# Which of these DB 601 powered fighters was the best? Bf 109F-2, Ki-61-I or C.202



## Civettone (Jun 18, 2013)

All three were powered with the DB 601, although the F-2 had the uprated DB 601N (let us say with B4 fuel).

Maximum speed for the Bf 109F-2 and C.202 was 595-600 km/h, the Ki-61 was a bit slower but had cannons while the other two were stuck with MGs.
All had good handling, climb rate and manoeuvrability.



Kris


----------



## davebender (Jun 18, 2013)

As historically produced I'll stick with Me-109. Good airframe, good engine, good weapons, good communications equipment and good build quality. No significant handing issues. Dirt cheap to mass produce too. Real world pilots loved the Me-109.

Ki-61 with German engine, German weapons, German communications equipment and German build quality would be good but that's hardly realistic. Japan wasn't Germany.

Italy has same problem as Japan. C.202 looks good at first glance but it lacks important bits such as firepower, reliable radio and reliable oxygen system. C.202 also spins easily which makes it a poor choice for low altitude role Me-109 excelled at. C.202 had four separate fuel tanks, two of which were in wings. That significantly increases the chance for enemy fire to hit a fuel tank or fuel line.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 19, 2013)

What plane featured the best combat radius?


----------



## davebender (Jun 19, 2013)

*Internal fuel capacity.*
400 liters. Me-109.
460 liters. Mc.202 and Mc.205.
550 liters. Ki-61.

Ki-61 has the best range/endurance but none of the three are long range aircraft. Fw-190 carried almost as much fuel (535 liters).

These are the DB601/DB605 range / endurance champions.
770 liters. Me-309.
1,300 liters. Fw-187.


----------



## jim (Jun 19, 2013)

It appears that the MC 202 and the Mc205 made better use of their german engines than the 109 . They delivered similar or superior performance combined with better manouverability(despite the inferior italian propeller), had more fuel ,better landing gear , better vivibility,somewhat bigger cocpit, ability for wing armament and much more development potentional
They were more expensive to build


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 19, 2013)

For outright speed, the 109F is a better bet. The Ki-61 seems to offer the best package, though.


----------



## davebender (Jun 19, 2013)

Ki-61 offers the best package for Japan as range was essential in the Pacific. Ki-61 would be inferior to Me-109 for medium/low altitude combat on Russian front (i.e. where most German combat took place).

Different nations. Different combat requirements.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 19, 2013)

davebender said:


> 770 liters. Me-309.
> 1,300 liters. Fw-187.



Surely the Me 309 was DB 603 powered? Means more power but also higher fuel consumpion.

And a DB 601/605 Fw 187 is merely a projected type (the one prototype fitted with Daimler-Benz engines had DB 600s?).


----------



## davebender (Jun 19, 2013)

Fw-187 was production ready during 1939. That's why I consider it a valid comparison. 

Me-309 is a bit more iffy. Only 4 prototypes and program was cancelled before development was complete. I include it because it's the only long range single DB engine fighter aircraft. At least the only one I'm aware of.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 19, 2013)

davebender said:


> *Internal fuel capacity.*
> 400 liters. Me-109.
> 460 liters. Mc.202 and Mc.205.
> 550 liters. Ki-61.
> ...


The Fiat G.55 and Reggiane Re.2005 had around 625-630 liters of internal fuel. However, the Re.2005 was projected to be build with extra integral tanks in its outer wings, increasing the total fuel load to almost 1,000 liters 

Kris


----------



## Timppa (Jun 20, 2013)

Ki-61 hands down. Superior range and firepower.

In these discussions, the importance of endurance/range in not appreciated enough.
Many FAF 109 pilots (especially those who converted from Brewsters and P-36's) complained about the lack of endurance which was typically limited to about 1hr in Bf109. And the distance to front lines in 1944 summer battles was no more than 100 miles !


----------



## drgondog (Jun 20, 2013)

I voted for the Ki 61 also - for the same reasons. To stick to the Ki-61-II however, you have to assume a fully reliable Ha 140 engine. It was slower than the 109F but excellent maneuverability and range and firepower. Allied fighters had speed but they had to shoot it down pretty fast because they weren't able to maneuver with it except in zoom climb and re-position.

PS _ I am not familiar enough with the 202 to make a rational comparison.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 20, 2013)

The Ki-61 had the firepower at the end of '43 / beginning of '44. More a late attempt to mantain serviceable an old design than a feature of the model. The airframes of Bf109F and C.202 had received the firepower, along with new engines that increased performances instead of degrade them, a year, or more, before.


----------



## davebender (Jun 20, 2013)

Longer range fighter aircraft would be more suitable for Finland's geographical position. 

Fw-190 had about 1/3rd more fuel. Did Finland attempt to purchase Fw-190s ILO the Me-109?


----------



## Milosh (Jun 20, 2013)

Combat radius of the Fw190 was not much more than the Bf109.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 21, 2013)

It was actually less. 

The Bf 109 had a ferry range of around 1,400 km.

Bf 109 combat radius was limited, but sufficient for its interception missions. Only became inadequate with the arrival of stronger engines with MW 50. 

Ki-61 needed longer range for obvious reasons.
Kris


----------



## DonL (Jun 21, 2013)

Civettone said:


> It was actually less.
> 
> The Bf 109 had a ferry range of around 1,400 km.
> 
> ...



In your wildest dreams..................

Perhaps 700km with engine start up, warm-up,roles,take off and climb to 5000m you will have 320Liter left for range
The DB needs round about 289Liter/h at 0,8 ata and the F2 would be at 540-550 km/h at 5000m with 0.8 ata.

1400km is absolutely absurd.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 21, 2013)

Civettone said:


> It was actually less.
> 
> The Bf 109 had a ferry range of around 1,400 km.
> 
> ...



The Fw190A-8 had a ferry range of just over 1400km.


----------



## GregP (Jun 21, 2013)

If you go look at: http: //kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET-109Gtrop_WdimPerf.html ... They give a maximum range for a Bf 109 G-2 with external tank and total fuel capacity of 154 US gallons to be 1,250 miles, which works out to 2,011 km. Of course, the Bf 109 may not have flown very often with 154 US gallons of fuel, but it doesn't seem "absurd" in any way. 

Maybe find another word that is less argumentative? In English, calling someone's opinion "absurd" is a challenge to a fight. Perhaps you didn't know that. The old meaning is not the modern meaning.

Add fuel and the Bf 109 goes a long way ... until you meet the enemy and have to drop the fuel. Then you're back to internal fuel and need to run for home. Mostly they flew for much shorter distances, as you indicate, but Civettone is correct that it COULD go a long way if carrying the fuel to do it and if not forced to drop the fuel to fight.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 21, 2013)

Ah, Greg those are British estimates and then consider the source where it is found.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 21, 2013)

This is from official German data.

According to British tests, range was 615 miles. Or 1,045 miles with a 300 l drop tank. But that was for a captured Bf 109G. 
Kris


----------



## GregP (Jun 21, 2013)

OK, I can accept that.

It never was a long-range thing, but I figured they could come up with a belly tank that would at least get it around the country. Everyone else did. Apparently they did. 1,045 miles isn't great, but is way longer than most people quote for the Bf 109 range.

I realize range isn't the same as combat radius.


----------



## cimmex (Jun 21, 2013)

The Fw190 had 520l internal fuel, the Bf109 had 400l. The BMW801 was rather thirsty but do you think the consumption of the BMW801 was so much higher than the DB601 because this more than 20%
cimmex


----------



## DonL (Jun 21, 2013)

Nobody here was talking range with an external fuel tank.

His claim was 1400km fery range *without* drop tank.
Everybody knows that the Bf109 could carry external fuel tank's, but that isn't the issue.

The FW 190 had a longer range from primary sources, then the Bf 109 with internal fuel and a much longer range with external drop tanks, because the payload of the FW190 was much higher. Also the BMW 801 has *not* a 20% higher fuel consumption.


----------



## GregP (Jun 21, 2013)

His post didn't say without an external tank. I was assuming we ALL know the Bf 109 wouldn't go that far on a FERRY flight without an external tank. Ferry imples long range, ergo, external tank, drop or not.

If I mispoke here, tell me.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 21, 2013)

Oh no guys, I meant and still mean WITHOUT external fuel tank. I have an official German source to back that up, but can't locate it at the moment. I just threw in the British report to show that it is not so far off. They came to a similar conclusion using a worn out Bf 109G.

Here is another English test report showing 725 miles or 1,167 km. 







DB engines had great fuel efficiency. 


Kris


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 21, 2013)

DonL said:


> In your wildest dreams..................
> 
> Perhaps 700km with engine start up, warm-up,roles,take off and climb to 5000m you will have 320Liter left for range
> The DB needs round about 289Liter/h at 0,8 ata and the F2 would be at 540-550 km/h at 5000m with 0.8 ata.
> ...



Well your souce please...? I have seen datasheet for F-4 (note different E engine, the N's range may have been shorter) and it says ca. 1600 range with a single droptank.. range sheet says 835 km with internal fuel only, but it has considerable allowances in it.

There were also G series aircraft with TWO droptanks. _Range _easily in the 2000+ km range, though _radius _would be much shorter.


----------



## Aozora (Jun 21, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Well your souce please...? I have seen datasheet for F-4 (note different E engine, the N's range may have been shorter) and it says ca. 1600 range with a single droptank.. range sheet says 835 km with internal fuel only, but it has considerable allowances in it.
> 
> There were also G series aircraft with TWO droptanks. _Range _easily in the 2000+ km range, though _radius _would be much shorter.



Really, let's see your datasheet please?


----------



## Juha (Jun 21, 2013)

That 1600km range seems to be rather theoretical, according to the Finnish experience, the typical cruising power was at 2500m 0.9 - 1.0 ata (470-490km/h TAS) 250l/h. Slower, more efficient speeds were made difficult by the fouling of sparking plugs and flooding of exhaust gases into the cockpit. Also the Finnish transfer flights from Germany to Finland shows rather short flights between fueling stops. That that was not only a Finnish phenomenon is shown for ex. during the 11./JG 2 transfer from France to Tunisia in Nov 42 and in the many stories in LW aces memoirs on transfer flights to the Eastern Front in 42 and 43.

Now if a recon 109G could carry 2 drop tanks that didn't increase the range of the fighter versions. Similarly, that a PR Spit could fly from GB to Berlin and back didn't indicate that Spit Mk IX could do the same,

Juha


----------



## Milosh (Jun 21, 2013)

1600km is almost twice 835km

So the a/c goes just as far on 300l (dt) as it does on 400l (internal)

Sure it does. 

Also Kris, there is a 2cd British document dated 7-5-43 which appends the one from Kurfurst's site. Don't take anything on Kurfurst's site at face value.

The revised number are:
clean: 415/590 (no change/-135))
with dt: 755/1020 (no change/-230)
fb: 400/535 (no change/-120)

Please note the max distance with drop tank compared to without drop tank. (1020 - 590 = 430 or 160mi less)

Kris there is another British report that gives combat radius and the Bf109 was 130mi while the Fw190 was 140mi (same mission profile). Might be on Mike William's site.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 21, 2013)

Juha said:


> That 1600km range seems to be rather theoretical, according to the Finnish experience, the typical cruising power was at 2500m 0.9 - 1.0 ata (470-490km/h TAS) 250l/h. Slower, more efficient speeds were made difficult by the fouling of sparking plugs and flooding of exhaust gases into the cockpit.



Flying at lower altitude at higher than recommended settings does decrease ranges significantly. Ploug fouling can be a problem but generally could be avoided by opening up periodically to clean the plugs (as was prescribed for Merlin with high octane fuel that caused lead deposits on plugs every 15 mins or so) also AFAIK 109G had a plug cleaning device for this.

Of course for this reason all quoted maximum ranges are "rather theoretical", so in comparison they are treated equal.



> Now if a recon 109G could carry 2 drop tanks that didn't increase the range of the fighter versions. Similarly, that a PR Spit could fly from GB to Berlin and back didn't indicate that Spit Mk IX could do the same,



I do not see any technical problem with equipping 109G fighter versions with the same way as the FR 109s (fttings and pipes for underwing drop tanks). An analogue between the Spitfire PR versions is false, since the wing stucture in that plane carried all the armament, and extended fuel capacity ruled out fitting guns. The Ki 61 AFAIK had option for two 200 liter underwing fuel tanks, even if not entirely practical, such devices may greatly increased the _endurance_, if not the radius of action.

Meaning you either had range or guns. Recon 109Gs were armed, however, with the hub cannon in the usual. Cowl MGs were removed to make place for extra oil tank, though I believe it would not be impossible to solve it differently.


----------



## spicmart (Jun 21, 2013)

Why would the germans not build wing mounted guns into the Me 109? Was it not possible due to the wing structure or what?


----------



## davebender (Jun 21, 2013)

You mean like this Me-109G6?

I'm under the impression wing cannon were pretty common on late war Me-109G. After DB605 engine was cleared for fully power the aircraft had plenty of power to compensate for 215kg additional weight of wing guns and ammo.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 21, 2013)

spicmart said:


> Why would the germans not build wing mounted guns into the Me 109? Was it not possible due to the wing structure or what?



Galland had cannons mounted in the wing of his F.

Dave, those are *under* the wing and had not the best handling qualities.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 21, 2013)

No Milosh, those guns were inside the wing. The ammo drum protruded under the wing. Of course we are talking about the much smaller MG/FF, not the MG 151/20. 


Btw, can anyone show me a Bf 109F/G with underwing fuel tanks? I have never seen a picture of one.
Kris


----------



## spicmart (Jun 21, 2013)

I mean guns that were installed fully enclosed within the wing, not meaning the obsolete Mg/FF but the more modern MG 151/20.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 21, 2013)

The Bf 109K-6 is supposed to have had two MK 108s inside the wings. Not clear if any were built or how they should have looked like. But I assume it would require a couple of bulges.


Kris


----------



## Juha (Jun 21, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Flying at lower altitude at higher than recommended settings does decrease ranges significantly. Ploug fouling can be a problem but generally could be avoided by opening up periodically to clean the plugs (as was prescribed for Merlin with high octane fuel that caused lead deposits on plugs every 15 mins or so) also AFAIK 109G had a plug cleaning device for this.



Yes, the opening up in regular intervals helped but decreased the range. And the problem of exhaust gases remained. And the plug cleaning devise was removed from or not installed in the 109Gs delivered to Finland, whether they were picked up from a factory in Germany or delivered from the LW's Feldluftpark 3/XI Pori, so its seems use of it was discontinued at least by late 43. And even if 11./JG 2 was needed in Tunisia because of the Allied landings in Algeria, it's transfer from France to there took 11 days, because of the rather short hops to Germany and then down along Italy and then to Sicily in several stages.See e.g. Meimberg's memoirs. If the 1600km range would have been realistic, the transfer would have taken a couple days at most. Same to transfer flights from Poland to Ukraine, it would have been odd to make several landings on the way if a couple would have been enough.




Tante Ju said:


> I do not see any technical problem with equipping 109G fighter versions with the same way as the FR 109s (fttings and pipes for underwing drop tanks). An analogue between the Spitfire PR versions is false, since the wing stucture in that plane carried all the armament, and extended fuel capacity ruled out fitting guns. The Ki 61 AFAIK had option for two 200 liter underwing fuel tanks, even if not entirely practical, such devices may greatly increased the _endurance_, if not the radius of action.
> 
> Meaning you either had range or guns. Recon 109Gs were armed, however, with the hub cannon in the usual. Cowl MGs were removed to make place for extra oil tank, though I believe it would not be impossible to solve it differently.



Question is, if that was so simple why it wasn't done. It would have make much faster and easier (landing and t/o were the most dangerous parts of the transfer flights) to transfer replacement a/c to e.g. Eastern Ukraine or to NA.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 21, 2013)

I have found a couple of pictures in a book (Messerschmitt 109 F,G K Series by Prien and Rodieke page 94) of the G-4/R3 version. About 80 built and most (all?) had the fuselage mgs taken out and some had the troughs plated over. A long range reconnaissance model. 

There is some doubt about wither any G-6s carried twin tanks or not. Not sure about any others.



Edit. For long range flights you need larger oil tanks. They can be fitted at times ( and were to many of the Spitfires that used the 170 gal ferry tanks) but you need the space for them (external bulge on the Spitifres) and you need the smaller tanks to fit back in once you get to were you are going.


----------



## Juha (Jun 21, 2013)

Civettone said:


> No Milosh, those guns were inside the wing. The ammo drum protruded under the wing. Of course we are talking about the much smaller MG/FF, not the MG 151/20.



Hello Kris, it was other way around, the cannons were under the wing but the ammo drum protruded inside the wing




Civettone said:


> Btw, can anyone show me a Bf 109F/G with underwing fuel tanks? I have never seen a picture of one.
> Kris



At least 80 G-4/R3s LR recon planes had the capacity to use 2x300l drop tanks


----------



## spicmart (Jun 21, 2013)

Civettone, I have seen a picture once of a mock-up/test bed (?) of the wing with the MK 108 installed inside of it for the Me 109 K-6. 
It never did happen to be build in any functional 109 IIRC. 
Maybe it was not safe enough. I have to look for the source.
And yes, it had bulges.
I just wonder why this was not made earlier?


----------



## Civettone (Jun 21, 2013)

I wonder the same. It seems Messerschmitt refused to do any improvements on the Bf 109 from 1942 until the cancellation of its successors Me 209 and 309.

Production of K-6 and almost all Kolbenjaeger was ordered to be stopped in 1945 in favour of jet aircraft.
Kris


----------



## davebender (Jun 21, 2013)

They could have used Me-155 wing for Me-109G from 1943 onward. That would give you wide track landing gear and (I believe) space for a 20mm cannon inside wing. Late war production issues probably prevented serious consideration of this option.

Me-309 was a long range single engine fighter aircraft somewhat similar to American P-51D. Exactly what Luftwaffe needed during BoB but use would be limited after 1941. Might be good over Med, Norway and Bay of Biscay.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 21, 2013)

What was the fuel load or range of the Me 309?



Kris


----------



## davebender (Jun 21, 2013)

770 liters.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 21, 2013)

Medium-range then


Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 21, 2013)

Might depend on which engine it got and which armament fit.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 22, 2013)

Civettone said:


> Btw, can anyone show me a Bf 109F/G with underwing fuel tanks? I have never seen a picture of one.
> Kris


 
G-4/R3 fighter-recon in flight in MTO and its service manual showing the fuel system.

I believe Clostermann describes the interception of a G-6/R3 over Scapa Flow and mentions underwing tanks.

View attachment D-Luft-T-2109-G-4-R3-Bf-109-G-4-R3-Flugzeug-Handbuch-Teil-7-Betriebsstoff-Zusatzeanlage.pdf


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 22, 2013)

The C.202 had the possibility to carry up to 150l under each wing, hovever, this was rarely used.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 22, 2013)

Thanks TJ, the handbook is interesting because it also shows an additional oil reservoir. Never thought about that. I wonder how other aircraft managed when they had drop tanks installed. For instance, the P-51 or Fw 190. Did they have sufficient oil reservoir capacity?


Kris


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jun 22, 2013)

Dogwalker said:


> The Ki-61 had the firepower at the end of '43 / beginning of '44. More a late attempt to mantain serviceable an old design than a feature of the model. The airframes of Bf109F and C.202 had received the firepower, along with new engines that increased performances instead of degrade them, a year, or more, before.



Many of the Ki-61-I's had 20 mm cannon:
First there were the 400 fighters that had the Mauser MG 151/20 installed in the wings. Cannons were delivered from Germany by submarine.
The Ki-61-I-KAI switched around the armament a bit with Ho-5 cannons on the cowl (needed a fuselage extension to do this) and 12.7 mm guns in the wings with a fairly viable explosive shell. There were even some aircraft with a 30 mm cannon in each wing.

With a good / reliable DB 605D class engine, I believe the Ki-61 was the best airframe, but in real life, it had the least reliable of the DB 601 copies.

I picked the Macchi C.202 because the build quality was actually quite good and although the firepower is a bit light, it also had an explosive shell for the 12.7 mm gun. The climb rate of the Ki-61-I was just way too slow. The Me 109F had a speed advantage but very heavy control forces and a poor roll rate at high speed.

There is an account from a Hurrican pilot of what these little bitty explosive round did to his aeroplane which was reasonably convincing.

Just my opinion.
- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jun 22, 2013)

A comment about the wing tanks on the Macchi Fighters:
Each wing root tank was only about 10 gallons or so and plumbed into the main tank.
If you look at a diagram of their size and location, they are basically just tiny little extensions of the main tank and don't offer mcuh of a target.

- Ivan.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 22, 2013)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Many of the Ki-61-I's had 20 mm cannon:
> First there were the 400 fighters that had the Mauser MG 151/20 installed in the wings. Cannons were delivered from Germany by submarine.


And the first ot these conversions was made in late 1943 / early 1944, the last in july 1944.



Ivan1GFP said:


> With a good / reliable DB 605D class engine, I believe the Ki-61 was the best airframe,


Given the larger wing surface in comparison with the other two, it's probable that it was the bes suited for a DB605.


----------



## davebender (Jun 22, 2013)

Germany didn't get such an engine until late 1944. Japan would be lucky to have DB605D engine in late 1946.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 22, 2013)

Ivan1GFP said:


> I picked the Macchi C.202 because the build quality was actually quite good and although the firepower is a bit light, it also had an explosive shell for the 12.7 mm gun. The climb rate of the Ki-61-I was just way too slow. The Me 109F had a speed advantage but very heavy control forces and a poor roll rate at high speed.


There is quite a bit of debate on the subject of the Italian explosive 12,7 mm cartridge. Some say it was ineffective.
I do not think there was much speed advantage for the Bf 109G-2, which is the one set up for this poll. Both the F-2 and the C.202 had a max speed of around 600 km/h. 

You must be thinking of the F-4, which was much faster and with its stronger armament clearly superior to all other aircraft in existence. That is why it is not the version chosen for this poll. The F-2 had the DB 601N and lacked heavy armament.
Kris


----------



## Denniss (Jun 22, 2013)

Juha said:


> At least 80 G-4/R3s LR recon planes had the capacity to use 2x300l drop tanks


Count-in 40 G-6/R3. There were many hundred G-8 recons built but I have not heard about a long range variant amongst them.


----------



## Juha (Jun 22, 2013)

Denniss said:


> Count-in 40 G-6/R3. There were many hundred G-8 recons built but I have not heard about a long range variant amongst them.



All 3 my 109 sources say that G-6/R3 could carry only one 300l dt, same to LR version of G-8. G-8 itself was a tactical FR version of G-6.

Juha


----------



## Denniss (Jun 22, 2013)

G-6/R3 was the same as G-4/R3, just with G-6 airframe.


----------



## Juha (Jun 22, 2013)

Hello Denniss
what are your sources? Mine are Prien et al: Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G, and K Series: An Illustrated Study and Raer Otto: Messerschmitt Bf 109 F-K plus newer Valtonen’s and Fernández-Sommerau’s books. I know that Wiki says that G-6/R3 was a long range version with 2x300l dts and it is a good article but still Wiki.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 23, 2013)

Probably confusion because G-6/R3 was modified recce with 2x300 liter drop tanks, while G-6 mit Rüstsatz III was normal fighter with 1 x 300 droptank fitted. However many sources quote wrongly Rüstatz, like III or VI (VI was gondola gun) as a suffix to the type, like calling gondola equipped G-6 as G-6/R6. This was never used as such in Luftwaffe... post war invention/mistake of authors...

However, *G-6/R3 *was Gawaltaufklärer, with 2 x 300 lit and Rb 75/30 camera, while *G-6/R4 *the same but with Rb 50/30 typ camera.

here is picture of comparison with Rb 50/30 with some British camaras used by RAF.






Rb 75/30 was quite a serious camera equipment, used for high altitude work with great focal lenght.


----------



## Juha (Jun 23, 2013)

Nice theory but Radinger Otto said that G-6/R3 was a FR plane with RB 50/30 based on datasheet dated 8 March 43, and because it had upper cowling mgs (but MG17s) it could not have same kind of extra oil thank than G-4/R3 had. It also had the MG 151/20.

Prien et noticed that G-6/R3 had RB 75/30. They also noticed that there was allegedly another version with the designation G-6/R3 Fl. Presumably a further recon version like G-4/R3 with 2x300l dts but proof is lacking that such a plane was in fact built.

Now Prien et al is 20years old and IMHO Radinger's and Otto's book is not as good as their 109 A-E book and it is also some 15 years old. So some new info on G-6/R3 might well have surfaced after the publiscation of those books. The other 2 books are more recent ones. And all authors are well aware of the difference between Rüstzustand and Rüstsatz.

BTW the photos you kindly posted showed why British thought that German aerial recon cameras were overengineered and unnecessarily heavy.

Juha


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 23, 2013)

Not theory, primary source.

G-6/R3 had the same + 15 liter extra oil capacity and of course G-4/R3, G-6/R3, G-6/R4 all retained their Mauser cannon, without the MGs. Now IIRC G-8 was simply the rename of some earlier G-6/Rx figher-recon variant (G-6/R5?), with small cameras for tactical recce.



> BTW the photos you kindly posted showed why British thought that German aerial recon cameras were overengineered and unnecessarily heavy.



I think their opinion is irrelevant. List me 3 known British camera manufacturers please...  Anyone into photography understand the adventages of large photographic material with large objectives. If the British were into taking scenic photography with smartphones and the Germans doing the same with full frame DSLR then its clear who is doing things right.. but I do not think so, probably different use.

The Germans had smaller camera types, and I am quite sure the British had more serious camera equipment as well. But even these large ones could be fitted to a small fighter like 109.


----------



## Juha (Jun 23, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Not theory, primary source.



I meant the theory that the authors were not aware on the difference between Rüstzustand and Rüstsatz. Exactly what primary source? D-Luft-Ts? I just want to know the sources of info as usual.



Tante Ju said:


> G-6/R3 had the same + 15 liter extra oil capacity and of course G-4/R3, G-6/R3, G-6/R4 all retained their Mauser cannon, without the MGs. Now IIRC G-8 was simply the rename of some earlier G-6/Rx figher-recon variant (G-6/R5?), with small cameras for tactical recce.



So Radinger and Otto are in error on this?





Tante Ju said:


> I think their opinion is irrelevant. List me 3 known British camera manufacturers please...  Anyone into photography understand the adventages of large photographic material with large objectives. If the British were into taking scenic photography with smartphones and the Germans doing the same with full frame DSLR then its clear who is doing things right.. but I do not think so, probably different use.



Vinten and Williamson Manufacturing Companyat least, during WWII. British had comparable cameras but they were lighter without those "nice to have" extras. And because they were lighter and smaller they were more suitably to aerial work but probably German cameras had better lenses, they were famous on those. British had F8, F24 and F52 cameras and got excellent photos on almost everything Germans had, ships, rockets a/c, mapped out their radar sites etc.



Tante Ju said:


> The Germans had smaller camera types, and I am quite sure the British had more serious camera equipment as well. But even these large ones could be fitted to a small fighter like 109.



Same in RAF, later PR Spits could carry cameras up to slip pair of vertical F52 36-in lens cameras.

Juha


----------



## riacrato (Jun 24, 2013)

I like the Hien a lot, I think it's one of the most beautiful aircraft of the war. But at the end of the day, I'd want to be in the fighter that gives me the best chance at keeping the initiative. And that is the Bf 109 I think.


----------



## krieghund (Jun 24, 2013)

I realize that this is for the F-4 but it should be in the ballpark for the 601N engine and should give a good approximation of what can be expected of the F-2. If one cruises at 0.65 ata at 7km you have about 265 liters of fuel available to you after warm-up and taxi/take-off, and fuel to climb and reserves for diverting. Which is 830km plus 40km in the climb for a range of 870km.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 24, 2013)

It seems the best the F-4 can make is 410 km/h TAS at 130 liter / hour at 7000m.

That would be 1261 km if the aircraft does not have to climb, taxi, have reserves etc, ie. the full 400 liter tank. Substracting 100 liter for that and leaving 300 for cruise, gives you 946 km, which is pretty much in line with other data. This essentially doubles with a 300 liter droptank and tripes with two - you do not need to warm up, taxi, climb etc. two or three times..


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> It seems the best the F-4 can make is 410 km/h TAS at 130 liter / hour at 7000m.
> 
> That would be 1261 km if the aircraft does not have to climb, taxi, have reserves etc, ie. the full 400 liter tank. Substracting 100 liter for that and leaving 300 for cruise, gives you 946 km, which is pretty much in line with other data. This essentially doubles with a 300 liter droptank and tripes with two - you do not need to warm up, taxi, climb etc. two or three times..



IIRC the 300l dt increased the max range 2/3 in British 109 tests, that because of the extra drag of the dt


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 24, 2013)

Juha said:


> IIRC the 300l dt increased the max range 2/3 in British 109 tests, that because of the extra drag of the dt



Good point. According to kurfurst site droptank reduced speed by 39 kph, without weight into account, so say - 45 kph loss with weight. Drop tank attachment reduced speed by -4 kph.

So in above example, 300 liter flyable.

300 + 300 liter with droptank (100 liter reserve), 410 kph - 45 = 365 kph at 130 liter/h = 2.307 h cruise at 365 kph = 842 km, then after dropping tank
300 liter (100 liter reserve), 410 kph - 5 kph (drop tank attachment) = 405 kph at 130 liter/h = 2.307 h cruise at 405 kph = 934 km

934 + 842 = *1776 km (1103 miles) *total covered in cruise. 

Interestingly shown also is speed loss with 2 x 300 liter (streamlined) droptank, i.e. long range recce variants. In this case drag loss was only 26 km - two faired droptanks caused less loss then one unfaired! Say 35 km/h with weight drag into account. Then gives:

300 + 600 liter with droptank (100 liter reserve), 410 kph - 35 = 375 kph at 130 liter/h = 4.615 h cruise at 375 kph = 1730 km, then after dropping tanks
300 liter (100 liter reserve), 410 kph - 10 kph (drop tank attachments) = 400 kph at 130 liter/h = 2.307 h cruise at 400 kph = 922 km

1730 km + 922 km = *2652 km (1647 miles)*

In both cases 100 liter flyable (probably used in climb, taxi, reserve etc). Distance covered in climb not counted. This is rather pushing this of course, more like theoretical maximum.


----------



## davebender (Jun 24, 2013)

> If one cruises at 0.65 ata at 7km you have about 265 liters of fuel available to you after warm-up and taxi/take-off, and fuel to climb and reserves for diverting.


Such calculations are fine for ferry range. Combat is a different matter. Internal fuel is all you have and 10 minutes @ WEP will consume fuel faster then beer at Oktoberfest.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 24, 2013)

True. But its easy to make such calculations and, range is usually given without or with minimal allowances.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jun 24, 2013)

Dogwalker said:


> And the first ot these conversions was made in late 1943 / early 1944, the last in july 1944.



Apparently there were a bunch of fighters from various -I but not KAI series converted starting just pas mid year 1943 but that wasn't all that long after the Ki-61-I first became operational. The conversions stopped after they ran out of the cannon but the Ki-61-I-KAI was changed in order that it could mount the Ho-5 cannon as a cowl gun.



riacrato said:


> I like the Hien a lot, I think it's one of the most beautiful aircraft of the war. But at the end of the day, I'd want to be in the fighter that gives me the best chance at keeping the initiative. And that is the Bf 109 I think.



I believe either of the two other fighters had better high speed maneuverability and the Macchi 202 wasn't all that much slower.

- Ivan.


----------



## davebender (Jun 24, 2013)

Comparing internal fuel capacity is even easier and for most aircraft probably a better indication of relative combat radius.

The comparison fails when you add flying bricks with massive fuel capacity such as P-47 as fuel consumption is much worse then normal.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 24, 2013)

It is still remarkable how only the DB 601Aa was cleared for licence production. As Dave once said, putting a DB 601E in the C.202 would have made it a top notch fighter aircraft. 

However, the DB 601Aa also had some advantages. This I got from Vanir, an unfortunately banned member:



> ndeed the smaller blower in the Aa, which other than the blower is a 601A-1 engine, actually let the motor spin to its maximum emergency rating more easily and for longer.
> The normal maximum rating of the 601A-1 is actually 1.3ata/2400rpm for 5min. During take off only (under 1000m) you could press it to 1.4ata at the same rpm but it rattled a lot and was under blower effiency height which is about 2000 metres.
> The Aa blower lowers this to about 1500 metres maximum efficiency and helps it spin easier in thick air. Under 1000m the Aa will spin the 601 to 2500rpm/1.4ata instead of 2400rpm which is worth about 100hp.
> But the lower throttle height is actually a reduction in performance. At 3800 metres the Aa puts out 1100PS military which is a little over 100hp more than the A-1, but at 4500m the A-1 puts out 1020PS military with good pressure and the Aa motor is dropping below 900hp and definitely out of breath. Maximum performance height for the airframe then rates at about 4200m for the Aa/Emil and about 5500m for the A-1/Emil, consider that typical frei-jäger in BoB is 7000m (because Spits lost climb rate at 6000).
> ...


In short, the DB 601Aa had more power at take-off and low altitude, but suffered at medium altitude, where most combat took place.

Kris


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Good point. According to kurfurst site droptank reduced speed by 39 kph, without weight into account, so say - 45 kph loss with weight. Drop tank attachment reduced speed by -4 kph.
> 
> So in above example, 300 liter flyable.
> 
> ...



2 dts weight more than one, so one needed more fuel to achieve the optimal flight altitude and IMHO the 600l external vs 400l intenal wasn't a coincidence but the idea was that in optimal case after using the fuel in the dts it was still possible to return with the internal fuel when one remember that return was "downhill". The 2/3 rule of thumb.

And the odd thing still is that LW seemed not to utilise the theoretical ferry range capacity of the 109G but the all the ferry flights i'm aware were made using rather short stages.

Juha

Juha


----------



## GregP (Jun 25, 2013)

Just to throw something in here, we are restoring an Hispano Ha.1112, which is esentially a Bf 109G from the firewall backward, with a Merlin in the nose. Since the Merlin was not an iverted V-12, there was no possibility for it to have a cannon through the spinner. Don't know about the REST of them, but OUR Hispano has wing armament and wing tanks. The wing armament was two Hispano HS-404 20 mm cannons ... IN the wing. I have seen the inside of the wing structure and the mounts are not only possible, they are there. It also had outboard wing tanks that we have removed since ours will be an airshow aircraft and doesn't need the extra fuel.

So, if the Germans had wanted to install wing cannons, they certainly could have, since the Spanish, with no other alternative, DID.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 25, 2013)

GregP said:


> Just to throw something in here, we are restoring an Hispano Ha.1112, which is esentially a Bf 109G from the firewall backward, with a Merlin in the nose. Since the Merlin was not an iverted V-12, there was no possibility for it to have a cannon through the spinner. Don't know about the REST of them, but OUR Hispano has wing armament and wing tanks. The wing armament was two Hispano HS-404 20 mm cannons ... IN the wing. I have seen the inside of the wing structure and the mounts are not only possible, they are there. It also had outboard wing tanks that we have removed since ours will be an airshow aircraft and doesn't need the extra fuel.
> 
> So, if the Germans had wanted to install wing cannons, they certainly could have, since the Spanish, with no other alternative, DID.



Just for reference Greg, the reason that a motor cannon could not be fitted to the Merlin was not that it was upright, but that its induction system (supercharger, intake pipe) got in the way.


----------



## GregP (Jun 25, 2013)

The induction system of ALL upright WWII V-12's gets in the way, so it IS because it is upright. If they had fuel injection, maybe not ... but they didn't until very late on the war in the Allied side at least (without major modification to the induction systems), and the Axis side used inverted V-12's.

I submit the "upright" part required the induction to get in the way of a cannon through the spinner unless specifically designed to go around it, and the Merlin, Allison, Hispano-Suiza, Griffon, Sabre, etc. didn't do that.

Or am I mistaken?

The P-39 did, but that was a remote engine with a driveshaft that allowed a cannon. Maybe they could have done that with a Merlin or Griffin, but did they?


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 25, 2013)

Civettone said:


> In short, the DB 601Aa had more power at take-off and low altitude, but suffered at medium altitude, where most combat took place.
> 
> Kris


It's worth to note however than a C.202 had his maximum speed at 5900m. Higher than a Bf109 F1/2 with the DB601N (5200m) and similar to a F4 with the DB601E (6000/6200m)


----------



## GregP (Jun 25, 2013)

Good point, DW!


----------



## Juha (Jun 25, 2013)

GregP said:


> The induction system of ALL upright WWII V-12's gets in the way, so it IS because it is upright. If they had fuel injection, maybe not ... but they didn't until very late on the war in the Allied side at least (without major modification to the induction systems), and the Axis side used inverted V-12's.
> 
> I submit the "upright" part required the induction to get in the way of a cannon through the spinner unless specifically designed to go around it, and the Merlin, Allison, Hispano-Suiza, Griffon, Sabre, etc. didn't do that.
> 
> ...



Hisso was the original motor-cannon engine, look MS 406 or Dewointine D.520


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2013)

The Hisso (and it's Russian derivatives) had the intake system on the _outside_ of the engine. 












Propeller reduction gear has to be sized for the proper off-set, supercharger has restrictions on size or location (German engines had theirs on the side for this reason).

The engine _HAS_ to be designed with the motor cannon in mind to begin with, not added later. It has little to do with upright or inverted.


----------



## cimmex (Jun 25, 2013)

GregP said:


> Just to throw something in here, we are restoring an Hispano Ha.1112, which is esentially a Bf 109G from the firewall backward, with a Merlin in the nose. Since the Merlin was not an iverted V-12, there was no possibility for it to have a cannon through the spinner. Don't know about the REST of them, but OUR Hispano has wing armament and wing tanks. The wing armament was two Hispano HS-404 20 mm cannons ... IN the wing. I have seen the inside of the wing structure and the mounts are not only possible, they are there. It also had outboard wing tanks that we have removed since ours will be an airshow aircraft and doesn't need the extra fuel.
> 
> So, if the Germans had wanted to install wing cannons, they certainly could have, since the Spanish, with no other alternative, DID.



if you look at a Merlin you can see that the super-charger is at the back after the engine so there is no way to install a motor cannon. This has nothing to do with carb or injection, upright or down, there was just no space. The DBs had the super-charger side-mounted and there is some room between the cylinder banks for a cannon.
The Spanish built a complete new wing for the Ha.1112 to install cannons. It is a twospar design and was constructed to the fit the cannon.
Thousand of photos you can find at Matthias Dorst fantastic site:
Matthias -Strega- Dorst, die Adresse fr den Warbird-Enthusiasten und Modellbauer


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 25, 2013)

I also wonder if it has to do anything with carb injection... the DB 600 was carburrated, yet I believe layout was exactly the same as DFI 601 series.. so I dont think its carb/DFI/inverted layout related. Either you design an engine as such or not. The French did, and the Germans, who were looking closely at all French weapons systems probably followed the trend to counter.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jun 25, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The Hisso (and it's Russian derivatives) had the intake system on the _outside_ of the engine.
> 
> Propeller reduction gear has to be sized for the proper off-set, supercharger has restrictions on size or location (German engines had theirs on the side for this reason).
> 
> The engine _HAS_ to be designed with the motor cannon in mind to begin with, not added later. It has little to do with upright or inverted.



Even the Jumo 213A could not mount a motor cannon. Accessories were in the way. The 213E/F could and did have motor cannons.

- Ivan.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 25, 2013)

Dogwalker said:


> It's worth to note however than a C.202 had his maximum speed at 5900m. Higher than a Bf109 F1/2 with the DB601N (5200m) and similar to a F4 with the DB601E (6000/6200m)


I read yesterday that the RA.1000s received an upgraded supercharger, similar to that of the DB 601A-1.

And I also read that the RA.1000 used more plain bearings (as opposed to ball bearings) than the DB 601.
Kris


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 25, 2013)

Civettone said:


> And I also read that the RA.1000 used more plain bearings (as opposed to ball bearings) than the DB 601.
> Kris


 Yes, this is known. The Ra.1000 used mainly plain bearings, probably to save chromium and other steel alloy elements.

Good info on the supercharger.


----------



## cherry blossom (Jun 25, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> ...
> Rb 75/30 was quite a serious camera equipment, used for high altitude work with great focal lenght.
> ...



I looked at R.V. Jones' “Most Secret War” and he confirms the inferiority of British cameras on pages 179-181. However, the RAF managed to get equivalent or better results by developing the technique of taking two photographs to give a stereo view (which AFAIK the Germans never used). As well as the three-dimensional view often allowing camouflaged targets to be identified, there was also the advantage that rotating radar aerials could be identified.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 25, 2013)

I have also read that the British were the first to use stereoscopic imagery. All started with Sidney Cotton.

But a quick google brought me to the another forum, from which I quote Chris Going:


> It is the camera intervalometer setting which governs whether or not you will have stereo cover of a stretch of ground. The basic set-up of split verts, with a single area collector with a shorter focal length should all give you decent stereo cover. With the split verts the preferred setting is usually 10% sidelap (ie overlap between port and starboard), and 70% endlap ir overlap between frames of the same camera (the exact figure may vary). Having said that, Ive gone through Luftwaffe sorties which have 90% or more endlap. My conclusion is that Luftwaffe aircrews often didnt like the idea of bringing back unused film so had their intervalometers turning on maximum settings much of the time.
> 
> On another note stereo photography was being taken in the first world war and stereo pairs were being routinely distributed by the Brits c late 1916



So it seems it wasn't that rare after all.
Kris


----------



## GregP (Jun 25, 2013)

Thanks Shortround. Nice pic of a 12YBrs!

I must admit I wasn't thinking of the Hisso at the time ... I made the mistake of thining of the Merlin, Griffon, and Allison. I also didn't think of the Mikulin or Klimov derivatives that started from the Hispano-Suiza 12YBrs ... though I don't think any Mikulin I can recall had a cannon through the hub. We already know the Atsuta was a Japanese licensed copy of a DB and did have the capability of firing a cannon through the hub. 

So the HS has that as a positive. The big negative wasn't reliability, it was low power. I don't think I'd trade the extra power of an Allison, Merlin, or Griffon for a prop hub cannon, but some might well do so.

I haven't really dug into the Mikulin yet as the data are so few and far between. The only running Mikulin engine I know of is in a restored MiG-3 in Russia. It has engine problems almost every time they start it, if you believe the press. My guess, if they ARE having constant engine issues, is that they don't have the main bearing clearances quite right. Too tight gets hot quickly and too loose means poor oil pressure. Maybe we could send them some plastigage!

I think it does have a LOT to do with being upright. The most produced V-12 engine for the Allies was the Merlin. The intake system would have to be completely redesigned for a prop hub cannon. Same for the Allison or Griffon and, if it WAS, you'd have to have a very short cannon to clear the supercharger ... or move it to the side as on a DB.

I think it was said correctly above, you can design for a center cannon, but it is very difficult to "add" it later. The main Western upright V-12's weren't designed for center cannons, and that was my point, not that you CAN'T do it, but they mostly didn't opt for it. Not sure anyone would want to redesign a Merlin for a center cannon ... and the Allison simply wasn't ever going to be redesigned just for that option. If they had thought of it (or specified it) at the time things got started, the Griffon was a real possibility foir designing in a center cannon. But it wasn't done.


----------



## cherry blossom (Jun 25, 2013)

I was wrong and the Luftwaffe did produce and use stereo photographs. The confusion seems to have arisen because the Luftwaffe stressed speedy interpretation and normally worked with negatives which did not allow them to view in stereo Collection Description - Luftwaffe: Aerial Reconnaissance (Scotland). However, before parachute attacks for example, stereo images were examined in great detail Airborne Operations in World War II: A German Appraisal - Hellmuth Reinhardt - Google Books.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jul 22, 2013)

To change the subject yet again, this is lifted from a post by Charles Bronson in the Weapons Systems forum:

Breda SAFAT 12,7mm guns - A real life account of their real power - Official 1C Company forum

Apparently the 12.7 mm explosive shells in the Italian guns and probably the Japanese ones as well were quite a bit more effective than one would expect from something that small.

- Ivan.


----------

