Greg for Airplanes. Drachinifel for navies. Chieftains Hatch for armored. Forgotten Weapons for small arms. The best content creators for your respective fields I've yet found. Intelligent, articulate concise, well sourced, no nonsense, and occasionally some humor. You guys do in 10-15 minutes what most Documentaries struggle to do in an hour or 2. Great stuff. I hope to see Drachinifel and yourself get as recognized and big as Forgotten Weapons or the Chieftain
""The Origin of the Inverted V-12 German Aero engines. This goes back to 1928 when a committee of aeronautical experts was assembled in Berlin at the bidding of the R.V.M. Representatives from the Army, the D.V.L. research centre, the Navy (airships were at their peak in 1928 ) and Deutsche Lufthansa were instructed to make an in-depth study of of the international scene regarding aero-engines and then produce specific guide lines for the future development of large air- and liquid-cooled motors. Along with others, Prof. Wunibald Kamm (of "Kamm Tail" fame), Ing. Wolfram Eisenlohr (famous pilot and head of the D.V.L. power plant division) and Dr. Helmut Sachse (later, co-designer of the B.M.W. 801) served on this panel. The specifications drawn up by this "think tank" were very detailed and incorporated some very advanced features including, for the liquid -cooled engines: - 12-cylinder, inverted installation, - mono-block cylinder banks, - wet cylinder liners, - propeller reduction gear, - supercharger, - fuel injection, - high temperature glycol cooling, - provision of a cannon tunnel in the Vee. Tender documents were sent to Daimler-Benz, Junkers and B.M.W., all of which eventually produced a V-12 engine model in response although none was able to incorporate all of the required features immediately, eg the DB600 had dry liners and carburettors, the JU210 also had only carburettors and the B.M.W. 116/117 only got as far as the prototype stage. The specifications were presented to the manufacturers as a fait accompli. If they wanted production orders, the engines had to comply with the tender descriptions. Wolfram Eisenlohr was interviewed in 1980 re the 1928 requirement for inverted V-12s and he cited three reasons for the decision vis, - more compact installation, - better pilot view for single engined aircraft, - less exhaust flame dazzle during night flying. Ref: Junkers Flugtriebwerke by Müller, R, p 150 - 151. (Helion and company) von Gersdorff et al "Die Deutsche Flug..." p 42. ISBN 1-85260-163-9; Fred Jakobs, Robert Kröschel and Christian Pierer. "BMW aero engines". BMW Group Classic, 2009 ISBN 978-3-86852-214-3. p 85 -87.""
The flame dazzle hardly seems like a think tank idea. A simple pipe routed beyond the cockpit would fix this for night fighting. Although it may hinder visibility slightly, if it is already dark, it would not be any worse.
Interesting. This kind of answers my question in Greg's other video. Which was first, the airplane spec that requires inverted V or vice versa. Looks like the the inverted V was a fact of life by the time the Germans created the specs for the air planes.
I worked in heavy construction for 40 years and a couple of times I had the opportunity to work with some German engineers and mechanics and I can tell you that they definitely place a huge emphasis on being able to do maintenance on whatever they are building!
Unlike their automotive and tank designers. A distinct contributing factor to why Germany lost WW2 was because their tanks required many more hours to for similar repairs. An example is changing a power pack. On a Sherman or T-34, pulling and replacing an engine took about 6 hours wall-clock time. On a Panther, 24-hours.
Always wondered how they got the gun to shoot thru the hub. Plus having the gun behind the firewall means there is no adverse cg effect as ammo is expended.
@@davem5333 Some years ago,read an article that discussed the ongoing problems the Messerschmidt people had with vibration issues in the wings and in the engine area,the moment the guns were fired. Since the E model was B of B era,and 20mm were in the wings,why then such a problem throughout even the G production ? Looking at that photo explained in no other way just how minimalist the 109 design really was. Carefully thought out,minimum weight, but just trying to go up to say 13mm machine guns instead of 7.92 mm put additional stresses on a metal frame structure never intended to be pushed beyond what they had. And a 30 mm cannon through the hub ? Enormously greater stresses, to say nothing of weight and bulk and cubic of ammunition. Always nice to leave something on the table for what comes along in future. Given what showed up later after that 1935 base design,the Russian fighters with nose cannon,the American monsters such as the P 47,the efforts those engineers had to go through is all the more impressive.
That maintenance issue is a big one. Having spent numerous hours helping my dad work on his aircraft - with simply Lycoming engines, I can really sympathize with anyone working on an upright vs inverted beast like a V-12.
What do you think of a head re and re on an inverted vs an upright would be like? Oil dripping all over you as you let off the head bolts... hoping it doesn’t slip as the last bolt is removed. How about installation? No way to get a hoist to put it on (remember... this is an overhead cam engine and is over 2000 cubic inches of displacement... a 454 or 426 head is feather light in comparison) so holding it by hand with someone else trying to line it up while a third person is trying to get enough bolts started to actually hold it... vs even using three trees and some rope as a hoist in a two man operation to simply slowly guide it into place?
@@Bartonovich52 Im sure it was standard procedure to drain and pump the oil out before removing the heads. And im sure they had jacks, kind of like transmission jacks, to help lower the heads down off of the block, not three dudes standing with their hands holding the bitch, growing tired as they wait for you to remove the last couple bolts. Im sure they would if they had to in a pinch. But even the use of come-alongs or ratcheting system of some sort would be used if not a jack.
@@neilaronson4078 I am quite sure that the German procedure would be to remove the engine from the plane, in order to drop the heads. Removing the engine, following" the "power egg" concept, was much easier and faster on a German '109 that it was on a Spit, P-51, P-40...
Kyle Ironically Im watching that right now, so far where I’m at in the video he is explaining how many grams of lead per second but that 4 20MM put out more lead/sec and weighed less. I think he’s about to explain why the US didn’t opt for the 4 20MM. (including reliability issues)
It has been my pleasure to be part of a team that overhauls and restores to flying condition DB 601/605's, Jumo 211/213's, BMW 801's, amongst others. So I have some experience working above and below these engines. The inverted V is willing to make me miserable by leaking or dripping fuel and oil all over me while I stand under there with arms over my head looking up into that dark abyss of the valley where a good flashlight is your only friend. Yes, that sure beats working on the ladder in the sunshine. Best job I've ever had! Thanks, Greg. Keep up the good work.
Great Video Greg! If I found your channel 7 years earlier I would ask my grandfather who was a mechanic on the HE111 during WW2. He never talked about the war but every time I talked about Airplanes and engines he talked about his time how it was to maintain the engines and even some small tricks he learned and teach other mechanics. He even talked about why some engines were designed that way they were. Me as an engineer myself like your analytical approach on how the solved problems and implemented them. So keep up the good work!
Great stuff! Seeing the inverted prop reduction box on the DB601 and that great shot of the engineless plane. makes it clear how that big cannon worked with the inverted V engine.
I'm trying to become an A/P. Mechanic and I dont know anything about engines or parts. I've always loved German planes from W.W.2 and watching your channel is teaching me a lot about planes and cars. Keep up the good work. I'm in love with your channel.
A inverted engine is a drysump engine. Oilflow follows gravity. Most flying is positive G. Getting oil out of the cylinder heads is a problem with most upright engines. Not so with an inverted engine. Oil collects in the cam covers and can scavenge easely into the drysump tank. Its a proper engineering solution and ease of maintenance access is a bonus. Thanks for your great analysis. I will build my next hotrod with an inverted engine.
Great channel. Learning so much. To reinforce the idea that maintenance is a key factor in preferring an inverted V configuration perhaps you could do a video on the routine maintenance cycles for WW2 aero-engines? You mentioned changing spark plugs. What other items might need checking or replacing? Valve clearances, timing, oil etc
Keep in mind, there are two spark plugs per cylinder, so that alone is quite a bit. I'll try and include the maint. sched. for a fighter in an upcoming video.
I found an old Civil Aeronautical Bulletin # 28 1942 (Pilots' Powerplant Manual) that states that inverted engines were used in oval shaped fuselages and aircraft with side by side seating, including trainers. It's a US document but it does seem to back up your thesis from your first video about German oval fuselages. Maintainability also makes sense, but the German propensity to over engineer and their fanatic use of very close machine clearances seems to militate against any care for maintainability. The He-111 used inverted engines but they still needed step ladders to get to the valve covers since the aircraft sat higher than the Me - 109. But, I'm an engineer and arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling a pig .. we both enjoy it. Your videos raise more questions than answers, which is a great application for RUclips. We're all learning from your channel. Thanks.
Greg, I had the misfortune to call you out on something 2 years ago on Merlins/USA Merlins. Since then you are my main Motorman. Your topic propositions are probably born from your own questions and subsequent assessments are incredibly detailed, calling in your amassed knowledge and database to reach a logical conclusion. I will go with the invert being streamlining / minimum drag, so 1) speed 2) vision as being the major wins for a fighter / performance in speed and effectivity ruling. I'm not so sure that the Luftwaffe were so concerned with the blackbird's lives and ergonomics for ease of maintenance though WIlly Messerschmidt design bureau may have been. This is a pleasurable technical historic site ! well done .
Greg, You finally hit on the best answer ! I knew a former Luftwaffe aircraft crew chief for several years and he always said the inverted engine's ease of maintenance imparted a significant advantage . I also consider the German aircraft fuel quality adding to the maintenance load per flight hour . Bill also reminded me the Luftwaffe grew from ( and never had reason to change ) from tactical roots dating back to WW1 . The same can be said for British design parameters persisting well into the 20th century . Great series !! .
I enjoy your intelligent analysis... thank you for providing reasonable assessments of multiple sides of the discussion, providing your conclusion, and leaning on documented sources when possible.
Informative, concise and very well narrated. This two-part vid answered many questions about the different configurations that I had. Also, I had thought that the db600 only came in diesel. Thanks for expanding.
That's a great explanation of reasons for engine designs and uses. I especially like the reference to maintenance on inverted engines about dropping a part or tool. Murphy's Law states that a part or tool dropped will land where it can't be found or will do the most damage!
"Soviet machine gun technician Viktor M. Sinaisky recalled: The Messer was a very well designed plane. First, it had an engine of an inverted type, so it could not be knocked out from below." As a layman this is not self evident. Surely having all the gubbins that made maintenance easy from below surely makes the inverted V somewhat more vulnerable?
I just subbed about 2 minutes into this video. Sadly engineering compromises are much more interesting than the title suggests. Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles story telling style is pretty good. No dragging things out, some humor, good use of visuals, casual and friendly narration, and good information.
Best barrel roll ever filmed. I am watching the dvd this weekend. Much less dated than the battle of Brittan or some other film because they really flew ww1 replicas. Epic
You thoroughly cover aspects of these planes that most others never even mention. I rarely seem to learn anything from watching others' videos, but I've never watched one of your videos w/o learning numerous things. Thanks for the great content and keep up the good work!
Just finished watching this video for the sixth or seventh time. Learn something every time. Thanks Greg for the fabulous content and presentation. Just outstanding work. Look forward to your work!
I don't know if it has already popped out in the comment sections of both videos, but when I think about the 109's engine bay I often appreciate the cowl-mounted radiator and its evolution along the plane's versions. It's not a big factor when you have to choose between the two layouts, but probably it's a plus for the inverted one having the oil radiator very close to the cylinder heads.
I love this. I thought I knew my airplanes. Turns out, I don't know Jack! I learn more about airframes and engines from your narrative videos than I have from anything else I think. As far as this content, all I have to say is this: Germany- Way ahead of its time. I'm looking fwd to your P-47 series. BTW, how bout a series on the P-39? The potential it had, and how great it could have been had it just been given it's turbo, and a fighting chance. Thanks again for these videos.
I have a US military technical manual for motorcycles dated 25 September 42, in it is all the technical and rebuild information for the common WLA Harley 45 inch flathead that they made over 90,000 of, the experimental Harley shaft drive that was based on the BMW design (although this model was never mass produced 1,000 were built for field trials and apparently as of the printing of the manual they had intentions of making it) and an Indian shaft drive with the Indian 45 inch V twin flathead turned 90° sideways like a Moto Guzzi, aside from in this manual I've never seen anything in print or any pictures of the shaft drive Indian anywhere else, it's a real unicorn.
Very good points. The inverted design may have been convenient to add cowl-mounted guns while minimizing negative forward visibility impact. However, this was not a significant factor in the initial design choice.
As answer to your topic i found some resources: In 1918 an advice was given bij Georg Madelung for the development of new areo enigines. He advised hanging cylinders in the A form. (now called : inverted V) The German Military made a specification for new aero-engines in 1929 in the class of 20 to 30 titer. Helmut Sachse and Wolfram Eisenlohr were thechnical advisors for this specifaction. Both of them played a great role in the German Aero-engine development. Wolfram Eisenlohr wrote in a letter from april 1980 : "We wished hanging cylinders because het top of the engine was smaller and therefore the sight in a one engined plane would be better. The lower laying exhausts were an advantage in nightflying.
Yes! Videos that get useful or interesting comments (even if only to debunk those), normally need a follow up. This because comments aren't as visible and as practical as videos (one cannot listen to them or find them quickly)
I just discovered your channel through your last inverted V12 video. I was really impressed so perused some of your other content and subscribed. I can't wait to delve into your back catalogue, and see what you produce in the future. Thank you for your hard work so far and I hope you have a lot more great stuff and success to come! Also I just wanted to say that there is a very noticeable drop in audio quality between this video and the original inverted V12 video I watched. In this video it almost sounds like you're sitting on the other side of the room from the microphone (although I'm sure this isn't the case). I would guess that this is because you produced this video more quickly as a response to the community involvement in the first. I imagine that so far you have produced content as a passion project, rather than expecting a financial return on your time investment. But I have a feeling that your channel is starting an exponential surge in popularity (that is usually the point at which I discover a new channel like yours through the RUclips Algorithm Gods). Hopefully this will bring with it the monetary compensation that you deserve, and perhaps encourage/allow you to produce more content with higher production values. I am certainly not an expert at producing RUclips content, but I might consider myself something of an expert at consuming it! So from that position, I'd like to suggest that you invest in some quality audio recording equipment. A crisp and clean auditory experience goes a long way to making videos more enjoyable and desirable, and thus further reaching. Anyway, thanks again for the hard work so far, and I'm excited to see what you produce in the future. I hope great success is on the horizon for you!
Great video (and previous one as well). Good insight on the motorkannone theory. I kind of thought as well that the orientation of the V would not be a limiting factor for a MK, though i did think that perhaps it would help with shell dispensing during firing. But seeing that pic of the 109 without the engine - it's pretty clear the MK's body is far further back. Still think the more realistic explanation is that at some point the germans just found an inverted V more practical - and they tended to stick to using what they know works (well mostly). I mean, practical in terms of servicing the engine, thus accessibility and so on. Do you think that as a result, that is why the German super-chargers were almost always on the right side (you did a vid on this)? Anyways, good video as always. Are there any other interesting such topics on 109's you can do? Love this stuff.
I agree with you on maintenance but also think your argument about the cross section made a lot of sense as well. The inverted V helped with having a smaller cross sections as a Me 109 had far tighter cabin than a P-47.
The cowl mounted guns made the wings lighter as well. The 109 was designed to be transported by rail meaning the wings would need to come off frequently. Fewer guns and magazines in the wing would simplify the process. This is why they had the narrow landing gear as well. As for the inversion I also believe visibility and maintenance would have been the major factor. Compare the nose of the 109 to what it replaced, the He-51 for example. In a notably difficult to taxi, narrow gear, tail-wheel aircraft like the 109, you can't afford to lose that visibility. Perhaps keeping the mass down low also helped to prevent ground loops as the distance between the mass and the front wheels would be shorter.
Greg, really good video and I want to address some questions you put up. On the V12 being inverted. It may or may not have been originally for maintenance but it works better that way. I was an A & P for about 15 years working on many different airplanes. Piston, turbine, turbo prop, and sailplanes. My understanding is that Willy Messerschmidt was very concerned with maintainability. Things like the landing gear being attached to the fuselage so you can take off a wing and still wheel the airplane around. That really makes a difference in the shop. The gear and wings and engine mounts are attached to a large ring forging that concentrates the load at the firewall without a lot of parts or weight. Look how easy the cowling is to remove for access. On the firewall the bulkhead connections are quick release and each one is different so they can't be mixed up. If you access panels on the fuselage for maintenance the components are color coded for being field repairable or depot level repair. For a time our shop had a CASA built JU52 being cosmetically finished into a pre war Lufthansa air liner. The wing spars were tubes and the attachments were round spigots on the wings to threaded attachments on the fuselage. Very easy to remove and install. So my vote for the inverted engine is maintainability.
Hello Greg, one of the companies which produced thousands of inverted aircraft engines of many types was Czechoslovak Walter, a company known for its turboprop M601 engine (GE H series), later renamed to Motorlet, Avia and today owned by GE Aviation. The inverted in-line engines Junion, Minor, Major, Micron, M337 etc. were produced since 1932 till 2002 (in LOM company). They powered plenty of well known light aircraft (at least in Europe) such as Aero Ae-45, Zlín-26(126...726), Zlín-42/142. They were used both with carburetors and injectors and both with and without supercharger. AFAIK the reason for the use of the inverted engine was the higher propeler axis, lower gear and lower center of gravity. Walter produced also one inverted military V12 engine called Sagitta but only dozens were built. The engine used Farman planetary reducer (as usual option when cannon in the shaft was not needed), so that the propeller axis was kept up. It was equipped with carburator and supercharger. It was used in many prototypes - Czechoslovak Praga E-51 recon plane, Dutch Fokker-XXIII heavy fighter, Yugoslav Rogozharski R-313, Italian Savoia-Marchetti SM.86 or Latvian fighter VEF I-16. The common feature of all of them aside of the Savoia-Marchetti is that the development was stopped by foreign occupation of said countries. The engine with the planetary reducer is preserved in Mladá Boleslav aircraft muzeum, Czech Republic.
I believe the reason the RLM specified inverted V12 was the mounting of motor cannons. In an upright V12 this is still possible but the breech which protudes into the cockpit would take up the space where the instrument panel sits. With an inverted V12, the cannon breech sits low on the floor between the rudder pedals.
I've been wondering how they did prop hub guns for awhile. it wasn't long before I speculated that it'd have to be with a gear driven prop to offset the the hub from the block (can't really see a gun going through the block, let alone the zig-zag crankshaft). It's nice to see the mechanics of it actually explained
A useful supplement to the previous BF109 video, and I have to say that the photo you managed to come across with gun barrels in place but engine removed is one of the best illustrations - photographic or hand-drawn or anything in between - of how all those mechanical and armament bits go together that I've seen in decades of reading about WW II fighter planes. I totally agree that maintenance and visibility issues have to be kept in mind when thinking about WW II fighters. I look forward to the FW190 video(s) and the remainder of the P-47 series. I'll also put in a plug for the F6F (I hope it's not too far down on the list), and I'd like to see one on the Nakajima Ki-84 "Frank," which was apparently every bit the equal of the F6F in the last few months of the war in the Pacific. As a non-engineer, I'm hoping to stumble across an explanation of propeller tip speed's importance, as well - that's a technical tidbit I don't quite "get" yet. Be that as it may, it's all good stuff, Greg.
prop tip speed is an issue when the tips go supersonic, that is when they travel faster than the speed of sound. I'm sure that Greg can expand on that a lot, but that is the crux of it.
As a young enthusiast of the aircraft of WWII, I bought a series of books printed and sold on popular grocery stores back in around 1970 on those aircraft. In the case of the BF109 what was emphasized regarding the design philosophy was the idea of mating the most powerful engine to the smallest possible airframe. That was how the BF team and Willy Messerschmidt achieved the fantastic performance and speed the early 109s were known for. The trade off was mainly in the range of the aircraft and some instability issues which required such fine tuning that later copies such as the Check "Mule" became dangerously unstable because its engine rotated in the opposite direction. In the half century since I've done my best with the resources I have to find out more about the weaponry of WWII and some more modern weapons.
In 'Willy Messerschmitt. Sein Leben, seine Flugzeuge, 1975' Willy Messerschmitt actually argues that he wanted to create a versatile weapon platform in the first place, that incorporates the lightest airframe and a powerful engine.
Another awesome video. My take on the subject was formed as a child building model airplanes. The inverted V when viewed straight on conforms with the wide side of the fuselage aerodynamically. It was so obvious that I never thought it was a subject for debate. Until now. Maintenance would seem simpler, but then one would have to assume that Willy Messerschmitt had that in mind when designing the aircraft. I've reformed my opinion that there was no reason at all. Thanks
The breakdown on the FW 190 A series and D would send you through the roof. Many (most?) people are very fascinated with that aircraft especially given even American aces like Yeager and Hoover talked about it post-war as a very serious opponent. Hoover apparently made a call that he could only manoeuvre with an early FW190 with flaps out. Yeager claimed he was shot down by an FW 190 A, but he didn't really see his attacker. A worthy opponent.
I think part of the reason the Allison, the Merlin, the Hisso and various Russian V-12's were upright is the Wright D-12. It influenced just about all of them IMO
Love your videos! Dragged out my apprentice notes, and the 2 reasons listed for inverted engines, Shorter landing gear (befuddles me) and pilot vision. Hope it supports your theories.
Thanks Des. The shorter landing gear is in reference to the ability in a direct drive prop configuration (meaning no gear reduction) to have the prop higher, thus the gear shorter. So all of that is right in line with what I said in the two videos on this subject.
fantastic. thank you. I am impressed by the FW 190 operational altitude advantage and climb rate over the Spitfire even though it utilized the same style of supercharger to produce boost.... that is if these Americanized documentaries are accurate
If you ever get a spare minute, check out Kermit Weeks channel. He's in the process of restoring a BF-108. Quite interesting to see the craftsmanship that went into those wonderful old a/c!!! :-) You do a fine job of explaining how and why they did things way back when... I think a good many engineers today could learn something from them ;-)
Greg: Your engine videos are awesome. May I suggest you create a video that ties them together: Engines are Air Pumps. In order to get a horsepower for an hour, you need to burn half a pound of gas. In order to burn half a pound of gas, you need to pump 7.5 pounds of air through your engine. You can vary cubic inches, RPM, and air pressure. You get deductions if your intake or exhaust system can’t flow the air. Start with this basic idea, and show how it applies to WWI engines, WWII engines, and Formula 1 engines. Show how gasoline quality limits air pressure, which really hurt the Germans. Show how the jet engine made it a lot easier to pump air. Show that piston speed is a limit - you can’t make stroke longer and keep same RPM. Show scaling laws - if you double every dimension on a cylinder, you increase cubes by 8 but valve area by 4. Show that it works for diesels - it burns slower, so piston speed is slower, everything else is the same. Show that it works for rocket engines - a instead of a pound of air, pump .2 pounds of liquid oxygen.
I thought about that. However, I assume that there are already at least several channels on youtube that go over basics of internal combustion, so I don't know that I really want to do that, nor do I think that's why my subscribers and Patreon supporters want. Some of the topics you mention are covered in my videos because they highly relevant to this specific subject matter, for example my P-51 Mustang Manifold Pressure video talks about gasoline quality limiting air pressure, so does my first 109 vs. P-51 speed video. As an example, if I really wanted to explain camshaft timing it would take me about two 30-40 min videos to get that in, probably more. That's just one thing. If I covered the entire engine, that would be about a year worth of video uploads for this channel, thus I would spend a year putting up videos on topics that are already covered here on youtube (at least I assume they are, someone must be doing that), and thus there would be no videos about, say the FW190 during that time. Then add in Rockets, steam power, gas turbines, etc. and it's an entire channel by itself, quite easily.
I don`t know. It was more like the ancillaries came with the block as a one piece "power egg". But the block dropping free of the engine bearers might have helped side-stepping the use of a crane...
Isnt it that the p51 airframe is a tubular construction while the bf109 has the whole front bolted to the airframe like shown on the bf109 without engine?
was it? in some other video (some german guy video i think) was saying it was a day of work for 109 and one hour of work for me262... but i have no idea for his sources.
Just to note, the Japanese liked guns firing between the cylinders. The A5M you show has guns at 11 and 1, while the Ki-27 has them at like 4 and 8, or 5 and 7. The Ar 196 also fired between cylinders, as did the Swordfish. It was pretty common, actually, until the twin row made it impossible.
I have seen a photo of a RAF mechanic working on a Spitfire in North Africa, in full sun wearing only shorts sitting astride the nose like riding a horse. Then another photo of German mechanics working on a Ju87 standing in the shade of the nose.
Very interesting video/article! It still has not explained the real reason why the Germans choosed the inverted the V12 engine. In my modest opinion it allowed an easier mantainance as many important items especially regarding the fuel injection system and change of spark plugs could easily been done from the ground and it was a relatively quick job to change engines compared to the Merlin engine. It also permitted a smaller and narrow front and perhaps offering better visual for the pilot. Keep posting and good job!
So, reading between the lines I suspect the ascendency of horizontally opposed aviation engines is they combine most of the advantages of upright, inverted, and radial engines with fewer disadvantages.
Exactly! This is why I resort to RUclips over Netflix or TV for documentaries. Information-rich and without the idiotic fake cliffhangers or obnoxious music. AND no commercials!
One thing you didn’t mention was pilot preference. Allied pilots often didn’t have a choice because most of the Allied fighters used wing guns. The P-38 was the exception for the Allies. The Germans had a choice between the Bf-109 and the FW-190. Most of the experienced pilots preferred the Bf-109 because of the concentration of firepower. No having to worry about convergence, just line up the enemy and pull the trigger. Same was true in the Pacific, but addition of a second engine was also a factor for the long over water missions.
I agree with the idea that maintenance was a motivating factor in the choice of inverted V set up. One down side of this arrangement is the possibility of hydraulic locking if enough engine oil were to collect in some of the cylinders. Because of this the ground crews were required to manually rotate the engine backwards using the prop. This would open the exhaust valve first and allow the oil to drain out. Any one who has been around radial engines knows this.
You have some good points on that. What came first, the planes or the engines? I believe youre right about the maintenance issue. Germans were and still is focused on ease of maintenance. I am a aircraft mechanic on c130j, and LM dosnt seem to have that in focus ;)
Great video! Maintenance issue could have been a reason for the inverted v12 design good point My grandfather served as a mechanic at Debrecen airfield( Hungarian Air force) later deployed close to Don river during WWII he maintained Caproni Ca 135s and bis it was a nightmare to work on those bombers.
Should have watched this video before making my comment on the previous one! I see you addressed my point exactly, and I stand corrected, although there was perhaps minor space-saving benefit regardless :P
I've enjoyed these two videos. I'd thought and believed some of these considerations to be the reason they did it, but I hadn't considered ALL the possible reasons covered here. There's one thing everyone should agree on... The ground crew for the Napier Sabres had it rough! ( I know...the radial guys couldn't avoid the ladder either!😉).
Lavochkin, correctly pronouncing would be with beginning just identical to the word "lava" or "Laugh" and continuation almost like "Hutchinson" (-: BTW as non-English listener, I must applause for Greg's fluent speak and perfect grammar. Thank you, Greg for that and for your greatly interesting content!
Yeah, the making room for guns argument fails with the 109 G version which with the switch to 13mm cowl guns meant big bumps on the outside of the cowl to accommodate the new guns breaches. That must had been a bitter pill for the 109 jockeys with the one sight line that the 109 had right was now obstructed.
Very informative. Answered a few of the questions I had. I read somewhere that the Russians preferred the guns in the nose. As it helped with aiming, and lessened shot dispersal. One of the reasons they didn't particularly like the spitfire. That, and they thought it was over complicated. And the ones they received where worn out
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles As a Brit, I would disagree 😁 it's a legend for a reason. Right plane at the right time. But a plane is only as good as the pilot. The RAF had the best of both
![The 'Great Fighter' That Became A Great Disappointment | Yakovlev Yak-2 [Aircraft Overview #22]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JKZ8mQmKQQU/mqdefault.jpg)
Greg for Airplanes.
Drachinifel for navies.
Chieftains Hatch for armored.
Forgotten Weapons for small arms.
The best content creators for your respective fields I've yet found. Intelligent, articulate concise, well sourced, no nonsense, and occasionally some humor.
You guys do in 10-15 minutes what most Documentaries struggle to do in an hour or 2.
Great stuff. I hope to see Drachinifel and yourself get as recognized and big as Forgotten Weapons or the Chieftain
""The Origin of the Inverted V-12 German Aero engines.
This goes back to 1928 when a committee of aeronautical experts was assembled in Berlin at the bidding of the R.V.M.
Representatives from the Army, the D.V.L. research centre, the Navy (airships were at their peak in 1928 ) and Deutsche Lufthansa were instructed to make an in-depth study of of the international scene regarding aero-engines and then produce specific guide lines for the future development of large air- and liquid-cooled motors.
Along with others, Prof. Wunibald Kamm (of "Kamm Tail" fame), Ing. Wolfram Eisenlohr (famous pilot and head of the D.V.L. power plant division) and Dr. Helmut Sachse (later, co-designer of the B.M.W. 801) served on this panel.
The specifications drawn up by this "think tank" were very detailed and incorporated some very advanced features including, for the liquid -cooled engines:
- 12-cylinder, inverted installation,
- mono-block cylinder banks,
- wet cylinder liners,
- propeller reduction gear,
- supercharger,
- fuel injection,
- high temperature glycol cooling,
- provision of a cannon tunnel in the Vee.
Tender documents were sent to Daimler-Benz, Junkers and B.M.W., all of which eventually produced a V-12 engine model in response although none was able to incorporate all of the required features immediately, eg the DB600 had dry liners and carburettors, the JU210 also had only carburettors and the B.M.W. 116/117 only got as far as the prototype stage.
The specifications were presented to the manufacturers as a fait accompli. If they wanted production orders, the engines had to comply with the tender descriptions.
Wolfram Eisenlohr was interviewed in 1980 re the 1928 requirement for inverted V-12s and he cited three reasons for the decision vis,
- more compact installation,
- better pilot view for single engined aircraft,
- less exhaust flame dazzle during night flying.
Ref: Junkers Flugtriebwerke by Müller, R, p 150 - 151. (Helion and company)
von Gersdorff et al "Die Deutsche Flug..." p 42.
ISBN 1-85260-163-9; Fred Jakobs, Robert Kröschel and Christian Pierer. "BMW aero engines". BMW Group Classic, 2009 ISBN 978-3-86852-214-3. p 85 -87.""
^^there is the answer
@@stay_at_home_astronaut Indeed. I remember that there was specification document written up in the 1920s.
Thanks V G!
We English speakers don't know how to read German so the translation helps alot.
The flame dazzle hardly seems like a think tank idea. A simple pipe routed beyond the cockpit would fix this for night fighting. Although it may hinder visibility slightly, if it is already dark, it would not be any worse.
Interesting. This kind of answers my question in Greg's other video. Which was first, the airplane spec that requires inverted V or vice versa. Looks like the the inverted V was a fact of life by the time the Germans created the specs for the air planes.
I worked in heavy construction for 40 years and a couple of times I had the opportunity to work with some German engineers and mechanics and I can tell you that they definitely place a huge emphasis on being able to do maintenance on whatever they are building!
Unlike their automotive and tank designers. A distinct contributing factor to why Germany lost WW2 was because their tanks required many more hours to for similar repairs. An example is changing a power pack. On a Sherman or T-34, pulling and replacing an engine took about 6 hours wall-clock time. On a Panther, 24-hours.
That's funny because Audi's V8's are infamously hard to work on
They do now! Would they if they'd won the war :p?
Thank you for a REAL narration and not some dang computer voice. Also thanks for not cluttering this up with some over powering music.
x2! Just subscribed!
X3!
He does have a very good computer voice - he could fool me if he tried.
Thanks for finding the balance between not assuming we know things, while not assuming we know nothing
Great pic of a 109 with engine removed and weapon barrels still in place, at 6:31. That's the gem in this video of "still" pics. Thanks !
You're right about it being a gem of a picture. My book(s) on the 109 had all sorts of photos but never anything even remotely like that one.
Same here!
Always wondered how they got the gun to shoot thru the hub.
Plus having the gun behind the firewall means there is no adverse cg effect as ammo is expended.
@@davem5333 Some years ago,read an article that discussed the ongoing problems the Messerschmidt people had with vibration issues in the wings and in the engine area,the moment the guns were fired. Since the E model was B of B era,and 20mm were in the wings,why then such a problem throughout even the G production ? Looking at that photo explained in no other way just how minimalist the 109 design really was. Carefully thought out,minimum weight, but just trying to go up to say 13mm machine guns instead of 7.92 mm put additional stresses on a metal frame structure never intended to be pushed beyond what they had. And a 30 mm cannon through the hub ? Enormously greater stresses, to say nothing of weight and bulk and cubic of ammunition. Always nice to leave something on the table for what comes along in future.
Given what showed up later after that 1935 base design,the Russian fighters with nose cannon,the American monsters such as the P 47,the efforts those engineers had to go through is all the more impressive.
the picture: i.pinimg.com/736x/36/d2/a8/36d2a807f6c748ef576a85da5959028c.jpg
My hunch is that a lower Center of Gravity for an inverted engine would allow for more stability when landing with the narrower landing gear.
That maintenance issue is a big one. Having spent numerous hours helping my dad work on his aircraft - with simply Lycoming engines, I can really sympathize with anyone working on an upright vs inverted beast like a V-12.
What do you think of a head re and re on an inverted vs an upright would be like? Oil dripping all over you as you let off the head bolts... hoping it doesn’t slip as the last bolt is removed. How about installation? No way to get a hoist to put it on (remember... this is an overhead cam engine and is over 2000 cubic inches of displacement... a 454 or 426 head is feather light in comparison) so holding it by hand with someone else trying to line it up while a third person is trying to get enough bolts started to actually hold it... vs even using three trees and some rope as a hoist in a two man operation to simply slowly guide it into place?
@@Bartonovich52 Im sure it was standard procedure to drain and pump the oil out before removing the heads. And im sure they had jacks, kind of like transmission jacks, to help lower the heads down off of the block, not three dudes standing with their hands holding the bitch, growing tired as they wait for you to remove the last couple bolts. Im sure they would if they had to in a pinch. But even the use of come-alongs or ratcheting system of some sort would be used if not a jack.
@@neilaronson4078 I am quite sure that the German procedure would be to remove the engine from the plane, in order to drop the heads. Removing the engine, following" the "power egg" concept, was much easier and faster on a German '109 that it was on a Spit, P-51, P-40...
"That's a story for another time."
I hope you write a note every time you say that, you'll have years of content ideas!
I actually would really like to see a video that breaks down the gun placement and round size philosophy.
@@michaelmorales7654 He ended up doing it in the P-47 video.
Kyle Ironically Im watching that right now, so far where I’m at in the video he is explaining how many grams of lead per second but that 4 20MM put out more lead/sec and weighed less. I think he’s about to explain why the US didn’t opt for the 4 20MM. (including reliability issues)
It has been my pleasure to be part of a team that overhauls and restores to flying condition DB 601/605's, Jumo 211/213's, BMW 801's, amongst others. So I have some experience working above and below these engines. The inverted V is willing to make me miserable by leaking or dripping fuel and oil all over me while I stand under there with arms over my head looking up into that dark abyss of the valley where a good flashlight is your only friend. Yes, that sure beats working on the ladder in the sunshine. Best job I've ever had! Thanks, Greg. Keep up the good work.
:-]
Great Video Greg! If I found your channel 7 years earlier I would ask my grandfather who was a mechanic on the HE111 during WW2. He never talked about the war but every time I talked about Airplanes and engines he talked about his time how it was to maintain the engines and even some small tricks he learned and teach other mechanics. He even talked about why some engines were designed that way they were.
Me as an engineer myself like your analytical approach on how the solved problems and implemented them. So keep up the good work!
I think you are right about the engine being in this configuration because of maitenance. that makes the most sense..
Thanks for the reply video. I'm really looking forward to the Fw 190 series.
Keep the vids coming! Really good stuff.
Excellent work - thanks for sharing. As a former truck-mechanic I totally agree with your observations on easier maintenance with the inverted design.
You're obsessed with this stuff Greg, thank you.
Great stuff!
Seeing the inverted prop reduction box on the DB601 and that great shot of the engineless plane. makes it clear how that big cannon worked with the inverted V engine.
I'm trying to become an A/P. Mechanic and I dont know anything about engines or parts. I've always loved German planes from W.W.2 and watching your channel is teaching me a lot about planes and cars. Keep up the good work. I'm in love with your channel.
A inverted engine is a drysump engine. Oilflow follows gravity. Most flying is positive G. Getting oil out of the cylinder heads is a problem with most upright engines. Not so with an inverted engine. Oil collects in the cam covers and can scavenge easely into the drysump tank. Its a proper engineering solution and ease of maintenance access is a bonus. Thanks for your great analysis. I will build my next hotrod with an inverted engine.
Great channel. Learning so much. To reinforce the idea that maintenance is a key factor in preferring an inverted V configuration perhaps you could do a video on the routine maintenance cycles for WW2 aero-engines? You mentioned changing spark plugs. What other items might need checking or replacing? Valve clearances, timing, oil etc
Keep in mind, there are two spark plugs per cylinder, so that alone is quite a bit. I'll try and include the maint. sched. for a fighter in an upcoming video.
I found an old Civil Aeronautical Bulletin # 28 1942 (Pilots' Powerplant Manual) that states that inverted engines were used in oval shaped fuselages and aircraft with side by side seating, including trainers. It's a US document but it does seem to back up your thesis from your first video about German oval fuselages. Maintainability also makes sense, but the German propensity to over engineer and their fanatic use of very close machine clearances seems to militate against any care for maintainability. The He-111 used inverted engines but they still needed step ladders to get to the valve covers since the aircraft sat higher than the Me - 109. But, I'm an engineer and arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling a pig .. we both enjoy it. Your videos raise more questions than answers, which is a great application for RUclips. We're all learning from your channel. Thanks.
Greg, I had the misfortune to call you out on something 2 years ago on Merlins/USA Merlins. Since then you are my main Motorman. Your topic propositions are probably born from your own questions and subsequent assessments are incredibly detailed, calling in your amassed knowledge and database to reach a logical conclusion. I will go with the invert being streamlining / minimum drag, so 1) speed 2) vision as being the major wins for a fighter / performance in speed and effectivity ruling. I'm not so sure that the Luftwaffe were so concerned with the blackbird's lives and ergonomics for ease of maintenance though WIlly Messerschmidt design bureau may have been. This is a pleasurable technical historic site ! well done .
Greg, You finally hit on the best answer ! I knew a former Luftwaffe aircraft crew chief for several years and he always said the inverted engine's ease of maintenance imparted a significant advantage . I also consider the German aircraft fuel quality adding to the maintenance load per flight hour . Bill also reminded me the Luftwaffe grew from ( and never had reason to change ) from tactical roots dating back to WW1 . The same can be said for British design parameters persisting well into the 20th century . Great series !! .
Great video and as a retired Army Aviatormyself I agree with your assessments/conclusions. Keep the videos coming.
Another great presentation. An analysis and overview of the underappreciated Bell P-39 would be very interesting.
I do talk about it a bit here: ruclips.net/video/mzQuq2FHdeE/видео.html
3 videos in the same week. stop spoiling us!
I enjoy your intelligent analysis... thank you for providing reasonable assessments of multiple sides of the discussion, providing your conclusion, and leaning on documented sources when possible.
Informative, concise and very well narrated. This two-part vid answered many questions about the different configurations that I had.
Also, I had thought that the db600 only came in diesel. Thanks for expanding.
That's a great explanation of reasons for engine designs and uses. I especially like the reference to maintenance on inverted engines about dropping a part or tool.
Murphy's Law states that a part or tool dropped will land where it can't be found or will do the most damage!
"Soviet machine gun technician Viktor M. Sinaisky recalled: The Messer was a very well designed plane. First, it had an engine of an inverted type, so it could not be knocked out from below."
As a layman this is not self evident. Surely having all the gubbins that made maintenance easy from below surely makes the inverted V somewhat more vulnerable?
Only 24 k subs, word gets out 250,000 for sure. Keep on keeping on, appreciate your content and demeanor.
I just subbed about 2 minutes into this video. Sadly engineering compromises are much more interesting than the title suggests. Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles story telling style is pretty good. No dragging things out, some humor, good use of visuals, casual and friendly narration, and good information.
Great product! I love to hear someone that is both schooled in the subject but also grounded in reality. Keep up the great work!
Thanks. I can't wait to see more videos focusing on aerodynamics.
Best barrel roll ever filmed. I am watching the dvd this weekend. Much less dated than the battle of Brittan or some other film because they really flew ww1 replicas. Epic
I'm not mechanical at all ,but I can't get enough of these videos! Great stuff!
Brilliant stuff. Answering shed loads of stuff I’ve wondered about for years. Keep ‘em coming!
Just found your channel with part 1 of the inverted v12s.
I am now a subscriber.
Looking forward to more, thanks
I so agree about the dropped nuts and tools.
Dropped nuts, bolts and spanners were certainly mentioned by Lancaster mechanics as a memorable event in a hard pressed day.
You thoroughly cover aspects of these planes that most others never even mention. I rarely seem to learn anything from watching others' videos, but I've never watched one of your videos w/o learning numerous things.
Thanks for the great content and keep up the good work!
Thanks Greg for another excellent, real reasoned discussion. I'll be watching for more.
Just finished watching this video for the sixth or seventh time. Learn something every time. Thanks Greg for the fabulous content and presentation. Just outstanding work. Look forward to your work!
I don't know if it has already popped out in the comment sections of both videos, but when I think about the 109's engine bay I often appreciate the cowl-mounted radiator and its evolution along the plane's versions. It's not a big factor when you have to choose between the two layouts, but probably it's a plus for the inverted one having the oil radiator very close to the cylinder heads.
I love this. I thought I knew my airplanes. Turns out, I don't know Jack! I learn more about airframes and engines from your narrative videos than I have from anything else I think. As far as this content, all I have to say is this: Germany- Way ahead of its time. I'm looking fwd to your P-47 series. BTW, how bout a series on the P-39? The potential it had, and how great it could have been had it just been given it's turbo, and a fighting chance. Thanks again for these videos.
those p-40s are amazing looking what a picture
Loved the comment about losing stuff in the V. Having a Moto Guzzi I find all kinds of lost nuts, springs, leaves, washers and stuff trapped in the V.
I have a US military technical manual for motorcycles dated 25 September 42, in it is all the technical and rebuild information for the common WLA Harley 45 inch flathead that they made over 90,000 of, the experimental Harley shaft drive that was based on the BMW design (although this model was never mass produced 1,000 were built for field trials and apparently as of the printing of the manual they had intentions of making it) and an Indian shaft drive with the Indian 45 inch V twin flathead turned 90° sideways like a Moto Guzzi, aside from in this manual I've never seen anything in print or any pictures of the shaft drive Indian anywhere else, it's a real unicorn.
Very good points. The inverted design may have been convenient to add cowl-mounted guns while minimizing negative forward visibility impact. However, this was not a significant factor in the initial design choice.
Awesome..! Thank you very much for your time and dedication.
As answer to your topic i found some resources:
In 1918 an advice was given bij Georg Madelung for the development of new areo enigines. He advised hanging cylinders in the A form. (now called : inverted V)
The German Military made a specification for new aero-engines in 1929 in the class of 20 to 30 titer.
Helmut Sachse and Wolfram Eisenlohr were thechnical advisors for this specifaction. Both of them played a great role in the German Aero-engine development.
Wolfram Eisenlohr wrote in a letter from april 1980 : "We wished hanging cylinders because het top of the engine was smaller and therefore the sight in a one engined plane would be better. The lower laying exhausts were an advantage in nightflying.
Yes! Videos that get useful or interesting comments (even if only to debunk those), normally need a follow up. This because comments aren't as visible and as practical as videos (one cannot listen to them or find them quickly)
I just discovered your channel through your last inverted V12 video. I was really impressed so perused some of your other content and subscribed. I can't wait to delve into your back catalogue, and see what you produce in the future. Thank you for your hard work so far and I hope you have a lot more great stuff and success to come!
Also I just wanted to say that there is a very noticeable drop in audio quality between this video and the original inverted V12 video I watched. In this video it almost sounds like you're sitting on the other side of the room from the microphone (although I'm sure this isn't the case). I would guess that this is because you produced this video more quickly as a response to the community involvement in the first.
I imagine that so far you have produced content as a passion project, rather than expecting a financial return on your time investment. But I have a feeling that your channel is starting an exponential surge in popularity (that is usually the point at which I discover a new channel like yours through the RUclips Algorithm Gods). Hopefully this will bring with it the monetary compensation that you deserve, and perhaps encourage/allow you to produce more content with higher production values. I am certainly not an expert at producing RUclips content, but I might consider myself something of an expert at consuming it! So from that position, I'd like to suggest that you invest in some quality audio recording equipment. A crisp and clean auditory experience goes a long way to making videos more enjoyable and desirable, and thus further reaching.
Anyway, thanks again for the hard work so far, and I'm excited to see what you produce in the future. I hope great success is on the horizon for you!
Thank you Brandon. The videos on the inverted V-types seem popular, but they are not even close to my best videos.
Thank you for helping to learn about aviation.
Funny, maintenance was my original guess! And I'm sticking by it.
Great video (and previous one as well). Good insight on the motorkannone theory. I kind of thought as well that the orientation of the V would not be a limiting factor for a MK, though i did think that perhaps it would help with shell dispensing during firing. But seeing that pic of the 109 without the engine - it's pretty clear the MK's body is far further back.
Still think the more realistic explanation is that at some point the germans just found an inverted V more practical - and they tended to stick to using what they know works (well mostly). I mean, practical in terms of servicing the engine, thus accessibility and so on. Do you think that as a result, that is why the German super-chargers were almost always on the right side (you did a vid on this)?
Anyways, good video as always. Are there any other interesting such topics on 109's you can do? Love this stuff.
I agree with you on maintenance but also think your argument about the cross section made a lot of sense as well.
The inverted V helped with having a smaller cross sections as a Me 109 had far tighter cabin than a P-47.
The cowl mounted guns made the wings lighter as well. The 109 was designed to be transported by rail meaning the wings would need to come off frequently. Fewer guns and magazines in the wing would simplify the process. This is why they had the narrow landing gear as well. As for the inversion I also believe visibility and maintenance would have been the major factor. Compare the nose of the 109 to what it replaced, the He-51 for example. In a notably difficult to taxi, narrow gear, tail-wheel aircraft like the 109, you can't afford to lose that visibility. Perhaps keeping the mass down low also helped to prevent ground loops as the distance between the mass and the front wheels would be shorter.
Greg, really good video and I want to address some questions you put up. On the V12 being inverted. It may or may not have been originally for maintenance but it works better that way. I was an A & P for about 15 years working on many different airplanes. Piston, turbine, turbo prop, and sailplanes. My understanding is that Willy Messerschmidt was very concerned with maintainability. Things like the landing gear being attached to the fuselage so you can take off a wing and still wheel the airplane around. That really makes a difference in the shop. The gear and wings and engine mounts are attached to a large ring forging that concentrates the load at the firewall without a lot of parts or weight. Look how easy the cowling is to remove for access. On the firewall the bulkhead connections are quick release and each one is different so they can't be mixed up. If you access panels on the fuselage for maintenance the components are color coded for being field repairable or depot level repair. For a time our shop had a CASA built JU52 being cosmetically finished into a pre war Lufthansa air liner. The wing spars were tubes and the attachments were round spigots on the wings to threaded attachments on the fuselage. Very easy to remove and install. So my vote for the inverted engine is maintainability.
Hello Greg, one of the companies which produced thousands of inverted aircraft engines of many types was Czechoslovak Walter, a company known for its turboprop M601 engine (GE H series), later renamed to Motorlet, Avia and today owned by GE Aviation. The inverted in-line engines Junion, Minor, Major, Micron, M337 etc. were produced since 1932 till 2002 (in LOM company). They powered plenty of well known light aircraft (at least in Europe) such as Aero Ae-45, Zlín-26(126...726), Zlín-42/142. They were used both with carburetors and injectors and both with and without supercharger. AFAIK the reason for the use of the inverted engine was the higher propeler axis, lower gear and lower center of gravity.
Walter produced also one inverted military V12 engine called Sagitta but only dozens were built. The engine used Farman planetary reducer (as usual option when cannon in the shaft was not needed), so that the propeller axis was kept up. It was equipped with carburator and supercharger. It was used in many prototypes - Czechoslovak Praga E-51 recon plane, Dutch Fokker-XXIII heavy fighter, Yugoslav Rogozharski R-313, Italian Savoia-Marchetti SM.86 or Latvian fighter VEF I-16. The common feature of all of them aside of the Savoia-Marchetti is that the development was stopped by foreign occupation of said countries. The engine with the planetary reducer is preserved in Mladá Boleslav aircraft muzeum, Czech Republic.
I believe the reason the RLM specified inverted V12 was the mounting of motor cannons. In an upright V12 this is still possible but the breech which protudes into the cockpit would take up the space where the instrument panel sits. With an inverted V12, the cannon breech sits low on the floor between the rudder pedals.
I've been wondering how they did prop hub guns for awhile.
it wasn't long before I speculated that it'd have to be with a gear driven prop to offset the the hub from the block (can't really see a gun going through the block, let alone the zig-zag crankshaft).
It's nice to see the mechanics of it actually explained
A useful supplement to the previous BF109 video, and I have to say that the photo you managed to come across with gun barrels in place but engine removed is one of the best illustrations - photographic or hand-drawn or anything in between - of how all those mechanical and armament bits go together that I've seen in decades of reading about WW II fighter planes. I totally agree that maintenance and visibility issues have to be kept in mind when thinking about WW II fighters. I look forward to the FW190 video(s) and the remainder of the P-47 series. I'll also put in a plug for the F6F (I hope it's not too far down on the list), and I'd like to see one on the Nakajima Ki-84 "Frank," which was apparently every bit the equal of the F6F in the last few months of the war in the Pacific. As a non-engineer, I'm hoping to stumble across an explanation of propeller tip speed's importance, as well - that's a technical tidbit I don't quite "get" yet. Be that as it may, it's all good stuff, Greg.
prop tip speed is an issue when the tips go supersonic, that is when they travel faster than the speed of sound. I'm sure that Greg can expand on that a lot, but that is the crux of it.
@@Ropetangler And don't forget that the prop tips are traveling both circularly and forward too at the same time.
Greg, thank you. You are a great teacher.
As a young enthusiast of the aircraft of WWII, I bought a series of books printed and sold on popular grocery stores back in around 1970 on those aircraft. In the case of the BF109 what was emphasized regarding the design philosophy was the idea of mating the most powerful engine to the smallest possible airframe. That was how the BF team and Willy Messerschmidt achieved the fantastic performance and speed the early 109s were known for. The trade off was mainly in the range of the aircraft and some instability issues which required such fine tuning that later copies such as the Check "Mule" became dangerously unstable because its engine rotated in the opposite direction. In the half century since I've done my best with the resources I have to find out more about the weaponry of WWII and some more modern weapons.
In 'Willy Messerschmitt. Sein Leben, seine Flugzeuge, 1975' Willy Messerschmitt actually argues that he wanted to create a versatile weapon platform in the first place, that incorporates the lightest airframe and a powerful engine.
Another awesome video. My take on the subject was formed as a child building model airplanes. The inverted V when viewed straight on conforms with the wide side of the fuselage aerodynamically. It was so obvious that I never thought it was a subject for debate. Until now. Maintenance would seem simpler, but then one would have to assume that Willy Messerschmitt had that in mind when designing the aircraft. I've reformed my opinion that there was no reason at all. Thanks
The breakdown on the FW 190 A series and D would send you through the roof. Many (most?) people are very fascinated with that aircraft especially given even American aces like Yeager and Hoover talked about it post-war as a very serious opponent. Hoover apparently made a call that he could only manoeuvre with an early FW190 with flaps out. Yeager claimed he was shot down by an FW 190 A, but he didn't really see his attacker. A worthy opponent.
I think part of the reason the Allison, the Merlin, the Hisso and various Russian V-12's were upright is the Wright D-12. It influenced just about all of them IMO
very well explained. thanks for taking the time to do this. a fan.
Love your videos! Dragged out my apprentice notes, and the 2 reasons listed for inverted engines, Shorter landing gear (befuddles me) and pilot vision. Hope it supports your theories.
Thanks Des. The shorter landing gear is in reference to the ability in a direct drive prop configuration (meaning no gear reduction) to have the prop higher, thus the gear shorter. So all of that is right in line with what I said in the two videos on this subject.
Nice video Greg but I can't wait for your 190 series! Keep up the good work.
fantastic. thank you. I am impressed by the FW 190 operational altitude advantage and climb rate over the Spitfire even though it utilized the same style of supercharger to produce boost.... that is if these Americanized documentaries are accurate
Just want to say thank you for your videos. They're awesome, educational, and get right to the point!
You're the best plane/automobile dude there is!
If you ever get a spare minute, check out Kermit Weeks channel. He's in the process of restoring a BF-108. Quite interesting to see the craftsmanship that went into those wonderful old a/c!!! :-) You do a fine job of explaining how and why they did things way back when... I think a good many engineers today could learn something from them ;-)
Love these 109 Videos, thank you so much for your insight!
Greg:
Your engine videos are awesome. May I suggest you create a video that ties them together: Engines are Air Pumps.
In order to get a horsepower for an hour, you need to burn half a pound of gas. In order to burn half a pound of gas, you need to pump 7.5 pounds of air through your engine. You can vary cubic inches, RPM, and air pressure. You get deductions if your intake or exhaust system can’t flow the air.
Start with this basic idea, and show how it applies to WWI engines, WWII engines, and Formula 1 engines. Show how gasoline quality limits air pressure, which really hurt the Germans. Show how the jet engine made it a lot easier to pump air.
Show that piston speed is a limit - you can’t make stroke longer and keep same RPM. Show scaling laws - if you double every dimension on a cylinder, you increase cubes by 8 but valve area by 4.
Show that it works for diesels - it burns slower, so piston speed is slower, everything else is the same.
Show that it works for rocket engines - a instead of a pound of air, pump .2 pounds of liquid oxygen.
I thought about that. However, I assume that there are already at least several channels on youtube that go over basics of internal combustion, so I don't know that I really want to do that, nor do I think that's why my subscribers and Patreon supporters want. Some of the topics you mention are covered in my videos because they highly relevant to this specific subject matter, for example my P-51 Mustang Manifold Pressure video talks about gasoline quality limiting air pressure, so does my first 109 vs. P-51 speed video.
As an example, if I really wanted to explain camshaft timing it would take me about two 30-40 min videos to get that in, probably more. That's just one thing. If I covered the entire engine, that would be about a year worth of video uploads for this channel, thus I would spend a year putting up videos on topics that are already covered here on youtube (at least I assume they are, someone must be doing that), and thus there would be no videos about, say the FW190 during that time. Then add in Rockets, steam power, gas turbines, etc. and it's an entire channel by itself, quite easily.
Engine change was 2 hours on the 109, around a day or more on the P-51 (and most other types)...
Is that because of the inverted engine configuration?
I don`t know. It was more like the ancillaries came with the block as a one piece "power egg". But the block dropping free of the engine bearers might have helped side-stepping the use of a crane...
Isnt it that the p51 airframe is a tubular construction while the bf109 has the whole front bolted to the airframe like shown on the bf109 without engine?
Could very well be the answer: The power egg would then include the bearers themselves.
was it? in some other video (some german guy video i think) was saying it was a day of work for 109 and one hour of work for me262... but i have no idea for his sources.
You deserve more fame man!
Thanks for the work Greg
Having weight concentrated on the centreline allows greater roll rate
Just to note, the Japanese liked guns firing between the cylinders. The A5M you show has guns at 11 and 1, while the Ki-27 has them at like 4 and 8, or 5 and 7. The Ar 196 also fired between cylinders, as did the Swordfish. It was pretty common, actually, until the twin row made it impossible.
I have seen a photo of a RAF mechanic working on a Spitfire in North Africa, in full sun wearing only shorts sitting astride the nose like riding a horse. Then another photo of German mechanics working on a Ju87 standing in the shade of the nose.
Very interesting video/article! It still has not explained the real reason why the Germans choosed the inverted the V12 engine. In my modest opinion it allowed an easier mantainance as many important items especially regarding the fuel injection system and change of spark plugs could easily been done from the ground and it was a relatively quick job to change engines compared to the Merlin engine. It also permitted a smaller and narrow front and perhaps offering better visual for the pilot. Keep posting and good job!
So, reading between the lines I suspect the ascendency of horizontally opposed aviation engines is they combine most of the advantages of upright, inverted, and radial engines with fewer disadvantages.
Solid, logical, informative as always. I really appreciate this.
Beats those information-poor tv “documentaries” into a cocked hat.
Exactly! This is why I resort to RUclips over Netflix or TV for documentaries. Information-rich and without the idiotic fake cliffhangers or obnoxious music. AND no commercials!
One thing you didn’t mention was pilot preference. Allied pilots often didn’t have a choice because most of the Allied fighters used wing guns. The P-38 was the exception for the Allies. The Germans had a choice between the Bf-109 and the FW-190. Most of the experienced pilots preferred the Bf-109 because of the concentration of firepower. No having to worry about convergence, just line up the enemy and pull the trigger. Same was true in the Pacific, but addition of a second engine was also a factor for the long over water missions.
Excellent video, again. Excellent illustrations as well.
Excellent points, thank you.
Outstanding video, Greg! You've certainly got me hooked, now!
Great video Greg. I've often wondered why the Germans inverted the V12 on the 109.
Interesting. These machines needed more frequent maintenance than a modern Lycoming. It might be an advantage when checking the valve train.
That automotive V8 at 0:51 is a Buick Nailhead! One of my favorite engines!
I agree with the idea that maintenance was a motivating factor in the choice of inverted V set up. One down side of this arrangement is the possibility of hydraulic locking if enough engine oil were to collect in some of the cylinders. Because of this the ground crews were required to manually rotate the engine backwards using the prop. This would open the exhaust valve first and allow the oil to drain out. Any one who has been around radial engines knows this.
You have some good points on that.
What came first, the planes or the engines? I believe youre right about the maintenance issue. Germans were and still is focused on ease of maintenance. I am a aircraft mechanic on c130j, and LM dosnt seem to have that in focus ;)
Great video!
Maintenance issue could have been a reason for the inverted v12 design good point
My grandfather served as a mechanic at Debrecen airfield( Hungarian Air force) later deployed close to Don river during WWII he maintained Caproni Ca 135s and bis it was a nightmare to work on those bombers.
That’s awesome I never thought of it like that but after taking off air intakes and heads on cars, I can see how that would suck on a airplane.
Great video(s). Very sound and convincing arguments about the rationale behind the decisions to use the inverted V-12 engine!
Thank you Greg, with this video you have answered many questions that I have always had.
Should have watched this video before making my comment on the previous one! I see you addressed my point exactly, and I stand corrected, although there was perhaps minor space-saving benefit regardless :P
Good stuff as always, Greg. Thanks.
I've enjoyed these two videos. I'd thought and believed some of these considerations to be the reason they did it, but I hadn't considered ALL the possible reasons covered here.
There's one thing everyone should agree on...
The ground crew for the Napier Sabres had it rough!
( I know...the radial guys couldn't avoid the ladder either!😉).
Lavochkin, correctly pronouncing would be with beginning just identical to the word "lava" or "Laugh" and continuation almost like "Hutchinson" (-:
BTW as non-English listener, I must applause for Greg's fluent speak and perfect grammar.
Thank you, Greg for that and for your greatly interesting content!
Yeah, the making room for guns argument fails with the 109 G version which with the switch to 13mm cowl guns meant big bumps on the outside of the cowl to accommodate the new guns breaches. That must had been a bitter pill for the 109 jockeys with the one sight line that the 109 had right was now obstructed.
Very informative. Answered a few of the questions I had. I read somewhere that the Russians preferred the guns in the nose. As it helped with aiming, and lessened shot dispersal. One of the reasons they didn't particularly like the spitfire. That, and they thought it was over complicated. And the ones they received where worn out
All true, but there is a lot more to the Russian Spitfire story. The reality of the plane just didn't live up to the legend.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles As a Brit, I would disagree 😁 it's a legend for a reason. Right plane at the right time. But a plane is only as good as the pilot. The RAF had the best of both
One day, I'll cover the Spitfire's history.