Kurfürst - Bf 109 Performance Resource site UPDATEs

[Al Schlageter]

LOL Niederhoff, you don't know Kurfurst very well do you?

Here is something he won't put on his site:

1.)Boost 1,8ata with B4 fuel
Reason for the meeting were the problems in “field” and at the serial production facility “Genshagen” because of the “white flame” effect during the use of the
Higher output. First it is shown by Hr. Dr. Scherenberg how the “white flame”
followed by burned pistons, develop. Because of the results of the engine knocking test the lower quality of the fuel is the main reason for the problems.
DB has allready solved the problem with adjusting the ignition timing by 5°(???) .
This allowes the use of “Sondernotleistung” and the 1.45 and 1.80ata settings.
But because of later ignition , 50PS are lost during the “Sondernotleistung”,
Where the 1,45 ata setting doesn’t lose power.
DB although mentions the problems with the bad fit of the valvesitrings or
the plug thread , that where reasons for the glow-ignition too. But because
of improovments in the production these failurs are said to be canceled.
All agreed and the decision was done, that all engines should get the new ignition time. The lose of power is not so critical. But, because of hints from DB (DaimlerBenz), there should be test flight with 5 planes within all alts, but especially above rated alt, to get knowledge about the power loose above rated alt.

END SHEET ONE

This will be done at II/JG11. It is asked, if the ignition timing can be set on old value
if better fuel quality is back. Answer is delayed till it is for sure that only better fuel is used, and if it is shown, that later ignition does have no influence on the planes perfromance. DB mentions that the later ignition point although is better for the plugs that have a thermal problem at all.
It is mentioned too, that the performance lose will be decrease with increasing engine run time , means with less oil lose. It indicates too, that new engines with less oil usage are better in performance than the ones with at first high usage and the lower usage of oil. From the troop should be taken 1 engine with 15-20h for oil consumption and performance tests to be done in Genshagen. Because the b4 fuel is mostly used in the east, the order for the new ignition point/time should get out asap by…

2.)1.98 boost with c3 fuel
the first report shows, that the test with the 1.9, and 1.98 boost had negative results.
Then a telegram from Rechlin was shown (they tested 4 engines) that criticized the
clearing of the Sondernotleistung by Gen. Ing. Paul direct from the company to A.Galland bevor sufficient tests were done. Rechlin although defend themselves, that
they did NOT give the new boost free for the Troop. (looks like some thought they did). DB on the other hand shows their positive test results for the 1.9 , 1.98 usage.
They say, that the clearance for the 1.98 boost was given with the same TAGL (?)
(think a kind of order) as the 1.8 ata boost was cleared..both on the same day!.

SHEET THREE

It was then decided (after hearing all the reports) than currently only II/JG11 should test the 1.98 boost and that the 1.9ata engine test should be finished when the engines failed. (so no more test after them). The JG should then only get 1.8 ata engine supplies. Heavy punnishment is threaten when this order is not followed. The 1.98 clearance decission may only come from department 4 of general staff.
It is suggested that some recon planes should be equiped with 1.98 boost. Decission was not done. To disburden the current 1.98 and 1.9 engines it is suggested to give them the new ignition time too. So, all engines flowen with the sondernotleistung will
Be set to the new ignition point/time.

The JG’s in field complain about the plug failurs. Especially in the last time the number of failurs increased. DB reports about improoved plug modells and better
quality control e.g. with x-ray controlling. Again DB points out that the cooling of the
109 is insufficient and wishes that the LW will solve this problem asap. This was mentioned by Gen.-Ing Paul and arrangements where done instandly.
DB points out that the performance of the “cell” (fuselage/wings) is extremely bad,
and even worser J. It makes no sense to increase the power output of the engine when on the other side the plane quality is decreasing dramatically. Is is reported that a coparison of a 109 with a mustang was arranged for Mr. Sauer, but he failed to come.
The result of the comparison was, spoken of produktion quality only, shocking
for the 109.

SHEET FOUR

At the end of the meeting, from Mr. Dr. Scherenberg points out that DB allready is testing a boost up to 2.3ata (J). But it can be not juged in any way because of only
a low test base at the moment.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

LOL Niederhoff, you don't know Kurfurst very well do you?

Here is something he won't put on his site:

1.)Boost 1,8ata with B4 fuel
Reason for the meeting were the problems in “field” and at the serial production facility “Genshagen” because of the “white flame” effect during the use of the
Higher output. First it is shown by Hr. Dr. Scherenberg how the “white flame”
followed by burned pistons, develop. Because of the results of the engine knocking test the lower quality of the fuel is the main reason for the problems.
DB has allready solved the problem with adjusting the ignition timing by 5°(???) .
This allowes the use of “Sondernotleistung” and the 1.45 and 1.80ata settings.
But because of later ignition , 50PS are lost during the “Sondernotleistung”,
Where the 1,45 ata setting doesn’t lose power.
DB although mentions the problems with the bad fit of the valvesitrings or
the plug thread , that where reasons for the glow-ignition too. But because
of improovments in the production these failurs are said to be canceled.
All agreed and the decision was done, that all engines should get the new ignition time. The lose of power is not so critical. But, because of hints from DB (DaimlerBenz), there should be test flight with 5 planes within all alts, but especially above rated alt, to get knowledge about the power loose above rated alt.

END SHEET ONE

This will be done at II/JG11. It is asked, if the ignition timing can be set on old value
if better fuel quality is back. Answer is delayed till it is for sure that only better fuel is used, and if it is shown, that later ignition does have no influence on the planes perfromance. DB mentions that the later ignition point although is better for the plugs that have a thermal problem at all.
It is mentioned too, that the performance lose will be decrease with increasing engine run time , means with less oil lose. It indicates too, that new engines with less oil usage are better in performance than the ones with at first high usage and the lower usage of oil. From the troop should be taken 1 engine with 15-20h for oil consumption and performance tests to be done in Genshagen. Because the b4 fuel is mostly used in the east, the order for the new ignition point/time should get out asap by…

2.)1.98 boost with c3 fuel
the first report shows, that the test with the 1.9, and 1.98 boost had negative results.
Then a telegram from Rechlin was shown (they tested 4 engines) that criticized the
clearing of the Sondernotleistung by Gen. Ing. Paul direct from the company to A.Galland bevor sufficient tests were done. Rechlin although defend themselves, that
they did NOT give the new boost free for the Troop. (looks like some thought they did). DB on the other hand shows their positive test results for the 1.9 , 1.98 usage.
They say, that the clearance for the 1.98 boost was given with the same TAGL (?)
(think a kind of order) as the 1.8 ata boost was cleared..both on the same day!.

SHEET THREE

It was then decided (after hearing all the reports) than currently only II/JG11 should test the 1.98 boost and that the 1.9ata engine test should be finished when the engines failed. (so no more test after them). The JG should then only get 1.8 ata engine supplies. Heavy punnishment is threaten when this order is not followed. The 1.98 clearance decission may only come from department 4 of general staff.
It is suggested that some recon planes should be equiped with 1.98 boost. Decission was not done. To disburden the current 1.98 and 1.9 engines it is suggested to give them the new ignition time too. So, all engines flowen with the sondernotleistung will
Be set to the new ignition point/time.

The JG’s in field complain about the plug failurs. Especially in the last time the number of failurs increased. DB reports about improoved plug modells and better
quality control e.g. with x-ray controlling. Again DB points out that the cooling of the
109 is insufficient and wishes that the LW will solve this problem asap. This was mentioned by Gen.-Ing Paul and arrangements where done instandly.
DB points out that the performance of the “cell” (fuselage/wings) is extremely bad,
and even worser J. It makes no sense to increase the power output of the engine when on the other side the plane quality is decreasing dramatically. Is is reported that a coparison of a 109 with a mustang was arranged for Mr. Sauer, but he failed to come.
The result of the comparison was, spoken of produktion quality only, shocking
for the 109.

SHEET FOUR

At the end of the meeting, from Mr. Dr. Scherenberg points out that DB allready is testing a boost up to 2.3ata (J). But it can be not juged in any way because of only
a low test base at the moment.

Hello Schlageter

Thankyou for the information. It certainly indicates 109K4's running C3 and 1.98 ATA were a very small number, and limited to a single Staffel running a test, which was unsatisfactory.

However, I must ask: Do you have the originals for these documents you quote, and can you post them?

[2Jasta11_Niederhoff]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...0/ptr-1107.pdf

In this link we have a note in item 4:


"The FW-190-A/4 had been employed by the Germans as a converted fighter-bomber, and was not the standart fighter version of FW-190. In order to have the plane at the standart fighter weight for the type is necessary to ballast with lead weights. The standart useful load and fighter gross weight information used was obtained from a captured handbook for the type."

What about this differences between fighter-bomber and standart fighter version? How this differences affect performance? Do you known this captured handbook? Where can i take a look on this?

I think that the version modeled in il2 is the fighter-bomber version. I heard this in some place. Is this correct?

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

For a period of time, the 190A3 and A4 were derated to 1.32 ata boost pressure from the normal maximum of 1.42, because the BMW 801D was having problems with overheating and damage to the engine. After the problem was resolved, the allowable boost was increased back to 1.42.

The Soviets and British both captured models which were derated.

There was some suggestion the Oleg had modelled the derated version of the A4, but the performance tests of the IL-2 aircraft I have seen suggest otherwise. However, you certainly are encouraged to do your own set of tests, remembering to use the Kuban map, which Oleg uses for all tests.

Whatever the results of your tests, it will not matter, since Oleg will not be making any changes to IL-2, since he has moved on to BoB.

In any case, by using manual prop pitch in IL-2 a 190 pilot, (all models) can get BETTER than historical performance out of the aircraft, (something which wasn't the case in real life, the Kommandogerat system was more efficient than operating manually) so you can see that there is no conspiracy against the 190's.

In fact there are quite a few more Allied aircraft which are modelled on lower performance versions than German. The Tempest is just one example, being modelled at +9 boost in IL-2, only 5% of the Tempests made used that boost setting, most operated at +11 boost, and some at +13.

[whazaa]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Salute

For a period of time, the 190A3 and A4 were derated to 1.32 ata boost pressure from the normal maximum of 1.42, because the BMW 801D was having problems with overheating and damage to the engine. After the problem was resolved, the allowable boost was increased back to 1.42..

none of the 801D series had pb's with overheating, the C series did and the modifications on the C-series gave birth to the D series.
No D series seems to have been derated ,except for the first 10 work-hours.
(usual procedure)

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

The Soviets and British both captured models which were derated...

The british did "received" a A3 but was it really derated? the first repport (that you won't find on the williams's page... ) quotes the admission pressure used while comparing the A3 to the spit5/9-p51b/p38f/typhoon. It was 1.42Ata. the second test you can find at spitfireuberalles's page indicate a maximal pression of 1.32ATA and only a max of 2450 Rpm used in the test instead of the 2700 used on the first comparative test...for the same plane!

The soviets captured a 190 with the spinner out and placed a stuka spinner on it! it's like testing a ferrari430 with a 60' V6 engine or a Renault5 1.4L with 18" wheels!

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

In any case, by using manual prop pitch in IL-2 a 190 pilot, (all models) can get BETTER than historical performance out of the aircraft, (something which wasn't the case in real life, the Kommandogerat system was more efficient than operating manually) so you can see that there is no conspiracy against the 190's.

and overheating like a piggy in menopause when doing that.

No consiparcy???

and what about the acceleration? the spinner not getting at it's optimal angle?...and more....and more...and more...

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

In fact there are quite a few more Allied aircraft which are modelled on lower performance versions than German. The Tempest is just one example, being modelled at +9 boost in IL-2, only 5% of the Tempests made used that boost setting, most operated at +11 boost, and some at +13.

yeah, right and having a Cx of of a Saturn5 rocket! beeing able to turn faster and shorter than a 190! Read the repport on william's page on the test Tempest Vs 190A3 and about the 5% at9boost, do you have any exact data on those +/-450 airframes build? Cause i could also tell you than from nov43, all the 190 received a 1.65ATA 801D engine build with parts of the 801F type engine, but would you belive me without any orginal source?

[ICDP]

Kurfurst is a great source for material for the 109 and Spitfireperformance is a great source period. The problem is that both sources are provided by blatantly biased people. The best course of action is to find many sources and come to your own conclussions. Be carefull reading books that don't show the original source, they tend to guote the same source (usually a wrong one). For example the Bf109G6 in clean condition should reach about 400mph but is very often shown as having a top speed of 386mph.

From my experience over the years on various sites Buzzsaw is blatantly biased (think Red Kurfurst). He is one of those people who makes ridiculous claims that in genreal Allied AC in IL2 are porked and Axis AC are overmodelled (see above for evidence of this). Remember to filter out the massive bias some people have on these forums and you can use their sources with other sources to make an informed opinion.

The truth is that ALL aircraft in IL2 have problems that are nothing to do with conspiracy theories or bias from the developers. The simple answer is that there are so many AC in IL2 that people will always find fault and conclude their favourite plane is porked on purpose. One of the biggest mistakes is to read one or two pilot reports that show little or no detail more than "I easily turned inside the 109 with my P51 and shot it down" and expect the exact same outcome every time in IL2. This is a bad move because from the original report you need to know the following. At what alt was the engagement? At what speed was the engagement? What type of 109? What was the relative pilots capabilities? (something that can rarely be known). Did the 109 have gunpods? On many occasions in IL2 I outturned a 109 in a P51, or a Spitfire in an Fw190A but I know that that is only possible given the right set of circumstances and in no way does it make it always true. So if you get outturned or outclimbed in a suposedly inferior AC then ask three simple questions. 1. Did I missjudge our relative energy states. 2. Did I underestimate the other pilot? 3. How did I mess up? This is easier said than done bcause the natural reaction is to never blame yourself for losing!

In short, read many different sources to eliminate natural bias. Learn to recognise bias (not everone is as blatant as Kurfurst or Buzzsaw). Pilot accounts are a great read but tell next to nothing about relative performance because most variables are left out.

[Kurfürst]

Buzzsaw and 'AL Schlageter' are two notorious trolls who seek to use this thread as playground for their personal feud.

As you can see he is very concerned about this document on DB 605D technical issues from early 1945 - the document is BTW widely known for several years now and is available for download from the internet as well. He is posting this version with an online translator for about the tenth time now under his various login handles, every time he is being told that there is no problem with including this material as well to the site if he can transcribe the original (which he probably already did, given he has an online translated version of it).

Somehow, it ever gets past that point, so I have to doubt the sincerity of his 'concerns'.

It has been also discussed a dozen or more times times that the boost clearance for this rating went out in 19 March 1945, clearing the 1.98ata boost for four Bf 109 wings of the LW (of JG 27 and JG 53 on the Western Front).

A for Buzzsaws accusations about the material being 'edited, cropped' on my site, I think I would know about that, so I need specific examples. Failure to name them will be equivalent of an answer as well.

As their only intention here being to turn this thread into a ubi-like monkey cage with insults and feuding, the moderation team here has been consulted.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by ICDP

Kurfurst is a great source for material for the 109 and Spitfireperformance is a great source period. The problem is that both sources are provided by blatantly biased people. The best course of action is to find many sources and come to your own conclussions. Be carefull reading books that don't show the original source, they tend to guote the same source (usually a wrong one). For example the Bf109G6 in clean condition should reach about 400mph but is very often shown as having a top speed of 386mph.

From my experience over the years on various sites Buzzsaw is blatantly biased (think Red Kurfurst). He is one of those people who makes ridiculous claims that in genreal Allied AC in IL2 are porked and Axis AC are overmodelled (see above for evidence of this). Remember to filter out the massive bias some people have on these forums and you can use their sources with other sources to make an informed opinion.

In short, read many different sources to eliminate natural bias. Learn to recognise bias (not everone is as blatant as Kurfurst or Buzzsaw). Pilot accounts are a great read but tell next to nothing about relative performance because most variables are left out.

Good post ICDP except I would say the Hungarian is the one who is the more biased. This from the various threads I have read in which he and Mike Williams have participated in. In every thread Mike Williams has always been polite and cordial unlike the other participant.

Now Kurfurst has already many translated documents on his site. He has a translated version of the document and the original document so why can't he refine the translated document and include it on his site? Kurfurst has no reason not to include the document, even if still in German, except for the fact it does not show the 109 'in a good light'.

As to what is in Baubeschreibung für das Flugzeugmuster Messerschmitt Me 109 mit Daimler-Benz-Motor DB 601, there is some discrepancy with L.Dv. 556/3. (ie 460kph @ 0km)

Unfortunately, if one questions 'the party line' on his forum one is PNGed, leaving one no recourse than to do so on other boards.