Kurfürst

Not at all a mistake. The G-14, compared to our lowered powered DCS K-4 module would be indeed VERY competitive, if not outright superirior in many ways, provided the engagement stays at low and medium altitudes. Just because the K-4 is later, its not automatically better in every way, far from it. Not wishing to derailing the thread, and as I find this question commonly re-occuring, I have dedicated some time and effort to clear up the issue for good. See my finding here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2894732&posted=1#post2894732

The following figures were obtained and overlayed based on the following historical and reliable sources. The following is of course not an absolute take on the performance of the aircraft, but merely a very rough guide and 'simple enough for the purpose' that is still just sufficiently accurate enough within well acceptable margins of error to make valid conclusions on relative performance characteristics. 1a) LEVEL SPEED Flight test of G-14 http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_May44trials/109G14_GLCE-may44_trials.html + 1b) a very similiar of flight test result found in GLC-E datasheets, this latter is just for control purposes (GLC yielded somewhat higher results, but the spread is small) 2) LEVEL SPEED Flight test of G-6/ASM (equivalent to G-14/ASM) http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_DB-G6AS_wMW/DB_109G6_ASM.html 3) Calculated CLIMB figures for G-14/U4 and G-14/AS/U4, both with gondola cannons. http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_PBLeistungen/Leistungen_g14u4_am-asm.html 4) Calculated CLIMB AND LEVEL SPEED figures for K-4 (and K-4 with triple MK 108s, with various propellers). http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/Leist_109K_EN.html Note the K-4 graphs themselves show several layouts, as they were originally prepared to display to performance gains with projected improvements with a new 3 bladed VDM 12 199 propeller that featured thinner propeller blades and is stated to have brought improvements in speed with altitude . Luckily enough, the creators of the chart, Messerschmitt's engineers included the existig performance of the serial production, clean K-4 that is in all respect identical to our DCS K-4 module, as a reference, which has been outlined with red for easier identification. As there are only a few reliable sources showing MW 50 boosted speed performance, and virtually none for climb performance (at least in clean configuration), the display of speed comparison was comparatively easy and required only to overlay the G-14 figures on the K-4 graphs. The 2) G-6(14)/ASM flight figures show the effect of the hydraulic coupling on the speed, which is essentially a very mild depression of the curve where the hydraulic clutch greadually engages the supercharger drive as altitude increases, following closely this typical characteristic of the DB 605 series power curves, see http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/powercurves/DB605A_powercurve.jpg As opposed to 2), the 1) G-14 curves obviously lacks this "hydraulic curvature" which point to that those latter tests were most likely done in two seperate runs, with fixed supercharger gear ratios, presumably to eliminate measurement errors due to varying clutch slippage and supercharger speeds. This results in "seesaw" speed curves between, whereas the real speed curve is more akin to mildl depression seen on the 2) source. Since the 4) K-4 calculations simplify this hydraulic clutch induced curvature with a straight curve between the 1st and 2nd supercharger (presumably taking middle values), it made sense to simplify the mid-altitude curves along the same lines as the K-4 and many other graphs. While its not 100% precise, its very much a middle value in practice between very slightly higher and lower figures and to the same display standards as K-4 results. Top speeds and SL and at rated altitude and above are of course not effected. As can be seen, the speed figures are not very different, at higher the (lighter) G-14/AS is only a hairsplit slower than the reference K-4 , at lower altitudes the difference is about cc 20 km/h. It should be noted that our DCS K-4 module is somewhat slower (ca 580-585 kph ) at low altitudes, by about 10 km/h than the reference K-4 figures (595 kph)in source 4, so compared to the DCS module the difference is even smaller. The G-14 speed figures show that at low altitude, there is little to choose between the G-14 and the G-14/AS, even though the G-14 is even a bit faster than the /AS variant and thus even closer to the K-4 - at least up to 5000 meter altitude or so, which is OTOH corresponds quite closely to the typical DCS engagement altitudes. As far as the level speed comparison goes, there is nothing really surprising. The K-4 is faster, but not by much, in practical dogfighting terms, the difference of 10-20 km/h at low to medium altitudes is negligible, as it can be only obtained by short diving or several minutes of perfectly level, straight flying. As the power outputs near the ground are virtually identical (1850 PS on the ground on the K-4 vs 1800-1800 PS on the G-14 and G-14/AS), the difference is entirely down to the better parasitic drag of the K-4, that is due to two factors: it has a retractable tailwheel, which comes with a -17 km/h drag penantly otherwise, and fully covered main and tail wheel well dors (+10 km/h according to the drag table of found in an early 1944 Messerschmitt compilation report: http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_Leistungzusammenstellung/Leistungzusammenstellung109G.html#dragitems_table ). The G-14, despite having the worst parasitic drag figure since it has the old fashioned large bumps or "Beulen" for the 13 mm HMGs (-9 km/h compared to the early engine cover of 109F or G-2/G-4) as opposed to more streamlined engine cover of the K-4 and G-14/AS (-3 km/h), is still respectable faster and beats the equally powered G-14/AS by about 7 km/h at SL. This is almost certainly entirely due to the better propeller efficency of the older VDM 12 087 propellor on the G-14 as compared to the broader bladed VDM 12 159 propeller of the G-14/AS and K-4, that was optimized first and foremost for high altitude operations. Continued with Climb analysis....

Now, in order the understand the difference in performance, some basic factors need to be taken into account. Firstly, the G-14 was considerably lighter than the K-4. To get some idea for standard, fully loaded take off weights were as follows: G-14 (MG 151 motor cannon) : 3280 kg G-14/U4 (MK 108) : 3318 kg G-14/ASM: 3272 kg K-4: 3362 kg So as you can see, there is a hefty 50-80 kg weight difference between the G-14 and K-4, or roughly the equivalent of 25% of its fuel load. This also means the G-14 needs less lift to stay in the air, and being quite a bit lighter, it could fly with less incidence than the K-4 (as it needed less lift to maintain altitude) in normal level flight. Since ultimately flying incidence is major factor in induced drag,it means that at all speed induced drag component was thus lower. Its parasitic drag was higher of course, since it was less streamlined than the K-4, but since induced drag dominates the lower speed total drag, under certain conditions (i.e. climbing, accelerating from lower speeds, turning) its drag was actually lower than the K's. Moreover unlike the K-4, it isn't burdened with very wide blade, high altitude optimized propellers as it still has the old VDM 12087 prop that is better for low altitudes and especially for climb. Their engine power outputs are virtually identical (1800 vs 1850 PS), but the G-14 prop makes better use of it at lower altitudes - this is very evident from performance graphs of G-14s vs G-14/AS at equal power, in which the cleaner G-14/AS is slower and climbs considerably worse. In short, at lower speed up to somewhere in the mid-range of the speed, it has lower drag than the K-4, more thrust, in short, better excess thrust. Excess thrust is what ultimately decides which plane accelerates faster or climbs better: the one that has more. It also has equal power to weight ratio (1850 PS 3.362 ton = 550 PS/t vs 1800 PS / 3.28 t = 549 PS/t). In the following, using real life and calculated performance figures from Messerschmitt, I will demonstrate what to expect of the relative speed and climb performance of the G-14, G-14/AS and K-4.

Hi, In many discussions on the subject, it often comes up that it would have been a better choice to model some Gustav model of the 109, for example the G-14 that was produced in large numbers during 1944/45. It is not difficult to sense the underlying wish that perhaps, if the 'correct' choice have had been made, the online dogfights would be perhaps easier against the 'lower numbered and lettered' G-14 than the supposedly 'ultimate' 109K. We will see! Historically, there is some truth to the matter. The G-14 effectively replacing the G-6 on the production lines in July 1944, with the G-14/AS following closely in August, just before the K-4 and G-10 enters production. The first examples were quicky seen over Normandy, and were soon inspected by Allied investigators. Therefore, historically its obviously a valid choice. Both G-14s were essentially stopgaps, since K-4 airframe production also started in August 1944, but the factory producing its 605D series engines was bombed and there were delays in delivery of the proper engines. Now, for the argument's sake, lets forget about the fact that what we have as a P-51D module in DCS mostly resembles a late D-25/30 block that appeared late 1944/early 1945, and had many improvements over those earlier "Normandy" blocks, including fillets and metal covered control surfaces that stop it purpoising at high speed dives as opposed, a gyro gunsight that makes deflection shots child play etc., and lets play a bit with the idea if we would have a "proper" G-14 or G-14/ASM, fitting for the mid-1944 period. Surely its an easier opponent in air combat than our early DCS K-4 module! Or is it. Let's see how a G-14 would compare to our K-4 in terms of raw performance. Let's get some of the basic facts right for a start. What's a G-14 anyways? Most importantly from the performance POV, it has the MW 50 boost was now installed as standard, that boosted the 1475 PS output, obtained with 1.42ata boost of the DB 605A common in all the previous G-series to 1800 PS at 1.7ata manifold pressure, with the engine re-designated as DB605G (earliest designation), and later DB 605A/m or AM, the M obviously standing for methanol injection. This was a medium altitude fighter, with engine power falling off above 4000 meter back to methanol-less G-6 levels. MW 50 boost was nothing new however, it was installed in aircraft from the spring of 1944, and in May alone 250 MW 50 retrofitting sets were ordered to convert existing G-6s for methanol boost. G-14 only entered production July 1944. Quite simply to put, its just a rebranded late production G-6, nothing more. German datasheets from the period simply state for the G-14: "as G-6, but methanol boost is driven by supercharger air". Because frankly, the only difference between late G-6s with MW retrofit and G-14s was that the G-6 retrofits had separate pressurized air bottles installed to push the contents of the MW 50 tank into the supercharger inlet, while the G-14 did not carry such pressure bottles and simply tapped the supercharger for air pressure. The /AS designated types were optimized for higher altitudes and had the DB 605ASM (GS, AS/m = A series engine block, Sonder or 'special' variant, Methanol boost), that was essentially the same 605A block, but its old supercharger was replaced by the larger capcity supercharger of the DB 603G. Basically that meant more power taken away from the engine at low altitudes, but the boost could be maintained up to 8 km, practicaly double the 605AM - useful, because USAAF bombers and escorts usually operated at this altitude. The other main difference between the AM and ASM powered variants was the propeller. The AS ones (as well as the G-10 and the K-4) got a broader bladed VDM 12 159 propeller, that gripped the thinner air better and was more effective, but the broader blades also meant larger drag and less low altitude efficeny, meaning that low altitude performance of the AS models was somewhat inferior to the AM models. One of the earliest units I know of that received methanol boosted 109Gs was Günther Specht's JG 11, here photographed on April 8th, 1944. From the photo it is visible that the plane has the rounded engine cover that gives away the AS engine and red painted legs that signified to crew to fill the plane with methanol too. Heinz Knoke flew with this unit, and at around the same time in April 1944 he noted too in his diary that they got new planes, with 'new' supercharger and 'methane' boost, and was quite impressed by it. So, in brief you had around some modified 109Gs flying with both methanol boost since April 1944, some months before the P-51D appeared. ;) And as can be seen, their performance was not too dissimilar from our K-4: http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_DB-G6AS_wMW/109G_605ASMW50.jpg That's partly because our DCS K-4 module is from the early blocks, it has a redeveloped DB 605DB series engine with 1850 PS output at 1.8ata boost (with MW 50), but basically that engine's output was virtually identical to those DB 605ASM engines that appeared from the spring of 1944, since we do not have the higher powered "boosted" 1.98ata setting of the 605D in DCS. So for this reason, our DCS K-4s engine power is virtually identical to Specht's ride in April 1944. The only major difference to Specht early G-5/ASM aircraft is that somewhat its more streamlined with fully retractable and covered landing gear (which chops off about 20-25 km/h from drag), and the MK 108 cannon (which, however, was also present on the G series under the /U4 variants) and that's its quite a bit heavier than the G series, mostly due to the MK 108. Cont'd...

Every 109 with a central 151, be it /15 or /20 had 200 round capacity for the ammo, no exceptions. That being said, armorers sometimes loaded less (130-150/170, depending on individual taste) as a practice to reduce belt tension and possible feeding failures. Its not a particular German thing, British armorers did the same and often loaded just 90 rounds into the nominally 120 round Hispano belts on the Spitfire. And the practice still continues today, its quite usal for example for modern assault rifles to load a couple of rounds less, ie. 28 instead of the 30 allowed by the magazine.

FYI RR's way of giving the expected Service life of an engine was assumung that only 1/3 of the engines would actually meet it. That is, it was highly optimistic compared to the actual results. None of this matter though as engines do not fail if they are operated within their specs limits, even at maximum power they can reliably run for hours and hours. Your engines fail simply because you are operating them well outside their limits. That being said, reading German assesment on allied engine reliability and rating gives you very clear view who pushed a very old engine block well past its thermal limits..

Well then stop talking nonsense about 'other' aircraft, which you started, thank you very much.

You can tell that unsubstantiated propaganda piece as many times as you want, and I will always correct it every time you repeat it. Both D-9s and K-4s were common in 1944 and in fact, the P-51D25 we have in DCS (with the aerodynamic fixes that prevent it from falling apart in dives and the K-14 gyrosight and tail-warning radar) come at the same time as them or even later.

Solty repeats this propaganda piece regardless how many times we correct him, and although at first I believed its simply a case of being misinformed himself, now I am quite convinced that it is rather the case of intentially repeating the same old lies over and over again until they stuck in the heads. Its a fantasy world where the P-51D becomes the practically only USAAF fighter worths mentioning in the very month the first few dozen flew their first sorties, while evil Nazi aircraft produced in the thousands are 'barely noticable'. :D Because, you know, P-51s were common in the first half of 1944. Kinda. Somewhat. Oooops, not. P-38s and 47s were. Let me give an example. Indeed, it was built, that's technically true. In the entire 1945 period, Messerschmitt in Regensburg built ten (10) of them, WNF in Vianna built two (2) methanol boosted recce versions, while ERLA produced 64, presumably for training purposes only. That's out of the 2800 other 109s they produced in the same period. Out of the 16506 109s produced in 1944/45, only about a third, 6165 were G-6s and their production - and most of them were quickly upgraded to G-14 standard (=merely fitting of MW booster tank) from the spring of 1944 anyways, which was probably the hottest 109 below 4000 m until 1945.

Stand beside a 109 and 'small' gets relative very quickly. ;) From the human perspective, its a huge machine.

Paper faster (top speed) is not the same as real life faster, aka when factoring things like acceleration and the time required to actually achieve paper speed. Thing is, the Mustang is a slippery plane that is somewhat underpowered for its weight. It can be fast but it takes it a while to achieve that top speed. Too long time to be a practical advantage, and then again even the speed advantage is not much, cc 30 km/h is not a big deal. Unless you want to talk about things like the Runstang keeping running away from disadvantage for 10 minutes, after somehow surviving loooong minutes while still being in firing range and then trying to come back, at which point at best you can achieve a head on. And in any case, the P-51D is already most optimistically modelled for 67". So much so that its practically 72". As for the G-14, you probably have it worse, seeing that most fights are on the deck. Compared to our K-4, its just a lighter, better turning, better climbing and more explosive little brother with a long range 20 mm, and its like just 15 km/h slower, which it probably more than makes up in acceleration.

The 21 cm rockets were originally a field rocket artillery piece (for the 21 cm, 5 tube Nebelwerfer), it was a second thought to use them on aircraft in 1943 as a stand-off weapon against US heavy bomber formations, equipped with a timed fuse in that utility. Its a pretty serious piece, if you glance at the picture, it carried cc. 40 kg warhead a 10 kg explosive charge. In any case, the 109K is sorely missing its loadout. What's it now, a droptank or a 250 kg bomb? That's a serious let off. The real thing was sanctioned to carry 250 kg or 500 kg bombs of - SC series fragmentation type - SD series SAP (D= thick walled) - AB series Cluster bombs, load with either - -- SD 2 "Butterly" fragmentation SD 2 bomblets or -- SD 4 HL HEAT AT bomblets -- a great variation of other cluster bomblet mixes existed but these two were the most important -21 cm WGr 21 rockets (early versions only but that's what we have) -2 cm MG 151/20 gondola cannon Now the 2cm gunpods and the 21 cm rockets were rarely carried, because they fell out of preference by late 1944 because of Allied escorts, but the bombs were carried fairly often, i.e. against advancing US troops in Bavaria. Its really a let down that the module does not support but a fraction of the possible loadouts, especially as the bombs for example are re-usable also for 190/262 too. So the only loadout that is 109K specific is the gundpods and the WGr 21 launchers.

For level flight drag, its K-4, D-9 and the IX, with the D-9 and K-4 probably being fairly close. A simple comparison of level speeds and power required at SL will tell you so. Exact drag would be harder to assume, since there are many unknowns like propeller effiency, exhaust thrust etc. Parasitic drag dominates that scenario. Lower, i.e. climbing speeds might be well different, since its dominated by increased AoA and far larger share induced drag and the IXs large wings help it out plenty in arriving at a relatively good total drag in this scenario (low speed, moderate AoA), even though its parasitic drag is still great. Climb rates here might give you a hint. I'd say that the K-4 or Spit IX will lead the front cluster, and the D-9 somewhat behind.

Yeah I was always curious about the choice of super worn cocpits in WW2 fighter sims. It seems to be the norm, even though these aircraft in reality barely flew more than a couple of dozen hours in wartime before being shot down.

You seem to be more aware of it then I am! I am curious about the source though, since extrenal le it would be tough to identify. IIRC it was an Erla produced 'mutant', but honestly I have never cared to much about oddities, yet strangely this single MG 151 one keeps coming up. K-4 specs were always MK 108 though - K-2 (became the G-10) was to have the MG 151 though.

There was no such thing except for maybe a single oddball. K-4 was MK 108 only.

A-8, well yes, lets see. Number of Fw 190 A-8s / unit with day on 1st June 1944. 2 Stab/JG1 40 I./JG1 40 II./JG1 3 Stab/JG2 2 I./JG2 45 IV./JG3 3 Stab/JG11 19 I./JG11 26 III./JG11 1 Stab/JG26 21 I./JG26 24 II./JG26 19 III./JG54 9 II./JG300 Total: 254 A-8s. 0 D-9s, 0 G-14s of course. Now the amazing part is of course, that the existence of 254 A-8s in June 1944 in Luftwaffe service resulted in countless exhaltations for it to be modelled as the 'proper', mainstay fighter, while apparently the 200-odd K-4s in service in Q4 1944 shows how much a grave error it was to model that plane amongst the other Q4 1944 Allied planes, i.e. Spit IX, P-51D, P-47D. ;)

Is that really so, Milo. I think when you are starting to guess wheter this allagedely operational type even shot down more than one that wasn't even operational yet would mostly settle any questions about the operational 'signficance' of Mark XIV, so how about we adhere Neil's advice of moving from operatally very insignificant planes like the Tempest and XIV to more relevant ones.

Oh, but that's such a primitive lie. Anyone can see they are entirely different reports done on to entirely different aircraft. :D

It would be lovely if someone could just list Spitfire XIV air to air victories against Luftwaffe manned planes between January -september instead of dubious alternate history snippets from long discredited revisonist sites.

... is that there is nothing wrong with the IXs engaging K-4s and D-9s since both types were rather common in later 1944. Getit?

Thing is, the IX was the mainstay aircraft over Normandy AND the Battle of the Bulge as well (at least as far RAF fighters go, forgetting about the USAAF for a second), it happened to have had a rather long service life and met anything from F-4s to K-4s.

Nope, quite simply they weren't. There were tiny little numbers of both types around, around 1/6 that of the IX and Typhoon squadrons in operation. Although proportionally they probably had a larger share of air-to-air action then their numbers suggest, becasue the latter two were increasingly used for ground support, but that was still very smalltime. IIRC the XIVs and Tempest made about 150-150 claims each against Luftwaffe aircraft, in the entire war. Maybe actually shoot down half or perhaps 2/3s of that, given the nature fighter pilot claims. To put that into perspective, in the combat between the USAAF and the Luftwaffe on the 2nd November 1944, on that day alone the LW lost some 130 fighter aircaft. During Bodenplatte they lost some 300 and so on. Compared to what was going on in the skies in 1944 over Western Europe, the combats by Tempest and XIVs was an interesting footnote in that story.

Indeed. The G-something/AS variants, as well as the later G-10 (which had the same 605D as the K) were all rated around 560 km/h at SL and 690 km/h at 7500m with MW boost, or roughly 20 km/h slower than the K, but also about a hundred kg lighter. Here's a trial of a G-6/AS w. MW. http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_DB-G6AS_wMW/DB_109G6_ASM.html The stopgap /AS ones came into being at around March/April 1944 and were continued to be produced till the end of the war parallel to the K because it did not require retooling the airframe plants. A G-14 would be nice, but I am not sure we are getting it.

That one isn't a "source", unfortunately.