Intake burnt, oil gasket leak.

[Tacoma74]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

well actually the DB engines weren't more complex. The inverted cylinders solution had its valid reasons:

1) improved fwd visibility: your nose section is tapered upwards and your exhausts are not bang in your face like on the Merlin.

2) better protection of injection system: Hurris and Spits caught fire like torches because of the inlet pipes being on top of the engines, in a very vulnerable position. In the DB engines they were under the engine, in a more protected area.

3) Room for cannon: the space below the engine meant you could actually fit a big ass cannon on the plane axis, which was accurate being in the roll axis and wouldn't affect manouverability like cannons on wings. The narrow section on the top meant easy installation of machineguns very close to the roll axis as well.

4) oil recovery on the DB engine is quite clever and efficient.


the fact that there aren't many DB engines in working order surviving today is for two simple reasons: spare parts availability and airframes to be fitted to. Merlin and P&W engines were produced and maintained well after WW2 and there are still factories and maintenance shops that keep or produce spare parts stock. The engineering of the components is quite a sophisticated thing to do (see if you can find the assembly diagram of a DB crankshaft to have an idea of what I'm talking about), and if there's not a market request for it then there's no market, simple..

Plus the fact that most of the "Nazi war machine" was stripped and scrapped after the war was over. The allies simply had no use for anything that was surrendered to them, so it was all dismantled melted down and made into something else.

[Azimech]

Originally Posted by Voyager

There are reasons why there is only one surviving DB60X engine.

Are you sure about that?

Edit: according to this list there are at least 4 airworthy 109's on the planet, excluding Buchons of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...chmitt_Bf_109s

A whole lot more in storage or undergoing restoration.

[Moggy]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

Oh puh-lease Moggy

You really expected to hear Sir Stanley Hooker saying "actually...erm... our engines were a bit like cottage farm compared to the German ones, but hey, we had a little gizmo that they didn't have!"

Allowing to fly a plane with an engine that didn't permit negative G manouvres was simply criminal, but that's all they had, so let's not get carried away with your love for the Spit and Hurri, you can't change the fact that the DB601 was a superior engine,period.

I reckon that the struts for the tail horizontal surfaces on the Me109 as opposed to the clean Spit and Hurri tail section makes more of an interesting story, there's actually an espionage tale about it too, with a German agent was trying to steal the secret of the tail structure in the UK. I remember overhearing the conversation some years ago, but cant remember the details.

So, you didn't watch the video at all then!

Oh and the only...let me say this again...the only advantage the DB had over the Merlin was the fact it was much easier to work on.

Originally Posted by Moggy

So, you didn't watch the video at all then!

Oh and the only...let me say this again...the only advantage the DB had over the Merlin was the fact it was much easier to work on.

I watched it on VHS years ago. It was much easier to work on because (again) of the inverted V solution. You see, the point is that the RR Merlin was developed with an automotive background in mind, whilst the Daimler-Benz was designed with an aeronautical mindset.

If you don't want to admit that the early Merlins were inferior to the DB mainly because of the fuel injection system then you're just lying to yourself..

[Moggy]

Had the Merlin been fuel injected like the DB's then they wouldn't of had the performance boost that they enjoyed. The Spitfire would of probably been slower than the 109.
It's as simple as that, though I have the feeling you're going to pointlessly argue this now.
At the end of the day, the RAF won the Battle of Britain with Merlin engine aircraft and the Germans lost. Wasn't a score draw and the Germans certainly wanted to win.
I don't believe either of the aircraft were the best fighter (nor the P-51 for that matter!) in the ETO.
Oh and you could of at least had the dignity to of watched the video before commenting about it! Do yourself a favour and watch it through the link I provided or fire up the VHS.

Originally Posted by Moggy

Had the Merlin been fuel injected like the DB's then they wouldn't of had the performance boost that they enjoyed. The Spitfire would of probably been slower than the 109.
It's as simple as that, though I have the feeling you're going to pointlessly argue this now.
At the end of the day, the RAF won the Battle of Britain with Merlin engine aircraft and the Germans lost. Wasn't a score draw and the Germans certainly wanted to win.
I don't believe either of the aircraft were the best fighter (nor the P-51 for that matter!) in the ETO.
Oh and you could of at least had the dignity to of watched the video before commenting about it! Do yourself a favour and watch it through the link I provided or fire up the VHS.

yeah, if we start to play the "IF" game god knows where we would get..

IF the Germans didn't have lunatic clowns for Air Marshalls and Fuhrer we'd all be hailing to the swastika now probably..

The RAF didn't win the Battle of Britain because of the Merlin engine nor because of the air force itself (all brave young fighters, but not enough to counteract the German attack), that's propaganda for little people. The Battle of Britain was won by the RAF because of the continuous strategic mistakes made by Hitler, Goering and his entourage..

Any serious historian will confirm what I say and so did my critic of history books..

[Moggy]

Wow! That's truly an eye opener for me, the British didn't need to fight at all because the Germans lost the battle because of Goering and Hitler. I'm going to let you in on a little secret as to how the British won the Battle of Britain. It's really quite simple but complex at the same time. Britain had the 1st integrated air defence network in the World. From radar to the Oberserver Corps, the RAF pilots, the anti aircraft gunners, the plotters, even the Post Office telephone engineers and many more I've forgotten to mention. They all had a part to play in the defeat of Germany during the Battle of Britain.

Originally Posted by Moggy

Wow! That's truly an eye opener for me, the British didn't need to fight at all because the Germans lost the battle because of Goering and Hitler. I'm going to let you in on a little secret as to how the British won the Battle of Britain. It's really quite simple but complex at the same time. Britain had the 1st integrated air defence network in the World. From radar to the Oberserver Corps, the RAF pilots, the anti aircraft gunners, the plotters, even the Post Office telephone engineers and many more I've forgotten to mention. They all had a part to play in the defeat of Germany during the Battle of Britain.

*yawn* they still bombed a good part of London and other cities flat.. if they concentrated all that power on airfields and factories things would have been pretty different.. and as much as it might hit your little heart, it comes from a RAF historian that I met and talked to on several occasions..

..now go back to your Sir Stanley Hooker video and leave actual history to adults.. I'm SO tired of all this "history for Dummies" experts..

[Moggy]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

*yawn* they still bombed a good part of London and other cities flat.. if they concentrated all that power on airfields and factories things would have been pretty different.. and as much as it might hit your little heart, it comes from a RAF historian that I met and talked to on several occasions..

..now go back to your Sir Stanley Hooker video and leave actual history to adults.. I'm SO tired of all this "history for Dummies" experts..

They what? They bombed cities flat? What concentrated power, do you mean from tactical bombers which had a very poor loadout? Sorry to break it to you but the Germans lost the battle before the blitz and in fact turning to London made no difference. The losses they were suffering could simply not be sustained.
Your schoolboy\it's all about Hitler\Goering theory holds no water and frankly your theory is insulting to those who fought and died on both sides, you should be ashamed of yourself!
Nice to see you've talk to a RAF historian, it's a shame you haven't taught any military history\doctrine\values...unlike some of us.
Go back to your school books, I'm done here.

[Azimech]

I do remember reading multiple times that when the Luftwaffe changed tactics from attacking airfields and aircraft industry to bombing cities, they lost the BoB. Because they stopped when RAF resources were almost depleted.

But, other historians dispute that and say the Luftwaffe could never have destroyed the RAF.

One thing is for sure: looking at which plane was the better is pointless, since there are so many factors that were unfavorable for the germans. The RAF had the higher morale, the Polish RAF squadron was one of the best and most motivated due to their anger and superb pre-war training. Defending territory means no capture when having to bail out. Ditching in the channel was another unpopular risk for german pilots, including the lack of drop tanks until late in the Blitz, prior to that having the need to keep one eye on the fuel gauge and the other on the sky. The abundance of B4 fuel when everyone wanted C3.

If the situation were reversed, i.e. Germany on the island and Britain in continental Europe, attacking Germany, the outcome would've probably been the same, victory for the people on the island. Because in the early stages of the war the hardware wasn't that different.

The discussion which engine was better is IMHO a matter of personal taste. I like fuel injection, I adore the brilliant and elegant variable hydrodynamic clutch driving the supercharger on the DB series, but those designs didn't provide the edge over the Merlin. Critical altitude for the DB601 was 5,5 km, why so low puzzles me at this time. If I'm not mistaken the Merlin had better high-alt performance.