Author Topic: Bf 109 G range and endurance (Read 13212 times)

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #90 on:** August 04, 2004, 11:01:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
He's looking at the map. Should be right back.
However, honestly, the Rhubarb missions would go roughly twice the distance as the 109 covered area in Kent to S-London from the Calais area.
And those were rather high speed SL missions.
I'm not saying I belive the Spitty had double the range, I'd have a guess at it being roughly the same.

Angus, just like Gripen, you can guess what you want. However, the RAF itself tells you the Spit IX can go for 450 miles, the 109G can go for 755 miles on internal.

From the Enlish shores to the Belgian/Dutch coast it`s no more than 200 miles, m8. It ain`t any greater distance than from Calais to London (~150 miles), considering the 109s also stayed over the City for 20-30 mins at high power, chasing Spits and Hurris away. Good for the Brits the 109s didn`t have droptanks back then - they would stay for another hour, and that`s bad news for a 7-hour 'trainee' RAF pilot.

Yep, a Spitty on internal can go there, say hello to the Dutch maidens, and then go home fast before the fuel is over. Not much more - aerial combat? Largely ruled out w/o droptanks if you want to return home.

Quote

Note, that if you want a Merlin to burn equal fuel to a DB, the Mixture is already 50% stronger. There is an upper limit to the strongest possible mixture.
Also bear in mind that in 1941, the Allies have moved to 100 oct almost entirely, - that means more energy pr volume of fuel.

Hehe, a friend of mine always fuelled up his car with 100 octs. Aviation Fuel. WOW, nice running [/B]

Interesting - how about checking out the actual engine datasheets and see for yourself DBs consuming only 2/3s for the same power ? After all, information is readily available.

So how about a little homework, Angie? Why don`t you collect the respective maximum consumptions of R-Rs and DBs with the respective powers they developed ?

MiloMorai · « **Reply #91 on:** August 04, 2004, 11:01:55 AM »

So nice of you Barbi to compare a LF to the 109K-4 but that is typical.

So much for the range of the K-4 operating at maximum cruise speed.

Angus · « **Reply #92 on:** August 04, 2004, 11:18:06 AM »

Hehe, Milo, took the word out of my mouth.
Why not then Compare the Spitfire Mk VIII to the 109E. It has the same difference in time.
Also, in the same time, Spitfires were sometimes faster. Already in 1940 this occured....

Barbi, I am not Guessing, I am digging up actual data. Or maybe the LW claim reports are wrong, since the Spitties could not get where they were claimed to be shot down

But obviously you do have a big problem with it.

Oh, BTW, I wasn't even on to the Spit IX thingie, have to look better at it.
But in 1941/42:

Spitfires flew deeper into Nazi territory than 109's into RAF territory, i.e. without drop tanks.
At day, Spitfires more frequently entered Nazi territory than the opposite.

As soon as equipped with the 1st generation of Drop tanks, Spit V's flew from Gibraltar to Algeria over Malta, and were stuck to escort duties en route on not so favourable cruising settings. How about that?

Again, this is not guessing what I want, but a fact that you don't like.

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #93 on:** August 04, 2004, 11:40:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, Milo, took the word out of my mouth.
Why not then Compare the Spitfire Mk VIII to the 109E. It has the same difference in time.

Sure, why not, provided the 109E was in mass service in 1943 when the MkVIII appeared - uhm, not really, but MkIXs were still in service when the 109K roamed the skies, not only in service, they were the main type RAF fighter, and their engine output was not much different from the 109K`s, so it`s a perfect example of the superior effiency of the 109 airframe.

Quote

Barbi, I am not Guessing, I am digging up actual data. Or maybe the LW claim reports are wrong, since the Spitties could not get where they were claimed to be shot down But obviously you do have a big problem with it.

Angie, just rehearse that part until you learn by heart:

109G : 755 miles on 88 gallons
SpitIX : 434 miles on 85 gallons.

End of story. 109G was much longer ranged than the contenporary Spit. The Spit I and 109E had about equal range, for the last time.

Quote

Spitfires flew deeper into Nazi territory than 109's into RAF territory, i.e. without drop tanks.

So? What does this proves?
Germany was life-or-death threat to England.
England was a toothless lion for Germany at that time.

Quote

At day, Spitfires more frequently entered Nazi territory than the opposite.

You mean, into the virtually undefended airspace of Western Europe (nothing to be defended there for the Germans), covered by no more than 100-150 German fighters at that time? What do you want to show with this, the British came out from the hide after the Germans left ?

Quote

As soon as equipped with the 1st generation of Drop tanks, Spit V's flew from Gibraltar to Algeria over Malta, and were stuck to escort duties en route on not so favourable cruising settings. How about that?

Strictly ferry missions, that is, with rear fusalage tanks, huge sized droptanks used to enable it. Read the Spit V manual for how much restriction was imposed on them under such conditions. For fighter sweeps, it was a useless combination. But we are comparing fighter vs. fighter ranges here, aren`t we? What`s the point at all?

Angus · « **Reply #94 on:** August 04, 2004, 11:44:22 AM »

Since when did the Mk V carry huge drop tanks?

Oh, BTW, I recall an early model 109 being shot down in 44/45

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #95 on:** August 04, 2004, 11:51:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
How convienent of Barbi to forget the 109

had bulges on it wings that got bigger,
extra scoops in the airframe,
bulges for fuselage guns,
a bigger oil cooler,
gun pods added below the wings,
an ADF loop,
extended tail wheel,
extra under nose blisters, .............

Ok lets see.. On the risk of enering your guys utterly retarded discussion.

Bulges on wings that got bigger. Spits all got wheel bulges on wings which got both more numerous and bigger.

Scoops. Spits got more scoops on airframe too.

Bulges for fuselage guns. Spits got bulges on wings for guns. Plus on 109 these were faired in on later models.

109 bigger oil cooler. Spits got an extra full size radiator housing, and those were a lot less clean the 109s radiators. Plus those radiators simply got huge on the late model spits.

109s had gunpods, spits had bombracks or rockets. This stuff could be taken off so its irrelevant. Maybe also say 109s carried two big rocket tubes too. Or one could say 109s had all centered nose main armament and didn not have to deal with extra weight in wings or extra bulges on wings to mount a cannon armament.

ADF loop.... Hmm. Spits had rear view mirrors. Both could be taken off.

Extended tailwheel, ok... But many 109s had retractible wheels.

Extra under nose blisters.. All I say to that is Griffon - huge extra upper nose blisters. Plus these under nose blisters were waaay smaller than than the griffon bulges, not to mention that some of the DB605D models didnt even have because of a new lower cowl and some rerouting of the oil pipes.

Yea, still a retarded discussion!

Guppy35 · « **Reply #96 on:** August 04, 2004, 12:48:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Ok lets see.. On the risk of enering your guys utterly retarded discussion.

Bulges on wings that got bigger. Spits all got wheel bulges on wings which got both more numerous and bigger.

Scoops. Spits got more scoops on airframe too.

Bulges for fuselage guns. Spits got bulges on wings for guns. Plus on 109 these were faired in on later models.

109 bigger oil cooler. Spits got an extra full size radiator housing, and those were a lot less clean the 109s radiators. Plus those radiators simply got huge on the late model spits.

109s had gunpods, spits had bombracks or rockets. This stuff could be taken off so its irrelevant. Maybe also say 109s carried two big rocket tubes too. Or one could say 109s had all centered nose main armament and didn not have to deal with extra weight in wings or extra bulges on wings to mount a cannon armament.

ADF loop.... Hmm. Spits had rear view mirrors. Both could be taken off.

Extended tailwheel, ok... But many 109s had retractible wheels.

Extra under nose blisters.. All I say to that is Griffon - huge extra upper nose blisters. Plus these under nose blisters were waaay smaller than than the griffon bulges, not to mention that some of the DB605D models didnt even have because of a new lower cowl and some rerouting of the oil pipes.

Yea, still a retarded discussion!

Agreed. It still evolves into which was the better airplane, the Spit or the 109. What a pointless discussion because no one is ever going to agree and everyone can find a piece of data somewhere that they can cling to that in their eyes proves their case.

Dan/Slack

gripen · « **Reply #97 on:** August 04, 2004, 12:49:38 PM »

Dear Isegrim,
Well, believe or not, I'm quoting directly FAF data on the Bf 109G endurance; in practice 1,5h was about max endurance in combat and that is about same as the combat endurance of the Spitfire IX.. Try to live with that.

The Spitfire VIII could carry about 160 gallons (imperial) internally with the rear fuselage tank. Reaching twice combat range if compared to the Spit 9 and the Bf 109G was certainly possible.

And my note on Mustangs and Mosquitos over LW bases and out running LW fighters is not an argument, it was reality during war. And it should be noted that those "roaming" Bf 109Ks were shot down in masses by the Mustangs.

gripen

MiloMorai · « **Reply #98 on:** August 04, 2004, 01:30:43 PM »

GRUNHERZ, the point of the post was that the 109 also had stuff that did not help its aerodynamics. Barbi would have us believe that the later 109s were as clean as the 109v-13 that set a speed record.

You should have read his post first.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #99 on:** August 04, 2004, 01:33:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by gripen
Dear Isegrim,
Well, believe or not, I'm quoting directly FAF data on the Bf 109G endurance; in practice 1,5h was about max endurance in combat and that is about same as the combat endurance of the Spitfire IX.. Try to live with that.

The Spitfire VIII could carry about 160 gallons (imperial) internally with the rear fuselage tank. Reaching twice combat range if compared to the Spit 9 and the Bf 109G was certainly possible.

And my note on Mustangs and Mosquitos over LW bases and out running LW fighters is not an argument, it was reality during war. And it should be noted that those "roaming" Bf 109Ks were shot down in masses by the Mustangs.

gripen

With the understanding that Spit's are one of my passions, I have to point out gripen that the VIII wasn't operating with fuselage fuel tanks. It had the upper and lower tanks in front of the cockpit and the two smaller leading edge tanksm totalling 124 gallons.

Yes there was a fuselage fuel tank installed way late in the game on some IXs and XVIs but it wasn't common practice.

Common practice was to have the 30 or 45 gallon slipper tanks fitted and in some cases the 90 gallon tanks for the escort stuff. I have some images in my collection showing Spit XIIs with that 90 gallon tank as well.

Image is one I got from a Spit driver of one of his squadron's Spit IXs with a 90 gallon slipper tank fitted operationally.

Oh and btw isigrim, remember that POS Merlin that you hate so much was the engine pulling around those last operational "109s" you've mentioned before

Dan/Slack

phookat · « **Reply #100 on:** August 04, 2004, 01:53:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Guppy35
Agreed. It still evolves into which was the better airplane, the Spit or the 109. What a pointless discussion because no one is ever going to agree and everyone can find a piece of data somewhere that they can cling to that in their eyes proves their case.

I think you are giving less credit to this discussion than it is due. This discussion isn't about which is better in general (although the participants obviously have opinions on that). We are talking about a specific comparison, which is being done in an objective manner; and it has been discussed with quite a bit of emperical data.

What I don't understand, though, is the introduction of anecdotes into a technical discussion which includes both emperical flight and engine test data as well as theoretical considerations. Is the intent to invalidate the emperical test data? IMO anecdotal info is fine in specific circumstances where you don't have tests...but otherwise it diminishes objectivity in the discussion.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #101 on:** August 04, 2004, 02:09:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by phookat
I think you are giving less credit to this discussion than it is due. This discussion isn't about which is better in general (although the participants obviously have opinions on that). We are talking about a specific comparison, which is being done in an objective manner; and it has been discussed with quite a bit of emperical data.

What I don't understand, though, is the introduction of anecdotes into a technical discussion which includes both emperical flight and engine test data as well as theoretical considerations. Is the intent to invalidate the emperical test data? IMO anecdotal info is fine in specific circumstances where you don't have tests...but otherwise it diminishes objectivity in the discussion.

It, at least in my eyes, comes down to theory (test data) vs practice (actual pilot/combat experience)

What it should do under ideal circumstances with the aircraft being flown by a test pilot and the aircraft maximized for results, is different from a production aircraft, being flown by a squadron pilot, under operational circumstances.

So when I claim, that based on the testing, my AH bird should be able to do this, this and this. Someone might also say, but when they were actually flown in combat they only managed, this, this and this.

That's why, even though you could claim I have a Spit bias, I pointed out that gripen's comment about 160 gallons of internal fuel in a VIII isn't really accurate as they weren't flown in combat that way. In testing, the claim can be made about that kind of range, but operationally it wasn't done.

I remember reading an account by a Spit LFIX pilot. On a particular mission he was flying a brand new kite, that for whatever reason had a really 'sweet' engine and was perfectly trimmed.

He was at the back of the pack of IXs chasing down a 190. He was easily able to pass the other IXs until he was on the wing of the Wing Commander. It was considered "bad form" to steal a kill under those circumstances, so he waited a couple minutes. As they weren't gaining, he pushed the throttle forward and caught the 190 and downed it.

Normally you'd expect the WingCo's kite to be the best. Whose Spit IX should I use to determine the particulars? I'd like to use the brand new one that outran the others, but is that the norm or the exception?

Dan/Slack

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #102 on:** August 04, 2004, 02:50:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
GRUNHERZ, the point of the post was that the 109 also had stuff that did not help its aerodynamics. Barbi would have us believe that the later 109s were as clean as the 109v-13 that set a speed record.

You should have read his post first.

Yes I just saw his post - thx for pointing it out. Obviously both the spit and 109 got dirtier from their cleanest layouts as the war moved into the later dates and more demanding duty requirements had to be met.

But do tell why is this discussion so retarded? Why are you people comparing the minuta of fuel effieciency at X carb setting, y blower at z alt with such fanaticism?

gripen · « **Reply #103 on:** August 04, 2004, 02:57:08 PM »

Guppy 35,
I don't know if the rear fuselage tank was used operationally in the Spitfire VIII but such installation was certainly possible.

gripen

MiloMorai · « **Reply #104 on:** August 04, 2004, 02:59:25 PM »

phookat, no one here is claiming one a/c is better than another except Barbi(Barbarossa Isegrim)/Issy(VO101 Isegrim/Kurfurst who claims the 109 was "hands and feet" better than the Spitfire. The Spit posts were to debunk his claims how uber his 109 was over the Spit.

He keeps harping on the lack of range of the Spit but using the data he provided, the 10ampg for the Spit VIII, the same as what he posted for the 109 gives the Spit(85gal) an air time of 3.86hr @ 217mph compared to the 3.45hr @ 210mph for the 109(88gal). That works out to 837 mi. for the Spit and 724 mi. for the 109.

GRUNHERZ, as to your question you will have to ask Barbi why he started the thread.