GM1 in North Africa (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

greybeard

Airman 1st Class
258
32
Oct 25, 2011
Hello everyone!
Once again I came across a photo of a Bf 109F-4 / Z operating in North Africa with the I./JG27 and I wonder what use the Germans could make of a high altitude fighter in that context. I have read about the Spitfire Mk.V modified to intercept the Ju 86P, but what need could the Luftwaffe fighters have to fly over 6000 meters (even if for short periods - as allowed by GM1)?

Could someone knowledgeable about the facts please answer this question of mine? I would also like to know which squadrons and in which time periods they used the Bf 109F-2 / Z and F-4 / Z. Thanks.
 
Hello everyone!
Once again I came across a photo of a Bf 109F-4 / Z operating in North Africa with the I./JG27 and I wonder what use the Germans could make of a high altitude fighter in that context. I have read about the Spitfire Mk.V modified to intercept the Ju 86P, but what need could the Luftwaffe fighters have to fly over 6000 meters (even if for short periods - as allowed by GM1)?

Could someone knowledgeable about the facts please answer this question of mine? I would also like to know which squadrons and in which time periods they used the Bf 109F-2 / Z and F-4 / Z. Thanks.
No idea about squadrons used, or operations.

However, it would be very useful to have it as help for PR versions of the aircraft, and also, if such an aircraft were available, why would you refuse it ?
Just because it allows flight to a higher altitude, doesnt mean you HAVE to use the maximum altitude, it will increase performance over
a wide range of altitudes. Also, you`d want a fighter to have a go at Allied PR aircraft too.

For your interest, at that point it was probably referred to as MONA, and not GM1, the name given to it changed early in the war.
 
Thanks for your reply.

No idea about squadrons used, or operations.
In the mean time, I perused site The Luftwaffe, 1933-45, finding that Bf 109F-4/Z was in use in Africa with JG53, more exactly with III./JG53 and Jabo/JG53, at least from March to June 1942.

if such an aircraft were available, why would you refuse it ?
Maybe for increase in weight: I've no reliable data about this, but it seems that an increase of 200 kg or so was expected for a single-engined fighter.

it will increase performance over a wide range of altitudes.
I don't think so. According to this document, GM 1 could be used only above rated altitude (Google translation follows):

"Use of GM 1.
GM 1 may only be added above full pressure altitude, otherwise the motor will be overloaded and no better flight performance will be achieved.
Minimum operating altitude for aircraft with DB 605 A engine climb 8000 m.
"

Also, you`d want a fighter to have a go at Allied PR aircraft too.
Sure! But would be also nice to have even a single report mentioning an interception performed by this variant. Could be just a curiosity, but I'm intrigued by the high number built: 540 F-4/Z versus 526 F-4 Trop (ref.: Messerschmitt Bf 109, translation follows):

"The F-4 version was the most widely used version of the "Friederich", and the F-4 / R1 subvariant appeared (240 examples produced by mid-1942) with sub-wing pods for additional 20mm guns, the F-4 / Z for high altitudes (540 built) and 526 of the F-4 Trop (tropical). In total, the F-4s were produced in 1841 aircraft."

For your interest, at that point it was probably referred to as MONA, and not GM1, the name given to it changed early in the war.
Really? Someone writes that the opposite happened, and that it was Goering who appropriated the name ... However, personally I prefer GM 1, being Italian, since in the Venetian dialect MONA refers to the female sexual organ!;)
 
Thanks for your reply.


In the mean time, I perused site The Luftwaffe, 1933-45, finding that Bf 109F-4/Z was in use in Africa with JG53, more exactly with III./JG53 and Jabo/JG53, at least from March to June 1942.


Maybe for increase in weight: I've no reliable data about this, but it seems that an increase of 200 kg or so was expected for a single-engined fighter.


I don't think so. According to this document, GM 1 could be used only above rated altitude (Google translation follows):

"Use of GM 1.
GM 1 may only be added above full pressure altitude, otherwise the motor will be overloaded and no better flight performance will be achieved.
Minimum operating altitude for aircraft with DB 605 A engine climb 8000 m.
"


Sure! But would be also nice to have even a single report mentioning an interception performed by this variant. Could be just a curiosity, but I'm intrigued by the high number built: 540 F-4/Z versus 526 F-4 Trop (ref.: Messerschmitt Bf 109, translation follows):

"The F-4 version was the most widely used version of the "Friederich", and the F-4 / R1 subvariant appeared (240 examples produced by mid-1942) with sub-wing pods for additional 20mm guns, the F-4 / Z for high altitudes (540 built) and 526 of the F-4 Trop (tropical). In total, the F-4s were produced in 1841 aircraft."


Really? Someone writes that the opposite happened, and that it was Goering who appropriated the name ... However, personally I prefer GM 1, being Italian, since in the Venetian dialect MONA refers to the female sexual organ!;)

In the case of the 109F I dont know the weight increase

You misunderstood, I`m not suggesting GM1 was used below rated height, I`m just making the point that you dont need to just use it to increase
the actual service ceiling, you can use it to increase performance from rated up to the (now higher) serivce ceiling, which is a reasonable
range. Thus its useful for fairly normal combat heights as well as making very high altitude incursions.

The first name for it was MONA, this was indeed later appropriated by Göring because a lot of resaerch on it was done at the "Herman Göring Institute" (at Völkenrode, aka
LFA, "Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt". In some meetings it was still being called "Mona" as late as Sept 1942.
 
Last edited:
Actuall there were 861 F-4/Z built vs 576 F-4/tp, 121 plain F-4, 240 F-4/R1 and 40ish recons.
But I understand this Z as an option - all the plumbing is present but tank is optional, could be easily turned into a high alt bird by installing and filling tank.
Same with /R1 - wiring present but units didn't have to use the gunpods.
 
But I understand this Z as an option - all the plumbing is present but tank is optional, could be easily turned into a high alt bird by installing and filling tank.
Let me question the "ease" of such a change in the field. In fact, in later versions of the aircraft, this was a "U" modification, meaning it could only be made in the factory.
 
The tank (or tanks) is probably easy to install, its all the plumbing and wiring that's hardly possible to install at the front line.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back