Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: StSanta on April 23, 2001, 11:33:00 PM
-
Last night, I dove down on a N1K in my 109G2 with gondolas. Initially, I made good progress and distance dropped from d2.4 to about d500. We were doing about 350 at the time IIRC.
And then the N1K started to pull away. I only turned film on when this happened though.
Is the N1K faster than the g2?
------------------
Von Santa
Staffelkapitän 9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://stsantas.tripod.com/stsanta.jpg)
-
on the deck, if both have wep, yes
if g2 has no gondolas then its faster
-
i dont get it, i fly the 109 g10, sometimes with gondolas, and i can remember several insances where i found myself diveing from a hi alt to run from the n1k2, and what happens, n1k2 catches me, hemm.... n1k2, radial engein, not stremline, 109g10 in-line stremline. or has that been fixed?
------------------
(http://www.user.shentel.net/vonz/jato.JPG)
-
the me109 is actually a VERY poor aerodynamic design
-
Yes, the Niki is faster than a G-2 (and C.205) at low-medium altitudes. I'd say up to 16-18K.
-
I fly G2 with gondolas and find the nikki slower in a level run, except at very lo alt, where it seems to be even faster than 190A8.
Anyway, while being slower at med-hi alts, if the nikki reach its top speed and zooms into vertical, you have no chance to catch it with G2. The inverse is also true, if you, while being faster, zoom in vertical with a nikki at 6, he'll get you for sure.
-
Guys, the fact that one aircraft has a radial engine, whilst the other has an inline does not necessarily mean that the latter is more aerodynamically 'clean' than the former.
In my younger years I used to hang around ships a lot.
Big ships.
REALLY big ships!
Ever seen a supertanker? Bloody big bulbous nose on those suckers which you would think would cause enormous drag, just like a radial engine.
But you know what, it's actually a very low-drag design! That bulbous nose (and the radial nose) displaces the water or air in front of it, creating a region of lower pressure on the trailing hull or fuselage.
Ever seen some of the designs for 'supercavitating' vessels? Blunt nose, yet are theorised to be able to travel supersonic under the water!
Nice pointy inline engine causes the whole fuselage to generate skin drag ... bulbous radial nose partially eliminates that drag.
Funked, wells, where are those aerodynamic experts when I need 'em (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Oh, the Nik still dives too well and retains the E from that dive unbelievably well (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) I've been run down at 550 mph by a Nik coming off a dive. Never even knew the sucker would hold together at that speed!
------------------
Jekyll
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
Aces High Training Corps
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE: I fly G2 with gondolas and find the nikki slower in a level run, except at very lo alt, where it seems to be even faster than 190A8
Every good Niki driver will eat alive your G-2 cannon-ship up to (say) 16K. We are lucky that most of them usually travel at medium speed thinking they can do everything (and they usually are right (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
-
Since the webpage charts are wrong...
N1K2-J speeds, 100% fuel + 800rnds ammo.
s/l: 339mph
8k: 355mph
10k: 352mph
19k: 373mph
25k: 349mph
30k: 332mph
N1K2-J climbrate, 100% fuel + 800rnds ammo.
0k: 3750fpm
4k: 3850fpm
9k: 3200fpm
16k: 3050fpm
25k: 1600fpm
30k: 800fpm
The N1K2-J is VERY similar in size and (loaded)weight to the Fw 190A-5, except that it has 28% more wing area, and 14% more power.
-
given the fact that 99.9% of all aircraft design is about compromises the n1k2j defies this in every aspect.
it is faster than a p38.
carries more 20mm ammo than the f4u1c
out turns the spit9
outdives the p47
climbs with 109s
goes vertical like a 190a5
sustains considerable battle damage
conserves energy better than all other aircraft
has better range than the P-51 (ie. dweebs fly it at 25% fuel)
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 04-24-2001).]
-
goes vertical like a 190a5
[/B]
Like 190A5 with RATOs.
-
One of these days you'll be able to feel it when those dadgum butterfly flaps pop out on the N1K2.
Just cause they were automatic doesn't mean they can defy the properties of lift and drag (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
Anyone notice it's aerodynamic surface (minus the alierons) are very simular to the A6M5? The N1K1-Ja looks to of had a A6M3's tail grafted onto the airframe, and the N1K2-J used the same horizontal stabilizers/elevators
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Zigrat:
the me109 is actually a VERY poor aerodynamic design
Not true!
niklas
-
Sorry but it is true (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
it is faster than a p38.
AHEM BULL*COUGH*
out turns the spit9
AAAAAACHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBULL*COUGH*
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
S!
What makes 109 aerodynamically poor,or even worse than say La7?Give some facts and I will believe You.109 is a very sleek and clean aircraft with very small frontal area.
------------------
DB603
3.Lentue
Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34/)
-
Me109 really is kinda poor in aerodynamics.
First all except F,G2 and K had non retractible tail wheels.
All except K had no outer wheel covers for main gear, this makes a lot of drag, though it was planned to have them on all G models.
The 109 had the big oil cooler under the nose in addion to the the 2 radiators.
The joints between the engine access panels and fuselage were very rough, Rechlin estimated that cleaning this up alone would result in 20-30km/h speed increase.
All 109s from G4 had various top wing bulges for for langing gear.
All 109s from G had 4 extra oil/engine cooling intakes on the nose.
The surface finish was rough compared to US planes, and featured many bumps, rough joints and seals etc.
Apparently the steep windshield was also a major source of drag, the K-14 was supposed to feature a new design from Rechlin.
All 109s from G6 had to deal with some sort of MG131 bulges, the G6/14 AS models, G-10, and K of course had variations of the streamlined cowl.
Although 109 is a much much smaller airplane than a P51 it is fundamentally a poorer and dirtier plane from am aerodynamic standpoint.
-
if you look at this chart it will show u how a strut or a wheel could be made more arodynamic. by tapering braces intakes stuff like that. the 109 takes advantege of most all of this designs.
------------------
(http://www.user.shentel.net/vonz/jato.JPG)
(http://www.nconnect.net/~walentyk/ds/ds4a6a1.gif)
[This message has been edited by jato757 (edited 04-24-2001).]
[This message has been edited by jato757 (edited 04-24-2001).]
[This message has been edited by jato757 (edited 04-24-2001).]
[This message has been edited by jato757 (edited 04-24-2001).]
-
well it dident show up, i will try later to post it but u can look for yourself if u like, its caled bedesign, so check it out
-
(http://www.nconnect.net/~walentyk/ds/ds4a6a1.gif)
-
so, u can now look at all the componenets and see for youself (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
They say that N1K2 goes faster than G-2 with gondolas..
My experiences are also that N1K2 goes faster than G-2 without gondolas as well.
-
Originally posted by Fishu:
They say that N1K2 goes faster than G-2 with gondolas..
My experiences are also that N1K2 goes faster than G-2 without gondolas as well.
i think the n1k2 has a more powerfull powerplant that the g2
-
Hmm, that's odd - the Me 109G-6 accelerates quicker and has a higher top speed than the N1K2-J at 5,000ft and over...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Me109 really is kinda poor in aerodynamics.
First all except F,G2 and K had non retractible tail wheels.
Tests in charles meudon showed that in fast flights (low angles of attack) the influence of the tailwheel is neglectable.
All except K had no outer wheel covers for main gear, this makes a lot of drag, though it was planned to have them on all G models.
I wouldn´t say a lot of drag, because the main part is covered, and the tires a very small.
The 109 had the big oil cooler under the nose in addion to the the 2 radiators.
Every inline engine has an additional oilcooler. The cooler of the P51 includes a big watercooler and an additional oilcooler
The joints between the engine access panels and fuselage were very rough, Rechlin estimated that cleaning this up alone would result in 20-30km/h speed increase.
The estimated speed increase is imo way exagerated. 30km/h more topspeed is worth 300PS!
All 109s from G4 had various top wing bulges for for langing gear.
Yes, the larger wheels didn´t fit into the wing. But this affects only the G6 in AH. The G10 already had a modified solution which was a cleaner design.
The G6 was maybe the poorest design of all 109.
All 109s from G had 4 extra oil/engine cooling intakes on the nose.
"Grenzschichtabsaugung" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) nur ein witz...
The surface finish was rough compared to US planes, and featured many bumps, rough joints and seals etc.
The tail was very clean, and i didn´t see what you describe when i walk around a 109. A camouflage painting was rough, but it was common to polish the machine.
Apparently the steep windshield was also a major source of drag, the K-14 was supposed to feature a new design from Rechlin.
Yes, it was steep, but the effective frontal area was also VERY small. Less than 50% of the cockpit is looking over the nose of the 109.
All 109s from G6 had to deal with some sort of MG131 bulges, the G6/14 AS models, G-10, and K of course had variations of the streamlined cowl.
The G6 is the only plane in AH with those bulges - 1 of 4...
[/quote]
Although 109 is a much much smaller airplane than a P51 it is fundamentally a poorer and dirtier plane from am aerodynamic standpoint.[/QUOTE]
It was definitly not the BEST, but it wasn´t either a "VERY poor" design. Why are 109 always faster than Spitfires with less engine power? BTW compare the shape of a XP-51 to early 109 designs and you must come to the conclusion that they copied the 109 design.
The 109 is so small compared to other fighters. Necessary equipment, outlets, inlets, whatever, is so close together that the 109 looks dirty compared to other, larger fighters.
Aerodynamic is also influenced by the size of the drag components, and the idea behind the design of the 109 was from the beginning smallest surface areas (and excellent light construction)
niklas
-
Niklas, the P-51 was not copied from the 109. It has wings and an engine like the 109, sure, but the design has a lot of differences.
Also, I'm assuming you never have walked around an actual war-time fighter, during the war? Versions still flying today would probably have parts that are machined to a better standard.
It seems to be a stock answer for the LW contingent - 'Oh, it's a great plane, but if you look at it, it is clearly copied from <insert German designed A/C>.'
It's like some irreparable chip on the old shoulder. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Niklas, you need to do some reading about aerodynamics.
I'll give you one example. You claim the steep windsheild wasn't a big deal because it was small. That is largely irrelevant. The problem with the windscreen was that the angle was too steep. This caused the airflow over the plane to separate from the surface and cause a great deal of additional drag. It's not a matter of the size of the windscreen, but a matter of how badly the airflow along the fuselage separates and how much drag the turbulence causes.
There is a whole lot more to aerodynamics than the size and shape of the components. How they all fit together is far more important in my view. You are missing some important information about boundry layers and separation that play a large role in the aerodynamic efficiency of a shape. How the air slides along it's surface is often far more important than the frontal area.
Hmmm. Any Aero techies around that can give us some numbers? I'd be interested to see the drag numbers on a 109 versus a P-47. It would be enlightening. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Take the air intakes on the 109 vs. the P-51. Which one do you think is more aerodynamic? The 109's is right up against the fueselage. See how the P-51's is dropped below the fueselage considerably? The design of the P-51 intake allows the airflow along the fuselage to stay stuck to the surface and not "separate" when it hits the intake. The P51's intake is far move aerodynamically efficient as a result, although it is not intuitive to most folks just by looking at it.
------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer
A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs
http://www.flyingpigs.com
Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome (http://users.andara.com/~sconrad/) for AH articles and training info!
-
Originally posted by Jigster:
One of these days you'll be able to feel it when those dadgum butterfly flaps pop out on the N1K2.
Just cause they were automatic doesn't mean they can defy the properties of lift and drag (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
Indeed. I'd like to see these kind of devices modelled a little better. From what I've read some of the Bf109 pilots disliked the leadinf edge slats as they would often delpoy unexpectedly changing the trim of the aircraft and messing up a gun solution. Also I believe they often deployed unevenly causing the aircraft to roll unexpectedly.
As things stand now the beneficial effects seem to be modelled, but not the drawbacks...
------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>
-
Dowding, of course there are differences in detail, but the general shape... i put together a model drawing of an early 109 (~1937) to a XP-51 (i adjusted manually the scale, so the scale it not 100% correct!!) - IMO there are similarities (you already mentioned the similar wing):
(http://people.freenet.de/luftwaffeln/109-xp51-seite.gif)
(http://people.freenet.de/luftwaffeln/109-xp51-ende.gif)
(http://people.freenet.de/luftwaffeln/109-xp51-front.gif)
Lephturn, the size is defintily NOT irrelevant!!!
If you compare drag coeffizients, be always aware that aircrafts with lower wingloading have usually a better Cd.
The airintake (supercharger) of the 109 is on the left side btw, almost at the same height like the propeller axis - it´s not the intake below the engine.
The coolant radiater of the 109 don´t pick up the boundary layer either. It´s only a bit hidden into the wing, hard to see. There was an additional sheet that picked up the boundary layer and leaded it around the radiators. You can see it here: http://people.freenet.de/luftwaffeln/109f4_eval3.gif (http://people.freenet.de/luftwaffeln/109f4_eval3.gif)
niklas
[This message has been edited by niklas (edited 04-25-2001).]
-
size is irrelevant, but wing loading is not.
since the me109 has a higher wing loading than the p51, and drag coefficient is normalized by wing area, the lower wing loaded aircraft will have a lower drag coefficient than the higher one (but the wing area will be greater, proportionally, so the drag will still be greater.) This is since stuff like cooling drag, and fuselage drag isnt changing.\
anyways, the main bad parts about the me109 aerodynamiclaly are the wings. Its wings had teh slats, which added considerable drag even in the closed position since they tripped the boundry layer (so ive heard). Also thge pony had a laminar flow wing which improved drag coefficient at high speed.
Any way you cut it, teh me109 was a poor design by 1944 standards. For much more refined (aerodynamically) in line engined airplanes, see for example the yak 9-u.
Or se the he-100 which the stupid germans never produced (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Zigrat:
Any way you cut it, teh me109 was a poor design by 1944 standards. For much more refined (aerodynamically) in line engined airplanes, see for example the yak 9-u.
Or se the he-100 which the stupid germans never produced (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
your right about the poor disign for 1944 standards because it was made in the mid '30s
and u should take a look at something, a picture of the he-100 and the ki-61, u will find that they look almost the same (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) so i think it was produced but not directy by the germans, yea thats stupid. in my opinion the 109 is a very clean plane in design
------------------
(http://www.user.shentel.net/vonz/jato.JPG)
[This message has been edited by jato757 (edited 04-25-2001).]
-
Yeah and the FW190 is just a copied zero.
-
Funked, my self esteem fell so low a few nights ago I actually stopped caring and took up a n1k.
Not only did "it" catch up with VULCAN's tiffie, it also stayed on its 6 for a damn good while, even when vulcan extended. Only my incredibly crappy aim in those guns was the reason why vulcan dinnae die during that time. I was jumped by a high 109, and even then "it" kept turning pulling stick fully (thing I NEVER do in any other plane) and almost killing that 109 as it zoomed up on the 3 passes it did on me.
Vulcan got me on one of those zooms, I had forgotten about him.
All this at around 5k and below in a small furball.
Something is very fishy with "it". Try flying "it" without using ANY acm tricks, just point and click, maybe use a bit of rudder and deflection , no more. You will see the magic.
-
S!
Very interesting discussion about 109.I have done a walk around of an actual 109G-6 and did not see any roughs seams etc.Actually the surface was smooth and seams not wide canyons.
About the slats.They opened independently from eachother and could cause these rolls.But in general they helped to fight in high AoA since the airflow was still there over control surfaces.Also FAF pilots could tell they were quite near the edge when the slats opened and snapped the stick a bit.HT..pls model them or are they already?
------------------
DB603
3.Lentue
Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34/)
-
For much more refined (aerodynamically) in line engined airplanes, see for example the yak 9-u.
Yakolevs until late Yak-3 desingns had rough construction resulting very much extra drag. MB overall lines were clean looking but but rough construction reduced maximum speed quite drastically. NII VVS test planes (which still had much worse high speed performance than AHs Yak-9u) were much better performing than yaks used in combat. Even yak-3 which had improved aerodynamics from yak-9 series suffered from various problems at high speeds. I've heard pilot reports about yak-3 canopies being ripped off by airflow near speeds of 700kmh. Highspeed performance and handling of yak-9 is poor joke in AH (960kmh in dive, and speeds over 700kmh without controls completely locking up). I think i will post some NII VVS or other test documents soon.
as a sidenote, Yaks were designed as cheap and fast to produce.That was ofcourse at cost of production quality and some performance. But for overall effort it was considered better way, which i think we must agree.
[This message has been edited by illo (edited 04-26-2001).]
-
I didn't say "size is irrelevant". I said that in the case of the windscreen problem on the 109, the windscreen's size was "largely irrelevant". I mean that in terms of the resulting problem of boundary layer separation and the resulting drag the size difference in the windscreen between the 109 and other aircraft is largely irrelevant to that specific problem, it's not a blanket statement.
My point was that you are taking a much too simplistic view of aerodynamics, namely not considering boundry layer separation in the case of the 109's windscreen problem.
------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer
A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs
http://www.flyingpigs.com
Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome (http://users.andara.com/~sconrad/) for AH articles and training info!
-
speaking of US designs....
Lets not forget US's great sabre f86, as based on kurt tank designs.the flying wing in the 50's that eventuallly led to the new B2 was based on german designs.Much of Americas rocketry know how came from captured german scientists.The cruise missile is based on the same principles as the V2.Submarine launched intercontinental missiles were conceaved by the germans in WW2.
dowding:
Look we all know the nazis were scum.
However there were good germans too.Those that designed the machines were not necessarily nazis and many were just the oppersite.
lufftaffe irreparable chip on the old shoulder? are you mad (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)? I merely want truth not propaganda.It seems to me noone can speak about LW and get a fair hearing.
I may joke with the german voice etc but thats just what it is...jokes.
I dont have the SS uniform (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) or a chip on my shoulder so please stop turning everything into... what do they call them? 'luftwhines'?
I want to enjoy AH and being branded 'lufftwobble whiner/loon' etc everytime i question anything is annoying because its infantile and boring.
------------------
Hazed
3./JG2 (http://members.home.net/winyah999/3jg2.htm)
[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 04-26-2001).]
-
1. F-86 was not based on K.T. designs - the swept wing data came from German wind tunnel testing.
2. B-2 copied German designs? No, no - Jack Northrop was designing and building flying wings back in the 40's, eg: B-35 design work started in 1942.
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/yb35-3.jpg)
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 04-26-2001).]
-
Here is a flying wing design before any German flying wing data was even available. If not for the end of hostilities it may have actually seen combat.
The flying pancake, The Vought F5U
(http://www.vought.com/photos/images/1234_10.jpg)
and even earlier in 1942 the Vought V-173
(http://www.vought.com/photos/images/1428_22.jpg)
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 04-26-2001).]
-
We already had some discussion of this fantasy that B-2 was based on German designs: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum4/HTML/001081.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum4/HTML/001081.html)
This kind of revisionist BS is good for TV ratings and for selling books with lots of colorful drawings. But sadly a lot of people believe it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-26-2001).]
-
Anyone else wondering how we got here? This used to be a niki-whine thread...
-
Niki sux! It's an F-22!
There. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I'd be interested to see the drag numbers on a 109 versus a P-47
Best I can figure is 109G6, with 173 sq ft wing, 1475 hp, doing 322 mph on the deck. Cd = 0.0293
P-47, with 300 sq ft wing, 2000 hp, doing 330 mph on the deck, Cd = 0.0212
-
g6 does 337 on the deck
so the cd,0 is not as bad as you posted
i calculate .0245 for 109 g6 no gondolas
-
Zig,
I wasn't using AH performance in my calculation. I used this chart on Niklas' site, showing the G6 max speed to be only 520 km/h.
http://people.freenet.de/luftwaffeln/109g_k_charts2.html (http://people.freenet.de/luftwaffeln/109g_k_charts2.html)
Niklas,
Are those charts for carrying gondolas? The weight is given as 3350 kg.
-
Originally posted by Graywolf:
Indeed. I'd like to see these kind of devices modelled a little better. From what I've read some of the Bf109 pilots disliked the leadinf edge slats as they would often delpoy unexpectedly changing the trim of the aircraft and messing up a gun solution. Also I believe they often deployed unevenly causing the aircraft to roll unexpectedly.
As things stand now the beneficial effects seem to be modelled, but not the drawbacks...
You know, the difference between them is that N1K2 combat flaps ARE modelled regarding lift but ARENT modelled regarding drag.
109 slats are NOT modelled. This is confirmed by pyro himslelf. Period.
Anyway those slats were there for SOMETHING, you know, better low speed turning and such. I would not care a single bit about the assimetrical deploying problem. One learns to fly with it and not causing the flaps to deploy assimetrically, and thats all.
Oh, BTW I'd guess that the drag calculations will account for the higher wing drag caused by them.
The N1K2 has the lift but not the drag. The 109 has (prolly) the drag but not the lift.
And of course, the N1K2 has a 2000hp engine, but has no torque (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
S!
The slats on the leading edge of 109's wing were used to keep the air flow on the ailerons duing high AoA maneuvering,thus keeping plane under control.Also the opening of them caused a "snap" on stick,of which pilot knew he was getting closer critical AoA.The slats were improved from 109E/F so they opening caused less "snap".
I wish they would be modeled some day,since it would give 109 a bit better ölow speed handling than it currently has....
------------------
DB603
3.Lentue
Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34/)
-
Originally posted by wells:
Niklas,
Are those charts for carrying gondolas? The weight is given as 3350 kg.
good question - i don´t know the answer. Gondolas are imo very probable, because all curves were put together to have a comparison to a 109 WITH gondolas and a JUMO213 engine. Yes, the purpose of all these charts was a comparison with a jumo213-powered 109 WITH gondolas.
niklas
-
Hmm,
I don't think there's gondolas in those tests Niklas, only because they're comparing to a K4 at 3370kg. In the climb charts for the K4, that's the weight corresponding to GM1, without gondolas (mit GM1, ohne Gondelwaffen), right? With gondolas (mit Gondelwaffen) and GM1, it's 3570 kg and without the GM1 (still with gondolas), it's 3450 kg. So it could be that GM1 is being carried in that G6 at 3350 kg. Also, note the max speed is 636 km/h (takeoff and emergency power) and 621 km/h (climb and combat power). Do I have that right?
-
wells, maybe it is GM1, maybe gondolas - i don´t know it. I only ask myself, why is the G6 slower than the G5? The G5 has a 605AS engine with 1435HP power, the G6 the 605A with 1475HP - 50HP more. Nevertheless the G6 is 10km/h slower.
If the weight of the G6 includes GM1, why it isn´t mentioned in the chart for Steig und Kampfleisung?
Has noone an info about the takeoff weight of a G6?? This would be helpful now.
niklas
-
I've seen 3150 kg as a normal loaded weight on the G6, which is 200 kg less than in that test. I guess it could be either gondolas or a 300L drop tank?
-
S!
According to FAF documents,the 109G-2 weighed 3030kg at take-off and 109G-6 3150kg at take-off.This without the 300litre drop tank.Also comparison on speed.109G-2 could do 520km/h at sealevel(no gondolas) and 636km/h at 6km.109G-6 values were 500km/h at sealevel(no gondolas) and 620km/h at 6km.These values are from FAF test flight documents.So the G-2 should be better performing of these 2 and maybe able to outrun the GreenMenace (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
DB603
3.Lentue
Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34/)