Adding up the Fw190s and Me109s
Fw190 - 1403
Me109 - 934
The EJG 1 109 Me109s not included.
Of this total of 2337 se fighters available, 1305 (56%) were serviceable.
Luftwaffe Orders of Battle 1945
Realistic max speeds WW2 fighters / Speeds of the late 109s
- Thread starter kettbo
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Adding up the Fw190s and Me109s
Fw190 - 1403
Me109 - 934
The EJG 1 109 Me109s not included.
Of this total of 2337 se fighters available, 1305 (56%) were serviceable.
Luftwaffe Orders of Battle 1945
banned but some gruppes ignored. none-the less, it was there in 44. look at the lists for Bodenplatte, units using 1,98 ata K's. They didn't magically appear on Jan 1st/45. Still waiting on your docs that show the 2000ps DB 605/ASCM wasn't available in Oct/44.
Again, yes there was 2000ps. MW-30 increased the water to 69.5% and decreased methanol to 30%.This increased the cooling performance but made it easier to freeze, intended to be used for lower-altitude missions. EW-30 and EW-50 mixtures also existed, which substituted methanol with ethanol; in emergency, pure water could be used.
What Gruppen ignored the 1.98ata ban?
What K-4 Gruppen during Bodenplatte?
Still waiting for your proofs that the DB605ASCM was available in Oct 44.
It doesn't matter what 'boost juice' was used, it still had to be available.
The shortage of methanol severely restricted the production of munitions.
What K-4 Gruppen during Bodenplatte?
Still waiting for your proofs that the DB605ASCM was available in Oct 44.
It doesn't matter what 'boost juice' was used, it still had to be available.
The shortage of methanol severely restricted the production of munitions.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
The G-10 and K were clearly Mustang beaters, at least the B/D. The best tactic the Mustang could use against these was to avoid combat until the Bf ran out of gas and attack on landing, which by the way the Mustang could do after flying 600 miles from home, wait and attack, and then fly another 600 miles back. However, it took Germany almost one year to field an aircraft that could clearly take on the Mustangs flying over its own airspace, a year it lost the war.
I think the chart you reference was with an experimental propeller with the number VDM9-12199, which Kurfurst states is believed never to have been standardized. The chart I posted does show, I believe, a line for the standard propeller, VDM 9-12159 using ata of 1.98. This is hard to read and I cannot read German anyway.
The report states that test was run with one rack under each wing.
This does bring up an issue that I believe was posted earlier on the quality of available data. The P-51 does have many reports on performance and an analysis of all this data could provide a reasonable expectation of an average aircraft. There is always a discrepancy between aircraft that affect performance e.g. manufacturing tolerances, fuel quality tolerances, engine performance tolerances, etc. If we assume that 375 mph is the high end of performance and 359 mph the low end, we could say that the average speed of the P-51D at 67" Hg and with wing racks was 367 mph. The error of the two test aircraft would be about + 2%. This does not seem unreasonable to me and then both aircraft would be operating within acceptable performance levels. The more the test results higher the confidence of a good number. Unfortunately, we only have one data point on the Bf-109K, and we know it shows calculated performance of a new propeller, but we are not told whether the original propeller data is calculated or not, I would guess it is tested data. We also do not know if this is a high end, average, or low end number. Calculated data, I was told by Soren, a previous contributor, for FW was accurate to 4%, somewhat higher error than the 2% shown above. All in all, confidence in the data for the Bf-109K, and also unfortunately, for many Axis aircraft, is a much lower level than the Mustang, just because there is more data available to analyze.
Even a 1% error due to aircraft variables makes a big difference. So if a Mustang were tested at 380 mph and a Bf-109K was tested 372 mph, I wouldn't bet my life on it. The next two aircraft may be completely opposite.
This is true; however the larger fuselage and wings certainly do make a difference.
Last edited:
I'm surprised they ran out of methanol. Mind you times were tough for German industry towards the end.
Cheers
Steve
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Hope they didn't drink it! Our neighbor, a tin can sailor (aboard the Laffey when it was attacked by kamikazes) said they would often launch torpedoes and they would just bob to the surface, the fuel, ethanol, having been consumed.
Get back to you on this
I./JG 4 - 2 Bf 109K-4
III./JG 4 - 10 Bf 109K-4
IV./JG 4 - 7 Bf 109K-4
II./JG 11 - 4 Bf 109K-4
III./JG 26 - 13 Bf 109K-4
I./JG 27 - 14 Bf 109K-4
III./JG 27 - 15 Bf 109K-4
Stab JG 53 - 1 Bf 109K-4
I./JG 77 - 1 Bf 109K-4
III./JG 77 - 18 Bf 109K-4
total 85. They were not brand new deliveries on Jan 1st/45, thats for sure.
W.Nr. 130 297 well known/documented aircraft
On reading JG 11 JG 27 diaries, MW-50 was not the problem. Fuel shortage was the problem. Most times, they were being fueled for only 30mins of flight.
Ratsel the GM-1 with the AS motor seems pointless and has been bugging me.
I've had a chance to do some digging and I don't believe that it was fitted. I've been in my loft and dug out various tomes and found some good pictures (Prien/Rodeicke's JGI history amongst others). When built in early 1944 this was a standard G-5. Erla-Leipzig would have fitted a DB 605 A engine at that time. Three months later,for some reason,maybe damaged,the aircraft is at Erla-Antwerp. When the AS motor was fitted a new hood was fitted. The 'odd' air scoops and ventilation flaps in the fuselage (cockpit) sides were put in as the pressurisation system was removed.
There is also a C3 fuel triangle which implies that the GM-1 system was converted to MW-50 at this time. Remember that G-6s were built with the GM-1 injector system with the express intention of conversion to MW-50. I've no idea what this makes this aircraft,presumably still a G-5 something or the other.
Cheers
Steve
I've had a chance to do some digging and I don't believe that it was fitted. I've been in my loft and dug out various tomes and found some good pictures (Prien/Rodeicke's JGI history amongst others). When built in early 1944 this was a standard G-5. Erla-Leipzig would have fitted a DB 605 A engine at that time. Three months later,for some reason,maybe damaged,the aircraft is at Erla-Antwerp. When the AS motor was fitted a new hood was fitted. The 'odd' air scoops and ventilation flaps in the fuselage (cockpit) sides were put in as the pressurisation system was removed.
There is also a C3 fuel triangle which implies that the GM-1 system was converted to MW-50 at this time. Remember that G-6s were built with the GM-1 injector system with the express intention of conversion to MW-50. I've no idea what this makes this aircraft,presumably still a G-5 something or the other.
Cheers
Steve
Yep I was vastly mistaken on the GM-1 aspect. W.Nr. 110 064 in question was built at Erla-Leipzig. BAL acceptance on 10 Jan, 1944., within 2 weeks it was either flown, or went by train to Erla-Antwerpn were it was refitted with a DB 605 ASMC engine. The GM-1 was retrofitted for MW-50. Pressure taken out, added the Erla canopy, added vents, etc. Its still classified as a Me 109G-5AS/U2. Thats what confused me, but its all clear now. =)
Thanks for that. I suppose it makes sense in the time frame that the aircraft went to Antwerp without seeing active service,I thought it might have been damaged. Mind you plenty did get damaged on delivery flights.
It makes sense to keep the G-5 designation, G-5AS/U2 it is then. They could hardly have called it a G-6!
Cheers
Steve
All those were using 1.98ata? Sorry but history shows only a staffel size number of a/c were using 1.98ata at that time in II./JG11. This was an operational test unit for 1.98ata.
"Horst Petzschler, Bf 109G-10/AS Wnr.130297 Gelb 5 + 0297 (B/w spinner) JG51. Petzschler flew this a/c to Sweden. (Bf 109 at War) page 92."
This a/c had a DB605D engine.
Horst Petzschler [Archive] - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum
At least one. ANyways documents show on Kurfurst's website on the operational status of /44 for 2000ps engines.
If you know what your looking at, look closely at the engine, you will see its an AS. the 2000ps big dog. Lots of threads on various forums about that a/c. Although never was it an official designation G-10/AS. Why this engine and not the DB605D? Becouse of production of the DB 605D was deleyed, and MOST went to the K-4 Mtt-Reg machines.
Since you like the that board, question the conclusion of the thread and question which engine.
Yes, Veltro, Rasmussin, Prein concluded a AS engine. But NO official G-10/AS designation from Messerschmitt. Search the forum and see for yourself.
Ratsel what points of identity make you believe that the motor in 130297 is an AS? I would expect a D series motor in an aircraft in that block and in the one rather poor photograph I've found (so far) it looks like one.
I can't be arsed to start looking up and matching dates of engine production and airframes! If you'd like to provide the dates and data to back up your contention
"Why this engine and not the DB605D? Becouse of production of the DB 605D was deleyed,and MOST went to the K-4 Mtt-Reg machines."
I'm all ears.
I've spent half a day debunking your AS/GM-1 theory.
Just curious.
Cheers
Steve
I can't be arsed to start looking up and matching dates of engine production and airframes! If you'd like to provide the dates and data to back up your contention
"Why this engine and not the DB605D? Becouse of production of the DB 605D was deleyed,and MOST went to the K-4 Mtt-Reg machines."
I'm all ears.
I've spent half a day debunking your AS/GM-1 theory.
Just curious.
Cheers
Steve
Link?
wasn't my theory. that a/c was listed as a Me 109G-5AS/U2 for a lonnnnnng time. a whole buch of brilliant minds finally determined what it was. but anyways, debunk these:
A handfull of G10/AS at 12./JG 1. They all are from a early batch of G10s with acceptance flight between 20. Oct. and 1. Dec. 1944.
5 December 1944: Oberfähnrich Hans-Werner Kroll of 12./JG 1, killed in Bf 109 G-10/AS "Blue 3" (W.Nr. 490 625) in aerial combat with P-51 fighters, crashed near Zehdenick/Pommern, 100%
17 December 1944: Leutnant Ottokar Henning of 12./JG 1, injured in Bf 109 G-10/AS "Blue 4" (W.Nr. 490 740) in crash on take-off at Anklam, 100%
25 December 1944: Leutnant Hans-Adolf Halbey of 12./JG 1, wounded in Bf 109 G-10/AS "Blue 5" (W.Nr. 490 663) in aerial combat, crashed near Nettersheim, bailed out, 100%
25 December 1944: Oberfeldwebel Otto Soetbeer of 12./JG 1, wounded in Bf 109 G-10/AS "Blue 2" (W.Nr. 490 653) in aerial combat with four-engined bomber in Lüttich area, 100%
25 December 1944: Leutnant Jakob Schneider of 12./JG 1, killed in Bf 109 G-10/AS "Blue 6" (W.Nr. 490 665) in aerial combat with four-engined bomber in Lüttich area, 100%
Ratsel you remind me of a politician! That wasn't the question.
All those losses are Erla built G-10s and most people concede that despite the lack of an official designation some of their production was indeed fitted with the AS motor. I haven't checked but see no reason why those losses might not have been G-10/AS, applying a modern designation.No debunking required since we can both agree on these.
My question was what makes you believe that a 130xxx series,Regensburg built, G-10 was fitted with an AS motor?
Cheers
Steve
All those losses are Erla built G-10s and most people concede that despite the lack of an official designation some of their production was indeed fitted with the AS motor. I haven't checked but see no reason why those losses might not have been G-10/AS, applying a modern designation.No debunking required since we can both agree on these.
My question was what makes you believe that a 130xxx series,Regensburg built, G-10 was fitted with an AS motor?
Cheers
Steve
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Looking at all the P-51B/D test that was available and throwing out the high value and low value and "not reduced" values and averaging the rest (typical quad redundant digital flight control method of establishing a valid number), it appears that the P-51B/D average sea level airspeed using 67" Hg, which is equivalent to about 1650 hp, and with racks, is around 364 mph. If I indeed read the Kurfurst chart correctly, and I am sure someone will correct me if I didn't, then this is approximately the same airspeed as Bf-109K, using the production propeller, is doing at sea level with about 2000 hp being used.
Does anyone know if the test or calculations of the Bf-109K was done with or without racks?
Some added information
Delta airspeed without racks appears to be about 6-8 mph.
Delta airspeed going from 67" to 75", approved for use in April, 1944, is about 15-18 mph.
So, the average P-51D, clean with no racks, and using about 75" boost should be capable of between 385 and 390 mph at sea level. Even with racks, it should be capable of 377 to 384 mph.
Test of the P-51B for 44-1 fuel shows the aircraft making 379 mph with racks. The P-51B is slightly cleaner than the P-51D so the D performance should be a few less mph. Still, the P-51D is very fast.
This is just to show the aerodynamic efficiency of the P-51, which was one of the best, if not the best, WW2 prop fighter (the Fw-190D-9 is similar). Above sea level the light Bf-109K was faster, climbed better and accelerated faster than the P-51B/D and was a better all-around fighter for point defense, in, too-late, late 1944, which made it irrelevant.
- Thread starter
- #360
kettbo
Senior Airman
thank you kindly for your detailed post!
Back to the late 109s for a hot second. Can we come up with some 'modern' numbers for the G-5/AS, G-6/AS G-14/AS? What speeds at what altitude? Pretty sure with the larger supercharger, best performance above 20,000 ft. I am pretty sure the later /AS planes had MW50, right? Does 350mph at sea level sound about right? Then what about with MW50? Might as well ask for the speeds of a regular G-6/G-14 with and without MW50 while I am at it. I am checking performance numbers in a set of wargame rules.
Thanks in advance!
Back to the late 109s for a hot second. Can we come up with some 'modern' numbers for the G-5/AS, G-6/AS G-14/AS? What speeds at what altitude? Pretty sure with the larger supercharger, best performance above 20,000 ft. I am pretty sure the later /AS planes had MW50, right? Does 350mph at sea level sound about right? Then what about with MW50? Might as well ask for the speeds of a regular G-6/G-14 with and without MW50 while I am at it. I am checking performance numbers in a set of wargame rules.
Thanks in advance!
