Bf 109F-4 performance thread

[GregP]

Hey Greyman,

Was that chart yours or out of an online charting application for a game? I ask only because I have seen similar charts from one of the gamesites. Hope it was yours!

Hi Kryten,

There is no mention of Bf 109F models being WAY faster than contemporary British Spitfires (probably the Spit V), and I am assuming the Bf 109F charts with top speeds in the 370 - 385 mph range are correct until I can find some evidence of greatly superior speed by the Bf 109 F. Lacking that, I can only assume these were later model F's or, alternately, special test models, as the Germans were fond of in propaganda campaigns, particularly earlier in the war. One can find their apparent claims of squadrons of He 100s in archives before the war started.

The Britsh pilots complained loudly and long about the new Fw 190 when it was faster by much less than 50 - 60 mph than a Spitfire, and that is well documented. Strange they would complain about the Fw 190 but ignore a much faster Bf 109, at least to me. That is the single reason I doubt the 410+ mph speed ... because it would run away from a Spitfire of the same vintage. And that didn't show up in contemporary combat reports that I have seen or heard about.

Doesn't mean they don't exist ... means I haven't seen or heard of them in any numbers. I've been reading about these planes for over 50 years and have been restoring / working on them, and talking with people who fly them for 11 years now. Haven't heard of any greatly superior performance by either the contemporary Spitfires OR Bf 109s. Mostly, they were well-matched throughout the war, with one or the other having a slight edge, probably up until fall 1944 when things started to unravel for the Nazis. Even at the end, a decent-running Bf 109K-4 flown by a good pilot was a match for almost anything it encountered ... with the understandable exception of tens to hundreds more enemy planes all at once.

40 Meserschmitts defending a 1,000-plane raid wasn't going have much impact, no matter WHO was flying them.

Cheers.

 

[Greyman]

Was that chart yours or out of an online charting application for a game? I ask only because I have seen similar charts from one of the gamesites. Hope it was yours!

The chart is mine, but I do post on several forums and I'm sure I've sketched out charts elsewhere. Can't think of any game sites immediately offhand - but someone could have taken one from here or elsewhere and posted it another forum 'second-hand' so to speak.

 

[Kryten]

Kryten,
I am going to stand by the information I have posted:
MESSERSCHMITT Me 109F PERFORMANCE - Aircraft Performance - The Great Planes : World War Two Warbirds
as the absolute best quick, readily comparable performance
on the web at this time. However, I would like to add that it is
very incomplete and is in need of some serious additions.
If that is not the answer you are looking for at this time, my
answer is; I'm working on it.

Thanks for the hard work Corsning much appreciated.

 

[Kryten]

Hey Greyman,

Was that chart yours or out of an online charting application for a game? I ask only because I have seen similar charts from one of the gamesites. Hope it was yours!

Hi Kryten,

There is no mention of Bf 109F models being WAY faster than contemporary British Spitfires (probably the Spit V), and I am assuming the Bf 109F charts with top speeds in the 370 - 385 mph range are correct until I can find some evidence of greatly superior speed by the Bf 109 F. Lacking that, I can only assume these were later model F's or, alternately, special test models, as the Germans were fond of in propaganda campaigns, particularly earlier in the war. One can find their apparent claims of squadrons of He 100s in archives before the war started.

The Britsh pilots complained loudly and long about the new Fw 190 when it was faster by much less than 50 - 60 mph than a Spitfire, and that is well documented. Strange they would complain about the Fw 190 but ignore a much faster Bf 109, at least to me. That is the single reason I doubt the 410+ mph speed ... because it would run away from a Spitfire of the same vintage. And that didn't show up in contemporary combat reports that I have seen or heard about.

Doesn't mean they don't exist ... means I haven't seen or heard of them in any numbers. I've been reading about these planes for over 50 years and have been restoring / working on them, and talking with people who fly them for 11 years now. Haven't heard of any greatly superior performance by either the contemporary Spitfires OR Bf 109s. Mostly, they were well-matched throughout the war, with one or the other having a slight edge, probably up until fall 1944 when things started to unravel for the Nazis. Even at the end, a decent-running Bf 109K-4 flown by a good pilot was a match for almost anything it encountered ... with the understandable exception of tens to hundreds more enemy planes all at once.

40 Meserschmitts defending a 1,000-plane raid wasn't going have much impact, no matter WHO was flying them.

Cheers.

This is what's been puzzling me Greg, if we take these figures at face value then the 109F4 was faster than the Spit mkIX & XII, the Typhoon, the FW190, the 109G2 etc, and this performance in late 41 early 42, and as you mention I'm pretty sure this would have been reported in RAF documentation.

I can only surmise there is either a different test parameters applied or as you say these could well have been factory specials, you cannot ignore Messerschmitt was in competition with Kurt Tank at the time, the other problem seems to be most RAF documentation used these days comes form ADFU tests which drew service aircraft from active squadrons, you often see varying results from different aircraft of the same type and it's often noted if the aircraft was sub par so to speak, so if your comparing a brand new factory finish aircraft with an issued aircraft your not really comparing like for like, it would be great if this conundrum was cleared up?

 

[Denniss]

670 km/h are not impossible for the 109F-4 but likely only under best conditions with reduced weight.
The 109G-1, about 200kg heavier and running engine at 2600rpm/1.3 ata was clocked at ~645 km/h @ 6.5 km
What puzzle me somewhat in the 670km/h Mtt document is the given power for the engine during Vmax - 1290 PS @ 6.3 km seems a lot for a 601E engine even with rammed air effect.
What puzzles me even more is the 300m increased FTH of maximum power vs the 2500rpm climb/combat power - i was used to see a little decline for maximum power due to increased air demand and supercharger at its limits.
Were they testing a modified 601E or a modified air scoop ?

 

[Kryten]

I note on the Kurfurst site the 600+ figures are either non corrected or calculated company data sheets.

 

[gomwolf]

Soviet test have quite closed result with german one.

Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung
German performance table(flight test) at 1.3ata. However it seems not corrected for compressibility effects. So..

Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung
It is calculated performance table. 635kmh. Pretty reasonable figure, if it was in good machine/weather condition.

Soviet fighter comparison with german planes.

Bf109F-4 was surely speedy plane at that time. Its low profile drag and 1,350PS(Actually, it was operated 1,200PS at German test) engine makes this plane quite fast and maneuverable. IMHO, official performance chart of produced country is most powerful evidence of its performance, until we tested real plane in real life or found trustworthy evidence like very detailed correct calculation.(Is it grammatically correct?)

 

[spicmart]

Without having read the whole thread I'd like to ask if a Me 109F-4 could challenge a Yak-3 given similar wing and power loading?
And would the Yak-3 have an advantage at higher speeds because of the alleged
control stiffness of the Me 109 in that realm?

 

[GregP]

That is a tough question. The Bf 109F was superior at high altitudes ... but the Soviet pilots didn't climb to high altitudes. They stayed low and concentrated on hitting the German ground units. When the Germans came down to fight (or stayed high to watch the slaughter), the Yak-3 was better down low. It could turn tighter and many Bf 109 stalled into the ground trying to follow Yaks in tight, low turns.

Soviet cannons were better than German cannons in terms of kinetic energy and damage when they hit.

In my opinion, the ones who stalled in were not veteran pilots and, by the time the Yak-3's were being issued, the average Soviet pilot was pretty good (unlike earlier). If the Bf 109 pilot WAS a veteran, then he probably didn't make rookie mistakes, and probably found a way to make a good fight of it, and probably won. But don't be fooled; the Soviets had a lot of aces, too. Some of them got some of the top German aces.

All in all, I'd say the Yak-3 was better at 12,000 feet and under and the Bf 109 was better higher. "Better" doesn't mean it always won. It means the airframe could perform somewhat better under current conditions. That doesn't guarantee a kill or even survival. But it gave the Soviet pilots a good combat mount. They didn't really have that prior to the Yak-1 / MiG-1, and also weren't very well trained in the earlier times, either. Even with bad training, some survived and passed on what worked. They turned into veterans rapidly or died.

It was a brutal front on which to fight. You were either freezing or slogging about in knee-deep mud, complete with flies and all the other discomforts of the Russian steppes in summer. The pics and existing video clips do NOT show a fun place to be.

 

[CORSNING]

Without having read the whole thread

I would suggest strongly to read the whole thread before posting. Just an FYI, Jeff

I'd like to ask if a Me 109F-4 could challenge a Yak-3 given similar wing and power loading?

Any plane at any time could challenge another, and you are right about the wing and power
loadings.

And would the Yak-3 have an advantage at higher speeds because of the alleged
control stiffness of the Me 109 in that realm?

Yes, most definitely.

Now to progress further I should add that you are comparing a German fighter of December
1941 vintage vs. a Russian fighter of March 1944 vintage. Three years of advancement is
a lifetime under war circumstances. With that being said I think the 109 holds up very well.
If you are a Bf.109 buff you do not want me to go into greater detail, although it could be fun. The
time of first comparison would allow the Bf.109 to be fitted with a DB605A.

 

[GregP]

I'm not sure, Corsning, but I have read many times that Erich Hartmann stayed with his Bf 109F until it was well worn out. Erich started "late" and only had 38 kills as of mid-July 1943. So, he was introduced to combat in a 1941 Bf 109, or it appears that way.

The F would certainly out-turn a Bf 109G, and maybe that was the source of his fondness for the Bf 109F. In his writings, he said the Bf 109F was the pinnacle of 109's on several occasions. It could be that he WAS fighting a 1943 Yak with a 1941 Messerschmitt.

But I doubt that was the norm at the time by the run of the mill Luftwaffe pilot on the Russian Front.

 

[CORSNING]

I believe Erich loved the pureness of the Bf.109F. It was of clean design.
It was a true pilot's machine. It was not as forgiving as the Spitfire. Erich
knew that but learned to fly it to its limits. He stated to the effect that he
would never say the 109 was better than the 190. But he would righteously
let anyone know that he knew that he could fly the 109 better.

Just to put things into perspective, recently FLYBOYJ made a reference
to a Cessna 152 when we were into a discussion about the Ta 152. While
it was slightly out of place, it got me thinking. The pilot makes the plane,
PERIOD!

I believe if you put a pilot in a Cessna 152 with two small caliber machine
guns with the abilities of Erich, under the right conditions he could take
out a P-47N.

That is all I have to say about that, Jeff

 

[Koopernic]

I believe Erich loved the pureness of the Bf.109F. It was of clean design.
...... It was not as forgiving as the Spitfire. Jeff

The Me 109, especially the F, had plenty of stall warning starting with tail buffet. Once it stalled there was no tendency to flip inverted which could happen to a Spitfire. It tended to mush forward and did not spin or spin recovery was very easy. The mythology of the spitfire has grown to such an extent tends to obscure reality of other aircraft. Sure the Spitfire, because of it large wing area, had very good turn and climb rate made outstanding by the performance of its engines and fuels but that doesn't mean the Me 109 was less forgiving. The slat mechanism was improved in the Me 109F over the Bf 109E and of course the Me 109 had a ground looping problem which again was fixed by fitting an extended tail yoke from late model Me 109G6 onward (was increasingly more common in latter models)

 

[Milosh]

No, the extended tail strut on the 109 did not fix the ground loop problem completely.

 

[GregP]

Also, the Bf 109F model introduced the airfoiled vertical fin to help with takeoff. The prop turned right, just like a Merlin, and the plane tended to go left, requiring right rudder on takeoff and initial climbout. They airfoiled the left side of the vertical fin to make it want to turn right a bit, and that helped. So, the F would have had easier ground handling than earlier Bf 109 variants, in addition to being light and aerodynamically improved.

Within its speed range, the Bf 109 handled quite well for a WWII fighter and had few "bad" tendencies in flight. It DID lack aileron and rudder trim (easily fixable), and the canopy could have been fixed as well. Fixing only these two things would have made a much better airplane. The heavy ailerons (at speed) could ALSO have been fixed and weren't.

But, it was no flawed slouch, as many unfortunate victims found out.

 

[JAG88]

*

 

[bobbysocks]

I know a lot of the early 109 pilots preferred the F. they said the plane got too heavy and sluggish in later versions. I know Franz Stigler was one who said it...know one or two others ( who I don't remember atm ) said the same thing

 

[Milosh]

Also, the Bf 109F model introduced the airfoiled vertical fin to help with takeoff. The prop turned right, just like a Merlin, and the plane tended to go left, requiring right rudder on takeoff and initial climbout. They airfoiled the left side of the vertical fin to make it want to turn right a bit, and that helped. So, the F would have had easier ground handling than earlier Bf 109 variants, in addition to being light and aerodynamically improved.

The 109E had an airfoil shape vertical fin.

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/29206-jpg.409829/

 

[CORSNING]

Just a side note. I mentioned Erich Hartman earlier in the post
and just remembered in the same interview he was asked if the
Spitfire could really outturn the Bf.109. I do not remember any-
more if the model of each was given, but I do remember his
answer, " Yes, but not as much as you might think.".

My personal opinion is the Bf.109 was a very maneuverable
machine, especially at medium altitudes.