Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: mw on March 30, 2005, 02:38:04 PM
-
Hello:
I've been researching engine settings/limitations on late model Me 109s. Recently I've found some interesting documents bearing on the subject, see my findings at:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html
Regards,
Mike
-
Greetings!
I have a blurry copy of a 109 Flight test, 109G5 to be precise, from Augsburg, dec 1943.
Exhaust pressure seems to peak out at 1.42, intake 1.3.
Which one is the common in use?
Anyway, I have the specs of performance, as well as something that really boggled me:
"Um den noch nicht eingelaufenen motor zu schonen, wurde erst ab etwa 6 km höhe mit kampfleistung (n = 2600 u/min, pb = 1.3 ata) gestiegen.
So, they didn't want to roast the not fully flown in engine?
Anyway, boggles me that they are still putting out reports of 1.3 ata tests in 1944.
I'll be back with the flight data if you like. Was just graphing this together with a Spitfire from 6 months before for fun, hehe.
Maybe you have this test already?
Best regards
Angus
-
Again, a lot of things are wrong in this article. Many of these have been poitned out before, ie. the mixing of K-6 charts labeled as K-4 etc, maximum performance of the K-4 drawn with lines that are barely visible, flawed translation of original documents with a complete different meaning in than the original. The 1.8ata climb chart are also wrong and show performance WITHOUT MW-50... I don`t understand why these errors are left in the article, if they are known and pointed out already, and they were shown to you. The details are in my article if you missed them.
Another thing is representing the fact that the DB 605 DB`s max boost was 1.8ata... how is this supposed to prove the DB 6605 DC [/U] was not cleared for 1.98ata? Why was the DC table cut off from the document...? The DB was never supposed to run on more than 1.8ata with B-4 + MW, the DC could either run on 1.8 or 1.98ata with C-3 + MW. Mixing the two can be misleading.
I have compiled an article correcting in point,and it can be read here. It will be soon updated if further errors are found in the article on SP.
http://www.kurfurst.atw.hu/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm
In view of the written orders by the OKL, the statement that there`s no evidence to 1.98ata being used by operational units can hardly be sustained. I am looking forward that you point out this fact in your article.
Acording to a classified order dated 20th March 1945 from the LW high command (OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45) :
"The development in the equipment status of day fighter units is based on the standard types laid down in the emergency program and anticipates :
for Bf 109 units : K-4
for FW 190 units : D-9, D-12 with changeover to Ta 152 H and C
The arrival of the Ta 152 and it`s assignment to FW 190 units will result in an improvement in the equipment status of these units.
Essentially Bf 109 development will conclude with the K-4 an will inevitably lead to the conversion of Bf 109 units - those not scheduled for disbandment - to TL (jet fighters). Homogeneity of the equipment is to be strived for, combination of similar types is temporary and to be accepted based on levels of production."
The proposed changes to units equipped with Bf 109 were as follows :
OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45
No. Unit Present type Convert to Notes
1. III./ JG 1 Bf 109 G-10 He 162 (April/May) -
2. II. / JG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
3. III. / JG 3 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
4. III. / JG 4 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
5. IV. / JG 4 Bf 109 K-4 K-4 -
6. III. / JG 5 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
7. IV. / JG 5 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
8. III. / JG 6 Bf 109 G-14/AS K-4 when deliveries permit -
9. II. / JG 11 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
10. I. / JG 27 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
11. II. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
12. III. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
13. I. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
14. III. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
15. IV. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
16. II. / JG 52 Bf 109 G-14/U4 K-4 when deliveries permit -
17. III. / JG 52 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
18. II. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
19. III. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
20. IV. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
21. I. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-14/U4 K-4 when deliveries permit -
22. II. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
23. III. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
24. III. / JG 300 Bf 109 G-10/R6 via K-4 to Me 262 planned, deadline
25. IV. / JG 300 Bf 109 G-10/R6 via K-4 to Me 262 -
26. I. / KG(J) 6 Bf 109 G-10/R6 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
27. II. / KG(J) 6 Bf 109 K-4 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
30. I. / KG(J) 27 Bf 109 G-10/R6 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
31. I. / KG(J) 55 Bf 109 G-10/R6 - -
32. II. / KG(J) 55 Bf 109 K-4 - to industrial defense
33. Ist Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
34. IInd Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
35. IIIrd Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
Source : Fritz X. Kober - Jakob Maria Mathmann : The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Vol.2. Schiffer Publishing, 1996.
This order, apart from ordering 90% of the existing 109 units to convert to the Bf 109 K-4 as soon as deliveries permit, also notes in relation of I./JG 27, III./JG 27, III./JG 53, IV./JG 53 to increase the maximum boost pressures to 1,98 ata manifold pressure. It is not known if and how many units had converted to 1,98ata before that order came, but it should be noted these units, in particular III./JG 27, III./JG 53 and IV./JG 53 were the major users of the Bf 109 K-4 in the Lufwaffe.
I might add that in view of these errors, these articles that concentrate on positive things for the Spits, and only the - sometimes unsupported - negatives of the 109s effect very negatively the credibility of your site in the flight communities.
-
What engine had the 109G4 ?
I've read somewhere DB601 but I find it strange and I don't want to risk my life doing a speleologic expedition in my library :)
-
G-4 ? DB 605 A-1 with 1550 PS peak output at altitude. Only a few G-0 prototypes were fitted with DB 601E in 1941.
Like G-1, G-2, G-3, G-5, G-6. It could be boosted with GM-1, that increased speed by 120 (!!) km/h, 1500m above rated altitude.
Sadly mentioning the use of GM-1 by Bf 109 types is also absent from Mr. Williams article, though I miss objectiveness a lot more.
-
Hi Angus: I take it you are referring to "Leisitungen Me 109 G mit DB 605 AS". Nice trials report. I think you are also referring to Ladedruck and Gebläsedruck? Ladedruck is equivalent to boost pressure or manifold pressure, in this case 1.3 ata for the 109 Gs. Gripen can explain Gebläsedruck better than me ;) Maybe he can chime in or you can send him a note. I was just reading yesterday a report that mentioned breaking in a DB 605 D for 15 hours before going to emergency power. In this particular case the engine blew anyway ;)
-
Thank Kurfürst ,I had something like that in my head but was unsure.
-
What gives, it seems we are really honoured in another thread where Mike spreads his seed. It happens that a real world flight mechanic, currently working on the restored Bf 109 G-10s engine made some comment on this article. I hope it would be interesting to post, and that he don`t mind :
"Hi Mike. Thanks for posting the info. An important thing to note is the shortage of information about the performance of the 109's at the Sonndernotleistung power setting. Some of your graphs are confused with many lines of lower-power setting performance for the 109's against max-performance for the Spit. It is also important to note that the availability of a full 10min @ Sonndernotleistung per use was a big advantage! Combat climbs and long periods of fighting at full power were possible with MW.
Finally, beware of misinterpreting details on the late DB power settings. Quite often (because of the multiple settings available) graphs and text will refer to motors set for 1.98 or 1.8 ata, when the actual performance being described is at a lower power setting.
SM "
If you visit LEMB, be sure to read schwarze mann`s post on piston engines, this man is a wealth of knowladge on them.
Angie,
Geblasedruck is the pressure in the supercharger itself, usually somewhat higher than specificed,which is then cut back to the proper pressure.
Mike,
your site is really excellent when it comes to Spitfires. Look what I just found about the Griffon engines reliability :
.....2.3 Engine details and relevant limitations. The tests were commenced with a Griffon engine, number 1650 fitted. This engine failed before the tests were completed and the number of the replacement Griffon 61, was 16680. The following details apply to both engines :-
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/la187.html
-
So, when referring to the boost, are you referring to the lower or the higher figure?
BTW, is there some reliable data about when what partucular ata pressure was cleared for common use?
For it still baffles me that 1.3 is put as a max on a test plane in january 1944.
Oh, you might be able to actually see it from the performance.
ok, here goes:
109G5 werkno 26108 SL RR, engine DB 605 AS-0
ladedruck 1,3, geblasedruck 1,42
SL speed 315 mph, radiators closed.
10000ft 363
16000ft same
27200ft 406....full throttle height
34500ft 391
36850ft 351
39700 feet 332 mph, - ceiling.
It caught my eye, that they did not want to run the motor at higher setting in order not to overstrain it (German:Schonen).
Anyway, does anyone here have TAS to IAS formula (or a calculator), and also how to convert ata to the allied scale????
THX in advance
;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, does anyone here have TAS to IAS formula (or a calculator), and also how to convert ata to the allied scale????
THX in advance
;)
I don't remember the formula for TAS to IAS conversions off the top of my head. But for MAP conversions here you go.
ATA to Inches Hg
ATA * 28.96 = Inches Hg
+PSI to Inches Hg
(PSI * 2.04) + 29.92 = Inches Hg
Inches Hg to +PSI
(Inches HG - 29.92) / 2.04 = +PSI
Greg Shaw
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst Angie ,
Geblasedruck is the pressure in the supercharger itself, usually somewhat higher than specificed,which is then cut back to the proper pressure.
LOL, you are real hoot, crying about people using BarbI. :rolleyes:
...........
What relevence does a Griffon 61 have since the Griffon 65 was the main engine used for the XIV.
It also should be noted that LA187 was the first Mk21, coming off the production line in 27-1-44. The test you linked to was between March and July 1945.
Now lets look at the units you claim were using 1.98, dispite the fuel shortage Germany had, and that Fw190A units could not operate without C3 fuel.
These numbers are for April 9 1945 only a couple of weeks after the date you give.
I./JG 27 had 29 'on hand' but only 13 flyable.
III./JG 27 it was 19 - 15
III./JG 53 it was 40 - 24
IV./JG 53 it was 54 - 27
total is 141 - 79
LOL, you moan about only 7 squadrons of Spit XIVs, even though there was more, which would be fully equiped.
Further you like to quote this:
The above given performances are certainly going to be reached with well-built serial production machines.
Yet, from a German document:
It makes no sense to increase the power output of the engine when on the other side the plane quality is decreasing dramatically
It is a dream that the a/c could reach the performance numbers for the test a/c.
-
Though for an early G-6, it would apply to later 109s.
Bf 109 written by Robert Michulec and published by AJ-Press (#43) - GM 1 on Bf 109G-6.:
p. 38-39:
Idea of changing GM1 installation appeared in August 1943 and introduced one large tank mounted vertically behind pilot's cockpit and fueled by one intake. Works started in Erla factory which co-operated with E-Stelle Rechlin since end of August. Calculations shown that tank installed behind third rib will move centre of mass about 30%. It was very troublesome and final report created in mid of October 1943 in E-Stelle Rechlin said that using this solution in combat is impossible because such equipped plane is useless in dogfight. Even when tank was filled with only 80 litres of liquid, centre of mass was moved about 26,1% and plane should be piloted by well trained pilot.
-
This is for the later G-6s, I am not even sure it speaks of the final version of the GM-1 installment, that become G-6/U2, and some equipment was removed to restore to Center of Gravity to cure the very problem that Milo pointed out about calculations on the prototypes. This plane used a simplified system for GM-1, an UNpressurized, heavy insulated tank mounted behind the pilot.
Earlier 109s used a different system, the GM-1 was mounted in light pressurized LUTZ bottles in the right wing (G-1 and G-3 had this standard, but G-2 and G-4 could be also retrofitted). It was also utilized by the 109 F-4/Z. With GM-1, max. speed was boosted by 120 km/h, making the maximum speed of the Bf 109G well over 700 km/h at altitude, making it the world`s fastest high altitude fighter when it appeared in 1942 - and it remained as such for a good while.
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, when referring to the boost, are you referring to the lower or the higher figure?
[/B]
BTW, is there some reliable data about when what partucular ata pressure was cleared for common use?
For it still baffles me that 1.3 is put as a max on a test plane in january 1944.
It depends on, there could be many reasons, some brit test also tested below-max powers, too.
Oh, you might be able to actually see it from the performance.
ok, here goes:
109G5 werkno 26108 SL RR, engine DB 605 AS-0
ladedruck 1,3, geblasedruck 1,42
SL speed 315 mph, radiators closed.
Engine RPM would be more helpful (2600 would mean 1.3ata Kampfleistung, 2800 would mean 1.42ata Notleistung boost), but the above shows that on the tested plane the manifold pressure was 1.3ata, while before regulated into the engine, the supercharger itself worked it up to 1.42ata. It`s fairly logical, and the same on almost all engines. Even on the DB w. hydraulic clutch s/c, slightly higher pressure was developed, than it was simply regulated down to the proper pressure. Simple, it`s easy to get less pressure from a given supercharger performance to get constant, proper boost even in view of slight variations during operation, but you cannot get the proper pressure if it`s just as much or even less... consider it a 'extra allowance' factor, it probably also made the given engine less sensitive to the results of wear, missettings, production tolerances etc.
The given SL speed of 315 mph is what the official german datasheets give for G-6/AS at 1.3ata btw.
It caught my eye, that they did not want to run the motor at higher setting in order not to overstrain it (German:Schonen).
That`s standard practice with new motors, a 'break-in' is done before full power is used. Same as on new cars.
Anyway, does anyone here have TAS to IAS formula (or a calculator), and also how to convert ata to the allied scale????
Well 1 ata is 1 kg/cm2, which you can convert to imperial units. The British boost is relative above(+) or under the normal air pressure (1ata)
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
What gives, it seems we are really honoured in another thread where Mike spreads his seed. It happens that a real world flight mechanic, currently working on the restored Bf 109 G-10s engine made some comment on this article. I hope it would be interesting to post, and that he don`t mind :
"Hi Mike. Thanks for posting the info. An important thing to note is the shortage of information about the performance of the 109's at the Sonndernotleistung power setting. Some of your graphs are confused with many lines of lower-power setting performance for the 109's against max-performance for the Spit. It is also important to note that the availability of a full 10min @ Sonndernotleistung per use was a big advantage! Combat climbs and long periods of fighting at full power were possible with MW.
Finally, beware of misinterpreting details on the late DB power settings. Quite often (because of the multiple settings available) graphs and text will refer to motors set for 1.98 or 1.8 ata, when the actual performance being described is at a lower power setting.
SM "
If you visit LEMB, be sure to read schwarze mann`s post on piston engines, this man is a wealth of knowladge on them.
schwarze-man also said this:
On the thorny subject of the B/C motor availability I can only comment as a "nuts and bolts" DB specialist-not as a "historian": The official Daimler-Benz manual for the DB u. DC was already in its third issue by 1 dez '44. My feeling is that DB produced both the types from around late autumn. This would see them in airframes that winter. The arguments from Rechlin about being bypassed on testing at 1.98ata would seem to indicate that 1.98 (DC/ASC) motors had been issued already and they were peeved not to be in the loop! I suspect that the 1.8ata (B4) motors were the great majority. Finally, it is not suprising that these engines suffered short-lives, they were hurriedly built and doubtless handled with less than the high standard of care such high performance motors require for a reasonable life-span.
SM
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
This is for the later G-6s, I am not even sure it speaks of the final version of the GM-1 installment, that become G-6/U2, and some equipment was removed to restore to Center of Gravity to cure the very problem that Milo pointed out about calculations on the prototypes. This plane used a simplified system for GM-1, an UNpressurized, heavy insulated tank mounted behind the pilot.
Earlier 109s used a different system, the GM-1 was mounted in light pressurized LUTZ bottles in the right wing (G-1 and G-3 had this standard, but G-2 and G-4 could be also retrofitted). It was also utilized by the 109 F-4/Z. With GM-1, max. speed was boosted by 120 km/h, making the maximum speed of the Bf 109G well over 700 km/h at altitude, making it the world`s fastest high altitude fighter when it appeared in 1942 - and it remained as such for a good while.
What was removed. A weight I have for a full GM1 system is 195kg/434lb.
There was only 50 G-3s produced.
The only reference I can find on the G-1 with GM-1 is in Prien/Rodeike 109 book which says only the last 80 as lightened high altitude a/c were built. In addition to deletion of the pilot's back armour and the equipment associated with the long range tank, this included an unprotected metal fuel tank and GM-1.
167 G-1s were built.
-
Indeed Milo, there were hundreds of 109Gs built with built-in GM-1 systems:
unknown? E-7/Z
599 F-4/Z
167 G-1s
50 G-3s
324 G-6/U2
Ca 1100+ aircraft with GM-1. A number of G-2s and G-4s also used the system.
Radinger/Otto`s 109F-K says on page 19, for F-4/Z that : "the fluid was contained in either eight so-called LUTZ bottles or in two circular tanks. Weight of the fluid was either 34 or 42 kg. Weight of the total system was 46 and 75 kg."
As for the TBO time of the late DB 605 Ds, here`s what the DB/DC Motorenkarte says :
After each day's flying.
The fuel and oil pipes on the motor are all checked for security and leaks.
The throttle controls are checked.
A carefull check of the ignition harness and sparkplug performance is emphasised for MW motors. Basically, it says that piston damage will occur if the ignition system is not maintained in top condition.
After 12.5 operating hours
The manifoldpressure sensing pipes are cleaned
The coolant pump gland is greased
Oil in the supercharger control-space is drained
After 25 operating hours
The 12.5-hour checks are repeated
Oil and fuel filters are cleaned
Sparkplugs are removed, cleaned and tested
Engine controls are checked and oiled
Propellor is checked for fit and adjustment
A compression test is to be performed
The injectionpump and the supercharger mounting bolts are to be checked for tightness
After 50 operating hours
TEILÜBERHOLUNG (Partial overhaul)
The 12,5 and 25 hr checks are to be repeated
The program calls for a partial overhaul
All components are checked secure fit and function
The starter is checked for correct function
The no. of operating hours for a major overhaul (Grunduberholung) is not noted in the Motorenkarte, but was probably 100 hours.
The anecdotal sources are also of interest :
"I will always stand for the DB engines and German throughness. Generally speaking they were well above avarage and when I had a full running DB 605 on brake test bench in Liberec delegations even from abroad were coming to see it. If they were aircraft experts (and most of them were) they were amazed what a piece of machinery the Germans did create. The RR Merlin was a miscarriage in comparison with the DB, both in design and workmanship."
"Construction of the DB engines were excellent, every detail was considered throughly. To show the difference, when we worked with the other engines our hands were like those of butchers - all blood from the sratches, but when we worked with a DB we had the hands of surgeons... The assembly required a lot of attention - every relevant screw was numbered and destined for a particular place of assembly. Torque wrenches were not used, but screw strain was measured with micron accuracy, the screws were tightened according to one man`s feeling, they were not allowed to overstreched nor loosen but had to be tighten from the very beginning... Don`t believe stories of communist`s sabotage invented by writers - the work was done thorougly till the end of the war."
- Jaroslav Prchal. Came to Avia on February 2, 1944 from Bata`s School of Work to finish his apprenticeship. In the course of time he worked his way up to the brake test bench, where only the most experienced employees were allowed to work. 1
"... It`s a nice feeling, and I like my new plane as well. It`s the 'Blue 11', as a blue no.11 was painted on the fuselage. According to our mechanics, these machines require an engine change after 30 to 40 hours of operation. Of course nowadays it is hard to push the plane around for 30 hours. No practice flights, every take off means a combat sortie - and it is not that simple spending 30 hours in combat without ever bailing out, or making a belly landing. In 30 hours, you can die, get wounded or taken captive. A sortie usually lasts 50 to 60 minutes."
Tobak Tibor : Pumák földön-égen, pg. 220. ISBN 963 85799 1 9
Lt. Tobak was Bf 109 G-10 pilot at this time with the 101st Fighter Regiment.
-
My great uncle spent 1200 hrs in the air during ww2. Included there were approx. 500 hrs of combat sorties, Spitfires and P51.
Never was there any engine problem.
Cirkumstances were of all sorts. He flew dozens of missions without the grouncrew touching the aircraft!
I remember Rall mentioning that the DB had a short life and that (after flying a P51) he envied the allies of their robust engine quality.......
oops...a bait :D
-
Well Tobak spent 1000+ hours in the 109 alone, but he never had an engine problem either. Only once, his droptank failed to load and jettison, that`s all..
Well do you have an official TBO time for the Merlin?
What I read in Spitfires, Thunderbolts and Warm beer that they changed the radial of the P-47 on every 80 hours or so.
Also, spark plugs had to be replaced after 7-8 hours of operation on the P-51, that practically every sortie.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Indeed Milo, there were hundreds of 109Gs built with built-in GM-1 systems:
unknown? E-7/Z
599 F-4/Z
167 G-1s
50 G-3s
324 G-6/U2
Ca 1100+ aircraft with GM-1. A number of G-2s and G-4s also used the system.
Radinger/Otto`s 109F-K says on page 19, for F-4/Z that : "the fluid was contained in either eight so-called LUTZ bottles or in two circular tanks. Weight of the fluid was either 34 or 42 kg. Weight of the total system was 46 and 75 kg."
That weight I stated was for the fuselage tank GM-1 system. The empty weight was 60kg/134lb. Not much 'boost juice' in the wing system.
Only ~50% of the G-1s had GM-1 and they were unprotected.
So only 324 G-6s out of how many G-6s produced? That is less than 1%.
Only ~ 1/3 of F-4 production had GM-1 coming from 2 batches > WNF > 544 and Erla > 55.
Are you saying all these GM-1 a/c were in service at one time and they suffered no losses?
Well that statement of German engines must have been early in the war for you must have missed this or was it just ignore?
"Finally, it is not suprising that these engines suffered short-lives, they were hurriedly built and doubtless handled with less than the high standard of care such high performance motors require for a reasonable life-span."
Rather prudent to change the plugs in the P-51 since they spent 75% of their time over enemy territory.
-
"Only ~50% of the G-1s had GM-1 and they were unprotected. "
Nope, butch says all G-1s and G-3s had built in GM-1 system.
Some of the G-1s were lightened to serve as ultra-high perfromance interceptors. Photorecce planes couldnt shoot back...
Germans produced their own lightened photerecces, the 109G-2/R2s, w/o armor and guns, but with cameras and GM-1. I wonder how they could intercept these planes at 700+ kph.
The best high altitude Spit, the IXHF could do about 670kph, and only a handful of those were built.
Prien Rodeike also notes 'the use of GM-1 was widespread, resulting the G-6/U2".
Well that statement of German engines must have been early in the war for you must have missed this or was it just ignore?
Well Jaroslav Prchal came to Avia on February 2, 1944 from Bata`s School of Work to finish his apprenticeship, it`s only after that he worked on DBs until the end of the war.
Tobak converted to the Bf 109 in the spring of 1944 as well, so both the statements are for the late war German engines.
Are you saying all these GM-1 a/c were in service at one time and they suffered no losses?
One has to be very stupid to conclude this from my post.
Rather prudent to change the plugs in the P-51 since they spent 75% of their time over enemy territory.
Indeed it`s a prudent thing as the engines would otherwise fail. 7-8 hours of spark plug life does not compare well with 50 hours of spark plug life in German engines with MW50. Appearantly the powerplant lifespan problems not only beset the Germans alone.
-
changing plugs is almost as easy as refuelling.
But piston rings and main bearings,,,,that's some bigger bit.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Well Tobak spent 1000+ hours in the 109 alone, but he never had an engine problem either. Only once, his droptank failed to load and jettison, that`s all..
Well do you have an official TBO time for the Merlin?
What I read in Spitfires, Thunderbolts and Warm beer that they changed the radial of the P-47 on every 80 hours or so.
Also, spark plugs had to be replaced after 7-8 hours of operation on the P-51, that practically every sortie.
Well, Merlin TBO for late war engine 300 hrs in single engined fighters, Allison V-1710 late war TBO, 480 hours.
As for the 80 hrs for the R-2800, I guess they (book authors) had too much beer since standard B-series engines was test run several times for 100 hrs non stop at 2800 hp (i.e. higher than authorized WER for the B-series).
In Finnish AF service the DB 605 was hard pressed to reach 100 hrs TBO, this despite the Finnish G-2s being limited for the 1.3 ata power setting.
And as you quote from the JaPO book, do also quote those examples where the engines (605D) are replaced after 20-30 hrs of running.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
"Only ~50% of the G-1s had GM-1 and they were unprotected. "
Nope, butch says all G-1s and G-3s had built in GM-1 system.
Not what P&R says.
Some of the G-1s were lightened to serve as ultra-high perfromance interceptors. Photorecce planes couldnt shoot back...
Germans produced their own lightened photerecces, the 109G-2/R2s, w/o armor and guns, but with cameras and GM-1.
I already said that, 80 to be exact.
Prien Rodeike also notes 'the use of GM-1 was widespread, resulting the G-6/U2".
Yet you say only 324 where made. How can 324 be widespread out of the 12,000 or so G-6s made?
Well that statement of German engines must have been early in the war for you must have missed this or was it just ignore?
Well Jaroslav Prchal came to Avia on February 2, 1944 from Bata`s School of Work to finish his apprenticeship, it`s only after that he worked on DBs until the end of the war.
Tobak converted to the Bf 109 in the spring of 1944 as well, so both the statements are for the late war German engines.
Late war as in late 1944 and 1945.
"Are you saying all these GM-1 a/c were in service at one time and they suffered no losses?"
One has to be very stupid to conclude this from my post.
:eek: If you gave monthly usage numbers it would be better.
"Rather prudent to change the plugs in the P-51 since they spent 75% of their time over enemy territory."
Indeed it`s a prudent thing as the engines would otherwise fail. 7-8 hours of spark plug life does not compare well with 50 hours of spark plug life in German engines with MW50. Appearantly the powerplant lifespan problems not only beset the Germans alone.
As usual you see what you want to see and ignore the reason why.
-
So, according to Paseolati, what Rall complained about regarding engine wear seems to be right.
I remember how he put it. He said that after only a couple of flights on a new engine, one could easily turn the prop, while on the p51 it remained stiff after quite a long service.
If this fits, the high speed 109's so often quoted were a rare sight.
-
What did Rall say exactly?
niklas
-
Originally posted by pasoleati
Well, Merlin TBO for late war engine 300 hrs in single engined fighters, Allison V-1710 late war TBO, 480 hours.
Care to post a source for this?
Robert Grinsell`s work has to say this on Merlin TBO time :
"The P-51s engine had an overhaul and replacement time of 200 hours, but this was rarely met due to the heavy combat flying of P-51 groups. "
As for the 80 hrs for the R-2800, I guess they (book authors) had too much beer since standard B-series engines was test run several times for 100 hrs non stop at 2800 hp (i.e. higher than authorized WER for the B-series).
Obviously, the author who flew the P-47 for dozens of missions has no idea what the actual replacement time of the R-2800.
I wonder what Angie has to say on that, he usually places anecdotal evidence on the top, well, or maybe he just does that in selected cases.
And as you quote from the JaPO book, do also quote those examples where the engines (605D) are replaced after 20-30 hrs of running.
Sorry if I hit a nerve pasolati about the TBO times. You can`t seem to bear anything was comparable to the Merlin it seems.
As the Japo book 20-30 hours, I wonder how could you miss Tobak`s statement that the new DB 605Ds of his G-10 had to be replaced after 30-40 hours of operation, which I even highligted in bold.... hard to miss.
Now that on TBO times. I see that our wonderfully balanced article of SpitPartisan site has been updated.
That means, the qoute from butch2k where he stated 1.98ata was cleared in Feb 1945 , and that it was quite certainly put into service was removed. It appears that butch2k is no longer a noted authority on Bf 109s in Mike`s eyes. And of course, 1.98ata performance curves were also removed, the now only existing curves for the 109K-6, the heaviest version (3600 kg vs. 3362kg of the K-4), running at the lowest boost setting.
LOL, that site is a joke.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
LOL, that site is a joke.
What is a joke, is you. You do like to use it for Spitfire reference material, don't you? :eek:
You gnash your teeth and wail about MW, yet you post a graph like this:
(http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forums/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=263)
You accuse MW of using a light colored line for a K-4, yet you do the same thing with the Spit XIV @ 18lb boost with a barely visible line.:rolleyes: You don't include any graph line for a Spit XIV @ 21lb boost. You include a K-4 line with an engine that was never fitted.:eek: You show a home made graph that has a K-4 @ 1.98, yet you have never produced any flight test document to prove what you have on your home made graph is indeed true.
Who is the one being the deceitful partisan Barbarossa Isegrim?
No truer words have been said,
"Frankly I can`t imagine how can one spend so much time of research just to make hated plane look bad, when he could do something useful with it... :rolleyes:"
Put into practice your own words. :aok
-
Kurfürst, source for the 300 h TBP for later war Merlin is RRHT book "Merlin Perspective", page 40. The 480 hrs figure is based on Dan Whitney´s Vee´s for Victory. I will check the exact page later tonight.
I am not suggesting the Merlin was a super engine, but it was far better than the DB 605. The latter did have excellent fuel system plus the excellent supercharger drive, but otherwise there were obviosuly too many basic design deficiencies (Merlin´s worst basic design fault was the valve rocker design, i.e. it should have had rollers). For example, most complaints quoted in the JaPO book refer to burnt pistons. I can never understand why the folks at DB chose dry liner construction as it severely hampered heat transfer properties from the piston crown to cylinder walls and finally to coolant. I.e. it is well indicative that e.g. Herrman´s books contain no references to piston problems in the Jumo 213 so the state of German alloys cannot be blamed on this. And the DB is the only major WW Two v-12 liquid cooled engine with dry liners.
This problem was certainly made worse by DB´s decision to obtain high IMEP by adopting high compression ratio. By going to 8.3/8.5:1 in the 605D they pretty well ensured that the peak pressure and thus peak temperature (since the volume can be assumed as relatively constant) was very high, while Junkers and RR adopted low CR giving lower peak p and T for the same IMEP.
One possible means to combat piston crown scorching would have been to direct additional oil cooling flow to the pistons. This could have been best done by mounting crancase (as e.g. Wright did in the R-1820-H) oil jets spraying oil into piston crowns. This would have of course required larger oil cooler, but the effect on piston life would have been considerable.
JaPo book also mentions some crankpin bearing problems. Again, DB should have copied Jumo´s end oil feed scheme (as Merlin 100 srs and the Griffon had) where all crankshaft and crankpin oil is fed to thru hollow crankshaft. This ensures good oil supply to bearings even at lower oil pressures and low oil pressure seems to have been a problem DB never solved.
All in all, DB´s attitude to the problems with the 605 reming me of Wright´s attitude towards R-3350 problems: cheap fixes were tried when the root cause (in 605´s case: high CR, dry liners, oil feed) should have been investigated and vigorously dealt with.
-
Data on page 332 in Dan Whitney´s book indicates that all V-1710s were authorized in 1944 for 480 hrs TBO, with 1000 hrs allowed in special cases, whatever the latter are. Anyway, 480 hrs TBO is something that no German WW Two aero engine even dreamed of. Even lower the "tuned" Fafnirs in the Do 17 couldn´t come close.
-
Originally posted by pasoleati
Kurfürst, source for the 300 h TBP for later war Merlin is RRHT book "Merlin Perspective", page 40. The 480 hrs figure is based on Dan Whitney´s Vee´s for Victory. I will check the exact page later tonight.
[/B]
Paseolati, it`s very interesting how much TBO was written in paper, but virtually all sources indicate that NONE of the ww2 aero engines ever fullfilled those paper specs... so what are we comparing, paper specs of the Merlin to practical specs of the DB?
The qoute I showed you that neither Merlins lived up to their expected TBO time, and in fact schwarze mann showed some actual number stating 60% of the Merlins never managed to operate until their given TBO time, whatever high it was, it was not achieved in practice. Soviet veterans also tell of the Merlin not being any special in this regard.
Frankly I don`t see much, if any difference between the Merlin and the DB 605. Specs seem to be 200-300 hours for each type. When you really want to compare like with the like, a specific TBO for Merlin of the 2000 HP range should be compared to the DB 605D`s TBO, isn`t it? It doesn`t make any sense to me make a comparison between an early war low powered engine with half the power and load, and a late war one.
I am not suggesting the Merlin was a super engine, but it was far better than the DB 605.
Frankly, I have never seen much underlining this claim. The DB was a better wartime engine for practical purposes imho. It managed to give a steady power output at all altitudes, and eventually even with a single stage blower it had MUCH better altitude output. The altitude performance of the 109/Spit speak for themselves. It could be changed and maintainced quickly and easily, it was compact, and not a massively overcomplicated piece like the Merlin with extreme boosts, complex systems like two staged superchargers, intercoolers, high-pressurized coolant system and extremely bad fuel economy that basically meant that any plane that mounted had to carry huge amounts of fuel to get a useful operational range. When inspection time came, then what, the whole engine was swapped with a new one in 15 mins, no effect on operational levels, and THAT IS what counts in practice.
BTW, you mention the oil pressure specs for the DB were low, but I just checked and found that they were effectively the same as the Junker engines. I guess you mixed up something (max/min pressure?).
All in all, I cannot agree with you, but you made some very good and interesting points.
-
Thanks to your good buddy SkyChimp Barbarrosa Isegrim some
8th AF average flight and overhaul times:
1945 1st quarter
V-1650
flying hours: 302
labor hours: 251
V-1710
flying hours: 362
labor hours: 134
R-2800
flying hours: 580
labor hours: 147
1945 2nd quarter
V-1650
flying hours: 200
labor hours: 259
V-1710
flying hours: 387
labor hours: 153
R-2800
flying hours: 500
labor hours: 241
edit: removed tbo
-
Milo, the data is also on Whitney. And MMH/FH isn´t really comparable to TBO.
But, I will be replying in full later. In fact, I already did, but somehow this SOB board logged me out while I was typing so the effort was fruitless. Fu**! At this stage I can only say that the minimum oil pressure at 2600 rpm for the 605 is 2.6 kg/sq.cm, while Jumo 211F/J´s figure at the same rpm is 5.5 atü. And the 605 does also have pressurized cooling system, Kurfürst!
And K, your fuel consumption claim is pretty far off the mark. Will provide details later.
-
Lol, paseolati has the stuff!!!
Anyway, Barbi:
"I wonder what Angie has to say on that, he usually places anecdotal evidence on the top, well, or maybe he just does that in selected cases. "
This was regarding the P47 right, - P&W.
Okay, what the pilots said, they loved the robust ENGINE!!!
-
pasoleati, right.:o
-
Well, I don't know even if the supercharger gear of the DBs was a good design; large parts of the advantages of the hydraulic coupling were wasted due speed controll system and oil cooling was a problem. In addition throttle system and intake manifolds were not so good (the throttle system was redesigned for the last models but probably none reached service).
gripen
-
Do you refer to the fact that the boost pressure was not only regulated by the throttle, but a separate boost valve as well? In the 605A the blower drive had two pumps. One supplied oil to the coupling all the time while the other was partially aneroid controlled. Up to 2.1 km altitude the second pump supplied only cooling oil to the coupling. Starting from 2.1 km the oil supply to the coupling itself increased until at 5.7 km all oil was supplied to the coupling. Basically it means that at low altitude considerable power was wasted on driving the impeller when the variably coupling could have allowed full throttle operation, if properly executed.
-
Originally posted by pasoleati
At this stage I can only say that the minimum oil pressure at 2600 rpm for the 605 is 2.6 kg/sq.cm, while Jumo 211F/J´s figure at the same rpm is 5.5 atü.
Why do you think is it a problem that the minimum oil pressure that the DB could sustain is lower value than the Jumo?
And the 605 does also have pressurized cooling system, Kurfürst[/B]
Yes most ww2 fighter coolant systems had, however the Merlin went extreme on pressurized system, making it more vulnerable to coolant leaks than others.
And K, your fuel consumption claim is pretty far off the mark. Will provide details later. [/B]
I am most positive it`s not. Compare the DB with the Merlin at a similiar power output, and you will see that it consumes 30-50% more fuel to get the same output.
Ie. you can compare the the Merlin 66 at +25lbs boost, it developed ca. 1940-2000 HP this way, with a fuel consumption of 197 imp. gallons per hour, or 895 lit/h.
At +18, the engine developed 1680 HP at SL, at 150 gallons/h... 681 lit/h.
The contemporary DB 605D, operating at 1.98ata and developing 2000PS (ca 1970 HP) had a fuel consumption of 650 lit/hour, 37.5% more efficient than the Merlin. The 605AM developed 1800 PS at 1.7ata, at 560 liter per hour consumption.
"No replacement for displacement" - running on such extreme boost as the Merlin did to compansate for it probably lead to very bad thermal effiency and such huge consumption. Just look at the range of 109s/Spits.
Starting from 2.1 km the oil supply to the coupling itself increased until at 5.7 km all oil was supplied to the coupling. Basically it means that at low altitude considerable power was wasted on driving the impeller when the variably coupling could have allowed full throttle operation, if properly executed.
That would require another variable speed for the 1st gear, making the whole system extremely complex and prone to mishaps. It didn`t worth it. At SL the DB 605A-1 developed 1475 PS, at 2.1km 1550 PS. The difference is from the loss of fixed 1st speed, and it`s only 75 PS, even less on later models, 30-40 PS or so. On the 601s, 10-20 PS maybe....
Why bother to complicate things, when the possible gain is a minimum amount of power at very narrow - and of little practical combat use - altitude range.
Well, I don't know even if the supercharger gear of the DBs was a good design; large parts of the advantages of the hydraulic coupling were wasted due speed controll system and oil cooling was a problem.
:eek: Try to be honest for once, you know that the coupling`s heating problems were solved with the 601 family already. Besides, if it wasn`t any good, was there any better system (Jumos would be strong candidates, though)?
The Merlin looses like what, up to 200-250!!! HP :eek: between MS and FS gear, because it`s just a orthodox fixed gear supercharger system that just throws power out of the window on a whole 11 000 ft altitude range... certainly Daimler Benz would be mad to go on that road, when it had a system that could save 95% of this loss..
In addition throttle system and intake manifolds were not so good (the throttle system was redesigned for the last models but probably none reached service).
Intake manifolds were not so good? Because? The DB 60x series intake manifold was used on tenthousends of planes and even the FW 190D and TA 152 used practically the same design.
The system relied on the same principle as the Mustang`s radiator scoop, ie. pushing the intake away from the fuselage to minimize surface turbulance and drag. It was also very good being very close to the s/c itself, just 30 cm or so route for the air to make inside, internal losses were minimized. Far better than on the Merlin, when the air was sucked in on the chin, creating turbulance on the whole fuselage already, and loosing much effiency as it had to be lead through all under the engine in a 2m+ long ducting to the supercharger.
-
Well, as far as I know, where it comes to the fuel consumption, the Spit I and the 109E had almost identical range, be it time or kilometers. If anything, early Spits seem to have ventured further in their missions. Calculate and post at will, but this seems to stick quite well.
And, for what it's worth, I still remember Rall being sour on the engine durability, - late war. The bottom line from the pilot's end was that the engine did not last very well, - starting to lose power very early in the service life.
Since I didn't take notes about it, it will just stay ... as an anecdote. But I will ask anyway, and maybe get an explanation about what was meant there.
My theory is still this.
DB could be boosted up to god-knows-what ATA, with service life falling down very rapidly. Late war Germany also had troubles with maintenance and materials as well as fuels, so up-juicing would not always be that practical.
So, cutting it short, AFAIK Barbi's numbers of performance of this or that ATA seem to be on the line, the question remains how common was it's application in RL, and what was the output of the engine after "raping" it a couple of times.
FYI, A Spit I was already being run to some 3000 hp in 1939....
(hope I remember that one correctly, - can dig it up)
-
pasoleati,
Jepulis, in addition between the first FTH and second FTH (or a bit below second FTH) the speed of the supercharger is controlled still only by the aneroid. So the supercharger never operated at optimal speed below the second FTH and faster the plane went the worse was the efficiency of the supercharger (below 2nd FTH).
Originally posted by Kurfürst
:eek: Try to be honest for once, you know that the coupling`s heating problems were solved with the 601 family already.
Well, as pasoleati noted they had to use the second oil pump all the time for cooling, not very efficient solution.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
The Merlin looses like what, up to 200-250!!! HP
Efficiency wise the fixed gear system is better below the 1st FTH and above 2nd FTH. Between these variable speed system is better but the marginal is not very large, less than 100hp in the maximum case.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Intake manifolds were not so good? Because? The DB 60x series intake manifold was used on tenthousends of planes and even the FW 190D and TA 152 used practically the same design.
The reason for the different compression ratios in the cylinder banks was simply not so good intake manifold system, small pipes and valves etc. after supercharger. The Jumo 213 was throttled with much better system.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
The system relied on the same principle as the Must...
Intake manifolds are between the supercharger and the cylinders or do I use wrong terminology?
gripen
-
Is this more dishonesty by Barbarosa Isegrim?
The DB605L @ 1.75ata, 2800rpm SuNot @ SL for 1700PS had a consumption 520l/h PLUS 150l/h of MW50. So the total consumption was 670l/h or 147 Imp gal/h.
I am most positive it`s not. Compare the DB with the Merlin at a similiar power output, and you will see that it consumes 30-50% more fuel to get the same output.
Ie. you can compare the the Merlin 66 at +25lbs boost, it developed ca. 1940-2000 HP this way, with a fuel consumption of 197 imp. gallons per hour, or 895 lit/h.
At +18, the engine developed 1680 HP at SL, at 150 gallons/h... 681 lit/h.
The contemporary DB 605D, operating at 1.98ata and developing 2000PS (ca 1970 HP) had a fuel consumption of 650 lit/hour, 37.5% more efficient than the Merlin. The 605AM developed 1800 PS at 1.7ata, at 560 liter per hour consumption.
Almost the same consumption numbers.:eek:
How very nice of him to forget that MW50 was needed to get that 2000PS @ 1.98.:rolleyes: If 150l/h of MW50 is required, and it could be more, the DB605D's total consumption to get that 2000PS is now at least 800l/h.
More dishonesty, the DB605AM which required 150l/h of MW50. So now its consumption is 710l/h.
http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/DB605_varianten.pdf
-
Originally posted by gripen
pasoleati,
Jepulis, in addition between the first FTH and second FTH (or a bit below second FTH) the speed of the supercharger is controlled still only by the aneroid. So the supercharger never operated at optimal speed below the second FTH and faster the plane went the worse was the efficiency of the supercharger (below 2nd FTH).
[/B]
Funny, blowing a baloon again. Most DB curves show the effect for faster airspeeds, yet NONE show increasing loss between MS and FS. I`d like to see something that actually underline your postition.
Originally posted by gripen
Well, as pasoleati noted they had to use the second oil pump all the time for cooling, not very efficient solution.
[/B]
pasoleati didn`t say such, you put the word into his mouth, he said just that the second oil pump, which`s flow controlled to 2nd speed, ALSO provided some cooling as well. Typical gripen riff-raff.
Efficiency wise the fixed gear system is better below the 1st FTH and above 2nd FTH. Between these variable speed system is better but the marginal is not very large, less than 100hp in the maximum case.
[/B]
One has to look on a Merlin and DB power curve to see the actual difference.
ad 1 : Between MS and FS Gear
A fixed gear system like the Merlin wasted like up to 250 HP between 1st and 2nd FTH.A variable gear system like the DB`s wasted only up to 50 HP between 1st and 2nd FTH.
These are actual figures, and taken from Merlin 66 and DB605A power curves.
ad 2 : Below MS and above FS.
Gripen tries to make an excuse for the Merlin`s fixed gear s/c by pointing to the 'advantage' it held over hydraulic clutch system; a usual arguement among spitdweebs, but it`s only sand in the eye. Hydraulic clutches come with some slip, ca. 3.5% in the case of the DB. This leads to some power loss, so the comment is technically correct.
The trick is failing to mention that this power loss is negligable, with the largest DB supercharger with twice the capacity of the ordinary DB 605 it only amounted a peak of 16 HP... which translates to about -8 HP lost because of slip on most DBs. WOW. DB was really stupid, giving up this enormous 8 horsepower for +200 horspower gained between the 1st and 2nd speed, at the most common combat altitudes.
To translate Gripens nice words into common, the DB`s technology of course, did not give advantage, as it was 'not very large power gain' between FS and MS (+200 HP compared to the Merlin), but came with losses (a whole ca. -8 HP) above and below FS and MS. :rolleyes:
The reason for the different compression ratios in the cylinder banks was simply not so good intake manifold system, small pipes and valves etc. after supercharger.
[/B]
Oh of course, how could we forget, it`s simple as always, any design feature of the DB is because it`s so bad, hear oh hear Gripen`s judgement!
It`s seems gripen never heard of the reason why the DB was designed with assymetric compression ratios. This feature is used by some high-tech engines even today, to smoothen the running. A rather elegant solution.
But what am I arguing with gripen, he posts such every time, how was this and that bad and the other excellent, trouble is, we never see anything to appear behind the statements. It`s just GripenWorld.
Milo you are extremely convincing. Keep up the show.
-
Personal attack
Last warning
-
I think this show displayed some of your qualities rather than mine. :D
-
Kurfürst, the second pump pumped ALL of its output to ccol the coupling between sea level and 2.1 km. However, this is inevitable in such coupling so here DB need not be blamed. However, the intake piping is an entirely different thing. With the DB design, there was allways restriction in the intake piping up to FTH at even 1.42 ata. To get best out of the variable coupling, the slippage should have been directly controlled by the throttle lever with aneroid assited altitude compensation. This would have allowed deleting the second throttle plate and it would have also allowed unresticted air flow at all settings above 1.0 ata.
-
Kurfürst, please tell me how Merlin´s pressurized cooling went to "extremes"? Comparing operating data (i.e. coolant temps and flows), this claim cannot simply be backed up.
And please tell me which other V-12 aircraft engines have had different CRs on the two banks? I am afraid none. Actually, to be precise, which other engines with fork-and-blade conrods did that? Radials have slightly different CR in the cyls due to the conrod arrangement, as do V engines with articulated rods.
If the DB did that to "smooth the running", boy they screwed up the basic design if such Heath Robinson methods were required!.
IMHO the strongest theory on this is the oil seepage theory suggested by former German wartime engine designer Dr. Max Bentele.
-
Kurfürst, have you taken into account that sfc is calculated in g/hp/hr? German C3 weighed some 10-15% more per litre than the Allied 100/150 did (C3 data from fischer-tropsc archive).
Speaking of high boost, you don´t obviously understand anything about this.
An example:
Engine A: a naturally aspirated engine has its CR raised from 5 to 8. BMEP (and thus power) rose 10%, sfc improved by 18%, but the peak pressure (which defines mechanical stresses and detonation limit) rose by 63%.
Engine B. CR=5, but a supercharger is added providing 50% increase in MAP (i.e. 1.5 ata). SFC and the eak pressure remained the same (thus both operated on the same PN fuel) but the BMEP (and thus power) rose by no less than 54%! Can there be more convincing evidence to prove the stupidity of DB???
-
Non-responsive
-
Originally posted by pasoleati
Kurfürst, please tell me how Merlin´s pressurized cooling went to "extremes"? Comparing operating data (i.e. coolant temps and flows), this claim cannot simply be backed up.
I am sorry, but it`s exactly the operating data that underlines this... ie. coolant temps. Ie. Jane`s on the Merlin 61 : "This pressurizing of the system raising the boling point of the coolant and permits the use of smaller radiators. The maximum permissable coolant temp by this means is raised to 135 Celsius."
In comparison DB only used slight pressurization, as evident that the boiling temp was only 115 in that system. Only a sidenote that while the RR design method would allow neat radiators, Supermarine was 'successfull' completely scr*wing that advantage up, and mounting by far the WORST radiators ever on a ww2 airplane.
And please tell me which other V-12 aircraft engines have had different CRs on the two banks? I am afraid none.[/B]
Paseolati, I am afraid I cannot comment in this that it`s barely convincing if you don`t know why DB used this design feature, which was followed in all DB 601s, 605s, 603s etc. Tell me why they kept in the whole line if it was so bad, it`s just hard to believe that the leading engineers of one of the world`s largest aero engine company were simply out of their mind as you suggest. The reason for different CR is not yet fully explained, however couple of good threads were on it in the LEMB and the Lair. Such feature could be to counter propeller torque as well.
Kurfürst, have you taken into account that sfc is calculated in g/hp/hr? German C3 weighed some 10-15% more per litre than the Allied 100/150 did (C3 data from fischer-tropsc archive).[/B]
Still that would unaccount for the rest 20-30-40% higher specific consumption of the Merlins. Plus, the same trend is show with the lighter B-4, which is 10% lighter per little than C-3, thus weighting just as much as allied fuels.. yet, still less consumption. Ie. B-4 running DB 605A developed a max of 1550 PS, consuming 460 lit/h, contemporary Merlin 61 developed 1565 HP and cosumed 130 igph or 590 lit/hour... 28% more than the DB 605.
What was the spefic weight of Allied 100 and 150 grade fuel anyway?
Just dig up some numbers yourself and that`s the same you will find in every single Merlin consumed on avarage 30% more than a DB on the same power.
Imho R-R tried to simple development way to get easily large powers out of the engine fast (keeping the same small engine and just increasing MAP) but they felt the increasing disadvantages in the long term and gradually put themselves into disadvantage. DB`s design way was the harder way, but they moved early on to bigger displacement, direct injection, and this yield them increasing dividients as MAP and CR was gradually increased, with no such disadvantages.
-
Ahemm, Barbi.
First this:
"the world`s largest aero engine company " = DB
Rubbish. the 109 = the world's most produced fighter aircraft.
But looking deeper into it, you'll find out that the biggest manufacturers of aero engines would be the US, the Brits, and the USSR.
Wright cyclone, P&W, RR etc.
Remember that the RR powered the Spits (20.000), the Hurricane (13000), the mossie (x*2), the Lancaster (x*4), the Firefly, the Fulmar, the P51,,,,want more???
That's from RR vastly more than the DB
Secondly, - of fuel consumption.
Here are some facts:
Early Spitfires had equal or same fuel loads as the 109's. Operational range as well as time in the air seems to be roughly equal, or better.
The DB is an engine with a much leaner mixture since it has a lot more volume, - if it is using the same amount pr time at the same rps, that difference would be near 30% or so. Or not? Can't work both ways.
-
Pratt & Whitney production from 1941 to 1945:
R-985 - 36,036
R-1340 - 24,915
R-1830 - 166,504
R-2000 - 10,782
R-2800 - 114,073
R-4360 - 152
TOTAL - 352,462
-
WOW!
-
Angus, a couple of quotes by LW aces:
Johannes Steinhoff, Sicily, Commander JG 77 (July 1943):
The Malta Spitfires are back again... They're fitted with a high altitude supercharger and at anything over twenty-five thousand feet they just play cat and mouse with us.
At 28,000 feet the Spitfire could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We on the other hand, in the thin air of those altitudes had to carry out every maneuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control.
Johannes Steinhoff, Messerschmitts Over Sicily, (Stackpole Books, 2004), pp. 97-98, 111.
Günther Rall commented on the Spitfire, having had the opportunity to fly various captured allied aircraft, as well as the Me 109G:
The Spitfire, too (referring to the P-38 with power ailerons), was a very maneuverable aircraft, very good in the cockpit."
...Nicknamed Gustav, the BF 109G was well armed but not as light as the earlier E and F versions. Its more powerful engine meant higher power settings whose inital climb rate sent it soaring to 18,700 ft. in six minutes but at low speed the plane was difficult to handle. ...Most of us considered the 109G over-developed. Poor landing characteristics added to its woes.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ahemm, Barbi.
First this:
"the world`s largest aero engine company " = DB
[/B]
etc. Got difficulty reading Angie or you are misrepresenting my words on purpose? I wrote :
"...it`s just hard to believe that the leading engineers of one of the world`s largest aero engine company were simply... "
Guess you owe me an apology.
That's from RR vastly more than the DB
Hmm, the British needed American import Packard engines because they couldn`t produce enough for themselves... otherwise, the Merlin was the main w.allied engine... the DB just powered the Mtt fighters/zerstorers (mainly). The Jumo and BMW were just as important engines.
Here are some facts:
Early Spitfires had equal or same fuel loads as the 109's. Operational range as well as time in the air seems to be roughly equal, or better.
Never seen any proof to your 'fact' that early Spits would have any better range/endurance than the Emil. That the DB was more economic was balanced by the lower drag of the Spit I compared to the Emil, so range could besimliar and indeed it was.
Then Spits become more and more draggier, while 109s cleaned up considerably, and the Merlin`s consumption skyrocketed. None of the later Spits them could claim equal range/endurance as later 109. The last, the XIV was so bad that even with 50% more fuel carried, it had only 1/2 - 2/3 the range and endurance than the 109G/K. That`s from a BRITISH source...
The DB is an engine with a much leaner mixture since it has a lot more volume, - if it is using the same amount pr time at the same rps, that difference would be near 30% or so. Or not? Can't work both ways.
The DB worked at 2800, the Merlin at 3000 rpm, so possibly this is also a reason why the DB was more effient. The Griffon, despite being more powerful than the Merlin, consumed less... RR realized too late there`s no replacement for displacement.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Günther Rall commented on the Spitfire, having had the opportunity to fly various captured allied aircraft, as well as the Me 109G.[/i]
I doubt it`s his comment, more like the author`s who compiled that book on him. Of course it`s not at all a surprise that something is manipulated on the SpitPartisan site. The surprise when it`s is not...
-
BarbI, Rall rewrote his book. I have the German version also, it's stating the same thing with more detail.
He has no problems repeating that, in his own words I heard him state that there was usually no way a 109 could catch a Spitfire in a climb, and no way in a climbing turn.
I belive that I have actually typed some quotes from there before.
The last goodie, I read this morning. He was describing his encounters with USSR fighters over Romania. Something like "They posed no threat compared to a staffel of Spitfires" ;)
Anyway, ONE of the biggest aero companies slipped my eye. Sorry for that, but a good thing I pointed out none the less.
As for the Spitfire MKI and 109E ranges, or generally other comparisons, let's begin with ranges.
109's had trouble going as far as London for combat, which is vastly shorter than the Spitfires ventured on rhubarb missions shortly later, and also shorter than Spitfire missions from many stations going inland to France in the Dunkirk evacualtion. (the Tommies on the ground saw not much precence of the RAF, however most of the interceptions took place much further inland).
I also ran across some crash reports and LW claims of Spitfires downed well inside Belgium for instance, - no drop tanks. If your range claim for the 109 would hold water, 109's could have been operating as far N-England with ease. So take that.
As for the performance of the two, they are good to compare, for the engine power is almost identical, as well as weights (Spit is heavier) and performance is very similar indeed.
The climb goes to the Spit while the speed goes to the 109 basically, and that's how it was throughout very much of WW2.
BTW, the climb figure from the Rall quote fits the test report I have from 1943/1944. At that time, Spit VIII's with top speed 400 mph+ and big internal fuel tanks to double the range, weighting 7200 lbs are some 5 minutes to the same altitude, peaking at mere 18 lbs boost.
Same timeframe.......both planes in service at the time with the above mentioned boosts.....
-
Angus some numbers from the 109E-1, E-3 handbook:
SL
max continuous(2200rpm) - 267mi, 1.05hr
max economy(1300rpm) - 404mi 2.20hr
6km
max continuous(2400rpm) - 323mi 1.10hr
max economy(1600rpm) - 395mi 1.40hr
A Spitfire Ia had a range of 575mi and a combat range of 395mi.
Not that Barbarossa Isegrim will believe this since it goes against his uber 109 mentality. ;)
ps
Angus.
Came across this little tidbit. RR was testing a Merlin in 1944 @ 36lb boost with ADI and 150PN fuel and getting 2640hp. :eek: Not bad for a puny little crappy motor, eh?
-
Originally posted by Angus
BarbI, Rall rewrote his book. I have the German version also, it's stating the same thing with more detail. He has no problems repeating that, in his own words I heard him state that there was usually no way a 109 could catch a Spitfire in a climb, and no way in a climbing turn.
[/B]
How many engagement Rall had with Spitfire? A whole.... three? How many Spitfires he seen trying a corkscrew against him? Three? None?
That`s not much experience with that type compared a great many LW pilots. I have seen countless 109 pilots stating nothing could catch them in spiral climbs.Franz Stiegler says the opposite about the 109K, and the raw performance numbers prove Stiegler right, not Rall...
The last goodie, I read this morning. He was describing his encounters with USSR fighters over Romania. Something like "They posed no threat compared to a staffel of Spitfires" ;) .
[/B]
Obviously, Soviet pilots had much less training than RAF or LW pilots, only Guards units were really good. Quite a few Soviet planes were much better than MkIXs, ie. Yak3 and LA5 and LA7. The Soviets received over a 1000 Mk IX Spits, but turned them down in favour of their domestic planes.
109's had trouble going as far as London for combat, which is vastly shorter than the Spitfires ventured on rhubarb missions shortly later, and also shorter than Spitfire missions from many stations going inland to France in the Dunkirk evacualtion..
[/B]
That`s interesting Angus, I presume since the 109E had trouble reaching London as you state, all those RAF pilots must have been liars reporting so many 109s around...? It`s probable that Angus is wrong then.
I wonder why you argue with British documents, Angus. All these docs say the Spit IX managed 450 miles on 85 impg. internal, while the 109G managed 750 miles on 88 impg. Do you claim this document is wrong?
BTW, do you have any documentation behind your statements? I guess not.
Funnily enogh, all documentation seems to suggest that the 109 was quite longer ranged, engine consumption specs also underline this... are we to believe that the plane with higher consumption, higher drag, and slight less fuel had even similiar range? A sensible person certainly would not.
If your range claim for the 109 would hold water, 109's could have been operating as far N-England with ease. So take that.
[/B]
Oh my oh my, what should I believe, Angus`s questionable facts and view on the 109`s combat history, or the official German and English reports and Handbooks issued by the manufacturer and intelligence teams?
BTW, the climb figure from the Rall quote fits the test report I have from 1943/1944.
[/B]
Well there`s a flight test report out there for the 109G that climbs at a peak of 4900 fpm at 1.3ata.
Which Spitfire could climb at 4900 fpm in 1942?
At that time, Spit VIII's with top speed 400 mph+ and big internal fuel tanks to double the range, weighting 7200 lbs are some 5 minutes to the same altitude, peaking at mere 18 lbs boost.
Same timeframe.......both planes in service at the time with the above mentioned boosts..... [/B]
Angus, are you aware that you are comparing the 109 at 30 min military rating to a Spitfire on 5min?
But indeed the Spit VIII had as much range as 109Gs, ie. ca. 740 miles on internal, but it required 120 gallons of fuel, while the 109G had only 88 gallons...
Climb/speed figures are the following for the 109G at 1.3ata 30-min rating.. This is not full power of course.
http://www.pbase.com/isegrim/image/5288901
-
Angus,
Bf109 G-2 Bedienungsvorschrift-F1 Ausgabe Juli 1942
*Note! "start and emergency power" is blocked and may not be used. *Achtung! Die "Start und notleistung" darf nicht benutzt werden, sie ist deshalb blockiert.
DB 605 Moteren-Karte 9 October 1942
Take-off and emergency power is closed up to revocation , thus 2650 U/min (2600 U/min +2%) may not be exceeded in any flight attitude.
Die Start und Notleistung ist bis auf Widerruf gesperrt, es dürfen somit 2650 U/min (2600 U/min +2%) in keiner Fluglage überschritten werden.
From 109 G1, G2 and G6 Meßrief - 1942 and 1943
Take off and emergency power: Provisionally closed after VT instruction Nr.2206.
Start und Notleistung: Vorläufig gesperrt nach VT-Anweisung Nr.2206
Bf109 G-2, G-4, G-6 Bedienungsvorschrift-F1 Ausgabe Juni 1943
"Take-off and emergency power" may not be used; this stage is blocked in order to prevent over pressure.
Die Leistungsstufe 'Start -und Notleistung' darf nicht benutzt werden; um Überdrücken zu verhindern, ist diese Stufe blockiert.
Bf109 G-4/R3, G-6/R3 Bedienungsvorschrift-F1 Ausgabe Februar 1944
Take-off and emergency power: may not be used, is blocked.
Start- und Notleistung: Darf nicht benutzt werden, ist blockiert.
(http://www.pbase.com/isegrim/aircraft&page=3)
The climb rate in the above graph is less than that on a graph I have > 21m/s(4134f/m) vs 18.5m/s(3642f/m). Both are for the G-1.
-
A quick reply.
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If your range claim for the 109 would hold water, 109's could have been operating as far N-England with ease. So take that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh my oh my, what should I believe, Angus`s questionable facts and view on the 109`s combat history, or the official German and English reports and Handbooks issued by the manufacturer and intelligence teams? "
Please make yourself clear. The 109's range ended---where it ended. Coventry was too far for 109 activity while Middle Belgium was not to far for Spitfire activity. Intelligence teams or not, the aircraft went where they went.
As for your 109G climbing test from 1942, I'd really like to see the documented source. It conflicts completely with what I have. A lightened up aircraft perhaps????
Then to the Soviets. Pity they never got around handling the Spittys, for the LW lost more to the RAF in 1940 than to the Russian airforce in 1944.......
BTW, Rall engaged Spitfires and shot them down over Russia, as well as FLYING one as well. (As well as P51, P38, P47)
FYI, Johnny Johnsson jostled with a staffel of 109's from low alt to 19K where he left the party. That was in 1943 or 44........
Now, he and Rall did have some time to compare this, they became firm friends post war.
-
Oh, Milo, missed your post.
Anyway, the climbs I have correspond rather well to Rall's number. All boils down to 1.42 or 1.3 and the aircraft weight.
Still for its wingloading, the 109 is none the less a good climber.
I have calculations somewhere, xls format, where time to alt is done in Nm's. I was trying to figure out the actual work the wing could yeald. It pointed at the Spitfire wing lifting close to 10% more at the same power. But the Spitfire was also heavier most of the time. I can mail this if you like.
A bit of a pain with climb graphs is the difference, - some are minutes to alt, others are fpm or m/s at alt. I have no idea how to convert this. Well, it should be a function, but I'm not that good any more.
(Used to play with this when there were dinosaurs around)
So, eagerly waiting for Barbi's F-15 ROC for a 1.3 standard 109G :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Please make yourself clear. The 109's range ended---where it ended. Coventry was too far for 109 activity while Middle Belgium was not to far for Spitfire activity. Intelligence teams or not, the aircraft went where they went.
[/B]
I`d also like to see the source for droptankless Spit activity over Belgium. Every source I have seen Spit pilots already had troubles staying over Dunkerque for long.
As for your 109G climbing test from 1942, I'd really like to see the documented source. It conflicts completely with what I have. A lightened up aircraft perhaps????[/B]
No, a standard aircraft from Squadrons service and it`s seen some use already. The doc is on the same site.
Then to the Soviets. Pity they never got around handling the Spittys, for the LW lost more to the RAF in 1940 than to the Russian airforce in 1944....... [/B]
Yes it`s a pity the VVS wasn`t so worked up on the Spit. I think they saw it`s flaws as well as it`s good traits.
BTW, Rall engaged Spitfires and shot them down over Russia, as well as FLYING one as well. (As well as P51, P38, P47)[/B]
Which doesn`t change the fact Gunther Rall spent 99% of his time on the East and had negligable combat experience against Spitfires. Werner Moelders had a lot otoh, and considered them 'miserable' as fighters.
FYI, Johnny Johnsson jostled with a staffel of 109's from low alt to 19K where he left the party. That was in 1943 or 44........Now, he and Rall did have some time to compare this, they became firm friends post war. [/B]
[/B][/QUOTE]
Interesting... And? Was his plane lightly loaded? Was the enemy flying at full power? Were they low on fuel/ammo? Etc.
Circumstances are unknown in such stories, that`s why objective data is preferable over subjective.
The climb rate in the above graph is less than that on a graph I have > 21m/s(4134f/m) vs 18.5m/s(3642f/m). Both are for the G-1.[/B]
I guess if you actually have such graph, it wouldn`t be a problem posting it to prove your claim.
-
I guess if you actually have such graph, it wouldn`t be a problem posting it to prove your claim.
When are you going to post the graph for the 4900f/m G? :)
When are you going to post the flight test graphs for the k-4? :)
-
Funny that now you mention, the URL to the 4900fpm G-2 at 1.3ata was already posted by yourself two or so posts above. :lol
But as you failed to back up your claim, I guess you didn`t know what you were talking about again.
-
I'd be delighted to see some tests on the 109, details as well as on the MW site.
Seems that there are few, and far apart. I only have one rather detailed so far. And it's blurry.
As for Dunkirk, the Spits did not stay long over there, although a lot of the activity in the air was actually further inland. Mind you, some of the squadrons engaged may have taken off as far north as Cambridge. (Duxford wing).
Now, 109's over Cambridge were not sighted often, - if at all.
I suggest you look at a map for a change. Calais-London vs London-Bruxelles?
-
There are some tests on that the gallery I gave the URL for.
But I suggest you back up your statements first, it doesn`t make sense to discuss in detail what is may be fiction after all.
-
So, droptankless Spitfires over the lowlands were a fiction?
Gimme a break will you....
Slipper tank or drop tank Spits would go up to 650 Nm BTW, and that was usually Merlin45 that powered them. Takeoff would be from a carrier or Gibraltar.
Knew a guy who flew Gibraltar-Algiers in one go. His squadron had to escort some Hudson's on the way, so the flight exceeded 4 hours. BTW, the Spitfires had been assembled on the spot, and not yet tested.
Now the Spit V has a bigger engine than the Mk I, so I expect a higher fuel consumption.
BTW, did the Mk I's have a drop tank option at all?
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
The Soviets received over a 1000 Mk IX Spits, but turned them down in favour of their domestic planes.
They used the spit as high altitude fighter.
they didn't turned it down.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Funny that now you mention, the URL to the 4900fpm G-2 at 1.3ata was already posted by yourself two or so posts above. :lol
But as you failed to back up your claim, I guess you didn`t know what you were talking about again.
URL to the G-1, not G-2, Barbarossa Isegrim. Missed that, the G-1, you did. Did I mention G-2? The document is dated 3.4.43 and is by Messesrchmitt Augsburg.
Since you failed to back up your claim, with regard to the K-4 FLIGHT TEST DATA[/b], I guess you didn`t know what you were talking about, again.
It is nice to see that MW puts both good and bad Spit data on his site unlike Barbarossa Isegrim who will only put the best 109 data up.:(
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, droptankless Spitfires over the lowlands were a fiction?
Very much appears so, as nothing seems to back this claim up.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Since you failed to back up your claim, with regard to the K-4 FLIGHT TEST DATA, I guess you didn`t know what you were talking about, again.[/B]
I didn`t make any claim about the K-4, so what are you exactly barking about?
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I didn`t make any claim about the K-4, so what are you exactly barking about?
:rofl What a selective short memory you have Barbarossa Isegrim. :rofl The only data we see in your K-4 article is your questionable HOME MADE graphs.
-
Now, Barbi, you are in a corner I guess. The only option you seem to have is to ask for original data about the lowland flights, since you seem to belive they were not possible without droptanks.
And obviously you choose not to debate about the cross-med flights, because you caught the wind of me having the data behind my back.
Ok, let's see....
I wish Guppy was here, he would probably have this from memory alone. Mio might also. I will have to dive into a book to find the drop tank service dates, but if memory serves me, this sticks up:
1. Slipper tanks may have entered earlier. Those were used on the first long routes in the med. That was however in 1942.
2. The routes over the lowlands were short missions. They are definately not out of range for the Mk I, II and even Mk V regarding the official range documentation, - which probably collides with yours.
3, Rhubarb missions over the lowands started sometime in 1941, I belive before the total entry of the Mk V.
But calculate, Spit 5, with extra 90 gallons crossing 600 nm, taking off from an escort (that is - small) carrier....is that then possible according to your calculations? Or 4-5 hrs flight at NOT the best cruising speed? Is that possible according to your calculations?
For if it isn't, you've got some homework to do :D
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
What a selective short memory you have Barbarossa Isegrim. The only data we see in your K-4 article is your questionable HOME MADE graphs.
You are right that the home made speed graphs in my critique are very questionable.
All of them were made by Mike Williams, and are strongly manipulated as you pointed out. It`s seems we have a common ground after all.
I have to mention it`s so much fun to observe you make a bigger fool out of yourself with every of your post.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Now, Barbi, you are in a corner I guess. The only option you seem to have is to ask for original data about the lowland flights, since you seem to belive they were not possible without droptanks.
[/B]
Why I am in the corner, dear Angus, because an allied fanboy from Iceland was repeatadly and utterly incapable of backing up his own dubious statements?
And obviously you choose not to debate about the cross-med flights, because you caught the wind of me having the data behind my back.
[/B]
Well, why would I debate Med flights when it was an original question about the range of the Spit I w/o droptank? After it become obvious that nothing supports your claims, you ran away and switched to another topic... as usual.
2. The routes over the lowlands were short missions. They are definately not out of range for the Mk I, II and even Mk V regarding the official range documentation, - which probably collides with yours.
[/B]
I hate to mention Angus that you utterly failed to provide any Mk I, II or V 'official range documentation' as you call it.
All you have produced so far is unsupported, unreferenced claims that rest on the shoulders of your other unsupported, unreferenced claims. Pile of BS in other words.
But calculate, Spit 5, with extra 90 gallons crossing 600 nm, taking off from an escort (that is - small) carrier....is that then possible according to your calculations? Or 4-5 hrs flight at NOT the best cruising speed? Is that possible according to your calculations?.
[/B]
No, why would it be impossible? With the extra 90 gallons would give very roughly some 800-900 miles of range for the Spit V at econmic cruise, maybe more up to 1000, but I have yet to see the official documentation.
Bottom line, that 90 gallons droptank would be useless for anything else than such 1-way ferry missions, giving the internal capacity was only 85 gallons, not usual 2-way combat mission from which you need more fuel internally than externally carried.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Angus
Now, Barbi, you are in a corner I guess. The only option you seem to have is to ask for original data about the lowland flights, since you seem to belive they were not possible without droptanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why I am in the corner, dear Angus, because an allied fanboy from Iceland was repeatadly and utterly incapable of backing up his own dubious statements?
Ahemm, until there are figures on the desk, I remain the upper hand against a hungarian Fanboy of anything provided by Nazi Germany.
Your point is that early Spitfires did NOT have the range to sweep over the lowlands without droptanks, while my point is that they had, and DID. Or are you saying that the Rhubarb missions were exclusively with d/t?
It just bothers you because the radius is a tad wider than the tankless radius of the 109E, hehe.
So, Spit I internal tank is 85 gallons. Same with the Mk V?
double that quantity, and you will have 4 hrs+ on the Mk V. That would mean easy 2 hrs (since no d/t drag) on a Mk V, maybe a little more on a Merlin with 300-400 hp less power, yes?
I do remember seeing flight reports up to 2 hrs anyway, - without external tanks.
So, how far does a Spitfire get in 2 hours? or 1,5 on cruising and some spare? or 1 hr of cruising and a good spare for combat and backup? To Bruxelles? Yes, easily.
Now compare that distance with the calais area to London.
Similar, isn't it. But the sea crossing to Bruxelles is quite a bit longer.
Maybe you need to look better at the map. Anyway, that might help you, because the allied fanboy planes were stalking gv's all over the lowlands without droptanks.
You know why?
Because there weren't so many droptanks in use at the time :D
-
Oh, found a Spitfire Mk IX range cookie for you:
Take a Spit IX, add 75 (internal)+45 (drop tank) gallons (120 total + the 85?), and go fly. Fly at 1000 feet in cloudy weather. Note that 1000 feet is not the optimum altitude for a long range flight, be it time or distance.
Question: From east Anglia, how far could you get, and still return?
Question #2: how long would the flight possibly be?
I challenge thee to give an educated guess. Bear in mind that the Merlin 61 66 and 70 are very thirsty compared to the ones in Spit I's and Spit V's even.......
So?
Will post the correct answers and source later on :D
-
Angus; I'd like also see your proofs about Spitfires flying to "lowlands" without droptanks.
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/spit30.jpg)
-
Well, they did up to 2 hr missions without drop tanks.
They did missions over the lowlands in 1941.
Then they were replaced with the Mk V's.
Now the V could carry droptanks, but the usage was really not that common in the beginning.
Anyway, if you have that data, please take a go at the cookie ;)
Secondly, if you like, tell me if you think the MkI/II burned more fuel pr hour than the V or IX??????
Now back to the 109, - the 109E would stay in the air some 1,5 hour, - very very similar
;)
-
Oh, forgot.
The Rhubarb missions into the lowlands, as well as escorted "cirkus" missions into France are a well established historical fact.
(Not that they were a clever move, IMHO rather stupid strategy)
BTW, the only Icelandic "allied fanboy" that flew for the RAF hit the news in Britain for blowing up an ammunition barge in Holland on such a mission.
There was some playing with 109's there as well.
No drop tanks mentioned, - no need anyway, mission time less than 2 hrs.
-
Is this going anywhere? :rolleyes:
It was interesting reading at first, but now I am seeing more name calling than anything else.
How about something original, like being mature and civil in your debating?
-
Good grief. Now what's the argument about regarding Spits and 109s, and why should we care? :)
Now is it Spit range without drop tanks on the early pre-drop tank flights?
Looking at some microfilm copies of Fighter Command Combat Reports right now, covering the Tangmere Wing in the summer of 41, pre-drop tanks. Escorts and sweeps from Westhampnett over Lille, St. Omer, Le Touquet, Cape Griz Nez.
Looking in the Book 2 Group RAF by MJF Bowyer, he documents Spits escorting 2 Group mediums in 41 over Belgium, with those squadrons operating from Martlesham etc.
Johnny Johnson documents missions in Spit IIs over France while part of the Tangmere Wing in his book as well.
I have to admit though, I hesitate to enter these discussions as they are pointless. The 109 was the greatest fighter of WW2 and beyond and the Spitfire was a flying abortion.
Hasn't that already been determined? :)
Can't we switch the debate and argue about whether the 190 was the greatest German fighter?
Saw an article claiming that just yesterday and thought of our resident 109 is god poster.
Dan
-
Originally posted by eddiek
Is this going anywhere? :rolleyes:
It was interesting reading at first, but now I am seeing more name calling than anything else.
How about something original, like being mature and civil in your debating?
A reasonable question eddiek. Sadly they don't ever go anywhere despite folks trying to be civil. It's why I hesitate to even post in them anymore as it's a bit like talking to the wall :)
Dan
-
Guppy maybe you should provide some scans of your sources; not that I don't believe You but... well you know :)
-
Originally posted by Staga
Guppy maybe you should provide some scans of your sources; not that I don't believe You but... well you know :)
It's copies from Microfilm at the RAF Museum. One is the day Douglas Bader went down. Scanned the first page of that one.
They are clearly fighting over France.
If you want the second page let me know :)
There are others to I can scan that are of similar nature to this one.
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1112739897_baderdown.jpg)
-
Heck with it. Page 2 and 3 just cause it's fascinating to read how it was written at the time :)
Interesting to note the heights they were at. Later obviously the fights dropped a bit in height. Had to have burned a fair amount of fuel getting up there too and still over France.
Interesting comment about estimated 200 109s up. I wonder what the real totals were and if there were even that many available in France at the time?
Don't you just love hindsite :)
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1112740314_bader2.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1112740390_bader3.jpg)
-
So where does it say they didn't had jettisonable tanks?
At least Pilot's Manual for Spit MkV gives fuel loads with 85Gall in aircraft + either 30, 90 or 170 Gall. drop tanks.
-
Oh, thx Dan :)
It's getting tough if every step of the way has to be backed up with documents topping documents. Such as if rhubarbs ever existed, if Spitfires could enter the lowlands without dt's etc.
I do remember a LW claim over a Spit II, well into Belgium it was.
Still, not out of range, - but on those missions navigation had to be pretty good, and there was not much time for extended combat.
Same with the 109's operating from the Calais area, - they were over London allright, but not for long.
Over Birmingham.....not really.
So, that's what struck me. Barbi claims that the DB was about,,,what,,,,30% more fuel saving (?), so on the equal fuel load, the 109 should have ventured further than it did, - or the Spitfires should have ventured much shorter than they did.
Well, they still went where they went.
Then to the secon phase.
I have over and over seen Barbi's statements off how quickly the Merlins got thirstier, and hence the Spitfires running on their normal 85 gallons, should have been getting shorter and shorter legs. So, time for RL stats ;)
Well, on double fuel (roughly160 gals total), an overseas crossing of up to 600 Nm was possible on a Mk V, also 4 hours on an unfavourable setting (escort), - with that ugly trop filter might I add.
The answer to the riddle promoted earlier is this:
Spitfire Mk IX, low flight up & down through clouds and fronts, 200 gallons max used, flight time 5 hrs, distance equal to east-Anglia to Berlin and back, Pilot Jeffrey Quill.
I my have some PR data to come, but, well, this is a 109 thread :D
-
Oh, Jettisonable tanks.
AFAIK, very scarcely used before 1942.
Little availability I am afraid.
Have seen combat reports up to some 2 hours without tanks on later model Spitfires anyway. (Later than Mk V)
Oh, and I have actually been to the PRO, the IWM, and swimming in microfilms..
Happy moments.
-
I've been in airshow but that didn't make me a pilot :confused:
-
Originally posted by Staga
So where does it say they didn't had jettisonable tanks?
At least Pilot's Manual for Spit MkV gives fuel loads with 85Gall in aircraft + either 30, 90 or 170 Gall. drop tanks.
I suppose you are going to want the date that tanks were first used operationally? :)
Keep in mind these are early Mark Vs with many of them being Vas not Vbs. Also keep in mind they were still testing possible range solutions for the Spit. In September 41 for example they were still working on the testing of a fixed fuel tank under the port wing of the Spit II, that amazingly was used by three squadrons operationally. The Spit V never had that, and the slipper tanks were a ways a way yet, although they were in development at the time.
Later reports they specify that the planes had tanks and that they were dropped or not dropped as the case may be.
I'm not sure how to prove that to you at this point. I did note on another of the combat reports from the August 41 time frame that it mentions take off at 1745 hours and down at 1915 hours with some of the Spits having to land at closer fields then their home at Westhampnett. with the attack taking place at 1845 hours. So clearly it was in, attack and out in a hurry, not unlike the 109s over England.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
First Rhubarb flown by Spits was done by 2 Spitfire II of 66 squadron flying from Biggin Hill on December 20, 1940
Trying to put my hands on my copy of Dizzy Allen's book where he talks about it, but it was over France as well.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Out of my head, I have drop tanks in some notable use in 1942, but by then, rhubarbs were mostly over.
Also digging for the source.
Anyway, the lowlands are a bit farther regarding ocean crossing than France.
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, that's what struck me. Barbi claims that the DB was about,,,what,,,,30% more fuel saving (?), so on the equal fuel load, the 109 should have ventured further than it did, - or the Spitfires should have ventured much shorter than they did.
Well, they still went where they went.
[/B]
Well the report Guppy was kind to post says Spitfires went a whole 30 miles into France.
If you want to know wheter the DB was ca.30% more 'fuel saving', you only have to check the engine cards if this is true. They say :
1940
Merlin III, ca 1050 HP, Combat : 89 imp. gallon hour (404 liter/h)
DB 601A, ca. 1050 HP, Kurzleistung : 69 imp. gallon/hour (313 liter/hour).
29% better fuel effiency for the DB.
1942
Merlin 61, 1560 HP, Combat : 130 igph, or 590 lit/hour
DB 605A, 1550 PS, Notleistung : 470 liter/hour
25% better fuel effiency for the DB.
1944
Merlin 66, +25, 1960 HP, Combat : 197 igph, or 895 lit/h
DB 605D, 1,98ata, Sondernotleistung : 650 liters/hour
37% better fuel effiencz for the DB.
Originally posted by Angus
Then to the secon phase.
I have over and over seen Barbi's statements off how quickly the Merlins got thirstier, and hence the Spitfires running on their normal 85 gallons, should have been getting shorter and shorter legs. So, time for RL stats ;)
[/i][/B]
Like, range at 220 mph IAS econo cruise :
Bf 109 G : 725 miles on 88 gallons
Spit IXLF : 434 miles on 85 gallons
Indeed the earlier Marks of Spit were probably more fuel efficient, so I guess their range were ca. 500+ miles.
We have yet to see the documentation for the SpitI and Vs range. Considering that many Spit affiendos are watching this thread, and obviously have such data at hand, I wonder the reason why dont they post it...
What does this tell you?
The answer to the riddle promoted earlier is this:
Spitfire Mk IX, low flight up & down through clouds and fronts, 200 gallons max used, flight time 5 hrs, distance equal to east-Anglia to Berlin and back, Pilot Jeffrey Quill.
I my have some PR data to come, but, well, this is a 109 thread :D [/B]
Looks about right on the first glance, I have yet to find the IX range docs for ca 200 gallons. The difference is, the Spit had to carry 60% of the fuel externally to get that range, making jettisoning of the droptank a very bad idea - and the aircraft a lumbering beast burdened with a huge d/t.109s had as good range on 154 gallons, which meant they had 88 gallons internal after the they dropped 66 gallon tank, making such d/t missions practical for combat operations, unlike in the case of the Spitfire.
R-R would have to pay some attention to the fuel economy, not just being fixated on raising boost...
-
Like, range at 220 mph IAS econo cruise :
Bf 109 G : 725 miles on 88 gallons
Spit IXLF : 434 miles on 85 gallons
That's not maximum economy for the Spitfire.
Here're some tests of the Spit VIII, same Merlin 66 engine:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1090515978_spitviiirange.jpg)
Note these figures are when fitted with a 90 gallon drop tank.
For the 109:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1112782633_109grange2.jpg)
(Originally posted by MW, I think)
As you can see, what Isegrim is doing is taking the maximum range figures for the 109 (and he appears to be using the initial uncorrected figures as well), and comparing them with the maximum cruise speed figures for the Spitfire.
Staga, your chart also shows rather high speed cruise figures, not maximum economy figures. The manual says that maximum economy would be obtained at 1,700 rpm (which would also be at lower boost).
Note that at 2650 rpm, the Merlin 66 returned the same 55 gals/hour, drop that down to 1700 in the Spit II and you could expect around 20 gals/hr.
-
All baffling!
Well,,,,this:
"Looks about right on the first glance, I have yet to find the IX range docs for ca 200 gallons. The difference is, the Spit had to carry 60% of the fuel externally to get that range, making jettisoning of the droptank a very bad idea - and the aircraft a lumbering beast burdened with a huge d/t.109s had as good range on 154 gallons, which meant they had 88 gallons internal after the they dropped 66 gallon tank, making such d/t missions practical for combat operations, unlike in the case of the Spitfire.
R-R would have to pay some attention to the fuel economy, not just being fixated on raising boost..."
This was a test flight with a fuselage tank and a drop tank. The thing about it is that he is burning 40 gallons an hour. So, quite amazing really.
Especially in the case of a lumbering beast.....
Now, the Spit V's that finally got tanks had like 60-90 gallons external, and 85 internal. So, they are practically identical to the 109 in that manner.
So, what is unlike with the case of the Spitfire?!?!?!?!?!?!? Spit drops tank, - unpractical. 109 drops tank, practical?????
I mean, all Spits had short legs except the VIII, maybe VII, really late ones, and the PR ones. The rest from Mk V onwards used the same drop tank princip as the 109, or slipper tanks for ferrying.
And all engines like that size and tuned to the limit will just gobble up fuel like mad.
Ok, some numbers.
Spit VC goes some 650 NM's (700-750 miles) with 175 gallons, that's some 3.5 hours on cruise at 220, - if that fits you have 50 gallons an hour, or for that sake, 4.2 miles a gallon.
JFQ flight test goes with 40 gallons pro hour at low altitude, distance covered is 1100-1200 miles, so 5.5 miles pr gallons.
Note that those aircraft still have some wee bit in the tanks at landing.
Now calculate at will, but these are actual flights. The 80 gallon an hour figure seems to leave a logical margin for possible combat and so on.
85 gallons would then do to up to some 450 miles, which is actually Bruxelles and back, but with very little margin. And that's how I belive it was.
Giving the 109 the same range it should however have ventured much further than it did. London-Calais is less than 100 miles. If you want to stretch this a bit, 109's from the coast fields of France should have ventured to Birmingham, which is 200 miles.
Now, if their range was longer than the Spitfires, it would have given them some time over there as well.
Yet, 109's were sometimes forced to leave German bombers before getting to London. Ok, in cases of headwind, and the escort cruising was at uneconomical speeds.
But IMHO it always boils down to the same.
Spit and Messer have very similar ranges on the same amount of fuel.
-
Well you got me Barbarossa Isegrim but you do post your home made graphs. BTW, why do leave MW off your credit list? You are using his graphs.
On range:
109E-1, E-3 handbook:
SL
max continuous(2200rpm) - 267mi, 1.05hr
max economy(1300rpm) - 404mi, 2.20hr
6km
max continuous(2400rpm) - 323mi, 1.10hr
max economy(1600rpm) - 395mi, 1.40hr
A Spitfire Ia had a range of 575mi and a combat range of 395mi. (StH)
So even at max economy for the 109, the Spit, at max continuous, had the same range.
As Naswan noted, Barbarossa Isegrim does not compare 'apples to apples' to try to support his superior German agenda.
-
Arfff, even more baffling. Nashwan's post came in when I was typing mine. Nice documents BTW.
Well, if you want to get far, just don't throttle up :D
Anyway, something I forgot to tell Izzy is that Spitfires did indeed venture into France on a daily basis during the Dunkirk affair.
Well, looking better at Nash's numbers, this all fits ;)
-
1944
Merlin 66, +25, 1960 HP, Combat : 197 igph, or 895 lit/h
DB 605D, 1,98ata, Sondernotleistung : 650 liters/hour
37% better fuel effiencz for the DB.
Again he forgets that MW50, at least 150 l/h, was required at 1.98.
That gives the 605D only an 11.8% advantage. :eek:
-
You do understand MW50 wasn't a fuel ?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Now, the Spit V's that finally got tanks had like 60-90 gallons external, and 85 internal. So, they are practically identical to the 109 in that manner.
So, what is unlike with the case of the Spitfire?!?!?!?!?!?!? Spit drops tank, - unpractical. 109 drops tank, practical?????
[/B]
Yep, quite unpractical. The Spit IX gets ca. the same range with 85 int + 90 gallon external as the 109 on 88 internal + 66 gallon external.
Consider this. Both 109 and Spit takeoff on full internall, and with a 90/66 gallon tank.
Both fly until they empty the droptanks completely, and get just as far away from base. The 109 used up 66 gallons, the Spit 90 gallons. Now they have to return to base as well, for which they need just as much fuel, in the case they dont dogfight at high powers at all.
The 109 has 88 gallons to do this 66 gallon trip, the Spit has 85 gallons to make this 90 gallon trip. If any high power is applied, ie. fighting, even less. Consider 5 mins at full power (109 left with 80 gallons, Spit left with 72 gallons).
Only one a/c will return to base. Thats why 90 gallon tanks were FERRY mission only for the Spits, exluding the VIII, XIV etc. which had 120 gallon internal.
The rest will be added later, it appears that Nashwan is making trick again, and not using the official German figures for the 109, instead of presenting the lowest numbers again which are for 'varying conditions' as noted, and of course were cut of from the document to hide them.
He also makes a lie about not presenting the Spit on most economical cruise conditions, the data I posted is for 220 mph, the most economical speed of Spitfires. See below : "Most economical = mph. 220
None of the official British specsheets or any other test done of Merlin 66s agree with the figures NASHWAN posted, ie. offficial datacard for Spit VIII shows :
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit8adsaussie.jpg)
740 miles stated with 23 gallon allowance at 120 gallon (leaves 97 gallons). Mileage : 740 / 97 = 7.62 miles/gallon.
All other Spit range docs give a between milage of 5-6.5 miles/gallon.
Nashwan just wants to stick with the BEST figures for the Spit, and ignoring all official datacards. He compares that to 109G at unspecified conditions that resulted lower numbers. Can we see those conditions? Or you are selling half-truths again?
More on that later.
-
Barbi, with the miles-pro-gallon you just gave POSTED, rhubarb missions over the lowlands are very easily possible without droptanks.
With the 109's "BETTER FUEL ECONOMY", missions from the coast of France to Scotland would have been possible.
You can toss around in data debates bellybutton much as you like, that's why I looked into the actual range of missions, and there it seems to be pretty equal, if anything the 109 is getting the short end of the straw!
Then this one
"You do understand MW50 wasn't a fuel ?"
Well, it is carried, pumped into the engine together with the fuel, where it combusts/evaporates. It needs to be carried, one share of it is a burnable fluid, the other is water that turns to steam.
I'd say that qualifies :D
-
He also makes a lie about not presenting the Spit on most economical cruise conditions, the data I posted is for 220 mph, the most economical speed of Spitfires. See below : "Most economical = mph. 220
None of the official British specsheets or any other test done of Merlin 66s agree with the figures NASHWAN posted, ie. offficial datacard for Spit VIII shows :
Isegrim, read what it says, not what you want it to say.
"Cruising speed at ft 20,000
Most economical = mph 220
At maximum weak mixture power mph 360 @ 22000ft"
Further on it says:
"Range bomb load table", and gives a figure of 740 miles clean.
However, it doesn't say at what speed those range figures are achieved
You are assuming it's at most economical speed, based on the fact that it says 220mph is the most economical speed. But it also says maximum weak mixture cruise is 360 mph, and it doesn't say in the range table which cruise speed was used. It's just your assumption
Now, I'll quote to you exactly what you said in your post a long time ago when you "revealed" that the 109 had longer range than commonly quoted:
I guess I share these range tables for the Bf 109G (G-2 to be exact), since there`s so many misunderstandings about that in the literature (most books state high-speed cruise ranges only).
You are prepared to accept most 109 figures are for high speed cruise, you will not accept the same for Spitfires even when presented with the test that confirms it
That's just blinkered, and it explains why people dismiss what you have to say. You will only accept evidence that favours the 109, and any other evidence isn't refuted, it's ignored.
If you want to show the Spitfire had a lower range, present the tests to show it, which need to show range at a particular speed, like the one I've posted.
All you have posted is a Spitfire range table at an unknown speed
740 miles stated with 23 gallon allowance at 120 gallon (leaves 97 gallons). Mileage : 740 / 97 = 7.62 miles/gallon.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1091830845_95bcropped.jpg)
Which as the TEST I posted showed, can be achieved at about 280 mph.
Nowhere on the summary you've posted does it say at what speed those range figures are achieved.
-
Notice that this is a heavy Spitfire.
Lower weight will give better results.
-
Originally posted by Staga
You do understand MW50 wasn't a fuel ?
Do you understand that the reason the Merlin has higher fuel usage at high power is that the engine is running rich, using extra fuel to prevent detonation, same as MW50 is being used for.
DB might have riched the mixture at high power settings as well. I haven't looked into that, I'll dig out my 601/605 docs tonight and take a look. But, a port fuel injected engine isn't likely to get as much advantage from rich mixtures as a carbureted engine.
If you want a fair comparison, compare the Merlin running lean at economy settings with the DB running at economy settings. Not at the rich settings that Kurfurst likes to make comparisons at. All that proves is that running at stoichiometric mixtures is more efficient than running rich mixtures, big surprise there.
At economical settings the DB engines are going to be more fuel efficient than the Merlin, higher compression ratio and finer mixture control are going to give better efficiency. But not on the order of 25-30% better, maybe 10-15% better at best.
BTW, I am NOT a Spitfire fan, so no agenda here. Personal opinion is that the Spitfire is the most overrated fighter of the war. But I won't get into that here.
Greg Shaw
(corrected mispelling of stoichiometric)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Barbi, with the miles-pro-gallon you just gave POSTED, rhubarb missions over the lowlands are very easily possible without droptanks.
[/B]
Well let`s see, sources commonly give ca 6.5 miles per gallon at 220 mph very slow cruising for the Spit IX. 85x6.5= 552.
That would mean the Spit could go as far as 552 miles. Perhaps enough to reach the Lowlands, I didn`t check, but this aircraft does dogfight, does not warms up before takeoff, does not consumes fuel for the climb, and flies as a target drone at 220 mph.
Not exactly life-like or practical in war.
With the 109's "BETTER FUEL ECONOMY", missions from the coast of France to Scotland would have been possible.
[/B]
And indeed they were possible. There are many accounts from Spitfire pilots who intercepted 109s as far as Scapa Flow. OTOH, why would 109s regulary fly to Scotland, to bomb what? Sheep...? Highlanders...?
Then this one
"You do understand MW50 wasn't a fuel ?"
Well, it is carried, pumped into the engine together with the fuel, where it combusts/evaporates. It needs to be carried, one share of it is a burnable fluid, the other is water that turns to steam.
I'd say that qualifies :D [/B]
MW 50 was not fuel, it was a booster, used only for the highest powers with lower quality fuel.It was not injected below 1800 HP, therefore it didn`t matter if the MW tank was dry, the Bf 109s range was the same. In fact, the 109K could use it`s MW tank to store fuel to increase range by ca 25%
Well if the MW50 would have to do anything with range it would matter as consumption. But any 109 engine with 100 octane C-3 could give the same power without a drop of MW-50. I don`t see how this can be compared to the huge consumptions of the Merlins. If the Merlin run half the fuel tank dry running at max power, it severly effected range. If the DB run half the MW tank dry running at max power, it didn`t effect range at all.
But if MW 50 is really a fuel, you are telling me the Bf 109 could took off with MW 50 only with the fuel tanks empty. Was that so, Angus? Or was it a booster liqued (used also on P-47, Corsair, Merlin powered Mustangs), that some like to look like fuel to make up for the fact the Merlin consumed 30-40% more fuel than the DB?
-
Barbi, checkmate!
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Angus
Barbi, with the miles-pro-gallon you just gave POSTED, rhubarb missions over the lowlands are very easily possible without droptanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well let`s see, sources commonly give ca 6.5 miles per gallon at 220 mph very slow cruising for the Spit IX. 85x6.5= 552.
That would mean the Spit could go as far as 552 miles. Perhaps enough to reach the Lowlands, I didn`t check, but this aircraft does dogfight, does not warms up before takeoff, does not consumes fuel for the climb, and flies as a target drone at 220 mph. "
Firstly, those missions were flown with Spit I's, II's and V's, which consume fuel at a slower rate than the Mk IX.
Secondly, climb is only a minute or so, - this was low level.
Thirdly, the distance is roughly 400 miles for the roundtrip.
Still doesn't explane why 109 were not spotted well north of London, the roundtrip from N-France to London is about 200 miles.
BTW, AFAIK the Mk I and II did not carry droptanks. I have seen a LW kill claim well inside belgium for a Mk II.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Isegrim, read what it says, not what you want it to say.
"Cruising speed at ft 20,000
Most economical = mph 220
At maximum weak mixture power mph 360 @ 22000ft"
Further on it says:
"Range bomb load table", and gives a figure of 740 miles clean.
However, it doesn't say at what speed those range figures are achieved
You are assuming it's at most economical speed, based on the fact that it says 220mph is the most economical speed. But it also says maximum weak mixture cruise is 360 mph, and it doesn't say in the range table which cruise speed was used. It's just your assumption
I am not assuming anything, it`s just you who try to find an excuse when evidence shows up and prove you wrong. You are trying hard to discredit numerous RAF sources that show the Spit wasn`t the uber economic plane you want to desribe it.
IE.
(http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/spit/8/109.jpg)
It says, 740 miles, at 220 mph, just as I stated. Familiar? Same figures I told are for 220 miles per hour.
This document was already posted here, Nashwan seen it already a dozen times, but now he pretends he never heard of it.... laughable attitude. No wonder you have a reputation of a cheat. http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=126224
Should I add that 740 miles is still range only, not practically achievable in combat.
And let`s not forget about this nice document as well, again it refutes Nashwan`s claims.
(http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/spit/9/182.jpg)
It says : "The maximum still air range, including climb at this height (20 000 ft) is 450 miles (for the Spit IX)".
Now, I'll quote to you exactly what you said in your post a long time ago when you "revealed" that the 109 had longer range than commonly quoted:
"I guess I share these range tables for the Bf 109G (G-2 to be exact), since there`s so many misunderstandings about that in the literature (most books state high-speed cruise ranges only). "
You are prepared to accept most 109 figures are for high speed cruise, you will not accept the same for Spitfires even when presented with the test that confirms it
As for 109s range presented in the literature, the common number is 560 km or so. It can be exactly confirmed from German GLC charts, that 560 km/h is given for the G-6 versions at Dauerleistung, or maximum cruise, at 595 km/h/370mph cruising speed.
You claim that the range put in the literature for Spitfires are for high speed cruise only, but you presented nothing apart from a your own twisted out version of a chart, and that is proven totally wrong by other charts that confirm the range presented there is for 220 mph most economic cruise foir the Spit.
That's just blinkered, and it explains why people dismiss what you have to say. You will only accept evidence that favours the 109, and any other evidence isn't refuted, it's ignored.
Dismissed by which people? You? You don`t count to me as people. I guess you just qouted from your own CV. :D
Your behaviour here can be described as nothing else than picking the single highest figure presented in a single test for the Spit, which conflicts with it`s datasheet, it`s flight manual, numerous other tests, and you try to put it forth and ignore all the rest, with your usual partisan attitude.
If you want to show the Spitfire had a lower range, present the tests to show it, which need to show range at a particular speed, like the one I've posted.
Like this one?
(http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/spit/9/182.jpg)
Let`s see.... it has to show range... check! It has to show range at a particular speed... check!
450 miles, no more. At MOST economic cruise.
All you have posted is a Spitfire range table at an unknown speed
Unknown speed?
Let`s see, I posted a range table for the Spit which says the economic cruise speed is 220 mph. It has a range table which says range is 740 miles.
And here`s another, which says the range is 740 miles, at 220 mph.
(http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/spit/8/109.jpg)
Same values as the previous doc, giving the same range at the same speed as I stated.
Furthermore there`s the 1945 British range doc for the Mk XVI, which is the same as the Mk.IX and it says... guess what, 434 miles at 220 mph again!
In order to make the Spit look uber, you ignored everything that shows the contrary :
- a range table for the Spit VIII showing 740 miles range which you claimed was 'at unspecified speed', a sorry excuse made up!
- a range TEST for the Spit VIII showing 740 miles range which explicitely shows 740 miles/220 mph, the as the other which you claimed was NOT for 220 mph
- another Spit IX range test which shows the best milage was 6.7 miles/gallon.
- Official British Datatsheets which again specify the range of 434 miles at 220 mph for the XVI/IX.
We should ignore all this weight of evidence, and blindly believe Nashwan, the Spitdweeb partisan ?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Firstly, those missions were flown with Spit I's, II's and V's, which consume fuel at a slower rate than the Mk IX.
Secondly, climb is only a minute or so, - this was low level.
Thirdly, the distance is roughly 400 miles for the roundtrip.
[/B]
Low level only? That makes the claim even more dubious, given that the range of an aircraft is usually even less at low level because of greater air density.
Still doesn't explane why 109 were not spotted well north of London, the roundtrip from N-France to London is about 200 miles.[/B]
No 109 was ever spotted North of London? Angus, do you have anything to underline this, or you just pulled it out of your smarter end?
I have seen a LW kill claim well inside belgium for a Mk II. [/B]
I presume that, unfortunately but unsurprisingly, you will be unable to find a source for that either? How did the LW identified it`s a Mk II btw, given that it looked exactly the same as the Mk I or Mk V?
Take an advice, Angus. When you are making up things, don`t make up too much detail as well.. you might be caught.
-
I will have to browse the LW claims, don't worry.
As for 109's active to----Birmingham? Please give ME proof.
And finally, Quills 40 gallon pr hour flight was all at low level frequently changing alt and heading.
40 gallons an hour is easily Bruxelles and back. nener nener :D
-
(http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/spit/8/109.jpg)
It says, 740 miles, at 220 mph, just as I stated. Familiar? Same figures I told are for 220 miles per hour.
This document was already posted here, Nashwan seen it already a dozen times, but now he pretends he never heard of it.... laughable attitude. No wonder you have a reputation of a cheat. http://www.hitechcreations.com/foru...threadid=126224
Isegrim, read what I said about it last time.
Basically, that page is a sheet from a document called Spitfire VIII, general description and performance.
It's not a test, in fact it shows figures for a Spitfire VIII with low alt Merlin Viii and extended HF wings, a bizarre hybrid that I doubt ever flew. (Note the 40 ft wingspan)
It's also dated 24/10/43, whereas the test I posted is dated 28/03/44.
Question: Which do you rely on more, a single page "brief summary" that incorrectly identifies either the wingspan or engine, and that's drawn up before the tests are carried out, or the complete test results which are issued later?
Isegrim's answer: Whichever shows the Spitfire in the worst light.
And let`s not forget about this nice document as well, again it refutes Nashwan`s claims.
(http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/spit/9/182.jpg)
That's a Merlin 61 Spitfire IX. Only about 350 of those were made. As you can see, the Merlin 66 returned much better figures.
And "Nashwan's claims"?
I've posted a test report, it's not "my claims". I've yet to see you post a test report on the Spit with Merlin 66.
Like this one?
(http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/spit/9/182.jpg)
That's the very same Merlin 61 Spitfire as in the previous pic.
I wonder if the fuel consumption issue is one of the reasons they sitched away from the Merlin 61 to the 63/66 so quickly?
And here`s another, which says the range is 740 miles, at 220 mph. (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/spit/8/109.jpg)
That's exactly the same image as the first one.
I can repeat the same comments if you like, but suffice to say it's from before the tests were carried out, comes from a "brief summary", and claims to be of a Spitfire with a low alt engine and high alt wings, which never existed.
(BTW, I thought the consumption figures were most likely based on the earlier tests of the Spit IX with Merlin 61, but I've just remembered that some early Spitfire VIIIs had both clipped wings and Merlin 61, and I suspect it probably refers to that).
In order to make the Spit look uber, you ignored everything that shows the contrary :
- a range table for the Spit VIII showing 740 miles range which you claimed was 'at unspecified speed', a sorry excuse made up!
It is at an unspecified speed Isegrim.
- a range TEST for the Spit VIII showing 740 miles range which explicitely shows 740 miles/220 mph, the as the other which you claimed was NOT for 220 mph
It's not a range TEST.
1, it's dated some months before the tests were carried out.
2, it claims to be for a Spitfire VIII with extended wings and Merlin 66, and I doubt any such plane existed.
- another Spit IX range test which shows the best milage was 6.7 miles/gallon.
Merlin 61.
- Official British Datatsheets which again specify the range of 434 miles at 220 mph for the XVI/IX.
At what speed?
Again Isegrim, we have precisely ONE test of the range on a Merlin 66 engined Spitfire. I've posted it, you are desperate to ignore it.
That's perfectly obvious to anyone.
Once again, here it is:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1090515978_spitviiirange.jpg
You haven't posted ANY data to challenge it. You've posted a test of the Merlin 61, and a sheet from a "brief summary" of the Spitfire VIII which claims it has low alt engine and high alt wings, and printed before the tests were carried out.
-
Hi Guppy:
I have a question that is rather a bit off-topic and perhaps a long shot. I gather you have a particular interest in No 41 Squadron? Any chance you have any combat reports/Form F's on Eric Lock from No 41 during 1940? They were missing went I went looking for them. Thanks.
-
Again Isegrim, we have precisely ONE test of the range on a Merlin 66 engined Spitfire. I've posted it, you are desperate to ignore it.
That's perfectly obvious to anyone.
Anyone who`s Nashwan and/or lacks any brains.
Let me summerize your position :
You ignore this :
(http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/spit/8/109.jpg)
Stating 740 miles range @ 220 mph.
You also ignore this :
(http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/spit/9/182.jpg)
Stating 450 miles range @ 160 mph.
And this :
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit8adsaussie.jpg)
Stating 740 miles range @ 220 mph again.
You also ignore British Air Intelligence docs that state 434 miles for the Mk IX/XVI at 220 mph.
Question, what we choose to believe, a highly biased spitdweeb, or loads of documents stating the range of the Spitfire prepeared by British professionals... Hard choice, really.
You deny any of these test reports are from flight test, despite written on the header, on the basis a, they predate other tests b, You think that no such plane existed, RAAF officials are wrong, given that a low altitude engine was fitted longspan wings... LOL, even if you know very well that any kind of clipped, normal, or extended wings could be fitted to ANY Spitfire... wait, there were clipped wings for the high altitude MkXIVs as well... must be wrong, it doesn`t fits into Nashwans theory! :lol
You claim the flight test shows a Merlin 61 engined Spitfire IX. (This part of )The document doesn`t specifies. Another good example of Nashwan making up thing in desperation - not it if would make any difference, considering the engines were exactly the same fuel consumption, underline by the fact that all later specsheets for the Merlin 66 and 266 state even shorter range (434 vs. 450) for that engine.
I`d say your attitude can only be described as laughable, desperate and partisan. I posted facts, you answered with fiction.
Moreover, considering the fact that
-the 109G developed 725 miles range at an economic cruise at 210 mph on 88 gallons of fuel, and
-the Mk IX managed only 434 to 450 miles on 85 gallons at 220mph (only 2/3 the distance)
-and the MkVIII required 120 gallons, or 50% more fuel to get the same range summerizes the relative fuel effiency difference between the 109/DB and Spit/Merlin airframe/powerplant combination throughly.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094475518_109g_range.jpg)
-
Shrug....shrug.
If a Merlin 61 Spitfire can be flown with 40 gals an hour, A spit I can certainly do it.
Those graphs and reports you're bashing around with actually don't all match, but that's as it goes.
But ranges where aircraft actually went for missions are VERY VERY ABSOLUTE.
BTW, I found the LW claims report. I am looking at Hurricanes and Spitfires being claimed shot down here and there in France, during and after Dunkirk.
Am paging, then I have to do some range calculations.
Will post later.
All the best, and keep partying :D
-
Originally posted by Staga
You do understand MW50 wasn't a fuel ?
You do understand that 1.98 was not obtainable without MW50. The engine consumed at least 800 l/h of fluids.
-
Originally posted by mw
Hi Guppy:
I have a question that is rather a bit off-topic and perhaps a long shot. I gather you have a particular interest in No 41 Squadron? Any chance you have any combat reports/Form F's on Eric Lock from No 41 during 1940? They were missing went I went looking for them. Thanks.
My main interest in 41 Squadron is from the Spit XII era, February 43-September 44.
I got those combat reports along with the Spit XII reports from the RAF Museum.
I'd suggest posting a request on the board at:
http://brew.clients.ch/RAF41Sqdn.htm
That's the 41 Squadron website done by the nephew of a former pilot. Some of my research is on the site as well as many of my photos and Spit profiles.
There are other folks contributing there who specialize in the other eras whether it be 41 in B of B or the Spit XIV era. They might be able to point you towards info on Lock.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
You do understand that 1.98 was not obtainable without MW50.
According to Butch2k, C-3 fuel alone was able to withstand up to 2.2 ata without MW 50. 1.98ata was definietely obtainable with C-3 alone.
The engine consumed at least 800 l/h of fluids. [/B]
But only 650 liters of fuel compared to 900 liters of fuel consumed by the Merlins at the same power. We speak of fuel effiency here, not 'liquid effiency' - never heard of such.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
According to Butch2k, C-3 fuel alone was able to withstand up to 2.2 ata without MW 50. 1.98ata was definietely obtainable with C-3 alone.
But only 650 liters of fuel compared to 900 liters of fuel consumed by the Merlins at the same power. We speak of fuel effiency here, not 'liquid effiency' - never heard of such.
You do have troubles with reality don't you Barbarossa Isegrim, never mind what your site says.
Let me post some text from your site.
"If the DC was set at 2000PS @ 1.98ata this output could be reached by using C3+MW50, when using C3 alone, output was just 1725PS@1.8PS, way lower than the DB605DB. If the DC was set for a max boost of 1.8ata, power output was 1800PS which was achieved by C3 alone."
Olivier Lefebvre:
"The DB605DM was cleared up to 1.75ata, the DB605DB pushed the limit up to 1.8ata, both could be sustained with use of either B4+MW-50 (as mentionned in various documents, even if it was an afterthought in the DM case) or C3-MW-50. However the DB605DC max boost at 1.98ata could be achieved with use of C3+MW-50 only[/b]."
Now why would Butch say 2.2 was obtainable after saying anything over 1.8 required MW50? :rolleyes:
No MW50, no 2000ps!
.................
Why do ignore this Barbarossa Isegrim
'On range:
109E-1, E-3 handbook:
SL
max continuous(2200rpm) - 267mi, 1.05hr
max economy(1300rpm) - 404mi, 2.20hr
6km
max continuous(2400rpm) - 323mi, 1.10hr
max economy(1600rpm) - 395mi, 1.40hr
A Spitfire Ia had a range of 575mi and a combat range of 395mi. (StH)'
Is it because it does not support your Germans are superior agenda?
-
ad 1, Butch said C-3 was able to sustain 2.2 ata pressure at CR 8.5/1. That`s quite logical since C-3 was roughly equal to 100/150 grade, it could sustain high boost w/o pre-detonation. It`s regardless wheter you like it or not, it`s given from the specs of C-3.
ad 2, You are qouting one of butch`s qoutes, and not my site.
ad 3, MW was there with C-3 to provide charge cooling, not that it was neccesary to prevent detonation.
ad 4, The fact that DB was working up the 605 D to 2.3ata max pressure also points it out that, given that it wouldn`t be possible to raise such high pressure unless C-3 had the sufficient extra reserves.
Now keep barking.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
ad 1, Butch said C-3 was able to sustain 2.2 ata pressure at CR 8.5/1. That`s quite logical since C-3 was roughly equal to 100/150 grade, it could sustain high boost w/o pre-detonation. It`s regardless wheter you like it or not, it`s given from the specs of C-3.
If it was that simple, why were the Germans so slow clearing 2.2 for operational use?
ad 2, You are qouting one of butch`s qoutes, and not my site.
Don't you know what is in your arcticle?
ad 3, MW was there with C-3 to provide charge cooling, not that it was neccesary to prevent detonation.
And if the charge wasn't cooled you had detination.
ad 4, The fact that DB was working up the 605 D to 2.3ata max pressure also points it out that, given that it wouldn`t be possible to raise such high pressure unless C-3 had the sufficient extra reserves.
Flies in the face that 1.98 was not obtainable WITHOUT MW50.
Now keep barking.
Typical of Barbarossa Isegrim. TimL40 was correct that all but you can disuss in a "reasonable and rational way.
-
Thanks Guppy35.
-
This is all quuite funny.
Well, what would life be without Barbi, eh?
Anyway, - this:
"But only 650 liters of fuel compared to 900 liters of fuel consumed by the Merlins at the same power. We speak of fuel effiency here, not 'liquid effiency' - never heard of such."
Getting out of the crossfire there?
Well. MW is injected into the engine, is necessary to boost power, and does carry a weight penalty. You can replace it with----less power. So if you want to speak of fuel economy, you should keep with power without MW and fuel consumption, - or power With MW with MW included. Dead simple.
Anyway, I have a feeling that actually the common use to the latest part of the war would have been 1.3/1.42 in most cases.
Will ask my LW lot about it. Just in case
:D
-
1.98 was achievable with C3 only on the DC but the overheating was coming just too fast to make it really an operational feature. The advantage was to prevent instantaneous engine destruction in case MW-50 was not delivered to the engine anymore.
Good quality C3 had the capability to run at 2.2 ata @ 8.5CR, at least it could sustain such pressures without detonating, it does not mean it could be achieved in operational condition without MW-50 as a coolant.
MW-50 was both an anti-detonant (think of B4+MW-50 required on a DB605DB @ 1.8ata) and a coolant preventing overheating (by water vaporisation taking a lot of the residual heat of fuel combustion)
-
You guys getting dizzy yet?
Around and around and around............
Kufurst, I don't have anything against you, and I am not taking sides, but.......if YOU are gonna mention butch2k as a source to back up your claims, then turn around and say "he said it, I didn't", it kinda makes you look, well...........fishy....:confused:
Like Milo said, too, your scanned docs don't match up, but that is to be expected. Doesn't matter if documents from that era are Allied or Axis, there pretty much seems to be discrepancies somewhere from document to document.
FWIW, IF the DB series engines were more fuel effecient than their Allied counterparts, who cares? It didn't affect the outcome of the war, they didn't do anything with that extra effeciency, so what's the point in arguing about it?
This has taken on an air of someone trying to play up how wonderful the Nazis were (and I don't wanna hear it.....if you fought/flew for German in WW2, you WERE fighting for them) and making excuses/alibis for why they ultimately lost the war.
think I'm through with this thread. Lotsa words passing back and forth, nothing being accomplished
-
Well, like I said, it will boil down to the actual combat ranges applied in WW2.
109's breaking off escort before reaching London because of fuel shortage means breaking off a mission with direct range of 100 miles for instance.....
-
(http://xs23.xs.to/pics/05145/Dr2.jpg)
-
First, DB 605´s max continuous coolant outlet T is 115 deg C. Merlin´s max continuous is 105 deg C. So where is the extreme? Kurrie quoted 135 deg C, but nicely forgot to mention that it is the 5 minute emergency limit.
Second, why it is that every other major manufacturer of large aero engines obtained maximum power by having low CD/high boost combo. Makers like BMW, Junkers, Bristol, RR, Allison, Napier, Wright, P&W.
Why did turbocharged, with very high boost, 1.5 litre Formula One engines utterly and decisively beat their unsupercharged 3.5 litre opponents to pulp? Why is every form of motor racing where supercharging is allowed dominated by highly boosted supercharged engines instead of Kurfürst high CR crap? I don´t think Kurfürst needs more coffin nails. He´s doomed.
-
Pasoleati,
Eipä tuon tohtori koon kanssa ole faktoilla mitään väliä; kyse on uskonnosta.
gripen
-
Niinpä. Asiallinen keskustelu olisi tervetullutta, mutta jos musta on väkisin väännettävä valkoiseksi, ei siitä tule mitään.
-
Originally posted by pasoleati
First, DB 605´s max continuous coolant outlet T is 115 deg C. Merlin´s max continuous is 105 deg C. So where is the extreme? Kurrie quoted 135 deg C, but nicely forgot to mention that it is the 5 minute emergency limit.
[/B]
You`d have to check a reference before making such statements, as such examples only prove most of what you say is only your guessing.
The DB 605A manual right in front of me states that 115 degrees are permissable for 10 minutues only, whereas 102 degrees is for permissable continously. Such limits are generally defined by the boiling limit and coolant reserve, and it 135 vs 115, 105 vs 102 clearly shows RR was using higher pressures.
In brief you had no idea of what you were talking about.
Second, why it is that every other major manufacturer of large aero engines obtained maximum power by having low CD/high boost combo. Makers like BMW, Junkers, Bristol, RR, Allison, Napier, Wright, P&W.
[/B]
Wrong.
Napier Sabre used 7 : 1 high CR with relatively low boost of +7, just like DB did.
The BMW 801 used 7.22 : 1 high CR with low boost, just like DB did.
Wright also progressively increased the CR, ie. earlier to later Wright engines :
Whirlwind : 6,1 : 1
Cyclone 9R : 6.4 : 1
Cyclone 9R R-1820 : 6.7 : 1
Cyclone 14 GR 2600 : 6.9 : 1
DB was using 6.9 : 1 in it`s initial models, increasing it to 7.3 in the 605, then finally to 8.3-8.5 with the models using higher grade fuels.
The trend is clear, every later engine, except RR`s was heading towards direct fuel injection, larger volumes and higher CR, which was exactly the path pioneered and followed. All the engine manufacturers I noted successfully ended up with 2000+ HP engines, whereas Allison who followed the stupid RR struggled to get past 1600 HP, even with a monstre turbocharger.
In brief you had no idea of what you were talking about, again, and just made yourself look laughable with this tunnel vision about everything DB made was wrong. Yeah I wonder why did it become the largest engine manufacturer in Germany, and why the LW choosed it`s engines over BMW and Junkers over and over again.
Röviden szólva valószínüleg te is olyan beszükült seggfej vagy mint Gripen, aki reggeltöl estig vakon szajkózza a magáét, és semmiféle észérve sem produkál életjeleket. Persze nagyon szívesen alázlak téged is. :D
-
Well, you have a different manual. I have the Finnish edition for "DB 605 A-C" which clearly says 115 deg C is permitted at sea level and there is no time limit either on that page nor anywhere else in that manual.
-
And K, would you mind checking the manifold pressure of Wright Whirlwind vs. R-3350? Your example is so amusing that I don´t know whether to laugh or weep.
As for the Sabre, would you mind checking the CR and boost figs for Sabre II and Sabre V? You will note that the CR remained the same whereas the additional power was solely due to increased boost!
And Allison struggled to pass 1600 hp? G-series (with reduced CR but increased boost) produced some 2200 hp.
The same trend in the P&W R-2800. All power increases within a series (e.g. B and C) was obtained with increased boost, not by increasing CR.
Monster turbocharger? Been watching too many horror movies?
As for LW choosing DB over others, lets see what Dr. Otto Cuno of Rechlin (from January 1944 the head of German engine development in Berlin) said in an interrogation by RAE in September 1945 (tbc)
-
Otto Cuno: "...We therefore planned to develop jets and rockets and stopped many developments on piston engines. For the latter [emphasis added] WE CONCENTRATED ON THE JUMO 213 AND AS AN INSURANCE POLICY THE DB 603 AS WELL,...". So, do you still claim that LW somehow chose DB over and over again?
Cuno also mentions that they were obtaining 2700 hp from the Jumo 213 in July 1944 test. 2700 hp from slightly lesser volume that of the DB 605 and a volume from which the almighty DB was struggling to get over 2000 hp...
-
One more thing. It is obvious for anyone with brains why the DB might have had lower coolant temps: poor design. It is pretty clear that the 605 suffered from far too many piston scorching problems as proven by tech orders explaining why the 1.42 ata setting is banned. As higher coolant temperature would naturally mean higher piston temperature, lower coolant temperature would have been just another way to patch up the sinking ship. After all, the almighty DB geniuses were the only major designers to adopt dry cylinder liners with their much poorer heat transfer properties.
-
Well, you have a different manual. I have the Finnish edition for "DB 605 A-C" which clearly says 115 deg C is permitted at sea level and there is no time limit either on that page nor anywhere else in that manual.
I have the original German from automn 1942. As well a the Hungarian from 1943. It appears the Finnish isn`t accurate.
As for the Sabre, would you mind checking the CR and boost figs for Sabre II and Sabre V? You will note that the CR remained the same whereas the additional power was solely due to increased boost!
First you claimed nobody used high CR, then when proven utterly wrong in that, you change the claim? The Sabre Started out with +7 lbs boost, similiar what the Germans were using that time. Germans went the same way, increasing MAP continously, as well as CR with the higher octane fuels. So WTF you are talking about, more nonsense?
Monster turbocharger? Been watching too many horror movies?
How much Finlandia do you drink before posting? Should I say, P-47, a six ton monster? Should I point to a NACA report on supercharger technology, that points out that installing a similiar effiency turbocharger means 500 lbs extra weigth, whereas a DVL hydraulic cluthc comes with... 50 lbs extra?
Cuno also mentions that they were obtaining 2700 hp from the Jumo 213 in July 1944 test. 2700 hp from slightly lesser volume that of the DB 605 and a volume from which the almighty DB was struggling to get over 2000 hp...
Oh yes, largely by diverting less power to the supercharger, thus increasing peak low level output at the expense of altitude performance. What`s the big deal, DB did that in 1939, when it pumped out 2700 HP from a DB 601, that`s it, an engine 200 kg lighter and smaller displacement than the Jumo. And it even flew.
oh yes, 900kg + Jumo 213 vs 740 kg DB 605, heh? I guess something for something. DB struggling to get over 2000 HP? That`s laughalbe, they introduced into combat service. As for test engines, DB had nice developments as well, the DB 603 N was producing 2900 PS and had an unmached 2000 PS+ output even at 10 000m, at the same weight as Jumos, I`d like to see an engine that did the same. Your bias against DB is far too obvious. Fact still is, Junkers engines were turned down again and again to be used in fighters. They put them into bombers, and that tells the whole story, the only one that got it was the _interim solution_ D-9s, and the Ta 152H. Even the Ta 152C received the DB 603, so did the Do 335. Junkers tried hard to knock out DB during the war, but ultimately it always failed.
So, do you still claim that LW somehow chose DB over and over again?
There`s nothing to claim here, it`s a fact that they did.
-
Originally posted by pasoleati
One more thing. It is obvious for anyone with brains why the DB might have had lower coolant temps: poor design.
And now the switch, ROFLOL. First you try to proove the DB had similiar coolant temps as the Merlin, now that it`s bad becuse it`s aint similiar. :rofl
Whatever design feature of the DB = BAD.
Man you are biased.
-
Re Sabre. The fact is that Napier stuck to the original CR throughout Sabre´s development and increased power solely thru increased boost.
And the fact is that all allied major engines had lower CR than 7:1 except for the sleeve valve designs. E.g. the post war Wright R-3350 Turbo Compound had a CR of 6.7:1 even on 115/145 fuel.
Furthermore: when engines are modified for Reno racing (where the power really needs to be maxed out), the mods never call for increased CR. The additional power is allways obtained with major boost increases coupled with minor RPM increase (around 10% rpm increase for radials, Merlins and Allisons tolerate more).
The bottom line is: for a given octane rating available, you can allways have more power by having low CR/high boost than by having high CR/low boost. All that this requires is capable supercharger designer. And this DB obviously hadn´t.
-
Ahh, addendum: I have to inform you that my facts are not based on Finlandia drink for I happen to be a teetotaller. They are just the truth as it is.
-
Not that easy; with bigger boost you need more power to the SC and with ordinary supercharger systems that meant the boost had to be controlled (usually) with a butterfly flap after the SC.
That also meant that altitudes under the FTH part of the enginepower was wasted to run the SC in higher RPMs than what was necessary.
WIth higher CR and lower boost you could minimize the power the SC needed but this brought another problems I'm sure you can figure out.
-
Originally posted by pasoleati
Re Sabre. The fact is that Napier stuck to the original CR throughout Sabre´s development and increased power solely thru increased boost.
The fact that Napier, as well as BMW, Wright etc. went for higher CR, unlike as you claimed and were very successfull with it.
I see a pattern, those who adopted high CR succeeded in developing successfull engines with high powers AND good fuel consumption, those who didn`t, failed.
And the fact is that all allied major engines had lower CR than 7:1 except for the sleeve valve designs. E.g. the post war Wright R-3350 Turbo Compound had a CR of 6.7:1 even on 115/145 fuel.
All Allied engines had caruburrator only which frequently cut out under negative G. I guess that means carburrator is a superior solution than DFI, that why you don`t see any carburators around today! What a silly logic.
Furthermore: when engines are modified for Reno racing (where the power really needs to be maxed out), the mods never call for increased CR. The additional power is allways obtained with major boost increases coupled with minor RPM increase (around 10% rpm increase for radials, Merlins and Allisons tolerate more).
Considering they had to make with Allisons/Merlins only, which were designed this way... another silly example. Increased CR would require a serious design team behind them, not just a few old pros who know how to tickle with the engine a bit.
The bottom line is: for a given octane rating available, you can allways have more power by having low CR/high boost than by having high CR/low boost. All that this requires is capable supercharger designer. And this DB obviously hadn´t.
Splendid claim, too bad it doesn`t resamble reality at all!
But here`s another classic, DB didn`t have a capable supercharger designer.... I laugh myself to death! :rofl
I guess DB didn`t design a state of the art hydraulic coupling for it`s engines then. Can you make even more stupider statements, how about just studying JUST a BIT the high performance superchargers DB has come up with. But doh, I guess that they managed to make better performance SINGLE STAGE superchargers than RR managed to create with TWO stages... you have no idea on that, you just keep mentioning some DB feature, blindly stating that everything was bad, but failing to back up your dubious claims with anything.
Just a few DB engines with altitude performance few could match :
DB 628
DB 605 L
DB 603 L, LA, N.
All these had a rated altitude of over 30 000 feet.
-
Hello again.
Will bypass your technical stuff and plonk in something on a historical basis. BoB era, - after that the engines just went UP in consumption, be it Merlins or DB.
It did indeed turn out to be true that 109's had problems escorting as far as London, which is humbly 97 miles from Calais.
Many a good pilot ditched in the channel because of this.
But what I also found is that it didn't really matter if the 109's were on their own cruise, milling around the bombers, or on slow cruise, winging with the bombers, they still had the problems.
AFAIK, the Germans incorporated drop tanks well before the British. Now was it the 109E-4 or E-7????
The first Spitfires I hear of with drop tanks are Mk V's, and that begins with slipper-tanks. Same with Hurricanes. Those are for ferrying, since they are not droppable.
Common useage of Drop tanks seems to be in 1942 or so.
As far as I can see, Rhubarb missions and even Circus missions were done without them in 1941.
Same goes with the LW raids on London in 1940.
So, about range, it boils down to the same stew. The 109 and Spitfire had short legs, - the Mk I vs the 109E would both be in the 1-2 hours range, heavily depending of the power applied.
Seems though that the 109 raids ceized at the London area, while I have LW claims on Spitfires shot down at St Omer or so, as well as Hurricanes actually. That is actually rather a similar distance, a tad further perhaps.
So, just wondering if this fits. I know one person that will disagree, but it wouldn't be fun without it anyway.
-
All Allied engines had caruburrator only which frequently cut out under negative G. I guess that means carburrator is a superior solution than DFI, that why you don`t see any carburators around today! What a silly logic.
Still with your ignorance of Allied induction Barbarossa Isegrim.:(
Bendix and SU were producing fuel injection syatems.
"In 1942 the petrol injection pump was developed for the aero-engines, first fitted on Mosquito aircraft. Two S.U technical staff had taken out a patent in 1939 but the firm could not get anyone interested in it at that time. After three years of neglect, the S.U design was adopted and the new British petrol injection pump came into general use in the last year of the war. It was later built under licence by an American company and called The Simmonds Injector Pump."
As for the injectors, as in all mechanical fuel injection systems, the warplane’s were spring-loaded, open full-time, and oscillated rapidly to maximize atomization. With parts and controls like these, early fuel injection systems were little more than controlled leaks
Even the Griffon had a RR single point injection unit.
One does not see many carb induction systems around today because of emmision issues. Computerized FI induction reduces emmisions.
-
Will be replying later in detail but Kurfürst, tell me one thing: did Napier increase Sabre´s CR from the Sabre I to Sabre VII? No, they did not.
And would you mind going back a few messages where I clearly pointed out the superiority of increasing boost over increasing CR as a means to increase power? The quote was pretty clear.
And you nicely forget that supercharger design also includes IMPELLER design, and here DB obviously screwed up.
-
Never heard of a P51 cutting out in Neg-G's Barbi.
Getting desperate?
The Neg-G problem was solved, however at first in the field.
Same actually with the Spit's stability problems.
You should fly AH. They have a wonderful flight engine where you can explore these features :D
-
Let´s have a reminder of basics here.
1) German engines had direct fuel injection. This means that the individual injector is located in the combustion chamber and the fuel supply is sequential (i.e. not continuous)
2) Some Allied engines had carburettors. British carbs were made either by S.U. (Skinner´s Union) or Claudel-Hobson. These were standard float type carbs susceptible to negative-g cutting. In the US similar carbs were made by Holley.
However, vast majority of US engines and most later war Merlins were equipped by pressure carburettors, or actually single point injectors.
-
These were usually made by Bendix-Stromberg. This system supplied fuel under low pressure and injected it into the eye of the blower impeller. These were not susceptible to negative g-cutting.
Some later war Merlins had a slightly different S.U. system. It had a 5-plunger variable displacement pump injecting fuel like the above system, but it did not need venturi tubes for mixture control. This was further simplified by having a gear type pump instead of the plunger pump in very late engines. The latter system was developed by RR.
Bendix system is often called pressure density and the SU/RR type speed density system.
-
Now, in 1945 US Navy conducted a comparison between a Bendix equipped R-3350 and a direct injection variant (similar to German systems). It was found that performance WAS NOT improved by the direct injection system, but mixture distribution was. As the R-3350 suffered from poor mixture distribution, later models were equipped by the DI system. However, it is most interesting to note, that P&W did not use direct injection in any of the R-2800 models, and only few of the R-4360s had it.
As for the CR, the Sabre retained the same CR of 7:1 from the first to the last models while the boost was increased from +7 in the Sabre I to +20 in the Sabre VII with power increasing from 2000 hp to 3500 hp.
P&W´s R-2800 B-series, CR 6.65:1 in all models but boost increased from 52 inHg to 64 inHg and power increasing some 30%.
C-series had a CR of 6.75:1 and again, all power increases were obtained by increasing boost. It should be remembered that the C-series was basically a new engine, with cylinder dimensions remaining the common denominator to the B-series.
Bristol Centaurus. CR 7.2:1 in all models and all power increases by increased boost.
And the list goes on. In short, NO OTHER MAJOR MANUFACTURER INCREASED CR TO GET MORE POWER OUT OF A PARTICULAR DESIGN. THEY ALLWAYS INCREASED BOOST.
These are facts.
-
"Monster turbocharger? Been watching too many horror movies?
How much Finlandia do you drink before posting? Should I say, P-47, a six ton monster? Should I point to a NACA report on supercharger technology, that points out that installing a similiar effiency turbocharger means 500 lbs extra weigth, whereas a DVL hydraulic cluthc comes with... 50 lbs extra?"
Umm.....excuse me, but the P-47 did not use an Allison engine, which you stated used a "monstre turbocharger" and still struggled to exceed 1600hp. It used a radial engine, and was producing 2000+hp from the early models to 2800 in the later ones.
If you're gonna name a particular plane as an example to try and back up your debate, you might want to get the planes correct.
-
Let´s have a reminder of basics here.
1) German engines had direct fuel injection. This means that the individual injector is located in the combustion chamber and the fuel supply is sequential (i.e. not continuous)
I guess this is fairly obvious to even Mr. MM, he only puts the nonsense because
a, it`s nice to lead astray those who don`t get what the diffo between 'fuel injection' and 'direct fuel injection' is.
b, He only wants to flame.
Then again, I have to point out the facts which you choose to ignore.
As for the CR, the Sabre retained the same CR of 7:1 from the first to the last models while the boost was increased from +7 in the Sabre I to +20 in the Sabre VII with power increasing from 2000 hp to 3500 hp.
Yep, and notice the Sabre uses high CR 7 : 7 just like the early DB 601 does.
Notice the Bristol Centaurus uses high CR 7.2:1 almost exactly what the DB 605A does (7.3 : 1)
Notice the BMW 801 uses CR 7.22 : 1 almost exactly what the DB 605A does (7.3 : 1).
You keep telling us that for some mysterious reason, high CR is a bad thing, yet we see again and again some of the best WW2 aero engines use very much the same CR, and following the same path as DB choosed, EXCEPT the R-R.
The common perception is sadly however that those engines which utitlize high CR can develop as much or more power with less complications, and MASSIVELY better fuel effiency, than those which only rely on increasing boost.
In short, NO OTHER MAJOR MANUFACTURER INCREASED CR TO GET MORE POWER OUT OF A PARTICULAR DESIGN. THEY ALLWAYS INCREASED BOOST.
It`s funny that you mention facts, and then ignore them.
Wright also progressively increased the CR, ie. earlier to later Wright engines :
Whirlwind : 6,1 : 1
Cyclone 9R : 6.4 : 1
Cyclone 9R R-1820 : 6.7 : 1
Cyclone 14 GR 2600 : 6.9 : 1
So did DB.
THEY ALLWAYS INCREASED BOOST.
So if the other guys went stupid, and ignored direct fuel injection, DB should drop it too? Ridiculus.
If the other guys went stupid, and ignored hydraulically driven superchargers, DB should drop it too? Ridiculus.
If the other guys went stupid, and ignored the advantages of inverted vee construction, DB should drop it too? Ridiculus.
And similiarlytIf the other guys went stupid, and ignored the advantages of inverted vee construction, DB should drop it too? Ridiculus.
So if R-R alone went stupid, and ignored CR, DB should drop it too? Ridiculus.
Is that the logic you follow? The only way of increasing power is increasing boost? Power output is a factor of both MAP and CR, given the two determine the final pre-detonation pressure in the chamber, doh. You got somewhere that notion that increasing CR is bad... yet we see high CR was a watermark of those engines which were EFFICIENT, not just worked-up fuel hogs. We see that all the 2000 HP class engines, ie. Sabre, BMW 801, DB60x series all had high CR.
Who was the only pigheaded company to use low CRand got fixated on MAP only ? That`s right, R-R.
You also ignore the fact that DB increased boost progressively through the war :
DB 601A : 1.3 ata
DB 601Aa : 1.35 ata
DB 601N : 1.35ata
DB 601E : 1.42ata
DB 605D : 1.5ata
DB 605AM : 1.7ata
DB 605 DM : 1.75ata
DB 605 DB : 1.8ata
DB 605 DC : 1.98ata (was under development for 2.3ata)
You keep that fact ignoring. The other fact that during this, DBs went with 52% increase in MAP from 990 to 2000 PS, 100+% improvement in power output, AND managed to get acceptable fuel consumption for it. You fail to grasp that DB was increasing BOTH the Compression Ratio, and Manifold Pressure.Now THESE are the facts, and that the low CR Merlin 66 needs 197 gallons per hour to produce 2000 HP, whereas the high CR DaimlerBenz engines can do the SAME on 30% less, 143 gallons per hour. Try to get a grip on that FACT.
Also let`s note DB could successfully boost the DB 601 to 2700 PS in 1939, RR failed to achieve the same until postwar. High CR bad, huh? :lol
And would you mind going back a few messages where I clearly pointed out the superiority of increasing boost over increasing CR as a means to increase power?
What, you mean that utterly stupid example between supercharged and non-supercharged engines... yes you proved... that supercharged engines are more powerful. Who`d have guessed. But come closer, I tell you a secret.... All Daimler Benz engines were supercharged - just like any other engine. That`s right. No joke.
You also had some dubious comments about DB being unable to design good superchargers.
Now please, tell me, which engine could produce up to 1945, under 1000 kg weight
1350 HP at 9600 meter ?
1760 HP at 9000 meter ?
1950 HP at 11 000 meter ?
1200 HP at 11 000 meter ?
I am speaking of the DB 605 L, 603 LA, 603N, 628 here.
Come on, it can`t be that hard to beat those 'crappy' DB superchargers....
-
Originally posted by eddiek
Umm.....excuse me, but the P-47 did not use an Allison engine, which you stated used a "monstre turbocharger" and still struggled to exceed 1600hp. If you're gonna name a particular plane as an example to try and back up your debate, you might want to get the planes correct.
[/B]
P-47 didn`t use the Allison with a monstre turbocharger.
The P-38 did. I didn`t linked the Allison and the P-47 together anywhere, you did.
-
Yup, Kurfie, you did.
Here's what you said:
"The trend is clear, every later engine, except RR`s was heading towards direct fuel injection, larger volumes and higher CR, which was exactly the path pioneered and followed. All the engine manufacturers I noted successfully ended up with 2000+ HP engines, whereas Allison who followed the stupid RR struggled to get past 1600 HP, even with a monstre turbocharger."
pasoleati responded with:
"And Allison struggled to pass 1600 hp? G-series (with reduced CR but increased boost) produced some 2200 hp.
The same trend in the P&W R-2800. All power increases within a series (e.g. B and C) was obtained with increased boost, not by increasing CR.
Monster turbocharger? Been watching too many horror movies?"
To which YOU replied:
"How much Finlandia do you drink before posting? Should I say, P-47, a six ton monster? Should I point to a NACA report on supercharger technology, that points out that installing a similiar effiency turbocharger means 500 lbs extra weigth, whereas a DVL hydraulic cluthc comes with... 50 lbs extra?"
You, my friend, tied the Allison with the "monstre turbocharger", not me or anyone else.
I merely pointed out that your example of a "monstre turbocharger" was incorrect in your using the P-47 as an example. You named "Allison" and the monster turbo remark in the same sentence, tried to give us an example of a plane with an Allison and big turbo and what we got was......P-47.
P-38 was Allison equipped, and used turbosuperchargers; P-47 used the R-2800 radial and DID use a "monstre turbocharger" , so I suspect somewhere in your mind you got confused and hurriedly typed in what to you was a clear example of what you wanted to say...........
Carry on, I am going to bed. I'll read more of this nonsense and pro-Nazi drivel when I wake up.
-
How can somebody be so stupid? Kurrie, ALL ALLIED ENGINES WITH A CR OF OVER 7:1 WERE SLEEVE VALVE ENGINES. YOU CANNOT DIRECTLY COMPARE THE CR OF POPPET VALVE ENGINES TO THAT OF SLEEVE VALVE ENGINES!!!
And why it is hard to understand that e.g. the Sabre stuck to the very same CR while the boost was being contantly increased.
And, let´s post it again as our Hungarian dog cannot read. Quote from article by diploma engineer Jukka Raunio:"(see next post)
-
Raunio: "If the main purpose is to increase power and not to improve its fuel economy, it is better to increase boost than to raise CR. In an example found in the book "Supercharging the Internal Combustion Engine" a naturally aspirated engine had its CR raised from 5 to 8:1. Brake Mean Efficient Pressure [=power. PL] increased 10%, specific fuel consumption decreased 18%, but the peak pressure that determines detonation limit and engine stresses inccreased by no less than 63%.
tbc
-
Raunio continues:"The same peak pressure rise was obtained by increasing the manifold pressure to 1.5 ata by supercharger. BMEP [=power] increased by 54% [FIFTY FOUR PER CENT]. Supercharging naturally absorbed some power, but its effect compared to such a great rise in BMEP was insignificant. Boosting did not affect fuel economy. So, if the main requirement was to get more power, it was more advantageous to keep CR low and have high boost than to increase CR. In fighters this was the way to get maximum power increase with lowest weight increase..."
Still don´t get it???
-
More Kurrie´s coffin nails:
Jumo 211J:
TO power, sea level, 1420 hp, sfc 240 g/hp/hr, CR 6.5:1
DB 605A:
TO 1475, sfc 235 g/hp/hr
Jumo 211J:
max continuous, SL, 960 hp, sfc 210 g/hp/hr
DB:
max cont, SL, 1075 hp, sfc 215 g/hp/hr
How is this possible? Jumo is smaller, has lower rpm by 200, does not have hydraulic coupling, has much lower CR. Yet, DB´s max. power sfc advantage is only a bit over 2%! I.e. well within tolerances allowed for individual engines.
Lord, I enjoy nailing these coffin nails!
-
And what if the cooling needed for hydraulic coupling in the DB 605 would have been used to cool charge (intercooling) instead? The Jumo 211J benefitted around 100ps at low altitude from intercooling (2600rpm 1,4ata, 50% cooling) without RAM. And the 211J also benefitted about 20-30ps from RAM at lower altitudes while the DB 605 actually suffered power losses due to RAM below the 2nd FTH.
gripen
-
Indeed. Fitting an intercooler in the 605 should not have been an overwhelming task for the allmighty DB engineers. Junkers did it without fuss and reaped considerable benefits, as you proved.
BTW, just checked what the power curve in the JaPo 109K has. At e.g. 9 km it produced about 1100 hp. The Allison´s G-series G6L/R produced 1250 hp at the same altitude and 2250 hp at low altitude.
Since K has some fixation on some racing DB doing 2700 hp, one may really ask whether DB was a capable manufacturer for some 2 years after that 2700 hp these same geniuses were banning 1475 ratings in the 605 due to burned pistons (e.g. TAdG, IC 6, DB 605, No 25/42, Lfd. No 417/42") which says that 1.42 ata is still forbidden, despite strentghened pistons. Long live DB!
-
So, during the war, the bulk of the DB's were running at 1.3 and less?
And once raised, engine life became very very short?
1350 HP at 9600 meter ?
1760 HP at 9000 meter ?
1950 HP at 11 000 meter ?
1200 HP at 11 000 meter ?
Belongs to what ata and what engines?
FYI, some Merlins were boosted over 2000 hp in 1939.
As for high alt, I would think that P&W, P38's Allisons and Merlin 61 & 70 would be tough to beat.
Think of it, the Spitfire with a Merlin 61 has an operational ceiling of 43000 feet in 1942, - the Messer boys couldn't get up there untill what, 2 years later? By then you had the Mk VII with pressurised cockpit and extended wings and I think, a Merlin 70.
Does anyone have those powerfigures graphed?
-
Showing your ignorance again Barbarossa Isegrim. :(
FI into the induction system has a simular effect as ADI/MW50. :aok
You are only pulling your hair out in frustration because you have been proven wrong, again, in your statement > "All Allied engines had caruburrator only which frequently cut out under negative G."
Tell me how Barbarossa Isegrim many of the engines you listed, DB 605 L, 603 LA, 603N, 628 saw operational service?
-
Indeed. Fuel evaporation reduced the charge temperature by some 25 deg C, increasing charge density by roughly 8% (1% density increase per 3 deg C temp reduction).
This does not mean the direct injection was bad. Overall, it is better. However, from the performance POV it gave no advantages and the best compromise between maintenance and manufacturing costs and performance was probably the RR gear pump system.
-
@Eddiek, when someone like you don`t even smart enough to read, and just bark like a rabid dog when he doesn`t even know the Allison did use turbocharger, and then gets corrected as I you were, and as primitive as you are, I expect nothing else that he will keep barking even louder, and hope that using the magic word 'NAZI' will make him look less foolish. On the contrary!
Look how nice and compact the turbocharged Allison was :
(http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/aero_engines/images/turbocompound.jpg)
Ideal for fighters, if you don`t concern yourself with a 6 meter long cowling ! :rofl
@Mr. Finlandia effected friend, passoutty,
why is it so hard to get it into you thick skull that DB had increased boost during the war? Heh? You don`t only finlandia before posting, but also combine it with a sauna?
Say after me : 'DB increased boost during the development. My tunnelvision and bias had prevented me from getting a grip on that fact. Now I will attempt to pull my head out of my bellybutton to the sunlight and realize this.'
Now if you were more intelligent you`d have realized that the first time I posted it, but I have not yet given up to help you. I feel for retards/alcoholists, you know.
"If the main purpose is to increase power and not to improve its fuel economy, it is better to increase boost than to raise CR. In an example found in the book "Supercharging the Internal Combustion Engine" a naturally aspirated engine had its CR raised from 5 to 8:1. Brake Mean Efficient Pressure [=power. PL] increased 10%, specific fuel consumption decreased 18%, but the peak pressure that determines detonation limit and engine stresses inccreased by no less than 63%.
The same peak pressure rise was obtained by increasing the manifold pressure to 1.5 ata by supercharger. BMEP [=power] increased by 54% [FIFTY FOUR PER CENT]. Supercharging naturally absorbed some power, but its effect compared to such a great rise in BMEP was insignificant. Boosting did not affect fuel economy. So, if the main requirement was to get more power, it was more advantageous to keep CR low and have high boost than to increase CR. In fighters this was the way to get maximum power increase with lowest weight increase..."
I will lend you a hand what Raunio says, as you are obviously too much effected right now to get the meaning of it.
ad 1, If you want to scr*w up fuel consumption, you are better off increasing boost only. This will lead to high fuel consumption with increased powers. That`s what RR did.
ad 2, You can increase engine effiency by increasing CR. This way
ad 3, The best way of course, is to simultaniously increase engine effiency (CR) and boost. This will lead you to high powers AND good fuel economy. That`s what DB did.
Now let`s see an example how Raunio`s thesis is best put into practice by DB, and failed to be grasped by RR.
Raunio says increasing CR by 60% (a rather extreme case) increased output by 10%, SFC decreased by 18%.
He also says that increasing boost yields almost linear increase in power, ie. 50% boost increase 54%
Increasing MAP only increases power; increasing CR slightl
Now what DB did in the 605 serieswas increasing CR from 7.5 to 8.5 (13%), and simultaniously increasing MAP from 1.42ata to 1.98ata (40%). These facts show clearly that what you are crying about all the time loudly, that DB only increased CR is just pure fiction and merely proves your ignorance in the subject.
Using Raunio`s example, this would mean increasing CR improved output by 2.5%, improved SFC by 4.5%, increased MAP yielded ca40% power increase. The combined raising of MAP and CR lead to total of ca 42.5% power increase, 4.5% better consumption.
And indeed, the DBs power output increased by 40%, whereas fuel consumption only increased by 35% percent.
In comparison, the Merlin 66 with simply raised MAP from 1.76ata to 2.05 ata (16%) raised power by only 15% (1680 HP to 1940), whereas feul consumption increased TWICE the amount, by 31% from 150 gallon to 197 gallon.
These are the bare facts.
The above shows why DB was on the right way, and why RR was full with a bunch of short sighted conservative idiots, that couldn`t think in anything else but raising boost like yourself.
What Raunio only remotely mentioned is the effect of supercharging. If one goes with high MAP, this requires very strong supercharging. This means more power losses to :
a, Driving the higher performance supercharger, and we are speaking about serious amounts of power here.
b, Higher engine weight from the better supercharger
c, Higher boost pressures will lead the large losses of power below FTH due to thermal effiency loss unless a hydraulic/turboscharger is used.
d, High boost pressures will require an intercooler, which again just adds more weight, and additional drag in a form of an intercooler radiator that becomes neccesary to put on the plane.
Note : DB solved this problem much more simply, using the already existant MW booster to cool the charge between the stages. No extra drag, no extra weight!
DB did considerable experiments with intercooled and turbocharged engines, and ultimately found out that the extra equipment`s weight and drag associated with them simply eats up their extra power output and makes the whole idea just silly for fighters. RR never bothered to consider such factors. 'Increase boost, increase boost, anything else is irrevelant.' Yeah, look how they ended up.
BTW, just checked what the power curve in the JaPo 109K has. At e.g. 9 km it produced about 1100 hp. The Allison´s G-series G6L/R produced 1250 hp at the same altitude and 2250 hp at low altitude.
ROFLOL! The Allison V1710-G6, a postwar engine out of which only 763 were produced, and which first saw service in 1948 in a handful of P-82 Twin Mustangs! Some comparison I`d say. You are truely desperate coming up with such lame comparisons.
Now what about the V 1710s during the war that couldn`t come over 1600 HP?
Lord, I enjoy nailing these coffin nails!
Strange passion considering it`s you inside that coffin. :D
1350 HP at 9600 meter ?
1760 HP at 9000 meter ?
1950 HP at 11 000 meter ?
1200 HP at 11 000 meter ?
Belongs to what ata and what engines?
DB 605 L, 1.75ata
DB 603 LA
DB 603N
DB 628, 1.42ata
i]LA and N was somewhere above 2ata, can`t find the exact source. The DB 628 was fitted to high alt recce 109s.[/i]
FYI, some Merlins were boosted over 2000 hp in 1939.
Yep and some DBs over 2600 HP + in 1939.
As for high alt, I would think that P&W, P38's Allisons and Merlin 61 & 70 would be tough to beat.
Say in comparison with the DB 628`s 1200 HP at 11 000meter, the Merlin 61 managed well... ca 800 HP according to the Merlin 61 power curves. 50% less power output. It`s roughly comparable to the 605 AS and D engines.
The Merlin 70 would be a better one I suppose, but still way behind this altitude output, unfortunately I dont have the curves for that one. So much for poor Gripen`s theory about the high altitude superiority of Allied engines... the poor guy. :lol
Think of it, the Spitfire with a Merlin 61 has an operational ceiling of 43000 feet in 1942, - the Messer boys couldn't get up there untill what, 2 years later? By then you had the Mk VII with pressurised cockpit and extended wings and I think, a Merlin 70.
The Bf 109G-1s operational ceiling, that appeared in May 1942 was 45 000 ft, as per the GL/A Ausrustung sheets of June 1942.
Which Spitfire could get up to 45k ft?
Gripen,
And what if the cooling needed for hydraulic coupling in the DB 605 would have been used to cool charge (intercooling) instead?
The 'advantages' of such stupidity can be seen below :
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1113052140_fw190d9-db603-04.jpg)
Same engine weight, dimensions, same boost... BTW I never heard such an idiocy to replace a hydraulic coupling with a fixed gear s/c.
BTW, what makes your pair an especially pathethic phenomenon is that you keep kissing each others butt more than a g@y couple, yet you are utterly incapalbe of presenting anything that underlines your POV, utterly incapable of answering the questions I gave to you, and every time it happens you evade and switch the subject, making more silly claims which you again fail to back up.
-
Kurrie, when have I claimed that DB didn´t increase boost as well?
BTW, your Allison photos shows an experimental turbo compound engine (capable of over 3000 hp). No wonder you have a reputation for perverting sources.
You asked for this: P-63C´s Allison was capable of 1800 hp with mech blower.
Speaking of perverting sources, your interpretation of Raunio´s text is something only a die hard true believer can do. He clearly says "...this [low CR/high boost] was the way to get maximum power increase with lowest weight increase". Yet you keep twisting his words.
You also forget that improving supercharger does not necessarily involve greater weight. The key is the aerodynamic design of the impeller, volute casing etc. And by adding variable inlet guide vanes like Mikulin and Junkers did, those terrible losses you have fixated upon are mostly eliminated.
-
BTW, is it very honest to present Daimler Benz graphs as the absolute truth about a Junkers engine? Just like Messerschmitt docs are the ultimate source for Focke-Wulf aircraft?
-
Originally posted by pasoleati BTW, your Allison photos shows an experimental turbo compound engine (capable of over 3000 hp). No wonder you have a reputation for perverting sources.
Yup, the pic he posts is of an Allison V-1710E27 or Allison V-1710127 in USAAF nomenclature. :rolleyes: This was the engine slated for the cancelled XP-63H.
-
Originally posted by pasoleati
Kurrie, when have I claimed that DB didn´t increase boost as well?
[/B]
You were crying the place all over with it, and now you make a switch and deny it?
You also forget that improving supercharger does not necessarily involve greater weight. The key is the aerodynamic design of the impeller, volute casing etc. And by adding variable inlet guide vanes like Mikulin and Junkers did, those terrible losses you have fixated upon are mostly eliminated.
Then it appears that it was only RR that was utterly incapalbe of keeping the supercharger`s weight down, ie. the single staged Merlin 45 weighted ca 610 kg, the two staged Merlin 6x series went up to 749 kg.
Just as utterly incapable as you giving answers to my questions, or accepting the facts presented by engine charts. Now this whining about the power graph that just smashed your silly theories about how greatly superior is just about anything to DBs development... And those perverted comparison of post war engines...
You seem to have developed some silly fantasy for yourself, and when someone opens your eyes and smashed your little dreamworlds with hard facts, you grew desperate and try to strike back, only to be emberassed more and sqaushed under the weight of facts like a bug. It`s just the agony now.
-
As PRRF1 said:
"We don't want you to get a heart attack, kurfurst.
Everybody except you has been discussing this in quite a reasonable and rational way, and I see no reason for you to go off like a suicide bomb."
-
Ok, let`s give the coup d`grace to the poor guy, he suffered enough :
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1113059120_db35-45.jpg)
Results speak for themselves.
-
I am not so easy to finish! BTW, how many of these DB engines could maintain the WER for e.g. 100 hrs non stop like P&W´s R-2800 did routinely on tests? Or 175 hrs non stop like a Sabre did at 3750 hp?
It is also interesting that e.g. P&W could squeeze out greater specific power from an air cooled engine than DB could from a liquid cooled engine with far greater reliability and durability (I mean DB 603 vs, R-2800).
And please, tell me where exactly I claimed that DB did not increase boost? My point has allways been that DB screwed up badly as they were forced to increase CR to stay competitive. Others refined their engines when DB took the easy way out and just increased capacity (605 to 603).
-
Dohh, Barbi, pathetic.
Here is yer cookie:
"
1350 HP at 9600 meter ?
1760 HP at 9000 meter ?
1950 HP at 11 000 meter ?
1200 HP at 11 000 meter ?
Belongs to what ata and what engines?
DB 605 L, 1.75ata
DB 603 LA
DB 603N
DB 628, 1.42ata
i]LA and N was somewhere above 2ata, can`t find the exact source. The DB 628 was fitted to high alt recce 109s.[/i]
FYI, some Merlins were boosted over 2000 hp in 1939.
Yep and some DBs over 2600 HP + in 1939.
As for high alt, I would think that P&W, P38's Allisons and Merlin 61 & 70 would be tough to beat.
Say in comparison with the DB 628`s 1200 HP at 11 000meter, the Merlin 61 managed well... ca 800 HP according to the Merlin 61 power curves. 50% less power output. It`s roughly comparable to the 605 AS and D engines.
The Merlin 70 would be a better one I suppose, but still way behind this altitude output, unfortunately I dont have the curves for that one. So much for poor Gripen`s theory about the high altitude superiority of Allied engines... the poor guy.
Think of it, the Spitfire with a Merlin 61 has an operational ceiling of 43000 feet in 1942, - the Messer boys couldn't get up there untill what, 2 years later? By then you had the Mk VII with pressurised cockpit and extended wings and I think, a Merlin 70.
The Bf 109G-1s operational ceiling, that appeared in May 1942 was 45 000 ft, as per the GL/A Ausrustung sheets of June 1942.
Which Spitfire could get up to 45k ft? "
Around we go again. Ok, How many squadrons of 109G1?
Never heard of them
WTF is a DB 628? High alt recce-mod? So, not on a combat aircraft in squadron service.....
Never heard of them anyway. Just know that there were stellar recce plains from the LW around from 1940 onwards. Junkers?
Anyway, you are one cheap twister. Your graphs and quotations mostly go around mods, rarities, or engines that wouldn't last a god business week. You refer mostly to complete uberboosts that gave as much trouble and benefits, and were more or less restricted untill the rest of the war, when natural causes such as fuel shortage, lack of facilities of manpower and general material shortage restricted it anyway.
Or would you like to compare a Spitfire I running on juices on 2000 hp+ to a Jumo powered 109 in operational service at the same time.
Oh, BTW, that one flew London-Paris :D
So, back to the oranges and apples.
It would be quite normal to compare the altitude performance of the Merlin 61 to the DB601 and early 605, then the Merlin 66 and 70 basically as well to the DB 605, mid-era.
BTW, the Merlin 70 for high-alt jobs, exceeding the Merlin 61 in alt performance is already better at 18 boost.
I would guess that a Merlin 70 on decent boost, powering an extended wing Spit VII or VIII would easily bring them up to 45K, I(have heard claims of 49). Well, since Merlin 61 does 43, thennnn
:D
Oh, forgot, you have chosen to use the extended wing Spit VIII's for roll rate comparisons, the clipped Mk V's for turn rate, the Merlin 61 HF's for low altitude speed, and the Merlin 66's for high....
What was there to expect.
Are you surprized that half the forum jumps at you when you bring some stunts up!!!!
JEEEEEZZZ
-
Barbarossa Isegrim is always claiming the Merlin was heavier than the DB engines.
Merlin I - 1,375 lb (623.7 kg)
Merlin 45 - 1,385 lb (628.2 kg)
Merlin 61 - 1,640 lb (743.9 kg)
Merlin 66 - 1,645 lb (746.2 kg)
DB605A - 720kg/764kg
DB605AM - 730kg/794kg
DB605AS - 730kg/796kg
DB605ASC - 745kg/818kg
DB605D - 724kg/783kg
DB605DC - 745kg/815kg
DB605L - 770kg/844kg
dimensions:
Merlin 6x / DB605D
L - 2.253m / 2.304m
W - 0.789m / 0.845m
H - 1.016m / 1.070m
Angus,
Barbarossa Isegrim is most likely up to one of his usual 'tricks' and mixing the operational ceiling with service ceiling. ;)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Barbarossa Isegrim is always claiming the Merlin was heavier than the DB engines.
Merlin I - 1,375 lb (623.7 kg)
Merlin 45 - 1,385 lb (628.2 kg)
DB 601A+N : 610kg
Don´t present only half of the truth please
Edit:
We could also add some other Merlins, how about the XX with 1450lb / 660kg?
Furthermore those Merlin weights are all "total dry weight without hub of starter".
niklas
-
Just returned home from work.....somehow, I get this visual impression of Kurfie frothing at the mouth as he typed in his pathetic rebuttal to me.
Ya know, Kurfie, I've been reading and researching WW2 fighter planes for close to 30 years now, first as a child who was merely fascinated by the stories of aerial combat, then more on a techical side as I have grown older.
I already knew the Allison engines in the P-38's were turbocharged. Never said anything to argue that fact. Dunno where your rabid attitude came from, don't really care.
But, with you being from Hungary, and maybe English is not your primary language, I can overlook a few things.
What you said, the way you formed your sentence about the monstre turbo and the Allison engine, and then your response when you were asked about the "monster turbo" (remember, it was YOU who made the remark about Allison and the big turbos, not us........you tied the two together with the way you formed your sentence) was an aircraft powered by a radial engine, NOT an Allison. I pointed that out. Maybe I was being rude in doing so, don't know, don't care.
I stand behind my pro-Nazi remark, cause all of your arguments DO point to a complete pro-German (and remember, the Nazis were in power and they were the government back then) bias.
So the statement is, in my opinion, true.
Regardless, get over it. No matter how great you think German engineers were, or how much better their designs were, they still lost the war, one they had geared up for for years, one they started, and one that these "superior" designs weren't good enough to win. All you've been doing in every post is making excuses for your heroes.
-
Eddie, I think you are making an unfortunate turn. While this thread has seen hottish debate so far, politics would add a whole another dimension. Though I rarely agree with Kurrie, he has never made a political remark in any post of his I have read. As for my political views, let´s say two things:
-my ideals are closer to national socialism than to American consumption capitalism
-world would have been spared a lot of misery had Germany won WW One quickly and clearly (i.e. France would have surrendered, Britain negotiated a peace, Russia ditto)
Stick to nuts and bolts!
-
Originally posted by niklas
DB 601A+N : 610kg
Don´t present only half of the truth please
Edit:
We could also add some other Merlins, how about the XX with 1450lb / 660kg?
Furthermore those Merlin weights are all "total dry weight without hub of starter".
niklas
Well it was only a sampling of Merlins from the first to the last ww2 models. :)
Now if you have something simular to the data sheets for the 605 (http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/DB605_varianten.pdf), from which the data for the 605 was taken, for the 601 and 603, post it.
Remember niklas, old BarbI is always spouting off about the 605, not the 601 or 603.
Now what is this "without hub of starter"?
-
No political remarks, now let me see,,,,
I am an allied fanboy, Winston Churchill is Winnie Poo, the Brits fighting was a futile effort, all kindly pointed out by barbi boy.
Then to Paseolati:
"world would have been spared a lot of misery had Germany won WW One quickly and clearly (i.e. France would have surrendered, Britain negotiated a peace, Russia ditto)"
Tend to disagree, - although it does not belong to this thread.
Well, France did surrender in record time, Britain would probably have gotten better out themselves had they made the deal in 1940, Russia was to big for a quick victory, but again that might have been possible with the Brits out of the game, but you are forgetting China and the Pacific front.
Russia lost some 22 millions, Germany some 6 (?), Poland some 6 (?), Chinese 15 (!), US and UK less than 1. The total was about 55, that could have shrunk some in this contest, but bear in mind that the Nazis had 11 millions on their initial cleaning list, and only got to 6 of it, or so.
I tend to think that the whole of Europe under the Nazi boot would have been a dangerous place in, just as it was during the war. Look at the Polish deathrate after they surrender, and bear in mind that the Brits knew some of it, which caused them to stay and party. So, A massive, bloody revolt in 1944?
Enough for another thread, let's stick to nuts and bolts
-
Well, Winnie is the Pooh, the worst national leader Britain has ever had with Tony the Bushian lapdog Blair. He sold British interests to Frankie the Rat (FDR) and his cronies.
And do read my post again, as I spoke of WW One. German victory in WW One would have indeed spared a lot of misery:
-no bolshevism, at least in the form we know it
-no counter bolshevism (fascism)
-Germany would have remained monarchist (btw, in WW One Germany the emperor had less power than the prez has (and had) in the US and parliament elections were far more democratic too)
-US imperialism would have had far less opportunities to grow
This is my final political statement on this board. Nuts and bolts have enough opportunities to rant. Unless someone wants a political fight...
-
Ahhh, Paseo, nice answer.
This could be an infinetely fun debate, especially if discussed in a civil manner.
I took it as if you had been referring to WW2.
I might have the wicked heart to put up a thread about this. WW2 related, of course. Please feel welcome.
Your WW1 theory threw me off, a bit. Well, back then, there was no way the Tommies could have lost, but Germany was close to conquering France anyway. It was different politics, and would probably have gone into another direction than Nazi rule. One must of course bear in mind, that the Versailles treaty basically triggered Germany into WW2, - it was Hitler's food.
But WW2, is IMHO another story, and Winnie Poo was definately the best man for the job!
-
Originally posted by pasoleati
I am not so easy to finish! BTW, how many of these DB engines could maintain the WER for e.g. 100 hrs non stop like P&W´s R-2800 did routinely on tests? Or 175 hrs non stop like a Sabre did at 3750 hp?
Oh come on, at least save that kind of BS that both you and I know is just half-assed rhetorics. EVERY SINGLE engine manufacturer stressed it`s engines with 100, 200hour running non-stop on the bench before handing them out. The mighty Merlin failed to do it`s own 100 hour tests for quite some time btw.
Next time you will say it was huge advantage for allied engines, that they put a propellor on them, too. :lol
It is also interesting that e.g. P&W could squeeze out greater specific power from an air cooled engine than DB could from a liquid cooled engine with far greater reliability and durability (I mean DB 603 vs, R-2800).[/B]
"Far greater reliability and durability", yeah, sure, without doubt, whatever you claim.
WTF cares about specific power? The ONLY thing that matters is what power the engine can develop, and how much of that power is wasted by the engine`s (+accessories) own weight and frontal area (drag). Power per volume, stick it up where it belongs, that`s the figure the loosers like to use as excuse. It`s a tendency that smaller volume engines produce more power per litre, not an achievement. Even my car`s engine can beat most Merlins/DBs/PWs for HP/litre.
"Hey, look how good our specific power in our best engine compared to the enemy`s, ours makes 50 HP out of a litre, the enemy`s only 40!"
'So, what`s the volume?'
"Well ours is a 10 litre one with 500 HP, they have a 30 litre one with 1200 Hp... but hey, don`t go, look, I`ve got more meaningless statistic details!"
PW managed to do a huge radial weighting over 1.5 tons with accessories, having a huge frontal area and drag due to the radial layout. Be happy with that, as half of the huge power it developed was wasted on these factors, overcoming the drag, the weight. Whereas the DB 603 was 900 kg, and had a frontal area ca 1/3 of the PW. In fact the 44.5 litre DB 603 was about the same size and weight as the 35 litre RR Griffon. DB certainly knew how to make compact engines. But hey, look on the specific power, it`s so much more interesting than the practical values!
And please, tell me where exactly I claimed that DB did not increase boost? My point has allways been that DB screwed up badly as they were forced to increase CR to stay competitive.
DB obviously choose to increase CR to improve the effiency of the engine, against this we have your unproven and partisan opinion stating they had no idea... yeah, like how many engines YOU have designed, hmm?
Others refined their engines when DB took the easy way out and just increased capacity (605 to 603).
There`s no replacement for displacement. And as DB managed to keep it`s 35 litre engines the same size and weight as RR`s 27 litre Merlin, while retaining all the advantages coming from greater volume, your comment becomes funny. Especially in the view RR just wanted to do same and replace the Merlin with the larger volume Griffon, but they didn`t managed to do that until the war ended (DB had similiar issues, it wanted the DB 603, the 605 was just an interim solution. However, they had enough volume to work with already.)
The 603 is not a descendant of the DB 605. New line of development.
BTW, nice to leave politics behind. As for Mr. Churchill, there`s a nice book about him with a very apt title "Life of a Failure". ;)
An interesting sidenote, that Horthy had his fair share in WW1 Winnie being finally ceased to be the 1st Lord.
@Eddiek,
I don`t reply to primitive posts coming from primitive people, calling other people Nazi. It just primitive behaviour, and closes the discussion on my part.
-
Originally posted by Angus
[QOTUE]WTF is a DB 628? High alt recce-mod? So, not on a combat aircraft in squadron service.....
The 628 is just another two staged DB 605. It outperformed any single wartime RR Merlin or Griffon at altitude with 1200 HP output at 11 000 meter.
And yes, it saw combat service.
I would guess that a Merlin 70 on decent boost, powering an extended wing Spit VII or VIII would easily bring them up to 45K, I(have heard claims of 49). Well, since Merlin 61 does 43, thennnn
:D
Furtunately, we don`t have to guess. Spitfire HF. Mk. IX EN.524 was test with Merlin 70, the Service ceiling was 43,200 feet.
Appearantly even the special high alt Spit was beaten by the Bf 109G-1 with 45 000 feet.
Otherwise, I suggest you to get outside help for your paranoid symptoms.
-
First to personal matters:
"Otherwise, I suggest you to get outside help for your paranoid symptoms."
WOOOT? MOI with such problems? Nope, my only problem is that you jump at me with crap like this, once you are in the corner.
Hungarian Nazi-gadget fanboy :D
Anyway, you've been spanked so badly on this thread, that I almost felt sorry for you. Well, not any more.
Anyway, back to bolts at nuts. Since you swing papers nicely as bluff, there are always some things that do not match.
Normal Spit IX's could do 43 K in combat cruise in 1942. So, a year later, you bring evidence that the ceiling of the superior Merlin 70, extended wing (perhaps) Spit VII/VIII, running on better fuel if anything, and higher boost is anything, has the same ceiling, and is being topped by DB motors.
Could you bring up some squadrons powered by these uber engines? Conflicts?
I think the main one is inside your head M8.
-
Kurrie, prove me that the DB 605D was test run non stop for 100 hrs at 2000 hp!
Again you display intellectual dishonesty. You nicely leave out coolant radiators in your frontal area and weight comparison. Redo your math again with the engines in self sufficient running consition and you will see your theories (=fantasies) blown to pieces.
Well, I have probably designed as many engines as you have! Besides, can only a cow criticise milk quality?
And you dare to criticize me for unproven claims? Please post a primary source confirming that DB´s decision to use high CR was exactly due to reasons you claim!
Funny thing is that I haven´t seen a single report/source telling how an in service R-2800 failed due to burned pistons or other similar design failures after running 10-30 hrs.
BTW, the R-2800 is bigger than the 603 and according to you a smaller engine allways beats the specific power of a larger engine. Yet, the 603 utterly failed it this! DB geniuses at loose again...
-
I'm curious, have any of you worked on or have any first had knowlege of turbocharged/supercharged engines?
I do, and I'll just say that for making the highest HP, lower compression and higer boost is the correct way to go.
-
Originally posted by pasoleati
Kurrie, prove me that the DB 605D was test run non stop for 100 hrs at 2000 hp!
Why would I even bother, you didn`t bother to prove any of your sillyness... you claim they never did... prove it.
Again you display intellectual dishonesty.
That`s only a perception from someone who behaves like as desperate he is.
You nicely leave out coolant radiators in your frontal area and weight comparison. Redo your math again with the engines in self sufficient running consition and you will see your theories (=fantasies) blown to pieces.
reality is coming :
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1110042726_fghterchart3b.jpg)
WHOHAWO! Look at those smartypants at PW! They got the power, what, a 2300+ HP radial, unprecedented altitude performance....!
... and beaten by a lousy 1475 PS engine. :rofl
Those geniuses at PW only forgot someone will need to build a six-ton monster around that super-duper engine and it`s thirst, and that lumbering beast will be beaten by an a 2/3s as powerful engine that can be carried by a fighter half the size!
I guess those PW guys weren`t much interested in making a practical aero engine with compact dimensions and weight. Unlike DB!
Well, I have probably designed as many engines as you have! Besides, can only a cow criticise milk quality?
You see I just imagined you approaching the chief engineer of DB
with your brilliant ideas, convincing everybody around him how wrong their ways are - guys who had spend his last 20 years designing engines, lectured by a young titan who`s just finished reading 'Elementary basics of the piston aero engines, Vol1'.
And you dare to criticize me for unproven claims? Please post a primary source confirming that DB´s decision to use high CR was exactly due to reasons you claim!
So I am supposed to prove you wrong every time you make some silly claim and fail to back it up? You shown only failure to back up any of the BS you piled up high in this thread.
Funny thing is that I haven´t seen a single report/source telling how an in service R-2800 failed due to burned pistons or other similar design failures after running 10-30 hrs.
If you haven`t seen any single report on engine failures, is it surprising you haven`t seen any single report on a specific engine model? No.
BTW, the R-2800 is bigger than the 603 and according to you a smaller engine allways beats the specific power of a larger engine. Yet, the 603 utterly failed it this! DB geniuses at loose again...
You sound like as if your wife would cheat on you with some handsome employee of DB.. you hate them so much... :aok And BTW, which part didn`t get into you, the R-2800 was big and bulky, like all radials, the planes it powered needed to be so large and lumbering that they couldn`t even beat the much smaller DB 605 powered ones. Anybody but you can see that it`s ain`t worth to build a monster plane around a monster engine, if it won`t be any faster than a plane with a compact engine. So what are you talking about, paper dragons?
-
Looks like PRRF1 of the jagdmoroner board was right.
"I am editing this thread in the interests of Kurfurst's Health. We don't want you to get a heart attack, kurfurst.
Everybody except you has been discussing this in quite a reasonable and rational way, and I see no reason for you to go off like a suicide bomb."
-
Funny thing is, those big lumbering fighters kicked the snot outta the LW, when the LW was in it's "prime", setting the stage for the longer ranged P-51's to drive the nails in the coffin of the invincible LW.
Funny what those primitive folk could and DID do to those masters of innovation and design, ain't it?
-
Good thing eddie and milo is here to help out paseolati with brain. :p
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Good thing eddie and milo is here to help out paseolati with brain. :p
It is time Skuzzy came along again so we don't have to continue to put up with the childishness of Kurfust/Barbarossa Isegrim anymore.
-
Well Kurrie, have you ever bothered to consider thins like "range" or load carrying capability? Tell me, which production DB 605/603 powered single engine engine fighter was capable of of ranges exceeding 2000 km? Or carrying 3000-4000 lbs of bombs? Or of any DB 605 powered fighter with any decent degree of pilot comfort instead of being squeezed in like a donkey´s dick in wasp´s ass?
Face it: had the R-2800 been available for German designers, it would have meant shutting down DB´s factories for lack of demand as their crap would have been rejected even by Willy M.
As for my sources: see Graham White´s "R-2800" book (publisher:SAE) for the WER data. Now, where I can find confirmation on 100 hour WER tests runs of any DB engine?
-
*yawn*
Guys, save yourselves or you'll all drown into your own poop...
;)
-C+
-
Hate to say it, but I kind of agree with Barbi about the effectiveness of that nifty little 109. It is a very high performing aurcraft given such little power.
That said, Barbi's up to oranges and apples again. The P47 is a heavy multi role fighter, the 109 is basically a light interceptor.
Rather compare that 109 to Spits or perhaps P51's :D
BTW, that graph is a bit odd, we have the P51 performing similarly to a Spit I. The 109 looks about right though.
-
I agree also that the 109 was a good fighter. It fulfilled it's role of interceptor well. In the right hands it was a deadly opponent right up until the war's end. But I attribute that more to pilot experience and skill than to the design of the aircraft.
Where it falls short in my eyes is that it only did one thing well, and was not multi task capable. IMHO, the 190 series was a more complete fighter and more closely matched it's Allied counterparts in it's ability to be adapted to various roles.
Those graphs being Soviet in origin make me suspect them.
The P-51 is an Allison engined one, not a Merlin powered Mustang, which had much better hi alt performance. The P-47 graph is even off IMO, cause it shows the Jug as being way faster on the deck than the Mustang.
What is interesting to note, is that the higher the graph goes the better the P-47 numbers get. Republic initially designed the Thunderbolt as a high speed hi alt interceptor, then adapted it to include other roles. It certainly had the speed, as even Kurfurst's chart shows. The higher the fight went (and I rarely read a fighter pilot account that gives an initial contact with enemy aircraft under 25-35,000 feet) the more the advantage went to the P-47. The graph also indicates a P-47D-10, a relatively early model Thunderbolt and doesn't tell if the aircraft had the paddle blade prop or water injection, each of which increased it's performance. It's top speed, which takes place at about the right altitude, is about 30-45 mph slow, contrary to any data I have ever seen on the Thunderbolt.
Again, seeing how it was Soviet in origin, did the Soviet ground crews lack the know how to get their Lend Lease Jugs setup correctly to get true performance capability from them? Remember reading a narrative about a VVS unit being investigated because it claimed it's Russian aircraft were not as good as their German counterparts. Factory reps went to the squad base and started looking at the fighters and found poor fitting/ poor adjusted cowlings, wheel well doors, canopy frames, etc, all of which increased drag and made the fighters considerably slower than they should have been. A bit of "training" for the groundcrews had them performing as the factory had promised and the pilots suddenly had capable fighters to fly.
That might be the case here also......Soviet groundcrews not familiar with how to set up a particular aircraft and not getting the plane setup correctly. The speed data is too suspect for me to believe otherwise........
-
Barbi's handpicking at work.
Orange vs apple.
But even for an Allison powered mustang the performance is low.
Groggy chart.....
-
Originally posted by pasoleati
Well Kurrie, have you ever bothered to consider thins like "range" or load carrying capability? Tell me, which production DB 605/603 powered single engine engine fighter was capable of of ranges exceeding 2000 km?
2000 km, hmm, that`s 1242 miles. Let`s lookie on the standard 109G range chart, wow, 1250 miles.
It appears that over 20 000 DB 605 engined single engined fighters were capable of ranges exceeding 2000 km, ie. 109F/G/K. And doing it on 1/3rd the fuel the R-2800 needed. No wonder they needed to build an aircraft with the size of an oil tanker around it, those salamanders at PW never heard of the term fuel economy (well, few in the US engine industry heard of it anyway :D
Then I didn`t even bring up the Gewahltaufklarers, ie. 109 G-4/R3, with an easy 2000 miles range etc.
The early P-47s, which were ordesigned for the same role as the 109s, and had a range of 663 km according to my books. So much about your "2000km" range.
And it still makes the PW 2800 look a sucker principle, looking on the speed curves and see it can`t do on 2300 HP what the DB 605 can do on 1475.
Or carrying 3000-4000 lbs of bombs?
Which of the DB engined fighters proved to be an utter failure in it`s original role, being a six-ton brick in the air and had to be withdrawn as a fighter, put down as a mud mover because the only thing it was good for was to shot itself to pieces and carry furniture? That`s not a fighter in my book, but it`s quite close, "failure". The FW 190 could carry 4000 lbs of bombs with an engine that was no stronger, but heavier than the DB engines BTW. At 2/3s the size of the P-47.
Or of any DB 605 powered fighter with any decent degree of pilot comfort instead of being squeezed in like a donkey´s dick in wasp´s ass?
WOW, I see you were handling high literature lately, such a refined style. I see, now your point is the fact that it was impossible to build a sleek fuselage around a monstre engine like the PW 2800 is actually an advantage... you say bigger the better, and fixated on dicks? Compensating, eh? :D
Let`s make a contest m8.
My task will be to build as a large fighter around the DB 605 as the P-47.
Your task will be to build as small fighter with a PW 2800 as the Bf 109.
The one who fails shall commit a suicide by setting himself on fire with gasoline. Deal? :lol
Face it: had the R-2800 been available for German designers, it would have meant shutting down DB´s factories for lack of demand as their crap would have been rejected even by Willy M.
Reminds me of the German comparison flight trials of G-5/AS vs. P-47... what was the wording... 'the P-47 gave an extraordinarily sluggish impression in comparision to the German fighters'.
Now, where I can find confirmation on 100 hour WER tests runs of any DB engine?
In the Daimler Benz Archieves, Stuttgart my dear. Look for December 1944 and February 1945.
You still hold to your ridiculus claim that DB didn`t test run on the bench it`s engines, as all engine manufacturers do?
10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-YOU ARE OUT.
-
Lol, Izzy/Barbi/Kuffy, now you also have war with the USA.
Anyway, that one:
"It appears that over 20 000 DB 605 engined single engined fighters were capable of ranges exceeding 2000 km, ie. 109F/G/"
Well, AFAIK the 109F was NOT powered with a DB 605 :D
Anyway, if the DB's had such incredible ranges, why did it take more than a headwind for 109's to have to leave from escort jobs before reaching London, - 96 miles from Calais??????????????????
-
It's time to agree to disagree. This has turned into a push-pull contest.