Author Topic: Notes for Mk XIV / 109 K comparison article  (Read 1879 times)

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
Notes for Mk XIV / 109 K comparison article
« Reply #45 on: March 18, 2005, 05:43:59 AM »
"It was as much as they could, for they had been saving fuel and holding aircraft from ops in the preceeding weeks.
All is well documented."

You are the first one who documented this. Any idea how many sorties flown in December, Angus?
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Notes for Mk XIV / 109 K comparison article
« Reply #46 on: March 18, 2005, 05:53:24 AM »
Out of my head, no.
Honest answer :)

But really, the LW aimed at a maximum strike that morning, and the aircraft taking off was as close as they could get to full strength.

Knew an old RAF jock who flew escorts to Magdeburg, Berlin etc in 1944/45.
It was dead boring and cold.
On these long escorts he did not mention being intercepted, although I know he had a scruffle with 262's.

I would sell an organ to get a hand on his logbooks, but I guess I won't have to.....
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 MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Notes for Mk XIV / 109 K comparison article
« Reply #47 on: March 18, 2005, 09:20:57 AM »
From Butch's board

hi kurfürst
cool down a bit. we had some nice documents a time ago in the 109 research forum.
there i translated a some german stuff for butch.
here is a rough translation giving you some interesting points.

1.)Boost 1,8ata with B4 fuel
Reason for the meeting were the problems in “field” and at the serial production facility “Genshagen” because of the “white flame” effect during the use of the
Higher output. First it is shown by Hr. Dr. Scherenberg how the “white flame”
followed by burned pistons, develop. Because of the results of the engine knocking test the lower quality of the fuel is the main reason for the problems.
DB has allready solved the problem with adjusting the ignition timing by 5°(???) .
This allowes the use of “Sondernotleistung” and the 1.45 and 1.80ata settings.
But because of later ignition , 50PS are lost during the “Sondernotleistung”,
Where the 1,45 ata setting doesn’t lose power.
DB although mentions the problems with the bad fit of the valvesitrings or
the plug thread , that where reasons for the glow-ignition too. But because
of improovments in the production these failurs are said to be canceled.
All agreed and the decision was done, that all engines should get the new ignition time. The lose of power is not so critical. But, because of hints from DB (DaimlerBenz), there should be test flight with 5 planes within all alts, but especially above rated alt, to get knowledge about the power loose above rated alt.
END SHEET ONE
This will be done at II/JG11. It is asked, if the ignition timing can be set on old value
if better fuel quality is back. Answer is delayed till it is for sure that only better fuel is used, and if it is shown, that later ignition does have no influence on the planes perfromance. DB mentions that the later ignition point although is better for the plugs that have a thermal problem at all.
It is mentioned too, that the performance lose will be decrease with increasing engine run time , means with less oil lose. It indicates too, that new engines with less oil usage are better in performance than the ones with at first high usage and the lower usage of oil. From the troop should be taken 1 engine with 15-20h for oil consumption and performance tests to be done in Genshagen. Because the b4 fuel is mostly used in the east, the order for the new ignition point/time should get out asap by…

2.)1.98 boost with c3 fuel
the first report shows, that the test with the 1.9, and 1.98 boost had negative results.
Then a telegram from Rechlin was shown (they tested 4 engines) that criticized the
clearing of the Sondernotleistung by Gen. Ing. Paul direct from the company to A.Galland bevor sufficient tests were done. Rechlin although defend themselves, that
they did NOT give the new boost free for the Troop. (looks like some thought they did). DB on the other hand shows their positive test results for the 1.9 , 1.98 usage.
They say, that the clearance for the 1.98 boost was given with the same TAGL (?)
(think a kind of order) as the 1.8 ata boost was cleared..both on the same day!.
SHEET THREE

It was then decided (after hearing all the reports) than currently only II/JG11 should test the 1.98 boost and that the 1.9ata engine test should be finished when the engines failed. (so no more test after them). The JG should then only get 1.8 ata engine supplies. Heavy punnishment is threaten when this order is not followed. The 1.98 clearance decission may only come from department 4 of general staff.
It is suggested that some recon planes should be equiped with 1.98 boost. Decission was not done. To disburden the current 1.98 and 1.9 engines it is suggested to give them the new ignition time too. So, all engines flowen with the sondernotleistung will
Be set to the new ignition point/time.

The JG’s in field complain about the plug failurs. Especially in the last time the number of failurs increased. DB reports about improoved plug modells and better
quality control e.g. with x-ray controlling. Again DB points out that the cooling of the
109 is insufficient and wishes that the LW will solve this problem asap. This was mentioned by Gen.-Ing Paul and arrangements where done instandly.
DB points out that the performance of the “cell” (fuselage/wings) is extremely bad,
and even worser J. It makes no sense to increase the power output of the engine when on the other side the plane quality is decreasing dramatically. Is is reported that a coparison of a 109 with a mustang was arranged for Mr. Sauer, but he failed to come.
The result of the comparison was, spoken of produktion quality only, shocking for the 109.

SHEET FOUR
At the end of the meeting, from Mr. Dr. Scherenberg points out that DB allready is testing a boost up to 2.3ata (J). But it can be not juged in any way because of only a low test base at the moment.

greets
wastel

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Notes for Mk XIV / 109 K comparison article
« Reply #48 on: March 18, 2005, 10:42:40 AM »
Holy cow Milo.
Nice point about the boost clearings. I heard of this and mentioned some long time ago on the board, but got flogged to death by the messer boys ;)
Anyway, it was all about a 109 Pilot being rather disappointed with the engine life and quality of later 109's, they "burned out" rather fast, and there was not always the time and resources to keep them steady.
It was verbal, but I am in the position now to ask about this from first hand, so I'll do it and post.
(That is ATA/SQN/YEAR, but limited to maybe a squad or two to begin with)
Anyway, best of luck all
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 MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Notes for Mk XIV / 109 K comparison article
« Reply #49 on: March 18, 2005, 11:10:27 AM »
Angus,
you can get the german version here,  http://www.spitfireperformance.com/6730.zip

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
Notes for Mk XIV / 109 K comparison article
« Reply #50 on: March 18, 2005, 12:07:05 PM »
Old news, Milo right now is copycating stuff by wastel on butch`s board to look smart, and trying to incite some flames there as well. Pathetic as always.. I wonder how old are you milo, spending your whole day in such way..

This one is interesting :

"Because the b4 fuel is mostly used in the east, the order for the new ignition point/time should get out asap by… "

So much about shortage of C-3.
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Notes for Mk XIV / 109 K comparison article
« Reply #51 on: March 18, 2005, 02:06:25 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Old news, Milo right now is copycating stuff by wastel on butch`s board to look smart, and trying to incite some flames there as well. Pathetic as always.. I wonder how old are you milo, spending your whole day in such way..

This one is interesting :

"Because the b4 fuel is mostly used in the east, the order for the new ignition point/time should get out asap by… "

So much about shortage of C-3.


You do have a rather vivid imagination Barbi. :(

Now what is wrong in posting a translation of what is on MW's site? You in a snit because it shows that 1.98 is not so easy a conversion as you would like us all to believe?

How can you come to the conclusion there was no C3 shortage for nothing was said in the passage would indicate this? Remember that the 190 required C3. Are you saying that the 190 would sit on the ground because C3 went to 109 units? Sure, whatever you say.

"It is asked, if the ignition timing can be set on old value if better fuel quality is back."

This passage says the German fuel was crappy. You should talk to Crumpp about fuel quality.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Notes for Mk XIV / 109 K comparison article
« Reply #52 on: March 19, 2005, 11:06:35 AM »
If the LW had ample fuel to the war's end, say alone high quality fuel, why did they have to use oxen to pull aircraft around the ramps?

Really, never heard anything else than there were severe fuel shortage problems from late 44 onwards.
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)