drgondog
Major
V - You are correct on both comments..
First half of '43, the 109 Gustav is still one of top fighters in the field?
- Thread starter Vincenzo
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
V - You are correct on both comments..
davebender
1st Lieutenant
IMO they should have eliminated cowl machineguns entirely when the Me-109G added a MG151/20 cannon in each wing. If you cannot kill an aircraft with three 20mm cannon then you aren't hitting the target.
However Germans appear to like cowl mounted machineguns as much as they like beer. So Me-109 cowl mounted machineguns cannot be deleted.
However Germans appear to like cowl mounted machineguns as much as they like beer. So Me-109 cowl mounted machineguns cannot be deleted.
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
from the few interviews i have read ( probably galland, rall, or stigler ) the F was prefered over the G. now it might have been like drgondog said...the F was more fun to fly, a little tighter in turns, etc,. so they they may have thought they had a better chance in them.
i think the original comment was that the G model was "competitive" to allied air craft not that it was "state of the art". in that i agree. it was used to great success up to the end of the war and after ( if you include the exports to the middle east ). they were not an obsolete ac that were being knocked out of the sky in wholesale fashion. they were a real threat and there were still a lot of very competent pilots flying for the lw until the war ended. the problem with the 109 series was it had to play 2 roles as a bomber interceptor and as a fighter. you could argue and say that the spits had to do the same but the 4 engine allied bombers absorbed more punishment than their smaller axis counterparts. they had to be armed heavily enough to deal with 17s, 24s, and lancs, and still be nimble enough to mix it up with allied fighter.
oil foaming ( frothing ) is usually attibuted to overheating and aggrivation. we saw more frothing in air cooled 2 cycle engines ( in the transmisson or power take off oils...engine oils were of course mixed with the gasoline) than in water cooled 4 strokes. the 2 cycles ran at higher operating temps and sometimes twice the RPMs. foaming or frothing aerates the oil and can drop the pressure from 2.6 to 2.2. the pumps must be able to handle the flow but if the solution is degraded by bubbles the pump will not be able to generate the volume or pressure it was designed to deliver. there are several ways to fix frothing. there are anti foaming additives that can be blended into the oil from the start. you can pressurize the system ( high pressure) as they do with shock absorbers and struts. the nitrogen pressurization has nothing to do with increasing the lift capacity, it keeps the oil from frothing and thus degrading the absorbtion of the device. larger sumps, bigger coolers, are the easiest fixes while some systems use deaerators. deaerators basically remove the bubbles from the oil or fluid of the system. so if the oil coolers and sumps were part of the ac design then DB could levee a claim that messerschmitt's design was reason for the problem. although DB would have had to have furnished willie with certain specs ( sump capactiy minimum and cooler size and air flow ) to begin with.
water cooled engines still rely in some degree to air for cooling. the heat range of spark plugs in not as many believe the temperature of the spark itself..a hotter plug = a hotter spark....it is the heat disipation/retention operating range of the plug....how fast it bleeds off heat. the post about the front cylinders running hot and piston problems i would be willing to bet are related. i would bet that the problem pistons were those front 2 cylinders that didnt cool as well as the others and suffered piston failure or damage.
i think the original comment was that the G model was "competitive" to allied air craft not that it was "state of the art". in that i agree. it was used to great success up to the end of the war and after ( if you include the exports to the middle east ). they were not an obsolete ac that were being knocked out of the sky in wholesale fashion. they were a real threat and there were still a lot of very competent pilots flying for the lw until the war ended. the problem with the 109 series was it had to play 2 roles as a bomber interceptor and as a fighter. you could argue and say that the spits had to do the same but the 4 engine allied bombers absorbed more punishment than their smaller axis counterparts. they had to be armed heavily enough to deal with 17s, 24s, and lancs, and still be nimble enough to mix it up with allied fighter.
oil foaming ( frothing ) is usually attibuted to overheating and aggrivation. we saw more frothing in air cooled 2 cycle engines ( in the transmisson or power take off oils...engine oils were of course mixed with the gasoline) than in water cooled 4 strokes. the 2 cycles ran at higher operating temps and sometimes twice the RPMs. foaming or frothing aerates the oil and can drop the pressure from 2.6 to 2.2. the pumps must be able to handle the flow but if the solution is degraded by bubbles the pump will not be able to generate the volume or pressure it was designed to deliver. there are several ways to fix frothing. there are anti foaming additives that can be blended into the oil from the start. you can pressurize the system ( high pressure) as they do with shock absorbers and struts. the nitrogen pressurization has nothing to do with increasing the lift capacity, it keeps the oil from frothing and thus degrading the absorbtion of the device. larger sumps, bigger coolers, are the easiest fixes while some systems use deaerators. deaerators basically remove the bubbles from the oil or fluid of the system. so if the oil coolers and sumps were part of the ac design then DB could levee a claim that messerschmitt's design was reason for the problem. although DB would have had to have furnished willie with certain specs ( sump capactiy minimum and cooler size and air flow ) to begin with.
water cooled engines still rely in some degree to air for cooling. the heat range of spark plugs in not as many believe the temperature of the spark itself..a hotter plug = a hotter spark....it is the heat disipation/retention operating range of the plug....how fast it bleeds off heat. the post about the front cylinders running hot and piston problems i would be willing to bet are related. i would bet that the problem pistons were those front 2 cylinders that didnt cool as well as the others and suffered piston failure or damage.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #65
If you talking of my starting post, no i want tell was "state of the art", obviously talking of fighter in the field not that on development.
A this point my opinion is yes the Gustav was one of "state of art" fighters in the 1st half of '43, and yes the news variants of Spit IX were more "state of art"..., the 190 was an other state of art fighters
all the others were behind (under the conditions of thread, all altitude fighter)
Daimler Benz provided a series of installation criteria to any aircraft manufacturer using their engines. Maybe not sump capacity in an inverted V 12,but various other parameters. It was Messerschmitt's failiure too meet these that led to the comments made by Nallinger to Milch.
This was obviously not the only issue with the DB 605 but was part of Nallinger's defence.
Steve
Balljoint
Senior Airman
Very true. Modern race oils get dicey at about 300 F. The 10/30 rating is the viscosity at ambient vs. normal operating temp. Oils in the 40s didn't have viscosity stabilizers and were much more susceptible to thinning with high temperature. Also foaming.
High oil temps can result from engine problems (blow by, spark lead etc) and of course from the airframe deficiencies with heat rejection. It's a systems problem.
Similarly, foaming can result from windage problems in the engine –maybe unavoidable in an inverted V- or from poor reservoir design.
The gentleman at the LEMB makes a case that Mtt was to blame more than the DB for 605A issues:
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16798
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16798
It's important to understand German practice at the time.
German engine manufacturers supplied engines according to an aircraft's performance design. They would design,build and test the prototypes for new engines. The engines were considered seperate entities to the power plant assemblies which would include radiators,exhausts,superchargers,nacelles etc.
One manufacturer,in this case Daimler Benz,would manufacture the engine and another,in this case Messerschmitt,would install it in the power plant assembly. The criteria for the power plant assembly was given to the second manufacturer by the first in an engine installation portfolio.
In the case of the DB 605 installed in the Bf 109 it was Messerschmitt who failed to provide the oil pressure stipulated by Daimler Benz (2.6ata) due to their design of the power plant assembly.
Cheers
Steve
German engine manufacturers supplied engines according to an aircraft's performance design. They would design,build and test the prototypes for new engines. The engines were considered seperate entities to the power plant assemblies which would include radiators,exhausts,superchargers,nacelles etc.
One manufacturer,in this case Daimler Benz,would manufacture the engine and another,in this case Messerschmitt,would install it in the power plant assembly. The criteria for the power plant assembly was given to the second manufacturer by the first in an engine installation portfolio.
In the case of the DB 605 installed in the Bf 109 it was Messerschmitt who failed to provide the oil pressure stipulated by Daimler Benz (2.6ata) due to their design of the power plant assembly.
Cheers
Steve
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
are you talking about the air cooling of the engine in the air frame?
Balljoint
Senior Airman
No. Windage is the entrainment of oil mist in the internal moving parts of an engine. The crankshaft in particular whips up a vortex of air and oil mist that moves with it and the rods also beat against the oil mist. The oil is from the small and large end rod bearing and the crank journal bearings. If the dry sump is heavy on the scavenging, or with altitude, low crankcase pressures can help. I'm generalizing since I don't know how an inverted V dry sump is layed out.
Again in general concerning blow by, older engine design often featured larger clearances for lower friction and to accommodate piston expansion under a range of thermal condition in a blown engine. I'll defer to anyone who actually works on these engines.
The problems under discussion appear to be the result of siloing expertise.
The Bf-109 was a prewar design with remarkable stretch. However, I agree with the posters (and German flyers) who felt that it reached it's peak with the F model. The G and K were able to keep up with the raw performance and increased armament of newer aircraft by various upgrades, but I really doubt most fighter pilots in 1944-45 would go into combat in a Gustav if they had the choice of any piston-engined plane, allied or axis, they wanted.
But Germany didn't have those choices, and they can thank their lucky stars that the Bf-109 won out in 1936 so they at least had an outstanding aircraft with such inherent stretch - second only to the almighty Spitfire, which one-upped the 109 by staying beautiful til the end. IMHO, beauty-wise, the Bf-109 peaked with the F.
But Germany didn't have those choices, and they can thank their lucky stars that the Bf-109 won out in 1936 so they at least had an outstanding aircraft with such inherent stretch - second only to the almighty Spitfire, which one-upped the 109 by staying beautiful til the end. IMHO, beauty-wise, the Bf-109 peaked with the F.
claidemore
Senior Airman
Hartmann had the choice of any Luftwaffe plane, and he chose to stick with the 109, though I'm sure other factors influenced that decision.
As far as beauty, I've always considered the Spitfire to be the best looking WWII fighter. But I'd say a 109 K-4 is just as attractive as a 109 F-4, maybe even a little nicer with the Erla hood.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
How many Allied pilots would choose a P-40 or Spitfire V during 1944? How many Japanese pilots would choose a Ki-43 during 1944?
Wartime production requirements caused many aircraft to remain in service after they had been eclipsed by newer types.
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
i dont know about that. seems fighter pilots have a deep love for their planes. when a lot of lw pilots had a chance to fly a spit or something else they found things they loved...roomy cockpits, rudder trim, etc. but a lot of them said they still prefered their 109s. there were a LOT of G models...the G2 handled very simular to the F and the G10 started to go back that way too. it would depend on what kind of flyer the german pilot is as to what he wants. if hes more of a fighter vs fighter type he would want something more of an F. but if he liked hunting heavies....the cannons and machineguns of a G-6 are about as lethel as you are going to get for a small airframe and would probably be desirable by those types...
But we'll never know because LW pilots really had only two choices, I suspect, FW or BF. People will stick with what they are comfortable with, and there are outstanding pilots who did choose the Bf-109. How about the new guys? Maybe they'd have rather been in a P-51 or Tempest?
davebender
1st Lieutenant
During the spring of 1943 it would more likely be a P-40 or Spitfire V.
TheMustangRider
Senior Airman
Or the P-38 or P-47 for that matter, which AFAIK did have the respect of most German flyers that encountered them.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Those were very expensive fighter aircraft and newly introduced. IMO not a good comparison to inexpensive 1930s designs such as the Spitfire, Me-109 and Soviet I-16.
