Spitfire XIV vs Bf-109 K-4 vs La-7 vs Yak-3

[Tante Ju]

Do you have any figures? In Soviet service, Merlins barely lasted 60-70 hours.. Allisons the same. Thats for early war engines with less strain. Of course conditions were bad - but the same that Soviet and German engines were exposed to!

As you said, there is a huge difference between short flights with high percentage of high power regime, and long flights most of which is spent at cruising or below rating (rather more typical for escort flights or CAP for Western fighters late in the war).

 

[Aozora]

Kurfürst posted this a while ago (love google ). It shows that that C-3 was readily available on Bavarian airfields to about to same amount as B-4. Units noted to use high ata were at Bavarian airfields according to Kurfurst post, and practically 80% of them were 109s.

Why this is relevant? 109s were obviously using C-3, as opposed to what you say. You have posted Allied intellgence estimates before, I still cannot figure out what did you wanted to prove with that... such reports are well known to be inaccurate anyway.

Yes it was planned to phase out all piston engined fighters and replace them with TL units (and Ta 152). The March 1945 operational orders found on Kurfurst site note this too, but with more detail. 109 units were practically all to be switched to K-4s, then eventually disband.

1.
Für die Verbande mit Bf 109-Austattung ergab sich dann folgende Rüststandentwicklung :

19. III. / JG 53: Bf 109 K-4 bleibt, 1,98 Ladedruckerhöh. (no change, boost increase to 1.98 ata)
20. IV. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 bleibt 1,98 Ladedruckerhöh. (no change, boost increase to 1.98 ata)

2.
On April 22 1945 Luftwaffenkommando West reported the following fuel stocks on airfields in Bavaria:

B-4 = 350,000 liters
C-3 = 284,000 liters
J-2 = 1,897,000 liters

3.

Commander of 11./JG 53 (III. Gruppe), Lt. G. Landt, in the cocpit of his Bf 109K-4, Yellow 1, photographed at Kreuzstraße airfield, in April 1945.
The 'C-3' notice instructing the ground crew for filling the aircraft with 'C-3' grade fuel is blurry but visible on the cocpit.

i.e.

1. Order was made for II. / JG 53 to increase boost to 2000 HP levels
2. C-3 fuel was available at Bavarian airfields where II. / JG 53 was deployed
3. Photo evidence exists of II. / JG 53 aircraft using C-3

And your counter evidence evidence is basically this: "general fuel situation was bad"... yes?

Look back through my posts and tell me that I said C-3 wasn't being used - what I did point out, and you have proved it, was that C-3 was in short supply. Was the 30 October 1944 order from Luftwaffenkommando West, stating that sorties were to be only carried out when conditions were right, ever rescinded? And there were other orders and directives issued raising concerns about having to limit operations because of fuel supply limitations.

I realy get not the intention by Aozora.

We all know that the engines had different performance with B4 or C3 fuel.
We all know that the LW had C3 engines at the frontline (FW 190 BMW 801 and the DB 605 engines with C3 fuel).
We all know that the K4 had different performance with B4 and C3 fuel, nothing is new about this and I can't understand what this have to do with the performance charts of the K4, where this issue is outlined.

What's the intention of this discussion?

My thought exactly.. I also do not get this (alleged) 'constructional flaw / general unreliability of DB 605' thing.. tomo pauk already covered the problem with this at no. 365 post.. short: no evidence of such concern after autumn 1943.. so whats the point of this discussion?

1.98 ata cleared for use in March 1944, about six weeks before wars end? After the K-4 had been opeartional for how long?

So whats so all fired wrong about asking questions about events that happened 70 years ago and asking for some solid evidence, hmmm? I have found references by German authors stating that the DB 605 was considered to be a "sick" engine by the RLM, so I am, again, making an inquiry and asking for something to prove this one way or the other. It's called free speech and historical enquiry.

 

[Aozora]

Personally I doubt that anyone's late war piston engine would be very long lived. About 50 hours realistic TBO seems commonly mentioned for those engines, or even less.

And your evidence for this is?

 

[Tante Ju]

Look back through my posts and tell me that I said C-3 wasn't being used - what I did point out, and you have proved it, was that C-3 was in short supply. Was the 30 October 1944 order from Luftwaffenkommando West, stating that sorties were to be only carried out when conditions were right, ever rescinded? And there were other orders and directives issued raising concerns about having to limit operations because of fuel supply limitations.

As others pointed out, you seem to mix up general shortages of aviation fuel with shortages of a specific fuel type. We have very little data about the relative amounts of low and high octane german fuels, but that certainly does not show one was in even shorter supply than the other. I do not get your point about the LwKdo order at all either.

1.98 ata cleared for use in March 1944, about six weeks before wars end? After the K-4 had been opeartional for how long?

I believe the 109K was operational from early November.. DC engine a bit later it seems. That makes it - about four - five months after introduction? Looks perfectly normal to me, in fact pretty on the short side for a new engine. Merlin two stage series went from +15 to +18 in what, five months too? Then to +25 lbs in in what, a bit more than a year? Even there troubles not much unlike DB.. Soviet engines essentially struggled through the whole whole on the same rating.

2000 HP was about very best anyone could get out this sized engine. That includes Merlin. Soviet Klimov engines were falling apart at 1500 all the time.. its not really sign of a very bad engine to me.

So whats so all fired wrong about asking questions about events that happened 70 years ago and asking for some solid evidence, hmmm?

That you ask for solid evidence but provide none in a very provocative manner? What is your point with this is unclear to not only me but also others. This discussion is on the popular topic of the 'best' late war fighters. Top of each of their line. Then you start this whole thing about sick engines and stuff.

I have found references by German authors stating that the DB 605 was considered to be a "sick" engine by the RLM, so I am, again, making an inquiry and asking for something to prove this one way or the other.

German authors indeed noted the bad reputation the DB 605 received due to its early teething problems. You seem to aim to make it look like it was a bad engine from the start till the end. That's OK too, but it would only serve others curiousity if you would be able to supply that with some sources.. not saying 'prove me wrong!' That is not very constructive IMHO. Nothing to learn. These subjects you bring up were discussed already in this forum (and I see some others). Why repeat same discussion of there is nothing new to say..?

It's called free speech and historical enquiry.

To me its doubtful what purpose it serves.

 

[Tante Ju]

And your evidence for this is?

See here for keeping this thread clear. Merlin 46, developed only about 1400 HP, had already had lifespan no longer than 40-50-60 hours of use - in practice, not R-R brochure of selling... Are you want to tell me, Merlin developing as much as 2000 HP at war's end lasted longer?! And certainly not better at all than 'sick' DB or BMW of same type at same (which lasted about over 100 hours by this time - in practice). Or even worse Klimov at 1500 HP.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/western-engine-reliability-35560.html#post975474

 

[Shortround6]

. Soviet engines essentially struggled through the whole whole on the same rating.

That is because they were based on a rather obsolete engine. The Hispano may have been OK when first introduced but a number of design features limited it's potential to make power. This makes it a rather bad example to use.

Hispano (and Russian engines) were 36 liter engines that weighed a lot less than other peoples 27-35 liter early war engines. Hispanos ( and Russian ) engines used a 170mm stoke. 18 mm longer than the Merlin and Allison, 10mm longer than the DB engines and 5 mm longer than a Ju 211. Max French RPM was pretty much 2400 RPM with 2500rpm coming into use around the winter of 1939/40. Since the stress on the crankshaft, rods, pistons and areas of the block holding the crank go up with the Square of the speed running the engine at 2600-2700rpm is going to have some serious consequences. Increasing the boost level and BMEP in the cylinder may be a little tough too. Russians did use a slightly under sized bore (thicker cylinder walls?) and accepted shorter engine life in return for high performance. Their version also gained around 200lbs over the French engine. How much was due to Russian castings, how much due to different cylinder heads, how much due to a need to beef up the engine and how much was due to the different supercharger drive and supercharger I don't know. The French engine used only two valves per cylinder and Klimov used three but they both used a rather strange intake system that used one carburetor for every pair of cylinders. It may have helped solve the carburetor icing issue but did nothing for power production.

2000 HP was about very best anyone could get out this sized engine. That includes Merlin. Soviet Klimov engines were falling apart at 1500 all the time.. its not really sign of a very bad engine to me.

Running a Klimov 105 at 1500hp qualifies you for the grenade award of the month. The M (VK)-107 was the "rated" at 1400-1600hp depending on exact model and year. 4 valves per cylinder and about 400lbs heavier than an M-105. They managed to get it to 100 hours post war but production stopped twice in the post war years while "problems" were sorted out.

I believe that Aozora is being much too harsh on the DB 605 but claiming that the Allison, Merlin and British and American radials had 50-60 hour lives when operated in "normal" conditions ( western oil and decent airstrips) isn't looking at thngs in a balanced way either.

Engine "life" was not a guarantee the engine would make it that long. It was the MAX life of the engine, If the engine actually made it that far it was supposed to be pulled from service at that point and over hauled and NOT run any further.

Rolls Royce claims that from 1942 on 35% of engines passing though repair organizations had reached their expected service life. They also claim that the average life of the engines passing though repair organizations from 1942 onwards was about 60%
of the "nominal" life for the type.

While the repair organizations couldn't count engines lost in service they were repairing some battle damaged and crash damaged engines.

 

[Milosh]

You also can't do a lot of flights with 350,000 litres of B-4. The relation is what counts. I doubt anyone denies an overall fuel shortage within the LW.

Luft4: Czechoslovakia, Austria and Southeastern Germany
On Apr 9 1945, there was 62 serviceable Bf109s and 57 serviceable Fw190s. That is close to a 1:1 ratio.

The Fw190s certainly aren't going to left on the ground because the Bf109s were using the C3 fuel.

 

[Tante Ju]

Last I checked Czechoslovakia, Austria and Southeastern Germany is not in Bavaria...

 

[riacrato]

Also in april 45 some Fw 190s will be Doras running on B4.

 

[Milosh]

Last I checked Czechoslovakia, Austria and Southeastern Germany is not in Bavaria...

If you look up the bases for the 4 units cleared for using 1.98ata, you will find that they are to be found in se Germany, err Bavaria.

Now where is that red area? I think someone failed their German geography lessons.

 

[Milosh]

Also in april 45 some Fw 190s will be Doras running on B4.

The number posted is for BMW801 powered Fw190s which required C3 fuel.

 

[Tante Ju]

double post

 

[Tante Ju]

If you look up the bases for the 4 units cleared for using 1.98ata, you will find that they are to be found in se Germany, err Bavaria.

No. None of them were under Luftlotte 4 (Luftflotte 4 was itself under Luftflotte 6). These were Eastern Front Luftflotten. Einsatzbereitschaft im Bereich Luftflotte 4, 9.4.45

Only II/JG 11 was under Luftlotte 6 in Eastern front, bases show it was located near Berlin. It ran on C-3 (obviously).

III, IV JG 53, I, III JG 27 (4 units cleared for using 1.98ata) were under Luftflotte Reich / Lw.Kdo West. JG 27 in Central North Germany, moving to South Germany (Bavaria) later, JG 53 Gruppe were in Bavaria all the time. Einsatzbereitschaft im Bereich Luftflotte Reich, 12.4.45

So your post about whatever was in Luftflotte 4 is total irrelevant. Lots of pictures of G-10 with C-3 fuel triangle photographed in Czech lands anyway.

The number posted is for BMW801 powered Fw190s which required C3 fuel.

... totally elsewhere.

 

[AirWolf]

Which one of these fighters served the longest during the second world war?

 

[drgondog]

The Spit XIV was operationally at squadron level in January 1944. The two soviet fighters in mid 1944 and the 109K in late 1944.

 

[AirWolf]

Thank you, drgondog

 

[CORSNING]

Just a comment on the Russians getting 60-70 hrs. out of there Merlins and Allisons Motors: In a letter written by R.M. Hazen, Chief Engineer of Allison Division of GMC to the Commanding General of the AAF, Material Center in Washington, D.C., Hazen writes about his concerns of the amount of boost being used in the V-1710-39/73. This letter is dated December 12, 1942. Hazen states that information from the Middle East reports that they are resetting boost controls to 66"Hg. and from Aultralia some pilots are operating for prolonged periods at around 70"Hg. 1,770 hp. and 1,780 hp respectively. No engine life span is noted in this letter.

A letter from HEADQUARTERS, NORTHWEST AFRICAN STRATEGIC AIR FORCE APO520 sent by Charles F. Born, Brigadier General, CSC, to the Commanding General, Northwest African Air Forces APO 650, dated August 26, 1943, Gen. Born states the British have operated at full throttle at sea level their V-1710-39 Mustangs at 72"Hg for as much as 20 minutes at a time without hurting the engines. Gen. Born continues by stating. According to them (the British), the Allison is averaging 1500 hours between bearing failures as compared to 500 to 600 hours for the Merlin.

Nikolay Golodnikov, Russian ace said that they were getting about 50 hours out of the early Allisons and about 100 hours out of the later Allisons. He further made a statement saying that you could fly your fighter in such a manner as to extend the engine life or you could push it to levels that allowed you to shoot down Messers and Fokkers.

Hmmmmm.....I'll bet if old Hazen ever saw how the Russians pushed his Allisons his eyes would have popped socket and his pants would have been filled.

 

[CORSNING]

The following is what I have been able to come up with to date: The first set of figures I believe are reprosentative of an early production A/C built at Zavod 381 and introduced into combat by 63GAIP in August of 1944. The second set of figures are from the graph on the Technical section of this sight. The Graph appears to be an early La-7 "Standard" series operational in the October/November 1944 time period. The third set of figure I believe are for the improved engine and cowing "bugs out" series that became operational in November 1944 through 1945.
First column is altitude in meter/Speed in mph/Climb in fpm.

No.452101-39.........GRAPH......No.452132-76...Spit14@+18lbs...+21lbs

...S.L...370/3396....382/4460......383/4762........359/4700.......366/5080
1000...386/3444.....396/4460.....397/4762........376/4675.......389/5035
2000...402/3542.....405/4015.....411/3936........390/4675.......397/4985
3000...391/3129.....401/3627.....408/3660........405/4510.......412/4485
4000...393/2696.....398/2924.....401/2952........416/3850.......416/4095
5000...393/2755.....400/2775.....405/2952........415/3690.......418/4070
6000...406/2479.....414/2596.....418/2499........422/3670.......432/4025
7000...406/1968.....406/2184.....414/2007........435/3510.......445/3485
8000...398/1495.....401/1332.....405/1495........447/2690.......447/2940
9000...303/1003.....(395)/(480).(396)/984........444/2400.......444/2410

Note: La-7 No.452132-76 chart states that these were sustained climb rates. The chart shows the ability of the A/C to reach 1000m in .65 minutes (5046fpm avg.) and to be able to climb from 1000m to 1600m in .35 minutes (5623fpm avg.).

Figures for the Spifire are take off the graphs displayed at www.aircraftperformance.org. which is the best sight I have come across for official A/C perfomance of WW2. Mr. Williams has done a superb job of setting this sight up for all to see.

Erik Pilawskii in his book Soviet Air Force Fighter Colours 1941-1945 writes the following about the Standard La-7 of 1944/45 with all the production irregularities corrected:
Handling and control harmony were superlative, its rate of roll equalled that of the Fw 190 and its turning circle second to no enemy fighter. Few could stay with the La-7 at low and medium altitudes and by comparison its accelleration, climb and maneuverability left German fighters behind.
The loss rate of the Lavochkin was half that of the Yak-3. The combat recordsw of the La-7 show 115 were lost to all military causes (less than half of these in aerial combat), while at the same time unquestionably accounting for more than 3,100 aerial victories.

 

[jim]

The following is what I have been able to come up with to date: The first set of figures I believe are reprosentative of an early production A/C built at Zavod 381 and introduced into combat by 63GAIP in August of 1944. The second set of figures are from the graph on the Technical section of this sight. The Graph appears to be an early La-7 "Standard" series operational in the October/November 1944 time period. The third set of figure I believe are for the improved engine and cowing "bugs out" series that became operational in November 1944 through 1945.
First column is altitude in meter/Speed in mph/Climb in fpm.

No.452101-39.........GRAPH......No.452132-76...Spit14@+18lbs...+21lbs

...S.L...370/3396....389/4460......383/4762........359/4700.......366/5080
1000...386/3444.....403/4460.....397/4762........376/4675.......389/5035
2000...402/3542.....417/4015.....411/3936........390/4675.......397/4985
3000...391/3129.....420/3627.....408/3660........405/4510.......412/4485
4000...393/2696.....415/2924.....401/2952........416/3850.......416/4095
5000...393/2755.....408/2775.....405/2952........415/3690.......418/4070
6000...406/2479.....419/2596.....418/2499........422/3670.......432/4025
7000...406/1968.....417/2184.....414/2007........435/3510.......445/3485
8000...398/1495.....408/1332.....405/1495........447/2690.......447/2940
9000...303/1003.....398/(480)....(396)/984........444/2400.......444/2410

Note: La-7 No.452132-76 chart states that these were sustained climb rates. The chart shows the ability of the A/C to reach 1000m in .65 minutes (5046fpm avg.) and to be able to climb from 1000m to 1600m in .35 minutes (5623fpm avg.).

Figures for the Spifire are take off the graphs displayed at www.aircraftperformance.org. which is the best sight I have come across for official A/C perfomance of WW2. Mr. Williams has done a superb job of setting this sight up for all to see.

Erik Pilawskii in his book Soviet Air Force Fighter Colours 1941-1945 writes the following about the Standard La-7 of 1944/45 with all the production irregularities corrected:
Handling and control harmony were superlative, its rate of roll equalled that of the Fw 190 and its turning circle second to no enemy fighter. Few could stay with the La-7 at low and medium altitudes and by comparison its accelleration, climb and maneuverability left German fighters behind.
The loss rate of the Lavochkin was half that of the Yak-3. The combat recordsw of the La-7 show 115 were lost to all military causes (less than half of these in aerial combat), while at the same time unquestionably accounting for more than 3,100 aerial victories.

Excellent,eeeeeeexcellent data.They trully deserve a place in the site that you consider the best.
So "less than half of these in aerial combat " (of 115) and "more than 3100 victories" leads to a kill/loss ratio of far more than 62:1 !!!!!!
Typical soviets claims
Do you have ANY IDEA of the total LW strength during the time that LA7 was operational ?

 

[CORSNING]

Duplicate post, sorry guys.