Author Topic: Late Me 109 G & K engine settings  (Read 12611 times)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Late Me 109 G & K engine settings
« Reply #75 on: April 05, 2005, 10:07:10 AM »
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Angus
Now, Barbi, you are in a corner I guess. The only option you seem to have is to ask for original data about the lowland flights, since you seem to belive they were not possible without droptanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why I am in the corner, dear Angus, because an allied fanboy from Iceland was repeatadly and utterly incapable of backing up his own dubious statements?


Ahemm, until there are figures on the desk, I remain the upper hand against a hungarian Fanboy of anything provided by Nazi Germany.
Your point is that early Spitfires did NOT have the range to sweep over the lowlands without droptanks, while my point is that they had, and DID. Or are you saying that the Rhubarb missions were exclusively with d/t?
It just bothers you because the radius is a tad wider than the tankless radius of the 109E, hehe.

So, Spit I internal tank is 85 gallons. Same with the Mk V?
double that quantity, and you will have 4 hrs+ on the Mk V. That would mean easy 2 hrs (since no d/t drag) on a Mk V, maybe a little more on a Merlin with 300-400 hp less power, yes?
I do remember seeing flight reports up to 2 hrs anyway, - without external tanks.
So, how far does a Spitfire get in 2 hours? or 1,5 on cruising and some spare? or 1 hr of cruising and a good spare for combat and backup? To Bruxelles? Yes, easily.
Now compare that distance with the calais area to London.
Similar, isn't it. But the sea crossing to Bruxelles is quite a bit longer.
Maybe you need to look better at the map. Anyway, that might help you, because the allied fanboy planes were stalking gv's all over the lowlands without droptanks.
You know why?
Because there weren't so many droptanks in use at the time :D
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 Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Late Me 109 G & K engine settings
« Reply #76 on: April 05, 2005, 10:24:35 AM »
Oh, found a Spitfire Mk IX range cookie for you:
Take a Spit IX, add 75 (internal)+45 (drop tank) gallons (120 total + the 85?), and go fly. Fly at 1000 feet in cloudy weather. Note that 1000 feet is not the optimum altitude for a long range flight, be it time or distance.
Question: From east Anglia, how far could you get, and still return?
Question #2: how long would the flight possibly be?

I challenge thee to give an educated guess. Bear in mind that the Merlin 61 66 and 70 are very thirsty compared to the ones in Spit I's and Spit V's even.......

So?

Will post the correct answers and source later on :D
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 Staga

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5334
      • http://www.nohomersclub.com/
Late Me 109 G & K engine settings
« Reply #77 on: April 05, 2005, 10:49:07 AM »
Angus; I'd like also see your proofs about Spitfires flying to "lowlands" without droptanks.


Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Late Me 109 G & K engine settings
« Reply #78 on: April 05, 2005, 11:01:48 AM »
Well, they did up to 2 hr missions without drop tanks.
They did missions over the lowlands in 1941.
Then they were replaced with the Mk V's.
Now the V could carry droptanks, but the usage was really not that common in the beginning.

Anyway, if you have that data, please take a go at the cookie ;)
Secondly, if you like, tell me if you think the MkI/II burned more fuel pr hour than the V or IX??????

Now back to the 109, - the 109E would stay in the air some 1,5 hour, - very very similar

;)
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 Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Late Me 109 G & K engine settings
« Reply #79 on: April 05, 2005, 12:21:55 PM »
Oh, forgot.
The Rhubarb missions into the lowlands, as well as escorted "cirkus" missions into France are a well established historical fact.
(Not that they were a clever move, IMHO rather stupid strategy)

BTW, the only Icelandic "allied fanboy" that flew for the RAF hit the news in Britain for blowing up an ammunition barge in Holland on such a mission.
There was some playing with 109's there as well.
No drop tanks mentioned, - no need anyway, mission time less than 2 hrs.
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 eddiek

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1440
Late Me 109 G & K engine settings
« Reply #80 on: April 05, 2005, 12:47:52 PM »
Is this going anywhere? :rolleyes:

It was interesting reading at first, but now I am seeing more name calling than anything else.
How about something original, like being mature and civil in your debating?

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Late Me 109 G & K engine settings
« Reply #81 on: April 05, 2005, 12:57:01 PM »
Good grief.  Now what's the argument about regarding Spits and 109s, and why should we care? :)

Now is it Spit range without drop tanks on the early pre-drop tank flights?

Looking at some microfilm copies of Fighter Command Combat Reports right now, covering the Tangmere Wing in the summer of 41, pre-drop tanks.  Escorts and sweeps from Westhampnett over Lille, St. Omer, Le Touquet, Cape Griz Nez.

Looking in the Book 2 Group RAF by MJF Bowyer, he documents Spits escorting 2 Group mediums in 41 over Belgium, with those squadrons operating from Martlesham etc.

Johnny Johnson documents missions in Spit IIs over France while part of the Tangmere Wing in his book as well.


I have to admit though, I hesitate to enter these discussions as they are pointless.  The 109 was the greatest fighter of WW2 and beyond and the Spitfire was a flying abortion.

Hasn't that already been determined? :)

Can't we switch the debate and argue about whether the 190 was the greatest German fighter?

Saw an article claiming that just yesterday and thought of our resident 109 is god poster.

Dan
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Late Me 109 G & K engine settings
« Reply #82 on: April 05, 2005, 12:59:20 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by eddiek
Is this going anywhere? :rolleyes:

It was interesting reading at first, but now I am seeing more name calling than anything else.
How about something original, like being mature and civil in your debating?


A reasonable question eddiek.  Sadly they don't ever go anywhere despite folks trying to be civil.  It's why I hesitate to even post in them anymore as it's a bit like talking to the wall :)

Dan
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Staga

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5334
      • http://www.nohomersclub.com/
Late Me 109 G & K engine settings
« Reply #83 on: April 05, 2005, 05:12:47 PM »
Guppy maybe you should provide some scans of your sources; not that I don't believe You but... well you know :)

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Late Me 109 G & K engine settings
« Reply #84 on: April 05, 2005, 05:26:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Staga
Guppy maybe you should provide some scans of your sources; not that I don't believe You but... well you know :)


It's copies from Microfilm at the RAF Museum.  One is the day Douglas Bader went down.  Scanned the first page of that one.

They are clearly fighting over France.

If you want the second page let me know :)

There are others to I can scan that are of similar nature to this one.

Dan/CorkyJr
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Late Me 109 G & K engine settings
« Reply #85 on: April 05, 2005, 05:34:07 PM »
Heck with it. Page 2 and 3 just cause it's fascinating to read how it was written at the time :)

Interesting to note the heights they were at.  Later obviously the fights dropped a bit in height.  Had to have burned a fair amount of fuel getting up there too and still over France.

Interesting comment about estimated 200 109s up.  I wonder what the real totals were and if there were even that many available in France at the time?

Don't you just love hindsite :)

Dan/CorkyJr

« Last Edit: April 05, 2005, 05:38:27 PM by Guppy35 »
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Staga

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5334
      • http://www.nohomersclub.com/
Late Me 109 G & K engine settings
« Reply #86 on: April 05, 2005, 05:40:20 PM »
So where does it say they didn't had jettisonable tanks?
At least Pilot's Manual for Spit MkV gives fuel loads with 85Gall in aircraft + either 30, 90 or 170 Gall. drop tanks.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Late Me 109 G & K engine settings
« Reply #87 on: April 05, 2005, 05:45:06 PM »
Oh, thx Dan :)
It's getting tough if every step of the way has to be backed up with documents topping documents. Such as if rhubarbs ever existed, if Spitfires  could enter the lowlands without dt's etc.
I do remember a LW claim over a Spit II, well into Belgium it was.
Still, not out of range, - but on those missions navigation had to be pretty good, and there was not much time for extended combat.
Same with the 109's operating from the Calais area, - they were over London allright, but not for long.
Over Birmingham.....not really.
So, that's what struck me. Barbi claims that the DB was about,,,what,,,,30% more fuel saving (?), so on the equal fuel load, the 109 should have ventured further than it did, - or the Spitfires should have ventured much shorter than they did.
Well, they still went where they went.

Then to the secon phase.
I have over and over seen Barbi's statements off how quickly the Merlins got thirstier, and hence the Spitfires running on their normal 85 gallons, should have been getting shorter and shorter legs. So, time for RL stats ;)
Well, on double fuel (roughly160 gals total), an overseas crossing of up to 600 Nm was possible on a Mk V, also 4 hours on an unfavourable setting (escort), - with that ugly trop filter might I add.
The answer to the riddle promoted earlier is this:
Spitfire Mk IX, low flight up & down through clouds and fronts, 200 gallons max used, flight time 5 hrs, distance equal to east-Anglia to Berlin and back, Pilot Jeffrey Quill.
I my have some PR data to come, but, well, this is a 109 thread :D
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 Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Late Me 109 G & K engine settings
« Reply #88 on: April 05, 2005, 05:49:56 PM »
Oh, Jettisonable tanks.
AFAIK, very scarcely used before 1942.
Little availability I am afraid.
Have seen combat reports up to some 2 hours without tanks on later model Spitfires anyway. (Later than Mk V)
Oh, and I have actually been to the PRO, the IWM, and swimming in microfilms..
Happy moments.
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 Staga

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5334
      • http://www.nohomersclub.com/
Late Me 109 G & K engine settings
« Reply #89 on: April 05, 2005, 05:57:22 PM »
I've been in airshow but that didn't make me a pilot :confused: