Author Topic: What was the drawback of the Me109T?? (Read 1102 times)

Knegel · « **on:** November 02, 2006, 10:15:50 AM »

Hi,

the Me109T had a increased wingspan and wingarea and also the wing aspect ratio was increased.

This changings normaly result in a smaler wingload + smaler induced drag at slow IAS and better handling at slow IAS, so perfect for high altitude tasks.

I guess this wing in cooperation with the 109F/G airframe should have been a very good plane.

So why this wings dont got used??

What trouble they made?

Are there any informations around regarding this??

Greetings,

Knegel

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #1 on:** November 02, 2006, 10:23:23 AM »

By aspectration, do you mean aspect ratio?

Knegel · « **Reply #2 on:** November 02, 2006, 10:32:51 AM »

yes, of course, my fat fingers dont like my keyboard. lol

Krusty · « **Reply #3 on:** November 02, 2006, 11:01:12 AM »

Longer wings are more fragile. They also reduce roll rate and manuverability in general. Look at the Ta152 as compared to the 190D-9 in Aces High. Big difference.

Also don't forget that several times in the war, significant changes in an airframe were not put into place because it takes time to stop the production line, completely retool it, set up new machines, new parts, and then start it up again. They needed every plane they could get, and coulnd't stop it even for a short time.

Plus the wing was only put there for carrier landings and takeoffs. It wasn't designed to improve fighting characteristics, or for high altitude (this is essentially an E-4 with a longer wingspan)

Jester · « **Reply #4 on:** November 02, 2006, 11:18:36 AM »

The lengthened wings on the ME-109T-1 "TONI" was mainly to lower the landing speed and to decrease take-off distance to enable the aircraft to operate from the planned GRAF ZEPPELIN Class Aircraft Carriers.

I doubt the Hi-Altitude performance was ever factored into the design like it was in the later FW-190D and TA-152. Like Krusty said one big disadvantage is reduced roll rate.

However- the biggest disadvantage - for a carrier aircraft is stowage. The wings on the "Toni" didn't fold like on US Carrier planes.

For a good reference on the ME-109T Fighters, their design and operations track down this book. I have a copy in my Kriegsmarine collection and it is really good reading.

SEA EAGLES: The Operational History of the BF-109T
By: Francis L. Marshall
Air Research Publications,
Walton on Thames, Surrey, UK
Second Edition: 1994
ISBN #: 1-871187-22-2

!

MiloMorai · « **Reply #5 on:** November 02, 2006, 12:37:52 PM »

The wings might not have been able to fold but there was plans to have them fold. The spec for wing fold span was 4.59m.

Messerschmitt Bf109A-E
Radinger/Schick

Bodhi · « **Reply #6 on:** November 02, 2006, 01:46:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Also don't forget that several times in the war, significant changes in an airframe were not put into place because it takes time to stop the production line, completely retool it, set up new machines, new parts, and then start it up again. They needed every plane they could get, and coulnd't stop it even for a short time.

You do not stop production to make a new "variant". In this example, the existing fighters "G" series would have continued in production, and a seperate line would likely have been opened to produce the longer wing and finish fuselages brought over from the main production line to include items such as strengtheners and arresting gear.

I do agree however that they did need every aircraft avaialble. That is why the T never saw production as it would have taken away from existing production and the actuality of a German Carrier surviving any length of time in the Atlantic was very unlikely.

Knegel · « **Reply #7 on:** November 02, 2006, 07:20:52 PM »

Hi,

yes, i know the aspect of production problems and the maybe reduced rollratio, but they did spend a lot of time into the Me109H, which had a extreme enlarged wingspan(similar like the ta152H).

The T already was combat worthy and 1943 the Luftwaffe did miss a advanced high alt fighter(to fight above 6500m). Rollratio isnt that important at high altitude, the planes couldnt keep high banking angles anyway, cause the very slow IAS(banking fast result in alt lost). And here the better lift and specialy reduced induced drag due to the higher aspect ratio would have been a big advantage. The Ta152H and Spit HF with long wingtips are good example for wings with a increased wing aspect ratio and the resulting better high alt handling.

I guess the Me109T wing + 109F4 airframe would have been more worth than GM1. Without the cannons the T wing must have been strong enough.

Jester,

are there any informations regarding diveproblems in that book??
I need to look if this book is available written in german.

Greetings,

Knegel

Porta · « **Reply #8 on:** November 03, 2006, 06:26:52 AM »

Hi,

You might be a bit optimistic in performance gains with such a wing. Here is a comparison of calculated performance for both airplanes:

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #9 on:** November 03, 2006, 10:30:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bodhi
You do not stop production to make a new "variant". In this example, the existing fighters "G" series would have continued in production, and a seperate line would likely have been opened to produce the longer wing and finish fuselages brought over from the main production line to include items such as strengtheners and arresting gear.

I do agree however that they did need every aircraft avaialble. That is why the T never saw production as it would have taken away from existing production and the actuality of a German Carrier surviving any length of time in the Atlantic was very unlikely.

There is an exception to every rule, and your first sentence is an example. Lockheed asked for a short shutdown of the P-38 line in 1943 to tool up for the P-38K. The War Production Board refused, stating that the delay would not be acceptable.

Knegel · « **Reply #10 on:** November 03, 2006, 11:28:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Porta
Hi,

You might be a bit optimistic in performance gains with such a wing. Here is a comparison of calculated performance for both airplanes:

Optimistic??

Look to the increased climb in high alt, i guess the speed show a similar picture up there!

The 109F + DB601E was still a good combination. I bet with the more heavy DB605 more big wings would have been more an advantage.

Greetings,

Bodhi · « **Reply #11 on:** November 03, 2006, 11:40:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
There is an exception to every rule, and your first sentence is an example. Lockheed asked for a short shutdown of the P-38 line in 1943 to tool up for the P-38K. The War Production Board refused, stating that the delay would not be acceptable.

I was aware of that Virgil, but I thought it was more that Lockheed recommended a shut down, as opposed to constructing a new building to house construction of modified components for the K. The reason for the shut down was more of a space and rearrangement issue than it was a "shut it down to retool" issue.

Krusty · « **Reply #12 on:** November 03, 2006, 11:53:55 AM »

I've read in several books that the reason the LW didn't get the F earlier was because they were desperate for all the Emils they could get, and Messerschmitt could not afford to shut the line down to modify the way it produced things. Engines were pretty much plug-and-play, but wings were a big piece of construction, and changing them took a lot of effort to re-tool.

I've also read this in relation to a couple of other models/planes, but my memory's a bit hazy as to which ones.

Porta · « **Reply #13 on:** November 03, 2006, 12:34:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Knegel
Optimistic??

Look to the increased climb in high alt, i guess the speed show a similar picture up there!

The 109F + DB601E was still a good combination. I bet with the more heavy DB605 more big wings would have been more an advantage.

Greetings,

But not to the point of equalling GM 1

.

Also they considered F/G-series wing radiators instead of E-series radiators for the 109 T wing (~ 20 km/h speed loss at ground level according Mtt-Probü).

Knegel · « **Reply #14 on:** November 03, 2006, 03:42:08 PM »

Hi,

the GM1 109F was faster, but it still had handlingproblems in high alt. In high alt speed isnt all, up there the turnmanouvers are somewhat like in slowmotion. Imagine the 109F in low level with the thrust of only 400HP, just able to reach around 370km/h IAS. With this low speeds the induced drag gain importance. While constant manouvers, like Vmax and climb the advantage isnt that good visible, but while performing combat manouvers the advantage will show up.

The Ta152H also dont show a that good static performence in low/medium altitude, but the pilots did rate this plane good above the other 190´s.

The HF SpitsIX´s also dont had the increased wingtips for fun. Above 7000m we have different rules. Very high TAS, but poor turnperformence due to low IAS and bad thrust/climb.

In low and medium altitude, where the thick air and powerfull engines make vertical manouvers, rolling etc possible, where the blackout often limit the turn, here the induced drag isnt that important, the zero drag count more.

Above 7000m a roll manouver result in much altitude lost, loopings are only possible after a highspeeddive, if ever.
A good Vmax is nice to disengage, but if you have to act, its not that much worth. GM1 made the plane even more heavy.

btw. i always thought the F/G radiators was more effective(more flat and produced thrust) than the E type radiators.

Greetings,

Knegel