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

[Siegfried]

You are, of course, free to accept the word of a Hawker employee; I much prefer to use the Supermarine (Spitfire manufacturer) drawing, which refers to the item as the "rear spar," shows all of the ribs as being attached to it, the outer skinning also being riveted to it, and the spar, itself, attached to one of the main frame members of the fuselage. I'm no engineer, but that doesn't sound like "secondary," or "carrying little of the load," to me.

Mk.18 (old wing) capable of 442 mph at 19,000' with a ceiling of 43,500'; 22/24 450mph at 25,000' with a ceiling of 44,500'. Those differences might be "miserable," in your eyes, but not in mine.

Can't trust those Hawker employees? Worse than Jerry.

The Mk XVIII/18 spitfire was built as an improvement on the improvised Mk XIV standard series spitfire incase the Mk 20 series, with new wings and spring tab technology failed (which it nearly did).

The Mk XVIII used the same broad structure but stainless steel stringers were used to replace many aluminium ones as an expedient to obtaining greater strength and the main spar was made of stainless steel that was formed of a tapering section rather than a series of 'telescope' like sections inserted into each other.

From memmory the 20 series (really the Mk.22 as the Mk.20 had handling problems) almost doubled roll rate at speed due to its greater torsional rigidity of its wings, it also greatly eased elevator forces. There is data around. It had a new wing structure, slightly more square planform and spring tabs on the elevators.

Aircraft like the FW-190D-13 were already comming with hydraulic boosted controls, the Ta 152 was going to get the same controls, the Do 335 had them. The Spitifre would need all the help it could get in this area if it was to remain competitive.

 

[Ratsel]

I found this on another warbird site discussion:



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.

A number of Me 109G-5/U2 fighters were converted to AS types by Erla-Antwerpen(not at Erla-Lipzig). W.Nr.110 064 was a AS engine with C4 + GM-1. No idea on the output. Wotowski has a foto of the GM-1 access hatch on the port wing of 110 064. I may be wrong, but as it stands now this is the case. Btw my 100oct avgas with my BB Chevy loves GM-1

On a interesting sidenote it was also thought before that pressurized G-5's did not have the Fresh air intake scoops below the windscreen, but recently it was proven that Me 109G-5/AS W.Nr.110 064 did have those scoops. Still learning new things everyday. W.Nr. 109 confirmed by Jochen Prien, JG 1/ 11 history, Vol. 2, p. 843, photo no. 689.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

Greg would be more qualified to answer this on single engine warbird recips, but I have de-militarized aircraft and although you can remove a lot of equipment that would make the aircraft a hell of a lot lighter, you also have to maintain CG requirements and sometimes after removing equipment, you're adding ballast back so the aircraft can be safely flown - just something to think about.

 

[pbfoot]

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?

so you are relying on a man thats 90 . I use 90 because thats the age of my dad and if I ever want to know about Finches Cornells Stearmans or Hurricanes I'll ask him but my old boy which is amazing is still on top of his game unlike most of the old guys. I've talked to aces , experten and the such and most know of which they talk but memories are are a little frayed and my memories are a little frayed and I'm only 60.

 

[kettbo]

Greg would be more qualified to answer this on single engine warbird recips, but I have de-militarized aircraft and although you can remove a lot of equipment that would make the aircraft a hell of a lot lighter, you also have to maintain CG requirements and sometimes after removing equipment, you're adding ballast back so the aircraft can be safely flown - just something to think about.

Exactly my point FlyboyJ
In the 109, start yanking weapons, ammo etc (all in the nose) and you start having CG problems. So, not that much can come out.
In the Mustang, guns and all that in the wings.....less of an issue. And if you need some weight, bolt it inside the fuselage.

Stona,
I realize museum bird vs museum bird does not equate to exact combat conditions. The flying is way different, but this is all we have now. I am trying to see what wt the Mustangs flew at during the PoF combats. I am not a raving 109 fan hell-bent in proving anything about the 109. No 109s tattood on my skin. If we have a Mustang at near the correct weights, same for the few flying 109s, then we can get data. If the Mustangs were light fuel/light weight, then unfortunately GregP mentioning the jousting just becomes a nice story.

I keep saying this, would like to see apples vs apples

 

[GregP]

A comment:

Ratsel has good points, many other people have good points. The thing is, we sse some numbers and they are not shown as IAS ot TAS, KPH, MPH, or knots. They are just quoted as numbers which are meanignless without units.

The Bf / Me 109 was a VERY good aircaft with some flaws, as was the Spitfire / Mustang, etc. The real question was whether the flaws of one were offset by the assets of another at some particular time. The Me 109 was NOT a super-plane. It was a very ordinary design with decent performance for the installed power. Ditto the Spitfire.

There is NO WAY the 109, in ANY of its variants, was the best fighter of the war in airframe performance. Ain't gonna' happen, and didn't.

But it DID shoot down the most enemy aircraft of any other fighter aircraft in history, in all other air wars all put together ... if we could only esatblish that number. We KNOW it but are not sure what the number is.

Personally I think the best-performing airframe was the Spitfire, followed by the Ta-152 / Fw 190D, followed by the Mustang, and everything else followed these three. Just my opinion. The "other planes" were not far behind, and the fight between, say, a P-47 and an Me 109 could mostly be determined by the guy driving the aircraft ... pilot skill. Pilot skill was MUCH more important than the aircraft.

If I had Erich Hartmann in an armed Piper Cub and a non-known pilot in something else, I'd bet on Hartmann, solely due to his skill as a marksman or a "close in and kill them" warrior.
As far as airframe performance, the Me 109 was well down the list in actual performance, but was loved and flown well by it's adherants. Nothing to sneer at and probnably able to shoot you down unless you were able to defend with vigor. If not, hit the slik or run. Many Allied aircaft COULD run or fight with equal or better vigor. Many could not.

It largely depended on who saw who first, the experience level of the potential victim who could very easily become the victor if the attack could be done right, and the accuracy of the attack. Let's face it, if the bullets miss, the victim gets away. If they don't, the real issue is "Can you survive the crash?"

 

[stona]

W.Nr.110 064 was a AS engine with C4 + GM-1. No idea on the output. Wotowski has a foto of the GM-1 access hatch on the port wing of 110 064.

So the presence of an access hatch confirms the presence of the GM-1 kit? I don't know whether it was there or not but beware of extrapolation!

You meant B-4 right? I don't know about GM-1 but the consequences of using B-4 fuel with an AS motor and MW-50 were terminal. ".....der Motor sofort zerstort wird" according to the G-14 MW-Anlage Karte.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Ratsel]

yah B4, but W.Nr.110 064 was converted to a G-5/AS retained GM-1 w/ C4.

operation with GM-1 AS engines..

First Operation


The special fabric is in a thermally insulated container of about 115 l
Content and means of compressed air at a pressure of 4-5 atm in the nozzle
Charger shaft of the engine down. Here, the material reaches the intake air
stream is atomized and vaporized, and so with the charge air to the motor-
leads.

By turning on the switch self-GM 1 (A10) in the cab the promotion
derpreßluft to the GM 1-tank given, the system is serviceable.
By pushing of button 1 (white ring) 2 valves are opened.
This one makes way for the GM 1-fluid to the motor, the other sets
by opening a large cross-section of the initial period of conditioning to
full effect (only lines must be cold) down to about 6 sec.
By releasing the push button 1 to 6 seconds, this quick release Sven-
valve is closed again. The plant is in operation. Pressing Pressure
2 button (red dot) is switched off the system.

The GM-1 system can be any number of times during the flight and switched on
be. If the equipment during the flight once been in operation, he-
übrigt on further turning on a long press on button 1, because the
System now responds immediately.

The GM-1 according to the container may also Einsatzweck filled with 80 l
be. This is a second vent pipe in the container provided. In the
Delivered, the 80 l capacity is set. Is filled with 115 l
To remove the blank disc in conjunction tee two vent pipes.


Second After filling the tank with GM-1 and compressed air.


The compressed air pressure must be at least 135 atm, 150 atm, however, may not
. exceed The hand is bleeding in the Preßluftniederdruckleitung
. close

By switching on the network and impressions of the GM-1-self-switch (A10)
is compressed to a container filled with GM to review the
Betanksatzes given tightness. GM made a self-switch, power off, hand-
vent on. The aircraft can be parked until the start.


Third Action immediately before the start.


Close hand vent. The pilot pushes before the start of the A 10
"On", the system is so serviceable.


4th Start.


Attention from the Start! Aircraft nose up through the GM-1 system and
Therefore, to trim to 1 1 / 2 top-heavy.


5.Einsatz GM first


GM 1-addition may be made until full pressure over high, otherwise the engine over-
overloaded and is still no better flight performance can be achieved.
Minimum altitude at Flgz. with DB 605 A engine climb 8000 m.
Minimum altitude at Flgz. with DB 605 AS engine climb 10000 m
Minimum altitude at Flgz. with DB 605 AS engine level flight 10,500 m

At GM, an operation may be flown only with air screw mechanism. GM 1
principle is added only in combat power. However, the throttle
flap can be actuated during the GM 1-flight, without further notice (b. approaches, etc.).
Addition of GM 1: Press button 1 (white ring) about 6 sec then
Releasing the push button.
Power off by pressing of button 2 (red dot).



- 2 -




6th Coolant temperatures: (Only valid if coolant pressure relief valve

MDV-16 D, No. 8-4643 D equipment installed).

Aircraft with GM 1 may be at any altitude with an engine outlet
be flown temperature of 100 ° C. Controls the automatic radiator valves
at low temperatures (about 80 - 90 ° C), then by manual adjustment of
Fold the cooler temperature to 100 ° C., and thus essential
considerable improvement of flight performance are achieved (not over-engine ATTENTION!
. overheat)


7th Oxygen system.


When using air charger for charging the pressurized cabin of the aircraft
tool (as opposed to air compressors) is one of the GM-operation during the
Cabin air for breathing unusable. It is therefore essential
that the altitude breathing switched to manual intervention by blowing oxygen
is. The oxygen supply in these machines is increased accordingly.


8th After landing.


GM 1-auto switch (A10) turn off, open hand vent valve immediately!


9th Evaporation GM 1 with a filled container and open hand ventilation.


By absorption of heat occurs continuously evaporation of a substance. It
is obvious that this loss on at higher ambient temperatures largest
is. On hot summer days is to be expected that the GM 1 content in the
Bf 109 is evaporated in 2 days. As a rough guide of the training
steam may serve the following values:

Duration of the GM-1 Flight Time: (Figures in brackets for filling 80 l)
.
First Start immediately after filling the system.
Summer: 22 min (17) Winter: 22 min (17)
Second 6 hours after filling
Summer: 19 min (15) Winter: 21 min (16)
Third 12 hours after filling
Summer: 16 minutes (12) Winter: 19 min (15)
4th 24 hours after filling
Summer: 11 min (9) Winter: 16 minutes (12)

Since the container with an open hand ventilation is not under pressure, is a
Refueling at any time.


10th Fuel consumption.


The higher power output with GM 1-operation requires a higher power
fuel consumption. In the currently GM added 1-set, an Ordinary-
Licher consumption of 40 l / h can be assumed.


11th Full inspection and test plan for GM plants in a Bf 109 G can

with the Department 19583/Lg.P.A L. Brussels will be requested.
(Obing. Tritzna).


12th Trained GM 1-waiting for the troops are already available and

gene are over. TT IV (Stabing. Schotmann, Rfn. 6970) to request.

so you are relying on a man thats 90 . I use 90 because thats the age of my dad and if I ever want to know about Finches Cornells Stearmans or Hurricanes I'll ask him but my old boy which is amazing is still on top of his game unlike most of the old guys. I've talked to aces , experten and the such and most know of which they talk but memories are are a little frayed and my memories are a little frayed and I'm only 60.

86 years young. His mind is still as sharp as a razor. He says you never forget the thing that saves your life. Or the experiances of as he puts it " that senseless war ".

 

[Milosh]

Gunther Specht's Bf 109G-5/AS, W.Nr.110 064 - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum

Thread started by Oberst (Ratsel) on WNr.110064.

 

[Milosh]

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/me-109g-db-605-a-11206.html

Performance of Me-109G with DB 605 AS.

 

[Ratsel]

Gunther Specht's Bf 109G-5/AS, W.Nr.110 064 - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum

Thread started by Oberst (Ratsel) on WNr.110064.

Yep. Getting to the truth of W.Nr.110 064. Really fast. Jochen Prien post on original private colour film was most appreciated. NO stripes. One mystery solved thats been lingering for years. Carl E. Charles post sheds some further light.

If you have any information you should contribute to it.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/me-109g-db-605-a-11206.html

Performance of Me-109G with DB 605 AS.

Nice evaluation report.


vanir,

The GM-1 unit was removed upgraded to Mw-50 w/ C3 @ Erla-Antwerpen plant. But the original AS B4 engine used GM-1. As was evident by the 6 compressed air bottles in the Starboard wing, this also is used for the MW-50. Becouse the MW-50 was much more effective, not becouse of possible problems. So I was partial wrong, W.Nr.110 064 started life AS/GM-1 equipt, but ended its career with MW-50.

As far as 'engine damage' is concerned, this is the only thing I found, translated from German:

' The use of B4 and MW-50 without the application of emegency boost was prohibited, owing to the risk of engine damage. '

Where-as with C3 fuel used, the pilot did not have to engage emergency boost first.

 

[stona]

' The use of B4 and MW-50 without the application of emegency boost was prohibited, owing to the risk of engine damage. '

Where-as with C3 fuel used, the pilot did not have to engage emergency boost first.

From the source I mentioned above. 'sofort zestort' can only be translated as 'immiediately destroyed'.

Cheers
Steve

 

[stona]

' The use of B4 and MW-50 without the application of emegency boost was prohibited, owing to the risk of engine damage. '

Where-as with C3 fuel used, the pilot did not have to engage emergency boost first.

From the source I mentioned above. 'sofort zestort' can only be translated as 'immiediately destroyed',nothing about a risk.

Of course GM-1 is effectively a high altitude boost system,a point Vanir was making,which MW-50 certainly is not. Hence the minimum operating altitude of aircraft with a DB 605AS motor and GM-1 was 10,000m in a climb and 10,500m in level flight. I don't see why it was worth fitting!

Cheers
Steve

 

[kettbo]

I can tell you what happens to a performance street car or drag car with GM1 / Nitrous Oxide if it runs lean
think of serious detonation, pounded bearings and melted pistons!

 

[stona]

Burnt out pistons is just about the most common reason reported for engine replacements in late war Bf109s.
Steve

 

[Ratsel]

'Sofort zerstört' would be 'Instantly destroyed'. I suspose Messerschmitt revised the wording in their manuals. But yes, thats der end result. Accounts for alot of takeoff engine failors in the 109 during those alarm starten.

kettbo,

I'll get back to you with EXACT information via pm.

 

[GregP]

A good weight for our Mustangs is between 8000 and 8600 pounds, depending on fuel and number of people aboard. We DO fly them heavier and sometimes maybe a bit lighter, but mostly at about 8500 pounds or so.

A P-51D with no external tanks weighed in at 8,000 - 9,600 pounds depending on load out.

Empty weight: 7,635 pounds
Max Normal Takeoff: 10,100 pounds
Max Gross Weight: 12,100 pounds

If you figure 90 gallons of fuel and 12 gallons of oil, you get about 8,260 pounds for a normal P-51D in wartime condition, without pilot, no ammunition (that's how we fly).

I don't have the exact weights for our Mustangs but could get them if I wanted to do so. Since there is interest, I'll check on it. We don't have guns installed, no armor plate, no hard points except the ability to carry drop tanks when desired. We don't have a heavy old radio; we have modern very light radio. We don't have the fuselage tank insatlled. Instead, we have a passenger's seat there.

So we typically fly with about half to 2/3 fuel and two people in the plane. Though our planes occsionally sit outside, they are mostly hangared, so the finish and surface is better than what would usually be found on a wartime fighter that sits outside all the time in the weather.

 

[davparlr]

Also consider what kind of condition those aircraft were in when the IDF picked them up. They might have gone thru SDLM and placed in flyable storage.

I talked to my brother and he said that they were responsible for insuring flight qualifying. He stated that much checking out was on the flight from Pensacola to Norfolk. There the planes would be flown by Navy pilots to Israel. He said that as soon as they landed the planes would be loaded with fuel and weapons and Israel pilots would climb in a fly off, presumably on a mission.

 

[davparlr]

' Another significant item we can get is the airspeed at sea level. The P-51D, with roughly the same power available at SL, 1800 hp, was 40 mph faster than the AM and ASM engined Bf-109G-14, an over 10% increase in speed at the same power. This indicates the P-51D had significantly better aerodynamic integration than the Bf-109G-14. Even the more powerful K with 2000 hp was slower at sea level than the P-51D '


Lets compare apples to apples here. Bf 109G-10 rate of climb was over 4,600 ft/min at 1.98atu. 373 mph at sea level. The K was better climbing and faster at sea level the the G-10 @ 1.98atu.

The Bf-109K, pulling 1.98atu, approx. 2000 hp, did less than 365 mph, least according to Kurfurst chart below

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026-26_DCStart_noMW_geschw.jpg

According to AF test, the P-51D does 375 mph at SL pulling 67"Hg, loaded with full armament load and full wing fuel and 35 gallons in the fuselage tank. This would reflect the flight condition on initial release of drop tanks when engaging Bf-109s over Germany. 67" Hg at sea level equates to 1630 hp.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342-level.jpg

So, the P-51D, with 370 less hp, is faster at SL than the Bf-109K, pulling 1.98atu. Looks like apples to apples to me. And, the Mustang does this with 2200 lbs more weight, a much larger fuselage and 33% larger wing. This is with 67' Hg and, at the time of the Bf-109G-10/K, the P-51D was approved for 75" Hg, or about 1800 hp at SL.

I never claimed the P-51D was better at climb, or a better fighter than the Bf-109G-10 or K, which I don't think it is. I only claim that the P-51D aero integration is vastly superior to any Bf-109 configuration, which should be expected with about six year's difference in design.

 

[Ratsel]

Yep a typo on my part. Should have said 365 mph. The Me 109G-6/AS was faster then the K-4 @ sea level though, by one KPH.

Wheres this data that shows the P-51 doing 375mph @ sea level w/ full arnament load. Just curious.