Luftwaffe vs. IJA

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules



Do you have power versus altitude charts for the DB601 vs Allison?
 

See the troubles the Americans had flying "the hump".
It was estimated that B-24s flying into China needed to fly 3-4 cargo missions for every operational bombing mission.

The Americans were able to fly out of bases in India. Without a seaport or rail head within 500-800 miles air transport just wasn't going to work for most WW II aircraft. You have to fly into all the intermediate bases to extend the range and pretty soon you are using way more fuel to get "stuff" to the last base in the chain than you are getting to the last bases/s.





Trouble is you need divisions, not battalions or a few regiments.
 
Historically Stalin allowed millions of tons of trade between Germany and Japan via the USSR's railroads from 1940-41:
https://books.google.com/books?id=p...erman japanese trade via soviet union&f=false

Hitler is also dead in this scenario due to a heart attack or something innocuous (hence no WW2), yet historically he let the Soviets trade for him; plus the Soviets wanted the Japanese to lose without having to fight them, so they win on this too. Stalin was able to supply Chiang with weapons historically:
Second Sino-Japanese War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If anything Stalin might well get in on the action if relations and trade with Germany are still good. Both the Germans and Soviets had interest in post-war trade/business deals with China, so even if they run a deficit during the war they stand to make serious bank post-war due to their efforts. In fact a Germany that honors its agreements with the USSR would probably make the two anti-Capitalist allies for quite some time, as Germany trades modern equipment for Soviet raw materials; the two countries has since the 1800s had a lot of trade back and forth that was interrupted by the Nazis from 1933-38, but resumed and expanded considerably. Both had need of that trade and would for some time, especially given German foreign exchange issues in 1939 due to rearmament. They would have to scale down rearmament without Hitler planning war and find some trade after they burned so many bridges over Czechoslovakia, so Soviet and Chinese trade would be quite important.

Plus the US is still going to run its own embargo and aid program for China during all of this and in fact without war in Europe everyone may gang up on the Japanese and make it economically impossible for them to continue the invasion past 1942-43. Then the scramble for post-war Chinese contracts by the West starts.
 
Last edited:
kool kitty89 said:
This is very significant and may clear up some of the range discrepancies for the Bf 110 figures as well.

It seems range at economical cruise with drop tank wasn't much worse than the P-40C or P-39D, and possibly better than the Spitfire Mk.II.
Click to expand...

Any time figures look too good to be true, they probably are. The P-40 was heavy and couldn't climb worth rotten apples ( using normal power, ie non WEP) but it had a rather similar drag to the 109E ( about the same speed for about the same power) so cruise power should be about the same. P-40 carried about 40% more internal fuel than a 109, once you figure in warm up, take off and reserves it is hard to believe that the 109 can go as far on that much less fuel.

A P-40 clean running 375kph at 12,000ft (3636 meters?) was burning one gallon for every 5.5 miles traveled or about 0.43 liters per km, just about the same as a 109E. Even if this figure is off by 10% it doesn't make up for the 40% more fuel in the P-40.
Granted the US drop tank is smaller so with external tanks things equalize somewhat.
 

I thought the P-40B was actually pretty hampered by its modifications:
Curtiss P-40 Warhawk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Fuel Charts for the Me 109F4 with DB601E are Here, the Gothic German might be hard to decipher.
Beim-Zeugmeister: Page 4 - Range table

Here is one scenario:
Altitude 3000m, speed 370kmh(230mph), fuel burn 130L/hr. This would consume 390L of the 400L in 3 hours to give a range of 1110km or about 682 miles with 10L to spare, that would be easily used in warm up.

The table seems to indicate that it would take 4 minutes to climb to 3km altitude, at 280kmh the kraftstoff verbrauch is 15L to get to 1km and 20L to 3km at maximum climb power at a speed of 280kmh (seemingly the figures must be cumulative so we might need 35L for climb which in 4 minutes moves us 20km down the road.

So assuming 10% reserves (40L) and 35L for climb we have 315L in the tank to use for cruise. This gives 2.42 hours cruise at 370kmh at 130 Litres hour or a range of 896km plus about 20km achieved during climb so 916km which is 568 miles. If the reduced fuel consumption (1/5th) in the glide and the 10% reserves is considered it should get to around 620-640 miles.

If you now go to maximum cruise you get 315L/hr at 520km/h(324mph) and your range with allowance for climb and 10% reserves is 540km (336 miles)

The 66 imp gallon 300L drop tank thus almost doubles usable fuel.

some translation:
steigflug (climbing flight from step up)
gleitflug (gliding flight)
horizontflug (level flight)

I believe the Bf 109E actually had more fuel than the Me 109F
 
Last edited:
Russia is not going to forget it's own recent history.
Read about the Czech Legion, and all the trouble it caused Russia just after WW1.

They might, might, ship some unaccompanied arms across their rail system, but troops are going to have to get to China some other way.
 
Last edited:

Why is the E having that range fantasy given the post by Koopernic? Also your charts for the D&E, not the B that the Flying Tigers flew.
 

FWIW, the table about DB 601A and B, both with old and new S/C (end result is difference of 500 m in FTH, among other things). Approx 315 L/h is used on 5-min setting, 255 L/h on max continuous.




The Fw-190D13 lost cowling HMGs in order to have MK 108 installed; the resulting installation was a little less draggy than what D-19 have had. Only Dora that was supposed to have outer wing guns from factory was the D-11.

Where the Bf 109G have had 1320 HP ( actually 1355 PS = 1336 HP, at 5700 m/18700 ft), the P-40F have had some 1110 HP.
I'd really appreciate when the 'power at altitude' is stated, instead just 'power' - makes people coming to wrong conclusions
P-40F sported a heavier gun ammo load (just weight, without entering the discussion about target effect) and fuel load, while also having a wing bigger by ~1/3rd. P-40E have had all of that, along with a 15% power deficit vs. the P-40M/N at 18700 ft - only 950 HP was available. A P-40 without a 2-stage V-12 will never be able to compete vs Bf-109 above 10-15 kft, but it will enjoy a better combat radius.

The Me 109 wings seem to have been full of the pilots liquid oxygen supply though there must have been some room as I believe the Nitrous Oxide might be carried there as well.
Click to expand...

Nitrous oxide was a problematic thing to hold in cylindrical tanks, not sure the wing installation would've offered anything more.
 
Allowing overflights and "tons of trade" to pass through the Soviet Union is one thing, but to move entire Armies (men and equipment) is another. And again, even *if* Uncle Joe was to set aside his paranoia and allow Germany to move the bulk of it's army through Soviet proper, how would the German logistics handle the unforgiving Russian winters and the swampy quagmires of the Russian spring? Or perhaps the war with Japan would only be a seasonal affair?

Hitler or not, the Germans of the time viewed Russia with a cautious eye and the historic "neutrality" between Germany and the Soviet Union was a facade and both knew that a showdown was inevitable.

There is a subdued enmity between Japan and the Soviet Union that had been simmering for years and it flared up briefly along the Mongolian border. The the Soviet Union was able to press a victory out of the confrontation with Japan is because the Northern Army was not authorized by Tokyo to engage the Soviets and was therefore not on a full battle footing nor supported. There was also the issue to the northern Japanese islands that Japan always felt that Russia "stole" from them and they intended to have them back. So the peace with the Soviet Union was an uneasy one. Allowing Germany access to China by way of the Soviet Union would most certainly antagonize the fragile peace and most likely lead to a declaration of war.

In 1940, Japan historically had 29 divisions of IJA in mainland Asia with a large reserve. The IJA air service had well over 1,600 aircraft. The IJN had 10 Battleships, 6 Carriers, 16 Heavy Cruisers, 17 Light Cruisers, 99 Destroyers, 63 Submarines and IJN had over 1,400 aircraft. The IJN also had Imperial Marines stationed in mainland Asia.

All these numbers were being added to by a large number, especially prior to 7 December 1941.

Now even assuming that the Germans were able to establish a route across the Asian continent, how would they protect the transports from Japanese interceptors? The Germans would need to establish forward bases to allow for air support and these would not go unchallenged by the Japanese. We can use the AVG as an example of a "toe-hold" in Japanese territory, but even with the AVG's successes, it did not stem the tide of the Japanese and even the AVG was handed setbacks. Considering in this case, the Japanese are not tied down against Allied targets and were able to focus their strategy against the incoming Germans, it's really hard to envision any reasonable success of a German expedition.
 
Koopernic said:
I believe the Bf 109E actually had more fuel than the Me 109F
Click to expand...

I believe they both had 400 liters of internal fuel. The 109F was a much cleaner airframe than the 109E which did a lot for range.
From Wiki so usual disclaimer: " Thanks to the improved aerodynamics, more fuel-efficient engines and the introduction of light-alloy versions of the standard Luftwaffe 300 litre drop tank, the Bf 109 F offered a much increased maximum range of 1,700 km (1,060 mi)[35] compared to the Bf 109 E's maximum range figure of only 660 km (410 miles) on internal fuel,[36] and with the E-7's provision for the 300 litre drop tank, a Bf 109E so equipped possessed double the range, to 1,325 km (820 mi)"

From Green comparing a 109F-0 with DB601N engine to a 109E-4/N with the same engine. " A 360 degree turn at 3280ft could be completed in 18 seconds as compared to 25 seconds of the earlier fighter, and from the same altitude 2900ft could be gained in a combat turn as compared with 1970ft. Initial climb rate was increased from 3420ft/min to 3,730ft.min and an altitude of 16,400 was reached in 5.2 minutes compared with 6.1 minutes.

Speed at sea level for a an E-3 with DB 601Aa (1175hp Green didn't convert to PS) engine was supposed to be 293mph, Speed at sea level for a an T-2 (big wing/carrier gear?) with DB 601N (1200hp Green didn't convert to PS) engine was supposed to be 295mph. Speed at sea level for a an F-2 with DB 601N (1200hp Green didn't convert to PS) engine was supposed to be 321mph while the 109F-4 with DB601E and 1350hp was supposed to be 334mph.

The large gain in speed using pretty much the same power (1175-1200) certainly points to a very large reduction in drag as does the improved turning performance and climbing performance.

BTW US and British planes could easily use up 50-90 liters of fuel between warming up, taxing, take-off and climb to 5000ft depending on test. I have no idea why a P-40E needed 28 gallons to do that and P-39Q needed only 16 gallons unless test procedure/criteria changed?
 
wiking85 said:
Why is the E having that range fantasy given the post by Koopernic? Also your charts for the D&E, not the B that the Flying Tigers flew.
Click to expand...


I have no idea where those figures came from. Some planes change a lot from one model to another and and others don't. Trying to find charts/manuals for the early P-40s isn't quite as easy but for the P-40B there is this report on the WWW.aircraftperformance.com website.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40B_41-5205_PHQ-M-19-1227-A.pdf

Please note that the P-40B was supposed to cruise at 236mph using 400hp. it needed 720hp to cruise at 310mph. The P-40s used the Flying tigers may have been a little off from these numbers but not by much.
Also note that the P-40 was supposed to do 352mph at 15,000ft using 1090hp. It as fast or a bit faster than a 109E but no match for a 109F even if the F is using DB601N engine. This points to the relative drag of the aircraft and their cruising ability.
See: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40B_C_Specific_Operating_Instructions.jpg

for some P-40 fuel flows at different power outputs even if speeds are not given. The German engines may have been more efficient at the higher power levels but at the lower cruise settings there may not have been much more than 10% between them.
 
Koopernic said:
Do you have power versus altitude charts for the DB601 vs Allison?
Click to expand...

This is for the V-1710-33 (thin red line) vs. DB 601A (with new S/C, FTH at 4500m). The data used for the -33 is 1040 HP at 14500m (1055 PS at 4420m; 38.9 in Hg at 3000 rpm), take off power was the same (thick red line) but with greater boost); source being the chart at pg. 124 of Vee's (a low-quality copy can be d-loaded from Perlil's P-40 site). The duration for max power and TO power was 5 minutes.
It does not cover 1090 HP @ ~13500 ft rating that can be found sometimes in official documents, nor it does cover the (unauthorized) over-boosting that might brought low level power above 1600 HP. Not sure when it was used prior 1942 anyway. It also does not cover the DB 601 over-revving at 2600 rpm (from Autumn 1940) nor at 2800 rpm (from Summer 1941) that was allowed above rated height - both mean significant boost of altitude power.

 

The range table for the Bf-109E: link.
At 5 km, it is supposed to do 460 km (286 miles) on max continuous power (1.15 ata, 2400 rpm) while making 520 km/h TAS (440 km/h IAS), or 665 km (413 miles) on 'max range' setting (0.76 ata, 1400 rpm) while making 350 km/h TAS (270 km/h IAS).
 
Last edited:

Please look at the above post. With a drop tank the range would be at around 1000 km (not miles).


There is no doubt that LW fighters would've enjoyed a performance advantage vs. IJA/IJN, problem would be combat radius in vast Asian expanses.
Note, I believe the DB601Aa (a for ausland (foreign export) had a different supercharger ratio setup that gave a lower FTH) they were used on Luftwaffe aircraft nevertheless.
Click to expand...

Yep, the advantage of the 601Aa over 601A is some 8% of greater power under 3.7 km. In LW service Jabo versions of Bf-109 and 110 were main users?

Koopernic said:
...
I believe the Bf 109E actually had more fuel than the Me 109F
Click to expand...

Both have had 400 liters of internal fuel.
 

I suggest this chart you link to DOES have allowances for climb and generous reserves. The chart I linked to is a chart for fuel consumption calculations for the Me 109F4 for planning purposes. The link you provided is a simpler to consult table and is "Reichweite" roughly translated "reachable distance"

For instance if we run our db601a at dauerleistung (max sustainable power) your earlier engine chart in this thread gives a consumption of 250L hour. This would give the Me 109E1 with 400 litres 1.6 hours at 455kmh ie 680km range yet the chart gives only 450km range. The chart you linked to,above, thus gives the eqivalent of 1/2 hour reserve at maximum cruise. This is your climb time and reserves and is very generous. I doubt fuel injected engines need any warm up. I'm old enough to remember cars with chokes and the 30 seconds of fiddling with them, now I just drive off.
 
Last edited:
Koopernic said:
I doubt fuel injected engines need any warm up. I'm old enough to remember cars with chokes and the 30 seconds of fiddling with them, now I just drive off.
Click to expand...

Try just driving off with a 10-15 gallon dry sump oil system full of SAE 60 (or thicker) oil. You will be looking at bearing and/or ring failure real quick.

If you can remember manual chokes you may be old enough to remember changing oil from summer to winter oils in the days before multi-grade and the slooooow cranking if you forgot or didn't change early enough.

The "engine" warm up isn't for the fuel system (carbs) to work properly, it is to bring the oil up to temperature so it lubricates properly. Some engines used gas dilution (10-20% gas mixed with the oil on shut down) to thin the oil enough to start the engine. Lubrication was ok at 800-1200rpm with no real load on the engine (stationary or slow taxi) but trying to use take off power before the oil was hot enough to evaporate out the gasoline could get real interesting (and real expensive) real quick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Luftwaffe vs IJAAS/IJNAS
Replies
17
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
A
Why Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine diesels but petrol Wehrmacht?
2 3
Replies
45
Views
3K
EwenS
E
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
40
Views
1K
Daggerr
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
817
PAT303
P
Luftwaffe Squadrons Operating in Estonia
Replies
1
Views
414
Snautzer01
Menu
Log in
Register