109, why such short range?

Where you can pick up on your daily propaganda

Moderators: Board of Directors, Command

User avatar
Flyby
Leutnant
Leutnant
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:19 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

109, why such short range?

Post by Flyby » Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:57 pm

just sayin' ;)
Flyby out
Image
My Warrior creed:ACG; A good place to be.

Onebad
Posts: 2109
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 10:02 pm
Location: Warsaw, Poland

Re: 109, why such short range?

Post by Onebad » Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:08 pm

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.

Wiggy
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: 109, why such short range?

Post by Wiggy » Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:12 pm

Nice cut n paste, Onebad 👍

Onebad
Posts: 2109
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 10:02 pm
Location: Warsaw, Poland

Re: 109, why such short range?

Post by Onebad » Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:17 pm

Wiggy wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:12 pm
Nice cut n paste, Onebad 👍
I literally just wrote it what are you one about

User avatar
Flyby
Leutnant
Leutnant
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:19 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: 109, why such short range?

Post by Flyby » Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:07 pm

OB, could the Dora sustain full war-emergency power for an hour?
Flyby out
Image
My Warrior creed:ACG; A good place to be.

Onebad
Posts: 2109
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 10:02 pm
Location: Warsaw, Poland

Re: 109, why such short range?

Post by Onebad » Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:31 pm

Flyby wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:07 pm
OB, could the Dora sustain full war-emergency power for an hour?
Flyby out
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.

Vanguard
Posts: 781
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2015 9:16 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 109, why such short range?

Post by Vanguard » Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:47 pm

Onebad wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:08 pm
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.
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.
Last edited by Vanguard on Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image

The pilot shall be considered to have above-average intelligence and normal (average) common sense.

NATOPS A1-F18AC-NFM-000, Preface, p. 55.

Onebad
Posts: 2109
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 10:02 pm
Location: Warsaw, Poland

Re: 109, why such short range?

Post by Onebad » Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:49 pm

Vanguard wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:47 pm
Onebad wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:08 pm
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.
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 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.
Mr. Semantics strikes again with a proper dose of technical knowledge.

Biggs
Posts: 961
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 12:12 am
Location: Murrillynd, United States

Re: 109, why such short range?

Post by Biggs » Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:39 pm

Onebad wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:49 pm

Mr. Semantics strikes again with a proper dose of technical knowledge.
I wonder if he pushed his imaginary glasses up his nose before typing :geek:
Image

LuftAsher
Posts: 2933
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 2:51 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 109, why such short range?

Post by LuftAsher » Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:46 pm

Biggs wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:39 pm
I wonder if he pushed his imaginary glasses up his nose before typing :geek:
They aren't imaginary.

Post Reply