109, why such short range?
Moderators: Board of Directors, Command
Re: 109, why such short range?
It gets even funnier when you look at how the range actually decreases as the new models come out.
That stand true for both the 109 and the 190 (and obviously some other aircraft too).
Obviously, with every up-engine the maximum power (and fuel consumption) increases, while the fuel tank size remains the same.
A particularly extreme example of it is the FW-190D, which retains the same 520 liters fuel tank (not including the drop tank), but sports an extreme fuel consumption of over 620 liters per hour at full war emergency power. That means that it can empty it's fuel tank in less than an hour.
Even though that maximum ferry range is the same or better than the Anton (due to more aerodynamic airframe), when planning an actual mission one must factor in that during a conservative 20 minute long combat period the aircraft will burn 200 liters of gas, which is nearly half of the tank. That deficiency could be partially covered by the drop tanks and so on, but it's a good way to showcase how reusing the same airframe and rushing for more power can carry some serious shortcomings over development of a brand new plane.
That stand true for both the 109 and the 190 (and obviously some other aircraft too).
Obviously, with every up-engine the maximum power (and fuel consumption) increases, while the fuel tank size remains the same.
A particularly extreme example of it is the FW-190D, which retains the same 520 liters fuel tank (not including the drop tank), but sports an extreme fuel consumption of over 620 liters per hour at full war emergency power. That means that it can empty it's fuel tank in less than an hour.
Even though that maximum ferry range is the same or better than the Anton (due to more aerodynamic airframe), when planning an actual mission one must factor in that during a conservative 20 minute long combat period the aircraft will burn 200 liters of gas, which is nearly half of the tank. That deficiency could be partially covered by the drop tanks and so on, but it's a good way to showcase how reusing the same airframe and rushing for more power can carry some serious shortcomings over development of a brand new plane.
Re: 109, why such short range?
Nice cut n paste, Onebad
Re: 109, why such short range?
OB, could the Dora sustain full war-emergency power for an hour?
Flyby out
Flyby out
My Warrior creed:ACG; A good place to be.
Re: 109, why such short range?
That is a good question.
Obviously not with the MW50, since it would simply run out, but she would still guzzle good 600 liters an hour.
Secondly, do you mean regarding possible engine damage?
That's a question I do not have a clear an answer for. Theoretically, when under good maintenance those engines are capable of withstanding emergency power for much longer than an hour. Rolls-Royce test ran the Merlin and left it at full power overnight, and when they came the next morning it was still running with no sign of any damage, whatsoever.
At the same time, when the Dora came out, quality of production of German machines has suffered, and what kind of impact did it have on possible lifespans of engines is a discussion I wouldn't like to dwelve in.
So short answer - sure, it could no problem provided that the pilot keeps enough speed to keep the cooling system efficient.
Long answer - that's something to discuss over a pint and some crackers.
Re: 109, why such short range?
To be precise with terminology, combat radius decreases as engines become more powerful but maximum range isn't directly effected by this. Rather, it's the more powerful engine often necessitating an increase in drag, ie. trim drag from increased weight, larger wetted area, larger radiators and intercoolers that decrease cruise speeds and consequently, reduces maximum range.Onebad wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:08 pmIt gets even funnier when you look at how the range actually decreases as the new models come out.
That stand true for both the 109 and the 190 (and obviously some other aircraft too).
Obviously, with every up-engine the maximum power (and fuel consumption) increases, while the fuel tank size remains the same.
Last edited by Vanguard on Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The pilot shall be considered to have above-average intelligence and normal (average) common sense.
NATOPS A1-F18AC-NFM-000, Preface, p. 55.
Re: 109, why such short range?
Mr. Semantics strikes again with a proper dose of technical knowledge.Vanguard wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:47 pmTo be precise with terminology, combat radius decreases as engines become more powerful but maximum range isn't directly effected by this. Rather, it's the often increasing drag that necessitates a more powerful engine, ie. trim drag from increased weight, larger wetted area, larger radiators and intercoolers that decrease cruise speeds and consequently, reduces maximum range.Onebad wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:08 pmIt gets even funnier when you look at how the range actually decreases as the new models come out.
That stand true for both the 109 and the 190 (and obviously some other aircraft too).
Obviously, with every up-engine the maximum power (and fuel consumption) increases, while the fuel tank size remains the same.