Messerschmitt Me 309 Development & Politics by Dan Sharp and Calum E. Douglas

RocketJavelin said:
I’ve heard that the author is very difficult to work with.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're thinking of a different author - Steve Liddle is very professional, dedicated and easy to work with. If you're not already aware, he's a Formula One aerodynamicist as well as being a trustee of the Vulcan to the Sky Trust, and a fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society. I believe he is also a member of this forum. In terms of progress, the cover is finished and will be revealed soon. The manuscript is progressing well but it's a large and technically complex book and as such is taking time to complete.

Expect a dedicated Shaping the Vulcan thread at some point.
 
Last edited:
pathology_doc said:
I'm salivating already.


Seems like we have a growing trend of automotive engineers crossing over into aviation writing!
Click to expand...

Understanding the development of WW2 aircraft, and everything that flows from that, requires at least a basic understanding of engineering.

Most books written on WW2 military aircraft throughout the 1950s to 2010s have tended to lightly pass over development in a few pages in order to get to the active service phase - then spend the rest of the book vicariously glorying in the 'thrill of battle'. While there's definitely a massive readership for such material, I've personally always been more interested in that initial period of an aircraft's history.

If you can grasp the nuances of aerodynamics and mechanical engineering, you gain a much clearer picture of why the aircraft is seen to behave the way that it does in combat.

Quite why the development phase of wartime aircraft has so frequently been ignored, or dismissed in a brief summary, is something of a mystery. Perhaps those writing about WW2 aircraft simply had no interest in it - or were unwilling to expend the gargantuan amount of effort usually required to unearth the vast quantities of primary source documents necessary to chronicle an aircraft's development path in detail.
 
Last edited:
newsdeskdan said:
Understanding the development of WW2 aircraft, and everything that flows from that, requires at least a basic understanding of engineering.
Click to expand...
I'm fully on board with everything you're saying here, because although I'm a pathologist by trade, my reading into aviation goes all the way into aerodynamic theory. I have texts on missile design dating back to the fifties, and taught myself enough advanced calculus to be able to understand what they were saying. Secret Horsepower Race plus watching a guy on Youtube who tears down engines for a living gave me more of an understanding of the internal combustion engine than I had previously.

I think part of the drawcard of the "Secret Projects" books that got us to where we are now (these very forums) is because 99% of it is perforce the development phase - for most of the more prominent and infamous projects with which they deal, there never was a service phase and never will be.

Two of my favourite Bill Gunston books that I own today are titles that I loved in childhood (Encyclopaedia of Combat Aircraft, Hitler's Luftwaffe). I re-read both of them endlessly as a kid, although I wasn't ready to tackle the first half the latter until I was a bit older (drooling over the technical summaries of the planes was far easier when I was eight or nine), because there were far more words than pictures.

Those books were written for schoolboys. I still go through them from time to time with fond memories, but now that I'm in my 50s, I'd happily read a "development and politics"-type acccount of each and every one of those planes, not to mention an Encyclopaedia of Aero Engines written by Calum. And I mean one on each and every WW2 engine, from first touch of pencil to paper all the way through to engines-off on the last service example. (I mean - I know that's not humanly possible for either of you to accomplish, but that would be my idea of heaven.) I think my nine year old self would have read such books too, for the history, even if he hadn't yet had the math to handle the deep stuff.
 
pathology_doc said:
I'm fully on board with everything you're saying here, because although I'm a pathologist by trade, my reading into aviation goes all the way into aerodynamic theory. I have texts on missile design dating back to the fifties, and taught myself enough advanced calculus to be able to understand what they were saying. Secret Horsepower Race plus watching a guy on Youtube who tears down engines for a living gave me more of an understanding of the internal combustion engine than I had previously.

I think part of the drawcard of the "Secret Projects" books that got us to where we are now (these very forums) is because 99% of it is perforce the development phase - for most of the more prominent and infamous projects with which they deal, there never was a service phase and never will be.

Two of my favourite Bill Gunston books that I own today are titles that I loved in childhood (Encyclopaedia of Combat Aircraft, Hitler's Luftwaffe). I re-read both of them endlessly as a kid, although I wasn't ready to tackle the first half the latter until I was a bit older (drooling over the technical summaries of the planes was far easier when I was eight or nine), because there were far more words than pictures.

Those books were written for schoolboys. I still go through them from time to time with fond memories, but now that I'm in my 50s, I'd happily read a "development and politics"-type acccount of each and every one of those planes, not to mention an Encyclopaedia of Aero Engines written by Calum. And I mean one on each and every WW2 engine, from first touch of pencil to paper all the way through to engines-off on the last service example. (I mean - I know that's not humanly possible for either of you to accomplish, but that would be my idea of heaven.) I think my nine year old self would have read such books too, for the history, even if he hadn't yet had the math to handle the deep stuff.
Click to expand...
They key issue for me, which to be honest applies to basically everything, is that such histories are essential, because once you start reading the actual files you frequently find several major "known thing XYZ" about your favourite plane turns out to be either hopelessly simplified, a catastrophic misinterpretation or quite often just plain made up garbage probably because the author couldnt get at some files and just copied someone else or made a "I`m sure nobody will ever check this..." judgement and made up a plausible explanation that sounded reasonable.

I could give you a dozen examples, but just to pick two particularly stark ones,

1) The Hawker typhoon was made as a heavy ground attack fighter

It bloody wasn't, it was supposed to REPLACE the entire Spitfire and Hurricane interceptor force !

This was (hopefully not anymore) even on the BAE Systems Website (I emailed their heritage group!)

2) Packard Merlin parts were made to much finer tolerances than British Merlin parts.

Its total bollocks, as is discovered by the Merlin/Packard Parts Interchange manual ! Which tells you the part number
equivalents for either engine so that you can take (nearly) any part from a Merlin and put it into a Packard!

The only exceptions to this were the items which were actually different parts entirely (the US engine had US sourced
ancillaries) and some things like shim sets were made in different graduation steps. These formed a small proportion of the parts.

The entire story is total crap. (EDIT: there were reasons why people thought this story was true, but they only hold up
if you stop your research at the level of reading official company promotional articles in magazines, and fall to bits as soon as you hit
primary sources)

1724519950220.png
 
Last edited:
pathology_doc said:
I've known about the Typhoon since childhood, but the Packard/RR Merlin thing is news to me. Things you learn...
Click to expand...
Its not just in some obscure booklet either, the Air Ministry files are full of it. All this shows that (almost) nobody bothers reading the stuff.

Packard were even sent a vast set of "interchangeability gauges" (see last page) - note that the interchangeability was bi-directional, so we`re not talking about fitting "better" USA parts to "rough" British engines. The fact it worked both ways (see 2nd letter) is complete proof the story is horsesh**t

Anyway I`ve derailed this thread enough... I`ll depart.

1724526791870.png

1724526803943.png

1724526833877.png

1724526864981.png

1724526889666.png

1724526899370.png
 
Hi Calum,

Calum Douglas said:
Its not just in some obscure booklet either, the Air Ministry files are full of it. All this shows that (almost) nobody bothers reading the stuff.
Click to expand...

To be fair, it's also in Hooker's "Not much of an Engineer", which is the first place I read about it ... so it sounded much like a first-hand account to me.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
The myths that Calum highlights are just the absolute tip top of the iceberg. Steering the conversation back to the Me 309 a little, I have an unpublished segment of E-Stelle Rechlin test pilot Heinrich Beauvais' unpublished autobiography (at least I think that's what it is) which directly addresses what a certain famous British aviation author wrote about the Me 309. He writes that the said author got both the dates and place of his Me 309 test flights wrong, and wrongly reported what his (Beauvais') conclusion about the aircraft was.

That now sadly deceased author's write-up of the Me 309 has essentially been regarded as hard fact for more than 50 years.

Since Messerschmitt Me 309: Development & Politics was published, certain readers have repeatedly queried why the account written by Calum and myself differs so much from the 'accepted' history. Why does that account report weapons testing with 309 prototypes long after we report that all testing had ended? Why do some of the 309 drawings (not period drawings) published by the said author differ so much from the original period drawings that Calum and I have published?

The answer appears to be because... the said author's account, for whatever reason, includes information which is in no way supported by any historical evidence. And it's been accepted as fact. For more than half a century.
 
Last edited:
TempCz said:
What do you think are the biggest myths about the Me 309?
Click to expand...

On a granular detail level, the original history states that Beauvais flew the Me 309 V1 at Rechlin. Nope - it was Augsburg.
The same history states:

"Beauvais submitted his report as follows: 'The Me 309 will be acceptable after some improvements but will present difficulties to the average fighter pilot. Control forces are extremely high by comparison with current fighters, and landing on the nosewheel will give problems to combat pilots at operational fields. With full armament the aircraft will be barely 30mph faster than the Bf 109G, and there would seem to be no real advantage to introducing such a fighter when a superior aircraft [i.e. the Fw 190 D] will soon be available.'"

Seemingly no one thought it was strange that Beauvais, a technical officer who was there to provide technical feedback, should be making such sweeping and unfounded judgements in his report.

In fact, that quote is a pure fabrication. Beavais's report does not say that. It's actually quite a lengthy report which, as Calum and I note, addresses various technical aspects of the aircraft - as you'd expect. Beauvais's summary, at the end, actually says:

"Some flights in bad weather with Me 309 V1 (Beauvais) [yes, he refers to himself in the third person here for some reason] in the period from November 20-23, 1942 gave the following preliminary picture: The operation of the landing gear (nosewheel, retraction and extension), propeller, radiator, landing flaps and partly also the trim make the handling of the Me 309 V1 noticeably more difficult compared to the Bf 109 G. The flight characteristics are somewhat worse than with the Bf 109 G (high rudder forces, behaviour around the vertical axis and transverse axis, manoeuvrability). The turning times are considerably higher than those of the Bf 109 G. As expected, the rate of climb is about the same as that of the Bf 109 G. Speeds and stall behaviour were not checked in detail (weather!). A comparison with the Fw 190 DB 603 or Jumo 213 seems appropriate, even if it is still a bit premature, because the Me 309 V1 represents a relatively unfinished state of development (see above test notes, also soft leading-edge slats, speed limit according to GL/C-E 2 F P), an overall comparison of functional testing of the equipment, in particular the weapons, is needed, also the cooling system with the associated hydraulics, etc."

So the author of the first quote alters a number of things in Beauvais's summary for reasons unknown. He changes 'Me 309 V1' to 'Me 309', which makes it appear as though Beauvais is condemning the type as a whole - rather than just discussing, specifically, the very first unfinished prototype. Yes - the performance of the Me 309 V1 is inferior to that of the fully developed production model Bf 109 G. Is that such a surprise? The Bf 109 type as a whole had had SEVEN YEARS of development since its own Bf 109 V1 by this point. The Me 309 V1 - the sole flyable prototype - had been undergoing tests for FIVE MONTHS. If the Me 309 V1 had been tested against the Bf 109 V1 it would have absolutely wiped the floor with it.

What else? Beauvais raises specific problems with the Me 309 V1 - the combination of the unfinished retractable radiator and the generally rough controls made the Me 309 V1 more difficult to handle than the fully sorted production model Bf 109 G. Again is that so surprising? Essentially, the author of that original quote completely misrepresented Beauvais's report. Note that Beauvais refers to a Ministry-mandated speed limit (early prototypes were often subject to speed limits - so high-speed testing probably couldn't have taken place anyway. That stuff about barely 30mph faster is completely made up). And he says that a comparison with the Fw 190 DB 603 or Jumo 213 would be appropriate - he does not say and there would seem to be no real advantage to introducing such a fighter when a superior aircraft [i.e. the Fw 190 D] will soon be available.' That is also completely made up. You could interpret Beauvais's statement here, in fact, as him hinting that a comparison of a rough prototype against a full production model wasn't very illuminating and, actually, a test against similarly rough prototypes would make more sense.

The original history goes on to say: "The Me 309 V2 had differed from the V1 primarily in having a DB 605B engine in place of the DB 603A-1. The latter power plant was, in fact, yo be replaced in the Me 309 V1 by a DB 605B in March 1943."

Nope - all completely made up. The Me 309 V2 had a DB 603 A-1 and there is no evidence of any plans to re-engine the Me 309 V1 with a DB 605.

The original history says: "The fourth and last prototype, the Me 309 V4 (RH+LH) which was intended for armament trials, was finally completed and flown in July 1943. DB 605B-powered, the Me 309 V4 carried the exceptionally heavy armament that Mersserschmitt had proposed for the schwerer Jaeger version, this comprising two 13mm MG 131 machine guns in the fuselage, a 20mm MG 151 and a 13mm MG 131 in each wing root, and a 30mm MK 108 immediately outboard of each main undercarriage member attachment point. ... After initial trials at Augsburg, the Me 309 V4 was to have been transferred to Leipheim for further testing but before the transfer could be effected the aircraft was destroyed in an air attack".

Wow. What to make of this? Well, we know that the Me 309 V4 was first flown on April 21, 1943, by Schmid. It's in his logbook. We can also be reasonably certain that it was coded GE+CX. The Me 309 V1 was GE+CU, the Me 309 V2 was GE+CV, the Me 309 V3 was GE+CW. You see the pattern there? Why would the V4 be randomly coded RH+LH? The code in Schmid's logbook is GE+CX. All the paperwork says the Me 309 V4 had a DB 603 A-1, just like the other prototypes. It was supposed to be armed, but only with 1 x MG 151 in the engine and 2 x MG 131s in the fuselage. Was it actually fitted with those? Don't know. The only recorded flight of the Me 309 V4 was in April 1943. The Messerschmitt Hauptausschuss Zellen / Sonderausschuss F 2 (main committee for airframes - which generally reports on the state of completion of prototypes and what they are doing) report for June 1943 notes that the Me 309 V1, V3 and V4 are 'currently parked' and that work on repairing the Me 309 V2 has 'stopped'. The Me 309 is the absent from the report for July, never to reappear.

It's difficult to reach any other conclusion than that the now deceased author of this... garbage... was fed duff information by someone. Or else decided to get a little creative in the absence of any hard factual evidence, trusting that no one would ever discover what he had done. And to be fair, no one did for about 50 years.

On a more macro level, the biggest myth - derived from the information above - is that, to quote Wikipedia, Low government interest in the project delayed completion of the first prototype until spring 1942, and trouble with the nosewheel pushed back the 309's first flight to July. When it did fly, the Me 309's performance was satisfactory – about 50 km/h (30 mph) faster than a standard Bf 109G – but not exemplary. In fact, the Bf 109G could out-turn its intended replacement. With the addition of armament, the aircraft's speed decreased to an unacceptable level. In light of its poor performance and the much more promising development of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190D, the Me 309 was canceled.

Government interest in the Me 309 was high - extremely high - in our book Calum and I show that the Me 309 was very much intended, by the government, to replace the Bf 109 throughout a period of about 12 months. And the incredibly slow completion of the prototypes wasn't due to government disinterest - it was down to... something else! The Fw 190 D had nothing at all to do with the Me 309's cancellation. It was other factors which caused that.
 
Last edited:
newsdeskdan said:
On a granular detail level, the original history states that Beauvais flew the Me 309 V1 at Rechlin. Nope - it was Augsburg.
The same history states:

"Beauvais submitted his report as follows: 'The Me 309 will be acceptable after some improvements but will present difficulties to the average fighter pilot. Control forces are extremely high by comparison with current fighters, and landing on the nosewheel will give problems to combat pilots at operational fields. With full armament the aircraft will be barely 30mph faster than the Bf 109G, and there would seem to be no real advantage to introducing such a fighter when a superior aircraft [i.e. the Fw 190 D] will soon be available.'"

Seemingly no one thought it was strange that Beauvais, a technical officer who was there to provide technical feedback, should be making such sweeping and unfounded judgements in his report.

In fact, that quote is a pure fabrication. Beavais's report does not say that. It's actually quite a lengthy report which, as Calum and I note, addresses various technical aspects of the aircraft - as you'd expect. Beauvais's summary, at the end, actually says:

"Some flights in bad weather with Me 309 V1 (Beauvais) [yes, he refers to himself in the third person here for some reason] in the period from November 20-23, 1942 gave the following preliminary picture: The operation of the landing gear (nosewheel, retraction and extension), propeller, radiator, landing flaps and partly also the trim make the handling of the Me 309 V1 noticeably more difficult compared to the Bf 109 G. The flight characteristics are somewhat worse than with the Bf 109 G (high rudder forces, behaviour around the vertical axis and transverse axis, manoeuvrability). The turning times are considerably higher than those of the Bf 109 G. As expected, the rate of climb is about the same as that of the Bf 109 G. Speeds and stall behaviour were not checked in detail (weather!). A comparison with the Fw 190 DB 603 or Jumo 213 seems appropriate, even if it is still a bit premature, because the Me 309 V1 represents a relatively unfinished state of development (see above test notes, also soft leading-edge slats, speed limit according to GL/C-E 2 F P), an overall comparison of functional testing of the equipment, in particular the weapons, is needed, also the cooling system with the associated hydraulics, etc."

So the author of the first quote alters a number of things in Beauvais's summary for reasons unknown. He changes 'Me 309 V1' to 'Me 309', which makes it appear as though Beauvais is condemning the type as a whole - rather than just discussing, specifically, the very first unfinished prototype. Yes - the performance of the Me 309 V1 is inferior to that of the fully developed production model Bf 109 G. Is that such a surprise? The Bf 109 type as a whole had had SEVEN YEARS of development since its own Bf 109 V1 by this point. The Me 309 V1 - the sole flyable prototype - had been undergoing tests for FIVE MONTHS. If the Me 309 V1 had been tested against the Bf 109 V1 it would have absolutely wiped the floor with it.

What else? Beauvais raises specific problems with the Me 309 V1 - the combination of the unfinished retractable radiator and the generally rough controls made the Me 309 V1 more difficult to handle than the fully sorted production model Bf 109 G. Again is that so surprising? Essentially, the author of that original quote completely misrepresented Beauvais's report. Note that Beauvais refers to a Ministry-mandated speed limit (early prototypes were often subject to speed limits - so high-speed testing probably couldn't have taken place anyway. That stuff about barely 30mph faster is completely made up). And he says that a comparison with the Fw 190 DB 603 or Jumo 213 would be appropriate - he does not say and there would seem to be no real advantage to introducing such a fighter when a superior aircraft [i.e. the Fw 190 D] will soon be available.' That is also completely made up. You could interpret Beauvais's statement here, in fact, as him hinting that a comparison of a rough prototype against a full production model wasn't very illuminating and, actually, a test against similarly rough prototypes would make more sense.

The original history goes on to say: "The Me 309 V2 had differed from the V1 primarily in having a DB 605B engine in place of the DB 603A-1. The latter power plant was, in fact, yo be replaced in the Me 309 V1 by a DB 605B in March 1943."

Nope - all completely made up. The Me 309 V2 had a DB 603 A-1 and there is no evidence of any plans to re-engine the Me 309 V1 with a DB 605.

The original history says: "The fourth and last prototype, the Me 309 V4 (RH+LH) which was intended for armament trials, was finally completed and flown in July 1943. DB 605B-powered, the Me 309 V4 carried the exceptionally heavy armament that Mersserschmitt had proposed for the schwerer Jaeger version, this comprising two 13mm MG 131 machine guns in the fuselage, a 20mm MG 151 and a 13mm MG 131 in each wing root, and a 30mm MK 108 immediately outboard of each main undercarriage member attachment point. ... After initial trials at Augsburg, the Me 309 V4 was to have been transferred to Leipheim for further testing but before the transfer could be effected the aircraft was destroyed in an air attack".

Wow. What to make of this? Well, we know that the Me 309 V4 was first flown on April 21, 1943, by Schmid. It's in his logbook. We can also be reasonably certain that it was coded GE+CX. The Me 309 V1 was GE+CU, the Me 309 V2 was GE+CV, the Me 309 V3 was GE+CW. You see the pattern there? Why would the V4 be randomly coded RH+LH? The code in Schmid's logbook is GE+CX. All the paperwork says the Me 309 V4 had a DB 603 A-1, just like the other prototypes. It was supposed to be armed, but only with 1 x MG 151 in the engine and 2 x MG 131s in the fuselage. Was it actually fitted with those? Don't know. The only recorded flight of the Me 309 V4 was in April 1943. The Messerschmitt Hauptausschuss Zellen / Sonderausschuss F 2 (main committee for airframes - which generally reports on the state of completion of prototypes and what they are doing) report for June 1943 notes that the Me 309 V1, V3 and V4 are 'currently parked' and that work on repairing the Me 309 V2 has 'stopped'. The Me 309 is the absent from the report for July, never to reappear.

It's difficult to reach any other conclusion than that the now deceased author of this... garbage... was fed duff information by someone. Or else decided to get a little creative in the absence of any hard factual evidence, trusting that no one would ever discover what he had done. And to be fair, no one did for about 50 years.

On a more macro level, the biggest myth - derived from the information above - is that, to quote Wikipedia, Low government interest in the project delayed completion of the first prototype until spring 1942, and trouble with the nosewheel pushed back the 309's first flight to July. When it did fly, the Me 309's performance was satisfactory – about 50 km/h (30 mph) faster than a standard Bf 109G – but not exemplary. In fact, the Bf 109G could out-turn its intended replacement. With the addition of armament, the aircraft's speed decreased to an unacceptable level. In light of its poor performance and the much more promising development of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190D, the Me 309 was canceled.

Government interest in the Me 309 was high - extremely high - in our book Calum and I show that the Me 309 was very much intended, by the government, to replace the Bf 109 throughout a period of about 12 months. And the incredibly slow completion of the prototypes wasn't due to government disinterest - it was down to... something else! The Fw 190 D had nothing at all to do with the Me 309's cancellation. It was other factors which caused that.
Click to expand...
After reading a book called Willy Messerschmitt by Frank Vann, I was interested in the chapter where he writes about Me 309 in a completely different perspective than the majority opinion. But the problem was to get access to archival sources for further research on the Me 309, so thank you very much for the book on the Me 309, which brought a lot of things to light.
 
Calum Douglas said:
Messerschmitt was obsessed with wing loading. I can see why, and its easy to point out the problems now, but in many ways this WAS pointing the way to the future. Late British "super props" like Hawker Fury went to even higher wing loadings than the 109.

Of course, if you have nearly 2500hp you can have a big heavy fighter with high wing loading and not care about the negatives, the Germans never had that position of comfortable excess of power, perhaps except for a very brief period when the 190 arrived. I think Messerschmitt was a very clever and astute engineer, but possibly lacked a couple of other subtle personal characteristics desirable in a top level administrator of a major company. (I would add that there are very dubious things to be found out, about almost any top designer once you start digging !!! Including the British)
Click to expand...
I have to disagree on the wing-loading issue at least a bit. A good example is the Fw 190D vs. the Tempest comparison. The latter has over 50 % larger wing while not much heavier and not much more powerful (at WER). Another example is the P-61 vs. He 219. Not much difference in power and weight while the P-61 has 37 % greater wing area.

And then there are comparisons like the Ju 188 vs. Ki-67 and Ki-84 vs. Fw 190. It also makes very interesting comparison to compare the speed performance of the 109 and 190 vs. F4U. A comparison that does not laud neither German design's cleanliness.
 
Pasoleati said:
I have to disagree on the wing-loading issue at least a bit. A good example is the Fw 190D vs. the Tempest comparison. The latter has over 50 % larger wing while not much heavier and not much more powerful (at WER). Another example is the P-61 vs. He 219. Not much difference in power and weight while the P-61 has 37 % greater wing area.

And then there are comparisons like the Ju 188 vs. Ki-67 and Ki-84 vs. Fw 190. It also makes very interesting comparison to compare the speed performance of the 109 and 190 vs. F4U. A comparison that does not laud neither German design's cleanliness.
Click to expand...
What does "cleanliness" have to do with wing loading ?

The trend of wing loading over time is not a debate item, and yes this is for prop aircraft.

1725053792318.png
 
Last edited:
TempCz said:
But lower wing loading is better, right?
Click to expand...
If you like Fokker Triplanes or U2 Spyplanes, solar planes or gliders, then yes it is immensely important..

If you have low power and fighting is characterised by manoeuvring, its good. But as power increased, weight went up and designers started realising that actually having twice the weight and four times the power essentially meant "who cares" as the weight doubling actually has nowhere near that effect on drag, but wing area is a major drag influence.

The 109 has a much higher wing loading than a Spitfire, and so <all other things being equal> ought not to have good high altitude performance, but in fact for a short time the engines were a bit better than the Merlin at high altitude in the Battle of Britain and so, despite much higher wing loading the 109 had better high altitude behaviour (there are dozens of pages of Air Ministry records discussing this at the time)

So combat went towards an "energy" based model where it is all about zooming by and making your kill then vanishing, not staying about to twist and turn, which is all about low drag, maintaining your speed and never letting yourself bleed off your energy. For this you want to get rid of some wing area in exchange for lowering drag a bit, because you don't care about your turn radius at 150mph being 200m wider than a Spitfire I, when you are 100mph faster (I`m just comparing early WW2 and late WW2 typical performance) and can therefore dictate the engagement without ever actually dogfighting.

Arguably that has changed a little in some very specific scenarios now with seriously effective thrust vectoring.

I`m not saying ignore wing loading, or that it doesn't matter, I`m saying if you are very clever you can make very fast effective aircraft with high wing loadings and reap the drag reward providing you have some spare power.
 
Last edited:
Calum Douglas said:
If you like Fokker Triplanes or U2 Spyplanes, solar planes or gliders, then yes it is immensely important..

If you have low power and fighting is characterised by manoeuvring, its good. But as power increased, weight went up and designers started realising that actually having twice the weight and four times the power essentially meant "who cares" as the weight doubling actually has nowhere near that effect on drag, but wing area is a major drag influence.

The 109 has a much higher wing loading than a Spitfire, and so <all other things being equal> ought not to have good high altitude performance, but in fact for a short time the engines were a bit better than the Merlin at high altitude in the Battle of Britain and so, despite much higher wing loading the 109 had better high altitude behaviour (there are dozens of pages of Air Ministry records discussing this at the time)

So combat went towards an "energy" based model where it is all about zooming by and making your kill then vanishing, not staying about to twist and turn, which is all about low drag, maintaining your speed and never letting yourself bleed off your energy. For this you want to get rid of some wing area in exchange for lowering drag a bit, because you don't care about your turn radius at 150mph being 200m wider than a Spitfire I, when you are 100mph faster (I`m just comparing early WW2 and late WW2 typical performance) and can therefore dictate the engagement without ever actually dogfighting.

Arguably that has changed a little in some very specific scenarios now with seriously effective thrust vectoring.

I`m not saying ignore wing loading, or that it doesn't matter, I`m saying if you are very clever you can make very fast effective aircraft with high wing loadings and reap the drag reward providing you have some spare power.
Click to expand...
You are forgetting several issues. One is the runway length requirement. Try operating a speedy high-wing-load fighter requiring runway length x from airfields with 0.5 x runways. Your graph showing "wing-loading trends" nicely forgets everything else, such as the fact while WW1 fighters could operate from nearly any grassy patches, those "very fast" ones (like the F-104) ended up requiring massive concrete runways and unable to handle any surface irregularities on the field (not a heavy speedy one, but for example the Fouga Magister was unable to operate from icy runways with sand dispersed to prevent skidding because the fragile jets could not tolerate any sand). When I served in the AF (as an aviation meteorology nco) that operated the MiG-21 and Draken at that time, all personnel were banned from walking across the runways because "debris from shoes might damage the engines"). The late Bill Gunston wrote a lot on the vulnerability of many "modern" aircraft due to their massive runway requirements.

Second, wing area and cleanliness have everything to do with each other.
 
Pasoleati said:
You are forgetting several issues. One is the runway length requirement. Try operating a speedy high-wing-load fighter requiring runway length x from airfields with 0.5 x runways. Your graph showing "wing-loading trends" nicely forgets everything else, such as the fact while WW1 fighters could operate from nearly any grassy patches, those "very fast" ones (like the F-104) ended up requiring massive concrete runways and unable to handle any surface irregularities on the field (not a heavy speedy one, but for example the Fouga Magister was unable to operate from icy runways with sand dispersed to prevent skidding because the fragile jets could not tolerate any sand). When I served in the AF (as an aviation meteorology nco) that operated the MiG-21 and Draken at that time, all personnel were banned from walking across the runways because "debris from shoes might damage the engines"). The late Bill Gunston wrote a lot on the vulnerability of many "modern" aircraft due to their massive runway requirements.

Second, wing area and cleanliness have everything to do with each other.
Click to expand...

Again, you`ve totally ignored both points:

1) The historical trend towards higher wing loadings was the correct technical path. This was my original point and is
irrefutable.

2) "Second, wing area and cleanliness have everything to do with each other."

I`ve already asked you what they had to do with eachother, again you`ve refused to provide a single point.

One is parasitic drag, ("form resistance (due to shape), skin friction, interference, and all other elements that are not contributing to lift) which is (or was) really just a feature of design requirements and manufacturing quality, the other
is the entire philosophy for how you decide to design your aircraft as it is all about the drag/lift. One does not contribute to lift,
one does.

Its obvious that "everything has everything to do with each other" in a broad term as in, "stuff which hits the air
affects the air", but in any meaningful sense, the two things are separate issues.
 
Calum Douglas said:
Then you`re still in WW1.
Click to expand...
No, i am not. If we have two planes with the same weapons, fuel capacity, speed and climbrate and one of them will be much lower wing loading, the plane with lower wingloading will be better in many features.
 
Last edited:
Calum Douglas said:
Again, you`ve totally ignored both points:

1) The historical trend towards higher wing loadings was the correct technical path. This was my original point and is
irrefutable.

2) "Second, wing area and cleanliness have everything to do with each other."

I`ve already asked you what they had to do with eachother, again you`ve refused to provide a single point.

One is parasitic drag, ("form resistance (due to shape), skin friction, interference, and all other elements that are not contributing to lift) which is (or was) really just a feature of design requirements and manufacturing quality, the other
is the entire philosophy for how you decide to design your aircraft as it is all about the drag/lift. One does not contribute to lift,
one does.

Its obvious that "everything has everything to do with each other" in a broad term as in, "stuff which hits the air
affects the air", but in any meaningful sense, the two things are separate issues.
Click to expand...
When did I indicate that I was in any way interested in general trends? Second, when did I ever indicate that my primary interest is speed? Yes, if speed is all you want, then smallest wing is the correct way. But, let's try a motor sports comparison. What is the ultimate expression of straight line performance in motor sports? Drag racing, the most stupid form of sports ever invented. Compare that to WRC, motocross etc. WRC is much more close to practical WW2-era air combat with many variables affecting the end result.

If your "speed is 100 % everything" was absolutely true, then the Luftwaffe should have never lost the air war on the Eastern Front (both the 109 and the 190 significant speed advantage over the opponents most of the war). And how come that e.g. FAF Moranes were able to achieve positive kill ratio against opponents that were 50 - 100 km/h faster. Just like the fastest WRC car won't necessarily win the rally.

My original point was that there were national differences on this issue at that time. I stand by my claim. There are great many examples prove that. Just to add more: Ta 152 vs. Hawker Tempest. Me 262 vs. Vampire. Ju 188 vs. Ki-67. Etc.
 
As forum members have not fully explained a few points I perhaps might be allowed to conjecture Bill Gunston(?) tries to drive a wedge into the rehabilation of Messerschmitt by re-awakening debates on whether the Fw-190D could have gone to war a full year earlier. I readily accept this proposition will not find support in this forum but the point would rather be the European scene already had a "primadonna" in the form of Marcel Dassault. If 50 years is counted right back from 1974 I can say the competition already includes F-16/18.
 
TempCz said:
No, i am not. If we have two planes with the same weapons, fuel capacity, speed and climbrate and one of them will be much lower wing loading, the plane with lower wingloading will be better in many features.
Click to expand...
Sorry to burst into the conversation.
You can not simply separate speed and climbrate from wing loading by a magical way. They are all inherently tied together.
Wing loading is defined as W/A (so force of weight W per wing area A).
So in order to get lower wing loading either weight has to go down or area has to go up.
But demanding equal fuel and weaponry as well as engine power (such as you stated) will land you at a certain weight. Structural weight does usually not permit excessive deviances granted you use similar construction material.

So you are left with increasing wing area. This however will inevitably increase your wetted area and thus your drag. Now for stationary level fligt thrust must equal drag. But your drag just went up due to increased area. So you need to have more thrust to rebalance your stationary state and not end up at lower speed.

How can you get more thrust? It is a function of engine power and propeller efficiency. Now you either end up increasing your engine power (which you initially assumed to be equal) or you assume that for some reason you suddenly have more efficient propellers.

That is the core of the issue. There are many competing demands which you have to balance. There is no free lunch in egnineering.
 
Both planew are the same. One have front landing gear, an ejection seat, or a heavier reverse propeller. The second is 300 kg lighter, thanks to the classic concept. Which will have better properties in the air?
 
Hi,

TempCz said:
Both planew are the same. One have front landing gear, an ejection seat, or a heavier reverse propeller. The second is 300 kg lighter, thanks to the classic concept. Which will have better properties in the air?
Click to expand...

Well, the lighter but otherwise identical aircraft, obviously. However, that's so obvious that I don't see what we can learn from it. We can probably eliminate pilot armour from the second fighter, and it will be another 50 kg lighter. Will it have better properties in the air? Certainly. Will it be a better fighter for the mission at hand? That's a more difficult question, and if we're talking about the Luftwaffe mid-to-late war, I would suggest the answer is "no".

For a more realistic view on wing loading in the real world, here some figures for Japanese aircraft:

Ki-27: 80 kg/m^2, 19 m^2
Ki-43: 120 kg/m^2, 21 m^2
Ki-44: 190 kg/m^2, 15 m^2
Ki-60: 170 kg/m^2, 16 m^2
Ki-61: 150 kg/m^2, 20 m^2
Ki-84: 180 kg/m^2, 21 m^2

The Japanese generally preferred low wing-loadings, and yet the direction of the development was quite clear. With the exception of the Ki-44 and the experimental Ki-60, all of these aircraft could be considered, at the time when they came out, to have a light wing-loading.

Yet the "modern" US aircraft like the P-38, P-47, P-51, F4U, and F6F generally had higher wing loadings and were (painting with a very broad brush) superior in combat, because they had better straight-line (and diving) performance.

Clearly, even the Japanese with their preference for low wing loadings thought that increasing wing loading made for better fighters, or they would not have more than doubled it from the Ki-27 to the Ki-84.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Ki 84 had twice the surface load, but also 50% higher speed, extreme improvment in weaponry, 2x better range.
Did the Me 309 have such improvements against the Bf 109E?
Best fighters of late war had 170-200. Me 309 had 250. Much more wing loading is acceptable (not good) if is speed much higher. Me 309 wasnt faster, then best piston western (or german really) fighter and he was much heavier anyway.
 
TempCz said:
Both planew are the same. One have front landing gear, an ejection seat, or a heavier reverse propeller. The second is 300 kg lighter, thanks to the classic concept. Which will have better properties in the air?
Click to expand...
The first has 256 kg of armour and heavier weapons, the second - Me 209 has +- 90 kg and lighter weapons.

The book has almost all the surviving primary sources on the Me 309. If you haven't read the book, it's probably accurate to say that everything you know about the Me 309 is inaccurate and outdated.
 
Last edited:
The Me 309 story exposes some fairly outrageous flaws in the German system of aircraft procurement. The type was commissioned under Udet as the successor to the Bf 109 - making it one of the most important types under development at the point when Milch took over as Generalluftzeugmeister.

But as Calum has pointed out, there was no German equivalent to the British Resident Technical Officer scheme - whereby the Air Ministry had an appointed representative stationed within each aircraft manufacturer, continuously reporting back on progress and liaising with the company.

If you look at British archival documents of aircraft development and compare them with the German equivalents, you can clearly see the difference this makes. The Air Ministry and RAF are able to follow the development of new types much more closely and keeping everyone in the loop makes it that much more difficult for one party (i.e. the air force) to make unreasonable demands of the manufacturer without the other parties (i.e. the experimental establishments, Air Ministry etc.) being on hand to moderate and mediate if necessary. Who would have thought that better lines of communication would yield better results?

As such, time went by and Milch seems to have just assumed that Messerschmitt was doing what was necessary to get the Me 309 prototypes built and tested. It's not until he's been in-post for several months that he begins to wonder what is actually happening with the 309. And it's not until he's been in-post for a year that the problems with the Me 309 (i.e. very little has been done) are fully exposed.

Then the Me 209 is hastily selected as the Me 309's replacement. Then the Me 262 is hastily chosen to replace the Me 209. Then Willy Messerschmitt gets that decision overturned by Hitler and the Me 209 is back as the chosen Bf 109 successor. Then Hitler learns just what the Me 262 is and what it can do, and the Me 209 is cancelled, with the Me 262 becoming Messerschmitt's main focus - but not as a direct replacement for the Bf 109. That job now goes to the Focke-Wulf Ta 152, which is another story.
 
Last edited:
TempCz said:
It's a miracle that all the others Luftwaffe planes were finished!
Click to expand...

Certainly, the Luftwaffe fought practically the entire war with designs developed on Udet's watch. Even designs we usually think of as 'late war' such as the Me 262 and He 219 were commissioned by Udet. Did anything commissioned by Milch actually see combat? The Ta 152 did. The Ta 154? Failure. The Do 335? Too late. Ju 287? Too late. He 162? Milch was gone by then.
 
Interesting that there may be more similarities between the Ta 152 and the Me 309. My opinion is that the Me 309 was the Ta 152, which could have come earlier than the Kurt Tank design and thus by the end of the war the Me 309 would have been flying and the Ta 152 would not have been needed.
 
wasp850 said:
Interesting that there may be more similarities between the Ta 152 and the Me 309. My opinion is that the Me 309 was the Ta 152, which could have come earlier than the Kurt Tank design and thus by the end of the war the Me 309 would have been flying and the Ta 152 would not have been needed.
Click to expand...

Messerschmitt won the competition to design the DB 603/Jumo 213 vehicle. We don't have the details of how that decision was made, since we don't have a lot of GL papers from Udet's time. However, the advantages of the integral retractable radiator/evaporative cooling which the Fw 190 C lacked must have played a role.

Even when the Me 309 was out of the picture and it was a competition between the Me 209 and the Ta 153 (what had been the Fw 190 D, but which was redesignated), the Me 209 still looked like the winner since it used (supposedly) 50% existing parts compared to... somewhat fewer for the Ta 153.

Then the watershed moment where Tank explained that his guys had come up with the solution of sticking a cylindrical section in the tail of a standard 190 A airframe, thereby creating a DB 603/Jumo 213 vehicle out of 90% existing parts. This was the Ta 152 and it became the new direct successor to the 109.

But a LOT of development time had been lost because 1) the Me 309 was completely unfinished, then cancelled and 2) it gradually became clear that if the Ta 152 design could be pushed just a little further it would be a (supposedly) much better aircraft. This resulted in the interim Fw 190 D-9 - which was the embodyment of the original Ta 152 concept and not a direct follow on from the original Fw 190 D - while the 152 itself was developed into oblivion (well, except for the handful of Ta 152 Hs that made it into squadron service).
 
I was referring to the rather interestingly similar physical characteristics of the Me 309 and Ta 152 ( C version rather than H), such as higher wing loading than was standard, the same engine, unusually heavy armament for the time, and pilot protection. My thought is that the Ta 152 actually had similar features to the Me 309, i.e. the concept was not completely abandoned but changed into the Ta 152. But thank you very much for the history of the choice between the Me 209 and the Ta 153/Fw 190D
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom