The K-4 Isn't Special

[MiloMorai]

So to get back on track, has anyone found definitive info/proof that 1.98ata was actually used, besides during the operational test phase in late Dec '44-early Jan '45?

[EAF19_Marsh]

Norbert Hannig's highly enjoyable Luftwaffe Fighter Ace used to be free download online somewhere. That is very interesting and mostly positive about his experiences, with a good sense of humour.

[NZTyphoon]

1 hour ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

There is more stuff out there than there has been at any stage. There are autobiographies, in-depth histories, technical analyses. You want something that touches this, read Caldwell, Creek, Bergstrom or a number of other authors. I have loads of books on the Luftwaffe in English and I presume there are 10 times that number in German. Most of these are very balanced and their critiques - including all the evidence and pilot interviews - makes for great and informative reading.

One of the latest additions to my library is Messerschmitt Bf 109: The Complete Monography, followed a few days ago by this.

Continuing with books on the 109, Peter Scmoll has released this one (I already have Schmoll's book on Messerschmitt Production & Testing at Regensburg, which is well worth having). I also have Richard A. Franks' monograph on late series Bf 109s and Jochen Prien's earlier Messerschmitt bf 109F, G & K series.

Edited September 18, 2018 by NZTyphoon
Spelling

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

So to get back on track, has anyone found definitive info/proof that 1.98ata was actually used, besides during the operational test phase in late Dec '44-early Jan '45?

 

It is mentioned at all in any of the Bodenplatte books? I am struggling to think of any comprehensive histories that would cover that period to sufficient depth.

 

Otherwise, nothing that has been presented that goes beyond indicative that it was authorized and some units might have used it. No unit reports, no pilot reports, no user documents that support Kurfurst's find of the order indicating units could use it in March, or the following units given that the release had been rescinded in Jan under threat of 'severe punishment':

 

"After the delays in the matter, it has been laid down, that testing of 1.98ata manifold pressure is foreseen to be proceeded with only with the Gruppe 2/11, otherwise only the already initiated tests in process with 1.9ata manifold pressure are to be completed, until the the said engines fail. The replacements for these engines should be with the 1.8ata setup only. Not following this order will result in severe punishment. Permission for adjusting for 1.98ata can only be given in cooperation with Department VI. of the General Staff.
 

But for March we have:

 

OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45

No. Unit Present type Convert to Notes
10. I. / JG 27 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
12. III. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10 no change boost incease to 1.98 ata
19. III. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
20. IV. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
 

So initial operation maybe Dec or Jan, stopped for best part of 2 monhts and then allowed again for whatever was serviceable of 4 Gruppe (47% from the 1.1.45 table posted above). But allowed and operated are not the same thing, so given issues with fuel, spares (spark plugs) and support personnel there may have been some use of it, but crucially there is nothing from a user saying: 'Thanks, really appreciate the extra power'.

 

Lot of 'might have', but nothing apparently conclusive on which a serious that a historian would want to stake their reputation.

[Talon_]

For what it's worth, I have 13 individual sources from ORBs and pilot diaries etc for +25lbs boost in Spitfire IXs, of which there were around 23-26 total squadrons depending on the month. Please note this is ignoring accounts from Typhoon and Spitfire XIV pilots.

 

This comment is not about +25lbs boost Spitfires, but is about prevalence - considering we have slightly over 50% "source-to-squadron ratio" for Spits, I don't think it's too much to ask for one or two pilot accounts of 1.98ata from Luftwaffe 109 pilots. I'm sure the diaries and records must exist if such ata was used.

[unreasonable]

7 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

I'm sure the diaries and records must exist if such ata was used.

 

I wonder about that. By the end of the war all uniformed personnel were POWs and would have had documents confiscated for Intelligence assessment.  Units would (or should) have destroyed their records, and vast areas of German cities were rubble.   The German pilot memoirs I have read (in English translations) are all remarkably free from technical detail: even if they were in there to start with the publishers would probably have cut them out for being boring.

 

Allied collection teams were interested in the most cutting edge stuff and may not have been too bothered, but if there are any more original documents of the kind you describe I would not be surprised if they are buried in an archive somewhere in the UK or US.

 

 

[Talon_]

For what it's worth some of the other locations you might find this stuff is in pilot combat reports - there are a few from RAF squadrons that specifically mention "I got on his six and put the boost up to 25 pounds" or "I opened up to 70 inches".

Edited September 18, 2018 by Talon_

[MiloMorai]

Nothing in the Bodenplatte book Marsh. Also nothing why only 4 of the 11 K-4s on hand flew in Bodenplatte.

[Kurfurst]

43 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

I don't think it's too much to ask for one or two pilot accounts of 1.98ata from Luftwaffe 109 pilots. I'm sure the diaries and records must exist if such ata was used.

 

Perhaps Milo can answer your question, since he has already seen such account, but choosed to be silent about them.

[NZTyphoon]

51 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45

No. Unit Present type Convert to Notes
10. I. / JG 27 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
12. III. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10 no change boost incease to 1.98 ata
19. III. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
20. IV. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
 

So initial operation maybe Dec or Jan, stopped for best part of 2 monhts and then allowed again for whatever was serviceable of 4 Gruppe (47% from the 1.1.45 table posted above). But allowed and operated are not the same thing, so given issues with fuel, spares (spark plugs) and support personnel there may have been some use of it, but crucially there is nothing from a user saying: 'Thanks, really appreciate the extra power'.

 

Lot of 'might have', but nothing apparently conclusive on which a serious that a historian would want to stake their reputation.

There is a single paragraph In Dietmer Hartmann and Herbert Ringlstetter's Messerschmitt Bf 109: Vom prototyp bis zur Bf 109 K, which reads:

 

Quote

Alles, was man zur Steigerung der Leistungsfähigkeit bei der bf 109 unternommen hatte, war erfolgreich - bis auf die extreme Ladedruckerhöhung von 1,98 ata. Aber seblst das schien man noch kurz vor Kriegsende in den Griff bekommen zu haben, denn in der Rückständentwicklung der Luftwaffenverbände mit Stand vom 20 März 1945 wurde der Übergang auf die Ladedruckerhöhung für weitere Jägergruppen festgelegt. Ein Weg, den die Verantwortlichen damals sicherlich auch früher hätten beschreiten können.

 

A translation reads:

 

Quote

All that had been done to improve the performance of the bf 109 was successful-with the exception of the extreme boost pressure increase of 1.98 ata. However, this seemed to have been dealt with shortly before the end of the war, because in the (development of the Air Force associations) with the status of March 20, 1945, the transition to the boost pressure increase was fixed for further hunter groups. A path that those responsible could surely have taken earlier.

 

for "the development of the Air Force associations" read OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45.

 

Again, nothing conclusive: Hermann & Ringlstetter don't even mention the select Gruppen of JG 27 or Jg 53 that were supposed to start using 1.98 ata. Incidentally, AFAIK, a transcript of OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45. has only once appeared in an older publication by Zobel & Mathmann - yet none of the more recent books have provided a transcription, let alone shown a copy of the original document.

Edited September 18, 2018 by NZTyphoon

[Talon_]

 

Not a Spitfire, but the same engine in a Mustang III:

 

[MiloMorai]

8 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Perhaps Milo can answer your question, since he has already seen such account, but choosed to be silent about them.

 

I have? Perhaps you can give me a hint or 2 where I supposedly saw this account.

 

If I have found such an account why haven't you?

[Kurfurst]

The first reference is for +25 lbs operational trials made early mid 1944 by UK-based test units no 1 and No 165 Squdrons, the only ones testing +25 in 1944 before reverting to +18 in September 1944. The second is one of the handful of RAF Mustang III Squadrons, also operating from the UK and has no relevance to to Bodenplatte.

 

Thus so far no evidence of +25 lbs use in combat by Spitfire IX or XVI Squadrons in the Bodenplatte area/scenario.

 

Do you still maintain this boost was used in combat? There are no pilot reports, remember.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

 

Have you seen any German pilot account stating "I used 1,30 ata" ?

Have you seen any German pilot account stating "I used 1,42 ata" ?

Have you seen any German pilot account stating "I used 1,70 ata" ? 

Have you seen any German pilot account stating "I used 1,80 ata" ?

 

 

I'm pretty sure - I know that is vague - that one of the German bios does speak about the RPM and boost levels for his aircraft, though this kind of specific data does not tend to make it into stories. Knocke talks about armaments and I recall his concern over the G-2 when it was first introduced, maybe it was he? Or Hannig...?

 

But since you have the tech. documents that confirm these settings, the pilots recollections would be nice but are not necessarily vital.

[Kurfurst]

2 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

 

I have? Perhaps you can give me a hint or 2 where I supposedly saw this account.

 

If I have found such an account why haven't you?

 

Tell us Milo, have you seen accounts of pilots referring to using 2000 HP DB 605Ds in the spring of 1945.

 

Tell us Milo, have you seen documentary evidence of 1900 HP G-14s (1,9 ata) operating in the Bodenplatte area in late 1944.

 

Yes or No. 

[MiloMorai]

NO !!!

[Kurfurst]

1 minute ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

I'm pretty sure - I know that is vague - that one of the German bios does speak about the RPM and boost levels for his aircraft, though this kind of specific data does not tend to make it into stories. Knocke talks about armaments and I recall his concern over the G-2 when it was first introduced, maybe it was he? Or Hannig...?

 

Well I haven't seen any. Not a single time. Knoke IIRC briefly mentions that the new 109Gs in his unit have some engine failures and that is it. 

 

The reason is simple - boost and RPM was of no concern for German fighter pilots, who were used to fully automatic engine controls. They did not have to memorize, or set the throttle to paired manifold pressures and corresponding RPMs with separate throttle and RPM levers, and could not ruin the engine if they failed to adhere these limits (i.e. like a Spit pilot using some weird combo like 1500 RPM with +18 or +25 boost - causing too much stress). On the 109 and 190, you either used the "30 min" or "emergency" etc throttle lever position, as it had a mechanical setup that gave the correct boost combination - it was ground mechanics job to set the corresponding RPMs and MAP correctly. 

 

Probably that is why they never seem to bother mentioning atas and U/mins.

 

1 minute ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

But since you have the tech. documents that confirm these settings, the pilots recollections would be nice but are not necessarily vital.

 

Well then there is no trouble then, eh, since we have the tech documents for confirming the use of 1,8ata and 1,98ata settings since December 1944, right?

[MiloMorai]

8 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Thus so far no evidence of +25 lbs use in combat by Spitfire IX or XVI Squadrons in the Bodenplatte area/scenario.

 

Are you not the one who posted about a Spitfire IX squadron reverting to 130 fuel from 150 fuel.

[Talon_]

8 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Do you still maintain this boost was used in combat? There are no pilot reports, remember.

 

 

Any e/a claim by a Spitfire from the first six rows of this table in a week labeled "confirmed" is a Spitfire that we know to have been flying 150 octane fuel at the time (therefore in combat). The lower two rows shared an airfield and therefore fuel stocks with confirmed squadrons.

[unreasonable]

9 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

For what it's worth some of the other locations you might find this stuff is in pilot combat reports - there are a few from RAF squadrons that specifically mention "I got on his six and put the boost up to 25 pounds" or "I opened up to 70 inches".

 

Possibly, but how many original German pilot combat reports still exist?  Genuine question BTW: I just do not know.  Reading Prien's books it is striking how partial the records are: especially late in the war. 

With the most charitable interpretation of use of 1.98 (Kurfurst's) we are looking at a very few units using the setting for two periods of a month or so each, the last period in particular being one of mounting chaos.  Out of a very limited sample of surviving accounts for the whole GAF you are looking for a mention of one specific technical detail from a small sub-sample of pilots.   Even if 1.98 were used operationally, it would be something of a fluke if there was a surviving pilot mention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Talon_]

1 minute ago, MiloMorai said:

 

Are you not the one who posted about a Spitfire IX squadron reverting to 130 fuel from 150 fuel.

 

Yes, thanks to Kurfurst's previous posts we have the confirmation that I needed to include 412 sqn in part of my spreadsheet (until he posted this it was the only 126 Wing squadron I had no fuel reports from)

 

[Kurfurst]

2 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

NO !!!

 

And have you not started a discussion on the very subject on 25th April 2018, under one of your alternate handles "Kutscha", in which you were told the following by the researcher Charles Bavarois.

 

Hello Kutscha,

in a Daimler-Benz document dated 10th Oct. 1944, filed after a meeting at the “Entwicklungskommission Flugzeuge und Flugmotoren” on 3rd and 4th of October they remarked:

“Es wird beschlossen, dass die Umstellung der zurzeit in Wunstorf befindlichen 70 Motoren DB 605 ASM durchgeführt wird, wobei der bei diesen Motoren mögliche maximale Ladedruck von ca. 1,9 eingestellt wird, der dann ca. 1900 PS Leistung ergibt“. Roughly translated like „We decide, that the changes (for higher boost) will be done with the 70 engines DB 605 ASM, currently at Wunstorf. The boost for this engines is to be set at around 1.9 ata maximum, which will make around 1.900 PS output.”

I think, this makes it quite clear, that the testing of higher boost on unit-level was with Bf 109 G-14 AS and not on K-4s. BTW: II./JG 11 got its K-4 only after 20th Dec. 1944, having mainly G-14 AS and 2 G-6 in early December.

Testing at the manufacturer continued of course: Daimler-Benz weekly report dated 28. Nov. 1944 lists a Bf 109 K-4 WNr. 330.103 with DB 605 D and a Bf 109 G-10, WNr. 490.128 with DB 605 D on
tests with MW 50 and 1.98 ata Aufladung.

 

And also confronted with the following pilot account by my humble self.

 

Regarding use of higher boost on the Eastern front, from the memoires of Lt. TOBAK Tibor of 101. Fighter Regiment of the RHAF (stationed at Veszprém airfield at the time), reflecting on the period between 26th February - 21st March 1945.

[...]Aztán félórás beszélgetés során sok mindent megtudtam. A lényeg: amolyan vihar előtti csend van. Új gépeket kapott az ezred, a G-10-esek beceneve „Kövér Messzer", mert nagyobb a kompresszoruk meg a motordekli, vagyis a motorháztető. A légcsavarlapátok is szélesebbek, nagyobb az oldalkormány is. A motor maximális teljesítménye 8000 méteren 2000 LE, de a fiúk szerint 6000-ig jobb lenne egy Fritz — az „F" jelű sorozatból — vagy a Győrben gyártott G—6-osok.

"Then in half an hour chat, I have learned a lot. The main point is, there is a kind of silence before the storm. The Regiment has received new machines. the G-10s are nicknamed "Fat Messer," due to their bigger compressor and a bonnet. The propeller blades are also wider, and the rudder is larger too. The engine's maximum output is 2000 horsepower at 8000 meters, but the boys say a 'Fritz' - from the "F" series - or for the G-6s manufactured in Győr would be better up 6000."

Via TOBAK Tibor's 'Pumák földön-égen' - Pumas on the ground and in the sky, pp. 217.

 

 

[Talon_]

7 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

They did not have to memorize, or set the throttle to paired manifold pressures and corresponding RPMs with separate throttle and RPM levers, and could not ruin the engine if they failed to adhere these limits (i.e. like a Spit pilot using some weird combo like 1500 RPM with +18 or +25 boost - causing too much stress). On the 109 and 190, you either used the "30 min" or "emergency" etc throttle lever position, as it had a mechanical setup that gave the correct boost combination - it was ground mechanics job to set the corresponding RPMs and MAP correctly. 

 

Probably that is why they never seem to bother mentioning atas and U/mins.

 

As seen in the Spitfire IX pilot's notes, this is no longer a concern by the time of our campaign:

 

(Early aircraft M63/M63a, Late aircraft M66/M266/M70)

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Talon_

[unreasonable]

Which is also the case for the Mk XIV, BTW.  Not sure why this feature was not added to the Mk IX in BoBP.

[Kurfurst]

3 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

As seen in the Spitfire IX pilot's notes, this is no longer a concern by the time of our campaign:

 

 

What is the date of the manual? Is it a post war one from 1946?

 

How many Spitfires were there in late 44 / early with interconnected controls.

 

Do you have pilot accounts.

[Talon_]

9 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

The reason is simple - boost and RPM was of no concern for German fighter pilots, who were used to fully automatic engine controls.

 

Here is a Dora pilot "confirming" this theory:

 

 

 

 

[Kurfurst]

1 minute ago, unreasonable said:

Which is also the case for the Mk XIV, BTW.  Not sure why this feature was not added to the Mk IX in BoBP.

 

I think the reason is because it was in no way standard. I am not even sure if it was even fitted to wartime aircraft.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

Well then there is no trouble then, eh, since we have the tech documents for confirming the use of 1,8ata and 1,98ata settings since December 1944, right?

 

No, you do not and I suspect that you are fully aware of this. You have:

- Release for testing - maybe December

- Feedback from Rechlin indicating issues - January with the conclusion: " only the already initiated tests in process with 1.9ata manifold pressure are to be completed, until the the said engines fail. The replacements for these engines should be with the 1.8ata setup only. Not following this order will result in severe punishment. Permission for adjusting for 1.98ata can only be given in cooperation with Department VI. of the General Staff."

- A document you showed - the name of which I forget - which indicates some time in March that 1.98 was re-orthorised

- The list of Gruppe from 20th March indicating 4 of the around 30 listed are to use this setting

 

What you do not have - or have not yet produced -  is:

- Any Gruppe level document confirming use of this setting (see Talon's RAF sources for the Spit by comparison)

- Any unit feedback indicating it was used in combat (see Talon's squadon not books by comparison)

- Any pilot observation on the new settings being used (I agree, bit difficult to come by)

 

As to your post above:

 

Quote

Testing at the manufacturer continued of course: Daimler-Benz weekly report dated 28. Nov. 1944 lists a Bf 109 K-4 WNr. 330.103 with DB 605 D and a Bf 109 G-10, WNr. 490.128 with DB 605 D on
tests with MW 50 and 1.98 ata Aufladung.

 

'testing continues' is not exactly combat use, is it

 

Quote

The engine's maximum output is 2000 horsepower at 8000 meters,

 

Pretty vague - one throw-away remark from a Hungarian pilot. Reminds me of CLosterman's statements about aircrfat technical elements, which are generally wrong.

 

So, I'm afraid, you so not have tech documents that demonstrate it was used nor any other strong evidence, only that it was an objective, that it was tried and by March it had been cleared. But by 20th March there was not much left on which to test it, so it remains an unproven point with a lot of circumstantial evidence against it. Bob Ockham probably not on your side over this.

 

 

[Talon_]

27 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

I think the reason is because it was in no way standard. I am not even sure if it was even fitted to wartime aircraft.

 

 

Spitfire XVI TB863 delivered 453 squadron 2TAF 20th Feb 1945

 

 

Spitfire XVI TB675 delivered 25th Feb 45 - notice the new throttle quadrant.

 

 

TD series Spit, March 45:

 

 

EDIT: Interconnection device in drawings, 1943 - 32938/61

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Talon_

[MiloMorai]

!.90ata on a DB605ASM is not 1.98ata on a DB606D.

 

Pilots will believe anything to help their confidence. No one is not saying that 1.98ata gave 2000hp. Whether your hero actually had flown the a/c at such a boost level is another question.

[Kurfurst]

41 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

No, you do not and I suspect that you are fully aware of this. You have:

- Release for testing - maybe December

 

No, release of manuals and instructions to the operational units who had also set the engines to DB and DC config during December. Its a documented fact.

 

 

Quote

- Feedback from Rechlin indicating issues - January with the conclusion: " only the already initiated tests in process with 1.9ata manifold pressure are to be completed, until the the said engines fail. The replacements for these engines should be with the 1.8ata setup only. Not following this order will result in severe punishment. Permission for adjusting for 1.98ata can only be given in cooperation with Department VI. of the General Staff."

 

In fact conflicting test results from DB (positive testing results) and Rechlin (negative results on 4 engines, delivered from Henschel sublicence plant in Genshagen, who were known to have faced productions issues themselves and had a batch of faulty engines). Rechlin wants to recall both ratings. Due to conflicting nature of the test reports, after discussing on 10th January they decide to postpone decision to 20th January. The culprit is on malfunctioning spark plugs caused pre-ignition. On 20th January after a much heated discussing between representatives of DB and Rechlin, and complaints that Rechlin should have given approval, they decide to obtain more test results at an operational unit, II./JG 11.

 

February 1945 Messerschmitt resting report states that improved spark plug cooling is now serialized on aircraft. 

 

II/JG 11 performs 1.98ata operational trials at the frontlines with G-10, G-14/AS and K-4 aircraft, reports 'nichts besonderes' in February.

 

In 1st March, 1945, DB issues an updated maintainance instruction for the DB 605, noting that no changes are necessary for the 1.98ata / DC config.

 

Three days later the Head of Lutftwaffe Technical Office notes in his war diary that the DB 605D issue have been fixed.

 

 

20th March 1945 Lw Operational staff issues order to 4 Western 109 Gruppen to increase boost to 1.98ata.

 

 

 

 

Increasing boost to 1.98ata is a simple matter on the DB 605D, requiring only changes to

 

1. Supercharger control (2nd gear engages at 600 m)

2. Manifold pressure (to 1.98ata obviously)

3. Fuel injection rate (to 645 cmm / hour)

 

Quote

- A document you showed - the name of which I forget - which indicates some time in March that 1.98 was re-orthorised

- The list of Gruppe from 20th March indicating 4 of the around 30 listed are to use this setting

 

What you do not have - or have not yet produced -  is:

- Any Gruppe level document confirming use of this setting (see Talon's RAF sources for the Spit by comparison)

 

We have Gruppe level records of II/JG 11 confirming the use of the setting and that it had no trouble with it. 

 

Talon have not produced any RAF sources of using this setting. He presented an Excel table, in which he himself has 'confirmed' what he wished to be true. He asked for pilot accounts - when it turned out he couldn't produce any at all for his own cause, he starting posted his own excel tables. Suddenly he decided that pilot reports are not needed LOL.

 Double standards as always.

 

Quote

- Any unit feedback indicating it was used in combat (see Talon's squadon not books by comparison)

- Any pilot observation on the new settings being used (I agree, bit difficult to come by)

 

As to your post above:

 

 

We have Gruppe level records of II/JG 11 confirming the use of the 1.98ata setting and that it had no trouble with it. 

 

Quote

'testing continues' is not exactly combat use, is it

 

Testing at the manufacturer. Combat use with combat units.

 

II. / JG 11 is also a combat unit BTW.

 

Quote

 

 

Pretty vague - one throw-away remark from a Hungarian pilot. Reminds me of CLosterman's statements about aircrfat technical elements, which are generally wrong.

 

The more evidence, the more you need to bury your head in the sand, we get it.

 

A Hungarian pilot, receiving a new aircraft and noting that it has a high altitude engine with 2000 HP (i.e. the 1.98 ata rating), just about the same time the Luftwaffe HQ clears it, and there is an odd coincidence that his units aircraft are photographed with C3 fuel makrings on the fuselage - what a coincidence that 1.98 ata was also prescribed to be used in conjunction with C-3. 

 

Then another coincidence - the C/O of one of the III/JG 53 Squadrons, which were ordered to increase boost to 1.98ata (requires C-3 fuel) gets photographed in his K-4 with a C-3 triangle...

 

 

The 2nd TAF finds C-3 ('100 octane') fuel in the tanks of G-10s...

 

 

Quote

So, I'm afraid, you so not have tech documents that demonstrate it was used nor any other strong evidence, only that it was an objective, that it was tried and by March it had been cleared. But by 20th March there was not much left on which to test it,

 

 

 

Well I guess then that the DB 605D Motorenkarte from 1st December 1944 is not a 'tech document'. They just randomly draw it up. Right.

 

I guess when DB memos from late December / early January say that the the frontline units are using the 605 DB (1.8) and DC (1.98ata) setting is just some weird mistake in the books. 

 

I guess when the records mention that the 'clearance was given to the troops and and they have set up the engines to these settings', in a conference that appears to indicate an all-out shouting fest between representatives of E Stelle Rechlin and Daimler Benz on 20th January 1945, is just another off hand comment.

 

Quote

so it remains an unproven point with a lot of circumstantial evidence against it. Bob Ockham probably not on your side over this.

 

 

'Lot of circumstancial evidence' - LOL. That would be nada, zilch, nil to be precise.

Edited September 18, 2018 by VO101Kurfurst

[Talon_]

Regarding the Spitfire interconnected throttle control, I found a Spitfire 360 degree cockpit image of a March 1945 model with the auto-RPM stop on the quadrant: 

 

https://www.haraldjoergens.com/panoramas/spitfire-td314/files/

[Kurfurst]

54 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Tell us Milo, have you seen documentary evidence of 1900 HP G-14s (1,9 ata) operating in the Bodenplatte area in late 1944.

 

Yes or No. 

 

49 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

NO !!!

 

42 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

And have you not started a discussion on the very subject on 25th April 2018, under one of your alternate handles "Kutscha", in which you were told the following by the researcher Charles Bavarois.

 

Hello Kutscha,

in a Daimler-Benz document dated 10th Oct. 1944, filed after a meeting at the “Entwicklungskommission Flugzeuge und Flugmotoren” on 3rd and 4th of October they remarked:

“Es wird beschlossen, dass die Umstellung der zurzeit in Wunstorf befindlichen 70 Motoren DB 605 ASM durchgeführt wird, wobei der bei diesen Motoren mögliche maximale Ladedruck von ca. 1,9 eingestellt wird, der dann ca. 1900 PS Leistung ergibt“. Roughly translated like „We decide, that the changes (for higher boost) will be done with the 70 engines DB 605 ASM, currently at Wunstorf. The boost for this engines is to be set at around 1.9 ata maximum, which will make around 1.900 PS output.”

 

20 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

!.90ata on a DB605ASM is not 1.98ata on a DB606D.

 

 

Quite clear, isn't it. 

4 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

Regarding the Spitfire interconnected throttle control, I found a Spitfire 360 degree cockpit image of a March 1945 model with the auto-RPM stop on the quadrant: 

 

https://www.haraldjoergens.com/panoramas/spitfire-td314/files/

 

That's a nice find Talon. 

 

So we know there at least one of them.

 

Was it 4000+ IX LFs they have built?

[Talon_]

2 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

That's a nice find Talon. 

 

So we know there at least one of them.

 

Was it 4000+ IX LFs they have built?

 

Considering it was a mod dated back to Summer 1943 as on the drawing above it was a damn sight more than K-4s ever saw 1.98 ata.

 

 

[Guest deleted@50488]

Sorry to break this interesting sequence with a kind of diverting / OT point, but, for me this K-4 will be "That Special" in giving me the sense of what I believe should be the harmony of control provided by such an advanced version of the 109 series, as opposed to my experience with another sim, which revealled strange behaviour, and flight characteristics which I'd rather not encounter IRL if I was a 109 K-4 pilot ...

 

Really looking fwd to find out how 1C/ 777 modeled this 109 !

Edited September 18, 2018 by Von-Target

[unreasonable]

6 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

I think the reason is because it was in no way standard. I am not even sure if it was even fitted to wartime aircraft.

 

It would have become standard at some point - question is when was that. The manuals are post war.

 

37 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

 

Spitfire XVI TB863 delivered 453 squadron 2TAF 20th Feb 1945

 

 

 

Need some help interpreting that: what is it about the controls that enable you to tell that the throttle and prop can be interconnected?   

[Kurfurst]

5 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Considering it was a mod dated back to Summer 1943 as on the drawing above it was a damn sight more than K-4s ever saw 1.98 ata.

 

 

 

Well, that drawing of a mod didn't make it into Il-2 I am afraid.

[Talon_]

2 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

It would have become standard at some point - question is when was that. The manuals are post war.

 

 

Need some help interpreting that: what is it about the controls that enable you to tell that the throttle and prop can be interconnected?   

 

Plate for restricting "AIRSCREW CONTROL" visible as seen here: https://www.haraldjoergens.com/panoramas/spitfire-td314/files/

 

The throttle and prop is always interconnected until the AIRSCREW CONTROL lever is uncaged and moved to the full-forward 3000rpm position. It was used this way for takeoff:

 

 

 

1 minute ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Well, that drawing of a mod didn't make it into Il-2 I am afraid.

 

Sadly not - I guess we can put it next to 1.98 ata.

[unreasonable]

15 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

Regarding the Spitfire interconnected throttle control, I found a Spitfire 360 degree cockpit image of a March 1945 model with the auto-RPM stop on the quadrant: 

 

https://www.haraldjoergens.com/panoramas/spitfire-td314/files/

 

That picture also has a placard for the airscrew control saying "positive coarse pitch lever fully back" - so not an auto-control setting?

[Talon_]

2 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

That picture also has a placard for the airscrew control saying "positive coarse pitch lever fully back" - so not an auto-control setting?

 

More likely that it is disconnected since modern Spitfires on 100LL rarely go above +7lbs of boost