The Best Bf - 109 Variant ?

[KraziKanuK]

The reason I ask Erich is that when the Merlin went from 1 stage to 2 stage the overall length of the engine increased. On the DB this would put the added stage near or past the fuselage skin, since it was mounted 90* to the engine and the induction 'tube' would definately be outside the fuselage skin. (see pg 163 of Bf109F,G&K for a pic)

I understood that the AS engine got a larger dia turbine wheel. To make it fit, the engine bearer had to be redesigned (arced instead of straight) which is why we see the more aerodynamic mg fairings.

[Udet]

Like the Spitfire, the Bf109 saw service throughout the entire conflict; as the war progressed both planes evolved accordingly.

The Spitfire MkI and the Bf109E which first saw service in the conflict were to some extent, very different to the Sptifire MkXIV and the Bf109 K-4 which met the end of the war.

The enemies the Bf109 faced in 1939 or 1940, were not the same the model met in, say, 1944. The same goes for the Spitfire.

Bigger and more powerful engines being fitted with a continuous increase in speed; several versions and sub-versions....

Perhaps i´d go for the Bf109G`s. Narrowing my choice, I would go for the G-10.

The Bf109-F2 high alt model was the height of the 109. Later models were only slightly faster, had slightly better armor and armament, handled worse, and were generally outclassed by their opponents. The F was a very competitive fighter when it first came out.

I also like the 15mm gun over the 20mm gun for fighter vs. fighter combat. And the high alt model evidently had NO2 injection.

=S=

Lunatic

[Erich]

The G-10 109 had MW 50 W injection as standard and the K ?

[Udet]

RG:

Sorry but the word "outclassed" does not appear to apply here.

While I have seen several opinions regarding the F versions as the "best" in the Bf109 family, i do not think the later versions of the 109 were "outclassed" by their opponents, at all.

As a dogfighter, the Bf109 versions are second to none.

Even by knowing it is the case of one sole fighter pilot, how do you explain seven (7) USAAF fighter pilots in their "superior" P-51s did not live to tell the story after meeting Erich Hartmann flying his Bf109 (G-10 if i recall correctly) over Romania?

I have been told by people who know: the Bf109 G-10, just to mention one type of Bf 109, could out fly a P-51 virtually at any altitude. At low and medium speed dogfights a Bf109 G-10 pilot could even fly circles around the P-51.

No matter how much a genius a pilot can be in the controls if you give him an "outclassed" plane to take off and meet the enemy.

Also i know a few USAAF veterans who amazingly, do not buy the allied propaganda tribulations portraying the dogfights against the Luftwaffe as piece of cake.

So outclassed is not the word.

Originally Posted by Udet

RG:

Sorry but the word "outclassed" does not appear to apply here.

While I have seen several opinions regarding the F versions as the "best" in the Bf109 family, i do not think the later versions of the 109 were "outclassed" by their opponents, at all.

As a dogfighter, the Bf109 versions are second to none.

Even by knowing it is the case of one sole fighter pilot, how do you explain seven (7) USAAF fighter pilots in their "superior" P-51s did not live to tell the story after meeting Erich Hartmann flying his Bf109 (G-10 if i recall correctly) over Romania?

I have been told by people who know: the Bf109 G-10, just to mention one type of Bf 109, could out fly a P-51 virtually at any altitude. At low and medium speed dogfights a Bf109 G-10 pilot could even fly circles around the P-51.

No matter how much a genius a pilot can be in the controls if you give him an "outclassed" plane to take off and meet the enemy.

Also i know a few USAAF veterans who amazingly, do not buy the allied propaganda tribulations portraying the dogfights against the Luftwaffe as piece of cake.

So outclassed is not the word.

Well, I've been told differently concerning the Bf109G vs. P-51 (and other fighters) matchup. The plane handeled poorly at medium-high to high speeds. Visability was poor. Armament was weak. Armor was better than the F but almost useless.

As for Hartmen's victories - he was a very skilled pilot who was excellent at setting up and executing the sneak attack. Hartmann had something around 250 victories and most of the pilots of the 334th FG of which you speak had less than 10 combat sorties under their belts and no kills. On top of that, Hartmann's black Tulip, a BF109-G14, was a heavily modified 109 (as was common for top aces of all sides).

A top quality pilot could win in a plane that was outclassed, as long as it was not too badly outclassed, and especially when facing relative rookie opponents. And in this case, you are talking about the Luftwaffe's best pilot against almost pure rookies!

=S=

Lunatic

[Erich]

Hartmann flew a standard G-14/AS as well as a G-10 which was faster. 2 13mm's and a single 2cm were enough to take out any allied fighter. gun cams prove that. some opf the G-6/AS and G-10's plus K-4's had a single 3cm to replace the 2cm. Yes I would say their was enough firepower. the G-10 could keep pace with any high altitidue Allied a/c. the diaries prove that as well. It was found it could fly above the Mossies of the LNSF and keep up with them if need be. so here is another application.

the F model had it's hey-day in Afrika with JG 27, 77, 53.

Originally Posted by Erich

Hartmann flew a standard G-14/AS as well as a G-10 which was faster. 2 13mm's and a single 2cm were enough to take out any allied fighter. gun cams prove that. some opf the G-6/AS and G-10's plus K-4's had a single 3cm to replace the 2cm. Yes I would say their was enough firepower. the G-10 could keep pace with any high altitidue Allied a/c. the diaries prove that as well. It was found it could fly above the Mossies of the LNSF and keep up with them if need be. so here is another application.

the F model had it's hey-day in Afrika with JG 27, 77, 53.

The 109 could not "keep up" with the P-51. It was able to mount short sprints of about equal speed but was subject to overheating in less than 3 minutes when doing so. Its dive speed was at least 65 mph lower. But more importantly, at such speeds its ailerons were almost useless.

=S=

Lunatic

[the lancaster kicks ass]

which could be a problem.........

[Udet]

RG:

Erich made good points there.

That point here would rather be the P-51 was not abolutely superior to the Bf109. Better at some things, surpassed doing others.

What i mentioned was a fact, the G-10 could outfly the Mustang virtually at any altitude.

The G-6/AS could also more than deal and outfly any enemy pursuer.

The Bf109 could make things the P-51 could not, and viceversa.

RG: can you mention the weak points of the P-51?
You are not going to suggest it was better at everything, are you?

Be honest; I can understand the veterans who flew it telling the Mustang is one of the most glorious creations ever and that it was a flawless toy, and that it made an unvaluable contribution to "save humankind from darkness and slavery".

Since you were not there, I do think i can expect a certain level of objectiveness from you.

Finally RG, I have a bit more than 50 gun camera recordings of German fighters pounding the P-51, and from most of them can be concluded the German fighter (either Bf109 or Fw190) could more than outfly the Mustang.

I repeat, each plane had its strong and weak spots; it was the pilot who in the end, had to know when to attack, when to wait and even when to simply withdraw.

[Erich]

one reason why the G-6/AS and all AS versions were created..........to stand up with the P-51 escorts. the problem was the P-51's had already gained the altitude as the Luftwaffe was at a disadvantage while climbing to meet the US escorts. It's plain enough through many diaries of first hand accts. The MW 50 could give 10 minutes plus of added power if used in short duration periods. the problem was the pilots didn't do as recommended and shoved their AS engines past the limit, causing peeking and blown pistons.

[KraziKanuK]

I did not know that the P-51 could operate at max boost for extended periods of time, RG_Lunatic.

The Merlin in the Spirfire was restricted to 5 minutes at max boost, so what was so different on the P-51 with its Packard Merlin?

Originally Posted by Udet

RG:

Erich made good points there.

I never said he didn't.

Originally Posted by Udet

That point here would rather be the P-51 was not abolutely superior to the Bf109. Better at some things, surpassed doing others.

The only signficant thing the Bf109-G was better at than the P-51 was climbing. In every other relevenant catagory of comparison, the P-51 was superior.

Originally Posted by Udet

What i mentioned was a fact, the G-10 could outfly the Mustang virtually at any altitude.

Which is simply not true. At high-medium to high speeds, the P-51 out manuvered the G-10 substantially at all altitudes.

Originally Posted by Udet

The G-6/AS could also more than deal and outfly any enemy pursuer.

Care to explain your thinking here?

Originally Posted by Udet

The Bf109 could make things the P-51 could not, and viceversa.

Yes, it clould climb very well.

Originally Posted by Udet

RG: can you mention the weak points of the P-51?
You are not going to suggest it was better at everything, are you?

When compared with the 109G, the only relative weakness is in rate of climb.

Be honest; I can understand the veterans who flew it telling the Mustang is one of the most glorious creations ever and that it was a flawless toy, and that it made an unvaluable contribution to "save humankind from darkness and slavery".

Since you were not there, I do think i can expect a certain level of objectiveness from you.

Finally RG, I have a bit more than 50 gun camera recordings of German fighters pounding the P-51, and from most of them can be concluded the German fighter (either Bf109 or Fw190) could more than outfly the Mustang.[/quote]

Guncam footage almost never tells us much about one plane's relative performance vs. another. Remember, something around 90% of kills scored in WWII the victim never saw the shooter till he was shot down or badly crippled.

=S=

Lunatic

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

I did not know that the P-51 could operate at max boost for extended periods of time, RG_Lunatic.

The Merlin in the Spirfire was restricted to 5 minutes at max boost, so what was so different on the P-51 with its Packard Merlin?

5 minutes was the recommended limit of WEP usage. But pilots often maintained WEP power for 15 minutes or even longer. The 5 minutes was a recommended limit, nothing prevented longer usage. A properly operating P-51 at good speed had no overheating problems at any power level. The 109 on the otherhand, would overheat after one to two minutes at high speeds (and not necessarily even at full power).

Also, the Packard Merlin was known to be more robust than the RR Merlin. It was built using superior materials, and production quality was generally higher. This is not a dig at the British, they simply did not have as good of alloys and they were more pressed to maximise production quantities at the cost of a little production quality.

From the Soviet Fighter Tactics manual (1943) - refering to the 109G-2 after study of captured aircraft:

...
Besides, it must be remembered that the Me-109 can only hold the maximum airspeed indicated above for no longer than 1 or 2 minutes in horizontal flight, as their engine overheats and causes the coolant to boil.
...
http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsI.htm

The problem with the 109 design is that it was never intended to attain those kinds of speeds for sustained periods. The scoops are subject to boundary layer seperation, and later models even had a boundry layer diverter to avoid turblence from this effect. Once the boundary layer lifts (upside-down) away from the lower surface of the wing at the scoop inlet, there is very little effective cooling from the radiators since they aren't getting a steady flow of air.

Late model Spitfires encountered the same issues, but where the Germans chose to accept this condition, believing that only short bursts of speed would be necessary, the British chose to increase the scoop size and injest the seperation as much as possible (even though this was not very efficent in terms of cooling or drag). This issue simply was not discovered until the planes were designed to the point no real solution could be implemented short of a complete redesign.

On the P-51, with its much larger single scoop sitting right below the pilot, the boundary layer seperation problem immeadiately came to the attention of test pilots. They could hear a loud "popping" noise comming from underneath the seat while at high speeds. This was then carefully studied in the full scale and 20 atmosphere wind tunnels at the NACA, and the boundary layer seperation issue was discovered. The solution was to move the scoop inlet away from the wing enough to miss the boundary layer, which is why the P-51 scoop is not flush to the bottom of the plane. So the P-51 had full cooling efficiency until over 500 mph, where the boundary layer got thick enough to start to be partially injested.

=S=

Lunatic

[Udet]

RG:

I am certainly not capable of speaking in such a technical style, after all i am not an aviation engineer or technician.

What I have to say is I have a good deal of stuff of info on technical issues of the many versions and sub-versions of the Bf 109 (books, magazines, papers, etc.), and last but not least, the opinions of some men who flew it and of men who flew against it.


This is the first time i read what you say about the over heating problems of the Bf 109 engines.

They over-heated after only 2 minutes at high speeds and, furthermore, not necessarily at full power? What DB engine are you referring to?

Hitherto, i lack arguments to discuss this, but it appears unlikely to me; you are picturing a poor hardly-reliable engine which I do not think was the case of the DB engines, at all.

I will have to ask someone else.

I quite frankly do not care whether if guncamera footage tells little or enough on the performance of an aicraft. What i care about is what i see there, and what do i see?

I recall perhaps one or two shots when the P-51 gets clearly bounced and executed.
In the other hand, I see Mustangs trying to evade and outmanouver German fighters pursuing them for the kill and they did not make it!

RG, i certainly enjoy reading some of your postings, but it appears to me that to an important extent the allied propaganda devoted to defame the Bf 109 played its effect on you.

It is not my intention to change your beliefs or the like, but I am confident since i`ve had access to plentiful info, when i affirm the P-51 was by no means superior to the Bf109.