Author Topic: Need BF 109 K4 (Read 2337 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #75 on:** April 03, 2002, 04:03:16 AM »

K4 did not mount MK103.

The standard MK103 barrel was too wide at the rear to fit inside engine shaft. However late in the war the MK103 was modified to fit inside the DB605 but it was planned to use it only in later Ks.

So no K4 with MK103.

Also there was no use of MG151/15 in the K4, this is a total myth.

All K4 armament was 2xMG131 and 1xMk108.
Also 20mm gunpods were sometimes fitted.

And Funked please be honest in what numbers and when the Spit F21 was used. It's in no way comporable to 109K4. The 109K4 had nearly 1,000 examples and entered service in october 1944. The Spit F21 only reached service in late April 1945, and the war ended in the first week of May......

The Spit F21 compares most similar to the He162 in terms of service date, numbers, and effect on war. The He162 only shot down a few fighters while the F21s greatest achivement was sinking a pair of converted torpedo one man midget submarines.

funkedup · « **Reply #76 on:** April 03, 2002, 04:15:06 AM »

Spit 21s were in service in January and in combat in March.
Otherwise a good post Grun.

And those were super elite nuclear ninja subs they sunk! Turning point in modern world history!

Wilbus · « **Reply #77 on:** April 03, 2002, 04:42:41 AM »

Wether a plane was produced in 30,000 or just 2 shouldn't affect the perk points in the main arena. It's been pointed out before, except for WW2 planes there is nothing what so ever historical about the MA and thus the number of a plane produced should have no affect.
IMO a plane should be perked ONLY because of overuse, in the case of the 262, we shouldn't discuss, it should be perked, 200 is a great price.

All other planes should be unperked for a tour or so and then perked for good numbers, most would be bellow 20 IMO.

Just to add, the planes are there to be flown, not just to sit in the hanger and look pretty, personally I wouldn't mind seeing Tempest, F4u4's, Ta152's and Spit 14's a little more then we do now.

illo · « **Reply #78 on:** April 03, 2002, 04:54:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
Personally, if I had it my way it would be like this:

* Perk everything post 1944 - P-51D, 190D-9, 109G-10 and etc..

* the gap between the G-6/R6 and K-4 is huge, give us the G-14 instead of putting in an additional K-4 when the G-10 already exists.

* Then, add a bit more speed, give marginally better rolling abilities and a new paint job to G-10 -> rename the "G-10" to "K-4"

* the same sort of gap exists between 1942 Spit9s and 1944 Spit14s. Give us the 1943 Spit9.

I'm sure this would make many people happy.

Yes I agree. 190A-5 and 190A-8 need 190A-6 in gap between them. To perk lightly all post 1944 planes would be great. RPS would be even better.

fd ski · « **Reply #79 on:** April 03, 2002, 07:34:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MANDOBLE
(yep, Mk103 was used in this plane).

Dr. Tony Williams, paging Dr. Tony Williams. We have a case of Mk103in 109K4 again. Dr. Williams !!!

Topic was covered in aircraft section of the forum at great length. I believe that conclusion was that 103 wouldn't fit into the engine block.

Wilbus · « **Reply #80 on:** April 03, 2002, 09:05:41 AM »

The only fighter with a hub mounted Mk103 was AFAIK the Do335, it also had two cowl mounted 15mm heavy machine guns.

Was the single seat version.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #81 on:** April 03, 2002, 09:34:16 AM »

Mk103 or 108 for K4 and K6, MG151/15 for K4 and Mg131 for K6 (also two optional gun pods).

The Mk103, and the 108 dont need to fit "into" the engine. These guns are composed by a barrel and a main body. The main body rest behind the engine, in the case of 108, the gun main body rest between the engine and the pilot seat, and only the very short barrel was fitted really into the engine. The engine only needs to be long enough for the barrel.

But... ...I may be wrong.

Vermillion · « **Reply #82 on:** April 03, 2002, 10:39:07 AM »

Mandoble your wrong, no Mk103's in 109K4's period.

And the whole Mg151/15's in K models is a mistake first started by I believe Green, and then perpetuated by several following authors who were too lazy too do their own research and copied his error verbatim.

If my memory serves me correctly (and I'd have to get my books out to be exactly sure), the only 109 equipped with a MG151/15 was one of the early F models (F1 or F2?), and it was mounted in the centerline hub mounting where it was eventually replaced by the MG151/20.

Like Fd-Ski said, Tony Williams wrote an extensive article on this subject and the myths that have grown up around it. I'll look around and see if I can find the link too it.

Hajo · « **Reply #83 on:** April 03, 2002, 10:47:37 AM »

Differences:

G10 powerplant DB605A-1 with rated 1475HP with MW50 boost
or other sub typed DB605D rated at 1800 using MW50 boost.

K4 powerplant DB605ASCM/DCM 1550 HP rated 2000HP with MW50 Boost

Climb rate G models 2700 to 4000ft/min
Climb rate K4 4823ft/min

weights G Models 5,880 lbs to 6180 lbs
weights K4 6000lbs fully loaded

speeds G-10 428mph
K4 452mph (yes Virgina, faster then a P51D)

Ceiling G Models arond 38K
Ceiling K-4 41K

Source: Axis Fighters of WWII Major fighters and attack aircraft of the Axis Powers

Author: Bill Gunston

Looks like an obivious major difference in speed and climb rate to me

Armanent K-4 two MG 151 above the engine and one MK 108 or 103

Vermillion as you can see the above source states that the 108 or 103 was used in the K4

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #84 on:** April 03, 2002, 10:56:18 AM »

I'm almost sure the Mk103 was first used in the K4. As far as I remember, it was a modiffied version of the original Mk103 design used in pods for the 190s.

I see more problems fitting two Mg151/15 in the nose of a 109 than fitting a Mk103.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #85 on:** April 03, 2002, 11:03:33 AM »

1943/1944 planes should be perked low... like between 4 and 12 points.

Of course, other planes like the SpitXIV, Tempest, 109K-4(if it's added), Ta-152, Me-262, P-47M/N, P51H(did it even see combat?) and other planes of that nature- ones that can easily dominate the arena should be perked high.

Why? Keep it out of the hands of experienced players and keep them rare.

Imagine if the currently perked high planes were perked in the 8-12 perk range. "I'm going to take up a 205 today...." After 7 minutes of climbing, to your surprise virtually every con in the sky is a Spit.... not a SpitV, Spit I, Seafire II, or SpitIX... nope... it's got the dreaded Spit14 icon on it. And what's this? All the other cons are Tempests, F4U-4s and Ta-152s with the occasional 262 pilot.

Sweet, now that's what I talk about a fun arena. Hey, you wanna learn the aircraft before you pay for it Hazed.. try H2H or the TA. The MA has a price on it, otherwise what's the point of having the perk system in the first place?

Verm, MG151/15s were in 109F-2s. 109F-4 was the first model to incorporate the MG151/20.

Hajo, you are using incorrect data. The G10 in AH is not modelled after that G10 you have there....

Maybe you guys should try comparing the in-game G-10 to the K-4 data you have.
-SW

Wmaker · « **Reply #86 on:** April 03, 2002, 11:23:35 AM »

AH's G-10 has DB 605DCM engine. Depending on sources its out put is 2000-2200hp.

Generally...the older the material about 109s the less accurate it is, yes, including Green's books. Almost every web-page I've seen about 109s has errors too numerous to list...

Our G-10 compared to K-4...

-No noticable weight difference.

-AH's G-10 has DB 605D with MW-50 as many K-4s had.

-Biggest aerodynamical differencies between AH's G-10 and the K-4 are antenna mast (not visible in AH's 3d-model but AH's example had it IRL, K-4s didn't), non-recractable tail wheel and landing gear doors in K-4 which were usually removed in field.

-At alt K-4 is 7-12 mph faster than AH's G-10.

I remember Pyro stating on this board that of the late 109s HTC picked G-10 because that was the variant they could get most options out of (K-4 didn't have WrG-rockets).

If and when HTC decides to do another 109 I hope it will be something to fill the cap between 109G-6 and G-10. My choise would be G-14 with DB 605AM engine. While being AH-wise essentially G-6 with MW-50, -14 -designation would make it easy to distiguish.

Wilbus · « **Reply #87 on:** April 03, 2002, 01:28:05 PM »

Both 109 F1 and F2 used the Mg151/15 in the Hub.

No 109 was ever used in combat with a hub mounted Mk103, there may have been some protoypes but that's all. The gun it self weighs nearly 150 kg (more then 300lbs) and each round weights 330 gram (bout .7 or so lbs).
The gun had a velocity of around 2700 feet per second, which is equal to the Hispano.

Fit this in a small plane like the 109, in the nose, and not only will it be VERY nose heavy, but it is doubtfull wether the structure can handle it at all when fired.

Wmaker · « **Reply #88 on:** April 03, 2002, 03:58:19 PM »

Wilbus, at least the first F-1s (probably all of them) had MG-FF 20mm cannon mounted in the hub.

F-2s had hub mounted MG 151/15 until mid 1941 when they were all fitted (probably F-1's too) with MG 151/20s.

Squire · « **Reply #89 on:** April 03, 2002, 05:48:35 PM »

The DB605D with MW50 is the same engine as the sometimes quoted DB605DCM.

The CM code is for the fuel and the MW50.

My point is there has been a lot of nonsense about some "mystery engine" on the 109G-10 that the one in AH models.

Its NOT a mystery engine. Its the standard 605D with MW50 boost (all of them had boost, no such thing as an operational 109G-10 without boost)

Speed 428mph (not 452).

Just a post for those who were goin on about how the AH G-10 is too slow (cripes what a laugh, too slow, right, 440 mph).

Lots of folks repeating everybody elses guesswork, as usual.

In regards to the 109K-4, well, if its that important to model a 109 thats all of 10pmh faster than a G-10, go ahead I guess .

Oh ya, Spitfire F21, I wouldnt bother with it IMHO (give us a Stuka instead), but please dont throw too many rocks from your glass houses, how many TA152s were there??? Ya.

Regards.