« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 ... 22   Go Down

Author Topic: Bf 109F info  (Read 14783 times)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Bf 109F info
« Reply #195 on: October 25, 2007, 09:52:54 AM »
Understand, - I said WITHIN THE SAME AIRFRAME AND POWER.

Apple to Apple. Any WW2 aircraft will perform better aerodynamically (with the exception of diving) if it is able to loose some weight.
(Say you dump some fuel, the radio and the armour, and cut down on the guns and ammo)

Kind of works like in AH with the different loadouts :D
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline TUXC

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
Bf 109F info
« Reply #196 on: October 25, 2007, 10:32:25 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by gatt
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.


Solid numbers. About the same as an early Fw190D. I was thinking the G.55 would need the later DB603E to get a top speed like that. For some reason I thought the DB603A had the same power output as the DB605A instead of a few hundred hp more. Do know the date of that test and have the original performance data for the DB603A powered G.55 by any chance?
Logged
Tuxc123

JG11

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Bf 109F info
« Reply #197 on: October 25, 2007, 03:07:48 PM »
DB 603...wasn't it used in a post-war 109?
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Meyer

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 156
Bf 109F info
« Reply #198 on: October 25, 2007, 03:56:30 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
DB 603...wasn't it used in a post-war 109?


No, guess you are thinking in the Avia S199 with the Jumo 211 http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/s199ng_1.html
Logged

Offline gatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
Bf 109F info
« Reply #199 on: October 25, 2007, 05:33:36 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by TUXC
Do know the date of that test and have the original performance data for the DB603A powered G.55 by any chance?


The sign you see on the lower right corner is from Ing. G.Gabrielli, chief Fiat designer and father of the G.55.

« Last Edit: October 25, 2007, 05:41:55 PM by gatt »
Logged
"And one of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi C.205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of italian styling and german engineering .... it really was a delight to fly ... and we did tests on it and were most impressed." - Captain Eric Brown

Offline TUXC

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
Bf 109F info
« Reply #200 on: October 25, 2007, 07:43:06 PM »
Good stuff gatt, thanks for sharing. The DB603 powered G.55 certainly would have been a formidable fighter had the production issues been worked before things were too desperate to risk disrupting 109 production.
Logged
Tuxc123

JG11

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Bf 109F info
« Reply #201 on: October 26, 2007, 04:15:51 AM »
Ah, Knegel, you posted while my reply was underway. (coffee break)
"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)."

You're referring to top level climb I presume?  Now the heavier aircraft will pay there slowly because of higher induced drag as well as weight.  Not sure what you mean with the timespan though, - in a zoom? Bear in mind that although a heavier aircraft pulls from a level flight at top speed into zoom, it will have lower top speed to begin with.

If you weight up the same airframe with same power, you will loose top speed as well as ROC. There is no magic there. And that's why aircraft designers always strive to have the aircraft as light as possible.

And Meyer, - yes, it was the Avia. How much different is the Jumo from the DB 603? And did DB 603 not fit the 109?

Anyway, this G55 looks like a naughty aicraft with lots of potential.
A triple cannon-pack centrally as well as ord and a top speed of 680 km/h with some nice characteristics......evil :t
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline gatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
Bf 109F info
« Reply #202 on: October 26, 2007, 07:02:28 AM »
Angus, the DB603 did not fit the 109 at all.

BTW, be careful guys, the DB605A engined G.55 its not the DB603A engined G.56.

The first was a decent 1943 fighter and a good hi-alt bombers interceptor, compared with the 190A and the 109G with pods.

The latter could have been an excellent 1944 fighter from all points of view.
Logged
"And one of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi C.205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of italian styling and german engineering .... it really was a delight to fly ... and we did tests on it and were most impressed." - Captain Eric Brown

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Bf 109F info
« Reply #203 on: October 26, 2007, 03:23:02 PM »
BRING IT TO AH!
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Meyer

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 156
Bf 109F info
« Reply #204 on: October 26, 2007, 05:09:28 PM »
AFAIK they never put a Db 603 in the 109, but I'm not so sure that they couldn't.

The 603 was slightly bulkier and about 25cm longer. Let's not forget that there were prototypes with BMW801 and Jumo 213. The Jumo 213 was longer than the 605, but shorter compared to the 603. How good would be that marriage is another thing.

To make it short: Bf 109 + DB603= Me 209 :)

Of course, the Fiat was more "603 ready" than the 109.


About the late 109 versions not carrying gondolas: I don't think that has something to do with structural problems, but another issues. The fight was a lot harder to the Lw pilots in late 44/45, than 1 year before, and also I don't think that the G-6/U4 used much the Rustsatze VI...there's less need of gondolas in the Mk108 armed 109s.
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Bf 109F info
« Reply #205 on: October 26, 2007, 05:24:00 PM »
Weights and HP's?
I read somewhere that the AVIA had torque problems. Why so, if it's just a question of HP? Was it an engine torque issue together with the propeller, - was the HP max reached at another RPM?

(just too lazy to look it up :D)
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Bf 109F info
« Reply #206 on: October 27, 2007, 03:05:03 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Meyer

About the late 109 versions not carrying gondolas: I don't think that has something to do with structural problems, but another issues. The fight was a lot harder to the Lw pilots in late 44/45, than 1 year before, and also I don't think that the G-6/U4 used much the Rustsatze VI...there's less need of gondolas in the Mk108 armed 109s.


The G-14s (basicly same as G-6) did carry wing canons more or less regularly. However, it's difficult to say when a G-14 (or G-6) has the MG151 or the the MK108.
Logged

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Bf 109F info
« Reply #207 on: October 27, 2007, 07:05:48 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by gripen
The G-14s (basicly same as G-6) did carry wing canons more or less regularly.


Hmm...everything that I have read suggests that wing cannons were VERY rare in G-14s.
Logged
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
Bf 109F info
« Reply #208 on: October 27, 2007, 11:37:50 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Knegel
Hi Viking,

i though you be a 109 expert...


Lol me? Hardly. I'm just an amateur plane geek. Don't have time for more. :)
Logged

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Bf 109F info
« Reply #209 on: October 27, 2007, 04:44:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Wmaker
Hmm...everything that I have read suggests that wing cannons were VERY rare in G-14s.


I could dig up at least couple pictures of the G-14s with wing canons but that does tell how common these were. However, there is very little difference between the G-6 and the G-14 (without MW50) so I don't see any particular reason why those should have been very rare in the G-14s. Even with MW50 the G-14 was about 100kg lighter than the K-4 (or G-10) and about 200kg without MW50. After all the G-14 was just an (failed) attempt to standardize the production of the G-6 based airframes.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 ... 22   Go Up
« previous next »