Bf 109 G range and endurance

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Angus
I always thought that the Mossie had an exceptionally low loss rate. And at night, even better.
I'm sure Karnak has something more about this.

Mossies of the light striking force from 1944 had extremely low loss rates, that is true, but it has a lot to do with the conditions they operated at. Lots of fast flying, lonely operating targets are extremely hard to intercept, especially at night. Simply because of the style of operation, there`s little time available for the interception itself, making it technically difficult to execute. But that does not apply to Mosquitoes alone, Ju 88 etc. intruders over England pursuing the heavies over their bases had low loss records as well, as well as daylight FW 190 jabos. And, an even more extreme example, laughalbly obsolate planes like Soviet biplanes that were used to harass the enemy during the night proved to be next to impossible to intercept, even in the Korean war for MUCH more advanced fighters. Of course there`s a price for this, night operations mean low effectiveness, not only on the defenders side; low loss percantage is one thing, but bombing forests and fields too many times instead of real targets is another.

As for the daylight record of the Mosquito, I have read that the loss rate was something like 8% when introduced and employed in the daytime, vs. the 4% loss rate of the ordinary night bombers at the same period. And the low loss percantage in the later times had more to do with rarely having contact with the enemy, rather than being hard to catch or beat in combat. Most recce aircraft, Allied and Axis alike, could claim the same. How many 109G-4/R3 were shot down over Britain per sortie? Don`t think there were too many. By the time enemy interceptors got airborne, and climbed to the extreme heights they were operating at, their task was already done and were cruising back to home at very high speeds, making actual intercepting very unlikely to happen.

[Angus]

HAd a brief web search, but found nothing about this.
I remember from two pilots though, that they considered the Mossie impossible to catch with the 109. One of the British, the other German. The german actually caught one, but not in a direct speed run, rather by cutting it's path.
I've read up a bit about mossie nightfighters. At night they flew hours over France, Germany and Denmark even, Harassing the German Nightfighters. Their losses were extremely low to enemy action, while their kill rate was impressive.

[gripen]

Dear Isegrim,
I see your ignore list does not work or why do you reply my post?

Regarding range of the Bf 109, I wonder why do you use theoretical values for the Bf 109 and practical values for the Spitfire IX; I don't see any practical difference between them. It should be also noted that the Spitfire  VIII could take more than 600l fuel  internally if the rear fuselage tank was installed (over 50% more than the Bf 109G).

Basicly your own argument on Bf 109 fuel consumption is rather rhetorical, range at practical speed was more important than consumption. Merlin powered planes (namely Mustang and Mosquito) had very longer range despite what ever was the consumption. At least my source (Sharp&Bowyer) gives 6,7% loss rate for Mosquito day light bomber operations (31.5.1942-31.5.1943, failed to return, all causes).

Regarding barometric clutch, please study the thing called "gebläsedruck" on DB 605 charts and try to understand what it means below FTH. Basicly DB 605 supercaherger worked at  optimal speed just at FTH.

gripen

[MiloMorai]

One thing to remember about Mossie day losses (B and FB) was that most were due to flak, NOT due to enemy a/c.

The special JG25 and 50 were disbanded because of their very dismal record (1 in 6 months???) in intercepting and destroying Mosquito bombers.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by gripen
Dear Isegrim,
I see your ignore list does not work or why do you reply my post?

Regarding range of the Bf 109, I wonder why do you use theoretical values for the Bf 109 and practical values for the Spitfire IX; I don't see any practical difference between them.

Poor Gripen,

The reason why I waste my time correcting you is not because of your person, but my hate of ignorance and short sightedness.  You have displayed enough of both in your post to make me decide to waste time on a reply.

I am puzzled what part you don`t understand about the posted Bf 109 ranges, or Spitfire ranges. Both are 'theoretical', in the same league and are comparabl, even if the similiarity of conditions between a cruise at 210 mph yielding 750 miles on the Bf 109G and a cruise of 220 mph yielding 450 miles on the Spitfire is well beyond your abilities to grasp.

If you don`t see practical differencies between 450 miles range and 750 miles range under comparalble circumstances, that only speaks of how much your talants worth in the area of mathemathics.

Oh well... let me help you out : 750 > 450.
The '>' symbol means 750 is the bigger one.
And if you still don`t get it, it measn that the 109G had 66% more range on internal fuel than the Spitfire Mk IX. I know you hate 109s more than anything, and this hurts your ego quite a bit, but what can I do about it, you see, these are facts you have to put up.

It should be also noted that the Spitfire  VIII could take more than 600l fuel  internally if the rear fuselage tank was installed (over 50% more than the Bf 109G).

Brilliant, and what that is good for if it`s largely wasted on the poor aerodynamics of the Spitfire and the fuel is poured down in the thirsty throat of the Merlin ? Same range, but with 50% more weight carried in fuel. Good way to waste performance and fuel, it is.

Statistically :

Bf 109 G-2 : 755 miles @ 210mph with 88 gallons
Spitfire Mk VIII : 740 miles @ 220mph with 120 gallons
(See the docs already posted.)

I mean, WOW!, that 'over 50% more than the Bf 109G' really makes a difference, espeically if the rear fuselage tank makes the plane a real pig in the air, as per the Spitfire manuals.

In fact the 109 maintains a small edge with 2/3 the fuel being carried. Guess way they never really needed to expand that fuel tank - they never needed that, only the 109K allowed for an extra 115 liter DP rear tank in the fusalage, and was probably used very rarely. It was simply never neccesary, range, unlike on the Spits, was never a problem on 109s after the Friedrich appeared. Guess why Mk VIII were extremely rare in Europe, with that tankage, they were desperately needed in the PTO, where MkIX would be next to useless for combat.

Basicly your own argument on Bf 109 fuel consumption is rather rhetorical, range at practical speed was more important than consumption. Merlin powered planes (namely Mustang and Mosquito) had very longer range despite what ever was the consumption.

You make awfully poor arguements, Gripen, but I have to admit, nobody I ever met surprassed yet your ability to parrott the same stupidness again and again like you do.

The Mustang and Mosquito was only long range because they carried an awful lot of fuel. Period. Nothing to do with the Merlin. In fact, the range could be a lot longer if ANY other engine than the Merlin would be fitted.

Stuffing a lot of fuel was a direct consequence of operational requirements, and the Merlin`s ****ty fuel consumption. The 109 was never required to fly to Berlin like the Mosquito and Mustang, all it had to do is to climb up to them twice as fast as they ever could, loiter in the airspace it had to defend, and shoot them down enemies - which it did, just like that it could escort any German bomber wherever it went. It could fullfill any of the challanges it`s class is supposed to do. It was fully capable to be upgraded to an escort fighter range with ~2000 miles, in fact such variants of it existed for long range recce work, and produced in large numbers, but it was never required, never done.It`s practical range was already a lot more than that was required, and more than the majority of it`s rivalling fighters.

So, basically, WTF are you talking about? The 109 not having triple the range it ever needed to have, as it already swept clear the continent of every single enemy fighter in 1940 ? The Mustang having great range, despite the fact it had to put up in an escort role probably the worst fuel economy engine of the war, because nothing else was available?

Your post lack the concept, logic and any comprehension, basically it`s just a desperate reaction and outcry to the facts posted in this thread.

[Angus]

Then please explane this to me Isengrim:
WHY DID SPITFIRES FROM ENGLAND, WITHOUT DROP TANKS, OPERATE FURTHER INTO NAZI HELD TERRITORY, THAN 109'S FROM THE FRENCH COAST INTO ENGLAND?
(109's introducng drop tanks before actually)
Is it worth answering?
At least, nothing about it is theoretical.

[gripen]

MiloMorai,
Yep, Sharp&Bowyer gives just total losses.

Dear Isegrim,
Thank you for wasting time with me. Infact I'd like to hear more on your theories on variable speed supercharger; hilarious as usual  

This is pretty damn simple; Bf 109G and Spitfire IX had pretty similar endurance at combat conditions with internal fuel  ie 1-1,5h, the range being around 650km  for both. Both these are real and practical values seen in combat and taken from the Finnish and RAF documentation. The 750 miles range you are quoting  is more or less theoretical due to unpractical engine setting. The Spitfire VIII had about double practical range and endurance with internal fuel (assuming rear fuselage tank) and it saw service in MTO.

Regarding fuel capacity of the Bf 109, just look gun camera films; it's very common to see auxilary tank on the  Bf 109. And the reason is very simple, to do something in practical speeds, it really required auxilary tank for interceptor task at high altitude.

And again: Fuel consumption is not an issue if you have fuel to burn.  The LW pilots probably were happy to know that their engines had lower fuel consumption when the Mosquitos and Mustangs out run them right over LW bases.

gripen

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by gripen

This is pretty damn simple; Bf 109G and Spitfire IX had pretty similar endurance at combat conditions with internal fuel  ie 1-1,5h, the range being around 650km  for both. Both these are real and practical values seen in combat and taken from the Finnish and RAF documentation. The 750 miles range you are quoting  is more or less theoretical due to unpractical engine setting.

Thank Gripen for sharing us your visions and the world you choosed to live in instead of the real one.

In GripenWorld, despite the Spitfire has less internal fuel, burns more fuel to arrive at the same power output, uses more power to arrive at the same speed, manages to get the same practical range as the Bf 109. Of course this ignores all real world physics and elementary maths. Logic was never a strong part of you, was it?

Not to mention about half a dozen reports state the exact opposite.

But who cares, eh, Gripen? Your authority is above all others!

The Spitfire VIII had about double practical range and endurance with internal fuel (assuming rear fuselage tank) and it saw service in MTO.

LOL, it`s gets even better ! Not only the Mk IX manages to get the same range as the 109G with less fuel, worser aerodynamics and worser fuel effiency, in fact the Mk VIII with 50% more fuel gets 200% the range !

I am all amazed by GripenMaths.

So give us the details, Grippy, how does the MkVIII achieves all that ?

Of course you can dream on and keep telling that that the MkVIII had "double" the range (I wonder what scientific methods were used to arrive at that very precise number ), even if there`s direct evidence that disproves it.

Regarding fuel capacity of the Bf 109, just look gun camera films; it's very common to see auxilary tank on the  Bf 109. And the reason is very simple, to do something in practical speeds, it really required auxilary tank for interceptor task at high altitude.

It`s reason is rather simple, it allowed for greater tactical freedom. On internal fuel the 109s could loiter over Germany for 3.5 hours waiting for the bombers, with a droptank they had 6 hours to do the same, respond to any threat that might emerge, assemble large formations of attack groups, and wait until the escorts run out of fuel.

After all, it was Spitfires and P-47s that turned back on the German border, and 109s and 190s who could outlast them in the air, and then do a messarcre with the unprotected B-17s.

And again: Fuel consumption is not an issue if you have fuel to burn.  The LW pilots probably were happy to know that their engines had lower fuel consumption when the Mosquitos and Mustangs out run them right over LW bases.

What an arguement !! Classic one!

[MiloMorai]

Gripen you are peeing into the wind when you try to have a rational discussion with Barbi. His paranoria that any who say anything about his uber 109 are 109 haters is laughable. The one with the outrate hatred is Barbi for the Spit.

Some how he missed the 10ampg for the Spit VIII, the same as what he posted for the 109.  This gives the Spit(85gal) an air time of 3.86hr @ 217mph compared to the 3.45hr @ 210mph for the 109(88gal).


One has to be curious why, if the 109 had such good range, why they did not escort bombers to GB from mid-war onwards. In the East, long range bomber missions by the LW went un-escorted.

The 109's bomber interception missions were rapid climb to altitude and race to the interception point, make one or 2 passes and then RTB. No most economical cruising in a combat zone, unless the pilot was suicidal.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Angus
Then please explane this to me Isengrim:
WHY DID SPITFIRES FROM ENGLAND, WITHOUT DROP TANKS, OPERATE FURTHER INTO NAZI HELD TERRITORY, THAN 109'S FROM THE FRENCH COAST INTO ENGLAND?
(109's introducng drop tanks before actually)
Is it worth answering?
At least, nothing about it is theoretical.

No, it doesn`t worth answering until you support this - rather a wishful thinking - claim with citations and the exact details. Not many Spitfires operated over the continent in 1940, in fact the ones over Dunkirk were rather hard pressed by their limited endurance. Certainly no Spitfire ever operated for any real time w/o a droptank over the continent.

As for the 109, the only ones w/o droptanks were the ealry 109Es. These had 460 mile range on economic cruise on internal, as opposed to the 755 mile range of the 109G (and somewhat less on the 109F). Think about a little bit about the improvements in powerplant fuel effiency and the massive aerodynamic cleanup the 109 enjoyed during their development, and the Spitfires never seen at all. There was NEVER a sort of aerodynamic improvement on the Spits as there was between the 109E and F, quite the contrary, just look on a Mk I, a very clean aircraft, and then look on a Mk XIV, a fighter just covered with bulges sticking out everywhere, cannon stubs, cannon bulges, Griffon bulges, mainwheel bulges and so on. Spits advanced backward aerodynamically, and R-R didn`t care at all about how much the Merlin would consume, just that it can take out more-more power from a too limited volume, instead of dumping the whole POS and concentrating on the Griffon (which they wanted to do BTW, but couldn`t put it into production fast enough)

[Angus]

Oh, yeah.
My Great uncle was on missions over Holland and Belgium, in a Spit V, year 1941 onwards. No tanks.
He was actually in the papers for blowing up ammo barges on the Dutch canals.
Look at a map and see the differences in distance.
Rhubarb missions that time.
Then he moved on to Circuses and such, over France.
The Germans would attack only under favourable cirkumstances, since the theory was to inflict as much damage as possible for the minimal risk.
This proved effective, however when the LW was not able to get into a good position, they would leave the RAF all alone. Sometimes a raid went through, unintercepted.

So, tell me more Were the Spitties not able to reach Holland, or not going there at all?

[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, .............

[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.
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

[Angus]

Hehe, even Spit Mk II's are being reported shot down over Hoek Of Holland. Must be a misunderstanding.
Sometimes loss and claim reports are a good source......

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
How convienent of Barbi to forget the 109
had bulges on it wings that got bigger,

Yet Spitfires were still slower and shorter ranged.

extra scoops in the airframe,

Yet Spitfires were still slower and shorter ranged.

bulges for fuselage guns,

Yet Spitfires were still slower and carried only .303 pea shooters.

a bigger oil cooler,

Yet Spitfires were still slower and shorter ranged, and could maintain WEP for 5mins, 109s for 10mins.

gun pods added below the wings,

Yet Spitfires were still slower and shorter ranged, and could carry only 2 cannons with 240 rounds, 109s could carry 3 cannons with 470 rounds.

an ADF loop,

Yet Spitfires were still slower and lower ranged - it didn`t even have advanced navigation equipment?

extended tail wheel,

Yet Spitfires were still slower. which may have something to do with that a far larger percentage of 109s had retractable tailwheel than Spitfires.

extra under nose blisters, ............. [/B]

Yet Spitfires were still slower and lower ranged.

Maximum all out speed of Mk IXLF at 8000m (5 min limit) : 640 km/h
Maximum cruise speed of 109K-4 8000m (no time limit) : 645 km/h

It tells it all.