Author Topic: which 109 came first? (Read 2988 times)

MiloMorai · « **Reply #15 on:** December 12, 2006, 05:22:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Flyboy
hi bruno. how come you claim the K4 hits 453 and the G10 only around 425 at FTH (i assume its the same alt since its the same engine).
does the G10 runs on regular (B4?) fuel and the K on the C3?

one more thing, the MW50 just cools the engine enabling to run at higher pressure right? so basicly running at full power with MW50 on the FTH is lower then a FTH without the MW50,and at certein altitude the G14 and G6 will have the same power output?

one last thing where there any 109G6as with MW50?

Because the 453mph K-4 is the one that ran at 1.98ata engine boost and the 425mph G-10 ran at 1.80ata engine boost.

It is questionable if there was more than a handful of 1.98 boosted K-4s that saw service.

Charge · « **Reply #16 on:** December 12, 2006, 08:19:15 AM »

"It is questionable if there was more than a handful of 1.98 boosted K-4s that saw service."

OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45

No. Unit Present type Convert to Notes
1. III./ JG 1 Bf 109 G-10 He 162 (April/May) -
2. II. / JG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
3. III. / JG 3 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
4. III. / JG 4 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
5. IV. / JG 4 Bf 109 K-4 K-4 -
6. III. / JG 5 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
7. IV. / JG 5 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
8. III. / JG 6 Bf 109 G-14/AS K-4 when deliveries permit -
9. II. / JG 11 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -

10. I. / JG 27 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata

11. II. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -

12. III. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata

13. I. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
14. III. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
15. IV. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
16. II. / JG 52 Bf 109 G-14/U4 K-4 when deliveries permit -
17. III. / JG 52 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
18. II. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change -

19. III. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
20. IV. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata

21. I. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-14/U4 K-4 when deliveries permit -
22. II. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
23. III. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
24. III. / JG 300 Bf 109 G-10/R6 via K-4 to Me 262 planned, deadline
25. IV. / JG 300 Bf 109 G-10/R6 via K-4 to Me 262 -
26. I. / KG(J) 6 Bf 109 G-10/R6 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
27. II. / KG(J) 6 Bf 109 K-4 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
30. I. / KG(J) 27 Bf 109 G-10/R6 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
31. I. / KG(J) 55 Bf 109 G-10/R6 - -
32. II. / KG(J) 55 Bf 109 K-4 - to industrial defense
33. Ist Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
34. IInd Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
35. IIIrd Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -

By Izzy.

Well the question is to me if the planes are modelled to what was the most representative variant or what was the technical concept capable of. The K4 obviously could be run operationally at 1.98 ATA if correct sparkplugs and proper fuel was available.

-C+

gripen · « **Reply #17 on:** December 12, 2006, 09:24:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bruno

Performance varied greatly. The G-6 and G-14 would perform almost identically (G-14 might be slightly faster) above the FTH of G-14 (FTH= full throttle height = 16400ft for the G-14). The G-14 would be faster on WEP (WEP = AH term meaning with MW-50 activated).

The G-6/AS and G-14/AS would be close with the advantage to the G-14 with MW-50 at lower levels and the G-6/AS slightly faster up high.

Generally the G-14 was just an attempt to standardize various versions of the G-6. It was just renaming of the production plane and there should be no difference in performance (except if higher ratings were allowed later). There were G-6s and G-14s with the DB 605A and DB 605AS (no MW50), with the DB 605AM and DB 605ASM (with MW50) and maybe even some hybrid G-14s with the DB 605D existed. In addition various sub-contractors delivered planes at wide variation of other features like short or tall tails (several different versions), several different cowlings, several different armament and equipment options (tail wheels, instrumentation etc.) depending what was available. In practice the attempt to standardize the G-6 with the G-14 failed and the G-14 was produced even wider range of versions than the G-6 in the last chaotic months of the war. Note that the production of the G-10 and K-4 faced exactly the same problems.

gripen

Flyboy · « **Reply #18 on:** December 12, 2006, 10:06:07 AM »

hi gripen,

i take it from your reply that 109g6AS with MW50 did exist?
where there any changes between the G6\14\10 (beside the engine)?
from what i can tell from this thread all 3 are the exact same plane with a different power plant,
a G6 and G14 sharing the same engine are the exactly same plane?
kinda makes you wonder why the germans made the G14 at all

Bruno · « **Reply #19 on:** December 12, 2006, 10:27:04 AM »

Quote

Did you see the thread where I requested the G10 be brought back? And I said there was a hole in the LW aircraft without it?

You should have seen my replies in that thread. However, your arguments in that thread had nothing to do with my replies.

Quote

Generally the G-14 was just an attempt to standardize various versions of the G-6.

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-14 was the evolution of G-6 with DB605AM with MW-50.

Some early G-14s were produced without the MW-50 Kits installed, some may have had earlier G-6 ari frames with the small tale but in general the G-14 is the official Mtt designation of G-6 / DB605AM (MW-50)

The G-10 was the evolution of G-6 coupled with DB605D and MW-50 and supercharger of the DB603. The G-10 was to be an interim aircraft while the K-4 came online. However, problems with the DB605D lead to both the K-4 and G-10 entering service about the same time. Some sources say the G-10 was 'made from old G-6 airframes' but this isn't necessarily correct. 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. This is why the twin data plate can be found on some G-10s. Some G-10s were fitted with the cowling from the G-6/As / G-14/AS leading to the confusing designation G-10/AS found in some sources.

Quote

hi bruno. how come you claim the K4 hits 453 and the G10 only around 425 at FTH (i assume its the same alt since its the same engine).
does the G10 runs on regular (B4?) fuel and the K on the C3?

As Milo points out - for the 109K-4 to hit 450 mph it was run with C-3 fuel at 1.98 ata while the G-10 was run at 1.80ata.

Quote

the MW50 just cools the engine enabling to run at higher pressure right? so basicly running at full power with MW50 on the FTH is lower then a FTH without the MW50,and at certein altitude the G14 and G6 will have the same power output?

MW-50 is injected into the eye of the supercharger where it cools the charge allowing for a high boost by reducing the risk of the fuel pre-detonating. Above FTH the supercharger is losing power so you wont gain any boost by using MW-50. MW-50 still provides a cooling effect.

While FTH for the G-14 with MW-50 is around 16400 ft it still considerably faster then the FTH of the G-14 at MIL Power (AH term see the G-14 chart).

Quote

one last thing where there any 109G6as with MW50?

Yes some, in fact I./JG 3 (Höhenjäger) were (may have been) equipped with G-6/AS with MW-50 - as was 10.(N)/JG 300 Moskito-Jagern. In Forgotten Battles the G-6/AS has MW-50.

In general a DB605AM/AS would have been designated as a G-14/AS. As Gripen points out this isn't a 100% hard rule. The are exceptions and variations for everything.

Kweassa · « **Reply #20 on:** December 12, 2006, 10:49:57 AM »

It is my understanding that the G-6/AS in IL2/FB is actually a wrong designation, since technically it is a G-6/ASM (DB605AS+MW50) which would be usually referred to as "G-14/ASM" or "G-14/AS" - its performance numbers very closely resembling that of the Bf109G-10, albeit different engine. Its performance is quite different from our AH version of Bf109G-14, which I think can be called "the standard G-14", equipped with a DB605AM.

Therefore, I think gripen would be right. The standardization attempt did 'fail', and identifying the various G-14 variants would be alsmot as difficult as identifying the various G-6s.

As a matter of fact, I think it would be almost impossible to tell late Bf109G-6 from a G-14, with G-14/AS and G-10 being the exception since they both had the characteristic 'smoothly bulged' cowls due to the larger superchargers.

Flyboy · « **Reply #21 on:** December 12, 2006, 11:08:16 AM »

pffft i gave up on trying to figure out IL2 109s.
the G2 will out performe any other gustav, it outclimb the G10 with ease
im really curious about IL2 109s but this is a AH bbs.

heres a neat program to compare IL2 planes: IL2 compare
maybe one of you guys can shed some light.

gripen · « **Reply #22 on:** December 12, 2006, 12:45:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bruno

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-14 was the evolution of G-6 with DB605AM with MW-50.

I can certainly say that there were fighter variant G-6s with the DB 605AM and ASM (with MW50), infact one was delivered in error to Finland at summer 1944 (returned back by the Finns).

Quote

Originally posted by Bruno

Some early G-14s were produced without the MW-50 Kits installed, some may have had earlier G-6 ari frames with the small tale but in general the G-14 is the official Mtt designation of G-6 / DB605AM (MW-50)

There were some G-14s produced early 1945 without MW50. I can say only that new built DB 605A (A, AS, AM, ASM) fighter variants were generally called G-14 after summer 1944 despite what ever configuration.

In addition, the repair shops probably still delivered planes under older designations (sometimes with very strange combination of features).

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa

As a matter of fact, I think it would be almost impossible to tell late Bf109G-6 from a G-14, with G-14/AS and G-10 being the exception since they both had the characteristic 'smoothly bulged' cowls due to the larger superchargers.

Generally the DB 605D powered variants can be identified fairly easily due to small bulges below the cowl right behind the propeller. However, there were G-6/AS (with/without MW50) so in practice separating the G-6 and G-14 is very difficult.

There is also a possibility that some hybrid G-14/G-10s existed (might even include some features of the K-4)

MiloMorai · « **Reply #23 on:** December 12, 2006, 01:27:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charge
By Izzy.

Well the question is to me if the planes are modelled to what was the most representative variant or what was the technical concept capable of. The K4 obviously could be run operationally at 1.98 ATA if correct sparkplugs and proper fuel was available.

-C+

Source Izzy? Mr 'the truth the whole thruth and nothing but the truth' > be sure NOT.

The 4 Gruppen that were cleared to use 1.98ata only had an ~55% servicability rate. Also they had G-10s as well. No documentation has been produced that they did convert. Then there is the question of availability of fuel and plugs considering the state of affairs of Germany with less than 2 months left to the war in Europe.

Bruno · « **Reply #24 on:** December 12, 2006, 02:07:32 PM »

Quote

I can certainly say that there were fighter variant G-6s with the DB 605AM and ASM (with MW50), infact one was delivered in error to Finland at summer 1944 (returned back by the Finns).

There were some 200 G-6 retrofitted, with MW-50 before the G-14 designation (new production).

Quote

It is my understanding that the G-6/AS in IL2/FB is actually a wrong designation, since technically it is a G-6/ASM (DB605AS+MW50) which would be usually referred to as "G-14/ASM" or "G-14/AS" - its performance numbers very closely resembling that of the Bf109G-10, albeit different engine. Its performance is quite different from our AH version of Bf109G-14, which I think can be called "the standard G-14", equipped with a DB605AM.

There were G-6/AS designated aircraft with MW-50 - I./JG 3 had G-6/AS with MW-50. There were G-14/AS without MW-50.

But in keeping it simple -

The G-14 was the intended evolution of G-6 with DB605AM with MW-50.

The G-10 was to be an interim aircraft intended as the evolution of G-6 coupled with DB605D and MW-50 and supercharger of the DB603.

Quote

the G2 will out performe any other gustav, it outclimb the G10 with ease

I fly Il2 every day, in a 109 squad. The G-2 FM is based on the Finnish tests and matches up well with the performance of the AH2 G-2. The AH2 G-2 is in some ways a better choice then the G-14 and K-4.

Flyboy · « **Reply #25 on:** December 12, 2006, 02:55:20 PM »

if the G2 FM is correct it kinda makes you wonder why they developed the G6 that is worse in every single aspect exept armament

Denniss · « **Reply #26 on:** December 12, 2006, 09:00:11 PM »

I'm new here but I have some comments.

AFAIK the K-4 reached 714 km/h (~444 mph), that was a prototype with special prop (Dünnblattpropeller) reaching 725 km/h (451 mph)

The G-6/R2 should be a recce variant, a G-6 with Rüststand 2 (Rb50/30 camera equipment) and not a designation of a G-6 with MW-50 (although R2 might include a MW-50 system)

I always thought the G-6 with MW-50 system was called G-6/U3; the GM-1 variant would be G-6/U2 but I might be wrong.

evenhaim · « **Reply #27 on:** December 12, 2006, 09:21:51 PM »

hi flyboy lol
i think k4 came last
btw where in israel u from?

Lusche · « **Reply #28 on:** December 12, 2006, 10:02:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Flyboy
if the G2 FM is correct it kinda makes you wonder why they developed the G6 that is worse in every single aspect exept armament

Facing ever increasing numbers of american heavy day bombers, armament was a big issue for the luftwaffe at that time.

Bruno · « **Reply #29 on:** December 12, 2006, 10:21:09 PM »

Quote

The G-6/R2 should be a recce variant, a G-6 with Rüststand 2 (Rb50/30 camera equipment) and not a designation of a G-6 with MW-50 (although R2 might include a MW-50 system)

G-6/R2 was recce plane as stated above - internally Mtt referred to it as a G-14. It did have MW-50. The fighter variant with DB605AM kept the G-14 designation.