PDA

View Full Version : @ 109 Experten: What are diffs between G-14, G-10 and K-4?



mandrill7
08-18-2006, 07:43 PM
Can anyone brush me up on the different performance and load-out capabilities of the 3 late war 109 models?

TIA!

Treetop64
08-18-2006, 08:00 PM
In a nutshell, the latter part of Bf109-G production had become quite a chaotic process, with a bewildering array of configurations, particularly with the G-6 series.

The G-10 and G-14 series were stop-gap measures to the Bf109-K series, which was introduced to rationalize the current state of Bf109 production. The G-10s and G-14s were "Gustavs" remanufactured to a similar status as the 109-Ks.

One can tell the difference between a 109G-10 and a 109-K in that the radio direction-finding loop on the Ks is located further back on the top of the fuselage. Not sure this is modelled in-game, however.

Not sure if that answers your question, but I hope it helps. Specific performances and loadouts are detailed in game with the aircraft viewer, and with Hardball's aircraft viewer.

Targ
08-18-2006, 08:08 PM
Dont forget the G-6/AS http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
The only late war 109 that lets you use 20mm canon as well as MK108.

p1ngu666
08-18-2006, 08:47 PM
there all alcholic for a start http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

iirec the g14 is the worst of the bunch, performance wise, its just a g6 forcefed alchol for extra performance.

closest allied plane in terms similerness is spit IX 25lb ("old"airframe with more powerful engine.

g10 is more refined version of the above, and i think the engine has a higher critical alt too

k4 is basicaly a redesign and taking many of the best bits of previous 109s into one plane*

i think it has the same or better engine than the g10, i think it maybeeeee predates the g10, cant remmber, the 1.98ata one has more power, so more performance.

the g6/as is probably the most nimble flying of them ingame, plus can take a 20mm cannon which is nice. our g6/as isnt actully a g6/as, its something else http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


*applies to all 109s, theres basicaly a large variation on what was produced under what name, plus how any plane was serviced in the field...

ie u might have the cowl of a g6 on your g10, and the tailwheel of a k4, but perminatly locked down...

its basicaly because there where several factories producing 109s, several engine plants, and the transport system was in choas

p1ngu666
08-18-2006, 08:48 PM
oh for performance and loadout, il2compair and hardballs viewer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VW-IceFire
08-18-2006, 10:15 PM
There aren't huge differences...the G-14's power curve I find tends to favour the low to medium altitude. Its got a dive bomber sight line on the canopy as well and its got a full bomb loadout option for ground attack. The G-10 I personally think is the best of the 109s. The K-4 is faster and climbs better but I find it not as good in the handling in game...so I tend to fly the G-10 whenever thats an option. Thats upto personal preference I guess.

The K-4 is the fatest of the 109s with the highest climb rate. As prop fighters go, the Bf109K-4 is amongst the quickest climbing and fastest top speed of any type.

PraetorHonoris
08-19-2006, 04:22 AM
One should mention that the G10 and G14 in game represent Hungarian productions, hence the 3cm canon. German G10 were more often equipped with 2cm as they were intended for fighter vs fighter combat, moreover they were of worse quality regarding the manufacture compared to the Hungarian.

(Actually I wish we had a MG151/20 option for the G10, but we get fantasy birds instead... hr, better don't start that topic)

The K4 historically was hardly better than the G10 concerning raw performance data. It was primarily aimed for unification of the "chaotic improvements" of the later G-series, making the production easier and faster.

HotelBushranger
08-19-2006, 04:41 AM
Praetor, how come you have a pic of an SM-81 in your sig? Nice shot nonetheless http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Kurfurst__
08-19-2006, 04:44 AM
To add to that, both G-14 and G-10 were based on the G-6 aiframe, the G-14 having DB 605AM almost the same engine as the G-6, just with methanol boost for greatly increased output below rated alt.

The G-10 sports the much more radically redesigned DB 605D, same as in the 109K also with MW injection, but also having better supercharger and improved altitude output. Also the G-10 is sharing some components with the 109K. The G-10 was called a b@stard aircraft by the Germans, ie. a mix between G and K series.

Think of the G14 as a low/medium alt fighter, the G-10 as a high alt fighter, a bit like LF/HF Spits.

The 109K was a new, aerodynamically refined airframe developed from early 1943, which meant to standardize production and improve performance at the same time. As interim solutions the G-14 and G-10 were produced. Equpemnt was rationally rearranged internally, and externally it sported retractable, covered, tall tailwheel and covered mainwheels for better aerodynamics. These features plus more rear DF loop, rearanged radio hatch (more forward and up on left fuselage side) are tellers of a 109K. It is the fastest 109, some 20 kph faster than the G-10, but its really meant for high altitude, though low level performance is impressive as well.

In the game all three has the 30mm cannon, but as said in RL the 20mm was more common on G14/g10. The 109K exlusively had the 30mm mounted.

PraetorHonoris
08-19-2006, 05:03 AM
HotelBushranger, it's a Ju52. I have a weak spot for that bird.
It's a drawing by Hans Liska, who did not care too much about 100% genuine rendition of the aircrafts, but about stylish pics.

I like Liska's pictures very much, because they don't look like the usual propaganda... only two examples. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7899/2cl7.jpg

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/700/29ks1.jpg

Brain32
08-19-2006, 05:13 AM
I don't understand one thing in the game though, G10 handles much better than K4 and according to what I saw, K4 is almost 300Kg lighter, has a slightly bigger wingspan, is more aerodynamically efficient. Shouldn't K4 feel better than G10 regarding handling, keep energy better and have a better turn perfomance?
I also noticed that IL2c states higher weight for the K4 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
What are the accurate RL weights for G10 and K4?
According to: "BF109 1936-1945" by Heinz J. Nowarra (ISBN 3-7909-0217-9)
G10 - 3678Kg
K4 - 3383Kg
*-both with mk108 in the nose
According to il2c:
G10 - 3296,58Kg
K4 - 3421,53Kg

???

Kurfurst__
08-19-2006, 06:38 AM
Aerodynamic properites of G-10 and K-4 were identical, except for less drag on 109K. Winspan etc. were all the same.

As for weight difference... between the G-10/U4 (U4=MK108) and K-4 it was around a mere 20 kilograms, as per official documentation..Totally negligable.

These reported handling differences are indeed mysterious in the game.

Xiolablu3
08-19-2006, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Aerodynamic properites of G-10 and K-4 were identical, except for less drag on 109K. .

Isnt this a bit of a contradiction?

The first thing I see is the gun bulges on the 109G10.

I wish we had a Mg151 option for the later marks of 109. I would really like to be able to lighten the nose for fighter vs fighter work. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Although I LOVE the 109F4 (I think its the best fighter available in 1941) and I also like the 109E and the 109G2, I cannot get on with the G10/G14/K4 purely becasue of the heavy nose.

Monty_Thrud
08-19-2006, 07:20 AM
Definately a http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif up for the 20mm versions

cawimmer430
08-19-2006, 07:24 AM
I was flying the BF-109G-10, G-14 and K4 last night and to me, the G-10 was the best dogfighter of them all. It felt lighter while the G-14 felt like a brick. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

BrewsterPilot
08-19-2006, 08:12 AM
G6/AS for teh win (TM)! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Xiolablu3
08-19-2006, 08:21 AM
I dont feel that the G10/G14/K4 in their current form are dogfighters, probably becasue of the weight the 30mm cannon and its ammo adds?

I feel that they go very fast, but have trouble manouvring at fast speeds. I was dogfighting with a Yak3 just the other day and having real problems getting alead on him, purely becasue the fight was at such a high speed, and my elevators crapped out above 450k.

I have more success dogfighting in a FW190D9 than a late 109, purely becasue it can manouvre at the high speeds that the late war planes fight at. (Although I obviously try and stay away from dogfighting at all)

109G6A/S is great. but its not always available on every late war map, often its just the G10 or G14.

Roll on the 20mm option in late 109s!

HuninMunin
08-19-2006, 08:42 AM
That is in fact the big mistery, Xiolablu.
The Mk-108 wasn't much heavier then the 20mm.
And all pilot interviews I read stated that the 20mm would only need one or two hits for a fighter.
So its balistics make it a overall better weapon then the 30mm, let alone fighting B-17s.

Brain32
08-19-2006, 09:08 AM
Personally I don't fell the "nose heavy" thing with the late 109's, they just overall feel slughish like they weight a ton more than earlier versions. BTW I just checked IL2c for turn rate comparision between 109's and yes K4 has by far the worst turn rate, is it correct - I don't know.
Regarding the DF capatibility of the G6AS-G14_G10_K4 I would say G14 is the best up to 4000m, G10 is solid all around, G6AS is in same category as G10 while K4 has awsome "paper facts" but is nearly unusable because of unrealistic(too early, too hard) concrete controls at mediocre speeds that plague all late 109's and P38's depriving them of serious fighter duties which I think is rather sad.

mandrill7
08-23-2006, 03:40 PM
I'm 2 missions into a projected 12 mission campaign (very loosely) based on 9 GIAP in East Prussia, in Jan. '45. So far, I've just set the missions up and watched as the AI fought through them.

Mission #1 - G-10's versus LA-7's. 8 each. La-7's chewed the G-10's. Flown at Pe-2 height, ie. 3000 m.

Missions #2 - 4 x K-4's and 4 x D-9's vs La-7's. D-9's survived and held their own (sort of). K-4's were quickly killed. Flown at Il-2 height, i.e. about 400 meters.

Pilot ability mixes were similar and usually 1 to 4 would be "veteran-average-veteran-rookie" in each flight on both sides with an ace dropped in for the Germans. No altitude advantage, although Germans would be distracted by given a primary target to kill the Russian bombers.

Didn't try the G6AS. Should it even be available in January '45?

Should also try the G-14, I guess.

Ugly_Kid
08-23-2006, 05:05 PM
There isn't any reasonable explanation to the FM differences in the game - particularly handling in DF - one FM was done on Monday other on Friday with good deal of Stolischnaya to follow - that's all - it isn't a reference.

G-10 was according some ideas a "repair" or "retrofit" of G series to produce aircraft comparable to K, however not all of them were repairs some were actually build from scratch but it is not sure it was largely recycling of old G-6 fuselages etc.

Oleg or some like to tell one thing or another about the "bad quality" of the 109s manufactured in Germany - whereas part of the equation is that many airframes from accident aircraft landed back to factory and were reused and given later out as "new" and there was no control of the hours or history a part of a tail section might have had for instance.

G-14 was just a trial to standardize G-6 series (a failure in that, though) - first G-14s looked like G-6 - G-14/AS corresponded to G-6/AS - however one should not mix G-6/AS with G-6/AS in the game, which is also somewhat strange...

Kurfurst__
08-24-2006, 01:35 AM
G-6/AS (with MW injection as in game) should be available from March 1944 according to the earliest photos of it.

The G-14 was in fact pretty much like the late G-6s with MW50. As a matter of fact German sheets describe the G-14 : 'as G-6, but methanol injection on Ladeluft basis'. That refers to the fact that while the (MW50 retrofitted) G-6s were using oxigene bottles to pressurize the MW50 tank behind the pilot, which forced the methanol into pipes leading to the supercharger.

The G-14, which had MW50 by default, was using the supercharger, tapping it and leading pressurized air back to the MW 50 tank to do the same thing. The G-14 and G-14/AS appeared in July 1944, the G-10 and K-4 at the same time, being in production by August, arriving at the units in October, and first seeing action in early November 1944.

The weight difference between all these late war types were quite marginal as a matter of fact, altough they were heavier by some 2-300 kg than than early G-2s and G-6s - but with with much, much more power of course. All that should be different is having higher stall speeds, which would mean you can't turn and burn at maximum effort so well, but because of the power you can keep speed in turns much better, for which reason I doubt the sustained turn times would be much different. And I am quite sure the diffo between MK 108 and MG151 variants was absolutely marginal.

La7_brook
08-24-2006, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
G-6/AS (with MW injection as in game) should be available from March 1944 according to the earliest photos of it.

The G-14 was in fact pretty much like the late G-6s with MW50. As a matter of fact German sheets describe the G-14 : 'as G-6, but methanol injection on Ladeluft basis'. That refers to the fact that while the (MW50 retrofitted) G-6s were using oxigene bottles to pressurize the MW50 tank behind the pilot, which forced the methanol into pipes leading to the supercharger.

The G-14, which had MW50 by default, was using the supercharger, tapping it and leading pressurized air back to the MW 50 tank to do the same thing. The G-14 and G-14/AS appeared in July 1944, the G-10 and K-4 at the same time, being in production by August, arriving at the units in October, and first seeing action in early November 1944.

The weight difference between all these late war types were quite marginal as a matter of fact, altough they were heavier by some 2-300 kg than than early G-2s and G-6s - but with with much, much more power of course. All that should be different is having higher stall speeds, which would mean you can't turn and burn at maximum effort so well, but because of the power you can keep speed in turns much better, for which reason I doubt the sustained turn times would be much different. And I am quite sure the diffo between MK 108 and MG151 variants was absolutely marginal. so what are we saying is late 109,s need more reworking on there FM still ? well lets see what BOB does for the 109 , theres still hope i think

JG52Karaya-X
08-24-2006, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Aerodynamic properites of G-10 and K-4 were identical, except for less drag on 109K. .

Isnt this a bit of a contradiction?

The first thing I see is the gun bulges on the 109G10... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

... which are exactly the same as on the K4

I think your mixing the G10 up with the G14 (which still has the big round buldges of the G6). As Kurfürst said there is very little optical difference between the G10 and K4 namely the retractable tailwheel and fully covered up wheel wells. To make things even more confusing these aerodynamic refinements were also applied to G10 in the field!


I wish we had a Mg151 option for the later marks of 109. I would really like to be able to lighten the nose for fighter vs fighter work.

Totally agree - would have been nice to have that plus some bomb and droptank loadouts for the G10/14.


I dont feel that the G10/G14/K4 in their current form are dogfighters, probably becasue of the weight the 30mm cannon and its ammo adds?


The weight difference between a G10 with 20mm and a G10/U4 with the 30mm is very small. The Mk108 weights ~60kg while the MG151/20 weights 42kg. Furthermore the 30mm only carries 65 rounds while the 20mm has 200 maximum. IIRC the weight difference was also just a mere 20-30kg...

luftluuver
08-24-2006, 04:48 AM
New Build Me109 production numbers from Jan 1944

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=190&d=1126820168

Note that the first K-4s were not built until Sept and then only 15 a/c. Also note production ended in March 1945.


That refers to the fact that while the (MW50 retrofitted) G-6s were using oxigene bottles to pressurize the MW50 tank behind the pilot, which forced the methanol into pipes leading to the supercharger. Oxygen bottles???? Surely you meant compressed air bottles.

HQ1
08-24-2006, 07:03 AM
Frankly, I hate to fly K4 cause it's worse hight speed handling than G series. dont know why. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Maybe someone can drill in this with Oleg!

Kocur_
08-24-2006, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
There isn't any reasonable explanation to the FM differences in the game - particularly

Perhaps there is a "reasonable" explanation for difference between Gs and K4 - check out data on Bf-109s wing area in Object viewer - K4 is the only one to have correct 16.05m^2 listed, all other have totally bogus 17,3m^2 area. In my experience from past patches, when I flew Bf-109s a lot, K4 does act like it had SMALLER wing area than other in-game 109s' variants...

bank-n-yank
08-24-2006, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The 109K was a new, aerodynamically refined airframe developed from early 1943

The basic airframe of the 109K for all intents and purposes, was identical to the 'G' series.
In fact the fuselage aft of the rear cockpit bulkhead, other than some additional strengthening, remained virtually unchanged from the original prototype through to the end of production.

Brain32
08-24-2006, 10:55 AM
Perhaps there is a "reasonable" explanation for difference between Gs and K4 - check out data on Bf-109s wing area in Object viewer - K4 is the only one to have correct 16.05m^2 listed, all other have totally bogus 17,3m^2 area. In my experience from past patches, when I flew Bf-109s a lot, K4 does act like it had SMALLER wing area than other in-game 109s' variants...
Yes I just looked, but when was the Object viewer last time updated?

Kocur_
08-24-2006, 11:13 AM
Perhaps never, but ppl keep saying that K4 handles differently to say G10, i.e. as if K4 had higher wingloading, when there is no RL reasonable explanation for that. I dont mean to say, that OV data is the same that was used for FM modelling, but WTH is 17,3m^2 doing in any part of the game anyway?

Xiolablu3
08-24-2006, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Aerodynamic properites of G-10 and K-4 were identical, except for less drag on 109K. .

Isnt this a bit of a contradiction?

The first thing I see is the gun bulges on the 109G10... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

... which are exactly the same as on the K4

I think your mixing the G10 up with the G14 (which still has the big round buldges of the G6). As Kurfürst said there is very little optical difference between the G10 and K4 namely the retractable tailwheel and fully covered up wheel wells. To make things even more confusing these aerodynamic refinements were also applied to G10 in the field!

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sorry, you are correct. I always thought that the G10 had the round bulges found on the G6.
I just checked and you are inded correct they are the same as the 109K4.