Author Topic: More 109 goodness  (Read 3362 times)

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
More 109 goodness
« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2005, 05:08:16 PM »
So you are saying that the Bf109F wqas slower than 380mph???

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
More 109 goodness
« Reply #16 on: March 03, 2005, 05:19:39 PM »
Hi Karnak,

>This included outrunning Bf109s that were first noticed co-alt and closing from astern, yet the 380mph Mosquito PR.Mk IV was able to accelerate and escape from the Bf109 on numerous encounters.  A 30mph advantage should have easily overcome any chance that a unarmed PR.Mk IV could have escaped.

The Me 109F achieved its top speed at 6.2 km while the Mosquito was fastest at 12000 ft, so the advantage of the Me 109 at the Mosquito's best altitude was much smaller than you think :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
More 109 goodness
« Reply #17 on: March 03, 2005, 06:19:14 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So you are saying that the Bf109F wqas slower than 380mph???

No, but they had differing best altitudes.  If the Bf109F did do 410mph at it's best altitude, the Mosquito's best altitude would still be in the Bf109F's favor by a good margin, if I am recalling the Merlin 21's best altitude correctly.

IIRC the Bf109 always peaked at near 22,000ft.  When I get home I'll post the Mosquito PR.Mk IV's best alt.  I'm pretty sure it is higher than 12,000ft.  The FB.Mk VI with Merlin 25s had a best alt of 13,000ft and it was optimized for low altitude performance.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
More 109 goodness
« Reply #18 on: March 03, 2005, 07:37:52 PM »
Ok, looking at my data the Mosquito B.Mk IV had a top speed of 380mph at 21,000ft without flame dampers.  With the flame dampers it had a top speed of 367mph at 21,000ft.

That is what De Haviland's test results with Mosquito B.Mk IV DK290 resulted in.

If the Bf109F could do 410mph at 22,000ft then it would certainly do at least 400mph at 21,000ft.


No, I'll stand by my position that the service Bf109Fs could not do 410mph.  Probably more in the 385mph to 390mph range.  I can see a perfectly tuned, cleaned and factory fresh one doing 410mph perhaps, maybe with a few tweaks to get higher boost and then that being reported, but I cannot believe that the common service machines did that.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
More 109 goodness
« Reply #19 on: March 03, 2005, 09:43:39 PM »
I would have to ask what makes the 109F-4 go 40mph faster than a Spit V with both types having similar hp engines and clean lines.

Why no other a/c book has ever given 410 mph as the top speed of the 109F-4.

Why no book on the LW has accounts of LW pilots in the JGs discussing how the Fw 190A-3 was no faster than the 109F-4. Which is what is being claimed here. The Fw 190A-3 could do @400 mph tops. This is the most damning evidence that it never did 410 mph. I kinda think somebody in the LW fighter arm might have mentioned it in passing? Somebody in RAF fighter command? They all get amnesia?

Why the 109E-4 does 355 mph with an engine that is 1100 hp DB601A and the 109F-4 gets a 50 mph increase? in speed with a 1350 hp DB601E? an increase of only 250 hp. Those tail struts on the 109E-4 must have had some major drag I guess huh?

The Spitfire L.F. IXc with a 1650 hp Merlin 66 engine could reach @405 mph, I find it somewhat questionable that a 109F-4 could get that with an engine of 1350 hp, to say the least.

Sorry, but somebodys physics do not add up. This is in the same category as the claims of the P-38L doing 440 mph and a lot of other overblown speed claims by those that are big fans of one ac type.

I can see an overboosted "speed trials" 109F-4 doing that speed, just like a Spitfire V, but not an operational fighter.
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline Meyer

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 156
More 109 goodness
« Reply #20 on: March 03, 2005, 10:01:12 PM »
"I don't like this evidence, so I'm not gonna believe it "

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
More 109 goodness
« Reply #21 on: March 03, 2005, 10:06:36 PM »
The Fw190A3 was a 420mph plane.

There are ton of differences between the Bf109E and the Bf109F...  You thinking its just tailstruts pretty much says you dont really know what was done.. Lets see... Entirely new fuselage, entirely new wings, entirely new low drag radiator with boundry layer bypass, far fewer bumps and intakes, ram air for the air intake, far less drag on the fuselage, far less drag on the oil cooler, far less drag from the new flap design compared to old fabric coveed flaps of 109E, entirely new props, much cleaner landing gear instalation, retractible tailwheel, much cleaner wing due to no bumps from the wing cannon and so on and so on all working to drastically reduce drag over the Bf109E while adding significant power and the prop to transfer it into thrust and speed...

Why dont books have better data? Because most all of them draw from and repeat the same bad old research done 30 years ago - MG151 15mm cannon in the Bf109K anyone? It's basically laziness where people are simply content with putting up something like this - Bf109G speed 389mph and leaving it at that because nobody really has done the research.

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
More 109 goodness
« Reply #22 on: March 03, 2005, 10:08:14 PM »
" I will beleive anything as long as it makes my favorite plane go faster" You guys jump all over anybody else that would dare list an allied fighter as faster than published stats, but when it comes to your favorite ride, all that is forgotten.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2005, 10:14:33 PM by Squire »
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
More 109 goodness
« Reply #23 on: March 03, 2005, 10:14:33 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Squire


Why no book on the LW has accounts of LW pilots in the JGs discussing how the Fw 190A-3 was no faster than the 109F-4. Which is what is being claimed here. The Fw 190A-3 could do @400 mph tops.
 


But there is just that, JG2 comparing 109F4 to Fw190A2 - the very version that so scared the RAF in 1941...  The Bf109 is faster at alt... And yes squire its in a big shiny respectable book published by schiffer...

The Fw190A3 on other hand was a 420mph fighter...

But hey its nice that you make this some sort of allied/axis pissing contest, I'll take it as a sign of surrender on the issue. Surprsing though, coming from such an emminent expert on the 109 as you...  Tail struts only....
« Last Edit: March 03, 2005, 10:17:15 PM by GRUNHERZ »

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
More 109 goodness
« Reply #24 on: March 03, 2005, 10:18:01 PM »
"The Bf109 is faster at alt... "

Ya by @ 20 mph to a Spit Vb. @370 to @390.

Seems the formula being used is "take published figures and add 15-20 mph" if its LW.

Show me a book that quotes any member of JG2 giving the 109F-4s top speed within 10 mph of the 190A-2 or 190A-3. I will be waiting.

You are just throwing out anything you can but have ZIP for evidence excpet internet sources. "Mr expert".
« Last Edit: March 03, 2005, 10:22:29 PM by Squire »
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
More 109 goodness
« Reply #25 on: March 03, 2005, 10:20:22 PM »
Now you are getting really idiotic. I answer your question directly of comparsion between Fw190 and 109F4 done by a JG and published in a big shiny book and thats the best yu can do?  Ignore it and try to make a stupid joke?

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
More 109 goodness
« Reply #26 on: March 03, 2005, 10:25:20 PM »
Big Shiny Book.

Author and publisher please. Also quote directly from it giving the comparison.
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
More 109 goodness
« Reply #27 on: March 03, 2005, 10:27:48 PM »
Oops it was Jg26..

This is the offical LW report that was reprinted in the follwing big shiny offical book...

Quote from the publisher bookdescription on following webpage:  

"Book Description
This book deals with the development history and testing of this fighter aircraft and production of the early variants of the Fw 190 A. An interesting comparison between the Bf 109 and the Fw 190 shows the strengths and weaknesses of the two aircraft"



And now, The big shiny book:

http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=076431940X

The 109F4 190A2  JG26 comparsion report report quated in the book:

http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=23&L=1
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=23&L=1
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=25&L=1

You are now free to ignore it... Bad data, baaaaad...
« Last Edit: March 03, 2005, 10:36:17 PM by GRUNHERZ »

Offline ATA

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 555
More 109 goodness
« Reply #28 on: March 03, 2005, 10:48:27 PM »
I heard that p51 was good at high alt and not realy good at low,is that true?

Offline Glasses

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
More 109 goodness
« Reply #29 on: March 03, 2005, 10:58:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by ATA
I heard that p51 was good at high alt and not realy good at low,is that true?



NO the P-51 went Mach 2 climbed at 5k feet [er minute and last but not least could out turn a zero, and a bumblebee.

All in time top bring food to starving children in 3rd world countries.

:D