So what's the difference between G10 and the 109K?

[Grits]

Its none of my business, but how do any of you guys have time to fly AH when your putting these book length posts up to the BBS about esoteric (and meaningless inrelation to AH) aircraft tid-bits?

[butch2k]

Never said i was an AH flyer hehehe

[Batz]

Originally posted by Grits
Its none of my business, but how do any of you guys have time to fly AH when your putting these book length posts up to the BBS about esoteric (and meaningless inrelation to AH) aircraft tid-bits?

Not everyone who has an interest in ww2 aircraft has an interest in AH. This being the Aircraft and Vehicle forum it doesn’t necessarily mean "Aircraft of AH".

[Nashwan]

The 109G10/K4 were introduced in October/November 1944, but probably were not cleared for 1.98 ata boost until February 1945. Running on B4+MW50 the 109G10/K4 developed 1800 PS. Running on C3+MW50 it developed 2000 PS. Only a few 109 gruppen got C3 fuel, most likely those gruppen tasked with high altitude combat against US planes in the defence of the Reich in addition to a very limited number of other units (like those Butch2k mentioned in Luftflotte 6). The other 109 units had to rely on B4 fuel.

Now can we all agree on this?

I certainly can.

The Italian air force is not the German air force. You can't assume fuel deliveries were of the same type for the two air forces.

Isegrim, why are you ignoring what butch is saying?

Just to recap:

But yes the C3 was definitely scarce.

Butch is obviously constrained in what he can say, so I don't think it's fair to keep pushing the same line all the time, trying to get more info out of him. For that reason, I'll leave the issue of the use and availability of C3 there. I think the issues have already been answered by butch very well.

You given only partial information regarding the date, which leads to a false image of the reality, unless corrected.

No, it's amnual that says December edition, which is what I said. It actually says it's authoratative on the 29th December, but I didn't put the exact date, the end of December, even though it supports my case more. Perhaps you would rather I'd google translated and posted the whole thing?

I doubt that you could not really get that a re-print of an old manual is still just a re-print.

It's not a simple reprint because the first part of the text inside the manual is seperately dated and "signed" 29th Dec 44.

I don`t I just repeat the engine manual of November/December, which plainly says it was cleared to.

Again I think butch has already addressed this. If you won't listen to him telling you the information, what's the point in me repeating it?

Good, so since in 1942/43 the Spit IX with a specificwas not cleared for more than 15 lbs, it means it never was, not even it`s other engined variants.

Isegrim, where have I said that? I said the December edition of the K4 manual had a boost guage that only went to 1.8ata, but I also repeated what butch said that 1.98 was cleared later. I'm not the one contending that because it wasn't cleared in December, it was never cleared. It's you that's doing that saying because the Spit XIV wasn't cleared for 25 lbs in the summe of 44 it wasn't cleared for it in 45.

What's sad, Isegrim, is that you are displaying the faults you are accusing me of, I am not.

You only forget one thing : answering the question..
From where did you take it was cleared for service when it entered service ?

To repeat from the order banning 1.42 ata. To repeat myself, since you either haven't read, or haven't grasped it, the first time:

From the order banning the use of 1.42ata, which says that a number of cases of breakdowns have occured.

It's also an order banning the use of 1.42ata, which would hardly be neccessary if the information sent to the pilots had told them that 1.3 was the max anyway. I mean, if they'd been told 1.3 was the maximum, why send them another instruction saying 1.42 can't be used?

To directly quote the order:

Modifications to be carried out by the troops in case of aircraft already supplied

Isegrim, you don't seem to understand the point. The 109G2 was supposed to use 1.42 ata.

According to you. Proof...? No...

Again, see Butch's post on this subject. I have quoted the order banning 1.42 ata to you in full in the past, and large parts of it here, and I know you have seen it yourself.

No, the Merlin III was designed for 6.25 lbs, and had it's rating increased to 12 lbs in service. Can you find some documents showing it was originally intended for 12 lbs boost?

I didn`t say it was originally intended. It was intended later on, and the attempt had to be recalled becuse of engines that failed.

But the attempt wasn't recalled, was it? The official instructions for the Spit I say 12 lbs boost can be used. Do you have any evidence of instructions banning it? No, I thought not. The only instructions are Dowding warning pilots not to use it for longer than is specified in the manual.

= Merlin 61 engines failed to increase boost rates because of technical problems.

WTF are you talking about? We were discussing the fact that several German engines were derated, which provisdes precedence to the decision to do the same to the DB in the K4, if it was ever rated at 1.98 before March 45. WTF are you talking about the Merlin 61 for, which didn't have it's rating changed at any time, as far as I can see, and only served for 6 - 9 months before being replaced by a new model.

Show me those references of them being downrated. Show me a reference that explicitely say the G-2 is downrated. So far you have come up with NONE, just parrot it.

Technical Sheet issued by the Quartermaster General (Air Equipment)

Berlin, 18th June, 1942

Subject: DB 605 engine in the Me 109 G

The takeoff and emergency output with a boost pressure of 1.42 ata may not at present be used.

I am especially interested for the FW 190 A-4 at 1.45 ata. Never heard of such boost cleared for the BMW 801D.

Sorry, typo of 1.42 ata.

 Besides, in case of the FW 190A-3 and A-4, the problem was not with the engine, but with the airframe (the new BMW engine generated more power and heat than the engine mount was designed to handle. ) The solution was modifing the airframe to allow for better cooling, not the engine.

So you accept it was derated in service? It hardly matters if it was derated because of engine troubles or airframe troubles (although I think Willaume mentioned that it was derated until the exhaust was chromed). It was still derated, which is futher precedence for the K4.

The British attempted the use +12 lbs as a WEP. It overstressed the engine greatly, and it`s use has to be restricted to emergency use only.

Isegrim, do you understand what WEP stands for? It's War Emergency Power.

Read what you have written again:

The British attempted the use +12 lbs as a War Emergency Power. It overstressed the engine greatly, and it`s use has to be restricted to emergency use only

They intended it for emergency use and it had to be restricted to emergency use only?

Another : Griffon 65. They attempted +25 lbs with 150 Octane in early summer 1944. Sever main bearing troubles occured, then engine was again DOWNRATED to +21 lbs.

I asked you before, I'll ask again, when was the Griffon 65 rated at 25lbs boost? Note, testing something and then not using it is not derating. De rating is approving something then changin your mind afterwards.

All this is once again you attempting to change the point. We were discussing wether the 109K4 ran at 1.98 as early as December, and you claiming the manual proved it, me saying even if the manual said 1.98 in December, it wasn't proof that it wasn't downrated. As precedence, I showed several other German aircraft that were derated.

WTF do Spitfires have to do with that? If every Spitfire ever made was derated, how would that refute my argument about the K4? It has nothing to do with it.

It's simply the case that any implied criticism of the 109 and you have to find a different aircraft to attack. Sad, really.

All I can find, even in the earliest Spit tests, are references to lower boosts that get increased as the war progresses. The opposite is true of some German engines.

Rather laughable claim.

SOME engines, Isegrim. Some

[Angus]

The next from Isengard...errr,,,,Isengrim is that WW2 ending with allied victory is a lie!

[Grits]

Originally posted by Batz
Not everyone who has an interest in ww2 aircraft has an interest in AH. This being the Aircraft and Vehicle forum it doesn’t necessarily mean "Aircraft of AH".

Agreed. I find this stuff very interesting as I am an Historian (BA in History/Philosophy) and I recognize that some of folks here have done professional  quality work to go to primary sources for their information and not regurgitate it from some "pop" WWII book. It just never occured to me that some folks posting here were not AH players at some level.

Carry on.

[VO101_Isegrim]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Italian air force is not the German air force. You can't assume fuel deliveries were of the same type for the two air forces.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Keep repeating it, Nashwan. Repeat it 3 times, 4 times, 100 times, it`s still the same.

Let`s rehearse again :

The ANR was relying entirely on Germany supply. Whatever the Germans had, the Italians may also receive. Among them 3 K-4s from the OKL`s reserves, but that`s of tertiary importance right now. Whatever went to the Italians, was in fact taken from German units. Fact is that in 1945, the Italians were using LARGE amounts of C-3. This C-3 was, if you like, taken from the German units. It could go to the LW`s FW 190 units, but it went to Italy instead. Just C-3, not a gallon of B-4 in 1945. The Italian planes did not absolutely required it, most were 109s. The change of stocks show C-3 was used until it run out completely near the end of the war.

So, it still makes me wonder, if C-3 was so rare, so unique, that there were only 3 men in the whole wehrmacht who ever got in touch with it, why the lowly "spaghetties" received it instead of the highborn "aryans" ? (no offence meant, just being sarcastic)


Butch is obviously constrained in what he can say, so I don't think it's fair to keep pushing the same line all the time, trying to get more info out of him.

I definietely did not do that, I can`t remember asking him about C-3 availability any time here. However all what is available to me shows a more complex picture. I could be wrong, of course.


For that reason, I'll leave the issue of the use and availability of C3 there. I think the issues have already been answered by butch very well.

Fine with me. In any case, just as a sidenote, when my site will be finished, the entire problematic will be presented. All aspects. It will be shown that 1.98ata is cleared by the manual in Nov/Dec, but also that other evaluations point towards the spring of 1945. Not just selective qouting, no things like qouting 4 sentence from a 3 page report, no comparison of a Spit V carrying droptanks with a clean K-4 at 2.3ata unlike a certain site dealing with the performance a premiere Allied fighter of WW2.
Perhaps the example will be followed, though I have doutbts about that.



No, it's amnual that says December edition, which is what I said. It actually says it's authoratative on the 29th December, but I didn't put the exact date, the end of December, even though it supports my case more. Perhaps you would rather I'd google translated and posted the whole thing?


Nashwan, I don`t want to bother with your BS anymore. Don`t waste your time too much, you certainly won`t convince anyone. At least try to rebuild your crebility.

The manual you qouted shows the October 1944 conditions of an early K-4 with DB 605DM, which is a different engine from the later ones with DB/DC engines ?

Yes / No?


It's not a simple reprint because the first part of the text inside the manual is seperately dated and "signed" 29th Dec 44.

Yep, it`s signed end of December. So? It shows the October conditons. Not December.

It says : Stand Oktober 1944. Conditions of October 1944.



Again I think butch has already addressed this. If you won't listen to him telling you the information, what's the point in me repeating it?

I can`t remember he addressed this. I asked specifically just above about that. He pointed towards the 1945 evaluation, but did not give an explanation why the conflict between the engine manual, which says it was cleared, and the testing, which says it was cleared later on. Nota bene, I wouldn`t need to note this, hadn`t been your claim of his statements.

[VO101_Isegrim]

It's you that's doing that saying because the Spit XIV wasn't cleared for 25 lbs in the summe of 44 it wasn't cleared for it in 45.

A sidetrack, but for your notice, there is a summer 1944 test of a Spit 21 on MW`s site, with Griffon 61, the same series engine as the 65, different only in gear ratio. The max. boost allowed is still +21 lbs. Besides, Neil also said that the Griffon 61/65 line was not cleared for +25, only later models.




Again, see Butch's post on this subject. I have quoted the order banning 1.42 ata to you in full in the past, and large parts of it here, and I know you have seen it yourself.

You claimed the G-2 was derated after it saw service. Fact is, banning 1.42ata was in effect BEFORE any 109G saw any service.


WTF are you talking about? We were discussing the fact that several German engines were derated, which provisdes precedence to the decision to do the same to the DB in the K4, if it was ever rated at 1.98 before March 45.

Nashwan, we are not before some orthodox english court, where you have to dig up some stupid precedent from 1437 about somebody who stole a chicken to use it as a precedent to prove that your neighbour owns you now, in 2004, fourty pounds... or, in your style, WTF you want to prove with your "precedences", which are debated in the first place ? I don`t really get your thinking. "WTF" a derating in 1942 would ANYTHING to do with a different engine in 44/45 ?


WTF are you talking about the Merlin 61 for, which didn't have it's rating changed at any time, as far as I can see, and only served for 6 - 9 months before being replaced by a new model.

You brought up the engine derating matter, m8. I merely, and kindly, pointed out, it was nothing uncommon, nor a German "speciality", via examples of British engines that suffered from troubles and had to be derated in service, sometimes didn`t even got to be derated, as they could not be uprated in the first place.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show me those references of them being downrated. Show me a reference that explicitely say the G-2 is downrated. So far you have come up with NONE, just parrot it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Sheet issued by the Quartermaster General (Air Equipment)

Berlin, 18th June, 1942

Subject: DB 605 engine in the Me 109 G

The takeoff and emergency output with a boost pressure of 1.42 ata may not at present be used.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Great. Everthing is in place.

You have claimed the G-2 was derated after troubles in service. Basically your claim is that the G-2 arrived to the units with 1.42ata, then troubles occured, and was derated to 1.3ata. which you want to use a precedent to the K-4. Right? You made up some things about non-existent G-2 manuals, which you imply originally contained the 1.42ata (you did not press this line anymore, for it is clear to me, to you, and probably others you have never seen those manuals), again just to get a precedent.

To which I said, it is false, as the G-2 was not derated in service because of service troubles, simply because it arrived into service, just like all DB 605A engine Bf 109Gs AFTER the prohibition of use of 1.42ata for the DB 605A.

So the timeline being :

October, 1941 : first 109G prototypes (DB 601 engines)
18th June, 1942 : 1.42ata boost is banned (see above). [Enabled on the 8th June, 1943]
"End of June" 1942 : two pre-prod 109Gs starting their 100 hour testing with test unit EJGr. West.
June, 1942 : G-1 and G-2 production commences

June/July*, 1942 : First G-1 received by 11/JG 2
mid-July : I/JG 53 receives first G-2
7th July 1942 : First G-2 loss
11th July 1942 : First G-1 loss

*It appears that no G-1 was in service with the 11/JG 2 in June, only in July, according to Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen of 11./JG2, which shows the first 15 planes arrived from the factory to the unit in July, and there was 0 G-1s on the end of June. Possibly the planes arrived in last days of June, and were accepted into the ranks in the first days of July.

As according the Prien/Rodeike.


You can argue more if you want. Fact is the G-2 was not derated in service, it arrived into service with the boost limited to 1.3ata and was cleared to 1.42 a year later.




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Besides, in case of the FW 190A-3 and A-4, the problem was not with the engine, but with the airframe (the new BMW engine generated more power and heat than the engine mount was designed to handle. ) The solution was modifing the airframe to allow for better cooling, not the engine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So you accept it was derated in service?

No, it was limited in boost in certain airframes. There`s a difference.


It hardly matters if it was derated because of engine troubles or airframe troubles (although I think Willaume mentioned that it was derated until the exhaust was chromed). It was still derated, which is futher precedence for the K4.

No, it matters a LOT. You are trying to sell it as the ENGINE`s problem, which was not. They installed a new, hotter engine in place of the BMW 801C, and the installation could not provide the airflow neccesary for COOLING.

Thus your "precedence" for the BMW 801 is also invalid for "German engine troubles", as there was no trouble with the engine itself. In fact, the problem was it was too good for the given installation.


I asked you before, I'll ask again, when was the Griffon 65 rated at 25lbs boost?

Is it a typo or you just actually said you don`t know any example of a Griffon 65 ever rated at +25lbs boost?

Let`s praise the Lord, it only took 4 years for you to get that part.



All this is once again you attempting to change the point. We were discussing wether the 109K4 ran at 1.98 as early as December, and you claiming the manual proved it, me saying even if the manual said 1.98 in December, it wasn't proof that it wasn't downrated.

It is certainly isn`t a proof it was downrated. It is a proof it was uprated. Simple, isn`t it?

If you want to prove it was downrated later on, give me the specific order, like in case of the DB 605A.

As precedence, I showed several other German aircraft that were derated.

You showed two. In case of the BMW 801, it was proven false. In case of the G-2, it was proven false in the way you wanted to present it.
You showed two invalid precedence. (and pls, cut this freaking common law stuff about precences, it`s so weird to me. Give me proof, not f. precedences, analogies, whatever)


WTF do Spitfires have to do with that? If every Spitfire ever made was derated, how would that refute my argument about the K4? It has nothing to do with it.

That`s one step ahead in your way of thinking, which was the purpose of my examples regarding Spits and Merlins. Right, it has NOTHING to do with it. You have to answer the specific question, not just evading all the time and start to talk about the DB 605 A and BMW 801 instead of the 605 DB/DC.

It's simply the case that any implied criticism of the 109 and you have to find a different aircraft to attack. Sad, really.

Nope, it`s simple a way of proving your way of thinking wrong by applying your logic to other subjects. Tested on those, you yourself called your own logical approach faulty, as demonstrated above. The Spits were just ideal tools for that. I knew you would leave that without an answer.  

PS: Angie, what`s so fun is putting one line stupid comments in a thread ? You show similiar symptonyms as a certain pet of mine.

[straffo]

Originally posted by butch2k
Never said i was an AH flyer hehehe

yeah ! Butchounet is a pusssy

pourrais tu me contacter stp ?

straffo@me109.net

[Angus]

Does the above boost discussion mean that most DB models gave more power than the same time Merlins?

[FBYeoman]

I have hard enough time coping with Me109G10, TA-152H, Me262, and Me163.  If they add a 109K-4 or the G-14 (is that correct?), then I'm demanding a P47M.  

Then watch, knowing my luck if HTC added the P47M, they would add in the Do335a, He162, and Ba349b just to ensure my P47M gets clobbered .

The reality is setting in, if they didn't bomb those factories making those V-1s, Me262s, Me163s, etc. the allies would have lost the war big time.  No allied plane comes close to matching the air superiority of those LW jets and fast high alt prop planes (not even the P47M, and that was the best the allies had, aside from the Tempest and Spit XIV).

I don't know what my cpid name would be in German, anybody know? LOL.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Angus
Does the above boost discussion mean that most DB models gave more power than the same time Merlins?

The DB and Merlin family of engines were fairly comparable in power. Early to mid war they would often change places as the "most powerful" engine of the two, but the difference in power were small. Late in the war the DBs were definitively more powerful, but the Germans achieved this by sacrificing engine life and sometimes risking more engine failures. The Merlin was still competitive, and almost as powerful if run on 150 octane fuel while being superior in reliability, which was more important to the Allies than the Germans since they fought over enemy territory.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by FBuzzard
I don't know what my cpid name would be in German, anybody know? LOL.

Mäusebussard.

[Angus]

Merlin and DB 601 compare IMHO very beautifully while Griffon is more on par with the 605. Both cases, the DB is a more volumous engine. RR seems to have been the more reliable if anything.
I'd really like to see this in a easy chart, understandable to the novice, but these threads always catch fire and become biased, so sometimes I don't know what to trust.
Well, Butch, HoHun and Gripen...but......

[GRUNHERZ]

DB603 is a proper Griffon counterpart.

601 and 605 are more in class of merlins.