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

Hello Milosh
thanks!
As I read it, the table gives for both G-6/R2 and G-10/R2 flight weight of 3300kg, so recon version of G-6 and that of G-10 had equal weights. So conclusion is that G-6 was a bit lighter than G-10 because of G-6 fighter didn't have MW50 system (weighted appr 93-94kg with 85ltr of MW50 liquid or 80kg with 75ltr MW50, Milosh's GL/C-E2 shows the later amount of liquid, maybe 85ltr was too much for CG reasons, the MW50 tank had the capacity of 118ltr but max possible was 85ltr MW50 or 110ltr fuel, which is lighter than MW50), it would has been G-14 if it had, but G-6/R-2 had. On the other hand G-10 and G-10/R2 both had the MW50 system. My very dark copy on another GL/C-E2 says that G-10/U4 (MK108 Motor-Kanone), G-10/R6 (according to Fernández-Sommerau this means bad weather fighter, according to him the R designations were changed in mid-44, for ex cannon boat designation was changed from R/6 to R/5 and the new R/6 was that bad weather fighter with autopilot) and G-14 all had Fluggewicht of 3300kg.

Juha

Ratsel said:

Hard to read. I can make out the external add-ons though, which would bring the wieght up...

Click to expand...

Hello Ratsel
the "add-ons" seems to be those standard in GL/C-E2s: armament, armour, fuel, motor oil, pilot, ammo and MW50. Especially without pilot, fuel and oil the plane would not fly, wouldn't it?

Juha

Thanks Greg!
Very much like what a Finnish test pilot wrote in 1943 after testing a new 109G-2.

Juha

Juha said:

Hello Ratsel
the "add-ons" seems to be those standard in GL/C-E2s: armament, armour, fuel, motor oil, pilot, ammo and MW50. Especially without pilot, fuel and oil the plane would not fly, wouldn't it?

Juha

Click to expand...

Hello Juha, you are correct, and I was wrong:

Me 109G-6/AS has a flight weight of 3300kg with DB 605 AS - MW-50 - MG 151/20 - MG 131 - FuG 16 Z - FuG 25a - Revi 16B.

G-10 same equiptment flight weight of 3500kg.

Thanks for the push in the right direction.

jim said:

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?

Click to expand...

Not at all jim and I never challanged anything a combat vet would state unless they were mistaken about information given to them at the time they served (ex. AVG pilots thinking they were flying against Zeros in lieu of Oscars), I challenge those who haven't flown and make generalized statements about flying aircraft when they have ZERO time in a cockpit let alone in the cockpit of a warbird. That also goes for turning wrenches as well....

To the rest of the folks - this is a great thread but keep the flaming to a minimum. If you're going to challenge someone, please back up your information with facts!

So we more or less agree that a startand G-10 fighter took off at 3300kg/appr. 7275lb weight, or if we are unrealisticly accurate at 3297kg, when loaded with 75ltr MW50 liquid.

Juha

Juha said:

So we more or less agree that a startand G-10 fighter took off at 3300kg/appr. 7275lb weight, or if we are unrealisticly accurate at 3297kg, when loaded with 75ltr MW50 liquid.

Juha

Click to expand...

Hello Juha,

Yes.

mr Juha
1) Whats the problem with Paul Sshmidts books, or davind Irvings books, or Hans ulrich Rudel s memoirs ? Just books with opinions.
2)1939 Germany 79.8 millions Soviet Union 170,5 millions United Kingdom ~45 millions USA (1940) 140 millions .I dont lose time counting Indians,Canadians, South Africans, French etc. Germany fought all of them at once Does it sounds to you equal? Its me that i have great imagination? Dont tell me about Italians ,Rumanians etc.. These were always the weak spots of the german lines. 19/11/42 russians broke through rumanian lines to encircle 6th Army in Stalingrand . In the second Alamein British 8th army broke the lines in an italian division sector
And many more examples
Mr Parsifal
I dont know the saying of your country about glass house, but i suppose since you are refering to me its something very negative. And you dont believe me. It s ok , i dont believe you either
Russia is an amazing country, with amazing achievements. I have visited Moscow and Saint Petesburg .Writers, Dancers, scientists. I have a russaian friend However the soviet "army" that invaded East Prussia, Pomerania,silesia,Brandenburg etc... WAS NOT AN ARMY. The scale of attrocities comitted by the REGULAR army (not political organizations)is unique since the era of Huns and Mongols. 2000000 females raped repetedly , thousand deid. As each victim was raped by 60-70 soldiers, the numbers suggest that nearny every soviet soldier took part .In Hungary as well These and all other attrocities are today common knowledge and i will not waste time writing all my books. Just one, a small one that i read recently. " Sniper on the eastern front" by Albrect Wacker . Its the memoirs of a german sniper. His experiences of the bahavior of the russians in hungarian women is unbelievable. And before you call him an overclaimer too, he provides photos! Some of the most hard photos i have ever seen in a book . But you can check also sources like Red Cross.
So "Asian" because by 45 many were from Asia , and hordes because they behaved like hordes on a massive scale. And this expression has been used by many german veterans.But since this expression has caused upset in the forum, i will be more careful in the future.



Mr GregP
Nice info about your museums aircrafts. What type of fuel you use for Bf109 and Fw190 (the original,not the replica) ?

jim said:

mr Juha
1) Whats the problem with davind Irvings books? Just books with opinions.

Click to expand...

Not opinions, but lies, proven as lies, and for which he has served time in prison.

In the second Alamein British 8th army broke the lines in an italian division sector

Click to expand...

The Italian "Trento" Division and the German 164th Division, actually. When operation "Supercharge" started, it was Italian anti-tank guns, at a range of only 20 yards, which did most of the damage.
Sad to see how often the Italians are dismissed as ineffective and cowardly, when Malta's fighter pilots always said that they were more inclined, than the German pilots, to stay and fight.

Hello Jim
not much to do with the speed of 109 but
1) Problem is that they were all but some early Irving's books biased and all to same direction, read some books published by Progress, Moscow and a pair of Soviet era Soviet pilot memoirs, which are also biased but to opposite direction, with open mind and then try to form some kind of synthesis
2) during winter 41-42 Heer was mostly fighting against SU, only very small part of it was in active contact with British and CW troops, US Army wasn't yet a worry to Heer. Still Heer was forced to retreat. Rumanians were not Germans but some units fought well and if one gives an ally light ex-Czech tanks one should not be overly surprised if the ally then had troubles when attacked by hundreds of T-34s and KVs. IIRC Italian 8th A wasn't completely hopeless in early 43 and IIRC Hungarians usually fought well. We had troubles with Germans. One of ex Cs-in-C of our AF was killed when he tried to coach not too eager German SS men forward in one counter attack and he wasn't only high ranking Finnish officer lost in similar circumstances. IIRC one can put some blame on the FAF's ex C-in-C, he might have some death wishes, because he was IIRC dressed in full GS Lt. Colonel uniform. Germans were not very good in forest warfare in 41, in 44 they were clearly better.

Juha

GregP
Post 260 you said re Bf 109G-10

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.

Thank you kindly for posting this information. Thanks also for the additional commentary.

Could you now provide sample data on the P-51s the Gustav went up against?
I'm simply trying to compare apples to apples here
I seem to recall hearing how much weight had been removed from some of the warbirds while out at Planes of Fame in Chino, early 1980s. I just cannot remember, 1000# off a Hellcat?

The way he describes the -109 minus this and that etc. is totally contradictory to everything by way of speed, manuverability, and roll rates that Luftwaffe pilots have told to me. War time is much different then museum time.

jim said:

2)1939 Germany 79.8 millions Soviet Union 170,5 millions United Kingdom ~45 millions USA (1940) 140 millions .I dont lose time counting Indians,Canadians, South Africans, French etc. Germany fought all of them at once Does it sounds to you equal? Its me that i have great imagination? Dont tell me about Italians ,Rumanians etc.. These were always the weak spots of the german lines.

Click to expand...

I guess Germany shoulda been a leetle more careful about who they picked a fight with.

Sure,

We have two P-51D Mustangs at the Planes of Fame. One belongs to Ed Maloney and is called "Spam Can," and the other belongs to Steve Hinton and is called "Wee Willy." Steve's Mustangs is in a bit better shape and generally flies a bit faster on equivalent power. By "a bit," I mean 3- 5 knots.

Both have had the guns and armor plate removed. Both have rear seats. I'd say they operate at between 8,000 and 8,500 popunds on most flights.

The Merlins are stock, but are not really run at 1490 HP these days except every once in awhile ... usually by Steve or our chief pilot, Kevin Eldrige.

When they do aerobatics as a pair, as when they are flown by "The Horsemen" aerobatic team, they are run at, perhaps, 1,200 HP or so. They takeoff at about 900 - 1,100 HP and throtle back to museum-required power levels once airborne with the gear up on normal "rides."

When they do movie work, they are used as required. When they are flown for comparative dogfights, they sometimes use full power including WEP for short bursts.

The Me 109 was flown light and the Mustangs are flown light ... and are comparatively about the same degree of lightness. That is, they have most of the armament weight removed (but not all), no ammo, no armor unless it is structural, and are not USUALLY carying drop takls or drop tank attachments. Some equipment is removed, such as gunsights, and modern radios are VERY muich lighter than original radios. The engines are pretty much stock, the props are stock, and since we are NOT carrying bombs and are light, we service the landing gear struts at about half of wartime levels for Nitrogen pressure ... it makes the landings much easier on the airframe. We let them roll out on landing rather than abuse the brakes, unless required somewhere for some reason.

In airshows, we pull 4 - 6 g's. On normal "rides," we pull about 2 - 3 g's. When doing "dogfight" comparisons, the owner of the aircraft is free to pull whatever he wants, and sometimes DOES. At 8,000 pounds the Mustang is an 8-g airplane. At any other weight, the g-level rating is equal to 64,000 divided by the weight in pounds. So, at 10,000 pounds, the Mustang is a 6.4-g aircraft.

Last, since we fly our fighters a bit light, any performance we see SHOULD be better than when armed up for war with all the original equipment.

Hope that helps. Our planes are NOT wartime standard, but the performance should be BETTER, not worse, due to lightness.

I wish we had some more flyable German aircraft. We have an Me 109E on display (complete with original bullet holes, and in one case, the bullet) that WILL be restored for the owner. It was recovered from a lake in Russia and will have a DB engine of some variety in it. They HAVE the engine but the nose gearcase is shot. They are making one as you read this, and the DB is being overhauled. We are not doing the DB overhaul, but would love to have been selected for the task. We CAN overhaul a DB of any variety as well as anyone can. We also have a Fieseler Storch and the Argus is also being overhauled as you read this. The airframe is ready to fly. We have a real Heinkel He 162, complete with engine, but I think nobody wants to fly it unless it is completely rebuilt ... maybe not even then. They were known to come apart when new, much less 60+ years later.

By the way, an interestign aside, everyone knows we are restoring a Yokosuka D4Y "Judy" Japanese dive bomber. There is a post in here about it with pics. When we took the port landing gear leg apart, it STILL had full oil in it and 90 psig of Nitrogen pressure! That's pretty impressive after being shot down in a heap! Just FYI.

Last, we have a restored, running WWII pulsejet engine that can be started and runs fine. I am on the team that runs it, and there is a video on YouTube of us pushing my Nissan pickup down the runway at Chino with it. So, if you happen to get to So Cal around Chino, drop in any Saturday and ask for Greg in the restoration hanger. I'd love to meet you and show you around. Really.

Cheers!

Ratsel, when the aircraft is "minus this and that," it is lighter and should respond BETTER, not worse. The only totally contradictory thing about it, relative to wartime aircraft, is the fact that it is lighter and has no ability to spit lead or bombs at the enemy. Otherwise, it is a standard airframe without all the heavy equipment.

Perhaps you think that adding the armor plate, ammunition, drop tank attachments, tanks, fuel in the tanks, gunsights, and everything else makes a plane perform better? I don't believe you think that but, if you do, maybe you could explain why.

The last person I'd believe about "the best fighter" is a pilot from ANY air force who only flew one fighter, his assigned mount. To him, of course, it IS the best becasue it is the only thing he flew. Nationality is not in question here.

I'd MUCH sooner believe a pilot with time in both friendly and enemy aircaft. At least he has a basis for comparison. The pilot who only flies one does NOT have such a basis except for perceived shortcomings of the other aircraft from brief combat encounters.

Ratsel said:

The way he describes the -109 minus this and that etc. is totally contradictory to everything by way of speed, manuverability, and roll rates that Luftwaffe pilots have told to me. War time is much different then museum time.

Click to expand...

He we have numbers per Wiki
Bf 109G-6 2247* kg/ 5893 lbs empty 3148/6940 loaded *note. below I did the math and the kg wt empty calculates different then wiki going of the wt in pounds
P-51D 3465 /7635 empty 4175/9200 loaded

GregP says the 109 was at 6200 lbs / 2818 kg for the flights on 5893 lbs /2678 kg basic empty weight
Gun and ammo weight out of the wings of the Mustang would greatly increase the performance
probably not carrying fuel to fly 600 miles back to base during these museum jousts, 6--6.25 lbs per gallon if my memory serves me, 110 gallons for 600 miles 660-685#
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-51-internal-fuel-capacity-how-20296-2.html post #20
I figure that is a bare minimum number so 750-800# of fuel more likely

Waiting to see what the Mustangs scale in at so we can have an apples to apples comparison.
Fortunately for all, no more real P-51 vs 109 battles so the best we can do may be to extrapolate or do mock combat with full weight planes

GregP,

I believe Ratsel was saying your battle results were at odds to what his data and interviews lead him to believe
Pretty sure too that Ratsel knows less weight means more performance

I really want some modern eval of this subject, no bias. Rather tired of 109 pilots/fans pushing data for their view, Mustang/Spitfire etc faction pushing their plane
Would really like to write checks to support the fuel bill for analysis of combat weight dogfights, pilots with 200 hrs in their mounts.
but for now, the weight of those Mustangs

kettbo said:

He we have numbers per Wiki
Bf 109G-6 2247* kg/ 5893 lbs empty 3148/6940 loaded...

Click to expand...

Hello Kettbo
There is also a figure 3196kg normal t/o weight for G-6, IMHO that was the weight of late production G-6, with some extra equipment but especially with the taller wooden tail, like that in G-10s and K-4s. It was heavier and IIRC requested a weight added into the nose to restore correct CG. The taller fin spared strategic materials being wooden but it also made fast dives safer, there had been some accidents because pilots had lost control in dives while flying 109s with the old low fin. The taller fin didn't totally correct the control problems, one had to be still very careful with the use of ailerons during high speed dives, but helped.

Juha

Actually, I'm rather tired of the arguments, too. Especially since ALL the fighter designers were trying their level best to come up with a winner. Since the technology was about the same for all, it is perhaps not surprising they performed about the same.

To me, the major differences were in primary design mission, engine / prop available, fuel available in the field, and pilot / leadership ability.

The Me 109 was a superb attack aircraft. The Stuka was supreme when local air superiority was assured. Thw Germans appear to have never thought of a defensive air-superiority fighter aircraft. They thought of attack ... at least officially. Unofficially, the Fw 190 was a great leap forward over the Me 109 when flown as a fighter. When "bombed up" for attack, it was vulnerable to the Hurricane / P-40.

In any case, the performance of full-weight aircraft are well known. All you have to do is average the performance seen from British, German, and American tests. That is about what was real. What I see in here is people finding 20 reports and quoting the highest number for every single specification they can find anywhere. Sorry, it just ain't so.

What we need is to average all the tests and check for "reasonability." That is probably very close to real. Unfortunately, most tests in WWII were a bit "non-standard." That is, they didn't seem to fly a "test card." Instead, they checked at varying altitudes, varying power levels / speeds with varying fuel grades, and did not always test the same things. You'd think that would be manditory.

Take roll rate, for instance. Most "flight test" reports don't even address the roll rate except to say it was "superior" or "inferior" to some other aircraft in the opinion of the the test pilot. It would have been nice if every test included flight in 50 mph increments, from 150 mph to 450 mph, with full deflection rolls in both directions, with the time for a complete roll in both directions noted. Alas, it is not to be had.

Therefore, I am forced to rely on opinions from modern pilots because the WWII tests are inconsistent at best, and disparate or contradictory at worst.

The Luftwaffe worshipers seem to publish numbers nobody else has ever seen in real flight tests. The Spitfire worshipers quote numbers that are ridiculous and make claims that are unsubstiantiatable. The Mustang worshipers quote ranges, roll rates, and gun effectiveness that were never seen in practice (thye are fond of quoting the 505 mph dive speed, but never seem to notice the altitude or the IAS / TAS differences). Ditto the Zero fanatics.

Heck, I've seen an Me 109G climb rates from 3,300 fpm to 5,850 fpm and MORE for the same model - dash number. I've seen roll rates that Steve Hinton cannot duplicate when he flies them, and he is not a small, weak person. He is a consumate test pilot witha real "feel" for airplanes. I see fantsy speeds quoted, but never IAS / TAS indications. I see pitch rates that can be achieved at 200 mph quoted as the normal pitch rate for the Me 109, despite that fact that flying at 200 mph in a hostile sky would get you killed, not make you a winner.

I see the same for Allied planes, too. Fans of a particular type quote the best they can find anywhere and assume the worst they can find for the "enemy" and, at the same time, never seem to realize that rates for roll, pitch, and yaw decline with speed. So a plane that CAN roll, say ... 80° per second at, say, 200 mph ... is almost NEVER able to do so at 400+ mph. But if the plane has a 400+ mph capability for "Oh Crap!" speed, it is claimed such.

We probably need a "flight test" sticky post with all the numbers quoted so we can average them, and I mean verifiable numbers from real reports, not "pie in the sky" stuff.

Lots of incomplete evals, older versions, not tested at WEP
Really pleased and amazed at the material that has turned up on this forum
With my miniatures gaming background, I determined something was amis with how the Gustav performed.
Part of this was allowing brother Eddie to use P-47D-25 vs my G-6s. Timeline match-up would have G-14 and lots of /AS versions mixed with G-6 w and w/o MW50
When the expansion kit had the K-4, things got interesting. I eventually made a G-10 card.
Gaming, too many risks taken. Thinking I will have players 'buy in' to simulate the need to look out for your own butt