109G-10 performance

[wells]

Speeds seem ok, I measured over 340 @ sea level and some 280 at 26k (425 TAS).  I don't know if the MP gauge is still being worked on, but for the 605ASM engine, it produced mil power at 1.42 ata (43") and with WEP, the boost increased to 1.8 ata (54").  The critical altitude for WEP boost was 19600', above which the boost should fall to the level of 1.42 at a critical altitude of 26200'.  The climb rate seems low to me.  At 1.3 boost, it should climb near 3800 fpm and with WEP, it would be close to 4800 fpm.  I measured 3500 fpm with 60" MP and 4200 with 65".  Looks like it's suffering the same fate as the 109G6 in WB.  Pyro, what does a G-10 weigh?  Can't be much over 7400 lbs?  This one's flying heavy!

[wells]

Upon further testing the P-51, I guess the 109 is ok, relatively speaking.  The P-51 seems a bit low on climb and turn performance as well.  2700 fpm mil, 3200 fpm WEP.  Sustained turn rate about 12 deg/sec compared to 14 for the 109.

[Kats]

That's all fine and dandy when there are only a few planes to check relative performance.

PS, loaded the g10 with a 605A should be the same as a loaded G6 (6940 lbs)

As the plane set get's larger, the best way is to model planes relative to themselves historically.

Q' wells. 90% of G10's came with the DB605D (all of which included MW50) shouldn't the test be based on that?

Now if AH stuck it with the DB605AS (god forbid, I'd rather have a g6 with MW50 instead) All the G10's that had this automatically came with GM-1 boost. In your example you list the engine as a DB605ASM - do you have info that shows the g10 with both GM-1 and MW50?

Your tests however match exactly of a loaded 109G6/u3 or rather a DB605AM in the top speed department. The climb rates are correct if MW50 was not enganged (should be close to 3500 ft/min over 5k)

Anyhow, what's the buzz - it would be alot easier if Pyro mentioned what version of the 109 he is modelling (605 D or 605AS)

[This message has been edited by Kats (edited 10-03-1999).]

[This message has been edited by Kats (edited 10-03-1999).]

[Kats]

Regarding Stick Forces, based soley on E. Browns testing of that 109G6 in 1944.

   

In a dive at 400mph the controls felt as though they had seized! The highset speed I dived below to 10,000 ft was 440 mph and the solidity of control was such that this was the limit in my book. E. Brown

To me this suggests that 400 mph should still allow stick control (albiet very poor) and at 440 mph you'd probably need about 8k to recover    

I haven't tested this in AH yet, but I bet it's pretty close, has anyone?



[This message has been edited by Kats (edited 10-03-1999).]

[wells]

Kats,  there is very little difference between the ASM and D engine.  Over 20k, there is no difference at all (except for maybe GM-1).  The D has slightly higher boost below 5000m when using 96 octane fuel.  I don't have any GM-1 speed data.  I also figured the G-10 to be similar to a late G-6.  The G-6 that Eric Brown flew had a climb rate of 3800 fpm using 1.3 ata boost and the K-4 model can hit 4800 fpm with MW50, so should not the G-10 be able to match these figures??

[Pyro]

Wells, you should be getting in the 3900s at low alt with full fuel and mil power.  I do have a problem with the MW50.  I have the performance slightly dwindling and it should hold pretty steady up to 20k or so.  The G-10 in AH uses the 605D and weighs in at about 7400 lbs with the 20mm and full fuel, no ext ordnance.

What climb speed were you using for your test?  Try it at about 165 IAS and see what you get.  Also doublecheck that you don't have any other ordnance selected.

Found the problem with the flaps BTW.



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

[Kats]

Aside from the wide bladed prop, certain aerodynamic concerns, and the oiler cooler - the 109g10ASM should perform close to a 109k. You are correct (I had to recheck that, I didn't realise the similarity of the two engines).



[This message has been edited by Kats (edited 10-03-1999).]

[wells]

Pyro,

I was using speed trim, but it doesn't seem to work below 200, so I guess that was the problem!    I did get your figures when flying manually around 160.  

[wells]

How about reducing the brake effectiveness so the planes don't nose over?  The 109 was pretty hard to nose over.  Both Eric Brown and Mark Hanna say that brakes can be applied harshly without any tendency to nose over.  The opposite is true of the Spitfire.

[fats]

--- Pyro: ---
What climb speed were you using for your test? Try it at about 165 IAS and see what you get.
--- end ---

Has anyone else encountered problems with Bf 109 /not/ climbing straight? If I hit shift-x at an angle that would drop the speed to around 160 the aileron trim runs out of authority to keep the plane straight and it starts to turn to left.

The trim indicators are pegged to right, rudder and aileron. Joystick is calibrated and shows 'centered' in AHs own calibration box. Most all planes seem to need almost max trim to keep them climbing at slower speeds on my machine, 109 is the only one that isn't able to fly straight at all, hence I haven't been flying it either.


//fats

[meza]

As some of you alrady know,

Mark Hanna died on 26th last month after his HA1112M1L(Spanish made Bf109) crashed in Spain.
 http://www.evoke.co.uk/ofmc/index.htm

What a sad news,,,

His last movie work was "Saving Private Ryan"


meza <JP3ND>

[This message has been edited by meza (edited 10-04-1999).]

[wells]

Damn, I heard he was burned bad, but didn't know he had died.  I saw him fly with his father (spit vs 109) in Ireland a few years ago...great pilots!  

Fats, I think the trim is backwards in AH (shift-x = angle trim, ctrl-x = speed trim)  but I could be wrong...havent' played with it too much yet.

[Curly]

 Your correct Wells. [shift]x is angle trim.

 I don't use the Ctrl X (speed trim?) as I
have yet to discover what it does other than it thorws me into a viscious loop.
 How and why does one use 'speed' trim?

 --Curly

[fats]

Wells, I know shift-x is angle trim. I was wondering if anyone else had trouble with it keeping the plane straight.

Seems not, so now I wonder what is causing it at my end.


//fats

[GADGET]

I have seen that you have some interest in the dead of Mr. Mark Hanna. Sadly, I was there when he crashed.

It was on Saturday Sept. 25th at 12 PM, while getting ready for an airshow in Barcelona that he crashed. He was flying with the Breitling Warbirds Team (P-40, P-51 and the HA Buchón he piloted) practicing for La Merçe (a holiday in Barcelona) in a small airport called Sabadell, with a 800 m runway. On that morning he took the Buchón for a flight and when coming back for landing he overshooted from base-leg to short final. Trying to correct the error, he pulled back on the stick while adding power... bad idea when coming low and slow... and turning hard. The Buichón is a really difficult plane, having the Bf.109G cell with a RR Merling engine... that turns a big propeller in the opposite direcction the airplane was originally designed for.

He crashed a few hundred feet before runway threshold, into a small slope, after loosing control of his Buchón. The airplane burned and when the rescue team could get to the place (outside the airport perimeter)... it was too late, but he was still alive. he was taken to the nearest hospital in Sabadell, where he received a first aid, but he was too burned, so later he was taken to a special intensive care unit for burned people in Hospital del Valle de Hebrón in Barcelona. He died two days later due to the several injuries and burns, in the early morning of Sept. 27th.

May he rest in peace.
My condolences to everyone that might know him.

GADGET

 

 

------------------
101 Escuadrón de Combate Virtual