Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I know very well what Erprobungskommando is.I don't think you have much knowledge of the language at all because your question is nonsensical.
Test Command 262......
is that there are some who claim German planes had operational status
All 39 were dressed in identical black shirts and sweat pants, brand new black-and-white Nike tennis shoes, and armband patches reading "Heaven's Gate Away Team."
If you look at the actual firepower in terms of total energy at the muzzle, you'll realize that the MK108 really was in a class of its own.
Here is the firepower per barrel comparison for the three weapon types we're looking at:
MK 108: 5.03 MW
MG 131: 0.21 MW
12.7 mm Browning M2: 0.28 MW
Total battery:
Me 109K-4: 5.45 MW
Eight-gun P-47D: 2.27 MW
Six-gun P-51D: 1.70 MW
(See also WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS )
The Me 109K-4 has the additional advantages of having centreline armament that leads to a high concentration of fire regardless of range, and of featuring weapons with a low dispersion, contributing to the concentration.
The US types on the other hand have the advantage of a higher muzzle velocity, which is helpful for hitting manoeuvering targets. The wing-mounted guns on the other hand introduced convergence/divergence effects that reduced concentration of fire considerably. (Not all US-types, of course - the P-38 did have nose-guns, and was often praised for its great gunnery characteristics.)
Here you can find summaries of two comparative Luftwaffe reports on armament:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...tml#post297044 (Info on Me262 with the BIG gun in the nose)
Note that the second report concludes that the low velocity MK 108 armament is superior over the high-veloctiy MK 103 + MG 151/15 armament at ranges up to 600 m even against hypothetical Mosquito-sized jet bombers.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
In other words, the differences are not particularly considerable; not even at altitudes where air combat is rather rare to happen, and here we are comparing low-production run stripped, hotrod P-47 sporting only six .50 guns IIRC. It`s a nice and faster aircraft than the rest at altitude, but it`s performance profile is somewhat hard to take advantage of, isn`t it? OTOH, I am not at all convinced of it`s manouveribility at high altitude. The P-47 is a very high wingloading aircraft, and figures I have for early models display the worst turn times of all WW2 fighters I`ve seen.
I'm becoming more and more doubtful myself since getting any hard figures similar to the jpg i posted (no comments??) showing roll/turn rate at various speeds. As i figured, the poster over at the other website was just doing another one of his patented "assumptions posted as documented fact" posts again. I'm also still confused though about the true characteristics of the 109K. One post says that it was one of the best turn fighters, yet other sources say the opposite. Here is a link to the flight simm write up of the 109K that seems to suggest that, at high speed at least, it was not much of a turner. I know its a "flight simm" page but at the writer at least acknowledges that his notes are his opinion only and should not be taken as absolute. Its an interesting read none the less:
Messershmitt Bf 109K-4
The P-47M (wasn`t it stripped down to catch German jets and buzzbombs, ie. DS situation as above?), and for that matter, the P-80 prototypes were rushed into service, but rushing just doesn`t magically solves technical problems, on the contrary, it aggrevates them.
I agree. Hence my distrust of the "they would have found a way had the need existed" line of thinking. Some problems and issues simply cannot be rushed nor can one assume that they could be.
Good post.
All the best,
Crumpp
What in the world does this have to do with the thread or with me?
There are also some who claim you need a new pair of tennis shoes if you want to catch a ride on the mothership.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(cult)
That would be different topic of discussion however than this one. The fact you would concoct a pointy tin foil hat theory that has nothing to do with me and then apply to an unrelated conversation speaks volumes.
I don't think it is productive to reply to you.
One post says that it was one of the best turn fighters, yet other sources say the opposite.
I'm little puzzled, what sort of operational trials was that, because at the time of Feb grounding 56th FG, not squadron, had 67 P-47Ms,
anti-corrosion treatment of engines before sending them to GB.
Leer-/ Abluggewichts (empty/takeoff weights) of G-6 through K-4, as per primary German datasheets from the war :
G-6 : 2268 kg / 3100 kg
G-10 : 2318 kg /3297 kg
K-4 : 2346 kg / 3362 kg
I am not sure of this. As I have stated before, I have seen several references to the higher empty weight of the G-6, including my reference "German Combat Planes" by Wagner and Nowarra (which claims a G-6 weight of 2750 kg.) which has proven so far to be very dependable. Also, the sources vary slightly indicating different source. My reference states this about the G-6 "The landing gear was strengthened, since gross weight had risen from 2200 kg. in the prewar B to 2970 kg. (a discrepancy here) in the G-6". It also states on the G-10, "fastest Gustav was the Bf 109G-10, which had only two cowl guns and a DB 605D with MW 50 booster. This light weight would reach 6000 m. in six minutes and do 685 km/hr at 7400 m. Normal range was only 560 km and often planes ran out of fuel on the way back from air battles." Maybe empty weight was calculated different but weight growth in military aircraft is not an usual occurrence. I am not stating that these comments are correct because you guys usually have better data than I have on German planes, only that my source has been dependable and is repeatable with other sources. Could you provide copies of your info?
Your figures are simply unreliable, again, my figures are based on primary German sources, and are reliable.
Maximum range of the 109F/G/K series was appx 1600 km (slight differences between variants), with a 300 liter droptank; 1000 km without; and economic cruise of ca 410-430 km/h; at maximum speed cruise, which means a rather high travel speed from 580 to as high as 645 km/h (K) yielded ca. 1000 km with a droptank. Now 400mph is a rather high speed, especially for cruising, some fighters in 1944 could hardly even hit it.
The 109K also had the possibility to use it`s rear fuselage tank as a rear aux fuel tank of 115 l capacity, ie. ca 25% greater internal fuel, but that ruled out MW 50 use.
Mmmm, don't kwow what to say.
In other words, the differences are not particularly considerable; not even at altitudes where air combat is rather rare to happen, and here we are comparing low-production run stripped, hotrod P-47 sporting only six .50 guns IIRC.
I have data showing that the XP-47J had six guns, but no such comment on the P-47M. I do have picture of the P-47M with eight guns. Also, the empty weight of the P-47M is 1000 lbs more than the P-47D-25. Doesn't sound too stripped to me.
It`s a nice and faster aircraft than the rest at altitude, but it`s performance profile is somewhat hard to take advantage of, isn`t it?
I don't know, I think higher energy level capability is always usable.
OTOH, I am not at all convinced of it`s manouveribility at high altitude. The P-47 is a very high wingloading aircraft, and figures I have for early models display the worst turn times of all WW2 fighters I`ve seen.
The Joint Fighter Conference (the P-47 was flown by mostly Navy and corporate pilots) declared the P-47 to be the best fighter above 25k ft and that included the P-51, which was not noted for being a slouch above 25k ft. It also included the F4U and P-38 among others
Depends on what your target is - for heavy bombers, the 30mm armament is more appropriate. Interceptors are meant against bombers first and foremost.
I don't disagree with this.
It seems to me the facts point to that the 109K was ready for operational service by October 1944, whereas the P-47M`s operational service was delayed by mechanical troubles, serious enough to call for grounding the fleet.
It seems that the grounding was only for a month.
I am sure that the Germans would have been able to push 'fully operational' the 109K by early 1944, which they have been developing from early 1943, if they would have been in deep **** by that time. BUT wait a minute, they were...
I am not sure of what you are saying here. However, the XP-47J, the predecessor of the P-47M flew in November, '43.
That`s too much of an assumption, as it ignores the simple fact that technical difficulties need time to be overcome, and this time won`t be any shorter if the troops are in a world of **** on the front.
Are you saying that the Germans did not rush advanced technology to the front?
The P-47M (wasn`t it stripped down to catch German jets and buzzbombs, ie. DS situation as above?)
You are confusing the P-47M with the XP-47J, which had an empty weight about 400 lbs less than the P-47D. It also had the six guns. The P-47M weighed 1000 lbs more than the D. It got its performance from 2800 hp sitting under the hood.
A bit provocative, I think. Who would use WEP an hour?
I have thought the reason was to protect engines from saltier sea air during shipment to GB.
It seems that the grounding was only for a month.