N1K faster than G2?

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by Graywolf:

Indeed. I'd like to see these kind of devices modelled a little better. From what I've read some of the Bf109 pilots disliked the leadinf edge slats as they would often delpoy unexpectedly changing the trim of the aircraft and messing up a gun solution. Also I believe they often deployed unevenly causing the aircraft to roll unexpectedly.

As things stand now the beneficial effects seem to be modelled, but not the drawbacks...

You know, the difference between them is that N1K2 combat flaps ARE modelled regarding lift but ARENT modelled regarding drag.

109 slats are NOT modelled. This is confirmed by pyro himslelf. Period.

Anyway those slats were there for SOMETHING, you know, better low speed turning and such. I would not care a single bit about the assimetrical deploying problem. One learns to fly with it and not causing the flaps to deploy assimetrically, and thats all.

 Oh, BTW I'd guess that the drag calculations will account for the higher wing drag caused by them.

The N1K2 has the lift but not the drag. The 109 has (prolly) the drag but not the lift.

And of course, the N1K2 has a 2000hp engine, but has no torque  

[DB603]

S!

 The slats on the leading edge of 109's wing were used to keep the air flow on the ailerons duing high AoA maneuvering,thus keeping plane under control.Also the opening of them caused a "snap" on stick,of which pilot knew he was getting closer critical AoA.The slats were improved from 109E/F so they opening caused less "snap".
 I wish they would be modeled some day,since it would give 109 a bit better ölow speed handling than it currently has....




------------------
DB603
3.Lentue
Lentolaivue 34

[niklas]

 

Originally posted by wells:

Niklas,

Are those charts for carrying gondolas?  The weight is given as 3350 kg.

good question - i donīt know the answer. Gondolas are imo very probable, because all curves were put together to have a comparison to a 109 WITH gondolas and a JUMO213 engine. Yes, the purpose of all these charts was a comparison with a jumo213-powered 109 WITH gondolas.

niklas

[wells]

Hmm,

I don't think there's gondolas in those tests Niklas, only because they're comparing to a K4 at 3370kg.  In the climb charts for the K4, that's the weight corresponding to GM1, without gondolas (mit GM1, ohne Gondelwaffen), right?  With gondolas (mit Gondelwaffen) and GM1, it's 3570 kg and without the GM1 (still with gondolas), it's 3450 kg.  So it could be that GM1 is being carried in that G6 at 3350 kg.  Also, note the max speed is 636 km/h (takeoff and emergency power) and 621 km/h (climb and combat power).  Do I have that right?

[niklas]

wells, maybe it is GM1, maybe gondolas - i donīt know it. I only ask myself, why is the G6 slower than the G5? The G5 has a 605AS engine with 1435HP power, the G6 the 605A with 1475HP - 50HP more. Nevertheless the G6 is 10km/h slower.
If the weight of the G6 includes GM1, why it isnīt mentioned in the chart for Steig und Kampfleisung?
Has noone an info about the takeoff weight of a G6?? This would be helpful now.

niklas

[wells]

I've seen 3150 kg as a normal loaded weight on the G6, which is 200 kg less than in that test.  I guess it could be either gondolas or a 300L drop tank?

[DB603]

S!

 According to FAF documents,the 109G-2 weighed 3030kg at take-off and 109G-6 3150kg at take-off.This without the 300litre drop tank.Also comparison on speed.109G-2 could do 520km/h at sealevel(no gondolas) and 636km/h at 6km.109G-6 values were 500km/h at sealevel(no gondolas) and 620km/h at 6km.These values are from FAF test flight documents.So the G-2 should be better performing of these 2 and maybe able to outrun the GreenMenace




------------------
DB603
3.Lentue
Lentolaivue 34