Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: _Schadenfreude_ on February 13, 2004, 08:11:35 AM
-
So would the 109K bea hotter ride than the G10?
-
In terms of AH and the G-10 we have now...not really. Only thing that would make K-4 a bit hotter ride than G-10 in AH is the flettner tabs in the ailerons which made the ailerons more effective in high speeds. And judging from the photographs very few K-4s had these tabs.
-
Performance - wise:
K-4 has 30mm MK 108 as standard weapon
It`s about 20 km/h faster than the G-10
But climbs marginally (about 0.1-0.2 m/sec) worser due to higher weight (unless G-10 also carries the 30mm MK 108 as G-10/U4)
K-4 has better instrumentation
A K-14 would be a real hotrod though in high altitudes (7000m+).
-
Actually I think our "G-10" has the "K-4" engine...my understanding is that a significant portion of the late war G-10's were up engined. I'm curious about canopy differences....I read somewhere that some of the late war 109's (not sure which model) had a "bubble" canopy of some kind?
-
G-10 and K-4 had the very same engine, however the DB 605D had several different power outputs depending on configuration and fuel type, 1550, 1725 or 1800 w/o MW50 and 1850, 2000 PS. with MW50.
Some, about 50 G-10s had fitted with DB 605ASM, with similiar properties to early DB 605D with 1800 PS output.
The Erla haube had about 5 slightly different versions to my knowladge, however I have never heard of an operational 109 that has been fitted with a bubble type canopy. The Erla provided good enough vision. :cool:
-
At least one K series factory prototype did have an Erla haube with a noticably blown top panel giving it some bubble appearence.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
The Erla haube had about 5 slightly different versions to my knowladge, however I have never heard of an operational 109 that has been fitted with a bubble type canopy. The Erla provided good enough vision. :cool:
Are you still claiming the pilot had better vision out of a 109 than a bubble canopy P-47, P-51, Spitfire, Typhoon, Tempest?:eek:
-
Dont know any buddhist norwegian grandmothers Grun, but i still love ya ;)
-
The K4 also had a slightly modified tail with rudder trim, retractable tail wheel, and main gear wheel-well covers. I thought the K4 was considerably faster on the deck as a result of this improvement in aerodynamic "cleanness". I believe Grunherz has stated performance in the order of 380 mph at SL and 5000+ fpm initial climb.
G10
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_245_1076818756.jpg)
K4
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_245_1076818778.jpg)
-
Here's the info on the K4 from bf109.com. Don't know their sources though.
Maximum speed 607 kph (377 mph) at sea level, 727 kph (452 mph) at 6000m (19685 ft). Initial climb rate 1470 meters/min (4823 ft/min). Climb to 5000m (16400 ft) was 3 minutes, to 10000m (32800 ft). was 6.7 minutes. Service ceiling 12500m (41000 ft). Range 587 km (365 miles), endurance 50 minutes.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
But climbs marginally (about 0.1-0.2 m/sec) worser due to higher weight (unless G-10 also carries the 30mm MK 108 as G-10/U4)
The MK108 only weigh about 20-30 lbs more than the MG151, and when you consider the ammo load of only 60 rounds compared with 150 for the MG151, it should even out the weight nicely.
-
I have seen various K4 climb figures from 4,800fpm to 5,280 fpm.
I would love a chance to fly a K14 in a game, this plane introduced some Rechlin advised aerodynamic improvements , a new DB605L (2 stage 2 speed supercharger IRRC) engine and a new 4 blade prop. It gave it an astoundoing boost in performance especally at high altidudes... This version brought Bf109 speed performance into the P51H class and of course it still climbed better...
Apparently a few even got in the hands of combat pilots but never saw action... :eek:
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The MK108 only weigh about 20-30 lbs more than the MG151, and when you consider the ammo load of only 60 rounds compared with 150 for the MG151, it should even out the weight nicely.
Speaking of Mk108, did you know that they started producing a revised 900rpm rate of fire Mk108 at the end of the war. A 50% increase in firepower over the standard early model!!! :)
-
I think it's safe to say the AH G-10 is in effect, a K-4, Schaden.
The AH G-10 uses a DB605DCM, with its speed performance at alt identical to the K-4 at 452mph(though admittably, I was never able to reach that speed. 445~448mph was the best I could do).
The maneuverability would be better with the K-4, but I really have no idea just how much it would be improved - my guess is marginal.
Frankly, my wish is to see the AH G-10 slightly beefed in performance and slapped with a new name of "K-4".. and we get a G-14 to use between our '43 G-6 and the '44 K-4.
-
Maximum speed 607 kph (377 mph) at sea level, 727 kph (452 mph) at 6000m (19685 ft). Initial climb rate 1470 meters/min (4823 ft/min).
That's about right for a K4 using C3 fuel and MW 50, running at 1.98 ata. That was authorised in Feb/March 45, but might not have been used much, as most C3 went to the FW190 units.
It's based on documents that are partly calculated performances though, so is almost certainly a best case scenario.
Climb to 5000m (16400 ft) was 3 minutes, to 10000m (32800 ft). was 6.7 minutes.
That's wrong. Those are the figures Green gave, and seem to have been based on the misreading of the same climb chart Pyro posted here a couple of years ago.
The climb chart shows what appears to be 3 mins to 5000m, but the scale is different, ie the numbers along the bottom refer to metres per second and not minutes as well.
The chart shows 6 mins to 5km, not 3, and is for climb at climb and combat, not start and emergency.
If you work out 5km in 3 mins it's an average of 27.8 m/sec, nearly 5,500 ft/min, which is faster than the K4s peak climb rate.
10km in 6.7 mins is an average of 25 m/s, 4,900ft/min, which is close to the peak rate at low level, but would have to be sustained up to 10k, 4 - 5km above the critical altitude for the 109 at 1.98ata.
-
So how long would it take the 109K to get to 20.000 feet?
Our 109G2 does it in some 5 minutes if my memory serves me.
-
Tests with G10, 100% fuel no DT, 30mm, no Gondolas. WEP On.
5000 feet: 1 min 2 seconds.
10000 feet: 2 min 12 seconds.
15000 feet: 3 min 27 seconds.
20000 feet: 4 min 50 seconds.
25000 feet: 6 min 29 seconds.
30000 feet: 8 min 43 seconds.
-
if we will ever get the 109g14 it will be perked and a silly "14" will be added to his icon
10914 vrs spit14 hehe :)
-
See no reason to Perk the 109 G14 if it's ever added, afaik our G10 has better performance than the 109 G14.
-
Anybody have a document that shows 377MPH at sea level for the K-4 or any version of the 109?
I have one that show 450MPH at alt but only about 350MPH at sea level.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Speaking of Mk108, did you know that they started producing a revised 900rpm rate of fire Mk108 at the end of the war. A 50% increase in firepower over the standard early model!!! :)
No I didn't know that. Ooooh, I can see the B-17s disintegrating now! :)
Did this improved MK108 see service, or was it too late?
F4UDOA, I'm sure Isegrim can post one. I'm also sure Nashwan and MiloMoron will attack him viciously and this thread will become a 500 post monster of mudslinging.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
F4UDOA, I'm sure Isegrim can post one. I'm also sure Nashwan and MiloMoron will attack him viciously and this thread will become a 500 post monster of mudslinging.
No you dumb fat clown of a Nazi Hauptgefreiter from Hogun's Heros, I will agree that Barbi will most likely know of any mods done to the Mk108, so won't start a 500pg thread.:)
Now if you really want to know the truth about anything German, one has to ask Butch2k who has never shown any BIAS.
-
Well if we can get Butch2k to come here and enlighten us, that's great! But if not we will have to make due with the sources we can find. I don't know Butch2k, but many people speak fondly of him so I would very much like to hear what he has to say.
-
well it kinda survived (well sort off) ... see the DEFA of the ADEN
-
GScholz, if you want to know wether the improved Mk108 saw service, your best bet would be Tony Williams, who sometimes posts here, but also has his own website and forum:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/
The forum is linked from the main page.
F4UDOA, I'm sure Isegrim can post one. I'm also sure Nashwan and MiloMoron will attack him viciously and this thread will become a 500 post monster of mudslinging.
Firstly, I have never seen Isegrim post the information he says he has on 109K4 speed. I have seen other people I trust allude to it though, and because of that I'm prepared to accept there is some basis in fact. The only thing I've seen Isegrim post is his own graph comparing the K4 to whatever other aircraft he wants to disparage at the time.
As to attacking Isegrim, if you look at the thread you are reffering to, I pointed out (politely) that Isegrim was using power settings that weren't available until March 45 (iirc) and Isegrim responded by calling me a liar and accusing me of making up facts.
I'm prepared to give anyone another chance, and that includes Isegrim. If I get in another debate with him, then as long as he keeps it civil I will do the same.
-
Yes I know, but I meant if the improved MK108 saw German service in WWII?
Most of the German weapons of WWII were somehow used after the war, and many post-war weapons are developed from the MG42, MG151, MK108, MK103 etc.
A modernized MG151 is still being produced as the F2, and serves as the chin-gun of the Rooivalk.
(http://www.army-technology.com/projects/rooivalk/images/rooivalk7.jpg)
Pretty nice bird.
-
Anybody have a document that shows 377MPH at sea level for the K-4 or any version of the 109?
I haven't seen it, as I said above, but from comments by Butch2k, amongst others, I believe the document does show 378 mph or thereabouts at sea level. However, Butch said it was calculated performance based on ome tests, or something along those lines.
It's also based on a K4 with C3 and MW50, and again according to Butch, the C3 usually went to the 190s.
C3 and MW50 gave 2000 ps at sea level, and was authorised in Feb or March 45, B4 and MW50 gave 1800/1850 ps and was authorised in Jan/Feb 45.
well it kinda survived (well sort off) ... see the DEFA of the ADEN
I believe the Defa and Aden were based on the MG213 revolver cannon, which had very little (if anything) to do with the Mk108.
-
The most significant German gun in post war was the MG213 revolver cannon developed in 1944. This thing could spew 20/30mm shells at 1400rpm. :)
It was copied (pretty much directly) post war in the form of the following very famous weapons the French DEFA and British ADEN and also US developed M39 (F86, F100, F8 Crusader). Also its intresting to note that that the AH64 Apache's 30mm cannon, of BBS iraq video infamy, actually uses a shell thats descended from the MG213/30mm family of guns...
-
C3? Raceplane fuel mixture? Boosterspice?
BTW, where does the 109G14 fit into the rank?
-
G14 is a late production G6 with MW50 being standard. It looks just like our G6 in the game. It is not faster or "better" than a G10. Although a G14/AS (best G14) could have similar performance to a lowest model G10.
-
109G14
The G-14 is mentioned in Mtt meetings minutes as the new official name of the G-6/MW50 designation which was used internally by Mtt for G-6 equipped with the MW-50 system previously used on the recce G-6/R2 variant.
The G-10 is described as the evolution of the G-6 using MW-50 (same system as G-6/R2) and the DB605DM.
The G-14 used only the following engines:
DB605AM,
DB605ASM,
with b4 (ASB) or / C3 (ASC) fuel (available only in 1945; the ASC was not cleared for maximum output until March 45 at the same time as the DB605DC.)
Neither the DB605A nor the DB605AS were mounted on the G-14, since the main difference from G-6 was the presence of MW-50, which required either the DB605AM or the DB605ASM engine.
The DB605AS (M) used the same supercharger as the DB605D, they were rebuilt using DB605A casing and fitted with the DB603A supercharger. They required the same kind of cowling as the DB605D equipped aircraft. Yet there are some small cowling differences between a G-10 and a G-14/AS, so you can identify one from the other.
The difference between the A and AS in the one hand and the AM and ASM in the other hand is the addition of MW-50. Of course there were other differences such as sparkplugs, timings and other settings etc.
The G-14 was (as the others) produced by Messerschmitt in Regensburg, Erla Maschinenwerke in Leipzig and WNF (Wiener Neustädter Flugzeugwerke).
The minority was built by WNF. Many G-14s built by WNF had their MG 151/20 replaced by a MK 108, which resulted in the designation G-14/U4.
So the majority built by Messerschmitt and Erla kept their MG 151/20.
G-10s were not made from old airframes, they were produced alongside the G-14 as an evolution of the G-6 with DB605D and MW-50 while the G-14 was the evolution of G-6 with DB605A with MW-50. (DB605AM)
It is true some of the first airframes used for the G-10 were from G-6 as they were available, or from airframes planned for mounting the DB605AM (G-14) in case no DB605AM were available. Hence the twin data plate found on some G-10.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
That's about right for a K4 using C3 fuel and MW 50, running at 1.98 ata. That was authorised in Feb/March 45, but might not have been used much, as most C3 went to the FW190 units.
Coming up with that again, Nashwan? :rolleyes: That`s an old story by now, and starts to become more and more boring.
First, do you have anything to back that up ? Uhm, the answer is "no" as usual.
OK, so let`s go over it again .
The "all/most C-3 went to FW 190 units" myth. As usual, we don`t see any proof to that. BTW, do you want to know what`s the reason for that claim? Nashwan`s desperation to take the K-4 figures as low or lower as his beloved Mk XIV Spit.
IT IS ABOUT NOTHING ELSE ! There`s no research behind these statements, it`s merely some fan boxing the air in desperation because his favourite a/c happens to be a few mph slower than an other. That`s all it`s about.
As for the C-3 fuel supply went to FW 190 units... that`s interesting, there are literally DOZENS of pictures for 1944 Bf 109 units that show the planes using C-3 fuel. G-14s, G-10 (which had the same engine as K-4...), and K-4s. On German planes, there`s a small triangle on the side that shows the type of fuel the plane requires, which makes IDing the fuel type very easy. Funny, it`s not at all hard to find such photos. If C-3 was so rare as Nashwan claims... Naswhan, what do you have to say to that while you claim C-3 was in short supply in 109 units (especially in those K-4 units :) ) , there are pictures of 109s using C-3...?
One can look on the actual fuel shipments to Bf 109 equipped units, and not Nashwan`s fantasies... OH my, what do we find ? The (Italian) ANR`s fuel shipments and storage are well documented in Italian books ("The Italian Air War", forgot the author, some Italian). They show that those guys, NOT being a German unit, just a mere ally, NOT being any special, being the very lowest priority on the German supply line, using the usual G-14s and G-10s along with 3 K-4 received no B-4 fuel at all from the OKL`s reserves, JUST C-3, and they lived on that for about the last days of April 1945, when they run out of it and no more shipments came, and so used up the B-4 stores. Something again that doesn`t match up with Nashwan`s version.
Need more ? Nashwan did not provided any. I can. Read the British report on a captured G-14. This plane uses DB 605 AM, and has the same 1800 whatever fuel is used. B-4 or C-3. Read again : whatever fuel, 87 octane B-4 or 96 octane C-3 is used in mix with MW-50, they will get the exact same power output. There`s no advantage using C-3 instead of B-4.
Yet the British found the following in the relevant part of description, Me109G-14 W.Nr. 413601, captured in 1944 :
Engine
DB605 A-1 Tp.
No. 01104968.
Maker: hsr. (ed.note: code for Henschel- Kassel)
Painted on the crankcase cover is: 605 A/m.
This engine has the normal small supercharger and both engine bearers are of light alloy. C-3 (100 octane) fuel is used but additional power for short periods is obtained from an apparatus known as the "MW 50", in conjunction with a boost pressure of 1.7 ata (equals British boost of +9.5).
I have showed the underlined part already to Nashwan. Back then, his response was, that the sentence "C-3 (100 octane) fuel is used", actually means C-3 was not used, (???) the fact the plane was found to be filled with C-3 it`s merely shows "preference", not actual use... No comment.
As for the "1.98ata was not authorized until February 1945" claim... not much needs to be said. The DB 605D`s manual, 3rd edition, dated 1st December, 1944, says 1.98 IS AUTHORIZED. PERIOD. Butch referred to some trials with taking place in early 1945 with various engine settings, however one can hardly draw the conclusion that means it wasn`t authorized at that time, especially the manual itself, based on which the groundcrew set the engine, says it was allowed to be used.
It's based on documents that are partly calculated performances though, so is almost certainly a best case scenario.
"Almost certainly". Can you tell the details please? I certainly do know you don`t have any idea what a/c conditions those figures refer to. Mind you to the small details, the figures refer to 3400 kg weight, whereas the full loaded weight was 3362 kg. Small difference, but if you also add that British speed figures are corrected to 95% weight in the majority of cases, which translates roughly to half fuel load, and Naswhan compares that to figures that are at 100% load... best case scenario, yes, in British trials, not in German ones.
One more for best case scenarios, everybody knows that planes in service were likely to be worser due to wear etc. Nothing uncommon here, Spitfire IX were found to be 15-20 km/h slower than their claimed topspeed when taken from squadron service and tested, I am sure there were worser and better cases. Luckily of course, there was plenty of supply of brand new K-4s, they just kept pouring out of the factory in hundreds every month. Unlike in the RAF, the "ultimate" fighters were no rare birds but everyday`s reality. :aok
-
Number of Bf 109 K-4s with the first line LW units.
Reserves, factory stocks etc. not counted. Note: According to the Dec 31 1945 strenght report, all K-4s were with 1st line units, none in the reserve units, so probalby the 2nd line K-4s were rare, however, many reserve ones were found in stores etc.
First K-4s were received in the starting days of October, however first enemy-related loss did not happened until early November.
Figures are for end of month.
October : 155
November : 209
December : 196
January : 314
-
Umm Isengrim, was gonna ask about this one "there are literally DOZENS of pictures for 1944 Bf 109 units that show the planes using C-3 fuel."
But you explained later.
I am a bit interested in the C-3.
Firstly: What was it exactly? A mixture similar to the Pre-war raceplanefuel?
Secondly: Would an engine configured for the C-3 (Hence the triangle) also run on conventional fuel such as the standard 87 oct?
Thirdly:How was the effect on engine lifespan?
Fourthly: I have not noticed that triangle yet on pictures, but I don't have that many of the K series anyway.
Since I am looking for pics of the ultimate 109 and you say there are many of those, could you perhaps provide a link?
-
Hello all,
http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/109_projekt.pdf (http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/109_projekt.pdf)
Notice the note at the top:109 is with gondolas
Ecke
-
What about the engine?Jumo 213 with C-3???????????
-
Hallo Angus,
I am no expert. I only can share my sources.
And may this thread go on in a civilized manner.
Ecke
-
In Prien/Rodieke book there is 2 photos of K-4s which show the fuel triangle. One is marked 87 and the other is marked C3.
A PDF of the DB605 engines.
http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/DB605_varianten.pdf
Barbi, all German a/c had the yellow fuel triangle.:aok
-
Well, Ecke, this PDF file was quite interesting. I wish it was a bit clearer. Any other format available online (So I can try to sharpen it in photoshop).
-
Any other format available online (So I can try to sharpen it in photoshop).
I dont know. But you can zoom in. That helps a bit.
-
Originally posted by Angus
I am a bit interested in the C-3.
Firstly: What was it exactly? A mixture similar to the Pre-war raceplanefuel?
No, it`s simply German designation for a grade of aviation fuel. 'B-4' is for 87 octane fuel, 'C-3' is the designation for 96 octane fuel. There were others, 'J-2' was diesel jet fuel for the Jumo 004, and 'A-?' (not sure about the latter two as I am writing from memo) was a low-grade fuel for training craft, or planes like the Storch.
In brief, it`s nothing special, just ordinary avgas, with somewhat better anti-knock qualities than the standard Allied 100/130 grade. Somewhere I read later versions of C-3 were actually as good as 100/150 grade, but I am not sure about the details.
Secondly: Would an engine configured for the C-3 (Hence the triangle) also run on conventional fuel such as the standard 87 oct?
It could, the DB 605D series were designed with fuel interchangebility in mind; however it would need to be reconfigured, which as far as I know from butch, was a complicated task enough not to be possible on unit level. In practice, that means if an engine was configured for C-3 (DB 605DC), it either run with C-3 or did not run at all. When configured to B-4 (DB 605DB) it could run at max boost with either B-4 and MW50, or with C-3 used alone. Because using high boost with low grade fuel would lead to premature detonation, the engine would run roughly, and soon fail at high powers; I am sure it would do no good to run it on low grade fuel at all, because of the different timing, spark plugs etc.
However the opposite was possible, running on higher grade when setting was for B-4; there are examples of DB 605As, that been designed for B-4, being refueled with C-3 (as nothing else was available at the base... hmmm) could takeoff and retur to base safely w/o problems. Of course there are no real gain from it, it`s like running your car on higher grade fuel than it needs.
Thirdly:How was the effect on engine lifespan?
Have no exact data, but I would guess the higher powers, stress and boost associated with high grade fuels would reduce not as much the engine`s lifespan, but the TBO times, just like in the case of Allied engines which were running at 150 grade. The DB 605 D`s TBO is given usually as 25 hours (another source as 30-40 hours, the difference probably being the first hours needed to be run at low powers, just like with a new car); I am not sure however what that means exactly, there were different overhaul intervals specificed, with progressively larger maintaince task (ie. 10 hour, 25 hour, 50 hour, 100 hour, 200 hours "overhauls"). I am not sure these 25 hours are for a minor or major overhaul.The real killer was not C-3 however (I doubt it would have much of an effect), but the corrosion caused by water injection (MW-50), which meant the engines needed to be checked more often for signs of corrosion. Sidenote that the whole DB series were designed with overhauls in mind, some were overhauled 7-8 times in their carreer, and engine replacement was very quick on a 109 - something like half an hour. Another that even with very low loss rates, it was unlikely the plane - on avarage - would survive 20-30 missions w/o taking some kind of damage.
Fourthly: I have not noticed that triangle yet on pictures, but I don't have that many of the K series anyway.
Since I am looking for pics of the ultimate 109 and you say there are many of those, could you perhaps provide a link?
I can try to scan you some of those, you can find one photo of a C-3 fueled K-4 in Prien/Rodeike`s 109F/G/K. Most K-4 photos it has are taken in November 1944 with III/JG 77, which had early K-4s with DB 605DM engine, and these seem to run at B-4 fuel. Not much of a surprise, the DM engine could run at 1.75ata with either B-4 or C-3 fuel, for the same 1800 PS, so there was no gain from using a higher grade, and I guess they still had large stocks of B-4 as they just converted - previously the III/JG77 had G-6s and G-14s only, which could run B-4 fuel w/o performance loss.
You may try however Falcon`t 109 hangar, the best source for 109 photos (direct linking/saving is not possible..).
Below on the first picture you can see a Hungarian G-10 with the same DB 605D engine, and as you can see in the triangle, 'C-3' type fuel is noted.
http://www.messerschmitt-bf109.de/php-bf109g/bf109g10.php?sortby=id
Do note however, the cure to your hunger for 109K pictures is about to be unleashed in form of the ultimate 109K site up to now..It just takes time to make it perfect, so it could contain EVERYTHING. ;)
-
Nice sit and info, ty :)
-
Angus,
C3 is just aviation fuel and was by octane rating about 100/130 PN fuel and by aromatic content close to 100/150 PN. Comparable to the allied 100/150 octane fuel.
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/tech_rpt_145_45/rpt_145_45_sec2.htm
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/MofFP/ger_syn_ind/mof-secth.pdf
-
As I already state, there is only 2 photos which clearly show the fuel grade. 1 - C3, 1- 87. Of the 26 photos, only 8 are of JG77 a/c.
Both are of JG 3 a/c and with one taken at Pasewalk, March 1945.(87)
quote:
" I can try to scan you some of those, you can find one photo of a C-3 fueled K-4 in Prien/Rodeike`s 109F/G/K. Most K-4 photos it has are taken in November 1944 with III/JG 77,"
-
First, do you have anything to back that up ? Uhm, the answer is "no" as usual.
Yes, a Luftwaffe document showing fuel allocation to 5 JGs. Do you have any German documents to refute it? We're not talking about Italian planes, after all.
The "all/most C-3 went to FW 190 units" myth. As usual, we don`t see any proof to that.
From Butch2k:
"C3 was necessary for the 190 equiped units whose engine could not run without. So it seems that in the last months of the war G-10 and K-4 units were delivered B4 instead and had to rely on B4+MW-50 rather than C3+MW50."
He then followed it up with a document showing allocation to Stab, I and III JG52, Stab, I, II and III JG 77, Stab, I, II, III and IV JG300, Stab, I, II, III and IV JG301 and II and IV JG1.
Aircraft types were 109G6, G10, G14, K4 and FW 190 A8, A9.
Every single gruppe is running B4 in the 109s, C3 in the 190s.
Do you have any documents showing the 109K4 gruppes using C3? Note I only claimed most C3 went to the 190s, but so far the only direct evidence shows only B4 going to the 109s.
IT IS ABOUT NOTHING ELSE ! There`s no research behind these statements,
I'm not much of a researcher, but I'd say Butch was, and the info and doc I repeated above stand against your claims to the contrary, backed up by deliveries to Italian units. You haven't provided any evidence about Luftwaffe use late war.
Isegrim, everyone else agrees the Luftwaffe faced a desperate fuel situation late war. It makes sense that they would send C3 to the 190s that couldn't fly without it, and B4 to the 109s that could make do with it.
Need more ? Nashwan did not provided any. I can. Read the British report on a captured G-14. This plane uses DB 605 AM, and has the same 1800 whatever fuel is used. B-4 or C-3. Read again : whatever fuel, 87 octane B-4 or 96 octane C-3 is used in mix with MW-50, they will get the exact same power output. There`s no advantage using C-3 instead of B-4.
Isegrim, what power output is used for your 109K4 speed and climb charts? It's not 1800 ps, is it?
It's 2000ps, which was available only with C3 and MW 50. Do you want to dispute that? We're not talking about 1800 ps, we're talking about 2000ps, which is the figure you use in your peformance charts.
And besides, what part in the British report says 1800 ps is achieved with B4?
Yet the British found the following in the relevant part of description, Me109G-14 W.Nr. 413601, captured in 1944 :
Isegrim, this plane was captured on the 22nd of July 1944. We are talking about the Luftwaffe fuel supply in 1945. Think there might be a difference in the Luftwaffe's fuel situation in the final months of the war? Everyone else does.
As for the "1.98ata was not authorized until February 1945" claim... not much needs to be said. The DB 605D`s manual, 3rd edition, dated 1st December, 1944, says 1.98 IS AUTHORIZED. PERIOD.
There's a cleaned up pdf of the 109K4 manual available on the net. It's the December edition. It says the manifold pressure guage only goes up to 1.8ata:
1. Ladedruckmesser
Der Ladedruckmesser mit einem Meßbereich von 0,6 bis 1,8 ata ist unten
rechts im Gerätebrett eingebaut. Die Druckmeßleitung ist an das Laderrohr
des Motors angeschlossen und durch die Rumpfstirnwand geführt.
Now, what Butch had to say about 1.98ata on the 109:
Isegrim you are very wrong on this point, it took a lot of time to clear 1.98 ata boost for operational use.
Indeed operational tests began in January 1945 with just one gruppe, and it seems it was cleared for use by all gruppe in March 1945.
"Schwarze man" then reffered to the manual he'd sent to Butch, who replied:
Yes Chris but I have thanks to George a report from the RLM regarding the operational evaluations made at 1.8, 1.9 and 1.98ata. It seems that 1.8 ata was not validated until late January 1945, and 1.98 test began at that moment. IIRC there were some sparkplug troubles...
Now, Butch says he's seen the RLM documents. We know that several German engines we're supposed to run at higher boost levels but were derated in service, for example the Fw190 was limited to 1.35 ata when it was supposed to be running 1.42 ata.
The Db605A in the 109G2 was supposed to run at 1.42ata. In June 1942, some time after the plane had entered service, the RLM issued an instruction banning 1.42 ata until futher notice. The instruction began:
A number of cases of breakdown in the DB 605 as a result of pistons burning through have occured. The following must therefore be observed:
The takeoff and emergency output with a boost pressure of 1.42ata and 2800 rpm may not at present be used.
Now, what do you think the 109G manual said prior to that? Max boost 1.42 ata? Yet it wasn't allowed to use that in service until June 43.
It's not like there isn't a precedent of a German engine not being safe to run at full power when it was newly introduced, is it?
"Almost certainly". Can you tell the details please? I certainly do know you don`t have any idea what a/c conditions those figures refer to.
And neither do you, which is the whole point Isegrim.
You have figures that we know very little about, yet you are using them as gospel.
Secondly: Would an engine configured for the C-3 (Hence the triangle) also run on conventional fuel such as the standard 87 oct?
It could, the DB 605D series were designed with fuel interchangebility in mind; however it would need to be reconfigured, which as far as I know from butch, was a complicated task enough not to be possible on unit level. In practice, that means if an engine was configured for C-3 (DB 605DC), it either run with C-3 or did not run at all. When configured to B-4 (DB 605DB) it could run at max boost with either B-4 and MW50, or with C-3 used alone. Because using high boost with low grade fuel would lead to premature detonation, the engine would run roughly, and soon fail at high powers; I am sure it would do no good to run it on low grade fuel at all, because of the different timing, spark plugs etc.
However the opposite was possible, running on higher grade when setting was for B-4; there are examples of DB 605As, that been designed for B-4, being refueled with C-3 (as nothing else was available at the base... hmmm) could takeoff and retur to base safely w/o problems. Of course there are no real gain from it, it`s like running your car on higher grade fuel than it needs.
This is the reason I believe the 109K4 was rarely able to match the figures in Isegrim's chart.
Isegrim's chart uses figures achieved at 2000 ps. 2000 ps required C3 and MW 50. B4 and MW 50 provided 1800or 1850 ps.
If configured for C3, the 109K4 would have to stay grounded if only B4 fuel was available. If configured for B4, the 109K4 could fly whatever type of fuel was available, but with "only" 1800/1850 ps.
Given the poor fuel state of the Luftwaffe, and the unpredictability of supplies, I don't believe the Luftwaffe could afford to gamble on the availability of C3, especially as the 190 units needed the C3.
It seems to me the military always settle for a bit less to ease the supply situation, and with the poor supply situation of the Luftwaffe late war they would have had to be crazy to configure a plane that could use c3 or b4 to use only c3.
C3 is just aviation fuel and was by octane rating about 100/130 PN fuel and by aromatic content close to 100/150 PN. Comparable to the allied 100/150 octane fuel.
I think C3 was comparable, or even a bit better, than 100/130. But the 109 needed MW50 to reach the same sort of pressures without detonation as the Merlin on 100/150.
-
You definitly need to wait for Butch's book :)
-
500 post monster thread coming up ...
Originally posted by Nashwan
From Butch2k:
"C3 was necessary for the 190 equiped units whose engine could not run without. So it seems that in the last months of the war G-10 and K-4 units were delivered B4 instead and had to rely on B4+MW-50 rather than C3+MW50."
[snip]
Isegrim, this plane was captured on the 22nd of July 1944. We are talking about the Luftwaffe fuel supply in 1945. Think there might be a difference in the Luftwaffe's fuel situation in the final months of the war? Everyone else does.
"In the last months" is a bit vague. The G10 and K4 had been operational for more than half a year when the war ended in Europe. Surely some 109s got C3 fuel in late 1944 and early 1945.
Originally posted by Nashwan
Now, Butch says he's seen the RLM documents. We know that several German engines we're supposed to run at higher boost levels but were derated in service, for example the Fw190 was limited to 1.35 ata when it was supposed to be running 1.42 ata.
The Db605A in the 109G2 was supposed to run at 1.42ata. In June 1942, some time after the plane had entered service, the RLM issued an instruction banning 1.42 ata until futher notice. The instruction began:
Unless you can find an instruction from the RLM banning the higher boost levels of the G10/K4 I do not see how your comparison to the Fw190 or 109G2 proves anything. It's just speculation.
Originally posted by Nashwan
I'm not much of a researcher ...
You got that part right.
-
Unless you can find an instruction from the RLM banning the higher boost levels of the G10/K4 I do not see how your comparison to the Fw190 or 109G2 proves anything. It's just speculation
Butch certainly implied that's what he had seen.
I'm not much of a researcher ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You got that part right.
Did you go to the same charm school as Isegrim?
-
some examples among others...
(http://mapage.noos.fr/olefebvre/109k4-fuel1.jpg)
(http://mapage.noos.fr/olefebvre/109k4-fuel2.jpg)
(http://mapage.noos.fr/olefebvre/109k4-fuel3.jpg)
-
Ah ... the renowned Mr. Butch2k!
Are you saying no 109G10/K4 unit got C3 fuel from October 1944 to May 1945? What date/time period are the info you posted from?
-
salut Olivier !
Ca fait un bail que je ne t'ais pas "vu" :)
(je me suis pas trompé tu prépare bien un bouquin non ?)
-
As of march 1945 only a handful of 109 gruppen were using C3 for their mounts, one of the few being the II/JG11 which were responsible for testing the 605DB/DC over january-march 1945.
-
Oui oui mon straffounet ;) tu ne te trompes pas :)
-
Thanks for clearing that up Mr. Butch2k. So while C3 was rare, a handful of 109 gruppen did get C3 fuel.
Could you possibly be so kind as to clear up the 109G10/K4 max boost issue as well and save us from many painful future arguments? :)
-
Well Scholzie, maybe now you will take what Barbi posts with a little scepticism.:)
-
According to a document dated late January 1945 coming from DB the 1.80 had just been cleared following serious troubles (pre-ignition) reported by the unit testing the 1.80 ata boost. It is also noted that following the clearance of the 1.8ata boost the 1.98ata operational tests could now begin but with concern about the sparkplugs thermal resistance IIRC.
-
I am sceptical by nature. So far Isegrim have, and continues to, present the best arguments ... with a few exceptions of course. Butch2k confirmed my belief that some 109 units did use C3 fuel, even if many did not.
-
C3 was not used by 109 units until the 1.98ata boost was cleared, they relied on B4+MW-50 so that C3 could go to the 190 units. And even after the clearance only few gruppen got it because of shortages due not only to C3 production but also to C3 delivery to the units.
-
So Mr. Butch2k, when do you think 1.98 was cleared? February? March?
The C3 fuel probably went to the 109 units that were tasked to interfere with allied escorts. They always got the latest fighters first, so it would be a reasonable assumption ... but still only an assumption.
So, my (incomplete) conclusion is that while most 109 units had to make due with B4 fuel some units got C3. Since the units tasked with escort interference usually got the newest and best airframes they probably also got the best fuel. These 109 units would almost certainly be equipped with either G10s or K4s. This means that at least by March 1945 there were 109G10s and K4s flying with C3 fuel and 1.98 ata boost developing approx. 2000 PS, they weren't many, but there weren't many K4s around in any case.
Mr. Butch2k, is this a reasonable conclusion on my part?
Btw. what book are you working on?
-
Not exactly since in March 1945 only two units of the Luftflotte 6 both equipped with G-10 were using C3, one being IV/JG 4 the other being II/JG 11, and no K-4 units at all.
AFAIK 1.98ata boost was cleared late february but it seems to have been slowly introduced into service, i suspect the adjustments needed on the engine and the change of sparkplugs type (supply problems ???) took longer than expected. From other documents i know that C3 and B4 had severe quality problems beginning in late 1944. While it was not much of a problem with low boost, it had some serious effect on higher boost, so it might also have slowed down the introduction of 1.98ata boost. At least DB documents underlined the need for cleaner fuels than those in use at that time.
You can safely assume that by march 1945 1.98 ata boost was being introduced, unfortunately i do not have much details for April 1945, but i doubt it would have changed much, given the situation.
My book(s) will takle the 109 development, history and technical side.
-
Luftflotte 6 Mittelabschnitt Ostfront/Reichsluftverteidigung im Osten would not have the "earmarked" units since they were on the Russian front, not fighting the allied strategic bombing campaign. Although the majority of the LW strength was on the Russian front the day fighters tasked with the defence of the Reich in the west would usually get the best fighters and supplies. Do you have any records of how many G10s or K4 using C3 in JG 1, JG 2, JG 3, JG 5, JG 11,JG 26, JG 27, JG53, and JG 54 (+ any additional unit tasked with the defence of the Reich in the west)? Or am I completely wrong here?
Are your books close to completion? I find this very interesting. :)
-
To my knowledge the K4 was operated by III/JG 1, II/JG 2, III/JG 3, III/JG 4, II/JG 11, III/JG 26, II, III and IV/JG 27, III/JG 51, II and III/JG 52, II and III/JG 53, I, II and III/JG 77, I/NJG 11, II/KG(J) 6 and I and II./KG(J) 27.
Most of these were on the western front defending the Reich.
Edit: At least III/JG 1, III/JG 3, II/JG 11 and II/JG 27 seem to have been earmarked for high altitude combat with allied escort fighters.
-
Was C3 used in conjuntion with MW50? I thought it was C3 alone or B4 + MW50.
-
C3+MW50.
-
I do not belive this, but yet, I have to give Isengrim/Barbi some credit for providing raw data this time, and also Ecke posted a very good link.
Anyway, I'd still not easily belive that C-3 would always have been available in ample quantities. Why not? Well, generally speaking, after late 1944, aviation fuel supply was a problem for the LW, so they'd have used anything they had their hands on.
Actually, for fuel economy, the LW applied OXEN to pull planes about (ramps, pens and so) in order to save fuel!
(Effort to have enough to launch a max amount of aircraft in operation Bodenplatte)
Oh, in case you may wonder, the oxen were not of the Angus breed :D
-
Yes, a Luftwaffe document showing fuel allocation to 5 JGs. Do you have any German
documents to refute it? We're not talking about Italian planes, after all.
Yes of course, why not completely ignore fuel deliveries to Italian 109 units? After all, we
only talk about a mere 100 Bf 109G-10 s and G-14s that are running mostly on C-3... why not
just ignore it right away?
Why not ignore ? After all, same planes from the same production, same engine limits... I
guess painting a different national MUST change it`s techspecs completely. :) It appears
that for Nashwan, using troubles of a different engine in a different timeframe is a valid
analogia, but using the fuel use of the same engine in the same timeframe is an
invalid one...
From Butch2k:
"C3 was necessary for the 190 equiped units whose engine could not run without. So it seems
that in the last months of the war G-10 and K-4 units were delivered B4 instead and had to
rely on B4+MW-50 rather than C3+MW50."
It`s called an assumption (I logical one, I must add). Not a proof. I hold butch`s opinion
highly, but it is in a different category than actual proof or facts : photographic,
documentary evidence etc. Maybe it`s because my line of work, but an opinion simply
does not compare with the proofs I have seen.
And as for facts, those BMW 801 equipped 190s were hardly that much of a headache by late
1944 for fuel supply. BTW, if C-3 was so much of a short supply, then prey, tell me, why did
the OKL only supplied the Italians solely with it in 1945 instead of their very own units...
The ANR had G-10s and G-14s... no FW 190s AFAIR. I don`t see this assumption realized in
practice.
The LW, by the end of december, had roughly the following strenght in it`s 1st line fighter
units :
1924 fighters in total, those being:
594 FW 190A/Fs with BMW 801, that require C-3
238 FW 190D, with Jumo213, which used B-4
the rest, about 1000 being Bf 109s, mostly G-14s, that could also run on B-4. These include
circa 125 G-10s and 196 K-4s, a total of 330 or so.
In other words, 30% must be supplyied with with C-3, 55% can use either B-4 or C-3 and will
have the same performance, and about 15%, G-10s and K-4 can gain a lot of power by using C-3
instead of B-4. So I don`t see much of pressure here from FW 190 units for C-3, if a 109G-10
or K-4 unit was not using C-3, then it was most likely due to other reason, mainly logistics
or the existing B-4 fuel stores of the unit that were lived up first. However, on the
majority of photographs I have seen showing G-10s the C-3 fuel triangle is shown.
He then followed it up with a document showing allocation to Stab, I and III JG52, Stab,
I, II and III JG 77, Stab, I, II, III and IV JG300, Stab, I, II, III and IV JG301 and II and
IV JG1.
Aircraft types were 109G6, G10, G14, K4 and FW 190 A8, A9.
Every single gruppe is running B4 in the 109s, C3 in the 190s.
OK, now the facts vs. your version.
Yep, and what you forgot to tell that this document deals with the fuel state of a few
Gruppes in November 1944.. The only one unit that has K-4s is III/JG 77, which
received the planes mostly in October (75 planes fresh from Regensburg). This is about 1/3
of all K-4s in service, in a Gruppe that had planes before that required no better than B-4.
All those planes were, as mentioned already, from the early Werknummer blocks , ie.
330 119
330 163
330 164
330 165
330 166
330 167
330 168
330 171
330 174
330 176
330 177
330 179
330 183
330 185
330 188
330 190
330 192
330 193
330 194
330 195
330 196
330 197
330 200
330 202
330 204
This is the first block of K-4s being produced from August 1944 onwards, between blocks 330
100 to 330 500. They had the early DB 605 DM engine, capable of only 1800 PS at 1.75ata, NOT
the later DB/DC variant. And this boost was either achieved with B-4 or C-3, the III/JG 77
had only G14s and G-6s before, so they did not need C-3 before, probably had none. Here`s
the answer why those run on B-4.
There it goes further. As you noted, the document tells I/JG 300 is using G-10/R6s in
November, and they are issued B-4 fuel. Note that the JG 30x units were primarly
nightfighter units...
Now, this picture shows a 109G of I/JG 300, from 2 staffel, in september 1944... Note the C
-3 fuel triangle, telling the groundcrew to fill it with 96 octane C-3. I am sure you will
explain that this meant nothing, and the crew in effect loaded the plane with whatever it
wanted, regardless the risk of an engine failure...
(http://www.jg300.de/images/IJG300/Staffel2/Me109G10HundsdA.jpg)
Do you have any documents showing the 109K4 gruppes using C3? Note I only claimed most C3
went to the 190s, but so far the only direct evidence shows only B4 going to the 109s.
Only evidence, m8? Don`t you ignore things? Like:
-evidence of Italian Gruppo using mostly C-3 for their 109 G-14s, G-10s (and 3 K-4s?)
-photographic evidence that the Hungarian 101st Regiment using C-3 for their G-10s? C-3 fuel
triangle is clearly visible on the picture...
http://www.messerschmitt-bf109.de/php-bf109g/bf109g10.php?sortby=id
-documentary evidence
-photographic evidence of a K-4 using C-3 again in Prien/Rodeike`s book.
-photographic evidence that JG 300`s G-10 DID use C-3 fuel
The "only B-4 went to 109" mantra is a pile of stinking BS.
You haven't provided any evidence about Luftwaffe use late war.
Then either you`re blind or a liar.
Isegrim, everyone else agrees the Luftwaffe faced a desperate fuel situation late war.[/
b]
You don`t agree with that ? You say the LW`s fuel situation was good ?
It makes sense that they would send C3 to the 190s that couldn't fly without it, and B4
to the 109s that could make do with it.
Yet evidence shows many 109 units used C-3. AKA Theory vs. reality.
Isegrim, what power output is used for your 109K4 speed and climb charts? It's not 1800
ps, is it?
If you had paid attention, both were shown on the charts, 1800, and 2000 PS... of course the
2000 PS is what hurts your feelings more. :cool:
-
And besides, what part in the British report says 1800 ps is achieved with B4?
Uhm, butch said it actually that B-4 and MW50 use was good enough for 1800PS for the DB 605AM... it was in the same thread you take the other qoutes from (in a selective manner).. how did you missed that? Actually I believed the AM required C-3 in any case, but then butch noticed B-4 would do if MW was used as well, and after I checked the wording of the German engine description, I realized that for the AM they don`t actually say C-3 is absolutely neccesary, just "it is used" for Sondernotleistung.
Isegrim, this plane was captured on the 22nd of July 1944. We are talking about the
Luftwaffe fuel supply in 1945. Think there might be a difference in the Luftwaffe's fuel situation in the final months of the war? Everyone else does.
First, let`s rehearse it again, did you, or did you not say, that the clear sentence in the Brit report on the USE of C-3 actually means it was not used ?
Or maybe you can be a man about it, and admit C-3 was used by a 109s..
Now, pray, tell me what difference there was in the ratio of B-4 and C-3 in June 1944
and 1945... if you would have ever looked up avgas production, stockpile and consumption figures for the LW (which you never did, but continue to form an opinion on that..) from late 1944, then you would have already realized that the production had little to do with the fuel quantity. From about September 1944, the Germans grounded most bombers to save fuel for the fighters (and one should note that a single bomber consumed many times the fuel a fighter needed), and were living up the HUGE avgas stockpiles (about 600 000 TONS in early 1944), instead of relying on the rather minimal production (10-20 000 tons/month in late 1944, vs. ~190 000 tons early 1944). Fuel consumption of the LW, which meant practically fighters and attack a/c only by late 1944, was a steady 40-50 000 tons per month. So unless you prove C-3 was in short supply in the STOCKPILEs vs. B-4, you will have a hard time proving your other claims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the "1.98ata was not authorized until February 1945" claim... not much needs to be
said. The DB 605D`s manual, 3rd edition, dated 1st December, 1944, says 1.98 IS AUTHORIZED.
PERIOD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a cleaned up pdf of the 109K4 manual available on the net. It's the December edition. It says the manifold pressure guage only goes up to 1.8ata:
First the correction, you always liked these half truths, but let`s get the full picture, shall we?
The first page from where you took it, says:
Teil 9A
Algemeine Austrustung
(Stand Oktober 1944)
Ausgabe Dezember 1944
Now, for the non-German speakers, this means:
Part 9A
General equipment
Condition as October 1944
Published in December 1944
So in brief, the K-4 manual you wanted to sell as if it would show the december
state, is really just a newer print that STILL shows the conditions of October 1944 for the first batch of K-4s, such as the ones received by JG 77 and JG 27 in October 1944.... which were the early few that had the DB 605DM, the same ones the fuel delivery docs of November 1944 refer to. And that`s why it is hardly a surprise why a manual for the earlies Kurfurst with DB 605 DM, cleared for a max. 1.75ata, does not need a boost gauge more than a max. 1.8ata sign..
And I am curious how could you missed the "Oktober 1944" text just and inch above... it speaks a lot of your intentions. It`s also interesting to note that it was Neil Stirling who first come up with the manual, he was told that it is for the early planes only, and as I have seen, he accepted that fact and moved on. Unlike you, who keeps ignoring it, and malicously misqoute the document`s true date.
Now, please tell us who does a fuel gauge for a K-4 with an early, rare engine variant proves in October 1944 proves that 1.98 ata was not used in November/December on later variants...?
It`s like arguing that the Spit IX never used more than +15 lbs boost, just because it`s Merlin 61 equipped variant`s manual lists no more in 1942...
"Schwarze man" then reffered to the manual he'd sent to Butch, who replied:
Why don`t you qoute SM, Chris too? Maybe because in his posts he makes it clear, that in the December Ausgabe of the DB 605 D the 1.98 ata pressure is CLEARED ? SM also made it clear in the discussion, that the engine manual he referred to was already the 3rd edition, so most likely it was like this in November already ? So as long as the manual is THERE, and it SAID to the troops that 'you can use 1.98ata', I am not going to believe that it wasn`t, unless there is any other order that actually says 'don`t use 1.98ata vs. as said in the manual'.
There`s such WELL-KNOWN limitation to the DB 605A - why not for the DB 605D? Right now what I think, taking all available evidence in account, and not just ignoring the parts I don`t like, is that the 1.98 ata boost was cleared in mid-November or so for the DB/DC (most likely not for the DM, but those must have been quite rare), because the manual SAYS SO.
Possibly they encountered some troubles in use, which is quite usual with a new engine, that`s why the further investigations in early 1945. But unless there`s direct proof that 1.98ata was banned, one cannot think that, unless of course allows himself to neglect the rules of formal logic and rely on likely, or less likely assumptions.
Of course, Chris (SM) might be completely wrong, after all, he`s only responsible for the engine maintaince of the only airworthy Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-10 with DB 605 D today... but I suppose he has some idea of the limitations and techspecs of the engine he works every day.
The Db605A in the 109G2 was supposed to run at 1.42ata.
Where did you take that ? The Rechlin tests already for a G-1 say 1.42 is "not yet cleared".
Where did you take 1.42ata was cleared in the beginning of service? I tell you, nowhere, it`s an assumption, made up by you to support your other assumptions. Sandcastle built on sand...
Now, what do you think the 109G manual said prior to that? Max boost 1.42 ata? Yet it
wasn't allowed to use that in service until June 43.
I highly doubt it would say anything before June 1942, simply `cos the plane did not see service before June 1942... :) Your nicely crafted story is basically that the 1.42ata is, according to you, supposed to be 'in the G-2s manual' (which you have never seen...) before it even saw service, and then it was called back, because of the troubles in service.... I see some conflicting elements in your version. :lol
It's not like there isn't a precedent of a German engine not being safe to run at full power when it was newly introduced, is it?
It`s not like it would be any new when introducing a new engine, nobody knows that better then the British, don`t you think? The Merlin III was supposed to be cleared for +12 lbs WEP, then it was severly restricted because of operational troubles, special report has to be written after every use... otherwise for strictly combat for short periods, more than +9 was FORBIDDEN.
The Merlin 6x series were supposed to run at +18lbs, yet for about a year they had put up with +15 lbs until 1943. When they were supposed to reach +25lbs with 150 grade fuel, severe timing and ball bearing troubles happened and many of those had to be restriced to +21 lbs, and as far as I know, the Americans restriced them even further for safety.
The Griffon 65 series was supposed to run at +25 lbs, yet in service, AGAIN for ball bearing troubles they were restricted in service use to +21lbs, were not cleared for higher boost even in mid 1945, if ever.
But I could simply save the typing and say "Napier Sabre", which remained so unreliable during the entire war that Typhoon pilots wrote black jokes on their planes about how they will burn in their cocpit after startup.. they lost Wing Commanders even in 1944 to engine failures soon after takeoff. So I say it`s all relative.
And neither do you, which is the whole point Isegrim.
You have figures that we know very little about, yet you are using them as gospel.
So the difference between you and me is that I don`t claim anything regards the conditions I don`t know, why you make up these conditions yourself to keep ignore the result.. And I post the same figures butch and others do. I wonder what could be wrong with them? Maybe the part : 377 mph at SL? Compared to 358 mph for the Spit XIV? :lol
This is the reason I believe the 109K4 was rarely able to match the figures in Isegrim's chart.
No, the reason is, the ONLY reason is, briefly, is that the K-4 is faster than MkXIV at SL even if one takes the highest operational boost for the Spit, and lowest operational boost for the Messer. :D
I think C3 was comparable, or even a bit better, than 100/130. But the 109 needed MW50 to reach the same sort of pressures without detonation as the Merlin on 100/150.
Not really. The DB 605DC was working on MUCH higher compression ratios than the Merlin,which was as low as 6:1 (DB 605D was 8.5:1, even the earliest DBs run at higher than 6:1...).. which means by the time of detonation, the pressure within the engine is higher in the DB 605 than in the Merlin, even w/o taking into account the higher compression also leads to higher tempretures, which makes the gas expand, increasing pressure further. Not to mention water injection works a bit different than just raising rich mixture`s critical octane rating.
-
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/G-6-AS%20in%20Belgium%201.jpg)
Fusalge of a G-6/AS awaiting restoration in Belgium, bearing it`s original markings.
-
Barbi, people can be convicted of a crime with circumstantial evidence.
It`s called an assumption (I logical one, I must add). Not a proof. I hold butch`s opinion highly, but it is in a different category than actual proof or facts : photographic, documentary evidence etc. Maybe it`s because my line of work, but an opinion simply does not compare with the proofs I have seen.
Barbi, why not post the 2 pics of Lt Walter's Me109K-4, yellow 8, with the 87 in the fuel triangle on pg 173.
Nice pic. How many G-6/ASs were around in 1945? Production had ended by Sept 1944. The G-6/AS was not a common model of 109 either, with ~690 being made.(less than 2%)
-
Barbi, people can be convicted of a crime with circumstantial evidence.
You don`t mean OJ Simpson wasn`t innocent? :D Seriously, I hope you don`t start teaching me about penal process... last time you tried, you said people has to prove their own innocence in France before the court when accused with crime, otherwise they are found guilty... Yeah, maybe under Charlemagne. :rofl
Barbi, why not post the 2 pics of Lt Walter's Me109K-4, yellow 8, with the 87 in the fuel triangle on pg 173.
Why not post them by yourself? What would that prove? K-4s run also at 87 octane? Nobody argues that.. Well, maybe except you, for the flame`s sake. :)
-
For Butch:
If you want to contact George Punka, I have his email address.
-
Well Barbi for an ambulance chaser, I guess you don't do a bad job.:rofl :rofl
You have your knickers again all in a knot because of your lack of reading comprehension, for Nashwan did not say C3 was not used, only that its use by 109 a/c was not that common late war. (as 1945 wore on) The only reason you want all late war (from Jan '45) 109s to use C3 fuel is to have the numbers as high as possible.:)
As for the Walter 109, I would if I could.:) It should be noted the photos were taken in March 1945 while your photo is from the summer to fall 1944. These would be an indication that C3 fuel was on the decline.
-
Thanks a lot for Punka's address, i know he is working on a G-14 book.
The C3 stencil was applied on almost every G-10/K-4 because the DB 605DM was supposed to run on C3 to achieve the 1.75ata, exactly like the DB 605ASM.
BUT following shortage of C3, later revision of the motorenkarte, associated MW-50 documents and TA documents show B4 as a possible substitute fuel. The only restriction was not to cut MW-50 supply while running at a high boost because of detonation. And the aircraft were not repainted in any way.
Since C3 could sustain up to 2.2ata supply of MW-50 could be shutdown w/o any detrimental effects provided the pilot did not let the engine temp rise. Some testbed engine ran at 1.7ata with just C3 for instance.
Note that it was planned to up the DB605D max boost to 2.3ata with both C3 and MW-50.
As for the fuel supply, i own copies showing detailled stockpile status for february-april 1945 but i can't publish it here nor comment much on it. But yes the C3 was definitely scarce.
-
Mail sent, butch.
-
Thanks for the additional info butch.
Yes of course, why not completely ignore fuel deliveries to Italian 109 units? After all, we
only talk about a mere 100 Bf 109G-10 s and G-14s that are running mostly on C-3... why not
just ignore it right away?
The Italian air force is not the German air force. You can't assume fuel deliveries were of the same type for the two air forces.
Why not ignore ? After all, same planes from the same production, same engine limits... I
guess painting a different national MUST change it`s techspecs completely.
It's nothing to do with tech specs, it's to do with fuel availability, and the possibilities of supply to the airfields.
It`s called an assumption (I logical one, I must add). Not a proof. I hold butch`s opinion
highly, but it is in a different category than actual proof or facts : photographic,
documentary evidence etc. Maybe it`s because my line of work, but an opinion simply
does not compare with the proofs I have seen.
I won't answer all of this, because I'll assume you hadn't read butch's latest comments when you wrote it, and I think what butch has posted in this thread already answers it very well.
OK, now the facts vs. your version.
Yep, and what you forgot to tell that this document deals with the fuel state of a few
Gruppes in November 1944..
I don't have a date for the doc, if I did I would have posted it. BTW, are you claiming that the fuel situation improved for the Luftwaffe between Nov 44 and the end of the war?
And besides, what part in the British report says 1800 ps is achieved with B4?
Uhm, butch said it actually that B-4 and MW50 use was good enough for 1800PS for the DB 605AM... it was in the same thread you take the other qoutes from (in a selective manner).. how did you missed that?
I haven't got the whole thread saved, so I don't know what else was said. I've never disputed B4 and MW 50 could give 1800ps, in fact in the same post I said:
"B4 and MW 50 provided 1800or 1850 ps. "
What I asked was where in the British report does it say that? I used the word "besides" to indicate it was not a bone of contention, ie it was besides the point. I was merely interested, because I have seen the part of the report on the 109 lair website (sorry don't have the address on this pc) and I wondered if there was more.
First, let`s rehearse it again, did you, or did you not say, that the clear sentence in the Brit report on the USE of C-3 actually means it was not used ?
I don't know. I can't even recall us discussing this particular report, which doesn't mean I am saying we didn't, just that it doesn't stick in my mind.
I doubt that I claimed it meant it wasn't used, but if I hadn't seen the full report in context, I might have said it meant C3 was the normal type, and might not have been what was actually used.
Or maybe you can be a man about it, and admit C-3 was used by a 109s..
I've never denied C3 was used by 109s. AFAIK, they were using it as early as the BoB. What I have said is I don't believe C3 was the standard fuel for 109s in 1945.
and 1945... if you would have ever looked up avgas production, stockpile and consumption figures for the LW (which you never did, but continue to form an opinion on that..) from late 1944, then you would have already realized that the production had little to do with the fuel quantity. From about September 1944, the Germans grounded most bombers to save fuel for the fighters (and one should note that a single bomber consumed many times the fuel a fighter needed), and were living up the HUGE avgas stockpiles (about 600 000 TONS in early 1944), instead of relying on the rather minimal production (10-20 000 tons/month in late 1944, vs. ~190 000 tons early 1944). Fuel consumption of the LW, which meant practically fighters and attack a/c only by late 1944, was a steady 40-50 000 tons per month. So unless you prove C-3 was in short supply in the STOCKPILEs vs. B-4, you will have a hard time proving your other claims.
I have quoted German production figures to you before now, so I have obviously looked it up.
What did most bombers run on? B4? That would suggest less demand for B4 late in the war. Given that most 190s required C3, and that few bombers were flying, what exactly were the Luftwaffe doing with the B4 if not using it in the 109s?
Remember the problem for the Lufwaffe was not just the amount of fuel, but getting that fuel to where it was needed.
As for the "1.98ata was not authorized until February 1945" claim... not much needs to be
said. The DB 605D`s manual, 3rd edition, dated 1st December, 1944, says 1.98 IS AUTHORIZED.
PERIOD.
I think Butch has already answered this.
First the correction, you always liked these half truths, but let`s get the full picture, shall we?
The first page from where you took it, says:
Teil 9A
Algemeine Austrustung
(Stand Oktober 1944)
Ausgabe Dezember 1944
Now, for the non-German speakers, this means:
Part 9A
General equipment
Condition as October 1944
Published in December 1944
So in brief, the K-4 manual you wanted to sell as if it would show the december
state, is really just a newer print that STILL shows the conditions of October 1944
You say it's a half truth when I say it's the December edition, yet you repeat that the manual says "December edition".
:rolleyes:
And I am curious how could you missed the "Oktober 1944" text just and inch above... it speaks a lot of your intentions.
I used google totranslae it. Google says it's the December edition, which is what I called it.
Now, please tell us who does a fuel gauge for a K-4 with an early, rare engine variant proves in October 1944 proves that 1.98 ata was not used in November/December on later variants...?
Sorry Isegrim, you are claiming 1.98ata was standard in December, I posted details from a manual published in December showing 1.8ata was the max the boost guauge read up to. That's relevant.
It`s like arguing that the Spit IX never used more than +15 lbs boost, just because it`s Merlin 61 equipped variant`s manual lists no more in 1942...
If the Spitfire IX manual published in 1943 showed 15lbs boost, I'd consider it very relevant, and a good indication that 15lbs was all that was allowed. I am after all pointing to a manual published in December 44, not October.
After all, the start of the manual says the following:
Hiermit genehmige ich die D. (Luft) T. 2109 K-4 Teil 9 A — N. f. D. —
“Bf 109 K-4 Flugzeug-Handbuch Teil 9 A: Allgemeine Ausrüstung
(Stand Oktober 1944) Ausgabe Dezember 1944”.
Sie tritt mit dem Tage der Herausgabe in Kraft.
Which Google translates as:
Hereby do I approve the D (air) to T. 2109 K-4 part of 9 A N. f. D. —
"Bf 109 K-4 airplane manual part of 9 A: General equipment (conditions October 1944) edition December 1944".
It enters into force with the day of publication.
And the day of publication is listed as:
Rechlin, den 29. Dezember 1944
Why don`t you qoute SM, Chris too? Maybe because in his posts he makes it clear, that in the December Ausgabe of the DB 605 D the 1.98 ata pressure is CLEARED ?
Because you already have!
You posted:
The DB 605D`s manual, 3rd edition, dated 1st December, 1944, says 1.98 IS AUTHORIZED. PERIOD.
I posted Butch's reply to Chris' post, which said the same thing.
So as long as the manual is THERE, and it SAID to the troops that 'you can use 1.98ata', I am not going to believe that it wasn`t, unless there is any other order that actually says 'don`t use 1.98ata vs. as said in the manual'.
Which is why you should read what Butch has said again.
Where did you take 1.42ata was cleared in the beginning of service? I tell you, nowhere, it`s an assumption, made up by you to support your other assumptions. Sandcastle built on sand...
From the order banning the use of 1.42ata, which says that a number of cases of breakdowns have occured.
It's also an order banning the use of 1.42ata, which would hardly be neccessary if the information sent to the pilots had told them that 1.3 was the max anyway. I mean, if they'd been told 1.3 was the maximum, why send them another instruction saying 1.42 can't be used?
-
I highly doubt it would say anything before June 1942, simply `cos the plane did not see service before June 1942...
Well, the instruction banning 1.42 ata also talks about modifying the engine, and says:
Modifications to be carried out by the troops in case of aircraft already supplied
They certainly seem to think the planes were already in service.
Your nicely crafted story is basically that the 1.42ata is, according to you, supposed to be 'in the G-2s manual' (which you have never seen...) before it even saw service, and then it was called back, because of the troubles in service.... I see some conflicting elements in your version
Isegrim, you don't seem to understand the point. The 109G2 was supposed to use 1.42 ata. It wasn't allowed to, hence the RLM message banning 1.42 ata because of engine breakdowns.
There isn't much point arguing, becuase you've admitted yourself the point I was trying to make when you said:
unless there is any other order that actually says 'don`t use 1.98ata vs. as said in the manual'
Manuals can be superceeded. Wether the G2 manual was superceeded, or wether it hadn't yet been published, is immaterial, the G2 was derated from it's expected 1.42ata to 1.3ata.
The Merlin III was supposed to be cleared for +12 lbs WEP, then it was severly restricted because of operational troubles, special report has to be written after every use... otherwise for strictly combat for short periods, more than +9 was FORBIDDEN.
No, the Merlin III was designed for 6.25 lbs, and had it's rating increased to 12 lbs in service. Can you find some documents showing it was originally intended for 12 lbs boost?
Proof of the fact that 12 lbs was never intended is the fact that modified boost controls had to be fitted to enable the extra boost, if the engine had been designed for it then a limiter would have been fitted to prevent the use of 12lbs boost.
Also, of course, 100 octane was necessary to prevent detonation, and the RAF didn't switch over to that until March 1940.
The Merlin 6x series were supposed to run at +18lbs, yet for about a year they had put up with +15 lbs until 1943.
No, the Merlin 61 was designed for 15lbs boost. Later 60 series engines increased it.
Isegrim, it's easy to find references like the G2 at 1.42ata, the 190A4 at 1.45 ata, and references to them being downrated. Where are your references to the the Spit I being downrated, or the Merlin 61 being downrated to 15lbs? All I can find, even in the earliest Spit tests, are references to lower boosts that get increased as the war progresses. The opposite is true of some German engines.
The Griffon 65 series was supposed to run at +25 lbs, yet in service, AGAIN for ball bearing troubles they were restricted in service use to +21lbs
Isegrim, more than 18lbs required 150 octane. The Griffon 65 was in production long before 150 octane was. It was designed for 18lbs boost, and increased to at least 21 lbs. Can you find a reference to the Griffon 65 at 25 lbs? ;)
So the difference between you and me is that I don`t claim anything regards the conditions I don`t know, why you make up these conditions yourself to keep ignore the result.. And I post the same figures butch and others do. I wonder what could be wrong with them? Maybe the part : 377 mph at SL? Compared to 358 mph for the Spit XIV?
No, Isegrim, the difference is there's a Spitfire XIV chart showing 397 mph at sea level, but you want to discount it because you don't know wether the Griffon 65 could use 25lbs boost.
The best figure available for the K4 at sea level is 377 mph, and you persist in using that despite very little info about the conditions it was achieved under, and wether it was actually used in combat, certainly Butch is implying it was rare.
The best figure for the Spit XIV is 396 mph at sea level, but you want to discount it because you don't know how common it was in real life. See the hipocrisy? There's another Spit XIV figure of 387 mph at sea level, but you want to ignore that as well.
You have a single document for the 109, which shows 377mph, and you accept it as gospel, you have a doc that shows 396 mph for the Spitfire, another that shows 389 mph, and you accept 358 mph. That's hipocracy, Isegrim.
This is the reason I believe the 109K4 was rarely able to match the figures in Isegrim's chart.
No, the reason is, the ONLY reason is, briefly, is that the K-4 is faster than MkXIV at SL even if one takes the highest operational boost for the Spit, and lowest operational boost for the Messer.
Sorry Isegrim, the highest speed for a Spit XIV at sea level is 397 mph. http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14pt.html
I accept that might be slightly faster than normal service use, it's probably for a clipped wing aircraft without a mirror, which is why the supply ministry list 389 mph at sea level.
Not really. The DB 605DC was working on MUCH higher compression ratios than the Merlin,which was as low as 6:1 (DB 605D was 8.5:1, even the earliest DBs run at higher than 6:1...).. which means by the time of detonation, the pressure within the engine is higher in the DB 605 than in the Merlin, even w/o taking into account the higher compression also leads to higher tempretures, which makes the gas expand, increasing pressure further. Not to mention water injection works a bit different than just raising rich mixture`s critical octane rating.
Which is what I was taking into account when I said similar pressures. The Merlin was of course running much higher manifold pressure than the Db.
1.98 ata in the Db, around 2.8 ata in the Merlin with 150 octane. In lbs/sq in, about 14 for the DB, 25 for the Merlin.
-
Nashwan:you are the winner!
Hehe, it reminds me of debates of Spit vs 109 origin where Barbi types would claim everything in the 109's favour in the climbing department, superior wing, superior engine, superior prop, superior aerodynamic design, however, there was never an explanation to the FACT that the little spitty pulled the Newtons better to altitude..
Anyway, in a thread like this, where is Niklas?
-
As I said Scholzie, one has to be very careful with what Barbarossa Isegrim, aka Barbi, tells us.
-
My all new (incomplete) conclusion: :)
The 109 G10/K4 did use C3 fuel in 1945, but it was rare because they could run on max boost with B4 fuel and MW50.
Originally posted by butch2k
The C3 stencil was applied on almost every G-10/K-4 because the DB 605DM was supposed to run on C3 to achieve the 1.75ata, exactly like the DB 605ASM.
BUT following shortage of C3, later revision of the motorenkarte, associated MW-50 documents and TA documents show B4 as a possible substitute fuel. The only restriction was not to cut MW-50 supply while running at a high boost because of detonation. And the aircraft were not repainted in any way.
Since C3 could sustain up to 2.2ata supply of MW-50 could be shutdown w/o any detrimental effects provided the pilot did not let the engine temp rise. Some testbed engine ran at 1.7ata with just C3 for instance.
Note that it was planned to up the DB605D max boost to 2.3ata with both C3 and MW-50.
I'm reading this as that the 109G10 and K4 could produce the same amount of boost with B4+MW50 as on C3+MW50 as long as MW50 supply was not shut off. This would mean that even with B4 fuel the 109G10/K4 could develop 2000 PS, but had to run on MW50 even at lower boost levels where the C3 would be sufficient alone.
Since C3 gave obvious advantages to cruising at high boost without using MW50, the C3 fuel was probably only given to the 109 units that were earmarked for high altitude combat in defence of the Reich.
Despite Isegrim's enthusiasm I don't think the 109G10/K4 was officially cleared for 1.98 ata boost until February 1945, I trust Butch2k's judgement on this.
-
Attention here,
the DB605DM was cleared up to 1.75ata, the DB605DB pushed the limit up to 1.8ata, both could be sustained with use of either B4+MW-50 (as mentionned in various documents, even if it was an afterthought in the DM case) or C3-MW-50. However the DB605DC max boost at 1.98ata could be achieved with use of C3+MW-50 only.
Pushing the limit up to 2.3ata would have required a newer supercharger (DB603G model maybe) since you can see easily that it could not keep up with such a high boost as 1.98ata.
-
Doh ... newly revised all new (incomplete) conclusion:
The 109G10/K4 were introduced in October/November 1944, but probably were not cleared for 1.98 ata boost until February 1945. Running on B4+MW50 the 109G10/K4 developed 1800 PS. Running on C3+MW50 it developed 2000 PS. Only a few 109 gruppen got C3 fuel, most likely those gruppen tasked with high altitude combat against US planes in the defence of the Reich in addition to a very limited number of other units (like those Butch2k mentioned in Luftflotte 6). The other 109 units had to rely on B4 fuel.
Now can we all agree on this?
Btw. Butch2k, how long until your books are available?
-
The Italian air force is not the German air force. You can't assume fuel deliveries were of the same type for the two air forces.
The ANR received planes from Germany (and from own Italian 109 production).
The German air force was responsible for providing all fuel types for the Italians (and other allied forces). The Italian supply situations is thus gives us some idea about the German fuel stocks, given the simple fact that a German Gruppe and the Italian Gruppo received fuel from the same source.
It's nothing to do with tech specs, it's to do with fuel availability, and the possibilities of supply to the airfields.
Italian airfields were supplied with German fuel types from German stocks. The fact that the Italians, who`s supply was undoubtfully the lowest priority to the Germans, received mostly C-3 fuel. I wonder if C-3 was so rare, why would the Germans give Italian units a priority over their own units... especially if the ANR`s planes didn`t neccesarily require it.
Ignore it if you want, the fact remains : large quantities of C-3 were supplied from German stocks in 1944/45 to units of tertiary priority on the German supply list.
I don't ha ve a date for the doc, if I did I would have posted it. BTW, are you claiming that the fuel situation improved for the Luftwaffe between Nov 44 and the end of the war?
I wonder how you arrived at that conclusion... certainly not from what I have written.
I have quoted German production figures to you before now, so I have obviously looked it up.
Obviously... :rolleyes:
What did most bombers run on? B4? That would suggest less demand for B4 late in the war.
Doubtful. Tobak describes an incident when his G-6 mislanded on a German airfield, full of bombers. He had to argue to bomber`s commander, so that they would fill his plane with C-3 (instead of regular B-4 for the old DB 605A-1), as that was the only fuel type available on a bomber airfield. It would indicate that many bomber units were using it. Now, considering that a single He 111, for example, used up around 6 times of the fuel of a Bf 109s, and there were roughly equal number of bombers and 109s by late in the LW... an amount of C-3 supply in fact was freed up.
Given that most 190s required C3, and that few bombers were flying, what exactly were the Luftwaffe doing with the B4 if not using it in the 109s?
You see I also wonder where 150 grade went first. To the Spit IXs, the majority, which would be totally outclassed w/o it by 44/45, or the XIVs which were doing fine on 100 grade..? ;)
I guess those few XIV Squadrons had to wait until all the MkIXs were filled up. :cool:
Remember the problem for the Lufwaffe was not just the amount of fuel, but getting that fuel to where it was needed.
I don`t see why one fuel type is harder to get to an airfield than and other. You tell me. Of course, they probably used up the remaining stocks, so units that already used C-3 - for their FW 190As, like JG 26 - probably converted earlier.
You say it's a half truth when I say it's the December edition, yet you repeat that the manual says "December edition".
You given only partial information regarding the date, which leads to a false image of the reality, unless corrected.
So let`s rehearse it again : you pointed towards that the manual is representative of the December 1944 state. It is not, as it is for early production planes, as in October.
To summerize, the K-4 manual of October shows an 1.8ata boost gauge, and tells nothing about the maximum MAP allowed.
The 3rd edition of the DB 605D`s manual of December 1944, mostl likely already valid in November 1944, explicitely says 1.98 ata MAP is cleared for the DB 605 D.
I used google totranslae it. Google says it's the December edition, which is what I called it.
It appears that Google also translated for you that it refers to the "condition as October 1944".
Question is, if you knew what date it is representative of, why did you told half the truth ? Forget it, it`s not really a question.
Sorry Isegrim, you are claiming 1.98ata was standard in December,
I don`t I just repeat the engine manual of November/December, which plainly says it was cleared to.
I posted details from a manual published in December showing 1.8ata was the max the boost guauge read up to. That's relevant.
You posted details of the October 1944 manual for the early K-4 with DB 605 DM engines.
The relevant is, that you manual you qoute is not showing the December 1944 conditions, but as of October 1944.
I doubt that you could not really get that a re-print of an old manual is still just a re-print.
The ENGINE`s OWN manual, again December edition, shows 1.98 ata is cleared. I tend to believe that more than how was the boost gauge in October..
If the Spitfire IX manual published in 1943 showed 15lbs boost, I'd consider it very relevant, and a good indication that 15lbs was all that was allowed. I am after all pointing to a manual published in December 44, not October.
Good, so since in 1942/43 the Spit IX with a specificwas not cleared for more than 15 lbs, it means it never was, not even it`s other engined variants.
Keep it repeating, Naswhan. Still, the manual you qouted shows the condition of October 1944 (and for the early planes only).
Do you actually say that if I take it print it out now, it will suddenly show the February 2004 conditions of the K-4...? :lol
We don`t discuss what was it in October with the early planes, probably no more than a hundred out of the 1700 produced.
And the day of publication is listed as:
Rechlin, den 29. Dezember 1944
Irrevelant when it was published, as it shows the conditions of October 1944, not December.
You try to argue that it shows the December conditions, when it`s cleared stated:
"October 1944 condition"
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did you take 1.42ata was cleared in the beginning of service? I tell you, nowhere, it`s an assumption, made up by you to support your other assumptions. Sandcastle built on sand...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You only forget one thing : answering the question..
From where did you take it was cleared for service when it entered service ?
You did not answer that, rather you given us more of your assumptions. Which means you only assumed things, to back up your other assumptions.
That`s a sandcastle builts on sand. You keep repeating your own mythology, and refer to yourself in order to prove it.
-
For what it's worth, fuel supply to the Axis airforces was a big problem in the later half of the war.
Otherwise they wouldn't have been using oxen to pull their planes about :D
-
The K-4 manual is quite clear Isegrim about the max boost available on the DM engine :
"Die Entnahme der sondernotleistung geschieht durch vorschieben des lestunghebels auf 1.75ata ladedruck." etc...
AS for the 1.8ata boost the document i have coming from DB addressed to various institution clear the use of 1.8ata on the DB605DB and is dated 24 January 1945. And also mentions that test of 1.98ata could now begin.
-
Some posters here should read this
http://www.angelfire.com/super/ussbs/index.html
notice that the actual production of avgas was almost nil by mid March
(http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/images/ussbs/fig26.gif)
(http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/images/ussbs/fig16.gif)
Table 14 is of some interest as well, with the total supply in 1944(1,105,000) almost 1/2 of the total supply in 1943(1,917,000). In fact, 1944 was even less than 1942.
-
Isegrim, you don't seem to understand the point. The 109G2 was supposed to use 1.42 ata.
According to you. Proof...? No...
Manuals can be superceeded. Wether the G2 manual was superceeded, or wether it hadn't yet been published, is immaterial, the G2 was derated from it's expected 1.42ata to 1.3ata.
According to you, again. Proof...? No... Parrotting it madly won`t change that.
There`s no single document that would state the G-2 was downrated. The DB 605A itself had early problems, from earlier on, and the G-2 that came well after the introduction of the DB 605A, was of course running on the maximum boost allowed to it`s engine at the time of introduction.
No, the Merlin III was designed for 6.25 lbs, and had it's rating increased to 12 lbs in service. Can you find some documents showing it was originally intended for 12 lbs boost?
I didn`t say it was originally intended. It was intended later on, and the attempt had to be recalled becuse of engines that failed.
No, the Merlin 61 was designed for 15lbs boost. Later 60 series engines increased it.
= Merlin 61 engines failed to increase boost rates because of technical problems.
Isegrim, it's easy to find references like the G2 at 1.42ata, the 190A4 at 1.45 ata, and references to them being downrated.
Show me those references of them being downrated. Show me a reference that explicitely say the G-2 is downrated. So far you have come up with NONE, just parrot it.
I am especially interested for the FW 190 A-4 at 1.45 ata. Never heard of such boost cleared for the BMW 801D. Besides, in case of the FW 190A-3 and A-4, the problem was not with the engine, but with the airframe (the new BMW engine generated more power and heat than the engine mount was designed to handle. ) The solution was modifing the airframe to allow for better cooling, not the engine.
Where are your references to the the Spit I being downrated, or the Merlin 61 being downrated to 15lbs?
The British attempted the use +12 lbs as a WEP. It overstressed the engine greatly, and it`s use has to be restricted to emergency use only. The reference can be found on the fourthfightergroup website. Fact is the engine could not take the stress they wanted from it.
Another example is the Merlin 266. They attempted to clear it for +25 lbs, but they failed, and the engine was soon needed to be DOWNRATED to +21 lbs.
Another : Griffon 65. They attempted +25 lbs with 150 Octane in early summer 1944. Sever main bearing troubles occured, then engine was again DOWNRATED to +21 lbs.
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/Griffon%20limits%20of%2021lbs.jpg)
Should I mention the Vulture, the Sabre, too ? British engines had reliability problems throughout the war with the new, higher boosts.
All I can find, even in the earliest Spit tests, are references to lower boosts that get increased as the war progresses. The opposite is true of some German engines.
Rather laughable claim. :D German engines being downrated during the war? Oh, yeah, sure let`s look on the example of the DB 605A series, your favourite :
1942 : 1.3 ata, 1310 PS
1943 : 1.42 ata, 1475 PS
1944 : 1.7 ata, 1800 PS
1945 : 1.98ata, 2000 PS
The same engine, with small modifications, increased power output by 700 HP in 3 years.
The opposite is true for some British engines. The Merlin 266, for example, had to be derated in 1944 because of timing problems.
Isegrim, more than 18lbs required 150 octane. The Griffon 65 was in production long before 150 octane was. It was designed for 18lbs boost, and increased to at least 21 lbs. Can you find a reference to the Griffon 65 at 25 lbs?
Not at all in Squadron service, nobody can in fact. There attempts to allow for +25 lbs. All failed. They had to derate it to +21 lbs.
No, Isegrim, the difference is there's a Spitfire XIV chart showing 397 mph at sea level, but you want to discount it because you don't know wether the Griffon 65 could use 25lbs boost.
You version. Actually, nobody ever seen anything that would imply the Griffon 65 was ever cleared to +25 lbs in service. Not even Mike Williams, who put on that test on his site (but somehow failed to mention this part).
The best figure available for the K4 at sea level is 377 mph, and you persist in using that despite very little info about the conditions it was achieved under, and wether it was actually used in combat, certainly Butch is implying it was rare.
So far in this thread, the only person who claims 1.98ata was not used in combat is you, and you can`t prove it, nor back it up.
The best figure for the Spit XIV is 396 mph at sea level, but you want to discount it because you don't know how common it was in real life.
I, and everybody else here, including Neil Stirling, says this was a single test and such plane was never seen in operational service. Not that I don`t know how common was it, on the contrary. I KNOW it wasn`t used AT ALL.
See the hipocrisy? There's another Spit XIV figure of 387 mph at sea level, but you want to ignore that as well.
Which is again at +25lbs, for which the XIV was NEVER cleared. Why use figures like this? Unlike the 109 K-4, which WAS cleared for 1.98ata, according to everyone (maybe except you), the only question is WHEN, within a few months period.
My figures show a conditon that appeared in real life, your ones show ones that never did.
You have a single document for the 109, which shows 377mph, and you accept it as gospel, you have a doc that shows 396 mph for the Spitfire, another that shows 389 mph, and you accept 358 mph. That's hipocracy, Isegrim.
No, that`s reality. 389 and 396mph are for a plane that was running in a single test, in stripped condition, on a boost it never used in real life. There`s however a test that shows the XIV under it`s normal boost pressure, for 358 mph (BTW, I could also use 352 mph - that was what was measured on XIVs taken from operational squadrons). Of course under +21boost, the highest boost it used, it would be slightly faster, I would expect about 370 mph, as fast as the K-4 on it`s lowest boost.
Sorry Isegrim, the highest speed for a Spit XIV at sea level is 397 mph. http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14pt.html
I accept that might be slightly faster than normal service use, it's probably for a clipped wing aircraft without a mirror, which is why the supply ministry list 389 mph at sea level.
It`s for a boost that was never cleared for operational used, and never appeared in combat. Unlike the K-4 at 1.98ata.
-
Originally posted by butch2k
The K-4 manual is quite clear Isegrim about the max boost available on the DM engine :
"Die Entnahme der sondernotleistung geschieht durch vorschieben des lestunghebels auf 1.75ata ladedruck." etc...
I have never argued about the DM, butch. But it`s a bit of irritating as Nashwan clearly wants to sell the October 1944 manual for 605 DM equipped K-4s as valid for the DB and DC as well, for later periods. Why not bring up an E-3 manual right away...
AS for the 1.8ata boost the document i have coming from DB addressed to various institution clear the use of 1.8ata on the DB605DB and is dated 24 January 1945. And also mentions that test of 1.98ata could now begin.
What about the december DB 605 D manual Chris referred to ?
It says 1.98 ata cleared, December and probably earlierm doesn`t it ? Heck, anyway I look on that fact, it can`t be understood in any other way than what it says.
-
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fig22.gif )
German Avgas production, stocks, and consumption.
Points of interests:
1, From Summer 1944 onwards, when most bomber units were grounded, there was a great decrease in consumption until about September-October, by when only fighters and such lighter a/c were flying.
2a, From about May 1944, German avgas production was down, they effectively living up the large reserve stocks accumulated during 1943.
2b, Safely can be said, actual production of avgas thus had little effect on the availability of fuel times, it was dependent on what was available in the stocks.
3, By November 1944, the pressure on the oil plants eased somewhat, production was again able to meet the demand for a short period. As the bombings renewed, and territories were lost in 1945, production steadily fall.
4, Avgas consumption even during late 1944, was considerable at 50 000 tons/month, mostly used by fighters. Comparision can be made with Allied fighter fuel consumptions.
5, The decrease of stocks and production, at the same consumption rate, would mean that the LW would be grounded by May in any case.
-
The G-2 was definitely derated
one example among a lot of others...
(http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/tmp/bf109g2-messbrief-page6.jpg)
-
Hiya Butch2k, I've been puzzeled for some time as to the following: Vorläufig gesperrt nach VT-Anweisung Nr.2206
(Provisionally closed after VT instruction Nr.2206)
What is this Nr.2206 document/order? Do you have it? I'm wondering if its related to R.L.M. message GL/C-TT No.1374/42/42 of 12.6.42.
-
Its none of my business, but how do any of you guys have time to fly AH when your putting these book length posts up to the BBS about esoteric (and meaningless inrelation to AH) aircraft tid-bits?
-
Never said i was an AH flyer :p hehehe
-
Originally posted by Grits
Its none of my business, but how do any of you guys have time to fly AH when your putting these book length posts up to the BBS about esoteric (and meaningless inrelation to AH) aircraft tid-bits?
Not everyone who has an interest in ww2 aircraft has an interest in AH. This being the Aircraft and Vehicle forum it doesn’t necessarily mean "Aircraft of AH".
-
The 109G10/K4 were introduced in October/November 1944, but probably were not cleared for 1.98 ata boost until February 1945. Running on B4+MW50 the 109G10/K4 developed 1800 PS. Running on C3+MW50 it developed 2000 PS. Only a few 109 gruppen got C3 fuel, most likely those gruppen tasked with high altitude combat against US planes in the defence of the Reich in addition to a very limited number of other units (like those Butch2k mentioned in Luftflotte 6). The other 109 units had to rely on B4 fuel.
Now can we all agree on this?
I certainly can.
The Italian air force is not the German air force. You can't assume fuel deliveries were of the same type for the two air forces.
Isegrim, why are you ignoring what butch is saying?
Just to recap:
But yes the C3 was definitely scarce.
Butch is obviously constrained in what he can say, so I don't think it's fair to keep pushing the same line all the time, trying to get more info out of him. For that reason, I'll leave the issue of the use and availability of C3 there. I think the issues have already been answered by butch very well.
You given only partial information regarding the date, which leads to a false image of the reality, unless corrected.
No, it's amnual that says December edition, which is what I said. It actually says it's authoratative on the 29th December, but I didn't put the exact date, the end of December, even though it supports my case more. Perhaps you would rather I'd google translated and posted the whole thing?
I doubt that you could not really get that a re-print of an old manual is still just a re-print.
It's not a simple reprint because the first part of the text inside the manual is seperately dated and "signed" 29th Dec 44.
I don`t I just repeat the engine manual of November/December, which plainly says it was cleared to.
Again I think butch has already addressed this. If you won't listen to him telling you the information, what's the point in me repeating it?
Good, so since in 1942/43 the Spit IX with a specificwas not cleared for more than 15 lbs, it means it never was, not even it`s other engined variants.
Isegrim, where have I said that? I said the December edition of the K4 manual had a boost guage that only went to 1.8ata, but I also repeated what butch said that 1.98 was cleared later. I'm not the one contending that because it wasn't cleared in December, it was never cleared. It's you that's doing that saying because the Spit XIV wasn't cleared for 25 lbs in the summe of 44 it wasn't cleared for it in 45.
What's sad, Isegrim, is that you are displaying the faults you are accusing me of, I am not.
You only forget one thing : answering the question..
From where did you take it was cleared for service when it entered service ?
To repeat from the order banning 1.42 ata. To repeat myself, since you either haven't read, or haven't grasped it, the first time:
From the order banning the use of 1.42ata, which says that a number of cases of breakdowns have occured.
It's also an order banning the use of 1.42ata, which would hardly be neccessary if the information sent to the pilots had told them that 1.3 was the max anyway. I mean, if they'd been told 1.3 was the maximum, why send them another instruction saying 1.42 can't be used?
To directly quote the order:
Modifications to be carried out by the troops in case of aircraft already supplied
Isegrim, you don't seem to understand the point. The 109G2 was supposed to use 1.42 ata.
According to you. Proof...? No...
Again, see Butch's post on this subject. I have quoted the order banning 1.42 ata to you in full in the past, and large parts of it here, and I know you have seen it yourself.
No, the Merlin III was designed for 6.25 lbs, and had it's rating increased to 12 lbs in service. Can you find some documents showing it was originally intended for 12 lbs boost?
I didn`t say it was originally intended. It was intended later on, and the attempt had to be recalled becuse of engines that failed.
But the attempt wasn't recalled, was it? The official instructions for the Spit I say 12 lbs boost can be used. Do you have any evidence of instructions banning it? No, I thought not. The only instructions are Dowding warning pilots not to use it for longer than is specified in the manual.
= Merlin 61 engines failed to increase boost rates because of technical problems.
WTF are you talking about? We were discussing the fact that several German engines were derated, which provisdes precedence to the decision to do the same to the DB in the K4, if it was ever rated at 1.98 before March 45. WTF are you talking about the Merlin 61 for, which didn't have it's rating changed at any time, as far as I can see, and only served for 6 - 9 months before being replaced by a new model.
Show me those references of them being downrated. Show me a reference that explicitely say the G-2 is downrated. So far you have come up with NONE, just parrot it.
Technical Sheet issued by the Quartermaster General (Air Equipment)
Berlin, 18th June, 1942
Subject: DB 605 engine in the Me 109 G
The takeoff and emergency output with a boost pressure of 1.42 ata may not at present be used.
I am especially interested for the FW 190 A-4 at 1.45 ata. Never heard of such boost cleared for the BMW 801D.
Sorry, typo of 1.42 ata.
Besides, in case of the FW 190A-3 and A-4, the problem was not with the engine, but with the airframe (the new BMW engine generated more power and heat than the engine mount was designed to handle. ) The solution was modifing the airframe to allow for better cooling, not the engine.
So you accept it was derated in service? It hardly matters if it was derated because of engine troubles or airframe troubles (although I think Willaume mentioned that it was derated until the exhaust was chromed). It was still derated, which is futher precedence for the K4.
The British attempted the use +12 lbs as a WEP. It overstressed the engine greatly, and it`s use has to be restricted to emergency use only.
Isegrim, do you understand what WEP stands for? It's War Emergency Power.
Read what you have written again:
The British attempted the use +12 lbs as a War Emergency Power. It overstressed the engine greatly, and it`s use has to be restricted to emergency use only
They intended it for emergency use and it had to be restricted to emergency use only?
Another : Griffon 65. They attempted +25 lbs with 150 Octane in early summer 1944. Sever main bearing troubles occured, then engine was again DOWNRATED to +21 lbs.
I asked you before, I'll ask again, when was the Griffon 65 rated at 25lbs boost? Note, testing something and then not using it is not derating. De rating is approving something then changin your mind afterwards.
All this is once again you attempting to change the point. We were discussing wether the 109K4 ran at 1.98 as early as December, and you claiming the manual proved it, me saying even if the manual said 1.98 in December, it wasn't proof that it wasn't downrated. As precedence, I showed several other German aircraft that were derated.
WTF do Spitfires have to do with that? If every Spitfire ever made was derated, how would that refute my argument about the K4? It has nothing to do with it.
It's simply the case that any implied criticism of the 109 and you have to find a different aircraft to attack. Sad, really.
All I can find, even in the earliest Spit tests, are references to lower boosts that get increased as the war progresses. The opposite is true of some German engines.
Rather laughable claim.
SOME engines, Isegrim. Some
-
The next from Isengard...errr,,,,Isengrim is that WW2 ending with allied victory is a lie!
-
Originally posted by Batz
Not everyone who has an interest in ww2 aircraft has an interest in AH. This being the Aircraft and Vehicle forum it doesn’t necessarily mean "Aircraft of AH".
Agreed. I find this stuff very interesting as I am an Historian (BA in History/Philosophy) and I recognize that some of folks here have done professional quality work to go to primary sources for their information and not regurgitate it from some "pop" WWII book. It just never occured to me that some folks posting here were not AH players at some level.
Carry on.
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Italian air force is not the German air force. You can't assume fuel deliveries were of the same type for the two air forces.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep repeating it, Nashwan. Repeat it 3 times, 4 times, 100 times, it`s still the same.
Let`s rehearse again :
The ANR was relying entirely on Germany supply. Whatever the Germans had, the Italians may also receive. Among them 3 K-4s from the OKL`s reserves, but that`s of tertiary importance right now. Whatever went to the Italians, was in fact taken from German units. Fact is that in 1945, the Italians were using LARGE amounts of C-3. This C-3 was, if you like, taken from the German units. It could go to the LW`s FW 190 units, but it went to Italy instead. Just C-3, not a gallon of B-4 in 1945. The Italian planes did not absolutely required it, most were 109s. The change of stocks show C-3 was used until it run out completely near the end of the war.
So, it still makes me wonder, if C-3 was so rare, so unique, that there were only 3 men in the whole wehrmacht who ever got in touch with it, why the lowly "spaghetties" received it instead of the highborn "aryans" ? (no offence meant, just being sarcastic)
Butch is obviously constrained in what he can say, so I don't think it's fair to keep pushing the same line all the time, trying to get more info out of him.
I definietely did not do that, I can`t remember asking him about C-3 availability any time here. However all what is available to me shows a more complex picture. I could be wrong, of course.
For that reason, I'll leave the issue of the use and availability of C3 there. I think the issues have already been answered by butch very well.
Fine with me. In any case, just as a sidenote, when my site will be finished, the entire problematic will be presented. All aspects. It will be shown that 1.98ata is cleared by the manual in Nov/Dec, but also that other evaluations point towards the spring of 1945. Not just selective qouting, no things like qouting 4 sentence from a 3 page report, no comparison of a Spit V carrying droptanks with a clean K-4 at 2.3ata unlike a certain site dealing with the performance a premiere Allied fighter of WW2.
Perhaps the example will be followed, though I have doutbts about that.
No, it's amnual that says December edition, which is what I said. It actually says it's authoratative on the 29th December, but I didn't put the exact date, the end of December, even though it supports my case more. Perhaps you would rather I'd google translated and posted the whole thing?
Nashwan, I don`t want to bother with your BS anymore. Don`t waste your time too much, you certainly won`t convince anyone. At least try to rebuild your crebility.
The manual you qouted shows the October 1944 conditions of an early K-4 with DB 605DM, which is a different engine from the later ones with DB/DC engines ?
Yes / No?
It's not a simple reprint because the first part of the text inside the manual is seperately dated and "signed" 29th Dec 44.
Yep, it`s signed end of December. So? It shows the October conditons. Not December.
It says : Stand Oktober 1944. Conditions of October 1944.
Again I think butch has already addressed this. If you won't listen to him telling you the information, what's the point in me repeating it?
I can`t remember he addressed this. I asked specifically just above about that. He pointed towards the 1945 evaluation, but did not give an explanation why the conflict between the engine manual, which says it was cleared, and the testing, which says it was cleared later on. Nota bene, I wouldn`t need to note this, hadn`t been your claim of his statements.
-
It's you that's doing that saying because the Spit XIV wasn't cleared for 25 lbs in the summe of 44 it wasn't cleared for it in 45.
A sidetrack, but for your notice, there is a summer 1944 test of a Spit 21 on MW`s site, with Griffon 61, the same series engine as the 65, different only in gear ratio. The max. boost allowed is still +21 lbs. Besides, Neil also said that the Griffon 61/65 line was not cleared for +25, only later models.
Again, see Butch's post on this subject. I have quoted the order banning 1.42 ata to you in full in the past, and large parts of it here, and I know you have seen it yourself.
You claimed the G-2 was derated after it saw service. Fact is, banning 1.42ata was in effect BEFORE any 109G saw any service.
WTF are you talking about? We were discussing the fact that several German engines were derated, which provisdes precedence to the decision to do the same to the DB in the K4, if it was ever rated at 1.98 before March 45.
Nashwan, we are not before some orthodox english court, where you have to dig up some stupid precedent from 1437 about somebody who stole a chicken to use it as a precedent to prove that your neighbour owns you now, in 2004, fourty pounds... or, in your style, WTF you want to prove with your "precedences", which are debated in the first place ? I don`t really get your thinking. "WTF" a derating in 1942 would ANYTHING to do with a different engine in 44/45 ?
WTF are you talking about the Merlin 61 for, which didn't have it's rating changed at any time, as far as I can see, and only served for 6 - 9 months before being replaced by a new model.
You brought up the engine derating matter, m8. I merely, and kindly, pointed out, it was nothing uncommon, nor a German "speciality", via examples of British engines that suffered from troubles and had to be derated in service, sometimes didn`t even got to be derated, as they could not be uprated in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show me those references of them being downrated. Show me a reference that explicitely say the G-2 is downrated. So far you have come up with NONE, just parrot it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Sheet issued by the Quartermaster General (Air Equipment)
Berlin, 18th June, 1942
Subject: DB 605 engine in the Me 109 G
The takeoff and emergency output with a boost pressure of 1.42 ata may not at present be used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great. Everthing is in place.
You have claimed the G-2 was derated after troubles in service. Basically your claim is that the G-2 arrived to the units with 1.42ata, then troubles occured, and was derated to 1.3ata. which you want to use a precedent to the K-4. Right? You made up some things about non-existent G-2 manuals, which you imply originally contained the 1.42ata (you did not press this line anymore, for it is clear to me, to you, and probably others you have never seen those manuals), again just to get a precedent.
To which I said, it is false, as the G-2 was not derated in service because of service troubles, simply because it arrived into service, just like all DB 605A engine Bf 109Gs AFTER the prohibition of use of 1.42ata for the DB 605A.
So the timeline being :
October, 1941 : first 109G prototypes (DB 601 engines)
18th June, 1942 : 1.42ata boost is banned (see above). [Enabled on the 8th June, 1943]
"End of June" 1942 : two pre-prod 109Gs starting their 100 hour testing with test unit EJGr. West.
June, 1942 : G-1 and G-2 production commences
June/July*, 1942 : First G-1 received by 11/JG 2
mid-July : I/JG 53 receives first G-2
7th July 1942 : First G-2 loss
11th July 1942 : First G-1 loss
*It appears that no G-1 was in service with the 11/JG 2 in June, only in July, according to Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen of 11./JG2, which shows the first 15 planes arrived from the factory to the unit in July, and there was 0 G-1s on the end of June. Possibly the planes arrived in last days of June, and were accepted into the ranks in the first days of July.
As according the Prien/Rodeike.
You can argue more if you want. Fact is the G-2 was not derated in service, it arrived into service with the boost limited to 1.3ata and was cleared to 1.42 a year later.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides, in case of the FW 190A-3 and A-4, the problem was not with the engine, but with the airframe (the new BMW engine generated more power and heat than the engine mount was designed to handle. ) The solution was modifing the airframe to allow for better cooling, not the engine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you accept it was derated in service?
No, it was limited in boost in certain airframes. There`s a difference.
It hardly matters if it was derated because of engine troubles or airframe troubles (although I think Willaume mentioned that it was derated until the exhaust was chromed). It was still derated, which is futher precedence for the K4.
No, it matters a LOT. You are trying to sell it as the ENGINE`s problem, which was not. They installed a new, hotter engine in place of the BMW 801C, and the installation could not provide the airflow neccesary for COOLING.
Thus your "precedence" for the BMW 801 is also invalid for "German engine troubles", as there was no trouble with the engine itself. In fact, the problem was it was too good for the given installation.
I asked you before, I'll ask again, when was the Griffon 65 rated at 25lbs boost?
Is it a typo or you just actually said you don`t know any example of a Griffon 65 ever rated at +25lbs boost?
Let`s praise the Lord, it only took 4 years for you to get that part. :aok
All this is once again you attempting to change the point. We were discussing wether the 109K4 ran at 1.98 as early as December, and you claiming the manual proved it, me saying even if the manual said 1.98 in December, it wasn't proof that it wasn't downrated.
It is certainly isn`t a proof it was downrated. It is a proof it was uprated. Simple, isn`t it?
If you want to prove it was downrated later on, give me the specific order, like in case of the DB 605A.
As precedence, I showed several other German aircraft that were derated.
You showed two. In case of the BMW 801, it was proven false. In case of the G-2, it was proven false in the way you wanted to present it.
You showed two invalid precedence. (and pls, cut this freaking common law stuff about precences, it`s so weird to me. Give me proof, not f. precedences, analogies, whatever)
WTF do Spitfires have to do with that? If every Spitfire ever made was derated, how would that refute my argument about the K4? It has nothing to do with it.
That`s one step ahead in your way of thinking, which was the purpose of my examples regarding Spits and Merlins. Right, it has NOTHING to do with it. You have to answer the specific question, not just evading all the time and start to talk about the DB 605 A and BMW 801 instead of the 605 DB/DC.
It's simply the case that any implied criticism of the 109 and you have to find a different aircraft to attack. Sad, really.
Nope, it`s simple a way of proving your way of thinking wrong by applying your logic to other subjects. Tested on those, you yourself called your own logical approach faulty, as demonstrated above. The Spits were just ideal tools for that. I knew you would leave that without an answer. :cool:
PS: Angie, what`s so fun is putting one line stupid comments in a thread ? You show similiar symptonyms as a certain pet of mine. :D
-
Originally posted by butch2k
Never said i was an AH flyer :p hehehe
yeah ! Butchounet is a pusssy ;)
pourrais tu me contacter stp ?
straffo@me109.net
-
Does the above boost discussion mean that most DB models gave more power than the same time Merlins?
-
I have hard enough time coping with Me109G10, TA-152H, Me262, and Me163. If they add a 109K-4 or the G-14 (is that correct?), then I'm demanding a P47M. :mad:
Then watch, knowing my luck if HTC added the P47M, they would add in the Do335a, He162, and Ba349b just to ensure my P47M gets clobbered .
The reality is setting in, if they didn't bomb those factories making those V-1s, Me262s, Me163s, etc. the allies would have lost the war big time. No allied plane comes close to matching the air superiority of those LW jets and fast high alt prop planes (not even the P47M, and that was the best the allies had, aside from the Tempest and Spit XIV).
I don't know what my cpid name would be in German, anybody know? LOL.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Does the above boost discussion mean that most DB models gave more power than the same time Merlins?
The DB and Merlin family of engines were fairly comparable in power. Early to mid war they would often change places as the "most powerful" engine of the two, but the difference in power were small. Late in the war the DBs were definitively more powerful, but the Germans achieved this by sacrificing engine life and sometimes risking more engine failures. The Merlin was still competitive, and almost as powerful if run on 150 octane fuel while being superior in reliability, which was more important to the Allies than the Germans since they fought over enemy territory.
-
Originally posted by FBuzzard
I don't know what my cpid name would be in German, anybody know? LOL.
Mäusebussard.
-
Merlin and DB 601 compare IMHO very beautifully while Griffon is more on par with the 605. Both cases, the DB is a more volumous engine. RR seems to have been the more reliable if anything.
I'd really like to see this in a easy chart, understandable to the novice, but these threads always catch fire and become biased, so sometimes I don't know what to trust.
Well, Butch, HoHun and Gripen...but......
-
DB603 is a proper Griffon counterpart.
601 and 605 are more in class of merlins.
-
Hello,
a little part to the Spit14 and K4 speed. I think its not totaly clear how fast every plane was, but if we look to earlyer planes, like the SpitVb and 109F4, where we have more datas, we can see that the 109 always was faster with a less power.
Now the Spit14 got the bubblecanophy , which did provide a less good aerodynamic, while the K4 got a aerodynamical update and the SPit14 got a relative higher wingload than the K4, compared to earlyer models like Vb and F4, further more i guess the twisted elliptic wing brought even more highspeedproblems(no woder that they clipped it and got a better speed and of course rollratio).
But we realy talk about very less important parts of a FM here, cause the exact levelflight while combat is a exception and so unrelevant. If we would judge about a P47 only with the Vmax in levelflight we would think it was a terrible plane below 7k alt, we also must wonder how the E4 could stand the Spit1a, which seems to be faster in BoB.
The answer is: While different climb/dive-angels count absolutly different thrustsettings than while a exact levelflight!! So we have a total different acceleration-result if we compare a FW190A8 vs a SpitIXc while levelflight, or while a smooth dive, or while a smooth climb.
The reason is that while a levelflight the weight almost only count as inertia, but while a dive it bring thrust and while a climb its like a break(of course the inertia always work).
So i think its not very sencefull to talk about so 'unimportant' values like a Vmax or how much power had this or that plane exact(we also dont know much about the propellers and the real thrust in different altitudes).
The vital values of a plane are far more important, cause while a fight the Vmax while level flight dont count anything!!
Much more important are things like:
How good was the upzoom out of a given speed?
How good was the acceleration with a given dive/climbangel?
How good a plane could keep energy while a given elevatorvariation or given turnratio?
etc.
Specialy for game-flightmodels this is most important. I can create a FM that give one plane much more speed and a better climbratio, but it can be inferior to the other plane cause this plane dont lose E-while turning and is far more manouverable all over. Since we wanna have a good playable FM-relation, which feel realistic, we can use the vital values, to give the planes the necessary performence and there we have a wide field of possible realistic possibilitys.
I think AH realise this in a very impressive way, althought i think some planes behave a bit strange.
EAW is the best example how the vital values can even an absolutly unbalaced static-value setup. For example the 109E4 in the default EAW have a Vmax seelevel of 550km/h, while the Spit1a 'only' fly 500km/h, but the E4 lose much more energy while every movement and so the all over feeling and result is pretty even. Newbes always would lose in the E4 cause the high e-bleed.
In Ah i can see similar things but never in a that extreme way, the Hurri is very slow, but it dont lose E and have a incredible upzoom if it had speed, for example, same with the A6m.
Back to the topic:
Wasnt the biggest different between a G10 and K4 the better aerodynamic, the improves rollratio and the bigger MW50 tank??
Whats about GM1 in 109´s?? Someone above wrote that the high alt groups got the C3 fuel, but wasnt GM1 made for a better high alt performence?
Greetings, Knegel
-
Originally posted by FBuzzard
The reality is setting in, if they didn't bomb those factories making those V-1s, Me262s, Me163s, etc. the allies would have lost the war big time.
They might have made the war go on a little longer, but all the Nazi super weapons were garbage compared to America's super weapon.
Anyway, back to the rivit counting...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The K4 also had a slightly modified tail with rudder trim, retractable tail wheel, and main gear wheel-well covers.
Not to resurect an old thread but, the 109 did not have rudder trim. What it is, is the Flettner tab which was non-adjustable from the cockpit. It was there to ease the 'work load' for the pilot. You can see the tab also on the ailerons of a very few late war 109s.
-
It is true that the 109K didn't have any in-flight adjustable rudder trim, but there were two fixed trim tabs, one over and one under the Flettner tab.
Do you have anything to back up your "very few late war 109s" statement?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
It is true that the 109K didn't have any in-flight adjustable rudder trim, but there were two fixed trim tabs, one over and one under the Flettner tab.
Do you have anything to back up your "very few late war 109s" statement?
All 109s had ground adjustable trim tabs, so nothing new with the K having them.:confused:
source: Butch2K, for ~200(~12%) of the Ks had Flettner aileron tabs. What do you have to disprove it?
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
What do you have to disprove it?
No need to disprove it since you haven't proved it. However I was curious about your source.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No need to disprove it since you haven't proved it. However I was curious about your source.
Well you can't get a better source than Butch, Mr 109, who has access to Me docs.:eek:
Still curious on how many Ks you think were produced with aileron Flettner tabs.
-
I have no idea. I was just wondering how you could be so sure.
-
Well, generally anyone has access to public archives, it just takes some time and effort to find good stuff. In the beginning it seems to be hopeless to find something relevant but once you have understood what to look for, it's much easier and actually fun IMHO.
The problem with the Bf 109 is that so much has been written about it; myths tend to become facts due to cross quoting.
gripen