Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: VO101_Isegrim on July 19, 2004, 07:07:53 AM
-
Hi,
I guess I share these range tables for the Bf 109G (G-2 to be exact), since there`s so many misunderstandings about that in the literature (most books state high-speed cruise ranges only).
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/109G_range.jpg
I hope this will help to get a more correct picture of the 109G`s range, and I hope it will help to understand it wasn`t really an extremely limited range fighter, but more like a medium ranged one.
Data is for the Bf 109G-2/trop the British captured intact in the desert in the end of 1942. Thanks for the report, btw. ;)
-
Uber Uber
-
Umm
Do you know more about that particular 109G-2?
Been looking for a particular 109 that was captured in Algeria in late November 1942
Would be most happy to know more.
Regards
Angus
-
It`s a G-2/trop, the famous Black 6 that has been restored to become airworthy again, and was tested vs. Tempest V in the AFDU`s test to my knowladge.
I have the story on videotape taken on some warbird`s programme. 95% it`s the same plane, since the G-2/trop was captured in November IIRC.
But what is your special interest, it would be easier to answer (if I can) ?
-
Over 1200 miles? 750 miles at 300mph. That is very good range.
-
The one I refer to was captured on the 22th of November 1942 at Bone airfield.
It sustained damage from being hit in the engine and bellylanded right on the British field.
The pilot was captured totally unharmed.
If you like, I can email to you the whole story.
I have however not been able to find out what plane this was, nor the name of the pilot.
The date may be wrong, - the error might be up to a week or so (-2, to +5 days), hence making it difficult for ,me to make a match with LW loss records. (Which are also a bit incomplete at times, no wonder, this was a very tough and shifting warzone)
Anyway, would be nice to know ig you could help me there.
Best regards
Angus
-
Are those Imperial miles or US?
-
Do those ranges include the fuel used for climbout? Or is that just a calculation of how far it could go if it somehow found itself at 18,000ft with 154 gallons?
The reason I ask is the range documents I have for the Mossie specify how much fuel is used for the climbout.
The 755 miles sounds entirely reasonable to me for a short range fighter witha drop tank. It is pretty close to the Spitfire Mk IX's 850 miles.
The 1,250 miles seems, um, highly suspect. Very highly suspect. The DB605 would have had to have been insanely more fuel efficient than the RR Merlin in order for that to be possible.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The DB605 would have had to have been insanely more fuel efficient than the RR Merlin in order for that to be possible.
It was.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The 1,250 miles seems, um, highly suspect. Very highly suspect. The DB605 would have had to have been insanely more fuel efficient than the RR Merlin in order for that to be possible.
Yep, it was, plus the Bf 109 was less draggy so it could travel faster with the same power = better milage.
For a comparison, say the Merlin 66 consumed 895 liters to produce some 1950 or so HP at 25lbs, the DB605D put up with 650 lit/hour to achieve the same.
Scholz, the volumes are in Imperial gallons (=4.54liter).
-
Originally posted by GScholz
It was.
If it was that much better, why then did the 105 gallons on the Bf109E-4 not result in adequate range to escort from France to London?
Was the DB601 that much worse?
It seems, based on the numbers for the Bf109G-2 in that doument that the Bf109E-4 should have easily managed to cruise 400 miles and still have plenty of fuel for combat in the middle of it.
-
The 109E-4 had 30 minutes on combat power over London, before they had to RTB. However by Görings order they had to stay with the bombers, zig-zagging so that the bombers could keep up, and therby wasted a lot of fuel.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Yep, it was, plus the Bf 109 was less draggy so it could travel faster with the same power = better milage.
Less drag than a P-51B/D or Mosquito? I have never heard that. I understood that those were the two most aerodynamically clean piston engined aircraft of WWII. A feature of both was high cruise speed.
Yet this document would seem to indicate that the P-51D was no longer ranged than the Bf109G-2.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
If it was that much better, why then did the 105 gallons on the Bf109E-4 not result in adequate range to escort from France to London?
Was the DB601 that much worse?
Yep, the 601`s consumption was worser than the later engines, but it`s easy to see that, it was a smaller engine, with lower compression ratio than the later ones.
Also keep in mind that all 109s had the same tankage, 400 liter or 88 imp. gallon, be careful wheter sources are stating in US or imp. gallon values.
It seems, based on the numbers for the Bf109G-2 in that doument that the Bf109E-4 should have easily managed to cruise 400 miles and still have plenty of fuel for combat in the middle of it.
The E-4 to my knowladge is reported to have 460 miles on internal, at economic cruise. Keep in mind that it was a lot more draggy than the later ones. The 109F-2 had almost the same power at Kampleistung, sill, it was some 40-60 km/h faster than the E-4 !
BTW 109s could stay quite a bit of time over England even w/o the fuel tank that almost doubled the tankage. The bombers were usually left unescorted when they themselves were late from the randevous over the Channel - which meant 109s had to circle without reason while waiting them, burning fuel unneccesarily.
-
Ok, that all makes sense between the DB601/Bf109E and DB605/Bf109G.
And now that you mention it I do recall that the He111/Ju88/Do17s had a tendancy to show up late.
The 105 gallons was US gallons. I just grabbed that number from the AH website. All fuel tankages there are in US gallons.
I am still skeptical of the 1,250 mile claim. I'd bet it was a calculated number based on a much shorter flight test and doesn't include the fuel consumption used for the climb to 18,000ft.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Less drag than a P-51B/D or Mosquito? I have never heard that. I understood that those were the two most aerodynamically clean piston engined aircraft of WWII. A feature of both was high cruise speed.
Yet this document would seem to indicate that the P-51D was no longer ranged than the Bf109G-2.
The P-51 was longer ranged of course. It carried more than 2 times as much fuel. But on similiar loadout, the range would be very simliar.
Bf 109`s cruise speed was high as well, 600-650 km/h at altitude from 109F to 109K. Similair that of the P-51s. 109s had very little drag, no doubt, just check their SL speeds and the power required to reach it. Messerschmitt designed the fighters profile as small as possible, which guaranteed minimal drag.
Reminds me of the old story about Heinkel and Messerscmitt arguing against each other. Heinkel states that he builds aircraft that are of aerodynamic perfection.
Messerscmitt replied : Well, I build fast ones. ;)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I am still skeptical of the 1,250 mile claim. I'd bet it was a calculated number based on a much shorter flight test and doesn't include the fuel consumption used for the climb to 18,000ft.
Well, you can calculate that, too, climbing to 18000ft wouldn`t take even 4 mins, at Kampleistung, with a consumption of 380 to 400 liters/hour. That`s about 25-30 liters spent on climbing, on which some distance was covered as well, plus some extra for warmup etc.
All in all, in the worst case scenario I think about 50 liters/10 gallons would be spent on getting at 18k ft.
The rest 144 gallons would be enough for another 1310 miles at the given 9.1gal/mile rate, so this chart is probably containing some reserves as well !
Of course this is for an econical cruise, with lots of combat, lots of high power applied, the range would be reduced quickly. But this is just as well, or even more so true for the other fighters as well.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Less drag than a P-51B/D or Mosquito? I have never heard that. I understood that those were the two most aerodynamically clean piston engined aircraft of WWII. A feature of both was high cruise speed.
The 109 was not as clean as the P-51, but it was much smaller. The P-51 even with its better drag coefficient had more drag than the 109 because of its size. Drag coefficient is a size independent value and needs to be multiplied with the reference area of the airplane, usually wing area.
109 Drag coefficient X 109 size = less drag than P-51 drag coefficient X P-51 size.
Originally posted by Karnak
I am still skeptical of the 1,250 mile claim. I'd bet it was a calculated number based on a much shorter flight test and doesn't include the fuel consumption used for the climb to 18,000ft.
Yes that is a distinct possibility. I don't know whether other aircraft usually have fuel spent on climb calculated in their range estimates (because they are all estimates that does not take into account wind, temperature, humidity etc.).
-
This is what Fw says on its range/endurance charts
1) Consumption from BMW specs +12.5% reserve
2) Avg. speed = ariithmetic avg. of outboard and inboard
3)Endurance includes climb and descent times
4) Range calculated(my bold) without (their underline) deductions for tactical requirements! (their !) Includes climb and descent distances.
Deductions made for warm-up, taxi, climb, descent, overshoot and reserves.
-
According to that document the P-51D without drop tanks totaling 269 US gallons and the Bf109G-2 with a drop tank totaling 154 Imperial gallons would have had very nearly the same range.
As to the deck speed, well, altitude and engine performane and drag all come into play. The Spitfire Mk XIV's engine is rated at 2,050hp, but I don't know what it was producing at SL. The P-51D's engine, IIRC, was about 1,700hp, but once again I don't know what it was at SL. Given the DB605 on the Bf109G-10/K-4 produced (IIRC) about 2,000hp it is likely that it was producing significantly more power at SL than the P-51D's Merlin and yet their speed is nearly identical. The Spitfire Mk XIV and Bf109G-10/K-4 have very similar top speeds at higher altitude, 448mph and 452mph respectively.
It is hard to do a direct comparison.
-
Ok so the estimated range (calculated with standard atmosphere) includes warm-up, taxi, climb, descent, overshoot and reserves?
-
The 1,250 miles seems, um, highly suspect. Very highly suspect. The DB605 would have had to have been insanely more fuel efficient than the RR Merlin in order for that to be possible.
------------------------------------------
Yep, it was, plus the Bf 109 was less draggy so it could travel faster with the same power = better milage.
From the Australian archives via Ring's site, range tests of a Spit VIII with Merlin 66:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1090515978_spitviiirange.jpg)
(Ferry condition simply means a 90 gallon tank was fitted, the weight has been averaged between full fuel and external tank and no fuel)
BTW, the Spit VIII in this example is carrying 123 gallons internal and 90 gallons external, and can achieve up to 10 ampg.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
It is hard to do a direct comparison.
That's so true.
On the P-51 vs. 109K at SL: At high speed parasitic drag becomes the dominant factor, at low speed induced drag is the dominant factor. There are so many variables.
-
MiloMorai,
Yes, the de Haviliand stuff I have also says that. The document linked at top does not. That is why I am wondering about it.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
MiloMorai,
Yes, the de Haviliand stuff I have also says that. The document linked at top does not. That is why I am wondering about it.
Would be nice to see the original German doc.
Right now it is hard to tell if the doc in the link is German or British. The doc number seems to be a British source, so one would have to question the validity of the numbers.
-
This chart from Zenos, of bad quality, gives some ranges for a P-51D. Only pg 2 is posted.
(http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-51/P-51MAXH.gif)
Anyone have both pages and of a much better quality?
-
Say, haven't we done this before? I vaguely remember a 400+ monster thread a few months back where we discussed EVERYTHING with special attention on fuel efficiency and drag.
-
According to that document the P-51D without drop tanks totaling 269 US gallons and the Bf109G-2 with a drop tank totaling 154 Imperial gallons would have had very nearly the same range.
Indeed.
AIR 15/741 is a very nice comparion for the subject, both range and max. cruise datas (though 109G cruise appears to be very slightly lower than German specs for G-6 - maybe based on the G-6/U2 of AFDU?).
It gives the following data :
Spit XIV
Fuel : 109 gallon (int)
Max. cruise speed : 380 mph /25k
Radius of action / enduracne : 125 miles / 50 minsFuel : 109
Fuel : 199 gallon (int+1x90)
Max. cruise speed : 360 mph /25k
Radius of action / enduracne : 260 miles / 1 h 55m
(Spit 21 is very slightly better)
Mustang III (w/o rear fus. tank)
Fuel : 150 gallon (int)
Max. cruise speed : 400 mph /25k
Radius of action / enduracne : 270 miles / 1h 36min mins
Fuel : 275 gallon (int+2x62.5gallon)
Max. cruise speed : 350 mph /25k
Radius of action / enduracne : 450 miles / 3h
Me 109G
note: must be G-2 or even more so by the specs, a normal G-6 w. DB 605A
Fuel : 88 gallon (int)
Max. cruise speed : 360 mph /20k
Radius of action / enduracne : 130 miles / 1h
Fuel : 154 gallon (int+1x66 gallon DT)
Max. cruise speed : 350 mph /20k
Radius of action / enduracne : 260 miles / 2h
Note that at the same fuel load, 150/154 gallon , the Mustang and the 109G`s specs are almost identical! 270/260miles and 1.55h/2h endurance (and the 109 has some extra drag from DT).
Again, the best thing is the standards are the same, so the values are comparable.
Another British intelligence doc, date 15th Feb 1945, states the following ranges obtainable (no Mustang specs, or cruise speeds, unfortuntely) .
"Still Air range "
Spit XIV :
-460 miles w. 112 gallons (int. only)
-850 miles with 202 gallons (int. + 90 gall DT)
Spit XVI, Merlin 266 (should be identical to Spit VIII and IX)
- 434 miles w. 85 gallons
- 980 miles w. 175 gallons
FW 190A
- 500 miles w. 110 gallons (internal)
- 800 miles w. 176 gallons (int. + 1x66gallon DT)
Me 109G
-615 miles w. 88 gallons
-1000 miles with 154 gallons (int. + 1x66 gallon DT)
Again, the best thing is that all data comes from the same sheet, so it`s comparable.
The 605/Bf 109s duo had extremely good fuel effiency, no doubt.
I wonder what range those recce 109G-4s had, which caried duel 66 gallon DTs, one under each wing. I would recon somewhere around 1700 miles would be fit for them, at economic cruise. Definetely those were the longest ranged 109s, followed by the K-4 (which were the cleanest of them all, and had a dual purpose extra 115 liter fuel tank in the rear, plus could carry the same droptank as the others), the the later, high altitude 109Gs and so on, linearly back in the timeline, with tiny difference between the G-2/G-4 and the early G-6s.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
From the Australian archives via Ring's site, range tests of a Spit VIII with Merlin 66:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1090515978_spitviiirange.jpg
(Ferry condition simply means a 90 gallon tank was fitted, the weight has been averaged between full fuel and external tank and no fuel)
BTW, the Spit VIII in this example is carrying 123 gallons internal and 90 gallons external, and can achieve up to 10 ampg.
I wonder why even British documents give the Spitty`s 20-30% shorter ranged than 109s on the same amount of fuel then?
Which appears to be quite logical, given the Spitty always required more HP to haul itself around at the same speed than the Hundredneun, and Merlin`s specific fuel consumption was not so good as the DBs.
Perhaps these are "dry tank figures", ie. no reserves? Do you know the other details?
BTW, this is also from those Australian archieves :
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/9-MkVIIIdive-restriction.jpg
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/7-diveprohibition.jpg
I wonder if Guppy/Dan knows more about this, he said something similair about Spits over Normandy, iirc loosing wings when bombs were left attached in dive bombings.
-
Found this at Ring`s site, standards at which the Spitfire IX`s range and endurance was deducted.
(http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/spit/9/182.jpg)
Wonder why is there such a huge difference between the Mk IX and the Mk VIII figures posted by Naswhan?
-
I suspect that's a Merlin 61 engined Spit IX.
The best fuel economy on the Spit VIII with Merlin 66 was found to be at 23,000 ft, the figures I posted above are at 20,000ft. With the much higher critical alt of the Merlin 61, I suspect best economy would be obtained much higher, around 27,000 ft.
I doubt it's down to drag, if there was that much difference between the Spit VIII and IX, imagine the difference between the G2 you posted and the G6.
I'd say it almos entirely down to the difference between the Merlin 61 and 66. The Merlin 66 had a different supercharger and carb to the 61, so I don't think you can safely extrapolate the 66's performance from the 61.
-
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/db605a_fuel_consumption.gif)
-
From that chart:
5min climb = 6.66 liter/min= 33,3 liters
160min eco-cruise = 4.16liter/min= 666,7 liters
= 700 liters (400 internal+300 external)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
This is what Fw says on its range/endurance charts
1) Consumption from BMW specs +12.5% reserve
2) Avg. speed = ariithmetic avg. of outboard and inboard
3)Endurance includes climb and descent times
4) Range calculated(my bold) without (their underline) deductions for tactical requirements! (their !) Includes climb and descent distances.
Deductions made for warm-up, taxi, climb, descent, overshoot and reserves.
Where do you have this from?
niklas
-
Originally posted by niklas
Where do you have this from?
niklas
From the Fw charts dated 23.12.43 headed Range and Endurance Calculations. 4 charts > clean, with WR21, with dt, with SC500
Says, Compiled by: Jauser Voigtsberger, at least that is what the signature looks like.
-
i know these charts very well, actually i sent the whole bunch to pyro recently.
Did you get them from him? Or.... ?
niklas
-
Note that at the same fuel load, 150/154 gallon , the Mustang and the 109G`s specs are almost identical! 270/260miles and 1.55h/2h endurance (and the 109 has some extra drag from DT).
You are forgetting to take into account the power settings. The P-51 is cruising at 400mph, the 109 with DT at 350. To say that their range is almost identical is not totally accurate. The P-51 could throttle back to 350mph and drastically increase it's range. The Merlin is known to be thirstier than the DB, but the P-51 could cruise the same distance on 150 gallons as the 109G, but 50 mph faster. That's not much of a testimony to the efficiency of the 109.
ra
-
Ra, I believe you are mistaken. Max. endurance is not at max. cruise speed, but you are right in that the P-51 had a higher cruise speed. Mostly because it could cruise at a higher altitude.
Edit: We are now of course talking about 109G-6 vs. P-51D. 109G-10/K-4 having very similar max. cruise speed at high altitude.
-
I may be mistaken, but nothing about the numbers in the post can proove that. It lists the P-51 as having an endurance of 1hr 36min on 150 gallons. The P-51 burned around 50gph at economical cruise at 25K (even less at lower altitudes). With 150 gallons that would be 3 hours minus the fuel burned to get to 25K and back down. Even if it took 50 gallons to get to 25K and back down, that would leave 2 hours of fuel for cruise, not including the time for climbing and descending. So the 1hr 36min is for some higher power setting. We don't know what that setting is, so comparing these numbers to the 109 doesn't tell us much, especially because we don't know the power settings used for the 109 either. But we can be pretty certain 1hr 36min is not MAX endurance for a P-51 with 150 gal.
ra
-
Originally posted by niklas
i know these charts very well, actually i sent the whole bunch to pyro recently.
Did you get them from him? Or.... ?
niklas
Should have include that they are in the Fw190A-8 Handbook published by Valkyrie Pub. in 1974.
-
Spitfire missions (mk V I think) could stretch up to almost 2 hrs WITHOUT drop tanks.
The P51 must have been able to cruise about 4.
Oh, BTW, how much does the DB drink at full power?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Spitfire missions (mk V I think) could stretch up to almost 2 hrs WITHOUT drop tanks.
The P51 must have been able to cruise about 4.
You mean if the airframe did not fall apart first... :D
-
Hehe, yes, if the airframe was able to hold together.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Spitfire missions (mk V I think) could stretch up to almost 2 hrs WITHOUT drop tanks.
The P51 must have been able to cruise about 4.
Oh, BTW, how much does the DB drink at full power?
Bf109G-2 (DB605A): 480 liter/h 1.42ATA WEP
Spit IX (Merlin 61,63,66,67,266): 477 liter/h 12lb boost and 591 liter/h at 15lb boost.
-
A sidenote:
In 1937 both a Messerchmitt 109 B (1660 HP) and a Spitfire I (2160 HP), both well trimmed and enhanced for record breaking, tried to win the world's speed record from Howar Hughes' H-1 record plane.
The Messerchmitt won it - even when it had 500 less HP. Quite telling about the excellent aerodynamics of the Messerchmitt fighter.
-
That record was broken in 1939 by the Me209-V1, a dedicated record-breaking plane. Its record of 469.22 mph would stand for 30 years. It was broken in 1969 by a highly modified F8F Bearcat.
-
In 1937 both a Messerchmitt 109 B (1660 HP) and a Spitfire I (2160 HP), both well trimmed and enhanced for record breaking, tried to win the world's speed record from Howar Hughes' H-1 record plane.
The Messerchmitt won it - even when it had 500 less HP. Quite telling about the excellent aerodynamics of the Messerchmitt fighter.
You've got the facts a bit mixed up. The 109B set a record in 1937, but no Spitfire was competing, let alone one with 2000 hp.
In the summer of 1937, the RAF decided to go for the record, and placed a contract with Supermarine.
Later in the year, the 109 raised the record to just under 380 mph. The RAF team were confident of getting close to 400 mph, and continued work.
In 1939 they abandoned the attempt, before actually making it, because of the ME 209, which was a dedicated racer, rather than a modified fighter.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
That record was broken in 1939 by the Me209-V1, a dedicated record-breaking plane. Its record of 469.22 mph would stand for 30 years. It was broken in 1969 by a highly modified F8F Bearcat.
Considering that the P-51H, in military trim, did almost 490mph, the Spiteful did ~480mph..... One should not put to much stock in the 30 years it took to officially beat the Me209's speed.
It should be mentioned that it took the Germans ~4 years to beat the Italian record set with a seaplane(MC-72), you know, the one with the huge floats attached.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
You've got the facts a bit mixed up. The 109B set a record in 1937, but no Spitfire was competing, let alone one with 2000 hp.
No. My facts are exactly where they belong.
Spitfire definitely attempted to break the world speed record in 1937 with a specially modified Merlin II engine installed.
Yet they didn't make it.
There's information about this on the net too. For example:
http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/engines.htm
->
"It is worthy of note that in 1937 an attempt was made to break the World Landplane Speed Record, using a highly modified Spitfire I and a specially strengthened Merlin II. This engine actually generated 2160HP, and showed the potential for development of the engine. Most of the modifications developed for this engine eventually found their way into production Merlins. The Merlin III was adapted for the use of a constant-speed propeller and a constant-speed unit."
The attempt during 1938, with modifying another Spitfire I serial K9834, is a separate case, which was given up after the record flight of Me 209.
You shouldn't try to correct others, when your own facts aren't up to it.
-
Yes, the Brits ran a Merlin up to above 2000 hp already in 1937. The Engine actually was unchanged from standard, but the fuel was a special mixture.
The aircraft was a production line Spitfire, and that test occured in 1938 and 1939. The Speed was in excess of 408 mph.
What I'd really like to know would be how well it climbed.
The Weight and wing of a Spit I with 2000 hp and a 3 blade CS screw would definately have taken the world climbing record. However, that was not so interesting at the time.....
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Considering that the P-51H, in military trim, did almost 490mph, the Spiteful did ~480mph..... One should not put to much stock in the 30 years it took to officially beat the Me209's speed.
Like it or not:
26 Apr 1939 Augsburg, Germany Fritz Wendel Germany Messerscmitt Me209 V1 IC 469.22 Last piston-engined record
btw what altitude did P-51H and Spiteful achieved those speeds?
Because these records had to be flown in a 3km long track with altitude under 75 meters.
-
Staga, you're out of date.
Todays data:
"Piston-Powered Aircraft Grumman F8F Bearcat 528.33 mph
(849.55 km/h) 21 August 1989 "
I don't know about the absolute speed records of P51's and Sea Furys, but I belive that both may have broken the 209's record. After all, the Sea Fury has a top level speed of 460 WITH COMBAT LOADING, and without todays engine tweaks......
-
460mph at SL ? Pretty good.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Like it or not:
26 Apr 1939 Augsburg, Germany Fritz Wendel Germany Messerscmitt Me209 V1 IC 469.22 Last piston-engined record
btw what altitude did P-51H and Spiteful achieved those speeds?
Because these records had to be flown in a 3km long track with altitude under 75 meters.
Liking it or not has nothing to do with it.:rolleyes: No one made any official challenges on the record even though there were a/c that could and did fly faster. Jets a/c were 'in, piston a/c 'out''.:)
Since when is Augsburg at SL?:) It is at an elevation of 1519ft, so if your 209 flew at less than 75m SL then it was must have been one super a/c to 'fly' through solid ground.
What altitude did the SR-71 set its FAI speed records at. Certainly not within 75m of SL.:eek:
-
SL? No Idea.
I've heard that the record was broken in the 60's by a P51, possibly Griffon powered. Anyone have more on that?
-
Retarded discussion. In 1939 this 209 was the fastest thing going at any altitude, bar none, using the best technology of the day. By 1945 it wasnt, the Me262 and P80 were faster at every altitude.
Arguing over the official record is as meanngless as arguing over who had the fastest horse and buggy passenger service in the age of railroads.. Nobody cares and its certainly not "the fastest" -and fastest is the point.
Another example of this is the F8F Bearcat climb record to 10,000 which was "only" broken by an F16 many years later. Right, just imagine what those cold war era interceptors were doing with their 25,000+ fpm climb rates every single day...
-
No. My facts are exactly where they belong.
Spitfire definitely attempted to break the world speed record in 1937 with a specially modified Merlin II engine installed.
Yet they didn't make it.
There's information about this on the net too. For example:
Don't believe every fact an internet search turns up.
Prior to May 1938, there was 1 Spitfire flying, the prototype K 5054. On the 14th May, the first production aircraft, K9787, first flew.
If a Spitfire tried to break any records in 1937, it could only have been the prototype, K5054.
K5054 was fitted with a Merlin "C" in 1936, when it first flew, and later had a production Merlin II fitted, developing 1050 hp. It was never fitted with a more powerfull engine, certainly nothing approaching 2000hp.
This is what Spitfire The History has to say about the "speed Spitfire" that was intended to break the world record:
First meeting of the Supermarine record team 7th September 1937
The minutes of the meeting contained the following summary:
It is estimated that the Spitfire without serious modification could attain a speed of between 375 and 400 mphunder World's Record Conditions. Engine output. It is understood that using special fuel the Merlin should develop 1850/1900 hp at 3000 rpmon the bench at sea level. Allowing for forward intake effectthis becomes approximately 2100 bhp. With this, it is estmated that the maximum level speed of the Spitfire would be 373 mph. This assumes no unforseen drag or compressibility effects occur and is based on the Martelsham level speed of 349 mph at 16,000ft with a Merlin C engine developing 1000 hpfor the prototype aircraft. On 7th August a modified Merlin II was running at Rolls-Royce producing 1536 ho. Fuel was a mix of Benzol petrol and Methanol, with lead added for anti-knock.
There's more about ways to increase the speed, use of different props, windscreen, exhausts, removing the tailwheel etc.
A team from RR then met Supermarine on 10th September to discuss fuel and cooling systems.
On 9th Nov RR and Supermarine met again, and RR said the first engine would be ready in a few weeks, and would provide 1,995 hp at 375 mph.
The first full meeting of the record team took place on 25th November. They agreed 2 aircraft should be prepared for the record attempt, In the event no work was carried out on the second aircraft.
Four days later, RR said a standard engine providing 2000 hp could be ready in 6 weeks, an engine providing 2100 hp would take 12 weeks.
The next meeting was on the 13th Dec and laid out the conditions for testing, 5 runs of 10 miles each being required.
By 12th May 1938 work had slowed down, witha meeting at de Havilland still not having decided on a prop.
On 20th June the first special engine had been cleared for normal water cooling, and a flight engine was promised for mid July.
That's taken us up to mid 1938, and still no attempt on the record. In fact, the record plane wasn't even in the configuration decided on for the record attempt.
AFAIK, they never actually made an attempt on the record, and the plane never flew with 2000 hp.
Guppy could probably give you the full details though.
-
Hi Angus,
>What I'd really like to know would be how well it climbed.
The Weight and wing of a Spit I with 2000 hp and a 3 blade CS screw would definately have taken the world climbing record.
I'd say 35 m/s initial climb, 3:02 min to 5 km :-)
At sea level, a continous 5 G turn with 12 s per 360° should have been possible. "Achtung, Spinfire!" ;-)
(All with a different propeller, of course - either more blades like the late-war Spitfires, or more area per blade like the late-war Me 109s.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
What speed record was put with the 109.??
I mean the 209 is no 109. It's a specially built little aeroplane with the sole goal of speed record breaking.
The "Speed" Spitfire was just a production type mod with an original production line engine.
-
Angus, there was 2 Messerschmitt a/c, the Bf109V-13 which set one record and can be compared, sort of, to the High Speed Spit and the Bf209V-1 which set the other speed record.
-
Ahh, ok. Gotta find more on that, all interesting stuff.
Oh, I found at least one speed record. A modified P51, yes, with a Griffon made 499 miles in 1979.
-
Angus, here is a pic of the V-13
(http://www.bf109.com/images/bf109v13.jpg)
The Bf109R(Bf209)
(http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/Me209-V1-4.jpg)
An attempt was made to turn the 209 into a fighter but it was a dud.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
I wonder why even British documents give the Spitty`s 20-30% shorter ranged than 109s on the same amount of fuel then?
Which appears to be quite logical, given the Spitty always required more HP to haul itself around at the same speed than the Hundredneun, and Merlin`s specific fuel consumption was not so good as the DBs.
Perhaps these are "dry tank figures", ie. no reserves? Do you know the other details?
BTW, this is also from those Australian archieves :
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/9-MkVIIIdive-restriction.jpg
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/7-diveprohibition.jpg
I wonder if Guppy/Dan knows more about this, he said something similair about Spits over Normandy, iirc loosing wings when bombs were left attached in dive bombings.
Sorry I missed this so I'm late to the question.
Mk VIII had the same Universal wing that the Spit IXs had prior to Normandy when they first started dive bombing in earnest. It was some of the 453 Squadron and 602 Squadron that had the wings fold up when the bombs failed to release as they pulled out of thier dives.
The E wing was strengthened because of this. The 3 bomb Spits are using E wings as are those carrying rockets. These would be the Spit IXs and XVIs that equipped much of 2 TAF on the continent post D-Day.
The VIII never got that wing so it would make sense they would not use it in that role because of the Universal wing.
Just speculation on my part, but I would imagine not having two machine guns outboard of the bomb racks made a difference too. With the single .50 cal and 20mm inboard I would think there would have been less stress on the wing.
Once again that's just me thinking out loud.
I've not seen photos of VIIIs with the wing racks outside of the one included. This is a 1945 image from the Med and shows a clipped VIII which is also fairly rare. You can just make out the bomb racks outboard of the cannon.
My assumption is this was not a common set up.
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1087915223_clipped93.jpg)
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
I wonder why even British documents give the Spitty`s 20-30% shorter ranged than 109s on the same amount of fuel then?
Which appears to be quite logical, given the Spitty always required more HP to haul itself around at the same speed than the Hundredneun, and Merlin`s specific fuel consumption was not so good as the DBs.
Perhaps these are "dry tank figures", ie. no reserves? Do you know the other details?
BTW, this is also from those Australian archieves :
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/9-MkVIIIdive-restriction.jpg
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/7-diveprohibition.jpg
I wonder if Guppy/Dan knows more about this, he said something similair about Spits over Normandy, iirc loosing wings when bombs were left attached in dive bombings.
Had a late thought on those pages you linked to. First question would be is that August 45? As in Postwar? Those Aussie Mk VIIIs had seen considerable service by that point.
Second is that there were some problems with Spits in the Far East that were assembled incorrrectly with loose wing bolts, resulting in some collapsed wings. The aircraft had arrived in crates and the crews assembling them messed up. The word went out quickly to rectify that particular problem.
It might be this is a result of something similar too.
Dan/Slack
-
Bleh, Bf109E is IMO one of the poorest fighter designs ever. Really a wasted opportunty with such a major redesign after the early Jumo 109s.
-
Originally posted by Angus
What speed record was put with the 109.??
I mean the 209 is no 109. It's a specially built little aeroplane with the sole goal of speed record breaking.
The "Speed" Spitfire was just a production type mod with an original production line engine.
If you mean one based on the early fighter 109 airframe, than it`s the Bf 109 V-13 test/recordplane. It was very much like the early 109B-E, with minor details like smoothened surface, enclosed openings and so on. It even had the external struts of the horizontal stabilizer.
(http://www.adlertag.de/specials/v13_2.jpg)
On November 11th 1937, it set the world speed record of 610.95 km/h (379.39mph), with DB 601 Rennmotor III with Bodenlader, producing a peak of 1658 PS.
(http://www.adlertag.de/specials/urkunde.jpg)
The record stood until the Me 209 broke it, with a much more powerful engine, DB 601 Rennmotor V. producing 2600 PS. Quite obvious why Supermarine gave it up, a few months later Messerscmitt`s recordplane (V-13) surprassed the expected results for the High Speed Spitfire. And even after that, all Mtt would had to do to break it again was to re-engine the V-13 with the 601 Re V. This would, as per my rough calculations, would increase it`s speed to 710 km/h, or 440 mph, with a more-or-less serial version of the Bf 109 fighter airframe.
So it was V-13 to which the 'World`s fastest fighter' title originates to, not the Me 209 (which on the other hand, anyway you look it, has the same design principles as the 109).
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
I suspect that's a Merlin 61 engined Spit IX.
The best fuel economy on the Spit VIII with Merlin 66 was found to be at 23,000 ft, the figures I posted above are at 20,000ft. With the much higher critical alt of the Merlin 61, I suspect best economy would be obtained much higher, around 27,000 ft.
I am fairly certain that this is a Merlin 66 engined Mk IX.
1, The suggested altitutude of the plane is 20 000 ft. We know the Merlin 66`s VDH was 20 000 ft, too.
2, Moreover, that 20 000 ft is the same altitude as the Mk VIII w. Merlin 66 as in your papers
3, The date is 2nd February 1943, ~the time the Mk IXLF was introduced. I am puzzled why the RAF would investigate the older Merlin 61 engined Mk IX F, which was in service more than 6 months by that time.
4, Also, the British intelligence doc, dated 15th Feb 1945, states 434 miles w. 85 gallons for the Spit XVI, Merlin 266 (should be rather identical to Spit VIII and IX)
[/QUOTE]
I doubt it's down to drag, if there was that much difference between the Spit VIII and IX, imagine the difference between the G2 you posted and the G6.[/QUOTE]
Agree, drag would make little difference, especially at very low airspeeds. Maybe 20-30 miles in full range. Probably the difference is in the trials testing enviroments. The Australian trials you quoted from, mention that :
CAUTION: All the above corrections are only approximiate and apply for changes in temperature of the order of +-15 C or change in heights of +- 3000 ft from the measured values. The corrections do not apply at speeds below 150 mph ASI.
Apperantly, the numbers you posted are rather rough values and it`s noted there`s plenty of error margin with them. I don`t think the Merlin 66 and 61 would differ too much in fuel consumptions anyway.
Originally posted by Angus
Spitfire missions (mk V I think) could stretch up to almost 2 hrs WITHOUT drop tanks.
Oh, BTW, how much does the DB drink at full power?
You can cruise for VERY long periods with much reduced power and speed. Endurance is much dependent on the speed, and can be stretched considerably - of course there are limitations on that, hardly anyone would 'save' fuel at near-stall speeds, if he can expect enemy fighters in the area.
As for the DBs consumption, the table tells a lot. A comparable power for comparing the Merlin 6x series and the 605 would be +15 lbs Combat Rating and d 1.3ata Kampfleistung. The 61 would produce 1340 BHP at SL, and consume 150 gallons (=681 lit/h), the DB 605A-1 would produce 1310 PS and consume 400 liters, or in other world, the Merlin takes ~50% more fuel to develop the same powers at maximum output.
The highest fuel consumptions would appear with the DB 605 DC producing 2000 PS at 1.98ata, but even that was rather modest - "only" 650 liters/hour. Of course the D series were much improved models, with higher compression ratios as the A-series.
Wonder how much a DB 603 would consume though, never seen figures for it.
-
Hi Isegrim,
>Wonder how much a DB 603 would consume though, never seen figures for it.
The DB603E-F running on B4 fuel consumed:
Sea level:
1750 HP - 565 L/h
1580 HP - 480 L/h
1375 HP - 410 L/h
1590 HP @ 6.3 km - 520 L/h
1490 HP @ 6.3 km - 450 L/h
1390 HP @ 6.0 km - 410 L/h
1170 HP @ 5.6 km - 330 L/h (205+10 g/HPh)
Data is for
Take-off/Emergency Power
Climb and Combat Power
Maximum Continuous
Continous Economical
respectively.
Source is the "Daimler Benz Leistungsblatt, DB603E-F B 4, 4.43" quoted from Dietmar Hermann's "Focke-Wulf Ta 152".
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi HoHun,
Thanks, it`s rather interesting. Appearantly, the 603E has almost the same charachteristics as the 605DB, with somewhat better consumption, which is what I expected from the increased volume.
I wonder how it related to the 603G in power output. AFAIK, the 603E was basically the same devlopment path as the 605AS, ie. mounting the development engine 603G`s supercharger on the 603A. The VDH`s are diffrerent though. Was that only because of different power outputs, was that because the 603G had better altitude performance? The latter had higher VDH, but sometimes this is misleading as it may that they have the same high altitude performance, just one engine is producing more power at higher boost at the lower levels.
The true beasts were the 603LA-1 and N engines, though. ;)
-
I am fairly certain that this is a Merlin 66 engined Mk IX.
I'm absolutely certain it's not.
1, The suggested altitutude of the plane is 20 000 ft. We know the Merlin 66`s VDH was 20 000 ft, too.
Suggested altitude? You don't think that perhaps they picked 20,000 ft because it's a nice round number?
2, Moreover, that 20 000 ft is the same altitude as the Mk VIII w. Merlin 66 as in your papers
I should think the Australians thought it was a nice round number too. They also tested at 10,000ft. Now, tests at 10,000ft and 20,000ft, what can we
assume about the engine from the selection of those two altitudes?
3, The date is 2nd February 1943, ~the time the Mk IXLF was introduced. I am puzzled why the RAF would investigate the older Merlin 61 engined Mk IX F, which was in service more than 6 months by that time.
The doc you posted says "full endurance tests were carried out with a standard Spitfire IX"
Interesting you are now claiming the standard Spitfire IX before 2nd Feb (the time the report was signed off) was the Spit LF IX. Elsewhere you have claimed the LF IX did not get into service until March-April 1943.
Indeed, the performance tests on the Merlin 61 engined Spit IX on Mikes page say:
Performance tests were required on Spitfire F. MK.IX. B.F.274. This report deals with position error, climb, and level speed tests.
..................Preliminary results were forwarded to M.A.P. by letter, ref. A.A.E.E./4493/44/Gen-A.S. 56/50, dated 6th September 1942 and by postagram dated 17th September 1942.
So, preliminary results were obtained in September, full performance tests were done on 22nd October.
Now, the reason I am so certain it was a Merlin 61 engined Spit IX is:
The doc says trials were carried out at 20,000ft and 37,500 ft. It gives a figure of 6.76 ampg at 20,000ft.
Spitfire The History gives the following under trials conducted on the Spit IX:
Boscombe Down 22 October 1942. BF274 Fuel Consumption Trials. 6.76 ampg range 450 miles, endurance 1.95 hours at 20,000ft. 6.03 ampg, range 375 miles, endurance 1 hour at 37,500 ft.
Look familiar? Look exactly the same as the figures in the doc you posted?
BF274 was the Merlin 61 engined Spit IX tested here:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bf274.html
I've seen nothing to suggest Bf 274 was reengined with a Merlin 66, and indeed seeing the performance trials on Mike's page linked above were conducted with a Merlin 61 on 22 October, it would be rather strange of them to have swapped the engine in the intervening days, wouldn't it?
Agree, drag would make little difference, especially at very low airspeeds. Maybe 20-30 miles in full range. Probably the difference is in the trials testing enviroments. The Australian trials you quoted from, mention that :
CAUTION: All the above corrections are only approximiate and apply for changes in temperature of the order of +-15 C or change in heights of +- 3000 ft from the measured values. The corrections do not apply at speeds below 150 mph ASI.
Apperantly, the numbers you posted are rather rough values and it`s noted there`s plenty of error margin with them.
The corrections are nothing to do with the tests.
The "caution" you posted comes in a section headed
"Approximate effect of temperature deviations from standard ICAN conditions"
The next section is:
"To estimate cruising performance at constant engine conditions at other altitudes than given in report"
Both sections give corrections to apply to estimate what the differences would be if you flew in hotter or colder weather, or at different altitudes. They're "rules of thumb" to work out your range under different conditions.
In fact, the range table I posted is clearly labelled as being "standard atmosphere"
The chart I posted before gives the values for the Spit VIII with Merlin 66. As the only difference will be in drag and weight, with drag being slightly in the VIIIs favour, and weight in the IXs favour, they hold good for the Merlin 66 engined IX as well. The figures you posted are for a Merlin 61 engined IX.
As for the DBs consumption, the table tells a lot. A comparable power for comparing the Merlin 6x series and the 605 would be +15 lbs Combat Rating and d 1.3ata Kampfleistung. The 61 would produce 1340 BHP at SL, and consume 150 gallons (=681 lit/h), the DB 605A-1 would produce 1310 PS and consume 400 liters, or in other world, the Merlin takes ~50% more fuel to develop the same powers at maximum output.
At sea level. What about higher? The DB 605 is at it's most efficient at sea level, the Merlin at FTH. Try that comparison at Merlin FTH.
-
What really puzzles me about the 109's range possibly being more than of the Spitty is that 109's operating from the French coast had fuel problems swooping over Kent-London, while Spitties were, a year later, operating over Holland and Belgium.
In both cases there without drop tanks.
I remember that German pilots complained how quickly the DB ate up the fuel on high settings, hence the speculation.
On absolute full power I tend to think it's logical to assume that the DB ate more (not necesssarily pr.hp) because of its much higher volume.
Ohh, Izzy, thanks for the info on the 109 racer. I had not seen this before. If you have a good link or more pics please post.
The same with the early 109's, i.e. 109D. Interesting.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Now, the reason I am so certain it was a Merlin 61 engined Spit IX is:
The doc says trials were carried out at 20,000ft and 37,500 ft. It gives a figure of 6.76 ampg at 20,000ft.
Spitfire The History gives the following under trials conducted on the Spit IX:
Boscombe Down 22 October 1942. BF274 Fuel Consumption Trials. 6.76 ampg range 450 miles, endurance 1.95 hours at 20,000ft. 6.03 ampg, range 375 miles, endurance 1 hour at 37,500 ft.
Look familiar? Look exactly the same as the figures in the doc you posted?
...
The chart I posted before gives the values for the Spit VIII with Merlin 66. As the only difference will be in drag and weight, with drag being slightly in the VIIIs favour, and weight in the IXs favour, they hold good for the Merlin 66 engined IX as well. The figures you posted are for a Merlin 61 engined IX.
Well, in that case I can only arrive to the conclusion that most Mk IXs were typically even less ranged than I originally thought.
Only a handful of Mk IXs were produced in 1942, with a range of 450 miles as the book and the report itself shows (Merlin 61).
The Mk IX LF, with Merlin 66, the main type of the Mk IX series, had less range due to the engine having poorer high altitude performance (where higher cruising speeds could more easily developed), of only 434 miles on internal fuel.
See below :
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/Spitchart.jpg)
Now, this is for the Mk XVI, but it should be all identical to the MkIXLF with Merlin 66, the 266 being nothing else than a US-built 66. It makes sense, if you replace a high-altitude engine with a low altitude one, you will only get lower cruising speeds and lower range. There`s absolutely nothing in the 66 that would suggest it has better consumption than the 61, and even less that would suggest that the Spitfire had nearly the same range as the 109Gs - after all, the Merlins were considerably worser consumption ones than the Mercedes engines, and the Spitfire was considerably draggier than the 109G itself, carrying very slightly less fuel, too. Burning more fuel to travel slower won`t give you more or equal range, that`s for sure. This assumption was around for quite some time by now, only awaiting to be confirmed with that report (German GLA charts also show the same) And this is very much confirmed from the datas the two reports, and 2 data pages show, ie. roughly 50% more range on the 109G than on the various Spit versions on internal fuel.
Besides, the report itself you are quoting from gives absolutely no doubt about the Mk VIII ranges either, ie. Page 109 shows :
http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/spit/8/109.jpg
Ranges:
-Main tanks (120gal), 230mph TAS : 740 miles, endurance 3.38h(?)
-Main + 30 gall (150 gallon), 220mph TAS : 960 miles, 4.25 h
-Main + 90 gal (210 gallon), 220mph TAS : 1265 miles, 5.7 h
You can see it very nicely agrees with the intelligence document above for the XVI LF.
At sea level. What about higher? The DB 605 is at it's most efficient at sea level, the Merlin at FTH. Try that comparison at Merlin FTH. [/B]
Hmm. Where did you took that the DB 605 was 'more effiecient at SL? Or that the Merlin is at it`s VDH? The DB was equally effiecient at all altitudes, thanks to the variable speed supercharger.
You can do yourself any comparision if you like, whatever variables you want to use, it won`t make difference in that the DBs were considerably (30-50% more) fuel efficient than the R-R engines (and a bit better than any other German engine as well).
Gives you a hint why the internal tankage of the 109 never needed to be increased, yet it had more and more range as it developed. The Spitfire on the other hand had about the same (decreasing, in fact) range on all models, despite the fuel tankage was increased from 85 gallons by ~50% to 120 gallons by the end of the war.
Angus posted:
Ohh, Izzy, thanks for the info on the 109 racer. I had not seen this before. If you have a good link or more pics please post.
The same with the early 109's, i.e. 109D. Interesting.
Angus, the parts I took is from there, it`s more detailed:
http://www.adlertag.de/specials/worldrecord.htm
worth of checking out, too (in German, about 1st prizes the 109s won at the Zurich International Aircraft Meetings):
http://www.adlertag.de/specials/flugmeeting/flugmeeting.htm
-
Hm... At least here in Finland the lowest practical cruise setting for the Bf 109G was 2100rpm at 0,9-1,0ata which resulted 1,5h endurance (including climb etc.). Anything lower settings resulted rough running (due to increasing dirt in spark plugs) and exhaust gases tended to enter in cockpit at low speeds; low cruise values in the manual were more or less theoretical. In the combat conditions normal endurance was something around 1-1,25h; no one wanted to cruise at low speed in the hostile area.
Another thing to note is that there never was efficiency competion during WWII. Despite what ever was the fuel consumption of the Merlin, the merlin powered Mustangs and Mosquitos raced around occupied europe and the LW could do very little to catch them with piston engined fighters.
Regarding the efficiency of the DB 605, it should be noted that theoretically variable speed supercharger gives good efficiency at wide altitude range. But in the case of the DB 605, the adjusting system of the hydraulic coupling (simple barometric clutch) resulted that efficiency peaked at FTH, basicly advantages of the variable speed system were wasted in large degree due to this.
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
Hm... At least here in Finland the lowest practical cruise setting for the Bf 109G was 2100rpm at 0,9-1,0ata which resulted 1,5h endurance (including climb etc.). Anything lower settings resulted rough running (due to increasing dirt in spark plugs) and exhaust gases tended to enter in cockpit at low speeds; low cruise values in the manual were more or less theoretical. In the combat conditions normal endurance was something around 1-1,25h; no one wanted to cruise at low speed in the hostile area.
Yep, the same thing is true for all the other fighters as well, including the fact that the real life tactical enviroments decrease the available range even more. If air combat tooks place, consumptions skyrocket (ie. a Merlin 66 would consume 12.5% of the internal fuel in just 5 mins, reducing range by an equal amount), and range drastically shortens. This gives you an idea why ~450 miles on internal tankage (ie. Bf109E/all Spits) is so limited for real purposes, especially on offensive sorties.
Low RPMs usually generate rough running engines, but little more than that. Ie. from the Spitfire Mk VIII/Merlin 66 that has been already quoted, states :
"During the trials at 20k ft it was found difficult to run the engine at RPM below 2400 at full throttle, even though the boost was less than the limiting value (4lbs/sq.inch). "
etc.
Another thing to note is that there never was efficiency competion during WWII. Despite what ever was the fuel consumption of the Merlin, the merlin powered Mustangs and Mosquitos raced around occupied europe and the LW could do very little to catch them with piston engined fighters.
Rather rhetorical, ignoring the inconvinient parts and far from the truth. Statements like in the last sentence become extremely comical in view of facts like that Merlin powered Mosquitoes, operating initially in daylight, suffered twice the loss percantage from those LW fighters that 'could do very little to catch them'.. They, like all the oridnary bombers, had to operate under to cover of darkness, where they would only face the slower nightfigters, and even that wasn`t life insurance: daylight Mosquitos operating in the Bay of Viscay took their losses even from rather slow heavy fighters like the Ju88C which was even slower than a Hurricane.
It becomes an even more interesting in view of the official loss records, that state hundreds of Merlin P-51s being lost in every month after it`s introduction. As usual, a theory had born in someone mind, and regardless of the real world fact, he now seeks to force it on the reality he can`t accept.
Even looking on the technical side, it`s quite clear from the technical aspects of the engine, and planes, that there were nothing extraordinary in them. The Mustang wasn`t really any faster than the /AS powered Bf 109s of 1944, or the 190Ds. It`s great range was down to it`s great aerodynamics (beding equivalent to the 109s as showned) and the fact that it was loaded with insane amounts of fuel, which created plenty of trouble in service, including structural failers due to the rear tanks, installed in view of the Merlin`s taste. The range had nothing to do with the engine, in fact, it was outright against the fact the Mustang was Merlin powered, that engine being desinged for anything but not good fuel economy for an escort fighter - but there was nothing else available. I always think about what results could be borned from mating a Mustang airframe with high altitude DB engine. Aerodynamics would improve quite a bit with the more streamlined nose the inverted engine would enable now, and they could make the plane a lot lighter, or a lot longer range, with the fuel economy of the Daimler Benz now aiding the Mustang.
Regarding the efficiency of the DB 605, it should be noted that theoretically variable speed supercharger gives good efficiency at wide altitude range. But in the case of the DB 605, the adjusting system of the hydraulic coupling (simple barometric clutch) resulted that efficiency peaked at FTH, basicly advantages of the variable speed system were wasted in large degree due to this.
As for the 'simple barometric clutch', that was enough for the job. Nothing more complicated was neccesary, as it fullfilled the task perfectly, and could set the supercharger according to the exact amount of mechanical supercharging that was needed. If the plane was in high speed flight, this alone mean that dozens of horsepower being gained, thanks to the travelling aircraft compressed the air in the intake for free, AND that the supercharger control could notice this and work less hard when it was unneeded. The gain is quite obvious when plotting a DB power output chart vs. a fixed-gear supercharger system, that knows only ON and OFF.
-
I always thought that the Mossie had an exceptionally low loss rate. And at night, even better.
I'm sure Karnak has something more about this.
-
Originally posted by Angus
I always thought that the Mossie had an exceptionally low loss rate. And at night, even better.
I'm sure Karnak has something more about this.
Mossies of the light striking force from 1944 had extremely low loss rates, that is true, but it has a lot to do with the conditions they operated at. Lots of fast flying, lonely operating targets are extremely hard to intercept, especially at night. Simply because of the style of operation, there`s little time available for the interception itself, making it technically difficult to execute. But that does not apply to Mosquitoes alone, Ju 88 etc. intruders over England pursuing the heavies over their bases had low loss records as well, as well as daylight FW 190 jabos. And, an even more extreme example, laughalbly obsolate planes like Soviet biplanes that were used to harass the enemy during the night proved to be next to impossible to intercept, even in the Korean war for MUCH more advanced fighters. Of course there`s a price for this, night operations mean low effectiveness, not only on the defenders side; low loss percantage is one thing, but bombing forests and fields too many times instead of real targets is another.
As for the daylight record of the Mosquito, I have read that the loss rate was something like 8% when introduced and employed in the daytime, vs. the 4% loss rate of the ordinary night bombers at the same period. And the low loss percantage in the later times had more to do with rarely having contact with the enemy, rather than being hard to catch or beat in combat. Most recce aircraft, Allied and Axis alike, could claim the same. How many 109G-4/R3 were shot down over Britain per sortie? Don`t think there were too many. By the time enemy interceptors got airborne, and climbed to the extreme heights they were operating at, their task was already done and were cruising back to home at very high speeds, making actual intercepting very unlikely to happen.
-
HAd a brief web search, but found nothing about this.
I remember from two pilots though, that they considered the Mossie impossible to catch with the 109. One of the British, the other German. The german actually caught one, but not in a direct speed run, rather by cutting it's path.
I've read up a bit about mossie nightfighters. At night they flew hours over France, Germany and Denmark even, Harassing the German Nightfighters. Their losses were extremely low to enemy action, while their kill rate was impressive.
-
Dear Isegrim,
I see your ignore list does not work or why do you reply my post?
Regarding range of the Bf 109, I wonder why do you use theoretical values for the Bf 109 and practical values for the Spitfire IX; I don't see any practical difference between them. It should be also noted that the Spitfire VIII could take more than 600l fuel internally if the rear fuselage tank was installed (over 50% more than the Bf 109G).
Basicly your own argument on Bf 109 fuel consumption is rather rhetorical, range at practical speed was more important than consumption. Merlin powered planes (namely Mustang and Mosquito) had very longer range despite what ever was the consumption. At least my source (Sharp&Bowyer) gives 6,7% loss rate for Mosquito day light bomber operations (31.5.1942-31.5.1943, failed to return, all causes).
Regarding barometric clutch, please study the thing called "gebläsedruck" on DB 605 charts and try to understand what it means below FTH. Basicly DB 605 supercaherger worked at optimal speed just at FTH.
gripen
-
One thing to remember about Mossie day losses (B and FB) was that most were due to flak, NOT due to enemy a/c.
The special JG25 and 50 were disbanded because of their very dismal record (1 in 6 months???) in intercepting and destroying Mosquito bombers.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Dear Isegrim,
I see your ignore list does not work or why do you reply my post?
Regarding range of the Bf 109, I wonder why do you use theoretical values for the Bf 109 and practical values for the Spitfire IX; I don't see any practical difference between them.
Poor Gripen,
The reason why I waste my time correcting you is not because of your person, but my hate of ignorance and short sightedness. You have displayed enough of both in your post to make me decide to waste time on a reply.
I am puzzled what part you don`t understand about the posted Bf 109 ranges, or Spitfire ranges. Both are 'theoretical', in the same league and are comparabl, even if the similiarity of conditions between a cruise at 210 mph yielding 750 miles on the Bf 109G and a cruise of 220 mph yielding 450 miles on the Spitfire is well beyond your abilities to grasp.
If you don`t see practical differencies between 450 miles range and 750 miles range under comparalble circumstances, that only speaks of how much your talants worth in the area of mathemathics.
Oh well... let me help you out : 750 > 450.
The '>' symbol means 750 is the bigger one. :D
And if you still don`t get it, it measn that the 109G had 66% more range on internal fuel than the Spitfire Mk IX. I know you hate 109s more than anything, and this hurts your ego quite a bit, but what can I do about it, you see, these are facts you have to put up.
It should be also noted that the Spitfire VIII could take more than 600l fuel internally if the rear fuselage tank was installed (over 50% more than the Bf 109G).
Brilliant, and what that is good for if it`s largely wasted on the poor aerodynamics of the Spitfire and the fuel is poured down in the thirsty throat of the Merlin ? Same range, but with 50% more weight carried in fuel. Good way to waste performance and fuel, it is.
Statistically :
Bf 109 G-2 : 755 miles @ 210mph with 88 gallons
Spitfire Mk VIII : 740 miles @ 220mph with 120 gallons
(See the docs already posted.)
I mean, WOW!, that 'over 50% more than the Bf 109G' really makes a difference, espeically if the rear fuselage tank makes the plane a real pig in the air, as per the Spitfire manuals.
In fact the 109 maintains a small edge with 2/3 the fuel being carried. Guess way they never really needed to expand that fuel tank - they never needed that, only the 109K allowed for an extra 115 liter DP rear tank in the fusalage, and was probably used very rarely. It was simply never neccesary, range, unlike on the Spits, was never a problem on 109s after the Friedrich appeared. Guess why Mk VIII were extremely rare in Europe, with that tankage, they were desperately needed in the PTO, where MkIX would be next to useless for combat.
Basicly your own argument on Bf 109 fuel consumption is rather rhetorical, range at practical speed was more important than consumption. Merlin powered planes (namely Mustang and Mosquito) had very longer range despite what ever was the consumption.
You make awfully poor arguements, Gripen, but I have to admit, nobody I ever met surprassed yet your ability to parrott the same stupidness again and again like you do.
The Mustang and Mosquito was only long range because they carried an awful lot of fuel. Period. Nothing to do with the Merlin. In fact, the range could be a lot longer if ANY other engine than the Merlin would be fitted.
Stuffing a lot of fuel was a direct consequence of operational requirements, and the Merlin`s ****ty fuel consumption. The 109 was never required to fly to Berlin like the Mosquito and Mustang, all it had to do is to climb up to them twice as fast as they ever could, loiter in the airspace it had to defend, and shoot them down enemies - which it did, just like that it could escort any German bomber wherever it went. It could fullfill any of the challanges it`s class is supposed to do. It was fully capable to be upgraded to an escort fighter range with ~2000 miles, in fact such variants of it existed for long range recce work, and produced in large numbers, but it was never required, never done.It`s practical range was already a lot more than that was required, and more than the majority of it`s rivalling fighters.
So, basically, WTF are you talking about? The 109 not having triple the range it ever needed to have, as it already swept clear the continent of every single enemy fighter in 1940 ? The Mustang having great range, despite the fact it had to put up in an escort role probably the worst fuel economy engine of the war, because nothing else was available?
Your post lack the concept, logic and any comprehension, basically it`s just a desperate reaction and outcry to the facts posted in this thread.
-
Then please explane this to me Isengrim:
WHY DID SPITFIRES FROM ENGLAND, WITHOUT DROP TANKS, OPERATE FURTHER INTO NAZI HELD TERRITORY, THAN 109'S FROM THE FRENCH COAST INTO ENGLAND?
(109's introducng drop tanks before actually)
Is it worth answering?
At least, nothing about it is theoretical.
-
MiloMorai,
Yep, Sharp&Bowyer gives just total losses.
Dear Isegrim,
Thank you for wasting time with me. Infact I'd like to hear more on your theories on variable speed supercharger; hilarious as usual
This is pretty damn simple; Bf 109G and Spitfire IX had pretty similar endurance at combat conditions with internal fuel ie 1-1,5h, the range being around 650km for both. Both these are real and practical values seen in combat and taken from the Finnish and RAF documentation. The 750 miles range you are quoting is more or less theoretical due to unpractical engine setting. The Spitfire VIII had about double practical range and endurance with internal fuel (assuming rear fuselage tank) and it saw service in MTO.
Regarding fuel capacity of the Bf 109, just look gun camera films; it's very common to see auxilary tank on the Bf 109. And the reason is very simple, to do something in practical speeds, it really required auxilary tank for interceptor task at high altitude.
And again: Fuel consumption is not an issue if you have fuel to burn. The LW pilots probably were happy to know that their engines had lower fuel consumption when the Mosquitos and Mustangs out run them right over LW bases.
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
This is pretty damn simple; Bf 109G and Spitfire IX had pretty similar endurance at combat conditions with internal fuel ie 1-1,5h, the range being around 650km for both. Both these are real and practical values seen in combat and taken from the Finnish and RAF documentation. The 750 miles range you are quoting is more or less theoretical due to unpractical engine setting.
Thank Gripen for sharing us your visions and the world you choosed to live in instead of the real one.
In GripenWorld, despite the Spitfire has less internal fuel, burns more fuel to arrive at the same power output, uses more power to arrive at the same speed, manages to get the same practical range as the Bf 109. Of course this ignores all real world physics and elementary maths. :D Logic was never a strong part of you, was it?
Not to mention about half a dozen reports state the exact opposite. :)
But who cares, eh, Gripen? Your authority is above all others! :aok
The Spitfire VIII had about double practical range and endurance with internal fuel (assuming rear fuselage tank) and it saw service in MTO.
LOL, it`s gets even better ! Not only the Mk IX manages to get the same range as the 109G with less fuel, worser aerodynamics and worser fuel effiency, in fact the Mk VIII with 50% more fuel gets 200% the range !
I am all amazed by GripenMaths. :D
So give us the details, Grippy, how does the MkVIII achieves all that ?
Of course you can dream on and keep telling that that the MkVIII had "double" the range (I wonder what scientific methods were used to arrive at that very precise number :D ), even if there`s direct evidence that disproves it.
Regarding fuel capacity of the Bf 109, just look gun camera films; it's very common to see auxilary tank on the Bf 109. And the reason is very simple, to do something in practical speeds, it really required auxilary tank for interceptor task at high altitude.
It`s reason is rather simple, it allowed for greater tactical freedom. On internal fuel the 109s could loiter over Germany for 3.5 hours waiting for the bombers, with a droptank they had 6 hours to do the same, respond to any threat that might emerge, assemble large formations of attack groups, and wait until the escorts run out of fuel.
After all, it was Spitfires and P-47s that turned back on the German border, and 109s and 190s who could outlast them in the air, and then do a messarcre with the unprotected B-17s.
And again: Fuel consumption is not an issue if you have fuel to burn. The LW pilots probably were happy to know that their engines had lower fuel consumption when the Mosquitos and Mustangs out run them right over LW bases.
What an arguement !! Classic one! :rofl :rofl
-
Gripen you are peeing into the wind when you try to have a rational discussion with Barbi. His paranoria that any who say anything about his uber 109 are 109 haters is laughable. The one with the outrate hatred is Barbi for the Spit.
Some how he missed the 10ampg for the Spit VIII, the same as what he posted for the 109.:eek: This gives the Spit(85gal) an air time of 3.86hr @ 217mph compared to the 3.45hr @ 210mph for the 109(88gal).
One has to be curious why, if the 109 had such good range, why they did not escort bombers to GB from mid-war onwards. In the East, long range bomber missions by the LW went un-escorted.:confused:
The 109's bomber interception missions were rapid climb to altitude and race to the interception point, make one or 2 passes and then RTB. No most economical cruising in a combat zone, unless the pilot was suicidal.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Then please explane this to me Isengrim:
WHY DID SPITFIRES FROM ENGLAND, WITHOUT DROP TANKS, OPERATE FURTHER INTO NAZI HELD TERRITORY, THAN 109'S FROM THE FRENCH COAST INTO ENGLAND?
(109's introducng drop tanks before actually)
Is it worth answering?
At least, nothing about it is theoretical.
No, it doesn`t worth answering until you support this - rather a wishful thinking - claim with citations and the exact details. Not many Spitfires operated over the continent in 1940, in fact the ones over Dunkirk were rather hard pressed by their limited endurance. Certainly no Spitfire ever operated for any real time w/o a droptank over the continent.
As for the 109, the only ones w/o droptanks were the ealry 109Es. These had 460 mile range on economic cruise on internal, as opposed to the 755 mile range of the 109G (and somewhat less on the 109F). Think about a little bit about the improvements in powerplant fuel effiency and the massive aerodynamic cleanup the 109 enjoyed during their development, and the Spitfires never seen at all. There was NEVER a sort of aerodynamic improvement on the Spits as there was between the 109E and F, quite the contrary, just look on a Mk I, a very clean aircraft, and then look on a Mk XIV, a fighter just covered with bulges sticking out everywhere, cannon stubs, cannon bulges, Griffon bulges, mainwheel bulges and so on. Spits advanced backward aerodynamically, and R-R didn`t care at all about how much the Merlin would consume, just that it can take out more-more power from a too limited volume, instead of dumping the whole POS and concentrating on the Griffon (which they wanted to do BTW, but couldn`t put it into production fast enough)
-
Oh, yeah.
My Great uncle was on missions over Holland and Belgium, in a Spit V, year 1941 onwards. No tanks.
He was actually in the papers for blowing up ammo barges on the Dutch canals.
Look at a map and see the differences in distance.
Rhubarb missions that time.
Then he moved on to Circuses and such, over France.
The Germans would attack only under favourable cirkumstances, since the theory was to inflict as much damage as possible for the minimal risk.
This proved effective, however when the LW was not able to get into a good position, they would leave the RAF all alone. Sometimes a raid went through, unintercepted.
So, tell me more Were the Spitties not able to reach Holland, or not going there at all? :D
-
How convienent of Barbi to forget the 109
had bulges on it wings that got bigger,
extra scoops in the airframe,
bulges for fuselage guns,
a bigger oil cooler,
gun pods added below the wings,
an ADF loop,
extended tail wheel,
extra under nose blisters, .............
-
He's looking at the map. Should be right back.
However, honestly, the Rhubarb missions would go roughly twice the distance as the 109 covered area in Kent to S-London from the Calais area.
And those were rather high speed SL missions.
I'm not saying I belive the Spitty had double the range, I'd have a guess at it being roughly the same.
Note, that if you want a Merlin to burn equal fuel to a DB, the Mixture is already 50% stronger. There is an upper limit to the strongest possible mixture.
Also bear in mind that in 1941, the Allies have moved to 100 oct almost entirely, - that means more energy pr volume of fuel.
Hehe, a friend of mine always fuelled up his car with 100 octs. Aviation Fuel. WOW, nice running ;)
-
Hehe, even Spit Mk II's are being reported shot down over Hoek Of Holland. Must be a misunderstanding.
Sometimes loss and claim reports are a good source......:D
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
How convienent of Barbi to forget the 109
had bulges on it wings that got bigger,
Yet Spitfires were still slower and shorter ranged.
extra scoops in the airframe,
Yet Spitfires were still slower and shorter ranged. :D
bulges for fuselage guns,
Yet Spitfires were still slower and carried only .303 pea shooters. :D
a bigger oil cooler,
Yet Spitfires were still slower and shorter ranged, and could maintain WEP for 5mins, 109s for 10mins.
gun pods added below the wings,
Yet Spitfires were still slower and shorter ranged, and could carry only 2 cannons with 240 rounds, 109s could carry 3 cannons with 470 rounds.
an ADF loop,
Yet Spitfires were still slower and lower ranged - it didn`t even have advanced navigation equipment?
extended tail wheel,
Yet Spitfires were still slower. which may have something to do with that a far larger percentage of 109s had retractable tailwheel than Spitfires.
extra under nose blisters, ............. [/B]
Yet Spitfires were still slower and lower ranged.
Maximum all out speed of Mk IXLF at 8000m (5 min limit) : 640 km/h
Maximum cruise speed of 109K-4 8000m (no time limit) : 645 km/h
It tells it all. :)
-
Originally posted by Angus
He's looking at the map. Should be right back.
However, honestly, the Rhubarb missions would go roughly twice the distance as the 109 covered area in Kent to S-London from the Calais area.
And those were rather high speed SL missions.
I'm not saying I belive the Spitty had double the range, I'd have a guess at it being roughly the same.
Angus, just like Gripen, you can guess what you want. However, the RAF itself tells you the Spit IX can go for 450 miles, the 109G can go for 755 miles on internal.
From the Enlish shores to the Belgian/Dutch coast it`s no more than 200 miles, m8. It ain`t any greater distance than from Calais to London (~150 miles), considering the 109s also stayed over the City for 20-30 mins at high power, chasing Spits and Hurris away. Good for the Brits the 109s didn`t have droptanks back then - they would stay for another hour, and that`s bad news for a 7-hour 'trainee' RAF pilot.
Yep, a Spitty on internal can go there, say hello to the Dutch maidens, and then go home fast before the fuel is over. Not much more - aerial combat? Largely ruled out w/o droptanks if you want to return home.
Note, that if you want a Merlin to burn equal fuel to a DB, the Mixture is already 50% stronger. There is an upper limit to the strongest possible mixture.
Also bear in mind that in 1941, the Allies have moved to 100 oct almost entirely, - that means more energy pr volume of fuel.
Hehe, a friend of mine always fuelled up his car with 100 octs. Aviation Fuel. WOW, nice running ;) [/B]
Interesting - how about checking out the actual engine datasheets and see for yourself DBs consuming only 2/3s for the same power ? After all, information is readily available.
So how about a little homework, Angie? Why don`t you collect the respective maximum consumptions of R-Rs and DBs with the respective powers they developed ?
-
So nice of you Barbi to compare a LF to the 109K-4 but that is typical.:rolleyes:
So much for the range of the K-4 operating at maximum cruise speed. :aok
-
Hehe, Milo, took the word out of my mouth.
Why not then Compare the Spitfire Mk VIII to the 109E. It has the same difference in time.
Also, in the same time, Spitfires were sometimes faster. Already in 1940 this occured....
Barbi, I am not Guessing, I am digging up actual data. Or maybe the LW claim reports are wrong, since the Spitties could not get where they were claimed to be shot down :D But obviously you do have a big problem with it.
Oh, BTW, I wasn't even on to the Spit IX thingie, have to look better at it.
But in 1941/42:
Spitfires flew deeper into Nazi territory than 109's into RAF territory, i.e. without drop tanks.
At day, Spitfires more frequently entered Nazi territory than the opposite.
As soon as equipped with the 1st generation of Drop tanks, Spit V's flew from Gibraltar to Algeria over Malta, and were stuck to escort duties en route on not so favourable cruising settings. How about that?
Again, this is not guessing what I want, but a fact that you don't like. :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, Milo, took the word out of my mouth.
Why not then Compare the Spitfire Mk VIII to the 109E. It has the same difference in time.
Sure, why not, provided the 109E was in mass service in 1943 when the MkVIII appeared - uhm, not really, but MkIXs were still in service when the 109K roamed the skies, not only in service, they were the main type RAF fighter, and their engine output was not much different from the 109K`s, so it`s a perfect example of the superior effiency of the 109 airframe.
Barbi, I am not Guessing, I am digging up actual data. Or maybe the LW claim reports are wrong, since the Spitties could not get where they were claimed to be shot down :D But obviously you do have a big problem with it.
Angie, just rehearse that part until you learn by heart:
109G : 755 miles on 88 gallons
SpitIX : 434 miles on 85 gallons.
End of story. 109G was much longer ranged than the contenporary Spit. The Spit I and 109E had about equal range, for the last time.
Spitfires flew deeper into Nazi territory than 109's into RAF territory, i.e. without drop tanks.
So? What does this proves?
Germany was life-or-death threat to England.
England was a toothless lion for Germany at that time.
At day, Spitfires more frequently entered Nazi territory than the opposite.
You mean, into the virtually undefended airspace of Western Europe (nothing to be defended there for the Germans), covered by no more than 100-150 German fighters at that time? What do you want to show with this, the British came out from the hide after the Germans left ?
As soon as equipped with the 1st generation of Drop tanks, Spit V's flew from Gibraltar to Algeria over Malta, and were stuck to escort duties en route on not so favourable cruising settings. How about that?
Strictly ferry missions, that is, with rear fusalage tanks, huge sized droptanks used to enable it. Read the Spit V manual for how much restriction was imposed on them under such conditions. For fighter sweeps, it was a useless combination. But we are comparing fighter vs. fighter ranges here, aren`t we? What`s the point at all?
-
Since when did the Mk V carry huge drop tanks?
Oh, BTW, I recall an early model 109 being shot down in 44/45
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
How convienent of Barbi to forget the 109
had bulges on it wings that got bigger,
extra scoops in the airframe,
bulges for fuselage guns,
a bigger oil cooler,
gun pods added below the wings,
an ADF loop,
extended tail wheel,
extra under nose blisters, .............
Ok lets see.. On the risk of enering your guys utterly retarded discussion.
Bulges on wings that got bigger. Spits all got wheel bulges on wings which got both more numerous and bigger.
Scoops. Spits got more scoops on airframe too.
Bulges for fuselage guns. Spits got bulges on wings for guns. Plus on 109 these were faired in on later models.
109 bigger oil cooler. Spits got an extra full size radiator housing, and those were a lot less clean the 109s radiators. Plus those radiators simply got huge on the late model spits.
109s had gunpods, spits had bombracks or rockets. This stuff could be taken off so its irrelevant. Maybe also say 109s carried two big rocket tubes too. Or one could say 109s had all centered nose main armament and didn not have to deal with extra weight in wings or extra bulges on wings to mount a cannon armament.
ADF loop.... Hmm. Spits had rear view mirrors. Both could be taken off.
Extended tailwheel, ok... But many 109s had retractible wheels.
Extra under nose blisters.. All I say to that is Griffon - huge extra upper nose blisters. Plus these under nose blisters were waaay smaller than than the griffon bulges, not to mention that some of the DB605D models didnt even have because of a new lower cowl and some rerouting of the oil pipes.
Yea, still a retarded discussion!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Ok lets see.. On the risk of enering your guys utterly retarded discussion.
Bulges on wings that got bigger. Spits all got wheel bulges on wings which got both more numerous and bigger.
Scoops. Spits got more scoops on airframe too.
Bulges for fuselage guns. Spits got bulges on wings for guns. Plus on 109 these were faired in on later models.
109 bigger oil cooler. Spits got an extra full size radiator housing, and those were a lot less clean the 109s radiators. Plus those radiators simply got huge on the late model spits.
109s had gunpods, spits had bombracks or rockets. This stuff could be taken off so its irrelevant. Maybe also say 109s carried two big rocket tubes too. Or one could say 109s had all centered nose main armament and didn not have to deal with extra weight in wings or extra bulges on wings to mount a cannon armament.
ADF loop.... Hmm. Spits had rear view mirrors. Both could be taken off.
Extended tailwheel, ok... But many 109s had retractible wheels.
Extra under nose blisters.. All I say to that is Griffon - huge extra upper nose blisters. Plus these under nose blisters were waaay smaller than than the griffon bulges, not to mention that some of the DB605D models didnt even have because of a new lower cowl and some rerouting of the oil pipes.
Yea, still a retarded discussion!
Agreed. It still evolves into which was the better airplane, the Spit or the 109. What a pointless discussion because no one is ever going to agree and everyone can find a piece of data somewhere that they can cling to that in their eyes proves their case.
Dan/Slack
-
Dear Isegrim,
Well, believe or not, I'm quoting directly FAF data on the Bf 109G endurance; in practice 1,5h was about max endurance in combat and that is about same as the combat endurance of the Spitfire IX.. Try to live with that.
The Spitfire VIII could carry about 160 gallons (imperial) internally with the rear fuselage tank. Reaching twice combat range if compared to the Spit 9 and the Bf 109G was certainly possible.
And my note on Mustangs and Mosquitos over LW bases and out running LW fighters is not an argument, it was reality during war. And it should be noted that those "roaming" Bf 109Ks were shot down in masses by the Mustangs.
gripen
-
GRUNHERZ, the point of the post was that the 109 also had stuff that did not help its aerodynamics. Barbi would have us believe that the later 109s were as clean as the 109v-13 that set a speed record. :eek:
You should have read his post first.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Dear Isegrim,
Well, believe or not, I'm quoting directly FAF data on the Bf 109G endurance; in practice 1,5h was about max endurance in combat and that is about same as the combat endurance of the Spitfire IX.. Try to live with that.
The Spitfire VIII could carry about 160 gallons (imperial) internally with the rear fuselage tank. Reaching twice combat range if compared to the Spit 9 and the Bf 109G was certainly possible.
And my note on Mustangs and Mosquitos over LW bases and out running LW fighters is not an argument, it was reality during war. And it should be noted that those "roaming" Bf 109Ks were shot down in masses by the Mustangs.
gripen
With the understanding that Spit's are one of my passions, I have to point out gripen that the VIII wasn't operating with fuselage fuel tanks. It had the upper and lower tanks in front of the cockpit and the two smaller leading edge tanksm totalling 124 gallons.
Yes there was a fuselage fuel tank installed way late in the game on some IXs and XVIs but it wasn't common practice.
Common practice was to have the 30 or 45 gallon slipper tanks fitted and in some cases the 90 gallon tanks for the escort stuff. I have some images in my collection showing Spit XIIs with that 90 gallon tank as well.
Image is one I got from a Spit driver of one of his squadron's Spit IXs with a 90 gallon slipper tank fitted operationally.
Oh and btw isigrim, remember that POS Merlin that you hate so much was the engine pulling around those last operational "109s" you've mentioned before :)
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1091644365_91spitix.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Agreed. It still evolves into which was the better airplane, the Spit or the 109. What a pointless discussion because no one is ever going to agree and everyone can find a piece of data somewhere that they can cling to that in their eyes proves their case.
I think you are giving less credit to this discussion than it is due. This discussion isn't about which is better in general (although the participants obviously have opinions on that). We are talking about a specific comparison, which is being done in an objective manner; and it has been discussed with quite a bit of emperical data.
What I don't understand, though, is the introduction of anecdotes into a technical discussion which includes both emperical flight and engine test data as well as theoretical considerations. Is the intent to invalidate the emperical test data? IMO anecdotal info is fine in specific circumstances where you don't have tests...but otherwise it diminishes objectivity in the discussion.
-
Originally posted by phookat
I think you are giving less credit to this discussion than it is due. This discussion isn't about which is better in general (although the participants obviously have opinions on that). We are talking about a specific comparison, which is being done in an objective manner; and it has been discussed with quite a bit of emperical data.
What I don't understand, though, is the introduction of anecdotes into a technical discussion which includes both emperical flight and engine test data as well as theoretical considerations. Is the intent to invalidate the emperical test data? IMO anecdotal info is fine in specific circumstances where you don't have tests...but otherwise it diminishes objectivity in the discussion.
It, at least in my eyes, comes down to theory (test data) vs practice (actual pilot/combat experience)
What it should do under ideal circumstances with the aircraft being flown by a test pilot and the aircraft maximized for results, is different from a production aircraft, being flown by a squadron pilot, under operational circumstances.
So when I claim, that based on the testing, my AH bird should be able to do this, this and this. Someone might also say, but when they were actually flown in combat they only managed, this, this and this.
That's why, even though you could claim I have a Spit bias, I pointed out that gripen's comment about 160 gallons of internal fuel in a VIII isn't really accurate as they weren't flown in combat that way. In testing, the claim can be made about that kind of range, but operationally it wasn't done.
I remember reading an account by a Spit LFIX pilot. On a particular mission he was flying a brand new kite, that for whatever reason had a really 'sweet' engine and was perfectly trimmed.
He was at the back of the pack of IXs chasing down a 190. He was easily able to pass the other IXs until he was on the wing of the Wing Commander. It was considered "bad form" to steal a kill under those circumstances, so he waited a couple minutes. As they weren't gaining, he pushed the throttle forward and caught the 190 and downed it.
Normally you'd expect the WingCo's kite to be the best. Whose Spit IX should I use to determine the particulars? I'd like to use the brand new one that outran the others, but is that the norm or the exception?
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
GRUNHERZ, the point of the post was that the 109 also had stuff that did not help its aerodynamics. Barbi would have us believe that the later 109s were as clean as the 109v-13 that set a speed record. :eek:
You should have read his post first.
Yes I just saw his post - thx for pointing it out. Obviously both the spit and 109 got dirtier from their cleanest layouts as the war moved into the later dates and more demanding duty requirements had to be met.
But do tell why is this discussion so retarded? Why are you people comparing the minuta of fuel effieciency at X carb setting, y blower at z alt with such fanaticism?
-
Guppy 35,
I don't know if the rear fuselage tank was used operationally in the Spitfire VIII but such installation was certainly possible.
gripen
-
phookat, no one here is claiming one a/c is better than another except Barbi(Barbarossa Isegrim)/Issy(VO101 Isegrim/Kurfurst who claims the 109 was "hands and feet" better than the Spitfire. The Spit posts were to debunk his claims how uber his 109 was over the Spit.
He keeps harping on the lack of range of the Spit but using the data he provided, the 10ampg for the Spit VIII, the same as what he posted for the 109 gives the Spit(85gal) an air time of 3.86hr @ 217mph compared to the 3.45hr @ 210mph for the 109(88gal). That works out to 837 mi. for the Spit and 724 mi. for the 109.
GRUNHERZ, as to your question you will have to ask Barbi why he started the thread.
-
But do tell why is this discussion so retarded? Why are you people comparing the minuta of fuel effieciency at X carb setting, y blower at z alt with such fanaticism?
I think that's just Isegrim.
He posted some test figures for the 109, that showed it could achieve up to 10 mpg. With that he hoped to show that the 109 had significantly longer range than the Spitfire (With Isegrim, proving the 109 was better than the Spitfire is an obsession. It has to have longer range, greater climb, higher speed, more powerfull weapons, etc. When the facts don't back that up, he just uses alternative facts)
I posted a chart showing the Spitfire could also get 10 mpg, under similar conditions. Isegrim, true to form, will now use "alternative" facts to prove it doesn't, despite a test report showing it does.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Guppy 35,
I don't know if the rear fuselage tank was used operationally in the Spitfire VIII but such installation was certainly possible.
gripen
gripen. I've looked long and hard for images of a fuselage fuel tank installation on a wartime Spit IX, XVI, etc. I've never found one of a combat flown aircraft.
The image posted shows what would be seen, just behind the cockpit.
I spent a lot of time corresponding with a former 79 Squadron Spit VIII pilot who flew combat in the Pacific with the RAAF. They did not have those tanks and it would have made the most sense for them to have them considering the overwater flying etc. I have never seen a photo of a VIII with this installation anywhere and believe me I've looked long and hard as my quest for Spit range goes back to my AW days when I blew a gasket during a scenario where the Spit's got neutered.
It does come down to theoretical vs practical use and it just was not common practice to use the fuselage tank operationally. I can't even find end of the war pics of XVIs with this installation. Post war photos don't show them either.
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1091652294_spittank.jpg)
-
Hi Guppy,
>(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1091652294_spittank.jpg) [/B]
Thanks for the picture, I wasn't aware the fuselage tank was recognizable from the outside!
With regard to ranges, Radinger/Schick's Me 109 book has some data on Me 109E/B performance.
It used a minimum of 0.48 L/km on the way to the target with a 500 kg bomb underneath and of 0.43 L/km on the outbound journey without the bomb. The minimum was achieved at 7 km at best economical speed.
Total fuel: 400 L
10 min climb (321 L/h): -53.5 L
10 min combat (321 L/h): -53.5 L
10 min reserve (260 L/h): -43.7 L
Fuel for cruise: 249.3 L => 580 km (for the pure fighter with no bombs loaded)
So that leaves us with a 290 km radius of action for the Me 109E.
Warm up, taxying and forming up in the air has not been considered in my rough estimate, but as I also neglected distance covered during the climb and range gained from gliding down from 7 km, the errors could compensate each other :-)
The interesting thing is that at full throttle, fuel consumption rises to 0.54 L/km, reducing combat radius to 231 km.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
It, at least in my eyes, comes down to theory (test data) vs practice (actual pilot/combat experience)
No, I would say "theory" is supercharger design, calculated fuel consumption, and the like. "Practice" is flight test data. Both are objective. Anecdotal stuff is subjective, and doesn't belong in an objective technical discussion.
Originally posted by Guppy35
What it should do under ideal circumstances with the aircraft being flown by a test pilot and the aircraft maximized for results, is different from a production aircraft, being flown by a squadron pilot, under operational circumstances.
The goal of practical testing is to embody operational circumstances as much as possible while generating repeatable and objective results. In fact, part of being objective is to make sure that tests are realistic. Anecdotal information helps us determine proper test procedures, but cannot be used as the test itself. Presumably the testers utilized anecdotal information to devise tests, since lives were on the line and they had to be as objective as possible. Some pilot saying "I could catch Spits anytime" is not a proof of anything since another equally qualified pilot says "I could catch 109s anytime".
Originally posted by Guppy35
That's why, even though you could claim I have a Spit bias, I pointed out that gripen's comment about 160 gallons of internal fuel in a VIII isn't really accurate as they weren't flown in combat that way. In testing, the claim can be made about that kind of range, but operationally it wasn't done.
True, and I appreciate the objectivity you lend to these discussions. However, this is not anecdotal information. It is objective fact, to be proven or disproven as such. So it does belong in the discussion. Differences between what was used in a test and what was used IRL should of course be considered, and their effects pondered.
Also, anecdotal information about what kind of equipment was used is in an entirely different class from anecdotes about a planes performance. At least the former has some chance of being objective.
Originally posted by Guppy35
Normally you'd expect the WingCo's kite to be the best. Whose Spit IX should I use to determine the particulars? I'd like to use the brand new one that outran the others, but is that the norm or the exception?
There are waaaay too many variables in this situation, starting with the pilot's own recollection of specific details. Just playing in the AH arena demonstrates this--even though we fly mathematically identical planes, then can seem to perform so differently depending on the circumstances. So this is another reason why such anecdotal information should not be used in a technical discussion, or a discussion of how our planes should be modeled in AH. It is unreliable and unconfirmable.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
But do tell why is this discussion so retarded? Why are you people comparing the minuta of fuel effieciency at X carb setting, y blower at z alt with such fanaticism?
For that matter, why discuss anything with fanaticism? But I think you are wrong, the discussion has been quite civilized. If it's not an interesting subject that is another matter, and not the fault of the participants.
-
Furthermore, in this discussion I think both Guppy and Isegrim have been quite objective...contrary to some claims here, whose origin I simply don't understand. Liking one plane more than another doesn't mean you can't participate in a technical discussion objectively.
-
Anecdotal stuff still applies when it was exercised on squadron size level, i.e. regarding range.
Such as Spitties going impossibly far without drop tanks ;)
-
Originally posted by phookat
No, I would say "theory" is supercharger design, calculated fuel consumption, and the like. "Practice" is flight test data. Both are objective. Anecdotal stuff is subjective, and doesn't belong in an objective technical discussion.
The goal of practical testing is to embody operational circumstances as much as possible while generating repeatable and objective results. In fact, part of being objective is to make sure that tests are realistic. Anecdotal information helps us determine proper test procedures, but cannot be used as the test itself. Presumably the testers utilized anecdotal information to devise tests, since lives were on the line and they had to be as objective as possible. Some pilot saying "I could catch Spits anytime" is not a proof of anything since another equally qualified pilot says "I could catch 109s anytime".
True, and I appreciate the objectivity you lend to these discussions. However, this is not anecdotal information. It is objective fact, to be proven or disproven as such. So it does belong in the discussion. Differences between what was used in a test and what was used IRL should of course be considered, and their effects pondered.
Also, anecdotal information about what kind of equipment was used is in an entirely different class from anecdotes about a planes performance. At least the former has some chance of being objective.
There are waaaay too many variables in this situation, starting with the pilot's own recollection of specific details. Just playing in the AH arena demonstrates this--even though we fly mathematically identical planes, then can seem to perform so differently depending on the circumstances. So this is another reason why such anecdotal information should not be used in a technical discussion, or a discussion of how our planes should be modeled in AH. It is unreliable and unconfirmable.
I understand what you are saying. I guess what it comes down to for me is that you can't remove the human/pilot element from the discussion. I also believe that too often in the discussions here, the numbers get twisted to support a point
Posting an image, more for the novelty I guess, but also to point out the human element. I got it from a Spit driver I became friends with. Part of his midwar time was spent as a service test pilot with Supermarine. They took one of these cards along to record their observations on every production test flight on a new Spit.
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1091666559_spittestcard.jpg)
-
Very Nice indeed.
Now we just need to have some filled out ones :)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Anecdotal stuff still applies when it was exercised on squadron size level, i.e. regarding range.
Such as Spitties going impossibly far without drop tanks ;)
Something like that will show up in an objective test anyway. The testers back then knew the basics...if their tests showed that the Spitfire had a range of 10 miles, they would suspect they did something wrong and retest. Anecdotal stuff is so spotty...how far did they really go, what was the tailwind like, etc etc etc. I'm not even scratching the surface, but there are simply too many variables to take this kind of thing seriously for a discussion.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
I understand what you are saying. I guess what it comes down to for me is that you can't remove the human/pilot element from the discussion.
To be practical, the inclusion of combat pilot information should not be considered just for its own sake, but rather when it can add value to the discussion. In a discussion of how comfortable the cockpit was, for example, such information would be quite valuable.
Originally posted by Guppy35
I also believe that too often in the discussions here, the numbers get twisted to support a point
That may be true, but it is an entirely different issue. If the numbers have been misinterpreted, the solution is not to say "but Chuck Yeager flew to the moon so you're wrong". The solution is to point out what the correct interpretation of the numbers is, and why.
-
phookat,
My original point was simply that at least here in Finland practical endurance of the Bf 109G was found to be max 1,5h (with internal fuel). The lower power settings were found to be unpractical and therefore the data (http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/109G_range.jpg) Isegrim presented seems to be more or less theoretical and probably not tested. Infact I don't know if the Bf 109G could fly at 18k with power settings needed for that 725 miles range. I have some data on Bf 109G including German documentation and so far I have not seen any real test data which supports Isegrim's argument.
Regarding the rear fuselage tank in the Spitfire VIII. Guppy 35 certainly knows this stuff better than me and I stand corrected; such installation was more or less theoretical (just like Isegrim's data).
Overall I wonder why discussions with Isegrim allways turn to Spitfire vs Bf 109 stuff.
gripen
-
Phookat "I'm not even scratching the surface, but there are simply too many variables to take this kind of thing seriously for a discussion."
If a Spitfire of a non-drop tank version gets shot down over mid-Belgium, it had to be able to get there, no matter what you calculate.
If slipper-tank equipped squadrons crossed the Med over malta and started fighting in Tunisia, they must have been able to get there, no matter what Izzy gets out of his calculations.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Phookat "I'm not even scratching the surface, but there are simply too many variables to take this kind of thing seriously for a discussion."
If a Spitfire of a non-drop tank version gets shot down over mid-Belgium, it had to be able to get there, no matter what you calculate.
If slipper-tank equipped squadrons crossed the Med over malta and started fighting in Tunisia, they must have been able to get there, no matter what Izzy gets out of his calculations.
Here's just one explanation: power setting at cruise. Here's another: cruise altitude. Here's another: what was the wind like that day?
Do you know what these were? For certain? Now find a similar anecdote from a 109 pilot, in which you know for certain that these conditions were the same.
Then we can have a comparison.
-
The following numbers are present a different measure of fuel economy for many WWII V12 engines - specific fuel consumption.
The advantage of this measure is that it tells you the absolute best the engine can do on the bench, which makes comparisons across engines a little easier to do.
(http://mysite.verizon.net/vze479py/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/fuel_econ_080504.gif)
Year refers to the year the data was published.
Schgr refers to the type of supercharger. "g" means geared, "t" means turbo, the number x.y refers to the number of stages and speeds respectively (Hence a Merlin 60 is a g2.2), "v" stand for variable speed as in the DB601.
Fuel refers to the US performance number rating system (octane+) of the time.
SFC refers to lbs (US) of fuel consumed per horsepower per hour.
Wartime Merlins & Griffons do appear more thirsty than their Daimler brethren, but get better after the war. At least one Packard Merlin does better (could it be the carburetor?). The Allisons vary considerably.
-blogs
-
Originally posted by gripen
The lower power settings were found to be unpractical and therefore the data (http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/109G_range.jpg) Isegrim presented seems to be more or less theoretical and probably not tested. Infact I don't know if the Bf 109G could fly at 18k with power settings needed for that 725 miles range. I have some data on Bf 109G including German documentation and so far I have not seen any real test data which supports Isegrim's argument.
I understand, but this again is in the realm of facts, to be proven or disproven. Not anecdotal information. I would say, though, that if a flight test was indeed conducted while flying a real 109 at a certain altitude at a certain fuel consumption, then it was certainly within the 109's flight envelope. And 210 mph at 18k certainly sounds believable to me, I don't see why it would be impossible to fly at that speed.
Again, the purpose of this is modeling in AH or elsewhere. If real pilots used the plane differently, at different cruise settings for example, that doesn't change the modeling in AH. Hell, we usually run around at 100% right? ;)
Now, if you believe the above figures are entirely calculated rather than based on a flight test, then that is another matter.
Originally posted by gripen
Overall I wonder why discussions with Isegrim allways turn to Spitfire vs Bf 109 stuff.
Nothing wrong in that, as long as the discussion is objective.
-
phookat,
The question is not if it's possible to fly 210mph at 18k but if it's possible to fly 210mph at 18k using unknown power setting which results 10mpg. I don't know the answer.
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
phookat,
The question is not if it's possible to fly 210mph at 18k but if it's possible to fly 210mph at 18k using unknown power setting which results 10mpg. I don't know the answer.
Still don't understand. If the data you linked to was a result of a flight test, clearly it must be possible, no? Whatever the power setting was...
-
phookat,
A plane can do 210mph at 18k by using various power settings ie rpm, MAP, mixture, etc and mpg value depends (among other things) on these settings. In the case of the Bf 109G most economical cruise setting had to set manually. Isegrim's data does not specify power setting nor it does not specify if the data is tested or calculated (it might be from captured documentation). A simple calculation gives fuel consumption 115l/h so the setting must be for very low power and I don't know if the Bf 109G could do 210mph at 18k by using such setting.
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
Isegrim's data does not specify power setting nor it does not specify if the data is tested or calculated (it might be from captured documentation).
A valid question. But my suspicion is that it is tested, since it is fairly easy to test for.
Originally posted by gripen
A simple calculation gives fuel consumption 115l/h so the setting must be for very low power and I don't know if the Bf 109G could do 210mph at 18k by using such setting.
If it was a theoretical (based on engine tests and wind tunnel drag for example), then I think they would have thought of this matter. In fact this is the crux of what they would be calculating, and surely they would know if that fuel consumption corresponded to too low a power. If they didn't know that, then they have nothing to calculate with!
But if it was from flight test data (more likely IMO), the only way to deternime the range is to know exactly what the fuel consumption is at 210/18k. How else could they have possibly calculated it?
Either way, I don't see a reason to doubt this information.
-
Originally posted by phookat
A valid question. But my suspicion is that it is tested, since it is fairly easy to test for.
Actually testing fuel consumption, range and endurance is not fairly easy, special equipment and lot of flying is needed. As an example look Australian tests on Spitfire and Mustang. In the case of the captured equipment testing is more difficult because the settings are not known unless some documentation is available and flying time is limited due to lack of spares etc.
Originally posted by phookat
If it was a theoretical (based on engine tests and wind tunnel drag for example), then I think they would have thought of this matter. In fact this is the crux of what they would be calculating, and surely they would know if that fuel consumption corresponded to too low a power. If they didn't know that, then they have nothing to calculate with!
Nonsense, the report was created in field conditions in Africa and they certainly had no wind tunnel or engine testing stand like in the RAE. Actually, it's very rare to see fuel consumtion tests on captured equipment, specially in the case of the fighter even if special equipment might had been available.
Originally posted by phookat
But if it was from flight test data (more likely IMO), the only way to deternime the range is to know exactly what the fuel consumption is at 210/18k. How else could they have possibly calculated it?
Nothing indicates that they really tested these. Much more likely is that they just copied values from the German documentation. Or are saying that they loaded a captured plane with bombs and external tank to determine range?
Originally posted by phookat
Either way, I don't see a reason to doubt this information.
Well, it's up to you what you want to believe. The German documentation on cruise settings for Bf 109G was found to be quite unpractical here in Finland and FAF created their own settings for service. I see lot of reasons to doubt Isegrim's data.
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
Actually testing fuel consumption, range and endurance is not fairly easy, special equipment and lot of flying is needed.
Hmm, OK. Still don't see how this would be so hard. You could do it with a fuel flow meter, and if they didn't have those you could just fly until the tanks were almost empty a few times (to take into account wind etc). Even if it was hard presumably they did it anyway, but perhaps not with captured planes.
Originally posted by gripen
Nonsense, the report was created in field conditions in Africa and they certainly had no wind tunnel or engine testing stand like in the RAE. Actually, it's very rare to see fuel consumtion tests on captured equipment, specially in the case of the fighter even if special equipment might had been available.
Yes, I did not realize you were quoting a captured report. In that case clearly there was no theoretical calculation involved.
Originally posted by gripen
Nothing indicates that they really tested these. Much more likely is that they just copied values from the German documentation. Or are saying that they loaded a captured plane with bombs and external tank to determine range?
Presumably they didn't--but I would imagine that the Germans *did*, to come up with that documentation.
Originally posted by gripen
Well, it's up to you what you want to believe. The German documentation on cruise settings for Bf 109G was found to be quite unpractical here in Finland and FAF created their own settings for service.
I can think of plenty of explanations for this, such as they may not have wanted to risk landing with near-empty tanks. Or they just wanted to keep their speeds up to have an edge upon engaging an enemy. Tests tend to eliminate variables, while anecdotes create them. I still maintain it's best to compare test to test. Of course test conditions may be different and results have to be normalized for comparison, but for modeling purposes each test combined with its conditions is IMO far more reliable than other information.
-
And logbook entries. Do they count as anecdotal or better?
-
Originally posted by Angus
And logbook entries. Do they count as anecdotal or better?
Wrong question. The right question is: are they objectively applicable? And the answer is to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
-
I guess than, that case by case collides with Izzy's calculations.
-
Hi Angus,
>I guess than, that case by case collides with Izzy's calculations.
It seems that the distance from Manston to Bruxelles is about 230 km, which as shown above would be in convenient range of a Me 109E, and I'm sure in convenient range of a Spitfire II, too, so I'm not convinced there's a contradiction at all.
By the way, I just learned that there were special "long range" Spitfire units using Spitfire IIs with a non-droppable tank under one wing. (The pilots didn't like this configuration, for obvious reasons. :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
230 km each way with perfect navigation. Then one has to think off unfavourable winds and combat situation. Mk V's were on these missions as well.
Anyway,that fuel burn chart was nice :)
-
The same question comes up. Do you the conditions at the time the flight occurred? Where they fully documented at the time? Until you do, such data is not objectively applicable. Any more than a 109 pilot saying he could outturn Spits.
-
I disagree. There is a stage between those two.
This is just about aircraft frequently getting to a certain location and back under different cirkumstances. If your calculations say this is not possible, they must be wrong, for they are calculations against several actual occurances.
Range is in this sence a much more absolute thing than ever more flexible things as turning for instance.
What we do know is this.
Those missions took place at SL, in all sorts of winter conditions, partly under full boost, and ranged all the way into mid-Holland.
I never heard of the Mk II's extra tank,but most of the missions actually were flown with the Mk V without tanks.
Later on, I recall missions with bomb loaded and wing clipped MK V's.
-
Well I think it`s best to save the time debunk all the sillyness of Milo Morai, Gripen, Nashwan (and to a lesser extet, Angie).
To you, I can only say it doesn`t matter how much you bark, it only matters what proof you can show on your side.
You bark a lot, show no facts.
So let`s just concentrate on the facts, the rest of us.
First, the excerpt of a British Middle East report on a captured 109G-2/trop in poor condition (malfunctioning radiator control, .50 damage from P-40, tropical filter installed).
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/109G_range.jpg)
Altough some unquestionable authorities on this subject lately set their sails on repeating that this must be only thoeretical, calculated data, note that it says "the above figures supersede all previous estimates". Well, this must be a really-really better estimate than those. ;)
Now let`s go on. Rather similiar range figures are being repeated in British intelligence docs in 1945, generally referring to the '109G', both 7.92mm and 13mm armed versions:
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/Spitchart.jpg)
Furthermore, let`s see how this fits in the picture when compared to official German figures posted by their Air Ministry:
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/109GvsFrange.jpg)
German data of the GL/A. Notice the 109F given to have a range of 1600km/993miles with droptank, at a somewhat higher (and less economic) speed.
The 109G-1s ranges are 'foreseen to be an improvement' over the 109F-4`s range of ~1000 miles with a droptank.
Let`s rehearse.
British test doc gives the 109G-2/trop`s range as 1215miles with a droptank (with some reserves included appearantly)
Another British intelligence doc states 1000 miles range for the overall 109G series.
An official German type sheet states the 109G-1`s range will be better than 1000 miles with a droptank (F-4`s).
Everybody can draw his own conclusions based the number of evidence I have posted.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Hmm, OK. Still don't see how this would be so hard. You could do it with a fuel flow meter, and if they didn't have those you could just fly until the tanks were almost empty a few times (to take into account wind etc). Even if it was hard presumably they did it anyway, but perhaps not with captured planes.
Well, just look Australian tests, really lot of flying at various altitudes and power settings is required even with the fuel flow meter and final results are not known before calculations. It's very unlikely that they did such testing with a captured plane in the field conditions.
Originally posted by phookat
Yes, I did not realize you were quoting a captured report. In that case clearly there was no theoretical calculation involved.
Why a captured report should exclude theoretical calculations? What if they used captured engine documentation to calculate range and endurance? Basicly all performance aspects must be calculated in some degree (corrections etc.) and calculations are possible in the field conditions without special equipment if some basic data is available.
Originally posted by phookat
Presumably they didn't--but I would imagine that the Germans *did*, to come up with that documentation.
Yes, the Germans made some documentation, as an example look the data Isegrim just posted; is there real test data? Basicly Isegrim continoysly selects data which makes his beloved Messerschmitt look good.
FAF tested engine settings according to documentation and found out that at low power settings engine run roughly and exhaust gases tended enter cockpit. Most practical cruise setting at non combat conditions was around 0,9-1,0ata and 2100rpm, at combat conditions they used 1,15ata and 2300rpm.
Originally posted by phookat
Tests tend to eliminate variables, while anecdotes create them. I still maintain it's best to compare test to test. Of course test conditions may be different and results have to be normalized for comparison, but for modeling purposes each test combined with its conditions is IMO far more reliable than other information.
I'm not using anecdotes but FAF test data and I'm quoting it pretty much directly, some of that is published in the Jukka Raunio's "Lentäjän Näkökulma II". In the case of the Autralian test on the Spitfire VIII, we can be sure that it's real tested data but can we be sure that Isegrim's data is real tested stuff?
gripen
-
Nice data Issie.
Fact remains fact, fact IS data. For the record, what Nashwan and especially Gripen bring up on these boards, I regard as quite reliable indeed.
Speaking of a trop 109, I know that 109G's and presumably F's from Bizerta operated as far as the City of Algiers, and easily over Annaba (Bone)
Flipping the coin, imagine me trying to prove from data that they could not have been there.:D
But they were.
I do not recall drop tanks being mentioned.
Oh, for a change, look at the O'club thread about the Warshaw uprising. It evolved nicely into a fight about what the German army could have done at Stalingrad, had their armed forces and LW not also been tied up in N Africa.
Just crossed my mind to mention it, for finally there could possibly be something we actually agree about
:D
Regards
Angus
-
Lot`s of talking here, Gripen, ZERO amount of facts.
Lot`s of reference to reports that nobody else than you have seen, as usual, but nobody can see the reports themselves.
Lot`s of claims going in and out, ENDLESS repeating of how 'merlin engined mossies and mustangs ripped the 109s apart', how 'the Spitfire and 109 had practically the same range'. and 'the MkVIII having double the range', and 'it must be calculation', and 'it`s outright impossible to repeat the same numbers in RL'. Rather morbid (or naive) in the same thread with URLs to reports that state the exact opposite.
Every time there`s a 109 thread, you do the same and desperately try to disprove, disregard and dismiss anything good on the 109, at the same time, doing nothing else than repeating the same crap of yours.
You are hopelessly outclassed in the ability of back up the statements made with credible sources and data. As long as you can`t do anything else but question every single source that disproves you, yet unable to provide anything at all to support your little crusade, your words worth as much as farting in a tornado.
-
Now come on, stop it Issie, and answer my post instead ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Nice data Issie.
Fact remains fact, fact IS data. For the record, what Nashwan and especially Gripen bring up on these boards, I regard as quite reliable indeed.
Hate to be negative, but if I look it up factually, Nashwan brought up a part of the MkVIII report (posted away from the source to ensure the rest cannot be viewed by others, only the part fitting in Nashwan`s mindset) which`s other parts I posted later and it states 740miles range for the Mk8 on internal 120 gallon, same as the 109G on 85 gallon, so this questions Naswhan`s claims about similiar mileage on the two aircraft, not to speak the direct evidence available for the engines themselves, which in every time show considerably higher consumption on the Merlin`s side, making equal mileage quite simply impossible. He then projects his own internal working, being unable to put up with Spitties were not best in everything, and states I only put up the thread to show the Spitties defiency with range (which regardless of the 109, true and is accepted by 99% of the people) and that 109s were better (they were;) - fact is if somone looks up the thread start, Spits/Merlins are not mentioned at all until Karnak`s post:
"The 755 miles sounds entirely reasonable to me for a short range fighter witha drop tank. It is pretty close to the Spitfire Mk IX's 850 miles.
The 1,250 miles seems, um, highly suspect. Very highly suspect. The DB605 would have had to have been insanely more fuel efficient than the RR Merlin in order for that to be possible."
To which I replied it was true, the DB 605 was more fuel efficient (numbers were shown) and the 109 had less drag on the top of that, I think few here would argue.
That one hit Nashwan in the nerve, and he started selective qouting from the Mk VIII test, to prove the His Holy Elliptical Winged Cow can do just as good, and even better than that of course. Now, the problem is that the same report states 740 miles with 120 gallons fuel, the 109G report shows 755 miles w. 88 gallons of fuel.. ever since he tries to turn this upside down, aiming at my person in desperation `cos he can`t do nothing about my facts...
As for Gripen, he largely broughts up his own mindset, little more. Fact, no single document, or reference from Gripen yet on this thread. He just repeats his own statements which I have no reason to trust, knowing him, and knowing his habit of not being able to support his claims with hard evidence.
He repeats that the report is just silly, theroretical, can`t be trusted. Silly, theroretical, can`t be trusted. Silly, theroretical, can`t be trusted. Silly, theroretical, can`t be trusted. Engine fuel consumptions irrevelant, Merlin engined Mossies Mustangs were over German bases. Engine fuel consumptions irrevelant, Merlin engined Mossies Mustangs were over German bases.Merlin engined Mossies Mustangs were over German bases and shoot down 109Ks en masse (I`d invite Grippy to show us those loss reports:). The British didn`t tested anything, it`s just calculations. The British didn`t tested anything, it`s just calculations. The British didn`t tested anything, it`s just calculations, testing is very hard and difficult and quite impossible especially if there`s a report showing 1200+ miles range for the 109. Can`t use that low engine powers anyway, just can`t. Can`t use that low engine powers anyway, we don`t even know them, he says, but we know it just can`t be used (same RPMs are listed in MkVIII report, no problem to use those of course:). Finn Reports Only Gripen Seen But For Some Odd Reason Can`t Show Us say it`s just 1-1.5 hours of endurance. Finn Reports Only Gripen Seen But For Some Odd Reason Can`t Show Us say it`s just 1 hour of endurance (thinking about it, with 400 liter internal, that means 400 lit/h consumption, running at 100% power all the time...)
And so on. Fairly tales, and they really look stupid if you compile them.
Oh, for a change, look at the O'club thread about the Warshaw uprising. It evolved nicely into a fight about what the German army could have done at Stalingrad, had their armed forces and LW not also been tied up in N Africa.
Just crossed my mind to mention it, for finally there could possibly be something we actually agree about
:D
[/B]
Uhm, anyway I try it I can`t think freeing up the DAK to Stalingrad would make lot`s of difference. At the time the 6th Army was encircled, it was a rather small force, a drop in the ocean compared to the Russian front numbers. Before El-Alamein, they had some 20 000 men and 250 tanks (it was just a Korps, you see), and they lost almost all tanks but rather little manpower in the battle. Perhaps it`s more correct to say the reinforments that were sent into Tunisia were wasted, but on the other hand, when those were sent the 6th Army already surrendered/was beyond hope.
-
Not what I meant.
My point there is that if there had been NO N-African Campaign, then what?
-
Dear Isegrim,
May I ask you when I have used source which no-one else has seen?
Regarding Mustangs ripping Bf 109Ks; I have noticed that you love such text...
Guppy35,
I checked Morgan&Shacklady today and found following (p.286):
"MT818 (Furlong 20-7-44) First Mk VIII with 75 gallon fuel tank behind pilot. Unstable but not viciously so. MT818 (Furlong 27-7). It is estimated that aeroplane becomes stable after 37 gallons have been used from the rear tank. MT818 (Furlong 15-8). Long range Spitfire. Now has standard oil tank giving standard non-bulged bottom cowling. Flown with all tanks full. MT818 (Furlong). It is considered that the aeroplane might possibly be accepted by Boscombe Down. Deletion of the PRU tank and subsequent fitting of non-bulged cowling has improved stability."
Apparently some Spitfire VIIIs got rear fuselage tank but I have no idea if any VIII with such tank reached service.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Angus
I disagree. There is a stage between those two.
This is just about aircraft frequently getting to a certain location and back under different cirkumstances. If your calculations say this is not possible, they must be wrong, for they are calculations against several actual occurances.
No. The test does not disprove the RL experience or vice versa, because of the fact that they may have been taken under different conditions. You do not know if the circumstances of your anecdotal flights were ever the same as the test, because they were not recorded. You are simply guessing. For modeling purposes we need the conditions documented. Tests do this as much as possible. Anecdotes don't.
Furthermore, I would like to see your response to HoHun's post above.
Another way of looking at this. If the test data was so ridiculously at odds with reality, don't you think the testers would have noticed? "You know, old boy, I believe you've substituted furlongs for cubits here, otherwise all our Spitfires would be falling into the Channel."
Originally posted by Angus
Range is in this sence a much more absolute thing than ever more flexible things as turning for instance.
True, it is not as subject to opinion. However, it is certainly subject to circumstances.
-
Hi Isegrim,
>First, the excerpt of a British Middle East report on a captured 109G-2/trop in poor condition (malfunctioning radiator control, .50 damage from P-40, tropical filter installed).
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/109G_range.jpg)
I've just run the numbers, and I'd say the figures for the Messerschmitt are realistic.
Though I can't reproduce the exact combinations of speed, altitude and endurance and the RAF obviously didn't use the documented DB605A power settings, my mileage doesn't vary much if I plug in the official data.
Note that the range of the Me 109G on Maximum Continuous and that of the Spitfire XVI on Most Economical is very close (as is speed - the Spitfire's 210 mph must be IAS, so it's 296 mph TAS vs. Me 109's 315 mph).
From the British chart, it's obvious that they reduced power to a very, very low figure to get the maximum range - just look at the long endurance they're getting out of the internal fuel tank!
For that kind of power, the range provided by the table is entirely credible. (Remember that the British - even before the Japanese - were the pioneers of long-range flying, so they certainly knew the techniques.)
However, I have some doubts about the Spitfire numbers. It simply looks as if what's labeled "Most Economical" on the chart should really be labeled "Maximum Economical" (which is the maximum power that can be considered remotely economic, not the most economical power :-)
For the Spitfire XIV, I can confirm that directly from the Pilot's Notes, which list 276 mph as the highest, least economical cruising speed at 20000 ft with about 3.75 mpg, compared to an optimum of 5.3 mpg at just 190 mph IAS.
For the Spitfire XVI, I suspect it's the same because the cruise speed given is almost as high as the Me 109's at Maximum Economical. Similar to the Me 109, the Spitfire XVI's range should benefit from reduced speed, too.
Unfortunately, the Spitfire IX, XI, XVI's Pilot's Notes don't provide a range graph like the Spitfire XIV's, but I'd say the Spitfire's optimum range was longer than the RAF comparison chart makes it appear.
Anyway, good research, and an interesting topic! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hate to be negative, but if I look it up factually, Nashwan brought up a part of the MkVIII report (posted away from the source to ensure the rest cannot be viewed by others, only the part fitting in Nashwan`s mindset)
Isegrim, I posted a page from the report, and told everyone where it came from.
From the Australian archives via Ring's site
I think most people here, including you, know where Ring's site is.
Now, you have posted part of a page from "a British intelligence report", without even telling us what the report is, let alone letting us see the rest of the report.
which`s other parts I posted later and it states 740miles range for the Mk8 on internal 120 gallon,
If you notice, it says "with 23 gallon 'allowance' ".
This page is not part of the fuel consumption report, it's an appendix to a single page summary of the features of the Spit VIII.
The actual report is quite clear:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1090515978_spitviiirange.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1091830845_95bcropped.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1091830791_85bcropped.jpg)
That one hit Nashwan in the nerve, and he started selective qouting from the Mk VIII test, to prove the His Holy Elliptical Winged Cow can do just as good, and even better than that of course.
I posted the test results. They're the only results I've seen for the Merlin 66 engined Spit.
Now, the problem is that the same report states 740 miles with 120 gallons fuel,
No, it's not the same report. It's an appendix to a single sheet summary of the features of the Spit VIII, entitled Spitfire VIII, general description and performance. In fact, the page is:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1091831391_108.jpg)
As you can see, it makes reference to appendix I, which is the "summary" you've posted.
Notice that nowhere in the test does it refer to appendix I being included, it notes the consumption figures are to be found in the tables and graphs I've posted.
Also, the figures I've posted all state they are valid in standard atmosphere conditions. There is no note on what conditions the summary you would rather use is valid for, or whether it's based on tests, guess work, includes a large margin of error for safety, etc.
We have explicit tests under known conditions, we have a "brief summary" under unkown conditions, Isegrim chooses to rely on the latter.
-
I've just noticed that the figures Isegrim are relying on, in the "brief summary", are dated 24/10/43, the range tests that give higher figures are dated 28/03/44.
The figures Isegrim wants to use are not based on the tests, as they preceed the tests by many months. So not only don't we know the conditions they are relevant to (hot Australian conditions, perhaps, instead of standard atmosphere?), we have no idea if they are based on tests.
The doc in fact say wingspan is 40ft, which is the extended span, yet it claims it's fitted with a low altitude Merlin 66.
Guppy might know if the extended span VIII was ever fitted with a low alt Merlin 66, but I find it unlikely.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Well, just look Australian tests, really lot of flying at various altitudes and power settings is required even with the fuel flow meter and final results are not known before calculations. It's very unlikely that they did such testing with a captured plane in the field conditions.
Why a captured report should exclude theoretical calculations? What if they used captured engine documentation to calculate range and endurance? Basicly all performance aspects must be calculated in some degree (corrections etc.) and calculations are possible in the field conditions without special equipment if some basic data is available.
OK, we got two choices here. These numbers come from either the Brits or the Huns.
If the Brits did it, then clearly the numbers came from real tests, since as you pointed out they didn't have the ability to do a theoretical calculation. If the Huns did it, then it could be either theoretical or practical.
But why shouldn't it be a practical test? Everyone else did it, including the Aussies as you mention above--despite whatever difficulty it entailed (which I still don't agree with but I can accept hypothetically). Why not the Huns?
But given the possibility that it was theoretical, we should consider practical matters such as the exhaust fumes you mention (however I have some questions about that, see below).
Originally posted by gripen
FAF tested engine settings according to documentation and found out that at low power settings engine run roughly and exhaust gases tended enter cockpit.
This is interesting information. Can you point me to the documents which describe this (in English if possible)? Are there any documented tests of 109 pilots flying at such speeds?
-
Hi Angus,
>230 km each way with perfect navigation. Then one has to think off unfavourable winds and combat situation.
Well, 230 km is for cruise at maximum continous, 10 min reserve at economical power and 10 min of combat at maximum power, and without the range covered during climb and letdown. It's really a realistic range.
The long-range Spitfire II with fixed 40 gallon underwing tank was used by No. 66, 118 and 152 Squadrons according to Alfred Price.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
I've just noticed that the figures Isegrim are relying on, in the "brief summary", are dated 24/10/43, the range tests that give higher figures are dated 28/03/44.
Yes, Nashwan, surround it with hordes of " " , maybe it will make it disappear. :D
Funny that the report he likes to use while ignoring all the others is titled :
BRIEF PERFORMANCE TRIALS OF SPITFIRE MK VIII AIRCRAFT
FUEL CONSUMPTION TRIALS
Apperantly, Nashwan`s 10 mph claim is only from a quick and rough testing with possibly not even the right equipment available for correct measurments, being hastily done with large margin of error.
The figures Isegrim wants to use are not based on the tests, as they preceed the tests by many months.
[/B]
Still, the official British words is that the Mk VIII`s range is 740 miles on 120 gallons internal fuel.
Mk LF IXs can do 434 miles, Mk F IX can do 450 miles according to the British documentation.
No way to come around that.
Every single book states the Spitfire had 430-450 miles on internal on 85 gallon. including Spitfire the History, including these papers :
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/Spitchart.jpg
With the same engine, and 50% more fuel, one would guess the range should be up 50% as well, from 450 to ca.700 miles.
It happens that the another report just states 740 miles on 120 gallon fuel, in perfect agreement.
Naswhan perhaps thinks the MkVIII had twice the mileage per gallon than the same engined Mk IX..
So not only don't we know the conditions they are relevant to (hot Australian conditions, perhaps, instead of standard atmosphere?), we have no idea if they are based on tests.[/B]
'We'? Speak for yourself, perhaps then it would be more correct that you have no idea on many things.
Perhaps these papers are just wild guessings. Yes, this must the case, as they are in full agreement with every other British statement regarding Spitfire ranges.
The doc in fact say wingspan is 40ft, which is the extended span, yet it claims it's fitted with a low altitude Merlin 66.
[/B]
AH, those LIARS ! Don`t believe them, don`t believe a word! :rofl
Interesting theories, Nashwan.
Still, the problem with it there are hordes of sources, all showing no more than ~450 miles range for all Spitfire Marks, except the Mk VIII, which is shown at 740 miles range on internal fuel.
But, let`s give a chance to prove yourself, since you are so fond of telling everyone the Spitfire was the longest ranged, most heavily armed fighter of WW2, that outdived every other fighter, in not in tests, then in flyboy memoirs, that you come here in a 109G range thread, start trolling about those invincbile Spitties as usual, what was the range of the Mk IX and Mk VIII?
What do British papers tell about it ?
What does Spitfire the History tell about it ?
What do every single source tell about it ?
What do these archieve papers tell about it ?
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/Spitchart.jpg
http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/spit/8/109.jpg
I reckon they say 450 miles for the Mk IX, and 740 miles for the Mk VIII.
You disagree with them, and say they are all in error ?
Of course with 10mpg economy you claim to be possible, the MkVIII should have really no problem getting to Berlin. In fact, you seem to tell us the Mk VIII was as long ranged than the Mustang.
We all know Goering said when he first saw the first MkVIII over Berlin that they lost the air war. And I tell you, there were hordes of Mk VIIIs and MkIX screaming all over the German-Polish border. :rofl
-
Theories, Isegrim?
Not at all.
I've posted a range test on the Merlin 66 engined Spit.
It clearly shows up to 10 mpg at 20,000ft with a 90 gallon drop tank fitted.
You don't want to accept that figure, so you have posted various documents, none of them tests, none of them giving exact conditions, many of them not even stating what engine.
There's one set of test data, and it says 10 mpg. Get over it.
Every single book states the Spitfire had 430-450 miles on internal on 85 gallon.
I could ask with which engine, but instead I'll use one of your own quotes, from the very first post in this thread:
since there`s so many misunderstandings about that in the literature (most books state high-speed cruise ranges only).
What about posting the complete report you've extracted the 109 range figures from? Can we see it all, please?
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
BRIEF PERFORMANCE TRIALS OF SPITFIRE MK VIII AIRCRAFT
FUEL CONSUMPTION TRIALS
Apperantly, Nashwan`s 10 mph claim is only from a quick and rough testing with possibly not even the right equipment available for correct measurments, being hastily done with large margin of error.
Perhaps it was brief, but it doesn't look to me like there is any particular reason to suspect this report of having greater margins of error, than other tests.
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Still, the official British words is that the Mk VIII`s range is 740 miles on 120 gallons internal fuel.
I don't think Nashwan's report conflicts with this, necessarily. That 10 mpg figure is for a *very* low speed (160 mph indicated). The official range figures are probably for a higher test speed.
But even considering Nashwan's data, the 109G is definitely more fuel efficient than the Spit 8 (see the 210 mph row in the Spit charts).
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
You don't want to accept that figure, so you have posted various documents, none of them tests, none of them giving exact conditions, many of them not even stating what engine.
[/B]
Actually, all of them stating what engine is used and what are the cruising speeds they refer to.
"Every single book states the Spitfire had 430-450 miles on internal on 85 gallon. "
I could ask with which engine, but instead I'll use one of your own quotes, from the very first post in this thread:
Well, one is for Merlin 61, and says 450 miles. the other is for Merlin 266, ie. US-built 266, and says 434 miles.
But what about Spitfire the History, I know this is the most accurate book on the Spit, what range does it give for the Mk IX and VIII ?
What about posting the complete report you've extracted the 109 range figures from? Can we see it all, please? [/B]
It`s several megabytes long, so I won`t upload it into a site. But drop me an email at executor@index.hu and I will send it forward.
-
I don't think Nashwan's report conflicts with this, necessarily. That 10 mpg figure is for a *very* low speed (160 mph indicated). The official range figures are probably for a higher test speed.
But even considering Nashwan's data, the 109G is definitely more fuel efficient than the Spit 8 (see the 210 mph row in the Spit charts).
The Spitfire data is for IAS, it says so clearly in the chart.
The 109 data is for TAS, I think. It's at 18,000ft, and gives 2 cruise speeds, 210 and 306 mph.
If those were IAS, they would be 278 mph and 405 mph. I don't think anyone is suggesting the 109 G2 could cruise at 405 mph, especially with a drop tank, and especially not at over 5 mpg.
The Spitfire speed is 160 IAS, which is 220 TAS. The Spitfire is of course at 20,000ft, the 109 at 18,000ft, so the speeds are directly comparable.
-
Isegrim, thank you for the offer. I'll have to clean out my mailbox, but I'll send you my address tomorrow.
-
Originally posted by phookat
OK, we got two choices here. These numbers come from either the Brits or the Huns.
If the Brits did it, then clearly the numbers came from real tests, since as you pointed out they didn't have the ability to do a theoretical calculation.
Nonsense, I have pointed out that nothing proves that the numbers in the report are from real life test. As noted above, the Brits certainly had ability to make theoretical calculations in the field conditions, captured engine documentation is enough to make such calculation, wind tunnels or engine test stands are not needed.
Originally posted by phookat
If the Huns did it, then it could be either theoretical or practical.
But why shouldn't it be a practical test? Everyone else did it, including the Aussies as you mention above--despite whatever difficulty it entailed (which I still don't agree with but I can accept hypothetically). Why not the Huns?
But given the possibility that it was theoretical, we should consider practical matters such as the exhaust fumes you mention (however I have some questions about that, see below).
In the case of the Aussies, we have a certain proof that they really did the flight tests. Do we have such proof for German figures? What if they just calculated range by using engine data?
FAF used the Bf 109G in combat and in peace time. The numbers I quoted are from real service use and they contain taxing in the field, climb etc.
Originally posted by phookat
This is interesting information. Can you point me to the documents which describe this (in English if possible)? Are there any documented tests of 109 pilots flying at such speeds?
I gave the source above; "Lentäjän Näkökulma II" by Jukka Raunio, actually it's one of the Isegrim's regular sources. For english translation you can ask Virtual pilots, they have scanned quite large amount of FAF documentation and possibly they have translated this one.
gripen
-
Originally posted by HoHun
I've just run the numbers, and I'd say the figures for the Messerschmitt are realistic.
Please enlight us on your calculations. In fact I have been wondering when HoHun jumps in with his calculations.
gripen
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Isegrim,
I've just run the numbers, and I'd say the figures for the Messerschmitt are realistic.
Though I can't reproduce the exact combinations of speed, altitude and endurance and the RAF obviously didn't use the documented DB605A power settings, my mileage doesn't vary much if I plug in the official data.
......
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hi HoHun,
could you please contact me in email? I could use some help with range calculations, could please tell me the methods you employ etc? I need that for a personal project of mine. ;) I am wondering how the introduction of AS and D engines changed the range picture. These had higer rated alt, so I believe higher cruising speeds they enable probalby had a positive effect on range. The GLC chart comparisons of 109G-14/AM and G-14/ASM ranges also suggest that at max. continous powers.
I`d like to run some simulations to get the 109K`s max. range and endurance, in 3 forms, internal, internal + 300liter DT, internal + DT + 115 liter rear tank.
-
Perhaps these documents will be of interest:
From A.I.2(g) Report No. 2149 dated 8.2.43
(http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109grange1.jpg)
From A.I.2(g) report No. 2172 dated 7.5.43
(http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109grange2.jpg)
Ranges and Radii of Action of German Fighters and Fighter Bombers:
Page 1 (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109grange3.jpg)
Page 2 (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109grange4.jpg)
Page 3 (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109grange5.jpg)
-
Apperantly the May revision is about simply substracting 20% overall allowance from the previous figures, as outlined in the accomponying doc, article 5.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109grange3.jpg
"Overall allowance of 20% to cover navigational errors.. etc"
The previous doc of February appearantly does not include this extra safety allowance, however it includes a usual ~20 gallon reserve.
-
It was nice of Mike to post ALL the British documents, showing dates, etc, unlike another who only just posted a partial.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Well, one is for Merlin 61, and says 450 miles. the other is for Merlin 266, ie. US-built 266, and says 434 miles.
But what about Spitfire the History, I know this is the most accurate book on the Spit, what range does it give for the Mk IX and VIII ?
From Spit the Hist. As I posted previously it says the range of the Spit VIII was 660. and that's based on the 124 gallons of internal fuel. It doesn't include the drop tanks.
For the Spit IX it says the range was between 434-980 miles. This is based on the Spit IX over it's production going from the basic 85 gallon set up, to having the wing fuel tanks and later on the fuselage fuel tank. It doesn't include drop tanks in that range.
Dan/Slack
-
That sounds fairly reasonable Guppy, and pretty much what I have seen on that. Thanks. BTW, Angie is saying something of a ca550 mile range for the the early Spit I, I am not sure what tankage this refers to, though I think it could be possible the early ones were more fuel efficient and a bit longer ranged than the later ones. Thinking I`ll get S:H for myself, after all it`s just 30 buck or so, even though I have to wait quite a bit until it arrives here. After all, it`s always nice to have a great book on a famous, classic aircraft.Will look good between a sandwhich of Mtt books on my shelf. ;)
-
Hi Dan,
>For the Spit IX it says the range was between 434-980 miles. This is based on the Spit IX over it's production going from the basic 85 gallon set up, to having the wing fuel tanks and later on the fuselage fuel tank. It doesn't include drop tanks in that range.
I've just tried to calculate the Spitfire XIV range according to the guidelines outlined in the British documents posted here.
I've used a 20000 ft altitude and some guesswork (because the manual doesn't really tell us which power setting result in which speed).
For a 111 gallon Spitfire XIV (standard fuselage fuel tanks + wing tanks, but no rear fuselage tank or drop tank), I get an 138 mile combat radius (with 20% reserve).
(The maximum theoretical still air range would be 588 miles.)
So the RAF Fw 190A and Bf 109G combat radius figures of 145 and 135 miles respectively at 18000 ft seem quite close to what they were getting from their own planes, too.
I imagine the Spitfire IX with wing tanks might have been slightly better than the Spitfire XIV (going by reputation only), but I don't have any good data on Spitfire IX consumption.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Isengrim
The fuel amount for that Spit I reference of mine is 85 gallons.
Hehe, and for the record, the british tests for the Spit XIV say, that the aircraft (on internal) has NO range.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Dan,
>For the Spit IX it says the range was between 434-980 miles. This is based on the Spit IX over it's production going from the basic 85 gallon set up, to having the wing fuel tanks and later on the fuselage fuel tank. It doesn't include drop tanks in that range.
I've just tried to calculate the Spitfire XIV range according to the guidelines outlined in the British documents posted here.
I've used a 20000 ft altitude and some guesswork (because the manual doesn't really tell us which power setting result in which speed).
For a 111 gallon Spitfire XIV (standard fuselage fuel tanks + wing tanks, but no rear fuselage tank or drop tank), I get an 138 mile combat radius (with 20% reserve).
(The maximum theoretical still air range would be 588 miles.)
So the RAF Fw 190A and Bf 109G combat radius figures of 145 and 135 miles respectively at 18000 ft seem quite close to what they were getting from their own planes, too.
I imagine the Spitfire IX with wing tanks might have been slightly better than the Spitfire XIV (going by reputation only), but I don't have any good data on Spitfire IX consumption.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
To be honest I'm lousy at the detail stuff. I tend to go with what people tell me in terms of those who flew Spits. As Spit XIIs were/are my passion, I know that the Spit XII with the same 85 gallons as a Spit V or IX had less range because the Griffon drank it faster. There would be little doubt that this would be the same for the Griffon XIV as well. The XII pilots always went with drop tanks too as standard practice.
Looking at Spit the Hist only confirms what Spit XII pilots told me as it states the range of the XII without drop tanks as 329 vs the 434 listed for the same 85 gallons in an IX.
A note in one of the Price books says the Spit XII burned 5 gallons more an hour then a Spit V, for what it's worth.
I would imagine the Griffon 60 series engines would have been similar to the Griffon IIIs and IVs in the XII in terms of fuel consumption
Regarding the Spit I. Spit the Hist lists the range for the Spit I as 575 but also states a combat range of 395. I imagine it all comes down to power settings etc.
Dan/Slack
-
Re: Griffon Spits, Guppy, if you look at the range chart comparison I posted, it shows the mk14`s range on internal 112 gallon being 460 miles, compared to 434miles on the MkIX, despite the latter having only 85 gallons. So it`s wasn`t THAT bad, the extra fuel tanks made up for the Griffon consuming fuel like the Sahara a drop of water. ;) Of course, 460 miles is rather bad compared the same tankage MkVIII`s 740 miles internal range...
Also, I think the AFDU comparison between the Mk IX and XIV also says the the XIV has lower endurance, but apprx. the same range as the Mk IX, as the Griffon Spit has a higher cruising speed.
-
Hi Dan,
>As Spit XIIs were/are my passion, I know that the Spit XII with the same 85 gallons as a Spit V or IX had less range because the Griffon drank it faster. There would be little doubt that this would be the same for the Griffon XIV as well. The XII pilots always went with drop tanks too as standard practice.
Thanks, that seems to make very good sense!
(By reducing the fuel load to 85 gallons in my Spitfire XIV calculation, I end up with a combat radius of 90 miles according to the RAF mission description. Of course, the XII is not exactly identical to a XIV, but that gives an impression of the value of the XIV's wing tanks!)
>Regarding the Spit I. Spit the Hist lists the range for the Spit I as 575 but also states a combat range of 395. I imagine it all comes down to power settings etc.
It's my impression that 575 miles is the theoretical still-air range, and 395 miles a more realistic range (possibly mostly at the same power setting) including warm-up, taxy, climb etc.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)