Author Topic: Bf109G-6 with MW50 .. what the heck ...  (Read 1768 times)

Offline Zigrat

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 792
Bf109G-6 with MW50 .. what the heck ...
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2001, 02:37:00 PM »
russkies say 190 a5 is slower than a yak-t? i wish i had some of the hashish they have been smoking

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Bf109G-6 with MW50 .. what the heck ...
« Reply #16 on: November 16, 2001, 02:48:00 PM »
Zig how many times do I have to tell you that wartime test data was HIGHLY VARIABLE.   :)

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
Bf109G-6 with MW50 .. what the heck ...
« Reply #17 on: November 16, 2001, 03:21:00 PM »
*wonders what happend to those soviet research personel who rated german fighter better than soviet fighter*

Offline Raubvogel

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3882
Bf109G-6 with MW50 .. what the heck ...
« Reply #18 on: November 16, 2001, 03:43:00 PM »
LOL Fishu  :D

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
Bf109G-6 with MW50 .. what the heck ...
« Reply #19 on: November 16, 2001, 05:40:00 PM »
But their 109 rolled better then a 190...

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Bf109G-6 with MW50 .. what the heck ...
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2001, 05:40:00 PM »
Hi everyone,

the suggestion that the data presented in Hitchcock's book is not realistic (or even from a Focke-Wulf) is not that far off, since the data presented isn't entirely conclusive.

However, the key data points of the graph match the key points given in the textual description, which is specific enough to be credible.

The low-altitude corner that looks exactly like a pressure drop of the first speed of a 2 speed blower is unrealistic, but it re-appears in the Russian graph for the Me 109G-4 where it's smoothly rounded out however.

(If you look closely, the Russian Me 109K-4 graph actually has a slight corner, too.)

Another thing that isn't quite conclusive is that the speed difference between climb and combat power and special war emergency power is more or less independend of altitude. In reality, MW50 injection would improve performance dramatically up to some way below full pressure altitude, and only slightly above that.

(Low, it would primarily act as anti-detonant, while high, only the secondary charge-cooling aspect would help performance. The Russian graph for the Me 109K-4 shows the former, but not the latter - in other words, it's simplified, too.)

Comparing Hitchcock's version of the Me 109F-2 graph (that hasn't been posted here) with a copy of the original Luftzeugmeister's one, I'd come to the conclusion that it was slightly inaccurately redrawn for Hitchcock's book, and includes some errors in labeling, too.

Though the above Me 109G graphs have a slightly different outlook, I'm confident that they are based on the originals as well, and I'd speculate that the German originals might have been simplified, too, indicating the unrealistic corner in the graphs.

However, it certainly would be better to have a look at the original document, especially since if the translation went wrong, we might be looking at graphs for different power settings than Hitchcock states.

(I actually like Hitchcock book on the Me 109F very well, and would love to own his work on the Gustav, too. Still, I admit graphs are not one of his strengths :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline fats

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
Bf109G-6 with MW50 .. what the heck ...
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2001, 09:32:00 PM »
wish I had a scanner. I have some F-2 climb speed and climb rate curves... none witch show steps like the first G-6 curves. There are steps but nothing like above.

// fats

Offline gatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
Bf109G-6 with MW50 .. what the heck ...
« Reply #22 on: November 17, 2001, 02:32:00 AM »
Here we go:

 
"And one of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi C.205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of italian styling and german engineering .... it really was a delight to fly ... and we did tests on it and were most impressed." - Captain Eric Brown

Offline butch2k

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 238
      • http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forums
Bf109G-6 with MW50 .. what the heck ...
« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2001, 02:56:00 AM »
Some curves for the E3 and F1

 

 

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Bf109G-6 with MW50 .. what the heck ...
« Reply #24 on: November 17, 2001, 06:26:00 AM »
Hi everyone,

Great charts! :-)

But don't get me wrong, what I'm saying is not that the Me 109G top speed curve should look like the Me 109F top speed curve. What I'm saying is that there are inaccuracies in Hitchcock's reproduction of the original graphs.

Here's the original Me 109F graph for comparison (wish we'd have the Me 109G graph, too):

 http://members.aol.com/wbhohun/109f1_kennblatt_7.gif

Hitchcock screwed up the true/indicated air speed labeling and failed to explain that the dotted line is emergency power. We're going to have to expect similar problems with the Me 109G graph.

Don't get me wrong about the "corners" in the Me 109G curves either: I'm not saying there should be corners. What I'm saying is they the curve did not run straight from sea level speed to best altitude speed.

The Russian curve for the Me 109G-4 posted above shows a forward "bulge" in the top speed graph that's attributable to the variable speed supercharger.

Here are 2 more graphs displaying such a bulge:

 http://members.aol.com/wbhohun/109ts.jpg

(The Finnish Messerschmitts had the emergency power setting disabled to increase engine life. The graph is for climb and combat power.)

 http://members.aol.com/wbhohun/109speed.jpg

(Unknown Russian source :-) I suspect the Me 109F-4 curve is bogus.)

It's my impression that the subject is more complicated by the nature of emergency power: With MW50 injection, the DB605 provides higher power, and the "bulge" in the speed graph moves to an altitude just above sea level so it's no longer recognizable. The Russian Me 109K-4 graph above shows that.

In short, I believe that Hitchnoodles curves are for a Me 109G with DB605 engine, but they are a simplified depiction, and that they are not "climb and combat power" and special emergency power with MW50, as stated in the caption.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline niklas

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Bf109G-6 with MW50 .. what the heck ...
« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2001, 10:37:00 AM »
Hmm Hitchnoodles data is really strange BUT they show also some nice details. I assume that he was very glad to get some data together for his book, but didnīt look carefully enough to the data to interpret them correctly.

Good information is f.e that he gives 1475hp for takeoff power (first row), and later for max. emergency speed at ground level 1440hp (530-1440-0) - here you can see the RAM effect which reduces the power below critical altitude a bit. The same can be observed for the BMW 801, 1800hp takeoff power, and 1730 for high speed low level flight.

Iīm only wondering myself why the G6-R2 is listed as a reconaissance fighter. Afaik the R2 is equipped with a bombrack to carry 4*50kg bombs. Reconaissance aircraft usually were equipped with GM-1 and not with MW-50.

The given chart has also similarities with the chart of a 190, but it isnīt from the 190. But if you look at the F1/F2 table and compare it to the chart of the F-Model, you can easily see that his charts not always have to represent exactly the table. Just compare the climbrate (20.5 <> 18. ) or the power (1175 <> 1250 (dotted line in the original))
Or why does the climbrate of the F4 does drop down to 17.0 compared to 20.5 of the F1 and F2 according to the table?? It had 150hp more power, and was only slightly heavier.

In the G6-R2-table he mentions 6.6km as critical altitude for combat speed, but in the Graph the critical altitude is 6.0km

I have the impression he didnīt even know about the supercharger system of the DB605 and tried to bring the collected data into a form he was used to from allied engines.

In my eyes he is the typcial historian: Very good in collecting data, in digging in achives, but whenever they have to interpret technical data correctly they fail quite often. Nowarra is such an example on german side.

Anyway, itīs the first time iīve seen a speed number for a G6 with MW-50. If it was really a R2 with a bombrack, then 560km/h seems to be realistic. When it it official geramn data, then at least noone can claim that german exagerrated their aircraft performace claims  ;). Iīve also read statements that pilots reached 590km/h near ground with ASM engines (factory fresh aircraft)

Remarkable is imo the different trend of the G4 curves (climb and speed). Wheras in the speed chart the bulge is near ground, and the straight increase near critical altitude, the style of the climb rate curve is inversed. Straight increase near ground, above the (inverted) bulge. The finnsih top speed charts corresponds much nicer with the G4-climb rate chart. But this maybe depends only on the artist who draws a continious line through few test data points.

A certain bias is definitly existent in the russian charts. Itīs interesting to see that the combat power curves of the russian aircraft most often hit EXACTLY the emergency power curves above critical altitude, or after switching into the 2nd. gear (La-series). This is for flight test data very unlikly and imo a good indication that the data is based on theoretical calculations with ideal engine power charts.
And of course most pictures have a russian fighter as fastest fighter near ground included. Most pictures publish only combat power for the german planes. Most pictures neglect MW-50 (190D, too!). And when a P-51 and K-4 would be as fast as the La-7 from other charts (where it does 615km/h), they throw in a La-7 what does suddenly 630km/h near ground... (The 206 prototype ehh?)

Iīm also wondering myself why they publish the 109E-3 speed data though the climbdata makes it evident that it suffered from engine troubles near ground (climb and combat power, supercharger not working correctly?).

 
Quote
With MW50 injection, the DB605 provides higher power, and the "bulge" in the speed graph moves to an altitude just above sea level so it's no longer recognizable. The Russian Me 109K-4 graph above shows that.

Exactly Hohun. With 1800hp, the clutch slip disappeared already in 0,9km, with 2000hp in 0,4km. And this is the proof that the G-10 reached the often claimed 685km/h WITHOUT Mw-50, only with 1550hp. butch2k, maybe you can post the picture with the speed of the G-10 too? (btw butch2k, i havenīt seen pic 1-2, 9-15 and over 17 so far, but iīm very interested to see them - can you scan them and publish them too somewhere? thx).

About the A-5, here is an official source  (The A-5 was actually faster than a A-8)
 
If you compare it to the russian test data, you can come to the conclusion that they used only continuous power. The poor climbrate is also indicating this.

niklas

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Bf109G-6 with MW50 .. what the heck ...
« Reply #26 on: November 17, 2001, 11:49:00 AM »
Hi Niklas,

thanks for the Fw 190A-5 chart!

I can't quite read the caption - is it correct that of each pair of curves, the left one indicates true airspeed?

If so, I'd say the charts match the RAE tests of the Fw 190A-4 and the USN tests of the Fw 190G-3 (re-configured to A-5 status) quite well. The Focke-Wulf chart indicates a somewhat more speed down low and a bit less up high, but both western allies seem to have tested fairly accurately.

From what I've read about the Russian charts, they were prepared by a group of Russian aviation experts in the 1970s and based on all information that was available then. I don't think they were interested in making German aircraft look bad, I think it's rather an artifact of different engine rating conventions.

I'd speculate Russian aircraft had continuous power and emergency power, and nothing in between. It would seem fair from a Russian point of view to use the corresponding ratings of German aircraft, but yield a misleading picture if the German continuous ratings were optimized for engine longevity and not for power output.

>here you can see the RAM effect which reduces the power below critical altitude a bit.

From what I've read, ram effect should always be beneficial, but I've seen power curves with a drop, too. Do you have any explanation? After all, ram could have been avoided by drawing in air with static pressure.

>Iīm only wondering myself why the G6-R2 is listed as a reconaissance fighter.

According to Griehl, the R2 designation was used twice (which happened more than once ;-). One R2 indicated a GM-1 equipped reconnaissance plane, but Hitchcock actually lists the R2 fighter bomber.

>I have the impression he didnīt even know about the supercharger system of the DB605 and tried to bring the collected data into a form he was used to from allied engines.

I'd say he attempted to copy the Luftzeugmeister's charts - look at the graph paper, it has divisions based on 5 as typical for German graphs, not on powers of 2 as typical for US curves. And he'd sure have used imperial measurements if he hadn't tried to recreate a German original :-)

>Nowarra is such an example on german side.

I'm going to have to defend Hitchcock against that comparison! He's much more thorough than Nowarra, whose book on the Me 109 indicates really poor research.

>If it was really a R2 with a bombrack, then 560km/h seems to be realistic.

If you're referring to optimum altitude, the 566 km/h must be a typo - I can't imagine that MW50 slowed the aircraft down from the 590 km/h it did at cruise power ;-)

>Remarkable is imo the different trend of the G4 curves (climb and speed).

The trend indicates that full speed flight benefits from air pressure (and accordingly drag) decreasing with altitude quicker than engine power. In a climb, most of the power is spent lifting the aircraft, so that you directly see the engine power decrease in the climb chart.

>Exactly Hohun. With 1800hp, the clutch slip disappeared already in 0,9km, with 2000hp in 0,4km. And this is the proof that the G-10 reached the often claimed 685km/h WITHOUT Mw-50, only with 1550hp.

Hey, that was a bit quick! :-) We didn't have a G-10 curve in this thread yet, did we?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline R4M

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Bf109G-6 with MW50 .. what the heck ...
« Reply #27 on: November 17, 2001, 02:04:00 PM »
Niklas...

first of all.190A5, 565km/h at SL?. In AH we have 335mph at SL! that is almost 15mph slower than what it should be!

I'd say that those charts are the most reliable information on factory-produced planes. So then, why is 190A5 15mph slower than what it should be?

BTW I'd LOVE to have those Focke-wulf charts!, if you can share them, that is. Could you email the ones you have to me?   :)

In fact, I'd be thankful to receive ANYTHING   :D you have   :).

Thanks in advance   :)

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]

Offline niklas

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Bf109G-6 with MW50 .. what the heck ...
« Reply #28 on: November 17, 2001, 02:22:00 PM »
Hi Hohun

the left one is corrected for the error of the speed indicator due to the macheffect, the right one is not. So the left one is indeed TAS, the right one is the value a pilot gets when he uses standard conversion factors from IAS to TAS without mach-correction.
This means, if a pilot reads IAS and uses the standard conversion factor for TAS, the error due to mach effect is ~15MPH in 600m@650km/h.
If this effect is neglected... well, maybe one of many a reason for several high speed claims from pilots, especially when they flew in high altitudes at high mach numbers (or the mach0,93 speed claim for a spit reached in a dive)   ;)

The only explanation for the power decrease due to RAM effect i have is that the additional compression below critical altitude heats the air a little bit up. So maybe you get a slighlty worse cylinder filling.

With 560km/h i refer to ground speed.

Now the G-10 enters the stage   ;)
Those are the charts from buch2kīs webpage which shows a G-10 (Note also the critical altitude. With over 7000m it would be pretty high for a 1,8x or 1,9x boost)
   

This chart from butch2k page shows the climb performance of a A-8. Well, when the A-8 climbs better than a A-5 then itīs again a good hint that the published performance of the A-5 is for continuous power.
 

niklas

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: niklas ]

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Bf109G-6 with MW50 .. what the heck ...
« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2001, 02:30:00 PM »
Niklas the famous Spitfire Mach .9+ figure came from timing a dive.  They took (start_altitude - final_altitude ) / dive_time and made a speed estimate.