P-51's vs. Me-109's and Fw-190's

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

I have been looking around and the charts that I have found indicate that the 14 and K4 were close with the K4 having a speed advantage between 14 and 24 Thousand ft and the 14 faster below and above that band. This is using 18pd Boost in the 14 and 1.8 ATA on the K4. The absolute max of the K4 was 441MPH and it is noted that the often quoted 452 mph was an estimate using an experimental thin blade prop that didn't make production.
In climb the 14 had a small but consitant advantage at all altitudes.

It should be noted that the German figures are from German documents not Allied tests of German aircraft

Interesting reference only is made to a German paper that contains quote 'A devastating comparison between the Mustang and the 109' unfortunately this I have not been able to find.
 
Glider said:
The absolute max of the K4 was 441MPH and it is noted that the often quoted 452 mph was an estimate using an experimental thin blade prop that didn't make production.
Click to expand...

Please do tell where you've heard this...

Btw the K-4's began running at 1.98ata from Dec. 44. and top speed was 452 mph with this setting. (Max level speed with 1.8ata was 444 mph, and 441 mph with 1.75ata)
 

All good but C/L - max is rarely considered except during engine out emergencies and figuring out best glide over a distance (or unless we're talking about gliders). I assume these numbers are meant to be a ratio (1.48 to 1, 1.12 to 1, etc.) If so if you're gliding in either of these aircraft you better be doing it close to home because those numbers show both of them glide like a brick. The 1.48 to 1 (for the -109) , that means for every foot "down" you're moving forward 1.48 feet, and with those numbers shown I'm assuming it means that the -109 glides an extra 4 inches forward better than the Spit!
 
Soren said:
Please do tell where you've heard this...

Btw the K-4's began running at 1.98ata from Dec. 44. and top speed was 452 mph with this setting. (Max level speed with 1.8ata was 444 mph, and 441 mph with 1.75ata)
Click to expand...

1.98 was not cleared til late Feb 45 with service introduction in early Mar 45. Testing of 1.98 began in Dec with II./JG11 (have also seen 2./JG11). II./JG11 had 11 K-4s on strength Jan 1 45 (this does not mean servicable). In Mar 45 only 4 units had been authourized to to use 1.98: I. / JG 27(Bf 109 K-4), III. / JG 27( Bf 109 G-10), III. / JG 53( Bf 109 K-4), IV. / JG 53(Bf 109 K-4) with a total of 79 operational a/c. II/.JG11 was disbanded about the time 1.98 was authorized.

K-4s comprised only 21.8% of all 109s as of Jan 31 45 with 1st and 2cd line units.

1.98 required C3 and MW50. C3 was required by 190A a/c so the supply of enough of the scarce C3 to 109K units is questionable. C3 and B4 had severe quality problems beginning in late 1944.

This a translation of a German document.

"1.)Boost 1,8ata with B4 fuel
Reason for the meeting were the problems in "field" and at the serial production facility "Genshagen" because of the "white flame" effect during the use of the Higher output. First it is shown by Hr. Dr. Scherenberg how the "white flame" followed by burned pistons, develop. Because of the results of the engine knocking test the lower quality of the fuel is the main reason for the problems. DB has allready solved the problem with adjusting the ignition timing by 5°(???) . This allowes the use of "Sondernotleistung" and the 1.45 and 1.80ata settings. But because of later ignition , 50PS are lost during the "Sondernotleistung", Where the 1,45 ata setting doesn't lose power. DB although mentions the problems with the bad fit of the valvesitrings or the plug thread , that where reasons for the glow-ignition too. But because of improovments in the production these failurs are said to be canceled. All agreed and the decision was done, that all engines should get the new ignition time. The lose of power is not so critical. But, because of hints from DB (DaimlerBenz), there should be test flight with 5 planes within all alts, but especially above rated alt, to get knowledge about the power loose above rated alt.
END SHEET ONE

This will be done at II/JG11. It is asked, if the ignition timing can be set on old value
if better fuel quality is back. Answer is delayed till it is for sure that only better fuel is used, and if it is shown, that later ignition does have no influence on the planes perfromance. DB mentions that the later ignition point although is better for the plugs that have a thermal problem at all.
It is mentioned too, that the performance lose will be decrease with increasing engine run time , means with less oil lose. It indicates too, that new engines with less oil usage are better in performance than the ones with at first high usage and the lower usage of oil. From the troop should be taken 1 engine with 15-20h for oil consumption and performance tests to be done in Genshagen. Because the b4 fuel is mostly used in the east, the order for the new ignition point/time should get out asap by…

2.)1.98 boost with c3 fuel
the first report shows, that the test with the 1.9, and 1.98 boost had negative results. Then a telegram from Rechlin was shown (they tested 4 engines) that criticized the clearing of the Sondernotleistung by Gen. Ing. Paul direct from the company to A.Galland bevor sufficient tests were done. Rechlin although defend themselves, that they did NOT give the new boost free for the Troop. (looks like some thought they did). DB on the other hand shows their positive test results for the 1.9 , 1.98 usage.
They say, that the clearance for the 1.98 boost was given with the same TAGL (?) (think a kind of order) as the 1.8 ata boost was cleared..both on the same day!.
SHEET THREE

It was then decided (after hearing all the reports) than currently only II/JG11 should test the 1.98 boost and that the 1.9ata engine test should be finished when the engines failed. (so no more test after them). The JG should then only get 1.8 ata engine supplies. Heavy punnishment is threaten when this order is not followed. The 1.98 clearance decission may only come from department 4 of general staff. It is suggested that some recon planes should be equiped with 1.98 boost. Decission was not done. To disburden the current 1.98 and 1.9 engines it is suggested to give them the new ignition time too. So, all engines flowen with the sondernotleistung will Be set to the new ignition point/time.

The JG's in field complain about the plug failurs. Especially in the last time the number of failurs increased. DB reports about improoved plug modells and better quality control e.g. with x-ray controlling. Again DB points out that the cooling of the 109 is insufficient and wishes that the LW will solve this problem asap. This was mentioned by Gen.-Ing Paul and arrangements where done instandly. DB points out that the performance of the "cell" (fuselage/wings) is extremely bad, and even worser J. It makes no sense to increase the power output of the engine when on the other side the plane quality is decreasing dramatically. Is is reported that a coparison of a 109 with a mustang was arranged for Mr. Sauer, but he failed to come. The result of the comparison was, spoken of produktion quality only, shocking for the 109.

SHEET FOUR
At the end of the meeting, from Mr. Dr. Scherenberg points out that DB allready is testing a boost up to 2.3ata (J). But it can be not juged in any way because of only a low test base at the moment. "
 
The November 1944 edition of the Flight Handbook for the K4 states that the max pressure boost was 1.75.
Orders from the OKL ChefTLR F1. E. 3V reported that tests at 1.98 couldn't be reported as the engines failed.
Daimler Benz reports that 1.98 boost not released due to failure of all the engines for the test (internal memo 6642)
Memo 6730 testing to be undertaken at 1.98 by Group 2/11 but only 1.8 engines supplied for combat with strict punishment if this is ignored. This memo also refers to the Mustang copmparison
Meeting held at Rechlin on 16th Jan concludes that 1.98 is not to be used on front line. Memo 6731

The comment about the top speed is based on the Projektburo estimate of 19.1.45 using a 9-12159 prop. The experimental one was a 9-12199 Dunnblatt.

I attach copies of memo 6730 and 6731. My German isn't that good so feel free to comment in case I got anything wrong.
 

Attachments

  • 109_k4_memo_6731_180.jpg
    90.2 KB · Views: 642
  • db-minute-6730_136.pdf
    2 MB · Views: 283
Kranz and I seem to have found a similar set of papers and different complimentary ones. Put it together and I don't think the K4 at 1.98 was a viable option if you wanted to make it back to the airfield.
 

I agree 100%
 

Close enough for me.
 
I think it really does come down to what you using the aircraft for. Obviously a P-47 is a better ground attack aircraft than P-51. The Spit is a better intereceptor than the P-47. The P-51 is the better escort fighter. So and so forth. Each aircraft of each nationality had what it was really good at.
 

Exactly!

wmaxt
 
The P-38 could have been the plane very easily but production was never high enough. The AAF averaged 1,200 servicable P-38s World wide at any one time in '43 and 2,500 in '44/'45. It was only second sourced in Jan. '45!

The Fw-190 was very versatile too able to effectively fill many rolls.

The P-47 was good to, at least equal to the '51 interestingly in '44 it cost only $11,569 less than the P-38, $85,578 to $97,147.

wmaxt
 
wmaxt said:
The P-38 could have been the plane very easily but production was never high enough. The AAF averaged 1,200 servicable P-38s World wide at any one time in '43 and 2,500 in '44/'45. It was only second sourced in Jan. '45! wmaxt
Click to expand...

Who was the second source?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
S
HELP A NEWBIE - FW 190's on Drive to Leningrad
Replies
8
Views
2K
sopwith21
S
FW-190 and The Battle of Britain
2
Replies
25
Views
730
yulzari
S
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
9K
GregP
J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
753
Jerrybandit67
J
Menu
Log in
Register