More 109 goodness

[TrueKill]

sounds just like the pony we have in the game

[Karnak]

Hmmm.

420mph is a little faster than I have read the Fw190A-2 was.  Not much, but a little.

Meyer,

It isn't that I don't like the evidence, it is that it does not match up with actual events.  Not even close.  GRUN and HoHun both picked on my Mossie comments (which I provided some backup for), but they didn't address why the Spitfire Mk V pilots would have seen the Fw190 as anything new when they were already facing an aircraft so far out of the Spitfire Mk V's league as to make the Foker Scourge seem mild.

Why didn't the Bf109F cause the Spitfire pilot's morale to plummet and even more, why did they feel the Spitfire Mk V actually had the advantage in a meeting of the two?  Then when the Fw190A shows up morale plummets.  It doesn't make sense because if the Bf109F can do 410mph the Fw190A doesn't really change anything at all.

I think the Bf109F had the edge on the Spitfire Mk V due to it's superior climb and speed, but I also think that it was a lot closer than the Fw190A was.

[HoHun]

Hi Karnak,

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

How about posting Mosquito data of the same quality than the Zeugmeister's Me 109F data?

>No, I'll stand by my position that the service Bf109Fs could not do 410mph.  

Then prove your position. Zeugmeister doesn't make a silly claim, but he has posted hard evidence. Where is yours?


Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Squire,

>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.

Pretty obvious:

1) Superior full throttle height
2) Superior radiator
3) Even cleaner lines

>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.

The Me 109E tops out at 572 km/h @ 5 km at 1020 HP. The Me 109F-4 achieves around 670 km/h @ 6.3 km at 1370 HP.

>Sorry, but somebodys physics do not add up.

Then do your own, like I did :-) You basic numbers are wrong, so I'm not surprised your conclusion is wrong, too.

>I can see an overboosted "speed trials" 109F-4 doing that speed, just like a Spitfire V, but not an operational fighter.

The boost is noted in the tests. No need for speculation.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Squire]

Interesting data. The 635 km/h quote from July of 1942 would give it @392 mph top which is the fastest figure I can find in any other source.

The author does not claim with any absolute certainty that the "standard" 109F-4 went faster than that, and both the LW and RAF/US data is somewhat contradictory.

Author-

"Still some important pieces of mosaic are missing in the chain of evidence. For the German sources these are the instruction or correspondence with the prohibition of use of the take-off/emergency power of the DB 601 E, as well as the instruction for the abolition of this prohibition."

"3) Even cleaner lines" Yes, seeing that the Spitfire had that big radial engine in it...

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Karnak
Hmmm.

420mph is a little faster than I have read the Fw190A-2 was.  Not much, but a little.

Meyer,

It isn't that I don't like the evidence, it is that it does not match up with actual events.  Not even close.  GRUN and HoHun both picked on my Mossie comments (which I provided some backup for), but they didn't address why the Spitfire Mk V pilots would have seen the Fw190 as anything new when they were already facing an aircraft so far out of the Spitfire Mk V's league as to make the Foker Scourge seem mild.

Why didn't the Bf109F cause the Spitfire pilot's morale to plummet and even more, why did they feel the Spitfire Mk V actually had the advantage in a meeting of the two?  Then when the Fw190A shows up morale plummets.  It doesn't make sense because if the Bf109F can do 410mph the Fw190A doesn't really change anything at all.

I think the Bf109F had the edge on the Spitfire Mk V due to it's superior climb and speed, but I also think that it was a lot closer than the Fw190A was.

High speed handling and manouverability, roll rate, visibilty, firepower, all those things favored the 190 over 109F and were very imortant aspects in combat. Remember whast they said about 190 , that it could outmanouver spit V in every way save the tight horizontal turn.  Heck even the 190A2 test which showed Bf109F4 to be faster at alt seems to prefer the 190 as a combat aircraft. JUst think what 190 was in 1941, a 4 20mm canno armed plane with unheard of high speed manouverability cominbg less than a year after the BOB. So even if the 109F was a 410mph plane as the data shows it does not neccesarily mean it could get as much out of that speed as the better handling and better armed 190 could...  Compare the P51 and the Bf109G10, the G10 is faster and climbs better at alt but the 51 is much easier to get kills in because of its flight charactersitics and gun setup.

[HoHun]

Hi Squire,

>"3) Even cleaner lines" Yes, seeing that the Spitfire had that big radial engine in it...

Oh, aerodynamics are that simple? Fantastic what you can learn from big shiny books! ;-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[straffo]

El stupido question what is cruise speed for  the 109F4 and the 190A3 ?

And fuel consumption and range for each ?

A contrario to AH max speed is not used from take off to landing IRL

[GRUNHERZ]

Off the top of my head 190 cruise speed is  noticably highrer than 109s, so yes it's another real life tactical advantage of 190A2 over the messerchmitt independant of the 109F4s high alt top speed advantage.

[straffo]

Ok so it's not improbable that the mossie were not caught just because they cruised faster and by the time a 109 increase her speed the mossie get out of range ?

At least for the tyffi it was often the case (when not caught jaboing)

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
The spit couldnt do negative turns until 1943

and more crap

INTRODUCTION

1. ..........On instructions from Headquarters, Fighter Command, a production Spitfire XII, No. EN.223, was collected from A & A.E.E., on 21st December 1942, for tactical trials.


[....]

3........... The Griffon III engine has two speed manually operated superchargers, giving full throttle heights at about 6,000 feet and 18,000 feet. It is fitted with a standard Claudel Hobsen carburettor and cuts fairly easily under negative acceleration forces. In the early models .45 reduction gear is fitted; later aircraft will have .511 reduction gear which will improve the rate of climb, especially at low altitude. The Coffman method of starting is employed. No automatic radiator shutter is at present fitted.

[....]

AFDU/3/21/3
5th June, 1943

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Karnak
Where can I get some of whatever they are smoking?

The Spitfire Mk I and Mk II and the Bf109E series were very comparable in roll, both in rate and stick forces.

They weren`t, the Emils roll rate was much better at lower speeds, and equally bad at higher speeds. But the emils stickforces were FAR lower - some 37lbs vs. 60 lbs iirc.

The Spitfire Mk V and up was markedly superior in roll to the Bf109 series. [/B]

Pure fiction. NACA`s report doesn`t show this. In fact, an article of recently restored Emil states it`s roll rate is 50% superior to the Spit V w. metal ailerons. The F/G/K rolled even better. Not particularly surprising, if you consider the aileron forces were rather light on the post-Emil 109, and excessive on all Spitfires.

 The P-51 series was markedly superior in roll to the Spitfire series.[/B]

That`s interesting, as if this correct, what would be the final conclusion if we add Mark Hanna`s notes :

"I like it as an aeroplane (the 109G), and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. "



But it`s only half correct. British reports praise the roll rate of the p51 over the Spitfire at high speeds.. but at the same time they mention the Spit`s advantage in roll rate at low speeds, where the p51 was rather poor (its aileron deflection angle was very low).

I think they've combined the best traits of all the German fighters into one super fighter, called it a 109, and proceeded to compare it to the Allied fighters.

I also noted that their fansite lists the Bf109G, in 1941, at 413mph.[/B]

Yes, that date is wrong, but 413mph is absolutely correct for the 109G or F-4 in 1942. In fact some high alt 109G variants were happily wentover 430mph at that time, with GM-1.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Kurfürst

INTRODUCTION

1. ..........On instructions from Headquarters, Fighter Command, a production Spitfire XII, No. EN.223, was collected from A & A.E.E., on 21st December 1942, for tactical trials.


[....]

3........... The Griffon III engine has two speed manually operated superchargers, giving full throttle heights at about 6,000 feet and 18,000 feet. It is fitted with a standard Claudel Hobsen carburettor and cuts fairly easily under negative acceleration forces. In the early models .45 reduction gear is fitted; later aircraft will have .511 reduction gear which will improve the rate of climb, especially at low altitude. The Coffman method of starting is employed. No automatic radiator shutter is at present fitted.

[....]

AFDU/3/21/3
5th June, 1943

We all know you are intellectually dishonest concerning spitfire  but using the shortcoming of a 100 batch and extend it to the whole 1943 spitifire is the worst you've made IMO.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Squire
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.

[/B]

Maybe because the 109F
a, has cleaner lines - just look at radiators, nose etc.
b, MUCH smaller - less drag
c, engine putting out more HP at altitude.


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

Why do many a/c book note the 109G as a 386mph plane, when REAL life tests give at 413mph plane? Maybe the books are wrong?


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.

There are such books, but you never read them.

"The FW 190 A-2 is not as fast as the Bf 109 F-4... etc" - qoute from trials between the two types in Rechlin, 10th December 1941...



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?

Perhaps because the E-4 didn`t need 1100 HP to reach 355mph, for reason a, 1100HP was a special WEP, speeds are listed for 990HP. reason b, the 601E had much better altitude output than the 601A.



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.

Spitfire was one of the most draggy fighters of the war - and MUCH larger size than the 109. Looky again on the radiators. They were bad enough on the MkV already. Smarty brits doubled them on the MkIX.



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.

Trouble is the 410mph figures is the official data used by the LW. For some odd reason, I trust the hard evidence over your denial.

[MiloMorai]

Personal attack