It all depends on speed and altitude of the engagement and which engine the Me 109 had. At speed the Mustang was clearly superior. Roll rate of the Mustang was unbeatable by any aircraft except for the P-63 King-cobra. This is because the NAA/NACA laminar flow wings were resistant to compressibility/mach effects, because they were thick enough to contain the internal pressure balancing mechanisms for the ailerons which reduced pilot force required to deflect the ailerons. Also the NAA/NACA profile was so thick it made the wing stiff, aeroelasticity meant that thin wings twisted opposite to the wing thereby even rolling the aircraft in the opposite direction, well known limitation of spitfires untill a new wing came in from the F.22 onwards. The P-51 had about the same maneuverability in terms of turning circle as the Tempest V, the Tempest was faster at low altitude but the tempest had absolutely no warning of an oncoming stall.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It all depends on speed and altitude of the engagement and which engine the Me 109 had. At speed the Mustang was clearly superior. Roll rate of the Mustang was unbeatable by any aircraft except for the P-63 King-cobra. This is because the NAA/NACA laminar flow wings were resistant to compressibility/mach effects, because they were thick enough to contain the internal pressure balancing mechanisms for the ailerons which reduced pilot force required to deflect the ailerons. Also the NAA/NACA profile was so thick it made the wing stiff, aeroelasticity meant that thin wings twisted opposite to the wing thereby even rolling the aircraft in the opposite direction, well known limitation of spitfires untill a new wing came in from the F.22 onwards. The P-51 had about the same maneuverability in terms of turning circle as the Tempest V, the Tempest was faster at low altitude but the tempest had absolutely no warning of an oncoming stall.
I wonder from where you got the claim "thin wings twisted opposite to the wing thereby even rolling the aircraft in the opposite direction, well known limitation of spitfires untill a new wing came in from the F.22 onwards."? Spit suffered from wing twisting in high speed rolls and that reduced its rate of roll at high speeds but it didn't suffere aileron reverse.
Spit aileron reverse speed according to April 1941 test report was 477mph IAS that means 477mph TAS at SL, 555mph at 10000ft TAS and 654mph TAS at 20000ft. That was calculated from test data, earlier based on conventional theory was appr. 550mph IAS
The RAE 1231 (DSIR 23/12865) gives reversal speed 580 mph EAS for the Spitfire V with standard wings and that value is calculated from flight test results.
Very good message K
I would only add that the urgent need of max. production affected also others, e.g. most Spitfires produced were so called "interim types", V, IX and XIV because of that. E.g. there were many more IXs than VIIIs, which was the designed unpressured Merlin 60 series type with stronger airframe and retractable tailwheel and extra range.
Juha, seems to me however that the German compromises actually effected performance in terms of speed at a time Pilots with 1300hp Me 109G6 were up against Spitfires with 1700hp, an almost unbelievable difference in power. The compromises the Spitfire IX made over the Spitfire VIII were
the IX lacked internal fuel in the wings
the IX lacked a retractable tail
the IX lacked the enlarged tail
nevertheless the repeated wing standardization cycles of the Spitfire wing must have been very expensive. And of course the P-51, Fw 190 and P-47 all had fully retractable tails.
for the Me 109G6
The G6 lacked the retractable tail of the Me 109F and Me 109G1/G2 (speed penalty at sea level was 12kmh or 7mph)
The G6 due to the gun bulges lost 9kmh(5.6mph) in speed of which 6kmh could be regained by streamlining these so that the loss was only 3km/2mph)
The failure to streamline the gun bulges seems unbelievable given this was non structural metal.
In other words a total of 18kmh was lost, 11mph. We had a situation of 408mph Spitfire Mk IX's flying against 386mph Me 109 (latter 397mph when boost was raised to 1.42 ata). The corresponding speeds would have been 398mph and 408mph, which is far less difficult.
The 11mph gain would drive the Me 109G6AM and Me 109G14A to 363mph at sea level which is only 3mph short of a Tempest V running 100/130 fuel.
This 'cleaned up' version, known as the Me 109K1 was ready in late 1943.
the IX lacked internal fuel in the wings
the IX lacked a retractable tail
the IX lacked the enlarged tail
nevertheless the repeated wing standardization cycles of the Spitfire wing must have been very expensive. And of course the P-51, Fw 190 and P-47 all had fully retractable tails.
for the Me 109G6
The G6 lacked the retractable tail of the Me 109F and Me 109G1/G2 (speed penalty at sea level was 12kmh or 7mph)
The G6 due to the gun bulges lost 9kmh(5.6mph) in speed of which 6kmh could be regained by streamlining these so that the loss was only 3km/2mph)
The failure to streamline the gun bulges seems unbelievable given this was non structural metal.
In other words a total of 18kmh was lost, 11mph. We had a situation of 408mph Spitfire Mk IX's flying against 386mph Me 109 (latter 397mph when boost was raised to 1.42 ata). The corresponding speeds would have been 398mph and 408mph, which is far less difficult.
The 11mph gain would drive the Me 109G6AM and Me 109G14A to 363mph at sea level which is only 3mph short of a Tempest V running 100/130 fuel.
This 'cleaned up' version, known as the Me 109K1 was ready in late 1943.
Last edited:
It's an internet 'factoid' which grows more insidious by repetition. Like deep rooted weeds, you can cut the tops off but the damned things keep coming back.
Cheers
Steve
The 109G suffered from performance limitations because of the DB 605A's problems from about June 1942 to early 1944 - roughly 19-20 months (eg; from February 1944 109G-6/R3 handbook - 1.42 ata was blocked, again http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Bf109_G4-R3_G6-R3_Bedienungsvorshrift-Fl_Feb_1944.jpg ). It must have been frustrating for ground crews and pilots alike to have to cope with the continual chopping and changing of the boost limits while Daimler-Benz tried to sort the problems out.
DonL
Banned
This is why I'm skeptical to Tony Williams and wwii aircraftperformance.
Also to my knowledge the clearence for 1.42 ata was late autumn 1943
Also to my knowledge the clearence for 1.42 ata was late autumn 1943
Last edited:
Mike is a member of this forum so you can ask him directly. Do you have any documents confirming that this page might be exceptional?
At least Mike is generous enough to buy and compile the information and put it up on an expensive to run website: if you have problems with the information on his site send a personal message to Mike instead of trying to denigrate the guy.
Last edited:
DonL
Banned
Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance
Kurfürst - Transcript of Generalluftzeugmeister meeting on 7th September, 1943.
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB605A_clearance_Aug-Oct43_G2FzgHB-T0-Full.JPG
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB605A_clearance_Aug-29sept43_G3FzgHB-T0_full.jpg
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB605A_clearance_Aug-29sept43_G4FzgHB-T0-Full.jpg
Edit:
instead of:
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB605A_ban_Jun-10Nov42_G2FzgHB-T6-Full.JPG
Kurfürst - Transcript of Generalluftzeugmeister meeting on 7th September, 1943.
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB605A_clearance_Aug-Oct43_G2FzgHB-T0-Full.JPG
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB605A_clearance_Aug-29sept43_G3FzgHB-T0_full.jpg
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB605A_clearance_Aug-29sept43_G4FzgHB-T0-Full.jpg
Edit:
instead of:
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB605A_ban_Jun-10Nov42_G2FzgHB-T6-Full.JPG
Last edited:
DonL
Banned
@ Aozora,
if you write me a PM, but block any answer, it is impossible to arguement or answer!
if you write me a PM, but block any answer, it is impossible to arguement or answer!
DonL
Banned
Where he has ever posted a wrong source on his webpage of the Bf 109?
Tell me one source and this are all german primary sources and germans built the Bf 109!
I have every book from Dietmar Hermann and to my knowledge he is the only Author in the whole world, who has direct access to the FW archive. His sources and performance charts of the different FW 190 a/c's are quiet different, then the sources and charts of wwii aircraftperformance.
Also the US test of the FW 190 A5 compare to the F6F-3 and the F4U-1D, where the Fw 190 A5 reached the same performance as shown from german primary sources, contradict to performance charts of wwii aircraft performance.
From here comes my skeptic!
Last edited:
DonL
Banned
Do you have any argumentation or sources instead of insults? Show me proves and we can discuss!
Also I was only one week away, what a large timeline!
If you mean for a week vacation, you could offend or intimidate me, you're wound wrong
Also I was only one week away, what a large timeline!
If you mean for a week vacation, you could offend or intimidate me, you're wound wrong
Last edited:
kettbo
Senior Airman
c'mon guys, let's talk planes and not people.
Post up facts, some sources, discuss, and learn
Post up facts, some sources, discuss, and learn
