which 109 came first?

[gripen]

Originally posted by Bruno

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.

I agree but it's another story what happened in reality. In addition it's yet another story how the produced or repaired planes were named or listed.

Originally posted by Bruno

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

The Bf 109G-2 was about as clean airframe (in fact cleaner with all supposed features) as the Bf 109F-4 but during production of the Bf 109G large amount of modifications were needed for various reasons; larger wheels (main and tail), heavier armament, additional equiment etc. The weight of the plane and particularly drag of the plane increased considerably due to these.

gripen

[Angus]

I've goot a very cool picture of a 109G recce that was downed over Tunisia in 1943. Would someone have the specs of those? Lightened and faster?

[Flyboy]

this is from the IL2compare thingy, if that was the situation in real life no wonder the germans lost the war.
the late g6 is a 44 bird, the g2 is 42, and it completely out class the G6.
i dont buy it that the parasitic drag made that much of a difference.
BTW, i dont know what are the differences between the "late" and "early" G6 can someone shed some light on this?

[Charge]

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

To me you could well be the same person.

"The 4 Gruppen that were cleared to use 1.98ata only had an ~55% servicability rate. "

Do you think it has something to do with cleared boosted ATA? At the end of war in a losing nation there prolly was lack of everything -even tires and propellors. And the engine quality was probably worse, too, which caused many failures. My point is: DB produced engine technology which was able to run at 1.98 ATA in proper conditions.

"Also they had G-10s as well. No documentation has been produced that they did convert."

I don't get it. If the book Izzy refers to says those gruppen had converted so I assume that they did. Why would I assume anything else? Did he leave something out that was in the book? Was he selective?

"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."

Of course, my point is: are planes modelled by what they were able to do technologically or what was possible at that time because of other factors.

Pretty much the same question with guns? 109 had a 200 round ammo box but it  usually had only 135 or 150 rounds loaded to ensure smooth operation, and they still jammed occasionally. Hisso was at least as prone of jamming but as the jamming is not modelled the 151/20 still suffers of reduced ammo count. Obviously HTC opted for what was historically a standard procedure in this matter.

When the engine boost was a hot topic last time there was lot of whining from Spit crowd about the matter. As it would have made much difference what ATA the 109 had.. the later Spits would still dominate it in every other area.

It would be interesting to have those very late war AvA sets again. They were a real eye opener.

-C+

[MiloMorai]

I am totally disgusted and insulted with you Charge, me = Barbi.

It comes down proof that the complete understrength Gruppens were converted. Cleared does not neccesarily mean they did. He has shown no proof that they did completely convert, only that they were cleared to do so. Wishful speculation does not cut it.

Were some converted? Most likely, hence my 'handful' of the 142 (iirc) a/c onhand which included 109Gs.

Yes, the engines were not the best when it came to manufacturing quality. So yes to the 'overboosted' 1.98 engines since 1.80 engines were having issues.

Barbi is ALWAYS selective in what he posts. You will notice that most posts were in response to his selectivity.

All this is about rl, not the game.

[Squire]

Been a few threads on the intro date thing, but like Bruno said, October 44 for the 109K-4 and the 109G-10. Some older sources that have wrong info sometimes have the G-10 earlier (which other poor sources copy), but they are not correct.

109G-14 was @July 44.

As for what ATA this and that, not touching that...I can see another 300 page post coming.

[Viking]

Originally posted by Charge
To me you could well be the same person.

Quoted for truth.

[Denniss]

Originally posted by Bruno
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.

How could it be possible Mtt called a G-6/R2 just G-14 ? At least it should be G-14/R2 or they would have transformed a recce-G-6 into a G-14 fighter.

Have you seen any documents of this or read this in a book ?

It looks like Recce units reported this aircraft as G-6/R2 and not as G-14
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/aufkl/b1ag32.html

[Charge]

"He has shown no proof that they did completely convert, only that they were cleared to do so."

I thought you meant that but wasn't sure, so I thought it's nice you cleared that out.

I really have no idea as to what extent the engines were upgraded in those gruppen.

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if no actual documents were ever even made, but the mechanics had the only knowledge of which engine was upgraded and which was not, lots of scavenging going on etc...

-C+

[butch2k]

Originally posted by Denniss
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.

Indeed the G-6/R2 just like the /R3 were recce a/c not fitted with MW-50 but an MW-50 transformation kit was developped for the R-2 version.
G-6/U3 was a recce variant as well, small series prototypes for the G-8.

G-6 modified for MW-50 use were of the /U2 type, which featured an insulated GM-1 tank, after going through transformation to MW-50 use the a/c still kept it's /U2 designation.

The a/c on the production lines introduced the Aluminium light tank and for a time kept the /U2 designtation before switching to G-14. Late G-6/U2 (with MW-50) and G-14 are actually the same, featuring the MW-50 tank presurisation system based on compressed air bottles.

[Krusty]

Scavenging? I doubt it. Production in 1944 was higher (by far) than any previous year of the war, yet this was the year of the heaviest bombing. There were more planes BUILT than they had trained pilots to FLY. The rates of production in 1945 were cut short, but had the year continued, it would have even left 1944 in the dust, for planes produced.

There was NO shortage of engines, planes, parts. Not on the whole. Maybe some localized here and there. Consider that well over 1000 Me262s were built, but only about 250-350 saw service. The rest sat parked until they were bombed. The 109 industry was broken up into many "cottage industry" sub assemblies. Even though this couldn't apply to engines, there were no shortage of the highest-power engines at the end of the war. Look at all the Ta152s made with high-power engines (granted, most were never delivered in time, but they had engines!). Look at the jet industry. It was hard to make those engines, and they used scarce metals, yet they made thousands and thousands of He162s, Ar234s, Me262s, you name it, they made tons of it, all while being bombed.

No, I don't buy that "spark plugs were scarce". I don't buy that at all. It doesn't seem likely (to me) given the pure abundance of hardware at the time. Given that it was such an easy switch, I have no doubt any squadron in a war of 1,000:1 odds on its own homeland would have switched the DAY they got authorization (or the plugs, if they didn't have them already), because it meant they had a better chance at surviving the day.

That's my interpretation of it.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Krusty
Scavenging? I doubt it. Production in 1944 was higher (by far) than any previous year of the war, yet this was the year of the heaviest bombing. There were more planes BUILT than they had trained pilots to FLY. The rates of production in 1945 were cut short, but had the year continued, it would have even left 1944 in the dust, for planes produced.

That production peak is partially a myth, basicly bomber production was mostly stopped and resources were allocated to fighter production. In practice the weight of the production decreased and in addition much of the potential was not in full use due to re-allocation.

gripen

[Grendel]

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

In reality the differences in performance were minimal between G-2 and G-6. In paper, yea, you can always argue and nitpick. However in actual operations, when really flying, the performance was practically the same.

BUT. In G-6 you did get better radio. Better systems. Better armanent. Better cockpit canopy. Better protection.

Things a real pilot values, instead nerds arguing 60 years later.

[Debonair]

Originally posted by Grendel
...instead nerds arguing 60 years later.

lol OMG we've been pwnd:O

[Azteca2]

nice:aok