Author Topic: Late Me 109 G & K engine settings (Read 11275 times)

pasoleati · « **Reply #180 on:** April 10, 2005, 07:45:47 PM »

Kurrie, prove me that the DB 605D was test run non stop for 100 hrs at 2000 hp!

Again you display intellectual dishonesty. You nicely leave out coolant radiators in your frontal area and weight comparison. Redo your math again with the engines in self sufficient running consition and you will see your theories (=fantasies) blown to pieces.

Well, I have probably designed as many engines as you have! Besides, can only a cow criticise milk quality?

And you dare to criticize me for unproven claims? Please post a primary source confirming that DB´s decision to use high CR was exactly due to reasons you claim!
Funny thing is that I haven´t seen a single report/source telling how an in service R-2800 failed due to burned pistons or other similar design failures after running 10-30 hrs.

BTW, the R-2800 is bigger than the 603 and according to you a smaller engine allways beats the specific power of a larger engine. Yet, the 603 utterly failed it this! DB geniuses at loose again...

Grits · « **Reply #181 on:** April 10, 2005, 08:36:09 PM »

I'm curious, have any of you worked on or have any first had knowlege of turbocharged/supercharged engines?

I do, and I'll just say that for making the highest HP, lower compression and higer boost is the correct way to go.

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #182 on:** April 10, 2005, 08:38:23 PM »

Originally posted by pasoleati
Kurrie, prove me that the DB 605D was test run non stop for 100 hrs at 2000 hp!

Why would I even bother, you didn`t bother to prove any of your sillyness... you claim they never did... prove it.

Again you display intellectual dishonesty.

That`s only a perception from someone who behaves like as desperate he is.

You nicely leave out coolant radiators in your frontal area and weight comparison. Redo your math again with the engines in self sufficient running consition and you will see your theories (=fantasies) blown to pieces.

reality is coming :

WHOHAWO! Look at those smartypants at PW! They got the power, what, a 2300+ HP radial, unprecedented altitude performance....!

... and beaten by a lousy 1475 PS engine.

Those geniuses at PW only forgot someone will need to build a six-ton monster around that super-duper engine and it`s thirst, and that lumbering beast will be beaten by an a 2/3s as powerful engine that can be carried by a fighter half the size!

I guess those PW guys weren`t much interested in making a practical aero engine with compact dimensions and weight. Unlike DB!

Well, I have probably designed as many engines as you have! Besides, can only a cow criticise milk quality?

You see I just imagined you approaching the chief engineer of DB
with your brilliant ideas, convincing everybody around him how wrong their ways are - guys who had spend his last 20 years designing engines, lectured by a young titan who`s just finished reading 'Elementary basics of the piston aero engines, Vol1'.

And you dare to criticize me for unproven claims? Please post a primary source confirming that DB´s decision to use high CR was exactly due to reasons you claim!

So I am supposed to prove you wrong every time you make some silly claim and fail to back it up? You shown only failure to back up any of the BS you piled up high in this thread.

Funny thing is that I haven´t seen a single report/source telling how an in service R-2800 failed due to burned pistons or other similar design failures after running 10-30 hrs.

If you haven`t seen any single report on engine failures, is it surprising you haven`t seen any single report on a specific engine model? No.

BTW, the R-2800 is bigger than the 603 and according to you a smaller engine allways beats the specific power of a larger engine. Yet, the 603 utterly failed it this! DB geniuses at loose again...

You sound like as if your wife would cheat on you with some handsome employee of DB.. you hate them so much...

And BTW, which part didn`t get into you, the R-2800 was big and bulky, like all radials, the planes it powered needed to be so large and lumbering that they couldn`t even beat the much smaller DB 605 powered ones. Anybody but you can see that it`s ain`t worth to build a monster plane around a monster engine, if it won`t be any faster than a plane with a compact engine. So what are you talking about, paper dragons?

MiloMorai · « **Reply #183 on:** April 10, 2005, 09:39:23 PM »

Looks like PRRF1 of the jagdmoroner board was right.

"I am editing this thread in the interests of Kurfurst's Health. 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."

eddiek · « **Reply #184 on:** April 10, 2005, 09:42:17 PM »

Funny thing is, those big lumbering fighters kicked the snot outta the LW, when the LW was in it's "prime", setting the stage for the longer ranged P-51's to drive the nails in the coffin of the invincible LW.
Funny what those primitive folk could and DID do to those masters of innovation and design, ain't it?

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #185 on:** April 10, 2005, 09:46:22 PM »

Good thing eddie and milo is here to help out paseolati with brain.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #186 on:** April 10, 2005, 10:17:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Good thing eddie and milo is here to help out paseolati with brain.

It is time Skuzzy came along again so we don't have to continue to put up with the childishness of Kurfust/Barbarossa Isegrim anymore.

pasoleati · « **Reply #187 on:** April 11, 2005, 12:16:14 AM »

Well Kurrie, have you ever bothered to consider thins like "range" or load carrying capability? Tell me, which production DB 605/603 powered single engine engine fighter was capable of of ranges exceeding 2000 km? Or carrying 3000-4000 lbs of bombs? Or of any DB 605 powered fighter with any decent degree of pilot comfort instead of being squeezed in like a donkey´s dick in wasp´s ass?

Face it: had the R-2800 been available for German designers, it would have meant shutting down DB´s factories for lack of demand as their crap would have been rejected even by Willy M.

As for my sources: see Graham White´s "R-2800" book (publisher:SAE) for the WER data. Now, where I can find confirmation on 100 hour WER tests runs of any DB engine?

Charge · « **Reply #188 on:** April 11, 2005, 03:24:24 AM »

*yawn*

Guys, save yourselves or you'll all drown into your own poop...

-C+

Angus · « **Reply #189 on:** April 11, 2005, 03:56:39 AM »

Hate to say it, but I kind of agree with Barbi about the effectiveness of that nifty little 109. It is a very high performing aurcraft given such little power.
That said, Barbi's up to oranges and apples again. The P47 is a heavy multi role fighter, the 109 is basically a light interceptor.
Rather compare that 109 to Spits or perhaps P51's

BTW, that graph is a bit odd, we have the P51 performing similarly to a Spit I. The 109 looks about right though.

eddiek · « **Reply #190 on:** April 11, 2005, 05:28:32 AM »

I agree also that the 109 was a good fighter. It fulfilled it's role of interceptor well. In the right hands it was a deadly opponent right up until the war's end. But I attribute that more to pilot experience and skill than to the design of the aircraft.
Where it falls short in my eyes is that it only did one thing well, and was not multi task capable. IMHO, the 190 series was a more complete fighter and more closely matched it's Allied counterparts in it's ability to be adapted to various roles.
Those graphs being Soviet in origin make me suspect them.
The P-51 is an Allison engined one, not a Merlin powered Mustang, which had much better hi alt performance. The P-47 graph is even off IMO, cause it shows the Jug as being way faster on the deck than the Mustang.
What is interesting to note, is that the higher the graph goes the better the P-47 numbers get. Republic initially designed the Thunderbolt as a high speed hi alt interceptor, then adapted it to include other roles. It certainly had the speed, as even Kurfurst's chart shows. The higher the fight went (and I rarely read a fighter pilot account that gives an initial contact with enemy aircraft under 25-35,000 feet) the more the advantage went to the P-47. The graph also indicates a P-47D-10, a relatively early model Thunderbolt and doesn't tell if the aircraft had the paddle blade prop or water injection, each of which increased it's performance. It's top speed, which takes place at about the right altitude, is about 30-45 mph slow, contrary to any data I have ever seen on the Thunderbolt.
Again, seeing how it was Soviet in origin, did the Soviet ground crews lack the know how to get their Lend Lease Jugs setup correctly to get true performance capability from them? Remember reading a narrative about a VVS unit being investigated because it claimed it's Russian aircraft were not as good as their German counterparts. Factory reps went to the squad base and started looking at the fighters and found poor fitting/ poor adjusted cowlings, wheel well doors, canopy frames, etc, all of which increased drag and made the fighters considerably slower than they should have been. A bit of "training" for the groundcrews had them performing as the factory had promised and the pilots suddenly had capable fighters to fly.
That might be the case here also......Soviet groundcrews not familiar with how to set up a particular aircraft and not getting the plane setup correctly. The speed data is too suspect for me to believe otherwise........

Angus · « **Reply #191 on:** April 11, 2005, 07:30:46 AM »

Barbi's handpicking at work.
Orange vs apple.

But even for an Allison powered mustang the performance is low.

Groggy chart.....

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #192 on:** April 11, 2005, 10:03:06 AM »

Originally posted by pasoleati
Well Kurrie, have you ever bothered to consider thins like "range" or load carrying capability? Tell me, which production DB 605/603 powered single engine engine fighter was capable of of ranges exceeding 2000 km?

2000 km, hmm, that`s 1242 miles. Let`s lookie on the standard 109G range chart, wow, 1250 miles.

It appears that over 20 000 DB 605 engined single engined fighters were capable of ranges exceeding 2000 km, ie. 109F/G/K. And doing it on 1/3rd the fuel the R-2800 needed. No wonder they needed to build an aircraft with the size of an oil tanker around it, those salamanders at PW never heard of the term fuel economy (well, few in the US engine industry heard of it anyway

Then I didn`t even bring up the Gewahltaufklarers, ie. 109 G-4/R3, with an easy 2000 miles range etc.

The early P-47s, which were ordesigned for the same role as the 109s, and had a range of 663 km according to my books. So much about your "2000km" range.

And it still makes the PW 2800 look a sucker principle, looking on the speed curves and see it can`t do on 2300 HP what the DB 605 can do on 1475.

Or carrying 3000-4000 lbs of bombs?

Which of the DB engined fighters proved to be an utter failure in it`s original role, being a six-ton brick in the air and had to be withdrawn as a fighter, put down as a mud mover because the only thing it was good for was to shot itself to pieces and carry furniture? That`s not a fighter in my book, but it`s quite close, "failure". The FW 190 could carry 4000 lbs of bombs with an engine that was no stronger, but heavier than the DB engines BTW. At 2/3s the size of the P-47.

Or of any DB 605 powered fighter with any decent degree of pilot comfort instead of being squeezed in like a donkey´s dick in wasp´s ass?

WOW, I see you were handling high literature lately, such a refined style. I see, now your point is the fact that it was impossible to build a sleek fuselage around a monstre engine like the PW 2800 is actually an advantage... you say bigger the better, and fixated on dicks? Compensating, eh?

Let`s make a contest m8.
My task will be to build as a large fighter around the DB 605 as the P-47.
Your task will be to build as small fighter with a PW 2800 as the Bf 109.

The one who fails shall commit a suicide by setting himself on fire with gasoline. Deal?

Face it: had the R-2800 been available for German designers, it would have meant shutting down DB´s factories for lack of demand as their crap would have been rejected even by Willy M.

Reminds me of the German comparison flight trials of G-5/AS vs. P-47... what was the wording... 'the P-47 gave an extraordinarily sluggish impression in comparision to the German fighters'.

Now, where I can find confirmation on 100 hour WER tests runs of any DB engine?

In the Daimler Benz Archieves, Stuttgart my dear. Look for December 1944 and February 1945.

You still hold to your ridiculus claim that DB didn`t test run on the bench it`s engines, as all engine manufacturers do?

10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-YOU ARE OUT.

Angus · « **Reply #193 on:** April 11, 2005, 10:33:09 AM »

Lol, Izzy/Barbi/Kuffy, now you also have war with the USA.
Anyway, that one:
"It appears that over 20 000 DB 605 engined single engined fighters were capable of ranges exceeding 2000 km, ie. 109F/G/"

Well, AFAIK the 109F was NOT powered with a DB 605

Anyway, if the DB's had such incredible ranges, why did it take more than a headwind for 109's to have to leave from escort jobs before reaching London, - 96 miles from Calais??????????????????

Skuzzy · « **Reply #194 on:** April 11, 2005, 10:56:24 AM »

It's time to agree to disagree. This has turned into a push-pull contest.