[REPORTED] K-4 level speed

[Hummingbird]

And you are not listening. 595 is not 610.

 

And you're not listening either, 595 km/h is an estimation without exhaust thrust added. It is guaranteed performance, not actual performance which most often was 10-15 km/h higher, and it's exactly the same when it comes to US estimations which in general also were 10-15 km/h lower than actual flight performance.

[MiloMorai]

Let me get this straight. There are those claiming the K-4 at 1.8ata should have the same top speed as the K-4 at 1.98ata?

 

Btw, the G-14/AS had the same mg cover bulges as the K-4.

[Hummingbird]

Let me get this straight. There are those claiming the K-4 at 1.8ata should have the same top speed as the K-4 at 1.98ata?

 

No, as mentioned the 595 & 610 figures are both estimations without exhaust thrust, this is apparent when looking at actual flight test results with the G-14.

 

Calculated G-14 performance was 558 km/h at SL, actual performance was 10 km/h faster with a drop tank attachment pylon and at a lower boost pressure.

 

Btw, the G-14/AS had the same mg cover bulges as the K-4.

 

This varied IIRC. In addition to this the tested G-14 featured a 300 L droptank attachment pylon. The big difference in comparison with the K-4 however was the lack of wheel well covers and retractable tailwheel, combined these added some 25-30 km/h to the top speed.

[NineLine]

Not to interrupt this wonderful argument, but its been fixed, why dont you guys ask Yo-Yo what he believes it should be, and that is what it is going to be. Easy right??

[Pilum]

Exhaust thrust not included? What absolute nonsense. Of course exhaust thrust is factored into any performance figure since publishing any performance figure without it would be meaningless since it has such a large impact on performance. If you want a reliable base figure for the Me-109K4 top speed at 1.8 ata then look at the Kennblatt: This gives 580 Km/h. Suggesting that this is missing 20 Km/h and should in fact be 600 Km/h when exhaust thrust is factored in is simply laughable.

[Hummingbird]

Exhaust thrust not included? What absolute nonsense. Of course exhaust thrust is factored into any performance figure since publishing any performance figure without it would be meaningless since it has such a large impact on performance. If you want a reliable base figure for the Me-109K4 top speed at 1.8 ata then look at the Kennblatt: This gives 580 Km/h. Suggesting that this is missing 20 Km/h and should in fact be 600 Km/h when exhaust thrust is factored in is simply laughable.

 

Suggesting top speed was only improved by 12 km/h with the addition of wheel well doors and a retractable tailwheel is however very laughable, and true nonsense is the idea of relying on preliminary kennblatt information which is over 2 months older than the performance charts presented.

 

Oh and exhaust thrust was obviously left out of the climb chart as well, however nonsensical you may think that is.

[Hummingbird]

Oh and btw I'm not saying the Kennblatt figures are wrong, they are as I've already mentioned most likely simply for a K-4 without wheel well doors, of which there were many. Our ingame version does have wheel well doors however.

[Kurfürst]

Exhaust thrust not included? What absolute nonsense. Of course exhaust thrust is factored into any performance figure since publishing any performance figure without it would be meaningless since it has such a large impact on performance.

 

If you want a reliable base figure for the Me-109K4 top speed at 1.8 ata then look at the Kennblatt: This gives 580 Km/h. Suggesting that this is missing 20 Km/h and should in fact be 600 Km/h when exhaust thrust is factored in is simply laughable.

 

:lol:

 

Nice try, Anders.

 

Nevermind that the GLC/E Kennblatt figures are not for 1,8ata but 1,75ata, and not for the DB 605DB we have in DCSs but for the early weaker 605DM we do not have and which had an 1.75/1800PS output limit (and also quite a bit lower 30-min ratings).

 

Apart from not referring to the correect engine model, the Kennblatt's figures are also from Messerschmitt but the curves are even further simplified in shape which is almost certainly interpolation of the actual curve and the source of disparity in the figures.

 

But, you are never quite worried that facts could get in the way of a good strory when the agenda as always is to misrepresent Bf 109 performance.

[MiloMorai]

Suggesting top speed was only improved by 12 km/h with the addition of wheel well doors and a retractable tailwheel is however very laughable, and true nonsense is the idea of relying on preliminary kennblatt information which is over 2 months older than the performance charts presented.

 

Oh and exhaust thrust was obviously left out of the climb chart as well, however nonsensical you may think that is.

5026/17 dated 11.12.44

 

5026/18 dated 8.12.44

 

5026/26 dated 19.1.45

 

5026/27 dated 19.1.45

 

kennblatt dated 1.11.44

Edited February 14, 2016 by MiloMorai
fixed date error

[Hummingbird]

I think the key thing that should be noticed here is that the G-14 managed 568 km/h at SL in actual testing running at 1.7 ata and with a drop tank pylon (assuming it dropped the 300 L drop tank it had aboard).

 

To then assume that the addition of wheel well covers, a retractable tail wheel, 50 extra PS and the absense of a fuel tank pylon only added another 12 km/h is pretty damn funny :megalol:

[Hummingbird]

5026/17 dated 11.12.44

 

5026/18 dated 8.8.44

 

5026/26 dated 19.1.45

 

5026/27 dated 19.1.45

 

kennblatt dated 1.11.44

 

1.11.44 - 19.1.45 = 69 days (2+ months)

 

Oh btw note that the figures in the Kennblatt are actually from 3.10.44, so that's 3 months older ;)

 

PS: None of the performance charts are from 8.8.44, two are from 8.12.44. (8.XII.44)

Edited February 14, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Pilum]

:lol:

 

Nice try, Anders.

 

Nevermind that the GLC/E Kennblatt figures are not for 1,8ata but 1,75ata, and not for the DB 605DB we have in DCSs but for the early weaker 605DM we do not have and which had an 1.75/1800PS output limit (and also quite a bit lower 30-min ratings).

 

Apart from not referring to the correect engine model, the Kennblatt's figures are also from Messerschmitt but the curves are even further simplified in shape which is almost certainly interpolation of the actual curve and the source of disparity in the figures.

 

But, you are never quite worried that facts could get in the way of a good strory when the agenda as always is to misrepresent Bf 109 performance.

 

Well Adam, as to who is trying what and who has an agenda I think I'll leave that to the developers to decide. That you and Hummingbird are pushing the idea that exhaust thrust is not included is just silly and I wish you good luck trying in to convince Yo-Yo et al to boost the DCS K4 speed another 10-20 Km/h due to "missing exhaust thrust". :megalol:

[MiloMorai]

PS: None of the performance charts are from 8.8.44, two are from 8.12.44. (8.XII.44)

 

Who said the charts were from 8.8.44?

 

Look again at dates for 5026/26 and 5026/27.

 

"The stated performance figures are going to be reached with well-built serial production machines for certain. No specials were included in the calculations; improvements as in the case of Leistungsmaschine I., such as improved surface finish through special theatment to the airframe and surface protective layer on the wing and on the propeller, improved radiator passthrough, symmetrical ailerons, by which an additional ca. 12km/h gain in level flight can be expected. This 12 km/h will be only added to the calculations, if the above mentioned measures can be actually materialized for series production."

 

Reality is that at that time well built machines were a fantasy.

 

Up to the end of 12.44 some 854 (53.6%) K-4s had been constructed. Jan 45 had 338 (31.2%) constructed with a further 401 (25.2%) constructed in 2.45 and 3.45.

 

It takes time for modifications to be implemented in the line. So the changes would be applicable to Feb and March 1945 production.

 

So you want 1945 performance for a 1944 a/c?

[rel4y]

Who said the charts were from 8.8.44?

 

Look again at dates for 5026/26 and 5026/27.

 

"The stated performance figures are going to be reached with well-built serial production machines for certain. No specials were included in the calculations; improvements as in the case of Leistungsmaschine I., such as improved surface finish through special theatment to the airframe and surface protective layer on the wing and on the improved radiator passthrough, symmetrical ailerons, by which an additional ca. 12km/h gain in level flight can be expected. This 12 km/h will be only added to the calculations, if the above mentioned measures can be actually materialized for series production."

 

Reality is that at that time well built machines were a fantasy.

 

Up to the end of 12.44 some 854 (53.6%) K-4s had been constructed. Jan 45 had 338 (31.2%) constructed with a further 401 (25.2%) constructed in 2.45 and 3.45.

 

It takes time for modifications to be implemented in the line. So the changes would be applicable to Feb and March 1945 production.

 

[/font]

 

This is about surface finish, improved radiator passthrough & symmetrical ailerons as the test with Leistungsmaschine I shows? This has nothing to do with drag reduction due to wheel well covers and retractable sporn. Did you not even read what you just cited? These measures were never implemented in serial production and it talks about further increase, which was thus not depicted in the charts yet.

 

The speed increase will only be due to drag reduction in the aerodynamic modelling of the aircraft. This means engine model will not change at all, since Yo-Yo said the model fits very well after the output power correction. We do not know yet by how much the level speed may increase, since it was only accepted to adjust the airflow vector calculation in respect to drag. If you dont know what that implies, please dont post. The change to flat area drag was done already by Yo-Yo, so what are you guys even discussing right now?

Edited February 14, 2016 by rel4y

[Hummingbird]

Who said the charts were from 8.8.44?

 

Hahaha, you did before you corrected your mistake! :megalol:

 

Look again at dates for 5026/26 and 5026/27.

 

"The stated performance figures are going to be reached with well-built serial production machines for certain. No specials were included in the calculations; improvements as in the case of Leistungsmaschine I., such as improved surface finish through special theatment to the airframe and surface protective layer on the wing and on the propeller, improved radiator passthrough, symmetrical ailerons, by which an additional ca. 12km/h gain in level flight can be expected. This 12 km/h will be only added to the calculations, if the above mentioned measures can be actually materialized for series production."

 

Reality is that at that time well built machines were a fantasy.

 

Up to the end of 12.44 some 854 (53.6%) K-4s had been constructed. Jan 45 had 338 (31.2%) constructed with a further 401 (25.2%) constructed in 2.45 and 3.45.

 

It takes time for modifications to be implemented in the line. So the changes would be applicable to Feb and March 1945 production.

 

So you want 1945 performance for a 1944 a/c?

 

Has zero to do with wheel well covers and retractable tail wheel :doh:

 

This is too funny :megalol:

[MiloMorai]

All I did post post numbers and dates.

 

5026/17 dated 11.12.44 is a text document.

 

5026/18 dated 8.12.44 is a graph.

5026/26 and 5026/27 dated 19.1.45 are graphs.

 

There was no well built a/c.

[rel4y]

All I did post post numbers and dates.

 

5026/17 dated 11.12.44 is a text document.

 

5026/18 dated 8.12.44 is a graph.

5026/26 and 5026/27 dated 19.1.45 are graphs.

 

There was no well built a/c.

 

What did I just read?!

 

Yes, after further careful inspection these data tell me exactly this as well. There were no well built aircraft! How could I miss this...

 

A shining figure with sharp perception of truth and facts knew even before. How come? Well he condescended to fly and disapprove of every single producton line aircraft. Regretfully to have stepped a foot in these piles of worthless german engineering failures, he decided to give them to lesser men. Barkhorn, Hartmann, Rall & worse, gratefully accepted these more scrap metal than aircraft to hide their utter incompetence and blame it on the best and yet the worst machinery the Third Reich had to offer..

 

Sorry for off topic! I thought a bit of entertainment couldnt hurt this meaningful argument. :pilotfly:

[Kurfürst]

Well Adam, as to who is trying what and who has an agenda I think I'll leave that to the developers to decide.

 

I think we both know most developers already decided on that as they simply ignore you.

 

That you and Hummingbird are pushing the idea that exhaust thrust is not included is just silly and I wish you good luck trying in to convince Yo-Yo et al to boost the DCS K4 speed another 10-20 Km/h due to "missing exhaust thrust". :megalol:

 

Well Anders the only thing worse than your convincing power is apparantly your reading comprehension since I have never suggested such.

 

In any case, it was YoYo who suggested the German calculations miss the exhaust thrust elements and from what I know, it seems a plausible explanation why German climb calculations are often lower than real life results. I don't quite get why I would need to convince him of something that was his idea in the first place.

 

In any case if you would have bothered to read through this thread this speed bug was already cleared up with YoYo and appearantly it was caused by having the 109G drag levels for our K-4 since the model already gives very close to IRL 109G results under the same power. As I believe a fix is already underway so that our K-4 can really live up to the historical specs, and hopefully you will also manage to come to terms with that.

[Solty]

And yet you have claimed I was trolling. Anyway...

 

I am hope YoYo will soon tell us how it will look like in DCS.

[Pilum]

Just noticed some other things that have been sneaked into the K4 storytelling: First of all that it is “obvious” that exhaust thrust is missing from climb figure and that the kennblatt speed figures are “most likely without“ wheel doors and retractable tail wheel. “Obvious and most likely” based on what? Other than wishful thinking?

[Pilum]

I think we both know most developers already decided on that as they simply ignore you.

 

Well that sounds a lot like the royal "we" and I'm sure they have the fullest of confidence for you seeing your penchant for high end Me-109 performance outliers. :music_whistling:

 

Well Anders the only thing worse than your convincing power is apparantly your reading comprehension since I have never suggested such.

 

Great, so you agree that the figures are with exhaust thrust or are you simply playing at semantics?

 

In any case, it was YoYo who suggested the German calculations miss the exhaust thrust elements and from what I know, it seems a plausible explanation why German climb calculations are often lower than real life results. I don't quite get why I would need to convince him of something that was his idea in the first place.

 

OK, so it was semantics: you do think exhaust thrust is missing after all. I do hope that Yo-Yo clears this up because AFAIK that exhaust thrust is missing is an interpretation you and Crumpp have been eagerly peddling for a while now and I don't think he has ever said that.

 

In any case if you would have bothered to read through this thread this speed bug was already cleared up with YoYo and appearantly it was caused by having the 109G drag levels for our K-4 since the model already gives very close to IRL 109G results under the same power. As I believe a fix is already underway so that our K-4 can really live up to the historical specs, and hopefully you will also manage to come to terms with that.

 

OK, good that a fix is underway. Let's see what that brings shall we?

[Friedrich-4B]

What did I just read?!

 

Yes, after further careful inspection these data tell me exactly this as well. There were no well built aircraft! How could I miss this...

 

A shining figure with sharp perception of truth and facts knew even before. How come? Well he condescended to fly and disapprove of every single producton line aircraft. Regretfully to have stepped a foot in these piles of worthless german engineering failures, he decided to give them to lesser men. Barkhorn, Hartmann, Rall & worse, gratefully accepted these more scrap metal than aircraft to hide their utter incompetence and blame it on the best and yet the worst machinery the Third Reich had to offer..

 

Sorry for off topic! I thought a bit of entertainment couldnt hurt this meaningful argument. :pilotfly:

 

For entertainment, here's a rundown of the production quality problems experienced at the Mtt Regensburg plant (from A Nest of Eagles: Messerschmitt Production and Flight-Testing at Regensburg 1936-1945:

 

 

So, yes, in real life there were major production control problems that impacted directly on 109K-4s through to the end of production in late April 1945; the overwhelming majority of K-4s were built at Regensburg and associated plants, while a handful were built at Erla.

 

For practical purposes, Ed assumes that the build quality of the aircraft it models is uniformly good.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Friedrich-4/B

[rel4y]

You are talking about the bomb rack fitted, quickly slapped together JaBo varients. Which were later manned with poor inexperienced pilots whom have had maybe 10 hours of glider training. The sole fighter role planes were built as allied fighter killers and by no means suffered in production quality. You mentioned the Erla plant at Leipzig yourself.

 

I was getting at the fact he said quote "There was no well built aircraft". Would you agree with this statement? Obviously not, since you seem to be in knowledge that Erla produced highly capable fighter planes. And guess how flew these? Well I mentioned fighter aces as Hartmann for example. You have underlined my very point.

 

Edit: Now I know I was being cynical, but I find it questionable to dismiss data which state to be valid for well built serial machines with certainty, by saying there were no well built serial machines. Sure I agree there were many shortcomings in late war production, but you just cant dismiss data with a (non)argument like this. Thats absurd.

Edited February 14, 2016 by rel4y

[NineLine]

ummm, stay on topic?

 

Edit: Thread cleaned, I am not kidding, the topic is about a bug with the DCS Me 109K-4. I have reported a fix is in, we are just waiting on it to merge with release. If you guys want to show off all your knowledge to each other, go to PMs, otherwise this is just useless.

 

Everyone off topic after this post has or will receive warning points. Some of you cant really afford that if you enjoy posting here.

Edited February 15, 2016 by NineLine

[NineLine]

So as I understand it, what we should expect (from talking to Yo-Yo) is 580-585 (plausible to reach 590 even). This is what we should see.