# Me109F vs Spitfire MkV



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 14, 2005)

Which and why?


----------



## Holmes (Sep 14, 2005)

Spit V for: manevrability, armament, DF
Fritz (the best of 109's IMO) for: manev., DF + EF combination

For me: there are two equal planes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 14, 2005)

the spitfire, why?? because the spit was used by the allies, the -109F by the axis, the allies beat the axis, and so, the spitfire was better than the -109F


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 14, 2005)

Thats a stupid theory


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2005)

Plain old retarded....

The Friedrich for sure.... And I would take the Fw-190A over the Bf-109F....


----------



## P38 Pilot (Sep 14, 2005)

Hmm. The Spitfire did have great manuverabilty, which became useful in dogfights, but the -109 was just as good as the Spitfire.

If you ask me, i would have taken the Spitfire over the -109. Besides, the Spitfire had a more guns on it than a -109.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2005)

U have any idea what calibre those Spit Mk V's had -38????


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 14, 2005)

2 20mm and 4 - .303 or 4 - 20mm which beats the 109s 2 - 7,92 and 1 - 20mm


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 14, 2005)

The BoB not withstanding of course, except for a few Mk.Ib's armed with cannons. For the most part, they just had the eight .303's.


----------



## GregP (Sep 14, 2005)

I'd take the Bf 109F. It has a cannon on the centerline, two MGs in the nose.

From Erich Hartmann Gerhard Barkhorn, "One in the nose is worth 4 in the wings!"

Between these two guys, they shot down over 650 Allied aircraft. I believe them.

The 109F was the best of the series as far as the Aces were concerned.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2005)

> 2 20mm and 4 - .303 or 4 - 20mm which beats the 109s 2 - 7,92 and 1 - 20mm


Thanks for the info -38... I already knew that... Wanted to see if he did...


----------



## plan_D (Sep 15, 2005)

The Spitfire V and Bf-109F were equal opponents. It purely came down to the pilot skill when these two faced off. The Spitfire V had none of the problems of the Spitfire I and II so comparison is zilch. The Fw-190A vs. Spitfire V however would be the end of days for the Spitfire.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Sep 15, 2005)

Plan_D you are right. It comes right down to the pilot who's flying the bird.

It all comes down to luck, skill, guts, and of course being alert. Every shot that you would have fired counted. It could be that one misfire or moving to slowly that got bullets hitting your cockpit.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 15, 2005)

*Too* slowly.......


----------



## P38 Pilot (Sep 15, 2005)

Yep.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 15, 2005)

> The Spitfire V had none of the problems of the Spitfire I and II so comparison is zilch.



I thought it still had a float carb and was unable to bunt?



> The Fw-190A vs. Spitfire V however would be the end of days for the Spitfire.



Well, 'till the MkIX came along and restored the balance

On the armament thing 'one in the nose' is only good for experienced pilots, a novice is going to get himself killed with that armament (as discovered in Russia).

The Me109F actually had a 15mm in the nose, but it was better than the Oerlikon and could esily be made into a 20mm as all (pretty sure every one?) later were.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 15, 2005)

The eary Spitfire V still had the carb problem but it was solved in the later V production. And I do realise that the Spitfire IX brought back a balance between the Spitfire and German opposition. But this discussion is about the Spitfire V. All Spitfire marks are different, refer to the mark everytime.


----------



## Udet (Sep 15, 2005)

"On the armament thing 'one in the nose' is only good for experienced pilots, a novice is going to get himself killed with that armament (as discovered in Russia). "

May i know how is it that such a thing happened?

In Russia what was discovered is the VVS received a kind of battering no air force in the history of war has ever experienced.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 15, 2005)

I thought you meant the Spit (all marks) had had it's day by that point PlanD.



> All Spitfire marks are different



Really? Thats news to me!  


One of the Soviet screw-ups Udet, but I think the problem was known but ignored?

Basically all Allied pilots sent to Russia went with their planes, but preferred Russian types (nose armament) whereas the Ivans prefered multiple wing armament, unless they were elites.

It's kinda like arming a green Russian Infantryman with a Mosin-Nagant Sniper Rifle and Vasilly Zeitzev-types with a PPSh41, if you will.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 16, 2005)

Since you have created the thread "Me109F vs Sitfire MkV" maybe I should just refer to the Sitfire, whatever that is. Is that a Spitfire without fuel?


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 16, 2005)

I did that before, but amended it, my keyboard must be funny...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

Well I will go with the Bf-109F. Mainly because the 109 is my fav but it was a wonderful aircraft. The most balanced of the 109s.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 17, 2005)

Just for the record.

*Armament of the F- series.*

F-0: 1x20mm MG-FF/M (20x80RB) with 60 rounds drum, 2 x 7,92 mm MG-17 with 500 rounds belt

F-1: 1x20mm MG-FF/M with 60 rounds drum, 2 x 7,92 mm MG-17 with 500 rounds belt.

F-2: 1x15 mm Mg-151 with 200 rounds belt, 2 x 7,92 mm MG-17 with 500 rounds belt.

F-2/U-1 (Adolf Gallands aircraft) 1x15 mm Mg-151 with 200 rounds belt, 2 x 13 mm Mg-131 with 250 rounds belt.

F-2/U-2 (Werner Mölders aircraft) 1x15 mm Mg-151 with 200 rounds belt, 2x7,92mm MG-17 with 500 rounds belt, 2 MG-FF/M in wings with 60 rounds drums.

F-3: 1x15mm MG-151/15 with 200 rounds belt, 2 x 7,92 mm MG-17 with 500 rounds belt.

F-4 : 1x 20 mm Mauser Mg-151/20 (20x82) with 200 rounds belt ( although it sometimes was filled with only 150 or 180 rounds) 2 x7,92mm with 500 round belt.

F-5 : Tactic recce aircraft, 20 mm gun deleted. Only 2 x 7,92mm MG-17

F-6 : Photo recce aircraft, 20 mm gun deleted. Only 2 x 7,92mm MG-17.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

Of all the 109s though the F did lack on armament the most.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 17, 2005)

Yeah, that is why the top aces of that time modificate his aircraft, Galland in particular hated the armament of the F-0/F-1/F-2.


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 18, 2005)

From what I can gather, the 'F' had a few problems, least of which was that bloody undercarriage that Messerschmitt never EVER resolved....
I have here a letter by Ernst Udet written to Messerschmitt on 4th April 1941 detailing some 25 faults in the 'F' model, which had been mentioned in a telegram from GFM. Kesselring, Cmdr of Luftflotte II......

In reading them, it basically appears the aircraft were literally 'thrown' together, a summary of defects that just wouldn't be found in British manufacture of Spitfires, and if they were, they wouldn't have been allowed to get to the stage where Squadrons' complained and an Air Marshal was disposed to have to write to his senior advisors to pass on to the Manufacturer.

I know they had problems later in the War with the slave-labourers sabotaging aircraft in factory-process or Repair depots, but this early in the War was indicative of, yeah, a massive production capability, but not alot of emphasis on quality-control.....

I've always liked the 'E' model, but a Spitfire was an especially awesome aircraft of it's time, and in those early days fought with the Hurricane against huge odds.....and won. Despite the losses they kept building AND improving the Spit, the later models were powerful beasts indeed. With the advent of the Mk.'s VIII IX, they never looked back, and had an aircraft that was the equal, indeed better, than both the 109 and 190. There they were by war's end, the Mk.XVI was basically a Mk.IX with an US-built Merlin....[ let alone the Mk.XIV with the Griffon ! ]........

All this talk of guns really didn't make that much difference in the end... Either 8x .303, or 2x 20mm with .303's or .5's, they still served well. On both sides it was really about pilot-experience. Germany simply had many more enemies to shoot and a greater run-up to War than Britain, so their early pilots built-up greater scores...

The Messerschmitts were good aircraft and popular with most crews, but the Spitfire [ IMHO ] was the better....proof of this was REALLY established by the RAF's PR Spitfires, who for a great deal of the War flew in and out of Germany unarmed, pretty much as they pleased, relying simply on speed and tactics.... - Think about that, it took REAL balls.......

Gemhorse


----------



## plan_D (Sep 18, 2005)

You forgot the Spitfire 21. Sorry, but recently I only just found out it did actually serve in World War II so it has to be mentioned.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 18, 2005)

Does anyone know when the last Me-109Fs were taken out of service? There were a total of around 2,200 built so I would imagine they hung around for some time.

In a pure one on one engagement, I think I would put the 109F ahead. I feel it was a larger jump in qualtiy for the 109 from the E to F model than for the Spitfire from the Mark I/II to the Mark V. I also think that the 109F came as close to matching the Spitfire in pure dogfight terms as variant of the family.

However, I think that the Spitfire V EVOLVED into a better fighter as the war went on. They did all kinds of things to the mark V to keep it competitive; The introduction of the refined Spitfire Vc with a stronger airframe, 120 rpg for the Hispanos extended the life even further. Removing the fishtail type exhausts and replacing them with multi-ejectors for more speed. Clipped wings for better roll, dive and more speed below 10,000. Introduction of cropped superchargers, improved Merlins and other assorted modifications made them a real handful below about 10,000 feet right up until 1943.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Sep 18, 2005)

PD do you have any info on the Spitfire 21? I would like to know...


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 18, 2005)

Google....


----------



## plan_D (Sep 18, 2005)

That would be your best bet, however, I shall hand the basics to you. It was delivered in January 1945 to 91 Sqdn. And...that's all I can be bothered to write. But since I'm really nice he's the 91 Sqdn writing of the Spitfire 21 (XXI for retards <I'm looking at you 38> )


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 18, 2005)

Jabberwocky said:


> Does anyone know when the last Me-109Fs were taken out of service? There were a total of around 2,200 built so I would imagine they hung around for some time.



There were still Fs in Service in 1945. Hell there were still E's in Service in 1945 believe it or not.


----------



## Dac (Sep 18, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> There were still Fs in Service in 1945. Hell there were still E's in Service in 1945 believe it or not.



Were the E's in front-line service?


----------



## Soren (Sep 18, 2005)

The Bf-109F was the better aircraft, as history testifies, although not by much.

The maneuverability of the Bf-109F and Spitfire Mk.V was about equal, except for the 109F being the better fighter for slow speed Dogfighting. 
As to armament, well they were pretty much equal there as-well, with the Spit having x2 cannons x4 .303's, while the 109 had a single centered cannon + x2 8x57mm's. (I would give the Spit a small advantage in armament though) 

Also the 109F was the better climber of the two, which gave it a rather crucial advantage in any engagement, coupled with the fact that the 109F was faster aswell offcourse.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 19, 2005)

Dac said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > There were still Fs in Service in 1945. Hell there were still E's in Service in 1945 believe it or not.
> ...



No as far as I know they were not on Front line Service in 1945. There were not many of them either. I will have to look it up when I get home from work. I can probably tell you then how many and where. I do believe that in 1943 and early 1944 there were still some E's on the East Front where they could still hold there own against most Russian Fighters. Not sure on that though so dont take me word for it. I will look it up when I get home in some of my books that cover the subject. I know Bf-109T's that were just Bf-109Es modified for Carrier duty were still in use also late in the War based out of Norway.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 19, 2005)

The 109F was probably the best Me109, all said.

The 109T's actually had better performance than the P51 Mustang IIRC, but they were much modified over the 109E.

On the armament, they were very different.

The Spitfires (Hispano?) cannon also had a higher RoF IIRC?

In practical terms the Spitfires armament suited novices, while the Me109F's armament worked wonders for veterans, visa-versa is bad for the Spit, but suicidal for the Me.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 19, 2005)

> The 109T's actually had better performance than the P51 Mustang IIRC



What..????

The BF-109T is a carrier based aircraft .


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 19, 2005)

Udet said:


> "On the armament thing 'one in the nose' is only good for experienced pilots, a novice is going to get himself killed with that armament (as discovered in Russia). "
> 
> May i know how is it that such a thing happened?
> 
> In Russia what was discovered is the VVS received a kind of battering no air force in the history of war has ever experienced.



German pilots have been quoted as saying that nose guns are better for expert marksmen, wing guns are better for everyone else. That included may vetrans who just weren't great at gunnery. It took much less time to bring a new recruit to compentency using wing guns than nose guns.

As for which is actually better, that depends on who you talk to.

However, one thing is clear - German nose guns were short range weapons by comparision to British and US wing guns (i.e. the 20mm and .50 cal, not the .303). Effective ranges were at least 50% longer with the Allied guns.

The MG151/20 had an RoF of about 730 rpm, the Hispano II (in the Spitfire) had an RoF of about 600 rpm. The muzzel velocity of the Hispano was about 20% greater than that of the MG151/20 and its ballistic properties were significantly better. The MG151/20 mine rounds carried about 30% more bang than the Hispano HEI rounds, but lacked their penetration. For fighter vs. fighter combat, I think it is pretty clear that the Hispano II was at least the equal of the MG151/20, and two of them were surely superior to one MG151/20.

As for this matchup, I'd say it would be fairly even depending a lot on exactly which variants we are talking about and the alittude of engagement. The 109F was probably a little more nimble and climbed a little better than the Spit V, the Spit V had better vision, better firepower, and was able to sustain damage better.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 20, 2005)

In reading the exploits of RAF 485 [NZ] Sqn.'s forays, who flew Spits' Mk.'s I, II, V, IX and XVI, they converted from Mk.IIA's to Mk.VB's in August 1941. They flew both the F Mk.VB and LF Mk.VB's, and their ORB indicates they tackled the 109F and Fw-190 with relative success....the latter of course was in ascendancy, but until the Mk.IX came on stream, a few were clobbered by Mk.VB's....
Alex Henshaw, the test-pilot, most enjoyed this model that was fitted with the Merlin 50M engine, and the A-type wing. This was a cropped blower or de-rated engine, designed to give max. power at 5500 ft. It had of course a big advantage at low level and with enormous increase in boost pressure, it was a joy to fly. In fact it was the only Spitfire during a demonstration that he felt able to take-off, lift the wheels up, pause and then pull-up firmly but smoothly into a vertical loop with a slow-roll off the top to finish over the centre of the airfield...He said if he had to make a choice of all the numerous Mk.'s of Spitfires- and there were 36 of them, this is the one he would have picked for a low-level display....something he was known for his indisputed brilliance at.....

I agree with Lunatic's summary, because ultimately it appears it was really a case of the individual pilots' as well........
- The most essential attribute of a Fighter Pilot is good marksmanship...He may be a remarkable navigator, a regular 'Braille' at blind-flying, an accomplished aerobat, but if he cannot shoot accurately when he gets into position, he may as well stay on the ground and save the petrol...All the work into his training, efforts of groundcrew, the valuable aircraft with whatever armament, and especially in protecting his companions in combat, are really paramount concerns...It's to be appreciated that on each sortie he gains experience, but that initial proficiency is most important...

It was an area of concern in Fighter Command that OTU's didn't give enough training here, more went into flying the machine than it's use as a gun platform....
In 485, attendance at the Sqn.'s shooting-range wasn't compulsory, but our serious marksmen, like Al Deere, 'Hawkeye' Wells and Johnny Checketts, spent many of their free hours together or alone walking the hills and valleys shooting rabbits, ducks and other game...During these sessions, apart from gaining deflection-shooting experience, they would discuss the finer points of air combat, and such 'field research' certainly served them well...There was especial attendance to 'fostering' the new pilots that came into the Sqn. and imparting to them the skills already gained by the more seasoned pilots....Evan 'Rosie' Mackie was an especially gifted pilot, receiving only one bullet in combat in his aircraft, due to his fighting technique, finishing the War with 15+ victories, 6th out of 25 New Zealand aces....

They converted to Mk.IXB's on the 1st July 1943, one of the first in Fighter Command to have them at the time....and unwittingly flew Mk.XVI's before their official arrival in May 1945, plonking Packard Merlins into Mk.IX's without realising the reclassification....

I still maintain the Spit V's were an essentially great aircraft, and even if they were caught off-foot by Luftwaffe developments, gave a bloody good account of themselves against the 109F, nonetheless........

Gemhorse


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 21, 2005)

Weird that Gemhorse, about the MkV being the best.  

Is that even vs the MkIX?


Great post again Lunatic,  though as ever, I have a niggle:

I thought a great + point of having the cannon fire through the propellor hub was to give a longer barrel?

That would give it increased velocity and thus range?

The German ammo could be inferior, but it is used in modern sniper rifles, so I severely doubt it.

I heard though that the Hispano had a much higher RoF than the MG151, nearer 900+rpm IIRC?

This is the opposite of what you said.  


The Minenschoss rounds could be a factor, thanks for reminding me.  


A point may also be that a more accurate single 20mm weighs less than 2x less accurate 20mm's.

So you either get increased manouverability, or can carry more ammo?

Same with the 8mms (2 vs 4)

I wonder though with 1 cannon being near the engine, would it be more likely to overheat?

Either jamming, running away or even exploding!!?


----------



## Glider (Sep 21, 2005)

If it helps the following may be of interest

MG151 20mm 12 RPS, Projectile Weight 92gm, MV 800 m/s, 22% HE Content 

Hispano II 10RPS, Projectile Weight 130gm, MV 860 m/s, 8% HE content

.5 M2 13RPS, Projectile weight 43gm, MV 890 ms, 2% HE content

These were two of the most powerful 20mm in the war and I included the 50 M2 as a comparison. 
To be honest they balance each other out. One has a faster ROF and a bigger punch when it arrives. The other has a much larger projectile and a higher MV. The difference would be minimal.

Hope this helps


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 21, 2005)

''Blacktank'' forgets who finally won the War, and it wasn't Messerschmitts' with a nose full big guns.........

Gemhorse


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 22, 2005)

That is for sure....


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 22, 2005)

The real point I feel, is that to a great degree, it was the pilot's ability that counted....Germany's pilots were taught by more experienced chaps that had already been 'blooded' in Spain and the following European conflicts, and were thus very confident, like Galland, for example....

Erwin Leykauf was a Leutnant with JG.54 in 1940, ending the War an Oberleutnant, credited with 33 victories....His comments of those earlier days leaves one in no doubt that he mastered his Messerschmitt, and was always able to out-turn Spitfires...a controversial point, but he shot-down 6 of them, and as he says, ''One had to enter the turn correctly, then open-up the engine - it was a matter of feel...'' He also comments that REAL manoeuvring only started when the wing-slots banged out in the Messerschmitt...younger pilots didn't always get the hang of those....

He also points out that Spitfires became much harder to tackle low-level when we clipped the wings, as the 109E was...And the 109F had rounded-tips by then, up against the Mk.V's, [not Mk.I's II's], alot with the clipped wings and the other new mods....

Both were fine aircraft, [that's why we're all talking about them 60 years later,] but I feel there were those pilots also, on both sides, that became intuitively-connected to their machines, and were able to get the best from them in combat.....

Gemhorse


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 22, 2005)

Glider said:


> If it helps the following may be of interest
> 
> MG151 20mm 12 RPS, Projectile Weight 92gm, MV 800 m/s, 22% HE Content
> 
> ...



That is inaccurate info. The MV of the MG151/20 mine rounds was 750-765 m/s. HE content was 18 grams, 2.5 grams of which were elektron (aluminum/magnesium). 18/92 = 19.6%. (this figure varies a little but not too much).

The Hispano HE/I round had a MV of 867 m/s measured 90 feet from the barrel. This means it was about 890 m/s measured at the muzzle (as the German figure is calculated). It carried between 11 and 13 grams of HE material, or about 10%.

However, the % is meaningless. What is meaningful is how much HE was delivered. The Hispano carried 72% as much HE/I as did the MG151/20.

Another significant factor is the ballistic properties. The Hispano has a better shape, having a much pointier nose (it's flat fuse area is half the diameter of that of the mine round), and its sectional density is up around 4.1 as compared to about 2.6 grams/sq-mm. The SD figure alone means the Hispano round will decelerate less than 2/3rds as quickly as the mine round, and that does not even account for its superior ballistic shape.

As for the .50 round, you've mixed up the figures. The actual weight of the M8 API round (1943-44) was 44.5 grams, ~1.4 grams of which was IM11 incendiary metal composition (Magnesium+Aluminum+Barium Nitrate). Velocity was about 915 m/s at the barrel (official figures are measured at 70 feet). Mid-1944 production was switched to a moly-steel carbide penetrator and the IM11 was reduced to .9 grams but most of what was used during WWII was the tungston carbide penetrator type. The figures you've given seem to be the M8 round at the M2 (
Ball) velocity, corrected to the muzzel (this velocity figure is pretty common).

The .50 also had much superior ballistic shape. Even with its inferor 3.83 SD figure, it still lost 20% less velocity at 2000 feet than did the Hispano 20mm. So it looses its velocity less than half as fast as the MG151/20 mine round! Anyone who has shot skeet will realize that a 1/3rd is extremely significant, and a 50% loss of velocity is HUGE! Factoring in the ~20% inferior initial velocity and the huge loss in velocity w.r.t. range, hitting an evading fighter target with a single MG151/20 vs. 2 x Hispanos or 6 x .50's was several orders of magnitude more difficult.

Overall, I think it is clear that the Hispano was the superior weapon. Certainly it was for fighter vs. fighter combat, and it was probably better for knocking down bombers too.

=S=

Lunatic

PS: I don't have all my data de-archived onto this laptop yet so please excuse the lack of exact figures.


----------



## Glider (Sep 22, 2005)

Lunatic
My scources have the MV of the mine round as 800 m/sec but the MV of the HET round as being 720M/S which is closer to what you are quoting. Could that be the confusion?

As for the Hispanio the difference between 860 and 867 m/s MV is nothing and could easily be different guns of the same batch. Auto weapons of this type could vary by up to 15% in ROF and mass produced ammo could easily make up the difference in MV.

As for the range issue this is in most cases irrelevent as the chances of an average pilot hitting anything at much over 200 yard was slim and at that range they are all effective.

As for the .50 I accept your more detailed notes but the point is still the same. The 50 M2 was underpowered compared to either of the 20mm.

Had the USA gone against planes such as the B17 with .50 they would have had a very hard time of it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 23, 2005)

I am sure though that they would have used different weapons if they had had to go up against aircraft like the Fortress.


----------



## Glider (Sep 23, 2005)

I agree. If we were able to work the bugs out of the 20mm I am sure that the USA could


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 24, 2005)

Glider said:


> Lunatic
> My scources have the MV of the mine round as 800 m/sec but the MV of the HET round as being 720M/S which is closer to what you are quoting. Could that be the confusion?



I don't think so. I just got this laptop and internet connection in the last week. I've not had time to unarchive the cd I made from my desktop.

This is a topic I've studied a great deal. I'm pretty sure the best 20mm mine round had a velocity of 765 m/s. Most sources quote 750 m/s. The ShVAK velocity is typically quoted as 800 m/s, though 785 m/s is more accurate. The MG151/20 API round velocity was down around 730 m/s.



Glider said:


> As for the Hispano the difference between 860 and 867 m/s MV is nothing and could easily be different guns of the same batch. Auto weapons of this type could vary by up to 15% in ROF and mass produced ammo could easily make up the difference in MV.



Well, the guns tended to loose MV and gain ROF with age as the springs wore, but unit to unit performance variation was small for new guns. In any case, the real point I was making is that the German figures are at the muzzle, where the US/GB figures are at 70/90 feet from the muzzle. Thus to get an accurate comparison you need to index the US/GB figures back to the muzzle (which I've done on my gun page but cannot remember the link  )



Glider said:


> As for the range issue this is in most cases irrelevent as the chances of an average pilot hitting anything at much over 200 yard was slim and at that range they are all effective.



I disagree. Effective range for a single MG151/20 vs. a fighter target seems to have been less than 150 meters, with point blank being the norm. For a pair of Hispano's (Spitfire) it seems to have been about 200 meters, and for 6 x .50's about 350 meters. The British/US fighters had longer range because their gun ballistics were better and they mounted more guns.

Once the Ferranti sight came into use for the Brits in late 1943 and for the P-51's in late Spring 1944 the effective ranges increased significantly. Even had the German's had such a sight it would likely not have significantly increased their effective range because of the gun performance.

I know of at least one instance where a P-47 with K14 gunsight killed several 109's at ranges exceeding 800 yards. And he knew the range as it is displayed via the ranging knob. The 109's thought he was out of range and the first didn't even try to evade.



Glider said:


> As for the .50 I accept your more detailed notes but the point is still the same. The 50 M2 was underpowered compared to either of the 20mm.



Certainly the 20mm pack a lot more punch. But against fighter targets the .50's did fairly well. There is a huge advantage to 4800 rpm (6 x .50) vs. 1200 rpm (2 x Hispano II) or 730 rpm (1 x MG151/20). Even a few .50 hits were likely to seriously hurt a 109. Also there is an advantage in being able to feel your way to the target, firing at longer range and working the guns onto the target. And, the .50's carried a lot more ammo than the 20mm's giving the shooter more trigger time.




Glider said:


> Had the USA gone against planes such as the B17 with .50 they would have had a very hard time of it.



Again I'm not so sure of this. Anyone who has any experience with firing a .50 at vehicles can just imagine what 8 x .50's would do to the wing of a B-17. My guess is that a P-47 would take down a B-17 in one or two passes. In a frontal attack it could start firing for effect at 3000 feet and unleash a hell of a lot of API into the target. The odds of starting a fire would also be extremely good.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 24, 2005)

> Anyone who has any experience with firing a .50 at vehicles can just imagine what 8 x .50's would do to the wing of a B-17.


I can vouch for this....


> Effective range for a single MG151/20 vs. a fighter target seems to have been less than 150 meters, with point blank being the norm. For a pair of Hispano's (Spitfire) it seems to have been about 200 meters, and for 6 x .50's about 350 meters. The British/US fighters had longer range because their gun ballistics were better and they mounted more guns.


Those distances match mine.... Agreed 100%....


> Even had the German's had such a sight it would likely not have significantly increased their effective range because of the gun performance.


This is true....

I think the whole "this armament is better" agrument comes down to personal prefrences... Which would u rather have for fighter vs fighter/fighter vs bomber????

We've gone round and round on this one, as u all know.... They've been arguing about it since the 40's.... 

"And the winner is..........."

Pfffftttt.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> > Anyone who has any experience with firing a .50 at vehicles can just imagine what 8 x .50's would do to the wing of a B-17.
> 
> 
> I can vouch for this....



As can I.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

Dac said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > There were still Fs in Service in 1945. Hell there were still E's in Service in 1945 believe it or not.
> ...



Ive done some research on this subject and have come up with some squadrons that still used some older versions and when and where they were when still in Luftwaffe Service.

Bf-109D: 3/JG 52 in Roth, Holland 1940
Bf-109D: 10N/JG 77 in Norway 1940
Bf-109D-2: Fighter Trainer School - 1942
Bf-109D: Croatian Fighter Training School - 1942

Bf-109E-4/B Trop - III/SKG 210 Lybia - 1942
Bf-109E-4 - 13 Slovak Squadron - 1944
Bf-109E-7/B II/SG-1 Stalingrad Russia - 1943


Later in 1944 and 1945 Bf-109E's were pretty much removed from most front line units and replaced by Bf-109G's after they had already been replaced by 109F's however there were still some to be found. I am searching for a picture of one that I have of a 109E-7 dated 1944 still in an operational unit on the East Front.


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 25, 2005)

Glider said:


> I agree. If we were able to work the bugs out of the 20mm I am sure that the USA could



Actually the USA was surprisingly inept at bring larger caliber aircraft guns on line. None of the many projects during WWII bore fruit. Even the Hispano variants had many problems mostly because of what can only be considered pure ineptitude at the ordinance department.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Glider (Sep 25, 2005)

Lunatic. This may be of interest. Its has a lot of info about aircraft weapons and what little I knew matched it. His assumptions are explained and whilst I don't agree with all of them. At least he isn't afraid to explain them so you can make your own mind up.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

As for the USA with the 20mm, if you asked us nicely I am sure that we would have helped. 

Les
As for your last question 'and the winner is?' its the Hispano V. But you wouldn't expect me to say anything else!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

Nice charts there on that site.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 25, 2005)

> Les
> As for your last question 'and the winner is?' its the Hispano V. But you wouldn't expect me to say anything else!!


I would have NEVER expected anything less from u or the British contingent track.....


> As for the USA with the 20mm, if you asked us nicely I am sure that we would have helped.


Just like u helped us when we asked for directions on how to make fish and chips???


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 25, 2005)

Glider said:


> Lunatic. This may be of interest. Its has a lot of info about aircraft weapons and what little I knew matched it. His assumptions are explained and whilst I don't agree with all of them. At least he isn't afraid to explain them so you can make your own mind up.
> 
> http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm



LOL - I have two of Tony's books and am a member on his forum. Get his book "Flying Guns of WWII" and you will see that his figures match my figures pretty closely, except where he's generalized too much (he does not go into the different .50 variants very deeply).

I don't know where he comes up with the figures in that chart. The do not match even his own figuers in his book. The following page has very detailed info taken from actual documented gun tests conducted by the Soviets:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Base/1852/

Unfortunately this page is down for bandwidth right now. When it comes up search it very carefully and save each page you visit that has info you want. It may take several visits to find the relevant data. Somewhere on this site is a page showing cutaways of the various mine rounds and giving the actual tested figures. I believe the 765 m/s figure is even the "best of X rounds tested", as many of the figures on this page are. When I get a few hours spare time I'll de-archive the CD I made of my desktop PC onto this laptop and find the sources and post them. I'm pretty sure those links and info are on this site somewhere in a gun related topic.

The problem is that Tony seems to think every plane was a flying tank and that if you didn't kill it in one or two hits your guns were worthless. The reality is that American planes tended to be tougher than their German counter-parts, and German 13mm guns were rather weak so there is no good way to compare things from actual historic data. Tony and Emannual like cannon, and often point to post-war data to justify their WWII assertions. However, jets are a lot tougher targets than props and post-WWII cannon and ammuntition was superior to its WWII counterparts.

Again, there is no doubt that on a hit for hit basis the 20mm are far more powerful than the .50's. But it is questionable whether one Hs.II round is superior to four .50 rounds (based on RoF of 1 x Hs.II vs. 3 x .50's). Assuming from a given firing solution that 33% of the rounds hit, which would you rather have? To me, scoring 1-2 .50 hits is far better than missing with the Hispano 8)



Glider said:


> As for the USA with the 20mm, if you asked us nicely I am sure that we would have helped.



The British did help. But British technical drawings were... not very good. The whole British production methodology allowed for a lot of hand craftsmenship. British hispanos did not enjoy good parts enterchangability. The USA took the design given by the British and screwed it up further, following the diagrams exactly which gave too large a chamber clearence resulting in the firing pins not reliably striking the primers on the shells. The british tightened this clearance up but not until after they delivered the drawings. Furthermore, the US considered the 20mm a cannon, and built it according to artillery tolerances rather than rifle tolerances, causing even more slop resulting in an unreliable gun. Eventually these problems were worked out, but not until the war was nearly over.

Even the British Hispano was not very reliable by US standards. Early models were notorious for jamming, and even toward the end of the war the jam rate never got below 1:1500 rounds. At the start of the War the .50 jam rate was 1:4000 rounds. This is why the Spitfires carried a pair of .50's as backups until the last year of the war.



Glider said:


> Les
> As for your last question 'and the winner is?' its the Hispano V. But you wouldn't expect me to say anything else!!



Well, there is a down side to the Hispano - It was a large and heavy gun requirning a very sturdy mount. The Spitfire had trouble mounting it since it required 3 mounting points and relies on those mounts for structural ridgity. If they flex too much the gun will jam. This required serious redesign of the Spitfire wing. Furthermore the recoil is severe and this tends to reduce gun accuracy.

In my opinion, for a Fightger vs. Fighter gun the clear WWII winner was the Soviet B20. This gun was light, had a high RoF (800 rpm), fair velocity (800-850 m/s), the explosive rounds carried up to about 7 grams of HE, and it had good reliability. A P-51 could easily have mounted six B20's with 300 rpg, and that would have been awsome fire power!

Against bombers... well it's hard to argue against the MK108!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 25, 2005)

> ''Blacktank'' forgets who finally won the War



No he doesn't Gemhorse! - Who was it again?  



> I agree. If we were able to work the bugs out of the 20mm I am sure that the USA could



But they couldn't!  

They had the .50, we didn't etc.



> Also there is an advantage in being able to feel your way to the target, firing at longer range and working the guns onto the target.



The 20mm of the 109 had further range than the M2HB.

A tactic used was to stand-off from the B17's (sans escorts!) lobbing cannon rounds.

The 20mm German round is used in high-end modern sniper rifles, I doubt it was so bad.



> Anyone who has any experience with firing a .50 at vehicles can just imagine what 8 x .50's would do to the wing of a B-17.



With API yes, but not without.



> As for the USA with the 20mm, if you asked us nicely I am sure that we would have helped.


 


> Just like u helped us when we asked for directions on how to make fish and chips???



Or the Merlin, radar etc  



> The USA took the design given by the British and screwed it up further, following the diagrams exactly which gave too large a chamber clearence resulting in the firing pins not reliably striking the primers on the shells.



The M3A1 Grease Gun had a great feature in this area, superb design!

Or was it the Sterling SMG?  

The point about the armament is, in theory, the nose-mounted cannon was best.

However for an inexperienced or fatigued pilot, wing armament was better.

In fact the whole planes were like that.

The Spit pilot were usually green or knackered, so the Spit was better with its armament and wide-track landing gear.

What I'm unsure about is the 109's suitability, I feel that Brit pilots were just as experienced?



> Against bombers... well it's hard to argue against the MK108!



What about the MK103, MK213 and R4M?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> With API yes, but not without.



Why would you need that? The cowlings on the engines were actually pretty thin and regular 50 cal ammo will pierce through eneogh armour to take out a B-17's engines and even its wings.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 25, 2005)

I was thinking about the Incendiary part, for the fuel tanks.

I think normal rounds have less range?

IIRC the .50 was developed from a Boys-type anti-tank rifle round?


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 25, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> > Also there is an advantage in being able to feel your way to the target, firing at longer range and working the guns onto the target.
> 
> 
> 
> The 20mm of the 109 had further range than the M2HB.



That is just flat wrong Schwartz. Tell me how does a round fired at 765 m/s (or even 800), with sectional density of about 2.6 g/sq-mm and a blunt nose have longer range than a round fired at 915 m/s with a sectional density of 3.83 g/sq-mm and nearly perfect ballistic shape? Answer: It can't.



schwarzpanzer said:


> A tactic used was to stand-off from the B17's (sans escorts!) lobbing cannon rounds.



This was tried, but not with the MG151/20. The MK103 30mm and BK50 50mm cannon were tried for stand-off attacks, but this proved ineffective. First the interceptor could not hit the target at that range. Second, .50's firng backwards toward the trailing fighter could indeed reach it even at ranges exceeding 3000 feet. The stand-off attacking fighter was usually a Bf-110 or similar aircraft and it was making no attempt at evasion as it was aiming.



schwarzpanzer said:


> The 20mm German round is used in high-end modern sniper rifles, I doubt it was so bad.



Where do you get this from? The MG151/20 ammo is not used in any modern gun, and was never used in any sniper rifle.



schwarzpanzer said:


> > Anyone who has any experience with firing a .50 at vehicles can just imagine what 8 x .50's would do to the wing of a B-17.
> 
> 
> 
> With API yes, but not without.



Why? Even with ball ammo the P-47 puts out a wopping 100-120 rounds per second. This is more than enough to rip the wing right off a B-17. And Ball ammo was never used in combat, it would either be M8 API or a mix of M1 Incendiary and M2 AP rounds depending on the year.



schwarzpanzer said:


> Or the Merlin, radar etc



US radar was not derived from British radar. In the end, the British used mostly American designed radar equipment. The USN developed by far the best radar in the world and it was not based upon British help of any kind.

The Packard Merlin was produced as much for the Britiish as for the USA. Lancasters and Spitfires were powered by Packard Merlins, and even many of the later RR Merlins were built partially from US parts. Had the Merlin not been produced the odds are either a 2nd supercharger stage or a turbocharger stage would have been added to the Allison powered Mustang, or the Hyper-Engine would have been completed. Or the P-51 would have been bypassed in favor of an R-2800 powered design such as the P-47N (earlier) or the F4U for Europe.



schwarzpanzer said:


> > Against bombers... well it's hard to argue against the MK108!
> 
> 
> 
> What about the MK103, MK213 and R4M?



The MK213 is a revolver-cannon which never saw service in WWII, and thus is irrelevent to this discussion.

The R4M was of qestionable value in actual combat. Hitting bombers with undguided rockets was very difficult.

The MK103 RoF was just too slow (360-420 rpm), it was too heavy (141 KG, the .50 M2 by comparison weighed 29KG), and the recoil made it ineffective when mounted on a single engine fighter (only a handful of FW's were tried with this armament). It was found that a fighter could carry twice as many MK108's as MK103's, and these would put out 3 times as many rounds per second without the recoil problems of the MK103, and would land more hits on target per attack run. So the MK108 beat the MK103 in actual practice.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> I was thinking about the Incendiary part, for the fuel tanks.
> 
> I think normal rounds have less range?
> 
> IIRC the .50 was developed from a Boys-type anti-tank rifle round?



No actually regular Ball ammo will do just fine in tearing through the skin of a B-17 and in fact will do the same in igniting the fuel tanks.


----------



## Hop (Sep 25, 2005)

> US radar was not derived from British radar. In the end, the British used mostly American designed radar equipment. The USN developed by far the best radar in the world and it was not based upon British help of any kind.



Magnetron?

The vast majority of US radar sets were based around the British cavity magnetron.



> Had the Merlin not been produced the odds are either a 2nd supercharger stage or a turbocharger stage would have been added to the Allison powered Mustang



Allison continued to develop a second stage for the V-1710, it wasn't ready until the end of the war.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 25, 2005)

True enough about the cavity magnetron. It was a British development. Developed at Birmingham University in 1940 I believe, under the supervision of an Australian physicist. But the first magnetron was actually American.


----------



## Hop (Sep 25, 2005)

The first magnetron was developed in the early 20s by an American named Hull. A German radar researcher called Holmann also patented his designs in the mid 30s.

But none of these were much use for radar. Indeed Hollmann and several German teams worked for years to develop centimetric radar using magnetrons, they eventually gave up. It wasn't until an RAF bomber carrying H2S radar crashed near Rotterdam, and it's magnetron recovered, that they restarted their work. Germany simply copied the British magnetron and used it in some of their late war radars.

Likewise the Americans didnt have any way of generating high power microwaves for radar, until they were given a British magnetron. 

Just because there were earlier magnetrons, doesn't mean they were capable of generating short wavelengths at sufficient power, with sufficient stability.

Certainly during WW2, the only successful centimetric radars were all built around Randall and Boot's magnetron design.


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 26, 2005)

Hop said:


> > US radar was not derived from British radar. In the end, the British used mostly American designed radar equipment. The USN developed by far the best radar in the world and it was not based upon British help of any kind.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And the cavity magnitron was based upon American inventions in the field. 
And the cavity magnitron was also independantly developed in the USA, I believe in 1934 or so. The tech was there already, and if you investigate it you will see there was very little of British orgin in the USN radar program.

I posted in detail on this subject last spring sometime. The idea that the US was beholding to Britian for radar is largely a myth. Tech in this arena went back and forth fairly freely between the two countries in the 30's and the likelyhood is neither would have developed radar w/o the other. It's kind of hard to make a cavity magnitron without a magnitron 

One thing is totally clear, by 1943 the US had the lead in radar tech and never lost it.



Hop said:


> > Had the Merlin not been produced the odds are either a 2nd supercharger stage or a turbocharger stage would have been added to the Allison powered Mustang
> 
> 
> 
> Allison continued to develop a second stage for the V-1710, it wasn't ready until the end of the war.



Yes but that is because Allision had to do it w/o the enthusiastic support of the War Department. W/o the Merlin, the situation would have been very different. And the turbo-supercharger stage was ready in 1940 anyway.

In genral, by 1944 the US had determined that radial engines were the better choice for fighters anyway. And for these both the turbo supercharger and 2 stage superchargers were well developed.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Sep 27, 2005)

Oh dear.... the Bias on this page is very present...


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 27, 2005)

> That is just flat wrong Schwartz. Tell me how does a round fired at 765 m/s (or even 800), with sectional density of about 2.6 g/sq-mm and a blunt nose have longer range than a round fired at 915 m/s with a sectional density of 3.83 g/sq-mm and nearly perfect ballistic shape? Answer: It can't.



The .50 was developed from a WW1 German round, the German enineers didn't work backwards?

I'm pretty sure the Me109 cannon had a super-long barrel?  



> This was tried, but not with the MG151/20. The MK103 30mm and BK50 50mm cannon were tried for stand-off attacks, but this proved ineffective. First the interceptor could not hit the target at that range. Second, .50's firng backwards toward the trailing fighter could indeed reach it even at ranges exceeding 3000 feet. The stand-off attacking fighter was usually a Bf-110 or similar aircraft and it was making no attempt at evasion as it was aiming.



It was a Me109, so I'd reckon so?

I'll try and find an article.



> Where do you get this from? The MG151/20 ammo is not used in any modern gun, and was never used in any sniper rifle.



Don't be so sure!  



> These two versions had slightly different applications: 20mm version, built around WW2-era German MG-151 aircraft gun round, can deliver high explosive, fragmentation or incendiary shells with good accuracy, so a relatively "soft" targets could be disabled by the blast and / or fragments. When the long range and armor penetration is an issue, the 14.5mm version comes into the play. It is built around another WW2-era round, Soviet 14.5mm high velocity, armor-piercing cartridge, developed for PTRD and PTRS anti-tank rifles



http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn55-e.htm

I kinda see your point, however as an aircraft armament:



> While probably not so accurate as the specially developed .50BMG (12.7x99mm) rifles, mostly due to unavailability of the "match grade" ammunition in the 14.5mm and 20mm, NTW-20 offers significantly more terminal effectiveness than any .50BMG rifle / round combination. 20 mm version could be most effective against targets like parked aircrafts and helicopters, command and communications equipment, radar cabins, fuel dumps, unarmored cars.



So given the choice, I'd have the 20mm.


Thanks for all info on the big-fifty ammo, was there any rounds similar to the German APHE?



> R-2800



Nice engine! 8) 



> Had the Merlin not been produced the odds are either a 2nd supercharger stage or a turbocharger stage would have been added to the Allison powered Mustang



May not have been so easy...

e.g how big were the inlet ports etc?


Thanks for the info on the Mk103 also.



> In genral, by 1944 the US had determined that radial engines were the better choice for fighters anyway. And for these both the turbo supercharger and 2 stage superchargers were well developed.



Yes and in general, by 1944 the UK had determined that jet engines were better for fighters!


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 27, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> > Had the Merlin not been produced the odds are either a 2nd supercharger stage or a turbocharger stage would have been added to the Allison powered Mustang
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They, Allisons, were already turbo charged which is actually harder than mechanical supercharging. The Merlin was never successfuly turbocharged.

I do object to the hyped up Mustang, which had actualy been dropped from production for three months. The timing of the Merlin prototypes only gave it a limited reprive through early '43. If the realization that its range could be extended both allowing it to be an escort and that escorts were required, had come as little as two months later the P-51 as we know it would never have existed. 

wmaxt


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 28, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> > That is just flat wrong Schwartz. Tell me how does a round fired at 765 m/s (or even 800), with sectional density of about 2.6 g/sq-mm and a blunt nose have longer range than a round fired at 915 m/s with a sectional density of 3.83 g/sq-mm and nearly perfect ballistic shape? Answer: It can't.
> 
> 
> 
> The .50 was developed from a WW1 German round, the German enineers didn't work backwards?



Huh? First off I've never seen anything that indicates the .50 was developed from a German round. Second, German engineers had to make compromises - if they wanted an explosive round they needed to put a fuse in the round, preferably in the tip. If they put a fuse in the tip (using the tech available at the time) the tip would have to be flat. If they wanted to maximize the capacity of the round for a given projectile length it would have to be fatter futher forward than the optimal ogive shape used in the .50. Trade-offs are common in engineering.



schwarzpanzer said:


> I'm pretty sure the Me109 cannon had a super-long barrel?



No. The ShVAK engine cannon did have a longer barrel, but the MG151/20 did not.



schwarzpanzer said:


> > This was tried, but not with the MG151/20. The MK103 30mm and BK50 50mm cannon were tried for stand-off attacks, but this proved ineffective. First the interceptor could not hit the target at that range. Second, .50's firng backwards toward the trailing fighter could indeed reach it even at ranges exceeding 3000 feet. The stand-off attacking fighter was usually a Bf-110 or similar aircraft and it was making no attempt at evasion as it was aiming.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good luck 



schwarzpanzer said:


> > Where do you get this from? The MG151/20 ammo is not used in any modern gun, and was never used in any sniper rifle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Umm... nowhere does this indicate the mine type round is being used. Nor does it indicate that the rounds have not been updated to use more modern fuse technology (which allows a pointed tip).



schwarzpanzer said:


> I kinda see your point, however as an aircraft armament:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sure, if you only can shoot one round! But tell me, would you rather have one shot with that 20mm, or 6-7 shots with the .50? Lets suppose the odds of hittng on any given shot are about 1:3, and the odds of destroying the target with the 20mm are 1:1 and the odds of destroying it with the .50 are 1:2. ????



schwarzpanzer said:


> Thanks for all info on the big-fifty ammo, was there any rounds similar to the German APHE?



Yes there were some experiments with HE rounds. However, the amount of HE that can be packed into a ~13mm round is insufficient to do much damage, and because the weight of the HE is so much lower than that of steel or lead the mass (and thus ballistic properties) are greatly effected. In the end it was determined that the IM11 incendiary metal composition was the best choice, as a small amount would do the trick. The cost to go from BALL/AP ammo to API ammo in terms of mass is only about 10% at the .50 calibur level.

The German 13mm HE/I rounds were generally not very effective. The very small HE payload just wasn't enough to do serious damage.



schwarzpanzer said:


> > Had the Merlin not been produced the odds are either a 2nd supercharger stage or a turbocharger stage would have been added to the Allison powered Mustang
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If it could accomodate a Turbo-supercharger it could accomodate a two stage supercharger.



schwarzpanzer said:


> Thanks for the info on the Mk103 also.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Neither Britain nor Germany could build jet engines for war in 1944 or 1945.

BTW: I was mistaken, the best case MV of the MG151/20 mine round was 785 m/s, not 765 m/s as I stated before. However, the typical case velocity (as presented for the Hispano and .50 BMG) was only 755 m/s.

Here is my old gun page. Actually, it's not complete, somehow long ago it got messed up and I've posted it only for the tables. Note most of the discussion has to do with the ShVAK cannon, prior to my discovery that there was a different version of this gun for the Yaks when mounted through the spinner. Anyway, the Estimated Ballistics chart is the only part of this page that is relevant to this discussion. I'm fairly confident the values are accurate.

http://members.cox.net/rg_lunatic/gunpage/

The chart gives the ballistics performance for the most of the guns we are discussing.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Hop (Sep 28, 2005)

> And the cavity magnitron was based upon American inventions in the field.



Which were in turn ased on other countries inventions.

Inventions do not come out of the blue. Nobody invents a new device, the basic theory behind it, the manufacturing process that make it possible, the other components that make the final device possible, etc.



> And the cavity magnitron was also independantly developed in the USA, I believe in 1934 or so. The tech was there already, and if you investigate it you will see there was very little of British orgin in the USN radar program.



Again, the magnetron. The US and Germans might have had various magnetron designs, none of them was suitable for radar use. As shown by the fact none of them were used to make usefull radars, whereas the British design was, by the British, by the Americans, then by the Germans.



> Neither Britain nor Germany could build jet engines for war in 1944 or 1945.



Derwent?


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 28, 2005)

No I think the cavity magnetron was also invented. The inventors simply failed to see its significance and like many other inventions it was shelved.

And both the key components of the CM were invented in the USA, not just the magnetron. The magnetron was a fairly basic invention, however the klystron was not so obvious.

Certainly Churchill's decision to provide the CM to the USA sped up US shortwave radar development (US longwave radar development was quite well along already). However given the increase in expenditures for war related research occuring in 1940 and 41 I'm pretty sure even without this US researchers would have come up with the technology quickly on their own.



Hop said:


> > Neither Britain nor Germany could build jet engines for war in 1944 or 1945.
> 
> 
> 
> Derwent?



Huh? Note I didn't say they could not build jet engines, simply that they could not build them suffiently well to support the war effort.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 28, 2005)

I remember I read somewhere that even the chin mounted 20mm of the SA Rooivalk helicopter is derivated from the MG151: anybody can confirm or knows a bit more?


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 28, 2005)

Sorry, I can't help you Parmigiano.  

I'll be rooting through my archives, if I find anything, I'll let ya know.

Is it a minigun-type?

If it is, it may be the MK203?


*wmaxt:*



> They, Allisons, were already turbo charged



The correct name for a Turbo is an 'exhaust turbine driven supercharger'

 - Sorry, just being annoying!  

A turbo is not difficult, but on the Jug the US engineers screwed the piping totally!

I think the scrolls (snails) were vastly inferior to UK ones also.

The scrolls can be inter-changeable between super turbo-chargers.

The RAF didn't need Turbos as above 300mph the exhausts can give a degree of thrust that is superior to the Turbo's, offsetting any gain.

Also with a twin-scroll supercharger (a bit like a like a Toyota Supra's Turbo's) the Turbo isn't needed.

The only advantages I see for the turbo are in fuel economy and noise, so for bombers?...

However power for take-off could easily suffer...  

I think some Lancs were Turbo'ed?

I'm almost certain at least one RAF plane was if not?


The Turbo-compounder was a good US idea, used in the R-2800 IIRC? 8) 

The Allison seems a nice engine, still being made in Russia!


*Lunatic:*



> Huh? First off I've never seen anything that indicates the .50 was developed from a German round.



I'll have to find that too!

It was the K bullet IIRC?



> Umm... nowhere does this indicate the mine type round is being used. Nor does it indicate that the rounds have not been updated to use more modern fuse technology (which allows a pointed tip).



I'd say it is the minenschoss, the fuses? - you may well be right there.



> But tell me, would you rather have one shot with that 20mm, or 6-7 shots with the .50?



Very valid point, I'd have the one 20mm.  

Thanks for the info on the API round, I can't remember there being one!  I'll have to check.



> If it could accomodate a Turbo-supercharger it could accomodate a two stage supercharger.



From what I hear the Allison is the best for low-level, turbo's etc just don't seem to suit it?

- I'd need the specs, particularly port sizes, valve sizes and bore/stroke info vs the Merlin.

Anyone got that please?




> Neither Britain nor Germany could build jet engines for war in 1944 or 1945.
> 
> Derwent?
> 
> Huh? Note I didn't say they could not build jet engines, simply that they could not build them suffiently well to support the war effort.



Jumo 004?

The German type jet was better for mass-production and, I think, power. But the UK ones were inherently more reliable.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 29, 2005)

The Jumo 004 suffered from many problems and only had a life span of about 10 hours.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 29, 2005)

Yes but it could be changed a lot quicker than the Derwent and could use crappy metals (could the Derwent?)


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 30, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> *wmaxt:*
> 
> 
> > They, Allisons, were already turbo charged
> ...



Hmm that's a new one on me. Supercharging refers very specifically to forced air/fuel induction by means of tapping power directly off the crankshaft to drive the pump. Turbocharging refers to tapping power off spent exhaust fumes to drive the pump. Turbo-supercharging refers to using a combination of both a turbocharger and a supercharger, one feeding into the other, to derive even more compression of the air-fuel mixture. Dual superchargers just use two superchargers, one feeding into the other to achieve the same goals.



schwarzpanzer said:


> A turbo is not difficult, but on the Jug the US engineers screwed the piping totally!



Not really. Turbo-supercharging was new and the intercooler requirements were complex. They needed a long pipe to make the thing work.



schwarzpanzer said:


> I think the scrolls (snails) were vastly inferior to UK ones also.
> 
> The scrolls can be inter-changeable between super turbo-chargers.



What the hell are you talking about??? :8 What are "scrolls" and "snails"?



schwarzpanzer said:


> The RAF didn't need Turbos as above 300mph the exhausts can give a degree of thrust that is superior to the Turbo's, offsetting any gain.



As far as I know Britain never sucessfully developed a turbo-supercharger which could be mass produced. I know Germany was never able to do so.

Umm... thrust from exhaust stacks was good for only a tiny amount of power - in the best cases adding only about 5 mph to the top speed of the plane and adding no increase in climb rate. The Turbo stage in a turbo-supercharger added considerably more power for climb and speed to the plane, and unlike the supercharger did not sap so much power from the engine to do so.



schwarzpanzer said:


> Also with a twin-scroll supercharger (a bit like a like a Toyota Supra's Turbo's) the Turbo isn't needed.
> 
> The only advantages I see for the turbo are in fuel economy and noise, so for bombers?...
> 
> However power for take-off could easily suffer...



Your knowlege of turbocharging seems to be based upon modern automotive tech. For aircraft things are quite different. For aircraft, altitude changes must be considered. Super chargers involve gears, normally one stage of a WWII fighter two-stage supercharger is at a fixed gear ratio, and the other either has one or two gears, plus neutral. The maximum pressure (usually called boost) is limited by various considerations, but in English measurments was generally limited to 18, 21, or 25 lbs of boost. With a two speed two stage supercharger, maximum boost can be achieved at two altitudes (called critical altitudes).

With the turbocharger things are different because the boost is regulated by the speed of the turbine input shaft which is variable. Therefore, full power can be sustained over a wide range of altitudes. This means that while the P-51 was producing peak power at about 16,000 and 26000 feet, with less than peak power at all other alititudes, the P-47 could produce peak power right up to about 31,000 feet where the maximum speed of the turbo input shaft is reached.

So turbo-charging had a huge advantage over supercharging for WWII fighters. The disadvantage was mostly the complexity of the intercooler stage and the ducting which had to be done to accomodate it.



schwarzpanzer said:


> I think some Lancs were Turbo'ed?



Not as far as I'm aware. If there were, they were likely test planes powered by P&W or Wright engines.



schwarzpanzer said:


> I'm almost certain at least one RAF plane was if not?



I believe there were some RAF bombers powered by US made radial engines with turbo-superchargers. ???



schwarzpanzer said:


> The Turbo-compounder was a good US idea, used in the R-2800 IIRC? 8)



The Turob-supercharger was used on Wright Cyclones, P&W Wasps and double wasps (R-2800's), as well as the Allison (on the P-38).



schwarzpanzer said:


> The Allison seems a nice engine, still being made in Russia!



The Allison was smoother and sturdier than the Merlin, but the Merlin made better power, mostly because of its integrated supercharger stage. This meant that only one supercharger (or turbo-charger) stage needed to be external to get two-stage power, allowing the Merlin to be retro-fit into the P-51 which was designed to accomodate only one supercharger stage (as per it's P-40 heritage).



schwarzpanzer said:


> > But tell me, would you rather have one shot with that 20mm, or 6-7 shots with the .50?
> 
> 
> 
> Very valid point, I'd have the one 20mm.



For no valid reason. In the scenario I presented you'd have less than a 1 in 3 chance of killing the target with the 20mm, but it would be almost a sure thing with the .50 caliber.

The point is it all depends on the target. If the target is a deer, shooting it with anything bigger than a 30/06 is pure over-kill and buys you practically nothing. Shooting it with a 50 caliber would simply tear it in to multiple pieces, but it would be just ad dead either way.



schwarzpanzer said:


> Thanks for the info on the API round, I can't remember there being one!  I'll have to check.



The M8 API round entered service in mid-1943 and was the standard round by 1944, used almost to the exlusion of all other sorts of ammo in US fighters.



> If it could accomodate a Turbo-supercharger it could accomodate a two stage supercharger.





schwarzpanzer said:


> From what I hear the Allison is the best for low-level, turbo's etc just don't seem to suit it?



The late P-38J and the P-38L were fine up high. Eariler models had few problems with the engines up high, however there was no heating for the cockpit which made high altitude difficult for the pilot. On the J and L series this was rectified. In the Pacific the P-38 operated at altitude frequently.



schwarzpanzer said:


> > Neither Britain nor Germany could build jet engines for war in 1944 or 1945.
> >
> > Derwent?
> >
> ...



Germany built something like 15,000-20,000 Jumo jet engines, of which a mere 800 or so saw combat service. Most failed quality checks or self destructed during testing. Even when they did work, they were good for less than 10 flght hours, including intial flight testing. The jet engine was just beyond Germany's ability to mass produce. The same was true for Britain.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 30, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> Your knowlege of turbocharging seems to be based upon modern automotive tech. For aircraft things are quite different. For aircraft, altitude changes must be considered. Super chargers involve gears, normally one stage of a WWII fighter two-stage supercharger is at a fixed gear ratio, and the other either has one or two gears, plus neutral. The maximum pressure (usually called boost) is limited by various considerations, but in English measurments was generally limited to 18, 21, or 25 lbs of boost. With a two speed two stage supercharger, maximum boost can be achieved at two altitudes (called critical altitudes).
> 
> With the turbocharger things are different because the boost is regulated by the speed of the turbine input shaft which is variable. Therefore, full power can be sustained over a wide range of altitudes. This means that while the P-51 was producing peak power at about 16,000 and 26000 feet, with less than peak power at all other alititudes, the P-47 could produce peak power right up to about 31,000 feet where the maximum speed of the turbo input shaft is reached.



What is being omitted it the amont of "Boost" (which is actually manifold pressure) is also based on engine RPM. If you're pulling 25 pounds (or inches in US terms) and have the engine runing at 1000 rpm due to a course prop pitch setting, chances are you are going to destroy that engine.....


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 30, 2005)

[quote="FLYBOYJ
What is being omitted it the amont of "Boost" (which is actually manifold pressure) is also based on engine RPM. If you're pulling 25 pounds (or inches in US terms) and have the engine runing at 1000 rpm due to a course prop pitch setting, chances are you are going to destroy that engine.....[/quote]

True enough, The P-38 in the pacific esp after Lindberg commonly ran 1700/1900 rpm and 42". This combination was very economical and increased the heat in the cockpit enormously as the heating system was a radiant heat type off the exaust manifold. Had they run this combination in the ETO many of the problems encountered there would have never existed.

BTW: the Allisons were tested up to 110" and 2,300+hp without major dificulties.

The inner parts of a Turbo and a mechanical supercharger are NOT interchangeable, turbo's run much to fast and also run hotter (the heat expansion is where they get their power from). P-38s ran in the low 20,000rpm range with 26,400rpm as absolute max.

The reason they did not use two stage superchargers on the Allisons is that the AAF did not allow their use or development from the early '30s relying on the use of Turbos because of their superior performance above 25,000ft.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 30, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> The inner parts of a Turbo and a mechanical supercharger are NOT interchangeable, turbo's run much to fast and also run hotter (the heat expansion is where they get their power from). P-38s ran in the low 20,000rpm range with 26,400rpm as absolute max.
> 
> wmaxt



They were manufactured in "matched sets." Great info wmaxt!


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 30, 2005)

[quote="FLYBOYJ
They were manufactured in "matched sets." Great info wmaxt![/quote]

Thanks  . Your right they are.

wmaxt


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 1, 2005)

> Supercharging refers very specifically to forced air/fuel induction by means of tapping power directly off the crankshaft to drive the pump



Or also electric or camshaft-driven impellors/compressors, doubt any wereused in WW2, though I remember hearing something like...  



> Turbocharging refers to tapping power off spent exhaust fumes to drive the pump.



Absolutely correct, but technically a turbo is a form of supercharger.

I was being childish  , if you say Turbo, I will know what you mean.

DYK: Me262's were often referred to as Turbo's by their pilots?



> Turbo-supercharging refers to using a combination of both a turbocharger and a supercharger, one feeding into the other, to derive even more compression of the air-fuel mixture.



That is actually super-turbocharging.

It is confusing I know!  



> They needed a long pipe to make the thing work.



Yes, but that's bad for boost, lag and aerodynamics, why bother?



> What are "scrolls" and "snails"?



A scroll is a snail @ shaped part of a centrifugal compressor, incorporating the collector etc.

Scroll is an accepted term, I thought it was in the USA?  

I can't think of another term right now  , sorry!



> As far as I know Britain never sucessfully developed a turbo-supercharger which could be mass produced. I know Germany was never able to do so.



Pretty sure both did (@ least 1 FW190)



> Your knowlege of turbocharging seems to be based upon modern automotive tech. For aircraft things are quite different. For aircraft, altitude changes must be considered. Super chargers involve gears, normally one stage of a WWII fighter two-stage supercharger is at a fixed gear ratio, and the other either has one or two gears, plus neutral. The maximum pressure (usually called boost) is limited by various considerations, but in English measurments was generally limited to 18, 21, or 25 lbs of boost. With a two speed two stage supercharger, maximum boost can be achieved at two altitudes (called critical altitudes).



Yes it is! I admit my knowledge is limited for WW2-era, I know a Swiss (or Swede?  ) developed it @ the turn of the Century, then Garrett of USA mass-produced it.

However I know the did some WW2 planes superchargers were dual stage.

Did some use electromagnetic clutches to change gear then?

I know at least 1 Merlin (prototype) had 1 big 1 little supercharger.

The common UK measurement then was bar (14.7 lbs)

And lbs was just about always written as psi.



> The Turbo-supercharger was used on Wright Cyclones, P&W Wasps and double wasps (R-2800's), as well as the Allison (on the P-3



No, I mean a Turbo-compounder, a turbo's exhaust scroll, feeding power directly onto the crankshaft. Only used on the B29 and an Ailiner based on it IIRC?



> If the target is a deer, shooting it with anything bigger than a 30/06 is pure over-kill and buys you practically nothing.



The target isn't a deer though.

A point is though 6x .50 will probably work out better than 1 20mm!

1 to 1, I'd still have the 20mm, 800rpm is enough for me.

Thanks for the API .50 info.



> The late P-38J and the P-38L were fine up high.



Cheers! Interesting...

Do you know the engine differences?



> Most failed quality checks or self destructed during testing.



Good point, what % roughly?



> "Boost" (which is actually manifold pressure)



Manifold Absolute Pressure is boost + N/A effects to me (RAM-air, reversion etc)


Overlooked here is that air speed (pulse-tuning) and temperature matter as much, if not more than boost (pressure).

This is why dual-stage manifolds, Hydro/Methanol, No2 and inter/after-coolers are useful.




> The inner parts of a Turbo and a mechanical supercharger are NOT interchangeable, turbo's run much to fast and also run hotter (the heat expansion is where they get their power from). P-38s ran in the low 20,000rpm range with 26,400rpm as absolute max



Maybe then usually, but I was thinking of the Rotrex/Garret.

(Centrifugal supercharger running @ aprox 100,000rpm)

I'm sure I've seen a WW2 Turbo of a similar design? a Garret on a P&W IIRC.

These engines seem daft to me: under-square, aprox 6.5:1 CR, 4v-cyl yet SOHC (or even OHV?) 2000RPM max etc?...  

The Riley aero engines were lightyears ahead! 8) 



> (the heat expansion is where they get their power from)



What do you mean?

The exhaust gasses yes, but otherwise...

Lagging (exhaust Turbo heat-containment) is important, but for other reasons (ie cylinder scavenging)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 1, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> > "Boost" (which is actually manifold pressure)
> 
> 
> 
> Manifold Absolute Pressure is boost + N/A effects to me (RAM-air, reversion etc)



US flight manuals make references to both terms, later in the war and even today it's refered at Manifold pressure boost.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 1, 2005)

Centrifigul superchargers with compound gearing allowing more than 15/20,000 rpm are recent designs and are normaly used for smaller supercharging applications. Even these impellars don't need the heat resistance of a turbo's impellars. 

Supercharging stands for Any forced air system, Turbo-supercharging differentiates mechanical from exaust driven but can also stand for turbo + mechanical supercharging. 

Turbo charging is much more diffacult to use because of the plumbing and the pressure regulation. The British ordered P-38s without the turbo's specificaly because they didn't like, trust or want to maintain them. The Merlin was never successfuly turbo charged.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Yes but it could be changed a lot quicker than the Derwent and could use crappy metals (could the Derwent?)



And the fact that they had to use crappy metals is why the engine was not that successful. It was not a bad design but Germany lacked the raw materials to make it effective.


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 2, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> > They needed a long pipe to make the thing {turbo-charger} work.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but that's bad for boost, lag and aerodynamics, why bother?



Hmmm.... it was not that bad for aerodynamics as the pipe is rather narrow and was not protruding. Lag is not such an issue for aircraft, as they don't generally need quick throttle response, that's your car experiance talking again. It didn't hurt boost significantly. What mattered was the end result, which was higher boost at all but the critical altitude of the supercharged plane.



schwarzpanzer said:


> > As far as I know Britain never sucessfully developed a turbo-supercharger which could be mass produced. I know Germany was never able to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure both did (@ least 1 FW190)



The German's did try to incorporate a turbocharger on one of the late model Dora's, but it was a failure.



schwarzpanzer said:


> > Your knowlege of turbocharging seems to be based upon modern automotive tech. For aircraft things are quite different. For aircraft, altitude changes must be considered. Super chargers involve gears, normally one stage of a WWII fighter two-stage supercharger is at a fixed gear ratio, and the other either has one or two gears, plus neutral. The maximum pressure (usually called boost) is limited by various considerations, but in English measurments was generally limited to 18, 21, or 25 lbs of boost. With a two speed two stage supercharger, maximum boost can be achieved at two altitudes (called critical altitudes).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Certainly. For example the R-2800 on the F4U Corsair incorporated a huge two stage supercharger.



schwarzpanzer said:


> Did some use electromagnetic clutches to change gear then?



I'm not sure of the mechanics, but most involved a barometric switch which would automatically switch gears at a given altitude along with a manual override.



schwarzpanzer said:


> I know at least 1 Merlin (prototype) had 1 big 1 little supercharger.



One of the supercharger stages on the Merilin fit to the top of the engine with part of it nestleed in the V between the cylinders. This was a limiting factor w.r.t. size. The following image is the R2800-18W (F4U-4), the two stage supercharger is everything below the cylinder rings (silver) and is painted grey:









schwarzpanzer said:


> The common UK measurement then was bar (14.7 lbs)
> 
> And lbs was just about always written as psi.



If you look at RAE and other British test documents, boost is always refered to in lbs.



schwarzpanzer said:


> > The Turbo-supercharger was used on Wright Cyclones, P&W Wasps and double wasps (R-2800's), as well as the Allison (on the P-38)
> 
> 
> 
> No, I mean a Turbo-compounder, a turbo's exhaust scroll, feeding power directly onto the crankshaft. Only used on the B29 and an Ailiner based on it IIRC?



I don't believe anything like this was used on the B-29.



schwarzpanzer said:


> A point is though 6x .50 will probably work out better than 1 20mm!
> 
> 1 to 1, I'd still have the 20mm, 800rpm is enough for me.



Well I'd agree with that. One for one, most 20 mm were superior to the .50 BMG (there were some exceptions like the Japanese Type 99-I).



schwarzpanzer said:


> > Most {Jumo jet engines}failed quality checks or self destructed during testing.
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, what % roughly?



Well I'm not sure there are any official figures. But with some 15000+ units having been bullt and only a a little over 1000 having been utilized (including both combat and test aircraft) it would seem that the great great majority were defective.

-----------

Shchwarz - please indicate who you'r quoting. Simply change the {quote} to {quote="Lunatic"} if your quoting me (using square not curly brackets). Or only reply to one person per post.

Thanks,

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 2, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> schwarzpanzer said:
> 
> 
> > No, I mean a Turbo-compounder, a turbo's exhaust scroll, feeding power directly onto the crankshaft. Only used on the B29 and an Ailiner based on it IIRC?
> ...



Lockheed Constellation, P2V and the Douglas DC-7 used turbo compounds. The B-29 used an R3350-23 with a turbo supercharger.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

I did not know that about the Constellation. Great plane. I remember sitting in Eisenhowers Constellation at Fort Rucker, Alabama. I really like the Connie.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 2, 2005)

I think the Connie epitomized Lockheed's heyday in the late 50s and early 60s. C-130, F-104, U-2, P-2, and the Connie were in full swing and on the drawing board was the SR-71, Electra, P-3 and Polaris missile. What a time to be working there!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

I agree it must have been exciting.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 3, 2005)

[quote="wmaxt]Even these impellars don't need the heat resistance of a turbo's impellars. [/quote]

Nor the inter/after-cooling...

The heat is just due to the proximity of the exhaust and can nowdays be offset by ceramic-coating and lagging, heat dissipation etc.

[quote="wmaxt]Supercharging stands for Any forced air system, Turbo-supercharging differentiates mechanical from exaust driven but can also stand for turbo + mechanical supercharging. [/quote]

I understand you, but it has been rammed into my head untill I am pedantic!  The correct term for turbo + mechanical supercharging is Super-Turbocharging.



Lunatic said:


> Hmmm.... it was not that bad for aerodynamics as the pipe is rather narrow and was not protruding.



I heard that the P47 was so fat because of the piping?  

I heard it even went round the cockpit?!  



Lunatic said:


> is not such an issue for aircraft, as they don't generally need quick throttle response



What if the engine stalls and needs a bump-start? 
Would it be important then?



Lunatic said:


> the R-2800 on the F4U Corsair incorporated a huge two stage supercharger.



Yeah, I'd heard of that one, thanks for the piccy!  

I'd heard it was big, but didn't think that big!  



Lunatic said:


> I'm not sure of the mechanics, but most involved a barometric switch which would automatically switch gears at a given altitude along with a manual override.



Cheers for that, I've got a WW2 diagram of the mechanisms 
(in pdf format) but I can't send it for some reason.  

There were 2-speed and 2-stage of various designs and some were a combination of both!



Lunatic said:


> If you look at RAE and other British test documents, boost is always refered to in lbs.



You're kidding?  



Lunatic said:


> I don't believe anything like this was used on the B-29.



I'm honestly not sure, the engine was the Wright R-3350 Turbo Cyclone, what plane(s) was this used in?

Cheers for the Jumo figures Lunatic and I've changed my quoting habits as you requested.  



FLYBOYJ said:


> The B-29 used an R3350-23 with a turbo supercharger.



Can you check if any used the Wright R-3350 Turbo Cyclone?

- That had a Turbo-compounder.


This is not for the Me109F, but I need to get it off my chest!  :

In the BoB the Me109E's had their cannons in the wings and not firing through the hub, right?

However the Bertha, Caesar or Dora did?

If the Emil did, would this have caused more Spit/Hurri losses?

Also the interrupter gear for the 2 7.92mm's weighed a ton, so why not ditch them and have just 3x 20mm's?


Another point is that I think the DB605 was overbored for the Gustav?

- That would have made it an over-square engine? The only one in WW2? 8) 


BTW: Scrolls/snails - usually called diffusers in WW2 and usually look very different, so not interchangeable.  

IIRC there was one though...


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 3, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> schwarzpanzer said:
> 
> 
> > Yes but it could be changed a lot quicker than the Derwent and could use crappy metals (could the Derwent?)
> ...



Even the version of the Jumo which didn't use "crappy metals" (the A version I believe???) still had a very short operational lifespan and high failure rate. The technology was just too new and the German mass production processes were not up to the precision needed to build them.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 3, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> I heard that the P47 was so fat because of the piping?
> 
> I heard it even went round the cockpit?!








Here's some material on the GE Turbocharger:

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/geturbo/geturbo.htm (the whole site is worth full investigation).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 3, 2005)

> Even the version of the Jumo which didn't use "crappy metals" (the A version I believe???) still had a very short operational lifespan and high failure rate.



24hrs flight time, if you overrun it the turbines could be ejected!  



> The technology was just too new and the German mass production processes were not up to the precision needed to build them.



The bombing wouldn't have helped either?

Your last post is nice Lunatic, but there's a purple band obscuring part of the key.  

1 is exhaust piping, the other?

I'll have to check that link out, thanks!  

Here is some great info that I promised:

http://www.enginehistory.org/OX5to3350.pdf


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 3, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> I heard that the P47 was so fat because of the piping?
> I heard it even went round the cockpit?!


The correct term is "ducting." Piping is found in houses and boats!  


FLYBOYJ said:


> The B-29 used an R3350-23 with a turbo supercharger.





schwarzpanzer said:


> Can you check if any used the Wright R-3350 Turbo Cyclone?
> - That had a Turbo-compounder.


The B-29 or the B-50 never used the turbo compound as far as I know. I believe it was introduced after the war and the Connie and DC-7 were amoung the first aircraft to utilize it.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 3, 2005)

> The correct term is "ducting." Piping is found in houses and boats!



Aaah!  I was gonna say plumbing, that would've been correct! damn.  



> The B-29 or the B-50 never used the turbo compound as far as I know. I believe it was introduced after the war and the Connie and DC-7 were amoung the first aircraft to utilize it.



See the link I posted above.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 3, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> > The correct term is "ducting." Piping is found in houses and boats!
> 
> 
> 
> Aaah!  I was gonna say plumbing, that would've been correct! damn.



 That would of worked too!

Tool terms you never say around an aircraft mechanic...

piping

sheet metal gage

"body" instead of "fuselage."

Claw Hammer

"snippers" instead of "dikes" (Diagonal pliers)

compression checker

skyhook

If you use skyhook in the same sentence with any of the above you'll either be laughed at, punched, or thought to be a former toilet cake changer!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2005)

Nice post up there about the P-47 supercharger system. If you dont mind I will copy that one for my own information collection. 8)


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 4, 2005)

Actualy any supercharging above 6 lbs needs to be cooled in some manner by 12lbs boost, temps of over 400deg are common and efficiency dropps dramaticaly and detonation rises, this requires retarded ignition and a corresponding drop in power. Even the Merlin had an intercooler/aftercooler (the same thing actualy as they are both between the supercharger and the engine).

I've been around a while and never heard the term "Super Turbocharging" I've only known of Supercharging (mechanical) Turbocharging (exaust driven) and Turbo-Supercharging (Turbo into mechanical. The Turbo is always first in these systems). Maybe Flyboy can help with this one?

The Connie was designated a C-69 in WWII and flew operationaly in late '44 and in '45. I don't know if it ever saw enemy action though.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 4, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Actualy any supercharging above 6 lbs needs to be cooled in some manor by 12lbs temps of over 400deg are common.
> 
> I've been around a while and never heard the term "Super Turbocharging" I've only known of Supercharging (mechanical) Turbocharging (exaust driven) and Turbo-Supercharging (Turbo into mechanical). Maybe Flyboy can help with this one?



I think this was a propaganda term by the manufacturer?!?  


wmaxt said:


> The Connie was designated a C-69 in WWII and flew operationaly in late '44 and in '45. I don't know if it ever saw enemy action though.
> 
> wmaxt



I think the C-69 was entering service right at the war's end

Great link about the connie....http://www.ruudleeuw.com/connie-text.htm


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 4, 2005)

[quote="FLYBOYJ
The Connie was designated a C-69 in WWII and flew operationaly in late '44 and in '45. I don't know if it ever saw enemy action though.

wmaxt[/quote]

I think the C-69 was entering service right at the war's end[/quote]

You may be right but I remember a reference to flights to Britain in the March '45 time frame. I'll check into this and get back.

wmaxt


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 5, 2005)

*FLYBOYJ:*



> "dikes" (Diagonal pliers)



I thought they were canals or lesbians?  



> If you use skyhook in the same sentence with any of the above you'll either be laughed at, punched, or thought to be a former toilet cake changer!!!!



What about a long stand?  



wmaxt said:


> Even the Merlin had an intercooler/aftercooler (the same thing actualy as they are both between the supercharger and the engine).



That's nowadays (me!) in WW2 aftercoolers were modern intercoolers, intercoolers were between the turbo stages IIRC?



> The Connie was designated a C-69 in WWII and flew operationaly in late '44 and in '45. I don't know if it ever saw enemy action though.



Waay! Cheers wmaxt!


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 5, 2005)

I belive the intercooler/aftercooler is just American/British lingo differences.

wmaxt


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 5, 2005)

No thats after/chargecooler you're thinking of.


----------

