The statement 'use off poor quality but widely available materials' hides fact that without strategic metals German engine quality suffered. Douglas Calum discusses this in interviews/books.
In addition to metals, it would be interesting to know how much more power their aircraft engines would get with the higher octane fuel that P51s and other American aircraft used.
I have seen little reference to, and even less information about, Allied vs Axis fuel quality. There must have been basic performance differences and knock-on effects on operational and maintenance issues, yet no detailed analysis to be found . . .@@Thermopylae2007
More importantly so did the quality of aviation fuel and lubricants.Later in the war German aircraft didn't survive long enough for engine ware to become an issue.
Little known fact, the 109 cockpit had 24 inches shoulder room vs 22 on FW-190A, and far more arm room, as well as far more lateral head room than the 190 flat canopy hood (90% of them). Glass came down to elbows on 190, vs shoulders on 109, giving the 190 a much more airy feel. 109 was simply roomier in actual space.
@@scrubsrc4084 Did it have the same shoulder room (or I should say, elbow room, since the shoulders stick above the sill on the 190)? As for the vertical head room, the 109G seat had 3 positions, so it was never clear to me how short it was vertically. Did they close either canopy on you while seated?
@wrathofatlantis2316 had the canopy closed on the 190 but not the 109. I couldn't say shoulder wise how much difference there was but the 109 felt universally cramped compared to the 190, or any other fighter for that matter. couldn't tell you how high or low the seat was. Perspective I've everything though because I don't think a spitfire is particularly large but that was like putting on a tailored suit.
Thanks for this. I was looking up information on German Recon aircraft and could not find anything. I was wondering what aircraft were scoping out SE England before D-Day in 1944 to be fooled by Patton's dummy army. Also the belly camera installation illustration helps.
The Me-109K was extremely overpowered and had some vicious handling characteristics. It would kill an unskilled very pilot quickly,even experenced pilots found it challenging.
@@MangoTroubles-007 i only gave feedback about the music being too loud to hear the narrators voice clearly and you two are making it seem like i accused them about genocide... dont you have anything better to do or is your life just so empty otherwise
Very informative video, the subject matter and information was great. However, the Piano in the background was very annoying, but only slightly more annoying than the voiceover, with his annoying emphasis on various items.
FW190 and Me109 were not optimized for high altitude operations. They could climb up there, same as an F4U and P-40 could. but they were better at lower altitudes, same as the F4U and P-40 were. If German fighters could get to altitude ahead of the bombers and wait, and dive in from above, it helped offset their lack of high altitude performance.
G'day, True, they had a single stage Supercharger, really big, mounted flat against the Left rear of the Engine...; the Extra Power was developed by Spraying a 50/50 mixture of Methanol & Water, straight into the "Eye," (Air Intake) of the Supercharger. The finless "Bomb" seen in many photo's of late-war Me-109s was the Methanol/Water Tank..., the extra Weight & Drag was the price of all that Extra Power. For maybe Ten or fifteen minutes, In the Climactic Middle of any projected Combat Sortie - or while trying to climb up to intercept approaching Bombers ; rather than chasing them home after they've bombed their Targets. At least, such is my underconstumbling of the matter. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
No, but as stated before, they had variable speed superchargers, that could give them a better performance over a larger altitude window. Different for example the p40, that would get maximum performance around 12k-15k feet, but run out of breath at 20k and beyond, the Germans could maintein solid performance until 25k feet, and decent enough to 30k. That, of course, was not so good as merlin powered spitfire or p51, or even a dual stage turbo-supercharged of a p38 and p47, but was decent enough (although, like reinventing the wheel by going to the other way around). For more information on that I highly recommend the video "BF-109 supercharger driving system", by a channel called "Greg's planes and automobiles", that has great in depth analysis over the topic.
@@WarblesOnALot lmao the "finless bomb" (wtf) is a fuel drop tank, typically 300L. The MW50 tanks on equipped Bf 109 were behind the pilot's seat inside the fuselage
Consistent data on weights, performance at high altitudes, engine power and power limitations at altitudes, performance comparison with allied fighters are sorely missing.
then it really should be ''3-aught-aught-6😆("aught" and "ought" are also sometimes used as names for 0, in contradiction of their strict meanings. The reason for this is a rebracketing, whereby "a nought" and "a naught" have been misheard as "an ought" and "an aught".)@@Cuccos19
