Author Topic: difference between 109 G-14 and 109 K-4  (Read 2978 times)

Offline wrag

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3499
difference between 109 G-14 and 109 K-4
« Reply #15 on: September 07, 2007, 04:19:18 AM »
The G14 is listed as having a top speed of 403 at 7000M and 326 near the ground.  I've had trouble getting the G14 up to top speed at the reported alt.  Seems to take for ever to reach 390 and even longer to get to the best speed i've ever gotten of 398.  Others have reported higher top end speeds but I've never gotten as fast as they report?????  Might be my throttle calibration?

http://www.adlertag.de/mainindex.htm

The K4 is listed as having a top speed of 452 at 7500M and 320 near the ground.

http://www.adlertag.de/mainindex.htm


There was a considerable loadout difference between the models.

The K4, IMHO, accelerates faster then the G14.

I've also read reports that the G14 was occasionally outfitted with 2 additional 20mm underwing gondolas giving it 5 20mm and was mostly used for ground attack.

The G10 was faster then the G14 listed at 426 at 7400M and also had a broader weapons selection like the G14.

IMHO AH needs the G10 for scenarios and Combat Tour.

My reasoning is the allied planes FAR outclass the G14 above 16.5K  And the K4 30mm can be a REAL problem to hit with.  The G10 would fit right in perfectly.  Would probably be flow MUCH more then the K4 in the MA as well IMHO.

The G10 would fit in quite nicely and give those flyin axis a better chance vs the allied planes.  It would make Combat Tour both more challenging for the allies and more enjoyable for the axis.

As it is now the 190's suffer preformance wise when flow much above 20K and the K4 with the 30mm flys GREAT, BUT that doesn't help you much if you can't hit anything with it.

In AH1 we had the G10 but it had the top speed of the K4 and the loadout capabilities of the G10.

I for one would rejoice if we got a G10 that did 426 at about 22K.

One of the arguments used against a G10 was it would be just another G14 even though the specs say otherwise.  Also got the who flys at 20k in the MA argument.
It's been said we have three brains, one cobbled on top of the next. The stem is first, the reptilian brain; then the mammalian cerebellum; finally the over developed cerebral cortex.  They don't work together in awfully good harmony - hence ax murders, mobs, and socialism.

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
difference between 109 G-14 and 109 K-4
« Reply #16 on: September 07, 2007, 05:24:52 AM »
I would also really like to get the G10

Offline LancerVT

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 335
difference between 109 G-14 and 109 K-4
« Reply #17 on: September 07, 2007, 09:52:24 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nilsen
I would also really like to get the G10

Me too:aok
SAPP

JG5 "Eismeer"

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
difference between 109 G-14 and 109 K-4
« Reply #18 on: September 07, 2007, 09:55:55 AM »
Quote
The K4 is listed as having a top speed of 452 at 7500M and 320 near the ground.

That is for the penny pocket numbers of K-4s using 1.98ata boost.

Offline Denniss

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
difference between 109 G-14 and 109 K-4
« Reply #19 on: September 07, 2007, 12:13:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by MiloMorai
That is for the penny pocket numbers of K-4s using 1.98ata boost.


There were several units cleared for 1.98ata at least in February/March 1945.

But Adlertag probably has it wrong, this value is referred to an experimental version with a special prop. A production K-4 should be able to reach ~712 km/h (442,5 mph) in Full throttle height. But as the highest speed with the Bf 109 is usually reached 500 to 1000m above FTH the 452 mph might be correct although hard data is missing for this.

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
difference between 109 G-14 and 109 K-4
« Reply #20 on: September 07, 2007, 01:12:09 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Denniss
There were several units cleared for 1.98ata at least in February/March 1945.
Yes 4 Gruppen with a total of ~160 a/c with ~70 servicable. A penny pocket number. Now how many a/c is there suppose to be in a Gruppe?

It is questionable how many a/c were actually converted to 1.98ata.

There is an old phrase I found on another board:

Kapt K: cleared = used by the LW; cleared = NOT used by the Allies

Offline PanzerIV

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
      • http://17thawsquad.aowc.net/main.asp
difference between 109 G-14 and 109 K-4
« Reply #21 on: September 07, 2007, 10:28:10 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Charge
"K model was designed for bomber interception."

Yes, just like the 190A8... ;)

-C+

Actually the G14 was more like a A8 as they were up gunned and armored for bomber-destroyer work, K was more like a D9 as it was a new type of 109 ready to tackle the tasks in a better way. the 109H(rejected) was competing for a spot against the Ta152 has high alt bomber interceptor, guess who won the contest?

Offline Meyer

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 156
difference between 109 G-14 and 109 K-4
« Reply #22 on: September 08, 2007, 12:34:46 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by PanzerIV
Actually the G14 was more like a A8 as they were up gunned and armored for bomber-destroyer work,


Neither the G-14 nor the A-8 were up gunned or up armored. Both retained the same guns/armor as the G-6/A-7

Offline BigPlay

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: difference between 109 G-14 and 109 K-4
« Reply #23 on: July 22, 2008, 03:40:05 PM »


Neither the G-14 nor the A-8 were up gunned or up armored. Both retained the same guns/armor as the G-6/A-7


I read different.

[edit] Fw 190 A-8
The Fw 190 A-8 entered production in February 1944, it was either powered by the standard BMW 801 D-2 or the 801Q (also known as 801TU). The 801Q/TU was a standard 801D with improved, thicker armour on the front annular cowling, which also incorporated the oil tank, upgraded from 6 mm on earlier models to 10 mm. Changes introduced with the Fw 190 A-8 also included the C3-injection Erhöhte Notleistung emergency boost system to the fighter variant of the Fw 190 A (a similar system with less power had been fitted to some earlier Jabo variants of the 190 A) raising power to 1,980 PS (1,953 hp, 1,456 kW) for a short time. The Erhöhte Notleistung system operated by spraying additional fuel into the fuel/air mix, cooling it and allowing higher boost pressures to be run, but at the cost of much higher fuel consumption. From the A-8 on Fw 190s could be fitted with a new paddle-bladed wooden propeller, easily identified by its wide blades with curved tips. A new bubble canopy design, with greatly improved vision sideways and forward had been developed for the F-2 ground attack model, but was often seen fitted at random on A-8s, F-8s and G-8s. The new canopy included a larger piece of head armour which was supported by reinforced bracing and a large fairing. A new internal fuel tank with a capacity of 115l was fitted behind the cockpit, which meant that the radio equipment had to be moved forward to just behind the pilot. Externally, a large round hatch was incorporated into the lower fuselage to enable the new tank to be installed and the pilot's oxygen bottles were moved aft and positioned around this hatch. A fuel filler was added to the port side, below the rear canopy and a rectangular radio access hatch was added to starboard. Other changes included an ETC 501 under-fuselage rack which was mounted on a lengthened carrier and moved 200mm further forward to help restore the centre of gravity of the aircraft. This fuselage would form the basis for all later variants of the Fw 190 and the Ta 152 series. The Morane "whip" aerial for Y-Verfahren was fitted as standard under the port wing, just aft of the wheel-well. Nearly a dozen Rüstsätze kits were made available for the A-8, including the famous A-8/R2 and A-8/R8 Sturmbockmodels. [b]The A-8/R2 replaced the outer wing 20 mm cannon with a 30 mm MK 108 cannon, the A-8/R8 was similar but fitted with heavy armour including 30 mm canopy and windscreen armour and 5 mm cockpit armour. The A-8 was the most numerous of the Fw 190 A's, with over 6,550 A-8 airframes produced from March 1944 to May 1945. A-8's were produced by at least eight factories during its lifetime.[/b]

Offline Denniss

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
Re: difference between 109 G-14 and 109 K-4
« Reply #24 on: July 22, 2008, 04:10:02 PM »
Please always cite your source if you copy&paste text (it's from Wikipedia).

And it's correct to say the A-8 was neither upgunned nor uparmored as those aircraft were special variants/subtypes and the 801Q was optional/late war standard variant.

The Bf 109 G-14 was not upgunned, only the subtype G-14/U4 was (30 mm MK 108 instead of the 20 mm MG 151 engine cannon). G-14 and G-14/U4 could be upgraded with the optional Rüstsatz kit R6 installed (two underwing 20 mm MG 151). The only improvement in armor was with the Erla-Haube and the Galland Head armor but this was introduced in Erla-produced G-6.

Offline BigPlay

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: difference between 109 G-14 and 109 K-4
« Reply #25 on: July 22, 2008, 04:23:33 PM »
Please always cite your source if you copy&paste text (it's from Wikipedia).

And it's correct to say the A-8 was neither upgunned nor uparmored as those aircraft were special variants/subtypes and the 801Q was optional/late war standard variant.

The Bf 109 G-14 was not upgunned, only the subtype G-14/U4 was (30 mm MK 108 instead of the 20 mm MG 151 engine cannon). G-14 and G-14/U4 could be upgraded with the optional Rüstsatz kit R6 installed (two underwing 20 mm MG 151). The only improvement in armor was with the Erla-Haube and the Galland Head armor but this was introduced in Erla-produced G-6.

again semantics. So the Fw190 A-8 R-2 wasn't a FW 190 A-8.? It's like calling a P-47 D -11 a completly different plane than the P-47 D-40.The wing cannon upgun wasn't a bolt on addition it was a upgunned version of the A-8 with a designation. Maybe they should have called it a FW 190 A8 1/2 so theres no confusion.

Offline Denniss

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
Re: difference between 109 G-14 and 109 K-4
« Reply #26 on: July 22, 2008, 06:47:11 PM »
As I said above, these were special versions. The standard A-8 had no improvements in armor and armament other than the optional improved engine armor.

Offline Motherland

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8110
Re: difference between 109 G-14 and 109 K-4
« Reply #27 on: July 22, 2008, 08:01:02 PM »
The Fw190A8 was not an up gunned 190, the Fw190A8- R2 was an upgunned Fw190A8.
Semantics, but really there is a difference.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2008, 10:16:58 PM by Motherland »

Offline angelsandair

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3126
      • RT Website
Re: difference between 109 G-14 and 109 K-4
« Reply #28 on: July 22, 2008, 10:10:51 PM »
The K4 is very fast and climbs better. The G14 turns slightly better.


109K4 is the best climbing fighter of the game (exception with perk planes.)
Quote
Goto Google and type in "French military victories", then hit "I'm feeling lucky".
Here lie these men on this sun scoured atoll,
The wind for their watcher, the wave for their shroud,
Where palm and pandanus shall whisper forever,
A requiem fitting for heroes

Offline Pannono

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1101
Re: difference between 109 G-14 and 109 K-4
« Reply #29 on: July 23, 2008, 10:26:55 AM »


109K4 is the best climbing fighter of the game (exception with perk planes.)
15k in 1/3 of a sector
WOOT!
Pannono
Proud Member of Pigs On The Wing
8 Player H2H: 2006-07
MA Tours: 87, 97-113, 143-144, 160-Present
FSO: JG54