Author Topic: me 109 with gunpods (Read 672 times)

butch2k · « **Reply #15 on:** June 05, 2002, 12:06:54 PM »

Yes but the A4 was limited to 1.3ata at max boost and 1.15ata at 100% due to severe overheating problems (according to Rechlin test) compared to the A5 1.42 max boost and 1.3 at 100%.

Kratzer · « **Reply #16 on:** June 05, 2002, 12:13:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKSWulfe

The A5 was actually heavier than the A4.

A4: 3,989 kg.

A5: 4,000 kg.
-SW

Yeah - read it again - that's what I said. The A4 had the same engine as the A5, and was lighter.

Grendel · « **Reply #17 on:** June 05, 2002, 04:20:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mw
The Russians received 10 Mustang Is from the RAF in May 42. They were mostly used for evaluation and didn't see any combat from what I can gather. That's all the documented deliveries of Mustangs they received as far as I know. Slim to no chance the Finns saw a Mustang.

Other examination has shown that they received more Mustangs. We also have a confirmed sighting of four P-38s over the Karelian skies in June/July 1944. Hell if I know where those P-51s and P-38s came from, but they were there whatever official lend-lease figures claim.

Valte Estama's encounter with P-51s:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-EstamaBrothers.html#mustang

That's a "very probable" P-51 recognization after Valte verified the plane type from ID books and intelligence afterwards, as he had plenty time to examine the enemy plane.

Mr. Karhila's two encounters with P-51s/A-36s/Mustang Is/whatever are also specific to the smallest detail. Absolutely no chance of id hassle with that one. On the other hand mr. Hemmo Leino has a P-51 in his kill list, but mr. Leino already argued back then with the squadron intelligence guy that it definitely was a Spitfire V and nothing else. "There are no SPitfires in this area" was the answer and it was recorded as P-51. But Spit it was.

Don · « **Reply #18 on:** June 06, 2002, 12:52:52 PM »

>>Didn't the A4 have the same engine as the A5, and was lighter? According to HTC, that would make it faster than the G2.<<

Kratzer:
The following quoted excerpt is from "An Illustrated Guide to World War II Fighters" Tiger Books International -London

"Introduced to service early in 1943, the FW 190A5 was a version of the FW 190A-4 with a revised engine mounting that positioned the BMW801D-2 engine some 5.9 inches farther forward (to increase length to 29ft. 4.25 in./8.95m and restore the center of gravity to the location it had occupied before its alteration by the addition of extra equipment in the rear fuselage), a maximum takeoff weight of 9,480 lbs...."
The takeoff weight of the FW 190A-4 was 8,377 lbs, a substantial increase. They made adjustments to the A5 airframe to enable it to accomodate carrying additional ordnance.

udet · « **Reply #19 on:** June 07, 2002, 01:39:31 PM »

who cares about the FW? i asked about the 109

Don · « **Reply #20 on:** June 10, 2002, 03:09:26 PM »

>>who cares about the FW? i asked about the 109 <<

Back off Udet! I was answerin Kratzer's question, he hijacked yer topic not me

I can say tho that my reference info has no reference to the 109 G2 or G6 as being faster than the FW 190 A5 or A5.
The FW A4 and A5 at 20k max speed (clean) was 416 mph; the 109 g2 or G6 max speed (clean ) at 22k was 386 mph. There were variations and boost system could increase power at certain alts a lot, but for sustained power and speed the FW190 had em beat hands down.

udet · « **Reply #21 on:** June 12, 2002, 07:13:45 AM »

Quote

The FW A4 and A5 at 20k max speed (clean) was 416 mph; the 109 g2 or G6 max speed (clean ) at 22k was 386 mph. There were variations and boost system could increase power at certain alts a lot, but for sustained power and speed the FW190 had em beat hands down.

The preformance of the FW190 dropped dramatically whenever it went above 20k feet. That's why they kept producing 109s.
Therefore your data cannot be used for comparison

-aper- · « **Reply #22 on:** June 12, 2002, 09:28:18 AM »

1)
Bf-109G2/R6 - 315m sustained turn radius
P-51A - 290m sustained turn radius

2)
P51A turns inside 109G2/r6 (lower speed/smaller radius)

3)
P-51A had never beed used in VVS (as well as other P-51s).

Grendel · « **Reply #23 on:** June 12, 2002, 09:52:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by -aper-
1)
Bf-109G2/R6 - 315m sustained turn radius
P-51A - 290m sustained turn radius

2)
P51A turns inside 109G2/r6 (lower speed/smaller radius)

3)
P-51A had never beed used in VVS (as well as other P-51s).

1 & 2)

Plain numbers never show the whole truth. There are many other factors that affect air combat as well than just theoretical turn radius. Mr. Karhila definitely outturned them - he is alive today and is credited with those kills.

What's so hard in reading this, which was already posted above:

He describes one of the victores in detail. After several 360 degree circles the P51 tried to tighten the turn, was about to stall, loosened the pull, which enabled "Kossi" to get enough lead to get the shot in. The whole left side of the P51 was torn off. Altitude was about 2km, speeds around 250km/h for Karhila, 300km/h for the P51. This enabled Karhila to stay inside in the turn.

3)
Yet, the P-51s were there. As well as the P-38s.

Not in large numbers - but there anyway.

Don't just blindly believe everything that is written in papers.

Also, I've been there listening to mr. Karhila describe those events. And he can and does proof the events. That is something that nobody can deny and try to claim otherwise.

straffo · « **Reply #24 on:** June 12, 2002, 10:03:59 AM »

sure Grendel but you compare different things :
1st case we have Plane1 vs Plane2

2nd case (your

) Plane1+pilot1 vs Plane2+pilot2

it's not the same variables no ?

Grendel · « **Reply #25 on:** June 12, 2002, 10:22:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
sure Grendel but you compare different things :
1st case we have Plane1 vs Plane2

2nd case (your ) Plane1+pilot1 vs Plane2+pilot2

it's not the same variables no ?

You're right of course.

One thing that mr. Karhila had told us, when we were wondering how the heck he even turnfought with the cannonboot 109 against Soviet fighters, was how he used throttle.

He told that he had noticed how practically all pilots showed the throttle full ahead when entering combat. Well, he didn't, he used throttle according the situation - and found out that he could out turn fighters that in paper more agile. Take a P-51 pulling hard on the stick and runnign on combat throttle setting (speed about 300 km/h), see a 109 turning behind him using less throttle (speed about 250 km/h) to gain more turn rate. See the P-51 getting shot down.

That's also basic aerodynamics/aviation knowledge. You turn better when you fly slower. But that's something most pilots didn't know back then.

RRAM · « **Reply #26 on:** June 12, 2002, 12:06:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Don
[BThe FW A4 and A5 at 20k max speed (clean) was 416 mph[/B]

not in AH, I tested it the other day, at 22.500 feet, the Fw190A5 makes less than 407mph.

-aper- · « **Reply #27 on:** June 12, 2002, 09:27:42 PM »

Grendel

I saw lots of reports from russian pilots who claimed they fought with He-113. It's not a prove that He-113 had ever been built.

P-51A had never been used by VVS.

I'd better believe that FAF pilots fought with LaGG-3's

-aper- · « **Reply #28 on:** June 12, 2002, 09:46:00 PM »

Quote

Estama had wondered when the plane wasn't slender like the Airacobra, but "it had that bump in the bottom, the air intake. It looked longer to me."

Yes, here it is - "russian P-51A"

butch2k · « **Reply #29 on:** June 12, 2002, 10:55:47 PM »

What about this one ?

They got ten of them which were mostly involved in tests and not operational.