Bf109G-6 Question!

[stona]

I remember a report on the effects of the gondolas on top speed and it was surprisingly small. Unfortunately I can't find the reference to give a figure.
Pilots thought that they adversely affected handling and they were also known to break loose under extreme manoeuvring.
Cheers
Steve

 

[DonL]

Kurfürst - Flugleistungen Me 109G - Baureihen

The G6 with two gondulas had 620 km/h max speed, which is a significant loss to clean variant.

 

[drgondog]

You had been talking about speed loss in the /U4, not from drop tanks.

My reply was to Milosh regarding Mustang bomb/fuel rack drag.


As to G-6/U4, IIRC, the drag loss was 10-12 Km/hr.

 

[stona]

Kurfürst - Flugleistungen Me 109G - Baureihen

The G6 with two gondulas had 620 km/h max speed, which is a significant loss to clean variant.

Have I misread the report? I understand a loss of 8kph at sea level which is not much and is something like I remember.
Steve

 

[gomwolf]

I just watch this thread after write. Lots of different opinions that I already known...
First, some answers I can.

Denniss// 3350kg is without gondola. In kurfurst's document(Kurfürst - Flugleistungen Me 109G - Baureihen) This weigh for only gun and fuel.
GregP// Bf109's stick force is not bad as widely known. I saw some interviews about Bf109's stickforce with finnish aces. I think bf109's stick force was average.(virtualpilots.fi: 109myths) and... This question is not for stick force in high speed.


hmmm... My english skill make me sad. Explanation is hard to me. plz understand this stupid sentences.
First time i got this question, I played flight simulation game IL-2 1946. Bf109G-2 had good maneuverity, G-10 is good too. but Bf109G-6 is too heavy! I think Il-2 is well historically invetigated game. If they make this, it have some reason. So, I try to find that 'reason' but I cannot find anything. Some people told "Bf109G series were made to intercept bomber. So they got good climb rate but bad maneuverity." but there is no reliable source.

In kurfurst homepage, I can find lots of documents but there was no documents about Bf109G-6's maneuvering. Anyone who had reliable source plz help me.

 

[GrauGeist]

hmmm... My english skill make me sad. Explanation is hard to me. plz understand this stupid sentences.

Not to worry, you're doing well with your English

As far as the differences in the G series, there had been some comments in interviews with Luftwaffe pilots in the differences in handling between the G-2 and later sub-types. However, I was told by a Luftwaffe pilot personally that anything past the G-2 was a disappointment to him and that he was very fond of his Emil (E) and Fritz* (F) machines that he flew earlier in the war.

As far as the combat sim IL-2 Sturmovik goes, there's been alot of discussion about the Luftwaffe characteristics and we even have a complete forum just for IL-2, you can find it here:
IL-2 Sturmovik Pilot's Lounge

* just for the record, the "F" was technically called the "Friedrich" but the former Luftwaffe pilot I'm referring to called the "F" a "Fritz"...not sure if it was a personal thing or a joke, but this was his thing and I wasn't going to argue with him...

 

[Denniss]

Denniss// 3350kg is without gondola. In kurfurst's document(Kurfürst - Flugleistungen Me 109G - Baureihen) This weigh for only gun and fuel.

Please read the table again, it's with gondolas. A "-" would indicate no gondolas.

The G6 with two gondulas had 620 km/h max speed, which is a significant loss to clean variant.

Clean G-6 was ~630 km/h at climb&combat power and ~645 at max power

From what I have learned/ heard from a veteran Me 109G-14(who flew also the G-6) pilot is that when a MK 108 engine canon was installed the centre of gravity shifted which made it more difficult to fly...more so for novice pilots. Don't know if this could also mean speed loss, however the MK 108 canon and ammo should make it somewhat heavier.

MK 108 is ~18 kg heavier and ~70cm shorter, 60 rounds of 3cm ammo have more or less the same weight of 200 rounds of 2cm ammo. No idea why there should be a noticable CoG shift (or did WNF forgot to counterbalance it?). Anyway the G-10/14 had the additional tank in the rear and this should be sufficient for counterbalancing a MK 108 installaion.

 

[bobbysocks]

hmmm... My english skill make me sad........., I played flight simulation game IL-2 1946. Bf109G-2 had good maneuverity, G-10 is good too. but Bf109G-6 is too heavy! I think Il-2 is well historically invetigated game. If they make this, it have some reason. So, I try to find that 'reason' but I cannot find anything. Some people told "Bf109G series were made to intercept bomber. So they got good climb rate but bad maneuverity." but there is no reliable source.

your english is fine...no need to apologize. just be very careful comparing air combat sims like IL-2 or any other to real life. although i like a good ww2 air combat sim, the flight characteristics can be quite different...and in some cases are dramatically incorrect for some of the planes. likewise, i would not base too much belief on what the players of those games say about WW2 aircraft and tactics. I have directed many of those kinds of players i know to this forum. here you will find different opinions and points of view...and have a way better chance of finding a correct answer than on those forums or in conversations during the game. here you will often be given sources and references you can study yourself to make an educated conclusion.

 

[douvie]

Another aspect in maneuverability is the shape of the wings (main wings and tail wings).

Also the bf/me109 cockpits were very crampt as compared to the Spitfire and the Mustang P51-D. Well the spits cockpit was considered quite "huggy" compared to Mustang's which was very luxurious (space wise). This of course counterbalanced centre of gravity issues and improved the bf/me performance.

douvie.

 

[stona]

Also the bf/me109 cockpits were very crampt as compared to the Spitfire and the Mustang P51-D. Well the spits cockpit was considered quite "huggy" compared to Mustang's which was very luxurious (space wise). This of course counterbalanced centre of gravity issues and improved the bf/me performance.
douvie.

The major advantage of a more roomy cockpit as far as manoeuvrability is concerned is that it allows the pilot to apply a greater force to the stick or yoke. The forces required to deflect the ailerons similar amounts in contemporary Bf 109s and Spitfires at high speeds were very similar. The design of the Spitfire cockpit and seating position of the pilot made it easier for the Spitfire pilot to apply larger forces to the control yoke.
This might make the aircraft seem more manoeuvrable.
I know I am not the only one here who has sat in a Bf 109. It is actually quite difficult to make large port/starboard deflections of the stick, even sat on the ground, without interference with your own legs!
This kind of thing would be impossible to build into a simulation I would imagine, though I'm not a player.
Cheers
Steve

 

[GrauGeist]

I've been in the cockpit of a Bf109E and it's similiar to being in the driver's seat of a Formula 1 racecar. While it wasn't uncomfortable overall, I didn't like the fact that my head was nearly touching the top of the canopy (I'm 6 foot 1 inch tall) with the seat cusion's dimensions being close to that of a parachute.

 

[Juha]

...
GregP// Bf109's stick force is not bad as widely known. I saw some interviews about Bf109's stickforce with finnish aces. I think bf109's stick force was average.(virtualpilots.fi: 109myths) and... This question is not for stick force in high speed...

In fact the stick forces were high, 8-9kp per G in Bf 109G-2, when in MS 406, Brewster B-239 and Curtiss H-75A they were 2-3kp per G. That according to the war-time FiAF/VL flight tests reports

 

[stona]

In fact the stick forces were high, 8-9kp per G in Bf 109G-2, when in MS 406, Brewster B-239 and Curtiss H-75A they were 2-3kp per G. That according to the war-time FiAF/VL flight tests reports

I am talking about stick forces required to deflect the ailerons at high speed. I remember a British comparison between a Bf 109 E and Spitfire I which established at high speeds these were quite similar in the two aircraft. The Spitfire pilot was more easily able to apply the large forces needed to the yoke of his control common due to his seating position, particularly having more shoulder room.
The cannon breach in later versions of the 109 made the problem worse for some ergonomic reason that I don't remember

GrauGeist I'm 5'9" and my head was close to the canopy, also with a seat cushion of parachute type dimensions. When the hood was closed it felt like a helmet. I couldn't believe how close it was to the sides of my head as well as the top! I wouldn't want to squeeze in at over 6'. There was a height limits for astronauts in the NASA space programme because of the limited space in the Mercury and Gemini capsules. Maybe the Luftwaffe should have adopted something similar

Cheers

Steve

 

[GrauGeist]

GrauGeist I'm 5'9" and my head was close to the canopy, also with a seat cushion of parachute type dimensions. When the hood was closed it felt like a helmet. I couldn't believe how close it was to the sides of my head as well as the top! I wouldn't want to squeeze in at over 6'. There was a height limits for astronauts in the NASA space programme because of the limited space in the Mercury and Gemini capsules. Maybe the Luftwaffe should have adopted something similar

Cheers

Steve

I agree!
I looked back on that in later years and wondered how many pilots banged thier head against it during a fight. When I was in there, I slid my hand over my head and touched the canopy at the same time so for a claustrophic person, the Bf109 is not recommended! Perhaps the "Erlahaub" was an answer to more headroom!

I recall reading various Luftwaffe pilots' impression of the P-47's cockpit...most were in disbelief as to how much room was there, several simply did not like the void at all and said that since they were used to smaller areas, would have trouble with so much room!

 

[Juha]

I am talking about stick forces required to deflect the ailerons at high speed. I remember a British comparison between a Bf 109 E and Spitfire I which established at high speeds these were quite similar in the two aircraft. The Spitfire pilot was more easily able to apply the large forces needed to the yoke of his control common due to his seating position, particularly having more shoulder room...

Hello Steve
Iknew, I answered to gomwolf. On high speed behavior, I wonder if you refer the early tests between Mk I vs 109E. The fabric covered ailerons of early Spits became very heavy at high speeds because of balloning, the effect was seen also in Spit Mk I and hurri Mk I vs Hawk 75A-1 and Gloster F5/34 tests but the metal covered ailerons greatly improved Spits rate of roll at higher speeds.

 

[GregP]

The Bf 109 stickj forces at speed ARE high. We have pilots who will testify to that and they fly multiple WWII types.

The Bf 109 was NOT dogfighting at anythinbg higher than 310 - 340 mph. After that speed, it was escaping or moving into position to attack and would slow down to actually fight unless the target was unaware of the impending attack. It was very GOOD at ambush, but that is a testament to pilot training, not aircraft handling.

 

[GrauGeist]

After that speed, it was escaping or moving into position to attack and would slow down to actually fight unless the target was unaware of the impending attack. It was very GOOD at ambush, but that is a testament to pilot training, not aircraft handling.

What??

To "slow down" in a fight is to commit suicide...

The Bf109 was a fluid fighter, good at all attack formulas.

Sometimes the stuff you come up with leaves me a little baffled, Greg...seriously.

 

[Aozora]

I am talking about stick forces required to deflect the ailerons at high speed. I remember a British comparison between a Bf 109 E and Spitfire I which established at high speeds these were quite similar in the two aircraft. The Spitfire pilot was more easily able to apply the large forces needed to the yoke of his control common due to his seating position, particularly having more shoulder room.
The cannon breach in later versions of the 109 made the problem worse for some ergonomic reason that I don't remember

GrauGeist I'm 5'9" and my head was close to the canopy, also with a seat cushion of parachute type dimensions. When the hood was closed it felt like a helmet. I couldn't believe how close it was to the sides of my head as well as the top! I wouldn't want to squeeze in at over 6'. There was a height limits for astronauts in the NASA space programme because of the limited space in the Mercury and Gemini capsules. Maybe the Luftwaffe should have adopted something similar

Cheers

Steve

Is it in "The First and the Last" where Galland recounted how the groundcrew added head armour to the plate on his F's canopy (I think it was the curved piece above the back plate); when Galland closed the canopy he received a nasty whack on the top of his head and took off cursing his groundcrew. About half an hour later he was thanking them because that added armour stopped a bullet going through the back of his head..

I have also read that the seats in the F, G K series couldn't be adjusted by the pilot; instead the seat's position was fixed by the ground crew.

 

[Juha]

The Bf 109 stickj forces at speed ARE high. We have pilots who will testify to that and they fly multiple WWII types.

The Bf 109 was NOT dogfighting at anythinbg higher than 310 - 340 mph. After that speed, it was escaping or moving into position to attack and would slow down to actually fight unless the target was unaware of the impending attack. It was very GOOD at ambush, but that is a testament to pilot training, not aircraft handling.

Because we are talking on IAS speeds, I suppose, that was not so bad after all at higher altitudes, at lower level it was a restriction but 109 wasn't the only plane that suffered from heavy controls at higher speeds and even if the heaviness of controls was an hinderance at lower levels it didn't prevent at least several aces to use dogfight tactics successfully, some of them were muscular types, some simply used flaps and trims.

Juha

 

[douvie]

yeah, you are correct but a slimmer cockpit would effectively cut down wind resistance and improve the forward motion performance - which in turn would kill maneuverability.

But one major difference in the mechanics of both the spit and the bf/me was that the Messerschmitt was more "electrically" controlled whereas the spits relied on hydraulic control or pneumatic control. This would add weight to spits.