fw 190a5 flight model

[Herra Tohtori]

Originally Posted by lonewulf

Although, to be super picky, as far as I'm aware, there never was a 'Me-109 G' or a 'Me 109 G'. The correct designation is Bf 109 G.

Both designations exist and have been used in official German documents.

Before the war, the aircraft type codes were designated by their manufacturer rather than designer. The 109 was designed by Willy Messerschmitt (primary designer, obviously) but originally manufactured by Bayeriche Flugzeugwerke AG, which made it's designation "Bf-109". Same applied to the Bf-110 which was also designed in the inter-war period.

When Willy Messerschmitt founded Messerschmitt AG in 1938, he tried to get the designation changed to Me-109 and Me-110, and sometimes got his wish through, but there was no consistent policy on whether the 109 and 110 should be called Bf or Me. When Messerschmitt started producing new planes (Me-310, Me-410, Me-262 etc.) the tendency in RLM was to mark the 109 and 110 also as "Me-109" and "Me-110".

Of course, these aircraft - especially the 109 - were manufactured by several companies (Bayeriche Flugzeugwerke AG, Messerschmitt AG, Erla Maschinenwerk G.m.b.H.) just like several companies in the US manufactured planes such as F4F (Grumman, General Motors) and F4U (Vought, Brewster, Goodyear), and these sometimes had their own designations on different versions: General Motors Wildcats were marked as FM-1 and FM-2; Goodyear Corsairs were FG and Brewster Corsairs F3A.

I don't really see what the formatting of the name matters as long as we're talking of the same aircraft...

[lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Herra Tohtori

Both designations exist and have been used in official German documents.

Before the war, the aircraft type codes were designated by their manufacturer rather than designer. The 109 was designed by Willy Messerschmitt (primary designer, obviously) but originally manufactured by Bayeriche Flugzeugwerke AG, which made it's designation "Bf-109". Same applied to the Bf-110 which was also designed in the inter-war period.

When Willy Messerschmitt founded Messerschmitt AG in 1938, he tried to get the designation changed to Me-109 and Me-110, and sometimes got his wish through, but there was no consistent policy on whether the 109 and 110 should be called Bf or Me. When Messerschmitt started producing new planes (Me-310, Me-410, Me-262 etc.) the tendency in RLM was to mark the 109 and 110 also as "Me-109" and "Me-110".

Of course, these aircraft - especially the 109 - were manufactured by several companies (Bayeriche Flugzeugwerke AG, Messerschmitt AG, Erla Maschinenwerk G.m.b.H.) just like several companies in the US manufactured planes such as F4F (Grumman, General Motors) and F4U (Vought, Brewster, Goodyear), and these sometimes had their own designations on different versions: General Motors Wildcats were marked as FM-1 and FM-2; Goodyear Corsairs were FG and Brewster Corsairs F3A.

I don't really see what the formatting of the name matters as long as we're talking of the same aircraft...

I tend to agree that once everyone knows what we're talking about the official designations can be relaxed somewhat. For example, we can talk about a "109" instead of a "Bf 109". However, if you're going to go to the extent of actually criticizing someone for not strictly adhering to accepted form, then I think it is just a little rich to then refer to another aircraft type using a designation that isn't strictly correct either. The fact that the abbreviation "Me 109" is included in some official German publications is interesting but only to the extent that it demonstrates that officials and employees make mistakes and are guilty of sloppiness, just like everyone else. Once Bayerische Flugzeugwerke became Messerschmitt A.G., and all new aircraft types were designated with the abbreviation "Me", it is hardly surprising that some people started to describe Bf 109s as Me 109s. Understandable perhaps, but certainly not correct. As far as it is known, all 109 identification plates carry the designation "Bf 109", the correct designation for this type.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by lonewulf

...However, if you're going to go to the extent of actually criticizing someone for not strictly adhering to accepted form, then I think it is just a little rich to then refer to another aircraft type using a designation that isn't strictly correct either...

I quoted another one of Gastons errors, I wasn't referring to anything. What you say is correct, but since Me 109 was used occasionally, it's just odd not wrong to refer to the aircraft as Me 109 (like ME 109, BF 109 or FW 190).

[Derda508]

Actually in all the interviews with the guys, who flew the bird I never heard them adressing them other than Me 109. Same in all the books I read, that were written by Luftwaffe pilots (not too many, alas). My parents, who both experienced the war (my dad as a soldier from 39 to 45) wouldn´t have had an idea what "Bf" could mean, but "Me" was perfectly common. So there is also a difference between a technical correct denomintion and a popular name.

[IceFire]

It's just the world of officialdom conflicting with what was sometimes used on the ground. Many a confused book has mixed up Spitfire official designations with log book information as sometimes the aircraft modification arrived at the field before officialdom had caught up. I.e. the Spitfire LF.IX (Merlin 66) being listed as the IX-B in log books because they needed some way of designating the revised IX.

Bf109 may have been what was stamped at the factory but in the field equipment picks up all sorts of different names. Or two different levels of bureaucracy don't talk to each other WWII is full of these weird little stories.

[rakinroll]

Hello guys,
I am reading the posts carefully. There are very useful infos about my favorite plane FW 190, thank you. I have a question about real FW 190 performance. How was the acceleration of FW 190 against Spitfire and P-51?
Regards

[Herra Tohtori]

I don't know for sure. It would depend a lot on the exact models in question, fuel loadouts, altitude and initial airspeed.

However: Climb rate comparison typically gives pretty good relative information about acceleration at slow speeds, because it fairly directly corresponds to thrust/weight ratio (although wing loading has some effect on it as well). If you have higher thrust/weight ratio, it means at level flight your engine provides better acceleration.

As a gut feeling I would say at slow speeds the Spitfire accelerates best. The difference between a P-51B/C/D and contemporary Focke-Wulf 190 Anton would be smaller, but I would say it's likely that the P-51 would in most conditions accelerate better.

FW-190 Dora has climb rate that is a close match to most contemporary Spitfires, excluding perhaps the Spitfire Mk.IX with 25 lbs manifold pressure, as well as Griffon engined Spitfires. The D-9 out-accelerates the P-51 at low speeds, and would come very close to the Spitfire's acceleration or better, I think. I have a slight impression that Spitfire (contemporary to a D-9) would still initially accelerate better, starting from low airspeed.


At high speeds, things get different as the planes approach their top speeds. The FW-190 Anton had higher top speed at low to medium altitudes than most contemporary Spitfires (at least until Mark IX), so at high speeds the 190 would accelerate better simply by the virtue that it would be capable of reaching a higher top speed - the Spitfire's acceleration would end at its top speed earlier than the FW-190's. At high altitudes, the Merlin engine of Spitfire would likely outperform the FW-190's BMW engine.

At high speeds, the P-51 would out-accelerate both Spitfire and FW-190 Anton, because it had the highest top speed of these planes. Or, its acceleration would continue longest, however you wish to look at it.

Again, bringing the Dora into the equation mixes things a bit. I would expect it to out-accelerate the Spitfire and 190 Anton easily at high speeds and depending on altitude it might even out-accelerate the Mustang. At high altitudes, the Mustang would accelerate the longest, reaching highest top speed. At low to medium altitudes and high initial speed, the FW-190 D-9 would likely accelerate the best out of these four planes.


Note: None of this is based on any flight performance data or even IL-2 Compare, just my impression and gut feeling about the capabilities of each of these planes.


Dive acceleration would be another thing yet again...