And just another quick question - on the 205

[Boozeman]

Just another intresting point, when both planes (and i'm using the sleeker G2 for comparison) are loaded to the same weight, the 205 easily outacclerates the G2 in both in MIL or WEP settings. Hell, even the fully loaded 205 with 650 lb more weight outaccelerates the G2 on MIL settings, and is not too far behind with its "crippled" WEP.

 

[stroker71]

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.   

I still want them and to fly under attack mode too.  205 is a good little deacker and 170lb bomb could kill a light gv or maybe a heavier tank.   This is a 205 thread go start your own Ki-61 thread. thank you

[Masherbrum]

I still want them and to fly under attack mode too.  205 is a good little deacker and 170lb bomb could kill a light gv or maybe a heavier tank.   This is a 205 thread go start your own Ki-61 thread. thank you

Shelve the ego.   

[Masherbrum]

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.

You not only parroted me, you need to get personal to make it more to the point.   It's a shame you are in a squad with some damn fine individuals.   

You don't know me and never will.   

[Die Hard]

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...

You must have read the test wrong. The 109G vs. 205 test wasn't flown due to hydraulic problems with the 205. You must think of the Fiat G.55 test, and even that didn't prove the Italian fighter better than the 109G.

[FLOTSOM]

I am NO expert, or even a novice in any of this, so please do not take what i say as a challenge to the knowledge of any posting in this thread.

doesn't prop size, number of blades and pitch also determine alot of what power any given motor/plane combination will be?

the duration of WEP/MIL is based on the overheating of the engine, correct? well if the 205 had a less efficient cooling system, (ie less air flow through the cowling, poor coolant characteristics ect) then the 205 will heat faster reducing overall power and length of time the WEP/MIL would last. could these differences in the plane design/model account for the difference in performance you are describing?

remember, i am not an expert nor am i claiming any special knowledge here.

FLOTSOM

[Anaxogoras]

I am NO expert, or even a novice in any of this, so please do not take what i say as a challenge to the knowledge of any posting in this thread.

doesn't prop size, number of blades and pitch also determine alot of what power any given motor/plane combination will be?

the duration of WEP/MIL is based on the overheating of the engine, correct? well if the 205 had a less efficient cooling system, (ie less air flow through the cowling, poor coolant characteristics ect) then the 205 will heat faster reducing overall power and length of time the WEP/MIL would last. could these differences in the plane design/model account for the difference in performance you are describing?

remember, i am not an expert nor am i claiming any special knowledge here.

FLOTSOM

That's a good hypothesis.  Does that explain why WEP in the 109G yields a greater % speed increase?

[FLOTSOM]

That's a good hypothesis.  Does that explain why WEP in the 109G yields a greater % speed increase?

my guess would be that that answer would lay in the prop differences between the two planes. but that would be a very UNeducated guess.

i will leave it to those who have a much greater knowledge in the field and research materials at their disposal to answer this with any certainty.

FLOTSOM

[Boozeman]

Some toughts:

If the 205s prop would be less efficient in transmitting the engine power than the 109 prop, then this would be noticable across the whole perfomance range.
Matter of fact, it would then be slower on MIL than the 109, but it isn't. Also climb and acclereation would suffer, but they doesn't.

Regarding the efficancy of the cooling system, while this may have an influence in real life, AH engine model keeps things a bit more simple. Lets take the example again with the 202/ki-61/109E: Three different aircraft, thus different cooling systems, but the same engine. All three have the same WEP parameters. Or the RR Merlins, no matter in which AC its installed, all get the same WEP. Same with the V-1710 or the R-2800.

 

 

[FTJR]

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,117090.0.html


Pyro's reply is down the page

[Anaxogoras]

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,117090.0.html


Pyro's reply is down the page

All that thread does is show that Pyro didn't know what was up.

[stroker71]

Shelve the ego.   

Don't think I am the one with the ego.  Just want to keep the thread on target...sorry.  Had a g6 catch me in my 205 the other day and wondered how he did because I was thinking they had the same engine.  It was a no e advantage on the deck run.  Just got my 3rd kill and had 3 new uppers and desided to make a run for it.

Point of thread is to determine the flight model for the 205.

[transam1]

I have no info to support this theory but here goes. If 2 airplanes have the same powerplant and WEP last longer in one than the other it would seem to me that maybe the 109 has a better cooling system. Since WEP in this game is limited only by engine temp that would make the most sense to me. And there are alot of factors that go into speed besides engine power.

As far as the speed increase from WEP. I am not sure about that statistics on the aircraft in question but here is a good analogy.

If I were to take 1500lb car with 200hp and a 2000lb car with 200hp and supercharge them both wouldn't the lighter one experience a greater acceleration boost from the same power. I am not saying the 205 is heavier than the 109 but maybe there are factors that would support this. It would seem to me that as power increases the differences in aerodynamics become that much more apparent.

[stroker71]

I understand you thinking there Transam1 and the 205 is a bit heavier.  But it also out acclerates the 109 and has higher top speed on Military power.  It's the WEP power increase and time on WEP that is in question.  And the better cooling system would be a good place to start.  But as stated before in the thread all of the other planes with same engine have the same increase in WEP and duration of WEP.  So why is the 205 and 109g-6 different...they have the same engine. 

[Denniss]

  Some 109G-10s also had the DB605AS, and were designated G-10/AS.

That's a common myth: No production G-10 received a DB605AS as this would then be a G-14. All production G-10 received a DB 605D. It may be different for repaired aircraft or very very late production G-10 (those late G-10 may have received a DB 605 ASB or ASC). ASB/ASC had almost the same performance characteristic as the DB 605DB/DC.