# How The Spitfire Mk XIV Compared to the K4 and Other Questions



## Spacefire (Aug 19, 2015)

Hello all, long time lurker, but finally my first post here! 


First off, I have a few questions regarding the Spitfire Mk XIV, and other Griffin variants, along with the 109K4.

For starters, does anyone have any performance charts on the XIV with the clipped wings? I know it was supposed to be faster, and as far as I know, it climbed slightly worse, however I can't seem to find any specifics.

Second of all, how would the aforementioned aircraft, clipped and full wing, compare to the K4? From what I've gathered, the K4 has the edge in speed and about equal climb with the 1.98ata boost, however that leads me to something else. I've been told that the Spitfire Mk22 was introduced a few months or so before the wars end, and was stationed in Malta. I could be wrong there, as I haven't found any sources on that information... Anyways, I also know that the 1.98ata boost for the K4 came along soon before the wars end, and saw little action. So what I'm getting to is, would the K4 with 1.98ata be more suitible for comparison against the Mk22 or XIV?

Frankly I could be totally wrong about the service entry date of the Mk22, I was simply told by someone else, and they used this book as a source... Spitfire: Leo McKinstry: 9780719568756: Amazon.com: Books
Which I haven't read before, so I cannot verify the legitimacy of that claim...

Anyways to sum it up;
Performance charts of the clipped XIV?
K4 vs clipped and full XIV
or... K4 vs Mk22?

And whatever other information you think it's important I know.


Oh, and right off the bat, I apologize for my severe lack of knowledge (at least compared to most of you guys) right off the bat. 

Anyways, thanks!


----------



## thedab (Aug 20, 2015)

did the K-4 used 1.98ata in combat?

and it the mk21 which saw combat and not the mk22


----------



## mhuxt (Aug 20, 2015)

thedab said:


> did the K-4 used 1.98ata in combat?



And so it begins...

(At least K and C are no longer with us, amen.)

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 20, 2015)

The 109 and the Spit pretty much matched each other throughout the war, only towards the end when manufacturing/maintenance became difficult in Germany and exotic fuels became available for the Allies did the Spit start to pull away.

As far as handling and I dont mean manouverability but overall ease of use goes the Spit was always ahead. The 109 went from awkward to downright vicous and then back to awkward for an average pilot, the Spit went from relatively easy to you had to be careful at times but never went as far as being difficult to handle.

Take 2 pilots of identical ability and put them in equivalent models and in combat the winner would 9 times out of 10 be the pilot who started with the advantage of height and or surprise.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 20, 2015)

mhuxt said:


> And so it begins...
> 
> (At least K and C are no longer with us, amen.)



Amen brother Amen


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 20, 2015)

Thanks for the responses. I was pretty sure the Spit compared favorably, but about my other questions, is there any data on the clipped wing Griffon?

Also, I know the Mk21 saw service, it actually downed a German midget submarine along with another Mk21, however the claim was that the Mk22 entered service before the wars end. It didn't see combat, but apparently did enter service.

The book sounds like an interesting read anyways so I may get it.


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 20, 2015)

Spacefire,

Welcome to knowledge central! This place is the best library, knowledge warehouse, and custom answering service on WW2 aviation that I have so far discovered! 

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## grampi (Aug 20, 2015)

Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 20, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> Spacefire,
> 
> Welcome to knowledge central! This place is the best library, knowledge warehouse, and custom answering service on WW2 aviation that I have so far discovered!
> 
> ...



It definitely is! Thank you.



grampi said:


> Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K



I've seen it, but the graphs don't include the 1.98ata performance of the K4. And Mike Williams selective sourcing isn't really how I roll.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:

1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kryten (Aug 20, 2015)

Selective sourcing?

Oh boy, I hope you can back up your accusations.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 20, 2015)

saw they have nominated K here
Kurfürst - Articles - Notes for "Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K A Performance Comparison"


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 20, 2015)

Vincenzo said:


> saw they have nominated K here
> Kurfürst - Articles - Notes for "Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K A Performance Comparison"



Yeah that's what I was taking about.

Even if it's not true, it doesn't change the fact that 1.98ata boost performance isn't included.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 20, 2015)

Spacefire said:


> Yeah that's what I was taking about.
> 
> Even if it's not true, it doesn't change the fact that 1.98ata boost performance isn't included.



Can you, or anyone else, provide evidence that the Luftwaffe ever flew even a single combat sortie with the 109K using 1.98ata boost?


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 20, 2015)

RCAFson said:


> Can you, or anyone else, provide evidence that the Luftwaffe ever flew even a single combat sortie with the 109K using 1.98ata boost?



That's... what I asked in the OP...


----------



## GregP (Aug 20, 2015)

It is stated in the link that there is no evidence that 1.98 ata boost was ever used operationally.

So it is not surprising to not find a 1.98 ata curve included.

It is also interesting to see a B-4 fuel decal on a Bf 109K. If you poke about on the Luft websites, you see that they tout the German fuels used to be as good as Allied fuels, yet here we have a late-war Bf 109K with B-4 fuel decals around the tank fill. Someone explain thaht one. B-4 was NOT equivalent to Allied fuel in the late war, and the engine would not develop the factory-rated max power on B-4. It would make quite useful power, but not rated power.

If you read the first link, it mentions poor fuel, poor finish, poor workmanship, and deliberate sabotage, coupled with shrinking maintenance crew who were being transferred to the infantry as the war wound down. None of which bodes well for the average Bf 109K in the field to make spec numbers.

Kurfurst also has an article saying the Bf 109G series could cruise at max continuous power as fast as the Spitifre IX's max speed. At the same time we see in the first link descriptions of poor-quality Bf 109G's being delivered that had rough finish, poor workmanship, running B-4 fuel, and being sabotaged from the factory.

I have no doubt the Bf 109K models could be fast if well finihsed, running decent engiens and props, and better fuel, but since the Bf 109 airframe was not well suited to combat above 320 mph or so, does anyone really think they'd be cruising around 50 mph faster looking for combat? Even the K model Bf 109's were best suited to aerial combat in the 180 - 290 mph range and were OK if a bit stiff up to about 320 mph.

Atfer that they were not very maneuverable in fighter v. fighter combat. This is from reading a lot of flight tests. Anyone in here can find the same flight tests I have been reading. The best speed for the Bf 109 in combat was right around 275 mph. By best speed I mean good roll and turn performance coupled with good climb. The best climb speed of the Bf 109 was much slower and at a steeper angle than the best climb speed of any Allied fighter. It made the Bf 109 difficult to follow ina climb for most Allied fighters.

Lack of trim in the Bf 109 made flying around at high speeds very tiring for the pilots, and 380 mph would probably mean a sore leg from holding rudder pressure to stay straight. At 400 mph the ailerons were almost immovable. It probably couldn't roll more than slightly at 450 mph+ and the elevator would feel like it was set in steel. None of this means the Bf 109 was a bad fighter. It wasn't.

But to BE a good fighter meant using the strengths of your machine against the oher side's weaknesses, and high speed maneuverability was not among the Bf 109's strengths. High speed was used for repositioning or to get to or escape from a fight with another fighter. It wasn't used in dogfighting a Spitfire. The only real high speed fighting with fighters a Bf 109 typically employed was boom and zoom. Attack from above and zoom-climb back to the high perch. The late war Bf 109s were faster than most late war Spitfires at the right altitudes, but they weren't going to turn well while doing it.

P-40's did the same with the Zero in the Pacific, though the Bf 109 did not have the turning deficit versus the Spitfire the P-40 did versus the Zero. At the right speeds, the Bf 109 and Spitfire were pretty close for at least a portion of a circle, at least enough to get in some shots.

Reactions: Like Like:

2 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Aug 20, 2015)

> provide evidence that the Luftwaffe ever flew even a single combat sortie with the 109K using 1.98ata boost?



How many RAF sorties were flown using 1.98ata boost prior to May 1945?


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 20, 2015)

davebender said:


> How many RAF sorties were flown using 1.98ata boost prior to May 1945?



What would be the allied equivalent of that? +21 lbs? +25? And on what plane? I assume the XIV but as far as I know, the Spit 9 flew sorties with +25 lbs before that, with the Merlin engine, though.

Maybe I'm wrong though.

And anyways, we're not comparing when the boosts were available, we're comparing the planes with boosts appropriate for their times.

If the K4 never saw service of with the 1.98ata boost why should I compare it with an aircraft that saw service with its respective boost?


----------



## davebender (Aug 20, 2015)

I agree and to do that we need an idea as to what constituted a typical Spitfire during April 1945.


----------



## Greyman (Aug 20, 2015)

I would guess the Spitfire IX/VIII/XVI with Merlin 66/266 were still the most common.


----------



## GregP (Aug 20, 2015)

1.98 ata is 57.3 inches of US MAP and 13.5 psi British boost.

Offhand, I'd say the American and Brits were flying that for a LONG time. The fact that the Germans weren't might indicate B-4 fuel use. Certainly most Allisons were rated at 57" and Merlins in P-51's were ,too.

Even merlin 45's were rated at +18 psi (2.30 ata. 66.6 inches). The Merlin 61 was rated at +15 psi (2.09 ata, 60.5 inches) and the Merlin 63 was rated at +18 psi (2.30 ata, 66.6 inches). Late-war Allisons were cleared to 70 inches (2.42 ata, 19.7 psi) and the pilots ran them to 75 inches (2.59 ata, 22.1 psi).

One of the main reasons why the claims of German fuel quality being equal to Allied fuel quality is suspect is covered by the low boost they ran. 1.8 ata is 52.1 inches and 10.9 psi, and that was considered high boost for a Luftwaffe pilot. It was mid-range power for a Merlin.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 20, 2015)

There were 109s that used C3 fuel even from late 1040.

B4 fuel usually was used with GM1 or MW50.

The 109 had 'pitch' trim from the beginning.

Allied testing of C3 fuel gave it a PN of 140 to 165.


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 20, 2015)

GregP said:


> 1.98 ata is 57.3 inches of US MAP and 13.5 psi British boost.
> 
> Offhand, I'd say the American and Brits were flying that for a LONG time. The fact that the Germans weren't might indicate B-4 fuel use. Certainly most Allisons were rated at 57" and Merlins in P-51's were ,too.
> 
> ...



Hm interesting, so along with the fuel, would the engines have been able to handle higher boost number? The 109 K4 with 1.98ata did ~2,000 hp, which is already impressive. Could they have actually brought that higher?

Also, somewhat unrelated, but from what I can tell the Mk21 and 22 are essentially just XIV's with reinforced wings, so what gives them their better speed and climb? Was it just the thicker wing? I know that increases lift but what does it do for speed?


----------



## Milosh (Aug 20, 2015)

DB engine used a CR of up to ~8.5. Merlins and Allisons max was 6:1.

What is the BMEP of the engines?


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 20, 2015)

davebender said:


> How many RAF sorties were flown using 1.98ata boost prior to May 1945?



1.98ata = about 12lb boost... (13.5lb as per previous posts).

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/ata-inches-hg-26858-post734728.html#post734728

I guess the question is whether or not Spitfire XIV squadrons used +21 lb boost in combat. The combat encounter records of the various squadrons are all online, for a fee, at the UK National Archives and free to view for those who go in person. I think the evidence presented by Williams is pretty presuasive that the Mk XIV did use 21 boost in combat, but it is easy enough to verify.


----------



## davebender (Aug 20, 2015)

How many aircraft are we talking about?


----------



## GregP (Aug 20, 2015)

I only have a good treatise on BMEP for unboosted engines, but it is quite decent for comparison purposes, so:

For the DB 601 at 1,175 HP and 2,500 rpm, BMEP is 180.

For a DB 605 at 1,775 HP and 2,800 rpm, BMEP is 230.

For a Merlin 63 at 1,710 Hp and 3,000 rpm, BMEP is 274.

Of course, all these numbers change if the HP or the rpm changes since they are all related, and the HP numbers were really cv or ps rather than HP, but they are close.

I have the DB 605 with a compression ratio of 7.3 to 7.5 : 1, per German documents, depending on variant. I suppose they could have run it higher, but almost every other engine designer was trying to run lower and I'm not sure why they would boost the CR unless they had a quantum leap in fuel quality. Upping the CR only makes you HAVE to run lower boost or face detonation. The CR of the DB 601 was closer to the Merlin at 6.9 : 1 to the Merlin's 6.0 : 1. So, I'd expect lower boost on the 605. The 601 should run a bit higher boost ... but it's also running at lower rpm.

Running at lower rpm makes sense in that the Germans liked centerline armament and 3-blade, wide-chord props. Slower-turning props made for a better rate of fire for interrupted weapons and better efficiency at high altitudes. The British and Americans weren't as concerned with prop rpm as they normally had wing armament and didn't really care about rate of fire that might be limited by propeller rpm. They looked at the prop as an independent item, unconcerned with armament, for the most part.

Allison CR was generally 6.65 : 1. Merlins were generally 6.0 : 1.


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 20, 2015)

GregP said:


> I only have a good treatise on BMEP for unboosted engines, but it is quite decent for comparison purposes, so:
> 
> For the DB 601 at 1,175 HP and 2,500 rpm, BMEP is 180.
> 
> ...



I'm unfamiliar with some of these terms... care to explain?

Sorry. My knowledge isn't quite as in depth as most of yours, but I appreciate the information!


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 20, 2015)

davebender said:


> How many aircraft are we talking about?



It seems that Supermarine built 957 MK XIVs by June of 1945 which is when the they delivered their first MK XVIII. Castle Bromwich was making MK 21s.


----------



## davebender (Aug 20, 2015)

When did production of the Spitfire MK XIV begin?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 20, 2015)

Spacefire said:


> I'm unfamiliar with some of these terms... care to explain?
> 
> Sorry. My knowledge isn't quite as in depth as most of yours, but I appreciate the information!



I believe Greg is tying to equalize the the situation. Because using different compression ratios does affect the amount of boost that can be used with a given type ( octane or performance number) a simple comparison of boost pressures fails to tell the whole story. 

The BMEP is the Brake mean effective pressure in the cylinder. It is a calculated value based on the power at the propshaft and is the mean pressure acting on the piston/s per sq in at the quoted rpm to give the listed power. The performance number of fuel is more closely related to the BMEP than to boost because of the variation in compression ratios between engines. It may not be ideal but it comes closer than any other number that can be easily calculated. IMEP (indicated mean effective pressure) is more accurate but requires knowing both the friction loss in the engine and the power needed to drive the supercharger and other accessories. 
The company engineers have access to such information but most of us do not. 

Gregs use of the BMEP seems a reasonable attempt to find a middle ground rather than flag waving.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Aug 20, 2015)

davebender said:


> When did production of the Spitfire MK XIV begin?



October 1943

EDIT: details

*Contract No. B980385/39*
Vickers-Armstrong - 8th Order
Ordered as Spitfire XIV
Built as Spitfire F XIV (Griffon 65)
October '43 - March '44
RB140 - RB189


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 20, 2015)

davebender said:


> When did production of the Spitfire MK XIV begin?



From Wiki "When the new fighter entered service with 610 Squadron in January 1944"


----------



## GregP (Aug 20, 2015)

The USA measure manifold pressure in inches of Mercury absolute. 1 atmosphere is 29.92 inches of Mercury absolute or 14.696 pounds per square inch.

The UK measured it in units of pound per square inch (psi) gauge pressure. Since it is gauge pressure, 29.92 inches of Mercury is zero psi or atmosphereic pressure minus 14.696 psi.

The Japanese and Russians used millimeter of Mercury, but one was absolute pressure and one was gauge pressure. 1 atmosphere is 760 mm Mercury. If you use gauge pressure, it is absolute pressure minus 760 mm.

The Germans used technical atmospheres absolute pressure. 1 technical atmosphere is 28.958 inches of Mercury or 1 standard atmosphere (29.92 inches of Mercury) is 1.033 ata.

Why they didn't adopt some standard is anybody's guess. Probably has to do with not doing it like anyone else to help maintain secrecy.

If you look up engine performance calculations, you'll find BMEP is Brake Mean Effective Presure.

For a 4-stroke engine, BMEP in psi = (150.8 * torque in ft-lbs) divided by the dispalcement in cubic inches. For a s-stroke, change the 150.8 to 75.4.

The operative princilple here is that engines operating at the same BMEP are about equally stressed and produce similar torque per displacement values. For normally aspirated engines, BMEP values of over 200 are difficult to achieve. For refrence, a normally-aspirated Formula 1 automotive racing engine makes a BMEP of about 220 psi. A normally-aspirated NASCAR V-8 make about 203 psi, and so they are quite comparable in power output and stress levels.

All the aircraft engines above are boosted with supercargers. Since any piston engine running on gasoline is just an air pump, boosting the pressure will run more air through it and make more power, adn their BMEP values can easily go up to 350 psi or more.

An engine at 280 psi BMEP is stressed about 27% more than one making 220 psi BMEP. There WILL BE some limit where exceeding that BMEP will lead to engine destruction.

Another such parameter that almost cannot be exceeded is mean piston speed. Under 3,500 feet per minute is generally good reliability. 3,500 - 4,000 feet per minute is stressful and needs good design. Over 4,000 feet per minute means very short engine life ... NOT what you neeed in an airplane taht cannot pull over and park when the engine fails. You use rpm and stroke to calculate mean piston speed.

Here is a great link to help:

Brake Mean Effective Pressure (BMEP): The Performance Yardstick

This paper explains it better than I did. Shortround is right, BMEP tends to equalize out several other factors.

Forgot to add, CR is compression ratio. To find it, you put the piston at top dead center and measure the volume. The at bottom dead center and measure the volume. The Compression Ratio is the big volume divided by the small volume. So if an engine measure 10 cubic inches at bottom and 1 cubic inch at top, the CR is 10 / 1 or 10 : 1.

You may notice that the compression ratio is NOT in the paper above, but IS important because there is some limit of presure in the cylinder where exceeding it will result in detonation. A higher compression ratio means you have less boost available before the limit presure is reached.

This is fun ... if you like engines and math. It is horrible if you don't.

I like discussing it and sharing the formulas and calculations, but hate to argue about it.

Really, these seemingly unrelated engines and propellers installed in completely different airframes in countries trying to keep the details secret resulted in warplanes that have remarkably similar performance to one another. It just goes to show that all the countries involved had some pretty decent engineers who came up with different and sometimes wildly different solutions that approached a very similar limit, and the jumps in performance almost mirriored one another. The Spitfire and Bf 109 traded the title of "best fighter" back and forth for a long time, each one that earned the title being a new variant of the old airframe/engine/propeller combination.

I'm amazed they came so close to one another.

The British had a genius of a supercharger designer named Sir Stanley Hooker. He designed mechanical 2-stage superchargers that were very efficient. The German used a variable hydraulic drive to achieve almost the same results. The Americans use both mechanical 2-stage superchargers (on some radial) as well as a single-stage supercharger and a turbocharger on the same engine to achieve the same type results. I think the British were a bit ahead there. The Spitfires that used a Merlin 60 series and later were 2-stage mechanical, as were all of the P-51B and later Mustangs. The P-39 and P-47 used super/turbos combos.

If you go to an airshow and see the Horsemen aerobatic act in P-51s, one thing that will stand out is the whistling sound as they come down the back side of a loop or cuban eight. That whistling is the sound of a supercharger impeller and is music to my ears. You'll get the same whistle from a Grumman FM-2 Wildcat, though with the sound of a radial in the foreground, because it also has a 2-stage supercharger.

You'll get the same sound from Spitfires, but you'd probably have to have maybe 2 - 3 of them doing some higher-power loops or cuban eights to hear it, and I haven't seen any Spitfire formation aerobatics. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened; means I haven't seen and heard it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 20, 2015)

Most WW II aircraft engines were running around 3000 fpm piston speed or less. Only a few were over (or over by much). The Jumo 213 was probably the highest with the Bristol Pegasus being second ?


----------



## GregP (Aug 20, 2015)

You are spot on as usual, Shortround. The 3,500 I quoted above is more for modern engines.

We don't do the math any better than they did back then, but computers make it a LOT faster and easier than in the 1930s, huh?


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 20, 2015)

GregP said:


> The USA measure manifold pressure in inches of Mercury absolute. 1 atmosphere is 29.92 inches of Mercury absolute or 14.696 pounds per square inch.
> 
> The UK measured it in units of pound per square inch (psi) gauge pressure. Since it is gauge pressure, 29.92 inches of Mercury is zero psi or atmosphereic pressure minus 14.696 psi.
> 
> ...



Thank you! Some really helpful information there. 

And yes, I've heard the whistle. It is beautiful.


----------



## mhuxt (Aug 20, 2015)

K calling someone else biased is rather like IS claiming Coalition air strikes are brutal. Of all the wilful ignorance and outright BS-as-fact he spewed, that particular claim, having had the longest legs, is the worst.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 20, 2015)

mhuxt said:


> K calling someone else biased is rather like IS claiming Coalition air strikes are brutal. Of all the wilful ignorance and outright BS-as-fact he spewed, that particular claim, having had the longest legs, is the worst.



Uh, who are we talking about here?


----------



## GregP (Aug 20, 2015)

I've never seen a report which rated C3 fuel at 165. Doesn't mean they didn't make such a batch. The reports I've read compare C3 with US 100/130.

The gist I get is British 80/87 was 7 - 8 points below B4 wich was 6 - 7 points below C3 which was comparable to 100/130 which was 8 - 10 points below US 145/150 rich.

There IS a pic of a Bf 109K with a B4 fuel decal on it. That makes me wonder since the Bf 109K series production didn't even start until August 1944. If C3 was available, why placard a Bf 109K with B4? 

Hhmmmmm .... can't say. Maybe there were two different boost settings depending on which fuel you were running? And whether or not MW50 was avialable? I KNOW they had C3, so there has to be some explanation why they'd run on B4, but it isn't something I'll dig into much unless I have the time and curiosity later. I'd undestand in the last month or two as the war was winding down, and the picture isn't dated that I noticed.

Maybe it's April 1945 and B4 was all that field had. Flying on B4 might be better than not flying at all.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 20, 2015)

When rating or measuring the PN number of fuel there was a limit as to what the testers could do. ALL of these tests were _comparison_ tests. The fuel being rated/tested was run in an engine and it's "performance" was compared to one or more reference fuels run in the same engine on the same day (or withing a few hours) to eliminate changes in the air (temp/humidity/etc). 100 octane fuel acts like the reference fuel that was composed of 100% pure iso-octane. 96 octane fuel acts like a mixture of 96% iso-octane and 4% heptane. Over 100 octane was measured (initially) by using reference fuels of 100% iso-octane plus a certain amount of lead. 

Some British reports on German fuel samples show a rating like >130 PN. which means the sample performs better than 100/130 when run rich but if the British lab doesn't have a fuel available with a PN number higher than 130 they can't say how much better the German fuel is, like saying it was 98/140 or something. They have nothing to compare it to over 130. 
BTW during WW II aviation fuels (most particularly the higher PN ones) were tested in supercharged test engines. Modern tests of motor car fuel are done (mostly) with unsupercharged engines.

While the German fuel was, at times, close to the allied fuel (maybe better on occasion?) the Germans don't seem to have taken as much advantage as they might have. It is a question of what _exactly_ constitutes lean and rich mixtures. There can be quite a span of either mixture. Some allied engines when running at full power trailed enough black smoke to make a coal fired steam engine jealous. Some reports of ground running the engines for tests say that 'neat' fuel (liquid) was running out the exhaust pipes. Not only was the engine running rich (the highest fuel to air ratio that would still burn and make power) but the extra fuel was being used as a coolant. When fitted with a water/alcohol system the carb/s were set up to flow much less fuel when the water/alcohol system was in operation. 
Perhaps the German injection systems were not capable of delivering the wide range of mixtures the carbs could?


----------



## mhuxt (Aug 21, 2015)

German fuel testing method:

View attachment Oppauer Method.PDF


German comparison of captured Allied fuels to German fuels (curve for B4 appears on "Exhibit 4a" tab). Source is an original German document in the Fischer-Tropf archives.

View attachment German Fuel Testing Oppauer Method.zip

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 21, 2015)

Thanks mhuxt.

Where did you get the data? Not grilling, just wondering since my Google never found it ... BAD Google.

Main question ... what exactly is "OOZ," if I may ask? Octane ... something ...


----------



## mhuxt (Aug 21, 2015)

GregP said:


> Thanks mhuxt.
> 
> Where did you get the data? Not grilling, just wondering since my Google never found it ... BAD Google.
> 
> Main question ... what exactly is "OOZ," if I may ask? Octane ... something ...



Hi Greg,

OOZ is "Oppauer Oktanzahl" - Oppau Octane number. The method used to determine OOZ is described in the pdf report, unless I've uploaded the wrong file.

Original source data is a pdf of files recovered by the Technical Oil Mission, which is found at the Fischer-Tropsch (note spelling, I got it incorrect above).

Main page: Fischer-Tropsch Archive Click on "Technical Oil Mission Reels" to the left to get to the index. The data itself is in TOM-117-1001-1090 (that's reel 117, page range 1001-1090). The curves are amongst the last pages of the file.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Aug 21, 2015)

Spitfire site, Spitfire - Main

Now if one wants to be nostalgic and have a good laugh, Kurfürst - Articles - Notes for "Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K A Performance Comparison"


----------



## Greyman (Aug 21, 2015)

Reading the opposing pages does it not indicate II./JG 11 used 1.98 ata?


----------



## Milosh (Aug 21, 2015)

Greyman said:


> Reading the opposing pages does it not indicate II./JG 11 used 1.98 ata?



It was the operational test unit for 1.98ata K-4s. It was also only a staffel of 12 a/c not the whole Gruppe.


----------



## stona (Aug 21, 2015)

Here's a simple question. Which would you choose to fly to give yourself the best chance of surviving?
For me it's a no brainer 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Milosh (Aug 21, 2015)

stona said:


> Here's a simple question. Which would you choose to fly to give yourself the best chance of surviving?
> For me it's a no brainer
> Cheers
> Steve



Why would you pick the K-4?


----------



## stona (Aug 21, 2015)

Milosh said:


> Why would you pick the K-4?



Very good....but that shows it's a no brainer for you too 

Is there anyone who would choose the K-4? I'd love to see their reasons for doing so.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## spicmart (Aug 21, 2015)

The K-4 looks better and meaner.


----------



## spicmart (Aug 21, 2015)

The Spitfire was reported to have been a He-man's aeroplane as far as stick forces in the high speed realm are concerned. That's why they gave it a new wing as featured in the 21 - 24. So why would the K-4 has higher stick forces?


----------



## spicmart (Aug 21, 2015)

And what do stick forces, especially ailerons' depend on and how can they be improved?


----------



## Kryten (Aug 21, 2015)

Both the Spit and 109 suffered overly heavy stick forces at high speed, the problem for the 109 was the cockpit did not allow the pilot the room to overcome the weight!


----------



## Greyman (Aug 21, 2015)

Was the 109K improved over the 109G in this respect?

The 109G-6 tested by the AFDU against a Spitfire IX and XIV found both Spitfires superior over all speed ranges.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 21, 2015)

Spacefire said:


> Uh, who are we talking about here?



Kurfurst You either luv him or hate him, but impartial he aint, and he had an annoying habit of accusing anyone who opposed him of either biased, stupid or both.

I will never forget the debate in this place about how, allegedly, not a single tiger was lost in combat conditions in Normandy.......

But, having said all that, his knowledge on things 109 is pretty formidable, and for that I respect him.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## thedab (Aug 21, 2015)

even on 1.80 ata the K-4 has a better power to weight ratio to the mkXIV,and yet it slower and don't climb as well,if you think about it,for that P/W ratio,it's performance is pretty poor.

could this be down to it 3-blade prop?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 21, 2015)

stona said:


> Very good....but that shows it's a no brainer for you too
> 
> Is there anyone who would choose the K-4? I'd love to see their reasons for doing so.
> 
> ...



I could be a cad and say the K-4 because it was mostly on the ground rather than in the air......

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Aug 21, 2015)

thedab said:


> even on 1.80 ata the K-4 has a better power to weight ratio to the mkXIV,and yet it slower and don't climb as well,if you think about it,for that P/W ratio,it's performance is pretty poor.
> 
> could this be down to it 3-blade prop?




Maximum speeds must always be specified with the altitude at which they occur. The Sptifire XIV had a two stage intercooled supercharger that lost less power at high altitude (about 25000ft) and was thus able to fly faster at that altitude because there air presents less drag.

Of all the single stage supercharged engines the DB605DB and DC had the best altitude performance since the Daimler Benz's engine used a high compression ratio rather than a high boost ratio to obtain power and efficiency leaving the supercharger disposed to provide altitude compensation rather than boost.

At sea level a Me 109K4 on C3 fuel with MW50 was faster than the Spitfire XIV on PN150 fuel both at 1.8 and 1.98ata. About 16mph for the latter. Some of the post war boost ratings of the Griffon might have eliminated this gap.

The Me 109K4 in good condition with retractable tail wheel and with the undercarriage wheel doors fitted might manage 444mph on 1.98ata and also at 1.8ata, the difference being that at 1.98ata the speed was higher below the superchargers full pressure altitude.

Propellers can be optimised to produce their best 'thrust' at either low, medium or high speeds. By fitting a 'thin' propeller optimised for high speed the Me 109K4 could achieve around 454 mph at a slight cost in climb rate. A more advanced scimitar propeller was expected to achieve 460mph or more.

When the notification for rescinding of the 1.98 ata rating went out it noted that Me 109K4 reconnaissance units already being used at 1.98ata could be run to 1.9ata until they failed but must then be run at 1.8 ata. No problems were noted in engine overheating or seizure. The problems were related to knocking and pre-ignition and make note of the need to retard the ignition (a classic measure to prevent knocking). This means that had the Germans had a supply of a better fuel (105/135 say) they probably could have run those engines at 1.98ata. Alternatively a cooler running spark plug.

The Me 109K14 had the DB605L engine, essentially at two stage supercharger version without intercooler. With this engine running at 1.75 ata and a new 4 blade prop to gain purchase in thin air the aircraft had a speed of about 454mph at 31000ft. This is not down on the Spitfire Mk XIV but this did not enter service.

The Spitfire XIV still had the old wing developed for the Mk VIII wing and so aero elastic twist at high speed reduced its roll rate response. The new stiffer wing with balance tabs only came in on the Mk22. The Me 109K4 did not have as significant an aeroeleastic twist problem but had stiff ailerons at high speed due to compressibility, it could still be rolled. The solution was to be spring tabs or 'flettner' tabs to reduce force. Late war US navy fighters used these, so did several axis aircraft. I have my doubts about them and believe hydraulics was the only way to go.

If you were involved at a sea level fight a Me 109K4 was a bit faster. The Tempest V was the RAF's low altitude specialist.

The Luftwaffe was in the process of replacing the Me 109K,Fw 190A with jets and the Focke-Wulf 190D series and the Ta 152B,C and H.

Hence the question is a little displaced. The Me 109 belongs in the Hurricane era, perhaps the question should be 'what is better a Griffon or Merlin 66 powered Hurricane or a Me 109K4.

In some scenarios this might have happened.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Aug 21, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> The Spitfire XIV still had the old wing developed for the Mk VIII wing and so aero elastic twist at high speed reducer its roll rate response. The new stiffer wing with balance tabs only came in on the Mk22. .


The "new" wing was actually introduced on the Mk.21, which (just) saw service in 1945. The XIV was wanted for high-level interceptions, which is why the only clipped-wing version was the low-lever P.R. F.R.XIVe, and the C.O. of 11 Group refused to have the extra fuselage fuel tank (as fitted to the XVI) because it slowed the rate-of-climb too much.


> The Me 109 belongs in the Hurricane era, perhaps the question should be 'what is better a Griffon or Merlin 66 powered Hurricane or a Me 109K4.
> In some scenarios this might have happened


There was never any chance of a two-stage Merlin, or the Griffon, being fitted in the Hurricane; Camm wanted to, but was told to forget it, due to the major airframe modifications, and concentrate on the Typhoon/Tempest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Aug 21, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> The "new" wing was actually introduced on the Mk.21, which (just) saw service in 1945. The XIV was wanted for high-level interceptions, which is why the only clipped-wing version was the low-lever P.R. F.R.XIVe, and the C.O. of 11 Group refused to have the extra fuselage fuel tank (as fitted to the XVI) because it slowed the rate-of-climb too much.
> 
> There was never any chance of a two-stage Merlin, or the Griffon, being fitted in the Hurricane; Camm wanted to, but was told to forget it, due to the major airframe modifications, and concentrate on the Typhoon/Tempest.



The Spitfire F.21 did some patrols against midget subs in March 1945. Clearly the F.21 was a better aircraft than the K4 but it was likely to ramp up production a little slowly though the Mk XVIII (essentially an improved Mk XIV)would have supplemented it around April/May 1945. The Spitfire was also in its swan song era, not much less than the Me 109, as the jets began outclassing it.

If Supermarine lost its talented designer earlier and there was no Spitfire perhaps a Merlin 66 Hurricane might have been developed.

Me 109K4 production rate was explosive but only from October 1944, the Me 109K1/K2 which might have seen service in late 1943 or early 1944 had been delayed in an attempt to harmonise production across factories. It probably would have been 10 mph faster than the Me 109G14ASM. Mk XIV production rate was rather modest though service began in Feb 1944.


----------



## thedab (Aug 21, 2015)

I think you miss couple of points

1,at sea level the Griffon only put out about 1800hp,and the DB605DB also put out 1800hp at sea level,and the 109 is smaller and also 505kg lighter,and yet the K-4 is only 6mph faster and is completely out climbed by the mkXIV,

2,The Griffon on 21lb boost at sea level put out about 2000hp,the DB605DC also put out 2000hp.
the K-4 is the smaller lighter plane and yet is only 8mph faster and still get out climbed

why is the smaller lighter plane with such a better power to weight ratio gets out climbed and has hardy any speed abvantage,were did that P/W abvantage go to

3,the MKXIV on 25lb boost can hit 380mph at sea level,

4,I like to see the test date for the K-14,as I don't think it got any were near that speed without NOS.


----------



## thedab (Aug 21, 2015)

two for one


----------



## pbehn (Aug 21, 2015)

thedab said:


> I think you miss couple of points
> 
> 1,at sea level the Griffon only put out about 1800hp,and the DB605DB also put out 1800hp at sea level,and the 109 is smaller and also 505kg lighter,and yet the K-4 is only 6mph faster and is completely out climbed by the mkXIV,
> 
> ...




Not something I have studied in depth but I thought the Griffon Spitfires were for medium to high altitude work, fighting at low level was the Tempests forte in the later stages of the war. Not to invalidate the argument but the RAF were thinking on other lines.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 21, 2015)

> When the notification for rescinding of the 1.98 ata rating went out it noted that Me 109K4 reconnaissance units already being used at 1.98ata could be run to 1.9ata until they failed but must then be run at 1.8 ata.



Well that is a new one. Even the Hungarian didn't know about that.

Never heard of K-4s being fitted with cameras for recon.


----------



## spicmart (Aug 21, 2015)

Some sources say The K-4 climbs a bit better.


----------



## thedab (Aug 21, 2015)

well you got mkXIVFR which afaik were used at low level


----------



## thedab (Aug 21, 2015)

if you got some test data that say that,then post it


----------



## wuzak (Aug 21, 2015)

Now, from what I understand the Spitfire XIV could out-roll and out-turn the Bf 109K at all altitudes and across all speed ranges, could out-climb the Bf 109K at most altitudes, but didn't have as high a top speed nor was a quick accelerating in a dive.

Also, the AFDU found that the XIV was superior in all respects to the Bf 109G even when the 90 gallon slipper tank was in place.

So how much improvement was the K over the G?


----------



## spicmart (Aug 21, 2015)

I do not have any test data unfortunately. Just a remembrance from a magazine years ago.
But I guess that's not up to validity.
XIVFR, foto recon, without armament. Does that count?


----------



## thedab (Aug 21, 2015)

that's Fighter Reconnaissance i.e. it's armed


----------



## GregP (Aug 21, 2015)

I think most of the DB 605s were rated at between 1,435 and 1,800 ps (not HP), and there were three models (the DB 605 ASC(M), DB 605 DC and DB 605 L) that were rated at 2,000 ps for takeoff only. all of the 2,000 ps ratings were with MW-50 injection, and they never did solve the plain front main bearing issues with the DB 605.

Approximate production was 42,400 DB 605s. There were some 12 variants of the DB 605, of which maybe three were designed to run with C3 fuel. The vast majority were run on B4 fuel and produced lass than 2,000 ps even with MW-50 / GM-1. Most Bf 109K's were fitted with B4-fueled engines.

There was one DB605 variant with an adjustable screw stop that could be set to run on either B4 (DB 605 DB) or C3 (DB 605 DC) fuel. If it ran in B4 it could use the MW-50. If it ran on C3, MW-50 was not used.

The DB 605 L was similar to the DB 605 D except it had a 2-stage supercharger and made 2,000 ps for takeoff. None of the DB 605's made 2,000 hp for purposes of flight. The DB 605A/B/C had a max continuous power of 1,075 at sea level and 1,080 at 5,486 m. The DB 605 AS had a max continuous power at sea level of 1,075 HP and 1,050 HP at 7,681 m. The DB 605DB/E/F had a max continuous power of 1,075 HP at sea level and 1,050 HP at 7,681 m. The DB 605 L had a max continuous power of 1,160 HP at sea level and 930 HP at 9,449 m.

All made better at takeoff, as you might expect, but weren't making the bid power numbers for long, and they never did completely solve the bearing issues when they switched from front ball bearing on the DB 601 to front plain bearing on the DB 605. 

Lest someone think this is DB-bashing, the above comments are not restricted to the DB engines. Merlins made good max power, too, but max continuous was about the same as the DB 605 engines. The DB 605's turned 2,800 rmp max but cruised at 2,400 or less. The Merlin could hit 3,000 rpm but generally cruised at 2,400 or less, too. Allisons also turned 3,000 rpm for max, and cruised at significantly less ,too.

The DB numbers come from "Powering the Luftwaffe" by Jason Wisniewski. He describes all German engines and covers them quite well.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 21, 2015)

Max cruise for Merlins was 2650rpm and 1 hour rating was at 2850rpm.


----------



## GregP (Aug 21, 2015)

Max cruise, yes.

Not everybody or even most cruised around at max continuous. If they were on a patrol there was no reason to use that much fuel that fast. They usually cruised at best economy unless there was a need to do otehrwise.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Aug 22, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> If Supermarine lost its talented designer earlier and there was no Spitfire perhaps a Merlin 66 Hurricane might have been developed.


But they didn't, and there was, so that comment is utterly pointless.


----------



## stona (Aug 22, 2015)

Kryten said:


> Both the Spit and 109 suffered overly heavy stick forces at high speed, the problem for the 109 was the cockpit did not allow the pilot the room to overcome the weight!



Stick forces is a generalisation. The Spitfire in particular had extremely sensitive and light controls, some argued that the elevator control in particular was too light. The Bf 109 was not bad in this respect either, though British test pilots exhibited some bias against it, preferring what they were familiar with.
The lack of rudder trim is also a problem for the Bf 109, requiring input from the pilot to fly straight, particularly when going fast. Skidding around the sky does nothing to help gunnery, not a problem for old hands, but most of them were dead by mid 1944..

At high speeds both suffered from very stiff ailerons which required considerable input to move. Here the ergonomics of the cockpit designs had an influence. It was easier for a Spitfire pilot to apply a high force to his yoke than it was for a Bf 109 pilot to apply a similar force to his stick. The Bf 109 cockpit was so cramped that some pilots claim that full movement of the stick was anyway impossible.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Koopernic (Aug 22, 2015)

There is no doubt that the spitfire was a rock star at climbing, a result of the efficiency of its low wing loading at producing lift no doubt. I seem to recall that Me 109K4 climb rate data is for a kanonboot, ie a version with a pair of gondola guns adding weight and drag. Of course the Me 109K4 was a little more lightly armed than the Mk XIV in some ways this is fair, in some ways not as the highly centered armament of the 109 more effective. The K6 version was to have the guns integrated into the wing rather than beneath.

The Mk XIV entered service at the same time as the me 109G6ASM/G14AS around March 44 and there is no doubt that the Spitfire is superior. However production seems higher of the advanced Messerschmitt versus the Griffon Spitfire. Each side made compromises, the British tending to be cautious at interfering with the Castle Bromwich shadow factory but using the Supermarine factory as a bit of a jobbing shop, the German desperately tring to standardise.

It seems to me that in the short period from October to the end of the war the Germans produced more K4s than the British did Mk. xiv, xviii, F21, F22,F24 through from March 1944 through the post war period.

The reliability of the DB605 seems a quality control issue since examplars varied in life from dismally short to quite long. 

The Germans were trying to get rid of the Me 109. The June 1945 prime German piston fighter would have been a Fw 190D13 or TA 152 likely with jumbo 213EB engine. Likely more powerful and faster than the Spitfire though still with a higher wing loading than the Spitfire.

Figures show that the spitfire pilot could get more aileron defection per unit force, however the aeroelastic twist of the spitfire wing made roll rate of the 109 and spitfire about the same. The exception being the clipped wing versions which were very fast rollers (see NACA 868 roll rate chart)


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 22, 2015)

British fighter production from late 44 does seem a bit leisurely possibly the workers began to feel the end was near and didnt need to put 100% in as they had done for the previous 5 years. Mind you the RAF had more fighters than it knew what to do with by then after the losses during the Battle of the Bulge most Squadrons were back to full strength within 72 hours as spare aircraft arrived from Britain.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Aug 22, 2015)

> It seems to me that in the short period from October to the end of the war the Germans produced more K4s than the British did Mk. xiv, xviii, F21, F22,F24 through from March 1944 through the post war period.



K-4 production in 1944 was 1194. In 1945, it was 401.

Spitfire production of the Mks mentioned was *1965*.


----------



## Denniss (Aug 22, 2015)

K-4 production: 532 +1 K-2 accepted until November 30 1944, from december 44 only delivery records to air fleets seem to have survived. 325 in 12/44, 338, 233, 168 in first 3 months of 45. Nobody knows if all planes were counted at that stage of the war, especially as many of them were taken-over by units directly from the factory.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 22, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> There is no doubt that the spitfire was a rock star at climbing, a product of the efficiency of its low wing loading at producing lift no doubt. I seem to recall that Me 109K4 climb rate data is for a kanonboot, ie a version with a pair of gondola guns adding weight and drag. Of course the Me 109K4 was a little more lightly armed than the Mk xiv in some ways this is fair, in some ways not as the highly centered armament of the 109 more effective. The K6 version was to have the guns integrated rather than beneath.
> 
> The Mk xiv entered service at the same time as the me 109G6ASM/G14AS around March 44 and there is no doubt that the spitfire is superior. However production seems higher of the advanced Messerschmitt versus the Spitfire. Each side made compromises, the Britis tending to be cautious at interfering with the Castle Bromwich shadow factory but using the supermarine factory as a bit of a jobbing shop, the German desperately tring to standardise.
> 
> ...



The aero-elasticity issue with the Spitfire wing was much more of an issue for earlier marks. The XIV and VIII had a strengthened wing, which pushed the problem further up in the speed range. 

This chart shows comparative rolling performance of several different aircraft.

The Spitfire IX and XIV, with standard wing, is shown to be superior to all but the Fw 190 and Spitfire 21 up to 300mph IAS. Up to 400mph IAS the Spitfire IX and XIV are still ahead of the Mustang III (P-51B) and Bf 109G.

Unless the Bf 109K has much improved roll rate I can't see how it matches the XIV in this respect.


----------



## Juha (Aug 22, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> ...It seems to me that in the short period from October to the end of the war the Germans produced more K4s than the British did Mk. xiv, xviii, F21, F22,F24 through from March 1944 through the post war period...



Difficult to see what RAF would have done with more Spit XIV, it was the Heer that was crying for more fighter cover when British fighter pilots suffered more often from lack of targets than from overwork in air defencework. Spit IXs and XVIs could do CAS job as well or poorly as XIV.


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 22, 2015)

Juha said:


> Difficult to see what RAF would have done with more Spit XIV, it was the Heer that was crying for more fighter cover when British fighter pilots suffered more often from lack of targets than from overwork in air defencework. Spit IXs and XVIs could do CAS job as well or poorly as XIV.



It looked looked cooler though. 

But the Spit XIV was developed before Operation Overlord, so from then to early 1945/late 44 it probably did pretty well against newer German aircraft.


----------



## thedab (Aug 23, 2015)

you can only used so many planes






that's 29 Spitfire squadrons,all we need to know now is how many were mkXIV's

the G-14 entered service in July 44 and the G-6 with MW-50 in May or June http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/messerschmitt-bf-109-performance-chronology-41004.html?highlight=109


----------



## Koopernic (Aug 23, 2015)

Milosh said:


> K-4 production in 1944 was 1194. In 1945, it was 401.
> 
> Spitfire production of the Mks mentioned was *1965*.



I'm in Dubai and don't have Rodeike and Prien handy so flying blind but I would only count Mk XIV, Spitfire F.21 and maybe Mk XVIII as being produced during the war. (Mk XVIII missed the war but production may have started). I think maybe 900 Mk XIV were produced.

To be frank I was probably counting in Me 109G10 production, these were effectively the equal of the Me 109K4 though a little slower due to a non retractable tail wheel. I seem to recall 433mph or 437mph. A few Me 109G10/AS were produced for about 2 weeks with the DB605AS engine but most of the 2600 produced had one of the more advanced engines such as the DB605DB/DC. Even late war Me 109G14AS was indistinguishable from a G10 from the front. In that sense the Germans didn't do to badly versus the Spitfire as production was still concentrated on the non Griffon variants.

Every time a new Me 109 model was developed someone would take the compatible improved parts and produce a mutant 109 in their subcontracting factory. Eg WNF or ERLA. For instance ERLA developed a clear view frameless canopy which became standard across all 109 production and produced some 109s with aileron servo tabs. This would have improved roll rate. The Spitfire F21 introduced aileron balance tabs to reduce stick forces as well. Obviously at a certain point, the country was being invaded and was effectively subdivided by Feb 1945 some of the improvements could not be implemented in production.


----------



## GregP (Aug 23, 2015)

Hey Wuzak,

I've downloaded thar roll chart before and it certainly better than nothing, but gives us zero quantitative numbers, only relative roll. Would be nice if we had numbers, wouldn't it? I DO have a sheet showing the time to make a 360° turn for many Soviet tupes, but it give no airspeed!

Somethimes I wonder if these people really wanted anyone else to know anything about their airplanes at all. If you are taking the data anyway, then take ALL the data!


----------



## Koopernic (Aug 23, 2015)

GregP said:


> Hey Wuzak,
> 
> I've downloaded thar roll chart before and it certainly better than nothing, but gives us zero quantitative numbers, only relative roll. Would be nice if we had numbers, wouldn't it? I DO have a sheet showing the time to make a 360° turn for many Soviet tupes, but it give no airspeed!
> 
> Somethimes I wonder if these people really wanted anyone else to know anything about their airplanes at all. If you are taking the data anyway, then take ALL the data!



_These people wanted to put their aircraft features in the best light while hiding its worst features._

The illustrations suggest that the chart gives bank angle achieved relative to the time at which a Fw 190A had achieved at 180 degrees though the chart says 'rate of roll' which is actually something different. If correct it shows how extremely sprightly the 190 was in this regard.

It seems to be contradicted by the NACA 868 roll rate chart but that chart gives roll rate with 50lbs of stick force. NACA 868 is also a roll rate (which is a speed), not bank rate (which is an acceleration) and perhaps not as practical an indicator. Or perhaps this is just terminology. The one Me 109G roll rate I have seen used a 30kg (stick force) and was pretty good. Above 400mph the P-51B ins shown as rolling faster (at 50lbs stick force) than even a Fw 190. This is a result of its internally balanced ailerons in which high pressure air from the deflected ailerons was channelled to sort of bellows that impinged on the aileron and reduced stick forces. These worked well inside a laminar flow wing. To be noted is the fact that allied investigators seemed to have trouble rigging the Fw 190's pushrod controls and allied test pilots complained of flutter (something which did not occur in properly set up 190 ailerons)

180 degrees of roll is what is needed to do a split S and up to 90 degrees what is required for a maximum effort turn. Noteworthy of the 190's handling is that its controls were supposed to be well harmonised which no doubt helped initiate the turn during to roll manoeuvre.

It's often assumed that the Me 109K4 was just an Me 109G with an improved engine, but the fact that they took a year to go from the Me 109K1 to the K4 suggests they made substantial changes and that might include changes to wing stiffness.

Not taken into account is the reality that 109 pilots could beat any allied pilot in an arm wrestle


----------



## stona (Aug 23, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> It's often assumed that the Me 109K4 was just an Me 109G with an improved engine, but the fact that they took a year to go from the Me 109K1 to the K4 suggests they made substantial changes and that might include changes to wing stiffness.



In fact the original plan was for the K series to have a largely wooden wing. Wolf-Hirth GmbH started to work on a wooden wing as early as mid-1943 and no less than 3,395 pairs of wings were to come from the Butchowitz company of Brno. Eventually all sorts of issues led to the K series using the 'Proven' metal wing. This implies that it was essentially the same as earlier wings.

The K series was really designed around new and heavier armament rather than the more powerful engines which anyway found their way into other versions.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Milosh (Aug 23, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> I'm in Dubai and don't have Rodeike and Prien handy so flying blind but I would only count Mk XIV, Spitfire F.21 and maybe Mk XVIII as being produced during the war. (Mk XVIII missed the war but production may have started). I think maybe 900 Mk XIV were produced.



Changing the goal posts, you be, as you said;


> It seems to me that in the short period from October to the end of the war the Germans produced more K4s than the British did Mk. xiv, xviii, F21, F22,F24 through from March 1944 through the post war period.



As for the G-10,
G 10 Erla 544
G 10 Mttr 177
G 10/R6 Erla 971
G 10/U4 WNF 356

These numbers are till the end of Feb 1945.
J. Prien has admitted there are errors in his 109 book and should be re-written.

As for the Spitfire, no need to guess, Spitfire - Main

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 23, 2015)

thedab said:


> I think you miss couple of points
> 
> 1,at sea level the Griffon only put out about 1800hp,and the DB605DB also put out 1800hp at sea level,and the 109 is smaller and also 505kg lighter,and yet the K-4 is only 6mph faster and is completely out climbed by the mkXIV,
> 
> ...



So, for each model Spit vs 109, the thrust of the engine plus the Lift of the wing offsets the Weight of each respective airframe and Thrust = Total Drag + W*sin(alpha) and Lift = W*cos(alpha). If we postulate that CDo and Form Drag are about the same (argue the differences later) then Total Drag = Zero Lift Parasite Drag plus Induced Drag.

Induced Drag = (CL)^^2/(Pi*AR*e); CL = Lift/(Q*S) = W*sin(alpha)/(Q*S)

If the Bf 109K Weight = 7450 pounds. Spit XIV Weight = 8400 pounds 109K W= .88 of Spitfire W.

Wing Area S 109 = 172sq ft; Spit Wing Area = 242 Sq Ft. 

for 109 ------> CL= 7450*Sin(alpha)/Q*172)
for Spit------> CL= 8400*Sin(alpha)/Q*242) let Sin(alpha)/Q = K

CL109 = K*7450/162 = K*43.3 
CLSpit= K*8400/242 = K*34.7 

-----------> Ratio of 109 CL to Spit CL = 43.3/34.7= 1.24
-----------> For equal Oswald efficiency and AR the Induced Drag Ratio of the 109 over the Spit is (1.24)^^2 = 55% greater than the Spit. To get to the actual Drag to insert into Total Drag = Parasite Drag + Induced Drag we need all the differences including climb angle and climb speeds to obtain Q= 1/2*(rho*V^^2) and Sin(Alpha), the Real CDo for each.

NOTE: The RELATIVE CL of 109K to Spit is higher but because the CL for climbing flight is less that level flight, the Total Drag of the climbing aircraft is Less than Level flight because the respective CL's are proportional to the square of [W*Cos (alpha)/(Q*S)] 

To summarize, despite the same thrust engine performance, and despite the 10% less weight, the offset to the much greater wing loading of the Bf 109K in climb seriously impacts its advantages of smaller size and gross weight because of the much higher Induced Drag in climb...

Those same factors are not near as important at high speed in level flight which is why the Bf 109K should be faster than the Spit XIV given same HP at the compared altitude.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## thedab (Aug 23, 2015)

well what i was getting at is that I think that the propeller efficiency on the K-4 is not as good as it should be,which I think is down to it 3-bladed propeller

and if we go back to 42 when both planes had 3-bladed propeller, and look at climb tests of two planes the G-1 6706lb on 1.3ata and the mkVc 6965lb on 16lb boost,both have about the same P/W but yet this time the 109 out climbed the Spit,and in 42 when the mkIX came out it soon switch to a 4-bladed propeller,but the 109 did not move to a 4-balded propeller and it about this time that the 109 starter to get out climbed by the Spit.

could this be down to the 109 centerline armament,as the Russian did not used a 4-bladed propeller,and they used centerline armament as well on all their planes.

Countries which used wing armament switch to 4 or more bladed propeller,and they must have done this for a reason.


----------



## Airframes (Aug 23, 2015)

The use of a certain type of prop was more to do with absorbing, and using, the power of the engine fitted, to the best advantage, rather than what type, and location of the armament fit and, by it's very nature, would always be a compromise.
Very basically, this can be achieved by the use of more blades, or by the use of larger, wider chord blades.
Whilst aircraft such as the Spitfire moved to a 4, or later, a 5 blade prop, and ultimately, a contra-rotating prop, the German aircraft industry tended to favour the wider chord approach, although 4 blade props were experimented with on some fighters, and were also fitted in service to some twin-engine types, for example for high-altitude work.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 23, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> It seems to be contradicted by the NACA 868 roll rate chart but that chart gives roll rate with 50lbs of stick force.



What version of Spitfire is that?

The Spitfire VIII and XIV had stronger wings than the V, even though it was of teh same profile.


----------



## Koopernic (Aug 23, 2015)

Milosh said:


> Changing the goal posts, you be, as you said;
> 
> 
> As for the G-10,
> ...



I'm not changing the goal posts, I tentatively said that it 'seems' that K4 production exceeded production of all of the griffon spitfire fighter variants including post war production of Mk XIV, Mk XVIII, F21,F22,F23,F24.

Your own figures add up to nearly 2100 G10's (till end of Feb) and around 1600 K4's, these seem to be delivery records rather than production records meaning some K4's may have been left in factories. Hence it seems certain that K4 production exceeded Griffon Spitfire production till the end of the surrender, though perhaps not when counting post war production though it might be still be so. If the G10 is counted as more or less equal to the K4 then the statement is definitely correct.

The two stage Griffon was a much bigger engine than the DB605DC 900kg dry versus 745kg hence one can allow the Me 109 150L or so of MW50. Had something the equal of the 150PN fuel been available to the Luftwaffe Me 109 could have kept pace especially if the servo spring tab (flettner ailerons) were properly perfected.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 24, 2015)

Sure you are changing the goal posts as you eliminated some Spitfire Mks when it was shown that of the Mks you first mentioned there was more produced than the K-4.

The Lw did have 150PN fuel, it was C3 and have seen a British report on C3 that gave it a PN of 165.

As for the K-4s: new build production data from primary sources

Where was the other 65L of MW50 stored in the a/c as the fuselage tank was of 85L capacity?


----------



## GregP (Aug 24, 2015)

Never saw a report that rated C3 at 150, much less 165. HAVE seen it rated at much less, though.

Not saying the report was never written; I never saw it so far.


----------



## stona (Aug 24, 2015)

thedab said:


> could this be down to the 109 centerline armament,as the Russian did not used a 4-bladed propeller,and they used centerline armament as well on all their planes.
> 
> Countries which used wing armament switch to 4 or more bladed propeller,and they must have done this for a reason.



It was a consideration, but as said above, the Germans went down another route using broader 'paddle blade' propellers to absorb and exploit the power of the engine. This obviously worked as a quick glance at the rates of climb attained by aircraft like the Fw 190 D or Ta 152 will show.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 24, 2015)

The Fw 190D and Ta 152 were never great climbers. They were OK, even good. They had the horsepower but were well short of late Spitfire. Most of the late-war palnes were over 4,000 feet per minute and the Fw 190D / Ta 152 weren't at normal weights. They were when light but weren't very effective at the misson when very light.

Maybe that paddle bladed prop was good for high-altitude speed and flying, but it surely wasn't a climb prop unless the Ta 152 / Fw 190D were quite light. Any plane with high power to weight will climb well when very light. But the Allied fighers did it when loaded for longer-range combat as well.

If you get away from Max power with MW-50 / GM-1, they didn't climb very well at all. They DID have some great combat qualities, though and were generally formidable in other areas, particularly armament and turn / roll. Can't say much for the Ta 152 as it almost didn't make the war, with 43 delivered ... who cares about 43 airplanes when you are in a 1,000-plane raid escorted by 700 P-51's? 

But there were significant numbers of Fw 190D's delivered and flown and they acquitted themselves well for a 426 mph airplane late in the war, being thought of as Germany's best fighter by many, particularly by those who actually encountered them.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 24, 2015)

I'm not comparing it with a Spitfire but other German types. Almost every pilot who flew either type commented on the rate of climb. Just a few examples:

_"I found it [D-9] much better than the Me 109 and the big wooden propeller gave it terrific acceleration and it climbed much better."_ Fritz Ungar JG 54.

_"It [D-9] flew faster, and the best thing was the fast climb." _ Heinz Marquardt JG 51.

_"But really, even now, the machine [D-9] proves its superiority with every flight. Enormous climbing ability, far better acceleration in a dive, significantly higher cruising speed and definitely improved turning capability compare to a Fw 190 or 109." _ Hans Dortenmann JG 54

Reschke, echoing Dortenmann, described the rate of climb of the Ta 152 as enormous.

I'll take their words for it.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Hop (Aug 24, 2015)

> What version of Spitfire is that?
> 
> The Spitfire VIII and XIV had stronger wings than the V, even though it was of teh same profile.



NACA 868 uses roll performance figures for a Spitfire V.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Aug 24, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> the British tending to be cautious at interfering with the Castle Bromwich shadow factory)


Just a little wide of the mark, since Castle Bromwich was run by a management team supplied by Southampton, the present lot not being up to the job.
Not generally known is that the 1940 delays were mostly due to a militant faction, who would order a strike at the drop of a hat; this only ended when Beaverbrook called the workforce together, and gave them a simple choice. They could either build Spitfires or go down into the coalmines. The rest, as they say, is history, but the workforce were trained for mass production, so it was decided to set them going on Merlin-powered Spitfires, which is how it remained until 1945.


> but using the Supermarine factory as a bit of a jobbing shop,


The Supermarine "factory" (actually dispersed into 65 different locations after the Southampton bombing) was responsible for building the entire production runs of the VI (100) VII (140) VIII (1650) P.R.X (16) P.R.XI (471) XII (100) P.R.XIII (18 ) XIV (957) which is not bad for a "jobbing shop." The XVIII (designed for Far Eastern work) XIX 21 were mostly post-war, so can largely be discounted.


----------



## thedab (Aug 24, 2015)

compared to what? as the D-9 only does about 23/ms from O to 1000m which is about the same as the Tempest V on 9lb boost which is about 22.3/ms and the Tempest is a bit heavier but only by 2072lb.mine you it does have a better climb than other 190s
let's have a look at the K-14, I have been told that the K-14 has a 4-bladed propeller,and if that is so,we can have look on this chart herehttp://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/messerschmitt-bf-109-performance-chronology-41004-7.html?highlight=109,compared it to K-6 does seem to out climbed it,and it climbed with the K-4 and the K-4 is 772lb (350kg)lighter,and the K-6 is 100lb (50kg) lighter,but I could be wrong about that propeller I'm still looking in to it,

just one more thing,the post war Ha-1112(3300Kg the same as the K-4) with the 1600BPH Merlin and 4-bladed Rotol has a climb of 28m/s but I did get that from Wiki,so....

just found more stuff on the K type the K-4 6 had a 9-12159 propeller and the K-14 had a 9-12199 propeller,so the K-14 with 4-bladed is looking good ..so far.


----------



## stona (Aug 24, 2015)

K-6, K-14 ? We are talking about mock ups (of at least the wings, one lash up, partially armed MAY have flown) and paper planes. Referring to them as if they were real aeroplanes doesn't make any sense to me. Only the K-4 was ever produced. 

One K-4 was fitted with a four bladed propeller (VDM 9-12199) in January 1945, but this was as part of the K-14 programme. Some sources suggest it was tested with a DB 605 E engine but I'm not aware that any test results survive.

There were other tests at the same time with developments of three bladed propellers. An improvement on the performance of the VDN 9-12159*A* fitted to the DB 605 D on the K-4 was expected, but it too remained theoretical, just like the K-14.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Koopernic (Aug 24, 2015)

wuzak said:


> What version of Spitfire is that?



Possibly a Spitfire V maybe an IX.



wuzak said:


> The Spitfire VIII and XIV had stronger wings than the V, even though it was of teh same profile.



So it is said, though I see no proof of that, they did have smaller ailerons, a classic move to allow increased deflection and greater roll rate at speed with a cost at low speed roll rate.

They can't have been entirely satisfactory else the new wing wouldn't have been developed.

The production of the VII, VIII and XIV which had this wing was somewhat limited.


----------



## Koopernic (Aug 24, 2015)

stona said:


> In fact the original plan was for the K series to have a largely wooden wing. Wolf-Hirth GmbH started to work on a wooden wing as early as mid-1943 and no less than 3,395 pairs of wings were to come from the Butchowitz company of Brno. Eventually all sorts of issues led to the K series using the 'Proven' metal wing. This implies that it was essentially the same as earlier wings.
> 
> The K series was really designed around new and heavier armament rather than the more powerful engines which anyway found their way into other versions.
> 
> ...



In the course of researching this I checked on the German Wikipedia.de. On the issue of the increased armament they note that some old publications mentioned this but that the claims are essentially impossible. First of the claim that the MG131 13.2mm machine guns could be replaced by the 15mm MG151/15. This is essentially impossible given the size of the breaches, receiver and the 2m length of the gun. Likewise the claim that a modified long barrelled Mk 103 canon could be fitted is also dismissed as impossible (though I'm a little more accepting of this).

The one armament modification that was to be expected was the integration of the Mk 108 canon into the wings. It's odd that these gun positions were ever abandoned since some Me 109F with the new wing similar to the one used on the Me 109G actually did have in wing Bf 109E style armament as an option and photographs exist of such Me 109F. The Mk 108 was a fairly light and compact weapon, probably short enough not to protrude beyond the leading edge and might have compared favourably with the short barrelled Hispano's fitted to Spitfires.

I suppose the MG151 might go into the wing positions but even the 20mm version is quite long.

I have never heard of the wooden wing Me 109K, the Me 109K0 didn't have them as far as I can tell. It is possible, Heinkel had great success with the wooden wing and metal fuselage He 70 and proposed that the He 112 fighter would have a metal fuselage and a wooden wing (a structure repeated on He 162) at least for the prototypes which lead to problems with the compound curves of the elliptical wing for which tooling was not developed which forced hand beating with unsatisfactory results. I have my doubts over its ability to handle the buffeting of heavy canons which the He 112 would have overcome with fuselage 20mm guns.. Wood also can not be recycled. Nevertheless here was the German opportunity to save metal, perhaps more than the British did on the Mosquito, given the potential production quantities.

Butchowitz company of Brno sounded anachronistic so checked, it should be the Butchowitz company of Brünn(the German name at the time) it had been for many centuries a German majority city before the population was ethnically cleansed after 1945 in a process that had slowly begun in 1919. Likewise for the whole region of the Sudetenland. Read about Brno/ Brünn in Widkipedia one is given the impression that the universities were shut down as a measure against Czechs when the population was mostly German.

The changes to the K4 relate mainly to the obvious ones such as the retractable extended tail yoke, tall tail, near engine front. However the sheet metal work received extensive modifications in the form of more and repositioned access hatches. This is because there were major changes to equipment positions and changes in electronics.

The possibility of in wing armament is interesting, this station on the Me 109E was known for having a rather small magazine capacity (around 10 second with the MG FF) with the ammunition running outwards along the length of the wing. Nevertheless that may be all that was needed to deal with a heavy bomber.



stona said:


> K-6, K-14 ? We are talking about mock ups (of at least the wings, one lash up, partially armed MAY have flown) and paper planes. Referring to them as if they were real aeroplanes doesn't make any sense to me. Only the K-4 was ever produced.
> 
> Steve



The DB605L (two stage version existed) and it did not need extensive modifications to fit as it had no increased cooling requirement hence producing a Me 109K14 from the Me 109K4 would seem a relatively minor exercise as the designation suggests. As it was the aircraft was to receive a 4 blade prop to handle the thinner air and likewise an increased area oval air intake to suck in the extra air the supercharger was able to compress in the rarefied high altitude atmosphere. Even without these modifications the aircraft might have had improved performance.

The improved props also would seem a relatively minor modification that is an inevitable result of increased engine power.




Milosh said:


> Sure you are changing the goal posts as you eliminated some Spitfire Mks when it was shown that of the Mks you first mentioned there was more produced than the K-4.
> 
> The Lw did have 150PN fuel, it was C3 and have seen a British report on C3 that gave it a PN of 165.
> 
> ...



The tank was 118.5L which would give about 14 minutes of full boost if the MW50 was added at the same rate as fuel, which it was. Even with this tank full the DB605 is lighter than the Griffon 65.

Why not accept point that K4 production, during the war, exceeded production of the Griffon variants of the Spitfire. The new wing, the new engine, clearly presenting tooling challenges.

If the flettner tabs had of been fitted the roll rate issue would be gone and the Me 109K series very competitive with Mk XIV and the F.21.


----------



## thedab (Aug 24, 2015)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/279781d1418579012-messerschmitt-bf-109-performance-chronology-ks.jpg that were I got it from and I don't know if theoretical or not,

but what I want to know is the thrust to weight ratio for these planes,as that tell us a lot more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 24, 2015)

The K series didn't have wooden wings, that was the intention at the original design phase for exactly the same reason as other aircraft went down this path. We are talking mid 1943 here and some of the Wolf-Hirth documents relating to the wooden wings survived. That's Wolf-Hirth GmBh based at Nabern-Teck, still an airfield as far as I know. One of the fundamental problems was the installation of the required MK 108 cannons in the wings. Some metal elements were inevitably required and then the joints between dissimilar materials caused structural problems. The wooden wing was abandoned on 28th December 1943, long before a K series aircraft was ever built, but a wooden wing mounting an MK 108 cannon was the original intention. The K series and others did of course get other wooden elements, notably the tail.

Adapting the K-14 to a four bladed propeller may have been relatively simple if such a propeller was available in quantity, which it was not. I don't know, I'm not an aircraft engineer, but in my historical experience seemingly minor changes turn out to be rather complicated, needing months of testing and proving before they appear on service aircraft. It's may be one of the many reasons why the K-14 remained a paper plane.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Aug 24, 2015)

parsifal said:


> I could be a cad and say the K-4 because it was mostly on the ground rather than in the air......



Typical parsifal.....
And yet it was kurfust that was consindered biased.....


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 24, 2015)

dedalos said:


> Typical parsifal.....
> And yet it was kurfust that was consindered biased.....



I think you missed the attempt at humour in Parsifals post, He was in no way being biased that I could see.


----------



## GregP (Aug 24, 2015)

I post this as a response to the supposed high clib rates for the Fw 190 I saw above. Let’s see, ROC = Rate of Climb. I translated m/s into feet per minute. 1 m/s = 196.86 ft/min. So 20 m/s = 3,937.2 ft/min.

1) From the worst source anywhere, Wiki, I get Fw 190 D-9: ROC 3,300 ft/min. They don’t say what weight; I assume 9,413 lbs. Fw 190A-8: ROC 2,953 ft/min. Same about weight only I assume 9,735 lbs. Both weights are normal loaded weights. Not much credence by me here, but a start.

2) From the Military Factory: Fw 190 D-9: ROC 2,812 ft/min.

3) From wwiiaircraftperfroamcne.org, a pretty decent online source. Fw 190 A-5: ROC 2,938 ft/min at sea level. Fw 190 (J): ROC 3,290 ft/min at sea level. Fw 190 A-5 performance charts: ROC 2,950 ft/min to 3,300 ft/min at sea level; 408 mph top speed at 20,500 feet, generally 370 mph or less below 12,000 feet. Fw 190 A-8: ROC 2,642 ft/min at sea level.

Fw 190 D-9 calculated ROC: 4,330 ft/min at sea level. This is NOT a flight report.

Fw 190 D-9 flight test (V53); ROC 3,641 ft/min. Another flight test (No. 3) , Fw 190 D-9: ROC 2,775 ft/min at sea level; 3,071 ft/min at 6 km. Updated Fw 190 D-9 flight test on V 53: ROC 3,329 ft/min at combat power at sea level at 9,480 lbs and 3,250 rpm. 

4) From “German Aircraft of WWII” by Kenneth Munson:Fw 190 A-8: ROC 2,349 ft/min. Fw 190 D-9: ROC 3,117 ft/min. Ta 152 H-1: ROC 3,445 ft / min. All ROC at sea level.

5) From “Wings of the Luftwaffe” by Capt. Eric Brown: Fw 190 A-8: ROC, sea level, with GM-1 boost 3,450 ft/min.

So, the only report I can find in the above that even approaches 4,000 ft/min is a calculated ROC ... none of the actual flight tests get there in real life.

The Fw 190 had a lot of great flying characteristics and was a formidable fighter. But a high rate of climb is NOT something I have been able to support in reading numerous flight test reports. I CAN find mention of good climb rates in one report of calculated performance ... but not in actual flight test reports.

Eric Brown mentions that the Ta 152 H seems to hold its climb rate quite well above 30,000 feet, but didn't mention the actual climb rate at that height. He says the rate of climb in the Ta 152 was slower and steeper than in a late Spitfire and that the ground roll was shorter. I am assuming the "slower" part means at a lower airspeed. None of the WWII fighters were climbing all that well at 30,000 feet, but relatively speaking, the Ta 152 seems to be one of the good ones above 30,000 feet as far as climb goes.


----------



## dedalos (Aug 24, 2015)

GregP said:


> Let’s see, ROC = Rate of Climb. I translated m/s into feet per minute. 1 m/s = 196.86 ft/min. So 20 m/s = 3,937.2 ft/min.
> 
> 1) From the worst source anywhere, Wiki, I get Fw 190 D-9: ROC 3,300 ft/min. They don’t say what weight; I assume 9,413 lbs. Fw 190A-8: ROC 2,953 ft/min. Same about weight only I assume 9,735 lbs. Both weights are normal loaded weights. Not much credence by me here, but a start.
> 
> ...




Greq P
I have great respect for your work at the American warbirds and your General contribustion to this forum
However ,trying to cover , the gap left by the banning of the lw specialists( kurfust, crupp,donL,soren etc)is something out of your knowledge field
Not only at the above post, but all your posts about german aircrafts, you make false assumptions, you use outdated sources, or unreliable sources (ww2aircraft performance),even wikipedia!!!! That leads to false conclusions

Giving a performance figure, without the flight weight AND the power setting makes no sence



Further more , at 5) you speak about roc at sea level with GM1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GM1 was used only at High altitude. It s common knowledge .

You are inaccurate about what Brown said about the ta152H. He did not compare its performance to a " late spitfire" as you write. it compared with a recce XXI !!!! And mentionts that they had neither mw50 nor GM1 !!! 
Earlier in the thread, you mention the spitfire as easier to fly.True the spit had lower wing loading but on the other hand The 109, the 190 had automatic engine controls. The landing accidents of the late 109s, much exxagerated in our days, in my opinion had more to do with the lack of training due lack of fuel than the aircraft it self

About the original question spit XIV vs K4. 
in my opinion the views presented in this thread are basicaly mirrors of what the author of ww2aircraft.net Claims and how he selecively uses documents
Anyone interested should Visit his site. But should also visit kurfust site, and other lw sites. Then ,he can form his own opinion.


----------



## GregP (Aug 24, 2015)

Well dedalos,

Considering all the sources I look at list the Fw 190, and the variant of your choice, with dimensions, weights, speeds, ceiling, and some rates of climb ... and NONE of the German fight tests I read show the 190 as being a great climber, I'm not too sure how to react other than saying I am a fan of ALL WWII aircraft, Axis and Allied, particularly the many one-of-a-kind axis prototypes.

I see a LOT of Luf-o-files saying the German planes would do things none of the flight test reports show then as being capable of. Last time I had a "discussion" with you, you shot down the *German* sources I was using and listed other sources that I can't get or ones that are in German language only and not computer readable.

So I'll say that I've seen you make claims for German planes that are not in line with flight test reports I can find, and that's as far as I'll go. We must be reading different Brown books. The PR variant IS a late model Spitfire.

I'll have to say that German planes may be out of my knowledge field systems-wise, but not performance-wise; I collect the numbers from many sources. One of the problems is finding diverse data that are not all quoted from one source. I certainly learned a lot about 109-type planes by working at restoring our He.1112, though nothing about DB engines rather obviously. I have also spoken personally with the only pilot I know who has flown a real Fw 190 in the past 30 years. The direct observations fit very nicely with the flight test numbers I have.

I'm not too sure why you find wwiiaircrftperformance.org "unreliable" since almost nobody else does, particularly the guys who wrote the reports after flying the planes.

We have a very different view of things whether you click "dislike" or not. I notice you do that when I post most anything even slightly negative about German planes. 

Trot out some "reliable sources" that are flight test reports, not computed performance predictions, for the Focke Wulf aircraft and that I can translate or read and I'll add them to my already rather decent collection of Focke Wulf data. I don't have any trouble accepting data, but if it isn't data from a source on company paper or a flight test report number that can be checked and verified, I generally let it go or keep the data in the "unverified" section.

So far, I see no flight-test data for any Focke Wulf 190-series planes that show it to be an exceptional climber. The US reports from captured Fw 190 flight tests certainly don't support it and were flown in good condition with good quality gasoline. The British tests I have seen don't support that either.

Maybe you can change that in the next post or two with some sources that DO support the good climb and are simulataneously readable and verifiable.

One last comment. I can't quote numbers like power setting and rpm when they aren't in the data, and I won't make them up. If they are in the data, I usually quote them. I wish everyone would write down and report the pertinent data when they fly a test, but they many times do not. Do you have any flight test sources for the strong climb performance you assert this time?


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Aug 24, 2015)

dedalos said:


> You are inaccurate about what Brown said about the ta152H. He did not compare its performance to a " late spitfire" as you write. it compared with a recce XXI !!!!.


Unfortunately, you are also inaccurate; Brown compared the performance with the P.R.19 (there was no reconnaissance 21.) Since the P.R.19 didn't see service until 1944 (and the pressurised version even later than that, I'd say it qualifies as a late Spitfire.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 24, 2015)

Ugh Edgar, that could be a typo, XXI instead of XIX.

Also Arabic numbering was not used til the 20 series afaik.


----------



## thedab (Aug 24, 2015)

you know what I like to see,is flight tests with US planes giving the same fight endurance as european planes,as I like to see a level playing field.and I like to see this done with some Japanese planes as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 24, 2015)

Hey there Mr. Dab,

I think we'd all like that. Over in another forum we have a guy who goes by the name of Corsning who is collecting data for comparison in a subforum. But .... the flight test reports in English units are usually every 5,000 feet except for numbers like FTH, and the flight tests in metric are usually every 1,000 meters except numbers like FTH.

But you can make useful curves from both even if they aren't EXACTLY correct due to no data at exactly equivalent heights.

I have a great spreadsheet of Soviet types that gives the time to make a 360° turn at 1,000 meters ... but not the airspeed! So it tells you a lot ... but nothing you can compare against one other except turn time. That doesn't tell you which one is a better dogfighter all by itself. All it can do is make you hunt for more data that aren't there ...

Today, useful data on the front-line jets is almost not to be had ... since the many are still in service. We may know 50 years from now, but we don't know unless we are in a position like Biff, who flew F-15's. He probably can't tell us because it is still likely classified. But there is some instantaneous and some sustained turn rate that he knows about. Same with roll. It takes a certain amount to time to roll 90°, but the roll rate will accelerate and a 360° roll is usually a lot quicker than four times the time for a 90° roll started from level flight.

Perhaps we should start a performance sub-forum in here, and the mods could choose the data they wish to keep in it from the data that are posted. I don't think they'd accept any without source specified.

The thing is, the source doesn't really matter ... there is always SOMEONE who thinks it is "unreliable" because it has different data than those he or she likes. Tough call to make when you collect data. I usually get an much as possible, throw out the high and the low, and average the rest. The "high" always comes from fanatics about some particular type. The low usually comes froma flight test by another country using some maximum power that is below the max used in service.

The British in particular are fond of testing a Mustang or other US aircraft at +18 psi boost and normal weight against a Spitfire or other British plane with a very similar engine run at +25 psi boost and lighter than normal weights. The outcome is easy to forecast. The Soviets usually came up with data a bit slower than we got, but they also probably tested in sub-zero weather using fuel that didn't meet RAF or US standards, and who knows if they deiced before flight. Sometimes they give weight and power settings and sometimes they don't. It seems to vary from report to report. Could be state censors at work, too. I see altogether too many reports with inclomplete data. I can support dedalos' wish for more complete data easily ... but you DO have to find those data.

German flight test reports are either quite good or almost undecipherable. By that I mean their curves are VERY similar to ours or else are shaped completely differently from ours. but the units seem to fit. To me, horizontal units of m/s and vertical units of meters is a rate of climb chart, but there is usually one curve that doesn't fit any known data and it usually runs into the temperature chart from the rate of climb chart and makes no sense. Probably would make sense if I read German. Then again, I've seen US flight test reports with seemingly meaningless charts in them ,too.

Would be VERY nice to have one German, Soviet, or Japanese flight test translated by someone with no axe to grind. Try finding that someone, though ...


----------



## Hop (Aug 25, 2015)

> The British in particular are fond of testing a Mustang or other US aircraft at +18 psi boost and normal weight against a Spitfire or other British plane with a very similar engine run at +25 psi boost and lighter than normal weights. The outcome is easy to forecast.



Can you point to these tests?


----------



## Koopernic (Aug 25, 2015)

Dietmar Hermann does a comparison of the Fw 190D9 versus the Spitfire XIV and the Spitfire XIV clearly comes out a winner in terms of its spectacular climb rate, about 1000fpm greater. In terms of the Spitfire XIV versus Me 109K4 climb rate its possible that the K4 had a superior climb rate at below its full throttle altitude (since the Spitfire XIV had a better high altitude engine) this is in the proviso that the K4 was not carrying Gondola guns and perhaps that the 1.98 ata rating was available. Unfortunately we don't seem to have climb rate data without gondola weapons.

The Jumo 213 was just entering service in 1944 and the Jumo 213A was a bomber engine that AFAIKT first saw service in April 1944 with the Ju 188A. The fact that it was a bomber engine meant that it did not have provision for mounting the type of propeller needed for a motor canon. Early versions were down about 100hp due to supercharger issues and at 1750hp it was not going to produce an aircraft better than the fw 190A which actually had more power at around 1900 with increased boost and 2050 with C3 einspritzung.

An increased boost rating raised Jumo 213A power to 1900hp on 87 octane B4 and latter additions of MW50 increased power to over 2000hp. There were in fact two systems for MW50 injection: the Oldenberg system that used blower pressure to purge the MW50 from its tank and another high flow system that used a mechanically driven pump. It had higher flow rates and better atomisation. The former was retro fitted by Luftwaffe blackbirds and the latter by Junkers Field technicians. Some 2240hp was within reach for the Jumo 213A with the right fuel and with a 1st stage supercharger gearing optimised for sea level work (A ladder als boden motor) the aircraft could do 396mph at sea level.

The first 'proper' engine for the Fw 190D was the ones supplied for the Fw 190D12/D13 (5 or 12 entered service, one, yellow 12 preserved at the NASM) this had the Jumo 213F engine which had a two stage 3 speed supercharger. It was much the same engine as the Jumo 213E1 used on the Ta 152H but lacked the intercooler and so was required C3 fuel to exploit the engines potential. Both the Jumo 213E/F blocks suffered the same problem as the Napier Sabre II in that the first 200 had weak supercharger shafts essentially locking out 3rd gear much of the time.

Creek and Smith in their 3 volume work on the Fw 190 state that the Fw 190D13 with the Jumo 213F was designed with a new radiator (I believe a radial flow barrel radiator) that had extra capacity and efficiency but that it was decided to produce the aircraft with the annular Jumo 213A radiator. This meant that within a short time the cowling cooling gills had to open and the increased drag slowed the aircraft down again to Fw 190D9 speeds. The aircraft would have had a higher service ceiling, climb rate and power to weight ratio and less sensitivity to loss in height during turns but drag reduced the speed somewhat. I have my doubts about the claim but it should be possible to look at the radiator of the surviving 190D12 (Goetz's yellow 12) at the NASM to tell. Fw 190D9's do seem to have flown with GM-1 at 441 mph and around 433 was possible if the engine seal gap was done properly.

The problem would in any case have been solved in June 1945 when both the Fw 190D13/R25 and Ta 152H would have received the Jumo 213EB engine which featured the proper radiator, a common heat exchanger for oil, intercooling and engine cooling as well as improvements in the engine valves and RPM. Speed was expected to be 488mph. The Ta 152H with this engine would have had the same performance as the Jumo 213E but without the need for GM1, about 475mph and possible at a lower altitude.

With these engines the Fw 190/Ta 152 had some potential to be superior to the Spitfire F.21/F.24 series particularly in speed. The Jumo 213 seemed to have more growth potential than the Griffon and when Rolls-Royce tested one they found it ran well at levels the Griffon had trouble with.

The Fw 190D9 was undergoing a very rapid rate of development due to improvements in its engine.
The difference in speed between a Fw 190D9 between August and October was 30mph, then December added another 7mph due to engine power improvements. More could have been on the way on a plain Fw 190D9 if C3 were available and tolerances were improved.


----------



## spicmart (Aug 25, 2015)

There is a chart in a Dietmar Hermann book that clearly shows the D-9 to have a climb rate of 22,5 mps.
That is about 4450 fpm.
This I remember definitely. Just have to scan and post it.

Eric Brown, in his comparison, said that the XIV had over 4500 fpm climb rate and the D-9 just under 4500 fpm.
So the difference is not that much.
And he says that those two are each others' equal and the best single engines fighters he has flown.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 25, 2015)

> yellow 12 preserved at the NASM



Wk. Nr. 601088, a Fw 190 D-9 from IV (Sturm)./JG 3 "Udet" Geschwader National Museum of the United States Air Force, on long term loan from the National Air and Space Museum, black <1
Wk. Nr. 836017, a Fw 190 D-13 from 1./JG 26 as flown by Major Franz Götz. part of Paul Allen's Flying Heritage Collection, Yellow 10


----------



## thedab (Aug 25, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> Dietmar Hermann does a comparison of the Fw 190D9 versus the Spitfire XIV and the Spitfire XIV clearly comes out a winner in terms of its spectacular climb rate, about 1000fpm greater. In terms of the Spitfire XIV versus Me 109K4 climb rate its possible that the K4 had a superior climb rate at below its full throttle altitude (since the Spitfire XIV had a better high altitude engine) this is in the proviso that the K4 was not carrying Gondola guns and perhaps that the 1.98 ata rating was available. Unfortunately we don't seem to have climb rate data without gondola weapons.


here you go test data K-4 without wing weaponsKurfÃ¼rst - Performance of 8 - 109 K4 and K6 with DB 605 ASCM/DCM


----------



## dedalos (Aug 25, 2015)

GregP said:


> Well dedalos,
> 
> Considering all the sources I look at list the Fw 190, and the variant of your choice, with dimensions, weights, speeds, ceiling, and some rates of climb ... and NONE of the German fight tests I read show the 190 as being a great climber, I'm not too sure how to react other than saying I am a fan of ALL WWII aircraft, Axis and Allied, particularly the many one-of-a-kind axis prototypes.
> *You speak way too General. While the 190 was never famous for its rate of climb, during specific periods of the war(1942,early 43) its roc was very decent and competitive until 6500m. It was the heavier A6,7,8 vertions with their heavy armament and armor that suffered. But even the A8, later in1944, with the Extra boost and wide blade propellers, improved its roc.At Some units that could get rid off the fancy radios and the second pair of 20 mm guns was even better. *
> ...


.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 25, 2015)

Dedalos - your claim that Spitfireperformnce is biased was often reported by Soren, Kurfest, etc. Kurfest, Soren and others including you made the claims but I haven't seen specific flight test reports that reside in Kurfust's site that contradict, or contain edits that vary from the reports that they have.

What specifically do you wish to bring forward that you can use as evidence of manipulating published documents or specific LW Flight Test data to compare against a specific set that Spirfireperformance.com presents?


----------



## Koopernic (Aug 25, 2015)

Kurfurst was an extremely effective internet presence who single handily changed, infact corrected for better the perception and reality of the Me 109 a few of his statements are not proven but most are. I do miss his passion and to an extent his sarcasm, which got him into trouble. He seemed to respond with ad Hominem when he perceived bias. Sometimes it takes that kind of personality to make a change.

Sometimes one sees absurd comparisons used. For instance the AFDU (I think) comparison of the Griffon Engine Mk XIV Spitfire versus an much older Me 109G6. The conclusion is that the Mk XIV is superior. Wow! Why not compare it against an Me 109E4 or even richthofen's Fokker D.III. Of course the AFDU probably didn't have an more chronologically appropriate aircraft to compare it with ie a captured Me 109G5AS, 109G6ASM or 109G14AS yet too many folks seem to give this sort of report credence.

ww2permancetesting is an excellent site since it provides primary data. Missing, last time I checked, is a comparison between the Me 109K4 and other advanced Me 109 with the Spitfire IX at a time that Castle Bromwich was still churning them out. It's a small quibble and one can do the comparison oneself using the primary data that is there and maybe a spreadsheet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Aug 25, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> Sometimes one sees absurd comparisons used. For instance the AFDU (I think) comparison of the Griffon Engine Mk XIV Spitfire versus an much older Me 109G6. The conclusion is that the Mk XIV is superior. Wow! Why not compare it against an Me 109E4 or even richthofen's Fokker D.III.



The AFDU wasn't interested in fair comparisons. There was a very real war on, they weren't interested in internet nerds 70 years in the future with a strange, personal, investment in their favourite little airplanes.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 25, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> Kurfurst was an extremely effective internet presence who single handily changed, infact corrected for better the perception and reality of the Me 109 a few of his statements are not proven but most are. I do miss his passion and to an extent his sarcasm, which got him into trouble. He seemed to respond with ad Hominem when he perceived bias. Sometimes it takes that kind of personality to make a change.
> 
> *I tend to agree both the good and not so good - but absolutely agree that Kurfurst brought facts based on flight testing. *
> 
> ...



*Difficult to imagine how this could have occurred until post WWII - a period where only a few units cared about post mortem comparisons*

I will say this - my battles with Soren were largely around what I perceived to be a lack of holistic aero background, often citing text book/wiki like data to extract W/L and Power loading to infer acceleration to debate turn performance - when many other important factors such as trim drag, vortex/form drag delta's due to angle of attack (independent of Induced Drag)and the fact that Maximum turn rate and Corner speeds are achieved at CL below airfoil plots for CLmax.

Even this discussion regarding comparison of Climb rates leads folks to pull out Power to weight and Gross weight as primary factors when the key data requirements are Thrust, Total Drag, the climbing velocity and Gross weight. In my analysis above, I didn't Know that either the climbing speeds or angles of climb are the same between 109K and Mk XIV - but I did try to demonstrate how CL for each was materially different by making those assumptions then driving to the significantly greater CL for the 109K and how (CL)^^2 is the major Induced Drag factor that tips the climb performance toward the Mk XIV.

The only one I recall that seemed to 'get that' during those days was VG33(?)..

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Aug 25, 2015)

thedab said:


> here you go test data K-4 without wing weaponsKurfÃ¼rst - Performance of 8 - 109 K4 and K6 with DB 605 ASCM/DCM



Any chance of a screan scrape or shot. I'm in a place videos and images are tightly controlled; oil money and cooperative network router manufacturers make for an extremely controlled Internet. The VPN on my iPad is absolutely transparent. They can see through it like the proverbial hot knife through butter.


----------



## GregP (Aug 25, 2015)

I'll say this dedalos, the Ha.1112 is NOT an entirely different bird from a Messerschmitt. In fact, from the firewall back it is a Bf 109 G-2. Obviously the Merlin is different from the DB as well as the cowl and spinner, but the systems, and rest of the fuselage as well as the 95%+ of the wings are 100% Bf 109 G-2. In fact, we are using a G-2 manual for overhaul / restpration and so far have found no differences except firewall forward as expected. Acutally, we haven't yet gotten to the engine compartment except to install a new engine mount. We DID move the hydraulic system from the engine compartment to a location behind the pilot to get the hydraulic oil away from hot exhaust even by accident, but otherwise it's stock. Since theis is an airshow aircraft, the hydraulic system is unlikely to take enemy fire and thus malfunction where it is located now.

There weren't "periods of war" when the Fw 190 climbed wonderfuly; time doesn't change climb. There might have been a specific model or models that climbed well, but I see you refrain from indentifying these Phoenix birds or posting the climb rate(s) or references to where the flight test reports might be found. I await the references with anticipation.

As for Steve, I'm glad to hear you visited and have talked with him about it, and so you know what his flight test procedures in Arizona were. I didn't get any farther than asking about cruise speed and roll rates myself.

ALL captured aircraft are repaired by people essentially unfamiliar with them, not just the Fw 190. But these "unfamiliar" people are trained A&P mechanics and radial engines are radial engines. They start and operate very similarly to one another. If the engine will make rated RPM and MAP, then it is making rated power. It doesn't take a Luftwaffe-trained Fw 190 mechnic to get an Fw 190 ready for flight. The captured birds many times required no repair or restoration .... just flight prep, fuel, and oil. Our test pilots were every bit as good as yours were.

I'll post whatever numbers I find that are appropriate to the subject. If the data that everyone wants are included, that's great. If they aren't and you are curious enough, then by all means go find the data. I will not refuse to post some related numbers just because you think they may be misleading unless complete. But, if I HAVE the data, I'll be happy to post it.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 25, 2015)

I have no idea what you just said DG, but boy it sounded impressive. You were probably describing how you felt about my mother, for all i know....


----------



## drgondog (Aug 25, 2015)

Parsifal - I apologize for speaking in Tongues.

That being said, discussion of comparisons between airframes often beg the questions "Why" or "Why Not" or "What matters" or "I'm Confused" or "Why are you speaking so ugly to me".

TheDab mentioned that he wasn't quite sure how a much lighter airframe with the same HP (109K-4) did not demonstrably outperform the heavier airframe (Mk XIV) to which I answered to discuss 'The Other important Stuff"


----------



## dedalos (Aug 25, 2015)

GregP said:


> I'll say this dedalos, the Ha.1112 is NOT an entirely different bird from a Messerschmitt. In fact, from the firewall back it is a Bf 109 G-2. Obviously the Merlin is different from the DB as well as the cowl and spinner, but the systems, and rest of the fuselage as well as the 95%+ of the wings are 100% Bf 109 G-2. In fact, we are using a G-2 manual for overhaul / restpration and so far have found no differences except firewall forward as expected. Acutally, we haven't yet gotten to the engine compartment except to install a new engine mount. We DID move the hydraulic system from the engine compartment to a location behind the pilot to get the hydraulic oil away from hot exhaust even by accident, but otherwise it's stock. Since theis is an airshow aircraft, the hydraulic system is unlikely to take enemy fire and thus malfunction where it is located now.
> 
> There weren't "periods of war" when the Fw 190 climbed wonderfuly; time doesn't change climb. There might have been a specific model or models that climbed well, but I see you refrain from indentifying these Phoenix birds or posting the climb rate(s) or references to where the flight test reports might be found. I await the references with anticipation.
> *I thought that since i gave you the time frames, it was clear which vertions i mean. Since you appear unfamiliar with the evolution history of the 190 iwill mention these vertion. In 1942/43 it was the A3&A4 the service vertions. My Copy of Browns wings of the LW, at page 85, says that the British test test between Fw190A4/U8 ( a JABO vertion!) and the Spit IX with Merlin61 found indentical roc until 23000ft. Also when the 2 aircafts were pulled into a climb from High speed Cruise and from a dive the 190 had an advantage.*
> ...


 *What s the point of any performance Number if you dont know the power setting and the flight weight?????????????????????????????*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 25, 2015)

My copy says the climb was just about equal until 23,000 feet, after which the Fw 190 fell off. Brown did like the Fw 190's control harmony better but decidedly not the stall, which resulted in a spin if the pilot was not on his toes.

The radial 190's always were starting to lose performance above 20,000 feet faster than the competition, but that did not detract from their good control harmony and manners when not stalled. The Fw 190 was and IS a superb fighter.

Of course, all this started in a thread about the Spitfire XIV versus the Bf 109K, which were later birds than the A-3 and Spit IX, at least the next set of "upgrades." I never said the Fw 190 ws a bad fighter, dedalos. I said that for all it's fine characteristics, climb wasn't the one usually noted as being superior. If you were to compare just the A3 and Spit IX, you'd be much closer to having a climb to brag about, but they weren't the only variants flying about and the other variants of the Fw 190 didn't match that climb rate. But ... for the Spit IX versus the Fw 109 A-3, the climb appears to be quite comparable with the Fw 190 still being a bit less.

If you go look here: FW 190 A-3 Performance, the performance charts at combat power don't show it to be as good as the Spit IX at combat power, and they DO have charts of the BMW 801 performacne limits.

Perhaps you have some links to German flight tests showing the rate of climb at operational power settings? I'm not talking about experiments, I'm talking about service limit power settings. The BMW 801 service limits, after some service experience, were anywhere from 1.28 ata at 2,350 rpm for 30 minutes to 1.42 ata at 2,700 rpm for takeoff and 1.35 ata at 2,350 rpm for 3 minutes.

This chart (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-datasheet-29-11-42.jpg) certainly doesn't show it to be exceptional in any way at climb, though also not bad.

In fact the Fw 190 A-3 accounted for 910 of the slightly more than 20,000 Fw 190-series aircraft built, or about 4.4%. Coincidentally that is just a bit less than the Spitfire XIVs completed (957). Interesting they made almost the same number of Spitfires as Fw 190s in total.

In truth, I'm not sure why you are arguing. Nobody who knows anything about WWII ever suggested the Fw 190 was a bad fighter. Most including me consider it to be the best German piston fighter of the war. I consider the best to be the Fw 190D-9. It was fielded in sufficient numbers to be able make a difference and it proved to be a good one.

According to the veterns that I have heard speak at events, all foreign fighters were flown and maintained by experienced aircraft mechanics; they didn't use rookies for captured aircraft. The Fw 190s we had for evaluation were not mysterious, just different. Most captured enemy planes were flown anywhere from 10 - 25 hours or until they broke without a real chance for repair, after which they were usually scrapped.

The Germans did the same with captured Allied aircraft. Nothing overly impressive about any of the evaluations. We DID use German mechanics when testing the Me 262 after the war, but none were flown overly long since the engine life usually wouldn't allow that and we hardly ever captured one with zero-time engines.

As you noted above, our pilots weren't particularly fond of the single power lever in the Fw 190, but did allow it was better and easier for combat use. They weren't so impressed for formation flying or cruising. It wasn't that they didn't understand it, a single lever is almost self explanatory. It was that they could not get fine adjustments with it for economy or for formation flying. At least that is what was said in the US evalautions I have read.

The point was a bit unimportant after the war since they went fairly quickly from pistons to single-power-lever jets anyway. During the war, we never had single power lever setups in a production fighter and didn't after the war until we went to jets. But you know that.


----------



## Koopernic (Aug 25, 2015)

Greyman said:


> The AFDU wasn't interested in fair comparisons. There was a very real war on, they weren't interested in internet nerds 70 years in the future with a strange, personal, investment in their favourite little airplanes.



The ADFU was supposed to be supplying accurate comparative information to RAF pilots of the relative performance of their aircraft compared to the enemies. The Mk XIV comparison versus the G6 comparison is correct, they may have had no information of advanced Me 109 types when the report was done. In terms of a *modern context* it is however not correct to not mention that G5AS, G6ASM and G14's were the chronologically equivalent. A Mk XIV pilot coming across the more advanced German types might be in quite some danger if he assumed his performance advantage was so significant. On line gummers of course will argue this.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 25, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> The ADFU was supposed to be supplying accurate comparative information to RAF pilots of the relative performance of their aircraft compared to the enemies. The Mk XIV comparison versus the G6 comparison is correct, they may have had no information of advanced Me 109 types when the report was done. In terms of a *modern context* it is however not correct to not mention that G5AS, G6ASM and G14's were the chronologically equivalent. A Mk XIV pilot coming across the more advanced German types might be in quite some danger if he assumed his performance advantage was so significant. On line gummers of course will argue this.



Those variants will have better climb and straight line speed, but did they offer better manoeuvrability?

In other words, will the tactics of the Spitfire pilot have to be changed much?


----------



## Greyman (Aug 25, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> ... not correct ...



I guess it's just a different mindset. If BiffF15 wants to write a post comparing the Eagle to the Me 262 I'm all ears. I'm not going to 

- say it's 'incorrect'
- take personal offense that my favourite, pet aircraft has been libeled
- take the comparison (or conclusions thereof) as an attack on German ability and know-how

All's fair in comparing equipment X with equipment Y in my opinion. Is it interesting enough to get me to read it? That's all I care about.

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Aug 25, 2015)

Gentlemen,


Please visit Mike William’s site on the FW-190G-3 test at Fw 190 G-3 Performance Test

That site gives a climb rate of 4000 feet per minute on a captured aircraft. That is not too shabby if you ask me,

Eagledad

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 25, 2015)

From zero to 4,000 feet it DOES look pretty good. 41.1 inches is 1.42 ata. which was approved for takeoff and up to 3 minutes. 

It is identified as an "Fw 190, EB-104" and dated 26 Mat 1944. They flew it at 8,535 lbs (3,871 kg) and the "fighter-Bomber" version waa regularly flown at 10,670 lbs (4,840 kg). Empty it was 7,694 lbs (3,490 kg), so flying it at 8,535 lbs. gives a useful load of 1,159 lbs. Since it is light (for a fighter-bomber mission), I'd expect it to climb well, but it was probably loaded pretty close to the weight for a normal fighter mission.

At low altitide the Spitfire XIV climbs at a bit over 5,000 ft/min, making the Spitifre XIV some 25% better in climb. Still, 4,000 ft/min is pretty good until you realize it was only to about 4,000 feet. By the time it got to 10,000 feet the climb rate was down to 2,800 ft.min where the Spitfire XIV was still at 4,400 ft/min as seen here: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14climb-level.jpg

So the Fw 190 you mention here was no slouch, but the Spitfire XIV still climbs 57% better at 10,000 feet and. More importantly for the ETO, the Fw 190 is at 3,000 ft/min at 20,000 feet while the Spitfire XIV is at 3,650 ft/min. There is no point on the two charts where the Fw 190G outclimbs the Spitfire XIV which is, after all, the subject of the thread.

I never said the Fw 190 was a dismal climber or a bad fighter; it was an excellent fighter and climbed competitively with most Allied fighters, Mustang included. I said it wasn't the climber the Spitfire was ... and it isn't according to the charts,unless the two were severly mismatched. If you do the research, the Spitfire was the best-climbing piston fighter of the war. There were no fighters anywhere else in large-scale production that climbed any better. Top dog is top dog, but this is only climb rate.

I'm sure there are Fw 190s that can out-climb a Spitifre I or III but if you were actually IN a Spitifre I or III, you'd be up against the Bf 109E model or BF 110 during the BOB, not a late model Fw 190.

Climb is only one aspect of fighter performance and if you had to choose either the Spifire V or the matching Fw 190, most would choose the Fw 190 ... until the Spifire IX came along anyway.

All of the fighters got better over time witrh development and these two are no different. The end of the war saw the untimate Fw 190-series aircraft in the Ta 152 and the ultimate Spitfire in the Spitfire 21 or maybe 22/24. The Spitfire 21 could still climb at 2,400 ft.min at 30,000 feet. The Ta 152's climb rate sort of depends on your source, but it never was close to a Spitfire XIV / 21 until way up high. The thing is, I doubt seriously if you'll find any Spitfire / Ta 152 combats way up high as the Ta 152 only shot down 7 - 10 aircraft during the entire war and these are well documentred encounters that were NOT at high altitude. In fact, at least 4 - 5 of the 7 - 10 Ta 152 kills were right on the deck around an airfield and happened from ambush, not in a dogfight.

Had any very high-altitude encounters happened, I think the Ta 152 would have had a significant edge given the span and aspect ratio. The Ta 152's edge might or might not have been in rate of climb, but it almost certainly would have turned better and held altitude than a Spitfire way up high where the Ta 152 was designed to operate.


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 25, 2015)

Gents,

Here is another log on the fire with this climb rate comparison. Yes, an ideal way to compare aircraft is at the same weight (max fuel load, with weapons, etc.). However, the reality of combat doesn't really arrive at the beginning of the "test" with two aircraft with similar load outs. Reality I would think would be the Allied fighters arriving over X with quite a bit of fuel burned down, then engaging in combat with Axis aircraft that were just arriving at fight height, or still in the climb (depending on early warning systems). 

What I think is a valid way of looking at things using the similar load out basis is how much of a performance advantage does one aircraft have over another. In the case of the Spit I would think in most scenario's over Europe it would be at the advantage versus Me-109 (both full load out) and or would be greater after having been airborne for longer (having burned out a larger percentage of total fuel than the his opponent). 

Also lets not forget that the for the most part the 190 and 109 are both relatively short legged compared to late Spits and the US A/C. There lies one of the few advantages of being on the defensive, you can have better performing aircraft due to not needing to fly very far to get to the fight. But then again you are not very far from the fight, nor is you airfield, nor your family, nor most if not all things you find important...

Yes, the Mig-29 is a hotrod, and performs in many arenas better than the F-15, however he didn't get very far from the flag pole and would not be of much use in an offensive war. It had no legs.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 25, 2015)

Hi Biff,

Thanks for the scenarios. I was avoiding that lighter Spitfire versus the heavier BF 109 / Fw 190 just on the basis of being accused of bias. Thing is, there is ONE king of climb in WWII and it was the Spitfire. It doesn't mean everything else was bad, it means there was one at the top.

The P-51, P-47, P-39, Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest,cYaks / Lavochkins, Mitsubishi, Nakajima, Kawasaki, and Kawanishi's ALL fell short of contemporay Spitfires in climb. So the Bf 109 and Fw 190 were in some pretty good company while falling short of the Spitfire's climb rate. Didn't make them useless or bad fighters. In fact, if they weren't fighting Spitfires, they might well be the local best climber.

You'd think this was personal or something and it isn't. It's just performance numbers. They were probably more important in WWII than during your time in fighters because there was NOTHING automatic except the single power lever in the Fw 190. Welll, that isn't quite true, I think some radiator shutters had manual or automatic mode, as on the P-38, and the allied mixture could be manually leaned or put in auto-rich.

But you were definitely within visual range when you started a fight or found yourself in one, and it was man versus man, not automatic anything. There wasn't any tail radar untl late in the war and it was often shut off as an annoyance since it warned you of your wingman. Nothing you didn't already know. 

So, Biff, any thoughts on the importance of climb rate as a single parameter in WWII? I know it was inter-related to others, but climb rate surely counted for something ... unless you got ambushed and shot without knowing you were under attack. Then even an F-15 might not help. Surprised is surprised.

Many early P-38 pilots were shot down while coming up on the rmp and MAP, turning on the gunsight and gun switches, and dropping tanks, and ...


----------



## pbehn (Aug 26, 2015)

GregP said:


> Hi Biff,
> 
> Thanks for the scenarios. I was avoiding that lighter Spitfire versus the heavier BF 109 / Fw 190 just on the basis of being accused of bias. Thing is,m there is ONE king of climb in WWII and it was the Spitfire. It doesn't mean everything else was bad, it means there was one at the top.
> 
> ...




I know the question wasnt directed at me but for my 2 cents the spitfire was designed from scratch as a point interceptor, to intercept German bombers, rate of climb is the most important quality for such an interceptor. From that you get a good rate of turn and you could say the power and clean design required makes a high top speed not guaranteed but likely. In other areas like dive and range the spitfire fell short in some areas but that wasnt the designers concern. The other marques you mentioned had a different ethos in the design. Even the Hurricane which was designed to the same spec. but with an eye more on ease of production to known methods as a stop gap before the Typhoon came in.


----------



## GregP (Aug 26, 2015)

Hi pbehn,

You are mirroring my thoughts on it. I really don't think the Germans designed the Bf 109 as a point defense fighter. It was designed as an attack fighter and that implies other concerns than an interceptor. In jets, the obvious analogy is the Lockheed F-104 or the EE Lightning. They were interceptors, not really fighters, and could take off, climb FAST, shoot the intruder, and then had to come home and refuel and rearm, much like the Spitfire did in WWII. A Lightning, in particular, wasn't going to go very far, especially if you used the burner or reheat as the Brits call it. Using the go fast/climb levers called throttles on the hard side made missions very short.

Still, when Biff weighs in, we'll see what an F-15 driver thinks. Since the F-15 was the Air Forces's number one air superiority fighter, my bet is he'll know more about it than I do. OK Biff, do some of that pilot crap and tell us ... a lousy nod to Anthony Edwards in Top Gun there ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 26, 2015)

GregP said:


> They were interceptors, not really fighters, and could take off, climb FAST, shoot the intruder, and then had to come home and refuel and rearm, much like the Spitfire did in WWII. A Lightning, in particular, wasn't going to go very far, especially if you used the *burner or reheat* as the Brits call it.



I have no doubt you are right, I dont think Willy was given details of Germanys military plans but defending a place was not high on any LW agenda in the 1930s.

Off topic, but if you live a while in the UK you will find the Brits are almost uncomfortable unless they have two words where one would do. It drives people from other countries mad trying to learn the "difference" when frequently there isnt one. I am sure you could find someone somewhere to give a very technical explanation why there IS a difference between re heat and after burner. It is what we do when we are bored.


----------



## Juha (Aug 26, 2015)

wuzak said:


> Those variants will have better climb and straight line speed, but did they offer better manoeuvrability?
> 
> In other words, will the tactics of the Spitfire pilot have to be changed much?



Hello Wuzak
During spring of 1945 Spit Mk. XIV outclimbed virtually everything but 109K-4 (probably this incl also 109G-10) at around 4.000m and of course Me 163 was in its own class. Bf 109G-5/AS and G-6/AS probably only meant that the difference in roc and level speed wasn’t so marked higher up but not sure what Bf 109G-14, if MW50 was available, meant at low level, it might be faster and even climbed better near the deck than Mk. XIV with +18 lb boost. Mk XIV wasn’t the nice plane that Mks V, VIII and IX were but a brute, it had excellent roc at all altitudes and was very fast over 6.000m. LF. VIIIs and IXs also had very goodt roc even if from late 44 onwards they were on slow side in horizontal speed. So they were not pure horizontal fighters like Spit F. V was because it was underdog against 109F and 190A in other arenas.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (Aug 26, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> Kurfurst was an extremely effective internet presence who single handily changed, infact corrected for better the perception and reality of the Me 109 a few of his statements are not proven but most are. I do miss his passion and to an extent his sarcasm, which got him into trouble. He seemed to respond with ad Hominem when he perceived bias. Sometimes it takes that kind of personality to make a change...



I'd say that many Finns knew what kind of planes early and mid 109Gs were long before Kurfürst site. Same goes probably to many Germans. I'd even say that many of Finns had/have more realistic view of 109G than K has.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 26, 2015)

Juha said:


> I'd say that many Finns knew what kind of planes early and mid 109Gs were long before Kurfürst site. Same goes probably to many Germans. I'd even say that many of Finns had/have more realistic view of 109G than K has.



I cant honestly remember any BoB pilots mentioning Kurfurst, their view of the 109 was based on seeing it and many would have liked to change seats.


----------



## GregP (Aug 26, 2015)

I've always liked the British phrase being "in a bit of a snit" instead of being pissed off. It is likely we Yanks have missed some very good words and phrases, and it occasionally gets us in some difficulty over there.

Perhaps our vocabulary should expand a bit.

Highly unlikely in today's world of US schools. I think they really want to hand out a diploma and push them home as quickly as possible without any study ... mostly due to the school boards being runs by parents instead of educators.

A bit off-subject, eh what? I'll try to stay focused ...

The Bf 109 always WAS a good airplane. But you DID have to learn its characteristics to make it effective. The Spitfire was more simple to fly, but proper training in the Bf 109's idiosyncrasies could easily make the difference.

For instance, the Bf 109 was not good at vertical climbing aerobatics, but it WAS a good climber. It just didn't want to do rolls and aiming while doing so at high speed. So the Germans used the upward vertical mostly to gain separation and to change height. It was VERY good in medium-speed engagements, so the Bf 109 drivers all tried to slow things down to fight. If the Allies bit on that, they were in for a fight. If they stayed fast, the Bf 109 could hang in there but was not as maneuverable.

Also, the Bf 109 had centerline armament and the Germans all said it made a big difference. To loosely quote the top 3 aces, 1 in the fuselage is worth 2 in the wings.

The Bf 109 has a very strong claim to "the best piston fighter ever built" if you were to look only at enemy aircraft kills. But taking missions other than "fighter" into account will quickly make the Bf 109 lose a bit of ground due to short range, lack of ability to haul much of anything useful other than itself, armament, fuel, and pilot. Of course, it wasn't DESIGNED to do much but be an attack figher and it did that mission very well.

Willy would have gained the love of many Germans if he had added aileron and ruddder trim to it ... and maybe a good windscreen with better visibility. I KNOW they flew several, at least experimentally.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 26, 2015)

GregP said:


> I've always liked the British phrase being "in a bit of a snit" instead of being pissed off. It is likely we Yanks have missed some very good words and phrases, and it occasionally gets us in some difficulty over there.
> Perhaps out vocabulary should expand a bit.


In the USA I think English is considered to be a language of its own when it is a consrtucted mix of old German old French Latin and a few others. I worked in the pipe industry. Pipe is from German (a pfiffer or piper is a player of the pipe musical instrument) but the latin for "pipe" is tube. I must have spent at least 3 days of my life discussing the difference between a pipe and a tube and having very technical explanations of the difference when there isnt any, apart from the words come from the two languages that made up English and existed side by side for centuries. "Labour", "work" and "travail" all mean the same thing literally but actually have different uses in English.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 26, 2015)

The English language might require a separate thread in some obscure forum that nobody will read ...

Let's see, we have there, their, and they're ... which all are pronounced exactly the same but have different meanings. Not that many young people these days would know ... and that's another thread. The worst are internet phone abbreviations that make the language even less precise. In the end, we may fade into Chinese, which is a flowery, rich language, but which it NOT technical in the slightest. you can ask 5 Chinese people for a translation of a flight manual and get 5 different translations.

I can say that because we spent $8,500 doing it for a Chinese MiG-15 before acquiring a manual in the Polish language that always means the same when the same words are written down. Only after we got the Polish manual did we understand it ... Go figure. The Chinese character for "locomotive" doesn't mean "locomotive" at all. It translates loosely as "the box on wheels that emits smoke and pulls other boxes behind it while making noise ... or something to that effect. Everyone in China KNOWS what it means but the character itslef is a story, not a single word. That is according to several Chinese people I know. I can't read it myself ...


----------



## stona (Aug 26, 2015)

I was once told by the American captain of a US aircraft on which I was travelling that we would 'be landing momentarily at Chicago'. I distinctly remembering hoping that there would be time to get off 
Momentarily means FOR a moment to me, not IN a moment!
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pbehn (Aug 26, 2015)

A locomotive means something that moves something else. There used to be old street signs saying "no locomotives" in England, on the 1920s and 30s many vehicles were steam powered and used to tow carts trailers threshers etc. That is how the language changes.


I still want to hear someone explaining the different fuel flow rates, exhaust velocities, temperatures and diameters between a re heat system and afterburners, I am sure it has happened.


----------



## stona (Aug 26, 2015)

You should have seen my Aunt's 1970s knitting machine instructions, translated from Japanese, possibly by someone who spoke neither language. They were gibberish.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Kryten (Aug 26, 2015)

Same today with direct translation from Chinese to English, obviously done by a computer, it's more amusing than informative half the time!


----------



## pbehn (Aug 26, 2015)

Kryten said:


> Same today with direct translation from Chinese to English, obviously done by a computer, it's more amusing than informative half the time!



I used to have to do it the other way, the English you type in must be completely correct and unambiguous to get anything remotely understood by Chinese people.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 26, 2015)

wuzak said:


> Those variants will have better climb and straight line speed, but did they offer better manoeuvrability?
> 
> In other words, will the tactics of the Spitfire pilot have to be changed much?



The RAF pilots had eagle eyesight and could tell the difference between the various models of the 109.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 26, 2015)

Milosh said:


> The RAF pilots had eagle eyesight and could tell the difference between the various models of the 109.



LOL. Just as Fw 190 pilots couldn't tell a Spitfire V from a Spitfire IX. Most people can't. I guess they had to assume the worst and hope for the best.

Those same Spitfire pilots couldn't tell a Typhoon from an Fw 190 either!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Aug 26, 2015)

stona said:


> LOL. Just as Fw 190 pilots couldn't tell a Spitfire V from a Spitfire IX. Most people can't. I guess they had to assume the worst and hope for the best.
> 
> Those same Spitfire pilots couldn't tell a Typhoon from an Fw 190 either!
> 
> ...



The typhoons had stripes......simples


----------



## rochie (Aug 26, 2015)

Buck Casson couldn't tell Bader's Spitfire from a 109, Doh !


----------



## Kryten (Aug 26, 2015)

pbehn said:


> The typhoons had stripes......simples



They had stripes later, but that was after several other "identification" methods wee used, and still they were attacked by friendlies!


----------



## pbehn (Aug 26, 2015)

Kryten said:


> They had stripes later, but that was after several other "identification" methods wee used, and still they were attacked by friendlies!


That was my point Kryten


----------



## Kryten (Aug 26, 2015)

pbehn said:


> That was my point Kryten



Jolly good, just pointing out the Typhoon squadrons tried other methods also.


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 26, 2015)

GregP said:


> So, Biff, any thoughts on the importance of climb rate as a single parameter in WWII? I know it was inter-related to others, but climb rate surely counted for something ... unless you got ambushed and shot without knowing you were under attack. Then even an F-15 might not help. Surprised is surprised.



Greg,

The single most important thing you can have is SA (situational awareness)! After that is the knowledge, discipline and skill to use it effectively. 

As far as the single aspect of climb goes I will say "it depends" (I've heard that phrase uttered so many times in my fighter squadrons but it is true). 

Climb is but one tool in a bag of many (hopefully) that a plane and its pilot have. If climb gives you an advantage, particularly if it's exclusive, then use it. The key is using your SA, knowledge and skill to keep your flight and self out of harms way. Don't allow yourself to get sucked into a position you don't have a high probability of getting out of.

I have been able to open my skill / knowledge set up by pushing it in a situation when prudence dictates I should leave. The result is I learned what worked and what didn't without risking my life. Those guys back then got "some" training then off they went. And if they pushed a bad situation and things did not work out it could mean they lose their life.

A classic example of staying inside your skill set while fighting is Hartmann and his hit and run tactics. His score speaks to it completely.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 26, 2015)

Thanks Biff.


----------



## stona (Aug 26, 2015)

pbehn said:


> The typhoons had stripes......simples



That's why they had stripes 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Aug 26, 2015)

rochie said:


> Buck Casson couldn't tell Bader's Spitfire from a 109, Doh !



Malan, Byrne and Freeborn couldn't tell a Hurricane from a Bf 109 between them as Frank Rose could testify. Sadly Montague Hulton-Harrop could not, the first British pilot to die in the war, killed by his own side.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Koopernic (Aug 26, 2015)

wuzak said:


> Those variants will have better climb and straight line speed, but did they offer better manoeuvrability?
> 
> In other words, will the tactics of the Spitfire pilot have to be changed much?




The manoeuvrability of all of the versions of the Me 109 with MW50 (about 30% more power) was better since a higher power to weight ratio means higher amounts of lift can be generated before the aircraft looses speed and altitude. The versions with the larger superchargers were particularly more manoeuvrable at altitude. The Spitfire's turning circle is often attributed to the efficiency of its large area wing. A large wing simply generates less drag for the same lift in heavy turning flight. Usually this is associated with reductions in speed in level flight due to the greater weight and parasitic drag of the larger wing. However the Spitfire got around this by simply having more power, it always had more power, and this I put it was the real source of the spitfires performance. Even when the Me 109 got its over boosted engine 150PN fuel became available to the Spitfire. The low shock drag of the thin wing was another.


----------



## rochie (Aug 26, 2015)

stona said:


> Malan, Byrne and Freeborn couldn't tell a Hurricane from a Bf 109 between them as Frank Rose could testify. Sadly Montague Hulton-Harrop could not, the first British pilot to die in the war, killed by his own side.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



Battle of Barking Creek ?


----------



## pbehn (Aug 26, 2015)

stona said:


> That's why they had stripes
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



Sorry steve I think I went into over subtle mode there, it was meant as a joke for the reason you said.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 26, 2015)

You know Biff, I was thinking about your answer and I wonder if maybe things were very different in WWII. You tell me.

When you were blasting through the skies in an F-15 on Uncle Sam's dollar you had a rather wonderful radar in the front and the back. So your SA was coming from a knowledge of what was around you BVR. In WWII, I think (could be wrong here) that if they were escorting bombers then maybe they knew generally from where the enemy would come. But if the fighter pilots were on a mission not involving escort, they were probably faster and might or might not have a idea where the enemy might show up from and might or might not have info from radar.

If they were high up and in contact with home radar, maybe they knew in general. If they were low and sneaking in, then the good old Mark I eyeball might be all they had for warning, and SA started when bullets started hitting the plane in the case of an ambush or when they spotted the enemy in the case of a frontal approach. I wonder what percent of the time they had any information from gound-based radar and what percent of the time they were "on their own," but I'm not sure anybody knows for sure.

I may be wrong here, but SA is a modern invention of words for the sttae of being aware of what is going on around you, and I'm not too sure such a concept was ever taught to WWII aviators. They might have had to develop that on their own by combat experience and the luck of surviving it.

Any thoughts on that? Do you know when SA was first taught? I thought it was a John Boyd thing, probably about the same time he developed his OODA loop.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 26, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> Gents,
> 
> Here is another log on the fire with this climb rate comparison. Yes, an ideal way to compare aircraft is at the same weight (max fuel load, with weapons, etc.). However, the reality of combat doesn't really arrive at the beginning of the "test" with two aircraft with similar load outs. Reality I would think would be the Allied fighters arriving over X with quite a bit of fuel burned down, then engaging in combat with Axis aircraft that were just arriving at fight height, or still in the climb (depending on early warning systems).
> 
> ...



Not that Biff's comments need reinforcement but here is possible food for thought

The P-51B-15 was equipped with a 1650-7 qualified for 75" MP which yielded significant improvement over 67" - for example a fully loaded P-51B-15 @9880 pounds GTOW with full 269 gallons internal fuel, draggy bomb racks (~13mph delta), full ammo.

Wing Loading at 1G = 42. ROC at SL 75" = 4350 fpm, ROC at 10,000 = 3700 fpm, ROC at 25,000 = 2400 fpm with two bomb racks.

For the Spit XIV with full 112 Imp Gallons (134 US), the GTOW = 8488 with full loading. No bomb rack for speed and climb tests.

Wing Loading at 1G = 35 ROC = according to RAF reports for 18 pounds boost was 5500 at SL, 4700 at 10,000 3500 at 25,000.

But here is what the immediate impact is when you reduce the internal fuel load from 269 pounds to 134.5 gallons..

The GWTO for the P-51B reduces from 9880 to 9073 pounds. The WL drops from 42 to 38.6

As Weight is a major factor when considering ROC = (T*V-D*V)/W then there is already an increase in ROC by a factor of 1/(92%)

Without even looking at an equally consequential dramatic reduction in Induced Drag the 'new P-51B' ROC's for 5K, 10K and 25K 
increases to 4350/.92, 3700/.92 and 2400/.92 or 4730 at SL, 4021 at 10,000 feet and 2600 fpm at 25K.

While the P-51B still falls short of the Spit XIV, the differences narrow just on internal fuel equality, whereas the difference in drag for the Mustang vs the Spit XIV are huge and would narrow the differences even more.

Further, at the 9073 pound GW without bomb racks, the P-51B with 1650-7 at 75", clean - would approach the performance of the P-51H at 80" which was also very close in climb, superior in speed and acceleration and much closer in turn to the Mark XIV. As Turn radius is directly proportional to WL, the 92% factor applies here also

Back to get closure on Biff's point. If a high performance FW 190D or 109K engages a P-51B well on the way home and operating on internal fuel for a couple of hundred miles, they will find a FAR more agile foe than they would if they had engaged while the externals were still on.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Aug 26, 2015)

Interesting post Bill. Keep in mind that Mustang IIIs and IVs in RAF service operated at 80" hg./+25 lbs boost and that the Spitfire XIVs operated at +21 lbs. boost.

To give an idea of performance at these powers (V-1650-7 - 1,940 HP; Griffon 65 - 2,220 HP):

Spitfire XIV Climb at +21 lbs. boost (extrapolated from A.F.D.U. data)

Spitfire XIV JF.319 Climb at +21 lbs. boost (extrapolated from A. A.E.E. test)

Spitfire XIV JF.319 level speeds at +21 lbs. boost (extrapolated from from A. A.E.E. test)

Spitfire XIV JF.319 level speeds at +21 lbs. boost (extrapolated from Vickers Armstrongs test)

Spitfire XIV at +21 Lbs boost; Mustang III (V-1650-3) at +25 lbs boost; and P-51B (V-1650-7) at +25 lbs boost - Level Speeds, Rolls-Royce test

Mustang III climb at +25 lbs. boost, 9,260 lbs take off weight (Merlin 100). I don't think the powers of the Merlin 100 and Packard V-1650-7 were much different with both operating at 80" hg./+25 lbs. 

Mustang III level speed at +25 lbs. boost (Merlin 100)

Mustang IV V-1650-7 level speed at + 25 lbs. boost

I'll leave it to you to sort out the math

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 26, 2015)

GregP said:


> You know Biff, I was thinking about your answer and I wonder if maybe things were very different in WWII. You tell me.
> 
> When you were blasting through the skies in an F-15 on Uncle Sam's dollar you had a rather wonderful radar in the front and the back. So your SA was coming from a knowledge of what was around you BVR. In WWII, I think (could be wrong here) that if they were escorting bombers then maybe they knew generally from where the enemy would come. But if the fighter pilots were on a mission not involving escort, they were probably faster and might or might not have a idea where the enemy might show up from and might or might not have info from radar.
> 
> ...



*I do not know when SA gained it's label. However, I would think that teaching a guy to employ a weapon (a fighter in this case) you would teach, fly, and debrief to an individual or groups "awareness" of his aircraft, his flight, and opponent or opponent's.

Cheers,
Biff*


----------



## GregP (Aug 26, 2015)

Thanks again, Biff.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Aug 26, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> *I do not know when SA gained it's label. However, I would think that teaching a guy to employ a weapon (a fighter in this case) you would teach, fly, and debrief to an individual or groups "awareness" of his aircraft, his flight, and opponent or opponent's.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff*



Fwiw:
P-51 Formation Combat Tactics, by Lt. Col. Irwin H. Dregne, 357th FG
P-51 Squadron Tactics, by Capt. John B. England, 357th FG
P-51 Squadron Tactics, by Major Edwin W. Hiro, 357th FG
P-51 Individual Combat Tactics, by Major John A. Storch, 357th FG

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 26, 2015)

Mike,

Thanks for posting those! They are by todays standards a little light on detail, but do convey what they were doing in general. 

Major John Storch said it well, "The preceding and following statements are completely dependent on the circumstances and no hard and fast rules can be set down". That's another way of saying "it depends". It's funny to see that some things never change!

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 26, 2015)

Mike Williams said:


> Fwiw:
> P-51 Formation Combat Tactics, by Lt. Col. Irwin H. Dregne, 357th FG
> P-51 Squadron Tactics, by Capt. John B. England, 357th FG
> P-51 Squadron Tactics, by Major Edwin W. Hiro, 357th FG
> P-51 Individual Combat Tactics, by Major John A. Storch, 357th FG



Thanks for those. Basically answers what I was wondering.

Also, I apologize for my comment about you I made on one of the first pages. I wrongly assumed what Kurfurst claimed was true.

I appreciate the work you do.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 26, 2015)

Here is John Boyd's OODA Loop explained:

http://www.jvminc.com/boydsrealooda_loop.pdf


----------



## parsifal (Aug 26, 2015)

im not sure that some of the starting assumptions about fuel loads would be correct in all situations. defending CAP would often be airborne from the earliest point of detection and then might take some time to vector the defenders onto the incoming streams. Often the defenders would be out of fuel by end of mission and be forced into a deadstick landing or ditch the aircraft. its a major decision for someone trying to decide about the use of his CAP assets, whether to use it until it could not return safely or whether to bring it down for refuelling and re-arming often with the enemy pressing onto a vital target unopposed. 

Im not challenging or questioning the logic behind the idea. German aircraft weights are one thing, lack of maintenance and engine wear is another. Aircraft in wartime situations seldom operate to spec and for the losing side they are going to push their defences to the limit.

Just a thought guys.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 26, 2015)

Hey Biff,

You probably have this, but: Fighter Combat Tactics 

http://www.imagery.vnfawing.com/PDF-Archive/Fighter-Combat-Tactics-and-Maneuvering.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 26, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> Yes, the Mig-29 is a hotrod, and performs in many arenas better than the F-15, however he didn't get very far from the flag pole and would not be of much use in an offensive war. It had no legs.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



If the Mig-29 is a hotrod, than what is the Su-27 Flanker series?


----------



## GregP (Aug 26, 2015)

If the MiG-29 is a hot rod, the Su--35 has to be a serious threat. Biff, you probably flew against German MiG-29's huh?

Did you ever get to fly with or against any Russian fighters or Russian pilots other than maybe in formation at an airshow? If so, what were your impressions?

Upon thought, I realize this is well outside WWII ... I'll move to to modern after this post with anything about modern jets.


----------



## Glider (Aug 26, 2015)

A comment on SA. I was always taught that it couldn't be taught. You could and did what you can to emphasise the importance of looking and being aware of what is going on around you but at the end of the day that's all you could do.
Its something that you had to a certain degree or you didn't, as your mind either automatically picked up the clues, stored and processed them so you just knew where people were around you or you didn't to the same degree.

Another way of thinking about it is the difference between looking and seeing. How many times when driving has a car pulled out in front of another one with out looking. The probability is that he did look, but he didn't see. 

A side observation as a glider pilot I had zero faith in the ability of a pilot in a powered aircraft to know what is going on in the sky around them. I once had to make an emergency landing because a display team came right over the airfield when I was on a cable launch. Fortunately I saw them as they didn't see me as I was right in front of them. On a second occasion at the Midland Gliding club two of the Red Arrows did a similar thing and went either side of the cable and below the height of the glider. If they can get it wrong anyone can.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 26, 2015)

It may not have been called SA, but it was certainly practiced even in WW1.

Those silk scarves weren't worn for their looks, they were there to keep the pilots from rubbing their necks raw from the constant head turning .

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 27, 2015)

Bungays "the most dangerous enemy" describes how Bob Doe had a near miss and resolved to Quarter the sky and search it systematically, this wih Sailor Milans rules of combat leads me to think what we call SA wasnt taught officially in the early war RAF, but squadrons members would teach each other, this was alluded to in the firlm Battle of Britain with its tack-a-tack-a-tack sequence (the film character was based in part on Milan), a film that at least tried to stick to something like reality.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 27, 2015)

parsifal said:


> im not sure that some of the starting assumptions about fuel loads would be correct in all situations. defending CAP would often be airborne from the earliest point of detection and then might take some time to vector the defenders onto the incoming streams. Often the defenders would be out of fuel by end of mission and be forced into a deadstick landing or ditch the aircraft. its a major decision for someone trying to decide about the use of his CAP assets, whether to use it until it could not return safely or whether to bring it down for refuelling and re-arming often with the enemy pressing onto a vital target unopposed.
> 
> Im not challenging or questioning the logic behind the idea. German aircraft weights are one thing, lack of maintenance and engine wear is another. Aircraft in wartime situations seldom operate to spec and for the losing side they are going to push their defences to the limit.
> 
> Just a thought guys.



*Starting fuel loads are important for flight test comparisons only - without detailed regard for the condition of the airframe or engines.*

Having said this, the fuel contribution to performance (or lack thereof)by virtue of WL for the typical WWII fighter was paramount in maneuverability factors for that airframe.. The Mustang and the typical Japanese naval fighter are classic examples of a particular fighter with the greatest bandwidth between Take off conditions and 'half full' simply because of the disproportionate internal fuel capability as a function of empty weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 27, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> If the Mig-29 is a hotrod, than what is the Su-27 Flanker series?




GJS,

I would classify most afterburner equipped fighters as hot rods (inside same class). The Mig has strong engines for its weight but the TBO is terrible compared to our stuff.

The Flanker is the large block V8 in amongst a mixed field. I like it for its legs, weapons and flight controls, however avionics wise it's not even close!

If you approach every fight like your opponent is King Kong it will serve you better in the end. They can be killed, just have to not be arrogant as you go about it.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 27, 2015)

In General I dont mind people comparing the spitfire and 109 and deciding their favourite. Its like who was the best fighter Ali or Frazier, just dont pretend you would climb in the ring with either of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 27, 2015)

GregP said:


> If the MiG-29 is a hot rod, the Su--35 has to be a serious threat. Biff, you probably flew against German MiG-29's huh?
> 
> Did you ever get to fly with or against any Russian fighters or Russian pilots other than maybe in formation at an airshow? If so, what were your impressions?
> 
> Upon thought, I realize this is well outside WWII ... I'll move to to modern after this post with anything about modern jets.




Greg,

Yes I fought the German "Miggies" as they called it. Most guys were Western trained but they did have five or six Eastern guys in the squadron. I fought four of those guys, one of which had potential. They flew about 180 hours per year, but at an average sortie duration (ASD) of 30 minutes. They were probably the most proficient Mig drivers on the planet. Fought them in Germany and at Key West (<---UF believably good)!

Great equipment can be overcome by great training in lessor equipment. It happened in WW2 and it happens still.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Aug 27, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> GJS,
> 
> I would classify most afterburner equipped fighters as hot rods (inside same class). The Mig has strong engines for its weight but the TBO is terrible compared to our stuff.
> 
> ...



Very interesting post.
Is it an indirect admission that the latest flanker, The Su 35, practically is unbeatable by the F15 within visual range if both planes have pilots of similar abilities?


----------



## pbehn (Aug 27, 2015)

dedalos said:


> Very interesting post.
> Is it an indirect admission that the latest flanker, The Su 35, practically is unbeatable by the F15 within visual range if both planes have pilots of similar abilities?



I didnt read that at all I thought it meant beware of your opponents strengths, if you allow him to use them instead of you using yours you may get hurt.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 27, 2015)

dedalos said:


> Very interesting post.
> Is it an indirect admission that the latest flanker, The Su 35, practically is unbeatable by the F15 within visual range if both planes have pilots of similar abilities?



Dedalos,

No, I'm not saying the Flanker is unbeatable by an Eagle, not at all. Is it a lethal plane, yes. Can it be killed, yes. Can you get killed if you are not careful, yes. To put things in perspective you can get killed by a guy in a Mig-21 if you aren't careful, or respect it's capabilities (upgrades). The Flanker is no different, just that it leaves less room for error.

Also realize that last F-15C/D we bought was in 1986. The latest Flankers came out well after that, and performance wise should reflect that via improvements. No different than early war versus late war BoB fighters. Or no different than cars. Things are always getting improved.

I would be surprised if anyone trains in a Flanker like we train in our fighters. Not many countries even come close to training to the level we do, regardless of political affiliation.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## pbehn (Aug 27, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> No, I'm not saying the Flanker is unbeatable by an Eagle, not at all. Is it a lethal plane, yes. Can it be killed, yes. Can you get killed if you are not careful, yes. To put things in perspective you can get killed by a guy in a Mig-21 if you aren't careful, or respect it's capabilities (upgrades). The Flanker is no different, just that it leaves less room for error.



Reading a lot of posts on a lot of threads here, much is made of which aircraft would win in a one on one. I have an idea in mind that in many cases the performance a pilot wanted was that to get him into a good position, speed and climb. After that the performance is what will keep him alive. With two equally matched planes and pilots it is very difficult to maneuver into a kill situation. Spitfires were armed with canon (admittedly they didnt work too well) in the BoB. Since most kills are made when the target doesnt see the victor the Spitfire didnt really become more lethal during the war. Its ability to get into position and escape did change a lot though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 27, 2015)

Whether True or close to True - at least 80% of dead pilots or 'skydivers' from a dogfight never saw the guy that got him.

In that scenario an F-22 with a pilot asleep at the wheel could be killed by an F-105 if the conditions are right.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Aug 27, 2015)

In WWII Pilot quality was probably a dominant variable of the equation of win or lose. In my time (70-80's...I was never a pilot but had a bit to do with AD) it was considered still a very big influence on the outcome. Has that changed with the current generation, or even shifted t all.

back to WWII, I don't know how many times ive read reports about how pilots with low experience could not push their a/c to the limits, even when their lives were on the line.

The other big influence was that the majority of fighter combats were won or lost on first pass. gain the height advantage, dive shoot, scoot and climb again. Turn was only important if both parties were willing to hang round and fight it out


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 27, 2015)

drgondog said:


> Whether True or close to True - at least 80% of dead pilots or 'skydivers' from a dogfight never saw the guy that got him.
> 
> In that scenario an F-22 with a pilot asleep at the wheel could be killed by an F-105 if the conditions are right.




Drgondog,

It is possible to kill F-22 guys, but it doesn't happen very often. They have HUGE SA. And I think the Thud Drivers did have some gun kills (out of 27.5 total, proof that you can get whacked by anything if you don't have SA or know what you are doing)...

One of my favorite tactics during Large Force Employments (LFEs) was to circle the furballs, and kill the spitters as they tried to leave. Stay away from the their horizon and you are rarely seen. To wade into a large furball is asking to get whacked by someone you don't see.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## GregP (Aug 27, 2015)

I recall one Red Flag in the 1980's when a Buccaneer came up out of the ground clutter and bagged an F-15. The Eagle drivers were quite embarassed, but the Buc pilot just happened to be in the right place at just the right time to take the shot. Can't recall exactly, but it seem like it was in the mid to late 1980's, maybe early 90's.

The Buc pilot admitted it wasn't planned, but he took the opportunity when it presented itself. He was frankly surprised to find an F-15 in the exercise down low and moving more or less in a straight line.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 27, 2015)

parsifal said:


> back to WWII, I don't know how many times ive read reports about how pilots with low experience could not push their a/c to the limits, even when their lives were on the line.



That does not surprise me at all. I raced motorcycles and the most common cause of a novice crashing was them waiting to see when the guy in front braked before braking (obvious tactic that is what I did) but a novice just doesnt brake hard enough and either overshoots or heels in too hot. You would think braking hard is about the easiest thing to learn but it isnt, after 3 years racing there was one guy who could always outbrake me, he was the British champion in 1982, he always heeled in too hot and stayed on while I crashed.

In racing terms a novice wears an orange jacket, to lose the orange jacket you must complete 10 races on 3 circuits and finish in the top 50%.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 27, 2015)

Duplicate post so i will take this opportunity to thank you guys who have done it in various ways for your insight


----------



## GregP (Aug 27, 2015)

Hi pbehn,

We should talk about motorcycle rasing. I rode Observed Trials for 17 yeasr abd also did about 3 - 5 pavement road races per year during that time, mostly on 750s on pavement and Montessa, Yamaha, Aprillia, Beta, Gas-Gas in Trials. It isn't good for this forum, but there ARE some good stories to swap, I'm sure.

Most exciting ride of my life was on a Yamaha TZ750 4-cylinder, 2-stroke. You could wheelstand effortlessly at 130 mph when it came on the pipe, whether you wanted to or didn't want to ... scaredest I ever was happend in a Trial going up a rock about 20 feet high, but the drop-off on the other side was 50 feet if you didn't stop and turn left right at the crest!

I was REALLY close to the edge, twice ... didn't lose me or the bike, though ... but I wasn't exactly fun, until it was over. Then the memories get better until I recall my feelings just at the crest of the rock.

Maybe some PM's and then the off-topic forum. I recall the frame flex in the old Kawasaki 900 Z1 ... you could turn the bike left with throttle because the swingarm would flex, but you could only turn it left since it didn't flex back right if you closed the throttle, it just went straight and shook it's head at you, or did until I installed a steering damper.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 27, 2015)

GregP said:


> I recall one Red Flag in the 1980's when a Buccaneer came up out of the ground clutter and bagged an F-15. The Eagle drivers were quite embarassed, but the Buc pilot just happened to be in the right place at just the right time to take the shot. Can't recall exactly, but it seem like it was in the mid to late 1980's, maybe early 90's.
> 
> The Buc pilot admitted it wasn't planned, but he took the opportunity when it presented itself. He was frankly surprised to find an F-15 in the exercise down low and moving more or less in a straight line.



Greg,

Red Flag was an absolute blast! Work hard, play hard! Red Flag flows out with Eagles in front, strikers would push a few minutes later, eventually they would pass us and go into the target area (AKA SAM hell), then we would pick them up on the way back out. The Red Air would eventually kill regenerate enough times to get in amongst the strikers. Defensive reactions by most players would eventually mean just about everyone was below 5k over the Farms (look at Google maps) including us Eagle guys. If you wanted to find a fight, fly over the farms below 19k and it would find you! 

Oh what memories from there! I went through my first 1k in the Eagle there in 5 Sep 1996, tail 84-134 with our intel officer in the back seat (saw Alanis Morrisette Cirque du Solei) that TDY as well. I think all the European Air Forces Vipers were there as our Red Air (they had orange training missiles)! What a bunch of good sh-ts! 

My squadron commander pulled me aside after one sortie (where I was tangling with a couple of the Red Air guys who didn't pay much attention to some of our low altitude training rules) for me going beyond our rule set (or doing the same thing they were). He usually was a total hard arse, but was beyond cool with how he handled things that day. I guess he was happy to see us wading in and slinging carnage.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 27, 2015)

GregP said:


> Hi pbehn,
> 
> We should talk about motorcycle rasing. I rode Observed Trials for 17 yeasr abd also did about 3 - 5 pavement road races per year during that time, mostly on 750s on pavement and Montessa, Yamaha, Aprillia, Beta, Gas-Gas in Trials. It isn't good for this forum, but there ARE some good stories to swap, I'm sure.
> 
> ...



Wow! I don't think I'd ever have the guts for something like that. I think I'll stick to armchair-cycling. Who's in?


----------



## GregP (Aug 28, 2015)

All I can say is you don't start off on a full-race motorcycle ... you work up to it, somewhat gradually due to the price of the things. Pbehn is right, rookies on a track don't brake or corner well, and aren't smart enough to get out of the way. But we ALL had to start somewhere. A couple of times I went to a rookie and talked him into following me for a few laps to learn the track. It was an attempt to make is safer for me! It worked. The rookie wasn't a threat in the race, but WAS fast enough not to get in the way. I still didn't win, but did OK.

As for trials, it is easily the most fun I ever had on a motorcycle. Here is 10-time World Champion Toni Bou riding a staged indoor event. Hope you like it.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIy-Kvikepw_

I am nowhere NEAR his class, but did OK in local Arizona events out in the desert rocks.

Damn! This should have gone in the off-topic forum. Maybe Adler or Joe can move it there ... or else not. I won't post more motorsports other than aircraft in here, so maybe leave it ... your call. Slap me, please.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kryten (Aug 28, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Reading a lot of posts on a lot of threads here, much is made of which aircraft would win in a one on one. I have an idea in mind that in many cases the performance a pilot wanted was that to get him into a good position, speed and climb. After that the performance is what will keep him alive. With two equally matched planes and pilots it is very difficult to maneuver into a kill situation. Spitfires were armed with canon (admittedly they didnt work too well) in the BoB. Since most kills are made when the target doesnt see the victor the Spitfire didnt really become more lethal during the war. Its ability to get into position and escape did change a lot though.



The which is best arguments nearly always revolve around personal favourites and having everyone agree your favourite is best, bit childish really, warfare is never fought on the basis of one or ten from each side lining up and shouting go!

Tactical situation and pilot skill are the absolute deciding factors, no one would look at the statistics for the Typhoon for instance , compare it to the Fw190 and say , aaah the Typhoons the best, yet during 42-43 the Typhoon claimed many fw190 on the tip and run raids and the ranger operations, why? simply because in those circumstances the tactical situation favoured the Typhoon pilots, the 190's were often running for home after making their attacks when they were run down by the Typhoons.

During the Battle of Britain 109's shot down more Spits than they lost, why? because the tactical situation was in their favour as the priority for the RAF was to stop the bombers, yet the fans of the 109 always use that statistic to claim the superiority of their favourite, basically it's all tosh unless you have a vast performance difference between airframes or pilots.

As far as I can see the war went through phases, at the start the Luftwaffe with all the lessons they learned in Spain (and remember they were the first to fly a high performance monoplane in combat) had a tactical and pilot experience advantage, Fighter command expanded massively after the Battle of Britain again resulting in many inexperienced pilots being sent across the channel, by 1944 the pendulum is swinging the other way, most of the skilled Luftwaffe pilots have been killed and it's now they that fields inexperienced pilots against veterans,so by the wars end the boots totally on the other foot!

Subtle differences between airframes don't really make much of a difference in this scenario, 109's bounced by Hurricanes still went down despite the apparent statistical inferiority.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 28, 2015)

GregP said:


> All I can say is you don't start off on a full-race motorcycle ... you work up to it, somewhat gradually due to the price of the things. Pbehn is right, rookies on a track don't brake or corner well, and aren't smart enough to get out of the way. But we ALL had to start somewhere. A couple of times I went to a rookie and talked him into following me for a few laps to learn the track. It was an attempt to make is safer for me! It worked. The rookie wasn't a threat in the race, but WAS fast enough not to get in the way. I still didn't win, but did OK.
> 
> As for trials, it is easily the most fun I ever had on a motorcycle. Here is 10-time World Champion Toni Bou riding a staged indoor event. Hope you like it.
> 
> ...



I had one friend who won a lot of road (tarmac) races and did trials. He said trials were the most exhausting thing he ever did, watching the top guys like in the video they rarely make a mistake. At the lower level he was at you are always wrestling the machine back up right and re starting it, a few times he just had to stop from exhaustion even though he was a very fit 21 yr old and quite good at it. I will have a think and start a thread, if you have any ideas PM me.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Sep 4, 2015)

Now that there's been a decent interval, with other aircraft, racing cars, etc., getting an airing, perhaps we can return to the subject at hand, even if it is a British aircraft, and therefore of minimal interest.


Kryten said:


> During the Battle of Britain 109's shot down more Spits than they lost, .


I'm not sure how they managed that (unless the Luftwaffe's mathematicians helped,) since 502 109s were shot down during the Battle, against 276 Spitfires and 406 Hurricanes. 
It was Goebbels who said that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes a truth, and this seems to be a typical example.
We now come to this claim that the A.F.D.U. falsified reports (though no evidence is ever forthcoming,) and the obvious question is why? If they talked up German aircrafts' abilities, it would make RAF pilots fearful of meeting them, and, if they talked them down, they would go into combat with a false sense of superiority.
For the A.F.D.U. to have behaved in that way, the whole unit would have been utterly corrupt, since each aircraft was flown by several pilots, and the resultant tests compared. There was also the small matter of being accused (when found out, as they would have been) of falsifying reports, which, at the very least, means imprisonment, or, if the accusation was sabotage of the war effort, an early morning meeting with a hangman's noose.
Goebbels at it again, it would seem.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 4, 2015)

Time ago in this forum were writed that 109 losses to Spitfire were 180 and Spitfire losses to 109 were 219


----------



## pbehn (Sep 4, 2015)

How does anyone ascribe losses to a particular aircraft in the BoB? Total losses may be known for each type but there were also Bf110s taking some RAF planes and return fire from bombers. I am sure a good few friendly fire incidents too.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 4, 2015)

I think its the maths based on claims, cleaned up a bit by postwar research. Edgars approach is better, because its based on own loss admissions, though the FC losses seem a bit light on at first glance. Maybe Edgar is trying to allow for losses to bombers and other types.


----------



## GregP (Sep 4, 2015)

When I look up the Battle of Britain, I find a LOT of writing, but almost no summary of losses by type except for a few day or weeks. I can find absoutely NO lists that show losses by type of victor (that is Bf 109 losses to, say ..., Spitfires),

But I DID read Edgar's post in another thread and he recommended two books. I bought one of them and it is now here. So ... when I get the time to DO it, it might be possible to generate a list of victories by those pilots who later went on to become aces and scored at least 5 victories ... but the book is 3 inches thick, so, it won't be anytime soon ... that much is for sure. Meanwhile, I can't argue the question of BOB numbers either way.


----------



## thedab (Sep 4, 2015)

what I got for 109 pilot's made POW from July to October 1940 is 264,and for killed is 197, I don't know if that's any help

also what I got for Spitfire pilot's killed is 148 Hurricane pilot's killed is 214

and for Bf110 crew is 229 POW and killed is 184


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Sep 5, 2015)

GregP said:


> When I look up the Battle of Britain, I find a LOT of writing, but almost no summary of losses by type except for a few day or weeks. I can find absoutely NO lists that show losses by type of victor (that is Bf 109 losses to, say ..., Spitfires),.


Try "How the Spitfire Won the Battle of Britain," by Dilip Sarkar, who also refers to research, published in 1996, by John Alcorn; one thing they are at pains to point out is that, with the available information (which is unlikely to change,) it is utterly impossible to state, with total accuracy, which aircraft shot down which. The book shows comprehensive monthly figures, from mid-July to the end of October, including claims, which make entertaining reading.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Sep 5, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Try "How the Spitfire Won the Battle of Britain," by Dilip Sarkar, who also refers to research, published in 1996, by John Alcorn; one thing they are at pains to point out is that, with the available information (which is unlikely to change,) it is utterly impossible to state, with total accuracy, which aircraft shot down which. The book shows comprehensive monthly figures, from mid-July to the end of October, including claims, which make entertaining reading.



Frome the title ,this dook appears very objactive and *NOT AT ALL *biased


----------



## GregP (Sep 5, 2015)

Thanks again, Edgar. I appreciate it a lot.

The thing is, when the war was going on, why the basic infornmation was not recorded escapes me. They HAD the people assigned and debriefed every flight, or almost every flight, at least in the USAAF. Why they didn't record the victor and vivtom as standa rd information is perplexing.

Say YOU were paying for Spitfires and Hurricanes ... wouldn't YOU want to know which one was shooting down more per sortie? Or how many of what>

It makes me steamning angry that basic data are in dispute ... but I can't change it, so it is what it is.


----------



## stona (Sep 5, 2015)

pbehn said:


> there were also Bf110s taking some RAF planes



And they would have a very poor balance sheet. Well over 200 (223 is a generally accepted figure) of those Bf 110s were lost, mostly shot down by Spitfires or Hurricanes. That's 90% of the strength they started the campaign with. 

On 15th August alone 30 were lost (7 from Epro.Gr.210, 22 from ZG 76 which effectively destroyed the Gruppe as an operational unit in a single afternoon. The other loss was 1 from ZG 2).

I have seen it argued that the Bf 110 was a success in the BoB, but I very much doubt that the men of the zerstorer units who suffered such heavy casualties would agree.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Sep 5, 2015)

GregP said:


> The thing is, when the war was going on, why the basic infornmation was not recorded escapes me.



I'm sure it was all recorded.

Thing is with a lot of these encounters, for example:

- a squadron of Spitfires and a squadron of Hurricanes are in the same scrap with 200+ LW planes
- each squadron claims 6 destroyed and 3 probables
- detailed post-war research shows 5 LW planes were lost

What now?

Without a time machine and secretly installing GoPros on everyone's plane ... we're out of luck. The fights in the Battle of Britain were just too chaotic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Sep 5, 2015)

It also bears considering how often a pilot was taken by complete surprise, baled out, or struggled back to an airfield, without ever seeing the attacker who downed him.


----------



## stona (Sep 5, 2015)

The biggest cause of over claiming was several attackers engaging the same aircraft and then all claiming it. I can think of one occasion when the same Luftwaffe aircraft was claimed by no less than 9 RAF pilots and many examples when they were claimed by 2 or 3. It was such a frequent occurrence that I'd describe it as normal. It's not difficult to see how 183 claims can be confirmed for 56 losses as on September 15th when more than 250 RAF fighters had engaged the Luftwaffe in a period of less than two hours. I think to describe the situation in the air for individual pilots as confusing would be an understatement. Over claiming at a ratio of 3 or 4 to 1 was about par for most air forces at this time. 183 for 56 is actually not that bad! 

What is less difficult to explain is the lame excuse advanced for the lack of crashed aircraft found, that the vast majority must have gone down in the sea. That amounts to optimism at the very least.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 5, 2015)

the source for 180 to 219 would be this
Spitfire Special: E. R. Hooton, Michael Roffe: 9780711002937: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## pbehn (Sep 5, 2015)

stona said:


> And they would have a very poor balance sheet. Well over 200 (223 is a generally accepted figure) of those Bf 110s were lost, mostly shot down by Spitfires or Hurricanes. That's 90% of the strength they started the campaign with.
> 
> On 15th August alone 30 were lost (7 from Epro.Gr.210, 22 from ZG 76 which effectively destroyed the Gruppe as an operational unit in a single afternoon. The other loss was 1 from ZG 2).
> 
> ...



I agree, but even losing at 10:1 it gives 20 kills to the 109.


----------



## stona (Sep 5, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I agree, but even losing at 10:1 it gives 20 kills to the 109.



I know you meant Bf 110. I'd have to look to find how many RAF Spitfire or Hurricane losses went to the Bf 110 and I really don't have the will or the time at the moment  A quick look at the RAF's losses and the causes given by it (which for obvious reasons don't always give the enemy type involved) would indicate that far more fighters were lost to return fire from various bombers than to Bf 110s.

Return fire from bombers is a surprisingly frequent cause of RAF fighter losses and should be factored in to the overall losses. By no means all RAF fighters were shot down by Luftwaffe fighters.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Sep 5, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I agree, but even losing at 10:1 it gives 20 kills to the 109.



I know you meant Bf 110. I'd have to look to find how many RAF Spitfire or Hurricane losses went to the Bf 110 and I really don't have the will or the time at the moment  A quick look at the RAF's losses and the causes given by it (which for obvious reasons don't always give the enemy type involved) would indicate that far more fighters were lost to return fire from various bombers than to Bf 110s.

Return fire from bombers is a surprisingly frequent cause of RAF fighter losses and should be factored in to the overall losses. By no means all RAF fighters were shot down by Luftwaffe fighters.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Juha (Sep 5, 2015)

dedalos said:


> Frome the title ,this dook appears very objactive and *NOT AT ALL *biased



I'd not mind too much the title, many times the publisher gives a more "selling" title than the author would have liked. I'm more concer on Sarkar's source, Alcorn used out of date sources and his method was for significant part "dice casting". After heavy criticism Alcorn rerun his research using more up to date sources and got somewhat different results. The new results were published in Aeroplane July 2000.


----------



## Juha (Sep 5, 2015)

Vincenzo said:


> the source for 180 to 219 would be this
> Spitfire Special: E. R. Hooton, Michael Roffe: 9780711002937: Amazon.com: Books



Thanks for digging out the source, but a little dated, I'd say.

A bit more recent one, not giving the answer but gives some figures. Because of the overclaim and misidentifications IMHO it's impossible to achieve surely the right result on 109 vs Spit combat results during the BoB:

_Hurricanes, overall 499 damaged and 597 destroyed, when hit by fighters 140 damaged and 238 destroyed, when hit by bombers 70 damaged and 36 destroyed, when hit by enemy aircraft 93 damaged and 132 destroyed. in addition to the above Bf110s hit 71 Hurricanes, shooting down 36 of them. 

Spitfires, overall 413 damaged and 379 destroyed, when hit by fighters 161 damaged and 192 destroyed, when hit by bombers 67 damaged and 34 destroyed, when hit by enemy aircraft 69 damaged and 52 destroyed. in addition to the above Bf110s hit 26 Spitfires, shooting down 8 of them.

Bf109s, overall 241 damaged and 665 destroyed, when hit by fighters 52 damaged and 448 destroyed, which firstly shows up the disadvantage of flying over enemy controlled territory ... Enemy action accounted for another 20 damaged and 40 destroyed Bf109s.

Bf110s, overall 92 damaged and 275 destroyed, when hit by fighters 48 damaged and 185 destroyed, the stronger airframe and second engine clearly playing a part in the better survival ratio versus the Bf109. Enemy action accounted for another 14 damaged and 15 destroyed Bf110s.
Luftwaffe bombers seem to have shot down a minimum of 97 Spitfires and Hurricanes

BoBT[hen]a[nd]N[ow] seems to be the more accurate, I use the Mason figures for 1 to 9 July only. Other publications like Spitfire by Morgan and Shacklady have published individual histories for each aircraft built, which can be used as a check. Unfortunately the Hawker Hurricane, again by Mason, does not have a history for every Hurricane, the histories are very brief and there appears to be a high error rate. Even BoBTaN has 3 Spitfire losses which have defied all attempts to find their serial numbers, being carried as unknown. So they could be double counted, or possibly actually only damaged._


Geoffrey Sinclair https://groups.google.com/forum/?fr...ory.war.world-war-ii/ldstisRH7XE/R1nAgZ9C1O8J


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 5, 2015)

Thank you for the link
there is something of strange


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 5, 2015)

GregP said:


> Thanks again, Edgar. I appreciate it a lot.
> 
> The thing is, when the war was going on, why the basic infornmation was not recorded escapes me. They HAD the people assigned and debriefed every flight, or almost every flight, at least in the USAAF. Why they didn't record the victor and vivtom as standa rd information is perplexing.
> 
> ...



Britain was pretty chaotic between June and September and some details would have been written down but possibly got lost in the rush to do things. Also the Air Ministry, the War Office and the Admiralty were rolled into the Ministry Of Defence in 1964 and a lot of records went to landfill.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Sep 6, 2015)

fastmongrel said:


> a lot of records went to landfill.


Destruction of government records is not permitted; at the end of a file's, or department's, life the records are parcelled up and sent to the National Archive (formerly Public Records Office,) where they remain hidden from view for a minimum of 25-30 years. Files from 1964 would not have been seen until 1994 (at least.) 
Sensitive files can have a closure time of 50, 75, 100, even 150 years, and that is entirely up to the NA's committee; new information is surfacing all the time, which is why it's rather dangerous to rely on material from the 60s/70s, since the relevant files may not yet have been made available.
There is then the problem of files being handled by civil servants, with little, or no, knowledge of aircraft, and I've lost count of the mis-named files I've found; a few weeks ago I pulled out a file on "fuselage construction," only to find it was the A.P. for the Whitley, with the first few pages missing.


----------



## Juha (Sep 6, 2015)

Vincenzo said:


> Thank you for the link
> there is something of strange



It's not perfect, especially on Bf 110 there is a problem, Zerstörern losses were 209, or 239 if we include those lost by Erpr.Gr. 210, which were mostly used as fighter-bombers. IMHO those recon 110s lost should not be include in a fighter comparation.


----------



## Kryten (Sep 6, 2015)

Juha said:


> It's not perfect, especially on Bf 110 there is a problem, Zerstörern losses were 209, or 239 if we include those lost by Erpr.Gr. 210, which were mostly used as fighter-bombers. IMHO those recon 110s lost should not be include in a fighter comparation.



Suffice to say though , regardless of the last few per cent it clearly indicated the Bf110 to be out of it's depth in this kind of campaign?


----------



## Juha (Sep 6, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Destruction of government records is not permitted; at the end of a file's, or department's, life the records are parcelled up and sent to the National Archive (formerly Public Records Office,) where they remain hidden from view for a minimum of 25-30 years. Files from 1964 would not have been seen until 1994 (at least.)...



So it should be but in real life it's sometimes different. I know that substantial part of the WWII docus were lost when the HQ of the FiAF moved from Munkkiniemi.

And I have heard a rumor that many WWII RN destroyer logbooks, or DD Flotilla war diaries, I cannot recall which ones, were destroyed in error after the war. Is that true I don't know.


----------



## stona (Sep 6, 2015)

The Bf 110s operated by Epro.Gr. 210 were either fighter bombers or C-6s. I would count both in the fighter losses column, just as I'd count an allied P-47 or Typhoon later.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 6, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Destruction of government records is not permitted; at the end of a file's, or department's, life the records are parcelled up and sent to the National Archive (formerly Public Records Office,) where they remain hidden from view for a minimum of 25-30 years. Files from 1964 would not have been seen until 1994 (at least.)
> Sensitive files can have a closure time of 50, 75, 100, even 150 years, and that is entirely up to the NA's committee; new information is surfacing all the time, which is why it's rather dangerous to rely on material from the 60s/70s, since the relevant files may not yet have been made available.
> There is then the problem of files being handled by civil servants, with little, or no, knowledge of aircraft, and I've lost count of the mis-named files I've found; a few weeks ago I pulled out a file on "fuselage construction," only to find it was the A.P. for the Whitley, with the first few pages missing.



I can only pass on what I was told by an ex civil servant in 2007 when trying to find the records of a relative who won the Air Force Cross and is buried in Salerno Commonwealth war grave cemetery. I was told that in 1963 lorry loads of Air Ministry paperwork went into the foundations of the Hanger Lane Gyratory system on the London North Circular road. I doubt anyone deliberately destroyed paperwork that had a national interest but if every piece of paper produced by Civil Servants and Local Govt was kept a repository the size of the Isle of Wight would be required. Sometimes the Baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.

We never did find out why my Mothers Cousin won the AFC nor how he came to die in 1943 his records dont exist or rather they dont exist where they should exist.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 7, 2015)

Is there reliable figures of own losses for each side? How many spits were lost, how many 109s etc, as reported by each side. forget claims for the moment, try and work from each side own loss records. but even this has its weaknesses 

I think to arrive at reliable overall loss figures is more difficult than it looks. Many aircraft came back absolutely shot to pieces, but werent listed as a loss for some time. I think to get best possible figures is to look at own losses as recorded by their respective owners, and then add in all the aircraft listed as greater than 50% damage, or sent back to the factory for a rebuild. You should get at least a reasonable figure on each sides overall losses.

As to which type did what shooting, thats a whole level higher in degree of difficulty.


----------



## Gixxerman (Sep 8, 2015)

Just to add to the comments about the UK Gov 30yr information restrictions, as I understand it there are also 50yr, 75yr 100yr 'rules' too.


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 8, 2015)

Hi Spacefire,
To answer one of your original questions, the only information I have on the Spitfire F.R. XIVE is from William Green's Fighters Vol. 2 by Doubleday:
Engine: R/R Griffon 65: 2,050 hp.
Combat Weight: 8,500 lbs.
Armament: 2 x 20mm/120 rpg. + 2 x 0.5 in./250 rpg.
Maximum Speed: 448 mph./26,000 ft. 417 mph./12,000 ft.
Maximum Cruise Speed: 362 mph./20,000 ft.
Range Clean: 460 mls. @ 245 mph.
Range Max.: 850 mls.
Climb: 20,000 ft./7.0 minutes.
Service Ceiling: 44,500 ft.

I know that is information from a coffee table type book but it is all I have sir.

I have several posts on another site that are still very much in progress and no where near completed as GregP pointed out earlier. But maybe they can help give you some information in the direction you are looking for.
http://www.warbirdsforum.com/topic/6085-bf-109K-performance/
http://www.warbirdsforum.com/topic/6010-spifire-mk-xiv-comparo-k4questions-43801.html

Good luck sir and may God bless, Jeff


----------



## Glider (Sep 9, 2015)

There are two aspects of this comparison and that is the handling and the weight involved in delivering the extra power to the aircraft. The Me109 may well have the speed but it relied on a different tank of fuel that for most of the flight was just extra weight. What would be interesting is what is the climb and acceleration with max power but without the extra boost. I would expect the Spit to have a better performance without the boost
While both only have a limited time of extra power the Spits didn't involve the extra tank and plumbing. Also of course if in a tight corner the Spit could ignore the time limit and buy the ground crew a few rounds in the bar as an apology.

The second aspect is the handling. Both fighters get heavier on the controls with speed but the 109 was very bad at speed and this alone is a major problem

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (Sep 10, 2015)

Hello Glider
a valid guestion because methanol production in Germany dropped dramatically in 1945 after it was dropped under 50% of planned in 1944. In 1945 the monthly production was only 10% of the planned one.
So without MW50 DB 605DB could still produce its max power 1850ps/1,825 hp with 1.8 ata boost and 2,800 rpm if C3 fuel is available. If B4 was used without MW50 the max power was 1,430ps/1,410 hp at 1.45 ata and 2,600 rpm.
Without MW50 DB 605DC produce max 1850ps/1,825 hp with 1,8 ata boost and 2,800 rpm with C3 which was its planned fuel.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 10, 2015)

Juha said:


> So it should be but in real life it's sometimes different. I know that substantial part of the WWII docus were lost when the HQ of the FiAF moved from Munkkiniemi.
> 
> And I have heard a rumor that many WWII RN destroyer logbooks, or DD Flotilla war diaries, I cannot recall which ones, were destroyed in error after the war. Is that true I don't know.



IIRC, there was severe flooding at an archive location where many destroyer and other Admiralty records were being held and most were lost. I've also read that many admiralty records regarding gunnery trials etc, were destroyed because, IIRC, they were no longer relevant to current operations.


----------



## Glider (Sep 10, 2015)

Juha said:


> Hello Glider
> a valid guestion because methanol production in Germany dropped dramatically in 1945 after it was dropped under 50% of planned in 1944. In 1945 the monthly production was only 10% of the planned one.
> So without MW50 DB 605DB could still produce its max power 1850ps/1,825 hp with 1.8 ata boost and 2,800 rpm if C3 fuel is available. If B4 was used without MW50 the max power was 1,430ps/1,410 hp at 1.45 ata and 2,600 rpm.
> Without MW50 DB 605DC produce max 1850ps/1,825 hp with 1,8 ata boost and 2,800 rpm with C3 which was its planned fuel.



I certainly could be wrong but IIRC C3 fuel was used by the 190 units and B4 by the 109 units. Clearly there would be some overlap but the 109 units were at a clear disadvantage a lot of the time. Its a bit like the Ki84. Give it the fuel used by the USAAF and it was second to none, give it the fuel it actually had to use and things started to slip


----------



## Milosh (Sep 10, 2015)

Glider said:


> I certainly could be wrong but IIRC C3 fuel was used by the 190 units and B4 by the 109 units. Clearly there would be some overlap but the 109 units were at a clear disadvantage a lot of the time. Its a bit like the Ki84. Give it the fuel used by the USAAF and it was second to none, give it the fuel it actually had to use and things started to slip



Generally but there was some 109s that used C3 fuel even during the BoB.


----------



## Juha (Sep 10, 2015)

RCAFson said:


> IIRC, there was severe flooding at an archive location where many destroyer and other Admiralty records were being held and most were lost. I've also read that many admiralty records regarding gunnery trials etc, were destroyed because, IIRC, they were no longer relevant to current operations.



Hello RCAFson, thanks for the clarification!

Juha


----------



## Juha (Sep 10, 2015)

Glider said:


> I certainly could be wrong but IIRC C3 fuel was used by the 190 units and B4 by the 109 units. Clearly there would be some overlap but the 109 units were at a clear disadvantage a lot of the time. Its a bit like the Ki84. Give it the fuel used by the USAAF and it was second to none, give it the fuel it actually had to use and things started to slip



C3 was the only option for 190A and F but late in the war there was more C3 available and that was the reason behind DB605DC, Germans calculated that there was enough C3 for ay least some 109 units, too.


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 12, 2015)

Gents let me know your thoughts.

If a Spit XIV were to meet a Me-109K both with full loads, the Spit would have a slight (depending on your definition) advantage. My assumption is the fuel used was the predominate (most prolific), pilots are of equal skill, and time aloft prior to engagement are the same. Hence the Spit having a performance advantage (airframe to airframe regardless of pilot skill). 

If the same Spit were to meet the same 109K (henceforth called "K") with the K closer to empty fuel than full, and the Spit the exact opposite, then the K would be of equal or better performance. The caveat to this is the K pilot won't be able to stay in a protracted fight due to needing enough fuel to RTB.

Using the opposite of the above situation, Spit nearer to empty and K full, then the Spit would have a larger performance advantage, however would need to close the deal quickly in order to have fuel for RTB and or a separation AND RTB.

If the above is true, the Spit has a slight to larger advantage in 2 out of 3 situations.

Given the same situations with a Mustang vice the K, the results would be a little different. 

Both heavy, advantage K. Not a realistic scenario given the distance Mustangs flew, so I'm just saying.

Mustang light, K heavy, advantage Mustang. More likely than the previous.

Mustang light, K light, "close" to equal. 

Results: a push for the purpose of this conversation so far. 

My question is: Would the most likely, IE "realistic" engagements between a Spit and a K occur with the Spit in the bottom half of it's fuel load, giving it a larger performance advantage? Also would that be the same for the Mustang, which would vary from about slight negative to positive performance advantage?

My goal here is to establish what "most likely" occurred or would have occurred.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Glider (Sep 12, 2015)

Almost whatever the situation I would expect the XIVe to have the advantage as the 109K was very heavy on the controls at high speed, most tests of the 109G that I have seen use phrases such as almost solid, very heavy. The reason for the K was to get to the higher speeds which is where it was at its weakest.
The problem for the K is that the Spit was always the more agile even at slower speeds and was better in the climb. The only real advantage to the K was its dive which may help escape trouble but you had better find a cloud because when you reach the ground the K is back to square one again. 

Its also interesting to take into account that the equivalent in development terms to the 109K is probably the Spit 21 which had a number of improvements which would have a significant advantage in performance and handling.


----------



## Mike Williams (Sep 12, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> My question is: Would the most likely, IE "realistic" engagements between a Spit and a K occur with the Spit in the bottom half of it's fuel load, giving it a larger performance advantage? [...]
> My goal here is to establish what "most likely" occurred or would have occurred.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



Two examples come to mind. In the first case Spitfire XIVs of 130 and 350 Squadrons were patrolling over German fighter airfields when they were directed to the ME.109Ks of IV./JG 27 that were screening Me 262s taking off from Rheine airfield. 

W/Cdr. George Keefer flying with 130 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 2 March, 1945: 

I was flying with 130 Squadron and was leading them and 350 Squadron on a fighter sweep to Rheine, there being fourteen aircraft altogether. As we neared Enchede at 0755 Control warned us of enemy aircraft at Rheine. We turned towards Rheine immediately and when just north east of Rheine I saw a glint below me. At first I could not see whether there were e/a there so I left 350 on top and led 130 down. As we went down I saw about 15 109's flying s/w. 
I picked one out and the e/a dived away. I closed and got in behind him and gave him a burst with all my guns and I saw strikes on his hood. The e/a flicked over on his back, went down through the cloud and I saw a parachute come out. 
I fired at the e/a from dead astern and I gave him a fairly long burst. I claim this 109 destroyed. 80 


P/O Louis Lambrechts of 350 (Belgian) Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 2 March, 1945: 

I was Blue 3 of 350 Squadron and we were being led by W/Cdr Keefer on a fighter sweep to Rheine. Huns were reported by control when we were near Enschede, and the Wing turned towards Rheine. The W/Cdr who was with 130 Squadron led 130 down and 350 were told to stay above. As 130 went down a dog fight started below at about 12,000 feet so I went down with F/Sgt Pauwels who was Blue 4. I picked out a Me 109 which was turning very steeply. After about two or three turns I got in behind the e/a and the e/a then dived to the deck. I followed and the e/a then pulled up again in a steep turning climb. I followed him and when at about 2,000 feet I managed to get in to about 150 yards behind the e/a. I opened fire with all guns at a 10 degree angle off. I saw strikes all over the engine and the cockpit and the e/a immediately dived away out of control. I followed and the e/a crashed to the ground. 
I claim the Me 109 destroyed. 82 

F/Lt Hoornaert of 350 (Belgian) Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 2 March, 1945: 

My Squadron was operating with 130 Squadron on a fighter sweep to the Enschede-Rheine area, and the W/Cdr was flying with 130 Squadron. 350 had seven aircraft airbourne and I was Blue 1. Just N/E of Rheine 130 went down on about fifteen e/a which were flying at about 11,000 to 12,000 feet and these Huns were flying S/W. I joined in the dogfight and there were aircraft turning everywhere. I started to turn in the middle of them. I found that there was a Me 109 trying to get on my tail and there began a game of hide and seek in and out of the clouds. Finally I stayed underneath the clouds and I saw the e/a quite a long way away so I opened up to full throttle and went after him. I caught him up and closed in behind to between 50 and 100 yards and I gave him everything I had. There was a big explosion and my wind screen became covered with oil and muck from the explosion. The e/a pulled up and I went underneath him. The e/a after pulling up dived down out of control and I saw it crash into a wood. 
I claim this enemy aircraft destroyed. 83 

F/Sgt Jacques Groensteen of 350 (Belgian) Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 2 March, 1945: 

I was flying Blue 2 to F.Lt Hoornhaert, and the squadron was operating with 130 Squadron led by W/Cdr Keefer on a fighter sweep. We were N/E of Rheine and we were giving cover to 130 who had gone down to attack. When at about 10,000 feet I saw a gaggle of e/a at about seven or eight thousand feet. I followed my No. 1 down and I picked out a Me 109 which was flying at an angle of about 90 degrees to me. I turned and got on to his tail and the e/a began to turn. I kept on to his tail and I opened fire from 400 yards closing to about 100 yards. I was dead astern and I fired with cannon and machine guns. I had closed to what I estimate about 50 yards when the pilot of the e/a jettisoned his hood, turned the aircraft on its back and baled out. 
I claim the Me 109 destroyed. 84 

Lt. Horst Nitschke Bf 109 K-4 334 134 Gefr. Alfred Pölz Bf 109 K-4 332 860, both killed, 14./JG 27. Lt. Manfred Stechbarth Bf 109 K-4 333 945 13./JG 27; Gefr. Robert Bf 109 K-4 334 154 15./JG 27, both wounded. IV/JG 27 lost 6 aircraft destroyed, III/JG 27 lost another 4, all in the Rheine/Achmer area on 2 March.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Sep 12, 2015)

In this instance Me 109Ks had just taken off (presumably with full fuel if it were available) when they were set upon by Spitfires XIVs of 130 Squadron. Note that one of the Spitfire pilot's recorded that he dropped his external fuel tanks prior to engaging, so presumably entered combat with full internal fuel:

F/O G. Lord of 130 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 19 March 1945: 

I was Blue 1 and was with the Squadron on a sweep to the Rheine-Osnabruck area. When Huns were reported at about 0930 I dropped my tank and went down and saw a number of e/a circling the aerdrome at Rheine at about 1,000 ft. I went in behind one ME 109 and closed very fast. The e/a took no evasive action and I opened fire with all guns from dead astern from about 200 yards closing to 50 yards. I saw strikes behind the cockpit. I overshot this e/a and I saw him crash land on the aerodrome. I claim this e/a damaged. 
After this I pulled round and saw another 109 but as I closed in I overshot him. The e/a was trying to turn so I pulled round on to him a second time and got behind him. The e/a was trying to do a tight turn. I turned inside him and fired from 200 yards. I saw strikes behind the cockpit and the machine blew up in the air. The pilot was able to bale out and I saw the parachute go down and finish up in a tree about a quarter mile to the east of the aerodrome. 
I claim this E/A destroyed. 
W/Cdr Keefer reports that after his combat he saw a parachute going down over the east end of the aerodrome. 89 

F/Sgt G. Hudson of 130 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 19 March, 1945: 

I was flying Red 3 with my Squadron sweeping to Rheine-Osnabruck-Munster. We were at 12,000 ft when Red 2 (W/O Edwards) reported e/a orbitting the aerodrome at Rheine. I saw the e/a about 10,000 ft below and went down with my No 2 (W/O Miller.) We were the first in and we went for six 109's which were orbitting the aerodrome. I picked out one e/a and attacked from almost dead astern; opening fire from about 200 yards. I saw strikes on the jet tank and on the underside of the fuselage. There was a terrific burst of flame and the e/a went straight into the aerodrome and crashed. I claim this e/a destroyed. 
A general melee ensued and I fired at several more e/a as they came into my sights but I did not hit them. Eventually I got on to one and I fired at him from about 30 degrees off decreasing to 15 degrees at a range of 300 yards. I saw strikes on the fuselage. Almost immediately I was hit by flak which had been intense and I had to break away. I saw no more of the second e/a which I claim as damaged. 
F/Sgt Hudson adds that during the combat he had time to see an enemy aircraft land wheels down on Rheine, but as it landed it pulled up over three others which were parked on the 'drome and it hit two of them as it passed over. 90 

W/Cdr George Keefer of 125 Wing and leading 130 Squadron this day recorded in his Combat Report for 19 March, 1945: 

I was leading 130 (Punjab) Squadron on a sweep in the Rheine-Osnabruck area and at about 0930 when we were at 12,000 ft between the aerodromes at Rheine and Hopsten e/a were reported below. I led the Squadron down and a dog fight began at deck level near Rheine aerodrome from which there was intense light flak. I found two ME 109's going round in a turn. Eventually one straightened out and flew due east. I gave him a quick squirt from dead astern and saw strikes on the starboard wing. Closing in further I fired again and this time there were strikes on the top of the cockpit and I saw that the hood was dragging. The e/a slowed, pulled up and he stalled in from about 20 feet. I saw the e/a crash into a field. I claim this enemy aircraft destroyed. 
W/O Miller who was Red 4 adds that he saw the W/Cdr attacking this machine and that as he passed over it he saw the tail assembly was badly damaged. Glycol was also pouring from the e/a. 91 

Lt. Helmut Beckmann of 3./JG 27 described the combat with 130 Squadron on 19 March 1945: 

In den letzten Tagen war es schon sehr schwer, überhaupt dem Platz herauszukommen, da der Tommy vom frühen Morgen bis zum Abend fast ununterbrochen unsere Plätze ausserhalb der Flakzone umflog, um uns möglichst gleich nach dem Start zu erwischen. Um diesem Übel abzuhelfen, sollten wir auf einen Platz bei Lippstadt verlegen. Heute war es nun ruhig geblieben, da angeblich auf den Feindflugplätzen qbi wegen nebels herrschte. So rollte ich mit meiner 3 Staffel zur befohlenen Zeit, etwa gegen 10.00 Uhr, an den Start, nachdem mir vom Gefechtsstand versichert wurde, dass unser Gebiet feindfrei sei. Nun weiss ich nur noch, dass ich Gas gegeben habe, einmal nach rechts rausschaute um festzustellen, ob alle acht Maschinen mitkamen, und dann riss der Film. 
Als ich nach 36 Stunden im nahen Krankenhaus Neuenkirchen aufwachte, glaubte ich zunächst, ich sei in einen der frisch zugeschütteten Bombentrichter geraten und hätte mich überschlagen. Wie erstaunt aber war ich, als ich mir am nächsten Tage von meinem mich besuchenden Staffeloffizier z.b.V. erzählen lassen musste, was alles passiert war: 

Wir waren also mitten im Start, als ganz unangemeldet eine Staffel Spitfires über den Platz raste und genau hinter uns sass. Bis auf die letzte Maschine, Uff Horst, der noch beim Rollen war und in Tiefstflug entkommen konnte, sind wir alle in kurzer Zeit abgeschossen worden, da wir ja wegen zu geringer Fahrt noch gar nicht handlungsfähig waren. Mein Katschmarek Oblt. Roth ist brennend abgestürzt und war sofort tot. Alle übrigen sind mit Knochenbrüchen und Verstauchungen, teilweise nach Fallschirmabsprüngen, noch glimpflich davongekommen. Mich hat man im flachen Winkel in einen gegenüber dem Platz liegenden Wald fallen sehen, wobei es so krachte, dass man annahm, es sei "kein Auge trocken geblieben". In der Nähe meiner Absturzstelle arbeitende Häftlinge haben mich dann zuerst gefunden und, bevor die Wachmannschaften heranwaren, gründlich gefilzt. Von einem, der die Absturzstelle später gesehen hat, erfuhr ich, dass meine Machine zwischen zwei Bäumen hindurch raste, an denen die Flächen hängen blieben, dann mit dem Motor durch den Stamm eines mittleren Baumes schlug, wobei er ausgerissen wurde, und mit dem Schwanzende des verbleibenden Rumpfes so auf den Boden aufprallte, dass dieser hinter dem Tank noch einmal durchbrach. An dem Mittelstück mit dem Tank hing ich dann, zum Glück fest angeschnallt, mit dem Kopf nach unten im weichen Moss, während mir dass Benzin des geplatzten Tanks den Rücken herunterlief, was durch das Ätzen Verbrennungen 2 Grades auf dem ganzen Rücken zur Folge hatte. Ausserdem hatte ich eine starke Prellung an der Innenseite des rechten Unterschenkels, wahrscheinlich durch das Herausbrechen der zwischen den Beinen liegenden Kanone hervorgerufen. Der Arzt, der mich untersuchte – ich soll mich dabei so gewehrt haben, daß mich vier Mann halten mußten, - sagte mir, dass aus meinem linken Auge einem stecknadelkopfgrossen Splitter enfernt habe. Ob das die Ursache meiner Bewusstlosigkeit war, ist mir allerdings nicht klar geworden. Als wir am folgenden Tage wegen Fliegeralarm in den Keller mussten, hörte ich, wie hinter mir jemand, auf mich deutend, zu seinem Nachbarn sagte: "Das ist der, der immer geschrien hat: Lasst mich doch los, ich bin ja längst tot." 92 

Me 109's (most likley 109K) from 3./JG 27. 130 Squadron claimed 3 destroyed and 7 damaged in this raid on Rheine Airdrome. 3./JG 27 admitted 3 Me 109s destroyed, Oblt. Walter Harsh killed; Fw. Hermann Wilke and Lt. Helmet Beckman wounded. Ring Girbig wrote that, with 1 exception, the entire staffel was shot down.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Sep 12, 2015)

Can I ask if anyone has a translation of the last part as its not oftgen you get the German view


----------



## pbehn (Sep 12, 2015)

Glider said:


> Can I ask if anyone has a translation of the last part as its not oftgen you get the German view



My version auto translates but it comes out as a block of text.
Post 243
In this instance Me 109Ks had just taken off (presumably with full fuel if it were available) When theywere set upon by Spitfires of 130 Squadron XIVs. Note That One of the Spitfire pilot's recorded deed he dropped his external fuel tanks prior to engaging, so presumably Entered combat with full internal fuel: F / O G. Lord of 130 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 19 March 1945: I was Blue 1 and what with the Squadron on a sweep to the Rheine-Osnabruck area. When Huns were reported at about 0930 I dropped my tank and went down and saw a number of I / O circling the aerdrome at Rheine at about 1,000 ft. I went in behind one ME 109 and closed very fast. The I / O Took no evasive action and opened fire with all guns I from dead astern from about 200 yards to 50 yards closing. I saw strikes behind the cockpit. I overshot this I / O and I saw him crash land on the aerodrome. I claim this I / O damaged. After this I pulled round and saw another 109 but as I closed in I overshot him. The I / O that trying to turn so I pulled round on to him a second time and got behind him. The I / O that trying to do a tight turn. I turned inside him and fired from 200 yards. I saw strikes behind the cockpit and the Machine blew up in the air. The pilot what able to bale out and I saw the parachute go down and finish up in a tree about a quarter mile to the east of the aerodrome. I claim this I / O destroyed. W / Cdr Keefer reports did after his combat he saw A parachute going down over the east end of the aerodrome. 89 F / Sgt G. Hudson of Squadron 130 recorded in his Combat Report for 19 March, 1945: I was flying with my 3 Red Squadron sweeping to Rheine-Osnabruck-Munster. We were at 12,000 ft When Red 2 (W / O Edwards) reported I / O Orbitting the aerodrome at Rheine. I saw the I / O about 10,000 ft below and went down with my No 2 (W / O Miller.) We were the first in and we went for six 109's Which were Orbitting the aerodrome. I picked out one I / O and attacked from almost dead astern; Opening fire from about 200 yards. I saw strikes on the jet tank and on the underside of the fuselage. There was a terrific burst of flame and the I / O went straight into the aerodrome and crashed. I claim this I / O destroyed. A general melee ensued and I fired at several more I / O as They Came into my sights but I did not hit them. Eventually I got on to one and I fired at him from about 30 degrees off decreasing to 15 degrees at a range of 300 yards. I saw strikes on the fuselage. Almost immediately I was hit by flak Which had been intense and I had to break away. I saw no more of the second I / O Which I claim as damaged. F / Sgt Hudson adds did during the combat he had time to see an enemy aircraft land wheels down on Rheine, but as it landed it pulled up over three others Which were parked on the 'drome and it hit two of them as it passed over. 90 W / Cdr George Keefer of 125 Wing and leading 130 Squadron this day recorded in his Combat Report for 19 March, 1945: I was leading 130 (Punjab) Squadron on a sweep in the Rheine-Osnabruck area and at about 0930 When We Were at 12,000 ft Between the aerodromes at Rheine Hopsten and I / O were reported below. I led the Squadron down and a dog fight began at deck level near Rheine aerodrome from Which There Was intense light flak. I found two ME 109's going round in a turn. Eventually one straightened out and flew due east. I gave him a quick squirt from dead astern and saw strikes on the starboard wing. Closing in Further I fired again and this time there were strikes on the top of the cockpit and I saw the hood did what dragging. The I / O slowed, pulled up and he stalled in from about 20 feet. I saw the I / O Crash Into a field. I claim this enemy aircraft destroyed. W / O Miller Who Was Red 4 adds That he saw the W / Cdr attacking this machine and did as he passed over it he saw the tail assembly which badly damaged. Glycol which therefore pouring from the I / O. 91 Lt. Helmut Beckmann of 3. / JG 27 Described the combat with 130 Squadron on 19 March 1945: In the last days it was very difficult to get out at all the place because of Tommy from early morning until evening almost continuously our seats outside the Flakzone flew around to get us straight after the start. To remedy this evil, we should relocate to a place in Lippstadt. Today it was now remained quiet as allegedly prevailed QBI on the enemy airfields because of fog. So I rolled my 3 Season to ordered time about around 10:00 clock, at the start, after I was assured by the command post that our area was free of the enemy. Now I know only that I gave gas, once to the right out looking to determine if all eight machines came along, and then tore the film. When I woke up after 36 hours in the nearby hospital Neuenkirchen, I thought at first that I was in a advised the newly filled-in bomb craters and would have beat me. How surprised but I was when I had to tell me the next day from my myself visiting squadron officer zbV what had happened: So we were right in the start, as quite unannounced a squadron Spitfires raced across the square and just sat behind us. Up to the last machine, Uff Horst, who was still in rollers and was able to escape in low-level flight, we have all been shot down in a short time, since we were not even capable of acting so due to low drive. My Katschmarek Oblt. Roth has crashed burning and died instantly. All others are with broken bones and sprains, partly by parachute jumps, yet got off lightly. Do you see fall into a lying opposite the square forest at a shallow angle, where it crashed so that it was assumed that it was "still not a dry eye". Near my crash site working prisoners have then found me first, and before the guards zoom were thoroughly frisked. From one who has seen the crash site later, I learned that my machine between two trees through racing, where the surfaces got stuck, then to the engine through the trunk of a medium-sized tree struck, said he was torn, and with the tail end the remaining hull slamming down on the ground so that this behind the tank broke through again. At the center piece with the tank I go then, firmly strapped to happiness, with his head down on the soft moss, while me that petrol of the ruptured tanks ran down his back, which had by etching burns 2 degree on the whole back to the episode. Also, I had probably caused a strong bruise on the inside of the right leg by the breaking of lying between the legs cannon. The doctor who examined me - I should have defended myself as doing that four men had to hold me, - told me that out of my left eye a pinhead-sized splinters have miles. Whether that was the cause of my unconsciousness, but I did not become clear. When we had to because of an air raid alarm in the basement the next day, I heard behind me someone, pointing to me, said to his neighbors: "That's the one who always shouted: Let me go, I'm dead already. " 92 Me 109's (most likley 109K) from 3. / JG 27, 130 Squadron destroyed Claimed 3 and 7 damaged in this raid on Rheine Airdrome. 3. / JG 27 Admitted 3 Me 109s destroyed, Oblt Walter Harsh killed. Fw. Hermann Wilke and Lt. Helmet Beckman wounded. Ring Girbig wrote that, with 1 exception, the Entire Season which shot down.


----------



## Mike Williams (Sep 13, 2015)

Glider said:


> Can I ask if anyone has a translation of the last part as its not oftgen you get the German view



Hello Glider, here's my quick take on that passage.

Lt. Helmut Beckmann of 3./JG 27 described the combat with 130 Squadron on 19 March 1945:

During the last days, it was very difficult to ever get out of the airfield because the British flew around our field outside the Flak zone almost continuously from early morning until evening to catch us as soon as possible after take-off. To overcome this curse we needed to relocate to Lippstadt airfield. Today it had remained quiet as there was supposedly qbi on the enemy airfields because of fog. So I rolled with my 3 Squadron around 10:00 clock as ordered, to the take-off, after I was assured by headquarters that our area was free of the enemy. Now I know only that I opened up the throttle, looked out around once to the right to determine whether all eight aircraft came along, and then took-off. When I woke up after 36 hours in the nearby Neuenkirchen hospital, I thought at first that I was caught in a freshly filled-in bomb crater which would have flipped me. How surprised I was the next day when my squadron officer zbV visited me and told me what had happened: We were right in the middle of taking off when, quite unannounced, a squadron of Spitfires sped across the airfield and sat closely behind us. We were all shot down in a short time, because we were so inferior/low except the last aircraft flown by Uff Horst who was still rolling and was able to escape in low-level flight, My wingman Oblt. Roth crashed burning and died instantly. All the others had broken bones and sprains, in some cases by parachute jumps, yet got off lightly. I saw I had fallen and lay in a shallow angle in the woods across from the airfield, where it crashed so that it was assumed that it was "still not a dry eye". Working prisoners found me first near my crash site and before the guards approached I was thoroughly frisked. I learned, from someone who had seen the crash site later, that my aircraft sped between two trees where the wings got stuck, then struck through the trunk of a medium-sized tree where the engine was torn off, and with the tail end the remaining fuselage slamming down on the ground so that this broke through behind the tank. I then hung in the middle section with the tank, fortunately strapped firmly, with my head down on the soft moss, while the petrol from the ruptured tanks ran down my back, which had painful 2 degree burns on the whole back. Also, I had a strong bruise on the inside of the right leg probably caused by the breaking of the cannon lying between the legs. The doctor who examined me - I defended myself such that four men had to hold me, - told me that a pinhead-sized splinter was removed out of my left eye. Whether that was the cause of my unconsciousness was not clear. When we had to move to the basement because of an air raid alarm the next day, I heard behind me someone pointing to me say to his neighbors: "That's the one who shouted: Let me go, I'm long dead.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## silence (Sep 16, 2015)

Holy crap! Sounds like Beckman's plane went down in way you'd only see from George Lucas!


----------



## Koopernic (Sep 18, 2015)

Glider said:


> There are two aspects of this comparison and that is the handling and the weight involved in delivering the extra power to the aircraft. The Me109 may well have the speed but it relied on a different tank of fuel that for most of the flight was just extra weight. What would be interesting is what is the climb and acceleration with max power but without the extra boost. I would expect the Spit to have a better performance without the boost
> While both only have a limited time of extra power the Spits didn't involve the extra tank and plumbing. Also of course if in a tight corner the Spit could ignore the time limit and buy the ground crew a few rounds in the bar as an apology.
> 
> The second aspect is the handling. Both fighters get heavier on the controls with speed but the 109 was very bad at speed and this alone is a major problem





Glider said:


> Almost whatever the situation I would expect the XIVe to have the advantage as the 109K was very heavy on the controls at high speed, most tests of the 109G that I have seen use phrases such as almost solid, very heavy. The reason for the K was to get to the higher speeds which is where it was at its weakest.
> The problem for the K is that the Spit was always the more agile even at slower speeds and was better in the climb. The only real advantage to the K was its dive which may help escape trouble but you had better find a cloud because when you reach the ground the K is back to square one again.
> 
> Its also interesting to take into account that the equivalent in development terms to the 109K is probably the Spit 21 which had a number of improvements which would have a significant advantage in performance and handling.




In terms of fuel the Spitfire VIII and XIV had 95 Imp Gallons in the area between the engine and cockpit with additional leading edge wing tanks that increased internal fuel to 120 Imperial gallons. Only the bottom tank was protected. This is 501.6 Litres of fuel. The Me 109K4 had 400L in a tank behind and underneath the pilot with an additional 86 litres for the MW50 tank. The Me 109K4 with the appropriate engine and fuel setup (DB605DB/DC) could fly a mission on approximately 1.8 ata boost on either B4+MW50 or an all C3 fuel mission by filling of the supplementary tank with C3. In this case the difference between 501.6L and 486L is only 2.9%. I doubt there was any difference in range considering the Griffon was a much heavier engine (both the single stage and duel stage intercooled Griffons were much heavier). The Mk XIV clearly had a very short range and even in the non teardrop versions the use of a tail tank was only for special missions and required permission. It's stability issues were such that its combat mission usefulness can be completely discounted. When the short range of the Me 109 is quoted (360miles for the K4) it should be noted this is a maximum cruise speed of nearly 350-380mph.

The 1.8 ata Me 109K4 seems faster than the Mk XIV at most altitudes below 22,500ft and the XIV developed a consistent superiority only above that altitude, this applies to both the 18psig and 21psig boost Griffons. The Me 109K14 with the two stage supercharger on the DB605L engine unlikely to have suffered any altitude disadvantage and may have superiority as its speed at 1.75ata and with a 4 blade prop was to be 453mph.

In terms of roll rate we have little information. The little data we have is of chart of a Me 109G6 roll rate at 30kg stick force shows its roll rate about equal to the Mk IX with full wing tips when at high speed.

The Me 109 had a high roll rate at low speed. Tests in which the aileron deflection per 50lb stick force of the Spitfire is shown to be greater than the Me 109G can be disregarded as a factoid for comparison purposes as they do not take into account the Spitfires slightly greater wing aero elasticity. These measurements were a case of British engineers attempting to understand a different design by breaking it down into its components.

Furthermore we know the Me 109K4 had a modified wing and this might translate to improved roll rate, it would be wrong to assume that the K4 simply had the same wing as the G6. Some Me 109G6 were made by by licence producer of Me 109's WNF with spring tabs on the ailerons clearly to improve high speed roll rate. Drawings exist of Me 109K4 with spring tables on the ailerons so the intention was there. Given the state of the war one can imagine that it was hard to introduce such a new mechanism.

This would eliminate the supposed higher stick forces though as the Me 109 had a relatively torsionally stiff wing so 'stiff' ailerons doesn't necessarily translate to low roll rate. The Me 109 wing spar was around the 50% of chord mark not 25% or so of the spitfire.

Tabs of various types were used in an number of late war high speed aircraft to reduce control surface loads. They were common on bombers but started to appear on late war Corsairs, Hellcats, Arado 234 and indeed the Spitfire 21 had aileron balance tabs and it was surely not beyond the German industry to introduce these in mass as well.

The Me 109K6, Me 109K14 all would have received Mk108 canon integrated into the wings rather than fitted in gondolas underneath. Hence with 3 x Mk 108 30mm guns and 2 x MG131 13.2mm guns the aircraft was well armed. This gun was lighter than any 20mm guns, even the short barrelled Hispanos used in Spitfires (24 series). 

We would also need to consider the possibility of the development of an advanced fuel equal or close to equal to allied 150PN or US 115/145 boosting power of the DB605L into the 2000-2200hp territory.

The Me 109 was still competitive to the very end even though the Germans were keen to replace it.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 18, 2015)

> Furthermore we know the Me 109K4 had a modified wing



How did the wing of the K-4 differ from the G series 109s?


----------



## GregP (Sep 18, 2015)

The Bf 109 K was an attempt to standardize the myriad G-subvariants. As for the wing, it had large rectangular fairings for the 660 x 190 mm main wheels (larger than the G), but was otherwise a standard G-series wing as far as I can tell. I can find nothing specific that says otehrwise, but I can find a lot of references that say the reason for the K was to standardize all the G subvariants. A few things were moved around, like hatches and fuel inlets, etc, but it wasn't a major redesign ... it was a cleanup of an existing design, incorporating the "best" of the feature on the many Gs with a few new improvements.

Fletner tabs would be a distinct improvement, but not nearly as much as fletner tabs with a trim tab as well. Interesting that some K's didn't have fixed tabs on the rudder since the purpose was "standardization."

I have never heard or seen it claimed that the K was as maneuverable or could roll as well as a Spitfire, but I wasn't a bad fighter for the time. While it had speed, it also wasn't maneuverable at aspeed, so the speed was an escape element or an attack element and, when the distance closed, it would need to slow down to be effective.

Some think if you say something wasn't "as good as" another something, you are trashing it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither of the main German fighters was a "bad" fighter. They had their strong points and weak points, just like Allied fighters did. A well-flown Bf 109 was a serious threat to anything it encountered. The same can be said of a well-flown Yak-3, Hurricane, etc.

By the end of the war, there were significantly more "good" Allied pilots in general service than in German service. Their guys didn't suddenly "get bad," they suffered attrition that wasn't replaced by graduates from flight schools. The Top German aces were always top of the line pilots. But even if you had, say, 45 of them in one squadron, how much good are they going to do against 700 fighters flying over their airfield or around it just out of flak range waiting for some idiot to take off?

You can be an Erich Hartmann, but if you get attacked by 50 "good" Allied pilots at the same time, you are ... in some difficulty.

So the Bf 109 K wasn't a bad fighter, but it certainly wasn't a super Bf 109 either. It was a cleanup of the G variants with some tweaking. If the fletner tabs helped, great. They'd have been needed on the rudder (had it along with two fixed tabs) elevators (don't know) and ailerons (fitted to some K-4s, but not all).

The only variant I know that was supposed to use a 4-bladed prop was the K-14, of which anywhere from 0 to 2 were delivered, depending on who you believe, so there were not a bunch of Bf 109s flying about with 4-bladed props until the later Hispano Ha.1112 was developed.

The Ha.1112 we are restoring was delivered in 1958, so it doesn't really count as a WWII aircraft.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 18, 2015)

GregP said:


> Some think if you say something wasn't "as good as" another something, you are trashing it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither of the main German fighters was a "bad" fighter. They had their strong points and weak points, just like Allied fighters did. A well-flown Bf 109 was a serious threat to anything it encountered. The same can be said of a well-flown Yak-3, Hurricane, etc.


With the anniversary of the BoB there have been a lot of coverage. One old veteran BoB Hurricane pilot said as long as he saw the enemy he always felt he could deal with it. Bungays history of the BoB also says that the massed dogfights were inconclusive, once both sides were engaged (not bounced) the pilots were more concerned looking behind than in front so kills were as much dependent on luck as skill. 1 on 1 a hurricane was at a severe disadvantage against the 109 because it was slower and so couldnt break away, that doesnt mean it was a sitting duck, if caught 1 on 1 over England the pilot always knew his adversary had to break off to get home so he could play for a draw.


----------



## GregP (Sep 18, 2015)

Yes, most fighters were built for a reason ... they usually beat the other offerings at the time. Any significant develolment was usually in one or two areas, not "all over." Allied pilots who "caught" an A6M Zero late in the war might have been sorry they did so if the Zero was flown by a competent pilot.

When the British adopted the Hurricane, it was one of the better offerings out there and was a decent fighter if not the fastest. Most fighters have one or two maneuvers at which they are hard to beat, even for more developed opponents.

There was nothing wrong with flying a Hurricane ... as long as you saw the enemy coming. Ditto for the Bf 109. Of course, if you DID see the enemy ... but they outnumberd you by a LOT, it might not matter. 150 against 16 is NOT a fair fight, even if the 16 were Me 262s.


----------



## stona (Sep 18, 2015)

And one thing you had a better chance of doing in a Spitfire Mk XIV, particularly a low back, was seeing that enemy coming. It is a very important advantage. Seeing your enemy before he saw you was a matter of life and death, literally.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Juha (Sep 19, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> ... The Me 109K14 with the two stage supercharger on the DB605L engine unlikely to have suffered any altitude disadvantage and may have superiority as its speed at 1.75ata and with a 4 blade prop was to be 453mph.



Simply question, how many 109K-14 were flown and tested?



Koopernic said:


> In terms of roll rate we have little information. The little data we have is of chart of a Me 109G6 roll rate at 30kg stick force shows its roll rate about equal to the Mk IX with full wing tips when at high speed.



That's interesting, especially because when Germans tested the elastic properties of the 109F-2 wing, the test pilots were unable to use 30kg stick force, only appr 21 kg, achieving max roll rate of appr. 70 deg/sec. at 3,000m. There are also graphs for bigger deflections and the 9deg graph goes up to appr 31 kg stick force, but these are clearly marked as extrapoliert, ie calculated. I wonder was the Me 109G-6 test(your source=?)flown at 6,000m. The F-2 tests were planned to be flown also at 6,000m but the "prevailing air situation", probably meaning that there were too often P-51s around Rechlin, prevented that.



Koopernic said:


> ... Tests in which the aileron deflection per 50lb stick force of the Spitfire is shown to be greater than the Me 109G can be disregarded as a factoid for comparison purposes as they do not take into account the Spitfires slightly greater wing aero elasticity. These measurements were a case of British engineers attempting to understand a different design by breaking it down into its components.



IMHO the well known NACA tests were flown and so the wing aero elasticities were naturally included.



Koopernic said:


> Furthermore we know the Me 109K4 had a modified wing and this might translate to improved roll rate, it would be wrong to assume that the K4 simply had the same wing as the G6. Some Me 109G6 were made by by licence producer of Me 109's WNF with spring tabs on the ailerons clearly to improve high speed roll rate. Drawings exist of Me 109K4 with spring tables on the ailerons so the intention was there. Given the state of the war one can imagine that it was hard to introduce such a new mechanism.
> 
> This would eliminate the supposed higher stick forces though as the Me 109 had a relatively torsionally stiff wing so 'stiff' ailerons doesn't necessarily translate to low roll rate. The Me 109 wing spar was around the 50% of chord mark not 25% or so of the spitfire.



The fact is that combats were flown by the a/c delivered to the units not by some paper planes with all those improvements which might have been intented to install in future.



Koopernic said:


> Tabs of various types were used in an number of late war high speed aircraft to reduce control surface loads. They were common on bombers but started to appear on late war Corsairs, Hellcats, Arado 234 and indeed the Spitfire 21 had aileron balance tabs and it was surely not beyond the German industry to introduce these in mass as well.
> 
> The Me 109K6, Me 109K14 all would have received Mk108 canon integrated into the wings rather than fitted in gondolas underneath. Hence with 3 x Mk 108 30mm guns and 2 x MG131 13.2mm guns the aircraft was well armed. This gun was lighter than any 20mm guns, even the short barrelled Hispanos used in Spitfires (24 series).
> 
> We would also need to consider the possibility of the development of an advanced fuel equal or close to equal to allied 150PN or US 115/145 boosting power of the DB605L into the 2000-2200hp territory.



Again speculations. Tabs were sometimes problematic and then testing took time to get acceptable behaviour for slow, medium and high speeds 



Koopernic said:


> The Me 109 was still competitive to the very end even though the Germans were keen to replace it.



In that we agree.


Juha

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 19, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> In terms of fuel the Spitfire VIII and XIV had 95 Imp Gallons in the area between the engine and cockpit with additional leading edge wing tanks that increased internal fuel to 120 Imperial gallons. Only the bottom tank was protected. This is 501.6 Litres of fuel. The Me 109K4 had 400L in a tank behind and underneath the pilot with an additional 86 litres for the MW50 tank. The Me 109K4 with the appropriate engine and fuel setup (DB605DB/DC) could fly a mission on approximately 1.8 ata boost on either B4+MW50 or an all C3 fuel mission by filling of the supplementary tank with C3. In this case the difference between 501.6L and 486L is only 2.9%. I doubt there was any difference in range considering the Griffon was a much heavier engine (both the single stage and duel stage intercooled Griffons were much heavier). The Mk XIV clearly had a very short range and even in the non teardrop versions the use of a tail tank was only for special missions and required permission. It's stability issues were such that its combat mission usefulness can be completely discounted. When the short range of the Me 109 is quoted (360miles for the K4) it should be noted this is a maximum cruise speed of nearly 350-380mph.



There is no doubt that any DB 605 was more frugal with fuel than any Griffon; the DB 605 was already more frugal than Merlin. Quirk with Spitfire is that 170 imp gal (773 L) drop tank was available from mid-war on, and that, combined with rear tanks was bound to give considerable range/radius. Spitfire XIV cruised at 360 mph on 'max weal mixture'. 
The "its combat mission usefulness can be completely discounted" statement will need backing up from a good source, we know that RAF was not fond with Mustang's fuselage tanks (another less-than-ideal solution that worked), that USAF used regularly.



> The 1.8 ata Me 109K4 seems faster than the Mk XIV at most altitudes below 22,500ft and the XIV developed a consistent superiority only above that altitude, this applies to both the 18psig and 21psig boost Griffons. The Me 109K14 with the two stage supercharger on the DB605L engine unlikely to have suffered any altitude disadvantage and may have superiority as its speed at 1.75ata and with a 4 blade prop was to be 453mph.



The K14 will have less power at lower altitude than K4, some 200-300 PS deficit, when both aircraft are using C3+MW 50; situation reverses from some 7 km up. Granted, the entire two stage program in Germany in ww2 lagged 18-20 months to be of any use.
With K14 and it's two-stage DB 605L, had it reached service, the rear tank is mandatory filled with MW 50, since it was necessary with both 1.75 ata @ 2800 rpm (Notleistung) and with 1.43 ata @ 2600 rpm (Kampleistung), due to the lack of intercooler and too high a compression ratio. With only 400 L in the K14, the Spitfire 21 or 24, or Spiteful, will have a superior range/radius. 



> The Me 109K6, Me 109K14 all would have received Mk108 canon integrated into the wings rather than fitted in gondolas underneath. Hence with 3 x Mk 108 30mm guns and 2 x MG131 13.2mm guns the aircraft was well armed. This gun was lighter than any 20mm guns, even the short barrelled Hispanos used in Spitfires (24 series).



Of course the MG 131 was lighter than 20 mm cannons, the 20 mm sported far greater firepower. Quirk with integral MK 108 is that it never left the mock-up stage. We can compare that (or not) with Spitfire actually having 4 cannons. 



> We would also need to consider the possibility of the development of an advanced fuel equal or close to equal to allied 150PN or US 115/145 boosting power of the DB605L into the 2000-2200hp territory.



The late war German C3 fuel was already between Allied 130 and 150 PN fuel, not much will it gain with 'straight' 150 PN fuel. Decrease the compression ratio and/or install the intercooler and engine will withstand greater boost (for more power). 



> The Me 109 was still competitive to the very end even though the Germans were keen to replace it.



Very true.


----------



## Koopernic (Sep 19, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> There is no doubt that any DB 605 was more frugal with fuel than any Griffon; the DB 605 was already more frugal than Merlin. Quirk with Spitfire is that 170 imp gal (773 L) drop tank was available from mid-war on, and that, combined with rear tanks was bound to give considerable range/radius. Spitfire XIV cruised at 360 mph on 'max weal mixture'.
> The "its combat mission usefulness can be completely discounted" statement will need backing up from a good source, we know that RAF was not fond with Mustang's fuselage tanks (another less-than-ideal solution that worked), that USAF used regularly.
> The K14 will have less power at lower altitude than K4, some 200-300 PS deficit, when both aircraft are using C3+MW 50; situation reverses from some 7 km up. Granted, the entire two stage program in Germany in ww2 lagged 18-20 months to be of any use.
> With K14 and it's two-stage DB 605L, had it reached service, the rear tank is mandatory filled with MW 50, since it was necessary with both 1.75 ata @ 2800 rpm (Notleistung) and with 1.43 ata @ 2600 rpm (Kampleistung), due to the lack of intercooler and too high a compression ratio. With only 400 L in the K14, the Spitfire 21 or 24, or Spiteful, will have a superior range/radius.
> ...





I have never seen any documentation to indicate that C3 was better than 97/130 and that comes from British technical intelligence on the fuel tanks in captured or downed German aircraft. Officially it seems to have remained 96/125. In fact it started of at only 93/115 I doubt you'll find any. Where did you hear that claim? The processes of alkylation to produce alkylate or polymerisation of butylene to produce of iso-octane to produce high octane and PN fuel from the kinds of coal derived hydrocarbons the Germans had required lots of plant that the Germans didn't have or was being bombed from 1944 onwards just as it had come on line. They were struggling to make enough B4 let alone better the allies 100/130 fuel.

150PN fuel is actually 110PN/150PN against which the Germans had 97RON/130PN (test figures not official ones). The PN means performance number and is a percentage increase in power possible when running rich. So allied 100/130 gave a 30% boost when rich. Allied 100/130 was in fact 102/130. Hence 150PN could create 16% more power than 130PN. That would get the Me 109K4 to 2.15 ata and certainly above 2.0 ata. 

Both the Mk VIII/XIV and the Me 109 had about 95 gallons/400L in the main fuselage tanks. The Spitfire VII/VIII/XIV added about 25 gallons in the wing leading edges and the Me 109 about 21 gallons in a supplementary tail tank. Little difference.

If the Luftwaffe wanted to do something crazy and of marginal utility instead of adding a 170 gallon slipper tank they could add 200 imp gallons or 900L of fuel in the form of 3 x 66 gallon/300L drop tanks to the Me 109, this in fact was used on reconnaissance versions of the Me 109. They might try something like a small 'dachelbauch' (dachhound belly, the German equivalent of a conformal slipper tank) tank say 150L combined with the wing drop tanks. No problem, but the Luftwaffe felt no pressing need to do so or felt it was of dubious utility. Useful for long standing patrols over an area yet still in clean range of base.

In terms of proving the tail tank of marginal utility, we hear much of its restrictions in use. It was no doubt very useful in ferrying or deploying the spitfire to theatre without the cost, safety issue and inconvenience of drop tanks. 

There was never a chance of an intercooled DB605L since adding 200kg of intercooler and radiator didn't make a lot of sense as opposed to adding 200L of MW50 in the case of the size restricted Me 109. The Me 109 had already accepted an engine size change when it went from the Kestrel/Jumo 210 to the DB601 and then DB605. Fitting the Griffon sized Jumo 213 wasn't possible.

Since the DB605 consumed a little less fuel than the Griffon and since the Giffon had to operate on rich mixture (about 20% greater consumption) instead of using MW50 as a charge cooler there was likely no difference in range even if the Me 109 was forced to use MW50 as an Anti Detonant. The range corsing posted suggested the range of 460 miles was at a 226 mph cruise for at least part of the mission which is impractical for even escort combat duty in Europe.

Plain drop tanks were the solution.

Many Me 109 developments, such as the in wing canon armament I suspect, were delayed due to the severe production stresses experienced by the Reich at the close of the war. The use of 4 canon seems to have been limited to the Griffon variants, maybe 700 produced during the war?


----------



## wuzak (Sep 19, 2015)

Higher PN fuels helped at lower altitudes, not at the altitudes where the XIV excelled.

Intercooling may have been heavier than simple ADI, but it never ran out. The performance afforded by intercooling was accessible at all times during a flight.

The DB 605 was, in terms of capacity, the same size as the Griffon.

The 170 galllon slipper tank was a ferry tank. Not for combat. The 90 gallon drop tank was fo combat, and the ADFU determined that a XIV was superior in all respects to a Bf 109G with the tank in place. 

From the introduction of the universal wing, 4 x 20mm cannon was an option on every Spitfire. I believe that still holds true for the E-wing used on the XIV.
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html/3

I believe that the Mk 108 was a poor air to air weapon. While the round was heavier, it's muzzle velocity was only ~60% of the Hispano's. The Mk 103 was the great 30mm hope of the Luftwaffe, but it wasn't really sorted before the end of the war.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 20, 2015)

page 13 rich mixture rating 116% and 120% of US 130 grade 
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0638-0654 Item 6A.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Sep 20, 2015)

Vincenzo said:


> page 13 rich mixture rating 116% and 120% of US 130 grade
> http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0638-0654 Item 6A.pdf



There is another report I have seen that puts the 'rich mixture' even higher than 120% of 130PN.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 20, 2015)

i just posted the first i found
this reports were already posted time ago...


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 20, 2015)

Milosh said:


> There is another report I have seen that puts the 'rich mixture' even higher than 120% of 130PN.



If the German fuel was rated using the same methods as Allied fuel how does this rich mixture 120% compare. 

Certainly seems like the German chemists never let the LW down even with poorer basic supplies and round the clock bombing.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 20, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> I have never seen any documentation to indicate that C3 was better than 97/130 and that comes from British technical intelligence on the fuel tanks in captured or downed German aircraft. Officially it seems to have remained 96/125. In fact it started of at only 93/115 I doubt you'll find any. Where did you hear that claim?






> They were struggling to make enough B4 let alone better the allies 100/130 fuel.



1st part is true, second is not.



> 150PN fuel is actually 110PN/150PN against which the Germans had 97RON/130PN (test figures not official ones). The PN means performance number and is a percentage increase in power possible when running rich. So allied 100/130 gave a 30% boost when rich. Allied 100/130 was in fact 102/130. Hence 150PN could create 16% more power than 130PN. That would get the Me 109K4 to 2.15 ata and certainly above 2.0 ata.



Or DB gets really smart, lowers down the compression ratio of the DB 605, so it can do eye-watering 2.5 ata. 



> Both the Mk VIII/XIV and the Me 109 had about 95 gallons/400L in the main fuselage tanks. The Spitfire VII/VIII/XIV added about 25 gallons in the wing leading edges and the Me 109 about 21 gallons in a supplementary tail tank. Little difference.



The MK VIII/XIV have had the LE tanks as-is. Rear fuselage fuel tanks were an tried tested thing for the 2-stage Spitfires, lack of the need (=LW defeated, Allies are near Paris, availability of Mustang Thunderbolt for the RAF) and current doctrine means they were never used, like it was the case for the RAF's Merlin Mustangs.
Was the rear tank of the 109 self-sealing, was it ever used as a fuel tank at all?


> If the Luftwaffe wanted to do something crazy and of marginal utility instead of adding a 170 gallon slipper tank they could add 200 imp gallons or 900L of fuel in the form of 3 x 66 gallon/300L drop tanks to the Me 109, this in fact was used on reconnaissance versions of the Me 109. They might try something like a small 'dachelbauch' (dachhound belly, the German equivalent of a conformal slipper tank) tank say 150L combined with the wing drop tanks. *No problem, but the Luftwaffe felt no pressing need to do so or felt it was of dubious utility.* Useful for long standing patrols over an area yet still in clean range of base.



For the bolded part - here you are wrong. LW was never able to achieve air superiority above UK, above war production centers of the USSR (once the frontline stabilized more or less), and above anything that was 200 miles away from it's fighter bases, even above Malta. The 109, short ranged fighter, was the crux of the matter.
Attaching 900 L of fuel in drop tanks on a fighter that has 400-500 liters of internal fuel does not make it a long range fighter (as in Japanese or US terms), since whatever the fuel is in the drop tanks will be 'dropped' once the enemy is around. The Spitfire VIII/XIV with ~850 L of internal fuel and ~400-800 L in a drop tank is a far better proposal, even though some 30-40 imp gals (~120-160 L, or one of two of rear tanks) should be consumed before entering the combat.
Not too big a slipper tank in a fighter might be a good proposal of you fighter has a considerable performance advantage, not so good idea if the enemy can put in the air a decent fighter of his own. Spitifre already have had 30 and 45 gal slipper tanks (not self sealing IIRC), unlike the 109, BTW.



> There was never a chance of an intercooled DB605L since adding 200kg of intercooler and radiator didn't make a lot of sense as opposed to adding 200L of MW50 in the case of the size restricted Me 109. The Me 109 had already accepted an engine size change when it went from the Kestrel/Jumo 210 to the DB601 and then DB605. Fitting the Griffon sized Jumo 213 wasn't possible.



There was every chance of the intercooled 605L, as it was chance for the non-intercooled DB 603L to became the intercooled 603LA, along with a whole host of engines that received intercoolers during their development. Your figure of 200 kg for the intercooler is way above board, eg. the cooling system (engine cooling + intercooling) for the P-51D weighted 663 lbs (~300 kg), the intercooler using maybe 1/3rd of that weight. The figure of 100 kg looks more realistic for a water-to-air intercooler, with further weight saving if the intercooler's radiator is located perhaps under the engine, in a bigger fairing so the oil cooler can share it too. Opting for an air-to-air intercooler further can cut the weight. Another option is the heat exchanger, that would require a bit bigger main cooling system.
Agreed that Jumo 213 or something similar would not fit on the small 109, the 209-II (or whatever was the name) received bigger wings, among other, so it can receive a bigger engine.



> Since the DB605 consumed a little less fuel than the Griffon and since the Giffon had to operate on rich mixture (about 20% greater consumption) instead of using MW50 as a charge cooler there was likely no difference in range even if the Me 109 was forced to use MW50 as an Anti Detonant. The range corsing posted suggested the range of 460 miles was at a 226 mph cruise for at least part of the mission which is impractical for even escort combat duty in Europe.



This is what the Spitfire XXI was supposed to give, (not just) range-wise: link. Seafire 47 also carried rear tanks.



> Plain drop tanks were the solution.
> Many Me 109 developments, such as the in wing canon armament I suspect, were delayed due to the severe production stresses experienced by the Reich at the close of the war. The use of 4 canon seems to have been limited to the Griffon variants, maybe 700 produced during the war?



Plain drop tanks were partial solution. Greater internal fuel, as CoG-neutral as possible, was the real solution, from Zero and Ki 61 to P-47N and Hornet.
Spitfire V already have had 4 cannons as an option, not a very good one because of performance penalty and not enough of gun heating capacity. Later both engine power and heating capacity were much improved, but threat from German bombers decreased the need for such heavy armament for the Spitfire, though it was re-introduced in 1945 with the modified wing.
Small thin wing of the Bf 109 meant a redesign was needed in order to fit the MK 151 or 108, but it was possible.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 20, 2015)

wuzak said:


> ...Intercooling may have been heavier than simple ADI, but it never ran out. The performance afforded by intercooling was accessible at all times during a flight.



Use of intercooling instead of ADI in the LW would also mean that MW 50 does not need to be poduced shipped, meaning less of a logistical burden. Intercooling + ADI + hi-oct fuel + low compression ratio will offer the greatest power in an easily feasible way (talk Jumo 213E, Merlin V-1650-9, later R-2800), of course if the engine is strong enough to withstand that power. 



> The DB 605 was, in terms of capacity, the same size as the Griffon.



The 605 was a good deal lighter, that is both a good and bad thing.


> The 170 galllon slipper tank was a ferry tank. Not for combat. The 90 gallon drop tank was fo combat, and the ADFU determined that a XIV was superior in all respects to a Bf 109G with the tank in place.



The doctrine was determining whether the 170 gal was ferry-only, not a technical issue?


> I believe that the Mk 108 was a poor air to air weapon. While the round was heavier, it's muzzle velocity was only ~60% of the Hispano's. The Mk 103 was the great 30mm hope of the Luftwaffe, but it wasn't really sorted before the end of the war.



The MK 108 was probably a fine anti-bomber weapon, not so good vs. an aware and maneuverable target? 
The MK 103 was a powerful weapon, but it's design meant it won't fit on the Bf 109 ( a redesigned MK 103M would fit, but it wasn't available until to late). The Ta-152 was able to carry it as a prop gun, since it added some 77 cm between the engine and cockpit.


----------



## GregP (Sep 20, 2015)

That page 13 line is not a rich performance number.

It is the amount of T.E.L. per US gallon compared with US fuel. It means the German test fuel had slightly more T.E.L than US fuel did. The exact amount of T.E.L. is not the rich mixture performance number.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 20, 2015)

If it is not the rich mixture PN then why does is say 3C Rich Mixture Rating?


----------



## GregP (Sep 20, 2015)

Look at the units, Milosh. It says "3C ccs. T.E.L. / US Glns. in S2"

That means the German fuel had 16% and 20% more Tetraethyl Lead (T.E.L.) per US Gallon than US Fuel does when running rich. T. E. L. is not a performance number, it is an additive.

So we now know that the Germans had a bit more trouble than we did with lead-fouling in spark plugs if the pilots didn't pay attention to leaning. So ... they wouldn't want to spend 25 minutes taxying about before taking off and needed to lean more often when climbing and richen a bit more when descending.

Perhaps that's why the Fw 190 had a single-lever throttle ... automatic mixture to help with decreasing spark plug fouling. I you experience a LOT of lead-fouling issues, you might come up with a more automated solution for same, too.

A PN rating does not have units including ccs. of T. E. L. per gallon. It is a unitless number that means you can multiply the Octane rating by the PN to get the new rating since Octane numbers stop at 100.

One thing is for sure. We were very near the limits of fuel intended for engines that operate for long periods of time. There are fuels for engines that run for a few minutes or a few seconds, but aircraft needed to run reliably for hours. A Top Fuel dragster engine runs at high power for about 4 seconds at most these days. If they still needed to runs 5 - 6 seconds, then we would be back to 8,500 HP. That only reason we make 10,000 HP in a Top Fuel car is that the engine only needs to run about 4 seconds above idle. 

The engines in Monster Trucks need to run several minutes and are mostly no more than 1,500 - 1,800 HP since they need to survive awhile and not die from just running.

The piston fighters needed to be able to carry enough oil and fuel to run for 8 - 10 hours and then get more of both fuel and oil and do the same for another mission out to 250 - 450 hours. That limited the fuel and HP to the levels we saw in WWII with the technology at the time. Today we could make the same size engies and get maybe twice the power, maybe not ... and they'd last even longer. But the Merlin, Allisons, DB's and BMW's weren't bad at all, and still aren't. They run great even today. I have only heard a Jumo 211 run twice in the former Doug Champlin Fw 190D-9. That was back in the 1980's. It sounded good, but they only had the idle circuit working. It could not be run at higher than idle power due to some missing parts, so it likley won't ever be flown as the guys who could solve the dilemma of the missing parts are getting very old and will likely pass away before anyone in power thinks to contact them and have them come solve the problem.

Probably Joe Yancey, Mike Nixon, Pete Law, Dave Cornell, and a few other guys like them could get it running, and probably a few older gentlemen from Germany and eastern Europe, too. Aside from these guys who KNOW the engines (and a few others aside from the above names), there are no or FEW new up and coming people around who understand these old engines well enough to even make them run.

I know one thing, Joe Yancey's method of doing basic cam timing and ignition timing is MUCH easier than trying to follow the Allison instructions. He does the same thing, but his explanation is in modern English and can be understood much better than the official writeup. I think it was written to confuse the Germans who read it, and you have to have all the books to get all the information. It was broken up into about seven volumes on purpose. If any 2 - 4 of them fell into enemy hands, they would not be able to keep captured engines running for long.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 21, 2015)

Greg,
Is the Champlin Fw-190D-9 the same A/C that is at The Flying Heritage Museum (Fw-190D-13)?
Cheers,
Biff


----------



## GregP (Sep 21, 2015)

Yes, I thought they had it lised as a D-9 at some time in the past ... but could be wrong. Memory might not be quite what it used to be and I was just reading about the D-9. It is, in fact, a D-13. When Doug sold it, it was discovered that the wings for that aircraft and the one in the National Air and Space Museum had been swapped at some point in the restorations ... and they swapped them back. Now it is in Seattle. All I can say is Mr. Allen has a very nice facility and collection.

Doug used to start up one or two of his rare birds occasionally, usually at a private art show or the like and both times I heard it start and idle were at art shows there in the evening. In fact, that's where I bought my prints signed by Erich Hartmann and Saburo Sakai ... at an evening Champlin Museum art show. They also had a VERY rare P-40. It had only about 40 flight hours on it when it was flown to storage, and so was very original and pristine. Not sure where it went when Doug closed up shop. He was an interesting guy, but wasn't flying them and had a LOT of money tied up in them.

The Focke Wulf was a bit temperamental and would start about every other time, so I was lucky to hear it twice. Some people went to 3 - 4 shows and it never started while they were there. I only got to go to the shows because I had a friend who had a plane displayed there, a MiG-15 bis. He got tickets and was going to be out of town, so he gave them to me. Turned out pretty well as I got to see some rare things at each show that usually weren't on display, and met some of the big-name aviation artists ... and got a couple of prints. Still have them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Sep 21, 2015)

> It says "3C ccs. T.E.L. / US Glns. in S2"



It says: *3.25 ccs* TEL / US gln in S2 = 116% of 130

In other words, in a US gallon of the C3 fuel analyzed was found 3.25ccs of TEL.

That amount of TEL (3.25ccs) in the US gallon gave a PN of 116% of 130, or if it was 4.00ccs of TEL, then = 120% of 130.

116/100 x 130 = 138
120/100 x 130 = 156


----------



## GregP (Sep 21, 2015)

The Tetraethyl lead quantity doesn't equate to performance number ...


----------



## mhuxt (Sep 21, 2015)

Milosh, the Germans tested captured fuels against their own C3 and B4, across the whole range of rich/lean mixtures - see the attachment on my post above for how the octane numbers compared according to the Germans' own research.


----------



## GregP (Sep 21, 2015)

Hi mhuxt,

I've been looking through this thread and don't see your post above. What post # is it? I'm just curious since I haveseen reports on German fuels many years past, but can't seem to find the same ones today. Now when I find a good report, I save it ... back then, it didn't seem worth the disc space since discs were expensive. Comparatively speaking they're dirt cheap these days.

My first external hard drive was 20k bytes! And it wasn't cheap. Today I can get a 1 TB HD for less money ...


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 21, 2015)

Greg,
I remember hearing about the wing swap! Cool they got that figured out. What keeps the motor from running above idle now, missing parts with the single lever engine control?
I have a few pieces of Art from the museum as well, picked them up at the Pheonix Air Races and brought them back in the Eagle.
Cheers,
Biff


----------



## mhuxt (Sep 21, 2015)

Hi Greg, it's post #41, the one you bacon'd me for (thanks). The graphs show that by the Germans' own calculations it would not have been possible for C3 to have had 116% of the performance number of 100/130 at rich mixture.


----------



## GregP (Sep 21, 2015)

Gotcha' and thanks. I downloaded that one at that time and I thought maybe I had another one on the line. More data is better, kind of like a few other things you could name.

Sometime in the past I found a report where they had tested six samples of captured German fuels and listed the test performance/Octane numbers. The samples varied from 1942 through early 1945 and were usually from 5 to 50 US gallons each. I'm still trying to re-find it. As I recall, it was 3 samples of B4 and 3 samples of C3. One C3 sample was a few points higher than the other two.

Alas, can't seem to find it again, but am still looking as I get time.

The reports I have now indicate C3 was 93 - 96 lean and about 110 rich, and had 4.26 to 4.6 cc of lead per gallon, with 37.4 to 38.6 % aromatics. It was 83 Octane base plus the additives to bring it up to the 93-96/110 rating.

The B4 was 71.5 to 74 Octane base and 4.5 to 4.75 cc of lead per gallon to bring it up to 89 - 91 lean, with no rich number.

I cannot recall the date of these samples and didn't record it at the time. Could have been early. To me, the difference between the 93 - 96 and the 110 isn't quite enough between lean and rich as our gasolines typically had a spread of about 30 points, but the German and American and British fuels were different and maybe that WAS the number. Just because we do it one way doesn't mean the Germans did it the same way. They used different bases, more lead, and MUCH more aromatics. Perhaps that affects the lean-rich spread, I make no claim either way there.

Lean and rich don't really describe it well. The US lean number is quite similar to the current US automotive (R + M)/2 method and the US rich is the rating for a supercharged, higher-compression, supercharged test engine. I'm not sure if the Germans used both a higher compression engine and a supercharged one to get their ratings. AT that time, things weren't all standard, and they still aren't, but we can at least understand and compare modern rating systems.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 22, 2015)

from 42 to early 45 we have 3 different C3 in use, the C3 evolved a 42 sample would be different from a 44 sample and with different octane number


----------



## GregP (Sep 22, 2015)

Hi Vincenzo. I have read that, but have not seen samples that verify it. I would not be surprised to see them. The airplanes themsleves changed specification every year or less throughout the war, so there is no reason to susect that the fuel wouldn't change occasionally, too. I DO question calling it the same name, but there was a war on and perhaps convenience rulled the day. If they made changes to a Bf 109G, they usually gave it a different dash number. Hence the Bf 109 G-2 through G-14 or whatever. Everyone, or pretty much everyone, in here knows that.

I really would like to see some tests of the various B and C fuels that show the differences, but have not been very successful at finding the data. Batch to batch numbers are not even the same. A fuel that has a lean rating of 87 octane might have the same formulation in 3 different successive batches and have real test numbers of 85, 87, and 88. Production was close, but not an exact science. The measurement might or might not have been exactly reproducible, I can't say because I haven't seen several tests of the same batch of fuel with different result sets.

That should come as no surprise to anyone since the airplanes themselves weren't exactly the same either. One Bf 109 F-3 might have a sea level top speed of 350 mph and the next one off the line might be 345 mph. All I'm saying is there is a normal expected variance in aircraft, and variances between batch-to-batch fuels was there, too. Collectively it wasn't great, but there WERE variances and the variances could result in both slightly higher and slightly lower ratings.

Even if the German fuels were to have lesser performance numbers than Allied fuels it wouldn't matter if they had "work arounds". In engines, that usually means more displacement for the same power. The Bf 109 always was a good climber, being a small plane with a big engine. Whether or not they ever operationally used 1.98 ata or whatever manifold pressure matters less than the actual airframe performance. If it could climb at 4,600 feet per minute, then the pilots knew they had a good climber on their hands regardless of manifold pressure or fuel type used.

It all boiled down to actual flying characteristics, not a competition to deliver the "best" fuel. It was much more important to deliver fuel than to deliver C3 fuel. If the Allies had run short of 115/145 fuel, I'm sure they could have figured out how to run the late model planes on 100/103 fuel had it been necessary to do so.

Likewise, the Germans ran short of fuel near the end of the war. I'm sure the German pilots would have relished getting some B4 fuel as opposed to no fuel. Had they done so, then at least they could have flown their planes.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 22, 2015)

http://fischer-tropsch.org/Tom Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0560-0635 Item 5.pdf

Long report on German avgas Greg.

Wasn't hard to find using the link Vincenzo provided.


----------



## GregP (Sep 22, 2015)

Thanks Milosh.

That's the report I came across many years ago and didn't save. As I remembered, the rich rating went from lower to higher. Looks like 110 to 125 - 130. That's not an equivalent to 115/145, but isn't bad at all. It is a virtual equvalent to 100/130.

Appreciae it. In times recently past I had the time but not the link. Almost no time these days.

Still, I've seen pics of a Bf 109K-4 with a B4 sign over the fuel tank. That tells me there were at least some late-war Bf 109K's flitting about on bomber fuel equivalent to early war fuel. It probably means a C3 fuel shortage rather than a desire to run B4. You could set the DB 605 to run B4 or C4, but it required a mechanical change and could not run either at will without having the change done first. In other words, it was configured to run either B4 or C3, but not either one at will.

I am given to understand the changeover wasn't difficult, but required a mechanic, the parts, and maybe two hours of work. That from an old Luftwaffe pilot who spoke at the museum some years back. Note he was a pilot, not a mechanic, so I don't know if it is accurate, but it is the only first-hand report I have ever heard. I'll take it on faith until we hear otherwise from a wartime DB 605 mecahnic.

Hey Biff,

As I recall, they have the idle circuit on the Jumo 213 engine, but the main jets, or equivalent for the fuel injection system, are simply missing. Could be the primary injectors.

So they can prime it and start it, but have no real way to accelerate it past idle speed. I'm sure a master mechanic could adapt an American or British carburetor or fuel injection system of some vintage to make it run ... but it would not be 100% completely authentic ... hence the reluctance. The adapter would no doubt require some minor modification, and should they ever find the genuine parts, then the modification would have to be undone.

With today's 3D printing, I'd think it wouldn't be all that tough to fabricate a 3D model and print a modified manifold for use with an adapted mixture device, and they could save the original for use when and if they ever find the real parts. That option wasn't really available 25 - 35 years ago, and it offers us a chance to see a real Jumo 213 run and fly should Paul Allen ever be so inclined. To date I don't think he is, but maybe ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Sep 22, 2015)

Most K-4s used B4 fuel.

Once did a count of 109s and 190s for Jan '45. Can't remember the number but the numbers were basically the same. The BMW801 required C3 fuel.


----------



## GregP (Sep 22, 2015)

That would be an interesting count if you recall it. The month of collapse was April 1945. In that month we shot up more than ten times as many aircraft on the ground as in any other month of the war up until then. They were either out of fuel or just gave up. I think they were out of fuel, pilots, props, or all three.

Of the three, it is much more likely they were out of fuel entirely. Not because there wasn't any fuel, but because there were thousands of Allied fighters roaming about shooting up anything that moved and the fuel couldn't be delivered.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 22, 2015)

land front was gone, a central germany city as Kassel was occuppied the 4th april


----------



## Milosh (Sep 23, 2015)

This is the link, both Jan and April '45, Luftwaffe Orders of Battle 1945

Only counted fighter - no bomber or other types.


----------



## Denniss (Sep 23, 2015)

I assume most K-4 built in 1944 an very early 45 were delivered with 1.8 ata boost to be used with B4+MW. The higher boost was still in experimental/test stage by then.
There should have been no change required to use C3 without MW if no B4 was available.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 23, 2015)

Many aircraft would not burn when strafed from March forward.. and while April 1945 was a big month for strafing credits, only two FG's appreciably changed their rankings as far as ground scores - the 339th w/271(160 going in) and 56th with 172(147 going in). The long running 'pros' 4th, 352nd, 355th all had about 170 each - but each also had over 100 in April 1944.


----------



## dedalos (Sep 24, 2015)

GregP said:


> Thanks Milosh.
> 
> That's the report I came across many years ago and didn't save. As I remembered, the rich rating went from lower to higher. Looks like 110 to 125 - 130. That's not an equivalent to 115/145, but isn't bad at all. It is a virtual equvalent to 100/130.
> 
> ...



I believe that it would be extremely iresponsible to fly the D-13 even if it was complete or was possible to replace the missing parts.
It is a UNIQUE aircraft, represents the very last generation of german piston engined fighters. We are very lucky that survived and should always remain within the walls of the museum, nice and safe.


----------



## GregP (Sep 24, 2015)

If the current owner believes like you, then he won't complete the engine and fly it, dedalos. That is his choice.

If I owned it, I'd fly it. I think we've had these discussions before and since neither of us is the owner, we can only wait and see what he does. I believe Paul Allen currently has no intentions of having it fly. He lets most of the rest of the collection fly occasionally ... not "often."


----------



## Koopernic (Oct 5, 2015)

Vincenzo said:


> page 13 rich mixture rating 116% and 120% of US 130 grade
> http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0638-0654 Item 6A.pdf



There seem to be a number of misunderstandings of this document, which only covers German fuels to 1943.

First of all consider that on page 8 that samples of German green dyed fuel (usually C3) is given as having an average RON/PN of 95/110 over 1942 (well down on the 100/130 that had taken over from 100 octane in allied service by then). Samples 285,305,311, 317,318-321 327, 328/9 256 had ratings of 97.5/118.5, 96.4/125,93.6/124, 95/125,95/125,95/125 respectively.

It is noted by British intelligence that the Germans didn't have an engine to take advantage of this improved rating of 96/125 that was achieved in 1943 but that the potentialities should be kept in mind. Of course that engine was the late 1943 BMW801 with increased boost (1.65ata and 1900hp) and with C3 einspriztung (1.65ata and 2050hp). The C3 rich mixture injection was never detected by allied intelligence.

Now in terms of the tests of samples AIR 336 and AIR 342 and their "120% of 100/130 rating". There were two tests for fuels with rich mixture RON ratings greater than the 100 of the iso-octane referenced RON test.

There was the well known performance number or PN test where the rich fuel was supercharged into the test stand engine to the point just below at which knocking occurred at which point a torque meter would measure the increased power attainable. 

The other method was the *3C* mixture rating which refers to *AFD-3C* standard, not to be confused with Luftwaffe *C3* fuel. In this method iso-octane was used as a standard and the amount of TEL tetra-ethyl lead added to make it perform as the rich mixture under test was used as a reference standard. I read this as saying that the German fuel had 20% more lead.

The Germans simply had inferior quantities and qualities of duel available to them.



wuzak said:


> Higher PN fuels helped at lower altitudes, not at the altitudes where the XIV excelled.
> 
> Intercooling may have been heavier than simple ADI, but it never ran out. The performance afforded by intercooling was accessible at all times during a flight.
> 
> ...



The use of 100/130 fuel surely allowed the Merlin and Griffon base set up, ie compression ratio and supercharger settings, to be optimally configured for standard use of 100 octane fuel as opposed to 87 octane and so indirectly improved its power at altitude, when 110/150 came along the engine was already preconfigured for a higher octane fuel. 

The DB605L, with the two stage supercharger, seemed to require the higher octane C3 fuel. This is because pre-ignition is heavily a function of temperature which is a function of pressure ratio and compression ratio rather than manifold pressure and a two stage supercharger is likely to be producing pressure ratios of 5:1 at 10,000m and a rather larger temperature increase. Even an intercooler can't pull out all the heat.

Had the Daimler Benz DB605 series had a fuel as good as 100 octane fuel available the DB605 would have been mass produced in the variants with a higher compression ratio (8.4:1 rather than 7.4:1) This would increase power with no increase in fuel consumption and with no decrease in Full Throttle Height.

The introduction of the intercooler on the Merlin 61 added about 120kg to the 620kg Merlin 20 series. A 2000hp engine consuming fuel at an rich setting and sfc of 0.55 will use about 1100lbs (500kg or 500L) and hour. MW-50 would be added at about the same rate as the fuel so an 86L tank i.e. 190lbs would add about 10-12 minutes of WEP available. It seems enough given the other time limits on the engine.

The Mk103 was adequate to ranges equal to half its muzzle velocity, say 240 meters. It would be uncommon for greater ranges to be experienced and even with a higher velocity issues of the size of the target within the reticule become and issue.



tomo pauk said:


> Or DB gets really smart, lowers down the compression ratio of the DB 605, so it can do eye-watering 2.5 ata.
> 
> .



Not really that smart. Lets drop the pressure ratio of the 87 octane DB605A from 7.5 down to the same level as the Allison/Merlin ie around 6:5 (the merlin was even less) we've now lost about 13.33% of our expansion stroke and almost as much power while still burning the same amount of fuel. We can now increases the compression ratio of the supercharger but as this now forces more air and fuel into the engine and means that we must deal with much more waste heat and higher fuel consumption. The extra waste heat requires larger radiators and possibly higher coolant flows. The supercharger is now being used to over boost the engine and can no longer provide altitude compensation. We need a larger or a two stage supercharger. The heat increase at some point compels us to consider and intercooler. Our weight has gone up.

Would it be reall woth it? could the little Me 109 frame cope with larger radiators and provide the space for an intercooler.

However, simply provide 100/130 fuel to the Me 109, increase the compression ratio with higher crowns on the pistons and it seems a win win: no decrease in full throttle height, more power with no increase in fuel consumption or thermal load. We only need to make sure the bearings can take the extra power.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Oct 6, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> Would it be reall woth it? could the little Me 109 frame cope with larger radiators and provide the space for an intercooler.



Hi coopernic,
I wonder why the german did not use a nose, circular radiator in the bf 109 like they used it on the Fw190D9.
Propably would cause somewhat less drag than the undewing radiators , almosy surely would provide better cooling,would eliminate the long coolant tubes. Perhaps, they would even manage to fit an intercooler in it as well. And they could use the free space in the wings for fuel or better flaps
Was technically impossible or once again was a matter of the potential production loss?


----------



## GregP (Oct 6, 2015)

Interesting question, dedalos, I never considered that one before.

It would certainly make a new look, wouldn't it?


----------



## Denniss (Oct 7, 2015)

Too much weight forward, impaired forward visibility which may have required major mods to engine installation

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 7, 2015)

Gents,
Someone please confirm the reasons the Germans used the inverted V installation with inline motors.
Thanks in advance!
Cheers,
Biff


----------



## GregP (Oct 7, 2015)

From an old speech at Doug Champlin's Fighter Museum when he had some former Luftwaffe aces give a talk (circa 1981 or so):

If you look at the Rolls Royce Merlin, the Vee between the engine cylinders is packed with plumbing. There is no room left. The crankshaft is low, the reduction gear raises the prop shaft, and the engine is widest at the top, making the nose wide enough to block forward visibility significantly, but allowing good propeller clearance.

If you look at the Daimler-Banz DB 601 / 603 / 605, the Vee between the engine cylinders is almost empty. The crankshaft is high and the reduction gear lowers the prop shaft. The nose tapers, with the widest part down low and offers better forward visibility, but ground clearance is less, making for wider but shorter propellers. Since the vee is amlost empty, they could make the prop shaft hollow and fit a cannon in the engine vee. Since the engine as narrow at the top, they could also fit two machine guns, one on either side of the engine case.

The Luftwaffe was keen to have the armament on the centerline of the aircrft, and the inverted vee was the simplest way to achieve it. He did not say and I did not ask whether or not junkers settled on the inverted vee design after Daimler-Benz was successful with it or whether they chose it on their own. If I were hearing this talk today, and if I were allowed a question, I'd ask about that because I have wondered for 30 years about it.

I will say this about the above. It was said in a talk given at a Fighter Aces Museum by a former Luftwaffe pilot. I do not claim the information is true, although it makes sense. I am not sure why a pilot would be "in" on the real reason the choice was made. Perhaps he knew someone at Daimler-Benz, or perhaps it was just a good story.

I am looking forward to hearing from other people with other sources.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 7, 2015)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler-Benz_DB_600_series

"In 1929 Daimler-Benz begun development of a new aero engine of the 30-litre class: a liquid-cooled inverted-Vee 12-cylinder piston engine. This became the F4, and by 1931 two prototypes were running on the test bench."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_210

"Development of the Jumo 210 itself started in 1931 under the designation L10."
"The L10 was first ran in static tests on October 22, 1932."


----------



## wuzak (Oct 7, 2015)

Biff, it may have been that the Germans sought to improve the view over the nose.

The original concept for the Merlin was an inverted Vee, but the British airframe manufacturers preferred the upright model.

Greg, being inverted was not due to a central gun requirement. In fact, the DB could be turned the right way up and it would still have the possibility of the gun firing through the prop.

You rightly point out the intake architecture of the Merlin as a reason for no access for a central gun. The supercharger is also in the way for a gun mounted in the vee, being mounted at the rear of the engine and being rather large. The DBs had their superchargers off to the side - a feature, no doubt, designed specifically to allow for a motor cannon.


----------



## bobbysocks (Oct 7, 2015)

Denniss said:


> Too much weight forward, impaired forward visibility which may have required major mods to engine installation



that was my first thought too. all that weight near the extreme end of the airframe would cause a weight and balance issue. to counter that might negate any advantage gained.


----------



## GregP (Oct 7, 2015)

Hi Wayne,

I don't believe you could turn the DB over and still have a cannon through the hub becasue all the bits and pieces that need to be at the top would be in the cylinder vee, just as in the Merlin. Instead of being at the top inside the case, the top part of the case would have to go on the NEW top, right between the vee. There are things that have to be at the top of the engine, and since the DB was an inverted vee, they didn't have to plug up the vee with those bits and pieces.

As for too much weight forward, there is nothing that says the radiator had to be at the front. Why not fit it around the rear of the engine and use ducting? There is usually a way to mitigate any undersirable features.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 7, 2015)

The Me 209 II had an annular radiator

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/germany/me-209-2.jpg

The extra weight forward could be compensated by ballast or by lengthening the rear fuselage.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 7, 2015)

GregP said:


> Hi Wayne,
> 
> I don't believe you could turn the DB over and still have a cannon through the hub becasue all the bits and pieces that need to be at the top would be in the cylinder vee, just as in the Merlin. Instead of being at the top inside the case, the top part of the case would have to go on the NEW top, right between the vee. There are things that have to be at the top of the engine, and since the DB was an inverted vee, they didn't have to plug up the vee with those bits and pieces.



Greg, the intake piping to the cylinder heads was still in the vee, but placed above where the cannon would go, and the ducting arranged to give the cannon clearance. 

http://aircraftwalkaround.hobbyvista.com/db605/DB 605.JPG

The main change for changing the DB from inverted to upright is the sump arrangement - and that would make more clearance on top of the heads and, possibly, in the vee.


----------



## stona (Oct 7, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> Gents,
> Someone please confirm the reasons the Germans used the inverted V installation with inline motors.
> Thanks in advance!
> Cheers,
> Biff



The origin of the inverted V-12 German Aero engines goes back to 1928 when a committee of aeronautical experts was assembled in Berlin at the bidding of the R.V.M. Representatives from the Army, the D.V.L. research centre, the Navy (airships were at their peak in 1928 ) and Deutsche Lufthansa were instructed to make an in-depth study of of the international scene regarding aero-engines and then produce specific guide lines for the future development of large air and liquid cooled motors.
Along with others, Prof. Wunibald Kamm, Ing. Wolfram Eisenlohr and Dr. Helmut Sachse (later heavily involved in the design of the B.M.W. 801) served on this panel. The specifications drawn up by this "think tank" were very detailed and incorporated some very advanced features including, for the liquid cooled engines:
1) 12-cylinder, inverted installation,
2) mono-block cylinder banks,
3) wet cylinder liners,
4) propeller reduction gear,
5) supercharger,
6) fuel injection,
7) high temperature glycol cooling,
8 ) provision of a cannon tunnel in the V.

Tender documents were sent to Daimler-Benz, Junkers and B.M.W. all of which eventually produced a V-12 engine model in response although none was able to incorporate all of the required features immediately. 

Wolfram Eisenlohr was interviewed in 1980 regarding the 1928 requirement for inverted V-12s and he cited three reasons for the decision. 
1) more compact installation.
2) better pilot view for single engine aircraft,
3) less exhaust flame dazzle during night flying.

This is confirmed in a Rolls Royce report titled "Comments on Visit to Germany, July 24th 1945 to August 12th 1945”. In the report the RR engineers comment that:

_"A good example of Air Ministry control lies in the inverted Daimler-Benz engine. The D.B. people said that both from a technical and production point of view they would have preferred to make an upright engine but they were compelled to make it inverted by the Air Ministry." _

There were problems with the inverted V. The same report says that the DB engineers acknowledged this.

_"It was very difficult to obtain consistent oil consumption and due to the rotation of the crankshaft, one bank gets more oil than the other. For this reason the engine is built with a lower compression ratio on one bank than the other."_

Which may have answered another oft posed question.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 7, 2015)

I think it would be different, Wayne, but they never made one and we'll never know for sure. Not worth an argument, though.

For whatever reason, they seemed to like inverted vees and we seemed to like upright vees. It's curious to me that more than one German manufacturer used the configuration and NONE of our engine designers did. I can say I like the sound of a DB 60 X, but that is more a funtion of the exhaust stacks than the configuration, since both are V-12s, and the fact that, at startup a carbureted engine surges and fuel injected engine doesn't.

I had a Kawasaki GPZ-1000 and it started up exactly the same on a frigid day as on a very warm day ... no diffrence in sound and no hesitation or surging. All the injected modern aircraft I have flow are the same except some of the Lycomings don't really like to start when they're warm unless you use EXACTLY the right technique. The warm engine tends to vaporize the fuel in the injector lines near the exhaust stacks and you have to get the vapor out to start it.

I wonder if they had that trouble with DB 60 X engines. I've never seen it mentioned in any reports of Bf 109 flying or Bf 109 mechanics' writeups that I have read and so suspect not.


----------



## GregP (Oct 7, 2015)

Duplicate post for some reason ...


----------



## wuzak (Oct 8, 2015)

GregP said:


> I think it would be different, Wayne, but they never made one and we'll never know for sure.



Just think of spinning the engine around the axis of the prop. Then change the oil and sump arrangements to suit.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 8, 2015)

GregP said:


> I think it would be different, Wayne, but they never made one and we'll never know for sure.



Just think of spinning the engine around the axis of the prop. Then change the oil and sump arrangements to suit.


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 8, 2015)

Gents,
Thanks for the answers to the "inverted V" questions! Some I had heard / read before and others I had not!
Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Denniss (Oct 8, 2015)

wuzak said:


> The Me 209 II had an annular radiator
> The extra weight forward could be compensated by ballast or by lengthening the rear fuselage.


And we all know how miserably it failed - was slower and less maneuverable than standard 109. Fw 190 was a different beast as airframe was already used with heavy engine forward. But even the 190D was known to be not that agile as the 190A in certain aspects.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 8, 2015)

I think another advantage of the inverted V configuration would be that it might have been a little easier for the ground crew to work on.
A lot of the maintenance of stressed reciprocating engines involves the spark plugs and valve train, more of that work could be performed on low platforms, or maybe even from ground level.

I know from my own experience there's a great deal of difference in degree of difficulty of working on a ordinary car engine and a semi truck, because with the truck it adds a lot of time just climbing up a platform, or onto the engine itself, where with a car I could just bend over and do it.

I remember years ago when I was working on Hueys and OH-6s, a lot of the work was at night, and elevated. When you needed another tool, you either had to get down and get it, or have someone throw it to you. We were sometimes working outside, and usually without good light, so getting thrown a tool sometimes didn't work so well.


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 8, 2015)

The engine didnt have to be inverted for a Motor Cannon or Engine mounted cannon so it must have been for visibility or something as simple as fashion. Inverted engines were the very latest inthing around the time DB, Junkers and RR were putting the first proposals on paper for the wartime engines.


----------



## Jaivan (Oct 8, 2015)

Denniss said:


> And we all know how miserably it failed - was slower and less maneuverable than standard 109. Fw 190 was a different beast as airframe was already used with heavy engine forward. But even the 190D was known to be not that agile as the 190A in certain aspects.



Do we, really?

Is there any *primary* source on the flying qualities of the Me 209 "II", or even for its flight/cooling performance?


----------



## stona (Oct 8, 2015)

fastmongrel said:


> Inverted engines were the very latest inthing around the time DB, Junkers and RR were putting the first proposals on paper for the wartime engines.



But they only did so to fulfill a requirement. Daimler Benz made it clear at the time and subsequently that they would have preferred an upright configuration.

Coincidentally Rolls Royce were flirting with an inverted V configuration at this time and some members of the German committee were in the deputation that saw a Rolls Royce mock up, an ancestor of the PV 12/Merlin, in 1933. The RR report quoted above wonders whether this had influenced the German choice, but given the date I doubt that it did.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## dedalos (Oct 8, 2015)

Denniss said:


> And we all know how miserably it failed - was slower and less maneuverable than standard 109. Fw 190 was a different beast as airframe was already used with heavy engine forward. But even the 190D was known to be not that agile as the 190A in certain aspects.



The bf 209 II prerformed purely because it weighted much more than the Bf 109. It use the jumo213, 200kgr + heavier than the the db605,new landing gear, bigger wing etc.
A Bf 109 with annular radiator for the DB 605 would not be heavier thatn the standart vertion. And propably would have a slight drag advantage , plus better cooling

Accordin to Erich Brynotte , a veteran of JG51, the D9 could out run, outaccelerate, out turn,the Fw 190A6. Also it had more elegant handling, similar roll rate and superior manouverability. At high speed could outturn the bf 109 as well. Actually he states that the 190a in comparison to 190D was like a comparison between an agricalture horse and an arabian race horse. You can find his interview at the u tube


----------



## Koopernic (Oct 8, 2015)

stona said:


> The origin of the inverted V-12 German Aero engines goes back to 1928 when a committee of aeronautical experts was assembled in Berlin at the bidding of the R.V.M. Representatives from the Army, the D.V.L. research centre, the Navy (airships were at their peak in 1928 ) and Deutsche Lufthansa were instructed to make an in-depth study of of the international scene regarding aero-engines and then produce specific guide lines for the future development of large air and liquid cooled motors.
> Along with others, Prof. Wunibald Kamm, Ing. Wolfram Eisenlohr and Dr. Helmut Sachse (later heavily involved in the design of the B.M.W. 801) served on this panel. The specifications drawn up by this "think tank" were very detailed and incorporated some very advanced features including, for the liquid cooled engines:
> 1) 12-cylinder, inverted installation,
> 2) mono-block cylinder banks,
> ...



The DB605 had a master connecting rod from piston to crankshaft on one cylinder bank and a slave connecting rod attached to the master rod. It was like a radial engine in this regard. That's would indirectly lead to the different Compression Ratios as the slave rod is no longer connected at the crankshafts axis. Ive not run this through a excel simulation but its a given to me that radials had sligly higher CR on the master rod. Other explanations are that the airflow paths for left and right bank were different (which doesn't make sense as the manifold seems to be symmetrical) and that the CR was deliberately like this. It's possible to use a Y fork arrangement to attach to the crank shaft instead of a slave conrod.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 8, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> The DB605 had a master connecting rod from piston to crankshaft on one cylinder bank and a slave connecting rod attached to the master rod. It was like a radial engine in this regard. That's would indirectly lead to the different Compression Ratios as the slave rod is no longer connected at the crankshafts axis. Ive not run this through a excel simulation but its a given to me that radials had sligly higher CR on the master rod. Other explanations are that the airflow paths for left and right bank were different (which doesn't make sense as the manifold seems to be symmetrical) and that the CR was deliberately like this. It's possible to use a Y fork arrangement to attach to the crank shaft instead of a slave conrod.



That would be incorrect. The DBs had fork and blade rods.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/inverted-engine-vs-engine-29473-10.html#post800873

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 8, 2015)

Beat me to it, Wayne!

DB 605 components:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Oct 8, 2015)

wuzak said:


> That would be incorrect. The DBs had fork and blade rods.
> 
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/inverted-engine-vs-engine-29473-10.html#post800873



Not according to this:
Daimler-Benz DB 601

The paragraph is headed DB605 construction.

"The pistons were forged light-alloy with concave heads and each piston had a floating wrist pin. There were three compression rings and two oil-scraper rings, with one below the piston pin. The *maste*r connecting rods utilized roller bearings, with three rings of 24 rollers each. The *slave* rod was keyed to the *outside of roller ra*ce and had a lead-bronze bearing over the race."

Of course the article may be wrong and there were also different variants.


----------



## GregP (Oct 9, 2015)

It's fork and blade ... look at the fork rod in the 1st open cylinder with the center bearing ready for the the blade rod.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 9, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> Not according to this:
> Daimler-Benz DB 601
> 
> The paragraph is headed DB605 construction.
> ...



It says master and slave, but describes a fork and blade system.

This is what a master and slave rod configuration looks for a Vee engine

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 9, 2015)

Koopernic, 

The 605 was a bored out 601 and the 601 used fork and blade rod, like the Merlin and Allison.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 9, 2015)

wuzak said:


> It says master and slave, but describes a fork and blade system.
> 
> This is what a master and slave rod configuration looks for a Vee engine



Add a few more slave rods and one has a radial engine. According to an article Greg posted in another thread, each cylinder of a radial engine had different CRs.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/cylinder-dimensions-armstrong-siddeley-deerhound-44001.html Post #8


----------



## GregP (Oct 9, 2015)

I'm not exactly sure if they had different CRs, but they did have slightly different strokes. It would be possible to shape the heads such that that the CR's were equal with the very slightly different strokes. But I suspect Milosh is right since they PROBABLY made each combustion chamber the same size ... being without CNC machning capabilities at the time.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 12, 2015)

Sorry for such a late reply, my oldtimer laptop needed some overhaul 



Koopernic said:


> ...
> The use of 100/130 fuel surely allowed the Merlin and Griffon base set up, ie compression ratio and supercharger settings, to be optimally configured for standard use of 100 octane fuel as opposed to 87 octane and so indirectly improved its power at altitude, when 110/150 came along the engine was already preconfigured for a higher octane fuel.



The RR design approach on the Merlin and Griffon (low compression ratio, comparatively big supercharger, among other details on a V12 engine) was a carry over from the Kestrel. There was no 'indirect improvement of the power at altitude' due to any of the better fuels available, the ever better altitude performance was due to ever better superchargers (and intercoolers, once installed). Sure enough, the low compression ratio helped out with power under the rated altitude(s), with manifold pressures going to around 3 ata with 150 grade fuel and no water injection.



> The DB605L, with the two stage supercharger, seemed to require the higher octane C3 fuel. This is because pre-ignition is heavily a function of temperature which is a function of pressure ratio and compression ratio rather than manifold pressure and a two stage supercharger is likely to be producing pressure ratios of 5:1 at 10,000m and a rather larger temperature increase. Even an intercooler can't pull out all the heat.



The job of the intercooler was not to 'cool back' the compressed air, but to make sure the temperature is within the, for engine, manageable limits. Eg. for the Merlin 61 in Spitfire VII, the 40% of intercooling was found to give the best results (per Morgan Shackledy, pg. 269), while the US standard was 50% of intercooling (at least for turbo engines). The high compression engine, like DB 605L,will need the intercooler even more. The max manifold pressure (on 605L) being limited to 1.75 ata with MW 50. Not just at 1.75 ata, but also for 1.43 ata (30 min power, 'Kampfleistung') required MW 50 injection.
1.75 ata is under 51 in Hg, or +10.2 psig; 1.43 ata is around 41 in Hg, or +5.5 psig; for comparison sake, another comparable non-intercooled 2-stage engine, V-1710 in P-63, will do 55 in Hg in military power, 60 in Hg in WER (5 min, no ADI) and 75 in Hg in 'WER wet' (ie. with ADI).
Manifold pressure is surely a factor for pre-ignition, itself being the function of many things connected to supercharging, intercooling, ADI yes or not etc. 



> Had the Daimler Benz DB605 series had a fuel as good as 100 octane fuel available the DB605 would have been mass produced in the variants with a higher compression ratio (8.4:1 rather than 7.4:1) This would increase power with no increase in fuel consumption and with no decrease in Full Throttle Height.



The German C3 fuel was in the ballpark of what the Allies had when DB 605 was at the development phase. Increasing compression ratio, let alone increase of manifold pressure (and thus increase of power and stress generated) will induce even more reliability isues than encountered historically, that lasted more than a year.



> The introduction of the intercooler on the Merlin 61 added about 120kg to the 620kg Merlin 20 series. A 2000hp engine consuming fuel at an rich setting and sfc of 0.55 will use about 1100lbs (500kg or 500L) and hour. MW-50 would be added at about the same rate as the fuel so an 86L tank i.e. 190lbs would add about 10-12 minutes of WEP available. It seems enough given the other time limits on the engine.



The rate between C3 and MW 50 consumption was around 4:1 in the DB 605L. The MW 50 tank held 70 liters, consumption was 150 L/h for 1.75 ata and 75 L/h for 1.43 ata. Basically, whatever the compression ratio saves, gets offset and more by need to consume MW 50 mixture. Intercooler stays with the aircraft, and DB could've opted for air-to-air intercooler (20-30 kg?) like Jumo did for the 211J/P. Of course, intercooler and lower CR and ADI are not mutually exclusive and give best results, as we know when looking in many ww2 engines, including the Jumo 213E. 



> *The Mk103* was adequate to ranges equal to half its muzzle velocity, say 240 meters. It would be uncommon for greater ranges to be experienced and even with a higher velocity issues of the size of the target within the reticule become and issue.



The MK 108 you mean?



> Not really that smart. Lets drop the pressure ratio of the 87 octane DB605A from 7.5 down to the same level as the Allison/Merlin ie around 6:5 (the merlin was even less) we've now lost about 13.33% of our expansion stroke *and almost as much power while still burning the same amount of fuel*.



The arithmetics in the bolded part are off by a large margin. Increase of compression ratio by 100% will not give 100% more fuel and do wonders on consumption:







So when we decrease the compression ratio by 13.33%, the power will go down by 3.3% for same RPM and manifold pressure. On the plus side, with CR of, say, 6.5:1, the 'Notleistung' regime (1.42 ata, 2800 rpm) might not be banned at all, instead for more than a year as it was, since the engine will be less stressed due to lower CR.



> We can now increases the compression ratio of the supercharger but as this now forces more air and fuel into the engine and means that we must deal with much more waste heat and higher fuel consumption. The extra waste heat requires larger radiators and possibly higher coolant flows.



In order to cool the 3.3% increase of power? Not by a country mile.



> The supercharger is now being used to over boost the engine and can no longer provide altitude compensation. We need a larger or a two stage supercharger. The heat increase at some point compels us to consider and intercooler. Our weight has gone up.



LW needs a larger or a two stage supercharger, that will be well served by an intercooler. Otherwise the Allied aircraft with multi-stage superchargerd engines will kill the LW. As historically. 
As for 'the engine and can no longer provide altitude compensation' - care to elaborate on this, how much this was important, preferably with some sources?



> Would it be reall woth it? could the little Me 109 frame cope with larger radiators and provide the space for an intercooler.
> However, simply provide 100/130 fuel to the Me 109, increase the compression ratio with higher crowns on the pistons and it seems a win win: no decrease in full throttle height, more power with no increase in fuel consumption or thermal load. We only need to make sure the bearings can take the extra power.



LW was sticking all things on the Bf 109 that managed, among the benefits, to slow down it. The air-to-air intercololer can be installed under the engine, with oil cooler relocated in MC 205 fashion. Same for water-to-air intercooler's radiator. Or, install a bit deeper radiator, as a part of main cooling system. 
As for the DB 605A with greater CR: no, no - the reliabilty is lacking even on historical CR.
The 'simply provide 100/130 fuel to the Me 109' tidbit is a little hard to swallow, BTW

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Oct 14, 2015)

Below is the efficieny (and therefore also power increase for various compression ratios.




7.2 What is the effect of Compression ratio?

The Merlin had a CR of 6.0:1
The DB601A had a CR of 6.9:1
The DB601N had a Cr of 8.2:1 (by installing flat top pistons)
The DB605A had a CR of 7.5:1 and 7.3:1 left right
The DB605D had a CR of 8.5:1 and 8.3:1 left right

The increase in compression ratio from 6:1 to 7:1 (Merlin versus DB601A) leads to an increase in power/efficiency of 25%->28% which is an relative increase in power 12% for an increase in compression ratio of 16.6%
The increase of CR from 6:1 to 8.0:1 gives a increase in power from 25% to 30% for a relative increase in power of 20%


The increase of compression ratio from 7:1 to 8.2:1 possible with use of early C3 fuel instead of B4 fuel allows an increase of just over 2% on 28% which is a 7.5% increase in power. However it the use of C3 fuel, because it is either 92/115 (for early C3) or 95/125 for late C3 has a high rich mixture response allows an additional 30% on top of that. You can see that when the DB605DC goes from 1.45ATA to 1.8ATA when using C3.

As you can see the use of C3 allows a significant increase in performance.



tomo pauk said:


> LW was sticking all things on the Bf 109 that managed, among the benefits, to slow down it. The air-to-air intercooler can be installed under the engine, with oil cooler relocated in MC 205 fashion. Same for water-to-air intercooler's radiator. Or, install a bit deeper radiator, as a part of main cooling system.
> As for the DB 605A with greater CR: no, no - the reliability is lacking even on historical CR.



The aircraft slowed down from 400.5mph (Me 109G1) to 387mph (Me 109G6) only due to poorly integrated greater armament and the loss of a retractable tail wheel. As soon as the 1.42 ata rating became available via the introcution of less preignition prone spark plugs the speed went back up to 397mph. C3 fuel would have had the same effect as better spark plugs. The evidence for serious unreliability is just not there outside of introduction of new variants of the engine during highly stressed wartime production. The fact that some engines were reliable and others were not proves a manufacturing system quality control problem.
The Merlin might have failed under similar pressure.



tomo pauk said:


> The 'simply provide 100/130 fuel to the Me 109' tidbit is a little hard to swallow, BTW



Only if you suspend the laws of physics for German engines but not for allied. You are saying that 100/130 fuel was of no benefit to the allies, they may as well have used 87 octane.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 14, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> Below is the efficieny (and therefore also power increase for various compression ratios.
> The Merlin had a CR of 6.0:1
> The DB601A had a CR of 6.9:1
> The DB601N had a Cr of 8.2:1 (by installing flat top pistons)
> ...



The table is true for naturaly-aspirated engines. With supercharged engines, the CR is deliberately kept under 7:1 in order to make more power. A two-stage DB 605L (same CR as 601D) will make 1.75 ata with C3 + MW 50 and only up to 1.20 ata on C3 and without MW 50; a two-stage war-time V-1710 (CR 6.61:1; as 605L it has no intercooler) will make up to 2 ata with ADI, and up to 2 ata without adi. Jumo 213E (6.5:1 CR) will do above 2 ata on B4 and MW 50.
The Merlin with CR of 8:1 will never make 1500 HP, not with +12 psig, unless we bulk it up to the weight of Griffon.




> The increase of compression ratio from 7:1 to 8.2:1 possible with use of early C3 fuel instead of B4 fuel allows an increase of just over 2% on 28% which is a 7.5% increase in power. However it the use of C3 fuel, because it is either 92/115 (for early C3) or 95/125 for late C3 has a high rich mixture response allows an additional 30% on top of that. You can see that when the DB605DC goes from 1.45ATA to 1.8ATA when using C3.



'Better' fuel = greater boost; nothing is curious with 605DC making 1.8 ata, same as Allied engines in 1941.



> As you can see the use of C3 allows a significant increase in performance.



You know that I know that 



> As soon as the 1.42 ata rating became available via the introcution of less preignition prone spark plugs the speed went back up to 397mph. C3 fuel would have had the same effect as better spark plugs. The evidence for serious unreliability is just not there outside of introduction of new variants of the engine during highly stressed wartime production. The fact that some engines were reliable and others were not proves a manufacturing system quality control problem.
> The Merlin might have failed under similar pressure.



Merlin was under similar pressure in 1940-41, yet the reliability was never in question.
I'd not agree with you that spark plugs were the main/sole source problem with DB 605A, the oil system was reworked too in order for 'paper' performance is met.



> Only if you suspend the laws of physics for German engines but not for allied. You are saying that 100/130 fuel was of no benefit to the allies, they may as well have used 87 octane.



I'm not saying that better fuel was of no benefit to the Allies. Laws of physics (and those of economy) apply as ever - there might be enough C3 fuel for BMW 801D engines of the LW, but that does not mean that C3 is also available for Bf 109 units, in order to 'simply provide 100/130 fuel to the Me 109'.


----------

