Bf 109F info

[humble]

Originally posted by Meyer
The people who did 'order' not to engage the P-39, also thought this:

 

They appeared to be really impressed with the P-39

Did Galland ever encounter a P-39? Considering 1/2 the top 10 soviet aces flew the P-39 long after they had "political" pressure to switch to the la-5N or other soviet built planes its record speaks for itself. The p-39 "order" is documented multiple places (just like the G.55 stuff). If we look at the two american pilots most familiar with the P-39 (Bob Hoover & Chuck Yeager) both thought it was an exceptional plane. Further the british combat tests showed the P-39 as clearly superior to the 109 at mid to lower alts. Requiring only 720 degrees to completely circle the 109 while superior in the dive and zoom (but inferior in sustained climb)...

Combine that with the documented reality that P-39 deliveries and supply were Stalins greatest concern/demand in the "big 3" meeting of that time period.

This also goes back to the "yak" arguement. i'm only aware of one guards unit flying the yak during the time frame in question. If we look at the soviet units most involved as "air supremacy" units the best known were flying the P-39. These units also had the best pilots by and large. If we look at historical facts the brunt of the heaviest fighting involved the P-39 equipped VVS units. Regardless of what actual german losses were its pretty clear that the guards units inflicted a significantly disproportionate share. Given the disparity in experience and training (seperate from anyones thoughts on speific plane strength andweakness) its logical that the germans (facing a battle of attrition for the 1st time) would seek to limit losses vs the most experienced VVS units (unless engagement was absolutely required). We see this here all the time in FSO type scenarios. If you can accomplish your mission and get out your less likely to engage the enemy if you know its a group like the 56th if you can avoid it. Simply discretion being the better part of valor. I'm unaware of any yak equipped unit in middle 1943 that would force that kind of respect.

In addition if you go back and look at the actual combat records of the P-39 at port morseby it performed better then the spits did under very unfavorable circumdstances...

[Viking]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
The Bf109C used a Jumo 210G fuel injected engine.

The Bf109D used a Jumo 210D carburetor engine.

One would think the 109 fanboys would now this.

No, you're wrong. Only the pre-production 109B-0's (3 flew operationally in Spain) and the first 30 production 109B-1's had the Jumo 210D with carburettor. After the 30 first production planes the engine was changed to the Jumo 210G which was fuel injected and fitted with a variable-pitch Hamilton Standard propeller. This was in July 1937. With the exception of prototype aircraft all subsequent German produced 109's had fuel injected engines (Jumo 210G (109B-1), 210Ga (late 109B-2, all 109C and 109D). The Jumo 210D does not have a negative-G capable carburettor. The 109D was an interim version with many of the innovations of the 109E, but powered by the available Jumo 210Ga engines due to development/production delays of the DB 601 engine. Messerschmitt really wanted the DB 600 (carburettor) engine instead, but priority was given to the bombers and the Bf 110 at this time (1938). The first 109E's were delivered to the Luftwaffe in early 1939 and flew with the DB 601A-1 fuel injected engine fitted with a three-bladed variable-pitch propeller.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Dan, III./ZG2 was transferred to Sidi Ahmed from Sicily Nov 15 1942. On Nov 25 it made its 1st claim, said to be a Spitfire, as did JG 2 with 2 Spitfires.

III./ZG also lost 2 Fw190 in a bombing raid on Nov 17. III./ZG lots several more (~12) in the following days but JG2 lost a 190 on Nov 26 at the same base.

There was also possibly Ekdo 19 which operated A-3s from Bengahzi in Nov 42.

Are you sure about the JG2 base?

No on the base

Comment in the 1st FG history was they downed 2 190s flying out of Biskra.  I was typing fast and didn't double check that part

[Viking]

As for the "Luftwaffe wanting G55's instead of 109's" the documented tests done with German an Italian fighters paints a different picture.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109G-4_Guidonia/109G-4_vergl_Estelle-Guidonia_de.html


If my German serves me right the comments on the G55 are (and i paraphrase):

Torque forces are high. The rudder effectiveness could have been better. Roll rate is somewhat poorer than 109G. Turns very good. Unstable gun platform. It could not be determined if the plane tended to stall to a particular side. Stall characteristics similar to Spitfire. Good visibility to the sides and rear. Not suited to carry external ordnance due to position of radiator and undercarriage.


Combat test 109G-4 vs. Fiat G55:

Under 2000m the G55 climbed slightly better on climb-power, the 109G-4 then overtook the G55. Above 5000m the G55 was again slightly better in climb on climb-power. 109G-4 is somewhat faster in level flight. G55 turns somewhat better than 109G-4. Both planes were considered equally fast in a dive.


Notes: This was an early G55 with reduced armament. The take-off weight was 3700 kg. Both planes were powered by the DB 605.

[Meyer]

Originally posted by humble
Did Galland ever encounter a P-39?

Probably not, but since he was the 'General der Jagdflieger' IMO his opinion is the reflect of most Lw pilots

. The p-39 "order" is documented multiple places (just like the G.55 stuff).

I see..just like the G.55 stuff, so nowhere


 

Further the british combat tests showed the P-39 as clearly superior to the 109 at mid to lower alts. Requiring only 720 degrees to completely circle the 109 while superior in the dive and zoom (but inferior in sustained climb)...

[/b]

What test?

In addition if you go back and look at the actual combat records of the P-39 at port morseby it performed better then the spits did under very unfavorable circumdstances...

yeah well... if you look at the fight in the mediterranean you get another picture.

Regarding the "success" of the P-39, in the east front, here is some food for thought:

Combat losses of P-39s in the VVS-KA:

1942: 49
1943: 305
1944: 486
1945: 190

(+124 in the VVS-VMF)

Combat losses of the Jagdverbände in the east front:

1942 707
1943 1,135
1944 972

[Meyer]

Originally posted by Angus
LOL, we're not getting each other on this one. Anyway, A.o.A. is higher in climb. And the price to pay there is induced drag, which is referred to as LIFT induced drag. The other one, being parasite drag, which will start weighting more with increased speed.

Most of our WW2 favourites have the best ROC at speed WAY  lower than top speed.

 

Yers yes I know that... am not that ignorant in the subject

And, are you sure about the change of AoA in a climb?:

Angle of Attack in a Climb

Lift in a climb is slightly less than weight. But, for the small climb angles of most aircraft, lift is almost equal to weight.

Therefore, the angle of attack required in a climb or descent will be the same as the angle of attack required in level flight.

From here

[MiloMorai]

Better take up what engine was used in what 109 (C and D) with Radinger and Schick then, for that is what they state Viking.

R&S have more credibility than you do and what they stated is backed up by another reference.

[MiloMorai]

Dan, maybe the Americans used a different place name for I can't find Biskra in the 190 book.

Fw190 losses, 8 Nov > 13 May 1943

<5% - 110
5 > 30% - 30
31 > 60% - 70
61 > 100% - 121

Over 61% damage is considered a write-off. Not all were combat losses.

Pilot losses, 8 Nov > 13 May 1943

KIA - 36
MIA/POW - 5
WIA - 28

[Viking]

If they state that Messerschmitt put a two year old engine with less hp than the Jumo 210G engine already powering the 109B and C ... then I suggest you take their claim with a grain of salt.


    * Jumo 210 A (1934)

    Vergasermotor, Startleistung um 600 PS

    * Jumo 210 B/C (1935)

    Vergasermotor, Startleistung 470 kW / 640 PS bei 2.700 U/min

    * Jumo 210 D/E (1936)

    Vergasermotor, Startleistung 507 kW / 680 PS bei 2.700 U/min

    * Jumo 210 Da/Ea

    Wie Jumo 210 D, aber mit Zweiganglader für bessere Höhenleistung

    * Jumo 210G (1937)

    Jumo 210D mit direkter Benzineinspritzung, Startleistung 537 kW / 730 PS bei 2.700 U/min

    * Jumo 210 Ga

    Jumo 210 G mit Zweiganglader für bessere Höhenleistung

[MiloMorai]

Are you calling R&S liars viking?

The spec sheet in the book shows no appreciable difference in top speed, well within the acceptance % for new a/c. RoC suffered somewhat in the 109D.

[gripen]

I've lost the track, no idea what's the subject anymore... nevermind

[Angus]

Originally posted by Guppy35
II/JG2 got to Tunis in response to Operation Torch late in November 42.  It was the first unit to have 190s there.  1st FG 38s ran into them in December 42.  They were based at Biskra.

What 109 are you looking for Angus?  Looking through Shores book "Fighters over the Desert" I'm seeing claims of 109s during that time frame.  JG77 or 27

Looking for a 109, probably a G downed at Bone, registered (take that with a grain of salt since the RAF intelligence officer was not there), date 22.nd of November 1942. Pilot and aircraft captured. Pilot POW.
Shores has this listed in his book Aces High.
Allied pilot was my old friend Tony Jonsson of 111 sqn RAF. (Spit Vb trop)

Never found a match. But there are many LW losses that I have not found anyway. MIA that need a reference perhaps?

And Meyer:

"Combat losses of the Jagdverbände in the east front:

1942 707
1943 1,135
1944 972"

TY, cool to have those. Amazingly low numbers though.

[MiloMorai]

Angus, check out this link, http://jg26.vze.com/

See 'Luftwaffe Aircraft Losses By Theatre September 1943 - October 1944'

[Angus]

Too late for Torch losses. But good to have the link, nice website.

[Viking]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Are you calling R&S liars viking?

No. I'm calling them human.