Best Fighter III

[Soren]

Well 5-10 min is what I've been hearing from vets through the years, and its also pretty consistent in books about it - And the Emil's range certainly seems to suggest it as-well..

The Emil has 95min of endurance at 2/3's rated power (Cruise setting), and it takes approx. 45min to get to London from the French coast at the Emil's cruising speed - 400 kph.

[Hop]

The Emil has 95min of endurance at 2/3's rated power (Cruise setting), and it takes approx. 45min to get to London from the French coast at the Emil's cruising speed - 400 kph

Cruising speed at 2/3 power would be well above 400 km/h.

Max speed on the Emil was about 570 km/h. 2/3 speed would equal 375 km/h, and speed is not linear with power.

2/3 power should give about 470 km/h in the Emil, by my "very rough) calculations.

Central London is about 135 km from the French coast, at a fast cruise of 470 km/h that would take about 17 mins

20 minutes combat would use about 100 litres.

If you use 100 litres in combat, 100 litres to warmup, takeoff, climb to altitude and reserve, that gives you 200 litres left, or half your endurance time, to cruise to and from target. So, about 22 minutes cruise endurance each way, which still allows 20 minutes combat over central London, with some extra reserves (for example climbing to height after combat is over for the cruise home). (20 minutes combat is what USAAF fighters assumed in their flight planning)

It certainly didn't allow the Luftwaffe to go much north of London, and if the RAF had pulled their fighters north of London it would have put the Luftwaffe in a very awkward position, but as the RAF remained in the SE, the 109 had the range to engage them effectively. Whilst fuel was a bit tight over London, for most of the battle over Kent and the channel, fuel wasn't really an issue at all.

[Soren]

Hop,

The Bf-109E has a cruising speed of 400 kph, which is achieved at 2/3's rated power.

London is approx. 200 km from the French coast - ~40-45min's taking climb to altitude into consideration.

[syscom3]

Anyway you look at it, its still not much endurance.

I maintain that if the -109's had more endurance, they could have had longer escort times for the bombers and wouldnt have to break off contact(s) so soon to return back to base. The RAF loss's would have increased.

[red admiral]

Are there instances of Bf 109s breaking for home before the bombers?

Most of the targets being bombed were much closer to France than London. Tangmere, Biggin Hill and other airfields in 11 group being only a couple of miles from the coast.

Even so the RAF could have just fell back to 10 and 12 group and actually fought over SE England.

The Es speed at 2/3 throttle (740hp) is ~500kph not 400kph. The relationship between power and Vmax is cubed.

[Hop]

London is approx. 200 km from the French coast

London is a good deal closer than that, particulary the SE of London, which is what the Luftwaffe was mostly bombing.

Here's a map showing a 200 km radius from the Pas de Calais (about 12 km inland, ie the line would be 12 km further into England if taken from the coast)



Notice it goes way beyond even NW London. It's actualy 52 km beyond docklands in London, and 12 km back from the coast, so coast to docklands should be 136 km from the French coast.

The Bf-109E has a cruising speed of 400 kph, which is achieved at 2/3's rated power.

I can't understand that claim.

Drag, and thus power required, goes up with the square of speed, ie double the speed requires 4 times the power. If Bf 109E max speed was about 570 km/h, which I believe it was, then 2/3 power should give a cruising speed of about 465 km/h (I've recalculated)

465 km/h * 1.225 = 570 km/h

If power = 1000 (units unimportant) then 2/3 power = 666

666 * 1.225 * 1.225 = 999 power

In other words, if the drag goes up with the square of speed, which it does, the Emil should cruise at 465 km/h at 2/3 power if speed at maximum power = 570 km/h

[Soren]

Bloody ****, measured from the wrong beachhead, sorry about that Hop

However about that map Hop, are you sure you have measured that correctly ? I used google's map, and measured the distance as ~160km from Dunkerque. Google Maps

I guess that would leave fuel for about ~5-10min of 'combat' over London before having to go home, not nearly enough time to prove an effective protection for the bombers however. And had the bombers already once been intercepted before London, then the 109 fighters would already be leaving for home once London was reached. And indeed allot of LW fighters got bagged whilst running for home - both German and British vets testify to that.

And about the Emil's cruising speed, well 400 kph is what nearly every one of my sources quote, some others even have it as 375 kph...

[red admiral]

Cruising speed might be 400kph, well it probably is, it just isn't achieved at 2/3rds power.

Hop, The relationship between power and speed is cubed for the large proportion of the flight envelope. Lots of details here and here if you are interested.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Hop

London is a good deal closer than that, particulary the SE of London, which is what the Luftwaffe was mostly bombing.

Here's a map showing a 200 km radius from the Pas de Calais (about 12 km inland, ie the line would be 12 km further into England if taken from the coast)



Notice it goes way beyond even NW London. It's actualy 52 km beyond docklands in London, and 12 km back from the coast, so coast to docklands should be 136 km from the French coast.


I can't understand that claim.

Drag, and thus power required, goes up with the square of speed, ie double the speed requires 4 times the power. If Bf 109E max speed was about 570 km/h, which I believe it was, then 2/3 power should give a cruising speed of about 465 km/h (I've recalculated)

465 km/h * 1.225 = 570 km/h

If power = 1000 (units unimportant) then 2/3 power = 666

666 * 1.225 * 1.225 = 999 power

In other words, if the drag goes up with the square of speed, which it does, the Emil should cruise at 465 km/h at 2/3 power if speed at maximum power = 570 km/h

I didn't check out the math but your logic is correct. I suspect that, if indeed 400 km/h was stated as 2/3 power it was probably some sort of power setting (rpm, manifold pressure, throttle angle, etc.) which did not reflect linearly with engine power output. Or it could just be an error.

[wmaxt]

The power output of any piston engine is a curve. That curve is optimized to place max power at the point where it is most usefull. 2/3 throttle may represent 40% power while 85% throttle may be 90% power these examples are dependant on cam/ignition timing, boost, type of boost, fuel, and the designated use the combination is set up for. Throttle/Power is only linear in jet engines and then only after a certain power output is reached (maybe Flyboy can enlighten us on that score)

wmaxt

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

The power output of any piston engine is a curve. That curve is optimized to place max power at the point where it is most usefull. 2/3 throttle may represent 40% power while 85% throttle may be 90% power these examples are dependant on cam/ignition timing, boost, type of boost, fuel, and the designated use the combination is set up for. Throttle/Power is only linear in jet engines and then only after a certain power output is reached (maybe Flyboy can enlighten us on that score)

wmaxt

Jet engines are "trimmed" on the ground to give a certain thrust at a given RPM (temperature and density altitude is also considered). If the maintainer trims the engine within the required parameters, the pilot should see a certain speed, EPR, and fuel flow at a specific altitude and the aircraft should see all this at a specificed true airspeed. All of this is designed into the aircraft (at least the ones I've worked with). There are some exceptions but this is the norm for jet aircraft.

[JonJGoldberg]

Hey guys…finally felt like posting fer ‘real’ again!

Some personal catching up (briefly), then on to the 109 (which to some my post will be as long winded as usual; hehe.)

Started a website of my own; I have a bit more insight as to the work & time it takes… Hats off to all WW2 aircraft.net staff… One day I may be as good…

To anyone interested, visit me…

The CFS2 Flight Deck
Join… Membership is free… Placed a thread here in the Gaming Section >>>
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/cfs...deck-4316.html (On Line Action at CFS-2 Flight Deck)
Bring your CFS-2 game with you if you come to the Deck… We do TCP/IP gaming… Nothing formal…
Most any kite is ok…

The Me-109… Yeah; ‘cept during its introduction, when it dominated its opponents, say through the battle of France, she represents an aviation enigma to me. For most of her career she seemed ‘the number two’ choice… I believe she was under utilized due to her unfortunate 2nd choice position.

(Theory) For example: If she were favored to the Bf-110, the Germans might have stumbled across two important ‘tactics’ long before the 8th air force; the relaying of escort fighters, & the hunt of any enemy fighter using as bait the bombers & possibly their 110 escorts as well.

Regardless of my own personal thoughts… fact is this 109 was a victim of underutilization, to being restrained to tactics ill suited to its strengths, in a manner, to me repetitive of Napoleon’s mistake… When Napoleon saw the British’s Line Abreast, his decision to charge up the middle was, in the safety of history’s hindsight, an impetuous mistake, much like the Germans attaching ‘slash’ fighters to the confinement of the bombers. Maybe the discovery of the advantages of using the appearance of unescorted bombers as ‘bait’ was destined to be American… As the Bayonet Box formation completely castrated Napoleon’s numerically overwhelming Calvary charge & a Line Abreast formation was a tactical stroke of genius as it neatly exposed French field regiment’s waste of man & firepower. The Germans remained ‘blind’ of their abuses. Nope…for all intent & for all to see they neatly allowed themselves to be ‘radar-vectored’ & once again the Brits saw a column or consolidation; once again the British (masters at this I believe) developed a ‘counter-formation’ that gave England her 1st ‘credited’ victory. Shame if you are the Me-109, for if allowed the exploitation of her strengths, during her height, during the BOB; well she clearly would have been the single greatest fighter of WW2.

Stand alone as a weapon, the ME-109 was outstanding, and ‘competitive’ throughout the war; no easy nor small accomplishment, however as accomplished as she was, as a package, again, she was the finest 2nd choice fighter in the field, a 2nd choice that bested some adversaries ‘front line fighters’... But Germany offers another platform clearly superior to the 109, when viewed by specification or ‘empirical’ performance; around since nearly the beginning of the war as well… The Fw-190. Actual historical contribution, to me defined as ‘if missing/or allowed to mature the war would be different’. The Fw-190; historically, if she were not produced…wow! What a hole… Germany would have lost much much sooner. We could talk more of 190s & the derivatives or offshoots; but IMHO Germany also was the only country to field jets (Yes, the Meteor was in service… big woop on the V-1 kills –not in any way meant to minimize their & their pilots actual contribution, just meant to properly ‘weight’ them within this discussion-). This ‘Contribution’ transcends WW2, as does the A-bomb. The Me-262, engine problems & all I believe wins the ‘historical’ category as clearly as the performance and firepower categories. As a weapon, the Me-109 was neither held back from maturing as a design, nor IMHO would it have been greatly missed if never produced; if missing would it have significantly changed the war’s outcome? IMHO Germany’s losing entries to the position awarded the 109, were not bad ‘runners-up’ & would have matured into fine combatants. Me-109s were historically ‘replaceable’. But, IMHO, historically, as the 262 was fielded in number, & feared above any other ‘fighter’ of it’s time by every Allied ETO bomber pilot... Targeted by every fighter jock in the European Theater… Relentlessly hunted by every victorious ‘power’, it was, without doubt the soul contribution of the Me-262 that most ‘know of’ weather expert, or novice; what we all ‘bring to mind’ 1st, when told of the introduction of the ‘Jet Fighter’. Sure, you may argue that another aircraft, say the Meteor, or P-80, would have held that crown if not the 262. …But then the jet would therefore then not be a weapon of WW2 at all, it was under test, or in ‘pre-deployment’ duds, they represented technological possibilities undergoing final ‘tweaking’, all except the 262

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Welcome back. Interesting take on the 109. I agree with you on a lot of it. Enjoyed reading it.

[redcoat]

Originally Posted by syscom3

I maintain that if the -109's had more endurance, they could have had longer escort times for the bombers and wouldnt have to break off contact(s) so soon to return back to base. The RAF loss's would have increased.

The Bf 109's range only became a factor when the Luftwaffe switched to attacking London, before then the 109's range wasn't a problem while attacking the RAF's 11 Group airfields , they had enough to both escort the bombers and engage in combat.

[Soren]

Jon has a point, we have been missing the Me-262 which infact - considering pure performance and hgh speed handling - is the best fighter of the war.

And about the Meteor, well thank god for its pilots that they didn't have to go up against the Me-262 - they would've been squashed.

The Vampire was a far better match.