Bf 109F info

[Angus]

Holy-Moly, - went reading up, and found something.
190G. Available before the F. Sent to Tunisia (and USSR) already in Nov 1942. Unit in Tunisia was SG 2 based at Zarzoun.
I would suspect they had a juiced up engine. Anyway they had a strengthened UC and were able to carry a 1800 kg bomb. (4K cookie).
That was the 190G-1, - I do not know of other 190G variants.
Anyway, were these perhaps pressed into escort duties? Any more info on these units?

[MiloMorai]

Yes gripen, and Angus, like Barbi, Scholz has difficulty differentiating between the theoretical and what was actually carried by the 2 a/c on combat operations.

[Angus]

Do you have some data on the 190G?

[Angus]

Ahh, some crops on 190G:
"The "FW-190G" was a long-range Jabo variant, built in parallel with the F-series, and generally similar except for the deletion of cowling guns to decrease weight and extend range. In fact, the G-series actually entered production before the FW-190F, initially seeing action in North Africa at the end of 1942. Like the F-series, the G-series were basically equivalent to A-series aircraft fitted for the Schlacht role. The "G-1" was based on the A-4, while the "G-2" was based on the A-5. The "G-3" was bit more of a custom item, with an autopilot and a fuel injection system. The G-8 was based on the A-8. "

"The FW 190G-1 was a long range fighter-bomber variant based on the A-4 airframe and used the BMW 801D-2 engine. Internal armament was reduced to the cowl mounted MG and the 2-20mm cannon in the wing roots. The landing gear was strengthened to accommodate a heavier bomb load (up to 3,968 lbs.!) and the wings had provision for 66 gallon drop tanks. The JU 87 Stuka dive-bomber was rapidly becoming obsolete and the FW 190 was required to fill the gap. The G-2 and G-3 were similar to the G-1 with different rack configurations for underwing stores."


Looks to me like a bird one could easily push into escort duties over the med,  -in bad times.

[Knegel]

Hi,

we have an direct comparison between Fiat G55 and 109G4, and in this comparison the G55 was around 25km/h slower than the G4, climb was about the same.  A low wingload simply have its price. So the G55 without cannons had around the speed of the G4 with gunpods, but a better climb.

The 622km/h of the G55 in 7500m isnt that much at all, the 109G5 with gunpods came close to this already 1500m below.

The tactical comparison and complusion of the testers is rather clear documented.
The 109G4 and 190A5 had a better flight characteristic, while the G55 had was able to carry more guns inside the plane(than the 109) and the Db603 did fit. While the tested version couldnt carry bombs, the later version only had a similar bombload like the 109G. The testers found that the smaler wingoad of the G55 dont brought the expected result in high altitude, cause the less good powerload.

So what would the G56 have been be good for??  Since the FW190 Airframe seems to be better( 2 x 13mm, 4 x 20mm, or 2 x 20mm + 2 x 30mm + many loadout ), why wasting badly needed DB603s or Jumos for an other new airframe, where the flightperformence wasnt better(dont forget, also the G56 with 3 cannons and plating would have been more heavy)??

Only if the DB603 would have been available in 1943, the G56  would have been a solution for high alt tasks.

The Luftwaffe did need a real 4-Mot interceptor and the G56 for sure wasnt able to do this task, even the 190A7/8/9´s had trouble to bring them down and the pilot home at same time.

The two solutions to be successful and survive vs the escort fighters and tail gunners was 1. a overloaded piston engine fighter +  topcover and here the clean 109´s did perform very well, and 2. the Jets.

The piston engined fighters of all nations was on the top end of the possibilitys, against the overwhelming number of allied escort fighters, in combination with the tough 4-mots, even the Ta152H in big numbers wouldnt have made a different, the G55/56 for sure not. While the 262, available in early 44, or the slowly gathered 1000 109´s and 190´s, senceless wasted(250 pilots) while Bodenplatte, would have made a different.

Since the tests was made in early 43, i guess all DB605A´s did use 1,34ata, for the MC205n this is documented.

Greetings,

Knegel

[Angus]

A low wingload ONLY has a price with increased wing area. So an aircraft with a lower wingloading, if being structurally rigid, will have more upgrade possibilities before it stops flying. (added weight).
It stops maneuvering before it stops flying

[Viking]

Originally posted by Angus
I think he is roughly right Viking. One probably also has to include guns & ammo though. Or is it the difference between clean (dry) weight and max load?

I’m only thinking of externally carried stuff. On planes like these this is usually limited more by the size of the bomb/equipment and the placement of the hardpoints/pylons. Like on the 109G-2/R1 I showed you earlier, they had to fit a large “tail wheel” just aft of the wings (it fell off after take-off) just to fit the big 500 kg bomb under the fuselage.

Originally posted by Angus
I recall a 190 variant both being gunned up as well as carrying some cookie of impressive weight. Like 2 tonnes?

Yes a 1.8 ton bomb (as you mention later). Again this big bomb was not limited by its weight, but by its size. The 190G needed an extra tail wheel to fit the bomb under the fuselage (like the 109).

Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, the 190 carries more. I'll put my money on that being a structural issue rather than aerodynamic though.

Sure, but small planes with strong structures like the 109/190/Spitfire are more limited in what they can carry by their small size. It’s difficult to fit enough stuff on them to max out their load capacity. (This was less of a problem on the 190 than on the 109.)

Originally posted by Angus
And BTW, aces of the 109 lik Rall refer to the G series onwards as "too heavy". It was the F that was the true lady there....

I think this is more of a psychological effect on perception.  Here in Aces High I remember the luftwobbles were making a lot of noise after a patch. They all thought the LW planes had become slower/worse … However what had really happened was that some of the other planes had become better.

I think this is much the same thing that happened to the 109F and 109G. The 109F enjoyed superior performance to its opponents (also better pilot quality) in 1941, especially in Africa. The 109F and its pilots had it relatively easy. The 109G on the other hand struggled against its opponents; the allies had caught up in aircraft performance and pilot quality, and as the war dragged on the allies would enjoy a greater and greater superiority. This gives the impression (to the LW pilots) that the 109F was a “lady” while the 109G was a “dog”. What actually happened was that the allied aircraft went from “dog” to “lady”.

I’ve always thought the people saying “the F was the best 109” must be seriously deficient in their abilities for rational thought. If the F was better than the G the Luftwaffe would never have accepted the G. To think that an air force would use progressively worse and worse versions of a plane when they could just stick with the “good” one, is … well, dumb.

Originally posted by gripen
Thanks for your kind words...

My words were neither kind nor unkind. Also there was a typo in my post; it should say “who started this lie?” not “who stated this lie?”. No offence intended.

Originally posted by gripen
The G-2 (the G-4 in the test was nearly similar) weighed around 3050kg fully loaded with no external load, note that wing canons were actually carried externally and weight with these was around 3200kg. With 300l tank and wing canons weight was close to 3450kg (there is about 50kg variation depending on source and equipment).

The K-4 weighed around 3350kg fully loaded with no external load (around 3600 with 300l tank), with wing canons weight would had been around 3500kg and around 3750kg with 300l tank, note that wing cannons were rarely seen in the K-4 or G-10 but the 300l tank was very common (almost standard for certain missions).

I have already stated one source for the numbers I posted (http://www.adlertag.de). Also my book “Hitler’s Luftwaffe” states on the 109:

Empty weight: G-series: 2667 kg to 2800 kg. K: 2722 kg. A difference of 55 kg between the lightest G and the K.

Loaded weight: G-series: usually 3400 kg. K: usually 3375 kg. What “usually” means is not clarified, so these numbers are not very relevant, but I throw them out here anyways.

What’s your source?

And where do you think all the extra weight comes from? What makes the 109K-4 hundreds of kg’s heavier than the 109G-2? According to the Motorenmuster the difference in engine weight is only 40 kg. The gun package is about equal in weight (the K-4’s might even be lighter due to smaller ammo load). They have the same wings and fuselage with only minor changes. Fuel capacity is the same. The K-4 had the Erla hood and transparent Galland armour, but I don’t know if this weighed more than the early canopy and steel armour. Where does all the extra weight come from? Did the Luftwobbles get fatter?

Originally posted by gripen
You have shown experimental installation and note that in that case wing canons could not be carried. Basicly you take tidbits from here and there and combine these at most favorable way.

The 109G-2/R1 was not “experimental”, but a Rustsatz that was used operationally. Many units had a small number of R1 equipped 190G-2’s for special missions, and they were also used for anti-shipping duties in the Med and in Norway.

Here‘s the Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen for II./JG53. You’ll notice a small number of R1’s in 1942. In 1943 the 190 took over these roles.

EDIT: Lol, forgot the link: http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg53.html

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Yes gripen, and Angus, like Barbi, Scholz has difficulty differentiating between the theoretical and what was actually carried by the 2 a/c on combat operations.

Actually I have stated what was usually carried by the 109 in JaBo roles, and what could maximum be carried (and was carried in limited numbers) if the 190 hadn’t taken over the JaBo role. Also I have stated what the 190F/G usually carried, and what it could maximum carry (1.8 ton bomb). So I think I have shown that the 109’s max ~1000 kg external load was far from “next to nothing” compared to the 190’s max 1800 kg. Just like the Spitfire the 109 could and did carry an impressive amount of bombs compared to its small size until more suitable planes took over the ground attack role. I guess this won’t stop you from trolling though.

[MiloMorai]

Schultz, have joined Barbi's new board yet? That is the one where all the aryan supremacists hang out.

Typical load for the 109 was 250kg. Typical load for the 190 was 3-4 times that. Even the typical load for the Spit was 2 times what the 109 carried. Now you can keep trying all you want with your 'special' 109s but I still say it is next to nothing.

[Viking]

Say what you will troll boy ... it makes no difference. The truth is my shield.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Viking

Empty weight: G-series: 2667 kg to 2800 kg. K: 2722 kg. A difference of 55 kg between the lightest G and the K.

Loaded weight: G-series: usually 3400 kg. K: usually 3375 kg. What “usually” means is not clarified, so these numbers are not very relevant, but I throw them out here anyways.

What’s your source?

Large number various Mtt specsheet, FAF documentation on Bf 109G. "Lentäjän Näkökulma 2" etc. Besides even the Guidonia specsheet gives flying weight of the G-4 as 3092kg (the G-4 being slightly heavier than G-2).

Originally posted by Viking

And where do you think all the extra weight comes from? What makes the 109K-4 hundreds of kg’s heavier than the 109G-2?

Strenthtened and changed sructure (particularly wing around landing gear and thicker skin), wooden tail was heavier (needed tare weighs, 35kg in the G-6), additional and changed equipment (MW50, MK108, MG131s, radio, changed and strenghtened landing gear system), heavier engine + about endless list of smaller things...

Originally posted by Viking

The 109G-2/R1 was not “experimental”, but a Rustsatz that was used operationally. Many units had a small number of R1 equipped 190G-2’s for special missions, and they were also used for anti-shipping duties in the Med and in Norway.

No one has stated that the G-2/R1 was experimental but the installation of The SC 500 with additional wheel (the plane in picture is BD+GC, whic was one of the G-0s and later modified for test purposes). The G-2/R1 usually carried one EC 250 (250kg), besides, even in that form it was a rare bird.

Originally posted by Viking

Say what you will troll boy ... it makes no difference. The truth is my shield.

Well, I quess you mean "... selective truth is...".

[gatt]

Originally posted by TUXC
Assuming that a G.55 with an engine operating at 1.3ata could do 385mph at altitude (does anyone have test data for this or a speed chart?), I think it is safe to assume that with 1.42ata it could go about as fast as a 1943 Bf109g-6 (~395mph). So now you have a fighter with the same speed performance as a 109 but which was easier to fly, possibly had better high speed handling (is this documented anywhere), and had heavier internal armament than the Bf109g-6. Also, assuming the ability to fit it with a 30mm hub cannon and a MW-50 system, the G.55 now has the same performance potential as the 109g and k did. Notice we're doing a lot of assuming here?


Ok, now for some practical questions about a German G.55:

Hypothetically, if Germany did decide to switch over to the G.55, when would the version with the DB605A engine have entered service? Are we talking mid 1943 or mid 1944? Also, I'm not sure of the fuel tank arrangement, but would the internal configuration of the G.55 have allowed for a MW-50 system to be fitted? Without MW-50, the DB605 tops out at ~1450hp or so, and the G.55 does 385-400mph at 22000 with the DB605A or maybe 405-415 at 27000 with the DB605AS engine.


Presumably, had it been in German production, the high altitude DB605AS engines would have been fitted asap, or some kind of GM-1 system would have been investigated to give better altitude performance.  IMO a DB603 powered G.55 would never have materialized before 1945 at the earliest, but a Jumo 213A powered variant (same engine as the Fw190D) could have been a possibility assuming that there were enough Jumo 213s to go around. While we're speculating though, it is possible that a Ta152A (basically a Fw190D with slightly larger wings, cowl mounted 20mms, and a engine mounted 30mm) could have been in production by the time a Jumo powered G.55 was available. This all assumes that the Germans could afford to slow fighter production while waiting for factories to switch over to a new type, which they could not since they were fighting, and losing, a 2 (or 3 depending how you look at it) front war and had heavy bombers hitting their factories. Whoever was in charge just decided that they could not afford to have fewer fighters for several months, therefore Germany continued to build  Bf109s and Fw190s instead of G.55s and Ta152As.

Well, two prototypes of DB603A engined G.55s have been tested with excellent results. I mean 685Km/h at 7Km with a limited rate of 1.510cv at 2.500rpm. Time to 6Km was 5'45" at the same rate. It was a real beast, armed with 3x20mm cannons and 800rds (300+250+250).

So, I guess that the LW would have gone in that direction. Italy was not able to produce the DB603 due to the lack of right tools and plants but Germany probably still was during 1944.
Another problem was that the G.55 production required, IIRC, much more hours than a 109G.

[Knegel]

Originally posted by Angus
A low wingload ONLY has a price with increased wing area. So an aircraft with a lower wingloading, if being structurally rigid, will have more upgrade possibilities before it stops flying. (added weight).
It stops maneuvering before it stops flying

Hi Angus,

A low wingload always have its price. The Zero is one extreme example(light weight but no protection), the Hurri is another (bad powerload, bad drag load = slow, bad climb).

The G55 has a by far more big wing and more weight.
The upgrade possibility need at 1st a better engine, but the DB603 came a "bit" late.  The tactics of the late WWII airwar did lead to a more heavy wingload anyway. The 109K dont had a extraordinary wingload. The 190 and P38 was heavy wingloaded.
The G55 with increased weight due to more cannons was like the P40, a nice airframe, but to few power.

Greetings,

Knegel

[Angus]

Viking:

"Originally posted by Angus
And BTW, aces of the 109 lik Rall refer to the G series onwards as "too heavy". It was the F that was the true lady there....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think this is more of a psychological effect on perception"

Think what you think, but when it comes to a 275x killer a'la 109 that jumps straight from 109F to 109G, that is what he THOUGT.

And Knegel, if you lower wingloading within the same airframe and same power, the only thing you pay for is??????? Yes, - Diving.
The top speed will not be effected, the ROC, ROT, even Roll-rate, and also acceleration are all going to improve.

[Knegel]

Hi Viking,

i though you be a 109 expert, then you should known where the more weight of the K4 cmes from.

Already the G6 had around 100kg more weight than the G2. The big MG´s made much of this.

The K4´s T/O weight got increased much by the additional weight of the MW50 system and fuel(around 70kg MW509.

More big wheels and the 30mm also made some kg.

But as you say, the loadout wasnt that bad at all. It also could carry rocket tubes or wingguns and 4 x 50kg or 1 x 250kg.  
The 190F and G mainly took off with 1 x 250kg + 4 x 50kg or 1 x 500kg, thats by far not 3 - 4 times what the 109 did carry, in best case it was 2-3 times as much(500kg + 4 x 50kg).

btw. some british pilots also did like the flight character of the SpitIXc more than that of the Spit14, nevertheless the 14 was the better weapon, cause it was faster.  Same goes for the P51B vs P51D, early P47D vs late P47D, 190A4 vs 190A9 and A6M5 vs Ki61.
Regarding the bad "109G" Hermann Graf wrote that it is more rumor than anything else. He was very happy about the more power and he was a close in dogfighter.
Also the FAF pilots didnt complain that much.

Hi gatt,

at that time the FW190D9/ Ta152H, P51D, Spit8 , Spit14 , 109K and P47´s was faster up there.  Even the G14AS made 680km/h in 7500m.

The DB603 came to late anyway, even the 190 should get it as early as possible, but only in mid/end 1944 it got the Jumo213.  The FW190D12 made 700km/h + with the DB603E and it had 4 x 20mm.

The problem of the axis airforces was a missing DB603, Jumo213 or only DB605AM in mid/end 1943.  At that time the west allieds had a power advantage due to the Merlin66/67 and its brothers, resulting in an bad disadvantage for the axis inline engine powered planes.
Due to the missing power, the smalest available airframe was the only available solution to stay comporable.
In early/mid 44 (one year to late) the 109´s got what they needed and they was comporable again.


Greetings,

Knegel

[Knegel]

Originally posted by Angus

And Knegel, if you lower wingloading within the same airframe and same power, the only thing you pay for is??????? Yes, - Diving.
The top speed will not be effected, the ROC, ROT, even Roll-rate, and also acceleration are all going to improve.

Smaler struktural limit or pilot protection or less weapons/rounds is the price. To make that clear i took the Zero as example.

It depends to the situation if the changed highspeed dive and  E-managemant is good or bad.

The real Vmax in most cases will be better for the smaler wingloaded plane, but the more heavy plane will keep a speed above Vmax for a longer timespan. (this oly cause for exact the same aiframe).

Since we clearly talk about two very different airframes here, all this isnt very relevant here anyway.

Greetings,

Knegel