Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Grendel on March 15, 2005, 02:25:09 PM
-
Messerschmitt 109 - myths and facts
"This article and its sub sections are put together to dispell some of the persistent myths about the Messerschmitt 109 fighter. As the most ever built fighter which was the mainstay of German Luftwaffe and various other air forces, including Finnish, Spanish, Hungarian, Romanian air forces, the plane is also victim of intentional disinformation, many most persistent urban myths and just ignorance. Not having first hand information or poor understanding of the subject leads easily to absurd claims.
The attempt here is to look at the subject, Messerschmitt 109, through the eyes of the 109 pilots.
This article is primarily a collection of pilot quotes that relate to actual flying of the plane. The quotes are from interviews, articles and books. They are complemented with some additional bits about other topics. It is not a serious study - just bunch of pilot opinions that might be conflicting to each other. Pilot's comments are always "their facts". I do not guarantee 100% that the other materials are always completely correct. Errors may and most likely remain."
Examples:
General comments on Me 109
Me 109 G:
"It was very advanced and equipped with new, more sophisticated technology. Nicknamed Gustav, the 109G was well armed, but not as light as the early E and F versions. Its more powerful engine meant higher power settings whose initial climb rate sent it soaring to 18700 feet in six minutes, but at low speed the plane was difficult to handle."
- Major Gunther Rall in April 1943. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Gunther Rall, a memoir.
Me 109 G:
"Comparing the Curtiss and the Messerschmitt (109 G), which one was the more pleasant to fly ?
Well, both were pleasant each in their own way. The Curtiss was as if in your control all the time. More speed would have been necessary. The Messerschmitt had speed, she climbed well and was well-armed. That was it. Both types were good aircraft in their age."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
Me 109 G-6:
Me109 had good performance values for its time, the weapons (1 x 20 mm + 2 x 13 mm) were accurate and effective. The option for 3x20mm cannons was well suited against IL-2s. I didn't regard the swerving during take-offs as anything special. In my opinion, the accidents were caused by poor training.
- Martti Uottinen, Finnish war bomber pilot, post war fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Landing the 109
Me 109 E-4:
"I established a speed of 200 kmh to enter the downwind leg, 150 at the end of the downwind, a curving final approach aiming to reduce speed to 130 kmh halfway around, 120 kmh with 30 degreed to go to the centreline and a threshold speed of 110 kmh with a dribble of power to stabilise the rate of speed decay.
Compare this with Black 6 (109 G) where I aimed to be at 200 kmh at the end of the downwind leg and not less than 165 kmh at the threshold."
- Charlie Brown, RAF Flying Instructor, test flight of restored Me 109 E-4 WN 3579. Source: Warbirds Journal issue 50.
Me 109 G-6:
Landing was slightly problematic if the approach was straight, with slight overspeed at about 180 km/h. Landing was extremely easy and pleasing when done with shallow descending turn, as then you could see easily the landing point. You had a little throttle, speed 150-160 km/h, 145 km/h at final. You controlled the descent speed with the engine and there was no problems, the feeling was the same as with Stieglitz. If I recall correctly the Me "sits down" at 140-142 km/h.
The takeoff and landing accidents were largely result from lack of experience in training. People didn't know what to do and how to do it. As a result the plane was respected too much, and pilots were too careful. The plane carried the man, and the man didn't control his plane.
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G:
"I didn't notice any special hardships in landings."
-Jorma Karhunen, Finnish fighter ace. 36 1/2 victories, fighter squadron commander. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Diving - structural rigidity of 109 in dives
Me 109 G:
"The maximum speed not to be exceeded was 750kmh. Once I was flying above Helsinki as I received a report of Russkies in the South. There was a big Cumulus cloud on my way there but I decided to fly right through. I centered the controls and then something extraordinary happened. I must have involuntarily entered into half-roll and dive. The planes had individual handling characteristics; even though I held the turning indicator in the middle, the plane kept going faster and faster, I pulled the stick, yet the plane went into an ever steeper dive.
In the same time she started rotating, and I came out of the cloud with less than one kilometer of altitude. I started pulling the stick, nothing happened, I checked the speed, it was about 850kmh. I tried to recover the plane but the stick was as if locked and nothing happened. I broke into a sweat of agony: now I am going into the sea and cannot help it. I pulled with both hands, groaning and by and by she started recovering, she recovered more, I pulled and pulled, but the surface of the sea approached, I thought I was going to crash. I kept pulling until I saw that I had survived. The distance between me and the sea may have been five meters. I pulled up and found myself on the coast of Estonia.
If I in that situation had used the vertical trim the wings would have been broken off. A minimal trim movement has a strong effect on wings when the speed limit has been exceded. I had 100kmh overspeed! It was out of all limits.
The Messerschmitt's wings were fastened with two bolts. When I saw the construction I had thought that they are strong enough but in this case I was thinking, when are they going to break
- What about the phenomenon called "buffeting" or vibration, was there any?
No, I did not encounter it even in the 850kmh speed."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
Me 109 G:
"Me 109 had good and accurate weapons, but those were the only good points of it. To me, it's unacceptable that somebody had built a fighter plane that couldn't be dived without limits. Me109 had a dive limit of 880km/h - you weren't to exceed it or the plane would break up. Just this happened to Sgt Mäittälä. I (and Pokela) was forced to exceed this limit twice, I can't describe how it felt just to sit in the cockpit waiting, if the plane would break up. I have never gotten rid of that feeling, of being trapped."
-Heimo Lampi, Finnish fighter ace. 13 1/2 victories. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G-2/G-6:
"The Russkies never followed to a dive. Their max dive speeds were too low, I suppose. It was the same in the Continuation War, their La-5's and Yak-9's turned quickly back up. "
- How heavy did the Me controls get at different speeds?
"It got heavy, but you could use the flettner. It was nothing special, but a big help.
Once in '43, there was a Boston III above the Gulf of Finland. I went after it, and we went to clouds at 500 meters. Climbing, climbing, climbing and climbing, all the way to seven kilometers, and it was just more and more clouds. It got so dark that I lost sight. I turned back down, and saw the Russkie diving too. Speed climbed to 700 km/h. I wondered how it'd turn out. I pulled with all my strength when emerging from the clouds, then used the flettner. I was 50 meters above sea when I got it to straighten out. I was all sweaty. At that time the Me's were new to us."
- Did the roll capabilites change?
"Not so much. It got stiffer, but you still could bank."
- Were you still in full control at high speeds, like at 600-700 km/h?
"Yes. "
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä.
Full article available at the Finnish Virtual Pilots Association web site:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/
Other recent English language articles:
Martti Lehtovaara
Martti Lehtovaara was interested on aviation already at a young age. He was trained as pilot in the military pilot course #2. During the Continuation War first at Reserve Squadron 35, then as fighter pilot in Squadrons 32, 24 and 26.
"A couple of Russians spotted him and came after. Bruun called to mechanics in the tent to come and see how Cassu gets shot down. Everyone thought that's what would happen. " ...read the whole story.
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-MarttiLehtovaaraEnglish.html
Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä
Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä "began the flight business in 1936". He was one of the few who piloted the Fokker D.XXI fighter in the Winter War sorties. Subsequently Fräntilä served in Squadron 32 and was one of those who were assigned to the new Squadron 34 that was equipped with the new Me-109 fighters. After the war Fräntilä continued as an Air Force pilot, working as a flight teacher.
"Speed was essential and should never be lost in combat. Never become a cross in the sky. The Messerschmitt was exellent. You got always away when you pushed your nose down, and it then rose like an elevator. You soon had upper hand again.
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-MaunoFrantila2English.html
-
Looks like some really great stuff :)
Just remember, there are those who will come in and tell you that anecdotal pilot accounts and memories mean nothing.
It's gotta be test data numbers :)
Dan
-
How did he use the Flettner since it could not be adjusted by the pilot from the cockpit?
Many a/c survived their 'do not exceed' speed in a dive and survived. Many didn't.
I guess the many pilots who were experten who had landing accidents were not well trained.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
How did he use the Flettner since it could not be adjusted by the pilot from the cockpit?
Flettner often equals trim for the vet pilots.
-
Originally posted by Grendel
Flettner often equals trim for the vet pilots.
Flettners only eased the force required to move the rudder. The P-51 had trim tabs that doubled as 'Fletteners'. ie moving in the opposite direction to control surface direction.
-
[QOUTE]Originally posted by MiloMorai
I guess the many pilots who were experten who had landing accidents were not well trained. [/QUOTE]
They didn`t pay attention and didn`t treat the airplane with enough respect. When they thought they could go easy with it, they groundlooped, simply as that. Big mistake with such high performance planes, I could qoute examples for spitty and pony pilots for the same, what happens when they thought they could go easy behind a monster engine. Tobak described the same thing, even though he only converted to 109 in 1944, yet he never groundlooped or suffered accident- because he 'always took off with the plane as it would be the first one'. He even landed it when he was wounded from soviet cannon shells. It`s the attitude, not the training.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Flettners only eased the force required to move the rudder. The P-51 had trim tabs that doubled as 'Fletteners'. ie moving in the opposite direction to control surface direction.
That's not what Grendel said. The Pilot recounting the event is referring to elevator trim. He may have used the term 'flettner' but the clear reference is to 'trim'.
There was no manual adjustment of 'flettner' this should be clue 1.
Clue 2 would be in bold:
- How heavy did the Me controls get at different speeds?[/i]
"It got heavy, but you could use the flettner. It was nothing special, but a big help.
Once in '43, there was a Boston III above the Gulf of Finland. I went after it, and we went to clouds at 500 meters. Climbing, climbing, climbing and climbing, all the way to seven kilometers, and it was just more and more clouds. It got so dark that I lost sight. I turned back down, and saw the Russkie diving too. Speed climbed to 700 km/h. I wondered how it'd turn out. I pulled with all my strength when emerging from the clouds, then used the flettner. I was 50 meters above sea when I got it to straighten out. I was all sweaty. At that time the Me's were new to us."
If you read the first section on that page it says:
This article is primarily a collection of pilot quotes that relate to actual flying of the plane. The quotes are from interviews, articles and books. They are complemented with some additional bits about other topics. It is not a serious study - just bunch of pilot opinions that might be conflicting to each other. Pilot's comments are always "their facts". I do not guarantee 100% that the other materials are always completely correct. Errors may and most likely remain, but you can send corrections.
Is it that hard to figure out what the guy meant? Or is this another one of your nit picking word games?
-
Very nice thread Grendel :)
I'll try to dig up some more, Have to translate from German though.
-
What are you babbling about again Wotan? :(
Just as many here think the Flettner was a trim tab so did the confused pilot in his quote.
All I did was point out that the Flettner was NOT a trimming devise. :p
-
Originally posted by Angus
Very nice thread Grendel :)
I'll try to dig up some more, Have to translate from German though.
Angus,
I'd be very grateful. As you can see from the quotes, any comment that relates to the plane is cool. Flying, systems, takeoff, landing, tactics, ground ability, guns, whatever. Positive, neutral or negative.
And don't worry, most of the stuff on that page HAS been translated so you're in good company ;-)
-
RGR that Grendel!
I have some points on startup and Taxiing, it was 109D or 109E, not sure which.
Of course I have that stuff on the slats ond so on, but let's keep the flames where they already are.
I have Quill's notes on flying the 109, and then something about the quirks of the 109. (Very blurry document, but rather interesting)
Then I have some more direct access with a 109 vet, but that's just me & the phone, so nothing documented.
Unless.....I can somehow record it. Possible with software like skype perhaps???
Anyway, best of luck, hope there is some stuff coming in, and from Finland, it is always a pleasure ;)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
What are you babbling about again Wotan? :(
Just as many here think the Flettner was a trim tab so did the confused pilot in his quote.
All I did was point out that the Flettner was NOT a trimming devise. :p
It's only confusing to you. You are the only who brought it up on this forum. No asked you to explain what flettner was.
It's completely clear in the context used by the person recounting the event that he was referring to elevator trim.
Not only that there's a disclaimer at the beginning of the article that specifically points out that some of the info (that would include terminology) maybe factually or technically inaccurate.
Grendel even told you:
Flettner often equals trim for the vet pilots.
It doesn't get more clear then that.
All you did was act out your typical little ***** self nit picking over the obvious. You weren't explaining anything to anybody...
-
Angus, sounds excellent. Just translate all you got, that will be great help :)
If you know a 109 vet pilot, that's amazing resource. You really should sit down for one whole day and talk about everything. His career, training, combat, mates, squadron, airfields, everything. You can go through our history site for some topics and questions too. Invite him to your place and if you dont have a recorder, use a mic and your pc for recording. Just a get long mic cable , get the mic in between you and start talking :) There's good software for recording audio directly to your harddisk, I use Cooledit but that's commercial. Maybe there's a downloadble demo available.
You can reach me directly at jkauppin@jmp.fi as well.
Thanks in advance!
-
Thx Grendel.
I can most often reach him on the phone, he lives really far away.
We did meet though and spend a day together, and I hope to be able to visit him in the autumn.
I am looking for the know-how to be able to record from the telephone. Will have a better look at skype, if I call him through Skype it goes through my PC, wire that to my old tape recorder (My old stereo and record player, tihi) and I should be able to tape it to cassette, then change it into Waw over something like cooledit.
Somewhere I think I have some software from an old soundcard, - probably have a waw editor in there.
If not, I'll have to boot up my old 486 with SB pro, hehe.
Well, will be digging in it as soon as I subscribe to Skype.
Thx for the encouragement anyway, - there really are too few of these guys left.
As a sidenote, if I get this devilry to work, I'll be calling all the ones I can get, hehe.
-
To be honest, the article is simply horrible! What ever Gersdorff may say, turbocharging is far more efficient than mechanical supercharger plus exhaust thrust. It is interesting to note that the advocates of the exhaust thust theory usually come from countries and manufacturers who failed to develop workable turbochargers.
The article has other hilarious gems as well. For example, the author (Mikkolainen) claims with a straight face that German and Finnish pilots had more muscle power than Allied pilots! And he is to be taken seriously? It should be mentioned here that Finnish Armed Forces physical training has allways emphasized endurance over strength.
Unfortunately this article might harm Kurfurst´s far better article´s credibility.
-
Originally posted by pasoleati
The article has other hilarious gems as well. For example, the author (Mikkolainen) claims with a straight face that German and Finnish pilots had more muscle power than Allied pilots! And he is to be taken seriously?
[/B]
Oh, does it?
- So why the Allied test pilots have so different opinion? Simple. They were not used to the plane.
- ... they were perhaps partly compensated by the emphasis put on physical exercise in the Luftwaffe and FinAF. Numerous accounts by pilots of those forces mention the amount of exercise and sports conducted by the aircrew. Given that every flight was practically a work out session, the Me 109 pilots flying it regularly were markedly more adapted to its requirements than a pilot who was only flying limited number of test sorties.
Please don't twist what has been written in the article. Besides, that was not written by Markus.
And yes, I stand by my theory. I've discussed with IRL Bf 109 pilots about their lives overall, and debated about this theory with fellow aviation enthusiasts, and the more we've discussed about the theory the more assured I've became about its validity. If somebody explains it in more believable way I'm ready to change my opinion, but so far this theory seems to hold water. I wouldn't go hand wrestle with somebody doing heavy physical work, if I'm a "white collar" worker myself and not adapted to my competitor's field.
Besides, as you can see yourself, the article is primarily about the pilot quotes, and it is not related to Kurfurst's article. This is primarily about anecdotes, Kurfurst is all technical. I tought that is obvious? I must say that I'm pretty satisfied, if a critical reader only found two nitpicks in the secondary content of the article, making up some 0,01 % of the wholeness.
-
I think it`s a very nice collection and serves the purpose of mythbusting well.. after all people who dislike the 109 usually operate with a few anecdotal evidence - now this collection has TONs of first hand account of what the REAL 109 pilots thought. It`s really hard to claim the messer was a complete cr@p with all these overwhelming amount of opionion of serious men being there. I`ll certainly list the URL for it later on, if that`s ok.
"What ever Gersdorff may say, turbocharging is far more efficient than mechanical supercharger plus exhaust thrust. "
Yes for thrust, but there is a HUGE cost in drag and weight. Just look at the P-47 and P-38. All those expensive airframes, giant turbos, was performance any better than simple mechanical s/c fighters? No. Turbocharging is a very advanced method, it just doesnt pay out for fighters.
-
Hi Pasolati,
>The article has other hilarious gems as well.
Hm, I seem to have missed that article. Could you please re-post the link? :-)
>What ever Gersdorff may say, turbocharging is far more efficient than mechanical supercharger plus exhaust thrust.
Von Gersdorff quotes the DVL studies by von der Nüll, including a diagram comparing turbo-supercharged and jet-exhaust equipped engines in motive power and fuel consumption at 6 km and 12 km altitude.
At 6 km, the turbo-supercharger is more effective at about 400 km/h TAS and slower, and more efficient at at speeds up to 500 - 600 km/h TAS.
At 12 km, the turbo-supercharger is more efficient at any speed, and more effective at speeds up to 900 km/h TAS at least :-)
According to von Gersdorff, the main reason why German manufacturers didn't come up with a series production turbo-supercharger was the problem of creating high-temperature, high-speed turbines with the materials available to war-time Germany.
Additionally, most German engineers who had specialized in turbine development were employed in jet engine development, leaving turbo-supercharger development a bit under-staffed. (Insufficient engineering capacity was a major problem in all branches of the German aviation industry.)
>It is interesting to note that the advocates of the exhaust thust theory usually come from countries and manufacturers who failed to develop workable turbochargers.
Well, the contribution of exhaust thrust to total motive power often is forgotten (or at least underestimated), but the German aviation industry definitely appreciated the advantages of the turbo-supercharger - BMW, Daimler-Benz and Hirth-DVL were seriously trying to get them into series production.
(Junkers actually had them in production, but only for the Jumo 205/207 Diesel engines which were running with a relatively cool exhaust so the materials weren't a serious problem.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I think it`s a very nice collection and serves the purpose of mythbusting well.. after all people who dislike the 109 usually operate with a few anecdotal evidence - now this collection has TONs of first hand account of what the REAL 109 pilots thought. It`s really hard to claim the messer was a complete cr@p with all these overwhelming amount of opionion of serious men being there. I`ll certainly list the URL for it later on, if that`s ok.
"What ever Gersdorff may say, turbocharging is far more efficient than mechanical supercharger plus exhaust thrust. "
Yes for thrust, but there is a HUGE cost in drag and weight. Just look at the P-47 and P-38. All those expensive airframes, giant turbos, was performance any better than simple mechanical s/c fighters? No. Turbocharging is a very advanced method, it just doesnt pay out for fighters.
Kurfurst, do me a favor. Compare wing area/installed power and you will see the 109 wasn´t so superior in aerodynamics.
We don´t really have a valid comparison here as comparing a short range aircraft (little fuel needed) with long range aircraft (plenty of fuel needed) is not valid. For example, the original turbocharger installation in the XP-39 was very compact.
What is more, none of the series produced aircraft with turbos had pure turbocharging, i.e. without mechanical stage.
And, the best mechanical superchargers (i.e. those two-stage designs fitted to the R-2800 and capable of the highest pressure ratios) were definitely as large as their turbine driven counterparts.
Finally, a P-47D with ADI with fuel to provide the same range as that of the 109G/K does not require any larger operating field despite the latter´s "advanced high lift devices" and better power/weight...
-
Originally posted by Grendel
And yes, I stand by my theory. I've discussed with IRL Bf 109 pilots about their lives overall, and debated about this theory with fellow aviation enthusiasts, and the more we've discussed about the theory the more assured I've became about its validity.
Generally people believe the things which they want to believe.
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
Generally people believe the things which they want to believe.
That's true, I admit that. I'd like to say, neverthless, that I *have* changed my mind on things when presented with superior argument and I hope to keep my mind open yet for few decades, until Alzheimer or something else comes to rot my mind :)
-
"Turbocharging is a very advanced method, it just doesnt pay out for fighters."
I think it does and US AirForces had advantage of them in THEIR strategic situation.
However, I don't see what turbo technology would have given Germans in their situation else than more drain to their already limited resources? And why focus on turbo technology at all when jet technology was already there and could give unsurpassed performance in high alt?
Considering the materials needed in jet engines I think it is logical that turbo technology was given only slight interest in Germany.
-C+
-
The turbocharger was invented in 1911 in Switzerland, and it was in limited use in aircraft engines in WWI and in racing engines in the 1920s and '30s. It's not like it was a new technology in WWII.
-
These things weren't really useful until the metalurgy was sorted out in the mid 1930s. Issues of bearings & controls took some time too.
-Blogs
Originally posted by GScholz
The turbocharger was invented in 1911 in Switzerland, and it was in limited use in aircraft engines in WWI and in racing engines in the 1920s and '30s. It's not like it was a new technology in WWII.
-
For very high altitude interceptors a turbocharger is preferable to a supercharger because of its flexibility. However for the 0-30k altitude regime the supercharger was deemed most suitable.
The P-38 was designed as a high altitude interceptor. They used a blower in the P-51.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The turbocharger was invented in 1911 in Switzerland, and it was in limited use in aircraft engines in WWI and in racing engines in the 1920s and '30s. It's not like it was a new technology in WWII.
Wrong not 1911 :)
It was breveted in 1902 by Louis Renault (studies by Auguste Rateau 1901) and used by Auguste Rateau in 1916/1917
Some SPAD and Bréguet XIV used it.
-
Didn't know that. Thanks :)
-
These were "Roots" blowers yes?
-Blogs
Originally posted by straffo
Wrong not 1911 :)
It was breveted in 1902 by Louis Renault (studies by Auguste Rateau 1901) and used by Auguste Rateau in 1916/1917
Some SPAD and Bréguet XIV used it.
-
You will need to explain because I don't now how to translate "root" in this context :(
-
Originally posted by straffo
You will need to explain because I don't now how to translate "root" in this context :(
Google search
"The principle of the Roots compressor/blower was discovered by two brothers in the mid 1800's. They were Philander H. and Francis M. Roots, joint owners of a woollen mill in Connersville Indiana."
http://www.cashflo.co.uk/Roots.html
-
There are some nice discussions of the types and when they were developed at
http://www.turbochargedpower.com/History.htm
http://www.lextreme.com/turbo.html
The main difference is that a Roots type supercharger does not actually compress the air in the blower, that's done in the manifold. In a centrifugal supercharger, the compression happens in the blower itself. The former tends to heat the air more than the latter, but the latter is not as good for engines operated with frequent changes in RPM (e.g. cars).
-blogs
Originally posted by straffo
You will need to explain because I don't now how to translate "root" in this context :(
-
Well sorry I can't help
A engine for me is a thing that start when I turn a key or I press a button :D
I'm completly incompetent in this area :)
-
edit: Sorry, didn't read enough before replying. Ignore.
Roots compressor has two profiled vanes rotating very close to each other.
Mechanical compressor of a WW2 a/c and turbosupercharged ones have nearly similar intake blower which sucks the air in from the center and uses centrifugal force to compress the air before it enters the intake manifold. The difference is where the force to drive the intake blower is taken. In mechanical it is taken from camshaft and in turbo it is taken from a turbine rotated by exhaust pressure.
These older types which are used e.g. in Merlin engines are manufactured for automobiles too by Rotrex and several other manufacturers.
The speciality of DB is the hydraulic clutch which lets the supercharger and camshaft to rotate at different speeds giving optimal boost from sea level to altitude. Of course in some altitude the intake turbine starts to lose effectiveness rapidly as is evident in many a/c speed charts.
-C+
edit:
From Lextreme: "Then came World War II in 1939, and the Allied forces had an ace up their sleeve in the form of the supercharged Spitfire fighter planes and B-29 SuperFortress bomber. These supercharged planes seemed almost unaffected by the altitude to the delight of Allied pilots and soldiers."
:D
-
This is a quote from Arthur Feidler, a 325th Ace that flew the P-51 (Mayfair #35). This is a quote from an email I got from him. The question was P-51 vs. 109 and 190
I am sure that some of the opposition would have some question as to my answers but in general I believe all but the best German aces would agree with my answers.
In short we did everything better than the Me-109 or the FW-190. Toward the end of the war, they introduced newer models with larger engines and sometimes the answer is not that clear. The TA-152 (Varient of FW-190) could fly higher and faster than the P-51 at most higher altitudes but they got very few into the war.
But for the average Me-109 and FW 190 that we encountered, we were faster at all altitudes, we climbed better (some claim this is not true), and we flew far higher than the FW-190 and about to the same height as a Me-109 (41,??? feet). The long nosed FW-190 is a question mark as several P-51 pilots stated it ran away from them at various altitudes. I do not know BUT when 4 of us bounced 40 of them at 30,000 feet, we did everything better than they did. Outturned, outsped and outclimbed them. We destroyed 4 of them and they got none of us. I even have the names of the ones we killed. The Czechs found the aircraft (3 FW 190Ds and 1 FW 190A-8)with the pilots still in them. Eventually I found myself alone with them (25 or so) and after several minutes, it started getting too hot for me and I broke for home. Some 190Ds (12 - 15??) chased me to the Alps but could not catch me.
Initially when we got the P-51, they would stay and fight with us but then it got to the point that when we bounced them, even if they outnumbered us, they would normally break for the deck and we had to chase, catch, and destroy them.
If Hitler had allowed the Me-262 to be used from the beginning as a fighter rather than a fighter-bomber, the situation could have become much more complicated.
As I have said before, the quality of the pilot had a great deal to do with the outcome of the encounter. I recall one Luftwaffe pilot who admitted the Spitfire could outturn the 109 but then added that no Spit ever outturned him. It would seem to me that the area where the 109 was better, was in its ability to fly at a lower airspeed than we could and climb very well. With the 190, it took a lot of punishment, had a high rate of roll, and could climb at a very steep attitude which if we followed brought us down too far below our best climb speed. Four of our guys reported such an incident in which the FW-190s were able to stay ahead of our birds and each time we would raise our nose to take a shot at them, our bird would stall. An interesting tactic.
-
Hi Stream,
>But for the average Me-109 and FW 190 that we encountered, we were faster at all altitudes, we climbed better (some claim this is not true)
Well, a Mustang wouldn't outclimb a Me 109 at full power, but I believe he's actually saying "no Me 109 ever outclimbed me" in the sense of the Me 109 vs. Spitfire comparison he quotes. As he also mentions that the Luftwaffe fighters were very cautious, I'd say they probably felt that flying near the escorts at best climb speed was not cautious enough :-)
>The long nosed FW-190 is a question mark as several P-51 pilots stated it ran away from them at various altitudes. I do not know BUT when 4 of us bounced 40 of them at 30,000 feet, we did everything better than they did. Outturned, outsped and outclimbed them.
That's exactly what one should expect - the D-9 was only good at up to 20000 ft, the P-51 was markedly superior at 30000 ft.
Interesting that an Allied pilot shares the opinion that the D-9 should be expected to be a good high-altitude fighter - I had thought that was a Luftwaffe misconception resulting from its use as high cover for the even less high-altitude capable Fw 190 :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Henning... I have something to show you... if you can, email me
ColonelStream14(at)virtualcheckertails.com