HE-100 vs Bf-109

[Topspeed]

What's more amazing still is the comparison against the P-51B.


There's speculation about whether these figures for the 109F-4 include compressibility corrections, which cause the speed to increasingly read high as altitude increases. (Raw flight data is of little use unless it's corrected for temperature (colder weather produces higher speeds), compressibility, position errors caused by the siting of the pitot tube, etc. As an example, at 18,000 ft the Mustang reading had to be corrected by more than 12 mph for the various measuring errors.

Well if 109 F-4/Z did 441 mph then even P-51 D was slower.

One thing is fact though..me 109 had only 16 m2 wingarea.

It was also a lot shorter than a Mustang...wetted area was very tiny.

The DB601-605 engines were of 35,7 litres displacements and weighed same as early Merlins . Griffon had 36,7 litres whereas smaller Merlin was just 27 litres.

What could be drawn as a conclusion here is that a small light plane with decent amount of horsepowers is a lot faster than previously assumed. It could also mean that Me 109 F 4 was lot better fighter than previously knowledged.

Speculations are speculations.

[Tim Smith]

Was it only the Germans that had this 'war emergency power' setting?

Or were the Allied fighters capable of quick bursts of much higher speed too?

[Topspeed]

Well in Reno they are bursting them...Dago Red is the fastest Mustang with 517 mph.

The longevity of a Me 109 is an oxymoron. They did not last long..200 hours.

[M.Rausch]

Was it only the Germans that had this 'war emergency power' setting?

Or were the Allied fighters capable of quick bursts of much higher speed too?

The Britains had of course something very similiar. Since you pointed to the Spitfire-IX curve on the Williams-website, some data about it directly from the original pilot notes of the Spitfire-IX with a Merlin-70.

Maximum continous power was for a boost limit of +7 lb./sq.in.
Climbing power was for a boost limit of +12 lb./sq.in. and a maximum duration of 60 minutes.
Combat power was for a boost limit of +18 lb./sq.in. and a maximum duration of 5 minutes.

So the British climbing power was about equal to the German combat power, the British combat power was about equal to German emergency power.

And taking this example you will understand why I am only interested in original documents and not any stuff from Mr. Wlliams website. To let the Spitfire-IX shine he created a graph where the German planes have their speed with 30 minutes power shown, while the Spitfires are shown with 5 minute power. Well, if the Spitfires are shown with 60 minutes power and the German planes with 3 or 5 minutes power, then magically all Bf 109 G will be suddenly faster than their Spitfire opponents...

[Topspeed]

M.Rausch,

How many mistakes can you find here:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/me-109.htm


rgds,

Juke

[M.Rausch]

I will not spend the time to analyze each single sentence in detail, ok? I am already very short of time for my research work, since family comes first.

1. The author tells in the text about 8 mm MG used, but he got is right in the table with 7.9 mm.

2. He tells in the text that the DB 601 A delivered 1175 PS max power output, in the table he tells about 1100 PS. The reason is that for the Bf 109 E two different engines were used, which were built at the same time. The DB 601 A had a max power output of 1100 PS (static), the DB 601 Aa delivered the 1175 PS (static) he told about.

3. He tells that the E-8 used a DB 601 E engine. I have to look through my sources, but afaik the best engine used with Bf 109 E variants was the DB 601 N and GM-1 installations. The first Bf 109 variant having a DB 601 E was the BF 109 F-4 if my memory is correct.

4. He tells a speed of about 400 mph for the BF 109 G without telling the subvariant. Imho he speaks about a G-1 or G-2 and here he makes a mistake. While he told the top speed for the Bf 109 E almost correctly (354 mph for emergency power he tells, I have also seen 575 km/h figures), the 400 mph speed for a G-1 or G-2 was only for combat power.

These are the mistakes or inaccuracies I can indentify with a brief view over the text.

Regards, Michael

[tommy303]

1. The author tells in the text about 8 mm MG used, but he got is right in the table with 7.9 mm.

This is less an inaccuracy than it is an Americanism. American ammunition manufacturers frequently headstamp the 7,9 x 57mm (S) as the 8mm Mauser to avoid confusion with the earlier and smaller bore 7.9 x 57mm (J) as the two rounds are not interchangable.

[Topspeed]

These are the mistakes or inaccuracies I can indentify with a brief view over the text.

Regards, Michael

Ok Thanks,


All information in the net seem to have the data wrong.

Here they have nice pics though:



http://www.jg53.com/html/history/aircra ... -bf109.htm

Also a claim that 109 K-14 was the 452 mph ship.


rgds,

Juke

PS: I also found a claim that F-4 weighed 2950 kg !


F-2

[M.Rausch]

I regard websites only as usefull, when they publish original documents, so you can get an own idea and no pre-chewed opinion.

If a report is not published completely, then it has at least to be told what the missing pages contain. Otherwise you experience surprises like the famous British Bf 109 F-2 report, when you order the full report from the PRO.

[fredleander]

Was it only the Germans that had this 'war emergency power' setting?

Or were the Allied fighters capable of quick bursts of much higher speed too?

I believe Closterman wrote about this when he flew the Tempest.

[Ome_Joop]

Here they have nice pics though:


PS: I also found a claim that F-4 weighed 2950 kg !


F-2

If so than even their pics are labelled wrong...black 6 is not a F2 but a Bf 109G-2/TROP !

http://www.messerschmitt-bf109.de/

good site i think...they got the -f4 at 2810 kg max and speed 600+.....f4/b at 3005 kg and speed 550...f4/trop at 3015 kg and speed 545 km/h

[Topspeed]

Sorry my mistake...that is a G-2..it is obvious because of the windscreen and....?

Here is the Ottawa F-4:

http://www.adlertag.de/bilder/f4trop_ka ... da_eng.htm

[ramjb]

It was certainly heavier, but weight doesn't matter much when it comes to speed, as induced drag is a very small percentage of total at higher speeds.

ohhhhhhhhh the ugly head of the "aerodinamically perfect" Stang rises again

-Weight doesn't matter much...true. But matters ,as little as it matters.

-lots of things affect drag, not only drag coeficcient (which was the thing the Stang was great at). Frontal area. Wetted area. Wing area. All those things were HUGE on the Stang, but were TINY on the Bf109 (to see what a 3sq.m. difference on wing area makes, see speed differences between Fw190V5k and Fw190V5g)

-The Stang was a magnificent plane aerodinamically...for an aircraft it's size and because its drag coeficient (also because its radiator, which was at the same time it's worse feature damage-wise). However Bf109 was MUCH smaller, and smaller planes tend to be speeds demons.

-AFAIK the world speed record for a piston engined planes is that of a specially tuned F8F Bearcat, not of a P51. But I may be wrong, long time since I last read about that. Needless to say, F8F is quite smaller than the Stang.

What really matters for speed is drag, and the Mustang, whilst quite big, was very low drag. The 109 was tiny, but not very clean.

the 109 was very clean (At least up to G2 standards, the cleanest was the F4). Proof of it is that, if you see power curves for P51D's merlin and Bf109K4's DB605D, there where power curves cross (meaning: the altitude where both engines gave similar power outputs) the Bf109K4 is noticeably FASTER than the P51D.

Same power+faster plane-------->cleaner plane. Easy to see. And the K4 wasn't by far the best 109 aerodinamically wise.


BTW I'm not a 109 nut. My favorite planes of all times are Fw190 (there was nothing in the air more beautiful than this thing ever) and F4U Corsair.


M.Rausch, BTW...great series of posts, and quite nice website. Bookmarked it .

[ramjb]

oh, as a little addendum, IMHO, the best Bf109 was the G2 variant. It was slower than F4, but not by that much (and was a very fast fighter none the less), but had a better power/weight ratio, meaning better climbrate and acceleration. Both things are IMHO much handier for an energy fighter (not meaning Boom'n Zoomer here) than top speed alone.


also, let's not forget that ,while the early G6 was initially one of the worst Bf109s (I'm taking into early-medium 1943 context here), by 1944 most, if not all, of them had been given MW50, raising power output up to 1800hp@SL and making a much better plane out from it...

Also many of them carried DB605AS or ASM engines, with DB603's supercharger, making out of the G6 a wonderful high-altitude fighter and interceptor. I won't say a thing about GM-1 fitted planes, which were among (if not the) best very high altitude fighters of WW2 for the time the GM-1 could be used. But relatively few G6s were fitted with Nitrous Oxide injection so...


All in all the G6 wasn't the crap-machine many books want it to seem. A lot of things had to be sacrificed for those twin 13mm guns and better armor, but when MW50 was fitted and when modified engines were available, it was a magnific fighter again. Just not a turnfighter anymore (nothing bad here, most of WW2's best fighers weren't turnfighters anyway, and E and F series 109s were never used in that role so...).

[Topspeed]

-lots of things affect drag, not only drag coeficcient (which was the thing the Stang was great at). Frontal area. Wetted area. Wing area. All those things were HUGE on the Stang, but were TINY on the Bf109 (to see what a 3sq.m. difference on wing area makes, see speed differences between Fw190V5k and Fw190V5g)

-AFAIK the world speed record for a piston engined planes is that of a specially tuned F8F Bearcat, not of a P51. But I may be wrong, long time since I last read about that. Needless to say, F8F is quite smaller than the Stang.

Stang was outstanding with 27 litre engine and able to escort planes fast deep into Germany. This is much to thank its laminar flow wingfoil.

Later developed H model was lighter and had a bigger 2000 + hp engine on it. Also had a thinner foiled and shorter wings than a P 51D.


Bearcat indeed is a small one, equipped as almost all top unlimited racers with a larger engine than in an original...with a boost system.

Me 109 R was really really tiny..almost beoynd control and had 2300 hps.