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

[jim]

Juha
Your insults against me characherize you. I write nothing out of my mind. Everything is in books and very often personal pilots accounts. If you dont like german pilots experiences call them lier, as usual (even pilots that defended your country as well!) The fact that you are impressed by those general and inaccurate tests means alot.
Mr Flyboy j
You judge people s experience through internet? You and Mr Gregp are pilots . Ok. Many people in aviation forums are some sort of pilots. So what? You opinion is heavier than those that flew in action, wounded, deid in those planes?
Mr GregP
Could you define yours G-10s specifications? The power settings ? ? We have Lw pilots reports that late 109 lacked nothing, your comrades think otherwise . Everyone has an opinion . I just reproduce true LW pilots reports.

For everyone that mention soviets victories like Staligrand, Kursk, Vistula, Dnieper, Berlin. these were achieved by brave Soviet soldiers, fed by american food,armed with american weapon or by weapons constructed with american raw materials , with american tools, with american know how, propelled by american fuel,.Weapons constructed in factories with slavery conditions,. They fought always with huge superiority because wermacht was fighting in 3 fronts and Jagdwaffe was facing american armadas over the Reich. When soviets faced most (but not all ) Wermacht and Jagdwaffe lost men in millions. Even in Berlin ,facing boys , lost 300000 ! Did not pierced the outer defences before defenders exausted their suppleis.

 

[Juha]

Hello Jim
Asiatic hordes sounds like you have read and have took too literally Paul Carrell's books, you probably know the background of the man behind that pseodonym, I have also read his books but would not use that expression nowadays.

I have met several German pilots, I don't have anything against them and they like(d) visit Finland just because we here appreciate what they did in 41-44 and they can sit and talk here freely without someone calling them nazis or something like that.

Have you read the 109G-2 report? What is so wrong in it?

How about winter 41-42? Not much US material help then? How could a nation, SU, always got a huge superiority against a nation with ½ a population of the first one and with some allies fighting with its side. You must remember that not all Red Army was fighting against Axis, there were always fairly big armies in Siberia and along SU's southern borders. So either SU had better high command, being capaple to better concentrate its troops to right areas or the claim that Soviets "always with huge superiority " is just your imagination or maybe your definitation for huge is different than mine. Read something on the Winter War, you might understand what Finns mean by "huge superiority". You might look for example the war in far North in 41, no huge superiority there but Germans advance was stopped rather soon. And advances had been, how I would put it, rather modest.

Juha

 

[parsifal]

Mr Jim

You say you have documentation to prove that the Soviets did not defeat the german Army, and that they are nothing but a bunch of asian hordes. Please provide the references that you have to back these statements up. It needs to be resolved.

I will tell you to your face that i dont believe you. I believe you are mouthing racist propaganda, which has no place in this forum. I dont think you realize the depth of insult that you have inflicted by making those kind of statements. My advice is that you apologise and retract the offending statements. They are untrue and inflammatory.

For the record, this is my opinion. At great cost, the Soviets defeated the nazis, openly and on the field of battle. There are a lot of things about the Soviet regime I do not like, but its people paid a very high price securing our freedom from Nazi tyranny and oppression. They did not secure their own, however. There victories over the Nazis were unequivocal and complete. They are not "Asian Hordes" as you have attempted to brand them. The Soviet Union was a multi national union of republics joined in a different way (and oppressive) way as the multi cultural societies of the United States and Australia. Australia has many asian minorities that live in our country, they are welcomed and have influence on our society. that doers not make us a nation of "Asian Hordes". and even if it did, it would not matter.

There is a saying in my country, that i think is well known across the world. "people who live in glass houses...." etc. Referring to the Soviets as "Asian Hordes", claiming that the soviets did not defeat the germans, and all those other claims that have been made, is bound to get a response. For me, not only is the language highly racist and emotive, insulting to the memory of the 15 million Russians who paid the ultimate price securing our freedom (but not their own) from tyranny, it is also downright innaccurate.

Just so we are clear, this the statement from your post that i am objecting to

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,.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

. these were achieved by brave Soviet soldiers, fed by american food,armed with american weapon or by weapons constructed with american raw materials , with american tools, with american know how, propelled by american fuel.

Thank you for forgetting (as the Russians did for over 50 years) the thousands of British-built aircraft and engines which were delivered, and the many ships that were sunk and sailors (many civilian) drowned or frozen to death, during those convoys to Murmansk. You have a lot of reading to do.

 

[Milosh]

Thank you for forgetting (as the Russians did for over 50 years) the thousands of British-built aircraft and engines which were delivered, and the many ships that were sunk and sailors (many civilian) drowned or frozen to death, during those convoys to Murmansk. You have a lot of reading to do.

Thanks for forgetting the Canadians. (Valentine - 1,388, Universal Carrier - 1,348 )

 

[kettbo]

While not an ideal source, Wiki says this
Bf 109G-6 2247 kg/ 5893 lbs empty 3148/6940 loaded (G-10 probably heavier by a modest amount)
P-51D 3465 /7635 empty 4175/9200 loaded

Still curious about the weights and equipment during the mock dogfights

Willing to bet a cold Hefeweitzen that the Gustav with nose weapons/balance requirement for weight to substitute does scale close to spec

 

[Ratsel]

G-10 = about 6200lbs with normal loads.

 

[Milosh]

G-10 = about 6200lbs with normal loads.

The GL/C-E2 (dated 1.11.44) for the 109G-10 says 3300kg or 7275lb.

The max speed on the graph is 695kph or 432mph at just over 7000m or ~23,000ft.

 

[Ratsel]

The GL/C-E2 (dated 1.11.44) for the 109G-10 says 3300kg or 7275lb.

The max speed on the graph is 695kph or 432mph at just over 7000m or ~23,000ft.

very good. care to list whats included ( tank/Mk108/pods/etc. if applicable) please. Or better yet, if you can post the doc please. I'm always willing to learn new things.

 

[Juha]

Hello
I have same info as Milosh, and if we compared it to other versions, according to Finns, 109G-2 with normal fuel (400l) and ammo weighted 3030kg appr.6680lb that is without gun gondolas (not /R6) and without drop tank
109G-6, 3196kg/7159lb, GL/C-E2 FLUGZEUG-ENTWICKLUNGS-BLATT Bf 109 (J) 20.8.1944 gives the T/O weight of Bf 109G-6 as 3,2 metric tons

Juha

 

[Ratsel]

Hello Juha,

Milosh listed a G-10 which is much lighter then a G-6. Thanks for posting your info! =)

 

[Juha]

Hello Ratsel
I wonder how G-10 could be much lighter than G-6, after all it had bigger oil tank, bigger oil cooler and at least most if not all had MW50 system.

Juha

 

[kettbo]

I too would think the G-10 would weigh more unless Wiki listed a G-6/R-6

 

[Ratsel]

Hello Ratsel
I wonder how G-10 could be much lighter than G-6, after all it had bigger oil tank, bigger oil cooler and at least most if not all had MW50 system.

Juha

Hello Juha,
The G-6 could carry the same equipment as you know, perhaps 'much' was to harsh of a word, perhaps just ' lighter '. New alloys and such for the G-10 is my understanding. No drop tanks/pods new refined equipment in the cockpit etc all adds up to save weight on the G-10 for normal loads, also. The figure I have is about 6200lbs normal load. I will recheck though. Thanks for posting Juha.

 

[kettbo]

I am away from my books

USAF lists their G-10 at 5800LBS

 

[Ratsel]

I have same for Me 109G-10 serial number T-2-122.

 

[pbfoot]

Ratsel when and what was the change on flap positioning you say the G had a different sysytem them the E . well what was it ? My guess would be LED's

 

[Milosh]

Hopefully this will work. had to get a knew image hosting service.

 

[Ratsel]

Hard to read. I can make out the external add-ons though, which would bring the wieght up. Still, lighter then the G-6/R2.. thanks.

 

[GregP]

Our planes are airshow planes that get wrung out every once in awhile.

The guns are mostly just barrels that protrude very realistically, but there is no reason to have the weight of the gun at all unless needed for weight and balance (like in a MiG-15, for instance). In the case of the MiG, if the mass of the guns isn't there, it will settle on its tail.

Our Me 109G-10 was flown with no ammo, guns at about half weight or less, and about half fuel. We removed any armor plate and the gunsight was already gone. My estimate is it flew lighter than typical combat weight, and the empty weight was less than typically reported due to armament deletion. A typical Me 109G was bout 5,900 pounds empty, 6,950 pounds loaded, and 7,500 maximum weight. Let's not quibble over 10 pounds more or less.

I figure ours was typically flown at about 6,200 pounds for takeoff, so it SHOULD have performed better than a wartime Me 109G.

Lest yout think we compare the 109 flown at low power with a Mustang flown at high power, you are wrong. On a typical flight, we takeoff at less than full power, but not too much less, and throttle back to economy cruise right away. That is NOT the case in airshows. In these cases, they are sometyimes flown at rated power, and you almost HAVE to do that once in awhile to WWII V-12 engines of any veriety or they don't like it. By "don't like it" I mean they will break or give trouble if flown all the time at low power.

We DO make power changes gradually and take care with collingore than combat pilots. Most Mustangs cruise around about 235 knots, and I daresay most piston warbirds do the same. The speed limit below 10,000 feet uis 250 knots, so cruising arounf at 300 knots is forbidden most of the time since most warbirs occupy a lot of their air time below 10,000 feet. They CAN get higher and go faster, and DO from time to time.

From my perspective, having been in an Me 109 cockpit on many occasions, I think the pilots were generally between 5 foot 4 inches and 5 foot 9 inches tall, and needed to be strong and athletic because of no rudder trim, no control assist of any sort, and a very narrow cockpit tgaht does not allow much more than 40 pounds of side force on the stick due simply to no room for your elbows to move outward and generate the force. I have no problem believing the German pilots were athletic and strong, it was a national pastime.

I do NOT like the fact that the pilot sat on the fuel tank. On the plus side, the fuel was relatively nea rthe CG. The minus side is apparent to all, especially wartime pilots.

According to Steve Hinton, the Me 109 is treacherous to takeoff and land on pavement. He says you cannot land one at all on pavement if your brakes have failed or you will most probably groundloop due to the well-known swing that cannot be stopped without brakes. But on grass, which is where they operated in wartime, it is just fine for someone familiar with the aircraft. The drag of the grass on the tailwheel and relative lack of traction for the maingear tires compared with pavement makes it simple to handle on grass. Beware pavement (which is where they operate today unless they can find a grass strip).

It climbs steeply at low speed, and is not a "fun" aircraft to fly relative to others. We all love the sound of a DB engine and most of the active 109 pilots feel you can attack in the Me 109 better than you can defend. Aerobatics are not fun since you must be realtively fast to do vertical maneuvers, and fast is where the elevators become very heavy ... as do the ailerons and rudder. But the rudder remains effective while the ailerons and elevator lose effectiveness at high speed.

To be fair, that is true in varying amounts for almost ALL WWII fighters, not just the Me 109. But the Me 109 shows it markedly.

I personally think the Me 109 is a very strong candidate for best fighter aircraft of all times due in no small measure to its war record of achievement. But if you want the best actual airframe performance (as opposed to combat record), the Me 109 is way down the list, and not close. That says a lot for the training, skills and planning of German wartime pilots, doesn't it?

In the end, it is a great plane with flaws. There are no perfect figher aircraft and ALL WWII fighters had flaws, as do all MODERN fighters. Every planes is a compromise. The question is what the design objective was to be. Usually there is some main mission and the rest are required but secondary. It is difficult to envision a better fighter in WWII for Blitzkreig (did I spell that right?). But what about home defense, bomber escort, ground attack, recomaissance, patrol, maritime escort, desert fighter, winter fighter, etc?

The Me 109, within its range, was decent at many tasks and that is a tribute to the design. But superfighter realtive to many contemporaries in airframe performance? No, and never. Still ... a great aircraft and one I really like.