Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: GODO on September 20, 2004, 12:17:07 PM
-
By summer 44, every BMW801D2 powered 190s (A5,A6,A7,A8/F8) were cleared for 1.58/1.65 ata with 10/15mins continuous usage time limit respectively and 5 mins to cold down.
By this time, a new system was tested to increase that time limit for jabos: C3 injection. This system was initially applied to jabos and then inmediately added to 190A8 fighters also. With C3 injection the engine remains "cold" while sacrifying a lot of fuel in the process. A new fuel tank was added to A8s and F8s to compensate the extra C3 consumption by 8 C3-injection minutes (our current aux tank). So, for 190A8/F8 using C3 injection, the limit would not be on temperature increase (as it is currently modeled), but remakable range decrease.
I've found this information in several web sources, but none of them point to any official document backing it up (nor the opposite).
-
In this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94895&highlight=190F8) Niklas wrote:
It´s basically the same system, but was used first with the lower blower stage only for Jabos. The high altitude gear is more difficult because the air is more compressed, thus hotter. On 20.01.44 BMW cleared the usage for the high blower stage too, for all FW190. It still took a while until it was used in both stages however.
10 minutes seem to refer to the high blower stage btw, for the low blower stage a note from the A1-A8 handbook Feb.44 (still mentioning only the first blower stage) is speaking about unlimited usage as long as an emergency case happens. Fuel consumption was high, 840l/h ....
niklas
C3 injection as at first limited on the F to the lower blower stage only (unlimted; as long as the emergency lasted) .
Niklas states the 10 min limit was only for the high blower stage.
Yes fuel consumption was high and would have been more a factor in limiting usage rather then the temp cutoff used in AH2.
-
Wotan, the limitations described by Niklas are for Feb 44, as far as I know, 801D2 was not cleared for 1.58/1.65 in any plane but 190A8 by that date (the very early 190A8s). By mid 44 801D2 was cleared for 1.58/1.65 for any 190A, meanwhile 190A8 and F8 may enjoy unlimited (by temperature) wep time. A8/F8 may still use the common wep with 10 mins limit if C3 injection was not switched on.
Current AH2 190A8 consumes 185 GPH on WEP (x1 multiplier). 190A8 with C3 injection ON would consume about 221 GPH with unlimited wep time (while you have fuel left).
-
Niklas mentions that it took sometime before it was used in both stages. If he still reads this forum maybe he will clarify.
-
The FW-190A8 was cleared for 1.58ata/1.65ata Without C3 "Emergency Power" for 10 minutes and only in "rated" engines. "Rated" engines were new engines. "De-rated" engines were rebuilds from combat weary "rated" motors and were not cleared for the added boost.
With C3 "emergency power" it limit was "as long as the emergency lasts but cautions to "watch your oil tempature".
Before the FW-190A8 Jagd-einsatz's were limited to:
Emergency Power 1.42ata@2700U/min for 3 minutes
for boost.
C3 "emergency power" first appeared in the FW-190A5 for 1.58ata and could only be used at below 1 Km in height.
There is not much evidence the 115 liter was used very much by the fighter units even after C3 "emergency power" was rated to FTH in the second supercharger gear.
C3 "emergency power" was not all that popular with the JG's as it consumed 70 liters/5 min when being used.
Source - Flugzueg-Handbuch
The jagd-einsatz's motors were already cleared for the same boost rating with a similar amount of time at WEP over the combat box. I will confirm this with a JG2 veteran.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp, as far as I know, C3 injection was not serialized for 190A5 jabos. On the other hand, by mid 44 all 801D2 equipped 190s were cleared and adjusted for 1.58/1.65, also 190A5s, but still without C3 injection except for A8/F8. The aux fuel tank would add about 8 mins of wep with C3 injection at the cost of 80lb (empty weight of the aux tank). Certainly 190A8 pilots can use these extra 8 mins to climb to combat alt and be sure to enter into combat with aux tank empty and "fresh" engines.
-
The aux fuel tank would add about 8 mins of wep with C3 injection at the cost of 80lb (empty weight of the aux tank).
Exactly. It only represents about 7.5 minutes of wep. Depending on the target C3 "emergency boost" could represent an increase in available wep time, the same, or decrease in the time available. The Jagers could already use the same boost.
Problem is it added over 240lbs to the A/C when full on take off. Late '44 the Luftwaffe found itself increasingly outnumbered and frequently bounced on take off or shortly thereafter.
In fact that became the 8th FG tactics. They knew the bombers route and the LW airfields along it. The Mustangs would range ahead and try to hit the LW dayfighters before they climbed to altitude and were formed up.
Facts are the 115 liter tank was an available option. It should be in AH as well.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp, as far as I know, C3 injection was not serialized for 190A5 jabos.
C3 "emergency boost" first appears as an option for jabo-einsatz's in the FW-190A5 Flugzeug-Handbuch. Jagd-einsatz's are limited to 1.42ata @ 2700U/min for 3 minutes AFAIK.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp, in A8s, C3 injection was controled by a separate switch in the frontal Instrument panel. Emergency/takeoff, climb/combat, normal and off power settings were adjusted by the throttle handle. You can be running in "emergency" power setting while having the C3 injection turned off. What you call "C3 emergency boost" for 190A5 jabos is that "C3 injection cooling system" serialized in A8s?
-
What you call "C3 emergency boost" for 190A5 jabos is that "C3 injection cooling system" serialized in A8s?
Yes. The C3 "emergency power" was serialized in the FW-190A5 and used throughout the FW-190 production in JABO-einsatz's. Jabo's were authorized to advance the manifold pressure to 1.58ata and then engage the system below 1 Km.
C3 "emergency power" is a deceptive term. The actual C3 "emergency power" system did nothing to raise the manifold pressure of the engine, it simply cooled the heads.
The FW-190A8 was authorized to use 1.58ata/1.65ata on "rated" motors only in Jagd-einsatz's without C3 "emergency power" being installed. These are identified by a small yellow circle marking on the cowl. The time limit was 10 minutes.
During the production of the FW-190A8 the C3 "emergency power" was authorized for use ABOVE 1 km in height. Hence the 115 liter aux tank began to be included in delivery of the plane for all Jagd-einsatz's and Jabo-einsatz's. The mounting bracket was serialized and included in all FW-190's as well. I suspect C3 "emergency power" was also serialized.
The 115 liter tank was still an Optional piece of equipment, could be removed easily and was not necessary to use C3 "emergency power". It was held in place by quick release bands, plugs into the wiring harness, connected to the fuel system by a quick disconnect T-block valve, with the fuel pump and wiring contained in the lid of the tank. The filler plate was removed with 2 screws and the filler hose/vent line popped right out and remained attached to the filler plate. A blank plate would be inserted. The whole tank slide out the circular hatch in the bottom of the fuselage. It's presence is noted by the yellow triangular C3 sticker next to the fill port above the cargo hatch. This sticker's nomenclature when applied is the "Auxillery Tank Present" warning label. This alerted the ground crews the tank was in use and prevented them from filling it with the wrong liquid. It also alerted them to extra preventive procautions when filling the O2 tanks. Gas fumes and O2 don't mix.
In AH the 115 tank should be an option in the hanger for the FW-190A8.
Crumpp
-
C3 wasn't serialized on the A5. It was tested on the A5 and serialized in '44 on the A8. Its been posted before on this forum, at LEMB, at AAW, etc...
C3 cooled the charge through evaportion, not necessarily the cylinder heads.
If butch or Hohun are around maybe they will provide clearification.
-
I think the issue is with your definition of "serialized".
The A5's that had "C3 injection" were limited like the F8s to under 1km. As I quoted Niklas above C3 injection was fist limited to the lower blower stage. It wasn't cleared for both stages until '44 and at that time it became "standard" or "serialized" first in the A8. Once cleared for both stages for all 190A/F's it took some time before it was used.
-
One more thing...
Godo,
I didnt read your original post carefully enough.
C3 injection was tested in early '43 on A5's (jabos as Crumpp states but I dont think it could be considered "serialized" at this time) and was limted to the lower blower stage (under 1km) for jabos..
In '44 it was cleared for the both blower stages for all 190A/Fs. At this time it was serialized first in the A8.
I think that is an accurate answer to your question.
Sorry for the multiple posts but I ma at work and get called afk while typing quickly...
-
Wotan, I didnt post any question in my original post, but raw info ;)
The question would be, which was the time limit (if any) for continuous 1.58/1.65 ata usage with C3 injection turned on in 190A8? And a second one, I read that 1.42ata was also cleared for unlimited time (not 40 mins) usage in 190A8, is that true? If so, 1.42 would correspond to military (or climb and combat) power setting?
And a last comment, it is clear that AUX tank was added to compensate the effect of C3 injection usage. Our AH 190A8/F8s have these aux tanks, but engine overheats in 10 mins and current fuel consumption does not correspond to that of C3 injection. If we have a very early 190A8, then AUX tank should be removed (not even as an option), else C3 injection should be included, and, may be, have the option to remove the aux tank.
-
I think the issue is with your definition of "serialized".
How do you know it's not your definition of serialized? ;)
It was included in production jabo-einsatz's and was a kit in which could be installed at the Geschwader level as well.
It's use is detailed in the FW-190A5 Flugzeug-Handbuch.
If we have a very early 190A8, then AUX tank should be removed (not even as an option), else C3 injection should be included, and, may be, have the option to remove the aux tank.
The Aux tank was in widespread use among the Jabo units and was available throughout the FW-190A8 production.
IMO it should always be an option for the FW-190A8. ONLY reason a Jagd-einsatz's would have one and not just use a drop tank is if it was equipped with C3 "emergency power".
The question would be, which was the time limit (if any) for continuous 1.58/1.65 ata usage with C3 injection turned on in 190A8? And a second one, I read that 1.42ata was also cleared for unlimited time (not 40 mins) usage in 190A8, is that true? If so, 1.42 would correspond to military (or climb and combat) power setting?
I will have to check the Flugzeug-Handbuch again.
I believe 1.42ata was approved as an unlimited time setting on the FW-190A8. In fact I will confirm it with a FW-190A8 pilot tonight. I will ask him to run down the engine settings. No guarantees though, sixty years is a long time.
You guys have any specific questions? This guy shot down Mustangs, Spitfires, La5's, Yaks, and plenty of B17's/B24's. He flew the FW-190A8 for the most part. He did tell me "In my FW, I feared no fighter I could see even when heavily outnumbered."
C3 cooled the charge through evaportion, not necessarily the cylinder heads.
Yes I know it cooled the charge and also prevented pre -detonation. I have BMW Flugmotoren BMW 801MA-BMW-801ML BMW 801C und BMW 801D Handbuch und Teiluberholungsanleitung Mai 1942.
The short answer, not the technical, though is it kept the heads cool. Just try explaining it to your wife and see which one she understands first. :)
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You guys have any specific questions?
Just give him a big salute from a 190 fan.
-
What a great conversation! Learned some great stuff and raised some new questions. Don't want to get too detailed as I am writing a book.
Little background. This guy has plenty of confirmed kills. He flew Me-109's from the beginning up until the Bf-109G6. From there he transferred over to the FW-190A8 in 1944. His "training" on the FW was an orientation to the cockpit and a circuit around the field. He then took off and flew his first combat mission in the type. No additional training and no pilots manual.
On fighting the airplane:
He primarily TURNFOUGHT Mustangs, Yaks, and La 5's. Spitfires he fought in the vertical. None of them were a problem for the FW-190A in the dogfight.
Aileron adjustment was extremely important to the turn performance of the type. There are THREE different ailerons that can be mounted on the FW-190A. Each has different hinge type and different performance. All were the pilot's choice to have mounted. He named the ones he preferred.
Additionally his crew chief would mount the ailerons with a spacer, which gave them additional height. This came from a FW Technical bulletin. Said it helped with low speed performance.
On the Flaps:
He did not mention the exact speed. I will press him for that later. He was in a very talkative mood but is not completely comfortable with English. Between my German and his English though the points were made.
He did use them in every engagement that he turned. They did decrease the turn rate considerably.
On the Prop:
The FW-190A8 had three props available for pilot use. Again it was the pilots choice. He preferred the broad chord wooden propeller. Said it had more flex and he felt it gave more of a bite in the air during low speed maneuvering.
Normal Metal Prop - VDM 9-16176A
Wide Chord Wooden Prop - VDM 9-12157H3
Manual mentions some others, anybody got any info on this?
On the boost systems:
GM-1, MW-50, and C3 "emergency power" were ALL used on the FW-190A. The FW-190A8 was rated for 1.58ata/1.65ata for 10 minutes. He also mentioned another alcohol based boost system but I need more information from him on it. MW30 perhaps, I wrote the name down and it is not an MW system. I am thinking an EW system similar to the later 109's.
GM-1 and MW-50 were more common than we would believe. This is confirmed by Dr Timken who has several of the systems laying around his hanger and they are listed on the FW-190 parts catalog. Anyway, I have more interviews with him later.
Surprised to learn on the boost systems though was:
He never used them! The alcohol based system took almost 3 minutes to develop power. He said bullets were much faster than all the boost systems. Roll and shallow dive was his best maneuver when an enemy fighter got on his six. He said the FW-190A8's dive acceleration would slam you to the back of the cockpit. He also said the acceleration when the second stage supercharger gear kicked in was very noticeable. Sounded like a modern automatic transmission. The supercharger would whine for a few seconds and followed by a "clunk" as the gear engaged. Then the acceleration would push you back.
He mentioned several times "I feared no Mustang." Looking at his record, I have no doubt he did not!
Oh he mentioned he always performed a 3 point landing and take off in the FW-190. Said prop strikes were common if you did not.
Crumpp
-
now get him to play AH2.
-
now get him to play AH2.
:p
I don't think he is interested....
Crumpp
-
"he mentioned he always performed a 3 point landing and take off in the FW-190. Said prop strikes were common if you did not. "
That was normal procedure for the 190 family.
-
That was normal procedure for the 190 family.
I'll pass that along to him Milo.....
He felt it important to emphasis this aspect of the FW-190.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I'll pass that along to him Milo.....
He felt it important to emphasis this aspect of the FW-190.
Crumpp
Why? He already knows that. Your post came across as only he did it.
-
Milo says:
Why? He already knows that. Your post came across as only he did it.
Where?
Oh he mentioned he always performed a 3 point landing and take off in the FW-190. Said prop strikes were common if you did not.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Where?
Crumpp
"he mentioned he always performed a 3 point landing and take off"
I don't see any we, as in all us 190 pilots did so.
-
This is good stuff. What will your book be about?
-Blogs
Originally posted by Crumpp
What a great conversation! Learned some great stuff and raised some new questions. Don't want to get too detailed as I am writing a book.
Little background. This guy has plenty of confirmed kills. He flew Me-109's from the beginning up until the Bf-109G6. From there he transferred over to the FW-190A8 in 1944. His "training" on the FW was an orientation to the cockpit and a circuit around the field. He then took off and flew his first combat mission in the type. No additional training and no pilots manual.
On fighting the airplane:
He primarily TURNFOUGHT Mustangs, Yaks, and La 5's. Spitfires he fought in the vertical. None of them were a problem for the FW-190A in the dogfight.
Aileron adjustment was extremely important to the turn performance of the type. There are THREE different ailerons that can be mounted on the FW-190A. Each has different hinge type and different performance. All were the pilot's choice to have mounted. He named the ones he preferred.
Additionally his crew chief would mount the ailerons with a spacer, which gave them additional height. This came from a FW Technical bulletin. Said it helped with low speed performance.
On the Flaps:
He did not mention the exact speed. I will press him for that later. He was in a very talkative mood but is not completely comfortable with English. Between my German and his English though the points were made.
He did use them in every engagement that he turned. They did decrease the turn rate considerably.
On the Prop:
The FW-190A8 had three props available for pilot use. Again it was the pilots choice. He preferred the broad chord wooden propeller. Said it had more flex and he felt it gave more of a bite in the air during low speed maneuvering.
Normal Metal Prop - VDM 9-16176A
Wide Chord Wooden Prop - VDM 9-12157H3
Manual mentions some others, anybody got any info on this?
On the boost systems:
GM-1, MW-50, and C3 "emergency power" were ALL used on the FW-190A. The FW-190A8 was rated for 1.58ata/1.65ata for 10 minutes. He also mentioned another alcohol based boost system but I need more information from him on it. MW30 perhaps, I wrote the name down and it is not an MW system. I am thinking an EW system similar to the later 109's.
GM-1 and MW-50 were more common than we would believe. This is confirmed by Dr Timken who has several of the systems laying around his hanger and they are listed on the FW-190 parts catalog. Anyway, I have more interviews with him later.
Surprised to learn on the boost systems though was:
He never used them! The alcohol based system took almost 3 minutes to develop power. He said bullets were much faster than all the boost systems. Roll and shallow dive was his best maneuver when an enemy fighter got on his six. He said the FW-190A8's dive acceleration would slam you to the back of the cockpit. He also said the acceleration when the second stage supercharger gear kicked in was very noticeable. Sounded like a modern automatic transmission. The supercharger would whine for a few seconds and followed by a "clunk" as the gear engaged. Then the acceleration would push you back.
He mentioned several times "I feared no Mustang." Looking at his record, I have no doubt he did not!
Oh he mentioned he always performed a 3 point landing and take off in the FW-190. Said prop strikes were common if you did not.
Crumpp
-
Outstanding info, Crumpp.
!
-
I don't see any we, as in all us 190 pilots did so.
Milo,
It a BBS, you can't profess to understand peoples emotional states for the information posted here and those "emotioncons" are a very poor substitute for body language and eye contact.
I used "He" because I was talking to "him", not "we". He used first person because he flew the plane.
This is good stuff. What will your book be about?
In general it will be about the FW-190A and the history of the Air War concentrating on the tactical level fighter to fighter combat.
The book will concentrate primarily on the later versions of the FW-190A. The early development and early varients have already been covered well.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Niklas mentions that it took sometime before it was used in both stages. If he still reads this forum maybe he will clarify.
Hi
This topic is covered very well the last time. Just search around. There´s even info around that states that the extra boost could be used without fuel injection.
Engine development was still very fast in the last period of war, due to the pressure of enemy engine development, so docs that where published at this time may have been outdated three month later.
I said it took some time because the note from BMW seemed to be very "fresh" in my doc, so i expected some time to pass until the new clearance would see effect for the production.
niklas
-
All I did was expand on what your pilot said because you said NOTHING about what other pilots did.... LOL, you are writing a book Crumpp?:rolleyes:
-
This topic is covered very well the last time. Just search around. There´s even info around that states that the extra boost could be used without fuel injection.
Yes, thanks for helping out Niklas. Same questions keep popping up.
He never used them! The alcohol based system took almost 3 minutes to develop power.
He did use 1.58ata/1.65ata since the FW-190A8 was rated for those manifold pressures for 10 minutes. This did not require any outside "boost" system. A "rated" motor could use full manifold pressure for 10 minutes. This power is also instanteneous. Move the throttle and the pressure increases.
I don't know about the alcohol based systems, However, C3 "emergency power" added NO additional manifold pressure. It simply allowed the motor to operate at it's highest manifold pressure rating for a longer period of time.
Crumpp
-
I only read about a delay in boost with the usage of GM-1. The pipes were rather warm before the usage, so GM-1 vaporized at the beginning. It took a while until GM-1 cooled down the pipes and reached the engine in a liquid state, especially for bombers.
niklas
-
Can we confirm that early 190A8s did not have C3 injection system / Aux tank? Can we confirm that most 190A8 with Aux tank were also fitted with C3 injection?
-
I only read about a delay in boost with the usage of GM-1. The pipes were rather warm before the usage, so GM-1 vaporized at the beginning. It took a while until GM-1 cooled down the pipes and reached the engine in a liquid state, especially for bombers.
Me too, Niklas. It was defiantly NOT GM-1 he was talking about. I specifically asked him and pressed him for information on the boost systems. He spelled the name out in German for me and it seems to correspond to the EW system late war 109's had in use.
Can we confirm that early 190A8s did not have C3 injection system / Aux tank?
Yes. C3 "emergency power" was only available to Jabo-einsatz's. FW-190F,G and A models assigned to the Jabostaffel.
Around mid-production of the FW-190A8 it was approved for use above 1KM.
Can we confirm that most 190A8 with Aux tank were also fitted with C3 injection?
No I cannot. However at that exact same time that C3 "emergency power" was approved for altitudes above 1 Km, FW Bremen issued the order to include the Aux tank in delivered FW-190A8's.
Before that date the Auxillery tank was available but it had to be ordered through the Geschwader supply along with the mounting braket.
I have the polar plots from the FW-190A5 test aircraft used to test 1.58/1.65 and C3 "emergency boost" for altitudes above 1 km. It includes a power chart for the BMW-801D2 at those manifold pressures. I mailed Pyro a copy along with the "Drag data for aircraft" Focke Wulf, Bremen report.
FYI Godo,
The FW 190A has less drag throughout most of its flight envelope than the Spitfire. The Spitfires Wingtip efficiency is around .88. The FW-190A's is .87. Only in the very low speed flight realm does the Spitfire have a drag advantage and in maneuvers over about 4 G.
Crumpp
-
Hi Crump,
>I have the polar plots from the FW-190A5 test aircraft used to test 1.58/1.65 and C3 "emergency boost" for altitudes above 1 km. It includes a power chart for the BMW-801D2 at those manifold pressures.
I have been looking for this power curve for over two years. I was wondering if you are able/willing to swap it for for something I have. I have quite a number of scans for the Bf109 series as well as the DB 601/605 series of engines.
If you are interested my email is:
bandcpurcellparadisenetnz
Regards
Brian
-
He primarily TURNFOUGHT Mustangs, Yaks, and La 5's.
Let me clarify this statement. After talking with him a few more times I want to say:
He did NOT level turnfight these planes. He use a High Yo-Yo and a Low Yo-Yo to gain advantage. He would get in close and use the initial accelleration performance of the FW-190A8. Remember 1.58ata/1.65ata was a throttle setting on the FW-190A8 not a function of boost.
He said you could drop the take-off flaps and considerable tighten the turn. First he would back off the throttle, drop flaps, and then increase the throttle. When fitted with the VDM 9-12157H3 the initial accelleration of the FW-190A8 was much better than his 109G6 and would easily overcome the drag of the flaps leaving you with plenty of energy to yo-yo.
He also flew the 4 MG151's loadout.
I only read about a delay in boost with the usage of GM-1. The pipes were rather warm before the usage, so GM-1 vaporized at the beginning. It took a while until GM-1 cooled down the pipes and reached the engine in a liquid state, especially for bombers.
All the Luftwaffe boost systems took time to develop power the pilots are telling me. It took time to clear the lines.
They are also saying that boost was not used in actual combat. It was used more to:
1. Get into position to attack
2. Break Contact
During Combat the pilots used their throttle frequently. Incorrect throttle usage could "pork" the manuver.
Bud Anderson confirms this as well for the P 51D pilots. Running around at full throttle constantly was a ticket to getting shot down.
Crumpp
-
Milo drop me a line funkedup308@hotmail.com
-
Pop quiz for luftwobbles:
Who's plane is this?
(http://www.jla3.com/photos/fw190/quiz.jpg)
Flies real nice on a brushless/LiPo set up. 60 mph+ and just floats on landing.
Extra credit: Who was the pilot's rival (a real scumbag).
-
Heinz Bär
Which Rival? Welter?
Crumpp
-
Correct! It' the 8th ranking LW top gun "Pritzl's" red 13.
Gordon Gollob was his nemesis, and tried to rat him out to Goering for womanizing and drinking when the end was near. Major Bar was a fun loving guy and didn't give a hoot about the party line.
He died in '57 in a light plane accident, of all things. What an incredible life.
-
Gordon Gollob was his nemesis, and tried to rat him out to Goering for womanizing and drinking when the end was near. Major Bar was a fun loving guy and didn't give a hoot about the party line.
Yep
He had numerous rivals during his career. Bär was the top scoring NCO during the BoB and Welter was his main rival for top scoring jet ace.
Nice Model, BTW. Do they make a 3 bladed prop for those?
Crumpp
-
I could put a three-blade prop on her, but I would lose some performance and many report frequent prop breakage on landing with the three blade (this is a belly flopper).
It's an Alfa (http://www.hobby-lobby.com/alfamodels.htm) model from Czechoslovakia. All of their stuff is incredibly nice looking and sweet flying, especially this one, the Corsair and the Jug.
Mine flies like a dream and does 60mph+ full throttle on a really quiet Czech brushless motor and some lithium polymer batteries.
They are coming out with a Ki-84 in a week or so.
-
From far above:
"Oh he mentioned he always performed a 3 point landing and take off in the FW-190. Said prop strikes were common if you did not. "
The Spitfire only had 6 inches prop clearance BTW, so one had to be careful.
Nothing unique for just the 190.
I've always wondered why the allied pilots considered the 190 to be a much more dangerous foe than the 190. Look at sheer sperformance specs, say the 190A5 and the 109G2, - the 109 is better mostly and also is a better turner.
So, it leaves roll rate, gunpower and perhaps acceleration to the 190.
My feeling is however that engine power and engine durability played some part.
I am digging in a source on that, will let you know as soon as I find something.
-
I've always wondered why the allied pilots considered the 190 to be a much more dangerous foe than the 190. Look at sheer sperformance specs, say the 190A5 and the 109G2, - the 109 is better mostly and also is a better turner.
109K - One of the Fastest 109 varients. Below 6Km it is slower than the FW-190A8.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097490066_109kspeed.jpg)
Various 190's level speed.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097362018_doraspeed3.3.jpg)
At high Altitudes the 109 was superior. It worked in the same manner as the Tempest and Spitfire complemented one another. The Spitfire excelled above and the Tempest could take them on below.
Here is an exerpt from the Rechlin's tactical trials of an FW-190A2 (BMW-801C) and a Bf-109F4.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097418814_pt1ctrllforce.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097418884_pt2ctrlforce.jpg)
Crumpp
-
Crumpp, that 109 chart its a calculation (AFAIK the K4 never had GM1) without MW50, so is hardly representative of the K-4's performance.
I'm sure the Kursfurst was faster than 510km/h at SL :)
Thx for the 190 charts btw ;)
-
Crumpp, that 109 chart its a calculation (AFAIK the K4 never had GM1) without MW50, so is hardly representative of the K-4's performance.
It's not a calculation. Its a flight test. Same with the FW-190 chart I posted. It was part of several hundred comparision flights done during a 3 month period for the Ta-152 program.
Your Welcome for the chart, enjoy.
Here are some other 109 Speed graphs to compare:
Bf-109F4 - Easily left behind by the FW-190A:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097489014_109f4speeds.jpg)
Bf-109G2:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097488946_715_1094482699_spd_g2vsixlf.jpg)
There is no time that the 109 is faster than the 190 at lower altitudes. The fastest I have seen, is a 109K4 with MW-50, and it only hit just under 550Kph at sea level. Just slightly worse than the FW-190A8.
Crumpp
-
Actually, that chart belongs to the F-2
(http://www.jagdgeschwader52.com/meyer/Bf109F2_gesch.jpg)
I have seen much better numbers for the G-2 , even the finnish test at 1.3ata (and with a fixed tailwheel) shows 522km/h at SL. Same with the K-4, who definitely did more than 550 at SL. I believe that the K-4 was faster than the A-8 at ALL altitudes.
But i guess we're just gonna have to wait until someone (Isegrim? :) ) comes with the evidence :)
-
The G-2 is from Izzy. Feel free to look. Facts are that at low altitude the FW-190 was faster.
Crumpp
-
Can't recall exactly, but wasn't the above Spit IXLF a rather sorry performer.
It is the Mk IXLF in the following SL speed list:
SL speed :
Mk VIII 582 km/h
109G-2 : 530 km/h
Mk IX LF : 515 km/h
Mk IX HF 524 km/h
Note that it is slower than the high alt one.
Regards
Angus
-
Yes, the G2 chart is from Isegrim. It shows a G2 running at 1.42 ata (they were banned from using 1.42 ata until late 1943, by which time the G2 was out of service).
The Spit IX is an estimated figure for JL 165, which Isegrim has since claimed is wrong. Either the estimate is wrong, or JL 165 was simply much slower than contemporary Spit IXs.
-
oops, i mixed up the colors :D i thought the blue correspond to the G2, my bad. but what that charts prove? What was the speed at SL of the A-4?
Facts are that at low altitude the FW-190 was faster.
That's not true. Some 190 were faster than some 109s, and viceversa.
-
That's not true. Some 190 were faster than some 109s, and viceversa.
No it is true. What you see in many non-Rechlin and non-Focke Wulf flight test's is:
1. De-rated motors, which are rarely found in jagd-einsatz's and were only used as a stopgap until a rated power egg could be obtained. Fighter units could only operate a de-rated motor on a temporary basis in an airframe. Jabo's only received rated motors upon delivery of a new airframe or when a surplus of rated motors existed.
2. Jabo-einsatz's being tested and re-ballasted to simulate a fighter version. These are NOT fighters and are specialized for different ground attack roles. Comparing a ground attack version to a fighter is apples and oranges.
Here is an FW-190A3 to compare early versions.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097526348_fw190a3graph.jpg)
Crumpp
-
So there was a vast performance difference between pure fighters and jabos? Werer the Jabos quite unusable as multi role?
And this:
"1. De-rated motors, which are rarely found in jagd-einsatz's and were only used as a stopgap until a rated power egg could be obtained. Fighter units could only operate a de-rated motor on a temporary basis in an airframe. Jabo's only received rated motors upon delivery of a new airframe or when a surplus of rated motors existed. "
How common would this usage be in tattered Germany?
Maybe allright on paper, but in reality?
-
K4 with MW50 was faster on the deck than your claimed 340mph....
You dont really expect antone to belive that a 2000hp 109 was slower on the deck than a 1750hp Fw190A3...
And you know well enough that a 1600hp Fw190A2 was the same speed down low or maybe 10km/h faster than a 1300hp Bf109F4... And of course that the Bf109F4 whooped the Fw190A2 in mock fights between Gollob and a FW test pilot every time no matter who was flying which plane.
Crumpp I appreciate your enthisuasm for 190 and the new infop you bring out but I think you are incorrect here...
-
Bear in mind that Erhardt Milch hated Willy Messerchmitt....
Oh, Grunherz, source on what you said on Gordon Gollob and the 109 crew? Or some text :) :) :)
Btw, wasn't Gollob in Udets job?
An additional fact was that Milch also didn't like Udet. Just before Udet shot himself, they debated about the 190. I'll look it up and post later.
Regards
Angus
-
Originally posted by Angus
Bear in mind that Erhardt Milch hated Willy Messerchmitt.
Maybe, and definitely so before the war. But then somebody at RLM seriously hated Kurt Tank in the late thirties and during the early part of the war because of the whole Fw187 twin engine fighter and Fw190/DB603 project cancellation debacles. Both were decisions to cancel world beating performers in favor of inferior Messerchmitt products...
The Fw190A2/Bf109F4 fights were between Gollob and an FW test pilot named Heirich Beuvais, they were done at Rechlin in December 1941 so Udet was out of the picture by that time. Source is the Fw190A book by Dieter Hermann.
-
Hehe Grun....the odds and ends of Nazi Germany.......
have something to type and post.
will be back in an hour or two.
-
K4 with MW50 was faster on the deck than your claimed 340mph....
Just showing the graph. The claim was made Grun that the 109 outperformed the FW-190. At higher altitudes it did. However the 109 and 190 worked together and complimented each others strengths very much like the Tempest and the Spitfire.
You dont really expect antone to belive that a 2000hp 109 was slower on the deck than a 1750hp Fw190A3...
Yes. The 109K was optimized for higher altitude combat. Down low the factors that effect performance are different. Check Perkins and Hage. Combine with engine performance variation and yes I do. Again just posting what the flight test's say. Feel free to post any on the Bf-109 to dispute them.
Level speeds for the FW-190V5. This is without armament and ballasted. This is the plane in which the "big wing" was tested:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097530792_fw190a2-1.jpg)
Now for Gollobs tactical trials.
Here is the FW-190A2 (BMW 801C motor and restricted to 1.27ata@ 2400U/min climb and combat power; 1.32ata @ 2500U/min is a 3 min take off and emergency rating):
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097531720_fw190a2-5.jpg)
So you can see the speed development of the FW-190. It certainly did outperform the 109 down low. You have more than enough documentation to show the speed progress.
The Fw190A2/Bf109F4 fights were between Gollob and an FW test pilot named Heirich Beuvais, they were done at Rechlin in December 1941 so Udet was out of the picture by that time. Source is the Fw190A book by Dieter Hermann.
Good book. The manuverability quote comes right out of Gollobs report to the RLM from that trial. As you can see from the documentation you 1600PS is no where near correct for the power ratings of the FW-190A2 at the time. Had the BMW 801C been allowed to use 1.32ata @ 2700U/min as it later could then it would have developed more power.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe Grun....the odds and ends of Nazi Germany.......
I have sort of come to the conclusion that the whole country was essintyly psycho. This trait was responsible for all the things they did well and all the things they did poorly. Moreover I feel the two are inseperable, meaning that you probably could not have gotten them to do anything in a better way since all the stuff they did do well they did because they were crazy.
-
The 2000hp was available on the deck, with 1800hp as takeoff power.
A clean 1800hp Bf109 will be faster than an 1800hp Fw190A if they are producing the same power at altitude X, regardless of altitude.
How else do you explain that a 1600hp Fw190 is only maybe 10kmh faster than a 1300hp Bf109?
Or if you think that a 2000hp Bf109K only does 340mph on the deck how slow do you think a 1300hp Bf109F is on the deck?
Also a 2000hp 360-375mph on the deck Bf109K matches the deck performance of the 2000hp SpitXIV very well - a plane you claim is high alt optimized. Plus the Bf109 was hardly a high alt fightewr in the east..
So I find the standard 370mph area a far more likely K4 deck speed than 340 mph based on one graph...
-
Or if you think that a 2000hp Bf109K only does 340mph on the deck how slow do you think a 1300hp Bf109F is on the deck?
Re read the documents. The power is listed for the FW-190 as well as the engine restrictions. The BMW 801C2 is a 1430PS Motor at FULL THROTTLE HEIGHT which is a lot higher than sea level. If you know about power development then it is a lot lower than it's FTH power on the deck. It is not yet rated to develop the full 1600PS it could later in it's life cycle.
Or if you think that a 2000hp Bf109K only does 340mph on the deck how slow do you think a 1300hp Bf109F is on the deck?
I think they are as fast as the speed listed in the documentation Grun. Please feel free to dispute it with facts and not with supposition.
Crumpp
-
I know for a fact that DB605D with MW50 makes 2000hp on the deck. Thats a fact.
If you think that only gives Bf109 340mph on the deck then so be it. I think the chart is not showing the full picture. I can give you charts showing 550km/h for 190D9 on the deck, would yiou accept that as the performance of stock doras just based on that graph?? Oh and BTW the same source says that the D9 was 28km'h faster than Fw190A8 on the deck.. So are we to extrapolate Fw190A8 speed from that 550km/h of the Dora?
Gee making gross generalizations based on a sinbgle graph is waay fun, eh crumpp?
So no your single graph showing 340mph for the 2000hp 109K4 with MW50 proves nothing...
And also its funny, you freely quote the same Gollob/Beauvais test where it suits you and ignore the fact that significantly less powerful Bf109F4 was lots faster at alt and equally fast or only 10km/h slower than Fw190A2 at low alt...
-
If you think that only gives Bf109 340mph on the deck then so be it. I think the chart is not showing the full picture. I can give you charts showing 550km/h for 190D9 on the deck, would yiou accept that as the performance of stock doras just based on that graph??
I have several graphs of "stock" Doras as you put it. The first batch of Doras were not equipped with MW50 nor did the Jumo 213 develop near it's promised power output. That was fixed within a month. I have plenty of the graphs with the fix too.
In fact if you copied the one I posted, you have one of them too.
I do have documentation showing the Bf-109K2/R2 photo recon varient as being able to attain 580Kph at sea level under MW-50 boost. This version has the MG131's removed and is armed only with a Mk108. The camera equippment is much lighter than the cowl guns and ammo.
This is compared to the FW-190D9 fighter version with a full complement of armament could attain 612Kph at sea level under MW-50 boost.
Crumpp
-
Crump you continue beliveing that a 2000hp Bf109 only makes 340mph on the deck based on one graph.
BTW did you take that graph down?
-
BTW did you take that graph down?
Yeah I had to make room for the FW-190A2 documentation which you ignore.
Want me to put it back. It can go right next to the documents you provided!:p
Seriously I will post it again for you to compare or I will email it to you. Whichever you prefer.
Check the Bf-109G2 Flugzeug-Handbuch or the Bf-109G6's and post what it says for speeds.
Maybe Izzy can come along and provide some better documentation to show what you are claiming.
I know you have Willy Radinger and Wolfgang Otto's Messerschmitt Bf 109F-K Development, Testing, Production. Look on Page 38 second column.
Crumpp
-
Look at this again.
Izzy's 109G2 I think and a Spit VIII.
(The finest with the Merlin, not the fastest of all though)
Mk VIII 582 km/h
109G-2 : 530 km/h
Where is the 109K there and where is the 109A?
One has reports of Spit XII's outrunning 190's on the deck (Guppy is a very reliable source). The VIII was slower as far as I know.
I have also seen anecdotal data of Mossies outrunning 190's on these boards, now where was it again. Karnak?
That was also low alt as far as I remember.
Anway, back to Milch, Udet and those merry men:
What I found in Len Deighton's book, "Fighter"
(Note: there are some misconceptions in this book, but tons of interesting stuff as well)
P224:
"Milch immediately started an ambitious programme to expand the Luftwaffe to four times it's strenght..................... ............................. One of his most important decisions was to keep the Bf 109 in full production no matter how superior the Fw190 proved to be"
Looked like Milch overcame his dislike of Willy after all for rather Practical reasons, - the 109's production was rather simple and at the time could be increased very much.
From the same page:
"During the time he (Udet) was in hospital, Milch had Udet's unfortunate Chief of staff - a close friend of Udet - banished to the eastern front. And he replaced Udet's chief engineer with a man of his own choice. When Udet came out of Hospital he was upset. He clashed with Milch on the subject of fighter production. (Bf 109 versus FW 190).
Milch won the fight but diplomatically suggested that Uded go with him to Paris for a few days vacation " to straighten things out again"
Anyway, Udet commited suicide shortly after.
Some more fodder for you. Hugo Junkers, one of the most brilliant aircraft designers Germany ever had, really got destroyed by Milch as well.
Grunherz, you had some interesting thread on these boards before about the possibility of a super fast 190 (DB 603), this may perhaps shed some light on the outcome there?
Also, all, bear in mind that all the warring nations had similar "political" problems, although maybe not to the extent of Nazi Germany.
The Mosquito was for instance initally a Private venture...and the Hurricane even, was so quickly available to the British just because Sydney Camm started it's design before it was wanted....
Regards
Angus
-
I will continue beliving that a 2000hp plane that does 452mph at 22k, not a high alititude by any means, does better than 340mph on the deck. The 360 to 370+ range makes much more sense with that amount of power on the deck and that airframe. One chart isnt enough to change that view..
Also why ask me about data about planes with 1/4 less power? We arent talking about 1475hp G6, we are talking about much cleaner 2000hp K4 with a much better propeller..
Oh yea just out of curiousity how fast do you think a best case Fw190A8 should be on the deck?
-
Oh yea just out of curiousity how fast do you think a best case Fw190A8 should be on the deck?
Grun I feel as though I have struck a nerve with you. It is not my intention to belittle, downgrade, or take anything away from the Bf-109 as a fighter. I have simply posted the flight test data for some of the varients of the FW-190 and the 109. My FW-190 data is good. I have multiple original sources which agree with one another (within about 4% to 6%) and can trace the varients performance from just about begining to end.
The claim was made that based on performance alone the Bf-109 was the better fighter and was superior throughout the war. It was not and never was below around 6 Km.
Again, both fighters complimented each others strengths. The flight test data shows confirms this.
Don't know about best case. Got some documents coming from BMW, Gmbh. Stuttgart which detail the use of BMW801 series motors on the FW-190. Includes GM-1, MW and EW systems. Should be interesting.
All the FW-190A8 flight test's I have are within a few Kph of one another.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097540960_doraspeed3.3.jpg)
AS for the Mk XII's
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/dp845speed.gif
Mk VIII's
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jf934level.jpg
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit8performance-n.jpg
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit8.html
Crumpp
-
No nerve at all, just like I said, I was curious what your resreach showed to be the best case Fw190A8 deck speed to be...
So what is it with the data you presently have?
-
Grun,
The very best data I have for the FW-190A8 says 585kph on the deck at 1.58ata @ 2700U/min. It is a Rechlin test with no date on the graph. I think it is late 43 early '44 timeframe and represents a FW-190A8 without the Aux tank installed due to the weight of 4272kg.
Crumpp
-
So 585 km/h works out to 363mph for the best case 1944 Fw190A8 you have seen.
And IIRC that other chart you posted for an earlier model the Fw190A3, a 1942 model showed a speed of 354mph.
Only a 9mph difference for between a best case A8 and an A3.. That doesnt seem like much of an advance in 2 years, especially with you claiming so many modifications and so many power increses from the early models. What gives?
-
Only a 9mph difference for between a best case A8 and an A3.. That doesnt seem like much of an advance in 2 years, especially with you claiming so many modifications and so many power increses from the early models. What gives?
The FW-190A8 did not gain much performance as far as level speed goes, you are correct. The FW 190 did gain several hundred pounds and added power to compensate maintaining a similar level speed throughout the design's life. It gained less weight and just as much Horsepower over it's life cycle as the Spitfire did.
According to the pilots who flew it gained:
1. A much better zoom climb (more mass = more energy)
2. Much better manuverability and turning circle (better thrust and control surface changes) - Only a 3lb sqft wingloading increase over the FW-190A5. Look at the Spit IX/XIV. The XIV gained 5 lbs sq ft over the Mk IX and little to no power. The XIV had the same turning circle as the IX according to the RAF.
3. Much better dive and better level accelleration. (about 200 hp power gain - might be as 500hp with MW and EW boost).
All with a much better armament package over the FW-190A5.
Kurt Tanks design team actually flew the FW-190 in combat themselves as well as meeting with JG pilots on a regular basis to discuss needed design improvements. I have the minutes from several of these meeting.
Again Grunhertz, I have provided actual flight tested data to back up everything I have said reference the Bf-109 and FW-190. You have offered nothing but speculation and fandom. Please show some flight data to back up your argument that the Bf-109 was faster below 6 Km. Right now, ONLY the Bf-109K4/R2 photo recon varient matches the FW-190A speed. And it barely does that.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It's not a calculation. Its a flight test. Same with the FW-190 chart I posted. It was part of several hundred comparision flights done during a 3 month period for the Ta-152 program.
It is a calculation, that charts comes from the 109_projekt.pdf file, you could dnl from here: http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/index2.html (109G und K leistungsberechnungen/projekte-109G and K calculations/projects-)
-
I have to question the 190 chart. Afaik, there was no D-15 made, conversion from a D-14 to begin in April 1945, so where does the graph line come from?
-
Some quick back of the envelope calculations.
At 9270 lbs (60% fuel from full load weight of 9660 lbs)
Using a Cd 0 of .0265 which pretty accurate for a ETC equipped A-8.
2075 hp (2100 ps)
363 mph
Using a Cd 0 of .0230, no ETC racks, no outer guns, 7.92 mm fuselage guns, ie a clean A-3 through A-6.
2075 hp (2100 ps)
382 mph
A bit better than a Bf 109K-4 could manage on 2000 ps, 375-380 mph according to my notes.
Greg Shaw
-
It is a calculation, that charts comes from the 109_projekt.pdf file, you could dnl from here: http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/index2.html (109G und K leistungsberechnungen/projekte-109G and K calculations/projects-)
You need to read the first sheet of the report.
According to the Focke Wulf facotry report one example of an FW-190D9 was fitted with the DB603E and brought up to D-15 standards. It was subsequently test flown.
You can verify this in Dietmar Hermans FW-190 "Long Nose" under the D-15 chapter.
Crumpp
-
Some quick back of the envelope calculations.
Thanks Greg. Got a great report you might be interested in. Already sent it into HTC.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097555350_dragdatatitle.jpg)
Has some very interesting data in it. It's the drag polars. The FW-190A had less parasitic drag than the Spitfire Mk IX. It's Oswald efficiency factor was an average of .87. The Spitfires is .88 according to it's drag polars. Got the Spitfire Mk IX's drag polars as well.
Crumpp
-
Holy cow!
Your slow bellybutton Bf109K4 is without MW50.. The supposed test is done with GM1, something that was dead weight at low alt and a booster system the operational K-4 did not mount.
Not to mention all that crap is dated April 1944. At best those Bf109K4 if they existed at the time at all were rough development prototypes as were their engines...
Really man that was a dirty trick crummp, at best an early hack april 44 prototype, no MW50, god knows the sates of the engine at that time, and possibly an estimate.. Yet you arrogantly proclaim this deeply flawed data as gospel for actual service Bf109K4 performance..
And to think you got all indignant when I brought up those tests of slow prototype Doras with no MW50 as an example of why I felt your claim about the Bf109K was suspect.. Unbelivable!
No wonder you took the graphs down...
There goes your credibility buddy... Poof, gone...
And I guess you will prolly say you dont care, which is excatly the problem and it is what lead you to lie like that...
Thanks for the sources meyer! If you havent given me that source I would still be fooled Crumpp's deceptive posts.
-
Wow, did that catch fire.
Here is an error:
"Look at the Spit IX/XIV. The XIV gained 5 lbs sq ft over the Mk IX and little to no power. The XIV had the same turning circle as the IX according to the RAF. "
Little to no power? WOOOT? The gain was close to 400 hp.
The Performance gain also was considerable.
However the Performance in speed and climb are quite similar between the Spit XIV and the Spit VIII, the VIII falling short with 300 hp less, but a lot less weigh.
Hehe, look at that Spit VIII on the deck, as fast as the fastest 190.....Well, 3 kph slower is slow walking speed.
And rough 5 minutes to 20K I belive.
[TEASING MODE OFF]
-
Grun,
No dirty trick involved so quit acting like a child and throwing out accusation's of deception. I posted the best data I have.
Please find a Bf-109K production varient with the DB605L.
Here are the best graphs I could find for the 109K. They are some prototypes compared with in service models AFAIK.
Angus your absolutely correct for a post war Spit XIV at (+25 boost). However the wartime version's developed the same 2050 hp as the Merlin 66 (+25). Got a copy of the message limiting the boost AND the tactical trials were not done at (+25).
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14afdu.html
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097578892_bf109k605l.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097579204_bf-109start1.jpg)
The original claim was that the Bf-109 was always faster than the FW-190 throughout the war and at all altitudes. Below 6 Km the FW-190 is faster. The two fighters complemented each other much like the Tempest and the Spitfire. At high altitudes the 109 was the better performer. Down low the FW-190 took the lead.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097540960_doraspeed3.3.jpg)
In fact the Bf-109K is the only variant to match the FW-190A's low-level speed. Of course it's contemporary, the Dora, is much faster on the deck especially when using MW50.
Crumpp
-
WOOOT? A Merlin with 2000 hp+!!!!!!!!
Always thought they topped at 1700 hp's or so.
Anyway, the Griffon torques more,- hard to explain though.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You need to read the first sheet of the report.
Crumpp
The first sheet of the report is dated 16th August 1943. On the other hand, couple of sheets are from April 1944. It is also mentioned, that some simplifications (Rechnungsvereinfachung) in the climb calculations have been made. So the document really looks like performance estimation of Me109 (G5,G6,K4), Me209 and Me262.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The original claim was that the Bf-109 was always faster than the FW-190 throughout the war and at all altitudes.
Who said that? Actually, was you who said "109K - One of the Fastest 109 varients. Below 6Km it is slower than the FW-190A8." which is wrong, and "Facts are that at low altitude the FW-190 was faster.", wrong too.
And btw, if you don't know it, the DB 605 DC was more powerful at SL than the 605L (2000ps vs 1700ps).
-
Crump you are lying again.
Here are some facts for you.
There were NO in service Bf109K-4 in Aprill 1944 which is that date of that data. None! The plane was not even in production then.
So all those are at best rough prototypes with unfinished engines.
None of those charts show a Bf190K4 with MW50 - which is whta an in srvice Bf109K had.
NONE OF THOSE CHARTS ARE EVEN REMOTELY REPRESENTATIVE OF AN IN SERVICE BF109K4..
So I'm telling you that data is worthless and unrepresentative of an in service Bf109K4 because its dated from 1943 when no Bf109K4 existed and the plane and itse engine were still in development.
And you are basically lying if you are so adamant insaying that this data is representative of an in srvice Bf109K.
And you know it... You wouldnt accept Dora figures from rough prototypes as gospel for its speed why do you expect anyone to accept these 109K fiogures from at best rough early prototypes..
-
It is also mentioned, that some simplifications (Rechnungsvereinfachung) in the climb calculations have been made. So the document really looks like performance estimation of Me109 (G5,G6,K4), Me209 and Me262.
The first sheet details the cooling fin settings for the climb and explains the general set up of the A/C used in the test flights. I understand it to say that to simplify the climb test all A/C climbed with cooling (klappen) closed. This avoids the variations experienced by the drag and provides the most optimistic climb data. It is also a deviation from standard Rechlin test procedures to climb with cooling fins half open. This would be very important when Rechlin flew the A/C for acceptance trials.
WOOOT? A Merlin with 2000 hp+!!!!!!!!
Absolutely. The Merlin 66 @ (+25) at FTH developed 2050hp and equaled the Griffon 65.
Griffon @ (+18)
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/griffonhp_b.jpg
Merlin 66 @ (+25)
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/merlin66hpchart.jpg
Both developed very similar power equal or exceeding one another by a small margin depending on altitude.
Crumpp
-
Who said that?
Angus
There were NO in service Bf109K-4 in Aprill 1944 which is that date of that data. None! The plane was not even in production then.
No they just went from the drawing board to production in one day. Maybe you should be more familiar with some of the technical aspects of you favorite plane.
The first Bf-109K4's were signed over to the Luftwaffe in October of 1944 according to Rodeike.
And you are basically lying if you are so adamant insaying that this data is representative of an in srvice Bf109K.
1. I am not lying NOR have I claimed ANYTHING. I simply posted the data I have. I have some stuff at home I will post tonight which will lay this matter to rest.
2. If you have different, better, or more representative data PLEASE put up or shut up. POST IT!
3. I took the other charts down because the web space is limited and can only use a limited amount for posting pictures. Thanks for attempting to imply some sort of deceit, jerk.
Are you incapable of having a discussion about your favorite plane without accusations of dishonesty and being a jerk about it, Grunhertz? I seriously question your maturity and judgment when you post such crap.
First, read the post
Second, If you can't figure out number one then ASK a question.
Third, use facts to dispute NOT accusations and innuendo. You will go a lot farther and probably enjoy it.
FYI I am a big fan of the 109 and fly it often.
Crumpp
-
You are trying to pass of data of a rough prototype Bf109K with no MW50 as being representative of an in service Bf109K.
Thats simply wrong, and you know it. Especially considering how you whined when I brpought uip the piss poor performance of those dora prototypes to demonstrate the problem of posting developent data as gospel for in service planes... And dont even try this stuff about the gap between april and october, we all know how slow the inital PRODUCTION Doras were, they were just as slow as these prototype K4 - both without MW50... Yet you have us accept as gospel the prototype in develpement data for K4 perfpormace... A rpugh unfionished prototype is nothing like a refined in service machine, yoiu of all people should know that!
If you are unwilling to accept that for this 109 data then thats a big hit to your credibility...
And I was being perfectly reasonable and nicev in our disagreement until Meyer pointed me to the source data and I saw what a sham you were trying to pull with that unrepresentative prototype developet data...
But if you want a positive solution to this then I will accept a simple.
"Grun this is the best darta I have but I realize its worthless and unrepresentative data of an unfinshed rough in developent Bf109K4 with an unfinshed rough engine with no MW50 and is wholly unrepresntative oif the performance of a real in service Bf109K4"
That would be far more honest than saying what you have been so far...
-
cat fight hyperbole
-
cat fight hyperbole
You said it.
Crumpp
-
Yaaay Crummp!
From now on i will do just like you, try to pass of development prototype data as gospel for real in service planes with MW50!!
Hey Crump did you know propduction FW190D9 only does 520km/h at sea level!!
Dang, thst real slow but its true because its a chart from an early tst plane with now MW50 and an unifinsed engine.. So its fully representative of real in service fully developed planes!!!!
:rolleyes:
-
Oh, come on.
So: post under here in numbers the type, date and model of your fav 109/109 and it's SL speed :
Makes it easier
;)
-
Great questions Angus.
Sorry I missed these questions in all the fuss over nothing.
So there was a vast performance difference between pure fighters and jabos?
Yes, Angus. There is as much as 50kph difference in Jabo-einsatz's speed. The Jabo-einsatz's were heavier and much more draggy due to hard points. The weight increase not only came about from extra armour but the extra equipment (hard points/bombing controls). In short they were optimized for ground attack and not really a "fighter-bomber". The jabo-einsatz's were ground attack aircraft that might be able to defend themselves if an emergency arose. They primarily relied on escorts to defend them from allied fighters.
This is why they did not have a priority for rated engines.
Now that is not to say the FW-190A did not have true fighter-bombers. Those would found in the Jabostafflen of the Jagdgeschwaders. They were simply fighters with the ETC 501 rack and the standard equipment to operate the rack. It is very much like mounting a bomb on the spit or a P51.
How common would this usage be in tattered Germany?
I have the engine production figures. The reality is that the Luftwaffe had almost 700 crated power eggs delivered and waiting for aircraft at the end of the war. Engines and aircraft were fairly plentiful. Trained pilots to fly them were in short supply.
Maybe allright on paper, but in reality?
What you do see in reality is many of the jabo-einsatz's being converted back into jagd-einsatz's at the unit level by the end of the war. This is the case with White 1. White 1 started life as an FW-190F8. On the day she crashed, White 1 was an FW-190A8. The Grossebombenelectrik had been removed, the armour stripped back to FW-190A8 standards, hard points removed and faired over again, and a rated power egg installed. This is not only backed up by the current condition of the aircraft but by her pilot as well.
Hope that helps!
Crumpp
-
It does, Thanks.
From the Allied pilots view, the often could not tell what was what, especially in swift combat. A FW was a FW.
Much like a Spit V could be a Spit IX+25 in the eyes of a LW pilot. Not enough time and closure to spot the details who did the difference.
Now many allied planes primarily made for ground attack were used as multi-role when needed. And poor performers were sometimes assigned as ground attack just because they could hardly live on their own where they were. (I.e. P40 in the Western theater)
So, it all comes to the same pond. Use what you have for what it's best at, or not worst at, if there is a choice..