Author Topic: So is the G-14 top speed going to be fixed? (Read 4366 times)

Wmaker · « **Reply #15 on:** March 22, 2006, 11:07:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by phookat
But, if MAP is the same between MW30 and MW50 charts, then I would guess no power difference between the two.

Yep, that's true.

bozon · « **Reply #16 on:** March 22, 2006, 11:17:13 AM »

lol, there's just no pleasing you guys

I'm with you on that one if you can produce the documents. Speed is a statistic much easier to talk about.

Bozon

AutoPilot · « **Reply #17 on:** March 22, 2006, 12:30:43 PM »

The G-14 handles way better than it did,climbs way better than it did,and has the roll rate of a 190 at 20-K.Really?400 MPH is a pretty good cruising speed and for it too climb straight up like the G-10 of old,now that is what i am talking about.Looking forward to some snapshots involving this newly re-vamped beast.

Bruno · « **Reply #18 on:** March 26, 2006, 05:51:59 PM »

On the AH webpage the G-14 is listed with a

Quote

Maximum loaded weight: 7700 lbs.

Which is roughly (3500 kg). This is the weight og a G-14 with gongolas (see my reply above):

Quote

652km/h at FTH Bf-109G14/U4 with Gondolawaffen (gondolas) weighing 3501 kg

Does 'maximum loaded weight' mean with gondolas on the AH web page?

If not the the G-14 in clean configuration would weigh at around 3318 kg (7315 lbs).

I think that the G-14 with a max speed of 406 mph and with the listed weight as 7700lbs that this may mean the AH G-14 max speed in clean configuration is actually the performance of a G-14 with gondolas.

I hope we can get an answer but I suspect that the title and with some of the tune in this thread if may get ignored...

HoHun · « **Reply #19 on:** March 26, 2006, 06:18:07 PM »

Hi Bruno,

>I assume the methanol will help with evaporation but wasn't it mostly there to prevent the water from freezing at altitude?

No. Tests conducted by Henry Ricardo in the 1930s showed that a mixture of water and alcohol reduced detonation, and the greatest reduction was achieved at a 50:50 mixture ratio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Ricardo

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Angus · « **Reply #20 on:** April 03, 2006, 03:36:50 AM »

I think his point is that if water was better, it was unpractical for it would quickly freeze.

Widewing · « **Reply #21 on:** April 03, 2006, 08:10:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
So our1944 Bf109G-14 with a DB605AM, is supposed to do only 652km/h (405mph) at alt? ...

Man.. that's depressing. That's roughly the same speed as our Bf109G-2.

Yes, max speed is nearly identical to the G-2. However, the G-14 attains max speed at a lower altitude (22k for G-2, 16.5k for G-14) and is considerably faster on the deck. Both climb and acceleration are better than the G-2 as well. In short, the G-14 is somewhat better suited for combat in the MA.

My regards,

Widewing

Krusty · « **Reply #22 on:** April 04, 2006, 11:31:47 AM »

You have to remember that, while the aircraft might not be 150mph faster than the G2, it still has a much more powerful engine, which means better acceleration, climb, and "hang-on-nose" capabilities.

Hawco · « **Reply #23 on:** April 04, 2006, 12:23:03 PM »

I take it then the G14 should be used for Operations that are from 17k downwards and the K4 from 17k upwards ?
So where does the G6 fit in to all this?

Krusty · « **Reply #24 on:** April 04, 2006, 01:54:13 PM »

It's not a matter of overlapping performance. It's a matter of "this came before that, and that came before that". The performance of the engines just changed, and there were others with different performance bands between what we have as well (we have a good representative sample of the 109s, but we don't have them all, there were many other types as well).

So the K4 outperforms the G14 at most (all?) altitudes, especially in speed. The G6 is slower than the G14 by a bit and more sluggish in acceleration and climb. The G2 is lighter, with less engine power, but more nimble (and still almost as fast as the G6), and the F4 is like a lesser-powered G2 (less speed, less climb) but without the gondolas.

Karnak · « **Reply #25 on:** April 04, 2006, 02:02:57 PM »

Bf109G-6 is an earlier war fighter than the Bf109G-14 and later than the Bf109G-2, so it's place is in scenarios or to earn perk points.

Bruno · « **Reply #26 on:** April 04, 2006, 02:28:57 PM »

The G-2 and G-6 have the same engine, DB605A. The G-14 has a DB605 AM, which means water-methanol injection. The K-4 has a DB605DM. The K-4 has a higher FTH then the others due to the mounting of the DB603 super charger to the DB605.

The G-14 only produces about 300ps more then the G-2 and G-6. Its only on WEP where the G-14 out performs the G-2. At mil power the G-2 will out perform both the G-6 and G-14. At WEP the G-2 will out perform the G-6 as well. At mil power the G-14 and G-6 and almost indentical in performance.

The G-6 will get used mostly in events and Combat Tour. It was the most numerous produced Gustavs (12k+). There 5000 or so G-14s produced.

There's no rule as to which 109 to take. Fly the one you like. The K-4 will out perform all the other 109s in AH, at all altitudes.

The only thing you need to know is that on WEP the FTH of the G-14 is 16,400ft. Above that its not much faster then the G-6. OTD the G-14 will hit around 357mph w/WEP. WEP is 10 min on 5 off.

The G-6 entered service in Feb '43
The G-14 June '44
The K-4 Oct '44

Wmaker · « **Reply #27 on:** April 04, 2006, 02:29:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
The G2 is lighter, with less engine power, but more nimble (and still almost as fast as the G6)

G-2 is faster than G-6 on all alts.

Krusty · « **Reply #28 on:** April 04, 2006, 02:31:08 PM »

There ya have it

I don't think it's much faster, just a few mph, right?

Bruno · « **Reply #29 on:** April 04, 2006, 02:34:57 PM »

At max power / FTH the G-2 is around 405 in AH, The G-6 is around 390 mph.

All the charts for the AH planes can be found on the AH home page...