Author Topic: G-2, C.205, G-6 tests (ver. 0.48) (Read 880 times)

gatt · « **on:** January 20, 2000, 01:38:00 PM »

All tests with 100% fuel, 160mph IAS climbspeed (the C.205 WEP cut out just before 20K):

C.205 (2x7,7mm) time to 20K MilPow: 5'56"
C.205 (2x7,7mm) time to 20K with WEP: 5'16"

C.205 (2x20mm) time to 20K MilPow: 6'25"
C.205 (2x20mm) time to 20K with WEP: 5'45"

109G2 (1x20mm) time to 20K MilPow: 5'56"
109G2 (1x20mm) time to 20K with WEP: 5'16"

109G6 (1x20mm) time to 20K MilPow: 6'12"
109G6 (1x20mm) time to 20K with WEP: 5'30"

Those 2x20mm look very heavy indeed ....

Ripsnort · « **Reply #1 on:** January 20, 2000, 02:08:00 PM »

Hola Gatt! Rip1 here, thks for these kind of posts, I always like numbers!

------------------
Brian "Ripsnort" Nelson
-Rip1- VF-101 Grim Reapers (RET)
"There is no reason anyone would
want a computer in their home."
Ken Olson, president, chairman and
founder of Digital Equipment Corp.,1977

juzz · « **Reply #2 on:** January 20, 2000, 03:26:00 PM »

When I strap the two underwing gondolas on the Bf109G-2 it takes about 35 seconds more to get to 20k.

Fishu · « **Reply #3 on:** January 20, 2000, 04:05:00 PM »

I thought that 109G6 climbs better than G2..
Did they cut powers from G6 slightly too much?

(now.. wheres the uber climb of G10!??! does it still climb like a bus?)

gatt · « **Reply #4 on:** January 21, 2000, 01:33:00 AM »

I didnt test the G-10 due to the autopilot torque bug. Well, I guess it is a bug.

As far as the 109G-6 is concerned yes, I think that an MW50 boosted DB605AM should have a better performance.

Moreover, I do not think that the cannon armed C.205 was such a poor climber above 15K. The two MG151-20 should not be considered like wing gondolas add-on's.

[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 01-21-2000).]

juzz · « **Reply #5 on:** January 21, 2000, 06:51:00 AM »

Pyro said only the G-10 in AH has MW 50. The G-2 and G-6 have the same 1475hp DB605A as the C.205V.

So with the extra weight of the MG131's and more armour? the G-6 is naturally slower to climb.

gatt · « **Reply #6 on:** January 21, 2000, 01:51:00 PM »

AFAIK the 109G6 should mount an DB605AM amd not an DB605A1 like the G-2 and the C.205V.

The DB605AM was designed to accept the MW50 (1,800hp for take off and 1,700hp at 13,500ft). Max speed was 386mph at 23,000ft.

The G-10 could accept the DB605D or DC with MW50. She had more hp than the AM model (both for take off and at altitude). Max speed was 425mph at 24,000ft.

Why the hell should we have a tweaked 109G-6 like WarBirds? This way there is no need of a G-6. A new variant only to have 2x13mm instead of 2x7,7mm? Please ...

IMHO the G-6 should climb slightly less than a G-2 without WEP and better with WEP (MW50 for the G-6).
While the G-10 should climb better than a G-6 with and without WEP (MW50 for both).

juzz · « **Reply #7 on:** January 21, 2000, 05:50:00 PM »

386mph is really the top speed achieved by the G-6 on climb and combat power.

With MW 50 and using takeoff and emergency power, the top speed would probably be over 400mph...

--my-- · « **Reply #8 on:** January 24, 2000, 04:11:00 PM »

Finnish Air Force test flight data on a Bf 109 G-2:

Climb to (altitude in meters):
1000 m 0 min 45 s
2000 m 1 min 25 s
3000 m 2 min 20 s
4000 m 3 min 15 s
5000 m 4 min 10 s
6000 m 5 min 05 s

Initial climb was 20 m/s at sea level improving slightly until about 2000 meters
.
Climb speed was 300 kph at lower altitudes decreasing
to 210 kph IAS at 10000 meters. The climb was done with 2600 RPM and 1.30 ata
(1310 HP at sea level, 1250 HP at 5700 meters).
According to the flight manual 270 kph was best climb speed but the difference
was only less than 1 m/s compared to 300 kph.
Finnish Bf 109s did not have MW-50 or GM-1.

Top speed (TAS in kilometers per hour):
0 m 523
1000 m 547
2000 m 575
3000 m 589
4000 m 596
5000 m 610
6000 m 639

Flight tests were done with full fuel and ammo, no external stores.
Empty weight 2520 kg, combat weight (full internal fuel and ammo) 3030 kg.

Test was flown 9.4.1943 with MT-215 by test pilot Pekka Kokko.

Sources:
Lentäjän näkökulma 2 / Jukka Raunio. Forssan Kirjapaino Oy, 1993. ISBN 951-96866-0-6

Finnish Aces of World War 2 / Kari Stenman and Kalevi Keskinen
Osprey aircraft of the aces 23. ISBN 1-85532-783-X

--my--

[This message has been edited by --my-- (edited 01-24-2000).]

fats · « **Reply #9 on:** January 24, 2000, 05:21:00 PM »

Anyone have accurate tallies on GM-1's and MW-50's usage in Bf 109G-6? The best, which really isn't good at all, I have is from Prien's and Rodeike's Messerchmitt Bf 109 F, G & K Series:

"...Use of GM-1 boost was widespread, resulting in the G-6/U2. Externally, the installation of GM-1 was indicated by the presence of a filler hatch on the right side of the fuselage between frames 3 and 4. Equally common was the retrofitting of MW-50 injection, resulting in the G-6/U3..."

//fats

fats · « **Reply #10 on:** January 24, 2000, 05:34:00 PM »

For anyone interested in running tests or comparing numbers or what ever:

6000 m ~= 19685.0 ft
20 m/s ~= 3937.0 ft/min
300 km/h ~= 186.4 mph
270 km/h ~= 167.8 mph
10000 m ~= 32808.4 ft
210 km/h ~= 130.5 mph
2520 kg ~= 5555.6 lb
3030 kg ~= 6680.0 lb
523 km/h ~= 325.0 mph

Have to do a climb test or two to see if we're missing 45 to 50 s on climb to 20K ft.

//fats

gatt · « **Reply #11 on:** January 25, 2000, 11:39:00 AM »

--my--,
great infos !

Actually, the 109G-2 had a rocket climb rate. Even if the light C.205 was some 200Kg heavier (about 3,200Kg), both should have a better climb rate.