What about new 109's

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Meyer
Negative, G-6/AS didn't had MW50.

Did I say it did? It did have the larger supercharger which gave it better altitude performance over the 'plain Jane' G-6 of '43.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
As for the 7 MkXIV sqns, no, 6 fighters, an one FR unit that used FRXIV in mix with Mustang Is. Hardly counts, it wasn`t tasked with fighter sorties.


My dear Kurfy, FR XIVs still had guns.  You have no idea of the operations of FR a/c.


Well there were 142 109K-4s around that used 1.98ata, and that`s around half the K-4s.

One can see the use of 1.98ata was very common. More common then the use of +21 lbs boost.


But only 55% were operational while all XIV squadrons had fully operational a/c. The question remains of how many were really flying using 1.98.

There is still the question of the availabilty of C3 fuel which was required with 1.98. You still have not produced official documented proof of C3 deliveries to the 4 Gruppen, only speculation.


But I already did.


No, you have only shown that they were cleared for 1.98


Right. You were picking 1944 figures for +21 lbs boost for the XIV, so there should be NO +21lbs XIV at all, just perked XIVs at +18.


21lb boost was cleared from July 1944 dispite your feeble attemps to say other wise.


Unlike you, I picked figures from 1945, so 1.98ata is justified as a perked plane, because of it`s performance.


Yes, a highly perked a/c.


It has been already posted on the site that 1.98ata was available in January, at least in as much number as +21lbs in the RAF.

Is that so? Since when is  a grand total of 10 a/c (less than a Staffel) that were being used for testing equal to the number of operational XIVs? 1.98 was not cleared officially for another couple of months. Maybe the XIV should get 25lb boost since it was being tested.

This is part of a rough translation posted by wastel, http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=730&st=0

The JG’s (this is the testing unit, JG11) in field complain about the plug failurs. Especially in the last time the number of failurs increased. DB reports about improoved plug modells and better quality control e.g. with x-ray controlling. Again DB points out that the cooling of the 109 is insufficient and wishes that the LW will solve this problem asap. This was mentioned by Gen.-Ing Paul and arrangements where done instandly.
DB points out that the performance of the “cell” (fuselage/wings) is extremely bad, and even worser J. It makes no sense to increase the power output of the engine when on the other side the plane quality is decreasing dramatically. Is is reported that a coparison of a 109 with a mustang was arranged for Mr. Sauer, but he failed to come.
The result of the comparison was, spoken of produktion quality only, shocking for the 109.

I don't remember seeing this in Kurfy's article but it is understandable why it is not.

[mora]

The Finnish G2 flight manual from march 1943 states that the G2 has a max. boost pressure of 1.42 ata. As the G2 we have is a Finnish one, it should have 1.42 ata boost pressure. We need two G2 variants, or the Finnish one has to be omitted, if the future G2 will have 1.3 ata.

[justin_g]

The Finnish manual also says:

*Note: Takeoff and WEP setting must not be used. The particular switch has therefore been disconnected.

1.42ata wasn't approved for use until late '43 iirc.

[Kurfürst]

AFAIK, the 1.42ata rating was either approved in June 1943 or Sept/Oct 1943. Butch2k says the latter is valid.

Until this date, 109G-2 run on 1.3ata, with a max speed of 666 kph at altitude, about 415mph.

[mora]

Originally posted by justin_g
The Finnish manual also says:

1.42ata wasn't approved for use until late '43 iirc.

oops..

[Charge]

"*Note: Takeoff and WEP setting must not be used. The particular switch has therefore been disconnected."

Wasn't that because the Finns had to fly double or triple the hours with those engines than the Germans? So it was logical to prevent the use of higher boost which, by experience, was the cause of most engine failures and rapid wear. The speed of G2 with lower boost was enough at that time.

-C+

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Only diff between an F and FR verison of ANY Spit was the FR had cameras fitted - it still carried a FULL complement of guns and ammo - Hence FR - Fighter Recconaissence, NOT PR - Photographis Recon which carried no guns.

I.e. 1 sqn of Pink FR IX's on D-Day.

Ooops it missed out all the original quote - pertains to kurfys/Milos post above.

NP Kev.

It is just another of his crasping at straws.  

To help with his education, the PR version of the XIV was the XIX. This a/c carried no guns. 220 of the PR XIX saw service in the ET and a few more in other theatres. (ref StH)

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Well in that case we shouldn`t have +21 lbs boost Spit XIVs, which were even rarer than 1.98ata K-4s, and did not see much airal combat at that boost until Janurary/February 1945.

I find it very 'funny' that you ask for +21lbs Spitfire XIVs in the Spit thread, used by only 5 Squadrons from February 1945,
while you are against the 1.98ata K-4 which was used by 4x3= 12 Squadrons...

'Slight' bias, eh?

Given that at that time there were around 300 109Ks around on strenght, and about 150 of them in four Wings were using 1.98ata (50%),.it`s hardly rare or not representative or should not be included. Let`s not have MkXIV at all then, since it was so rare it was not a representive type at all, right?

You still haven't produced ANY evidence to backup all 79 remaining K4's used 1.98ata.

Actaully there were 7 sqns including an FR one, yes they carried guns also as MiloMoria said. So that now makes 84 operational Spit 14's.

What you are trying to say is - there were 11 K4 aircaft using 1.98ata in Jan 45 (operational testing only), therefore all remaining K4's in April 1945 must have been using it also, despite evidence from

Mar 20 1945 - The only 4 x K4 wings remaining TO BE boosted to 1.98ata , not already boosted.
Converison was SLOW, the expert assumes problems getting parts.
April 1945 - 79 K4's left operational, where does 150 come from? Oh yeah I forgot - NON OPERATIONAL aircraft. In that case its 7 Spit 14 squadrons including non op = 140 aicraft (thats Jan 45 NOT Apr 45).

So you want me to believe that despite -
Supply problems
Fuel problems
- every one of the remaining K4's in Apr 1945 were miraculously (engine fairies?) boosted to 1.98 all within 1 month of the end of the war? and within the 20 day period allowed from Mar 20 to April 9?
This isn't as simple as going from regular unleaded to super unleaded fuel you realise?

PROVE IT.

[Squire]

You know, we had several very long threads on the Spitfire series, without it immediately sinking into a mud slinging s*** storm.

Try harder boys.

The topic was new 109s. Stick to that. Give reasons and references.

If you want another endless rant a thon, create a thread for that.

[Kev367th]

I just ref Kurfys own site, its, easier.

Actaully it was a nice discussion (without Spits) until Kurfy appeared spreading his BS again.

Spit 14 only came into it because of his inaccurate comparisons of Dec 1944/Jan 1945 Spit 14 operational only strengths vs 150 April 45 combined op and non operational K4 strengths.  

Its an easy logical conclusion -

a) Mar 20th 1945 - Ordered that the remaining 3 K-4 units and 1 G10 unit are boosted to 1.98ata (note ordered, not already boosted).

b) Conversion to 1.98ata was slow (off Kurfys site again)

c) April 9th (20 days later) - 79 operational K4's left.

d) May 1945 - End of war

So what is more reasonable? Given a country that was around 10 weeks from surrendering from the Mar 20 order, and was getting attacked 24 hrs a day.

1) There were K-4 1.98ata birds, but very very few in numbers must have been a lot less than 79

or

2) everyone of the remaining 79 K-4's had been converted.

or

3) I need a drink (double preferably ).

[Kweassa]

No more, no less.

1940: Bf 109E-4
1941: Bf 109F-4
1942: Bf 109G-2
1943: Bf 109G-6
1944: Bf 109G-14
1944: Bf 109G-10
1945: Bf 109K-4

[Krusty]

Kweassa, I honestly think we can get by without 2 planes inserted between the G-6 and the "AH2 G10". I think we can do it in 1

[Meyer]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Did I say it did? It did have the larger supercharger which gave it better altitude performance over the 'plain Jane' G-6 of '43.

You didn't .. but I don't know how a G6/AS would "fills the hole" of a G14, when a G14 is a G6 with MW50.

So you take out a 109 with a good low alt performance (G14)  and want to replace it with a 109 with high alt perfomance (G6/AS).

I think that is wrong...


@Kurfurst: rgr that, but can we agree that most G-6/AS didn't had MW50, and it would be a better representation of the 6/AS if is modeled without it?

[MiloMorai]

Let me repeat myself Meyer.

Only reason went with the G-6/AS is that there is a large time gap between the G-6 and G-14 introduction. The /AS fills this hole.

You point does have some merit though, but what does the LW use to fill the time gap? You want the LW to wait a year and a half to have a competive a/c? And the K-4 shows up only a few months later than the G-14.

I would be OK with giving the G-6/AS MW50 as a concession.