Late Me 109 G & K engine settings

[MiloMorai]

As PRRF1 said:

"We don't want you to get a heart attack, kurfurst.

Everybody except you has been discussing this in quite a reasonable and rational way, and I see no reason for you to go off like a suicide bomb."

[Kurfürst]

Ok, let`s give the coup d`grace to the poor guy, he suffered enough :



Results speak for themselves.

[pasoleati]

I am not so easy to finish! BTW, how many of these DB engines could maintain the WER for e.g. 100 hrs non stop like P&W´s R-2800 did routinely on tests? Or 175 hrs non stop like a Sabre did at 3750 hp?

It is also interesting that e.g. P&W could squeeze out greater specific power from an air cooled engine than DB could from a liquid cooled engine with far greater reliability and durability (I mean DB 603 vs, R-2800).

And please, tell me where exactly I claimed that DB did not increase boost? My point has allways been that DB screwed up badly as they were forced to increase CR to stay competitive. Others refined their engines when DB took the easy way out and just increased capacity (605 to 603).

[Angus]

Dohh, Barbi, pathetic.
Here is yer cookie:
"

1350 HP at 9600 meter ?
1760 HP at 9000 meter ?
1950 HP at 11 000 meter ?
1200 HP at 11 000 meter ?
Belongs to what ata and what engines?

DB 605 L, 1.75ata
DB 603 LA
DB 603N
DB 628, 1.42ata
i]LA and N was somewhere above 2ata, can`t find the exact source. The DB 628 was fitted to high alt recce 109s.[/i]

FYI, some Merlins were boosted over 2000 hp in 1939.

Yep and some DBs over 2600 HP + in 1939.

As for high alt, I would think that P&W, P38's Allisons and Merlin 61 & 70 would be tough to beat.

Say in comparison with the DB 628`s 1200 HP at 11 000meter, the Merlin 61 managed well... ca 800 HP according to the Merlin 61 power curves. 50% less power output. It`s roughly comparable to the 605 AS and D engines.
The Merlin 70 would be a better one I suppose, but still way behind this altitude output, unfortunately I dont have the curves for that one. So much for poor Gripen`s theory about the high altitude superiority of Allied engines... the poor guy.  


Think of it, the Spitfire with a Merlin 61 has an operational ceiling of 43000 feet in 1942, - the Messer boys couldn't get up there untill what, 2 years later? By then you had the Mk VII with pressurised cockpit and extended wings and I think, a Merlin 70.

The Bf 109G-1s operational ceiling, that appeared in May 1942 was 45 000 ft, as per the GL/A Ausrustung sheets of June 1942.
Which Spitfire could get up to 45k ft? "


Around we go again. Ok, How many squadrons of 109G1?
Never heard of them
WTF is a DB 628? High alt recce-mod? So, not on a combat aircraft in squadron service.....
Never heard of them anyway. Just know that there were stellar recce plains from the LW around from 1940 onwards. Junkers?
Anyway, you are one cheap twister. Your graphs and quotations mostly go around mods, rarities, or engines that wouldn't last a god business week. You refer mostly to complete uberboosts that gave as much trouble and benefits, and were more or less restricted untill the rest of the war, when natural causes such as fuel shortage, lack of facilities of manpower and general material shortage restricted it anyway.
Or would you like to compare a Spitfire I running on juices on 2000 hp+ to a Jumo powered 109 in operational service at the same time.
Oh, BTW, that one flew London-Paris
So, back to the oranges and apples.
It would be quite normal to compare the altitude performance of the Merlin 61 to the DB601 and early 605, then the Merlin 66 and 70 basically as well to the DB 605, mid-era.
BTW, the Merlin 70 for high-alt jobs, exceeding the Merlin 61 in alt performance is already better at 18 boost.
I would guess that a Merlin 70 on decent boost, powering an extended wing Spit VII or VIII would easily bring them up to 45K, I(have heard claims of 49). Well, since Merlin 61 does 43, thennnn  

Oh, forgot, you have chosen to use the extended wing Spit VIII's for roll rate comparisons, the clipped Mk V's for turn rate, the Merlin 61 HF's for low altitude speed, and the Merlin 66's for high....
What was there to expect.
Are you surprized that half the forum jumps at you when you bring some stunts up!!!!


JEEEEEZZZ

[MiloMorai]

Barbarossa  Isegrim is always claiming the Merlin was heavier than the DB engines.

Merlin I - 1,375 lb (623.7 kg)
Merlin 45 - 1,385 lb (628.2 kg)
Merlin 61 - 1,640 lb (743.9 kg)
Merlin 66 - 1,645 lb (746.2 kg)

DB605A - 720kg/764kg
DB605AM - 730kg/794kg
DB605AS - 730kg/796kg
DB605ASC - 745kg/818kg
DB605D - 724kg/783kg
DB605DC - 745kg/815kg
DB605L - 770kg/844kg


dimensions:

Merlin 6x / DB605D

L - 2.253m / 2.304m
W - 0.789m / 0.845m
H - 1.016m / 1.070m


Angus,
Barbarossa  Isegrim is most likely up to one of his usual 'tricks' and mixing the operational ceiling with service ceiling.

[niklas]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Barbarossa  Isegrim is always claiming the Merlin was heavier than the DB engines.

Merlin I - 1,375 lb (623.7 kg)
Merlin 45 - 1,385 lb (628.2 kg)

DB 601A+N : 610kg

Don´t present only half of the truth please

Edit:
We could also add some other Merlins, how about the XX with 1450lb / 660kg?

Furthermore those Merlin weights are all "total dry weight without hub of starter".


niklas

[eddiek]

Just returned home from work.....somehow, I get this visual impression of Kurfie frothing at the mouth as he typed in his pathetic rebuttal to me.
Ya know, Kurfie, I've been reading and researching WW2 fighter planes for close to 30 years now, first as a child who was merely fascinated by the stories of aerial combat, then more on a techical side as I have grown older.
I already knew the Allison engines in the P-38's were turbocharged.  Never said anything to argue that fact.  Dunno where your rabid attitude came from, don't really care.
But, with you being from Hungary, and maybe English is not your primary language, I can overlook a few things.
What you said, the way you formed your sentence about the monstre turbo and the Allison engine, and then your response when you were asked about the "monster turbo" (remember, it was YOU who made the remark about Allison and the big turbos, not us........you tied the two together with the way you formed your sentence) was an aircraft powered by a radial engine, NOT an Allison.  I pointed that out.  Maybe I was being rude in doing so, don't know, don't care.
I stand behind my pro-Nazi remark, cause all of your arguments DO point to a complete pro-German (and remember, the Nazis were in power and they were the government back then) bias.
So the statement is, in my opinion, true.
Regardless, get over it.  No matter how great you think German engineers were, or how much better their designs were, they still lost the war, one they had geared up for for years, one they started, and one that these "superior" designs weren't good enough to win.  All you've been doing in every post is making excuses for your heroes.

[pasoleati]

Eddie, I think you are making an unfortunate turn. While this thread has seen hottish debate so far, politics would add a whole another dimension. Though I rarely agree with Kurrie, he has never made a political remark in any post of his I have read. As for my political views, let´s say two things:
-my ideals are closer to national socialism than to American consumption capitalism
-world would have been spared a lot of misery had Germany won WW One quickly and clearly (i.e. France would have surrendered, Britain negotiated a peace, Russia ditto)

Stick to nuts and bolts!

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by niklas
DB 601A+N : 610kg

Don´t present only half of the truth please

Edit:
We could also add some other Merlins, how about the XX with 1450lb / 660kg?

Furthermore those Merlin weights are all "total dry weight without hub of starter".


niklas

Well it was only a sampling of Merlins from the first to the last ww2 models.

Now if you have something simular to the data sheets for the 605 (http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/DB605_varianten.pdf), from which the data for the 605 was taken, for the 601 and 603, post it.

Remember niklas, old BarbI is always spouting off about the 605, not the 601 or 603.

Now what is this "without hub of starter"?

[Angus]

No political remarks, now let me see,,,,
I am an allied fanboy, Winston Churchill is Winnie Poo, the Brits fighting was a futile effort, all kindly pointed out by barbi boy.
Then to Paseolati:
"world would have been spared a lot of misery had Germany won WW One quickly and clearly (i.e. France would have surrendered, Britain negotiated a peace, Russia ditto)"
Tend to disagree, - although it does not belong to this thread.
Well, France did surrender in record time, Britain would probably have gotten better out themselves had they made the deal in 1940, Russia was to big for a quick victory, but again that might have been possible with the Brits out of the game, but you are forgetting China and the Pacific front.
Russia lost some 22 millions, Germany some 6 (?), Poland some 6 (?), Chinese 15 (!), US and UK less than 1.  The total was about 55, that could have shrunk some in this contest, but bear in mind that the Nazis had 11 millions on their initial cleaning list, and only got to 6 of it, or so.
I tend to think that the whole of Europe under the Nazi boot would have been a dangerous place in, just as it was during the war. Look at the Polish deathrate after they surrender, and bear in mind that the Brits knew some of it, which caused them to stay and party. So, A massive, bloody revolt in 1944?
Enough for another thread, let's stick to nuts and bolts

[pasoleati]

Well, Winnie is the Pooh, the worst national leader Britain has ever had with Tony the Bushian lapdog Blair. He sold British interests to Frankie the Rat (FDR) and his cronies.

And do read my post again, as I spoke of WW One. German victory in WW One would have indeed spared a lot of misery:
-no bolshevism, at least in the form we know it
-no counter bolshevism (fascism)
-Germany would have remained monarchist (btw, in WW One Germany the emperor had less power than the prez has (and had) in the US and parliament elections were far more democratic too)
-US imperialism would have had far less opportunities to grow

This is my final political statement on this board. Nuts and bolts have enough opportunities to rant. Unless someone wants a political fight...

[Angus]

Ahhh, Paseo, nice answer.
This could be an infinetely fun debate, especially if discussed in a civil manner.
I took it as if you had been referring to WW2.
I might have the wicked heart to put up a thread about this. WW2 related, of course. Please feel welcome.
Your WW1 theory threw me off, a bit. Well, back then, there was no way the Tommies could have lost, but Germany was close to conquering France anyway. It was different politics, and would probably have gone into another direction than Nazi rule. One must of course bear in mind, that the Versailles treaty basically triggered Germany into WW2, - it was Hitler's food.
But WW2, is IMHO another story, and Winnie Poo was definately the best man for the job!

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by pasoleati
I am not so easy to finish! BTW, how many of these DB engines could maintain the WER for e.g. 100 hrs non stop like P&W´s R-2800 did routinely on tests? Or 175 hrs non stop like a Sabre did at 3750 hp?

Oh come on, at least save that kind of BS that both you and I know is just half-assed rhetorics. EVERY SINGLE engine manufacturer stressed it`s engines with 100, 200hour running non-stop on the bench before handing them out. The mighty Merlin failed to do it`s own 100 hour tests for quite some time btw.

Next time you will say it was huge advantage for allied engines, that they put a propellor on them, too.

It is also interesting that e.g. P&W could squeeze out greater specific power from an air cooled engine than DB could from a liquid cooled engine with far greater reliability and durability (I mean DB 603 vs, R-2800).[/B]

"Far greater reliability and durability", yeah, sure, without doubt, whatever you claim.

WTF cares about specific power? The ONLY thing that matters is what power the engine can develop, and how much of that power is wasted by the engine`s (+accessories) own weight and frontal area (drag). Power per volume, stick it up where it belongs, that`s the figure the loosers like to use as excuse. It`s a tendency that smaller volume engines produce more power per litre, not an achievement. Even my car`s engine can beat most Merlins/DBs/PWs for HP/litre.

"Hey, look how good our specific power in our best engine compared to the enemy`s, ours makes 50 HP out of a litre, the enemy`s only 40!"
'So, what`s the volume?'
"Well ours is a 10 litre one with 500 HP, they have a 30 litre one with 1200 Hp... but hey, don`t go, look, I`ve got more meaningless statistic details!"



PW managed to do a huge radial weighting over 1.5 tons with accessories, having a huge frontal area and drag due to the radial layout. Be happy with that, as half of the huge power it developed was wasted on these factors, overcoming the drag, the weight. Whereas the DB 603 was 900 kg, and had a frontal area ca 1/3 of the PW. In fact the 44.5 litre DB 603 was about the same size and weight as the 35 litre RR Griffon. DB certainly knew how to make compact engines.  But hey, look on the specific power, it`s so much more interesting than the practical values!


And please, tell me where exactly I claimed that DB did not increase boost? My point has allways been that DB screwed up badly as they were forced to increase CR to stay competitive.  

DB obviously choose to increase CR to improve the effiency of the engine, against this we have your unproven and partisan opinion stating they had no idea... yeah, like how many engines YOU have designed, hmm?

Others refined their engines when DB took the easy way out and just increased capacity (605 to 603).

There`s no replacement for displacement. And as DB managed to keep it`s 35 litre engines the same size and weight as RR`s 27 litre Merlin, while retaining all the advantages coming from greater volume, your comment becomes funny. Especially in the view RR just wanted to do same and replace the Merlin with the larger volume Griffon, but they didn`t managed to do that until the war ended (DB had similiar issues, it wanted the DB 603, the 605 was just an interim solution. However, they had enough volume to work with already.)

The 603 is not a descendant of the DB 605. New line of development.

BTW, nice to leave politics behind. As for Mr. Churchill, there`s a nice book about him with a very apt title "Life of a Failure".
An interesting sidenote, that Horthy had his fair share in WW1 Winnie being finally ceased to be the 1st Lord.


@Eddiek,

I don`t reply to primitive posts coming from primitive people, calling other people Nazi. It just primitive behaviour, and closes the discussion on my part.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus

[QOTUE]WTF is a DB 628? High alt recce-mod? So, not on a combat aircraft in squadron service.....

The 628 is just another two staged DB 605. It outperformed any single wartime RR Merlin or Griffon at altitude with 1200 HP output at 11 000 meter.

And yes, it saw combat service.

I would guess that a Merlin 70 on decent boost, powering an extended wing Spit VII or VIII would easily bring them up to 45K, I(have heard claims of 49). Well, since Merlin 61 does 43, thennnn  


Furtunately, we don`t have to guess. Spitfire HF. Mk. IX EN.524  was test with Merlin 70, the Service ceiling was 43,200 feet.
Appearantly even the special high alt Spit was beaten by the Bf 109G-1 with 45 000 feet.

Otherwise, I suggest you to get outside help for your paranoid symptoms.

[Angus]

First to personal matters:
"Otherwise, I suggest you to get outside help for your paranoid symptoms."

WOOOT? MOI with such problems? Nope, my only problem is that you jump at me with crap like this, once you are in the corner.
Hungarian Nazi-gadget fanboy
Anyway, you've been spanked so badly on this thread, that I almost felt sorry for you. Well, not any more.

Anyway, back to bolts at nuts. Since you swing papers nicely as bluff, there are always some things that do not match.
Normal Spit IX's could do 43 K in combat cruise in 1942. So, a year later, you bring evidence that the ceiling of the superior Merlin 70, extended wing (perhaps) Spit VII/VIII, running on better fuel if anything, and higher boost is anything, has the same ceiling, and is being topped by DB motors.
Could you bring up some squadrons powered by these uber engines? Conflicts?
I think the main one is inside your head M8.