Thoughts on the K-4 Manouverability

[gimpy117]

On 6/18/2021 at 3:24 AM, oc2209 said:

 

The human to plane analogy doesn't hold, because humans aren't built with blueprints. There's much more random variation in biological reproduction as opposed to mechanical reproduction. A plane's performance can be estimated based on its weights and dimensions and propulsion and aeronautics and the laws of physics. A human's performance can't be estimated by reading gene sequences. Not yet, anyway.

 

Can you imagine how needlessly complex it would make the dev's job to guess how much worse the performance of a badly-manufactured airplane would be? Who would make the arbitrary decision as to how flawed, how impaired, the 'average' plane would be? At what date would this inferior performance kick in? Would it occur gradually, or would you simply go from flying a 109G-6 with a 21 second turn time on one day, and on the next day it would be 25 seconds? Are we to believe that every single plane made after or before a certain date will always fly like junk?

 

Can you imagine how much people would complain once they realized their planes were being manipulated in this fashion? When you have a 109 that can't turn with a P-47 on the deck, because a flight simulator game is also simulating the crumbling industry of a dying nation; or a Yak that has opaque plexiglas you can barely see through; all to simulate that the German slave laborer or 17 year old Russian girl who assembled your aircraft was half-starved and in a particularly bad mood that day?

 

Do you have comprehensive data on how the bad production values translate into actual performance changes? Can you accurately simulate how an ill-fitted rudder pedal would affect our planes?

 

You want 'on average' data to show how inferior these planes were? It doesn't exist. Blueprints and specifications on how a reasonably well constructed plane should handle and perform--those do exist.

 

The P-40 issue is not a matter of arbitrarily crippling the plane. It's an issue of following the factory recommendations. Perhaps too stringently, but that's beside the point. The P-40 performs as it should, on paper.

well I've worked on twin Cessna and aircraft to aircraft there it at least one we work on considered "slow" because it was built wrong. it wasn't in a cave in the 1940's like the last ditch German fighters, but Cessna circa 1970! late war German aircraft were suspect and very poor quality. personally I want to devs to be fair and give the P40 the engine limits it deserves based on real documents.

 

but still the late war 109 is a freebie.    

 

 

[LColony_Kong]

Personally I think a good setting for the P-40 would be unlimited time at 57inches. This is actually short of the new rating Allison recommended in the frequently cited document. Later Allison would also run on this setting in P40s, but as the official rating. What I think is indisputable is that it should get some kind of bump because the Allison engine was notoriously underrated in terms of power. This had to do with a combination of ultra conservative ratings from both Allison and the AAF. The P-40 was not the only air-frame affected. 

 

There is a very good article on some of the effects conservative ratings had with regard to P-38s here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-wayne.html

The P-38 had other issues to further complicate things but part of the problem was overly conservative ratings.

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, gimpy117 said:

well I've worked on twin Cessna and aircraft to aircraft there it at least one we work on considered "slow" because it was built wrong. it wasn't in a cave in the 1940's like the last ditch German fighters, but Cessna circa 1970! late war German aircraft were suspect and very poor quality. personally I want to devs to be fair and give the P40 the engine limits it deserves based on real documents.

 

but still the late war 109 is a freebie.   

 

I'm sure a good number of late war German planes were poorly built. That doesn't mean all were, equally. It's an impossible task to accurately estimate how much late war planes should be hobbled. It's also bad business.

 

What, for instance, is the point in selling the 109 G-10 eventually (even in a package deal, not as a collector's plane), if, despite being known as one of the fastest 109s (the fastest G series at least), in the sim it only manages to hit, say, 405 MPH at most?

 

A 1941 vintage F-4 could almost hit 400 MPH.

 

Might as well not even fly late-war scenarios as Germany in that case.

 

If there was conclusive evidence that certain speeds were impossible to attain (like in the case of the Japanese because of their even worse fuel problem than Germany's), it'd be a different story.

 

If the Ki-84 is ever in the sim, I'd love to fly it at ~425 MPH or whatever it reached with American fuel, during post-war tests. But that would be quite unrealistic. Much more so than German planes managing to occasionally reach specified test speeds, during the war.

Edited June 22, 2021 by oc2209

[Guest deleted@171995]

here it is indicated that. that the Germans had a lot of problems and that there are no real flight characteristics. there are only calculations. extrapolation, etc. it is written about the blocked boost of 1.98 (only 1.8 was used) and much more. maybe the developers had additional documents?

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

Цитата

No evidence has come to light proving operational use of 1.98 ata by combat units, however, its clear from surviving documentation that the Luftwaffe felt a pressing need to increase the performance of the 109 and that 1.98 ata was tested and proposed for use.

 

[MiloMorai]

4 hours ago, Gimpel said:

here it is indicated that. that the Germans had a lot of problems and that there are no real flight characteristics. there are only calculations. extrapolation, etc. it is written about the blocked boost of 1.98 (only 1.8 was used) and much more. maybe the developers had additional documents?

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

 

Oh, oh, now you have gone and done it. ?

 

There was 12 assigned to JG11 in late Dec. '44 for operational testing. Iirc, 3 participated in Bodenplatte. A couple of weeks into Jan. '45, the testing was stopped.

[Guest deleted@171995]

9 часов назад, MiloMorai сказал:

О, о, теперь вы пошли и сделали это. ?

 

В конце декабря 44 г. в JG11 было направлено 12 для эксплуатационных испытаний. Iirc, 3 участвовали в Bodenplatte. Через пару недель после начала января 45-го испытания были остановлены.

а что не так? я заходил на курфурст.орг. у них эти же данные на к4 лежат/what's wrong? I went to kurfurst. org. they have the same data on k4.

[ATAG_SKUD]

I actually read what was posted on Kurfurst.org. It seems this was missed..

"this report is of special interest it also shows - as a reference - the performance of the serial production Bf 109K-4 with standard VDM 9-12159 propeller and as such it is a valuable resource for the basic performance figures of this last, potent subtype, at it`s numerous combinations of the engines, manifold pressures and MW-50 boost used.

Actual flight test trials with the VDM 9-12199 Dünnblattschraube, as well as various other propellors of advanced design were also performed at Aspera Gmbh., showing improvements in good agreement with the Messerschmitt Projektbüro report."

This looks like actual performance results  on the baseline aircraft not calculated as mentioned above.

skud

[Kurfurst]

On 6/27/2021 at 8:07 AM, Gimpel said:

here it is indicated that. that the Germans had a lot of problems and that there are no real flight characteristics. there are only calculations. extrapolation, etc. it is written about the blocked boost of 1.98 (only 1.8 was used) and much more. maybe the developers had additional documents?

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

 

This has been discussed many times more than what its worth. Including but not limited to this forum. 

 

Suffice to say, the developers have several additional documents that are not listed, or have been removed (for some curious reason) on that website you have linked.   

[Guest deleted@171995]

33 минуты назад, VO101Kurfurst сказал:

 

Об этом много раз говорили больше, чем стоит. Включая, но не ограничиваясь этим форумом. 

 

Достаточно сказать, что у разработчиков есть несколько дополнительных документов, которые не указаны или были удалены (по какой-то любопытной причине) на том веб-сайте, на который вы указали ссылку.   

странно ?

maybe you have data on k4? I only watched them on this site.

[the_emperor]

On 6/27/2021 at 8:07 AM, Gimpel said:

there are only calculations. extrapolation

"Errechnet" could also mean, the recorded instrument flight is corrected by calculation (e.g. compressibility) if I am not mistaken.

 

Cheers

[Bremspropeller]

19 hours ago, the_emperor said:

"Errechnet" could also mean, the recorded instrument flight is corrected by calculation (e.g. compressibility) if I am not mistaken.

 

That would be a remote possibility - it would be called "korrigiert" or something similar.

"Errechnet" just means "calculated" - and it's usually right in the ballpark of actual flight-data.

 

Unless there's something throwing off the calculations - like the actual drag being higher than in wind-tunnel data (e.g. cowling gaps on the Dora) and the likes.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

On 6/15/2021 at 1:06 PM, MiloMorai said:

Problems with aircraft coming from the factory had increased since thousands of forced labourers had been put to work in the production of aircraft. More than once the technicians of III./JG 54 found things during their checks that suggested sabotage.

This occurred in USA in 1943, whiout using slave labours, 

"" The Waco Aircraft Company of Troy, OH, a niche manufacturer of civilian airplanes, won the contract to design and build America's first combat glider. Big names like Ford, along with a dozen or so smaller firms, also won glider contracts, but only if they weren't already producing powered aircraft for the war effort. With more than 70,000 parts to assemble and with little or no standardization, some manufacturers produced a few duds, with sometimes tragic results.

The wide range of expertise among these contractors, as well as an early lack of standardization of the 70,000-plus individual parts, caused pilots and mechanics no shortage of headaches and more than a few tragedies.

MacRae recalls an incident that nearly scrapped the glider program less than a year before its D-Day triumph. In August 1943, a Saint Louis-based contractor invited the city's mayor and other dignitaries to experience the excitement of a glider flight before an airshow audience of 5,000. Aghast spectators watched as a glider abruptly lost a wing at 2,000 feet and crashed in front of the grandstand, killing all onboard. After ruling out sabotage, investigators traced the cause of the crash to a faulty bolt provided by a subcontractor in the coffin business. ""

Other poor quality incidents in the american aircraft factories occurred during WWII but they were located and fixed quickly.
A WASP, woman test pilot in a factory, reported that she take-off with an airplane with flight controls inverted, all assembly line units had to be revised. 



 

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[Stig]

3 hours ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

faulty bolt provided by a subcontractor in the coffin business

 

That's one way of increasing turnover for your main line of business.

 

Morbid, I know; sorry about that.

[JtD]

Unfortunately there's no ethically outraged emoticon, so I just gave you a laugh. ?

[gimpy117]

10 hours ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

This occurred in USA in 1943, whiout using slave labours, 

then imagine the quality of a 109 built in a cave.....

 

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

On 8/8/2021 at 5:44 PM, gimpy117 said:

then imagine the quality of a 109 built in a cave.....

 

Then imagine the quality in 1939 out of the cave.

By the way, the Allied "without caves" were not able to mass produced direct fuel injection engines, superchargers with hydraulic coupling (until 1944), like Bf-109 used from 1938 to war end in 1945,... or full automatic engine management device like BMW 801 "komandogerat".

Have you think about this?  ?

  

Edited August 12, 2021 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[gimpy117]

5 minutes ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

Then imagine the quality in 1939 out of the cave.

By the way, the Allied "whihout caves" were not able to mass produced direct fuel injection engines, superchargers with hydraulic coupling (until 1944), like Bf-109 used from 1938 to war end in 1945,... or full automatic engine management device like BMW 801 "komandogerat".

Have you think about this?  ?

  

Gizmos on aircraft are nice, but when you lose the ability to produce airframes to a certain quality...well...it's beside the point. You're trying to compare apples to oranges here too, to deflect from a point that mid-late war German aircraft quality was on the whole below what the allies were producing. I'll also wager that allied aircraft were every bit as well designed, they just had different design goals, focusing on improving existing designs rather than making radical goals (such as fully automatic controls). I would point out, that likely this allowed the allies to far out strip Germany in production. 

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

By the way, the Allied "whihout caves" were not able to mass produced direct fuel injection engines, superchargers with hydraulic coupling (until 1944), like Bf-109 used from 1938 to war end in 1945,... or full automatic engine management device like BMW 801 "komandogerat".

Erhard Milch was never trolling like that, but in summer 1942 directly threatened to close down DB engine development and terminate them altogether by forcing them to license build Jumos. But since the Jumo213 didn‘t work yet, that wasn‘t really a practical thing to do.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

2 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

German aircraft quality was on the whole below what the allies were producing. I'll also wager that allied aircraft

I think that you are misinformed, the quality of German aircraft design were 10 year advanced compared to allies designs, from 1935. Even with constant pressure of bombing raids, almost destroyed petrochemical industries, and lack of qualified manpower, German engineers were able, raise the aircrafts producction and Luftwaffe  units were able to still fighting until the capitulation. By the way, if German aircrafts were so crap as you are stating, Why they stolen and move a lot of that "bad quality" aircrafts, loading a full aircraftcarrier , to USA? ...a very expensive work only for a souvenir ??..  I think?

 

46 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Erhard Milch was never trolling like that, but in summer 1942 directly threatened to close down DB engine development and terminate them altogether by forcing them to license build Jumos. But since the Jumo213 didn‘t work yet, that wasn‘t really a practical thing to do.

I would recommend that you read the Calum Douglas book before writing this absude things in a forum.

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[the_emperor]

26 minutes ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

I think that you are misinformed, the quality of German aircraft design were 10 year advanced compared to allies designs

No, it was not. the longer the war went, the lower the quality of the produced aircraft. On paper the might have been equal or technicaly advanced but the german industry lacked the capabilites to produce aircraft in the steady quality like the western allied industry was able to.

Aiframes and engines got worse the longer the war went.

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by the_emperor

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

5 minutes ago, the_emperor said:

the german industry lacked the capabilites to produce aircraft in the steady quality like the western allied industry was able to.

Aiframes and engines got worse the longer the war went.

What date are you talking about?? ... that document is dated in January of 1945, the last year of the war, it is not applicable for the first years. ...and yes Allies crushed them with constant bombing raids, and overwhelming numerical superiority.  

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

I would recommend that you read the Calum Douglas book before writing this absude things in a forum.

You‘re funny. Page 297 in that book („Merlin-Edition“).

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

You‘re funny. Page 297 in that book („Merlin-Edition“).

have you read the chapter where he stated that a DB-605D with GM-1 had better performances than a DB-628 with 2 stages supercharger, and better than BMW 801 ?? ...i tell you the page later. ?

Edited August 8, 2021 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[ZachariasX]

11 minutes ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

have you read the chapter where he stated that a DB-605A with GM-1 had better performances than a DB-628 with 2 stages supercharger, and better than BMW 801 ?? ...i tell you the page later. ?

Yeah. It‘s right on the pages where he is foaming, huffing and puffing about these engines not existing in service but the Merlin 61 would.

[354thFG_Panda_]

Does anyone have thoughts on the K4s manoeuvrability? 

[JV69badatflyski]

6 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

Gizmos on aircraft are nice, but when you lose the ability to produce airframes to a certain quality...well...it's beside the point. 

So direct injection and automatic engine controls are Gizmos in a war airplane? Right?!?

If Yes: ROTFL  Spilled my Maes on the screen ( Really  , had to clean before posting, lucky it was a 0.5L)
If No: you expressed your ideas badly/wrongly.

KR

 

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Yeah. It‘s right on the pages where he is foaming, huffing and puffing about these engines not existing in service but the Merlin 61 would.

I deduced in your previous posts that you had been not read the Calum Douglas´s book, but with this post you have confirmed it.

Pag. 341 of the book. 

""  The turbocharged Fw 190 had a ceiling 800 m. inferior to that of a standard Bf 109 G when equipped with a DB 605 D and GM1, which could reach 13.2km (43,500ft) when using GM1. The same Bf 109 G could also climb 1 km higher than the Bf 109 with the two-stage supercharged DB 628 engine and equal its top speed of 426mph.[685 kph] ""

 

By the way; Here is the page 297, that you referring previously. It was only a bravado of Milch, to pissing off to Daimler Benz engineers. Calum stated that this menace of cancelation the DB engines contract and send all engineers to work in  JUMO engines "was a token threat from Milch".

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

On 2/8/2021 at 1:00 AM, Richomer said:

I belive historical pilots impression on the K-4 manoeverability has often been misinterpretted, some squadrons complained about it because they were endowed with unremovable 20mm wing mounted gun pods.

By the way, in addition to motor-cannon, Bf-109 K4 only used underwing nacelle type cannons. They was a "Rüstsatz" or retrofit kit. Of course these underwing cannons were removable but only by ground crew. 
A few K6, K8, and K-14 were built with Mk-108/30mm cannons inside the wings, but they don´t entered in combat. 

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

1 hour ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

By the way, in addition to motor-cannon, Bf-109 K4 only used underwing nacelle type cannons. They was a "Rüstsatz" or retrofit kit. Of course these underwing cannons were removable but only by ground crew. 
A few K6, K8, and K-14 were built with Mk-108/30mm cannons inside the wings, but they don´t entered in combat. 

 

Did those jam all the time too like the legendary 30mm? 

2 hours ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

I deduced in your previous posts that you had been not read the Calum Douglas´s book, but with this post you have confirmed it.

Pag. 341 of the book. 

""  The turbocharged Fw 190 had a ceiling 800 m. inferior to that of a standard Bf 109 G when equipped with a DB 605 D and GM1, which could reach 13.2km (43,500ft) when using GM1. The same Bf 109 G could also climb 1 km higher than the Bf 109 with the two-stage supercharged DB 628 engine and equal its top speed of 426mph.[685 kph] ""

 

By the way; Here is the page 297, that you referring previously. It was only a bravado of Milch, to pissing off to Daimler Benz engineers. Calum stated that this menace of cancelation the DB engines contract and send all engineers to work in  JUMO engines "was a token threat from Milch".

 

It is great the prototypes had such impressive performance, but the actual Kurfurst combat aircraft had engines made of glass that failed all the time compared to that superior late war allied engineering.

[357th_Dog]

7 hours ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

What date are you talking about?? ... that document is dated in January of 1945, the last year of the war, it is not applicable for the first years. ...and yes Allies crushed them with constant bombing raids, and overwhelming numerical superiority.  

And technical superiority, dramatically better training, an entirely superior aircraft (Tempest and P-51) and effective supply chain logistics. 

 

[LukeFF]

10 hours ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

Allies crushed them with constant bombing raids, and overwhelming numerical superiority.  

 

Ah yes, the ol' "they only won because they overwhelmed us with superior numbers" argument that never goes away.

[Alexmarine]

5 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Ah yes, the ol' "they only won because they overwhelmed us with superior numbers" argument that never goes away.

 

Silly Germans, they should have politely asked to the Allies to organise a series of 1 vs 1 encounters ?‍♂️

[ZachariasX]

7 hours ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

Calum stated that this menace of cancelation the DB engines contract and send all engineers to work in  JUMO engines "was a token threat from Milch".

You are indeed funny. But let‘s leave it at that. 

[Eisenfaustus]

2 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Ah yes, the ol' "they only won because they overwhelmed us with superior numbers" argument that never goes away.

Yup - of course it is an important part of the equation - but certainly not the only variable. 
 

3 hours ago, 357th_Dog said:

And technical superiority, dramatically better training, an entirely superior aircraft (Tempest and P-51) and effective supply chain logistics. 

 

From these I think training and logistics are the decisive factors. The superiority of equipment of any side was usually only partial or quite marginal.

 

When Speer initiated the emergency fighter program in the bombed out country there were tradeoffs no doubt. But from what I understood those airframes produced by the original plants (which still were a big proportion of the total) where still of high quality. Those of the converted plants were of mixed quality. 
 

What mainly broke the Luftwaffes back was the bad planning that Leandro an inability to produce well trained aviators in feasible numbers. 
 

Like the Heer the Luftwaffe was taylored for a short war and didn’t change in time. 

[the_emperor]

5 hours ago, 357th_Dog said:

And technical superiority, dramatically better training, an entirely superior aircraft (Tempest and P-51) and effective supply chain logistics. 

 

Indeed. If you have to choose whether to use your remaining fuel supply to train pilots or to send your undertrained pilots into combat vs a highly trained, well supplied and equipped opponent (the germans chose the latter) you are done. I read in some article that with the duration of the war, the engine quality and engine life did also decrease due to losing access to crucial raw materials (If I remeber correctly it were the Vichy territores in north afric) to produce durable high perfomance engines. But I could also be wrong on that.

 

Cheers

Edited August 9, 2021 by the_emperor

[gimpy117]

On 8/8/2021 at 6:56 PM, JV69badatflyski said:

So direct injection and automatic engine controls are Gizmos in a war airplane? Right?!?

If Yes: ROTFL  Spilled my Maes on the screen ( Really  , had to clean before posting, lucky it was a 0.5L)
If No: you expressed your ideas badly/wrongly.

KR

 

they are mostly gizmos...especially when installed on a poorly produced airframe.

 

firstly, Lets get at what a 1940's "direct Injection" system is. it's essentially a timed pump that is to allow a squirt of fuel in at the proper moment (like a diesel). it's not computer controlled, it's noting like todays highly advanced direct injection systems. The Allied pressure Carb (throttle body injection) is really not that far behind in terms of fuel injection and can deliver fuel in an automatic rich or lean mode. The pressure carb has the advantage of being easy to retrofit. I'm sure direct injection gave some fuel efficiency and marginal amount of power over a throttle body injection setup...but this was needed surely due to the smaller fuel capacity of the 109. Fuel stowage and availably wasn't such an Issue for the allies.  

 

as to the automatic systems...well...

 

Prop Pitch is automatic on Allied aircraft. set your RPM and mostly forget it. you put your prop in the most efficient range...and the constant speed governor keeps it there 

Part of the 109's system was, in effect a means to make an electric Prop do this same thing. 

later allied aircraft also (pressure carbs), had auto mixture ("auto rich" and "auto lean")

yeah allied aircraft never had auto radiator. 

 

so I'm not buying it. Allied aircraft were equally advanced after the closed the "head start" the Germans got early war, and, allied aircraft only got better as German aircraft only got worse.  

Edited August 11, 2021 by gimpy117

[LukeFF]

50 minutes ago, gimpy117 said:

yeah allied aircraft never had auto radiator. 

 

They most certainly did. 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

6 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

They most certainly did. 

It was sarcasm lol

[Eisenfaustus]

8 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

German aircraft only got worse

The Germans started with the Bf 109 E as their top fighter. The Bf 109 F and Fw 190 A and later D surpassed the Emil by far. 
 

And a well built and maintained (and flown of course) Bf 109 G was still competitive at the end. 
 

There was no magic superiority of German equipment at any point but in able hands it usually did it’s job.
Able hands were the major choke point. Followed by spare parts, fuel and ammo. 

Edited August 11, 2021 by Eisenfaustus
Typo

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

8 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

The Germans started with the Bf 109 E as their top fighter. The Bf 109 F and Fw 190 A and later D surpassed the Emil by far. 
 

And a well built and maintained (and flown of course) Bf 109 G was still competitive at the end. 
 

There was no magic superiority of German equipment at any point but in able hands it usually did it’s job.
Able hands were the major choke point. Followed by spare parts, fuel and ammo. 

Yep, but I do think relative to the competition, German equipment steadily declined as well minus the Ta 152, Me 262, and a few others that were deployed in small numbers. The 109 was just a really old design by the end. Still average to decent, but not the lord of the skies like the F-4/G-2 were at one short period in time in 1941-42. Still, the gap between the early 109s and competitve planes like the p40e, p39, and others is too wide in game because of absurd engine limitations.