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

vanir said:

Lt Hans-Ulrich Flade flew Me-109G-14, G-10 and K-4 with JG27 in 1945. He says firstly the final versions of each had about the same performance. He said secondly his flight never had any problem escaping Mustangs in a climb. His job was to break up enemy escort formations (Mustangs mostly in 45) for the interceptors (Me-410/109G/Fw190A mixed interceptor groups and jets). He would dive as a pair or four out fo the sun on the Mustangs, break up their formation and then zoom clear, change course, find another group. He said the problem was if you got into a dogfight, the escorts were too numerous and you'd eventually be clawed to the ground no matter how you flew.

Click to expand...

This is not inconsistent with the data I have seen. The climbing ability of the Bf-109 vs the P-51 is always close and probably within the measurement and manufacturing error for the most part. Also, the Bf-109 is always noted as having very good zooming ability. The problem the Bf-109G-14 had with the P-51B/D was mainly speed. The G-10 and K-4 had no such problem with performance except probably endurance. In my opinion this comment represents a sound strategy for attacking the forces bombing Germany. The real problem Germany had was that these particular aircraft, especially the G-10 and K, was that they were not available in quantity and in a timely manner to blunt the onslaught visited on the homeland in 1944-45.

vanir said:

Feb44 British Ministry comparative test report of a captured Me-109G-2 versus the new Hawker Tempest V Compiled and paraphrased (eg. metric conversion) notes of interest:
-At heights above 5000 metres the speed advantage of the Tempest rapidly diminishes. Below 5000 metres the Tempest V is 65-80km/h faster.
-At speeds up to 350IAS (565km/h indicated) the Me-109G-2 handles easily as well as the Tempest through all manoeuvres, "there is nothing to choose between them" are the exact words of the report. Only above 565km/h IAS is the Tempest superior in manoeuvrability if the pilot changes bank and direction frequently. I think those are very interesting words.
-The Tempest V has a slightly superior turning circle to the Me-109G.
-The initial climb rates of the Me-109G is superior to the Tempest V at all heights but this advantage is not so pronounced under 1500 metres.
-In sustained climb the Tempest V is slightly superior to the Me-109G only if it begins the climb at speeds above 400km/h.

Click to expand...

I fear that you version has lost something in translation; taken from the file in the National Archives in London. "Nothing to choose between them" never appears.

G what? 1? 2?.....6? What arnament? engine? MW-50/GM-1 equipt? Embarrasment from slats (not slots) opening? Nice visual aid for stall IMO.

A nice find edgar. Should get a lively response I expect......

Wonder if the Brits knew there was more then 3 settings to the flaps... off -> ? -> takeoff -> Landing. The '?' helps alot.

Ratsel said:

G what? 1? 2?.....6? What arnament? engine? MW-50/GM-1 equipt? Embarrasment from slats (not slots) opening? Nice visual aid for stall IMO.

Click to expand...

That report was written by a pilot and he was just making a report to what was placed in front of him. He knew nothing of basic equipment and engine dash numbers, etc., as a matter of fact neither did the British at the time. Slats/ slots were just the difference of nomenclature. As far as the Slats popping out prior to a stall, it was un nerving to see them deploying but when you're flying an aircraft your head should be in the cockpit. Although the slat deployment could be used as a visual aid, the aircraft will "tell you" when its about to stall. The first pilots who flew captured equipment knew nothing of V speeds, landing and take off procedures or what to expect from equipment and assessories that were part of the aircraft.

Ratsel said:

Wonder if the Brits knew there was more then 3 settings to the flaps... off -> ? -> takeoff -> Landing. The '?' helps alot.

Click to expand...

That they did and it would be evident when deploying the flaps on the ground and feeing the 'detent' in each setting.

Read Vanir's post (153), your answers are found there.

Thanks. As well if they are giving tactical advice when its a G-2, dosn't help when its G-6/14/10's there up against (1944). Just sayin'. Post #154 gave the answer to post #153. Anyways Combat flaps which Allied test pilots did not feel like messing with when evaluating their prize. Slats are good to when ones plane is damaged and making all kinds of noises, and unwanted movement, the kind that mask the normal stall charactoristics of the 109. Having a visual aid is good.

Ratsel said:

Thanks. As well if they are giving tactical advice when its a G-2, dosn't help when its G-6/14/10's there up against (1944). Just sayin'. Post #154 gave the answer to post #153.

Click to expand...

Understand that more than likely the Brits (or allies for that part) did not know about specific -109 models. As far as they were concerned what they got was "it," that's my point. The only time the allies knew of model variences is when either intelligence offices studied wrecks or when an aircraft was captured in tact.

Ratsel said:

Anyways Combat flaps which Allied test pilots did not feel like messing with when evaluating their prize. Slats are good to when ones plane is damaged and making all kinds of noises, and unwanted movement, the kind that mask the normal stall charactoristics of the 109. Having a visual aid is good.

Click to expand...

During the testing of the first captured -109s there were maintenance problems with the slats, it was felt that they were not deploying evenly so they were wired shut. The Lysander also had automatic slats and they too had them wired shut in the field. Later in the war -109 slat operation was understood and it was viewed as normal operation for the aircraft.

I don't know what you're trying to say but if the slat is built on the aircraft its stall with the slat IS the normal stall characteristic. One can compare it to another model without the slat or with the slat made inoperative. You cannot generalize about slat operation on a damaged aircraft when you're not specific about the damage.

Slat operation/deployment was different say between the G-2/G-10. Mechanically speaking of course. Perhaps I should have said they are more "stall warning" and give the pilot some time to correct. Also, its beneficial in a turning dogfight, especially against those pesky P-51s as most Me 109 pilots found out. I wasn't generalizing anything, but its obvious the Allied test pilots did not have the knowledge of the operation of those slats for a very long while.

Ratsel said:

Slat operation/deployment was different say between the G-2/G-10. Mechanically speaking of course. Perhaps I should have said they are more "stall warning" and give the pilot some time to correct. Also, its beneficial in a turning dogfight, especially against those pesky P-51s as most Me 109 pilots found out. I wasn't generalizing anything, but its obvious the Allied test pilots did not have the knowledge of the operation of those slats for a very long while.

Click to expand...

Agree to a point. Automatic deploying slats were around prior to the war and their operation were well known, it was a matter of understanding their operation. Allied test pilots did not have the benefit of looking at a flight manual or other data, they had to re-learn everytyhing that factory test pilots did years earlier.

and that pic of Black 6 with one slat deployed shows normal operation, my understanding of the later type operation. Probably freaked out the tester seeing one only back in 43 or 44

Depends which wing was nearing stall first. The slats were not interconnected to eachother.

Ratsel said:

Slat operation/deployment was different say between the G-2/G-10. Mechanically speaking of course. Perhaps I should have said they are more "stall warning" and give the pilot some time to correct. Also, its beneficial in a turning dogfight, especially against those pesky P-51s as most Me 109 pilots found out. I wasn't generalizing anything, but its obvious the Allied test pilots did not have the knowledge of the operation of those slats for a very long while.

Click to expand...

The slats were redesigned between the 109E and 109F and stayed the same to the K-4.

As for the flaps, on the 109 they were infinitely variable from full up to full down.

Ratsel said:

G what? 1? 2?.....6? What arnament? engine? MW-50/GM-1 equipt? Embarrasment from slats (not slots) opening? Nice visual aid for stall IMO.

Click to expand...

The report doesn't say more than 109G, but "Black 6" (now in the RAF Museum,) a G-2(Trop) was in the country, and used for other comparisons.
As for slots v slats, it should also be remembered that test pilots' reports were often handwritten, and a typist misreading "a" as "o" was quite a common occurrence.
My point was that the wording of the report has obviously been mangled, over the intervening years, which is why going to view the original (something that I can do, but others probably can't) is preferable.

I agree with your point about the report being "mangled", but i dont think Vanir is misrepresenting the report either. The report does say "there is nothing in it" with respect to roll rate......


I think vanirs comments are balanceed and well based. I think Ratsel is trying to misrepresent the capabilities of the 109 however....its a great aircraft, a legend even, its not the best pistion engined aircraft in history, however. it has its limits and its flaws

Just a note on the nature of slats. When they deploy they do NOT increase the Coefficient of Lift of the wing. What they do is allow the wing to stall at a higher angle to give around 50% more Coefficient of lift at that angle. For instance if a particular wing profile stalled at say 16 degrees while producing a CL of 10 then if the Slats were out the aircraft would likely stall at 50% higher angle (24 degrees) producing 50% higher coefficient of lift (CL = 15). There is a price to pay; while lift goes up linearly with the angle of attack the drag tends to have a square component so the L/D ratio deteriorates, eventually possibly even negating the drag advantages of the smaller wing in reducing drag when at high G. Slats provide increased CLmax but at a higher angle of attack, they do not increase CL at the angle they deploy. This is why they do not generally snatch when they deploy. There is a slight change in pitch momment (ie center of lift of the wing) however though this tends to aid stabillity. I suspect that having sufficient excess power is beneficial to slated aircraft as it allows them to overcome the higher drags they experience when exploiting their slats.

AFAIKT the Me 109F/G/K had plenty of pre-stall buffet. I have the impression it came in through the tailplane in the same way that it did for the Corsair (known for good warning). The stall warning for the Spitifre seems to have come in through aileron buffet. It (109) was also a fairly mild stall, no tendancy to flip inverted. The Me 109F onwards had completely different slat mechanism so under no circumstances should be compared with that of the Bf 109E and earlier.

The Me 109K4 was clearly at speed disadvantage to the Mustang at low altitude however as altitude increased the gap disappeared.

parsifal said:

I think Ratsel is trying to misrepresent the capabilities of the 109 however....

Click to expand...

Really? Thank you.

Kindest Regards.

My apologies if you were offended by that. I dont resile from the statement, but it was perhaps innappropriate to say it so directly

The 109 was a slow to medium-speed dogfoghter and was at a breat disadvantage when going faster then 300 mph. In its envelope, it was very good.

At 400+ mph, it was running or relocating for attack at slower speed ... not trying to fight. At 400 mph, it could not even aim at something 20° off it's course with anything like quickness.

200 mph? Beware the 109.

450 mph? Ignore the 109 as it wasn't able to do anything. Not so the Mustang, the La5 FN, LA-7, Stptfire IX/XIV, Tempest, even the P-38 (got sluggish at higher speed than 400 mph). The P-47 was better at 400+ mph than it was at 280 mph.

The Me 109 was similar to the Zero in that it was a slowmedium--speed dogfighter. To beat it, go fast and don;t slow down. If it saw you, it could run at high speed or climb steeply, but could not do much else. That is for ALL variants, including the last one. High top speed doesn't mean maneuverability at same, and it did not have it and never did.

It is still one of my candidates for the best fighter of all times due to war record and kills scored.

Due to pilots? Maybe, but it DID score well. But the best-performing piston fighter airframe as far as handling in air combat? Never, no way. All you have to do is talk with a pilot who has flown both the Me 109 and Mustang to know. You cannot ask someone who has not flown both due to no basis for comparison. Ditto the Spitfire. The late-war Russian Lavochkins and Yaks were WAY better at low-to-medium altitudes. Many a 109 stalled and spun in trying to follow a Yak or Lavochkin in a low-altitude hard turn. If the Messerschmitts or Focke-Wulfs flew higher, the Russian ignored them and attacked troops and equipment. So the German fighters HAD to come down and fight or watch their troops be shot up. That's why they suffered so many casualties ... they came down and fought in the best envelope for the La's and Yaks, from necessity.

All you 109 fans, remember the Luftwaffe was shot out of the sky by the Soviets in mid-1943 - 1945 after having done the same to the Soviets in earlier times. The ground troops were soundly defeated (yes, with the help of winter, which the Soviets had been counting on, but is true nonetheless). They did it with FUEL, good pilots, tactics, and from having learned what did NOT work. Many Luftwaffe 109's and 190's were lost to even P-39's, which were not bad at all when able to fight at 12,000 feet or less. Check the Soviet scores and see.

True, Hartmann, Barkhorn, and Rall were on that front and achieved their scores, but they were not always in the right place at the right time. Don't even try to tell me that they weren't harassed and even shot down themselves, they were. Hartman was shot down 16 times and Rall was shot donw 8 times. Don't have the figures for Barkhorn just now. After all, they were only three guys and three Messerschmitts, even though they were the best.

We have very few measurements of Me 109 roll rate that I am aware of and a lot of subjective opinions. Much of these opinions come from evaluations of early Me 109E against fabric aileron Spitfires. We also have documents to show that a spitfire could obtain greater aileron deflection for the same amount of force when flying at high speed (low medium speed roll of the 109 was rated as excellent), what is not noted however is that the Me 109 had stiff wings that did not twist which force, aeroelasticity severely hampered the spitfire aircraft and forced the pilot to produce greater deflections. Another factor that needs to be noted is 'bank rate' which could be construed as the acceleration into a roll and roll rate which is the maxium roll that could be achieved. A Me 109 could apparently out roll a P-38 quite hansomely at least untill mid 44 when power boosted aileron versions came in but broadly big engines on the wings slow roll rate due to inertia, as do big wing spans due to a sort of wind mill effect.

The P-51B/C/D had excellent roll rate at high speed because of internal balancing of the ailerons in which pressure from the deflected aileron is channeled to a belows that relieves loads. The thick wing of the P-51 had room to fit this equipment as well as to be made quite stiff. The FW 190 had a high roll rate becuase of the stiffness of the two spar wing, the thinness of the wing tips and the use of friese ailerons which scooped air from the opposit side to reduce force and prevent adverse yaw. Again note that the Me 109F + had Friese ailerons unlike the Me 109E, it also had differential ailerons in which upper deflection is about twice as great as downward deflection.

Another factor which hurts roll rate is inertia coupling: an aircraft does not fly along its principal axis; hence when it rolls the weight at the nose and tail tend to be centrifuged outwards. This was not well understood during WW2 but caused a great many problems with early jets (super sabre). I suspect the lower roll rate of the FW 190D over the FW 190A was caused by this; hence hydraulic boost was brought in.

The Me 109 may have had wings that compressed such that the ailerons stiffened but in its favour was a short span, stiff wings that did not twist and short body with the weight close to the center of lift and with a long tail momment arm; all factors which help roll rate.

We also know that late model Me 109s outdived P-51D's and indication that high speed handling was not all that bad. These were the versions with the tall tail in which a rudder balance tab replaced the horn balance.

I really would like to see a chart and measurments or at least a simulation.