Gold-Clash

[KraziKanuK]

Here is a link to a PDF file for DB605 performance, http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/DB605_varianten.pdf

German C3 fuel was roughly equivelant to Allied 100/150 fuel.

Also note that MW50 was required to achieve the higher power output.

The MK108 was not the predominate weapon in the 109 til after mid 1944.

By Olivier Lefebvre who is a well known 109 expert

G-6/U4
Produced 1943 : 181
01/1944 : 119
02/1944 : 51
03/1944 : 303
04/1944 : 404
05/1944 : 118
06/1944 : 144
07/1944 : 240
08/1944 : 49
09/1944 : 55
10/1944 : 14

G-14/U4
08/1944 : 59
09/1944 : 32
10/1944 : 228
11/1944 : 118
12/1944 : ????, 56
01/1945 : 11, 47
02/1945 : 2

G-10/U4
12/1944 : ???, 62
01/1945 : 129, 79
02/1945 : 132
03/1945 : 95

(Red numbers are coming from someone who went to the Freibrg archives and sent me the details of 109 productions from the C-Amts reports. Black number for 01/45 is coming from japo book)
We can see some discrepencies in here....

And another post from Oliver's site by Pirx,

These figures are surprisingly low... if I add them up, the result is:
Sum G-6 = 1678, which would be 14% out of the ca.12.000 overall
Sum G-14 = 448, which would be 8% out of the ca.5.500 overall
Sum G-10 = 129, which would be 8% out of the ca.2.600 overall
As the December figures miss, let's double the percentages of G-14. For the G-10, I use the precentage given in the plans in Prien&Rodeike, which leads to 55%

-->
Sum G-6/U4 = 1678, which would be 14% out of the ca.12.000 produced
Sum G-14/U4= 900, which would be 17% out of the ca.5.500 produced
Sum G-10/U4= 3288, which would be 55% out of the ca. 5.955 planned

Roughly <20%, for G-6 G-14 in the 2nd half of 1944 and 55% of the G-10...

Not included is the K-4 for which maybe 8-900 were built in 1944.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Good Show KK!

 

[KraziKanuK]

Some links on German Avgas

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/prim...rts/USNAVY/tech_rpt_145_45/rpt_145_45_toc.htm
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0638-0654 Item 6A.pdf

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Higher Octane reduces the tendency of a fuel to detonate.

Not always, I would agree if we were talking about a high compression engine, 9/10 to 1 compression ratios or large piston surface area engines (radials). The Merlin and Damlier Benz engines we're talking about carried about a 7 to 1 compression ratio, if that. Putting a super high octane fuel in in these engines there under certain conditions would be like lighting a cherry bomb on every power stroke. I think about 100 octane is as high you would want to risk without doing damage after a period of time, although I know that up to 130 octane (purple) was run in P-51s. High octane and over boosting is also a dangerous combination. Water injection helped overcome this. Here's a great site about aircraft engines, fuels and supercharging: http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft...s/Overview of Aircraft Engine Development.htm

Also, you can't compare an automotive turbocharged engine in this matter. Automotive engines are designed to be run at variable RPM and operate at a relatively constant ambient temperatures. Aircraft engines are designed to carry a relatively constant high RPM at higher operating temps.

 

[Soren]

Nice sites Krazi.

From the site: The C-3 grade corresponded roughly to the U. S. grade 130 gasoline, although the octane number of C-3 was specified to be only 95 and its lean mixture performance was somewhat poorer.

The C-3 fuel was roughly equal to U.S. 100 octane/130 grade fuel.

 

[Udet]

I do not hesitate to appoint the Bf 109 G10 as the winner.

Right, there were fighters of the version fitted with field conversion kits but there were many reaching service right like the one shown in the photo.

I happen to know men who flew this particular model with success against the enemy during the tough months of 1945.

The 30mm cannon in the nose, whatever the muzzle velocity, was not -at all- a "disadvantage" when in combat against the six .50 cal Mustang guns.

Right, the Mustangs armament was good enough to destroy a Bf109...but what makes you think the Bf109 G-10 armament was "less efficient" at getting Mustangs burnt beyond recognition?

Just like in the G-6 version, there were G-10/R6 fighters, fitted with one 2cm cannon under each wing in a gondola.

I have guncamera footage of Bf109s fitted with the underwing gondola cannons getting chased by USAAF fighters. Before having such material in my possession, i was acquainted with the typical song saying the underwing gondolas "implied a dramatic decline in the performance of the fighter making it an easy prey for enemy fighters".

After seeing my material i would not be so sure on the veracity of that typical song the allies enjoy singing so much.

In most of those guncamera shots, the gondola fitted Bf109s are being tailed by the foe. I was surprised to discover that from the rear, the gondolas under the wings look real small and slender and not that protruding.

I am not dispute a cleaner wing is better. And that 2 kilograms are heavier than 1.5 kilograms (the extra weight). My point is i do believe the allies have exaggerated on the consequences of having the fighters fitted with underwing gondolas.

Also i was surprised to see the Bf109 pilots attempted evasive action and you could see everything but a fighter "uncapable of manouvering": the 109s turned and climbed like hell. In fact, in some of the shots the USAAF pilots flatly missed the gondola Messerschmitts who managed to find their "out".

It appears to me the rail fitted Typhoons of the RAF (to have it armed with non-guided rockets) suffered more than the gondola fitted Gustav.

 

[KraziKanuK]

LOL Udet, I know one fanatical Luft luver/British hater who crys the blues because people use the British tested gondola G6 as an example of a typical G-6. He claims this a/c is not typical of 'clean' winged G-6's performance since the gondolas cause a drastic reduction in a/c performance.

You Luftluvers should get your stories straightened out.

 

[delcyros]

There can be no doubt that gondolas as well as drop tenks reduce the performance considerably. However, the quality of ´this change is matter of debate. The Mustang tested with drop tanks suffered bad handling as well as reduced performances (excepting the dive). But what counts more are the negative effects in the ability of the plane to keep it´s energy. No matter if a Luftwaffe plane or a USAAF or anything else.
I think we should also consider the probable conditions of engagement. Quantity has it´s own quality. By that the Luftwaffe had a nominal number advantage up to early january 45 but was unable (better unwilling, since Gallend tried but was not allowed in the last moment to do so) to concentrate it´s efforts on a certain region with enough planes to deal with escorts and bombers, resulting in a real quantity advantage of the Mustangs. The P-51 enjoied also a better gunsight and some early G-suits late in the war as well as a generally more careful pilots training.
The Luftwaffe has the advantage to fight over their own terretory and to choose where they wanted to fight and where not.

 

[Soren]

Udet the Gondola's lowered maneuverability considderably ! This is also quoted by many LW pilots, aswell as Finnish pilots.

Heinrich Beauvais especially noted the rapid decrease in turning performance, looping and climbing when fitted with gondola's.

Also what makes you think the Gondola's weighed only 2kg ? They weighed considderably more than that ! (And thats not accounting for the extra ammunition required)

 

[DAVIDICUS]

"Just like in the G-6 version, there were G-10/R6 fighters, fitted with one 2cm cannon under each wing in a gondola. "

This "Gold-Clash" involves a G-10 outfitted with one Mk. 108 and two Mk. 131's. Hence the issue with the armamant specific to that gun configuration.

"ut what makes you think the Bf109 G-10 armament was "less efficient" at getting Mustangs burnt beyond recognition? "

I have already outlined my reasons previously in this post. Long range and deflection shots against a small twisting and turning foe with a single, slow firing, slow velocity gun would be very difficult. Complicating this issue is the fact that he 13mm 131's have radically different trajectories making their combined use with the Mk. 108 unfeasible under those circumstances.

According to Soren though, this was not a problem as evidenced by this configuration being the preferred set up for fighter to fighter engagements. I frankly find that hard to believe, but assuming it is true, my assumptions underlying my thesis are flawed.

 

[Soren]

According to Soren though, this was not a problem as evidenced by this configuration being the preferred set up for fighter to fighter engagements. I frankly find that hard to believe, but assuming it is true, my assumptions underlying my thesis are flawed.

DAVIDICUS the Germans would almost always try to get close to their foe in a dogfight before firing, that was their strategy. And under these circumstances the MG131's and the MK108 worked just fine in conjunction with each other. At longer ranges the usual thing to do for the Germans was to fire either the two MG131's or the MK108 as to cripple the enemy before getting close (The MG131 was used more than the other in these situations though)

Also I would like you to remember it takes just 'one' hit from that MK108 to totally wreck any U.S. fighter, and only 3-4 hits to bring down a B-17. (Now thats what I call effective fireworks ! )

 

[KraziKanuK]

Also I would like you to remember it takes just 'one' hit from that MK108 to totally wreck any U.S. fighter, and only 3-4 hits to bring down a B-17. (Now thats what I call effective fireworks ! )

Only if the 108's grenades hit a reletive vital area of the bomber.

One advantage the German a/c had was their guns were mounted near the centreline of the a/c. Wing mounted guns in American and British a/c had a 'null' zone cone where their 'bullets' would miss the E/A if fired from to close in.

 

[Soren]

Only if the 108's grenades hit a reletive vital area of the bomber.

4 30mm "Minen" hits and the B-17 would either go down or be in such a crippled state that it wouldnt stand much chance of making it home.

One advantage the German a/c had was their guns were mounted near the centreline of the a/c. Wing mounted guns in American and British a/c had a 'null' zone cone where their 'bullets' would miss the E/A if fired from to close in.

True.

 

[Glider]

I think that most people are agreeing on the effectiveness. All countries encouraged their pilots to get close before firing because hitting a moving twisting plane was so difficult. If pilots did that then it wouldn't really matter what guns you had, the target was likely to be history. Most pilots didn't get that close, most of the gun camera film that I have seen proves that.
Then you have to rely on the ability of the pilot to hit a target and that is when the differences in the guns start to count. A slower firing weapon with a poorer trajectory will not be as effective. I recognise that one hit from a 30mm 108 is all it needs to destroy a fighter, but most pilots wouldn't get that hit. The Aces would and did, which is why they were aces, an Average pilot is likely to miss. The 6 x 0.5 give the average pilot a much better chance of a hit. It may only damage the target but having a damaged plane in front makes it a lot less dangerous and your chances of getting it are considerably improved.

I always think that the USA were lucky that they never had to stop heavy bomber raids as the 0,5 would have been woefully inadaquate. They would have had to go to pods very quickly with all the problems that entailed.
At least the Germans with the 30mm in the 109 and the 4x 20 in the 190 had effective planes.

 

[Soren]

I recognise that one hit from a 30mm 108 is all it needs to destroy a fighter, but most pilots wouldn't get that hit. The Aces would and did, which is why they were aces, an Average pilot is likely to miss. The 6 x 0.5 give the average pilot a much better chance of a hit. It may only damage the target but having a damaged plane in front makes it a lot less dangerous and your chances of getting it are considerably improved.

Wich is why the Mk108 was an 'Auto-cannon' Despite what many people think, the Mk108 was an accurate cannon, and at 0-300m it was perfectly capable of hitting an evading foe. It might take 20-35 rounds to get a hit, but it only toulk 'one' hit and the enemy fighter was history. By comparison it would take an awful lot of 0.50 hits to bring down a fighter.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I always think that the USA were lucky that they never had to stop heavy bomber raids as the 0,5 would have been woefully inadaquate. They would have had to go to pods very quickly with all the problems that entailed.
At least the Germans with the 30mm in the 109 and the 4x 20 in the 190 had effective planes.

You bring up food for thought there Glider. The US was developing "bomber destroyers" (the XP-58 for example) with huge cannons that would of sunk a destroyer, but against a bomber?!?!. Had Germany developed long range bombers capable of reaching North America, have we ever given thought to the fact that they would be unescorted? Germany could barely keep a fighter over England for 30 minutes, you think they would of done much better over the US? And forget the jets, I'm talking ME 264 or JU 390.

 

[Glider]

Escorted or even unescorted the B17 and B24 took a lot of knocking down and that was with 20mm and 30mm guns. Using 0.5's would be a very risky business.
Also don't think just of attacks on the USA mainland. Anyway, the oceans around the USA are of a size that was only likely to happen from carriers at least initially. Heavy bomber raids on the islands that the USA used to attack Japan would have needed to have been stopped and I don't see a 0.5 as being the tool for the job. Heavy bombers escorted by even Zero's would have been a difficult combination. Zero's may lack speed and diving ability, but if you have to stay with the bombers then agility and endurance become more important and that they had in spades.

 

[Glider]

Soren
I am not questioning the accuracy of the 108, I agree that it was a very accurate weapon. Its the ability of an average pilot to aim it accurately using basic sights against a small(ish) target that is manoevering. We may need to agree to disagree but I think that the average pilot would have a better chance with 6 x 0.5 which were better at a longer range ballistically anyway, than with a 30mm 108 which most people agree was essentially a shorter ranged weapon.

 

[Soren]

but I think that the average pilot would have a better chance with 6 x 0.5 .

Sure he would have an easier time making a hit with the 6x0.50's, but it also toulk alot more of those hits to do any real damage. A single hit from the Mk108 would spell disaster for any Allied fighter, and at 300m the Mk108 was perfectly capable of hitting with every 10-20th round.

 

[Glider]

Soren
As I said I think its agree to disagree, both are good arguements.

Would anyone else like to comment on the merits of the two positions?