Jump to content

Anton Vs Dora


StevanJ

Recommended Posts

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 by Krez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 🙂

 

DLuftT2190A7bisA9-Teil7-Heft1_13.png

 

DLuftT2190A7bisA9-Teil7-Heft1_14.png

 

DLuftT2190A7bisA9-Teil7-Heft1_15.png

  • © 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 by S.E.Bulba
UPD.

Sorry, I don't speak English, so I use Google Translate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by zerO_crash
  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by grafspee
  • Like 1

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Bremspropeller
  • Like 1

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

P-51BvsP-47D.png

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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 by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

fw190a8small-52.jpg

fw190a8small-53.jpg

 

Original text in German:

01.09.2021 в 23:00, S.E.Bulba сказал:

DLuftT2190A7bisA9-Teil7-Heft1_13.png

 

DLuftT2190A7bisA9-Teil7-Heft1_14.png

 

DLuftT2190A7bisA9-Teil7-Heft1_15.png

  • © 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:

 

Sorry, I don't speak English, so I use Google Translate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

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 by Todd Down
text reorg.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
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 by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...