# Bf 109F-4 performance thread



## tomo pauk (Sep 14, 2017)

In order not to clog the other thread with non-topic material, I'll start the ball rolling on the 109F-4. 1st - a re-post from that thread, about comparison between the 109F-4 and Fw 190A-2:



tomo pauk said:


> ...
> At any rate, here is what Germans thought about the 109F-4 and Fw 190A-2:
> 
> _a) Geschwindigkeit:
> ...


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 14, 2017)

109G-6 top speeds are almost always quoted as 389mph, which seems to be right in the ballpark with the F-4. Were they really equivalent? 
I always assumed that the G-6 was capable of more speed, especially when equipped with the AS engine.
Another example is Japanese aircraft always list low top speeds, while post war tests show the Ki-84 outrunning a P-51 at 20000ft.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 14, 2017)

And certainly the Ki-100 must have been capable of more than 360mph?


----------



## GregP (Sep 14, 2017)

Corsning belongs to a few forums and has an aircraft performance thread going in another one. These data come from Corsning, with some pretty good research.

Here's what he found in Russian testing for the* Bf 109 F-1*:

Russian graphs 0209/0210 dated September/October 1941 ( Graph 0230 Allied and Soviet Bombers compaired to German fighters):
Altitude.Speed/Climb/-(Speed)
Meters...mph/fpm/-(mph)
S.L........316/3385/-(321)
.1,000...332/3470/-(333)
.2,000...342/3345/-(342)
.3,000...350/3130/-(350)
.4,000...356/2980/-(357)
.5,000...362/2590/-(364)
.6,000...368/2205/-(370)
.7,000...366/1790/-(368)
.8,000...359/1395/-(364)
Feet----------------
.5,000...337/3485
10,000...350/3120
15,000...360/2770
20,000...368/2175
25,000...368/1550

Full throttle/critical altitudes: 368mph./5,950 m. (19,521 ft.) and 3,510fpm./1,430 m. (4,692 ft.)

Ceilings (calculated)
Combat: 29,560ft.
Operational: 35,560ft.
Service: 36,760ft.

Here's what he found for the *Bf 109F-1/2 from German testing*:
The following information comes from documents included in *Bruf=Nr.509* (Brief No.509 ???). Title: Identification For The Airplane Model Bf 109 Series F-1 and F-2 with DB601N Motor. The only date I could find was on the front cover: Berlin 1941.

Engine: DB601N @ 1.30ata boost = ? = 1,175ps (1,159 hp.) Not sure at this time of power output at 1.30 ata. Foot note something about 1.25ata.

Altitude.Speed/Climb
Meters...mph/fpm/minutes to altitude
S.L......307/3149/----
.1,000...349/3149/-1.0
.2,000...332/3149/-2.1
.3,000...344/3149/-3.2
.4,000...356/3149/-4.3
.5,000...368/2715/-5.4
.6,000...369/2204/-6.5
.7,000...367/1692/-8.3
.8,000...360/1259/10.5
.9,000...351/-885/13.7
10,000...325/-492/18.7
11,000...283/-98.4/N.G.

Full throttle height: 369.7mph./5,000 m. (16,400ft.) and 3,149fpm./4,390 m. (14,400ft.)

Ceilings (calculated)
Combat: 28,560ft.
Operational: 32,730ft.
Service: 36,070ft.

Wing Area: 173.3 sq.ft.
Test Weight: 6,015.24 lbs.
Wing Loading: 34.71- lbs./sq.ft.
Power Loading: 5.190 lbs./hp.
Armament: 2 x 7.9mm (upper cowl) + 1 x 20mm (thru spinner)

Turn Time of the Bf 109F-2 at 6,130 lbs.: 19.6 - 20.5 seconds


Here's what he found from German testing of the Bf 109 F-4:
*Bf 109F-4 PERFORMANCE December 1941*

Information for this model is also from *Bruf=No. 509*.

The Speed graph figures are estimated:

Altitude.Speed
Meters...mph
S.L......311
.1,000...322
.2,000...334
.3,000...346
.4,000...358
.5,000...369
.6,000...381
.7,000...388
.8,000...386
.9,000...374
10,000...367

Full throttle height: 390mph./6,700m. (21,982ft.)

Range (maximum): 994 mph./254 mph./182 gallons of fuel. (maximum internal fuel: 102 gallons)

From *Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War, Vol.1*:

Page 124:

By early 1942 the Yak-1 had proved to be the best Soviet fighter with regard to overall performance, but it was still bettered in combat by the Messerschmitt Br 109F. When the Bf 109F-2 was replaced by the 'F-4 with a more powerful, high altitude engine and improved armour and armament, the discrepancy was even more noticeable. In the words of Luftwaffe ace Gerhard Barkhorn, the Bf 109F-4 represented the acme of the type's development. Its superiority over the Yak-1 in climb rate became more impressive, and maneuvrability was of the same order. The 'F-4 also retained its superior speed.


Page 125:

A simulated combat between a Yak-1 M-105PF and a Bf 109F at the NII VVS revealed that the Bf 109F had only marginal superior manoeuvability at 3,300 ft., though the German fighter could gain substantial advantage over the Yak-1 within four or five nose-to-tail turns. At 9,800 ft. the capabilities of both fighters were nearly equal. The supercharger of the Daimler-Benz engine did not provide a nominal boost in these tests....while the NII VVS was testing the earlier Bf 109F-2, the Luftwaffe had converted to the Bf 109F-4 with the more powerful DB601E engine, and this new variant completely outperformed the Yak-1.

Like my own findings, I don't see 400 mph anywhere. I have seen it mentioned along with a blurb about clearing the engine for more power, but nothing else was said about that. If the engine WAS cleared for more power, what was the ata cleared and date? Does anyone have German flight test for the Bf 109F after the engine was cleared for more manifold pressure?

I am absolutely willing to believe it could do 400 mph in level flight. I'm just looking for the flight test data at this point.


----------



## Mad Dog (Sep 14, 2017)

There were some early issues with maximum boost on early Bf109Fs and Gs that meant both got faster later in use, so comparing performance data means you have to look at what point in time that performance was available to frontline units. I'm also wary of captured aircraft test figures as they were usually testing crashed aircraft that had been rebuilt, and it is suspected the Russians often did not use the right fuel when testing German fighters. On 22nd February 1942 _Oberleutnant_ Niss, of 8./JG51 was forced to land his Bf 109 F-2, WNr. 9209, within Soviet positions - it was that DB601N-engined F that was tested by the Soviet's Air Forces Scientific Research Institute. The DB601N needed high-octane C3 fuel which the Soviets simply didn't have, so that probably makes their test figures pessimistic. The RAF were just as guilty of such mistakes, originally issuing some low performance figures for Armin Faber's captured FW190A-3 because they didn't service the sparkplugs properly. I prefer to use German data for German aircraft if I can as the Germans knew how to get the best out of their own designs.

IIRC, German test data for the early F-2 was that it topped out at 384mph with the DB601N. The F-4 switched to the more powerful DB601E, and full boost for the DB601E was cleared for operational use in February 1942, but at that time most frontline units were still flying slower F-2s. The FW190 didn't make an appearance on the Eastern Front until September 1942, by which time the DB605-engiend Bf109G was replacing the F on the frontline. Before February 1942 the F-4 was restricted to 394mph at about 22,000ft, but a clean (no underwing gondolas, no Trop filters, no belly tank fittings) F-4 could hit 410mph after the boost restriction was removed. Note, this was time-limited WEP and not at a combat weight, and at 22,000ft they were unlikely to be meeting many Soviet aircraft, so the real benefit of the extra boost was probably more in improved climb performance for "boom'n'zoom" tactics rather than 400+mph horizontal speed.

What I do recall reading is that the Russians actually considered the Bf109 in both F and G models as a bigger threat than the FW190, which is strange given most Luftwaffe Experten seem to have preferred the FW190.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 14, 2017)

Clayton Magnet said:


> 109G-6 top speeds are almost always quoted as 389mph, which seems to be right in the ballpark with the F-4. Were they really equivalent?
> I always assumed that the G-6 was capable of more speed, especially when equipped with the AS engine.
> Another example is Japanese aircraft always list low top speeds, while post war tests show the Ki-84 outrunning a P-51 at 20000ft.





Clayton Magnet said:


> And certainly the Ki-100 must have been capable of more than 360mph?



Perhaps it might be a good idea to keep the discussion here as closely related to the Bf 109F-4 as possible 



GregP said:


> ...
> Here's what he found from German testing of the Bf 109 F-4:
> *Bf 109F-4 PERFORMANCE December 1941*
> 
> ...



What was the engine power used for the speed?



> Like my own findings, I don't see 400 mph anywhere. I have seen it mentioned along with a blurb about clearing the engine for more power, but nothing else was said about that. If the engine WAS cleared for more power, what was the ata cleared and date? Does anyone have German flight test for the Bf 109F after the engine was cleared for more manifold pressure?
> 
> I am absolutely willing to believe it could do 400 mph in level flight. I'm just looking for the flight test data at this point.



The engine was cleared for 2700 rpm and 1.42 ata at some time December 1941, that power setting was used in the comparison test vs. the Fw 190A-2. I provided the link for the speed graph of the F-4 in other thread, here it is claimed that it can do 670 km/h, here it comes again: link.


----------



## GregP (Sep 14, 2017)

Hi Tomo,

Saw the link, but "WTS Koblenz" as a source doesn't take me anywhere for flight test data. At this time, it is an admittedly interesting chart that I cannot take seriously yet since I don't know where it came from. Still, you aren't in the habit of posting bogus data, so I know it comes from somewhere you consider to be reliable.

But it's the only place I've ever seen someone credit the Bf 19F with 670 kph, and it has little credibility as yet for me. I will not dismiss it, though, and am not arguing other than to post data showing a considerably slower top speed for the mark with report numbers in the text quoted from Corsning. I haven't known you to chase windmills where data is concerned, so I will pursue it as I get time.

Meanwhile, I'll follow this thread with interest.

You may be right and, if so, I'm sure it will surface with suitable official markings.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 15, 2017)

Another doc where we can read the Vmax = 670 km/h figure for the F-4 is here. Rated alttude is listed as H = 6.3 km, power used Nvmax = 1290 PS (= Notleistung) . Compared with 635 km/h at 6 km, using 1185 PS (= Kamp, as noted by the another doc.

WTS Koblenz is a military-history museum/institute. Wiki page: link.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 15, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> Another doc where we can read the Vmax = 670 km/h figure for the F-4 is here. Rated alttude is listed as H = 6.3 km, power used Nvmax = 1290 PS (= Notleistung) . Compared with 635 km/h at 6 km, using 1185 PS (= Kamp, as noted by the another doc.
> 
> WTS Koblenz is a military-history museum/institute. Wiki page: link.



These documents are readily available. Even Kurfurst has them.

Some people just don't want to find them.


----------



## Juha2 (Sep 15, 2017)

Hello
I don't know why we should have more faith in calculations of Messerschmitt AG than Milch, who often openly questioned them and sometimes ordered Focke-Wulf AG to check them. Also why would F-4 be 20 km/h faster than G-2, which was aerodynamically very similar even if somewhat heavier but had more powerful engine with higher FTH?

Juha

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 15, 2017)

The documents I quoted above are also available to anyone. They just don't agree. That's why I'm trying to figure out what is correct.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 15, 2017)

GregP said:


> The documents I quoted above are also available to anyone. They just don't agree. That's why I'm trying to figure out what is correct.



Well would you accept US or British manufacture and test documents for American or British aircraft? 

Simple, yes or no.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 15, 2017)

Juha2 said:


> Hello
> I don't know why we should have more faith in calculations of Messerschmitt AG than Milch, who often openly questioned them and sometimes ordered Focke-Wulf AG to check them. Also why would F-4 be 20 km/h faster than G-2, which was aerodynamically very similar even if somewhat heavier but had more powerful engine with higher FTH?
> 
> Juha



Focke Wulf also had the habit to report greater speed of the Fw 190 than it was so. Eg. the claim, stated at the manual for the Fw 190A-2, A-3 and A-4 (Teil 0, ie. introduction) for the top speed of 676 km/h, without even making a distinction between the BMW 801C- and 801D-powered machines.
I'm also curious when the testers at Rechlin and other places started calculating compressibility effect ('kompressibilitaet der Luft'), that alone will subtract max of 15 km/h (almost 10 mp/h) from the top speed at this graph: link.
Or, this table (link) where we can see the figures in the brackets, that are not corrected for compressibility: a ~15 mph/24 km/h difference at max speed at 6.3 km.
Curiously enough, we see the British and Soviet figures for the Fw 190A-3/A-4 as low at 375 mph (ie. slower than 380-390 mp/h speed figures for the F-4 by the Allies), and plenty of graphs at internet where people put the Fw 190A-3 at 680 km/h (420 mp/h) claiming it is based on the Fw data.



GregP said:


> The documents I quoted above are also available to anyone. They just don't agree. That's why I'm trying to figure out what is correct.



Could you please post the horsepower figures for the speeds attained?


----------



## GregP (Sep 15, 2017)

It isn't a yes or no answer, or all that simple.

I believe that American or British tests were reported fairly. If they differ significantly from one another, then there is a good reason, which the researcher must try to find. The reason is always there, but it isn't always recorded.

I started looking at WWII fighters in the 1950s. I have books that were published back then. The Bf 109F variant wasn't shown as that fast until the late 1970s mid-1980s, and the references were always vague, just reported as a speed. It would appear to me that the widely-reported lower numbers were for the original tests that were, in fact, in the 385 mph range.

It appears now that, at some date, more manifold pressure was approved for the DB, just as it was for U.S. and British engines. The faster numbers would appear, on the surface, to be the results of that higher manifold pressure. But they don't exactly agree. I've seen 410 mph and 416 mph. In my mind, the difference between 410 mph and 416 mph is within individual airframe differences, and I'm willing to let that slide.

It seems like the Bf 109F was slightly above 400 mph in level flight after the increase in manifold pressure. We don't seem to know when that happened, or even if it really did. So far, it's a claim, and I haven't seen documents that say whether they are calculated or flight test data; just data tabulations. I'm open to the increase in speed, but want to know when it happened IN THE FIELD, and still want to see flight test data confirming it, with dates and test conditions. The purpose in that is to confirm that the aircraft tested was a production Bf 109F and not a test mule, as the Germans were very fond of at the time.

They passed off the He 100D as a production aircraft, and told the world that Me 209R was a standard fighter, too. So, my trust in the data isn't as doubtful as whether or not the aircraft tested was a production model. I have little doubt they tested something at that speed, but whether or not it was a combat-ready Bf 109F I can't say. At least in the U.S.A and the UK, you can find flight tests where a service aircraft was requisitioned and tested as it came from the unit, after being serviced.

Like I said above, it's worth looking into. Meanwhile, the performance numbers I believe are the ones published for 25+ years after the war, before someone dug up a memo talking about possible manifold pressure increases that still haven't been verified as used in the field at some time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 15, 2017)

GregP said:


> It isn't a yes or no answer, or all that simple.
> 
> I believe that American or British tests were reported fairly. If they differ significantly from one another, then there is a good reason, which the researcher must try to find. The reason is always there, but it isn't always recorded.
> 
> ...



I'll respond in more detail after work, but essentially you are cherry picking data to support your preconcieved notions and beliefs. There is 0 reason to not believe Messerschmitt's data that has not changed since 1942 (as I said, more later on this).

That is not a knock on you at all, WE all do it ...


----------



## GregP (Sep 15, 2017)

I might agree except I have no preconceived opinions and believe thew Bf 109 to be much better, in general, than it is credited for. I'm just looking for something that tells me the airframe is standard and the data is believable for a production aircraft. I have no notion it is WRONG.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (Sep 16, 2017)

Hello Tomo
Finnish performance test for Bf 109 G-2 produced 523 km/h at sea level and 652 km/h at the FTH without the compressibility correction but 522 km/h and 636 km/h with it. I don't believe that it is a mere chance that the speeds without the compressibility correction are exactly same as the speeds Germans got for a Bf 109 G-2/R2.

But did the British make compressibility correction to their figures?

Juha

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 16, 2017)

Juha2 said:


> Hello Tomo
> Finnish performance test for Bf 109 G-2 produced 523 km/h at sea level and 652 km/h at the FTH without the compressibility correction but 522 km/h and 636 km/h with it. I don't believe that it is a mere chance that the speeds without the compressibility correction are exactly same as the speeds Germans got for a Bf 109 G-2/R2.



Not negligible - 13 km/h, circa 8 mp/h.



> But did the British make compressibility correction to their figures?
> 
> Juha



Looks like they did, as early as in April of 1941 (test report for the Spit Mk.V; correction due to copressibility is almost 6 mph at 20800 ft and 375 mph), at least for their A/C. I'll see whether/when it was accounted for for the captured A/C.

edit: even in May 1940 for the Spit II compressibility was accounted for.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 16, 2017)

GregP said:


> I might agree except I have no preconceived opinions and believe thew Bf 109 to be much better, in general, than it is credited for. I'm just looking for something that tells me the airframe is standard and the data is believable for a production aircraft. I have no notion it is WRONG.



Here is the thing Greg, you keep saying you don't accept actual data sheets from the manufacturer and the Luftwaffe, but that US and British are okay because they are "fair reporting". They are reported no differently. Whether the aircraft is British, American, German, Japanese, Italian, etc., they are reporting "best case", and the tests are conducted during best case conditions. None of these figures will ever be obtained in a combat ready and loaded aircraft and conditions. I think we can both agree on this, therefore Messerschmitts Data sheets are all you should accept and go off of.

The German data has been the same since 1942. It was already there when you began studying aircraft in the 1950s. It is nothing new. It is not someone presenting it try and show the aircraft in a better light. So, yes YOU do have a preconceived notion. As I said we all do however. That is not a knock on you.

As for your sources, and your claims that certain ones cherry pick data. Sorry Greg, but they all do the same things. Every single source out there picks and chooses it's data in order to prove or show what it wants. That is why I am up in arms with you here. You call out others for doing that, yet you are doing the same thing. Choosing to ignore actual German data, saying it is less accurate than data presented by the allies that never tested the aircraft under the same conditions.

NO data for any aircraft from any manufacturer is from a production aircraft. They are TEST Aircraft.

I will drop it further from here. We both have seen the data, we both have our preconceived notions.


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 17, 2017)

Thank you gentlemen, very good input all around. Thank you Tomo
for posting all the site information. Thank you Greg for posting from
the AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE section of WARBIRDS.

It is no secret that I am on a constant quest for more performance
information when it comes to WW2 fighters. I wish to start by saying
I am in no way, shape or form an expert on the Bf.109, so I research
others material. Looking at the document of the Bf.109F-4 from Beim-
zeugmeister is very interesting. I have this document in my files but
never gave it the due it deserves until now.

First of all I would like to point out that the document is dated
3 February 1943. The Bf.109F-4 entered operational service in December
1941. At that time the DB601E was cleared for 1.3 ata. boosting. In
January 1942 the DB601E was cleared for 1.42 ata. boosting at low and
medium altitudes up to about 5,500 m...?, and 1.3 ata. at altitudes above
this. Full throttle height would still have been 6,000 - 6,700 m. and maximum
all out speed would have been 390-394.5 mph. in clean condition.

The 670 km/h (416 mph.)/6,300 m. (20,700 ft.) at 2,890 kg. (6,372 lbs.)
listed on this document using 1,290 PS (1,272 hp.) would have to be at
at least 1.42 ata. My question would be then, was the DB601E cleared
for that amount of boost during its military lifetime at that altitude, and when
was it cleared? Also keep in mind that the DB605A was introduced in the 
Bf.109G-1 in May 1942 with a clearance of 1.42 ata. boosting. It is very
interesting to note that the emergency power of 1.42 for the DB505A was
banned in June, July, October of 1942 and then again in June and October
of 1943. It was banned once again in February 1944. In the time of each
ban emergency power fell to 1.3 ata. My only point here is that the boosting
of the DB601E for the full length of its life may have varied also and any
boosting that allowed it to reach or exceed 400 mph. may have been
fleeting.

Then there is the possible other side of the story; The P-51D entered service
in June 1944. The only complete test trial I have seen on this model comes
from wwiiaircraftperformance dated 15 June 1945. Maximum speed listed is
442 mph. with one external bomb (fuel tank) rack on each wing. These racks
slowed the P-51D-15 by 6 mph. These figures would have been at 67"Hg boosting.
The P-51D is classically listed at 437 mph. maximum speed at 24,500 ft. because
of a UK data sheet dated 24 July 1944.

The V-1650-3 and-7 of the P-51 B/C/D were cleared for 72-75 inches somewhere
in June 1944. The V-1650-7 was cleared for +25 psi. (80+"Hg.). by the UK soon
after.

The whole purpose of my posts is to show that the Bf.109F-4 flying at 400 mph.
is completely possible. At this time I am going to have to say it was not common
place or a normally expected figure, and if it was it was probably after its time in
the sun with the introduction of the DB605 engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 17, 2017)

If I could verify they are actual data sheets, then they're fine. If I could get the test conditions, that would be better. If I could verify they're for production, line-ready aircraft, that would be the best. I can type up a data sheet and make it look pretty authentic, Doesn't make it authentic.

I have no notion other nations report falsely, I simply have little way to verify they are, in fact, authentic datasheets. Doesn't mean they aren't. Means I don't know that at this time. There is nothing wrong with German, Russian, Japanese, or any other data.

I never said they were false, I said I have little confidence in the data until I can verify the test condition and the aircraft configuration being tested.


----------



## Juha2 (Sep 18, 2017)

Hello Tomo
thanks for the info on British figures!

But I didn't get what you meant with this:


tomo pauk said:


> Not negligible - 13 km/h, circa 8 mp/h.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 18, 2017)

My bad math ☺
The actual difference being as grest as 10 mph for the Finish 109G-2.


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 18, 2017)

Tomo, I love you man (in a manly way sir). Thank you for posting all the site listings of the
F-4. I do have them in my files. I will have to pull the information out and have a closer
look. If it is warranted, I will have to add it to my listing over at Warbirdsforum.
Mad Dog, Thank you also for your contributions.

To every one else, thank you for adding such great input.

You guys are the best, Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 18, 2017)

I must thank you, too, Tomo. Really great stuff.

I'm sure it's all good, and is a super addition to the data files. You come up with the best data and from sources I can't seem to find. It's little slices of stuff I've been looking for for years. Kudos.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 19, 2017)

Thank you for the compliments, people. 

Ironically enough, Juha's comment about German tests, that might not take into account the compressibility effect as early as 1941-42, kinda shook my confidence on the data I was so eager to post. Not just because of that, I'd love to see the horsepower figures for the Allied speed figures re. 109F-4.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 19, 2017)

I am guessing that you are not going to find any or they are going to be rare.They could record RPM and Boost settings for a given speed but converting those to power requires running the engine on a Dynomometer which means pulling the engine from the aircraft, installing on appropriate test stand, rigging suitable coolant and oil supplies ( and variable pressure intake air to mimic altitude) and running tests. Once they _KNOW_ the power ratings for those conditions they can use them to figure into the flight test results (maybe).
On occasion captured engines were run on test stands but finding those test results and combining them with flight tests is going to be difficult. 
How much allied intelligence depended on captured documents vs extensive testing of captured equipment I don't know. 

Some American radials had torque meters built into the reduction gear case and direct measurements could be taken in flight.


----------



## Greyman (Sep 19, 2017)

Made a chart:
EDIT: _added a faint Spitfire Vc running +16 boost bringing up the rear for illustrative purposes._

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (Sep 20, 2017)

Hello Greyman
thanks a lot for the chart!
A good idea to put also the speed graph of Spit Vc, it showed how much slower it was than Bf 109 F-4.

I bit OT, British calculated after their Bf 109 G-2(Trop) flight tests that the max speeds of a standard Bf 109 G-2 were 395 mph at 22,000 ft and 328 mph at S.L. The max boost was 1.30 ata.

Juha

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Sep 20, 2017)

Juha2 said:


> ... it showed how much slower it was than Bf 109 F-4.



Kind of illustrating what I was getting at in the other thread; "_One of the main reasons I don't really go with the high-end German figures I've seen (410 mph, 416 mph) is that I would think if the 109F-4 was truly 50-60 mph faster in service than the Spitfire V, we would see constant mention of that by the Allied pilots._"

Tropical Spitfires are even worse off. I think the RAF would have been thoroughly demoralized if these figures, the high-end ones anyway, were 'correct'. I haven't read many anecdotes of Merlin 61 Spitfire IX pilots that note a 109F's 25-35 mph speed advantage up to 26,000 feet. Or no speed advantage in a Merlin 66.

Now that's not to say there was some grand German aircraft performance conspiracy or deliberate deception plan. I just think it's a matter of different countries and different organizations using different methods of calculation. Consider what the AFDU noted in their Thunderbolt report (via wwiiaircraftperformance.org):

_Since the P-47C has not been through the hands of the Performance Testing Flight of the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment, some careful check flights were made at this Unit to obtain an approximate idea of its performance. The figures set out below and on the curve shown at Appendix 'A' have been agreed with Headquarters, VIII Fighter Command, U.S.A.A.F., but can only be taken as approximate. In an independent trial the U.S.A.A.F. obtained slightly higher figures, possibly owing to the difficulty of reading the Standard American airspeed indicator and to the different methods of reduction. At this Unit the British Performance Reduction Methods for Modern Aircraft (A.&A.E.E./Res/170) were used._

I'd be willing to bet Messerschmitt AG. Augsburg didn't use "British Performance Reduction Methods for Modern Aircraft (A.&A.E.E./Res/170)".

And that could just be the start of the differences.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 21, 2017)

We know for sure that plenty of US aircraft tested in the UK didn't quite managed to equal the claimed performance numbers, the greatest offenders being P-39 and P-40.

Problem with data for the 109F-4 is that we don't know when or was the compressibility taken into account (it will be a factor above 350 mph, let alone around 400 mph), and, as it was the case with Fw for the Focke Wulf 190A-2 to A-4, the manufacturer (MTT in this case) might list the optimistic figure as the real one.


----------



## GregP (Sep 21, 2017)

Greyman's observation that the pilots of the time didn't mention the great speeds difference plays a big part in my thinking, too. They DID mention the performance disparity when they first encountered the Fw 190, so I expect they'd have jumped all over the Bf 109F had it actually been that much faster.

I conclude, reasonably in my estimation, that while a few might have been during testing, the rank and file service Bf 109F actually on the line wasn't.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 24, 2017)

Tomo and Gentlemen,
I have looked over all the information of all the sites referenced to
in this thread. I then went back over all the information I have posted
on the warbirds forum. I then went to my files and pulled all the info
I had.
I have come to a conclusion based on all the information at my disposal.
I should also add that while I have what I would consider an excellent
library & files on the Focke-Wulf (by no means complete), my library on
the Bf.109 is somewhat limited IMO.
OK, with all that BS out of the way I have to decline using the performance
the graph titled Vergleich (comparison) Me 109-FW 190 contains.
It does mention 'achieved values = calculated. It does not give a date or
power setting of the engine to achieve these values. IMO it is not real
clear on what values were achieved and what values were calculated.
The author of Beim-Zeugmeister, while very informative, seems to be
very opinionated.
In conclusion, if you view warbirds forum: the great planes AIRCRAFT
PERFORMANCE section, you will notice that I did not use North Americans
calculated graph to post the P-51H's 487 mph top speed figure. I did post
the P-63D maximum speed figure at 450 mph. but only because there is
no official performance test stating otherwise. And I am pretty sure I
labeled it CALCULATED PERFORMANCE.
It all boils down to, give me some official concrete information and I
will gladly add it to AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE.
, Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 24, 2017)

Greyman said:


> _..._
> 
> I'd be willing to bet Messerschmitt AG. Augsburg didn't use "British Performance Reduction Methods for Modern Aircraft (A.&A.E.E./Res/170)".
> 
> And that could just be the start of the differences.



Come to think about it - when the Americans started accounting for compressibility?



CORSNING said:


> ...
> The author of Beim-Zeugmeister, while very informative, seems to be
> very opinionated.



Not just that, he mis-translates and/or mis-represents some notes. For example, here, he transcribes the note 'z. Zt.' ('zur Zeit') as 'at this time', without the important 'gesp.' abbreviation - 'zur Zeit gesperrt' means ''blocked at this time'. Meaning that Notleistung (2700 rpm and 1.42 ata = 1290 PS at rated altitude, 1350 PS for take off) is still banned as of 29th Nov 1941. Then it is not suspicious to him that 109F-4 does at restricted power as much as 660 km/h??? Kurfurst at least notes that these figures seem not being corrected for compressibility.



> ... I did post the P-63C maximum speed figure at 450 mph. but only because there is
> no official performance test stating otherwise. And I am pretty sure I
> labeled it CALCULATED PERFORMANCE....



The P-63C, even when looking at Bell data only here, seem to be around 425 mph. It will fall on the shoulders of the P-63E, with it's a bit improved engine, to came close to 450 mp/h.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 25, 2017)

Yes Sir, you are absolutely right the 450 mph figure should
go to the P-63D and possibly later P-63E. My mistake.

Nice catch Tomo, Jeff

PS: P-63C maximum speed is in the 424-434 mph. range.


----------



## GregP (Sep 26, 2017)

Hi Corsning,

Your collection of performance information is amazing, and I agree that calculated performance, while interesting in its own right, should be separated from actual flight test performance.

One is achieved, and one is a good estimate.

Also, we need to know the test conditions. If you fly with no ammunition, a waxed finish, a freshly-tuned engine, 40% fuel, and no shackles or extra tanks, you SHOULD get sparkling performance. But it isn't really representative of a combat-configured aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 26, 2017)

GregP said:


> Hi Corsning,
> 
> Your collection of performance information is amazing, and I agree that calculated performance, while interesting in its own right, should be separated from actual flight test performance.
> 
> ...



*This is of the utmost importance when trying to compare aircraft to aircraft equally.
I am a very adamant believer of this. If I have failed to list conditions on any of
my posting, I apologize.* *And if pointed out, I will be glad to correct.*


----------



## Kryten (Sep 30, 2017)

So is there any clarity if the 109f4 figures are corrected, as they look rather dubious at present?


----------



## Greyman (Sep 30, 2017)

Hohun/Mr.Ruch did work on that front a while back, and broadly, his results (at 6,283 lb) were similar to if you took the green '42 Datenblatt curve and scooched it back 5-7 mph.


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 30, 2017)

Kryten,
I am going to stand by the information I have posted:
MESSERSCHMITT Me 109F PERFORMANCE - Aircraft Performance - The Great Planes : World War Two Warbirds
as the absolute best* quick, readily comparable performance*
on the web at this time. However, I would like to add that it is
very incomplete and is in need of some serious additions.
If that is not the answer you are looking for at this time, my
answer is; I'm working on it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 30, 2017)

Hey Greyman,

Was that chart yours or out of an online charting application for a game? I ask only because I have seen similar charts from one of the gamesites. Hope it was yours!

Hi Kryten,

There is no mention of Bf 109F models being WAY faster than contemporary British Spitfires (probably the Spit V), and I am assuming the Bf 109F charts with top speeds in the 370 - 385 mph range are correct until I can find some evidence of greatly superior speed by the Bf 109 F. Lacking that, I can only assume these were later model F's or, alternately, special test models, as the Germans were fond of in propaganda campaigns, particularly earlier in the war. One can find their apparent claims of squadrons of He 100s in archives before the war started.

The Britsh pilots complained loudly and long about the new Fw 190 when it was faster by much less than 50 - 60 mph than a Spitfire, and that is well documented. Strange they would complain about the Fw 190 but ignore a much faster Bf 109, at least to me. That is the single reason I doubt the 410+ mph speed ... because it would run away from a Spitfire of the same vintage. And that didn't show up in contemporary combat reports that I have seen or heard about.

Doesn't mean they don't exist ... means I haven't seen or heard of them in any numbers. I've been reading about these planes for over 50 years and have been restoring / working on them, and talking with people who fly them for 11 years now. Haven't heard of any greatly superior performance by either the contemporary Spitfires OR Bf 109s. Mostly, they were well-matched throughout the war, with one or the other having a slight edge, probably up until fall 1944 when things started to unravel for the Nazis. Even at the end, a decent-running Bf 109K-4 flown by a good pilot was a match for almost anything it encountered ... with the understandable exception of tens to hundreds more enemy planes all at once.

40 Meserschmitts defending a 1,000-plane raid wasn't going have much impact, no matter WHO was flying them.

Cheers.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Sep 30, 2017)

GregP said:


> Was that chart yours or out of an online charting application for a game? I ask only because I have seen similar charts from one of the gamesites. Hope it was yours!



The chart is mine, but I do post on several forums and I'm sure I've sketched out charts elsewhere. Can't think of any game sites immediately offhand - but someone could have taken one from here or elsewhere and posted it another forum 'second-hand' so to speak.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kryten (Oct 2, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> Kryten,
> I am going to stand by the information I have posted:
> MESSERSCHMITT Me 109F PERFORMANCE - Aircraft Performance - The Great Planes : World War Two Warbirds
> as the absolute best* quick, readily comparable performance*
> ...



Thanks for the hard work Corsning much appreciated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kryten (Oct 2, 2017)

GregP said:


> Hey Greyman,
> 
> Was that chart yours or out of an online charting application for a game? I ask only because I have seen similar charts from one of the gamesites. Hope it was yours!
> 
> ...



This is what's been puzzling me Greg, if we take these figures at face value then the 109F4 was faster than the Spit mkIX & XII, the Typhoon, the FW190, the 109G2 etc, and this performance in late 41 early 42, and as you mention I'm pretty sure this would have been reported in RAF documentation.

I can only surmise there is either a different test parameters applied or as you say these could well have been factory specials, you cannot ignore Messerschmitt was in competition with Kurt Tank at the time, the other problem seems to be most RAF documentation used these days comes form ADFU tests which drew service aircraft from active squadrons, you often see varying results from different aircraft of the same type and it's often noted if the aircraft was sub par so to speak, so if your comparing a brand new factory finish aircraft with an issued aircraft your not really comparing like for like, it would be great if this conundrum was cleared up?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Oct 2, 2017)

670 km/h are not impossible for the 109F-4 but likely only under best conditions with reduced weight.
The 109G-1, about 200kg heavier and running engine at 2600rpm/1.3 ata was clocked at ~645 km/h @ 6.5 km
What puzzle me somewhat in the 670km/h Mtt document is the given power for the engine during Vmax - 1290 PS @ 6.3 km seems a lot for a 601E engine even with rammed air effect.
What puzzles me even more is the 300m increased FTH of maximum power vs the 2500rpm climb/combat power - i was used to see a little decline for maximum power due to increased air demand and supercharger at its limits.
Were they testing a modified 601E or a modified air scoop ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kryten (Oct 2, 2017)

I note on the Kurfurst site the 600+ figures are either non corrected or calculated company data sheets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gomwolf (Oct 2, 2017)

Soviet test have quite closed result with german one.

Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung
German performance table(flight test) at 1.3ata. However it seems not corrected for compressibility effects. So..

Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung
It is calculated performance table. 635kmh. Pretty reasonable figure, if it was in good machine/weather condition.






Soviet fighter comparison with german planes.

Bf109F-4 was surely speedy plane at that time. Its low profile drag and 1,350PS(Actually, it was operated 1,200PS at German test) engine makes this plane quite fast and maneuverable. IMHO, official performance chart of produced country is most powerful evidence of its performance, until we tested real plane in real life or found trustworthy evidence like very detailed correct calculation.(Is it grammatically correct?)


----------



## spicmart (Oct 3, 2017)

Without having read the whole thread I'd like to ask if a Me 109F-4 could challenge a Yak-3 given similar wing and power loading?
And would the Yak-3 have an advantage at higher speeds because of the alleged
control stiffness of the Me 109 in that realm?


----------



## GregP (Oct 3, 2017)

That is a tough question. The Bf 109F was superior at high altitudes ... but the Soviet pilots didn't climb to high altitudes. They stayed low and concentrated on hitting the German ground units. When the Germans came down to fight (or stayed high to watch the slaughter), the Yak-3 was better down low. It could turn tighter and many Bf 109 stalled into the ground trying to follow Yaks in tight, low turns.

Soviet cannons were better than German cannons in terms of kinetic energy and damage when they hit.

In my opinion, the ones who stalled in were not veteran pilots and, by the time the Yak-3's were being issued, the average Soviet pilot was pretty good (unlike earlier). If the Bf 109 pilot WAS a veteran, then he probably didn't make rookie mistakes, and probably found a way to make a good fight of it, and probably won. But don't be fooled; the Soviets had a lot of aces, too. Some of them got some of the top German aces.

All in all, I'd say the Yak-3 was better at 12,000 feet and under and the Bf 109 was better higher. "Better" doesn't mean it always won. It means the airframe could perform somewhat better under current conditions. That doesn't guarantee a kill or even survival. But it gave the Soviet pilots a good combat mount. They didn't really have that prior to the Yak-1 / MiG-1, and also weren't very well trained in the earlier times, either. Even with bad training, some survived and passed on what worked. They turned into veterans rapidly or died.

It was a brutal front on which to fight. You were either freezing or slogging about in knee-deep mud, complete with flies and all the other discomforts of the Russian steppes in summer. The pics and existing video clips do NOT show a fun place to be.


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 4, 2017)

spicmart said:


> Without having read the whole thread
> 
> *I would suggest strongly to read the whole thread before posting. Just an FYI, Jeff*
> 
> ...



*Yes, most definitely.*

*Now to progress further I should add that you are comparing a German fighter of December
1941 vintage vs. a Russian fighter of March 1944 vintage. Three years of advancement is
a lifetime under war circumstances*. *With that being said I think the 109 holds up very well.
If you are a Bf.109 buff you do not want me to go into greater detail, although it could be fun. The
time of first comparison would allow the Bf.109 to be fitted with a DB605A.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 4, 2017)

I'm not sure, Corsning, but I have read many times that Erich Hartmann stayed with his Bf 109F until it was well worn out. Erich started "late" and only had 38 kills as of mid-July 1943. So, he was introduced to combat in a 1941 Bf 109, or it appears that way.

The F would certainly out-turn a Bf 109G, and maybe that was the source of his fondness for the Bf 109F. In his writings, he said the Bf 109F was the pinnacle of 109's on several occasions. It could be that he WAS fighting a 1943 Yak with a 1941 Messerschmitt.

But I doubt that was the norm at the time by the run of the mill Luftwaffe pilot on the Russian Front.


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 4, 2017)

I believe Erich loved the pureness of the Bf.109F. It was of clean design.
It was a true pilot's machine. It was not as forgiving as the Spitfire. Erich
knew that but learned to fly it to its limits. He stated to the effect that he
would never say the 109 was better than the 190. But he would righteously
let anyone know that he knew that he could fly the 109 better.

Just to put things into perspective, recently FLYBOYJ made a reference
to a Cessna 152 when we were into a discussion about the Ta 152. While
it was slightly out of place, it got me thinking. The pilot makes the plane,
PERIOD!

I believe if you put a pilot in a Cessna 152 with two small caliber machine
guns with the abilities of Erich, under the right conditions he could take
out a P-47N.

That is all I have to say about that, Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Oct 4, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> I believe Erich loved the pureness of the Bf.109F. It was of clean design.
> ...... It was not as forgiving as the Spitfire. Jeff



The Me 109, especially the F, had plenty of stall warning starting with tail buffet. Once it stalled there was no tendency to flip inverted which could happen to a Spitfire. It tended to mush forward and did not spin or spin recovery was very easy. The mythology of the spitfire has grown to such an extent tends to obscure reality of other aircraft. Sure the Spitfire, because of it large wing area, had very good turn and climb rate made outstanding by the performance of its engines and fuels but that doesn't mean the Me 109 was less forgiving. The slat mechanism was improved in the Me 109F over the Bf 109E and of course the Me 109 had a ground looping problem which again was fixed by fitting an extended tail yoke from late model Me 109G6 onward (was increasingly more common in latter models)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Oct 4, 2017)

No, the extended tail strut on the 109 did not fix the ground loop problem completely.


----------



## GregP (Oct 5, 2017)

Also, the Bf 109F model introduced the airfoiled vertical fin to help with takeoff. The prop turned right, just like a Merlin, and the plane tended to go left, requiring right rudder on takeoff and initial climbout. They airfoiled the left side of the vertical fin to make it want to turn right a bit, and that helped. So, the F would have had easier ground handling than earlier Bf 109 variants, in addition to being light and aerodynamically improved.

Within its speed range, the Bf 109 handled quite well for a WWII fighter and had few "bad" tendencies in flight. It DID lack aileron and rudder trim (easily fixable), and the canopy could have been fixed as well. Fixing only these two things would have made a much better airplane. The heavy ailerons (at speed) could ALSO have been fixed and weren't.

But, it was no flawed slouch, as many unfortunate victims found out.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JAG88 (Jul 29, 2018)

*


----------



## bobbysocks (Jul 30, 2018)

I know a lot of the early 109 pilots preferred the F. they said the plane got too heavy and sluggish in later versions. I know Franz Stigler was one who said it...know one or two others ( who I don't remember atm ) said the same thing


----------



## Milosh (Jul 30, 2018)

GregP said:


> Also, the Bf 109F model introduced the airfoiled vertical fin to help with takeoff. The prop turned right, just like a Merlin, and the plane tended to go left, requiring right rudder on takeoff and initial climbout. They airfoiled the left side of the vertical fin to make it want to turn right a bit, and that helped. So, the F would have had easier ground handling than earlier Bf 109 variants, in addition to being light and aerodynamically improved.



The 109E had an airfoil shape vertical fin.

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/29206-jpg.409829/

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 2, 2018)

Just a side note. I mentioned Erich Hartman earlier in the post
and just remembered in the same interview he was asked if the
Spitfire could really outturn the Bf.109. I do not remember any-
more if the model of each was given, but I do remember his
answer, " Yes, but not as much as you might think.".

My personal opinion is the Bf.109 was a very maneuverable
machine, especially at medium altitudes.


----------

