Author Topic: 109 performance notes (Read 5907 times)

Bruno · « **Reply #30 on:** November 14, 2005, 05:18:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by gatt
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).

The AS engined 109s required a redesigned cowling. The AH G-14 has the same cowling as the G-6. Speed at 20k isn't the issue so much as it is the speed from 11 to 16.4k (FTH). Above that its speed would be like the G-6 (maybe a little faster but only slightly w. MW50 due to charge cooling). Below 10k the speeds w. MW50 are believable for a G-14 w/ DB605AM. The AS had the DB603 supercharger and wasn't quite as fast the the non-AS G-14 down low. The G-14/AS also had a higher FTH then the non-AS G-14 and was faster at altitude (similar to the G-10 420-425 mph).

At FTH the G-14 should do about 410mph or so. It hits just 390mph @ 1.7ata and 2800rpm. Which is no better then the G-6 @ 1.42ata. It doesn't weigh any more then the G-6 and certainly doesn't have more drag.

See Kurfürst reply above

Quote

G-14 maximum speed w. MW50 were 568kph/352mph at SL, and 665kph/413mph at 5000m/16400 feet

Quote

Official figures for the G-14/AS was 562kph/350mph SL (w.MW50), 680kph/423 at 7500m/24600ft.

The AH G-14 never even reaches 400mph at any altitude, At 24500 ft I only reached 378 mph. I thing we can assume the AH G-14 in not an AS version and has a DB605AM.

gatt · « **Reply #31 on:** November 14, 2005, 05:29:31 AM »

Thx, Bruno.

Karnak · « **Reply #32 on:** November 14, 2005, 02:00:04 PM »

Well, I hope it get's it's speed corrected. It is a nice little fighter, I just can't hit with the 30mm yet. Well, if it is a big, four engined bomber I can, but other than that....

Bruno · « **Reply #33 on:** November 14, 2005, 02:07:23 PM »

Will the issues with G-14 be read by HTC in this thread? Or should it get its own thread? Or maybe get posted in the Bug Section of the forums?

1K3 · « **Reply #34 on:** November 14, 2005, 02:15:51 PM »

(imo) the G-14 issue deserves its own thread

Guppy35 · « **Reply #35 on:** November 14, 2005, 02:19:21 PM »

I envy you guys who have such an attention to the technical detail. I end up getting lost in a hurry in that.

I just fly that Spit XVI cause it's got clipped wings and a tall tail like my favorite the XII and because it looks good

Hope you gents get your 109G14 to where you are happy with it. I couldn't tell you if the XVI is performing like it should, but it feels right when I fly it

Bruno · « **Reply #36 on:** November 14, 2005, 02:22:31 PM »

Well in order for the issue to be taken seriously it can't turn into a 'woo is the Luftwaffe fan' just like every other thread about LW aircraft does on this forum. Just read the G-10/F-4 threads in the General Discussion section of the forums.

Bruno · « **Reply #37 on:** November 14, 2005, 02:24:37 PM »

Quote

I couldn't tell you if the XVI is performing like it should, but it feels right when I fly it

it does...

It climbs a little better then I expected but still the numbers are believable...

Guppy35 · « **Reply #38 on:** November 14, 2005, 02:28:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bruno
Well in order for the issue to be taken seriously it can't turn into a 'woo is the Luftwaffe fan' just like every other thread about LW aircraft does on this forum. Just read the G-10/F-4 threads in the General Discussion section of the forums.

I'd agree with you. I thought you represented things well in the other thread Bruno.

The hardest part I see in these discussions regardless of the aircraft if folks wanting every last possible option/variant, when that's just not realistic.

Just because it was possible for a fighter to carry a certain load out, for example, doesn't mean we should have it in AH every time.

It's kind of like the guys asking for a Merlin Mustang with 4 20mm cannon because they saw a photo of it once. Or with the Spits, asking for a 4 cannon Spit Vc because it could carry that load. As I say everytime when that comes up, it makes no sense since it was used so rarely operationally.

And as you are pointing out regarding the G14, it's narrowing it down to which G14 it is and getting it right because there were different G14s, kind of like the guy in the Spit question thread screaming he should have an E wing in the AH Spit IX, when the Spit IX ours is modeled on never had an E wing in 42-43.

It goes on and on

Karnak · « **Reply #39 on:** November 14, 2005, 02:46:22 PM »

Well Bruno, I am by no means versed in Bf109 technical progression, but I certainly understood that the Bf109G-14 would top out at around 415mph. I flew it a bit last night and it is a very, very nice little fighter. I do hope it gets it's performance revised upwards so it hits the numbers it should.

I think that a bug thread would not be horribly out of order, but a dedicated thread in here providing source material to back up the needed correction might be better. Hopefully Kurfurst has some good documentation for the Bf109G-14.

Crumpp · « **Reply #40 on:** November 14, 2005, 06:37:00 PM »

I have a copy of:

"Hinweise für Technische Aussenstellen (HTA), Neuerungen Nr. 4"

Which clearly states the Bf-109G14 DB605ASM should do 680kph at 7800meters clean using Start-u-Notleistung.

Anybody know of a picturehanger that is working and I will post the relevant portions?

Quote

Well in order for the issue to be taken seriously it can't turn into a 'woo is the Luftwaffe fan' just like every other thread about LW aircraft does on this forum.

Largest obstacle to serious discussions on these boards.

All the best,

Crumpp

Meyer · « **Reply #41 on:** November 14, 2005, 06:49:09 PM »

yes the G-14/AS was really fast at high alt, but the G14 with the 605AM was a different story.

Crumpp, you could use this to upload the image/s, and then post a thumbnail in the forum (clicking on it you get the original size image)

http://www.potato.com/

Even if AH doesn't have the G-14/AS I think you should post it anyway, your charts are always welcome

Karnak · « **Reply #42 on:** November 14, 2005, 07:08:28 PM »

Crump,

I also have a place I can host jpeg images. If you want me to, just email them to me and I'll put them up.

My email address is:

aaholaREMOVE@klassyREMOVE.com

Just remove the labeled bits.

Crumpp · « **Reply #43 on:** November 14, 2005, 07:36:37 PM »

Quote

yes the G-14/AS was really fast at high alt, but the G14 with the 605AM was a different story.

I just checked and the DB605AM does do around 666 kph. So there is not much point in posting it.

Meyer I cannot get your link to work. I would like too as there are other documents I need to post. Karnak thank you for the offer. I will keep you email addy in my book if I need it in the future.

All the best,

Crumpp

Squire · « **Reply #44 on:** November 14, 2005, 07:36:48 PM »

Interesting thread.

I took up a G-14 offline, made sure there was no wind. Went up to 21,000 on the button (6400 meters). I got via E6B and confirmed by film, 400 TAS even, sustained using full WEP which was just over 1.4 ATA.

I have no idea if that's a bit slow or not, I suspect it may be.

The only thing I can think of that may drop it @5mph is the large wheel blisters on the wings (some had them some did not?), although Im not suggesting they would have caused some massive ammount of drag, just pointing that out.

P.S. Fuel load was 50 percent at 1.0 burn.