For anyone who has ANY interest in the Bf-109...

[Meyer]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
I think you are also making a mistake with the Diamler-Benz.  In order for what you say to be true, the Diamler Benz would have to be about twice as fuel-efficient than the Allison (not counting drag differences).  I'm just not buying that.

No, it wouldn't have to be twice as efficient. It was more efficient, just not that much.
What you need to compare that are the specific fuel consumption , which is, as the wiki would put it:

Specific fuel consumption, often shortened to SFC, is an engineering term that is used to describe the fuel efficiency of an engine design with respect to a mechanical output.

Now, in that example that I used, the Allison was giving 1425HP,  DB-601E (109F-4) 1200ps, and the DB-605A (109G) 1310ps.

The SFC of the DB is well known, it was about 220 g/ps h on rich mixture settings, that is good for the Db601 and for the 605 as well (so, Serenity, that didn't come as a result of shortages of fuel during the war). I can post a few scans if you want.

Just did a fast calculation based on the numbers in the P-38 manual, and I got 318 g/hp h for the Allison V1710-89/91.

That would be 44% worse sfc for the american engine.

Allison V1710-85, 333 g/ ps h. From the P-39Q-1 manual. Since this plane only carried 87 us gallons, at 138gallons/h (military power again), this is really low endurance.

As we can see, the 109 wasn't as bad people think in this regard.. it is interesnting to see that a Spit I had 17% more fuel consumption in climb power, than the 109E at wep!
Now, if Göring would grant Galland's "desire" (I know that only said that to upset the Reichsmarschall, don't jump on me ) to equip his JG with Spitfires, I really can't see how that would improve the escort of the Bombers

[Benny Moore]

P-38 has two Allisons.  Me-109 has one Daimler-Benz.  If the P-38G has 300 gallons, and M-109 has 88, then the P-38G has 3.4 times more fuel than the Me-109.  Divide that by two, to get the correct amount of fuel per engine, and the P-38G has 1.7 times more fuel per engine than the Me-109.  In order for the Me-109 to have more flight time than the P-38G, then, the Daimler-Benz would have to be over 1.7 times more fuel-efficient than the P-38G (not counting drag differences).  Until you can come up with a reliable source that shows that the Daimler-Benz was that much more efficient than the Allison, I'm not believing it.

By the way, the Pilots Manual for the Lockheed P-38 Lightning is wrong in several aspects, so I'll assume that either your calculations or the manual are at fault here.

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by Serenity
Its German. It wouldnt surprise me. Keep in mind, they started that war without enough fuel to finish it, and they knew it. Im sure they developed their technology to be as fuel efficient as possible in attempt to avoid the fuel shortage that eventually destroyed them all.

The "fuel shortage that eventually destroyed them" was caused by Allied firebombing, the most famous example of which is probably Ploiesti, Romania.

[Meyer]

 

 





Good enough? And what is wrong with the P-38 manual?

[Xasthur]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
Me-109 has one Daimler-Benz.  

I believe the correct designation is Bf 109, capital 'B', lower case 'f' and no hyphen.

The 'Me' designation applied to aircraft designed after Messerschmitt was formed and applies to such aircraft as the Me 163 and Me 262 for example.

As the 109 was designed before the Messerschmitt company was named so, it retained the 'Bf' designation.

[BlauK]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
The "fuel shortage that eventually destroyed them" was caused by Allied firebombing, the most famous example of which is probably Ploiesti, Romania.

The fuel shortage was actually there even without allied bombings. Initially Germans got oil from countries they conquered and the summer campaigns did not consume as much fuel as winter campaigns. Their supplies even increased in (due to) the French campaign. Romania was able to supply oil to Germany before Barbarossa, even Russians sold oil to Germany before that.

Op Barbarossa ended the Russian trade and made Romania need more of their own oil. Germany also had to deliver oil to its allies, especially to Italy. Hitler had dreamed of capturing oil fields at Caucasus already during 1941. Their war machine was doomed when they did not succeed in it even in 1942. They increased the production of synthetic fuel in manifold, but never even close to required level.

Surely the Allied bombing helped the fuel shortage but it hardly was the main cause

[Serenity]

Originally posted by BlauK
The fuel shortage was actually there even without allied bombings. Initially Germans got oil from countries they conquered and the summer campaigns did not consume as much fuel as winter campaigns. Their supplies even increased in (due to) the French campaign. Romania was able to supply oil to Germany before Barbarossa, even Russians sold oil to Germany before that.

Op Barbarossa ended the Russian trade and made Romania need more of their own oil. Germany also had to deliver oil to its allies, especially to Italy. Hitler had dreamed of capturing oil fields at Caucasus already during 1941. Their war machine was doomed when they did not succeed in it even in 1942. They increased the production of synthetic fuel in manifold, but never even close to required level.

Surely the Allied bombing helped the fuel shortage but it hardly was the main cause

^ What he said.

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by Xasthur
I believe the correct designation is Bf 109, capital 'B', lower case 'f' and no hyphen.

The 'Me' designation applied to aircraft designed after Messerschmitt was formed and applies to such aircraft as the Me 163 and Me 262 for example.

As the 109 was designed before the Messerschmitt company was named so, it retained the 'Bf' designation.

Both terms are technically correct, as both numbers were stamped on the dataplates of Me-109s of various models, blocks, and manufacturers.  At at rate, Me-109 is a lot closer to being "correct," as it was the one universally used by the Allies and usually used by the Luftwaffe as well (pronounced by them as "may hunderneun").

[Benny Moore]

Err, that's "may hundertneun" (I just caught the typo, and it's too late to edit).

[Knegel]

Originally posted by Serenity
Notice all those curves at the top??? That looks nothing like the front of any Bf-109 canopy ive ever seen...

As i saied, its NOT the canophy, its the cowling in front of the canopy, at the lower end of the frontwindow. Every 109 frontwindow is curved at the bottom, caused by a curved cowling.

btw, Benny thats "Me hundertneun", "May" isnt a german word.

Greetings,

Knegel

[Benny Moore]

I know.  But in the United States, "me" is pronounced "mee" as in "we."  In Germany, it's pronounced "may" as in "day."  Germans called the 109 "Me Hundertneun," but to an American it would sound like "May Hundertneun."  However, the Allies pronounced it neither "may" nor "mee," but spelled out the two letters, "emm ee one oh nine."  There the "ee" sounds like "we."

[Xasthur]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
Both terms are technically correct, as both numbers were stamped on the dataplates of Me-109s of various models, blocks, and manufacturers.  At at rate, Me-109 is a lot closer to being "correct," as it was the one universally used by the Allies and usually used by the Luftwaffe as well (pronounced by them as "may hunderneun").

I should think that what the allies had to say about it means nothing.

According to what I've read in the past, the way I described is the official way of classifying the aircraft. It seems to fit with Luftwaffe naming convention, given aircraft companies and the designators for their aircraft. Ju 87, He 111 etc etc. The Me-109 seems to be a misinformed 'history channel' assumption.

In any case all official documentation I've seen designates the 109 as the Bf 109 and not Me-109.

At this stage, the only possible way I can conceive of 'Me-109' being 'more correct' is if you're taking a purely allied defination of the aircraft, which seems to me be far from correct.

[Knegel]

Hi,

there are a few german documents that use the therm Me 109, this are mainly 109G documents, but most documents(also the Handbooks) use Bf 109 only.

Since "Bf" or "Bayrische Flugzeugwerke" is not as easy to speak like Me or Messerschmitt and cause Messerschmitt also sounds better, also the germans mainly used Me 109, when they was talking about the Bf 109.

All over its not very important if Bf or Me!

Greetings,

Knegel

[1K3]

This is too confusing lol.

How come planes like Me 210/410, 163, and 262 did not use the Bf designation...

[Lusche]

Originally posted by 1K3
This is too confusing lol.

How come planes like Me 210/410, 163, and 262 did not use the Bf designation...

Because the were designed after the Bayrische Flugzeugwerke (hence Bf) became the Messerschmitt AG (=Me) in 1938