Friedrich-4B

Kurfurst hasn't actually seen the document, except as a partial reproduction in a book called Messerschmitt Bf 109 im Einsatz by Zobel, Fritz X., and Mathmann, Jakob Maria: Waffen-Arsenal, Sonderband S-38. Podzun-Pallas Verlag GmbH. Wölfersheim-Berstadt, 1995. ISBN 3-7909-0541-0.. Without having direct access to the book it is impossible to know whether the transcript and interpretation on Kurfurst's site is accurate.

And very good, objective data for several Fw 190A sub-types: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_A-2_216_220.pdf http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_528.pdf http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a4.html http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a8.html and the 190D, with the help of Dietmar Harmann, amongst others... http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9test.html http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9testgerman.html

Fair enough comment; from that perspective Mike Williams could have done with an editor to help separate opinions from objective data: calling it a "clever slight of hand" is somewhat unjust because that was not the intention. That said, it does not excuse the flood of hate filled bile and personal attacks that Mike Williams and Neil Stirling have put up with right through to the present, some eight years after writing the articles, to the extent that Mr Williams and Mr Stirling have lost all interest in modifying the relevant articles, or compiling new ones. That's four articles amongst how much other interesting material and data? That would depend on what access one has to the relevant information; while Mike Williams can get British combat reports via Neil Stirling, accessing similar German documents is an extremely expensive exercise for someone who is based in the 'States, particularly when one needs to know what combat reports to select to provide some balance. On top of that, there is the time required to translate them properly. As noted, Mike Williams now has at least one friend in Germany who has helped provide material and accurately translate the same. At the very least Mr Williams has made an effort - at considerable expense - to present objective data on a wide variety of Allied and Axis aircraft, so why he continues to be the subject to blanket claims of bias and being referred to as a "clown" because of some older articles is a mystery.

While otto claimsthat Mike Williams doesn't post the same info he posts, has otto actually bothered contacting him with this information, rather than flailing the guy publicly? Is otto expecting Mike to post something that he might not even know about? Unfortunately one of the main reasons Mike cannot be bothered altering some of his earlier material is because of the sometimes vicious private and public attacks he has experienced over several years from some of the more fanatical Luftwhiners; why should Mike bother buckling to such people, knowing that even if he were to go to the trouble of revising the material, the same people will continue with the same crap? This post from otto is just another example of the trash thrown at Mike. Take a look at the "curves" some time and note that they are stepped: The hydraulic supercharger of the DB 605 provided a stepless power delivery, something the most avid Luftwaffe fan should know; the power curves are theoretically supposed to reflect that stepless delivery - otherwise Mike Williams doesn't quibble about the stated performance figures, so perhaps he could make his point more clearly. And otto is trying to influence people by attacking someone who isn't even a member of this forum; someone I'll bet otto has never bothered contacting. Wow! Now quoting a positive opinion from a veteran is somehow wrong, yet such testimonies appear in just about any book, magazine article or website otto might care to name; since when did otto start censoring what is or is not acceptable on a privately run website? How about otto specify which testimonies he'd like to see on Mike's site and when and where they should be published. Would otto like more books on -say - the Spitfire to do the same, just to balance things out? Take a look at his latest material, because he has a German friend who is helping out with translation. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-0022-dive.html http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_Dive.pdf I guess otto never offered to help Mike out with the translations, but has been all too ready to imply that he was making deliberate errors.

Gone past attachment limit so temporarily removed: (Jumo 213A Manual, effective December 1943:)

How about Kurfurst read his own comments?: The airfields had to be resupplied - problem is it did not happen "periodically" nor even systematically; as already noted: For three days in mid-April 1945, 126(RCAF) Spitfire Wing had problems with getting supplies after moving to an ALG (Wunstorf) in Germany; because of the Allies' air supremacy Dakotas could be flown in to help alleviate the shortages, caused by the intensive rates of sorties being flown, and at no time did the shortages stop the Wing from operating during those three days: Guaranteed Kurfurst cannot show any 2 TAF units were affected by sustained fuel/ammunition shortages, such that they could not operate. Nothing like the sustained fuel shortages that plagued the Luftwaffe.

That's not mentioning all those Fw 190s which relied on C3 and significantly outnumbered the 109s... As Kurfurst has already stated supplies of C3 fuel were held at depots off the airfields; how much actually reached the airfields when the Allies had air dominance is another question. As has already been shown Luftwaffe units had to scrounge for even small supplies of fuel just to keep going. "Overwhelming evidence" = nothing to say that 1.98 ata was used by the four remaining 109 Gruppen from late March 1945.

Note the dates - November 44 - 1 Jan 45, when the only unit using 1.98 ata in operational trials was II./JG 11... JG 3 isn't one of the four Gruppen that supposedly using 1.98 ata. According to http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB605_datasheets_DC.html the DB 605DB could use either B4 or C3; when reset to DC configuration C3 fuel alone was used - all the C3 triangle indicates is that C3 could be used; it does not indicate the boost pressure, nor does it show what fuel was actually in the fuel tanks.

Download, crank up the volume and and enjoy! http://www.hawkertempest.se/index.php/multimedia/sound-files An interesting excerpt from a WW2 Tempest V maintenance guide:

Kermit Weeks' Tempest V (ex 486(NZ) Sqn) is getting there: Kermit Weeks' Hawker Tempest progress page. Can't wait to see it finished and - fingers x'ed - flying! :thumbup::pilotfly:

The DB 605DB could use either B4 w/MW 50 or C3 without, so B4 could be filling the tank, regardless of what the fuel triangle says. Just because it reads to 1.98 ata and above doesn't mean that it ever reached 1.98 ata; eg: This is the speedo of a 1963 Mini Cooper 1071 S which reads to 130 mph or 210 km/h - top speed of the Cooper S was 90 mph (145 km/h) http://www.supercars.net/cars/115.html

In short Kurfurst's only reference is from page 199 of "Invasions Without Tears" by Monty Berger (Snr Intelligence Officer 126(RCAF) Spitfire Wing) and Brian Jeffrey Street [Random House, 1994]. This says the Wing's pilots distrusted 100/150 grade and attributed engine problems to the fuel; however, there is no evidence given anywhere in the book that the fuel was actually the cause of engine failures, and nowhere does it mention "lethal accidents" caused by the fuel. Incidentally, 402(RCAF) Sqn, which was a part of this wing flew Spitfire XIVs... If Kurfurst has got other references that directly link Merlin or Griffon engine failures and lethal accidents to 100/150 grade there's nothing stopping him from adding to the pool of knowledge.

A rough plot of III./JG 27's movements (total distance roughly 986 km; Bad Wörishofen also shown): In the nightmare conditions that prevailed for the Luftwaffe's transport and supply echelons, how easy was it for fuel supply to be arranged?

What Kurfurst is forgetting is that the Spitfire XIV squadrons had already converted to 100/150 grade fuel in June/July 1944 while they were still part of ADGB; eg: 610 Sqn ORB http://www.spitfireperformance.com/610_ORB_14July44_21lbs.jpg By the time the squadrons were transferred to 125 Wing 2 TAF the Griffon engine was fully capable of using either 100/130 or 100/150 grade fuel: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Griffon_64_Operating_Limitations.pdf Same for the Merlin 66: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no1_25lbs.jpg Thus there was no "transition" in January, February 1945, except in the type of fuel being supplied to the unit and modified timing. By contrast, although Kurfurst has constantly shown an order stating that certain Gruppen were to use 1.98 ata, there is no evidence from the Gruppen themselves that confirms this ever happened, although he first made the claim that the transition was definitely made about ten years ago; in fairness, he alluded to the existence of unit KTBs confirming the transition in another thread: Unfortunately, these have not yet been shown. This same order states that all other G-10/G-14 units were to transition fully to the K-4, while units still using the Fw 190A/F/G were all to transition to using the D-9 or D-12 or Ta-152C/H, yet clearly this did not happen according to plan. Another factor is the number of airfields just one unit, III./JG 53, apparently moved to (eight in two months): How quickly and constantly did supplies of B4 or C3 fuel follow these changes of base, knowing how hard many units had to improvise just to get even a small supply of fuel, and how many K-4s were grounded through lack of fuel? So what? There's far more evidence than one solitary little document showing that the Griffon and Merlin engines were using 100/150 grade fuel, and that considerable effort was being expended to supply 2 TAF; Kurfurst is now promoting the idea that Rolls-Royce, Supermarine and the RAF & 2 TAF went to all the trouble of altering the engines and supplying the fuel and then refused to allow front-line squadrons to use it! This makes it very clear that 2 TAF would no longer use 100/130 grade from 15 December 1944; ergo all units had to use it. As of January 1945 these engines - which covers all of those types used in 2 TAF - were cleared to use 100/150 grade: No idea where the "15 years of desperate search" has come from, except in Kurfurst's imagination. No doubt a search through the National Archives records could produce more evidence, although many such records have yet to be digitised, thus they need to be read on site. Those files that are available digitally cost £3.30 each to download and cannot be read until they are bought and downloaded - without knowing which reports detail when units started using 100/150 grade, or which combat reports mention the use of high boost the search becomes very expensive very quickly - not worth it just to prove one individual wrong.

You are the one making the claim, so where is your evidence? Not that I actually made such a claim, making this a total Red Herring Red Herring continued. And in several years of desperate searching and making unsubstantiated claims Kurfurst has yet to provide evidence that 1.98 ata was ever used from late March 1945, apart from one order, which also stipulated that all 109G units were to transition to K-4s, which also didn't happen. Not napping - they succeeded in shooting down 24 aircraft between 2 January 1945 & war's end, while operations were severely restricted by order of the OKL From Kurfurst's own "research" showing 79 servicable K-4s http://www.kurfurst.atw.hu/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm Not proven, and a total strength of 0.079% - 0.142% of all Bf 109s on the Western front.

From Smith & Creek Fw 190 Vol 3 1944-1945:

Lubrication diagram of two-stage, two-speed Rolls-Royce Merlins: Ditto for Jumo 213A:

:music_whistling: No problem; I was mainly responding to JtD's query about why DB chose to handle the low altitude supercharging the way they did...:pilotfly:

True, yet in 1942 the Luftwaffe's combat operations were dominated by the fighting in Russia where the average combat took place below 10,000 feet, same with the desert campaign; in Western Europe the USAAF's B-17s & B-24s were still in early deployment and few of the RAF's operations were above 20,000 feet, so while the engine manufacturers and high command were in a panic about the prospects of the B-29, they were still having to build fighters to cater for the realities of combat where a blower that had a FTH of 6.5 km could cope. Nor does all of this explain why DB designed the 601E and DB 605 to have an overlap of 105° - having designed the 601A to have only 42° - and redesigned the supercharger accordingly. All very true; fact is until the Ta 152H Germany didn't have a fighter that was truly capable of flying and fighting at 40,000 ft plus. You mean Mercedes-Benz had racing experience against Auto Union, don't you? The superchargers used were Roots type generating up to 1.83 ata; AFAIK none of the cars used hydraulic superchargers.

Does Kurfurst actually know when the "DB 6xx supercharger control principle" incorporating two throttles, was first set out? This patent for a Daimler-Benz hydraulic supercharger was filed in March 1938, but Kurfurst is forgetting that Daimler-Benz started building the Rekord (R series) of racing DB 601s at around this time; the RV in the record breaking He 100 V8, for instance, "ran so roughly" it could very well have had a "wild cam" with lots of valve overlap; also note that there were only two throttle settings available: (From Heinkel He 100:Record Breaker Erwin Hood, page 52. ) Who's to say that with this experience in racing engines, that DB hadn't designed the supercharger to allow for future power increases, including the possibility of using more extreme valve timing overlap? The chances are excellent that the DB 601E and DB 605, and their superchargers, were designed with the benefit of experience drawn from the DB 601 R. series.

Another possible explanation is the camshaft profile used in the DB 605 allowed for 105º of valve overlap compared with, for example, the Merlin which had a 43º overlap. See also: http://www.enginehistory.org/German/daimler-benz.shtml DB 605 start and run

An article on the E wing: http://=http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/sorting-out-the-e-american-armament-for-the-spitfire-mk-ixxvi.html

The Chandler-Evans Water Injection (ADI) Unit: The R-2800 used the Variable-Flow unit 8990

Physical changes during Mk IX/XVI production: http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-mk-ix-xi-and-xvi-variants-much-varied.html http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-mk-ix-xi-and-xvi-variants-much-varied.html/2 http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-mk-ix-xi-and-xvi-variants-much-varied.html/3 Spitfire IX colours/markings: W/Cdr Rolf Berg C/O 132(Norwegian) Wing (From Thomas & Shores 2 TAF Vol IV, page 648.) A description of the Spitfire and biography of the pilot http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/a-question-of-foreign-markings.html F/Lt Arnold Roseland, 442(Canadian) Sqn: Description & background of the Spitfire: http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/y2-k-spitfire-of-flt-arnold-roseland.html http://spitfiresite.com/2007/09/canadian-spitfires-in-normandy.html Spitfires of 127 Sqn: http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/late-war-spitfires-of-no-127-squadron.html

Fw 190 D-9 Handbuch Teil 8A Armament October 1944 Part 1: