# Messerschmitt Bf.109 Performance Chronology



## CORSNING (Jun 7, 2014)

*MESSERSCHMITT Bf 109 TIMELINE* (Quick Reference updated 20 May 2021)

*Bf 109 V1* WerkNr.758, D-IABI: 1st flight *28 May 1935* piloted by Hans-Dietrich Knoetzsch.
Engine: Rolls-Royce Kestrel IIS 583ps/3,000rpm/3,850m., 532ps/2,300rpm/continuous.
Take-off weight: 1,800 kg. Not operational.

*Bf 109 V2* WerkNr.759, D-IILU : 1st flight *12 December 1935* piloted by Joachim von Koppen.
Engine: Jumo 210A 680ps. Not operational.

*Bf 109 V3 *WerkNr.760, D-IOQYZ (*Bf 109A prototype*): 1st fight* 8 April 1936. *Equipped with
a new Telefunken FuG VII short-wave radio. Shipped to VJ/88 Spain *October 1936.
*Engine: Jumo 210C ~700 hp./T.O., Armament: 2 x 7.92mm MG 17/500rpg.

*Bf 109 V4 *WerkNr.878, D-IALY* (Bf 109B prototype)*: 1st flight *23 September 1936* piloted by
Dr. Hermann Wurster. Engine: Jumo 210B. Went to Spain *30 November 1936.*

*Bf 109V6 WerkNr.880*: 1st flight *11 November 1936.* Engine: Jumo 210D. Operational in Spain
(Legion Condor) starting *December 1936.*

*Bf 109A*: 19 delivered Jan.-Mar.1937, WNr.808, 809, 810, 883, 884, 994, 995, 996, 997, 1000, 1001,
1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009. Engine: Jumo A or D @ 2,700 rpm.(5min.):
680ps/T.O.&S.L., 640ps/2.7km., 500ps/4.5km., 406ps/6km. Armament: 2 x 7.9 mm.
15 Bf 109A went to Spain in the* spring of 1937.*

*Bf 109B-1*: 1st production May 1937. Operational: *July 6, 1937*, 2./J 88, Engine: Jumo 210D .
Armament: 2 x MG 17, 7.92mm/500rpg synchronized + 1 x 7.92mm/600rds thru prop.
hub. This gun had a tendency to jam and was often removed.

*Bf 109 V8 *WerkNr.882: 1st flight *29 December 1936* with a Jumo 210D & 2-blade VDM variable-
pitch prop. "It is possible that at Rechlin in 1937 the V8 was fitted with the only *DB 600 *
used by a Bf 109. D-IMQE. Not operational.

*Bf 109C-1*: 58 built, Operational *July 1938 *Legion Condor 3./J 88. Jumo 210Ga: 700 PS/T.O. 730 PS/3,280 ft. 675 PS/12,500 ft. Armament 2 x MG 17/7.92mm cowl + 2 x MG 17 in wings.

*Bf 109D-1*: Operational *Aug. 1938* Legion Condor I./JG 130. Engine: Jumo 210D. Armament: 4 x MG
17, same as C-1.

*Bf 109 V15* WerkNr.1773 (*Bf 109E prototype*): 1st flight 18 December 1937 piloted by Dr. Hermann
Wurster. Engine DB 601A Nr.148 fuel-injected, single-stage supercharger, 1,100ps/T.O. & up to
2,700 m.

*Bf 109E-0*: Ten pre-production aircraft went through acceptance trials in the second half of 1938.
WerkNr. 1781 thru 1790. Armament: 4 x MG 17 7.92mm. Engine: DB 601A

*Bf 109 E-1 *WerkNr.1791, D-IQCP: 1st flight *16 November 1938* piloted by Helmut Kaden.
Engine: DB 601A. Armament 2 x MG 17 + 2 x MG 17, same as C-1

*Bf 109E-1*: Operational *Feb. 1939,* J 88. Engine: DB 601A: 1,100 PS/T.O., 1,150 PS/1,250 m. @ 1.40 ata/2,400 rpm/1 minute. 1,050 PS/1,600 m., 1,020 PS/4,500 m. @ 1.3 ata/2,400 rpm for 5 minutes. 960 PS/5,000 m./1.23 ata/2,400 rpm. 890 PS/5,700 m. Armament: 4 x MG 17 7.9mm.

*11/14/40*: 2,600 rpm over 5,500 m. was permitted and Bf 109E now had automatic airscrew pitch changing.

*7/25/41*: 2,800 rpm possible with automatic rpm control.

*Bf 109E-1/B*: Operational *July 1940*, 110 fighter-bomber examples built. Erprobungsgruppe 210, 3. Staffel...DB 601A-1

*Bf 109E-2*: Did not enter production.

*Bf 109E-3*: Operational* Dec. 1939*, III./JG 77. Engine: DB 601A. Armament: 2 x MG 17 cowl/500 or
1000 rpg.+ 2 x MG FF/20 mm/60 rpg.

*W.G. page 542*: The general consensus among RAF pilots who had an opportunity to evaluate the
Bf 109E-3 in flight was that it provided a formidable opponent to be treated with respect. Its
excellent handling and response at low and medium speeds, good climb angle, gentle stall, lack
of any tendency to spin, short take-off run and draught-free canopy opening were commended.

*Optional for Bf.109E*: .....Date?......DB 601Aa: 1,175 PS ( 1,159 hp.)/T.O./2,500 rpm./1 minute, 1,100 PS/3,700 m./2,400 rpm/5 minutes., 1,050 PS/4,100 m./2,400 rpm/30 minutes., 880 PS/4,500 m./2,400 rpm.

In *1939* the Daimler-Benz *DB 601N *entered production: @ 1.35 ata/2,600 rpm for 5 minutes &
using *C3 fuel*: 1,175 ps/T.O., 1,255 ps/2,100 m., 1,175 ps/4,900 m.

*Bf 109E-4*: Operational in the *Summer 1940* with strengthened canopy framing and armored
head rest. Engine: DB 601A. Armament: 2 x MG 17 + 2 x MG FF.

*Bf 109E-4/B*: E-4 fighter-bomber with ETC 500 / 250 kg bomb. Engine: DB 601Aa.

*Bf 109E-4/trop:* E-4 with tropical gear & sand filter.

*Bf 109E-4/N:* E-4 with DB 601N engine.

*Bf 109E-4/BN*: E-4 fighter-bomber with DB 601N engine.

*August 1940*: The remaining Bf 109E-1s in service were converted to E-4 or E-7 standards with
the DB 601N and heavier armament.

*Bf 109E-5*: Operational* April 20, 1941*, I./JG 27. Engine: DB 601A. Tactical reconnaissance aircraft.
The radio was replaced with a Rb 21/18 camera. Armament: 2 x MG 17 + 2 x MG FF.

*Bf 109E-6/N*: Tactical reconnaissance aircraft with two Hk 12.5/7 motorized cameras.
Engine: DB 601N. Armament: 2 x MG 17 + 2 x MG FF.

*Bf 109E-7/Z*: Operational *late August 1940*. Engine: DB 601A. First nitrous oxide (GM-1) boosted.
Armament: 2 x MG 17 + 2 x MG FF.

*Bf 109E-7/N:* E-7 with DB 601N engine.

*Bf 109E-7/NZ*: Engine DB 601N with GM-1 which could boost hp by 250-280 hp over 6,500 m.

*Bf 109E-7/B*: Extended range fighter/fighter-bomber with 300 liter drop tank or ETC 500 bomb rack.

*Bf 109E-7/U2*: E-7 ground attack aircraft with added armor.

*Bf 109E-8: *Operational *Autumn 1940.* Engine: DB 601A or Aa. Armament: 2 x MG 17 + 2 x MG FF.

*Bf 109E-9:* Operational *Autumn 1940*. Reconnaissance version with a Rb 50/30 high altitude
camera. Engine: DB 601A or Aa. Armament: 2 x MG 17 + 2 x MG FF.

*Bf 109E/Tropica*l: 50 Bf 109Es were modified with sand filtersand sent to I/JG 27. Standard tropical
equipment included a Kar98K carbine attached to the left interior wall of the aft fuselage
and a sun umbrella to prevent cockpit overheating when the A/C is in the take-off position.
Armament: 2 x MG 17 + 2 x MG FF.

*Bf 109T-2*: Entered service in *June 1941* with I./JG 77. Engine: DB 601N. Armament: 2 x MG 17/
1000 rpg + 2 x MG FF/ 60 rpg.

*Bf 109F-0*: Entered service *October 1940* DB 601N: 1,175 PS/T.O. Armament 2 x MG 17 +
2 x MG FF/M 20 mm. 360 degree turn at 1,000 m. completed in 18 seconds. 10 built.
WerkNr. 5605-5620.

The *DB 601N* in the *Bf 109F-1/-2 *had a* new supercharger* that allowed 1.42 ata for 3 minutes: 1,250 PS/4,900 m.

*Bf 109F-1*: Operational *October 1940* with Stab/JG 51. Engine: DB 601N. 208 produced.
Larger supercharger air intake. Armament: 2 x MG 17 + 1 x MG FF/M

*Bf 109F-2*: Operational *March 1941* with JG 2. Engine: DB 601N. Armament: 2 x MG 17
+ 1 x MG 151/15 mm. ~1,380 produced.

*Bf 109F-2/B*: Fighter-bomber version with ETC 250 bomb rack. Armament: 2 x MG 17 +
1 x MG 151/15 mm.

*Bf 109F-2/Z*: *18 September 1941 *specifications, none built.

*Bf 109F-2/Tropica*l: Operational *June 1941. *Bf 109F-2 retrofitted with tropical equiment &
filter.

*Bf 109F-2/U1:* Test machines and one modified for Obstlt. Galland, Stab/JG 26, *autumn 1941.*
Engine: DB 601N. Armament: 2 x MG 131/13mm + 1 MG 151/15mm.

*Bf 109F-3*: Operational* June 1941*. Engine; DB 601E. Armament: 2 x MG 17 + 1 x MG FF/M 20mm.

*Bf 109F-4*: Operational* June 1941*. Engine: DB 601E @ 1.3 ata: 1,200 PS/T.O., 1,280 PS/2,100-
3,400 m., 1,050 PS/6,000 m./*B4 87 octane fuel*. Armament: 2 x MG 17 + 1 x MG 151 20mm.

*January 1942*: The DB 601E in the Bf 109F-3/-4 was cleared for 1.42 ata: 1,350 PS/T.O.,
1,440 PS/2,100 m., 1,325 PS/4,800 m., 1.30 ata: 1,050 PS/6,000 m./B4 87 octane fuel.

*Bf 109F-4/B*: Fighter-bomber with one ETC 250 & 250 kg. bomb or four ER 4 adaptor
with four 50 kg. bombs.

*Bf 109F-4/Z*: Operational *October 1941* with GM-1 (Nitrous Oxide) was added to the DB 601E.

*Bf 109F-4/trop:* Operationl April 1942 with II./JG 3. Standard F-4 armament.

*Bf 109F-4/R1*: Operational* May 1942* with I./JG 52. Two under wing gondolas containing a MG 151 20mm/120 rpg. Engine: DB 601E Total armament 2 x MG 17/7.9mm/500 rpg, 1 x MG 151/
20mm/150 rds. & 2 x MG 151/20mm/120 rpg.

*Bf 109F-4/R2*: F-4 photo-reconnaissance aircraft with Rb 20/30 camera, no radio.

*Bf 109F-4/R3*: Photo-reconnaissance aircraft with Rb 50/30 camera and standard armament.
Engine: DB 601E. Armament 2 x MG 17 + 1 x MG 151.

*Bf 109F-4/R6*: ETC 250 for 295 liter drop tank or SC 250 bomb or ER 4 adaptor for four SC 50 bombs.
Standard armament.

*Bf 109F-5*: A single F-5 was built by Wiener Neustadter Flugzagwerke.

*Bf 109F-6*: Reconnaissance version of converted Bf 109F-4. Prototype only.

*Bf 109G-0*: The first three were completed in* October 1941 *at the Messerschmitt Regensburg
plant, WerkNr.14001, 14002 & 14003. Engine: DB 601E. Twelve built.

*Bf 109G-1*: Light fighter operational* June1942 *with 11./JG 2 & I/JG 2. EngineL DB 605A/B4:
2,800 rpm/1.42 ata: 1,475 PS/T.O. 1,355 PS/5,700 m., GM-1: 1,270 PS/27,890 ft. 167 G-1s built, WerkNr.10299-10318 & 14004-140150. The G-1 was equipped with a pressurized cockpit.
Armament: 2 x MG 17 + 1 x MG 151/20 (standard Bf 109F-4).

*NOTE:* Emergency power of 1.42 ata / 2,800 rpm on the DB 605A was banned in* June 1942, July 1942,* *October 1942* then again in *June 1943, October 1943 *and at least once again in *February 1944.*
DB 605A @ 1.3 ata and 2,600 rpm: 1,310 PS/S.L., 1,250 PS/5,800 m.

*Bf 109G-1/R2*: The last 80 G-1s were lightened high altitude fighters. Eliminated were the pilot's back
armor and all the equipment associated with the long range fuel tank. Engine: DB 601A with GM-1.
Standard armament plus ETC 50 VII d.

*Bf 109G-1/U2:* Same as G-1/R2 but with GM-1. Normal take-off weight: 2,600 kg.

*Bf 109G-2*: Light fighter operational *June 1942 *with I./JG 2. Engine DB 605A-1. No pressurization
of the cockpit. Armament: 2 x MG 17/7.9mm/500 rpg. + 2 x MG 151/20mm/60 rpg
(standard armament). 1,587 aircraft built.

*Bf 109G-2/trop: *G-2 with tropical gear & sand filter.

*Bf 109G-2/R-1: *Extended range fighter-bomber with 2 x 300 liter wing drop tanks, a center-line
ETC for one 500 kg. bomb and an under fuselage auxiliary under carriage member.

*Bf 109G-2/R2:* Reconnaissance aircraft with Rb 50/30 camera and standard armament & GM-1.

*Bf 109G-2/R3*: Long-range fighter. ( 2 x 300 liter under wing drop tanks).

*Bf 109G-2/R6:* Standard engine and armament plus 2 x MG 151/20 underwing gondolas.

*Bf 109G-3*: Light fighter operational *March 1943 *as a high altitude fighter with 11./JG 26,
11./JG 2 & I./JG 1. Engine: DB 605A-1. Armament: 1 x MG 151/20 + 2 x MG 17. Fifty G-3s built, WerkNr.16251-16300.

*Bf.109G-4:* Operational *November 1942 *with III./JG 53. G-3 standard engine & armament.
1,242 aircraft built.

*Bf 109G-4/trop:* G-4 with tropical gear & sand filter.

*Bf 109G-4/R2:* Reconnaissance fighter with Rb 50/30 camera, standard engine & armament

*Bf 109G-4/R3:* Reconnaissance aircraft with Rb 50/30, Engine DB 601A. Armament: 1 x MG 151/20.
2 X 300 liter drop tanks & additional 15-1 oil tank.

*Bf 109G-4/R4:* Reconnaisance aircraft with Rb 75/30 camera.

*Bf 109G-4/R8*: Reconnaissance aircraft with Rb 50/30 or 75/30 camera.

*Bf 109G-4/U1*: Light fighter with P6 braking propeller, steerable tailwheel, DB 601A.
Armament: 2 x MG 17 + MG 151/20.

*Bf 109G-4/U3:* Tactical reconnaissance aircraft with 2 x Rb 12.5/7x9 cameras & no armament.
Engine: DB 601A.

*Bf 109G-4 y:* G-4 with GuG 16zy unit leader control radio.

*Bf 109G-5*: Operational *September 1943* with pressurized cockpit. Converted from the G-6.
Engine: DB 605A. Armament: 2 x MG 131/13mm/300 rpg. + MG 151/20mm/150 rds. 475 built.

*Bf 109G-5 Y: *A few standard G-5s were fitted with GuG 16zy radio equipment.

*Bf 109G-5/U2*: DB 605A with GM-1 field modification. Armament: 2 x MG 131 + MG 151 (Std.).

*Bf 109G-5/U2/R2*: G-5/U2 with GM-1 boost.

*Bf 109G-5/AS:* Earla's Antwerp plant retrofitted 76 G-5s with DB 605AS engines. Armament: Std.

*Bf 109G-5/R2/AS:*. Antwerp retrofitted DB 605AS/2,800 rpm/1.42 ata/B4: 1,435 PS/T.O./5 minutes., 1,200 PS/8,000 m. 100 G-5 converted. Armament: Std.

*Bf 109G-6:* Operational *February 1943 *with JG 53 & JG 77DB 605A: 1,475 PS/T.O. 1,355 PS/18,700 ft. GM-1: 1,250 PS/28,900 ft. Armament: 2 x MG 131/13 mm/300 rds. + MG 151/20mm/150 rds.12,000+ G-6s built.

*Bf 109G-6/trop:* Standard equipment plus tropical equipment and sand filter added.

*Bf 109G-6 Y: *Operational *May 1943.* DB 605A. Armament 2 x MG 131 + MG 151/20. Some G-6s received
GuG 16zy radio equipment intended to allow the unit leader control of a unit by radio.

*Bf 109G-6 ZE*: Bf 109G-6 Y equipped with a FuG 16EZ radio insted of the GuG 16zy.

*Bf 109G-6/R1*: Fighter-bomber with ETC 500 IXb bomb rack. Engine: DB 605A. Armament: 2 x MG 131 +
MG 151/20 + one SC or SD 250 kg. bomb.

*Bf 109G-6/R2: *Radinger & Otto plus Prien & Rodeike list as reconnaisance aircraft, Rb 50/30 & no guns.
*Most older reference listing: *Bomber-destroyer armed with two 210 mm Wfr.Gr. 21 Dodel Rockets underwing (mortars). DB 605A. 2 x MG 131 + MG 151/20.

*Bf 109G-6/R3:* Reconnaisance aircraft with 300 liter drop tank & Rb 75/30 camera. DB 605A & standard armament.

*Bf 109G-6/R4:* Heavy fighter: DB 605A. Armament: 2 x MG 131 + MG 151/20 + 2 x MG 151/30 (gondolas).

*Bf 109G-6/R6*: Heavy fighter: DB 605A. Armament: 2 x MG 131 + MG 151/20 + 2 x MG 151/20 (gondolas).

*Bf 109G-6/R7:* Production started *August 1943.* A Peilrufanlage radio navigation aid with directional loop
was installed at the factory. DB 605A. Armament: 2 x MG 131 + MG 151/20.

*Bf 109G-6/U1:* Light fighter with P6 braking propeller & steerable tailweel. DB 605A. Armament:
2 x MG 131 + MG 151/20.

*Note: September 1943 *the pilots head armor was replaced with bullet proof glass (Galland-Panzer).

*Note: December 1943* a new canopy was introduced improving vision (Erla-Haube).
(Misnomer: Galland Hood).

*Bf 109G-6/U2*: Operational Spring 1944. Engine: DB 605A / GM-1: 1,475 PS/T.O. (1,600 PS/19,685 ft. ?). Later changing from GM-1 to MW-50 using compressed air bottles to supercharger.

*Bf 109G-6/U3:* Tactical reconnaissance aircraft without pressurized cockpit. Engine: DB 605A retrofitted
with MW 50. Armament: 2 x MG 131 + 1 x MG 151/20. 2 x Rb 12.5/7x9 cameras.

*Bf 109G-6/U4: *Operational in the* summer 1943. *DB 605A with GM-1. Armament: 2 x MG
131/13mm/300 rpg. + MK 108/30mm/60 rds.

*Bf 109G-6/U4N: After 16 March 1944* employed for a brief period by one of two Gruppen of NJG 11.
Night-fighter with exhaust flame dampeners & anti-glare shields. Fitted with FuG 350 Naxos radar. Armament: 2 x MG 131 + MK 108 motor cannon + 2 x MG 151/20 under wings.

*Bf 109G-6/N:* Night fighter with two MG 151/20 underwing gondolas.

*Bf 109G-6/U5*: Bf 109G-6/U4 converted back to using a MG 151/20 motor cannon & 2 wing mounted
MK 108 in gondolas.

*Bf 109G-6/U6:* DB 605A. Armament: 3 x MK 108 cannon. Only test aircraft, no production aircraft
known of.

*Bf 109G-6 y: *G-6 with GuG 16zy unit leader radio.

*Bf 109G-6/AS y*: High altitude G-6 with GuG 16zy and DB 605AS engine.

*Bf 109G-6/AS*: Operational May 1944 with II./JG 1, I./JG 5 & II./JG 27. Engine: High altitude DB 605AS:
1,425 PS/T.O. Propeller: VDM 9-12159 broad blades. Larger fin and rudder. Erla-Haube canopy.
686 aircraft built: 237 G-6/AS, 153 G-6/U4/AS, 273 G-6/U2/AS & 23 G-6/U2/R2/AS.

*Bf 109G-8: *Short-range reconnaissance aircraft. Operational *November 1943*. Engine: DB 605A.
Armament: None. Camera: Rb 50/30. Radio: FuG 17. 167 G-8 aircraft built.

*Bf 109G-8/U2*: G-8 with GM-1 boost.

*Bf 109G-8/U3:* G-8 with MW 50 boost.

*Bf 109G-8/R5*: Same as G-8 except Radio: FuG 16 ZS. 739 G-8/R5 built.

*Bf 109G-8/R6:* G-8 with two MG 151/20 cannon in underwing gondolas.

*Bf 109G-10:* Operational *September 1944*. DB 605DM, DB 605DC or DB 605DB/DC
About 2,600 G-10 aircraft built.

*Bf 109G-10/AS: *G-10 with DB 605AS engine.

*Bf 109G-10/R1:* G-10 with an ETC 500 IXb bomb rack.

*Bf 109G-10/R2:* G-10 photo-reconnaissance aircraft (Rb 50/30 camera).

*Bf 109G-10/R3:* G-10 with a 300 liter centerline tank.

*Bf 109G-10/R5: *G-10 with two MG 151/20 underwing gondolas.

*Bf 109G-10/R6:* G-10 with PKS-12 semi-auto pilot, providing automatic control for the rudder
only. Ailerons & elevators remained manually controlled.

*Bf 109G-10/R7*: G-10 with two underwing 210 mm rocket tubes.

*Bf 109G-10/U4: *G-10 with MK 108 motor cannon.

*Bf 109G-12*: Operational *March 1944.* Two seat training aircraft. Internal fuel capacity reduced
from 400 to 240 liters. 300 liter drop tank often fitted. Most had one or both fuselage MG 131s.
170 were converted from G-2, G-3, G-4 & G-6s by June 1944. 500 were planned to be built.

*Bf 109G-14*:. Operational summer 1944. Engine: DB 605A + MW 50= DB 605AM. Armament:
2 x 131 + MG 151/20. The Erla-Haube canopy was standard. About 5,500-6,500 G-14s built.

*Bf 109G-14/AS*: DB 605AS with an upgraded Fo 987 oiler cooler.

*Bf 109G-14/R3*: G-14 with 300 liter center line fuel tank.

*Bf 109G-14/R6: *G-14 with two MG 151/20 underwing gondolas.

*Bf 109G-14/U4: *G-14 with MK 108/30mm motor cannon replacing the MG 151/20.

*Note: *Bf 109G 14s with FuG 16ZY radio equipment were designated *G-14 y or G-14/AS y.*

*Bf 109G-16: *No production documents known. However, 2./NJG 11 reported the loss of a
Bf 109G-16 WerkNr.87735 on *24 October 1944* and 6./Flug 1 reported the loss of a Bf 109G-16
WerkNr.785889 on 31 January 1945.

*Bf 109K-4*: Operational October 1944 with II./JG 27. Engine: DB 605D 1,800ps. Armament:
2 x MG 131/13mm/300 rpg. + MK 108/30mm/65 rds.

*Bf 109K-4/AS: *Some early series K-4s retained the DB 605AS engine.

*Bf 109K-4/R1:* K-4 with a centerline ETC 500 IXb or Schloss 503

*Bf 109K-4/R2*: K-4 fitted with a Rb 50/30 camera behind the cockpit.

*Bf 109K-4/R3*: K-4 fitted to carry a 300 liter drop tank.

*Bf 109K-4/R4:* K-4 with two MG 151/20 underwing gondolas.

*Bf 109K-4/R5:* K-4 with provisions for two Rb 12.5/7x9 or two Rb 32/7x9 cameras.

*Bf 109K-4/R6:* K-4 with a BSK 16 gun camera in the port wing.

*Bf 109K-6*: Not known if reached production. At least one test aircraft and probably more.
Engine DB 605D. Armament: 2 x MG 131/13/300 rpg. + MK 108/30/65 motor cannon +
2 wing installed MK 108/30.

*Bf 109K-14: *Operational *late 1945 *with II./JG 52, Two aircraft under Major Wilhelm Blatz
Engine: DB 605L using C3 fuel and MW 50: 1,700 ps/T.O., 1,725 ps (1,701 hp)/1,495 m.,
1,350 ps (1,332 hp)/9,570 m.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 7, 2014)

Looking forward to see your work, Jeff 

The deliveries of the Bf 109F-4 to service units begun in June 1941 (1st loss on July 1st 1941), the F-3 was delivered a tad earlier. The 1st G-6 with Db-605AS engine (=Bf-109G-6/AS) was delivered to the units in 'late spring of 1944). The 1st 'plain vanilla' G-6s were delivered as early as February 1943 in MTO, 1st loss on March 4th 1943, engine DB-605A. The 1st DB-605D engines became available in late 1944?


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 7, 2014)

Tomo,
Great to here from you. Your post reminded me to put references in my first post. What is (are) your references for the information in your post? Does your reference(s) list the service units that became operational first with each of those models?

I know that I listed delivery dates of some of the versions, but I am ultimately trying to list the date that they first became fully operational and ready for combat. I would also like to be able to list the engine and boost/horse power used along with any dates that the boost was changed.



Thank you for the information, Jeff


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 7, 2014)

I've browsed through the book about the Bf-109 F, G and K variants, by Prien and Rodeike - sorry for not stating it in the above post. The book also lists the units that used the sub-types, but often those dates are not stated.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 7, 2014)

I have read that the first fighter bomber was the E-7 with earlier aircraft (E-4) being retro fitted. 

Some Jumo 210 engines fitted to the pre "E" versions were fitted with fuel injection.


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 8, 2014)

I applaud you for doing something sadly overly neglected in "history" which is to introduce dates. Without dates most facts are factoids. I blame literary and social critics who have found it convenient to ignore such matters in schooling and diluted a sense of this.

I will try and help latter but might I add the following advice and criticism.

Several critical sub types have been missed.

1 The Me 109E4/N and Me 109E7/N which had the DB601N engine. They were only build in small numbers as a stop gap while the Me 109F-0 was debugged into the Me 109F-1 but came at the end of the BoB and had little impact.
2 The introduction of the types should try and note which engines were fitted. In some cases a type may have had several engines and if possible the key dates the engine was released for certain boost levels. 
3 Types before the Bf 109E had the Jumo 210 engine.
4 A few E1/B could carry a bomb.

Key sub types missing are as follows:
Me 109G5AS and Me 109G6AS which had the DB601AS engine with a larger supercharger that increased the full throttle height. (the G5 had cabin pressurization)

Me 109G6AM which had the DB601AM engine with water methanol injection (MW30 or MW50). This increase power from 1420 to 1700+

Me 109G6AM which had the DB601ASM engine with water methanol injection (MW30 or MW50). This increase power from 1420 to 1800.

Rodeike and Prien's book on the Me 109F/G/K is invaluable as a resource due to its listing of all subtypes, variants and serial numbers.
All the above were flying their first missions in March/April 1944. The authors usually note first combat losses, a sure sign the aircraft is in full use.

The above were standardized as the Me 109G14A and Me 109G14AS (always with MW50) from June 1944, the normal evidence being an enlarged oil cooler.

Me 109G10's always had the DB605DM, DCM DB/DC engine which is essentially similar to the ASM versions but purpose built rather than modified.

ME 109K4 had the same engines, they can be told apart by their extended retractable tail, which was re-introduced. The K4 actually entered service a month before the G10 in October rather than November 1945.

The Me 109K14 had the DB605L engine which had a two stage supercharger and a much higher critical altitude. The two that were delivered may or may not have had the 4 bladed props. One would also note an enlarged ovoid air intake to allow for the higher flows of air at high altitude.

G10 usually had the extended tail yoke that ameliorated the ground looping problem but this was often fitted to G14 and G6 as well.

Mention should also be made of the introduction ERLA hood which improved visibility as well as the Galland hood which in conjunction with the ERLA hood replaced the pilots head armour with a wall of bullet proof glass to improve the Me 109's poor rearward visibility.

The enlarged, taller tail tail was also fitted with a balance tab rather than a horn balance which greatly increased dive mach.


----------



## Aozora (Jun 8, 2014)

According to  Michulec  and Prien Rodeike the first 109Fs entered service in October 1940 with I./JG 51; Major Werner Mölders was one of the first recipients, flying an F-1 _Stammkennzeichen_ SG + GW; the first F-1 that went MIA was WNr. 5635 (Oblt George Claus) 11 November 1940.

According to Prien Rodeike no K-2s or K-14s entered service and it is likely there was only ever one K-6 tested at Rechlin: according to the JaPo book on the 109K, it was alleged that two 109K-14s were used in II./JG 52 by Major Wilhelm Blatz, yet Blatz himself did not remember Ks with four bladed propellers in his unit.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 8, 2014)

Since corrections are being posted shouldn't that be Galland armor, not Galland hood.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 8, 2014)

Shortround6, Koopernic and Aozora,

Thank you all for your input. I greatly appreciate the help.

I would once again like to let everyone know that I am attempting to put together a time line of when each varient of Bf.109 became operational. I will be listing: 1. each version and sub-type to the best of my ability. 2. when each version became fully operational (not necessarily first combat). 3. combat unit of the first operational aircraft if possible. 4. the engine/engine maximum output/boost level used.

And probably the most important part, the reference used. The wrong references would make this list a joke. For instance, I did look over Wikipedia. I just couldn't use a source that listed the Bf.109A-0 as being one of the first to enter combat in Spain.

I am presently looking over all your input plus my present sources and trying to put engines to each version. 

Thanks again, Jeff.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 8, 2014)

Radinger Schick's "Messerschmitt Bf 109 A-E" may be of help to you. I am not a 109 expert but the book seems well researched (or at least will sometimes give different numbers for the same "item" and say that the different numbers are from different sources.)

Some of the early records seem to be incomplete or contradictory, did 22 "A" models go to Spain or only 20? The V3 did wind up in Spain as did work #809 

The book _claims_ there were no "official" B-2 models or anything other than C-1 models (only 58 C's built), the C-3 being a paper exercise with no mention of the C-2? 

Things get confused because (apparently) as the planes "aged" the Jumo powered planes were modified in the field. Planes built with fixed pitch props were fitted with variable pitch props and planes fitted with 3 guns from the factory lost the engine mount (prop) gun in service due to it's unreliability. A few other parts may have been swapped. 

Not all "D"s have exactly the same appearance with perhaps 3 different exhaust set ups among other differences but no change in designation. The book does have some good power and performance numbers for the early models though.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 8, 2014)

Thank you Shortround. I am not even close to a Bf.109 expert either and I am not going to try to be. I have been researching all morning and have the list (on paper) revised up to the F-0 model. (This is taking a lot of work). I am begining to see that this could get expensive. I will update/cleanup my post #1 as soon as I am able. 

Thanks guys, Jeff


----------



## Denniss (Jun 8, 2014)

Make the Bf 109B-1 the Bf 109A and the B-2s just Bs to be correct. Never heard of Bf 109B produced with Jumo 210G but the early 109s are not really well documented.
The Jumo 210B had 640 PS, not 600hp. All your other hp ratings should be PS. Jumo 210Da/Ga should be just D/G.
Bf 109D reverted to non-fuel-injected Jumo 210D (G had fuel injection).
Designation F-4/B did not exist, every 109 from the E-7 was able to carry bombs. /B only used for converted E-1/-3/-4 JaBos.
G-6 spring 43 with standard DB 605A engine, both G-10 and K-4 had small deliveries in September 44
No K-2 built, G-16 sounds strange as well.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 8, 2014)

OK, the first preliminary update is done. As Denniss pointed out, PS and hp. ratings still have to be determined. I may have made some mistakes. It was a bit tedious doing an entire edit.

Thank you for your input Denniss. I'll check on your information as time permits. What was the reference(s) you used for the basis of your information in post #12?

Goodnight all, Jeff.


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 8, 2014)

Carefull with power ratings, apart from the issue of the use of metric horsepower in European engines the power output of an engine can be given in many ways. An engine whose peak power is say 1000hp at sea level may produce 1100hp at 2000ft (due to reduced exhaust back pressure). Then there is the problem of the different ratings
takeoff power
continuous power or climb power or military power
WEP (war emergency power), in German parlance this was called Noteleistung (Emergency Power) but often there were improved versions such as Sonder Noteleisung (Special Emergency Power) eg if MW50 was used.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 8, 2014)

The book I referred to in post #10 gives the power of the Jumo 210 D as follows;


Height...............short term.................raised contin.................continuous ouput
..........................2700rpm....................2600rpm..........................2510rpm

KM.........................HP...........................HP..................................HP

0..........................680...........................610..............................545
2.7.......................640...........................575..............................510
4.5.......................500...........................450..............................400
6.0.......................406...........................465..............................325

Book says HP and not PS but I don't know. 

109Ds used Jumo 210 engines.

Main difference on early models seems to be A's had Jumo 210D and two MG 17 machine guns, B's had Jumo 210D and three MG 17 machine guns (one through prop) and while some early Bs had the third gun retro fitted after completion, many B's had the third gun taken out. The C model (58 built) used the fuel injected Jumo 210G and the D model reverted back to the Jumo 210D, both had two MG 17s in the cowl (with much more ammo) and a single MG 17 in each wing.


----------



## Denniss (Jun 8, 2014)

Many english language books transformed PS into hp without actually converting the values. 
680PS is correct for Jumo 210D with take-off power at sea level, max power is ~690PS at ~800m according to engine power graph.
My first post was wrong regarding the Jumo 210B, it indeed had 600PS for take-off and this raised to the often claimed/stated 640PS at ~2.7 km.

There was no DB 601E in any Bf 109E except the machines used for F-series development, this is a common myth that has never been proven. The E-9 was probably intended to become an E-7/N based recon but was not built (maybe as conversion). The E-8 was an E-7 with 4-MG as armament. Recent authors claim this was intend as JaBo for strafing attacks. 60 built
The Bf 109 E-series either had the DB 601A, AA or N engine, N-variants were denoted with a /N designation. Take-off power for 601A was 1100PS, 601Aa had 1175PS. But to my knowledge this special high-power mode was not available in the Bf 109 as it was just intended for high-load take-off of bombers. Thus power available was 990/1050 PS. The 601Aa was in limited use in the 109, most likely they went to /B JaBos where the additional power was put to good use.

No Bf 109G-6 ever had a DB 605D engine, GM-1 birds were G-6/U2 with standard DB 605A.
G-6 with DB 605AS were G-6/AS, take-off power was 1435 PS - more PS required to drive the larger supercharger.
G-6 with MW-50 were usually converted /U2, early production may have been under G-6/MW designation (later renamed G-14)
Again Bf 109D with DB 600 is a common myth driven by propaganda images.
AFAIR the E-3 also had a JaBo /B version just like the E-4 as /B and /BN
the DB 601N had 1175PS take-off power but this was never available in the 109E, just the 109F with a modified 601N had this rating in 1941 (although some claim it was never unblocked)
The G-10 was delivered to units in October 44 for sure, some may have got soem a/c in 9/44.
The K-4 was delivered to units in 9/44 although in limited quantities.
DB 605DCM is a wrong designation for the DB 605DC - the M was not used for engines that were designed around MW-50, standard for G-10 was DM for a short time and changed to DB as soon as it became available, same with K4 and DM -> DC
The 605DB had 1850PS for take-off, later reduced to 1800PS, it required standard B4 fuel and not the 100 Oktan C3-fuel.
F-2/Z was cancelled or just converted from F-2, the F-4 proved to be better suited for this job and saw high production as F-4/Z. The F-4/R1 was an interesting variant as it was the first version able to take underwing armament (MG 151 gondolas), an option to become standard in the 109G.
The K-6 did not have underwing gondolas, the MK 108s were to be mounted inside the wing. One prototype known.

EDIT: the V5 has never been in Spain. V4 was marked 6-1 in Spain, V3 as 6-2. The V4 was sent back to Germany and V3 inherited the 6-1. V6 changed from 6-3 to 6-2, A-series 109 were marked 6-3 to 6-18 in spain, at least one fell into republican hands after landing behind the frontlines due to exhausted fuel.
Bf 109 C-2 did not exist, was planned with MG FF engine cannon but this did not work (just like D-2/E-2)
Bf 109 E-6/N is missing, recon based on E-4/N

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 9, 2014)

Denniss,
I completely agree with your statement about PS being published by many as hp. As time permits I plan to change/calculate all the PS figures to hp once I have been able to determine which are which. My original reason for this post was to get a listing of the dates each version of Bf.109 became operational. Second reason to determine the unit, if possible, each version entered combat with. Third reason to determine what engine was powering that version. I am not writing a book but I would like to put together a quick date reference that is accurate as possible.

The following reference says the Bf.109A was in fact a version that entered the conflict in Spain:
The Bf 109 in Spain

Thank you for the correction on the Bf.109K-6 guns (No gondolas).
Messerschmitt Bf 109 K-6 by Mark Shanks (Hasegawa 1/32)

As far as the Bf.109B-1 and B-2 just being Bf.109Bs, all the (limited) information I can come up with so far as distinguished the two. Apparently the Russians thought so also:
Íîâàÿ ñòðàíèöà 1

What is your sources for information so I can add it to the references?

Thanks, Jeff

PS: I made some of the corrections but ran out of time. Will fix as time permits.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 10, 2014)

I have updated all changes applicable to Post #1. I have added all the references used that I am aware of. 

Concerning the Bf.109K-4, what engines were actually used? I have been able to locate performance charts/graphs on the K-4 with DB 605DB /ASB, DB 650D w/MW 50, DB 605DC/ASC and DB 605DB/ASB w/MW 50.

If anyone has any corrections or more information to add, please do so. 

I thank everyone for there valuable input, Jeff.


----------



## kettbo (Jun 10, 2014)

Greetings CORSNING!
I really appreciate all you efforts to date! I am not a SERIOUS RESEARCHER but a very interested student on the GUSTAV.

some minor "fill-in" info
Prien pg 108 lists Bf109G-6/U3 as MW-equipped. Easy to convert between /U3 MW and /U2 with GM-1, Spring '44 is correct. 
Interesting that in JG26 '43-'45 Diary by Jerry Caldwell that I do not show any losses with /U2 or /U3 suffix for the III./JG26. By 09/44 the reported losses of Bf109G-6 and Bf109G-6/U4 (mk 108 motor cannon) taper off and Bf109G-14s appear as losses starting Oct '44. I would think III./JG26 would have had 'upgraded' planes, more research required.

Prien lists production of the Bf109G-5 from May '43-Aug'44, pg 134. He shows them entering service Reich Defense Autumn '43. First loss 21 Sept '43.


Later canopy is _ERLA Haube_ end of 1943 (Caldwell, pg 105) and clear pilot rear armor is _Galland armor _ late summer '43. Tall tail is early 1944.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 10, 2014)

Thank you kettbo for the information and the appreciation.

I am counting heavily on you students and scholars of the Bf 109 to fill in the gaps and make the list something of value for all.

You all have been great and every bit of information is valuable.

Thank you, Jeff.


----------



## stona (Jun 11, 2014)

Denniss said:


> A-series 109 were marked 6-3 to 6-18 in spain, at least one fell into republican hands after landing behind the frontlines due to exhausted fuel.



Patrick Laureau (Condor-The Luftwaffe in Spain 1936-39) lists 6-3 to 6-18 as Bf 109 B, not A.

6-15 was the aircraft captured on 4/12/37 whilst with 1.J/88. It was Uffz. Otto Polenz' aircraft.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Milosh (Jun 11, 2014)

The Bf 109 in Spain

Bf109s in the SCW.


----------



## stona (Jun 11, 2014)

So Lynn Ritger is the only one who thinks that those aircraft are As. I wonder why. 

I can't quite make 15 aircraft, but there are 14 other known A series aircraft whose fate is uncertain produced by February 1937. 

With the exception of 6-3, which was V5, delivered to Spain in December 1936, and V-17 and 18, delivered in July 1937, all the rest (V-4 to V-16) appeared in Spain in March 1937. This is one month after they were delivered from the factory and plenty of time to ship them to Spain. Is there any _evidence_ that these were the A series production which Radinger Schick, Emiliani Ghergo, Mombeek, Laureau and others don't account for or has Ritger made a leap of faith?

I have read his argument set out in his Messerschmitt Bf 109 modeller's guide (part 1) and remain undecided  This may well be a case where we'll never know for sure. Ritger does reproduce the production table, based on surviving Messerschmitt documents, also seen in Radinger Schick's book, which acknowledges that the fate of many A series aircraft is not known. It is certainly possible that they ended up in Spain.

As a young Rugby player I played in several selection games called 'Probables v Possibles'. You don't need to be a genius to work out who was most likely to be selected for the final XV ! I'd play Ritger's theory in the 'Possibles'.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## herman1rg (Jun 11, 2014)

Interesting to see that the Rolls-Royce Kestrel was fitted, prototype only?


----------



## stona (Jun 11, 2014)

herman1rg said:


> Interesting to see that the Rolls-Royce Kestrel was fitted, prototype only?



Yes, and only the first prototype, V1, W.Nr.758, civil registration D-IABI. It was intended for the Jumo 210 inverted engine but delays led to Messerschmitt using an RLM provided Kestrel. The RLM obtained the British engine via contacts that Heinkel had with Rolls-Royce who in turn had purchased an He 70 from that company for use as an engine test bed.
V1 first flew on 28th May 1935 at the hands of Messerschmitt pilot Hans-Dietrich Knoetzsch. He crashed the aircraft at Rechlin on 15th October 1935. This ended his career at Messerschmitt and expedited the development of the next prototype.

V2, W.Nr.759, D-IILU, received the Jumo engine with its extra 100 hp and first flew on December 12th 1935.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 11, 2014)

According to some sources that Kestrel made the rounds. The same engine may have flown in the prototype Ju 87.


----------



## stona (Jun 11, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> According to some sources that Kestrel made the rounds. The same engine may have flown in the prototype Ju 87.



The RLM acquired 'several' Kestrels according to Ritger. According to Lance Cole in his biography of Beverly Shenstone the deal involved an He 70 and four Rolls Royce Kestrels. 

It is a rather convoluted tale, the Heinkel was re-engined with its Kestrel in Germany (Rostock), but not until early 1936. It was flown back to the UK on 26th March 1936. D-UBOF became G-ADZF and a British civil aviation certificate of airworthiness was issued on 6th April 1936 in London.

It wasn't a 'swop' either. Rolls Royce paid £13,000 pounds for the Heinkel and work undertaken on it in Germany. I don't know what the Germans stumped up for their engines. 

I'd have to check the Ju 87 but the Arado AR 80 V1 was certainly powered by one.

Cheers

Steve

Edit Yes, Ju 87 V1 did indeed fly with a Rolls Royce Kestrel fitted. The prototype experienced severe over heating problems and the Kestrel was replaced, at the RLM's insistence with a DB 600 A engine prior to the loss of the aircraft which suffered a catastrophic structural failure during testing on 24th January 1936.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 11, 2014)

Hi Steve,

Your knowledge is greatly welcomed. 

Everyone,

I have decided to approach the engine power slowly/carefully (Mostly because I am bf 109 ignorant). I went after information on the DB 601. From what I could find it appears the boost limitations on the A-1 and Aa models was 1.3 ata up until sometime later in 1939. It appears to me that the new 1 minute boost allowed up to 5,000m was 1.4 ata during the BOB.? 

From the graphs I could find it looks like this:

DB 601A @ 1.3 ata/2,400 rpm: 990 PS (976 hp.)/T.O., 1,070 PS/2,100 m.(1,055 hp./6,890 ft.) and 1,025 PS/4,500 m.(1,010 hp./14,765 ft.) 1.3 ata had a 5 minute limitation. 1.15 ata being continuous. 

DB 601A @ 1.4 ata/2,500 rpm: 1,100 PS(1,085 hp.)/T.O. and 1,175 PS/~1,800 M.(1,160 hp./5,900 ft.). 1.4 ata was a 1 minute boost.

In late 1939 the Bf 109 received automatic propeller pitch.?

OK guys its time to educate me on the facts, Jeff


----------



## Denniss (Jun 11, 2014)

I have never seen evidence (like a Luftwaffe manual) stating 1-min rating was available in standard Bf 109E, it may have been available in the /B bomb carriers for take-off. It did not only stress the engine but also consumed lots of fuel due to the very rich mix used (Überfettung).
V5 in Spain is the same myth (flying testbed in Travemünde/Rechlin) as Bf 109A did not exist or a B-2 did exist, All official Mtt/RLM data just points to 109B, B-1 and B-2 were unofficial designations used on the front to better separate the fixed-pitch-prop a/c from variable-pitch.prop a/c.
And again, /U3 was not a MW-50 designation, the /U3 was a recon modification.


----------



## stona (Jun 11, 2014)

To add to what Denniss has written.

The best evidence for the A series is an original Messerschmitt factory document, dated 25th August 1937, entitled "Delivered Bf 109 As and B-1s". This is where the Bf 109 As listed by Radinger&Schick (who found the document) and Lynn Ritger come from. If they are listed as As by Messerschmitt then we have to accept that they did exist.
A delivery document (Nr.138/38 of August 1938 ) mentions that 22 Bf 109 As were completed, so the RLM acknowledged the type too. 

There are differences between the A and B-1 which I don't care to list here.

Another RLM document (LC 7/1 Nr. 183.8/38 ) dated 15th August 1938 indicates that production of the B-1 started at W.Nr. 1021 and that aircraft from W.Nr. 1010-1020 would be retro-fitted with the central MG 17. This would bring them up to the B-1 standard. Whilst this document is not clear about the original designation of these aircraft the lack of the central weapon was a feature of the A series.

There was never a B-2. There are no factory or loss records which use the term. Photographs taken for propaganda purposes of the delivery of 25 Bf 109 B-1s to II./JG 132 clearly show a mixture of the Schwarz wooden propellers and the later metal units.

V5 can't have been in Spain and been retained for the testing of the EPAD17, the automatic reload and firing mechanism for the cowl guns. Later it went to Rechlin.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Jun 11, 2014)

I thought Rolls-Royce traded the Kestrel for a German plane for use as a company hack.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 11, 2014)

Rolls Royce used the He 70 as a flying test bed. Much more comfortable for the engineers monitoring the test engine to ride in a cabin rather than an open cockpit


----------



## stona (Jun 12, 2014)

GregP said:


> I thought Rolls-Royce traded the Kestrel for a German plane for use as a company hack.



Rolls Royce bought the He 70 for £13,000 pounds as per my post above. It wasn't a swop for the four Kestrel engines, which the RLM paid for, but part of a trade agreement. It was indeed a flying engine test bed and as suggested above, I bet the RR engineers were grateful for it 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 12, 2014)

Thanks guys, I have made the changes. This is the document I used for the 1 minute boost. Of course I don't read German though. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/db601-oct40-operation-maintenance-manual-p21.jpg


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 12, 2014)

Please note the caption 'am Boden bei Abflug' - or, 'near ground level by take-off', for 1 minute rating. Here is a chart for the DB-601A with 'old' supercharger:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/db601a-curve.jpg

and with new S/C:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/DB601A-B-oct40-pg22.jpg

In other words, 5 min rating is the one where max speed was attained, 550 km/h at ~5 km, give or take.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 12, 2014)

Thanks tomo.
So the 1 minute boost of 1.40 ata @ 2,400 rpm is for take-off only?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 12, 2014)

Indeed.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 12, 2014)

tomo,
Do you have information giving the date that the DB 601 began to use the new supercharger in service an what designation was given the the DB 601?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 12, 2014)

Sorry, I don't have exact dates. Sometimes the DB-601A with new S/C was called 'DB-601A-1', but that might be a post war 'invention'? As a rough bearing, in case the max speed at of the Bf-109E3, E4 or, less likely, E7 is at ~4.5 km, that might cue us that old S/C was used/installed. In case the max speed is at ~5 km, it is likely the new S/C aboard. 
The difference from 4 ('static' engine with old S/C as depicted in tables/charts) to 4.5 km (aircraft is at high speed) is due to the rammed air entering the S/C intake. Ditto for difference between 4.5 km (static engine with new S/C) and 5 km (high speed) altitudes.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 13, 2014)

This is an attempt to finish up the information on the DB 601 as best as possible. The information I have found on the DB 601N shows that it was mainly used with 96 octane C3 fuel. The power output went like this: 1,270 PS/2,600 RPM/16,250-16,270 ft./boost?/3 minutes, 1,200 PS/T.O./1 minute.

Three sources gave me three different answeres for the DB 601E. I will list what I came up with and hope someone has THE ANSWER backed by a source for the information.

Source 1: 87 octane/B4 fuel: 1,350 PS/T.O., 1,300 PS/18,045 ft./1.42 ata.

Source 2: 96 octane/C3 fuel: 1,350 PS/T.O., 1,375 PS/16,728 ft./1.42 ata.

Source 3: 1,325 PS/T.O./1 minute, 1,400 PS/2,700 RPM/16,000 ft./1.42 ata. 1.3 ata has a 30 minute limit.


----------



## Juha (Jun 13, 2014)

601E run with B4 and the powergraph


----------



## Denniss (Jun 13, 2014)

The german specification of C3 fuel was 100 Oktan, due to different/less reliable testing methods by the allies it's often stated as 96-97 octane.
The DB 601E was not designed for C3 fuel, it was always a B4-fuel engine. Take-off power was to be 1350 PS but this wasn't available from the start of the Bf 109 F-4 series. The restricted take-off power (one step back to climb&combat 30min rating) was ~1200 PS. Rated alt for this engine was 4.8 km for take-off power, power available was ~1330 PS according to engine power chart. 30 min rating was ~1200 PS at 4.9 km.

It may be possible the initial DB 601A with old supercharger was classified as A-0 but I have never heard of an A-0 in a Bf 109E. Most likely the new supercharger was introduced during production and refited to older aircraft, retaining the 601A-1 designation.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 13, 2014)

CORSNING said:


> This is an attempt to finish up the information on the DB 601 as best as possible. The information I have found on the DB 601N shows that it was mainly used with 96 octane C3 fuel. The power output went like this: 1,270 PS/2,600 RPM/16,250-16,270 ft./boost?/3 minutes, 1,200 PS/T.O./1 minute.
> ...



Denniss and Juha covered the DB-601E.

You can get some data about the DB-601N and the Bf-109F1/F2 here Basically, the 1st examples of the 601N have been able to make 1175 PS on 2600 rpm and 1.35 ata (for 1 minute), altitude 4900 m. Used on some Bf-109E and 109F-0?
The variant used on the Bf-109F-1/F-2 introduced a new supercharger, the max boost went to 1.42 ata at altitude unknown to me (4500-4900 m?), the limit was now 3 minutes. Difference in power was 94% against 100% for the new engine version (that still bares the same name), that works to about 1250-1260 PS at rated altitude (4.5 - 4.9 km?). 
In case over-revving was used ( 2800 rpm), the speed gain was further 10-15 km/h.

More about the data covering the DB-601N, 601E, and Bf-109F can be read at Kurfurst site.


----------



## GregP (Jun 13, 2014)

The US Octane test is not in any way less reliable than German testing. If you want to compare US fuel to German fuel, then you should test both to the same standard test methodology. C3 tested at 96 Octane in US tests that were used to rate US fuels. 

If you wan to use the German rating, that is fine but you'd have to test US fuel with the German test methodology to get a meaningful number for comparison. We HAVE a meaningful number ... 96. That means in our tests the German fuel at the lean rating was about 4 point below US 100 / 130 fuel. So in the German test methodology, the US fuel would likely come out to a performance number of 104 or so in the lean condition.

The US rating in no way suggests C3 was "low grade fuel," it merely gives a number for comparison purposes using the same test methodology as was used to grade the US fuels.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 13, 2014)

Results of German tests comparing LW and captured Allied fuels (B4 test results from a separate document, using same method)






Test method described here:

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom%2...66-46-Lt92.pdf


----------



## Denniss (Jun 13, 2014)

The 601N engine is somewhat mysterious, some claim the 1175 PS rating was never available in the 109E with the initial 601N engine, the 109F got the improved 601N and 1175 PS was available from the start. Over-reving was always possible with the 601N but only above critical alt (if I remember right)


----------



## GregP (Jun 13, 2014)

In most of the very many references I've seen over the years that engine is variously quoted as 1,175 HP or 1,175 PS, mostly PS.

I didn't ever think the very early Bf 109E's had that power, it was more like the E-3 or E-4 and later, up until the next bump in PS.

It seems to me as if the engine power and aerodynamics were improved only when the Spitfire improved, and then only enough to regain some parity or slight superiority, and the cycle would start all over again when the British did the same some time later.

Two better-matched antagonists could hardly be imagined.


----------



## Denniss (Jun 14, 2014)

For a better engien power comparison one should always use take-off power at sea level or static power at rated alt with given power level.
Even in older 109E you may find the 601Aa which offered more power on the deck but was only rated for 4km, very late production may (or may not) have switched to the 4.5km supercharger.
The 601N was only installed in some E-4/N , 9x E-6N and multiple E-7/N at the factory, others may have been refitted with them during their upgrade from older E-series standard to E-7 standard.

At least by 1940 Mtt had recognized that more engine power was not that effective transformed into speed gain as it was supposed to be. Windtunnel test showed aerodynamic issues in the frontal area and in the supporting struts of the tail elevators, win was also somewhat lacking for high-speed aircraft. Assuming a clean E-7/N was really capable of achieving 570 km/h often claimed for 601A-powered 109, the 109F was 595 km/h on 30-min engine rating and 615 km/h on take-off power.


----------



## stona (Jun 14, 2014)

The RLM was typically confused about which aircraft the 601 N was to be installed in. In May '40 they were expecting 1,000 of the engines by the end of the year of which 350 would go into reserve. They were to be fitted exclusively the Bf 109 F series. Then there was a change of heart and the engine went into the Bf 109 E series, including retro fitting. Then they decided to retrofit the Bf 110 with the engine. Then they cancelled this and so on and so on. Total confusion and this was in 1940.
This is what led to the piecemeal installation of the engine in various types. It's also indicative of how the RLM/Luftwaffe would contribute to losing the war.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 14, 2014)

Hi Gregg, thank you for clearing up the 96/100 octane discrepancy.

Hi Juha, thank you for the graph and the site.

Hi mhuxt, welcome to the discussion. thank you for the graph. I think that one's too hard for me.

Hi Denniss, thank you for the new information. I am going to have to take some time to figure all the input out that everyone has added. I really picked the wrong time of year for this topic. I have two stereo shelves that I have built and I am suppose to be putting the finishing strips on, filler, sanding and painting. I have a new garage door ordered that I am waiting for to come in at Lowe's. The old door is falling apart. And then the most important thing of all this time of year. As soon as it warms up today, my wife and I are heading to the beach.
BUT, I hope to get all this information processed and Post #1 updated today or tomorrow.

Thank you all for the help in putting the timeline together. This is truly a joint effort.

Jeff

tomo, I forgot to mention that the graph you referred to in post # 43 for the DB 601N is the same graph you referred to in post #35 for the DB 601A (DB 601Aa?) with a new supercharger. Did the engines have the same output?


----------



## Juha (Jun 14, 2014)

stona said:


> The RLM was typically confused about which aircraft the 601 N was to be installed in. In May '40 they were expecting 1,000 of the engines by the end of the year of which 350 would go into reserve. They were to be fitted exclusively the Bf 109 F series. Then there was a change of heart and the engine went into the Bf 109 E series, including retro fitting. Then they decided to retrofit the Bf 110 with the engine. Then they cancelled this and so on and so on. Total confusion and this was in 1940.
> This is what led to the piecemeal installation of the engine in various types. It's also indicative of how the RLM/Luftwaffe would contribute to losing the war.
> Cheers
> Steve



Hello Steve
while agreeding that the RLM changed its mind on 601N bewildering pace it was partly understandably, IIRC at first 109F was a little bit late, so they had surplus 601Ns and had to do something with them and 109E was a natural candidate for them, then they thought that 109E with 601A was still entirely adequate but 110 needed more power to stay truly combative, so they decided to install many 601Ns to them. IMHO a little bit same as in UK with Spit III and Hurri II, at first Merlin XX was thought to power the Spit but then it was decided that Hurri needed more desperately more power to remain combative, (IMHO futile hope in ETO, its time was clearly passed, and when Japanese planes were found to be clearly better than anticipated IMHO the only suitable job for the Hurri was that of fighter-bomber outside ETO were its sturdier construction and undercarriage were a plus) so Merlin XXs were installed to Hurris and Spit had to be content with the cheaper Merlin 45. In wartime production decisions were difficult and all sides had their times of indecisions.

Juha


----------



## stona (Jun 14, 2014)

It's the bewildering lack of decision though. It is evident on just about every topic (not just engines) at every meeting at the RLM throughout the war. This debacle just covers the second part of 1940.

31st May. 601 N to be fitted to new Bf 109 F-1 and F-2s.

7th June. 601 N to be new Bf 109s and Bf 110s.

7th July. 601 N to be used exclusively for Bf 110. Installation on Bf 109 to be stopped mid production.

19th July. Stocks of 601 N to be used to convert Bf 110s already in service. No further conversion of Bf 109 Groups. New Bf 109 Fs to have 601 N.

26th July. Any further conversion of Bf 110 Groups to 601 N engine to stop. 

27th September. 4 Bf 110 Groups are to be maintained with the 601 N engine. Of the remaining engines in stock 40 are set aside as a rotating inventory for the zestorer Groups, of the rest 1/3 are held for rotating stock and 2/3 are to be fitted to Bf 109s.

18th October. Production of 601 N allocated for all new production Bf 109 Fs, All new build Bf 110s. 40 new Bf 109 Es, to maintain existing Bf 109 E strength.

6th November. The General Staff asls that 601 N engines be reserved for Bf 109 E production. Two months production of the Bf 110 at Messerschmitt will receive 601 A engines. II./ZG26 and II./ZG76 need not be equipped with the 601 N and can have their engines swopped out for 601 As.

It doesn't end there either. There are further calls to swop the Bf 110 back to the 601 A, related to C3 fuel shortages, at exactly the same time the General Staff is calling for 6 Bf 110 Groups to be equipped with the 601 N ! 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Juha (Jun 14, 2014)

Hello Steve
Yes, I have read that from Mankau's Petrick's 110-210 and 410 book, clearly some delay in 109F production and probably some problems with C3 production, too.


----------



## stona (Jun 14, 2014)

And problems with decision making.

Steve


----------



## GregP (Jun 14, 2014)

Hi Jeff,

I have a good report on the German fuels, but I'm on vacation and will have to get a new PC going when I get home as my high-end laptop died a video death and the replacement card is as expensive as the whole laptop! So, I'm building a tower ... MUCH easier to replace individual items that go bad on you. I'll get back with you around the end of the month when I get home and back up and online again.

Meanwhile, any decent gasoline test will give very good numbers for comparison. HP achieved on a dynamometer is the same ... it may or may not be entirely accurate, but two cars tested on a dyno can be compared with surprising accuracy.

The German fuel tests might give a slightly different numbers for both lean and rich, but two engines tested by the Germans (or any other nationality) will be easily compared with one another. There was nothing whatsoever wrong with German fuels as long as you knew what you were getting, jetted for it, and operated the engine accordingly. Ditto American, British, Japanese, etc. fuels.

I very strongly resist the seemingly popular attitude of thinking the Germans got the same power out of their engines as we did post-war with 130 / 150 grade fuels since, at least near the end of the war, they had a fuel shortage mostly due to inability to deliver it to forward units, and the fuel that WAS delivered was not top-grade fuel. So they got whatever performance could be had from less-than-top-grade fuel. It was less than the optimum, but still quite good. An engine that delivers 1,500 HP on 130 / 150 grade fuel might still deliver 1,380 HP or even slightly more on 100 / 130 fuel, so they were NOT suffering from low-power operation.

A lot of Japanese fuel was 87 Octane for the entire war!


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 14, 2014)

CORSNING said:


> ...
> 
> tomo, I forgot to mention that the graph you referred to in post # 43 for the DB 601N is the same graph you referred to in post #35 for the DB 601A (DB 601Aa?) with a new supercharger. Did the engines have the same output?



Hi, Jeff,
Sorry if I've made some confusion. I'll post the graphs of the DB-601A (with new S/C) and DB-601N (the version that was is allowed for up the 1.35 ata). 
DB-601A:






Db-601N:


----------



## Milosh (Jun 14, 2014)

> the fuel that WAS delivered was not top-grade fuel



Explanation required.


----------



## GregP (Jun 14, 2014)

Perhaps "required" is not what you meant to say, but I'll bite anyway.

According to what I've read, they were delivering very little top-grade fuel ... and very little other fuel ... but about equal quantities of the various grades. Therefore of the fuel they had, about 1/3 or so was their best fuel and the other 2/3's was of lower grade ... still good fuel but not the best in performance number.

When you get about 2/3's of your fuel at less than top grade, then your average plane is not running the top-grade fuel. Some are, but not most. There is nothing wrong with grade 100 fuel unless your engine needs 130/ 150, then the engine cannot be run at full allowed boost for the specified fuel or detonation will occur. Most Merlins today cannot be run at wartime boost levels because they are running grade 100 fuel instead of 130 / 150.

I am away from my dead PC at the moment and don't have all my reference material available, but that is a general summary of what I have seen.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 15, 2014)

_The relative volumes of production of the two grades cannot be accurately given, but in the last war years the major volume, perhaps *two-thirds (2/3) of this total has the C-3 grade*. Every effort was being made toward the end of the war to increase isoparaffin production so that C-3 volume could be increased for fighter plane use. _

Technical Report 145-45 - The Manufacture of Aviation Gasoline in Germany

Most Bf109s used B4 fuel. The BMW801 of the Fw190 required C3 fuel. There was about equal numbers of each in Luftwaffe service, late war.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 15, 2014)

I am going to attempt to decipher the new graphs along with the information everyone has supplied. To me it looks like this.
The DB 601N (according to the graph) had the following abilities:
1,175 PS/T.O., 1,255 PS/2,100 m, 1,170 PS/6,900 m. all at 1.35 ata boost.

The DB 601E in the Bf109F-4 started life with the 1.3 ata boost/2,500 RPM limitation: 1,200 PS/T.O., 1,285 PS/2,100-3,400 m, 1,050 PS/6,000m.

The DB 601E later (NEED DATE) was cleared for 1.42 ata boost/2,700 RPM: 1.350 PS/T.O., 1,440 PS/2,100 m., 1,325 PS/4,800 m.

If this is all correct, Denniss do you have a date stating when the 1.42 ata was cleared for the DB 601E?

Jeff


----------



## Denniss (Jun 15, 2014)

some further issues to fix in the list:
Bf 109E-1 - take-off power was 1100 PS if 1-min rating was available, otherwise 990 PS with 5-min rating
E-3 did not have the 601Aa as standard, this was just an option (for multiple E-series aircraft).
E-7/Z is also called E-7/NZ as it was a subvariant of the E-7N
E-8: No 601E in any 109E, both E-8 and E-9 had 601A/Aa
F-4/Z: 601E engine, the planned F-2/Z with 601N was dropped for this variant
F-4/R1: as F-4 but with provision for underwing guns
G-5 with 605AS engine is a G-5/AS, TO-power was 1435 PS (5-min rating)
G-6/AM - such a designation did not exist. MW-50 introduction possibley in late spring/early summer (I heard of May/June), /U2 machines changed from GM-1 to MW-50 using compressed air from pressurized bottles to feed MW-50 to supercharger (production systems used bleed air). Early production of what-to-become G-14 may have been designated G-6/MW.
G-6/U4: Standard G-6 with MK 108 as engine cannon, /U4 also known in G-10/-14
G-8 - standard engine was 605A
K-4 started with 605DM and was changed to 605DC as soon as it became available, late in war they used ASC, ASB/DB if not DC was on hand.
G-16 - was never built and for sure not with old canopy.

DB 605DB: initially 1850 PS, due to degrades in B4 fuel quality suffered lots of burned-through piston. A change of cylinder firing/ignition sequence cured this but at a cost of 50 PS.
G-10 probably started with 605DM as well and changed to DB once available, other 605D variants fitted as well if no DB on hand


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 15, 2014)

CORSNING said:


> I am going to attempt to decipher the new graphs along with the information everyone has supplied. To me it looks like this.
> The DB 601N (according to the graph) had the following abilities:
> 1,175 PS/T.O., 1,255 PS/2,100 m, *1,170 PS/6,900 m*. all at 1.35 ata boost.



It is 1175 PS at 4900 m.



> The DB 601E in the Bf109F-4 started life with the 1.3 ata boost/2,500 RPM limitation: 1,200 PS/T.O., *1,285 PS/2,100-3,400* m, 1,050 PS/6,000m.
> 
> The DB 601E later (NEED DATE) was cleared for 1.42 ata boost/2,700 RPM: 1.350 PS/T.O., 1,440 PS/2,100 m., 1,325 PS/4,800 m.



The data for the 'Steig Kampfleistung' (1.3 ata and 2500 rpm for the DB 601E) need to be read in case the 'Staudruck = 0 kg/cm', ie. when ram air pressure is equal to zero. That means ~1280 PS at ~2100 m, gently falling down to 1200 PS at 4900 m. It was indeed 1050 PS at 6000m.
To the best of my knowledge, the DB 601E was cleared for 1.42 ata and 2700 rpm at turn between 1941 and '42, whether it was December '41 or January '42.


----------



## rinkol (Jun 15, 2014)

In Adders' book (German Night Fighter Force), there is a statement that the first series of the DB601F (basically a DB 601E with different reduction gear) fitted to the Bf 110 tended to suffer from seized pistons and engine fires and could not be operated at the officially listed maximum boost of 1.3 ata. The book also gives the summer of 1942 as the service entry date for the Bf 110F. The Bf 110F night fighters had the further issue that the flame dampers increased the exhaust back pressure and that this caused exhaust valves to fail after 20 hours of service with the initial design.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 15, 2014)

tomo,
Thanks for keeping an eye on me. I was in a hurry.

Jeff


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 15, 2014)

Denniss,
Thank you for all the excellent information you provided.

Everyone,
Please look over the list in post #1 and let me know if I have missed anything. The only things I could come up with after a quick look: 1. Does anyone have a more exacting date (month) that the Bf 109E-4 became fully operational other than summer 1940?
2. DB 605D PS available?


----------



## Denniss (Jun 15, 2014)

There were no issues with the DB 601E in the Bf 109F on 30-min rating, the Bf 110F issues are almost all backtraceable to the ineffective flame damper design (unless Mtt made something wrong in the Bf 110 601F engine installation).


----------



## GregP (Jun 15, 2014)

If you say so Milosh. Not what I've read, but also not worth discussion.


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 15, 2014)

Milosh said:


> _The relative volumes of production of the two grades cannot be accurately given, but in the last war years the major volume, perhaps *two-thirds (2/3) of this total has the C-3 grade*. Every effort was being made toward the end of the war to increase isoparaffin production so that C-3 volume could be increased for fighter plane use. _
> 
> Technical Report 145-45 - The Manufacture of Aviation Gasoline in Germany
> 
> Most Bf109s used B4 fuel. The BMW801 of the Fw190 required C3 fuel. There was about equal numbers of each in Luftwaffe service, late war.



The 2/3rds of production was C3 doesn't make too much sense to me. The DB601/DB605/DB603, Jumo 211 and Jumo 213A all used B4 fuel throughout the war apart from the following exceptions;

DB601N in a short period between the middle of 1940 to the middle 1941 when it was replaced by the DB601E which used B4.
Although DB605ASM and AM were designed for B4+MW50 the apparently used C3+MW50 from about April 1944 till some period in late 1944 when the DB engines again reverted to B4+MW50. The problem apparently being that if the engine ran out of MW50 while in over boost severe engine damage could result. The obvious solution would have been a flow switch in the MW50 line that operates some kind of solenoid, motor or device to cut out the over-boost. I don't fancy the prospects of getting that kind of system working reliably and in production all that easily. One could try a level switch but then we are doing maneuvering, negative G etc. Perhaps the C3 also helped keep the boost up until improved spark plugs came along, but even late war DB605DB were restricted to 1.45 ata when only B4 was available and no MW50.

The main users of C3 fuel was the BMW801D engine of the Fw 190 yet the DB and Jumo engines were much more produced as were there customers Me 109/Me 110/Me 210/Me 410/Ju 88/Ju 87/He 177 while all the transports, Fw 200, used B4.

Perhaps some airfield defense units used C3 in the Fw 190D9/D13 in 1945. We seem to have delivery documents.

The fischer-tropsch.org site has a tremendous amount of information. Most interesting are British intelligence files on analysis of German fuels taken throughout the war from drop tanks, crashed machines, captured fuel supplies etc. Unfortunately they are not indexed but simply pdf image scans taken from microfilm and one has to find a spare 2-3 hours to go through them. There is USAAF and USN analysis but their interrogations didn't begin until after WW2.

These reels show several improvements in C3 fuel grade which they always refer to as "green dyed" fuel. They note a big jump in early 43 which they assume will be for a new type of engine not yet in production that is able to exploit the high rich mixture response. The Jump seems to have been from 94RON/115PN to 97RON/125PN according to the British testing methods, they seem to have reached 97/130 but it has to be noted that allied 100/130 was really 102/130 while 150 was more like 104/150 or 110/150. (The US latter introduced a genuine 115/145)

Unfortunately in many cases they do not bother with a PN test and only do the easier RON test. In most cases they don't even bother with a RON test and simply distill of the fractions, the experienced petro-chemists only testing further if they see something unusual.

The micro film reels were supposed to be destroyed: the US government or US petro chemical industry apparently didn't want useful information about how to synthetically produce gas or coal based gasoline freely available. Fortunately they survived at Texas AM university by accident.

Early 1944 the allies started attacking the German fuel industry, repeatedly, this created severe reductions in production and raised great concerns. C3 fuel was of even greater concern as it required more production facilities and having read plenty of books on the Fw 190D/Ta 152 I can say they all say that the Jumo 213 and DB603 engines were all switched to variants that could use B4+MW50 instead of C3 but note even the methanol for MW50 could be in short supply; synthesis was not too difficult as the catalysts were very precise but it still required a coal gasifier.

Towards the end of the war much German fuel was often just distilled of coke or coal tars (benzol process) due the damage to the synthetic plants. When one says "2/3rds of the fuel was C3" one is referring to greatly reduced production. That 2/3rds of production was C3 before or during 1943 or even early 44 doesn't make sense as there wasn't a German Airforce fleet to use that much C3 fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 15, 2014)

The allied fuel specifications are _minimums_. There are literately hundreds (if not thousands) of possible fuel combinations/blends that can meet a particular fuel specification. Not surprising since something like over 400 different compounds can be found in aviation or motor fuel (not at the same time). Different base stocks do NOT act the same when when blended with different compounds or additives. A simple example is that the addition of lead to straight run gasoline and cat cracked gasoline does not follow the same curve or line of improvement for each CC of lead added. 

The Allies had a much larger number of refineries supplying fuel and had to ship it much longer distances and store it for longer periods of time (not all fuel blends tolerated temperature extremes in storage/shipment the same). You weren't as likely to wreck an engine running 102/130 in it as you were running 98/130. 

The introduction of commercial 108/135 and both military and commercial 115/145 was to improve cruise power as much as it was to improve peak power (airlines were only interested in getting heavily loaded aircraft off the runway).


----------



## stona (Jun 16, 2014)

Koopernic said:


> Although DB605ASM and AM were designed for B4+MW50 the apparently used C3+MW50 from about April 1944 till some period in late 1944 when the DB engines again reverted to B4+MW50. The problem apparently being that if the engine ran out of MW50 while in over boost severe engine damage could result.



B4+MW50 was only allowed as an expedient, if necessary, when no C3 fuel was available. The consequences could be more severe than the possibility of severe engine damage. The MW50 Anlage Karte for the G-14 shows this (darf notfalls B-4-Krafstoff geflogen werden) and states clearly that the engine will be immediately destroyed (der Motor sofort zestort wird.) should the MW50 run out.







Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 16, 2014)

CORSNING said:


> 2. DB 605D PS available?



DB-605DC: 1800 PS (one either C3 only, or on B4 + MW-50), 2000 PS with C3 + MW-50. The letter 'C' in engine's designation should point us that engine was aimed for use of C3 fuel. Link: KurfÃ¼rst - DB 601, 603, 605 datasheets - DB 605 DB/DC
As Denniss noted, the 1st examples, called DB-601DB (second 'B' letter was to denote B4 fuel), were to be capable for 1850 PS, but soon were de-rated to 1800.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 16, 2014)

Thank you tomo. I looked over wwiiaircraftperformance, Kurfurst and http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/systems/engine/as_vs_d/as_vs_d.htm and made several notes. Once I get them sorted out, I will make the corrections on post #1.

The quick reference sheet is starting to look fairly good.


----------



## Juha (Jun 18, 2014)

Hello Corsning
for the 605A the 1.42ata Start u. Not power wasn't allowed most of the time up to Oct 43, it was allowed at the beginning of 605A use but banned because of the engine failures, it was again allowed in June 43 and used in Jul 43 but then again banned until Oct 43.

Juha


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 18, 2014)

Hello Juha,
Thank you for the information. It sent me back to researching. 


Everyone,
I have added several changes regarding the DB 601s and DB 605s in post #1. Please look the list over and let me know if I have missed anything. All your help has been greatly appreciated.

Thank you, Jeff


----------



## alejandro_ (Oct 27, 2014)

I have a question on the Bf 109. I will place it here to avoid opening another topic.

What would be the typical version/performance of a Bf 109 at the end of 1943? I was looking at the volumes covering JG53 and all of the losses during this period are G6. The G6AS/G10/G14 with MW-50 came later (April 1944 onwards). I don't think GM-1 was operational in many aircraft either.

The information I have suggests a typical version could be a G6 at 1.3/1.42ATA. AFAIK there are tests for 1.42ATA. Its performance would be close to a G4.

I would appreciate if someone could suggest a test I could use to compare performance with later versions and Allied aircraft that appeared in this period (P-51B, Sptifres with Griffon engines...). A link to wwiiaircraftperformance or kurfurst.org will do.


----------



## kettbo (Oct 28, 2014)

Alejandro,
The Bf109G-6 would be the main a/c serving. The Bf109G-5 appeared in trickles, FAll of 1943. NO Bf109G-14 until AUG'44. No Bf109G-10 until the Fall.
Prien states GM-1/U2 and MW50/U3 were widely fitted. Sad to say that this is in a paragraph about tall tails in early 1944.
With the Bf109G-6/AS available early 1944, I'm not seeing any Bf109G-5/AS being built earlier.


----------



## Denniss (Oct 28, 2014)

In the first three months of 44 could could probably cound /AS machines in service with one or two hands (2 converted in jan, 26 in February, 19 in March 44, more facs starting in April 44 though with 168 overall by April 44). /U3 is not MW-50, that's a tactical recon version. Some G-6/MW appeared in summer 44 (AFAIR May/June) , the forerunner of the G-14. No idea when they started rebuilding the /U2 into MW fighters.
Assuming only Erla built G-5 then 230 were delivered by the end of 43


----------



## alejandro_ (Oct 28, 2014)

Many thanks, I will use this test to compare with other aircraft types:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g6-combat-emergency.jpg


----------



## alejandro_ (Nov 12, 2014)

Here are the data. I have included a Finnish test with a Bf 109 G-2. Somehow I was expecting the G-14 to be better to G-6 at higher altitude. Is there any G-10 test I can compare with?






The tests I have used can be seen below:

KurfÃ¼rst - Finnish Air Force Performance Trials on Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-2, WNr. 14 783 'MT-215'.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g6-combat-emergency.jpg
KurfÃ¼rst - GL/C-E - Bf 109G-14 / DB 605 AM, Erflogene Werte


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 12, 2014)

The G-14 (DB-605AM) should not be able to offer much above 7km vs. the G-6 (DB-605A) since the power gains due to the water-methanol injection were more or less confined for altitudes under that altitude (with ram, that is). Both engines were operating on 1,42 ata on that altitude, the supercharger was not changed for the AM version.
BTW, the '1.70 ata + MW 50' mark is a bit misleading - the MW 50 enabled 1,70 ata 

The G-2 should surpass the G-6, on same power setting, on all altitudes. The Finnish tests show far worse performance than the G-2's German graphs (650 km/h max, 2600 rpm and 1,30 ata) and Soviet tests of the same (666 km/h at 7000m, on 2600 rpm and 1,30 ata! and 624 km/h at 10 km)


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 12, 2014)

To post a thing or two about the Bf-109F1/F2. 
1st, the power graph for the BD-601N, that shows the 'Steig kampfleistung' being at 1,25 ata (max) and 2400 rpm; the 'Start Notleistung' (1 min here) at 1,35 ata (max) and 2600 rpm. Respective power at altitude being 1050 PS at 4850m abd 1175 PS at 4900m.







However, the Kennblat for the BF-101F1/F2 says that 'S. Notleistung' is allowed for 3 minutes there, with the manifold pressure increased to 1,42 ata. The manifold pressure for the 'Steig Kampleistung' increased to 1,30 ata. Max speed being 615 and 595 km/h, respectively; see the 'Wirklich' (='True') arrow:






This is not yet as far (fast) as the Bf-109F1/F2 was capable for. The over-revving to 2800 rpm was allowed, that gave another 10-15 km/h at rated height. That means 625-630 km/h.






We still don't know what power was available for the F1/F2, though. The footnote from the latest doc might lead as to the answer. It reads, roughly, that when Kampfleistung is at 1,25 ata instead of 1,30 ata, the power is down by 4,5%. For the Notleistung, when the manifold pressure is at 1,35 ata vs. 1,42 ata, the power is down by 6%. Going backwards, the power should be around 1100 PS on Kampfleistung and 1250 PS on Notleistung. The cost was probably several hundred meters in the rated altitude vs. what the graph shows us, ie. the rated altitude was at, roughly, 4500 m for those power settings, no ram.

The over-revving helped considerably for high altitude power and performance, but I still don't know for certain the power available for 2800 rpm, that was allowed at and above rated altitude. My guess is that some 100 PS would be the gain at ~5 km ( no ram), ie. some 1270 PS there.


----------



## alejandro_ (Nov 14, 2014)

Hello Tomo Pauk, many thanks for the feedback.

I will modify the graph. As you said, 1.7 + MW 30 is missleading.



> The G-2 should surpass the G-6, on same power setting, on all altitudes. The Finnish tests show far worse performance than the G-2's German graphs (650 km/h max, 2600 rpm and 1,30 ata) and Soviet tests of the same (666 km/h at 7000m, on 2600 rpm and 1,30 ata! and 624 km/h at 10 km)



IIRC During Soviet tests the 109 tended to overheat, thus I do not think the test is as reliable as Finnish or Germans. In any case, the graph shows that there was little improvement in performance from F-2/4 to G-6.

Is there any tests with G-10 performance available? This G version was popular with pilots, and should have a performance comparable to K-4 at 1.80ata.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 14, 2014)

F-2 and F-4 can not stay in the same group as performance


----------



## Denniss (Nov 14, 2014)

Please note that some of the curves are based on DB/Mtt testflights where they did something to the supercharger slip system. These graphs look like the the higher speed supercharger gear kicking-in at full speed and not controlled via the fluid coupling.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 14, 2014)

Would you please elaborate a bit on that?


----------



## Denniss (Nov 14, 2014)

Speed curve should be smooth (similar to the G-2 curve) and not showing the zigzag of two-speed superchargers


----------



## alejandro_ (Nov 27, 2014)

I have now included the Bf 109 G-10 performance. The only test I found came from a Soviet source, which I assume in turn took it from a German one. See link below. There are no data on engine settings or weight. The book just says it is equipped with a DB "605DC engine". Data only go to 8000 meters.






In many discussions it has been stated that G-10 was the most popular late variant of the 109, preferred to K4 because it did not have the underwing tubs and the MG 151 20mm gun instead of the 30mm MK-108. However, is there any specific pilot/s that made the claim? I have only read about Uffz. Georg Genth from JG 26.


----------



## gomwolf (Nov 28, 2014)

I think 1.42ata on db605a was not banned. Fire problem on 1.42ata was fixed in early or mid 1943, but it was not fully propagated at front until early 1944. German Bf109G handbuch was published for both(fixed and not fixed) aircrafts. I think this is right interpretation. How do you think guys?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 28, 2014)

I'm afraid you're wrong on this. The 'Start and Notleistung' (2800 rpm AND 1,42 ata) setting was banned for circa a full year, from autumn of 1942 till autumn of 1943. There is plenty of data at Kurfurst's that prove it.


----------



## Denniss (Nov 30, 2014)

The G-10 curve looks valid, that's the smooth curve you expect from the hydraulically changed supercharger speed on DB engines. Have not yet checked the speeds though but on the first glance they look ok.


----------



## kettbo (Dec 4, 2014)

interesting thread that I found
Bf-109G-6/U3 and Bf-109G-14/AS, where are they? | Forums - Page 2

not sure of the validity of what was stated AND it as a decade old...
says the/U3s went to Recon units, suppose a prelude to Bf109G-8 recon version
if I read things right, the /U2 GM1-equipped, when field converted to MW50 were still /U2 technically (???).... and of course Gf109G-6 w/MW50, no matter you call it, lead right to the production Bf109G-14.

also an interesting relted thread on TOCH
ME 109g-6 u4 arnaments? - Page 3 - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum


BUT, in PRIEN p108, says it is an easy conversion from GM1 to MW50 thus making Bf109G-6/U2 into Bf109G6/U3, a 'common' conversion. does not say RECON FIGHTER

I'm confused


----------



## Denniss (Dec 4, 2014)

The /U2 stayed /U2 even when converted to MW50 use. The G-6MW was a different beast with built-in MW50 system. AFAIR /U2 used compressed air from bottles to feed GM1/MW whereas G-6MW used bleed air from the supercharger for this.


----------



## kettbo (Dec 5, 2014)

Correct so far as I know Dennis
Missed your post a page back now saying the Bf109G-6/U3 was Recon....Prien said nothing about what a U3 was other then WM50.


----------



## Denniss (Dec 5, 2014)

Not impossible to have recons with MW, the MW system just had a smaller tank due to limited space. With MW tank the camera installation may have been limited in size as well.
The G-6/R2 had MW system, AFAIR cams were only for low alt recon.


----------



## alejandro_ (Dec 13, 2014)

When looking at the graph previously created it is possible to see the performance increment of G-10 at high altitude compared to G-6/G-14. The issue is that G-10 came quite late in 1944, around October. How did other G6/AS and G14/AS compare? These versions should have been introduced before G10 and helped against high altitude Allied fighters, like P-47/P-51.

The only performance graph for G14AS I have seen is in the link below, but no details on configuration and weight have been provided.

kriegstechnik: Bf109G-14AS vs Bf109G-14


----------



## alejandro_ (Dec 13, 2014)

When looking at the graph previously created it is possible to see the performance increment of G-10 at high altitude compared to G-6/G-14. The issue is that G-10 came quite late in 1944, around October. How did other G6/AS and G14/AS compare? These versions should have been introduced before G10 and helped against high altitude Allied fighters, like P-47/P-51.

The only performance graph for G14AS I have seen is in the link below, but no details on configuration and weight have been provided.

kriegstechnik: Bf109G-14AS vs Bf109G-14


----------



## Denniss (Dec 13, 2014)

G-14/AS and G-10 should have a very similar performance. The graph may show maxspeed of the /AS at a bit too high alt, AFAIR it should be roughly 1 km below rated alt of 7.8 km.
Speeds are too high for gunboats.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 13, 2014)

You might want to check this out: KurfÃ¼rst - Leistungen Me 109 G-14/U4 mit DB 605 AM u. ASM.

FWIW: the speed chart for different BF-109s, the Bf-209 and Me-262. Pure 'Notleistung', ie. the MW 50 not used:


----------



## Denniss (Dec 13, 2014)

Is the graph from flight tests or calculated like those in Kuffies link?
Somewhat irritating to see the G-6 with 605A 130kg heavier than the G-5 with 605AS - gunboat?
-> Kuffies data has the /AS heavier by 35kg.


----------



## thedab (Dec 13, 2014)

don't think so, them gondola are about 220kg,could it be MW-50?


----------



## Denniss (Dec 13, 2014)

Maybe the MGs or the cannon were not installed in the G-5 testbed for the AS engine.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 13, 2014)

Denniss said:


> Is the graph from flight tests or calculated like those in Kuffies link?
> Somewhat irritating to see the G-6 with 605A 130kg heavier than the G-5 with 605AS - gunboat?
> -> Kuffies data has the /AS heavier by 35kg.



The chart is from the attached pdf.
There is the a chart at Kurfurst's showing (claiming it is for a clean 109G-6) the AS engine with MW 50 engaged (basically = ASM engine) propelling the aircraft to 690 km/h at 7 km.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Dec 13, 2014)

The charts are nice but to be treated with a grain of salt if you don't know corrections for standard day and compressibility. The latter was missing (and stated as missing) for the data on Kuffies link


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 14, 2014)

The speed values from the pdf I've posted are rather conservative, eg. the 109G6 doing only 635 km/h on Notleistung. 

This table might be of interest, FWIW. The values in the brackets should be for MW 50 engaged, ie. 'Sondernotleistung' power setting. Looking at weights, the values are for 'clean' A/C, ie. no 'gondelnwaffen'.

Hmm, the speed for the G-14 from the table and the G-5ASM (from the graph) is much lower - maybe the G-5ASM was indeed flown with reduced weaponry?

edit2: the GL/C-E2 tables from Williams site also have the performance figures for the Bf 109s with AS/ASM engines


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 14, 2014)

The sheet that covers the Bf-109K versions; only the K-4 meant anything in the ww2 air warfare. Please note the question-mark next to the speed vs. altitude value for the K-16 version (the one with two stage engine, the DB 605L), reason most probably being the 16,6 km stated altitude, instead of 10,6 km. Unfortunately, the speed graph is badly 'wrecked', though it can be deciphered. The K-6 and K-14 were suposed to carry MK 108 cannons in the wings, per the sheet.
The translation can be read here, minus the speed values for the K-16. However, the speed RoC graph covers that variant.
Open the pic separately for hi-res.






This might be also of interest: data sheet


----------



## alejandro_ (Dec 20, 2014)

I would like to wrap up some of the questions I posted before. I have been looking at introduction dates of late war variants of Bf 109. Here is a list with the links:

G-6 /AS: early 1944 production (1), may 1944 (2), april-may 1944 -JG 1, JG 3, JG 5 and JG 11- (3)
G-14: July 1944 (2)
G-14/As: August 1944 (2)
G-10: October 1944 (2)

(1) Kurfürst - Articles - Notes for "Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K A Performance Comparison"
(2) Luftwaffe Late Fighters - Bf 109 G-6,8,10,14, K-4 - Implemented Suggestions - War Thunder - Official Forum
(3) Bf-109 G-6 A/S - Axis History Forum

Any further details/corrections?


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 20, 2014)

for ww2.dk
G6/AS june '44
G14 july '44
G14/AS august '44
G10 october '44


----------



## CORSNING (May 21, 2021)

Finally,
After picking up some of the books mentioned on this thread I was able to properly finish
the "Quick Reference" of the Bf 109. Let me tell you, there was nothing quick about it.
I found out the hard way that there is a 20,000 digit limit per post and had to rearrange 
my original first post and posting the extended engine information and references this post.

Other engine performances:
*DB 605ASM:* June 1944: C3 or B4/MW 50: 2,800 rpm/1.7 ata: 1,800 ps/T.O., 1,500 ps/6,400 m.
& 1,150 ps/7,800 m./2,700 rpm.
*DB 605DB:* B4/MW 50/2,800 rpm/1.8 ata: 1,850 ps/T.O., 1,600 ps/6,000 m. (chronically burning thru
pistons).
*DB 605DB* (after corrections @ 2,800 rpm): 1,800 ps/1.8 ata/T.O., 1,530 ps/1.98 ata/4,900 m.
*DB 605DC:* December 1944C3 fuel/MW 50/2,800 rpm/1.98 ata: 2,000 ps/S.L., 1,800 ps/4,900 m.
& 1,550 ps/6,000 m./1.8 ata

References:
Messerschmitt Bf 109 A-E by Willy Radinger & Walter Schick
Messerschmitt Bf 109 F-K by Willy Radinger & Wolfgang Otto
Warplanes of the Third Reich by William Green
Combat Aircraft of World War II by Bill Gunston
Messerschmitt Bf 109 in Action Pt.2 by John R. Beaman
Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G, & K by Jochen Prien & Peter Rodeike
Messerschmitt 'O-Nine' Gallery by Thomas Hitchcock
Messerschmitt Bf 109, The Design and Operational History by Jan Forsgren

I will attempt to post the performance figures I have recorded on excel as soon as 
I can remember how to make a PDF from my files and then attach it.


----------



## CORSNING (May 21, 2021)

Hopefully this works.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

