# Bf-109 Performance Threads



## ridato (Mar 28, 2007)

Here a british report for a captured Bf 109E. Very interesting.


----------



## Micdrow (Mar 28, 2007)

Very cool ridato

This will be where I add performance documents on Bf-109


Many Thanks
Micdrow


----------



## flojo (May 23, 2007)

The so called take-off and emergency rating (Start- und Notleistung 1.42ata) of the DB605A engine of the early Me109G was forbidden to use until late 1943 afaik. Does anybody know if it was allowed to use so-called climb and combat rating (Steig- und Kampfleistung 1.3 ata) for 30 minutes with these derated engines or was the maximum permissable duration for this power setting also decreased?


----------



## Hop (May 23, 2007)

There's an English translation of the original German order forbidding 1.42 ata floating around. Try WWII Aircraft Performance

It says that on older engines, and it gives worknumbers to identify which, the 1.3 ata climb and combat rating must be used only when operationally essential.


----------



## flojo (May 23, 2007)

Hop said:


> There's an English translation of the original German order forbidding 1.42 ata floating around. Try WWII Aircraft Performance
> 
> It says that on older engines, and it gives worknumbers to identify which, the 1.3 ata climb and combat rating must be used only when operationally essential.



Unfortunately on this page there is only a translation by british intelligence and not the original quote in german. But it would be extremely interesting what "operationally essential" means in this respect. As long as you dogfighting a spitfire - for a brief boost to break away from a fight - use it freely in air combat but not when cruising just to reach your destination faster ???? There is a wealth of possible interpretations.


----------



## Hop (May 24, 2007)

Well, the fact that aircraft with strengthened pistons did not have the warning about only when operationally essential suggests that there was some risk in running at 1.3 ata in the older engines. It doesn't look like a fixed time limit, but they are only guidelines anyway.

Basically, if you were prepared to risk your engine blowing you could use it as long as you liked


----------



## flojo (May 24, 2007)

I found the text you referred to in the section about comparing 109G with Spitfire MkIX. There only older engines were mentioned and that the problem why not to use 1.42 ata was due to pistons burning through. Where can I find the source that newer engines have stronger pistons not making them able to be used safely with 1.42 ata but making the hint to only use 1.3 ata "when operationally essential" obsolete. Is a longer portion of the text available somewhere on Mike William's page?


----------



## Hop (May 24, 2007)

I'm not sure what's on Mike Williams site, but I have what I think is the complete teleprinter message as a scan (probably from Mike, or Neil Sterling).

I won't type in the whole thing, but the relevant bits are:

"The Take-off and emergency output with a boost pressure of 1.42 atm. and 2800 revs. may not at present by used. The climbing and combat output with 1.3 atm. and 2600 revs. may in the case of the older engines (for works numbers see below), be used only when operationally essential." (that's from Mike's site)

It goes on later: 
"In engines with reinforced pistons the danger of their burning through is not so great as in the older version of the piston, but the takeoff and emergency output may still not be used."

There's more saying older pistons will be replaced in refit, so I think the problem with 1.3 ata would have disappeared as time went on, unless some new problem occurred.


----------



## flojo (May 25, 2007)

Many thanks. I did not realize until now that problems also existed with 1.3 ata for the earlier DB605A engines.


----------



## Brain32 (Jun 11, 2007)

This is the report of bf109 high speed trials original document with translation to english.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 8, 2007)

The captured transmission effectively speaks about the greater wear of the pre-production DB 605A-0 engines, not the serial production DB 605A-1.

1,42ata appears to have been cleared in 8 June 1943, and used operationally at Kursk, however it seems they were not entirely satisfied and recalled the clearance until Daimler-Benz finally brought a fix in September 1943 by installing oil de-aerators, which seems to be the root of the problem (bubbles forming in oil, reducing lubrication to nil).


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 8, 2007)

The captured transmission effectively speaks about the greater wear of the pre-production DB 605A-0 engines, not the serial production DB 605A-1.

1,42ata appears to have been cleared in 8 June 1943, and used operationally at Kursk, however it seems they were not entirely satisfied and recalled the clearance until Daimler-Benz finally brought a fix in September 1943 by installing oil de-aerators, which seems to be the root of the problem (bubbles forming in oil, reducing lubrication to nil).

In any case, all engine and aircraft manuals which still note the ban on Notleistung give 30-minute limit for Kampfleistung just the same.


----------



## Gatt (Jul 3, 2008)

Hop said:


> I'm not sure what's on Mike Williams site, but I have what I think is the complete teleprinter message as a scan (probably from Mike, or Neil Sterling).
> 
> I won't type in the whole thing, but the relevant bits are:
> 
> ...



HOP,
any chance you can scan and post here the original teleprinter message?
Does anyone has it?
Thanks for help,
Gatt


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 13, 2008)

Hi,

You can find it on my site : Kurfrst - Technical Sheet issued by the Quartermaster General (AIR Equipment) - DB 605 engine in the Me 109 G. Berlin 18th June 1942.


----------



## Gatt (Jul 14, 2008)

Thank you Kurfurst,
have you ever seen the original of the document?
Regards,
Gatt


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 16, 2008)

The German version you mean? No, but I would think it probably exists in BAMA or somewhere..

However, the British one seems to be a mere translation, and can be found in the PRO (Brit National Archives) in Kew amongst the Me 109G papers.


----------



## Gatt (Jul 16, 2008)

Roger that. We (the Targetware-Target Tobruk MODers) are researching what happened in the Regia Aeronautica and Aeronautica Repubblicana (after september 1943) as far as the 1,42ata, 2.800rpm limit is concerned.

The DB605A was mounted on the C.205, the G.55 and the Re.2005, however we dont know if and when the limit was canceled. So far, we discovered only one manual, the 1944 G.55's one, without any limitation.

Regards,
Gatt


----------



## yogy (Aug 31, 2008)

The bann on 1,42 ata was released in autumn 1943


----------



## brewerjerry (Nov 22, 2008)

Hi
Stumbled on this site, thought it might be of interest.
cheers
Jerry

Beim-Zeugmeister: Seite 1 - Einführung


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 24, 2008)

Hello All,

What does 1.42 ata manifold pressure correspond to in the US Inches of Hg?
I believe it is 41.1 or 41.0 inches, but am not sure of the exact conversion factor.

Thanks.
- Ivan.


----------



## HoHun (Nov 25, 2008)

Hi Ivan,

>What does 1.42 ata manifold pressure correspond to in the US Inches of Hg?

1.39 hPa, 41.42" Hg, +5.5 lbs/sqin, 1044 mm Hg

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 25, 2008)

Hello HoHun,

From the numbers you gave, 1.00 ata == 735 mm Hg == 29.17 inches Hg which puts this slightly under one standard atmospher at 760 mm Hg or 29.92 inches Hg.

I guess this was the answer I was really trying to get in the other Spitfire versus Zero thread.

Thanks.
- Ivan.


----------



## HoHun (Nov 25, 2008)

Hi Ivan,

>From the numbers you gave, 1.00 ata == 735 mm Hg == 29.17 inches Hg which puts this slightly under one standard atmospher at 760 mm Hg or 29.92 inches Hg.

>I guess this was the answer I was really trying to get in the other Spitfire versus Zero thread.

Ah, I see. I hope all remaining confusion is cleared up now? 

Standard atmosphere is 1.01325 hPa = ca. 1.03 ata = 760 mm Hg = 29.92" Hg = +/- 0 lbs/sqin

and also ...

1 ata = 0.908665 hPa <- exact value based on standard Earth gravity.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 25, 2008)

Any clue on the ata-equivalent of the Hgmm units mentioned in this French report?

Kurfrst - CEMA : Performance trials with the captured Messerschmitt Bf 109E-3 WNr.1304

I am not sure at what rating this aircraft was run at.


----------



## HoHun (Nov 25, 2008)

Hi Kurfürst,

>Any clue on the ata-equivalent of the Hgmm units mentioned in this French report?

Hm, I think there is an other part of the French report with a table showing the boost figures reached by the captured aircraft.

If I remember correctly, there was a slight problem with the engine not reaching full boost pressures at medium altitude, but otherwise the Me 109 performed much like expected from the German figures.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 25, 2008)

Hello HoHun,

I thought I had it, but now you threw another factor into it. Are you telling me that the exact value for 1.00 ata depends on earth's gravity???

I KNOW that actual sea-level pressure differs in various places, but I also thought that is why we agree on standard values: To avoid skewing results based on local conditions?

By the way, are the numbers 735 mm / 29.17 inches Hg the correct values for 1.00 ata?

- Ivan.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 25, 2008)

29.17" HG is not the weather you would think they'd be doing test flyimg in ,there must have been bad weather somewhere nearby


----------



## HoHun (Nov 26, 2008)

Hi Ivan,

>I thought I had it, but now you threw another factor into it. Are you telling me that the exact value for 1.00 ata depends on earth's gravity???

It's not really the actual gravity at any point of the earth, but a constant definition value arrived at by some administrative board.

This is the result of old measurement systems lumping force and mass into one unit, because it's human everyday experience is that a constant mass experiences a constant gravity force - also called weight.

This means that with old measurement systems, like Imperial or cgs, the standard gravity pops up everywhere, often unexpectedly, when you calculate anything that involves forces.

Units lb(f) and kp have to be read as "the equivalent to the force exerted on one pound resp. kilogram of mass exerted by Earth standard gravity". Wherever you go, you bring Earth standard gravity with you. Calculate forces experienced by astronauts on the moon, and you have to bring Earth standard gravity into the equation. Unlogical, inconvenient and ugly, thus the introduction of the Newton that fixes it. The Newton can be read as "the force necessary to accelerate a mass of 1 kg by 1 m/s in 1 s."

>By the way, are the numbers 735 mm / 29.17 inches Hg the correct values for 1.00 ata?

I get 736 mm Hg and 28.96" Hg for 1.00 ata. 

Using rounded values for converting directly is bad practice though, normally you'd use full precision and go through the SI units instead of converting directly.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 3, 2009)

Some new material has been added:

Messerschmitt AG. Augsburg - Die Kurvenwendigkeit der Me-typen II. Teilbericht.
The turning performance of the Messerschmitt types II. Partial report.
Technischer Bericht TB Nr. 17/40.
August 1940.

Messerschmitt A.G. Projektbüro theoretical study of the turn performance of various Messerschmitt types. This partial report contains the theory behind calculating turning radius and time, illustrated on an example of a Bf 109E in sustained and diving turns, as well as misc. information such as propeller effiency curves for Bf 109E, Bf 109F-4, Bf 110C, Me 209 and Me 210.)

In German.

at : Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## HoHun (Jan 3, 2009)

Hi Kurfürst,

>Messerschmitt AG. Augsburg - Die Kurvenwendigkeit der Me-typen II. Teilbericht.

Outstanding, very interesting stuff! 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Holtzauge (Jan 18, 2009)

I would like to inform those of you who read “Kurvewendigkeit der Me-typen II Telberich” at Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance that this document is the result of research work on my part and that Kurfurst has manipulated my images with his own watermark and posted these in a secured pdf file at his site without my consent.

I have asked Kurfurst a number of times through private channels to remove my research work from his site but he refuses to do so. I intend to contact the moderators of this forum to ask them to remove links to his site but in the mean time I would like to warn others that material shared with him on a personal basis may against your wishes be stamped with his watermark and end up on his site without your consent.

Holtzauge

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 18, 2009)

Some comments on the above, just for the factuality's sake.

Holtzeuge offered me a copy of these papers back in 2006 on his own initiative; although given to what lenghts he has gone into praising my humble person it was quite clear that he was only interested in getting his hand on some primary material from my collection. 

In email in August 2006 in an email, he wrote:

_'Thanks for the info you posted on your site. Some new good info there. Later in August or in September I will return to the archives and continue documenting what's there. For your info: last time I was there before summer I happened across some German docs with graphs on Me 109 turn radiuses and turn times which should interest you _

A week later he wrote:

_About the 109 turn data: I did send you one part but there is more in another teilbericht which contains graphs with turn performance for different flap settings amonst other things which I think, knowing your special interest in the 109, will interst you _

Not very reluctant, was he? As an extra, he added a couple of nasty and rather transparently motivated comments _'concerning the spitfireperformance.com crowd, wannabees and hang-arounds'_ to win my favours and perhaps receive some more material this way. 

Anyway, in exchange of a couple digital camera copies of these papers, Holtzeuge received a number of documentation he requested and was interested in. It would seem a fair deal to me, tit for tat, and everybody is happy. 

Regarding Holtzeuge's actual motives: parts of this report was up on site for a long time, he had regularly visited the site which is documented by records of his IP address. He has made no complaints at all. 

His attitude suddenly took a 180 degree turn shortly after he got into a debate with me and Crumpp on another forum about half a year ago. Ever since he seems to hold a blood feud against Crumpp, whom he attacks at every possible opportunity, and all the sudden he became concerned about 'his' report, that he merely _copied without consent_ of the said archive, and _traded_ with me _in exchange_ of other reports.

It should be noted that everybody so far who has donated material or helped in other way (such as translation etc.) to the site has been properly credited for it; Holtzeuge was also offered recognition for his help, but since this is obviously just a personal issue for him, he declined that recognition, and demanded the removal of his 'copyrighted' material.

Now unfortunately a legal position is quite clear about these copies (and uniform in EU countries via international agreements), the copyright may go to the archives from where Holtzeuge copied (presumably w/o consent given the content of his emails) these papers. Most of these archives expressively forbid copying their collection without their consent, but enable their 'fair use', ie. for non-profit, educational purposes.

I also contacted several researchers to ask for their opinion of the issue. Their position was uniform and clear as well, that Holtzauge can claim no from of copyright for these papers, one even suggested that I should brand these papers as 'via mr. a$$hole' - an idea definitely worthy of consideration!  

Obviously, you won't gain copyright of copyrighted material by simply reproducing it by various means, just the same you won't gain copyright of say, a Harry Potter book if you take a couple of digishots at one in a library when the librarian is not around.. In particular in case of WW2 (or more precisly: 1933-1945) German state docs, all rights of the original copyright owners (ie. Messerschmitt AG itself etc.) were declared void in post-war trials.

Now, to make my position of regarding the document is that it was offered by Holtzeuge himself, and he was fairly compensated for his troubles by exchanging documentation; he was also offered recognition of his efforts on the site, which he declined and demanded to remove 'his copyrighted material' - when he was asked for evidence of his copyright, he did not/could not provide any.

There is nothing more to the issue as far as I go, as Mr. Holtzeuge is not the holder of the copyright, nor is a representative of the copyright holder (who would probably be very interested to hear of Mr. Holtzeuge's claims of copyright and his covert copy ops in his achieves without consent), therefore he has no position to make demands about it; granting those demands would violate the rights of the actual copyright holder, the sole entity who's entitled to do so; naturally this won't happen, especially given his deplorable motives and tactics.

That Holtzeuge is a copyrighy fraud who poses as a 'researcher' is his own business that he need to be resolve with the actual copyright holder, and perhaps, Swedish criminal code.


----------



## Holtzauge (Jan 18, 2009)

Well, from the above I think all those who read this understand why I do not share information with this person anymore.

I have exchange research material with a lot of people over the years and there has only been the above incident where my material has ended up manipulated on the internet before.

I think the rest of Kurfursts reply speaks for itself.....


----------



## HoHun (Jan 18, 2009)

Hi Holtzauge,

Just one question: Did you ask Kurfürst not to publish the material before you sent it to him?

That's an etiquette question ... I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think you have much of a legal claim. I don't see what actual damage the publication would do to you either.

Of course, I respect your position not to share anything in the future after one case did not work out as you had planned.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Micdrow (Jan 18, 2009)

I am only going to stay this once, I dont now the whole story behind this and probably never will. If this turns into a pissing match you both will be banned. Private emails to each other is fine but keep it off the message board.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 18, 2009)

Amen, Micdrow.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 18, 2009)

Note that this is not intended to be a 'pissing contest', just shedding some light on the background story, which is rather simple...

Holtzauge got into a flame war with Kettenhunde (and also dragondog) a while ago (outrageously enough at the twelve o clock high forums, a very serious research board BTW visited by some of best known researchers like Caldwell, Prien etc. - not really the place for such stupid bar fights, but they didn't really care..). Instead of trying to behave at a serious research community like that board, the he started waging a blood feud against KH on all boards, including the infamous ubi forums, attacking his person at every opportunity, 'warning' about the 'history' of KH (familiar? see #34) etc. It become a rather nauseating routine to observe, and after I while I made note of the hypocrite attitude and told him to grind his axe elsewhere. See here: BF109 Slats - Topic Powered by Eve For Enterprise

I guess someone's ego could not bear it, and given how he handled his conflict with Kettenhunde, I was not particularly surprised to end up on his 'list of evil persons' and when _two days _ after that discussion I got the claim about the 'violation' of his 'copyright' about the material - that was already up on the site for six months already.  He knew about it already - I have monitored his activity on my site - he navigated straight for the article which had that single scan of the report (as noted, added six months before), just before writing his complaining email... what does that tell you?

Perhaps now it is more easier to understand Holtzeuge's motives and ethical grounds. Quite simply he is trying to take revenge because I stepped on his toe when he was bashing another person in a very unfair manner, and it hurt his ego. 

@Micdrow,

I agree this does not belong on this board, so from my POV it would the best to ask Mr. Holtzauge to take his vendetta campaign elsewhere, and clean up the the whole garbage... I think the true motives has been sufficiently highlighted, and there is little doubt what this silliness was all about.


----------



## Holtzauge (Jan 18, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Holtzauge,
> 
> Just one question: Did you ask Kurfürst not to publish the material before you sent it to him?
> 
> ...



Hi HoHun,

Concerning etiquette, others I have shared information with have had the good manners to ask before sharing it with others, something I have not had any objections to so far. None have posted my research material without asking me beforehand. None have manipulated my material with their own watermark and made their own secured pdf file from my images.

As to the legal issue I do not think it's quite as clear cut as Kurfurst would have it. The question is not the copyright of the material as such but of the IMAGES of the material. Earlier today I contacted another forum and they have removed links to Kurfurst site and I'm waiting for a reply from the moderator here.

However, for my own part, I think there is also an element of morality here so I'm a bit surprised by your response. I ask before sharing material I get from others and so far others have paid me the same courtesy.

Regards,

Holtzauge


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 18, 2009)

What legal right you claim for copies that you basically _smuggled out_ from your university's library without their consent, and then _traded_ it in exchange of documents?

By law (and this is fairly standardized accross the globe, but certainly in Europe) the minimum requirement for obtaining an intellectual right or copyright for a work, image etc. is that the said work must be unique, original and a result of the intellectual efforts made by the author. Your images - disregarding the fact that you seem to obtained them illegally, and that from the legal POV already sold them to me in consideration of receiving other documents in exchange - do not meet any of the criteria of uniqueness, originality, being mere copies.

What morality you refer to when the whole nonsense is quite clearly only about you seeking a vendetta against me, because I did not let you to bash a respected member of our and other communities, a subject of another ego-vendetta campaign of yours, with your vile accusations..?

And if links were removed to my site, why is it that I can still see my links being there, but I cannot see your 'complaining' posts and why was thread was locked, and you being asked by moderation to take your troubles into private messaging..?

@HoHun, 

to answer your question, I can't recall that if he asked me not to publish the material well after they were already published and he was already aware of it, and not until he made such request until two days after he was told to stop attacking Kettenhunde.


----------



## Wurger (Jan 18, 2009)

Gents you have already been warned by Micdrow.This is the second one.If you want to expalin something one to another please use PMs or better your regular e-mail boxes.There is no place for that.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 18, 2009)

Rgr that - case closed on my part anyway.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 18, 2009)

Hi Holtzauge,

>>Just one question: Did you ask Kurfürst not to publish the material before you sent it to him?

>However, for my own part, I think there is also an element of morality here so I'm a bit surprised by your response. 

I guess one can sum up your answer as "No, I didn't"?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Heimatschuetzer_262 (Nov 18, 2018)

Hello to anyone still listening to this thread.

Is there any cached version of the report mentioned above, namely 
"
Partial report.
Technischer Bericht TB Nr. 17/40.
August 1940.
"
It is no longer located on the kurfurst.org website.


----------

