The K-4 Isn't Special

[MiloMorai]

If 1.98ata was 'cleared' for K-4s why wasn't it also 'cleared' for the G-14s?

2 hours 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
 

 

Actually there is a conflict with that,

 

I./JG 272913Bf 109 K

III./JG 271915Bf 109 K and some 109 Gs

III./JG 534024Bf 109 K and some 109 Gs

IV./JG 535427Bf 109 K and some 109 Gs

 

It also states 142 on hand, 79 serviceable but no breakdown by K and G. These units had an establishment strength of 272 a/c (29% serviceable rate).

[unreasonable]

16 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

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

 

Could be. Very nice cockpit guide BTW, wish there was a mouse and sign option inside BoS to learn a new aircraft's layout.

[MiloMorai]

"it should be noted these units, in particular III./JG 27, III./JG 53 and IV./JG 53 were the major users of the Bf 109 K-4 in the Lufwaffe."

 

A little fibbing going on there. 

 

Most of these Gruppen were only partially equipped with K-4s and continued to fly numerous G-14s and G-10s as well Only III./JG3, III./JG26 and III./JG77were equipped, at least for a time, solely with the K-4. (Prien/Rodeike)

[Kurfurst]

There appears to be consistent error to identify only the Bf 109K-4 with the 1.98ata rating.

 

In reality, the G-10 (which had the same DB 605DB/DC engine), and the late production G-14/AS (which had the DB 605ASB/ASC engine, which appears to be upgraded A-series engines with some parts from the 605D, with equal ratings of 1850 PS / 2000 PS) also had the same engine ratings, i.e. 1.8 or 1.98ata.

 

 

Messerschmitt Bf109 G-14 / AS W.Nr 78 5762. Obertraubling, winter 1944.

 

Noteworthy are the chin bulges on the lower cowling (ASM powered variants did not have this, this was characteristic of the DB 605D and the - A/D hybrid - DB 605ASB/ASC) and the C-3 fuel triangle, indicative that the particular engine setting on that aircraft is that of a DB 605ASC engine, with ratings of 1.98ata (2000 PS, i.e. same as the 605DC) fitted.

 

2nd TAF report on crash site of enemy aircraft

 

 

Of further interest is Bf 109G-10, Werknummer 610937, originally a Hungarian 109 captured in Austria and now held and restored in Evergreen Museum in the U.S. 

 

 

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/bf109detailbg_1.htm

 

To quote the site:

 

The "Captain Michael King Smith Evergreen Education Centre" in Oregon USA commissioned the restoration of this interesting aircraft. It can be traced as a Bf 109G-14 that was rebuilt as a Bf 109G-10 with the new werknummer 610937. This werknummer is consistent with a Bf 109G-10 equipped with a DB 605DC engine.

 

Italian G-10/U4 - again, marked with C-3, an indicative of having a DB 605DC.

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by VO101Kurfurst

[Talon_]

Look we all know the sticker doesn't mean anything. I'd like to see more from that 2TAF report and try to match it to squadron areas.

 

"A/C apparently on delivery flight" raises eyebrows. This is during a period where 1.98 was known to explode engines after all.

 

EDIT: 1800hp DB605DBs could run on C3 fuel just fine as long as they didn't use MW50 and you know that.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Talon_

[Kurfurst]

21 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

Look we all know the sticker doesn't mean anything.

 

I guess then stuff like 'Allied tanker truck with a big 150 painted on it' or '150 grade fuel delivered to airfield' also doesn't mean anything. 

 

Quote

I'd like to see more from that 2TAF report and try to match it to squadron areas.

 

Me too, let me know if you find something. 

 

Quote

 

"A/C apparently on delivery flight" raises eyebrows. This is during a period where 1.98 was known to explode engines after all.

 

Using 1.98 ata on a delivery flight? It was THAT uncommon huh? 

 

Quote

EDIT: 1800hp DB605DBs could run on C3 fuel just fine as long as they didn't use MW50 and you know that.

 

Originally yes (but what's the point if you can also set it up for 1.98ata) In iirc January the E-stelle Rechlin decided ruled out this (C-3 w/o MW and 1.8ata) option. Apparently, thermal load of the spark plugs would be too high without the MW injections cooling properties.

 

 

BTW another G-14/AS with tell-tale chin bulges and C-3 triangle - Bf 109G-14/AS W.Nr. 782354 of Oblt. Ernst Scheufle, 14./JG4. 

Scheufle was shot down by AA fire and wounded in this aircraft on 3 December 1944, near Grosshau (10 km near Düren) after strafing an Allied army column.

 

Profile artwork by Thierry Dekker

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by VO101Kurfurst

[Mauf]

7 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

BTW another G-14/AS with tell-tale chin bulges and C-3 triangle - Bf 109G-14/AS W.Nr. 782354 of Oblt. Ernst Scheufle, 14./JG4. 

Scheufle was shot down by AA fire and wounded in this aircraft on 3 December 1944, near Grosshau (10 km near Düren) after strafing an Allied army column.

 

Profile artwork by Thierry Dekker

 

 

 

 

 

You have to consider that a painting might not be accurate to the type of aircraft flown on that specific date unless Mr. Dekker drew that image from the real thing. Neither would it show whether it actually used any of the things discussed here in this thread.

[Talon_]

14 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

I guess then stuff like 'Allied tanker truck with a big 150 painted on it' or '150 grade fuel delivered to airfield' also doesn't mean anything. 

 

 

The reason the sticker is meaningless for denoting DC engines is that it does not denote DC engines. It says "C-3" not "DB605DC", and the reason it says this is because the aircraft in the picture is able to fly on C-3 fuel at 1.8ata without MW-50 with its DB605DB engine.

[Kurfurst]

Well the profiles may or may not be accurate. If they are accurate however, they are indications of characteristics that point to the particular aircraft using higher ratings, i.e.

 

Chin bulges on the lower cowling - this was present only on aircraft with uprated DB 605 ASB/ASC engine (same engine, designated differently depending on fuel/boost used)

These engines could operate on either B-4 / 87 octane fuel up to 1.8ata (ASB), or 1.98ata with C-3 fuel (designated as ASC).

This particular aircraft has a C-3 fuel triangle, pointing towards that it uses the latter ASC rating.

 

BTW we also have clear documentation that 70 engines of the G-14/AS aircraft of JG 11 were converted to an intermediate boost of 1.9ata / 1900 PS. Probably they were not the only ones.

[Talon_]

Just now, VO101Kurfurst said:

BTW we also have clear documentation that 70 engines of the G-14/AS aircraft of JG 11 were converted to an intermediate boost of 1.9ata / 1900 PS. Probably they were not the only ones.

 

So post it.

[Kurfurst]

7 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

The reason the sticker is meaningless for denoting DC engines is that it does not denote DC engines. It says "C-3" not "DB605DC",

 

 

 

DB 605DB and DB 605DC are the same engine.

 

7 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

and the reason it says this is because the aircraft in the picture is able to fly on C-3 fuel at 1.8ata without MW-50 with its DB605DB engine.

 

Just like any Spitfire can fly at +18 lbs with 150 grade fuel. So you could say you already have 150 grade in your Spitfire. It just flies at +18 lbs.

 

4 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

So post it.

 

Already did.

Edited September 18, 2018 by VO101Kurfurst

[ZachariasX]

So what we do know is that there was an erroneus directive going out to some sqadrons to convert to 1,98 ata around new year. We also know that DB was furious that this happened and did all it could for recalling that directive.

 

If you organize such a conversion, you also need to not only change the aircraft, but you also need to change supplies, namely fuels. So if those airfields got C3 fuels allocated (there might be 190D's as well that would like that fuel combination), you may as well use it. All you need to do is keep on the restriction to 1.8 ata and simply use C3 fuel. It may be a tad less efficient than B4 but it is workable. You can also use MW50, as it cools the engine and allows longer power runs.

 

That C3 sticker doesn't prove much. Also until at least late March 45, no matter what engine DB put in a 109 couldn't accept 1.98 ata.

[Talon_]

37 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Just like any Spitfire can fly at +18 lbs with 150 grade fuel. So you could say you already have 150 grade in your Spitfire. It just flies at +18 lbs.

 

Of course it can - you just have to push the lever further forward however and then you get +25lbs. There's no restricted combination of fuel and additive to reach that boost pressure unlike MW50 + C-3 that as far as we know was never used operationally.

[Kurfurst]

1 minute ago, Talon_ said:

 

Of course it can - you just have to push the lever further forward however and then you get +25lbs.

 

 

Provided you also have set up the manifold pressure regulator to give +25. As even Marsh admits in his lucid moments, there is a large pool of indirect evidence that this did not happen.  

 

1 minute ago, Talon_ said:

 

 

There's no restricted combination of fuel and additive to reach that boost pressure unlike MW50 + C-3 that as far as we know was never used operationally.

 

Ah, fish memory syndrome again.

 

[Talon_]

Delivery flights are not operational flights. The pilot was likely instructed not to enable the MW50 for the journey - it would come in handy when the aircraft was refuelled with B4 (which had the useful advantage of being available at axis airfields) when it arrived at its destination.

8 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Provided you also have set up the manifold pressure regulator to give +25.

 

Like this yes

 

There is a mountain of evidence that +25lbs Spitfires flew extensively with 2TAF and pretending they didn't won't change history.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Talon_

[Kurfurst]

‘Testing on several a/c’ = extensive operational use ? 

[Talon_]

2 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

‘Testing on several a/c’ = extensive operational use ? 

 

 

10-12 weeks with 160 aircraft... That's a lot of testing ? 

 

Edit: these are just the 100% bulletproof confirmed ones. There's plenty more where a reasonable case can be made.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Talon_

[Kurfurst]

100% bulletproof, be sure.

[Talon_]

22 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

100% bulletproof, be sure.

 

You even provided one of the sources yourself

 

[Kurfurst]

Using 150 grade fuel is not evidence for using +25 lbs boost. You said it yourself. 

[Talon_]

5 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Using 150 grade fuel is not evidence for using +25 lbs boost. You said it yourself. 

 

Why don't you read the line below the one you highlighted?

 

"Additional seven pounds of boost it got them"

 

And no, you don't have to move the throttle past +12lbs of boost on a typical Spitfire sortie at any point because there's no opposition to threaten you.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Talon_

[Kurfurst]

So it was blowing up engines, and the boost that 'tested on several aircraft' was reduced it to +18 lbs on the pilot's demand. It would make sense. 

[Talon_]

7 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

So it was blowing up engines, and the boost that 'tested on several aircraft' was reduced it to +18 lbs on the pilot's demand. It would make sense. 

 

It was blowing up engines if you didn't follow the training or advice dished out in lectures on the 31st January or in this document:

 

 

Boost was reduced and pilots back to 130 octane on the 3rd May 1945, outside the scope of Battle of Bodenplatte

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Talon_

[Kurfurst]

Well they didn't. 

[Talon_]

8 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Well they didn't. 

 

Okay I'll just carry on posting my books and documents and you feel free to post baseless opinion. I think you're the only person left on this forum who doesn't understand the reality of the fuel situations for both 2TAF and the Luftwaffe during our campaign.

 

Check out this map - on it are locations circled with confirmed use of 150 grade in dark and likely use of 150 grade in light southwest of Enschede.

 

Airfields reported with 150 grade fuel: B77, B78, B90, B88 and B82

Airfields on that map that were home to Spitfire IX/XVI squadrons: B77, B78, B90, B88 and B82

Airfields on that map that were not home to Spitfire IX/XVI squadrons: B100, B86, B80, B89, B91

 

Funny how the confirmed reports overlap don't you think?

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Talon_

[Kurfurst]

How about starting your own thread instead of trying to kidnap this with your childish ramblings about Spitfires and 150 grade fuel.

 

This is a thread about the 109K.

[Talon_]

3 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

How about starting your own thread instead of trying to kidnap this with your childish ramblings about Spitfires and 150 grade fuel.

 

This is a thread about the 109K.

 

The very first response to this thread mentions 150 octane fuel - I simply post facts.

[csThor]

Banana Board reloaded. And there I'd hoped I'd never see this kind of hoo-haa ever again. ?

[Mauf]

Just now, csThor said:

Banana Board reloaded. And there I'd hoped I'd never see this kind of hoo-haa ever again. ?

 

Once you accept that it's eternal and never goes away, you live happier:)

[JV69badatflyski]

yeah, the old days of ubizoo ...
when i see kurf and milo in the same discussion i always take the popcorn.
It's like watching the muppetshow...damn i loved that show as kid!

[Mauf]

29 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

 

"Hey, is that a 25 pounds Spitfire flying over there?"

"I don't know, I'm only familiar with 250 pounds Spitfires myself."

"There are 250 pounds Spitfires?"

"Yes, I'm married to one!"

"uh-hehehehehehehe!"

[Kurfurst]

49 minutes ago, csThor said:

Banana Board reloaded. And there I'd hoped I'd never see this kind of hoo-haa ever again. ?

 

Says the guy who argues about TOTALLY WRONG shades of feldgrau and incorrect rivet counts. ?

[MiloMorai]

Yah Bada it is like that show whenever Nazi German revisionism,  ie make believe, is front and foremost.

 

Nothing new has been produced in 2 decades like what stock of C3 and methanol was at the bases the 4 Gruppen were based at from 20.3.45.

 

 

[sevenless]

5 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

There appears to be consistent error to identify only the Bf 109K-4 with the 1.98ata rating.

 

I´m pretty sure they used C3 (there are more than enough pictures of machines with that triangle), but does that necessarily mean they used 1,98ata as well ?

[JV69badatflyski]

1 hour ago, MiloMorai said:

Yah Bada it is like that show whenever Nazi German revisionism,  ie make believe, is front and foremost.

 

Nothing new has been produced in 2 decades like what stock of C3 and methanol was at the bases the 4 Gruppen were based at from 20.3.45.

 

 

ooh come-on milo, don't go that way , you're so close to the ad-hitlerum stuff.
there is no revisionism here, just a search for the missing details. German archives are a mess, most of them are missing (due to different reasons: burned by bombs, burned attentionaly by germans themselves, taken away and rotting somwhere in the states/russia/uk and the few that stayed in germany are spread all over the country. Germans also didin't operate the same way the allies did: they tested in the field: take the IIJG26 it was an operationnal test for the Wurger, the me262 with kommando nowotny: operationnal testing unit, etc...if it worked at the factory, it was send for operationnal testing at squad level.point. that was the german way of testing.
Now, you know the same waht you said can be told about the use of the 25lbs/150oct use(or other overboosting  on any allied planes, especially at war's end) : there are no real proof it was widely used. I know the 150 gave serious technical pb on merlins in the 316sq and several pilots were lost or pow because  of the fuel and the overboosted  engines (Squad leader Arct got PoW becaus e of such engine, he was just cruising when the engine suddenly died. he explain it in his book ...in polish) .
Talon now tries to get some results by digging in books and Raf archives in his free time and it's nice, i appreciate even if in my head, the 25lbs spits on the continent didn't flew a lot, but still curious to see what will give Talon's research and if it's really conclusive and if he used he simple research technique of cross checking and dubble checking, i will as a real luftwhinner switch my mind, there is no shame in this you know...it doesn't hurt ?
What i learned and accpeted getting old is that the history is really written by the winners and they give you their vision and their description of the history and as they hold the key to the truth through their archives , if they don't want you to know, you'll never will (i'm not talking about Ufo's here, just WWII stuff ? )
But history can be rewritten sometimes or rather reverted to what it was, so where there G10/14/44 with 1.98 and where there 25lbs spits????
From what Kurfy posted and what Talon posted, i'll go with a yes for both of them.
Let's the individuals dig and we'll see what comes out...
It's late, gonna sleep ?

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by JV69badatflyski