190A vs SpitVB

[GScholz]

Interesting chart Niel. For all that read this chart, notice under Bewaffnung that this 109 had the MG151/20 gondies.

[MiloMorai]

From Butch2k's site on a question on the G-10

http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm31.showMessage?topicID=3062.topic

Butch

" This type doesn't exist. About 50 G-10 were produced with DB605AS instead of DB605D but they kept their original G-10 desingation."

" The G-10 was defined as the evolution of G-6 fitted with MW-50 and DB605D. The fitting od DB605AS was an "accident", not a deliberate attempt from the industry to create a new version.
What you describe is the Type 110 cowling used on Erla built G-10s."

veltro

" I confirm what Butch said.

Earlier theories about the "G-10/AS" (one was in my books...) were caused from the wrong assumptions started both by the external look of the planes and by the fact that two of the only about fifty of them produced with the DB 605 AS (a fact caused by a shortage of "D" engines), ended by chance their career abandoned in an airfield in Northern Italy, where were duly recorded and brought to the attention of my researches...

But it was only a series of unfortunate coincidences.

The historical truth is that the G-10s produced by Erla were equipped with a engine upper and (especially) lower cowling of new design to enclose the DB 605 D engine with no need of "chin bulges". The lower cowl design was so refined that the difference can be only seen at certain angles and knowing what to look for.

The advanced situation of the war and the disruption of the production system prevented such design to be used also by the other factories.

So, no "G-10/AS" but, rather, G-10 Erla...

P.S. the "Type 110" codification given to the version of cowl designed by Erla isn't and never was an official one, but was created for ease of catalogation by the French researcher J.C. Mermet, whose studies in the past few years allowed to discover a lot of informations and set the records straight about many later Bf 109 versions. "

[Toad]

I think Pyro has overtorqued the prop retainer bolt on the 190A. You know it was machined to .0003 and correct torque, depending on source can vary as much as .009  (!)

Could have a lot to do with it. Pyro is know to be biased against LW torque procedures and he always hated FW prop nuts.

[Squire]

No Batz, Im saying that #s dont always add up (no surprise), and Im saying that when the #s dont add up for LW a/c, that its isnt always to their detriment, wether in the end the source is correct or not.

You cant deny that the vast majority of the sources for the 109G-10 (any model) give it a lower speed (for whatever reason, Im not the author of those docs, I dont own one either) than what HTC gives, and because of that, claims that they are somehow "screwing" the axis planesest (some either imply it or claim it outright) seems hollow, especailly compared to the avalanche of posts going on and on about the Spitfire.

As to the 109G-10, well, maybe a different thread to debate it is in order, bottom line, there seems to be a lot of "foggy" data on that plane.

On a different tact, I must say the 109G-10 is one of the more interesting versions of the 109 to read up on, it is usually overshadowed by the 109K, and its development and use is quite a story.

[niklas]

Originally posted by Squire
You cant deny that the vast majority of the sources for the 109G-10 (any model) give it a lower speed

What speeds do you know then? I bet it´s always the same, 550 near ground, 685 at altitude

niklas

[Squire]

Something close to that, yes.

Oh yes, back to IL-2. Either IL-2 has theirs 20mph too slow (DB605DCM engine with MW50) or HTCs is 20mph too fast (DB605DCM engine with MW50). Same a/c different speeds, if the IL-2 web page describes their 109G-10s max speed accurately.

Also, their 109K-4 is faster by about 20mph than thier G-10. Not that that proves anything, but its an interesting point.

As for the quote of 7500m, ask them about that, its not my sim and I go by the quotes they provide.

Has anybody asked Oleg about it? I suppose its a moot point in IL-2 anyways, if you want the 450mph Bf109 you just grab the 109K-4, its a boxed sim and you can fly what you want, so I suppose nobody cares that hard about it.

[minus]

sugestion  last real data about G 10 g 14 becose they was realy turned around, go check,  source Ceska Republika, Ceskoslovenske Vojenske Museum,  they own  last real measured data about those  G 10 G 14 wariants < btw all is only about  the engine and oil radiator how above mentioned DB605D is just a DB 605 AS with higher compresion  and biger cilinder cubature, something like this the G 14/AS become the  G 10 /AS they also mention MV 50 amd  oil radiator FO 987 some source  say max speed 690 km/h at 7500 m


well about the data source how told G 10/as or G 14 /as are the same maybe only diference is the  oil radiator but it existed many other variants with litle diferent details

about source credibility CSSR after war build 20 of Avia s-99 alias G 14 AS < there no Fo 987 radiator > nad the engines used was the DB 605/AS , why only 20 becose some clever bellybutton burn up al lthe 800 engines on stock !


swis also owned G 14 but those G 14 used DB 605/D  othervise named ,, just a litle beter G 6

i to leazy to dig all out and traduct but  i thing those data   more credible   if u not beleve go in PRAGUE , u will have big time , many prety girls and  u can look at the museum and dig for data

[butch2k]

Problem with the G-10s and K-4s is the number of engine fitted, there were actualy three different engine model fitted. In fact two as DB and DC are one and the same but let's consider they were different for the discussion.

To identify which engine has been modelled in game the easiest way is to get the max speed @ alt and comparing it with the max power @ alt delivered by the various engines.

The DB605DM delivered 1500PS@1.75ata@2850rpm@8.0km (C3+MW50)
The DB605DB delivered 1600PS@1.80ata@2800rpm@6.0km (B4+MW50)
The DB605DC delivered 1800PS@1.98ata@2800rpm@4.9km

[butch2k]

Like Ferdinando and I said there was no such beast as a G-10/AS.
Besides the difference between a DB605AS and a DB605D is Huge !!!
Technicaly speaking they were quite different, sure both shared the DB603G supercharger, but the boost regulator was totaly different on the DB605D as it used the DB603A Ladedruckwähler while the DB603AS still relied on the DB605A Ladedruckregler, etc...
I own a document listing the difference between the two engine and it's two pages long...

[humble]

I'm really not partial to either aircraft and recognize that the variables (engines, settings, model variations) are beyond my limited understanding of the subject.....but.....two specific points can be documented easily:

1) Historically the germans NEVER engaged in prolonged dogfights if they could be avoided. They used vertical slashing attacks and rarely fought when confronted with a bad tactical situation. However, during the period in question accounts clearly indicate that the germans in the 190's were clearly dominant and DID inflict massive losses on the RAF.

2) The british clearly indicate in there own documents that the RAF took a major beating at the hands of the early 190's and that that beating continued until the IX's arrived in reasonable numbers.

As a side note the majority view (RAF & Luft.) was that the IX and 190 (a-4) were about equal in overall qualities with various points offsetting each other. I've always felt the relative climb diff of the 109 and 190 were "off" a bit. In my limited (compared to many here) reading I find no mention of dissapointment in the performance of the 190 vs the 109 it was replacing. Many of the accounts I've read indicated that the 190a4 could outturn the 109's it was replacing?

Personally as it relates to AH in a coalt 1 vs 1 the a5 should dominate the spit V....as long as the 190 driver fights the right fight. Similiar to the 109f4 vs spit V. Obviously pilot skill is an issue but in an E fight the german plane will win (on paper).

[B17Skull12]

spit why isn't it on fire i H A T E SPIT DWEEB'S ive learn to use my 190 to kill those dweeb's and also my my formation of 17's to make them crash and burn:D  very fun i even redord them going down i love seeing a spit on fire so munch:D all spit's can be beaten rest assured ive even kills a spit14 with my form of 17's very easy he pulled up on my 9 o clock after i scared the watermelon out of that spit14 and i just open fire and next i know im say and he is on fire:D


skull12

[minus]

Butch i asume your German is sure beter like my English ??? becose if you anderstud what those 2 words mean you stop about what is the real diference betwen D  and AS version

[hazed-]

Originally posted by Batz
Again, do you see why HT doesnt reply?

5 mph? Big deal. Other planes in the set have the same "problem". If you could call that problem.

C3 injection isnt MW50.

From Verms chart the 190a8 on wep says about 353 @ SL. (Where it says 550 Below to the right 350mph is written in.) So I will give ya 355.

The HT charts say 350. I just tested it and hit 351. But I didnt run the test long maybe I could squeezed out 2 or 3 mph.

You say 349 in your test at the top of the thread but further down in a reply to Verm you say 350. Verm says he hit 355 right on. For 4 or 5 mph you posted 10,000 words?

I have flown the a8 in AH since I started going on 3 years. In Big Week we climbed to 30k and I killed 10 b17s and 1 p38 and an p47 in 4 Frames. We had guys kill p51bs.

You have been flogging this horse for well over a year.

Theres no drool on my chin. You better check the mirror.

At this point i agree with Funked

Batz like I said the 190a8 was one of many small discrepencies and no i didnt post in here because we are missing 5-8mph from the 190a8s model. I tried that over ayear ago and got nothing in answer.At the time several other supposed 'allied' types didnt have answers either.It was merely added in here to show that regardless of how i worded my questions they were EITHER ignored or like i said HT basically jumps in and insults me for asking, accuses me of seeking advantages , as if i really care about advantages after 3 years of playing and which i find rediculous, then calls me a luftwhiner which again i find incredibly offensive coming from the developer off a game AND expects that to stop me thinking something is wrong with his attitude?.Now that I do find amazing. Lets just look at his answer:

Hazed quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the conspiricy thing.I have I guess accused HTC of a lack of interest in sorting out the LW planes and i think this stands true. My own opinion is this distaste for threads broatching the subject of LW planes started way back in Warbirds?.Something must have happened there for this idea that all LW people are the same. People get pigeon holed right away , they get upset by it and feel like no matter what they do it will be ignored.There nothing worse in a BB than feeling youre not a part of it fully.Most like me never even played Warbirds, we're not all the same people
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Hazed and you realy wonder why the Luftwhiner terms rings true?

You accuse us as having somthing against LW in that quote. And you still belive it today.

Could it be you have a totaly clueless view of all the planes modled in AH and only consern your self with the LW, and therefore think the LW planes are some how different than all others?

Quite simply HT no.


HT you really do not read what i post so i guess you will never see what ive been trying to say to you for well over 2 years.I find your habit of actually answering in some of my posts but not even attempting to show me where i have it wrong or even answering the questions posed, but merely to call me names and again infer that im saying you deliberately have developed incorrect LW models. This isnt the case EVEN in the QUOTE you posted. What im saying is you do not seem to answer anything posted involving LW and this, and your attitude toward ALL LW fans is what i believe you ARE biased about. For instance how many corrections have you made to LW models in the last 3 years? By my count its just one.The engine bug on the 190A's. GLad it was done but it took over a year and a half of people saying it 'felt' wrong or 'seemed' wrong. During those years did you consider anyone who said they agreed a whiner? if so what did you think of those who thought the P38 had a glass tail? by the time you do post in the treads they have already degraded into slanging matches and to add insult to injury YOU also insult your customers, its amazing.

Why did you not merely say The 190a8 in AH is spot on the charts and then tell me why MY version of tests might read wrong? perhaps the readouts on these dials being wrong is the reason it appears off as f4udoa suggested? if so how the hell are we supposed to know this?
why dont you explain why the D9 cannot keep up with a fully loaded P51D in a full speed dive? or the acceleration of 190s or any of the other many many still unanswered questions?(not mine) You have often said you dont write the models and so wouldnt know but then if that is the case why are you so adament everyone who questions it is wrong? perhaps you dont like answering about them? perhaps you prefer to slap us down along with everyone else? who knows.

You wont read this as its intended, and id guess many others wont either, I thought you stepped in a while back to try to stop all the unecessary 'slap-down' crap that goes with every post but it seems you enjoy doing it yourself. Id really like to know the reasons behind your attitude toward a so called 'group' of players.

Remember i came to your game at the start of AH not warbirds and ive developed my view on your attitude toward me as a fan of LW SINCE then , not before. You say we all accuse you of having something against the planes of the LW but perhaps we are wrong, perhaps you just have some strange hate of the fans?.

and btw before you accuse me of constantly repeating questions as the reason you ignore them check how many times since you slated me a year ago I have asked anything  flightmodel orientated for LW since then. batz your claim... 'You have been flogging this horse for well over a year.' is nonsense. Ive only even posted about the 190 maybe one in the last year with regards to modeling. I have steered myself away from that area and just concentrated on history stuff or loadouts due to the fact when i do i get ignored or called dumb names.

[Batz]

No Batz, Im saying that #s dont always add up (no surprise), and Im saying that when the #s dont add up for LW a/c, that its isnt always to their detriment, wether in the end the source is correct or not.

BS Squire,

You are jumping Hazed's arse for questioning 5 mph but then throw out crap like the "ah g10 is wrong". You quote websources (all based on the same source) as fact and state quite clearly HT is wrong. The g10 has been discussed before in AH. No one has to prove anything to you.

Posts to fix a/c that are all of 5mph off a posted top speed in a book make me laugh. You have got to be kidding.

#1 As if the 5mph would make squat difference? please.

#2 355mph taken from one 190A-8 flight, of that particular a/c, load, fuel, weight, weather conditions ect...as if every 190A-8 maxxed at 355? again, thats silly.

#3 Ughh, how about a raft of other non LW ac that dont hit their max speeds from SOME sources. The Spit XIV doesnt do 448. I think it only does 440. OMG!!! Its a POS!!!  

#4 How about we look at that 450mph 109G-10 again huh? seems ok when it does 20mph faster than any published source I can find on a 109G-10, any model. What? is that the sound of silence? yes, because we dont give a tinkers s*** about it unless its about giving favorite rides more speed, it has ZIP to do with being "accurate", and we all know it.

No, I dont lose a lot of sleep over #4 either, but its an interesting observation, and I have seen the raft of posts attempting to explain the discrepancy...so pls dont bother repeating them, been there, read that.

Btw, your "Bible of the LW" sim, IL-2 Forgotten Battles gives the 109G-10 with the DB605DCM a top speed of 423mph.

Oh yes, back to IL-2. Either IL-2 has theirs 20mph too slow (DB605DCM engine with MW50) or HTCs is 20mph too fast (DB605DCM engine with MW50). Same a/c different speeds, if the IL-2 web page describes their 109G-10s max speed accurately.

You dont know what eng the AH g10 has any more then the rest of us. You can test the ah g10 and see that the java chart I posted is more accurrate then the chart posted by htc.

@ 20k 445 (wep)

@ 25k 441 (wep)

So you are just running your mouth and taking a "shot" at those "lwhiners".

[Arlo]

Ya whiner.