Bf 109 G14 v K4

[Barnacles]

Now that we can fly 2 of the BoBp planes, and 'a picture paints a thousand words', what can we expect from the 109 K4 compared to the G14?  

 

I have a few specific questions myself..

 

1) Is it going to be a bit like we had with the F4 vice the G2, with the G14 trading a bit of power and climb rate for increased agility, or is the K4 going to be an all round superior plane like the LA5FN v the LAF F?

 

2) Will the MW50 on the K4 be ineffective over 6k like the engine on the G14?

[Fritz_X]

A difference between the two planes will be the cannon-armament:

 

While in the G-14 you can choose between 20mm and 30mm cannon, the K-4 will only come with the latter MK-108.

[PainGod85]

2 minutes ago, Fritz_X said:

A difference between the two planes will be the cannon-armament:

 

While in the G-14 you can choose between 20mm and 30mm cannon, the K-4 will only come with the latter MK-108.

 

The K-4 was wired for both guns, the 151/20 should be available as a modification.

[JtD]

Since we don't know the details of the K-4 modelled, it is a bit of guesswork. The K-4 will have better aerodynamics and an engine that is more powerful, in particular at high altitude. Where the G-14 runs out of steam at about 5km, the K-4 will not do so below 7km. The G-14 will probably be a little bit lighter, but I suspect any advantages in terms of manoeuvrability from that to be offset by the better aerodynamics and more powerful engine of the K-4. In terms of climb and especially speed the K-4 is clearly better, and in a different league at high altitude.

[Makz]

Wheel covers +10 km/h

Retractable tail wheel +12 km/h

Smooth engine cowling +6 km/h

2000 hp +20 km/h

624 km/h on deck

?

[PainGod85]

Speed increases from cumulative drag reducing modifications are not additive. Because they all modify the plane's drag coefficient, they are subject to diminishing returns.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

While maximum horsepower is the same at 1800hp, the K-4 has a higher 30min combat setting of 1.45ata producing 1450hp instead of 1300hp in the G-14. This added with the much cleaner airframe means the K-4 will have a much higher combat cruise speed.

[PainGod85]

1 minute ago, RoflSeal said:

While maximum horsepower is the same at 1800hp, the K-4 has a higher 30min combat setting of 1.45ata producing 1450hp instead of 1300hp in the G-14. This added with the much cleaner airframe means the K-4 will have a much higher combat cruise speed.

 

Nope, horsepower isn't the same.

 

The DB 605 AM reaches 1800 PS at 1.7 ATA and SL, but around 600 m barometric altitude (just before the hydraulic coupling engages the supercharger), that figure goes up to around 1820 PS as thermodynamics dictate colder air is denser, and thus there's more oxygen to burn for the same manifold pressure.

 

Note how the addition of MW-50 charge cooling contributes 100 PS to the engine's power output.

 

The DB 605 DB, running the same fuel at 1.8 ATA produces 1850 PS at SL, with a corresponding increase in power produced as altitude increases up to the point where its SC gear engages.

 

I couldn't find a power graph for the 605D, but the climb rate indicates the engine behaves the same:

 

 

This time, the SC gear engages at 700 m, with a concurrent drop in climb rate as engine power is funneled into the supercharger impeller.

[Makz]

20 минут назад, RoflSeal сказал:

While maximum horsepower is the same at 1800hp, the K-4 has a higher 30min combat setting of 1.45ata producing 1450hp instead of 1300hp in the G-14. This added with the much cleaner airframe means the K-4 will have a much higher combat cruise speed.

Most likely there will be DB-605DC with C3 fuel & 1.98Ata & 2000 hp

[PainGod85]

13 minutes ago, Makz said:

Most likely there will be DB-605DC with C3 fuel & 1.98Ata & 2000 hp

 

You mean like the Spit IX has access to +25 PSI?

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

15 minutes ago, Makz said:

Most likely there will be DB-605DC with C3 fuel & 1.98Ata & 2000 hp

Considering the Spitfire Mk IX doesn't have access to +25psi and 150 Octane, the a K-4 running 1.98, which was far less common is unlikely.

[Fritz_X]

1 hour ago, PainGod85 said:

 

The K-4 was wired for both guns, the 151/20 should be available as a modification.

 

Strange, I never found any sources that suggest that the 20mm cannon ever being used on a K-4 in service.

 

In case I was wrong, I suggest to ignore my initial comment about the armament.

[Finkeren]

We know from the Yak-1 s. 127 just how much of a difference a few aerodynamic refinements can accomplish.

 

The G-14 is already pretty good, and the K-4 promises to be an improvement in pretty much every aspect. Not dramatically different, but better.

[PainGod85]

Just now, Fritz_X said:

 

Strange, I never found any sources that suggest that the 20mm cannon ever being used on a K-4 in service.

 

In case I was wrong, I suggest to ignore my initial comment about the armament.

 

Oh, none of them were delivered with the nose mounted MG 151/20, but they were wired for either gun from the factory. Therefore it was up to the pilot to decide which gun he'd rather have. The actual switch could be performed without having to rip the forward fuselage apart.

[L3Pl4K]

1 hour ago, Makz said:

Most likely there will be DB-605DC with C3 fuel & 1.98Ata & 2000 hp 

In the context of the 18 lbs. boost of spitfire, this would be unfair and most Spitfire fans will be pissed off. Maybe the rare DB605L with 1.75ata 1700hp would be a acceptable modification.

[Barnacles]

where there are multiple engine variants or boost levels I hope as many are included as possible, like with both spitfires.

[Voidhunger]

"Messerschmidt employees knew well about the flaws Rheinmetall-Borsig cannonns, which might have even delayed the whole production of Bf 109K´s.

That´s why electrical wiring was prepared for alternative installation of an earlier Mauser MG 151/20, too.

This meant a few more cables on the one hand (the questions is whether they were installed during production at all) ...."

 

So maybe that was the plan on the paper, but there is no proof that the installation was prepared for an MG151.

[Yogiflight]

1 hour ago, PainGod85 said:

Oh, none of them were delivered with the nose mounted MG 151/20, but they were wired for either gun from the factory. Therefore it was up to the pilot to decide which gun he'd rather have. The actual switch could be performed without having to rip the forward fuselage apart.

If his name was Hartmann or Galland, then yes. The default pilot didn't decide anything, exept turning left or right, when attacked. Those decisions were done by squadron leader and higher.

This is the way it works in military world.

RL is not like a video game, where the player decides which weapons he wants to use or which convergence setting.

Edited May 27, 2018 by Yogiflight

[Talon_]

44 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

If his name was Hartmann or Galland, then yes. The default pilot didn't decide anything, exept turning left or right, when attacked. Those decisions were done by squadron leader and higher.

This is the way it works in military world.

RL is not like a video game, where the player decides which weapons he wants to use or which convergence setting.

 

You know Douglas Bader flew much rarer Spitfire Va over a Vb because he preferred the machine guns to the mixed cannon/gun armament, right? Western pilots had individual control of convergence

 

 

Philip Kaplan (2008). Fighter Aces of the RAF in the Battle of Britain. pp. 20–21

 

Quote

In 1944 operating out of England, American Lieutenant Urban "Ben" Drew set the .50 in guns of his North American P-51 Mustang "Detroit Miss" to converge at three points: 600 ft (180 m), 750 ft (230 m) and 900 ft (270 m), with the inboard guns aimed closer and the outboard guns farther away. Drew felt that this gave him a suitable concentration of fire over a deeper envelope of engagement distance.

 

Drew Powell, R. R. (2012) Ben Drew: The Katzenjammer Ace. p. 102.

Edited May 27, 2018 by Talon_

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Western pilots did NOT have individual control over convergence. That's not how militaries operate. You can't take two anomalies and turn them into blanket statements. That's not how logic works either. Even your quote about Malan's, "own volition," essentially shows it wasn't normal. Convergence was set by the manufacturer and some units changed convergence based upon their primary mission; such as some American P-47 units focusing on ground attack. Individual lieutenants and captains had no authority to change convergence on a whim. Aces, maybe. German Experten were given some latitude. Average line guys, not a freakin chance. USN pilots weren't even assigned individual aircraft so you know none of them were mucking about with their convergence either. This argument has been hashed out in these forums before. It's not how it worked then and it d@mn sure isn't how it works now.

 

1 hour ago, Yogiflight said:

If his name was Hartmann or Galland, then yes. The default pilot didn't decide anything, exept turning left or right, when attacked. Those decisions were done by squadron leader and higher.

This is the way it works in military world.

RL is not like a video game, where the player decides which weapons he wants to use or which convergence setting.

 

Didn't even read your comment before I posted but clearly we are on the same page................

Edited May 27, 2018 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, PainGod85 said:

Therefore it was up to the pilot to decide which gun he'd rather have.

 

I've read some outlandish stuff here, but this might just top them all.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

13 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

I've read some outlandish stuff here, but this might just top them all.

 

Outlandish, yes, but not even top ten. You are forgetting the bad old days of EA

 

(I know you aren't really   )

 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

The best is to imagine those poor virtual aircrew rebelting entire belts of ammunition for primadonna keyboard pilots; like some people want.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Milan had 74 change its harmonization point and formation (away from vics), but this is very much an exception and occurred because of the particular circumstance of FC in summer 1940.

 

Sometimes a forceful and successful leader could twist things his way, but that went against the grain of managing thousands of aircraft and pilots across many thousands of sorties based on a relatively inflexible supply chain.

 

Individual preferences - good or bad - were far less important than keeping the machine rolling, not least because the force commanders lacked our benefit of hindsight about what was a promising or poor innovation.

 

Leeway did exist and there are some good examples, but it was more of an exception and fairly circumstance-specific. Still true in air forces today.

[Finkeren]

I would say, that most pilots probably cared more about whether or not they could trust their equipment to perform and adhere to the set standards, than they cared about fiddling around with stuff in an effort to “optimize” something that was already working well enough.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

I don’t think we’ll see a repeat of the F4/G2 dilemma. Even without 1.98 ata and 151/20, the performance advantage will be enough to make most players choose the K-4. 

 

The real competition will will probably come from the D-9. Although it’s a very different aircraft, choosing a clear winner won’t be easy. 

 

I suspect that the G-14 and A-8 usually won’t be the first choice when fighters are the target. 

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

4 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

I suspect that the G-14 and A-8 usually won’t be the first choice when fighters are the target. 

 

I hope that there will be enough variety in the multiplayer map timeframes that not always all of the latest Bodenplatte planes are available and the planes you list there are the best option available for the Luftwaffe at the time. 

 

(same for any modifications that were only available later) 

[LukeFF]

23 minutes ago, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:

 

I hope that there will be enough variety in the multiplayer map timeframes that not always all of the latest Bodenplatte planes are available and the planes you list there are the best option available for the Luftwaffe at the time. 

 

(same for any modifications that were only available later) 

 

Yes, and if MP map designers have any sense of history, they will feature the A-8 and the G-14 as the most common aircraft available.

[Legioneod]

28 minutes ago, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:

 

I hope that there will be enough variety in the multiplayer map timeframes that not always all of the latest Bodenplatte planes are available and the planes you list there are the best option available for the Luftwaffe at the time. 

 

(same for any modifications that were only available later) 

I plan on doing this, but it's a little easier to do with the Germans because we already have plenty of German aircraft in the game. With the American and British aircraft its a little more difficult due to the fact that we are getting only one of each type unless they add modification to make it into multiple types.

 

The Axis will have plenty of variations but the Allies are going to be stuck with what they get (not that this is a bad thing, the Allied plane-set is filled with excellent aircraft)

Edited May 28, 2018 by Legioneod

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

The G-14 would have it's place as the "dogfighting late 109", it's lighter weight and being optimized for lower altitudes than the K-4 makes it better suited for the close fights at low altitude which would happen with Bodenplatte being mostly focused to the fighter-bomber tactical combat.

The K-4 mantains the advantage of higher speed if you have to run from a risky situation, but the G-14 would turn and climb better at lower altitudes, making not only better for pure turnfighting but maybe also better suited for energy fighting the Allied planes.

[newbravado]

No mention of the G10.

[Barnacles]

18 minutes ago, newbravado said:

No mention of the G10.

G10 and Spit XIV a good idea for collector planes?

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

G10 and Spit XIV a good idea for collector planes?

For our purposes, the Spit XII would be the hotter ride...

[BlitzPig_EL]

I feel for the poor Spitfire once the rest of the plane set is released.

 

For us now, flying it alongside the current Ost Front planes it feels like a true hot rod, but once the other late war birds come along the Mk IX will be the slowest plane in the Bodenplatte plane set.  Even with the Merlin 70 at altitude, the P51 and P47 will leave it behind.

[DD_fruitbat]

9 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I feel for the poor Spitfire once the rest of the plane set is released.

 

For us now, flying it alongside the current Ost Front planes it feels like a true hot rod, but once the other late war birds come along the Mk IX will be the slowest plane in the Bodenplatte plane set.  Even with the Merlin 70 at altitude, the P51 and P47 will leave it behind.

 

They may relent and add a 25lbs modification, but otherwise yes. Anyway, i'll have a Tempest to play with by then.....

[EAF19_Marsh]

Spit still has RoC and general handing in its favour, especially low speed / low altitude. And the clipped wing rolls extremely well (2nd only to Fw IIRC those charts). Plus the armament and gunsight is pretty good.

 

But, yes, it has lost competitiveness in terms of raw speed under certain conditions.

[DD_fruitbat]

The gunsight almost feels like cheating

Edited May 28, 2018 by DD_fruitbat

[BlitzPig_EL]

Completely with you on the Tempest fruitbat.  As much as I am looking forward to the planes from my country, the Tempest is already singing it's song to me from across the pond...

Edited May 28, 2018 by BlitzPig_EL

[Ehret]

52 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Spit still has RoC and general handing in its favour, especially low speed / low altitude. And the clipped wing rolls extremely well (2nd only to Fw IIRC those charts). Plus the armament and gunsight is pretty good.

 

The IX's mixed guns + available sights (both the range finder and the gyro) makes her best armed, IMHO for now. (without resorting to gun-pods and such)

 

50 minutes ago, DD_fruitbat said:

The gunsight almost feels like cheating

 

Enjoy twice the hit ratio.   Fully historical, too.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

1 hour ago, DD_fruitbat said:

The gunsight almost feels like cheating

 

For me the piper is always under the nose so I prefer the normal sight. But this may be because it is what I have got good with.