Bf-109 vs Spitfire vs Fw-190 vs P-51

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Good point.

The Bf-109 K-4 for one had a normal cruising speed of 645 km/h (401 mph) at 8.4km.
 
pbfoot said:
you do know what cruise is don't you . It has nothing to do with top speed
Click to expand...

Optimal Cruise is basically about miles per gallon in the landlubbers voculary.. not many mpg at 401mph the last time I checked...

For a Mustang it was a totally different speed going from reaching cruise altitude to R/V point, than from using minimum fuel as they were 'essing over the bombers'.. Ferry cruise was best range setting - max miles per gallon at best altitude, rpm and boost
 
pbfoot said:
you do know what cruise is don't you . It has nothing to do with top speed
Click to expand...

Yes I do, and you can roll your eyes all you want cause that IS the K-4's cruise speed. Unless 'V Reise flug' doesn't translate into cruising speed ofcourse

At Steig u. Kampfleistung top speed is 670 km/h at 9 km, and at Daurleistung (Cruise setting) speed is 645 km/h at 8.4 km.
 

That is unusual - usually optimal cruise speed is in the middle somewhere rather than way out at the top end where parasite drag is maxing out..
 
Here's the chart:

Cruising speeds: 645 km/h at 8.4 km and 477 km/h at SL.
 

Attachments

  • Me109K4+K6+K14%20daten.jpg
    426.8 KB · Views: 180
kool kitty89 said:
What kind of range did it have at that setting? (at altitude)
Click to expand...

The above datasheet gives it as 585 km at 8.4 km with this 645 km/h max. cont. cruise setting (see Errech. Flugstrecke 585 - 8.4).This is to be understood on internal fuel (400 l) without an external droptank (300 l); also the 109K`s 115 liter MW-50 tank could be alternatively used as an aux. fuel tank.

Basically that is similiar the 109E`s economic range on internal, but achieved at nearly hundred kph faster speed than the 109E would be capable at full throttle at that altitude..

I don`t have range datasheets figures for the 109K, but I do have for the 109F and G; the economic range should be around 1600 - 2000 km with a droptank, and 1900 - 2300 km if the rear tank is used for fuel as well, at ca. 450 to 500 km/h. (109F-4 was credited with 1600 km with droptank at 410 km/h)

See: Kurfrst - Bf 109G/trop Middle East trials: Dimesnions, Weights and Performance
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET_109G_rangetable.jpg
 
The US bombers flew the missions above 25000 feet? Hmmmm, I believe very few missions by B17s or B24s were above 25000 feet! Hmmmm, the TA152 was designed to be superior to all fighters from ground level to well above 30000 feet? Did the the germans have the moxie to repeal all the laws of physics and aerodynamics?
 
kool kitty89 said:
Just to be clear, is this at max continuous power, or max lean mixture power. (max cruise power)
Click to expand...

Höchstzulässige Dauerleistung = 'Maximum allowable continious power' - so its max continous.

Max lean mixture power (~high speed eco cruise, but not max eco) would be Dauersparleistung with a bit misleading name ('continous economic power')

So its max cruise speed range - though the conditions are not precisly specificed (allowances, tolernace. In other more detailed range tables they included climb and descent, warmup etc; plus 15% tolerance. Hence why range figures may vary somewhat).
 

Rich - quite a few B-17 missions were flown in the 24-27000 ft altitudes. Later in the war more were flown in the 22-24,000 foot range with high squadrons still at 25. Balancing flak with best cruise settings was the primary mission determinat

The Libs just didn't fly much above 22,000.. The 24 was a pig at 24,000 with a full load and formation flying was simply 'hard to stay tight' above 22,000
 
Economy cruise settings are missing on that chart, note the lack of figures for Sparflug (economy cruise). The other numbers are for combat or max continuous.
Babelfish translation of the 645kmh stat is "tearing jerk flight into high ones" lol
 
Rich - quite a few B-17 missions were flown in the 24-27000 ft altitudes. Later in the war more were flown in the 22-24,000 foot range with high squadrons still at 25. Balancing flak with best cruise settings was the primary mission determinat

The Libs just didn't fly much above 22,000.. The 24 was a pig at 24,000 with a full load and formation flying was simply 'hard to stay tight' above 22,000
Theoretical effective ceiling for the 88, which accounted for over 90% of the LW heavy flak over germanay was 26000 ft. However, as 1944 wore on the the barrel wear on the guns was so bad that more and more of the guns were sufferring very serious degradation in performance. This affected both accuracy and effective ceiling. Additionally many of the crews in 1944 were not of the same standard as those that had manned the defences in 1942-3 (these having often been drafted into the frontline army units. The crews were now, for the most part LDVs (part timers), and unable to to solve the firing solution to anywhere near the standard or speed that the full time reg units could. Often the dfending flak was reduced to firing blindly in barrage to just try and keep the bombers at height, and therefore less accurate.

The LW was expending more than 16000 shells (of heavy flak ammo) for each bomber brought down in 1944, whereas in 1942 it hd only taken a little over 4000 (from memory), small wonder then that the bombers could lower their altitudes as 1944 wore on.
 

Go read a book Renrich.
 
renrich said:
The armament of TA152 seems more consistent with that of a bomber interceptor than an air superiority fighter also.
Click to expand...

Not at all, had it been designed as such it would've been armed purely with the Mk108. It was fitted with 2x MG151/20's and 1x Mk108 to be most effective against fighters, the 20's being for long range shooting and the 30mm for close range.

But again instead of spewing out all kinds of assumptions why don't you just read Hermann's book about the Ta152 ??? Then you'll see it was designed as an airsuperiority fighter from the very outset.
 
Soren, I have read a number of books, believe it or not and actually own a whole library of them. The references I have don't agree with your performance figures on the TA. I try not to spew assumptions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
909
PAT303
P
J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
594
Jerrybandit67
J
S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
1K
dedalos
D
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
Bretoal2
B
J
Ki-84 vs P-51 engagemants 1945
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
Jerrybandit67
J
Menu
Log in
Register