Author Topic: 109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)  (Read 28279 times)

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #270 on: November 12, 2003, 11:20:47 AM »
Isegram,

When your wrong do you just make things ups?

I have an entire German document on specific fuel consumption of DB605 with specific engine data. I have many original German docs.

It is no bluff. I can post the entire doc or do a capture of the page.

How exactly is a P-51D going to run out of fuel in 10 Minutes regardless of power setting? You are WRONG!!

Also in a sustained turn if you are not pulling beyond the max intantanious ability of the aircraft then you are accelerating. The aircraft withthe lower stall speed will always have this advantage.

The 109K had very high wingloading and a higher stall than the P-51. You posted some Cl max numbers in this thread that are bogus. Why don't you pull that document out if you have it. Why don't you provide some 109K stall speeds out.

BTW I have the JG26 War diaries in which a German pilot describes his 109K4 as being impossible to maneuever at 350MPH and loosing most of the panels on the cowl after exceeding 466MPH IAS.

And just to show how wrong you are at a glance here is some data from the doc I have.

DB605L with C3 and MW50

1700PS
1.75 ATA
C-3 = 520L/HR
MW-50=150L/HR

DB 605 AM-BM C-3 and MW-50
1800PS
1.7 ATA
560 L/HR C3= 148 Gallons per Hour
150 L/H MW-50

So how much C-3 did the 109K carry? At 1.98ATA what would be the consumption be?

Why don't you tell me how long your 109K can really perform at the numbers you want to show and are so proud of?

Basically your 109K is a rocket for about 10 minutes and then it becomes very average.

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #271 on: November 12, 2003, 11:47:53 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Isegram,

When your wrong do you just make things ups?


I don`t, you do.


I have an entire German document on specific fuel consumption of DB605 with specific engine data. I have many original German docs.

You said you have consumtion data for K-4`s DB 605 D. Post it.



It is no bluff. I can post the entire doc or do a capture of the page.

OK, do it.

How exactly is a P-51D going to run out of fuel in 10 Minutes regardless of power setting? You are WRONG!!

I can`t be wrong in a statement I haven`t made. You fight your own windmills (that`s refers to an old novel you know).

Also in a sustained turn if you are not pulling beyond the max intantanious ability of the aircraft then you are accelerating. The aircraft withthe lower stall speed will always have this advantage.

Good, you are almost there. As you told, in sustained turn, acceleration = 0.

Which aircraft will have more reserves in acceleration, one with 3.3 fps acc rate, or one with 6.85 fps acceleration rate ?

The 109K had very high wingloading and a higher stall than the P-51.

You still need to produce stall speed numbers for P-51D and K-4 respectively to prove that.


You posted some Cl max numbers in this thread that are bogus.

I didn`t post CLmax numbers, just the simple fact that planes with LES have higher CL, especially if we speak vs. laminar flow wings w/o because of undisturbed airflow.

What do you think caused harsh stall characteristics in P-51 ? High CLmax values ?


Why don't you pull that document out if you have it. Why don't you provide some 109K stall speeds out.

I don`t have for K, just for other models.

BTW I have the JG26 War diaries in which a German pilot describes his 109K4 as being impossible to maneuever at 350MPH and loosing most of the panels on the cowl after exceeding 466MPH IAS.

Good, if it was impossible to manouver how the pilot lived to tell about it ?


I have dive test of 109s which pulled out from vertical dive at .805 Mach speed and within 1000m altitude he was straight and level.



And just to show how wrong you are at a glance here is some data from the doc I have.

DB605L with C3 and MW50

1700PS
1.75 ATA
C-3 = 520L/HR
MW-50=150L/HR

DB 605 AM-BM C-3 and MW-50
1800PS
1.7 ATA
560 L/HR C3= 148 Gallons per Hour
150 L/H MW-50



Good, these show extremely low consumption for the DB 605s, as I said.

So how much C-3 did the 109K carry?

400 liters of C-3 internally. :rofl

At 1.98ATA what would be the consumption be?

About 620 lit/h.

Why don't you tell me how long your 109K can really perform at the numbers you want to show and are so proud of?

I already told you. The K-4`s manual tells that WEP can be used for a total of 26 minutes, 10 minute at a time with 5 min intervals allowed

Basically your 109K is a rocket for about 10 minutes and then it becomes very average.

No, for 26 mins, ten minutes at a time. And after 26 mins, it`s time to return to base anyway.

Oh..Try to look up what C-3 really is... :cool
« Last Edit: November 12, 2003, 11:51:11 AM by VO101_Isegrim »

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #272 on: November 12, 2003, 12:48:46 PM »
Hi everyone,

Having been away for two days I'm unable to catch up with the thread now.

There's one thing I'd like to point out though: After the re-design that occurred with the Friedrich, the Me 109 fully employed the Meredith effect. It's radiator had boundary layer separation with separate discharge, a continously adjustable intake and a continously adjustable outlet that was automatically regulated to create thrust. That's the same degree of sophistication as found on the Mustang.

The thermodynamic effect of the engine cooling was well-known in the 1920s and 1930s and in fact had been first pointed out by Hugo Junkers in 1915 when he acquired a patent for the "Düsenkühler" ('jet radiator').

Thermodynamics probably were the most advanced science in the late 19th/early 20th century due to their tremendous economical value in a society that based its wealth primarily on steam engines. The "Meredith" effect probably was painfully obvious to Junkers, who included it right in the first aircraft he ever built.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline Neil Stirling1

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 105
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #273 on: November 12, 2003, 02:58:13 PM »
Thanks for the chart Adam. I would just like to say that I do rate the 109K4 and would place it in the same WW2 league as (in no particular order) the FW190 D9, La7, Spitfire XIV, Tempest V, Merlin Mustang, KI.84 and F4U-4.

Neil.

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #274 on: November 12, 2003, 03:56:38 PM »
HoHun,
So, was there boundary layer separation in the radiators of the Bf 109G and K? I believe you know the answer as well as me...

gripen

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #275 on: November 12, 2003, 04:03:24 PM »
Isegirl,

When your wrong do you just make things ups?

Yes you do.

You said you have consumtion data for K-4`s DB 605 D. Post it.

Viola

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/Pages_from_DB605_varianten-2.pdf

Out of time right now but you look at that until I'm ready.

By the way C-3 is only 96 octane anyway. Who cares whats in it.

BTW how much MW50 is there??
« Last Edit: November 12, 2003, 04:09:54 PM by F4UDOA »

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #276 on: November 12, 2003, 05:41:24 PM »
Hi Gripen,

>So, was there boundary layer separation in the radiators of the Bf 109G and K? I believe you know the answer as well as me...

What I meant to say: The Me 109's radiators had seperate ducts for the turbulent boundary layer air.

Other than my mis-formulation, I don't know what you're aiming at. I'm open for new information though :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline Grendel

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
      • http://www.compart.fi/icebreakers
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #277 on: November 12, 2003, 06:21:41 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by F4UDOA

BTW I have the JG26 War diaries in which a German pilot describes his 109K4 as being impossible to maneuever at 350MPH and loosing most of the panels on the cowl after exceeding 466MPH IAS.



And your point? 109s dived regularly with 750-850-900 km/h speeds. The plane was well built and could bear the huge stress. It was question of the pilot if he could get it level early enough, though.

You'll find several examples of 109 high speed dives from my interviews, for example:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/

They did it and they lived to tell about those.

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #278 on: November 12, 2003, 07:41:07 PM »
Nice document F4UDOA, too bad you obviously can't read it! LOL! That document doesn't even state the fuel consumption on max power, and I bet you can't even work out the numbers! However the document is dated 1944 and with a DB605 rated at 2000PS, that at least was important.

C-3 is just what the LW called its 96 octane avgas you DOLT! And when using MW50 boost the DB used LESS fuel than at max cruise.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
Re: P-51D dive vs. earlier models
« Reply #279 on: November 12, 2003, 07:42:28 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Something of interest I found a while ago :

American pilot Robert C.Curtis remembers :

"My flight chased 12 109s south of Vienna. They climbed and we followed, unable to close on them. At 38,000 feet I fired a long burst at one of them from at least a 1000 yards, and saw some strikes. It rolled over and dived and I followed but soon reached compressibility with severe buffeting of the tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane and regained control, but the 109 got away.
On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51d could not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 it often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes. The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought on compressibility at lower speeds"


It seems that Curtis was probably scared to dive the P-51. His "redline" figure applies only to altitudes below 9,000 feet. In point of fact, the P-51D was placarded at 300 mph IAS (539 mph) at 35,000 feet. That's Mach .81 and that ain't slow. Jack Ilfrey, who was decidedly not shy about pushing the P-51D reported seeing speeds in excess of 550 mph at just 5,000 feet chasing a 109, which he caught.

Also, Curtis was wrong about the wing thickness and his understanding that this and the bubble canopy induced compressibility at lower speeds than the P-51B. What did happen was as described by Sid Woods, a double ace.

"The D model was placarded at 300 mph IAS (539 mph TAS, Mach 0.81) at 35,000 ft. In a dive, the P-51D was such an aerodynamically clean design that it could quickly enter compressibility if the dive was continued (in reality, a pilot could, as a rule, catch any German plane before compressibility became a problem). But, say, in an evasive dive to escape, as the P-51's speed in the dive increased, it started skidding beyond what the pilot could control (this could be a problem in a dive onto a much lower-flying plane or ground target--couldn't keep the plane tracking on the target if speed was too high). As compressibility was entered, it would start rolling and pitching and the whole plane would begin to vibrate. This began about Mach 0.72. The pilot could maintain control to above Mach 0.80 (stateside tests said 0.83 (605 mph) was max safe speed--but structural damage to the aircraft would result). The P-51's quirk that could catch the uprepared service pilot by surprise was that as airspeed built up over 450 mph, the plane would start to get very nose heavy. It needed to be trimmed tail heavy before the dive if speeds over 400 mph were anticipated."

Since Curtis was flying over Vienna, he was likely flying with the 15th AF out of Italy. In all likelihood, they had just transitioned from the P-38J... And that plane made many pilots afraid to get into a high speed dive.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline dtango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #280 on: November 12, 2003, 07:55:44 PM »
Hi HonHun:

Thanks for clarifying the understandnig of Meredith Effect by the various designers around the world.  I hope it didn't come across from me that only the P-51 employed Meredith Effect.  The question I think is how well they were able to employ it.  

From what I understand the Bf109F and later models used a "boundary layer bypass duct which significantly improved pressure recovery at the radiator face."  [Lednicer, Aeronautical Journal June/July 1995]

I think all this is pretty interesting from a point by point design perspective but in the final analysis all these factors are embedded in the flight performance of each a/c and hope this is not lost on everyone reading! :)

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
Tango / Tango412 412th FS Braunco Mustangs
"At times it seems like people think they can chuck bunch of anecdotes into some converter which comes up with the flight model." (Wmaker)

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
Re: Bf 109 radiator
« Reply #281 on: November 12, 2003, 07:56:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
I think the article you refer to is Hoerners, however it was shown the basic data he uses is "highly questionable" (=dead wrong), he gives way lower max. speed and an insane (100%) powerplant effiecy.

As regards to the "109 did not use Meredith effect, did not have boundary layer splitters" etc.

Meredith effect was nothing of unusual to be used in WW2 fighter radiators. Even the Spit enjoyed this effect, also Yakovlevs etc, AND the Bf 109. In fact the Bf 109F`s radiators were designed to take maximum advantage of it.

To qoute the relevant part from the Wright Field evaluation of Bf 109 F:

"Each flap is divided in two sections : the outer section is a modified split arrangement serving the additional purpose of controlling the airflow through the internally mounted wing radiators. At the front edge of the radiator is a hinged plate, linked with the trailing edge flaps to open with them. This plate picks up the boundary layer on the underside of the wing, and discharges it on the trailing edge. This form of boundary layer control causes smoother flow  through the radiator, thereby reducing the area for proper cooling".

In other words : the same principle as on the Mustang. Also, oil cooler on 109 worked the same way.

Also of interest :

"The Messerscmitt fusalge is remarkably clear and bulletlike.  The engine is compactly mounted in the nose and enclosed by easily removeable cowling. Proturbulances that mar the clean lines are cut to the minimum by partially submerging the coolant radiators in the wing."


This is all fine and dandy, but nothing here even hints at the Merideth Effect, nor does it refer to boundary layer splitters on the INLET of the ducting, where turbulance creates the most drag.

How about defining the principle of the Merideth Effect and how the 109's radiator ducting employs it. But before you do so, you should read Lee Attwood's comments which can be found by using the link DTango provided earlier in the thread.

Cutting to the chase, no Luftwaffe fighter used the Merideth Effect radiators even remotely as efficient as that designed by the North American team, period. End of discussion.

My regards,

Widewing
« Last Edit: November 12, 2003, 08:04:31 PM by Widewing »
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #282 on: November 12, 2003, 08:03:21 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by dtango
Hi HonHun:


From what I understand the Bf109F and later models used a "boundary layer bypass duct which significantly improved pressure recovery at the radiator face."  [Lednicer, Aeronautical Journal June/July 1995]

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs


Pressure recovery radiator designs were around since the 1920s. However, none came even close in efficiency to the design employed by North American Aviation. Was not the 109's boundary layer bypass effective only on the outlet side of the radiator, with the inlet actually in the boundary layer? I believe it was.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #283 on: November 12, 2003, 08:33:41 PM »
Gshultz,

Actually that is one page of the document. It shows fuel consumption on the other pages. I only posted it to show your nimrod butt buddy that I had something he doesn't obviously.

BTW Isagirl is the one who wants to play "guess whats in the fuel". I could care less as I said before. By 1945 the allies were using 150 octane so why should I care if 109's had 96 octane fuel?

Offline mold

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 305
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #284 on: November 12, 2003, 09:10:36 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Isagirl


This is really quite unbelievable.  I hope the average maturity level in AH is a little higher than this.

Quote
Originally posted by F4UDOA
is the one who wants to play "guess whats in the fuel". I could care less as I said before. By 1945 the allies were using 150 octane so why should I care if 109's had 96 octane fuel?


Indeed.  You don't care.  Except that until you did a google search today you thought "C-3" meant "nitrous", and you posted those fuel consumption numbers above thinking that you could one-up your antagonists by claiming the DB engine used up too much "C-3" resulting in a limited WEP time.  Little recking that the figures you posted actually demonstrate the superior efficiency of the DB motor, which produces similar power to the Merlin with less fuel (even counting MW50 consumption).

This discussion is actually becoming quite interesting, aside from your raving.  Let it go.