Author Topic: which 109 came first?  (Read 3004 times)

Offline evenhaim

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3329
which 109 came first?
« Reply #45 on: December 13, 2006, 10:56:44 PM »
where in israel u from flyboy?
Freez/Freezman
Army of Muppets
I could strike down 1,000 bulletin board accounts in 5 seconds.
You want ownage, I'll give you ownage! -Skuzzy
I intend to live forever - so far, so good.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
which 109 came first?
« Reply #46 on: December 14, 2006, 12:43:42 AM »
You sound like you're from the south .... part of Israel, evenhaim. ;)

Offline Flyboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
which 109 came first?
« Reply #47 on: December 14, 2006, 11:43:04 AM »
lol arlo :)

evenhaim go here-

http://www.preflight.us/HE/forum-7.html
there a pretty big online comunity :)

Offline Noir

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5964
which 109 came first?
« Reply #48 on: December 14, 2006, 05:29:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Reynolds

The UBER Bf-109 page



Here goes the original website http://www.vectorsite.net/sitemap.html

My bible really, you HAVE to check the site out
now posting as SirNuke

Offline Flyboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
which 109 came first?
« Reply #49 on: December 16, 2006, 04:15:18 PM »
could a plane have both C3 injection and MW50?

Offline -pjk--

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 427
which 109 came first?
« Reply #50 on: December 16, 2006, 04:48:35 PM »
Nothing to do with 109:)
Nice to see you posting flyboy.

Yours

Pjk
Ääliö älä lyö ööliä läikkyy!!

Offline Flyboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
which 109 came first?
« Reply #51 on: December 16, 2006, 04:50:38 PM »
puuuuuuuujikoooooooooo :)

Offline Denniss

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
which 109 came first?
« Reply #52 on: December 29, 2006, 12:30:06 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by butch2k
G-6/U3 was a recce variant as well, small series prototypes for the G-8.
 


If the G-6/U3 was some kind of preproduction G-8, what is a G-4/U3 or a G-8/U3 ?

It looks many sources have the U3 designation wrong as they refer to MW-50 installation (if they explain the /U3 or the other /U designations at all). But that'll be nothing new as they usually have all the Rüstsatz/Rüststand stuff mixed up.

Offline Knegel

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 620
which 109 came first?
« Reply #53 on: December 30, 2006, 10:42:01 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Grendel
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.


I would say this hit the nail!  :aok

the extreme different between the G2 and G6 and even the much more powerfull later 109´s imho result in a wrong E-Bleed calculation in many flightsims.

More weight of course is not good all over, but once at altitude or speed, it also can be a real bringer. A more heavy plane with same airframe accelearate faster in a dive and it keep longer highspeed (speed above Vmax).  If we look to the normal datas of the P51 and P47, they also wasnt that good. But once this "underpowered" planes was fast, they was very good.
Sustained turns turned to be not important anymore with the huge firepower and speeds after 1942, while a good initial (decelerating) turn and rollratio was important.
I often did criticise this in AH and the P51 and P47 already seems to have  more inertia, making them to very good planes(at leayt i like them), but imho the E-bleed of the light wingloaded planes still is much to smal in this relation, what also have the so much better 109G2 and F4 as result.

btw, normaly the G2 shouldnt have WEP in AH!

In the IL-2 G2/G6 graphic, iam suprised to see the G6 same fast at sea level, but much less fast in high alt, while i would expect it the other way around, or better sayed the G2 should be rather constant faster up to rated altitude.
The main argument of the slower speed are the bumps, so the drag, but this is much more important at sea level than in high alt, where the Air is much more thin and the planes fly rather slow regardingt the IAS, but still good below the critical mach.

I also wonder if the DB605A and the propeller still was the same in mid/late 1943, like in mid/late 1942. This would have been a very long stop in succesfull development, at a time where germany still had all advantages.

Greetings,

Knegel

Offline 1K3

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3449
which 109 came first?
« Reply #54 on: December 30, 2006, 02:53:30 PM »
Wait, so 109G-2 and 109F-4 should not have WEP?  I remember that 109F-4s in service in 1941 did not have WEP.  

I think 109F-4 and 109G-2 should be de-rated.  109F-4 as a 1941 plane did not use WEP until 1942.  109G-2 wasnt even cleared for WEP until the introduction of 109g6

about the 109F-4

109f-4 under emergency power tested at 416mph (670km) @ 20k plus some scorching climb rates (DB601E clearance given in Feb '42)
« Last Edit: December 30, 2006, 03:01:53 PM by 1K3 »

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
which 109 came first?
« Reply #55 on: December 30, 2006, 03:12:30 PM »
If you're thinking of additives being put into the engine, perhaps. However, AH models all "WEP" as the same "press button, go faster" mode.

Don't mistake "combat power" with "go-juice". 109s DID have short-term allowed max combat rating. THAT is what our AH "wep" button does. There's no additive being used. It simply can't run at this full-time, so AH lumps it into the WEP system.

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
which 109 came first?
« Reply #56 on: December 31, 2006, 08:37:50 AM »
The 109 didn't get MW-50 until the G-14, but they sure as hell had WEP. For most planes WEP is just tapping the throttle a little bit further and upping the RPM.

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
which 109 came first?
« Reply #57 on: December 31, 2006, 08:53:40 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Viking
The 109 didn't get MW-50 until the G-14, but they sure as hell had WEP.  
Agh? The G-6 had MW50. MW50 kits were issued for  G-6s in the spring of 1944 before the G-14s were even coming off the production lines.

Offline Knegel

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 620
which 109 came first?
« Reply #58 on: December 31, 2006, 10:14:02 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
If you're thinking of additives being put into the engine, perhaps. However, AH models all "WEP" as the same "press button, go faster" mode.

Don't mistake "combat power" with "go-juice". 109s DID have short-term allowed max combat rating. THAT is what our AH "wep" button does. There's no additive being used. It simply can't run at this full-time, so AH lumps it into the WEP system.


Hi,

some planes dont have WEP in AH(A6M and F4F comes to mind), since the WEP for at least the G2 never was cleared (the FAF did dissable this permanent for all MT´s) i would suggest to give the G2 a very short time to overheat , while the G6 (which is a late) can keep it like it is. This alone would give the G6 a advantage over the G2 and F4.

Happy new year!

Knegel

Offline 1K3

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3449
which 109 came first?
« Reply #59 on: December 31, 2006, 10:50:10 PM »
With the current 109G-2 right now there is no incentive to fly 109g-6.