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

Which of these DB 601 powered fighters was the best?

  • Total voters
    25

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

OK, I can accept that.

It never was a long-range thing, but I figured they could come up with a belly tank that would at least get it around the country. Everyone else did. Apparently they did. 1,045 miles isn't great, but is way longer than most people quote for the Bf 109 range.

I realize range isn't the same as combat radius.
 
The Fw190 had 520l internal fuel, the Bf109 had 400l. The BMW801 was rather thirsty but do you think the consumption of the BMW801 was so much higher than the DB601 because this more than 20%
cimmex
 
Nobody here was talking range with an external fuel tank.

His claim was 1400km fery range without drop tank.
Everybody knows that the Bf109 could carry external fuel tank's, but that isn't the issue.

The FW 190 had a longer range from primary sources, then the Bf 109 with internal fuel and a much longer range with external drop tanks, because the payload of the FW190 was much higher. Also the BMW 801 has not a 20% higher fuel consumption.
 
Last edited:
His post didn't say without an external tank. I was assuming we ALL know the Bf 109 wouldn't go that far on a FERRY flight without an external tank. Ferry imples long range, ergo, external tank, drop or not.

If I mispoke here, tell me.
 
Oh no guys, I meant and still mean WITHOUT external fuel tank. I have an official German source to back that up, but can't locate it at the moment. I just threw in the British report to show that it is not so far off. They came to a similar conclusion using a worn out Bf 109G.

Here is another English test report showing 725 miles or 1,167 km.



DB engines had great fuel efficiency.


Kris
 
Last edited:

Well your souce please...? I have seen datasheet for F-4 (note different E engine, the N's range may have been shorter) and it says ca. 1600 range with a single droptank.. range sheet says 835 km with internal fuel only, but it has considerable allowances in it.

There were also G series aircraft with TWO droptanks. Range easily in the 2000+ km range, though radius would be much shorter.
 

Really, let's see your datasheet please?
 
That 1600km range seems to be rather theoretical, according to the Finnish experience, the typical cruising power was at 2500m 0.9 - 1.0 ata (470-490km/h TAS) 250l/h. Slower, more efficient speeds were made difficult by the fouling of sparking plugs and flooding of exhaust gases into the cockpit. Also the Finnish transfer flights from Germany to Finland shows rather short flights between fueling stops. That that was not only a Finnish phenomenon is shown for ex. during the 11./JG 2 transfer from France to Tunisia in Nov 42 and in the many stories in LW aces memoirs on transfer flights to the Eastern Front in 42 and 43.

Now if a recon 109G could carry 2 drop tanks that didn't increase the range of the fighter versions. Similarly, that a PR Spit could fly from GB to Berlin and back didn't indicate that Spit Mk IX could do the same,

Juha
 
1600km is almost twice 835km

So the a/c goes just as far on 300l (dt) as it does on 400l (internal)

Sure it does.

Also Kris, there is a 2cd British document dated 7-5-43 which appends the one from Kurfurst's site. Don't take anything on Kurfurst's site at face value.

The revised number are:
clean: 415/590 (no change/-135))
with dt: 755/1020 (no change/-230)
fb: 400/535 (no change/-120)

Please note the max distance with drop tank compared to without drop tank. (1020 - 590 = 430 or 160mi less)

Kris there is another British report that gives combat radius and the Bf109 was 130mi while the Fw190 was 140mi (same mission profile). Might be on Mike William's site.
 

Flying at lower altitude at higher than recommended settings does decrease ranges significantly. Ploug fouling can be a problem but generally could be avoided by opening up periodically to clean the plugs (as was prescribed for Merlin with high octane fuel that caused lead deposits on plugs every 15 mins or so) also AFAIK 109G had a plug cleaning device for this.

Of course for this reason all quoted maximum ranges are "rather theoretical", so in comparison they are treated equal.

Now if a recon 109G could carry 2 drop tanks that didn't increase the range of the fighter versions. Similarly, that a PR Spit could fly from GB to Berlin and back didn't indicate that Spit Mk IX could do the same,
Click to expand...

I do not see any technical problem with equipping 109G fighter versions with the same way as the FR 109s (fttings and pipes for underwing drop tanks). An analogue between the Spitfire PR versions is false, since the wing stucture in that plane carried all the armament, and extended fuel capacity ruled out fitting guns. The Ki 61 AFAIK had option for two 200 liter underwing fuel tanks, even if not entirely practical, such devices may greatly increased the endurance, if not the radius of action.

Meaning you either had range or guns. Recon 109Gs were armed, however, with the hub cannon in the usual. Cowl MGs were removed to make place for extra oil tank, though I believe it would not be impossible to solve it differently.
 
Why would the germans not build wing mounted guns into the Me 109? Was it not possible due to the wing structure or what?
 


You mean like this Me-109G6?

I'm under the impression wing cannon were pretty common on late war Me-109G. After DB605 engine was cleared for fully power the aircraft had plenty of power to compensate for 215kg additional weight of wing guns and ammo.
 
spicmart said:
Why would the germans not build wing mounted guns into the Me 109? Was it not possible due to the wing structure or what?
Click to expand...

Galland had cannons mounted in the wing of his F.

Dave, those are under the wing and had not the best handling qualities.
 
No Milosh, those guns were inside the wing. The ammo drum protruded under the wing. Of course we are talking about the much smaller MG/FF, not the MG 151/20.


Btw, can anyone show me a Bf 109F/G with underwing fuel tanks? I have never seen a picture of one.
Kris
 
I mean guns that were installed fully enclosed within the wing, not meaning the obsolete Mg/FF but the more modern MG 151/20.
 

Yes, the opening up in regular intervals helped but decreased the range. And the problem of exhaust gases remained. And the plug cleaning devise was removed from or not installed in the 109Gs delivered to Finland, whether they were picked up from a factory in Germany or delivered from the LW's Feldluftpark 3/XI Pori, so its seems use of it was discontinued at least by late 43. And even if 11./JG 2 was needed in Tunisia because of the Allied landings in Algeria, it's transfer from France to there took 11 days, because of the rather short hops to Germany and then down along Italy and then to Sicily in several stages.See e.g. Meimberg's memoirs. If the 1600km range would have been realistic, the transfer would have taken a couple days at most. Same to transfer flights from Poland to Ukraine, it would have been odd to make several landings on the way if a couple would have been enough.



Question is, if that was so simple why it wasn't done. It would have make much faster and easier (landing and t/o were the most dangerous parts of the transfer flights) to transfer replacement a/c to e.g. Eastern Ukraine or to NA.
 
I have found a couple of pictures in a book (Messerschmitt 109 F,G K Series by Prien and Rodieke page 94) of the G-4/R3 version. About 80 built and most (all?) had the fuselage mgs taken out and some had the troughs plated over. A long range reconnaissance model.

There is some doubt about wither any G-6s carried twin tanks or not. Not sure about any others.



Edit. For long range flights you need larger oil tanks. They can be fitted at times ( and were to many of the Spitfires that used the 170 gal ferry tanks) but you need the space for them (external bulge on the Spitifres) and you need the smaller tanks to fit back in once you get to were you are going.
 
Last edited:
Civettone said:
No Milosh, those guns were inside the wing. The ammo drum protruded under the wing. Of course we are talking about the much smaller MG/FF, not the MG 151/20.
Click to expand...

Hello Kris, it was other way around, the cannons were under the wing but the ammo drum protruded inside the wing


Civettone said:
Btw, can anyone show me a Bf 109F/G with underwing fuel tanks? I have never seen a picture of one.
Kris
Click to expand...

At least 80 G-4/R3s LR recon planes had the capacity to use 2x300l drop tanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
P-61 Performance
Replies
15
Views
1K
Snautzer01
S
State-of-the-art Japanese fighters with western engines
Replies
10
Views
484
GregP
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
S
DB 610 Fuel Consumption
Replies
12
Views
1K
Engineman
E
Bf 109F-4/Z operational use
Replies
3
Views
1K
greybeard
Menu
Log in
Register