109 G14 vs K4

[Spatula]

I know the G10 became the K4 (is the same), but how does the G14 compare to the other G series and again to the K4?? Climb & speed?? better at which altitudes????

[1K3]

Originally posted by Spatula
I know the G10 became the K4 (is the same), but how does the G14 compare to the other G series and again to the K4?? Climb & speed?? better at which altitudes????

in my memory...  

* 109G-14 was another failed attempt to standardise 109Gs (just like 109G-10)

* 109G-14 is lighter than 109G-6 (umm using wood for the whole tail section?) and has taller tail section

* 109G-14 is overboosted 109G-6, using MW-50 for WEP

* has Galland Hood canopy standard

* wide and fatter tires

* 30mm or 20mm nose cannon standard

[Bruno]

The G-14 is underpowered currently in AH:

109G-14 Bug thread

But the it should hit 410-415 mph at 16400ft (FtH)

The K-4 top speed is 452 mph or so and has a higher FTH due to the larger DB603 supercharger. The G-10 (not the old AH G-10, that has always had K-4 performance) should hit about 425 mph or so and have a higher FTH then the G-14 (same engine and supercharger as the K-4 = DB605DM w/ DB603 SC).

G-6 = DB605A
G-6/AS = DB605AS (with DB603 supercharger)
G-14= DB605AM (M = MW-50 = water-mathanol 'emergency power')
G-14/AS = DB605ASM (with DB603 supercharger; M = MW-50 = water-mathanol 'emergency power')
G-10 = DB605DM (with DB603 supercharger; M = MW-50 = water-mathanol 'emergency power')
K-4 = DB605DM (with DB603 supercharger; M = MW-50 = water-mathanol 'emergency power')

The G-14 is basically a G-6 with water-methanol injection. This means it's faster then the G-6 on emergency power. At C/C power (AH = MIL power) its just slightly faster then the G-6 at altitude.

The AS and DB605Ds had a larger supercharger that gave better power up high, thus the higher FTH. In the case of the DB605AS and DB605ASM, the standard DB605A / DB605AM gave better power down low.

What the G-14 does is fill the gap between the G-6 and K-4. Once it gets fixed its strengths will become obvious, especially against the the new Spitfires.

[Bruno]

Originally posted by 1K3
in my memory...  

* 109G-14 was another failed attempt to standardise 109Gs (just like 109G-10)

* 109G-14 is lighter than 109G-6 (umm using wood for the whole tail section?) and has taller tail section

* 109G-14 is overboosted 109G-6, using MW-50 for WEP

* has Galland Hood canopy standard

* wide and fatter tires

* 30mm or 20mm nose cannon standard

The G-14 is mentioned in Mtt meetings minutes as the 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,
DB605ASB/*ASC

*available only in 1945; the ASC (C=C3 fuel) 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 DB605AM with MW-50.

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.

[BlauK]

Originally posted by 1K3
in my memory...  
* 109G-14 is lighter than 109G-6 (umm using wood for the whole tail section?) and has taller tail section
* has Galland Hood canopy standard
-------------------

The wooden tail was actually heavier than the aluminium one. That is why some ballast had to be added sowhere in the front of the fuselage.

There was no such thing as "Galland hood".
There was Galland armour (the armor glass behind pilot's head) and there was Erla hood, which had less and thinner frames than the earlier "strongbox" hood.
Both of these inventions enhance the cockpit visibility, but they are two separate things... even though often mixed with each other. The Galland armour came first and was also used with the old hood... just like in the 109G-6 in AH2.

[MiloMorai]

The K-4 top speed is 452 mph or so and has a higher FTH due to the larger DB603 supercharger. The G-10 (not the old AH G-10, that has always had K-4 performance) should hit about 425 mph or so and have a higher FTH then the G-14 (same engine and supercharger as the K-4 = DB605DM w/ DB603 SC).

Only if the K-4 is using 1.98ata is the top speed 452mph, otherwise it is 444mph.

[Grits]

Originally posted by Bruno
The G-14 is basically a G-6 with water-methanol injection.

This is really all you need to know about the G-14 in AH.

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Grits
This is really all you need to know about the G-14 in AH.

Yup.

AND that it's a lot of fun to fly, if your feet are good on the rudders and you like the sound of the tater gun.

- oldman

[gatt]

Why get the (wrong FM) G-14 when you can have the K-4 ready in the hangar? Just to get a very little more turning performance (if any)? Hmmm ...
Btw, it will be interesting to see what the G-14 will be able to do *when and if* it will get fixed.

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by gatt
Why get the (wrong FM) G-14 when you can have the K-4 ready in the hangar? Just to get a very little more turning performance (if any)?  

...why...for the ability to turn, AND for the challenge, of course.

- oldman

[Spatula]

And the G14 can carry gondolas and a 30mm spinner - makes for the best buff interceptor in the game

[gatt]

I have done a lot of buff hunting with the old beloved G-10 and IMO the best armament combination was 3x20mm, same thing now for the G-14 (porked performance apart). The 2x20mm and 1x30mm is, IMO, a mix of cannons with such different ballistic characteristics that it makes more difficult the whole thing. Now, I'm getting used to hunt buffs with the lone K-4's 30mm cannon. But hey, how I miss the G-10 and his armament options