PDA

View Full Version : REQUEST TO OLEG : Bf 109 F-4 (1942), Bf 109 G-2 (1943) models



Kurfurst__
03-23-2004, 06:13 AM
Hi Oleg,

I would like to ask you to include two "new-old" types of planes in the planeset with only minor modifications needed : The 109 F-4 at it`s increased boost in 1942, and the 109 G-2 at it`s increased boost as in 1943, at 1.42ata.

Both of these planes were initially restricted in use of maximum boost because of various problems with overheating. To overcome this, as a temporary measure, maximum allowed boost was decreased from 1.42ata to 1.3ata. This were solved later onwards, but in Il-2, we only have the earliest variants with the limited boosts.

Since many planes like the Spit, P-47, FW 190A, FW 190D etc. have different flight models representing the increased maximum boost that can be used during the year (1941, 1942, 1943 etc. variants), I think it`s fair to ask to also include this for the 109 series as well. It would require ZERO 3D model work, as the planes were the same, just the engine ratings changed. The only difference would be in the flight model, each two aircraft having about 10% more power available, with the resulting change in speed and climb rate etc.

The current speed specifications, verified by Il-2 compare that is free from measuring errors, lists speed for the F-4 and G-2 that clearly belongs to the 1.30ata boost variants.


The DB 601E used in the 109F-4 was intitially limited to 1.3ata, 2500 RPM, for 1200 HP at SL in 1941.
According to Butch2k, this limit was raised in early 1942, during January or February. The full boost of 1.42ata, 2700 RPM, for 1350 HP, was used from onwards. See speed data change for given boosts below.

The DB 605A used in the 109G-2 was intitially limited to 1.3ata, 2600 RPM, for 1310 HP at SL in June 1942.
According to Daimler-Benz technical directive as on the 8th June 1943, this limit no longer needed to be used, and the full 1.42ata, 2700 RPM power can be used for 1475 HP at SL.



BF 109 F-4
-----------

Currently the F-4 is modelled with the speed of 1941 variant that was limited to 1.3ata.

The G-2 in the game has maximum speed of 519 km/h at SL, and 637 km/h at 6000m, according to most recent version of Il-2 Compare.



A Messerschmitt page (curves for various fighters) shows:

Bf 109 F-4 (Take-off weight: 2890 kg)

- Climb & combat, 1.3ata, 2500 RPM (limited boost ratings for 30 minutes use) in 1941:

525 km/h @ 0 m
635 km/h @ 6000 m

This is what speed specs we have in Il-2 AEP as Bf 109F-4. Obviously, the specifications are for the F-4 running at 1.3ata pressure.

- Emergency power, 1.42ata, 2700 RPM, cleared for use from Spring 1942 onwards:

540 km/h @ 0 m
670 km/h @ 6300 m

Both curves are noted as erflogen (from flight tests).

This is what we ask for, an 1942 variant of the F-4 with similiar increase in climb rate.


Another flight test from Rechlin proving center agrees very well with the data :

Bf 109 F-4 at Rechlin (Kurvenblatt v. E'Stelle Rechlin v. 15.10.41). Take-off weight: 2890 kg

Combat power/Kampfleistung, 1.3ata, 2500 RPM (limited boost ratings for 30 minutes use) as in 1941:

- 525 km/h @ 0 m and ~645 km/h @ 6200 m

Emergency power/Notleisung).1.42ata, 2700 RPM, 3 min rating, cleared for use from Spring 1942 onwards :

- 540 Km/h @ 0 m and ~670 km/h @ 6300 m



BF 109 G-2
-----------


The case is the same with the G-2.

Currently the G-2 is modelled with the speed of 1942 variant that was limited to 1.3ata.

The G-2 in the game does 529 km/h at SL, and 655 km/h at 7000m, according to most recent version of Il-2 Compare.

This is almost exactly the speed specs for the similiar G-1 at 1.3ata tested in Rechlin, ie. 525 km/h at SL, 649km/h at 7000m:

http://www.pbase.com/image/5288901

Even in Soviet tests, however, when tested with the increased 1.42ata setting, showed that the plane is faster, does 665 km/h at 7000m, with similiar increase at SL :

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/fghterchartG-2.jpg
Soviet testing of G-2 at 1,42ata, performance of the new 1943 model being requested



To summerize :
-----------------

Oleg, if possible, please include the variants of Bf 109 F-4 in it`s 1942, the Bf 109 G-2 in it`s 1943 increased engine ratings, with increased speed and climb.

I think this is not great deal of work, nothing compared like creating a whole new plane. It`s a fair request, other planes have many-many variants that differ only in engine rating. Why not these two? You would make the fans very happy with little work. I am sure people like Butch2k or others can send you needed data, if you dont have it already.

There are more 109 F-4 flight results and details at this board :
http://pub157.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=21 0.topic

PS: Please don`t question game data. It`s from recent Il-2compare, not self made flight tests...


Please take time to answer, we are grateful for your time and for the through consideration of the subject. Thank you again.

Kurfurst__
03-23-2004, 06:13 AM
Hi Oleg,

I would like to ask you to include two "new-old" types of planes in the planeset with only minor modifications needed : The 109 F-4 at it`s increased boost in 1942, and the 109 G-2 at it`s increased boost as in 1943, at 1.42ata.

Both of these planes were initially restricted in use of maximum boost because of various problems with overheating. To overcome this, as a temporary measure, maximum allowed boost was decreased from 1.42ata to 1.3ata. This were solved later onwards, but in Il-2, we only have the earliest variants with the limited boosts.

Since many planes like the Spit, P-47, FW 190A, FW 190D etc. have different flight models representing the increased maximum boost that can be used during the year (1941, 1942, 1943 etc. variants), I think it`s fair to ask to also include this for the 109 series as well. It would require ZERO 3D model work, as the planes were the same, just the engine ratings changed. The only difference would be in the flight model, each two aircraft having about 10% more power available, with the resulting change in speed and climb rate etc.

The current speed specifications, verified by Il-2 compare that is free from measuring errors, lists speed for the F-4 and G-2 that clearly belongs to the 1.30ata boost variants.


The DB 601E used in the 109F-4 was intitially limited to 1.3ata, 2500 RPM, for 1200 HP at SL in 1941.
According to Butch2k, this limit was raised in early 1942, during January or February. The full boost of 1.42ata, 2700 RPM, for 1350 HP, was used from onwards. See speed data change for given boosts below.

The DB 605A used in the 109G-2 was intitially limited to 1.3ata, 2600 RPM, for 1310 HP at SL in June 1942.
According to Daimler-Benz technical directive as on the 8th June 1943, this limit no longer needed to be used, and the full 1.42ata, 2700 RPM power can be used for 1475 HP at SL.



BF 109 F-4
-----------

Currently the F-4 is modelled with the speed of 1941 variant that was limited to 1.3ata.

The G-2 in the game has maximum speed of 519 km/h at SL, and 637 km/h at 6000m, according to most recent version of Il-2 Compare.



A Messerschmitt page (curves for various fighters) shows:

Bf 109 F-4 (Take-off weight: 2890 kg)

- Climb & combat, 1.3ata, 2500 RPM (limited boost ratings for 30 minutes use) in 1941:

525 km/h @ 0 m
635 km/h @ 6000 m

This is what speed specs we have in Il-2 AEP as Bf 109F-4. Obviously, the specifications are for the F-4 running at 1.3ata pressure.

- Emergency power, 1.42ata, 2700 RPM, cleared for use from Spring 1942 onwards:

540 km/h @ 0 m
670 km/h @ 6300 m

Both curves are noted as erflogen (from flight tests).

This is what we ask for, an 1942 variant of the F-4 with similiar increase in climb rate.


Another flight test from Rechlin proving center agrees very well with the data :

Bf 109 F-4 at Rechlin (Kurvenblatt v. E'Stelle Rechlin v. 15.10.41). Take-off weight: 2890 kg

Combat power/Kampfleistung, 1.3ata, 2500 RPM (limited boost ratings for 30 minutes use) as in 1941:

- 525 km/h @ 0 m and ~645 km/h @ 6200 m

Emergency power/Notleisung).1.42ata, 2700 RPM, 3 min rating, cleared for use from Spring 1942 onwards :

- 540 Km/h @ 0 m and ~670 km/h @ 6300 m



BF 109 G-2
-----------


The case is the same with the G-2.

Currently the G-2 is modelled with the speed of 1942 variant that was limited to 1.3ata.

The G-2 in the game does 529 km/h at SL, and 655 km/h at 7000m, according to most recent version of Il-2 Compare.

This is almost exactly the speed specs for the similiar G-1 at 1.3ata tested in Rechlin, ie. 525 km/h at SL, 649km/h at 7000m:

http://www.pbase.com/image/5288901

Even in Soviet tests, however, when tested with the increased 1.42ata setting, showed that the plane is faster, does 665 km/h at 7000m, with similiar increase at SL :

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/fghterchartG-2.jpg
Soviet testing of G-2 at 1,42ata, performance of the new 1943 model being requested



To summerize :
-----------------

Oleg, if possible, please include the variants of Bf 109 F-4 in it`s 1942, the Bf 109 G-2 in it`s 1943 increased engine ratings, with increased speed and climb.

I think this is not great deal of work, nothing compared like creating a whole new plane. It`s a fair request, other planes have many-many variants that differ only in engine rating. Why not these two? You would make the fans very happy with little work. I am sure people like Butch2k or others can send you needed data, if you dont have it already.

There are more 109 F-4 flight results and details at this board :
http://pub157.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=21 0.topic

PS: Please don`t question game data. It`s from recent Il-2compare, not self made flight tests...


Please take time to answer, we are grateful for your time and for the through consideration of the subject. Thank you again.

Tipo_Man
03-23-2004, 08:51 AM
^ BUMP ^

PF_Welshman
03-23-2004, 08:56 AM
you allready have the extra boost in the G2 and more when using manual prop pitch

Kurfurst__
03-23-2004, 09:07 AM
In real life using manual prop pitch would damage the engine, and at the same RPM manual and auto gave the same performance...

Regardless, we would need the the historical boosts for these planes for 1942 and 1943. Half a dozen other plane feature the updated variants with higher boosts. Why not these two, it`s minimal work.

Just count how many planes the LW and Allies can choose from in 1943... for LW, it`s the two identical performance G-6s and the FW 190A-5.. for allies... P-38J, P-47D, Spitfire V (two versions), then now comes again half a dozen Spitfire Mk IX models which are also improved boost versions of the old 1942 Spit Mk IX..etc.. even the P-51B is supposed to be 1943 IIRC, even if it had seen - how much? - maybe 20-30 days of action in the last days of `43... not to mention the Soviet types of 1943.

A *new* version of the existing Flight Model for already existing 3D models ain`t big request, especially if the Axis side has so few a/c to choose from in 1942-43.

I see no real reason why can`t these "new aircrafts" shouldn`t be implemented.

crazyivan1970
03-23-2004, 09:17 AM
What i would like to see...is G4, the one with 13mm guns http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Kurfurst__
03-23-2004, 10:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
What i would like to see...is G4, the one with 13mm guns http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean Galland`s special 109F-4 ? Hmmm... 1xMG 151/20, 2xMGFF in wings, 2x13mm MG131s. Sounds good. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/smileys-gun2.gif

Otherwise G-4 + MG 131s would be = G-6

crazyivan1970
03-23-2004, 10:51 AM
Sounds good indeed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I am 109`s freak.. i want them all http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

BlitzPig_DDT
03-23-2004, 11:06 AM
What I would like to see is realistic elevator response in 109s from the F on. Right now we have Emil response, if even that much. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

crazyivan1970
03-23-2004, 11:07 AM
You mean heavy elevator? To me only K4 is heavily affected by that... others are fine. G10 probably has it best.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Kurfurst__
03-23-2004, 11:10 AM
Actually some checking of the F2 and F-4 wouldn`t hurt either, in the old days the F series were lovely planes with delightful handlind, now IMHO they handle worser than many later Gs, stalling very easily... I am curious what causes that.

And Blitzpig is right about the elevator, the current one gets heavy too early, according to British reports, even at 420 mph / 680 kph IAS the F-2 could make "fairly tight turns" despite the heaviness of elevator. It seems to me that all 109s tend to heavy up too early on. I guess they should be harder to manovuer at extreme speeds, but now the limit is about 500 kph, after that they become very unmanouverable quickly, which as pointed out above, is somewhat off. It should be a lot less LINEAR function imho, rather a hyperbolic? one, forces increaseing with the square of airspeed. I think that`s why the "heavy controll" planes heavy up too early, and the "light control" planes keep control effectiveness even at ultra-high speeds.

BlitzPig_DDT
03-23-2004, 11:27 AM
Tried the G-6/AS, K-4, and G-14 so far Ivan. They all behave the same. Hit 600 in a B attempt and forget about doing anything. If the target moves, at all, you can't follow. If you hit 650, you need trim and about 10 minutes to pull out of it. (yes, an exaggeration, but you get the point). 600 - 650 doesn't take very long when in a dive with power - you know, good BnZ technique. Any good climbing plane will follow you long enough to kill you if you are only able to go 600 - 650 on you B's.

And they stall and fall out of the sky at the slightest hint of turning now too. Which is also ridiclous. They were a few dps slower in turns than their soviet counterparts. What we see in the game (now) is bogus. 1.21 was good. But all good things must come to an end it seems.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

Kurfurst__
03-23-2004, 11:47 AM
Here are some relevant quotes about elevator response and turning ability at high speeds on 109F/G/K :

Dave Southwood (109 G-2/trop):

"The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang. At 520kph it is possible to pull 4g with one hand, but I find it more comfortable to use both hands on the stick for looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and 3g. Pitch trim changes with speed are moderate, and the tail plane trim wheel mounted abeam the pilots' left hip is easy to use. For a display, I run it at 420-450kph in trim, and then do not retrim. This causes no excessive stick forces during the display. Overall the aircraft is straightforward to handle in pitch."


Mark Hanna on Spanish license 109 G-2 with Merlin engine :

"Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. Pitch tends to heavy up above 250 mph but it is still easily manageable up to 300 mph and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. This means that running in for an airshow above 300 mph the aeroplane has a slight tucking in sensation - a sort of desire to get down to ground level ! This is easily held on the stick or can be trimmed out but is slightly surprising initially. Maneuvering above 300, two hands can be required for more aggressive performance. EIther that or get on the trimmer to help you. Despite this heavying up it is still quite easy to get at 5G's at these speeds. "

wastel
03-23-2004, 12:25 PM
maybe someone should say oleg, that elevator response and force is based on IAS..not TAS :-)

wastel

Kurfurst__
03-23-2004, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wastel:
maybe someone should say oleg, that elevator response and force is based on IAS..not TAS :-)

wastel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the reason is different. A friend of mine, trained in aerodynamics, told me something like the stick force increase vs. speed is badly modelled in Il-2 (in a general sense), as it is a linear function of airspeed. Probably that`s why the 109 is too bad, the 190 is too good at high speed.

609IAP_Recon
03-23-2004, 04:18 PM
agreed Ivan - bump for G4

Helmut Lipfert flew the 109G4 on Eastern Front.

Salute!

JG50_Recon

http://jg50.com/images/JG50_SIGG.gif
----
http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com

Skalgrim
03-23-2004, 04:56 PM
42 and 43 g2 would be nice, less cry that the g2 42 is to upper

and same for f4

and 190 without outer cannon, believe early 190a was standart without mg ff, have therefore little better maneuver,accelerate,climb and speed

and a5 with 1,65ata (erh√¬∂hten ladedruck) 595km/h sealevel for 44 server

a5 was too 44 use and all 190a had use juni 44 1,65ata

that make 109 and 190 more interesting



k4 rollrate is better as p51 sealevel with 300km/h ias

but p51 rollrate is much better as k4 at 6000m with 300km/h ias

rollrate is depent ias and not tas, see naca test

seem in fb is maneuver behavior model by tas and not ias

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Tue March 23 2004 at 05:28 PM.]

HQ1
03-23-2004, 05:24 PM
what i want is the 109Gs use old fashion canopy but with galland panzer(glass back armour) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

Korolov
03-23-2004, 07:33 PM
109G-5. I want that one. Now! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Gunner_361st
03-23-2004, 07:46 PM
I'd like to see the early Me109's. The D, C, and so on. Back in the days when the aircraft was superior, instead of just a good competitor.

All going back to the Spanish Civil War... but I doubt that'll ever be the focus of a game. Maybe an expansion for Battle of Britain? Who knows. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

S77th-brooks
03-23-2004, 11:20 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif yes to this

Kannaksen_hanu
03-23-2004, 11:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wastel:
maybe someone should say oleg, that elevator response and force is based on IAS..not TAS :-)

wastel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I second to this.

PzKpfw
03-24-2004, 01:26 AM
I'd like to the G4 myself, as the interm for the G-6. Ie, both 5./JG 52, & 6./JG 52 were operateing Bf 109G4s from Anapa, in May & June of 1943.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

S77th-brooks
03-24-2004, 10:24 PM
bump http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Stalker58
03-25-2004, 02:35 AM
Yes, Me109F4 Late/Me109G2 Late would be nice...

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!

CTO88
03-25-2004, 03:52 AM
sorry the rechlin data cheat is wrong.
we already had a discussion in the german community. look at the speeds in great height. the g2 seems to be fast as a 109g with as-engine. it doesn't even show the speed at volldruckh√¬∂he. the germans simply forgot to introduce compression in speedometer.

there is a very exactly finnish test for every 1000m level. the 109g2 reaches there 636km/h in 6300m and 525km/h at SL. there are no german TEST-data that shows a 109g with 1,3ata runs 650km/h. these heigh speeds are all mathematical results. with 1,3ata an 109g2 runs max. 640km/h an 109g6 630km/h. 109g/r6 runs 10-15km/h slower.

an 109g2 with 1,42ata never really exist.
1,42ata were free in 6/43, but then germans had only one group left, equipped with 109g2. look at the danish luftwaffe-website. even the finnish airforce flew in 1944 with new 109g2 only 1,3ata.

the 109f4 has the same problem, 1350PS made 525km/h and 635km/h possible. 109f4 had nearly the same hull like 109g2. same power makes nearly same speed. volldruckh√¬∂he of 109f4 is 500m slower.

109f4 had this power (1350PS) at notleistung (WEP) and 109g2 at kampfleistung (combatpower).

ps: the russians don't have the correct height 6300m for max speed. seems the had an 109gas or an 109g1 with gm1 or something like that. 666km/h is the official max. speed figure for 109g5/as for instance.

jurinko
03-25-2004, 04:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
I'd like to the G4 myself, as the interm for the G-6. Ie, both 5./JG 52, & 6./JG 52 were operateing Bf 109G4s from Anapa, in May & June of 1943.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also Slovak 13./JG 52 flew those G-4s http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/yellow10.jpg

----------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL

Kurfurst__
03-25-2004, 05:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
sorry the rechlin data cheat is wrong. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry CTO88, but it`s the case of your guessing/theories vs. that of the results obtained by professional engineers at E-Stelle Rechlin..

I can`t express it any more briefly. I read through your statements and just about each is flawed or just mere guess. I wouldn`t like to reply to every single part and prove it wrong - but you can bet I could.

Just one part, for example.

G-6 is listed as 640(630) km/h at 6.6km VDH with 1.42(1.3)ata by the official GLC chart, and 530(510) km/h at SL.

I have the parts of drag doc for the G-1 test as in Rechlin. It list the following :

Speed loss from MG 131 bulges : -9 km/h
Speed loss from non-retractable tailwheel : -12 km/h

It doesn`t lists wing bulges for the larger mainwheels, but please take a moment, and add +21km/h to 640 km/h, to get the difference from G-6 to G-2 at 1.42ata... yep, 661 km/h, plus a few kph because of the wing bulges - &gt; 665 km/h just as the Soviet tests say.

The Rechlin "data cheats" also mention for F-4 results : "erflogen" = "flight test results"...
etc.

[This message was edited by Kurfurst__ on Thu March 25 2004 at 07:40 AM.]

JG52_wunsch
03-25-2004, 04:25 PM
bump.more 109s in 43 would be great.

After it was refeuled i climbed in.With many manipulations the mechcanics started the turbines.I followed their actions with the greatest of interest.The first one started quite easily.the second caught fire.In no time the whole engine was on fire.Luckily as a fighter pilot i was used to getting quickly out of the cockpit.The fire was quickly put out.The second plane caused no trouble - Adolf Galland (first time in a ME262)

CTO88
03-26-2004, 04:19 AM
the finnish airforce tested the new 109g2 and nearly reaches the same TAS-speeds like rechlin, but:

the finnish correctly absorbed the compression at staurohr. that means in great height the ability of compression of the air. so at SL the finnish 109g2 also reaches ~525km/h, but in the height they fly only 636km/h. the german test didn't pay attention of air-compression. there are german tests were compression is included, suddenly a 190d9 with 1900PS runs only 565km/h!
the finnish reaches the climb results of rechlin.

and why the g1-drag is considered by mg131? first was 109g5 with mg131.

if you want russian test data, then read the book graph is comming from. 109g4 suddenly runs with 1,42 only 650km/h (no mg131!). and russian 109f4 runs with 1350PS only 624km/h. LOL

british tested a 109g2/trop an reaches 639km/h. and please don't tell me more about rechlin engeneering. other german testflights shows that a 3100kg 109g climbs only 4:30 at 5000m and 109g6 with 1,3 ata runs 620km/h. you just want to believe the best one.

Kurfurst__
03-26-2004, 07:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
the finnish airforce tested the new 109g2 and nearly reaches the same TAS-speeds like rechlin, but:
the finnish correctly absorbed the compression at staurohr. AND
the german test didn't pay attention of air-compression.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sources please. Quote me the part from Rechlin test which states compression is not taken into account, and the part from the Finn report that states compression is taken into account.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>so at SL the finnish 109g2 also reaches ~525km/h, but in the height they fly only 636km/h.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And in Soviet test it reaches 665 km/h at 1.42ata clean, and 650 km/h with gunpods.
The reason for the better performance at low level, and worser at higher altitudes in the finn tests is most likely from the very different atmospheric conditions between Finnland and Germany.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
there are german tests were compression is included, suddenly a 190d9 with 1900PS runs only 565km/h! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Post test or exact reference. I say it`s most likely your wild guessing again.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the finnish reaches the climb results of rechlin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it well outclimbs the Rechlin results at low level... hmm, you said "rechlin cheat"?



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
and why the g1-drag is considered by mg131? first was 109g5 with mg131.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your point...? Why do you think this is something extra special case, drag changes from a projected modification being part of a drag report ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
if you want russian test data, then read the book graph is comming from. 109g4 suddenly runs with 1,42 only 650km/h (no mg131!). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have the book at all?
IF you refer to the book, maybe face the results it give for G-2 : 665 km/h at 7000m with 1.42ata, not just selectively take the parts you like.

You say G-4 was MEASURED to run at 650 km/h. What was difference between G-2 and G-4, m8 ?
-radio equipment
-wing bulges for larger tires AND
-non retractable tailwheel on G-4 : -12 km/h
Which means G-2 would be AGAIN : 650 + 12 + bit for the wing bulges : 662-665 km/h...

G-6 differed from G-4 only in having HMG bulges : -9 km/h.. 650-9 = 641 km/h. As the GLC charts show 640 km/h at 6600m (loss in VDH due to loss of dynamic power gain from extra drag)


"LOL". As I said, I can prove wrong every of your statements. If that`s what you need, I can give that.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
and russian 109f4 runs with 1350PS only 624km/h. LOL.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Post exact conditions and source, especially the proof for 1350 PS was used.
Other sources show :

A German Datenblatt on the 109 F4, using flight data, shows the following for the a/c at climb and combat power (1200 PS). Dated 29.11.41. : At critical altitude: 6.2km, 1180PS, 660km/h

Messerschmitt flight test of Bf 109 F-4 (Take-off weight: 2890 kg) show at emergency power (1350 PS) 670 km/h at 6300 m.

Comparison between Fw 190 (BMW 801C) and Bf 109 F-4 at Rechlin (Kurvenblatt v. E'Stelle Rechlin v. 15.10.41), Take-off weight: 2890 kg : 540 Km/h @ 0 m and ~670 km/h @ 6300 m (emergency power 1350 PS).

Summer 1942 overview data sheet of the OKL for all planes in service or planned to be introduced shortly after. Bf 109 F-4 liste with a top speed of 670 km/h,

Datasheet from 1943 with aerodynamical details of the Bf 109 F-4 directly from Messerschmitt with the top speed listed as 670 km/h.

"LOL"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>british tested a 109g2/trop an reaches 639km/h.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*sigh* G-2/Trop W.Nr. 10639 carried the tropical equipment - sandfilter on supercharger. Not to mention the fact the G-2/trop they had was captured in North Africa in late 1942 in damaged condition, was taken apart, unofficially flight tested by CW troops, and put together several times before arriving in England

Despite all that, bad condition a/c, extra drag from tropical equipent, it managed to do only 10 km/h less than measured in Rechlin at the same 1.3ata boost...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> and please don't tell me more about rechlin engeneering. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I won`t, provided you cease this misinformation campaign based merely on your guesses and lacking any actual foundation. I haven`t seen ANY of your sources from you statements may come from. Provide those first.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
other german testflights shows that a 3100kg 109g climbs only 4:30 at 5000m
and 109g6 with 1,3 ata runs 620km/h. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source and condition of aircrafts ? Post the report.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>you just want to believe the best one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can only repeat myself : I take the measured results of professional engineers above one BB member`s guessings who doesn`t even backs up his words with anything.

As for your accusation. There are several climb results known for G-2 at 1.3ata. Soviet tests, performed by NII VVS (about 4:15), Finn tests in early 1943 (4:06), German test in Rechlin (4:11) all show very similiar results.

You have choosen to use "other german testflight" which show 4:30 and ignore all the rest. The agenda is clear.

Snyde-Dastardly
03-26-2004, 07:44 AM
Wow thats what this sim needs is ANOTHER,,,109,,Yawn

From this day to the end of the world, we in it shall be remembered, we band of brothers http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Vic-Whiplash/Green_Hell.bmp

Kurfurst__
03-26-2004, 08:20 AM
Allied fighter planeset for 1942 :

Spitfire V
Hurricane Mk II Field Mod
P-40M
P-40E Fiel mod
P-47D10
Yak 9
Mig 3U
LA-5
P-39Q-1
P-39Q-10
P-39N-1
etc.

Luftwaffe planeset for 1942 :

Bf 109 G-2
FW 190 A-4

I guess Bf 109 F-4 (1942 model) would make a whopping 50% improvement. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Same story for 1943..

ELKASKONE
03-26-2004, 09:15 AM
@Kurfurst_ Your argumentation is correct!

Bf109G6 with Gondolas(maybe R6)and
a weight of 3350kg,
to the comparison diagram for the Bf109K4 points this:
runs in 6600m 621km/h with Steig & Kampfleistung
0m 503km/h with Steig & Kampfleistung
6500m 636km/h with Start & Notleistung
0m 520km/h with Start & Notleistung

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/109_projekt.pdf

In the Finnin Instructions over the BF109G6 the following achievements are indicated:

0m 540km/h
5000m 650km/h
8000m 620km/h

Kurfurst__
03-26-2004, 10:20 AM
Yep, the G-6 on the page is most likely with Rustsatz VI (gunpods). Speed penelty : -8 km/h according to drag doc. This would lead to ~530 km/h at SL, and 645-650 km/h at altitude (speed loss at rated altitude is usually more than at SL by a factor of about 1.5x).

The Finn flight manual for G-6 also seem to indicate that for some reason, the rated altitude was for some way lower in Finnland. Perhaps because of extreme cold -&gt; mores dense air at altitude..? It was noted by pilot in North Africa that the G series were liked more than the F, because in africa`s great heat, the air was less dense, and engine supercharging was much more required.

Kurfurst__
03-27-2004, 07:36 AM
Bumpy. Nah, I want my 670 km/h Bf 109F-4 (1942). http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

WUAF_Badsight
03-27-2004, 09:00 AM
BUMP for the Bf109 elevator authority

should start at higher speeds

is wrong as it is now

WUAF_Badsight
03-27-2004, 09:01 AM
& the LW only have 2 main fighters in FB

the Bf109's & the FW-190's

lets see more models of those 2 plane familys made available

BlitzPig_DDT
03-27-2004, 10:09 AM
Would be nice to get the He-100 and Do-335 though. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

jagdmailer
03-27-2004, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
& the LW only have 2 main fighters in FB

the Bf109's & the FW-190's

lets see more models of those 2 plane familys made available<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Loadouts options for Bf 109 Friedrich series for starters would be greatly appreciated. We have absolutely none so far. ie. SC50, SC250, drop-tanks, possibly MG151/20 gondolas.

I, for one, would still like to have a G-10 & K-4 with DB605DC @ 2000hp take-off, and a G-14ASM with proper naming with DB605ASC @ 2000hp take-off for late war. Looks like we have a mixed bag in FB/AEP currently with the family of late 109s ie. G-6/AS and current K-4. Bf 109K-14 would be nice too.

I support Kurfurst genuine request for F-4 and G-2.

Beyond that, would be nice to have improved loadouts for the Fw 190F-8, ie 1 X SC500 and 2 X SC250 (do not recall seing that one, unless I am blind.....) as well as 1 X SC1000, 1X SC1800, and anti-tank rockets. Looks like the Ju 87D series finally for it's loadout corrected, but the Fw190F-8 which probably constituded the bulk of the later ground attack aircrafts ie 1944-1945 for the Luftwaffe did not.

Regards,

JagdMailer

Januss
03-27-2004, 01:54 PM
Yes , please Oleg , if you read this , think about this F4 (1942) , G-2 (1943) and Messerschmitt G4 , this would be incredible for the interest of the game .
What more can we do in order to convince you ?
Regards ,

PzKpfw
03-27-2004, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Allied fighter planeset for 1942 :

Spitfire V
Hurricane Mk II Field Mod
P-40M
P-40E Fiel mod
P-47D10
Yak 9
Mig 3U
LA-5
P-39Q-1
P-39Q-10
P-39N-1
etc.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


According to my version of ACEs Object Viewer the following planes are available:

P-47D10 = 1943
P-39Q1 = 1944
P-39Q10 = 1944


Your 1942 plane set list, needs revision.



Regards, John Waters


---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Sat March 27 2004 at 02:43 PM.]

Kurfurst__
03-28-2004, 10:41 AM
Then www.il2sturmovik.com (http://www.il2sturmovik.com) Aircraft section needs a revision, too, then. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Point is, there are a lot more allied planes to choose from in 1942/43, including versions that differ only in boost.

Still, we need 1.42ata 109F-4 and G-2 ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

PzKpfw
03-28-2004, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Then http://www.il2sturmovik.com Aircraft section needs a revision, too, then. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wouldn't know, when I want to see what AC is available & when, I load up ACE http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Point is, there are a lot more allied planes to choose from in 1942/43, including versions that differ only in boost.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As their should be, the Germans only had 2 SE fighter types at this time, while the Allies had many. The F4 & G2 already dominate their respective time periods.

The Soviet models allow the Soviet side to narrow the performance gap, and show the Germans gradual loss of the technichal edge.

What was the production run of the Bf 109F/G with better boost, was this a a factory implement only or an field modification or both?. Was their enough produced/converted to warrant an sub model being added to ACE?.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

CTO88
03-28-2004, 02:35 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Sources please. Quote me the part from Rechlin test which states compression is not taken into account, and the part from the Finn report that states compression is taken into account.

[QUOTE]

1. yes i have the complete zagibook.
2. i just don't want again post all documents like it was in german community, but you can believe everything has a paper.

but watch this:

http://piloten.88-iap.de/cto/G2speed2.jpg

other climb TEST graph by erla-werke.
http://piloten.88-iap.de/cto/messg2climb.jpg

take i.e. the speed at 6000m finnish 109g2 runs 639km/h TAS - rechlin g1 runs 642km/h. so far it seems okay. but finnish takes also compression at speedtube, so real speed (v) is only 626km/h. as you also can see, the finnish runs at low altitude like g1 in rechlin. they also climb like rechlin.

don't forget you have Datenbl√¬§tter, but these are testpapers. how you can proof rechlin is a test!? do you have any docus for it, pls show it. i think it's only a datapaper same word in german for datenblatt. it's everytime the same procedure in german documents. Datenbl√¬§tter gives fantastic figures, but testpapers shows the real world.

PS:

http://piloten.88-iap.de/cto/087.jpg

just look at this test-table from the zagibook. all these are testdata especially 190d9 which is flown by german pilots for soviets. i'm sure you won't accept these russian datas. but 109g2 is okay?

Kurfurst__
03-29-2004, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
"Point is, there are a lot more allied planes to choose from in 1942/43, including versions that differ only in boost."

As their should be, the Germans only had 2 SE fighter types at this time, while the Allies had many. The F4 & G2 already dominate their respective time periods. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes that`s correct. Now, give me a real reason why should not German planes run on 1941/42 boost in 1942/43, when Allied/Soviet planes are all modelled to use their maximum boost for the given year...?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Soviet models allow the Soviet side to narrow the performance gap, and show the Germans gradual loss of the technichal edge. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the agenda is the Germans to loose their tactical edge by not giving them their historical boost rates for 1942 and 1943 ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
What was the production run of the Bf 109F/G with better boost, was this a a factory implement only or an field modification or both?. Was their enough produced/converted to warrant an sub model being added to ACE?. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn`t a seperate production run, simply the allowable boost was _all planes of the type_ increased with time. The F-4 undoubtfully saw widespread service in early 1942 when the 1.42ata was cleared for it. Less sure about the G-2, but there were plenty of G-2s around, too (I would have to make a looong check to tell exact numbers), but it`s still easier to put the G-2 in rather to make a new cocpit and modified external model for a rather similiar G-4.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Was their enough produced/converted to warrant an sub model being added to ACE?. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well since it applied to all produced planes, that would mean about 3000 were converted, minus losses etc. Definietely a significant number, definietely more than all the six(!) Mig3Us which are added to the game, or the 2 or so YP-80As, or the zero Bi-1, Go 229, Bf 109Z etc. that saw service.

This change would only need minimal change in the FM and gauges, no extra 3d work at all.

BTW, why do you hate Patton, John ? That qoute in your sig is really damaging to him. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

Kurfurst__
03-29-2004, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:

1. yes i have the complete zagibook.
2. i just don't want again post all documents like it was in german community, but you can believe everything has a paper. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would interested in the complete Tsagibook. Its a rare piece, and I only have certain parts. We can make an exchange.
Can you

but watch this:

http://piloten.88-iap.de/cto/G2speed2.jpg

other climb TEST graph by erla-werke.
http://piloten.88-iap.de/cto/messg2climb.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
take i.e. the speed at 6000m finnish 109g2 runs 639km/h TAS - rechlin g1 runs 642km/h. so far it seems okay. but finnish takes also compression at speedtube, so real speed (v) is only 626km/h. as you also can see, the finnish runs at low altitude like g1 in rechlin. they also climb like rechlin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CTO88, IF compressibility would be the reason, then the VDH would not become lower, just the airspeed at given altitude, and not by much... about 5 km/h at these speeds.

I cant read the finn text, but the table clearly shows the problem is the plane unable to reach to specified dynamic VDH of 7000m. Instead, the VDH drops to only 6300m, with all the many negative effects.

Its clear that we are not dealing with compressibility effect in the finn tests, but the superchargers inabilty to maintain boost up to rated altitude.

Possible reasons :

a, Different atmospheric conditions in the far north of Finnland (which I believe is the answer, Finn manual also shows lower level speed VDH for G-6, in fact, 800m lower than the _static_ VDH of the DB605A-1, 5800m ). Keep in mind that the further you move north, the thinner the atmosphere layer is.
b, Bad conditions of the plane, leading to increase in drag -&gt; decrease is top speed, which results decreased dynamic ram gain, which results less boost, less power, which again means less speed until these factors are balanced out.
c, Other reasons or a mixture of the above.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
don't forget you have Datenbl√¬§tter, but these are testpapers. how you can proof rechlin is a test!? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`s called E-Stelle Rechlin. You probably know what the "E" stands for.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
do you have any docus for it, pls show it. i think it's only a datapaper same word in german for datenblatt. it's everytime the same procedure in german documents. Datenbl√¬§tter gives fantastic figures, but testpapers shows the real world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you want tests, then there`s to G-2`s in the TSAGI book. It shows 665 km/h at 1.42ata, at 7000m. It`s a real life test, isn`t it? Please comment on that. Still I can only see you want to neglect all other tests/results, and accept only the finnish one.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
just look at this test-table from the zagibook. all these are testdata especially 190d9 which is flown by german pilots for soviets. i'm sure you won't accept these russian datas. but 109g2 is okay?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are also german pilot accounts which clearly state the D-9 could reach 600+ km/h near SL with all the boost. If the plane could reach it in one test, then the same plane in other test that couldn`t had some kind of flaw, was in poor condition etc. It`s pure formal logic. BTW, I accept any data that is well founded, I don`t need to hear your baseless accusations that are to make up for the lack of quality argumentums on your part.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

S77th-brooks
03-29-2004, 12:02 PM
central and eastran med had 260 bf109g4 ,s III/JG26 AND 5/JG26 were equipped with bf109g-3 and G4 FIGHTERS in the defence of germany

Kurfurst__
03-29-2004, 12:13 PM
I can find 26 Bf 109G-2s with III/JG 77 alone even in November 1943. I didnt look all the JGs, but there definitely a significant percantage around in 1943.

In fact I maneged to find 6 still in service with 1st line units even as late as 1944 December. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

For a complete picture, it would require a lot of work...

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

S77th-brooks
03-29-2004, 12:16 PM
in med III AND IV/JG 27 were reinforced with 110 fighters primarily with bf109 G5,S / this just quick look before work

dahdah
03-29-2004, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Keep in mind that the further you move north, the thinner the atmosphere layer is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How much thinner would the atmosphere be at 7000m, 900km further north?

PzKpfw
03-29-2004, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Yes that`s correct. Now, give me a real reason why should not German planes run on 1941/42 boost in 1942/43, when Allied/Soviet planes are all modelled to use their maximum boost for the given year...?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm not arguing against them haveing their boost etc. Ie, in your original from the Lw Experten boards data posts:

The DB 601E used in the 109F-4 was intitially limited to 1.3ata, 2500 RPM, for 1200 HP at SL in 1941.b According to Butch2k, this limit was raised in early 1942, during January or February. The full boost of 1.42ata, 2700 RPM, for 1350 HP, was used from onwards. See speed data change for given boosts below.


Ie, The original post from sagitario, off the Experten board reads:


Messerschmitt sheet IV/56/42 dated 1.7.42 shows the following performance (calculated):

Bf 109 F-4 (DB 601 E)
- Take-off weight: 2900 kg
- Max horizontal speed (clim & combat power):
523 km/h @ 0 m (1165 PS)
572 km/h @ 2000 m (1250 PS)
611 km/h @ 4000 m (1250 PS)
635 km/h @ 6000 m (1185 PS) (VDH)
626 km/h @ 8000 m (940 PS)
- Climb times:
0'9 min @ 1 km
1'8 min @ 2 km
3'7 min @ 4 km
6'1 min @ 6 km
9'3 min @ 8 km

Another Messerschmitt page (curves for various fighters) shows:

Bf 109 F-4 (Take-off weight: 2890 kg)
- Climb & combat:
525 km/h @ 0 m
635 km/h @ 6000 m
- Emergency power:
540 km/h @ 0 m
670 km/h @ 6300 m

Both curves are noted as erflogen (from flight tests).

Yet another one , this time a comparison between Fw 190 (BMW 801C) and Bf 109 F-4 at Rechlin (Kurvenblatt v. E'Stelle Rechlin v. 15.10.41):

- Take-off weight: 2890 kg
- 525 km/h @ 0 m and ~645 km/h @ 6200 m (combat power)
- 540 Km/h @ 0 m and ~670 km/h @ 6300 m (emergency power).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

So the agenda is the Germans to loose their tactical edge by not giving them their historical boost rates for 1942 and 1943 ?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said their was an agenda?, If they historicly had it then I believe it should be represented Ie, Butch stated also on the LW Experten board in reply to Irmur I believe:

Unfortunately this is not that simple since the F-4/R1 manual indicate that the Start u. Notleistung was restricted to 1200PS@2500rpm@1.30ata.

This manual was produced late 1941, so it was not cleared at that time. As far as i can tell the february 42 manual was produced to indicate the change in allowed engine settings, so the engine was probably not cleared until January 42. I suspect the boost was unavailable for August 1941 (there was a manual produced at that time IIRC) and January 1942.


I assume Oleg will want the actual date for the F-4/G2 boost increase. I'm sure if you present this to Oleg he will respond.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

BTW, why do you hate Patton, John ? That qoute in your sig is really damaging to him. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Who said I hate Patton?, it could only be 'damaging' if you dont understand the quotes context. And why the name change from Isegrem to Kurfurst?.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Mon March 29 2004 at 08:49 PM.]

Skalgrim
03-30-2004, 05:34 AM
http://www.ww2.dk/

a5 has too fly autumn 44, that means too with 1,65ata (2050ps)

1,65ata was release juni 44

willaume has say experten forum, a5 fly 595km/h with 1,65ata and can use this boost 10min

a5 with this 1,65 ata certain very good fighter,

has same powerloading like dora and therefore similar initialclimb, accelerate, zoomclimb,

but better maneuver, because better wingloading and much better firepower and she is more toughly, because radial engine


think, with 1,65ata would she the best 190 under 6000m

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Tue March 30 2004 at 04:55 AM.]

Ring-
03-30-2004, 07:00 PM
weeeeee..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
these are mine BTW...


http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/info/planes/109f4-test%20007.jpg

http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/info/planes/109f4-test%20008.jpg

http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/info/planes/109f4-test%20009.jpg

http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/info/planes/109f4-test%20010.jpg


http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/info/planes/190-109.jpg

butch2k
03-30-2004, 10:45 PM
Ring, it looks like we have the same provider http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Btw i have a few more covering F-4/Z.

Ring-
03-31-2004, 12:56 AM
this all my F4 stuff butch.. if you or anyone else have more that could add to my colection please send me copys http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/109f/109f.html
for some reason the link is not working right now.. but check back in a few hours..
http://prodocs.netfirms.com/

fw190@cox.net

Bremspropeller
03-31-2004, 04:21 AM
Wasnt the G-4 a G-2 with a different radio while the G-5 was a G-6 with a pressurized cabin ?

If that was the case I don't see any reason for getting them in sinche you don't figure out the different radio or the pressurized cabin...

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

JG53Frankyboy
03-31-2004, 04:37 AM
yep, the G2 and the G4 would have a very very similar shape. the G4 would just have the little bulges that the G6early has too on its wings, because it introduced bigger tires.

weapons the same.

its just that it would be a "solution" to run the G2 with a derated DB605 at 1.3ata max and the G4 with the DB605 with 1.42ata max.
but, i think personnaly it isnt worth the work. there are much more proplems in the game

Kurfurst__
03-31-2004, 11:30 AM
Very good documents, Rign, thanks for posting them here ! It reveals a lot of information...

Edit: I looked at it more closely, it appears that probably this doc is the cause for confusion in English literatur for F-4 speed. There`s a line for Range at high speed cruise, which would list cruise speed in km/h (that was left blank), and the possible range in km, which is filled as 628 km (and not km/h!).

Perhaps its there from where the "630 km/h" figure originiates..

Frankboy, note that perhaps the greatest aerodynamic difference between G-2 and G-4 was the latter`s non-retractable tailwheel (tailwheel also increased in size on G-4, and wheel bay was too small to retract it). This amounted for about -12 km/h speed loss..

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

[This message was edited by Kurfurst__ on Wed March 31 2004 at 11:48 AM.]

wastel
03-31-2004, 12:03 PM
hi ring, hi butch....
for me these docs are new :-)

thx ring

laters buddys

wastel

Ugly_Kid
03-31-2004, 10:46 PM
What would be cooler is F and G-models with GM-1 and most of all guns and the bombs and the fuel on F and lots of other missing stuff Wfr Gr 21 etc.

S77th-brooks
04-01-2004, 10:34 PM
bump http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

Skalgrim
04-02-2004, 01:32 PM
what is with k4,

retractable tailwheel, aerodynamic improvement and 200ps more power as g6/as, but same speed selaevel?

russia test get she 610km/h sealevel

than would she more differ from g6/as or g10,

not only by climb

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Fri April 02 2004 at 12:45 PM.]

jagdmailer
04-02-2004, 02:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:
what is with k4,

retractable tailwheel, aerodynamic improvement and 200ps more power as g6/as, but same speed selaevel?

russia test get she 610km/h sealevel

than would she more differ from g6/as or g10,

not only by climb

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Fri April 02 2004 at 12:45 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg probably modelled the K-4 with a DB605DB @1800-1850hp take-off.

We should really get a K-4 with DB605DC or DB605ASC @2000hp take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude......please http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

While we are at it, give me a Bf 109G-14/ASC & Bf 109G-10/DC as well as those were indeed available, although late in the war.

Thanks,

JagdMailer

jagdmailer
04-05-2004, 08:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:
what is with k4,

retractable tailwheel, aerodynamic improvement and 200ps more power as g6/as, but same speed selaevel?

russia test get she 610km/h sealevel

than would she more differ from g6/as or g10,

not only by climb

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Fri April 02 2004 at 12:45 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg probably modelled the K-4 with a DB605DB @1800-1850hp take-off.

We should really get a K-4 with DB605DC or DB605ASC @2000hp take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude......please http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

While we are at it, give me a Bf 109G-14/ASC & Bf 109G-10/DC as well as those were indeed available, although late in the war.

Thanks,

JagdMailer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BUMP!

Jagd

FW190fan
04-05-2004, 08:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:
what is with k4,


russia test get she 610km/h sealevel

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, that's nearly 380mph at sea level. I wasn't aware of this test.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

PzKpfw
04-05-2004, 10:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:

Wow, that's nearly 380mph at sea level. I wasn't aware of this test.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ya that would put the P-63A & K @ about the same speed SL.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Kurfurst__
04-06-2004, 07:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:

Ya that would put the P-63A & K @ about the same speed SL.

Regards, John Waters
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Soviet testing of P-63A-10 shows about 520 km/h, or about 323 mph at SL.

I have never seen a source that would put the P-63A/C at 380 mph at SL - expect for an unlabeled source in AHT, that doesn`t show engine power at all, and doesn`t agrees with anything else.

Knowing WHO modelled the P-63, and his usual attitude, I have little doubt that the P-63`s in-game level speeds is a result of tons of whinging emails containing hyperinflated data.


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg

Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us.
And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below :
For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.

PzKpfw
04-06-2004, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Soviet testing of P-63A-10 shows about 520 km/h, or about 323 mph at SL.

I have never seen a source that would put the P-63A/C at 380 mph at SL - expect for an unlabeled source in AHT, that doesn`t show engine power at all, and doesn`t agrees with anything else.

Knowing WHO modelled the P-63, and his usual attitude, I have little doubt that the P-63`s in-game level speeds is a result of tons of whinging emails containing hyperinflated data.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have seen the chart you posted for the A-10 Ise, and have no doubt the A-10 was slower then previous versions as weight increased due to adding more armour & bulletproof glass as I previously described in the P-63C speed thread. As to speeds, AHTs lists the P-63A as 375mph @ SL using WI @ 1825HP.

As to where the data is from, it originated from the trials from Army Air Forces Proof Dept. Englin-Feild Fla. Final Report on the P-63A as well as from Bell docs. If you owned AHT you would know, where the data originated from, refrences used in AHT are well noted in the bibliogrephy at the end of each chapter.

AHT is the most comprehenseive work on US production fighters to date, as is clearly evident from the first page, and the benchmark other works will have to attain.

As to what or how Oleg how modeled the P-63 only he would know, tons of copius whineing has never effected him in the past.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Tue April 06 2004 at 07:47 AM.]

Cokol_88IAP
04-06-2004, 03:45 PM
Are you sure, planes with these performance data saw combat action?

There are always anouncements from Mtt AG claiming superiour data for their planes F.e. 730 Kph for G-series.

In spring 43 there was a secret conference with the RLM Milch: Only topic was the poor Reliability of the DB-605.

It was said, we sent Junkers enginieers to DB ift they dont fix ist.

Pls. post a source that DB-601 E saw cobat with 1,42ATA and 2700 revs.

Same for DB 605 planes. In Datasheets from autum 43 "Notleistung" was mentioned, but fins never used it, because of engine reliability.

For those who like "Sondernotleistung": Engine had to be changed after usage on Fw-190.

What I want to say: They were really close to the limit and I doubt these superiour performance data could be seen in combat service.

[This message was edited by Cokol_88IAP on Tue April 06 2004 at 03:14 PM.]

Ring-
04-06-2004, 04:16 PM
http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/109f/109f.html

there.. redid the 109 F page..

jagdmailer
04-07-2004, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ring-:
http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/109f/109f.html

there.. redid the 109 F page..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ring, Thanks for the great post.

JagdMailer

Cokol_88IAP
04-08-2004, 07:51 AM
13.08.1943

GFM MilCH:...." I hardly come to sleep, because I am thinking what a mess the DB 605 is."

Topic was: engine failures of DB-605

Does not sound like they're happy with this engine. Therefore "Notleistung" was forbidden.

Kurfurst__
04-08-2004, 09:34 AM
double

Kurfurst__
04-08-2004, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cokol_88IAP:
13.08.1943
GFM MilCH:...." I hardly come to sleep, because I am thinking what a mess the DB 605 is."
Topic was: engine failures of DB-605

Does not sound like they're happy with this engine. Therefore "Notleistung" was forbidden.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry Cokol. Notlesitung was just cleared, not forbidden in Summer 1943. Wheter Milch could have a sleer or not (I would like the source BTW), wheter you accept it or not, Notlesitung of 1,42ata was cleared for the DB 601E in Early 1942, and Notleistung and 1,42ata was cleared for the DB 605A-1 in early June 1943, by Daimler-Benz Technical directive. Its a throughly documented fact, and you could show nothing that would prove otherwise. DB 605A raised boost to 1,7ata in early 1944. By late1944/45, boost of DB 605 engines was raised up 1,98ata, and it was planned to introduce2,1, then 2,3ata in service. By then, boost up to 1,45ata were allowed for 30 min periods...

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/dasboot.jpg
Final shot. Prepeare to fire! Target speed: 0. "Check" Range, 650 meters. "Check" Depth: 4 meters. Torpedo speed: three-zero. Aiming point..forward of after mast.
Tube I., ready? "Tube I. ready!" Tube I....! "Tube I." Fire! "Fire. Torpedo running!"


Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us. And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below : For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.

butch2k
04-08-2004, 10:42 AM
1.98 boost was not cleared until March as per official DB documents covering the operational status of the DB605DB and DB605DC engines.

jagdmailer
04-08-2004, 11:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
1.98 boost was not cleared until March as per official DB documents covering the operational status of the DB605DB and DB605DC engines.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Butch,

What about date of first appearance in operations or date of first operational availability for Bf 109G-6/U2 with GM-1 and then date of operational availability of Bf 109G-6/U2 field converted to MW-50 use ?

Thanks

JagdMailer

butch2k
04-08-2004, 11:45 AM
I have to look up this within my archive but i'm packing up because i'm moving within the next few months. IIRC the first 250 conversion kits were ordered in april 44 but i might be wrong since i don't have the docs unders my eyes.