Author Topic: What Bf.109K4 do we have anyway? (Read 2070 times)

DaddyAck · « **on:** January 31, 2008, 04:37:00 AM »

Does any one know if we have the Bf.109K-4 with the DB.605DB with B4 fuel + MW50 setup creating 1850PS at 1,8 ata at takeoff or the Bf.109K-4C3 with the DB.605DC with C3 fuel + MW50 setup creating 2000PS at 1,98ata at takeoff? Just wondering.

Xasthur · « **Reply #1 on:** January 31, 2008, 07:20:40 AM »

The 1.98 ata IIRC, mate.

TUXC · « **Reply #2 on:** January 31, 2008, 07:44:51 AM »

Looking speed only, from these charts it looks like we have 1.8ata (w/ MW-50) with 9-12199 propeller. This was a new thin blade propeller which increased top speed at altitude but not at sea level. It may not have been used in operational 109k-4s, however.

1.8ata:
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026-27_DBSonder_MW_geschw.jpg

1.98ata:
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026-18_DCSonder_MW_geschw.jpg

Note the lower full throttle height for 1.98ata (~19500ft compared to our ~22000ft) and higher sea level top speed than what we have.

DaddyAck · « **Reply #3 on:** February 01, 2008, 03:02:02 AM »

Ok it is as I thought we have the K4 with the 1.8ata and not the 1.98ata. I wonder why that is? I would like to have the 109K-4C3 for it's better performance. But hey, whadda I know.

Kev367th · « **Reply #4 on:** February 05, 2008, 06:28:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DaddyAck
Ok it is as I thought we have the K4 with the 1.8ata and not the 1.98ata. I wonder why that is? I would like to have the 109K-4C3 for it's better performance. But hey, whadda I know.

EEEK, can opener ready, worms on hold

.

DoNKeY · « **Reply #5 on:** February 05, 2008, 06:35:19 PM »

Which one? The one that is teh suckz!

(Ducks and runs).

donkey

Major Biggles · « **Reply #6 on:** February 05, 2008, 06:41:38 PM »

1.8 ata is our k4's max power, so obviously we have #1

Bronk · « **Reply #7 on:** February 05, 2008, 06:47:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
EEEK, can opener ready, worms on hold .

let er rip kev.

Karnak · « **Reply #8 on:** February 05, 2008, 08:10:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DaddyAck
Ok it is as I thought we have the K4 with the 1.8ata and not the 1.98ata. I wonder why that is? I would like to have the 109K-4C3 for it's better performance. But hey, whadda I know.

Ok, here's the deal, we back the C3 fueled, 1.98ata Bf109K-4s and you back the 150 octane fueled +21lbs boost Spitfire Mk XIV, +25lbs boost Spitfire Mk XVI and +25lbs boost Mosquito Mk VI. I am sure USAAF fans have some 150 octane birds they want as well.

Deal?

I thought not.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #9 on:** February 05, 2008, 08:32:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DaddyAck
Ok it is as I thought we have the K4 with the 1.8ata and not the 1.98ata. I wonder why that is? I would like to have the 109K-4C3 for it's better performance. But hey, whadda I know.

The K-4 used C3 but only put out 1850hp @ 1.80ata.
http://www.axiomdigital.com/db605.htm

hubsonfire · « **Reply #10 on:** February 05, 2008, 08:43:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Ok, here's the deal, we back the C3 fueled, 1.98ata Bf109K-4s and you back the 150 octane fueled +21lbs boost Spitfire Mk XIV, +25lbs boost Spitfire Mk XVI and +25lbs boost Mosquito Mk VI. I am sure USAAF fans have some 150 octane birds they want as well.

Deal?

I thought not.

This would result in a lot of mossies and spits burning up on reentry, augering at speeds few planes in AH normally reach. That would be excellent.

DaddyAck · « **Reply #11 on:** February 05, 2008, 09:24:03 PM »

I have fought against the spit +25lbs in IL2, and frankly I am not worried about them. I don't care if you lobby for the +25lbs that is fine, my post was in reguards to our current K4. I was merely asking a question.

Karnak · « **Reply #12 on:** February 05, 2008, 09:41:52 PM »

Perhaps, but everytime the 150 octane subject comes up most Luftwaffe fans immediately attack it as "Spitdweebs asking for more easy mode" even though 150 octane was far more common than C3 fuel for Bf109K-4s, in fact C3 fuel for Bf109s appears to have been extremely rare.

For the record, the only aircraft I want to see 150 octane for is the Spitfire Mk XIV so its boost can be set to +21lbs and it might, maybe, then justify being a perk plane. I don't want to see either the Mk XVI or Mosquito VI at +25lbs, nor the Bf109K-4 at 1.98ata.

Xasthur · « **Reply #13 on:** February 05, 2008, 10:28:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Perhaps, but everytime the 150 octane subject comes up most Luftwaffe fans immediately attack it as "Spitdweebs asking for more easy mode" even though 150 octane was far more common than C3 fuel for Bf109K-4s, in fact C3 fuel for Bf109s appears to have been extremely rare.

What are you basing that on?

Stoney74 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 06, 2008, 01:20:05 AM »

I think the multiple threads discussing higher boost for any of the planes previously mentioned, and/or the higher octane fuels that were required to create it. Usually, they do turn into purse fights.