BF 109 K4

Are you saying we know the 109K-4 will have that MP?

No we don't know that. It just seems that someone has decided that 109 will be overmodelled and spitfire undermodelled. Or something. I have usually been flying USAAF and RAF, but now I am starting to hope that we get spitfire mkIX as it was in late 1942 and Bf 109 K-4 with 1.98 ata...

No we don't know that. It just seems that someone has decided that 109 will be overmodelled and spitfire undermodelled. Or something. I have usually been flying USAAF and RAF, but now I am starting to hope that we get spitfire mkIX as it was in late 1942 and Bf 109 K-4 with 1.98 ata...

Or the other way round ;)

Ok, just to whip up a frenzy:

Finally got the youtube tags to work! :doh:

Or the other way round ;)

Oh yes, it seems that there have always been and always will be that... But I think that in here all the posters so far have stated that k-4 should be modelled to late 1944 specs as should the spit mkIX. And that is the reason I fail to see the point, if there is one, in Milo's posts about this. I am sure he knows what he is talking about, only there is no-one arguing about it.

Oh yes, it seems that there have always been and always will be that... But I think that in here all the posters so far have stated that k-4 should be modelled to late 1944 specs as should the spit mkIX. And that is the reason I fail to see the point, if there is one, in Milo's posts about this. I am sure he knows what he is talking about, only there is no-one arguing about it.

A 1.98ata K-4 is a 1945 a/c which only saw service ?? in the last few weeks of the war in Europe.

A late 1944 K-4 would have 1.8ata.

As of Dec 31 1044 II./JG11 had:

1 Bf109G-6/U4

38 Bf109G-14

11 Bf109K-4 or a staffel which were quickly withdrawn from their operational test status

I can find no claims by II./JG11 for Dec 1944, so how much if any combat did these very few 1.98ata K-4s see?

Just to be clear, I have no problem with a 1.8ata K-4.

A 1.98ata K-4 is a 1945 a/c which only saw service ?? in the last few weeks of the war in Europe.

 

A late 1944 K-4 would have 1.8ata.

 

As of Dec 31 1044 II./JG11 had:

 

1 Bf109G-6/U4

38 Bf109G-14

11 Bf109K-4 or a staffel which were quickly withdrawn from their operational test status

 

I can find no claims by II./JG11 for Dec 1944, so how much if any combat did these very few 1.98ata K-4s see?

 

Just to be clear, I have no problem with a 1.8ata K-4.

And I am sure you are right about this. What I am not sure is why you keep on with this "1.98 was not used in 1944", because I have not seen any posts that suggest it should be modelled to 1.98 ata? There is nobody arguing about the issue, so why? :)

On the other hand, these statistics make an interesting reading, so there is that.

Any sources for that?

Dropped from series in October

From what i have read, mainwheel cover removal and fixed (long) tailwheel were field mods. There's also few ones fitted with G-type short tailwheel but they should be very rare.

That might be about right for late series, to prevent malfunctions due to weather (snow, mud) or due to lower production quality. But the first series didn't have it from factory because the OK to systems reliability came later than the type's service introduction, after modifications proved successful in flight tests

Testing continued up to December 44.

Really? That is the book I'm relying on. I bought it about 20 years ago when I was very interested in parsing through 109 myths and facts.

 

Why did Daimler-Benz request that the radiator shutoff be dropped from production?

With the presence of the valves, the cooling system felt off at temperatures about 10-20º below the evaporation temperature.

A couple of interesting points for modelling from 109K-4 operating instructions (Bedienungsvorschrift) of October 1944 (published January 1945).

 

Both the elevator trim and the elevator gear ratios were changed compared to 109G to make them lighter. The relevant parts have been marked with red rectangles.

 

Translation:

 

3. Stabilisers and control surfaces

 

Rudder without horn balance, with Flettner tabs. Rudder with reduced trailing edge"

 

"Cantilever horizontal and adjustable tailplane; increased gearing compared to Bf 109 G."

 

Mechanical indicator of the horizontal tailplane setting in the left wall of the cocpit"

 

"To reduce stick forces, modified elevator control kinematics"

There is some doubts about the introduction of this feature, as the combination of standard ailerons and reduced elevator movement was forbidden by H. Beauvais :

And the series introduction of new aileron (standard with Flettner or symmetrical nose without Flettner, were the two choices finally selected) hasn't been decided as of February 1945...

No 1.98ata K-4s in 1944.

Then I guess no fuss arose with E'Stelle Rechlin about problems in service machines... :rolleyes:

There were machines converted in 1944, even if DB's directive apparently was not sanctioned by RLM via a TAGTT or Rechlin directive. The instructions to identification of modified engines were clear:

Then I guess no fuss arose with E'Stelle Rechlin about problems in service machines... :rolleyes:

 

There were machines converted in 1944, even if DB's directive apparently was not sanctioned by RLM via a TAGTT or Rechlin directive.

When did E'Stelle Rechlin become a combat unit?

If you want to quibble over a few days > 22.12.44

Dropped from series in October

 

 

 

 

That might be about right for late series, to prevent malfunctions due to weather (snow, mud) or due to lower production quality. But the first series didn't have it from factory because the OK to systems reliability came later than the type's service introduction, after modifications proved successful in flight tests

 

Thanks for posting these up. :thumbup:

Dropped from series in October

 

 

That might be about right for late series, to prevent malfunctions due to weather (snow, mud) or due to lower production quality. But the first series didn't have it from factory because the OK to systems reliability came later than the type's service introduction, after modifications proved successful in flight tests

 

 

Testing continued up to December 44.

There might be some overlook here - the paper from 13.10.44 you have kindly provided discusses the testing hydraulically actuated main/tail wheel on 109K. testing showed that the mainwheel could be operated up to 310 kph IAS w/o problem (if my German is correct, that is...)

However another paper from 18.10.44 makes it clear that the idea of hydraulic operation of the mainwheel was dropped in favor of the much more simple and reliable mechanical actuation of the main wheel and tail wheel covers.

IMHO there is little relation of the doc you posted on the main/tail wheel covers since the paper discusses essentially testing related to a different subject (the general deployment of the wheels which were hydraulically actuated) but has nothing to do with the wheel well covers (Restabdeckung) which were mechanically operated by the wheel itself.

There is some doubts about the introduction of this feature, as the combination of standard ailerons and reduced elevator movement was forbidden by H. Beauvais :

 

Hmm, interesting. The paper is unfortunately not entirely clearly worded, however its clear they preferred the "normal" elevator design as "better". I am puzzled however how and why the aileron / elevator combination is better or worse...

And the series introduction of new aileron (standard with Flettner or symmetrical nose without Flettner, were the two choices finally selected) hasn't been decided as of February 1945...

Again very odd in view that WNF G-6s and indeed many G-10s are seen flying happily with aileron Flettner.. identification of 109K with aileron Flettner has been most difficult because of poor angles, rarity and quality of photographs, though one picture of a very late 109K suggest (too poor quality to make out detail 100%) the Flettner was eventually introduced sometime later. It is clear from documentation (see above) intitial ailerons were that of G-6. I am not sure if reason was aerodynamic or production related (existing stocks to be used first).

There seems to be a misunderstanding going on. If you are looking for the bananaforums, you took a wrong turn. Now you guys keep it civil and familiarize yourselves with the house rules or your stay here will be short.

Is there such thing as a wrong turn on the internet? :D

Bf 109K-4 and K-6 performance at 1,98ata (2000PS) boost, DB 605DC powerplant. For relevant powers of DC powerplant at 1.98ata, see: http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/datasheets/DB605DC_limits_dec44Motorenkarte.jpg

Level speeds (note: thick lines depict level speed with improved VDM 12 199 propellor. For perfromance with serial production VDM 12 159 propellor - or "Serienschrb", see thin lines).

Climb rates

Bf 109K-4 and K-6 performance at 1,88ata (1800/1850 PS) boost, DB 605DB powerplant.

Level speeds (note: thick lines depict level speed with improved VDM 12 199 propellor. For perfromance with serial production VDM 12 159 propellor - or "Serienschrb", see thin lines).

Climb rates :

For relevant powers of DB powerplant at 1.80 ata boost, see: http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/datasheets/DB605DB_limits_dec44Motorenkarte.jpg

Full report with English translation:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/Leist_109K_EN.html

Just as a random useless fact, the documents are most likely a straight scan from a negative microfilm. When I scan microfilm like this I change it to positive reading where I can. But some dont.

Thanks for that- I'd forgotten that many of the German documents are on microfilm. :thumbup:

My main point is that it just seems that whenever the 109K-4 is mentioned exactly the same stuff turns up time and time again.

I like the K-4 and would like more information on the subject, because at present there are too many loose ends.

I don't live in Europe and don't have the same access to archival material that those who live on the continent do. Is there any new documentation that can be contributed that will help clear up the use of 1.98 ata?

Just as a random useless fact, the documents are most likely a straight scan from a negative microfilm. When I scan microfilm like this I change it to positive reading where I can. But some dont.

The original DB/DC manual of Dec 44 which the db/dc ratings are posted from was on white background - I simply turned it into inverse colour to fit into the site's design of black background.

I am sure everyone is relieved now that we have cleared that important bit up. :D

What kind of loose ends are you worried about?

Not worried, just interested - there doesn't seem to be much documentation relating to the K-4, and the same issues and debates with respect to the use of 1.98 ata crop up time and time again in various forums.

IMO it is more than likely it is something which will never be satisfactorily resolved, because the relevant information is either long gone, or there isn't, as yet, enough information available to be absolutely certain about what happened in the last few weeks of the European theatre. Hopefully the relevant information will be found, and all credit given to the researcher who finds it.

There might be some overlook here - the paper from 13.10.44 you have kindly provided discusses the testing hydraulically actuated main/tail wheel on 109K. testing showed that the mainwheel could be operated up to 310 kph IAS w/o problem (if my German is correct, that is...)

 

However another paper from 18.10.44 makes it clear that the idea of hydraulic operation of the mainwheel was dropped in favor of the much more simple and reliable mechanical actuation of the main wheel and tail wheel covers.

 

IMHO there is little relation of the doc you posted on the main/tail wheel covers since the paper discusses essentially testing related to a different subject (the general deployment of the wheels which were hydraulically actuated) but has nothing to do with the wheel well covers (Restabdeckung) which were mechanically operated by the wheel itself.

Incomplete image upload. Missing parts:

Status as of 5.10.44:

Status as of 19.10.44:

Status as of 21.12.44:

Reliable (more or less) cover mechanism with improvements must have been thus introduced in series in late November or early December.

There is also a point (no. 26) dedicated to follow the testing of corrections introduced to solve the problems on the tail wheel retraction mechanism, but I'm tired of scanning.

Hmm, interesting. The paper is unfortunately not entirely clearly worded, however its clear they preferred the "normal" elevator design as "better". I am puzzled however how and why the aileron / elevator combination is better or worse...

Control harmony. Light elevator/moderate-to-heavy ailerons as undesirable (more in fact, according to Beauvais) as heavy elevator/light ailerons.

Again very odd in view that WNF G-6s and indeed many G-10s are seen flying happily with aileron Flettner.. identification of 109K with aileron Flettner has been most difficult because of poor angles, rarity and quality of photographs, though one picture of a very late 109K suggest (too poor quality to make out detail 100%) the Flettner was eventually introduced sometime later. It is clear from documentation (see above) intitial ailerons were that of G-6. I am not sure if reason was aerodynamic or production related (existing stocks to be used first).

What is clear from documents, is that no final decision on universally adopting ailerons with Flettner had been made as of February 1945.

The control column has to be redone.:music_whistling:

Instead of a straight column it must be bend like a mirrored question mark.

This was done to have better access to the MK 108 for installation/deinstallation.

From the Bf 109 K spare parts list:

From the book: "Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Einsatzmaschinen"; Harald Helmut Vogt; VDM-Verlag; ISBN-13: 978-3-86619-068-9

Also the switch for the GM-tank is missing (left cockpit side, below the tail wheel arrest).

But the rest looks awsome:thumbup: