Twin engined Bf 109

[toura]

HI ALL?
Loocking at "Unicraft model site" in" futures releases"
I see a ME (I write "Me") a me 110 !
This plane seems to be a BF 109 but with 2 in line
engines ?
IS THIS A JOKE OR A TRUE PROJECTS ,
Thanks for your answer. Bye

 

[Bailey]

The item in question ?

Regards Bailey.

 

[toura]

hI BAILEY,
YES

 

[Jemiba]

Just my two cents:
The first studies for the Bf 110 ("Me" was just colloquial, until around 1945) were done
in 1934 for a twin engined, two-seat long range fighter. This one quite cleraly seems to
be just a twin engined derivative of the single seat Bf 109. So, to me it's not very plausible
as an early pre-design of the Bf 110. If it was a later attempt, to modify the Bf 109 into a
twin engined fighter, it most probably wouldn't have been designated "Me 110". Looking at the
drawing, it seems, that the single prop of the Bf 109 is still in place, but maybe the draftsman
is more overworked, than the master modeller.
Unicraft Models surely deserve thanks for producing many models of very interesting aircraft
and projects, but sometimes I have the feeling, their choice of types is tending into the "What-If"
sphere. For example, the Me 109 ZZ, with a gondola on its center wing .... a very good choice
for "Crimson Skies", but even if they can show a source, I quite probably would doubt it. The same
for this "Me 110"

 

[toura]

my dear JENS
thanks

 

[Justo Miranda]

I can see twin small in-line engines under the wings...maybe pre-TL design?
From
-Unicraft Models
-"O-Nine" by Thomas H.Hitchcock

 

[Jemiba]

The Me 109TL (strictly speaking it should be "Bf 109TL", I think )
probably was an attempt to produce a jet fighter more quickly, than the
completely new Me 262, but I cannot imagine a reason for transforming
the Bf 109 into a twin engined aircraft. Especially not, as this probably
wouldn't have been as easy, as it looks at a first glance. The Bf 109 was
quite a lightly built fighter, so attaching engines under the wings would
have meant an extensive redesign.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Igor Shestakov always finds interesting stuff that questions our healthy aeronautical principles.
This is what I like of Unicratf ...besides he always credit my drawings ;D

 

[Wurger]

Try consulting Ebert, Hans A., Johann B. Kaiser and Klaus Peters, "Willy Messerschmitt: Pioneer der Luftfahrt", Koblenz, Germany: Bernard & Graefe, 1993. Pages 151 and 183. A reliable source. Enjoy.

 

[Tophe]

Thanks Igor, thanks Toura, for this wondeful addition to the Bf109 family. I am going to invent such a 3-engined Mustang (and maybe 5 engined Twin-Mustang) for the what-if modeller gallery... ;D

Uh, for the name, I guess Bf 109/3m could have been used, as Ju 52/3m...

Last point: are you sure this is a 3-engined plane? The same profile would be perfect for a 2-engined asymmetric plane, with a little engine for anti-torque, no?

(what-if Tophe)

 

[toura]

THANKS TO ALL OF YOU

 

[elmayerle]

If I remember the write-up correctly, the fuselage lines were scaled up from the Bf109 and it had twin engines with a solid nose for guns, rather like the FW187.

 

[Tophe]

If I have well understood our dear expert Elmayerle, this would be something like that:
- Unknown big twin-engine with 2 lateral engines and no propeller in the nose
- The Bf 109 source (of the engines and general silhouette) was much smaller
Right?

 

[elmayerle]

The larger aircraft used two of the Bf109's engines and was generally a scale-up of the lines to produce a twin-engined heavy fighter. This concept later evolved into the multi-seat fighter that was the production Bf110. Personally, I think they'd have been better off going with either this single-seater or the FW187.

 

[Jemiba]

Well, you may be right, such an aircraft would have been a parallel to Lockheeds
P-38 and could have proven more succesful. And maybe Messerschmitt offered the
Bf 110 just because some development on a twin engined Bf 109 was already done.
This could explain why it was tendered, as the Bf 110 actuallydidn't fit the request for
proposal, which called for a multi-seat "destroyer" with flexible weapons, not for a twin
seat fighter.
Unicraft should come up with their source, just to prove, they aren't just offering a pure
"What-If".

 

[elmayerle]

In going by the info in this book, http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=0764307274, which includes a larger version of a similar drawing to that published at the start of this thread along with a history of the Bf110. I believe this book is a translation of a German-text original. There's some other interesting stuff in there, including the original of what became the HA-300.

 

[Stargazer]

"Me" was just colloquial, until around 1945

I don't think so. "Bf" was applied to Messerschmitt aircraft only inasmuch as they were built in the Bayernlische Flugzeugbau division. Other types such as the Me 323 Gigant, for instance, are prior to 1945 and never carried anything but "Me" to designate them.

 

[Artie Bob]

The "Bf" prefix originated at the RLM, and is associated with the 8-Nummer list. It is correct for all new designs given from 1933 to the point at which BFW changed its' name. I believe the Bf 165 would have been the last, but possibly the 8-209. In most official RLM documents, i.e., manuals, loss lists, production summaries, etc., the Bf prefix is used for the 8-109 and 8-110, no matter who manufactured them, through the end of the war. Propaganda documents are something else and the Bf 109s were called "emmies" by Luftwaffe personnel. The caveat is with most subjects having to do with the Luftwaffe, there are always exceptions and "twists". As for the subject of this thread, I believe the drawing originated from Luftwaffe documents and IIRC, I made a print from microfilm at US NASM a number of years ago. I cannot remember if it had a date or other information on it.

Best regards,

Artie Bob

 

[Jemiba]

I just had a quick look into an issue of the "Flugzeug Classic" magazine, featuring an article about a wreck
found in the mediterranean, now identified by documents and loss lists, reffering to a "Bf 109",
although the aircraft was built in 1944, so, strictly, was a "Me 109". In interviews with german WW II
pilots or other airforce personal, they are mostly speaking of the "Messerschmitt", the "Me" or the
"109", or designating it by its version, an "Emil", "Fritz" or "Gustav". It was rarely called "Bf 109" by
those, who were actually flying or handling it.
From the end of 1944 onwards, I think, designation system was changed (at least for production types)
to the use of the designers, instead of the companies name, turning an improved version of the Fw 190D
into the Ta 152. For Messerschmitt designs, of course, this change brought nothing new, but maybe it
could have turned the Me 163C in a "Vo 163" (for Voigt), or even worse, the Me 163D, later Ju 248, into
a "He 163", with "He" for Hertel ! And our confusion would be complete !

 

[Artie Bob]

Jemiba,
The example of Ta being given to Focke-Wulf was one of the exceptions, it does not appear the system changed. UIf however, you have any primary documents noting any such change, I would be very appreciative if you would post them, as I have been working on this subject for about 60 years now. For example, if the aircraft were designated by the designer's name the Me 163 should have been the Li 163 for Lippisch. The other main group of exceptions was the reuse of earlier 8-nummers for certain aircraft (Bf 162, Bf 163 and He 162, Me 163), probably to confuse Allied intelligence.

Best regards,

Artie Bob

 

[joncarrfarrelly]

The drawing is of a wind-tunnel model used for drag tests of the twin-motor configuration,
according to Messerschmitt Bf 110, Me 210, Me 410 by Mankau and Petrick, Aviatic Verlag 2001.

Again the use of Me in place of Bf is not uncommon in internal Messerschmitt documents.

 

[toura]

Hi
Thanks all of you.
Thanks to Joncarrfarrelly for the 3 views.
Bye

 

[Jemiba]

This drawing is a good find indeed, thank you ! If it wasn't just an aerodynamic
test, which the Bf 109 model only used, because the actual type didn't matter,
but really an attempt for a twin engined Bf 109, it could have been in a class
with the Westland Whirlwind, I think.

 

[royabulgaf]

Doesn't the design seem kind of large for the engines? I am assuming the paired drawings of the 109/110 are the same scale. The 110 should weigh 4-6 times the 109.

 

[Jemiba]

I've checked the possible dimensions of the wing mounted engines:
It would have been about 2m in length, 0,40m in width and about
0,60m in height. Comparing this with the dimensions of some german
engines, not even the tiny Argus AS 8B would have fitted into those
nacelles, problem is mainly width and height, not length. So I would
think, the Bf 109 model was just "recycled" to represent a larger type.

 

[Wurger]

I know this drawing for many years and I`ve always been intrigued by it. I agree that the dimensions won`t fit most aircraft engines (the Argus As10 was considered a lot at this times, but it was 50% bigger than the As8 Jemiba refered to). Maybe this corresponds to fuselage mounted engine(s) with long shafts through the wings. This solution was "en vogue" in the late 30`s (AGO and Arado had a few designs).
But mind that "probable" regular sized fuselage mounted propeller spinner! Could this hyphotetical airplane design carry two propulsive modes?
Anyway, it was probably just one of a some configurations proposed by the "flight characteristics group" within the Messerschmitt design office.
Probably...

 

[airman]

nice wing-model, probably Messerschmitt had studied a possible twin-engine version of bf-109

 

[Jemiba]

A fuselage mounted engine could be an explanation, but the nacelles seem to show
radiators on their undersides. And as Wurger noted, there's quite clearly the standard
prop still in place. A 3-engined configuration seems not very plausible to me.

 

[robunos]

The drawing is of a wind-tunnel model used for drag tests of the twin-motor configuration

I'm wondering...
If the model was of a proposed test aircraft, to explore the twin engined configuration.
Notice that the above drawing shows scrap views of a Bf110 tail arrangement.
Maybe wind tunnel testing of the Bf110 showed some undesirable aerodynamic
interactions between the engine nacelles and the twin fins? (Looking at a couple of
Bf110 3-views, I see that the fins are directly downstream of the engine nacelles)
Perhaps it was decided to further investigate this using a manned test bed using
dummy nacelles and scaled down Bf110 tail.
As the drawing also shows a standard Bf109 tail, maybe the first flights would just
be with the dummy nacelles fitted, tha tail group being changed later?
Just my two bob's worth.


cheers,
Robin.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Occam's Razor:

Wind tunnel models cost money. Extant wind tunnel models modified to represent some other design may not be as perfectly representative, but they cost less money.

 

[Tophe]

The little size of the lateral engines is surprising, but... see the cockpit view from above, with lateral windows, this does not look like a single-seater... 2 seats side by side, or 4 seats, much bigger than a 109? ???

 

[Jemiba]

I agree with OBB. A flying testbed with dumy nacelles could be plausible, BUT
the drawing shows a modified landing gear, retracting into the nacelles, too.
Too much modifications, I think, for just a quick test.

 

[robunos]

I agree with OBB. A flying testbed with dumy nacelles could be plausible, BUT
the drawing shows a modified landing gear, retracting into the nacelles, too.
Too much modifications, I think, for just a quick test.

Fair point, also, I wouldn't have thought that the wing roots could take the loads
imposed on an outboard mounted undercarriage. In my scenario, the testbed would
use it's original undercarriage.

see the cockpit view from above, with lateral windows, this does not look like a single-seater... 2 seats side by side, or 4 seats, much bigger than a 109?

then what's in the nose, that requires a 'spinner', and why the Bf110 style tail?
Put another way, why build a Bf110, with a giant-sized Bf109 fuselage?


cheers,
Robin.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Put another way, why build a Bf110, with a giant-sized Bf109 fuselage?

The drawings are of a *wind* *tunnel* *model.* Looks like they took a Bf 109 model and modified it to resemble a Bf 110 configuration, because that would be cheaper than building a whole new Bf 110 model. Note that while there is a "spinner," there are no indications of a propellor. Because the Bf 109 model probably already had a spinner.

UPDATE: The book "Willy Messerschmitt - Pionier der Luftfahrt un des Leichtbaues" has this same three-view drawing on page 151. The caption:

Die ursprungliche Form der Bf 110, wie sie im Januar 1936 in der AVA Gottingen modellmassig vermessen wurde, war eine vergrosserte und zweimotorige Bf 109, wobie ein Doppelleitwerk alternativ vergegeben wurde.

Which according to Google translation works out to roughly:
The original form of the Bf 110 as it was scale model measured in January 1936 at the AVA Gottingen, was a Enlarges and twin-engined Bf 109, a twin rudder was WOBI aka vergegeben.

I don't think the translation quite got it.

 

[robunos]

I understand that the drawing in question _is_ of a wind tunnel model.
But we had two theories as to why it was constructed.
One, it was a money saving conversion of a existing model, which would
be sufficiently representative for the purpose required, or
Two, it represented a previously unknown iteration of the Bf110, or,
a completely new type.
I was merely trying to ascertain which is correct.
Regarding your quote, above, other than establishing that a wind tunnel
model of this form was actually constructed, it doesn't really help in
determining which hypothesis is the right one.


cheers,
Robin.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I understand that the drawing in question _is_ of a wind tunnel model.
But we had two theories as to why it was constructed.
One, it was a money saving conversion of a existing model, which would
be sufficiently representative for the purpose required, or
Two, it represented a previously unknown iteration of the Bf110, or,
a completely new type.
I was merely trying to ascertain which is correct.
Regarding your quote, above, other than establishing that a wind tunnel
model of this form was actually constructed, it doesn't really help in
determining which hypothesis is the right one.

It is extremely unlikely to be the latter. As shown, the model *is* a Bf 109 with modifications. Including a nose profile that does not make sense except as a modification of the Bf 109. Nobody would simply scale up a single-engined fighter and make it twin engined, and keep the outer mold lines of the original nose engine.

 

[Jemiba]

As Robunos pointed out, the drawing shows a twin fin tail, too. So I would
guess, that just the interaction of the nacelles and a conventional tail versus
a twin tail should be tested. The actual shape of the fuselage probably was
regarded as not important for these tests.

 

[robunos]

Nobody would simply scale up a single-engined fighter and make it twin engined, and keep the outer mold lines of the original nose engine.

That's what I thought, which is why I replied

"then what's in the nose, that requires a 'spinner',"

to Tophe's quote, below,

see the cockpit view from above, with lateral windows, this does not look like a single-seater... 2 seats side by side, or 4 seats, much bigger than a 109?

This is what led to surmise if it was to be a test-bed aircraft,
instead of, as we now know, just a tunnel model.


cheers,
Robin.

 

[Tophe]

to Tophe's quote, below,

see the cockpit view from above, with lateral windows, this does not look like a single-seater... 2 seats side by side, or 4 seats, much bigger than a 109?

This is what led to surmise if it was to be a test-bed aircraft,
instead of, as we now know, just a tunnel model.

I understand your point of view, but please understand mine (and Unicraft's): we are scale modellers, and if we want to make it 1/72, we refer to some scale 1 plane, so... huge fuselage or tiny lateral engines? Maybe we are close to the limit of scale modelling there I agree. But if there is no scale 1 equivalent, why drawing a canopy? as a little wind-tunnel (plain-wooden?) model has no pilot nor glassware... ;D

 

[Orionblamblam]

But if there is no scale 1 equivalent, why drawing a canopy? as a little wind-tunnel (plain-wooden?) model has no pilot nor glassware... ;D

Look at the drawing again. There *isn't* a canopy. There are, however, lines indicating the flat planes that *represent* the canopy frames. Take this wind tunnel model for an example:

Notice how there are sharp edges aroung the cockpit? Do you think that ina three view drawing of this wind tunnel model, those sharp edges wouldn't be drawn?

Now... do you see any actual *glass* there? No. There's not.

Just as there's no "glassware" depicted int he 3-view of the "Me 110."