Messerschmitt BF 109, Why Such Short Range?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- This is an older video I touched up and re uploaded. The question of the 109's range comes up a lot, so I put the answers into a video.
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
gregs-airplane...
My Patreon: / gregsairplanesandautom...
In the video I mention three other videos,
The 109's supercharger drive system: • Messerschmitt BF 109 S...
and an explanation as to why the 109G is so much slower than the P-51D:
• Why was the BF109 so s...
and why the 109K is so dang fast, Water:Methanol Injection!
• Why was the BF109K fas...
Thanks for watching.
Important Note: Nowhere in this video do I say that there is no cooling effect from the evaporation of fuel. People seem to be "reading that in" to what I actually said. The issue I have is that there is NO benefit in terms of performance from the pressure drop at the venturi.
Evaporation of fuel does create a benefit, but that has NOTHING to do with carburetor vs. fuel injection comparisons. Either system can get that benefit and many WW2 aircraft using fuel injection do just that. Only a small amount of the fuel evaporates, and an ideal system would use direct injection at each cylinder and inject a small amount of fuel farther upstream in the intake tract, which is exactly what the Germans did in some cases. This gives the best of both worlds. However even without the vaporization, injection is still superior.
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
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.
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.
"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. :)
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
"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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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..
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.
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!
The Germans put a 109G engine in a captured Spitfire MkV. The result was astounding! This Spitfire outclassed other Spitfire's up to & including the MkIX, all 109's before the G/10 & K, and all of the radial equipped FW190's. Engines matter.
The Me Bf 109 the sexiest fuel injection fighter plane ever.
The Me109 canopy always reminds me of a glass coffin.
11:50 Juan Manuel Fangio with the Mercedes-Benz W196 at French Grand Prix in 1954
1955
Love your videos Greg. They are just so detailed and comprehensive. Thanks for all you do. Phil, Australia.
Wow. Excellent clear concise presentation. Really enjoyed it thanks!
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
Bonjour mon ami Greg félicitations de FRANCE pour ta vidéo 👍🇫🇷
Hello my friend Greg thanks for sharings 👍awesome Messerschmitt 109 💪 I enjoy watching your video 😎congrats buddy good day of France 👍🇫🇷
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
Detailed comparisons well expressed in a natural tone and intelligently delivered.
Greetings from Colorado!Well done, old boy! As usual, yours is a comprehensive, well balanced and insightful perspective. Keep it up, please
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
Greg its because of that 100 -150 Octane Texas Aviation gas that was out of bombing range from the Luftwaffe....hence the importance of the battle of the Atlantic! Oil and Gasoline etc to Britain and the USSR.
The poor old Luftwaffe was making synthetic Gas out of Coal!
Greg what would the performance of a Me 109K9 with 100 Octane gas be like in with it existing technology; and then the same question with but with 150 Octane?
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
Cool videos, but sadly I have no idea about the units when you start talking about gallons and miles since im not from the US. Could you put conversions in the subtitles somehow? Thanks
I usually do that now. When I made this video few people outside the US were on this channel.
That what they say about most early jets, a engine with fuel wrapped around it.
I was thinking. Range is something that never comes up when people talk about the carrier _Graf Zeppelin._ The F4F Wildcat was the albatross around the neck of US carrier air groups in terms of range once the Devastator was retired, and it had way better range than the 109T. The range and loiter time issues alone with the 109 probably doom Graf Zeppelin as a viable carrier in 1940, and that's before all the design shortcomings of the ship.
No replacement for displacement, this is a very old rule for power in performance anything. Never thought to apply it directly to how quickly I want to suck the go-go juice out of my tank.
Great video with explanations simplified just enough for the less educated of your aviation nerd viewers (like myself) to get better educated.
I have a question that you may covered already in another video,
Fuel range in my understanding of it, is the distance to point and back to start with 10-20 percent reserved fuel to loiter at point for a time. Is this the basic definition as you use it?
If so then the 109 had amazing fuel economy, significantly better than most planes of the time it sounds like. Just had the problems of parasitic loss that was high. If you translate range into mpg, the 109 got 9mpg with such a massive engine. I barely get 12mpg in my ford f350 on a very good day, with 1/5 of the engine. And yes I know that the comparisons aren't straight foward like this.
The allies had access to high octane fuel and could run the merlins at much higher compression/manifold boost. This gives more power for same quantity of fuel. P-51 was slippery, wing thickness moved rearward a bit (trade off was less lift per area) and the exhaust system was configured to provide thrust.
far as why the 51 was faster than the 109 id surmise a combination of aerodynamics and the incredibly high manifold pressures that the RR Merlin could handle.
it had 2 superchargers dont forget (im sure you havent), and something like a maximum of 50-60 lbs/sq inch
such a great subject greg ...you wack it out of the park bro thanks
+1 thanks for not wacking it in the park
it must have been maddening for the German pilots who didnt have fuel enough to continue the fight, when ALL they had to do was strap a pair of 80 gallon tanks under each wing.
burn external fuel until combat zone is reached, drop tanks, and use internal tanks when engaging Spits and Hurricanes
Adolf Galland repeatedly petitioned Georing to equip his fighters with drop tanks and many many other German pilots shared the same frustration
speaking as a Canadian im glad they didnt. Speaking as a self styled armchair tactician/strategist...its probably one of the biggest mistakes that was made, that could soooo easily have been fixed
Just a heads up Greg, it is pronounced "KLEE-MOV", not "KIL-MOV". They are still in business making aircraft engines. I do feel a little like I'm correcting the "Professor" here but I thought you'd want to know.
I'm a professional technical trainer. Good job! - Both with the content and the delivery.
Cooling advantages of the venturi in a carburetor? I have watched a carburetor ice up on a 100 degree day. This is why carb heat is a necessity in aircraft. Of course this adds a lowered performance factor that has pilots making sure that, with the exception of unusual situations, carb heat is off for takeoffs and landings due to performance loss when it is employed.
To wit: "I have about 200 flight hours in a fuel-injected C172. I have just jointly bought a C152 with a carburetor and I am getting used to using the carb heat. I am scared whenever I hear stories about engine failures due to carb icing."
This is considered an advantage? It is notable that carburetion was first used in an internal combustion, automobile engine by Karl Benz in his 1886 Patent Motorwagen. So carburetor technology is rather dated technology.
The only real disadvantages of fuel injection are the tolerances and materials required by the design. One simply does not work on a fuel injectors or pumps under a shade tree. Of course high tolerances and expensive maintenance tools lead to higher costs, which is why fuel injection in the automotive industry took so long to catch up to aviation after the war.
The final positive factor for fuel injection is reliability. Like the turbine engine versus the piston engine, fuel injection has a much higher reliability factor than carburetion. This results in less frequent maintenance being required for fuel injection systems. Remember those all too frequent carburetor rebuilds? When was the last time you took your car's fuel injection system in for overhaul?
I haven't looked for a while, but I think that, thanks to advancing technology lowering the costs, increased fuel efficiency and lower maintenance required for injection systems, carburetion has pretty much gone the way of the dodo bird in the automotive industry. At least all the car engine I have looked at over the last few decades have all been fuel injected. In fact the trend towards fuel injection is now seen in the motorcycle industry as well. No doubt rituals like "tickling the carbs" will be greatly missed by motorcycle enthusiasts.
And isn't it comforting to know that when one crashes through a guard rail and plunges inverted into the abyss, the last thing concerning the driver will be the engine cutting out due to negative Gs.
still one of the most underrated channels on UA-cam, thanks for sharing!
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.
the 109 also had the ability to add drop tanks. but the weight would sacrifice the loadout.
Hola Greg I just arrived to your page ...and I'm another fan of IIWW aircrafts...in fact Iḿ waiting for my ICM 1:48 He 111 H6 to come...I can't wait anymore !!! jajaja ;). I do like yourś so I did suscribe...all the best.
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.
Robert Forczyk in his book Case White brings up how the Bf109 was a game changer for Germany
In the 18 months before WW2 started the Luftwaffe went from outdated biplanes to the best fighter in Europe and having lots of Them.
This left both Poland and France (his book Case Red) with outdated fighters at just the moment the war started
Great videos 👍 can you make a video about the super Corsair ? (The Major Wasp engine)
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...
the 109 remained a dangerous foe to the end of the war. That should be enough for anyone.
Yes it did. The 109 was a good design.
@Steve H. ...then teh dumkopfs ran outta fuel - haw haw haw
Be 109 had 300 gallon drop tanks, But didn't have them until right after the BAttle of Britain, where it would have made a difference. Also, different fuel mixture would have helped.
Really good video....great analogies !! Well done sir and thanks !! Laminar flow with the P-51 was the game changer.
One other thing ... This wasnt a big guy airplane! Got stuck in a fighter in Alameda took two jarheads to help me out!! Was 200 lbs then...
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
I read ....about a hundred years ago, when I was a kid (in Wings or Airpower magazine) .....that the large fuel tank under the pilots butt on a Mustang was put in as an after thought, when one of the designers called attention to the large unused open space under the pilot.....
This has to be P1D - awesome video Greg - I actually learned something, appreciate the time & effort you put into this
Is it just me or does the Fokker D-21 look like an AT-6 Texan or what? Well, a cross between a Texan and a P-36 anyway.
Excelente vídeo! Thanks for posting it!
It sure answered my question!
Greetings from Guatemala!
Big engine in a small plane? The Gee Bee R1 would be a better example versus the R2 shown. 1340 versus 985!
Wow a wonderful plane even for being short and this is an amazing video. Excellent job thank you so so mch
Why didn't they just use a Globemaster refueller when
attacking the UK?
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 Allies had higher quality , higher octane fuel to make more power with less displacement.
An other educational video with nice English, thanks
from 1942 till 1944 the 200 german fighters at western front do a very good job they have a very good ratio
Haha love the cobra reference I was waiting for it.
A polite answer to a question that should not needed to have been asked. Germans weren't planning on needing a single engine long range fighter else they would have built one, they certainly could have built one, but maybe they would have had to use Heinkel rather than Messerschmitt. So could have the Brits. They didn't think they needed one either and for a defensive fighter or a tactical fighter which they both were, they were supposed to be close to their area of operations. The 109 should have been replaced by 1943. The Me-309 was larger with built in longer range, but still nowhere near the P-51's, even after 1940 the Germans were no longer planning to fight over Britain anytime soon. The Germans never had a strategic aviation policy...that died with Wever. The Brits also had gotten caught short legged but the US picked them up with the happy marriage of the Merlin to the Mustang and the Americans gave the Brits all the single-engine long range day fighters they needed, around 600 Mustang III's and IV's and the Brit loss rate was low because these aircraft were not used for ground attack. The Germans did not have a range issue, except in 1940, after that it was a performance/production/pilot issue that they never resolved. Note like the Germans the Brits did not have a daylight strategic aviation policy, nor did the Russians. Only the Americans decided they would take the war to the heart of the enemy in daylight.
Yey New video From Greg.
Found your channel a few weeks ago. Love your technical depth and interesting focus points of your videos
The “pundits” (not including this channel) forget the overarching requirement for the entire German military in 1936. To defeat France and avenge the loss in WWI. The 109 was perfect for that. It was cheap, very easy to produce, outclassed almost every design when averaging out the need to produce lots of very capable fighters in a short period of time. Germany, right up until the introduction of the 109 in combat in Spain, saw those two needs as trumping all others. Germany’s failing was.... to not build another capable longer range design in conjunction with the 109. The 110 was supposed to fill the gap, but was a miserable failure during the Battle of Britain. America produced multiple long range fighter designs, both for the navy and Army. Go figure, Different requirements. Britain had two designs, the older, easier to produce, Hurricane, and the Spitfire. Why? They needed lots of fighters, the Hurricane filled the gap and they could make a lot of them. Same rationale for the P-40 fo he Americans.
Germany, by the time they figured out they might need a longer range fighter, was so involved in the problems of over extension they just needed every fighter they could get, and ...... the rest is just history. The 109 was not the problem for Germany. The real problem was they started a war they were ill equipped to win. When they got to the English Channel, they asked each other the famous question, “What now”? Too late at that point.
Thanks for the chat. Underhead cams, lol.
109s only had a 60 gal. Tank behind the pilot... So did the p 51!!!
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.
Greg - check out the i-1 from procharger. It is an infinitely variable and programmable automotive centrifugal supercharger.
I haven't seen it, but I'll check it out at some point.
Another good video that you did. I have a better understanding of this plane's design as compared to its contemporaries. Thank you Greg.
Hey Greg, look at the FW BMW 802. (Newer bigger engine).
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.
Look up the Wiki on Hans-Joachim Marseille. 158 kills using the Me-109E then the Me-109F. A longread and accurate with books I read many years ago. He would dive into the middle of an RAF flight in a Lufbery Circle and shoot them all down.
I am very familiar with him. My co pilot and I were just talking about him a couple days ago.
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.
Cars need the negative G capability if they need to drive in Australia
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.
YOU R GOOD but maybe you forgot to mention the P-51 Mustang had a 4 blade propeller,it should account 4 some advantage,I saw corsairs with 3 blades and some with 4 blades back home when I was a teenager,that was the last combat with corsairs and P-51s Wikipedia,the soccer war
I didn't forget, I just haven't gotten to P-51 aerodynamics or propellers yet. I did cover the soccer war in my Corsair video.
LOVE YOU MAN HOPE YOU HAVE A GREAT WEEK
semi OT question that maybe you already covered. I remember reading that during 1943 and 1944 the Allies fighter escorts were limited by range and they left the bombers with less protection if they went deep in central or east Europe.
Then somewhen someone said "of course we can use drop tanks" (that were already a thing in other theaters). Did really took so long for people to think about drop tanks for bomber escorts or there was a better reason they weren't used earlier?
You may want to watch either my P-47 Part 6 video, or my new video on British stuff. You will find good explanations there.
Thanks Greg. Great to watch these well researched videos with a real voice.
Did any of the old birds used a “blow thru Carburator”? Or where they all “draw thru Carbs” like you speak of? When you add fuel to air I dose dramatically change the flow dynamic through the intake tract. They was the advantage of tuned port injection, because fuel displaced air thus moving the fuel injector closer to the intake valve freed up the volume from the throttle body to the intake port. With Tuned port injection the injector placement is very in-depth. If they ran Water Meth systems or even straight alky. I would think they would want to introduce the methanol in a place take most advantage of the inter-cooling effect via the evaporation of the methanol. I would think in front of the compressor would be best for simplicity and low pressure. But directly after would also work. I grew up around Alcohol funny cars and dragsters, and the coolest thing was to see the ICE covering the injector hat at the end of the run. It was always frozen over while the blower and the rest of the motor where 200-250 degrees. Mechanical injection system are like a On/OFF switch. You can make them idle well and run at WOT well, but every where else it’s hard to regulate fuel pressure and return pressure through all the mid range rpm in a vehicle. I would think plane engines are more constant rpm engine not having much of a power band so to speak. I have worked on mechanical injection my whole life of 40 years. I wish I was as confident with the systems as you are because I blow a lot of stuff up🤣 the worst part is half the time I don’t even know what we did to fix the problem. The systems I work on have to be the craziest complicated mechanical injection systems ever. We run 130 GPM through a barrel valve. We use a slide valve to control the indictment system to half track where the clutch locks up. At that point we send air via a time solenoid to the BDK valve to start the lean out process from half track to the finish line because as the load comes off the motor it can’t burn as much fuel so the lean out is critical for MPH. The return system also goes thru a check valve that keeps fuel pressure up as it’s idling. So that at the “step” aka when you hit the gas the fuel pressure is not sluggish causing a lean spot from the instant boost from the super charger. Very much like a accelerator pump on a carb. Both the fuel supply and fuel return systems have a “flow meter” and transducer on a impeller. We also have a accumulator or 2 that inject Astro Glide over the blower to lube it as we shut the motor off with the fuel. The rule book states we must run a mechanical injection system that is pneumatically controlled VIA electrical solenoids and pneumatic timers. 😳🔫 just thinking about it raises my blood pressure. All racing tech is passed down via aerospace so I watch a lot of aviation stuff to cross pollinate ideas. Because the NHRA the association I race in keeps the cost down by outlawing technology, or so they think🤣 I figure I can even learn from the old war birds. Thanks again for your channel and your time🚀
Most planes used draw though carbs, but blow through was no unheard of. Also, in the automotive world, blow through was quite common. Studebaker used a Carter AFB carb modified for blow through on their supercharged cars.
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 think the claimed advantages of induction cooling effects in carbureted aircraft are based on evaporative cooling of the fuel charge rather than expansion of the air in the venturi. Also, I think Navy experiments on the R2800 showed that imbalances in induction air flow negated any benefit of uniform fuel flow into each cylinder, at least on that engine. I think post-war versions of the 4360 got injection with different fuel flows into each cylinder to somewhat tune out imperfections in induction air distribution, similar to “Gamijectors” on modern fuel injected piston aircraft engines.
No, not because there are no evaporation cooling effects, of course there are! It's because that advantage is not unique to carburetors. There are plenty of fuel injection systems that take advantage of this.
one of my favorite airplanes from WWII...
Although the American aircraft called their fuel system a carburetor, it is a pressure carburetor. This actually very much like throttle body injection. What they call the carburetor is actually just an airflow measuring device that regulates how much fuel is injected through a nozzle below the throttle. Very ingenious mechanical control system. Also I have to say I think that the fuel going from liquid to vapor will cause heat from the supercharger to be absorbed as it heads towards the cylinder’s.
Yes I have many videos in which I make it clear that the U.S. "pressure carburetor" is actually a throttle body fuel injection system.
really nice I..interesting details of performance of these great planes.
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.
uploaded 45 seconds ago...
Nice
Is the 601 port Injected? Sorry? I didn't know.
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.
Germany didn’t have the fuel to put in em at the end of the war anyway did they?
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.
What about octane rates us used 120ish Germany used 85ish that's why Germany had to use such big engines their fuel was crap
Quality of German fuel dropped as the war progressed. Late war fuel wasn't 85
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!