Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Flyboy on December 11, 2006, 12:10:16 PM
-
anyone knows the operational dats of the G14 G10 and K4? i keep finding contradictions between different web pages.
heres from "wikipedia"
G14: "mid 44"
K4: october 44
G10: november 44
allso it doesnt seem to be a "standart" G10 or a G14.
what are the main differences between the varients? (including the K)
-
Don't use wikipedia. Ever.
-
..moving right along..
The sequence is correct, Flyboy.
G-14 arrived first, then the K-4, and finally the G-10.
To make a long story short, initially the Kufurst was planned on arriving much sooner. After the K-4s arrived all new production Gustavs were to be produced upto K-4 standards, equipped with a much more powerful DB605D engine the K-4s were also using. This new, "upgraded" line of Gs was to become the G-10.
However, K-4 arrived late. In the mean time the LW couldn't just leave the G-6 variant as it was, since its introduction was already in 1943, and signs of being outdated were beginning to show. Therefore they kicked in a standardization project for the various late G-6s, equipped with a DB605A engine with methanol-water injection. This interrim project, was the G-14.
So the G-14 was something of a temporary makeshift lineup of 109s while the LW waited for the K-4, and the subsequent G-10.. except the K-4 came late, so as a result the most abundant of 109s of 1944 became the G-14.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Don't use wikipedia. Ever.
nonsense.
It´s like saying: Don´t use your lokal library, bacause the are some books with flawed facts.
If you had said "Don´t rely on wikipedia" I would have agreed.
-
Okay, "don't trust what you read in Wikipedia, ever". Sorry, I chose my words poorly. Thank you Lusche.
Kweassa's got a good description of the G14/G10/K4 issue. Keep in mind, that in this number "G14" or "G10" there were different sub versions too with different engines. So the plane wasn't just stagnating for a year while they waited for the better models. They were improving it as time went on. (you probably knew this but just in case you didn't)
-
Difficult to say, I think there were some G-10s in Italy late summer 1944 (lots of trouble with the DB 605D). Otherwise it's difficult to see the difference between the G-6 and G-14.
gripen
-
G14: "mid 44"
K4: october 44
G10: november 44
The G-14 entered service with with II./JG 11 and Stab./JG 53 in July 1944.
The G-10 entered service in October but will get back to you with specific units. I can't seem to locate my notes.
The K-4 entered service with III. /JG 4, Stab./JG 27 I./JG 27 II./JG 27, III./JG 27, IV./JG 27 and II./JG 77 in October 1944. (see: Prien & Rodeike, H. Valtonen)
allso it doesnt seem to be a "standart" G10 or a G14.
what are the main differences between the varients? (including the K)
The G-14 is basically a G-6 with MW-50. The G-14 is official name of the G-6/MW- 0 designation which was used internally by Mtt for the G-6 equipped with the MW-50 system previously used on the recce G-6/R2 variant. The G-14 was the evolution of G-6 with DB605AM with MW-50. The G-14 will be a bit heavier then the G-6 and without WEP (AH term) will be only a few mph faster then the G-6. FTH for the G-14 is 16400FT.
(* the G-6/R2 entered service in April/May 1944 w/ elements of JG 1, JG 5 and JG 11)
The G-10 was the evolution of G-6 coupled with DB605D and MW-50 and supercharger of the DB603. The G-10 was to be an interim aircraft while the K-4 came online. However, problems with the DB605D lead to both the K-4 and G-10 entering service about the same time. Some sources say the G-10 was 'made from old G-6 airframes' but this isn't necessarily correct. It is true some of the first airframes used for the G-10 were from G-6 as they were available, or from airframes planned for mounting the DB605AM (G-14) in case no DB605AM were available. This is why the twin data plate can be found on some G-10s. Some G-10s were fitted with the cowling from the G-6/As / G-14/AS leading to the confusing designation G-10/AS found in some sources.
Other notes =
Bf 109G-6/AS entered service in May 1944 w/ elements JG 1, JG 3, JG 5 and JG 11
Bf 109G-14/AS entered service in August 1944 w/ elements of II/JG 27 and I/JG 77.
-
thanks guys.
so the timeline goes:
109g6as
109g14
109g10 \ 109k4
anybody have performence data between those 4 varients.
basicly the 109g14 and the 109g6as are the same
and the 109k4 and 109g10 are the same.
-
Welll...... yes and no... I think the AS engines showed up at about the same time on G6s and G14s. It goes
G6
G14
G6AS/G14AS
G10/K4
I think
-
Here ya go...........
http://www.adlertag.de/mainindex.htm
Has the g10, h14, k4 listed.
Also has figures.
-
Bf-109G specifically: (http://frhewww.physik.uni-freiburg.de/~jaensch/109/s109g.htm)
The UBER Bf-109 page (http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1154)
Probably interesting if you speak German, which sadly I dont :( (http://www.messerschmitt-bf109.de/index-1024.php)
A good but VERY technical page (http://www.the-blueprints.com/index.php?blueprints/ww2planes/messerschmitt/)
Interesting but not terribly useful page (http://www.aaez.biz/default.asp?t=Messerschmitt_Bf_109)
There, those are all of the good pages I have on Bf-109 data. Unfortunately, I dont have the most complete library, but I think that will be of great help to you! (P.S. If you want sites with lots of pretty pictures, I have those too;))
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
thanks guys.
so the timeline goes:
109g6as
109g14
109g10 \ 109k4
anybody have performence data between those 4 varients.
basicly the 109g14 and the 109g6as are the same
and the 109k4 and 109g10 are the same.
Hi,
G14 and G6AS wasnt the same!!!
The AS dont had MW50, it was the high altitude version of the DB605A. Its had less power at sea level, about the same in 3000m, less power in around 6000m, but did shine above 7000m, where the DB605A lost much power.
The G14 had the DB605AM, which was very good at low and medium altitude, but above rated altitude it was a simple DB605A in a more heavy plane(mainly due to the MW50 system).
The G14AS had a DB605ASM, so a AS with MW50, it had more power in high alt then the DB605DM, but not as much in medium altitude.
The G10 and K4 was pretty similar, if both had the same engine. The K4 was more heavy, due to more MW50, the more heavy 30mm(though the G10 also could have it) and some other parts like wheel cover.
So i would expect the G10 as better climbing plane, while the K4 was probably a bit faster, cause the wheel cover and the retractable tail wheel.
The differents probably was smal.
They also did test different propellers, which also would make a different.
So the sequence is:
G6 (1943)
G6AS (May 44)
G6/R2 (May 44)
G14 (July 44)
G14AS (August 44)
K4/G10 (October 44)
Greetings,
Knegel
-
What Knegel said but also the K-4 was a new airframe where by the G-10 was basically coupling the DB605D to the typical BF 109G-6 airframe - with new cowling to cover the larger DB603 supercharger.
Development Map:
109G-6 (DB605A) ---> 109G-6/R2 (DB605AM - M = MW-50)---> 109G-14
109G-6 (DB605A) ---> 109G-6/AS (DB605 with DB603 SC) ---> 109G-14/AS (DB605AM - M =MW-50 with DB603 SC)
109G-6 (DB605A) ---> 109G-10 (DB605DM - M =MW-50 with DB 603 SC)
109K-4 (DB605D M - M =MW-50 with DB603 SC) ---> new variant
The two most produced variants of the Bf 109 were the G-6 (around 12000) and G-14 around 5000).
Performance varied greatly. The G-6 and G-14 would perform almost identically (G-14 might be slightly faster) above the FTH of G-14 (FTH= full throttle height = 16400ft for the G-14). The G-14 would be faster on WEP (WEP = AH term meaning with MW-50 activated).
The G-6/AS and G-14/AS would be close with the advantage to the G-14 with MW-50 at lower levels and the G-6/AS slightly faster up high.
The G-10 and K-4 would be similar for the reason's Knegel mentioned.
In AH they are missing an /AS version that would give better performance at altitude for the upcoming 8th AF theater in the Combat Tour arena. The K-4 in AH2 hits around 453 mph at FTH and it more representative of the K-4 with C-3 fuel running 1.98 ATA. This would push the AH2 K-4s service date into '45.
Between the G-14 and the K-4 there's a real gap. IMHO it would have been better to add the K-4 and keep the G-10 with an FM adjustment to bring its [G-10] top speed at FTH to about 425 - 428 mph. It could have then stood in for the G-6/AS and/or G-14/AS.
-
hi bruno. how come you claim the K4 hits 453 and the G10 only around 425 at FTH (i assume its the same alt since its the same engine).
does the G10 runs on regular (B4?) fuel and the K on the C3?
one more thing, the MW50 just cools the engine enabling to run at higher pressure right? so basicly running at full power with MW50 on the FTH is lower then a FTH without the MW50,and at certein altitude the G14 and G6 will have the same power output?
one last thing where there any 109G6as with MW50?
-
Originally posted by Bruno
What Knegel said but also the K-4 was a new airframe where by the G-10 was basically coupling the DB605D to the typical BF 109G-6 airframe - with new cowling to cover the larger DB603 supercharger.
Development Map:
109G-6 (DB605A) ---> 109G-6/R2 (DB605AM - M = MW-50)---> 109G-14
109G-6 (DB605A) ---> 109G-6/AS (DB605 with DB603 SC) ---> 109G-14/AS (DB605AM - M =MW-50 with DB603 SC)
109G-6 (DB605A) ---> 109G-10 (DB605DM - M =MW-50 with DB 603 SC)
109K-4 (DB605D M - M =MW-50 with DB603 SC) ---> new variant
The two most produced variants of the Bf 109 were the G-6 (around 12000) and G-14 around 5000).
Performance varied greatly. The G-6 and G-14 would perform almost identically (G-14 might be slightly faster) above the FTH of G-14 (FTH= full throttle height = 16400ft for the G-14). The G-14 would be faster on WEP (WEP = AH term meaning with MW-50 activated).
The G-6/AS and G-14/AS would be close with the advantage to the G-14 with MW-50 at lower levels and the G-6/AS slightly faster up high.
The G-10 and K-4 would be similar for the reason's Knegel mentioned.
In AH they are missing an /AS version that would give better performance at altitude for the upcoming 8th AF theater in the Combat Tour arena. The K-4 in AH2 hits around 453 mph at FTH and it more representative of the K-4 with C-3 fuel running 1.98 ATA. This would push the AH2 K-4s service date into '45.
Between the G-14 and the K-4 there's a real gap. IMHO it would have been better to add the K-4 and keep the G-10 with an FM adjustment to bring its [G-10] top speed at FTH to about 425 - 428 mph. It could have then stood in for the G-6/AS and/or G-14/AS.
Did you see the thread where I requested the G10 be brought back? And I said there was a hole in the LW aircraft without it?
Even had many claim that the G14 and the G10 were the same plane.
I got pretty much flamed for saying much of what is said here. Yet I see others noticing the differences between the G10 and G14.
IMHO the G14 is more of a ground support aircraft and several others agree. I've even seen reports of the G14's on some occasions actually carrying 2 under wing gondalos per wing!!! giving it 5 20mm cannons for ground support.
The G14 is reported as having a top speed of 408 mph at 16,500. I can't get our G14 to do better then about 395 at that alt on wep.
IMHO the LW is gonna get RIPPEd to shreads in CT. The F4 has had the gondalos removed, even though it was reported many F4s were equiped with them in the field during the 1st few months of the 8ths airforces bombing of Germany.
The 109 was called DEADLY for a REASON. The 190 was called the BUTCHER bird for a REASON. IMHO the AH 190s are pretty much on the mark. BUT the 109s are OFF.
The 30mm accuracy in AH may be RIGHT on. BUT IMHO without the G10 and it's possible 3 20mm or 1 30mm and 2 gonds it's gonna be tuff on the LW.
Also the LW ammo is pretty WEAK IMHO. The mine shells appear to be NOT in the ammo loadout?
Down rudder IMHO does NOT give proper effect in the 109s of AHII.
PART of the reason the allies did so well against the LW was NUMBERS. Even with those numbers many allied aircraft didn't RTB.
Not sure I want to even fly in CT either as allied or LW if it's going to be like I suspect.
Oh well....................... HT may be reading and may be listening.................... ..
all this is just my opinion anyways................
We shall see.
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
hi bruno. how come you claim the K4 hits 453 and the G10 only around 425 at FTH (i assume its the same alt since its the same engine).
does the G10 runs on regular (B4?) fuel and the K on the C3?
one more thing, the MW50 just cools the engine enabling to run at higher pressure right? so basicly running at full power with MW50 on the FTH is lower then a FTH without the MW50,and at certein altitude the G14 and G6 will have the same power output?
one last thing where there any 109G6as with MW50?
Because the 453mph K-4 is the one that ran at 1.98ata engine boost and the 425mph G-10 ran at 1.80ata engine boost.
It is questionable if there was more than a handful of 1.98 boosted K-4s that saw service.
-
"It is questionable if there was more than a handful of 1.98 boosted K-4s that saw service."
OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45
No. Unit Present type Convert to Notes
1. III./ JG 1 Bf 109 G-10 He 162 (April/May) -
2. II. / JG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
3. III. / JG 3 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
4. III. / JG 4 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
5. IV. / JG 4 Bf 109 K-4 K-4 -
6. III. / JG 5 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
7. IV. / JG 5 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
8. III. / JG 6 Bf 109 G-14/AS K-4 when deliveries permit -
9. II. / JG 11 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
10. I. / JG 27 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
11. II. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
12. III. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
13. I. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
14. III. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
15. IV. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
16. II. / JG 52 Bf 109 G-14/U4 K-4 when deliveries permit -
17. III. / JG 52 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
18. II. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
19. III. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
20. IV. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
21. I. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-14/U4 K-4 when deliveries permit -
22. II. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
23. III. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
24. III. / JG 300 Bf 109 G-10/R6 via K-4 to Me 262 planned, deadline
25. IV. / JG 300 Bf 109 G-10/R6 via K-4 to Me 262 -
26. I. / KG(J) 6 Bf 109 G-10/R6 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
27. II. / KG(J) 6 Bf 109 K-4 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
30. I. / KG(J) 27 Bf 109 G-10/R6 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
31. I. / KG(J) 55 Bf 109 G-10/R6 - -
32. II. / KG(J) 55 Bf 109 K-4 - to industrial defense
33. Ist Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
34. IInd Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
35. IIIrd Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
By Izzy.
Well the question is to me if the planes are modelled to what was the most representative variant or what was the technical concept capable of. The K4 obviously could be run operationally at 1.98 ATA if correct sparkplugs and proper fuel was available.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Performance varied greatly. The G-6 and G-14 would perform almost identically (G-14 might be slightly faster) above the FTH of G-14 (FTH= full throttle height = 16400ft for the G-14). The G-14 would be faster on WEP (WEP = AH term meaning with MW-50 activated).
The G-6/AS and G-14/AS would be close with the advantage to the G-14 with MW-50 at lower levels and the G-6/AS slightly faster up high.
Generally the G-14 was just an attempt to standardize various versions of the G-6. It was just renaming of the production plane and there should be no difference in performance (except if higher ratings were allowed later). There were G-6s and G-14s with the DB 605A and DB 605AS (no MW50), with the DB 605AM and DB 605ASM (with MW50) and maybe even some hybrid G-14s with the DB 605D existed. In addition various sub-contractors delivered planes at wide variation of other features like short or tall tails (several different versions), several different cowlings, several different armament and equipment options (tail wheels, instrumentation etc.) depending what was available. In practice the attempt to standardize the G-6 with the G-14 failed and the G-14 was produced even wider range of versions than the G-6 in the last chaotic months of the war. Note that the production of the G-10 and K-4 faced exactly the same problems.
gripen
-
hi gripen,
i take it from your reply that 109g6AS with MW50 did exist?
where there any changes between the G6\14\10 (beside the engine)?
from what i can tell from this thread all 3 are the exact same plane with a different power plant,
a G6 and G14 sharing the same engine are the exactly same plane?
kinda makes you wonder why the germans made the G14 at all
-
Did you see the thread where I requested the G10 be brought back? And I said there was a hole in the LW aircraft without it?
You should have seen my replies in that thread. However, your arguments in that thread had nothing to do with my replies.
Generally the G-14 was just an attempt to standardize various versions of the G-6.
The G-14 is mentioned in Mtt meetings minutes as the official name of the G-6/MW50 designation which was used internally by Mtt for G-6 equipped with the MW-50 system previously used on the recce G-6/R2 variant. The G-14 was the evolution of G-6 with DB605AM with MW-50.
Some early G-14s were produced without the MW-50 Kits installed, some may have had earlier G-6 ari frames with the small tale but in general the G-14 is the official Mtt designation of G-6 / DB605AM (MW-50)
The G-10 was the evolution of G-6 coupled with DB605D and MW-50 and supercharger of the DB603. The G-10 was to be an interim aircraft while the K-4 came online. However, problems with the DB605D lead to both the K-4 and G-10 entering service about the same time. Some sources say the G-10 was 'made from old G-6 airframes' but this isn't necessarily correct. It is true some of the first airframes used for the G-10 were from G-6 as they were available, or from airframes planned for mounting the DB605AM (G-14) in case no DB605AM were available. This is why the twin data plate can be found on some G-10s. Some G-10s were fitted with the cowling from the G-6/As / G-14/AS leading to the confusing designation G-10/AS found in some sources.
hi bruno. how come you claim the K4 hits 453 and the G10 only around 425 at FTH (i assume its the same alt since its the same engine).
does the G10 runs on regular (B4?) fuel and the K on the C3?
As Milo points out - for the 109K-4 to hit 450 mph it was run with C-3 fuel at 1.98 ata while the G-10 was run at 1.80ata.
the MW50 just cools the engine enabling to run at higher pressure right? so basicly running at full power with MW50 on the FTH is lower then a FTH without the MW50,and at certein altitude the G14 and G6 will have the same power output?
MW-50 is injected into the eye of the supercharger where it cools the charge allowing for a high boost by reducing the risk of the fuel pre-detonating. Above FTH the supercharger is losing power so you wont gain any boost by using MW-50. MW-50 still provides a cooling effect.
While FTH for the G-14 with MW-50 is around 16400 ft it still considerably faster then the FTH of the G-14 at MIL Power (AH term see the G-14 chart).
one last thing where there any 109G6as with MW50?
Yes some, in fact I./JG 3 (Höhenjäger) were (may have been) equipped with G-6/AS with MW-50 - as was 10.(N)/JG 300 Moskito-Jagern. In Forgotten Battles the G-6/AS has MW-50.
In general a DB605AM/AS would have been designated as a G-14/AS. As Gripen points out this isn't a 100% hard rule. The are exceptions and variations for everything.
-
It is my understanding that the G-6/AS in IL2/FB is actually a wrong designation, since technically it is a G-6/ASM (DB605AS+MW50) which would be usually referred to as "G-14/ASM" or "G-14/AS" - its performance numbers very closely resembling that of the Bf109G-10, albeit different engine. Its performance is quite different from our AH version of Bf109G-14, which I think can be called "the standard G-14", equipped with a DB605AM.
Therefore, I think gripen would be right. The standardization attempt did 'fail', and identifying the various G-14 variants would be alsmot as difficult as identifying the various G-6s.
As a matter of fact, I think it would be almost impossible to tell late Bf109G-6 from a G-14, with G-14/AS and G-10 being the exception since they both had the characteristic 'smoothly bulged' cowls due to the larger superchargers.
-
pffft i gave up on trying to figure out IL2 109s.
the G2 will out performe any other gustav, it outclimb the G10 with ease
im really curious about IL2 109s but this is a AH bbs. :)
heres a neat program to compare IL2 planes: IL2 compare (http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/files/essentials/il2c_v25_pf302.zip)
maybe one of you guys can shed some light.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
The G-14 is mentioned in Mtt meetings minutes as the official name of the G-6/MW50 designation which was used internally by Mtt for G-6 equipped with the MW-50 system previously used on the recce G-6/R2 variant. The G-14 was the evolution of G-6 with DB605AM with MW-50.
I can certainly say that there were fighter variant G-6s with the DB 605AM and ASM (with MW50), infact one was delivered in error to Finland at summer 1944 (returned back by the Finns).
Originally posted by Bruno
Some early G-14s were produced without the MW-50 Kits installed, some may have had earlier G-6 ari frames with the small tale but in general the G-14 is the official Mtt designation of G-6 / DB605AM (MW-50)
There were some G-14s produced early 1945 without MW50. I can say only that new built DB 605A (A, AS, AM, ASM) fighter variants were generally called G-14 after summer 1944 despite what ever configuration.
In addition, the repair shops probably still delivered planes under older designations (sometimes with very strange combination of features).
Originally posted by Kweassa
As a matter of fact, I think it would be almost impossible to tell late Bf109G-6 from a G-14, with G-14/AS and G-10 being the exception since they both had the characteristic 'smoothly bulged' cowls due to the larger superchargers.
Generally the DB 605D powered variants can be identified fairly easily due to small bulges below the cowl right behind the propeller. However, there were G-6/AS (with/without MW50) so in practice separating the G-6 and G-14 is very difficult.
There is also a possibility that some hybrid G-14/G-10s existed (might even include some features of the K-4)
-
Originally posted by Charge
By Izzy.
Well the question is to me if the planes are modelled to what was the most representative variant or what was the technical concept capable of. The K4 obviously could be run operationally at 1.98 ATA if correct sparkplugs and proper fuel was available.
-C+
Source Izzy? Mr 'the truth the whole thruth and nothing but the truth' > be sure NOT.
The 4 Gruppen that were cleared to use 1.98ata only had an ~55% servicability rate. Also they had G-10s as well. No documentation has been produced that they did convert. Then there is the question of availability of fuel and plugs considering the state of affairs of Germany with less than 2 months left to the war in Europe.
-
I can certainly say that there were fighter variant G-6s with the DB 605AM and ASM (with MW50), infact one was delivered in error to Finland at summer 1944 (returned back by the Finns).
There were some 200 G-6 retrofitted, with MW-50 before the G-14 designation (new production).
It is my understanding that the G-6/AS in IL2/FB is actually a wrong designation, since technically it is a G-6/ASM (DB605AS+MW50) which would be usually referred to as "G-14/ASM" or "G-14/AS" - its performance numbers very closely resembling that of the Bf109G-10, albeit different engine. Its performance is quite different from our AH version of Bf109G-14, which I think can be called "the standard G-14", equipped with a DB605AM.
There were G-6/AS designated aircraft with MW-50 - I./JG 3 had G-6/AS with MW-50. There were G-14/AS without MW-50.
But in keeping it simple -
The G-14 was the intended evolution of G-6 with DB605AM with MW-50.
The G-10 was to be an interim aircraft intended as the evolution of G-6 coupled with DB605D and MW-50 and supercharger of the DB603.
the G2 will out performe any other gustav, it outclimb the G10 with ease
I fly Il2 every day, in a 109 squad. The G-2 FM is based on the Finnish tests and matches up well with the performance of the AH2 G-2. The AH2 G-2 is in some ways a better choice then the G-14 and K-4.
-
if the G2 FM is correct it kinda makes you wonder why they developed the G6 that is worse in every single aspect exept armament
-
I'm new here but I have some comments.
AFAIK the K-4 reached 714 km/h (~444 mph), that was a prototype with special prop (Dünnblattpropeller) reaching 725 km/h (451 mph)
The G-6/R2 should be a recce variant, a G-6 with Rüststand 2 (Rb50/30 camera equipment) and not a designation of a G-6 with MW-50 (although R2 might include a MW-50 system)
I always thought the G-6 with MW-50 system was called G-6/U3; the GM-1 variant would be G-6/U2 but I might be wrong.
-
hi flyboy lol
i think k4 came last
btw where in israel u from?
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
if the G2 FM is correct it kinda makes you wonder why they developed the G6 that is worse in every single aspect exept armament
Facing ever increasing numbers of american heavy day bombers, armament was a big issue for the luftwaffe at that time.
-
The G-6/R2 should be a recce variant, a G-6 with Rüststand 2 (Rb50/30 camera equipment) and not a designation of a G-6 with MW-50 (although R2 might include a MW-50 system)
G-6/R2 was recce plane as stated above - internally Mtt referred to it as a G-14. It did have MW-50. The fighter variant with DB605AM kept the G-14 designation.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
But in keeping it simple -
The G-14 was the intended evolution of G-6 with DB605AM with MW-50.
The G-10 was to be an interim aircraft intended as the evolution of G-6 coupled with DB605D and MW-50 and supercharger of the DB603.
I agree but it's another story what happened in reality. In addition it's yet another story how the produced or repaired planes were named or listed.
Originally posted by Bruno
if the G2 FM is correct it kinda makes you wonder why they developed the G6 that is worse in every single aspect exept armament
The Bf 109G-2 was about as clean airframe (in fact cleaner with all supposed features) as the Bf 109F-4 but during production of the Bf 109G large amount of modifications were needed for various reasons; larger wheels (main and tail), heavier armament, additional equiment etc. The weight of the plane and particularly drag of the plane increased considerably due to these.
gripen
-
I've goot a very cool picture of a 109G recce that was downed over Tunisia in 1943. Would someone have the specs of those? Lightened and faster?
-
this is from the IL2compare thingy, if that was the situation in real life no wonder the germans lost the war.
the late g6 is a 44 bird, the g2 is 42, and it completely out class the G6.
i dont buy it that the parasitic drag made that much of a difference.
BTW, i dont know what are the differences between the "late" and "early" G6 can someone shed some light on this?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/690_1166003604_g2g6il2.jpg)
-
"Source Izzy? Mr 'the truth the whole thruth and nothing but the truth' > be sure NOT."
To me you could well be the same person.
"The 4 Gruppen that were cleared to use 1.98ata only had an ~55% servicability rate. "
Do you think it has something to do with cleared boosted ATA? At the end of war in a losing nation there prolly was lack of everything -even tires and propellors. And the engine quality was probably worse, too, which caused many failures. My point is: DB produced engine technology which was able to run at 1.98 ATA in proper conditions.
"Also they had G-10s as well. No documentation has been produced that they did convert."
I don't get it. If the book Izzy refers to says those gruppen had converted so I assume that they did. Why would I assume anything else? Did he leave something out that was in the book? Was he selective?
"Then there is the question of availability of fuel and plugs considering the state of affairs of Germany with less than 2 months left to the war in Europe."
Of course, my point is: are planes modelled by what they were able to do technologically or what was possible at that time because of other factors.
Pretty much the same question with guns? 109 had a 200 round ammo box but it usually had only 135 or 150 rounds loaded to ensure smooth operation, and they still jammed occasionally. Hisso was at least as prone of jamming but as the jamming is not modelled the 151/20 still suffers of reduced ammo count. Obviously HTC opted for what was historically a standard procedure in this matter.
When the engine boost was a hot topic last time there was lot of whining from Spit crowd about the matter. As it would have made much difference what ATA the 109 had.. the later Spits would still dominate it in every other area.
It would be interesting to have those very late war AvA sets again. They were a real eye opener.
-C+
-
I am totally disgusted and insulted with you Charge, me = Barbi. :eek: ;)
It comes down proof that the complete understrength Gruppens were converted. Cleared does not neccesarily mean they did. He has shown no proof that they did completely convert, only that they were cleared to do so. Wishful speculation does not cut it.
Were some converted? Most likely, hence my 'handful' of the 142 (iirc) a/c onhand which included 109Gs.
Yes, the engines were not the best when it came to manufacturing quality. So yes to the 'overboosted' 1.98 engines since 1.80 engines were having issues.
Barbi is ALWAYS selective in what he posts. You will notice that most posts were in response to his selectivity.
All this is about rl, not the game.
-
Been a few threads on the intro date thing, but like Bruno said, October 44 for the 109K-4 and the 109G-10. Some older sources that have wrong info sometimes have the G-10 earlier (which other poor sources copy), but they are not correct.
109G-14 was @July 44.
As for what ATA this and that, not touching that...I can see another 300 page post coming.
;)
-
Originally posted by Charge
To me you could well be the same person.
Quoted for truth.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
G-6/R2 was recce plane as stated above - internally Mtt referred to it as a G-14. It did have MW-50. The fighter variant with DB605AM kept the G-14 designation.
How could it be possible Mtt called a G-6/R2 just G-14 ? At least it should be G-14/R2 or they would have transformed a recce-G-6 into a G-14 fighter.
Have you seen any documents of this or read this in a book ?
It looks like Recce units reported this aircraft as G-6/R2 and not as G-14
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/aufkl/b1ag32.html
-
"He has shown no proof that they did completely convert, only that they were cleared to do so."
I thought you meant that but wasn't sure, so I thought it's nice you cleared that out.
I really have no idea as to what extent the engines were upgraded in those gruppen.
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if no actual documents were ever even made, but the mechanics had the only knowledge of which engine was upgraded and which was not, lots of scavenging going on etc...
-C+
-
Originally posted by Denniss
I'm new here but I have some comments.
AFAIK the K-4 reached 714 km/h (~444 mph), that was a prototype with special prop (Dünnblattpropeller) reaching 725 km/h (451 mph)
The G-6/R2 should be a recce variant, a G-6 with Rüststand 2 (Rb50/30 camera equipment) and not a designation of a G-6 with MW-50 (although R2 might include a MW-50 system)
I always thought the G-6 with MW-50 system was called G-6/U3; the GM-1 variant would be G-6/U2 but I might be wrong.
Indeed the G-6/R2 just like the /R3 were recce a/c not fitted with MW-50 but an MW-50 transformation kit was developped for the R-2 version.
G-6/U3 was a recce variant as well, small series prototypes for the G-8.
G-6 modified for MW-50 use were of the /U2 type, which featured an insulated GM-1 tank, after going through transformation to MW-50 use the a/c still kept it's /U2 designation.
The a/c on the production lines introduced the Aluminium light tank and for a time kept the /U2 designtation before switching to G-14. Late G-6/U2 (with MW-50) and G-14 are actually the same, featuring the MW-50 tank presurisation system based on compressed air bottles.
-
Scavenging? I doubt it. Production in 1944 was higher (by far) than any previous year of the war, yet this was the year of the heaviest bombing. There were more planes BUILT than they had trained pilots to FLY. The rates of production in 1945 were cut short, but had the year continued, it would have even left 1944 in the dust, for planes produced.
There was NO shortage of engines, planes, parts. Not on the whole. Maybe some localized here and there. Consider that well over 1000 Me262s were built, but only about 250-350 saw service. The rest sat parked until they were bombed. The 109 industry was broken up into many "cottage industry" sub assemblies. Even though this couldn't apply to engines, there were no shortage of the highest-power engines at the end of the war. Look at all the Ta152s made with high-power engines (granted, most were never delivered in time, but they had engines!). Look at the jet industry. It was hard to make those engines, and they used scarce metals, yet they made thousands and thousands of He162s, Ar234s, Me262s, you name it, they made tons of it, all while being bombed.
No, I don't buy that "spark plugs were scarce". I don't buy that at all. It doesn't seem likely (to me) given the pure abundance of hardware at the time. Given that it was such an easy switch, I have no doubt any squadron in a war of 1,000:1 odds on its own homeland would have switched the DAY they got authorization (or the plugs, if they didn't have them already), because it meant they had a better chance at surviving the day.
That's my interpretation of it.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Scavenging? I doubt it. Production in 1944 was higher (by far) than any previous year of the war, yet this was the year of the heaviest bombing. There were more planes BUILT than they had trained pilots to FLY. The rates of production in 1945 were cut short, but had the year continued, it would have even left 1944 in the dust, for planes produced.
That production peak is partially a myth, basicly bomber production was mostly stopped and resources were allocated to fighter production. In practice the weight of the production decreased and in addition much of the potential was not in full use due to re-allocation.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
if the G2 FM is correct it kinda makes you wonder why they developed the G6 that is worse in every single aspect exept armament
In reality the differences in performance were minimal between G-2 and G-6. In paper, yea, you can always argue and nitpick. However in actual operations, when really flying, the performance was practically the same.
BUT. In G-6 you did get better radio. Better systems. Better armanent. Better cockpit canopy. Better protection.
Things a real pilot values, instead nerds arguing 60 years later.
-
Originally posted by Grendel
...instead nerds arguing 60 years later.
lol OMG we've been pwnd:O :O :O :O :O :furious :furious :rofl :rofl :aok
-
nice:aok
-
where in israel u from flyboy?
-
You sound like you're from the south .... part of Israel, evenhaim. ;)
-
lol arlo :)
evenhaim go here-
http://www.preflight.us/HE/forum-7.html
there a pretty big online comunity :)
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
The UBER Bf-109 page (http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1154)
Here goes the original website http://www.vectorsite.net/sitemap.html (http://www.vectorsite.net/sitemap.html)
My bible really, you HAVE to check the site out
-
could a plane have both C3 injection and MW50?
-
Nothing to do with 109:)
Nice to see you posting flyboy.
Yours
Pjk
-
puuuuuuuujikoooooooooo :)
-
Originally posted by butch2k
G-6/U3 was a recce variant as well, small series prototypes for the G-8.
If the G-6/U3 was some kind of preproduction G-8, what is a G-4/U3 or a G-8/U3 ?
It looks many sources have the U3 designation wrong as they refer to MW-50 installation (if they explain the /U3 or the other /U designations at all). But that'll be nothing new as they usually have all the Rüstsatz/Rüststand stuff mixed up.
-
Originally posted by Grendel
In reality the differences in performance were minimal between G-2 and G-6. In paper, yea, you can always argue and nitpick. However in actual operations, when really flying, the performance was practically the same.
BUT. In G-6 you did get better radio. Better systems. Better armanent. Better cockpit canopy. Better protection.
Things a real pilot values, instead nerds arguing 60 years later.
I would say this hit the nail! :aok
the extreme different between the G2 and G6 and even the much more powerfull later 109´s imho result in a wrong E-Bleed calculation in many flightsims.
More weight of course is not good all over, but once at altitude or speed, it also can be a real bringer. A more heavy plane with same airframe accelearate faster in a dive and it keep longer highspeed (speed above Vmax). If we look to the normal datas of the P51 and P47, they also wasnt that good. But once this "underpowered" planes was fast, they was very good.
Sustained turns turned to be not important anymore with the huge firepower and speeds after 1942, while a good initial (decelerating) turn and rollratio was important.
I often did criticise this in AH and the P51 and P47 already seems to have more inertia, making them to very good planes(at leayt i like them), but imho the E-bleed of the light wingloaded planes still is much to smal in this relation, what also have the so much better 109G2 and F4 as result.
btw, normaly the G2 shouldnt have WEP in AH!
In the IL-2 G2/G6 graphic, iam suprised to see the G6 same fast at sea level, but much less fast in high alt, while i would expect it the other way around, or better sayed the G2 should be rather constant faster up to rated altitude.
The main argument of the slower speed are the bumps, so the drag, but this is much more important at sea level than in high alt, where the Air is much more thin and the planes fly rather slow regardingt the IAS, but still good below the critical mach.
I also wonder if the DB605A and the propeller still was the same in mid/late 1943, like in mid/late 1942. This would have been a very long stop in succesfull development, at a time where germany still had all advantages.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Wait, so 109G-2 and 109F-4 should not have WEP? I remember that 109F-4s in service in 1941 did not have WEP.
I think 109F-4 and 109G-2 should be de-rated. 109F-4 as a 1941 plane did not use WEP until 1942. 109G-2 wasnt even cleared for WEP until the introduction of 109g6
about the 109F-4
109f-4 under emergency power tested at 416mph (670km) @ 20k plus some scorching climb rates (DB601E clearance given in Feb '42)
-
If you're thinking of additives being put into the engine, perhaps. However, AH models all "WEP" as the same "press button, go faster" mode.
Don't mistake "combat power" with "go-juice". 109s DID have short-term allowed max combat rating. THAT is what our AH "wep" button does. There's no additive being used. It simply can't run at this full-time, so AH lumps it into the WEP system.
-
The 109 didn't get MW-50 until the G-14, but they sure as hell had WEP. For most planes WEP is just tapping the throttle a little bit further and upping the RPM.
-
Originally posted by Viking
The 109 didn't get MW-50 until the G-14, but they sure as hell had WEP.
Agh? The G-6 had MW50. MW50 kits were issued for G-6s in the spring of 1944 before the G-14s were even coming off the production lines.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
If you're thinking of additives being put into the engine, perhaps. However, AH models all "WEP" as the same "press button, go faster" mode.
Don't mistake "combat power" with "go-juice". 109s DID have short-term allowed max combat rating. THAT is what our AH "wep" button does. There's no additive being used. It simply can't run at this full-time, so AH lumps it into the WEP system.
Hi,
some planes dont have WEP in AH(A6M and F4F comes to mind), since the WEP for at least the G2 never was cleared (the FAF did dissable this permanent for all MT´s) i would suggest to give the G2 a very short time to overheat , while the G6 (which is a late) can keep it like it is. This alone would give the G6 a advantage over the G2 and F4.
Happy new year!
Knegel
-
With the current 109G-2 right now there is no incentive to fly 109g-6.
-
Originally posted by Knegel
I also wonder if the DB605A and the propeller still was the same in mid/late 1943, like in mid/late 1942. This would have been a very long stop in succesfull development, at a time where germany still had all advantages.
The standard propeller for the low altitude Bf 109G (DB 605A) variants was generally the same all the time (VDM/9-12087). Only the later high altitude variants had another propeller; in fact the high altitude tests with GM-1 were conducted with the 12087 at 1943.
There were at least three series of DB 605A (Baureihe 0, 1 and 2) in addition the Italian built DB 605A engines were somewhat different. Anyway, the output was pretty much constant all the time at given map/rpm combination. The early DB 605A for the G-1 and G-2 was designated as the 9-605-2008 and the later for the G-6 as the 9-605-2040.
Originally posted by Knegel
...since the WEP for at least the G2 never was cleared (the FAF did dissable this permanent for all MT´s)...
Most of the Bf 109Gs (G-2s, G-6s etc) of the FAF arrived 1,42ata/2800rpm setting disabled. Only the last G-6s, which arrived summer 1944, had the the setting enabled when arrived. It seems that the setting was cleared for the service use some time spring or summer 1944.
Originally posted by 1K3
109F-4 as a 1941 plane did not use WEP until 1942.
So far I have not seen direct evidence that the 1,42ata/ 2700rpm setting for the DB 601E was actually cleared for service use. One of the principal differences between the DB 601E and the DB 605A was that in the case of the DB601E only the exhaust ports were cooled but in the case of the DB605A also the intake ports were cooled, in addtion the overall head cooling was improved due to larger coolant channels. So it's quite unlikely that higher rating was allowed for the DB 601E.
gripen
-
Hi gripen,
the DB605 maybe have had a better cooling system, but it also was a more big engine, which had more power in general.
Afaik the problems of the DB605A was related to the velve seat, while the DB601A and E got problems due to detonations and main overheat problems, due to not enough radiator area and high rpm(the DB605A had as much power as the DB601E with 100 rpm less, for a longer time to a higher alt).
The Start/Not of the DB601E got used in most 109F tests i saw, unlike to the 109G-1/2 tests! I cant find a hint that it wasnt cleared in 1942.
But anyway, what most people dont seems to see, is that Start/Not is what it is! Its good to escape, but while combat and climb the pilots normaly didnt use it.
Would be cool if we could get a speed and altitude(temperature) related time to overheat in AH, in addition to the rpm related influence.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Originally posted by Knegel
the DB605 maybe have had a better cooling system, but it also was a more big engine, which had more power in general.
There is 4mm difference in bore (150mm vs 154mm) resulting a bit over 5% difference in the volume so the difference in the size is pretty much neglible.
The difference in the size of head cooling channels seems to be around 50%.
Originally posted by Knegel
Afaik the problems of the DB605A was related to the velve seat...
Start and emergency power in the DB 605A caused burned pistons and over heating; typical head cooling related problems.
There is plenty of documentation listing 1,42ata/2800rpm rating for the DB 605A from 1942 onwards despite it's known that the rating was not used. The same is probably true for the DB 601E; if the rating is listed, it does not mean that it was used.
gripen
-
"Start and emergency power in the DB 605A caused burned pistons and over heating; typical head cooling related problems."
I'd say that those symptoms are typical for knocking i.e. too high boost or too lean mixture, but of course a vastly underrated cooling of heads could cause this kind of effects but that could rather cause other problems too. E.g. continous failure and breakage of sparkplugs or valves. Additional cooling of heads could help but the cooling capacity should be very much better to have much effect on knocking. That is my impression.
-C+
-
(kinda off topic but...)
If 109g-2 did not use WEP in 1942 then that explains why the Germans feared the P-39s at low alt in the eastern front. Soviet aces were racking up kills in that foreign fighter.
-
Originally posted by gripen
So far I have not seen direct evidence that the 1,42ata/ 2700rpm setting for the DB 601E was actually cleared for service use. One of the principal differences between the DB 601E and the DB 605A was that in the case of the DB601E only the exhaust ports were cooled but in the case of the DB605A also the intake ports were cooled, in addtion the overall head cooling was improved due to larger coolant channels. So it's quite unlikely that higher rating was allowed for the DB 601E.
gripen [/B]
Then please tell me what's this:
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/DCP_0121.jpg
"The three minute emergency engine limitations for the engine as given by the card do agree with those from other sources and are:
Boost: 1.42 ata
R.P.M: 2,700
If the cruising speeds given are correct, extrapolation to the emergency output would suggest that the maximum level speed of the aircraft is in excess of 400 m.p.h at about 23,000 ft
-
Originally posted by gripen
Most of the Bf 109Gs (G-2s, G-6s etc) of the FAF arrived 1,42ata/2800rpm setting disabled. Only the last G-6s, which arrived summer 1944, had the the setting enabled when arrived. It seems that the setting was cleared for the service use some time spring or summer 1944.
The 109s the FAF got were second hand. Most were tired and some had been damaged. That the engines were de-rated should not come as a surprise; the LW often de-rated older engines and used them in second line aircraft. This is why the FAF experiences with the 109 should not be considered compatible with LW experience. Although the 109s served the FAF well, the FAF 109s were not kept to the standard of LW frontline 109s.
Originally posted by gripen
There is 4mm difference in bore (150mm vs 154mm) resulting a bit over 5% difference in the volume so the difference in the size is pretty much neglible.
The difference in the size of head cooling channels seems to be around 50%.
It was enlarged to 35.7 liters and improvements allowed an increase in the maximum permissible rpm. Altered valve timing increased the inlet period and improved the scavenging to give greater volumetric efficiency at higher rpm. A complete redesign of the cylinder block obtained the maximum possible bore with existing cylinder centers. The crankshaft big-end bearings were also modified.
-
Originally posted by Viking
The 109s the FAF got were second hand. Most were tired and some had been damaged. That the engines were de-rated should not come as a surprise; the LW often de-rated older engines and used them in second line aircraft. This is why the FAF experiences with the 109 should not be considered compatible with LW experience. Although the 109s served the FAF well, the FAF 109s were not kept to the standard of LW frontline 109s.
The First 15 (or 16) FAF Bf109G2:s were newly built, the next 15 (or 14) were factory repaired, but still similarily fully functional!
IIRC, the FAF flight tests actually show better performance than some german test... the tests naturally depend much on weather conditions etc.
The reason, why FAF prohibited 1.42 ata, was the small number of available planes. They simply needed as many hours from the engines as possible. There was lack of spare engines and also, a plane is not very effective fighter when it lies in a hangar being serviced.
The last 109G6:s still flew in FAF in 1950's .. the very last in 1954 ;)
-
Originally posted by Viking
That the engines were de-rated should not come as a surprise; the LW often de-rated older engines and used them in second line aircraft.
According to German Bf 109G manuals, the 1,42ata/2800rpm rating was not allowed as late as spring 1944. As BlauK noted, the FAF planes were partially new and partially factory overhauled. The replacement engines came through normal LW supply, basicly same engines as used by LW units in the Lappland.
Originally posted by Viking
It was enlarged to 35.7 liters and improvements allowed an increase in the maximum permissible rpm. Altered valve timing increased the inlet period and improved the scavenging to give greater volumetric efficiency at higher rpm. A complete redesign of the cylinder block obtained the maximum possible bore with existing cylinder centers. The crankshaft big-end bearings were also modified.
The volume difference between 33,9l and 35,7l is 5,1 or 5,4% depending which way you calculate it. Large part of the other differences were due to needs of mass production (like crankshaft bearings and connecting rod design and bearings overall).
Originally posted by BlauK
The reason, why FAF prohibited 1.42 ata, was the small number of available planes. They simply needed as many hours from the engines as possible.
The 1,42ata was disabled by Germans when delivered until summer 1944. Once the planes started to arrive with the setting enabled, some were used with it enbaled while in the others the setting was disabled by FAF (the planes which arrived with 1,42ata are known as well as which were used by FAF with that setting).
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
There is 4mm difference in bore (150mm vs 154mm) resulting a bit over 5% difference in the volume so the difference in the size is pretty much neglible.
The difference in the size of head cooling channels seems to be around 50%.
Start and emergency power in the DB 605A caused burned pistons and over heating; typical head cooling related problems.
There is plenty of documentation listing 1,42ata/2800rpm rating for the DB 605A from 1942 onwards despite it's known that the rating was not used. The same is probably true for the DB 601E; if the rating is listed, it does not mean that it was used.
gripen
The main point i was up to make clear is that you cant compare the DB605A with the DB601E regarding overheat problems.
Every engine started to cause burned pistons at WEP setting, thats why its called WEP. Afaik the bigger problem was that even when the times to be used was very low, so no piston could burn, the velve seats tended to take damages.
My point was that the DB601E run on higher rpm and ata to produce similar power than the DB605A had. It dont matter how much bigger the engine was, the fact that it did produce more power at less ata and rpm is the point.
Afaik the problem of the DB601E was the missing cooling in general, not the detonations, which are normal for engines running to long on WEP.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Originally posted by BlauK
The reason, why FAF prohibited 1.42 ata, was the small number of available planes. They simply needed as many hours from the engines as possible. There was lack of spare engines and also, a plane is not very effective fighter when it lies in a hangar being serviced.
Yes, that's also what the LW did to their second line units, especially on the Russian and Norwegian fronts and with Jabo units.
Originally posted by gripen
According to German Bf 109G manuals, the 1,42ata/2800rpm rating was not allowed as late as spring 1944. As BlauK noted, the FAF planes were partially new and partially factory overhauled. The replacement engines came through normal LW supply, basicly same engines as used by LW units in the Lappland.
I'm sure some 109G manuals state that the 1.42 ata was not allowed. It all depends which unit operated that particular 109G. Many if not most 109s on the Russian front flew with de-rated engines because of the logistical nightmare. They needed every hour they could get out of the engine. The Eismeerjager also flew with mostly older second line fighters and de-rated engines due to increasing logistical difficulties. This is of course far from the plight of the pilots flying in Reichsverteidigung units who needed every ounce of power from their machines just to survive. All new engine modifications and boost settings were always tested by the defense units first, and they often flew with higher boost settings than were officially allowed.
-
Originally posted by gripen
According to German Bf 109G manuals, the 1,42ata/2800rpm rating was not allowed as late as spring 1944.
Do you have a specific date for this ?
And also does this date belong to the issue of the manual (Handbuch Ausgabe Januar 1944) or to the date of the latest revision (Handbuch Stand Januar 1944) ?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Don't use wikipedia. Ever.
Why shouldn't he use wilkipedia... You make up stuff all the time, why shouldn't it be ok for others to make up stuff too?
-
oh BURN!:D :D :D
-
Originally posted by Denniss
Do you have a specific date for this ?
And also does this date belong to the issue of the manual (Handbuch Ausgabe Januar 1944) or to the date of the latest revision (Handbuch Stand Januar 1944) ?
I don't have the manuals in hand but at least the Bf 109G-8 manual claims the restriction at spring 1944. The DB 605 engine card (DB 605 A-B Baureihe 0,1 u.2 Motoren-Karte, Stand April 1944, Ausgabe Juli 1944) has no restrictions claimed.
Elsewhere is claimed that the restriction was removed sometime autumn 1943 but at least FAF started to receive planes with 1,42ata enabled summer 1944.
gripen