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

Siegfried · Nov 12, 2011

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

Irvings books are no more full of unsubstantiated facts, opinions and assertions than most other Historians. In fact on most things he is on the shelf due to use of first hand materials and knowlege of the language rather than mere 'surverys of the liternature'. Ambrose and Bevoir are full of unsubstantiated assertions, Abrose's likely fraudulent.

Irving has a different, higher standard, applied to him for political reasons and so his flaws are amplified. His mistakes with the casualties of Dresden for instance. Overall the point of 25,000 dead or 140,000 dead in a book written long ago is not so big. I suspect many of the same folks are happy to exaggerate Guernica i.e. to accept the higher casualty numbers and count injured as dead etc.

Put it this way: history is full of bunk and historians often like to put it there. Irving is no more an offender than most others who haven't been under the microscope. He has written amazing books; unlike MOST Historians he speaks the language, interviewed the actual people and sourced the original ducuments. Irvings books are footnoted well enough for one to check the sources of his assertions.

Irving got in trouble only twice: his liable suite with Lipstat and over the levels of the Dresden raid. It was a close to pointless raid anyway, whether 25,000 or 14,000 died.

Irvings books on the death of the Luftwaffe, the V weapons, the Milch biography, the German atomic program "Virus House" are indispensible and quite appolitical. His technique of
putting himself in the context of his subject is what gets him in to trouble.

Siegfried · Nov 12, 2011

kettbo said:
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 suspect no one uses War Emergency Power on these old war birds. Nor water injection eg MW-50 though I suspect decent boost levels could be achieved with 100/130 fuel (if its still available).

stona · Nov 12, 2011

Ratsel said:
War time is much different then museum time.

For once Ratsel I find myself 100% in agreement with you. No modern warbird pilot flies any of these aircraft,however they may be configured,in the same way as a wartime pilot with tracer flying past his canopy would. I don't think,with the greatest respect to the pilots,that their modern experience of the aircraft is particularly relevant to real combat performance.
Cheers
Steve

vanir · Nov 12, 2011

The MW50 kit, in any wartime G-10 but unlikely in a ground up restored museum bird, for one weighs in at around 140kg. Just an ETC rack moves CoG in a 109, add gondolas and it's unstable around field speeds (seyringer explains it at length). Any and all wartime G-5 is very likely to have the GM-1 kit fitted, again not real likely for a museum bird and that weighs in at around 350kg. Wonder how much that useless cockpit pressurisation weighed, 600kg? 400? It's like half a wing worth of compressed cylinders plus whatever to make it not work but be there.

Irrespective of simple math like lighter = faster, at the end of the day I do think you're hitting the classical test pilot argument that the bird he's driving is a completely different animal from the one that got delivered to airfields. Remember that Lindberg got sent to the field to show pilots how to fly the P-47 (among others) in delivery trim, because factory guidelines (benchmarked by stripped prototypes) were misleading and accidents were the result.

but I'm out of my element, just theorising. Would love to imagine flying these birds, which is why the theorising and allusion-hunting with factoids recorded.

edit. juha seems to have more accurate weight on the MW50 kit than Price's figure I used, still 80kg+ is like putting a second crew position in the plane.

fastmongrel · Nov 12, 2011

stona said:
For once Ratsel I find myself 100% in agreement with you. No modern warbird pilot flies any of these aircraft,however they may be configured,in the same way as a wartime pilot with tracer flying past his canopy would. I don't think,with the greatest respect to the pilots,that their modern experience of the aircraft is particularly relevant to real combat performance.
Cheers
Steve

Damn right Stona its like somebody who goes paintballing at the weekend or flys a computer game saying they know about real combat. I did two, 3 month tours of Northern Ireland and I am not ashamed to say before every foot patrol I heaved my guts up and so did quite a few lads. Without that gut churning, heart thumping sensation of raw adrenaline pumping through your system no one can say they know what goes on in combat or how they will react.

Ratsel · Nov 12, 2011

GregP said:
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.

Perhaps I think that its a museum peice and in no way anybody there would endanger themselves or the aircraft by simulating real WWII conditions. Hence, what you post about he 109 ONLY qualifies to the museum flights. Its not a question of Nationality, in this case its a question of Liability. Thats why I talk with pilots who were there (WWII). I'm still jelouse your so close to one though

vanir said:
The MW50 kit, in any wartime G-10 but unlikely in a ground up restored museum bird, for one weighs in at around 140kg. Just an ETC rack moves CoG in a 109, add gondolas and it's unstable around field speeds (seyringer explains it at length). Any and all wartime G-5 is very likely to have the GM-1 kit fitted, again not real likely for a museum bird and that weighs in at around 350kg. Wonder how much that useless cockpit pressurisation weighed, 600kg? 400? It's like half a wing worth of compressed cylinders plus whatever to make it not work but be there.

Irrespective of simple math like lighter = faster, at the end of the day I do think you're hitting the classical test pilot argument that the bird he's driving is a completely different animal from the one that got delivered to airfields. Remember that Lindberg got sent to the field to show pilots how to fly the P-47 (among others) in delivery trim, because factory guidelines (benchmarked by stripped prototypes) were misleading and accidents were the result.

but I'm out of my element, just theorising. Would love to imagine flying these birds, which is why the theorising and allusion-hunting with factoids recorded.

Most G-5's did not come with GM-1. Some G-5/AS did however. Weight was 3148kg (6900lbs fully equipt (not JaBo)) flight ready. Not too heavy for 2000ps Db 606ASMC. Cockpit pressurization was not useless, if it could keep them at extreame altitudes for 2 more minutes, then its worth it.

vanir · Nov 12, 2011

An AS motor can't use GM-1 under about 8000 metres Ratsel. They put MW50 in AS motors and GM-1 in A-1 motors. This started with the G-1.

D Hermann writes the pressurisation system achieved no more than keeping engine fumes out of the cockpit at altitudes around 10,000 metres. It didn't help the pilot at all up around 12,000 metres. The only pilot other than Tank who tried it lost consciousness and free fell to low altitude before he recovered. I'm a bit dubious about two of Tank's flight records, buzzing around 14500m being one of them.

Ratsel · Nov 12, 2011

Hello vanir,

Please explain W.Nr.110 064 then. Thanks in adavance. =)

vanir · Nov 12, 2011

Sure, give me a run down on the plane or a link with a write up about it. You have to be at least 1000m and factory specification is at least 1500m above the throttle height, or else GM-1 use is prohibited.
And the throttle altitude of the AS motor is...

Ergo, there must be a logical explanation which isn't necessarily that I'm lying to you. There must be a rational explanation, let's explore other possibilities than a game of chess between us?
Give me a link to the w.n. I'm sure we'll figure it out, if I'm wrong I'll be the first to admit, but this about throttle heights and GM-1 I know.

(edit, excuse me if I'm seeming rude, I'm just really tired after working afternoon shift and aren't sure how I'm coming across, I'm only in an inquisitive mood not a competitive one )

Ratsel · Nov 12, 2011

I'd admit when I'm wrong too. Its in the book ' Bf 109 Late version by K.W. Wotowski, pg.10-12 '. It also shows the cigar shaped drop tank used with GM-1 equipt G5's, trainer G-12's some reccon G-8.

vanir · Nov 12, 2011

I don't have a copy. Guess I'll have to inquire at LEMB. There is a clear reason GM-1 should definitely not be fitted to a 109 with the AS motor, but there isn't a large gladiator physically preventing it.

Ratsel · Nov 12, 2011

I don't see why not, the Haha-Gerät tank was located in the right wing... But yah ask away if you don't mind.

FLYBOYJ · Nov 12, 2011

Ratsel said:
Perhaps I think that its a museum peice and in no way anybody there would endanger themselves or the aircraft by simulating real WWII conditions. Hence, what you post about he 109 ONLY qualifies to the museum flights. Its not a question of Nationality, in this case its a question of Liability. Thats why I talk with pilots who were there (WWII).

"Museum Flights." What you're definition? A specific limit on speed, altitude or G loading? A limit on throttle acceleration RPM or manifold pressure? I think many of these aircraft also saw many a dogfight at lower performance parameters as well as all the high G, high speed regimes we tend to focus on. I think it was stated earlier that some warbirds are operated up to 6Gs and full power. Even at lower power settings a lot of performance information can be gained by these aircraft that would more than validate what is being said about them. BTW I don't know how much you know about Steve Hinton but he probably has more current experience in flying WW2 warbirds then any one on the planet. GregP has access to a wealth of information and although we know these aircraft are not pushed to their limit, it safe to say that even within their current limited operating parameters, we're still attaining most of the performance characteristics to determine their strengths and weaknesses.

Ratsel · Nov 12, 2011

Definition of museum flights is liability, no? Maybe I'm wrong? Appologies if I am, but certainly nowhere near the same as the airbattles of WWII where the pilots knew every little trick there a/c could do and then some. How else could they shoot down the superior P-51 in a dogfight?

FLYBOYJ · Nov 12, 2011

Ratsel said:
Definition of museum flights is liability, no? Maybe I'm wrong?

No - as it's been identified, these aircraft are operated to an extent that would put them at higher speeds and with some Gs on the airframe

Ratsel said:
Appologies if I am, but certainly nowhere near the same as the airbattles of WWII where the pilots knew every little trick there a/c could do and then some. How else could they shoot down the superior P-51 in a dogfight?

By using the strengths of their aircraft (if they knew them and were trained to do so). Slow down and start turning for example. There were many "inferior" aircraft that could certainly turn inside a Mustang at lower airspeeds. We tend to stress so much on high speeds and turning that it is forgotten that aerial combat is 3 dimensional and a lot of combat is fought in the vertical as well. Also keep in mind that most of these "knock down, drag out" dogfights are actually the exception to the rule and most dogfights lasted seconds and many times the 'victim' of a fighter to fighter engagement never knew or saw what him him!

kettbo · Nov 12, 2011

I am just curious if the museum Mustangs are way under combat weight for these battles
A very light Mustang would be a handful for a 109 even low power....but they could not fight that way with their primary escort mission and ranges involved.
What I have been trying to get from GregP is the wt of those 'Stangs for their little skirmishes.
Betting they come in very light

stona · Nov 12, 2011

kettbo said:
What I have been trying to get from GregP is the wt of those 'Stangs for their little skirmishes.
Betting they come in very light

It doesn't matter.It's irrelevant to the real,wartime,combat situations.
NO excercise or simulation,even the ones modern forces spend millions on,has ever come close to the real thing. Ask any combat veteran,I'm sure there are a few here.
Cheers
Steve

Ratsel · Nov 12, 2011

stona said:
It doesn't matter.It's irrelevant to the real,wartime,combat situations.
NO excercise or simulation,even the ones modern forces spend millions on,has ever come close to the real thing. Ask any combat veteran,I'm sure there are a few here.
Cheers
Steve

And again stona I find myself 100% in agreement with you.

Milosh · Nov 12, 2011

Ratsel said:
Hello vanir,

Please explain W.Nr.110 064 then. Thanks in adavance. =)

WNr 110064 was in the block for the Erla G-5, built between 11.43 and 06.44. The GM 1 received the G-5/U2 designation.

vanir · Nov 12, 2011

I found this on another warbird site discussion:

At least 40% of all Me 109 G used C-3 type fuel ! I know that the MW-50 required C 3 fuel but... I´ve saw a photo of a G-5/ AS serial 110064 of Günther Specht with C-3 type fuel and I wounder If it had MW-50 or GM-1 system.

At least 40% of all Me 109 G used C-3 type fuel ! I know that the MW-50 required C 3 fuel but... I´ve saw a photo of a G-5/ AS serial 110064 of Günther Specht with C-3 type fuel and I wounder If it had MW-50 or GM-1 system.
The presence of GM-1 required the use of low-octane fuel (i.e 87 octane = B4). The fact that Specht's aircraft had a C3 (96 octane) indication, means that it had no GM-1

And I know that the basic AS motor is only put on C3 for MW50, it was a G-5/AS with an ASM motor. If it was an AS with or without GM-1, it has to be on B4. GM-1 doesn't like C3.
In this particular case the fuel card is the giveaway, but like I said, inherently you cannot escape the fact that if you put GM-1 with an AS motor you are prohibited from using it at altitudes less than over a km above the full throttle height of the motor, that's right up near the absolute ceiling of a 109. Nowhere near combat heights. It makes less than no sense, it's a completely useless 300kg+ in the plane.

ie. you're going to be burning most of your fuel load just getting to an altitude where you can use GM-1, way way way up in the deep blue yonder.

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

Banned

Banned

Major

Banned

1st Sergeant

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Banned

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Airman

Major

Banned

Senior Master Sergeant

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads