109G Vs Spitfire IX in '42

[delcyros]

Sorry for beeing late, Vincenzo.
I used a simple program, called curvefinder for the gaphs. You use to enter any two- or threedimensional set of datainputs and it shows a dispersion diagramm. From that diagramm I used a subroutine of the program to display a mean curve, drawn around the inertia centers of the datapoints.
The dispersion diagramms with all datapoints are buried in another thread.
For the Spitfire F IX I used the only two Mike Williams sources, BF274 and the Boscombe Down trials with and without 500lbs bomb (actually only counted without bombs here) dating to march 1943.
For the Bf-109g I used all related trials from Kurfürsts site. The dispersion diagramms for the gustav are more spread out but I don´t have a problem with this, rather contrary, this is what I would expect from individually differently performing planes.

 

[Vincenzo]

Thank for reply
How you corrected the weight of BS 428 ? the data of test are for a plane lighter 555 pounds of normal.

 

[delcyros]

I didn´t corrected that. Weight differences in such an area (7%) are not insignificant but for all out level speed far from decisive. Differences in top speed between two individual planes are more significant than those indicated by 7% weight differences, which would translate to in between 1.0 and 1.5% speed difference, depending on design cl.

 

[smuack]

What about the torque of this two engines.It was a major difference between Merlin and DB605 ?

 

[Vincenzo]

delcyros an other question you have corrected the data for gustav test without retractrable tailwheel?

 

[delcyros]

There are no corrections attributed for retracted tailwheels. Some have a retracted, some have fixed tailwheels but not always do we have the information whether they are retractable or not.
For the 1942 timeframe, most planes had retractable tailwheels, this would tend to make the performance graph looking conservative for the gustav.
If You have a complete set of those informations, please share them.

 

[Vincenzo]

i have no more of that on kurfuerst site, but i read them many times
my opinion are:
Datenblatt info (calculated) for retract. tailwheel
Surface comparations: at time (jul. '42) the production was with retract. tailwheel, it's noted in test trouble with speed mesaurements , but was ok for the indeed test surfaces comparation.
DB 601 DB 605 comparation: (sept. '42) as above retract. tailwhell, it's noted that the planes was not standard there are many tests with this plane.
British test: (retract. tailwhell) it's noted there was a hole in a blade of prop and trouble with radiator
Kennblatt, fix tailwheel
Finnish test, fix tailwheel (photo)
Erla test, was april '43 so i think fix tailwheel (was standard from january)
Subtypes data, was august '43 so i think fix tailwheel
Performance summary: fix tailwheel it's writed

p.s. in the Erla test the radiators was open more of normal

 

[wwii:)aircraft]

In most cases, particularly in 1944, I would say that the Spitfire overpowered the Bf 109 seeing that in only improved its speed and climbing performance while the bf 109g got heavier and slower due to an increase in armament, armor and bulges. But early variants such as the G-2 and G-4 I would say were superior to the early varaints of the spitfire mk ix. G-2s and G-4s, although being less maneuverable than the F-4s, they much faster, had better climbs and were faster in a dive and still having handling characteristics very close to the F-4. As for the spitfire, it did improve performance in almost every single way than the Mk V but was still generally outrun, outclimbed and outdived by early Bf 109Gs. I think the early variants of the Bf 109G were great follow ups from the F series, and it is annoying to see that they didn't get as much fame as they should have: they were probably the best single-engine fighters of late 1942; even better than the Fw 190A-4.

 

[Gixxerman]

The LW's aircraft (even the aging designs like the 109) seem to hold up pretty well at the mid-war stage and later variants (like the 109G14 and K) along with the Focke Wulf 190D on paper at least (and assuming no sabotage, something far from guaranteed) also appear to be capable of holding their own with late war allied aircraft.

But the problem the LW has from 1942 on is surely not a technical one but the bleeding white of its squadrons manpower - crucially losing, steadily over time, so many experienced crew that could never be replaced - and the inability of the air-schools to match allied training standards and quantites?

 

[Juha]

I wonder how early Gs could be "much faster, had better climbs" than F-4 when up to Oct/Nov 43 they had less power in low and medium altitude, 1310 vs 1350hp because the use 1.42 ata take-off and emergency power was blocked in DB 605A up to then but very early on and in July-early Aug 43. The FTH of 605A was higher than that of 601E, so at high altitude G1-4 were faster than F-4, but max speed were in 1942 appr 660km/h for F-4 and 650km/h for early G.
Bf 109G-1/-2 were more or less as fast as Spitfire F IX (Merlin 61) up to 5.000m, between 5. – 8.000m 109G was faster but above 8.500m Spit F IX was faster.

Juha

 

[billswagger]

Comparing top speeds that are in the vicinity of 10kph is always frustrating considering that the instrumentation of the aircraft can skew the numbers.
The top speeds are so close that acceleration would be the deciding factor.

History has shown the Spitfire was usually faster, and could catch up to a 109 in level flight but that the 109 had a better initial dive and could pull away from the spit in short dives.

Climb usually went to the 109 because it had a better angle of climb, which often left Spitfires underneath them. The Spits were not incapable of matching the rate of climb if they did not follow at the same angle.
I'm not sure how that applies to the G series because of the added weight.

The spitfire also out turned the 109, though the degree of the turn advantage diminished with altitude.
This usually restricted the 109 to vertical fights, but if the Spit was faster then the 109 was evenly matched in the vertical against the Spit.
Tactically speaking, which every plane was higher held all the cards.
In the depictions of the 109 and spit presented here for 1942, the performance gap still favored the Spit.


Bill

 

[parsifal]

Bill

A good summary in my opinion. As I understand it, the Spit IX was developed in part at least, to counter the low level raids being undertaken by the LW in the Summer of '42 in Southern England, particularly by FW 190As. I would be very surprised if the 109 could outfight the Spit IX at low altitude, given that the FW190 could outmanouvre the 109 at low altitude, and the Spit could outmanouvre the 190 at that height (below 5000')

 

[davebender]

WW2 Warbirds: the Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Frans Bonn
Me-109F4. 6,393 lbs Normal take off weight.
Me-109G10. 6,834 lbs. Clean condition. I assume this is the same as normal take off weight without any installed Rustsatze (field conversion sets).

That's not much of a weight gain. Meanwhile engine power increased from 1,350 hp (Me-109F4) to 1,800 or so (depending on specific engine) for late war Me-109Gs.

 

[claidemore]

The biggest difference in comparing a Spit IX with Merlin 61 to a 109G2 is whether or not the 109 is running at 1.3 ata or 1.42. If running 1.3 ata the G2 is not the equal of the Spitfire in climb or level speed. At 1.42 ata the G2 only lacks about 300 feet per minute in climb rate (average), and reaches it's top speed at 22000 ft while the Spit reaches top speed at 27000. The Spit has a higher ceiling, 43400 ft compared to 39370. They were a pretty close match performance wise.

Once you start getting into the 1943 engines, Merlin 63, 66 and 70, the climb advantage definately goes to the Spitfire with climb rates well in excess of 4000 ft per minute. Top speeds are still pretty close at altitude, with the LF Spits getting the edge at low alt.

davebender: The horsepower rating of the 109G2 would be 1455 hp at 1.42 ata and 1310 hp at 1.3 ata. A clean fighter (109G2) would weigh 6734 lbs.

 

[davebender]

More confirmation that the Me-109G series did not get significantly heavier.

I'm not saying the Me-109G was perfect. But it was certainly not overweight and underpowered compared to contemporary fighter aircraft.

 

[Milosh]

The Bf109B had a flight weight of 1995kg.
The Me109K-4 weighed 3400kg.

That is a weight increase of 170%.

 

[davebender]

What does the limited production Me-109B have to do with the mass production Me-109F, Me-109G and Me-109K? The engine and airframe were completely different.

 

[Milosh]

Just showing the overall weight gain.

 

[Glider]

More confirmation that the Me-109G series did not get significantly heavier.

I'm not saying the Me-109G was perfect. But it was certainly not overweight and underpowered compared to contemporary fighter aircraft.

Its weight gain may have been comparable to other aircraft but in terms of performance I understood that the G6 didn't have as good a performance as the G2. Granted it swapped the LMG which were of limited use for the far more effective13mm, but it isn't often that a plane of lower performance replaced one of higher performance.
At a stage in the war when the opposition were making considerable gains in both performance and firepower, this was a major problem for the Luftwaffe.
Rightly or wrongly I have always felt that from this stage on the Me109 was playing catch up.

 

[tomo pauk]

Indeed - the power-to-weight ratio remained about the same from 1941 to mid '44 for Bf-109 series. So while the 109Fs have had the best performance vs. contemporary opposition, the advances in aircraft technology of all 3 major adversaries either equaled or surpassed the main German fighter (now the 109G) within 1-2 years.