1941: the best airframe for a single engined fighter

[riacrato]

Which source do you have for this claim? From testflights the Bf 109F4 was 660 km/h (emergency output 5 min.)fast and now you want to tell me that the P51B was 740 km/h fast?
Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung

DonL, I think you might've made a mistake here. As explained by Kurfürst (Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung) the data sheet you mention is likely not corrected for compressiblity errors, hence there is an error margin.

It is likely the F-4 with climb-and-combat power is really 635 km/h (395 mph) fast.

However with start-and-emergency power (cleared probably sometime in early-mid 1942) it has 150 PS more available and could very well reach 660 km/h (410 mph) and I have seen primary sources going as high as 670 km/h (416 mph).

 

[DonL]

riacrato you are quiet correct, sorry was my failure.

I have also seen the primary sources with start-and-emergency power at 670 km/h (415mph).

But that changed nothing if we take combat power 395 mph or start and emergency power 410-415mph, no P51 B was ever 50 mph faster and a P51 A was slower and not 20 mph faster then a Bf 109F-4!

 

[parsifal]

How do you want to have initiative against the Kammhuber Line and do such raids unintercepted?
The Kammhuber Line with it's search radar is fact since 1940! And to my knowledge radar is functioning at day and night

I know, as it was in 1944, when the Americans began their heavy daylight raids over Germany. To counter those raids, just over the Reich itself, the LW needed about 1600 fighters, and still failed in a fairly short space of time. The 8AF was still fielding less bombers per raid and flying a leser number of sorties than the RAF even 1.5 years later after these first big raids initiated by BC.

The only effect would be a deeper defending system of the JG's against the P51 and the Nightfighters of the LW, from 1941/42, would be the bomber interceptor of the day with the FW 190A and the BF 109F as P51 interceptor.

Which s exactly what the germans did in 1944 and failed. The Night fighters were often called upon to fly both day and night to try and stem the emergency. Placed a terrible strain on the Night Fighter crews and was hugely wasteful of them as a resource, and still made no difference to the outcome.

The main reason IMO why the RAF did not concentrate on a daylight bomber force was because it lacked any real long range fighter escort. Give the British a long range escort and there is no reason why they cannot switch to a daylight precision bombing offensive. Given that the RAF represented well over 90% of the bombing effort in 1942, why would it be possible for the LW to mount a better defence with the same detection system and a far lesser number of fighters. That is is not logical.

Also all short comings of the Kammhuber Line at night wouldn't exist at day, so the german search radar could work at it's full potential.

To be honest I was unaware the Kammhuber line had too many shortcomings at night. Im assuming that as a system it would operate as well as it did in 1944. Which gave the LW warning day or night (not considering Window) but still necessitated the committment of more than 1500 day fighters to try and counter the efforts of some hundreds of Mustangs escprting a force with an average strike siz of about 500 or so bombers. If the british adopte a similar approach, why is it impossible or unlikely that the germans would need to react in a similar fashion...ie deploy a massive force against the British in 1942 operating the same as the Americans did in 1944

Or do you want to tell us the RAF had the possibility at 1941/42 to do 500 or 1000 bomber raids at day and night?

Not in 1941 over germany. Thats was shown to be a failure, and by the end of 1941 BC was close to defeat. Not because of the efforts of the LW....losses were heavy but tolerable, but because they couldnt hit the side of a barn door at night. if they had had the ability to operate by day with a proper LR escort, they would not have been thwarted in that way.

But 1942 does raise an intersting question about the level of operations that could be sustained by the RAF. The typical sorties rate per month by the RAF in 1942 was about 2-3000 sorties per month according to Varley. The peak month was June with just over 5000 sorties per month. According to that same source("Aspects of the Comined US and Allied strategic Air Offensive") the British were dropping about 2-3000 tons of bombs each month (the range from March through to december was 2500-7000 tons per month)

By comparison, the 8AF did not reach those figures until after October 1943, but thereafter the US effort ramped up very quickly . In terms of sortie rates and bomb tonnages dropped, the US effort in february 1944 was about twice that in tonnage dropped, and about three times that in terms of sorties flown of the averages achieved by the RAF in 1942 (after March). by extrapolation that means to provide the same level of defence if the RAF was operating on an escorted basis in daylight, the LW would need around 5-600 SE fighters over Germany to achieve the same level of defence. since the german effort in 1944 was defeated it therefore follws that they need to mount a much bigger effort in 1942 in order to avoid defeat at that earlier time. Conservativeloy I think they would need to commit a minimum of 1000 a/c just over the Reich itself against the RAF operating with an effective lr daytime escort and with the capability tooperate by day or night

A

Merlin 45 powered P51 would not have the performance of a Spitfire MkV because it would be 2000kg heavier (full loaded) then a Spit MK V.

Not according to some of the posters. They seem to think it would be a fast or nearly as fast and effective as just about all the fighters in 1942.

So I don't see how the P51 (with Merlin 45) will be an efffective escort fighter.
Both the FW 190A and the Bf 109F were at 390 to 397 mph combat high speed at 1941/42, so I don't see any significant advantage of the P51 at that timeline, but it would be much slower in climb performance against both german counterparts. And also as reallife has shown against the Spitfire MK V turning performance isn't that important compare to speed, climb and role rate.

Sorry but this argumentation had nothing to do with the military, performance and most important the technology facts from 1941/42.
It wouldn't be that easy with an "underperforming" P51 (Merlin45), compare to the Bf 109F and FW 190A, to destroy the LW.
To me, it is more the opposite, because the LW could play all it's good parts much more easily at day light and as I said I have great doubts that a P51 Merlin 45 powered was in the same performance leage as a Spitfire Mk V except perhaps speed.

I cant really respond to that (except to say that I think you are playing up the strengths of the LW and not looking at the overall issue) , but note that others dont agree with you. You will have to take it up with them, I guess.

 

[Cola]

Why? Because he is asking about the airframes in use in 1941...

Why putting Fw190 and P51 in, then?

 

[Siegfried]

riacrato you are quiet correct, sorry was my failure.

I have also seen the primary sources with start-and-emergency power at 670 km/h (415mph).

But that changed nothing if we take combat power 395 mph or start and emergency power 410-415mph, no P51 B was ever 50 mph faster and a P51 A was slower and not 20 mph faster then a Bf 109F-4!

I would be highly dubious over claims that involve the Luftwaffe replacing the Me 109F4 with a G1 that is 20 mph slower and less maouverable.

 

[Milosh]

I would be highly dubious over claims that involve the Luftwaffe replacing the Me 109F4 with a G1 that is 20 mph slower and less maouverable.

Some units of JG2 replaced their 109Fs with Fw190As and some G-1s. The G-2, essentially a G-1 without pressurization, replaced the 109Fs in several JGs.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Why putting Fw190 and P51 in, then?

Because the Airframes were available.

P-51
First Flight: 26 October 1940 (That makes the Airframe available)
Became Operational: The RAF became the first to use the P-51 (Mustang Mk. I) in 1941.

Fw 190
First Flight: 1 June 1939 (Makes the Airframe Available)
Became Operational July/August 1941 (further confirms the airframe was available)

Even if they were not in service in 1941 (these two aircraft were however), the airframes themselves were still available. That is what the thread starter is asking for. He is not asking for service in numbers or anything like, just available airframes.

 

[tomo pauk]

I would be highly dubious over claims that involve the Luftwaffe replacing the Me 109F4 with a G1 that is 20 mph slower and less maouverable.

Some units of JG2 replaced their 109Fs with Fw190As and some G-1s. The G-2, essentially a G-1 without pressurization, replaced the 109Fs in several JGs.

If I'm having this right: the Bf-109G-2 was able to make some 660-665 km/h, using the Notleistung (1475 HP). The plane is maybe a tad heavier, but has 125 HP more than Bf-109F-4 on Notleistung (1350 HP); total drag is just a tad bigger for the G-2? So it's maybe 650 km/h for such an F-4?

 

[DonL]

I would be highly dubious over claims that involve the Luftwaffe replacing the Me 109F4 with a G1 that is 20 mph slower and less maouverable.

Very good sentence, but if you read primary sources, then you will see that it is the truth!

The Bf 109G was clearly a jump back from aerodynamics to the Bf 109F and as riacrato mentioned, for the DB 601E start and emergency power (1350PS) was cleared probably sometime in early-mid 1942, but for the DB 605A was only combat power available till the end of 1943.
According to many very good german LW historians, the decision of the introduction of the Bf 109G at 1942 and the simultaneous change of the engine production from DB 601E to DB 605A, was a heavy failure, because the aircraft wasn't a step forward and the engine,especially at the Bf 109G with it's too smal oil supply and other special problems between Bf 109G and DB 605A, was 1942 too troublesome for introduction.

A Bf 109F-4 with cleared start and emergency power could outperform a Bf 109 G1/G6 with "only" combat power at any time, till the best altitude of the produced DB 601E engines. This was stated from many JG pilots! Many pilots prefered the F-4 over the G as long as enough spare parts reach their units.

@ parsifal

I don't think that you can compare the situation of 1943 and 1944 to the situation of 1941/42 especially when the RAF was at it's own feet without the help of the USA and the 8th AF and at the same time, the LW had more strenghts compare to the RAF alone and was much better from quality (Pilots and aircrafts). The Bf 109 F-4 and FW 190A3 were the cutting edge at 1942 at the ETO.
The situation was fundemental different at 1943/1944 from the quality/performance of the aircrafts and the pilots.

To be honest I was unaware the Kammhuber line had too many shortcomings at night. Im assuming that as a system it would operate as well as it did in 1944. Which gave the LW warning day or night (not considering Window) but still necessitated the committment of more than 1500 day fighters to try and counter the efforts of some hundreds of Mustangs escprting a force with an average strike siz of about 500 or so bombers. If the british adopte a similar approach, why is it impossible or unlikely that the germans would need to react in a similar fashion...ie deploy a massive force against the British in 1942 operating the same as the Americans did in 1944

One Himmelbett could only direct 2 Nightfighter at the same time to enemy bombers, this problem was solved with the introduction of the Lichtenstein Radar (mid 1942). At day light every Bomber interceptor could search his own target at the same time, what will make a huge difference.

Not according to some of the posters. They seem to think it would be a fast or nearly as fast and effective as just about all the fighters in 1942.

I cant really respond to that (except to say that I think you are playing up the strengths of the LW and not looking at the overall issue) , but note that others dont agree with you. You will have to take it up with them, I guess.

Till now, nobody had denied that a P51 at 1941/42 would be 2000kg heavier then a Bf 109 F-4 and except the ridiculous claims of davparlr
to the P51 B and P51 A, nobody had shown any serious data's that a long range P51 at 1941/42 could realy match against the Bf 109F-4 and the Fw 190A. There will/is the possibility that it can match perhaps at speed, but not at climb and roll rate.
A P51 long range fighter at 1941/42 against the Bf 109F-4 and FW 190A2-3, is miles away from the advantage of the P 51B against the Bf 109 G6 or FW 190 A5/6/8. So it would have no advantage the advantage would be at the german aircarfts at 1941/1942!

 

[Cola]

@DerAdlerIstGelandet,
well then if that's so, I suppose He178/280 and particularly Me262 were much more advanced airframes of the time, then either of already metioned.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

@DerAdlerIstGelandet,
well then if that's so, I suppose He178/280 and particularly Me262 were much more advanced airframes of the time, then either of already metioned.

Were they combat ready? Did they have relaible and combat ready propulsion systems?

 

[drgondog]

Till now, nobody had denied that a P51 at 1941/42 would be 2000kg heavier then a Bf 109 F-4 and except the ridiculous claims of davparlr

I would deny that the P-51A was 2000kg/4400 pounds heavier. My figures could be wrong but Nowarra suggests that the F-4 at Basic was 2255Kg/4972pounds and max Gross was 2980KG/6570 lbs.. The Mustang IA with 180 gallons of fuel and full armament was 6185/8153 pounds empty/max gross = ~2764KG/3697 Kg so ~ 700Kg more with 4x20mm and 125rpg each (IIRC)??

to the P51 B and P51 A, nobody had shown any serious data's that a long range P51 at 1941/42 could realy match against the Bf 109F-4 and the Fw 190A. There will/is the possibility that it can match perhaps at speed, but not at climb and roll rate.

The Mustang IA could not climb with either but probably could turn with both even if slightly over matched and could definitely out roll a 109 at intermediate to high speed and approach the FW 190 roll at high speed. The a/c were close enough to each other and a Spit V that the outcome of a fight would be largely pilot/tactical situation.

A P51 long range fighter at 1941/42 against the Bf 109F-4 and FW 190A2-3, is miles away from the advantage of the P 51B against the Bf 109 G6 or FW 190 A5/6/8. So it would have no advantage the advantage would be at the german aircarfts at 1941/1942!

The Mustang 1A/A36 was a formidable fighter below 10,000 feet and acceptable in air combat up to 20000 feet even if slightly outclassed by the 109F and FW 190A3-4. The P-38 and P-40 and Hurricane were below the Mustang IA in most operational altitudes. It wasn't 'helpless' any more than a 109G and FW 190A7 were 'helpless' against the P-51B

 

[Vincenzo]

the trouble is the weight in '41 was not available a 12 cylinders engine that can give enough power for a 8000 lbs fighters, the 51 is fast because is low drag, use fewer fuel for the low drag but the low drag can not compesate the low power/weight ratio, the Friedrich weighing 6400 lbs has not this trouble. also the Spit V, weighing a bit more, has not that trouble (same for the C.202 has around the same weight)

Adler just for precision afaik Mustang was used to RAF from '42 (1st sortie July) (the Fridrich-4 1st sortie maybe june '41)

 

[parsifal]

The Mustang 1A/A36 was a formidable fighter below 10,000 feet and acceptable in air combat up to 20000 feet even if slightly outclassed by the 109F and FW 190A3-4. The P-38 and P-40 and Hurricane were below the Mustang IA in most operational altitudes. It wasn't 'helpless' any more than a 109G and FW 190A7 were 'helpless' against the P-51B

Got question to do with the hypothertical though DG. What would be your estimates of Mustang I airframe equipped with one of the earlier merlins? Performance, competiveness, perhaps even likely ranges in RAF service. Im looking for ballpark figures.

Regards

 

[parsifal]

I don't think that you can compare the situation of 1943 and 1944 to the situation of 1941/42 especially when the RAF was at it's own feet without the help of the USA and the 8th AF and at the same time, the LW had more strenghts compare to the RAF alone and was much better from quality (Pilots and aircrafts).

We will have to disagree on that. i dispute a huge qualitative difference between the LW and RAF in terms of both equipment and personnel. Certainly there was an edge enjoyed by the LW, but the margins are far smaller than the los sheets suggest. ther were reasons for the one sided loss rates, and they had nothing to do with either pilots or aircraft performance. they had a lot to do with range and LW engegement policies ( only engage when favaourable)

The Bf 109 F-4 and FW 190A3 were the cutting edge at 1942 at the ETO.
The situation was fundemental different at 1943/1944 from the quality/performance of the aircrafts and the pilots.

I think you are over- relying on the qualtitative edge. this might have affected losses by 5-10% but would do nothing to reduce bombing effectiveness. And doesnt avoid the basic need for numbers to counter the threat. They ( the germans still need numbers to be effective)

One Himmelbett could only direct 2 Nightfighter at the same time to enemy bombers, this problem was solved with the introduction of the Lichtenstein Radar (mid 1942). At day light every Bomber interceptor could search his own target at the same time, what will make a huge difference.

Err no it wont. This was the same situation as was confronted by the 8AF in 1944, and ultimately failed. Why would it be any more effective in 1942 with perhaps 30% as many fighters to use?

 

[Cola]

Were they combat ready? Did they have relaible and combat ready propulsion systems?

No, but the thread starter specifically asked for airframe.

In other words, this time on we should discuss the capabilities of the airframe, independently from the engine it was mounted on it.

So, I'm not sure what's going on here...is this P51 vs Bf109 vs Spitfire vs Fw190 thread, or what?

 

[pbfoot]

I believe qualitatively Fighter Commands pilots skill set was not as high as the LW , the reason is simple expansion had diluted whatever skill level Fighter Command possessed all the new crews were being fed into operational squadrons from the ever increasing amount of aircrew being graduated from the BCATP . Many of the aircrew from earlier times had finished their operational tours and were now working in the OTU's or even training command . You also had the Desert AF , Malta even the USSR also the guys flying in CBI not to mention the Pacific with the Kiwis and Aussies . In 44 the situation had come full circle and the aircrews were now very expierienced

 

[DonL]

We will have to disagree on that. i dispute a huge qualitative difference between the LW and RAF in terms of both equipment and personnel. Certainly there was an edge enjoyed by the LW, but the margins are far smaller than the los sheets suggest. ther were reasons for the one sided loss rates, and they had nothing to do with either pilots or aircraft performance. they had a lot to do with range and LW engegement policies ( only engage when favaourable)

Sorry here we have a misunderstanding! I didn't want to compare the RAF with the LW with the quality statement, I want to say that the quality (pilots and aircrafts) of the LW was much better 1941/42 compare to 1943/44.

Next I think your mixing things between early 1941 and late 1942 and you are a lot to optimistic of the year 1941.

I think that the RAF would have very very heavy losses, if there would be a day light bombing at 1941 with the estimated P51 long range fighter. The RAF had not the strenght neither the supply to apply 2000 a/c (1000 bomber/1000 fighter) to a mission, I realy doubt that at 1941 it could be 1000 a/c (500 bomber 500 fighter) at one mission. At 1941 the LW has absolutely the same advantages as the RAF at BoB at day light bombing raids, plus the Me 110, and all other "Nightfighter" could operate as bomber interceptor (Ju 88, Do 17, Do 215 etc.). There were more then enough numbers to stop such day light bomber raids and the butcher bill would be very huge for the RAF.

If you initiate such day light bombing raids at 1941 I think the RAF would be only a shadow of the real RAF at 1942, because from where you will take the capacity to replace Bombers, Fighters and Pilots?

If you initiate this szenario mid 1942 there will be much better chances or I'm inclined to your opinion, but if you initiate this at early or mid 1941 it would be a very huge desaster for the RAF!

 

[CobberKane]

Yipee, first ever post!

I'm going to go with Mitchell's masterpiece, the Spitfire. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was the only allied fighter to be produced throught the entire conflict. The Spit started WWII at the cutting edge of piston engined fighter performance and was still at the head of the pack when the curtain fell - an incredible feat for an airframe designed in the mid 1930's. Sure, it fell short in provision for fuel and ease of manufacture and was continually developed throughout the war, but athe the end of the day the Spitfire's airframe was an intergal part of a fighter that was as good as anything in the air from 1939 to 1945 - what other aircraft can that be said of?

 

[wuzak]

@DerAdlerIstGelandet,
well then if that's so, I suppose He178/280 and particularly Me262 were much more advanced airframes of the time, then either of already metioned.

Were the He178 and He280 advanced airframes, or just basic airfraes to try out the jet propulsion system?

Certainly the He178 was only ever intended as a research aircraft, and was no more suitable for combat than the Gloster E.28/39