Question about Bf 109K-4
 

Hi!

I have some questions about this late german fighter.

First, I heard a lot of opinions that Bf 109K-4 was not good enough comparing with Fw 190D-9 or H-1, both well known as the best German propeller fighters at the end of WWII. Is that really true?

Second, I'm interested with comparing the number of Bf 109K and Fw 190D9/Ta 152H1 at their service in Luftwaffe. I hope the number of victories of each aircraft and the number of serving planes will give me good view of true effectiveness these fighters.

Third, what was the production cost of one Bf 109K-4, Fw 190D-9 and Ta 152H-1. If it's possible to find, I want to know.

Finally, what was true value of Bf 109K-4. Was it a scrap with powerful engine (I heard such as opinion) or was it a good fighter?

Thanks

Re: Question about Bf 109K-4
 

You will probably get answers to question bordering on the extreme, because of emotion based opinions from individuals that like one or another design. The Bf was nearing the end of it's production life, even if the war had continued. IIRC the Bf 109 prototype first flew in 1935 and the Fw 190 in 1939. So, the Fw 190 was several years newer in a period when aircraft development was moving at a very rapid pace. The Fw 190 probably had more growth potential left in 1945 than the Bf 109.

As a fighter in individal combat, either could be an effective fighter right up to the end of the war. It depended more on the pilot's experience and the parameters of the combat, i.e. altitude, opposing aircraft type, etc. There were pilots who flew 109s throughout the war, who probably wanted to fly no other fighter. And they were correct, for after flying a particular type in combat for several years and hunderds of hours one should know strength, weaknesses and just how far the envelope can be pushed (or not). IMHO, you should fear an experienced opponent in a lesser type more than a better type with a pilot experiencing their first combat.

By late 1944, the worst problem for the Luftwaffe was not availability of aircraft, but pilots with sufficient training and experience. Looking at the number of kills is misleading as some of the highest scores were run up in what can best be described as a "target rich environment".

As is usually the case, when a question about a complex situation is posed, ther are rarely easy, simple answers.

Just take the question of cost, both types were built and assembled in numerous locations and under widely varying conditions. Slave labor is quite cheap, but losing a large percentage of your production to bomb damage, increases the unit cost. The degree of dispersal also affects costs, etc., etc.,. But in general, the Bf 109 was a somewhat simpler basic design, with fewer parts.

Best regards,

Artie Bob

Re: Question about Bf 109K-4
 

Thnx ArtieBob for your answer.

You noticed the pilot's experience factor. I agree with it, but I rather intend not to jugde both types (let's treat Fw 190D-9 and Ta 152H-1 fighters together as Focke-Wulfs): Bf 109K-4 and Focke-Wulfs, and decide which aircraft was better, but I just want to say in my opinion Bf 109K-4 could compare and fight as good as Focke-Wulfs. Right, I know all technical data and performances these fighters and I realize that Bf 109K-4 with his 727 kph maximum speed, excellent climb rate and not bad armament was not worse than Focke-Wulfs.

I read that Third Reich produced 190 Ta 152H-1, 650 Fw 190D-9 and ca. 1000 Bf 109K-4. Still I would want to know the effectiveness in fight (air victories) each of them. But this would be hard.

My good well-known Luftwaffe expert describes Bf 109K-4 as the piece of scrap with powerful engine. Fw 190A was more developmental than Bf 109, which production should be ended at F version (I heard such as opinion too). But I think until Fw 190D and Ta 152H versions Bf 109 was better high-level fighter than Fw 190A (f.e. Bf 109G-10, predecessor of Bf 109K-4).

Ok, Bf 109K-4 as the costruction type in the end 1944 belongs to the past, but due to his speed&climb I think was not much worse than both Focke-Wulfs. The one thing I want to know is the keeping it in production was a mistake or not?

Regards

Flammenwerfer

Re: Question about Bf 109K-4
 

That is really a pretty easy question, once you accept the premise that late in 1944, the question is whether Germany should have continued to build any aircraft at all. If you were going to build aircraft that you no longer provide with either properly trained crews or fuel, then it mattered very little what type you built, so one is just as good as another if the only thing you are doing is sating the goverment and military's desires for numbers (we built 5000 a/c this month, of course there are only resources to use 1000 of them).

For Germany as a nation, the best thing that could have been done by Fall 1944 was to seek peace under the best conditions it could. That would have saved a lot of German lives and resources. By that time there was no real possibility that any of the original objectives of the war could be attained and it was time to cut their losses. But governments rarely make very good decisions in such times and many of the mistakes made by Nazi Germany have been repeated several times over in the interim by many nations, continuing possibly even to today.

Re: Question about Bf 109K-4
 

You need to revise your production numbers. D-9 > ~1800, K-4 > ~1700. For the Ta 152H-0/H-1 only 43 from known WkN, with maybe 67 total (includes prototypes??).

Be careful with K-4 performance numbers. The best performance was obtained at 1.98ata but this required C3 + MW50. Normal boost was 1.80ata. It is questionable on how many of the 4 Gruppen authorized to use 1.98ata with 140 a/c (79 operational) {as of beginning of April 1945} were really converted to be able to use 1.98ata. There is also the question of C3 deliveries to these Gruppen.

Your friend has a point. It was noted in some German correspondence that 109 airframes were of poor quality at the time 1.98 was being cleared for operational use in late Feb/early March 1945.

The G-10 and K-4 came off the production lines at the same time > Oct 1944.

Re: Question about Bf 109K-4
 

Poor quality was a very widespread problem in the Luftwaffe. The quality of Bf 109 airframes certainly varied a lot. This is hardly surprising considering the general conditions (lack of raw materials, poor quality fuel, slave labor, dispersed production etc.). Don't forget the extensive exhaust staining on German aircraft; all versions of the Jumo 211 and the BMW 801 being very "dirty".

In general, I agree with ArtieBob's considerations - but I'd like to point out that in late 1944 there was no other option for Germany but unconditional surrender (at least after Graf Stauffenberg's bomb failed to kill Hitler).

Re: Question about Bf 109K-4
 

"The one thing I want to know is the keeping it in production was a mistake or not?"
Very interesting indeed.
According to Galland's book, it certainly was not a mistake (or am I totally wrong ?)
the k4 would've been as good as any other plane flown by properly trained pilots, with proper tactics AND proper petrol.Hitler's obsessions made the plane useless but it made ANY plane useless.
Now as for what the Germans should've done, it's quite a different topic. surrender in 44 ? sure but ... what about "not invading Russia until UK was knocked out" ? or "not declaring the war to the US after Pearl Harbor" ? you can't rewrite history, can you ?

Re: Question about Bf 109K-4
 

Unfortunately, after the Casablanca declaration of "Unconditional surrender" the Germans might as well fight to the bitter end since there were now no other options left open to them. What I mean is, that regardless of when the Germans surrendered, their world would be destroyed.

Although none of the 109s was ever as competent a bomber killer as the 190, it was definitely more maneuverable than the radial-engined 190 (see Nick Beale's "Ghost Bombers" web site). So, it was meant to be the top cover to the bomber killing 190s, to defend against the USAAF escort fighters.

Was it as maneuverable at the 190D? I don't know, and perhaps someone else has data on this. It certainly was not as maneuverable as the Ta 152H at altitude.

Should the 109K have been produced? Why not? Until there was large-scale production of another high-altitude fighter, the GAF needed something there. Yes, there were all sorts of problems, including shortage of personnel; but, until the last day, would anyone dare to quit their work of planning and producing?

Re: Question about Bf 109K-4
 

Off topic, but an interesting question:

Had Germany surrendered on lets say 15 Sep 1944, when the Western front was nearing the German border (like the unconditional surrender in 1918, when the military administration realized, that the war was lost), what had become of the East Europian countries, like Hungary;Romania and - yes, Poland, when the Eastern front was still far away from there? Would there have been a chance, to establish a non-communist government in those countries?

Regards,
Robert

Re: Question about Bf 109K-4
 

That`s debatable. I`ll leave the 152H out, it was a specialized figther and unbeatable in high altitutdes, but otherwise nothing special at normal altitudes.

D-9 vs. the K-4 is a very close match IMHO, and similiar like previous 109/190 comparision. Basically the 'Forke' was a bigger, heavier and well armed airframe, quite ideal choice but as manouveribility concerned, esp in turnfights the 109 was better. Roll would probably give advantage to the Dora, even with it`s rate of roll reduced over the Antons.

Climb rate was again in the Kurfurst`s favour as usual, even if the early low powered versions at low levels, and at alttiude it was definietely superior thanks to it`s high altitude engine. With 2000 HP introduced in 1945, it was among if not The fastest climbing fighter of the war.

Speed is reversed. At lower altitudes, Doras were around 10-20 kph faster, though the 2000HP 109s came very close.At around mid altitudes the situation reversed, and high up the 109K was definietely superior.

Then the pilot`s factor... the 190 was more modern, w more auxilary/comfort systems like electrically operated flaps etc, and had a better field of vision. I`d risk the 109 pilot was better protected from enemy fire. Control harmony was good, and lighter than the 109. Stall characteristics were quite vicious otoh, whereas the 109 was probably the most forgiving aircraft in the air (and the least forgiving on the ground), and better in turns and at altitude. Both aircraft were very simple to fly, controls being highly automated, the cocpits well laid-out.

Armament... the D-9 is more balanced with 2x20mm. The 109K otoh is a butcher with a meat clever. The MK 108 could do very ugly thing to enemy fighters, a single hit ripped them to pieces, but it was harder to hit with than the higher velocity Mauser cannons.

Range, unlike the urban myth says, was fairly equal in both machines.

Briefly, I`d say a toss-up. If I`d be flying 109s before, I`d not trade the 109K for anything. It`s a culmination of performance envelope 109 tactics were built on. It`s also definietely better for altitude work on the Western front. The 190 is more for low-medium alt work, it`s more rugged and versatile - the 109 was and remained a pure interceptor by it`s design. The Dora is very fast, armament is good, handling quite simple and the field of vision is excellent... it`s really a matter of choice.

Service numbers you can find on ww2.dk. A while ago, I collected the makeup for Dec44, but I can only recall the results. In Oct-Nov-Dec, there were a stable 200 K-4s around in service, the D-9s were somewhat rarer I think, around 150 or so, I don`t know how the Dora numbers changed after that. 109Ks become more widespread in 1945, the type was to replace all other 109s and every 4th 109 was a K-4 by the end of Jan45, whereas the D-9 was originally seen as an interim solution.

The Ta-152s were extremely rare, of course.

As for the victories, it`s even more diffiicult stuff. First because 1945 victory data is hard to come by, second because the units were generally made up of similiar, but mixed types, and hard to tell which type scored the victory..

I guess near-impossilbe, though I`d tend to think the costs increase in that order, simply by the complexity and size..

I`d say it was a very good fighter with capabilities similiar or even better than it`s opposition or rivals. The 109K was a big 'facelift' project for the 109, lots of long planned stuff was implemented, and I consider it the peak of the design and the design philosopy behind it : mount a very powerful engine in small and very sleek, light airframe, put highly destrive cannon on it (the Mk 108) and you can hardly make it bad... check, check, check! Thrust to weight is the basic function of nearly all manouveribilty areas, and the 109K had the best of all WW2 fighters, with as much as 2000 HP for only 3.3 tons...

Re: Question about Bf 109K-4
 

I wouldn't say, that the 152 H was nothing special at normal altitudes. According to Willi Reschkes book Jagdgeschwader 301/302 a Fw 190 A-8 was easily turned out in a simulated dogfight against a Ta 152 H-0, at altitudes from near ground to 3000 meters. The Fw 190 was flown by an experienced pilot whereas the pilot of the Ta 152 had only 2 take-offs with it then.
Can't have been too bad :D

Re: Question about Bf 109K-4
 

no no no, it was not at all of course! What I say it was not so special in normal altitudes than high up. it was as good as the best latest fighters, though I may add outturning the rather heavy A-8 was not too great feat either. ;)

Re: Question about Bf 109K-4
 

I found this remark very interesting because, in my estimation, the Ta 152H would have been a real bear to maneuver at lower altitudes because of the denser air combined with such a large wingspan. But, in closely checking the story of the 152H, I found that the sucker had Flettner tabs on the ailerons. So that would have helped considerably. But, in the 109s with aileron Flettners, pilots complained that at low speeds the control forces were little more than the control friction force, and so it was easy to overcontrol the a/c. I wonder what the aileron control forces were like in the Ta 152H at various speeds and altitudes. And, was there concern about tearing off the wings at high speed and low altitude?

Re: Question about Bf 109K-4
 

I don't have any costs for the 109K, but here are the "Fertigungsmittelkosten" (Assembly costs [?]) for the 109G. At a rate of 200 a/c per month: Fuselage: 1,950 hours, Control surfaces: 1,050 hours; Wings: 3,000 hours; Powerplant: 500 hours; Total: 6,500 hours. At a rate of 50 a/c, the cost rose to 9,200 hours; and, at a rate of 500 a/c per month, the cost dropped to 3,800 hours. This was from a report of 11.5.44.

Re: Question about Bf 109K-4
 

Hello Kurfürst

Your pages are very interesting as is Your message on 2000hp DB 605s. Have You seen the article on DB 600 series engines in Aeroplane Monthly May 2005? IIRC it seems to emphasis the importance of sparking plugs in achieving the 1850 and 2000hp in late DB 605 models.

On 109K, IMHO its worst feature was low permitted Vmax for a 1945 fighter. In Finnish manual for Bf 109 G-2/6 the Vmax permitted was 750km/h. It also warn that extra carefulness was needed when coming out from high speed dive because the risk of structural damage. Even with 1310 hp DB 605A (most if not all first line Finnish Bf 109Gs had restricted to 1,3 ata) it was not difficult to excess the Vmax. Finns had used high speed dive as a mean of disengagement since Fokker D.XXIs used it in Winter War). Many lived to tell the story but not all. I have also seen a pilot manual for Bf 109G/AS, date Aug. 44, which gave permissible Vmax as 750km/h at 0-4km altitude, 700km/h 4-5km, 600km/h 5-?km and 500km/h ?-?, I cannot remember the higher altitudes. The speed should be IAS. I don’t know the position error of Bf 109’s speedometer, so I cannot convert the speeds to TASs. Can You help me in this?

Finns seemed to have thought that Bf 109s wings and horizontal tail surfaces were rather weak and the heaviness of controls at high speed was a kind of protection against structural failures because of too harsh movements at those speeds. In fairness Finns also thought that probably Soviet fighters had even lower permitted Vmax because Bf 109s usually could rather easily disengage with high speed dive if altitude allowed that but heavier and more robust planes like Tempest had far greater permissible Vmax and had much lighter controls at very high speed (over 650km/h).

That said 109K should have been able to use its steep climbing ability to turn tables in tight spot. For example, IMHO the steep climbing spiral was an effective combat movement when used against poorer climber.

Juha

Re: Question about Bf 109K-4
 

Unfurtunately not, AM isn`t available here (hardly any foreign magazine is), but it sounds interesting and I`d love to read it. If it`s possible, could you take me a few shots on the article and send it to my mail address at kurfurst@atw.hu?


On 109K, IMHO its worst feature was low permitted Vmax for a 1945 fighter. In Finnish manual for Bf 109 G-2/6 the Vmax permitted was 750km/h.
...
I have also seen a pilot manual for Bf 109G/AS, date Aug. 44, which gave permissible Vmax as 750km/h at 0-4km altitude, 700km/h 4-5km, 600km/h 5-?km and 500km/h ?-?, I cannot remember the higher altitudes. The speed should be IAS. I don’t know the position error of Bf 109’s speedometer, so I cannot convert the speeds to TASs. Can You help me in this?

IAS and TAS are greatly different things, as a rule of thumb, decrease TAS vs. IAS by 10% for every 1500m altitude, but that`s pretty rough....

If you refer to here : http://www.pbase.com/isegrim/image/5288901, you`ll see how it works. Ie. you noted 750 kph IAS for 0-4 km altitude, where the G-2 would obtain only 492-525 kph in level flight. I also believe Mtt was quite conservative in his limiations, for the known Lukas Schmidt dive reached something like 890 kph TAS on a 109F without trouble, and they dared 906 after limiting aileron deflection, which isn`t really structural but compressibilty related with the Frise ailerons.

Results plotted vs. limitations :

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/7...divelimits.jpg

As for the 109K, the diving limitations were increased over the 109G to 850 kph or 527 mph. That`s a pretty high figure imho even for 1945. The limitations are given in the 109K handbuch, 850 kph TAS at SL w. or w/o gondolas, and 800kph TAS at 10 kph - the 109K had altitude compensating speed gauge with two, TAS and IAS needles, and the limit was given in TAS.

Re: Question about Bf 109K-4
 

Wunderbar Kurfürst

I'll will try to take a passable photo on the DB 605 page(s ) but not on whole article for not to breach too badly the writer's copyright. And I'll give the bibliobraphic data also. please give me day or two for doing that.

What is the source of the most interesting table? I knew the max. Mach number reached from one of my friends but haven't see the table before.

Why was it possible to increase the diving limitation so much for K? I cannot recall any significant reinforcement of structures in K when compared to G. But my knowledge on K is pretty limited.

Juha

Re: Question about Bf 109K-4
 

Thanks. You can find the report on the 109lair, I think along the tail unit changes stuff, but if not, I can email you.

As for why the change, I don`t know, perhaps because the undercarriage was to be fully retractable and covered on the 109K. Dive limits are more of a function of aerodynamics, rather than raw structural strenght..
But there`s more conservatism involved imho than pure technical neccesity - it`s enough to look on the fact that all 109F and G models, despite quite a variaton between them aerodynamically, had exactly the same dive limits.