Author Topic: 109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K) (Read 28847 times)

GScholz · « **Reply #285 on:** November 12, 2003, 09:57:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by F4UDOA
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.

Actually the fuel consumption numbers ARE on that page, however not for max power. I knew you couldn't read that.

Quote

Originally posted by F4UDOA
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?

LOL! C-3 is just FUEL ... F U E L!!!! PETROLEUM GASOLINE!!!! THERE IS NOTHING IN IT!!!

And for your information the allies 150 octane avgas was not natural 150 octane THEY USED FUEL ADDITIVES. Without the additives the allied avgas would be less than 100 octane too! I use 98 octane IN MY CAR for Jebus sake!

GScholz · « **Reply #286 on:** November 12, 2003, 10:02:04 PM »

Quote

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

Yes, but unfortunately there are a few "rotten apples" that have little social intelligence and little interest in both truth and civility.

dtango · « **Reply #287 on:** November 12, 2003, 10:41:10 PM »

Widewing:

Regarding the 109's boudary layer bypass - that's a good question that I'm unqualified to answer!

. Maybe HoHun or gripen can comment. I don't have any details.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

F4UDOA · « **Reply #288 on:** November 12, 2003, 10:44:53 PM »

Actually I have posted more real data on these webpages than you dweebs combined.

And no I don't speak German.

But at least I am bringing something to the table other than Gems like "dolt" and "how would a P51 fly back all the way from Germany".

How big was that MW50 tank again? Enough to fly how long?

I always find it amusing when Luftwaffles talk about civility:lol

GScholz · « **Reply #289 on:** November 12, 2003, 10:53:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim

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

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.

150 l/hr for 26 minutes = 65 litres.

It's not that you don't post relevant data F4UDOA, it's just that you're dishonest about it and generally unpleasant to debate with.

mold · « **Reply #290 on:** November 12, 2003, 11:08:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by F4UDOA
I always find it amusing when Luftwaffles talk about civility:lol

Oh really. Please, your humor is too subtle. Let's put this all the way on the table. What exactly do you find amusing?

gripen · « **Reply #291 on:** November 12, 2003, 11:10:14 PM »

dtango and HoHun,
Well, there was boundary layer splitter in the early Bf 109F but on later models radiator design was simplified and splitter was removed.

gripen

Batz · « **Reply #292 on:** November 12, 2003, 11:13:12 PM »

I have read where C3 fuel was the equivalent to 100/145 octane by allied standards.

Actually Hohun posted it in this thread

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100036

MW50 total = 26 min; 10 on 5 off

gripen · « **Reply #293 on:** November 13, 2003, 04:22:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Batz
I have read where C3 fuel was the equivalent to 100/145 octane by allied standards.

Well, see here or here.

Based on these reports it seems that C3 was by octane rating about 100/130 PN fuel and by aromatic content close 100/150 PN.

gripen

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #294 on:** November 13, 2003, 04:33:15 AM »

F4UDOA

You seem to be having the same arrogant dismissivie know it all attitide in this thread as you did in that other one and which got you in trouble with HiTech. It's possible you'll just write my comments off as a luftwaffle complaint or whatever but at least I wanted to let you know how I see it. Maybe you could be more effective in this argument if you monitored and controled your tone more effectively.

Batz · « **Reply #295 on:** November 13, 2003, 05:52:18 AM »

Thanks Gripen

The fischer-tropsch archive is what I was thinking off.

Here it is for F4U so he won't forget C3 is not nitros.

Quote

(The C-3 grade corresponded roughly to the U. S. grade 130 gasoline, although the octane number of C-3 was specified to be only 95 and its lean mixture performance was somewhat poorer.)

F4UDOA · « **Reply #296 on:** November 13, 2003, 08:00:50 AM »

All right geniouses, so I made a mistake. It's not like I sit up at night and read about fuel additives in the DB605.

Between GM-1, MW50 and C-3 I forgot which one was which.

I still don't care what's in C-3.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #297 on:** November 13, 2003, 08:02:29 AM »

Grunherz,

I did not fire shot until until fired upon. You should check the whole thread not just my post.

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #298 on:** November 13, 2003, 09:38:05 AM »

Thank you for everyone who made usueful contributions to this thread, especially to Neil, HoHun, dtango, Batz and Gscholtz. I think we all learned a lot. Personally, now I got more accurate performance figures for the P-51, and also some new information regarding upgraded C-3 fuel types.

Regarding the amount of WEP time on the K-4, it`s pilot`s manual says the WEP can be used for 10 minutes at a time, with 5 min intervals for cooldown, for a total of 26 mins. Amount of MW is given as 75 liters (tank had capacity of 115 liters, but for CG reasons it wasn`t completelty filled up with MW, being heavier than avgas). This is for early variant with DB 605DM engine with max. 1800PS at 1.75ata. According to the GLC charts, it was later filled to 85 liters, I believe with the introduction of the DC and it`s 2000 PS, which probalby resulted the increased 180 lit/h MW consumption.

All in all, WEP time on the methanol equipped messers was enough for about 30 min use, which means that practically for the whole duration of flight, when one taking into account avgas consumption and the need to save some for RTB as well. MW injection was only used during WEP performance, otherwise it was inactive (ie. for cruising).

The consumption figures that were given for DB 605 AM and L... the former was never used in K series, and anyway illusrates that the MW was enough for 30 mins (75 lits at 150lit/h).

DB 605 L was the single two stage engine in the DB 605 family to my knowladge, and because of the larger SC, consumption was somewhat more than in single stage models. However, I don`t think some of the people would be pleased if I would post curves with the K-14`s high altitude performance, which was equipped with this sort of engine in the end of the war. Suffice to say, the only WW2 plane that exceeded it`s climb performance above 7000m was the Ta152 H..

However, I must also comment on some posts which was posted by some who just cant put up with the facts... ie. the Meredith effect, Mustang wing thickness, and people who argue about things they don`t have the slightest clue on.

I think the mindset of some people can be the best illustrated by this single sentence :

"I still don't care what's in C-3."

Which, in my opinion translates to :

"I am dead primitive, it`s good for me this way, I will never change."

Thank you again.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #299 on:** November 13, 2003, 11:16:49 AM »

Show me the K14 data, is there speed data too? Does the chart also include the 4 blade prop performance?