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".