Author Topic: why does 109G10 climb so bad??  (Read 3513 times)

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #150 on: June 28, 2002, 03:31:31 AM »
Interesting thread. Is Illo right?

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #151 on: June 28, 2002, 10:53:21 AM »
Thannks for the awsome thread you egg heads...

Offline senna

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1318
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #152 on: June 28, 2002, 02:31:55 PM »
More 109s, more color schemes. The luffwaffe planes R undermodeled in the game IMHO.

Offline illo

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #153 on: June 28, 2002, 07:19:49 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hortlund
Interesting thread. Is Illo right?


Yes and no.

Yes, o. MW-50 means ohne MW-50, without MW-50. 1750 PS.

No, climb should be more like 25m/s with MW-50, 2000 PS.

check this out: http://pub47.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm31.showMessage?topicID=111.topic

Offline Vector

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 534
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #154 on: June 30, 2002, 06:03:38 AM »
Interesting thread.
Did AH 109G-10 had 2000hp? Can anyone say what engine was used on AH 109G-10? There were five different engines in G-10's:
DB605 AS: B4 fuel, 1435 hp
DB605 D: C3 fuel 1550 hp
DB605 D-2: C3 or B4 1435 hp (B4 with MW-50?)
DB605 DC: C3 + MW-50, 2000 hp
DB605 DB: C4 or (B4 + MW-50), 1850 hp
Figures taken from DB605 site
Let's try to approach this "problem" from another perspective, it's futile to argue about real G-10's performances because of variations. Some were delivered with different engines, with different wings, with different tails, with different landing gears etc. There were short of everything in late war and that led to equip planes what ever was available. Let's have a good look at the AH G-10.
It was flown by Franz Wienhusen from JG-4 (November -44?).
Only few images could be found from the net:



This is a drawing, but only one to give more details from the nose.



No nose visible, but MW-50 tank is, so what we know for sure is that AH G-10 should have MW-50.

Now, let's have a look to first image.
1. This bulge is required when DB605D was used (also G-10's with DB605 AS engines has these)
2. Larger oil tank was used with DB605D engines. This one could be the most important hint. Were there AS engines with larger oil tanks? If AS engine with normal oil tank was used, it would require some additional modification on oil fill system.
3. Larger Fo 987 oil cooler suggests DB605D engine (also G-10's with DB605 AS had Fo 987 oil cooler).
4. Larger intake duct suggest again DB605D engine (also G-10's with DB605 AS had this one).
5. Engine cowling type "100".
6. MW-50

We cannot say for sure which engine this particular G-10 had. Although many hints suggests DB605D (still could be 1435 hp to 2000hp), it could be AS engine too.
Comments?

Offline Dr Zhivago

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 576
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #155 on: June 30, 2002, 06:41:04 AM »
Identifying DB605AS vs. DB605D-engined aircraft
Edit: Could someone explain why G10 still got fixed tail wheel (more drag) while F4, G2 and K4 got retractable tail wheel ???
« Last Edit: June 30, 2002, 07:01:16 AM by Dr Zhivago »

Offline Mino

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 161
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #156 on: June 30, 2002, 09:41:05 AM »
Quote
Yeah, that's why we have the worst Spitfire Mk IX and worst Seafire ever whereas the Germans are saddled with the best Bf109G-10 and a MW50 equipped Fw190D-9. Those poor Germans.

The Bf109G-10 was also in AH from day one of it going live. The Bf109G-10 and the Fw190D-9 cost nary a point to fly, but if you want to fly the equivilent British aircraft you'd better have 60-70 perk points ready and be willing to be handicapped with a "gangbang" icon.

Yup, those Germans sure did get shafted.


Yes, stop the whining and perk the G-10!  :)

Fishu gets my vote to lead the brigade....

Offline Staga

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5334
      • http://www.nohomersclub.com/
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #157 on: June 30, 2002, 10:29:46 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Dr Zhivago
Edit: Could someone explain why G10 still got fixed tail wheel (more drag) while F4, G2 and K4 got retractable tail wheel ???
 


IIRC smaller, retractable tailwheel didn't work well when flying from soft, grass (muddy) runways. Bigger wheel didn't fit to the tailwheel's bay.

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
why does 109G10 climb so bad??
« Reply #158 on: June 30, 2002, 09:56:08 PM »
They wanted to raise the nose for ground handling(the number of 109s lost on the ground was staggering.) With that length of strut on the tail weel, it will not fit in the tail. They solved that problem with the K4. wich had a long but retracing tail wheel.

our 109G10 is wrk number 130282..the 130000 series was supposed to have 605D engines...not proof..but another clue..
« Last Edit: June 30, 2002, 10:02:37 PM by Pongo »