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. 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.
Regarding range - range was much better than 109E. 109E was very poor.
1600 km range, 5 1/4 hours in air. Sufficient for any task. Why add fuel capacity (weight), if not requested by official? If operation not require it? Did German had to escort B-17s from London to Berlin? Fly in Paicific carrier battles? Name task it was insufficent..
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. 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. The Spitfire had room for more tankage. the 109 not so much.
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?
I disagree. British armament was technological backward. Look at armament - guns in wings, 4-5 meters apart. Concentration fire - poor. Soviet had Spitfires, considered weapons badly located. All Soviet aircraft had weapons concentrated in nose. Also 109, P-38 etc. All post war aircraft had weapons concentrated in fusealge. Wing armament - simply backward. Very much weight added for much less effective increase in practical firepower. Reason: wing installation less rigid. Less ammunition in wing. Two guns, but two guns rarely hit target at same time. Two guns weight for one guns firepower.
and what does this say about the guns on the '5 point Messer' which aren't even in the wing but hung in pods underneath?
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.
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.
First part - endurance - you have wrong facts. Late 109G and Konrad had good endurance. For example why need more than 5 hours endurance. British papers above show.
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.
Oh my.... .From the site : 
Accuracy, concentration fire, shell power, number of shell, ammunition available - these count. Weight of guns - do not help. Less weight, the better. Also trends. Trends were centralised guns - Soviet, French design too - ...
