I saw a 109 at a museum in Savannah Georgia. I couldn't believe how small it was . All the stock war footage that I'd seen over the years made it look much bigger for some reason.
the Spit was roughly the same size and it was said, tongue-in-cheek by many of the pilots that you didnt so much fly the plane, you wore it around you, like a vest
Thankyou for being American and not patriotically biased... It's so refreshing to see someone actually being rational about the subject and for recognising Soviet, British and German aircraft without the usual flag-waving vitriol we normally see on this subject.
yea. lets flip the scenario. If the Spitfire's had to fly to France, then hang around to engage the 109's then the spitfire's would have been known as short range issues fighters.
Spitfires were used extensively for photoreconnaissance over France, and later Germany. Mind you, those particular planes were specially adapted, with the weapons removed.
The Spitfires WERE known as short range issue fighters. It wasn't until late war fighters like the MK XVI and MK XIV Spitfires that the Spitfire got some decent legs on it.
@@tulliusexmisc2191A rear fuselage tank for extended duration was fitted, and the pilots notes for ferry pilots specified that it was to be empty... putting fuel in the tank made it virtually unflyable ! The drop tanks fitted under the fuselage were incredibly 'draggy' and best known for carrying beer to troops in Normandy post D Day.
Thanks again Greg for such a down to earth,honest,Well explained and covered topic. You I believe really have one of most superior channels on WWII aircraft. Thank you
Big engine, small aircraft. For an aircraft conceived in the mid-thirties, went operational in 1937 and fought and remained highly competitive until the end in 1945, it was AWESOME.
Agreed. The fact that Albert Speer was able to increase aircraft production in spite of strategic bombing is pretty amazing. The Achilles heel of the luftwaffe was the following, fuel and the lack of a replacement pilot training program that could keep Pace with the war. Essentially their experience Pilots flew until they died. He didn't have the fuel the train with also. By 1945 they didn't have enough fuel to even fight with. The 109 in competent hands was still a deadly air airplane. Well except when they're carrying the air-to-air Rockets. Then they were sitting ducks. The aircraft was never really intended for that kind of external load.
It seems to be a German trait. Big changes from the 108E to the 109G. It seems the wonky landing gear and cockpit cowl was all that remained. Look at all the different versions of the 190, or the Ju88. Look at the development of the Porsche 911 since 1964 or the 3 series BMW. They just love continuing development of known designs.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer sed: 'The fact that Albert Speer was able to increase aircraft production in spite of strategic bombing is pretty amazing.' ... yeh, slave labor's a wunnerful fing - innit? ... 'n further opined: 'By 1945 they didn't have enough fuel to even fight with.' ... ahh... the pauvre cunz!
I found it interesting that the 109 was adapted from the 108 which was an aircraft designed by Messerschmitt for private use and was a 4 passenger plane. Fuel capacity was an issue for the 108, 75 gallon maximum divided into five tanks that were spread around the fuselage. The 108 was heralded as being a easy to fly aircraft and was fast for its day. The engine was half the displacement of the fighter version, but it could get close to 300 knots depending on the propeller type. I have been following the Kermit Weeks restoration of the 108 and he got his hands on a 109. Lucky sob. He really has a nice collection of wwl and wwll aircraft for a private collection.
The airframe design is as important as engine development. The airframe design of the Mustang (and late model Spitfires) allowed a greater rearward shift in CG caused by the weight of a substantial fuel tank behind the cockpit. We delayed production of the 20 series Spits due to emphasis on manufacture of the main production marks, V, IX/XVI & XIV. The earlier point defence types (of which the Merlin Spits and all 109's are classic examples) had big engines in small airframes with deliberately small (drag reducing) tailplanes, which restricted the permissable extent of rearward shift in CG caused by rear fuselage fuel loading. cf. Jeffrey Quill "A Test Pilot's Story", Chapter 21, "Longitudinal Stability and Increased Range".
The 51 also has a massive advantage over the 109s even late, in terms of drag. I highly doubt the 109 g in question was getting a range of 450 miles at 400mph or even 360
@@Nikarus2370 UUMM a developed P51 yes, But xp51s had a range of only 500mi with the thirsty allison it was only after adding, internal wing tanks ito its Fat wing, fuel tank behind the pilot set and external wing tanks that the P51 c and Ds got there range Oh and the addition of the merlin which didn't drink nearly as much as the allison
Hi Central, thanks for stopping by. Hopefully this month sometime I'll be on discord. I can only access it from home, which is fine because I only fly sims at home.
Excellent video. Onething you didn't eleborate on was it's drag in in it's design. When an aircraft has external radiators (3 of 'em!) external supercharger intake and my favorite struts on the horizontal stab. Not to add the exhaust and flight control counter balances .An aircraft really needs a big engine to overcome all that.
Excellent video, very interesting. Your comment about the development of engines and aircraft design during the war is well made. The orginal FW 190 had a range of about 500 miles in 1940, whereas the TA152 that was the successor of the FW190 in 1944 had a range of 1,200 miles. Quite an increase!
Greg's comment on the Bf109 being a earier generation of fighter compared to the P-51 is key to understanding the differences. Another clear and concise report Greg!
I like the way you tackle aviation questions that I have had from one time or another but never bothered to properly research. It is very useful to get an in depth technical comparison of aircraft which also takes into account the design features and compromises. Most aviation books might have this information to various degrees scattered here and there, but nowhere compiled as concisely and effectively as here. Well done.
8:48: Daimler Benz increases the size of an engine from 33.9 to 35 liters? It doesn't make sense to retool and have the parts and logistics headaches. I'd have kept all that stuff the same and instead only make variations that made HUGE benefits like MW50, superchargers and turbochargers and so on...
When full on internal fuel the P-51's CoG was so far back it caused "Reversibility," which is when the pilot pulls back on the stick to pitch up, he has to then push forward on it for the aircraft's nose to stop pitching up (as opposed to just putting the stick back to a neutral position). This made the aircraft impossible to trim for level flight until most of the rear fuselage tank was empty. The P-51 was made with range in mind, that's for sure.
Yeah, it had to be. I haven't looked at the numbers lately but those pilots escorting the B-17s spent HOURS in the air. It must have been grueling to sit in that seat, by yourself, keeping some type formation for hours and hours. And the designers really had the benefit of hindsight to know what type of missions their planes would be used for and put fuel tanks everywhere they could.
The author of the historic 'novel/memoir' "Nanette" (about his time flying P39s in New Guinea against Oscars & Tonys-shudder) eventually transitioned to P47s and the P51s--he referred to the experience as 'eight hours of cramp ass'. I must imagine that trying to hold your bladder in check for 8 hours must have been a nightmare.
I'm really enjoying your technical coverage of the 109's. Big fan of the aircraft, but not too savvy on the finer details - your videos make it very easy to understand. Very much hope you will do more of these. It really is very valuable. Thanks.
My understanding is that the Messerschmitt Bf 109 was always intended as a home defence interceptor fighter, hence its mixed cannon and MG armament. It was a bomber destroyer to protect the Fatherland. It did not require a long range but it did need a fast rate of climb - hence the large engine - and the two/three cannons to rip open bombers. The offensive fighter was meant to be the Messerschmitt Bf110 with its six-gun armament and its two engine safety margin for long distance flight and safe return. Indeed these 110s were regarded as elite squadrons and received elite pilots in the early days. Of course the reality was that the Bf110 was a lemon in daylight combat and was eventually escorted by 109s on daylight operations in the Battle of Britain. As a fast bomber the 110 had some qualities but it was never in the DH Mosquito category. As a night fighter it was adequate to good. Barry
The Me 110 was built to the "destroyer" or "zerstoerer" concept. Its job was to 1 Fly low and ahead of bombers to strafe up fighters on the ground and destroy enemy FLAK defences. 2 Fly ahead of bombers to destroy enemy interceptors as they were in their climbing phase before they could attack the bombers the Bf 110 was escorting. 3 Intercept and destroy enemy bombers using its powerful armament. 4 "Bad weather fighter" ie night fighter able also to operate in fog. The second crew member could track the aircraft via radio beacons and it could thus attack and intercept at night and in bad weather. Me 110 had FuBL blind landing systems. When the Me 110 was in service in 1939/40/41 there were no Mosquitos, P-38 or Buefighters. So long as it wasn't tied to the bombers in close escort its exchange ratios was superior to the RAF fighters in the BoB. When it was called upon to be a night fighter it was ready. Original German Air Ministry Spec called for a 3 seater but Willy Messerschmitt submitted a smaller non conforming bid as he reasoned that bigger aircraft would be too slow.
It's short-range was a severe handicap against the allied bomber offensive. Me-109s had to be stationed near the target, leading to the fighter force being dispersed. The luftwaffe was not able to concentrate their forces against but incoming bombers
@@Wombat1916 William Jones- Halibut Bigger correction: Bf 110 "exchange ratios" (whatever that means) was (sic) superior to the RAF fighters in the BOB. Bf 110s could only survive against single engine fighters by flying a defensive circle (Lufbery).
@@anitadolan6417 Ah yes, that defensive formation used at first by the Bristol Fighter in WW1 - IIRC, it was more or less useless. When the Brisfit was used as a fighter with a rear gunner it did somewhat better. Of course the 110 lacked the agility to mix it.
"Underhead" in this instance was because it's basically laid out as a regular DOHC engine that's upside down - crankshaft at the top and heads pointing down and to the sides. Check out the diagram at 8:54. Neither the Merlin or the D.B.601 used cam-in-block. The difference being referred to is that the Merlin was mounted in what we would consider a conventional layout, and Messerschmidt mounted it upside-down (thus the "underhead cam" comment Greg annotated in the video.) In reference to your point, however - generally speaking, cam-in-block engines of that period didn't breathe anywhere near as well as an _equivalent_ DOHC head, as the valve angles are compromised (they can't effectively be splayed as wide as one would want for ideal air flow through the combustion chamber ) - a situation that would be exacerbated by the limited amount of air they have at their disposal in the first place when at altitude. I suspect that using DOHC would likely have helped combat this, giving better power - especially when in a thinner atmosphere.
I suspect that outright power would negate using an OHV layout. They could get more power from an engine with DOHC - enough to more than offset the additional weight and slight increase to frontal area. Also, as a V12 naturally lends itself to a more streamlined airframe, even with the larger heads (especially when compared to the common alternative of the time - and while radials could be very powerful, I'm not sure I'd call them streamlined), it would be considered acceptable for packaging while giving the best overall performance. PS: To give an example of the potential efficiency increase when switching from OHV to DOHC, the FIAT 124 of the late '60s came with a 1.4 (amongst other sizes) in OHV and DOHC (2-valve) variants - the OHV rated at 69hp, and the DOHC at 89hp, or about a 20% increase with the rest of the engine being basically identical. I suspect that an increase of even 1/2 that would be more than worthwhile.
@@aussiebloke609 The reason why the "underhead cam" layout was used was simple: it meant you didn't have to have a gearbox up front like the Mustang, Spitfire, Hurricane, Warhawk, etc, etc. to bring the drive up to the prop. Also a reason why radials were preferred early on, aside from their (relative) simplicity. By the way, unsaid here, after WW2 unlimited hydro teams tried using the DB engine but spare parts problems dogged that effort. Would've been interesting though since the DB still would've been "upside down". Anyone for a lecture on how Packard Motor Company helped win the WW2 air war?
My 1976 Triumph T140V Bonneville 750 has double underhead cams mounted high in the case, but under the cylinders. This design keeps weight low. It uses short push rods and a timing gear to reduce loss of timing accuracy. My Triumph raced against every street motorcycle type that existed in the world that existed in Suffolk County Long Island N.Y. and she won against all of them for 10 consecutive years. I still have my Bonneville.
Germany was using synthetic fuel-liquid fuel produced from coal-to produce aviation fuel. It was difficult and costly to make the higher octane fuel. They could do it, but only at a cost. And since every gallon of gas was precious in Germany, they tried to use lower octane fuel on their fighters.
@@jimblake3574the additives for the high octane fuel had been supplied to the RAF. The Germans notices the improved acceleration of RAF fighters immediately but didn't know why. Disobeying the order not to fly fighters over Europe a Spitfire pilot was shot down and his aircraft recovered and everything closely investigated. With no mechanical improvements and after analyzing the fuel they knew the secret.
A few years ago I was at an airshow and flew as a passenger in a P-51 and in another P-51 flew also as a passenger also a BF-109 pilot who said he had to fly in one because he was often shot down by a P-51 . It was a great honor to fly next to the guy that let a B-17 live to fight another day. One of his remarks really hit home he said " how come we both prayed to the same God?".. look up story on UA-cam
That story isn't as heartwearming as people always make it out to be. Sure, for the bomber pilots it was nice, but the German pilot was an borderline treasonous idiot rather than a knightly hero. It isn't the fault of the men, but fact is that in most cases they were there to bomb civilians, to kill women and children. What kind of soldier lets guys who came to kill the women and children he is sworn to protect get away with it out of a antiquated knightly ideals? Imagine a bunch of terrorists blow up a school and they get their car shut up while making their escape and then another cop stops them at the border and not only lets them go, but even escorts them over the border, because he feels pity over how shot up they are and he wants to be "knightly". Fuck that asshole. He should have been strung up.
I'm very happy your video randomly showed up on my feed! As a former A & P mechanic I find this very fascinating stuff and your very meticulous in your analogy I might add! I have subscribed!
Nicely done, Greg - as usual. I don't mind "reruns," since I don't remember all the details of every one that I've seen, and your videos are thorough enough that there's usually LOTS of detail to try to remember. I came to the series thinking I was fairly knowledgeable about WW 2 fighters, but I learn something (or several somethings) new with each one. I'm reminded in this one, once again, of the size difference between fighters of Germany and Britain compared to U.S. fighters.
Excelent video! Perhaps an important aspect of the Bf 109E range question is that when the design was "frozen" for serial production, the necessity of escorting bombers as far as London was not well understood. First, because war against England was not a high probability in war planning, and, second, because by this time bomber escort was a task for a heavy fighter such as the Bf 110. So, these are probably the reasons that caused huge delays in providing the Bf 109E with external drop tanks. These were available to the E7 series by late 1940 only, while the Zero fighter, designed for long range had this equipment available from the beginning of its service life. So, even with a big engine, that short range that became so serious a problem in the final months of 1940 was most likely derived from faulty planning and a substantial error of evaluation of the heavy fighter capabilities as an escort fighter. It could be pointed alto that late model Bf 109s, from the G4 series on, ir muito memory is ok, were capable of carrying 2 and even 3 300l external tanks, thus having enough range to follow back the P51s to England, if range was the only aspect in consideration. The problem of range by 1943 was much less important than to have an extra punch to deal with the heavy bombers that were showing their capacity to take the fight to the roofless nazi fortress than. Hope have contributed to this explendid work. Kind regards from Brazil!
@@deadendfriends1975 Yes, sure. But I think that a big discussion probably happened among air power specialists in the late 30's about the bombers capacity of getting through an air defence system, including interceptors. One school follows a self-defensive line of machine gun turrets and formation flying, while some people argumented for long-ranged escort fighters to fend off interceptors. Big, powerful, twin-engined aircraft. Well. Nobody had a practical experience on this subject, with the exception of the japanese, deeply commited in long range aerial attacks in China. Ir was in this scenario that the first Zeros entered in action. Naval fighters by project, long range escort fighters over land by necessity. However, the deep implications of this sucessfull experience were not understood by ter other air forces that tought at that time of strategic bombing. USA continued to believe in precision bombing by heavy, self-defending flying fortresses, Britain continued to believe in close formations of turret-armed bombers, and in Germany the short range Stukas suplanted the Ural bomber concept. Add to it a certain strenght of heavy fighters, the much vaunted ironsides, to clear the path for the bombers. In the end, the ultimate test of combat showed clearly who was right. And a more correct, experience derived demand finally produced the ultimate escort fighters, the P51B,C,D. To play, basically, the same role the Zero played in China, in that distant 1939. Kind regards!
One simple way to dispel the "Venturi cooling" effect is to say that at the end of the intake the air need is a certain fixed quantity (pressure x volume). Low pressure cooling is achieved by stretching the quantity of air (and it's thermal energy) over a larger volume. Temperature is energy per volume. Because the air quantity requirement in the cylinder is fixed, stretching it to cool it is fruitless since you have to cram it back into the cylinder anyway. If anything briefly stretching the air to lower its temperature means that thermal energy will soak into it and the total thermal energy will increase. The temperature will be higher when the initial density is resumed. If you wanted cooling the best tactic would be to compress the air very hot, let the hot air lose energy, and then return to initial density. I'm guessing that tactic is impractical in the fast-paced world of air breathing engines. I spent the whole video expecting you to say "the question isn't why is the 109's range so short, but why was a rather normal-ranged fighter given such a long-ranged mission?" The airplane wasn't wrong, the mission was wrong for the airplane. And I think the answer to that was the Me-110 was supposed to do that mission and fell short Aug-Sep '40. The Bf-110 was a beautiful airplane that struggled with anything more daunting than earlier Hurricanes.
Pretty comprehensive explanation by any stretch of the imagination. So many questions go unanswered about these planes due to video length constraints and how much information is relevant to the addressed issue. Pretty good. It was nice you laid out the real question at the end as there was no real discrepancy in range. You did not say the A6M zero could fly 1,000 miles, drop a five hundred pound bomb and return home. That probably would have thrown off the question. Good video.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles You did great. I was astounded to learn the A6M could fly 1,000 miles, drop a bomb and fly home. This plane was reengineered from the Brewster Buffalo, probably bought from Austrailia. This history never ends.
An RAF pilot was being interviewed by the BBC about the Battle of Britain and he went on to say those Germans were real “fukers” in which the BBC interviewer immediately interrupted and said; “ What the RAF pilot in my studio is actually referring to are Fokkers, a type of German aircraft ”, in which the RAF pilot immediately responded back saying; “Oh no, those Fukers were Messerschmitts” !
Thank you for this nice explanation! Fun to see you mention the Fokker DXXI. It did serve well in the Netherlands (my home country) shooting down more planes than the Germans ever expected. But we lost it on the ground quickly. Range was adequate for our country, as it is very small indeed. The DXXI however was never intended to be used in the Dutch East Indies. It was a Dutch colony in those days. Size wise it is huge with many hundreds of Islands to be defended. The Brewster Buffalo was selected and some 70 aircraft were operational during the Japanse invasion. Although a stiff fight was put up downing a number of bombers and even Zero fighters. They Dutch never stood a chance and were run over by the Japanese. Fun to see that the Fins used both the Fokker DXXI and the Brewster.
In high school we were challenged to design carbs that used larger venturi to equal Fuel Infection in cars. Couldnt escape the physics of Air Fuel mixture and the instructor laughed us out of there for thinking we ever had a chance. Of course he had a degree and we operated on the bigger is always better approach including the intake and ram air. Lesson learned in that the packard merlin was the best inline system ever created.
Well, unless I am mistaken, the British had the same problem at Dunqurque There was not effective air cover because the Spitfires and Hurricanes were low on fuel as soon as they got to the beach. What makes me think is the war in the pacific, the theater was SO much bigger
Greg I'm blown away, your work on this channel puts you among the absolute best content producers I've seen on YT or elsewhere. I'll take exception to the cause-and-effect angle, though, in this particular video. It didn't have short range (or as you point out, typical range) because it was a big engine in a small plane. Instead it had short range because that's what the military specified. That specification for a short (or typical) range fighter resulted in the idea for a big-engine, small-body aircraft that did what was asked. I'm not sure why they didn't use drop tanks over Britain except that SE England was amply target-rich. London then as now IS Britain to a first approximation. How many 109s came home with bullets they didn't have time to fire? While 20 min is a tight schedule, thx to radar the Spits and Hurs were ready to start work with a minimum of pfaffing about. Meanwhile defensively the short range perhaps required defensive airfields to be more scattered but if this was a major hindrance then unclear why higher range wasn't simply specified, or drop tanks. (Idea: drop tanks with parachutes for use over your own countryside, enabling reuse with less damage.) I think that had there been a need, a stretched 109 would have been trivial, moving the engine forward 10-20cm and the cockpit and tail back 20-30cm.
First, thank you for the video. I didn't fully understand all of it, but it was still very informative. Next, my comment. If you think about it, flying 400 miles on 100 gallons of fuel comes out to about 4 miles to the gallon. which is incredibly efficient, especially considering the air drag at that high speed. Not just 109, but all those airplanes are engineering marvels.
You have to consider the drag at the altitude and speed specified for those fuel usage figures. The reduced air pressure at high altitude leads to drag figures that are the same as the drag at lower speeds at low altitude.
I was watching one of the Plane Savers videos and this video popped up in the list if recommended videos...I am glad I clicked on it! Thanks for making them!
Technical point regarding carburetors in automotive racing engines: In race cars, the highest G-load is horizontal, to the outside the turns. (Think of a bucket of water being whirled around on the end of a rope.) This can cause fuel in the float bowls to slosh to the side, causing the engine to lean-out in a corner. Fuel injection is pressurized and thus is not sensitive to side-load sloshing.
Really enjoy your work, particularly regarding engine technology. I built lots of flying model planes as a kid, but only the kind powered by a rubber band. I have at least a basic understanding of control, stability and low-speed aerodynamics, but never had anything to do with internal combustion power. Keep up the good work.
At least Fins who had luxury of using Bf109 -G6 variant used to cruise at around 70 percent throttle after the take off. At that cruise speed it was documented to fly about 700km / 430-440 ish miles. That was during cold weather.. i do not know for sure how the air temp changes the operating distance on planes. But at least on cars, they use more fuel in cold weather, even if started up all ready with warm engine. I think they had drop tanks that could add for distance, ment to be dropped instantly if in contact with enemy … but im not sure if they where in use on Finnish front. At least i do not remember anymore.. been so so many years since i read about it.
Fuel and air is more dense at lower temperatures, therefore you can inject more of it and increase consumption. In the same time, it easier to keep the engine cool, which doesn't expand as much and runs smother. So compared to a tropical operation, you get also a high consumption, but more power. I suppose that's why they operated at 70% throttle, corresponding to 90% farther to the south. Can't say why it had a longer range, but maybe it was because the engine ran better.
Terrific info and insights...always learn a lot from your videos. Love the aero stuff...big fan of both the Corsair and the thunderbolt so enjoy your work a ton. Thanks!
One of the main advantages of fuel injection (in aero engines) was fuel distribution. The supercharger system in most(many liquid cooled) large displacement engines was used as a means of distributing a similar fuel/air mixture to every cylinder. Liquid cooled aero engine packaging often required excessive compromises in the intake tracks; that resulted in atrocious flow mechanics. Fuel injection removed this worry with only a small magnitude of complexity increase. Using a carburetor to add fuel before the supercharger did help cool the (pressurized) aircharge, but as you stated the pressure mechanics of the c carburetor negated any effect to a null gain. Messerschmidt was more interested in new designs than rengineering in production models; thus the work on the 309. The 309 didnt address any range issues, it was very much in the mode of the 109( big engine, small airframe). Thanks for all the work I really enjoy these type vids.
Supercharging is to supply more air to the engine especially at high altitude. Fuel injection or carburation are just different means of adding fuel to the incoming air. Fuel injection alone won't do anything to overcome poor 'flow dynamics' but supercharging can.
When I drove around Australia in 2008 I took 2 20 litre Jerry cans. I called them "drop tanks". This increased my range to over 1300km. Range is very important.
Most importantly, in my opinion, more power means tactical advantage. BF-109s were renowned for starting combat from an advantageous position because of German fighter tactics which were enabled by the more powerfull engine. When they started running low on fuel, they (if flown by an experienced pilot) could also disengage from combat and head for home without having to worry being shot in the back. Although quite a few miscalculated or got caught up in combat that they had to ditch in the Channel. The weakest point in the BF-109 design was the flimsy undercarriage. It is stated somewhere that the Germans lost more BF-109s due to rookie pilots crashing on take-off and landing and even during taxiing.
Greg. Thanks for another great video. I am a private pilot and aviation buff. I'm also a Ga Tech engineer and love all the detail. An uncle flew B-29's in the Pacific and another was a B-17 gunner in Europe. I grew up on USAF bases all over the world. Dad flew air rescue in Vietnam in 67-68. This may be a difficult question to research. He flew the Husky, or Pedro, HH 43. The turbo-engined USAF version, I think it was initially a Marine airplane ( dad called helicopters airplanes - which they are ) but the Marine version had a piston engine. There is no information online about this early AF operation which preceded the Jolly Greens. He and his squadron mates and others wrote the book on deep penetration air rescue in hostile territory. The tactics, planning, support aircraft required. Later, he taught this in Lubbock TX and then Kadena, Okinawa.
I think one of his wing commanders is still alive. Dad passed 4 years ago. He retired a Bird Col. I wish I had discovered your channel if it was around when he was here. He'd love it.
I also have souvenirs. My Uncle Dick's Army Air Corps "Ike" style wool uniform jacket, and Uncle E's full leather sheeps lined bomber "snowsuit " coverall. I need to donate the latter to a museum. My daughter has the uniform jacket, and wears it at airshows. Many grey haired men recognize it instantly and ask her. She proudly tells them she knows her history and exactly what it is.
A German friend (Who served with the Luftwaffe) busied himself telling me how the 109 was a much better plane than the Spitfire. the problem with the Meschersmite is while fighting in the Battle of Britain it was at the edges of its range whereas the Spits and Hurricanes were fresh out of the barn and didn't have to keep a reserve of fuel to make it home. Britain is a small populous place: all they had to do was go down and find an airfield. This fell to a teaching of Sun Tzu who said: "Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy, will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted." The 109's were already depleted so had limited time or fuel for a fight.
I don't think the cooling effect people cite is due to the venturi, it's caused by the vaporization of the fuel, which absorbs heat energy. This cooling would allow a denser charge into the cylinder at a given boost pressure. I suppose, however, if you use fuel injection you'd also get the cooling effect, since the fuel is vaporizing when you inject it into the cylinder. Which means you could simply use additional boost and feed the air into the cylinder at a higher temperature, it'd get cooled down by the fuel when it gets injected and you'd avoid knock even given the higher temperature of the air being introduced into the cylinder. The heat removed by vaporization of the fuel is significant - in small 2 stroke model airplanes, glow ignition engines, which use methanol for fuel make a lot more power than spark ignition engines which burn gasoline, the reason being that methanol contains much less energy per unit mass than gasoline does, and therefore the mixture is a lot richer. This apparently cools the intake charge a great deal more and allows for a denser charge into the cylinder.
That's not an argument for a carburetor. You can inject the fuel far enough back to get that vaporization effect with fuel injection, which the P-51, P-47 and other allied planes do. The Germans did this too by using an extra fuel injector to inject fuel upstream, which is probably the best way to do it. Only a small amount of that fuel will vaporize, so injecting it all at a point early in the system is of no benefit. Thus the German system takes advantage of this principle while still maintaining ideal fuel distribution. My objection is regarding the argument that a carb is superior to fuel injection due to a cooling effect. It's not. There is a good reason nearly every significant fighter by the end of the war had gone to injection.
By "injection" do you strictly mean direct injection into the cylinder (i.e. the fuel gets introduced after the air enters the cylinder through the intake valve) or would injection into the intake system (like modern day throttle body injection) count? I always thought the later Merlin carburetors were actually of this sort. Yeah, I'm not convinced vaporizing the fuel before it enters the cylinder is better than vaporizing it in the cylinder itself, since both would induce cooling, but one could conceivably make a case for evaporation before it enters the cylinder to be better because it provides for a denser charge by cooling the incoming air. (Or another way to think about it is, in a supercharged engine, it helps with the intercooling and aftercooling.) I don't see a benefit to vaporizing a small fraction of the fuel as opposed to vaporizing all of it upstream of the intake valve, since the amount of fuel being vaporized would be proportional to the cooling effect. The fuel has a specific heat of vaporization, so the more you vaporize the more heat gets absorbed. In any case, the cooling effect ascribed to carburetors isn't due to simple adiabatic cooling of the air due to a drop in pressure past a venturi. If by "injection" you include introducing the fuel before the charge gets to the intake valve, then yes, there would be no difference in cooling due to fuel vaporization compared with an actual carburetor.
Thanks Greg. To fill out some RAF aircraft detail: My father worked at an RAF base, after the war, as a fitter. They reckoned that many of the earlier Spitfires and Hurricanes had a flying radius of only about 350 nautical miles. Some of the later photo-reconnaissance Spitfires had ranges of over 1350 nautical miles (sometimes quoted as around 1600 statute miles), but only when carrying drop tanks, Oxygen for the pilot, and stripped of weapons. Most later Spitfires and Hurricanes had maximum ranges of not much more than 400 nautical miles. I had a pilot's handbook for the Mk II, which stated that its 1100 hp Merlin engine required 40 Imperial gallons of fuel per hour when running at maximum economy, but that could rise to over 90 gallons per hour under combat conditions - that's effectively about an hour in the air before needing to find an airfield. The pilot had to keep a very close watch on his fuel gauges!
@BladeRnR10 You can see that distance whilst in the plane. It probably saved some lives but at the same time im sure a good pilot could manage the difference either way. It's effectively the same
Why opening picture is Fokker DXXl. Also early Spitfires had same range problem,eventually used leading edge tanks. BF109 had automatic leading edge slats.
Very thorough explanation of both fuel delivery systems and benefits of mechanical injection over carbies. I look forward to the explanation of why the 109 was so much slower than the Mustang D, though there are many variables. Good job! A+
Greg i have always wondered why the spitfire had cooling issues with such large radiators hanging off the wings the Bf 109 had lower profile radiators with a larger capacity engine. Why didn't they run a central radiator like the Hurricane and the Russian fighters, I have imagined a setup like the Mustang would have been the most aerodynamic. Drag must have been increased with those two scoops especially in the Griffon Spits.
Due to the concept of pressure recovery, the nose mounted radiator of the Hurricane or the P40 is inefficient because it has no room to expand the intake plenum and to constrict the radiator exhaust to quickly evacuate the hot air. The wing mounted radiators of the Spitfire and the ME109 are tradeoff. While mounting the radiator in the slower air in the lower wing, it will affect the wing aerodynamic efficiency. If the Brits and German were to redesign their planes, they would choose the best solution as in the P51 because the underbelly doens't contribute to lift and it's low pressure air is best for pressure recovery inside the radiator duct.
@HiWetcam The German DB-605 engine actually had higher compression ratio pistons than the American or British engines, the compression ratio of the BF-109's engine was 7.5:1 in earlier engines and 8:51 in later ones when they got 100 octane fuel, the Merlin had 6.1:1 and the Allison had 6.5:1, but it didn't matter because all these engines had variable speed (one way or the other) superchargers, in the earlier model planes the pilot had to run the amount of boost to the engine by watching a guage, the later ones had automatic systems, the German engines ran a little less boost pressure because of their higher compression pistons and the American or British engines ran a little more boost pressure (given that you're using the same octane level fuel in all three), in the end it's the octane level that determines how much boost you can give to the engines before you get detonation (spark knock) which can destroy any one of these engines in a matter of seconds, the pilots were told how much boost pressure they could run depending on the octane level of the fuel, on the later automatic systems the maintenance guys adjusted the systems and could turn them up for more boost the higher the octane levels got.
The initial Spitfire radiator, based on work done at RAE Farnborough, was designed to be atleast drag neutral as the heated exhaust air generated a thrust equal to the drag of the radiator.
From what I learned from Gregs other videos the answer to why the Mustang was faster is it ran a much higher octane fuel then the Germans had access to. Makes you wonder what kind of performance the Germans could have achieved if they had access to our fuel.
It’s roughly a 20% increase from B4(87 octane) to C3(100/130). It’s about a 10% increase if going from B4+MW50 to C3+MW50 but could be more. The main effect would have been allowing the Me 109 to go from 1.3ata 1300hp to 1.42 ata 1420hp one year earlier. The later number ie 100/130 is a performance number and means it’s a 100 octane fuel that produces 30% more power if over boosted and run rich. British 150 fuel was really 110/150 and the Americans had a 115/145 fuel so they gave 50% and 45% more power when rich and 10% or 15% when lean. Late war Me 109 with the DB605DB/DC which was adjustable multi fuel might end up running missions on 1/ B4 fuel, 2/ B4+MW50, 3/ C3 or 4/ C3+MW50. The boost levels possible were 1/ 1.45 ATA, 2/ 1.8 ATA, 3/ 1.8 ATA and 4/ 1.98 ATA. An ATA is an atmosphere of pressure. It coincidently neatly coincides with power. IE 1.8 ATA means around 1800hp and 1.98 ata about 2000hp. German B4 fuel,was 87 octane but they also had a C3 fuel of 93/115 octane. From 1942 it improved to about 96/130 octane as their fuel plants I proved. This allowed the BMW 801 to go from about 1700hp to 1900hp and finally 2050hp. Initial increase was simply by increased boost pressure but latter they added injection of the fuel into the supercharger to cool and contract the air called C3 Einspritzung.
They would still be inferior to the Mustang. The FW-190 didn't have a two stage/two speed supercharger and bled hundreds of horsepower with altitude, the 109 wasn't much better in that department. High octane fuel does increase power but not by large enough margin to change anything really. Also, even at similar 100 octane horsepower the Merlin 60/V-1650-3 still generated more power than the DB-605, and the difference only increased with altitude.
4./JG26_Onebad german engine's were developed for use of fuel they have had, if they would have better fuel they would make design around it, keep in mind that they had access to more or less damaged merlin engine's that were "dropped" or have landed on their land, 2 stage boost means not much if your engine will knock fire
@@Herezjush Even prior to introduction two stage superchargers and 100 grade fuel the DB601 generated less power than Merlin XX series, which is why the Spitfire MkI outperformed the Bf-109E rather significantly during the Battle of Britain. This trend would remain for the majority of the war.
@@heckpupper9532 And why is this? Exactly, because of the fuel but not in the way you would think. The RR Merlin not only had the advantage of higher octane fuel but also the advantage of having enough room in the engine bay to allow an inter cooler for the intake air. The DB 605 lacked both because of the usage of a huge engine in such a miniscule aircraft. But they had to have such a big engine to compensate for the comparatively low engine power, due to low octane fuel. The high octane fuel basically allows the Merlin engine to run with more boost pressure, at higher altitudes, with more ignition timing advancement at higher compression ratio, all these things effectivly increase power and all have been missing on the DB605 because of low grade fuel. The DB605 was probably a more advanced engine than the Merlin, simply from the fact that it had to deal with so many draw backs.
My wife was listening to this as i pointed out some of the design differences to my son who like many is consumed by the idea that the 109 just needed a bit more range to take on, and force the 12 air group into the attrition earlier therefore robbing them of the reserve they had for the big day etc. Seems I should have been a teacher also. great work as always thank you for doing this breakdown, the logic becomes obvious when the right mind expands upon the thing we think we knew. Btw, the Corsair design feature video was your best yet.
Because it was designed as an interceptor. That and providing support to tactical bombers. Long range escort was not in the original design. Although they should have thought of Russia.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Outstanding Sir!. My Vietnam Vet Uncle swore that the Douglas A-1 Skyraider was the finest in the world. Next to the Sikorski HUS. Then of course the F-100 vs. the F-8. Unfortunately the A-6, Ugly, has been largely ignored. I also like "Jack's Chrome Shop" truck company histories. I briefly built Mack R models 84/5.
Thanks. Great presentation. Sometimes we fail to realize that the time gap between earlier aircraft and the later helped us develop the first air superiority fighters.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles No, the Fokker was designed around about the time as the original bf-109, so it makes for a good comparison with de B model. Moreover the bf-109 fought the d.xxi and the Yak-1, so the planes are relatable.
Thanks for the video. Some points to consider; fuel octane rating (saw your other videos)Germans ran 87 odd Ron and US ran 130-150 Ron- regular versus super so more power in each super litre; material weights used in each plane-did one use more canvas/wood/metal over others? Aerodynamic design factors? Basically it sounds like 109 was originally set up as interceptor and close range attack-making it go to England without adding drop tanks, bigger tanks in fuselage was just asking too much. What a waste of resources and lack of planning by command for those 109s to crash land for lack of fuel reasons.
As an old fart who worked on aircraft engines, your comments are valid. One point not mentioned was that the 109 (and Spitfire) were basically the first generation front line operational fighter monoplanes. And one prime reason designers and air forces went to the monoplane was speed. They are not as good on takeoff and landing, and did not turn as well as a biplane. But wow, they were a heck of a lot faster. So the designers had speed as one prime design goal. And just like the Spitfire, the wings were designed to be as thin as possible for speed (which was a great achievement for that era). Neither carried fuel in their wings.
When I die I want you to do the eulogy and only talk about the power to weight ratio of WW2 fighter aircraft for 2 hours.
For me pls to
Why would the winemaker give a speech when you die?
@@acr08807 the enology will be more interesting than any eulogy for Ju-87 Stuka
Geez, everybody wants to correct spelling and no one wants to acknowledge a talking dive bomber?
@@rich7787 didn’t realIze until now!
I saw a 109 at a museum in Savannah Georgia. I couldn't believe how small it was . All the stock war footage that I'd seen over the years made it look much bigger for some reason.
the Spit was roughly the same size and it was said, tongue-in-cheek by many of the pilots that you didnt so much fly the plane, you wore it around you, like a vest
Thankyou for being American and not patriotically biased... It's so refreshing to see someone actually being rational about the subject and for recognising Soviet, British and German aircraft without the usual flag-waving vitriol we normally see on this subject.
yea. lets flip the scenario. If the Spitfire's had to fly to France, then hang around to engage the 109's then the spitfire's would have been known as short range issues fighters.
Very true.
Spitfires were used extensively for photoreconnaissance over France, and later Germany. Mind you, those particular planes were specially adapted, with the weapons removed.
That sounds very doubtful given the spitfire had almost double the range of the 109.
The Spitfires WERE known as short range issue fighters. It wasn't until late war fighters like the MK XVI and MK XIV Spitfires that the Spitfire got some decent legs on it.
@@tulliusexmisc2191A rear fuselage tank for extended duration was fitted, and the pilots notes for ferry pilots specified that it was to be empty... putting fuel in the tank made it virtually unflyable ! The drop tanks fitted under the fuselage were incredibly 'draggy' and best known for carrying beer to troops in Normandy post D Day.
Thanks again Greg for such a down to earth,honest,Well explained and covered topic. You I believe really have one of most superior channels on WWII aircraft. Thank you
Big engine, small aircraft.
For an aircraft conceived in the mid-thirties, went operational in 1937 and fought and remained highly competitive until the end in 1945, it was AWESOME.
Agreed. The fact that Albert Speer was able to increase aircraft production in spite of strategic bombing is pretty amazing. The Achilles heel of the luftwaffe was the following, fuel and the lack of a replacement pilot training program that could keep Pace with the war. Essentially their experience Pilots flew until they died. He didn't have the fuel the train with also. By 1945 they didn't have enough fuel to even fight with. The 109 in competent hands was still a deadly air airplane. Well except when they're carrying the air-to-air Rockets. Then they were sitting ducks. The aircraft was never really intended for that kind of external load.
It seems to be a German trait. Big changes from the 108E to the 109G. It seems the wonky landing gear and cockpit cowl was all that remained. Look at all the different versions of the 190, or the Ju88. Look at the development of the Porsche 911 since 1964 or the 3 series BMW. They just love continuing development of known designs.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer sed: 'The fact that Albert Speer was able to increase aircraft production in spite of strategic bombing is pretty amazing.' ... yeh, slave labor's a wunnerful fing - innit? ... 'n further opined: 'By 1945 they didn't have enough fuel to even fight with.' ... ahh... the pauvre cunz!
@@keithstudly6071 dude I've owned a 3 series Beemer from the 80's, 90''s and now 2010's. I never thought of it that way.
The last 109 left an assembly plant in Hungary in 1966.Didnt quite meet the production length of VW bug,but was the longest of any type of fighter
I found it interesting that the 109 was adapted from the 108 which was an aircraft designed by Messerschmitt for private use and was a 4 passenger plane. Fuel capacity was an issue for the 108, 75 gallon maximum divided into five tanks that were spread around the fuselage. The 108 was heralded as being a easy to fly aircraft and was fast for its day. The engine was half the displacement of the fighter version, but it could get close to 300 knots depending on the propeller type. I have been following the Kermit Weeks restoration of the 108 and he got his hands on a 109. Lucky sob. He really has a nice collection of wwl and wwll aircraft for a private collection.
The airframe design is as important as engine development. The airframe design of the Mustang (and late model Spitfires) allowed a greater rearward shift in CG caused by the weight of a substantial fuel tank behind the cockpit.
We delayed production of the 20 series Spits due to emphasis on manufacture of the main production marks, V, IX/XVI & XIV.
The earlier point defence types (of which the Merlin Spits and all 109's are classic examples) had big engines in small airframes with deliberately small (drag reducing) tailplanes, which restricted the permissable extent of rearward shift in CG caused by rear fuselage fuel loading.
cf. Jeffrey Quill "A Test Pilot's Story", Chapter 21, "Longitudinal Stability and Increased Range".
The 51 also has a massive advantage over the 109s even late, in terms of drag. I highly doubt the 109 g in question was getting a range of 450 miles at 400mph or even 360
@@Nikarus2370 UUMM a developed P51 yes, But xp51s had a range of only 500mi with the thirsty allison it was only after adding, internal wing tanks ito its Fat wing, fuel tank behind the pilot set and external wing tanks that the P51 c and Ds got there range Oh and the addition of the merlin which didn't drink nearly as much as the allison
A very important point that ties a whole lot of other stuff together. Thanks!
What is CG it’s too early for me
"Essential equipment... obviously including the pilot." :P
Safer for the pilot to stay in bed.
Hi Central, thanks for stopping by. Hopefully this month sometime I'll be on discord. I can only access it from home, which is fine because I only fly sims at home.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Hopefully our schedules will align at some point. : )
I cannot wait for your collab. Please, make it happen!
Well, in today's world you have to specify a pilot. :)
Excellent video. Onething you didn't eleborate on was it's drag in in it's design. When an aircraft has external radiators (3 of 'em!) external supercharger intake and my favorite struts on the horizontal stab. Not to add the exhaust and flight control counter balances .An aircraft really needs a big engine to overcome all that.
Excellent video, very interesting.
Your comment about the development of engines and aircraft design during the war is well made.
The orginal FW 190 had a range of about 500 miles in 1940, whereas the TA152 that was the successor of the FW190 in 1944 had a range of 1,200 miles. Quite an increase!
Greg's comment on the Bf109 being a earier generation of fighter compared to the P-51 is key to understanding the differences.
Another clear and concise report Greg!
Detailed comparisons well expressed in a natural tone and intelligently delivered.
I like the way you tackle aviation questions that I have had from one time or another but never bothered to properly research. It is very useful to get an in depth technical comparison of aircraft which also takes into account the design features and compromises. Most aviation books might have this information to various degrees scattered here and there, but nowhere compiled as concisely and effectively as here. Well done.
still one of the most underrated channels on UA-cam, thanks for sharing!
8:48: Daimler Benz increases the size of an engine from 33.9 to 35 liters? It doesn't make sense to retool and have the parts and logistics headaches. I'd have kept all that stuff the same and instead only make variations that made HUGE benefits like MW50, superchargers and turbochargers and so on...
reading about the P-51 from the fliers themselves was...it was a flying fuel tank
Sam Moss Some had droptanks as well
When full on internal fuel the P-51's CoG was so far back it caused "Reversibility," which is when the pilot pulls back on the stick to pitch up, he has to then push forward on it for the aircraft's nose to stop pitching up (as opposed to just putting the stick back to a neutral position). This made the aircraft impossible to trim for level flight until most of the rear fuselage tank was empty. The P-51 was made with range in mind, that's for sure.
Yeah, it had to be. I haven't looked at the numbers lately but those pilots escorting the B-17s spent HOURS in the air. It must have been grueling to sit in that seat, by yourself, keeping some type formation for hours and hours. And the designers really had the benefit of hindsight to know what type of missions their planes would be used for and put fuel tanks everywhere they could.
The author of the historic 'novel/memoir' "Nanette" (about his time flying P39s in New Guinea against Oscars & Tonys-shudder) eventually transitioned to P47s and the P51s--he referred to the experience as 'eight hours of cramp ass'. I must imagine that trying to hold your bladder in check for 8 hours must have been a nightmare.
Oh I'm sure..but the process of unstrapping yourself to take your wizz must be quite an effort.
I'm really enjoying your technical coverage of the 109's. Big fan of the aircraft, but not too savvy on the finer details - your videos make it very easy to understand. Very much hope you will do more of these. It really is very valuable. Thanks.
A new 109 video is coming soon.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles That's great news!
My understanding is that the Messerschmitt Bf 109 was always intended as a home defence interceptor fighter, hence its mixed cannon and MG armament. It was a bomber destroyer to protect the Fatherland. It did not require a long range but it did need a fast rate of climb - hence the large engine - and the two/three cannons to rip open bombers.
The offensive fighter was meant to be the Messerschmitt Bf110 with its six-gun armament and its two engine safety margin for long distance flight and safe return. Indeed these 110s were regarded as elite squadrons and received elite pilots in the early days.
Of course the reality was that the Bf110 was a lemon in daylight combat and was eventually escorted by 109s on daylight operations in the Battle of Britain. As a fast bomber the 110 had some qualities but it was never in the DH Mosquito category. As a night fighter it was adequate to good.
Barry
The Me 110 was built to the "destroyer" or "zerstoerer" concept. Its job was to
1 Fly low and ahead of bombers to strafe up fighters on the ground and destroy enemy FLAK defences.
2 Fly ahead of bombers to destroy enemy interceptors as they were in their climbing phase before they could attack the bombers the Bf 110 was escorting.
3 Intercept and destroy enemy bombers using its powerful armament.
4 "Bad weather fighter" ie night fighter able also to operate in fog. The second crew member could track the aircraft via radio beacons and it could thus attack and intercept at night and in bad weather. Me 110 had FuBL blind landing systems.
When the Me 110 was in service in 1939/40/41 there were no Mosquitos, P-38 or Buefighters.
So long as it wasn't tied to the bombers in close escort its exchange ratios was superior to the RAF fighters in the BoB. When it was called upon to be a night fighter it was ready. Original German Air Ministry Spec called for a 3 seater but Willy Messerschmitt submitted a smaller non conforming bid as he reasoned that bigger aircraft would be too slow.
It's short-range was a severe handicap against the allied bomber offensive. Me-109s had to be stationed near the target, leading to the fighter force being dispersed. The luftwaffe was not able to concentrate their forces against but incoming bombers
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs small correction: Beaufighter!
@@Wombat1916 William Jones- Halibut Bigger correction: Bf 110 "exchange ratios" (whatever that means) was (sic) superior to the RAF fighters in the BOB. Bf 110s could only survive against single engine fighters by flying a defensive circle (Lufbery).
@@anitadolan6417 Ah yes, that defensive formation used at first by the Bristol Fighter in WW1 - IIRC, it was more or less useless. When the Brisfit was used as a fighter with a rear gunner it did somewhat better. Of course the 110 lacked the agility to mix it.
Greetings from Colorado!Well done, old boy! As usual, yours is a comprehensive, well balanced and insightful perspective. Keep it up, please
Love your videos Greg. They are just so detailed and comprehensive. Thanks for all you do. Phil, Australia.
"Underhead cams?" 13:07
I see what you did there. Nice touch. :-)
"Underhead" in this instance was because it's basically laid out as a regular DOHC engine that's upside down - crankshaft at the top and heads pointing down and to the sides. Check out the diagram at 8:54. Neither the Merlin or the D.B.601 used cam-in-block. The difference being referred to is that the Merlin was mounted in what we would consider a conventional layout, and Messerschmidt mounted it upside-down (thus the "underhead cam" comment Greg annotated in the video.)
In reference to your point, however - generally speaking, cam-in-block engines of that period didn't breathe anywhere near as well as an _equivalent_ DOHC head, as the valve angles are compromised (they can't effectively be splayed as wide as one would want for ideal air flow through the combustion chamber ) - a situation that would be exacerbated by the limited amount of air they have at their disposal in the first place when at altitude. I suspect that using DOHC would likely have helped combat this, giving better power - especially when in a thinner atmosphere.
I suspect that outright power would negate using an OHV layout. They could get more power from an engine with DOHC - enough to more than offset the additional weight and slight increase to frontal area. Also, as a V12 naturally lends itself to a more streamlined airframe, even with the larger heads (especially when compared to the common alternative of the time - and while radials could be very powerful, I'm not sure I'd call them streamlined), it would be considered acceptable for packaging while giving the best overall performance.
PS: To give an example of the potential efficiency increase when switching from OHV to DOHC, the FIAT 124 of the late '60s came with a 1.4 (amongst other sizes) in OHV and DOHC (2-valve) variants - the OHV rated at 69hp, and the DOHC at 89hp, or about a 20% increase with the rest of the engine being basically identical. I suspect that an increase of even 1/2 that would be more than worthwhile.
@@aussiebloke609 The reason why the "underhead cam" layout was used was simple: it meant you didn't have to have a gearbox up front like the Mustang, Spitfire, Hurricane, Warhawk, etc, etc. to bring the drive up to the prop. Also a reason why radials were preferred early on, aside from their (relative) simplicity. By the way, unsaid here, after WW2 unlimited hydro teams tried using the DB engine but spare parts problems dogged that effort. Would've been interesting though since the DB still would've been "upside down". Anyone for a lecture on how Packard Motor Company helped win the WW2 air war?
The Daimler Benz engine was inverted, hence "underhead cams".
My 1976 Triumph T140V Bonneville 750 has double underhead cams mounted high in the case, but under the cylinders. This design keeps weight low. It uses short push rods and a timing gear to reduce loss of timing accuracy. My Triumph raced against every street motorcycle type that existed in the world that existed in Suffolk County Long Island N.Y. and she won against all of them for 10 consecutive years. I still have my Bonneville.
It always come to the same issue : higher/lower octane fuel ==> more or less manifold pressure.
Thank you for these great videos !!
Add to this lower or higher compression ratio and
retarding or advancing ignition timing ;D.
Boost always wins lol..
US fuel was higher octane & the methods to produce it were kept secret.
Germany was using synthetic fuel-liquid fuel produced from coal-to produce aviation fuel. It was difficult and costly to make the higher octane fuel. They could do it, but only at a cost. And since every gallon of gas was precious in Germany, they tried to use lower octane fuel on their fighters.
@@jimblake3574the additives for the high octane fuel had been supplied to the RAF. The Germans notices the improved acceleration of RAF fighters immediately but didn't know why. Disobeying the order not to fly fighters over Europe a Spitfire pilot was shot down and his aircraft recovered and everything closely investigated. With no mechanical improvements and after analyzing the fuel they knew the secret.
A few years ago I was at an airshow and flew as a passenger in a P-51 and in another P-51 flew also as a passenger also a BF-109 pilot who said he had to fly in one because he was often shot down by a P-51 . It was a great honor to fly next to the guy that let a B-17 live to fight another day. One of his remarks really hit home he said " how come we both prayed to the same God?".. look up story on UA-cam
That story isn't as heartwearming as people always make it out to be. Sure, for the bomber pilots it was nice, but the German pilot was an borderline treasonous idiot rather than a knightly hero.
It isn't the fault of the men, but fact is that in most cases they were there to bomb civilians, to kill women and children.
What kind of soldier lets guys who came to kill the women and children he is sworn to protect get away with it out of a antiquated knightly ideals?
Imagine a bunch of terrorists blow up a school and they get their car shut up while making their escape and then another cop stops them at the border and not only lets them go, but even escorts them over the border, because he feels pity over how shot up they are and he wants to be "knightly".
Fuck that asshole.
He should have been strung up.
@@ligamabawls1073 yeah he was a fucking human at a time he could see the writing on the wall
youd have to be damn cold to kill helpless men who are taking the same risks as you when you already know their death wont help anything
Wow. Excellent clear concise presentation. Really enjoyed it thanks!
I'm very happy your video randomly showed up on my feed! As a former A & P mechanic I find this very fascinating stuff and your very meticulous in your analogy I might add! I have subscribed!
Nicely done, Greg - as usual. I don't mind "reruns," since I don't remember all the details of every one that I've seen, and your videos are thorough enough that there's usually LOTS of detail to try to remember. I came to the series thinking I was fairly knowledgeable about WW 2 fighters, but I learn something (or several somethings) new with each one. I'm reminded in this one, once again, of the size difference between fighters of Germany and Britain compared to U.S. fighters.
It's one thing aquiring immense facts, another to present it in such a way you are keeping people stunned with fascination. This you do, Greg.
Wasn't the largest engine available in the smallest airframe also the thought behind the Corsair? Yet it has much more range.
are you sure? the F4U has twice the weight of a Bf 109G
the F4U is a much larger aircraft than the 109
@@jengelson Corsair has a much larger engine, 46 liters, vs the 109s 34 liters.
@@luvr381 the bigger plane can take more fuel, that's all it is
@@jengelson Pretty much, plus carry more ordnance.
Very informative and well put together, better than most History Channel output.
Thanks Greg. Great to watch these well researched videos with a real voice.
This has to be P1D - awesome video Greg - I actually learned something, appreciate the time & effort you put into this
Excelent video! Perhaps an important aspect of the Bf 109E range question is that when the design was "frozen" for serial production, the necessity of escorting bombers as far as London was not well understood. First, because war against England was not a high probability in war planning, and, second, because by this time bomber escort was a task for a heavy fighter such as the Bf 110. So, these are probably the reasons that caused huge delays in providing the Bf 109E with external drop tanks. These were available to the E7 series by late 1940 only, while the Zero fighter, designed for long range had this equipment available from the beginning of its service life. So, even with a big engine, that short range that became so serious a problem in the final months of 1940 was most likely derived from faulty planning and a substantial error of evaluation of the heavy fighter capabilities as an escort fighter. It could be pointed alto that late model Bf 109s, from the G4 series on, ir muito memory is ok, were capable of carrying 2 and even 3 300l external tanks, thus having enough range to follow back the P51s to England, if range was the only aspect in consideration. The problem of range by 1943 was much less important than to have an extra punch to deal with the heavy bombers that were showing their capacity to take the fight to the roofless nazi fortress than. Hope have contributed to this explendid work. Kind regards from Brazil!
Zero was a naval aircraft, hence the tank..
@@deadendfriends1975 Yes, sure. But I think that a big discussion probably happened among air power specialists in the late 30's about the bombers capacity of getting through an air defence system, including interceptors. One school follows a self-defensive line of machine gun turrets and formation flying, while some people argumented for long-ranged escort fighters to fend off interceptors. Big, powerful, twin-engined aircraft. Well. Nobody had a practical experience on this subject, with the exception of the japanese, deeply commited in long range aerial attacks in China. Ir was in this scenario that the first Zeros entered in action. Naval fighters by project, long range escort fighters over land by necessity. However, the deep implications of this sucessfull experience were not understood by ter other air forces that tought at that time of strategic bombing. USA continued to believe in precision bombing by heavy, self-defending flying fortresses, Britain continued to believe in close formations of turret-armed bombers, and in Germany the short range Stukas suplanted the Ural bomber concept. Add to it a certain strenght of heavy fighters, the much vaunted ironsides, to clear the path for the bombers. In the end, the ultimate test of combat showed clearly who was right. And a more correct, experience derived demand finally produced the ultimate escort fighters, the P51B,C,D. To play, basically, the same role the Zero played in China, in that distant 1939. Kind regards!
11:50 Juan Manuel Fangio with the Mercedes-Benz W196 at French Grand Prix in 1954
1955
The Me Bf 109 the sexiest fuel injection fighter plane ever.
This is the first one of your vids I have seen. You're really good at this. Keep up the good work. Thanks for the video.
One simple way to dispel the "Venturi cooling" effect is to say that at the end of the intake the air need is a certain fixed quantity (pressure x volume). Low pressure cooling is achieved by stretching the quantity of air (and it's thermal energy) over a larger volume. Temperature is energy per volume. Because the air quantity requirement in the cylinder is fixed, stretching it to cool it is fruitless since you have to cram it back into the cylinder anyway.
If anything briefly stretching the air to lower its temperature means that thermal energy will soak into it and the total thermal energy will increase. The temperature will be higher when the initial density is resumed. If you wanted cooling the best tactic would be to compress the air very hot, let the hot air lose energy, and then return to initial density. I'm guessing that tactic is impractical in the fast-paced world of air breathing engines.
I spent the whole video expecting you to say "the question isn't why is the 109's range so short, but why was a rather normal-ranged fighter given such a long-ranged mission?" The airplane wasn't wrong, the mission was wrong for the airplane. And I think the answer to that was the Me-110 was supposed to do that mission and fell short Aug-Sep '40. The Bf-110 was a beautiful airplane that struggled with anything more daunting than earlier Hurricanes.
Your thinking to hard have a joint or something,..olol
Thank you again for taking the time to do the research and make these videos. I (and many others) enjoy them immensely!!
I wish I could fly a bf 109..Butcher Bird..P38..Mustang.
Really good video....great analogies !! Well done sir and thanks !! Laminar flow with the P-51 was the game changer.
Pretty comprehensive explanation by any stretch of the imagination. So many questions go unanswered about these planes due to video length constraints and how much information is relevant to the addressed issue. Pretty good. It was nice you laid out the real question at the end as there was no real discrepancy in range. You did not say the A6M zero could fly 1,000 miles, drop a five hundred pound bomb and return home. That probably would have thrown off the question. Good video.
I couldn't cover everything in one video, but I do have others, and I'm adding more all the time.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles You did great. I was astounded to learn the A6M could fly 1,000 miles, drop a bomb and fly home. This plane was reengineered from the Brewster Buffalo, probably bought from Austrailia. This history never ends.
An RAF pilot was being interviewed by the BBC about the Battle of Britain and he went on to say those Germans were real “fukers” in which the BBC interviewer immediately interrupted and said; “ What the RAF pilot in my studio is actually referring to are Fokkers, a type of German aircraft ”, in which the RAF pilot immediately responded back saying; “Oh no, those Fukers were Messerschmitts” !
Fokkers are Dutch
Kies Kop
You obviously don’t know history.
@@machia0705 Im Dutch ,i know our history : )
My brother told me that joke back in the 1960's...
BuzzLOLOL lol !!!
My Father told that joke every year, my Dad was in WW2, all my uncles too. Navy, Army, Air Corp.
Old joke, lol..
Thank you for this nice explanation! Fun to see you mention the Fokker DXXI. It did serve well in the Netherlands (my home country) shooting down more planes than the Germans ever expected. But we lost it on the ground quickly. Range was adequate for our country, as it is very small indeed. The DXXI however was never intended to be used in the Dutch East Indies. It was a Dutch colony in those days. Size wise it is huge with many hundreds of Islands to be defended. The Brewster Buffalo was selected and some 70 aircraft were operational during the Japanse invasion. Although a stiff fight was put up downing a number of bombers and even Zero fighters. They Dutch never stood a chance and were run over by the Japanese. Fun to see that the Fins used both the Fokker DXXI and the Brewster.
Yey New video From Greg.
Found your channel a few weeks ago. Love your technical depth and interesting focus points of your videos
Awesome and eye opening video as always. Quickly grown to love your channel and your relaxed but informative style.
Thanks.
LOVE YOU MAN HOPE YOU HAVE A GREAT WEEK
Great vid.
Just... why is there a pic of Dutch Fokker D21s in the thumbnail?
While the video rolls... the answer pops up. Sooooo .... never mind
Carburetion AKA "metered fuel leak"
In high school we were challenged to design carbs that used larger venturi to equal Fuel Infection in cars. Couldnt escape the physics of Air Fuel mixture and the instructor laughed us out of there for thinking we ever had a chance. Of course he had a degree and we operated on the bigger is always better approach including the intake and ram air. Lesson learned in that the packard merlin was the best inline system ever created.
Well, unless I am mistaken, the British had the same problem at Dunqurque There was not effective air cover because the Spitfires and Hurricanes were low on fuel as soon as they got to the beach. What makes me think is the war in the pacific, the theater was SO much bigger
such a great subject greg ...you wack it out of the park bro thanks
+1 thanks for not wacking it in the park
Greg I'm blown away, your work on this channel puts you among the absolute best content producers I've seen on YT or elsewhere. I'll take exception to the cause-and-effect angle, though, in this particular video. It didn't have short range (or as you point out, typical range) because it was a big engine in a small plane. Instead it had short range because that's what the military specified. That specification for a short (or typical) range fighter resulted in the idea for a big-engine, small-body aircraft that did what was asked. I'm not sure why they didn't use drop tanks over Britain except that SE England was amply target-rich. London then as now IS Britain to a first approximation. How many 109s came home with bullets they didn't have time to fire? While 20 min is a tight schedule, thx to radar the Spits and Hurs were ready to start work with a minimum of pfaffing about. Meanwhile defensively the short range perhaps required defensive airfields to be more scattered but if this was a major hindrance then unclear why higher range wasn't simply specified, or drop tanks. (Idea: drop tanks with parachutes for use over your own countryside, enabling reuse with less damage.) I think that had there been a need, a stretched 109 would have been trivial, moving the engine forward 10-20cm and the cockpit and tail back 20-30cm.
the 109 also had the ability to add drop tanks. but the weight would sacrifice the loadout.
It is always a pleasure to view one of your videos.Well done.
Excelente vídeo! Thanks for posting it!
It sure answered my question!
Greetings from Guatemala!
Always interesting, thanks Greg.
First, thank you for the video. I didn't fully understand all of it, but it was still very informative. Next, my comment. If you think about it, flying 400 miles on 100 gallons of fuel comes out to about 4 miles to the gallon. which is incredibly efficient, especially considering the air drag at that high speed. Not just 109, but all those airplanes are engineering marvels.
You have to consider the drag at the altitude and speed specified for those fuel usage figures. The reduced air pressure at high altitude leads to drag figures that are the same as the drag at lower speeds at low altitude.
내가 조국이다. 내가싸운다. Well, that’s an average. You burn a whole lot more fuel on take off and climb.
I was watching one of the Plane Savers videos and this video popped up in the list if recommended videos...I am glad I clicked on it! Thanks for making them!
Another good video that you did. I have a better understanding of this plane's design as compared to its contemporaries. Thank you Greg.
Technical point regarding carburetors in automotive racing engines: In race cars, the highest G-load is horizontal, to the outside the turns. (Think of a bucket of water being whirled around on the end of a rope.) This can cause fuel in the float bowls to slosh to the side, causing the engine to lean-out in a corner. Fuel injection is pressurized and thus is not sensitive to side-load sloshing.
The Me109 canopy always reminds me of a glass coffin.
Good to see you back Greg! 😉
Really enjoy your work, particularly regarding engine technology. I built lots of flying model planes as a kid, but only the kind powered by a rubber band. I have at least a basic understanding of control, stability and low-speed aerodynamics, but never had anything to do with internal combustion power. Keep up the good work.
At least Fins who had luxury of using Bf109 -G6 variant used to cruise at around 70 percent throttle after the take off. At that cruise speed it was documented to fly about 700km / 430-440 ish miles. That was during cold weather.. i do not know for sure how the air temp changes the operating distance on planes. But at least on cars, they use more fuel in cold weather, even if started up all ready with warm engine. I think they had drop tanks that could add for distance, ment to be dropped instantly if in contact with enemy … but im not sure if they where in use on Finnish front. At least i do not remember anymore.. been so so many years since i read about it.
Fuel and air is more dense at lower temperatures, therefore you can inject more of it and increase consumption. In the same time, it easier to keep the engine cool, which doesn't expand as much and runs smother. So compared to a tropical operation, you get also a high consumption, but more power.
I suppose that's why they operated at 70% throttle, corresponding to 90% farther to the south.
Can't say why it had a longer range, but maybe it was because the engine ran better.
Terrific info and insights...always learn a lot from your videos. Love the aero stuff...big fan of both the Corsair and the thunderbolt so enjoy your work a ton. Thanks!
F4U, best allied fighter imo.
One of the main advantages of fuel injection (in aero engines) was fuel distribution. The supercharger system in most(many liquid cooled) large displacement engines was used as a means of distributing a similar fuel/air mixture to every cylinder. Liquid cooled aero engine packaging often required excessive compromises in the intake tracks; that resulted in atrocious flow mechanics. Fuel injection removed this worry with only a small magnitude of complexity increase.
Using a carburetor to add fuel before the supercharger did help cool the (pressurized) aircharge, but as you stated the pressure mechanics of the c carburetor negated any effect to a null gain.
Messerschmidt was more interested in new designs than rengineering in production models; thus the work on the 309. The 309 didnt address any range issues, it was very much in the mode of the 109( big engine, small airframe).
Thanks for all the work I really enjoy these type vids.
Supercharging is to supply more air to the engine especially at high altitude. Fuel injection or carburation are just different means of adding fuel to the incoming air. Fuel injection alone won't do anything to overcome poor 'flow dynamics' but supercharging can.
Haha love the cobra reference I was waiting for it.
The Best quality DB605 engines are alledgedly Swedish built examples for the SAAB B18B and J21 qs these did not suffer from forced wartime production
1# reason I like your videos.
You aren't sprouting crap, you back up your claims with research! again keep this content rolling!
Fuel injection also had another advantage. Higher altitudes. The first mustang's had a problem with that as they were carburetored.
They had "injection carburetors" which were what we now call throttle body fuel injection.
I love this channel. As a pilot I thought I knew something about airplane design but I am learning a ton!
When I drove around Australia in 2008 I took 2 20 litre Jerry cans. I called them "drop tanks". This increased my range to over 1300km. Range is very important.
yep! ... v few servos - outback!
Most importantly, in my opinion, more power means tactical advantage. BF-109s were renowned for starting combat from an advantageous position because of German fighter tactics which were enabled by the more powerfull engine. When they started running low on fuel, they (if flown by an experienced pilot) could also disengage from combat and head for home without having to worry being shot in the back. Although quite a few miscalculated or got caught up in combat that they had to ditch in the Channel.
The weakest point in the BF-109 design was the flimsy undercarriage. It is stated somewhere that the Germans lost more BF-109s due to rookie pilots crashing on take-off and landing and even during taxiing.
Greg. Thanks for another great video. I am a private pilot and aviation buff. I'm also a Ga Tech engineer and love all the detail.
An uncle flew B-29's in the Pacific and another was a B-17 gunner in Europe. I grew up on USAF bases all over the world. Dad flew air rescue in Vietnam in 67-68. This may be a difficult question to research. He flew the Husky, or Pedro, HH 43. The turbo-engined USAF version, I think it was initially a Marine airplane ( dad called helicopters airplanes - which they are ) but the Marine version had a piston engine. There is no information online about this early AF operation which preceded the Jolly Greens.
He and his squadron mates and others wrote the book on deep penetration air rescue in hostile territory. The tactics, planning, support aircraft required. Later, he taught this in Lubbock TX and then Kadena, Okinawa.
I think one of his wing commanders is still alive. Dad passed 4 years ago. He retired a Bird Col. I wish I had discovered your channel if it was around when he was here. He'd love it.
I also have souvenirs. My Uncle Dick's Army Air Corps "Ike" style wool uniform jacket, and Uncle E's full leather sheeps lined bomber "snowsuit " coverall. I need to donate the latter to a museum. My daughter has the uniform jacket, and wears it at airshows. Many grey haired men recognize it instantly and ask her. She proudly tells them she knows her history and exactly what it is.
A German friend (Who served with the Luftwaffe) busied himself telling me how the 109 was a much better plane than the Spitfire.
the problem with the Meschersmite is while fighting in the Battle of Britain it was at the edges of its range whereas the Spits and Hurricanes were fresh out of the barn and didn't have to keep a reserve of fuel to make it home. Britain is a small populous place: all they had to do was go down and find an airfield.
This fell to a teaching of Sun Tzu who said: "Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy, will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted."
The 109's were already depleted so had limited time or fuel for a fight.
I don't think the cooling effect people cite is due to the venturi, it's caused by the vaporization of the fuel, which absorbs heat energy. This cooling would allow a denser charge into the cylinder at a given boost pressure. I suppose, however, if you use fuel injection you'd also get the cooling effect, since the fuel is vaporizing when you inject it into the cylinder. Which means you could simply use additional boost and feed the air into the cylinder at a higher temperature, it'd get cooled down by the fuel when it gets injected and you'd avoid knock even given the higher temperature of the air being introduced into the cylinder. The heat removed by vaporization of the fuel is significant - in small 2 stroke model airplanes, glow ignition engines, which use methanol for fuel make a lot more power than spark ignition engines which burn gasoline, the reason being that methanol contains much less energy per unit mass than gasoline does, and therefore the mixture is a lot richer. This apparently cools the intake charge a great deal more and allows for a denser charge into the cylinder.
That's not an argument for a carburetor. You can inject the fuel far enough back to get that vaporization effect with fuel injection, which the P-51, P-47 and other allied planes do. The Germans did this too by using an extra fuel injector to inject fuel upstream, which is probably the best way to do it. Only a small amount of that fuel will vaporize, so injecting it all at a point early in the system is of no benefit. Thus the German system takes advantage of this principle while still maintaining ideal fuel distribution.
My objection is regarding the argument that a carb is superior to fuel injection due to a cooling effect. It's not. There is a good reason nearly every significant fighter by the end of the war had gone to injection.
By "injection" do you strictly mean direct injection into the cylinder (i.e. the fuel gets introduced after the air enters the cylinder through the intake valve) or would injection into the intake system (like modern day throttle body injection) count? I always thought the later Merlin carburetors were actually of this sort. Yeah, I'm not convinced vaporizing the fuel before it enters the cylinder is better than vaporizing it in the cylinder itself, since both would induce cooling, but one could conceivably make a case for evaporation before it enters the cylinder to be better because it provides for a denser charge by cooling the incoming air. (Or another way to think about it is, in a supercharged engine, it helps with the intercooling and aftercooling.) I don't see a benefit to vaporizing a small fraction of the fuel as opposed to vaporizing all of it upstream of the intake valve, since the amount of fuel being vaporized would be proportional to the cooling effect. The fuel has a specific heat of vaporization, so the more you vaporize the more heat gets absorbed. In any case, the cooling effect ascribed to carburetors isn't due to simple adiabatic cooling of the air due to a drop in pressure past a venturi.
If by "injection" you include introducing the fuel before the charge gets to the intake valve, then yes, there would be no difference in cooling due to fuel vaporization compared with an actual carburetor.
Thanks for your video,always good to learn more about the most amazing period in aviation history,you really know your stuff.
Thanks Greg. To fill out some RAF aircraft detail: My father worked at an RAF base, after the war, as a fitter. They reckoned that many of the earlier Spitfires and Hurricanes had a flying radius of only about 350 nautical miles. Some of the later photo-reconnaissance Spitfires had ranges of over 1350 nautical miles (sometimes quoted as around 1600 statute miles), but only when carrying drop tanks, Oxygen for the pilot, and stripped of weapons. Most later Spitfires and Hurricanes had maximum ranges of not much more than 400 nautical miles.
I had a pilot's handbook for the Mk II, which stated that its 1100 hp Merlin engine required 40 Imperial gallons of fuel per hour when running at maximum economy, but that could rise to over 90 gallons per hour under combat conditions - that's effectively about an hour in the air before needing to find an airfield. The pilot had to keep a very close watch on his fuel gauges!
Wow a wonderful plane even for being short and this is an amazing video. Excellent job thank you so so mch
Every day is a school day with Greg. I said it yesterday, I love these videos. Keep up the good work sir.
Bf-109E has same operational range as Spitfire Mark I, 660 km vs 644 km.
@BladeRnR10 You can see that distance whilst in the plane. It probably saved some lives but at the same time im sure a good pilot could manage the difference either way. It's effectively the same
Why opening picture is Fokker DXXl. Also early Spitfires had same range problem,eventually used leading edge tanks. BF109 had automatic leading edge slats.
That what they say about most early jets, a engine with fuel wrapped around it.
Very thorough explanation of both fuel delivery systems and benefits of mechanical injection over carbies. I look forward to the explanation of why the 109 was so much slower than the Mustang D, though there are many variables. Good job! A+
Greg i have always wondered why the spitfire had cooling issues with such large radiators hanging off the wings the Bf 109 had lower profile radiators with a larger capacity engine. Why didn't they run a central radiator like the Hurricane and the Russian fighters, I have imagined a setup like the Mustang would have been the most aerodynamic. Drag must have been increased with those two scoops especially in the Griffon Spits.
Due to the concept of pressure recovery, the nose mounted radiator of the Hurricane or the P40 is inefficient because it has no room to expand the intake plenum and to constrict the radiator exhaust to quickly evacuate the hot air. The wing mounted radiators of the Spitfire and the ME109 are tradeoff. While mounting the radiator in the slower air in the lower wing, it will affect the wing aerodynamic efficiency. If the Brits and German were to redesign their planes, they would choose the best solution as in the P51 because the underbelly doens't contribute to lift and it's low pressure air is best for pressure recovery inside the radiator duct.
@HiWetcam
The German DB-605 engine actually had higher compression ratio pistons than the American or British engines, the compression ratio of the BF-109's engine was 7.5:1 in earlier engines and 8:51 in later ones when they got 100 octane fuel, the Merlin had 6.1:1 and the Allison had 6.5:1, but it didn't matter because all these engines had variable speed (one way or the other) superchargers, in the earlier model planes the pilot had to run the amount of boost to the engine by watching a guage, the later ones had automatic systems, the German engines ran a little less boost pressure because of their higher compression pistons and the American or British engines ran a little more boost pressure (given that you're using the same octane level fuel in all three), in the end it's the octane level that determines how much boost you can give to the engines before you get detonation (spark knock) which can destroy any one of these engines in a matter of seconds, the pilots were told how much boost pressure they could run depending on the octane level of the fuel, on the later automatic systems the maintenance guys adjusted the systems and could turn them up for more boost the higher the octane levels got.
2Phast4Rocket thanx for that info, bang on.
2Phast4Rocket ,
The initial Spitfire radiator, based on work done at RAE Farnborough, was designed to be atleast drag neutral as the heated exhaust air generated a thrust equal to the drag of the radiator.
THE ACT OF KINDNESS & HUMANITY!! AND A GREAT STORY...THANK YOU BOTH
An other educational video with nice English, thanks
Thanks again for the channel and content!!! Very cool stuff
From what I learned from Gregs other videos the answer to why the Mustang was faster is it ran a much higher octane fuel then the Germans had access to. Makes you wonder what kind of performance the Germans could have achieved if they had access to our fuel.
It’s roughly a 20% increase from B4(87 octane) to C3(100/130). It’s about a 10% increase if going from B4+MW50 to C3+MW50 but could be more. The main effect would have been allowing the Me 109 to go from 1.3ata 1300hp to 1.42 ata 1420hp one year earlier. The later number ie 100/130 is a performance number and means it’s a 100 octane fuel that produces 30% more power if over boosted and run rich. British 150 fuel was really 110/150 and the Americans had a 115/145 fuel so they gave 50% and 45% more power when rich and 10% or 15% when lean.
Late war Me 109 with the DB605DB/DC which was adjustable multi fuel might end up running missions on
1/ B4 fuel, 2/ B4+MW50, 3/ C3 or 4/ C3+MW50. The boost levels possible were
1/ 1.45 ATA, 2/ 1.8 ATA, 3/ 1.8 ATA and 4/ 1.98 ATA.
An ATA is an atmosphere of pressure. It coincidently neatly coincides with power. IE 1.8 ATA means around 1800hp and 1.98 ata about 2000hp.
German B4 fuel,was 87 octane but they also had a C3 fuel of 93/115 octane. From 1942 it improved to about 96/130 octane as their fuel plants I proved. This allowed the BMW 801 to go from about 1700hp to 1900hp and finally 2050hp. Initial increase was simply by increased boost pressure but latter they added injection of the fuel into the supercharger to cool and contract the air called C3 Einspritzung.
They would still be inferior to the Mustang. The FW-190 didn't have a two stage/two speed supercharger and bled hundreds of horsepower with altitude, the 109 wasn't much better in that department. High octane fuel does increase power but not by large enough margin to change anything really. Also, even at similar 100 octane horsepower the Merlin 60/V-1650-3 still generated more power than the DB-605, and the difference only increased with altitude.
4./JG26_Onebad german engine's were developed for use of fuel they have had, if they would have better fuel they would make design around it, keep in mind that they had access to more or less damaged merlin engine's that were "dropped" or have landed on their land, 2 stage boost means not much if your engine will knock fire
@@Herezjush Even prior to introduction two stage superchargers and 100 grade fuel the DB601 generated less power than Merlin XX series, which is why the Spitfire MkI outperformed the Bf-109E rather significantly during the Battle of Britain. This trend would remain for the majority of the war.
@@heckpupper9532
And why is this? Exactly, because of the fuel but not in the way you would think. The RR Merlin not only had the advantage of higher octane fuel but also the advantage of having enough room in the engine bay to allow an inter cooler for the intake air. The DB 605 lacked both because of the usage of a huge engine in such a miniscule aircraft. But they had to have such a big engine to compensate for the comparatively low engine power, due to low octane fuel. The high octane fuel basically allows the Merlin engine to run with more boost pressure, at higher altitudes, with more ignition timing advancement at higher compression ratio, all these things effectivly increase power and all have been missing on the DB605 because of low grade fuel. The DB605 was probably a more advanced engine than the Merlin, simply from the fact that it had to deal with so many draw backs.
My wife was listening to this as i pointed out some of the design differences to my son who like many is consumed by the idea that the 109 just needed a bit more range to take on, and force the 12 air group into the attrition earlier therefore robbing them of the reserve they had for the big day etc. Seems I should have been a teacher also. great work as always thank you for doing this breakdown, the logic becomes obvious when the right mind expands upon the thing we think we knew. Btw, the Corsair design feature video was your best yet.
Thanks, I agree about the Corsair video. I do think it's the best one so far.
really nice I..interesting details of performance of these great planes.
I will definitely be checking out the other videos; thanks!
Because it was designed as an interceptor. That and providing support to tactical bombers.
Long range escort was not in the original design. Although they should have thought of Russia.
Exactly: It was not in the spec; that is why they did not have the range. :)
When dealing with hurricanes the bf 110s resorted to a "circle the wagons" defense. They were ineffective against hurricanes as well.
I predict a FW-190D Long Nose video will appear. Another great video. Saved to my Wings/Aviation 3 Playlist.
I will have a 190D video. It will be part of my 190 series. So far I am only up to part 2, the D will be part 4 or 5.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Outstanding Sir!. My Vietnam Vet Uncle swore that the Douglas A-1 Skyraider was the finest in the world. Next to the Sikorski HUS. Then of course the F-100 vs. the F-8. Unfortunately the A-6, Ugly, has been largely ignored. I also like "Jack's Chrome Shop" truck company histories. I briefly built Mack R models 84/5.
Great videos 👍 can you make a video about the super Corsair ? (The Major Wasp engine)
Thanks. Great presentation. Sometimes we fail to realize that the time gap between earlier aircraft and the later helped us develop the first air superiority fighters.
Jay, someone mentioned the Fokker d.xxi!!
I wanted to work a Fokker and a Soviet plane in somehow. I hope it didn't seem too forced.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles No, the Fokker was designed around about the time as the original bf-109, so it makes for a good comparison with de B model. Moreover the bf-109 fought the d.xxi and the Yak-1, so the planes are relatable.
I thought I saw the D XXI in the thumbnail. Great!
Great video, I have had to explain it to buddies several time. I will just refer them to this video next time.
I'm a professional technical trainer. Good job! - Both with the content and the delivery.
Thanks for the video. Some points to consider; fuel octane rating (saw your other videos)Germans ran 87 odd Ron and US ran 130-150 Ron- regular versus super so more power in each super litre; material weights used in each plane-did one use more canvas/wood/metal over others? Aerodynamic design factors? Basically it sounds like 109 was originally set up as interceptor and close range attack-making it go to England without adding drop tanks, bigger tanks in fuselage was just asking too much. What a waste of resources and lack of planning by command for those 109s to crash land for lack of fuel reasons.
one of my favorite airplanes from WWII...
As an old fart who worked on aircraft engines, your comments are valid. One point not mentioned was that the 109 (and Spitfire) were basically the first generation front line operational fighter monoplanes. And one prime reason designers and air forces went to the monoplane was speed. They are not as good on takeoff and landing, and did not turn as well as a biplane. But wow, they were a heck of a lot faster. So the designers had speed as one prime design goal. And just like the Spitfire, the wings were designed to be as thin as possible for speed (which was a great achievement for that era). Neither carried fuel in their wings.