First half of '43, the 109 Gustav is still one of top fighters in the field?

[Vincenzo]

Inspired by a discussion in another thread.

First half of 1943, the 109G is still one of the best fighters in the field?
Of course fighter for air superiority and not for certain altitudes.

The old competitor (the Spitfire) get a advantage in early '43 with the new variants of IX, but i've the feeling that all the others not take gain.

 

[davebender]

Historical results speak for themselves.

Erich Hartmann achieved all his aerial kills with the Me-109G. During 1943 he shot down over 150 enemy aircraft. And he wasn't the only Me-109G pilot to kill enemy aircraft by the score during 1943.

Did any other aircraft type achieve even 50 kills during 1943 at the hands of a single pilot?

 

[tomo pauk]

IMO the 109G was one of top fighters in 1943, even if we calculate the ban on the Notleistung engine setting, that was in force for most of the year. Soviets clocked the G-2 up to 666 km/h ( no gondola cannons, on Steig und Kampfleistung / Climb and combat rating/) - small clean airframe has it's appeal.

 

[vinnye]

A lot of the large number of kills by the Luftwaffe were from the Eastern Front. In some cases, the LW were up against less capable pilots and machinery, with poor tactics. The Soviets got better with more experience - if they survived to gain it!
I do not recall anywhere near as many victories on the Western front?

 

[delcyros]

Only two JG at the western front (France) at the early half of 1943. One of them fully equipped with Fw-190, the other one half with Fw-190 and Bf-109. Thus only 2 Gruppen there, hardly a comparable force to the many JG engaged in the east (btw, by 1943, the soviet air force was vastly improved beyond it´s state of 1941 and 1942).
There were some more Bf-109 Gruppen in the Med and in North Africa and they did fine against western opposition there. One should be careful extracting results from incomparable conditions in east and west and generally spoken, still by early 1943 the aerial fights over Russia were more severe and more difficult with regards to conditions and effect for both sides.

 

[davebender]

80% of the Wehrmacht were on the Eastern Front. If 80% were on the Western Front that's where men such as Erich Hartmann would be racking up kills.

 

[stona]

IMO the 109G was one of top fighters in 1943

And 1944/45.

Steve

 

[drgondog]

The 109G as an airframe was competitive against any Alled (or AXIS) piston engine fighter till the end of the war.

 

[DonL]

I agree that the Bf 109 G was one of the top fighters first half of 1943, but abviously outclassed at this time from the Spit IX.

I disagree that the Bf 109 G was state of the art till end of the war.

The airframe was at is end with the G Model also the airframe of the G model was jointly responsible of the problems with the DB 605.
It weren't only faults of DB, the airframe of the Bf 109 was significant to small to get all the cooling it needs for the DB 605.

Messerschmitt couldn't hold major specs of DB for the DB 605 till the end of the war, this problems weren't realy solved neither with the K model.

So to my opinion the intoduction of the Bf 109 G as it was introduced was a big mistake.
Either the LW develop a major step foward of the F model or you must invest more deleopment time to get this step or you should introduce a other better a/c.

The Bf 109 G model was very clearly a step back compare to the F model.

 

[davebender]

I doubt that.

If the 1,800 hp DB605ASM engine had been available before the end of 1942 it would have powered a variant of the Fw-190. If the 1942 Me-109G were unable to use this 1,800 hp engine that would have been the end of Me-109 production. All plants currently producing the Me-109 would have shifted to Fw-190s powered by DB605ASM engines.

 

[DonL]

You don't need to doubt that!

There are many reports that the G model didn't maintain major specs for the DB 605 which were specified from DB at the introduction of DB 605.

It is very difficult to say, if it was the aireframe or the engineers of Messerschmitt, but their were some major specs of the DB 605 which couldn't be maintained from Messerschmitt till end of the war neither with the G model nor with K model!

 

[davebender]

How about the Me-110G and Me-210C? Were their DB605A engines allowed to produce 1,475 hp during 1942?

 

[Vincenzo]

DonL i think outclassed it's too strong word, the news IX have advantage but i think the Gustav is a true threat for its.
i've not checked numbers but i think that the news IX have less advantages over the Gustav that the Friedrich-4 over the Spit V

 

[CobberKane]

One of the top fighters, absolutely. The best fighter, no. In terms of flight characteristics I'd contend overall it was a bit better than the P-38J (run for cover!) at least as good as pre-paddleprop P-47s and a little somewhat inferior to the Spit IX. The German's had also trumped it themselves with the Fw190, at low to medium altitudes at least. Nonetheless, the writing was on the wall for the 109; the P38L and P-47 D were about to appear, the Spitfire kept getting better and, of course, the P51 was also on the way. The Germans upgraded the 109 too, of course, but it was a small airframe that lacked the developmental potential of its rivals - increases in power and wieght allowed it to keep pace with alied fighters in some areas, but only at the expense of significant degradation in others. By the end of the war it sems to have been and experts only machine - new pilots not only had to contend with allied fighters, they had to survive their own as well.

 

[tomo pauk]

You don't need to doubt that!

There are many reports that the G model didn't maintain major specs for the DB 605 which were specified from DB at the introduction of DB 605.

It is very difficult to say, if it was the aireframe or the engineers of Messerschmitt, but their were some major specs of the DB 605 which couldn't be maintained from Messerschmitt till end of the war neither with the G model nor with K model!

Hi,
If is not too much of a problem, perhaps you could elaborate a little about the bolded part?

 

[Tante Ju]

There are many reports that the G model didn't maintain major specs for the DB 605 which were specified from DB at the introduction of DB 605.

It is very difficult to say, if it was the aireframe or the engineers of Messerschmitt, but their were some major specs of the DB 605 which couldn't be maintained from Messerschmitt till end of the war neither with the G model nor with K model!

You said that already twice but I would like to see the reports.. all aircraft had problems with the DB 605 until DB fixed it, funny coincidence isn't it? There was nothing wrong with the 109G model in that regard. Maybe a larger oil tank should have been used earlier, but that's it. The DB 605 was of the same size and dimension as the 601, so no trouble from that regard, and later models mounted successfully up to 2000 HP DB 605s. In addition all the cooling trials I have seen with 109G shows that it had plenty of cooling capacity... the real problem was that DB did not really make a good job with the new 605's lubrication, and the oil tended to foam. They fixed that with an improved oil dearator eventually. Of course they have continoued to poing fingers at Mtt...

IMHO the 109 as an aiframe really matured only with the 109G. The 109F was a good airframe, but a bit like a 'beta' version of the software, it had some bugs and could use some improvements to iron out. The 109G airframe did all that. It introduced reinforced wings, fuel tank armor, an integrated armored glass, and the ability to use a wide range of accessories like gunpods, rockets etc.

 

[Tante Ju]

One of the top fighters, absolutely. The best fighter, no. In terms of flight characteristics I'd contend overall it was a bit better than the P-38J (run for cover!) at least as good as pre-paddleprop P-47s and a little somewhat inferior to the Spit IX. The German's had also trumped it themselves with the Fw190, at low to medium altitudes at least. Nonetheless, the writing was on the wall for the 109; the P38L and P-47 D were about to appear, the Spitfire kept getting better and, of course, the P51 was also on the way.

I agree its good summary. One important aspect is however availabality of aircraft. The 109G was standard aircraft, for all JG that used 109s by 1943. Spitfire IX for example wasn't, Spitfire V was (which was already outclassed in 1941..). Similar there were good Russian aircraft (IMHO 1943 was still more important for LW to see VVS rivals), but they were just entering service, and still many of the obsolate types were around. US similar - P-40 was still the mainstay fighter.

So while IMHO 109G-2 was top perhaps best (or amongst very best) fighter of 1942, by 1943 109G no longer was, but it was still best of mainstay fighters (numerous in service), if you consider that mainstay fighters of 1943 were Spitfire V, P-40 (P-47?), Yak 9(?), even the G-6 is still slightly better than them overall.

The Germans upgraded the 109 too, of course, but it was a small airframe that lacked the developmental potential of its rivals - increases in power and wieght allowed it to keep pace with alied fighters in some areas, but only at the expense of significant degradation in others.

I disagree in this. If you look at rivals, they show same trends, or worse. Only exception is Soviet fighters. US and UK fighters increased severe in weight, and much more modestly in power and performance.

By the end of the war it sems to have been and experts only machine - new pilots not only had to contend with allied fighters, they had to survive their own as well.

I disagree as well, in fact late 109s did a great deal to cure some of the type's weaknesses in handling (larger tails, larger and more stable undercarriage design, reduced control forces). But if you mean late, very poorly trained pilots had trouble with dealing with the extreme powerful engines that appeared by late war, I agree. I would also say because of their lack of training, they would find any high-powered late war fighter equally demanding.

 

[stona]

Hi,
If is not too much of a problem, perhaps you could elaborate a little about the bolded part?

Messerschmitt were always striving for aerodynamic advantages which meant they did not meet various Daimler Benz requirements for the engine installations.

In a meeting at the RLM on 9/7/43 Direktor Nallinger from Daimler Benz openly criticised Messerschmitt saying that all of Messerschmitt's airframes (Bf 109,Bf 110,Me 210 and Me 410) failed to meet the conditions outlined in the engine installation portfolio. He also went on to say that it was proving impossible to get proper oil and water systems put in (to Messerschmitt airframes) but that other companies managed to do it and that it could not therefore be claimed that the conditions of the installation portfolio could not be met.

This led to well documented problems with cooling and oil pressures to which I think DonL was referring.

Steve

 

[tomo pauk]

Sorry, Steve, but I don't buy that. The accusation from mr. Nallinger seem to me like a simple finger pointing - "blame him, not me" stuff. Wasn't it the engine modification that enabled DB-605A to work well under Notleistung, not the airframe modification?
Also, I wonder about the what are the "other companies [that] managed to do it", ie. what other planes were using the Notleistung on 605A, without problems, from late 1942 to late 1943.

 

[cherry blossom]

Messerschmitt were always striving for aerodynamic advantages which meant they did not meet various Daimler Benz requirements for the engine installations.

In a meeting at the RLM on 9/7/43 Direktor Nallinger from Daimler Benz openly criticised Messerschmitt saying that all of Messerschmitt's airframes (Bf 109,Bf 110,Me 210 and Me 410) failed to meet the conditions outlined in the engine installation portfolio. He also went on to say that it was proving impossible to get proper oil and water systems put in (to Messerschmitt airframes) but that other companies managed to do it and that it could not therefore be claimed that the conditions of the installation portfolio could not be met.

This led to well documented problems with cooling and oil pressures to which I think DonL was referring.

Steve

I am baffled. The Do 217 used the DB 603. The only other user of the DB 605 was the Ar 240. Was Nallinger referring to the He 177 as an example of how to install a trouble free DB engine?