Messerschmitt BF 109 Supercharger Drive System
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- The ME109 used a method to drive its supercharger that was unique to German aircraft until after World War 2 when the US adopted a similar system. It's very effective, and I find it interesting. This is one of the reasons the 109 was able to remain at least competitive throughout the war.
In short, the 109's supercharger was driven hydraulically and thus didn't need to be throttled to avoid overboost at low altitudes. Most Allied aircraft used a method of cutting off the air to the supercharger at low altitudes. This meant that at low altitudes their superchargers were spinning faster than the optimal speed for a given amount of boost and wasting energy.
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
gregs-airplane...
Please consider supporting this channel on Patreon: / gregsairplanesandautom...
Hi Greg,
As to why the germans mounted their Superchargers on the side, there are actually some pretty interesting reasons for why they did that. I will try to explain them in this comment, but please excuse my limited english.
The first one is design tradition from the early days of sportier cars. At that time the chargers did not look like the discs we know today but rather lengthy like a gearbox, they were mounted to the chin and increased the length of the engine quite a bit, so in order to save space they rotated it 90 degrees to the vertical. They also had more positive experience transmitting the moment to the charger with that way of mounting it, so they kept it as the chargers evolved.
The second is that it is more efficient than mounting it parallel behind the engine, since the Air only has to make a 90 degree turn in the charger and then can be fed straight to the engine, while in the other mount it would have to make a 180 degree turn into the charger and then again a 90 degree turn into the engine.
As a 3rd reason, it allowed to increase the disc diameter without increasing the frontal area of the engine, tho you would need quite a large supercharger to make use of that.
It might be easier to access to, but I don't know how often you could make use of that.
Wow, over 100 views already! That's pretty good for such an obscure topic. Thanks guys! I'll get another WW2 fighter video up soon.
No crea que esos temas no son de un interés mas general del que cree, Don´t think you than this topics may be more interesting than you believed (sorry about my english), greetings from Santiago de Chile)
muchas gracias Juan.
I suppose people are interested in this topic?
Apparently about 200 are. I have some videos coming that are on more mainstream WW2 airplane topics, but some of my videos just are not aimed at the masses.
I know :D Still waiting for that video on the 190D's engine you mentioned in the Jumo004 engine video
Finally, an aviation history channel that isn't dumb opinions with cutesy, low energy animated pictures. Thanks based Greg!
tell me about it... people usually blindly "I m messer fan" I am mustang" "nothing but spitfire" ... no one really explains what is going on under the hood. Greg is awesome.
Yeah. This channel needs to blow up with how awesome it is. So glad I found it. I'm actually surprised to see it isn't that old either.
Also without the so called "specialists" talking head bullcrap...
Greg is totally awesome.
@gennieapulova8017 rright but the spitfire fanboys are the worst
The more I learn about it, the more I realize that the following statement is true: at the time that it entered service, the Bf-109E was the most technologically advanced fighter anywhere in the world. Variable stage supercharging. Fuel injection for extended negative Gs, and automatic mixture control. An automatic variable pitch propellor. Wing tip slats to retain aileron control at high angles of attack. And from the E-4 variant till the final K-4, devastating thin walled mine shells that gave the HE rounds from its 20mm cannons an ability to punch far above its caliber.
I can only hope that someone can recover the documents and blueprints needed to finally rebuild and repair the DB 600 series engines.
@Scott Wiggins *with higher octane fuel, massively outnumbering the 109, bombing of manufacturing facilities, the list goes on
I’d love to see an airworthy Kurfurst-4
Also, the position of the landing gear made the 109 to be easy mantenaince and transport by train you just can take out the wings and still have the plane on his own weels. Dont forget also the Horizontal Trimable stabilicer, fletner tabs, engine controls, pilot sitting position allowing more gs, was a very very well thought plane and futuristic design. On 45 still was pair or even superior the best allay fighers with newer designs. Amacing aircraft. One plane capable of fighting everywhere while the spitfire needed 3 wings, 2 different kind of engine to be equal with LF and HF while some planes were specialiced on hight alt combat and other on low combat like russians. 109 did great againt all that variety of allay specialiced fighters, Yak, Las, Migs, P40s, P38s, P47s, Spits, P51s... Able to dogfight, able to be fast, able to climb, able to have good armament...I can not thing about a more succesfull design.
The American Allison engine had half the components the Rolls-Royce Merlin had and probably half as many as the DB-601. The Allison was made for mass production, the others not so much. While it's true that the Allison had an inferior turbo-supercharger which rendered it less effective at altitude over Europe, it was an in-demand engine in the South Pacific where they fought at lower altitudes and higher temperatures.
As Stalin once noted, 'Quantity has a quality of it's own.'. The USA was able to make 70,000 Allison V-1710 engines while DB made only 19,000 601's. At the end of the day, the USA and England buried the Axis powers in aircraft engine production.
That's all fine and well but if you don't have access to oil you have nothing at the end...
Consider the Fw-190's highly advanced engine control system. It featured an analog computer, with a single lever for all engine parameters and functions. There was no direct pilot control of engine RPM, manifold pressure boost, or mixture. Compare this with the very complicated engine controls of late WWII American and Allied aircraft.
The Germans had some really cool stuff. The FW190 had many innovations, engine control being one of them. I'll probably cover some FW190 features in a video.
rather amazing! imagine the reduction of workload on the pilot
It was good, and the concept was revived by Mooney Aircraft when they used a Porsche engine in the late 80's. Pilots loved the simplified controls, but ultimately, it failed. That's another story.
I read somewhere the British examined the German system during the war and found it superior to theirs and recommended adoption of something similar as it reduced pilot workload and distraction at critical moments in a fight. I wonder if war exigencies prevented implementation or if there was another reason.
Moriah Molotov I can see why jet fighters adopted this throughout the cold war. Gives pilot more focus on the battle.
history and engineering. two of my favourite subjects
As a retired manufacturing engineer and machinist when I look at the design on that engine and supercharger system it may have been the gear
Design that influenced the 90 degree drive. bevel gears are much stronger and quieter and more compact than spur gears allowing for a greater ratio change without a loss of strength that whole engine design was light years ahead of anything the allies had and the fuel injection system is essentially what we are using in our automobiles today
Hmm, that might be the best theory I have heard on this so far. Thanks Don.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles love your videos finally some common sense the gears are one thing and by moving it to 90 degrees they created better flow
as you mentioned already plus by putting it on the side they shortened the nose which would help weight and balance as well
all and all a very clever design
Perhaps the question to ask is not why the Germans mounted it on the side, but why everybody else mounted it behind the engine. Both must have been conscious choices.
The American turbo superchargers were pretty awesome 👌
90 degree to crank thought. This would eliminate the gyroscopic load created when the airplane pitches up or down. Car too. This way the compressor rotor clearance can be maintained more easily. Less load on the bearings.
Hi Steve, thanks for the comment. I hadn't thought of the gyroscopic load issue. The impellers in these things are big, by any normal standards, so it's possible that was an issue, but I tend to think that's not it for two reasons. First, the US superchargers were very efficient, and I have never read about any concerns in this area. Second, the 90 degree mount will add gyroscopic issue when the plane rolls, and most planes roll faster than they pitch. It's a good thought though, and it could be right, I just don't know.
I wana see your Match then if not affect...
I think the right angle drive may have had to do with possible multiple issues.
1: Maintenance access. The blower wheel could be readily pulled for inspection. As the drive gears.
2: Engine length. The front overhang is already considerable. A longer engine would have reduced forward visibility even more.
3:Balance and weight : A longer engine would have increased the loading moment on the front of the airframe, increasing structure weight. And would have required a longer heavier tail and empennage to counterbalance it.
There is nothing in aircraft design that if it adds weight adds it in only one place. Usually ripples through the design.
You need to consider the airplane CG and the lever arm of a pitch on the compressor vs. the lever arm of a roll. Pitch maybe a larger force due to the length of the lever arm. Roll axis lever arm is pretty small.
Very interesting answers. Wonder if the mystery will ever be adequately addressed if not outright proven.
As an admirer of German engine technology, this video is very interesting.
Interesting ! I read from some magazines that the F-6F Hellcat also had a hydromatic coupling for the Double Wasps compressor. In regards to the DB601 and 605, the engine manual for the DB601 states explicitly that the first gear coupling was fix, while the second was variable, probably due to excessive heat transfer to the oil, so the superior effect was only there above critical altitude of the first gear (around 2500 m), but then because of this the compressor revs up with altitude giving the DB601 superior performance between 2500 - crit. Alt of second gear which was 4500 m for the DB601, 5300 m for the DB605 A (AS, D had then higher crit. alt becuase of bigger compressor of DB603), whereas for instance the BMW801 of the Fw190 had a rather large 'hole' above 1500 m (crit. Alt of first gear) and the changeover to second gear (around 3000 m), in changing before that altitude the additional boost would be offset by the power consumption of the Compressor , due to the Regulator limiting max. pressure, thus all fix coupled compressors have this 'hole' where power drops with airdensity, the worse the higher revved and the overboost of the second or n-th gear's revs are, in the case of the Fw190 this loss of power one had for almost 1500 m. The worst of them all was the Merlin single gear (Spit Mk. I - V), it ran at very high RPM producing vast overboost at sealevel which had to be regulated down (with loss of power of course). Only later in the war special inlet installations took off some of that load by reducing air density (actuated by the regulator, the DB605 D used that).
I think it was on some version of the corsair that it was used
What do you mean obviously the Merc didn't have a cannon!?
It did not have a cannon firing through the propeller as the ME 109. which fired in between the cylinders through the reduction gear.
Novat Why would you fit a cannon in a CAR?
LMAO pointless
@@left_ventricle couldn't you imagine a MG42 on the passenger seat? That would sort' off pretty nicely badass
For sure they have planed to install cannon in Mercedes as they already put sigh on bonnet. 😂
Because Adolf didn't want all this James Bond crap on his Benz. He probably had an Mg42 in the trunk...just in case some communists would dare to block the road. :)
The reason I would set a supercharger at 90 degrees to the crank would be to facilitate maintenance, since it becomes a very self contained module that can be removed from the engine/vehicle without having to move anything else first. With a rear mounted supercharger you'd have to pull the engine or rip open the body of the vehicle more than one would like in order to even touch the thing.
Accessibility is important in the field. That thing looks dead easy to remove. compared to an inline one.
Given that maintenance seems to be why an inverted V-12 is used, it would make sense that they would choose to do this. I think your theory may hold water.
It looks right too. If it and the hydraulic coupling were bolted together rearwards it would not be compact. They did it and said nein, we need to place it like this. Germans like shaft drive, it's nothing for them to turn something 90°, and back again if they have to.
Meanwhile in War Thunder:
Engine Overheat
Engine Dead
Water Overheat
Oil Overheat
Pilot Knocked Out
No Ammo
Tail Cut Off
Overspeed
etc.
Bf109 has the most reliable engine there though, as long as you don't get shot.
This is great stuff, subbed
Thank you. I subscribed to your channel as well. I see you are from Germany, nice country, I have spent a lot of time in Morbach.
And Due Pont's other strike was tetra ethyl lead which both lowered IQ's and raised octane ratings of aircraft petrol :)
Great data to round out ones repertoire on WW2 "fun" facts. Bring this up in a conversation makes one appear smart, ha ha ha!
Wouldn't the perpendicular supercharging mount make for a good and compact double stage system? Simply mount the 2nd stage mirrored on the other side of the engine, you can even drive it from the same bevel gear with a different gear ratio to get the best performance. Wonder if DB engineers ever considered the idea, and if they did, why not adopt it. Probably space constraints?
Edit: I've found a video of a restored 109 running its engine without cowling from the left side, and the area opposite to the supercharger seems to be largely empty, especially with the later wider cowlings from the AS variants and K models, so I can only guess that DB engineers either didn't think of it or deemed it not worth the cost.
Edit²: As I suspected, I am not smarter than Daimler engineers and this setup has been tried on the DB603. There is a 1962 "Der Flieger" magazine with a whole bunch pictures of ww2 german engine prototypes with all sorts of supercharging configurations, makes one think how they were stuck with the outdated single stage non-charge cooled design until the very end of the war
The Germans had scientist that were very smart and did things really different than the rest of the World. If the Germans had used 130 to 150 Octane Fuel in their planes in the beginning of the War they would have been a lot better than any of ours including the Mustang. The main reason the German planes couldn't pull as much manifold pressure as our planes was the 87 octane fuel they used in the beginning of the War. Later they used additives to boost the octane to 130 to 150 but by then they were on the losing end of the War and had lost tons of planes and good pilots!
Yup, I have a whole video about that!
Is that the only German assembly line photo ever taken? What a treat. Henry Fords scoffs at that factory. The Germans, pardon my cliche, are very excellent designers, engineers, and manufacturers but they suck at naming things for global sales. Trem II - they actually use the Roman numerals - what is it about Germans and Romans? Are you old enough to remember the Doozy? In the 50s, if something was awesome someone might say, "it's a Doozy!" referring to the reputation (1920s) of fine Deusenberg automobiles, driven by many rich and famous Europeans and royalty and American celebs and the wealthy for showing off and going fast and god help you if you didn't know a Doozy mechanic. Also the convertibles were perfect for showing off. It's a Doozy! It's a Benz is a later decade - the 50s on, started by the Brits. Brits and Germans were always exchanging tech, war or no war. Think of the jet engine. Captain Obvious out. (I'm still designing the Captain Obvious Flyer)
The D9 is a bad example, the same series of engine was going to be used on the D12 with a MK 108 engine gun. So why make it different.
But the sound that supercharger made was unlike anything else. Even the amazing Merlin engines fade by comparison. Pure screaming terror!
About Germans and 90 degree drives. I think it must be genetic because the Duesenberg brothers were Americans who were the ones who built the first successful supercharged racing cars in the US in the early 1920's and their superchargers were mounted on the engine's side opposite the crankshgaft rotation too! They did it so they could put a long drive shaft on the supercharger which would twist like a torsion bar spring and absorb inertia loads from rapid changes in engine speed. That's important on cars but not so in aircraft. After Duesenberg's supercharged victory in the 1924 Indianapolis 500 others used superchargers but they never had the reliability the Duesenberg cars did because they always put the superchargers on the end (geared directly to the camshaft drive). Anyway Duesenberg is obviously a German name and it used to bother Hitler because they were also Jewish.
I used to be a real speed-vs-height-curve junkie when I was a kid; I suspect the 109's curve would be most interesting to analyse.
That was excellent I’ve often wondered how the German engines supercharger worked. I’ve seen many static displays of the 109 and noticed the supercharger intake. You have to marvel at the the technology of that era, even before the war, even by today’s standards looking at an aircraft fighter engine is amazing, the Germans had fuel injection that had an effect in performance over the carburetor. As an example the Merlin powered Spitfire had a problem when a negative attitude was exerted on the aircraft that caused the engine to lose fuel, briefly, that was corrected by a simple ingenious check ball of sorts, but the German pilots took advantage of that scenario because a puff of smoke from the exhaust signaled this effect and that allowed just enough time to kill its adversary.
The German stuff was really impressive, the supercharger drive, the fuel injection, roller bearings everywhere, Nitrous Oxide, Water Methaol injection, a lot of engine displacement and very high allowable piston speeds. Still, they never had the power they should have considering all these advantages. In my next airplane video, I'll explain why.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles great I’ll be waiting your doing a good job.
I'm only guessing, but can you ensure the air is laminar if you only turn it 90 degrees? No idea how our why that would help, it's the only thing i can think of.
Why did the Germans put the supercharger there? My suspicion is they put it there because that's where they had always put it and it had worked well there so why would they change the location?
"If it ain't broke don't fix it" they probably thought.
Did the P-51h use a similar supercharger drive system? How did the Americans incorporate it into a double supercharger?
Why were the Germans different and designed their engines with the supercharger at 90dg to the crankshaft? Because Germans always over-engineer shit, that's why!
Hi Greg. I was amazed by the detailed explanation of the system. I flew on that plane (I mean the last edition of almost 2000HP) and I know something about mechanics. Once upon a time at the Academy in Berlin, a living mechanic from the time of the Second World War explained to me how time was spent on possible and frequent repairs and that everything should be done as soon as possible. For this reason, some conceptual solutions have been adapted to quick repairs. Although that doesn't seem quite logical to me. I remember very well the engine variant and only one perhaps insignificant detail. The mechanic said something that was a problem of converting the engine from B4 fuel to C3. The delayed detonation of the fuel during ignition allegedly caused large oscillations in the operation of the filling system and enormous overheating of the exhaust. There was even mention of a lack of some materials like nickel and that this limited modernization. It was wartime and Germany has no deposits of these ores. Thank you for a rarely seen detailed and professional explanation ....I remembered something else, maybe not important. The first variant of the engine had an indicator of the temperature of the hydraulic oil and its pressure. The one I was flying on didn’t have a pressure gauge. An additional pressure gauge of the charging system was located at that location. All of today’s BF109s that can fly have a lot of modifications. The problem is the hydraulic oil of that time, which is exclusively an oil derivative. I know for sure that ATF is used today and that the pump is electric with variable pressure. I don’t really remember everything because it’s been over twenty years.
Have you found any information on the 2-stage supercharger of the DB605 L engine variant?
perhaps the supercharger is at a 90 degree angle to better kick the air into the manifold, rather than relying on the pressure of the manifold being all around high, thus pushing air into the engine, it has the added advantage of directly fanning fresh air into the pistons, well more directly, ive dont a lot of aspiration work on engines in my day, making the air go around corners less is a thing, its not major unless your intake looks like a crazy straw, but perhaps on a large v12 like this it could make all the difference
Maybe the 90degree supercharger drive puts its angular momentum vector in a direction that improves the aircraft's directional response time.
90 degree mount to reduce overall length?Not as pretty as a Spitfire but still a mean fighting machine!
Super late to comment, but as an Army officer and a military buff let me posture that I believe the Germans placed the SC on the side for ease of maintenance.
I think the mounting 90 degrees to the drive had a very mundane logic, servicing crew speed and ease. The same logic for the inverted engine design.
About the 90 degree placement on the engine... without it being on the front or back on the crank shaft it makes it easier to remove and or replace for repairs. I'd assume the multiple gear systems would make this contained part more prone to wear and tear than other parts. Maybe, I'm a motor engine troglidyte in these matters so I could be far from correct here.
It could very well have been for serviceability. I like that theory a lot.
I'd put money on it. Also keep in mind that the engineering philosophies of Germany vs Anglophone nations at the time (and kinda now, but much less pronouncedly so) strongly support not only this, but also the English speaking engineers' inability to suss out the reasoning. We have numerous examples from prior to WWI through to the end of WWII where German designs are simpler, easier to service, and thus much more reliable than their British and American counterparts, and in multiple instances this allowed the Germans to spend more time on innovation than on getting a less well thought out mechanism to work over multiple generations through failure analysis via field reports (which was a really common thing for the Brits and Americans).
I still consider the 109 to be one of the best if not the best fighter aircraft of all time, it was a very effective and efficient design, a true allrounder, good turn rate great agility, quite fast and good armament combined with great dive and climbing abilities. No wonder it is the aircraft with the most confirmed kills of all time and flown exclusively by the ace of aces ,erich hartmann!
molson12oz I've got to remember that the next time my wife sends me to the dog house, _thanks!_
@Mactrip100
The only person that shot down Erich Hartmann was Erich Hartmann, in all fairness though he'd probably only done that once if he flew over the South Pacific, it's a long swim back to Germany.
@Mactrip100 - You're out of your mind. Hartmann learned very early to get close to take his shot, because he was a terrible shot at normal ranges, in the beginning. So, he made himself fly close before shooting. So, all his kills were close enough to get a bunch of hits, and his foe would go down, always. Combined with the larger amount of opportunities, the practice of closing and making sure resulted in his high kill count. He even was called to fly while home on leave, and went up against Mustangs over Ploesti; he shot down several without having to work any harder than fighting Russians. No Allied flier EVER got the opportunity for the numbers that the Germans had. It's entirely jealousy, and a waste of your valuable time.
@@DavidSmith-ss1cg Well, another reason for the high kill count of german fighter pilots was their Service Time, they started their Service in the Luftwaffe, and it only ended by their death or the end of the War. They flew a LOT more operations and had a LOT more flight time behind their their sticks. That's mostly the reason for their high count, after 2-3 war years there where some very very experienced Pilots with a lot of seen combat.
@@dukecraig2402 I seriously doubt he would have survived without being shot down had he fought on the Western Front for any time. The Americans and the British were more capable than the Russians. Also he had all the aircraft he could shoot at coming to him every day so racking up big scores was easy. Was he good? Damned right he was and he was lucky. Several high scoring German aces on the Western front were killed by the low time and by German standards low scoring American pilots. And the 109, from my reading had issues with very heavy ailerons at speeds over 300. Which meant they could not really dive away from American fighters. Robert S Johnson could not figure out why some Germans loved the 109 since it was much easier to shoot down than the 190. Relatively low American scores? Limited hours in combat and limited targets. One of Robert S Johnson's complaints was the Germans staying on the ground something they could not really do in the East since they were on the defensive after their early successes had no travel time to find targets.
I do have one question though in regards to the Bf-109's Daimler-Benz DB-605 engine; was the fact that it was an inverted V-12 the reason why similar sized, yet upright V-12, Allied engines, like the Allison V-1710 and Rolls Royce Merlin, the reason why it did not have comparable power output at altitude? I've read that, at altitude, the Merlin, especially, would output nearly 100 to 300 more horsepower than DB-605 engines, and the only real way to increase power, even for a brief moment was the DB-605's MW-50 water-methanol injection system, as fitted to the Bf-109 K series towards the end the war. That said, is it possible to make an inverted V-12 engine that is of a similar size to the DB-605, and yet outputs the same horsepower at altitude as the Merlin without having to rely on a water-methanol injection system, which obviously could not run continuously? I have read that there are other Axis inverted V engines, such as the larger DB-603 and Junkers Jumo 213 series, which were supposedly better than the DB-605, such as the Jumo 213-E used in the Focke-Wulf's experimental interceptor, the Ta-153, and its predecessor, the Fw-190 D-series which also used the Jumo 213. That said, what was it about the Jumo 213 that made it more powerful than the DB-605?
I have entire videos on those subjects, so I can't really cover those in the comment section. I have a video on the P-51's speed vs. 109G, and a later video explaining how the Germans made the 109K much faster. Then I have a video on the TA152 which should answer your questions about the Jumo. I do specifically cover all of this stuff.
Hi Greg. I just went through all your supercharger videos. Love them! But I hear you say 'Superchargers hate throttling!' a number off times. I'm sure they do and I understand the reason for the throttling, but ... Is this mixture related or disrupted airflow? What's going wrong there?
It's a problem with the pressure ratios. I'll talk about this in a video on my Supercharged 1985 Alfa Romeo Spider when I get around to it.
Hi Greg, what do you mean by “superchargers don’t like to be throttled”? Do you mean they don’t respond well to throttle input or do you mean erratic movement of the throttle?
I mean they don't like something in the path of the inlet air choking it off.
Instead of using 2 stage superchargers that offered 2 altitudes at which engine performance was optimized, would it not have been possible to simply build a fluid coupled supercharger like this but optimized for say 30,000 ft then use the barometrically driven coupling to optimize performance from 30k all the way down to SL? What would be the downside? Would this have resulted in a supercharger that was too large to fit inside the DB-601/605/603 engine nacelle?
Great video Greg - thanks! You are clarifying things I understood at a much more basic level and clearing out misconceptions.
They could have done that, used a bigger supercharger with the fluid coupling. The drawback is that all compressors have an ideal range, and getting 20,000 feet out of one compressor is already really good. If you make one that's great at 30,000 feet, it's going to suffer at 10-20k feet. The Germans still had to fight down low, so they really did need a second stage.
Does anyone have the engine photo at 3:36 in high resolution?
I want that on my living room wall.
Thanks. Do you know anything about the flying control pressures at high speeds? In another video a pilot was stating that even at high speeds the ME 109 had good aileron control unlike the P-51 which got really heavy. The Zero had issues in all 3 control axis. Apparently the ME 109 also had a far superior rate of climb compared to the Spitfire or P51. Do you know if this is correct?
That's all in the next video.
Like who also love 109 in war thunder
in DCS !
The charger is at 90° to the crankshaft because of the cannon. This is thanks to a demand by the RVM from the 1930s. The Jumo 210, predecessor to the Jumo 213 used in the 190D, also was built according to the same demands, hence also the inverted cylinders for increased forward visibility. BTW, the FW 190D-12 also has a 20mm "Motorkanone" firing through the prop hub. You can also see this at the F4a prototype for the DB6XX family which was built with a "Schusskanal", or "projectile conduit". In fact RLM document L.A. 1432/33 from February 1933 specifies an optional canon firing through the propeller axis as a demand for what would become the 109.
I was going to suggest this too. Having the supercharger turned 90 degrees keeps it out of the way for a cannon firing through the engine's V.
That explanation would be perfect if there was a cannon on the Mercedes SSK. The 90 offset drive pre-dates the 109 so while I don't doubt that it helped create room for the cannon it could not have been the reason for it. Plus the supercharger will fit behind the engine even with the cannon.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles The 90° angle predates the 109 because the RVM under Wolfram Eisenlohr demanded a prop-weapon in the early 30s which made the weird position of the charger necessary. My knowledge of interwar racecars is admittedly limited to what I gathered at Klausen races, but I remember SSKs with a compressor dead center on top of the crankshaft in front of the cylinder block. Sucking in air from the right side of the engine delivering compressed air to the intake manifold on the left. Therefore the path of the gases remains the same, albeit mirrored back to front compared to DB 601 and 605, but the drive of the charger on the M06s I've seen most definitely is in line with the crankshaft. Then again, I don't exclude the possibility that a different arrangement was implemented on SSKs, but I haven't seen any.
I see the SSK supercharger was also switchable, and since it predated the supercharger in the 109 perhaps it was convenient/simpler to duplicate the concept and technology of the SSK-style supercharger for airplane engines than to start from scratch with an axial supercharger. The fact that the 90 degree supercharger left room for a cannon was further reason to leave well enough alone.
Yeah, after looking online for 10 minutes, I can't find anything on SSK compressor with anything other than the typical roots blowers sitting on the front of engine with no angle between crankshaft and blower vanes.
The more I learn about the tech behind WWII aircraft the more unique and cool the German stuff seems lol They really had some advanced technology for their time
Re sidewinder supercharger this was on the Kurfürst site. Per Flight magazine April 16, 1942 re MB 601N “Since clear fore and aft space is required for he mounting of a cannon at the rear of the crankcase the supercharger had to be mounted with its impeller axes (sic) transverse to the centerline of the engine to place the bulk of its volute casing to one side, and not in the position as in the Merlin XX, the Allison and other “in line” engines.
Yup, I've read that too, but it's wrong as they did it on EVERY application and well before the use of cannons firing through the spinner, and on cars!
explanation. Am wondering why the DB 601 had two compression ratios. One for each cylinder bank?
+ ROBERT DIXON I believe the location of the supercharger created unequal manifold pressures in the A and B cylinder banks. The compression ratios offset that.
I think i found the answer for the 90 degree supercharger.I have spoken to a German Engineer that worked previously in F1. He said that on cars it was done because of packaging issues. Engine was already high there was no room to put the roots blowers on top and there were not much space in front either so they put it 90 degrees to the crank to get a better packaging especially on the Auto Union cars that had 45 degree bank angle. And for aircraft he said it might be due to the already big centrifugal superchager increasing frontal area and drag if it was placed normally. My take on this is that they had gotten used to this method. They have been putting their superchargers 90 degrees to the crankshaft ever since 1921 , when the time for making the forced induction aircraft engines came around it was just common practice and they kept the same layout. French also did something similar , when they started using german Panther tanks after WW2 they got used to the "compressed air bore evacuation" system and kept using the same system ever since which is also present on their latest leclerc tank. Meanwhile pretty much every other nation uses physical bore evacuators placed on the barrel. The reason why French still use this system is because they had gotten used to it during their time with panthers and didnt feel the need to change. so something similar might have happened with the germans with their 90 degree superchargers. Also here is the German Ex F1 Engineers channel ua-cam.com/users/BSport320about
That makes as much sense as anything else. I would still like to see an original source though.
My guess is that the supercharger is side mounted purely to keep the length of the engine down, look at how they had to lengthen the Spitfire when the two stage supercharger arrived on the Merlin, Greg states that the 109 had the advantage of being small. I note that the hydraulic coupling is given great credit in this video and the gear driven conventional arrangement that needs intake throttling below critical altitude is rubbished. But my take on this is that the hydraulic coupling power losses which even exist even when fully ''driven'' compared to conventional gear driven which has no losses detract from any benefit. By how much I do not know, but it must be a big something. I say that because no other aero engine adopted that arrangement, when doing so would have been a fairly trivial task at the design stage.
Ah, but other Aero engines did adopt this arrangement. The XP-72 is set up this way, but the jets took over before it came to full fruition. I covered this in a recent video.
I heard/think, It was that they thought it was more practical
Why 90 degrees? From a change of momentum point of view, I presume the intake air mass into the Merlin forced the engine back approximately twice as much as the Benz was as the incoming air had to change 180 degrees and not 90 degrees. Also, the size of the impeller could be made larger I guess! Note that the Benz has a higher volumetric capacity than the Merlin.
Please refer to the Pelton wheel effect and its buckets to see the effect of change of momentum on a reversal.
Putting the Turbocharger at right angles instead of lateral means that the air would be compressed firstly in the engine cowling making it easy for the turbo to breathe in more easily, secondly, laterally mounted avoids ducting from the front to the rear or where ever the turbo is situated, the P47 had those huge ducts to get air to the chargers thus having to build the huge plane that is was, if the turbo was facing towards the rear of the plane, at 350/400 MPH, there would be a vacuum created by the air rushing past and the turbo would be ineffective and just deadweight
German engineering
I’m more interested in why the Nazi aircraft maintained 3 bladed props when the Allies went to 4 and even 5 bladed props?
I have videos about exactly that.
Amazing video. If there can be some 3D animation, it would be great. But waaaay too much work ! Thank you for all your videos, can't wait for more ! Cheers from France.
If you wanna know more about supercharger and turbocharger systems made by Junkers in WW2 take a look at Dr. Anselm Franz. In 1951 he was hired to set up a new turbine division at Lycoming's otherwise unused plant in Stratford. After Operation Paperclip Anselm Franz retired from Lycoming in 1968, having risen to Vice President. He died in 1994.
Do not have any sources,but I am thinking about period supercharger automobile designs I have seen illustrations of. The Bentley Speed Six had the crankshaft driven blower just forward of the engine casting,down low. The camshaft drive was called a skew gear by the British,aka bevel gear,I think at the rear of the engine. Alfa Romeo had the blowers in the centre. Also bevel geared,and camshaft as well. I am trying to remember what Mercedes Benz did with their SSK and the racing SSKL,but will look later if I can find my reference.
Point is,once an engineering concept is settled on,tends to be followed for some time,and drive by bevel gears was a very common approach,despite some very real issues with torque loads and axial movement under delta of load. Possibly that German placement was used in the twenties when exploring aircraft supercharging was first successfully done. Once settled on,the guys coming out of the engineering schools had it explained to them "this is what we do". And it was easier to go along with existing approach unless good reasons for a plan B showed up.
I really like these technical articles you bring out. Not aware of anyone else who does. Cheers.
Really liked this one!
While memorizing all of the details would be superfluous, if you take a look at the type of engine in a 109,,take a look at the descriptive numerals and letters.
As an example:
A. Meaning an older 3 valve per cylinder design.
S. Meaning an oversize supercharger originally meant for the DB 603 engine.
C. Meaning a higher compression ratio, designed for 100 octane fuel. Of which we Germans had almost none.
M. Meaning the supercharging system is equipped with the emergency power methanol water system.
Lots and lots of letters. Memorizing them all would be silly. Thanks K.
Thanks Kori.
As a note, the supercharger drive varies its ratio based on the pressure of atmospheric air from the static port, not a line from manifold pressure - I do not know why they chose to set it up this way.
Both ambient and manifold pressures are inputs to the system.
I saw a video that claimed the 90 degree turn vs the 180 degree tuen was the reason and I have read that it was nore conpact and left room for a second supercharger.
All very interesting. I think it would have been nice if you were to have talked a little more about other examples, as different countries tend to do things slightly differently. For instance at the time the Germans did what you describe above which was fantastic, the Americans were set on Turbo-supercharging (now called turbocharging). The Brits were set on supercharging. Any other country just copied the 3 countries above...
I really think you should give particular attention to Sir Stanley hooker. He transformed the R-R Merlin from a very good aero-engine into the iconic world beater it became! I think that R-R supercharging was more advanced than anything that anyone else was doing due to Hooker...
Hi Julian, I think it would be nice too, but I couldn't fit all that into one 20 min video. I will cover many of those topics later.
I didn’t realize you liked cars too, check out the Batmobile i built!! 😊
I love it, and the Mustang you have.
Probably has to do with less heat buildup?
I believe they put the supercharger on that way for serviceability? If it was sandwiched on the back side of the motor it seems like it would be so much harder to get to to work on?
Can't believe the Germans didn't use/transition to turbos...look at how fast the big Jug was with it's weight and aero!
The Beast! I agree, an amazing aircraft, all considered. Glad to see it mentioned in the company of these glamorous greyhounds.
They tried to apply turbocharger to Fw-190, it didn't go too well. The thing is, turbos were big at the time, very big and heavy. Apart from Jug and Lightning I don't know about any fighters that actually used them, apart from some prototypes and testbeds.
The Wright R-1820 Cyclone used turbochargers in most installations, e.g. the B-17.
Robert Elmo, The Germans had a number of issues with turbos. Firstly they didn’t quite anticipate the need for High Altitude combat. Secondly their highly ambitious Hubertus program was highly ambitious envisaging altitudes of more like 50,000 ft which required more radical engines and airframes. Thirdly they were short of refractory metals and it was best to use them for jets. (Even the USA struggled with shortages) They did have turbo versions of the BMW801 (the TJ and TQ) as well as the Jumo 213 and DB603 but only the BMW 801TJ entered service on the Ju 388 and a few Ju 88S3. Engines with two stage super chargers and inter coolers such as the Jumo 213E or DB603L or Jumo 213EB were better suited to their needs, the Fw 190D13 EB would have been a 488mph monster. The BV 155 had a service ceiling of 52500 ft with DB603 turbo equipped engines. So the turbo option seemed to be reserved for super high altitudes. A turbo equipped fighter essentially needs a purpose designed airframe and the Germans didn’t have time for that.
The amount of turning the air did was the same on the 90 degree installation. Scoop facing forward, supercharger, air turns again to enter manifold.
I'm just at Awed, a tiny country like Germany invented, manufactured, and produced so many state of the art war machines. The Genius of engineering is mind boggleing!!!!
Who helped them get all the money and raw materials to produce so much?
The financing of the Third Reich is not something I'll be getting into on this channel.
Good Greg. I was just thinking out loud.
Why at 90 degrees tucked behind and to the side? packaging.
No, if that was true you wouldn't see it in both cars and planes and only on German examples. The same packaging advantages and problems would be present on airplanes of other nations.
So looks like the designers wanted an airplane that would work well at all altitudes. Great job!
Answer as to why they have the supercharger 90 degrees: ua-cam.com/video/AZY_VFVI5v0/v-deo.html
I've seen it, it's a good video.
Another good video. I have always assumed that the side-mounted superchargers is to facilitate maintenance, particularly with a relatively complex hydraulic drive. With superchargers mounted at the back of the engine you basically have to pull the whole engine to mess about with the supercharger, which is probably fine if its reliable and driven by simple gears and clutches. I would imagine the variable speed unit needed a bit more tweaking. It will also shorten the engine, although I am not sure that's a major concern.
I lean towards that explanation as well, but it doesn't explain it's use in cars. For example servicing the supercharger would be easier if it was mounted with a parallel drive on the side of the engine. Plus, with access panels locating it on the rear wouldn't be a problem, we put carbs back there, which require service.
What is it that makes superchargers less efficient when throttled?
Superchargers generate a pressure ratio. Say it's 15psi at the inlet and you need 30psi in the manifold. Great, you need a 2:1 ratio. the supercharger only needs to give you 15 more psi. Now cut that inlet pressure to 14psi via throttling. Now the supercharger had to add 16 psi to get the same 30psi in the manifold.
Now this me be way off, but at one point I think to recall you can get stronger gears with less gyroscopic mass with a 90 degree set of gears over normal gears. If you need 1 inch width of gear as per spec on normal gears it will look like a "T" from a cross cut view. the "T" section is a lot of rotating mass. If you have gears set at 90' you lose that "T" cross section and it is now a "I" with the gears set at 90' you can now increase the width of the gear from 1" to 1.5" across the flat surface and the mass does not increase. But you have a larger surface for tooth/mesh contact. Now again I have no clue What I'm talking about and this was something we talked about in the 80's when I was learning about cars and transmissions in auto shop.
Having some extra time to think about why is it mounted at 90 degrees. I think you answered you own question in another video. Going back to 1980's auto shop, Why are most if not all distributors on cars mounted 90's to the cam. Some race cars do have have the distributor mounted on the end of the cam shaft but the are mostly race cars. It is to save space under the hood and make the engine assembly shorter. If the distributor was mounted on the end of the engine, then you would need to make a longer engine bay, extra wight longer hood etc. etc.. Now my thinking is with the 109. If the Supercharger was on the end of the engine it would be taking up valuable space that could be used for something like fuel. Mount it 90' degrees and it is next to the engine assembly is not any longer, it is not taking up valuable space that could be used for something else like fuel or the pilot etc. It just needs some extra panels to enclose it on the side of the plane. It might also make it easy to just put a snorkel on it for the air intake and you are good to go.....Not an engineer, just a tech that fixes broken things engineers design,...?
The word "efficiency" get's flashed around like a casual by-word. I have asked and asked yet no-one (so far) has been able to quote specific numbers or present graphical test results of the efficiency of the Fottinger hydraulic coupling. My general understanding from the automotive world is that it is unlikely to exceed much above ~80% whereas a well-designed fully-geared drive can exceed 90%. This is an important detail in respect of fuel consumption. My understanding is that ROLLS-ROYCE dyno tested salvaged DB's and analysed their supercharger drive design and efficiency. This must have generated an official report as this testing was commissioned by the R.A.E. I would like to see that report. It would go a long way toward explaining the mystery as to why R-R (and others) never copied it. Does any know for sure??
Voodoo, the P51 Reno Racer which holds the current world speed record of 531 mph TAS, set this record at low altitude...but what TAS might it have achieved had it flown at 25 - 30,000 ft, which was what Mustangs were designed to dogfight at?
Didn’t some pilots remove the regulators for overboost as a sort of custom War Emergency Power option? I mean, if you can at least keep the endings from flying apart before you get home, the extra power might be worth the risk
Please list PSI and BAR when saying IN/HG. A lot of us are only used to PSI and BAR.
Also, could you do something on the kommandogerat? The command device used in the 190-As and Ds.
Hi Marcus, OK, that's a fair point. I realize there are still a few of you out there using the Metric system. From now on I'll post manifold pressure values in inches HG, and include BAR. Maybe PSI, just don't ask for millimeters of Mercury, that's not going to happen unless I am discussing Japanese planes. Adding in Bar is quite reasonable, thanks for pointing that out.
So, I don't know anything about the technical details of this turbocharger, but are any of the design features related in any way regarding the Bf109 and the generation 997+ Porsche 911 Turbo, with it's variable-geometry turbos?
The Mercedes 230SSK, 300SSKL and the 540K all had this kompressor type, 1920s-30s
Its like a supra turbo kit
Coupler looks like an automotive torque converter
It's different, but it does look similar.
When the British examined a captured DB601 their engineers had no idea that the Germans had reached such an advanced level of automatic engine control systems. As for the single camshaft system of interposed roller followers that operated the four valve per cylinder setup they expressed the opinion that it would be inefficient at giving the optimum valve duration per cycle- they were completely in error. Truth is, the DB 601 was much more advanced than any engine being produced in Britain in the early war period. Roy Feddon's superb Bristol Sleeve valve radials were however more advanced than those in Germany.
Maintenance access and cooling.. are the only reasons I can think of …. In the 3 years I was in an F-4 squadron .. we had a few hydraulic pump and generator failures but zero engine failures … one broken engine mount only …. Those j79 ‘s are tough ….!
The angular momentum vector of the supercharger goes as (moment of inertia of the impeller) × (angular velocity)squared. If I knew both quantities I could calculate the length of that vector. Knowing the distance between that vector and the 109's center of mass I could calculate the effect on yaw rate.
I commented before you said it had a hydraulic coupling 😳🔫 that would be a great reason to have the impeller rotating in the same axis as the plane is traveling. If the impeller was perpendicular to the axis of travel the gyroscopic forces would always try to slow it down. And because planes travel so fast it would thrust load the impeller. 🤣it sounded good🤣🤣🔫 great vid thank you
I think gyroscopic forces affecting angular momentum. If a given engine is mounted paralleled to the direction of travel. There might be benefits to having a super charger mounted @ 90 degrees. The high speed impeller would be rotating parallel to the direction of travel. Think of holding a bike wheel and trying to move it side ways. I would think the mechanical connection of a super charger would be less affected. A true turbo charger would be greatly affected.🤷♂️
Please can you make video about TA-152 and FW-190D?
Yes.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Perfect!!
Great video 👍 'and alot of very good intelligent replies in comments to your questions..)
for all the world looks and acts like a hyd fluid torque converter,, would love to know its control setups.. thanks
Your videos are incredibly interesting and informing. They are easily understandable even for someone without much knowledge of engines such as me
Excellent as always Greg! I’d sure love a “hop” in the MierMotors GmbH Bf-109 G-12 “Yellow 27” if that ever comes to fruition. I’d imagine that will be upwards of at least $4000. USD (plus signing away “no fault” clause in case of injury or death). If my ride in a B-17G was a “Triple EEE” ticket ride I’d think a 30 minute ride in a two seat G-12 would be the ultimate Warbird experience! To be honest I’d settle for just seeing a “109” do a high speed pass! It’s on my bucket list!
m.ua-cam.com/video/759CIhZgXsw/v-deo.html
Excellent info! You are a very good teacher. When I look at the common rail system on my diesel engine, the inlets are 90 degrees toward the cylinder block. That makes the engine take up a huge amount of space in the engine room. Could it be like that the Germans engineers wanted to save space and came with a unique solution regarding the compressor?
Isn't this similar principals to a torque converter in an automatic transmission
Sort of, I think a much better automotive analogy is the Buick Dynaflow transmission.
No it is more like a "simple" fluid coupling without the torque conversion (as used in some early automatic transmission), only variable slippage and no torque multiplication.
here a nice testrun and you can clearly see the 109 is mostly build around the massive big engine :-) ua-cam.com/video/YmSfTAbJe8o/v-deo.html
Such advanced and fascinating machines, and such a pity that their use and the cause behind them was so despicable. I'm sorry, Greg, I can never look at that Swastika without remembering and mourning the innocent millions murdered for and under it. I think that Germany has the right idea banning it from public display.
I understand your viewpoint but I have to ask, can you look as the Soviet hammer and sickle? Can you look at the symbols from Chairman Mao or Pol Pot?
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I have equal loathing for all political parties, groups and organizations and their symbols, etc. that represent hate and brutality. However, there is something about the Nazis and their symbols, etc. that particularly engenders my darkest and most severe outrage. Perhaps it's the highly organized, smugly self-justified, intricately systemic way that they went about their heinous career that hits me so hard. When I see a Swastika, I see all of those children, all of those innocent men and women deliberately destroyed for no reason, and my blood still boils over it. I cannot forget or forgive.
It may not be logical, I know, but then, logic is not at issue in this instance.
Sorry to be such a downer, Greg, but I cannot help feeling the way I do.
On to happier thoughts.
No problem, I understand what you are saying. I'm of the opinion that it's far better to talk about the horrors of the National Socialist Worker's Party and show these things than it is to make the symbols and discussions illegal.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Of course, I agree with you. Discussions that illuminate history, even that which is so grim and barbarous, ought always be had and encouraged. To remain silent regarding National Socialism would be to ignore it, pretend it never existed, and to forget it. This would be the greatest insult and final cruelty to all of those who suffered and were murdered under its criminal reign. That ought never be done.
This is not the policy in Germany nor in the other nations where the symbols, etc. of NS are publicly l banned. Serious educational, historical discussions, publications, etc. may be presented, published and the like, but mostly with the prior permission of the government.
Would I like to see this policy enacted here? No. I'm a big fan of the 1st Amendment and also of decency and common sense (the most uncommon of all senses). But if the Swastika disappeared from casual photos, replicas, model airplanes and the like, except in very particular instances, I would not in any way feel that anyone's freedom had been abridged.
A discussion of the characteristics, performance, engineering particulars, and qualities of the Bf (Me) 109 need not, to me, display that hateful symbol, nor need a discussion of the War of Southern Rebellion require that the Battle flag of the Amy of Northern Virginia be displayed thereat.
still the 109 engines have 2 Throttle flaps here a series of looking inside a V12 DB engine ua-cam.com/video/xcPRLu5DpNE/v-deo.html
Exactly HOW did they automate the regulation?
That would be another Video,
I hope.... 😉
None of the allies copied it, either at right-angles or not. Maybe the German engineers put it at right angles to make way for an intercooler for a second stage, then Goering decided it was unnecessary.
The way supercharger placed is the reason why bf109 has magnificent high altitude performance
How to spell that coupling guy’s name? Herman Blablabla。。。？
Hi Eric. The inventor was Herman Fottinger. The o is that funny German O with the dots, not our o, but my keyboard doesn't have it. Thee is a Wikipedia page for him, and another for his coupling design. For some reason I can't link it here in the comment section :(
Oh, and that's for watching my video. I really appreciate it. I never expected this video to get any views.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles 👌 thanks:)
It's essentially the same as the Torque Converter in a modern automatic transmission.
When you are lacking the Umlaut, just substitute "oe" for "ö", That's actually how the umlaut diacritic came about: It used to be small e in Sütterlin (a cursive font) on top of the o.
(Phonetic value of ö is closer to German "e" actually, than to "o". Think "e" in "jerk".)
Also, kudos for being one of the few anglophones who manages to pronounce "Messerschmitt" correctly. "meshersmit" drives me up the walls...
20 thumbs down. Too bad these people don’t get it. Nice work.
Really appreciate these videos.. thanks for making them