Time Machine Consultant : Maximizing the Bf-109 in January 1943

[drgondog]

the range need to P-47 not at 109, P-47 has larger payload sure but it's also a larger plane, usability you talking of low readyness of luftwaffe fighters? maybe this a trouble in organization/logistic more that of planes, durability idk on this. Saw the advantage of 109, posted to davebender, i think 109G it's superior, as fighter, but a very high altitude, to P-47C in '43 (superior a old propelled and old engined P-47C or D).

p.s. superior, here, is not mean that P-47C it's not a match only that gustav has advantage

The first P-47D's entered combat in late June 1943 with the 4th, 56th and 78th FG - so why are we talking about P-47C as primary competition for the 109G in 1943? Most C's were replaced by August/September 1943.

But the 109G was a match for the P-47C or D except at altitudes > 20,000 feet where the P-47 advantages in speed, roll and dive started making a serious difference in choosing a fight with a tactical advantage.

 

[davebender]

American fighters were a lot heavier then their German and Japanese counterparts. That degrades performance but increases overall aircraft strength. You've got to shoot away more metal to knock it down.

 

[Vincenzo]

The first P-47D's entered combat in late June 1943 with the 4th, 56th and 78th FG - so why are we talking about P-47C as primary competition for the 109G in 1943? Most C's were replaced by August/September 1943.

But the 109G was a match for the P-47C or D except at altitudes > 20,000 feet where the P-47 advantages in speed, roll and dive started making a serious difference in choosing a fight with a tactical advantage.

early D was near to C, the water inition start with D-10 (also if D-4,5,6 can easy upgraded), new propeller from D-22, afaik the water inition start in use in january '44.
for P-47 maybe best choice altitude over 25k feet

 

[tomo pauk]

the range need to P-47 not at 109, P-47 has larger payload sure but it's also a larger plane, usability you talking of low readyness of luftwaffe fighters? maybe this a trouble in organization/logistic more that of planes, durability idk on this. Saw the advantage of 109, posted to davebender, i think 109G it's superior, as fighter, but a very high altitude, to P-47C in '43 (superior a old propelled and old engined P-47C or D).

p.s. superior, here, is not mean that P-47C it's not a match only that gustav has advantage

109 (and other fighters) needed to have a good range/combet radius since that enables the defenders to cover a greater area, and it enables them not to waste any time to refueling during enemy bomb raid. One of things that (in a nigh fighter niche) was noted against Bf-110 was lack of the combat range, compared with Ju-88. And the 110 had range.
Usability was connected to the ability of P-47 (and other planes from my post about 1943 fighters) to attack ground targets and survive, despite the plethora of AAA.
Durability: P-47 could take much more damage then 109 - a pretty important thing when attacking bomber formations that fire plenty of HMG bullets against you. Moreso if one is short on pilots to fly the defending fighters (Bf-109s in our case).

 

[davebender]

Actually I think range was ok. What they needed was better endurance so they could loiter while waiting for the enemy.

 

[drgondog]

early D was near to C, the water inition start with D-10 (also if D-4,5,6 can easy upgraded), new propeller from D-22, afaik the water inition start in use in january '44.
for P-47 maybe best choice altitude over 25k feet

Yes, but the -4RA had WI and was entering combat ops in October, 1943 for the first distinctive boost in performance over the C.

The D-4RA and D-5RE had WI installed at factory but it was manually controlled whereas the -10RA and -11RE were automativally controlled WI. IMO the D-10/-11 with the paddle blades, auto WI and CL bomb/fuel tank rack was the first P-47 truly suitable for practical escort work to and past the German Border

The C-2, C-5 and D-1,-2, -3 took some 200 hours to retrofit the manually controlled Water Injection modification.

IIRC, all the D's either had the centerline bomb/fuel tank rack or easily retrofitted wich gave the early D's both WI and longer range over the C, even though the C-2 and C-5 also could be retrofitted in fall 1943.

 

[Vincenzo]

double post please delete this

 

[tomo pauk]

Bill, I've chose the main version of each 5 fighters (P-47 -38, F4U, F6F, Typhoon) available in 1943 for the sake of comparison against contemporary Bf-109.

Dave, in my eyes range combat radius are firmly connected with endurance. Again the P-47 comes 1st in our comparison, by a large margin.

 

[Vincenzo]

Yes, but the -4RA had WI and was entering combat ops in October, 1943 for the first distinctive boost in performance over the C.

The D-4RA and D-5RE had WI installed at factory but it was manually controlled whereas the -10RA and -11RE were automativally controlled WI. IMO the D-10/-11 with the paddle blades, auto WI and CL bomb/fuel tank rack was the first P-47 truly suitable for practical escort work to and past the German Border

The C-2, C-5 and D-1,-2, -3 took some 200 hours to retrofit the manually controlled Water Injection modification.

IIRC, all the D's either had the centerline bomb/fuel tank rack or easily retrofitted wich gave the early D's both WI and longer range over the C, even though the C-2 and C-5 also could be retrofitted in fall 1943.

generally is not so full for my source (Baugher page on P-47), what's your?

for data on first combat with WI/WEP can you give me more info and source?
(ocotber 1943 it's date for D-10 test on WEP it's strange that test are in same month of first combat use)

 

[Vincenzo]

Bill, I've chose the main version of each 5 fighters (P-47 -38, F4U, F6F, Typhoon) available in 1943 for the sake of comparison against contemporary Bf-109.

No the Spitfire?? sure more rapresentative for RAF fighter that Typhoon

 

[tomo pauk]

Sure, the Mk. IX and XII were very competitive performance-wise, esp at 20kft and higher. But these Spits did not have ruggedness and range the other 5 planes from my list possessed.

 

[JP Vieira]

Did the synthetic fuel had the caracteristics of the "natural" one? I always thought it was a dead end solution...????

 

[drgondog]

generally is not so full for my source (Baugher page on P-47), what's your?

for data on first combat with WI/WEP can you give me more info and source?
(ocotber 1943 it's date for D-10 test on WEP it's strange that test are in same month of first combat use)

Read carefully - the 10-RE and -11RA were the first to have fully Automatic WI/WEP but the -4RA and -5RE were the first to have Manually Operated WI/WEP - which were also retrofit to the D-1,-2, -3 RA

Baugher is an excellent source for the production introductions but my primary also sources include "Gabby A Fighter Pilot's Life", MACR's, the 355th FG Histories (micrfilm A0784, A0783, A7083A, B0314, B0313) with all the engineering Sections at end of every month, 353rd FG History, etc.

From the Macr's it looks like the first Loss of a P-47D-5RE was from the 353rd FG on 5th September (42-8475) with 2 more on 15th and then 14th Oct. The 355th lost a P-47D-6RE (42-74667) on 4th October and received its first -4RA on September 9, 1943 and its first -10 on January 3rd, 1944.

 

[Vincenzo]

Baugher is an excellent source for the production introductions but my primary also sources include "Gabby A Fighter Pilot's Life", MACR's, the 355th FG Histories (micrfilm A0784, A0783, A7083A, B0314, B0313) with all the engineering Sections at end of every month, 353rd FG History, etc.

From the Macr's it looks like the first Loss of a P-47D-5RE was from the 353rd FG on 5th September (42-8475) with 2 more on 15th and then 14th Oct. The 355th lost a P-47D-6RE (42-74667) on 4th October and received its first -4RA on September 9, 1943 and its first -10 on January 3rd, 1944.

i don't understand what is the source that tell that D-5/D-6 have WEP from factory and not as upgrade (Baugher tell so if i undersdant him)

i've some trouble using this http://www.armyairforces.com/Databases/MACR/tabid/102/Default.aspx and the Baugher serial list
i fond the D-5 lost the 15th (42-8494) but not that lost the 5th, this is not important but i first found first D-11 loss il 30/11/43 (42-75216, 56th group), and an other il 30/12/43 (42-75425, 355th group)), and first D-10 loss the 7/1/44. so anew question why D-11 was delivered before of D-10?

 

[Bronc]

Anyway Bronc. The following link is especially for you. I think most of us have seen it already but I guess you haven't. virtualpilots.fi: 109myths
Read it carefully. It shows the vices and problems of the Bf 109 but especially debunks the myths around it.

Thank you. Actually, before I got verily blasted, I was planning on posting many of the accounts from that site.
So many accounts of crashing on takeoff and landing. And from reading all of them, it appears that the
Bf-109E/F's were a little safer than the G/K variants.

Has anyone read Horrido!?

In the paperback version, on page 255 is an interesting first-person account by the 237 victory ace, Willi Batz:

(The preface reads: His second washout will be of interest to students of Me-109 history.)

"In Austria near the end of the war we [transferred to] a base that had a bitumen runway.
Such luxury! For years we had been operating from grass strips near the front.
The unaccustomed experience of using the bitumen strip played havoc with our group.
Out of (42) forty-two aircraft, (39) thirty-nine cracked up on landing due to the
sensitivity of the Me-109 to its brakes and the strange feel and response
of a solid runway. Only the first three aircraft landed safely."

Apparently they were also dangerous to land on a bright, sunny day, at an airport on a paved strip. But enough about the
Bf-109's undercarriage. Everyone keeps ignoring (and making up excuses for) the obvious and discussing it any further
is going to get me banned.

I have a new VERY INTERESTING question that is suitable for a new post. (See below.)

Bronc

 

[pbfoot]

]

Apparently they were also dangerous to land on a bright, sunny day, at an airport on a paved strip. But enough about the
Bf-109's undercarriage. Everyone keeps ignoring (and making up excuses for) the obvious and discussing it any further
is going to get me banned.

I have a new VERY INTERESTING question that is suitable for a new post. (See below.)

Bronc

the 109 was designed to use turf rwys , and I'll wager most losses of any WW2 fighter was during the landing phase

 

[FLYBOYJ]

[. Everyone keeps ignoring (and making up excuses for) the obvious and discussing it any further
is going to get me banned.

Bronc

Stop being a twit - the only reason why I jumped on your case was because of your first post and the way you tried to shove this crap into Kurfurst's face. You have a valid discussion, at the same time there were THOUSANDS of pilots who mastered the -109.


Stop bolding your posts as if you need attention, you can make your points without being an ass.

 

[drgondog]

the 109 was designed to use turf rwys , and I'll wager most losses of any WW2 fighter was during the landing phase

I wonder. Take Off always seemed to be the moment of truth for me as speed and altitude were low and options limited.

Bad weather is the wildcard between the two circumstances of take off and landings.

I suspect you are right for combat ops simply because the aircraft often experienced battle damage, or was flying for several hours giving a higher statistical probability for a system or component failure..or pilot fatigue or unanticipated weather condition changes

 

[Bronc]

1 2) Where did my Avatar come from AND what in the hell is it???

3) If there is an Avatar God out there, will they please replace it with the attached Ta-152 picture?

4) The second picture is of a Bf-109G-5(?) and what I think is a 30mm Mk-108 belly pack.
(I've never seen one of these before.) Now, if we also have a 30 mm Mk-108 firing through the
hub (motor mount) plus the 30mm belly pack, might we dispense with (permanently remove)
the two 15mm nose guns and ammo boxes (to save weight) to end up with something much
more lethal than hanging (2) two 20mm MG-151/20's outboard on the wings??

Having (2) two center-line 30mm's hitting right next to each other would be pretty devastating
I think. Tell your pilots that they have about (3) three seconds of ammo for both cannon.
We expect you to make (1) one frontal or diving pass--and only one pass--on each mission. After
that you can Split-S and run for home, (we want you to get free and clear) but in each pass, you
have to fire (3) seconds within range and on target. Give us (3) seconds of accurate 30mm
Mk-108 fire on target and then run for home...

Bronc

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The image is too big to be added as an avatar.