Author Topic: Bf109G-6 weight - why it so heavy? (Read 1014 times)

George · « **on:** December 21, 2005, 10:29:55 AM »

Dear ALL

Does anybody knows what is the reason of Bf109G-6
takeoff weight increasing (in comparison with Bf109G-2
takeoff weight)?

1. Takeoff weight
Bf109G-2, tested in NII VVS (USSR)
3023 kg
Bf109G-1 or G-2 with 707 km/h max speed,
shown at IV/30/42, 12.5.42
3042 kg
Bf109G-6/DB605A, CL/C-E2
3196 kg

2. Total weight increasing between G-2 and G-6:
3196-3042=154 kg

The reasons of weight increasing:
2.1 Weapon weight
Bf109G-2 (1xMG151/20, 2xMG17): 103.6 kg
(according to Bf190G-2 weight data No.126/1943,
tested in USSR)
Bf109G-6: 135 kg (according to CL/C-E2)
Weight increasing because of weapon:
135 - 103.6 = 31.4 kg

2.2 weight of ammunition:
Bf109G-2:
72 kg (according to Bf190G-2 weight data No.126/1943,
tested in USSR)
or 73 kg (according to IV/30/42, 12.5.42)
Bf109G-6: 88 kg (according to CL/C-E2)
Weight increasing because of ammunition:
88-73 = 15 kg

Total 2.1+2.2: 31.4+15=46.4 kg

Unknown weight increasing:
154 - 46.4 = 107.6 kg

Does anybody know the reason of this 107.6 kg increasing?

Krusty · « **Reply #1 on:** December 21, 2005, 10:57:10 AM »

You forget the most important change between the variants... the engine!

1K3 · « **Reply #2 on:** December 21, 2005, 11:01:29 AM »

109G2 and G6 both have DB 605A-1

George · « **Reply #3 on:** December 21, 2005, 11:09:47 AM »

1K3,
you are absolutely right
I'm talking about comparison between Bf109G-2/DB605A and Bf109G-6/DB605A with the same engine (Bf109G-6 without MW50)

Quote

Originally posted by 1K3
109G2 and G6 both have DB 605A-1

Krusty · « **Reply #4 on:** December 21, 2005, 11:10:10 AM »

Different versions of the same model, but it was a heavier engine with more power from what I've read.

P.S. Did you count the MW50 system?

Karnak · « **Reply #5 on:** December 21, 2005, 11:16:16 AM »

The main landing gear were substantially strengthened between the Bf109G-2 and Bf109G-6, though I don't know how much weight that added.

George · « **Reply #6 on:** December 21, 2005, 11:23:47 AM »

Dear Krusty

I'm talking about Bf109G-6 WITHOUT MW-50
I'm new here, would you please to inform me how I can attach jpg file with GL/C-E2 Bf109G-6 data which I meaned, to let you see it?

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Different versions of the same model, but it was a heavier engine with more power from what I've read.

P.S. Did you count the MW50 system?

Krusty · « **Reply #7 on:** December 21, 2005, 12:23:25 PM »

My mistake on the MW50, was thinking of a different version.

Regardless, you don't think the exact same engine powered both planes, do you? The DB605 changed a lot, I bet. The plane got draggier AND heavier when you consider the changes between the G2 and G6, and yet the top speed and high-end performance all increases by leaps and bouds over the G2. Definitely not identical engines.

EDIT: Okay, not "leaps and bounds" -- but it was significantly faster.

Crumpp · « **Reply #8 on:** December 21, 2005, 12:28:23 PM »

http://www.potato.com/

Try this to post pictures, George.

All the best,

Crumpp

gatt · « **Reply #9 on:** December 21, 2005, 12:54:31 PM »

AFAIK, the DB605A mounted on the G-2 and G-6 were the same. From my sources T/O weight of the G-2 (standard) was about 3.100Kg while the G-6 was about 3.196 and the R/6 (with gondolas) version was about 3.278Kg.

The 7,92mm to 13mm HMG modification alone accounted for about 38Kg (all up weight).

Crumpp · « **Reply #10 on:** December 21, 2005, 01:18:27 PM »

George,

When I first started comparing the allied weight sheets, particularly the load sheet measured by the RAE of Fabers FW-190A3 with the Focke Wulf loadouts sheets things did not seem to add up.

After much research, I found out Fabers FW-190A3 had about 60kg's of RAE instrumentation when it was weighed empty but was 20 kg light in fuel.

If your comparing a foreign test with a Luftwaffe weight sheet, the VVS may have done something similar.

All the best,

Crumpp

BlauK · « **Reply #11 on:** December 21, 2005, 01:53:37 PM »

Howabout the rudders? Wasn't teh wooden rudder heavier than the aluminium one? Would it not then also require some ballast. Could that explain the difference? Do you know what kind of rudder the G6 had?

Howabout the wing changes for larger gear? Did that particular G2 also have the newer wings and gear?

Treize69 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 21, 2005, 03:29:54 PM »

Our G6 has the old style rudder, only our G14 and K4 have the taller wooden tail.

Another reason for some added weight- extra cockpit armor, heavier duty tailwheel (in addition to the strengthened main gears) and strengthened engine mountings/tail reinforcements. Almost every version seems to have added some structural supports somewhere in the airframe.

George · « **Reply #13 on:** December 22, 2005, 02:34:58 AM »

Here is the list of Bf109g6 modifications which I found:
1. Radio beacon added - summer 1943
2. Extra armor of pilot chair's head - summer 1943
3. Erla-Haube cockpit enclosure - end of 1943
4. Enlarged keel with wooden elements - beginning of 1944
5. FuG16ZY became standard radio - spring 1944
before this FuG16ZY was special (optional) equipment
6. Ballast to nose of airframe added - summer 1944
7. Elongated tail landing gear - autumn 1944

Does anybody can confirm or add something to this list?
Maybe somebody has Laderplan of earlier and later Bf109G-6?

gatt · « **Reply #14 on:** December 22, 2005, 02:48:22 AM »

I'd add also new and bigger main wheels, from 650x150mm to 660x160mm (they were practically unchanged from the B version), with redesignated wheel wells and reinforced parts around.