Author Topic: So what's the difference between G10 and the 109K? (Read 11001 times)

straffo · « **Reply #45 on:** February 18, 2004, 12:40:45 PM »

You definitly need to wait for Butch's book

GScholz · « **Reply #46 on:** February 18, 2004, 01:30:06 PM »

500 post monster thread coming up ...

Quote

Originally posted by Nashwan
From Butch2k:

"C3 was necessary for the 190 equiped units whose engine could not run without. So it seems that in the last months of the war G-10 and K-4 units were delivered B4 instead and had to rely on B4+MW-50 rather than C3+MW50."

[snip]

Isegrim, this plane was captured on the 22nd of July 1944. We are talking about the Luftwaffe fuel supply in 1945. Think there might be a difference in the Luftwaffe's fuel situation in the final months of the war? Everyone else does.

"In the last months" is a bit vague. The G10 and K4 had been operational for more than half a year when the war ended in Europe. Surely some 109s got C3 fuel in late 1944 and early 1945.

Quote

Originally posted by Nashwan
Now, Butch says he's seen the RLM documents. We know that several German engines we're supposed to run at higher boost levels but were derated in service, for example the Fw190 was limited to 1.35 ata when it was supposed to be running 1.42 ata.

The Db605A in the 109G2 was supposed to run at 1.42ata. In June 1942, some time after the plane had entered service, the RLM issued an instruction banning 1.42 ata until futher notice. The instruction began:

Unless you can find an instruction from the RLM banning the higher boost levels of the G10/K4 I do not see how your comparison to the Fw190 or 109G2 proves anything. It's just speculation.

Quote

Originally posted by Nashwan
I'm not much of a researcher ...

You got that part right.

Nashwan · « **Reply #47 on:** February 18, 2004, 01:42:57 PM »

Quote

Unless you can find an instruction from the RLM banning the higher boost levels of the G10/K4 I do not see how your comparison to the Fw190 or 109G2 proves anything. It's just speculation

Butch certainly implied that's what he had seen.

Quote

I'm not much of a researcher ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You got that part right.

Did you go to the same charm school as Isegrim?

butch2k · « **Reply #48 on:** February 18, 2004, 01:57:04 PM »

some examples among others...

GScholz · « **Reply #49 on:** February 18, 2004, 02:10:55 PM »

Ah ... the renowned Mr. Butch2k!

Are you saying no 109G10/K4 unit got C3 fuel from October 1944 to May 1945? What date/time period are the info you posted from?

straffo · « **Reply #50 on:** February 18, 2004, 02:26:26 PM »

salut Olivier !
Ca fait un bail que je ne t'ais pas "vu"

(je me suis pas trompé tu prépare bien un bouquin non ?)

butch2k · « **Reply #51 on:** February 18, 2004, 02:26:55 PM »

As of march 1945 only a handful of 109 gruppen were using C3 for their mounts, one of the few being the II/JG11 which were responsible for testing the 605DB/DC over january-march 1945.

butch2k · « **Reply #52 on:** February 18, 2004, 02:35:15 PM »

Oui oui mon straffounet

tu ne te trompes pas

GScholz · « **Reply #53 on:** February 18, 2004, 02:41:16 PM »

Thanks for clearing that up Mr. Butch2k. So while C3 was rare, a handful of 109 gruppen did get C3 fuel.

Could you possibly be so kind as to clear up the 109G10/K4 max boost issue as well and save us from many painful future arguments?

MiloMorai · « **Reply #54 on:** February 18, 2004, 02:59:14 PM »

Well Scholzie, maybe now you will take what Barbi posts with a little scepticism.

butch2k · « **Reply #55 on:** February 18, 2004, 03:15:49 PM »

According to a document dated late January 1945 coming from DB the 1.80 had just been cleared following serious troubles (pre-ignition) reported by the unit testing the 1.80 ata boost. It is also noted that following the clearance of the 1.8ata boost the 1.98ata operational tests could now begin but with concern about the sparkplugs thermal resistance IIRC.

GScholz · « **Reply #56 on:** February 18, 2004, 03:21:03 PM »

I am sceptical by nature. So far Isegrim have, and continues to, present the best arguments ... with a few exceptions of course. Butch2k confirmed my belief that some 109 units did use C3 fuel, even if many did not.

butch2k · « **Reply #57 on:** February 18, 2004, 03:29:05 PM »

C3 was not used by 109 units until the 1.98ata boost was cleared, they relied on B4+MW-50 so that C3 could go to the 190 units. And even after the clearance only few gruppen got it because of shortages due not only to C3 production but also to C3 delivery to the units.

GScholz · « **Reply #58 on:** February 18, 2004, 03:45:00 PM »

So Mr. Butch2k, when do you think 1.98 was cleared? February? March?

The C3 fuel probably went to the 109 units that were tasked to interfere with allied escorts. They always got the latest fighters first, so it would be a reasonable assumption ... but still only an assumption.

So, my (incomplete) conclusion is that while most 109 units had to make due with B4 fuel some units got C3. Since the units tasked with escort interference usually got the newest and best airframes they probably also got the best fuel. These 109 units would almost certainly be equipped with either G10s or K4s. This means that at least by March 1945 there were 109G10s and K4s flying with C3 fuel and 1.98 ata boost developing approx. 2000 PS, they weren't many, but there weren't many K4s around in any case.

Mr. Butch2k, is this a reasonable conclusion on my part?

Btw. what book are you working on?

butch2k · « **Reply #59 on:** February 18, 2004, 04:04:52 PM »

Not exactly since in March 1945 only two units of the Luftflotte 6 both equipped with G-10 were using C3, one being IV/JG 4 the other being II/JG 11, and no K-4 units at all.

AFAIK 1.98ata boost was cleared late february but it seems to have been slowly introduced into service, i suspect the adjustments needed on the engine and the change of sparkplugs type (supply problems ???) took longer than expected. From other documents i know that C3 and B4 had severe quality problems beginning in late 1944. While it was not much of a problem with low boost, it had some serious effect on higher boost, so it might also have slowed down the introduction of 1.98ata boost. At least DB documents underlined the need for cleaner fuels than those in use at that time.
You can safely assume that by march 1945 1.98 ata boost was being introduced, unfortunately i do not have much details for April 1945, but i doubt it would have changed much, given the situation.

My book(s) will takle the 109 development, history and technical side.