Which of these DB 601 powered fighters was the best? Bf 109F-2, Ki-61-I or C.202 (3 Viewers)

Which of these DB 601 powered fighters was the best?

  • Total voters
    26

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Civettone

Tech Sergeant
1,757
39
Oct 7, 2005
London, UK
civettone.wordpress.com
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
For outright speed, the 109F is a better bet. The Ki-61 seems to offer the best package, though.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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

Kris
 
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 !
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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
 

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.
 
Last edited:
Civettone said:
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.

Kris
Click to expand...

The Fw190A-8 had a ferry range of just over 1400km.
 
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.
 
Ah, Greg those are British estimates and then consider the source where it is found.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)

Similar threads

N
How capable was the Ki-44?
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
11K
Irregualr23
I
W
Bf-109F-4 # 8694
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
Would a Spitfire with the same wing area as on the Bf 109 have been a good idea or not?
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
5K
Reluctant Poster
R
A
why did tamiya attributed one of kobayashi ki 61 to shunzo takashima?
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
aurelien wolff
A
S
Wing shapes of Russian fighters
Replies
15
Views
1K
wrathofatlantis
W
Menu
Log in
Register