Pyro; about 109...

[Fishu]

I am really glad what you did for 109, now it feels like real one, instead of being brand W's G6..
..but (hey now, dont look at me like that!), I have achieved speeds like 415mph at 11,400ft with WEP on, at 14,500ft almost same speed without WEP and at 16,500ft as fast as 440mph with WEP (wonder if it goes 500mph at 25,000ft.. hehe, that would be something)
Just wonder are these realistic speeds for 109 or is that speed gauge just having some errors?  
Didn't expect any plane to be that fast, when even P-51D does about 437mph at 25,000ft and thats faster than 109G10 should do, right? (and im breaking it at 16.5k)

....but (yes, you can now look at me like that) I'd be happy if these are the real numbers    

[Hristo]

So, are you trying to say that there is a Luftwaffe conspiracy, trying to spoil online sims ?  

Also, we both know that 109 speed gauge has errors, just remember IAS/TAS differences at low alt.

[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 12-14-1999).]

[juzz]

Fishu - I'd be more worried about the FW190A-8. It's the slowest climbing fighter in AH and it's top end at high alt sucks too(only the N1K2-J is slower) - how did you get 271 kills for 0 deaths in it? Imagine if you flew the Mustang!  

[Vermillion]

Fishu, these numbers are just off the top of my head, but I seem to remember seeing performance numbers for the K4 as high as the 440-450 number, depending on the source.

Plus remember that the G10 has a much more powerful engine than the G2/G6, so its more comparable (equal in my opinon) to the Brand W, 109K4.

I haven't been in the game since last week, but if the 109 finally has that kind of power again, you might just convince me to fly it  

Even with that crappy gun package  



------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires "

[Pongo]

The 109 is very nice now. Still a hand full in a dive, still have to watch that ammo, but
man can it accelerate, great high speed manuverability. Some people where complaining that the spit is a wipping dog now compared to the the 109. I dont think that that is true but you have to respect the power of the 109 now. Ponys should be carful. You show this bird your backside with less then 3-4k of head start and you could be in big trouble. I want to see how it goes up in Buff land....Will is still have good power at 28-34k?

[Fishu]

Juzz: that plane fits for me  
About 190a8, what worries me, is that I have read it flown +400mph as top speed, not 390mph which I get as top speed on level flight.
(I wonder if that number 13 on the side of 190 gives me a kick, its my lucky number)

Vermillion: G-14 and K-4 are more comparable, I think that G-10 is still some mph slower than K-4
Btw. You sure the speeds you've heard haven't been achieved at 25,000ft, which is totally different altitude than 16,000ft?

[Pongo]

G-14 and K have different engine,
G-10 and K have same engine..
Why would G-14 and K be more comparable?
G-14 and late G-6 are comparable.

[Hristo]

109K had retraceable tailwheel  

Also, I believe it had small landing gear doors, similar to P 51D in AH.

Speaking of tailwheel, shouldn't our 109G-10 have long tailwheel ? Looks cool, and would also help in take offs, IMO.

[Vermillion]

I believe Pongo is right Fishu, its the G10 and the K4 that have the same engine. Forget what was in the G14, beyond the designation AS.  But I don't remember what the AS signifies.

On the altitude of 16k vs 25k, I admittedly have no clue. Like I said, I just remember that in some references (again speaking from memory) that the K4 had top speeds in the 440-450 mph TAS range.

So it may indeed be too fast, best way would be to check the speed at the altitude which most references state where max speed occurs, then use that as the speed in the post to compare too.

Again, speaking on all issues from memory here (am at work), so I may be in error.


------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires "

[niklas]

I think speed is ok for the 109. The Problem is: the 109 get itīs maximum speed not in the right altitude.

At the moment the 109 has itīs max speed in 20000ft, about 6500m. But the 605D engine (which has also like the 605AS a bigger loader compared to the 605A) had a "full-pressure-altitude" of 8500meter, 28000ft. Thatīs why a G10 and K were faster than other 109Gīs- The engine was able to perform full power in bigger altitudes than the other engines. They didnīt had more HP. Without MW50 i found even original data that says a 605D and a 605AS had for takeoff 1435HP, a 605A 1475HP.

The 605AS was good, too. But the "air loader" (sorry, donīt know the correct technical expression in english:-) ) of the AS had itīs limit in about 7400m, 24400ft.

[juzz]

air loader = supercharger I would imagine.

I have seen these figures.
Bf109G-6, DB605??(GM1 boost) = 406mph at 28500ft
Bf109G-10, DB605DC = 426mph at 24000ft.
Bf109K-4, DB605ASCM = 452mph at 19685ft, 435mph at 24610ft.
Bf109K-14, DB605L = 452mph at 37000ft.

DB605ASOM engine, 2030hp using 93-octane fuel and MW50 boost. Fitted to some Bf109G-6

The K-4 had aerodynamic improvements that the G-10 didn't. Inner gear doors, more streamlined cowling over the upper machineguns, etc. However, the K series was supposed to be a "standardisation" of all the R- and U- modifications being applied to the G-10. So a late production G-10 is probably the same as an early K-4.

It's my understanding that MW50 only gives power improvement up to 22000ft. Is this correct? I have no idea which altitude range GM1 is for, except that it's obviously best to use it at higher altitudes. It would certainly give more power at any altitude. (After all it works great on your car at 0ft  )

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 12-14-1999).]

[Pyro]

Gotta disagree with you Niklas.  Can you point me at the info you're referring to?



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

[wells]

The increased supercharger on the 605D and AS engines raised the critical altitude from something like 5700m (605A) to 8000m.  With full boost (MW50), the critical altitude is much lower, 5100m for c3 fuel (1800hp) and 6000m for b4 fuel (1530 hp).

[chisel]

Gotta question wells  

How is/was the critical altitude defined?
Am guessing a 200HP drop from max HP?

[niklas]

Pyro- I already sent you a mail with a big attachement. I will sent you some other data now, one is a propeller test with a K and a 605D engine. It shows clearly the max speed at combat power (1,35ata, 2600 u/min)- top speed at 8500m (without mw50).

I have a copy of an original table of Daimler-Benz, dated spring 44.
It says:

DB605A
Fuel B4, propeller adjustment by hand
compression 7,3/7,5
full-pressure-height: 5700m
takeoff and emergency power:
ground:  1475HP @2800u/min, 1,42ata(pressure)
fph:  1355HP (5700m!)
10000m: 790HP
15000m: 320HP

DB605AS
Like 605A, bigger supercharger of the 603G
compression 7,3/7,5
full-pressure-height(fph): 7500m
takeoff and emergency power:
ground:  1435HP @2800u/min 1,42ata
fph:  1225HP (7500m!)
10000m: 890HP
15000m: no data

DB605D
Like 605A, bigger supercharger, propeller adjustment works automatic, fuel C3
compression 8,3/8,5
full-pressure-height(fph): 8500m
takeoff and emergency power:
ground:  1435HP @2800u/min 1,42ata
fph:  1210HP (8500m!)
10000m: 1000HP
15000m: 410HP

All data without mw50 or gm1

wells posting imo the clue to the solution, i think. I know thatin many books who find for top speed of a 109K an altitude of about 6000m, with much higher number of HP- Wells is right i think, there they used mw50, and therefore the critical altitude dropped- i dontīt know why but it seems to be a fact.

I have another data for the 605D, now with mw50:
takoff and emergency power:
ground: 2000HP @2800 u/min  1,98ata
5500m:  1800HP @2800 u/min  1,98ata

climb and combat power:
ground: 1800HP @ 2800 u/min 1,8ata
6000m : 1530HP @ 2800 u/min 1,8ata

It really looks like that with mw50 the critical altitude dropped.
BUT without mw50 (and i did my speed tests like wells did them without wep, and my climb tests too) the critical altitude should be much higher than it is now.

niklas