Jump to content

Messerschmitt Bf 109 E-1 and E-3


Nabutso
 Share

Technical data

Engine: 12 cylinder DB-601A
Supercharger: single speed
Power output:
Take-off mode: 1015 b.h.p
Nominal:
950 b.h.p. at SL
1050 b.h.p. at 4100 m
Gear reduction ratio - 0.645
Dry weight - 590 kg

Propeller: 3 blade VDM
Diameter - 3.1m
Pitch angles - 25/60
Weight - 150 kg

Dimensions and weight:
Length - 7.7 m
Wingspan - 9.9 m
Wing area incl. ailerons - 16.4 m2
Take-off Weight - 2610 kg

Level speed performance (WEP, radiator closed):

Altitude, m        Speed, kmh
  0                           500
  1000                     510
  2000                     530
  3000                     540
  4000                     555
  5000                     570
  6000                     565


Climb performance (100% throttle, radiator open):

Altitude, m    IAS       Time
  1000           245       01:00
  2000           230       01:54
  3000           230       03:00
  4000           215       03:48
  5000           210       04:54
  6000           200       06:18

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice stats but you are forgetting to list sources for the stats...

also here is a turn chart for what appears to be a 109 E-3

Bf109fan2.jpg

comparison with a spitfire to show what I mean (it has been said that the E series turned slightly worse then a spitfire which this shows)

[spoiler]

spit109turn.gif

[/spoiler]

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be noted, FP, that the Spit in that comparison is a 2 bladed prop one that turned worse than a normal Spit I. It still beats the 109E there handily in both instantaneous turns and virage, though.

Actually according to this it was a Spitfire 1A and BF-109 E-3

60 years later Dr. John Ackroyd, PhD, C.Eng, FRAeS of the Aerospace Division, Manchester School of Engineering, University of Manchester, and Fellow of The Royal Aeronautical Society, took a fresh look at this subject in his paper "Comparison of turning radii for four Battle of Britain fighter aircraft". He calculated the minimum turn radii to be 686 feet for the Spitfire IA versus 853 feet for the BF 109 E-3 - which is in very good agreement with the RAE's findings. 74 

its the first paragraph under turning

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually according to this it was a Spitfire 1A and BF-109 E-3

 

 

its the first paragraph under turning

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

I've got a big book of spits that lists every spit ever manufactured, where it was fielded etc etc. It was a 2 bladed prop on that particular one.

 

Anyway, you don't need to argue about this with me - I'm just posting the datasheet. Nothing else.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've got a big book of spits that lists every spit ever manufactured, where it was fielded etc etc. It was a 2 bladed prop on that particular one.

 

Anyway, you don't need to argue about this with me - I'm just posting the datasheet. Nothing else.

 

i have a listed source you claim to have a book... right... i think I win here. Anyways you still haven't even listed a source for you datasheet here.

I was also showing you that so you can add in turn time to your datasheet

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 
 

i have a listed source you claim to have a book... right... i think I win here. Anyways you still haven't even listed a source for you datasheet here.

I was also showing you that so you can add in turn time to your datasheet

 

I'm not sure exactly what you are "winning", but alright.

 

No, turn time is not part of the datasheet for this plane. The datasheet is just the data that the aircraft is being modeled to reach. The turn time simply wasn't one of the criteria for this one, so the turn time is whatever the turn time is (if everything else on the plane is right - the turn time would match real world performance anyway). This is not "my" datasheet, it's just a translated datasheet from the Russian forums.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure exactly what you are "winning", but alright.

As in i have the better source here so my point still stands

 

No, turn time is not part of the datasheet for this plane. The datasheet is just the data that the aircraft is being modeled to reach. The turn time simply wasn't one of the criteria for this one, so the turn time is whatever the turn time is (if everything else on the plane is right - the turn time would match real world performance anyway). This is not "my" datasheet, it's just a translated datasheet from the Russian forums.

Fair enough 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice stats but you are forgetting to list sources for the stats...

also here is a turn chart for what appears to be a 109 E-3

 

You may have a look here: http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E3_Baubeschreibung.html

 

 

 

Of particular interest are the figures given in the German specifications as the smallest turning radius of the 109E.

These are, at Sea Level and at 6000 m, with and without deploying flaps to aid turning :


Without use of flaps :
at  0 m altitude - 170 m (557 feet), at 6000 m (19 685 feet) altitude - 320 m (1050 feet).


With use of flaps :
at  0 m altitude - 125 m (410 feet), at 6000 m (19 685 feet) altitude - 230 m (754 feet).


The report also gives figures for climb times and distances required take off and landing runs

Similiar figures are given by a calculation by Messerschmitt AG on Bf 109E turn times and radius in an internal Messerschmitt report.

The calculation was based on a similiar set of data, but assumes the slightlly lower power output of the DB 601A-1 at 990 PS. Conditions in the calculation were 2540 kg weight, 990 PS output, an altitude of 0 m and no height loss. Under these conditions, the turning characteristics of the Bf 109E were as follows :

Turn time for 360 degrees: 18,92 seconds.
Turn radius for above turn: 203 m

Take note that the smallest turning radius and the best turning time do not occur at the same airspeed, which would

Further calculations were made for a diving turn of a descent rate of -50 m/sec, which would be equivalent translate to an overall power output

Turn time for 360 degrees in a -50m/sec diving turn : 11,5 seconds.
Turn radius for the -50m/sec diving turn above : 190 m

See for graphical illustration HERE.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 5 weeks later...

There is a Huge Gap between what the Germans found and what the British using a captured machine from the french found:

(http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E3_Baubeschreibung.html)

 

German: brand new Bf109 in clean combat configuration and at combat cruise (990PS) flown. This is a properly maintained new machine so it is gonna get the best results. 87Octane fuel was used for this engine. O

minimum turn radius: clean 170m, flaps 125m

best turn radius: 203m

best turn time: 18.92 Seconds

50m/s diving turn radius: 190m

50m/s diving turn time: 11.5 seconds

Landing speed:125kph

 

French test:, this was a captured plane, very little was known about it and on landing it had a fully destroyed propeller indicating it must have taken damage on landing as the engine was still running when it did. They never got the engine to work properly and had to run it at low power settings. The tests indicate the airplane has been taken apart  significantly increasing the risk of error on the mechanics side as they were not familiar with the type.

This could explain the engine related troubl they were having.

 

 

[spoiler]7 to 12 December 1939 -  Reassembly, equipping and identification.

12/13/39 - Undercarriage rolling test.

12/14/39 - Tanks emptying and filling with: (  'C' fuel of 92 octane.
                                            (   Intava Oil 100.
                                            (   Cooling mixture ethane-diol 50% by following
                                            (   the S.T.R.S informations
                                            (   by replacing original components).

12/15/39 - Engine measurement on test bench.

[/spoiler]

 

Overall a decrease of Performance from German test to of about 20%

 

British Test:

They assembled a Bf109E from several Airframes, the main being the french one tested above.

 

[spoiler]

Spitfire and Me.109
Turns at minimum radius without height loss.
Both aeroplanes at full throttle at 12,000 ft.
          Spitfire | Me.109   (german test at 0m) (german test at 6000m). Best engine power is at 3700m (~12000ft)

Minimum radius of turn without loss of height.ft.          696 | 885   (best turn:666; min: 557) (320m)

Cooresponding time to turn through 360 deg. sec.       19 | 25 (18.92) 

Indicated airspeed Vi  m.p.h.                                       133 | 129   (-)

A.S.I.R.  approx m.p.h. 126 118                            "g" 2.65 | 2.1   (-)

Angle of bank                                                         68 deg | 62 deg. (-)

 

[/spoiler]

 

Which test would you trust most? I have trouble believing the french and british, simply because of the limited flight time they got as well as unfamiliarity with the type, combined with repeated disassembly of the limited aircraft they had.

I would especially note, that the test resuts got worse and worse the further down the chain the test aircraft went implying deterioration of the aircrafts condition making most british test almost completely useless. The implied engine trouble is also cause for critical evaluation of the british test as there must have been severe engine damage.

Ground Crews were also unfamiliar with the procedures concerning the even opening of the slats.

The differences are simply to crass on their side, combined with the swiss who got them factory new, getting the same results as the germans.

Edited by myfabi94
  • Upvote 4
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manual Prop pitch doesn't work, testing top speed is impossible.

Hm, I tried one today, it seems to be modelled with variable pitch prop like it was in most of 1939 before automatic regulation was added somewhere late that year.

It makes it a pain to handle in combat, I really wish they would also add the E4 version for BOB events.

Regarding the rest, the real problem with a lot of 109 models is lack of detailed test reports. Remember our 109K/109F/109G discussion about climb rate?

Only for 109G1/2 there are somewhat detailed test figures which are easily available, charts of rest are mostly calculation. So you see calculated climb rate of 109G and 109F is identical at low altitude, but 109G test reports give a different result for initial climb for instance.

There is no huge discrepancy between British test and German specification in regards of turning; both rate and radius will suffer at altitude. Edited by Cpt_Branko
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name="Cpt_Branko" post="4198045" timestamp="1424455002"]

Hm, I tried one today, it seems to be modelled with variable pitch prop like it was in most of 1939 before automatic regulation was added somewhere late that year.

It makes it a pain to handle in combat, I really wish they would also add the E4 version for BOB events.

Regarding the rest, the real problem with a lot of 109 models is lack of detailed test reports. Remember our 109K/109F/109G discussion about climb rate?

Only for 109G1/2 there are somewhat detailed test figures which are easily available, charts of rest are mostly calculation. So you see calculated climb rate of 109G and 109F is identical at low altitude, but 109G test reports give a different result for initial climb for instance.

There is no huge discrepancy between British test and German specification in regards of turning; both rate and radius will suffer at altitude.[/quote]
Yeah, my last comment was based on a Nug, they fixed it I guess.


[img]http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_MttDblatt42may/MttDB_May42vsothers.png[/img]
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

MttDB_May42vsothers.png

 

 the vvs tests was useing 1.42 ata + this page is for the E-1/3

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was meant as a demonstration of how close the calculations matched reality in german data sheets. It was not meant for the Emils.

 

Hm, well, if you look at the first calculated data sheet for Bf-109G:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_MttDblatt42may/109_May42dblatt_EN.html

 

Then compare to later Reichlin trials:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_Rechlinkennblatt/rechlin_G1_blatt.html

 

In Reichlin trials the Bf-109G2 climbs at 21m/s in the low altitude band, while calculated value for the same low altitude band is 18.52 m/s (just like it is for Bf-109F4):

 

Note that the calculated climb of 109G at low altitude is the same as calculated climb of Bf-109F4:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109F4_Datenblatts/109F4_dblatt_calculated.html

 

Now we know the calculated climb values of Bf-109G do not match reality (compare with Reichlin results) specifically in the low altitude results, why would we consider the Bf-109F4 calculated results (which are identical to calculated results of Bf-109G) to be accurate in the same low altitude band? When people say, "Bf-109G climbed better at low altitude", this impression comes from comparing calculated Bf-109F4 values with flight test Bf-109G values. The calculated values for both fighters are the same, but there is no detailed flight test available for Bf-109F4. Only for the 1.3 ata 109G2 we have a lot of available data on it's actual performance.

 

Most likely the 109F4 was not far off from the G2 in climb at low altitudes, I just don't see how commonly quoted 18.51 m/s (based on calculated performance) versus 21m/s (109G measured) is possible.

Edited by Cpt_Branko
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MttDB_May42vsothers.png

Is there any reason why 109s and Spitfires are so slow compared to comparative Soviet or American craft? Apart from P-51 and Yak the other craft have bulges and protrusions just like 109s and Spitfires have :(

I mean any 109 and Spitfire compared to the contemporaries have much superior HP/weight ratios and they are both really small aircrafts.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any reason why 109s and Spitfires are so slow compared to comparative Soviet or American craft? Apart from P-51 and Yak the other craft have bulges and protrusions just like 109s and Spitfires have :(

I mean any 109 and Spitfire compared to the contemporaries have much superior HP/weight ratios and they are both really small aircrafts.

You do know your way around SB, so I guess you know what you're talking about.

The main problem right now is the Matchmaking. Often russian and american fighters have to fight opposition that is at least two years older, especially in the lower tiers. This gives them a devlopment and speed advantage. Also, the russian fighters often did have advantages below 2000m where most of the fighting is happening. Both the Spitfire and Bf109 were all altitude allrounders, built to perform at any altitude and thereby sacrifcing low level Top speed.

Undertiering is the main problem right now.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any reason why 109s and Spitfires are so slow compared to comparative Soviet or American craft? Apart from P-51 and Yak the other craft have bulges and protrusions just like 109s and Spitfires have :(

 

Problem is often matchmaking, most often. I'll pull some actual comparisons of speeds (from charts) of the Bf-109G2 versus contemporary US / Soviet / British / Japanese fighters (when I'm done with them). When you place performance of various planes on the same chart it is often very revealing what altitude it is best to fight at.

 

However in essence fabi is right, the 109 is an "all-arounder", generally you would want to fight many Soviet airplanes at higher altitude. On La-5/7 series the "Forsazh" (WEP) will not work at 4-5km, so if you would want to drag them up there. Yaks, not really sure at this time. Still trying to find more data on the actual performance curves.

Edited by Cpt_Branko
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

spitfire-i-compass-swinging-721083.jpg

 

So the comparison is between a Spitfire Mk I with a 2 bladed propeller and a Me 109 E variant. I wonder how many 2 bladed prop Spits saw combat during WWII. As far as I remember the Hawker Aviation switched the 2 bladed propeller of Hurricane to a 3 bladed one pretty fast.

Edited by RHAF_Dante
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So the comparison is between a Spitfire Mk I with a 2 bladed propeller and a Me 109 E variant. I wonder how many 2 bladed prop Spits saw combat during WWII. As far as I remember the Hawker Aviation switched the 2 bladed propeller of Hurricane to a 3 bladed one pretty fast.

Well, here's the thing. Never ever trust any wartime comparative tests. Never!!! In one comparative test they tested a DeHavilland propped Mk.I against a Bog Standard E-3. The DeHavilland prop was a two stage selectible pitch while the Bf109 had a variable pitch unit. Both were nightmares to keep at optimum in combat.

The Phoney War was basically an initiative by the Brits to update their warmachine, including equipping as many Spitfire Mk.Is, with either fixed or selectible Props, to Mk.Ia standard with Rotol constant speed Prop. In the same timeframe the E-3 was replaced by the E-4 in production changing from variable pitch to constant speed operation and older E-3s were updated to E-4 standard.

The E-4 was also available with the new DB601N and equal to the 100/50 Octane Spits.

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name="myfabi94" post="4313783" timestamp="1426104134"]

Well, here's the thing. Never ever trust any wartime comparative tests. Never!!! In one comparative test they tested a DeHavilland propped Mk.I against a Bog Standard E-3. The DeHavilland prop was a two stage selectible pitch while the Bf109 had a variable pitch unit. Both were nightmares to keep at optimum in combat.
The Phoney War was basically an initiative by the Brits to update their warmachine, including equipping as many Spitfire Mk.Is, with either fixed or selectible Props, to Mk.Ia standard with Rotol constant speed Prop. In the same timeframe the E-3 was replaced by the E-4 in production changing from variable pitch to constant speed operation and older E-3s were updated to E-4 standard.
The E-4 was also available with the new DB601N and equal to the 100/50 Octane Spits.[/quote]

wrong the electro-mechanial variable pitch control came in october 1940,and afaik the only 10 E-4/Ns (ie the one with the DB601N engine)were used in the Battle of Britain as most of 601N engines was for the Bf110
and only October was there more E/Ns put back in production, the first F-1 was entered service in October ,but only 5 were delivered by December 1940

all Spitfires and Hurricane had CPS porps by July 1940

[quote name="myfabi94" post="4191512" timestamp="1424362158"]

[/quote]

1 the German turn at 19,685ft which give 1050ft radius the British test is at 12,000ft and give 885ft radius, what is your problem with what the Brits give ??

2 that 109 in the British tests was not made up from difference airframes, and it was undamaged when the French got it [url="http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html"]http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html[/url] it was post tests that the tail was repaired.
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name="thedab" post="4316376" timestamp="1426162903"]

wrong the electro-mechanial variable pitch control came in october 1940,and afaik the only 10 E-4/Ns (ie the one with the DB601N engine)were used in the Battle of Britain as most of 601N engines was for the Bf110
and only October was there more E/Ns put back in production, the first F-1 was entered service in October ,but only 5 were delivered by December 1940

all Spitfires and Hurricane had CPS porps by July 1940[/quote]
The manual electro mechanical pitch control came with the introduction of the late B-model in 1937. The automatic control came with the E-4 which mainly consisted of updated E-3 airframes. The changes were mainly new cannons, automatic prop pitch control and new canopy.
All my sources say production of the E-4 started just with the BoB and upgrades to older E-3 airframes were made.

[quote name="thedab" post="4316568" timestamp="1426166007"]

1 the German turn at 19,685ft which give 1050ft radius the British test is at 12,000ft and give 885ft radius, what is your problem with what the Brits give ??

2 that 109 in the British tests was not made up from difference airframes, and it was undamaged when the French got it [url="http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html"]http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html[/url] it was post tests that the tail was repaired.[/quote]
"These initial trials on both sides of the Channel were equally dimissive in their tone and conclusions regarding the qualities of opposing fighter aircraft, emphasizing the general superiority of their own fighter designs - perhaps due to infamiliarity with enemy equipment. In contrast, the subsequent and far more detailed Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests report prepeared in September 1940 in contrast was far more positive and balanced in its assessment."
"[size=4]Owing to cooling difficulties the radiators were open up to 13,000 ft. and then gradually closed up to 26,000 ft. This may account for the discrepancy between the measured times to height and those published in Germany. The top level speed agreed well with the published figure. Absolute ceiling. – 32.000 ft.[/size]"

Read and tell me that that Bf109E-3 was fully functional: [url="http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_French_trials/french_109e_performanceT.html"]http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_French_trials/french_109e_performanceT.html[/url]
"[size=4]The climb has been interrupted at 8.300 m. due to malfunctioning of the engine.[/size][size=4]"[/size]
[font=arial][size=3]"The climbing was done at the Center with the radiators open up to 4000 m.
then progressively closed until 8300m. It is possible that the different components (1)
used by the German tests could permit climbing with closed radiators.

The climbs will be recommenced again to find out how to improve the obtained
performance results."[/size][/font] Edited by BigBawsBarabus
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The manual electro mechanical pitch control came with the introduction of the late B-model in 1937. The automatic control came with the E-4 which mainly consisted of updated E-3 airframes. The changes were mainly new cannons, automatic prop pitch control and new canopy.

All my sources say production of the E-4 started just with the BoB and upgrades to older E-3 airframes were made.

 

 the E-4 had the DB601A engine and not the DB601N it the N that tell you that has the DB601N engine i.e 3/N 4/N 7/N etc and the E-4 had manual prop and the number of 109 with the N engine was very low by the time of BoB

 

 

 

 the adoption electro-mechanic automatic pitch regulator came in late 1940,first used on the E-7

    

 

"These initial trials on both sides of the Channel were equally dimissive in their tone and conclusions regarding the qualities of opposing fighter aircraft, emphasizing the general superiority of their own fighter designs - perhaps due to infamiliarity with enemy equipment. In contrast, the subsequent and far more detailed Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests report prepeared in September 1940 in contrast was far more positive and balanced in its assessment."

"Owing to cooling difficulties the radiators were open up to 13,000 ft. and then gradually closed up to 26,000 ft. This may account for the discrepancy between the measured times to height and those published in Germany. The top level speed agreed well with the published figure. Absolute ceiling. – 32.000 ft."

 

Read and tell me that that Bf109E-3 was fully functional: http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_French_trials/french_109e_performanceT.html

"The climb has been interrupted at 8.300 m. due to malfunctioning of the e"ngine.    were dose it say that,as it don't say that in the link

"The climbing was done at the Center with the radiators open up to 4000 m.
then progressively closed until 8300m. It is possible that the different components (1)
used by the German tests could permit climbing with closed radiators.

    The climbs will be recommenced again to find out how to improve the obtained
performance results."

 

planes climbing with closed radiators will overheat that why most climb tests are done with open radiators

 

it looked like the French and British err on the side of caution when it come leting the engine overheat,as rest of their test seem to go with the German manual http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109e-handbookcurve.jpg

it fine with me,

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...