davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I think the Yak-3 and Yak-9U of 1945 (Gran Bridgehead) was faster than the G-14 with any engine, below 15k. Nether could stay with the P-51D at any altitude.
Spitfire XIV vs Bf-109 K-4 vs La-7 vs Yak-3
- Thread starter Soren
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I think the Yak-3 and Yak-9U of 1945 (Gran Bridgehead) was faster than the G-14 with any engine, below 15k. Nether could stay with the P-51D at any altitude.
alejandro_
Airman 1st Class
- 281
- Jul 4, 2005
And how do you know? he barely mentions anything on engines in the entire book. In Bf 109 G-14 MW-50 was standard at the end of the war.
At low level the Yak-3 is in general superior, the G-14 should have the edge at higher altitudes. I am going to make a chart to see how the German model compares to Yak-3/9U.
Not absolutely relevant to the Lipfert combat; note the comment:
Turning at full throttle, meaning that the aircraft were in maximum rate turns so, although flying at full throttle they could not be flying at maximum speed - in those conditions, as noted, the Yak was able to turn with the 109s, spiral climb out of his turn and attack - classic high yo-yo
Regia Aeronautica
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/high-yo-yo-2121.html
alejandro_
Airman 1st Class
- 281
- Jul 4, 2005
Shortround6
Major General
Perhaps but the 109F-4 had been out of prodcution for a considerable period of time before the Yak-3 showed up. Around 2 years, it is rather doubtful that any 109F-4 remained in front line service when the Yak-3 made it's operational debut.
That would be the K-4...
It had a higher wing loading and was nowhere near as manoeuverable as either afaik.
Last edited:
alejandro_
Airman 1st Class
- 281
- Jul 4, 2005
Tomo, you can find the data for VK-105PF-2 in the graph below. there are also data on the German engines but it is very general.
1
GregP
Major
The K-4 is nothing like an F model.
The F-4 was 6,063 lbs loaded normal gross (could be heavier but wasn't for combat ... mostly). It had 1,350 HP. Wing area was 173 sq ft. So, we have a gross weight wing loading of 3.5.25 lbs per square foot and a power loading of 4.5 lbs per HP. Ithink the internet is wrong here I thin the engine was 1,350 PS, not s,350 HP , and the power loadiong would be marginally higher.
The K-4 was about 7496 lbs gross and had 1,677 HP with the DB 305. Same wing area, so the wing loading was 43.6 lbs per sq ft. Power loading was 4.47 lbs per HP.
Being 1,000 pounds heavier, the K-4 was NOT an F model, but an upgraded G-model that tried to standardize the changes that happened in the various dash number G-series planes.. Many references will verify that.
The G and K did NOT have good characteristics in the landing pattern, but the top numbers were quite good if one could overlook the faults of the airframe that were never corrected. Most of the expert pilots were quite used to the 109 by the time the G and K came out and were not handicapped by the faults as were the novices ... the experts were used to the beast and knew it's every nuance. There is a great advantage to being used to your mount when some of the numbers are VERY good. Familiarity can instill confidence that is hard to overcome.
THe Bf 109 was a flawed chariot by mid-1944 (not alone there), but remained very dangerous in the hands of a pilot familiar with it to the end ... much more so than the Zero ever did. The thing is, the top guys WERE familiar with their mounts and the inexperienced guys probably didn't fly enough to get that way ... experience helped a LOT.
The F-4 was 6,063 lbs loaded normal gross (could be heavier but wasn't for combat ... mostly). It had 1,350 HP. Wing area was 173 sq ft. So, we have a gross weight wing loading of 3.5.25 lbs per square foot and a power loading of 4.5 lbs per HP. Ithink the internet is wrong here I thin the engine was 1,350 PS, not s,350 HP , and the power loadiong would be marginally higher.
The K-4 was about 7496 lbs gross and had 1,677 HP with the DB 305. Same wing area, so the wing loading was 43.6 lbs per sq ft. Power loading was 4.47 lbs per HP.
Being 1,000 pounds heavier, the K-4 was NOT an F model, but an upgraded G-model that tried to standardize the changes that happened in the various dash number G-series planes.. Many references will verify that.
The G and K did NOT have good characteristics in the landing pattern, but the top numbers were quite good if one could overlook the faults of the airframe that were never corrected. Most of the expert pilots were quite used to the 109 by the time the G and K came out and were not handicapped by the faults as were the novices ... the experts were used to the beast and knew it's every nuance. There is a great advantage to being used to your mount when some of the numbers are VERY good. Familiarity can instill confidence that is hard to overcome.
THe Bf 109 was a flawed chariot by mid-1944 (not alone there), but remained very dangerous in the hands of a pilot familiar with it to the end ... much more so than the Zero ever did. The thing is, the top guys WERE familiar with their mounts and the inexperienced guys probably didn't fly enough to get that way ... experience helped a LOT.
Shortround6
Major General
What would you have to leave out of the "G/K" to get back to the weight of the "F"?
The DB 605 is heavier than the 601 but new 601s would be hard to come by and have less power than the 605.
Pull the 13mm MG 131s and go back to the 7.9mm MG 17s?
Any increases in armor or weight of protected fuel tank (however it was protected?)
Pull any MW/50-GM 1 systems?
Basically there wasn't that much difference in the airframe of an "F" or a "G". most, if not all of the weight came from increased powerplant weight, increased armament, increase protection (?) or increased operational equipment ( better radio fit?). SO it is a question of what you can take back out to lighten the plane. And what effectiveness you loose against other opponents or at other altitudes.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
As far as I can tell the same problems all long nosed liquid cooled fighters had with visibility. Every thing else is an urban myth.
Shortround6
Major General
A 109G-6 was about 10% heavier (give or take) than an F-4 in empty equipped or loaded (clean) condition so should be about the same in landing configuration. SO a higher wing loading and slightly faster approach speed. That is at a minimum.
WHERE the weight was added may make a difference, With the proper distribution ( or a little ballast) the CG may not change enough to affect things much at all. With less than proper distribution a shift in CG location may make for a rather exciting time while landing, especially if the plane gets a little bit out of shape on the approach and a novice pilot tries to make a last minute correction.
I sure haven't flown one and I don't know from reading but there seems to be a popular perception that some of the later ones were more of handful (more powerful engines may give more torque roll?) you also have the problem that not ALL 109s had the same fit of equipment. Different armament, different MW/50 tanks/ equipment, different tails (metal or wood, wood required extra armor under oil cooler for CG reasons) may mean that not all 109Gs had the exact same CG or handled the same at landing speeds.
I am not sure if the larger lumps and bumps on some late 109s wings for larger landing gear did anything to airflow at low speeds. Maybe they did nothing.
perhaps the "urban myth" comes from putting low time pilots in a plane that was not easy to land to begin with. Several pilots noting that the 109E was harder to land than a Spitfire or Hurricane. With the experience of the pilots going down and the newer 109s being even a bit harder to land (and many other aircraft got harder to land as they got heavier, more powerful versions) the accident rate was going to go up.
The provision of a few hundred two seaters ( and the planned supply of hundreds more ) shows that something was going on.
WHERE the weight was added may make a difference, With the proper distribution ( or a little ballast) the CG may not change enough to affect things much at all. With less than proper distribution a shift in CG location may make for a rather exciting time while landing, especially if the plane gets a little bit out of shape on the approach and a novice pilot tries to make a last minute correction.
I sure haven't flown one and I don't know from reading but there seems to be a popular perception that some of the later ones were more of handful (more powerful engines may give more torque roll?) you also have the problem that not ALL 109s had the same fit of equipment. Different armament, different MW/50 tanks/ equipment, different tails (metal or wood, wood required extra armor under oil cooler for CG reasons) may mean that not all 109Gs had the exact same CG or handled the same at landing speeds.
I am not sure if the larger lumps and bumps on some late 109s wings for larger landing gear did anything to airflow at low speeds. Maybe they did nothing.
perhaps the "urban myth" comes from putting low time pilots in a plane that was not easy to land to begin with. Several pilots noting that the 109E was harder to land than a Spitfire or Hurricane. With the experience of the pilots going down and the newer 109s being even a bit harder to land (and many other aircraft got harder to land as they got heavier, more powerful versions) the accident rate was going to go up.
The provision of a few hundred two seaters ( and the planned supply of hundreds more ) shows that something was going on.
I'm not aware of any reports that the G or K were much more difficult to land or take off but as you note the increased wing loading and more power and torque must've had some impact. The fact that Germany was introducing two seaters to me is not really an indication. There were also two seaters for the FW. It's simply an evolution in training principles.
