BF 109 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The Second World War (1939-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By cowofzot
#13415482
109 B best fighter in Spain
E best fighter in the world 1940, some say tie with Spit Mk II
F best fighter in the world 1941
G-2 less maneuverable than F, but faster than Spit V or Russian planes
G-6 even less maneuverable & slower than G-2 at some altitudes. Spit Mk 9 & Mustang B considered better.
G-14 faster than Mk 9 Spit, not as fast as Mustang
G-10 faster than Mustang D below 15.000 ft Eric Hartmann The Aces Talk book.
K-4 444 mph, well some of em anyway. MK 14 Spit Griffon motor had bearing issues & wasn't as fast. Very few of these made the game as a besides, Mk 9 was most common variant at wars end.


Excerpts from Rolf Pingel interview. Wing Commander S. D. Felkin AI1(k) 20 July 1941

The new arrangement of the guns in the nose of the Me 109 F enables pilots to fire very accurately while in a turn and to open fire at a greater range. This pilot, however, usually opened fire at about one hundred yards, closing to fifty yards. There have been absolutely no unfavourable comments on the reduction of armament; the present arrangement is regarded as ideal.



This pilot believes the Me 109 F to be superior in every respect to the Spitfire, except that the new Spitfire might, when handled by an equally good pilot, still be superior to the Me 109 F in steep turns at high speed. The difference, however, can be more than counter balanced if the german is better.

The re-designed wing of the Me 109 F considerably improves the handling of the aircraft and the slots open more gradually so that turns are very much easier to execute.


Mustang vs G-10 Nov 44?




excerpt from the book "Black 6": ( Captured G-2)



Squadron Leader Bobby Gibbs, RAAF, at Gambut, Cyrenaica, test flew it: "He had taken to flying mock combat sorties against his unit's P-40 fighters and soon found that the obvious superiority of the German fighter was in danger of demoralizing his men!" In his diary, 14 November 1942, he wrote: "The 109 is a hell of a nice kite with terrific performance. On the lowest permissible boost and revs was clocking 220-230 mph." At Lydda, it under went flight testing by Group Captain Buxton, who said after a second flight, 30 December 1942: "Very good performer," and from Don Batger, 452 Squadron on Buxton's fight: "He turned the 109 inside out and came back and said that it was better than anything we had at the time." (Spitfire Mk V variant).

"The cockpit is simple. A number of technical controls such as oxygen flow, adjustment of coolant radiator and oil radiator flaps and airscrew pitch control have been made automatic and need no attention from the pilot. The pilot is then able to give more attention to fighting tactics, teamwork, navigation and practical flying." Further, "The supercharger is driven through a hydraulic clutch in the same way as the D.B. 601. this gives the effect of a multi-speed drive without attention from the pilot. The maximum boost is also automatically controlled."
By cowofzot
#13415509
"Indeed there were two kind of engine fitted on the K-4, the DB605DM And there was the DB605DB/DC,

DB 605 DC,

1.98ata, 2000 PS, 444 mph at 19 600 ft - 24 600 or 715 at 6km to 7.5km







Griffon motor main bearings. The RAE commented on the Griffon 65 engine in Tech. Note No. Eng. 316 from July 1944 "Due to main bearing troubles, these engines are at present limited to + 21 lb./sq.in. boost pressure although they will be capable of operation at +25 lb./sq.in. boost pressure in the future". http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html



On the deficit side for 109 is small cockpit, poor rear visibility, & narrow landing gear, & stiff controls at high speed, ( somewhat rectified in later models). Small wing didn't handle as well at high altitude as others did. Macky Steinhoff did mention this, ( particularly in south Europe/North Africa where air is dry & thin). TA 152 got real big wing. Range not as important as Luftwaffe didn't do longrange bombing as allies did.
By cowofzot
#13416312
I certainly could, but figured readbility would be enhanced by not doing so.

I recommend the use of titles or headings then - SD
By Jarlaxle
#13416787
From someone flying a Spitfire and a Bf-109 (Battle of Britain-era, I suspect a Spitfire V and a 109e or f):
Flat-out, straight and level...109 a bit faster below about 20,000', Spitfire evens the race there & pulls ahead above about 25,000'.
Dive: dead-even.
Spitfire was "decidedly" more maneuverable.
109 had "very poor" visibilty, with no rearview mirror.
109 had rudder pedals higher, the pilot's legs were almost horizontal...this made him less likely to black out from high-G maneuvers.

109 had the advantage of fuel injection...a common tactic upon seeing a Spitfire (or Hurricane...same Rolls-Royce Merlin engine) coming from behind was to simply slam the stick forward & drop like a stone. The negative G-forces would make the (carbuerated) Merlin pop and sputter for a second or two, plenty of time for the 109 to get well out of range. They finally came up with a "floatless" carbuerator that worked perfectly.

I'd say the best fighter in 1940 was not the Bf-109. I'd have to give that distinction to the Mitsubishi A6M, the legendary "Zero".
By cowofzot
#13416932
A fair point on Zero. It did have much better range, but no self sealing tanks. 109 did have better 6 O'clock view that Corsair or P-47 & Hellcat, they had armor plate behind that obscured vision.

I think the 1940 version would've been too slow, type 11, type 21 from 1941 went 331? mph.

Specifications (A6M2 Type 0 Model 21)
Maximum speed: 533 km/h (287 kn, 331 mph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A6M_Zero

Don't have exact specs for type 11, but would be less than 331. 109 also had automatic propellor pitch control & likely better acellaration with direct injection.


"E" a top speed of 354 m.p.h.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/me-109.htm




as to Spit being much more maneuverable, I would mention 109 had significantly better roll. can't find the reference I was looking for, but it was an RAF test that showed 50% higher rate for 109. The Yo Yo tactic became "the thing" after BoB.

Of all three fighters, the Bf 109E would possess the highest roll rate, with the aileron controls being brisk and responsive; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_o ... of_Britain
By Jarlaxle
#13417792
The Zero had a climb rate dramatically better than the heavier 109 and was MUCH more maneuverable. It also was better-armed (two 7.7mm and two 20mm guns) and, of course, had easily twice the range. While the 109 topped out a bit higher, I suspect the Zero would accelerate as well as (or better than) the heavier 109.

109's rear visibility was lousy...according to someone who flew both, the Spitfire, even with armor behind the cockpit, was much better. The 109 had a heavily-braced canopy that was faired into the fuselage...good for aerodynamics & strength but bad for sight lines. I recall the P-47C (and later models) had a "bubble" canopy for visibility.

The Spitfire's roll rate wasn't that good...that being the one maneuver it DIDN'T do well. Surprisingly, the enormous P-47 had an exceptional roll rate, fast enough that a good pilot could actually ROLL inside a tightly-turning Fw-190 or Bf-109.

Of course, by mid-1942, the 109 wasn't even the best fighter in the Luftwaffe with the intorduction of the fast, powerful, and rugged Focke-Wulf 190. This isn't even mentioning the P-38, the P-51, and the Hellcat. (Did Hellcats ever tangle with 109's?)
By cowofzot
#13417834
In 1940 the E model had 2 20 mm cannon plus 2 machine guns.

Zero was Radial which meant blunt nose, 109 was better airfoil.


109 E Weight empty : 4,522 lbs lbs
Normal Takeoff Weight: 2,531 kg (5,580 lbs.)

Zero Empty weight: 3,704 lbs
Loaded weight: 2,410 kg (5,313 lb)

Getting slightly different figures for Zero Normal takeoff weight, but still not much difference between the 2.

Normal Loaded Weight: 5,750 lbs
http://www.ibiblio.org/phha/ZERO.html

Being more aerodynamic & featuring direct injection, I'd say 109 had best accelaration. Hp also has to be weighed in.

Zero 950
109 1085 hp
By Jarlaxle
#13417878
The Zero's takeoff weight is somewhat skewed...it's FIGHTING weight would be lower simply because so much of the takeoff weight is fuel. Figuring something about halfway between empty and maximum weights, the Zero is about 800lbs lighter...I suspect that would be more than enough to offset the power difference. If escorting strike planes (or just on a fighter sweep), the fuel will be used, if scrambled to repel an attack, it would probably not have the fuel tanks filled completely.

I recall "blunt-nosed" fighters did rather well in WW2...Thunderbolt, Fw-190, and all US carrier fighters (Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair...IIRC, all carrier PLANES, actually) had radial engines.
By cowofzot
#13417896
Yes they did, they accept more battle damage, however FW 190 Dora for example was a much better high speed turner than FW 190 Anton because it did not bleed off speed near as much.

From a JG26 Pilot :
Fw 190D pilot Lt Karl Heinz Ossenkop of JG 26 comparing their crate to the opposition.

Mustang: the two aircraft were about equal in normal combat maneuvers, which was an advantage to us compared to the A-8


Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm
I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."





Lt. Ossenkop mentions both the better longitudinal stabiliy as the D9 had less tendency to swing on take off. He also mentions that the D9 could be turned harder because flow seperation accured later than on the A-Series. And he points to lower elevator forces in the D9 due to the extended fuselage.


A bit too much Dora data I suppose. I don't have charts for 109 & Zero accel, but do know Direct injection almost always better than carb.



R.A.E.
The throttle can be opened very- quickly, for as the engine is of the direct injection type it responds almost instantaneously to throttle movement without choking. .

http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials ... organ.html

Late war 109s had a few changes most aren't aware of, new elevators, tall wood tail, ( which actually weighed more, but vibrated less which made faster dives possible), and changes in stick travel in G-10.


G-2 British test. Dive, Limit speed is 467 m.p.h.

G-10-G-14 563 mph. This original German test document refers to dive tests of 109s with the tall tail. max. TAS 906km/h = 563 mph.
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/art ... ths/#dives

A gain of about 100 mph from 42 to 44.






The reduction of elevator range of movement for the same stick travel would imply a greater mechanical advantage and therefore, a lower stick-force per G, and so at high-speed it would be easier for the pilot to apply G and, if control loads were previously limiting(as they were in the 109 and most similar aircraft),then greater G loads would be possible.

It seems Mermet gives in his book:
33° +/-3° up and 34° +/-3° down, and
27° +/-3° up and 24° +/-3° down
http://kurfurst.freeforums.org/g-10-ele ... -t166.html

'State of panic' as Putin realises he cannot wi[…]

And it was also debunked.

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

will putin´s closest buddy Gennady Timchenko be […]

https://youtu.be/URGhMw1u7MM?si=YzcCHXcH9e-US9mv […]