Author Topic: inverted V engines (Read 976 times)

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #15 on:** July 31, 2004, 06:17:27 AM »

Lower trustline also means the engine profile will be more symmetrical. Since a/c fusalages are usually wider at the bottom than on the top. if you have the engine wide parts down, too, you can more easily do a symmetrical, pointy nose. If you look at the nose sections, it`s quite striking that inverted-Vee engined planes have a pointy, bulletlike nose, whereas the normal Vee engines always have one kind of a ship-bow, curving upwards, which is more disturbing to the airflow.

Crumpp · « **Reply #16 on:** July 31, 2004, 09:45:00 AM »

Quote

Why was the engine mount so tough?

The engine mounts on the 109 were tough BUT they were so large because they doubled as oil tanks. Later on additional oil tanks where added as the DB605 was adopted.

Crumpp

MiloMorai · « **Reply #17 on:** July 31, 2004, 12:27:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
The engine mounts on the 109 were tough BUT they were so large because they doubled as oil tanks. Later on additional oil tanks where added as the DB605 was adopted.

Crumpp

Photo of a 109 engine mount of a Bf 109E-1

from http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/4034/4034.htm

A drawing on pg 75 of the Radinger/Schick Bf109A-E book shows 'tube' (pipe) engine mounts.

A pic on pg 205 in the Prien/Rodieke 109 book of a G-6 shows 'channel' (flat plate with perpendicularl supprt webs as in the pic above) engine mounts.

Crumpp · « **Reply #18 on:** July 31, 2004, 12:51:52 PM »

Check out the left side mount Milo.

Crumpp

Crumpp · « **Reply #19 on:** July 31, 2004, 01:12:34 PM »

It's a hydraulic fluid not engine oil and it actually fits in between the triangular spaces. Those engine mounts were constructed of "electron", a magnesium alloy that was lighter than aluminum.

Reading the authors description it is inside the engine mount as he states. It is not "INSIDE" the engine mount. Seeing a picture of the left side mount it is clear.

Crumpp

MiloMorai · « **Reply #20 on:** July 31, 2004, 03:26:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
It's a hydraulic fluid not engine oil and it actually fits in between the triangular spaces. Those engine mounts were constructed of "electron", a magnesium alloy that was lighter than aluminum.

Reading the authors description it is inside the engine mount as he states. It is not "INSIDE" the engine mount. Seeing a picture of the left side mount it is clear.

Crumpp

That is an add-on aluminium tank. It is NOT part of the engine mount(bearer) structure. There is another tank below the front mounting point of the starboard and port side for coolant. The oil tank was mounted behind the spinner backing plate, around the gear reduction casing. One can see that the small tank bolted to the exterior of the port engine mount and fits into the triangular opening of a 109E on pg 96 of the Radinger/Schick Bf109A-E book. The engine mount does not double as an oil tank (your original words) but as a mounting place for the 'oil' tank.

To refresh your memory:

Originally posted by Crumpp
The engine mounts on the 109 were tough BUT they were so large because they doubled as oil tanks. Later on additional oil tanks where added as the DB605 was adopted.

Notice that the 109E mentioned, above used a DB601 engine. The mount is the same as in the pic posted earlier. NO doubling as an oil tank, which you claimed.

The A to D models used tube engine mounts(bearers). How would they double as oil tanks?

Where were these additional oil tanks added on later 109s?

Crumpp · « **Reply #21 on:** July 31, 2004, 05:43:21 PM »

Quote

That is an add-on aluminium tank. It is NOT part of the engine mount(bearer) structure.

That is EXACTLY what I said Milo in:

Quote

It's a hydraulic fluid not engine oil and it actually fits in between the triangular spaces.

Maybe I was not clear enough on that. Maybe I was not clear on the fact the text in the book is " The oil tank in the engine bearers" but the picture clearly shows a seperate tank bolted to the bearer that fit in the triangular space.

Thanks for clarifying it!

Crumpp

MiloMorai · « **Reply #22 on:** July 31, 2004, 06:11:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
That is EXACTLY what I said Milo in:

Maybe I was not clear enough on that. Maybe I was not clear on the fact the text in the book is " The oil tank in the engine bearers" but the picture clearly shows a seperate tank bolted to the bearer that fit in the triangular space.

Thanks for clarifying it!

Crumpp

No problem:) but find a better German to English translator.

Definately you were not very 'clear' with your erronious statement that:

"they were so large because they doubled as oil tanks[/i]",

ie. TOTALLY false statement.

Hydaulic oil is a more refined oil than lubricating oil but still an oil.

Crumpp · « **Reply #23 on:** July 31, 2004, 06:42:21 PM »

Hey milo,

The text was english. I can find a better translator. Too bad you can't find a better personality.

Crumpp

MiloMorai · « **Reply #24 on:** August 01, 2004, 04:46:19 AM »

Whatever crummp, it compliments yours.

If I had made such a bogus statement ("they doubled as oil tanks") I would have been man enough to say 'oops, sorry I am wrong. Here is a better description'. The operative words being 'oops' and 'wrong'

Now where were these additional 'oil' tanks added in 109s with DB605 engines.

Originally posted by Crumpp
The engine mounts on the 109 were tough BUT they were so large because they doubled as oil tanks. Later on additional oil tanks where added as the DB605 was adopted.

Here is a pic of BF109G, W.Nr 610937

and a G-10

Crumpp · « **Reply #25 on:** August 01, 2004, 07:59:53 AM »

Least I admit when I am wrong, Milo. I can't count the number the times you have been wrong and just slink off without a word.

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #26 on:** August 01, 2004, 08:20:36 AM »

Come on guys....

Anyway, nice pics.