And just another quick question - on the 205

[Boozeman]

As you may know, the C.205 currently has 5 minutes of continuous WEP before the shutoff due to overheating. Then it needs 15 minutes to cool down completely to have another 5 minutes of WEP. So far, so good.

However, as for all other planes running a DB605 (109Gs, 110G) get 10 Minutes of WEP and 10 minutes of cool down, which is much more useable.

Now, since the C.205 is also DB605 powered, why doesn't it have the same WEP configuration as the German planes?

Any ideas?     

[1pLUs44]

Hasn't been remodeled yet? 

[Karnak]

Hasn't been remodeled yet? 

No, the later German fighters always had 10 minutes of WEP in AH.

Maybe the C.205 didn't have the boost additives the Germans used?

[Masherbrum]

No, the later German fighters always had 10 minutes of WEP in AH.

Maybe the C.205 didn't have the boost additives the Germans used?

That and coupled with the fact that the DB605's were License-Built.   

[stroker71]

I fly 205's alot...my main fighter.  But I think AH hates the 205.   kidding.  Anyway other question is why is there not bombs and DT's for 205's?  Though rare 205's did carry bombs and used DT in the war.  Probably was as common as the LA having the 3 gun package but we have that!

[Anaxogoras]

The DB605-A1 engined 109G's did not use boost-additives, so that's not an explanation.

Moreover, the 109G-2 and G-6 receive a greater airspeed % increase with WEP than the C205.  Nothing is better evidence of a flawed flight model than that.

[caldera]

Before you claim that the flight model is flawed, consider the factor of aerodynamics.  If the 109 has a smaller drag coefficient, then it can reach higer speeds with the same power.  There is also the law of diminishing returns. You can give an aircraft 100 times the power and it can only go so fast. Once you reach an aerodynamically limited speed,  you need an exponentially higher power increase to go faster still.

Or maybe the flight model is flawed.

[1pLUs44]

Like I said, when the C-205 gets remodeled, it will probably have slots for things like DT's Bombs, and whatever was historically used on them. 

[Blooz]

Like all the other planes' performance it's in the documentation.

It's already known that they do the best they can to come up with as much good info as they can from test flight data charts. The engine performance on the C205 is different from the Bf109 because the paperwork they have probably says so.

[humble]

The 205 was superior to the 109G4 according to the tests in Feb 1943. One thing of interest is that the germans ran the 109's at a higher ATA then the 205. The 205 was at something like 1.2 and the 109 and at 1.4...

[Boozeman]

OK, first on the WEP duration/recharge issue. As it has been correctly pointed out, the early DB605 did not use boost additives. So that truly cannot be the reason. Secondly, being licence build, is not convincing also, since the C202, 109E and Ki61 have the same WEP parameters, but 2 of them have licence build 601s.

Now on the speed issue. Well at least in AH, the amount of drag on the 109G2 and the 205 are about the same, with a slight advantage for the 205.
Thus, the 205 on MIL settings is indeed a bit faster than the G2. On WEP this is completely reversed. Why is that?

Well, you could say that altough the 205 makes same power on MIL as the G2, it makes less on WEP. However, the E6B shows both engines run on pretty much the same settings, and therefore the same power. So the "less HP" theory is rather unlikely.

On the other hand, when both planes are loaded to the same weight ans thus equalizing the the P/W ratios and also the wingloading, the 205 easily outclimbs the G2, indicating it is actually making more power, which on the other hand is completely lost in the speed performance.

It is really strange and I am with Anaxogoras on this, the C2 do really need an FM review, not just a 3D facelift. 

   

[Masherbrum]

The DB605-A1 engined 109G's did not use boost-additives, so that's not an explanation.

Moreover, the 109G-2 and G-6 receive a greater airspeed % increase with WEP than the C205.  Nothing is better evidence of a flawed flight model than that.

Flight model?   So when Rommel was going insane over Italian Armor breakdowns, it must have been the "driving model"?   Italian equipment was extremely noted for "Quality Issues".   

Let's look at some data:

C.205V (around 7,000m) - 398mph
C.205N (6,500m) - 390mph

Bf-109G-2 (at 7,000m) - 410 mph
Bf-109G-6 (at 6,600m) - 397 mph @ full 1.42atm Boost.   
Bf-109G-6 (at 6,600m) - 391 mph @ restricted 1.32atm boost

The G6 around 44, received MW-50 (it made a difference in the WEP), something the 205 didn't have.  Also something the Italians didn't have was the DB605AS.   The two would also then transpire in the G-14.   All the G14 was, was the G6 with a DB605AS engine and MW-50 (engine related that is).   It would appear that we have the N1 or N2 and the flight model is not as bad as some are making it out to be.   

As for the 205 carrying bombs.   Ask yourself this question, they rarely carried them ,but when they did, it was two 80kg bombs.  A single 100L drop tank was all that it could carry.   

I see more things wrong with the Ki-61 than the 205.   For starters, turn radius and a few other things.    The Tony is in more need of help, than the 205.   

[Anaxogoras]

Flight model?   So when Rommel was going insane over Italian Armor breakdowns, it must have been the "driving model"?   Italian equipment was extremely noted for "Quality Issues".   

Let's look at some data:

C.205V (around 7,000m) - 398mph
C.205N (6,500m) - 390mph

Bf-109G-2 (at 7,000m) - 410 mph
Bf-109G-6 (at 6,600m) - 397 mph @ full 1.42atm Boost.   
Bf-109G-6 (at 6,600m) - 391 mph @ restricted 1.32atm boost

The G6 around 44, received MW-50 (it made a difference in the WEP), something the 205 didn't have.  Also something the Italians didn't have was the DB605AS.   The two would also then transpire in the G-14.   All the G14 was, was the G6 with a DB605AS engine and MW-50 (engine related that is).   It would appear that we have the N1 or N2 and the flight model is not as bad as some are making it out to be. 

The speeds you quote for the 109G-6 are with a DB605A-1, not with MW50 boost nor with the more powerful supercharger resulting in the 109G-6/AS.  The 109G-14 did not have the DB605AS standard, but it did have MW50 standard.  109G-14s with the DB605AS were designated G-14/AS.  Some 109G-10s also had the DB605AS, and were designated G-10/AS.

The 109G-6 we have in AH is the earliest possible version with a DB605A-1 (save for the bullet-proof-glass head armor); it has none of the other successive improvements made to the 109G-6.

Before you claim that the flight model is flawed, consider the factor of aerodynamics.  If the 109 has a smaller drag coefficient, then it can reach higer speeds with the same power.  There is also the law of diminishing returns. You can give an aircraft 100 times the power and it can only go so fast. Once you reach an aerodynamically limited speed,  you need an exponentially higher power increase to go faster still.

Boozeman is correct about the speed disparities.  At Military power, the C205 is faster than the 109G-6, but with the same engine, the 109G-6 is faster with WEP than the C205.  Because we know they had an equivalent engine, this would seem to indicate that in AH they do not.

[Masherbrum]

The speeds you quote for the 109G-6 are with a DB605A-1, not with MW50 boost nor with the more powerful supercharger resulting in the 109G-6/AS.  The 109G-14 did not have the DB605AS standard, but it did have MW50 standard.  109G-14s with the DB605AS were designated G-14/AS.  Some 109G-10s also had the DB605AS, and were designated G-10/AS.

The 109G-6 we have in AH is the earliest possible version with a DB605A-1 (save for the bullet-proof-glass head armor); it has none of the other successive improvements made to the 109G-6.
Boozeman is correct about the speed disparities.  At Military power, the C205 is faster than the 109G-6, but with the same engine, the 109G-6 is faster with WEP than the C205.  Because we know they had an equivalent engine, this would seem to indicate that in AH they do not.

We don't have the G6/AS so why bring it up (I'm still laughing at you parroting what I just said, but if you say so)?   Take your beef with HTC.   Obviously you are on the verge of suicide.   G6 had gun blisters that reduced the speed around 9 kph.     

 

[Anaxogoras]

  You brought it up first.  And I did not parrot what you said; some of what you said was in error.  But you paint everything with such a broad brush you wouldn't notice the differences.