[Guest]

This is my 3ds Max set up. I haven't started working on it... I'm still looking for a complete guide on how to create new planbes for Il-2 1946. I understand that apart from just making the 3d model there are plenty of other stuff to do, and information is cattered all other the place.
So i'm looking for the course "New Plane Creation in IL-2 1946 101" (and Advanced too) in one file or location on the Web...Any idea?

Just a bit off-topic, have a good read through the forums and probably don't try hijacking peoples threads. It usually isn't appreciated and will probably make your search harder. Otherwise, PM the thread creator for off-topic questions. Just a bit of forum etiquette

[Test Pilot]

See that G-6 had noticable worse performance then G-2 both in speed and climb due to its gross weight and worse aerodynamical shape. We dont know how much worse it was but German pilots reports that G-6 has noticable worse in handling and turns and describe it as a "heavy"

This is only an opinion I have.

I believe if you source these pilot reports you'll find they're for the G-6 fitted out as an interceptor, with MG-151 gondolas and a drop tank. I've got one such detailed report handy, made by a new recruit in Reich Defence Jan 44 describing the "heavy handling of our G-6s" because they were fitted with too many external stores for an already high wing loading to begin with, an airframe he says was too light, and a motor which was too powerful for it. He said many recruits killed themselves on the runway simply by opening the throttle too early, and pancaked onto the roof crushing the cockpit. It was apparently a very common type of accident at the time among recruits, no wonder the type got a bad reputation!

Many experienced pilots seemed to quite like the G-6 (flying clean) by comparison. A large number of JG54 pilots converted back from the 190A to the G-6 during 1943 and didn't return to the FW until 1944. The reasons for this is however unclear (I guess it could've been production deliveries but generally field commanders and their pilots seemed to equip what they wanted). Many Jagdgeschwader exclusively flew the 109 and made this decision right when the G-6 was current, which would seem a little odd for any disadvantaged handling capabilities. Several aces swore by the G-6 and didn't differentiate between this and any other 109 model.

If you recall there was a time when pilots were reluctant to give up their Emils for the 109F. This was similarly most likely due to a spate of fatal and near fatal accidents early in F production for which the F-1 was grounded until the rear fuselage structure was improved. Then just when they got the F right in the F-4 which was a beautiful aircraft, the G came out and started killing pilots (this was due to flaming issues with the 605A engine at high boost). Then performance was capped until October 43. And in early 44 it started killing the poorly trained recruits that the Luftwaffe was forced to send up.

I agree with pilot commentary that it was too heavy for external stores, and had always been designed more like a racing plane that a heavy fighter, so needed to be kept as clean and light as reasonably possible.
Plus the poor low speed handling characteristics of any 109 couldn't have been helped with the extra weight of even a clean G-6 (or G-5 or K-4 for that matter, being even heavier). Marsielle used to say his secret was learning expertise in the low speed handling of the 109 (the first rule of successful aces is surviving take off and landing).

So I do not think the G-6 should be very heavily penalised for handling over the G-2, flying clean.

Look how with G-6 performance was derated comparing it to G-2 or even F-4. Expecially speed, climb and also turn. German pilots said that G-6 was step backward comparing it to even F-4 and looking for performance data really it is. Unblocked 1.42 Ata for DB605 A in mid 1943 made a thing little better but still G-6 was behind performance of 109 G-2 with 1.3 Ata.

According to Karaya FMs i didnt saw yet any references for these all new versions of 109. If he would have been really fair and soild he should show references he used. Looking in these topic of new BFs i think that these new classes of 109 are rather dream about how these planes would to fly then how they really flew. But these is only my opinion. I think here are many people which like german planes. I like these planes also but i try to be objective. Most people here are very glad to have new Bf 109 and accept them without any ctiticism.
If so we all could make our "dream" planes and put it to the game. How it would be look then?

[Hanu]

If so we all could make our "dream" planes and put it to the game. How it would be look then?

"Dream planes"... You seem to like to throw cheap tricks, right? There is no point presenting anymore data to you if you choose to close your eyes (or deliberately try to pick a fght). You honestly have not seen any data from Karaya? :lol:

By the way; they are in they own slots so you can still play the ace with your friends.

Right, I'll quit now so you can play martyr again and say "I was just asking for the data". You can study then for yourself; there has been endless and boring debate through all these years of the subject in various forums. After presenting the data the cheap term "Luftwhiners" was invented to negate all the work that axis side tried to do. I'm sure you know this. I really dont want to go this anymore. This subject has been discussed to death. If you cannot manage that someone models a new G6 in its ***own slot*** with FM much closer to real world, no-one cannot help you. But the others can finally play historical battles.

[vanir]

You must understand Test Pilot, that where we have come full circle towards is the differing opinions of two schools of thought. Rest assured there are very qualified speculators a member of either.

Look how with G-6 performance was derated comparing it to G-2 or even F-4. Expecially speed, climb and also turn.

Examination of this point can only be made with the participation of Oleg et al. You're using il2 as a documentary reference for this assertion, whether or not it may be based upon objective and historical documentation.

German pilots said that G-6 was step backward comparing it to even F-4

You should reference specific instances of these commentaries. I have some and they were made in January 1944 in relation to the G-6 when fitted with cannon gondolas and fuselage drop tanks.
The comparison to the F-4 might be more related to the intense reliability of the type at the higher power settings where there were early issues with the 605 motor until it was improved during production. Marsielle switched from an F-4 to a G-2 and died over engine trouble.
What we need is specific context for such statements, if you're going to level FM work over them.

Rall, Hartmann, any of the aces interviewed at length never made any differentiation between the G-6 and any other contemporary 109 model of any period. They described such fine detail as operation of the automatic slats during combat and the perfectly comparable nature of late 109 to late war Allied fighters over Germany, but nothing about the G-6 even during extended questioning by seminar audiences about comparative fighter performance in the 109 at various stages of the war. The aces never said anything about it. Only one model type was mentioned which stood out, Rall said when asked about his favourite the 109F was the most beautiful of any 109 to fly. He said nothing about the G-6 specifically, which seems a little odd if its handling was disadvantaged enough compared to other late Gustavs and the K all of which he also flew, to stand out in particular. When asked to compare the performance of a late war 109 to Allied fighters he said the Mustang had a roomier and much more comfortable cockpit, but didn't seem to think much of any others.

So what we have here is a big collection of heresay and inferrence, yours and mine. Can we base FMs on these reiterations?

and looking for performance data really it is. Unblocked 1.42 Ata for DB605 A in mid 1943 made a thing little better but still G-6 was behind performance of 109 G-2 with 1.3 Ata.

What are the comparative climbing conditions between them? What is their average engagement speeds? What are their comparative continuous performance? What are their comparative structural limits? Figures for wing loading and lift loading? Specific drag coefficients in the high speed condition? Airframe balance figures (CoG)?
Don't you think highly varied maximum speed/altitude data is a little limiting when trying to describe an aircraft's overall combat flight performance?
You say G-6 at 1355PS/combat height performs worse than G-2 at 1250PS/same height. Given the non-retractable tailwheel and cowling bulges this is very possible only in outright level speed performance. How does this relate to sustained (ie. mid range) combat performance and overall handling in such significant amounts as you suggest?

According to Karaya FMs i didnt saw yet any references for these all new versions of 109.

Material resources are rarely if ever given for AAA new slot a/c mods. Performance figures of any kind are generally not given. The mod appears, ppl d/l it or not, talk about conflicts and any issues, nobody says anything about specific FM characteristics, performance capabilities or piloting guidelines. Trying to get these is like squeezing blood from a stone, I guess the modders can't be bothered arguing about a job well done and all finished now.
Personally I'd like a little pilot's handbook released with every new slot a/c, but it's a bit of extra work with pdf's and all that. Modders mod for themselves, being upaid volunteers. Oleg didn't even provide that for vanilla il2 and the aircraft viewer whilst at least halfway there, can be somewhat inadequate in the role.

Looking in these topic of new BFs i think that these new classes of 109 are rather dream about how these planes would to fly then how they really flew. But these is only my opinion.

Goes without saying. Have you for example, been in the same room with someone who's flown them? Not saying this disqualifies any opinion you might have, but where you're going to use intuition as argument...

Put it this way, surely there is some document from Rechlin or somewhere that says, "The G-6 performance capability is a severe detioration from the earlier G-2." The Luftwaffe might want to know something so important to note. They could've called half of JG54 lunatics and cancelled their conversion back to the G-6 from the 190A-4/5.
Because what you're saying is precisely this.

[Guest]

Muito bom, Muas, parab

[Test Pilot]

According to Karaya FMs i didnt saw yet any references for these all new versions of 109.

Material resources are rarely if ever given for AAA new slot a/c mods. Performance figures of any kind are generally not given. The mod appears, ppl d/l it or not, talk about conflicts and any issues, nobody says anything about specific FM characteristics, performance capabilities or piloting guidelines. Trying to get these is like squeezing blood from a stone, I guess the modders can't be bothered arguing about a job well done and all finished now.
Personally I'd like a little pilot's handbook released with every new slot a/c, but it's a bit of extra work with pdf's and all that. Modders mod for themselves, being upaid volunteers. Oleg didn't even provide that for vanilla il2 and the aircraft viewer whilst at least halfway there, can be somewhat inadequate in the role.

Looking in these topic of new BFs i think that these new classes of 109 are rather dream about how these planes would to fly then how they really flew. But these is only my opinion.

Goes without saying. Have you for example, been in the same room with someone who's flown them? Not saying this disqualifies any opinion you might have, but where you're going to use intuition as argument...

Put it this way, surely there is some document from Rechlin or somewhere that says, "The G-6 performance capability is a severe detioration from the earlier G-2." The Luftwaffe might want to know something so important to note. They could've called half of JG54 lunatics and cancelled their conversion back to the G-6 from the 190A-4/5.
Because what you're saying is precisely this.

Ok i think Karay knew and had suorces ( mostly at Kurfurst) site but from unkown reason he didnt show it. So i could do it for him.

109 G-1 (G-2) 1.3 Ata







http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/1 ... blatt.html


109 G-6 1.3 and 1.42 Ata




109 G-14 Db605 AM with 1.7 Ata




109 G-6 with DB 605 ASM



109 G-5, G-6 with and without MW 50






[/img]

[Karaya]

The reason I dropped out of this fm discussion here is simply that I dont have the time to play this "dodgeball" all day long, there's a real life to take care of from time to time. And yes we can play this "my graphs show this" "but mine show these" game for days and weeks but to which concensus?

If you really dont like how I modelled these 2 new G-6s then you're not at all forced to use them!

Some more thoughts about the test data you posted:



Note how it says "Steig- und Kampfleistung"? That clearly shows that these tests were NOT performed at WEP which is referred to in German as "Start- und Notleistung"! So 650km/h at non-Wep can easily be 666km/h at WEP...

And there is a "Steig/Kampf" and "Start/Not" rating for both 1.3ata and 1.42ata meaning that "Start/Not" at 1.3ata does not relate to 1.42ata effectively.



Have a look at the G-6 table! It even says "Vmax Not am Boden" (=Vmax WEP at sealevel) = 570km/h. Thats even 40km/h higher than what I have modelled right now, be thankful for that

Anyway I cant imagine that the G-6 actually reached that speed at sealevel with the ordinary DB605A when in 1944 a G-14 with 1800PS at takeoff was barely doing the same!

And then look at "Vmax Not V.H" (=Vmax WEP at full throttle height) = 650km/h. Thats what the 2 G-6s go up to now instead of the old, undermodelled 630 & 635km/h!

About the F-4, G-2, G-6 turn times:

You yourself stated that the F-4 took about 19,6secs for a full turn... a G-2 about 20,5secs

Now between these 2 aircraft lie about 200kg of weight (2830kg for the F-4, 3030kg for the G-2) and we only get a difference in turntime of about 1 second. Now if we remind ourselves that the G-6 is in turn just an odd 70kg heavier than the G-2 it would be a very pessimistic guestimation that its lowest turn time is 22secs, 21secs is far more reasonable!

All I did when correcting these flight models was adjust aircraft weights, based on the ingame G-2 weight so now the G-6s are both around 100kg (actually more than should) heavier than the G-2 as well as rectify the ludicrous supercharger ineffectiveness that was given to its engine (in contrast to the G-2s DB605A). It was not at all in my intention to make it an uber aircraft but instead give it a little more justice that it deserved since the very beginning of IL-2.

[Guest]

And I applaud you for your work. You can never please everyone, but you have reached a good balance and my point of view, made this virtual machine flyable again

[Test Pilot]

Ad.1
"Note how it says "Steig- und Kampfleistung"? That clearly shows that these tests were NOT performed at WEP which is referred to in German as "Start- und Notleistung"! So 650km/h at non-Wep can easily be 666km/h at WEP...

And there is a "Steig/Kampf" and "Start/Not" rating for both 1.3ata and 1.42ata meaning that "Start/Not" at 1.3ata does not relate to 1.42ata effectively. "

You know that until med 1943 Db605A was derated to 1.3 Ata - which mean "Steig- und Kampfleistung"

So 1.42 Ata ("Start- und Notleistung") was not allowed until mid 1943.

So real performance of G-2 in 1942 and Bf 109 G-6 early ( 1943) was 1.3 Ata only - as its is in trials which i present.


Ad.2

"Have a look at the G-6 table! It even says "Vmax Not am Boden" (=Vmax WEP at sealevel) = 570km/h. Thats even 40km/h higher than what I have modelled right now, be thankful for that Wink

Anyway I cant imagine that the G-6 actually reached that speed at sealevel with the ordinary DB605A when in 1944 a G-14 with 1800PS at takeoff was barely doing the same!

And then look at "Vmax Not V.H" (=Vmax WEP at full throttle height) = 650km/h. Thats what the 2 G-6s go up to now instead of the old, undermodelled 630 & 635km/h!"

You look more carefully for these charts.
570 km/h at sea level is for 109 G-6 with MW50 equipment. The same plane without enabled MW 50 reach only 495 km/h at sea level.

Also what is improtant Bf 109 with DB 605 and with MW 50 could only used climb and power setting ( in these case 495 km/h at sea level) or with Mw50 enabled ( emergency power) and reach 570 km/h. There werent middle postion in the throttle level.

Look the same charts. There is 109 G-5 with Db605A clered only for 1.3 Ata
These plane reach :
0 km - 495 km/h
6.5km - 625 km/h

So these is reall performance of these planes.

So G-5, G-6 with Db 605 A at 1.3 Ata - up to med 1943 shoud look like these:
0km - 495-500 km /h
6.5 km - 625-630 km/h

and with 1.42 ata from med 1943

0km ~ 520 km /h
6.5 km ~640 km/h

These we have in these RL German Charts

[Karaya]

Ad.1
"Note how it says "Steig- und Kampfleistung"? That clearly shows that these tests were NOT performed at WEP which is referred to in German as "Start- und Notleistung"! So 650km/h at non-Wep can easily be 666km/h at WEP...

And there is a "Steig/Kampf" and "Start/Not" rating for both 1.3ata and 1.42ata meaning that "Start/Not" at 1.3ata does not relate to 1.42ata effectively. "

You know that until med 1943 Db605A was derated to 1.3 Ata - which mean "Steig- und Kampfleistung"

So 1.42 Ata ("Start- und Notleistung") was not allowed until mid 1943.

So real performance of G-2 in 1942 and Bf 109 G-6 early ( 1943) was 1.3 Ata only - as its is in trials which i present.

As I said there is a "Steig/Kampf" and "Start/Not" Rating for both 1.3 and 1.42ata, think of it as 100% and 110% ingame.

As far as these notes lead the test was flown at 1.3ata and "Steig/Kampf" Leistung

1.3ata "Start/Not" is NOT 1.42ata!

Ad.2

Look the same charts. There is 109 G-5 with Db605A clered only for 1.3 Ata
These plane reach :
0 km - 495 km/h
6.5km - 625 km/h

My fault, didnt see the MW-50 mentioned as I only saw DB605A up there and expected a DB605AM for MW-50 use.

Either way, the 495km/h and 625km/h is again ONLY for "Steig/Kampf" Leistung, not for "Start/Not" which is not given in that particular test for whatever reason.

[Test Pilot]

Ad.1
"Note how it says "Steig- und Kampfleistung"? That clearly shows that these tests were NOT performed at WEP which is referred to in German as "Start- und Notleistung"! So 650km/h at non-Wep can easily be 666km/h at WEP...

And there is a "Steig/Kampf" and "Start/Not" rating for both 1.3ata and 1.42ata meaning that "Start/Not" at 1.3ata does not relate to 1.42ata effectively. "

You know that until med 1943 Db605A was derated to 1.3 Ata - which mean "Steig- und Kampfleistung"

So 1.42 Ata ("Start- und Notleistung") was not allowed until mid 1943.

So real performance of G-2 in 1942 and Bf 109 G-6 early ( 1943) was 1.3 Ata only - as its is in trials which i present.

As I said there is a "Steig/Kampf" and "Start/Not" Rating for both 1.3 and 1.42ata, think of it as 100% and 110% ingame.

As far as these notes lead the test was flown at 1.3ata and "Steig/Kampf" Leistung

1.3ata "Start/Not" is NOT 1.42ata!

Ad.2

Look the same charts. There is 109 G-5 with Db605A clered only for 1.3 Ata
These plane reach :
0 km - 495 km/h
6.5km - 625 km/h

My fault, didnt see the MW-50 mentioned as I only saw DB605A up there and expected a DB605AM for MW-50 use.

Either way, the 495km/h and 625km/h is again ONLY for "Steig/Kampf" Leistung, not for "Start/Not" which is not given in that particular test for whatever reason.

You are still wrong Karaya. I know that you are 109 lover but you really face of the truth. Note that i showed only German Data and Charts for 109 not RAF, American, Russian test. So:

There weren't 2 settings for Db 605 A - "Steig/Kampf" and "Start/Not" Rating for both 1.3 Ata and 1.42 Ata

Just "Steig/Kampf" was 1.3 Ata and"Start/Not" was 1.42 Ata.

In 1942 and 1943 early 1.42 Ata ("Start/Not") just was blocked in Db 605A due to engine problems

You really should read more carrefully avialable charts and data:

From German charts:
[b]
"Die angegebenen Leistungen beziehen sich auf Kampf- und Steigleistung, d.h. n = 2600 U/min; PLade = 1,3 ata. Start- und Notleistung ist f

[Guest]

[quote="Ivan le Rouge"]Hi

I have a graphic probleme with the artificial horizon of the 109 G, it is hatched and he change of color... I have this probleme since I download this mod.
I will be very happy if someone could help me.

Thanks


Bonsoir

J'ai un probl

[Karaya]

Your personal truth, Kwiatos?

How about this document, this is not calculated data but TESTED (except for the 190A-3)



Comparison test from december 1941

Bf 109 F-4 670 km/h in 6.2 km alt / 625 km/h in 10 km alt (flown)
Bf 109 G-1 700 km/h in 7.0 km alt /660 km/h in 10 km alt (flown)
Fw 190 A-2 650 km/h in 5.8 km alt (flown)
Fw 190 A-3 700 km/h in 5.9 km alt (estimated only)

And no, GM-1 was neither used on the F-4 nor on the G-1 in the test. In fact it says that when using GM-1 there is a further speed increased of 120km/h.

700km/h for the G-1! With 1.42ata rating but still!

660-670 for a G-1/-2 at 1.3ata at 7km altitude therefore is perfectly possible. Subtract the odd 12km/h of a tailwheel and a handful for the wingbuldges and we are at ~650km/h for a G-6.



We already had that one but I just want to remake that point. That Soviet test that gave 666km/h was flown at 1.3ata and in clean configuration. With gondolas it was STILL 650km/h and those twin 20mm MG151/20 sure make a lot more drag than a simple tailwheel and a small bump in the wing.

Why it's at 1.3ata? Pure and simple logic! The Bf109F-4 thats stated with 1350PS (thats 1.42ata for the DB601E) is only coming in at 624km/h... thats clearly not 1.42ata performance (a lower end figure for even the 1.3ata rating), so the G-2 is certainly also only flying at 1.3ata although it is stated to be powered by 1475 horses



In case you're still arguing, another test! This shows speed deviations among production models of the Bf109G with DB 605 A, 30 min climb + combat power = 1.3 ata/2600rpm 1350 PS, 3080 kg, cooler flaps open: 660 km/h TAS in FTH

Cooler flaps are OPEN and the average maximum speed is STILL 660km/h! So much for that...



Bf109G-1/R2 (so with GM-1 equipment which however is NOT used here and only useful ABOVE FTH) - 700km/h @ 6600m

The results are to be understood as without the use of GM-1 dinitrous-oxide boost for high altitudes. Use of GM-1 gave a very prounounced boost above 8km altitude, increasing engine output by 300 (!!) PS. Preparations for use of GM-1 were present on all G-1 and G-3 pressurized fighters; several hundred of the other 109G subtypes were converted for it's use from the factory line. To give some idea of the potential, R. Klein had achieved 680 km/h at 12 000 m and a ceiling of 13 800 m in a Bf 109G-1/R2 with GM-1 injection.

And you actually also have to take into consideration that the installation of the GM-1 boost increased weight by about 170kg! Still the aircraft attained 700km/h without making use of it.

And you are suggesting that a G-6 that is actually lighter than a GM-1 equipped G-1 should be drastically slower?

Maybe YOU should face the truth for once!

You really should read more carrefully avialable charts and data

You too, from your own data:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/1 ... blatt.html

Soviet trials on Bf 109G-4 WNr. 19 968 tested by the NII VVS in October 1943. The aircraft had non-retractable tailwheel and achieved 508 km/h achieved at Sea level and 650 km/h at 7 km. Another Bf 109G tested by the NII VVS, Bf 109 G-2, WNr. 14 513, but with retractable tailwheel, achieved 524 km/h achieved at Sea level and 666 km/h at 7 km. Soviet results agree well with the Rechlin figures, except for Sea level, however it is a general trend on all Soviet Bf 109 trials to show sharply recurving speed curves near ground level for some unknown reason. Bf 109 G-2 WNr. 14 783, tested in Finnland in April 1943, achieved 522 km/h at SL, and 636 km/h at 6300m altitude. Speeds achieved at altitude show a marked drop-off on this plane. Aircraft had non-retractable tailwheel. All abovementioned performance trials were performed using Steig- und Kampfleistung 30-min power (ie. 1.3ata, 2600 revs/min).

So this Bf109G-4 reached 650km/h at 7km at 1.3ata. Lets again remind ourselves that between the G-4 and G-6 lies a weight difference of ridiculous 10-15kg. Both have a fixed tailwheel and most probably also the kidney shaped wing buldges.

Now your point before was what?

You're actually contradicting yourself on a constant basis, its funny really. And then you're spouting off from your high throne that I should read data more carefully? Give me a break!

This discussion has started off to be very interesting but you soon developed a very arrogant tone that I'm neither willing to take nor to accept any further.

And before bashing any of the aircraft modders in these forums: I have yet to see any of your creations to see the light of day here on AAA. If you think you are so much more knowledgable than us poor fm idiots over here then surely you can come up with better stuff?

Bf109G-14A/S reach 725 km at 6 km

Already corrected in the upcoming UI button and the AC_Installer

[MD_Titus]

Thank very much Sir! Your work with fix FM in new slot is precious!

If possible to you, i want envinte you to help team to do a new slot Ta-152C,

You is auor hope, nobody here know noting about New slot and velocity.

Thank you any way! Im very happy with your planes!

"fix" what about the Ta-152c? it accelerates slowly but the top speed atainable is a couple km/h off the projected speed. and projected was from test pilots - therefore exceedingly good pilots.

[Test Pilot]

Your personal truth, Kwiatos?

How about this document, this is not calculated data but TESTED (except for the 190A-3)



Comparison test from december 1941

Bf 109 F-4 670 km/h in 6.2 km alt / 625 km/h in 10 km alt (flown)
Bf 109 G-1 700 km/h in 7.0 km alt /660 km/h in 10 km alt (flown)
Fw 190 A-2 650 km/h in 5.8 km alt (flown)
Fw 190 A-3 700 km/h in 5.9 km alt (estimated only)

And no, GM-1 was neither used on the F-4 nor on the G-1 in the test. In fact it says that when using GM-1 there is a further speed increased of 120km/h.

700km/h for the G-1! With 1.42ata rating but still!

660-670 for a G-1/-2 at 1.3ata at 7km altitude therefore is perfectly possible. Subtract the odd 12km/h of a tailwheel and a handful for the wingbuldges and we are at ~650km/h for a G-6.

Not my personal truth but the fact which are come from German Test

These document is not corenspondig to RL test data. Rather looks like calculated data.

Why?

These test is from 1941? It give for F-4 Db601E 1.42 Ata ( 1350 HP) and Db605A 1.42 Ata (1475 HP) for G-1 when Db601E was not cleared for 1.42 Ata until February 1942 and Db605A was not cleared for 1.42 Ata until Octomber 1943


Also speeds for Fw 190 A-2 (650 km/h) and A-3 calculated (700 km/h) are rather from the space.

These document looks very dubfull and more like prognostic and calculated data then from RL test.

We already had that one but I just want to remake that point. That Soviet test that gave 666km/h was flown at 1.3ata and in clean configuration. With gondolas it was STILL 650km/h and those twin 20mm MG151/20 sure make a lot more drag than a simple tailwheel and a small bump in the wing.

Why it's at 1.3ata? Pure and simple logic! The Bf109F-4 thats stated with 1350PS (thats 1.42ata for the DB601E) is only coming in at 624km/h... thats clearly not 1.42ata performance (a lower end figure for even the 1.3ata rating), so the G-2 is certainly also only flying at 1.3ata although it is stated to be powered by 1475 horses

There is really unknow condition of Russian test. The data for engines are for 1.42 Ata for both F-4 and G-2. These charts looks unreliable for me. We really dont know too much about these russian test. I dont trust too much in russian test from known reson. Probably most russian planes in these game have FM from such russian data and test.

And you are suggesting that a G-6 that is actually lighter than a GM-1 equipped G-1 should be drastically slower?

Maybe YOU should face the truth for once!

Yes G-6 was drasctically slower. It is not my opinion, Oleg M. version of history but German TEST if you dont see these sry but i cant help you more. These is not my imagination but RL German Test.

You really should read more carrefully avialable charts and data

You too, from your own data:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/1 ... blatt.html

Soviet trials on Bf 109G-4 WNr. 19 968 tested by the NII VVS in October 1943. The aircraft had non-retractable tailwheel and achieved 508 km/h achieved at Sea level and 650 km/h at 7 km. Another Bf 109G tested by the NII VVS, Bf 109 G-2, WNr. 14 513, but with retractable tailwheel, achieved 524 km/h achieved at Sea level and 666 km/h at 7 km. Soviet results agree well with the Rechlin figures, except for Sea level, however it is a general trend on all Soviet Bf 109 trials to show sharply recurving speed curves near ground level for some unknown reason. Bf 109 G-2 WNr. 14 783, tested in Finnland in April 1943, achieved 522 km/h at SL, and 636 km/h at 6300m altitude. Speeds achieved at altitude show a marked drop-off on this plane. Aircraft had non-retractable tailwheel. All abovementioned performance trials were performed using Steig- und Kampfleistung 30-min power (ie. 1.3ata, 2600 revs/min).

Its only confirm that RL test from German, Finland and Russian ( unkown data of test and condition) have different variation of result. I think still the truth lay is in the middle.

And before bashing any of the aircraft modders in these forums: I have yet to see any of your creations to see the light of day here on AAA. If you think you are so much more knowledgable than us poor fm idiots over here then surely you can come up with better stuff?

I dont call any of here idot. But i clearly see that most modders here have problem with making accurate FM. These confirm performance in game such planes like Fw 190 D-11&D13, Tempest 11&13lbs and many others. Also i point that near nobody here shown reliable data which used for making FM and how it look in game.

And yes think i made better stuff without G-14 reached 725 km/h but really these is not for these site.


Still i think Kurfurst site are the best with 109 performance data.

Some sentences from Kurfurs site about 109 G performance:

"The official performance specifications for the G-1 (which applies to the very similiar G-2, G-3 and G-4) at Steig- und Kampfleistung was noted as 537 kph at SL, and 660 kph at 7000m. Take off weight given was 3037 kg (May 1942), while the Leistungzusammenstellung Me 109G report (January 1944) gives it as 3050kg.

An interesting comparison can be made with the G-2/R2 fighter-recce, which is the most comparable configuration to the clean fighter versions, being identical apart from the camera and it's screening plate installation.

The given figures for the G-2/R2 is given below as 523 kph at SL, nd 652 kph at 6700m, which are in very close agreement with :

* the official Messerschmitt AG. specifications as of May 1942 for the G-1 (537/660 kph)
* performance trials performed on a G-1 at E-Stelle Rechlin in 1943 (525/650 kph)
* performance trials performed on a Soviet-captured G-2 in early 1943 (527/666kph)
* performance trials performed by the Erla factory on 13 serial production Bf 109Gs (652 kph on avarage)


For the G-6 (and the pressurized G-5) subtype, the official figures at Steig- und Kampfleistung were noted as 510 kph at SL,
625 or 630 kph at 6600m. Take off weight was 3100kg. These also show good agreement with

The date of document is unknown. Considering the production period of noted variants, ie. G-1 (from May 1942) through G-6 (from February 1943), and the fact that performance is still noted at Steig- und Kampfleistung (1,3ata, 2600U/min for 1310 PS at SL), and not with Start- und Notleistung (which is in turn 1,42ata, 2800U/min for 1475 PS at SL.,This has been cleared for operational in October 1943), it is reasonable to believe the table dates from around mid-1943.


http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/1 ... table.html