Alternative German Fighters: Me-209, Me-309, He-100, etc.

Wespe said:

As a fighter: NO
As a Recon: NO
As a Nightfighter: NO
As a Ground: attackplane: Maybe
As a trainer: both did their job
What else? Sofar it is 4:2 for the Me-262

If you want to move this post to another thread I dont mind since it doesn't belong in this one.
Wespe

Click to expand...

Go aheand and repost this in the thread about versatility because I guarantee I can show you how it could perform more roles successfuly. Facts are facts...

So just because, sometimes I let some humor spread into a topic, in order to avoid a head on clash, doesnt mean that I am willing to tollerate continious nonsense or lecturing such as in many of your posts, understood??

Click to expand...

Wespe, I'm sorry that I upset you.
I acknowledge that I'm sometimes lecturing when I have strong convictions. I think I can back up any statement I make though.

One thing I am pleased about is that you believe I am desperately trying to tell everybody that the Luftwaffe had no chance, no matter what they did. That comment is quite a compliment to me, as I am trying to have a critical historical PoV in my 'research' on the late-war Luftwaffe. What you do not know, and what I don't tell anyone, is that for the last two years I have been working on a document which outlines the possibilities the Germans had to win the war, if a radical change in command had happened in late 1943 - the latest date possible IMO. So more than anyone else, I am convinced that there was at least a chance for the Germans to perhaps not win the war, but at least not lose it before 1946.
In other forums, I'm the big Luftwaffe supporter as I am surrounded by people who love to bash the Me 262, Tiger and other German weapons. I try to keep things in perspective, that means historically correct, so I don't go wandering off in irrational what-if scenarios which I cannot support by critical reasoning or empirical data...

If I read some of the biased things you've stated in this forum since your arrival, I wonder what this 35 years of study have brought to you.

Click to expand...

If I state that the Me-262 was the best fighter and allround fighter in WWII, then I wouldn't know what is biased about this statement.

Click to expand...

What I meant by this, is mainly the way you post your comments, especially the way you defend the Me 262. Anyone coming in here shouting "THE ME 262 IS THE BEST" or any other black&white view will get criticism from me, even though in other circumstances I'll be the first to defend the Me 262. But I try to do with putting stress on both its virtues as well its vices. (Or at least I try to.)

... and btw you write "Me-262" while most Luftwaffe buffs around here write "Me 262". Didn't you read any German reports in those 35 years? Or perhaps it's a deliberate choice to write them like that. In that case, I redraw this comment. Don't want to upset you more than you already are

Obviously you know very little about a/c and the processes of developing an a/c. It is very common to develop a plane (aerodynamics and general layout without specifying a certain engine as the only one)

Click to expand...

Sure. But again, I was replying to your comment "to take the in abundance produced BMW 801 engines and build a plane, the Fw-190A." That specifically suggests the BMW 801 lead to the Fw 190.
Again, I don't see why you drag in the development story of the Fw 190A all the way up to the Ta 152.

So to my interpretation: Taking into account that both planes are more or less equally matched in flying performance, a plane such as the Bf-109F-4 with an average range of 400km , and a lesser weaponry then a Fw-190A-2 already disqualifies itself from a discussion related to "which one was better"

Click to expand...

Flying performance of the Bf 109F-4 was marginally better, average range of the Bf 109F is much longer (over 400 miles), and the armament issue is true but of limited value: the Bf 109F had sufficient armament for those days. Also, it had the advantage that it didn't need gun harmonisation thus being more accurate. Later on the Fw 190 got two of those cannons deleted, that says a lot IMO.
And I'll stress this again and again and again, twice as many Bf 109Fs could be built in the same time as one Fw 190. And construction time is the most important element in wartime production!

Kris

Well thank god the war didn't continue, otherwise we would have gotten the A-Bomb.
I don't quite understand your work on a document to proof that theory, Germany never had a chance to win this war.

As for your info regarding planes or the Bf-109 on range, it shows how dissinformed people can get by reading all these "books"

Did you notice that I never used the term "books" as being part of my background knowledge ?

Below is an example for the kind of references I use. Please check for yourself where there is a range of 400mls for the BF-109F4.

Germany wouldn't of got the A-bomb. They were 2-3 years behind the Americans in developing the technology. By the time they had a usable bomb they would of been bombed into submission with all there major cities wiped out Hiroshima style. It was originally planned to drop the bomb on Berlin and other German cities not Japan if the war had continued for longer (which with situation as it was in early 1945 wasn't going to happen.

Well, I don't want to get into detail on it but I do see a technical opportunity to raise a shield against bombers over Germany starting in the Spring of 1945, with the Luftwaffe regaining air superiority over Germany. A monthly production of 5000 Natters would make any incursion of allied bombers a massacre. It's not fail proof though ... never claimed it was. It's just an alternative scenario which starts with getting the maximum out of the German industry, releasing command to the army again and stopping the allied advance in Italy and Russia, and driving the Allies back in Normandy. Again, it's an alternative scenario and only makes sense as a whole. It's 66 pages so far. Will tell more about if anyone's interested.

Btw, I read that the V2 project costed the Germans 2 billion dollars, which is about the same as the Manhattan project. Perhaps a bit of a simplistic statement but still interesting if it's true.

Wespe, nice to see you are familiar with the Zeugmeister website. But exactly where am I supposed to see the flying range of the Bf 109F-4. I'm sure it's in there as the title indicates, so I'm probably looking over it.
Kris

Hi Civettone

look for the horizontal line where it says Groesste Flugstrecke (it is the last line of the 3 altitude grouped figures. The highest range is 490km - the lowest 315km.

By the way, most of the information I use is based on the Bundesarchiv or other sources using this information pool, there are just to many nonsense books and mags. on the market.

I just hope,that when you finish that book-document Idea of yours, that people with an openmind are going to judge about it.

Wespe

Doesn't it say "Wahre Geschwindigkeit" ??


Anyway, here is what I say: 835 km or 520 miles! And 945 kms for the Fw 190. I never said the Bf 109 could fly further than the Fw 190, only that the range of the Bf 109 wasn't as bad as you claim it is.

Again, what have you been doing in these 35 years?

Kris

Actually if you look at Wespes form. If I am reading it right. (I am no expert on WW2 Luftwaffe manuals, flight records and forms for that matter) it says that in that cattagory it would reach it could fly the farthest distance (its best fuel economy) at 415 km/h.

If I am reading it right it says that for that particular group.

In Horizontal Flight

Farthest Distance, RPM 1900, (can not read the next line), Clock Position 925, Fuel Consumption L/Hr 185, Airspeed: 490kmh

This looks similiar to the charts that we had for our Blackhawks and all it is, is to show the pilot:

A. The greatest duration of flight.
B. Can not read that one.
C. The greatest distance covered.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Farthest Distance, RPM 1900, (can not read the next line), Clock Position 925, Fuel Consumption L/Hr 185, Greatest Distance 490kmh

Click to expand...

(can not read the next line) = Ladedruck = engine boost pressure in ata

Greatest Distance 490kmh = wrong! Wahre Geschwindigkeit = True Air speed

This chart does not specify the achievable max range but it's possible to calculate them. With max range you should always get 800 to 1000 km range on internal fuel.

Denniss said:

Greatest Distance 490kmh = wrong! Wahre Geschwindigkeit = True Air speed

Click to expand...

Yes I know that. That was simple typo on my part. What I meant to put was that if you fly 490kmyh you will achieve the farthest distance.

Basically it is telling you the conditions to fly the farthest distance.

Congratulations,
You passed the test which I "set up" for the others.
You just have to tell them something they wont agree (e.g. 400km range) and you will see how much they really know.
at least 1 expert amongst all the "experts" who knows how to read a flying range chart.

Groeste Flugstrecke means: if you fly at 1500rpm at5km altitude at a speed of4oo km/h you will use up 145l/h - out of your 400l tank in a Bf-109F-4.

So much for books and Mr. C telling 700km range/ or 800/ or whatever

Have fun, since this is my last post
Wespe

Wespe said:

Have fun, since this is my last post
Wespe

Click to expand...

Awww so people call you out. They prove you wrong and then you run because you can not handle the truth....

Oh well your loss, you might have actually learned something here. That is the difference between 90 percent of the people that post here and yourself. If they are wrong they learn from it.

I would have thought it would be sad if you would get banned of something as childish as creating a second account and then start a discussion with yourself.

But that last bit about flying range and trying to trick us, is just ...

Aah, whatever...
Kris

A weird hipotetically replacement for the BF-109...the He-112 with DB-605 engine 8)



pleasant looking isnt ?

Looks kinda Russian almost....thinking of the style of the canopy.

Probably, the canopy in the heinkel was by far more adecuate for the pilots view than the early variants of BF-109s.

Aditional images of the Heinkel 100D-1 with "normal" cooling.





Note the streamlined canopy.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

An aircraft that I always thought was a great design and too bad it was not produced much ealier in the war was the Do-335. However here is a zwilling design of the Do-335 that was actually taken over by Junkers.

Do-635

Click to expand...

I know I'm late to the party, but I gotta agree with Adler (again). Great design; too bad it didn't get designed/introduced earlier. My understanding is it had the potential to be the fastest piston-engined aircraft ever. Top speed was at the physical limits of what a reciprocating-engined aircraft could do, in the region of 480 mph (780 kph). Combined with a fairly heavy armament (1x30mm Mk108 2x20mm MG151's) and excellent performance, it could've been a world-beater. On at least one occasion, Allied pilots spotted a Pfeil in the air over Germany and attempted to shoot it down, but the 335 simply flew away due to it's greatly superior speed.

SoD Stitch said:

On at least one occasion, Allied pilots spotted a Pfeil in the air over Germany and attempted to shoot it down, but the 335 simply flew away due to it's greatly superior speed.

Click to expand...

Do you have an account of that? Just wondering because I had never heard that. Would be interesting.

Civettone said:

Well, I don't want to get into detail on it but I do see a technical opportunity to raise a shield against bombers over Germany starting in the Spring of 1945, with the Luftwaffe regaining air superiority over Germany. A monthly production of 5000 Natters would make any incursion of allied bombers a massacre. It's not fail proof though ... never claimed it was. It's just an alternative scenario which starts with getting the maximum out of the German industry, releasing command to the army again and stopping the allied advance in Italy and Russia, and driving the Allies back in Normandy. Again, it's an alternative scenario and only makes sense as a whole. It's 66 pages so far. Will tell more about if anyone's interested.

Click to expand...

So, magic ressurection of Natters in Spring 1945.

Refresh my memory regarding what remains to be destroyed in Germany by USAAF and RAF and perhaps how the Natter solves the Eastern Front issues confronting Germany?

Stopping Allies from taking Italy basically worthless tactically or Strategically, so long as the southern bases are reasonably intact. Killing Russians with 3:1 just means total extermination of the German Race after all the infantry are dead and Russia still has 100,000,000 people to draw from - Ditto US..

You think that you could stop the destruction of Oil and the attendant collapse of Germany's ability to supply army and air force? Germany could have killed twice as many or four times as many USAAF crews and it wouldn't have stopped us - nor could Germany stop USSR from running over Ploesti if Germany stopped us in the air.

Could Germany prevent successful invasion at Normandy? Maybe, if so all Germans speak Russki today.

Then tell me how Germany solves the problem of long range, low level intrusions into German airfields and Transportation centers by P-51s, P-47s and P-38s? Have to take England first and Germany won't control the air over UK with any scenario conceivable post 1943.

And what does the change in Command do for strategy - you think that an immediate start of peace negotiations don't start instead?? Who of your proposed leaders felt that Germany was going to prevail in late 1943?

And which German had to be in control for the theory of regaining control of the air work?

As long as UK stands, Italian bases exist - German is vulnerable from the air - even with better technology... simply a numbers game after 1943 - 300,000,000+ to 40,000,000+ with huge attrition to fighting age soldiers and airmen, left with kids and grandfathers to continue feeding the furnace.

Hitler though his troopers had the strength of 10 but post war study found that notion 'optimistic'

No ability to destroy USSR, UK or US industrial base, no ability to grow SS or pilots - had to deal with what they had. The 'farm' system was dead...

And Germany wasn't having to deal with the Allied forces arrayed against Japan. Contemplate those reserves being diverted and thrown at Germany in 1944 at Normandy...

Must be one hell of a thesis and I a really am interested in your proposed scenario because I am not clever enough to figure it out.