Author Topic: So what's the difference between G10 and the 109K? (Read 10203 times)

_Schadenfreude_ · « **on:** February 13, 2004, 08:11:35 AM »

So would the 109K bea hotter ride than the G10?

Wmaker · « **Reply #1 on:** February 13, 2004, 08:37:26 AM »

In terms of AH and the G-10 we have now...not really. Only thing that would make K-4 a bit hotter ride than G-10 in AH is the flettner tabs in the ailerons which made the ailerons more effective in high speeds. And judging from the photographs very few K-4s had these tabs.

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #2 on:** February 14, 2004, 01:36:52 PM »

Performance - wise:

K-4 has 30mm MK 108 as standard weapon
It`s about 20 km/h faster than the G-10
But climbs marginally (about 0.1-0.2 m/sec) worser due to higher weight (unless G-10 also carries the 30mm MK 108 as G-10/U4)
K-4 has better instrumentation

A K-14 would be a real hotrod though in high altitudes (7000m+).

humble · « **Reply #3 on:** February 14, 2004, 01:41:20 PM »

Actually I think our "G-10" has the "K-4" engine...my understanding is that a significant portion of the late war G-10's were up engined. I'm curious about canopy differences....I read somewhere that some of the late war 109's (not sure which model) had a "bubble" canopy of some kind?

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #4 on:** February 14, 2004, 01:58:01 PM »

G-10 and K-4 had the very same engine, however the DB 605D had several different power outputs depending on configuration and fuel type, 1550, 1725 or 1800 w/o MW50 and 1850, 2000 PS. with MW50.

Some, about 50 G-10s had fitted with DB 605ASM, with similiar properties to early DB 605D with 1800 PS output.

The Erla haube had about 5 slightly different versions to my knowladge, however I have never heard of an operational 109 that has been fitted with a bubble type canopy. The Erla provided good enough vision.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #5 on:** February 14, 2004, 02:59:06 PM »

At least one K series factory prototype did have an Erla haube with a noticably blown top panel giving it some bubble appearence.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #6 on:** February 14, 2004, 04:31:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim

The Erla haube had about 5 slightly different versions to my knowladge, however I have never heard of an operational 109 that has been fitted with a bubble type canopy. The Erla provided good enough vision.

Are you still claiming the pilot had better vision out of a 109 than a bubble canopy P-47, P-51, Spitfire, Typhoon, Tempest?

Nilsen · « **Reply #7 on:** February 14, 2004, 06:14:14 PM »

Dont know any buddhist norwegian grandmothers Grun, but i still love ya

GScholz · « **Reply #8 on:** February 14, 2004, 10:28:29 PM »

The K4 also had a slightly modified tail with rudder trim, retractable tail wheel, and main gear wheel-well covers. I thought the K4 was considerably faster on the deck as a result of this improvement in aerodynamic "cleanness". I believe Grunherz has stated performance in the order of 380 mph at SL and 5000+ fpm initial climb.

G10

K4

GScholz · « **Reply #9 on:** February 14, 2004, 10:36:04 PM »

Here's the info on the K4 from bf109.com. Don't know their sources though.

Maximum speed 607 kph (377 mph) at sea level, 727 kph (452 mph) at 6000m (19685 ft). Initial climb rate 1470 meters/min (4823 ft/min). Climb to 5000m (16400 ft) was 3 minutes, to 10000m (32800 ft). was 6.7 minutes. Service ceiling 12500m (41000 ft). Range 587 km (365 miles), endurance 50 minutes.

GScholz · « **Reply #10 on:** February 15, 2004, 02:15:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
But climbs marginally (about 0.1-0.2 m/sec) worser due to higher weight (unless G-10 also carries the 30mm MK 108 as G-10/U4)

The MK108 only weigh about 20-30 lbs more than the MG151, and when you consider the ammo load of only 60 rounds compared with 150 for the MG151, it should even out the weight nicely.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #11 on:** February 15, 2004, 02:25:19 AM »

I have seen various K4 climb figures from 4,800fpm to 5,280 fpm.

I would love a chance to fly a K14 in a game, this plane introduced some Rechlin advised aerodynamic improvements , a new DB605L (2 stage 2 speed supercharger IRRC) engine and a new 4 blade prop. It gave it an astoundoing boost in performance especally at high altidudes... This version brought Bf109 speed performance into the P51H class and of course it still climbed better...

Apparently a few even got in the hands of combat pilots but never saw action...

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #12 on:** February 15, 2004, 02:26:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
The MK108 only weigh about 20-30 lbs more than the MG151, and when you consider the ammo load of only 60 rounds compared with 150 for the MG151, it should even out the weight nicely.

Speaking of Mk108, did you know that they started producing a revised 900rpm rate of fire Mk108 at the end of the war. A 50% increase in firepower over the standard early model!!!

Kweassa · « **Reply #13 on:** February 15, 2004, 02:49:23 AM »

I think it's safe to say the AH G-10 is in effect, a K-4, Schaden.

The AH G-10 uses a DB605DCM, with its speed performance at alt identical to the K-4 at 452mph(though admittably, I was never able to reach that speed. 445~448mph was the best I could do).

The maneuverability would be better with the K-4, but I really have no idea just how much it would be improved - my guess is marginal.

Frankly, my wish is to see the AH G-10 slightly beefed in performance and slapped with a new name of "K-4".. and we get a G-14 to use between our '43 G-6 and the '44 K-4.

Nashwan · « **Reply #14 on:** February 15, 2004, 07:03:20 AM »

Quote

Maximum speed 607 kph (377 mph) at sea level, 727 kph (452 mph) at 6000m (19685 ft). Initial climb rate 1470 meters/min (4823 ft/min).

That's about right for a K4 using C3 fuel and MW 50, running at 1.98 ata. That was authorised in Feb/March 45, but might not have been used much, as most C3 went to the FW190 units.

It's based on documents that are partly calculated performances though, so is almost certainly a best case scenario.

Quote

Climb to 5000m (16400 ft) was 3 minutes, to 10000m (32800 ft). was 6.7 minutes.

That's wrong. Those are the figures Green gave, and seem to have been based on the misreading of the same climb chart Pyro posted here a couple of years ago.

The climb chart shows what appears to be 3 mins to 5000m, but the scale is different, ie the numbers along the bottom refer to metres per second and not minutes as well.

The chart shows 6 mins to 5km, not 3, and is for climb at climb and combat, not start and emergency.

If you work out 5km in 3 mins it's an average of 27.8 m/sec, nearly 5,500 ft/min, which is faster than the K4s peak climb rate.

10km in 6.7 mins is an average of 25 m/s, 4,900ft/min, which is close to the peak rate at low level, but would have to be sustained up to 10k, 4 - 5km above the critical altitude for the 109 at 1.98ata.