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

[Civettone]

I disagree that the Bf 109 was outdated by 1945. Quite on the contrary, I think the Bf 109 came back with a vengeance with the K-version. The Bf 109 had lagged behind since the end of 1943 with the arrival of the P-47D, P-38J and P-51B/C over Germany. At this point the Bf 109 was at its weakest. It only started to improve after May 1944 with ever better ata's, the AS, AM and ASM engines and the aerodynamical improvements. This culminated in the beginning of 1945 with the Bf 109K with further aerodynamical improvements and up to 2000 hp. At this point it was once again superior to anything the allies could throw against it. It had better speed and/or climb rate than the P-47, P-38, P-51, Spitfire, Tempest, Yak-3/-9 and La-7 then in action.

New allied versions were coming up but also the Bf 109K-14 was going to get the new DB 605L engine for better high altitude performance. By then it may no longer have been the best around but was still competitive. I believe it lagged further behind back in late 1943 than it did in 1945.

Handling deteriorated at these high speeds but I have never seen a credible account saying the Bf 109K was no longer handable. Combat aircraft generally become more difficult to fly as long as they get better performance.

Kris

 

[Juha]

Spit IX Merlin 66 +18lb boost 3000rpm vs Bf 109G-1 1.3ata 2600rpm. Spit climbed better at least up to 6km, turned better, had better sustained rollrate, was clearly faster from SL to c. 4.5km, somewhat faster from 6km to 8km. Bf 109 was a little bit faster from c. 4.5km up to 6km and somewhat faster from c. 8km up to 9km and from that on more clearly faster. I don't have info on instanteous rollrates of Bf 109G or Spit IX.

P-47D-10 was clearly faster than 109G-1 from SL upwards, from 7km upwards very significantly faster and rolled better, IIRC 109G-1 climbed better

Juha

 

[Vincenzo]

Spit IX Merlin 66 +18lb boost 3000rpm vs Bf 109G-1 1.3ata 2600rpm. Spit climbed better at least up to 6km, turned better, had better sustained rollrate, was clearly faster from SL to c. 4.5km, somewhat faster from 6km to 8km. Bf 109 was a little bit faster from c. 4.5km up to 6km and somewhat faster from c. 8km up to 9km and from that on more clearly faster. I don't have info on instanteous rollrates of Bf 109G or Spit IX.

P-47D-10 was clearly faster than 109G-1 from SL upwards, from 7km upwards very significantly faster and rolled better, IIRC 109G-1 climbed better

Juha

Spit IX with merlin 63+ with +18 boost as you tell has a advantage but no so high to put gustav in 2nd line fighter. (please can give me data on sustained roll rate?)

P-47D-10 was a '44 fighter, the C was for a RAF comparative report inferior to Spit IX.

ADD sorry i confused D-10 with late batch, but early D batch aren't many different to C

 

[davebender]

Until the oil foaming problem was fixed the DB605A could not produce the full 1,475 HP. I think that was the Me-109 low point vs the competition.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I disagree that the Bf 109 was outdated by 1945. Quite on the contrary, I think the Bf 109 came back with a vengeance with the K-version. The Bf 109 had lagged behind since the end of 1943 with the arrival of the P-47D, P-38J and P-51B/C over Germany. At this point the Bf 109 was at its weakest. It only started to improve after May 1944 with ever better ata's, the AS, AM and ASM engines and the aerodynamical improvements. This culminated in the beginning of 1945 with the Bf 109K with further aerodynamical improvements and up to 2000 hp. At this point it was once again superior to anything the allies could throw against it. It had better speed and/or climb rate than the P-47, P-38, P-51, Spitfire, Tempest, Yak-3/-9 and La-7 then in action.

New allied versions were coming up but also the Bf 109K-14 was going to get the new DB 605L engine for better high altitude performance. By then it may no longer have been the best around but was still competitive. I believe it lagged further behind back in late 1943 than it did in 1945.

Handling deteriorated at these high speeds but I have never seen a credible account saying the Bf 109K was no longer handable. Combat aircraft generally become more difficult to fly as long as they get better performance.

Kris

I agree with you. When I said that it had run its course, that can be said of all piston engined aircraft. The dawn of the jet aircraft had arrived.

 

[Kurfürst]

Spit IX Merlin 66 +18lb boost 3000rpm vs Bf 109G-1 1.3ata 2600rpm. Spit climbed better at least up to 6km, turned better, had better sustained rollrate, was clearly faster from SL to c. 4.5km, somewhat faster from 6km to 8km. Bf 109 was a little bit faster from c. 4.5km up to 6km and somewhat faster from c. 8km up to 9km and from that on more clearly faster. I don't have info on instanteous rollrates of Bf 109G or Spit IX.

IMHO in the context of availability, the rather marginal differences in performance were a non-issue... the Bf 109G was a standard, mainstay type during 1943, practically making up the whole 109 inventory.

The Merlin 66 Spitfire IX was on the other hand, an utmost rarity in Squadron service until 1944. Production output was simply grossly insufficient (ie. in the first six months of 1943 only about 80 were produced in total). The mainstay Spitfire type was still the Mk V, and remained so until early 1944, and by 1943 it was hopelessly outclassed in terms of speed. IIRC even in the summer there were only two Squadrons with the new Merlin 66 Spits in the whole RAF - insignificant, penny pocket numbers while the bulk of Fighter Command was basically at the same disadvantage as the Bf 109G-6s in 1944 against the new Mustang B... being some 50-60 km/h slower, and things got worse especially at altitude.

It is why the Typhoon, despite its problems, made such a career in 1943... at least it was competitive with German fighters in terms of speed. The Mark V simply wasn't.

P-47D-10 was clearly faster than 109G-1 from SL upwards, from 7km upwards very significantly faster and rolled better, IIRC 109G-1 climbed better

I am not sure, AFAIK the P-47D did not exceed ~660 km/h speed until the paddle props were added, but that was not until 1944. See the ancient Soviet charts (both curves based on Soviet domestic testing results of captured G-2 and LL P-47D).

BTW imho the performance depicted below is a classic example of the different design philosophies... a huge turbocompound driving a massive radial engine in a gigantic airframe, or a simple inline Vee with less about 2/3s the output, in a small airframe that makes the best use of every single horsepower... funny thing is, at this point the Gustav while having very similiar altitude performance had probably more range than the gas guzzling 47D-10...!

 

[Kurfürst]

I agree with you. When I said that it had run its course, that can be said of all piston engined aircraft. The dawn of the jet aircraft had arrived.

Agree, too...

 

[Bronc]

This is getting silly. That the Luftwaffe's fighter pilots in 1943 were calling----"calling" is not the right word, "BEGGING----for something
to replace their Bf-109's is a well known fact and the fact that Luftwaffe fighter pilots would rather JUMP OUT of their Bf-109's instead of trying to
land them in bad weather is apparently not compelling evidence for some....

So... I suppose... it's time for the WWII Aircraft Performance Resource Page:

Click here: WWII Aircraft Performance

Me-109 G flight tests are here: Me 109 G Flight Tests

A flight comparison Me-109G vs. Spitfire Mk9 is here: Spitfire Mk IX versus Me 109 G - Flight Testing

Comparison of the Me-109G/K vs. Spitfire Mk14 is here: Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K

It's a great site with tons of interesting information. Short story: The Bf-109 G/K was out-classed by EVERYTHING. Not to mention, Luftwaffe
pilots would rather JUMP OUT of their Bf-109's rather than trying to land them in bad weather.

Imagine racing against cars that are 30 to 60 mph faster than yours. Go out in your car and let someone pass you going 30 to 60 mph faster than you are.
The P-47D was 10-20 mph faster than a Bf-109G at sea level for heaven's sake and 60 mph faster at 30,000.

The Spitfire Mk-14 SPANKED the Bf-109G and OWNED the Bf-109K (and we have yet to mention the high-boost P-51D's, P-47N's, P-38K's Tempests,
Yak's, and the list goes on and on...)

Hey!! It's the Luftwaffe's fighter pilots... In case anyone is listening...when the weather is bad, we would rather JUMP OUT of the Bf-109's
that you keep sending us instead of trying to land them. As in: WE JUMP OUT of them, because JUMPING OUT is safer than trying to land them.
By the way, has anyone told you how slow they are? STOP S-E-N-D-I-N-G THEM!!
And also: WE DON'T GIVE 2-SH-TS ABOUT HOW EASY AND CHEAP THEY ARE TO BUILD.

This conversation became a bona-fide microcosm of the real conversation about the Me-109 series in the RLM!! (And we know how that turned out!!)

Bronc

 

[Bronc]

Kurfurst: Where on the Planet Earth did you find that Performance Comparison Chart?? -- Because dude, it's so wrong it must be some kind of left-over Soviet propaganda or something.

Look at the RLM's own performance tests here: Me 109 G Flight Tests

And look at the REAL Spitfire, P-47 and P-51 numbers here: WWII Aircraft Performance

Seriously, your chart is so wrong, it must be some kind of Soviet propaganda. What is the source?

Bronc

 

[Kurfürst]

Yup, the infamous 'comparison' articles none the less !

 

[drgondog]

Spit IX with merlin 63+ with +18 boost as you tell has a advantage but no so high to put gustav in 2nd line fighter. (please can give me data on sustained roll rate?)

P-47D-10 was a '44 fighter, the C was for a RAF comparative report inferior to Spit IX.

ADD sorry i confused D-10 with late batch, but early D batch aren't many different to C

The 47D-10 was produced in sept 1943. The D-4 and -5 were the first with WI. the -10 and -11 had the paddle blades

I haven't seen the 109G/K roll rates but it was notorious for very stiff control forces > 250-300 mph. The Mustang and Thunderbolt had relatively light control forces at high speed.

 

[Bronc]

Kurfurst wrote: "Yup, the infamous 'comparison' articles none the less..."

Sorry man, but I'm not going to let you slide on posting grossly inaccurate and intentionally
distorted Soviet propaganda, (not distortions of your making--Soviet distortions--and silly ones at that) and then dissing the RLM's own flight test data.
Sorry about that.

You can't duck the RLM's own data on the Bf-109G/K and you can't ignore the real and accurate data on the P-47D, P-51A/B/C and D.
(Yes, at low levels, the P-51A OWNED the Bf-109G/K. It freakin' SPANKED them.) And as far as Spitfires go: Deliveries of the Spitfire Mk IX
began in June 1942, and went operational on 28 July 1942.

The assertion that: "The mainstay Spitfire type was still the Mk V, and remained so until early 1944" IS C-R-A-Z-Y TALK.

By the way, has anyone mentioned that when the weather got bad, Bf-109G pilots preferred to JUMP OUT of their airplanes
instead of d-y-i-n-g in an attempt to land them? As in: THEY WANTED TO JUMP OUT of their aircraft---and made a habit of doing so in bad
weather-- because JUMPING OUT was SAFER than trying to land a BF-109G. Has that been mentioned that yet? Because if so:
WHAT MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID??

Bronc

 

[Civettone]

Bronc, you are out of line.
Not only are your posts demeaning, you are writing complete nonsense.

Kris

 

[FLYBOYJ]

By the way, has anyone mentioned that when the weather got bad, Bf-109G pilots preferred to JUMP OUT of their airplanes
instead of d-y-i-n-g in an attempt to land them? As in: THEY WANTED TO JUMP OUT of their aircraft---and made a habit of doing so in bad
weather-- because JUMPING OUT was SAFER than trying to land a BF-109G. Has that been mentioned that yet? Because if so:
WHAT MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID??

Bronc

You will substantiate that outburst or I will ban you for 6 months. The ball is in your court.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You will substantiate that outburst or I will ban you for 6 months. The ball is in your court.

Actually I went back and read some more of this crap.

Bronc - I'm telling you straight up, you're an idiot. Do you know that the 109 lacked any type of IFR equipment or any equipment that would enable them to land using early instrument approach equipment. BTW, the same could be said for just about ANY WW2 fighter and more than likely if ANY fighter pilot found himself in a situation where they could not gain a visual on an airfield during IFR conditions, more than likely they would be bailing out or they would die!!!!

Watch yourself Bozo, because I'm ready to plant your silly ass into cyber space and this WILL be my only warning.

 

[Shortround6]

While the 109 was kept competive in straight line speed and in climb it's armament wasn't exactly a strong point.
While it might have been quite comptitive on the Russian front a single 20mm and 2 weak but fast firing 13mm guns weren't really up to standard in the west by the end of 1943.
Of course the P-51B's and C's were running a little light in gunpower too.
Three gun fit might also have been fine on the Russian front against the smaller Russian aircraft (except pehaps for the IL-2 but was increasingly lacking against 4 engined bombers. the change to the MK 108 helped against bombers but hurt against fighters. With only 60 rounds for the main gun combat endurance was rather short, 6 seconds at 600rpm? Just how many firing passes could a pilot who was not an "expert" make per flight? Two?
A lot is made of how cheap the 109 was to build compared to other fighters. It may have been but it might also have been an expensive way to get a single MK 108 cannon and 60 rounds of ammo to within range of a B-17.
OK it had the two MG 131s but once the MK 108 runs dry who really expects the pilots to attack the bombers with just 2 MG that use lighter, slower bullets than the bombers guns use?

Don't bother bringing up the gunboats, Using single engine fighters that have to be "escorted" by other single engined fighters so they can carry bomber busting armament just proves the point.

 

[Shortround6]

I believe that got to be the policy of the German air force when flying Lockheed F-104G's.

I could be wrong but if not it means that.

1. The Germans hadn't learned anything in 20 years.

or

2. Lockheed hadn't learned anything in 20 years.

or

3. Flyboy is right is saying "ANY fighter pilot found himself in a situation where they could not gain a visual on an airfield during IFR conditions, more than likely they would be bailing out or they would die!!!!"

 

[Civettone]

While the 109 was kept competive in straight line speed and in climb it's armament wasn't exactly a strong point.
While it might have been quite comptitive on the Russian front a single 20mm and 2 weak but fast firing 13mm guns weren't really up to standard in the west by the end of 1943.

I have no indication to believe that the armament was insufficient. Perhaps for novice pilots whose gunnery training was seriously inadequate during the last part of the war. Late-war fighters were better armoured though I have no indication that the Bf 109G-6 guns could not bring them down. Plus, much of the Russian fighters were American (P-40, P-39 and especially the very well armoured P-63).

With only 60 rounds for the main gun combat endurance was rather short, 6 seconds at 600rpm? Just how many firing passes could a pilot who was not an "expert" make per flight? Two?

I have never read of pilots making more than two passes. Usually they just went for one. After that their own formation has been broken and they are too vulnerable to attempt lone attacks on entire bomber formations.
I seriously doubt the ammunition got depleted before they called it a day...


But of course you're right that the standard armament was insufficient against bombers. That the Germans knew too!
But even the armament of the Fw 190A was considered to be insufficient. That's why they created the R2s.

Kris

 

[Bronc]

Actually I went back and read some more of this crap.

Bronc - I'm telling you straight up, you're an idiot. Do you know that the 109 lacked any type of IFR equipment or any equipment that would enable them to land using early instrument approach equipment. BTW, the same could be said for just about ANY WW2 fighter and more than likely if ANY fighter pilot found himself in a situation where they could not gain a visual on an airfield during IFR conditions, more than likely they would be bailing out or they would die!!!!

Most respectfully FlyboyJ : You are missing the point: completely, totally and entirely.

Again Most Respectfully: The issue has NOTHING to do with "IFR equipment" or
"gaining a visual during IFR conditions." It has EVERYTHING to do with the inherently
dangerous design of the Bf-109's weak, narrow undercarriage. And it's not like I'm
making this up. I have r-e-p-e-a-t-e-d-l-y provided sources for everything I say, so it's
hardly "crap." (Also, my position is repeated in E-V-E-R-Y single book ever written on the Bf-109.)

I'm sure we all agree that people have a right to have their opinions, but they don't have a
right to their own made-up facts. I'm stating the facts. The others are stating their opinions. And I'm the
one about to be banned?

Bronc

 

[Bronc]

I think the issue has been fleshed out. Both sides have recieved a fair hearing in
the arena of ideas. I'm finished trying to convince anyone that the Bf-109's weak,
narrow undercarriage was a major cause of concern that could have been addressed
by the RLM and Luftwaffe and I won't be posting any more on it, because if Gunther Rall's
comment on the matter wasn't convincing, and all of those page citations in books couldn't
do it, and if Robert Grinsell's research about Bf-109G pilots jumping out of their airplanes
because they were THAT afraid of the landing characteristics of the Bf-109G, then NOTHING is
going to convince them.

I apologize if I offended anyone.

So please don't ban me.

Bronc