Soooo, you want a G-14 instead of the 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...

Edited September 7, 2016 by Kurfürst

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.

For those that want see the actual numbers and the produce dates

 

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=2462&highlight=neubau+109&page=3 Post #28

These are fascinating posts. Many thanks for the details, charts and data provided.

 

-SLACK

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....

Edited September 7, 2016 by Kurfürst
Note on K-4 performance graphs

Good presented information, and nice post Kürfurst. I just read it, and even though it's far from my intention any thorough discussion as I'm lacking some information regarding the subject, if you allow me to do so let me point out a couple points.

 

 

So, in brief you had around some modified 109Gs flying with both methanol boost since April 1944, some months before the P-51D appeared.

You're right, but remember P-51B had virtually identical, if not better, performances than P-51D model.

 

 

Firstly, the G-14 was considerably lighter than the K-4.

Let me say here "considerably" is an unnecessary adjective leading to confusion. 50 to 100Kg is definitely a difference when it comes to aviation, but in this case we are talking about a 2.5% difference in weight, taking lowered weighted G14 as reference, AS version would be even lower 1.3%. Do you think that is really such a big deal?

 

 

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.

You are assuming here both are a same aircraft with just a different weight, but you are missing how that weight is loaded (a weight and balance chart would be welcome here) and thus where is located the CoG. CoG can't be quite different for both aircraft as it should still be within limits, roughly about the lift vector, so AoA wouldn't be quite different if at all and AoA is what makes a difference regarding drag and thus range/endurance and other performance factors. You haven't think about the possibility that AoA may be just at a same point but K4 needed a bit more speed for a same lift. I don't know, that's sure, but neither do you my friend.

 

 

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.

So coming from previous point, we just don't know that. Form drag due to early G models aerodynamics (mainly nose bulges) could be so huge to be higher than later models drag, not only affecting top speed (as we know for sure, G model top speed was lower) and acceleration as available spare power would be overall lower but so would climbing ability as that only depends on available spare power. The sentence I quoted in bold is not totally correct, as lower drag point (where induced drag and parasitic drag change rols being the higher) matches better climb speed (Vx) and that's roughly 250Km/H in all 109 models from E to K (and Fw190, don't freak out, that's a design decision), so your claim is at least uncertain, and I would say not corresponding to the real thing as there's quite more room from top speed to Vx than from Vx to Vs, so in my opinion that's not the most representative flight envelope.

 

 

S!

 

 

 

You are assuming here both are a same aircraft with just a different weight, but you are missing how that weight is loaded (a weight and balance chart would be welcome here) and thus where is located the CoG. CoG can't be quite different for both aircraft as it should still be within limits, roughly about the lift vector, so AoA wouldn't be quite different if at all and AoA is what makes a difference regarding drag and thus range/endurance and other performance factors. You haven't think about the possibility that AoA may be just at a same point but K4 needed a bit more speed for a same lift. I don't know, that's sure, but neither do you my friend.

 

 

S!

 

 

Ala13 so far I remember YoYo also take CoG for the K4 from G Model tested by Soviet airforce. He posted Pictures sometime ago.

The Airframe virtually don't change that much from G14 over G10 to K4.

They move the O2 System's in the Wing change service holes and refuel nozzle.

And the engine is going up in Power, but shut not much change the COG.

Hope also we getting some nice A8 and G14 for Normandy nice post Kurfürst.

Exactly, there are no weight and balance charts available, so no claims can be made regarding the subject until one pops up :thumbup:.

 

S!

Soooo, your point is that the G-14 isn't that much worse than a K-4? It's still a more representative version than the K-4. Of course ED didn't choose the K-4 because it is representative- I suspect that available documentation and the 'glamor' of having the ultimate 109 were bigger factors in that decision.

 

That said, I don't really see a need to make a G-14 now that the K-4 is in game. If we're to have another 109, I want it to be the F-4 or early model G so that mid-war planes like the upcoming P-40 have a realistic opponent.

Of course ED didn't choose the K-4 because it is representative- I suspect that available documentation and the 'glamor' of having the ultimate 109 were bigger factors in that decision.

 

ED didn't choose the K-4 at all.

ED didn't choose the K-4 at all.

I don't understand. Didn't ED elect to develop that particular model? Or did someone else start K-4 development, only to fold and leave ED to finish the job?

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.

Just a little correction Kurfurst.

 

According to :

GL/C E5 Nr 26858/44 dated 25/May/1944

 

"Auf der musterbesichtigung in Staaken an 13.5.44 wurde festgelegt, dass der DLH Mustereinbau für die Erstellung der serienunterlagen massgebend ist. Ohne Einschaltung des CE2 oder CE5 änderte Messerschmitt an der in Staaken festgelegten anlage

1) die Rohrleitungs Nennweiten

2) den Einbauort des Niederdruckmanometers

3) zusätzlicher einbau eines rückschlagventile"

(...)

 

"für die 200 rüstsätze für die truppenmässige umrüstung auf MW50 anlage ist des in Staaken erstellte mustereinbau massgebend, NW8 für MW50 förderleitung. Die zellengebundenen einbauteile werden nach auskunft von CB2 im reparaturwerk Erfurt und bei DLH Staaken erstellt. Der einbau des anlagen bei der truppe erfolgt nach unterlagen Staaken."

Soooo, your point is that the G-14 isn't that much worse than a K-4? It's still a more representative version than the K-4. Of course ED didn't choose the K-4 because it is representative- I suspect that available documentation and the 'glamor' of having the ultimate 109 were bigger factors in that decision.

 

That said, I don't really see a need to make a G-14 now that the K-4 is in game. If we're to have another 109, I want it to be the F-4 or early model G so that mid-war planes like the upcoming P-40 have a realistic opponent.

 

+1

There would be no point to developing a G-14 if, as claimed, its performance was not that dissimilar to the K-4, especially at the altitudes at which most combat missions are flown in ED. The only major difference would be in the armament of 1 x MG-151/20 and 2 x MG 131s. A G-6 would be better, because it was far more representative of the 109s in service for much of 1944.

 

Anyway, there's already been heaps of discussion on what variants of the 109G or K could or should be modeled, so there's really no reason to raise it yet again in yet another thread.

I don't think the OP is a wish for the G-14 in DCS. It is just informational for all the complaints we've seen that a Gustav would be a more equal opponent for the P-51D. Only a G-6 without MW-50 would allow the P-51D to be dominant, and there were still thousands of those in mid 1944.

I don't understand. Didn't ED elect to develop that particular model? Or did someone else start K-4 development, only to fold and leave ED to finish the job?

Yes :thumbup:.

 

S!

Yes :thumbup:.

 

S!

 

Very interesting...TIL.

 

-SLACK

I wished to finish with the climb analysis, which is IMO more interesting than the (at DCS altitudes, rather minor) speed differences, unfortunately, there has not been enough time.

 

The first issue to deal with when establishing the G-14 climb rates is that there is no known flight reports for methanol boosted conditions, though there are several factory calculations. Luckily enough, there are both performance calculations from Messerschmitt for both the K-4 and G-14/U4 and G-14/AS/U4 variants, which were, as luck has it, made to identical conditions.

 

These have been referred to previously.

 

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

 

The only issue is that both G-14s climb figures seen below were calculated for a condition with Gondola weapons equipped on both, increasing takeoff weight to 3546 kg and 3501 kg respectively; as seen earlier the gondolas would normally came with a -8 km/h parasitic drag penalty and calculated with some 215 kg extra weight, complete with ammo, which would induce some further induced drag penalties; in addtion, the /U4 signifying the MK 108 engine cannon comes with some weight penalty in the order of 40-50 kg.

 

Despite the extra bulk, it can be seen though that the climb performance is still pretty good, especially for the G-14 (AM engine) which still manages to hit 21 m/sec climb rates with the gondolas as compared to the 22 m/sec climb figures calculated for the K-4 without gondolas.

 

Worthy of note also that the gondie G-14 yields 1 m/sec better climb figures than the gondie G-14/AS, despite identical power output (1800 PS), and is superior to about 5 km altitude. This difference can be only partly explained with the lighter weight, and the reason is more likely to be found in the difference in propellers.

 

 

So to compare the 'clean' relative figures and get comparable data to the 'clean' K-4 climb figures, the G-14s will need to virtually loose their gondolas and their associated climb performance loss in climb.

 

As a method, for the purposes of this admittedly rough and dirty comparison, I choose to simply directly apply the differences shown on the K-4/K-6 climb curves in two conditions - one that assumes a K-4 in a clean configuration (3400 kg), and one that assumes a K-6 (3600 kg, with 2 extra MK 108s in wing installations). This saves me quite a bit of time and, given the very similar weight and drag implications, probably not any less accurate for the purpose than working with calculated estimate riddled with numerous guessamptions on base data. As it is, the difference between these (G-14 w. and w/o gondolas vs K-4 vs K-6) configuration is not great, for example the K-6 wing installation came with cc. 5 km/h speed loss, the gondolas came with -8 km/h speed loss; the weight difference between the the K-4 and K-6 installations was cc. 200 kg in the calculations, while as noted the loaded Gondolas weighted some 215 kg. Therefore, it is well within acceptable error margins for this purpose if the the climb figures for the gondola equipped G-14s are corrected with the difference between the K-4/K-6 curves; if anything, since the drag and weight difference is slightly bigger in the case of the gondolas, and that it does not account for the extra weight from the /U4 (MK 108 engine cannon) installations, the results, if anything are even a bit pessimistic for the G-14s.

 

The correspondly corrected G-14 curves are seen below, and represent a rough estimate of how the clean (no gondies) G-14 compares to the K-4 in the climb department.

 

The most striking observation is of course, that the G-14/U4 (low/medium altitude DB 605AM engine with 1800 PS) is flat out superior in climb to the K-4 up to about 5 km, which is seldom exceeded in DCS engagements, and despite the extra 50 PS output of the K-4; this difference is again partly down to the propeller, but its worthy of note that w/o gondolas the G-14/U4 weights only 3286 kg whereas the K-4 datasheet t/o weight was 3362 kg (3400 kg in the calculation - probably just rounded figures though). Even the G-14/AS is slightly superior/comparable.

 

The importance of the relative climb rates is that they give you very good idea about the excess thrust of the aircraft at climbing speeds, since climb rates are defined by this. This also transverses into similar tendencies for acceleration, turning capabilities etc at those speeds, since those are too highly defined by excess thrust.

 

Naturally of course as the speed increases, the lower parasitic drag of the K-4 will become more accentuated the formulate and the K-4 at a point will take overtake the G-14. Those are neither maneuvering nor normal climbing speeds however, and the K-4s relation the the G-14 is very reminiscent to the relation of the K-4 and the P-51D, except in this case it is the K-4 that is outclimbed, outturned and takes a bit longer to get to its very slightly higher top speed, as the practical speeds are very much dependent on how fast they could be actually reached (i.e. acceleration).

 

The difference with the base variants (non-U4) is slightly greater (approx. +0.5 m/sec), and IMO the 20 mm cannon armament is easier to use in most combat situations, more easier to hit enemies at a distance, with a generous ammo load.

 

And the morale of the story?

 

Several discussions revolved around how a G-14 would be a better choice, and the underlying motive being quite clearly that it is difficult to compete with the K-4.. so perhaps if it was a G-14, the situation would be easier. Why a lighter, practically equally powered opponent with a long range cannon with plenty of ammunition would be easier was never really explained though.

 

So as the saying goes - be careful what you ask for, you might as get it. The above estimations, especially the climb charts, show, the G-14 is far from being the easier case. As the typical DCS engagement happens well under 5000 meter, and in that altitude range, the G-14 is something that even worse to face than the K-4 in a Mustang, as it is generally even superior to the K-4 below 5000 meter in climb, acceleration and turns. These findings actually directly correspond to the real world opinion of the pilots who flew the thing - the /AS, G-10/K-4 variants were high altitude fighters and their larger superchargers did not translate into any advantage under 4000 meters, and that G-14s are the better rides under 4k.

 

And while the K-4 (or the G-14/AS for that matter, which is practically identical to the K) is a much superior fighter at higher altitudes (hence why the high altitude variants were developed, real fighting took place at those altitudes against USAAF raids), in DCS it mostly doesn't matter since seldom anybody goes up there to fight!

Edited September 8, 2016 by Kurfürst

I don't think the OP is a wish for the G-14 in DCS. It is just informational for all the complaints we've seen that a Gustav would be a more equal opponent for the P-51D. Only a G-6 without MW-50 would allow the P-51D to be dominant, and there were still thousands of those in mid 1944.

 

This is a very interesting note. I've had experience with a few sims in the past, but it has always seemed to me that the BF-109 was a subpar plane compared with the FW-190 models and the allied air planes.

 

DCS has been a real shocker to me to see just how dominant the BF-109 can be, if indeed its modeling (and the P-51D's) is correct, which I'm not saying they're not (I'm not an aerospace engineer).

 

The air to air dominance of the 109 in DCS is indisputable. I've been flying both the K-4 and the P-51D a ton, and the difference in both platforms is jaw dropping, especially if you come from other sims where the P-51 is the king platform. I honestly don't think a significant change to the damage modeling is going to make that much of a difference but we'll see. I honestly think a Spitfire XIV is the best bet to even the odds for Blue in the airquake.

 

The last thing I'll note is a point made by Integrals in another thread. The performance of the 109 in DCS leads one to question just why the Luftwaffe lost so handedly even with novice pilots. Of course facing 8-1 odds even in the BF-109 K-4 is a practical death sentence, but it goes to show that the allies would've been in for a real struggle even in late '44 the Luftwaffe were able to field more fighters and pilots. I find it odd though that in the memoirs of some allied pilots (I'm reading Robin Olds Fighter Pilot right now) it didn't seem allied pilots feared the 109s at all, and only cursory noted the threat posed by 190s.

 

Its even more of a technical achievement that BF-109 remained so competitive for being a decade old platform.

 

-SLACK

I don't think the OP is a wish for the G-14 in DCS. It is just informational for all the complaints we've seen that a Gustav would be a more equal opponent for the P-51D. Only a G-6 without MW-50 would allow the P-51D to be dominant, and there were still thousands of those in mid 1944.

 

Yep. I've never understood the blind faith in the "Germans had superior superweapons to the allies and all their equipment was better" fanboyism.

 

The fact is that at the very end of the war, the most prevalent fighters were still FW190A8s and Bf109G6s (over 1 in 3 Bf109s made was a G6, twice as many as G10, G14 and K4 combined!)- both inferior to the most prevalent (western) allied types, and the most prevalent tanks at the very end of the war were still Panzer IVH and J, which were slightly inferior to the Sherman, and there were significantly more PzIV than Panthers, to the very last day. If we count the StuG, it TOO had significantly more in service than Panthers, to the last day of the war, and it TOO was slightly inferior to the Sherman (particularly if one considers the wet-stowage 76mm models that were then common).

 

Yet armchair generals always want to talk about how the Panther and the K4 and Me262 were so amazing. So what? They weren't the representative example.

Edited September 8, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

I find it odd though that in the memoirs of some allied pilots (I'm reading Robin Olds Fighter Pilot right now) it didn't seem allied pilots feared the 109s at all, and only cursory noted the threat posed by 190s.

 

The use of an aircraft for informal dogfights between individuals is not the same as the use of an aircraft in groups, in formations, with trained and cooperating wingmen, against other groups and formations. Consider that in the 15th century, the pike was the dominant weapon of war. Big spear, 18-24 feet long. When used by one man, against a single other man, it is HORRIBLE. Something more manageable like a poleaxe or halberd or short spear would be far better. *But*, when used by a formation of men cooperating together, it was crushingly superior to all other weapons of the time. The Bf109 is like the obsolete short spears: great for individual combat... not so good for actual fights as coordinated groups.

 

There are a lot of negative factors of the Bf109 that are not, and really can not, be adequately represented in a computer simulation.

 

For example, in the computer simulation, you don't have to exhaust yourself pulling against a stick that give ludicrous elevator forces at any significant speed. You don't have to fight against poorly located, manually operated flaps and other controls (you can just put them onto a hotas button!). You aren't crammed in a tiny cabin with no room to turn around and look around (exacerbating already poor visibility). In a simulation, you can practice takeoffs and landings until you're a pro- you can always just respawn if you screw it up. In the real Bf109, the airplane had a good chance of killing you on takeoff or landing before you ever get a chance to figure it out; P-51s and Fw190s didn't have that problem.

 

It's kind of like comparisons between the M16 and AK47 (which, by the way are really tainted by decades of misinformation and propaganda): on paper their performance looks similar... until you actually go and USE them, and then realize the AK47's safety is in a horrible place and slow/difficult to operate, the magazine locking system makes for slow and awkward magazine changes because the magazine locking lip can be easily over-inserted, and the sights are difficult to acquire and use, particularly in low-light situations.

 

Soft factors like that matter A LOT. They just don't show up on pure statistical comparisons.

 

Also... when was the last time you had a fight at 20,000+ feet? In the real war, that was the fight that mattered in the western ETO. The Germans had to go up there to get the bombers; if they just circled around at low altitude, there would have been no fight (and the Mustang escorts would have accomplished their mission without firing a shot). Here in the game world, we're here to have FUN, not to win a war, so if the Germans don't come up to angels 20, we go down to fight them at low altitude.

 

Fight up high and the Mustang does much better (though I'll admit I kind of find high altitude dogfights a bit boring, as they play out pretty slowly)

 

Oh, and if the Mustangs got their correct 72" ratings, they would have 15mph more speed and 1000 ft/min better climb rate, both of which would make a huge difference.

Edited September 8, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

Yep. I've never understood the blind faith in the "Germans had superior superweapons to the allies and all their equipment was better" fanboyism.

 

The fact is that at the very end of the war, the most prevalent fighters were still FW190A8s and Bf109G6s- both inferior to the most prevalent (western) allied types, and the most prevalent tanks at the very end of the war were still Panzer IVH and J, which were slightly inferior to the Sherman, and there were significantly more PzIV than Panthers, to the very last day. If we count the StuG, it TOO had significantly more in service than Panthers, to the last day of the war, and it TOO was slightly inferior to the Sherman (particularly if one considers the wet-stowage 76mm models that were then common).

 

Yet armchair generals always want to talk about how the Panther and the K4 and Me262 were so amazing. So what? They weren't the representative example.

 

I'd love to see, based on numbers of units fielded and unit orders of battle, what the probability was of a BF-106G-6 encounter vice G-14, G-10 or K-4 From August of 1944 onwards in the ETO. That would really help me crystallize the arguments of which model were more prevalent and more likely to see combat against allied pilots.

 

Sadly, while an interesting historical debate, none of this changes the current and very lopsided encounter we have in DCS.

 

-SLACK

Yep. I've never understood the blind faith in the "Germans had superior superweapons to the allies and all their equipment was better" fanboyism.

 

The fact is that at the very end of the war, the most prevalent fighters were still FW190A8s and Bf109G6s- both inferior to the most prevalent (western) allied types,

 

Now leaving AKs, ARs and other nonsense aside, in which statements you are equally wrong anyways, I can tell that on 31st January 1945, there were but 71 G-6s around with 1st line units. Out of 1435 109s, 314 of which were K-4s,

 

Yup, the G-6 was truly overwhelmingly prevalent until the end days, no doubt. :music_whistling:

The use of an aircraft for informal dogfights between individuals is not the same as the use of an aircraft in groups, in formations, with trained and cooperating wingmen, against other groups and formations. Consider that in the 15th century, the pike was the dominant weapon of war. Big spear, 18-24 feet long. When used by one man, against a single other man, it is HORRIBLE. Something more manageable like a poleaxe or halberd or short spear would be far better. *But*, when used by a formation of men cooperating together, it was crushingly superior to all other weapons of the time. The Bf109 is like that: great for individual combat... not so good for actual fights as coordinated groups.

 

There are a lot of negative factors of the Bf109 that are not, and really can not, be adequately represented in a computer simulation.

 

For example, in the computer simulation, you don't have to exhaust yourself pulling against a stick that give ludicrous elevator forces at any significant speed. You don't have to fight against poorly located, manually operated flaps and other controls (you can just put them onto a hotas button!). You aren't crammed in a tiny cabin with no room to turn around and look around. In a simulation, you can practice takeoffs and landings until you're a pro- you can always just respawn if you screw it up. In the real Bf109, the airplane had a good chance of killing you on takeoff or landing before you ever get a chance to figure it out; P-51s and Fw190s didn't have that problem.

 

It's kind of like comparisons between the AR15 and AK47 (which, by the way are really tainted by decades of misinformation and propaganda): on paper their performance looks similar... until you actually go and USE them, and then realize the AK47's safety is in a horrible place and slow/difficult to operate, the magazine locking system makes for slow and awkward magazine changes because the magazine locking lip can be easily over-inserted, and the sights are difficult to acquire and use, particularly in low-light situations.

 

Soft factors like that matter A LOT. They just don't show up on pure statistical comparisons.

 

This is an excellent point. It does seem to explain why "experten" were able to truly runaway with their tallies which makes sense if they were lucky enough to learn the 109 sufficiently that they overcame the aircraft's soft shortcomings to master its hard advantages. Still, in the confines of the simulation world, these soft advantages are of no consolation when facing off against such lopsided performance stats. It's a bitter pill to swallow for Blue pilots who don't want to face off against 3 or 4 to 1 match ups since everyone prefers to fly the 109 and enjoy its hard advantages magnified in the sim at no cost to the planes soft disadvantages.

 

-SLACK

The last thing I'll note is a point made by Integrals in another thread. The performance of the 109 in DCS leads one to question just why the Luftwaffe lost so handedly even with novice pilots. Of course facing 8-1 odds even in the BF-109 K-4 is a practical death sentence, but it goes to show that the allies would've been in for a real struggle even in late '44 the Luftwaffe were able to field more fighters and pilots. I find it odd though that in the memoirs of some allied pilots (I'm reading Robin Olds Fighter Pilot right now) it didn't seem allied pilots feared the 109s at all, and only cursory noted the threat posed by 190s.

That's the unmodelled detail in all previous sims. Starting in a certain point we can say allied kinda stopped (or eased at least) looking for the massive performance knowing they had the numerical superiority while on the other hand Germany looked desperately for the "ultimate weapon" that could obliterate "the enemy" in a single stroke, what we know doesn't happen in real World, only Hollywood movies :music_whistling:. Not only numerical advantage has to be considered, but absolutely newbie pilots going to combat without experience in high powered machines, that's a bad combination. And we have to consider also the better machines weren't usually the most numerous but lived together with older/other ones.

 

 

All that situations just doesn't exist in a simulator, provided you model the real thing of course, and that's when balancing and that kind of stuff starts to happen in other "games". Anyway, some people complain about K4 superiority and/or Pony inferiority, but still I see people at servers holding that supposed overwhelming superiority and having fun, so despite what my friend Solty would say, pilot matters :thumbup:.

 

 

S!

Edited September 8, 2016 by Ala13_ManOWar