First half of '43, the 109 Gustav is still one of top fighters in the field?

stona · Oct 28, 2012

Nallinger wasn't referring to a particular Daimler Benz engine.

The meeting was about problems with the DB 605 caused by low quality oil being used and the fitting of an oil slinger to remove contaminants. It also covered the the installation of the DB 603 in the Me 410,and the possible development of the DB 627 for the Me 410.

The complaint was a general analysis by Nallinger.

The rest of the meeting is a technical argument between Daimler Benz and Messerschmitt about the minimum diametre of engines suitable for fighters. Messerschmitt thought it could be 1030mm whereas Daimler Benz thought it should be 1100 - 1200mm.

Milch's decision was that engines should be developed first by engine manufacturers and that the fighter should follow.Any Messerschmitt personnel working on independent engine development for that company were to be transferred from Messerschmitt to Daimler Benz.

Steve

Tante Ju · Oct 28, 2012

As I understand problem with the DB 605A was that DB fitted a more powerful sueprcharger (which was, as we all know, hydraulically driven, i.e. using engine oil) and a much larger capacity oil pump compared to the 601E. Both of these modification made the oil foam, especially at low altitudes (because of the supercharger). This does not sound like as airframe related problem to me... final fix was fitting a new designed oil de-aerator (Ölschlauder).

Thing is again, when this device was fitted, somehow all problems with the engine went away. And, in some later meeting they noted, they will fit the a similar de-aerator device to the Me 410, too, "but it's not so urget". That's funny because AFAIK the 410 was also a Messerschmitt product, but it used a (by all account, rather well conceived and trouble free) DB 603 not a DB 605. The ones which used 605s - 109s, 110, 177 - all seem to have engine problems, the ones with 603s do not. Yeah, the airframe manufacturer was to blame, right.

stona · Oct 28, 2012

Tante Ju said:
This does not sound like as airframe related problem to me...

Well I don't know but then I'm neither an aero engine nor airframe engineer.

I can only assume that Nallinger,as a director of Daimler Benz,was and knew what he was talking about. In the minutes of the meeting he says,on several points,that other airframe manufacturers agree with Daimler Benz and take a similar position as regards Messerschmitt.

Of course it may be that Nallinger and the engineers from those other companies were all wrong and that you know something now that they didn't then.

The DB 603 installation in the Me 410 was a subject of this meeting because it was causing problems,not trouble free. In a meeting in March 1943 there were problems reported,particularly with low oil pressure. There were also problems with the radiators. General Vorwald reported that cooperation between Messerschmitt and Daimler Benz was "very bad."
The problems were solved pre-large scale series production (about a month later) but some early versions had to be modified.

Steve

tomo pauk · Oct 28, 2012

I must ask again: what were the companies, in 1943, that were using the DB-605A to power their planes?

DonL · Oct 28, 2012

There were main problems with the airframe of the Bf 109 G with the DB 605. (Also there were homemade problems from DB itself)

1. DB maintains an Oilpressure of 2.6 technical atmosphere (today Pascal/at) in the airframe by using a DB 605.
The Bf 109 G and K could only reach 2.3 at the whole war.

2. The oil whizzer of the Bf 109 G for the DB 605 was crap at the beginning and much to small, this problem needed a long time for fixing through the small airframe.

3. The pressure retention valve (comes from Messerschmitt)of the Oil tank was also crap at the beginning and couldn't be fixed till end of 1943

4. The DB 605 was larger then the DB 601 this lead to significant problems with the first two sparking plugs at the front (only in the airframe of the Bf 109 ), because they overheated and new cooling solution must be developed.

Also stona has posted the main criticism from Prof. Nallinger and DB.

Vincenzo · Oct 28, 2012

AFAIK the DB 605 was used on italian fighters "serie 5" and on Messeschmitts (and various prototypes.... not that italian "serie 5" were built in large number...)

(talking of 42/3, later a swedish fighter plane used it and Ki-61 II used a derivative)

Tante Ju · Oct 28, 2012

stona said:
Well I don't know but then I'm neither an aero engine nor airframe engineer.

I can only assume that Nallinger,as a director of Daimler Benz, was and knew what he was talking about.

He was talking an eye on the business interests of his company, which just screwed something up IMHO.

In the minutes of the meeting he says,on several points,that other airframe manufacturers agree with Daimler Benz and take a similar position as regards Messerschmitt. Of course it may be that Nallinger and the engineers from those other companies were all wrong and that you know something now that they didn't then.

Like that in the end it was the engine that got fixed, and not the aiframe? As much as I can read the meeting, it traces all the problem to the lubrication system. Perhaps I know something wrong, and in this case please enlighten me, how is a fault in the engine's lubrication system falls on the airframe manufacturer?

The DB 603 installation in the Me 410 was a subject of this meeting because it was causing problems,not trouble free. In a meeting in March 1943 there were problems reported,particularly with low oil pressure. There were also problems with the radiators. General Vorwald reported that cooperation between Messerschmitt and Daimler Benz was "very bad."

Yes and a Febuary 1943 meeting clearly notes that the oil capacity of the DB 605 is simply too small and cannot be increased... it seems it is the root of all problems. Then Nallinger starts to point fingers to Bosch's spark plugs, that Messerschmitt's oil tank in the 109 is too small, that the oil pressure is too small (2.3 ata instead of 2.6 ata).

The only common source of problem I see is a badly designed/undersized lubrication system. And THAT was designed by Herr Prof. Nallinger and co...

Tante Ju · Oct 28, 2012

DonL said:
4. The DB 605 was larger then the DB 601 this lead to significant problems with the first two sparking plugs at the front (only in the airframe of the Bf 109 ), because they overheated and new cooling solution must be developed.

No it was not larger. It's basically an up-bored the DB 601E (mighty 4 mm larger cylinders, booo-hoo!).

DonL · Oct 28, 2012

Lol other airframes could produce a oilpressure of 2.6 ata, this is a home made problem of Messerschmitt and the Bf 109 and not from DB.

Also the Bf 109 G was very clearly a step back from aerodynamics compare the F model.
The F-model was much cleaner then the G model. Only the Erla hood and later the Bf 109 G14 and K-4 were near back to the clean aerodynamic of the F-model!

Anyway the Bf 109 G and K model had also other significant disadvantages compare to the other topfighters at 1944 and 1945.

The Bf 109 wasn't good at the sticks at highspeed, it was very difficult to fly a Bf 109 G or K at the vertical in high speed turns.
The Bf 109 G was significant outclassed at diving (speed) and also it was difficult to handle a highspeed dive and come out with significant control because at highspeed diving it was a real beast at the sticks.

Thje Bf 109 G was in a disadvantage from speed, altitude, diving and she was much more worse to the sticks then for example a P51, P47, Spitfire or F4U-4, the big advantage was it's acceleration and climb performance but that wasn't by far enough at 1944 and 1945!

DonL · Oct 28, 2012

No it was not larger. It's basically an up-bored the DB 601E (mighty 4 mm larger cylinders, booo-hoo!).

You should read some specs for example:

Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance

The DB 605 was larger then the DB 601, significant at the lengths. (also with crankshaft)

stona · Oct 28, 2012

DonL said:
Lol other airframes could produce a oilpressure of 2.6 ata, this is a home made problem of Messerschmitt and the Bf 109 and not from DB.

Exactly.
That was part of the point that Nallinger was making.

There was something of a breakdown in the relationship between Daimler Benz and Messerschmitt in 1943. One of the reasons given by Vorwald for delays in the development of the DB 603 installation in the Me 410 was that testing at Daimler Benz was delayed by the late arrival of components like water radiators and oil reservoirs
Daimler Benz was testing various components using Me 410 W.Nr. 2300 as a test bed.
Steve

Tante Ju · Oct 28, 2012

DonL said:
Lol other airframes could produce a oilpressure of 2.6 ata, this is a homode problem of Messerschmitt and the Bf 109 and not from DB.

That what was Nallinger was claiming. Other airframes - like? Oh, you must mean the He 177. Well that was indeed, trouble free and in direct contrast to those flawed Messerschmitt aiframes.

Also the Bf 109 G was very clearly a step back from aerodynamics compare the F model. The F-model was much cleaner then the G model.

You clearly do not understand the differences between the F and G airframe. How is an F-4 with it's externally mounted armor glass for example cleaner than a 109G with an internally mounted armored glass?

Only the Erla hood and later the Bf 109 G14 and K-4 were near back to the clean aerodynamic of the F-model!

Like if the Erla hood had anything to with the aerodynamic qualities of the airframe.. it's a nice optical tuning, yes. Aerodynamic - no.

Anyway the Bf 109 G and K model had also other significant disadvantages compare to the othe topfighters at 1944 and 1945.

It's also true that the other topfighters of 1944/45 had significant disadvantages compared to the 109G/K...

The Bf 109 wasn't good at the sticks at highspeed, it was very difficult to fly a Bf 109 G or K at the vertical in high speed turns.

It wasn't difficult, it just had heavier control forces than some others. I am quite sure that you are unaware of the changes that had been on made for example on 109K in this regard.

The Bf 109 G was significant outclassed at diving (speed)

No. In fact it was one of the best divers of it's time. Small cross section, powerful engine.

and also it was difficult to handle a highspeed dive and come out with significant control because at highspeed diving it was a real beast at the sticks.

Not true either - if you look up recovery graphs for extreme 109 dives you will find it recovers quite easy and fast actually.

Thje Bf 109 G was in a disadvantage from speed, altitude, diving

In what 1943 fantasy world?

and she was much more worse to the sticks then for example a P51, P47, Spitfire or F4U-4,

I am not quite sure I understand what you mean under this - worse to the sticks. I do understand that none of these above existed in their classic form in 1943. Sure in 1945 these fighters were better than the 109G in 1943. But what point is in this comparison?

the big advantage was it's acceleration and climb performance but that wasn't by far enough at 1944 and 1945!

We are talking 1943... though I doubt that any aircraft could claim to outlcass to the 109K in 1945. Worser in some regards, better in others, yes.. overall claim to be better? No.

DonL · Oct 28, 2012

That what was Nallinger was claiming. Other airframes - like? Oh, you must mean the He 177. Well that was indeed, trouble free and in direct contrast to those flawed Messerschmitt aiframes.

This spec is existing since 1942 with the introduction of the DB 605 and the building code from Daimler Benz since the very first time of the DB 605.
Mr. Nallinger is not claiming he is only refering to facts

To the rest I don't answer, if you will read my post 9 again you can see that I agree with 1943 other members claimed the Bf 109 G and later models were state of the art the whole war, here I disagree.

Oh and every P47 and P51 could outdive a Bf 109 G that is a fact shown from reallive and many dead german pilots who tryed to escape in a dive. booh hoo

Tante Ju · Oct 28, 2012

DonL said:
You should read some specs for example:

Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance

The DB 605 was larger then the DB 601, significant at the lengths. (also with crankshaft)

DB 601E

Lenght:
2147 mm w/o starter,
2303,5 mm w. starter (Anlasser)
Height: 1035 mm
Width: 739 mm

DB 605A

2158 mm w. AL/SED type starter,
2303,5 mm w. AL/SGC type starter (Anlasser)
Height: 1037 mm
Width: 760 mm

So as far as the DB 601E vs 605A goes, the latter has exactly the same lenght, but it is taller by 2 milimeters and broader by 21 milimeters... or by about 1/10th and 8/10th of an inch..

From respective Handbuchs. The difference between early 601A/N is because those engines had a removable propeller reduction gear and lenght is generally given in this condition, and without the starter (1722 mm).

cimmex · Oct 28, 2012

DonL said:
There were main problems with the airframe of the Bf 109 G with the DB 605. (Also there were homemade problems from DB itself)

1. DB maintains an Oilpressure of 2.6 technical atmosphere (today Pascal/at) in the airframe by using a DB 605.
The Bf 109 G and K could only reach 2.3 at the whole war.

2. The oil whizzer of the Bf 109 G for the DB 605 was crap at the beginning and much to small, this problem needed a long time for fixing through the small airframe.

3. The pressure retention valve (comes from Messerschmitt)of the Oil tank was also crap at the beginning and couldn't be fixed till end of 1943

4. The DB 605 was larger then the DB 601 this lead to significant problems with the first two sparking plugs at the front (only in the airframe of the Bf 109 ), because they overheated and new cooling solution must be developed.

Also stona has posted the main criticism from Prof. Nallinger and DB.

I cannot see how a airframe should be responsible for a low oil pressure, wasn't the oil pressure provided by the oil pumps which belonged to the motor?
Cimmex

tomo pauk · Oct 28, 2012

+1 to that.

to all:
What airframe modifications allowed the Notleistung to be finally allowed in late 1943, if the airframe was to blame for the engine problems?

DonL · Oct 28, 2012

I cannot see how a airframe should be responsible for a low oil pressure, wasn't the oil pressure provided by the oil pumps which belonged to the motor?

This engines consumed a lot of oil during the flight. I don't have at the moment the precise specs, but a Bf 109 carried something about 60 Liter oil at the oil tank. The oil was permantly circulated first to the oil cooler and second from the oil tank to the engine to replace the consumed oil.

There was a lot of oil circulation outside the engine and inside the airframe.

Edit:

To make it more precise:

With the oil tank I don't refer to an engine oil tank (because the DB engines had a dry sump and no oil basement), it was a normal tank in the fulsage or wing.
So you have the circulation between engine and oil cooler and engine and oil "replacement tank" and here was also a problem with the pressure retention valve.
This all has not much to do with the oil pumps in the engine.

tyrodtom · Oct 28, 2012

cimmex said:
I cannot see how a airframe should be responsible for a low oil pressure, wasn't the oil pressure provided by the oil pumps which belonged to the motor?
Cimmex

If the oil tank is too small and oil cooler too small , or air flow thru the oil cooler insufficient, the oil temperture will run higher, which will result in lower oil pressure.

cimmex · Oct 28, 2012

High oil temperature will only cause low pressure when bearings are already bad, otherwise the pressure remains the same.
Cimmex

cimmex · Oct 28, 2012

DonL said:
This engines consumed a lot of oil during the flight. I don't have at the moment the precise specs, but a Bf 109 carried something about 60 Liter oil at the oil tank. The oil was permantly circulated first to the oil cooler and second from the oil tank to the engine to replace the consumed oil.

There was a lot of oil circulation outside the engine and inside the airframe.

Edit:

To make it more precise:

With the oil tank I don't refer to an engine oil tank (because the DB engines had a dry sump and no oil basement), it was a normal tank in the fulsage or wing.
So you have the circulation between engine and oil cooler and engine and oil "replacement tank" and here was also a problem with the pressure retention valve.
This all has not much to do with the oil pumps in the engine.

Talking about the DB605 and here is the horseshoe shaped oil tank just in front of the engine around the reduction gear and the oil cooler below the motor in the lower engine cowling. All suction and circulating oil pumps are inside the motor and driven by the motor. So please explain how the airframe was responsible for a bad lubrication.
Cimmex

First half of '43, the 109 Gustav is still one of top fighters in the field?

Major

Banned

Major

Creator of Interesting Threads

Banned

Senior Master Sergeant

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Major

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Airman

Creator of Interesting Threads

Banned

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads