[brentce]

I mean I'm going to get stuck on that point a fair bit here. Are we in agreement the 605AS is precisely and no more than a 605A-1 with a 603 supercharger fitted?
I can look up the documentation.

Yes, a 605AS is a 605a-1 with the same DB603 supercharger as the DB605D, but so is the 605ASM/B/C. If the ASB and ASC were 605D variants, I'm sure they would have been designated as such. Even from a mechanical perspective, it is incorrect to refer to them as 605D's because the base D-series had structural and detail changes that the AS-series did not. The 605AS-series engines were a stop gap to lend the 605A greater altitude performance until the DB605D was ready for production.

Edit: BTW, I just reached 725 kph in the Bf 109G-14/AS at 6500M! hock: 8)

[vanir]

Nevermind the 605D for the moment mate. It doesn't use the 603 supercharger. It has a new one, slightly smaller in the diameter of the casing (but certainly bigger than the 605A casing). I'm going a new tact here, to prevent a similar argument over the Fw190A erh

[vanir]

Here's my greatly simplified and admitedly speculative version of the 605 engine story (although assuredly it is well grounded).

The 605D was under development by the time the 605A was being fitted to the 109G as a high performance variation designed to use C2/C3 fuel and also improve altitude performance.
Development became protracted until late 1944 before it finally entered mass production in the DB and DC variants, able to use either B4 or C3 fuel. The D and D-2 were in limited production only, for development purposes.

In the meantime a stop gap was needed to improve 109G performance during early 44.
MW50 was added and the 605A was adapted for C3 fuel, but this caused serious serviceability and reliability issues.
Separately and immediately prior to this, of primary concern was the Allied bombing campaign and high altitude interceptors were needed. The D series was not yet ready for mass production and the 603 engine supercharger casing was hastily adapted to the 605A to produce the AS.

The AM describes the adaptation of 605A to use C3 fuel with a sondernotleistung setting encorporating MW50 injection. From February 1944 this engine began appearing in service as a retroactive modification to G-6 models currently in service (cited).
Soon following this the AS motor was also adapted for MW50/C3 receiving the ASM designation. Fewer of these appeared in the G-6/AS as it was not a common practise until the G-14/AS was being produced (ie. mid44).

DM is a superfluous postwar designation for the 605D development motor (limited production from 1942) as it was already equipped for C2/3 fuel usage and thus is a retroactive term only to describe MW50 fitment, which was done during 109K development. There is no Daimler document for a DM motor (my reference here is Mercedes Benz AG archival documents, please share any you have suggesting otherwise as I'd be interested to see them).

Finally the DB and DC motors, with new D series internal machinery and new D series superchargers became available late in 1944. This was wonderful but by this time it had been found by accident the 603 supercharger had performed superbly when fitted to the 605A, problems with the MW50 fitments aside.

Since the D series has a rated altitude falling between 5.5-6.5km (5.2-5.8 for the 605A) and the 605AS has a rated altitude between 6.7-8km it was decided to fit the 603/AS supercharger on the DB/DC motor during 1945. This returned a rated altitude between 6-7km with a lower fuel consumption and engine speed during cruise (both of which reflected its AS heritage in supercharger fitment) and became the best overall engine of the 605 series in either B4 (ASB) version or C3 (ASC) version.


This other business about restrictions on the DC and ASC motors I do not challenge, haven't read anything about it but sure that's entirely possible. But doesn't detract from mechanical engineering.

[Guest]

"Erhm, what? C3 is the fuel being used on the plane, namely 97octane. I cant think of any DB605 engine that ran on C3 fuel that was actually used on the G-6 in numbers! Such engines would be the DB605 ASC & DC, none of those were used on the G-6 and were reserved for later models such as the G-10/-14/K-4"

[img]http://www.chiasal.it/foto%20d'epoca/album/slides/Me109G6-C31.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.chiasal.it/foto%20d'epoca/album/slides/Me109G6-C32.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.chiasal.it/foto%20d'epoca/album/slides/Immagine_1.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.chiasal.it/foto%20d'epoca/album/slides/Immagine_2.jpg[/img]



Karaya, Oleg's FM of all Bf 109's is a One Big Bug and you know "that".

Its just that the G6 is HOPELESSLY undermodelled and some of the other 109s are also undermodelled in various performance characteristic (109F turntimes for example)

It might very well be that the 109Friedrich simply is undermodelled in its handling which most test data points towards.

Bf 109G-2 ingame slower at some altitude

for example

ingame: 549 km/h - 1000 m (retractable tail wheel)

In RL: soviet test. 554 km/h - 1000 m (non-retractable tail wheel)

ingame: 581 km/h - 2750 m (retractable tail wheel)

In RL: soviet test. 598 km/h - 2750 m (non-retractable tail wheel)

ingame: 585 km/h - 3000 m (retractable tail wheel)

In RL: soviet test. 602 km/h - 3000 m (non-retractable tail wheel)




Anyway.Thank you for your work.

[Test Pilot]

I mean I'm going to get stuck on that point a fair bit here. Are we in agreement the 605AS is precisely and no more than a 605A-1 with a 603 supercharger fitted?
I can look up the documentation.

Yes, a 605AS is a 605a-1 with the same DB603 supercharger as the DB605D, but so is the 605ASM/B/C. If the ASB and ASC were 605D variants, I'm sure they would have been designated as such. Even from a mechanical perspective, it is incorrect to refer to them as 605D's because the base D-series had structural and detail changes that the AS-series did not. The 605AS-series engines were a stop gap to lend the 605A greater altitude performance until the DB605D was ready for production.

Edit: BTW, I just reached 725 kph in the Bf 109G-14/AS at 6500M! hock: 8)

So we have new king of speed in 109 family

I really start to like new bf's even more.

[Karaya]

[img]http://www.chiasal.it/foto%20d'epoca/album/slides/Me109G6-C31.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.chiasal.it/foto%20d'epoca/album/slides/Me109G6-C32.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.chiasal.it/foto%20d'epoca/album/slides/Immagine_1.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.chiasal.it/foto%20d'epoca/album/slides/Immagine_2.jpg[/img]

Any more info on this bird? Is it maybe a G-6 with a DB605D engine? Those were quite rare and as far as I know that engine needed C3 fuel to run at full boost!?

[Karaya]

Edit: BTW, I just reached 725 kph in the Bf 109G-14/AS at 6500M! hock: 8)

Will look into this...

Remember these are WIP and Beta aircraft and not 100% done yet

[brentce]

Here's my greatly simplified and admitedly speculative version of the 605 engine story (although assuredly it is well grounded).
.....

This other business about restrictions on the DC and ASC motors I do not challenge, haven't read anything about it but sure that's entirely possible. But doesn't detract from mechanical engineering.

Hi Vanir

Basically we are just going to have to disagree on this issue, buuut :wink: I do have to note that the DB605DB, DC and ASB, ASC all have the same (or virtually so) rated altitude for any given power setting. At 1.8 ata they all have a critical altitude/FTH of around 7500m at max speed, if converted to 1.98 ATA, that drops to 6000M since the supercharger cannot produce that level of boost above 6100m. These critical altitudes are rammed at top speed while the figures you're using appear to be the static ratings. This indicates that they used a supercharger of the same diameter and speed, but the new head and valve train of the D was better suited to the higher boost than was the A-based ASM/B/C. Of course a DB605DB and DC (as well as the ASB/C) are the same engine, just adjusted for C3 fuel and higher boost.

Anyway, I think we need to see the actual specs for the supercharger installed on each engine to know exactly where this falls. Certainly that's easier than trying to extrapolate the answer from various settings from disparate sources when engines of identical configuration could vary considerably in output and FTH.

Brent

[brentce]

Edit: BTW, I just reached 725 kph in the Bf 109G-14/AS at 6500M! hock: 8)

Will look into this...

Remember these are WIP and Beta aircraft and not 100% done yet

No problem, Karaya. I think it's a great addition and you guys did a fabulous job. It seems that getting high altitude and lower altitude performance to agree is a real pain in this game. Oleg has had the same problem many times.

I'm looking forward to the +25 lbs Mustang IV!

Thanks,
Brent

[JG7_X_Man]

The G-6 has been a DOG ever since its introduction to the sim...

That is not true - why does everyone forget the first three weeks IL-2 sturmovik hit the shelves and the Bf 109G-6 could out turn an La-5FN at low speeds (...the patch that ended that era was released 2 weeks later). I guess the idea was working slats on the Gustav just wasn't the way to go? :roll:

[Karaya]

That is not true - why does everyone forget the first three weeks IL-2 sturmovik hit the shelves and the Bf 109G-6 could out turn an La-5FN at low speeds (...the patch that ended that era was released 2 weeks later). I guess the idea was working slats on the Gustav just wasn't the way to go? :roll:

Well the slats sure do work on the G-6, problem is on the stock models (that I have changed on these 2 new slots) that they are very overweight when set in relation to the G-2 and their engine has horrible supercharger efficiency.

The G-2 ingame IS quite a bit lighter than the real deal but then again this seems to have been a necessity in order to get its FM right. When comparing its turn time, topspeed and climbrate to real life data it is one of the or even THE most accurately modelled 109 in the sim.

I remember in the late IL-2 Original days the G-6 was a complete and utter piece of uselessness, it would bleed speed at the slightest turn as if you had just droped an anchor out of the window. Its energy retention thus was ridiculous and made it an easy kill even when strictly holding to energy tactics.

[Aymar_Mauri]

[quote="vanir"]Ta-152C-1 with C-3 Mk103 motorkanone option. I've corresponded with Dietmar Hermann about this aircraft (a published authority on the type) and he sent me some specific figures which seem to differ in some respects to the stock modelling.
There are two flying conditions apparently tested, B4 or C3 fuel and it appears the stock modelling is for the B4 version. This is likely to have been switched for C3 in initial production batch due to the lack of intercooler which was to be fitted to the 603L motor replacing the 603LA in early production.
MW50 was being used as a substitute for intercooler in the test prototypes and early planned production, whereas later with the exchange of the 603L motor it was to have been tuned for performance enhancement. The difference is likely to be similar performance to the C3 fuel LA motor mit MW50.
The B4/MW50 LA is 1780/2050PS takeoff. The C3/MW50 LA is 2100/2300PS takeoff. The B4/MW50 L motor is likely to be 2000/2300PS takeoff.

This is a vital aircraft type for any Luft-46 campaigning since it is the primary piston fighter entering production during 1945. It was to replace all Fw-190A and D in production, as well as take on the zerst

[Aymar_Mauri]

By the way, I forgot to congratulate the modders that are working on this area.

All the other areas like 3D, graphics, cockpit textures, etc... are very good but, for me, FM/DM corrections are the most important ones for this game.

Thanks for your efforts.