Bf 109F info

[gripen]

Hm... the tested G.55 was an early series version. The later variants had racks under wing (see here).

[Viking]

Ok. What could the late-G.55 carry externally?

[gripen]

2x160kg bombs are claimed but apparently the racks could have been used for something else as well. However, even with internal fuel the G.55 had probably about same range as the Bf 109G with one 300l external tank due to lower drag. With 3x20mm the G.55 would have done pretty much everything better than the Bf 109G (namely the G-6 or later models including the K-4) with similar ordnance assuming the same engine and much better assuming the DB 603.

[Charge]

"With 3x20mm the G.55 would have done pretty much everything better than the Bf 109G (namely the G-6 or later models including the K-4) with similar ordnance assuming the same engine and much better assuming the DB 603."

Bait (TM).

-C+

[gatt]

Originally posted by Viking
My conclusion is that the G.55 did 385 mph at 1.42 ata @ 2,800 rpm. Not 1.3 ata.

Ah, we've been researching this issue for years: the G.55 (like the C.205) has always been officially tested with the DB605A or Ra1050 at 1.3ATA and 2.600rpm and with those settings she got to 620Km/h at 7Km+. This comes from the 3 cannons armed flight manual.

However, we found the 1944 operating instructions of the G55 with the maximum settings clearly allowed. RA and ANR probably gave the full settings OK to the C205's and the G55's DB605A slightly later than the Luftwaffe, in the very late 1943 or beginning of 1944 that is.

I guess that with "supergiri" allowed the G.55 could have performed better.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Viking
From the 109E-4b onwards they all had impressive air-ground ordnance options.

Compared to what the other German fighter, the Fw190,  could carry, the 109 carried next to nothing.

[Viking]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Compared to what the other German fighter, the Fw190,  could carry, the 109 carried next to nothing.

Next to nothing is just another MiloMoron bait.

The Fw 190 was indeed better suited for ground attack, and the 190G and F took over most JaBo roles from the 109. However to say that the 500 kg bomb the 109 could lug around is "next to nothing" to the very same 500 kg bomb the Fw 190F lugged around ... is more than just a little dishonest. Even for you Milo. Sure, the Fw 190F could also carry a 250 kg bomb under each wing for a total of 1000 kg; the 109 never did this (to my knowledge). However if the 109 had to soldier on in the JaBo role in stead of the 190 it probably would have. It certainly could carry the load.



Bf 109G-2/R1 with 500 kg bomb and two wing mounted 300 litre drop tanks.

[gripen]

Well, late variants (like K-4 and G-10) weighed more with one 30mm cannon than early G models with 3x20mm and rarely carried other external load than one 300l tank. Basicly the limits of the airframe were reached.

[Gianlupo]

Originally posted by Viking
Also the G.55 engine is listed as a Fiat R.A 1050 Tifone (license-built Daimler-Benz DB 605A-1) liquid-cooled inverted V-12, 1,085 kW (1,475 hp).
 

Yep, true, but you have to consider that the Italian built version of the Daimler Benz engines are normally listed in stats with the nominal output of their "German parent", while they yielded less horsepower than that.

It's remarkable that the Petersen report clearly ascribed the worse speed performance to the Italian built engine, not to the airframe.

You can't conclude that the plane performance were registered at 1.42 ATA only because of what is listed in specs.

As for the Jabo matter, as you wrote, the Germans concern was mostly due to the position of the radiator, that didn't allow to carry ordnance under the fuselage. But, as Milo stated, the G.55, like all the others Italian fighters, could carry ordnance under wing, particularly 2 160 Kg GP bombs or 2 100 liters drop tanks. It could be used as an effective Jabo and strafer.

Another note, about weight: the Centauro tested was a Serie 0, with 1 20mm and 4 MGs in the nose, so it was somewhat lighter than the Serie I with 3 20mm and 2 MGs. But, as the German report states, the difference in weight was not going to harm the performance as it usually happened in the German fighters. In fact, IIRC, the difference in weight was only 20 Kg.

Finally, dear Knegel, you can't really say that the DB605 powered G.55 wasn't better than German planes: the only drawback, performance-wise, was its speed in level flight. In climbing, diving and turning it was equal if not better than the 109 and the 190. Speed is not everything; and, in the comparison against the 190, it's written that the distance gained by the Focke Wulf was 800 m/~890 yards in 4 minutes of flying.. not a big advantage, in a tail chase!

One last word, gentlemen. Don't forget that the G.55 was a new design whose full potential was still to be developed, while the 109 design was, by 1943, an already full developed design, with little space for true improvement.

And a request: the report linked above says that a detailed report of the 4th and 5th comparative flights were written by Ing. Beauvais... has anyone a copy of that report?

EDITed some typo.

[TUXC]

Assuming that a G.55 with an engine operating at 1.3ata could do 385mph at altitude (does anyone have test data for this or a speed chart?), I think it is safe to assume that with 1.42ata it could go about as fast as a 1943 Bf109g-6 (~395mph). So now you have a fighter with the same speed performance as a 109 but which was easier to fly, possibly had better high speed handling (is this documented anywhere), and had heavier internal armament than the Bf109g-6. Also, assuming the ability to fit it with a 30mm hub cannon and a MW-50 system, the G.55 now has the same performance potential as the 109g and k did. Notice we're doing a lot of assuming here?


Ok, now for some practical questions about a German G.55:

Hypothetically, if Germany did decide to switch over to the G.55, when would the version with the DB605A engine have entered service? Are we talking mid 1943 or mid 1944? Also, I'm not sure of the fuel tank arrangement, but would the internal configuration of the G.55 have allowed for a MW-50 system to be fitted? Without MW-50, the DB605 tops out at ~1450hp or so, and the G.55 does 385-400mph at 22000 with the DB605A or maybe 405-415 at 27000 with the DB605AS engine.


Presumably, had it been in German production, the high altitude DB605AS engines would have been fitted asap, or some kind of GM-1 system would have been investigated to give better altitude performance.  IMO a DB603 powered G.55 would never have materialized before 1945 at the earliest, but a Jumo 213A powered variant (same engine as the Fw190D) could have been a possibility assuming that there were enough Jumo 213s to go around. While we're speculating though, it is possible that a Ta152A (basically a Fw190D with slightly larger wings, cowl mounted 20mms, and a engine mounted 30mm) could have been in production by the time a Jumo powered G.55 was available. This all assumes that the Germans could afford to slow fighter production while waiting for factories to switch over to a new type, which they could not since they were fighting, and losing, a 2 (or 3 depending how you look at it) front war and had heavy bombers hitting their factories. Whoever was in charge just decided that they could not afford to have fewer fighters for several months, therefore Germany continued to build  Bf109s and Fw190s instead of G.55s and Ta152As.

[MiloMorai]

Poor PNG Schulzie, again with the insults.

The Fw190 could carry 4 times what the 109 could carry.  So nice of you to be so selective.

[Viking]

Originally posted by gripen
Basicly the limits of the airframe were reached.

I hear this myth perpetuated by people like you all the time. Who stated this lie?


The 109G-2 weighed 7054 pounds (3200 kg) fully loaded (no external). As I have shown it also could carry in the order of a 1000 kg externally.

The 109K-4 weighed 7432 pounds (3374 kg) fully loaded (no external).

So from 1942 to late 1944 the 109 gained no more than 174 kg weight; a mere 5.4% increase. By comparison it's engine power increased by 35.6%. The K-6 bomber destroyer and K-14 high altitude fighter in development at wars end would have been truly amazing planes.

The 109 had not reached its "limits" by far.

http://www.adlertag.de

[Viking]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
The Fw190 could carry 4 times what the 109 could carry.  So nice of you to be so selective.

Lol, really? I'm not saying you're wrong, but please show me a Fw 190 with 4000 kg external load.

[Angus]

I think he is roughly right Viking. One probably also has to include guns & ammo though. Or is it the difference between clean (dry) weight and max load?
I recall a 190 variant both being gunned up as well as carrying some cookie of impressive weight. Like 2 tonnes?
Anyway, the 190 carries more. I'll put my money on that being a structural issue rather than aerodynamic though.
And BTW, aces of the 109 lik Rall refer to the G series onwards as "too heavy". It was the F that was the true lady there....

[gripen]

Originally posted by Viking:
I hear this myth perpetuated by people like you all the time. Who stated this lie?

Thanks for your kind words...

Originally posted by Viking:
The 109G-2 weighed 7054 pounds (3200 kg) fully loaded (no external).

The G-2 (the G-4 in the test was nearly similar) weighed around 3050kg fully loaded with no external load, note that wing canons were actually carried externally and weight with these was around 3200kg. With 300l tank and wing canons weight was close to 3450kg (there is about 50kg variation depending on source and equipment).

The K-4 weighed around 3350kg fully loaded with no external load (around 3600 with 300l tank), with wing canons weight would had been around 3500kg and around 3750kg with 300l tank, note that wing cannons were rarely seen in the K-4 or G-10 but the 300l tank was very common (almost standard for certain missions).

Note also that the G.55 was able to carry comparable load internally at around same  weight.

Originally posted by Viking
As I have shown it also could carry in the order of a 1000 kg externally.

You have shown experimental installation and note that in that case wing canons could not be carried. Basicly you take tidbits from here and there and combine these at most favorable way.