PDA

View Full Version : Why 109 turn rate dropped during war?



OldMan____
06-28-2004, 07:08 AM
I would like to ask, so that more enlighted ones in the air combat of WW2, could answer me why the hell the Bf109 up to 42 was a a good turn fighter (not saying it was ITS porpouse) and after G6 it started to become worse and worse on turns?

Was only the increased weight?

For me que G2 is by far the best 109 concerning fighter combat (only don't like rear view)

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

OldMan____
06-28-2004, 07:08 AM
I would like to ask, so that more enlighted ones in the air combat of WW2, could answer me why the hell the Bf109 up to 42 was a a good turn fighter (not saying it was ITS porpouse) and after G6 it started to become worse and worse on turns?

Was only the increased weight?

For me que G2 is by far the best 109 concerning fighter combat (only don't like rear view)

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

DeBaer.534
06-28-2004, 07:11 AM
jup, only the weight AFAIK.
there were no large aerodynamic difference between the Fs and early Gs and the later Gs and Ks

maxim26
06-28-2004, 07:12 AM
because engeneeres were installing more and more powerfill engines and weapons and weight increased after every modification.

hughlb2
06-28-2004, 07:16 AM
Yep its weight. Same with the Spitfire and that IS a turnfighterhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

OldMan____
06-28-2004, 07:24 AM
Lol.. I would start a program of recruiting only female pilots of under 50 Kg... and since the are shorter the cockpit could be reduced (and size of armor plating too) So lets say... 100 to 120 Kg saved...

:P

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

dshazel
06-28-2004, 07:26 AM
I'm sure you're going to get a ton of answers to this, but here is mine http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

The 109 was basically a '36 fighter that changed significately over the years, but reached it's peak with the F/G(early) series. After the G2, a new engine, armament ( heavier MGs in the nose ) and requirements from the front office that required the 109 to fill in for Jabo/fighter roll, all affected what the basic airframe could provide. The later Gs and the K were no slouch, and in the right hands were deadly. ( Look at how many 200+ plus Experten remained with the 109 through to the end of the conflict)

The 109 really was never designed as a turner and burner. I think they F/G(early) had a great combo(synergy?) with engine and design that had a side benefit that allowed them to mix with the allied AC at the time.

If you are looking for a later model 109Gx to fly in IL2. I would recommend the 109G6-AS(M). It's fast, climbs well, and if you use the verticle, will out turn a Mustang/P-63, and eat a P-47x for lunch. Your biggest worry are the late model Spits. Check out the charts on IL2 compare, see where the 109 excels and take advantage of it's good points.

A great site for 109s

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm

Cheers,

JG14_Scot

OldMan____
06-28-2004, 07:36 AM
Noticed that this is a very good 109.. but just wanna ask is true that G10 ang G14 have more ammo in their Mk108 than a G6 has?

making all these questions cause I am a 190 flyer that wanna change

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

NegativeGee
06-28-2004, 07:50 AM
Well, I suppose many people here would say the 109 was never a turn fighter at all.

That aside, it is largely a question of aircraft weight, or more specifically, empty weight.

If we take some weights (empty/take-off) and turn times from FB's very own object viewer:

E-4: 1900/2670/26.5-29.4

F-4: 1970/2750/19.6-20.5

G-2: 2255/3100/20-22.6

G-6: 2676/3153/22.6-22.8

So looking here the F-4 scores impressively on the E-4 by virtue of increased horsepower and aerodynamics, while maintaining a comparable weight. The introduction of the DB-605 engine into the G-2 upped the weight quite a bit (heavier engine, heavier engine mountings, stronger main gear, larger oil tank) but the extra horsepower kept it pretty competetive with the F-4 in terms of turning.

Its the G-6 that really loaded it up though- the addition of the MG-131's and heavier main wheels (first seen in the G-3; I think there is more gear added but I'm writing from memory here) adds another 400 kg on the G-2, increasing empty weights by ~700kg on the F-4, or a ~30% increase. Considering aerodynamics got a bit worse as well, the G-6 does not do bad at all (in this analysis at least http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) when compared to the F-4 when the weight gain is considered.

Worsening turn performance is common with quite a few aircraft series as the war progressed (look at the Spitfire) but the 109 was perhaps hit a bit harder as it was never the greatest turner in the first place (okay, a bit simplyfied, but feel free to elaborate!).

Off course, turn performance should not be too much of an issue to getting good results in a 109 in the game as you want to use the ZnB approach in general anyway.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Kwiatos
06-28-2004, 08:11 AM
I still wonder why in FB AEP Bf G-2 turn much better than F-4 ??

horseback
06-28-2004, 08:13 AM
Also overlooked is the steady decline of workmanship and maintenance for the Germans as the war ground on. The demands for more production while the Allies were pounding the major industrial centers, the wear and tear on the engines due to the poorer grades of oil and fuels, the losses in skilled ground personnel all conspired to limit the performance of the 109.

However, the fact remains that the 109 was your basic hotrod design: the most powerful possible engine stuffed into the smallest possible airframe, and there are limits to what can be done with that concept when the most powerful possible engine keeps getting heavier and heavier. Throw in the need for heavier weapons mounted on the nose, and the ammunition for those weapons, and bad things ineveitably happen.

Messerschmitt had to resort to putting ballast (otherwise useless weight) in the rear airframe in order to keep the center of gravity where it was supposed to be; a taller tail had to be made to counter the new engines' greater torque. The landing gear had to be enlarged and strengthened to support the extra weight, creating more weight and aerodynamic penalties in the form of bulges on the wing surfaces. All these made a greater demand on the engine to work harder to generate the same speeds, and the torque of the more powerful engines made controlled maneuver that much more difficult for the progressively less skilled average German pilot.

Finally, the wings and control surfaces may not have been as effective at the higher speeds and altitudes where the fight was taking place. Roll rate and elevator response went down as the speed increased, where British and American fighters became more effective.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

F19_Ob
06-28-2004, 08:30 AM
There was also the ongoing quest for speed that made the fighters heavy. For the germans speed was more important than turnrate. They improved the armament also to compensate = 30mm cannon.
Seems plenty of G2 and G6 still were around at the end of the war?

Monson74
06-28-2004, 09:33 AM
I'm not going to go wise on this but may I add that creating an effective fighter/interceptor is (like anything else) a set of compromises. Speed, firepower, reliability, functionality, price, production time, materials availability among many other factors. In an online furball we often tend to judge a plane on the basis of turn rate, speed & firepower because they are the most important for us in the every-man-for-himself-dogfights so common in the FB community. My 2c.

S!

Monson


"So when Diogenes perceived that he was greatly excited and quite keyed up in mind with expectancy, he toyed with him and pulled him about in the hope that somehow he might be moved from his pride and thirst for glory and be able to sober up a little. For he noticed that at one time he was delighted, and at another grieved at the same thing, and that his soul was as unsettled as the weather at the solstices when both rain and sunshine come from the very same source."

(Dio Chrysostom "Discourse" 4.77-78)

Magister__Ludi
06-28-2004, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:

Finally, the wings and control surfaces may not have been as effective at the higher speeds and altitudes where the fight was taking place. Roll rate and elevator response went down as the speed increased, where British and American fighters became more effective.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not this **** again. Bf-109F and later had controls specially designed for high speed, they were a little bit heavier than early war fighters (including 109E), but much better at high speeds. So good that engineers were forced to reduce the elevator movement to be harder to overstress the airframe.

There's no need to spread this wartime propaganda 50 years later, horseback.

Waldo.Pepper
06-28-2004, 11:24 AM
Weight yes yes of course .... true...

But I think everyone has missed the point. Why did it get heavier?

Think about the target of the guns for a moment. Big heavy bombers. The 109 NEEDED to get heavier because of the likely advesary and changing role of the plane.

Monson74
06-28-2004, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Weight yes yes of course .... true...

But I think everyone has missed the point. Why did it get heavier?

Think about the target of the guns for a moment. Big heavy bombers. The 109 NEEDED to get heavier because of the likely advesary and changing role of the plane.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes of course it had to. Primary role was to bring down bombers -&gt; big guns -&gt; heavy crate.
In WWI the fighters weighted from 900 to 1200kg & now they are what? - say 15.000 to 25.000? But they are a whole lot faster & bring a whole lot more death to their target.

S!

Monson


"So when Diogenes perceived that he was greatly excited and quite keyed up in mind with expectancy, he toyed with him and pulled him about in the hope that somehow he might be moved from his pride and thirst for glory and be able to sober up a little. For he noticed that at one time he was delighted, and at another grieved at the same thing, and that his soul was as unsettled as the weather at the solstices when both rain and sunshine come from the very same source."

(Dio Chrysostom "Discourse" 4.77-78)

pcisbest
06-28-2004, 01:19 PM
Yeah but even the increased armament was small when compared to other fighters such as the 190 or some of the Allied fighters. True, the Mk108 was very powerful, but carried little ammo, and other than that the pilot only had two machine guns. The armament of the 109 remained essentially the same throughout the war; two machine guns and one cannon, relatively light. Underwing gun packs do not necessarily count, as they were put on as modification sets, and tended to worsen performance.

Also, the "primary role" of the 109 was never to bring down bombers, it was suppossed to have been a light and fast air superiority fighter. Even when changes began being drawn up to make the new and improved G series, it was still early in the war (40-41), and heavy strategic bombing had not become the concern for the Germans that it would become in late '42 and '43. Only from mid-1943 onward was daylight bomber defence a primary mission for the Luftwaffe, and 109s pressed into bomber interception in large numbers.

Armament was increased due to pilots having a tendency to exhaust their ammunition by spraying their MG 17s and seeing little effect, unless they were experienced pilots that could aim accuratley for the enemy pilot, or engine. From this you have obviously the various E models with varying sets of cannon, so in terms of armament, the F and G series actually had a downgrades in armament (i.e. only one cannon as oppossed to two or three) when compared to some earlier variants.

Basically, the point being that the largest and most critical weight was gained by installing larger and more powerful engines, not armament, which in turn required strengthening of the airframes and reduction in armaments to the standard two machine guns, one cannon model. Armament could of course be increased with external gun packs, but obsiously this detracted from performance.

BfHeFwMe
06-28-2004, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dshazel:
I'm sure you're going to get a ton of answers to this, but here is mine http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

The 109 was basically a '36 fighter that changed significately over the years, but reached it's peak with the F/G(early) series. After the G2, a new engine, armament ( heavier MGs in the nose ) and requirements from the front office that required the 109 to fill in for Jabo/fighter roll, all affected what the basic airframe could provide. The later Gs and the K were no slouch, and in the right hands were deadly. ( Look at how many 200+ plus Experten remained with the 109 through to the end of the conflict)

The 109 really was never designed as a turner and burner. I think they F/G(early) had a great combo(synergy?) with engine and design that had a side benefit that allowed them to mix with the allied AC at the time.

If you are looking for a later model 109Gx to fly in IL2. I would recommend the 109G6-AS(M). It's fast, climbs well, and if you use the verticle, will out turn a Mustang/P-63, and eat a P-47x for lunch. Your biggest worry are the late model Spits. Check out the charts on IL2 compare, see where the 109 excels and take advantage of it's good points.

A great site for 109s

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm

Cheers,

JG14_Scot<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it was designed in 36' it was designed as a turn fighter from the start. No one was designing anything but turn fighters at that time.

OldMan____
06-28-2004, 04:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
Well, I suppose many people here would say the 109 was never a turn fighter at all.

That aside, it is largely a question of aircraft weight, or more specifically, empty weight.

If we take some weights (empty/take-off) and turn times from FB's very own object viewer:

E-4: 1900/2670/26.5-29.4

F-4: 1970/2750/19.6-20.5

G-2: 2255/3100/20-22.6

G-6: 2676/3153/22.6-22.8

So looking here the F-4 scores impressively on the E-4 by virtue of increased horsepower and aerodynamics, while maintaining a comparable weight. The introduction of the DB-605 engine into the G-2 upped the weight quite a bit (heavier engine, heavier engine mountings, stronger main gear, larger oil tank) but the extra horsepower kept it pretty competetive with the F-4 in terms of turning.

Its the G-6 that really loaded it up though- the addition of the MG-131's and heavier main wheels (first seen in the G-3; I think there is more gear added but I'm writing from memory here) adds another 400 kg on the G-2, increasing empty weights by ~700kg on the F-4, or a ~30% increase. Considering aerodynamics got a bit worse as well, the G-6 does not do bad at all (in this analysis at least http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) when compared to the F-4 when the weight gain is considered.

Worsening turn performance is common with quite a few aircraft series as the war progressed (look at the Spitfire) but the 109 was perhaps hit a bit harder as it was never the greatest turner in the first place (okay, a bit simplyfied, but feel free to elaborate!).

Off course, turn performance should not be too much of an issue to getting good results in a 109 in the game as you want to use the ZnB approach in general anyway.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

but so the G6 is only good when using its WM50.. since until then the G2 is suposely faster...

And how the hell the G6 got so much more empty weight (and not so much more full weight) had it less ammo or fuel?

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

Abbuzze
06-28-2004, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:


If it was designed in 36' it was designed as a turn fighter from the start. No one was designing anything but turn fighters at that time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to say this, but you are wrong! The idea was simply to be faster than everything in the air, same idea for the Ju88 concept, a fast bomber, being able to outrun every enemy fighter.
The 109 testpilot was outturnd by old biplanes in a mockdogfight, he wasn´t used to this new concept of a plane.

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif

BfHeFwMe
06-28-2004, 05:26 PM
Than why would they give it such a limited range to run in than. Doesn't make sense, how many hit and runs are you going to make with 30 minutes of combat time. No one's saying it was the best ever turner, but was fully capable and contemporary for that time period, certainly no slouch.

Speed as a dominant design feature didn't appear until the interceptor class fighter need arose, that was after the fast strike and heavy bomber types proved their threat potential, not before. And that certainly wasn't before 36'.

Magister__Ludi
06-28-2004, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:


If it was designed in 36' it was designed as a turn fighter from the start. No one was designing anything but turn fighters at that time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to say this, but you are wrong! The idea was simply to be faster than everything in the air, same idea for the Ju88 concept, a fast bomber, being able to outrun every enemy fighter.
The 109 testpilot was outturnd by old biplanes in a mockdogfight, he wasn´t used to this new concept of a plane.

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hmm, I think you are misleaded by I-153 turn performance. I-153 was the best turn fighter ever, at big difference from the second position. Initial variants of Bf-109 had very low wing loading (similar to Rata, but with much better aspect ratio; late generation of biplanes had better wingloading but used thin airfoils), and not so good powerloading (but better than on most biplanes), they had basically similar turn performance with biplanes of their time. In plus, 109s were faster.

It will be very nice to have those early Bf-109 models in FB.

Monson74
06-29-2004, 02:27 AM
I think the Germans believed that speed was most important. Throughout the BoB the Luftwaffe competed with RAF on having the initial altitude advantage in order to conduct hit & run tactics. Noone seemed keen on getting caught in furball fights as they cost heavy casualties. If you have the speed/altitude advantage you pick the fight & have the chance of a second strike. 4/5 of the pilots shot down never saw their enemy. In air combat as in any other, you want to disable your target without having him shoot back at all. So through the war it was a race for the fastest planes thus leading to the jets.

S!

Monson


"So when Diogenes perceived that he was greatly excited and quite keyed up in mind with expectancy, he toyed with him and pulled him about in the hope that somehow he might be moved from his pride and thirst for glory and be able to sober up a little. For he noticed that at one time he was delighted, and at another grieved at the same thing, and that his soul was as unsettled as the weather at the solstices when both rain and sunshine come from the very same source."

(Dio Chrysostom "Discourse" 4.77-78)

NegativeGee
06-29-2004, 08:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
And how the hell the G6 got so much more empty weight (and not so much more full weight) had it less ammo or fuel?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I don't really have a particularly precise answer for you I'm afraid.

With regard to fuel and ammunition I don't think these changed greatly. I think 88 gallons/400 litres/106 US gallons was the internal fuel tankage for the 109's, so no changes there.

Ammunition- well the the G-2 carried a total of 1000 rounds of 7.92mm ammunition for its MG-17's where the G-6 carried 600 rounds of 13mm ammunition for the MG-131's. Assumuing we ignore the U4 refits of the G-6, the cannon ammunition load is the same at 200 rounds for the MG-151/20. Maybe someone has weights for the MG ammunition types including links, if so we could compare the two (I guess they are either similar or the 13mm load is heavier).


To be honest, you are going to need a technical examination of the G-2 and G-6 to get an idea of where all that extra weight came from, but there are a few clear changes (as mentioned) that contributed to the weight increases.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!