Which of these DB 601 powered fighters was the best? Bf 109F-2, Ki-61-I or C.202

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by Civettone, Jun 18, 2013.

?

Which of these DB 601 powered fighters was the best?

  1. Messerschmitt Bf 109F-2

    26.1%
  2. Kawasaki Ki-61-I

    26.1%
  3. Macchi C.202

    47.8%
  1. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    All three were powered with the DB 601, although the F-2 had the uprated DB 601N (let us say with B4 fuel).

    Maximum speed for the Bf 109F-2 and C.202 was 595-600 km/h, the Ki-61 was a bit slower but had cannons while the other two were stuck with MGs.
    All had good handling, climb rate and manoeuvrability.



    Kris
     
  2. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    As historically produced I'll stick with Me-109. Good airframe, good engine, good weapons, good communications equipment and good build quality. No significant handing issues. Dirt cheap to mass produce too. Real world pilots loved the Me-109.

    Ki-61 with German engine, German weapons, German communications equipment and German build quality would be good but that's hardly realistic. Japan wasn't Germany.

    Italy has same problem as Japan. C.202 looks good at first glance but it lacks important bits such as firepower, reliable radio and reliable oxygen system. C.202 also spins easily which makes it a poor choice for low altitude role Me-109 excelled at. C.202 had four separate fuel tanks, two of which were in wings. That significantly increases the chance for enemy fire to hit a fuel tank or fuel line.
     
  3. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,988
    Likes Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    What plane featured the best combat radius?
     
  4. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Internal fuel capacity.
    400 liters. Me-109.
    460 liters. Mc.202 and Mc.205.
    550 liters. Ki-61.

    Ki-61 has the best range/endurance but none of the three are long range aircraft. Fw-190 carried almost as much fuel (535 liters).

    These are the DB601/DB605 range / endurance champions.
    770 liters. Me-309.
    1,300 liters. Fw-187.
     
  5. jim

    jim Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Messages:
    255
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It appears that the MC 202 and the Mc205 made better use of their german engines than the 109 . They delivered similar or superior performance combined with better manouverability(despite the inferior italian propeller), had more fuel ,better landing gear , better vivibility,somewhat bigger cocpit, ability for wing armament and much more development potentional
    They were more expensive to build
     
  6. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,988
    Likes Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    For outright speed, the 109F is a better bet. The Ki-61 seems to offer the best package, though.
     
  7. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ki-61 offers the best package for Japan as range was essential in the Pacific. Ki-61 would be inferior to Me-109 for medium/low altitude combat on Russian front (i.e. where most German combat took place).

    Different nations. Different combat requirements.
     
  8. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,179
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    Surely the Me 309 was DB 603 powered? Means more power but also higher fuel consumpion.

    And a DB 601/605 Fw 187 is merely a projected type (the one prototype fitted with Daimler-Benz engines had DB 600s?).
     
  9. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Fw-187 was production ready during 1939. That's why I consider it a valid comparison.

    Me-309 is a bit more iffy. Only 4 prototypes and program was cancelled before development was complete. I include it because it's the only long range single DB engine fighter aircraft. At least the only one I'm aware of.
     
  10. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    The Fiat G.55 and Reggiane Re.2005 had around 625-630 liters of internal fuel. However, the Re.2005 was projected to be build with extra integral tanks in its outer wings, increasing the total fuel load to almost 1,000 liters :D

    Kris
     
  11. Timppa

    Timppa Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Finland
    Ki-61 hands down. Superior range and firepower.

    In these discussions, the importance of endurance/range in not appreciated enough.
    Many FAF 109 pilots (especially those who converted from Brewsters and P-36's) complained about the lack of endurance which was typically limited to about 1hr in Bf109. And the distance to front lines in 1944 summer battles was no more than 100 miles !
     
  12. drgondog

    drgondog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Executive, Consulting
    Location:
    Scurry, Texas
    #12 drgondog, Jun 20, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2013
    I voted for the Ki 61 also - for the same reasons. To stick to the Ki-61-II however, you have to assume a fully reliable Ha 140 engine. It was slower than the 109F but excellent maneuverability and range and firepower. Allied fighters had speed but they had to shoot it down pretty fast because they weren't able to maneuver with it except in zoom climb and re-position.

    PS _ I am not familiar enough with the 202 to make a rational comparison.
     
  13. Dogwalker

    Dogwalker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Manziana Field, near Rome
    #13 Dogwalker, Jun 20, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2013
    The Ki-61 had the firepower at the end of '43 / beginning of '44. More a late attempt to mantain serviceable an old design than a feature of the model. The airframes of Bf109F and C.202 had received the firepower, along with new engines that increased performances instead of degrade them, a year, or more, before.
     
  14. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Longer range fighter aircraft would be more suitable for Finland's geographical position.

    Fw-190 had about 1/3rd more fuel. Did Finland attempt to purchase Fw-190s ILO the Me-109?
     
  15. Milosh

    Milosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,918
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Combat radius of the Fw190 was not much more than the Bf109.
     
  16. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    It was actually less.

    The Bf 109 had a ferry range of around 1,400 km.

    Bf 109 combat radius was limited, but sufficient for its interception missions. Only became inadequate with the arrival of stronger engines with MW 50.

    Ki-61 needed longer range for obvious reasons.
    Kris
     
  17. DonL

    DonL Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Occupation:
    IT
    Location:
    Niedersachsen
    #17 DonL, Jun 21, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2013
    In your wildest dreams..................

    Perhaps 700km with engine start up, warm-up,roles,take off and climb to 5000m you will have 320Liter left for range
    The DB needs round about 289Liter/h at 0,8 ata and the F2 would be at 540-550 km/h at 5000m with 0.8 ata.

    1400km is absolutely absurd.
     
  18. Milosh

    Milosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,918
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The Fw190A-8 had a ferry range of just over 1400km.
     
  19. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,905
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    If you go look at: http: //kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET-109Gtrop_WdimPerf.html ... They give a maximum range for a Bf 109 G-2 with external tank and total fuel capacity of 154 US gallons to be 1,250 miles, which works out to 2,011 km. Of course, the Bf 109 may not have flown very often with 154 US gallons of fuel, but it doesn't seem "absurd" in any way.

    Maybe find another word that is less argumentative? In English, calling someone's opinion "absurd" is a challenge to a fight. Perhaps you didn't know that. The old meaning is not the modern meaning.

    Add fuel and the Bf 109 goes a long way ... until you meet the enemy and have to drop the fuel. Then you're back to internal fuel and need to run for home. Mostly they flew for much shorter distances, as you indicate, but Civettone is correct that it COULD go a long way if carrying the fuel to do it and if not forced to drop the fuel to fight.
     
  20. Milosh

    Milosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,918
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ah, Greg those are British estimates and then consider the source where it is found.
     
Loading...

Share This Page