Author Topic: The G10 needs to go.  (Read 2459 times)

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
The G10 needs to go.
« Reply #30 on: March 06, 2004, 08:18:01 PM »
Ok, interesting, so the 109G-14 would indeed be a slight improvement. Well, after AH2 is out im sure it might get in there at some point.

The whole "boost" thing in sims makes it somewhat confusing. Ie. what are they actually talking about.
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
The G10 needs to go.
« Reply #31 on: March 06, 2004, 08:44:07 PM »
There were a few threads in the AH2 forum that talked about changing what "wep is". I suggested a 100% (military power) 110% (would be what wep is now) and the current wep button would be for added "boost (mw50, C3 injection, ADI etc). But who knows.

Thare are many many other planes needed in AH over the G-14. However, if there is another 109 to be added or to ask for its the G-14.

Offline Bolt45

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 69
The G10 needs to go.
« Reply #32 on: March 07, 2004, 07:28:15 AM »
BF109G6/AS , BF109G10/G14 and K4 were equipped with
the MW50 inj. system . it was automatic of course allowing
the pilot to go past the 100 % throttle mark ..HOWEVER..
it may only be done when the engine is idle or running on
lower throttle to prevent engine damage ..it also had to be
monitored when it ran out of water-methanol mix as it couldn't
operate properly without ext pressure & could also cause damage. AH lets ya get away with running it to the firewall , but IL2 which has better FM..IMO > won't ..after locking up my G14 in several fights , I decided to read the instructions ..duh and there it was..190D9 was engaged the same way .

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17706
The G10 needs to go.
« Reply #33 on: March 07, 2004, 10:55:26 AM »
1st thing htc needs to add is an "engine overheat"

that would slow down the runners and make it better for all
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | EVGA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti FTW3 | Vive Pro | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder Pedals

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
The G10 needs to go.
« Reply #34 on: March 07, 2004, 12:02:56 PM »
Overheat in FB isn’t "real" either. It’s a tool used to force folks to fly within "limits". In real life power setting limits were more about maintaining serviceable aircraft rather then worrying that if you flew with MW50 at 13 min instead of 10 your eng would heat and explode. For the most part the harder you ran an eng meant reduced engine life and increased work load on maintenance crews.

Pyro post this in the AH2:TOD forum, and he’s right.

Quote
So what is the real purpose of engine management in real life? It primarily breaks down to two reasons. Fuel efficiency and maintenance considerations. Fuel efficiency should be obvious. You will get a lot more range at a more efficient setting. Maintenance considerations are there to extend engine life and time between overhauls. People see a time limit on military power for a plane and assume that that means the engine will overheat or blow up if you run it longer than that and that’s not the case. Is modeling it that way really more accurate? We don’t model the maintenance considerations, you get a fresh plane each time out. Hopefully, we’ll at least be able to take some stabs in that direction with ToD, but that’s not exactly something you can replicate to great effect.


In AH arena play you fly at full power because you aren’t really concerned with fuel consumption and maintenance / eng rebuild time is irrelevant.

Offline _Schadenfreude_

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
The G10 needs to go.
« Reply #35 on: March 07, 2004, 12:09:36 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bolt45
BF109G6/AS , BF109G10/G14 and K4 were equipped with
the MW50 inj. system . it was automatic of course allowing
the pilot to go past the 100 % throttle mark ..HOWEVER..
it may only be done when the engine is idle or running on
lower throttle to prevent engine damage ..it also had to be
monitored when it ran out of water-methanol mix as it couldn't
operate properly without ext pressure & could also cause damage. AH lets ya get away with running it to the firewall , but IL2 which has better FM..IMO > won't ..after locking up my G14 in several fights , I decided to read the instructions ..duh and there it was..190D9 was engaged the same way .


is there a downloadable manual anywhere - am just getting into FB and I need to check some stuff on radiators and mixtures and turbo's and stuff.

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
The G10 needs to go.
« Reply #36 on: March 07, 2004, 02:11:52 PM »
In real life 109s were left in full auto, in FB its perfectly reasonable (and "real") to fly 109s in full auto.

In fact there are several interviews of 109 pilots where they were asked directly about manual vrs auto and the consensus was that full auto was correct. There’s no mixture control need for the 109s because they are fuel injected. The only time you need to manually use radiators is to keep speed (closed) or if you are running hot. 90% of the time leaving them in auto is fine.

A common feature of the German fighter engine controls (post ‘42) was the single lever operation (engine and the propeller function to one control lever). The DB, Jumo and BMW systems were different in detail but they controlled the engine and propeller etc…. The pilot basically moved the "Throttle" to adjust the power at all speeds and altitudes. These “automatic” systems adjusted the mixture, ignition timing, supercharger speed, manifold pressure, engine speed (via prop pitch) and even MW50/GM1. Each version of these engines had their own particular set-up and variations.

It’s a myth that in FB you need to be at idle to "activate MW50" (and C3 injection on the 190s; "erhöhte Notleistung"). MW50 injection was armed by flipping a switch on the dashboard. Injection was only activated, though, when the throttle was advanced to the stop.

That means MW50 was only injected once war emergency power was reached, at full boost, at full rpm. The resulting power setting was called "special" war emergency power to discern it from emergency power without additional injection. Also MW50 is only of real benefit (besides charge cooling) below supercharger critical alt. So you would just turn it off. One thing to remember those is MW50 will run out so if arent paying attention in FB you could destroy your eng by running at max power to long.

So in FB you can "activate" MW50 at any point under 100% throttle with no ill effects.

Its not as difficult as it sounds, aircraft were designed for simple operation. The Fighter pilots needed their attention elsewhere, like fighting :).

Just learn how to navigate and you will be fine. In DF servers you radio compass will always point to you "home base", in coops etc its points to the "next waypoint". Just follow where it points you and you will have np.

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
The G10 needs to go.
« Reply #37 on: March 08, 2004, 10:07:00 PM »
I picked these numbers up from another forum

Quote
Hi Everyone,
I've got a data chart showing the G14 having the same speed as the G6/R2, both with DB605AM engines:

568km/h @ SL
665km'h @ 5000m

for comparision the ordinary G6 would be:

530km'h @ SL
640km/h @ 6600m


BBury I'm sure your chart is for the ASM engine. Another document has it as:

560 km/h @ SL
680 km/h @ 7500m

Cheers
Brian

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
The G10 needs to go.
« Reply #38 on: March 08, 2004, 10:25:55 PM »
Those are good speed numbers, lets add both planes. :)

G6 with MW50  or G14

352 @ SL
413 @ 16,000

G6/AS

422 @ 24,000

This performance was available by late 43 and early 44. :)
« Last Edit: March 08, 2004, 10:30:26 PM by GRUNHERZ »

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
The G10 needs to go.
« Reply #39 on: March 09, 2004, 03:41:23 PM »
Hmm, I thought the 109G-14 and 109G-6/AS were both later than June 44. I cant find any info on an earlier date.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2004, 04:03:17 PM by Squire »
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
The G10 needs to go.
« Reply #40 on: March 09, 2004, 06:59:48 PM »
June '44 sounds about right. I have read several references for the G-14 entering service "about 6 months before the G-10". But certainly neither were available in '43.

I am sure Butch knows.