Author Topic: Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level  (Read 5082 times)

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level
« Reply #105 on: October 14, 2004, 06:22:01 PM »
Hi Meyer,

>@Hohun: The cover of the engine, the G-14 with the AM engine have the bulges for the MG131 (just like the G-6), and the G-14/AS have the bigger cover just like the G-10 or K-4.

Roger that, but I thought the bigger AS cover was supposed to be superior to the bulges aerodynamically.

>I'm not sure if "cover" is the right word, my english is terrible :)

Not that I'm a native speaker, but I believe "engine cover" is correct :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level
« Reply #106 on: October 14, 2004, 06:28:44 PM »
The difference in speed is obviously due to the different engines and their altitude optimization settings.    

Note how the G14/ASM makes its best speed of 680km/h at 7.5km alt while the G14/U4 makes its best speed at only 5km alt.

The G14ASM  has a cleaner engine cover (the exact word is "cowl") and if had the same low altitude optimized engine as the  G14/U4 it would be faster at low level beacause of its clean cowl.

Offline Meyer

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 156
Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level
« Reply #107 on: October 14, 2004, 07:05:22 PM »
Cowl, i knew it :D

Thx ;)

Offline Meyer

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 156
Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level
« Reply #108 on: October 14, 2004, 07:23:09 PM »
>Note that similar powers are given for both engines at sea level, but I think it's a bit doubtful this is correct since the larger AS-type supercharger would have eaten a bit more power than the standard one.

Perhaps that deficit was compensated by running at higher MP? Anyone knows what was the MP for the AM and AS at 1800ps? ( i guess 1.7ATA?).

And the AS versions had the same propeller than the AM ones? If were different could explain this issue.

Finally, about the cowling, i agree that the AS/D looks cleaner, but also had a larger wet area. But i can only speculate on that :)

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level
« Reply #109 on: October 14, 2004, 07:23:17 PM »
Hohun,

I am not showing any deliveries of the G14 until July of '44.

Are you sure the order was not given in June for production for the month of June.  Those A/C sould have been delived in July.

Crumpp

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level
« Reply #110 on: October 15, 2004, 01:57:49 AM »
Hi Meyer,

>And the AS versions had the same propeller than the AM ones? If were different could explain this issue.

No, the G-14/AS has a different one than the G-14/U4 according to the overview. However, the K-4 has the same one as the G-14/AS and doesn't seem to suffer from a low-altitude speed penalty either, so I'm not sure this makes a difference.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level
« Reply #111 on: October 15, 2004, 02:31:13 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Meyer,

>And the AS versions had the same propeller than the AM ones? If were different could explain this issue.

No, the G-14/AS has a different one than the G-14/U4 according to the overview. However, the K-4 has the same one as the G-14/AS and doesn't seem to suffer from a low-altitude speed penalty either, so I'm not sure this makes a difference.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


Guys the speed difference comes from the engine, the DB605ASM of the G14/AS is optimized for high alt and its big suercharger eats some hp. The DB605AM of G14/U4 is for low medium.

And since the DB605D of the K4 is entirely different from either of the A series, even from the ASM,  it has its own set of characterisics.

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level
« Reply #112 on: October 15, 2004, 02:45:29 AM »
The AS (G-6/AS and G-14/AS) had the supercharger from a DB603A which gave better performance at altitude.  Being 'optimized' (right word?) for higher altitude it gave up some sl speed.

These aircraft were better against the western allies.

The difference in the K-4 and G-10 and G-6/AS and G-14/AS is the the DB605D vrs the DB605A.

Even then the the G-10 with MW-50 (DB605D engine) reached  562 km/h @ 1.75 ata.

The G-14 with MW-50 (DB605AM engine) reached 568 km/h @ 1.70 ata but a lower 'best alt'.

See Isegrim's post above to compare the standard 'late' G-6 with the G-6/AS. At SL the AS is slightly slower.

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level
« Reply #113 on: October 15, 2004, 04:31:29 AM »
The one Bf109 I wonder about now is the G10.

The Erla factory came up with a new G10 that differed from the standard model in featuring enhanced aerodynamics.  This model eliminated the DB605D chin bulges and their big draggy gaps, it had a new lower profile oil cooler,a cleaner squared off fairing in the back of the cowl, and a new air intake.

Because its new lower cowl lacks the tradional DB605D chin bulges, this  model is sometimes confused as a Bf109G10/AS  but in fact an AS G10 seems not to have existed.  

So these were all out DB605D machines and I wondfer how much these aredynamic improvements helped with speed..

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level
« Reply #114 on: October 15, 2004, 12:39:10 PM »
Meyer,

AM and ASM engines run on the same MAP, 1.7ata, for the same output, 1800 PS @ SL. Early DM engines run at 1.75ata for 1800 PS, but most were DB or DC config, for 1.8ata or 1.9ata or 1.98ata, ranging from 1850 to 2000 PS. Keep in mind AS ones were little more than 605As with a 603G compressor built into them, the D engines were rather different in many aspects. As for the appearance of MW50 and large compressors, both were in action by April 1944, these planes being factory modified earlier planes to new standards, G-5s and G-6s. AFAIK Mtt was seriously toying with MW 50 in the last months of 1943, so probably it took a few months to get the results on the fronts. As for the Dora`s, they required B-4 fuel, unlike the 190As, so if there was specific shortage of C-3, which I am sceptical about, it wasn`t because of the Doras, but the Antons.


I am 99% certain the lower speed on the high alt AS and D engines are not from the larger compressor, the table clearly tells the very same power output, 1740 PS yields different results. Certainly not becuase the MK 108 installation, I doubt anybody would notice that mere 36 kg extra weight that came with it, both gun and ammo weight .. The larger propellor blades of the AS/D engines, designed to grab thin air of high alts, but creating more drag than neccesary at low alts (propellors work much like wings, more area = more drag). Other factors are the different cowling, here the AS/D ones with the Type 100 and Type 110 (the latter being w/o D engine`s bulges, found on some Erla G-10s only) has a decided advantage over the older 13mm HMG bulge featuring cowling.. but there`s also the if it`s long or short tailwheel, both could be found on both versions, and were rather influental on the final speeds, hence most of the 109Ks speed advantage over the G-10.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level
« Reply #115 on: October 15, 2004, 01:52:53 PM »
Quote
As for the Dora`s, they required B-4 fuel, unlike the 190As, so if there was specific shortage of C-3, which I am sceptical about, it wasn`t because of the Doras, but the Antons.


The Dora's could use C3.  It's not only listed on the flight test graph but in the Flugzeug-handbuch.

Crumpp

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level
« Reply #116 on: October 15, 2004, 02:03:55 PM »
When did you final accept that Crump? I remember that other thread where you screamed and hollered that there was no evidence the the Dora could use C3.

In that same thread Niklas gave a reasonable answer to why B4+MW50 was used.

page 2 in Niklas' response...

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118314&highlight=fuel

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level
« Reply #117 on: October 15, 2004, 02:22:38 PM »
Quote
When did you final accept that Crump? I remember that other thread where you screamed and hollered that there was no evidence the the Dora could use C3.


When I came across flight test data and fuel reports.  Actual Luftwaffe documentation.

The Dora could use C3 "if Necessary".

   
Quote
Well there you have it. "If necessary" you could use C3 in the Jumo 213A. I am very skeptical about huge performance gains with it. If it was the "best" performing fuel to run in the motor then it would have been the recommended fuel IMO. In fact "C3" was the more common late war fuel that Germany produced. "B4" was not the priority fuel for production. It would have been easier I imagine to get "C3".


I was wrong about the performance gains.  At low altitude the Dora gained quite a bit of performance.  In light of these performance gains, it is only common sense the pilots would have wanted to use C3 when available.




Crumpp
« Last Edit: October 15, 2004, 05:28:38 PM by Crumpp »

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level
« Reply #118 on: October 15, 2004, 02:25:03 PM »
Well, data is coming in at a nice pace....:)
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level
« Reply #119 on: October 16, 2004, 11:45:28 AM »
Dora Climb rate:



Crumpp