Hummingbird

Well for starters SL top speed for the K4 with MW50 @ 1.8ata is 595 km/h: http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026-27_DBSonder_MW_geschw.jpg You accidently used the K6 figure. Also top speed is ~713 km/h @ 7.2 km, not 718 km/h. As for the G6/AS performance, consider that the series production G14 was test flown to 568 km/h @ SL w/ MW30 @ 1.7ata in May 1944. So what do you think a G6/AS with a lower drag cowling & running with MW50 would do?

I'm not sure what it is you're seeking then. Can we agree that K-4 performance with MW50 is a lot closer to G6/AS & G14 performance than G6 performance without MW50?

The data is right there on the document Krupi provided = 685 km/h at 7km

The document Krupi found is related to G14/AS (G14 with AS engine) performance at 1.7ata, as noted on the document. G6/AS performance with MW50 at 1.8 ata would be better at SL for two reasons, one being the slightly higher power @ 1.8ata and two being the lower drag engine cowling. High altitude performance of the G14/AS is better than that of the G6/AS though, by about 10 km/h (685 vs 675 km/h). This is attributed to the bigger paddle prop on the G14/AS.

Yes, SL stands for sea level. The G6/AS would have similar performance to the G14, there being little external difference between the two other than the larger high alt supercharger on the G6/AS. As for sources, what do you need sources on? Introduction date? Performance? Performance is based on the G14, albeit with 50 extra PS. As for introduction date, it's written all over the net. G6/AS "Green 13" shot down on May 11th 1944:

G6/AS came equipped with MW50 as of april/may 44, which allowed running at 1.8ata.

I think it's been established pretty clearly that a K-4 w/ MW50 is a lot closer in performance to a G6/AS or G14, than one without: G-14 top SL speed @ 1.7ata = 575 km/h G6/AS top SL speed @ 1.8ata = 580 km/h G-10 stop SL speed @ 1.8ata = 585 km/h K-4 top SL speed @ 1.8ata = 595 km/h (608 km/h @ 1.98ata) K-4 top SL speed without MW50 @ 1.42ata = 530 km/h Climb rates: G-14 @ 1.7ata = ~4,800 ft/min (4,330 ft/min w/ gondola, i.e. +350 kg) G6/AS @ 1,8ata = ~4,800 ft/min G-10 @ 1.8ata = ~4,800 ft/min K-4 @ 1.8ata = 4,430 ft/min (~5,000 f/min @ 1.98ata) K-4 without MW50 @ 1.42 ata = 3,248 ft/min

Actually looking more closely at the test flight paper and noting that 1. It was at a lower power setting using MW30 instead of MW50, and 2. 550-557 km/h was calculated with gondolas which were said to only decrease speed by 8-10 km/h; I''d now tend to agree with Kurfurst that the 568 km/h must have been without a 300 L tank and just the mounting (eventhough a 300 L tank is listed on the paper), but as noted at a lower power setting than usual. In short actual test flown performance appears to have been 3 km/h better than expected/calculated for MW50 when using MW30, and thus probably ~10-15 km/h better with MW50 (100 extra PS). MW50 performance should be ~575-580 km/h @ SL clean. This seems inline with the usual trend of the performance calcs being conservative by about 3%, which was the same story for climb rate (109G calc = thick line vs test flown = thin line):

Which? Kurfurst statement or the 300 L tank?

No, HE (Kurfurst) states it 'seems' to be for a clean aircraft. But the paper clearly lists a 300 L drop tank.

One is indeed without gondolas but with a 300 L drop tank, as listed, whilst the other is with gondolas only, no drop tank. That said the 300 L drop tank is the more draggy of the two, so test flown performance seems to have substantially superceded expectation here. 557 km/h SL w/ gondolas calculated vs 568 km/h w/ drop tank test flown.

But the Mk.IX is not the only plane in the Allied arsenal ;)

He was asking about the G6, which had a top speed of around 659 km/h at altitude, clean. The top speed with a 300 L drop tank was listed as 645 km/h. The G14 with the ASM engined reached 550 km/h @ SL & 668 km/h @ FTH with gondolas (3598 kg), which when clean @ ~3250 kg translates to about 570-575 km/h @ SL and ~675-680 km/h @ FTH.

That would be the G6/AS. As for G6/AS performance, it would be around the same as that of the G14, i.e. ~580 km/h @ SL, and ~680 km/h @ FTH.

Well considering its the fourth time it's surprising you didn't notice you wrote "109-G6", i.e. no MW50, and not G14.

From actual test flights...

No, as you can see with the G14 it's the other way round, the calculated performance is usually (and necessarily) conservative, ending up below actual test flown results. Calculated: Test flown (Erflogene werte):

So you're going to ignore the fact that 109's with MW50 equipped were fighting over Normandy? As already stated the G6/AS had been flying around with it since before the invasion, and the G14 arrived in numbers with it as std. in July 44 (the first operational ones flew in June).

You do realize these are calculated performance with gondolas and a 300 L drop tank right? Hence the 3598 kg weight. Actual test flown G14 performance (May 1944) under same conditions (gondolas + 300 L drop tank): Also the K4 figures are calculated with the experimental Dünnblatt meant for better high alt performance at the cost of lower alt performance & climb rate.

Only if you're being daft on purpose.. How else is pitting an aircraft with a 720 km/h top speed, 4700 ft/min climb rate and superior turning capability against one that can do ~650 km/h and ~3600 ft/min anywhere close? Atleast the Spitfire Mk.IX can outmaneuver everything, and out climb or climb with most, the K4 being the exception.

Nope, I'd be happily flying the Mk.XIV which I don't understand why isn't already here. That said your analogy is pretty extreme as a 109K4/190D9/190A8 vs P51D/P47D/Spit IX setup is nowhere near as extreme as a Spit Mk.XIV vs 109G6 one.

It's the same explanation given everytime anyone asks why there's no MW50 availabe on the SoW server: "Because the 109 didn't have MW50 over Normandy" and "the Dora 9 wasn't even there" The first excuse is false as the G6/AS had been running with MW50 since May/April 44, and the G14 came with it Std. as of July 44 (ready since June), where fighting was still taking place over Normandy. 2nd excuse is moot as no D9 flew over Normandy, and none ever without either MW50 or Erh.Notleistung. So why even leave it in? Is it because then you have more neutered targets to shoot at ? ;) But hey, it's your server so you're free to do with it as you please, as I am free to call something for what it is when I see it. In short I'm not saying you should change it, I'm just saying that if your reasoning for leaving out MW50 is to maintain realism then it is deeply flawed.

Didn't say they did. Im just saying their excuse of wanting realism is just that, an excuse, and a poor one at that. If your feelers can't take that, well too bad.

Just tested it, and indeed the Dora seems to have lost some speed for some reason. Used to be able to hit 326 KTAS @ SL, but now it won't budge past 315 KTAS, so that's 11 knots lost for some reason. Should be able to hit 330 kts (612 km/h):

Well if the wish is historical accuracy then the next problem is that removing MW50 puts the 109 at a disadvantage it never had, as the K-4 is heavier than both a G6 or G14, something MW50 compensated for. Furthermore MW50 came as std. on the G14 which flew over Normandy in July. Hence it seems very silly to remove MW50 from the 109, and considering the D9 wasn't even available at Normady it makes no sense to strip it of MW50 and yet leave the airplane in either. In other words wanting "realism" is a poor excuse IMO, and it's more likely that the goal with the server was just to create an Allied pilots wet dream.