How similar is the K4 to the G10 or G14

As far as I am aware the K4 is simply an attempt at standardizing the late war G model production but still retains the same engine and handling characteristics of the G's.

Am I correct in this?

Kinda, some G10's even had the same engine. But overall the K4 has a bit powerful engine, the structure has been strenghtened which lead to weight increase. Another change is that wing's have been slightly improved aerodyamically and vertical stabiliser became wooden and taller, and tailwheel became retractable (again).

The K4 is a beast of an accelerator, is a bit better in a dive while it is worse at turning, particularly low speed turning and it is faster than any other G model.

Not really.

G-10 was considered something like Gmodels parts with K-4 engine, so G-10 and K-4 used same engine (both model were produced in same time, G-10 was in fact slightly later model than K-4). Many G-10 (who knows how many..) were equiped with same tail unit like K-4 but certain number was still with tail from early G-6.

A lot of K-4 were not equiped with retractable tail wheel nor full cover for main L/Gs and they did not differ from G-10. Many G-10 was with the bigest Bfs wheels like K-4 with same bulges on wings.

Several upgraded parts was planed for K-4, like new flaps, ailerons and so on, but none of them were used in production, wings were same for late G-10 and K-4.

The main difference between them was moving radio equipmentone one frame forward.

I would love to see a G-10 and G-14/AS :)

I think it was attempted more than once to unite the production of variants, as there were quite some variables even on the same model of late war 109s, depending on which parts were available to keep producing the planes.

For dogfights I would choose frankenstein G6 latest with most of the neat upgrades and ASM engine. From what I remember, it is pretty much a bit lighter and cleaner G14/AS.

Or the all-rounder G10... K4 is one of the heaviest, if not the heaviest late war 109. But one can't go wrong with either of them.

At the end of the War, they make 109 out of all available parts the K4 in game is more the plan as they should be, because there was so many parts for the G series with erla canopy and tail the k4 should be back to normal standard plane with all good things from the G but this never really happen.

Same for the Dora are pictures known with Ta-152 tail and wooden tail different cockpit layouts so one.

I forget one from the most important things, the weapon.

G-10 carried 20mm cannon, except relatively small production G10/U4 model which had same weapon like K-4, 30mm cannon.

And, I would like to see any earlier Bf model on the DCS World`s sky, mainly G-10 ERLA with different engine cowl and G6 or G14 with AS engine :).

Ya gotta love the late war 109's. It's literally a grab bag of random parts and features.

I was actually curious about its performance in relation to the other G's because the K4 is more of a 1945 aircraft but the sim says it is focusing on 44 so I wanted to know if the Luftwaffe had some goofy advantage over the more common G series 109's by virtue of the K4.

Also I want to know if the Spit mk ix will be a competetive aircraft (It was used up until 1945 so I assume it was competetive or else they would have replaced it.)

Also I want to know if the Spit mk ix will be a competetive aircraft (It was used up until 1945 so I assume it was competetive or else they would have replaced it.)

At low level the Spitfire LF Mk IX with +25lbs boost (this is the most powerful model) would be competitive, however at higher altitudes the K-4 would gain a significant advantage. This isn't really a surprise. The LF Mk IX was a late 1943 model- the only reason it could compete anywhere was 150PN fuel, which allowed the Brits to boost the engine to insane levels for increased low altitude performance.

The real counterpart to the Kurfurst is the Spitfire F Mk XIV. It entered service around the same time as the K-4 (though it was built in smaller numbers) and the Griffon engine allowed it to compete at any altitude, even gaining an advantage above 7000m or so.

Well the LF Mk IX is a low fighter version hence the LF so it is not too surprising that it suffers at high altitudes. Most combat in DCS is low down so this isn't too worrying. I just want to make sure it wont be suicidal to fly it in MP.

I heard VAEO is making a Spit Mk.XIV which unfortunately means it may still take an eternity to get released.

overall the K4 has a bit powerful engine, the structure has been strenghtened which lead to weight increase. Another change is that wing's have been slightly improved aerodyamically and vertical stabiliser became wooden and taller, and tailwheel became retractable (again).

 

The K4 is a beast of an accelerator, is a bit better in a dive while it is worse at turning, particularly low speed turning and it is faster than any other G model.

Since mass increased, it should have slightly worse instantaneous turn, yes. But if the power increase was more than the weight increase (i.e. if the thrust/weight ratio improved), than it should be better at sustained turns. That's without counting the improvements in drag, which could also affect the situation.

The increase in sustained turning ability from the power increase should be greater than the loss in instantaneous turning ability from the mass increase. With WWII fighters, when they put in a bigger engine, it usually improved the thrust-to-mass, and so it would generally make it "slightly" worse at instantaneous turns but "significantly" better at sustained turns (along with climb & speed, of course).

It's the same principle that allowed the P-38 to have similar sustained turning ability to the 109, even though the '38 was much worse at instantaneous turning. Even though it was ~twice as heavy, it had a similar thrust-to-mass ratio. ~8000 lb. @ ~1800 hp ~= (in sustained turns & climbs) ~16000 lb. @ 2(~1800 hp) ... I think that's a heavier load for the 109 and a lighter load for the '38, so if just looking at thrust/weight, the 109 should come out slightly on top, on average, but it's close enough for the P-38's Fowlers to about make up the difference.

So, I'd expect the 109K to be better at just about everything than the 109G, except for instantaneous turn. Kurfurst (the forum user, not the airplane) says that certain blocks of 109G had engines designed for better low-altitude performance, so that can mix things up a bit, but at least when just looking at the mass, thrust, & drag situation, K is a clear improvement over the G.

I think a large problem here is that it is so difficult to compare late war 109's to each other simply due to the wide array of variations present in production. It's nearly impossible to discuss the performance of an airframe when there could be any number of confounding variables influencing it's performance.

From what I have been reading recently it seems to me that the K4 is a fairly good, if not a little optomistic, representation of a 1944-45 bf-109.

Also the wern't the germans forced to use poor quality fuel towards the end? Is this represented in the sim right now?

I would love to see a G-10 and G-14/AS :)

Give me an 109 F-4 so we can have some mid war fun with the P-40 and Wildcat that should arrive someday. Plus I'd like to see the 109 before she started getting loosing maneuverability. Same goes for the having a FW190 A-3, Hurricane, or Spitfire.

Plus I'd like to see the 109 before she started getting loosing maneuverability.

fastfreddie, can you ellaborate more on this one ?

The Normandy map give realy wide varity of Plane setups, at least on the western front, hope also in the near future not have to wait for DCS 3.0 we introduce more FW and 109 and spits they are work with the time frame of normandy.

fastfreddie, can you ellaborate more on this one ?

I think he refers to the handling characteristic of the Friedrich. All the veteran pilots say, that the F was the best.

The G model was less maneuverable in comparison to the F model, because of the added weight, especially true for the G-6.

As far as I am aware the K4 is simply an attempt at standardizing the late war G model production but still retains the same engine and handling characteristics of the G's.

 

Am I correct in this?

The handling shouldn't be all that different since the plane still has the same or very similar wing size and planform, control surfaces and similar center of gravity, which largely define how the aircraft should be handling. There have been some improvements to improve stability, both on the ground and in the air but they would not change the overall picture - for example the K-4s long tailwheel and shallower ground attitude make it easier to control on the ground.

The K airframe wasn't just to standardize the G airframe, it was to improve upon it, both in aerodyanmics and with small, but very numerous minor modifications. Many of these were soley practical (like re-arranging the radio instruments), but in the end it meant that different jigs and parts were needed, and re-tooling to producing K airframes would have meant production time losses. So in the end only the Messerschmitt plant in and around Regensburg assembled them en mass (Erla produced but a few dozen at best near the war's end).

The other main difference was the engine. The K series prototypes in 1943 still had the same DB 605A engine, but serial production variants had the 605D series, which can be itself be consider a semi-new engine but at the very least, a major re-desgign. It had 1+2 subversions, the very early 605DM at 1.75ata and 1800 PS, and the major production variant 605DB/DC, which was the same engine with different settings. The DB variant was set to lower boost and power (1.8ata, 1850 PS), but could rely on either lower or higher octane fuel (B-4 or C-3), while the DC setup had greater output (1.98ata, 2000 PS output), but when set up as such, it could only run on 150 grade C-3 synthetic fuel. Since the DB/DC introduction coincided with some QC problems at the DB factory (faulty engine assembly and mis-sized engine parts), the LW initially put on hold the latter DC version until March 1945 (which roughly coincides with the introduction date of our P-51D-30 block in DCS ;) ) and until further proof testing, mostly the lower boosted DB version was used on the frontlines. It wasn't a high octane fuel availability concern, since C-3 was the majority (of what little remained, by late 1944) of German synthetic fuel production, but running the DB config on C-3 brought absolutely no power gains.

Now, despite the serious differences in design the engines performance (power output) is in fact very similar to the 605AS (ASM, ASB, ASC) series engines that were fitted to the 1944/45 109G series (no coincidence, since these engines were an early stop-gap solution until the K/605D combo arrives, using some parts from them), so in the end the performance characteristics are broadly similar, except that the K's speed characteristics are better because of the less drag.

So you had on one hand a desirable new engine and it was felt that standardization of spare parts is necessary, but the problem that many factories cannot re-tool to producing K series airframe without major production loss. Hence the birth of the G-10, which came out and built in parallel to the K, albeit in different factories, and was, basically, a K's internal components (such as engine and its new 2000 Watt transformator type) inside a G series airframe.

Weight in similar configuration was in fact not not very different, the K-4 always had the heavier MK 108, the G-series only in the /U4 subtypes, so the basic G series was somewhat lighter but for example the similarly (MK 108) armed G-10/U4 and the K-4 was only some insignificant 19 kg apart (3343 kg vs 3362 kg) and had the same engine. In fact climb graphs for the G-10/U4 show it had practically the same performance as the K-4, albeit it was a bit slower.

There was of course, the G-14 itself, which had the old DB 605A engine, albeit with MW boost designated as /AM and a helluva lot more power, which was less perfect aerodynamically. The main thing about is however that while the G-6/AS, G-14/AS variants, the G-10 and the K-4 had high altitude engines and high altitude optimized broad propellers, the basic G-14 had an engine and propeller optimized for low- and medium altitudes. Up to about 4-5000 meter, where most dogfights in DCS or other online sims would happen, it had equal or more power and a propeller that could convert more of that power to thrust at these lower altitudes than the high altitude specialized birds, and was lighter. Hence despite being the oldest of them all, it actually had the best low/medium altitude dogfight and climb performance of all of these.

Kurfürst what was the difference between 605D and AS engines.

I always belive the AS engines have different speed ratio of the blower compare to the DB engines for max output at higher altitudes?

The engines where also simultaneously produced, when you say it was a stop gap until the K series arrive, this version have the same altitude performance as the AS powered 109?

I believe it was internal parts differents mainly, afaik 50% of the components were redesigned. IIRC for example the manifold pressure regulator was from the 603, and the lubrication system was also redesigned, this also changing the external dimensions of the engine (hence why you see those tiny chin bulges on 605D powered G10/K4). Pistons I believe were also different. In contrast of the 605A, the D traces back its development to a long line of DB 605D variants that were parallel development / complete re-design to the 1941 605A from 1942 onwards.

Supercharger gear ratio might have been very slightly different, I do not know (I am not sure if even there are documents showing) , but the power output curves available show they were very similar even at high altitudes, which is probably due to tiny differences in CR and piston design, boost, rather than supercharger speed ratio.

Re stop gap, the first AS engines in late 1943 were basically the DB 605A block fitted with the more powerful supercharger of the DB 603A. Then in the spring of 1944 the 605A block was combined with MW boost and designated as ASM. I believe the later variants you refer to, ASB/ASC appearing in late 1944 were basically a hybrid of once again re-used DB 605A blocks and 605D components, a bastard/hybrid solution much like the G-10. And, from October 1944 you can see the 605D powered G-10/K-4 dominate the production lines, even G-14s are largely discontiued.

I think he refers to the handling characteristic of the Friedrich. All the veteran pilots say, that the F was the best.

 

The G model was less maneuverable in comparison to the F model, because of the added weight, especially true for the G-6.

This is an interesting point. In real life, speed is life, and you usually don't want to slow down to sustained turn speeds in air combat. It's a quick way to get killed by another fighter you don't see, and minimizes your options for disengaging if things don't work as planned. So, usually, IRL, they had loads of altitude and loads of speed, and were in no hurry to burn either one. If they couldn't get a good shot right away, they'd often try to extend, or to maneuver defensively (staying fast, rather than burning E to try to get on the enemy's tail) while waiting for a friendly to help out.

Thus, the nature of real air combat, with greater fighter saturation and real consequences, was such that "burn E to get on his tail ASAP and finish the fight at sustained turn speed" wasn't the order of the day, the way it often is in multiplayer sims. Most simmers put a greater priority on potential kills, and a lower priority on personal survival, than real fighter pilots. After all, we respawn each time.

For this reason, I believe, real air combat tends to happen at much higher speeds (as well as altitudes), on average, and thus takes far longer to get down to sustained turn speed. So, IRL, instantaneous turn often matters more than sustained turns. The F model had better instantaneous turn than the G, but I expect most G variants to have better sustained turn (because of the power increases).

So, a simmer might rightly consider the G-10 more maneuverable than the F, because we're more concerned with sustained turns, because our burn-E-to-make-the-kill duels at low altitude get down to sustained turn speeds very quickly. But a real fighter pilot might rightly consider the F more maneuverable than the G-10, because he's more concerned with instantaneous turns, because he has a lot more E to work with.

For these reasons, in real life, if given the choice between two fighters, one of which had better instantaneous turn and the other of which had better sustained turn--well, I'd take the one that was faster, but if speed wasn't the deciding factor--I'd take the one that had better instantaneous turn. However, in a sim, I'd take the one with sustained turn, rather than the one with instantaneous. The overly-aggressive (good for kills/hour, bad for survival chances) way that we simmers behave ... we spend most of the fight at sustained turn speeds. In a duel to the death, sustained turn beats instantaneous turn, because when both pilots perform maximum-effectiveness maneuvers to get a killshot, very little of the fight is spent at corner turning speed and most of it will be at sustained.

Weight in similar configuration was in fact not not very different, the K-4 always had the heavier MK 108, the G-series only in the /U4 subtypes, so the basic G series was somewhat lighter but for example the similarly (MK 108 armed G-10/U4 and the K-4 was only some insignificant 19 kg apart (3343 kg vs 3362 kg) and had the same engine. In fact climb graphs for the G-10/U4 show it had practically the same performance as the K-4, albeit it was a bit slower.

 

There was of course, the G-14 itself, which had the old DB 605A engine, albeit with MW boost designated as /AM and a helluva lot more power, which was less perfect aerodynamically. The main thing about is however that while the G-6/AS, G-14/AS variants, the G-10 and the K-4 had high altitude engines and high altitude optimized broad propellers, the basic G-14 had an engine and propeller optimized for low- and medium altitudes. Up to about 4-5000 meter, where most dogfights in DCS or other online sims would happen, it had equal or more power and a propeller that could convert more of that power to thrust at these lower altitudes than the high altitude specialized birds, and was lighter. Hence despite being the oldest of them all, it actually had the best low/medium altitude dogfight and climb performance of all of these.

You're more familiar with 109 variants than I am. Which variant do you think would be the closest match for a 67" P-51D, at low altitude? I'm guessing the G-14/AS? Maybe G-6/AS? How do all of the major post-F 109 variants compare for low-altitude speed? Speed's the major factor here, because all of them are going to handily out-turn and out-climb the P-51, so to get a close match despite this, it'd have to be on the slower side of the range, at normal multiplayer altitudes.

Thx Kurfürst was belive the AS engines introduce for slightly high altitude performance boost to get closer to the US powered fighters/bombers.

The most sources (never trust:huh:) without seeing a chart says the engine have slightly higher full throttle height.

But for what reason they split the productions resources in two different ways when the AS engines don't bring any advantages of the D series.

Kurfurst you make a joke about the P-51D block 30. Is that the variant we have in sim? I thought this was supposed to be 1944 not 45. If they want to simulate 45 they should basically have no lufwaffe presence at all.

http://www.asisbiz.com/Luftwaffe/Luftwaffe-aerial-victories-1945.html

that's quiet a lot of air victory's for non present Luftwaffe :)

Jay Mustang was side project from ED just for fun a that time nothing future was planed.

After RPG as third party developer announced his project there was 5 planes planned 190,109,spit,p-47 and 262 and as premium goal b-17 so far as I remember and Normandy map.

After RPG goes out of money ED thankfully take over the project, with nearly ready 109 and 190 that's is what we have now. the mustang was never in mind as full WW2 project compared with other planes for full setup I goes in far before of RPG.

Kurfurst you make a joke about the P-51D block 30. Is that the variant we have in sim? I thought this was supposed to be 1944 not 45. If they want to simulate 45 they should basically have no lufwaffe presence at all.

Essentially, it makes no difference what P-51D block number ED has modeled because the P-51D's performance and handling was pretty much the same, regardless of the block number. Major aerodynamic changes were made to the tail unit (all metal elevators, decreased incidence) and rudder (installation of rudder reverse boost tab), but these were modifications that could be retrofitted to all Ds.

Porpoising.- The P-51D airplane, at high speeds, is subject to the longitudinal instability commonly referred to as porpoising. The results to date indicate that the condition may be induced at a Mach number of 0.70 and above, but may be encountered at somewhat lower Mach numbers at low altitude. It is known that the fabric bulge in the elevator surfaces is more critical at low altitudes and may be related to the airplane’s increased tendency to porpoise at lower Mach numbers in that range.

Id suspect for a BnZer/ energy fighter it is not unimportand to fix longitudinal instability issues as done in February 45 (Block-25NA).

Also I guess not many would like to miss the K-14 gyro gunsight first introduced in October 44 (Block-20NA). ;)

Sure it could be and was retrofitted, but it was done for a reason.