KrazyKraut
Banned
- 337
- Apr 21, 2008
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I am aware of the comparison test you are getting your numbers from, yes. But you should keep in mind that it stems from the earlier days of the Fw 190 and no doubt, there was still some scepticism towards the plane. Oh and you could aswell quote the scepticism that same report shows towards the 603 while you are at it. IIRC according to Rodeike the DB 603A had an MRO inteval of 40 or less by late autumn 1943. So it wasn't doing much better than the BMW was almost 2 years before.Are You familar with the BMW-801C MRO intervals? If 100 hours was the desired MRO interval to qualify for operationally reliable engines, then the -801C cannot be considered RELIABLE by 1941, too. Correct me, if Im wrong. The december 1941 state of Fw-190 engine reliability required 25 hours MRO intervals.
Note that the fourth and fifth Db-603 prototypes produced in 1939 running on Water-methanol producing 3000 hp for the speed record car trial abandoned by outbreak of war. By this time, no -801 was even benchtested.
How many liters of fuel do you think are available after subtracting take off, climb to altitude, transit to the combat area, return to base and landing?F-4 consume 350 l/h at combat power (30 min.) and have 400 liter so it's not as you told
How many liters of fuel do you think are available after subtracting take off, climb to altitude, transit to the combat area, return to base and landing?
I am aware of the comparison test you are getting your numbers from, yes. But you should keep in mind that it stems from the earlier days of the Fw 190 and no doubt, there was still some scepticism towards the plane. Oh and you could aswell quote the scepticism that same report shows towards the 603 while you are at it. IIRC according to Rodeike the DB 603A had an MRO inteval of 40 or less by late autumn 1943. So it wasn't doing much better than the BMW was almost 2 years before.
I doubt this. Dropping the BMW-801 would bring the db-603 into significantly larger than historical production figures for the 1941 and 1942 period. I suspect that the soonest Fw-190 with Db-603 would see service by mid/late 1942, appearing in greater numbers during 1943, a full year before the service advent of the P-51B. These mounts would have a performance advantage over the Bf-109F4/G2 they would come to replace. By 1944 with MW-50 injection and 2250 hp increased take off power, they would be comparable to a 1945 Ta-152C performancewise and more than a match for a P-51B/P-47C, lending Daves idea some merit.The DB 603 was a great engine and would've been a very good choice for the higher altitude fighter version, but it would've been a mistake to design the Fw 190 for that engine from the start as it would've delayed introduction until at least mid 1943, by this time the Mustang is already nearly there. So you basically are on even terms again.
That´s nothing to give the Fw-190A or the BMW-powerplant particularely special credit for. During the 1941 to late 1942 period, the Bf-109F4 had even more performance than the Fw-190A and dominated the airspaces not only over Russia, Malta and North Afrika but also over France whenever deployed. It´s not that the Fw-190 saved the Luftwaffe in this timeframe, the period versions of the Bf-109 were already establishing aerial superiority on their own.Thanks to the BMW the Fw had a good year and a half of dominance.
No argument here.Also, instead of striving for optimum performance, they could've settled for the weaker but more trouble free Jumo 213 as early as 1942 and then wait for the DB603 to become reliable since the two were interchangeable. Which they did in the end anyways, just very late.
Agreed. That´s exactly why I think Kurt Tank should have considered the Db-603/Jumo-213 in the first place. The BMW-801 was a very complicated, wasteful engine which put considerable strain on the logistic chain and eventually despite all praise for the Fw-190 worsened the german war effort by industrial diversification and increased consumption of C3 fuels. It´s a missed opportunity.Sticking with the 139 would've given you a slightly better performing (e.g. ~10 km/h faster) but more difficult to fly and significantly weaker armed fighter with very little potential left. Essentially a dead end road. Any project for a bigger engine or increased armament would've resulted in half a new plane.
By 1942, a single BMW-801D2 required avg. 2.000 manhours and 45.000 to 65.000 Reichsmark
So a BMW801 engine cost roughly twice as much as the DB601. Does anyone have a price for the DB603 and Jumo213 engines?price data for 1941 for some German aircraft types, via Olaf Groehlers GdLK, 1910-1980:
Without engine / with engine, in Reichsmarks (RM)
Bf 109E : 58 000 / 85 970
Sorry
I keep harking back to this notion of the Bf109F-4 having some 416mph maximum speed and I'm just not buying it.
Once again, emergency power rating only, this is not the same as a sustained speed advantage over the Spitfire Mk V over France and if it was, why is it not mentioned in combat reports in the same way the speed advantage of the Fw190 was? Neither source mentions an overwhelming advantage (which 416mph surely was) for the F-4 over its rivals.
Sorry
The Bf109F-3 and -4 which were produced simultaneously, replaced the F-2 variant on the assembly lines in early 1942 a.
Any mention of a DB603 installation?Me-109F4. May 1941 to May 1942. 1,841 total.
.....544 built as F4/Z with GM-1 injection
Sorry
I keep harking back to this notion of the Bf109F-4 having some 416mph maximum speed and I'm just not buying it.
Once again, emergency power rating only, this is not the same as a sustained speed advantage over the Spitfire Mk V over France and if it was, why is it not mentioned in combat reports in the same way the speed advantage of the Fw190 was? Neither source mentions an overwhelming advantage (which 416mph surely was) for the F-4 over its rivals.
I'm interested in where you got these figures from.
I can't find satisfactory concensus over the maximum speed of the F-4; these range from 354 to 390mph. The higher figures seem to be representative of maximum emergency speed and the lower figures normal combat speed.
Again, that seems ambitious, I can't find anything that puts the G-2 over 400mph.
...
With GM-1 boost, there are some rather shocking figures, but I can't disclose them yet..
...
Kurfurst is the expert on the Me-109. However I found this on Wikipedia.
Production Dates.
Me-109F1. Aug 1940 to Feb 1941. 208 total.
Me-109F2. Oct 1940 to Aug 1941. 1,380 total.
Me-109F3. Oct 1940 to Jan 1941. Only a few produced.
Me-109F4. May 1941 to May 1942. 1,841 total.
.....544 built as F4/Z with GM-1 injection.
Me-109G1. Feb - Jun 1942. 167 total.
Me-109G2. May 1942 - Feb 1943. 1,586 total.
Me-109G3. Jan - Feb 1943. 50 total.
Me-109G4. Sep 1942 to Jul 1943. 1,242 total.
Me-109G5. May 1943 to Aug 1944. 475 total.
Me-109G6. Feb 1943 to mid 1944. 12,000 total.
That's mass production!
Hmm, the F-4 with the DB 601E at 1,42ata had a very similiar output to the DB 605A at 1,3ata (the maximum authorized boost for both engines in 1942). The airframes were almost completely identical as well (aerodynamics-wise). And, there are about a dozen flight tests, reports with the 109G credited with 660 or so km/h at 1,3ata.
The official German specification for the G-1/G-2/G-3/G-4 (sans GM-1 boost), at 1.3ata 30-min rating was 660 kph/410 mph at altitude. All produced aircraft had to satisfy this within +/- 3% tolerance in a clean state.