Anton Vs Dora

[EnvyC]

22 hours ago, Krez said:

C3 injection is Erhöhte Notleistung.
I thought only the F8's got C3?

 

No it isn't, Erhöhte Notleistung has nothing to do with C3 fuel

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a8.html

 

 

Erhöhte Notleistung rendered C3 injection obsolete.

[Krez]

I thought the Erhöhte Notleistung system injected C3 fuel.

[EnvyC]

7 minutes ago, Krez said:

I thought the Erhöhte Notleistung system injected C3 fuel.

 

No, it doesn't. Read the doc.

[grafspee]

Do not forget that BMW801 runs on C3 fuel.

[Krez]

9 hours ago, EnvyC said:

 

No, it doesn't. Read the doc.

In the doc, it references "C3 supplemental fuel injection."
Did "C3 supplemental fuel injection" have a name?

I had thought Erhöhte Notleistung was what they called it.

 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Krez

[Krez]

http://degnans.com/markd/Fw-190A5 Part 7 Engine.pdf

 

Page 12

C3 injection is, according this document, called Erhöhte Notleistung.

 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Krez

[Krez]

On 8/26/2021 at 9:51 AM, EnvyC said:

 

No, it doesn't. Read the doc.

Any comment on the doc I referenced?

[grafspee]

5 hours ago, Krez said:

Any comment on the doc I referenced?

C3 injection allow to increase from 1.42 to 1.65 ATA at low blower limited to 1000m

Increased boost Low 1.56/ High 1.65 has no limits for alt.

[S.E.Bulba]

27.08.2021 в 06:29, Krez сказал:

http://degnans.com/markd/Fw-190A5 Part 7 Engine.pdf

 

Page 12

C3 injection is, according this document, called Erhöhte Notleistung.

Erhöhte Notleistung = emergency power, that's all. 

 

 

 

• © D. (Luft) T. 2190 A-7 bis A-9, Teil 7, Heft 1 [pp.13–15].

 

Скрытый текст

Original in Russian

 

Erhöhte Notleistung = чрезвычайная мощность, только и всего. 

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by S.E.Bulba
UPD.

[zerO_crash]

On 8/23/2021 at 1:26 AM, streakeagle said:

The D-9 (mid to late 1944 service entry date) was a high altitude fighter relative to Antons, but not compared to P-51Bs and P-47Ds from a year earlier. They closed the gap significantly compared to the Anton, but within a few months, the monster P-47M came online. The Luftwaffe needed the Ta-152 in 1943, not the D-9 in 1944. Of course, the Me262 would have been the real solution to the bomber threat.

 

You have a really strange logic. Whether an aircraft is called a high altitude fighter or a low altitude one, fighter, bomber or surveillance aircraft has nothing to do with what other aircraft are or their competitiveness. They were built with a specific mission in mind, and that's why they are called one or the other. Just because Me262, Gloster Meteor or DeHavilland Mosquito performed better at high altitude, doesn't change one inch the designation of the former aircraft. Just because a Mig31 can cuddle at 25km altitude doesn't automatically make every other interceptor/fighter in history a low altitude one. Doras were high altitude fighters whereas Antons were low altitude. They still are, although museum relics. How competitive they were and how that changed with time is a whole different discussion, but it doesn't change their purpose one bit.

 

Luftwaffe and Nazi Germany needed far more than Ta-152 or D-9 in 1944. They needed more manpower, more soldiers, more resources (water, food, gasoline, ammunition), and most of all, more time. Ta-152, D-9, Me262 or Eurofighter Typhoon would not change the outcome of 5o.ooo+ oncomming T-34's and a couple million strong Red Army. That's only half the story, what about western front?! Germany lost in 1939, it was just that very few minds paid attention. How anyone ever figured out that "little" Nazi Germany was enough to conquer and resettle the world is beyond me. They never had the numbers to back up their ambitions to begin with, no technology would change that (except the atom bomb, but it was too far off, and would be meaningless - "Lebensraum").

 

And trust me, bombers were not what Nazi Germany lost to. Carpet bombing has only attributed to extending each war that it has been used in.

Edited September 2, 2021 by zerO_crash

[grafspee]

On 8/23/2021 at 1:26 AM, streakeagle said:

The D-9 (mid to late 1944 service entry date) was a high altitude fighter relative to Antons, but not compared to P-51Bs and P-47Ds from a year earlier. They closed the gap significantly compared to the Anton, but within a few months, the monster P-47M came online. The Luftwaffe needed the Ta-152 in 1943, not the D-9 in 1944. Of course, the Me262 would have been the real solution to the bomber threat.

 

Following your logic, P-51B is low alt fighter compare to P-47D

So only one plane can be high alt fighter at same time, rest fighters are low alt fighters

Edited September 2, 2021 by grafspee

[Bremspropeller]

On 9/1/2021 at 9:00 PM, S.E.Bulba said:

Erhöhte Notleistung = emergency power

 

No. Notleistung = Emergency Power. It literally translates that way.

Erhöhte Notleistung = Incresed Emergency Power.

 

You also have Sondernotleistung (Special Emergency Power) and other stuff to denote that Notleistung is a normal rating (Start- und Notleistung), while everything else comes on top. Either by injecting C3, by raising the boost-pressure or by injecting MW50 below critical blower altitude or GM-1 above critical blower altitude. The Ta 152H-1 was the only aircraft that could use both.

 

@streakeagle is correct, that the D-9 RELATIVE to the Anton was a high alt airplane, as the Jumo had roughly 700m more critical altitude and it had slightly better supercharger performance at high alts. That's mostly due to the sh1tty ram-recovery of the internal supercharger-intakes of the BMW 801 on the 190.

The Jumo 213A had a two-speed, single stage supercharger and only the Jumo 213F1 or even the Jumo 213EB would have made the Dora a TRUE high altitude airplane. On those airplanes (early D-13s with the F1 engine, later aircraft with the EB engine), the three-speed, two-stage SC would have opened up a whole new board-game (the EB had an intercooler and a cleaned-up cooling-system) and would have enabled the D-13 to be even with a P-51H or a P-72.

 

The Jumo 213A was a 1942 engine, that could have been made ready for prime-time by mid-late 1943. This would have given the Luftwaffe a D-9 that was roughly on par with the P-51B.

It didn't happen - not because the tech wasn't there, but mostly because RLM was led by imbeciles.

As with all german engine-designs, most of that time was spent eyes wide shut and little to no serious pragmatic(!) efforts were made to pair available engines and airframes. Instead, phantastic solutions, like coupling an existing airframe with a cumbersome turbosupercharger were persued, instead of going for a considerably lower risk solution (like attaching a DB 603 to the Fw 190). In the end, there was little time to field the desperately needed engines, which shot down or delayed a metric duck-ton of aircraft, like the Fw 190D-12 thru D-15, Ta 152C, Ta 154, He 219, Ju 88G-7, Ju 288, Ju 388. Just to name a few.

Edited September 3, 2021 by Bremspropeller

[streakeagle]

On 9/2/2021 at 9:41 AM, grafspee said:

Following your logic, P-51B is low alt fighter compare to P-47D

So only one plane can be high alt fighter at same time, rest fighters are low alt fighters

 

My logic is that aircraft performance falls within certain classes, like say Mach 2 fighters vs earlier supersonic fighters. The US fighters that were built for escorting bombers all used variations of the same tech to achieve peak performance at high altitudes involving turbo and/or superchargers to really jack up the power above 20,000 feet. Asserting the P-51B to be a low alt fighter compared to the P-47D sounds backwards to me. Despite the P-51's two-stage supercharger creating a notch in its performance at medium altitudes, clearly, it was optimized for high altitude as its performance improved the higher it went above the notch, In fact, its performance was higher than all other contemporary aircraft.

 

The Fw190D-9, while better than the Fw190A series at high altitudes was clearly still a medium altitude fighter with its performance falling off as it approached 20,000 feet, which is pretty much the boundary between medium and high altitudes. How can such an aircraft be classified as a "high altitude fighter"? Whereas the P-47 really hits its stride at 25,000 feet and keeps getting better all the way up to 30,000 feet. The P-51B had different engines during its production run. The original engine was optimized for 29,000 feet. The later engine, which also went into the P-51D lowered that peak down to 25,000 feet so that it wouldn't suffer from the notch over the typical combat altitudes between 20 and 25,000 feet. Until the late war P-47s, Ta-152s, and Bf109s came out, the P-51B with the original engine was really in a class by itself because of its speed, range, and maneuverability at 25,000+ feet.

 

Ideally, the P-38 should have been the best of the bunch due to its power, but its compressibility issues, much lower top speed, high monetary cost, large size, and various design flaws that didn't like combat in the freezing high altitudes over Europe relegated it to only dominating in the Pacific. If you play the "which one of these things is not like the others" with high altitude fighter performance charts, the Fw190D9 will always be the "other". Whereas the lower the Fw190D-9 goes below 20,000 ft, the more it becomes an exceptional fighter. If the D-9 had been the high altitude Germany needed to counter the P-51, the Ta-152 would not have been developed. It was an interim version using an unwanted, available engine because the Bf109 was getting all the best engines. If the Fw190D-9 was a high altitude fighter, then so was the Anton... because all the new engine did was slide the existing performance curves to the right by 30-40 mph, it didn't change the efficiency as a function of altitude at all.

 

[grafspee]

@streakeagle P-51D which we have in DCS has V-1650-7 engine and it's peak performance is much lower then P-51B with -3 engine but this does not make P-51D medium alt fighter, and I don't know is there any kind of classification that below 20k peak performance = medium alt, and if you take P-51D with 72" WEP which peak performance is at even lower alt then P-51 with 67" WEP. I would rather go with intended design of the plane. And Dora was product of high alt fighter development.

Germans had high alt problem not medium, so it does not matter at what alt peak performance is it 20 or 21 or 22 or 23 etc. P-51 perform better at high alt because it was better high alt fighter then Dora, but this fact does not dethrone Dora from high alt fighter design.

 

Edited September 3, 2021 by grafspee

[S.E.Bulba]

6 часов назад, Bremspropeller сказал:

No. Notleistung = Emergency Power. It literally translates that way.

Erhöhte Notleistung = Incresed Emergency Power.

Yes, of course you are right. However, I thought that the best translation would probably be the one used by the translators of the Fw 190 A-8 Manual.

 

English version of the Fw 190 A-8 Manual (see section 'C'):

13.07.2021 в 23:34, Araks сказал:

 

Original text in German:

01.09.2021 в 23:00, S.E.Bulba сказал:

 

 

• © D. (Luft) T. 2190 A-7 bis A-9, Teil 7, Heft 1 [pp.13–15].

 

Скрытый текст

Original in Russian

 

Да, конечно Вы правы. Однако я посчитал, что наверное лучшим будет тот перевод, который использовали переводчики Руководства по эксплуатации Fw 190 A-8.

 

Англоязычная версия Руководства по эксплуатации Fw 190 A-8 (см. раздел «C»):

 

Оригинальный текст на немецком языке:

 

[Krez]

On 9/1/2021 at 4:24 AM, grafspee said:

C3 injection allow to increase from 1.42 to 1.65 ATA at low blower limited to 1000m

Increased boost Low 1.56/ High 1.65 has no limits for alt.

That's not in question.
The point I was making and which the document I linked supports, is that C3 injection was Erhöhte Notleistung.
The knob to activate C3 injection in the 190 was labelled as Erhöhte Notleistung.

[Bremspropeller]

23 hours ago, streakeagle said:

It was an interim version using an unwanted, available engine because the Bf109 was getting all the best engines.

 

That's not true, though. One could actually argue the Jumo 213 was a better engine than the DB605. Depending on which subtypes one wants to discuss and compare. The 605 couldn't produce enough power and was nearing it's absolute top potential. Neither the Jumo 213, nor the 603 had peaked by the end of the war. The 213 was designed to fit the 603's mounts.

 

The crappy 109 couldn't fit the DB 603, while the 190 could. But then again, the 603 wasn't ramped up in production, as it would cut into the 605 output.

As I said: Imbeciles running the RLM.

[Todd Down]

To my mind, the greatest advantage of the "Anton" lies in the resilience of the power unit. Rotary power units can withstand huge damage without being shut down, whereas a conventional linier engine design is pretty much rendered self-destructive scrap by the penetration of any one cylinder which results in piston movement limitation, having the potential to destroy crank and cam journals instantly. However, if a "Dora"  pilot fails to use his power availability to avoid such combat damage, he deserves to die in a fiery, smoking heap. All the Anton pilot should be able to is wave him good-bye

Edited November 22, 2023 by Todd Down
text reorg.

[grafspee]

On 11/22/2023 at 2:13 PM, Todd Down said:

To my mind, the greatest advantage of the "Anton" lies in the resilience of the power unit. Rotary power units can withstand huge damage without being shut down, whereas a conventional linier engine design is pretty much rendered self-destructive scrap by the penetration of any one cylinder which results in piston movement limitation, having the potential to destroy crank and cam journals instantly. However, if a "Dora"  pilot fails to use his power availability to avoid such combat damage, he deserves to die in a fiery, smoking heap. All the Anton pilot should be able to is wave him good-bye

 

Robustness of the radial engine comes not from resilience of pistons or connection rods or crank shaft to damage, both V and radial will suffer and self destroy when vital parts get hit.

V-12 are liquid cooled engines which means that they have one big water jacked in engine block and headers, once this jacked is perforated fate of the engine is sealed.

If V-12 were air cooled they would have upper hand over radials due to significantly lower frontal area. Lower frontal aera means less chance your engine being hit.

So difference is in cooling, air cooling does not care about battle damage and liquid cooling even smallest possible damage can doom engine to death because there is no way to seal liquid cooling system in flight, even single small caliber rifle bullet can seal engine doom.

Edited December 4, 2023 by grafspee

[Burning Bridges]

I will only speak in very broad terms here but to me it feels right that a lot of German weapons from 1944 on are hampered by inferior material, suboptimal production and low quality fuel.

The planes had great potential but were produced, transported and maintained under atrocious conditions, constantly disrupted by air raids and prone to sabotage. Consequences were brittle Panther tanks or airplanes that could not run at peak performance, or only for a short time. Many people say it is a miracle the Germans even got so far under those conditions.

The Soviets had faced the same problems during most of the war and only solved them with greater numbers and field improvisation. The Germans had no great numbers and only improvisation. No German weapon from 1944 will make you achieve ace status easily. You can of course knock down bombers with the A-8 or strike ground targets, if you can make it alive through vastly superior numbers of enemy fighters of better quality and with seasoned pilots, but the chances are supposed to be slim.

 

 

Edited June 23 by Burning Bridges

[Dragon1-1]

On 12/5/2023 at 12:40 AM, grafspee said:

So difference is in cooling, air cooling does not care about battle damage and liquid cooling even smallest possible damage can doom engine to death because there is no way to seal liquid cooling system in flight, even single small caliber rifle bullet can seal engine doom.

This is a bit of an exaggeration. A small bullet hole in a radiator will cause a coolant leak, but until it all leaks out, you'll be fine. There's a lot of water in the system, so unless we're talking a gaping hole in the radiator or a completely severed coolant line, it can run for long enough to get the ship back to the airfield.

Also, while it's true that an air cooled engine will be generally tougher to break, both have an oil cooler, and both can be completely destroyed by shooting a hole in the oil system. The only thing is, oil cooler is typically a smaller target. Oil system also typically has a smaller volume, so any leak will kill the engine much more quickly.

[grafspee]

9 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

This is a bit of an exaggeration. A small bullet hole in a radiator will cause a coolant leak, but until it all leaks out, you'll be fine. There's a lot of water in the system, so unless we're talking a gaping hole in the radiator or a completely severed coolant line, it can run for long enough to get the ship back to the airfield.

Also, while it's true that an air cooled engine will be generally tougher to break, both have an oil cooler, and both can be completely destroyed by shooting a hole in the oil system. The only thing is, oil cooler is typically a smaller target. Oil system also typically has a smaller volume, so any leak will kill the engine much more quickly.

Liquid cooling is pressurized system, when bullet makes a hole in that system pressure drops which makes coolant boil. So when single bullet even from infantry rifle puncture cooling system engine will be dead within minutes. If we are talking about larger openings in cooling system like after 20mm hit engine will die much faster then couple of minutes. Completely severed coolant hose will drain coolant system with in seconds. Liquid cooled engine will seized up very quickly w/o coolant in engine block. I would not give that engine even 5 min even with power reduction. 

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, grafspee said:

Liquid cooling is pressurized system, when bullet makes a hole in that system pressure drops which makes coolant boil. 

Except the pressure doesn't drop all across the system, it drops, first of all, at the point of puncture, which is why you see a trail of steam coming out. It can steam for quite a while, too. Until the reservoir is empty, the coolant will continue to cool the engine, and what's more, the evaporating coolant will take quite a bit of heat out of the system, and the fact that evaporation causes steam to expand will constrain the flow rate somewhat. So the system does not actually lose effectiveness until voids begin to appear inside the engine.

A single rifle caliber hole won't prevent you from making it back across the channel, assuming you're smart about how hard you run your engine. In fact, I recall an account of a P-51 going quite a ways (though not back to England IIRC, this was post-Normandy) when steaming from a bad encounter with a pair of 190s, though I can't find it now. 

[grafspee]

On 8/19/2024 at 11:07 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

Except the pressure doesn't drop all across the system, it drops, first of all, at the point of puncture, which is why you see a trail of steam coming out. It can steam for quite a while, too. Until the reservoir is empty, the coolant will continue to cool the engine, and what's more, the evaporating coolant will take quite a bit of heat out of the system, and the fact that evaporation causes steam to expand will constrain the flow rate somewhat. So the system does not actually lose effectiveness until voids begin to appear inside the engine.

A single rifle caliber hole won't prevent you from making it back across the channel, assuming you're smart about how hard you run your engine. In fact, I recall an account of a P-51 going quite a ways (though not back to England IIRC, this was post-Normandy) when steaming from a bad encounter with a pair of 190s, though I can't find it now. 

Except pressure does drop across whole system and this makes coolant boil in the hotest spots in coolant system. What can you see is fine sprey of leaking coolant which is exposed to fast airflow. If system would went only pure steam wchich volume is like 5k times more then liquid state then yes it would survive quite long but steam boubles will appear in engine block and heads there you have highest temp but pressure is the same across the whole system. If you have relive valve on coolant when it opens it reduce system pressure across not only in immediate area of the valve.

When bullet punctures hose or anything in coolat system pressure drops immediately across whole system and vapor boubles star to appeare in the hotests spots in cooling system. If weare talking about seriously damage with big opening it will blow everything within seconds if there is small hole it will drain system slower. Coolant reservoir in P-51 or spitfire is so small that it doesn't matter.

Edited August 21 by grafspee

[LeCuvier]

2 hours ago, grafspee said:

Except pressure does drop across whole system and this makes coolant boil in the hotest spots in coolant system.

...If system would went only pure steam wchich volume is like 5k times more then liquid state then yes it would survive quite long

Yes, a pressure change in liquid propagates at very high velocity, so a pressure drop will propagate through the liquid volume very quickly.
However, I'm not happy with the second statement. If the system went "all steam" very quickly you would see a brutal pressure increase (because the volume cannot increase by a factor of 5000 in the confined space of the cooling system) which in my layman's assessment might tear the cooling system apart.