Soooo, you want a G-14 instead of the K-4?

Good presented information, and nice post Kürfurst. I just read it, and even though it's far from my intention any thorough discussion as I'm lacking some information regarding the subject, if you allow me to do so let me point out a couple points.

 

You're right, but remember P-51B had virtually identical, if not better, performances than P-51D model.

 

Let me say here "considerably" is an unnecessary adjective leading to confusion. 50 to 100Kg is definitely a difference when it comes to aviation, but in this case we are talking about a 2.5% difference in weight, taking lowered weighted G14 as reference, AS version would be even lower 1.3%. Do you think that is really such a big deal?

 

You are assuming here both are a same aircraft with just a different weight, but you are missing how that weight is loaded (a weight and balance chart would be welcome here) and thus where is located the CoG. CoG can't be quite different for both aircraft as it should still be within limits, roughly about the lift vector, so AoA wouldn't be quite different if at all and AoA is what makes a difference regarding drag and thus range/endurance and other performance factors. You haven't think about the possibility that AoA may be just at a same point but K4 needed a bit more speed for a same lift. I don't know, that's sure, but neither do you my friend.

 

So coming from previous point, we just don't know that. Form drag due to early G models aerodynamics (mainly nose bulges) could be so huge to be higher than later models drag, not only affecting top speed (as we know for sure, G model top speed was lower) and acceleration as available spare power would be overall lower but so would climbing ability as that only depends on available spare power. The sentence I quoted in bold is not totally correct, as lower drag point (where induced drag and parasitic drag change rols being the higher) matches better climb speed (Vx) and that's roughly 250Km/H in all 109 models from E to K (and Fw190, don't freak out, that's a design decision), so your claim is at least uncertain, and I would say not corresponding to the real thing as there's quite more room from top speed to Vx than from Vx to Vs, so in my opinion that's not the most representative flight envelope.

 

 

S!

Hi Man-o-War!

Perhaps the choice of words was re G14/K4 weights was not the best, alas, with such lenghty post, I am happy that I made not too many errors and it made some sense in the end. Overall the point wasis, the G-14 was lighter, with a prop that better for medium and low altitudes and that this was shown how its actually better dogfighter in several ways than our K-4 in our DCS environment, with low altitude dogfights being so prevelent.

I agree that the CoG can't be very different, if at all, since both planes major CoG changing element was the MW tank, present on both aircraft. Its a pity that there are no such detailed Ladeplan for these late aircraft to confirm it.

Now as for corresponding parasitic drag and induced drag elements, I think that relevant this can be fairly accurately assessed from the speed and climb charts, which basically show the K-4 (the comparable 1850 PS version of course) being slightly faster, but slightly slower. Since this essentially translates to excess thrust available at high and low speeds, the conclusion is that the G-14 has more excess thrust at lower speeds, and only at high speeds the K-4 has more.

Now, whether it is because the G-14s narrower propeller is that much efficient at converting power to thrust or because the the L/D point is better on the G-14 because of lower induced drag at lower speeds is an important detail that however does not change much on that the G-14 has obviously has more excess thrust in the end. Certainly parasitic drag was higher on the G-14 and all speeds, but if the condition of greater excess thrust is true, this would either point to lower induced drag and/or higher thrust. Considering the G-14 is lighter, but has less power, the lower induced drag version seems to be more convincing to me.

It is also certainly true that as speed increases, the two eventually meet and the K-4 overtakes the G-14. However this at least underlines that the G-14 would be, at even the most conservative conclusion, no easier foe to face than the K-4, and IMO, it would be actually a meaner one of the two.

Hence from purely the point of self-interest of Pony fliers, the oft declared wish for having a G-14 instead of the K-4 is an odd one, to say at least. Not that this would ever happen IMO, but the notion certainly deserved some in-depth analyisis and discussion.

I hope with improvements to the WWII environment and the ability to have more historical goals will improve much of this, as well as things like a better Damage Model, etc.

maybe we'll get a lighter and tighter turning p51b/c....even better a british mustang 3 which had a higher boost rating if im not mistaken. its true....the stangs are getting smacked down sure we get our punches in here and there but its still lopsided. All this back and forth is getting exhausting, I've left all my good points back in the mustang thread. k4 g4 f4 e4, a 109 is a 109 doesn't matter to me personally which one they model next.

Judging from ED's development period (K-4 took what, 2 years? And loadouts still missing.), I will be happy if we even get the 3 remaining planes originally promised...

Now leaving AKs, ARs and other nonsense aside, in which statements you are equally wrong anyways, I can tell that on 31st January 1945, there were but 71 G-6s around with 1st line units. Out of 1435 109s, 314 of which were K-4s,

 

Yup, the G-6 was truly overwhelmingly prevalent until the end days, no doubt. :music_whistling:

Only 314 (~25%) out of 1192 manufactured to that date.:music_whistling:

What is onhand and what is serviceable are not the same.

On Jan 10 1945, JG27 and 53 had 180 serviceable a/c out of 247 onhand > 73% serviceable rate. Neither Gruppe was at establishment strength.

What was the breakdown of the 109s by Front (East, West, South)?

Can you post a link to the Jan 31 data?

Only 314 (~25%) out of 1192 manufactured to that date.:music_whistling:

 

What is onhand and what is serviceable are not the same.

 

On Jan 10 1945, JG27 and 53 had 180 serviceable a/c out of 247 onhand > 73% serviceable rate. Neither Gruppe was at establishment strength.

 

What was the breakdown of the 109s by Front (East, West, South)?

 

Can you post a link to the Jan 31 data?

I think the better point is how few G-6's (and more than likely non-boosted G-6s) were present in front line service in 1 January 1945.

But the airwar in spring and summer in 1944 is truly were the "fighter grave yard" of the Luftwaffe was created and combat the most savage. I'd be curious about the machine types most likely to see combat then, and if the Luftwaffe's 109s held any advantage (or the degree of advantage) the current K-4 vs P-51D has.

I think the point of all this, in this forum and in the P-51D, is not that the late model Luftwaffe planes were superior, I think beyond doubt that debate is settled. The point is, can there be an Axis vs Allies aircraft match-up that is a bit more even than what we currently have to deal with? Especially in light of the awesome WWII environments we're going to be enjoying in DCS.

One of the biggest reasons I think the WWII servers remain so sparsely populated has nothing to do with the quality of the sim, but more so to do with the lopsided odds presented. Nobody wants to spend the time learning either of the great modules to be presented with 3 to 1 matchups with red aircraft overwhelming superior to blue in the type of play on MP.

-SLACK

On Jan 1 1945 during Bodenplatte there was 2 G-6s that participated.

Of the fighter force for Bodenplatte:

Fw190A-8 - 30.5%

Fw190A-9 - 2.4%

Fw190D-9 - 19.8%

Bf109G-14 (all models) - 30.2%

Bf109G-10 - 6.2%

Bf109K-4 - 10.9%

The question should be where were the 588 G-6s built in Nov and Dec 1944?

The last G-6s were built in Feb 1945 (9).

I am pretty sure they (G-6s) were built with MW by this time and essentially were the same thing as G-14s.

I am pretty sure they (G-6s) were built with MW by this time and essentially were the same thing as G-14s.

Kurfurst, maybe this has been answered, and I'm sure it probably belongs in another thread, but I'd love your assessment of the K-4/G-14 to the Spitfire Mk IX or XIV.

-SLACK

One of the biggest reasons I think the WWII servers remain so sparsely populated has nothing to do with the quality of the sim, but more so to do with the lopsided odds presented. Nobody wants to spend the time learning either of the great modules to be presented with 3 to 1 matchups with red aircraft overwhelming superior to blue in the type of play on MP.

It is just a matter of time before we'll get the Spitfires and 109s that were used in the Battle of Britain, those should be comparatively well matched. Although honestly, there is just no chance that people will be satisfied. In real life, aircraft aren't designed to be well-matched, and you'll always continue to have adenoidal people around here :)

Very interresting read, all of this

One of the biggest reasons I think the WWII servers remain so sparsely populated has nothing to do with the quality of the sim, but more so to do with the lopsided odds presented. Nobody wants to spend the time learning either of the great modules to be presented with 3 to 1 matchups with red aircraft overwhelming superior to blue in the type of play on MP.

-SLACK

I see complaints about lopsided odds with more red flyers than blue as if it is never the way around. I've flown many times with 3-1 odds against me and I have pointed out in my streams many times when blue outnumbers red. Yet it's if this never happens. Couple things to point out. First if he numbers are say 8-4 one side or the other, that doesn't mean 8 guys are flying together in formation. Most likely they are singles (especially the axis side) and are all over the map. I've flown on B.S. A few times with 7-7 odds and never saw another red pilot for long stretches. I usually engage by my self against the 51s without help around as we are not coordinating. I was the only red plane in the server last night against 3 blue but they were all over the map. Second point is the numbers are not static, they fluctuate and one moment one side might outnumber the other and 5 min later it's the reverse, and 5 after that it's flipped again.

Performance wise the 109 is generally the better plane for the air quake engagements but the constant complaints about being always outnumbered based on the server totals is not valid. It does happen that a guy in a 51 will have 3 109s on his tail and that is usually a death sentence but trust me it goes the other way too. Even when red might have the overall numbers I've been in 2-1, 3-1, and 4-1 encounters (almost always a loss but part of the game).

This is an excellent point. It does seem to explain why "experten" were able to truly runaway with their tallies which makes sense if they were lucky enough to learn the 109 sufficiently that they overcame the aircraft's soft shortcomings to master its hard advantages. Still, in the confines of the simulation world, these soft advantages are of no consolation when facing off against such lopsided performance stats. It's a bitter pill to swallow for Blue pilots who don't want to face off against 3 or 4 to 1 match ups since everyone prefers to fly the 109 and enjoy its hard advantages magnified in the sim at no cost to the planes soft disadvantages.

 

-SLACK

Another thing to note is that German pilots essentially flew until they were killed, while Allied aces often got re-assigned to training units so that they could pass on their expertise. This (and differences in situation and tactics) was another factor in many German aces getting claimed kill counts in the hundreds.

 

The last thing I'll note is a point made by Integrals in another thread. The performance of the 109 in DCS leads one to question just why the Luftwaffe lost so handedly even with novice pilots. Of course facing 8-1 odds even in the BF-109 K-4 is a practical death sentence, but it goes to show that the allies would've been in for a real struggle even in late '44 the Luftwaffe were able to field more fighters and pilots. I find it odd though that in the memoirs of some allied pilots (I'm reading Robin Olds Fighter Pilot right now) it didn't seem allied pilots feared the 109s at all, and only cursory noted the threat posed by 190s.

 

-SLACK

This.

I've flown 2 multiplayer combat missions in the 109 and scored kills in both. The second kill I managed while my plane was on fire in a many vs 1 situation. I then chose when to break contact and flew the 20-30 miles back to base and landed... all while on fire. I dare you to try this in the P-51.

Yesterday I watched 2 109s have a mid-air collision while being greedy trying to kill a P-51. One was destroyed outright, the other lost a wingtip caught fire then proceeded to continue to fight as if nothing happened. The damaged 109 managed to keep pace with my 51, which was not damaged, all the way back to my home airbase.

So, I score kills in an aircraft that I don't even know the takeoff and landing speeds for (it is not that hard to get off the ground), score a kill while streaking across the sky in a fireball, then rtb, grab my beer stein and have a party. Then a few days later I find myself on the other side in the exact same situation and I can't manage to disengage in an undamaged aircraft? It must be that I lost my piloting skills when I switched from the 109 to the 51, I don't see any other possible explanation :doh:.

Like I said, how did Germany lose the air war if the K-4 is as durable and beginner friendly as is modeled in DCS? I really don't think the issue is the performance gap (real or as modeled) between the K-4 and the 51 because there are ways to deal with it. The more I fly the more I realize that the issue is with the environment that we are playing in. But, that is being worked on. Until it is improved the P-51 will continue to be at a (imo large) disadvantage in every aspect of DCS combat... and I will still fly the damn thing and hate life every time I see a K-4 out of my canopy.

 

One of the biggest reasons I think the WWII servers remain so sparsely populated has nothing to do with the quality of the sim, but more so to do with the lopsided odds presented. Nobody wants to spend the time learning either of the great modules to be presented with 3 to 1 matchups with red aircraft overwhelming superior to blue in the type of play on MP.

 

-SLACK

I somewhat disagree. At least when it's many vs few you can worry less about friendly fire and shoot at anything that is moving. I have no issues flying against a numerically superior side in an inferior aircraft.

What I do have an issue with is having the sim working against me with the current state of the damage model and flying against a numerically superior team in a superior aircraft in the type of fight where my aircraft holds no advantage at all.

So yeah, maybe in that sense it is a bit lopsided...

Me too Integrals, as I've lost count of the number of burning 109's out running me while being on fire. Slowly losing my patience with this so called sim

Kurfurst, maybe this has been answered, and I'm sure it probably belongs in another thread, but I'd love your assessment of the K-4/G-14 to the Spitfire Mk IX or XIV.

 

-SLACK

IMO the 109K and the XIV are very close run affairs, which holds true still if you look at their low/high boosted incarnations, i.e. 1,8/+18 for 1944 and 1,98/+21 for 1945.

The XIV is better at high altitudes (i.e. 7-8000 m and above) by the merit of its engine and large wings, the 109K is similarly slightly better at low/medium altitudes.

I consider the G-14 overall superior to the IX at the +18 setting, and very similar for the +25 lbs version of 1945.

Overall IMO there are tiny differences, but generally these planes have very similar climb, speed and maneuverability etc. envelope. For example, for both the rolling was considerably impaired at higher speeds, even though for different reasons. I generally prefer the 109s control characteristics though, because the controls are more balanced and more foolproof.

The major advantage of the 109s is IMO lies in their operational, rather than tactical advantages. Namely, their range and endurance, ease of production and maintenance, as well as their much higher cruising speeds which is often overlooked in preference to max speeds. And of course the most important difference was that the newest 109 models were generally appearing and becoming widespread with operational units much faster than the newest Spits.

The winds of change are blowing. DCS WW2 is still in its infancy. Hang in there a little longer.

For those of you not already aware, here is a direct quote from Racoon, on the ED team...

Yes. We have a plan to make special version of the Mustang for Europe 44-45. It’s production will start after Spitfire will be complete.

Thanks to remind me about new pilot's suit.

 

New damage model is in production now. When the system itself will be ready we'll start to make new component models for every plane (WWII at least).

That new Mustang will not stop people complaining about the K4.

I agree. I am not sure what the 'new' Mustang is going to be anyway. If (and its a big if) its the octane upgrade that was whined about so much, its just a bit of power increase. Going from cc 1700 hp to 1800 hp is not all that significant, you still have cc 4,5 ton plane vs a 3,4 ton plane with very similar engines.

A new DM would mean much, much more for the Mustang and it's .50s.

well, would i want a G14? definitely!

any new 109 version would be appreciated...heck i would want a 109 F4 most, and fly it in the current environment...

it wouldnt change a thing though about people whinging. and it seems a new P51, higher boost, and not even the spit mk ivx will change that...

and its not as if people go on the forums and complain about the actual strenghts and shortcomings of either aircraft, but some of them really make things up...some funny comments i have seen lately, like "109 is more agile than p51", "p51 diving slower than 109", "rolling slower than 109", "109 with lost wing burns and flies home"(as if that doesnt go for all aircraft, yes your p51 as well) , and my absolute favorite "allied planes stand no chance against 109"....

yes, more versions, and earlier 109 models would be awesome, and yes give them their boost, yes give them their mkivx,yes give the mkix 25lbs boost...

(funny thing is, if people then dare to say that C3 would be a logical addition as well, they get jumped)

all this will not change those lopsided comments and whingers, not even if the one side will have to fly this:

what i really wonder for a couple of years now already is, why the term Luftwhiner came up, but no similar term for the "allied" unhappy. looking at it frankly, there are as many threads and complaints from them, not only on this forum, not only in this sim...