Author Topic: Pyro, Could you check the G10 Speed at Alitude? (test results included) (Read 582 times)

Vermillion · « **on:** March 22, 2002, 04:44:38 PM »

After discussing the G10 in another thread, someone mentioned that the G10 in AH is too slow. So I decided to check it.

Now its my understanding that our G10 (a late model) should have essentially the same speed vs altitude performance as the K4. The speed vs altitude chart in the AH Help section seems to support this, which shows performance at or near the historical quoted figure of 452mph at 6,000 meters (or approx 19,700ft).

I loaded 100% fuel, 20mm cannon, no gondola's, and no DT's. Launched from the field and let auto climb take me to 19,000ft. As I came thru 19,000ft I turned on the guncam and WEP. AutoLevel was turned on at 19,700. WEP was allowed to run until it ran out and the max speed was recorded. (film is attached at bottom of post)

To the best of my ability to read the airspeed indicator, (at a screen resolution of 1024x768) the red TAS needle max'd out at 1/3 the distance between the 425mph and 450mph.

Which by my calculations gives a max speed of approximately 435 mph versus the 452mph figure

Now maybe the gauge is off, my data is off, my test was off, or something else entirely, but I thought this should be posted to the forum.

Thanks

FILM of TEST

Raubvogel · « **Reply #1 on:** March 22, 2002, 04:53:09 PM »

Thanks Verm...been mentioned before, but cool to have film of it. Ta152 is also too slow...but one step at a time

Wmaker · « **Reply #2 on:** March 22, 2002, 05:12:55 PM »

Verm,

notice that the alt for the highest speed according to HTC's chart is about 22500ft. I also did a test of it today and got approx. 440 mph result at 22500ft. I also filmed my test...just don't have any place to put it in.

Vermillion · « **Reply #3 on:** March 22, 2002, 05:25:19 PM »

Wmaker, I actually tested at both as well. But I accidently deleted the film of the test at 22k, or I would have posted both.

At 22k, I got the same 440-445 ish mph that you did. At that critical altitude its a little harder to determine the exact position of the airspeed indicator, but I essentially got the same number you did. Since its hard to read exact numbers off the AH Help charts, I went to the historical data (that is collaborated by several other sources) I had for comparison purposes.

Raub, no problem. I honestly think every aircraft should be as correct as possible, and I try to have no bias towards any country when it comes to aircraft. In fact, I know you guys don't believe it. But I actually fly Luftwaffe planes the most lately, with the VVS planes a distant second. US stuff is actually last in line for me.

On the Ta152H issue. Notice that the in game performance of the Ta152 matches the historical performance of the Ta152H0 ? Also notice that only in the hanger selection screen is our Ta152 referred too as the Ta152H1, otherwise in the HTC documentation its commonly just called the Ta152H (for instance the help page chart). Maybe it was suppose to be a H0 instead of a H1. *shrugs* just a thought.

Raubvogel · « **Reply #4 on:** March 22, 2002, 05:36:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vermillion
.

On the Ta152H issue. Notice that the in game performance of the Ta152 matches the historical performance of the Ta152H0 ? Also notice that only in the hanger selection screen is our Ta152 referred too as the Ta152H1, otherwise in the HTC documentation its commonly just called the Ta152H (for instance the help page chart). Maybe it was suppose to be a H0 instead of a H1. *shrugs* just a thought.

I really don't want to hijack this thread, because it is pretty good proof that the G10 is too slow....but...the presence of the wing tanks on the Ta152 would mean that it is a H1, not a H0

Staga · « **Reply #5 on:** March 22, 2002, 07:09:51 PM »

uhmm Verm; My guess is everyone knew that G-10 couldn't achieve speed mentioned in charts already couple years ago. Well at least I did but anyway it still was fast enough to catch a Mustang or run away from two

Vector · « **Reply #6 on:** March 23, 2002, 01:14:15 AM »

S!
Verm, best way to get accurate speed measurements:
- Put estimated speed (ias) to "auto pilot climb"
- hit alt +x
- check climb needle, if plane starts to climb, increase speed, if plane start to dive decrease the climb speed.
-Repeat until climb needle points "0". Now you have your current speed.

Convert IAS to TAS with this formula (can't recall who gave it to me):
TAS = IAS+((IAS/50)*(ALT/1000ft))

With this system you can have accurate results (+ 1mph)

Wilbus · « **Reply #7 on:** March 23, 2002, 04:31:46 AM »

Aswell as the pressence of the Power Boosting Raub...

This was brought up early when the TA152 got in, we LW's complained about it being too slow as it is, can look it up in any book or even better, check the TA152 book that some of use (verm too I believe) have. HTC just don't care about it.

Best way would be to test with the speed command, will try it later.

Squire · « **Reply #8 on:** March 25, 2002, 10:19:02 AM »

With respect, there are more than a few sources re the speeds and performance of the 109G-10 and 109K series, as with all WW2 a/c.

I have seen the 452 mph figure bandied about as well, for the 109K ,but the trouble is, everybody just copies from the same source.

On top of that...quoted absolute top speeds listed for most WW2 fighters are only an approximation of front line performance.

Is it too slow? bottom line...cripes, I dont know , it may be, I grant you...then again, it may be about right.

Many sources give the 109G-10 a speed af around 430 mph tops. I have yet to find one that gives it the same speed as a K.

The "better engine" quoted was the DB605DCM which was the standard engine for the later 109G-10s and the 109K-4s. It is also listed as the DB605D in most sources which is the cause of the confusion. A DB605D with MW50 is a DB605DCM. They are the same, and the performance for that model of the 109G-10 is 428mph.

Here is what I have:

Performance: (the following figures are for the fastest sub-type (G-10), without wing armament and with a DB 605 D engine with MW-50 power-boost equipment) Maximum speed: 344 mph (550 km/h) at sea-level, 428 mph (685 km/h) at 24,250 ft (7,600 m). Climb to 20,000 ft (6,100 m) 6 minutes. Range 350 miles (569 km). Endurance 55 minutes.

And for the Ks:

Me 109K-4: DB 605 D engine and MW-50 emergency power-boost equipment. The take-off weight was 7,400 lbs (3,360 kg). Maximum speed was 440 mph (704 km/h) at 24,600 ft (7,500 m). Range was 365 miles (584 km) and endurance was 50 minutes.

Me 109K-14: DB 605 L engine and MW-40 power-boost equipment. This model did not go into service. Top speed of 455 mph (728 km/h) at 37,750 ft (11,515 m) with an armament of one MK 108 cannon and two MG 131 machine-guns was claimed.

Here is one good site: http://www.kotfsc.com/aircraft/bf-109.htm

Here is a fine post that Caldwell had explaining the designations:

"The G-10 construction program was an effort by the RLM to re-build existing airframes to a roughly comparable standard to the K-4.Unfortunately, sufficient DB605D powerplants were not available at 1st, so initially, most early G-10's were produced with the DB605AS powerplant (very similar to the DB605D, it had the DB603's larger supercharger).Later models, however, used the DB605DCM powerplant, as did the K-4.The letter 'C' in the engine nomenclature denotes that the engine is using hi-octane avgas.The 'M' denotes that an MW-50 methanol-water system is in use.So a DB605D using hi-octane gas & MW-50 was known as a DB605DCM.

You may have seen in many publications that the K-4 used the DB605DCM or DB605ASCM. Again, the DB605AS is very similar in output to the DB605D (there isn't a huge deficit in output) & a/c that use it have the same "refined" cowling without the MG 131 bulges.So, a DB605AS using hi-octane gas & MW-50 was known as a DB605ASCM.Also, the 'S'in DB605AS denotes the powerplant is modified & fitted with an enlarged blower. Does that make any sense at all?!?!

Btw, that's why you see the standard 109G-6 listed as using a DB605AM powerplant.It is simply a standard DB605A using MW-50.Several hundred G-6's & an even greater number of G-14's were re-engined with the DB605AS engine, these models being called the 109G-6/AS & G-14/AS respectively.

The DB605L would not have been used in the G-10 at any stage.As mentioned earlier, at most a couple of K-14 prototypes *may* have been built using this engine, but as the factory & test facility building the DB605L was destroyed by Allied bombing several months before the end of the war, no production models were built.Messerschmitt estimated the Me 109K-14's maximum true airspeed as being 452 mph at 37,730 ft.

I hope this was of some use to you.This info has come from various books & publications I own, most notably the Bf/Me 109 "bible" of sorts, William Green's "The Augsburg Eagle"."

Bottom line, it looks to me like it is as fast as its supposed to be, with a 109G-10 with a standard DB605DCM engine. 435mph approx in Aces High.

Regards.

Kweassa · « **Reply #9 on:** May 06, 2002, 07:12:05 PM »

Sikboy · « **Reply #10 on:** May 06, 2002, 08:13:26 PM »

Must..... resist..... urge....

-Sikboy

wells · « **Reply #11 on:** May 06, 2002, 09:52:10 PM »

The critical height for 1.8 ata (54") is 22600' (19600' no ram). The 452 mph figure corresponds to 1.98 ata (59") at 19700' (16700' no ram). The G-10 speed would seem to be correct for the power output.

niklas · « **Reply #12 on:** May 07, 2002, 06:19:10 AM »

The often quoted 550kmh (in 7.4km) for a G10 was either without MW-50 or with external fueltank. At least this original doc mentions an external fueltank

nik

eddiek · « **Reply #13 on:** May 07, 2002, 06:47:59 AM »

HHHmmm......
That figure of "685 km/h" translates to only 428mph. So niklas' chart shows the AH G10 as too fast?

Just asking.........

niklas · « **Reply #14 on:** May 07, 2002, 08:54:52 AM »

If you consider the external drag of a fueltank, the AH G10 is not too fast. Furthermore the doc doesn´t mention MW-50 at all.

It would be interesting to know the source of the 550/685 numbers. Maybe they´re from the Tsagi reports, where the G10 performed exactly this way (without MW-50)

niklas