Anti-gravity device in Hartmanns 109?

[juzz]

Can someone explain how the Bf109G-6 can climb far better than the G-2, when they share the same engine? AND - how do the G-6 and G-2 climb better than the more powerful G-10...?

Those nose bumps must be part of the anti-gravity device...  

[fd ski]

Probably because it is modeled with all the gadgets that Waffels have been squeaking and whining about....

Got any timing on that thing  ? Climb to 20k maybe ?


------------------


Bartlomiej Rajewski
S/L fd-ski Sq. 303 (Polish) "Kosciuszko" RAF
   www.raf303.org  

[juzz]

Watch fd-ski hit the roof  

Climb to 20k; ClimbSpeed 150mph, 100% power, 100% fuel.

Bf109F-4: 6'22"
Bf109G-10: 6'15"
Bf109G-2: 6'05"

drum roll please...

Bf109G-6 5'21"  

[Hristo]

Yawn, I am at work and they are all testing new 109s  

Still, I had 5 minutes before work to fly 3 new 109s.

Of all 4 versions, G-6 made the greatest impression. If everything is corrcetly modeled, that's a plane to count on.


Pyro, how about telling us what engines particular 109 versions use in AH. What power boost devices do they have ? Please...

[juzz]

Hehehe. Yeah, they's all flying F-4's too, by the look of the score page...

[Hristo]

Umrust Motor of some sort.

But still, seems no weight/torque penalty.

Compared to G-10, it felt like...hmmm...I hate to say it....Spit.


Still, only 2 minutes in it.

[juzz]

Hristo, what do you mean by "Umrust motor"?

I would have assumed the G-6 has the usual DB605AM; but at 100% throttle it is much faster climbing than the G-2(DB605A), when they should both be producing identical power(1475hp?). What's even more confusing is that at 100%, the G-10(DB605D) climbs slower than the G-6(and the G-2!), but if the G-6 and G-10 climb with WEP(MW50) on they produce practically identical climbrates.

Obviously there's still a little work to be done on the 109 FM's  

[Hristo]

The version for C3 fuel was available for some versions of 109G, right ? Forgot the designation suffix tho.

Our G-10 uses B4 fuel, AFAIK.

As much as it should be fun to fly such an awesome climber as AH G-6, it should be corrected if it is wrong.

But, OTOH, there were so many different modifications that only Pyro can answer questions about our G-6.

Maybe it is the G-10 that needs tweaking   It pays big penalty in weight/torque with no big advantage in climb compared to Spit IX, for example.

Interesting tho...

[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 01-18-2000).]

[Hristo]

Also, maybe it is a combo with both MW 50 and GM 1. Anyone ?

[wells]

 

I would have assumed the G-6 has the usual DB605AM; but at
               100% throttle it is much faster climbing than the G-2(DB605A),
               when they should both be producing identical power(1475hp?)

Bingo!  We have a winner!  

The G6 at 100% is using 1475 hp and with WEP, is using MW50 1800 hp (4800 fpm climb rate).  The G2, because it has to use WEP and doesn't have MW50, is putting out 13xx hp with 100% and 1475 with WEP!  The Fw is modelled the same way! (15xx with 100% and 1700 with WEP).

[juzz]

I think then we need two WEP buttons. One for "limited overpower", like most planes have, and another for "goodies" like methanol/water injection, like some of the German planes have. Unlike the P-47's and F4U's methanol WEP, I think you could use MW50 at any power setting, as it wasn't "hardwired" into the last part of the throttle travel like on the American planes?

If you are correct wells, then can you explain why the G-2 isn't faster on WEP than the G-6 at 100%  

Hristo; AFAIK only the Ta152 had both GM-1 and MW50 fitted at the same time. The Bf109 had a "choice" of either MW50 or GM-1, but never both at once. I would like to have that choice available with AH's Bf109's.  

[Hristo]

Understood.

But how about G-10 then ? Underpowered ?

[juzz]

At 100% power, the G-10 is certainly underpowered. With the MW50 on it probably is still slightly underpowered, it should have an extra 200hp over the G-6 that I imagine should show up in climbrate, unless the G-10 was also heavier?

I think the G-6 bleeds E really quickly though; I had a Spit on my tail that I could easily dive away from, but whenever I climbed(gently, not much G's) again to go vertical he caught up in a very short time. I guess he was very light on fuel, and maybe out of cannons too, because he pinged me twice for no damage, but then another Knight shot him down anyway.  

[Fishu]

If G10 is alot more clumsy than G6 and climbs slower.. whats the point for that new version?  
Isn't G10 quite much like K4, clumsy but fast and rocket climber?

[Hristo]

Here's what W. Green says:

G-2,  normal loaded weight 6834 lb, DB 605A 1475 hp at take off

G-6,  normal loaded weight 6940 lb, DB 605AM 1475 hp for take off (no MW 50)

G-6,  normal loaded weight 6940 lb, DB 605AM 1800 hp for take off (with MW 50)

G-10, normal loaded weight ???, DB 605D 1850 hp for take off (B4, with MW 50)

G-10, normal loaded weight ???, DB 605DB 1800 hp for take off (C3, no MW 50)

G-10, normal loaded weight ???, DB 605DC 2000 hp for take off (C3, with MW 50)

K-4, loaded weight (clean) 6834 lb, DB 605ASCM 2000 hp for take off (probably with MW 50)


Normal loaded weight of G-10 should be very close to G-6 figure, I believe.

[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 01-18-2000).]