"To hell with manuals, we're replacing the engines when we decide so" said no crew chief ever.
Fw 190D and Me 109K vs. Yak-3 and La-7
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
"To hell with manuals, we're replacing the engines when we decide so" said no crew chief ever.
Shortround6
Major General
Hmmm, engine withstands 7 1/2 hours at WEP power on the test stand (test is stopped then, nobody knows how much further the engine can go) but in the aircraft using such a power setting will cause almost instant damage????
I guess the engine would only last a few minutes at military power as installed in the airplane despite lasting a number of hours on the test stand?
Pilot might only want to use take-off power sparingly (take-off at 90% of power)?
Seriously, the ratings were tested, extensively.
There were procedures for checking the engine, pulling the plugs, checking for metal in the oil, cross checking the engine hours already on the engine, and including how many times WEP had been used before. Engine with a lot of hours might get pulled if WEP used once, New engine with very few hours might get a plug change and be returned to service the next day.
There are stories of P-38 pilots at the end of the war ferring aircraft pretty much from the factory to the scrap yards and using WEP power from take-off until backing off for landing, no blown engines.
That may be the situation on fighters but most Merlins were put in bombers. If a Lancaster or Halifax lost two engines the remaining two were massively overworked, between throwing out any excess weight and pushing the engines as far as possible the only important factor was maintaining altitude and getting back. The choice was bailing out or possibly blowing up the engines and then bailing out, so long as you stay above a height that you can bail out why wouldn't you risk it? There is massive survivor bias in these anecdotes, we don't read about those whose engines blew up.
GregP
Major
I have a total of 3 D-0s, 3 D-1s, 2 D-2s, 1805 D-9s, 17 D-11s, 3 D-12s, and 17 D-13s accepted. I do not have a total for them delivered to active combat units, but I do not believe anywhere near the entire total of D-9s saw active service, and VERY certainly not all at the same time. I'd guestimate maybe a maximum total of about 600 - 700 in operation at most, at the same time. spread over wherever the Luftwaffe wanted them. Likely that was the about the max and was considerably less most of the time.
By that, I mean something similar to the Me 262: We all know there were about 1,430 Me 262s built, but according to Adolf Galland, who certainly should know, there were never more than about 50 - 60 in operation at any one time, and no more than about 300 ever saw combat. That from the guy who was charged with their operation. More than 500 were destroyed by bombing raids before they could leave the factory. Reported kills were either 509 or 542, edepending on who you believe against 100 combat losses.
So, all in all, it didn't do quite as well in combat as the F4F Wildcat, which had an overall 6 : 1 kill-to-loss ratio. I don't have the operational losses, but we KNOW many went down with mechanical issues and likely not a few to running out of fuel. Pilots just weren't used to anything with legs as short as the early jets ... definitely shorter time aloft than a Bf 109, which was the standard for "short range."
By that, I mean something similar to the Me 262: We all know there were about 1,430 Me 262s built, but according to Adolf Galland, who certainly should know, there were never more than about 50 - 60 in operation at any one time, and no more than about 300 ever saw combat. That from the guy who was charged with their operation. More than 500 were destroyed by bombing raids before they could leave the factory. Reported kills were either 509 or 542, edepending on who you believe against 100 combat losses.
So, all in all, it didn't do quite as well in combat as the F4F Wildcat, which had an overall 6 : 1 kill-to-loss ratio. I don't have the operational losses, but we KNOW many went down with mechanical issues and likely not a few to running out of fuel. Pilots just weren't used to anything with legs as short as the early jets ... definitely shorter time aloft than a Bf 109, which was the standard for "short range."
Last edited:
Most of what we now know has come to light because of a combination of aircraft restorations and on line gammers improving their simulations. That's what I have to rely on hence my cautious language, neverthless all are backed by official documents.. What BMW allows differs from what Focke-Wulf Wulf allows differs with what the Luftwaffe technical office allows.
When "increased emergency power without C3 injection" was released for combat use in 1943 it allowed a boost pressure of 1.57 ata in 1st gear and 1.65 ata in second gear. Tests confined the engine did not overheat. Neverthless Caveat restrictions were that the engine were initially set to a 10 minute limit or untill the engine overheats, whichever comes first. The pilot was advised not to use increased emergency power for climbing extended periods when possible. The is in the 190A8 flight manual. It's clear the concern was overheating and warnings were given not to use it during climbing too long as this would reduced speed, airflow and cooling.
When the 801 TS came in to use to it incorporated improved supercharger fluid dynamics and modifications to improve cooling as well as improved components such as stronger gearbox and from the planned 801E such items as vacuum caste heads. The 1.65 ata time rating became unlimited. (So I've read on other forums)
Latter in Jan or Feb 1945 the 801TS was released for 1.82 ata with clarification sent out in March. Not clear on the dates but it did happen.
Another type of emergency power was "increased emergency power with C3 injection" which came into use around the same time, 1943, or a little earlier for jabo ground attack aircaft. It involved injecting C3 fuel into the supercharger to get a charge cooling effect. Because of intake airflow limitations it ceased to increase power above 1500m and use above 1000m was restricted. Fuel was consumed at 60-65 LPM and since a 190 only carried 580L any time limitation was purely hypothetical.
Last edited:
Source for the unlimited duration of 1.65 ata for BMW 801?
580L carried by Fw 190 - any source for that?
First of all, the La-5 and La-7 job units was not Il-2 close escort. That was Yak units job. If Las participated, they did high cover.
Apart from that, main Las units job was escorting bombers and fighter sweeps.
As to heights at which Las usually operated, let me us words of a VVS vet:
It's form excellent Artem Drabkin's book "Ja drialsa s asami Luftwaffe" - a collection of interviews with VVS veterans (sorry for Google translation).
As you can see, engine power at 4500-5000 meters was vital for La-5 or La-7, not at ground level and not even at say 2000 meteres.
Il-2 attack was a fragment of a mission, most of which was flying towards the target and back. If weather permitted they would go to the targer at 1000-1500 meters, if not, at tree tops, which was also how they usually retreated. Yaks of close escort rarely exceeded 2000 meters.
Soviet fighters were very short-legged if they used high power settings. I guess that was the reason why Il-2 close escort didn't weave:
( "Штурмовиков прикрывали на их скорости, редко когда делали «качели».".)
Good question. 524 ltr in 2 main tanks plus 85 ltr in aux tank = 609 ltr
Probably for the Fw 190 A6 it was an 85 (associated with GM-1 use as well)
For the A8
http://www.qattara.it/Documents/fw190a8.pdf
524 in two main and 115 for the auxiliary would be 639
Possibly not all usable.
So the conclusion is thst F4F wilcat is superior to the Me262
of course every time when pilot have decided to use WEP the engine is in "straight out of assembly line condition" like during stand test????? and of course ground test is replicating all combat loads imposed to powerplant?? come on guys - please be little bit more realistic and slightly with bigger distance to "engine manual said" type knowledge. I'm more in position to believe in opinion expressed by guy who spend 35 years in aviation business including 6 years maintaining airplanes in war condition, than to what you are able to find in what left out of manuals. I think none of us have doubts that theory sometimes is quite far from reality - aviation in general, and topic of this particular discussion is no exception from this rule.
WEP is not a matter just putting engine control lever in specific position - it is also matter of changing engine tune (removing WEP limiters) - factory personnel haven't been authorized to do so on military accepted airplanes - i wouldn't like to said that events described by you haven't happened
D let's be realistic) but it wasn't common practice for sure.I have no problems with people having opinons, and sometimes not doing the things by the book. However, a story of outright replacing engines when WER (or it's equivalent, depending on nomenclature of a service/county) was used belongs to the same universe with XP-39 making 400 mph and Yak-3 deciding the outcome of the Kursk battle.
agree 100% - this is why discussions like this one always leading to the dead end - combat reality is far too complex to give answer based on numbers from manuals.
GregP
Major
Post #167, saying the Soviets flew and fought up high frequently, goes against every other reference I have read, and all of the Soviet reports I have read that mention altitude. That amounts to very many reports of heavily low-altitude operation.
Of course they had a few high-altitude squadrons operating sometimes experimental high-altitude fighters and fighter prototypes, but they didn't represent the vast majority of PVO or even VVS. The MiG-3 was capable of higher operation and was likely the most often operated at higher altitudes. The I-211 (MiG-9) was capable, too, but they only built 1. The La-5 was also high-altitude capable but, according to most of what I have read, did not often fight there. The La-7 had a service ceiling about 3,000 feet lower than the La-5. The I-222 and I-224 were very-high-altitude prototypes, but they only made 1 of each.
The Pashini I-21 could get decently high, but they only made 5. Nobody is going to seriously suggest the Pe-3 was a high-altitude unit. It may seem unlikely that a biplane could be a high-altitude fighter, but the I-153 had a service ceiling a bit over 37,000 feet and they made 3,437 of them. But I have never seen them described as being assigned to high-altitude missions. The Polikarpov I-180 could get to over 37,000 feet, but they only made 16 of them. The I-185 could not even get to 34,000 feet and only 4 were built. The Polikarpov ITP could almost reach 39,000 feet, but development was slow and other aircraft gave similar performance, so they only made 2 and cancelled it in 1944.
The Sukhoi SU-2/I-330 could get above 42,000 feet, but the turbos gave a LOT of trouble and they only built 1. They only built 1 Su-3 and 1 Su-5, too. Thgere was 1 Su-6 that was converted into an Su-7 (designation letter reused for the jet Fitter), but it was only a prototype. There was only 1 Tairov Ta-3 built, too.
The Yak-3 could get high, but was not generally used there. The Yak-7 and Yak-9 could also get 34 - 36,000 feet, but also were seldom used for high-altitude work. They were sort of like the P-40. They could get there, but really didn't have fighter-like performance if they did. The Borovkov-Florov I-207 could reach 34,000 feet, but they only built 1 and it was a biplane.
While the USSR DID have high-altitude capability, my reading and talking with 3 former Soviet VVS pilots tells me they heavily preferred NOT to use it very much. They operated very much mostly in support of ground operations, which generally don't manage to get to high altitudes.
Of course they had a few high-altitude squadrons operating sometimes experimental high-altitude fighters and fighter prototypes, but they didn't represent the vast majority of PVO or even VVS. The MiG-3 was capable of higher operation and was likely the most often operated at higher altitudes. The I-211 (MiG-9) was capable, too, but they only built 1. The La-5 was also high-altitude capable but, according to most of what I have read, did not often fight there. The La-7 had a service ceiling about 3,000 feet lower than the La-5. The I-222 and I-224 were very-high-altitude prototypes, but they only made 1 of each.
The Pashini I-21 could get decently high, but they only made 5. Nobody is going to seriously suggest the Pe-3 was a high-altitude unit. It may seem unlikely that a biplane could be a high-altitude fighter, but the I-153 had a service ceiling a bit over 37,000 feet and they made 3,437 of them. But I have never seen them described as being assigned to high-altitude missions. The Polikarpov I-180 could get to over 37,000 feet, but they only made 16 of them. The I-185 could not even get to 34,000 feet and only 4 were built. The Polikarpov ITP could almost reach 39,000 feet, but development was slow and other aircraft gave similar performance, so they only made 2 and cancelled it in 1944.
The Sukhoi SU-2/I-330 could get above 42,000 feet, but the turbos gave a LOT of trouble and they only built 1. They only built 1 Su-3 and 1 Su-5, too. Thgere was 1 Su-6 that was converted into an Su-7 (designation letter reused for the jet Fitter), but it was only a prototype. There was only 1 Tairov Ta-3 built, too.
The Yak-3 could get high, but was not generally used there. The Yak-7 and Yak-9 could also get 34 - 36,000 feet, but also were seldom used for high-altitude work. They were sort of like the P-40. They could get there, but really didn't have fighter-like performance if they did. The Borovkov-Florov I-207 could reach 34,000 feet, but they only built 1 and it was a biplane.
While the USSR DID have high-altitude capability, my reading and talking with 3 former Soviet VVS pilots tells me they heavily preferred NOT to use it very much. They operated very much mostly in support of ground operations, which generally don't manage to get to high altitudes.
Last edited:
Wouldn't you need oxygen equipment to fly at 7,000 metres (23,000 feet) - or even to reach 5,000 metres (16,700 feet)? At what altitude is an oxygen supply a necessity? I don't think many Soviet pilots had oxygen equipment on their aircraft.
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
War Emergency use in the VVS.
Conversations with N.Golodnikov. Part Three. P-39 Airacobra and Yaks – Lend-Lease
Question: Nikilay Gerasimovich, could the Cobra (P-39) really contend with the BF-109G and Fw-190
in aerial combat?
Nikolay: Yes. The Cobra, especially the Q-5, took second place to no one, and even surpassed
all the German fighters.
I flew more than 100 combat sorties in the Cobra, of these 30 in reconnaissance, and fought 17
air combats. The Cobra was not inferior in speed, in acceleration, nor in vertical or horizontal maneuverability.
It seems that everything depends on what you wanted out of it. Either you flew it in such
a manner as to shoot down Messers and Fokkers, or you flew it in a way that guaranteed
120 hours of engine life.
Conversations with N.Golodnikov. Part Three. P-39 Airacobra and Yaks – Lend-Lease
Question: Nikilay Gerasimovich, could the Cobra (P-39) really contend with the BF-109G and Fw-190
in aerial combat?
Nikolay: Yes. The Cobra, especially the Q-5, took second place to no one, and even surpassed
all the German fighters.
I flew more than 100 combat sorties in the Cobra, of these 30 in reconnaissance, and fought 17
air combats. The Cobra was not inferior in speed, in acceleration, nor in vertical or horizontal maneuverability.
It seems that everything depends on what you wanted out of it. Either you flew it in such
a manner as to shoot down Messers and Fokkers, or you flew it in a way that guaranteed
120 hours of engine life.
Said post doesn't say they did that frequently. In the scale of whole VVS and whole war that was surely infrequent. I mean vast majority of VVS combat was indeed at low altitude, as it was indeed closely related to Il-2s and fighters attacking ground targets (the latter early, often armed with RS rockets). Those flew low and fighters escorting them did too. Only later in war Soviets had enough fighters to provide high cover and escorting twin-engined bombers was relatively minor proportion of all missions.
Please note that my post was in conversation about La-7, a late-war type.
Mr. Kozhemyako fought in frontline air armies.
Well, there's no reason for that, since engine was the same as was airframe geometry and La-7 was lighter.
Service ceiling was that important in practice as it was about 10000 meters. What mattered more was that La-5 FN and La-7 reached their top speed at first supercharger speed at about 3000 meters and at second at about 6000 meters.
That's surely true. Yet there were times and units in frontline air force which operated as high as 4500 - 5000 m or even 7000 meters. Those surely were exceptions in the scale of the whole war and whole frontline VVS.
Another piece from Drabkin's book (again, sorry for the Google translation):
GregP
Major
There well may be no reason for a lower service ceiling of La-7, yet is reported that way in most references. Could be induction, could be airfoil, could be different propeller. I wasn't trying to justify it or even say I agreed with it, I was stating a fact as reported from a reference; the La-7s service celing is about 3,000 feet lower than the La-5s in many references. As far as fighting in front-line armies, the PVO and VVS WERE front line air entities.
I did not mean to imply in my post that they never operated at high altitude, just that they avoided it for the most part. They certainly investigated high altitude combat with a rather large number of high-altitude prototypes. They just didn't seem to follow through and produce them to any great degree other than the MiG-3 and possibly the Ha-5. I think less than 15% of the high-altitude aircraft were actually used that way most of the time, and there weren't really all than many times they needed to get high over the Russian steppes. They wouldn't have BEEN in the steppes if there weren't German troops advancing through them. So the troops were the natural targets, there being almost nothing else there in the steppes other than animal herds, very tall grass, mud, and flies.
I did not mean to imply in my post that they never operated at high altitude, just that they avoided it for the most part. They certainly investigated high altitude combat with a rather large number of high-altitude prototypes. They just didn't seem to follow through and produce them to any great degree other than the MiG-3 and possibly the Ha-5. I think less than 15% of the high-altitude aircraft were actually used that way most of the time, and there weren't really all than many times they needed to get high over the Russian steppes. They wouldn't have BEEN in the steppes if there weren't German troops advancing through them. So the troops were the natural targets, there being almost nothing else there in the steppes other than animal herds, very tall grass, mud, and flies.
