Bf109 F-2

[Debrody]

ok so our Fritz can do 333mph on the deck with its 1350Hp engine. Our Emil can do 294ish. The improved Emil with the 1150Hp DB601N should do about 300-305mph. Not much difference in the speed since the early 109 airframe was draggy. Its a fact, thats why the F is much faster. The real, noticable improvement would be in the climb rate. Also the 60 rounds in the MG-FF is a big weakness, 90 is much better.
BUT   the F was designed to be faster and turn better than the E. New wing design, reduced drag with the new airframe and engine cowling, improved horizontal stabilizers etc. Basically a better aircraft. Even tho with the 15mm motorcanone it would be like a better faster c202.

[Krusty]

Just to round out the comparison, what are the specs for the 109f1/f2 (I understand they were nearly identical?)?

[Raphael]

F1 had 60 rounds of 20mms and f2 had 200 of 15mm

[Debrody]

The difference between the f-1 and the f-2 was the arnament. The f-1 had the old MG-FF in the nose, while the f-2 had the newer mg151/15.
Otherwise: http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109F1F2_Kennblatt/Kennblatt_fur_Bf109F1F2_DB601N.PDF

[Krusty]

The difference between the f-1 and the f-2 was the arnament. The f-1 had the old MG-FF in the nose, while the f-2 had the newer mg151/15.
Otherwise: http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109F1F2_Kennblatt/Kennblatt_fur_Bf109F1F2_DB601N.PDF

I think there were some minor changes. There's mention of minor differences like "only" 60fpm difference between the two climb rates, etc. I suspect perhaps there was a little more weight on one vs the other.

Here's another link, of the RAF captured 109F2 trials:
http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109F2_UK/109F2_ES906_AFDU.html
Yours suggests 309, this suggests 305 (close enough). It's interesting that it's not much faster, at least on the deck.

Looking at HTC's charts:
http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=109e4&p2=109f4

I think you can mentally picture what they might look like, just shift the 109e4 speed line further past 300mph on the deck there. Looks like the F2 and E-7 would be nearly identical in speed charts.

I guess the questions then are:

Which of these 2 turned better? 109E7 should have more wing area, but reportedly that rounded wingtip helped a lot on the F.

Which climbed better? Which was heavier I guess dictates this?

Personally I am all for the E-7, but now that I see how close the F-2 is to this plane I'm intrigued.

[Krusty]

Follow up to my previous link, I added the spit5:

http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=109e4&p2=109f4&p3=spit5

You can see why even just going up to 305/309mph on the deck was so important. It gave them the edge over the infamous spit in speed.

[Debrody]

Wait a second.
My source mentions 2 speed values. The second one is with wep, 1.42 ata and 2800rpm.
With wep the 109f1/2 did 615 km/h at 5.2km (about 16500feet), what is 384mph. On the deck it did 321mph. Its with the 1150Hp DB601N. It sounds real while the 1350Hp E-4 can do 395mph at alt, 333 on the deck.
Without wep (1.30ata, 2500rpm) it did 309mph on the deck. SO... with all the aerodinamic improvements, the F wasnt faster than the E with the same engine??
I think your Emil source shows the DB601N with 1.42 ata, what sounds more possible, around 12-15 mph difference.

Btw. The E-7 would be a great match against the Spit5, what its real opponent was, while the E-4 was in the same era as the Spit1.

[Krusty]

I don't think even the F-4 was allowed 1.42 boost at first. The same engine on the 109E was limited to 1.3 or 1.35 (I can't recall which) so I think that's a later test number, after the 109F-2s and F-4s were still around, but some F-1s were probably flying around as well.

That 1.3 ata was the max power (that would be the WEP 5 minute rating).

[Debrody]

Im sure the E couldnt go as fast as the F with the same engine.

[Krusty]

What's the main difference? Radiators, wingtips, and nose. Well the E-7 had the pointed spinner and I think a few minor refinements for more speed. Probably about the same s the rounded F-4 nose. Leaving the wingtips and radiators. The wingtips probably are a wash with regards to speed. The radiators might account for some difference.

Overall it's a very similar plane with the exact same engine. I can believe it's got the same speed. Look at the P-40 series, with all its different engines, 2 different intake types, different length tails, yet all having nearly identical speeds (often only 2 or 4mph different from each other).

It's possible!



EDIT: Max weight on E-4 is about 5800 or 5900, f2 max weight listed as aroudn 6200-6300. Might have something to do with speed, being heavier with less HP? Needs higher AoA for given horsepower, more drag? (wild speculation here)

[IrishOne]

What's the main difference? Radiators, wingtips, and nose. Well the E-7 had the pointed spinner and I think a few minor refinements for more speed. Probably about the same s the rounded F-4 nose. Leaving the wingtips and radiators. The wingtips probably are a wash with regards to speed. The radiators might account for some difference.

Overall it's a very similar plane with the exact same engine. I can believe it's got the same speed. Look at the P-40 series, with all its different engines, 2 different intake types, different length tails, yet all having nearly identical speeds (often only 2 or 4mph different from each other).

It's possible!



EDIT: Max weight on E-4 is about 5800 or 5900, f2 max weight listed as aroudn 6200-6300. Might have something to do with speed, being heavier with less HP? Needs higher AoA for given horsepower, more drag? (wild speculation here)

e models had support spars under the horizontal stabs 

[Debrody]

Whith that minor difference, im wondering why the k-4 has the F-style nose design  

Edit: still, im sure your source about the E-7 is with using 1.42 ata. No way both are with the same power settings and the E is as fast as the F. With 1.30 ata the E should do like 297-300 otd. Then the F-2s 309 sounds realistic.
For a duel, i would choose the F1/2. For a many vs many dogfight... the E-7 sounds better for me. Those twin cannons mean a lot in the snapshots.
And the 1.42 ata boost was usable on the DB601N, just some engines suffered techical failures using them for a longer time, so the Daimler-Benz adviced only to use 1.30. So the über Emil existed, just it was a heavy risk using those power settings. They could solve that problem in early '42, until then even the F4s were mostly running on 1.30, only using the higher boost in critical danger. But you possibly know it.

Theese planes dont need major 3D modelling yet good additions   +1 to both

[Krusty]

I've ALWAYS wondered that!

Especially those early models with the thin prop blades. It just looks wrong! It's a bit more proportionate later on with the K4 and such when they got the wide blade props (end of war) but mostly I've always thought the E-7 looked better!

[Raphael]

lets have both of them pleeeeeease