FW190D9 can't dogfight.

[Krupi]

This here is your issue. You're still playing top-trumps, and essentially arguing gaming balance.

 

The argument has matured beyond that.

 

Whether you like it or not, the very simple inescapable fact is that, as much as you'd like it to be, a Bf-109K-4 is not a Bf 109G-6 or even a G-14.

 

As soon as a G-6 is available and Normandy Map missions updated for it on SoW then - even with MW50 - I will have no issue.

 

Further if a map becomes available to better suit the K-4 and D-9 (and the mission date falls in line with MW50 usage on the Dora - which by the way, seems like it wasn't widely introduced on that airframe till the winter of '44) and SoW decides to create missions and templates for that, I will happily fly against them.

 

You clearly know nothing of my skills - which are ultimately irrelevant to this argument anyway - and are, despite my repeated exhortations here, apparently STILL ignorant of my motivations, which even a cursory examination of my posting history here will provide reams of evidence thereof; I desire historical authenticity. I'd rather have a P-51B than a P-51D in Normandy. I'd rather see a P-47D-25 than the D-38, or better a razorback for Normandy. I'd like to see a Hawker Typhoon for Normandy. I'd like to see a Siegfield Line'44/'45 map for The K-4 and D-9. I'd like to see options for P-51s and P-47s using 150 Octane ratings when flown as 8th AF units from UK bases only but not when flying as 9th AF units flying from their UK bases or the continent. Right planes with the right maps. That is all.

 

+1 it appears he cannot grasp the simple context of what we want.

[Krupi]

The information below comes from Wiki so it will need to be verified and I honestly don't know how it compares to what we have in DCS right now... If you could feed in data from official sources that would be great l.

 

"Using MW 50 and maximum boost the Bf 109 K-4 was the fastest 109 of World War II, reaching a maximum speed of 710 km/h (440 mph) at 7,500 m (24,600 ft) altitude. Without MW 50 and using 1.80 ata the K-4 reached 670 km/h (416 mph) at 9,000 m (30,000 ft). The Initial Rate of climb was 850 m (2,790 ft)/min, without MW 50 and 1,080 m (3,540 ft)/min, using MW 50."

 

K4 with MW50

Top Speed 440mph @ 24,600ft

Climb 3,540 ft/min

 

K4 without MW50

Top Speed 416mph @ 30,000ft

Climb 2,790 ft/min

 

(I don't believe the climb rate is correct for the K4)

 

Spitfire Mk IX(e)

Top Speed 404mph @ 21,000ft

Climb 4,745 ft/min

 

G6/AS Late

Top Speed XXXmph @ XX,XXXft

Climb X,XXX ft/min

 

G14/AS

Top Speed 422mph @ 24,600ft

Climb X,XXX ft/min

 

Fw190 D9

Top Speed XXXmph @ XX,XXXft

Climb X,XXX ft/min

Edited August 13, 2020 by Krupi

[Hummingbird]

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

Edited August 13, 2020 by Hummingbird

[Krupi]

G6/AS is 1.4 not 1.8

 

DB605AS 1.435

 

DB605AM/ASM 1.800

[philstyle]

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 @ 1.42ata = 530 km/h

 

Are you using "SL" as a stand-in for "sea level" or for "straight and level"?

Also, do you have the source links for the G6/AS aircraft?

[philstyle]

Care to link your source?

The only/ best data I can find is from Versuchs-Bericht Nr. 109 20 L 43. But these speeds are only at Kampfleistung.

It is provided by Kurfürst:

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G5AS_Lmessung/messung_109g5AS.html

 

Hummingbird, Manage to find that source yet?

I'm not just being obtuse, if the data really shows that the K4 with MW50 is more like the 109-G6 (even with MW50) then there is a good argument for adding some MW50 equipped K4s to the server, doing so sure would solve one massive headache, and prevent me from having to do this dull-as-dogs*** discussion for another 10 times.

Edited August 13, 2020 by philstyle

[Hummingbird]

G6/AS is 1.4 not 1.8

 

DB605AS 1.435

 

DB605AM/ASM 1.800

 

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

[philstyle]

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

 

Source for that claim?

There's mention of an MW50 equipped 109 in April 44 in Knoke's memoir, but the photo he shows in the book does not have any of the MW50 markings (fuel triangle or the supposed "red legs")

[Krupi]

Might be useful, shows a DB605AS with MW50

 

 

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_DB-G6AS_wMW/DB_109G6_ASM.html

[Hummingbird]

Are you using "SL" as a stand-in for "sea level" or for "straight and level"?

Also, do you have the source links for the G6/AS aircraft?

 

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:

Edited August 13, 2020 by Hummingbird

[philstyle]

Might be useful, shows a DB605AS with MW50

 

 

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_DB-G6AS_wMW/DB_109G6_ASM.html

 

 

Nice find.

 

Date to June 44 by the looks of it too.

The speeds at altitudes do look more like the K4 with MW50 than without.

[philstyle]

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.

 

 

 

 

Jesus, trying to tease source documents out of you is like pulling hens teeth....

 

Fortunately, Krupi has found something that appears to be making your argument for you. So thanks to him for doing he job.

[Krupi]

The speeds at altitudes do look more like the K4 with MW50 than without.

 

Agreed

[Hummingbird]

Jesus, trying to tease source documents out of you is like pulling hens teeth....

 

Fortunately, Krupi has found something that appears to be making your argument for you. So thanks to him for doing he job.

 

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.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Hummingbird

[Krupi]

Could you please point out where it states G14?

 

Can we confirm that GJ+FX was a G6 or a G14?

[saburo_cz]

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

First rebuild G-6/U2 reached frontline units in July 44, these were G-6 originally equipped with GM1 and were upgraded to G-6 with MW50.

First G-14, planes with factory MW 50 installed, were delivered in July 44 too, production started in June 44.

 

Think that G-6/AS with MW50 were employed sooner than models mentioned above is quite daring.

Without MW, yes it was in April 44.

[philstyle]

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 props on the G14/AS.

 

 

OK, do you have that data, or just your guesses?

 

 

I've taken a few of the original sources which give just level speeds at altitude that people have posted on this thread and mapped them on the same set of Axis... This is a task I asked the people who cared to do... but of course nobody did it...

 

 

Here's the result. For me this demonstrates that, at least as far as stright line speed goes:

1. The K4 without MW50 is the Best fit for a 109 G6 without MW50, despite the K4 being quicker at all altitudes, and in fact having a massive advantage at high altitude.

2. The K4 with MW50 is about the same distance from the 109 G6 at 1.7 ATA as the K4 without MW50. Although they sit either side of the G6 until 7500m at which point both K4s are faster than the G6 even with 1.7 ATA.

 

 

[philstyle]

First rebuild G-6/U2 reached frontline units in July 44, these were G-6 originally equipped with GM1 and were upgraded to G-6 with MW50.

First G-14, planes with factory MW 50 installed, were delivered in July 44 too, production started in June 44.

 

Think that G-6/AS with MW50 were employed sooner than models mentioned above is quite daring.

Without MW, yes it was in April 44.

 

 

Hey Saburo, do you have a link that supports those dates?

[Hummingbird]

OK, do you have that data, or just your guesses?

 

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

[Krupi]

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.

 

The test data for the DB605AM at 1.8PS is shown on the graph at 1.7?

 

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB605_datasheets_AM.html

 

So you can't make the assumption that GJ+FX is a G6 or G14 ideally we need the Wrk no.

[philstyle]

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

 

 

That's one single altitude.... it's a start, but not much more.

[Hummingbird]

That's one single altitude.... it's a start, but not much more.

 

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?

[philstyle]

If someone want's to build a spreadsheet and graph like the one linked below, but showing the correct figures which you all seem to have, then please do so, so it corrects this graph.

 

Once done, let me know and I'll use it to decide if the MW50 K4 should be on the server.

 

Here's as good as I can get, but it seems everyone else has access to better data. So, go to it.

 

https://i.imgur.com/zqriTuE.png

 

 

.

[DD_Fenrir]

There should be a delineation between G-6 with MW50 and G-6/AS:

 

G-6: DB 605A

 

G-6/AS: DB 605AS - Altitude optimized version using the larger DB 603 supercharger

 

Note: there appears to be no offical Rüstsatz or Umrüst-Bausätze designations covering the installation of MW50 to these airframes; if it was fitted it appeared that /U1 (GM-1) aircraft were converted, sometime during and after April 1944. Records are non-existent to establish any kind of numbers on this.

 

Three Gruppen that I know of (III/JG1, 1/JG5, and II./JG11) employed the Bf-109G-6/AS in Defence of the Reich in 1944.

 

III/JG1 was sent to France to support the Defence of Normandy landings but was in such poor condition it did not become operational over Normandy and returned to Germany on 14 June.

 

JG5 were based in Norway but it seems I. Gruppe may have ben transferred to reinforce Luftotte 3.

 

II./JG11 were again Defence of the Reich sent to Normandy, withdrawn in early July. Sources indicate they received G-14s of unspecified engine type in July, but whether this was before or after they withdrew to Wunsdorf is unknown. I suspect the latter.

 

That leaves the following Gruppen equipped with DB605A engined airframes:

 

III./JG2

III./JG26

 

Who were Luftotte 3 from the start of the Normandy Campaign, with the following units transferred in from Reichs Defence:

 

II./JG3

III./JG3

I./JG27

II./JG53

 

Thus there were twice as many G-6 as G-6/AS equipped units in the Normandy theatre.

Edited August 13, 2020 by DD_Fenrir

[Hummingbird]

If someone want's to build a spreadsheet and graph like the one linked below, but showing the correct figures which you all seem to have, then please do so, so it corrects this graph.

 

Once done, let me know and I'll use it to decide if the MW50 K4 should be on the server.

 

Here's as good as I can get, but it seems everyone else has access to better data. So, go to it.

 

https://i.imgur.com/zqriTuE.png

 

 

.

 

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?

Edited August 13, 2020 by Hummingbird