I think Bf109G-2 is too heavy.

[Agilepig]

I know 777 or 1C have more information and documents than I have, but this is just my opinion.

 

 

See the Datasheets from messerschmitte.(Second one is Bf109G-1's. It is same aircraft execpt pressured cockpit)

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109F4_Datenblatts/109F4_dblatt_flown.html

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_MttDblatt42may/109_May42dblatt_EN.html

 

Bf109F-4

Empty weight - 2386kg

Loaded weight - 2890kg

wingarea - 16.1m²

wingloading - 179kg/m²

stall speed - 135kph

Clmax - 2.04

 

Bf109G-1

Empty weight - 2546kg

Loaded weight - 3042kg

wingarea - 16.1m²

wingloading - 189kg/m²

stall speed - 140kph

Clmax - 1.99

 

(Air density - standart atmosphere. Stall speed in both aircraft is no actual stall speed. I could not find that so I used landing speed. So CLmax is not correct value. I think, Stall speed is lower than that, and CLmax is higher.)

 

 

 

Bf109G-2 is almost same plane with Bf109F-4 except engine and few modifications. It's gained weight, but it is not that big. Wingloading is heavier only 10kg/m², CLmax decrease only 0.05. 

Bf109G-2's maneuvering heavier than Bf109F-4, but it have to be little. Actually, It is meaningless change.(In datasheet, both aircraft's wingloading is same. It means, German pilots think both aircraft have same maneuvering characteristic.)

Edited May 3, 2014 by gomwolf

[bivalov]

full weight of bf 109 g-2, in game, 2994 kg... it's even not 3023 kg, best weight of captured g-2 or g-4, and just best weight of gustav-2, that personally i know...

 

several ingame tests show, that planes very very similar, if i not mistaken, and this is ALPHA, so... you know...

[OBT-Psycho]

and you know you made the exact same conclusion LW pilots did when transferred on gustav?

 

this is the main reason why most said Friedrich was THE BEAST of any 109 model.

 

BTW be sure it is not final. This is the very first weekend we are able to fly it, so let some time to dev to gather feedback from the community and then tweak it.

 

anyway, it is cool to see some pilot having the exact same feeling as back in the old days

[sturmkraehe]

Uhm, I hope they don't tweak an aircraft performance just because the community feels its too low or too uber... Let's not start in this way please.

 

If somebody thinks something is wrong he should use bug reports and support his claim by data from historical documents.

[Crump]

Here is the Bf-109G2 tropical variant ladeplan.  It will be heavier than the non-tropical variant.

 

[Agilepig]

I know it is in Alpha and WIP. It is just suggest. Actually I am fully satisfied in this version of incomplete game. It is just suggest.

 

 

full weight of bf 109 g-2, in game, 2994 kg... it's even not 3023 kg, best weight of captured g-2 or g-4, and just best weight of gustav-2, that personally i know...

 

several ingame tests show, that planes very very similar, if i not mistaken, and this is ALPHA, so... you know...

 

I don't know about in game weight. Thanks.

 

Btw, I do not believe captured plane test. Most of them was shot downed once, so I believe it can not fly like before shot downed.

 

 

 

and you know you made the exact same conclusion LW pilots did when transferred on gustav?

 

this is the main reason why most said Friedrich was THE BEAST of any 109 model.

 

BTW be sure it is not final. This is the very first weekend we are able to fly it, so let some time to dev to gather feedback from the community and then tweak it.

 

anyway, it is cool to see some pilot having the exact same feeling as back in the old days

 

Actually, some famous pilots like Fritz and I love it, too. But In engineering, DB605A was more powerful, even it blocked notleistung. It can be more flexible maneuvering.(I don't know it is right word 'flexible. In most time, I didn't use english, so plz understand.)

 

This thread is for just suggest, but It for feedback, too.

 

Exectly same think about last sentence. It is awesome!

 

 

Uhm, I hope they don't tweak an aircraft performance just because the community feels its too low or too uber... Let's not start in this way please.

 

If somebody thinks something is wrong he should use bug reports and support his claim by data from historical documents.

 

I know It can be the start point of to be old IL-2 1946 forum or Aces high forum, but I do not think it is not bad. At that time, I can get lots of references and documents. And It help for IL-2 1946's historical accurate. and it is just suggest for feedback.

 

Those links are historical datas. Those are official Messerschmitte Specification.

[Kurfurst]

Bf109G-2 is almost same plane with Bf109F-4 except engine and few modifications. It's gained weight, but it is not that big. Wingloading is heavier only 10kg/m², CLmax decrease only 0.05. 

Bf109G-2's maneuvering heavier than Bf109F-4, but it have to be little. Actually, It is meaningless change.(In datasheet, both aircraft's wingloading is same. It means, German pilots think both aircraft have same maneuvering characteristic.)

 

I agree. It has to be kept in mind that the F and early G airframe is practically the same, armament is the same. The G had reinforced wings, but considering how lightweight were the wings themselves, it should amount to a minimum of 10 to 20 kg at best. Aluminium sheets are light, and a tad bit thicker sheet doesn't adds much weight. 

 

In fact most of the weight comes down to the powerplant and a couple of kilograms in the accessories (and possible a couple of kilograms on the propeller, radiators etc.) The 605A weighted about 60 kg more than the 601E, another change was the installation of the light alloy fuel tank bulkhead at 32 kg, and the standard windshield armor at around 10-15 kg perhaps (but this was added to the late Fs as well, and I am like 90% certain that these are not counted in the 2890 kg take off weight, so a late 109F as in the sim should weight about 2940-2950 kg in practice). Power was practically the same, the fully rated F having a bit more at low altitude at 1350 PS vs 1310 PS (the full rating of 1475 PS seems to have cleared briefly in late 1942 but I believe BoS models the G at 1.3ata anyway), and correspondingly less at altitude.

 

As a result, top speeds and climb, turn ratings were practically identical. The Gs major advantage was stronger structure and the standard ability to mount gondola weapons when needed; perhaps more importantly later G-4 had VHF radios.

[Crump]

You can spot weight creep from design changes and features by comparing the Rüstgewicht on the ladeplan's.

[Crump]

It is not a good idea to use the Bf-109G1 stats for a Bf-109G2. 

 

AFAIK, the Bf-109G1 was pressurized for high altitude work.  Pressurization adds weight and generally a considerable amount of it.  Double pane glass, pressure bulkheads, canopy seals, plumbing(pressure valves, tubing, etc..) and pressurization pump are some of the equipment found in a basic pressurization set up.  Additionally the pressurization instrumentation to control cabin altitude and squat switch pressure valves to equalize pressure upon landing. 

 

It is not good to be stuck inside your plane because the pressure is not equal!

 

I think there is a typo on this report page Kurfurst:

 

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET-109Gtrop_WdimPerf.html

 

The weights section explains:

 

 

Table 2 gives the empty and flying weights of the
Me 109 G-1 equipped as fighter and as a fighter bomber:

 

                Me 109 G-1

(Armament: 1 x MG 151/20 + 2 x MG 17)

 

Table 2 is labeled:

 

 

TABLE 2

  Me 109 G-2

 

Table 3 reads:

 

 

Table 3 applies to the Me 109 G-2 and shows an additional

loading condition with guns in fairings under the wing. On

the other hand, the fighter-bomber conditions with 96 x 2 kg.

bombs is not shown. It is known, however, that the Me 109 G-1

(see Table 2) can be equipped with wing guns, while the

Me 109 G-2 can carry 96 anti-personnel bombs.

 

 

If you look at the empty weights, there is a 50 lbs difference between the Bf-109G1 and Bf-109G2(trop) assuming that too is not a typo in that report.   The Bf-109G2(trop) is going to be heavier than the non-tropical version. 

 

Do you have a ladeplan for the Bf-109G2 normal fighter?

Edited May 4, 2014 by Crump

[Agilepig]

It is not a good idea to use the Bf-109G1 stats for a Bf-109G2. 

 

AFAIK, the Bf-109G1 was pressurized for high altitude work.  Pressurization adds weight and generally a considerable amount of it.  Double pane glass, pressure bulkheads, canopy seals, plumbing(pressure valves, tubing, etc..) and pressurization pump are some of the equipment found in a basic pressurization set up.  Additionally the pressurization instrumentation to control cabin altitude and squat switch pressure valves to equalize pressure upon landing. 

 

It is not good to be stuck inside your plane because the pressure is not equal!

 

I think there is a typo on this report page Kurfurst:

 

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET-109Gtrop_WdimPerf.html

 

The weights section explains:

 

 

Table 2 is labeled:

 

 

Table 3 reads:

 

 

 

If you look at the empty weights, there is a 50 lbs difference between the Bf-109G1 and Bf-109G2(trop) assuming that too is not a typo in that report.   The Bf-109G2(trop) is going to be heavier than the non-tropical version. 

 

Do you have a ladeplan for the Bf-109G2 normal fighter?

 

I agree about pressured cockpit gain more weight, but see this link.

 

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G1-6_datasheet/109G_perftable.html

 

It is not big change between G-1 and G-2. At least, LW pilots or German a/c designers think it is same or almost same. Pressured cockpit is more heavier but it is meaningless, I think.

But Bf109G-2 is lighter than Bf109G-1, it's maneuvering have to be more like Bf109F-4.

Edited May 4, 2014 by gomwolf

[Crump]

I agree about pressured cockpit gain more weight, but see this link.

 

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G1-6_datasheet/109G_perftable.html

 

It is not big change between G-1 and G-2. At least, LW pilots or German a/c designers think it is same or almost same. Pressured cockpit is more heavier but it is meaningless, I think.

But Bf109G-2 is lighter than Bf109G-1, it's maneuvering have to be more like Bf109F-4.

 

25Kg is not much weight and I agree it would not be noticeable in the air.  If we can nail down what we agree is the correct weight and power for the Bf-109G2, I can do some maneuvering diagrams to compare the two.

 

 

 

The link is bad btw and will not open.

[Finkeren]

Keep in mind, that the G series were originally designed for cabin pressurization, so a lot of the stuff that adds weight, most significantly the heavy-framed canopy, was present on all G-models regardless whether they were pressurized or not.

[NZTyphoon]

full weight of bf 109 g-2, in game, 2994 kg... it's even not 3023 kg, best weight of captured g-2 or g-4, and just best weight of gustav-2, that personally i know...

 

several ingame tests show, that planes very very similar, if i not mistaken, and this is ALPHA, so... you know...

And there's the answer; the weight of the G-2 as used in the game is lower than the weights being quoted in most of the documents being presented as evidence that it might be too heavy.

Edited May 6, 2014 by NZTyphoon

[Kurfurst]

I will check the paper Crump, but iirc the brits qouted several German papers and including the g1. They had captured several sheets for g1, g2 etc after the complete initial surprise with the type.

 

In any case, keep in mind that the takeoff weight is German papers includes the weight of the pilot and his stuff, usually at 100 kg. This weight could vary of course.

[Crump]

Sounds good.  I will let you guys pick the data and I will run the numbers.  The best data is...

 

Weight

Power at sea level

Speed at sea level

 

From there we can go anywhere in the performance envelope and examine any performance we want.

[Kurfurst]

From the top of my head its 3037 kg, 1310 PS, 537 kph.

[Crump]

For the Bf-109G2 or G1?

[Kurfurst]

G-1 nominal datasheet but from everything I have seen, the G-2 was pretty much the same. No suprise here, since all they differed was the pressurized cocpit, which may have added a couple of kilograms, but nothing to worry about imho, given variations in pilots weight. GM-1, when fitted to the G-1, is not included in this weight.

[Crump]

Ok, I will run the math comparing the Bf-109G1 to the BF-109F4.

[Crump]

There just is not much to choose between the Bf-109G1 vs Bf-109F4. 

 

For sustainable load factor, the Bf-109F4 can sustain ~3.4G while the Bf-109G1 can sustain 3.3G.  About a 3% difference that would not be noticeable in the air and is within normal aircraft performance variation.

 

 

In the rate of turn department, the Bf-109F4 turns at a maximum rate of 23 degrees per second;  the Bf-109G1 maximum rate of turn is 21 degrees per second. It would take a very skilled pilot to realize that difference but that might be noticeable to him. 

 

 

In the acceleration department, the Bf-109F4 has a slight advantage and would be noticeable coming out the stall or slow flight.  At high speeds the Bf-109G1 pulls ahead as it has a faster Vmax than the Bf-109F4.

 

 

Hope this helps to quantify the difference in performance we are discussing. 

 

 

[FTC_Cule]

The Bf 109 G2 was developed as a more stable platform which could end as a more versatile aircraft, this is observed in the R6 and R8 modifications for the Gustav series, since gun pods were not popular on the F, despite this the 1C GS devs have added the unlocks, which will come in handy, since I strongly prefer the F over the G.

 

Already on the cockpit, the G has been altered with superior armour, you can see this with the tougher and thicker windscreens, which reduce the vision compared to the F - one of my reasons for choosing the F, I prefer good visibility with even backrest removed.

 

G had an overall tougher fuselage which made it heavier. Pilots did not like the fuselage even heavier on the G6 and thus asked for a lighter plane, which resulted in the G6-late versions which had wooden ventral fuselage.

 

The engine was given enhanced power for the G, thus countering the weight addition, however this does not mean that the weight increase vanishes, you still notice the weight.

 

My flying techniques are composed mainly on Split Ss, Immelmanns and so on, for which a lighter F is more adequate.

 

But of course if LA5s are on the horizon I'd go for the G2 with tougher armour to withstand some shots. Needless to say, whenever the 190 is available I will select this last one.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Actually the wooden tail on G-6 required a 35kg ballast to be bolted into the engine compartment to compensate, so it was not by any means lighter. Finns also changed the wooden tail back to metallic ones whenever possible.

[Crump]

The Bf 109 G2 was developed as a more stable platform which could end as a more versatile aircraft, this is observed in the R6 and R8 modifications for the Gustav series, since gun pods were not popular on the F, despite this the 1C GS devs have added the unlocks, which will come in handy, since I strongly prefer the F over the G.

 

Already on the cockpit, the G has been altered with superior armour, you can see this with the tougher and thicker windscreens, which reduce the vision compared to the F - one of my reasons for choosing the F, I prefer good visibility with even backrest removed.

 

G had an overall tougher fuselage which made it heavier. Pilots did not like the fuselage even heavier on the G6 and thus asked for a lighter plane, which resulted in the G6-late versions which had wooden ventral fuselage.

 

The engine was given enhanced power for the G, thus countering the weight addition, however this does not mean that the weight increase vanishes, you still notice the weight.

 

My flying techniques are composed mainly on Split Ss, Immelmanns and so on, for which a lighter F is more adequate.

 

But of course if LA5s are on the horizon I'd go for the G2 with tougher armour to withstand some shots. Needless to say, whenever the 190 is available I will select this last one.

 

The analysis is done with a "de-rated" Bf-109G1 and represents Equivalent Airspeed Performance which equals True Airspeed performance at sea level as well as translates to Indicated Airspeed performance up to full throttle height. 

 

At combat speeds, there is not much to choose from between the two and the better armor, avionics, and with a power increase to 1.42ata on the horizon, the Bf-109G is the clear winner.  There is a good reason why the Bf-109F4 series was replaced.

[wastel]

The only reason why the later 109s got an wooden tail  was the resource limit of aluminium and steel.

 

It had nothing to do with weight...