The K-4 Isn't Special

[Talon_]

15 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.)

 

The XIV was faster at most altitudes in 1944 while V-1 chasing

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

4 minutes to 16,000ft on reduced boost of only +18lbs.

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

And then there's the LF Mk. IX, which should have +25lbs of boost available if Battle of Bodenplatte is to be historical. Yes, it is slower than the K-4 on the deck, but climbrate starts at 30m/s and still 22m/s at 16,000ft

 

Spoiler

 

[Legioneod]

4 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

The XIV was faster at most altitudes in 1944 while V-1 chasing

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

4 minutes to 16,000ft on reduced boost of only +18lbs.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

And then there's the LF Mk. IX, which should have +25lbs of boost available if Battle of Bodenplatte is to be historical. Yes, it is slower than the K-4 on the deck, but climbrate starts at 30m/s and still 22m/s at 16,000ft

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

XIV is irrelevant imo since we won't see it in Bodenplatte, the IX is nice but still slow and climb isn't everything (look at P-47 or Fw-190). The K-4 will still be a better aircraft than the IX imo and will be able to dictate the fight 9 times out of 10.

[Talon_]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

 

XIV is irrelevant imo since we won't see it in Bodenplatte, the IX is nice but still slow and climb isn't everything (look at P-47 or Fw-190). The K-4 will still be a better aircraft than the IX imo and will be able to dictate the fight 9 times out of 10.

 

How much better does the K-4 climb than the G-14 above 14,000ft? Because currently my squad just stay above that altitude and have no problem making mincemeat out of G-14s as they can't climb or dive away from a Spitfire up there.

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, Talon_ said:

 

How much better does the K-4 climb than the G-14 above 14,000ft? Because currently my squad just stay above that altitude and have no problem making mincemeat out of G-14s as they can't climb or dive away from a Spitfire up there.

Clearly if the Spit is already higher up it has an advantage, this goes for any aircraft. I find that if I'm in a G-14 and I start co alt or higher with a spit IX I'll win most of the time.

I'm not saying the IX is a bad aircraft, it's a beast when flown to it's strengths but my money is still on the K-4 or G-14 in most situations.

 

As far as I know the K-4 climb rate isn't anything special and is similar to the G-14.

[ZachariasX]

8 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

XIV is irrelevant imo since we won't see it in Bodenplatte, the IX is nice but still slow and climb isn't everything (look at P-47 or Fw-190). The K-4 will still be a better aircraft than the IX imo and will be able to dictate the fight 9 times out of 10.

But the 109 pilot needs to be very good for that and have must have a very good sense for discretion when things turn sour.

[Herne]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

Clearly if the Spit is already higher up it has an advantage, this goes for any aircraft. I find that if I'm in a G-14 and I start co alt or higher with a spit IX I'll win most of the time.

I'm not saying the IX is a bad aircraft, it's a beast when flown to it's strengths but my money is still on the K-4 or G-14 in most situations.

 

As far as I know the K-4 climb rate isn't anything special and is similar to the G-14.

 

problem with the g14 though is that you have to be careful above 6k, because your mw50 doesn't work anymore. Was this fixed for the k4 ?

[Talon_]

8 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Clearly if the Spit is already higher up it has an advantage, this goes for any aircraft. I find that if I'm in a G-14 and I start co alt or higher with a spit IX I'll win most of the time.

I'm not saying the IX is a bad aircraft, it's a beast when flown to it's strengths but my money is still on the K-4 or G-14 in most situations.

 

As far as I know the K-4 climb rate isn't anything special and is similar to the G-14.

 

From co-alt the Spitfire outclimbs the current G-14 from 7,500ft upwards:

 

 

And in a dive the Spitfire can follow thanks to its high critical mach (this one started over 20,000ft up):

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Also just FYI as well as being better in a climb the Spitfire is faster than the G-14 above 20,000ft, and as shown in the spoiler a dive won't save the 109.

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Talon_

[Legioneod]

Just now, =FEW=Herne said:

 

problem with the g14 though is that you have to be careful above 6k, because your mw50 doesn't work anymore. Was this fixed for the k4 ?

I honestly don't know, my knowledge of German aircraft is very limited, I just know a few basic things.

[JtD]

20 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

The XIV was faster at most altitudes in 1944 while V-1 chasing

 

Which is more than the 21lb which you referred to.

 

Side question - where & when was it used operationally? 21lb I can place, for 25lb I haven't even seen documents confirming operational use.

 

22 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

4 minutes to 16,000ft on reduced boost of only +18lbs.

 

Which is more than 3 minutes.

 

23 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

And then there's the LF Mk. IX, which should have +25lbs of boost available if Battle of Bodenplatte is to be historical. Yes, it is slower than the K-4 on the deck, but climbrate starts at 30m/s and still 22m/s at 16,000ft

 

Which means it needs more than 3 minutes to 16000 feet.

 

All in all, just the known data. Not supporting your claim.

[Legioneod]

4 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

From co-alt the Spitfire outclimbs the current G-14 from 7,500ft upwards:

 

 

And in a dive the Spitfire can follow thanks to its high critical mach (this one started over 20,000ft up):

  Hide contents

 

 

 

 

I'm surprised that spit was able to go 580+ mph in that dive without breaking anything.

 The Spit IX had a rather low safe dive speed compared to it's contemporaries. (I know safe dive speed isn't the same as max dive speed)

[Talon_]

7 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

Which means it needs more than 3 minutes to 16000 feet.

 

All in all, just the known data. Not supporting your claim.

 

I'm no expert at integration but a simple average of 58.1mph climbrate to 3 miles definitely gets the +25lbs Spit IX to 16000ft in 3 minutes and 5 seconds, vs no known data for a 1.8ata K-4 to do the same.

 

4 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I'm surprised that spit was able to go 580+ mph in that dive without breaking anything.

 

You're reading TAS not IAS

Edited September 13, 2018 by Talon_

[Legioneod]

4 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

You're reading TAS not IAS

True, didnt think about that. What was your IAS if you can remember?

 

EDIT: What program is this? I've been trying to do some testing for speed but have bee having trouble with accurate IAS-TAS conversions.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Legioneod

[Talon_]

Just now, Legioneod said:

True, didnt think about that. What was your IAS if you can remember?

 

Mach 0.79 at that altitude is 510mph, give or take.

[Legioneod]

4 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Mach 0.79 at that altitude is 510mph, give or take.

I was reading the Kts. 507 kts is around 580 mph. 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Legioneod

[Talon_]

2 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I was reading the Kts. 507 kts is around 580 mph. I'm sure this changes with alt though.

 

From Mach we can find EAS which is about as close to IAS as we'll be able to discern, which is where 510mph comes from.

[Legioneod]

4 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

From Mach we can find EAS which is about as close to IAS as we'll be able to discern, which is where 510mph comes from.

Interesting, still much higher than the safe IAS dive speed for the Spitfire IX. Did you experience any problems in the dive? If the Spit could dive so fast with little problems I wonder why they restricted it so much?

Edited September 13, 2018 by Legioneod

[Kurfurst]

39 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

How much better does the K-4 climb than the G-14 above 14,000ft? Because currently my squad just stay above that altitude and have no problem making mincemeat out of G-14s as they can't climb or dive away from a Spitfire up there.

 

A lot. The G-14 has the same supercharger, and thus the same performance (or worse, given its also heavier) as the G-6 at anything over 14k feet.

 

K-4, on the other hand, has the same supercharger as the AS versions, with a higher compression and a wide bladed prop. Its essentially a high altitude fighter, that also happens to be good at low altitudes.

 

 

Actually the scary part is the speed. Even at cruise settings, it is quite a bit faster than then either the G-14 or the IX at the higher altitudes.

 

17 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

Which is more than the 21lb which you referred to.

 

Side question - where & when was it used operationally? 21lb I can place, for 25lb I haven't even seen documents confirming operational use.

 

Because it wasn't. If you read the text of the V-1 trials made in pursuit of higher low altitude performance, you will notice the Griffon ran about 2 minutes on +25 lbs before falling apart. Apparently there were persistent main bearing troubles, and even the late 1945 papers speak of 'only' +21 as permissable. 

[PikAss]

1 hour ago, Talon_ said:

How much better does the K-4 climb than the G-14 above 14,000ft? Because currently my squad just stay above that altitude and have no problem making mincemeat out of G-14s as they can't climb or dive away from a Spitfire up there.

 

So we will need a name for british hartmannS then.

 

Any suggestions?

[JtD]

Hardman.

Hardmen, plural.

 

Obviously.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Roger the Dodger?

[LukeFF]

5 hours ago, Eicio said:

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.

 

The N1K2 was a Navy plane. 

3 hours ago, Eicio said:

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.

 

Say what?

[Danziger]

6 hours ago, LF_ManuV said:

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.

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

28 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

 

Say what?

 

Yeah, I was puzzled by that one.

 

Is the K-4 much heavier than the late Gs? ‘Cos the nice thing about the ‘45 Spit IX models with their elegant 25lb boost in widespread service is the added power without additional weight.

 

Presume the K-4 power-loading improves?

[ZachariasX]

19 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Yeah, I was puzzled by that one.

 

Is the K-4 much heavier than the late Gs? ‘Cos the nice thing about the ‘45 Spit IX models with their elegant 25lb boost in widespread service is the added power without additional weight.

 

Presume the K-4 power-loading improves?

The main advantage of the K4 was that it was fast enough on the deck so it could avoid combat with the Spit IX etc. So you couldn‘t use the Spit IX that was also lacking the range for fast flown interdiction missions to hunt down the GAF. Tempests were better at that. The K4 didn‘t do terribly well in scoring. By 45 it was also second choice for proficient German aircrews on the west.

 

[Eicio]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Say what?

 

I was just trying to say that the k4 wasn't an obsolete plane with a more powerful engine and that it's not because it looks like an old 109 that this plane itself isn't advanced.

I'm no expert and I may be wrong but that is what I believe.

[ZachariasX]

30 minutes ago, Eicio said:

 

I was just trying to say that the k4 wasn't an obsolete plane with a more powerful engine and that it's not because it looks like an old 109 that this plane itself isn't advanced.

I'm no expert and I may be wrong but that is what I believe.

It was most certainly competitive. It just gives you very narrow choice of what you can do with it when you are conducting an air war.

 

The idea of building a tiny aircraft behind the largest engine you can find was an ok solution in the late thirties, becuase it gave you a plane that was consiiderably faster than anything else. By 1943, you had engines powerful enough to even make a well armed aircraft with good operating range fast enough. The Spit had the same problem. Same vintage, same design philosophy.

[69TD_Hajo_Garlic]

4 hours ago, [3./J88]PikAss said:

 

So we will need a name for british hartmannS then.

 

Any suggestions?

I called them Johnnie Johnsons in dcs normandy

[HagarTheHorrible]

4 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Because it wasn't. If you read the text of the V-1 trials made in pursuit of higher low altitude performance, you will notice the Griffon ran about 2 minutes on +25 lbs before falling apart. Apparently there were persistent main bearing troubles, and even the late 1945 papers speak of 'only' +21 as permissable. 

 

........and yet, there will be an expectation that the K4 will be produced according to it's numbers (or lack of them), I hardly need reminding you about the quote regarding the pointlessness of putting ever bigger engines in front of increasingly shoddy airframes when it came to the 109, and presumably it wasn't the only German airframe so encumbered in the increasingly frantic days of late 44, early 45.

 

The question is, by how much did poor build quality and ersatz parts and materials effect the overall performance, 1%, 2%..........5%  ?

Edited September 13, 2018 by HagarTheHorrible

[FTC_Riksen]

21 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

A 1.98ata K-4 is a fantasy airplane.

 

You are a fantasy human being and yet still here ...

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

22 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

A 1.98ata K-4 is a fantasy airplane.

 

19 minutes ago, SCG_Riksen said:

 

You are a fantasy human being and yet still here ...

 

Bwahahah this deserves another quote ?

[JV69badatflyski]

3 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

.... about the ‘45 Spit IX models with their elegant 25lb boost in widespread service ....

 

 

What Widespread? the spread from the one squadron in the 2nd TAF having received some Lectures about the 25lbs somewhere in Feb45?
The only one spread of 25lbs 150-Oct boost in the 2nd TAF i know  was done when the grease-monkeys put a lighter under the fuel stock,
yeah it was spread with even a higher boost than 25lbs all over the place....

So what's next? the meredith giving 500Kg boost to the mustang?  the Tempest with 4000HP?...

[Kurfurst]

18 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

........and yet, there will be an expectation that the K4 will be produced according to it's numbers (or lack of them), I hardly need reminding you about the quote regarding the pointlessness of putting ever bigger engines in front of increasingly shoddy airframes when it came to the 109, and presumably it wasn't the only German airframe so encumbered in the increasingly frantic days of late 44, early 45.

 

It hardly was a German-only phenomenon though. There's an excerpt on the condition of Allied aircraft (Tempest, Spitfire, Mustang) inspected just before testing increased boost. All were found to be in poor condition, as received from their Squadrons, i.e. the operational norm. Mustangs were said to be down 12 mph in speed, Tempests were down by 5 mph, and Spitfires, by 8 mph. 

 

Personally, I am not much surprised on the quote either. American built aircraft I have seen from this era all seem to have been very built. German ones are also generally well built, on average, probably somewhat less so. Soviet ones are hit or miss - some are exceptionally nice (thanks to the lack of rivets and wooden surfaces), some are abysmal. They also do not age well due to their wooden construction. British ones are just generally shoddy - poor fittings, to many gaps, loose panels, rough riveting.

 

18 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

The question is, by how much did poor build quality and ersatz parts and materials effect the overall performance, 1%, 2%..........5%  ?

 

It was pretty normal that serially were performing down (or up) from their nominal values. Accepting +/- 3% variance in top speed between individual planes was internationally accepted tolerance, or so it would seem.

 

[MiloMorai]

1 hour ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

 

 

Bwahahah this deserves another quote ?

 

How many 1.98ata K-4s were operational after Mar 20 1945 when 1.98ata was officially cleared for use? Considering the scarcity of C3 fuel at the airfields they operated from = 0.

 

1 hour ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

British ones are just generally shoddy - poor fittings, to many gaps, loose panels, rough riveting.

 

British planes still had to pass acceptance test flights before going to MU units. Rivets were flush where need.

4 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

The main advantage of the K4 was that it was fast enough on the deck so it could avoid combat with the Spit IX etc. So you couldn‘t use the Spit IX that was also lacking the range for fast flown interdiction missions to hunt down the GAF. Tempests were better at that. The K4 didn‘t do terribly well in scoring. By 45 it was also second choice for proficient German aircrews on the west.

 

 

The Spitfire IX/XVIs were preoccupied  bombing the crap out of German ground forces and left the aerial combat to Tempests and Spitfire XIVs unless forced to.

[Talon_]

1 hour ago, JV69badatflyski said:

What Widespread? the spread from the one squadron in the 2nd TAF having received some Lectures about the 25lbs somewhere in Feb45?
The only one spread of 25lbs 150-Oct boost in the 2nd TAF i know  was done when the grease-monkeys put a lighter under the fuel stock,
yeah it was spread with even a higher boost than 25lbs all over the place....

So what's next? the meredith giving 500Kg boost to the mustang?  the Tempest with 4000HP?...

 

This is completely wrong and not supported by known facts at all.

[Ehret]

2 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

It hardly was a German-only phenomenon though. There's an excerpt on the condition of Allied aircraft (Tempest, Spitfire, Mustang) inspected just before testing increased boost. All were found to be in poor condition, as received from their Squadrons, i.e. the operational norm. Mustangs were said to be down 12 mph in speed, Tempests were down by 5 mph, and Spitfires, by 8 mph.

 

For Mustangs it was the con of laminar wings - they had to be maintained in pristine quality to have the effect. Not possible in a field.

Imho, laminar flow wings were a bit of a fool errand, then. After the war P-39s (not even Kingcobras) were doing very well in races competing with such planes like P-51. That's with the relatively high drag of symmetric airfoil. (at least around the roots)

 

2 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

So what's next? the meredith giving 500Kg boost to the mustang?  the Tempest with 4000HP?...

 

500Kg? The P-51' radiator could recover up to 400hp almost nullifying the cooling drag. But this was maximum and airflow had to be over 450km/h. You can compare the Spitfire (much lighter frame at the same size) to the P-51 with the V-1650 engine (very similar to the Merlin) to see that something is different.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Ehret

[FTC_Riksen]

36 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

 

How many 1.98ata K-4s were operational after Mar 20 1945 when 1.98ata was officially cleared for use? Considering the scarcity of C3 fuel at the airfields they operated from = 0.

 

Are you 100% sure? Can you prove it?

 

 

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

3 hours ago, Joeasyrida said:

called them Johnnie Johnsons in dcs normandy

 

Haha,  Johnson's. Yeah, that works. 

[MiloMorai]

49 minutes ago, SCG_Riksen said:

 

Are you 100% sure? Can you prove it?

 

 

 

Guess you missed the thread on the available avgas at German airfields in April 1945 .

[FTC_Riksen]

5 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

 

Guess you missed the thread on the available avgas at German airfields in April 1945 .

 

Guess you cannot guarantee that they did not have a single K4 1.98 ata, can you?

[Cpt_Siddy]

6 minutes ago, SCG_Riksen said:

 

Guess you cannot guarantee that they did not have a single K4 1.98 ata, can you?

 

I am willing to wager that there were more 23mm LaGG's out there