Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level

[Crumpp]

Why is it so difficukt for you to simply accept that you contributed to this by not disclosing that the k4 data was:

Repost from many post's ago.

I will apologize for not being more Internet savvy.  It would have been better to have more clearly communicated the fact I was looking for other documentation. That in no way makes me arrogant, or a liar. Nor was there any obligation to inform anyone of my activities.




Lastly, for making the mistake of not catching the "climb and combat power"? Sure I will apologize for it. I made it. You should too since you did not catch it either. It was a third party who caught it not you or me. I think you would rather succumb to "Conspiracy Theory" though.
 

It was me that provided every chart, including the G14 performance chart, you are using.  Does it pass the common sense test I would take the time to research it and post in the BBS if I was trying to decieve?

Crumpp

[GRUNHERZ]

All I want you to say that you accept the that the careless way you handled the data the other day contributed to this conflict.  Basically accept your share of responsibilty for this conflict as I have.

I have no intrest in keeping this conflict going and I have nothing against you personally, I just want you to accept your share of the responsibilty.

If you accept that then I will gladly apologize for any offense.

[Crumpp]

So the majority built by Messerschmitt and Erla kept their MG 151/20.

So the majority of Bf-109G14's only went 560kph on the deck and were slower than the FW-190A8.

In fact I would just say they were equal.  A few KPH could be the difference in humidity, finish, or engine tune.  Only a few mph either way is being argued.

Wotan ignore the second underline.  The first give the operational date.  Three months ahead of the Bf-109K4 AFAIK.




Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Repost from many post's ago.

I will apologize for not being more Internet savvy. It would have been better to have more clearly communicated the fact I was looking for other documentation. That in no way makes me arrogant, or a liar. Nor was there any obligation to inform anyone of my activities.


Lastly, for making the mistake of not catching the "climb and combat power"? Sure I will apologize for it. I made it. You should too since you did not catch it either. It was a third party who caught it not you or me. I think you would rather succumb to "Conspiracy Theory" though.


It was me that provided every chart, including the G14 performance chart, you are using. Does it pass the common sense test I would take the time to research it and post in the BBS if I was trying to decieve?

I made the apology for my part Grunhertz on multiple occasions.  NOW your following me around the BBS? Posting in other threads and smearing my character even more??  

This has gone beyond a simple misunderstanding.  I really think you have a problem.

Crumpp

Crumpp

[Wotan]

I know when the G-14 entered service. I don't understand the point of your post. It entered service ahead of the G-10 as well (IIRC Oct '44 for the G-10).

The G-14 is a G-6 (late G-6 with tailer wooden tail) with a DB605AM (M = Methanol / MW50). A G-14/U4 had 3cm cannon.

Performance wise it gave the same performance as the G-6 until MW-50 was activated.

A G-14/AS has the DB603A supercharger like the G-10 and MW50. A G-6/AS has the same supercharge minus MW50.

IN FB/AEP for example the G-6/AS has MW50 and as such is mis-labeled.

But as I said I don't know what it is you are telling me.

[Wotan]

You edited your post while I was replying. However, I still don't understand your point.

[GRUNHERZ]

Crummp this is exactly the kind of badly informed "gotcha" that you do when yiou dont know your Bf109 info.

A Bf109G6U3 had MW50 from early 44.  The G14 was only a designation change in light of the standardization program. SL speed was 568km/h when mounting the MK108 30mm cannon.  

I dont know where yiou get the 560km/h figure or why you think the lighter MG151/20 armament would reduce the pergormance from 568km/h with the heavy MK108 to only 560km'h withn the lighter MG151/20 mounting.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Crumpp


I made the apology for my part Grunhertz on multiple occasions.  NOW your following me around the BBS? Posting in other threads and smearing my character even more??  

This has gone beyond a simple misunderstanding.  I really think you have a problem.

Crumpp

Other people are noting that they have problems with the way you post infrmation, problems that lead them to doubt yoiur integrity.

Maybe you should accept those concerns and adress them rather than than trying to suggest the peope who are put off by your style have "problems."

Accept you responsibilty in this and I will gladly apolgize, but it still seems you are unwilling to do this and still want to throw insults.

[Crumpp]

To clarify the MW-50 equipped Bf-109G6's.



Early summer of '44 would be July for the photo recon version?

Crumpp

[Wotan]

Still struggling to follow what it is you are asking/suggesting.

I will quote this again

109G14

The G-14 is mentioned in Mtt meetings minutes as the new official name of the G-6/MW50 designation which was used internally by Mtt for G-6 equipped with the MW-50 system previously used on the recce G-6/R2 variant.

I believe that quote originated from Butch.

All you are doing is 'confirming' what I quoted above.

As such I don't understand your point.

There were G-6 recce that used MW50 was a G6/R2 (somtimes I have seen it listed as G6/U3). I believe most were assigned to Nahaufklärungsgruppe's starting in Feb. '44.

[Crumpp]

Other people are noting that they have problems with the way you post infrmation, problems that lead them to doubt yoiur integrity.

My God, How many times do I have to apologize to you??

You talking about Furball?  You should got search the O'Club for some of the US political threads. You will find the source of that contention.


I think you need to reread this post and note what others have told you.  Maybe if you worried more about your own actions and less of others this whole thing would have never come up.

Your apology is a mute point.

I do take your character assassination very seriously.  It strikes at the heart of any attempt at a legitimate discussion.  Your following me around the BBS and trying to create a false perception is unacceptable.


Crumpp

[Crumpp]

There were G-6 recce that used MW50 was a G6/R2 (somtimes I have seen it listed as G6/U3). I believe most were assigned to Nahaufklärungsgruppe's starting in Feb. '44.

Yes there were Wotan.  That is not a fighter version and would not be found in the JG's, correct?

So we can conclude that:

1. No Bf-109's fighters were faster than the FW-190 at low altitudes until Jul '44 at the earliest.

2.  Those minority Bf-109G14 produced with the Mk 108 were 1.86411 Miles (statute) faster according to the data we have.

3.  The majority of the Bf-109G14's with the Mg 151 were 3.10686 Miles (statute) mph slower than FW-190A8.  

Out of curiousity do you know about how many Mk 108's were produced?

The FW-190D9 started operational use in September '44 correct?

Crumpp

[GRUNHERZ]

I can post quotes from books too!

WRT to Bf109G6 from the Prien/Rodeike Bf109 FGK book:

"Use of GM-1 boost was widespread, resulting in the the G-6/U2. Externally the installation of GM-1 was presence of of a filler hatch on the right side of the fusselsge between frames 3 and 4.  Equally common was the retrofitting of MW50 injection, resulting in the G-6/U3. The only external difference was between aircraft equpped with U2 and U3 was the servicing triangle painted between the filler hatch, which specified the mixure to be used. Conversion from the U2 to U3 was a simple matter."

You see, one book says it is a seperate variant the other says it isnt - but both agree that there were Bf109G6 fighter variants with MW50.

Interstingly your source seems to  contradict istself.  In this post of yours the book says there in no U3 number for a G6.  But it the other section you posted it says that U3 does not apply to G14 any more since now the MW50 is standard... Why would that be saaid unless the U3 was a G6 designation for MW50? Seems odd to me.

I dont know what your trying to prove or disprove here any more crump.  I'm satisfied in knowing and having the data that Bf109G6 with MW50 is as fast as an Fw190A8 down low and much faster at 5km.  Thats all I wanted to show and all I wanted to disprove, namely yoiur claims of no Bf109 before K4 matching low alt 190A speed.  

You claim to have data shoeing a 575km/h or 585km/h Fw190A8 data, are these the planes stripped of guns anf fuel tans, and flying on half fuel to reach these speeds like Meyer pointed out?

[GRUNHERZ]

OK crummp, I'll trust your goodwill to have a good debate.

I'm sorry if if I  offended you by overreacting in response to the way you handled the info in your posts. So yews I apologize for the things I did.

I accept your apologies and I hope you do mine.

[Crumpp]

I accept your apologies and I hope you do mine.

Apology accepted. Lets move on.


I would hope you will go to the other threads and repair the damage.

As for the G6.  I have a copy of the book your refering too.  Rodeike and Prien are not very clear on the timeline of MW-50 "retrofitting".

Fernandez-Sommerau on the otherhand spells out a clear timeline I believe.

In Jul 1944:  

1.  Bf-109G6's are no longer going to produced.
2.  Bf-109G14's will be produced instead.
3.  Bf-109G14's are the essentially the same A/C EXCEPT for MW-50 is added to the G14.
4.  Bf-109G6's can NOW be retrofitted with MW-50 to bring them up to G14 standard.

So to say their were no Bf-109G6 fighters produced with MW-50 is a true statement.
There were no Bf-109G6's retrofitted with MW-50 before July 1944, also seems to be true.

This would fit perfectly with a report to higher I have from one of the GeschwaderKommanduers detailing the concerns of the his Bf-109G6 equipped Gruppen in June '44.

He very clearly complains of the operational difficulties of Bf-109 and FW-190 Joint operations and of the sinking morale of his 109 pilots.  He makes it very clear that the Bf-109's performance must be improved.

He also praises the Mk 108 and says the  "loss in performance" (assume he means turn circle) is worth the firepower increase.


Crumpp