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

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?
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
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
 

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.
 
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.
 
Ivan1GFP said:
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.
Click to expand...
And the first ot these conversions was made in late 1943 / early 1944, the last in july 1944.

Ivan1GFP said:
With a good / reliable DB 605D class engine, I believe the Ki-61 was the best airframe,
Click to expand...
Given the larger wing surface in comparison with the other two, it's probable that it was the bes suited for a DB605.
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.

 
Last edited:
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
696
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