Bf-109K

[AL Schlageter]

I don't think you have much knowledge of the language at all because your question is nonsensical.

Test Command 262......

I know very well what Erprobungskommando is.

The point I was trying to make, and you failed to comprehend, is that there are some who claim German planes had operational status whether with Erprobungskommando or regular LW units.

 

[Crumpp]

is that there are some who claim German planes had operational status

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.

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."

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. Perhaps in the future, if you mature some, we can have some good conversations. You seem to have a good knowledge base about some things.

All the best,

Crumpp

 

[Crumpp]

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)

Good post.

All the best,

Crumpp

 

[Nikademus]

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.

 

[Nikademus]

Good post.

All the best,

Crumpp

seconded.

The value of a centerline armament is often too lightly dismissed...esp when that centerline is a cannon!

 

[evangilder]

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.

Speaking of off-topic, nothing to do with the thread...

I don't think it is productive to reply to you.

Then maybe you shouldn't. You have a point to make, then do it. Leave your petty BS out of the thread.

 

[Crumpp]

One post says that it was one of the best turn fighters, yet other sources say the opposite.

If you learn to calculate it yourself, this will never be an issue to you!

 

[Soren]

Evangilder,

I strongly disagree with you, Al had that one coming!

 

[evangilder]

I suggest you stay out of it, Soren.

 

[Crumpp]

It is not hard to do the math Nikademus. I know you would be able to do it.

Basic premise is to determine our lift/drag forces in 1 G level flight solve for parasitic component of drag, and then use our power available to find the increase in induced drag if we maximize our turn from that level condition of flight.

It does not sound that easy when I read back over it but if you started working it you will find it is not that hard to do.

All the best,

Crumpp

 

[Soren]

No problem Evan.

 

[lesofprimus]

And I second that... Aint nothin worse than second man in Soren, and u know that...

 

[Soren]

Roger that Les.

Evan's response just puzzles me thats all, but I'll stay out of it, sorry for intervening.

 

[Juha]

Hello Crumpp
a question,
"During the operational trials in Feb it was grounded"
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, that more than ½ of the production run. Number is from Freeman's 8th AF War Manual. IMHO it was odd to use best part of production run in operational test. Was that USAAF was more interested in the engine, which was more or less same than that used in 47N? 47N was much more important type to USAAF and was coming out from production lines and of which AAF had ordered some 1900 in summer 44.

and a couple points

"some serious difficulties due to its fuel."
according to Freeman that was suspected during the problems in March but found untrue and the real reason was bad anti-corrosion treatment of engines before sending them to GB.

"the engines of every operational M were changed in an attempt to gain combat readiness."
According to Freeman, only engines with under 50h run time were changed, they figured that if engine had run successfully over 50h it didn't have corrosion problems.

Juha

 

[Crumpp]

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,

AFAIK, the 56FG received the entire production run for the P47M for the types life history. All 130 examples produced over the variants lifecycle were given to the 56th FG, correct?

It is no different that III/JG54 receiving the entire production run of the FW-190D9 during its trials or all the stafflen conducting the trials.

anti-corrosion treatment of engines before sending them to GB.

That generally comes in the form of oil or fuel additives.

It can involve all the way up to complete replacement of the oil with a "pickling" compound. This is generally done for long term storage and was not likely done IMHO to the P47M's.

All the best,

Crumpp

 

[Juha]

Hello Crumpp
"AFAIK, the 56FG received the entire production run for the P47M for the types life history."

I have read the same info from somewhere. That was my point, USAAF had decided to gave the whole production run to 56 FG, IIRC there were no plans for further M production. The P-47 which USAAF was interesting was extra long range P-47N which in essence was IIRC mating of extra long range -47K airframe with the powerplant of -47M ie P&W R-2800 C or in USAAF parlage R-2800-57, new turbocharger and automatic powerplant controls. So IMHO the only logical reason, other than some bureaucratic reason, for operational testing of M was to get info on reliability of R-2800 C engine in operational environment. The XP-47N was a modified YP-47M.

"It can involve all the way up to complete replacement of the oil with a "pickling" compound. This is generally done for long term storage and was not likely done IMHO to the P47M's."

I have thought the reason was to protect engines from saltier sea air during shipment to GB. Of course in that case the assumption is that they went over by sea. I have no info how they crossed the Atlantic.


"Using the WEP setting meant that P-47M pilots would be able to pass the fastest Mustangs at altitude but it would be at a distinct price since the engine at that setting would be consuming an astonishing 330 gallons per hour! The late D Model Thunderbolts could carry 370 gallons of fuel internally so it did not take a genius to figure out the range."

A bit provocative, I think. Who would use WEP an hour?

Anyway, if we go back to late 109s, in Finnish AF Bf109G combat missions usually lasted a bit under 1h and Finns saw it as a short range fighter as Fiat G.50 and definitely short legged when compared to Brewster Model 239 (export version of F2A-1) and even to Hawk 75A (export version of P-36). One example of ferrying 109Gs, from Wiener Neustadt (Austria) to Helsinki (Southern Finland), Wiener Neustadt – Schöngarten/Breslau – Thorn – Jesau/Köningsberg – Riga – Helsinki. Those towns in todays Poland with their German names.

Juha

 

[davparlr]

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.

 

[Crumpp]

A bit provocative, I think. Who would use WEP an hour?

I certainly did not take the article as making a claim of the engine using WEP for an hour.

It is standard to give aircraft fuel consumption figures in volume used per unit of time.

Gallons per Hour are in standard use in the United States. I think most European countries use Liters per Hour.

Not very provocative IMHO! Just airplane terminology is all.

I have thought the reason was to protect engines from saltier sea air during shipment to GB.

It most certainly was reason, Juha. However the level of precaution needed amounts to what most coastal owners do! We don't need to pickle the motor as that entails added expense and difficulty bringing it back to service.

There are a variety of fuel or oil additives that will do the job additional corrosion protection without the complications of pickling.

This does not mean that some of the engines were not pickled from the manufacturer as they awaited installation. Re-pickling them after installation does not make much sense, however.

All the best,

Crumpp

 

[Crumpp]

It seems that the grounding was only for a month.

You could characterize the service of the P47M as entering service in Jan 45 and continually operating in combat until VE day.

We can ignore the fact this assumes the USAAF did not conduct operational trials or testing of a product they purchased to ensure it could perform the job requirements it was purchased to fulfill. Despite the fact that makes no sense at all as operational testing was simple standard operating procedure for any service.

Is that a true representation of design so troubled the Vice President of the company heads out to the field to personally supervise maintenance?

Is that a true representation when the abort rate averages 50% on every sortie the type attempts? 62nd Squadron in March 445 had 6 out of 14 aircraft abort due to mechanical difficulties resulting in several pilot fatalities. This isn't an airplane; it is a cleverly disguised game of Russian roulette at this point.

Is that a true representation when the official service adoption data is listed as March 45?

We are all free to make up our minds given the facts.

It all comes down to your subjective opinion and what you are willing to accept.

Is the P47M a fully operational adopted fighter from Jan 45 until VE day that contributed greatly to the war effort?

Is the P47M a troubled design that continued to have difficulty even after reaching Operational status in Mar 45? A design that, like its contemporaries the Ta-152 or Tempest II, represented the pinnacle of propeller driven technology that just was not quite ready for service during the war in Europe.

All the best,

Crumpp

 

[Juha]

Hello Crumpp
I didn't mean the info itself but the end of quote "...The late D Model Thunderbolts could carry 370 gallons of fuel internally so it did not take a genius to figure out the range."

Juha