PDA

View Full Version : Me 109 G-6/AS with MW50



Ratsack
03-25-2008, 07:22 PM
Kurfurst,

In relation to the matter of the G-6/AS with MW-50 from this thread:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/9901004346/p/2

You posted the following:



Posted by Kurfurst:
Yes, that book. Knoke was shot down in his new aircraft a few days later after that diary entry (?), and saw some hospitalisation IIRC, so I guess he remembered the date right. And there is the G-5/As of his boss, Specht.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Specht_G5AS_8april1944.jpg

G-6/AS production. Most of it after April is missing..

1943-2,
Feb 1944-26,
Mar-65,
April-95,
May-Aug (umbau pages missing)
Sept-14 (plus 1 neubau+498 G-14 AS neubau),
Oct-2,
Nov-1,
Dec-missing



I am not disputing that the G-6/AS was around in the first half of 1944. The G-5 version also. What I am saying is that the version we have in the game is really more of a G-14/AS given the inclusion of MW50.

The pic above of an AS machine tells us there was an AS machine in that unit in April 44. In Knocke's book he says these machines had water methanol injection. For reasons stated in the other thread, I am dubious about some of the technical details and dates in Knocke's book. As I said before, it's not a diary, it's an autobiography written after the event. Being shot down and injured doesn't lend weight to his memory of a technical matter, so I'm unclear as to what you're getting at there. The passage to which you referred is one of the parts that summarizes the events of several weeks. It says the unit was re-equipped with new planes in mid April. I don't have it in front of me right now (at work). I'll get the quote later and edit this post.

EDIT:
As promised, I have quote from Knoke's book. It is Heinz Knoke, I Flew for the Fuhrer, (Corgi, 1956). It is tatty, too.

In the passage before the quote below, the last date given is 28 April 1944 (p. 155). On p. 156 the passage begins:


In the middle of April, Barran, our good old Methuselah, rejoins us after his discharge from hospital.
This seems to place us back in mid April. He goes on:

Brand new aircraft arrive straight from the factory. They are equipped with supercharged engines and the new methane [sic] device. The latter is something that I myself tested. It makes it possible for us to obtain from the engine a power boost of as much as forty per cent for several minutes in case of emergency.

He appears to be talking about MW-50 when he mentions ˜methane'. I would be tempted to think this was an error of the translation, except that the spelling of methanol is the same in German and English. The mistake is therefore probably Knoke's. The business about ˜supercharged engines' is not encouraging, either. Perhaps he meant ˜bigger superchargers'. Perhaps he was just mistaken again.

To put that last comment in context, on the opposite page (p. 157), Knoke is discussing the war situation in general, and noting how gloomy it is:


Day after day the eastern front has to be withdrawn. Africa was written off in March: 120,000 German soldiers there became prisoners...

In this instance, he has the wrong year. I don't think his numbers are quite right, either, but that's another story. They could very well have been the numbers he had heard, right or wrong.

Apart from the specific issue about the MW-50 equipped G-5/AS, my point in reproducing these quotes here is to highlight the systematic problems in Knoke's book. As you can see, it is a conventional narrative, not a diary. There are dates scattered throughout the text, but they are not necessarily related to the text in a coherent way. This is not to unfairly criticize Knoke: he was, after all, a pilot not a professional story teller or scholar. Nevertheless, his account is not a high-quality primary source because he did not write it at the time of the events in question. Clearly, large chunks are from memory, and his memory, like everyone else's, is not perfect.

END EDIT


The overall point I was making is that the G-6/AS (or G-14/AS) we have in the game is a type that is more in place in the second half of 1944 than the first.

Cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
03-26-2008, 09:53 AM
Further to the post above:

A number of G-5s were retrofitted with the DB 605 AS engine. Erla's Antwerp plant was responsible for the conversions, and a total of 76 G-5/AS and 100 G-5/R2/AS machines were supposed to be built at the facility. By June 30, 1944, only 16 of the latter batch had been delivered, and it is questionable whether the remaining 84 aircraft were completed.

From Prien & Rodeike, Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G and K, p. 136. So the G-5/AS was a rare bird in any event (about 90 produced, total). They go on to say that while some G-5s were equipped with GM-1, unlike the G-6 which had the pressure vessel in the rear fuselage, the G-5 installation was in the right wing. I dunno if that would be compatible with an MW-50 conversion, but I have my doubts.

There is no mention of any of these planes having MW-50.

The work number of the machine in the pic (if correct) places it in a block built by Erla that included some G-5s. If it's a G-5/AS it would be one of the 75 conversions mentioned above. However, it could just as easily be a G-6/AS, given the way G-5 production was scattered through Werknummer blocks. Either way, it's unlikely to have MW-50. It doesn't appear to have the red legs of MW-50 equipped machines. The visible wheel hub appears to be painted the normal dark grey, while the oleo is a much lighter colour. Not red, I would suggest.

cheers,
Ratsack

ali19891989
03-26-2008, 02:16 PM
I think the red legs indicated that it should be given the high quality C3 fuel.

JG4_Helofly
03-26-2008, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by ali19891989:
I think the red legs indicated that it should be given the high quality C3 fuel.

Red legs = MW50

For the fuel there were these colored triangles on the fuselage.

Kurfurst__
03-26-2008, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
I am not disputing that the G-6/AS was around in the first half of 1944. The G-5 version also. What I am saying is that the version we have in the game is really more of a G-14/AS given the inclusion of MW50.

The pic above of an AS machine tells us there was an AS machine in that unit in April 44. In Knocke's book he says these machines had water methanol injection. For reasons stated in the other thread, I am dubious about some of the technical details and dates in Knocke's book. As I said before, it's not a diary, it's an autobiography written after the event. Being shot down and injured doesn't lend weight to his memory of a technical matter, so I'm unclear as to what you're getting at there.

Well if Knoke was shot down in that plane he describes with the new Lader and MW50 than we can confirm his words by the Werknummer, lost lists etc.


Originally posted by Ratsack:
The passage to which you referred is one of the parts that summarizes the events of several weeks. It says the unit was re-equipped with new planes in mid April. ... As promised, I have quote from Knoke's book. It is Heinz Knoke, I Flew for the Fuhrer, (Corgi, 1956). It is tatty, too.

In the passage before the quote below, the last date given is 28 April 1944 (p. 155). On p. 156 the passage begins:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In the middle of April, Barran, our good old Methuselah, rejoins us after his discharge from hospital.
This seems to place us back in mid April. He goes on:

Brand new aircraft arrive straight from the factory. They are equipped with supercharged engines and the new methane [sic] device. The latter is something that I myself tested. It makes it possible for us to obtain from the engine a power boost of as much as forty per cent for several minutes in case of emergency. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s pretty clear talk isn`t it..?

As for Knoke`s story about the 'brand new aircraft', it can be confirmed from II/JG 11`s Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen.
http://ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg11.html

Looking at March 1944, it is appearant that a large number of brand new (Neubau, ie. new airframes) aircraft was received in March 1944, listed as 29 'G-5s' and 11 'G-6s'. As 7 G-6s have become wastage due to enemy action and 2 required overhauls, by 1st April 1944 II/JG 11 reported 35 'G-5s' and 6 'G-6s'.

It`s more than just probable than the 'G-5' were actually G-5/AS aircraft - given the picture of Specht`s G-5/AS, WNr 110 064 at a verifiable date 8 April 1944 when Spech was awarded the Knights Cross, its quite certain that either administration was sloppy or rather the new aircraft were perhaps not yet known as /AS types, but still stamped as 'G-5s' and were reported as such. Most likely the airframes were originally started to be built, and thus marked as G-5s in the manufacturer`s plates, then as an afterthough they were fitted with an AS engine, but the manufacturer`s plate remained.

Given all that, Knoke`s account can be confirmed.

His 15 March 1944 account notes, that due to extreme losses, the Gruppe was to be withdrawn from operations for six weeks, the pilots doing some R & R. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

His next entry is from 24 March 1944, and it`s eventless.

Then this photo was made on 8th April 1944 :
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Specht_G5AS_8april1944.jpg

Then comes the 28 April entry, noting the influx of new pilots, whom Knoke alone took up for 120 practice flights; that Barran returned to the unit; and that brand new planes with 'supercharged' engines and MW system (at least in my 1997-based edition).


He appears to be talking about MW-50 when he mentions ˜methane'. I would be tempted to think this was an error of the translation, except that the spelling of methanol is the same in German and English. The mistake is therefore probably Knoke's.

My Hungarian translation, based on the 1997 English edition, tells of 'MW device' or system. Apart from that, I wonder what would 'methane' refer to that raises the engine output by 40%..


The business about ˜supercharged engines' is not encouraging, either. Perhaps he meant ˜bigger superchargers'. Perhaps he was just mistaken again.

He makes the supercharger issue pretty clear. His 29 April entry. 'I am at 9100 meters. The <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">new</span> superchargers are fantastic'.

Its unlikely he would be drooling about the supercharger at 9km, if it would have been still a DB 605A, however the AS engine had exactly around 9 km rated altitude. Plus there`s Specht aircraft, clearly an AS one.



To put that last comment in context, on the opposite page (p. 157), Knoke is discussing the war situation in general, and noting how gloomy it is:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Day after day the eastern front has to be withdrawn. Africa was written off in March: 120,000 German soldiers there became prisoners...

In this instance, he has the wrong year. I don't think his numbers are quite right, either, but that's another story. They could very well have been the numbers he had heard, right or wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To suggest that Knoke was not aware that the defeat in Africa occured in 1943 and not in 1944 is nonsense. There`s no way to mix it up, especially if you lived it through. In any case, my edition, based on the 1997 English edition says 'Africa was written off in <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">last</span> March: 120,000 German soldiers there became prisoners, all of them well trained, experienced veterans.'

Perhaps the 1957 English translation was sloppy a bit, as the new edition seems considerably reviewed, ie. there are some addendum from Norman Franks about Knoke`s victories, and some correspondence with Knoke.

Overall, I don`t think that your dismissal of Knoke`s account has much merit.


Nevertheless, his account is not a high-quality primary source because he did not write it at the time of the events in question.

Thats a wild guess at best, and cries for an explanation why Knoke`s book has specific entries with specific dates, rather than just a big flow of text.

Kurfurst__
03-26-2008, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Further to the post above:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A number of G-5s were retrofitted with the DB 605 AS engine. Erla's Antwerp plant was responsible for the conversions, and a total of 76 G-5/AS and 100 G-5/R2/AS machines were supposed to be built at the facility. By June 30, 1944, only 16 of the latter batch had been delivered, and it is questionable whether the remaining 84 aircraft were completed.

From Prien & Rodeike, Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G and K, p. 136. So the G-5/AS was a rare bird in any event (about 90 produced, total). They go on to say that while some G-5s were equipped with GM-1, unlike the G-6 which had the pressure vessel in the rear fuselage, the G-5 installation was in the right wing. I dunno if that would be compatible with an MW-50 conversion, but I have my doubts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

dr. Prien and Rodeike says the pressure bottles were in the right wing in the G-5/U2, whereas they were in G-6 they were in the fuselage.
The thing you mix up is that you think its the GM-1 carrier, but its not; those are the vessels from where pressurized air was taken and led to the seperate GM 1 tank to force it into the engine intake by the pressure, ie. there was no seperate pumps or such, similiarly to the droptank`s working mechanism, pressurized air was used.

On the other hand, two seperate primary sources show that the G-5 base type had GM -1 fitting by default, 'as in G-1'; one is the type sheets of Leistungzusammenstellung Bf 109 from January 1944; the other is Chef TLF Nr. 8551/44 gKdos from 1 Dec 1944, ie. below the G-5 parts


- G-5 : 'i.R. 400 l + 80 l bzw. 115 l GM-1. wahlweise: 1x300 l u. Rumpf' and 'Sonstiges : Druckkabine.'

I guess this one was similiar to the G-1 installation, ie. GM-1 carried in the right wings small bottles. Probably the /U2 type had the large main tank, and these ex-GM1 bottles in the right wing were now used as pressurized air containers. The difference IIRC between the two systems was that the /U2 was a single large insulated tank, and probably easier from the maintaince POV, whereas for the 'wing GM1' installation, it was a pressurized installation.

NOTE THE basic G-5 is NOT noted to be convertable for MW50. On the other, the mentioning of 80/115 liter GM1 points to the possibility of having the same 115 liter as in the case of the U2, unfortunately I am not sure what volume the wing GM-1 bottles had..

- G-5/R2 (A, ie. Aufklärer, or recce bird) is listed as 'i.R. 400 l + 80 l bzw. 115 l GM-1. wahlweise: 1x300 l u. Rumpf' and 'Sonstiges : Druckkabine; RB 75 x 30 od. RB 50 x 30. Umrüstung auf Methanol möglich.'

- G-5/U2 : 'i.R. 400 l + 80 l bzw. 115 l GM-1. wahlweise: 1x300 l u. Rumpf'[i] and [i]'Sonstiges : Druckkabine; Umrüstung auf Methanol möglich.'

- G-5 AS : " " and 'Sonstiges : " " Nachrüstung.'

NOTE that the basic G-5 AS is described as being the same, ie. with pressurized cocpit, GM-1, and possibility to be fitted/converted to GM-1.
Appearantly it had the large 115 liter KGM-1 system as well, and if its true, it means that practically any 'G-5/AS' could be fitted with MW50 with ease.

G-5/R2 AS : 'i.R. 400 l + 80 l bzw. 115 l GM-1. wahlweise: 1x300 l u. Rumpf' and 'Sonstiges : Nachrüstung, wie G-5/R2'.

As above, see G-5/R2 is also described as 'Umrüstung auf Methanol möglich.'


There is no mention of any of these planes having MW-50.

The thing is reallyu simple. All G-5s, being high altitude fighters, with pressurized cabin, appear to have been built with GM-1, just like all G-1s and G-3s were GM-1 fighters. And all of them, appearantly with the exception of the base modell G-5, which probably used a different system of GM-1 (given that unlike the others, it was originally meant on that plane to be a permanent fitting, and not a retrofit), could be converted to MW-50 with ease.

Conversion from GM-1 to MW-50 was a simple matter (see Rodeike Page 108, indeed I believe only the injector nozzles were changed) in these latter cases.

Now, we seem to have established that G-5/AS, G-5/R2/AS, and G-6/U2/AS aircraft could be easily converted to MW-50, because they had the KGM-1 system, ie. the large 115 liter cylindrical tank behind the cocpit, that was used for GM-1 but just as easily could be used for MW-50.

That leaves the G-6/AS as type out, and we know the majority of them, ie. 226 examples were built, as new production, by Messerschmitt Regensburg between May and August 1944, as per Prien and Rodeike, ie. the ones that DID NOT and COULD NOT have MW-50 were actually built later than the ones that COULD HAVE and appearantly HAD MW-50, as far as the 226 G-6/AS of the Messerschmitt batch goes. The '2nd half 1944 for MW50' hypothesis for these planes is blown, its exactly the opposite, these aircraft, seeing action in the second half of 1944, did not have MW50 (at which point however the G-14/AS with MW50 was already coming out of the factories in insane numbers..).

11+1 further aircraft were converted by Erla as G-6/AS and G-6/U4/AS, ie. no MW50 option, but not known when exactly; 95+23 aircraft as G-6/U2/AS and G-6/U2/R2/AS, ie. with possibility for MW50, again by Erla, again not known by then, and this sums up the Erla production : 12 planes produced with no hope for MW-50, and 118 with quick conversion possibility to MW-50.

However, luckily, we know some details about how many /AS aircraft Erla had converted in February, March, and April 1944 : 26, 46 and 43, ie. 115 aircraft in total, the figures for May - August are mussing, but would probably account for the missing 15. Now, if you look at the previous paragraph, the math is easy and it tells that in February - April 1944, at least 103 MW50-capable G-6/U2/AS and G-6/U2/R2/AS were produced, or even as many as 115 (ie. the 115 produced minus the 12 that didnt have the rear tank for MW50/GM1).

The other manufacturers are at the present are mystery, its suffice to say that Blohm und Voss seemed to have converted 80 G-6/U2/AS (ie. MW50 capable), and 20 G-6/U4/AS (i.e. probably no MW50). Mi-Metall 98 G-6/U2/AS and 132 G-6/U4/AS. These were probably produced in the missing May - August 1944 period, except the 5 B und V a/c of unknown type - expect being an /AS - in April 1944.


In short, a summary. Given the above, it appears that

- 103 to 115 pcs. of MW-50 capable G-6/AS were converted by Erla in February - April 1944
- 16 of the MW50 capable G-5/R2/AS were converted up to June 30 1944 by Erla Antwerp
- 76 G-5/AS conversions, appearantly MW-50 capable too, were converted by Erla by an unknown date

226 MW50 non-capable G-6/AS were produced by Mtt Regensburg between May-August 1944, but thats pretty much in the 2nd half of 1944.
These, plus 20 G-6/U4/AS of Blohm und Voss, 12 G-6/AS and G-6/U4/AS by Erla, 132 G-6/U4/AS by Mi-Metall produced at an uknown date, ie. 390 aircraft in total are the ones that probably did not have MW-50.

Mi-Metall`s 98 G-6/U2/AS, 90 G-5/AS and G-5/R2/AS, 23 G-6/U2/R2/AS and 95 G-6/U2/AS by Erla, 80 G-6/U2/AS by Blohm und Vocc ie. 386, had been in all likehood fitted with MW50.


The work number of the machine in the pic (if correct) places it in a block built by Erla that included some G-5s. If it's a G-5/AS it would be one of the 75 conversions mentioned above. However, it could just as easily be a G-6/AS, given the way G-5 production was scattered through Werknummer blocks. Either way, it's unlikely to have MW-50. It doesn't appear to have the red legs of MW-50 equipped machines. The visible wheel hub appears to be painted the normal dark grey, while the oleo is a much lighter colour. Not red, I would suggest.

We are tresspassing to wonderland at this point I am afraid - somebody has identified the Werknummer, the type, you say its all hogwash and its a G-6, the pilot who was there notes they have new superchargers and MW system, obviously referring to well, just that, and you say he is mistaken and all that did not happen until the 2nd half of 1944.. fine, but I`d like to see the evidence to that, too.. evidence as to that Knoke is mistaken, that this aircraft is a G-6/AS (not that it would matter too much anyway..), evidence as to that up to the 2nd half of 1944, no G-6/AS has been fitted with MW50.

I believe ample evidence has been provided to the contrary of your opinion. Certainly that evidence can be question, but then it will require more than just speculation.

Xiolablu3
03-26-2008, 05:12 PM
Guys what is the difference between the G5 A/S and the G6A/S?

I am guessing machine gun calibre, 7.92 for the G5 and 12.7mm for G6, and was the G5 a pressurised cockpit?

Also, can somebody tell me what flettner tabs are/do? I googled it but couldnt find anything proper.

berg417448
03-26-2008, 05:24 PM
Here you go:


Flettner Tabs, Servo Tabs, Spring Tabs, and Whirlerons



"The problems described previously with aerodynamically balanced control surfaces could be overcome if it were possible to multiply the force exerted on the controls by the pilot. Devices to provide such augmentation of force are called servomechanisms. A number of ways were devised to provide this force augmentation through aerodynamic means. Sketches of some of these aerodynamic servomechanisms are shown in figure 6.2.

An arrangement called the Flettner tab had been tried on large airplanes as far back as WW I. This device, which was invented by Anton Flettner, the same man who invented the Flettner rotor for propelling sailing ships, consisted of a small tab mounted at or behind the trailing edge of the main control surface. The pilot's control was connected just to the tab. When the tab was deflected, it moved the main control surface in the opposite direction. Because the hinge moment to deflect a control depends on the product-span times chord squared-it is apparent that very large reduction in the pilot's control effort could be obtained.

By the time I came to work at the NACA, this device, shown in figure 6.2(a), was usually called a servo tab, inasmuch as the tab acted as an amplifier to augment the pilot's force. It had the disadvantage that when the pilot moved his control stick while at rest or while taxiing, the control surface appeared floppy and did not respond as expected. To overcome this problem, a spring was placed between the control linkage and the main control surface, so that the surface would move in the desired direction even at zero airspeed."

http://history.nasa.gov/monograph12/ch6.htm

Manu-6S
03-26-2008, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Guys what is the difference between the G5 A/S and the G6A/S?

I am guessing machine gun calibre, 7.92 for the G5 and 12.7mm for G6, and was the G5 a pressurised cockpit?

G5 and G6 differed only for the pressurised cockpit of the former (G5 was the high altitude performer).

Kurfurst__
03-26-2008, 05:43 PM
Yes, odd numbered 109Gs (G-1, G-3, G-5) are the high altitude fighter equivalents of their even numbered (G-2, G-4, G-6) cousins in everything (radio, armament, engine etc.), expect that the odd numbered ones had

- GM-1 as standard
- Pressurized and sealed cocpit

I.e.
G-1/G-2 base modells w. HF. radio
G-3/G-4 diferring only in having VHF radio (Fug 16) and
G-5/G-6 as above but also the 13mm guns.

Thats it, G-series un nutshell. Zillion subvariants between them of course. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Usually the odd numbered versions were produced in a magnititude smaller scale.

Xiolablu3
03-26-2008, 05:52 PM
Thanks guys, so I am guessing they are like the SPitfire IX HF, built in small numbers for a specialised task.


What would be the benefit of Flettner tabs to an aircraft, as in what benefits would the pilot see? Would they make the controls lighter at high speeds?

Ratsack
03-26-2008, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Well if Knoke was shot down in that plane he describes with the new Lader and MW50 than we can confirm his words by the Werknummer, lost lists etc.

I'd like to see that, because I don't think he has got it right at all.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
The passage to which you referred is one of the parts that summarizes the events of several weeks. It says the unit was re-equipped with new planes in mid April. ... As promised, I have quote from Knoke's book. It is Heinz Knoke, I Flew for the Fuhrer, (Corgi, 1956). It is tatty, too.

In the passage before the quote below, the last date given is 28 April 1944 (p. 155). On p. 156 the passage begins:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In the middle of April, Barran, our good old Methuselah, rejoins us after his discharge from hospital.
This seems to place us back in mid April. He goes on:

Brand new aircraft arrive straight from the factory. They are equipped with supercharged engines and the new methane [sic] device. The latter is something that I myself tested. It makes it possible for us to obtain from the engine a power boost of as much as forty per cent for several minutes in case of emergency. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s pretty clear talk isn`t it..?

As for Knoke`s story about the 'brand new aircraft', it can be confirmed from II/JG 11`s Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen.
http://ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg11.html

Looking at March 1944, it is appearant that a large number of brand new (Neubau, ie. new airframes) aircraft was received in March 1944, listed as 29 'G-5s' and 11 'G-6s'. As 7 G-6s have become wastage due to enemy action and 2 required overhauls, by 1st April 1944 II/JG 11 reported 35 'G-5s' and 6 'G-6s'.

It`s more than just probable than the 'G-5' were actually G-5/AS aircraft - given the picture of Specht`s G-5/AS, WNr 110 064 at a verifiable date 8 April 1944 when Spech was awarded the Knights Cross, its quite certain that either administration was sloppy or rather the new aircraft were perhaps not yet known as /AS types, but still stamped as 'G-5s' and were reported as such. Most likely the airframes were originally started to be built, and thus marked as G-5s in the manufacturer`s plates, then as an afterthough they were fitted with an AS engine, but the manufacturer`s plate remained. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possibly. The plane in the pic is and AS type, from a WN block that contained some G-5s. That's what we know. The rest is suppostion.



Given all that, Knoke`s account can be confirmed. Not at all. All we see is a machine. There is nothing to suggest that machine has MW50 at all. In fact, the absence of red legs indicates precisely the opposite.



Then comes the 28 April entry, noting the influx of new pilots, whom Knoke alone took up for 120 practice flights; that Barran returned to the unit; and that brand new planes with 'supercharged' engines and MW system (at least in my 1997-based edition). This is why the older edition is better. It gets back to what the author actually said, rather than yet another translation into a third language. Just to emphasise this point, the translator of the English edition I have used is also the Canadian AF officer who interrogated Knoke, and is the person who encouraged him a couple of years after the war to write his story. The book is the result. If the English edition of 56 said 'methane', it's most likely because that's what Knoke said. I think Knoke meant 'methanol', but said methane, just as he meant 'bigger superchargers', but said 'with superchargers'. The point this illustrates is that Knoke is not a good source for technical detail.

Similarly, the correction of the date of the Africa defeat in the later editions illustrates the same point. In the actual work itself, Knoke made a mistake. Editors of later editions have corrected it. While the correction makes for a better book, it mangles the record Knoke wrote. Most importantly, it conceals an important piece of information that we need in order to be able to appraise the worth of this memoir as a source. Clearly, Knoke's book is not reliable. That's why I noted the bit below in my post:



... on the opposite page (p. 157), Knoke is discussing the war situation in general, and noting how gloomy it is:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Day after day the eastern front has to be withdrawn. Africa was written off in March: 120,000 German soldiers there became prisoners...

In this instance, he has the wrong year. I don't think his numbers are quite right, either, but that's another story. They could very well have been the numbers he had heard, right or wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is just a mistak. To say that:

Perhaps the 1957 English translation was sloppy a bit, as the new edition seems considerably reviewed, ie. there are some addendum from Norman Franks about Knoke`s victories, and some correspondence with Knoke.
Misses the point. If it was 'sloppy', it is the scholarship that is at fault. The fact that the later editions are corrected merely underlines the point.


Overall, I don`t think that your dismissal of Knoke`s account has much merit. On the contrary, my criticism stands well vindicated by what you've added, particularly the corrections to the subsequent editions.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nevertheless, his account is not a high-quality primary source because he did not write it at the time of the events in question.

Thats a wild guess at best, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely not! It is a fact! The introduction of the 1956 edition makes it absolutely clear that it was written after the war, at the urging of the person who subsequently translated it to English. Knoke's book is most definitely NEITHER:
1. a diary; NOR
2. contemporaneous.
These are concrete, established facts.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
03-26-2008, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Further to the post above:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A number of G-5s were retrofitted with the DB 605 AS engine. Erla's Antwerp plant was responsible for the conversions, and a total of 76 G-5/AS and 100 G-5/R2/AS machines were supposed to be built at the facility. By June 30, 1944, only 16 of the latter batch had been delivered, and it is questionable whether the remaining 84 aircraft were completed.

From Prien & Rodeike, Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G and K, p. 136. So the G-5/AS was a rare bird in any event (about 90 produced, total). They go on to say that while some G-5s were equipped with GM-1, unlike the G-6 which had the pressure vessel in the rear fuselage, the G-5 installation was in the right wing. I dunno if that would be compatible with an MW-50 conversion, but I have my doubts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

dr. Prien and Rodeike says the pressure bottles were in the right wing in the G-5/U2, whereas they were in G-6 they were in the fuselage.
The thing you mix up is that you think its the GM-1 carrier, but its not; those are the vessels from where pressurized air was taken and led to the seperate GM 1 tank to force it into the engine intake by the pressure, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>They are quite clear, however, that only 'some' G-5s got the GM-1.



On the other hand, two seperate primary sources show that the G-5 base type had GM -1 fitting by default, 'as in G-1'; one is the type sheets of Leistungzusammenstellung Bf 109 from January 1944; the other is Chef TLF Nr. 8551/44 gKdos from 1 Dec 1944, ie. below the G-5 parts

- G-5 : 'i.R. 400 l + 80 l bzw. 115 l GM-1. wahlweise: 1x300 l u. Rumpf' and 'Sonstiges : Druckkabine.'

I guess this one was similiar to the G-1 installation, ie. GM-1 carried in the right wings small bottles. That is what Prien and Rodeike said. I don't think I've got that mixed up at all.
Probably the /U2 type had the large main tank, and these ex-GM1 bottles in the right wing were now used as pressurized air containers. Why is this 'probable'? Why is it more probable that the G-5 was fitted with two different systems at all, when the details appear to be the same? Prien & Rodeike state unequivocally that the system was in the wing.
The difference IIRC between the two systems was that the /U2 was a single large insulated tank, and probably easier from the maintaince POV, whereas for the 'wing GM1' installation, it was a pressurized installation.

NOTE THE basic G-5 is NOT noted to be convertable for MW50. On the other, the mentioning of 80/115 liter GM1 points to the possibility of having the same 115 liter as in the case of the U2, unfortunately I am not sure what volume the wing GM-1 bottles had.. This is speculation on your part.


- G-5/R2 (A, ie. Aufklärer, or recce bird) is listed as 'i.R. 400 l + 80 l bzw. 115 l GM-1. wahlweise: 1x300 l u. Rumpf' and 'Sonstiges : Druckkabine; RB 75 x 30 od. RB 50 x 30. Umrüstung auf Methanol möglich.' So conversion is possible. OK.


- G-5/U2 : 'i.R. 400 l + 80 l bzw. 115 l GM-1. wahlweise: 1x300 l u. Rumpf'[i] and [i]'Sonstiges : Druckkabine; Umrüstung auf Methanol möglich.'

- G-5 AS : " " and 'Sonstiges : " " Nachrüstung.'

NOTE that the basic G-5 AS is described as being the same, ie. with pressurized cocpit, GM-1, and possibility to be fitted/converted to GM-1. Appearantly it had the large 115 liter KGM-1 system as well, and if its true, it means that practically any 'G-5/AS' could be fitted with MW50 with ease.

G-5/R2 AS : 'i.R. 400 l + 80 l bzw. 115 l GM-1. wahlweise: 1x300 l u. Rumpf' and 'Sonstiges : Nachrüstung, wie G-5/R2'.

As above, see G-5/R2 is also described as 'Umrüstung auf Methanol möglich.' From which of the two documents to which you referred have you taken all this information?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is no mention of any of these planes having MW-50.

The thing is reallyu simple. All G-5s, being high altitude fighters, with pressurized cabin, appear to have been built with GM-1, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Speculation, and Messrs. Prien & Rodeike disagree.
just like all G-1s and G-3s were GM-1 fighters. And all of them, appearantly with the exception of the base modell G-5, which probably used a different system of GM-1 (given that unlike the others, it was originally meant on that plane to be a permanent fitting, and not a retrofit), could be converted to MW-50 with ease. Or, more likely, the document you're using is from Dec 44 when MW50 was in widespread use, and the straight G-5 was by that time rare, clapped, or both, so the documents don't talk about conversion. Just to be crystal clear on this, the story that there is a difference between the GM-1 systems on the various G-5s is your speculation, not a fact.

Now, we seem to have established that G-5/AS, G-5/R2/AS, and G-6/U2/AS aircraft could be easily converted to MW-50 We have seen quotes saing the conversion is possible.
because they had the KGM-1 system, ie. the large 115 liter cylindrical tank behind the cocpit, That's your speculation and is not supported by Prien & Rodeike.


That leaves the G-6/AS as type out, and we know the majority of them, ie. 226 examples were built, as new production, by Messerschmitt Regensburg between May and August 1944, as per Prien and Rodeike, ie. the ones that DID NOT and COULD NOT have MW-50 which is what I have been arguing from the beginning.
were actually built later than the ones that COULD HAVE agreed
and appearantly HAD MW-50 disagree. Knoke is unreliable, and the pic you've posted shows none of the features of MW50-equipped plane: dark grey wheels and light grey oleos = no MW50.
The '2nd half 1944 for MW50' hypothesis for these planes is blown On the contrary, that's when the G-14 and G-14/AS appeared, along with the G-10 and others. Remember, what I am arguing is that the G-6/AS that we have in the game is really more like a G-14/AS because of the MW50. I think that's clear to the point of of being indisputable. As such, in my opinion it belongs more properly in the late 1944 plane set than the early 44 one. The late 44 set is where the G-10 also comes in along with the G-14.

You raised the issue of Knoke and his supposedly MW50-equipped G-5/AS in April 44. I have shown you why Knoke is not reliable. I have shown you why it is unlikely in the extreme that the AS machine in the pic has MW50. And I have pointed out that the G-5/AS was a rare bird in any event (~90). A handful of G-5/AS or G-6/AS planes in April 1944 - not equipped with MW50 except by the memory of one pilot - does not materially alter the argument I have made, which is that the MW50-equipped G-6/As we have in the game is really better placed in late 44.

...



In short, a summary. Given the above, it appears that

- 103 to 115 pcs. of MW-50 capable G-6/AS were converted by Erla in February - April 1944
- 16 of the MW50 capable G-5/R2/AS were converted up to June 30 1944 by Erla Antwerp
- 76 G-5/AS conversions, appearantly MW-50 capable too, were converted by Erla by an unknown date Only true to the point that these machines may have been MW50 capable. You seem to imply that they WERE. This is speculation on your part.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The work number of the machine in the pic (if correct) places it in a block built by Erla that included some G-5s. If it's a G-5/AS it would be one of the 75 conversions mentioned above. However, it could just as easily be a G-6/AS, given the way G-5 production was scattered through Werknummer blocks. Either way, it's unlikely to have MW-50. It doesn't appear to have the red legs of MW-50 equipped machines. The visible wheel hub appears to be painted the normal dark grey, while the oleo is a much lighter colour. Not red, I would suggest.

We are tresspassing to wonderland at this point I am afraid </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This is needlessly offensive. I would prefer to keep this discussion civil, please, as it has been so far. I have provided a perfectly reasonable exposition of my analysis of that pic. What can be told from the pic is that the plane is an AS version, without MW50. That's about it. The caption gives a WN. That WN certainly falls in a block that contained G-5s. It also contains G-6s, because that is the way G-5 production was done: a relative trickle in the flood of G-6s. The WN is from a block of Erla-built machines. These are all facts. I have assumed for the sake of arguement that WN quoted is correct. Captions, however, are not noted for their accuracy, so we should retain some skepticism on this score. The caption also gives a type (G-5/AS). That could be true. It could also be wrong, given that the G-5 and G-6 versions are indistinguishable from that angle. We would have to have some other information than is in the pic to make that call. The WN doesn't help us, unfortunately. To be clear, I am not saying the caption is wrong. I am saying that I maintain my skepticism about it, in light of me not knowing where it came from or the research behind the caption. This is not 'wonderland', is it cautious analysis.
- somebody has identified the Werknummer, the type, Questions: 1. whom? 2. How?
you say its all hogwash That is not what I said. Read above.
and its a G-6 as above, not what I said. I said it could be, and my analysis supports that position. In the absence of further information, it's not possible to be more precise. It's a G-5/AS or a G-6/AS on the basis of the pic and WN.
the pilot who was there No. A pilot, and not the pilot of this machine.
notes they have new superchargersand MW No. He noted they had 'superchargers' and 'methane'. This doesn't auger well for his reliability on technical matters.
and you say he is mistaken and all that did not happen until the 2nd half of 1944 He very likely is, as he is mistaken about a number of other things in his very readable book.
fine, but I`d like to see... evidence as to that Knoke is mistaken I have shown you one howling example of why he's less than reliable on dates and details. This is a common feature of memoirs, as you know. I have shown you that his 'diary' is not a diary at all, but a memoir. I think I have established sufficient doubt to quetion his account.
that this aircraft is a G-6/AS (not that it would matter too much anyway..) Irrelevant.
evidence as to that up to the 2nd half of 1944, no G-6/AS has been fitted with MW50. Why? Who is claiming that? Not I. I restated my argument above, and I am not claiming this.


I believe ample evidence has been provided to the contrary of your opinion. Perhaps some evidence to the contrary of what you misunderstood my opinion to be.

cheers,
Ratsack

Cajun76
03-27-2008, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Thanks guys, so I am guessing they are like the SPitfire IX HF, built in small numbers for a specialised task.


What would be the benefit of Flettner tabs to an aircraft, as in what benefits would the pilot see? Would they make the controls lighter at high speeds?

It's an "active trim tab" is the best way I know to describe it. A good example in the game is the IL2 1941(Series 1)

Hop in, and from both pit and external (zoom in), look at the aileron, and do some rolling back and forth. The trim tab is on the the inside trailing edge of it. It's a pilot assist to lessen the force required from the pilot to move the aileron. A similar device would work on any classic control surface, like rudder and elevator.

Kurfurst__
03-27-2008, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
dr. Prien and Rodeike says the pressure bottles were in the right wing in the G-5/U2, whereas they were in G-6 they were in the fuselage.
The thing you mix up is that you think its the GM-1 carrier, but its not; those are the vessels from where pressurized air was taken and led to the seperate GM 1 tank to force it into the engine intake by the pressure,


They are quite clear, however, that only 'some' G-5s got the GM-1.

Reading error on your part.

To quote them 'Some G-5s were equipped with GM-1 boost as G-5/U2; unlike the G-6/U2, where the pressure bottles were installated in the rear fuselage, those of the G-5/U2 were located in the right wing.'

They don`t say that only the G-5/U2 had GM-1 - which is otherwise also refuted by primary documentation, already quoted - but that some G-5s had the GM-1 as in the G-6/U2. If you have a bit of background information, this becomes clear.

One has to wonder why the G-5/U2, which is a different subtype than the G-5, had it`s pressure bottles in the right wing, while the G-6/U2 in fuselage for the KGM-1 system (which is what the /U2 designation signifies).

The reason is simple, in the documentation the basic G-5 is described as 'wie G-1/G-3', the former which had their GM-1 system in the right wing. IIRC Prien and Rodeike also makes this clear.

See G-1 description :

Zelle: Druckkabine, verstärkter Flügel (Holm, Rippen, Belankung) rollengelagerter Vorflügel, Leitugen für GM 1-Anlage im Flügel und Leitungen sowie Beschläge für Reichweiten- und Abwurfwaffenanlage und Flügelgondebewaffnung; Wasser- und Ölkühlerautomatik, Ölbehälter auf 36 l vergrößert. Rückenpanzerung und Kopfschutz, Kühlerpanzerung und Leichtmetallpanzerung.

And again, the G-5s description from the same document from Jan 1944 descibes it as 'wie G-1/G-3', only mentioning some differences, but GM1 system is not one of those.

Which expains the different execution in the G-5/U2 and G-6/U2 for the same system, the G-5, that was taken as basis for the conversion already had some suitable pressure bottles (ie. used as GM-1 containers), the G-6 had to be retrofitted with these in the fuselage to provide pressure (which is where converted /U2 systems and the G-14s differ, the latter didn`t bothered with pressure bottles, but rather tapped the supercharger for pressurized air)



[QUOTE]
On the other hand, two seperate primary sources show that the G-5 base type had GM -1 fitting by default, 'as in G-1'; one is the type sheets of Leistungzusammenstellung Bf 109 from January 1944; the other is Chef TLF Nr. 8551/44 gKdos from 1 Dec 1944, ie. below the G-5 parts

- G-5 : 'i.R. 400 l + 80 l bzw. 115 l GM-1. wahlweise: 1x300 l u. Rumpf'[i] and [i]'Sonstiges : Druckkabine.'

I guess this one was similiar to the G-1 installation, ie. GM-1 carried in the right wings small bottles.

That is what Prien and Rodeike said. I don't think I've got that mixed up at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Probably the /U2 type had the large main tank, and these ex-GM1 bottles in the right wing were now used as pressurized air containers.

Why is this 'probable'? Why is it more probable that the G-5 was fitted with two different systems at all, when the details appear to be the same? Prien & Rodeike state unequivocally that the system was in the wing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Prien and Rodeike said :

...unlike the G-6/U2, where the pressure bottles were installated in the rear fuselage, those of the G-5/U2 were located in the right wing.'

'pressure bottles'. Not GM-1 bottles. The MK 108 in the /U4 also had pressurize bottles for its operation in the rear fuselage.

You would need to understand how the /U2 conversion`s GM-1 system worked. It relied on a single, unpressurized, insulated tank in the rear fuselage. Pressurized air, stored in pressure bottles, was used to push the contents into the supercharger.

As opposed to the standard GM-1 system in G-1/G-3/G-5, ie. 8 or so steel bottles, containing GM-1 under pressure.

The difference IIRC between the two systems was that the /U2 was a single large insulated tank, and probably easier from the maintaince POV, whereas for the 'wing GM1' installation, it was a pressurized installation.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The thing is reallyu simple. All G-5s, being high altitude fighters, with pressurized cabin, appear to have been built with GM-1,

Speculation, and Messrs. Prien & Rodeike disagree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This 'speculation' is supported by primary documentation. What primary documentation did YOU offer so far to your thesis, hmmm?
And its not my concern if you misunderstood, perhaps due to lack of information of these systems, what Prien & Rodeike says.


Or, more likely, the document you're using is from Dec 44 when MW50 was in widespread use, and the straight G-5 was by that time rare, clapped, or both, so the documents don't talk about conversion.

Well these documents even mention things like the G-1 from years ago, and obviously in their technical execution these planes remained the same.
Thats why they were given specific designations, after all.


Just to be crystal clear on this, the story that there is a difference between the GM-1 systems on the various G-5s is your speculation, not a fact.

Its a fact, I am afraid. Otherwise answer me why the G-5 is described as 'like G-1', and we (and people in 1944) know how the GM-1 installation on the G-1 looked like. Also explain me why the G-5/U2 has its pressure bottles (you understand by now what pressure bottles are, don`t you?) in the wing, while the G-6/U2 in the fuselage.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now, we seem to have established that G-5/AS, G-5/R2/AS, and G-6/U2/AS aircraft could be easily converted to MW-50

We have seen quotes saing the conversion is possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good, you`re following me then..


because they had the KGM-1 system, ie. the large 115 liter cylindrical tank behind the cocpit,


That's your speculation and is not supported by Prien & Rodeike.

There`s no speculation.

The /U2 conversion is the the KGM-1 system, ie. the large 115 liter, unpressurized, insulated cylindrical tank behind the cocpit, used for GM-1 or MW-50, which BTW Prien and Rodeike note to be easily convertable to MW50.

Perhaps look up what the /U2 designation stands for.


Knoke is unreliable,

I think most of us will disagree with your dismissal of his account. He is quite clear about receiving aircraft with new superchargers (and methanol), this can be supported by the unit`s inventory and equipment movement reports, which you curiously ignored.

If Knoke is unreliable, then how do you explain that in the month he notes they received /AS planes, there is indeed photograhpic evidence of /AS planes in his unit? So Knoke is not unreliable about that detail, but he is unreliable about MW 50 in the same enrty? Come on. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


and the pic you've posted shows none of the features of MW50-equipped plane: dark grey wheels and light grey oleos = no MW50.

I wonder how you did establish this finally after your initial uncertainity about the colours. BTW, do you have an explanation as to why the wing`s undersurface appears to be painted completely black? And odd camo scheme, don`t you think? What is clear that the aircraft is an /AS machine, identified as a G-5/AS WNr 110 064. This supports Knoke`s account.

Of course you can lay doubts as to the type and serial number, but I wonder what would actually show that there`s an error involved, apart from your generic belief that captions are unreliable.

But there`s just too much dismissal around. Knoke is wrong. The author who captioned the photo is wrong. The new edition of Knoke`s book is wrong.
Did I miss something else..?

Its difficult to me to buy a story that only contains denial, but no positive evidence whatsoever.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The '2nd half 1944 for MW50' hypothesis for these planes is blown

On the contrary, that's when the G-14 and G-14/AS appeared, along with the G-10 and others. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The G-14 and G-14/AS appeared in July and were in action, the G-10 did not appear until October with units and was not in action until November. Besides the G-14s simply standardized what was already being fitted to G-6s, ie. that includes MW-50.


Remember, what I am arguing is that the G-6/AS that we have in the game is really more like a G-14/AS because of the MW50. I think that's clear to the point of of being indisputable.

Well the G-6/AS and the G-14/AS are similiar planes, yes, the latter being a standardized version of the former.


As such, in my opinion it belongs more properly in the late 1944 plane set than the early 44 one.

I don`t see why, apart from availability and numbers. We have already established that 103 to 115 examples of MW-50 capable G-6/U2/AS were converted by Erla in February - April 1944. But then again, on that basis people should never fly the Tempest either. Or the Mustang III.


The late 44 set is where the G-10 also comes in along with the G-14.

There`s no doubt, though the G-14 arrived in July for combat, the G-10 only in November.


You raised the issue of Knoke and his supposedly MW50-equipped G-5/AS in April 44. I have shown you why Knoke is not reliable.

You dissed it, thats all.


I have shown you why it is unlikely in the extreme that the AS machine in the pic has MW50.

I`d be interested to see your methods establishing this.


And I have pointed out that the G-5/AS was a rare bird in any event (~90).

Why concentrate on the G-5/AS only now, as shown about above about 380 G-5/6/AS type aircraft was capable of carrying GM-1, ie. ca. half the type`s production.


A handful of G-5/AS or G-6/AS planes in April 1944 - not equipped with MW50 except by the memory of one pilot -

I am sorry we have already estabished 103 to 115 pcs. of MW-50 capable G-6/U2/AS were converted by Erla in February - April 1944, as could all G-5s.
And we have more than a guess here, we also know that in May 1944 all /U2 sets were to be modified to MW50, there are instructions for this.


does not materially alter the argument I have made, which is that the MW50-equipped G-6/AS we have in the game is really better placed in late 44.

Because? Because you claim MW 50 was not fitted in the first half of 1944, to which you have provided no evidence? Because you ignore the fact that at least 130 aircraft were produced in the period that could use MW50? Because you dismiss the evidence from one pilot who was there and said they indeed used MW50?

And what would represent those high altitude G-6/AS w. and w/o MW50 around in the first half of 1944 then?

What evidence have been provided to your basic claim that MW 50 was not fitted in the first half of 1944 at all?

Sorry but without any evidence shown, you guess vs. Knoke`s first hand account its the latter than bears more weight, especially as his account appears to be supported by circumstancial evidence.

Kurfurst__
03-27-2008, 03:51 AM
On page 208, Prien and Rodeike shows some color photos of G-6/AS aircraft, at Wagram airfield in August 1944, these have red legs, which Prien/Rodeike associates with 100 octane C-3 fuel. Indeed the importance of red legs is somewhat debated, though it needs to be known that the MW system components, was marked with red paint in the aircraft, while fuel lines were yellow. Also, up until late 1944 C-3 had to be used in conjuction with MW50 boosted engines, though later they cleared them for the same boost with lower grade fuels, ie. 87 octane B-4.

As to the question of red legs, its seems to be somewhat irrelevant as to the question of wheter MW50 is fitted or not, I just browsed through a lot of late war photos and it appears that a large number of G-10s and K-4s simply have just grey legs without any red; so appearantly this practice was either sloppily followed or ceased later, however at Page 208 of P/R there is again a color photo of a G-14 of JG 102, at the 'end of 1944', and the u/c legs appear to be red, again..

Bewolf
03-27-2008, 04:14 AM
@Ratsack and Kurfürst

Bravo. Reading this debate is pure joy. All factual, no name calling, lots to learn.

Please go on.

Xiolablu3
03-27-2008, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Thanks guys, so I am guessing they are like the SPitfire IX HF, built in small numbers for a specialised task.


What would be the benefit of Flettner tabs to an aircraft, as in what benefits would the pilot see? Would they make the controls lighter at high speeds?

It's an "active trim tab" is the best way I know to describe it. A good example in the game is the IL2 1941(Series 1)

Hop in, and from both pit and external (zoom in), look at the aileron, and do some rolling back and forth. The trim tab is on the the inside trailing edge of it. It's a pilot assist to lessen the force required from the pilot to move the aileron. A similar device would work on any classic control surface, like rudder and elevator. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks matek, just what i wanted to knowhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kurfurst__
03-27-2008, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Thanks guys, so I am guessing they are like the SPitfire IX HF, built in small numbers for a specialised task.

Something like that, the G-1, G-3, G-5 are more like the pressurized Mk VIs and VIIs, since all of these are pressurized and are practical high altitude fighters (consider the human side of flying at high altitude, its great phyiscal load, the cold and the lack of normal pressure, inhaling pure oxygene which is a great phyisical strain in itself...).

The IXHF is more akin to the G-6/AS (and the G-5/AS, since the latter often lost their pressurized nature), it also appeared at roughly the same time in the spring of 1944, both being unpressurized but with a high alt engine.

I always felt that the importance of pressurized cocpits are much under-appreciated, there`s a lot more into a high altitude fighter than just slapping a high altitude engine on it. In real life there`s a human factor, and pilot in an unpressurized cocpit will simply not fight at nearly the effiency as pilot of equal skill in a pressurized working enviroment.

Ratsack
03-27-2008, 07:41 AM
Rather than reply in a long post, line by line, I'll deal with the key points in individual posts. It'll be easier to read, and I don't have the time to go through a death-of-a-thousand-cuts reply right now.

You are asserting, Kurfurst, that the GM-1 system was standard on the G-1, G-3 and G-5. From this flows your argument that all the G-5s had MW50, so therefore the AS versions had it, etc, etc. You base this assertion on the document you've quoted above, that says the G-5 installation was like that in the G-3 and G-1.

I think you are reading too much into that similarity. Let us look at the G-1. According to Prien & Rodeike (P&R), the last 80 of the 160 odd built were fitted with GM-1. These machines were also lightened. This is on p. 62. Importantly, there is no other mention of GM-1 in relation to the G-1. A reasonable interpretation of this is that these last 80 machines were the ONLY ones fitted with GM-1.

Similarly, there is no mention of GM-1 in relation to the G-3, except to note a type list from late 1944. The G-3 is less significant in any event, because only a relative handful were built.

When we get to the chapter on the G-5, again there is no mention of GM-1 except in relation to the U2-designated aircraft, with the note that this installation is like that in the earlier types, and not like the installation in the G-6. (By the way, I do understand what is being said about pressure bottles). That's it.

You would agree that it would not be justifiable to conclude on the basis of this that GM-1 was standard on these types. It would be drawing a long bow to claim that this conclusion is implicit in P&R's text. In fact, they say nothing of the kind.

You said you are reaching this conclusion on the basis of one of the documents you've quoted from above. Unfortunately, I do not know the purpose of that text, or what some of the quoted bits mean, precisely. However, your conclusion is at odds with P&R's.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
03-27-2008, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As such, in my opinion it [the G-6/AS ne G-14/AS) belongs more properly in the late 1944 plane set than the early 44 one.

I don`t see why, apart from availability and numbers. We have already established that 103 to 115 examples of MW-50 capable G-6/U2/AS were converted by Erla in February - April 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Having the capability to be modified is not the same as actually being modified. For example, the entire G series could be 'modified' to take the R6 conversion of MG151s under the wings. They weren't though. We also know that 200-odd F-4s were modified to take the same kit. We also know that only a relative handful of the those F-4s were actually modified.

So far, the only thing to support the contention that MW50 was in use is Knoke's memoir. The pic doesn't look like a plane with MW50. (By the way, I don't think the underside is black: it's in shadow. Look at the oleo pants.)

cheers,
Ratsack