Bf109E4 vs c202 climb rates...

[dtango]

Grun:

(1) The AH 109E-4 carries a 250kg bomb no?  At least that's what's posted on for the E-4 on the AH website.

(2) I didn't claim that the DB601Aa isn't slightly more powerful than the DB601A-1.

HoHun:

Hmmm, I didn't think to compare to the AH 109F-4 model.  DB601N engine.  Very interesting indeed in terms of performance comparison! Have we found our C.202 engine?  
[EDIT:  Oops!  The F-4 has the DB601E so scratch that comparison.  Still very interesting about what you've indicated with the F-1 DB601N data you have.]

I have no clue as to which C.202 series the AH C.202 belongs to.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[HoHun]

Hi Grünherz,

>I have not read of C202 having a DB601N.  The N component was GM-1 nitrous oxide boost used only at very high altitudes

You're thinking of the Me 109E-7/Z (also referred to as /NZ). Though this aircraft used the DB601N engine, the Z stood for the GM-1 injection while the N alone stood for a DB601 variant running on 96 octane fuel. The DB601N due to a higher compression ratio had a greater full throttle altitude than the DB601Aa which it replaced in the middle of the Me 109E-4 series (creating the E-4/N). The DB601N also permitted 2600 rpm compared to the DB601Aa's 2500 rpm and the DB601A-1's 2400 rpm.

>Everything I have read about c202 has said 1175hp, so that engine is like DB601Aa as in BF109E4.

After a bit of searching, I've found the following two engines mentioned for the M.C. 202 (and I wouldn't be suprised if there were more):

RA.1000 RC.41-I Monsone
RA.1000 RC.44-Ia ("DB601Aa")

Though the Italian document where I found the latter designation refers to the engine as DB601Aa, the power table shows it's only run at 2400 rpm like the DB601A-1 even in one-minute power. Since the document refers to a M.C. 202  with two machine guns only, it must be for a relatively early aircraft.

(From what I've read, there were 12 series of M.C. 202 fighters, with series VI introducing the wing guns featured by the Aces High M.C. 202.)

I have been trying to identify the stencelling on the Luftwaffe-style triangle on the port fuselage just aft of the cockpit, but the photographs I found are too small to make it out  (if there's any at all). From the photos and colour profiles, I'd think the triangles were either red or yellow, indicating the use of different fuel types, but that might be an illusion due to poor colour reproduction.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[gatt]

In flight and maintenance manuals of the C.202 and Re2001 fighters I've found references to RA 1000 RC 41 Ia, RA 1000 RC 441a and RA 1000 RC 411 engines. Output ranged from 1.075hp to 1.175hp (usually at 2.400rpm and in one case also at 2.500rpm) at take off.

You may have to consider also differences between the propeller used by germans and the one mounted by italians (the PIAGGIO P.1001). Moreover, the C.202 manual says that the engine could be pushed up to 1,45ATA at 2.400rpm with the propeller set at the so called "supergiri" (something like "superRPM").

[HoHun]

Hi Gatt,

>In flight and maintenance manuals of the C.202 and Re2001 fighters I've found references to RA 1000 RC 41 Ia, RA 1000 RC 441a and RA 1000 RC 411 engines.

Are you sure that -441a isn't actually -44 Ia? This looks like a mistake that would be easy to make. And it would reduce the engine variety we have to reckon with markedly :-)

>Output ranged from 1.075hp to 1.175hp (usually at 2.400rpm and in one case also at 2.500rpm) at take off.

The problem seems to be that the DB601N wasn't actually rated for more take-off power than the DB601A series, but could maintain higher continous power and had a greater full throttle altitude. We can't tell which engine was used from the ratings alone, especially as Alfa Romeo seems to have rated the engines slightly differently than Daimler-Benz. If the manuals list the octane rating, this would be more helpful for determining whether the DB601N was used.

>You may have to consider also differences between the propeller used by germans and the one mounted by italians (the PIAGGIO P.1001).

The difference we're observing is too large to be explained by a new propeller alone. Have a look at the Me 109F-1 - it achieved the same performance as the M.C. 202 on a VDM propeller. Even better, the Me 109T-2 with 200 kg of additional carrier equipment climbed at 3350 fpm with the DB601N running at just 1.25 ata. It's really the engine, not the propeller that makes the M.C. 202 so good.

>Moreover, the C.202 manual says that the engine could be pushed up to 1,45ATA at 2.400rpm with the propeller set at the so called "supergiri" (something like "superRPM").

That sounds like a misnomer if the normal 2400 rpm were used :-) I assume the 1.45 ata rating was cleared for 60 s only? That would be normal DB601Aa power.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Kweassa]

* smack! punt! *