Demonstrated Performance of Bf109T

[swampyankee]

Just what it says in the title: what was the demonstrated flight performance of the various Bf109T sub-variants.

 

[Shortround6]

All I have is some old numbers by William Green for the T-2.

If you want them I can put them in a later post.

 

[swampyankee]

All I have is some old numbers by William Green for the T-2.

If you want them I can put them in a later post.

Anything. There was a lot of advocacy about its value. Some numbers would be nice.

 

[Shortround6]

Ok, here it goes.

Power plant: One Daimler Benz DB601N 12 Cylinder inverted-vee liquid cooled engine rated at 1200hp for take-off and 1270hp (for one minute) at 16,400ft.


Performance: (at emergency power in parentheses)
maximum speed at 6,173lbs, 295 (304) mph at sea level,
307 (317)mph at 3,280ft, 320 (328) mph at 6,560ft.,
332 (339)mph at 9,840ft., 345 (352) mph at 13,120ft.,
354 mph at 16,400ft., 357mph at 19,685ft:
maximum cruising speed, 275mph at sea level,
289 mph at 3,280ft., 303 mph at 6,560 ft.,
317 mph at 9,840ft., 330 mph at 13,120ft
343 mph at 16,400ft.,
maximum range with 66 Imp. gal. drop tank,
568 mls at 199 mph at sea level, 460 mls at 220 mph at 16,400ft
454 mls at 283 mph at 29,530 ft.
Initial climb rate at 6,173lbs, 3,346ft./min.;
time to 9,840ft.. 3 min., to 19,685 ft., 6.4 min.,
to 26,250 ft., 10 min. Service ceiling 34,450 ft.

From page 550 of "The Warplanes of the Third Reich" by William Green to the best of my typing ability

 

[swampyankee]

Ok, here it goes.

Power plant: One Daimler Benz DB601N 12 Cylinder inverted-vee liquid cooled engine rated at 1200hp for take-off and 1270hp (for one minute) at 16,400ft.


Performance: (at emergency power in parentheses)
maximum speed at 6,173lbs, 295 (304) mph at sea level,
307 (317)mph at 3,280ft, 320 (328) mph at 6,560ft.,
332 (339)mph at 9,840ft., 345 (352) mph at 13,120ft.,
354 mph at 16,400ft., 357mph at 19,685ft:
maximum cruising speed, 275mph at sea level,
289 mph at 3,280ft., 303 mph at 6,560 ft.,
317 mph at 9,840ft., 330 mph at 13,120ft
343 mph at 16,400ft.,
maximum range with 66 Imp. gal. drop tank,
568 mls at 199 mph at sea level, 460 mls at 220 mph at 16,400ft
454 mls at 283 mph at 29,530 ft.
Initial climb rate at 6,173lbs, 3,346ft./min.;
time to 9,840ft.. 3 min., to 19,685 ft., 6.4 min.,
to 26,250 ft., 10 min. Service ceiling 34,450 ft.

From page 550 of "The Warplanes of the Third Reich" by William Green to the best of my typing ability

Thank you very much.

 

[DarrenW]

Those performance figures look a little optimistic to me, even with the extra 25 horsepower (1200hp as opposed to 1175hp). Given the larger wing, catapult attachments, tail hook, and increased overall weight it's hard to see it performing better than a standard Bf 109E-3. Could those have been derived figures, being that it was a modified E model, or is there actual flight test data out there? Ceiling and the top speed at 3280ft are identical between the two aircraft, which is a little strange given the increased performance everywhere else.

Wiki article said that the performance of the T-2 was closely comparable to the E-4/N but close doesn't mean as good however.

From page 85 of Great Fighter Aircraft by Green/Swanborough:

Being lazier than SR6 I decided to just post a picture rather than type it all out.

 

[Shortround6]

Unfortunately without better documents we are guessing a bit.
The difference between the two engines wasn't just 25hp at sea level, the 601N was not only allowed to wind up another 1-200rpm but it seems to have had a better supercharger (or the higher compression in the cylinders helped?). It's 30 minute rating at 2400rpm may have been the same but it was held to 750 meters higher in altitude.
I don't have a 5 minute rating for the 601N but the 1 minute (which doesn't exist for the 601Aa?) is not only 280hp more but 1200 meters higher.

There may not have been much to choose between them at take off but at 4-5000 meters and above the 601N may have had several hundred more hp.

 

[DarrenW]

Very good then. I have figures for the Bf 109F-2 that had the same power plant as the T-2 which states a maximum speed at 19,685ft of 373mph. Are we to believe that even after considerable aerodynamic refinement it was only 16 mph faster than the T-2 carrier plane, which incidentally was even less clean than the standard "Emil"?

I'm now curious to know what the performance of the Bf 109E-4/N was. Do you have stats for it as well?

 

[Shortround6]

the T-2 was not the carrier plane. It was the production version with the larger wing but the carrier "stuff" like arresting gear, stripped off.
The figures I have may well be wrong, William Green got a lot of stuff right but he also got some stuff wrong, his books say that the 109D used teh DB 600 engine (with carbs) and not the old Jumo20 and he lists performance numbers for this 109D.

 

[DarrenW]

Ah, so I was under the assumption that it was a carrier fighter like all other T variants. Sorry, my mistake. So with only a larger wing it probably could attain a performance close to that of a standard E model, with better short field take-off and landing ability.

What about the T-1 then, which was the actual carrier version, anyone have stats for that?

 

[Denniss]

The T-2 was actually like an E-7/N + the extended wing panels.
The 1175PS for the 601Aa and 1100PS for the 601A were actually 1-min ratings, just intended for take-off of heavily laden aircraft. It's possible this power rating was blocked in 109E/T.
the 601N had 1175PS for take-off but that was initially blocked, later released for 1 min and even later for 3 mins. It's possible the later rating were only possible with a slightly modified engine (AFAIK supercharger impeller) in the 109F.

 

[Denniss]

The corresponding 5-min ratings of DB 601A-1/Aa were 990/~1050 PS for take-off.
The data I have indicates the 601Aa was a variant of the 601A with old supercharger (4km critical alt), charts for 601A-0 and Aa show max rpm of 2500 for take-off whereas A-1 with new supercharger (4.5km critical alt) maxes out at 2400rpm.

 

[DarrenW]

The T-2 was actually like an E-7/N + the extended wing panels.

Thanks for the wealth of information. What would be a credible maximum speed and initial climb rate for an E-7N?

 

[vikingBerserker]

This is from Messerschmitt Bf 109T the Luftwaffe's Navel Fighter by Marek J Murawski

T-1: Carrier based
T-2: Land based without the tailhook

The official prototype T-1 was based on a DB-601 powered E-1 (W.Nr 6153 (CK+NC)
In early 1939 60 x DB-601 powered Bf-109 E-3s were allocated to the program (page 15). The first product aircraft carried the Wrk Nbr 7733 (RB+OF)

However on page 16 it states:
" The Messerschmitt Bf-1409 T was based on the Bf 109 E-7 airframe. The basic difference was the former's new, 11.08m long wings, as opposed to 9.90m on the Bf-109 E-7. The ailerons were lengthened and fitted with an additional hinge. Unlike the Bf-109 E, which featured trim tabs located relatively close tot he wingtips, on the Bf 109 T the trim tabs were much closer to the fuselage. The leading edge slars were correspondingly longer, and the upper wings were equipped with retractable spoilers (although on series production machines the mechanism was deactivated). The aircraft's powerplant was the 1175 hp Daimler-Benz DB 601 N liquid-cooled, inline engine. It required C3 type 95 octane instead of 87-octane B3, the more commonly in use in the Luftwaffe. A certain number of aircraft were equipped with the GM-1 boost installation. This system added nitrous oxide to the intake charge to compensate for the reduced oxygen available at high altitude and thereby increased engine output."

A number of T-2s were changed to T-1s and then back in 1942/43 when the carrier project was abandoned (page 18). Interestingly there were over 500 test landings with the arrester hook with no accidents. Also, the forward visibility was slightly better than the Seafire (page 20).

Sadly it does not mention performance information.

 

[DarrenW]

Thanks for the post VikingBerserker, Those are interesting details that you mentioned.

 

[Kevin J]

Ok, here it goes.

Power plant: One Daimler Benz DB601N 12 Cylinder inverted-vee liquid cooled engine rated at 1200hp for take-off and 1270hp (for one minute) at 16,400ft.


Performance: (at emergency power in parentheses)
maximum speed at 6,173lbs, 295 (304) mph at sea level,
307 (317)mph at 3,280ft, 320 (328) mph at 6,560ft.,
332 (339)mph at 9,840ft., 345 (352) mph at 13,120ft.,
354 mph at 16,400ft., 357mph at 19,685ft:
maximum cruising speed, 275mph at sea level,
289 mph at 3,280ft., 303 mph at 6,560 ft.,
317 mph at 9,840ft., 330 mph at 13,120ft
343 mph at 16,400ft.,
maximum range with 66 Imp. gal. drop tank,
568 mls at 199 mph at sea level, 460 mls at 220 mph at 16,400ft
454 mls at 283 mph at 29,530 ft.
Initial climb rate at 6,173lbs, 3,346ft./min.;
time to 9,840ft.. 3 min., to 19,685 ft., 6.4 min.,
to 26,250 ft., 10 min. Service ceiling 34,450 ft.

From page 550 of "The Warplanes of the Third Reich" by William Green to the best of my typing ability

My take on German performance figures is that this is the best you would get, so take off 5% for the average performing plane and 10% for the worst performing one. Don't forget that the Soviets tested a Bf 109F-1 and only got 550 kmh or 341 mph out of it at 15000 feet. So take off 12-15 mph for catapult spools and an arrestor hook as per the (Sea) Hurricane and Spitfire/Seafire. If you go through Kurfurst thoroughly you should find things like number of DB 601N's in service and production tolerances allowed on performance which was + or - 5%. So a Bf 109F-1/2 would do 342 to 382 mph: Brits, 362 mph; Commies, 342 mph; Nazi's, 382 mph.

 

[parsifal]

You would probably have to factor in two things if the Bf109 ever really did get put on a carrier. Firstly the need for emergency gear....flares, inflatable liferaft, emergency rations and if built to allied standards, some sort of EPIRB device. Secondly having read a little on the T subtypes, I am convinced that additional or emergency fuel would be needed.

Lastly as an E-3 derivative I am uncertain what armour protection and fire suppression systems were built into the type. Had the t-1 entered serious production I would expect all these components 9almost standard in most navies by 1941, to be retrofitted to the carrier version at least.

 

[Denniss]

AFAIR the soviet-tested 109F had a faulty supercharger not providing sufficient boost at alt

 

[Kevin J]

AFAIR the soviet-tested 109F had a faulty supercharger not providing sufficient boost at alt[/QUOTE
So the test pilot extrapolated the figures for higher altitudes. So faulty supercharger, or maybe something else, like it was captured in the Kuban and had been de-rated or had a tropical dust filter or what?

AFAIR the soviet-tested 109F had a faulty supercharger not providing sufficient boost at alt

If its in the Kuban then it should be a /Trop being used there. So had the Germans de-rated the engine, tropicalised it, or what?

 

[Denniss]

supercharger was damaged, worn out or had some other technical issue, a /trop modification does not cause this significant power loss.