complete a roll, while the figure for the K was 4.5 seconds. Furthermore, the overall armament of the H was rated below that of the Bf 109 K. Finally, there was the reduced structural strength of n=4.5, which made it impossible for the Bf 109 H to exploit its lower wing loading. Further testing was overshadowed by a crash involving test pilot Fritz Wendel on 14 April 1944; Wendel escaped by parachute. Ludwig BĂślkow happened to witness the accident. The end of the Bf 109 H came in April 1944 when the RLM ordered the DB 628 dropped. The reason was the RLM's contention that the DB 628 was not production ready. Thus, in the end only a few examples of the Bf 109 H powered by the DB 605 were built and delivered to the units.

These were used sporadically over England. An important point in the cancellation of Messerschmitt's high-altitude fighter was the advanced state of development of the Jumo 213-powered Fw 190 D-9 and the Ta 152. Furthermore, the situation in the air war suggested that operational altitudes were not about to increase as drastically as once expected.

Bf 109 K The Bf 109 G series was produced by several factories in a total of 16 variants with 82 different models. This led to increased difficulties in repairs and in the exchanging of parts (fit, accuracy of size). Far more than 1,000 changes had been introduced, and these were noted in modification directives. And so it was that Messerschmitt, at the urging of the RLM (fighter staff), initiated a special action. Ludwig Bรถlkow was asked by the head of the supervisory board, Fritz Seiler, if he would assume direction of this major rationalization effort. The resulting version was to receive the designation Bf 109 K. The objective of the Bf 109 K project was to equal or surpass the performances of Allied aircraft, such as the Spitfire XIV and

P-51D Mustang. But this meant achieving an increase in speed over existing variants of 50 to 70 kph. This was the challenge facing project director Ludwig Bรถlkow. He was assigned the former design chief of the Bf 109. Richard Bauer, one of the "most gifted designers," as Bรถlkow said. As well, there came the series bureau of Messerschmitt Regensburg, plus ten experienced Bf 109 designers. His working staff consisted of a total of 140 men. As Bรถlkow himself said, for him this was the best apprenticeship with a big total responsibility. The tasks of the "Bf 109 development bureau" still had to be laid down. The first planned point was the reworking of all series drawings for the Bf 109 G, incorporating the many modification directives. Also on the priority list was the elimination of the type's weak points, for example, the frequent undercarriage failures and its tendency to swing on takeoff and landing. Further changes were the installation of the DB 605 D or L engine, which offered better high-altitude performance, the previously mentioned speed increase, and the installation of an engine-mounted MK 108 cannon. All of these changes and improvements would not be allowed to delay or interrupt production. The first step was to relocate to Wiener Neustadt, which was still considered safe from Allied air attacks. The design bureau began its work in Wiener Neustadt at the beginning of 1943. For flight testing the various modifications, however, the team had to use what was available there. Lacking were a wind tunnel and various measuring devices. The aerodynamic reworking brought various improvements with it. Most of the bulges that characterized the Bf 109 G were eliminated. For example, the engine cowling was broadened by about 70 mm in the area of the belt feeds for the MG 131s and was faired into the fuselage. As well, the new DB 605 D production engine, which used the larger supercharger of the DB 603, was installed.

The greater engine output meant that a larger oil cooler was also needed. Furthermore, as had been the case with the DB 605 AS engine, a larger supercharger air intake was necessary. Several improvements were also made in the area of the undercarriage, for example, the long tailwheel. As Dr. Ludwig Bölkow reported, all of this went back to a comparative measurement of the Fw 190. The latter had a taxiing angle which was 2° less than that of the Bf 109, 1° was subtracted, and the Bf 109 K was laid out based on the new angle, which led to a longer tailwheel. This was fully retractable and equipped with automatically-retracting wheel well doors. The bellcrank for the rudder had to be modified to allow the longer tailwheel to retract. This bellcrank, which was mounted horizontally in the tail section bearer, was replaced by two individual levers mounted vertically in the end of the fuselage. As a result the two small bulges on either side of the tail section bearer, features of the Gversion, disappeared. Recently it has been stated in various literature that the tailwheel doors could also be closed on the ground: the doors were controlled by the tailwheel, therefore they were open on the ground. Since the tailwheel retracted when the main undercarriage was raised and had no lock, leakage in the hydraulic system sometimes allowed the tailwheel to drop to some degree during flight. This led to considerable turbulence through the open wheel well and increased drag. Consequently, the doors were often forced closed by the units, as a result of which the tailwheel could not be retracted. Because of the aircraft's increased weight the main undercarriage truss was strengthened and larger 660 x 190 wheels were mounted on 13" rims. The larger wheels made it necessary to replace the bulges on the wing upper surface with more aerodynamic fairings and add small bulges to the wheel well doors. Another change was the deletion of the antenna mast on the fuselage spine. The FuG 16ZY's loop antenna on the fuselage spine was moved back to Fuselage Section

3. Furthermore, the access hatch on the left side of Fuselage Section 5 was relocated to Fuselage Section 4 because of the revised internal arrangement. The shape of the hatch followed that of the fuselage frame. As a result of relocating the compass system to a position further aft in the fuselage, the round access hatch on the left side of the fuselage beneath the recessed foot step was deleted. Further design changes were carried out in the area of the cockpit, for example, the cockpit floorboards and most pilot seats were made of wood. The switch box with the automatic circuit breakers on the right cockpit wall was made larger and easier to scan. The operating controls for the radio and oxygen systems to the right of the pilot's seat were mounted in a sort of console. The standardized blind flying panel, which was also used in the Me 262, was formed as part of the instrument panel. As a result, a vertical speed indicator was now available. The four-lamp system for the undercarriage was replaced by three lamps or indicators. A mechanical indicator for the extended undercarriage, similar to that of the Bf 109 F, was fitted. This indicator, which was visible from the cockpit, consisted of two metal rods; painted red, these projected from the upper surface of the wing when the undercarriage was extended. The door to the baggage compartment behind the pilot was enlarged and made more square. Two other important changes were a switch to thin steel sheet from aluminum for the leading edge slats and the use of wood in construction of the tail section. The wooden tail gave improved aerodynamics, however, it weighed 2 to 10 kilograms more for the same structural strength. The installation of the MK 108 required further important changes. The shape of the control stick had to be changed so that this weapon could be removed to the rear. As a result it was bowed to the right side. The entire rudder mechanism was redesigned on account of the ammunition box, now consisting largely of sheet steel. Dr. Bölkow reported, "that at the time a draftsman reworked the rough drawing

from the Augsburg design bureau: but no examinations for stiffness were carried out. Fortunately the test pilot aborted his flight and noted 'everything is too soft.' The design was changed within one night. Two days later the pilot flew again and then everything was in order." The changes compared to the Bf 109 G proved successful, and the specified speed and performance was achieved. Thus, the Bf 109 K was undoubtedly the most capable version of the Bf 109 and the most demanding to fly. At the same time it showed the limits of what could be achieved with piston-engined fighters.

Bf 109 K-4 The Bf 109 K was the only version of the K-series to be built in large numbers. By the end of 1944 a total of 856 K-4s left the Regensburg factory alone. Further confirmed numbers are not available. The aircraft never reached the units in these numbers, however, which was in part due to sabotage and the resulting accidents. For example, on 18 March 1945 the technical officer of JG 6 reported: Extract from the Chronicle of Peter Schmoll, the Messerschmitt Factories in the Second World War Newly-delivered aircraft are very prone to problems in the first 5 to 10 flying hours. It is almost always the same complaints, which are a burden to the unit technically and reduce its operational readiness. Complaints of the following nature appear almost regularly: elevator play in the mounting lever; loose spacers on the elevator control rods; too-long mounting bolts on the undercarriage suspension fittings; absence of slip markings on the mainwheels; leaky or plugged lines in the MW 50 system; shorts in the electrical system... loose and improperly fitted sparkplugs; loose mounting clamps on the hoses, etc. The following Rüstsätze (equipment sets) were planned for the K-4: Rüstsatz 1 consisted of gravity weapons (bombs), 1 x 500 kg, or 1 x 250 kg. These were mounted either on an ETC 500/IX B or a Type 503 integral rack beneath the fuselage. The Rüstsatz also included a ZBK 241/1 fusing battery box in Fuselage Section 5 and a ZSK fusing switchbox. The gravity weapons were controlled by the bomb-release button (B2 button) on the KG 13 A control column grip and by the ZSK 244A on the back-up panel. Rüstsatz 3 consisted of a 300-liter drop tank, which was mounted on the Type 503A-1 rack. The fuel was transferred from the drop tank into the main tank by means of supercharger air. The drop tank could be jettisoned at any time in flight. Rüstsatz 4 consisted of two MG 151/

20 cannon, one beneath each wing in gondola-shaped fairings. The weapons were fired using the B-1 button on the KG 13 A. The weapons were cocked automatically by switching on the safety switch on the SZKK (switch selector control box). R端stsatz 6 was to be the installation of a BSK 16 ballistic gun camera in the left wing between nose ribs 3 and 4. Operation was automatic when the guns were fired. The following data are from a report by the GL/CE 2 (RLM) on 13 August 1944. Performance figures for the Bf 109 K-4/R2 reconnaissance aircraft were as follows: takeoff run was 380 m. Rate of climb at

ground level was 13.5 m/sec. Economical cruising speed was 645 kph at an altitude of 8.4 km. Range at that speed was 585 kilometers. Time to climb to 6 000 meters was 8 minutes. Maximum speed at emergency power was 580 kph at ground level and 710 kph at maximum boost altitude of 7 500 meters. Landing speed with a landing speed of 3 tons was 150 kph. The MW 50 system was also the subject of frequent discussion, for example, the question of dispensing with the overflow limiter in the MW 50 tank. On 26 June 1944 it was decided by C-E 2 III Bormann to proceed with the overflow limiter in the MW 50 tank in order to avoid further delays.

Me 109 L

The Me 109 L project was directly associated with the end of the Me 209 program. Following a conference of department heads at the office of the Technische Amt GL/C-E on 16 December 1943 the Oberammergau project office proposed the Me 109 L project. Wingspan was to be 13.3 m, which gave an aerodynamic area of 21.0 m2 with an aspect ratio of 1 : 8. The outer wings were to be taken from the Bf 109 H1 with reinforcements. The wing had to be modified forward of the spar in the undercarriage area in order to accept a longer, wide-track undercarriage. This wide-track undercarriage was designed without camber and toe-in, and to accept either 700 x 175 or 740 x 210 wheels. The inner wing was to be built as a rectangular center section, with a continuous spar running at right angles to the fuselage axis, plus a tank area of 170 liters between the main spar and the rear auxiliary spar. The fuselage was to be the same as that of the Bf 109 H-1 or Bf 109 K. Two modifications would have to be made, however. For one, the riveted wing bearer would have to be removed. In its place fittings were installed for the one-piece spar, which compared to the spar position of the Bf 109 G if it had been moved forward in the fuselage 260 mm. Another planned change was the creation of a separation point for the standard power plant with the corresponding engine mounts.

Me 109 L Weights

Armor

kg 1339 1879 104 93 105 87 14

Equipped weight

3621

Airframe Engine Fixed equipment Other equipment Armament:

Pilot Fuel Oil Ammunition: GM 1 + equipment

2 x MG 151 1 x MK 108

570 l x 0.79 MK 108 MG 151

106 455 50 38 100 160 4530

The horizontal tail, which had a surface area of 2.8 m2, was to be taken from the Bf 109 H-1. The new vertical tail should have matched the current state of flight testing. The anticipated engine was the Jumo 213 E standard power plant with annular radiator. This engine was to drive either a Junkers VS 9 four-blade wooden propeller with a diameter of 3.2 m or a three-blade Me P8 wooden propeller with a diameter of 3.4 m. Planned armament consisted of one engine-mounted MK 108 cannon with 70 rounds, plus two unsynchronized MG 151/20 cannon in the wings with 200 rounds each. No prototype of the Me 109 L is known to have been built.

Me 109 Z / Me 609

The idea of creating a single-seat destroyer or high-speed bomber from two single-seat fighters first appeared in a submission made on 9 December 1942. It was in keeping with a proposal to standardize aircraft to a few types. The first proposals for a fast aircraft from two single-seat fighters were based on the Bf 109 and Me 309. Such a combination had the advantage of taking less time to develop and put into production than a completely new aircraft for the same role. The cost for redesign and the designing of jigs and tools was only 30% of that of a new design. Another advantage of using an existing type was of course the accelerated testing, since prototypes could be produced quickly and, if necessary, in large numbers. Time wise, the so-called "double Bf 109." based on the Bf 109 G and its DB 605 engine, was the most effective solution. Another development possibility, albeit a more expensive one. was the use of the Jumo 213 power plant. The following changes were seen as necessary for the double aircraft: the creation of a new wing section between the two fuselages. This would be easy to manufacture, since rectangular wing attachment points were avail-

able. Modification of the main undercarriage made necessary the relocation of the undercarriage attachment points plus changes to the wheel wells in the wing. The higher all-up weight meant that larger wheels were required. Lengthening of the ailerons and slats was also necessary. It was anticipated that extra fuel tanks would be installed in the second fuselage in place of the pilot seat. A new, rectangular horizontal tail likewise had to be produced. The rest would be taken from existing production. Armament for the destroyer role was to be five MK 108 canon or four MK 108s and one MK 103. The bomber version would carry a reduced armament of two MK 108s but would have increased fuel tankage of 1140 liters. The planned bomb load was 2 x 1000 kg. Preliminary designs for a combination of two Me 309s powered by DB 603 G engines displayed similar possibilities to those of the Bf 109. Because of its more powerful engines, this version was expected to have a better performance. Structural layout was similar to that of the Me 109 Z. The destroyer version was to be armed with two MK 108 and two MK 103 cannon, plus two further MK 108s in the outer wings. Neither the Me 109 Z nor the Me 609 was built and tested.

Double Bf 109 = Me 109 Z Provisional performance figures Purpose Power plant Engine data: at 0 m at opt. alt.

DB 605 Fuel B4 Takeoff power 1,475 H.P. Climb and combat power 1,310 H.P. Max. continuous power 1,075 H.P. Climb and combat power 1,230 H.P/7.1

Destroyer Jumo 213 B4 1,750 1,600 1,350 1,410/7.5

Bomber DB 605

Equipped weight Crew Fuel Oil Ammunition Bombs Gross weight

4 9 0 0 kg 100 825 90 340 (500) 6 2 0 0 kg

5300 100 825 90 340 (500) 6 6 0 0 kg

Max. Speeds at 0 m Takeoff power

580 kph

630

660

Climb and combat power

560

610

633

740 720

>760 750

-22

-26

At opt. alt.

Takeoff power 710 kph Climb and combat power 690

Rate of climb at 0 m, climb and combat power

-17m/sec

Jumo 213

C3 2,000 1,700 1,430 1,430/8.5

8 3 0 0 kg

4700 100 1140 125 170 2000 8 3 0 0 kg

5170 100 1140 125 170 2000

Loss of speed by 1 x 1000 kg bomb ca. 50 kph at 0 m , 7 5 kph at opt. alt.

These performance figures were calculated in haste and must therefore be treated as approximate values. Mach numbers were not taken into consideration.

Double Me 309 = Me 609 Provisional performance figures Purpose Power plant Engine data:

Destroyer DB 603 G B4 Fuel Takeoff power 1,750 H.P. Climb and combat power 1,575 H.P. At 0 m Max. continuous power 1,375 H.P. At opt. alt Climb and combat power 1,480/7.1 Equipped weight 6 380 kg 100 Crew 1 350 Fuel 85 Oil Ammunition 410 (500) Bombs Takeoff weight 8 3 2 5 kg Max. speeds At 0 m takeoff power 595 kph 580 climb and combat power at opt. alt. takeoff power 760 Climb and combat power 735 Rate of climb at 0 m with climb and combat power

Bomber DB 603 G C3 1,740 1,550 1,350 1,450/8.5 6 100 100 1500 85 145 2000 10100 kg 595 580 >770 >760

loss of speed through 1 x 1000 bomb approximately 50 kph at 0 m 75 kph at opt. alt..

-17m/sec

These performance figures were calculated in haste and must therefore be treated as approximate values. Mach numbers were not taken into consideration.

Preliminary Experiments for the Me 209

Bf 109 F-1 Werknummer 5642, which had been built in November 1940, was converted to a wide-track undercarriage for preliminary experiments for the Me 209. The modified machine was coded SG + EK. The aircraft was powered by a DB 605 D engine cleared for 1450 H.P. for takeoff and emergency power, furthermore, a retractable belly radiator was used. Total weight was 3100 kg. Testing began in February 1943 and encompassed takeoff characteristics, threepoint landings, night landings, dynamic longitudinal stability, and stalls. These revealed identical landing characteristics to those of the Bf 109 F or G. Furthermore, a stall in a turn with flaps retracted and engine at emergency power produced the same flow pattern as the Bf 109. Coming from outboard and inboard, the flow entered the area of the slats at an angle, leaving a relatively small triangular area behind the slats undisturbed. In this condition the aircraft wobbled strongly about the longitudinal axis, and these movements increased in intensity as wing loading rose. A full stall occurred only at large angles of attack. With the Me 209's high wing loading the effectiveness of the leading edge slats had to be improved. But since tests showed that extending the slats farther brought no improvement and the undercarriage only permitted a minor lengthening of the slats

(100 to 150 mm), poor stall behavior was accepted for the Me 209. Director of flight operations Baur carried out further trials with W.Nr. 5642; for example, night landing trials at Lechfeld at the end of March 1943 produced the following results: 1. The exhaust flames are a significant hindrance at night. 2. The bulb in the reflector sight (Revi) must be separately blacked out, since it is too bright even at the lowest setting. 3. UV instrument lighting is recommended, there is no illumination of the horizontal stabilizer pilch indicator. During the second night landing the torque link on the left undercarriage leg broke, whereupon the mainwheel turned sideways. Further trials were flown by Fritz Wendel in Werknummer 14003, VJ + WC. The machine had a takeoff weight of 3780 kg (!) and a landing weight of 3650 kg, According to a report dated 29 April 1943, stalling behavior deteriorated worse than expected. At the stall there was such a violent aileron movement that the pilot was unable to compensate even with both hands on the stick. At small angles of attack the aircraft rolled very quickly to more than 90 degrees. As well, no improvement could be expected by enlarging the slat openings. Takeoff and landing characteristics were better than those of the Me 309 at the same weight.

Messerschmitt Regensburg Factory

Aircraft Production Bf 109 G

Assembly of Bf 109 G

Acceptance Flight Activity Dec. 1941 - Dec. 1942

Month

Year

Model

Werk-Nr.

November December January

1941 1941 1942 1942 1942 1942 1942 1942 1942 1942 1942 1942 1942 1942 1942 1942 1942 1942 1942 1942 1942 1942 1942

G-1 G-1 G-1/R2 G-1 G-1 G-2 G-1 G-2 G-1 G-1 G-1 G-1/R1 G-1/R1 G-1/R1 G-2 G-2 G-2 G-2 G-4 G-4/trop G-4 G-4 G-4/trop

14001 14003 14010 14015 14022 14028 14029 14036 14037 14039 14064 14075 14092 14133 14151 14184 14231 14246 16001 16039 16093 16141 16183

February

March April May June July August September October November December

Total production from Nov. 1941 - D e c . 1942:

Werk.Nr.

Quantity

to to to to to

14002 14009 14014 14021 14027

14035

to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to

14038 14063 14074 14091 14132 14150 14183 14230 14245 14268 16038 16092 16140 16182 16220

2 7 5 7 6 1 7 1 2 25 11 17 4! 18 33 47 15 23 38 54 48 42 38 488

Bf 109

G-1

G-1/R2

G-2

G-2/trop

G-4

G-4/trop

0 9

1 2

28 1

40 33

10 1 27 68 52 50 50

2 3

48 27

converted to trop 46 54 48 80

488

38 54

48 42

128

Messerschmitt Werke Regensburg

Aircraft Production Bf 109 G

Assembly Bf 109 G

Test Flight Activity Jan. 1943 - Dez. 1943

Month Januar

Year 1943

Model

1943

G-4/trop G-3

1943

G-3

!943

G-4/trop G-6

Werk - Nr. 16221 bis

Werk - Nr. 16250

St체ck

Bf 109

16251

bis

16269

16270 16301

bis.

16300

bis

16312

16313

bis

16354

G-6

16354

bis

16523

170

1943

G-6

16524

bis

16650

127

1943

G-6

18001

bis

18045

1943

G-6

bis

18070

196

Mai Juni

1943

G-6

18046 18071

bis

18275

205

1943

G-6

18276

bis

18512

237

Juli

1943

G-6

18513

bis

18780

268

August

1943

G-6

18781

bis

18900

120

1943

G-6

160001

bis

160120

120

241

September

1943

G-6

160121

bis

160197

Oktober

1943

G-6

160196

bis

160363

168

166

November Dezember

1943 1943

G-6

160364

bis

160565

202

G-6

160566

bis

160835

270

Februar

44 M채rz April

1943 1943

270 Total

Total produced Jan. 1943 - D e z . 1 9 4 3 :

2168

Flight Activity

2166

Messerschmitt Werke Regensburg

Aircraft Production Bf 109 G

Assembly Bf 109 G

Test Flight Activity Jan. 1944 - Dez. 1944

Month

Year

Januar Februar M채rz

1944 1944 1944

135

April

1944

343

Model

Werk - N r . W e r k - Nr.

Quantity

109

G-6

G-6/AS

G-14

G-14/AS G - 1 0

K-4

434 305

Mai

1944

550

Juni

1944

659

Juli August

1944

650

1944

704

September

1944

701

Oktober

1944

755

November

1944

543

Dezember

1944

537 Total

Total produced Jan.1944 - Dez. 1944:

6316

Flight Activity

6316

3165

325

479

1373

118

856

Messerschmitt AG

Type

License Production Nb 7b

Bf 109

Delivery plan

Programm 223 , Anderungsstand B vom 15.8.1943 1944

1943 To be delivered

Erla

delivered by bis 31.7.43 20 160 384 266 69

G-1 G-2 G-2 tp G-4 tp G-5 K-1

20 160 384 266

G-6 tp

298

G-6

1524

324

G-6/U2

500

K-2

4810

Studie G -1 v. 10.9.43 G-2 G-2 tp G-4 tp G-5 K-1 G-6/U2 G-6 K-2

Ausgestellt am: Aussteller:

Total

930

170

195

190

140

160

250

290

310

330

350

370

390

400

380

350

300

250

200

150

100

450 709!

430 7521

400 350 7921 8271

300 250 8571 882!

200 9021

150 9171

30 80 9251 9281

210

9281

1521

20 160 384 266 391 930 500 2X50

20 160 384 266 69

6530

12031

1521

21.9.43

165

622

320 340 3851 4191

360 380 4551 4931

400 420 5331 5751

440 450 6191 6641

450

290 500

500

450

350

250

150

100

550 9281

550 9831

500 500 400 300 2(X) 150 UK) 50 10331 10831 11231 11531 11731 11881 11981 12031

200 210 240 250 1721 1931 2171 2421

260 270 2681 295!

280 300 3231 3531

280

300 30

200 170

169

194

235

410

210 200 240 280 330 1721 1961 2241 2571

geändert am:

1945

380 420 460 500 2951 3371 3831 4331

550 550 4881 5431

550 550 5981 6531

Geheim! 1. Dies ist ein Staatsgeheimnis im Sinne des §88 RSTGB 2. Weitergabe nur verschlossen

550 550 7081 7631

550 550 8181 8731

+ Umschaltung auf Höhenjäger vorgesehen, z.Zt. in Bearbeitung

Type Bf 109

Messerschmitt AG License production

Studie v. 10.9.43

1943 9 Delivered by 8

1944 1 2

C-2 G-2/R1 G-4 G-4/R3 G-6 G-6/U4

914 10 636 HO 1420 1445

bis 31.7.43 914 10 635 80 648 46

130 150

110 190

80 250

100 250

300

K-2

10340

G-6/R3

4(1

G-6/R2

250

G-8

2100

17235

2355

280 300 330 370 400 430 2635 2935 3265 3635 4035 4465

G-2/G-2/RI G-4 G-4/R3 G-6 G-6/U4 K-2 G-6/R3 G-6/R2

924 636 80 1638 3199 13995 40 240

924 635 80 648 46

G-8

2040

22792

2355

182 310 370 480 520 580 660 745 830 910 1000 6202 2537 2847 3217 3697 4217 4797 5457 __ _ 7032 7942 8942

Ausgestellt am: Aussteller:

Programm 223 , Anderungsstand B vom 15.8.1943

Total

To be delivered

WNF

Delivery plan NB 7b

21.9.43

1945 1 2

330

485

560

650

720

790

690

540

390

240

1 182 64

170 100

10 18 10

100

470 525 4935 5460

585 660 6045 6705

750 830 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 800 650 500 350 200 100 50 7455 8285 9185 10085 10985 11885 12785 13685 14585 15385 16035 16535 16885 17085 17185 17235

580

555 100

530 200

300 500

890

990

1090

1190

1290

1390

1490

1290

1090 890

690

490

290

1 150 13

220 65

190 150

220 200 10

210 250

100

KM)

100

geĂ¤ndert am:

510

1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 100 50 10042 11242 12542 13942 15442 17042 18442 19642 20642 21442 22042 22442 22642 22742 22792

Geheim! 1. Dies ist ein Staatsgeheimnis im Sinne des Â§88 RSTGB 2. Weitergabe nur verschlossen

License Production

Delivery plan

Programm 223, Anderungsstand B

Bf 109

vom 15.8.1943 1943 To be delivered

Total

Delivered by

1944 12 I

1945 2

bis 31.7.43 Győr

Ga-2

Ga-4

7 2

-9 -6

Ga-6

733

-16

Ga-6

370

-8

1128

10 -39

(Ungarn)

Gesamt

39147

5585

Gesamt

Studie

53140

5585

Ausgestellt am: Aussteller:

21.9.43

15 64

20 84

25 109

50 379

55 534

62 596

933

983

1023

1098

1113

10 1123

873

25 1078

733

30 1053

663

70 803

429

50 479

229

50 329

179

50 279

139

geändert am:

Geheim! 1. Dies isi ein Staatsgeheimnis im Sinne des §88 RSTGB 2. Weitergabe nur verschlossen

1128

M e s s e r s c h m i t t AG cense production Delivery plan

Type Bf 109

Programm 223, Anderungsstand B

1943

vom 15.8.1943 1944

Li-

NB 7b

1945

To be delivered

Total

Delivered by 8 bis 31.7.43

vermtl. Regensburg

11503

1699

300

323

350

380

370

460

500

540

570

600

590

600

580

520

440

380

400

220

280

Studie v. 10.9.43

49 Ausgestellt am: Aussteller:

21.9.43

ge채ndert am:

Geheim! 1 Dies ist ein Staatsgeheimnis im Sinne des S88 RSTGB 2. Weitergabe nur verschlossen

vorgesehen, z.Zt. in Bearbeitung

Walter Eichhorn seen ferrying the Bf 109 G-10 from Mannheim to Manching on 18 June 1998. (Andreas Gross)

Takeoff sequence depicting "Black 6" at Duxford, England.

"Black 2" at evening (above right).

The red-painted undercarriage legs indicate the requirement for C3 fuel. This alerted the ground crews at a distance. (Wolfgang Otto)

Me 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Variable-pitch propeller DB 601 engine Engine bearer Oil tank Oil cooler Cannon blast tube Engine-mounted cannon 2 machine-guns Coolant tank Supercharger Reflector gunsight Antenna

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Radio First-aid kit Undercarriage fitting Undercarriage, retractable Wheel well Tailwheel, retractable Leading edge slat Spar Radiator Aileron Pitot tube Navigation fight

M E S S E R S C H M I T

A.G.

A U G S B U R G

Posed propaganda photo supposedly depicting Bf 109 F-2 night operations. A striking photograph nonetheless.

Operational Bf 109 G-6/ trop of the 365째 Squadriglia of the Regia Aeronautica's 150째 Gruppo. The photo was taken on the Sicilian airfield of Sciacca on 8 September 1943.

Pretty winter scene depicting a parked Bf 109 F-2 of JG 53 "Pik-As."

A Bf 109 G-2 (MT-229) of the Finnish Air Force while running up its engine prior to a mission. In the background is another G-2 (MT-218).

This Finnish Bf 109 G-6/ trop, MT-452, flew with 3/HleLv34 in the summer of 1944.

Bf 109 G-6 fighters of the Lifelike model of a Bf 109 Finnish Air Force during K-6 by G端nter Sengfelpreparations for a sortie. der (above right). These aircraft already wear the white-blue-white roundels introduced after the war.

Captured Bf 109 G-6 FE-496 in natural metal before its restoration as "White 2" for the National Air and Space Museum (right). A visibly happy American in the cockpit of a captured Bf 109 G-2/ trop on an airfield somewhere in the Mediterranean theater (far right).

This restored Bf 109 G-6 is the property of the Messerschmitt Foundation and has found a deserving place among other flyable Messerschmitt machines in the "Willy Messerschmitt Flying Museum" at Manching.

Several views of Bf 109 W.Nr. 5604, VK + AB, an F-series pre-production machine with E-series wings. Maiden flight on 16 July 1941 with Fritz Wendel at the controls.

One of the first Bf 109 Fs at the Erprobungsstelle Tarnewitz for installation and testing of two wing-mounted MG-FF cannon.

SG + GV, W.Nr. 5632, a Bf 109 F-1, was one of the aircraft delivered to the first two Jagdgeschwader to receive the new variant in the winter of 1940, JG 26 and 51. Experimental installation of two sets of four rocketlaunching tubes for RZ 65 rockets in Bf 109 F-2 W.Nr. 9246, TH + TX. View of Bf 109 F-0 PH + BE. Pre-production series aircraft retained the rectangular E-series supercharger air intake for the machine's DB 601 A engine.

General Arrangement Drawing Bf 109 F-1 (G端nter Sengfelder)

For Service Use Only! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

Master switch (safety switch) on SZKK 3 SZKK 3 round counter control box Reflector sight Clock Ignition switch Main cutoff switch Hand grip for plug cleaning Starter switch Electrical undercarriage indicator Undercarriage switch (retract) Undercarriage switch (extend) Coarse-fine altimeter Airspeed indicator Repeater compass Turn and hank indicator Boost pressure indicator RPM indicator Revi connector Position indicator (propeller) Coolant and oil temperature gauge Low fuel warning lamp Hand grip for emergency undercarriage activation (lowering) Fuel gauge Fuel and oil pressure gauge Instrument panel lights Canopy jettison lever Throttle lever with propeller control thumb switch Fuel cock lever Mechanical undercarriage indicator Cutoff switch Clamping nut for throttle lock Starter pump (injection pump) Handwheel for landing flap operation Handwheel for positioning horizontal stabilizer (trim) ZSk 244 A switchbox (for gravity weapons) Signal lights Control slick grip Firing lever for MG 17s (in safety position) Bomb release button Radio button MG 151 or MG 151/20 (interchangeable with MG FF) Flare pistol Fuel line between main and auxiliary (drop) tanks Sight glass in fuel line Main distributor panel front plate on main distributor panel Hand grip for rotary switch (for setting radiator flap position) Emergency bomb jettison hand grip Remote control valve for oxygen system Switchbox (for radio system) Oxygen system diaphragm Oxygen pressure gauge Oxygen gauge Cockpit ventilation lever Canopy sliding panel lock Horizontal stabilizer pitch indicator Automatic pitch control switch Firing button for engine-mounted weapon (MG 151 or MG FF)

Bf 109 F-2 Cockpit Fl Ă&#x153;b 8-192/9 Stand vom December 1941 Inzwischen eingetrente Anderungen beachten und darauf hinweisen

Twenty brand-new Bf 109 F-4 fighters in an immaculate row, probably in anticipation of a high-ranking visitor.

Experimental shop: undercarriage retraction lest for the full wheel fairing on the Bf 109 F. This feature was not adopted for production aircraft. Work on the DB 601E power plant of a Bf 109 F-4. The photo was taken at the Messerschmitt company airfield at Augsburg/Haunstetten on 18 May 1942. Russian ground personnel turn the starter crank of a captured Bf 109 F. The German insignia were applied after the aircraft's capture.

The wavy line marking indicates the III. Gruppe of a Jagdgeschwader. Visible beneath the seven is the antenna for the FuG 25a IFF set; also note the extra armor glass panel seen on F-series machi-

Surely a posed photograph, but nevertheless interesting on account of the excellent view it offers of the external armor-glass panel used by F-4 series aircraft.

Weight Diagram Me 109 F-4/trap

PH + XH: first installation of the WGr.21 rocket tube beneath the wing of a Bf 109 G-6, W.Nr. 18550 Faired, law-drag struts on a WGr.21 tube (top).

In addition to the ETC 500, the Bf 109 fighterbomber was equipped with a saddle carrier for four SC 50 bombs. Here the carrier is seen on a Bf 109 F (right).

ETC 500 under the fuselage of a Bf 109 F fighter-bomber for carriage of 250-kg bombs. Clearly visible are the adjustable damps designed to fit various sizes of bomb, here for the LMA 500, 150. A SC 250 practice bomb on the ETC 500 rack of a Bf 109 F fighter-bomber.

Bf 109 G-2 W.Nr. 14240, CC + PK, on the compass-swing platform of the Regensburg company airfield, August 1942. The undercarriage fairings were often removed for winter operations to prevent snow from blokking the mainwheels. On this Bf 109 G-1 the compressor air intake scoop is clearly visible above the supercharger air intake.

Front view of the Bf 109 G-1/R1, W.Nr. 14008, BD + GC seen here after being converted to carry a large-caliber bomb.

A third undercarriage leg was installed beneath the fuselage to provide ground clearance for the transport of a SC 500 bomb; after takeoff the third leg was jettisoned by parachute. These photographs depict the unusual conversion of Bf 109 G-1 BD + GC, which also carried two 300-liter drop tanks beneath the wings.

The additional undercarriage leg descending by parachute after takeoff by BD + GC.

General Arrangment Drawing Bf 109 G-2 (G端nter Sengfelder)

Side View Bf 109 G-2 (G端nter Sengfelder)

Tarpaulins cover this Bf 109 lighter, protecting it against the icy cold on a forward airfield somewhere in Russia. Bf 109 G-4/trop W.Nr. 19020, NH + RT, in front of the acceptance flight hangar at Augsburg, where it was built. Clearly visible are the larger tailwheel and the sand filter in front of the supercharger air intake.

Installation of the Rb 12.5/7 x 9 camera in the fuselage of a Bf 109 G-6/ V3 tactical reconnaissance aircraft.

Bf 109 G-3 high-altitude fighter, seen here in an unusual winter camouflage scheme.

Field repairs to a Bf 109 G-4 of a Romanian fighter unit in the summer of 1943.

Beginning with the G-5 series, the Bf 109's firepower was increased through the replacement of the two 7.9-mm MG 17 machine-guns with two 13-mm MG 131s. This resulted in the characteristic bulges on both sides of the engine cowling. The aircraft's basic armament consisted of two MG 131s and an enginemounted MG 151/20. Front view of the Bf 109 G-5. In spite of the two bulges, early examples of this variant were characterized by a good aerodynamic shape.

Bf 109 G-6/K6 parked at the edge of a forest for concealment. This photo provides an excellent view of the MG 151/20 cannon be-

neath the wings and the two large circular bulges over the MG 131s. Note the lovely spiral on the large propeller spinner.

Beginning in May 1943 some Bf 109 G-6s had the Morane antenna mast for the FuG 16ZY radio system fitted beneath the left wing. This radio was used in conjunction with the Y-method of fighter control. Arming the MG 151/20 wing cannon of a Bf 109 G-6 of JG 27 in North Africa.

Bf 109 G-6/R6 fighters parked on the company airfield at Regensburg, ready for delivery to the front-line units. Checking the flap settings of a Bf 109 G.

One of the first examples of the Bf 109 G-2, which was powered by a DB 605 A instead of the DB 601 E of the pre-production series. This fighter was armed with two MG 17 machine-guns and one MG 151/20 engine-mounted cannon. Depicted here is G-2 W.Nr. 14246. CC + PO. This photo of "Black 9" provides a good view of the improved canopy, also called the "Erla Haube," with "GallandPanzer" armor. Also note the DF loop on the fuselage spine and the thin antenna mast of the FuG 25a "Erstling" IFF set beneath the fuselage.

Messerschmitt company pilot Lukas Schmid in Bf 109 G-6 CM + ZD during a test flight over Ammer Lake. During the course of 30 experimental diving flights, which took man and machine to their limits, he reached speeds in excess of 900 kph with the Bf 109. A captured Bf 109 G-6/ trop with sand filter in front of the supercharger air intake for operations in the Mediterranean theater.

One of several Bf 109 G6s captured by the British; given the serial number VX101, it was tested extensively by the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE).

A Bf 109 G-6 fighterbomber of JG 3 armed with a 250-kg bomb on an ETC 500 bomb rack. Experimental installation of an additional MG 151/20 beneath the fuselage of a Bf 109 G-6. Note the ejection chutes in the underwing cannon gondolas. This armament configuration was not put into production.

100

In May 1944 Switzerland received twelve Bf 109 G6 fighters as compensation for the destruction of a Bf 110 night fighter which had made a forced landing at D端bendorf during the night of 28 April 1944. The Messerschmitt Industry Defense Staffel was equipped with the latest variants of the Bf 109. Seen here are G-6 aircraft with various equipment configurations. Personnel consisted of civilian test pilots and some members of the Luftwaffe. Readiness Level I meant that the fighters had to he airborne within 3 minutes, Level 2 in fifteen minutes, and Level 3 in thirty minutes.

101

Bf 109 G-6 equipped with WGr. 21 rocket launchers attached beneath the wings. Clearly visible here is the so-called "Galland-Panzer" armor behind the pilot's head.

102

Various views of the 287liter drop tank carried by the Bf 109 to increase range.

103

Bf 109 G-6s of Jagdgeschwader 27. Armament consisted of two MG 131 machine-guns and three MG 151 cannon.

104

A Bf 109 G-6 of I./JG 53 "Pik-As" (Ace of Spades) equipped with two launch tubes for 210-mm rockets beneath the wings. The aircraft is being readied for a sortie. Experimental installation of the FuG 305 "Naxos Z" in a Bf 109 G-6/ U4. The set was a passive receiver used to home in on signals from the H2S navigation radar used by British bombers.

105

The instrument panel of a Bf 109 G. SZKK 3 switch-counting and control box, Revi C 12/g gunsight, cluck, magneto selector switch, repeater compass, turn-and-bank indicator, propeller pitch indicator, undercarriage position indicator, finecoarse altimeter, airspeed indicator, boost pressure gauge. RPM indicator, coolant and oil temperature gauge, fuel and oil pressure gauge, altimeter, and fuel gauge.

106

Bf 109 G-6. On the far left next to the gunsight is the repeater compass, beside it the turn-and-bank indicator, beneath it the airspeed indicator and beside it the fine-coarse altimeter. Clearly visible beneath the instrument panel is the mount for the engine-mounted cannon, which has been removed. Some late variants of the Bf 109 G had their armament bolstered through the installation of R端stsatz 5, which consisted of two MK 108 cannon in the underwing gondolas.

107

General Arrangment Drawing Bf 109 G-6 (G端nter Sengfelder)

108

109

Bf 109 G: Camouflage Scheme and Markings

110

111

112

Several views of the Bf 109 G-12 two-seat training aircraft. These aircraft were the result of conversions of older G-series machines. CJ + MG was a converted Bf 109 G6. W.Nr. 18419, built in June 1943. Far right: the rear cockpit of a Bf 109 G12.

113

Several views and cockpit details of CJ + MG, the first Bf 109 G-12 training aircraft. "Yellow 12," a Bf 109 G12 two-sealer in service with JG 104. It was probably a former G-6, W.Nr. 18360, BJ + IZ.

114

115

Parked Bf 109 G-12 training aircraft.

116

Three-view drawing of the Bf 109 K-4 taken from an aircraft type sheet. This American proudly poses for a souvenir photo in front of a Bf 109 G10 on a south-German air base after the end of the war.

117

A Bf 109 K-4, W.Nr. 330130, at Lechfeld air base near the end of the war. Clearly visible are the long, non-retractable tailwheel with doors lokked shut, and the aerodynamically-revised engine cowling, beneath which the two MG 131s were housed, now without "bulges." Standard armament consisted of the two synchronized MG 131s and a MK 108 engine-mounted cannon. Side-view drawing of the Bf 109 K.

118

119

"White 1," a Bf 109 G-14 of 9./JG 77 with the W.Nr. 330204 at Neuruppin in November. The aircraft was lost on 1 January 1945 during "Operation Bodenplatte." For lack of suitable shelter during the harsh winter of 1944-45 this K-4 was left covered with snow, which surely did it no good.

120

At dawn Bf 109 K-4 fighters of 9./JG 77 are prepared for their next mission.

121

General Arrangement Drawing Bf 109 K-4 (G端nter Sengfelder)

122

123

Bf 109 K-6: General arrangement and control surface deflections.

124

125

Fuselage assembly hall, Erla Maschinenwerke GmbH, Leipzig.

126

127

Bf 109 G-6 series production by Erla Maschinenwerke GmbH, Leipzig. Wing assembly hall Erla Machinenwerke GmbH, Leipzig. The assembly line led to jigs, where the wings were assembled in the upright position. Page 130 Production of the Bf 109 ran at a high pace, not just at Regensburg or Leipzig, but also in Wiener-Neustadt. As many as five Bf 109 G-6s per day left the assembly hails of the Wiener-Neust채dler Flugzeugwerke. Note the revised canopy which offered the pilot a better all-round view.

128

129

Nicht nur in Regensburg oder Leipzig lief die Serienfertigung der Bf 109 auf Hochtouren, sondern auch in den WienerNeustädter Flugzeugwerken verließen täglich bis zu fünf Bf 109 G-6 die Endmontagehallen. Gut zu erkennen die neue Kabinenhaube, die zu einer Verbesserung der Rundumsicht führte.

130

First Bf 109 F completed by WNF.

131

In order to conserve vital raw materials the Bf 109 G-6 was fitted with a tail unit made of wood, which was manufactured by the firms SchemppHirth, Deutsche Edelmรถbel, and Oberlechner. This tail unit caused the fighter serious problems. Those built by Deutsche Edelmรถbel in Butschowitz, in particular, caused serious problems on account of poor gluing, skinning, and preservation, leading to crashes and the temporary grounding of the G-6. Because of these problems subsequent Bf 109 variants were fitted with a tail unit of conventional metal construction. Series production of wooden tail units for the Bf 109 by the SchemppHirth company at Nabern airfield, KirchheimTeck.

132

Delivery of the l,000th tail section component. Experimental wooden wing for the Bf 109 K-4 built by Hirth. Experimental installation of a 30-mm MK 108 cannon in the wooden wing of a Bf 109 K-4.

133

General Arrangement Drawing Me 209 V1 (G端nter Sengfelder)

134

135

The Me 209, which was designed for an attempt on the world speed record, was built before the war under the project designation P 1059. The photographs show the V1 shortly after its completion, still unpainted and without markings, prior to its first flight on 1 August 1938 in the hands of Dr. Hermann Wurster. While flying this Me 209 V1, W.Nr. 1185. D-INJR, on 26 April 1939 Fritz Wendel set a new world speed record of 755.138 kph. Below right: Me 209 V4.

136

The Me 209 V4, W.Nr. 1188, D-IRND, later CE + BW, was supposed to be the military version. The type proved completely unsuitable as a fighter aircraft on account of its weak armament and poor handling characteristics.

137

The Bf 109 F V23, W.Nr. 5603, was not an F-series production machine, instead it served later as a test-bed for preliminary tests with the nose wheel undercarriage of the Me 309.

138

One special development was (his Bf 109 V31, W.Nr. 5642, SG + EK. In 1943 it was used to test the wide-track undercarriage and retractable belly radiator for the Me 309. In the beginning there were frequent problems with the nosewheel undercarriage. The testbed, the Bf 109 F-1 (V23) W.Nr. 5603, CE + BP, was also involved in a serious crash during tests of the undercarriage arrangement of the Me 309.

139

The Me 309 V1, GE + CU, was test flown by Karl Baur at Augsburg/Haunstetten on 18 July 1942. This heavy fighter's disappointing performance prevented it from proceeding beyond the test stage.

140

141

Me 309 Type Sheet

142

3-view drawing Me 609

143

The Me 309 V2, GE + CV. was also plagued by nosewheel problems and sustained this fatal crash in November 1942.

Rear view of the Me 309 V1, GE + CU. On 8 September 1942 this aircraft ended up on its nose after nosewheel failure while in the hands of factory test pilot Karl Baur.

144

145

Me 109 High-Altitude Fighter

146

P1091 High-Altitude Bomber

147

P1091 High-Altitude Fighter

148

Comparison of engine cowlings of the Bf 109 G and A.

149

Messerschmitt A.G. Abt.Femi-Probü

Tragwerk in.lks. Flügel in.lks. Tragwerk lks. Flügel lks. Fl.Verlängerung

109.F 550 109.597 109.F 532 009.526 009.526-Z001

Tragwerk in.rts. Flügel in.rts. Tragwerk rts. Flügel rts. Fl.Verlängerung

109.F 531 109.598 109.F 533 009.527 009.527-Z001

Wölbungsklappe Querruder Vorflügel Randklappe

lks. lks. lks. lks.

Wölbungsklappe Querruder Vorflügel Randklappe

rts. rts. rts. rts.

Höhenflosse Höhenräder Seitenflosse Seitenruder

009.335 009.336 209.343 209.356

Triebwerk Triebw. Gerüst Triebw.Verkl. Kraftst.Anl.i.R. Kraftst.Anl.i.Fl.

109.368 209.357 209.555 009.532-001

Metall Metall Holz Holz

Rumpfwerk 109.F 116 Rumpf 109.164 Leitwerk Träger 009.120 Windschutz Aufb.

Rollwerk lks.u.rts. Sporn Kühlerverkleidg. Bewaffnung (2 MG 131 * MK oder Bewaffnung (2 MG 131 + MG

109.F 620 009.626 009.628 209.709 009.645/646

Motor DB 605 E.

G'gau, 24.2.44

Übersichts-Schema mit Baugr.Nurrunern

150

109.369 209.358 209.556 009.533-001

109.269 109.270 009.502 209.804 108) 209.805 151)

Trials with 6 6 0 x 1 5 0 W h e e l s

For the purpose of undercarriage leg trials Bf 109 G W.Nr. 14003 was brought to a takeoff weight of 3.8 tons. This resulted in increased numbers of tire failures and led to extended trials with the 660 x 150 wheel with tire and inner tube. As well, there were growing complaints from the front-line units. During the period from July to August 1943 far in excess of 100 takeoffs and landings were made by the test-beds W.Nr. 14003 and W.Nr. 160031 in an effort to determine the cause of the failures. At the same time, comparative trials were conducted with 650 x 150 and 660 x 160 wheels with free-lying steel brake drums. In some cases the normal tires had a very short life, some only 2 to 4 circuits, and such was the problem that an immediate solution had to be found in conjunction with the Continental Company. Trials were carried out at Lechfeld airfield near Augsburg. The poorest areas of this landing field were comparable to conditions at forward airfields. Two new wheels with new tires and inner tubes were installed on the Bf 109 G-1 test-bed. Werknummer 14003. The wheel loading at rest was divided as follows: 1.6 tons per mainwheel and 0.6 tons on the tailwheel. The brakes were used harshly on all landings, and once on the ground the tightest, alternating turns were made. The trials revealed that the tires could just stand up to 3 or 4 circuits on dry, uneven, and stony ground. Comparative landings and taxiing on concrete showed a three- to four-fold increase in tire life. But there, too, when thermal load increased

(braking) the tire failures reappeared. The subsequent use of reinforcing bands increased the life of the same tire to an average of 15 to 20 circuits. This was such an improvement that a message was immediately sent to the units. This was no ideal solution, however, and therefore the trials went on. Redesigned Elektron die cast wheels with free-lying steel brake drums by EC4 (drawing no. 8-2089 B-2) were now put into use. A total of 120 circuits were flown with these wheels under identical test conditions. Heavy braking was used to simulate the thermal loads and high external temperatures to be expected in frontline use. The average daytime temperature during these experiments was 32째 C. The stress through brake heat was increased further by Hying circuits in quick succession, in some cases 25 circuits in the space of one hour. In spite of these stresses the tires withstood 120 circuits and even after examination by the EC Company were in such condition that they were approved for further use. The tires were changed only once per wheel. The reason for this can only be suspected to be pushing the testbed too hard. These new engine cowling wheels with free-lying brake drums represented such an improvement that it seemed advisable to replace all 660 x 160 tires with internal brake drums with them. While the simultaneous trials with the 650 x 150 wheel produced less thermal load on the tires and greater life, the results could not stand up to these. It was also subjected to less load.

Elektron-Co m.b.H. Bad Cannstadt

151

The Bf 109 undercarriage. Here details of the undercarriage leg with main wheel, fairing, brake line, stub axle, and shock strut head.

152

Front and rear views of the Bf 109 K mainwheel (660 x 190).

153

Main Undercarriage Wheels for Bf 109 Variants 1935-1945

Achse 45 Radlagerung Federrollenlager

Bf 109 B C D E

Achse 50 Radlagerung Federrollenlager

154

Hauptfahrwerksr채der f체r Bf 109 Varianten 1935 -1945

Bereifung 650 x 150

Bf 109 E

Hauptfahrwerksräder für Bf 109 Varianten 1935 -1945

Bereifung 650 x 150

Achse 50 Radlagerung Kugellager

Bf 109 F-G4

Hauptfahrwerksräder für Bf 109 Varianten 1935 -1945

Bereifung 650 x 150

Verstärkte Felge

155

Bf 109 G5

G14

Hauptfahrwerksr채der f체r Bf 109 Varianten 1935 -1945

Bereifung 660 x 160

Hauptfahrwerksr채der f체r Bf 109 Varianten 1935 -1945

Bereifung 660 x 160

Achse 55

Bf 109 G6

G14

Achse 55 Freiliegende Stahlbremstrommel

156

Bf 109 K

Hauptfahrwerksr채der f체r Bf 109 Varianten 1935 -1945

Bereifung 660 x 190

Achse 60

157

Bibliography

The author would like to thank the following for their kind support: Günter Sengfelder, Dr. Ludwig Bölkow, Dieter Herwig, Dipl. Ing. Burkhard Seifert, Lukas Schmid, Alfons Piehler, Thierry Lestang and Uwe Heintzner (Daimler Benz AG company archive). Archiv Willy Radinger Archiv Dieter Herwig Archiv Günter Sengfelder Wolfgang Otto collection Peter Schmoll, Die Messerschmittwerke im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Verlag Mittler & Sohn Luftfahrt International Wolfgang Spate Test pilot von Gersdorf Die deutsche Luftfahrt, Vol. 12, Ludwig Bölkow und sein Werk Die deutsche Luftfahrt, Vol. 17, Willy Messerschmitt Photo Credits Archiv Willy Radinger Archiv Dieter Herwig Archiv Günter Sengfelder Wolfgang Otto collection Andras Groß collection

158

Notes

ISBN:

0-7643-1023-2