Author Topic: High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe  (Read 5046 times)

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #105 on: April 25, 2007, 02:14:07 AM »

Offline AquaShrimp

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1706
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #106 on: April 25, 2007, 03:27:06 AM »
Can anyone answer what type of Bf-109s were flying above P-51s at 30k to 35k?  The pilot being interviewed said that while the P-51 was a good high-alt fighter, these 109s ruled at those altitudes.

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #107 on: April 25, 2007, 05:14:34 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Can anyone answer what type of Bf-109s were flying above P-51s at 30k to 35k?  The pilot being interviewed said that while the P-51 was a good high-alt fighter, these 109s ruled at those altitudes.


Well, between 30 and 35k there rarely was any 109s. The most potent high alt cover was G-10s and K-4s. It is easily seen from the hp curves of the P-51 and 109 engines that P-51 was clearly better at very high altitudes.
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #108 on: April 25, 2007, 07:19:57 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Can anyone answer what type of Bf-109s were flying above P-51s at 30k to 35k?  The pilot being interviewed said that while the P-51 was a good high-alt fighter, these 109s ruled at those altitudes.


GM1 equipped 109 scouts/escorts. With GM1 the DB 605 would develop full power at any altitude. However, the GM1 system was in place of MW50, so GM1 equipped 109s would not have the extra power from MW50 at lower altitudes.

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #109 on: April 25, 2007, 07:56:01 AM »
I've never had a shortage of victims while pile-iting a Ta-152 H-1 cartoon aircraft.   Only woes I have are lack of targets.
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #110 on: April 25, 2007, 07:57:13 AM »
Bf 109G-5/U2

Modified G-6 with a pressurized cockpit, GM1 and an enlarged rudder. Full throttle height of 11,140 meters (36,548 feet). Some of the most famous "experten" flew the G-5 in 1943/early 1944 including Hermann Graf and Gerhard Barkhorn.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2007, 08:11:13 AM by Viking »

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #111 on: April 25, 2007, 08:09:23 AM »



Barkhorn in his 109G-5

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #112 on: April 25, 2007, 09:29:43 AM »
U2 = Recce - That pic of Barkhorn's G-5 you snagged and cropped from Falcon's 109 site isn't equipped with GM-1.

GM-1 wasn't standard and its usefulness was very marginal. It could only be used some 2000m above FTH. It greatly increased fuel consumption as well.

It wasn't their to provide combat power at high altitude for dogfighting  but to allow for 'escape' - used mostly by Recce aircraft who were either lightly armed or unarmed all together.

HoHun in an old post on this forum gave the following reply for those interested in its operation:

Quote
GM-1 was the German WW2 code-name for N2O (nitrous oxide, or laughing gas).

N2O can be added to the fuel-air mixture of an internal combustion engine. In the compression cycle, it's broken up into its components, releasing oxygen that can be used for combustion.

As the challenge of high-altitude flight mainly consists of getting enough oxygen into the cylinder to maintain adequate power - which due to the decreasing air density becomes more and more difficult at altitude - N2O equates to extra power.

In fact, N2O was injected into the supercharger in liquid form through small jets, and each jet gave a constant power boost when employed. Depending on the type, you might have a 120 HP jet and a 240 HP jet, which of course added 360 HP when used in combination.

That's the resason N2O was available in steps - you couldn't add 360 HP to an engine that was already running at close to full power, or the resulting forces would destroy vital parts of the engine.

This is the main reason N2O was preferred over pure oxygen, which could be (and experimentall, was) used for the same purpose - it just gave too much power.

The nitrogen share of the nitrous oxide has a benefit, too, since it absorbs some energy on being broken up in the cylinder, controlling the detonation and allowing higher pressure.

Since N2O is injected into the supercharger as a liquid, it also gives a charge cooling effect on evaporation (cooler air means more oxygen in the same volume).

Initially, N2O was stored under high pressure to keep it liquid (laughing gas, after all, is a gas under standard conditions), but that meant the N2O vessels blew up like a bomb on being hit, so from 1941/42 on it was stored at very low temperature in an insulated tank that kept the content at less than -90 °C for as long as the sortie lasted.

(It was used by bombers like the Ju 88 and by reconnaissance planes like the Ju 86 as well, so that could be quite a long time. For fighters at readiness on the ground in the hot summer sun, though, the insulation would not have sufficed and the N2O would have begun to boil out through the safety valve after a while.)

For comparison: 0.1 kg/s of N2O injection gave extra 300 - 400 HP, virtually out of nothing.

The only drawbacks were the weight of the system (which also included compressed air bottles to force the N2O out of the insulated tank), and - more importantly - the high rate of consumption. If 0.1 kg/s gave 350 HP, that made for a specific fuel consumption of 1000 g/HPh, which compares very unfavourably to the DB601A's normal 220 g/HPh at high power :-)

So, N2O was bad for range, but great for high-altitude power.

Oh, by the way, someone mentioned that N2O was to be used for short bursts only. According to what I have read, it could be used as long as it was available and in fact short bursts were to be avoided as filling and emptying the N2O lines took some time and created some engine management difficulties.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


I was a big advocate for the addition of the G-14 to AH. It's my favorite 109 of all times next to the G-6. I had asked that when HTC re-did the old G-10, and re-designated it as a K-4, that they keep a 'G-10' with a corrected FM (could use same model as K-4 but different skin - 428mph or so at FTH). This would have finished out the Bf 109 series. A 'G-10' with new FM could have been used as a substitute for either the G-14/AS, or more rare G-6/AS. This would have given AH a Bf 109 that could be used effectively in the 8th AF CT - higher FTH then the G-14 below current K-4 performance. They decided not to bother.

As is the G-14 has a FTH of just 5000m (16400ft). Above that it will just be marginally faster then the G-6. As such a Bf 109 pilot will be basically be flying the same 'aircraft' (based on performance) from Feb '43 until Oct '44. The G-6/AS entered service in May '44 and the G-14/AS June/July '44.

During the Fw 190 re-model we all asked that the Fw 190A-6 be added - same FM as the A-5 could have been used but instead of 2 x MG151/2cm and 2 x 2cm MGFF/M (60 round drums even though the A-5 could carry 90 rounds drum - another long time request that has gotten no support) the A-6 carried 4 x MG151/2cm - considerably better lethality against bombers.

Other things like the addition of the P-47N over the P47C means very little 'happy times' (term borrowed from the Kriegsmarine - where the LW enjoyed numbers and/or a performance edge) for the LW in an 8th ToD. This is irregardless of 30k dogfighting or not.

HT has said not all missions will result in a human being killed - insinuating that some missions maybe easier then others. That's not to say the CT won't be fun or competitive - it just means as a LW flier you will be well behind the performance curve of the Ami Fighters. Which makes flying smart and the use of proper tactics the key. This may make for a real sense of immersion but its yet to be seen how it plays out in a 'game' given AH's player base.

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #113 on: April 25, 2007, 09:51:11 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bruno
U2 = Recce - That pic of Barkhorn's G-5 you snagged and cropped from Falcon's 109 site isn't equipped with GM-1.  


U2= High-altitude scout/fighter. “Recce” is a word normally used for photo and ground observation planes.  I did not say that Barkhorn’s G-5 had GM-1.


Quote
Originally posted by Bruno
GM-1 wasn't standard and its usefulness was very marginal. It could only be used some 2000m above FTH. It greatly increased fuel consumption as well.
 


GM-1 was standard on G-5/U2. Obviously the GM-1 could only be used above FTH. Below FTH the supercharger fed enough air to the engine to allow full power. Above 30,000 feet the GM-1 was very useful and effectively increased FTH well beyond 30,000 feet. The reason it increased fuel consumption is that the engine was able to run at full power with GM-1. The engines of non-GM-1 equipped 109s could not develop full power (and thus full fuel consumption) at those altitudes. AquaShrimp asked what special 109s were operating above 30k … the G-5/U2 was one of them.

The DB 605AS only increased FTH to 8000 meters (26,245 feet), so they could not be the 109s AquaShrimp’s 51 driver was talking about.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2007, 10:13:01 AM by Viking »

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #114 on: April 25, 2007, 10:27:04 AM »
GScholz wrote:

Quote
U2= High-Altitude scout. “Recce” is a word normally used for photo and ground observation planes. I did not say that Barkhorn’s G-5 had GM-1.


um 'Recce' is a shortening of the word 'Reconnaissance' - nothing mroe.

Quote
GM-1 was standard on G-5/U2. Obviously the GM-1 could only be used above FTH.


How many G-5/U2 with GM-1 were produced?

It's not obvious - in fact it would produce more power at SL as long as the engine could handle it. The fact that it use was restricted to 2000m or so above FTH is significant as it demonstrates that its not very useful for a fighter.

Quote
The DB 605AS only increased FTH to 8000 meters (26,245 feet),


FTH for the G-14/AS was 7500m (680km/h @ 1495 ps). Once the introduction of the AS engined 109s (Bf 109G-5/AS) came into service GM-1 was basically abandoned. The AS increased FTH to an altitude where combat was more common. With the introduction of AS 109s GM-1 use basically ceased. It provide power above where it would be useful to a fighter.

Quote
I did not say that Barkhorn’s G-5 had GM-1.


What you wrote is this

Quote
Bf 109G-5/U2

Modified G-6 with a pressurized cockpit, GM1 and an enlarged rudder. Full throttle height of 11,140 meters (36,548 feet). Some of the most famous "experten" flew the G-5 in 1943/early 1944 including Hermann Graf and Gerhard Barkhorn.


Clearly implying the G-5 was equipped with GM-1 as standard. You then followed up with an image of a G-5.

but whatever...

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #115 on: April 25, 2007, 10:55:38 AM »
Now you all, hold your horses for a moment.
The Bomber boxes would often be horsing around at some 25000 feet yes?
The fighters would do free sweeps, high cap and closer escort. While the Allied Iron has the edge at those alts, significally over the 190's, there are some other things to bear in mind.
1: The Allies must cruise very long over LW land, so interceptions have some planning.
2: 25K is a very nice alt for a 109. 109 is from good to very good at high alt.
3: The 190 will still appear and make deadly slash attacks. 190=GUNS!
4. Flak and ground is on the LW side.


Which was very much the case in real life. Also, there the Allies had no radar coverage, so plotting and directing if one got lost would still rely on navigation+recognition as well as the radio contact. (In AH that might be different if there is friendly dot-radar).
Point is that a LW commander in AH would perhaps do things almost exactly as it was done in RL. Use the 109's to slash and confuse, make the 190's go head on to the buffs, and always escape downstairs.
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 Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #116 on: April 25, 2007, 10:58:21 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bruno
um 'Recce' is a shortening of the word 'Reconnaissance' - nothing mroe.
 


Yes, but the word is commonly used for photo and ground observation planes, not air-scouts. The G5/U2 did not have reduced armament in any way (as you mentioned earlier), it was a standard G-5 fighter with the U2 Umrüstsatz which consisted of a GM-1 kit and a larger wooden rudder.


Quote
Originally posted by Bruno
How many G-5/U2 with GM-1 were produced?


None I guess since the U2 is just a Umrüstsatz. Any G-5 could be converted at the repair shop to a G-5/U2 provided a U2 kit was available.


Quote
Originally posted by Bruno
It's not obvious - in fact it would produce more power at SL as long as the engine could handle it. The fact that it use was restricted to 2000m or so above FTH is significant as it demonstrates that its not very useful for a fighter.


It is very obvious if you know a little about the engine, and I though you did. The DB 605A could not produce more power below FTH without water injection. Below FTH the supercharger could easily handle higher boosts if the engine could handle it, and since nitrous-oxide only gives the engine more oxygen it can only compensate for a lack of air-supply to the engine. Above FTH the supercharger is no longer able to feed the engine with enough air to produce full power, but using nitrous-oxide this can be achieved. The 2000 meter above FTH limitation is probably due to the GM-1 system being an on/off type, thus using it so close to FTH would over-boost the engine.

Quote
Originally posted by Bruno
FTH for the G-14/AS was 7500m (680km/h @ 1495 ps). Once the introduction of the AS engined 109s (Bf 109G-5/AS) came into service GM-1 was basically abandoned. The AS increased FTH to an altitude where combat was more common. With the introduction of AS 109s GM-1 use basically ceased. It provide power above where it would be useful to a fighter.
 


It was not abandoned for high-alt scouts in the west, and later it was used as standard on the Ta 152.


Quote
Originally posted by Bruno
What you wrote is this

“Bf 109G-5/U2

Modified G-6 with a pressurized cockpit, GM1 and an enlarged rudder. Full throttle height of 11,140 meters (36,548 feet). Some of the most famous "experten" flew the G-5 *notice no U2 here* in 1943/early 1944 including Hermann Graf and Gerhard Barkhorn.”


Clearly implying the G-5 was equipped with GM-1 as standard. You then followed up with an image of a G-5.

but whatever...


“Whatever” would be correct. I implied nothing.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #117 on: April 25, 2007, 12:26:03 PM »
How would this adding-gadgetsandstuff work on the engine life?
As well, what were the ATA's in standard field practise?
I have a 109 flight test from Jan 1944, they're still testing on 1.3/1,43 ATA.
The performance, while nice, is absolutely not stellar. Why were they still testing this in 1944? ? ?
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 Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #118 on: April 25, 2007, 03:24:50 PM »
I believe that while pure oxygen is very corrosive, nitrous-oxide in inert form is benign. The oxygen is already bound to the nitrogen and thus cannot react with engine components. Only when compressed and heated up in the cylinder does the Nitrous-oxide break down releasing the oxygen.


Wikipedia has an article on nitrous-oxide that interestingly mentions its use in the GM-1 system:

"In vehicle racing, nitrous oxide (often referred to as just "nitrous" in this context to differ from the acronym NOS which is the brand Nitrous Oxide Systems) is sometimes injected into the intake manifold (or prior to the intake manifold; some systems directly inject right before the cylinder) to increase power. The gas itself is not flammable, but it delivers more oxygen than atmospheric air by breaking down at elevated temperatures, allowing the engine to burn more fuel and air, resulting in more powerful combustion. Nitrous oxide is stored as a compressed liquid, the evaporation and expansion of liquid nitrous oxide in the intake manifold causes a large drop in intake charge temperature, resulting in a denser charge, further allowing more air/fuel mixture to enter the cylinder. The lower temperature can also reduce detonation.

The same technique was used during World War II by Luftwaffe aircraft with the GM 1 system to boost the power output of aircraft engines. Originally meant to provide the Luftwaffe standard aircraft with superior high-altitude performance, technological considerations limited its use to extremely high altitudes. Accordingly, it was only used by specialized planes like high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, high-speed bombers and high-altitude interceptors.

One of the major problems of using nitrous oxide in a reciprocating engine is that it can produce enough power to damage or destroy the engine. Power increases of 25–300% are possible, and if the mechanical structure of the engine is not properly reinforced, the engine may be severely damaged or destroyed during this kind of operation.

It is very important with nitrous oxide augmentation of internal combustion engines to maintain proper operating temperatures and fuel levels to prevent preignition, or detonation (sometimes referred to as knocking or pinging)"

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #119 on: April 25, 2007, 03:53:35 PM »
I'm just stoked all my alt monkey flying in the MA is going to pay off.  Now when someone in the MA calls me an alt monkey, I'll laugh in their face and just reply that I'm training for CT.


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song