109G6 vs Spit 9, 14, Tempest 5, and P-51

[Emu]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g6-tactical.html

The tests would indicate the 109G6 pretty much sucks, even against the Mustang.  Funnily, I think the 109G6 is a much better turner in this game against the Mustang and Tempest. 

[gyrene81]

That is comparing the 109-G6 against the Spit XIV, P-51B and Tempest V...it's a give and take, but pretty much in those flight tests (which we done by British pilots who were not as adept at flying 109s) showed the G6 could not keep up with the other aircraft in basic combat maneuvers, climb, dive, turn, at various operational altitudes...not exactly what a toon pilot with no fear of losing his life can do in a toonville 109.

[Karnak]

General
2.           The Me.109G/6 is a small low wing, single seater, single engined, short range fighter, with fittings under the fuselage to enable it to carry a jettisonable fuel tank. A 250 K.G. bomb may be carried under the fuselage in place of the fuel tank. The undercarriage is fully retractable and the tail wheel partially retractable. This aircraft has a re-designed fin and rudder which is approximately 1 ½ square feet larger in area than those fitted to earlier Marks.

3.           The power unit is a DB.605A-1 engine which develops approximately 1550 h.p. at 22,000 feet.

4.           The armament consists of 2 x 13 m.m. M.G.’s mounted above the engine, 1 x M.G. 151/20 m.m. cannon firing through the airscrew hub, and 2 x M.G. 151/20 m.m. cannon in under-wing gondolas.

5.           The all-up weight of the aircraft with full war load including pilot is approximately 7,488 lbs, and the wing loading is 43.6 lbs/sq.ft.

The section of the report I bolded is not insignificant in the outcome of some of these tests.

[Emu]

True.  It wasnt clear to me whether the gondolas were or were not part of the test.


In any case, I thought it was an interesting doc; nothing intended by it.  definitely nothing like that Mosquito thread. 

[gyrene81]

Nice catch Karnak, I looked at that and just skipped to the rest without noting the actual implications.


brain flatulence...

[save]

Except for the gondolas nerf (and probably feeding the poor DB605 with fuel that suited allied planes - not german planes, the 109g14 was available in numbers by the time this document was written, and gave a good pilot a good chance 1 vs 1.

Luftwaffes big problem late-44 was not the quality of the planes, but pilot skill.

[Krusty]

One thing I dislike about wwiiaircraftperformance is that it removes all the valuable context from the information it presents, and sometimes (okay, often?) folks mis-use the scans of old tests or just mis-represent them to fit their needs, such as in this 109G6 case. It's been brought up a few times before.

For example, the spit14 used a spit9 frame but a different engine (for the most part). The Spit9 with 25lbs boost was easily out-dove by the 109, but the same 109 was left in the dust by the lesser-boosted 18lbs spit14. The whole story is not being told.


Not even counting the allied gas, allied pilot skills, and other issues, just the fact that the tests use gondolas totally nerfs all turn, roll, level speed, and climb rate tests. On top of that, the "war loadout" weights listed on this test are (for some reason?) about 700lbs heavier than our own Aces High G6 with single 20mm and 75% gas. Even loaded out with full gondolas, internal gas, DT (dropped), it's still a bit heavier. They mention the tall tail, which means something closer to a G14, but still it's about 500lbs heavier than a single-cannon G14 with full gas. Totally loaded with 100% internal fuel, a Mk108 30mm cannon, 2 gondolas, a centerline rack (those are what? 150 lbs?) it is pretty close to the weights listed in that report, but that's not a fighting condition for the most part. That's grossly overweight. Might as well test the P-51 with the aux tank filled. No mention about that, eh? The Mustang III clearly wasn't at full fuel state, because it "easily" out-turned the 109. Surely it was loaded with half or less of its total capacity of gas.

[Karnak]

For example, the spit14 used a spit9 frame but a different engine (for the most part). The Spit9 with 25lbs boost was easily out-dove by the 109, but the same 109 was left in the dust by the lesser-boosted 18lbs spit14. The whole story is not being told.

If any of that were true, or relevant, you might have a point.

1) The Spitfire Mk XIV used a Spitfire Mk VIII airframe as the base and it was modified beyond that.
2) A Spitfire Mk XIV at +18lbs boost is faster than the Spitfire Mk IX at +25lbs boost.  In other words the Griffon 65 at +18lbs boost puts out more power than the Merlin 66 at +25lbs boost.  Why you think the "lesser-boosted 18lbs spit14" should perform worse is beyond me as even you should know they have entirely different engines.

[Krusty]

I'm saying there shouldn't be such polar opposites on airframes. The spit8/spit9 airframe is very similar (wing gas tanks, pointed rudder... that's about it), but for some reason very similar airframes with very similar performance envelopes both reacted very differently to a third comparison point (the 109G6).


You're right about the different boosts not meaning anything, different engines. My point still stands, though. They're not telling the whole story in the tests because the results are so irregular.

[Bronk]

I'm saying there shouldn't be such polar opposites on airframes. The spit8/spit9 airframe is very similar (wing gas tanks, pointed rudder... that's about it), but for some reason very similar airframes with very similar performance envelopes both reacted very differently to a third comparison point (the 109G6).


You're right about the different boosts not meaning anything, different engines. My point still stands, though. They're not telling the whole story in the tests because the results are so irregular.

Ermmm tail wheel?

[Saurdaukar]

The section of the report I bolded is not insignificant in the outcome of some of these tests.

True.  

First thing I noticed was the U-2 designation.

Second was this:  "Prolonged unserviceability of the Me.109 prevented completion of the trials."

IIRC, the RAF test of the 190A-4 (maybe an A-3?) that was well documented and extremely detailed had the same issue.  IIRC, further, the problem was equal parts gasoline and non-OEM spark plugs which fouled quickly.  Engine performance would be reduced some but, at least specific to the 190, the RAF pilots were reluctant to fly the aircraft aggressively - including at full throttle due to excessive vibration.

In any event... great read, thanks.  Some other things that stuck out to me:

1.)  Cant tell whether its a late or early G6.  Partially retractable tail wheel and redesigned rudder - BUT - "This aircraft has the old type canopy."

2.)  It does appear that the gondolas were fitted for the test: "Armament consists of 2x13mm MG's mounted above the engine, 1xMG 151/20mm cannon firing through the airscrew hub and 2xMG 151/20mm cannon in underwing gondolas."

3.)  Test weight was 7,488lbs.  Im not a "technical AH flyer."  Anyone have the weight figure for the G6 in AH with gondies?  I'd up one quick myself but Im at work.  We might be able to guess how much fuel they had on board for the tests, if nothing else.

4.)  "Engine revs and boost are interconnected and are operated under normal conditions by the throttle control.  provision is made, however, for independent operation..."  Didnt know that.  Thought integrated engine management was, primarily, a 190-only feature.

5.)  "The tail wheel locking device on this aircraft has been disconnected..."  Why on God's Earth would they do that?  Its a small miracle that the plane lasted more than a single flight.

6.)  Regarding the Spitfire Mk IX: "Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty." plus... "The climb of the Spitfire is superior to that of the Me109 at all heights... at 18lbs boost... this is naturally pronounced when using 25lbs boost."  Surprised by that.  Figured it would be backwards.

7.)  Regarding Spitfire Mk XIV: "The Spitfire has no difficulty in out-turning the Me109 in either direction."  Figured they would be close.

8.)  Regarding the Tempest Mk V:  "The climb of the Me109 is superior to that of the Tempest at all heights..."  What?!

9.)  Regarding the P-51B (III):  "When the aircraft are dived and subsequently climbed there is very little to choose between their performance."  If only this were the case in AH!  ...the Mustang has no difficulty outturning the Me.109 in either direction."  Wow, again.

Fascinating stuff.  Tanks for posting.

[Ardy123]

Digging further into the site I noticed that they did all the me109 tests without the GM Boost.

"Performance is converted to standard temperature. Combat power without GM 1"

The boost on the 109s is large and does have a very appreciable improvement on performance.

[Karnak]

I'm saying there shouldn't be such polar opposites on airframes. The spit8/spit9 airframe is very similar (wing gas tanks, pointed rudder... that's about it), but for some reason very similar airframes with very similar performance envelopes both reacted very differently to a third comparison point (the 109G6).


You're right about the different boosts not meaning anything, different engines. My point still stands, though. They're not telling the whole story in the tests because the results are so irregular.

My personal bet as to why the results are listed as they are is simply because when they tested them either the Spit XIV pilot was more effective in the test against the Bf109 or the Bf109 pilot was more effective in the test against the Spit IX.  Simply because humans cannot perform exactly the same each time.

And yes, that means all these basic combat trial reports need to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Krusty]

Digging further into the site I noticed that they did all the me109 tests without the GM Boost.

"Performance is converted to standard temperature. Combat power without GM 1"

The boost on the 109s is large and does have a very appreciable improvement on performance.

GM-1 is a nitrous oxide injection for extremely high altitudes. Very few LW planes had it installed. There's almost no chance this 109G-6 had it. You may be thinking of MW-50 which is a methanol-water mixture much more common, and giving quite a bit of performance boost. That's what gives the Aces high G-14 and K-4 their nice "kick" when you hit the WEP key.

[Soulyss]

True.  

First thing I noticed was the U-2 designation.

Second was this:  "Prolonged unserviceability of the Me.109 prevented completion of the trials."

IIRC, the RAF test of the 190A-4 (maybe an A-3?) that was well documented and extremely detailed had the same issue.  IIRC, further, the problem was equal parts gasoline and non-OEM spark plugs which fouled quickly.  Engine performance would be reduced some but, at least specific to the 190, the RAF pilots were reluctant to fly the aircraft aggressively - including at full throttle due to excessive vibration.

According to Price's book it was an A-3.