Late Me 109 G & K engine settings

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus
Barbi, with the miles-pro-gallon you just gave POSTED, rhubarb missions over the lowlands are very easily possible without droptanks.

[/B]

Well let`s see, sources commonly give ca 6.5 miles per gallon at 220 mph very slow cruising for the Spit IX. 85x6.5= 552.

That would mean the Spit could go as far as 552 miles. Perhaps enough to reach the Lowlands, I didn`t check, but this aircraft does dogfight, does not warms up before takeoff, does not consumes fuel for the climb, and flies as a target drone at 220 mph.

Not exactly life-like or practical in war.

With the 109's "BETTER FUEL ECONOMY", missions from the coast of France to Scotland would have been possible.

[/B]

And indeed they were possible. There are many accounts from Spitfire pilots who intercepted 109s as far as Scapa Flow. OTOH, why would 109s regulary fly to Scotland, to bomb what? Sheep...? Highlanders...?

Then this one
"You do understand MW50 wasn't a fuel ?"
Well, it is carried, pumped into the engine together with the fuel, where it combusts/evaporates. It needs to be carried, one share of it is a burnable fluid, the other is water that turns to steam.
I'd say that qualifies [/B]

MW 50 was not fuel, it was a booster, used only for the highest powers with lower quality fuel.It was not injected below 1800 HP, therefore it didn`t matter if the MW tank was dry, the Bf 109s range was the same. In fact, the 109K could use it`s MW tank to store fuel to increase range by ca 25%

Well if the MW50 would have to do anything with range it would matter as consumption. But any 109 engine with 100 octane C-3 could give the same power without a drop of MW-50.  I don`t see how this can be compared to the huge consumptions of the Merlins. If the Merlin run half the fuel tank dry running at max power, it severly effected range. If the DB run half the MW tank dry running at max power, it didn`t effect range at all.

But if MW 50 is really a fuel, you are telling me the Bf 109 could took off with MW 50 only with the fuel tanks empty. Was that so, Angus? Or was it a booster liqued (used also on P-47, Corsair, Merlin powered Mustangs), that some like to look like fuel to make up for the fact the Merlin consumed 30-40% more fuel than the DB?

[Angus]

Barbi, checkmate!
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Angus
Barbi, with the miles-pro-gallon you just gave POSTED, rhubarb missions over the lowlands are very easily possible without droptanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well let`s see, sources commonly give ca 6.5 miles per gallon at 220 mph very slow cruising for the Spit IX. 85x6.5= 552.

That would mean the Spit could go as far as 552 miles. Perhaps enough to reach the Lowlands, I didn`t check, but this aircraft does dogfight, does not warms up before takeoff, does not consumes fuel for the climb, and flies as a target drone at 220 mph. "

Firstly, those missions were flown with Spit I's, II's and V's, which consume fuel at a slower rate than the Mk IX.
Secondly, climb is only a minute or so, - this was low level.
Thirdly, the distance is roughly 400 miles for the roundtrip.

Still doesn't explane why 109 were not spotted well north of London, the roundtrip from N-France to London is about 200 miles.
BTW, AFAIK the Mk  I and II did not carry droptanks. I have seen a LW kill claim well inside belgium for a Mk II.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Isegrim, read what it says, not what you want it to say.

"Cruising speed at ft 20,000
Most economical = mph 220
At maximum weak mixture power mph 360 @ 22000ft"

Further on it says:

"Range bomb load table", and gives a figure of 740 miles clean.

However, it doesn't say at what speed those range figures are achieved

You are assuming it's at most economical speed, based on the fact that it says 220mph is the most economical speed. But it also says maximum weak mixture cruise is 360 mph, and it doesn't say in the range table which cruise speed was used. It's just your assumption

I am not assuming anything, it`s just you who try to find an excuse when evidence shows up and prove you wrong. You are trying hard to discredit numerous RAF sources that show the Spit wasn`t the uber economic plane you want to desribe it.

IE.



It says, 740 miles, at 220 mph, just as I stated. Familiar? Same figures I told are for 220 miles per hour.

This document was already posted here, Nashwan seen it already a dozen times, but now he pretends he never heard of it.... laughable attitude. No wonder you have a reputation of a cheat. http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=126224

Should I add that 740 miles is still range only, not practically achievable in combat.


And let`s not forget about this nice document as well, again it refutes Nashwan`s claims.



It says : "The maximum still air range, including climb at this height (20 000 ft) is 450 miles (for the Spit IX)".



Now, I'll quote to you exactly what you said in your post a long time ago when you "revealed" that the 109 had longer range than commonly quoted:

"I guess I share these range tables for the Bf 109G (G-2 to be exact), since there`s so many misunderstandings about that in the literature (most books state high-speed cruise ranges only). "


You are prepared to accept most 109 figures are for high speed cruise, you will not accept the same for Spitfires even when presented with the test that confirms it

As for 109s range presented in the literature, the common number is 560 km or so. It can be exactly confirmed from German GLC charts, that 560 km/h is given for the G-6 versions at Dauerleistung, or maximum cruise, at 595 km/h/370mph cruising speed.

You claim that the range put in the literature for Spitfires are for high speed cruise only, but you presented nothing apart from a your own twisted out version of a chart, and that is proven totally wrong by other charts that confirm the range presented there is for 220 mph most economic cruise foir the Spit.


That's just blinkered, and it explains why people dismiss what you have to say. You will only accept evidence that favours the 109, and any other evidence isn't refuted, it's ignored.

Dismissed by which people? You? You don`t count to me as people. I guess you just qouted from your own CV.

Your behaviour here can be described as nothing else than picking the single highest figure presented in a single test for the Spit, which conflicts with it`s datasheet, it`s flight manual, numerous other tests, and you try to put it forth and ignore all the rest, with your usual partisan attitude.



If you want to show the Spitfire had a lower range, present the tests to show it, which need to show range at a particular speed, like the one I've posted.

Like this one?



Let`s see.... it has to show range... check! It has to show range at a particular speed... check!

450 miles, no more. At MOST economic cruise.


All you have posted is a Spitfire range table at an unknown speed

Unknown speed?

Let`s see, I posted a range table for the Spit which says the economic cruise speed is 220 mph. It has a range table which says range is 740 miles.

And here`s another, which says the range is 740 miles, at 220 mph.



Same values as the previous doc, giving the same range at the same speed as I stated.

Furthermore there`s the 1945 British range doc for the Mk XVI, which is the same as the Mk.IX and it says... guess what, 434 miles at 220 mph again!

In order to make the Spit look uber, you ignored everything that shows the contrary :

- a range table for the Spit VIII showing 740 miles range which you claimed was 'at unspecified speed', a sorry excuse made up!
- a range TEST for the Spit VIII showing 740 miles range which explicitely shows 740 miles/220 mph, the as the other which you claimed was NOT for 220 mph
- another Spit IX range test which shows the best milage was 6.7 miles/gallon.
- Official British Datatsheets which again specify the range of 434 miles at 220 mph for the XVI/IX.

We should ignore all this weight of evidence, and blindly believe Nashwan, the Spitdweeb partisan ?

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus
Firstly, those missions were flown with Spit I's, II's and V's, which consume fuel at a slower rate than the Mk IX.
Secondly, climb is only a minute or so, - this was low level.
Thirdly, the distance is roughly 400 miles for the roundtrip.

[/B]

Low level only? That makes the claim even more dubious, given that the range of an aircraft is usually even less at low level because of greater air density.

Still doesn't explane why 109 were not spotted well north of London, the roundtrip from N-France to London is about 200 miles.[/B]

No 109 was ever spotted North of London? Angus, do you have anything to underline this, or you just pulled it out of your smarter end?

I have seen a LW kill claim well inside belgium for a Mk II. [/B]

I presume that, unfortunately but unsurprisingly, you will be unable to find a source for that either? How did the LW identified it`s a Mk II btw, given that it looked exactly the same as the Mk I or Mk V?

Take an advice, Angus. When you are making up things, don`t make up too much detail as well.. you might be caught.

[Angus]

I will have to browse the LW claims, don't worry.
As for 109's active to----Birmingham? Please give ME proof.
And finally, Quills 40 gallon pr hour flight was all at low level frequently changing alt and heading.
40 gallons an hour is easily Bruxelles and back. nener nener

[Nashwan]

(Image removed from quote.)
It says, 740 miles, at 220 mph, just as I stated. Familiar? Same figures I told are for 220 miles per hour.

This document was already posted here, Nashwan seen it already a dozen times, but now he pretends he never heard of it.... laughable attitude. No wonder you have a reputation of a cheat. http://www.hitechcreations.com/foru...threadid=126224

Isegrim, read what I said about it last time.

Basically, that page is a sheet from a document called Spitfire VIII, general description and performance.

It's not a test, in fact it shows figures for a Spitfire VIII with low alt Merlin Viii and extended HF wings, a bizarre hybrid that I doubt ever flew. (Note the 40 ft wingspan)

It's also dated 24/10/43, whereas the test I posted is dated 28/03/44.

Question: Which do you rely on more, a single page "brief summary" that incorrectly identifies either the wingspan or engine, and that's drawn up before the tests are carried out, or the complete test results which are issued later?

Isegrim's answer: Whichever shows the Spitfire in the worst light.

And let`s not forget about this nice document as well, again it refutes Nashwan`s claims.
(Image removed from quote.)

That's a Merlin 61 Spitfire IX. Only about 350 of those were made. As you can see, the Merlin 66 returned much better figures.

And "Nashwan's claims"?

I've posted a test report, it's not "my claims". I've yet to see you post a test report on the Spit with Merlin 66.

Like this one?
(Image removed from quote.)

That's the very same Merlin 61 Spitfire as in the previous pic.

I wonder if the fuel consumption issue is one of the reasons they sitched away from the Merlin 61 to the 63/66 so quickly?

And here`s another, which says the range is 740 miles, at 220 mph. (Image removed from quote.)

That's exactly the same image as the first one.

I can repeat the same comments if you like, but suffice to say it's from before the tests were carried out, comes from a "brief summary", and claims to be of a Spitfire with a low alt engine and high alt wings, which never existed.

(BTW, I thought the consumption figures were most likely based on the earlier tests of the Spit IX with Merlin 61, but I've just remembered that some early Spitfire VIIIs had both clipped wings and Merlin 61, and I suspect it probably refers to that).

In order to make the Spit look uber, you ignored everything that shows the contrary :

- a range table for the Spit VIII showing 740 miles range which you claimed was 'at unspecified speed', a sorry excuse made up!

It is at an unspecified speed Isegrim.

- a range TEST for the Spit VIII showing 740 miles range which explicitely shows 740 miles/220 mph, the as the other which you claimed was NOT for 220 mph

It's not a range TEST.

1, it's dated some months before the tests were carried out.
2, it claims to be for a Spitfire VIII with extended wings and Merlin 66, and I doubt any such plane existed.

- another Spit IX range test which shows the best milage was 6.7 miles/gallon.

Merlin 61.

- Official British Datatsheets which again specify the range of 434 miles at 220 mph for the XVI/IX.

At what speed?

Again Isegrim, we have precisely ONE test of the range on a Merlin 66 engined Spitfire. I've posted it, you are desperate to ignore it.

That's perfectly obvious to anyone.

Once again, here it is:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1090515978_spitviiirange.jpg

You haven't posted ANY data to challenge it. You've posted a test of the Merlin 61, and a sheet from a "brief summary" of the Spitfire VIII which claims it has low alt engine and high alt wings, and printed before the tests were carried out.

[mw]

Hi Guppy:

I have a question that is rather a bit off-topic and perhaps a long shot.  I gather you have a particular interest in No 41 Squadron?  Any chance you have any combat reports/Form F's on Eric Lock from No 41 during 1940?  They were missing went I went looking for them.  Thanks.

[Kurfürst]

Again Isegrim, we have precisely ONE test of the range on a Merlin 66 engined Spitfire. I've posted it, you are desperate to ignore it.

That's perfectly obvious to anyone.

Anyone who`s Nashwan and/or lacks any brains.

Let me summerize your position :

You ignore this :



Stating 740 miles range @ 220 mph.


You also ignore this :



Stating 450 miles range @ 160 mph.

And this :



Stating 740 miles range @ 220 mph again.

You also ignore British Air Intelligence docs that state 434 miles for the Mk IX/XVI at 220 mph.

Question, what we choose to believe, a highly biased spitdweeb, or loads of documents stating the range of the Spitfire prepeared by British professionals... Hard choice, really.


You deny any of these test reports are from flight test, despite written on the header, on the basis a, they predate other tests b, You think that no such plane existed, RAAF officials are wrong, given that a low altitude engine was fitted longspan wings... LOL, even if you know very well that any kind of clipped, normal, or extended wings could be fitted to ANY Spitfire... wait, there were clipped wings for the high altitude MkXIVs as well... must be wrong, it doesn`t fits into Nashwans theory!


You claim the flight test shows a Merlin 61 engined Spitfire IX. (This part of )The document doesn`t specifies. Another good example of Nashwan making up thing in desperation - not it if would make any difference, considering the engines were exactly the same fuel consumption, underline by the fact that all later specsheets for the Merlin 66 and 266 state even shorter range (434 vs. 450) for that engine.

I`d say your attitude can only be described as laughable, desperate and partisan. I posted facts, you answered with fiction.

Moreover, considering the fact that

-the 109G developed 725 miles range at an economic cruise at 210 mph on 88 gallons of fuel, and

-the Mk IX managed only 434 to 450 miles on 85 gallons at 220mph (only 2/3 the distance)

-and the MkVIII required 120 gallons, or 50% more fuel to get the same range summerizes the relative fuel effiency difference between the 109/DB and Spit/Merlin airframe/powerplant combination throughly.

[Angus]

Shrug....shrug.
If a Merlin 61 Spitfire can be flown with 40 gals an hour, A spit I can certainly do it.
Those graphs  and reports you're bashing around with actually don't all match, but that's as it goes.
But ranges where aircraft actually went for missions are VERY VERY ABSOLUTE.
BTW, I found the LW claims report. I am looking at Hurricanes and Spitfires being claimed shot down here and there in France, during and after Dunkirk.
Am paging, then I have to do some range calculations.
Will post later.
All the best, and keep partying

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Staga
You do understand MW50 wasn't a fuel ?

You do understand that 1.98 was not obtainable without MW50. The engine consumed at least 800 l/h of fluids.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by mw
Hi Guppy:

I have a question that is rather a bit off-topic and perhaps a long shot.  I gather you have a particular interest in No 41 Squadron?  Any chance you have any combat reports/Form F's on Eric Lock from No 41 during 1940?  They were missing went I went looking for them.  Thanks.

My main interest in 41 Squadron is from the Spit XII era, February 43-September 44.

I got those combat reports along with the Spit XII reports from the RAF Museum.

I'd suggest posting a request on the board at:

http://brew.clients.ch/RAF41Sqdn.htm

That's the 41 Squadron website done by the nephew of a former pilot.  Some of my research is on the site as well as many of my photos and Spit profiles.

There are other folks contributing there who specialize in the other eras whether it be 41 in B of B or the Spit XIV era.  They might be able to point you towards info on Lock.

Dan/CorkyJr

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
You do understand that 1.98 was not obtainable without MW50.

According to Butch2k, C-3 fuel alone was able to withstand up to 2.2 ata without MW 50. 1.98ata was definietely obtainable with C-3 alone.

The engine consumed at least 800 l/h of fluids. [/B]

But only 650 liters of fuel compared to 900 liters of fuel consumed by the Merlins at the same power. We speak of fuel effiency here, not 'liquid effiency' - never heard of such.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
According to Butch2k, C-3 fuel alone was able to withstand up to 2.2 ata without MW 50. 1.98ata was definietely obtainable with C-3 alone.

But only 650 liters of fuel compared to 900 liters of fuel consumed by the Merlins at the same power. We speak of fuel effiency here, not 'liquid effiency' - never heard of such.

You do have troubles with reality don't you Barbarossa  Isegrim, never mind what your site says.

Let me post some text from your site.

"If the DC was set at 2000PS @ 1.98ata this output could be reached by using C3+MW50, when using C3 alone, output was just 1725PS@1.8PS, way lower than the DB605DB. If the DC was set for a max boost of 1.8ata, power output was 1800PS which was achieved by C3 alone."

Olivier Lefebvre:

"The DB605DM was cleared up to 1.75ata, the DB605DB pushed the limit up to 1.8ata, both could be sustained with use of either B4+MW-50 (as mentionned in various documents, even if it was an afterthought in the DM case) or C3-MW-50. However the DB605DC max boost at 1.98ata could be achieved with use of C3+MW-50 only[/b]."

Now why would Butch say 2.2 was obtainable after saying anything over 1.8 required MW50?

No MW50, no 2000ps!

.................

Why do ignore this Barbarossa  Isegrim

'On range:

109E-1, E-3 handbook:

SL
max continuous(2200rpm) - 267mi, 1.05hr
max economy(1300rpm) - 404mi, 2.20hr

6km
max continuous(2400rpm) - 323mi, 1.10hr
max economy(1600rpm) - 395mi, 1.40hr

A Spitfire Ia had a range of 575mi and a combat range of 395mi. (StH)'

Is it because it does not support your Germans are superior agenda?

[Kurfürst]

ad 1, Butch said C-3 was able to sustain 2.2 ata pressure at CR 8.5/1. That`s quite logical since C-3 was roughly equal to 100/150 grade, it could sustain high boost w/o pre-detonation. It`s regardless wheter you like it or not, it`s given from the specs of C-3.

ad 2, You are qouting one of butch`s qoutes, and not my site.

ad 3, MW was there with C-3 to provide charge cooling, not that it was neccesary to prevent detonation.

ad 4, The fact that DB was working up the 605 D to 2.3ata max pressure also points it out that, given that it wouldn`t be possible to raise such high pressure unless C-3 had the sufficient extra reserves.

Now keep barking.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
ad 1, Butch said C-3 was able to sustain 2.2 ata pressure at CR 8.5/1. That`s quite logical since C-3 was roughly equal to 100/150 grade, it could sustain high boost w/o pre-detonation. It`s regardless wheter you like it or not, it`s given from the specs of C-3.

If it was that simple, why were the Germans so slow clearing 2.2 for operational use?

ad 2, You are qouting one of butch`s qoutes, and not my site.

Don't you know what is in your arcticle?

ad 3, MW was there with C-3 to provide charge cooling, not that it was neccesary to prevent detonation.

And if the charge wasn't cooled you had detination.

ad 4, The fact that DB was working up the 605 D to 2.3ata max pressure also points it out that, given that it wouldn`t be possible to raise such high pressure unless C-3 had the sufficient extra reserves.

Flies in the face that 1.98 was not obtainable WITHOUT MW50.

Now keep barking.

Typical of Barbarossa Isegrim. TimL40 was correct that all but you can disuss  in a "reasonable and rational way.