Bf 109F info

[Charge]

"A front attack doesn't need so much superior speed. The closure speed is insane, so the key factor is a stable plane with heavy firepower.

A set up for attack may need some fuel. The more, the better.

A lower wingloading will give you both of those benefits, - carrying more as well as alt performance improving and ROC (if you work with the same weight)."


Actually, that is not entirely true.

If you go for a head on attack you need to be a good shot to score hits because of the closure rate, the gun effect being good because of closure rate and lack of armour for frontal attack.

Getting in a perfect HO position has more to do with good recon and ground control. Once you attack you need to be fast, not maneuverable -after all the bombers are flying straight... If you are flying a slow plane you will never get a second chance if the separation grows too big after HO attack.

Both FW190 and Bf109 were considered as excellent gun platforms because of their stability in flight. Besides stability has little to do with wingloading. It is more about elevator function and COG in relation to other loadings of the airframe in flight and the general wing design such as sweep angle and dihedral.

It is actually quite practical to have a DT if you have the luxury of fighting above your own soil. You can run the main tanks to desired amount and just dump the excess fuel (and weight) when you get into a fight. However, I do not have evidence if such fuel management took place IRL.

***

"Nope, what I said is that fighting the escorts was waste of men and material and single canon was too weak against bombers (three being at least adequate)."

Interesting. And I said that not fighting, or not being able to fight, the escorts was one of the factors that caused the huge losses in the long run along with growing discrepancy in numbers.

Both 20mm and 30mm cannons in Bf109 were very well enough to bring down a bomber, it is another matter where to find people to be able to score those hits (20/4 BTW for those weapons). Again the vulnerability of a liquid cooled engine is harder to overcome.

It would be really interesting to play the DGS with half the LW and see how well they would do. After all Der Grosse Schlag never took place as the forces Galland was trying to gather were scattered here and there and the effect LW nearly achieved in Schweinfurt was never achieved again. Again, not fault of 109 and 190 designs. Of course, say, 262 would have been better... What other plane would have had better performance in their place, other than G.55? Even some allied plane?

Another question: If we have two wing designs, both with exactly the same weight but the other is 20% larger than the other, which one is stronger?

-C+

[Angus]

Charge:
" If you are flying a slow plane you will never get a second chance if the separation grows too big after HO attack. "

Did the HO'ers not normally only have one go? Anyway, a good ROC might help out there, as well as maneuverability might prove useful if you want to do anything about the escorts apart from diving to the deck....

"Another question: If we have two wing designs, both with exactly the same weight but the other is 20% larger than the other, which one is stronger?"

The smaller one of course, - providing that the design is the same.
The benefit of a larger wing (well, wingloading can also be less with less weight) would be more ROC, better alt performance, more payload, and better maneuverability, especially at altitude, payed with less top speed lower, and less initial diving speed...etc.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Charge
Interesting. And I said that not fighting, or not being able to fight, the escorts was one of the factors that caused the huge losses in the long run along with growing discrepancy in numbers.

Your original reply was:

"AFAIK it was the other way around. The orders to avoid enemy fighters gnawed the axis fighting morale to a point where allied fighter pilots became more and more aggressive and axis pilots more and more defensive so that axis pilots lost confidence in engaging allied fighters and it was the fighters that finally killed their aces and pilots."

The point is that these relatively large formations of heavily armed and armoured Fw 190s with their Bf 109 top covers were rather easy targets for the US escorts. They (LW) attacked from rear so the attack needed more time, large formations were easier to see and with such load the FWs were really not capable to fight with the escorts and their (LWs) top covers were also forced to fight. Thus the enermous losses and poor results.

What I say is that they should have used large number of smaller formations of normal fighters which do fast attacks (preferably from front) and generally try to avoid the escorts (but were capable to fight with them if needed). And for that an airframe like the G.55 would have been more suitable than the G-6. And given the performance of the Fw 190 at high altitude, the G.55 would had an advantage over to Fw 190 as well.

[Angus]

You mean the 190A series then?