Messerschmitt Bf/Me 109 - Blohm & Voss Bv 155 Projects & Prototypes

Much of the information given here on the "Bf 109Z" is false, or at least highly distorted.
Many respected sources recount the twin-109F prototype that got bombed before it could fly (for example William Green's Warplanes of the Third Reich), but that now has to be cast in doubt.

According to Dan Sharp's research into original archive documents (Luftwaffe:Secret Designs of the Third Reich, Mortons, 2018. Pages 108-115), the relevant "schnellstbomber" programme began in May 1942. Several manufacturers submitted designs.

Messerschmitt first studied a composite Zwilling made from parts of several production types: 109 fuselages, 110 outer wings, Jumo 213 radial-engine power eggs. Many variations were subsequently considered in brief, some with 109 wings and/or other engines. Some even had a central 3-crew nacelle (depicted with rather loose imagination in an earlier post). Sharp does not note a big-gunned version, also posted earlier, and as this was a programme for a fast bomber, it seems highly unlikely. All retained twin production 109 tails.

They soon focused down onto Me 109 and 309 variants, wind tunnel tests resulting in the centre section being narrowed and the rear fuselages being joined by a single central tailplane fitted in place of the four conventional ones. The engines reverted to the 109's traditional inline.

A production design eventually emerged as the Me 109Zw (NB no longer Bf, due presumably to changes in the design office), based on two 109G airframes with a new centre section and the main undercarriage moved a little closer in towards the centreline of each fuselage. But Messerschmitt lost the competition. The Me 109Zw was dropped early in 1943, in favour of what became the Dornier Do 335 Pfeil. Subsequently, it was referred to as the Me 109Z.

Throughout, the competition phase was a paper exercise. Sharp documents it intimately. There is no discussion of an interim 109F based prototype. According to the many other respected authors, this would have been under construction throughout the period of the schnellstbomber competition. But it makes no sense; why would Messerschmitt be pursuing a direct parallel path for almost a year without it ever being mentioned in meeting after meeting? This would not be the first time we have caught the mainstream authors swallowing an unsubstantiated tall story, so on balance I believe that the 109F based prototype is a myth.
 
Last edited:
steelpillow said:
Much of the information given here on the "Bf 109Z" is false, or at least highly distorted.
Many respected sources recount the twin-109F prototype that got bombed before it could fly (for example William Green's Warplanes of the Third Reich), but that now has to be cast in doubt.

According to Dan Sharp's research into original archive documents (Luftwaffe:Secret Designs of the Third Reich, Mortons, 2018. Pages 108-115), the relevant "schnellstbomber" programme began in May 1942. Several manufacturers submitted designs.

Messerschmitt first studied a composite Zwilling made from parts of several production types: 109 fuselages, 110 outer wings, Jumo 213 radial-engine power eggs. Many variations were subsequently considered in brief, some with 109 wings and/or other engines. Some even had a central 3-crew nacelle (depicted with rather loose imagination in an earlier post). Sharp does not note a big-gunned version, also posted earlier, and as this was a programme for a fast bomber, it seems highly unlikely. All retained twin production 109 tails.

They soon focused down onto Me 109 and 309 variants, wind tunnel tests resulting in the centre section being narrowed and the rear fuselages being joined by a single central tailplane fitted in place of the four conventional ones. The engines reverted to the 109's traditional inline.

A production design eventually emerged as the Me 109Zw (NB no longer Bf, due presumably to changes in the design office), based on two 109G airframes with a new centre section and the main undercarriage moved a little closer in towards the centreline of each fuselage. But Messerschmitt lost the competition. The Me 109Zw was dropped early in 1943, in favour of what became the Dornier Do 335 Pfeil. Subsequently, it was referred to as the Me 109Z.

Throughout, the competition phase was a paper exercise. Sharp documents it intimately. There is no discussion of an interim 109F based prototype. According to the many other respected authors, this would have been under construction throughout the period of the schnellstbomber competition. But it makes no sense; why would Messerschmitt be pursuing a direct parallel path for almost a year without it ever being mentioned in meeting after meeting? This would not be the first time we have caught the mainstream authors swallowing an unsubstantiated tall story, so on balance I believe that the 109F based prototype is a myth.
Click to expand...

Hi, an explanation of why "Bf" and later "Me" designations :
"Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (BFW) (Bavarian Aircraft Works) was reformed in 1926, in Augsburg, Bavaria, when Udet Flugzeugbau GmbH was changed into a joint-stock company. In the early stages, BMW AG held a stake in this company and was represented by Josef Popp, who held a place on the Supervisory Board.[2]
Willy Messerschmitt joined the company in 1927 as chief designer and engineer and formed a design team.
One of the first designs, the Messerschmitt M20, was a near-catastrophe for the designer and the company. Many[citation needed] of the prototypes crashed, one of them killing Hans Hackmack, a close friend of Erhard Milch, the head of Deutsche Luft Hansa and the German civil aviation authorities. Milch was upset by the lack of response from Messerschmitt and this led to a lifelong hatred towards him. Milch eventually cancelled all contracts with Messerschmitt and forced BFW into bankruptcy in 1931. However, Messerschmitt's friendship with Hugo Junkers prevented a stagnation of the careers of him and BFW, which was started again in 1933. Milch still prevented Messerschmitt's takeover of the BFW until 1938, hence the designation "Bf" of early Messerschmitt designs."

From here :
en.wikipedia.org

Messerschmitt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Thus 108, 109 and 110 that all first flew before 1938 are "Bf"s, Bayerische Flugzeugwerke planes, designed by Willy.
 
galgot said:
Hi, an explanation of why "Bf" and later "Me" designations :
"Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (BFW) (Bavarian Aircraft Works) was reformed in 1926, in Augsburg, Bavaria, when Udet Flugzeugbau GmbH was changed into a joint-stock company. In the early stages, BMW AG held a stake in this company and was represented by Josef Popp, who held a place on the Supervisory Board.[2]
Willy Messerschmitt joined the company in 1927 as chief designer and engineer and formed a design team.
One of the first designs, the Messerschmitt M20, was a near-catastrophe for the designer and the company. Many[citation needed] of the prototypes crashed, one of them killing Hans Hackmack, a close friend of Erhard Milch, the head of Deutsche Luft Hansa and the German civil aviation authorities. Milch was upset by the lack of response from Messerschmitt and this led to a lifelong hatred towards him. Milch eventually cancelled all contracts with Messerschmitt and forced BFW into bankruptcy in 1931. However, Messerschmitt's friendship with Hugo Junkers prevented a stagnation of the careers of him and BFW, which was started again in 1933. Milch still prevented Messerschmitt's takeover of the BFW until 1938, hence the designation "Bf" of early Messerschmitt designs."
Click to expand...

A few things to mention about this. Firstly, I think Milch's relationship with Messerschmitt is much more complex than 'lifelong hatred'. Messerschmitt was invited to attend, and did attend, numerous GL meetings presided over by Milch from 1942 to 1944 - more than any other aircraft company representative with the possible exception of Hertel. Some, such as Ernst Heinkel and Walter Blume, are never (as far as I can tell) invited to attend. Interactions between Milch and Messerschmitt are usually cordial and professional.
When something particularly bad happens to Willy Messerschmitt - e.g. the Me 210 situation - Milch reads out a letter from Goering on the subject and states that he is refraining from saying anything else. On other occasions, Milch makes remarks about being misled by Messerschmitt but this is a very common complaint. Goering makes it too.
There's an interesting contrast between two GL meetings in May 1944 when the issue of the Me 262 having to be built as a bomber is discussed. During the first meeting (without Messerschmitt present), the various representatives such as Knemeyer and Petersen sound almost panicked in describing the problems of kitting the 262 out with bombs - there's only one place on the aircraft where the bombs can be attached and that causes 1) severe CG issues and 2) the nosewheel undercarriage isn't strong enough for it. There's also a supply issue with the bomb rack fairings.
But during the following meeting, Willy Messerschmitt is present and very smoothly explains away all the difficulties. He sounds very convincing - the CG issue isn't actually a problem because the fuel tanks only have to be moved a little to compensate, the nosewheel was already being strengthened so it's not a problem, the fairings are being sourced without issue etc.
This seems to happen quite often - Messerschmitt is very convincing when he speaks and nothing is ever his fault: it's the suppliers, the engines, the component manufacturers, the radiators etc. etc.
And it's evident that although Hitler knows very little about aircraft and very seldom interferes, Messerschmitt knows him personally and derives some sort of security or protection from that - more so than Milch.
So maybe Milch did hate him, but if he did he kept it well hidden and he doesn't seem to act against Messerschmitt during the course of the war.

On the subject of 'Me' versus 'Bf', for most of the war Messerschmitt's internal papers nearly always refer to the 'Me 109'. This is true of test and development reports, supply reports etc. as well as project drawings. So it's no surprise to see 'Me 109 Zw' in company documents. The 'official' designation was 'Bf 109', but colloquially it seems many people in Germany even outside Messerschmitt did also call it the 'Me 109', to the point where it was pretty much interchangable by the end of the war.
 
newsdeskdan said:
galgot said:
Hi, an explanation of why "Bf" and later "Me" designations :
"Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (BFW) (Bavarian Aircraft Works) was reformed in 1926, in Augsburg, Bavaria, when Udet Flugzeugbau GmbH was changed into a joint-stock company. In the early stages, BMW AG held a stake in this company and was represented by Josef Popp, who held a place on the Supervisory Board.[2]
Willy Messerschmitt joined the company in 1927 as chief designer and engineer and formed a design team.
One of the first designs, the Messerschmitt M20, was a near-catastrophe for the designer and the company. Many[citation needed] of the prototypes crashed, one of them killing Hans Hackmack, a close friend of Erhard Milch, the head of Deutsche Luft Hansa and the German civil aviation authorities. Milch was upset by the lack of response from Messerschmitt and this led to a lifelong hatred towards him. Milch eventually cancelled all contracts with Messerschmitt and forced BFW into bankruptcy in 1931. However, Messerschmitt's friendship with Hugo Junkers prevented a stagnation of the careers of him and BFW, which was started again in 1933. Milch still prevented Messerschmitt's takeover of the BFW until 1938, hence the designation "Bf" of early Messerschmitt designs."
Click to expand...

A few things to mention about this. Firstly, I think Milch's relationship with Messerschmitt is much more complex than 'lifelong hatred'. Messerschmitt was invited to attend, and did attend, numerous GL meetings presided over by Milch from 1942 to 1944 - more than any other aircraft company representative with the possible exception of Hertel. Some, such as Ernst Heinkel and Walter Blume, are never (as far as I can tell) invited to attend. Interactions between Milch and Messerschmitt are usually cordial and professional.
When something particularly bad happens to Willy Messerschmitt - e.g. the Me 210 situation - Milch reads out a letter from Goering on the subject and states that he is refraining from saying anything else. On other occasions, Milch makes remarks about being misled by Messerschmitt but this is a very common complaint. Goering makes it too.
There's an interesting contrast between two GL meetings in May 1944 when the issue of the Me 262 having to be built as a bomber is discussed. During the first meeting (without Messerschmitt present), the various representatives such as Knemeyer and Petersen sound almost panicked in describing the problems of kitting the 262 out with bombs - there's only one place on the aircraft where the bombs can be attached and that causes 1) severe CG issues and 2) the nosewheel undercarriage isn't strong enough for it. There's also a supply issue with the bomb rack fairings.
But during the following meeting, Willy Messerschmitt is present and very smoothly explains away all the difficulties. He sounds very convincing - the CG issue isn't actually a problem because the fuel tanks only have to be moved a little to compensate, the nosewheel was already being strengthened so it's not a problem, the fairings are being sourced without issue etc.
This seems to happen quite often - Messerschmitt is very convincing when he speaks and nothing is ever his fault: it's the suppliers, the engines, the component manufacturers, the radiators etc. etc.
And it's evident that although Hitler knows very little about aircraft and very seldom interferes, Messerschmitt knows him personally and derives some sort of security or protection from that - more so than Milch.
So maybe Milch did hate him, but if he did he kept it well hidden and he doesn't seem to act against Messerschmitt during the course of the war.

On the subject of 'Me' versus 'Bf', for most of the war Messerschmitt's internal papers nearly always refer to the 'Me 109'. This is true of test and development reports, supply reports etc. as well as project drawings. So it's no surprise to see 'Me 109 Zw' in company documents. The 'official' designation was 'Bf 109', but colloquially it seems many people in Germany even outside Messerschmitt did also call it the 'Me 109', to the point where it was pretty much interchangable by the end of the war.
Click to expand...

iirc, the supposed source of the animosity goes back to when Milch was in-charge of Luft Hansa. There was a Messerschmitt M.20 that crashed killing a good friend of Milch who then held Messerschmitts lack of action against him.
 
sienar said:
iirc, the supposed source of the animosity goes back to when Milch was in-charge of Luft Hansa. There was a Messerschmitt M.20 that crashed killing a good friend of Milch who then held Messerschmitts lack of action against him.
Click to expand...

Yes - that's the bit of Galgot's original post I was responding to, the hatred supposedly arising from the death of Hans Hackmack. Judging by the hours and hours of meeting transcripts which show Messerschmitt conversing with Milch and others during GL conferences, I would certainly say that Milch did not trust Messerschmitt. It doesn't seem to have been a lack of faith in his abilities as an engineer and designer (which you might think that it would be on the basis of the M20 incident), or his judgement - more that Milch felt Messerschmitt was embellishing the truth, withholding information, obfuscating and generally being less than honest about the state of his factories and his company's work. I think Milch's distrust was probably justified, all things considered.
 
newsdeskdan said:

On the subject of 'Me' versus 'Bf', for most of the war Messerschmitt's internal papers nearly always refer to the 'Me 109'. This is true of test and development reports, supply reports etc. as well as project drawings. So it's no surprise to see 'Me 109 Zw' in company documents. The 'official' designation was 'Bf 109', but colloquially it seems many people in Germany even outside Messerschmitt did also call it the 'Me 109', to the point where it was pretty much interchangable by the end of the war.
Click to expand...
A new spin on the old "Me" vs "Bf" argument.:D
 
5dfc214f-s.jpg

Hi all, Here is a rare photo of a Bf109V21 from a different angle. There is probably a high quality version of this photo in "Messerschmitt Bf 109: Versuchs- und Erprobungsträger und der Weg zur Serienproduktion", but I don't have that book :_(
 
There is already a 'high quality' version of that photo posted in this thread.
 
sienar said:
There is already a 'high quality' version of that photo posted in this thread.
Click to expand...
I looked again and can't find it. The angle is slightly different from the existing Bf109V21 photos posted in this thread.

Edit:
I ordered of a "Messerschmitt Bf 109: Versuchs- und Erprobungsträger und der Weg zur Serienproduktion" from ebay. When it arrives, I'll be able to share with you all the high quality version of the Bf 109V21 photo I uploaded above. The book also seems to contain a variety of other rare photos, which I hope to share with you as well.
 
Last edited:
Further to posts 169 and 170 above, I enclose the translation of the Italian text. It does help when your sister & brother-in-law live in Rome sometimes!
Messerschmitt (and not Fieseler as reported by sources related to the modelling field), evaluated the possibility of transforming the Bf 109 into a hunting seaplane, mounting the two floats of the Arado Ar 196, which were in light alloy instead of usual aluminium and each had a volume of 2.750m3. There is very little news on this, but it is very unlikely that the development went beyond the concept of the concept. Transformations of this kind were hypothesized for many fighters of the time but came to actual production in series only for the A6M Zero.
 
I doubt the W moniker is real. Lots of books have mentioned it but I've never seen any proof, it also doesn't make much logical sense imho.

And while I wouldn't be surprised if Messerschmitt investigated floats, they almost certainty wouldn't have been attached the way the above two illustrations show.
 
One other factor in the two Vincent Borguignon and Justo's illustrations which I noticed, is there is no additional fin area, a factor I would have thought would be needed, as the Spitfire floatplane variants exhibited.

Spitfire Floatplane pic.jpg
 
O suppose that might be affected by the level of manouvre predicted to be required.
 
High quality version of the Bf 109 V21 photo shown in my post above.
 

Attachments

  • Scan2022-01-08_165316.jpg
    Scan2022-01-08_165316.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 207

Attachments

  • Scan2022-01-08_165316.jpg
    Scan2022-01-08_165316.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 215
  • スクリーンショット 2022-01-14 8.45.06.jpg
    スクリーンショット 2022-01-14 8.45.06.jpg
    416.9 KB · Views: 165
  • スクリーンショット 2022-01-14 8.44.47.jpg
    スクリーンショット 2022-01-14 8.44.47.jpg
    363.5 KB · Views: 151
  • スクリーンショット 2022-01-14 8.44.25.jpg
    スクリーンショット 2022-01-14 8.44.25.jpg
    407.2 KB · Views: 150
  • スクリーンショット 2022-01-14 8.44.10.jpg
    スクリーンショット 2022-01-14 8.44.10.jpg
    364.7 KB · Views: 180
Please excuse my ignorance on this topic of a high-altitude fighter/interceptor Bf 109 derivative.

I'm wondering if anyone can give an account of the difference in altitude gain of the Messerschmitt Bf 109T-2 over say that of the Bf 109E, what with the Bf 109T-2's almost 2m greater wingspan...
Would it have been permissible for Messerschmitt/Luftwaffe to have simply continued development of the Bf 109T, alas with the likes of the more powerful DB 605 engine and other refinements, to derive an adequate high-altitude fighter/interceptor for the time?
Also, if I may, how much difference was there between the Bf 109T-2 and the Messerschmitt Bf 109ST Ausf.A, appreciating that the Bf 109ST Ausf.A was to be powered by Daimler-Benz DB605 from the begining. Saying this, would the Bf 109ST Ausf.A have provided enough high-altitude performance/capability to the Luftwaffe for it to realistically mitigate the long draw out and costly development of the likes of the Bv 155?

Regards
Pioneer
 
I think it is more related to the poor state of Nazi metallurgy. Higher altitude means either more compression (hence high temperature alloys) or more inlet surface. The 155 architecture was the easiest path for the latter.
 
I doubt the ST shared anything with a T-2 beyond the common origin. Most drawings of the ST depict a wing of even taper, much like the 209s wing rather than a 109 planform with extended tips.
 
From, The Augsburg Eagle A Documentary History Me Bf109
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    95 KB · Views: 177
  • 2.png
    2.png
    138.4 KB · Views: 194
  • 3.png
    3.png
    160.8 KB · Views: 230
Bf 109 W - I'd be pretty certain this designation is post-war fan fiction or has a document surfaced by way of proof?

I've attached a document which comes from GDC 15 - I've lost the exact file reference over time. This shows that there was going to be some thought to fitting a Bf 109 with Ar 196 floats but that's all I've seen on this. If there is anything else, I'd been interested in seeing it.
 

Attachments

  • Besprechung 18-6-41 Bf 109 - Ar 196.pdf
    135.3 KB · Views: 55

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom