Jump to content
[TWB]Sauerkraut-

The K-4 Isn't Special

Recommended Posts

I don't understand why people seem to go nuts over the K-4, particularly the 1.98 ata manifold pressure. People talk about it like it was some absolutely ridiculous feat of engineering, and how crazy powerful that was.

 

Allied aircraft were far surpassing that even in '44. For example, the Merlin in P-51's and Spitfires was beyond 2, and more than 2.5 by the end of the war. Am I missing something, or do people get excited over the K-4's 1.98 for no reason?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, you are missing something and so where the Germans... 150 Octane fuel.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 7
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

yes, you are missing something and so where the Germans... 150 Octane fuel.

 

Sadly we're also missing that in Battle of Bodenplatte even though up to 25 squadrons of Spitfires were flying with it.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not for 80% of the time displayed in the game from the airbases in the game

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only high PN C3 fuel but all aviation fuel. Late war C3 is reported to be 140PN.

 

There is only really one person pushing for 1.98ata and that has been for almost 20 years. Except for some operational testing there is NO proof that it was actually used by the 4 Gruppen cleared for 1.98ata.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for one, it’s basically the ultimate version of the Bf 109 used during the war. This is like asking why would people be excited for a P-51D or an La-7.

 

Also, aircraft performance isn’t just about manifold pressures. The 109K has basically everything you would want in a (virtual) dogfight. Despite the fact that most contemporary Allied aircraft had significantly higher boost, very few could match the climbing performance of the 109K. And it wasn’t even that much slower than the Allied competition. In certain circumstances it was even faster, such as outpacing the P51D below ~18,000 ft.

 

TL;DR People are excited because it’s a very powerful aircraft.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

not for 80% of the time displayed in the game from the airbases in the game

 

8 weeks of a 24 week campaign. Some units 10 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason I'm more interested in it (aside from the engine changes) for the recracting landing gear and the engine cowling improvements :P. Didn't the K4 also have a different canopy?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, R3animate said:

For some reason I'm more interested in it (aside from the engine changes) for the recracting landing gear and the engine cowling improvements :P. Didn't the K4 also have a different canopy?

Erla-Haube, same as in G14.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a fan of pretty much everything that flies. So... Bf109K-4, last major production model of the Bf109, nice... let's do that!

 

I'm also excited about the Po-2. Adjust your expectations of my interest in aircraft accordingly :)

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time getting excited over yet another Bf 109. It is by far the WW2 aircraft that has been modeled most often in combat flight sims. We’ve seen it all before.

 

What I am interested in is the potential for a somewhat even playing field at high altitude for the high-performance BoBP fighters. High altitude combat on a large scale is something we haven’t really seen too much of, and the K4 is part of making that happen.

Edited by Finkeren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, itsthatguy said:

I don't understand why people seem to go nuts over the K-4, particularly the 1.98 ata manifold pressure. People talk about it like it was some absolutely ridiculous feat of engineering, and how crazy powerful that was.

 

Allied aircraft were far surpassing that even in '44. For example, the Merlin in P-51's and Spitfires was beyond 2, and more than 2.5 by the end of the war. Am I missing something, or do people get excited over the K-4's 1.98 for no reason?

 

Boost is just one means to get horsepower up. On the bottom line, a Bf109K-4 gets the same power out of the 1.98ata DB605 as the SpitfireIX gets out of a 25lb Merlin.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more excited about the D9 to be honest. But it's a weird question... Of-course 109 fan's are going to excited about their ultimate version. That's understandable. 

 

Grt M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lot of power, low weight = good sustained climb, possibly best of all late war ETO aircraft with possible exception of specific Spitfire marks. As with all the later 109s, K-4 was getting a bit heavy and loaded so may not be much 'fun' to fly if you get too close to a Spit or La-5FN.

 

As with everything, it is the pilot and situation above the a/c, so it will do as well as the pilot does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, itsthatguy said:

People talk about it like it was some absolutely ridiculous feat of engineering, and how crazy powerful that was.

 

Feat of engineering - agreed, not really in 1944/45. Crazy powerful? Absolutely. You cannot find many other WW2 fighters with comparable power to weight ratio.

 

In a way, to me the situation seems like an analogy of latest versions of I-16 - this thing was, due to being obsolete and at the end of developing potential in 1940/41, equipped with insanely powerful engine for its weight (M-63 with 900 HP on 1500 kg empty weight!), which gave it tremendous power to weight ratio.

 

Same story with A6M Zero which was supposed to receive the 1500 HP Kinsei and 6000+ were ordered in 1945 (despite being hopelessly outclassed and obsolete design by then).

 

Appears to me that in harsh times, packing a stupidly powerful engine into an obsolete airframe is the usual last ditch effort to make a plane competitive, especially if no viable alternative is readily available.

Edited by CrazyDuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Finkeren said:

I have a hard time getting excited over yet another Bf 109. It is by far the WW2 aircraft that has been modeled most often in combat flight sims. We’ve seen it all before.

 

What I am interested in is the potential for a somewhat even playing field at high altitude for the high-performance BoBP fighters. High altitude combat on a large scale is something we haven’t really seen too much of, and the K4 is part of making that happen.

 

without a need to intercept high altitude bombers, I see little reason for people to be flying above 30k feet. 

 

I suspect MP game play, many will hug the deck with their AC in a fighter bomber configuration, drop their ordnance and burn back to base for medals, tea and biscuits ;)

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Memphis said:

Erla-Haube, same as in G14.

and late G6, G10, G6/AS, G14/AS if we ever see those in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =FEW=Herne said:

drop their ordnance and burn back to base for medals, tea and biscuits

 

In the case of the K-4 crews, that would of course be ersatz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this post a rant? I find every addition to the game "special" even the submodels from the 109 series as they have their own quircks. As people have said before, the K4 it's the last addition to the 109 line and a very important factor of the germany airpower at the end of WW2.

 

In my personal opinion, I would love to fly ever single model of the WW2.

 

I don't talk even about ata settings or fuel types but the aircraft itself but I wouldn't comment on how good or bad one thing is going to be. People will be dogfighting in a P51 at full load and will be complaining when they get shot down. So at the end it doesen't matter the quality itself but the general picture of the airframe.

 

 

Edited by LF_ManuV
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, itsthatguy said:

I don't understand why people seem to go nuts over the K-4, particularly the 1.98 ata manifold pressure. People talk about it like it was some absolutely ridiculous feat of engineering, and how crazy powerful that was.

 

Allied aircraft were far surpassing that even in '44. For example, the Merlin in P-51's and Spitfires was beyond 2, and more than 2.5 by the end of the war. Am I missing something, or do people get excited over the K-4's 1.98 for no reason?Th

The Merlin has a Compression of 6:1, whereas the DB605 had 7.3 and 7.5:1, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

 

:):acute:

 

The main problem wasn't the aircrafts themselves but the pilots, in the end of the war germany put a lot of kids with no experience or appropriate trainings in their planes.

 

At the end of the day they got butchered no matter the quality of the plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

 

:):acute:

Well, he might be partially right. At least in regards to 1944 I'd argue that for performance and duties both parties had to perform, Germans in 109 G and 190 A were more outclassed by P-51B/D, P-47D than in 1945 where 109 K and 190 D (alright, latter arrived later in 1944, but still) made a significant portion of Luftwaffe and provided a substantial performance uplift. Even if pilots were not up to sniff anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, itsthatguy said:

For example, the Merlin in P-51's and Spitfires was beyond 2, and more than 2.5 by the end of the war.

Alternative facts?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, itsthatguy said:

Allied aircraft were far surpassing that even in '44. For example, the Merlin in P-51's and Spitfires was beyond 2, and more than 2.5 by the end of the war. Am I missing something, or do people get excited over the K-4's 1.98 for no reason?

 

Simple answer is that there is a misconception at your end. People are not excited about the manifold pressure itself but about the power output at that pressure.

 

13 hours ago, itsthatguy said:

I don't understand why people seem to go nuts over the K-4, particularly the 1.98 ata manifold pressure. People talk about it like it was some absolutely ridiculous feat of engineering, and how crazy powerful that was.

 

 

Yes it is crazy powerful, but power is not expressed in terms of manifold pressure. People are excited about the power output at this manifold pressure, for this engine and not the number itself, which is as you correctly pointed out surpassed by allied planes, while power output is not.

 

Edited by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CrazyDuck said:

 

Same story with A6M Zero which was supposed to receive the 1500 HP Kinsei and 6000+ were ordered in 1945 (despite being hopelessly outclassed and obsolete design by then).

 

Don't focus too much on the sole zero fighters, they were used only because they could operate on a carrier.

 

The japanese army had different aircrafts much more capable than the zero like the ki-84 and the N1K2 moreover they were continually more used since the fights closing to the core states of japan and the imperial fleet being sinked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K-4, isnt special but still had a suitable performance for the piston fighters . Not bad for a 1935 project;

 

Performance k- at 3100 kg:

 

DB 605 ASCM

 

max speed : 608 km/h sea level ; 727 km/h at 6000 m ; 700km/h at 7500 m

initial climb : 24 m/sec

time to 5000m : 3 min 0sec

time 10000m : 6 min 42sec

time 12000m: 10min 12 sec

service sailing : 12.500m"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect if I was flying a G6 and they delivered K4s I would be crazy excited, if for no other reason than to say "Now I can run away from the hordes of Mustangs ... I might survive this mess after all".  I have always heard that the K4 is not much of an upgrade over a G14 though.  I suppose every bit helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PatrickAWlson said:

I suspect if I was flying a G6 and they delivered K4s I would be crazy excited, if for no other reason than to say "Now I can run away from the hordes of Mustangs ... I might survive this mess after all".  I have always heard that the K4 is not much of an upgrade over a G14 though.  I suppose every bit helps.

gear well covers, retractable tail wheel, cleaner aerodynamics (cowl etc.) ... i think it's similar to how the Yak-1b is cleaner than the Yak-1 + an awesome new engine

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_5tuka said:

Alternative facts?

 

Standard WEP of Merlin 66/Packard-1650-7 with standard 100 octane fuel was 67in. Hg. It's more than 2 ata.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Eicio said:

 

Don't focus too much on the sole zero fighters, they were used only because they could operate on a carrier.

 

The japanese army had different aircrafts much more capable than the zero like the ki-84 and the N1K2 moreover they were continually more used since the fights closing to the core states of japan and the imperial fleet being sinked.

 

Well by April 1945 Japan has long lost all the main carriers already, yet they still placed this completely unrealistic order of 6300 Zeros with 50% more powerful engine. Plus, there must have been reasons Japanese high command ordered Zeros along the Franks and Georges (nightmarish experience with Homare comes to mind).

 

That said, this is all sidetracking the topic, I'm just mentioning the Zero as another example in the row of "let's glue the most powerfull engine possible to our old fighter in order to make it competitive" philosophy - which a 109G(alcoholic)/K is also a "victim" of, in my opinion.

 

109 should, in ideal world, got replaced and went to well earned retirement after its peak of superiority over competition was reached in 1941 with 109F4.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CrazyDuck said:

109 should, in ideal world, got replaced and went to well earned retirement after its peak of superiority over competition was reached in 1941 with 109F4.

 

Yup and there is more about that than just performance. Flying the 109 had to be fatiguing in cramped cockpit, no full trims and poor ground handling. All exacerbated by lack of pilots rotation and once tired, even the best, will make fatal mistakes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, II/JG17_Furias said:

K-4, isnt special but still had a suitable performance for the piston fighters . Not bad for a 1935 project;

 

Performance k- at 3100 kg:

 

DB 605 ASCM

 

max speed : 608 km/h sea level ; 727 km/h at 6000 m ; 700km/h at 7500 m

initial climb : 24 m/sec

time to 5000m : 3 min 0sec

time 10000m : 6 min 42sec

time 12000m: 10min 12 sec

service sailing : 12.500m"

 

 

 

Worse than any contemporary Spitfire mark (+25lbs IXe/XVIe, +21lbs XIV)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, CrazyDuck said:

 

Well by April 1945 Japan has long lost all the main carriers already, yet they still placed this completely unrealistic order of 6300 Zeros with 50% more powerful engine. Plus, there must have been reasons Japanese high command ordered Zeros along the Franks and Georges (nightmarish experience with Homare comes to mind).

 

That said, this is all sidetracking the topic, I'm just mentioning the Zero as another example in the row of "let's glue the most powerfull engine possible to our old fighter in order to make it competitive" philosophy - which a 109G(alcoholic)/K is also a "victim" of, in my opinion.

 

109 should, in ideal world, got replaced and went to well earned retirement after its peak of superiority over competition was reached in 1941 with 109F4.

 

 

Well the spitfire is almost as old as the 109 and they improved it all the way along.

 

It's not because an airframe is old that an army should get rid of it. For an exemple the mig-35 is nothing but an upgrade of the old mig 29 but the upgrades are more than enough to make it a capable modern fighter.

 

For me the K4 is not a"glued up primitive modification of an old aircraft to make it competitive". I believe it's a brand new aircraft with top notch technology and don't share more than some global shapes with it's elder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

Worse than any contemporary Spitfire mark (+25lbs IXe/XVIe, +21lbs XIV)

 

Only matter for the defending side, too - attackers have time to climb before any engagements.

 

3 minutes ago, Eicio said:

Well the spitfire is almost as old as the 109 and they improved it all the way along.

 

Spitfire is the same size as the Mustang. Considering the weight difference, quite a remarkable achievement.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Worse than any contemporary Spitfire mark (+25lbs IXe/XVIe, +21lbs XIV)

 

Those are the planes you feed to the me262 :biggrin: .

 

 

Edited by IVJG4-Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

Worse than any contemporary Spitfire mark (+25lbs IXe/XVIe, +21lbs XIV)

 

Which of these Spitfires exactly exceeded 375 at sea level, 450 at 20000 feet and got to 16000 feet in less than 3 minutes?

 

(Not that I think this climb figure is accurate for the K-4, but since you claim the Spitfires were better than that, I'm curious.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

Which of these Spitfires exactly exceeded 375 at sea level, 450 at 20000 feet and got to 16000 feet in less than 3 minutes?

 

(Not that I think this climb figure is accurate for the K-4, but since you claim the Spitfires were better than that, I'm curious.)

I think he was referring to climb performance. Speed wise the K4 was superior, the only wartime Spitfire that is similar is the XIV iirc.

 

The fastest speeds I've seen for the K4 with 1.8 ata is around 440 mph which is far faster than the Spitfire Mk IX that we have in game.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...