Late 1941 - late 42: Bf-109 vs. Fw-190

[stona]

The performance data obtained at Rechlin (either for W.Nr. 14010 or 14011) gives a maximum speed at 12,000m of 660 kph for a G-1/R2. I've no idea to what the 700 kph refers.

A primary source is generally accepted to be a contemporary source of data,that is a document or similar created at the time being studied. It does not have to be original. A copy of Magna Carta is just as valid as the original in a study of the Barons' revolt.

Cheers

Steve

 

[69TA]

The performance data obtained at Rechlin (either for W.Nr. 14010 or 14011) gives a maximum speed at 12,000m of 660 kph for a G-1/R2. I've no idea to what the 700 kph refers.

What is your reference for that 660 km/h speed at 12000m? It seems highly unlikely that any 109 powered by a 605A engine would reach such a speed at high altitude without the use of nitrous or methanol.

Oh, I thought you understod that the 700km/h figure is the absolute top speed for the plane at level flight. For this model type is happens to be at around 6000m. The top speed at level flight at 12000m is by Vogt stated to be 590km/h.

And Steve, with all due respect, you know that internet did not exist in the 1940s. If you support a claim with a reference to a webpage the status of your reference is no more than of a secondary (at best).

 

[drgondog]

Yea right buddy. The attitude You try to practice are apparently based on some internet pages - and they are also secondary not primary as you seem to think. Come back with Your attitude when you have a Phd thesis from a respectable institute on the subject. Until then, your info is no better than the one I referred to.

Comparing performance info from different sources makes little sense to me. Anyone who want to compare are better off using info from one source only (such as Rechlin for instance)

Fair enough but a well documented single source is a useful place to reference and begin the dialogue..

Carry on.

Attitude cuts both ways, does it not?

Vogt states the following production numbers for the G1:
Mtt R Werknr 14004-14070 67 (units) G-1
Mtt R 14071-14149 79 G-1/R2
Erla 10299-10318 20 G-1

So a grand total of 166 units of the G-1 model built.

The only weight stated by Vogt for a G-1 are for a G-1/R2 and he claims 2970kg. For that same model he also claims the climb rate to be 22m/s, the ceiling 12 600m and as mentioned 700km/h top speed.

OK - Nowarra cites G-1 empty weight as 2700 and 'all up weight' as 3150 with a useful load of 450kg. His tables have 623km/hr. What should we infer? Any useful data regarding altitudes for the data points presented, fuel load at altitude (therefore gross weight different from take off?). Nowarra has the equivalent table top speed for the F-4 at 635km/hr.

Might we infer that Vogt could have been mistaken to cite a G-1/R2 at 700km/hr top dash speed? The difference between Vogt and Nowarra would seem to be the R2 congig for gross weight - making the 700km/hr equally suspect.

On the thread subject of comparing different models, Vogt states the following performance numbers for an F-4. Top speed 670km/h,weight 2740kg, climb rate 17m/s and a ceiling of 11 800m.

You laid a pretty heavy hand a couple of posts above without setting up the conversation to reveal your standards and methods as 'impeccable'. Then you threw out a series of data without context... such as altitude, weight for the test data, flight data used to set the plots, the plots, the condition of the airframe (such as surface finish like factory camo, etc), standard production model, engine condition, etc.

And in which universe does Tomo have to possess a PhD to accurately reflect what he reads and absorbs? You may disagree, you have that right.

But, what did you just bring to the table that you believe should command Tomo's instant respect and credibility?

Just curious..

 

[69TA]

Nothing wrong being curious. But, by the way what did You bring to the table to command anything?

I never commanded anything from tomo. It was tomo that disrespected me by belitteling my reference to a secondary source and demanding authority for His claim because of his reference to a single internet source. Pretty low I think.

Since when became a Internet reference a more valuable source than an physical book?
Is a pdf-scan of a certain paper published on a web-page more valuable than publishing the same piece of information and picture in a book?
Do you guys have a specific standard for making statements about old airplanes?
Just curious...

 

[stona]

What is your reference for that 660 km/h speed at 12000m? It seems highly unlikely that any 109 powered by a 605A engine would reach such a speed at high altitude without the use of nitrous or methanol.

If you go back to the post where I originally posted the data I said it was with GM-1.

I pulled the figure from Peter Schmoll's book on Messerschmitt production,his source was documents from Rechlin. The figure without GM-1 was given by Rechlin as 560 kph at the same altitude. (That's 348 mph and 410 mph respectively in "old money").
Technically that is a secondary source as I don't think that I have the documents he refers to,and I'm not looking now

If a web page reproduces a document from the relevant period as Kurfurst's does then that document is still a primary source. You might not agree with some of Kurfurst's conclusions ( I don't) but there's nothing wrong with the documents he has posted for all to see and for that he deserves the credit.

A document printed in a book has exactly the same status to a historian as one reproduced on a web site. The original source should be cited in order that it can be checked.

You are perfectly entitled to give the figures you did and the source as Vogt's book. You can't expect them to go unchallenged by people who may have different figures.There's no need to take it personally,this is a discussion forum.
I'm not familiar with Vogt's book and have no opinion of him as a writer. I will say that there are plenty of books out there with mistakes and errors. Even Jochen Prien's seminal book on the Bf 109 F/G has been shown to have a few mistakes. If someone of his authority can make mistakes (or more accurately be surpassed by further research) imagine what the many lesser authors do.

As a matter of interest what primary source does Vogt give for his figures for the G-1?

Cheers

Steve

 

[tomo pauk]

...

I never commanded anything from tomo. It was tomo that disrespected me by belitteling my reference to a secondary source and demanding authority for His claim because of his reference to a single internet source. Pretty low I think.
...

It was this sentence:

And your sources are the internet references you made right?

that stirred me. If you want respect, not the best way to gain one. I've replied in a similar manner.
I was certainly not beliteling your reference in any way, naming something as a secondary source is not an insult. If Bf-190G-1 ever made 700 km/h, Kurfurst would be the 1st person to post it on hi's site. A site that you might or might not like, but a) I does contain primary sources, and b) it is easily reachable for all the forum members, unlike the book you deem to be as good as primary source.

 

[drgondog]

Nothing wrong being curious. But, by the way what did You bring to the table to command anything?

Which table? Aerodynamics, Airframe Structures, Performance, Flight Mechanics, History, Finite element methods for pressure distribution, Finite element/relaxation methods for airframe Structural analsis? Pick one.

I confess I haven't written a Doctoral thesis, but I managed to bumble my way throught a MS Degree in Aerospace Engineering. My MS thesis was probably simple stuff for you but I'm open to criticism on "Effect of Geometry of a Rotor Centerbody Immersed in a Ducted Fan" - Univ Texas 1972. I used Complex variables to model source/sink distributions to drive both the flow through the system, changes to the geometry of the centerbody, and calculate the pressure distributions. How would you suggest that I should have done it?

I can't compete with the giants but I did pioneer finite element/relaxation methods for airframe structures on the SR-71 and the Bell 209/AH-G Iranian Cobra with NASTRAN and it was the first computer method accepted by the US Army. Not up to your standards, I'm sure but I did the very best my limited capacity enabled me to achieve... and you?

I never commanded anything from tomo. It was tomo that disrespected me by belitteling my reference to a secondary source and demanding authority for His claim because of his reference to a single internet source. Pretty low I think.

Tomo didn't belittle you. If you believe that, your 'feelers' are incredibly sensitive to any comment about your way of thinking below the level of worship or adulation. If that is what you seek here, your fragile ego will be crushed beyond recovery going forward.

Since when became a Internet reference a more valuable source than an physical book?

Well, trick question! But when they are one and the same there is no 'advantage' one way or the other. On the other hand you must compete with the largest and most accessible library and knowledge repository on the earth - with your single 'physical book'. Are you a world class sprinter or a one legged man in an ass kicking contest?

Is a pdf-scan of a certain paper published on a web-page more valuable than publishing the same piece of information and picture in a book?

See above for clarification. Read two or more times for comprehension?

Do you guys have a specific standard for making statements about old airplanes?
Just curious...

Polite discourse is a great start. And BTW I will receive a slap on my paws for being sarcastic - either back channel or publically - for violating both the forum and my own standards. So, I will apologise in advance for my comments.

Having said that, occasional listening instead of talking or farting in public will usually gain more respect among a group of pretty damned knowledgable folks. I could be wrong of course. I am often wrong but rarely uncertain.

 

[Denniss]

The 640 km/h for the G-2 is impossible with fully rated engine, even the heavier and bulkier G-6 achieved ~645km/h as max. This G-2 speed is obviously with derated engine.
The Bf 109G typically achieved its max speed roughly 500m above the rated alt of the engine.
~625 km/h is the typical max speed for Bf 109 G-6 at climb&combat power rating.
The 700 km/h are a bit irritating indeed, could only be the weight-saving G-1 version or a G-1 with GM-1.

 

[Denniss]

Since when became a Internet reference a more valuable source than an physical book?
Is a pdf-scan of a certain paper published on a web-page more valuable than publishing the same piece of information and picture in a book?
Do you guys have a specific standard for making statements about old airplanes?
Just curious...

It all depends on the book, too many lousy books in the market or those replicating way outdated information. Then we have books that just use other books as reference, copying also the errors of these books.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yea right buddy. The attitude You try to practice are apparently based on some internet pages - and they are also secondary not primary as you seem to think. Come back with Your attitude when you have a Phd thesis from a respectable institute on the subject. Until then, your info is no better than the one I referred to.

Comparing performance info from different sources makes little sense to me. Anyone who want to compare are better off using info from one source only (such as Rechlin for instance)

Carry on.

And your attitude is disrespectful.

Carry on lightly.

 

[Glider]

Yes the G1 had a pressurized cockpit and the G2 did not, but more important was the G1 was stripped down in weight compared to the G2.

It is not clear if nitrous injection (GM-1) was a standard for any 109 model type. What is clear is that it was an Umrustsatz (U2) available. For the G5 model type it is possible that all were factory built with the U2 and that would make an argument for the G5 as being standard equiped with nitrous.

I am not an expert in this area but if the G1 had the Pressurised cockpit and the G2 didn't, but the G1 was weighed less, how can they be basically the same aircraft?

I say this as the pressurisation would have added weight to the aircraft so something had to give if the weight was reduced. Normally I would expect the G2 without the pressurisation to weigh less than the G1 with pressurisation or am I missing something.

 

[stona]

I am not an expert in this area but if the G1 had the Pressurised cockpit and the G2 didn't, but the G1 was weighed less, how can they be basically the same aircraft?

You'd be correct but a few (about 80) G-1s were lightened by the removal of some armour and by a smaller ammunition load. These were designated G-1/R2 and were a stop gap high altitude interceptor. Lightening was required for the type to reach its service ceiling.

I suspect that a standard G-1 weighed at least as much as a G-2 and possibly more for the reasons you have given but I haven't got the figures to hand.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Glider]

Thanks for this. So if I go back to the original question on the first posting

For many people, the advent of the Fw-190 was a tough thing for the RAF in ETO. OTOH, many of the Bf-109 'people' tend to point out that Bf-109F was at least as good, if not better, prior 1943. So what one was better as an all-around fighter plane, in said time frame?

We are now being asked to compare a standard early 190A2 , 4 x 20mm, 2 x LMG very good protection, excellent performance and agility. To a lightened 109G1, 1 x 20mm and 2 x LMG (with reduced ammunition), no pilot armour, no drop tank, specialist high altitude fighter with very limited range (climbing to high altitude would eat up the fuel)

There is no contest, the better all round fighter aircraft is the Fw190, how can it be anything else?

 

[stona]

The first G-1s,including a couple of the lightened ones,went to Rechlin in March 1942 for testing. Despite the many problems encountered they were soon (May?) sent to the Channel front.
JG 2 and JG 26 both had some. They were supposed to enable interception of the RAF's high altitude bombers and reconnaissance aircraft,presumably meaning PR Spitfires and of course Mosquitos which were appearing around this time and obsessed the Luftwaffe for the rest of the war.
They were also used as high altitude protection for the Fw 190s whose BMW 801 engines did not perform well at altitude.
JG 1 (I think then in Holland) and JG 5 in Norway also received the type early on.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Glider]

Stona
Thanks for this

69TA
Am I right when I have said what you are asking us to compare the early Fw190 with?

 

[69TA]

The 640 km/h for the G-2 is impossible with fully rated engine, even the heavier and bulkier G-6 achieved ~645km/h as max. This G-2 speed is obviously with derated engine.
The Bf 109G typically achieved its max speed roughly 500m above the rated alt of the engine.
~625 km/h is the typical max speed for Bf 109 G-6 at climb&combat power rating.
The 700 km/h are a bit irritating indeed, could only be the weight-saving G-1 version or a G-1 with GM-1.

Yes, I would agree that 640km/h for the G2 seems low for full boost (1.42ata). That speed seem more likely for 1.3ata boost (maybe that is what you mean with derated?).

As pointed out by others above , many different sources stated max speed for the G-1 to around 650-662km/h. According to the information on the Kurfürst-site (that many apparently think highly of here) the speed of 660km/h was with the lower boost of 1.3ata (stieg und kampfleistung) To me, it is obvious that max speed of the G-1 at the higher 1.42ata boost would be higher. Then was it actually 700km/h? The question has to be adressed and answered by the source I gave (Vogt). His book is almost brand new so it is fair to assume that he had access to all of the other sources that has been mentioned in this thread.

By the way, I do not consider wikipedia as a reliable source but I must point out that the same figure, 700km/h for the G-1 is stated there FWIW...

 

[Juha]

Yes, I would agree that 640km/h for the G2 seems low for full boost (1.42ata). That speed seem more likely for 1.3ata boost (maybe that is what you mean with derated?).

As pointed out by others above , many different sources stated max speed for the G-1 to around 650-662km/h. According to the information on the Kurfürst-site (that many apparently think highly of here) the speed of 660km/h was with the lower boost of 1.3ata (stieg und kampfleistung) To me, it is obvious that max speed of the G-1 at the higher 1.42ata boost would be higher. Then was it actually 700km/h? The question has to be adressed and answered by the source I gave (Vogt). His book is almost brand new so it is fair to assume that he had access to all of the other sources that has been mentioned in this thread.

By the way, I do not consider wikipedia as a reliable source but I must point out that the same figure, 700km/h for the G-1 is stated there FWIW...

The Rechling tested 649km/h as max speed for G-1 with 1.3 ata, 700km/h is clearly too much for the power increase achieved by increasing boost to 1.42 ata. GM-1 might explain at least partly so big increase in speed. At what height the speed was achieved according to Voigt?

Juha

 

[drgondog]

The first G-1s,including a couple of the lightened ones,went to Rechlin in March 1942 for testing. Despite the many problems encountered they were soon (May?) sent to the Channel front.
JG 2 and JG 26 both had some. They were supposed to enable interception of the RAF's high altitude bombers and reconnaissance aircraft,presumably meaning PR Spitfires and of course Mosquitos which were appearing around this time and obsessed the Luftwaffe for the rest of the war.
They were also used as high altitude protection for the Fw 190s whose BMW 801 engines did not perform well at altitude.
JG 1 (I think then in Holland) and JG 5 in Norway also received the type early on.
Cheers
Steve

Steve - when you think Fw 190's 'needed protection' before late 1943 at the earliest? JG 1 and 5 may have had them but which combined bomber fleet/escort was pressing LW in 1942 or even 1943 that would have required say a G5 or G6AS?

 

[The Basket]

I recall in the Battle of Britain...the Hurricane got the majority of kills while the Spitfire got the news.

The Germans believed the Hurricane rubbish while the Spitfire was the driving force in more powerful 109s.

So the perception was way off. Also the 190 was all new and unknown and so I bet some of its true abilities was wildly exaggerated. It became a bogeyman and not just another good fighter. ...bit like the Zero.

 

[delcyros]

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/bf-109-gm1-performances-11480.html

From an earlier discussion. It appeared that the -109G6 with 1.3 ata (DB 605A) and GM-1 boost attained a top speed of 685 Km/h. Thus, the aerodynamically cleaner G1 should be expected to be faster than the -G6.
In consequence, the 700 km/h figure is not entirely unjustified in my perspective for 1.3 ata GM1. Whether or not
GM1 can also be used in connection with 1.42 ata appears to be unclear.
The -109G5AS with DB605AS and GM1 boost should be the fastest hi alt fighter pre Ta-152H in the inventory of the GAF.