Author Topic: why does 109G10 climb so bad??  (Read 3682 times)

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #135 on: April 26, 2002, 09:49:50 AM »
Somebody needs to hi-jack this thread! :D


Regards, Shuckins

Offline Naudet

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 729
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #136 on: April 26, 2002, 11:46:36 AM »
As i said, i have no clue of the factors influencing drag and aerodynamics.

My idea was (very) basicly this.

We have a forward force consisting of engine power/thrust

and this is counteracted by overall drag.

At Topspeed i have thrust = drag.

So if i if increase thrust (i.e. more engine power) i get a little bit more thrust to accelerate and increase topspeed until
thrust = drag matches again.

is that right so far (remember that english is not my motherlanguage so my terms might be a little bit of :) )

but if at the same time i increase a drag factor, i might be able to get the exact same speed as if both factors were lower.

I also recognize that there are other factors influencing that, such as prop efficiency, as it effects the way engine power is converted into thrust

so if i use a thumbrule of

power x prop efficiency = thrust

if i now increase power, i would get more thrust, but if at the same time i lower prop efficiency thrust can be constant.


If the above is right.

Than my general statement, that 2 little faults might eliminate each other without affecting the results (here speed), while just 1 fault would changes the result, is right?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2002, 11:49:44 AM by Naudet »

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #137 on: April 26, 2002, 01:33:45 PM »
Hi Niklas,

>Chart nr.2 shows some other nice details, the increased boost for Steigleistung is noteworthy and confirms my doc that says 1550hp with 1,50ata the first D engine.

I've to say I find that chart somewhat confusing.

"Grundeinstellung" ('basic setting') seems to imply that the engine was set up differently (probably with different compression values?) to handle high emergency power boosts.

Apparently, the highest power setting actually used in that test was 1.8 ata - do you have any idea of what power it could have yielded? Your suggestion of 1550 hp would result in a 20.1 m/s climb rate according to my crude estimate, which matches the 1.8/1.98 ata branch quite well.

>BUT i spot a little contradiction in the chart. Just look at the left curve that tells you altitude over climbtime.

I'd say the scale is 1 cm = 100 s, this seems to fit the climb rate data.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline niklas

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #138 on: April 26, 2002, 02:59:56 PM »
Compression was always 8.x for the D engines and ASC. No, it looks like they compared a DC and ASC engine that run with reduced boost like a DB and ASB engine to a real DB and ASB engine. So Grundeinstellung 1.8 seems to refer to xB engine, 1.98 to xC engine.
This makes sense because my docs say 1430PS Steigleistung for DB engines and only 1370 for DC engines. If you assume also same boost for Notleistung the power the power seems to be 1800PS for the DC now, and 1850PS for the DB or DB-basis what is sure and documented (http://members.tripod.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/DB605_varianten.pdf)
Because they used only 1.8ata they were able to use C3 fuel without MW-50. I just want to know why weight is still so high.

That the scale could be 100s is a good oberservation, this makes sense and seem to fit - pretty unusual though. Funny that i heard people so far speaking about 8km in 5minutes for the 109K. Same source, same misunderstanding?
It´s a calculation anyway, probably like the first one with safety factors. Other real testflight docs quote 1,98ata but only 1.30 ata for climbpower. This makes everything even more confusing. It would be interesting to know in which context this doc was made.

niklas
« Last Edit: April 27, 2002, 05:06:58 AM by niklas »

Offline Wulfmen

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 68
      • http://www.Blackadders.de
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #139 on: April 26, 2002, 09:45:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by niklas
...... I just want to know why weight is still so high.


Its the weight w Gondolas.

Offline hitech

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12425
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #140 on: April 27, 2002, 12:04:29 PM »
Correct Naudet

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #141 on: April 27, 2002, 12:43:12 PM »
How about that middle east huh?;)

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #142 on: April 27, 2002, 01:18:37 PM »
Hi Niklas,

>If you assume also same boost for Notleistung the power the power seems to be 1800PS for the DC now, and 1850PS for the DB or DB-basis what is sure and documented.

I'm afraid the document you linked doesn't provide numbers for anything above 1.50 ata without MW50.

>Because they used only 1.8ata they were able to use C3 fuel without MW-50. I just want to know why weight is still so high.

No idea. Griehl quotes the climb data from this sheet for the Me 109K-6, which had MK108 wing guns, so perhaps it was a projection for this type. (Note the "Forschungsanstalt" in the upper left hand corner - this was not "Erprobung" of operational aircraft.)

>That the scale could be 100s is a good oberservation, this makes sense and seem to fit - pretty unusual though. Funny that i heard people so far speaking about 8km in 5minutes for the 109K. Same source, same misunderstanding?

Yes, that's the source for the most often published Me 109K-4 climb data - 3 min to 5 km, 5 min to 8 km, 6.7 min to 10 km, 10.2 min to 11.8 km. Green, Griehl, Elevon ... all wrong :-)

>It would be interesting to know in which context this doc was made.

Do you understand the reference to "Schrb. 12199 z. 12159"? Could it have been a propeller test? (There's also a reference to "9-605-2290/91" - sounds like a RLM engine chart to me.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #143 on: April 27, 2002, 01:48:38 PM »
Quote
Because they used only 1.8ata they were able to use C3 fuel without MW-50

What was the maximum boost for c3 with mw-50, and for b4 with mw-50?

Offline Wulfmen

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 68
      • http://www.Blackadders.de
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #144 on: April 28, 2002, 04:11:04 AM »
Forschungsanstallt Oberammergau? Hmmmmm never saw anythink from this. Must be a Test from the Hofbräuhaus :D
Was in Oberammergau a Maschienen-Prüf-Stand?

Henning did u have any sources from Luftschrauben Tests?
The first chart is from other source but not Rechlin.

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #145 on: April 28, 2002, 05:11:18 AM »
Wulfmen,
The first chart appear to be  one of those Messerschmitt project papers which are available as microfilms from the Smithsonian institute (originals migt be at the Deutches Museum nowadays) It's from early 1944 so those are just calculations.

I'm not sure about second paper, but as noted earlier, the altitude where variable speed system starts to work seems to be same for all MAPs and this is not how system worked, so that paper might be a calculation too.

gripen

Offline Naudet

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 729
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #146 on: April 28, 2002, 05:36:32 AM »
If you need to find the location of a certain archive here is what i know so far:


Messerschmitt archive went to DASA, and Messerschmidt charts that were captured by the allied were given back to Freiburg archive.

Focke-Wulf archive can now be found at the "Technisches Museum Berlin".

Junkers archive is at the "Deutsches Museum" at Munich.

Daimler Benz documents should still be located at the company archive, but this is restricted to invited guests.

Btw, i have heard if you ask the folks in Freiburg if the USA and GB gave back all documents, you just get a smile. So there might be more than a few microfilm copies left in the USA, especially FW190 documents seem to have "disappeared" in the last 50 years.

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #147 on: April 28, 2002, 08:38:15 AM »
Naudet,
Some of the stuff captured and microfilmed by USAF are nowadays at Deutsches Museum. Many documents there have Wright Field stamps on them.

gripen

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #148 on: April 28, 2002, 04:08:25 PM »
Good job guys.  :)

Offline illo

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #149 on: May 07, 2002, 12:20:42 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Pyro






I would have fun at this point with a little turnaround satire questioning your integrity and competency but I'm sure the irony and humor would be missed by some so I'll refrain.

There is no proof, there is only evidence.  Typically, the more evidence you collect, the more questions that are raised.  It doesn't just all fit together to form a perfect model.  If you only look at one thing or only from one side, it seems pretty clear, but that doesn't make it so.  If our roles were reversed and it was you that modeled the G10 in the game, I could offer this "proof" of how overmodeled it is and how biased you are towards German planes.  Do you see the irony?

Your charts show 109k-4 climbrate without MW-50 used.(Note o.=ohne=without MW-50) Which is 21.5m/s.
It's no irony.

Now let us see 109g-10 with 27m/s climb. :)