Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level

[HoHun]

http://www.x-plane.org/users/hohun/Aircraft-evaluation-6.jpg

[Crumpp]

I allready owned up to my mistakes here...
You havent..

For what? Becoming upset when called a liar? NO

Apologize because you act insecure and think I am being arrogant? NO

 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.

The bigger issue for me is that you did not acknowlege that was an early prototype test without MW50 but then used the test data in an effort to argue MW50 109K4 speed. I felt that was disengenous and I really havent seen you adress that point so far. And as for your arrtogance I still see a bunch of smug insults in yoiur last post....

BTW What do 4 dots mean?  

You know crummp screw this, here I am trying patch stuff up in this mutal mess and you are still throwing insults...

Change your attitude and we will continue...

MORE

Attempts to justify your being wrong.

Patching it up is:

I lost it. I was wrong. Sorry I called you a liar.

It's NOT:

I realize I was wrong BUT I am not really going to apologize AND let me justify it with

I was upset Blah blah blah...

and it's your fault because blah blah blah blah..


None of this changes the fact the Bf-109 was slower.

Crumpp

PS - Nice chart HoHun. Thanks for sharing. Watch it or you will be a liar too!

[Angus]

Grunherz:
From my standpoint, Crumpp probably brought the 109K data he had and did belive was normal without looking too much into it.
That's a mistake, to base on, allright.
I have on these boards seen many many much more cunning moves. Deliberate selected data for comparisons for instance.
So, cool down a bit, and smile to the fact that this thread actually HAS brought some data and useful links on our geekish mealplate

[VO101_Isegrim]

SL speeds of 1944 109s and 190s, in km/h :

G-6 w/o MW50 (1,42) : 530
G-6/AS w/o MW50 (rather early variants at 1,42) : 528

G-6/G-14 w. MW50, 1,7,ata : 568 km/h
G-6/14/AS w. MW50, 1,7ata : 560 km/h

early G-10 w. MW50, 605DM engine, 1,75ata : 562 km/
early K-4 w. 605DB and MW50, 1,8ata : 594 km/h
late K-4 w. 605DC and MW50, 1,98ata : 607 km/h

109s w. MW appeared in the first months of 1944 the earliest, along with the AS versions with large compressors. The latter had slightly inferior low alt performance, despite using the more streamlined cowling, one part because of the larger supercharger taking 40 PS away (true only to non-MW versions, ASM produced the same power as AM at low levels), and even more due to the borader propellor blades associated with the high alt engines.

A-8, from memory, 565?
early D-9, w/o MW but Ladedrucksteigerungs rustsatz, unknwon, ca 590 km/h
Late D-9, w. MW, 1,8ata : 612-615 km/h.

I think we can say at least that in 44/45, 109s were at least comparable to FW 190s in terms of low alt speeds, unlike in the previous years when FWs had about 30-40 km/h speed advantage at low levels.

[Pongo]

There aint no fight like a luftwobble fight!
Two guys in lieberhausen pulling each other suspenders..
109! snap
190!snap
109! snap
190! snap

[HoHun]

Hi Pongo,

>Two guys in lieberhausen pulling each other suspenders..
>109! snap
>190!snap

LOL! The picture is off, though: The Messerschmitt folks are from Lederhosen country indeed, but Focke-Wulf was based in Northern Germany where wearing Lederhosen would qualify you for the role of a primitive tribesman in Hagenbecks großer Völkerschau :-)

This cultural chasm might be one of the reasons for the fierce competition between the two firms ;-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Crumpp]

A-8, from memory, 565?

I have Luftwaffe data saying it was as high as 585kph for an FW-190A8 with aux tank removed.
But 565kph is correct as well.  Just depends on the FW-190's set up.
Crumpp

[GRUNHERZ]

If 565 is right for an A8 thats fully set up,  meaning not lightened then what do we make for the figure of a fully loaded, in fact a bit heavier, somewhat lower performing (due to MK108 30mm) Bf109G14 with MW50  armament  doing 568 at SL..  

And this g14 is identical to a G6 with MW50 - these planes were around in early 44.  And to emphasize again a G14AM in those tests is nothing but a standard Bf109G6 with MW50 - with all the G6 drag producing bulges and exposed wheels.

Crummp doesnt that data go against your claim that 109K4 was the only 109 that could match let alone exceed the SL speed of a contemporary Fw190A?

Also that data shows this G14/MW50 doing 665km/h at 5km (413mph at 16,400feet)  This is much faster at 5km than the data you posted for Fw190A8, which only shows a speed of  640 km/h( 397mph) at the same altitude.

Crummp doesnt that data argue aginst your claim that a contemporary Fw190A was always faster that Bf109 up to 6km?

BTW the Fw190 data I refer to also shows the Fw190 doing 565kmh at sea level.

So we know that  this data says a G14/MW50 (same as a g6 with MW50) with a heavier MK108 armament is:

1) As fast or 3km/h faster than an unlightned normally loaded 190A8 at sea level.

2) is 28km/h faster by 5km.

Crummp how can you then argue that a  FW190A8 is always faster than any contemporary Bf109 up to 6Km?  We know SL and 5KM speeds, and respectivly the contemporary 109 is a match or much better, at what alt do you propose a fully equipped (not ligtened) 190A8 is faster than this somewhat heavy 109G14 with MW50 and Mk108 armament? And just to make it clear a standard g14AM is just a G6 with MW50 - its no special model.

Fw190 data:



Bf109G14 data:  (relevant model is middle column)

[Wotan]

GH don't hurt yourself over this. Soon Crumpp will drag out Carson again and show you how bad the 109 really was...

[Crumpp]

Crummp doesnt that data go against your claim that 109K4 was the only 109 that could match let alone exceed the SL speed of a contemporary Fw190A?

You still have not apologized for calling me a liar on the board nor accepted responsibility.

Don't think I am going to just let it pass or let you get away with you tantrum.  Your behavior was unacceptable and uncalled for, Grunhertz.  A plane performance discussion is completely secondary to that.    


Crumpp

[GRUNHERZ]

I thought you would try that Crummp, thats why I made a special note many times.

The G14 is nothing but a standardized G6 with MW50 -  G6 with MW50 came out in early 1944. The G14 was an attempt to rationalize the production of the various G6 in late 44 - this failed completly but thats another story.  

The main point is that the airframe, the DB605AM engine, the armament, the MW50 and most importantly their performances are all the same. Maybe thats something else you just learned about the whacky world of Bf109G.

Now that G14 carries a 30mm cannon. Jg26 pilots stated this noticably reduced performance in the air. So its a heavy 109.

[Crumpp]

I redited the post.

I will send my documents to Pyro.  You can wonder what happenend.

Crumpp

[GRUNHERZ]

And I am still offended that you did not disclose the fact that K4 data was from an early test that leacked MW50.  In other words I am offended  because the other day it seemed to me that you tried to decieve me with faulty data.

So we are both offended.

The only difference is that I have had the decency to accept my guilt for overreacting while you still try to play games and not accept your share of the responsibility in this matter.  And you are at fault for this too. Because carelessness can contribute to conflict just as much as willfull deciet.  

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

1) From early unfinmshed prototyypes dating back to 1943 or early 44. In other words not at all represntative of 2000hp planes.

2) That the engines had GM1 instead of MW50.

And please Crummp, please dont try to change the subject just by saying something about it being only climb power, that was never the issue.

Now I made my ammends for this mess numerous times, and the posts are there to prove it. All you seem to put forward is more bad attitude...

But agin, out of an attempt to be nice and resolve this conflict.

Do you think that you only made a mistake based on your lack of knowledge about the Bf109  the other day and that I got too mad in the heat of the argument, but only, when the full facts came out in the nature of the test data you were errounously presenting or perhaps misrepresnting as being representative of real in service K4?

[Wotan]

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.

The G-10 is described as the evolution of the G-6 using MW-50 (same system as G-6/R2) and the DB605DM.

The G-14 used only the following engines:

DB605AM,
DB605ASM,
with b4 (ASB) or / C3 (ASC) fuel (available only in 1945; the ASC was not cleared for maximum output until March 45 at the same time as the DB605DC.)

Neither the DB605A nor the DB605AS were mounted on the G-14, since the main difference from G-6 was the presence of MW-50, which required either the DB605AM or the DB605ASM engine.

The DB605AS (M) used the same supercharger as the DB605D, they were rebuilt using DB605A casing and fitted with the DB603A supercharger. They required the same kind of cowling as the DB605D equipped aircraft. Yet there are some small cowling differences between a G-10 and a G-14/AS, so you can identify one from the other.

The difference between the A and AS in the one hand and the AM and ASM in the other hand is the addition of MW-50. Of course there were other differences such as sparkplugs, timings and other settings etc.

The G-14 was (as the others) produced by Messerschmitt in Regensburg, Erla Maschinenwerke in Leipzig and WNF (Wiener Neustädter Flugzeugwerke).

The minority was built by WNF. Many G-14s built by WNF had their MG 151/20 replaced by a MK 108, which resulted in the designation G-14/U4.

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

G-10s were not made from old airframes, they were produced alongside the G-14 as an evolution of the G-6 with DB605D and MW-50 while the G-14 was the evolution of G-6 with DB605A with MW-50. (DB605AM)

It is true some of the first airframes used for the G-10 were from G-6 as they were available, or from airframes planned for mounting the DB605AM (G-14) in case no DB605AM were available. Hence the twin data plate found on some G-10.

[GRUNHERZ]

Thanks Wotan.