 | I need help| Aviation Discuss I need help in the World War II - Aviation forums; Comrades, moderators, I do not know as to name a theme, therefore, if you will consider the name not true ... |
|
06-07-2008, 11:33 AM
|
#1 | | Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 74
Country:  | I need help
Comrades, moderators, I do not know as to name a theme, therefore, if you will consider the name not true rename it, please.
So, we shall start.
I am interested very much with the data on Bf-109G2 and Bf-109G4. In what difference G2 from G4? In the book " Bf-109G in action." it is spoken that G4 has wider tire covers and other radio station. And what characteristics G2 and G4?
If I have correctly understood, G2=G4 under characteristics?
"Messerschmitt Bf 109G-3 Identical to the Bf 109G-2 version, except the radio equipement. The Bf 109G-2 was fitted with a FuG 7a radio, where the Bf 109G-3 was fitted with a FuG 16z radio. Messerschmitt Bf 109G-4 This version was produced parallel with the Bf 109G-3. The only difference was the lack of presurisation of the cockpit. This version could also be used as a reconnaissance aircraft. For this the 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon would be removed, and a single vertical camera be installed in the rear fuselage." ImageShack - Hosting :: 23019211bs4.jpg ImageShack - Hosting :: 19842410bh9.jpg ImageShack - Hosting :: 97191332ur9.jpg ImageShack - Hosting :: 30310392by0.jpg
I today on work have seen all forum, but that have not found, that me interests...
I have gone here: WWII Aircraft Performance
And, that I there have seen: "Description of the basic model Me 109 G 1" & "Aircraft Model Bf 109 G-1
with DB 605 A engine" on: Me 109 G Flight Tests. So differ?
At one 21m/s, and at another 17,4 m/s at the ground. Why such big difference? This is Bf-109G1... That do I do not understand? This is one fighter, And the data so differ...
Here: Spitfire Mk IX versus Me 109 G - Flight Testing in general figures not such! Why? Climb not that, speed not that...
Now I fasten the report of scientific research Soviet institute of the Air Forces (НИИ ВВС). Look as strongly differs G2 from G4. Though everywhere it is written, that G2=G4, G1=G3. But why such results? Why G2 in Soviet Union has given out the best characteristics, than at Germans? If to look under the reference is higher. Can what tested our him at pressurization 1,42 ata? I have in view of G2. On G4 I do not know in general that...
Who can can result all characteristics G2 and G4 is direct here? Very much it is necessary...
G4 it is much heavier, than G2. Figures it is not known whence... Under the report of scientific research institute of the Air Forces (I do not have data on G4 more!) a difference only 4 kg!
Who can can result all characteristics G2 and G4 is direct here? Very much it is necessary...
Here: Ñðàâíåíèå èñòðåáèòåëåé Âòîðîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû G4 it is much heavier, than G2. Figures it is not known whence... Under the report of scientific research institute of the Air Forces (I do not have data on G4 more!) a difference only 4 kg!
And a difference in speeds and it is especial in climb simply huge!
Somebody as the ready table could not give characteristic G4 in comparison with G2? Somebody also could not comment on it: Why G4 and G2 here have capacity 1550 h.p.? Unless DB-605A had such capacity in the spring 1943?
Whether could be such, what in Soviet Union G4 tested with the limited pressurization? Namely 1,3 ата (2600 rev/min). G2 it was tested in the winter 1943 at 1,42. Such difference can because of it?
Last edited by Mitya : 06-07-2008 at 11:46 AM.
| 
|  | |
06-07-2008, 01:50 PM
|
#2 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,285
| Hi Mitya.
Where in Russia are you from?
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?" | |
| | |
06-07-2008, 05:38 PM
|
#4 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 189
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitya  "Messerschmitt Bf 109G-3 Identical to the Bf 109G-2 version, except the radio equipement. The Bf 109G-2 was fitted with a FuG 7a radio, where the Bf 109G-3 was fitted with a FuG 16z radio. | G-3 also had some alterations to the landing gear, that were introduced on late G-2 versions (only late ones, not all). This included new broader landing gear tires and the subsequent blisters on the wings and a larger and fixed tail wheel. This might be where weight and performance differences come from. | |
| | |
06-08-2008, 01:58 AM
|
#5 | | Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 74
Country: | We look 2 pages from the report. It is visible, that G4 weighs all on 4 kg more, has too armament (1 MG151/20, 2 MG17), has precisely same power on a rating, and a variance in velocities and it is especial in climb it is very essential. In fact not 5 km/h, not 10 km/h, and in 16 km/h near the ground, but it still that. Climb G4 it is worse, than at G2 almost on 3 m/s!!! Why? It is admissible, that G4 had power 1310 h.p., and G2 1475 h.p. Can what G2 he had "superfluous" 165 h.p. had climb on 3 m/s more? There are test datas of the production G2 and G4?
Here: Me 109 G-1 Flight Test is not present that about the production G2 and G4. Where they can be found? | |
| | |
06-08-2008, 02:00 AM
|
#6 | | Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 74
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by KrazyKraut G-3 also had some alterations to the landing gear, that were introduced on late G-2 versions (only late ones, not all). This included new broader landing gear tires and the subsequent blisters on the wings and a larger and fixed tail wheel. This might be where weight and performance differences come from. | Superfluous 4 kg are capable to result in loss climb on 3 m/s? | |
| | |
06-08-2008, 02:08 AM
|
#7 | | Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 74
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by ponsford | Why (From here: Me 109 G Flight Tests)???   | |
| | |
06-08-2008, 04:28 AM
|
#8 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 189
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitya Superfluous 4 kg are capable to result in loss climb on 3 m/s? | I think the induced drag is more important here than the added weight. According to Kurfuersts page the extended tailwheel ("ausgefahrener Sporn") results in loss of 12 km/h of top speed! So -3 m/s climb don't sound too unreasonable. Kurfrst - Leistungzusammenstellung Me 109 G.
Last edited by KrazyKraut : 06-08-2008 at 04:32 AM.
| |
| | |
06-08-2008, 05:09 AM
|
#9 | | Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 74
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by KrazyKraut I think the induced drag is more important here than the added weight. According to Kurfuersts page the extended tailwheel ("ausgefahrener Sporn") results in loss of 12 km/h of top speed! So -3 m/s climb don't sound too unreasonable. Kurfrst - Leistungzusammenstellung Me 109 G. | 12 km/h & 3 m/s!!! Really inductive resistance of a wheel is so great, that 1 km/s, and the whole 3 will be lost not!!! As far as I understand climb depends on capacity of the motor and specific loading kg / h.p., and aerodynamics will already depart on the second plan (in this case). G2=0,430 kg/h.p. G4=0,430 kg/h.p. I.e. on on this important parameter too equality... In fact G2 it is practically identical with G4. And a difference in climb 3 m/s! Why? | |
| | |
06-08-2008, 04:58 PM
|
#10 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,006
Country: | Drag will have some effect on climb as well (moreso if a plane's optimum climbing speed is high -much moreso for jets-)
And increase in parasitic drag from the wheel at high speed would be a much higher contributor than the added induced drag.
For sustained turns and climb, the optimum speeds tend to be in the lower end of the speed range, where induced drag (and weight) is much more significant.
But while the 13 km/h (8 mph) speed loss sounds reasonable, I agree a 3 m/s climb does not. -that's 590 ft/min loss!-
Even a loss of 1 m/s seems somewhat high, nearly 200 ft/min.
Last edited by kool kitty89 : 06-08-2008 at 05:02 PM.
| |
| | |
06-08-2008, 05:47 PM
|
#11 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg)
Posts: 1,527
| Bf-109G1 + Bf-109G3:
HIGH ALTITUDE FIGHTERS.
Equipped with cockpit pressurization and provisions for GM-1 injection.
Bf-109G2 + Bf-109G4:
MEDIUM ALTITUDE FIGHTERS
No cockpit pressurization and therefore a bit lighter.
The G-4 submodel does have a larger main wheel (special requirement from improvised field landing sites) and in detail some different cooling capacity.
-at least as far as I do understand. I am sure that Kurfürst can shed more light on this.
best regards,
__________________
---delcyros--- | |
| | |
06-08-2008, 09:12 PM
|
#12 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 249
Country:  | Check out this page on Kurfurst site: Kurfrst - Flugleistungen Me 109G - Baureihen
Clean G2 and G4 are missing, but compare weights of either plane with similar loadouts, for instance 4 x 50kg bombs, or Mg151 gondolas. You get a difference in weight of 80 or 60 kg respectively. (don't know why there is a 20kg discrepancy there).
So weight difference is not 4 kg, it's at least 60 kg.
Also, they had to put bulges on the wings of the G4 to fit the bigger wheels? ie more drag? Quote: |
After initial production, the Bf-109G-4 was also fitted with larger mainwheel tires, to handle the greater weight of the Gustav, and to accommodate the bigger tires a bump was built into each wing. This particular bump may have also led to the Gustav being known as the "Beule".
| The two big differences would be weight (60kg) and more drag from the bulges on the wings.
__________________  | |
| | |
06-09-2008, 04:04 AM
|
#13 | | Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 74
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by claidemore Check out this page on Kurfurst site: Kurfrst - Flugleistungen Me 109G - Baureihen
Clean G2 and G4 are missing, but compare weights of either plane with similar loadouts, for instance 4 x 50kg bombs, or Mg151 gondolas. You get a difference in weight of 80 or 60 kg respectively. (don't know why there is a 20kg discrepancy there).
So weight difference is not 4 kg, it's at least 60 kg.
Also, they had to put bulges on the wings of the G4 to fit the bigger wheels? ie more drag?
The two big differences would be weight (60kg) and more drag from the bulges on the wings. | Look at those figures which I have resulted above: G2=3023 kg, G4=3027 kg. A difference in 4 kg, instead of in 60 kg. We look further. Arms both at G2, and at G4 1 МГ151/20 and 2 МГ17.
I see here: Kurfrst - Flugleistungen Me 109G - Baureihen , what: "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."
As I understand the data for G1=G2=G3=G4. Whether or not? Distinction in speed can be caused by that at G4 were small bulbes on a wing. Probably on tests the wheel was not removed a tail wheel. On G2 it was removed. As we see at the big heights where the density of air is less, G4 is almost equal on speed G2. But climb... Climb very, very bad at all altitude...
Last edited by Mitya : 06-09-2008 at 04:22 AM.
| |
| | |
06-09-2008, 04:12 AM
|
#14 | | Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 74
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by delcyros Bf-109G1 + Bf-109G3:
HIGH ALTITUDE FIGHTERS.
Equipped with cockpit pressurization and provisions for GM-1 injection.
Bf-109G2 + Bf-109G4:
MEDIUM ALTITUDE FIGHTERS
No cockpit pressurization and therefore a bit lighter.
The G-4 submodel does have a larger main wheel (special requirement from improvised field landing sites) and in detail some different cooling capacity.
-at least as far as I do understand. I am sure that Kurfürst can shed more light on this.
best regards, | Difference only in wider tire covers and radio station. The glider and the motor are identical. Power of the motor on idea too (or no?). But the difference in climb is simply huge!
Now we compare G4 with G2. 
Last edited by Mitya : 06-09-2008 at 04:31 AM.
| |
| | |
06-09-2008, 04:13 PM
|
#15 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg)
Posts: 1,527
| Quote: |
As I understand the data for G1=G2=G3=G4. Whether or not? Distinction in speed can be caused by that at G4 were small bulbes on a wing. Probably on tests the wheel was not removed a tail wheel. On G2 it was removed. As we see at the big heights where the density of air is less, G4 is almost equal on speed G2. But climb... Climb very, very bad at all altitude...
| The point of departure in Your understanding of the performances from mine appears to be that the G-1/G-3 cannot be compared with the G-2/G-4. You may compare G-1 with G3 (one pairing!) and G-2 with G-4 (another pairing) but not interchange between them. The performance of the Bf-109G-1 and G-3 at optimum altitude (with "Sondernotleistung"/GM-1 injection) is significantly higher than those of the G-2 and G-4 respectively. Esspeccially because the critical altitude with GM-1 injection will be somehow larger. Same power and drag but a larger critical altitude will translate to increased top speed and climb. This advantage is only avaiable above rated altitude. The G-2 / G-4 without GM-1 and cockpit pressurizations will be lighter and enjoi an advantage in speed and climb up to their rated altitude over the G-1 and G3. but beyond rated altitude they will show significantly inferior performance. Finally, the G-4 owing to weight increases and aerodynamic drag increase by wing bulges / larger cooler will be slightly slower than the G-2 but may keep it´s top speed for a longer duration.
__________________
---delcyros--- | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:05 AM. | | |
