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

[davparlr]

Speed is important but so are other characteristics. Otherwise the 596mph Me-163 would have swept the sky clean of Allied aircraft.

Well certainly the capability to stay in the air more than a few minutes, and maybe not have the propensity to blow up are important. Now look at the Me-262. If these had been available in number and had protected airfields, they most likely would have reestablish control of the air over Germany due mainly to its speed, at least until the Allies had developed and fielded a just-as-fast aircraft too.

 

[kettbo]

Well certainly the capability to stay in the air more than a few minutes, and maybe not have the propensity to blow up are important. Now look at the Me-262. If these had been available in number and had protected airfields, they most likely would have reestablish control of the air over Germany due mainly to its speed, at least until the Allies had developed and fielded a just-as-fast aircraft too.

That cracked me up!

Ratsel,
Am certain someone posted the 'Erla G-10' as fastest right here on the site in the last week or so. Yes, all depends on which engine is in there, the cowl, tire bulges on the wing no drop tank, etc. Thank you for posting the references Ratsel.

General comment
Lots of factors effect the top speed including the pilot's ability to wring every bit of performance from their planes. Also, wear and tear.
Something not addressed so far was part of the original post, not worded too clearly by me. So we have some of the 109s capable of 430mph+, the Mustangs quoted at around that speed, etc...
What actual wartime performance were the planes capable of? Rated? 95% of rated? Any data or clues as to what one could expect from a not-so-factory-new warbird?
Mixed bag is probably safe assumption

Thanks to all who have posted here, lots of good information
Acceleration from cruise to say 390mph would be a very important performance aspect

 

[vanir]

The Erla G-10 is absolutely celebrated among Luftwaffe vets as the fastest of the breed I've heard many of them say and is reported as such by celebrated researchers in published tenders (there's a great article by a Spanish research team investigating late build G-14/AS and Erla G-10 hotrods used in the late war), it was a very special assembly with pure fighter operations in mind, not bomber-interception or bomb trucking. That's the way it's been told to me and I've read/watched many say the same thing. It is supported by technical details but technical details alone can be extremely ambiguous about actual flight character. Since I was young, German relatives have been telling me the G-10 was the fastest Messer, I believe it was Räll in one of his seminars who described how Erla lightened the airframe, cleaned up the streamlining and fitted the K-4 engine so it had the best engine in any 109, and was lighter than others using that engine, plus more streamlined. Of course it was faster, but Räll commented mostly about its high speed acceleration iirc, it had amazing acceleration above speeds that other aircraft were having trouble keeping up.

But a 109 pilot (honestly I can't remember if it was Räll or who) did say that the Erla G-10 was the one which could exceed 700km/h in level flight, he inferred other types and K-4 included didn't see that kind of speed very often if at all in practise (all quoted figures for 109s in historical MAG/RLM/Lw documentation, except for extremely rare instances, are calculated and not actual recorded performance). Just an interesting postscript.


As for performance in the field, look up some British Air Ministry and RAF assessments of fighter build quality in 1941-42, they did a dedicated report on it. They found variations in level speed capabilities as much as 15mph at all heights from two series Spit airframes taken from the very same production batch, it could vary as much as 30mph between two random examples of the same model/trim and British build quality was considered very good.

Specially prepared test airframes are just pulled apart and put back together with cleaner seams, some of the protrusions, imperfections and rivets are sunk, beat or rubbed and sometimes the skin might be polished. That will get you an average 8mph increase on factory *calculated* performance figures for the type, but it will fly much neater, with much better acceleration and sustained rates and of course be 90% serviceable at all times.
In the real world, serviceability is around 50% of a fully supported fighter contingent under harsh frontal conditions during WW2, whether you're Russian, British, German or in the South Pacific. That's the base measure, 60% or better serviceability was considered good, 30% serviceability was considered intolerably low and somebody in logistics or at the field needs to be sacked.


So when thinking of this real world performance, consider extreme variation for condition and circumstance, consider you're lucky if the engine even runs properly 50% of the time or if it needs a schedule maintenance, or if you're having problems with locally available fuel quality, whether field conditions require STOL and sharp climbs since that's going to influence operations and serviceability.

There's a point where some details about upper envelope performance become superfluous, because they simply don't play as an immediate role in the combat environment as the many other things which can make or break the success of a fighter plane.

Luftwaffe pilots do not distinguish between 1944 build G-6 and G-14 for example, and MAG even expresses the G-14 like this: "Me-109G-6/AS (G-14) mit MW50 und ETC" so when you go and start viewing those two models, sometimes, sometimes you're on the wrong track by even thinking of them as different models. Other times the G-14 will have a 1.8ata motor and the G-6 will have a 1.3ata motor. Another time again the G-14 will have a 1.42ata motor while the G-6 has a 1.7ata motor. Another time somebody put the same engine in both and just stamped right over the G-6 plate with a G-14 suffix and the only thing that was changed was the radios.

 

[GregP]

Our planes have been attending a few airshows. The Zero MAY have been in Prescott, but I'll have to ask this coming Saturday.

The information is there at the museum for all to go and acquire, but I usually get there, attend the volunteer meeting, and then start working on my project (restoring a Bell YP-59A Airacomet to flight status). Lately, we were asked to make some new paneltys for one of our T-6's, and I was cutting out new panels the last few weeks. Since the old ones (0.040") were a bit dented and damaged after 65+ years, we are replacing the panels with 0.050" panels in an effort to make them more robust. Since I am only making 3 panels that come off often, extra weight is not a factor.

As to the flight test of the MiG-15 bis by Chuck Yeager, yes ... he was asked to wring it out.

We have a presentation each month at the Planes of Fame by someone who was important in aviation. In the past, we have had famous test pilots make presentations, and sometime still do. Inf act, one our volunteers is a former B-47 copilot, American Airlines Captain (DC-10 / 747), and still occasiohnally flies our B-25. He is in the naval Pilot's Association and has lunch with Bob Guilliland about every month or so, and I get to have him ask Bob questions. Many of the WWII test pilots stated atht they never knew how long the captured enemy aircraft would fly before breaking, so they frist wanted to test the rate of climb, maneuverabilitym and top speed. After that they would try to find best rate of climb speed and then feel out combat maneuvers. Theyw ere looking for how it performed at the speeds and maneuvers THEY used to attack it with. If the aircraft proved reliable, they'd do more detailed test flights, but the essential questions were posed by combat pilots usually well before the aircraft was captured.

That is, we knew what we wanted to know about the Zero well before we captured one. Ditto the Me 109, Fw 190, etc. The burning questions were fairly well known by the pilots assigned to test the enemy aircraft. In the case of the MiG-15, pilots felt it was faster, climbed better, and was a better aircraft. Chuck's testing revelaed it was LIGHTER than the F-86, and so accelerted quicker, but the F-86 was as fast or faster once it got up to speed. The MiG DID climb better (which they knew), and every Sabre pilots wanted to know the diving characteristics of the MiG. Chuck found out.

As it happens, I was around when one MiG-15 myth was destroyed in 1991. A friend of mine bought a MiG-15 bis from the People's Air Museum just outside Bejing. When he went to pick it up, they threw a big feast in his honor, and several old Korean War MiG pilots attended. While he was there, they started talking about the MiG-15 and he asked them about the rumor that the MiG would sometimes fall into a flat spin and never recover. The old MiG pilots started laughing and he asked why.

They said that the Americans had everything during the war ... hot showers, dry tents, and most importantly, g-suits. The Communist pilots didn;t have g-suits and if they pulled too hard intoa turn, they would black out and fall into a spin. If they woke up in time, they would recover and fly home! If they didn't ...

So, they maintained there was nothing wrong with the MiG that a g-suit would not cure. Of course, now that I'm located near Chino, and we HAVE a MiG-15 bis at the Planes of Fame ... I know it has no bad flight characteristics that are unexpected and dangerous. Great jet!

 

[Ratsel]

~snip~

Not every pilot flew all G-10's at the various plants. Save one fellow for sure who did: Mortl Nicolause WNF/Diana test pilot. And some of his pictures would show, Erla/Mtt-Reg/WNF G-10's in late 1944 were not all that concerened with 'fit and finish' for streamling. Nor the fact of 3 different cowls on the G-10, and that Erla used a mix of the clean dirty cowls. The DB 605D used in G-10's were the exact same engines used in the later K-series. If you get a chance read General Rall's book Günther Rall: A Memoir

' consider you're lucky if the engine even runs properly 50% of the time or if it needs a schedule maintenance'

Erich Hartmann attributed alot of his success to his mechanic, Heinz 'Bimmel' Mertens, who kept his engines/planes running tip top. As most pilots relied heavily on there mechanics. And they were gooood at what they did. Right up until the last days. They had those engines running like swiss watches for the most part.

Btw, all 605 series engines were cleared for 1.42 ata in the first quarter of 1943. Also a G-6 G-14 are seperate models. Just like a G-5/AS was a seperate model from a G-10. Special radios were used in the G-6/Y.

 

[GregP]

Welcome back Ratsel! Please stay around.

 

[Siegfried]

I suspect that the Germans, who evaluated P-51's were under no illusions as to the general superiority of the P-51 over the Me 109 though you don't tell the pilots that. The appearance of the 3 speed two stage Merlin 100's in either a strenghtened P-51D (as the British developed) or in the radically new P-51H likely would have opened the gap again. Nevertheless the Me 109 always had some tricks and niche areas. The reality of performance of the Me 109G6 above 25000ft when compared to the P-38 and P-47 is around 40mph less speed and that is what the poor undertained Luftwaffe pilot had to contend with till the middle of 1944.

The exploitation of higher speeds needs new equipement and tactics
1 Lead Computing Gryo Gunsights (EZ40, EZ42 and EZ45 for the Germans)
2 Likely a radar to set the range in the gunsight automatic (Elfe computer with and FuG 246 ranging radar for the Germans)
3 New guns with higher firing rates and velocities; for the Germans this was the MG213/20 revolver gun whose rotary mechanism was designed so and not to jam under high G firing as reciprocating machine canons were prone to do.
4 The short engagement and aiming times really needed not only the aformentioned gunsights, radar raging equipment
but new weapons. For the Germans there were several of these apart from the revolver canon:
a/ R4M 55mm folding fin rocket, eventually with proximity fuze.
b/ R100 180mm unguided missiles with proximity fuse and in its R100BS form with a shaped charge timed incendiary pelletwarhead and a timed pre set fuse (Brand Schrapnel). About 25 were test fired: they seemed to be more for night interceptions.
c/ A variety of guided air to air weapons using MCLOS, infrared, accoustic homming or even active radar (Blaupunkts MAX-A for the Henschell Hs 298 AAM and Wasserfall SAM, there was also MAX-P (Passive) which targeted allied microwave radars.

The Me 163B's problem was as much endurance and firepower as too high a speed: two versions with a more efficient two chamber boost/sustainer rocket motor with greater fuel capcity were to address this. Me 163C and the less elaborate streched Me 263/Ju 248 that was actually proceded with. The Me 163B had actually been designed to intercept fast reconaisance aircraft.

Of course airbrakes seemed to become important to the allies as both the P-80 and Meteor III had them. Perhaps the Me 262 would've been retrofitted as the Meteor III was with such airbrakes; or more likely the Germans weren't keen on slowing their fast aircraft down.

 

[Ratsel]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EDP5JmtSrM

 

[Kryten]

is'nt this the same Dogfights programme you spend most of your time deriding Ratsel?


unclear why you have posted that to be honest?, the guy was shot down moments later I seem to recall?

 

[Juha]

...Btw, all 605 series engines were cleared for 1.42 ata in the first quarter of 1943. Also a G-6 G-14 are seperate models. Just like a G-5/AS was a seperate model from a G-10. Special radios were used in the G-6/Y.

IIRC 1.42ata boost was initialy cleared, some of the aircraft being captured by the british having card showing the 1.42ata boost as being cleared. Then in Nov 42 documents were issued showing the 1.42ata as being unavailable till further notice. The new, stronger crowns for pistons was the first remedy and 1,42ata appears to have been cleared in 8 June 1943, and used operationally at Kursk, however it seems they were not entirely satisfied and recalled the clearance and only in DB documents dated Nov 43 the boost was finally cleared. The final fix was achieved by installing oil de-aerators

 

[Ratsel]

Yes Ofw. Franz Meindl 31 kill ace Me 109G-14 W.Nr.784 765 'blaue 11' of 8./JG11 was hit by flak, as confirmed by Uwe Benkel, internationally known historian who has recieved praised by many countries on finding allied/axis crash sites, putting names to unknown soldiers and repatronizing them. He found his plane and confirmed a direct flak hit to the cockpit. Dogfights says he was shot down by a P-51.

I posted it to show that it ended up as being for P-51 vs 1 Me 109G-14. Seems the 109 pilot had high praise from its counterparts.

I don't spend my time debunking Dogfights, I think I mentioned them twice before about not showing enough Axis content as the main focus.

Kindest Regards.

IIRC 1.42ata boost was initialy cleared, some of the aircraft being captured by the british having card showing the 1.42ata boost as being cleared. Then in Nov 42 documents were issued showing the 1.42ata as being unavailable till further notice. The new, stronger crowns for pistons was the first remedy and 1,42ata appears to have been cleared in 8 June 1943, and used operationally at Kursk, however it seems they were not entirely satisfied and recalled the clearance and only in DB documents dated Nov 43 the boost was finally cleared. The final fix was achieved by installing oil de-aerators

Seems right to me, thanks Juha. =)

 

[Kryten]

without a military forensic report I would be doubtfull that he would be able to account for certain what brought that plane down, they tend to be a collection of scrap metal and scattered fragments!

 

[kettbo]

I enjoyed the video, thanks for posting it Ratsel. I had missed this broadcast.
Seems to me, this fight...close-in knife-fight so to speak, the 109 would have an advantage over a single Mustang.
To keep several at bay, good job!
By 1 JAN 45, this was the exception where 4:1 odds is a nearly a foregone conclusion.

 

[tyrodtom]

Has anybody ever walked in the woods and ever discovered a old vehicle full of bullet holes. Young troops were certainly known to use downed enemy aircraft, tanks, vehicles, for target practice, not exactly a secret.

How is this person supposed to look at a crashed aircraft X amount of years later, ( after it had probably been buried with a bulldozer) going to determine what damage was precrash damage, and what was post crash damage ?

 

[Ratsel]

I enjoyed the video, thanks for posting it Ratsel. I had missed this broadcast.
Seems to me, this fight...close-in knife-fight so to speak, the 109 would have an advantage over a single Mustang.
To keep several at bay, good job!
By 1 JAN 45, this was the exception where 4:1 odds is a nearly a foregone conclusion.

Hey thanks buddy, if you want, I can put you in contact with Herr Theo Nau, is aproaching 90 years young and his mind is still sharp as a razor. He can tell you the real scoop on the G-14 top speed odds with JG 11 in the west at least.

 

[vanir]

Not every pilot flew all G-10's at the various plants. Save one fellow for sure who did: Mortl Nicolause WNF/Diana test pilot. And some of his pictures would show, Erla/Mtt-Reg/WNF G-10's in late 1944 were not all that concerened with 'fit and finish' for streamling. Nor the fact of 3 different cowls on the G-10, and that Erla used a mix of the clean dirty cowls. The DB 605D used in G-10's were the exact same engines used in the later K-series. If you get a chance read General Rall's book Günther Rall: A Memoir

' consider you're lucky if the engine even runs properly 50% of the time or if it needs a schedule maintenance'

Erich Hartmann attributed alot of his success to his mechanic, Heinz 'Bimmel' Mertens, who kept his engines/planes running tip top. As most pilots relied heavily on there mechanics. And they were gooood at what they did. Right up until the last days. They had those engines running like swiss watches for the most part.

Btw, all 605 series engines were cleared for 1.42 ata in the first quarter of 1943. Also a G-6 G-14 are seperate models. Just like a G-5/AS was a seperate model from a G-10. Special radios were used in the G-6/Y.

I have at least one documented account of a G-6 being given a factory "conversion update to G-14 standard" Oct44 and the only thing changed was the radios. The plate was restamped as a G-14, then returned to the same pilot. He commented that field conversions done like this often didn't receive the new instrument panel and didn't always have an engine change, and MW50 was standardised on factory built G-14s.
So you have an odd case. I have a wartime document listing a specific werk nummer as a G-6 and parenthesising G-14. Now I naturally assume that probably means that particular example was a partial conversion in the field, honestly I wouldn't know. But the point is you must recognise distinction in mid 44 between G-6 and G-14 is superfluous in the field. It's a case of individual airframe examination to determine its equipment fit, engine, performance, you name it.
And it is not the first time pilots have stated the G-14 is just a G-6 with MW50, or that it is just a radio update, or that you can tell the difference by the instrument panel (but otherwise not easily?).

You cannot possibly have never heard this?

 

[Ratsel]

Not all G-14's came with MW-50. And like what was previously mentioned, some G-14 were rebulit G-6's. Whereas all G-10 were brand new airframes. Radios were FuG 16 ZY (id'ed with the so-called morane mast under the left wing) FuG 25's (for friendly a/c, flak batteries etc.). These were found in Late G-6Y's/G-14's/G-10's/K-4's/K-14's. No doubt as you said field conversions took place of radios/MW-50 such. Ost front aircraft tended to delete the FuG 16 ZY radios though.

 

[MikeGazdik]

Has anybody ever walked in the woods and ever discovered a old vehicle full of bullet holes. Young troops were certainly known to use downed enemy aircraft, tanks, vehicles, for target practice, not exactly a secret.

How is this person supposed to look at a crashed aircraft X amount of years later, ( after it had probably been buried with a bulldozer) going to determine what damage was precrash damage, and what was post crash damage ?

While I certainly agree it may be tough to determine what brought the 109 down, I don't think the part about finding something in the woods, all shot up argument. People that shoot old cars and such in the woods are bored, looking for something to shoot. The soldiers (from both sides) on the ground in that area likely had other targets to keep them occupied.

 

[tyrodtom]

The airfields struck by operation Bodemplatte were forward airfields, but that doesn't mean on the front line. About the closes was Y-29 at Asch, Belgium, it was about 20 miles from the front lines on Jan. 1st. Some of the others struck was more like 100-150 miles from the front lines.

The AA units around the various forward fields didn't just happen to be there, they were assigned to protect those bases. Once the air attacks were over, it would be back to the usual waiting for something to happen. Even in a combat area troops doing boring , waiting jobs, were known to spice up their routine.

 

[Ratsel]

Deep in the woods. Nothing but trees, bush, grass, and a water filled crater. no AA units to target this area ( not saying your wrong or anything )