Author Topic: 109g10  (Read 2217 times)

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
109g10
« Reply #15 on: December 01, 2007, 06:41:15 PM »
What are your sources Denniss?

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
109g10
« Reply #16 on: December 01, 2007, 07:32:30 PM »
According to Prien and Rodeike , about 1000 G14/AS aircraft were produced, and they say that's more than the number of G6/AS.  That's a pretty small proportion of the total # of 109s, or so it seems to me.

There's a better argument for a true G-10 simply based on the #s.
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
109g10
« Reply #17 on: December 01, 2007, 09:10:13 PM »
2064 G-6/AS and G-14/AS plus 3600 DB 605D G-10's and K-4's. That’s 5664 high altitude 109's out of some 17,000 produced in 1944/45. One in three 109's.

The reason the AS variants are more important is that they were available from December 1943. This is very important for scenarios and especially for the upcoming CT which will focus on the LW vs. USAAF. These high altitude 109's were the escorts for the bomber interceptors, and would try to draw the USAAF fighters away from the bombers. A critical mission. Without the AS engines, come spring 1944 and it will be no point in flying LW. They will be totally outclassed at altitude.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2007, 09:12:17 PM by Viking »

Offline wrag

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3499
109g10
« Reply #18 on: December 01, 2007, 11:39:26 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Viking
No the old G-10 had the same performance as the K-4 we have now (452 mph at altitude), but you are right in that we lack a plane. We lack a G-6/G-14 with the DB 605AS/ASM engine. That was the high-alt version of the DB 605A (using the bigger blower of the DB 603). The G-6 and G-14 we now have were the low-medium alt version. The AS 109's flew almost exclusively in the west against the USAF.


You read some of it but how did you miss this part??????????

"IMHO the G10 with a slightly altered FM from the K4 ( about 25mph slower at altitude maybe) would be perfect for scenarios and such. It would fit right in!"

I was NOT and have NOT requested the OLD g10's return!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I HAVE requested a G10 based on what I've read online and elsewhere!

Try looking here..............

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

Look up the G10 listed and look at the speed listed!

Then look here at the G14..............

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

You can also look at the same site for the K4 and see the DIFFERENCES!

Why have 2 versions of the G6 or G14 (confusing some I'm sure) when the G10 will do?????
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 Xasthur

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2728
109g10
« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2007, 12:11:30 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Denniss
The maximum amount of gondolas carried by the Bf 109 was two, one per wing. Do not mix it up with the Fw 190, it was able to carry a twin-MG 151 pod instead of the outer-wing MG 151. The G-14 was not able to carry a 500 kg bomb, if any 109 was able to carry 500 kg bombs then the K-4.
 


As far as I know the K4 was the only 109 (aside from the earliest Emils) that did not carry bombs if required.
Raw Prawns
Australia

"Beaufighter Operator Support Services"

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
109g10
« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2007, 08:51:22 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Viking
2064 G-6/AS and G-14/AS plus 3600 DB 605D G-10's and K-4's. That’s 5664 high altitude 109's out of some 17,000 produced in 1944/45. One in three 109's.

The reason the AS variants are more important is that they were available from December 1943. This is very important for scenarios and especially for the upcoming CT which will focus on the LW vs. USAAF. These high altitude 109's were the escorts for the bomber interceptors, and would try to draw the USAAF fighters away from the bombers. A critical mission. Without the AS engines, come spring 1944 and it will be no point in flying LW. They will be totally outclassed at altitude.

There was no more than 226 a/c built (converted) as /AS between May and Aug 1944.
The 1st G-6/ASs was delivered to III./JG1, I./JG5 and II./JG11 in the spring of 1944.
There was 1 new build G-6/AS built in Sept 44.
There was 1377 new build G-14/ASs built between Oct 44 and Mar 45.

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
109g10
« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2007, 09:59:47 AM »
From Kurfurst's site:


The first AS engined aircraft were produced from December 1943, at the same period the production of the MkXIV Spitfires commenced.

Altogether 686 G-6/AS aircraft were built or converted from existing airfames, along with 76 G-5/AS, 16 G-5/R2/AS, 68 G-5/R6/AS, the only difference being G-5s having pressurized cocpits for the pilot`s comfort at high altitudes.

From spring of 1944 - and not during the summer as Williams suggests - MW 50 injection appeared on the Bf 109s,  resulting two 'new' engines, the DB 605 AM with 1800 PS and a rated altitude of 4km / 13 125ft, and the DB 605 ASM with 1800 PS and a rated altitude of 6.5km / 21 000 ft. Both were essentially modified DB 605 A and AS engines (AS itself was based on the DB 605A-1, with it`s supercharger replaced by a larger one taken from the DB 603 G engine) equipped with MW-50 boost, boosting low altitude output up to the rated altitude, above which the MW injection ceased and performance was the same. These engines were built into both G-5/AS and G-6/AS aircraft, and was noted by Heinz Knoke`s  war diary above. In addition, Olivier Lefebvre noted about conversion kits for the G-6/U2 subtype, which featered a nitrous-oxide booster (GM-1) tank, that could be converted to use MW booster with little difficulty  :

"250 conversion kit were issued early spring 1944 for the already produced /U2 aircraft and switch on the production lines from GM-1 to /U2 occured at that time as well. The G-6/U2 convertion was standardized over the next few months, with replacement of the heavy tank with a thin aluminium one and some modifications in the MW-50 piping. While those aircraft were still produced as G-6/U2 the name switched to G-14 during summer 1944, the late G-6/U2 being identical to G-14."

From July 1944 the production of these improved G-6s was standardized, re-designated as G-14 (with medium altitude 1800 PS DB 605 AM) and G-14/AS (with high altitude DB 605 ASM), but otherwise differed in little from those late production G-6s. Some 1830 G-14/AS aircraft were built, bringing the number of 605AS and ASM engined G-5s, G-6s and G-14s to ca. 2500 examples. The number of G-14s built in total is unknown, an estimated about 3-4000 examples, the exact number being difficult to tell because of the many converted/repaired airframes.

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
109g10
« Reply #22 on: December 02, 2007, 10:18:02 AM »
Yes Viking I made a mistake. The 226 was from MTT Regensburg. A further 460 were conversions.

When it comes to Kurfurst, one must take what he says with a very small grain of salt.

Offline BlauK

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5091
      • http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/
109g10
« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2007, 10:47:49 AM »
Denniss,
the myth may be that ALL G-10:s were repaired/refurbished G-series planes. One of my pretty trustworthy sources (Valtonen, H.) also mentions this common misconception, but continues to correct it: ".. but in reality some of them [G-10:s] were new production based on newly built 109G-6 fuselages." Note, "some of them".

Also many of the fuselages were over painted (like expected from rebuilt/refurbished planes) and had 2 production plates; one G-6 and one G-10. The plate is attached only when the plane is finished. Why else would there be those 2 plates?


  BlauKreuz - Lentolaivue 34      


Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
109g10
« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2007, 10:48:46 AM »
I know Milo. His conclusions are most of the problem though, his data is usually good.

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
109g10
« Reply #25 on: December 02, 2007, 10:57:27 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Yes Viking I made a mistake. The 226 was from MTT Regensburg. A further 460 were conversions.


... in addition to 160 G-5/AS, which brings the total of AS engined 109's built in the first 5-6 months of 1944 to: 846 aircraft. A not at all insignificant number considering the short time span and their vital role in the ETO.

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
109g10
« Reply #26 on: December 02, 2007, 11:07:46 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Denniss
... if any 109 was able to carry 500 kg bombs then the K-4.


With the proper Rüstsatze all G-series 109's could carry a 500 kg bomb. Few ever did this however since it was far less practical than just using the 250 kg bomb. The G-2/R1 could even carry two wing-mounted drop tanks in addition to a 500 kg bomb.






Bf 109G-2/R1 with 500 kg bomb and two wing mounted 300 litre drop tanks.

Offline Denniss

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
109g10
« Reply #27 on: December 02, 2007, 11:29:44 AM »
Not a single Bf 109G (maybe except the G-10, I do not really have enough information to be sure about this) was able to carry a 500 kg bomb, not enough ground clearance.

The often mentioned G-2/R1 with a 500 kg bomb was in reality a prototype based on the G-2/R1 modified with that special tail wheel to achieve more ground clearance.

The standard G-2/R1 (Rüststand 1, do not confuse with Rüstsatz 1!) was a long range fighter-bomber with two drop tanks and a single bomb of 250 kg or four of 50 kg.

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
109g10
« Reply #28 on: December 02, 2007, 11:37:48 AM »
Again Denniss, what is your source?

Offline BlauK

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5091
      • http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/
109g10
« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2007, 11:50:09 AM »
Actually that special tail wheel is quite visible in the pic above ;)


  BlauKreuz - Lentolaivue 34