Author Topic: 109k-4 (Read 364 times)

WhiteHawk · « **on:** December 26, 2001, 01:30:00 AM »

Wouldnt mind seeing a 109k-4 in AH. It
wasnt a gimmick plane. Very nice mix of
strengths and weaknesses. And one of the
fastest prop planes (If not the fastest)
that wasnt a last gasp effort.

Thnx

Kweassa · « **Reply #1 on:** December 26, 2001, 05:21:00 AM »

This has been brought up many times before

I for one, would like a 109K-4 instead of 109G-10, since it really does 'finish' off the series beginning with 109E(that is, if 109E is introduced, which I certainly think it will be).

But to the extent of my knowledge, 109G-10 and 109K-4 have virtually identical performances. I have read K-4 was designed as a high alt fighter in the first place, and G-10 was the final evolution of the G series, but due to certain amounts of small problems, in result, the G-10 was introduced to battle even later than 109K-4.

Since we already have a G-10, putting there a K-4 which would perform almost exactly the same would be very impractical.

My opinion is to finish the early/mid-war plane sets AH currently lacks first, then fill in the "missing link" in 109 with MW50 G-6s or G-14.

Kweassa · « **Reply #2 on:** December 26, 2001, 05:24:00 AM »

Oh, by the way, if AH planes perform as it is on the HTC charts, Bf 109G-10 IS the fastest plane we have aside from Ta-152H-1, which is said to have done about 460 mph(but doesn't show on HTC charts because the charts end at 30k feet alt) and Me-262, a jet plane.

In terms of pure speed, G-10 is faster than the Tempest, the P-51 AND the La-7, with maximum speed of 448 mph at 22k alt according to HTC charts.

HoHun · « **Reply #3 on:** December 26, 2001, 09:09:00 AM »

Hi Kweassa,

>But to the extent of my knowledge, 109G-10 and 109K-4 have virtually identical performances.

That's not quite correct. The Me 109K-4 received some improvements that the G-10 didn't have - like complete wheel covers, a retractable tail wheel, a redesigned cowling, and an increased radiator area - that raised its performance markedly over that of the Me 109G-10.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Vermillion · « **Reply #4 on:** December 26, 2001, 10:19:00 AM »

HoHun, I guess it depends on which version of the G10 of which you speak.

Our G10 is the version that had the same engine as the K4, which produces the same performance as the K4.

Its been discussed ad nauseum in the past, with Pyro even dropping in for a word or two.

Both have a max speed of 452 mph at critical altitude, and have matching climb and speed charts.

Urchin · « **Reply #5 on:** December 26, 2001, 12:01:00 PM »

The K-4 was supposed to be a "standardized" new version of the G-6 and G-14. It was supposed to incorporate all of the good modifications made to *some* of those aircraft.

The G-10 was actually a program to bring older G-series 109s up to the K standard. At least that is according to the 109 book I just got. Some G-10s were actually build at the factory, but most of them were actually rebuilds of older 109s.

What I would like to see are the flettner tabs on the G-10. The K-4 had them, and the G-10 and K-4 were supposed to be identical.

HoHun · « **Reply #6 on:** December 26, 2001, 02:38:00 PM »

Hi Vermillion,

thanks for the pointer!

I found the following information there (posted by Veltro):

>Notwithstanding the similarity, official data recorded by the General Luftzeugmeisters/C-E2 on 1 November 1944 reported for the K-4 an average advantage of 15/20 Km/h in speed, as you can see by the enclosed tables

Unfortunately, the link to the tables is broken. Does anyone know a working URL, or has stored the tables somewhere? I'd love to see them!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Wotan · « **Reply #7 on:** December 26, 2001, 02:51:00 PM »

Urchin is corrct from what I've read.

Our g10 while similar is no k-4.

However the need for a k-4 is small a g6 with mw50 or a g14 would do more to fill any late gap the 109 series has in ah.

My preference would be a 109e4/7 then a g14.

Then once ht goes through and fills all the gaps in the other plansets a k-4 would make sense.

Hristo · « **Reply #8 on:** December 26, 2001, 04:50:00 PM »

William Green says 378 mph on the deck for K-4.

R4M · « **Reply #9 on:** December 26, 2001, 06:18:00 PM »

No, the 109G10 was no K4 regardless of the engine. Not just by performance (wich also has something to do at low levels), but also by the improved control surfaces.

Both were different planes with same engines. Performances were different as well as maneouverability and aerodinamics.

In AH charts,G10 top speed at 25K points to around 450mph TAS (even though I can't reproduce that speed at that altitude in a 109G10), wich seems similar to that of the K4.

At low level, though, AH's G10 is quite slower than the historical K4.

[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]

Wilbus · « **Reply #10 on:** December 26, 2001, 06:59:00 PM »

Kweassa, you're right about the charts, the new look on them only shows alt to 30k, real life H-1 had a top speed of 472Mph at 41k.
AH TA152 has a top speed of about 460-465 at 35k (acording to old "more than 30k" charts).

The Tempest and 109 and P51B will reach about 450-460 aswell.

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #11 on:** December 28, 2001, 02:32:00 AM »

Im no expert here, but didnt the k-4 have
different wing design than any of the G models? A slight gull wing? Any way thanks
to AH for including the 109f, my personal
favorite 'fun' plane.