Messerschmitt BF 109 Supercharger Drive System
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ต.ค. 2024
- The ME109 used a method to drive its supercharger that was unique to German aircraft until after World War 2 when the US adopted a similar system. It's very effective, and I find it interesting. This is one of the reasons the 109 was able to remain at least competitive throughout the war.
In short, the 109's supercharger was driven hydraulically and thus didn't need to be throttled to avoid overboost at low altitudes. Most Allied aircraft used a method of cutting off the air to the supercharger at low altitudes. This meant that at low altitudes their superchargers were spinning faster than the optimal speed for a given amount of boost and wasting energy.
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
gregs-airplane...
Please consider supporting this channel on Patreon: / gregsairplanesandautom...
Hi Greg,
As to why the germans mounted their Superchargers on the side, there are actually some pretty interesting reasons for why they did that. I will try to explain them in this comment, but please excuse my limited english.
The first one is design tradition from the early days of sportier cars. At that time the chargers did not look like the discs we know today but rather lengthy like a gearbox, they were mounted to the chin and increased the length of the engine quite a bit, so in order to save space they rotated it 90 degrees to the vertical. They also had more positive experience transmitting the moment to the charger with that way of mounting it, so they kept it as the chargers evolved.
The second is that it is more efficient than mounting it parallel behind the engine, since the Air only has to make a 90 degree turn in the charger and then can be fed straight to the engine, while in the other mount it would have to make a 180 degree turn into the charger and then again a 90 degree turn into the engine.
As a 3rd reason, it allowed to increase the disc diameter without increasing the frontal area of the engine, tho you would need quite a large supercharger to make use of that.
It might be easier to access to, but I don't know how often you could make use of that.
Finally, an aviation history channel that isn't dumb opinions with cutesy, low energy animated pictures. Thanks based Greg!
tell me about it... people usually blindly "I m messer fan" I am mustang" "nothing but spitfire" ... no one really explains what is going on under the hood. Greg is awesome.
Yeah. This channel needs to blow up with how awesome it is. So glad I found it. I'm actually surprised to see it isn't that old either.
Also without the so called "specialists" talking head bullcrap...
Greg is totally awesome.
@gennieapulova8017 rright but the spitfire fanboys are the worst
The more I learn about it, the more I realize that the following statement is true: at the time that it entered service, the Bf-109E was the most technologically advanced fighter anywhere in the world. Variable stage supercharging. Fuel injection for extended negative Gs, and automatic mixture control. An automatic variable pitch propellor. Wing tip slats to retain aileron control at high angles of attack. And from the E-4 variant till the final K-4, devastating thin walled mine shells that gave the HE rounds from its 20mm cannons an ability to punch far above its caliber.
I can only hope that someone can recover the documents and blueprints needed to finally rebuild and repair the DB 600 series engines.
@Scott Wiggins *with higher octane fuel, massively outnumbering the 109, bombing of manufacturing facilities, the list goes on
I’d love to see an airworthy Kurfurst-4
Also, the position of the landing gear made the 109 to be easy mantenaince and transport by train you just can take out the wings and still have the plane on his own weels. Dont forget also the Horizontal Trimable stabilicer, fletner tabs, engine controls, pilot sitting position allowing more gs, was a very very well thought plane and futuristic design. On 45 still was pair or even superior the best allay fighers with newer designs. Amacing aircraft. One plane capable of fighting everywhere while the spitfire needed 3 wings, 2 different kind of engine to be equal with LF and HF while some planes were specialiced on hight alt combat and other on low combat like russians. 109 did great againt all that variety of allay specialiced fighters, Yak, Las, Migs, P40s, P38s, P47s, Spits, P51s... Able to dogfight, able to be fast, able to climb, able to have good armament...I can not thing about a more succesfull design.
The American Allison engine had half the components the Rolls-Royce Merlin had and probably half as many as the DB-601. The Allison was made for mass production, the others not so much. While it's true that the Allison had an inferior turbo-supercharger which rendered it less effective at altitude over Europe, it was an in-demand engine in the South Pacific where they fought at lower altitudes and higher temperatures.
As Stalin once noted, 'Quantity has a quality of it's own.'. The USA was able to make 70,000 Allison V-1710 engines while DB made only 19,000 601's. At the end of the day, the USA and England buried the Axis powers in aircraft engine production.
That's all fine and well but if you don't have access to oil you have nothing at the end...
Wow, over 100 views already! That's pretty good for such an obscure topic. Thanks guys! I'll get another WW2 fighter video up soon.
No crea que esos temas no son de un interés mas general del que cree, Don´t think you than this topics may be more interesting than you believed (sorry about my english), greetings from Santiago de Chile)
muchas gracias Juan.
I suppose people are interested in this topic?
Apparently about 200 are. I have some videos coming that are on more mainstream WW2 airplane topics, but some of my videos just are not aimed at the masses.
I know :D Still waiting for that video on the 190D's engine you mentioned in the Jumo004 engine video
Consider the Fw-190's highly advanced engine control system. It featured an analog computer, with a single lever for all engine parameters and functions. There was no direct pilot control of engine RPM, manifold pressure boost, or mixture. Compare this with the very complicated engine controls of late WWII American and Allied aircraft.
The Germans had some really cool stuff. The FW190 had many innovations, engine control being one of them. I'll probably cover some FW190 features in a video.
rather amazing! imagine the reduction of workload on the pilot
It was good, and the concept was revived by Mooney Aircraft when they used a Porsche engine in the late 80's. Pilots loved the simplified controls, but ultimately, it failed. That's another story.
I read somewhere the British examined the German system during the war and found it superior to theirs and recommended adoption of something similar as it reduced pilot workload and distraction at critical moments in a fight. I wonder if war exigencies prevented implementation or if there was another reason.
Moriah Molotov I can see why jet fighters adopted this throughout the cold war. Gives pilot more focus on the battle.
history and engineering. two of my favourite subjects
90 degree to crank thought. This would eliminate the gyroscopic load created when the airplane pitches up or down. Car too. This way the compressor rotor clearance can be maintained more easily. Less load on the bearings.
Hi Steve, thanks for the comment. I hadn't thought of the gyroscopic load issue. The impellers in these things are big, by any normal standards, so it's possible that was an issue, but I tend to think that's not it for two reasons. First, the US superchargers were very efficient, and I have never read about any concerns in this area. Second, the 90 degree mount will add gyroscopic issue when the plane rolls, and most planes roll faster than they pitch. It's a good thought though, and it could be right, I just don't know.
I wana see your Match then if not affect...
I think the right angle drive may have had to do with possible multiple issues.
1: Maintenance access. The blower wheel could be readily pulled for inspection. As the drive gears.
2: Engine length. The front overhang is already considerable. A longer engine would have reduced forward visibility even more.
3:Balance and weight : A longer engine would have increased the loading moment on the front of the airframe, increasing structure weight. And would have required a longer heavier tail and empennage to counterbalance it.
There is nothing in aircraft design that if it adds weight adds it in only one place. Usually ripples through the design.
You need to consider the airplane CG and the lever arm of a pitch on the compressor vs. the lever arm of a roll. Pitch maybe a larger force due to the length of the lever arm. Roll axis lever arm is pretty small.
Very interesting answers. Wonder if the mystery will ever be adequately addressed if not outright proven.
As an admirer of German engine technology, this video is very interesting.
As a retired manufacturing engineer and machinist when I look at the design on that engine and supercharger system it may have been the gear
Design that influenced the 90 degree drive. bevel gears are much stronger and quieter and more compact than spur gears allowing for a greater ratio change without a loss of strength that whole engine design was light years ahead of anything the allies had and the fuel injection system is essentially what we are using in our automobiles today
Hmm, that might be the best theory I have heard on this so far. Thanks Don.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles love your videos finally some common sense the gears are one thing and by moving it to 90 degrees they created better flow
as you mentioned already plus by putting it on the side they shortened the nose which would help weight and balance as well
all and all a very clever design
Perhaps the question to ask is not why the Germans mounted it on the side, but why everybody else mounted it behind the engine. Both must have been conscious choices.
The American turbo superchargers were pretty awesome 👌
Interesting ! I read from some magazines that the F-6F Hellcat also had a hydromatic coupling for the Double Wasps compressor. In regards to the DB601 and 605, the engine manual for the DB601 states explicitly that the first gear coupling was fix, while the second was variable, probably due to excessive heat transfer to the oil, so the superior effect was only there above critical altitude of the first gear (around 2500 m), but then because of this the compressor revs up with altitude giving the DB601 superior performance between 2500 - crit. Alt of second gear which was 4500 m for the DB601, 5300 m for the DB605 A (AS, D had then higher crit. alt becuase of bigger compressor of DB603), whereas for instance the BMW801 of the Fw190 had a rather large 'hole' above 1500 m (crit. Alt of first gear) and the changeover to second gear (around 3000 m), in changing before that altitude the additional boost would be offset by the power consumption of the Compressor , due to the Regulator limiting max. pressure, thus all fix coupled compressors have this 'hole' where power drops with airdensity, the worse the higher revved and the overboost of the second or n-th gear's revs are, in the case of the Fw190 this loss of power one had for almost 1500 m. The worst of them all was the Merlin single gear (Spit Mk. I - V), it ran at very high RPM producing vast overboost at sealevel which had to be regulated down (with loss of power of course). Only later in the war special inlet installations took off some of that load by reducing air density (actuated by the regulator, the DB605 D used that).
I think it was on some version of the corsair that it was used
This is great stuff, subbed
Thank you. I subscribed to your channel as well. I see you are from Germany, nice country, I have spent a lot of time in Morbach.
And Due Pont's other strike was tetra ethyl lead which both lowered IQ's and raised octane ratings of aircraft petrol :)
The reason I would set a supercharger at 90 degrees to the crank would be to facilitate maintenance, since it becomes a very self contained module that can be removed from the engine/vehicle without having to move anything else first. With a rear mounted supercharger you'd have to pull the engine or rip open the body of the vehicle more than one would like in order to even touch the thing.
Accessibility is important in the field. That thing looks dead easy to remove. compared to an inline one.
Given that maintenance seems to be why an inverted V-12 is used, it would make sense that they would choose to do this. I think your theory may hold water.
It looks right too. If it and the hydraulic coupling were bolted together rearwards it would not be compact. They did it and said nein, we need to place it like this. Germans like shaft drive, it's nothing for them to turn something 90°, and back again if they have to.
I still consider the 109 to be one of the best if not the best fighter aircraft of all time, it was a very effective and efficient design, a true allrounder, good turn rate great agility, quite fast and good armament combined with great dive and climbing abilities. No wonder it is the aircraft with the most confirmed kills of all time and flown exclusively by the ace of aces ,erich hartmann!
molson12oz I've got to remember that the next time my wife sends me to the dog house, _thanks!_
@Mactrip100
The only person that shot down Erich Hartmann was Erich Hartmann, in all fairness though he'd probably only done that once if he flew over the South Pacific, it's a long swim back to Germany.
@Mactrip100 - You're out of your mind. Hartmann learned very early to get close to take his shot, because he was a terrible shot at normal ranges, in the beginning. So, he made himself fly close before shooting. So, all his kills were close enough to get a bunch of hits, and his foe would go down, always. Combined with the larger amount of opportunities, the practice of closing and making sure resulted in his high kill count. He even was called to fly while home on leave, and went up against Mustangs over Ploesti; he shot down several without having to work any harder than fighting Russians. No Allied flier EVER got the opportunity for the numbers that the Germans had. It's entirely jealousy, and a waste of your valuable time.
@@DavidSmith-ss1cg Well, another reason for the high kill count of german fighter pilots was their Service Time, they started their Service in the Luftwaffe, and it only ended by their death or the end of the War. They flew a LOT more operations and had a LOT more flight time behind their their sticks. That's mostly the reason for their high count, after 2-3 war years there where some very very experienced Pilots with a lot of seen combat.
@@dukecraig2402 I seriously doubt he would have survived without being shot down had he fought on the Western Front for any time. The Americans and the British were more capable than the Russians. Also he had all the aircraft he could shoot at coming to him every day so racking up big scores was easy. Was he good? Damned right he was and he was lucky. Several high scoring German aces on the Western front were killed by the low time and by German standards low scoring American pilots. And the 109, from my reading had issues with very heavy ailerons at speeds over 300. Which meant they could not really dive away from American fighters. Robert S Johnson could not figure out why some Germans loved the 109 since it was much easier to shoot down than the 190. Relatively low American scores? Limited hours in combat and limited targets. One of Robert S Johnson's complaints was the Germans staying on the ground something they could not really do in the East since they were on the defensive after their early successes had no travel time to find targets.
That was excellent I’ve often wondered how the German engines supercharger worked. I’ve seen many static displays of the 109 and noticed the supercharger intake. You have to marvel at the the technology of that era, even before the war, even by today’s standards looking at an aircraft fighter engine is amazing, the Germans had fuel injection that had an effect in performance over the carburetor. As an example the Merlin powered Spitfire had a problem when a negative attitude was exerted on the aircraft that caused the engine to lose fuel, briefly, that was corrected by a simple ingenious check ball of sorts, but the German pilots took advantage of that scenario because a puff of smoke from the exhaust signaled this effect and that allowed just enough time to kill its adversary.
The German stuff was really impressive, the supercharger drive, the fuel injection, roller bearings everywhere, Nitrous Oxide, Water Methaol injection, a lot of engine displacement and very high allowable piston speeds. Still, they never had the power they should have considering all these advantages. In my next airplane video, I'll explain why.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles great I’ll be waiting your doing a good job.
Hi Greg. I was amazed by the detailed explanation of the system. I flew on that plane (I mean the last edition of almost 2000HP) and I know something about mechanics. Once upon a time at the Academy in Berlin, a living mechanic from the time of the Second World War explained to me how time was spent on possible and frequent repairs and that everything should be done as soon as possible. For this reason, some conceptual solutions have been adapted to quick repairs. Although that doesn't seem quite logical to me. I remember very well the engine variant and only one perhaps insignificant detail. The mechanic said something that was a problem of converting the engine from B4 fuel to C3. The delayed detonation of the fuel during ignition allegedly caused large oscillations in the operation of the filling system and enormous overheating of the exhaust. There was even mention of a lack of some materials like nickel and that this limited modernization. It was wartime and Germany has no deposits of these ores. Thank you for a rarely seen detailed and professional explanation ....I remembered something else, maybe not important. The first variant of the engine had an indicator of the temperature of the hydraulic oil and its pressure. The one I was flying on didn’t have a pressure gauge. An additional pressure gauge of the charging system was located at that location. All of today’s BF109s that can fly have a lot of modifications. The problem is the hydraulic oil of that time, which is exclusively an oil derivative. I know for sure that ATF is used today and that the pump is electric with variable pressure. I don’t really remember everything because it’s been over twenty years.
So looks like the designers wanted an airplane that would work well at all altitudes. Great job!
The charger is at 90° to the crankshaft because of the cannon. This is thanks to a demand by the RVM from the 1930s. The Jumo 210, predecessor to the Jumo 213 used in the 190D, also was built according to the same demands, hence also the inverted cylinders for increased forward visibility. BTW, the FW 190D-12 also has a 20mm "Motorkanone" firing through the prop hub. You can also see this at the F4a prototype for the DB6XX family which was built with a "Schusskanal", or "projectile conduit". In fact RLM document L.A. 1432/33 from February 1933 specifies an optional canon firing through the propeller axis as a demand for what would become the 109.
I was going to suggest this too. Having the supercharger turned 90 degrees keeps it out of the way for a cannon firing through the engine's V.
That explanation would be perfect if there was a cannon on the Mercedes SSK. The 90 offset drive pre-dates the 109 so while I don't doubt that it helped create room for the cannon it could not have been the reason for it. Plus the supercharger will fit behind the engine even with the cannon.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles The 90° angle predates the 109 because the RVM under Wolfram Eisenlohr demanded a prop-weapon in the early 30s which made the weird position of the charger necessary. My knowledge of interwar racecars is admittedly limited to what I gathered at Klausen races, but I remember SSKs with a compressor dead center on top of the crankshaft in front of the cylinder block. Sucking in air from the right side of the engine delivering compressed air to the intake manifold on the left. Therefore the path of the gases remains the same, albeit mirrored back to front compared to DB 601 and 605, but the drive of the charger on the M06s I've seen most definitely is in line with the crankshaft. Then again, I don't exclude the possibility that a different arrangement was implemented on SSKs, but I haven't seen any.
I see the SSK supercharger was also switchable, and since it predated the supercharger in the 109 perhaps it was convenient/simpler to duplicate the concept and technology of the SSK-style supercharger for airplane engines than to start from scratch with an axial supercharger. The fact that the 90 degree supercharger left room for a cannon was further reason to leave well enough alone.
Yeah, after looking online for 10 minutes, I can't find anything on SSK compressor with anything other than the typical roots blowers sitting on the front of engine with no angle between crankshaft and blower vanes.
I’m just addicted to your channel, nice work.
I used to be a real speed-vs-height-curve junkie when I was a kid; I suspect the 109's curve would be most interesting to analyse.
Another wonderful video from Greg thank you for spreading the knowledge of the Messerschmitt BF 109
The way supercharger placed is the reason why bf109 has magnificent high altitude performance
Really entertaining Greg! IMHO should have your own show on the Discovery Channel!
Greg, nice video, one i only just found. The Technical content is simple enough to understand for the lay person but sufficiently technical enough to interest the more technically biased of us. As an engineering educator this type of content is great for me to give to junior engineers to keep them interested.
Your videos are incredibly interesting and informing. They are easily understandable even for someone without much knowledge of engines such as me
Great work dude. And the first american who can pronounce Messerschmitt the right way, thumbs up
Thank you Greg I hope you are well
Quite a technological explanation.
The more I learn about the tech behind WWII aircraft the more unique and cool the German stuff seems lol They really had some advanced technology for their time
Amazing video. If there can be some 3D animation, it would be great. But waaaay too much work ! Thank you for all your videos, can't wait for more ! Cheers from France.
If you wanna know more about supercharger and turbocharger systems made by Junkers in WW2 take a look at Dr. Anselm Franz. In 1951 he was hired to set up a new turbine division at Lycoming's otherwise unused plant in Stratford. After Operation Paperclip Anselm Franz retired from Lycoming in 1968, having risen to Vice President. He died in 1994.
About the 90 degree placement on the engine... without it being on the front or back on the crank shaft it makes it easier to remove and or replace for repairs. I'd assume the multiple gear systems would make this contained part more prone to wear and tear than other parts. Maybe, I'm a motor engine troglidyte in these matters so I could be far from correct here.
It could very well have been for serviceability. I like that theory a lot.
I'd put money on it. Also keep in mind that the engineering philosophies of Germany vs Anglophone nations at the time (and kinda now, but much less pronouncedly so) strongly support not only this, but also the English speaking engineers' inability to suss out the reasoning. We have numerous examples from prior to WWI through to the end of WWII where German designs are simpler, easier to service, and thus much more reliable than their British and American counterparts, and in multiple instances this allowed the Germans to spend more time on innovation than on getting a less well thought out mechanism to work over multiple generations through failure analysis via field reports (which was a really common thing for the Brits and Americans).
But the sound that supercharger made was unlike anything else. Even the amazing Merlin engines fade by comparison. Pure screaming terror!
Yo Greg, you are a breath of fresh air when it comes to airplane videos, thanks.
Having worked with the Germans for several years in the 80’s and 90’s I can attest to the fact there is a definite reason for everything they do in engineering. Excellent channel content. Nice to see authentic historical topics thoughtfully explained. Keep up the good work.
Daimler Benz documents call the BF 109 supercharger coupling a “barometrically controlled hydraulic clutch which operated independent of pilot inputs.”
Thanks for that post!
Do not have any sources,but I am thinking about period supercharger automobile designs I have seen illustrations of. The Bentley Speed Six had the crankshaft driven blower just forward of the engine casting,down low. The camshaft drive was called a skew gear by the British,aka bevel gear,I think at the rear of the engine. Alfa Romeo had the blowers in the centre. Also bevel geared,and camshaft as well. I am trying to remember what Mercedes Benz did with their SSK and the racing SSKL,but will look later if I can find my reference.
Point is,once an engineering concept is settled on,tends to be followed for some time,and drive by bevel gears was a very common approach,despite some very real issues with torque loads and axial movement under delta of load. Possibly that German placement was used in the twenties when exploring aircraft supercharging was first successfully done. Once settled on,the guys coming out of the engineering schools had it explained to them "this is what we do". And it was easier to go along with existing approach unless good reasons for a plan B showed up.
I really like these technical articles you bring out. Not aware of anyone else who does. Cheers.
You've answered a question that I've had for years!
Thanks!
Thank you for explaining the technical features of this system. Great content, subbed!
The Merlin used on even the earliest Spitfires and Hurricanes had 2-speed superchargers. The Allison V-12s were supposed to have turbochargers as standard, but turbocharging proved difficult to implement in practice, so Allison were forced to omit these from the P39 & P40 single engined fighters and fit single speed superchargers, which is all they had available.
Every single Spitfire and Hurricane during the entire Battle of Britain had a single speed supercharger, and in fact the first Spitfire to have a 2 speed supercharger didnt arrive in service until June 1942.
Thanks. So the problem with the Allison's supercharger was that it was low boost? Probably because it was originally designed to be the second stage after a turbocharger.
This is amazing tech information. I knew some of the stuff from your Mustang vs. ME109 engine video regarding the Mustang engine, but there was a lot I didn't know. You have yourself a subscriber.
Another info i dont know if its in comments: fottinger mechanical-hydraulic coupling is used in medium sized diesel locomotives (before diesel-electric drives) in 20s and 30s, it was common there, and uses diesel engine crank to move fottinger power-hydraulics which move trough pressure lines individual hydraulic motors on wheeled axis. its great for power-torque conversion, and efficiency is also great.
Greetings from railways worker.
Re sidewinder supercharger this was on the Kurfürst site. Per Flight magazine April 16, 1942 re MB 601N “Since clear fore and aft space is required for he mounting of a cannon at the rear of the crankcase the supercharger had to be mounted with its impeller axes (sic) transverse to the centerline of the engine to place the bulk of its volute casing to one side, and not in the position as in the Merlin XX, the Allison and other “in line” engines.
Yup, I've read that too, but it's wrong as they did it on EVERY application and well before the use of cannons firing through the spinner, and on cars!
Really appreciate these videos.. thanks for making them
Late Allison V-1710 engines had an auxiliary supercharger driven "through a variable speed hydraulic coupling; the speed was determined by intake pressure". The engines were used almost exclusively in the P-63 King Cobra. That plane was designed to allow the greater length of this engine. Sounds like Allison was following the pattern of the DB60x drive system, it just was in a two stage system and too bulky to be a straight replacement in most fighters. A later development was used in the XP-51J with an intercooler and performance was 1700 hp @ 20,700 ft.
The multi stage Allison could have really turned into something. I'll talk about it in a video at some point.
Maintenance access and cooling.. are the only reasons I can think of …. In the 3 years I was in an F-4 squadron .. we had a few hydraulic pump and generator failures but zero engine failures … one broken engine mount only …. Those j79 ‘s are tough ….!
Very much enjoying your channel - even if much of it is beyond my mental envelope.
Regarding the placement of the supercharger, until sound evidence settles the question, I wonder if your comment - that the SSK’s supercharger was also at 90 degrees- is giving the correlation argument a little too much weight. Cars are different from aeroplanes, so there may have been different reasons for that angle of placement, thereby, giving the appearance of a causative reason. Just a thought.
Keep up the output, your channel is a breath of fresh air!
It could very well be that there is no common reason between cars and planes using the 90 degree supercharger angle. The only common factor is Germany. Car or plane, if it was made in Germany during this period it almost always ran at 90 degrees. If it was made somewhere else, it ran parallel to the crank. There are lots of good theories, but nothing concrete in terms of evidence about the reasoning.
Got here for the first time by the youtube suggestions - have no idea, why the charger is placed that way, but please keep doing movies - these are interestic even for such ignorant as I am - Thank yoU!
Thanks for watching my video. I am glad to hear that youtube is suggesting it. I'll be the first to admit that it's a pretty obscure topic.
Wow, fascinating. Thanks very much for this. I VERY much appreciate that you seem to explain your videos for 'lay people (like me)'. If you got as technical as I am quite sure you could - I would probably be lost.
I think i found the answer for the 90 degree supercharger.I have spoken to a German Engineer that worked previously in F1. He said that on cars it was done because of packaging issues. Engine was already high there was no room to put the roots blowers on top and there were not much space in front either so they put it 90 degrees to the crank to get a better packaging especially on the Auto Union cars that had 45 degree bank angle. And for aircraft he said it might be due to the already big centrifugal superchager increasing frontal area and drag if it was placed normally. My take on this is that they had gotten used to this method. They have been putting their superchargers 90 degrees to the crankshaft ever since 1921 , when the time for making the forced induction aircraft engines came around it was just common practice and they kept the same layout. French also did something similar , when they started using german Panther tanks after WW2 they got used to the "compressed air bore evacuation" system and kept using the same system ever since which is also present on their latest leclerc tank. Meanwhile pretty much every other nation uses physical bore evacuators placed on the barrel. The reason why French still use this system is because they had gotten used to it during their time with panthers and didnt feel the need to change. so something similar might have happened with the germans with their 90 degree superchargers. Also here is the German Ex F1 Engineers channel th-cam.com/users/BSport320about
That makes as much sense as anything else. I would still like to see an original source though.
Damn, what an awesome channel! I have ALWAYS wondered about ME109 supercharger and how it worked compared to allied planes. What is throttling the supercharger? No need, you explained that as well. Great information.
Thanks, I explain throttling here: th-cam.com/video/ULLsIo1VzTw/w-d-xo.html
Very interesting. Thanks for uploading such a rarely mentioned topic. Thumbs up! :)
Thanks Mega. I appreciate your comment. I enjoyed the model train and ship videos on your site as well as the actual train videos.
In a conversation once overheard the 90 degree was for manufacturing/repair purposes, it simply bolted on or unbolted from the side.
On the subject of complex supercharger drives, the never to reach production Napier Nomad aircraft diesel engine had a meshing disc type CVT to couple its axial supercharger to the crank. The engine ran up to 80 psi boost and could extract considerable power from the exhaust. Complexity and turbines consigned it to history, 3300 Hp max takeoff power from 12 cylinders is noteworthy.
Napier was doing some amazing stuff, and it may have proven revolutionary has it not been for the development of the turbine engine. All that new piston engine tech they were working on was sort of shoved aside and forgotten.
I once spent a lot of time studying the Nomad engine cutaway drawing trying to comprehend the shafting system. The CVT that connected the crankshaft to the turbine shaft had interleaved discs that provided continuously variable ratios. It was called the Beier stepless variable drive, as I remember from the book by Herschel Smith (or was it Bill Gunston?). The Nomad was developed on the assumption that high fuel consumption of early jets would keep them from providing economical air transport, and that props and recips would still have a market. But the speed and smoothness of jet propulsion prevailed.
A good overview of this engine can be found in the 1955 edition of SAE transactions, an axial compressor only has a narrow operating range. Operating a CVT with a 3:1 range to produce a 20% speed variation on the compressor though the use of a torque splitter allows for most of the torque to pass through the splitter instead of the CVT. I went looking for this engine in the Edinburgh museum only to find that it had moved elsewhere.
I saw a Nomad in the Smithsonian Garber restoration building in Suitland, Maryland maybe 20 years ago, before the Udvar-Hazy museum opened. (They also had a Sabre.) I wasn't able to spend any time studying it, though.
Very nice presentation. You get right to the interesting points, and explain them very well. Keep it up!
The Allison V1710E27 used a turbosupercharger . It never went into production because the temperatures were too high on the turbo blades . It was designed differently then the turbosupercharged V1710 used in the P-38 .
machia0705 does anyone know how they controlled the turbo on the p-38 the jug had a separate turbo lever beside the throttle l’ve never seen anything to control the turbo on the 38 other than the throttle.
in regards to the supercharger, mabey since there was an airscoop on the side of the cowling, this more efficient accumulation of air helped augment routing to the engine manifold as a whole, a subtle or slight advantage mabey, very informative.
I thought of that, and I like that theory. I also like the theory about easy service, but it doesn't explain why they also did it in cars.
Another good video. I have always assumed that the side-mounted superchargers is to facilitate maintenance, particularly with a relatively complex hydraulic drive. With superchargers mounted at the back of the engine you basically have to pull the whole engine to mess about with the supercharger, which is probably fine if its reliable and driven by simple gears and clutches. I would imagine the variable speed unit needed a bit more tweaking. It will also shorten the engine, although I am not sure that's a major concern.
I lean towards that explanation as well, but it doesn't explain it's use in cars. For example servicing the supercharger would be easier if it was mounted with a parallel drive on the side of the engine. Plus, with access panels locating it on the rear wouldn't be a problem, we put carbs back there, which require service.
This is great stuff . I was always disappointed in shows such as wing's of the luftwaffe for not getting into the technical side.
Great video 👍 'and alot of very good intelligent replies in comments to your questions..)
Yes, so great to find a channel that is a-political, and truly informative
ty greg
Really liked this one!
While memorizing all of the details would be superfluous, if you take a look at the type of engine in a 109,,take a look at the descriptive numerals and letters.
As an example:
A. Meaning an older 3 valve per cylinder design.
S. Meaning an oversize supercharger originally meant for the DB 603 engine.
C. Meaning a higher compression ratio, designed for 100 octane fuel. Of which we Germans had almost none.
M. Meaning the supercharging system is equipped with the emergency power methanol water system.
Lots and lots of letters. Memorizing them all would be silly. Thanks K.
Thanks Kori.
I saw a video that claimed the 90 degree turn vs the 180 degree tuen was the reason and I have read that it was nore conpact and left room for a second supercharger.
Well done explanation.
The P-63 had a hydraulic variable speed booster supercharger feeding the engine mounted supercharger (through the carburetor). It didn't have an intercooler but used water injection for war emergency power. I saw test data where top speed was comparable to the P-51 (440 mph), although almost all literature puts top speed at less than 410 mph.
But there were Allisons with the auxiliary stage supercharger that had an intercooler.
@@andyharman3022 Apparently the P-63A did not have water injection and its top speed was around 405 mph. The second most numerous P-63C had a top speed of 435 mph with water injection. The P-63E was tested at 445 mph. They were working on a P-63 with a turbo-compound Allison that developed 2900 hp, but lost interest because of jet development.
The added supercharge is described as having a variable speed hydraulic link, a hydraulic clutch, and a multispeed link that lead to GM automatic transmission. I don't know exactly what it had.
Hi Greg. I just went through all your supercharger videos. Love them! But I hear you say 'Superchargers hate throttling!' a number off times. I'm sure they do and I understand the reason for the throttling, but ... Is this mixture related or disrupted airflow? What's going wrong there?
It's a problem with the pressure ratios. I'll talk about this in a video on my Supercharged 1985 Alfa Romeo Spider when I get around to it.
Instead of using 2 stage superchargers that offered 2 altitudes at which engine performance was optimized, would it not have been possible to simply build a fluid coupled supercharger like this but optimized for say 30,000 ft then use the barometrically driven coupling to optimize performance from 30k all the way down to SL? What would be the downside? Would this have resulted in a supercharger that was too large to fit inside the DB-601/605/603 engine nacelle?
Great video Greg - thanks! You are clarifying things I understood at a much more basic level and clearing out misconceptions.
They could have done that, used a bigger supercharger with the fluid coupling. The drawback is that all compressors have an ideal range, and getting 20,000 feet out of one compressor is already really good. If you make one that's great at 30,000 feet, it's going to suffer at 10-20k feet. The Germans still had to fight down low, so they really did need a second stage.
Thanks for pronouncing it a Messerschmitt, and not Meschersmitt like all the other anglo related channels... BUT, it´s a BF109, not ME109. And thanks again for the in deep report. Didn´t know about those details yet.
It says BF109 in the title. It's my opinion that the regarding the 109 both the ME and Bf terms are just fine.
Thank you
With a centrifugal blower you reduce the discharge losses since the outlet is inline with the engine. This can be significant at high discharge velocities.
Please list PSI and BAR when saying IN/HG. A lot of us are only used to PSI and BAR.
Also, could you do something on the kommandogerat? The command device used in the 190-As and Ds.
Hi Marcus, OK, that's a fair point. I realize there are still a few of you out there using the Metric system. From now on I'll post manifold pressure values in inches HG, and include BAR. Maybe PSI, just don't ask for millimeters of Mercury, that's not going to happen unless I am discussing Japanese planes. Adding in Bar is quite reasonable, thanks for pointing that out.
What do you mean obviously the Merc didn't have a cannon!?
It did not have a cannon firing through the propeller as the ME 109. which fired in between the cylinders through the reduction gear.
Novat Why would you fit a cannon in a CAR?
LMAO pointless
@@left_ventricle couldn't you imagine a MG42 on the passenger seat? That would sort' off pretty nicely badass
For sure they have planed to install cannon in Mercedes as they already put sigh on bonnet. 😂
Because Adolf didn't want all this James Bond crap on his Benz. He probably had an Mg42 in the trunk...just in case some communists would dare to block the road. :)
All very interesting. I think it would have been nice if you were to have talked a little more about other examples, as different countries tend to do things slightly differently. For instance at the time the Germans did what you describe above which was fantastic, the Americans were set on Turbo-supercharging (now called turbocharging). The Brits were set on supercharging. Any other country just copied the 3 countries above...
I really think you should give particular attention to Sir Stanley hooker. He transformed the R-R Merlin from a very good aero-engine into the iconic world beater it became! I think that R-R supercharging was more advanced than anything that anyone else was doing due to Hooker...
Hi Julian, I think it would be nice too, but I couldn't fit all that into one 20 min video. I will cover many of those topics later.
I believe they put the supercharger on that way for serviceability? If it was sandwiched on the back side of the motor it seems like it would be so much harder to get to to work on?
Can't believe the Germans didn't use/transition to turbos...look at how fast the big Jug was with it's weight and aero!
The Beast! I agree, an amazing aircraft, all considered. Glad to see it mentioned in the company of these glamorous greyhounds.
They tried to apply turbocharger to Fw-190, it didn't go too well. The thing is, turbos were big at the time, very big and heavy. Apart from Jug and Lightning I don't know about any fighters that actually used them, apart from some prototypes and testbeds.
The Wright R-1820 Cyclone used turbochargers in most installations, e.g. the B-17.
Robert Elmo, The Germans had a number of issues with turbos. Firstly they didn’t quite anticipate the need for High Altitude combat. Secondly their highly ambitious Hubertus program was highly ambitious envisaging altitudes of more like 50,000 ft which required more radical engines and airframes. Thirdly they were short of refractory metals and it was best to use them for jets. (Even the USA struggled with shortages) They did have turbo versions of the BMW801 (the TJ and TQ) as well as the Jumo 213 and DB603 but only the BMW 801TJ entered service on the Ju 388 and a few Ju 88S3. Engines with two stage super chargers and inter coolers such as the Jumo 213E or DB603L or Jumo 213EB were better suited to their needs, the Fw 190D13 EB would have been a 488mph monster. The BV 155 had a service ceiling of 52500 ft with DB603 turbo equipped engines. So the turbo option seemed to be reserved for super high altitudes. A turbo equipped fighter essentially needs a purpose designed airframe and the Germans didn’t have time for that.
The amount of turning the air did was the same on the 90 degree installation. Scoop facing forward, supercharger, air turns again to enter manifold.
...and this one had met hitting the subscribe button. Great job and thanks for sharing your knowledge!
Thank you for you info. After building models of the 109 I surmised that the supercharger was was controlled by hydraulics, but was not sure. As for the 90° mounting, thinking perhaps has something to do with gyroscopic effects. Nothing to back that up, just a thought, thank you.
Hi Thanks Gary, A few people have mentioned the gyroscopic issue, so you are not alone there. I don't feel it's a strong possibility, but I just haven't seen any real evidence either way so I can't discount it either.
As a note, the supercharger drive varies its ratio based on the pressure of atmospheric air from the static port, not a line from manifold pressure - I do not know why they chose to set it up this way.
Both ambient and manifold pressures are inputs to the system.
Have you found any information on the 2-stage supercharger of the DB605 L engine variant?
Excellent info! You are a very good teacher. When I look at the common rail system on my diesel engine, the inlets are 90 degrees toward the cylinder block. That makes the engine take up a huge amount of space in the engine room. Could it be like that the Germans engineers wanted to save space and came with a unique solution regarding the compressor?
Putting the Turbocharger at right angles instead of lateral means that the air would be compressed firstly in the engine cowling making it easy for the turbo to breathe in more easily, secondly, laterally mounted avoids ducting from the front to the rear or where ever the turbo is situated, the P47 had those huge ducts to get air to the chargers thus having to build the huge plane that is was, if the turbo was facing towards the rear of the plane, at 350/400 MPH, there would be a vacuum created by the air rushing past and the turbo would be ineffective and just deadweight
Maybe the 90degree supercharger drive puts its angular momentum vector in a direction that improves the aircraft's directional response time.
Why 90 degrees? From a change of momentum point of view, I presume the intake air mass into the Merlin forced the engine back approximately twice as much as the Benz was as the incoming air had to change 180 degrees and not 90 degrees. Also, the size of the impeller could be made larger I guess! Note that the Benz has a higher volumetric capacity than the Merlin.
Please refer to the Pelton wheel effect and its buckets to see the effect of change of momentum on a reversal.
My guess is that the supercharger is side mounted purely to keep the length of the engine down, look at how they had to lengthen the Spitfire when the two stage supercharger arrived on the Merlin, Greg states that the 109 had the advantage of being small. I note that the hydraulic coupling is given great credit in this video and the gear driven conventional arrangement that needs intake throttling below critical altitude is rubbished. But my take on this is that the hydraulic coupling power losses which even exist even when fully ''driven'' compared to conventional gear driven which has no losses detract from any benefit. By how much I do not know, but it must be a big something. I say that because no other aero engine adopted that arrangement, when doing so would have been a fairly trivial task at the design stage.
Ah, but other Aero engines did adopt this arrangement. The XP-72 is set up this way, but the jets took over before it came to full fruition. I covered this in a recent video.
Neat, thanks for directing me to this. And I thought I had an original idea for once! You learn something every day.
Regarding your question about the 90* supercharger location - I'm only speculating here, but I have three possible hunches. Does it shorten the overall length of the engine assembly, and aid in packaging? Does it make the supercharger easier to access and service? Were the components for that 90* setup already well in production at the time, making a revision just a case of diminishing returns?
Thanks Paul, all three are plausible.
The ProCharger I-1 has a CVT driven impeller that can do something similar to this, but that was released in 2013 about 70 years after the 109.
Yes, I have looked at it. It's along the same lines, but does not have the same range of control. Also, it doesn't seem to be too popular, I'm not sure why not.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I think the price of around $9000 is a big reason it is not very popular.
Cool explanation, thank you.
Meanwhile in War Thunder:
Engine Overheat
Engine Dead
Water Overheat
Oil Overheat
Pilot Knocked Out
No Ammo
Tail Cut Off
Overspeed
etc.
Bf109 has the most reliable engine there though, as long as you don't get shot.
I believe a inverted v-12 was tried in unlimited hydroplaning during the 1960's, the Coral Reef I believe.
+ Keith Schultz Now that's odd. The write-up for the Coral Reef boat says that they experimented with a DB-601 although it was not very successful. I can't find a picture and I wonder what it sounded like. In the 1960s, Merlins and Allisons could be bought for scrap value, so I'm curious why they would waste a DB engine when parts and repairs were very unlikely even by the 1960s. I can imagine that someone grabbed a pallet of surplus parts when the Air Force disposed of foreign materials in late 40s and early 50s.
I commented before you said it had a hydraulic coupling 😳🔫 that would be a great reason to have the impeller rotating in the same axis as the plane is traveling. If the impeller was perpendicular to the axis of travel the gyroscopic forces would always try to slow it down. And because planes travel so fast it would thrust load the impeller. 🤣it sounded good🤣🤣🔫 great vid thank you
The 90 degree position to the direction of flight is advantageous because it is the best way to lubricate the bearings in the turbocharger. This is not so relevant for smaller turbochargers, but with increasing turbine weight and higher G load in the longitudinal axis, this factor becomes more and more important.
Love the videos. Manifold pressure is important to an engines compression ratio I assume?
Thanks Todd. Manifold pressure effects the "effective compression ratio", but not the mechanical compression ratio.
excellent video, please keep it up. subbed of course
Voodoo, the P51 Reno Racer which holds the current world speed record of 531 mph TAS, set this record at low altitude...but what TAS might it have achieved had it flown at 25 - 30,000 ft, which was what Mustangs were designed to dogfight at?
109 didn't have room for dual supercharger and had to run a wide range of altitude, they also had much lower octane fuel, under 100, where American and British fighters had 130 and late war 150
Ryan, good post!
Learned it all from this brilliant guy named greg
Now if only he was into Mitsubishi evolutions, I love building them :p or husqvarna 450,510 dirtbikes
Hi Greg, what do you mean by “superchargers don’t like to be throttled”? Do you mean they don’t respond well to throttle input or do you mean erratic movement of the throttle?
I mean they don't like something in the path of the inlet air choking it off.
Thanks. Do you know anything about the flying control pressures at high speeds? In another video a pilot was stating that even at high speeds the ME 109 had good aileron control unlike the P-51 which got really heavy. The Zero had issues in all 3 control axis. Apparently the ME 109 also had a far superior rate of climb compared to the Spitfire or P51. Do you know if this is correct?
That's all in the next video.
Greg, I am reading "The secret Horsepower Race" by Calum E. Douglas at the moment. If you dont have it, I can highly recommend. It is all about 2nd World War Fighter Engine Development.
I am familiar with it.
Did the P-51h use a similar supercharger drive system? How did the Americans incorporate it into a double supercharger?
And here it is. Thank you :)
The DB601 and DB605 also had water/methanol injected to boose the trust even more at high altitudes and fuel injection of course. Mercedes an BMW have a long tradition of powerful engines.
Is that the only German assembly line photo ever taken? What a treat. Henry Fords scoffs at that factory. The Germans, pardon my cliche, are very excellent designers, engineers, and manufacturers but they suck at naming things for global sales. Trem II - they actually use the Roman numerals - what is it about Germans and Romans? Are you old enough to remember the Doozy? In the 50s, if something was awesome someone might say, "it's a Doozy!" referring to the reputation (1920s) of fine Deusenberg automobiles, driven by many rich and famous Europeans and royalty and American celebs and the wealthy for showing off and going fast and god help you if you didn't know a Doozy mechanic. Also the convertibles were perfect for showing off. It's a Doozy! It's a Benz is a later decade - the 50s on, started by the Brits. Brits and Germans were always exchanging tech, war or no war. Think of the jet engine. Captain Obvious out. (I'm still designing the Captain Obvious Flyer)