# Late 1941 - late 42: Bf-109 vs. Fw-190



## tomo pauk (Dec 20, 2012)

For many people, the advent of the Fw-190 was a tough thing for the RAF in ETO. OTOH, many of the Bf-109 'people' tend to point out that Bf-109F was at least as good, if not better, prior 1943. So what one was better as an all-around fighter plane, in said time frame?


----------



## meatloaf109 (Dec 20, 2012)

The 190 was still going through teething troubles, as evidenced by the large number of progressional variants, until it got up to the A-8, whereas the 109 largely had been ironed out, so I'd have to say, at that PARTICULAR time the 109F was better. As soon as the 190 A8 showed up, IMHO, Willy's 109 took a back seat.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 20, 2012)

i'm not agree that 190 had teething troubles for all the period.


----------



## Denniss (Dec 20, 2012)

Most troubles were ironed-out with the appearance of the A-5


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 20, 2012)

Most trouble were out with A-2


----------



## drgondog (Dec 20, 2012)

IMO - the Spit IX and the FW 190A-3 through A-5 were the best all around fighters in the war in 1941 through 1942. I know the A-5 was barely in production in late 1942 but that fits the thread.

The Me 109F and G for 1941 and 1942 were excellent but I believe they fall short of both the above.


----------



## vinnye (Dec 20, 2012)

I would have thought the FW190 was the better of the two - because it gave the RAF a nasty suprise when it arrived on the scene.
However, I have recently seen a TV program that had Adolf Galland on it. He said that the LW used the 109's as top cover to engage Bomber escort fighters and the 190 to attack the bombers. This would seem to suggest that the 109 was the better fighter and the 190 the better bomber killer/
Maybe shades of Spitfire and Hurricane in the BoB?


----------



## stona (Dec 20, 2012)

vinnye said:


> He said that the LW used the 109's as top cover to engage Bomber escort fighters and the 190 to attack the bombers. This would seem to suggest that the 109 was the better fighter and the 190 the better bomber killer/QUOTE]
> 
> The Fw 190 was a more robust aircraft. It was one of Tank's original design considerations. If I was attacking a bomber I'd quite like a large radial engine acting as armour too.
> 
> ...


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 20, 2012)

vinnye said:


> I would have thought the FW190 was the better of the two - because it gave the RAF a nasty suprise when it arrived on the scene.
> However, I have recently seen a TV program that had Adolf Galland on it. He said that the LW used the 109's as top cover to engage Bomber escort fighters and the 190 to attack the bombers. This would seem to suggest that the 109 was the better fighter and the 190 the better bomber killer/
> Maybe shades of Spitfire and Hurricane in the BoB?



That's because the radial engines of the FW190 weren't designed to operate above 20k feet. The Americans had the materials and production to build turbo-superchargers into their radials, which the Germans didn't, so they had to rely on liquid cooled Daimler-Benz engines to operate at the heights of the Allied strategic bombers and fighters (they mostly operated above 20k feet, but there still was a lot of combat below that where the Fw190 came into play). Eventually the FW190D came into production to meet that demand (delayed by their liquid cooled engine factories being bombed in 1943), and the Ta152 high altitude fighter was nearly ready to fight the higher flying B29s in 1945.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 21, 2012)

Germany also simply didn't have a good turbocharger or an airframe to fit one in until the compact 801 TJ.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 22, 2012)

I'm not sure why the turbochargers are mentioned here?

Maybe laying out some pros cons with particular aircraft.
Bf-109F-4: starting in 1942, it's engine was cleaerd to use the Notleistung, allowing the plane to be fastest plane anywehere in the world, maybe the best climber? Prior that, it was making some 390-395 mph, still a major feat in 1941. It's diving abilities were tested true. The shortcoming is the light armament combat range. The gondola cannons are a good thing, though negating some performance.

Fw-109: the armament started with 4 LMG + 2 MG/FFM, while the A-2 and A-3 were to have 2 LMG + 2 MG-151/20, with ability to carry the 2 MG/FFM - the armament is a plus here. So is it's celebrated the roll rate. I'm not going into the undercarriage layout here  I'm not sure about when the Fw-190 started to carry drop tank - someone please drop in.
The main shortcoming is the engine, it took several engine airframe modifications for the BMW to achieve the reliability power. The BMW 801C and restricted 801D (prior mid Oct 1942) were not as good as the 801D from mid Oct 1942 on. The Fw-190 of 1942 were, however, lighter more streamlined than later ones.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 23, 2012)

drgondog said:


> IMO - the Spit IX and the FW 190A-3 through A-5 were the best all around fighters in the war in 1941 through 1942. I know the A-5 was barely in production in late 1942 but that fits the thread.
> 
> The Me 109F and G for 1941 and 1942 were excellent but I believe they fall short of both the above.


 
Neither the Spitfire IX or the 190A3 were in production in 1941. Spitfire IX entered service in July 1942, 190A3 about four or five months earlier. 

FW 190A-3 is a significant step up from the A-2, Better armament, more power and importantly, a more reliable (although not still fully satisfactory) engine in the 801-D.


----------



## davebender (Dec 23, 2012)

IMO the best mass produced lightweight fighter aircraft in the world during this time frame. It also had the lowest production cost.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 23, 2012)

davebender said:


> IMO the best mass produced lightweight fighter aircraft in the world during this time frame. It also had the lowest production cost.


 
2890 kg/6370 lbs is a lightweight fighter?

Odd definition. Particularly one for a full-sized fighter powered by a 33.9 litre engine.

Datenblatt for 109F-4:

Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 23, 2012)

from what i remember a lot of the 109 pilots liked the F best of all...

from stigler's interview..

Q: Your favourite was the F model, yet the one that was produced the most was the G6… 

Stigler: Yeah…

Q: …But most pilots preferred, like yourself, the F models and the earlier G’s, like the G-2. What was the reason behind that?

Stigler: The G6 basically had a heavier motor and could fly higher…not more speed, but that’s it…it starts getting heavier every time they put something new in.


----------



## stona (Dec 24, 2012)

davebender said:


> IMO the best mass produced lightweight fighter aircraft in the world during this time frame. It also had the lowest production cost.



But it wasn't the Bf 109 F that forced the RAF back across the channel.

Of the Bf 109 F the RAF thought:

"The aircraft has a superior initial climb and dive to that of the Spitfire, but it is considered that the Spitfire could easily out-turn the Me.109F, especially at high speed."

On June 24th 1941 the minutes of a meeting of the Air Staff regarding the Merlin 61 have Verney resisting any change to the Spitfire V.

"This [Spitfire V] is the mainstay of the Spitfire first line strength _for it is proving superior to the Me 109 _and we cannot run any risks with it."

They considered the Spitfire V to be coping with the Bf 109 F

This all changed a few months later.
It was the introduction of the Fw 190 that caused real problems. When this appeared,in September 1941,it was soon obvious that the Spitfire V could not compete with it. It was the Fw 190 that led,on 13th November 1941, to the issuing,by the Air Staff,of a directive halting all but essential operations over Northern Europe. It was the Fw 190 not the Bf 109 F which precipitated the production of the most numerous stop gap of all,the Spitfire IX with the Merlin 61.

You and some others may consider the Bf 109 F to have been the best fighter of the time but the men of the RAF,who were having to deal with it, clearly did not.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## cimmex (Dec 24, 2012)

stona said:


> You and some others may consider the Bf 109 F to have been the best fighter of the time but the men of the RAF,who were having to deal with it, clearly did not.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


Same at the other side, I think German 109 pilots never got worried about the Spitfire. In his book “the first and the last” Galland rated the 109 always higher than the contemporary Spitfire.
cimmex

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 24, 2012)

cimmex said:


> Same at the other side, I think German 109 pilots never got worried about the Spitfire. In his book “the first and the last” Galland rated the 109 always higher than the contemporary Spitfire.
> cimmex



Yes,that's true,but the RAF only started to suffer losses which they considered unsustainable _after_ the introduction of the Fw 190. This led to the November directive from the Air Staff. The introduction of the Bf 109 F led to no such action.
It wasn't just a perception or opinion by the RAF that the Spitfire V was coping with the Bf 109 F. We are not talking about pilots' opinions but the decisions of the men who have the figures for claims (which they knew to be unreliable) and their own losses (which were correct) to work with.
Fighter Command's losses increased to an unacceptable level with the introduction of the Fw 190,this had not happened with the introduction of the Bf 109 F. 
British operations across the Channel resumed in February 1942 (after the "Channel Dash") but were again curtailed in June after the RAF lost 335 aircraft,mostly Spitfire Vs. This time the Air Staff ordered Sholto Douglas to curtail _all _operations,those that were carried out,cross Channel, being limited to coastal targets.
The decisive factor in these decisions was the Fw 190 not the Bf 109 F which had already been in service for over a year.

I happen to think the Bf 109 F was the best of the Messerschmitt bunch but it did not have the impact of the Fw 190. The best fighter operating against us in 1942 was certainly the Fw 190. The evidence is in the figures for Fighter Command losses and in the actions of the men who had to fight against it.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Tante Ju (Dec 24, 2012)

stona said:


> On June 24th 1941 the minutes of a meeting of the Air Staff regarding the Merlin 61 have Verney resisting any change to the Spitfire V.
> 
> "This [Spitfire V] is the mainstay of the Spitfire first line strength _for it is proving superior to the Me 109 _and we cannot run any risks with it."
> 
> They considered the Spitfire V to be coping with the Bf 109 F



Nope, the comment wasn't on the 109F, it was on the 109E. The RAF at the time when referring to the '109' always referred to the E model, when they referred to the F they did that by saying '109F'. Also in June 1941 the RAF had no real idea of the capabilities of the 109F, apart from here-say - they did not capture one until the automn, and even that was a fairly damaged example which probably for that reason failed to reach the nominal speeds (and later dived into the ground for no apparent reason, killing the poor chap piloting it) Kurfürst - A.F.D.U. Tactical Trials - Me.109F aircraft



> It was the introduction of the Fw 190 that caused real problems. When this appeared,in September 1941,it was soon obvious that the Spitfire V could not compete with it. It was the Fw 190 that led,on 13th November 1941, to the issuing,by the Air Staff,of a directive halting all but essential operations over Northern Europe. It was the Fw 190 not the Bf 109 F which precipitated the production of the most numerous stop gap of all,the Spitfire IX with the Merlin 61.



The Spitfire V could not compete with the 109F equipped JGs in France in 1941, but perhaps they did not realize it at the time. Read up the losses in 1941, they are as bad if not worse than in 1942 when these JGs largely converted to Fw 190s. They RAF may have perceived the 190 as bigger threat, but it seems it was something more physiological, than material fear. The 109 they have got used to, the 190 was something new, alien, unknown and thus more menacing.



> You and some others may consider the Bf 109 F to have been the best fighter of the time but the men of the RAF,who were having to deal with it, clearly did not.



Its interesting that the Luftwaffe (and I am sure you'd agree they knew their own fighters better) considered the 109F overall better as of late 1941. They had tested the early 190A vs. the 109F in Rechlin, and produced a lenghty report. The overall conclusion was that the 109 is faster and especially climbs better. The main advantage of the 190 was seen in that it's airframe was much stronger, and could be returned to service even after damage to it in accidents, for example it did not bend on belly landings. Overall however the impression was that while people of Rechlin were impressed with the 190, the 109 still offered better performance.

On particularly interesting thing they have noted was that the BMW engine has not yet reached sufficient reliability levels to be flown over extended spaces like the steppe, desert or over sea, the dangers of loosing pilots due to this being consdiered too great. Hence why 190s were initially only deployed over occupied France, but not in the MTO or Russia.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 24, 2012)

stona said:


> But it wasn't the Bf 109 F that forced the RAF back across the channel.
> 
> Of the Bf 109 F the RAF thought:
> 
> "The aircraft has a superior initial climb and dive to that of the Spitfire, but it is considered that the Spitfire could easily out-turn the Me.109F, especially at high speed."



What Bf-109F is the minute talking about? The F1/F2 (~375 mph), restricted F4 (390-395 mph, better climb, better armament), or unrestricted F4 (410+ mph, even better climb)?



> On June 24th 1941 the minutes of a meeting of the Air Staff regarding the Merlin 61 have Verney resisting any change to the Spitfire V.
> 
> "This [Spitfire V] is the mainstay of the Spitfire first line strength _for it is proving superior to the Me 109 _and we cannot run any risks with it."



The Spitfire V RAF has in production entering service is compared there with the F1/F2.
Could we now state that 1) RAF was wrong to say that Spit V was proving superior to the (presumably) F1/F2 and 2) the RAF was wrong in the assumption that LW will not field something better in no time ?



> This all changed a few months later.
> It was the introduction of the Fw 190 that caused real problems. When this appeared,in September 1941,it was soon obvious that the Spitfire V could not compete with it. It was the Fw 190 that led,on 13th November 1941, to the issuing,by the Air Staff,of a directive halting all but essential operations over Northern Europe. It was the Fw 190 not the Bf 109 F which precipitated the production of the most numerous stop gap of all,the Spitfire IX with the Merlin 61.
> You and some others may consider the Bf 109 F to have been the best fighter of the time but the men of the RAF,who were having to deal with it, clearly did not.



Thanks for the minutes.
Seem to me that it was the reversal of the 'Spitfire snobbery' - the LW fighter pilots downed by Hurricanes were maintaining they were shoot down by Spitfires? Ie. it was easier to say that LW has something far better that's giving us problems - therefore we cannot blame our tactics/strategies/pilots/planes?

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Dec 24, 2012)

The turning quote was made after the assesment of Pingel's F at the AFDU. The aircraft was delivered by Pingel on 10th July,hardly the autumn. It wasn't tested until later,something that led to some frustration amongst serving officers. Bader even wrote a letter demanding that he and other senior officers be allowed to fly it. He wanted some hard figures but gives no impression that the F was causing undue concern. Nor does anything in any Air Ministry or Air Staff document that I have seen. The same cannot be said of the Fw 190.









When Verney made his comments the Bf 109 F had been in service for months. It was not an unknown quantity to the RAF. The RAF was well aware (as evidenced in their own intelligence reports) that they were faced by Jagdgeschwader equipped with the new type in June/July 1941. 

The minutes of the Air Staff meetings refer to the Me 109 for the entire war without any consistent reference to type or dash number.

Losses for the RAF mounted when they started their ill conceived operations across the Channel. The type of operations undertaken can have a great effect on losses. They were able to maintain these losses at,to them,an acceptable level until late 1941. At this time,which happens to coincide with the appearance of the Fw 190,they rose to unacceptable numbers. This is a year after the first Bf 109 Fs enterd service. Is it any wonder that the RAF linked it's loss of superiority over the Channel with the introduction of the new aircraft?


Cheers

Steve


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 24, 2012)

I have to agree with Steve regarding the overall impact the Fw 190 had on the British when it first appeared compared to the Bf 109F - as smart an aeroplane as that was. The Fw 190 caused the hasty improvisation that became the Spitfire Mk.IX by fitting a two-speed, two-stage supercharged Merlin to the Mk.V airframe. There was even a somewhat desperate plan for commandoes to parachute into a LW airfield in France and capture an example and fly it across the Channel. That was before Arnim Faber followed a reciprocal course and landed at RAF Pembry in Wales...


----------



## Tante Ju (Dec 24, 2012)

The 190's boogeyman status may have been the way the RAF perceived it, but it was without any factual foundation. 

Hooton notes that between June - December 1941 RAF FC lost 416 fighters in six months during 20 495 day sorties flown (2 % loss rate), plus BC's 108 bombers in 1406 sorties (7.6 % loss rate...!). 
This was pretty much the 109F period, just before the JGs started to convert to the 190A. Luftflotte 3 was flying 19535 sorties but lost only 93 fighters (0.4 % loss rate).. 

The numbers pretty much speak for themselves - 4 RAF fighters and a bomber was lost for every German fighter . RAF fighter command at the time was however believed that it had shot down over 700 German fighters.

In the next six months (January - June 1942), when the Fw 190 was making appearance, the RAF lost another 295 fighters in 22 729 (1.2% loss rate) day sorties while BC flew 1007 day sorties and lost only 16 (1.5% loss rate). 

It's quite clear that the first six months of Fw 190ish 1942 was much easier on the RAF than the previous six months of 1941. 109F equipped JGs were kicking the brown out of Fighter Command in 1941 much worse than 190As did in 1942. Fighter Command's losses did not, as you'd believe, increase in 1942. In fact they were decreasing, but the RAF had enough. Similar losses for the same period for the Jagdwaffe are not available, but Hooton notes that in the four months leading to June 1942, RAF FC has lost 264 fighters for 58 German - a ratio of 

To summerize: 

In the second half of 1941 the Germans, largely equipped with 109Fs shot down 416 RAF fighters and 108 bombers, for the loss of 93 of their own fighters - a loss ratio of 5.6 to one! 
In the four months leading to June 1942 the Germans, largely re-equipped with 190As shot down 264 RAF fighters and about a dozen bombers, for the loss of 58 of their own fighters - a loss ratio of 4.7 to one! 

Thus actually the LW was doing relatively worse with the 190 (meaning that they 'only' shot down about 5 RAF planes for each of their own instead of 6..) and Fighter Command actually slightly better.

All that happened that the RAF was slow to realize it. It took them a year and a number of high profile engagements in the spring of 1942, when JGs practically annihilated a number of Spitfire Squadrons in combat: on 1st June 1942 9 Spitfires of the Debden wing were shot down, the next day seven out of 12 Spitfires of No. 403 Sqn were shot down by JG. 

This must have rose some heads in the air ministry and Dougles was told to stop this nonsense over France at once. The RAF began to realize the reality of the situation that was going on for a year and they finally had enough of the hammering they received over France - either from 109Fs or 190As. 

They may have perceived that this was caused by the 190s, but with the hindsight it seems it was an easy excuse for everyone, since essentially it was the failure of the tactics and lack of concept, aka the human factor. Surely post-war historians were keen to build on that. After all, 'the Fw 190 menace' and blaming it all on a supposedly unbeatable uberfighter sounds a whole lot nicer in the history books than 'we were banging our head against the concreate hoping it would yield and it took us a year to realize this was a stupid concept'. 

So, in short your earlier statement that 'RAF only started to suffer losses which they considered unsustainable after the introduction of the Fw 190' is demonstrably untrue.

As for the June 24th 1941 the minutes of a meeting of the Air Staff regarding the Merlin 61 and having Verney resisting any change to the Spitfire V and making the "This [Spitfire V] is the mainstay of the Spitfire first line strength for it is proving superior to the Me 109 and we cannot run any risks with it." 

I cannot comment anything else on it that given the above, Verney either had his own reasons for sticking to the Mark V or he had a bad case of overusing mushrooms. To be fair, he might have erred in believing the fanciful claims of pilots over France, after all if those were to be true, the RAF would have been shooting down the LW in a 2 to one rate over France.

But he seems to be rather alone with his opinion. Shacklady for example quotes a signal from the Wing Commander of the Hornchurch wing on 15 July 1941, 'listing the essentials if the Spitfire was to cope with the 109'. He noted the following, regarding the superiority of the 109F at altitude, which was a great concern for RAF fighter pilots appearantly (and it would seem logical that this lead to fitting a high altitude bomber engine to the Mark V and thus renamed Mark IX):

_"Reserve of power and manoeuvrability are the foremost requirements for efficient air fighting at great heights. The superiority in this respect of the 109, particularly the 109F must, to a large extent, be due to its light weight. At present the Spitfire V has insufficient reserves of power to stay in combat with the 109 at 35 000 feet. The latter definietely has greater speed at that height on the level, climb or dive."_

BTW he also clearly uses '109' for 109E and 109F for the latter. In fact this was expressively requested to avoid confusing the two.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 24, 2012)

stona said:


> The turning quote was made after the assesment of Pingel's F at the AFDU. The aircraft was delivered by Pingel on 10th July,hardly the autumn. It wasn't tested until later,something that led to some frustration amongst serving officers. Bader even wrote a letter demanding that he and other senior officers be allowed to fly it. He wanted some hard figures but gives no impression that the F was causing undue concern. Nor does anything in any Air Ministry or Air Staff document that I have seen. The same cannot be said of the Fw 190.
> 
> When Verney made his comments the Bf 109 F had been in service for months. It was not an unknown quantity to the RAF. The RAF was well aware (as evidenced in their own intelligence reports) that they were faced by Jagdgeschwader equipped with the new type in June/July 1941.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the contribution, Steve.
The non-differentiation between the F1/F2 and F4 (with a restricted engine, second half of 1941) is a most striking one. The difference in performance between 601N and 601E engined planes was akin to the difference between Spit V and Spit IX. Let aloe when, starting in 1942, the 601E was allowed to do the full power.
If the type of fuel is mentioned in the minutes, we can easily make out what sub-type is the plane.

Tante Ju, many thanks.


----------



## stona (Dec 24, 2012)

Losses are very dependent on the missions undertaken.

The RAF decided that the losses early in 1942 were unsustainable,not me.

How much combat was taking place at 35,000 ft?

The Wing Commander may have been keen to differentiate the E and F. The very fact he wrote that would seem to indicate that it wasn't being done and it wasn't done after his plea either.
He obviously wrote it prior to the arrival of Pingel's F in July.

RAF intelligence reports do differentiate between different types (not always dash numbers,though they may quote the data plate) and almost invariably note the werknummer, place of manufacture, engine type,armament and often fuel. That is not the same as the minutes of meetings attended by the men from the Ministry and senior officers.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Dec 24, 2012)

After June 1941 the RAF massively outnumbered the Luftwaffe in western Europe. Under such circumstances how can one speak of "forcing the RAF back across the channel"? British daytime air raids could go anywhere they wanted to the limit of aircraft combat radius. Luftwaffe defenders could and did inflict losses but the RAF steamroller could not be stopped.


----------



## Tante Ju (Dec 25, 2012)

I don't think the Germans cared much if the RAF would bomb_ France_ back to stone age... save for a couple of railway lines leading to their U boot pens in Atlantic ports.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 25, 2012)

> (and it would seem logical that this lead to fitting a high altitude bomber engine to the Mark V and thus renamed Mark IX)



Nope. The Mk.IX was produced in a hurry to combat the Fw 190. The first 60 series Merlin powered Spit was the VII; the Mk.VIII was to be the next mass produced variant of the Spit; the IX was initially a stop-gap - it was not planned.

Tante Ju, whilst your facts and figures point to the Bf 109F as being the highest scorer - and I'm ceratinly not disputing them; the Fw 190 was a shock, not necessarily because it had shot down more aircraft at that time, but because it could outperform the Mk.V Spit. The Brits had more reason to be concerned by the potential the Fw 190 offered. 



> I don't think the Germans cared much if the RAF would bomb France back to stone age... save for a couple of railway lines leading to their U boot pens in Atlantic ports.



I really don't think that was the case at all!


----------



## davebender (Dec 25, 2012)

> I don't think the Germans cared much if the RAF would bomb France back to stone age


I doubt that. 

Vichy France will not remain diplomatically aligned with Germany if the Luftwaffe cannot provide an adequate air defense of French territory.


----------



## stona (Dec 26, 2012)

davebender said:


> After June 1941 the RAF massively outnumbered the Luftwaffe in western Europe. Under such circumstances how can one speak of "forcing the RAF back across the channel"? British daytime air raids could go anywhere they wanted to the limit of aircraft combat radius. Luftwaffe defenders could and did inflict losses but the RAF steamroller could not be stopped.



Go back and read the thread. In both late '41 and early '42 RAF operations acroos the Channel were either halted or severely limited by order of the Air Staff. This was due to an unacceptable level of losses which the RAF perceived,at the time,as being due to the introduction of the Fw 190. Whether this was infact due to the Fw 190 or not is obviously,with the benefit of hindsight up for debate.

What is quite clear is that the RAF did not feel could not go "anywhere they wanted" at this time,at least not with an acceptable level of losses.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Aozora (Dec 26, 2012)

Attached is the Air Ministry's guide for Spitfire pilots flying over enemy territory, published August 1942:











The advice was to cruise at high speeds: +16 Lbs boost was now available and could be used without a threat of the engine blowing up, but fuel consumption increased exponentially.


----------



## stona (Dec 26, 2012)

And,once again,specific mention of the Fw 190 ("At the present stage of the war the enemy is equipped with the Fw 190......."). It was the perceived threat.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 26, 2012)

Steve, the paper specifically mentions France as the current area of interest. By mid 1942, there were almost no Bf-109s RAF was to fight against in the ETO (corrections welcomed). Fw-190 of that era was holding all cards vs. the Spit V, bar turning abilities, so it's no wonder they specify it in the document. The document therefore does not tries to proove that 190 was a better fighter than 109, just acknowledges the current adwersary in the war theatre of major RAF's interest.


----------



## stona (Dec 26, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> By mid 1942, there were almost no Bf-109s RAF was to fight against in the ETO (corrections welcomed).



I'd have to check that,but let's assume that is so. Why would that be?. The Luftwaffe still had plenty of Bf 109s.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 26, 2012)

The ETO was not the area the bulk of Luftwaffe was fielded, that would be the Eastern front. Plus, we have MTO. In those two 'remote', but huge areas, Fw-190 was arriving in penny packets from late 1942 on. Bf-109, in 1942, was a far less a troublesome machine than it was the case for the Fw-190 (due to BMW engine issues). The teething problems were much easier to resolve in 'sanitized' conditions of France Low caountries, near to Gemany, than in the remote and dusty steppes deserts of EF and MTO. 
We can draw paralels here with RAF's experiences with Typhoon.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 26, 2012)

I wonder how much of the notice of the Fw-190 is also due to the 109F-4 not showing up until June/July of 1941?

The 109F-1/2 having the lower powered engines and less effective armament. Performance margin not as great over the Spitfire.


----------



## stona (Dec 26, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Performance margin not as great over the Spitfire.



Which would be another good reason to equip units facing the RAF's Spitfires with the Fw 190.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 26, 2012)

I/2 the 190 came in june '42, last 3 Gustav leave in november '42 (some back in september '43 and stay until april '44). (june, june, june '42)
II/2 the 190 came march '42, last Friedrich leave in may '42 (some Gustav came in september '42 and stay until november, in april '43 became a 109 unit) (NA, march, april '42)
III/2 the 190 came in may '42, last Friedrich leave in july '42 (some Gustav came in february/may '43) (may, may, june '42)
10/2 the 190 came in june '42, last 4 Friedrich leave in july '42 (may, march, NA)
11/2 some 190 came in january/february '43 otherwise is a Gustav unit
I/26 last 12 Friedrich leave in april '42 (some Gustav came november/december '42) (march, march, april '42)
II/26 had only 190 already 1/3/42, (some Gustav came in december '42- february '43) (NA)
III/26 had only 190 already 1/3/42 (some Gustav came in august '42 and stay in it, in october '43 became a 109 unit) (NA)
10/26 190 came june '42, last 7 Friedrich leave in july '42 (june, june, NA)
11/26 was a Gustav unit

p.s. added month last loss, before of full reequip with 190, a 109 enemy related, not enemy related, last sent to overhaul


----------



## Kryten (Dec 26, 2012)

couple of things to ponder,

the Typhoon was rushed into service to counter the Fw190 threat as well as the Spit iX, also the Spit XII was developed to put a high powered Spit into combat asap.

Spit mkV was used in Malta and considered up to the job of dealing with Me109F and early G.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 26, 2012)

Don't think anyone would claim the Fw-190 as a non-issue for RAF in 1942. It did have edge in performance, the great roll rate making it even a tougher costumer. Hence the rushing of Typhoon in service, along with introduction of Spit V airframe mated with 2-stage Merlin (ie. Spit IX). The RAF was starting to get aware of disproportional losses, and they saw the Fw-190 as the cause.
As for Malta/MTO, do we have a creditable list of kills/losses (not the claims), Spit V vs. Bf-109F? 



Shortround6 said:


> I wonder how much of the notice of the Fw-190 is also due to the 109F-4 not showing up until June/July of 1941?
> 
> The 109F-1/2 having the lower powered engines and less effective armament. Performance margin not as great over the Spitfire.



The notice about the Fw-190 was issued in August of 1942 - the F1/F2 were long gone by then.



stona said:


> Which would be another good reason to equip units facing the RAF's Spitfires with the Fw 190.
> Cheers
> Steve



RAF should not be facing the F1/F2, anywhere, by 1942.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 26, 2012)

The Notice may have been from 1942.

Then MK V Spit and the 109F both show up in winter/spring of 1941. The Better F-4 doesn't show up in any numbers until July/August of 1941 and While the 190 goes _into_ production in June of 1941 only 102 A-1s are completed by October when the A-2 goes into production. The F-4 only has a couple of months to be recognized not only as better than the "E" ( almost a given) BUT better and different than an F-1/2, AND as being much better than a Spit V. If the DB601E was operating under restrictions for a few months after the initial introduction that just dilutes the shock of it's introduction even more. 
The 190 is visually enough different to make identification easy (unlike trying to tell a F-1 from an F-4) and has a few performance advantages that are readily apparent, like the rapid role response. It appears that the 190 wasn't announced to the British public until the spring of 1942


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 26, 2012)

I'll welcome correction(s), some time lines:
-late 1940: F-1 is getting in service, production ends in Feb 1942
-early 1941: F-2: 1st deliveries in Jan 1941, most are produced until May ends, some are produced until August of 1941
-May 1941: production start of F-4, in service in June 1941, 1st loss on 1st July (a machine in JG52 service).

data from Prien's book about Bf-109F/G/K

The Spit V enters service in Feb 1941 (one squadron), in March another squadron, in April another, four squadrons in May.

Initially, the 601E was operating under restrictions (Notleistung was not allowed), the machine making 635 kmh on next best rating (Steig Kampfleistung). The manual, dated Feb 1942, and the plane data sheet from Feb 3rd 1942 make no restrictions for engine operations, the plane making 670 km/h.
Table: Beim-Zeugmeister: Page 12 - Company data Messerschmitt, part 3



> The 190 is visually enough different to make identification easy (unlike trying to tell a F-1 from an F-4) and has a few performance advantages that are readily apparent, like the rapid role response.



Agreed.


----------



## Aozora (Dec 26, 2012)

The only Luftwaffe fighter units based in France and the Low Countries in August 1942 were JG2, JG26 and JG1: JG1 was based primarily in Holland so JG2 and JG26 were the main units faced by Spitfire squadrons. A breakdown of JG26's aircraft readiness June 1941 - December 1942 shows the following:









(Caldwell 1996 and 2012) 

Bf 109F-4 being phased out by June '42, being replaced by Fw 190A-2 and A-3 and the establishment of a special Staffel, 11./JG2, equipped with the Bf 109G-1.

I don't have a breakdown for JG2, but I suspect it was similar.


----------



## davebender (Dec 26, 2012)

January 10, 1941. Circus number 1 flown.
14 Circus raids flown by mid June 1941.
June 21, 1941. Two Circus raids flown on a single day.
Nov 8, 1941. Circus raid number 110.
May 5, 1942. Circus raid number 157.
July 31, 1942. Circus raid number 201.
Feb 3, 1943. Circus raid number 258.

Over 200 Circus raids flown during 1941 and 1942. An average of about two per week.

Doesn't appear to me the RAF was forced back across the Channel.


----------



## stona (Dec 26, 2012)

You'd need to look what they raided. For the periods I specified they were either completely stopped or limited to coastal targets. Those were orders to Sholto Douglas from the Air Staff. In the Royal Air Force these things are not negotiable. 
Averages over several months are meaningless in this context.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Kryten (Dec 26, 2012)

The RAF was expanding massively during the 1941 period on after the BOB, large numbers of rookie pilots sent over the channel to build up experience and if you read through combat reports very few sorties actually ended in air combat, the JG being selective as to when and where they engaged the RAF, they were much more at risk from ground defences than the Luftwaffe!


----------



## davebender (Dec 26, 2012)

Spitfire combat radius was too short to allow anything else. Same problem Me-109 had during 1940.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 26, 2012)

Some are certain that the Bf 109F was superior to the Spitfire V, especially the F-4.

I have to ask, apart from straight line speed and (maybe) climb, what advantages did the Bf 109F have over the Spitfire?

The main advantage the Fw 190A held was its roll rate.


----------



## davebender (Dec 26, 2012)

> apart from straight line speed and (maybe) climb, what advantages did the Bf 109F have over the Spitfire?


Centerline mounted weapons. Inherently more accurate then wing mounted weapons. MG151 also more reliable then Hs.404 cannon.

Hydraulic supercharger coupling delivered power smoothly over a broad altitude band. 

Superior acceleration.

Superior dive.

Superior engine performance under negative G conditions.

Automatic engine control for things like prop pitch, fuel mixture etc. This allows the pilot to concentrate on flying. 


Me-109F4 advantages were not huge but when added together they inspired confidence in typical green wartime fighter pilots.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aozora (Dec 26, 2012)

Here are some Military Sitrep papers supplied to Cabinet:
A) 6-11 to 13-11 1941:











B)20 to 27-11 1941:











C) 4-12 to 11-12 1941







2nd week of November, to 1,737 and 1,445 respectively 4th week of November and 2nd week December - mostly ascribed to the weather conditions. Sholto Douglas' restrictions were not passed on to the War Cabinet.


----------



## Aozora (Dec 26, 2012)

Getting back to the *Spitfire V v Fw 190:*





The August '42 tactical advisory stated that pilots should avoid cruising at low speeds in areas where attacks could be expected because of the Spitfire's relatively poor acceleration from low speeds - the AFDU report above notes that Spitfire Vs should open the throttle and go into a shallow dive as soon as possible, thus forcing Fw 190s into a stern chase. The higher maximum speeds of the Fw 190 were not as important as its superior acceleration and better climbing and diving performance.

*Spitfire IX v Fw 190:*










Similar comments; the Spitfire IX could not be caught in a bounce if it was cruising at high speeds, otherwise the relatively slow acceleration meant the Fw had a chance of catching up. Fw could dive faster, but climb speeds were similar until above 21,000 ft when the Mk IX began to draw away; in a zoom climb the Fw 190 had the initial advantage.


*Spitfire Vb with Merlin 50M with "cropped" supercharger:*


----------



## stona (Dec 27, 2012)

davebender said:


> Spitfire combat radius was too short to allow anything else.



Do you have an Atlas?

Steve


----------



## stona (Dec 27, 2012)

Aozora said:


> 2nd week of November, to 1,737 and 1,445 respectively 4th week of November and 2nd week December - mostly ascribed to the weather conditions.



That's all sorties for Fighter Command for those periods,obviously flown in every area. I'm not sure what your point is. Figures like that need some perspective. How many were flown in September/October 1941 (before the first directive) or May/June 1942 (before the second directive)? 
For example in October '41 FC flew 1,025 sorties on shipping protection alone,a purely defensive operation. I don't have the figure for the total,but add in all other operations for other Group areas and then offensive operations (sweeps,circus,ramrod,roadsted and rhubarb) and I suspect it will eclipse that November figure by a large margin. Curtail does not mean stop.

Sholto-Douglas was ordered to curtail operations in late 1941. The directive of November 6th limits the RAF "all but essential operations over Northern Europe".
Operations resumed in December and continued throughout the winter,with the restrictions of the weather,and then into the following spring. Losses were considered too high and on June 13th 1942 Sholto Douglas was again ordered to curtail operations,it is this directive which allowed the exception of coastal targets.
The directives are in the minutes of the Air Staff. I don't know how Douglas interpreted "essential" in the first directive but he would have had to justify his interpretation to his superiors.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## silence (Dec 28, 2012)

If I may, what is this 109 F-4 "unrestricted"? I've never heard of this and thought I was pretty knowledgeable about LW kites. Can someone provide details, please?


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 28, 2012)

Was a normal F-4 after the engine limits were overcome.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 28, 2012)

The 'restricted' part refers to the ban of the engine 'Start und Notleistung' regime. The loose Western name for that is 'Emergiency'. The second 'best' regime was called 'Steig und Kampfleistung', or, loosely, 'Climb combat power'. You can note that application of US names (WER, Military) is not applicable here - when the pilot was increasing the engine power from 'Steig Kampf' to 'Start Not', it was envoling not just the increase of boost, but also rpm. That means the engine gives more power at higher altitudes (due to both rpm and boost increase), unlike with engines of other beligerents (where only the boost was increased for WER).

No to the question - the table (here) states, at upper part: PS, 1350/2700 [rpm], (Start u.Notl), *z.Zt.gesp.*. The "z.Zt.gesp.", or "zu Zeit gespert" means "restricted for the time being". Unfortunately, the author of the article gets it wrong, omitting the "gesp." part in his interpretation. You can also note the stunning 660 km/h max speed, but those values are not corrected for compressibility - another thing the author of the article does not state, but Kurfurst at his site does.
The next tables do not state the restriction, and are dated from Feb 1942 on. This one (here) does get the high speed right (corrected for compresibility), 635 km/h with Steig Kampfleistung. These ones (here ) state performance for both engine ratings discussed here. With 'Start Notleistung', max speed is stated as 670 km/h.
The most likely time for the ban to get lifted is January/February 1942, judging from here.


----------



## Aozora (Dec 28, 2012)

stona said:


> That's all sorties for Fighter Command for those periods,obviously flown in every area. I'm not sure what your point is. Figures like that need some perspective. How many were flown in September/October 1941 (before the first directive) or May/June 1942 (before the second directive)?



Merely pointing out that the War Cabinet was not privy to Sholto Douglas' directive and that yes, the numbers of sorties was much reduced, although this was attributed to the bad weather conditions. Don Caldwell made the same point in the JG26 war diaries and does not mention the FC directive.

BTW do you have copies of these directives?

Thanks Aoz


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 28, 2012)

If i understand right 670 km/h in "Start und N..." is also not corrected for compressibility i read somewhere a ~655 km/h as max speed corrected


----------



## Milosh (Dec 28, 2012)

:: RAF Fighter Command. 1st Jan - 31st Dec 1941. Issue 30/7/04
http://lesbutler.co.uk/claims/tonywood.htm

Your are correct stona at least for the first half of 1941. (I didn't check further)

10. January 1941
RAF 11 Group: Circus 1: Airfield Forêt de GUINES (~8 mi south of Calais)

2. February 1941
RAF 11 Group Circus: Dock-yards BOULOGNE

5. February 1941
RAF 11 Group Circus 2: Airfield St. OMER/LONGUENESSE

10. February 1941 
RAF 11 Group Circus 3: Dock-yards DUNKIRK
RAF 11 Group Circus 4: dock-yards BOULOGNE
RAF 11 Group Circus 5: dock-yards CALAIS

26. February 1941
RAF 11 Group Circus 6: Dock-yards CALAIS

5. March 1941
RAF 11 Group Circus 6: Dock-yards BOULOGNE

13. March 1941
RAF 11 Group Circus 7: Airfield CALAIS/MARCK

16. April 1941
RAF 11 Group Circus 8: Airfield BERCK-sur-MER

21. May 1941
RAF 11 Group Circus 10 11: Benzol-plant GOSNAY

14. June 1941
RAF 11 Group Circus 12: Airfield St. OMER/LONGUENESSE

18. June 1941
RAF 11 Group Circus 15: Barracks BOIS de LICQUES

21. June 1941
RAF 11 Group Circus 16: Airfield St. OMER/LONGUENESSE

21. June 1941
RAF 11 Group Circus 17: Airfield DESVRES

22. June 1941
RAF 11 Group Circus 18: Rail-yards HAZEBROUCK (~22mi south of Dunkirk)

23. June 1941
RAF 11 Group Circus 19: Kuhlmann CHOCQUES (~30mi south of Dunkirk)

23. June 1941
RAF 11 Group Circus 20: Airfield MARDYCK

24. June 1941
RAF 11 Group Circus 21: Power-Stn. COMINES (30 mi from the coast)

25. June 1941
RAF 11 Group Circus 22: Rail-yards HAZEBROUCK

25. June 1941
RAF 11 Group Circus 23: Airfield St. OMER/LONGUENESSE

27. June 1941
RAF 11 Group Circus 25: Fives-LILLE

28. June 1941
RAF 11 Group Circus 26: Power-Stn. COMINES

30. June 1941
RAF 11 Group Circus 27: Power-Stn. PONT à VENDIN


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 28, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> If i understand right 670 km/h in "Start und N..." is also not corrected for compressibility i read somewhere a ~655 km/h as max speed corrected



You could easily be right - the not-that-different G-1 (no HMG associated bulges yet, retracted tail wheel?) makes, in German tests 647 km/h, at 6 km, while using 1260 HP there (Steig Kampfleistung). The F-4 uses 1280 HP at 6,3 km to attain type's best possible speed, so your ~655 km/h seems okay to me.


----------



## silence (Jan 2, 2013)

So it sounds to me like there is very little to choose from between the F-4 and the G-1/2 when both are flown with unrestricted engines. Would this be a reasonable conclusion to draw?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 3, 2013)

From what I can gather, the restricted G-1/2 was about equal to unrestricted F4, ie. max speeds being between 655-670 km/h. The restricted G-1/2 (ie. pilot is not allowed to use 'Notleistung')has the advantage when flying flat out, since the Steig Kampfleistung was the 30 min rating, IIRC. The un-restricted F-4 can fly only 5 minutes at 'Notleistung'.

Interestingly enough, with the ban on Notleistung cleared in late 1943, few if any Gs were able to capitalize on high speed. The new G-6s introduced HMGs, along with bulges, fixed tail wheel - all messing the aerodynamics - so the max speed was not increased until the DB-605AS/ASM was introduced in mid 1944.


----------



## silence (Jan 3, 2013)

So what kind of performance could be expected from an unrestricted G-1/2?


----------



## 69TA (Jan 4, 2013)

What is a G-1/2 ???


----------



## Kryten (Jan 4, 2013)

a 109G1 or G2


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 4, 2013)

silence said:


> So what kind of performance could be expected from an unrestricted G-1/2?



Here is found datasheet Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung

I understand G-1 also had GM1 boost so performance can be boosted at high altitude. These were on Western front JG in special high altitude squadrons attached to JG.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 4, 2013)

silence said:


> So what kind of performance could be expected from an unrestricted G-1/2?



Curiously enough, there is no flight test data to give us information. The table here states that G-1 is to make full 700 km/h. 
Now if we take a look at the plane's specifics, as well as table's date, many things do not match. Eg. the table date predates the G-1 several months, so those 700 km/h seem more like manufacturers estimates, that real measured facts. The G-1 from the table carries 2 20mm cannons, and we know that such G-1 was never existed. 
We can take a look at Fw-190A-3 speed, 700 km/h is there clearly noted as 'projektwerte', ie. 'projected figre', the plane using the full engine rating (no restrictions). Again, we know that A-3, unrestricted (late 1942), was not capable to reach 670 km/h, even without outer wing cannons. The 650 km/h at 5,8 km for the A-2 looks also as an too optimistic value for me. Sorry for digression 

My take is that we could add another 20 km/h at the speeds achieved on Steig und Kampfleistng, arriving somewhere at 670-690 km/h.


----------



## 69TA (Jan 4, 2013)

Kryten said:


> a 109G1 or G2



Ok. 

But then a G1 was not the same plane as a G2 . A G1 had a top speed of 700km/h and a G2 only 640km/h at full power (start-&notleistung power). And that speed was reached without nitrous or methanol.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 4, 2013)

Care to back that with some sources?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 4, 2013)

Gustav-1 and Gustav-2 alone difference was the pressurized cockpit. the GM-1 was more easily find on a G-1 but was not standard for all the G-1


----------



## 69TA (Jan 5, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Care to back that with some sources?



Sure. Messerschmitt Bf109 - Einsatzmaschinen - Das Nachschlagwerk. HH Vogt 2012. G1 page 258. G2 page 176.

And your sources are the internet references you made right?


----------



## 69TA (Jan 5, 2013)

Vincenzo said:


> Gustav-1 and Gustav-2 alone difference was the pressurized cockpit. the GM-1 was more easily find on a G-1 but was not standard for all the G-1



Yes the G1 had a pressurized cockpit and the G2 did not, but more important was the G1 was stripped down in weight compared to the G2.

It is not clear if nitrous injection (GM-1) was a standard for any 109 model type. What is clear is that it was an Umrustsatz (U2) available. For the G5 model type it is possible that all were factory built with the U2 and that would make an argument for the G5 as being standard equiped with nitrous.


----------



## stona (Jan 5, 2013)

69TA said:


> A G1 had a top speed of 700km/h and a G2 only 640km/h at full power (start-¬leistung power).



That does not sound right for the two types _in the same configuration and conditions of flight_. They were very similar aircraft and used the same engine.

What was the extra weight in the G-2 that could make a 60 kph difference in "top" speed? I suspect that the G-2 was slightly _lighter_ than a G-1 with both in a clean configuration but haven't found the info yet.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 5, 2013)

69TA said:


> Sure. Messerschmitt Bf109 - Einsatzmaschinen - Das Nachschlagwerk. HH Vogt 2012. G1 page 258. G2 page 176.
> 
> And your sources are the internet references you made right?



My sources are the primary documents, yours is a secondary one. You can try to peek here, or, for that matter, check out the tables graphs easily reachable at Kurfurst's site.
Quoting the secondary source that might, or might not get it right is something that gets you to the attitude you try to practice here. The secondary sources claim that P-39 was used as a tank-buster in Eastern Front, or that V-1710 did not have a supercharger. Or, that G-1 was a stripped down sibling of G-2, able to make 60 km/h more than G-2, on same engine settings.


----------



## stona (Jan 5, 2013)

I have found that some specific G-1/R2s were lightened by removing some cockpit and fuel tank armour and loading less ammunition. This was not a quest for increased speed but was the only way the aircraft could reach its service ceiling of 13,000m.
Because of the problems with the pressurisation and high altitude breathing systems an _unofficial_ ceiling of 11,000m was imposed by units operating the type. This originated in an _official_ RLM limitation for training flights. The performance data obtained at Rechlin (either for W.Nr. 14010 or 14011) gives a maximum speed at 12,000m of 660 kph for this type.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## 69TA (Jan 5, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> My sources are the primary documents, yours is a secondary one. You can try to peek here, or, for that matter, check out the tables graphs easily reachable at Kurfurst's site.
> Quoting the secondary source that might, or might not get it right is something that gets you to the attitude you try to practice here. The secondary sources claim that P-39 was used as a tank-buster in Eastern Front, or that V-1710 did not have a supercharger. Or, that G-1 was a stripped down sibling of G-2, able to make 60 km/h more than G-2, on same engine settings.



Yea right buddy. The attitude You try to practice are apparently based on some internet pages - and they are also secondary not primary as you seem to think. Come back with Your attitude when you have a Phd thesis from a respectable institute on the subject. Until then, your info is no better than the one I referred to.

Comparing performance info from different sources makes little sense to me. Anyone who want to compare are better off using info from one source only (such as Rechlin for instance)

Carry on.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 5, 2013)

Yes, sir. We are going to do what you say.


----------



## stona (Jan 5, 2013)

69TA said:


> Until then, your info is no better than the one I referred to.



No better and no worse.

What about the weight? From Messerschmitt documents it seems only 81 G-1/R2s were built and lightened,at Regensburg. Your earlier statement seemed to imply that this applied to the entire series.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## 69TA (Jan 5, 2013)

stona said:


> No better and no worse.
> 
> What about the weight? From Messerschmitt documents it seems only 81 G-1/R2s were built and lightened,at Regensburg. Your earlier statement seemed to imply that this applied to the entire series.
> 
> ...



Vogt states the following production numbers for the G1:
Mtt R Werknr 14004-14070 67 (units) G-1
Mtt R 14071-14149 79 G-1/R2
Erla 10299-10318 20 G-1

So a grand total of 166 units of the G-1 model built.

The only weight stated by Vogt for a G-1 are for a G-1/R2 and he claims 2970kg. For that same model he also claims the climb rate to be 22m/s, the ceiling 12 600m and as mentioned 700km/h top speed.

On the thread subject of comparing different models, Vogt states the following performance numbers for an F-4. Top speed 670km/h,weight 2740kg, climb rate 17m/s and a ceiling of 11 800m.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 5, 2013)

G-1/R2 700 km/h at 7000 i think this is a early calculate speed with full power engine and probably w/o compression corretion, 7000 meters was the calculate FTH for the DB 605, after proved to be wrong.


----------



## stona (Jan 5, 2013)

The performance data obtained at Rechlin (either for W.Nr. 14010 or 14011) gives a maximum speed at 12,000m of 660 kph for a G-1/R2. I've no idea to what the 700 kph refers.

A primary source is generally accepted to be a contemporary source of data,that is a document or similar created at the time being studied. It does not have to be original. A copy of Magna Carta is just as valid as the original in a study of the Barons' revolt.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## 69TA (Jan 5, 2013)

stona said:


> The performance data obtained at Rechlin (either for W.Nr. 14010 or 14011) gives a maximum speed at 12,000m of 660 kph for a G-1/R2. I've no idea to what the 700 kph refers.



What is your reference for that 660 km/h speed at 12000m? It seems highly unlikely that any 109 powered by a 605A engine would reach such a speed at high altitude without the use of nitrous or methanol.

Oh, I thought you understod that the 700km/h figure is the absolute _top speed_ for the plane at level flight. For this model type is happens to be at around 6000m. The top speed at level flight at 12000m is by Vogt stated to be 590km/h.

And Steve, with all due respect, you know that internet did not exist in the 1940s. If you support a claim with a reference to a webpage the status of your reference is no more than of a secondary (at best).


----------



## drgondog (Jan 5, 2013)

69TA said:


> Yea right buddy. The attitude You try to practice are apparently based on some internet pages - and they are also secondary not primary as you seem to think. Come back with Your attitude when you have a Phd thesis from a respectable institute on the subject. Until then, your info is no better than the one I referred to.
> 
> Comparing performance info from different sources makes little sense to me. Anyone who want to compare are better off using info from one source only (such as Rechlin for instance)
> 
> ...



You laid a pretty heavy hand a couple of posts above without setting up the conversation to reveal your standards and methods as 'impeccable'. Then you threw out a series of data without context... such as altitude, weight for the test data, flight data used to set the plots, the plots, the condition of the airframe (such as surface finish like factory camo, etc), standard production model, engine condition, etc.

And in which universe does Tomo have to possess a PhD to accurately reflect what he reads and absorbs? You may disagree, you have that right.

But, what did you just bring to the table that you believe should command Tomo's instant respect and credibility?

Just curious..


----------



## 69TA (Jan 5, 2013)

Nothing wrong being curious. But, by the way what did You bring to the table to command anything? 

I never commanded anything from tomo. It was tomo that disrespected me by belitteling my reference to a secondary source and demanding authority for His claim because of his reference to a single internet source. Pretty low I think.

Since when became a Internet reference a more valuable source than an physical book?
Is a pdf-scan of a certain paper published on a web-page more valuable than publishing the same piece of information and picture in a book?
Do you guys have a specific standard for making statements about old airplanes?
Just curious...


----------



## stona (Jan 5, 2013)

69TA said:


> What is your reference for that 660 km/h speed at 12000m? It seems highly unlikely that any 109 powered by a 605A engine would reach such a speed at high altitude without the use of nitrous or methanol.



If you go back to the post where I originally posted the data I said it was with GM-1. 

I pulled the figure from Peter Schmoll's book on Messerschmitt production,his source was documents from Rechlin. The figure without GM-1 was given by Rechlin as 560 kph at the same altitude. (That's 348 mph and 410 mph respectively in "old money"). 
Technically that is a secondary source as I don't think that I have the documents he refers to,and I'm not looking now 

If a web page reproduces a document from the relevant period as Kurfurst's does then that document is still a primary source. You might not agree with some of Kurfurst's conclusions ( I don't) but there's nothing wrong with the documents he has posted for all to see and for that he deserves the credit.

A document printed in a book has _exactly the same_ status to a historian as one reproduced on a web site. The original source should be cited in order that it can be checked.

You are perfectly entitled to give the figures you did and the source as Vogt's book. You can't expect them to go unchallenged by people who may have different figures.There's no need to take it personally,this is a discussion forum.
I'm not familiar with Vogt's book and have no opinion of him as a writer. I will say that there are plenty of books out there with mistakes and errors. Even Jochen Prien's seminal book on the Bf 109 F/G has been shown to have a few mistakes. If someone of his authority can make mistakes (or more accurately be surpassed by further research) imagine what the many lesser authors do.

As a matter of interest what primary source does Vogt give for his figures for the G-1?

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 5, 2013)

69TA said:


> ...
> 
> I never commanded anything from tomo. It was tomo that disrespected me by belitteling my reference to a secondary source and demanding authority for His claim because of his reference to a single internet source. Pretty low I think.
> ...



It was this sentence:


> And your sources are the internet references you made right?


that stirred me. If you want respect, not the best way to gain one. I've replied in a similar manner. 
I was certainly not beliteling your reference in any way, naming something as a secondary source is not an insult. If Bf-190G-1 ever made 700 km/h, Kurfurst would be the 1st person to post it on hi's site. A site that you might or might not like, but a) I does contain primary sources, and b) it is easily reachable for all the forum members, unlike the book you deem to be as good as primary source.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 5, 2013)

69TA said:


> Nothing wrong being curious. But, by the way what did You bring to the table to command anything?
> 
> *Which table? Aerodynamics, Airframe Structures, Performance, Flight Mechanics, History, Finite element methods for pressure distribution, Finite element/relaxation methods for airframe Structural analsis? Pick one.
> 
> ...



Polite discourse is a great start. And BTW I will receive a slap on my paws for being sarcastic - either back channel or publically - for violating both the forum and my own standards. So, I will apologise in advance for my comments.

Having said that, occasional listening instead of talking or farting in public will usually gain more respect among a group of pretty damned knowledgable folks. I could be wrong of course. I am often wrong but rarely uncertain.


----------



## Denniss (Jan 5, 2013)

The 640 km/h for the G-2 is impossible with fully rated engine, even the heavier and bulkier G-6 achieved ~645km/h as max. This G-2 speed is obviously with derated engine.
The Bf 109G typically achieved its max speed roughly 500m above the rated alt of the engine.
~625 km/h is the typical max speed for Bf 109 G-6 at climb&combat power rating.
The 700 km/h are a bit irritating indeed, could only be the weight-saving G-1 version or a G-1 with GM-1.


----------



## Denniss (Jan 5, 2013)

69TA said:


> Since when became a Internet reference a more valuable source than an physical book?
> Is a pdf-scan of a certain paper published on a web-page more valuable than publishing the same piece of information and picture in a book?
> Do you guys have a specific standard for making statements about old airplanes?
> Just curious...


It all depends on the book, too many lousy books in the market or those replicating way outdated information. Then we have books that just use other books as reference, copying also the errors of these books.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2013)

69TA said:


> Yea right buddy. The attitude You try to practice are apparently based on some internet pages - and they are also secondary not primary as you seem to think. Come back with Your attitude when you have a Phd thesis from a respectable institute on the subject. Until then, your info is no better than the one I referred to.
> 
> Comparing performance info from different sources makes little sense to me. Anyone who want to compare are better off using info from one source only (such as Rechlin for instance)
> 
> Carry on.



And your attitude is disrespectful. 

Carry on lightly.


----------



## Glider (Jan 6, 2013)

69TA said:


> Yes the G1 had a pressurized cockpit and the G2 did not, but more important was the G1 was stripped down in weight compared to the G2.
> 
> It is not clear if nitrous injection (GM-1) was a standard for any 109 model type. What is clear is that it was an Umrustsatz (U2) available. For the G5 model type it is possible that all were factory built with the U2 and that would make an argument for the G5 as being standard equiped with nitrous.



I am not an expert in this area but if the G1 had the Pressurised cockpit and the G2 didn't, but the G1 was weighed less, how can they be basically the same aircraft?

I say this as the pressurisation would have added weight to the aircraft so something had to give if the weight was reduced. Normally I would expect the G2 without the pressurisation to weigh less than the G1 with pressurisation or am I missing something.


----------



## stona (Jan 6, 2013)

Glider said:


> I am not an expert in this area but if the G1 had the Pressurised cockpit and the G2 didn't, but the G1 was weighed less, how can they be basically the same aircraft?



You'd be correct but a few (about 80) G-1s were lightened by the removal of some armour and by a smaller ammunition load. These were designated G-1/R2 and were a stop gap high altitude interceptor. Lightening was required for the type to reach its service ceiling.

I suspect that a standard G-1 weighed at least as much as a G-2 and possibly more for the reasons you have given but I haven't got the figures to hand.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Glider (Jan 6, 2013)

Thanks for this. So if I go back to the original question on the first posting

_For many people, the advent of the Fw-190 was a tough thing for the RAF in ETO. OTOH, many of the Bf-109 'people' tend to point out that Bf-109F was at least as good, if not better, prior 1943. So what one was better as an all-around fighter plane, in said time frame? _

We are now being asked to compare a standard early 190A2 , 4 x 20mm, 2 x LMG very good protection, excellent performance and agility. To a lightened 109G1, 1 x 20mm and 2 x LMG (with reduced ammunition), no pilot armour, no drop tank, specialist high altitude fighter with very limited range (climbing to high altitude would eat up the fuel)

There is no contest, the better all round fighter aircraft is the Fw190, how can it be anything else?


----------



## stona (Jan 6, 2013)

The first G-1s,including a couple of the lightened ones,went to Rechlin in March 1942 for testing. Despite the many problems encountered they were soon (May?) sent to the Channel front. 
JG 2 and JG 26 both had some. They were supposed to enable interception of the RAF's high altitude bombers and reconnaissance aircraft,presumably meaning PR Spitfires and of course Mosquitos which were appearing around this time and obsessed the Luftwaffe for the rest of the war. 
They were also used as high altitude protection for the Fw 190s whose BMW 801 engines did not perform well at altitude.
JG 1 (I think then in Holland) and JG 5 in Norway also received the type early on.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Glider (Jan 6, 2013)

Stona
Thanks for this

69TA
Am I right when I have said what you are asking us to compare the early Fw190 with?


----------



## 69TA (Jan 18, 2013)

Denniss said:


> The 640 km/h for the G-2 is impossible with fully rated engine, even the heavier and bulkier G-6 achieved ~645km/h as max. This G-2 speed is obviously with derated engine.
> The Bf 109G typically achieved its max speed roughly 500m above the rated alt of the engine.
> ~625 km/h is the typical max speed for Bf 109 G-6 at climb&combat power rating.
> The 700 km/h are a bit irritating indeed, could only be the weight-saving G-1 version or a G-1 with GM-1.



Yes, I would agree that 640km/h for the G2 seems low for full boost (1.42ata). That speed seem more likely for 1.3ata boost (maybe that is what you mean with derated?).

As pointed out by others above , many different sources stated max speed for the G-1 to around 650-662km/h. According to the information on the Kurfürst-site (that many apparently think highly of here) the speed of 660km/h was with the lower boost of 1.3ata (stieg und kampfleistung) To me, it is obvious that max speed of the G-1 at the higher 1.42ata boost would be higher. Then was it actually 700km/h? The question has to be adressed and answered by the source I gave (Vogt). His book is almost brand new so it is fair to assume that he had access to all of the other sources that has been mentioned in this thread.

By the way, I do not consider wikipedia as a reliable source but I must point out that the same figure, 700km/h for the G-1 is stated there FWIW...


----------



## Juha (Jan 18, 2013)

69TA said:


> Yes, I would agree that 640km/h for the G2 seems low for full boost (1.42ata). That speed seem more likely for 1.3ata boost (maybe that is what you mean with derated?).
> 
> As pointed out by others above , many different sources stated max speed for the G-1 to around 650-662km/h. According to the information on the Kurfürst-site (that many apparently think highly of here) the speed of 660km/h was with the lower boost of 1.3ata (stieg und kampfleistung) To me, it is obvious that max speed of the G-1 at the higher 1.42ata boost would be higher. Then was it actually 700km/h? The question has to be adressed and answered by the source I gave (Vogt). His book is almost brand new so it is fair to assume that he had access to all of the other sources that has been mentioned in this thread.
> 
> By the way, I do not consider wikipedia as a reliable source but I must point out that the same figure, 700km/h for the G-1 is stated there FWIW...



The Rechling tested 649km/h as max speed for G-1 with 1.3 ata, 700km/h is clearly too much for the power increase achieved by increasing boost to 1.42 ata. GM-1 might explain at least partly so big increase in speed. At what height the speed was achieved according to Voigt?

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Jan 18, 2013)

stona said:


> The first G-1s,including a couple of the lightened ones,went to Rechlin in March 1942 for testing. Despite the many problems encountered they were soon (May?) sent to the Channel front.
> JG 2 and JG 26 both had some. They were supposed to enable interception of the RAF's high altitude bombers and reconnaissance aircraft,presumably meaning PR Spitfires and of course Mosquitos which were appearing around this time and obsessed the Luftwaffe for the rest of the war.
> They were also used as high altitude protection for the Fw 190s whose BMW 801 engines did not perform well at altitude.
> JG 1 (I think then in Holland) and JG 5 in Norway also received the type early on.
> ...



Steve - when you think Fw 190's 'needed protection' before late 1943 at the earliest? JG 1 and 5 may have had them but which combined bomber fleet/escort was pressing LW in 1942 or even 1943 that would have required say a G5 or G6AS?


----------



## The Basket (Jan 18, 2013)

I recall in the Battle of Britain...the Hurricane got the majority of kills while the Spitfire got the news.

The Germans believed the Hurricane rubbish while the Spitfire was the driving force in more powerful 109s.

So the perception was way off. Also the 190 was all new and unknown and so I bet some of its true abilities was wildly exaggerated. It became a bogeyman and not just another good fighter. ...bit like the Zero.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 19, 2013)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/bf-109-gm1-performances-11480.html

From an earlier discussion. It appeared that the -109G6 with 1.3 ata (DB 605A) and GM-1 boost attained a top speed of 685 Km/h. Thus, the aerodynamically cleaner G1 should be expected to be faster than the -G6.
In consequence, the 700 km/h figure is not entirely unjustified in my perspective for 1.3 ata GM1. Whether or not
GM1 can also be used in connection with 1.42 ata appears to be unclear.
The -109G5AS with DB605AS and GM1 boost should be the fastest hi alt fighter pre Ta-152H in the inventory of the GAF.


----------



## 69TA (Jan 19, 2013)

Juha said:


> The Rechling tested 649km/h as max speed for G-1 with 1.3 ata, 700km/h is clearly too much for the power increase achieved by increasing boost to 1.42 ata. GM-1 might explain at least partly so big increase in speed. At what height the speed was achieved according to Voigt?
> 
> Juha



I believe the Rechlin test you mentioned was actually 650km/h and the plane had a fixed tail wheel reducing the speed some 12km/h. So the 662km/h at 1.3ata seems accurate.

Well unfortunately, the GM-1 nitrous system cannot be part of the explanation of the speed increase. Reason is, the GM-1 system was not designed to be used at the altitude were the plane had its top speed. The GM-1 was used to increase the power (and speed of course) at higher altitudes, for the DB605 it was above 10 000m.
Vogt claims 700km/h at volldruckhöhe (VH) which is the largest reached flight altitude without power loss for the engine. According to the Augsburg data sheet for the G-1 the VH for 1.3ata boost was 7000m.


----------



## Juha (Jan 19, 2013)

69TA said:


> I believe the Rechlin test you mentioned was actually 650km/h and the plane had a fixed tail wheel reducing the speed some 12km/h. So the 662km/h at 1.3ata seems accurate.
> 
> Well unfortunately, the GM-1 nitrous system cannot be part of the explanation of the speed increase. Reason is, the GM-1 system was not designed to be used at the altitude were the plane had its top speed. The GM-1 was used to increase the power (and speed of course) at higher altitudes, for the DB605 it was above 10 000m.
> Vogt claims 700km/h at volldruckhöhe (VH) which is the largest reached flight altitude without power loss for the engine. According to the Augsburg data sheet for the G-1 the VH for 1.3ata boost was 7000m.



When 1.42ata was finally allowed in autumn 43, it had also been allowed a short time in July 43, my quess is that those G-1s, if any, still around had fixed tailwheel. IIRC according to Kurfürst, one G-1 clocked with GM-1 680km/h and see Delcyros' post above. IMHO it is inmaterial whether the engine was 1.3ata or 1,42ata with GM-1 because its use was paractical only above FTH, so supercharger couldn't deliver even 1.3ata anymore.

Juha


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 19, 2013)

This may be interest for thread. German compilation of flight tests, 190A - 109G.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/frm1l43-190-109.pdf

It is clear that up to about 6 km, Fw 190A was faster airplane, above 6 km Gustav was better airplane. Gustav climbs much better at any altitude.


----------



## Juha (Jan 19, 2013)

Hello Delcyros
thanks for the link.

Juha


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2013)

Thanks for the links, delcyros Tante Ju. Too bad we don't know more about the plane's conditions on the performance comparisons. The G-1 fares well, speed-wise, also between 2,5 and 4 km, vs. the 190 running at same setting (Steig Kampfleistung).


----------



## delcyros (Jan 19, 2013)

> Vogt claims 700km/h at volldruckhöhe (VH) which is the largest reached flight altitude without power loss for the engine. According to the Augsburg data sheet for the G-1 the VH for 1.3ata boost was 7000m.



This claim is a bit dubious from my perspective. The -109G1´s DB-605A had a full pressure height (VDH) of 5,700m static. Even if we grant dynamic pressure gain, it´s 6,500m (tested on -G1) and not 7,000. Thus, it´s not logical to assume Vogt´s statement -which I haven´t read, I admit- is representative for a DB-605A driven Bf-109G1.
Kurfürst once had the idea that the 700 km/h figure is not a tested one but a calculated performance estimate for 1.42 ata, basing on the 670km/h figure of the Bf-109F4 (1.42ata), which likely was not corrected for compressibility. If You are willing to accept this working theory, it explains for the differences seen in the data.



> IMHO it is inmaterial whether the engine was 1.3ata or 1,42ata with GM-1 because its use was paractical only above FTH, so supercharger couldn't deliver even 1.3ata anymore.


I guess this is true for british boost pressure systems. In the german powerplants, the ata setting and it´s rpm made a difference at all altitudes, including altitudes above full pressure height. Though, in the latter case, the difference reduces markedly with altitude:





[speculation on my part]
The first stage GM-1 adds 300 bhp at 8000m to the output, increasing power from 950 to 1250bhp. At this altitude, normal speed of the -G1 according to the graph proposed by Neil above would be ~642 to 644 km/h. With 300hp extra provided by GM-1 kicking in, and assuming that the sqrt^3 rule applies too (ignoring compressibility issues and ram effect), the top speed expected is 704 km/h / 437mph at 2600 rpm. 2800 rpm -which has been suggested as possible with GM-1 at 9,500m -altough I haven´t seen any sources to confirm this- may restore 1250 bhp when the engine would only develop 815bhp at 1.42 ata / 2,800 rpm. The speed at this altitude at 1.30 ata / 2600 rpm / 790 bhp is given by Neil with 635 km/h. If that is to be found to be true, the max. estimate would be 739 km/h / 459mph.
The true airspeed speed likely would have been a bit lower due to reduced prop efficiency at this altitude or higher, due to ram and exhoust jet effects, depending on how that precisely works out (I don´t know that). 
[end speculation]


----------



## silence (Jan 19, 2013)

May I ask, what is this "sqrt^3 rule"?


----------



## Juha (Jan 19, 2013)

silence said:


> May I ask, what is this "sqrt^3 rule"?



IIRC something like that while the drag is increased by the square of the speed increase, but the engine output (hp) is equal to the thrust (force) from the propeller multiplied by the speed of the aeroplane. This means the speed will only be increased by the cubic root of the horse power increase.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Jan 19, 2013)

69TA said:


> The question has to be adressed and answered by the source I gave (Vogt). His book is almost brand new so it is fair to assume that he had access to all of the other sources that has been mentioned in this thread.
> 
> By the way, I do not consider wikipedia as a reliable source but I must point out that the same figure, 700km/h for the G-1 is stated there FWIW...



With due respect to Vogt - why is it fair to assume that 'access=impeccable scholarship' ?? or that 'new=better'?

Part of the debate you are in is a result of lack of credibility for the conclusions you present. It is fair to challenge Kurfurst or Norwarra or Vogt as you will, but if Vogt results fly in the face of the others, then maybe best to look to Vogt's published Source and see what that is?


----------



## Juha (Jan 19, 2013)

delcyros said:


> ...I guess this is true for british boost pressure systems. In the german powerplants, the ata setting and it´s rpm made a difference at all altitudes, including altitudes above full pressure height. Though, in the latter case, the difference reduces markedly with altitude:
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for that, I should have remembered the graphs which showed 109G speed with 1.3 ata and 1.42ata in which the speed is higher for the latter case all the way from SL to 12km altitude.

Juha


----------



## 69TA (Jan 19, 2013)

drgondog said:


> With due respect to Vogt - why is it fair to assume that 'access=impeccable scholarship' ?? or that 'new=better'?
> 
> *That is your words and your insinuations not mine*
> 
> It is fair to challenge Kurfurst or Norwarra or Vogt as you will, but if Vogt results fly in the face of the others, then maybe best to look to Vogt's published Source and see aht that is?


*Agreed. And that is what i said.*


----------



## drgondog (Jan 19, 2013)

69TA said:


> *Agreed. And that is what i said.*



Yo 69TA - These (below) are your words, what YOU said - not mine. I made no insinuations.

"The question has to be adressed and answered by the source I gave (Vogt). His book is almost brand new so it is fair to assume that he had access to all of the other sources that has been mentioned in this thread."

OH?? why is it 'fair to assume' anything just because his book is new - and who (other than you) says 'the question has to be addressed and answered by the source 'you' gave? Are you a well known researcher with credentials in any subject?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2013)

delcyros said:


> This claim is a bit dubious from my perspective. The -109G1´s DB-605A had a full pressure height (VDH) of 5,700m static. Even if we grant dynamic pressure gain, it´s 6,500m (tested on -G1) and not 7,000. Thus, it´s not logical to assume Vogt´s statement -which I haven´t read, I admit- is representative for a DB-605A driven Bf-109G1.
> Kurfürst once had the idea that the 700 km/h figure is not a tested one but a calculated performance estimate for 1.42 ata, basing on the 670km/h figure of the Bf-109F4 (1.42ata), which likely was not corrected for compressibility. If You are willing to accept this working theory, it explains for the differences seen in the data.



+1



> I guess this is true for british boost pressure systems. In the german powerplants, the ata setting and it´s rpm made a difference at all altitudes, including altitudes above full pressure height. Though, in the latter case, the difference reduces markedly with altitude:



Juha is right here, the highest altitude the DB-605A was able to provide 1,42 ata was 5,7km (no ram), above that altitude the boost was decreasing.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 19, 2013)

69TA said:


> 69TA - to recapitulate our discussion:
> "With due respect to Vogt - why is it fair to assume that 'access=impeccable scholarship' ?? or that 'new=better'?
> 
> To which you responded:
> ...



I hope we can have useful dialogue but I am fine with churlish behavior.

You will never have to worry about me 'implying' or 'insinuating'. If you act like a pompous ass I will call you a pompous ass. There will be no question in your mind, no sublty, noy coy or sly remarks.

If you attempt to bully acknowledged friends and great contributors on this site with unsubstantiated bovine fecal matter - then refer to rule number one above will apply. You have a long path back to generate credibility with some pretty knowledgable experts on this forum - why not relax and treat other (opposing) points of view with respect, even if you are sure of your facts?


----------



## 69TA (Jan 20, 2013)

I am not here to seek "credibility" as you seem to think. I see no reason for You to lecture me on anything. YOU should stick to the topic in thread and try to contribute in positive way instead. Then you will have my respect. You want to continiue this crap, do it in a private message to me.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 20, 2013)

P O M P O U S A S S.. clear enough?


----------



## 69TA (Jan 20, 2013)

talkin bout yourself I see...


----------



## drgondog (Jan 20, 2013)

As an occasional practioner of the 'art' I know the symptoms and can spot the PA's from afar.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 20, 2013)

ENOUGH!!!!



> If you act like a pompous ass I will call you a pompous ass.



Sorry Bill,not on this forum. 

To everyone, one more word that is off-topic of the thread and attacking another member and vacations will be given.


----------



## silence (Jan 21, 2013)

deleted


----------



## silence (Jan 21, 2013)

I just found this:

"The laws of physics related to aircraft speed increases are ruled by the cube law, which says that doubling the horsepower of an engine will increase the speed by the cube root of two, or 1.26 (26 percent). By this law, removing the 230-hp engine and installing a 300-hp engine (a 24-percent power increase) could increase the maximum speed by 9 percent."


----------



## silence (Jan 22, 2013)

Damn,my math skills have deteriorated along with my brain.

Can someone out there put this in a general equation form so that you can plug in old hp, new hp, and old speed to get the new speed?

I appreciate it.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 22, 2013)

V2 = (P2/P1*V1^3)^(1/3) ie the cube root


----------



## silence (Jan 22, 2013)

Thank you!


----------

