Bf 109F info

[Charge]

"I don't see any particular reason why those should have been very rare in the G-14s."

Maybe because of the role they were mostly used in?

"After all the G-14 was just an (failed) attempt to standardize the production of the G-6 based airframes."

Failed? How so?

-C+

[gripen]

Originally posted by Charge
Maybe because of the role they were mostly used in?

I don't know if there was any difference in the roles where the G-6 and G-14 were used. These were partially produced same time in the same factories and were used partially same time in the same units.

Originally posted by Charge
[standardization]
Failed? How so?

There never was standard G-14; variation was infact even larger than in the case of the G-6.

[Xasthur]

The Luftwaffe was a mess at the time.

I was under the impression that the K-4 was the the standardisation attempt, not the G-14, though.

[gripen]

Originally the G-14 was planned to be a standardized version of the G-6 airframe with MW50. The K-4 was to be standard version with the DB 605D and all the planned improvements. The G-10 was planned to be version of the G-6 airframe with the DB 605D.

In practice the G-14 was produced in wider variety of engines than the G-6 (with and without MW50) and large variation of other equipment and features (several different tails, engine coverings etc.). The standardization went better with the K-4 and G-10 but even in these wide variation of features can be found. There are pictures of some strange hybrid versions (possibly recycled airframes) of the late Bf 109 which have some features from all these three versions.

[Charge]

My understanding is that AS engined G14s were used as specialized escort interceptors or escorting various pulk zerstörers so they did not have gondies. My guess is that when G14s started replacing the worn out G6s the specialization of 109s had mostly shifted to escort role.

It is claimed that e.g. the "tall tail" was one of the standardized items but AFAIK the tail assembly could be taken from an older machine if needed explaining discrepancy in film material of 109s -if they are identified correctly in the first place, so a reliable identification would need WNr info. Engine cowling changed at some point but I have seen only two types. The older type used in G6 had differences between normal to AS and tropicalized versions but the one with a vent under right MG bubble is claimed to be standard in G14.

The tail switching probably needed some kind of ballasting but I remember reading that this kind of exchange was done to some Finnish G6s. Not sure though...

-C+

[Wmaker]

Originally posted by gripen
I could dig up at least couple pictures of the G-14s with wing canons but that does tell how common these were. However, there is very little difference between the G-6 and the G-14 (without MW50) so I don't see any particular reason why those should have been very rare in the G-14s.

Prien & Rodeike have arrived to that conclusion in their research. Whether they were rare or "very rare" or what not is of course subjective and I'm sure even their research isn't without errors but unless there is newer proof that says otherwise I tend to believe them.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Wmaker
Prien & Rodeike have arrived to that conclusion in their research. Whether they were rare or "very rare" or what not is of course subjective and I'm sure even their research isn't without errors but unless there is newer proof that says otherwise I tend to believe them.

Majority of the G-14s were with AS engines so these were rarely seen with wing canons, the gondolas were rare in the G-6/AS as well. However, there is even pictures of such planes (IIRC one colour picture taken after war can be found from Flight journal).

Originally posted by Charge
My understanding is that AS engined G14s were used as specialized escort interceptors or escorting various pulk zerstörers so they did not have gondies. My guess is that when G14s started replacing the worn out G6s the specialization of 109s had mostly shifted to escort role.

Wast majority of the G-6s were produced with the DB 605A while the majority of the G-14s were with AS engine so one can of course argue that these planes were used for different tasks. But I don't think that tasks of the LW radically changed despite the proportions of the engines used changed. And there were G-14s with standard DB 605A (without MW50) as well.

Note that first specialized high altitude units (like JG50) used pretty much standard G-5s or G-6s, sometimes with gondolas or rockets. Naturally these rarely met escort fighters.

[Angus]

Well, leaving the gondies behind could make the difference between life and death when running away from a swarm of P51's over Europe in 1944.....

[Wmaker]

Originally posted by gripen
Majority of the G-14s were with AS engines...

I really don't know where you got this from but according to the estimates by Prien & Rodeike out of around 5500 G-14s built about 1000 were G-14/AS's. So accoring to their research G-14s with 605A/AM engines were the vast majority.
 
Again, P&R thought they were rare, do you have source that says differently?

Originally posted by gripen
the gondolas were rare in the G-6/AS as well. However, there is even pictures of such planes

There is also pics of G-6s with "Brasov's bulges" as well as with K-like landing gear doors. Like you said these kind of pictures doesn't really prove anything either way.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Wmaker
I really don't know where you got this from but according to the estimates by Prien & Rodeike out of around 5500 G-14s built about 1000 were G-14/AS's. So accoring to their research G-14s with 605A/AM engines were the vast majority.

According to J-C Mermet: "Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-1 through K-4" most of the G-14s were AS versions though he does not give exact numbers (probably no one knows for sure). Mermet's study was published 1999 while Prien&Rodeike was published 1993.

Originally posted by Wmaker
Again, P&R thought they were rare, do you have source that says differently?

I can only refer on photo evidence and the fact that wing canons were fairly common the G-6 (the G-14 being very similar).

[gripen]

Counting new production of the G-14s from Artie Bob's listings gives 2689 G-14s and 1377 G-14/ASs. However, the problem with that listing is that the AS planes were often recycled airframes; there is listed only one G-6/AS.

[MiloMorai]

G 14AS   Mttr   303 - 379 - 101 - 203 - 211 - 62 - 11 = 1270
G 14AS   Erla   95 - 9 - 3 - * - * - * - * - * = 107

New production from Sept 44 to Mar 45.

Other new production G-14 > 2689.

From this thread, by ArtieBob, post 28
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=2462&page=3&highlight=109+neubau

34% of new G-14 production was AS.

[gripen]

Looking further the same listing reveals that apparently large part of G-6 production August-September 1944 is listed as G-14s because there is only the G-6/U2 listed but no G-6/U3 (or G-6/MW50 as called by Mermet). The G-6s and G-14s were produced under same Wnr. bocks so the subject is really fuzzy. In addition, the lack of knowledge on recycled airframes makes analysis pretty much impossible.

[Knegel]

Hi,

afaik the G14 was the late G6 with MW50, at the time when the G14 got introduced also the G6 mainly didnt use the gunpods that often, at least not while the homeland defending task. In oposite to 1943 now the 190A´s was there in higher numbers to attack the Bombers, while the 109´s HAD to do the topcover task against the much increased number of escort fighters.

All datasheets i saw regarding the G14 show MW50 + DB605A or AS, somewhere i did read that most remaining G6´s got MW50 as well.

The G14-U4 was just 45kg more light than the K4 and 14kg comes from the more big MW50 load. The "normal" G14 was 90kg more light, still 14kg less MW50.

Angus,
the high torque moments of the Avias was a result of the used bomber propeller, which had very big blades, even with a flat propeller angle, this big blades had a big amount of drag(against the rotation) and therefor  torque was rather big.

Greetings,

Knegel

[Angus]

"Angus,
the high torque moments of the Avias was a result of the used bomber propeller, which had very big blades, even with a flat propeller angle, this big blades had a big amount of drag(against the rotation) and therefor torque was rather big."

Ah, designed for a bigger aircraft as well as a different power curve (engine torque) then I'd belive.
BTW, as a sidenote, did the LW bombers have counter-rotation?