g10 vs k4

[Debrody]

109 experts, could you tell me, why was the g10 as much slower than the k4?
If im right, they had the same DB605D, the same MG cowling, the same tall rudder.
The only noticable difference i know is the retractable tailwheel in hthe k4, but should it add 20mph speed difference?
Was the wing or the cooling system redesigned or something to reduce the drag or something? Any information about the g10s weights, speed and climb graphs?
<S>

[EagleDNY]

Slower according to whom?  There is a wealth of 109 data out there, and not all of it is accurate.  For the most part the G10 and the K4 should have very similar performance, but there will be a slight variance because not all the airframes are identical.  Remember a lot of G10s were the result of conversions of older 109 versions like the G6 or G14 to try to bring them up to the K4 standard. 

Sometimes I'll also see references to maximum speed, but tested at a different altitude (which makes quite a bit of difference!)

[Krusty]

For the most part the G10 and the K4 should have very similar performance, but there will be a slight variance because not all the airframes are identical.

That's not true Eagle. The G-10 had a wide range of performance values. They were not all identical (as you mention). Many actually performed quite a lot worse. Even the BEST of the BEST was slower than the 109K-4 series.

Probably a combination of engine setup issues and draggy airframe issues. Fixed tailwheel and stuff like that.

[STEELE]

Maybe a hair slower than the K4, but, same acceleration (or better)& rate of climb.
It's simple AH math:  K4 + 20mil = Allies   
also Luft guys: 

[EagleDNY]

That's not true Eagle. The G-10 had a wide range of performance values. They were not all identical (as you mention). Many actually performed quite a lot worse. Even the BEST of the BEST was slower than the 109K-4 series.

Probably a combination of engine setup issues and draggy airframe issues. Fixed tailwheel and stuff like that.

Yes, the G-10 was slower than the K-4 but I've seen references where they were quoting 440 vs 452 at hi-altitude.  I don't know exactly what was meant by "much worse" at the top of the thread since no figures are quoted.  You would have to expect any brand new K-4 to outperform some old G-6 that had a big-motor conversion kit added to it to bring it up to the G-10 standard.  If I were stuck in a 109G6 in 1944, I think I'd want that conversion kit though - there is something to be said for a load of raw engine power being there when you need it.

[STEELE]

Yes, the G-10 was slower than the K-4 but I've seen references where they were quoting 440 vs 452 at hi-altitude.  I don't know exactly what was meant by "much worse" at the top of the thread since no figures are quoted.  You would have to expect any brand new K-4 to outperform some old G-6 that had a big-motor conversion kit added to it to bring it up to the G-10 standard.  If I were stuck in a 109G6 in 1944, I think I'd want that conversion kit though - there is something to be said for a load of raw engine power being there when you need it.

I bet removing the cowling bulges and the non-retractable tailwheel added around 7-10 mph to the K4 over the G10.  If I was a Latewar Luft pilot on freehunt fighter sweeps, I think I'd rather have the mg 151/20 for use against fighters, especially since the real ones caused more damage (3 or so different types of shells in the same belt)
Hartmann was witnessed (by allied pilots even)pulling up behind an enemy and flaming him with a single 20mil from close range!

[MiloMorai]

The cowl bulges were still there, they were just more aerodynamically shaped.

The 452mph was for the K-4 boosted to 1.98ata of which there was only a handful.

It is a myth that the G-10 were conversions from older airframes. Most G010s were new builds, to the tune of some 2048 out of ~2600 that Prien quotes. This compares to 1593 neubau K-4s.

G-10s in production batches 490000 and 491000 were fitted with DB605AS engines due to the lack of sufficient quantities of the DB605D engines.

[Krusty]

The 452mph was for the K-4 boosted to 1.98ata of which there was only a handful.

That's not true. Our in-game model stacks up almost perfectly with a 1.8ata speed chart, and it makes 452 mph. If we had 1.98ata we would have a much higher climb rate and our sea level max speed would be over 10mph faster. The rare part might be true (it's under great debate apparently) but the implication that our in-game model is 1.98? That seems misleading IMO. 452 was reached with a 1.8 boosted model with a high-speed propellor. There were high-climb ones that didn't do so well in top speed, and top speed ones that don't do too well in climb. Considering the relatiely low climb rate (for a 109K) I would imagine ours has one of the higher speed props installed. HTC must have used that test data.

[Krupinski]

I bet removing the cowling bulges and the non-retractable tailwheel added around 7-10 mph to the K4 over the G10.  If I was a Latewar Luft pilot on freehunt fighter sweeps, I think I'd rather have the mg 151/20 for use against fighters, especially since the real ones caused more damage (3 or so different types of shells in the same belt)
Hartmann was witnessed (by allied pilots even)pulling up behind an enemy and flaming him with a single 20mil from close range!

A single 20mm? Please tell me where you heard that.

[Debrody]

That's not true. Our in-game model stacks up almost perfectly with a 1.8ata speed chart, and it makes 452 mph. If we had 1.98ata we would have a much higher climb rate and our sea level max speed would be over 10mph faster. The rare part might be true (it's under great debate apparently) but the implication that our in-game model is 1.98? That seems misleading IMO. 452 was reached with a 1.8 boosted model with a high-speed propellor. There were high-climb ones that didn't do so well in top speed, and top speed ones that don't do too well in climb. Considering the relatiely low climb rate (for a 109K) I would imagine ours has one of the higher speed props installed. HTC must have used that test data.

so our K-4 is the worst climbing model? (high speed propeller and 1.8 ata only) and it still outclimbs everything but the spit14... Krusty, could you send a link from some tast data with 1.98 ata, plz?

[Krusty]

That's just a guess on my part. I don't know. It seems that 109K climb rates easily break 5000 fpm in a lot of citations... even I think nearer to 5500. Ours is 4800.

So, again, just a guess.

[MiloMorai]

Debrody, Barbi has some 109 data on his site, http://www.kurfurst.org/ Spit IX/XVI with 150PN fuel and 25 lb boost should out climb a 1.8ata 109K-4.

Krusty, the thin high speed prop was an experiment. The wide blade 9-12159 was the normal prop which was 12kph slower.