Spanish built ME-109's?

The 1969 movie 'The Battle of Britain' used a load plus some He111 copies too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano_Aviaci%C3%B3n_HA-1112

 

The Spanish airforce used a locally built version of the ME-109 powered by the Rolls Royce Merlin engine used in the ME-109's great rival, the Spitfire!

The retired Spanish Airforce Me-109's were used in the 1960's movie about the Battle of Britain.

Long story..............but the surviving aircraft are now in the USA and owned by "Connie" Edwards who was the lead pilot/stunt pilot on the movie. See Google......

No one has the tooling to re-create these aircraft!


Nasty plane the Me-109,lots of pilots killed by their own aircraft during WW2 and since then on restored examples.........too much throttle on takeoff and they flip over apparently due to narrow undercarriage..........designed to take-off from grass fields not concrete runways!

P

 

I've got an R/C version and all these traits are still plenty evident. Very difficult on take-off, darn near impossible on landings (better on grass though), some tip stalls at low speed, and a habit of doing a nasty snap half-roll with any abrupt up elevator inputs. But when you have it going low and fast, it really cooks!

I can be seen here retrieving it from the local lake on its maiden flight, following my introduction to this exciting snap roll feature:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Spanish version was called a Buchon if I recall correctly..... basically a 109G series with the Merlin engine and changes in the radiator designs and locations. A number are still flying. The aesthetics are not good, the clean lines of the 109f and later varients are ruined.

Helmut Lipfert in his great book tells of his Staffel from JG52 transferring to a prepared field with paved runway late in the war while retreating from Russia. Over half the pilots ground looped on landing.

I have read estimates that as many as 1/3 of all 109s built (over 36,000 in total) were destroyed in flying accidents, mostly on landing. Still, most of those would have been repaired. The Germans had a very efficient system for recovering and rebuilding planes.

The 109 never had a reputation of being an easy plane to fly or fight. But the real experts loved it and swore it could take on anything with even odds.

Gunther Rall for example claimed that contrary to generally accepted beliefs, the 109E and F series was capable of out turning a Spitfire, but it required a very skilled pilot. The 109 had a higher wing loading but it also had leading edge slats. In a very tight turn, these slats had a tendency to deploy asymmetrically and for the pilot who was not anticipating and timing this perfectly this could be a very nasty thing. Thus most pilots would avoid getting into this realm of the flight envelope. But the true "experten" would use this to advantage.

The top 10 scoring fighter pilots of all time all scored the vast majority (if not all) of their victories in the 109.

Jochen Marseille scored all 158 of his victories flying against the western allies and all in the cockpit of a 109.



Terry

 

I recall poor Mark Hanna one of the great warbird pilots died as a result of a Buchon crash on landing

http://www.ofmc.co.uk/rayandmark.aspx

 

The November/December 2010 issue of Warbirds International had a great series of articles on these things. Well worth picking up the back issue.

http://www.challengeweb.com/back-issues.html

 

IIRC, there was a Spanish version before the Merlin engined Buchón that used Hispano-Suiza engines and thus kept the original profile.

 

I've wondered about the reasoning for the narrow front wheels on the 109, they folded outward. Looks very unstable.

Maybe it was a structural reason, wings and mounts are stouter the farther inboard the gear supports are, maybe.

Compared to the FW-190 with VERY wide spaced gear folding inward.

 

I think they could mount the undercarriage onto the fuselage without the wings for production and mantenence. The merlin engined 109's just didn't look as menacing as the DB engined examples. However the germans did install a DB601 into a captured Spitfire V Airframe to run some performance figures, I forget what the outcome was.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Willy Messerschmit refused to put some camber in the wheel configuration because when retracted it would have caused a bump in the upper surface of the wing that would have caused drag. Also putting the landing gear outboard on such a small wing would have eaten up valuable fuel space or gun ammo space. The forgings in which the gear rotated were fragile and failed from side loads. Look at the Spitfire, the same philosophy except that the wheels had camber and tracked properly. Remember, both aircraft initially operated from grass fields that forgave many slipped landings...most of the time. If I remember correctly the ME-109 killed 1338 German pilots in landing incidents. The Hurricane and Spitfire had thicker wings than the ME-109 also.

 

That is one strange looking Me109/Spitfire. Not exactly on topic, but someone is building new FW190s. http://www.flugwerk.de/html/index.php
http://www.lanedesign.com.br/fw190.htm
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Lots of great videos on youtube of the Flugwerk FW-190 A8N. Incredibly airplane!

One of them was ditched off the southern coast of France last year after the pilot lost power while playing with a Spitfire. He got it down in very shallow water, easy recovery and is being rebuilt.


FW-190 gets my vote for best overall air superiority fighter of the war. Admittedly a totally subjective term, but that aircraft coupled with the Luftwaffe tactics in using it was incredibly effective. Not a dogfighter and not intended to be but an extremely stable gun platform at very high speed, the best roll rate of any fighter of the war, rugged, easy to fly with the most sophisticated engine management via mechanical computer of any plane in the war, and massive firepower. With 4 x MG151 20mm cannons (very high rate of fire) and 2 12.7mm machine guns (A6 variants and on) the 190 driver only needed a snapshot to take a target apart. Classic boom and zoom fighter plane.



Terry

 

I saw Battle of Britain again on Netflix the other day. I had forgotten how many real planes they used. A refreshing change from today's CGI generated air forces. Loved the sound of the Spitfire Merlins.

 

The FW-190 was the ultimate bomber killer but not the best dog fighter. It was a defensive weapon that lacked the range and flexibility of the Mustang and P-47. helluva airplane.

 

There are quite a few Buchon's being converted from the Merlin to the DB German engines. Although it is quite expensive, the Merlin is right side up and the DB has the heads pointed down.

The DB is fuel injected and is very complicated system where the Merlin has a pressure carb and is relatively simple by comparison.

Mike Nixon of Vintage V-12's in Tehachapi Ca is rebuilding most of the DB engines and I have been told they are finding more and more of them around due to the demand.

 

The FW-190 did lack the range of a P-51 or P-47 using drop tanks and it was deployed in a primarily defensive role, but I think concluding that it was an inferior "dog-fighter" to any of the allied fighters is over simplifying the real world scenario.

The allies tended to design different airframes for different roles. The Germans lacked the capacity to support this approach and instead developed many different variants of the same airframe.

For example, the FW-190A8/R8 "Sturmbock" variant was developed specifically to attack heavy bomber formations. It had additional armor plating and bullet proof glass around the cockpit, more armor around the engine and 30mm cannon replaced the standard 20mm wing guns. Weight went through the roof and performance with it. It could withstand tremendous damage and the punch from 2x30mm + 2x20mm + 2x12.7mm guns was utterly devastating to anything it got in its sights. But the performance penalty was so large they were dead meat to escorting P-51s and ended up requiring escorts themselves to have any hope of reaching the bomber stream. Ultimately a failure.

The FW-190F series was specialized for ground attack and replaced the Stuka in most Schlachtgeschwader outfits. It too carried more armor plus heavy under-wing pylons for ground munitions and it lacked the advanced engine boost systems deployed in the pure fighter variants. Definitely not a dog-fighter.

The Germans not only built many different variants of the FW-190 - but they also deployed a huge number of field modification kits. US fighters were largely standardized. A new model (like P-51C to P-51D or H) represented a major change to the entire production line and only occurred relatively rarely. The Germans developed field modification kits to try and address specific needs. These included all kinds of crazy ideas - some better than others. Water/Methanol injection systems... Nitrous Oxide injection... BOTH at the same time! The lack of German capability to produce quantities of high octane aviation fuel meant their supercharger performance badly lagged Allied fighters and they sought to overcome this with these types of advanced engine boost systems.

German pilots in JG26 on the western front in '43-'44 flew FW-190A6 variants with WM50 boost and they often removed the outer wing guns to save weight and increase their roll rate even further. This fighter was a very effective dog-fighter. Not in the horizontal plane so much - but in the vertical plane. Fast - stable - forgiving - great acceleration and the fastest roll rate of any fighter all equals a very effective fighter plane.

Altitude made all the difference too. The FW-190 (until the D variants came out in late '44 - but never in enough numbers to make a difference) was never very effective over 20K. The supercharger performance stunk and the injection boosting systems were never as effective at high altitude as they were designed to be. The P-51 or P-47 on the other hand was at its best at high altitude. Plus - most importantly - this was where the bombers flew.

A P-51 driver encountering a FW-190A8 at 25,000 feet... the P-51 is holding all the cards. The same P-51 pilot dog-fighting a FW-190A6 at under 10,000 feet the scenario is reversed. The lower and slower they get - the more the 190 driver is sitting good. A P-51 is not an easy or forgiving plane in a low/slow knife-fight.

Real "dog-fighting" as in protracted one on one engagements were very rare. Fights tended to start and end very quickly and most guys who got shot down neve had any idea they were within range of an enemy fighter. Getting into prolonged dogfights was not a path to a long life as a fighter pilot. Even if you win - the moments of target fixation leave you easy meat if your target has friends nearby. Eric Hartmann recognized this early on and it was the key to his success. He strictly adhered to boom and zoom tactics only committing himself to a single gunnery pass when he was sure of his tactical advantage. For these types of tactics, the FW-190 was everything a pilot could ask for.

Screw dog-fighting... I want to zoom in from above at very high speed, line up a quick snapshot, blast the target to oblivion and zoom back up out of danger quickly - all before my target realizes I am anywhere nearby. Nothing did this better than a FW-190.

Our perceptions today are largely based on anecdotal evidence from the stories pilots have told. By mid 1944 all of the US fighter pilots in action were well trained and highly skilled. The German pilots on the other hand fit into two distinct categories. 9 out of 10 German pilots a US fighter pilot might encounter were new, lacked training and had little to no experience or skill at all. By the end of the war - German pilots were being sent into the air in 190s and 109s with 20 hours TOTAL flying time! They were meat on the table.

Then there was the 1 in 10 "Experten" who had been flying combat for years, might have 100+ kills and was their worst nightmare. The P-51 driver who ended up engaged with one of these guys... he most likely did not go home to tell stories.

I love talking this stuff...


Terry

 

Thats the German approach in WWII for you. Very competent, sophisticated technology that provided world beating capabilities.... when it worked. But when it broke down, it was often difficult to repair or maintain in the field.

I've read many translated war diaries from German fighter units on the eastern front. During the latter stages of the war, there is a recurring theme: Moved based - destroyed X number of 109s rather than leave to fall into enemy hands... The Germans on the eastern front typically flew from forward fields 20 miles or closer to the front lines. As they were retreating they would often relocate to a new field sometimes more than once per week. Planes that could not be flown out were destroyed in place. LOTS of 109s went this way.

The Tiger tank had similar issues. Incredibly capable - but also far too complex. The suspension was crazy complicated and prone to breaking torsion bars. To replace one, most of the suspension had to be disassembled. Not easy to do on the front line, and removing a 60 ton tank to a rear area for repair was often impossible. This is why most of the photos you see of Tiger tanks show a tank that appears intact - it IS intact but the crew has abandoned it due to some break down! (blame Porsche...)



Terry

 

Thanks, Terry... X2...

Great stuff.

I remember a magazine Car Test article from many years ago... don't remember the car but the tester said something like "in the US, a cotter pin does the job admirably... but a German Car may have a spring-loaded plated forged device to do the exact same thing" many times the cost and complexity.... and it doesn't do a better job. It looks v. cool, though.

 

Couple of stories I have heard over the years
1. As to the fasteners we used the Dzus fasteners which were designed by a German before the war. He brought it to the military and they declined to use them. They are our standard fastener for most WW 2 aircraft.

2. The DB engines that were fuel injected could not take negative G pushovers. The engine would quit after a very short time. Huge disadvantage if in a fight.

3. The British not only used magnesium rivets (which corrode quickly and I believe are not approved anymore) but they also did not use nylocks. Instead they peened every screw used to hold something in place. They literally took a hammer and bent the end of the screw over so it would not come out.

One huge advantage the Mustang has over all other WW2 fighters except maybe the Griffon Spitfires is speed. Normal cruise is 260 to 270 mph indicated, this is at least 20 to 70 mph faster then any of the other fighters. All airplanes seem to have a speed were they seem to not want to go any faster without a lot more HP. That speed for the Mustang is substantially more then the rest. I would think this is mostly due to the laminar flow wing on the P-51.

 

I was viewing the threads and came upon this interesting one.
I have a question for Tspringer:
Seeing how the 109 was being produced in Spain until 1955.
How exactly were the planes being built in Spain ?
How did the Spanish get the designs and tooling ?
Did members of the former engineering staff at messerschmitt relocate to Spain after the war ?
If they did, where are they now and what happened to their expertise ?
And if not, where did the Spanish get the staffing to manufacture this airplane ?

I like history
Tony

 

By Griffon Spitfires are you referring to the Supermarine 'Spiteful'... which had a redesigned laminar flow wing (not eliptical) like the Mustang and a Griffon engine? ...and different fuslege shape.

It also had wide-stance inward-folding main gear.

 

I was speaking of the 2500 HP Griffon (not necessarily the Spiteful), without the laminar wing it requires a lot of HP in this case about 1,000 more then the 1,490 of the Mustang.

I don't think there is a Spiteful left in existence I had actually totally forgotten about it until you mentioned it.

I actually had a signed contract in hand for one of the new build FW-190's (I think it was 140,000 at the time), but I changed my mind before I put a stamp on it and bought the Corsair instead. They had promised me they would have a flying example within a year, this was 1999, and I think the first one flew sometime in 2009.

They have had a lot of troubles with the landing gear with several failures and most of the new build 190's have been extensively rebuilt after the kit was delivered.

Nothing bad about the kit just a massive amount of possible problems when trying to new build a WW2 fighter.

 

You have the DB injected engines thing backwards - they never had any issues with negative G operation, but the early Spitfires they faced in the Battle of Britain did. The Mk.I and Mk.II Spitfires in operation during the Battle of Britain did not have pressurized carburetors and their engines would cut out due to fuel starvation in negative G situations. 109 drivers figured this out quickly and a favorite maneuver to rapidly gain separation was to push the nose over in a negative G dive, then roll out and further down. By the time the Spit could follow, the 109 was long gone. The Spits slow roll rate compounded this issue. Fuel injected engines cannot suffer negative G starvation in this manner, injection is by definition a pressurized system. The Spitfire Mk.IIa and on all had pressurized carbs, the negative G issue was gone by early '41. I have never heard of any US Fighter having this issue.

P-51 did cruise well and burned less fuel under cruise... but the FW-190 had a normal cruise speed of 270-280mph. Of course it did not have anywhere near the range of the P-51. Cruise speed also of course varies greatly with altitude and optimum cruise for the FW would be at a lower altitude than for the Mustang.

The Allies got to dictate the fight relative to altitude most of the time as the bombers set the table. High altitude engagements with B17s and 24s escorted by Mustangs would initiate with a FW-190 at a performance handicap. Fights at lower altitudes - such as escorting B25s or 26s... FW would have more of an advantage.

Still, from everything I have ever read or heard - the pilots ultimately made the key difference and in particular the tactical leadership. Guys who had great situational awareness and knew when to push a fight and when to get the heck out of dodge. Aces like Gabreski, Preddy, John C. Meir, Schopfel, Priller, Krupinski, Hartmann.... leaders who could frame a fluid fast moving 3D picture in their head, make correct snap decisions and then follow through with great flying and shooting - THAT meant a whole lot more than individual aircraft performance.

I am pretty sure that the Spanish had contracts to build Me-109s under license before the end of WWII. My guess is they decided after the fact that the licenses were still valid, besides who was going to make a fuss? They probably purchased tooling 2nd hand in the immediate post war period, there was plenty of it about. German aircraft manufacturing was de-centralized. Individual components were made all over the place in a cottage industry sort of setup with final assembly taking place at various "factories" that by later in the war lacked things like a roof. But it turns out you don't need a roof to do final assembly.

Peak German fighter production was in Sept. of '44 when they built over 4,000 109s and 190s. They never had a problem with a shortage of planes. When the war ended there were plenty of brand new German fighters scattered all over. The problem was pilots and fuel. They lacked the capacity and fuel to train new pilots at a rate anywhere near their loss rates and combat flying for the last 6 months of the war was severely restricted by fuel shortages.

Bombing German aircraft factories proved to be a waste of effort, it was ineffective. Same for all the bombing effort against ball bearings, tanks and most other industrial targets. Bombing German refineries and oil distribution - that crushed them. Lots of planes sitting around lacking pilots and fuel, that's even better than a lack of planes. All that wasted production effort to produce war materials but no means of putting them into action.


Terry

 

Thanks. A very informative dissertation on the subject of the aerial war in Europe. I have known several fighter pilots who participated in WW2. One shot down 5 FW-190s in less then 10 minutes in a P-38. One shot down 13 German night fighters in a Mosquito and I tend to think that the pilot had a foremost hand in what was accomplished. Stifling the oil industry production is what killed the German ability to wage war. You can build all the airplanes you want but if you don't have fuel to run them, you have no weapon. I knew several pilots who flew in the 15th AF out of Itality and they concentrated on the oil refineries and transportation . I think that it worked but they paid for it.