Thoughts on the K-4 Manouverability

[Aurora_Stealth]

45 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

P-51s did just fine on improvised airfields in Korea. Also they had an additional advantage which range gives a CAS plane: loiter time. If you are operating any kind of "cab-rank" CAS system, this becomes hugely important.

 

It also cost 50,000 USD per unit in WW2 compared to 80,000 USD for a P-47. 

 

I also am not sure where this P-51 radiator installation was more vulnerable to ground fire suggestion comes from. All water cooled engines had this problem in general, and I am not sure why the configuration of the P-51s is worse than one which smears the radiators out all over the wing surface.

 

Well if you say so - "fine" is not a comparable term. I don't think they operated many P-51's from frontline airfields outside stalingrad or in dust storms in north africa to be fair.

 

It comes from P-51's being mission killed or having to force land with very small amounts of debris ingested and single low calibre bullets being caught in the radiator. And because there is only one radiator and it being an enormous, open and really easy to hit target from both directly behind and below this is an issue that came up - especially when trying to conduct ground attack missions over europe.

 

38 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

Flying from Iwo jima to Tokyo with an hour or two loitering and back were some of P-51's most impressive exploits, and destroying more than 1000 enemy aircraft during those missions. 

 

Sometimes range is a weapon 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

I agree - it is, and used to deadly effect too. But I'm not sure that qualifies as being a "multi-role" aircraft as some people are claiming, multi-role is often something described to aircraft like the Mosquito or Ju88 etc. Multi-role implies great suitability and flexibility to different roles and is effective at them. Taking heavy losses because of unsuitability in a different role suggests the opposite. Range itself is only one part of it, although it does suggest flexibility as a long range fighter.. sure.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Aurora_Stealth

[JtD]

59 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

The German Fuel was equal 100-30 IF and only IF you ran it in a Direct Injection Engine at the insanely rich Mixtures that you simply couldn't get out of the TBI the Allied Engines ran. In an American Engine the C3 was 93 Octane but because it was Part Synthetic, you could run it richer because the fouling would burn off easier in normal running again, unlike Mineral.

 

93 or whatever is not the relevant rating at high power.

 

How come the Merlin 66 for instance consumes about as much fuel as the BMW801 while producing less power and sucking through significantly less air, if, as you claim, the German engines ran a richer mixture?

 

Actually, it doesn't they are very similar overall both in air and fuel consumption, which still begs the question how this is possible if the German enginessupposedly ran a much richer mixture?

 

In case of the DB605, it's leaner, fwiw.

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by JtD
Obvious reasons.

[Bremspropeller]

22 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

For all practical purposes, they pretty much had the same range where it mattered (i.e. carrying bombs or when carrying droptanks).

 

Unless you're considering one carrying twice the payload a slightly shorter distance.

 

And unless that means carrying two 300l droptanks and a 500kg bomb, which the 109 can't - neither in that configuration (overloading the landing-gear), nor in general, as the tailweel was too shor to carry a 500kg bomb. The latter was only changed with the G-10.

 

 

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

I don't think they operated many P-51's from frontline airfields outside stalingrad or in dust storms in north africa to be fair.

 

What exactly makes the 109's cooler less susceptible to damage in a dust-storm than a P-51's?

 

18 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

But I'm not sure that qualifies as being a "multi-role" aircraft as some people are claiming, multi-role is often something described to aircraft like the Mosquito or Ju88 etc. Multi-role implies great suitability and flexibility to different roles and is effective at them. Taking heavy losses because of unsuitability in a different role suggests the opposite. Range itself is only one part of it, although it does suggest flexibility as a long range fighter.. sure.

 

And that claim is made due to some arbitrary definition somebody just made up.

The Ju 88 and Mosquito are about as "multirole" as a P-51. They can lift more stuff, but they lack in the A-A department.

 

Mustangs also flew Recce.

They didn't much fight at night, but that was a sizing-issue. Had the USAAF had access to the Navy radars (and wanted to install them), they probably could have installed a radar on a P-51. The F-82 did get away with it, but then again it's literally twice as large.

 

"Multirole" in the age before miniturized electronics isn't.

[unreasonable]

On 5/20/2021 at 7:49 PM, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

Well if you say so - "fine" is not a comparable term. I don't think they operated many P-51's from frontline airfields outside stalingrad or in dust storms in north africa to be fair.

 

It comes from P-51's being mission killed or having to force land with small amounts of debris and single bullets being caught in the radiator. And because there is only one radiator and it being an enormous and really easy to hit target from both directly behind and below this is an issue that came up - especially when trying to conduct ground attack missions over europe.

 

I agree - it is, and used to deadly effect too. But I'm not sure that qualifies as being a "multi-role" aircraft as some people are claiming, multi-role is often something described to aircraft like the Mosquito or Ju88 etc. Multi-role implies great suitability and flexibility to different roles and is effective at them. Taking heavy losses because of unsuitability in a different role suggests the opposite. Range itself is only one part of it, although it does suggest flexibility as a long range fighter.. sure.

 

But that is not a fair comparison - to be fair. P-51s were most used in WW2 in the theatres where their range was most useful, including N.Africa and Italy.  Being able to take off from the raw steppe is not a significant advantage for an air force that does not need to do that.  

 

P-51s carried out tactical and long range recce, ground attack (mostly RAF Allison versions, plus CAS in Korea), interception of Fw190 hit and runs, V1 interception, as well as long range escort.  I cannot think of another plane that actually did all of these tasks.  Either they were not fast enough, or they had inadequate range. About the only thing it never did was intercept mass bomber formations, AFAIK, for obvious reasons.

 

My point about the radiators is that it is so far completely unproven that P-51s are more vulnerable than any other water cooled fighters when exposed to ground fire. We all know radials had an advantage here. The P-51 requires about the same actual radiator area as a Spitfire, oddly enough. Most of that big bulge you are looking at is just an empty tube. I would be surprised if the actual vulnerable target area was much different than that of a Spitfire. 

 

 Every type of aircraft that carried out CAS or low level attack on defended areas took heavy losses in WW2. That was a given, nothing to do with unsuitability, and the brass did not care anyway, as long as morale was OK and there were replacements coming.  

 

Personally I think it is an ugly design - straight lines or curves, please make up your mind - but IMHO was the best all round single seater of WW2. (I'll leave you all to it).

Edited June 6, 2021 by unreasonable

[JV69badatflyski]

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

The 190 had potential for more fuel-volume. It started with the 115l Reichweitenbehälter, but it could be extended.

The Fw 190D-13 had plans for up to four bags inside the wings (one for MW50, the rest for fuel) - a similar (but scaled-down) arrangement to the six bags in the Ta 152.

 

In fact, there were plans for filling the outer gun-ports with fuel-bags quite early, yet they never materialised.

 

The lack of internal fuel in the 190 was a choice - even more so than sticking with less than optimal engines. Albeit not a good one.

 

 

Have to disagree here, being a 1937 design, long range combat wasn't  even a possibility/idea in those times. the plane wasn't design with this role/possibility in mind.
Yes, they added the rear tank, but to what cost?! (weight creep and more weight creep due to necessary accomodations to get the CG right ) Even so, the rear tank was there to mostly compensate for the higher fuel consumtion of the 1.65ata 801 and not necesserely for a longer range as the range was not a necessity in Luftwaffe (most) operations.
As for the wing tanks, those were for the TA 152H, new wings, new engines consuming even more than the 801...not even talking about the  152 A/B/C as those were simply not existant, considering the H was like an "operationnal prototype". if we're talking about what was forseen, than the 190 should have also a jet engine
As for the engine, Kurt didn't have the choice, the rlm didn't want to give him the DB's since the start of the project (willy was RLM's best friend and all DB were for him) and had to wait until Jumo got something usable in a fighter to give the 190 a inline with less drag.

 

27 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Mustangs also flew Recce.

They didn't much fight at night, but that was a sizing-issue. Had the USAAF had access to the Navy radars (and wanted to install them), they probably could have installed a radar on a P-51. The F-82 did get away with it, but then again it's literally twice as large.

 

"Multirole" in the age before miniturized electronics isn't.

 The p-51 is a very large plane compared to the 190/109, so how come ze germans have done it using a small plane? (again, 190 versatility )


 

[ZachariasX]

[Aurora_Stealth]

The problem I see is people pick and choose what they want to see in a fighter then describe it as "multi-role" and therefore better... I don't think that's a good definition because it assumes everyone's requirements are the same .. in this case... the US's. Also, describing the P-51 as a great "short range interceptor"... an aircraft that is not well suited to short field conditions, with many limitations not seen with other interceptors ... and the fact it really isn't optimised for shooting down bombers is a bit of a joke... seeing as that was what short range interceptors we're actually developed for in the first place.

 

Being able to carry a significant load with a fighter to a further distance is definitely very, very useful and I do applaud it... but it doesn't suddenly make it a multi-role aircraft, it just makes it more flexible and capable of a longer range.

 

Probably a more appropriate term used today for many of these single engined fighter-bombers is "swing role" .. they can be adapted to do one of several roles with some adaptation (A-36 is an example - it struggles as a standard day fighter, or is vulnerable as a ground attacker)... its not ideal nor purpose built for doing multiple roles. It was an adapted (long range) fighter-bomber. I've laid out all the things it couldn't do, and its a significant list. I'm not saying the Bf 109 was much better... but I'm also not claiming its a multi-role aircraft - it was versatile enough to be very useful.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Aurora_Stealth

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, JtD said:

which still begs the question how this is possible if the German enginessupposedly ran a much richer mixture?

Mixture varies greatly on how much you pushing the engine. You'd need to compare hp output to compare mixture. German engines are not that great regarding that. It is not just the fuel that requires a richer mixture due to detonation properties, it is also the metal used in the engines. valves etc. that were not made up to standard (due to ad hoc saving of rare metals) and just burned away. In general, people allocating rare metals talked very little with the folks building engines. The 801 was AFAIK not detonation limited, it would just burn out at too high ratings. It is very well documented how they just cut down on nickel and sent the parts to the engine shops for assembly, because all involved were paranoid about getting sacked at leisure. This for good reason, as the entire system worked on goodwill and nepotism. Hence they had all conversations recorded.

 

Cand we put this in an "Mighty Mustang and the 190" thread?

[Aurora_Stealth]

12 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Mixture varies greatly on how much you pushing the engine. You'd need to compare hp output to compare mixture. German engines are not that great regarding that. It is not just the fuel that requires a richer mixture due to detonation properties, it is also the metal used in the engines. valves etc. that were not made up to standard (due to ad hoc saving of rare metals) and just burned away. In general, people allocating rare metals talked very little with the folks building engines. The 801 was AFAIK not detonation limited, it would just burn out at too high ratings. It is very well documented how they just cut down on nickel and sent the parts to the engine shops for assembly, because all involved were paranoid about getting sacked at leisure. This for good reason, as the entire system worked on goodwill and nepotism. Hence they had all conversations recorded.

 

Cand we put this in an "Mighty Mustang and the 190" thread?

 

How about we just put it in a historically accurate: 'Mustang and 190' thread lol. (joke - I love them all)

Edited May 20, 2021 by Aurora_Stealth

[JtD]

13 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Mixture varies greatly on how much you pushing the engine...

 

Klaus claimed that German engines ran insanely rich mixtures compared to Allied ones. I'm merely pointing out they didn't. If you like, I can make this a discussion about the DB instead of the BMW.

 

I don't mean to state that all engines have to be treated equally or are limited in the same way.

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, JV69badatflyski said:

Have to disagree here, being a 1937 design, long range combat wasn't  even a possibility/idea in those times. the plane wasn't design with this role/possibility in mind.
Yes, they added the rear tank, but to what cost?! (weight creep and more weight creep due to necessary accomodations to get the CG right ) Even so, the rear tank was there to mostly compensate for the higher fuel consumtion of the 1.65ata 801 and not necesserely for a longer range as the range was not a necessity in Luftwaffe (most) operations.
As for the wing tanks, those were for the TA 152H, new wings, new engines consuming even more than the 801...not even talking about the  152 A/B/C as those were simply not existant, considering the H was like an "operationnal prototype". if we're talking about what was forseen, than the 190 should have also a jet engine
As for the engine, Kurt didn't have the choice, the rlm didn't want to give him the DB's since the start of the project (willy was RLM's best friend and all DB were for him) and had to wait until Jumo got something usable in a fighter to give the 190 a inline with less drag.

 

Range wasn't an idea whan the Mustang was concieved.

The RAF wanted more P-40s, like yesterday. NAA came up with something better and flew it in less than four months. Go figure Willy and Kurt.

 

The 115l tank being called "Reichweitenbehälter" busts your myth. As does the fact that the BMW would not consume more fuel under normal operating conditions.

They wouldn't fly around for dozens of minutes on 1.65. The tank was added due to a requirement for more endurance and it had absolutely nothing to do with the 1.58 and 1.65 boost.

 

The Jumo 213 consumed less than the 801. Just saying.

Lacking hard numbers at this time, but I'd hazard a guess the 603 was in the same ballpark as the 213.

 

1 hour ago, JV69badatflyski said:

The p-51 is a very large plane compared to the 190/109, so how come ze germans have done it using a small plane? (again, 190 versatility )

 

Yeah, and we know how well this worked out for them...

 

Compare that little high-school science project the Neptun installation was to the AN/APS-4 carried by Corsairs, Hellcats and later Twin-Mustangs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APS-4_search_radar

 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by Bremspropeller

[ZachariasX]

29 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

How about we just put it in a historically accurate: 'Mustang and 190' thread lol. (joke - I love them all)

Would sure work for me.

[Aurora_Stealth]

Was going to create a new thread but having looked in the general discussion tab... there's already a lot of similar stuff being talked about here (page 4):

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by Aurora_Stealth

[LColony_Kong]

6 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

Not saying anyone is full-proof but what Greg mentioned did make sense, the P-47 could have been better supported

No it didnt. I would have to rewatch his video to more fully address all his points, but I went through his claims fairly closely when he made it and he misses a number of things. His main accusation, that the bomber generals nefariously ignored the problem and therefore the P-47 didnt get its 15 minutes of fame, its complete BS. Alot of it has to do with the fact that Greg sort of misapprehends the context in which he is making his points, among other things. Again I dont have time right now to do this justice. 

 

6 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

When the A-36 (P-51) was used as a ground attacker it suffered the heaviest losses of any allied ground attacker

There are all sorts of operational reasons planes suffer losses that have nothing to do with the aircraft. The A-36 was also considered one of the most effective strikers available. Its world class because the P-51 can carry some of the largest bomb loads of any single engine fighter. Not saying its top dog here, just that its not a slouch. Its certainly better than the typical fighter bomber like a spitfire or 109 with their piddling bomb loads.

 

6 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

For similar reasons, the P-51 can intercept bombers, but would you want to try and intercept a large formation of Ju 88's or He111's with its limited armament (the B model had only four .50's) and its many vulnerabilities?

Mustangs and similarly armed planes were plenty effective in anti bomber work. They did it all the time in the pacific, north africa, the MTO etc. Perhaps not as good as a 190 with 4 cannon, but my point isnt that it does everything better. The point is that it does basically everything well while having some truly outstanding characteristics that make up for any particular shortcomings. For example, just talking 190 here. The Mustang climbs substantially better and is much faster at high altitudes where you might want to intercept a bomber. Its range also means that it would be able to intercept bombers farther out, or from more far flung bases etc. I would trade that in an instant for somewhat worse firepower. Especially since the plane needs to do other things.

 

7 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

It wasn't very well suited to operating from rough and unprepared frontline airfields in difficult environments (think eastern front), or another example... the desert - again the very low radiator is a real liability here dealing with ingestion. The long takeoff and landing run is also a significant limitation here, and yes you could travel/fly a long distance from further back to get to the same target, but what if you need to repel fast attacks for close support for ground forces? what if you don't have radar to support your every move and get there in time? these were big issues on the eastern front.

And yet the Mustang did just fine in the 9th air force as a tactical fighter on the front lines. Additionally it was completely capable of operating from rough fields. Maybe not the best at this, but are we really going to argue that something like a Yak or La was the Mustangs equal in any significant way? The Russian fighters, even late war, are low alt only jobs with extremely short range and hardly any strike capability by comparison. Your also straying into the territory of comparing problems that the United States would not have necessarily shared with the Soviet Union, even if it had been on the eastern front.

 

I have made a thread for this so this thread can get out of left field.

[Bremspropeller]

P-51s flew CAS on Iwo Jima and did strike missions to the Bonin Islands - roughly 130 miles across the ocean from Iwo.

 

Iwo Mustangs also strafed the japanese mainland during escort missions - some 600-675 miles from Iwo.

[[CPT]Crunch]

You should than be comparing A-36's with other attackers in its mission class, the Ju-87 couldn't have survived or even dared operate in the environments it did.  Nobody was requesting expanded production of any German precision dive bombers, but the operators were begging for more A-36's, every last one they could scrape up was sent into operations.  That tells the real story.

[Makz]

No one has a question - why the La-5 in the game has the real characteristics of a 1942 aircraft with all the flaws of a hard time production. Low climb rate, bad turn. But a German aircraft made in 1945 has characteristics that the Germans themselves wrote that they were achievable only with a good level of production?

[CUJO_1970]

On 6/4/2021 at 3:48 PM, Makz said:

No one has a question - why the La-5 in the game has the real characteristics of a 1942 aircraft with all the flaws of a hard time production. Low climb rate, bad turn. But a German aircraft made in 1945 has characteristics that the Germans themselves wrote that they were achievable only with a good level of production?

 

It's because you are buying into the myth that Germany could not produce a well-built fighter even in the last days of the war. You are taking every instance where Germany had problems (and they did have big problems) and assuming, incorrectly that all their aircraft were the same, barely airworthy and fortunate to get off the ground while ignoring the fact that the Allies themselves were having serious problems even with all the advantages they had - and many Allied pilots were dying because of poorly built aircraft, high-grade fuel that ruined their engines etc.

 

In the end, the developers do not factor build quality or the war situation - because their is no way to manage it. For example - I'm sure your average Allied pilot would love to see German aircraft crippled in such a way (just read the forums), but would lose their minds the first time that 150-grade fuel destroyed their engine or their airplane caught fire in flight or fell right off the front of the aircraft.

 

Oh, and while we are at it - there is probably no aircraft that benefits more from this philosophy than a Russian aircraft built in 1942, comrade.

[LukeFF]

5 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

In the end, the developers do not factor build quality or the war situation

 

Eh, not so - it's been stated time and again by developers like VikS that the data isn't taken from specially prepared machines - instead, it's machines taken straight from the production lines. 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

many Allied pilots were dying because of poorly built aircraft, high-grade fuel that ruined their engines etc.

 

That's not even close to being the truth. 

Edited June 6, 2021 by LukeFF

[CUJO_1970]

11 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Eh, not so - it's been stated time and again by developers like VikS that the data isn't taken from specially prepared machines - instead, it's machines taken straight from the production lines. 

 

Not sure what your on about - I didn't say anything at all in my comment about data being taken from "specially prepared machines". Maybe read more closely what I wrote? I said the developers don't factor build quality or the war situation when modelling aircraft - and they don't. Just like every other developer.

 

 

11 hours ago, LukeFF said:

That's not even close to being the truth. 

 

Thanks.

 

Now, I'll have to go back thru all my books written by well known historians and actual eyewitnesses and strike thru everything that doesn't confirm the Allies were immune to poor workmanship and mechanical failures. Could take quite a while though, because there is just so much of it.

 

Before long we can have that kinder, gentler redacted history of the past, free from discomfort and pesky truths.

[41Sqn_Skipper]

10 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Now, I'll have to go back thru all my books written by well known historians and actual eyewitnesses and strike thru everything that doesn't confirm the Allies were immune to poor workmanship and mechanical failures. Could take quite a while though, because there is just so much of it.

 

No need to do that. If there would be a single documented case of engine failure that can be attributed to 150 octane fuel, Kurfuerst would have found it years ago.

[JtD]

Maybe you should clarify "many". In the history as I know it and by my understanding of "many" in context with general safety standards of WW2 era aviation, I don't agree with you.

 

Still, between 1941 and 1945 14903 people died in (USAAF) aircraft accidents in the continental US alone, about one fatality for every 6000 flying hours. Today it's about ten times as safe. I'm sure some of that was caused by aircraft failures, so even for the rather save continental US aviation, an argument for "many" could be made.

 

I don't think the best way is to deal with it is sarcasm. And a K-4 topic might not be the best place, either.

[LukeFF]

22 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

I said the developers don't factor build quality or the war situation when modelling aircraft - and they don't.

 

Except they actually do - what do you think VikS meant by the statement I linked to? The test data comes from planes coming off the production lines, so build quality and the war situation absolutely factors into what data ends up being used for any given plane.

[MiloMorai]

..an extract from Lorant/Goyat "Bataille dans le ciel d'Allemagne" ...(a translation)

 

At Kleinkarolinenfeld, around ten pilots who no longer had aircraft piled into a truck at dawn on 27 April 1945 in order to drive to the airfield at Bad Wörishofen and take delivery of Messerschmitt 109s fresh out of the factories. Fw. Arnulf Meyer (9. Staffel) never forgot the scenes they witnessed that day: Rows of Messerschmitt 109s and Focke-Wulf 190s lined up around the airfield perimeter, others out in the open (!) under the odd camouflage net. Teams of oxen in yokes in the midst of all this enabled the aircraft to be moved  around without utilizing any manpower or fuel… At least one hundred fighters from the assembly lines were dispersed around the field. The Officer that met us showed us the latest sub-types to be delivered: Focke-Wulfs with  in-line engines and in particular the Messerschmitt Bf 109 K, an improved sub-type of our “Gustav” model. There was bustling activity on the field. Aircraft were landing and taking off constantly. There was no airfield  protection Rotte in the air. Our surprise was even greater when we were told that thirty brand new aircraft were due to arrive at the depot that day if the necessary pilots to ferry them in could be found. We were presented  to the airfield commander who had set up his office in a comfortably appointed wooden shack: a fatherly Major who gave us a pleasant welcome. Of course we wanted to take the Bf 109 Ks… He asked us for our papers indicating  our various type ratings but after scrutinizing them, he handed them back with a shake of the head and simply said: “sorry, I can’t give you any K-4s. You’ve only flown the G-10, so take the G-10s!”

 

We tried to explain to him that whether they were the G or K variant, they were still Messerschmitt 109s and any mods were almost certainly to be of a minor nature, unlikely to impact on the handling qualities of the aircraft. He did not appear particularly convinced by our arguments, but I noted how keenly he eyed us smoking our American cigarettes. These were retrieved from US prisoners and our Spieß always had them in his stocks. As naturally as possible, I offered the Major one of these cigarettes. His face lit up. Just for good measure, I left a barely started packet on his desk. He thanked me and told us that he was going to see what he ‘‘could do”. 

In the minute that followed, more packets of cigarettes changed hands and in this way we soon had authorization to take the Messerschmitt Bf 109 K-4s!

 

We went to select our Messerschmitts in the company of the line chief, who asked us what our destination airfield was. The fuel crisis had also reached this field. Our aircraft were fueled with enough for thirty minutes flying time, which was largely sufficient to get back to Kleinkarolinenfeld. On the other hand the armament magazines were empty. We were given parachutes and life jackets. Suddenly we saw a car drawing up and out climbed the depot commander. He told us in a voice bereft of emotion that he was not sorry that we were taking the 109 Ks. Then he read the text of a teleprinter message he had just received. The presence of American troops and 
tanks was reported ten kilometers from Bad Wörishofen and he was ordered to immediately destroy all the aircraft housed on the airfield. The Major explained to us that the 109s were easier to blow up than the 190s, as they carried as standard a delayed-action 3 kg explosive charge in the fuselage housed next to the fuselage fuel tank. We smoked a last cigarette together with the officer. The imminent debacle seemed more of a relief to him than anything else. He had fought during the First World War and had been wounded but was of the opinion that the disaster befalling our country was of a much more serious nature on this occasion. He hoped that we would soon be back among our families and that we would not risk our lives pointlessly. He started up his car and drove off.

 

My first takeoff in the Bf 109 K held no surprises. The aircraft was poorly trimmed and the compass was not functioning, which meant that I had to follow my comrades blindly. A typical product of our war industry in 1945: the instruments were incorrectly calibrated and there was nothing coming through the oxygen mask. Fortunately our flight level did not exceed 1,000 meters. We all landed without incident at Kleinkarolinenfeld. Happily enough  the brakes worked…

[JtD]

Oxygen is overrated - the Nazis evacuated to the dark side of the moon anyway.

[gimpy117]

3 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Thanks.

 

Now, I'll have to go back thru all my books written by well known historians and actual eyewitnesses and strike thru everything that doesn't confirm the Allies were immune to poor workmanship and mechanical failures. Could take quite a while though, because there is just so much of it.

 

Before long we can have that kinder, gentler redacted history of the past, free from discomfort and pesky truths.

A&P here. explain to me how exactly too much octane rating can damage an engine? are you possibly thinking that pilots thought they had 150 octane and were actually running 100LL and popped the engine? 

[CUJO_1970]

5 hours ago, JtD said:

Maybe you should clarify "many".

determiner · adjective

a large number of.

 

A large number of Allied pilots were lost during WW2 due to mechanical breakdowns of all causes. Additional clarification: This didn't just happen to the Luftwaffe.

I'm unable to provide a thorough statistical analysis of all aircraft lost for this reason during the war, or how many fatalities per flight hours for each air force occurred during the war, as no such thing exists.

 

What I do know is every unit history I've read is full of mechanical failures, along with abortives and fatalities due to such - in all air forces during WW2. Examples include Roger Freeman's work on the 8th AF, along with his unit history of the 56th fighter group. The disastrous efforts to get the P-47M into service is just one example. Bud Fortier's "Ace of the Eighth" is full of issues like this with both the P-47 and the P-51, some were fatal and thankfully some were not.

 

You can debate semantics of the word "many" as it can be subjective depending on your point of view. I'm satisfied the context in which I used it is justified.

 

[MiloMorai]

One only has to look at the number of a/c on hand and serviceable in a Lw unit.

 

For example, on 10 January 1945, I/JG 26 60-36, II/JG 26 64-26, III/JG 26 56-28

[CUJO_1970]

6 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Except they actually do - what do you think VikS meant by the statement I linked to? The test data comes from planes coming off the production lines, so build quality and the war situation absolutely factors into what data ends up being used for any given plane.

 

The term "build quality" seems to be causing confusion. Probably better to say "individual build quality". It is of course not the same as "serially produced" which is the basis by which the developers work to add aircraft to the sim. Every aircraft is modeled as a new serially produced aircraft as it would be accepted for use in service.

 

Since it was implied by the person I replied to initially that this was not the case with "a German aircraft made in 1945 " you should go back and correct him, yes?

 

7 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

-snip-

 

My first takeoff in the Bf 109 K held no surprises. The aircraft was poorly trimmed and the compass was not functioning, which meant that I had to follow my comrades blindly. A typical product of our war industry in 1945: the instruments were incorrectly calibrated and there was nothing coming through the oxygen mask. Fortunately our flight level did not exceed 1,000 meters. We all landed without incident at Kleinkarolinenfeld. Happily enough  the brakes worked…

 

That's an awful lot of words just to say a 109 picked up under the worst conditions imaginable for any air force, at a depot a mere two weeks before the war ended had three issues that could be fixed in about an hour by any qualified mechanic once it got to the airfield. Would you like to compare that to the appalling issues the 56th was having with their P-47s just a month earlier?

 

What, exactly is your point again - other than the fact that you despise the 109? I already know about that by reading your decades long rants across multiple forums and many decades.

 

Do you own the simulation yet, Milo?

 

 

6 hours ago, JtD said:

Oxygen is overrated - the Nazis evacuated to the dark side of the moon anyway.

 

8 hours ago, JtD said:

I don't think the best way is to deal with it is sarcasm. And a K-4 topic might not be the best place, either.

 

??

[MiloMorai]

Care to explain the terrible serviceable rate of Lw a/c Cujo? According to you with little time these a/c should have been on the flight line waiting to take off.

 

You mean the engine issues mainly due to inadequate sealing of the engines for their shipment across the Atlantic?

[LukeFF]

2 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

You mean the engine issues mainly due to inadequate sealing of the engines for their shipment across the Atlantic?

 

Beat me to it - the "appalling issues" the 56th was having had nothing to do with build quality at the factory. 

56 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

That's an awful lot of words just to say a 109 picked up under the worst conditions imaginable for any air force, at a depot a mere two weeks before the war ended had three issues that could be fixed in about an hour by any qualified mechanic once it got to the airfield.

 

It was hardly just conditions at the end of the war where the Luftwaffe were having quality control issues. The 109  G-6s they delivered to the Swiss saw little flight time because they were built like crap - and those were delivered in April 1944. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by LukeFF

[MiloMorai]

Even at the end of may '44 serviceability was not great.

Stab/JG 3	Bf 109G	4	2
I/JG 3		26	9
II/JG 3		29	23
III/JG 3		31	9

[CUJO_1970]

5 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

A&P here. explain to me how exactly too much octane rating can damage an engine? are you possibly thinking that pilots thought they had 150 octane and were actually running 100LL and popped the engine? 

 

Not a case of too much octane rating damaging the engines, rather it seems the fuel in it's different chemical makeups, for example "Pep" fuel as they called it according to Roger Freeman caused an additive separation that formed hydrobromic acid that attacked the valve seats, among other issues such as spark plug fouling and decreased engine power.

 

I'm no mechanic, so I'll quote him from, Mighty Eighth War Manual:

"During the Autumn, there was an alarming increase in the number of P-51 takeoff crashes due to engine failure, mostly attributed to use of Purple Passion fuel."

 

Prior to this, they accepted the risk was worth it to use the fuel and dealt with the plug fouling by trying to decrease valve settings and adjust the car enrichment valves. Finally they changed the fuel to "Pep" by adding ethylene dibromide fluid - although opinions were split all fighter groups changed over to this fuel by March. Despite Technical Services findings maintenance issues in the field continued:

 

"Opinions differed but the most likely reason was thought to be valve seat inserts burning out, leading to diminishing valve clearance and loss of power. Enthusiasm for the new fuel waned quickly and in the same month [March 1945] some units requested a return to 100/130. As the old grade had been largely replaced by 100/150, supply was difficult...."

 

This was an ongoing issue with both the P-47 and P-51, but was considered worth it anyway due to (most of the time) increased performance. It's discussed further in Bud Fortier's book Ace of the Eighth and Freemans 56th Unit history Wolfpack Warriors. (All are good reads if you don't already have them)

 

15 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Care to explain the terrible serviceable rate of Lw a/c Cujo? According to you with little time these a/c should have been on the flight line waiting to take off.

 

Yes.

 

The Luftwaffe did have lower serviceability rates, I never said they didn't. The last year especially, they were fighting under terrible conditions, flying from multiple unprepared fields and under regular bombardment and hideously outnumbered and getting more inexperienced by the day.

 

It's amazing to me serviceability rates were as good as they were in the Luftwaffe. I doubt if any other air force could have pulled it off as well as they did, frankly.

 

Who, objectively could have done in any better under the same conditions Milo? (Sorry I said "objectively" I hope it doesn't disqualify you from responding)

[CUJO_1970]

22 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

You mean the engine issues mainly due to inadequate sealing of the engines for their shipment across the Atlantic?

 

Well, not only that, because engine pickling was only a part of the issue. Some issues continuing through to the end of the war. At first, modification required to new P-47s reaching England were taking 40 man hours per aircraft for installation. Finally, staging letters had to be issued  - the first letter included 48 items - eventually compliance with all stages grew to literally hundreds of hours per aircraft required.

 

What do you think "serviceability rates" were at this time?

 

You denigrate the 109 in your earlier example as one of the issues is an oxygen regulator not working - well, many P-47 were shipped with a bad batch of faulty oxygen regulators in the spring of 1943. (Among many other things simply missing or not working) Also grounded in April 1943 for not having spark plugs, among other things. When it happens with the 109 it's because it's a piece of junk, but when it happens with a P-47 it's no big deal?

 

Otherwise, not sure what your point is as it relates to the sim and how aircraft are modeled to be included in the sim?

 

Do you own the sim, Milo?

 

[CUJO_1970]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

Beat me to it - the "appalling issues" the 56th was having had nothing to do with build quality at the factory.

 

Hmm, what do you consider failing to prepare the engines properly for shipment or providing faulty ignition and wiring harnesses still after two years of the same issues? The end result was the same, even if you come up with a more palatable way of putting it that makes us feel better. Also, problems continued albeit on a smaller scale even after the engine change and slow time program was carried out. At least one more pilot died for this reason (engine failure) and even after the war P-47M were not completely trouble free - 150 grade fuel eating away at the Neoprene water regulator diaphragms.

 

Speaking of build quality - the P-47G built by Curtiss at the Buffalo plant was kept out of Europe for a reason. Eventually they were told to simply stop building P-47s.

 

None of these things mean any aircraft is a bad aircraft, but they do demonstrate that even under the best of conditions, an air force can have serious troubles to overcome as it pertains to producing aircraft.

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

It was hardly just conditions at the end of the war where the Luftwaffe were having quality control issues. The 109  G-6s they delivered to the Swiss saw little flight time because they were built like crap - and those were delivered in April 1944. 

 

I'm quite familiar with the 109s sent to Switzerland, and the fallout that ensued. Why do you think those aircraft ended up being given to the Swiss?

 

Do you think these are indicative of serial produced 109s as accepted for service in the Luftwaffe?  Yes? Then you think that all 109 were "built like crap"?

No? Then what is the point of bringing it up?

1 hour ago, MiloMorai said:

Even at the end of may '44 serviceability was not great.

Stab/JG 3	Bf 109G	4	2
I/JG 3		26	9
II/JG 3		29	23
III/JG 3		31	9

 

Wow look at II/JG 3. 23 of 29 machines ready to go. Nice work by those guys.

Looks like with the proper mechanics and experienced pilots the 109 could achieve a very high serviceability rate even under the worst conditions.

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm impressed even more now.

 

?

[gimpy117]

2 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Not a case of too much octane rating damaging the engines, rather it seems the fuel in it's different chemical makeups, for example "Pep" fuel as they called it according to Roger Freeman caused an additive separation that formed hydrobromic acid that attacked the valve seats, among other issues such as spark plug fouling and decreased engine power.

 

I'm no mechanic, so I'll quote him from, Mighty Eighth War Manual:

"During the Autumn, there was an alarming increase in the number of P-51 takeoff crashes due to engine failure, mostly attributed to use of Purple Passion fuel."

 

Prior to this, they accepted the risk was worth it to use the fuel and dealt with the plug fouling by trying to decrease valve settings and adjust the car enrichment valves. Finally they changed the fuel to "Pep" by adding ethylene dibromide fluid - although opinions were split all fighter groups changed over to this fuel by March. Despite Technical Services findings maintenance issues in the field continued:

 

"Opinions differed but the most likely reason was thought to be valve seat inserts burning out, leading to diminishing valve clearance and loss of power. Enthusiasm for the new fuel waned quickly and in the same month [March 1945] some units requested a return to 100/130. As the old grade had been largely replaced by 100/150, supply was difficult...."

 

This was an ongoing issue with both the P-47 and P-51, but was considered worth it anyway due to (most of the time) increased performance. It's discussed further in Bud Fortier's book Ace of the Eighth and Freemans 56th Unit history Wolfpack Warriors. (All are good reads if you don't already have them)

 

 

Valve seats wearing out sounds more like just wear on an engine being pushed to it's limit, but I'm confused on valve seats "burning out" and diminishing valve clearance, when a seat burns out you're gonna have leakage around the area causing lower compression, if the seat is so bad to allow excessive travel upwards to diminish clearance between the rocker arm and valve, clearance is the least of your issues. so I'm kind of dubious about this quote saying it lowered valve clearance. seems fishy to me.

fowling plugs could be an issue, but it sounds more like a fueling issue if they're adjusting carb stuff and not fuel quality. 

 

you also got to think about the time these crashes happened. as the war dragged on you're gonna see more P-51's with more engine time, so I'm not surprised that you're gonna see more engine failures at takeoff power. interestingly enough they're not mentioning failures in combat. It's common in aviation for a bum engine to give up at takeoff.  

 

sounds like a ground crew not catching engines with low compression or excessively worn valve components. do your leak-down tests kids!      

[ZachariasX]

It is rather refreshing to read that it was actually the allies - notably the American - who had severe build and fuel quality problems. But we‘re in a 109 thread, anything goes.

[MiloMorai]

5 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Wow look at II/JG 3. 23 of 29 machines ready to go. Nice work by those guys.

Looks like with the proper mechanics and experienced pilots the 109 could achieve a very high serviceability rate even under the worst conditions.

40 out 90 a/c is great, if you say so.

 

II/JG3 received 35 factory fresh a/c during May.

Edited June 7, 2021 by MiloMorai

[Kurfurst]

7 hours ago, LukeFF said:

The 109  G-6s they delivered to the Swiss saw little flight time because they were built like crap - and those were delivered in April 1944. 

 

... background of the G-6s sent under a deal between the Swiss and the Germans, was that a 110G with their latest radar tech mislanded and was interned in Switzerland. The Germans obviously didn't want their latest tech being 'inspected' and countered, so sent a friendly reminder to the Swiss to send the 110 back to where it belonged. Switzerland being neural, declined (they had loads of both Allied and Axis aircraft interned by that point), but eventually they came to a compromise - the Germans wouldn't get their 110 back, and the Swiss agreed to blow up the 110G into tiny bits, and the Germans would send them a squadron of 109Gs for free.

 

The Germans agreed and sent them the worst G-6s they could possibly find. ?

 

 

13 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

A&P here. explain to me how exactly too much octane rating can damage an engine? are you possibly thinking that pilots thought they had 150 octane and were actually running 100LL and popped the engine? 

 

Lead deposits from increased TEL content of 150 grade eventually fouled and clogged up spark plugs, eventually leading to spark plug malfunction at low speeds (where temps were too low to burn away lead deposits) and various corrosive additives ate away valve clearance. Spark plugs on 150 grade Mustangs had to be changed in every 7 hours, meaning after every escor sortie. 

 

 

 

[Bremspropeller]

The engine cut, so it !MUST BE! correlated to 150 octane fuel.

 

Except that's not how it works.