Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design

[HoHun]

Hi Mando,

>Because Fw190 was a far far better design than any 109.

Well, it wasn't quite as simple as that.

The Fw 190, while being the more advanced design, also was a ton heavier than the Me 109. Coupled with the non-availability of high-altitude engines due to the failure of the German industry to produce turbo-supercharged or two-stage supercharged engines, this made the Me 109 the better performer up high.

As so often, it really depended on the engine and not on the airframe which aircraft was the better performer. (If performance is equal, I'd take the Focke-Wulf anytime ;-)

>It is very clear why the aerial war was lost in the West front.

Hm, I thought the aerial war was lost on all fronts ;-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[MANDO]

HoHun,

Fw190 was a far far more advanced design in every single aspect, not a far far more advanced final product. IMO, the design was simply superb for its time.

If we consider also D and 152 series, we have a clearly better final product too.

[HoHun]

Hi Mando,

>Fw190 was a far far more advanced design in every single aspect, not a far far more advanced final product. IMO, the design was simply superb for its time.

Certainly! But it should be, as it could benefit from the lessons learned with the Me 109 (as well as with the Spitfire :-)

>If we consider also D and 152 series, we have a clearly better final product too.

Yes, I was about to point that out. The Me 109 could not take the next-generation engines like the DB603 or the Jumo 213, but the Fw 190 could. That meant the Fw 190 line had all options for further development, while the Me 109 was stuck with the DB605 which had reached the end of its development potential in 1945.

(And while Messerschmitt experimented with the Me 309 and the Me 209, these designs weren't up to the Fw 190 line either.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Angus]

oh, more for Izzy
Spit IX's (merlin 61) could cruise at 43K already in 1942. That was way above the 109's ceiling in that time.
Since you like the extended-wing mk VIII so much in roll-rate comparisons,  bear in mind that those outperform the others in the high alt category.
Wonder how high that leaves you.....

[GScholz]

You ... are ... all ... re ... tard ... ed.

[Angus]

Negative sir!

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Guppy35
You still miss the essential point.  Now you imply the RAF was avoiding combat with their Spits.  When you make comments like that, it's clear there is no talking to you.

[/B]

Now well that`s funny. It was you who claimed the RAF pilot`s couldn`t find any LW plane for entire ToDs, the LW was non-existant etc. etc.

The fun thing is, the USAAF had absolutely no problem finding the LW in 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945. Only the RAF had such "problems". Why? (Hint : Senseless strategy of raids over France, short range of the Spitfire)

I think it`s logical to assume that if the USAAF did find it, the LW was very much in existance. So if the RAF couldn`t find it, it was the fault of the RAF, wasn`t it?

Originally posted by Guppy35
Since the 109 is clearly the greatest propeller driven fighter ever built why did the LW build the 190?

[/B]

To have another great fighter, which was more versatile than the pure interceptor 109, and also to cure some of the flaws in the former design - and to introduce new ones (lacking of high alt performance and stall characterisitcs).

But above all, because Daimler Benz was seen in 1930s that it would possibly not be able to produce enough engines for all fighters required by the LW. BMW on the other hand had a lot of free capacity, and great new radial engine..
So I guess it was more about engine production capacity than anything else, Crumpp can probably tell the details or correct this.

As for 109 vs. 190, the 109F was tested in Rechlin vs. the 190A-2, and despite the latter being the newer design, the German basically found the 109 in almost every way superior in combat performance. Things like landings, warload were in the 190s favour. That is a fact, the opinion of the German air force - which was against Messerschmitt`s person from day 1 btw (Milch etc.) - not the ill-informed opinion of some British authors like Price/Spick.

Originally posted by Guppy35
Since the Spits were hiding and the LW was dominant, why did the Allies win the war?

[/B]

Three letters, U.S.A...
With what exactly exactly Spitfires contributing to Allied victory?
Escorting nuisance raids over France, to the very edge of the range, about which the German didn`t even bother?

Originally posted by Guppy35
Based on your conclusions,  I should assume that the Spitfire, or any Allied fighter for that matter, was a design abortion that should never have flown and clearly was utterly outclassed by the 109.

Isn't that it in a nutshell?

[/B]

You assume wrong, altough with this level of tunnel vision, I am not surprised. Whenever the RAF/Spits are described in any way other than 100000% perfect, such histerical reactions rise from you. One just has to look at some Allied designs, such as the Tempest, Yak-3, La-7 or P-51 to see good and adoptive concepts and successfull career as warplanes.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus
oh, more for Izzy
Spit IX's (merlin 61) could cruise at 43K already in 1942. That was
way above the 109's ceiling in that time.

From real life tests of MkIXs w. Merlin 61, BF 274 :

Service ceiling (100 ft/min.) at 3000 r.p.m. 42,400 Estimated absolute ceiling at 3000 r.p.m. 43,000 ft.
Greatest height reached 41,000


So hardly could it "cruise" at 43k. It was the absolute end altitude for it, to be at 43k required to plane to run at maximum 5-min power, and had to be flown on the edge of stall..

In real life tests, Bf 109G-1 WrNr. 10 308 reached 41 300 feet altitude. This however on 30-min military power. With full WEP it would reach even higher altitude at 2800 rpm.
NOW this is without GM-1. That would add further 1500m,
so the absolute ceiling was something like 46 200 ft for the Bf 109G.

Way higher than the HF MKIX. Higher than the Mk XIV!
In 1942, and still not even using full power.
Bf 109 F-4/Z could also reach 42 650 ft w. 30-min military power. In 1941.

No life signs of Spitfires at 46 000 ft !
One primary reason for that, regardless of theoretical absolute ceiling, the MkIXs or XIVs were not equipped with pressurized cocpit, making high altitude flying even below 40k ft so much of a tiresome experience for pilots that it was ruled out as a practical possibility.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by HoHun

Yes, I was about to point that out. The Me 109 could not take the next-generation engines like the DB603 or the Jumo 213, but the Fw 190 could. That meant the Fw 190 line had all options for further development, while the Me 109 was stuck with the DB605 which had reached the end of its development potential in 1945.

Disagree. Both the Jumo 213 and DB 603 was considered for the 109 as an engine upgrade. The size of these engines was very similiar to the DB 605s, and weight was not really greater either (ca100-150kg plus). Fitting these would not cause any greater difficulty as fitting the larger Griffon to the Spitfires instead of the Merlin.

In September 1944, Bf 109G Werknummer 410 528 was built with a Jumo 213 E (same as in Ta-152H), four blade porpellor, being a prototype for an unarmed, high alt photo recce. It was tested 12th October 1944 at Berlin Staaken, takoff weight being 3700 kg. Expected max. speed was 755 km/h at 10 800 meters. No further info is available however.

So I guess fitting goodies like the 603N was indeed a possibility. Mtt would probably not proceed with those, I think, the jets were there, and in view of those "P-thousend" projects, further development of the 109 just didn`t make sense, not to say the date was 1945.

[Kurfürst]

From : RL2III/1158 (microfilm)


On 31 January 1945 the combat units of the Luftwaffe and their associated Erganzungs Einheiten, had the following strength in Bf109 types.
These are on hand totals, they include both 'frontline' and 'other' units. Included are all aircraft operational and non-operational at the time.

(Combat units / Erganzungs units ):

Bf109G1/5 (0/1)
Bf109G12 (0/5)
Bf109G6 (71/328)
Bf109G14 and G14U4 (431/190)
Bf109G10, G10/U4 and G14/AS (568/3)
Bf109K4 (314/0)
Bf109G10/R6 (51/0)
Total (1435/527)

Other Jagd types totaled (1058/359)

Schlacht types totaled (680/375)
Nachtschlacht types totaled (422/95)
Zerstorer types totaled (42/0)
Nachtjagd types totaled (1241, no breakdown between the two)
Kampf types totaled (543/158)
Nahaufklarer totaled (407/27)
Fernaufklarer totaled (195/81)
See types totaled (78/17)
Transport types totaled (496/9)

Grand total (6597/1631)

[Naudet]

As for 109 vs. 190, the 109F was tested in Rechlin vs. the 190A-2, and despite the latter being the newer design, the German basically found the 109 in almost every way superior in combat performance.

I am sure you mean the combat trial report of JG26. It is funny that i know that thing very well and the drawbacks mentioned for the FW190 are the lower climbrate and the unreliable engine.
In maneuverability, handling, visibility and dive the FW190 is marked as the clearly superior airplane.
Speed is considered as equal for combat performance.
Normal cruise speed of the FW190A2 is btw higher than that of BF109F.

Based on this report the RLM decided too keep the FW190 in production, accelerate the developement of the BMW801 to make it more reliable and replace the Bf109s of the west front JGs (JG26 & JG2) as fast as possible with the new airplane.

I doubt the RLM would have taken the above action if they found the 109 in almost every way superior in combat performance.

[MiloMorai]

Again you manipulate the 109 numbers Barbi. How many of those 109s were facing the Allies in NW Europe?

On hand and what were capable of combat (servicable) is another of your dis-information tactics.

Luftwaffe Order of Battle
10 January 1945

Serviceable Aircraft Strengths

Single-engined fighters - 1462
Night fighters   - 808
Ground-attack aircraft   - 613
Night harassment aircraft - 302
Multi-engined bombers   - 294
Anti-shipping aircraft   - 83
Long-range reconaissance aircraft - 176
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft - 293
Coastal aircraft - 60
Transport aircraft - 269
Misc. aircraft (KG 200) - 206

Total   4566

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LWOB45.html


Western Germany, Luftflotte 3 - single engine types

Unit   Aircraft   Total/Svcble

Stab/JG 1   5/4
I/JG 1   27/22
II/JG 1   40/30
III/JG 1 40/35
Stab/JG 2 4/3
I/JG 2   28/23
II/JG 2   3/2
III/JG 2 19/6
I/JG 3   31/22
III/JG 3 32/26
IV (Sturm)/JG 3   35/24
Stab/JG 4 2/1
I/JG 4 41/33
II (Sturm)/JG 4 25/18
III/JG 4   13/10
IV/JG 4    26/17
Stab/JG 11 7/6
I/JG 11   23/20
II/JG 11   37/31
III/JG 11 42/26
Stab/JG 26 3/3
I/JG 26 60/36
II/JG 26 64/26
III/JG 26 56/28
Stab/JG 27 2/2
I/JG 27 33/24
I/JG 27   25/20
III/JG 27 28/23
IV/JG 27   24/22
Stab/JG 53 4/1
II/JG 53   46/29
III/JG 53 39/25
IV/JG 53   46/34
III/JG 54 47/31
IV/JG 54 50/39
Stab/JG 77 2/1
I/JG 77   43/24
II/JG 77   32/20
III/JG 77 10/7


So the LW had 452 109s 'onhand' BUT only 332 (73%) were servicable (combat capable).

109 units in bold

[Kurfürst]

I am sure you mean the combat trial report of JG26.

No, I am qouting a paper which I am quite certain to be originated from Rechlin test center.

It is funny that i know that thing very well and the drawbacks mentioned for the FW190 are the lower climbrate and the unreliable engine.

Do you have the entire originial, or just what the JG26 book qoutes?


In maneuverability, handling, visibility and dive the FW190 is marked as the clearly superior airplane.


Claiming the 190A is superior in manouverbility and especially handling to the best handling 109 is quite ridiculus imho, unless manouveribility equals only roll rate... Heinrich beuvious mentions in his book that in manouveribility trials the 109F was clearly superior, but the guy who created the final report didn`t like Messerscmitt too much and made the results nicer, sayint "it`s impossible to choose from". I doubt any serious 190 fan would claim the Anton would outturn the Friedrich, really...

Visibility was noted to be better to the rear. In dive it was noted the FW 190 gains distance over the 109 F, but "jedoch zeigt sich auch hierbei, das die FW 190 A 2 langsamer auf ihre Hochstgeschwindichkeit kommt, als die Bf 109." The Fw190 reached it`s max. dive speeds slower than the Bf 109.

Speed is considered as equal for combat performance.

Which mean there was not too serious difference, but "die unterlegenheit der FW ist in grosser Hohe merbarer und betragt etwa 15 bis 20 kph." The inferiority of the FW in greater heights is more noticable, ca15-20kph.

After 3 mins of level run made at Kampfleistung, the 109F took the lead and extended distance at altitude :

at 2000m : 1-200m ahead
at 4000m : 50-100m ahead
at 6000m : 2-250m ahead
at 8000m : 250-300m ahead
at 10000m : 4-600m ahead of FW 190A.
only at 50m altitude was the 190A 0-500m ahead.

Normal cruise speed of the FW190A2 is btw higher than that of BF109F.

Normal cruise speed for the 109F was 605 kph, I don`t know for the 190A-2, doubt it would be higher.

Based on this report the RLM decided too keep the FW190 in production, accelerate the developement of the BMW801 to make it more reliable and replace the Bf109s of the west front JGs (JG26 & JG2) as fast as possible with the new airplane.[/B]

They faced bombers on the Western front, against which the FW 190 was better suited. Besides it`s just two JGs, the ones at the Eastern Front kept the 109s, they faced more manouverable opposition, ie. fighters and light bombers.

I doubt the RLM would have taken the above action if they found the 109 in almost every way superior in combat performance. [/B]

Perhaps not every way, but in most things the 109F was superior to the early Antons. The stong points of the 190 : roll rate, good cocpit view, ease of landing, firepower and ruggedness, versatality was the reason it was kept alongside the 109, but never replaced it. The two designs supplemented each other well and made a very good combination. But that the 190 was superior in every way... ridiculus.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by MiloMorai

Again you manipulate the 109 numbers Barbi. How many of those 109s were facing the Allies in NW Europe?

[/B]

Why is that relevant Milo?
Bark and repeat, bark and repeat, bark and repeat.

On hand and what were capable of combat (servicable) is another of your dis-information tactics.

[/B]

If you say so. How many Spitfires were servicable in January 1945? You shouldn`t count squadron reserves or planes that were non servicable. I only see you being concerned about servicibility of LW planes (and you use the word "only" as a watermark:D) , it`s never an interests with RAF planes. even though we know their servicibilty rates (something like 10% for Typhoon squadrons late `44) left something to be desired.
 


[/QUOTE]
So the LW had 452 109s 'onhand' BUT only 332 (73%) were servicable (combat capable).
[/QUOTE]

False. The LW had 1435 Bf 109s on hand (nice switch Milo, since when the single Luftflotte 3 equal the entire LW? Even on the West there was the Reichsverteidigung too etc.), further 527 in immidiate reserves, not counting aircraft storage facilities.


"only 73% servicalbe" LOL. I though the LW was non-existent by then. Now we find it had a very high servicibilty rate even in the last year of the war.

What was the servicibilty rate of FW 190 units, Milo?
I ask because I checked this a while ago, and guess what, 190 units on avarage had LOWER servicibilty rate than 109 units.

[MiloMorai]

Why is that relevant Milo?

You were the one going on, and on, and on, .........., about the few numbers of Spitfires in NW Europe Barbi.

How many Spitfires were servicable in January 1945? You shouldn`t count squadron reserves or planes that were non servicable.

A/c assigned to the squadron should be counted. If 20 a/c was the compliment and all were servicable then it would be 20/20, unlike II/JG 77 for which it was 32/20. II./JG 77 could not even reach the number of a/c that a Gruppe was suppose to be comprised of.

Why would 'non-servicable' a/c be included with 'servicable' a/c numbers?

I would not mention reserves Barbi, for the Allies had a/c parks filled with a/c to replace any combat losses. All the losses from Bodenplatte, for example, were replaced and operational within a couple of days.

nice switch Milo, since when the single Luftflotte 3 equal the entire LW?

So sorry, , should included Luftflotte 3 in the statement, but then any brain dead idiot should have been able to sumise that it was understood to be Luftflotte 3.

What does Typhoon servicable rates have to with the 'discussion'? Spitfire rates would be more appropriate. It was very rare that a Spitfire squadron took off without its full 12 a/c on a mission unlike the LW Staffels that always flew at less than their full compliment of a/c.


Here are the numbers for Luftflotte Reich

Central Germany, Luftflotte Reich (single engine a/c)

Unit   Aircraft   Total   Svcble

Stab/JG 300 6/4
I/JG 300   57/37
II (Sturm)/JG 300 41/28
III/JG 300 44/38
IV/JG 300 53/39
Stab/JG 301 5/   5
I/JG 301 38/26
II/JG 301 40/38
III/JG 301 26/20

So 154 109s of which only 114 (74%) were servicable(combat capable).

109 units in bold