Naughty_17

Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-14

Guys, you do know what 1 PS is not the same as 1 HP, right?

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not achieve 560kph at SL in SB Tesflights. With radiators closed, clean, at WEP I never achieve more than 545kph.

Edit: at normal cruise with1.15ata and 2500rpm it barely stays airborn with barely 300kph

Edited by myfabi94
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As people previously suspected, there is a discrepancy between the given datasheet and the 3D model of the plane.

 

It indeed has the 605 ASM engine with increased full throttle height, but still has the old engine covers with the bulges from the G-6, which is incorrect given that the bigger supercharger demanded more space (hence the G-10/K-4 style engine covers).

 

 

Going to file a bug report.

http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/218373-147-g-14-incorrect-3d-model

Edited by Reflexvisier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, you do know what 1 PS is not the same as 1 HP, right?

 

HP can refer to both metric and mechanical horsepower. PS is strictly metric horsepower.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DB605 ASM? Wait what? The ingame plane was modelled with bulges and therefore with a small supercharger though.

ho ho ho!

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HP can refer to both metric and mechanical horsepower. PS is strictly metric horsepower.

HP in data of all commonwealth and US aircraft refers to imperial units. Anyway, using WebUI it is very easy to see PS is treated as HP (imperial) ingame.

It is a minor difference easily covered by 1% prop eff or so, and it has no impact ingame really, just saying ;P Edited by Cpt_Branko
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the layout of this new datasheet.

 

 

I wish we could have something like that for all planes in the game!

 

 

Cheers!

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this plane does not have an armor plate that covers its fuel tank like the g2/g6/g10/k4 have, should it have it too or not?

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the layout of this new datasheet.

 

 

I wish we could have something like that for all planes in the game!

 

 

Cheers!

 

 

The layout is fine, but i dislike it immensely because it really doesn't show that much data, go look at the old F-4, G-2, G-10, K-4, really any old datasheet. Will tell you mountains of data about speed at altitude, as well as specific time to climb for each 1000 meters

 

To be honest this new layout is a huge step backwards if its going to be common place that it shows this little data.  

 

Estimated time to climb 6000m:  6.5-7 mins or 7500 meters 693kph  WEP 2800RPM

 

^^^^ literally tells you jack all, aircraft are a lot more dynamic then just speed at critical altitude or specific time to climb to 6km

 

 

edit: Wanted to say nothing against Naughty_17, i am aware this was Gaijin's decision to post short datasheets not yours, just wish there was more data.

Edited by Ottobon
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we have in-game is G-14, not G-14/AS. So the engine is AM not ASM.

See:

[spoiler]

d6HAE9u.jpg

[/spoiler]

[spoiler]

V6v0ifL.jpg

[/spoiler]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reviewed RU forums a little and i think i know whats going on with the 3D model vs the flight model.

 

If i read it correctly they are confused and surprised by this too, apparently Lassar talked about adding the G-14 with AM engine, my theory is that as its been discussed many times over the BF 109 G-6 that we already have is nearly if not identical to a G-14 with DB 605 AM engine, so i think when Gaijin thought it over they decided to model it with the ASM performance so for a lack of better words "it actually had a point", as there is no need for two basically identical planes.

 

Commentary:

 

Personally i hope they just update the 3D model and name etc, because i genuinely am liking the way this plane performs, its fantastic and has more of a point then a G-14 with DB 605 AM engine.  Although a bit sloppy in regards to implementation of its 3D model otherwise a very wise decision. 

 

If need be save this 3D model give it to a standard G-14 (with DB 605 AM) later on down the line, and rename/remodel this one G-14/AS at some point.  That might open up options to move the G-6 to tier 3 and give it 1943 performance and (arguably) a BR to match the G-2 as the original G-6 isn't any better besides basically armament. 

Edited by Ottobon
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reviewed RU forums a little and i think i know whats going on with the 3D model vs the flight model.

 

If i read it correctly they are confused and surprised by this too, apparently Lassar talked about adding the G-14 with AM engine, my theory is that as its been discussed many times over the BF 109 G-6 that we already have is nearly if not identical to a G-14 with DB 605 AM engine, so i think when Gaijin thought it over they decided to model it with the ASM performance so for a lack of better words "it actually had a point", as there is no need for two basically identical planes.

 

Commentary:

 

Personally i hope they just update the 3D model and name etc, because i genuinely am liking the way this plane performs, its fantastic and has more of a point then a G-14 with DB 605 AM engine.  Although a bit sloppy in regards to implementation of its 3D model otherwise a very wise decision. 

 

If need be save this 3D model give it to a standard G-14 (with DB 605 AM) later on down the line, and rename/remodel this one G-14/AS at some point.  That might open up options to move the G-6 to tier 3 and give it 1943 performance and (arguably) a BR to match the G-2 as the original G-6 isn't any better besides basically armament. 

The G-14, which people call an "standardized" G-6, had many differences. For example, engine, radio, canopy and tail. Otherwise we could call G-10 as "Improved G-6" and K-4 as "Improved G-10". Keep in mind that every variant is different, and should have difference.

 

The G-6 actually, is heavily modified: it even got a MW-50 booster. This is where G-14 should have a better performance than G-6, besides the AM engine and new things.

 

I personally would like to have G-14 instead of G-14/AS, and think the G-14 actually have an AM isntead of ASM, because of its high altitude poor performance (compared to other planes like D13, for example, at speed).

 

The 3D model is from a G-14, not /AS as you see (with bulble at engine), so, just make it a G-14/AS would be a shame, since most of our combats happen on altitudes lower than 6km.

 

Anyway I support yes, to have /AS engined BFs, once they fix RB and the point of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The G-14, which people call an "standardized" G-6, had many differences. For example, engine, radio, canopy and tail. Otherwise we could call G-10 as "Improved G-6" and K-4 as "Improved G-10". Keep in mind that every variant is different, and should have difference.

 

The G-6 actually, is heavily modified: it even got a MW-50 booster. This is where G-14 should have a better performance than G-6, besides the AM engine and new things.

 

I personally would like to have G-14 instead of G-14/AS, and think the G-14 actually have an AM isntead of ASM, because of its high altitude poor performance (compared to other planes like D13, for example, at speed).

 

The 3D model is from a G-14, not /AS as you see (with bulble at engine), so, just make it a G-14/AS would be a shame, since most of our combats happen on altitudes lower than 6km.

 

Anyway I support yes, to have /AS engined BFs, once they fix RB and the point of it.

 

 

Trust me when i tell you that whatever flight data or source they are using for the G-14 right now its literally the best and most favorable one they could be using whether its ASM or AM engine. 

 

If you would have taken the time to properly test the current G-14 you would already know this.... So personally I don't want them to change anything about it.  Besides the 3D model so it actually looks like the G-14/AS that it is. 

Edited by Ottobon
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does the poor climb performance come from? The G-2 has 21m/s at 30 minutes power setting/1.3ata and 2600rpm. I would expect at least around 18-19ish m/s climb and 25-27m/s at WEP for the G-14. Why is it so bad?

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name="Cpt_Branko" post="4289691" timestamp="1425693789"]

The DB605ASM has 100 PS less at sea level at 1.3 ata then DB605A.

eg: [url="http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_PBLeistungen/Leistungen_g14u4_am-asm.html"]http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_PBLeistungen/Leistungen_g14u4_am-asm.html[/url]

Pretty normal with higher altitude supercharger.[/quote]
What about the AM engine? It's a low altitude engine isn't it?


[size=6]This is for a G-14 with 605ASM, 2x13mm, 1x30mm Mk.108 [i][u][b]AND [/b][/u][/i][b]Gondola 2x20mm[/b] MG151/20. It does 550 kph at WEP at Sealevel, same as ingame G-14 [u][b][i]CLEAN.[/i][/b][/u][/size]
[size=6]Shouldn't the SL Topspeed be a good Deal Faster?[/size]


[img]http://i.imgur.com/286rGrJ.jpg[/img] Edited by galakty
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D Gondol rulez :D


Why Daimler Benz DB 605ASM have 1,30ATA and no 1,42ATA like othersDB 605D,AM,AS? Edited by galakty
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Daimler Benz DB 605ASM have 1,30ATA and no 1,42ATA like othersDB 605D,AM,AS?

1,3 ata is the combat cruise setting for all DB605. 1.42 ata is the Standard 5 minute WEP, 2 minutes maximum at a time, in 10 minute intervalls. 1.7 and 1.8 are the MW50 settings for a maximum of 10 minutes at a time, 20 minutes of MW50 available in 10 minute Intervalls.

Anyways, I always fly clean which is why I would like a better clean top speed.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is for a G-14 with 605ASM, 2x13mm, 1x30mm Mk.108 AND Gondola 2x20mm MG151/20. It does 550 kph at WEP at Sealevel, same as ingame G-14 CLEAN.

Shouldn't the SL Topspeed be a good Deal Faster?

 

 

286rGrJ.jpg

 

And oh look at that, the gun pods have too little ammo if they're not attached to a K-4.

EDIT: Performance wise, take this data sheet with a grain of salt as the values were calculated, not measured.

Edited by PainGod85
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And oh look at that, the gun pods have too little ammo if they're not attached to a K-4.

EDIT: Performance wise, take this data sheet with a grain of salt as the values were calculated, not measured.

The calculated data was only accepted as official if it matched reality with a maximum 3% tolerance. Often the calculated data was taken aaas official when confirmed. Mostly it was spot on.

Erla109G_13speedrun_scatter_web.jpg

  • Upvote 4
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.