Why do you only have 30K subs? Your work and commenting are absolutely genius! You should do sessions in this showing engineering/tech students how crazy the engineers were in war times. Absolutely stunning mechanics. Cheers
Thank you very much. My videos appeal to a relatively small audience. That's OK with me. There are channels that do nothing more than put up easy to find file photos of WW2 planes while they read facts from Wikipedia and they get far more views and subscribers that way. However I feel there is a need to get the deeper information out there, so that's what I am doing.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Hi Greg! I revisited this classic oldie and believe I have probable answer to your Q why not earlier with MW 50. It was about head gaskets and catastrophic oil leaks. I think they succeeded improving the technology after HJM's tragic death and go for more boost.
It’s fun to fly in WW2 combat sims. My fav 109 is the K4R4. Might not roll or maneuver well at high speed but it can sure dictate the terms of the combat.
IRL they had big reliability problems due to lack of materials and... unwilling (as you may imagine) slave labor. As someone mentioned in this comment section, during the Battle of Britain a lot of the Bf109s would suffer catastrophic failures mid fight.
I am finding myself unable to keep up with all of the comments. I do read them and will use them to decide what topics to cover next. I have a lot more planned. A lot of you have mentioned the FW190 and P47. I'll cover both of those in great detail. I will get to the Russian and British planes as well. There are some reasons I made these videos first. The Wildcat, 109, and P51 engines serve to cover a lot of the key principles that are needed to understand some of the other planes. Now that most of my viewers understand supercharger stages and drive systems, along with manifold pressure, and methanol:water injection, it's a lot easier to move forward. I couldn't start with the TA152 because it just has too much tech in it, and it would need a 2 hour video if I needed to explain it's multi stage supercharger, intercooler, MW50 and GM-1. I appreciate all of your view, and comments, and a lot more videos are coming.
Greg, if (the biggest word in the English language) the RLM and Junkers had gotten the Jumo 222 to work reliably the Allies would have had a handful with the FW-190 so equipped. Not that it would of made any difference in the long run. A likely counter would have been the P-72 Ultrabolt version of the P47 powered by the Pratt & Whitney R-4360. Thankfully the Germans had too many projects sucking up too many resources to go along with too much infighting amongst the project managers and developers.
www.jagdgeschwader4.de/index.php/flugwerft-hauptraum/jaeger/messerschmitt-bf-109 i think in these pictures you can see the injection system on top of the cylinder heads of the g6
@@mpetersen6 From my knowledge, the biggest (longest) word in the English language describes a lung disease contracted form silicon particles from the ash of volcanoes. Don't see how that's relevant here.
Thanks I can't wait to watch those also how about the F4Us and Oscar and the F6F and A6Ns. The Corsair is my favorite warbird. I even met a couple of pilots of it when reading a book on it in the early 80's one was C.E. Harris!
I ran MW50 in my Shelby Daytona when I was over 18lbs of boost. Fantastic antiknock solution. About a gallon of toluene in the tank and I could run almost 3 bar absolute manifold pressure.
Greg you are my unsung hero. What you do, and how you do it, is in many ways, well, quite German! We call it "sachlich", a unique German word for factual, matter-of-fact, objective, to the point, all in a single word.
The United States introduced water injection on the P47. The system was very powerful but initially they didn’t put in enough ethanol (for colder European Weather) at one point they accidentally put in isopropyl alcohol. Initially Thunderbolt pilots were reluctant to activate their water injection for fear of blowing up their engine over enemy territory.
Absolutely fascinating. I never thought about the fuel as I did the aerodynamics. To think that it took 4 years of very hard work to double the horse power. Thanks for your knowledge and expertise in explaining the complexity of the fuel
The added benefit was that, even only used for boost, if this had been used early on, the fuel savings would have been significant. Germany could easily produce methanol, while gasoline resources were very limited near the end of the war.
Greg, your youtube channel is simply the best channel on WW2 military aviation history I have seen to date. I am working on my PhD in Military History and I have enough of an engineering background that I am not intimidated by the science or mathematics involved in understanding basic aeronautics. Many of my professors have published academic works on airpower in World War II. Your videos are fantastic. You have a remarkable ability to make these complex topics understandable and interesting. I really don't think one can understand the nature of the air war without a basic understanding of the technology and engineering involved. Would you please create some videos on the significance of the airframe drag coefficient, on level flight acceleration, and on the relative roles of lift and power in climb performance? Thanks. Looking forward to your future productions.
Hi Ben, thanks! I will do all of those things, I think you will be happy with the some of the tech coming in my P47 videos. My knowledge in aerodynamics is below my knowledge of engines, but we have some interesting stuff coming up that involves a lot of NACA aerodynamic stuff.
I'm not a tech inclined guy... But somehow you manage to captivate me and simplify the tech jargon to easily understandable English. Hats off to you for such brilliance!
Very interesting & entertaining! FYI: A Czech company “JaPo” publishes (with English translation) a very well researched book titled what else: “Messerschmitt Bf109 K4”. It discusses in detail the origin of the “K” variant and includes a page about the MW50 system (with decent line drawings). There is also several pages regarding the DB605L & DB605D power plants (with power setting and manifold pressure information). It’s a very good read on the last of many...
@Alfons Falkhayn The copy I have was published: JaPo: M.Horakove 273, Hradec Kralove, 500 06 Czech Republic (Ing. T. Poruba & Ing. A. Janda) You might be able to find a copy on the “Secondary Market”. It is printed in “Czech” (with English translation). It is IMHO a most interesting read and has many excellent illustrations, line drawings and photos!
@@patnolen8072 Hi Pat, It’s as authoritative a read as you will find on the “Kurfürst” variant. I purchased my copy thru one of the “scale model” magazine publishers when it came out but I can’t recall which. It did sell out quickly. “JaPo” is still in biz perhaps they can guide you to a copy. Good luck! www.japo.eu/products.php?cat=6_200
KUDOS, KUDOS and KUDOS to you, Sir.!!! THAT'S the kind of Internet and UA-cam I like.!! SERIOUS, TECHNICAL and SCIENTIFIC, (grown up), as it allways should be. I think your commentaries ARE EVEN INPORTANT for the World History, in a real correct technical point of view. I think your LESSON is so important, that I'm going tho write down all your comments. Thanks again for posting such a great video, Sir.!!! ( I was a professional aviator, - jets - for 40 years, and love to learn those things about piston engines, even today).!!! Many thanks again, Sir.!!!
Water injection was used on the KC-135 tanker aircraft with the J57 engines. The 5581 pounds of water would be used up in two minutes on takeoff. Part was injected behind the combustion section where it turned to steam, providing mere thrust. The bulk was injected into the intake. It would cool the incoming air, and make the air denser. Cool dense air expanded more than hotter air, increasing thrust.
Holy moly this is the channel I’ve needed in my life. I’ve loved all these planes and could never find details about supercharger and turbocharger systems employed by them. And just the mechanics of these engines! Subscribed immediately.
Been watching a few of your videos lately, and have to say I feel like I'm learning a lot of wonderful technical information and love you presentations! Keep up the great work!
Nice discussion. One and only ONE point to make. Your assessment of "what if" regarding the use of the MW50 system in 1940,...as simple a fix as it MIGHT have represented, is also squarely in the realm of 20/20 hindsight. Great video and I truly appreciate, and look forward to your discussions !! Much obliged !!
Pure gold. I've come full circle on researching these topics and you nail every single one and address many areas that confused me, or were not on my radar at at one point. If only some of this technology could be utilized in modern civil piston aero engines.
Sadly, piston aviation technology peaked in about 1946. Most of the modern piston engines in aircraft are no more advanced. The manufacturers blame the inability to innovate on liability, I'm not so sure, but that's a topic for another time.
Great education for Me Greg . I used water Methanol with great success on My 86 Buick Grand National . Thanks for great history and insight on this topic.
Beautiful. Just beautiful. And yes: MW-50 stands for 'Methanolwasser-50'. Methanol is exactly the same both in english and german and 'Water' is 'Wasser'. 50 stands for 50% Mixturerate. Easy as that ;D Keep up the great wörk Greg! I love your videos!
Methanol-Wasser please, not as a compound word. As a compound it means the same as if I said in english "methanolied water"; Makes no sense. So, 2 separate words.
Love it! Told you! The German engines were bigger displacement, but were not actually larger or heavier. They did not have oil pans, but an oil tank in front if the engine like some race cars.
Very well done and easy to understand. As much as I've studied WW2 combat aircraft, I wasnt aware there were faster than the P-51D, BF109s. Learn something new every day. Thank you for doing this!
A followup video on water injection in both production and racing vehicles would be the icing on the cake. 🤞. Love your channel. The pinnacle of UA-cam.
Greg this is another great video. I love watching these videos of yours. You are so informative and have so much technical information in these videos that it proves you have done exhaustive research. Another thing about a video of yours I watched the other day detailed the super charging system of the German Planes. This was a great Video as well. Thank you for such great information. Please keep up the good work Sir.
I just want to say: thank you so much for your video. It explained the Wasser Methanol injection system in a way that even I, a non mechanic, could understand. Greetings from Sweden and from Bo Hoffman
In 1975 I added water injection to my 1971 Datsun 510 sedan with a 1600cc inline 4 engine. It was simply a windshield-washer pump spraying water into the carburetor inlet, with an on-off switch on the dash. Worked great for eliminating pinging when climbing steep grades (I was too cheap to buy premium gasoline). No discernible change in power.
I did something similar with an old monza in the late 90's. Went to the trouble of adding 50% methanol. It really only helped off the line, probably due to hot air under the hood, screwed up timing curve, oil in the combustion, and when carb problems occurred. Could also help richen a sometimes lean hypermiling mixture setting, but again, mainly only noticed help in performance and emissions in 1st gear.
The problem for the Germans was always fuel, and never enough of it. Even if they had taken the Russian oil, they still would not have what they needed. Best they ever could have gotten was a truce. Excellent video, and good points.
I truly enjoy your educational films. The way you try and stick to verifiable facts and then explain it in a very simple way so people not in the industry can understand.
Very informative, easy to understand even for a person who does not have English as a native language, nor is an engine mechanic, but a humble electrician... :-) Got to check out your other stuff on the channel. Cheers
Thanks for another super video on a topic that has been of great interest (and contention) on the internet since those first AOL message boards et al. so many years ago.
Yes, me! And you meant through the spinner, right? (I saw a scowl form on the face of an old pilot once when someone said 'through the propeller') But yes, it is one of those mousetraps that is so simple, it is genius. The P39 had it is well, although even larger cannon (37mm) I wonder if it was the failure of the P39 that led others to stay away from it. I say failure in the sense of not chosen for mass production. The Russians apparently did quite well with it and seemed to have been more successful with it than with any other lend lease aircraft...including the Spit. Straight as an arrow, no worry about the pre or post harmonization (or whatever the term is) for the convergence or over-convergence of the guns. I guess that the P38 takes first place in that measure, but as good as it was for fire power, I always thought there was room for more 50 cals or even one or 2 more 20mm in its nose. Could you imagine a lightning with the firepower of a p47...plus a 20mm?! Just sayin... .....enough nerding out on planes, cheers!
The Russians build more fighters that firing through the propellers than did the Germans. It was just a feature that helped smaller fighters carry a single cannon.
I literally just found this channel some 2 days ago. You have answered some long standing questions of mine relating to the advantages that the mustang had over the bf109 as well as given me new information that has been extremely interesting. Thank you, sir, for your content and I look forward to every future video
Everybody measures performance by top speed, however I think comparing acceleration from 200 to 300mph (1939-42 variants) and 250 to 350mph (1942-45 variants) would be a much better measure of dogfighting ability; also maximum G (or turn radius) that can be pulled at the midpoints of these ranges.
Except, of course, the lower drag wing gave the Mustang far longer range than the Spit (as well as better dive speed), which in 1944 was crucial (they were doing bomber escort and deep strike rather than the bomber interception of 1940). That's why Winkle Brown - the man who test flew more different fighter types than any other in history - said that he would have rather been dogfighting in a Spitfire over France but in a Mustang over Berlin.
Barrie Rodliffe Barrie, I’ve seen you in multiple comment threads stumping for the spitfire, which was an awesome plane, but your rabid fanboying regardless of any info but that which supports your personal bias is tiring. Do you, by chance, work for the UKs historical Spitfire fan club association?
A lot of people forget acceleration and how important it is also planes that can accelerate faster usually climb faster. The top speed of the Zero and later versions of the wildcat were close but the wildcat couldn't climb as fast because it weighed more. Weight of an aircraft has little to do with top speed a clean plane rules here.
@@johnkendall6962 Yes weight does effect top speed both ways. A plane that is heavier but going the same speed in a straight line as a lighter plane will hold his speed longer. At the end of the day he has more energy.
@@brandonstrife9738 True if they are going the same speed but it also takes more energy for the heavier plane to get to that speed or a longer time. There is no free lunch. If 2 planes have the same HP the plane with cleaner aerodynamics will be faster even if it is heaver.
I absolutely love all your content. My dad got his shirt tail cut at age 16 (he's 74 now). Before he transitioned to making his money in the marine business (primarily in the high performance offshore powerboating market) he managed an airport in Fort Myers, FL, had a business buying and selling planes, and taught people to fly... He has flown a variety of aircraft from Cessna 172s to P51s. My hands on experience with objects of a mechanical nature centers more around exotic firearms, offshore powerboats, and cars (I'd love to fly someday, as I come from a family of aviators, but it's not in the budget right now). Considering my lack of personal experience with aviation, your content provides me with so much to talk about with my father, as we both love going over technical data on all manner of machinery. Keep up the good work Greg... 👍👍
My first flying job was as a traffic reporter in Ft. Meyers FL. for WDCQ (no idea if that radio station still exists). Thanks for your comment, I enjoyed reading it.
This was an excellent video!!! Thank you for doing it. I actually have wondered about this exact question many times. Im fascinated by all things WW2 (regarding the machines of that war).
Fabulous run down on the 109 series. Thanks ,for posting most of the details to moderate depth. I really like the way you generalize and some up the details, configuration and and scenarios What about doing a break down of the Bear Cat?
I think the simplest explanation as to why the Germans didn't push MW-50 on use on earlier Bf 109 and Fw 190 models is that they simply didn't think they needed additional engine power at that point (as much as the pilots probably would have disagreed), and they were having some issues with their engines already at their "normal" power ratings. The Germans in fact had a lot of problems with the DB 601 engines on Bf 109 E- and F-series and also the DB 605A engines on the G-series, which forced them to operate lengthy periods of time with de-rated manifold pressure settings. The DB 605A for example was initially rated for 1.42ata, then it was de-rated to 1.3ata, possibly approving and de-appriving the full ratings once or twice, and then the full 1.42ata rating was finally approved sometime in 1943. The DB 601 engines had similar things happening to them. Sometimes these de-rating decisions were made to make the engines last longer before the engine had to be swapped and re-built, sometimes to fix acute reliability issues (I think I remember something about wrong type of spark plugs getting fouled up, for example). With that in mind, it's quite understandable why the Germans would've been a bit apprehensive of squeezing even more power out of engines that were sometimes quite problematic to operate. In addition to this, the Bf 109 F-2, F-4, and G-2 were already some of the best performing fighter aircraft in terms of power to weight ratio. MW-50 might have increased their power output even more, *but* it simply wasn't needed in 1941 or 1942, and it would have increased the stress on the engine components, reducing engine life time and increasing the risk of in-flight engine failures. By late 1943, the situation had changed to absolutely necessitate the introduction of MW-50 systems for Bf 109 G-6. Since the boffins at Daimler-Benz had apparently figured out a way to implement it in a way that didn't compromise the reliability or service life of the DB 605A-series engine, they started making the new engines with the MW-50 system installed as DB-605AM, and doing field installations of the injection kit as DB-605A(M). And to be fair to the Germans, it doesn't seem like anyone else started actually using anti-detonant injection systems on fighters much earlier than this, either. So to me it seems like almost everyone started using some sort of anti-detonant injection systems as soon as they were necessary, when the power requirements and therefore manifold pressure requirements increased beyond what was possible with "conventional" methods.
thats true. in some other video somebody said military is used to stick with the things that work. and it worked good. they could improve aerodynamics of the plane much earlier too. english put 5 bladed propellers on some variants of spitfire so i wonder how would that work... but again its kind of pointless to say what they could have done
I would have thought the lack of high octane fuels would have spurred it early on. The British had an ample supply of high octane fuel early on from the Americans, and would be running 145 by the end of the war. Germany spent most of it with 87 which to me absolutely boggles the mind.. though having direct injection engines and variable speed superchargers took maximum advantage of it.
@@Bartonovich52the research had started but if I remember correctly they had big problems with bearings and other stuff failing at higher power so no use for MW50 if you can’t use that power
@@thurbine2411 With the DB 601, they had time to sort out the problems and the engine became a mature, "finished" product so to speak, by the time it was installed on, say, Bf 109 F-types for example. The DB 605 on the other hand never reached that kind of maturity - during the war, Germany was continuously forced to make all sorts of compromises that reduced reliability and engine life time, but made it possible to at least produce them. Like with the bearings you mentioned, the Allied bombing raids had significantly affected Germany's ball bearing production capability so the decision was to use plain bearings (or sleeve bearings) for the main bearings on the crankshaft and I think also for the camshafts, but I'm not sure about that. As a result of that, Daimler-Benz considered the DB 605 to be incomplete or a "sick engine" and all the issues and problems were never fully resolved by the end of the war. A reproduction of a DB 605 with proper bearings and materials could probably be pushed quite a bit further in terms of power - or perform at the historical power levels with much better reliability.
I am going to get away from the P51 for a little while. Since the P51H never saw combat in WW2 it's lower on my list. I really need to cover the turbocharged fighters and FW190s first.
Knock: pre-detonation. Explosive fuel ignition due to the heat generated by high compression, rather than by the spark plugs. Destructive because of explosive pressures produced at the wrong time during piston travel. Water or water meth injection also increases effective fuel mass.
Thank you for pointing that out, those aircraft displays are something else (a b-17 suspended in the air? Too cool) and it had me wondering where those photos were taken.
Thanks for your summaries, which have been quite fascinating for this old remnant of Farnborough (RAE) and Pyestock (NGTE), in that they have been as technically precise as it has been possible to be, I feel sure. I agree with "I Fly Central" has written. The year after next will be Hindsight Year, as it will be "20-20 AD". _he hee._
Considering the statements about ata at around 10:00min ata is absolute technical atmospheres. In germany existed different ways of messuring. One is physical atmosphere (atm), which is 1013,25 mbar. Then there were the technical atmosphere units, one of which is ata or atmosphere absolute. One ata is 98,0665 kPa or 0,980665 bar. Absolute means in this case that 0 ata is vaccume, while atü (atmosphere overpressure) and atu (atmosphere underpressure) measure the deviation from the surrounding airpressure, meaning their 0 is 1ata. 1 bar are just 1000 mbar.
Thanks for including metric measurements. I’ve been pausing and converting some of the stats in other videos when I’ve needed to - the aircraft speed and mach numbers in particular. Although this is just a minor inconvenience, it does increase my enjoyment to not have to do this. I would never have requested that you add metric - I’m used to having to convert when dealing with Americans :-). , and you seem to do enough work as it is without me asking for special treatment but it’s nice and I appreciate that you’re doing it.
I know the difference between Bar and Pascal is relocated decimal point,but for me,bar makes sense and I always have to mentally tinker with kilopascals. So thank you for using bar and not the more modern spawn from Hell. Did that kind of indicate my feelings on the subject ? At any rate,Cheers. Love your calm and informative vids.
Many thanks for the technical analysis! Great video and I have learned a lot! Greetings from Guatemala! On your last remark, bringing up the MW mixture on the 109F in 1940... that could have changed history!
There might have been no perceived need for improvement until late 1942 when the Typhoon & spit ix (2-stage supercharger ) appeared and were finally able to tackle the 109s & 190s on respectable terms. WIth the power & speed advantages they had at the time, Stalingrad and Kursk a few months later, happened anyway. I doubt an increase in speed would have helped - they still ran out of spares a couple of days into battle and had to concede significant sky to the other side's slower machines. The war was lost, and to an enemy with slower airplanes.
I really love your videos. Technical yet explained in a way that most people with some technical background or aptitude can appreciate and comprehend. Keep up the great work. Cannot figure out why anyone would give you the Thumbs Down, perhaps they should just go back to playing video games.
Thanks. The thumbs down don't really bother me. Even the best channels on youtube get thumbs downs. You should see what some people say about me in other places, they make it sound like I'm Darth Vader killing younglings.
Very interesting again. There is though a book that handles the Mw 50 system and had some pictures, how the system was fitted in the airframe of het 109. The book is called : Flugmotoren und Strahltriebwerke, ISBN 3-7637-6107-1. On page 160 there is a drawing at which the situation can be seen… Parts shown in the drawing are numbered but not described.Greetings and keep up this nice videos, Joop
Great video good sir! I'm currently in Aviation Maintenance Technician School and I love seeing video's like this! Keep up the great work. You have a new subscriber. 👍👍
Great video! Love the 109s. Its interesting how the Germans could take simple ideas and make them work with what little resources they had available, especially toward the end of the war. If that damn 262 would have come any earlier than it did, we would have really been in for a shock! Even with the Mustang in the sky. Would like to see a video of the fw190 capabilities. God bless.
Edit: Enrich, not rich, or riching, fuel mixtures. Amazing stuff! Thanks for uploading. You have a very pleasing voice and manner. I was wondering why they (or the British) didn't use this system earlier too, as soon as you started talking about it. But if I had lived then, I probably wouldn't have considered it, for the same reasons/habits of thought/whatever it was - no one else seems to have. Humans are capable of amazing ingenuity, but also of dull wittedness. It would be good if we could lose the dull wittedness. And the cruelty.
Wow, very impressive, knowledgeable stuff. The WW II fighter scene was always hallmarked by constant upgrading and uprating throughout any given airplane. When the FW 190 appeared in 1941 the British had to quickly "get on it" and upgrade to the Spitfire IX (improving the Merlin Rolls Royce engine) in order to stay in the aerial fight.
The BF109 was a great fighter for its time, and exemplified light fighter virtues of being small, easy and low cost to manufacture, good power to weight ratio, and (for its size) good weapons. Where Messerschmidt went a little wrong was the landing gear geometry (about 10% of all BF109's were lost in takeoff and landing accidents, another 20% damaged), never implementing a bubble canopy, and making it a little TOO small for its engine such that its could not fit an intercooler and its internal fuel had no room for growth. It is interesting that Germany did not implement higher octane fuel in volume for more manifold pressure, or water injection earlier, and that the United States did not implement water injection in the P-51D (though we had it in some P-51D contemporaries that did see combat, such as the later Hellcats and Corsairs). It seems each side had their favored technique for higher manifold pressure, and then just dropped the ball on the other step until forced to. Of course, the U.S. did up its game with the P-51H with water injection, lower weight, and other improvements such that it was pretty much the ultimate prop fighter, but did not get it out in volume in time to see combat.
Interestingly, the Bf109 had a wider stance than the Spitfire, and the Spitfire had a loss rate ranging between 10 and 20% on landing too, usually depending on the amount of training the pilots received. The Hurricane had a much lower loss rate.
Finally someone giving respect to the German fighter planes. No one should be giving 1st place trophies at the Olympics to their sons, no give it to the better athlete. The Victor is always tempted to rewrite history. Thanks for the video.
Again another great video. A couple of issues with the Germans was by late in the war with the defence of Berlin, most of their experienced good pilots were either captured or dead. Other issues were with the lack of materials they had left. Massive problems with pilots having trust with the late 109s was they were built with slave labour. Tail assemblies that were originally built of aluminium alloys were by the time of the BF109K, then built of wood. Add the fact that these were made by slaves deliberately sabotaging the quality, also doesn't help matters. Imagine a DB605 production line and odd nut and bolt being casually dropped into the sump just as it was fitted... When the 109 was originally fitted with the DB600 series the airframes were already heavily stressed due to the higher weight and power of these engines. Me109s were noted by the RAF in combat during the Battle of Britain as having catastrophic failures mid dogfight. These were by the closing stages even more stressed and very unreliable aircraft and even then tuned and pushed to their limits. I can't imagine them lasting long, regardless of combat...
Hey Greg, have you ever considered a video on the effect of propeller design on overall performance? The Germans began the war well with good VDM 3 bladed variable pitch metal props, but I believe I read somewhere that they let this final crucial link in the chain of thrust slip away from them. The blades on a P-51D had almost rectangular ends, while the VDMs still tapered toward the tip. I've heard it claimed that that alone might have cost 30-50 mph of airspeed. This (like manifold pressure) is a topic rarely mentioned.
The effect of the number of propeller blades would also be interessting. After all the 109 stuck with 3 blades despite huge increases in power(only bc of gun synchronisation?), while during its parallel development the Spitfire topped out at 5. Anyway, great videos and keep going.
Great upload again , my only comment would be that if the mw system had been introduced earlier it would have only given an advantage for a short time as allied designers would probably have countered it with a mw design or higher output merlin of their own - case it point being the appearence of the fw190 leading to the introduction of the uprated merlin engined spitfires
About introducing MW 50 for the Bf 109Fs I think they would have got issues dealing with the extra power in those early engines. Even preparing the DB 605 for 1475 HP with 1.42 ata had it's problems, I think related to lubrication, the 1.42 ata regime was banned for over a year if i'm correct and they had to run it at the decreased 1.3 ata pressure, which in the end offered the same amount of power as the predecessor DB 601E in the Bf 109 F-4 (from mid 1942 to mid 1943).
The p51 wasn't a world class performer until the got the Merlin engines!! The old Allison's just didn't make the Mustang a cold Stone killer until they were mated to the Merlin engine@@
Fair to note that this aircraft across all models shot down more aircraft than any other plane in history. F model was the last of the most maneuverable, however the dynamics of what they had to fight had changed so the G and beyond were heavier. Great aircraft that traded superiority with the Spitfire over various models. Love the history and the ingenuity of all WWII aircraft. Ultimately it came down to the pilot's skill. Germany lost most of their best pilots to attrition and their training program didn't support training new pilots to the same quality as allied training programs, especially in the last years. Great techincal information in the video.Truly fascinating.
This is great stuff, according to Erich Hartmann above 16k the P51 was better below he said the 109 was better. I found this interesting as from my research he mainly flew the G6 variants, the earlier G6 being essentially de tuned until the later G6. Great content.
Why do you only have 30K subs? Your work and commenting are absolutely genius! You should do sessions in this showing engineering/tech students how crazy the engineers were in war times. Absolutely stunning mechanics. Cheers
Thank you very much. My videos appeal to a relatively small audience. That's OK with me. There are channels that do nothing more than put up easy to find file photos of WW2 planes while they read facts from Wikipedia and they get far more views and subscribers that way. However I feel there is a need to get the deeper information out there, so that's what I am doing.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Hi Greg! I revisited this classic oldie and believe I have probable answer to your Q why not earlier with MW 50. It was about head gaskets and catastrophic oil leaks. I think they succeeded improving the technology after HJM's tragic death and go for more boost.
120K subs!
@@Dsdafg Greg is better than the Discovery and History channel, squared! 😀
I LOVE the Bf109 K-4.
If there was one plane I could fly EVER, it would be a K-4. No contest at all.
It’s fun to fly in WW2 combat sims. My fav 109 is the K4R4. Might not roll or maneuver well at high speed but it can sure dictate the terms of the combat.
IRL they had big reliability problems due to lack of materials and... unwilling (as you may imagine) slave labor.
As someone mentioned in this comment section, during the Battle of Britain a lot of the Bf109s would suffer catastrophic failures mid fight.
@@reinbeers5322 yeah those failure are called running out of fuel. Lol
@@reinbeers5322 there was no slave labour in 1940, the German economy ran on peacetime schedule.
@Icosikaitetragon Oops! Your engines blew up on the runway and you are now gravely injured. Roll a D-20 for Saving Throw.
I am finding myself unable to keep up with all of the comments. I do read them and will use them to decide what topics to cover next. I have a lot more planned. A lot of you have mentioned the FW190 and P47. I'll cover both of those in great detail. I will get to the Russian and British planes as well. There are some reasons I made these videos first. The Wildcat, 109, and P51 engines serve to cover a lot of the key principles that are needed to understand some of the other planes. Now that most of my viewers understand supercharger stages and drive systems, along with manifold pressure, and methanol:water injection, it's a lot easier to move forward. I couldn't start with the TA152 because it just has too much tech in it, and it would need a 2 hour video if I needed to explain it's multi stage supercharger, intercooler, MW50 and GM-1.
I appreciate all of your view, and comments, and a lot more videos are coming.
Greg, if (the biggest word in the English language) the RLM and Junkers had gotten the Jumo 222 to work reliably the Allies would have had a handful with the FW-190 so equipped. Not that it would of made any difference in the long run. A likely counter would have been the P-72 Ultrabolt version of the P47 powered by the Pratt & Whitney R-4360. Thankfully the Germans had too many projects sucking up too many resources to go along with too much infighting amongst the project managers and developers.
www.jagdgeschwader4.de/index.php/flugwerft-hauptraum/jaeger/messerschmitt-bf-109 i think in these pictures you can see the injection system on top of the cylinder heads of the g6
@@mpetersen6 From my knowledge, the biggest (longest) word in the English language describes a lung disease contracted form silicon particles from the ash of volcanoes. Don't see how that's relevant here.
@@maxdwyer8761
If as in "If only I...….", "If we would have...………..
Thanks I can't wait to watch those also how about the F4Us and Oscar and the F6F and A6Ns. The Corsair is my favorite warbird. I even met a couple of pilots of it when reading a book on it in the early 80's one was C.E. Harris!
You have no idea how much I love these videos.
Me too. How much?
@@michaelmcneil4168 you have no idea
Yup, we do. Cuz we do.
I ran MW50 in my Shelby Daytona when I was over 18lbs of boost. Fantastic antiknock solution. About a gallon of toluene in the tank and I could run almost 3 bar absolute manifold pressure.
Greg you are my unsung hero. What you do, and how you do it, is in many ways, well, quite German! We call it "sachlich", a unique German word for factual, matter-of-fact, objective, to the point, all in a single word.
Well said my friend.
Or as we Swedes say it; 'Sakligt'!
@@vladdrakul7851 i see what you did there hahahaha :D
In Danish we have "Fagligt", it means "to the subject"
The English equivalent would probably be “incisive”.
Please do one of these on later 190 Dora models and/or Ta152s. Thanks!
Luka Slović
Agree! I would love to see a video about the Dora or ta 152 !
Please please please please do that
You guys got your wish and I got to learn about a 190 variant that may as well have been a u-2. Thanks for catching Greg's ear!
The Dora is here, rejoice!
@@asiftalpur3758 old British money old British money
Methanol+H2O injection= performance boost.
Greg's channel+new video= knowledge boost!
Metric greetings from Norway!
My dad loves WW2 aviation history and we’ve bonded while watching your videos. Thank you, Greg.
Very detailed. As a mechanical engineer I learned a great deal. I did not know that WM injection was an antiknock technique. Thanks.
The United States introduced water injection on the P47. The system was very powerful but initially they didn’t put in enough ethanol (for colder European Weather) at one point they accidentally put in isopropyl alcohol. Initially Thunderbolt pilots were reluctant to activate their water injection for fear of blowing up their engine over enemy territory.
William Jones-Halibut that’s a damn good reason to be reluctant
Absolutely fascinating. I never thought about the fuel as I did the aerodynamics. To think that it took 4 years of very hard work to double the horse power. Thanks for your knowledge and expertise in explaining the complexity of the fuel
The added benefit was that, even only used for boost, if this had been used early on, the fuel savings would have been significant.
Germany could easily produce methanol, while gasoline resources were very limited near the end of the war.
Yes Greg, I love your Documentaries! Cheers from Down Under, Christchurch New Zealand!
My cousin is proud you made a video on him.
Greg, your youtube channel is simply the best channel on WW2 military aviation history I have seen to date. I am working on my PhD in Military History and I have enough of an engineering background that I am not intimidated by the science or mathematics involved in understanding basic aeronautics. Many of my professors have published academic works on airpower in World War II. Your videos are fantastic. You have a remarkable ability to make these complex topics understandable and interesting. I really don't think one can understand the nature of the air war without a basic understanding of the technology and engineering involved. Would you please create some videos on the significance of the airframe drag coefficient, on level flight acceleration, and on the relative roles of lift and power in climb performance? Thanks. Looking forward to your future productions.
Hi Ben, thanks! I will do all of those things, I think you will be happy with the some of the tech coming in my P47 videos. My knowledge in aerodynamics is below my knowledge of engines, but we have some interesting stuff coming up that involves a lot of NACA aerodynamic stuff.
I'm not a tech inclined guy... But somehow you manage to captivate me and simplify the tech jargon to easily understandable English. Hats off to you for such brilliance!
Very interesting & entertaining! FYI: A Czech company “JaPo” publishes (with English translation) a very well researched book titled what else: “Messerschmitt Bf109 K4”. It discusses in detail the origin of the “K” variant and includes a page about the MW50 system (with decent line drawings). There is also several pages regarding the DB605L & DB605D power plants (with power setting and manifold pressure information). It’s a very good read on the last of many...
I want to read that book - maybe the university library has a copy.
@Alfons Falkhayn The copy I have was published: JaPo: M.Horakove 273, Hradec Kralove, 500 06 Czech Republic (Ing. T. Poruba & Ing. A. Janda) You might be able to find a copy on the “Secondary Market”. It is printed in “Czech” (with English translation). It is IMHO a most interesting read and has many excellent illustrations, line drawings and photos!
@@patnolen8072 Hi Pat, It’s as authoritative a read as you will find on the “Kurfürst” variant. I purchased my copy thru one of the “scale model” magazine publishers when it came out but I can’t recall which. It did sell out quickly. “JaPo” is still in biz perhaps they can guide you to a copy. Good luck! www.japo.eu/products.php?cat=6_200
KUDOS, KUDOS and KUDOS to you, Sir.!!!
THAT'S the kind of Internet and UA-cam I like.!!
SERIOUS, TECHNICAL and SCIENTIFIC, (grown up), as it allways should be.
I think your commentaries ARE EVEN INPORTANT for the World History, in a real correct technical point of view.
I think your LESSON is so important, that I'm going tho write down all your comments.
Thanks again for posting such a great video, Sir.!!!
( I was a professional aviator, - jets - for 40 years, and love to learn those things about piston engines, even today).!!!
Many thanks again, Sir.!!!
Water injection was used on the KC-135 tanker aircraft with the J57 engines. The 5581 pounds of water would be used up in two minutes on takeoff. Part was injected behind the combustion section where it turned to steam, providing mere thrust. The bulk was injected into the intake. It would cool the incoming air, and make the air denser. Cool dense air expanded more than hotter air, increasing thrust.
“Recommended” has never been so right
Holy moly this is the channel I’ve needed in my life. I’ve loved all these planes and could never find details about supercharger and turbocharger systems employed by them. And just the mechanics of these engines! Subscribed immediately.
Oh, thank you :)
Greg, thank you for all you time and effort into this video -it's welcomed and sincerely appreciated!
Been watching a few of your videos lately, and have to say I feel like I'm learning a lot of wonderful technical information and love you presentations! Keep up the great work!
Nice discussion. One and only ONE point to make. Your assessment of "what if" regarding the use of the MW50 system in 1940,...as simple a fix as it MIGHT have represented, is also squarely in the realm of 20/20 hindsight. Great video and I truly appreciate, and look forward to your discussions !! Much obliged !!
Pure gold. I've come full circle on researching these topics and you nail every single one and address many areas that confused me, or were not on my radar at at one point. If only some of this technology could be utilized in modern civil piston aero engines.
Sadly, piston aviation technology peaked in about 1946. Most of the modern piston engines in aircraft are no more advanced. The manufacturers blame the inability to innovate on liability, I'm not so sure, but that's a topic for another time.
Great education for Me Greg . I used water Methanol with great success on My 86 Buick Grand National . Thanks for great history and insight on this topic.
Beautiful. Just beautiful. And yes: MW-50 stands for 'Methanolwasser-50'. Methanol is exactly the same both in english and german and 'Water' is 'Wasser'. 50 stands for 50% Mixturerate. Easy as that ;D
Keep up the great wörk Greg! I love your videos!
Thanks for the German words. I am going to start saying Methanolwasser, I like the way it sounds. Oh, and my name is Greg. George is some other guy.
My fault. Corrected and makes sence now. :)
Methanol-Wasser please, not as a compound word. As a compound it means the same as if I said in english "methanolied water"; Makes no sense. So, 2 separate words.
I was lucky enough to get a copy of P-51 Pilots Manual & Work around Them(Pilots & Crew from Reno)... You Do Good Work. Sir.
Love it!
Told you!
The German engines were bigger displacement, but were not actually larger or heavier.
They did not have oil pans, but an oil tank in front if the engine like some race cars.
Very well done and easy to understand. As much as I've studied WW2 combat aircraft, I wasnt aware there were faster than the P-51D, BF109s. Learn something new every day. Thank you for doing this!
Extremely informative Greg, thanks. I’m now about to install a MW system on my old air cooled turbo 930 engine...
Just curious...If I tried to inject mw at the intake would there be enough manifold pressure if the engine wasn't turbocharged? jforbey@yahoo.com
@@hellonwheels6887 Might wanna change your profile picture. The Feds won't play with that shit bro
A followup video on water injection in both production and racing vehicles would be the icing on the cake. 🤞. Love your channel. The pinnacle of UA-cam.
Greg this is another great video. I love watching these videos of yours. You are so informative and have so much technical information in these videos that it proves you have done exhaustive research. Another thing about a video of yours I watched the other day detailed the super charging system of the German Planes. This was a great Video as well. Thank you for such great information. Please keep up the good work Sir.
I just want to say: thank you so much for your video. It explained the Wasser Methanol injection system in a way that even I, a non mechanic, could understand. Greetings from Sweden and from Bo Hoffman
Thanks Bo!
Your work is well done, as is your presentation. Top marks to you.
Yeah, he's very detailed.
In 1975 I added water injection to my 1971 Datsun 510 sedan with a 1600cc inline 4 engine. It was simply a windshield-washer pump spraying water into the carburetor inlet, with an on-off switch on the dash. Worked great for eliminating pinging when climbing steep grades (I was too cheap to buy premium gasoline). No discernible change in power.
Almost the same effect as a leaky head gasket..... reduces compression ratio by steam cleaning the carbon off the pistons !!!!!!!
I had the cleanest pistons in town.
I did something similar with an old monza in the late 90's. Went to the trouble of adding 50% methanol. It really only helped off the line, probably due to hot air under the hood, screwed up timing curve, oil in the combustion, and when carb problems occurred. Could also help richen a sometimes lean hypermiling mixture setting, but again, mainly only noticed help in performance and emissions in 1st gear.
The problem for the Germans was always fuel, and never enough of it. Even if they had taken the Russian oil, they still would not have what they needed. Best they ever could have gotten was a truce.
Excellent video, and good points.
I truly enjoy your educational films. The way you try and stick to verifiable facts and then explain it in a very simple way so people not in the industry can understand.
Darn, you sound like a real life teacher! Very well done video!
Very informative, easy to understand even for a person who does not have English as a native language, nor is an engine mechanic, but a humble electrician... :-)
Got to check out your other stuff on the channel.
Cheers
You explain things so clearly and well in your videos......thanks!
Thanks for another super video on a topic that has been of great interest (and contention) on the internet since those first AOL message boards et al. so many years ago.
I just love the way the cannon shoots through the propeller !!! Anyone else ?
Yes, me!
And you meant through the spinner, right?
(I saw a scowl form on the face of an old pilot once when someone said 'through the propeller')
But yes, it is one of those mousetraps that is so simple, it is genius.
The P39 had it is well, although even larger cannon (37mm)
I wonder if it was the failure of the P39 that led others to stay away from it. I say failure in the sense of not chosen for mass production. The Russians apparently did quite well with it and seemed to have been more successful with it than with any other lend lease aircraft...including the Spit.
Straight as an arrow, no worry about the pre or post harmonization (or whatever the term is) for the convergence or over-convergence of the guns.
I guess that the P38 takes first place in that measure, but as good as it was for fire power, I always thought there was room for more 50 cals or even one or 2 more 20mm in its nose.
Could you imagine a lightning with the firepower of a p47...plus a 20mm?!
Just sayin...
.....enough nerding out on planes, cheers!
The Russians build more fighters that firing through the propellers than did the Germans. It was just a feature that helped smaller fighters carry a single cannon.
Ron Lawson Araconda shoots thru the spinner also. Engine was not supercharged and behind the cockpit. The wings were too short.
Gotta love that inverted V configuration!
@@hoodoo2001 the engine weight counterbalanced the recoil from the cannon. Love it!
I literally just found this channel some 2 days ago. You have answered some long standing questions of mine relating to the advantages that the mustang had over the bf109 as well as given me new information that has been extremely interesting. Thank you, sir, for your content and I look forward to every future video
Everybody measures performance by top speed, however I think comparing acceleration from 200 to 300mph (1939-42 variants) and 250 to 350mph (1942-45 variants) would be a much better measure of dogfighting ability; also maximum G (or turn radius) that can be pulled at the midpoints of these ranges.
Except, of course, the lower drag wing gave the Mustang far longer range than the Spit (as well as better dive speed), which in 1944 was crucial (they were doing bomber escort and deep strike rather than the bomber interception of 1940). That's why Winkle Brown - the man who test flew more different fighter types than any other in history - said that he would have rather been dogfighting in a Spitfire over France but in a Mustang over Berlin.
Barrie Rodliffe Barrie, I’ve seen you in multiple comment threads stumping for the spitfire, which was an awesome plane, but your rabid fanboying regardless of any info but that which supports your personal bias is tiring. Do you, by chance, work for the UKs historical Spitfire fan club association?
A lot of people forget acceleration and how important it is also planes that can accelerate faster usually climb faster. The top speed of the Zero and later versions of the wildcat were close but the wildcat couldn't climb as fast because it weighed more. Weight of an aircraft has little to do with top speed a clean plane rules here.
@@johnkendall6962 Yes weight does effect top speed both ways. A plane that is heavier but going the same speed in a straight line as a lighter plane will hold his speed longer. At the end of the day he has more energy.
@@brandonstrife9738 True if they are going the same speed but it also takes more energy for the heavier plane to get to that speed or a longer time. There is no free lunch. If 2 planes have the same HP the plane with cleaner aerodynamics will be faster even if it is heaver.
I always learn something interesting with each of your videos.
Thanks a ton for including Metric Measurements, it really helps a lot.
I absolutely love all your content. My dad got his shirt tail cut at age 16 (he's 74 now). Before he transitioned to making his money in the marine business (primarily in the high performance offshore powerboating market) he managed an airport in Fort Myers, FL, had a business buying and selling planes, and taught people to fly... He has flown a variety of aircraft from Cessna 172s to P51s. My hands on experience with objects of a mechanical nature centers more around exotic firearms, offshore powerboats, and cars (I'd love to fly someday, as I come from a family of aviators, but it's not in the budget right now). Considering my lack of personal experience with aviation, your content provides me with so much to talk about with my father, as we both love going over technical data on all manner of machinery. Keep up the good work Greg... 👍👍
My first flying job was as a traffic reporter in Ft. Meyers FL. for WDCQ (no idea if that radio station still exists). Thanks for your comment, I enjoyed reading it.
Your videos are fantastic, thank you for continuing to make them.
Thank for the fair analysis of the aircraft . Excellent data. Can’t wait to see more.
Your conclusion at the end is an interesting one, I'll check this for ya in germany.
This was an excellent video!!!
Thank you for doing it. I actually have wondered about this exact question many times. Im fascinated by all things WW2 (regarding the machines of that war).
Fabulous run down on the 109 series. Thanks ,for posting most of the details to moderate depth. I really like the way you generalize and some up the details, configuration and and scenarios
What about doing a break down of the Bear Cat?
I just found this channel. Congrats for the quality!
I think the simplest explanation as to why the Germans didn't push MW-50 on use on earlier Bf 109 and Fw 190 models is that they simply didn't think they needed additional engine power at that point (as much as the pilots probably would have disagreed), and they were having some issues with their engines already at their "normal" power ratings.
The Germans in fact had a lot of problems with the DB 601 engines on Bf 109 E- and F-series and also the DB 605A engines on the G-series, which forced them to operate lengthy periods of time with de-rated manifold pressure settings. The DB 605A for example was initially rated for 1.42ata, then it was de-rated to 1.3ata, possibly approving and de-appriving the full ratings once or twice, and then the full 1.42ata rating was finally approved sometime in 1943. The DB 601 engines had similar things happening to them. Sometimes these de-rating decisions were made to make the engines last longer before the engine had to be swapped and re-built, sometimes to fix acute reliability issues (I think I remember something about wrong type of spark plugs getting fouled up, for example).
With that in mind, it's quite understandable why the Germans would've been a bit apprehensive of squeezing even more power out of engines that were sometimes quite problematic to operate.
In addition to this, the Bf 109 F-2, F-4, and G-2 were already some of the best performing fighter aircraft in terms of power to weight ratio. MW-50 might have increased their power output even more, *but* it simply wasn't needed in 1941 or 1942, and it would have increased the stress on the engine components, reducing engine life time and increasing the risk of in-flight engine failures.
By late 1943, the situation had changed to absolutely necessitate the introduction of MW-50 systems for Bf 109 G-6. Since the boffins at Daimler-Benz had apparently figured out a way to implement it in a way that didn't compromise the reliability or service life of the DB 605A-series engine, they started making the new engines with the MW-50 system installed as DB-605AM, and doing field installations of the injection kit as DB-605A(M).
And to be fair to the Germans, it doesn't seem like anyone else started actually using anti-detonant injection systems on fighters much earlier than this, either. So to me it seems like almost everyone started using some sort of anti-detonant injection systems as soon as they were necessary, when the power requirements and therefore manifold pressure requirements increased beyond what was possible with "conventional" methods.
thats true. in some other video somebody said military is used to stick with the things that work. and it worked good. they could improve aerodynamics of the plane much earlier too.
english put 5 bladed propellers on some variants of spitfire so i wonder how would that work... but again its kind of pointless to say what they could have done
I would have thought the lack of high octane fuels would have spurred it early on. The British had an ample supply of high octane fuel early on from the Americans, and would be running 145 by the end of the war. Germany spent most of it with 87 which to me absolutely boggles the mind.. though having direct injection engines and variable speed superchargers took maximum advantage of it.
I think they had a lot of problems with the bearings on the 601 and 605 as well
@@Bartonovich52the research had started but if I remember correctly they had big problems with bearings and other stuff failing at higher power so no use for MW50 if you can’t use that power
@@thurbine2411 With the DB 601, they had time to sort out the problems and the engine became a mature, "finished" product so to speak, by the time it was installed on, say, Bf 109 F-types for example.
The DB 605 on the other hand never reached that kind of maturity - during the war, Germany was continuously forced to make all sorts of compromises that reduced reliability and engine life time, but made it possible to at least produce them. Like with the bearings you mentioned, the Allied bombing raids had significantly affected Germany's ball bearing production capability so the decision was to use plain bearings (or sleeve bearings) for the main bearings on the crankshaft and I think also for the camshafts, but I'm not sure about that. As a result of that, Daimler-Benz considered the DB 605 to be incomplete or a "sick engine" and all the issues and problems were never fully resolved by the end of the war.
A reproduction of a DB 605 with proper bearings and materials could probably be pushed quite a bit further in terms of power - or perform at the historical power levels with much better reliability.
Great info, very informative. Learned quite a bit about methanol water injection today. Thank tou
I had a great day. Because you've done another great video ! Thanks sir ! Cheers from France.
OMG! So many data provided! Great video as usual! Thanks for upload Greg!
Good content, keep going. I suggest the P-51H next.
I am going to get away from the P51 for a little while. Since the P51H never saw combat in WW2 it's lower on my list. I really need to cover the turbocharged fighters and FW190s first.
P47??? 😁
Tired of P-51 and other Spitfires. Seriously. So many great machines other than those two hollywood stars.
I haven't made a video about the Spitfire. I promise I'll stay away from the P51 for a while.
I definitely second that!!
Greg, you always have amazing videos.
Just REEKS of authoritative! Great stuff, well presented. Thanks, Greg!
Lovely video Greg, always a pleasure to listen to your detailed information. =)
Knock: pre-detonation. Explosive fuel ignition due to the heat generated by high compression, rather than by the spark plugs. Destructive because of explosive pressures produced at the wrong time during piston travel. Water or water meth injection also increases effective fuel mass.
"This video is long and technical" just what i want :-)
Undoubtedly these first opening shots of the BF109 and P51 and other AC were taken at the WWII museum in New Orleans. Fabulous Place.
Thank you for pointing that out, those aircraft displays are something else (a b-17 suspended in the air? Too cool) and it had me wondering where those photos were taken.
Great video! Really enjoyed your technical details and the way you put things into context!
Thanks for your summaries, which have been quite fascinating for this old remnant of Farnborough (RAE) and Pyestock (NGTE), in that they have been as technically precise as it has been possible to be, I feel sure. I agree with "I Fly Central" has written. The year after next will be Hindsight Year, as it will be "20-20 AD". _he hee._
Considering the statements about ata at around 10:00min ata is absolute technical atmospheres. In germany existed different ways of messuring. One is physical atmosphere (atm), which is 1013,25 mbar. Then there were the technical atmosphere units, one of which is ata or atmosphere absolute. One ata is 98,0665 kPa or 0,980665 bar. Absolute means in this case that 0 ata is vaccume, while atü (atmosphere overpressure) and atu (atmosphere underpressure) measure the deviation from the surrounding airpressure, meaning their 0 is 1ata. 1 bar are just 1000 mbar.
Thanks. A fair amount of homework and a very neat, succinct delivery. (Quite the boffin)- lingua franca circa 1940 s. Keep it up, you're good at it
Thanks for including metric measurements. I’ve been pausing and converting some of the stats in other videos when I’ve needed to - the aircraft speed and mach numbers in particular. Although this is just a minor inconvenience, it does increase my enjoyment to not have to do this. I would never have requested that you add metric - I’m used to having to convert when dealing with Americans :-). , and you seem to do enough work as it is without me asking for special treatment but it’s nice and I appreciate that you’re doing it.
I'll try and do it more in the future. Keep in mind, those European videos NEVER have conversions for us.
I know the difference between Bar and Pascal is relocated decimal point,but for me,bar makes sense and I always have to mentally tinker with kilopascals.
So thank you for using bar and not the more modern spawn from Hell.
Did that kind of indicate my feelings on the subject ? At any rate,Cheers. Love your calm and informative vids.
Bar is simple, yes.
Many thanks for the technical analysis! Great video and I have learned a lot!
Greetings from Guatemala!
On your last remark, bringing up the MW mixture on the 109F in 1940... that could have changed history!
Thanks Carlos, I do think MW50 on the F would have made a difference, but the Allies would have still won.
ABSOLUTELY!
WITHOUT any doubt!
The P51 would have been operational by 1942 and the sky is the limit!
There might have been no perceived need for improvement until late 1942 when the Typhoon & spit ix (2-stage supercharger ) appeared and were finally able to tackle the 109s & 190s on respectable terms. WIth the power & speed advantages they had at the time, Stalingrad and Kursk a few months later, happened anyway. I doubt an increase in speed would have helped - they still ran out of spares a couple of days into battle and had to concede significant sky to the other side's slower machines. The war was lost, and to an enemy with slower airplanes.
another very informative Video Greg, well done.
I really love your videos. Technical yet explained in a way that most people with some technical background or aptitude can appreciate and comprehend. Keep up the great work. Cannot figure out why anyone would give you the Thumbs Down, perhaps they should just go back to playing video games.
Thanks. The thumbs down don't really bother me. Even the best channels on youtube get thumbs downs. You should see what some people say about me in other places, they make it sound like I'm Darth Vader killing younglings.
Ah, yes. The wailing and gnashing of teeth by fanboys skewered on the points of real facts. Painful to see.@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Star wars reference Greg?! You're cool, man(sir).
Very interesting again. There is though a book that handles the Mw 50 system and had some pictures, how the system was fitted in the airframe of het 109. The book is called : Flugmotoren und Strahltriebwerke, ISBN 3-7637-6107-1. On page 160 there is a drawing at which the situation can be seen… Parts shown in the drawing are numbered but not described.Greetings and keep up this nice videos, Joop
www.powells.com/book/-9783763761289 carries this book as a new hardcover.
Great video good sir! I'm currently in Aviation Maintenance Technician School and I love seeing video's like this! Keep up the great work. You have a new subscriber. 👍👍
Great video! Love the 109s. Its interesting how the Germans could take simple ideas and make them work with what little resources they had available, especially toward the end of the war. If that damn 262 would have come any earlier than it did, we would have really been in for a shock! Even with the Mustang in the sky. Would like to see a video of the fw190 capabilities. God bless.
The funny and scary thing is that it would have come earlier if Hitler didnt want to make the Me262 a Fighter bomber
Fascinating stuff. You are to be congratulated.
Great Stuff! The 109 is my favorite Warbird.
KC PMII yes sir, P-40 Is my favorite Allied warbird. Nothing wears the shark mouth like a Flying Tiger !
Edit: Enrich, not rich, or riching, fuel mixtures.
Amazing stuff! Thanks for uploading. You have a very pleasing voice and manner.
I was wondering why they (or the British) didn't use this system earlier too, as soon as you started talking about it. But if I had lived then, I probably wouldn't have considered it, for the same reasons/habits of thought/whatever it was - no one else seems to have. Humans are capable of amazing ingenuity, but also of dull wittedness. It would be good if we could lose the dull wittedness. And the cruelty.
The British had the advantage of knowing that American 130 and 150 octane fuel would be in good supply, so it wasn't as critical for them.
Wow, very impressive, knowledgeable stuff. The WW II fighter scene was always hallmarked by constant upgrading and uprating throughout any given airplane. When the FW 190 appeared in 1941 the British had to quickly "get on it" and upgrade to the Spitfire IX (improving the Merlin Rolls Royce engine) in order to stay in the aerial fight.
The BF109 was a great fighter for its time, and exemplified light fighter virtues of being small, easy and low cost to manufacture, good power to weight ratio, and (for its size) good weapons. Where Messerschmidt went a little wrong was the landing gear geometry (about 10% of all BF109's were lost in takeoff and landing accidents, another 20% damaged), never implementing a bubble canopy, and making it a little TOO small for its engine such that its could not fit an intercooler and its internal fuel had no room for growth. It is interesting that Germany did not implement higher octane fuel in volume for more manifold pressure, or water injection earlier, and that the United States did not implement water injection in the P-51D (though we had it in some P-51D contemporaries that did see combat, such as the later Hellcats and Corsairs). It seems each side had their favored technique for higher manifold pressure, and then just dropped the ball on the other step until forced to. Of course, the U.S. did up its game with the P-51H with water injection, lower weight, and other improvements such that it was pretty much the ultimate prop fighter, but did not get it out in volume in time to see combat.
Interestingly, the Bf109 had a wider stance than the Spitfire, and the Spitfire had a loss rate ranging between 10 and 20% on landing too, usually depending on the amount of training the pilots received. The Hurricane had a much lower loss rate.
Finally someone giving respect to the German fighter planes. No one should be giving 1st place trophies at the Olympics to their sons, no give it to the better athlete. The Victor is always tempted to rewrite history. Thanks for the video.
Thanks Gary. I appreciate you watching this video.
Highly enjoyable and informative to watch one your videos before jumping in the subject plane in a flight sim, thanks.
Greg, a very informed and balanced review of the benefits of the MW50 system. Thank you.
Another GREAT video, Greg! I finally understand the various forms of water/methanol injection
Outstanding material .
Thank you for your research and clear communication!
Again another great video. A couple of issues with the Germans was by late in the war with the defence of Berlin, most of their experienced good pilots were either captured or dead. Other issues were with the lack of materials they had left. Massive problems with pilots having trust with the late 109s was they were built with slave labour. Tail assemblies that were originally built of aluminium alloys were by the time of the BF109K, then built of wood. Add the fact that these were made by slaves deliberately sabotaging the quality, also doesn't help matters. Imagine a DB605 production line and odd nut and bolt being casually dropped into the sump just as it was fitted... When the 109 was originally fitted with the DB600 series the airframes were already heavily stressed due to the higher weight and power of these engines. Me109s were noted by the RAF in combat during the Battle of Britain as having catastrophic failures mid dogfight. These were by the closing stages even more stressed and very unreliable aircraft and even then tuned and pushed to their limits. I can't imagine them lasting long, regardless of combat...
new sub, happy for the metric for us challenged people not terribly familiar with the imperial system :)
Hey Greg, have you ever considered a video on the effect of propeller design on overall performance? The Germans began the war well with good VDM 3 bladed variable pitch metal props, but I believe I read somewhere that they let this final crucial link in the chain of thrust slip away from them. The blades on a P-51D had almost rectangular ends, while the VDMs still tapered toward the tip. I've heard it claimed that that alone might have cost 30-50 mph of airspeed. This (like manifold pressure) is a topic rarely mentioned.
Hi Tim, I have considered it. There are just so many things to cover that I don't know when I'll get to it.
The effect of the number of propeller blades would also be interessting. After all the 109 stuck with 3 blades despite huge increases in power(only bc of gun synchronisation?), while during its parallel development the Spitfire topped out at 5. Anyway, great videos and keep going.
great presentation man. Thank you for your effort and the info.
nice analysis, thanks for sharing !
Loved the technical specs and explanation! Thanks!
Great upload again , my only comment would be that if the mw system had been introduced earlier it would have only given an advantage for a short time as allied designers would probably have countered it with a mw design or higher output merlin of their own - case it point being the appearence of the fw190 leading to the introduction of the uprated merlin engined spitfires
True, but having a head start is always good.
About introducing MW 50 for the Bf 109Fs I think they would have got issues dealing with the extra power in those early engines. Even preparing the DB 605 for 1475 HP with 1.42 ata had it's problems, I think related to lubrication, the 1.42 ata regime was banned for over a year if i'm correct and they had to run it at the decreased 1.3 ata pressure, which in the end offered the same amount of power as the predecessor DB 601E in the Bf 109 F-4 (from mid 1942 to mid 1943).
The p51 wasn't a world class performer until the got the Merlin engines!! The old Allison's just didn't make the Mustang a cold Stone killer until they were mated to the Merlin engine@@
Very interesting discussion
Fair to note that this aircraft across all models shot down more aircraft than any other plane in history. F model was the last of the most maneuverable, however the dynamics of what they had to fight had changed so the G and beyond were heavier. Great aircraft that traded superiority with the Spitfire over various models. Love the history and the ingenuity of all WWII aircraft. Ultimately it came down to the pilot's skill. Germany lost most of their best pilots to attrition and their training program didn't support training new pilots to the same quality as allied training programs, especially in the last years. Great techincal information in the video.Truly fascinating.
This is great stuff, according to Erich Hartmann above 16k the P51 was better below he said the 109 was better. I found this interesting as from my research he mainly flew the G6 variants, the earlier G6 being essentially de tuned until the later G6. Great content.
how many g6s were there?
@@libra9381 2 late and early models, one heavy and the other tuned for high altitude with erla canopy
The were alot of g6 but powerwise the later ones had mw50
An excellent and clear explanation! Subscribed.