Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
... To the contrary it appears Luftwaffe was pleased with performance and low cost of late war Me-109 variants.
Germans produced massive amount of 109G-6s because they had not anything better at that time, not because they were very satisfied with it anymore.
rtA lot depends on timing. The small cylinder but many cylindered engine has several advantages over a large cylinder engine.
1. The small cylinders offer better cooling. Both due to a higher cylinder wall to volume ratio and and a shorter path for the heat to travel from center of piston to cylinder walls. This allows for higher compression or higher boost than the big cylinder engine can use.
2. The smaller reciprocating parts allow for higher rpm. The DB 604 could turn about 18% more rpm than the DB 603.
3. The smaller cylinders should show higher volumetric efficiency than large ones.
During early 1944 USA was flying P-51B and early model P-47s. Many RAF squadrons were still flying Spit V.
DB605 engine technical problems were finally fixed and water injection was being introduced. I don't think German aircraft performance was a problem. The real issue was a huge fuel shortage for operations and pilot training.
Most German daytime aerial combat took place at 2,000 meters. An altitude where standard model Me-109G6 was right at home.
JG2 and JG51 should have gotten high altitude engines but high altitude engines would have been pointless for most Me-109Gs.
I will assume this is reference to the Eastern front air war, because the airwar over the western front could range from treetop level to roughly 5 miles high......but high altitude engines would have been pointless for most Me-109Gs.
During early 1944 USA was flying P-51B and early model P-47s. Many RAF squadrons were still flying Spit V.
DB605 engine technical problems were finally fixed and water injection was being introduced. I don't think German aircraft performance was a problem.
Better handling on greater fuel means a bigger wing is needed. This is what Italian fighters achieved (at least the G.55 and Re.2005). Bigger wing also means lower speed, as it can be seen when we compare the Series 5 fighters one with another and then with Bf 109. 109 was fastest, along with MC.205N, but MC.205N could not carry the 2 cannons in the wings. Hence the MC.205V, with bigger wing, cannons, and also some 10 km/h speed loss.
Basically, there ain't such thing as a free lunch.
DB605 engine technical problems were finally fixed and water injection was being introduced. I don't think German aircraft performance was a problem. The real issue was a huge fuel shortage for operations and pilot training.
Given who it was who made those remarks, I assume they were most heavily leveled from the perspective of experienced pilots and raw aircraft performance. The Fw 190 had the additional advantages over the 109 in easier handling on the ground and in the air, reducing accidents for all but especially novice pilots.That's basically what Generalleutnants Galland and Schmid said during postwar interrogation as well.
"Our technical development program was not planned far enough into the future ... This was a mistake of tremendous scope. For example, the Me 262, the further development of the Fw 190, the gyro computing sight, engines of more than 2000 hp and many other developments were thus all delayed.
In the effort to raise production figures of items in series production, new developments were not forced into series models with the necessary pressure ... In addition, there was a certain dangerous (and partly unwarrented) self-satisfaction at every new technical advance.
For this reason the Me 109 was not taken out of series production for years, although this was absolutely necessary on the basis of performance figures from 1943 on. Similarly the beginning of the new series of Fw 190 and of the Ta 152 was so delayed as to be almost ineffective."
In their ideal scenarios there would have been a faster conversion to the Fw 190 and less use of the Me 109 in 1942, replacement of the Me 109 introduced in 1943, and complete phase out by 1944.
Given the added weight and drag on later P-47 models, wouldn't retrofitted C and (especially) Early D models have BETTER performance than later models, particularly ones lacking the expanded fuel capacity and wing pylons. (sure it limited operational range and bombload, but IF they came into contact with 109s, they'd be more potent fighting machines aside from the poorer situational awareness of the razorback configuration retaining the birdcage canopy -still better visibility than the 109G)Hmmm, In Nov 1943 water injection is being fitted to P-47D-20s on the production line and modification kits are being fitted to "older" aircraft in England. Most aircraft are refitted by the end of 1943.
Dec, 1943 sees "older" P-47s in England being refitted with paddle-blade props, one squadron at a time. Wonder how the 109G-6 does against an "old" P-47 with water injection and a paddle-blade prop?
First "early" P-47Ds showed up in England May of 1943 and by June were in service with 3 different fighter groups in the 8th Air Force even if not fully replacing P-47Cs.
In Feb 1944 preparations were being made to increase boost on existing engines in the field from 56in MAP to 64in MAP by refitting the water injection system with large jets and modifying other parts (fuel pumps, water pumps and turbo regulators)
But the 109s should have no trouble dealing with such "early model" aircraft...... right?
Given the overall size, weight, and armaments carried, wouldn't a DB-605 powered Fw 190 derivative (particularly with the lighter, earlier A models as the basis) have a lot in common with the G.55, and especially R.2005? (possibly MC.205 if you go back to the older, smaller wing of Fw 190 prototypes and early A-0 airframes, or MC.202 with the DB-601)I am not sure. All series 5 fighters appear to be much cleaner than the Bf 109 and with more advanced wing profiles. The inferior speed of the tests could be result of derated italian DB 605s plus inferior propellers.
If you add under wing guns in to 109 to have the same armament as the italian fighters ,the 109 is clearly inferior. Also with their greater fuel capacity the series 5 fighters can operate at higher power levels longer than the 109.
Finally with their overall bigger size could recieve easier additional cooling devices to allow more powerful vertions of the DB605
In this regard (and in terms of the X layout) the DB-604 is rather like Rolls Royce's Vulture, with the DB-603 more akin to the Griffon (or R), though Development priority at Rolls Royce proceeded a fair bit differently.A lot depends on timing. The small cylinder but many cylindered engine has several advantages over a large cylinder engine.
1. The small cylinders offer better cooling. Both due to a higher cylinder wall to volume ratio and and a shorter path for the heat to travel from center of piston to cylinder walls. This allows for higher compression or higher boost than the big cylinder engine can use.
2. The smaller reciprocating parts allow for higher rpm. The DB 604 could turn about 18% more rpm than the DB 603.
3. The smaller cylinders should show higher volumetric efficiency than large ones.
In this regard (and in terms of the X layout) the DB-604 is rather like Rolls Royce's Vulture, with the DB-603 more akin to the Griffon (or R), though Development priority at Rolls Royce proceeded a fair bit differently.
I do wonder if a V-16 arrangement would have been any easier to work with, more a compromise between larger displacement V-12s and more complex multi-bank configurations. (plus should have lower frontal area than similar displacement V-12s, X-24s, or H-24s)
An inverted V-16 using the DB-601's bore and stroke would have given slightly higher volume than the 603 and (in theory) significantly better volumetric efficiency at given compression/boost and fuel grade as well. (ideally, similar or better than what the DB-601 managed)