BF 109 K4

[Isegrim]

Yep, it's recorded day before accident and belly landing. I've heard those rumors too but don't know what to believe. Plasa was pilot of Rote 7 for many years so it sounds quite weird.

 

Yes thats for sure only rumors.

We will see.

 

The good part is that *Rote 7* is going to be repaired and should be in Flying conditions again at this time or very soon.:thumbup:

 

 

 

Hmmm maybe this one can be added into the Flight manuals later.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Isegrim

[Isegrim]

I have compared this video with the 109 Video of the same Airshow/Cameraman.

 

:huh:

 

I like Spits really i like their design but this one looks like flown with handbrakes on Compared to *Rote 7*.

 

...Or is it just cause the 109 is smaller???

 

:huh:

[SlipBall]

Which Flathead puts music on such Videos especialy the onboard scenes.

 

:doh:

 

Goddamit:doh::doh::doh::doh:NNOOHOHO NOOOOO:doh::doh::doh::doh::bored:

 

yes, a real disappointment :doh:

[Isegrim]

 

Now ive watched this one also.

 

The *Pony* also goes along as hell so maybe ive been correct with the spit.

 

But can somebody tell what they talk about in the last some minutes......It seems to be really interesting.

Edited July 13, 2014 by Isegrim

[DB 605]

I've seen both of those (Spit and Mustang) several times in airshows, both did nice show. Don't know why Spit seems slow on that video, maybe pilot is just taking easy for some reason? By the way, there is not much difference in size of Spit and 109.

[SlipBall]

So what do we know about when the K4 might become available to us, wasn't llya flying it around and doing some landings with her...2015 I hope, if not sooner

[NineLine]

From Wags announcement, the estimated date right now is Oct of this year.

[SlipBall]

From Wags announcement, the estimated date right now is Oct of this year.

 

Thanks, that is great

[Kurfürst]

The DB 605 DC of the G-10/K-4 was being developed to 2.3 ata, i.e. ca 2300 PS output :

 

[Isegrim]

The DB 605 DC of the G-10/K-4 was being developed to 2.3 ata, i.e. ca 2300 PS output :

 

 

Hi, full Picture is needed ... i wanna read the whole text. This text could mean everything, there is nothing written which Engine/Plane.....could also be a different thing.

 

Also DC version of the DB 605 was made for C3 Only. 2000 hp Special Emergency Power.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Isegrim

[Kurfürst]

Its being reported by the last page of DB memo 6730 in January 1945 - available in full at:

 

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB_Niederschrift6730_DB605DBDC_20-1-45.pdf

[pingo]

Now ive watched this one also.

 

The *Pony* also goes along as hell so maybe ive been correct with the spit.

 

But can somebody tell what they talk about in the last some minutes......It seems to be really interesting.

 

He talks about drag on both planes were the spit have more drag the way the air intake are designed. He also informed that the way the air intake on the pony was designed the airflow from the propeller helped cooling down the engine on the ground, that way the engine could be running for a very long time "on the ground" without getting hot.

 

Hope I could help abit :)

[Isegrim]

Thanks pingo.

 

@Kurfürst

Thanks but its...

:) Hot Air....

Its just written about a test Programm which should test the DB 605 with up to 2.3 ATA.

That Programm did start shortly before this document has been written >>No results to that time.

 

This Document also comes to proplems DB had with the 109 Cell (cooling proplems and quality).

So the whole 109 cell was about of being overworked.

DB also stated that the low quality of the cell is going to zero out the high performance engines.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Isegrim

[Kurfürst]

Yes I agree, its just an interesting tidbit about future development plans. I don't think the 2.3 ata rating was introduced before the end of the war, as testing has been reported to have just begun in January 1945. It shows the potential though.

 

By March-April 1945, it was already decided that piston engined fighters would be gradually withdrawn (a which was over zealously carried out in May by pouring gasoline on aircraft ;)

[MiloMorai]

1.)Boost 1,8ata with B4 fuel

Reason for the meeting were the problems in “field” and at the serial production facility “Genshagen” because of the “white flame” effect during the use of the Higher output. First it is shown by Hr. Dr. Scherenberg how the “white flame” followed by burned pistons, develop. Because of the results of the engine knocking test the lower quality of the fuel is the main reason for the problems. DB has allready solved the problem with adjusting the ignition timing by 5°(???) . This allowes the use of “Sondernotleistung” and the 1.45 and 1.80ata settings. But because of later ignition , 50PS are lost during the “Sondernotleistung”, Where the 1,45 ata setting doesn’t lose power. DB although mentions the problems with the bad fit of the valvesitrings or the plug thread , that where reasons for the glow-ignition too. But because of improovments in the production these failurs are said to be canceled.

All agreed and the decision was done, that all engines should get the new ignition time. The lose of power is not so critical. But, because of hints from DB (DaimlerBenz), there should be test flight with 5 planes within all alts, but especially above rated alt, to get knowledge about the power loose above rated alt.

 

END SHEET ONE

This will be done at II/JG11. It is asked, if the ignition timing can be set on old value if better fuel quality is back. Answer is delayed till it is for sure that only better fuel is used, and if it is shown, that later ignition does have no influence on the planes perfromance. DB mentions that the later ignition point although is better for the plugs that have a thermal problem at all.

It is mentioned too, that the performance lose will be decrease with increasing engine run time , means with less oil lose. It indicates too, that new engines with less oil usage are better in performance than the ones with at first high usage and the lower usage of oil. From the troop should be taken 1 engine with 15-20h for oil consumption and performance tests to be done in Genshagen. Because the b4 fuel is mostly used in the east, the order for the new ignition point/time should get out asap by…

 

2.)1.98 boost with c3 fuel

the first report shows, that the test with the 1.9, and 1.98 boost had negative results.

Then a telegram from Rechlin was shown (they tested 4 engines) that criticized the

clearing of the Sondernotleistung by Gen. Ing. Paul direct from the company to A.Galland bevor sufficient tests were done. Rechlin although defend themselves, that they did NOT give the new boost free for the Troop. (looks like some thought they did). DB on the other hand shows their positive test results for the 1.9 , 1.98 usage. They say, that the clearance for the 1.98 boost was given with the same TAGL (?) (think a kind of order) as the 1.8 ata boost was cleared..both on the same day!.

 

SHEET THREE

 

It was then decided (after hearing all the reports) than currently only II/JG11 should test the 1.98 boost and that the 1.9ata engine test should be finished when the engines failed. (so no more test after them). The JG should then only get 1.8 ata engine supplies. Heavy punnishment is threaten when this order is not followed. The 1.98 clearance decission may only come from department 4 of general staff. It is suggested that some recon planes should be equiped with 1.98 boost. Decission was not done. To disburden the current 1.98 and 1.9 engines it is suggested to give them the new ignition time too. So, all engines flowen with the sondernotleistung will Be set to the new ignition point/time.

 

The JG’s in field complain about the plug failurs. Especially in the last time the number of failurs increased. DB reports about improoved plug modells and better quality control e.g. with x-ray controlling. Again DB points out that the cooling of the 109 is insufficient and wishes that the LW will solve this problem asap. This was mentioned by Gen.-Ing Paul and arrangements where done instandly.

DB points out that the performance of the “cell” (fuselage/wings) is extremely bad, and even worser J. It makes no sense to increase the power output of the engine when on the other side the plane quality is decreasing dramatically. Is is reported that a comparison of a 109 with a mustang was arranged for Mr. Sauer, but he failed to come. The result of the comparison was, spoken of produktion quality only, shocking for the 109.

 

SHEET FOUR

 

At the end of the meeting, from Mr. Dr. Scherenberg points out that DB allready is testing a boost up to 2.3ata (J). But it can be not juged in any way because of only a low test base at the moment.

[Altflieger]

Milo do you have any info about the Rechlin 1.98ata+C3 test? Specifically how long these engines were run for? My translation of sheet two shows that one engine blew a hole in the piston crown, the other three had con rod bearing wear. If they were run continuously, for example, for say, an hour per test, the result may not have been that bad overall.

[Altflieger]

Apologies double post. Would like to add there appears to be no info about how any of these tests were conducted, at least I've not found any so far. From sketchy pilot interviews about the use of mw, at least one, Stiegler, said he only used it for a minute max, because the engine might blow. What plane and when this was not stated in the interview, but it does open up the possibility that C3+mw was being used but for very short periods only (a minute a long time in combat!). Milo your note about 'cell' performance would tend to support this idea.

[Kurfürst]

The trouble was not with the engine per se. Development wise, it was fine and did not need modifications.

 

The root of the problem was that in around December 1944 there was an assembly problem at DB's factory. Some 70 engines failed because of two reasons a) being that the valves were not properly secured during installation (i.e. being loose) and b) one of the sub-contractors (IIRC Henschel) was supplying very slightly larger diameter cylinder heads, which caused them to stuck. Hence the reoccurring damage to the pistons and connecting rods...

 

DB already noted and fixed that by December 1944 by properly instructing the assembly personel and ordering proper sized cylinders. They reassemled the failed engines in the proper way and they run fine w/o problems. But RLM wanted to be on the safe side and to perform tests in Rechlin (Ju 52 testbed) and in the field (with II./JG 11 near Berlin with G-10, G-14/ASC and K-4, ie. ASC/DC engines). Both were successful with no particular problems and by early March 1945 and clearance for use has been granted for four Wings (two of JG 27 and 53 each) on the Western front.

 

One unrelated problem to Daimler Benz was that B-4 (i.e. low 87 octane for the 605DB at 1.8ata) fuel quality tended to variate towards the war's end, and not trending towards being better. With sub par fuel not meetiong the specs, white flames could be observed in the exhaust and subsequent engine damage (605 DB configuration only).

 

While various blending methods incl. the use of anilin additive was used to rectify the problem, they kept on the safe side and solved the problem by delayed ignition on the 1.8ata 605DB and also that MW injection would kick in sooner, at lower manifold pressures (1.4ata already instead of 1.45ata). The instructions were given out in March 1945.

 

The DC engine had no such ignition problems because the 150 grade C-3 fuel remained available for use in compromised quality and therefore no modification to the engine was necessary. Its BTW important to note that the only difference between the DB and DC is their settings - the DC had different fuel injection pump and manifold pressure settings (1.98 ata).

[Kurfürst]

What plane and when this was not stated in the interview, but it does open up the possibility that C3+mw was being used but for very short periods only (a minute a long time in combat!).

 

Special emergency power C-3 + MW was cleared for 10 minutes of duration, i.e. for a longer period than usual. Between two ten minute (!!) uses a 5 minute cooldown period was recommended. The MW booster carried in the plane was sufficient for 26 minutes of continuous Special Emergency use.

[Altflieger]

K, yes understand about normal MW50 usage, but clearance for K4 and G10's not until March 45. From your own site, submission by Peter D Evans 2nd from bottom of page here: http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/605D_clearance198.html

speaks of a G14 which crashed with a tank full of C3 and 100 litres of methanol on board. It's dated 20 Jan 1945. I'm saying that usage predates official clearance by some months possibly even from Nov '44.

[MiloMorai]

Milo do you have any info about the Rechlin 1.98ata+C3 test? Specifically how long these engines were run for? My translation of sheet two shows that one engine blew a hole in the piston crown, the other three had con rod bearing wear. If they were run continuously, for example, for say, an hour per test, the result may not have been that bad overall.

 

Sorry no. The text, that a person translated to English, was saved from a very old thread on 1.98ata.

 

The quality of C3 fuel was problematic as noted in the translated document.

[Kurfürst]

K, yes understand about normal MW50 usage, but clearance for K4 and G10's not until March 45. From your own site, submission by Peter D Evans 2nd from bottom of page here: http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/605D_clearance198.html

speaks of a G14 which crashed with a tank full of C3 and 100 litres of methanol on board. It's dated 20 Jan 1945. I'm saying that usage predates official clearance by some months possibly even from Nov '44.

 

I am not sure what the point is - but the usage of 150 grade C-3 type fuel indeed pre-dates the clearance for the DC engine, i.e. it was a standard fuel used by the Luftwaffe in large quantities since 1939/40.

 

The 10 minute duration is also mentioned in the earliest 109K manuals, there is no change in that. It appears this was standard duration for methanol boost conditions.

 

Earliest example of methanol and C-3 being used in combination since March / April 1944 on early methanol boosted G-5/AS. The practically had the same performance as the G-10 and being only a bit slower than the 109K.

 

C-3 and MW 50 was already used by K-4/G-10 before March 1945 as well, but the greater boost pressure (ie. more power) was not allowed yet.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Kurfürst

[Altflieger]

Thanks for the reply Milo. Here's possible evidence of early C3 +MW50 usage :)

Don Bryant P51 Ace being outperformed. Nov 2nd '44.

Listen to what he says from 9.00 onwards, try to ignore the voiceover, lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er1gOYKmOCE

[MiloMorai]

C3 was not used in large quantities until the Fw190A with the BMW801D engine came into service.

 

The was a few 109s and 110s late in the BoB that used C3 but it was in short supply.

 

" the fuel situation made it difficult to keep the DB601N in operation, and at least Me 110 production was ordered to go back to the DB601A predominantly while the DB601N was phased out in favour of the DB601E."

 

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=515

 

" C-3 at the end of the European war the USN found to be less than Grade 100/130 at the lean rating and approximately equal at the rich rating. with 4.35cc lead per gallon"

[Altflieger]

Point being that C3+mw50 was in use for some time prior to introduction of K4 and G10, and as you point out clearance given in early k4 manuals. So my theory is that they never stopped using it just used it more sparingly i.e. short periods of less than a minute. I think pilots very wary of using it tbh.