Realistic max speeds WW2 fighters / Speeds of the late 109s

Siegfried said:

We have very few measurements of Me 109 roll rate that I am aware of and a lot of subjective opinions. Much of these opinions come from evaluations of early Me 109E against fabric aileron Spitfires. We also have documents to show that a spitfire could obtain greater aileron deflection for the same amount of force when flying at high speed (low medium speed roll of the 109 was rated as excellent), what is not noted however is that the Me 109 had stiff wings that did not twist which force, aeroelasticity severely hampered the spitfire aircraft and forced the pilot to produce greater deflections. .

Click to expand...

And from where, exactly, does this great revelation come? Throughout the war, tests showed that various Spitfires could turn inside the 109. As each new mark of 109 was captured, it was evaluated against the current Allied aircraft, so records were always advancing. In 1940, it was found that the main constraints, on RAF aircraft, were because of the physical conditions on the pilot, not the airframe; test pilots found that the sitting position, in the 109, with legs almost straight out in front, meant that the pilot suffered the effects of G later than a Spitfire or Hurricane pilot. Once the two-position rudder pedals were introduced, RAF pilots were able to cope better, due to the later onset of "blacking-out."
In that report, it says that the Spitfire XIV (with exactly the same wing construction as the Spitfire I/II/V) could easily turn inside the Tempest, which was "slightly better" than the 109G; it would therefore appear logical to say that the Spitfire could easily turn inside the 109. There is nothing, in any Spitfire's Pilot's Notes, from Mark II to XIV, restricting the pilot in turn manouevres; as early as the Mk.II, it simply says "Rolling Speed should be anywhere between 180 and 300 m.p.h.." On the XIV the speed was reduced to 220-250, but a climbing roll was permitted at 350-450. The only prohibited manouevres were flick types.
"Aeroelasticity" is a new one to me, but, if the Spitfire wing was so weak, how did 2nd TAF manage to hang a couple of 250lb. bombs under the wings of the IX, XVI XIV? As far as I remember the 109 could only carry a single bomb under the fuselage. From the Mk.I, inspections were introduced to check for wrinkling of wings after heavy manouevring; only if the leading edge D box showed signs, or the rest of the wing had wrinkles above 1/10", was the wing changed.
If by "greater deflections," you mean during firing, this was actually done to increase the chance of hitting the pilot, from the side, since neither the .303" or the .5" had enough penetrative power to go through German armour; it's also why the RAF stayed with the .303" for so long, since 4 of them threw out more lead per second than 2 of the slower-firing .5".
Incidentally, I was not casting any personal aspersions against Vanir; you can only use what information you're given, and checking on its veracity is not easy. So far, I've been through over 2000 files, in our archives, and some of the revelations (against perceived "truths") are breathtaking.

In fact according to DVL wing twist test on Bf 109F-2, which also gave roll rate for the plane, 109F-2 rolled worse than the standard wing Spitfire in the figure 47 NACA 868 report at all speeds, paramets used: around 3km height and with 50lb stick force. The difference was marked (over 10deg/sec) at IAS speeds under 260mph, small (under 5deg/sec) from 275 to 300 mph IAS. It maxed at Spit's max roll rate speed 200mph IAS being 33deg/sec., and was smallest at 109's max roll rate speed 280mph IAS being 3deg/sec. At 390mph IAS normal wing Spit rolled 14deg/sec faster than the F-2 used by DVL.

One must remember that 109G had a bit stiffer wing than 109F, wing skin at roots was a bit thicker.

Juha

Edgar Brooks said:

And from where, exactly, does this great revelation come?

In that report, it says that the Spitfire XIV (with exactly the same wing construction as the Spitfire I/II/V) could easily turn inside the Tempest, which was "slightly better" than the 109G; it would therefore appear logical to say that the Spitfire could easily turn inside the 109.


There is nothing, in any Spitfire's Pilot's Notes, from Mark II to XIV, restricting the pilot in turn manouevres; as early as the Mk.II, it simply says "Rolling Speed should be anywhere between 180 and 300 m.p.h.." On the XIV the speed was reduced to 220-250, but a climbing roll was permitted at 350-450. The only prohibited manouevres were flick types.
"Aeroelasticity" is a new one to me, but, if the Spitfire wing was so weak, how did 2nd TAF manage to hang a couple of 250lb. bombs under the wings of the IX, XVI XIV? As far as I remember the 109 could only carry a single bomb under the fuselage. From the Mk.I, inspections were introduced to check for wrinkling of wings after heavy manouevring; only if the leading edge D box showed signs, or the rest of the wing had wrinkles above 1/10", was the wing changed.
If by "greater deflections," you mean during firing, this was actually done to increase the chance of hitting the pilot, from the side, since neither the .303" or the .5" had enough penetrative power to go through German armour; it's also why the RAF stayed with the .303" for so long, since 4 of them threw out more lead per second than 2 of the slower-firing .5".
Incidentally, I was not casting any personal aspersions against Vanir; you can only use what information you're given, and checking on its veracity is not easy. So far, I've been through over 2000 files, in our archives, and some of the revelations (against perceived "truths") are breathtaking.

Click to expand...

The very reason the Spitfire 20+ was created was to accept a completely new wing structure more resistant to torsion so as to improve roll rate, which was rather poor at speed in standard wing spitfires by latter ww2 standards.

Power effects turn radious as well. Turns are measured in terms of radious without loosing height. If the aircraft has improved power it can avoid the height loss. This is probably more critical in the Me 109 in turning flight as the increased drag that occurs from slat deployment will slow the aircraft down. I believe the tests were Tempest v Me 109G6 whereas at the time of the tempest introduction the G6ASM or G6AM or G14 would have been the latest type.

In anycast I am refering to roll rate not turn radious. I have never seen a roll rate vs speed chart for an Me 109. We have snippets of information eg 109 test shows roll rate of over 80° at speeds over 450km/h, stickforces of more than 25kg. Other factors in manouverabillity were roll rate and bank rate, 'instantaneous manouverabillity" and of course and aircraft with an inferior turn radious may still have a superior turn time.

The spitfires wing wasn't 'weak' but rather prone to twisting in the opposit direction of the aileron deflection; this is a product of its thinness and the use of only a single main spar.

Juha, do you have a link to the DVL report?

Just from snooping around the data TAS at 3km.

Max roll rate of Bf 109F-2, at 30kg/66lbs stickforce 3000m TAS

200 kph = 45 deg/sec (0.8rad)
300 kph = 68 deg/sec (1.2rad)
400 kph = 83 deg/sec (1.45rad)
480 kph = 20kg/44lbs limit
500 kph = 88 deg/sec (1.55rad)
600 kph = 91 deg/sec (1.6rad) - peak value
700 kph = 56 deg/sec (0.98rad)
800 kph = 23 deg/sec (0.4rad)

In IAS

600km/h TAS = around 510km/h IAS = 91°
700km/h TAS = around 595km/h IAS = 56°
800km/h TAS = around 680km/h IAS = 23°

So if we have a look at Me 109 roll rate at 700kmh (IAS 595kmh or 368mph) it is 56 degrees/second it is EXACTLY the same as a normal wing spitfire at the same speed albeit at 30kg (66kg) stickforce instead of 50lbs.

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1947/naca-report-868.pdf

The 109 had no problems rolling with the US navy fighters.

The Me 109 was far from immobile.

Hello Siegfried
yes, the point is that with same 30kg/66lb stick force Spit would roll better than with 50lb stick force, so if we compared apples to apples, Spit rolled better according to these 2 tests. One must remember that Frise-type ailerons used in Spits and Fw 190s were prone to rigging errors.

and even if according to NACA 868 at lower speeds 109F rolled better than F4F-3 and F6F-3, again with 50lb stick force at 10.000ft the tables turned at 320mph IAS for F4F-3 and at 312 mph IAS for F6F-3. It seems to be a general fact that US figters rolled better at high speeds than 109F and in matter of fact also better than normal wing Spit.

On DVL report only a paper photocopy, no link or scanner, sorry
Juha

GregP said:

All you 109 fans, remember the Luftwaffe was shot out of the sky by the Soviets in mid-1943 - 1945 after having done the same to the Soviets in earlier times. The ground troops were soundly defeated (yes, with the help of winter, which the Soviets had been counting on, but is true nonetheless). They did it with FUEL, good pilots, tactics, and from having learned what did NOT work. Many Luftwaffe 109's and 190's were lost to even P-39's, which were not bad at all when able to fight at 12,000 feet or less. Check the Soviet scores and see.

True, Hartmann, Barkhorn, and Rall were on that front and achieved their scores, but they were not always in the right place at the right time. Don't even try to tell me that they weren't harassed and even shot down themselves, they were. Hartman was shot down 16 times and Rall was shot donw 8 times. Don't have the figures for Barkhorn just now. After all, they were only three guys and three Messerschmitts, even though they were the best.

Click to expand...

The VVS always came a day late and a dollar short to the Luftwaffe:

1941 shot down 5000 VVS a/c - Luftwaffe lost - 600
1942 shot down 8000 VVS a/c - Luftwaffe lost - 500
1943 shot down 9000 VVS a/c - Luftwaffe lost - 800
1944 shot down 9000 VVS a/c - Luftwaffe lost - 1100
1945 shot down 2000 VVS a/c - Luftwaffe lost - 1000

* source Gemeinschaft der Jagdflieger

Hartmann force landed 14 times. 1 due to enemy a/c, 13 - flak/debris from other a/c

I would note that the leading edge slats were patented by Handley Page ( with a German co-holder Gustav Lachmann ) and had been used on certain British aircraft since the early 30s. The Hampden may have had them, the first 50 Halifaxes had them, the Whirlwind had them along with several other aircraft besides the Lysander. The exact mechanical linkage may have varied but I would say that the British had a fair knowledge of the leading edge slat/slot, at least it should not have been a total unknown to the British (or allied) scientific community.

Shortround6 said:

I would note that the leading edge slats were patented by Handley Page ( with a German co-holder Gustav Lachmann ) and had been used on certain British aircraft since the early 30s. The Hampden may have had them, the first 50 Halifaxes had them, the Whirlwind had them along with several other aircraft besides the Lysander. The exact mechanical linkage may have varied but I would say that the British had a fair knowledge of the leading edge slat/slot, at least it should not have been a total unknown to the British (or allied) scientific community.

Click to expand...

So did the Fairey Swordfish on the upper wing.

File:Fairey Swordfish on Airfield.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Siegfried said:

The very reason the Spitfire 20+ was created was to accept a completely new wing structure more resistant to torsion so as to improve roll rate, which was rather poor at speed in standard wing spitfires by latter ww2 standards..

Click to expand...

No, it was created to enable the wing to carry 2 x 20mm cannon, plus extra fuel, plus bombs and rockets, and to take the opportunity to widen the u/c tracking.

I believe the tests were Tempest v Me 109G6

Click to expand...

That's a pure guess, and I don't indulge in speculation; like I said the likeliest candidate is "Black 6," a G-2, which was in this country at the time, and had been used for comparative tests with other aircraft.

The spitfires wing wasn't 'weak' but rather prone to twisting in the opposit direction of the aileron deflection; this is a product of its thinness and the use of only a single main spar

Click to expand...

You seem to have forgotten (or ignored) the rear spar, which runs diagonally from root rib to wingtip, passing just in front of the flap and aileron hinge points, which was bolted to the fuselage frame 10. The wing ribs are attached to it, and to the main spar, which is a similar arrangement to most other aircraft, and gives a rigid box-like structure, not one prone to twisting.
I have no interest in roll rate; rolling will not keep you from getting killed, while turning inside your opponent just might.

Re Ger,man osses on the Eastern Front.

Total losses from all causes amounted to over 35000 aircraft.

According to LT Col PLC Priest, THE LUFTWAFFE AND ITS WAR OF ATTRITION, AIR WAR COLLEGE AIR UNIVERSITY
in her thesis submitted in 2005, LW bomber losses in 1943 alone were

Month Destroyed/damaged
January 214/122
February 185/97
March 253/171
April 165/119
May 261/172
June 211/182
July 421/266
August 356/224
September 284/188
October 225/191
November 219/125
December 135/81

Moreover, losses in even the less difficult early years of the war were still catastrophically heavy for the LW. Not all these losses were due to Soviet action, many were lost due to conditions. the same source as used above states "By 5 July 1941, scarcely two weeks later, this number had already decreased to 1,888. After three months, 1,603 German aircraft had been shot down, with 1,028 damaged. From 22 June 1941 to 8 April 1942, the Luftwaffe had lost 2,951 aircraft, with another 1,997 damaged. Losses in the summer and autumn of 1941 amounted to over one third of German production during the entire period. By spring 1943, the Soviets had 5,500 aircraft flying against 2,260 the Luftwaffe could bring to bear".

German losses were absolutely staggering on the eastern front. Relying on one source, particulraly as incomplete and as one sided as the German Fighter Pilotsd Association is bound to achieve an incomplete and innaccurate result. The loss figures from the quoted source are backed up by cross referencing to both Murray and Hayward, as well as Hardesty.

I would not say the Soviets gavce the Germans any sort of drubbing, but equally so, it is a total misrepresentation to try and depict German losses on the ewastern front as so trivial. The losses on the eastern front, from all causes, were one of the major sources of attrition for the LW, and bled her air force dry in the finish. They bit off far more than they couold handle when they attacked the Soviets in june '41


The colonels Bibliography in that article is:

Bartz, Karl. Swastika in the Air. London: William Kimber and Co. Limited, 1956.
Baumbach, Werner. Broken Swastika: The Defeat of the Luftwaffe. Translated by Frederick Holt. London: Robert Hale Limited, 1960.
Baumbach, Werner. The Life and Death of the Luftwaffe. Translated by Frederick Holt. New York: Ballantine Books, 1949.
Bekker, Cajus. The Luftwaffe War Diaries. Translated and edited by Frank Ziegler. London: MacDonald Co. Ltd., 1966.
Cooper, Matthew. The German Air Force, 1933-1945: An Anatomy of Failure. New York, Jane's Publishing Incorporated, 1981.
Galland, Adolf, Generalleutnant (Ret.), "Defeat of the Luftwaffe: Fundamental Causes." Air University Quarterly Review, Spring 1953, No. 6, pages 16-36.
Galland, Adolf. The First and the Last: The Rise and Fall of the German Fighter Forces, 1938-1949. Translated by Mervyn Savill. New York: Holt, 1954.
Great Britain, Air Ministry. The Rise and Fall of the German Air Force, 1933-1945. Great Britain: Arms and Armour Press Ltd., 1983.
Hermann, Hauptmann. The Luftwaffe: Its Rise and Fall. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1943.
Homze, Edward L. Arming the Luftwaffe. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1976.
Lee, Asher. The German Air Force. New York: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1946.
McFarland, Stephen L., and Newton, Wesley Phillips. To Command the Sky. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991.
Muller, Richard. The German Air War in Russia. Baltimore, Maryland: The Nautical Aviation Publishing Company of America, 1992.
Murray, Williamson, "Attrition and the Luftwaffe." Air University Review, March-April 1983, Vol. XXXIV, No. 3, pages 66-77.
Murray, Williamson. German Military Effectiveness. Baltimore, Maryland: The Nautical Aviation Publishing Company of America, 1992.

Ratsel said:

Embarrasment from slats (not slots) opening? Nice visual aid for stall IMO.

Click to expand...

Siegfried said:

AFAIKT the Me 109F/G/K had plenty of pre-stall buffet.

Click to expand...

This is what you rely on when you enter a stall.

I suppose those numbers are only for the eastern front? Even so they're suspect, the Luftwaffe only fought for 6 months on the eastern front and lost 600, but fought all of 42 and lost only 500. Plus, such rounded out figures look suspicious.

tyrodtom said:

I suppose those numbers are only for the eastern front? Even so they're suspect, the Luftwaffe only fought for 6 months on the eastern front and lost 600, but fought all of 42 and lost only 500. Plus, such rounded out figures look suspicious.

Click to expand...

from http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

In the Spitfire Mk IX vs 109G trials the G2 is mentioned specifically,

When fitted with the 0.477 reduction gear and at +15 lb. per sq. inch boost the Spitfire is equal in rate of climb to the Me 109 G-2; when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost it is superior to all German fighters at present in service.

Click to expand...

But... the G6/U2 was used in AFDS Trial 147. Obviously both captured Gustavs were compared and evaluated at different times.
However...the G6/U2 was evaluated againt the Spitfire IX XIV, Mustang III,(in that report) but it crashed on takeoff at Wittering before being compared to the Tempest V, so an earlier test vs the G2 was used in that report vs the Tempest V.

GregP said:

The 109 was a slow to medium-speed dogfoghter and was at a breat disadvantage when going faster then 300 mph. In its envelope, it was very good.

At 400+ mph, it was running or relocating for attack at slower speed ... not trying to fight. At 400 mph, it could not even aim at something 20° off it's course with anything like quickness.

200 mph? Beware the 109.

450 mph? Ignore the 109 as it wasn't able to do anything. Not so the Mustang, the La5 FN, LA-7, Stptfire IX/XIV, Tempest, even the P-38 (got sluggish at higher speed than 400 mph). The P-47 was better at 400+ mph than it was at 280 mph.

The Me 109 was similar to the Zero in that it was a slowmedium--speed dogfighter. To beat it, go fast and don;t slow down. If it saw you, it could run at high speed or climb steeply, but could not do much else. That is for ALL variants, including the last one. High top speed doesn't mean maneuverability at same, and it did not have it and never did.

It is still one of my candidates for the best fighter of all times due to war record and kills scored.

Due to pilots? Maybe, but it DID score well. But the best-performing piston fighter airframe as far as handling in air combat? Never, no way. All you have to do is talk with a pilot who has flown both the Me 109 and Mustang to know. You cannot ask someone who has not flown both due to no basis for comparison. Ditto the Spitfire. The late-war Russian Lavochkins and Yaks were WAY better at low-to-medium altitudes. Many a 109 stalled and spun in trying to follow a Yak or Lavochkin in a low-altitude hard turn. If the Messerschmitts or Focke-Wulfs flew higher, the Russian ignored them and attacked troops and equipment. So the German fighters HAD to come down and fight or watch their troops be shot up. That's why they suffered so many casualties ... they came down and fought in the best envelope for the La's and Yaks, from necessity.

All you 109 fans, remember the Luftwaffe was shot out of the sky by the Soviets in mid-1943 - 1945 after having done the same to the Soviets in earlier times. The ground troops were soundly defeated (yes, with the help of winter, which the Soviets had been counting on, but is true nonetheless). They did it with FUEL, good pilots, tactics, and from having learned what did NOT work. Many Luftwaffe 109's and 190's were lost to even P-39's, which were not bad at all when able to fight at 12,000 feet or less. Check the Soviet scores and see.

True, Hartmann, Barkhorn, and Rall were on that front and achieved their scores, but they were not always in the right place at the right time. Don't even try to tell me that they weren't harassed and even shot down themselves, they were. Hartman was shot down 16 times and Rall was shot donw 8 times. Don't have the figures for Barkhorn just now. After all, they were only three guys and three Messerschmitts, even though they were the best.

Click to expand...

Mr GregP
1)I would suggest that perhaps you should study better the history of the arial warfare on the eastern front. the only reason VVS gained superiority was the withdrawl of the german fighter wings to the germany. JG52 ,JG 51, JG54 were the only fighter units in the east during the time frame you mention. Check their kill-losses ratio.
2)Hartmann was never shot down by fighter, Barkhorn was in May 44 (Surprised and badly wounded ) after nearly 1000 missions, Lipfert never in nearly 700missions ( 1943-45) BY FIGHTER
3)When the Soviets were ignoring the higher flying German , the result was that the germans simply bounced them ,scored victories , and climbed back at altitude again. Its the most basic fighter tactic of all times. What makes you believe that they did not use an altitude advantage.
4) No matter what the alleid test pilots said( Like the crude , unprofessional and misleading report posted above), no matter what modern pilots say ( who actually dont want to admit that they cannot fly the 109 as the operational pilots) , Bf 109 was capable to turn with late russian planes and if properly flown and properly built , outfight them.
5) Of course P39 could shoot down German planes. There were excellent rusiian pilots too, and P39s always enjoyed great numerical superiority.
6) LW never stoped operating on the eastern front. Fws, 109s, Me 262s even JU87 and Go 145 trainers!!! were flying against the asian hordes in 1945. Lipfert in early April 45 had orders to disband his unit and stop flying. He asked permission to continiue combat flying just becausae he had 199 kills. Do you think an terrifeid, outperformed,lier ,with an obselete aircraft , pilot would do such a thing ?
Luftwaffe in the east was overhelmed but not bitten !
7)German troops were not defeted by the Soviets, were crushed by the American people s superb productivity,.

Hi Milosh

Just to point out that caldwells figures are for combat losses. You can almost double those figures if you include non-combat losses. most non-combat losses occurred on the eastern front, due to conditions and supply issues

FLYBOYJ said:

This is what you rely on when you enter a stall.

Click to expand...

Indicator of stall on the Me 109.. So yes. I didn't stall like a corsair/p-51 etc. Can't speak for all Me 109 pilots but the two I personally spoken with said thats the case. In fact, when Herr Petzschler said when his captors pressed him on the flight charateristics of his 109, he told them "to go back to flight school". They eventually destroyed his perfectly good a/c.

Others,

Those VVS figures that others have posted were mostly taken from russian sources. highly suspect. I'd sooner trust the GJ then the russians. Same people who say Hartmann only shot down 60 a/c or so.. If that the case, then why the huge bounty 10 year imprisonment? No other Luftwaffe pilot faced so much. Anyways, Luftwaffe losses I posted were day fighters, not every single Luftwaffe aircraft.

Ratsel said:

In fact, when Herr Petzschler said when his captors pressed him on the flight charateristics of his 109, he told them "to go back to flight school". They eventually destroyed his perfectly good a/c.

Click to expand...

And that's why captured enemy aircraft evaluation is difficult and dangerous. I bet KG 200 had similar challenges intrying to figure out how captured allied aircraft functioned.

Hayward uses both primary german sources, and russian sources to provide his figures for losses. his figures more or less line up with those given in that article i summarised.

Murray does not use Russian sources either.

The trouble with the losses youve posted, when taken in conjunction with known losses on other fonts, is that they dont add up. To give you some foo d for thought, Germany produced approximately 119000 aircraft, and started the war with 4000. she acquired from her allies and from captured equipment, about another 4-5000 airframes. She ended the war with no more than 6000 aircraft including reserves. She lost about 15000 over Germany, and lets say another 15000 on other fronts in the west and south. That adds up to 36000. What happened to the other 94000 airframes produced by Germany.

I know this much, they sure didnt give them to the Red Cross, and they diodnt hand that many obver to the allies at the end of the war.

I don't think so, becouse the Gemeinschaft der Jagdflieger https://fliegergemeinschaft.de/startseite/index.php would seem to disagree. Seems more likely it came from russian sources. That damn russian doctor.. can't ID his name at the moment.

"What happened to the other 94000 airframes produced by Germany."

like everything else in Germany after the war.. Hitler scrapped himself, others scrapped the rest. Seems reasonable, no?