Author Topic: 109 performance notes (Read 5906 times)

MiloMorai · « **Reply #15 on:** November 13, 2005, 10:45:51 AM »

Mike's site is less selective and biased than your Kurfurst site, Kurfy. You only whine about it because the truth hurts about your beloved 109. I would not mention hatred for the 109, since you have much more hatred and ignorance for/of the Spitfire, or for that matter, anything British.

Yes, be sure, Mike's vivid imagination has the blackmen being transferred to infantry.

Angus · « **Reply #16 on:** November 13, 2005, 11:13:58 AM »

Been flying some of the new birds.
I liked the G-14. Was able to outrun a Spit XVI and a KI 84 on the deck, merge with them and outrun them again.
That said, the Spit XVI is quite a killer. Frigging awesome aircraft. But the best one to use for killing it, I found to be the Spit VIII.
Both seem to be somewhat under the performance I expected, but I'll have a look at it. Well, they're only +18 boost anyway, one would have to perk the + 25's.
Any LW data on G-14 actual data? I think it is fast and quite delightful, and it's going to be me new 109 friend. Either that one or the 109F

Kurfürst · « **Reply #17 on:** November 13, 2005, 12:10:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Widewing
So, it appears that the 109G-14's best altitude is 21,000 feet. How that compares to actual test data is for our Luftwaffe experts to determine. However, the data is accurate for that specific fuel load.

My regards,

Widewing

LW speed data generally refers to 100% fuel, as opposed to the RAF standard of 95%.

The G-14's rated alt was 5000m/16.4k ft, where the speed peaked out at 665kph/413 mph, at 1.7ata. Appearantly our G-14 is a bit slow at altitude, but looks about right at low alts, I have to check out exactly.

Above 5000m the G-14 should be only somewhat better than the G-6. The boost increase 1.42->1.7 enabled by MW50 would gradually decrease above the rated alt of 5000m, however, MW50's charge cooling qualities did not, and these yielded around 4% power increase even when boost pressure was the same compared to w/o MW50.

Kurfürst · « **Reply #18 on:** November 13, 2005, 12:20:05 PM »

German docs I posses show the climb rate for the G-14/U4 (a bit heavier variant with the MK 108 in the nose) with gondola weapons mounted, at 3501 kg (ie. +215kg becauase of the gondolas) as 21m/sec (4133 fpm) at SL, rising to 21.9m/sec (4300fpm) at 800m.

The 'normal' variant we have was about 50kg lighter, which would mean around .5m/sec added to the climb rate.

Other docs show the effect of removing the gondolas as + 2 m/sec for a 'clean' fighter, so the clean G-14 should be around 23 m/sec at SL, and or about 4550 fpm, rising to 23.9 at 800m (4700fpm).

The values are for a fully loaded fighter with the radiator flaps half-open to keep the temperatures rather below the max. operating temps of the eng.

Angus · « **Reply #19 on:** November 13, 2005, 01:17:24 PM »

Hey Kuffie:
"LW speed data generally refers to 100% fuel, as opposed to the RAF standard of 95%.

The G-14's rated alt was 5000m/16.4k ft, where the speed peaked out at 665kph/413 mph, at 1.7ata. Appearantly our G-14 is a bit slow at altitude, but looks about right at low alts, I have to check out exactly. "

The RAF tests I've seen always refer to tanks fully loaded. So when are they completely full? Depends on the angle of tanks or rather the position of the filling, or did they jostle the aircraft and raise the tail to get everything full to the top.
Anyway 5% on a Spit or 109 is about the weight of a Gallon. About the margin whether the pilot is hungry and just took a crap, or the opposite

Karnak · « **Reply #20 on:** November 13, 2005, 02:13:46 PM »

In the case of the Bf109G-14 in AH, all things being considered, I would prefer to see HTC use the higher performance numbers.

1K3 · « **Reply #21 on:** November 13, 2005, 04:43:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
In the case of the Bf109G-14 in AH, all things being considered, I would prefer to see HTC use the higher performance numbers.

timeout, which one u wanna see?

109G-14 was fitted with 2 diffrent engines... THe DB-605AS or DB-605AM. heh i dont even know which 109G-14 engine does AH have...

Kurfürst · « **Reply #22 on:** November 13, 2005, 05:06:25 PM »

@Angus, if you take a look at RAE speed curves, most of them note the results are corrected to 95% takeoff weight. There are a few exceptions of course. I think they opted for an avarage, half fuel load value as standard.

5% takeoff weight diffo is quite a lot btw. For a mk9, it's around 370 lbs...that's quite a poop.

Or about half the weight of the internal fuel load. How much it would effect max speed depends on the altitude - more weight requires higher AoA in level flight, thus means more drag, the speed diffo is afaik 1-2%, ie. 4-8mph, and should be more noticable above rated altitude. but that's just a sidenote.

@1K3. I think our one has the low altitude AM engine. It makes sense since it's an important model, and the high alt ones are more-or-less represented by the 109K. BTW, there was a 3rd engine mounted in the G-14/AS versions, the 605 ASC, 2000 PS output, similiar to the 605DC of the 109K.

Angus · « **Reply #23 on:** November 13, 2005, 05:40:11 PM »

Kuffie! You mentioned FUEL WEIGHT in your initial post.
Your words:
"LW speed data generally refers to 100% fuel, as opposed to the RAF standard of 95%"

mora · « **Reply #24 on:** November 14, 2005, 12:29:11 AM »

If HTC would state which data they used and what engines they are using, we would be saved from a whole lot of BS. It should be in their interest too.

Debonair · « **Reply #25 on:** November 14, 2005, 12:41:35 AM »

How did they do a speed test with full fuel? DTs?
A few min climbing to full throttle height & another few accelerating at mil power should get to well below 95% fuel, shouldn't it?

gatt · « **Reply #26 on:** November 14, 2005, 02:14:28 AM »

Would be very interesting to know what engine and settings has our G-14.

Sure it looks *slow* at 20K+, if compared to the C.205 with the old, early war DB605A-1 (about 400mph at 21-22K).

senna · « **Reply #27 on:** November 14, 2005, 02:19:55 AM »

I like 109s and fw 190s.

Karnak · « **Reply #28 on:** November 14, 2005, 02:27:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by senna
I like 109s and fw 190s.

So do I.

senna · « **Reply #29 on:** November 14, 2005, 02:42:55 AM »