Talk:Messerschmitt Bf 109

PS power ratings

There seem to be a lot of PS power output ratings in the article. Are these supposed to be hp ratings, or actual PS ratings? Either way, aren't such ratings uspposed to include conversions to hp and kW? - BilCat (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a fair point, the conversion template supports it but inputting PS gives this output: 2,000-metric-horsepower (1,500 kW), no mention of PS and also no conversion into horsepower. I have seen some German engine articles with PS ratings and the resident editors will stick by using PS quite strongly. We could say that this is the english wikipedia so a German unit should not be used but I suspect that the reference source provides them, strictly it would be original research to apply a conversion as the primary unit. There is a small guideline on engine units at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/page content#Units and I think that there might be a similar one for the aircraft somewhere. I suppose that it does make comparisons difficult between German and other nationality aircraft as we don't use PS as a conversion (usually just horsepower or kilowatts I think). If it is a problem we could take it to WT:AIR and see if there is a way round it. Out of interest I checked what a couple of my references use, Gunston uses horsepower with no conversion for DB engines as does a contemporary (WWII) Jane's reference, noting that this book gives boost pressures in unconverted 'ata' or Atmosphere (unit)!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

On looking at this article there is quite a problem with consistency of units, we have horsepower converted to kilowatts (should be the other way round), kilowatts converted to horsepower (the correct way), unconverted PS figures and in the specs table PS converted to both horsepower and kilowatts. Many of the references appear to be english language publications and I would think that PS was not used as the primary unit, I don't have the books to check this. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please always use PS as the primary value as this was the value used by the original owners/designers or use the convert template to additionally show hp and/or kW values. A lot of sources mixed PS ratings 1:1 with hp and then incorrectly transferred them into kW, this applies to many english sources and foreign engines with a PS rating (not using the imperial horsepower, AFAIR french, italian, soviet engines are also affected) . --Denniss (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. PS is metric counterpart to imperial hp and kW accommodate itself in specifications pretty recently, if we could consider ~30yrs as recent. To ease the job to ourselves, we should follow MoS and use primary units (nominal), and that's PS to all countries using non-imperial units, in case products coming from above stated countries + Czechoslovakia, Netherlands, Sweden etc. And convert it thru {{convinfobox}} to kW and hp respectively. And optionally it's good to use |lk=in inside convinfobox, to link PS to its meaning, even for us aware of old and obscure units like this one, yet uncommon in everyday life. (btw. which Unit system was used in Japan, China before 1950s?)Aikenware (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement regarding NS rise to power is incorrect

The page says, "Two months after the newly elected National Socialist (Nazi) government were sworn to power on the 30 January 1933, the RLM published the tactical requirements for a single-seat fighter in the document L.A. 1432/33."

They did not get elected to power. Hindenberg appointed Hitler as Chancellor on January 30, 1933. 98.116.24.137 (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately after the elections the Nazis were by far the biggest party in the new German Parliament so they were elected into power by popular vote (although their vote was declining); Hitler's appointment as Chancellor was as a result of political machinations which should not even attempt to be described in an article on the Bf 109. Personally I think it would be better to simply state that "in late March 1933 the RLM..." without needing to mention the Nazis at all; anyone who knows history knows that this was 2 months after they came to power. After all I don't see many other aircraft articles which state "X months after the Democrats/ Liberals/The Screaming Lord Sutch Party came into power..."Minorhistorian (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the Nazi Party's high-water mark in free elections was 37.4 percent (in July 1932), and that Hitler was never "elected to power." He was appointed by age-addled von Hindenburg at the urging of various right-wing string-pullers.

However, I think it's relevant to mention that the RLM (hitherto officially a civil aviation bureaucracy) issued the fighter specification that resulted in the Bf 109 a bare two months after Hitler became chancellor. Evidently, this was an early indication that he intended all along to abrogate the Versailles Treaty's limitations on German armament, including the prohibition on an air force.

Sca (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Me 109

I believe that the opening paragraph in the lede should make mention of the common name of Me109. There is even a redirect from the page Me 109 and plenty of references to back it up as here. Bjmullan (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The article itself is entitled Messerschmitt Bf 109 and has an entire section Bf 109 devoted to BF v Me. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

But that largish section is not summarised in the lead which is perhaps what the commenter is indicating? It's a fair point, I call them 'Me 109s' even though it is 'wrong'!! No problem with the article title. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Added to lede. Bjmullan (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

REPLY IN SUPPORT The name Messerschmitt 109 is a misnomer. Prof. Willi Messerschmidt had no factory of his own when this was designed by him and Robert Lusser. They worked for the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke, and the appellation was Bf109, never Me109. Later, Prof. Messerschmitt had his own company, so Me110, Me310, Me262 and Me163 are correct for these aircraft. The article should clear this up. Historygypsy (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Max. speed discrepancy

"The fighter needed to have a top speed of 400 km/h (250 mph) at 6,000 m ..." while at Specifications (Bf 109 G-6) "Maximum speed: 640 km/h (398 mph) (at 6,300 m (20,670 ft))". I understand that this is version with Daimler-Benz DB 605A-1 liquid-cooled inverted V12 engine (1475 PS) instead Junkers Jumo 210 engine of about 522 kW (700 hp)^{(? are thes hp for real or yet again PS)} but still shouldn't Specifications or {{Aircraft specifications}} provide better insight on all models not just specific series? Some notes should be provided at the end stating that this aint specs for all models for those just lurking into specs w/o reading the whole article. It would be good that {{Aircraft specifications}} optionally offers to have table layout or plain layout as most of planes are produced with numerous variants. Also it would be good if there could be added |YEAR OF PROTOTYPE=, |YEAR OF FIRST SERVICE=, |YEAR OF RETIREMENT= options ...

And on Retirement section "1965, Spanish Air Force", how reliable is this because there's sources claiming that it went into retirement only in 1977, year-and-half after F.Franco was deceased.Aikenware (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hardly confusing, if one reads the text properly; the specifications, framed in 1934, called for a fighter capable of achieving 250 mph; the original B, C and D series with Jumo 210 engines could achieve over 280mph. The 109G-6 series, built from 1942, was the most produced variant of the Bf 109 series and is one of the most representative verisons. It had a much more powerful DB 605 and a refined airframe so was capable of 398 mph. To add specifications for all models would be extremely complicated, lengthy and confusing and would debase the value of the article which is a general history of the Bf 109; you will find more specs in the

Main article: Messerschmitt Bf 109 variants

which details each variant. As for |YEAR OF PROTOTYPE=, |YEAR OF FIRST SERVICE=, |YEAR OF RETIREMENT= options ...? Take a look at the box to the right of the introduction, which does show the information. The issue of PS v Hp is confusing and needs to be sorted. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Cannon

I've always wondered how they managed to engineer a 20 mm cannon mounted on or as this entry says behind the engine, firing through the propellor hub. Must have been pretty complex mechanically. Also, one would think engine heat would cause problems with the cannon mechanism or barrel overheating. I've never seen anything in writing on these questions. Sca (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

See e.g. here. As the engine is inverted V12, the cannon barrel and a protective flame tube is located between the cylinder banks. At the front of engine, the crankshaft runs a reduction gear which turns the hollow propeller hub axle. The cannon barrel is shorter than engine + hub, especially with MK108 i.e. the protruding tube on propeller hub is the end of the flame tube. Shooting through the hub dispenses with propeller synchronization. The location is desirable at the longitudinal axis, compared to wing mounting, as it improves roll rate (mass nearer to axis). Furthermore, with a single larger-calibre hub cannon there's no need to consider divergence distance of several small-calibre weapons. (From Anthony G Williams site).

Inverted aircraft engine designs were used with the primary advantage of placing high maintenance items (sparking plugs and valve lash setting) closer to the ground to allow quick maintenance work without ladders. "Tail dragger" aircraft engines are substantially further from the tarmac, at rest, than are similar nose-gear equipped planes. It was thus easier for multiple mechanics to work on the "top" of the engine simultaneously, as it was now on the bottom. With the (center of propeller) cannon was "in the V" of the inverted engine, maintenance or quick removal/replacement could be done from below, as well. The lubricating oil sump was near the cannon, facilitating cooling of the weapon. (more on this engine/cannon design layout should be in the main narrative) 72.198.101.30 (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sehr interessant. Thanks -- but I'm still wondering if heat was a problem.

Sca (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't find data quickly heat problems but recoil was a major factor with larger calibres. Operationally, a hub or nose cannon was used in Dewoitine D.520, Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 (with Hispano-Suiza HS.404, Yakovlev Yak-3/Yakovlev Yak-7/Yakovlev Yak-9 series and Bell P-39 Airacobra. The NS-37 used in Yaks, a short-recoil 37mm cannon, produced such a violent recoil that initial installation mounted on the engine itself produced a cracked engine block (Again, Anthony's good site). The NS-45 in Yak-9K just made things worse - see the Yakovlev Yak-9 article. Bf-109 with MK-108 probably was saved of the worst side effects due to the relatively slow muzzle speed.

For the really scary stuff on recoil effects check GSh-6-30 story at Anthony's site.

Btw, hub-mounted gun was tried in WWI with SPAD S.XII - a 37mm manually loaded one. Cheers, Rayshade (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The motorkanone wasn't actually perfected until the 109F got into service in late 1940, something the article doesn't mention. Although the E series were supposed to have motorkanone there were so many difficulties encountered (mainly the stress set up during firing which affected the engine's crankshaft) none ever got into operational service. Minorhistorian (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Most produced warplane?

The intro section has a part that says "the Bf 109 was the most produced warplane during World War II", but a look over here says that the Ilyushin Il-2 is the most produced combat aircraft. Someone want to verify this and maybe change it? —Masterblooregard (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Trouble is the list itself mostly lacks properly verified sources and, of course, cannot be used: however, the statement itself seems to be based on a US bombing survey which didn't survey Soviet aircraft production, nor does it make this specific claim, so the statement quoted by Masterblooregard needs verification as to its accuracy.◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 22:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this 36,000 figure really just the Il-2 or does it include the Il-10 as well ? If it's just the Il-2 then change the statement to most produced fighter aircraft in WWII. --Denniss (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

. Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War vol 2 says production of the IL2 reached "more than 35,952" (p. 43) and production of the IL10 reached 4,540 with production ending in 1948 (p. 57) so, unless someone can prove otherwise "Most produced warplane" is inaccurate.◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 21:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the true answer is we can't use other Wikipedia articles as a reference, it's a very easy trap to get snared in. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Performance and specs seem a bit optomistic to be true.

Perhaps taken from a Messerschmitt sales manual? Wiki Adolph Galland: During the Battle of Britain, in a front line General Officer briefing on Luftwaffe tactics, Göring asked what his pilots needed to win the battle. Werner Mölders replied that he would like the Bf 109 to be fitted with more powerful engines. Galland replied: "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my squadron." which left Göring speechless with rage.[54] Other Bf-109 pilots. Data on other web pages. Gun camera footage that belies 109 superiority. Admittedly the lack of real life performance of the 109 may be from German lack high octane fuel. Shjacks45 (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)