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

[spicmart]

Civettone, I have seen a picture once of a mock-up/test bed (?) of the wing with the MK 108 installed inside of it for the Me 109 K-6.
It never did happen to be build in any functional 109 IIRC.
Maybe it was not safe enough. I have to look for the source.
And yes, it had bulges.
I just wonder why this was not made earlier?

 

[Civettone]

I wonder the same. It seems Messerschmitt refused to do any improvements on the Bf 109 from 1942 until the cancellation of its successors Me 209 and 309.

Production of K-6 and almost all Kolbenjaeger was ordered to be stopped in 1945 in favour of jet aircraft.
Kris

 

[davebender]

They could have used Me-155 wing for Me-109G from 1943 onward. That would give you wide track landing gear and (I believe) space for a 20mm cannon inside wing. Late war production issues probably prevented serious consideration of this option.

Me-309 was a long range single engine fighter aircraft somewhat similar to American P-51D. Exactly what Luftwaffe needed during BoB but use would be limited after 1941. Might be good over Med, Norway and Bay of Biscay.

 

[Civettone]

What was the fuel load or range of the Me 309?



Kris

 

[davebender]

770 liters.

 

[Civettone]

Medium-range then


Kris

 

[Shortround6]

Might depend on which engine it got and which armament fit.

 

[Tante Ju]

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

G-4/R3 fighter-recon in flight in MTO and its service manual showing the fuel system.

I believe Clostermann describes the interception of a G-6/R3 over Scapa Flow and mentions underwing tanks.

View attachment D-Luft-T-2109-G-4-R3-Bf-109-G-4-R3-Flugzeug-Handbuch-Teil-7-Betriebsstoff-Zusatzeanlage.pdf

 

[Dogwalker]

The C.202 had the possibility to carry up to 150l under each wing, hovever, this was rarely used.

 

[Civettone]

Thanks TJ, the handbook is interesting because it also shows an additional oil reservoir. Never thought about that. I wonder how other aircraft managed when they had drop tanks installed. For instance, the P-51 or Fw 190. Did they have sufficient oil reservoir capacity?


Kris

 

[Ivan1GFP]

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.

Many of the Ki-61-I's had 20 mm cannon:
First there were the 400 fighters that had the Mauser MG 151/20 installed in the wings. Cannons were delivered from Germany by submarine.
The Ki-61-I-KAI switched around the armament a bit with Ho-5 cannons on the cowl (needed a fuselage extension to do this) and 12.7 mm guns in the wings with a fairly viable explosive shell. There were even some aircraft with a 30 mm cannon in each wing.

With a good / reliable DB 605D class engine, I believe the Ki-61 was the best airframe, but in real life, it had the least reliable of the DB 601 copies.

I picked the Macchi C.202 because the build quality was actually quite good and although the firepower is a bit light, it also had an explosive shell for the 12.7 mm gun. The climb rate of the Ki-61-I was just way too slow. The Me 109F had a speed advantage but very heavy control forces and a poor roll rate at high speed.

There is an account from a Hurrican pilot of what these little bitty explosive round did to his aeroplane which was reasonably convincing.

Just my opinion.
- Ivan.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

A comment about the wing tanks on the Macchi Fighters:
Each wing root tank was only about 10 gallons or so and plumbed into the main tank.
If you look at a diagram of their size and location, they are basically just tiny little extensions of the main tank and don't offer mcuh of a target.

- Ivan.

 

[Dogwalker]

Many of the Ki-61-I's had 20 mm cannon:
First there were the 400 fighters that had the Mauser MG 151/20 installed in the wings. Cannons were delivered from Germany by submarine.

And the first ot these conversions was made in late 1943 / early 1944, the last in july 1944.

With a good / reliable DB 605D class engine, I believe the Ki-61 was the best airframe,

Given the larger wing surface in comparison with the other two, it's probable that it was the bes suited for a DB605.

 

[davebender]

Germany didn't get such an engine until late 1944. Japan would be lucky to have DB605D engine in late 1946.

 

[Civettone]

I picked the Macchi C.202 because the build quality was actually quite good and although the firepower is a bit light, it also had an explosive shell for the 12.7 mm gun. The climb rate of the Ki-61-I was just way too slow. The Me 109F had a speed advantage but very heavy control forces and a poor roll rate at high speed.

There is quite a bit of debate on the subject of the Italian explosive 12,7 mm cartridge. Some say it was ineffective.
I do not think there was much speed advantage for the Bf 109G-2, which is the one set up for this poll. Both the F-2 and the C.202 had a max speed of around 600 km/h.

You must be thinking of the F-4, which was much faster and with its stronger armament clearly superior to all other aircraft in existence. That is why it is not the version chosen for this poll. The F-2 had the DB 601N and lacked heavy armament.
Kris

 

[Denniss]

At least 80 G-4/R3s LR recon planes had the capacity to use 2x300l drop tanks

Count-in 40 G-6/R3. There were many hundred G-8 recons built but I have not heard about a long range variant amongst them.

 

[Juha]

Count-in 40 G-6/R3. There were many hundred G-8 recons built but I have not heard about a long range variant amongst them.

All 3 my 109 sources say that G-6/R3 could carry only one 300l dt, same to LR version of G-8. G-8 itself was a tactical FR version of G-6.

Juha

 

[Denniss]

G-6/R3 was the same as G-4/R3, just with G-6 airframe.

 

[Juha]

Hello Denniss
what are your sources? Mine are Prien et al: Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G, and K Series: An Illustrated Study and Radinker Otto: Messerschmitt Bf 109 F-K plus newer Valtonen's and Fernández-Sommerau's books. I know that Wiki says that G-6/R3 was a long range version with 2x300l dts and it is a good article but still Wiki.

 

[Tante Ju]

Probably confusion because G-6/R3 was modified recce with 2x300 liter drop tanks, while G-6 mit Rüstsatz III was normal fighter with 1 x 300 droptank fitted. However many sources quote wrongly Rüstatz, like III or VI (VI was gondola gun) as a suffix to the type, like calling gondola equipped G-6 as G-6/R6. This was never used as such in Luftwaffe... post war invention/mistake of authors...

However, G-6/R3 was Gawaltaufklärer, with 2 x 300 lit and Rb 75/30 camera, while G-6/R4 the same but with Rb 50/30 typ camera.

here is picture of comparison with Rb 50/30 with some British camaras used by RAF.

Rb 75/30 was quite a serious camera equipment, used for high altitude work with great focal lenght.