Messerschmitt Me 309/509 Projects & Prototypes

JFC Fuller said:
Thanks @Dan Sharp , this isn't my area of core interest so apologies if this has been answered elsewhere or there is somewhere obvious I should be looking. What was the relationship between the proposed production FW-190C-1/FW-190C-2 and the prototypes/test machines designated V13 through V18? E.g. was the V16 fairly representative of what a production FW-190C would have looked like?
Click to expand...

It's difficult to directly relate the prototypes to the planned production models. The V15, V16, V19, V20, V21, V25, V26 and V27 prototype designations were all associated with the C-1 and C-2 series (the key difference between these, as of November 1942, being that the C-2 had a pressure cabin and the C-1 didn't).

The V15 and V16 (both V19 variations and both delivered in Sep 1942) were unarmed test mules, each with a Bauch-Ol-Kuehler - ventral oil cooler. The V20, V21, V25, V26 and V27 (also V19 variations and due for delivery in Feb, Mar, Apr, May and Jun 1943 respectively, as of Nov 42) had annular nose-mounted coolers. V20 was unarmed but the others were fully armed. It's not clear whether the Fw 190 C-1/C-2 would eventually have had ventral coolers or annular coolers.

It's also worth mentioning that the Nov 42 Fw 190 Cs were not the same as the Fw 190 C that lost to the Me 309. The Fw 190 C-1 circa 1941 had a pressure cabin, had different armament, and was powered by a DB 603 H or Jumo 213 rather than a DB 603 A.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but don't think it's known for certain what any given production model Fw 190 C was supposed to look like. There is no surviving 'Fw 190 C-1' drawing, that I'm aware of. There are several (sometimes quite different-looking) 'Fw 190 mit DB 603' drawings but whether any of these actually represent the 'C' or not is unclear. There was a proposal, in March 1943, to fit the Fw 190 C airframe with a Jumo 222, but this doesn't say where the radiator would have been positioned and there's no accompanying drawing.

This is quite an unsatisfactory situation but I don't think anyone has been able to resolve it, including me.
 
Last edited:
Dan Sharp said:
It's also worth mentioning that the Nov 42 Fw 190 Cs were not the same as the Fw 190 C that lost to the Me 309. The Fw 190 C-1 circa 1941 had a pressure cabin, had different armament, and was powered by a DB 603 H or Jumo 213 rather than a DB 603 A.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dan, I suppose that begs the question as to whether the Luftwaffe/Air Ministry choosing to pursue the more conservative Focke-Wulf FW-190C in 1941, rather than the Me-309, would have resulted in a capable DB-603/Jumo 213 fighter in-service significantly earlier than the Fw-190D-9. Perhaps in 1943?
 
JFC Fuller said:
Thanks Dan, I suppose that begs the question as to whether the Luftwaffe/Air Ministry choosing to pursue the more conservative Focke-Wulf FW-190C in 1941, rather than the Me-309, would have resulted in a capable DB-603/Jumo 213 fighter in-service significantly earlier than the Fw-190D-9. Perhaps in 1943?
Click to expand...

Possibly, although we really know very little about the original Fw 190 C of 1941. The C definitely did have an airframe distinct from that of the Fw 190 though - presumably 90%+ distinct like the Fw 190 D/Ta 153. You're probably right - it would most likely have been somewhat more conservative, since as far as we know it was never intended to have a reversible pitch propeller, ejection seat, retractable radiator etc. But then again, radical features were specified for some of the most widely produced WW2 aircraft but were dropped before those types entered service.

Could the Me 309 have been reconfigurated with a new forward fuselage/annular radiator prior to entering production? Certainly, Messerschmitt added one to the Bf 109 to make the Me 209. In short, it's very difficult to say whether the original Fw 190 C would have been a swifter route to an in-service 603/213 vehicle. Maybe!
 
Airborne2001 said:
Well this is new info! Thank you for this. It seems that some of the RLMs complexity during this period also played a role in things not working out well, and of course production lines making a push for similarity better.
Click to expand...

Certainly by early 1943 there were already those, particularly Willy Messerschmitt, who were banging the drum of production streamlining to conserve resources, reduce downtime and increase efficiency, i.e. cut the number of different types in production, re-use existing parts wherever possible, build assemblies that could be used interchangably between different types (the 'power egg').

The realisation that Germany's aviation manufacturing industry actually had little choice but to adopt these measures became widespread around the point at which the Me 309 was swapped for the Me 209.

It was quite the watershed moment and the sudden reluctance to put all-new types into production would then cause real problems for those who were trying to get the Me 262 started.
 
I would guess that DB/Mess were cooperating on working out a power egg for the 603. The annular oil cooler fitted to the 209 years earlier was a DB concept that Mess. implemented, and there were some other ideas that percolated between the two.
 
sienar said:
I would guess that DB/Mess were cooperating on working out a power egg for the 603. The annular oil cooler fitted to the 209 years earlier was a DB concept that Mess. implemented, and there were some other ideas that percolated between the two.
Click to expand...

This is really more Calum's territory than mine. But certainly Messerschmitt was won over by the annular concept for the 209 and Dornier followed Messerschmitt's lead for the 335's installation.
 
Per a post-war interrogation, the Do-335 was the only aircraft of a planned 6 that received the DB power egg.

The forward cowling was standardized while the panels aft were different for the various aircraft, as were the engine bearers.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom