Spitfire V ME109. I have found these links on the net.

[Milosh]

The manual for the Fw190A-8 gives a flight distance of between 382 and 644 miles in clean condition (ie no external stores). With a drop tank this increased to 569 to 915 miles. There was still 12.5 % fuel still in the tanks.

Combat range of any a/c would be ~ 1/3 of its flight distance. (1/3 going out, 1/3 for combat, 1/3 for return)

 

[parsifal]

well 1/3 of 382 miles is 128 miles....maybe 140 miles is not so bad...

 

[Milosh]

well 1/3 of 382 miles is 128 miles....maybe 140 miles is not so bad...

That would be at 2300rpm and 1,2 ata boost at an altitude of 984ft. At 2000rpm and 1.05ata the range was 572mi.

I believe it is Mike Williams site that has a mission profile for a bomb carrying 109 and 190. Combat range for the 190 was slightly higher for than for the 109. iirc ~145 mi for the 190 and 130mi for the 109. These would be low level missions.

 

[DonL]

Do you have examples of the FW190 D undertaking missions of comparable type, to say an Me 109G, at greater range. The fuel carried might not be the only issue....it might be aerodynamics, aircraft weight, that kind of thing

No I don't have examples!

I could give some advices. And this whole issue is very difficult.

First of all the Jumo 213 was claimed as the best german engine for fuel efficient.

So the FW 190D was a bit lighter then the A8 but heavier then the A1 to A7!
But the FW 190D had the much better aerodynamik then the FW 190A.

The internal fuel capacity of the FW 190D was to my opinion 525 Liters and 115 Liter MW50, because on the Dora MW50 was standard.
On the FW 190A8, MW50 wasn't standard because the BMW 801 wasn't approve to MW50, so the FW 190A8 had internal fuel capacity of 525 + 115 Liter.

THe Bf 109G is very complicated because of the different versions and the external weapons (Cannon Gondeln) for exampel the Bf 109G6 for the defending of the Reich.

But I think in general the FW 190A and D had better range then the Bf 109G.
The Bf 109F would be equal to my opinion with the early FW 190A.

 

[parsifal]

And that would be consistent with the conclusions we reached in our game design. Its just after lunch here, and I went home and checked the values that we had assigned to the FW 190A and the Me 109G. I was in error in my earlier reports....the 109g was 130 miles "combat radius (could be extended with penalty), whilst the FW was rated at 150miles (with less penalties at greater radius. These were always compromises.....remember it was a game, so it had to be playable and manageable......it worked as a system, but not sufficiently well to have it published, mores the pity....

 

[Trilisser]

People, be very careful whether you speak of range or radius! E.g. Milosh statement "Combat range of any a/c would be ~ 1/3 of its flight distance. (1/3 going out, 1/3 for combat, 1/3 for return)" is inaccurate unless the word range is replaced with radius. Another problem with general references is that they often mix. data for maximum air range and the range at maximum continuous speed. One must remember that e.g. at sea level cruising at maximum air range speed a P-38L requires well below 400 hp per engine (1600 rpm/22" Hg, 28" Hg at the same rpm gives 425 hp) while the maximum continuous power at SL is 1100 hp. The latter setting increases TAS from 168 mph to 302 mph while fuel consumption increases from 46 US gph to 245 US gph.So less than doubled speed and over 5 times greater fuel consumption.

BTW, it is regularly laughed that the Me 163's endurance was some 8 minutes or so. Well, check out what endurance modern jets have at sea level if flown at full afterburner...

 

[Lighthunmust]

People, be very careful whether you speak of range or radius! E.g. Milosh statement "Combat range of any a/c would be ~ 1/3 of its flight distance. (1/3 going out, 1/3 for combat, 1/3 for return)" is inaccurate unless the word range is replaced with radius. Another problem with general references is that they often mix. data for maximum air range and the range at maximum continuous speed. One must remember that e.g. at sea level cruising at maximum air range speed a P-38L requires well below 400 hp per engine (1600 rpm/22" Hg, 28" Hg at the same rpm gives 425 hp) while the maximum continuous power at SL is 1100 hp. The latter setting increases TAS from 168 mph to 302 mph while fuel consumption increases from 46 US gph to 245 US gph.So less than doubled speed and over 5 times greater fuel consumption.

BTW, it is regularly laughed that the Me 163's endurance was some 8 minutes or so. Well, check out what endurance modern jets have at sea level if flown at full afterburner...

Very good point Joakim. These comparisons were surely difficult 70 years ago. I think we are walking in a real minefield of easy confusion and wrong conclusion when discussing comparative ranges. I imagine for a game designer striving for accuracy it must be a very difficult analysis to make.

 

[Njaco]

I don't hold those figures as gospel - only as a point in the discussion. But I agree with all regarding trying to define actual distances.

 

[bobbysocks]

I believe procedure for Mustangs was to take off on main fuel tanks to 5000ft then switch to rear fuselage tank until that was down to 30 gallons or so then switch to drop tanks. this was to ensure a combat ready plane if the tanks were dropped as the plane could NOT fight with a full rear tank.

the procedure for mustangs was:

We were ordered to taxi and takeoff using our main (wing) tanks.. After becoming airborne,
switch to fuselage tank and burn down to 35 gals, approx. 50 min. Then go to the drops
and burn alternately for 30 min each, back and forth for stability,always keeping the mains
for reserves, just in case!

Raymond T. Conlin

which i never thought of but is also interesting. most of the time they would be using drop tank until just moments prior to engaging the enemy. so, the majority of their dogfights were with full or very close to full wing tanks.

 

[Njaco]

I remember reading Yeager saying the same thing.

 

[Trilisser]

If fitted with the fuselage tank, a prudent P-51 pilot starts, takes off and flies at least 15 mins on the Left Main Tank first as the carburettor vapour return line is connected in that tank. Then the fuselage tank is used down to some 40 gallons and only after that are the drop tanks to be used. This is the recommended procedure from the Pilot's Notes.

 

[Mustang nut]

the procedure for mustangs was:


which i never thought of but is also interesting. most of the time they would be using drop tank until just moments prior to engaging the enemy. so, the majority of their dogfights were with full or very close to full wing tanks.

That is maybe why pilots on both sides said they could out turn their opponent the wing tanks when full weighed about a ton.

 

[Trilisser]

Hmm, full fuel in P-51's wing tanks weighs some 500 kg...quite a lot less than "about a ton"...

 

[Mustang nut]

Hmm, full fuel in P-51's wing tanks weighs some 500 kg...quite a lot less than "about a ton"...

I thought they held 180 gallons? 180 gallons @ 10 lb per gallon is 1,800 lb about
818kg. That is also provided the rear tank is emptied completely.

 

[fastmongrel]

I thought they held 180 gallons? 180 gallons @ 10 lb per gallon is 1,800 lb about
818kg. That is also provided the rear tank is emptied completely.

Aviation fuel doesnt weigh 10 pounds per gallon thats water. I think avgas is about 7.5 pounds an imp gallon

 

[Readie]

Found this..354th Pioneer Mustang Fighter Group.
P51 D
Self-sealing fuel cells (184 US gallons total capacity) in wings and self-sealing tank (85 US gallons) in fuselage behind pilot. Oil tank (12 US gallons)
Cheers
John

 

[Hop]

7.2 lbs per imperial gallon for fuel, 9 lbs per gallon for oil.

 

[Trilisser]

Yep, 700 litres (184 US gals is a bit over 696 litres) x 0.72 kg/l=approx. 500 kg.

 

[Milosh]

From the Gruenhagen 'Mustang' book:

P-51D/K

2 wing tanks @ 92 gal > 1104lb
fuselage tank @ 85gal > 510lb

75 gal drop tank > 60lb each empty
75 gal drop tank > 1040lb installed and serviced

 

[Lighthunmust]

H2O = 8.34 lbs per gallon and 7.48 gallons per cuft in case anyone is interested.