And besides, what part in the British report says 1800 ps is achieved with B4? Uhm, butch said it actually that B-4 and MW50 use was good enough for 1800PS for the DB 605AM... it was in the same thread you take the other qoutes from (in a selective manner).. how did you missed that? Actually I believed the AM required C-3 in any case, but then butch noticed B-4 would do if MW was used as well, and after I checked the wording of the German engine description, I realized that for the AM they don`t actually say C-3 is absolutely neccesary, just "it is used" for Sondernotleistung.
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. First, let`s rehearse it again, did you, or did you not say, that the clear sentence in the Brit report on the USE of C-3 actually means it was not used ?
Or maybe you can be a man about it, and admit C-3 was used by a 109s..
Now, pray, tell me what difference there was in the
ratio of B-4 and C-3 in June 1944
and 1945... if you would have ever looked up avgas production, stockpile and consumption figures for the LW (which you never did, but continue to form an opinion on that..) from late 1944, then you would have already realized that the production had little to do with the fuel quantity. From about September 1944, the Germans grounded most bombers to save fuel for the fighters (and one should note that a single bomber consumed many times the fuel a fighter needed), and were living up the HUGE avgas stockpiles (about 600 000 TONS in early 1944), instead of relying on the rather minimal production (10-20 000 tons/month in late 1944, vs. ~190 000 tons early 1944). Fuel consumption of the LW, which meant practically fighters and attack a/c only by late 1944, was a steady 40-50 000 tons per month. So unless you prove C-3 was in short supply in the STOCKPILEs vs. B-4, you will have a hard time proving your other claims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the "1.98ata was not authorized until February 1945" claim... not much needs to be
said. The DB 605D`s manual, 3rd edition, dated 1st December, 1944, says 1.98 IS AUTHORIZED.
PERIOD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a cleaned up pdf of the 109K4 manual available on the net. It's the December edition. It says the manifold pressure guage only goes up to 1.8ata: First the correction, you always liked these half truths, but let`s get the full picture, shall we?
The first page from where you took it, says:
Teil 9A
Algemeine Austrustung
(Stand Oktober 1944)
Ausgabe Dezember 1944Now, for the non-German speakers, this means:
Part 9A
General equipment
Condition as October 1944
Published in December 1944
So in brief, the K-4 manual you wanted to sell as if it would show the
december state, is really just a newer print that STILL shows the conditions of October 1944 for the first batch of K-4s, such as the ones received by JG 77 and JG 27 in October 1944.... which were the early few that had the DB 605DM, the same ones the fuel delivery docs of November 1944 refer to. And that`s why it is hardly a surprise why a manual for the earlies Kurfurst with DB 605 DM, cleared for a max. 1.75ata, does not need a boost gauge more than a max. 1.8ata sign..
And I am curious how could you missed the "Oktober 1944" text just and inch above... it speaks a lot of your intentions. It`s also interesting to note that it was Neil Stirling who first come up with the manual, he was told that it is for the early planes only, and as I have seen, he accepted that fact and moved on. Unlike you, who keeps ignoring it, and malicously misqoute the document`s true date.
Now, please tell us who does a fuel gauge for a K-4 with an early, rare engine variant proves in October 1944 proves that 1.98 ata was not used in November/December on later variants...?
It`s like arguing that the Spit IX never used more than +15 lbs boost, just because it`s Merlin 61 equipped variant`s manual lists no more in 1942...
"Schwarze man" then reffered to the manual he'd sent to Butch, who replied: Why don`t you qoute SM, Chris too? Maybe because in his posts he makes it clear, that in the December Ausgabe of the DB 605 D the 1.98 ata pressure is CLEARED ? SM also made it clear in the discussion, that the engine manual he referred to was already the 3rd edition, so most likely it was like this in November already ? So as long as the manual is THERE, and it SAID to the troops that 'you can use 1.98ata', I am not going to believe that it wasn`t, unless there is any other order that actually says 'don`t use 1.98ata vs. as said in the manual'.
There`s such WELL-KNOWN limitation to the DB 605A - why not for the DB 605D? Right now what I think, taking all available evidence in account, and not just ignoring the parts I don`t like, is that the 1.98 ata boost was cleared in mid-November or so for the DB/DC (most likely not for the DM, but those must have been quite rare), because the manual SAYS SO.
Possibly they encountered some troubles in use, which is quite usual with a new engine, that`s why the further investigations in early 1945. But unless there`s direct proof that 1.98ata was banned, one cannot think that, unless of course allows himself to neglect the rules of formal logic and rely on likely, or less likely assumptions.
Of course, Chris (SM) might be completely wrong, after all, he`s only responsible for the engine maintaince of the only airworthy Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-10 with DB 605 D today... but I suppose he has some idea of the limitations and techspecs of the engine he works every day.
The Db605A in the 109G2 was supposed to run at 1.42ata.Where did you take that ? The Rechlin tests already for a G-1 say 1.42 is "not yet cleared".
Where did you take 1.42ata was cleared in the beginning of service? I tell you, nowhere, it`s an assumption, made up by you to support your other assumptions. Sandcastle built on sand...
Now, what do you think the 109G manual said prior to that? Max boost 1.42 ata? Yet it
wasn't allowed to use that in service until June 43. I highly doubt it would say anything before June 1942, simply `cos the plane did not see service before June 1942...
Your nicely crafted story is basically that the 1.42ata is, according to you, supposed to be 'in the G-2s manual' (which you have never seen...) before it even saw service, and then it was called back, because of the troubles in service.... I see some conflicting elements in your version.
It's not like there isn't a precedent of a German engine not being safe to run at full power when it was newly introduced, is it? It`s not like it would be any new when introducing a new engine, nobody knows that better then the British, don`t you think? The Merlin III was supposed to be cleared for +12 lbs WEP, then it was severly restricted because of operational troubles, special report has to be written after every use... otherwise for strictly combat for short periods, more than +9 was FORBIDDEN.
The Merlin 6x series were supposed to run at +18lbs, yet for about a year they had put up with +15 lbs until 1943. When they were supposed to reach +25lbs with 150 grade fuel, severe timing and ball bearing troubles happened and many of those had to be restriced to +21 lbs, and as far as I know, the Americans restriced them even further for safety.
The Griffon 65 series was supposed to run at +25 lbs, yet in service, AGAIN for ball bearing troubles they were restricted in service use to +21lbs, were not cleared for higher boost even in mid 1945, if ever.
But I could simply save the typing and say "Napier Sabre", which remained so unreliable during the entire war that Typhoon pilots wrote black jokes on their planes about how they will burn in their cocpit after startup.. they lost Wing Commanders even in 1944 to engine failures soon after takeoff. So I say it`s all relative.
And neither do you, which is the whole point Isegrim.
You have figures that we know very little about, yet you are using them as gospel. So the difference between you and me is that I don`t claim anything regards the conditions I don`t know, why you make up these conditions yourself to keep ignore the result.. And I post the same figures butch and others do. I wonder what could be wrong with them? Maybe the part : 377 mph at SL? Compared to 358 mph for the Spit XIV?
This is the reason I believe the 109K4 was rarely able to match the figures in Isegrim's chart. No, the reason is, the ONLY reason is, briefly, is that the K-4 is faster than MkXIV at SL even if one takes the highest operational boost for the Spit, and lowest operational boost for the Messer.
I think C3 was comparable, or even a bit better, than 100/130. But the 109 needed MW50 to reach the same sort of pressures without detonation as the Merlin on 100/150.Not really. The DB 605DC was working on MUCH higher compression ratios than the Merlin,which was as low as 6:1 (DB 605D was 8.5:1, even the earliest DBs run at higher than 6:1...).. which means by the time of detonation, the pressure within the engine is higher in the DB 605 than in the Merlin, even w/o taking into account the higher compression also leads to higher tempretures, which makes the gas expand, increasing pressure further. Not to mention water injection works a bit different than just raising rich mixture`s critical octane rating.
