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

[ctrian]

Hello Ctrian
Quote: " Why would the LW need that range when it had airfields everywhere?"

For ex for attacks against Allied convoys in Med. If there were Allied fighters around unescorted LW bombers tended to suffer losses. LW reply was to try to attack at dusk but when on 26 Nov 43 fighters had loitered around later than usually, they shot down 6 out of 20 attacking He 177s, surely LW would have had use for an effective escort fighter. Saying nothing when they needed to attck North Africa ports, especially after May 43.

Quote:" So many posts so little reason I can't answer each individually so I'll just say again :"

I have a copy of Gooderson's book, so what? Maybe you don't understand that it was much easier for pilots to hit tanks in open spaces of Ukraine than in more closed country. When German tanks were caught in fairly open area as the 112 PzBrig was at Dompaire, fighter bombers could be rather effective against tanks, as all participants of the combat at Dompaire testified. On the other hand during the big battles on Summer 44 in Karelian Isthmus appr 400 Il-2s didn't succeed to destroy even one Finnish AFV and according to Soviet info but contrary to LW claims and Finnish opinion during these battles the ability of Ju 87s of I./SG 3 or Fw 190s of 1./SG 5 to destroy Soviet AFVs was very limited. The terrain is rather closed there.


Hello Tante Ju
the Finnish experience was that in practice the max flight time of Bf 109G without a drop tank was 1,5 hours and with a 300l drop tank over 2h. Combat sorties were usually 1h long. Reason for that was that at most economic speed sparking plugs began to collect carbon and exhaust gases "flooded" into cockpit. Finns definitely thought that Bf 109G was a rather short range fighter. If Bf 109F's/G's range was so good why LW didn't utilize that in Med but allowed their unescorted bombers took losses and then, because of that, switched to more inaccurate night attacks in Med and in the East, for ex during 43 attacks on Soviet a/c industry. n fact LW really had a need for long range escort fighter, as least a fighter that would have been capable to escort He 111s as far as they could deliver useful bomb loads.

On Hispano, 4 Hispanos was more than enough against even biggest LW bombers, He177 or Do 217, so RAF had no reason to go to bigger guns. That was shown many times.
I agree with LW armament from 109G-5 onwards, MG 151/20 was a very good gun, personally I liked the armament of 190D-9, 2xMG 131s and 2xMg 151/20s well concentrated.
On P-51 , its armament was clearly enough against fighters, its combat history proves that. And it was perfectly capable to dispatch He 111s or Ju 88s.

On fighter-bombers, in fact pilots of FB units had trained for their trade and according to Finnish tests, even pure good fighter pilots learned very fast to drop their bombs accurately. Il-2 was an another solution to CAS problem, it had its pros and cons, it was more vulnerable to enemy fighters but less vulnerable to AAA and totally invulnerable to rifle calibre weapons.

You might take a little time to think why German offensive in Ardennes in Dec 44 was timed for a long period of bad weather. That would have been illogical if Allied CAS was so ineffective that you and Ctrian seemed to think.

Juha

If they could have everything with no cost obviously they'd ask for unlimited range among other things.However with the same technology if you want to add range you'll have to incur a ''cost'' in weight and performance.The LW fighters could always use drop tanks.Fighters did not make good ground attack aircraft ,they were used in that role however because the RAF and the USAAF would rather lose the war than subordinate themselves to the army.Regarding Ardennes i have ''Hitler's last gamble'' by Dupuy ,Bongard and Anderson.It's the most complete study and air attacks are mentioned as a nuisance not decisive.Artillery was decisive in that battle.By the way noone said that airpower had no effect.

 

[Juha]

Hello Ctrian
artillery was also decisive at eastern front, especially Soviet artillery, IMHO Germans thought so and definitely Finns had higher regard on Soviet artillery than on Il-2s. Also Soviets, at least in Baltic area, thought German artillery effective, but after all Heer's defensive doctrine was based on artillery fire.

Juha

 

[Tante Ju]

Hello Tante Ju
the Finnish experience was that in practice the max flight time of Bf 109G without a drop tank was 1,5 hours and with a 300l drop tank over 2h. Combat sorties were usually 1h long. Reason for that was that at most economic speed sparking plugs began to collect carbon and exhaust gases "flooded" into cockpit. Finns definitely thought that Bf 109G was a rather short range fighter.

To my knowledge ignition retard control was exactly for this reason. Carbonisation of spark plugs using this device was burned off from spark plugs. Manual mentions it has to use. Perhaps Finns did not use proper.

I wonder why Finns thought. What longer range fighter was on Eastern Front?

If Bf 109F's/G's range was so good why LW didn't utilize that in Med but allowed their unescorted bombers took losses and then, because of that, switched to more inaccurate night attacks in Med and in the East, for ex during 43 attacks on Soviet a/c industry.

You take case and take wrong conclusion. In 1943 October Luftwaffe had only 149 in all Italy. This had to protect German troops against ground attacks, fight heavy bombers of 15 AAF. They were overwhelmed, and morale was as result low. C-in-C Richthofen order morale building re-training of all fighters. Bombers were left on their own. In fact all operation stopped. Fighters were "nursed" in battles where chances were good - or at least, not impossible.

It has nothing to do with range but simply not enough fighters to spare for escort.

n fact LW really had a need for long range escort fighter, as least a fighter that would have been capable to escort He 111s as far as they could deliver useful bomb loads.

Range of FW 190A, BF 109G was sufficient for this task.

On Hispano, 4 Hispanos was more than enough against even biggest LW bombers, He177 or Do 217, so RAF had no reason to go to bigger guns. That was shown many times.
I agree with LW armament from 109G-5 onwards, MG 151/20 was a very good gun, personally I liked the armament of 190D-9, 2xMG 131s and 2xMg 151/20s well concentrated.
On P-51 , its armament was clearly enough against fighters, its combat history proves that. And it was perfectly capable to dispatch He 111s or Ju 88s.

Agree.

You might take a little time to think why German offensive in Ardennes in Dec 44 was timed for a long period of bad weather. That would have been illogical if Allied CAS was so ineffective that you and Ctrian seemed to think.

Juha

I do not think. I do think however if instead 1000 fighter bombers it was 1000 Il-2, it was much more effective even. FB has limited effectiveness. But there were many, over very, very small area (compared to Eastern Front).

 

[Shortround6]

The 'Tatics' the Germans had in the early part of WW2 was 'blitzkreig' as far as I understand it. The aircraft were all designed around that concept.
There was no Lancaster or Flying Fortress.
The only long range weapon that the Germans planned was the U boat.

Even a 1939-40 Flying Fortress was shadow of what it would become.

The Germans were able to bomb Belfast from bases in France. How much more range did they need in 1940?

In 1938-39 what part of France couldn't they reach with the bombers they had?

I am coming to the conclusion that many aircraft have been mischaracterized over the years.

Just as the Fairey Battle was not designed as a tactical bomber (although used as one) a number of other aircraft have acquired a reputation for being something they were not.

Take a look at some aircraft's armament and see if it makes sense for the role people try to cast it in.

A P-40 with two cowl .50 cal mgs and no bombs is a ground attack machine?

A Fairey Battle with a single forward firing mg and a bombardier (3rd crew member) in the belly of the plane is a ground attack machine? and for tactical use it had a range of 1000miles why?

The Do 17 has already been mentioned. The Heinkel 111's wing while shorter in span was 12% bigger in sq. ft. than a Wellington. He 111s usually had more power until the MK III's came along. With a single hand aimed mg out the nose, top and bottom (3 total) this hardly sounds like a ground strafer, attack plane. Even the old "E" version (stepped windscreen) could carry 2200lbs of bombs for a 900 mile range. Sounds like a lot of range for a 'tactical' bomber.

 

[Shortround6]

Range of FW 190A, BF 109G was sufficient for this task.

Not really. As the USAAF found out, and just like the Luftwaffe found out. it is not enough to plod along beside the bombers. To be an effective escort the fighters ( at least some of them) have to fly higher than the bombers to keep them from being bounced from above and they have to fly faster than the bombers (weaving back and forth over the bomber flight line) so they have some speed in hand when the interceptors are spotted. Trying to accelerate to combat speed from most economical cruising speed takes too long. and surrenders too much initiative to the enemy. This means the fighters actual "escort radius" was always a smaller fraction of it's book range than the bombers "mission radius" compared to book range. The other limit on fighter escort radius was that the radius was determined not by total fuel carried but the fuel left in the internal tanks after the drop tanks had been dropped and the fighter had engaged in a number of minutes of fuel sucking combat flying. Having 75-60% of internal fuel left would not be uncommon and flight out of the combat area cannot be done at most economical settings either unless you are trying to help the enemy run up his scores.

 

[Tante Ju]

No, it is not. I am trying to evaluate the design of the aircraft. I do not rate the Mustang as being better than the Spitfire because it carried carried six .50s and a lot of ammunition. It was better in this regard because it could carry the weight at the performance levels it did achieve. That the USAAF chose to use this weight for a 2nd class gun installation isn't the point. The airframe designer/manufacturer rarely gets to choose the weapons the airplane will be equipped with.

Agree.

Trend here is that both countries used the same engine, which had been designed from the start for an engine mounted cannon. Showing commendable foresight in the days when standard armament was a pair of 7.7-8mm mgs. However it was also a 800hp engine in it's early days and simply couldn't power an a plane with more than one cannon and a pair of small mgs. Neither could anybody else at the time. Early gun was not the Hs 404 but a slower firing, less powerful, lighter gun.

I think most agree concentration armament is better. Soviets agree. Germans agree. P-38 pilots agree. You disagree?

I am not saying you are doing it, but I really dislike the morphing 109 with it's 3 guns/5guns. I have gotten into debates before and the 109 proponent wants to argue the fire power of the 5 gun version but wants to argue the performance of the 3 gun version. Pick one and stick with it.

No morph, but you are right. OK, pick 5 pointer. Tell me of plane which is better in performance than 5 pointer in 1942 and CARRY same armament, weight of fire per sec etc. Then your thesis is proven. But you can find similiar but no better, no matter how big airframe is. Soviet results show 5 pointer and 3 pointer performance very similiar. Even 5 pointer extremely good climber. Say, better most western planes. And Soviet.

Heavier armament did decrease the maneuverability in the Spitfire. But since the Spitfire A.) was designed to have a heavier weapons load to begin with (around 165kg for the eight .303s) and B.) had that big wing adding the same amount of weight increase degrades performance less.

So, in theory, performance should have been better. But it was not. Performance - same. Range - less. Something wrong with theory.

Typhoon was planned from the start for 4 cannon. problems with the guns forced the twelve .303 version. No 'decrease' in maneuverability. While a 109 a 7,000lbs is 61.4% of the typhoons 11,400lb weight the 109 also has 63% of the wing area. While wing loading is certainly not the only factor in maneuverability I think it shows that the 109 was getting too small to carry the loads asked of it.

Yes, no decrease in manouverabilty. By adoption of 4 cannon in a 11 400 lbs airframe, manouveribilty already was very bad, much worser than 5 pointer. Fact. Percent wing area - all interesting. But it is fact - 5 pointer 109G runs circles around Typhoon. Only this counts in end count. So why is big airframe better, again? Show me. You say there is advantage. I cannot find.

Can it fly faster? No. Same.
Has more fire power? No. Bit worse.
Can it manouver better? No. Worse.
Can it climb to altitude faster? No. Slower.
Even range no better. British say 610/1000 miles. Same as 109G. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/typhoon-ads.jpg

That is theory. It practical experience, 109G, five pointer, is better. So, I do not see your point. Your theory is that when 109 added heavy weaponry, performance was much degraded. It would be better to have heavy aircraft, because more adoptable. This is thesis of you. But, practice (test) shows this untrue. Heavy aircraft, poor design. Sacrifice. Each time.

Basical mistake is you say that same difference on big plane makes less penalty. Correct. Where you are not correct is that big plane starts from same performance - in reality is starts lower already, because of extra weight.

Soviet considered 109G world class. Very fast, very good climber, 5 pointer Messer heavy hitter too. You forgot 5 pointer - and all 109G can be five pointer.

Soviets were also saddled with the VK-105 engine, 85% of the power of the DB 605A. Their part wood construction was also heavier than all metal. 'Standard' factory finish often meant 20-30kph less speed than trial figures. 109 would certainly look world class.

Soviet aircraft were as good as best of Western aircraft. Old cold war myth they were not.. only thing not as good as radio. In many ways, Soviet planes more advanced. Look at Yak 3. La 7. Better than Western counterparts. More manouverable, faster. Armament least as good.

Also five pointer 109G - speed 650 km/h. World class. One of few fastest at time.

I did not forget the '5 pointer'. One of the original Pro 109 poster's in this last flurry of posts was running down the Mike Williams site for using the performance figures of the '5 pointer' in his comparisons. Fine and dandy, you want to argue the flight performance of the '3 pointer' you don't get to use the armament performance of the '5 pointer' and vice versa.

OK. Make analysis. With 5 pointer. I am to know if thesis of yours is correct - did small airframe with heavy guns was worser fighter automatically? Because that is what you say. Say 5 pointer comparison with similiar heavy armed aircraft. FW 190. Typhoon. Four cannon Spitfire, four cannon Allison Mustang. Climb, speed, turn, range - same timeframe. We shall see if thesis is true.. or Jakovlev or Messerschmitt school was right.

Great, we are comparing theoretical ferry ranges? 200mph at 16,500ft is a nice speed for moving a plane from one point to another. It is also almost a guaranteed way to get dead flying in a combat area. You are aware that a Spitfire MK V can do 225mph at 10,000ft burning 29 gallons an hour or 263mph at 20,000ft burning 36 gallons an hour? not quite what the 109F can do but slap even a 90 gallon tank under it and see what you get.

Data Me 109F clear. Biggest range - achieved at 7 km (23 000 ft), at 410 km/h (254 mph). Consumption: 130 liter per hour. (28 gallons). Conclusion easy to draw.
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=22&L=0/

I see what I get, easy... Spitfire has 85 gallon tank. Slaps on 90 gallon drop tank. Uses that, switch to 85 gallon, fights, remainas perhaps 70 gallon, tries to return, what happens 20 gallons short of base...?
90 gallon no practical unless internal tankage is greater.

If the 109 isn't short ranged then neither is the Spitfire. Under realistic conditions, say 340-350mph at 20,000ft or so, and making allowances for combat 2 -2.5 gallons a minute and neither one is going that far.

Spitfire was short ranged. Mid/late war Marks. First Mark was medium range.
109 was short ranged in 109E. Medium range in later model: F, G, K.
Facts show. Look up.

The Spitfire had room for more tankage. the 109 not so much.

I do not agree. Similiar sized aircraft. No technical reason why 109 cannot have more tankage. But no need. Current range already good as best Spitfire, Mark VIII. With 2/3s fuel.. This is reason why spitfire added fuel. Unaccaptable range otherwise. Reason: exactly big wing... too much drag.

And I really like the logic. Compared to other fighters the later 109s were short ranged, but since they didn't need long range for the few types of mission they were still doing we shouldn't use range as a factor in seeing if they were still world class?

Because it wasn't done does not mean impossible. Faulty logic. Did 109 need range of Mustang? No. Faulty logic again. 109 could stay German airspace longer than Mustang and B-17 already. Task: interceptor. This is shooting down enemy in own air space. You do not build aircraft you do not need.

I am not arguing about which gun was better, guns changed over the life of many of the planes. The planes with a larger amount of weight and volume devoted to armament could be upgraded easier. The gun that was supposed fire through the prop on the 109 changed at least 4 times. the original 20mm design was a bust and they had to try to substitute a 3rd MG 17 as a stop gap. The 20mm MG/ff was also intended (2nd try) but never worked well enough for combat. The Germans finally get a working motor/cannon with the MG/151 in either caliber. The change to the MK 108 was better in some ways, not so good in others. The 109 had the weight allowance and volume for the motor cannon. After that everything was sort of a bodge.

109G carried 223 kg weapons and munition. 109K: 259 kg. With gondola: 458/494 kg. K-6: 522 kg.

Russian planes powered by V-12s had the same problem as the 109 with some factors worse and others better. The engine was low on power and never really got better, this means a small plane to get performance. Wooden construction of some types meant high structure weights and low volume in some interior spaces. Russians sacrificed gun life to make light, fast firing, high performance guns. The lighter guns and low ammo loads were necessary for performance but the Russians were not happy with the 3gun fighters unless it was 3 20mm guns.

Yes. But considering example of Soviet fighter firepower at much ligher weapons load, it just shows that achievement of set firepower do not depends on just adding more "gun weight".

 

[Tante Ju]

We have been over that but try this. A DB 605 burns 10.68 litres a minute while using MW-50, say they use it for just 5 minutes. 54 litres. the engine burns 8.03 litres at 'normal' take off power, say this power is used for 10 minutes (USAAF planners called for 15-20minutes) another 80 litres. 266 liters left if the plane was carrying a drop tank and dropped it at at the instant the engine went to full MW50 power or full take off power when at altitude.

The engine burns 6.43 litres at the short power setting (30 min?) The engine in the "F-4" was good for 1.66litres a minute at that low cruise setting but that speed is useless if there is a chance of enemy planes about. Some old books claim a range of 350 miles at 330mph at 5,800 meters. no drop tank. This may very well be wrong but an endurance of just over an hour with no combat allowance does limit German options. Like fighters based in Wiesbaden-Frankfort can't reach a bomber stream routing through Bremen and return without drop tanks, or landing near Bremen after combat.

1, I do not understand why you model flight at 6,43. This is 30 min rating - military rating in US terms. Did Mustang cruise at military rating? I dont believe. Second thing I believe... this rating means 109K is going at 670 km/h. I understand speed is important.. but perhaps it is too much caution to "cruise" at speeds most aircraft cannot reach in ETO..?

2. 266 liters in main tank means engine can run at most economical range speed of 410 km/h for two hours (130 liter/h) - data for 109F engine, but K was similiar. Means it can get away to about 7-800 km after using after combat. This is from Alps in Souther Germany to Danish border... Say.. 300 liters in drop tank to get from Hamburg to Munchen (600 km).. drop droptnka. Spend there 5 minutes at 2000 horsepower in combat, then disengage at another 10 minutes at what is equivalent to Mustang all out power WEP, and then still have enough fuel to get back to Hamburg. Actually, with minimal allowance, same trick can be done between Vienna and Hamburg (!!!!! - 750 km) with minimal reserves, IF somebody is stupid enough to scramble fighters from Austria to protect against a raid coming in from the North Sea... not to mention it tooks 2 hours to get to the scene.

3 But ok...OK, 410 km/h is SLOW.. I dont believe.. Mustangs cruised slower than that, they were much more of a problem of fuel gauge to watch.. Say plane does this at maximum allowed continous. 109F4 data - 585 km/h at 7 km, 310 liter /h. 266 liters mean you get back to around 500 km. This is: Berlin - Holland, Berlin - France border, Berlin - Vienna, Berlin Warsawa.. meaning fighter taking off Berlin can go to this place at near 600 km/h (all the way long - you have to be quite pessisist to expect enemy fighter over mid-Germany if raid is still plotted on radar over the the sea..), fight there at very high power for 15 mins and disengage, and then

Fighters taking off from and German base, go to the other corner of Germany at EXTREME speeds, fight there for 15 minutes and get back at extreme speed is not good enough? In practical use - such high power never used for so long..
So explain, why need more tankage?

BTW - how long could Mustang stay over Germany, with same flight plan? Like one you suggest - never going slower than 670 km/h..? This is what 109K does at 30 min rating.. Anything below that speed: "is useless if there is a chance of enemy planes about" - you say yourself..

 

[Tante Ju]

Not really. As the USAAF found out, and just like the Luftwaffe found out. it is not enough to plod along beside the bombers. To be an effective escort the fighters ( at least some of them) have to fly higher than the bombers to keep them from being bounced from above and they have to fly faster than the bombers (weaving back and forth over the bomber flight line) so they have some speed in hand when the interceptors are spotted. Trying to accelerate to combat speed from most economical cruising speed takes too long. and surrenders too much initiative to the enemy. This means the fighters actual "escort radius" was always a smaller fraction of it's book range than the bombers "mission radius" compared to book range. The other limit on fighter escort radius was that the radius was determined not by total fuel carried but the fuel left in the internal tanks after the drop tanks had been dropped and the fighter had engaged in a number of minutes of fuel sucking combat flying. Having 75-60% of internal fuel left would not be uncommon and flight out of the combat area cannot be done at most economical settings either unless you are trying to help the enemy run up his scores.

OK. Make serious analyse. Set condition - equal to all. Plane has to fly this speed for this long. Then fly at this speed for this long. Then fly to maximum rating for this long.

Use same standard. Then apply to 109, P-47, Spitfire, Mustang, FW 190 etc - you choose. And see what you get.

 

[Tante Ju]

The Do 17 has already been mentioned. The Heinkel 111's wing while shorter in span was 12% bigger in sq. ft. than a Wellington. He 111s usually had more power until the MK III's came along. With a single hand aimed mg out the nose, top and bottom (3 total) this hardly sounds like a ground strafer, attack plane. Even the old "E" version (stepped windscreen) could carry 2200lbs of bombs for a 900 mile range. Sounds like a lot of range for a 'tactical' bomber.

I agree - nobody designs bombers with 2000+ km range for "tactical" bombing.. only Do 17. It had short range with bombload. Obsolate by war start.

 

[Juha]

Hello Tante Ju
Quote:" To my knowledge ignition retard control was exactly for this reason. Carbonisation of spark plugs using this device was burned off from spark plugs. Manual mentions it has to use. Perhaps Finns did not use proper."

The system was not installed to 109Gs delivered to the FAF (very late G-2s and G-6s), one can see that from a/c papers; mentioned in lists of exceptions from the a/c part and equipment list.

Quote:" I wonder why Finns thought. What longer range fighter was on Eastern Front?"

109G was incapable to escort Blenheims in longer range recon flights for example, Finns had to use Hawk 75As for that job, even if it was really too slow for to be an effective escort to high flying Blenheim.

Quote: "It has nothing to do with range but simply not enough fighters to spare for escort."

Not even to a couple times escort He 111s in Russia to the most important strategic targets, big a/c and tank factories which were inside He 111 range?

Quote:" Range of FW 190A, BF 109G was sufficient for this task."

So why for ex KG 55 had to made its strategic attacks nighttime in spite of poorer accuracy and lesser concentration of the night attacks vs daytime raids?

Quote:" I do not think. I do think however if instead 1000 fighter bombers it was 1000 Il-2, it was much more effective even. FB has limited effectiveness. But there were many, over very, very small area (compared to Eastern Front). "
Now have you figures on Il-2's superior effectiveness? At Dompaire I./PZR 29 lost 34 of its Panthers and after the battle had only 4 operational Panthers left. PzAbt 2112 had only 17 of its original 45 Pz IVs operational. Of the 33 tanks found in Group Massu's sector, 13 had been knocked out by tank or TD fire, 16 by air attack made by P-47s and 4 had been abandoned intact. French losses were 5 M4A2s, 2 M5A1s, 2 half-tracks and 2 Jeeps. One P-47 was shot down.

Juha

 

[Tante Ju]

Juha, thank you for answer of Finn speciality. This explains Finn opinion to me.
Rest of posting - I do not know. I do not know which He 111 bombing was for USSR factory, nor KG 55 nighttime strategic bombing.
Il-2. I do not know Dompare. I know who entered Berlin.

 

[NZTyphoon]

He wasn't daft was he. If I was at home I'd dig out the actual figures for armoured vehicles destroyed by allied fighter bombers during the Normandy campaign. That's specifically armoured vehicles. It is very low indeed. Maybe someone else has them to hand.
Steve

Chris Thomas described the "Battle of Mortain" (August 7 1944 'Typhoon Wings of 2nd TAF 1943-45' ): 305 Typhoon sorties flown, tank claims:90. After the battle the Army and 2 TAF Operational Research staff found that 7 tanks had been destroyed by rockets, with 14 by cannon and two by bombs. 7 tanks had been abandoned. The other phenomenon noticed was how demoralising the attacks were to the German troops, particularly the rocket fire: Thomas' conclusion was..."'The Day of the Typhoon' - was probably the most decisive tactical air operation of the invasion, and possibly the campaign in northwest Europe, as it showed the flexibility and economy of the fighter-bomber, its ease of control and the weight of fire it could quickly bring to bear on any threatened point."(italics added pp. 67-69)

Second Tactical Air Force Volume Two. Breakout to Bodenplatte, July 1944 to January 1945 (Christopher Shore and Chris Thomas) states that the rockets overall had a hit rate of 4% (pp 240-250)

 

[Juha]

Hello Tante Ju
the question is, did the LW 109Gs had the ignition retard control in late 43 or 44? Even if Finnish pilots collected the first 16 G-2, new a/c amongst the very last G-2s produced, and next 14 G-2s, fully refurbished 2nd hand, straight from Germany, many of the later G-2s, given as replacement a/c for those lost in service, were collected from Luftpark Pori, which was a big service depot for LFl 5 on western coast of Finland, ie the planes were there as replacement a/c for LFl 5. IIRC it was possible to clear the plugs by using high power for 5min after every half hour at the most effective cruising power. Of course this limited the max range a bit but also simplified the production a bit.

Juha

 

[Juha]

Hello Tante Ju
Quote:"I know who entered Berlin. "

That was agreed by Stalin, FDR and WC at Jalta. British entered to Lübeck and Americans to Pilzen

Juha

 

[Njaco]

Tante Ju, try to keep everything to one post, please.

 

[Shortround6]

OK. Make serious analyse. Set condition - equal to all. Plane has to fly this speed for this long. Then fly at this speed for this long. Then fly to maximum rating for this long.

Use same standard. Then apply to 109, P-47, Spitfire, Mustang, FW 190 etc - you choose. And see what you get.

We have some benchmarks for the USAAF planes. A P-47 with 305 US gallons had a radius of 125 miles. A P-47 with 370 gallons of internal fuel had a radius of 225 miles.

Conditions are:

1. Warm up and take off equivalent to 5 min at normal rated power.
2. Climb to 25,000ft at normal rated power. distance in climb not counted in radius.
3. Cruise out at 25,000ft and IAS of 210mph. (315 mph true airspeed?/508kph)
4. drop tanks if carried.
5. 5 minutes war emergency power and 20 minutes at Military power (take-off power).
6. Cruise back at 210IAS. no allowance made for change in fuel consumption by decent.
7. allowance of a reserve at minimum cruise power for 30min.

A Mustang using just the 184 gallon wing tanks was rated at 150miles. With rear fuselage tank it was 325miles.

It seems to be much easier to find information of the US planes.

For a P-47 take-off or military power was 2000hp. WEP was 2300-2500 depending on model ( I am not using Ms), normal rated was 1625hp. and cruise at 210 indicated air speed (clean) at 25000ft might need 1200hp. (chart has a blank column)
Take off or military needed 275 US gallons an hour ( 4.58 GPM), normal rated needed 210 GPH ( 3.5GPM) and the cruise setting might be 105 US GPH ( 1.75GPM) WEP is unknown and min cruising could be as little as 0.92 GPM.

Going by what we do know the P-47 needed 17.5 gallons for warm up and take-off. it could burn around 93-4 gallons climbing to 25,000ft. See: http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-47/47TOCL.gif
Call it 112gallons so far. 5 minutes at WEP? call it 5.725gpm? (25% more than Military?) or 27gallons (rounding up) and 70 gallons for the 20 minute at military portion. 209 gallons so far. 27.6 gallons for the reserve=236.6 gallons.. This gives us 70 gallons left for cruise to and from. Something isn't coming out right I am getting about an 105 mile radius. but I only need another 8 gallons to make it come out right and I have made several assumptions.


what are the equivalent power settings for the 109 G and with what engine?

Trying to use what I gave before 6.43l/min for the short power to try to equal the US figures

6.43L X 5 min (warm-up take off) = 31.15L
6.43L X 8 min (climb to 25,000ft ) = 51.44L
10.68L X 5 min (WEP combat)......= 53.4L
8.03L X 15 min (Military power?)...= 120L
1.66L X 20 min (reserve).............= 33L
total.......................................=259L

Fuel for cruise...........................161L
4.77L x 34 min (cruise)................162.4 (close enough)

On a 109F-4 the 4.77 gives 325mph at 16,500ft. a bit faster and lower than the USAAF conditions. But I did cut 10 minutes from the reserve time and 5 minutes from the Military power time. 17 minutes at 325mph (radius) gives 92 miles.

If somebody has numbers for another type of of aircraft or corrections to the above please post them.

 

[claidemore]

Most interesting thread I've seen on this forum in a long time. I'm particularly enjoying Tante Ju's arguments, he makes excellent well thought out points, though I don't agree with all of them. The other fellow reminds me of someone else.

I'd like to point out that the USAAF and RAF were not hesitant in the least at doing army cooperation work. 2TAF and the 9th Tactical Air force had that job specifically. The success of the Typhoon units in Normandy was in large part due to direction from the ground (Cab rank), and the Typhoon earned a reputation as one of the most effective ground attack planes of WW2. It did pretty good in the Falaise Gap I believe.

It is silly to surmise that because a plane is capable of high speed it will not be agile or accurate at slower speeds. They do need to take off and land after all, and slow speed handling close to the stall is a design consideration in most fighters.
The Mosquito was a fast plane, in fact it was the fastest plane in the ETO for quite a little while, and it was the plane of choice for precision bombing missions. Anybody remember the jail break mission? Fast does not equal inaccurate, not in ballistics or aircraft capability.


Did the Luftwaffe need longer range fighters? You bet they did. Short range tends to limit one to primarily defensive actions . Long range gives you much greater offensive capabilities. Range is the factor that causes knowledgeable folks to give the nod to the P51 in the numerous "which was the best fighter" discussions here and elsewhere. The Luftwaffe in 44/45 was pretty much limited to waiting to intercept bombers over Germany. How much more effective would they have been intercepting minutes after the bombers took off? Can you imagine the damage to 8th AF morale if there had been 109s picking off damaged B17's as they are struggling to land at their home base in England? Strategic bombing doctrine might have been abandoned entirely!

As for the Stuka, it might be able to deliver a bomb accurately, but it has to survive the trip to the target and the trip home and it was a long slow trip. There were significant losses of Stukas during BoB and those planes were shot down by anemic 7.7mm mgs. (Yeah I agree the .303 was limited in effectiveness by late war, the RAF thought so too, hence the Spitfire XVI and some IXs and XIVs with two .50s and two Hispanos).

Nobody can argue the effectiveness of the IL2, one of the great planes of WW2. It did require escort though. A common scenario was to send La5s ahead in a fighter sweep, have Yaks doing close escort, and probably some P39's flying at high alt (high being a relative term). That's a lot of fighter support.

IL2 and Stuka were very good ground attack planes, but you couldn't send them on an intercept mission, or an escort mission.

Soviet doctrine called for dedicated attack planes and it worked for them.
Western doctrine used fighters such as the Hurricane, P40, Typhoon, Spit IX, P47 and even the Tempest. This meant that a fighter that had been eclipsed in performance still had a role to play. There were P40's still doing ground attack in Italy very late in the war, and if need be they could and did fly escort missions as well. That's a pretty good use of a resource. I don't know the cost of an IL2 compared to a Typhoon, but if they are anywhere close I'd spend my money on the Typhoon.

Multi role capability is still a preferred way of doing things, there's a lot of multi-role planes doing work in Libya right now.

As for wing vs centerlline guns, the sighting systems in use during WWII obviated any advantage one had over the other.

 

[Lighthunmust]

I am so glad someone else understands that specialized ground attack aircraft cannot survive in contested airspace without a great amount of fighter escort. Your excellent comments on speed not being a hinderance to accuracy, advantage of multirole aircraft, and gunsight accuracy obviating any advantage of centerline armament are much appreciated.

I have been scratching my head ever since someone posted that centerline armament was the wave of the future. Of course it was as we no longer have engines and propeller in the front of fighters! I actually think in a single-engine WW2 fighter an all wing armament is an advantage in that allows much easier simultaneous servicing of guns and engine, and depending on pilot preferred method of attack more versatility in sighting options.

 

[ctrian]

Hello Ctrian
artillery was also decisive at eastern front, especially Soviet artillery, IMHO Germans thought so and definitely Finns had higher regard on Soviet artillery than on Il-2s. Also Soviets, at least in Baltic area, thought German artillery effective, but after all Heer's defensive doctrine was based on artillery fire.

Juha

How does that connect to your previous post? Were the allied ground attack planes decisive or not? Were they good at their role ? Did they pay off the investment made in them? Were they more survivable than slow Stuka when faced with german AA?

Regarding range why do people think that all airforces wanted the same things from their aircraft ? If you want speed you buy a ferrari if you want to move stuff you buy a truck if you want something cheap you get a bicycle how hard is that to comprehend...

There was no ''Western doctrine '' for ground support.There was however a battle to the death between RAF and USAAF vs their other services for money and influence.They won and they had their own private ''Strategic''TM war.Of course that meant no specialized aircraft for army support.

 

[parsifal]

Were the allied ground attack planes decisive or not? Were they good at their role ? Did they pay off the investment made in them? Were they more survivable than slow Stuka when faced with german AA?

There was no ''Western doctrine '' for ground support.There was however a battle to the death between RAF and USAAF vs their other services for money and influence.They won and they had their own private ''Strategic''TM war.Of course that meant no specialized aircraft for army support.

In relation to the first point, german accounts appear to think so. There wer after action reports that know of, and have seen in relation to allied air operations in North Africa and Normandy. Both were pretty unequivocal about the decisive effect of allied airpower on both occasions. Airpower in Italy was generally less effective, it being generally acknowledged that the terrain lessened its effects considerably.

As to cost effectiveness, I am not sure. The allies seemed to think so. If they had not spent their money on ground attack aircraft what would they spend it on. For Normandy, for example, I think ther were about 4000 aircraft amployed on Ground support operations (thats a guess really, so it might be more, it might be less), Each aircraft needed about 50 men to keep it in the air, that would release about 200000 men for duties elsewhere. So were these men as well employed in the ground support efforts??? My opinion is yes. At staff college we were trained to 5
view air support as a force multiplier. The air power was only responsible for about 5% of enemy casualtiesm, but the application of airpower could lift the effects of an attacking force by as much 50%. If the FPF factor of an Infanfantry battalion was assessed as say 6 without airpower, with airpower it rose to about 9.

The main effect of the airpower, wasnt that it killed so much, more that it acted to interdict the enemy. Suprresive fire, that kind of thing. Ihibit manouvre in particular. Moreover the text that we were given had predecesors that extended all the way back to WWII. In the earlier part of WWII, you have a point about doctrine, but from about 1942 the allies began to develop their doctrine. in this regard your assertion isnt correct. They did have a doctrne. i know this because I was trained using a derived version of that doctrine.

I dont agree that there was no specialized aircraft for support. Certainly the Allied air forces wer more versatile and wide ranging in capability compared to the germans, and certainly they used aircraft that were adapte from other roles...aircraft like the A-20, the Hurricane, Typhoon and mosquito. But these aircraft once selected for ground support were modified in different ways to undertake that mission. Some were more successful than other.

Saying there was a battle to the death between the allied armed services is an overstatement. The allied command structure was always one where there were disagreements, but decisions were always reached about courses of action. By comparison, the divisions between the armed services in the German army were monumental, and never fully resolved. A classic example of that has to be the employment of the Luftwaffe Field Divisions. They were deployed over protests of the Army, and were decimeted as predicted. Even greater divisions existed between the SS and the Army, and the navy, well the navy.....