Author Topic: The G10 needs to go. (Read 2463 times)

Eagler · « **Reply #15 on:** March 05, 2004, 02:58:06 PM »

and why are some of you listing plane stats above 20k?

who is going to be up there for you to fight?

Grits · « **Reply #16 on:** March 05, 2004, 03:50:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
just go with the 30mm and gonds & HO

they'll blow up b4 you do

I would put my money on a P-47 in a HO situation, you know, its got 8x of those overmodeled .50's

Kweassa · « **Reply #17 on:** March 05, 2004, 08:30:50 PM »

kegger, try putting all those lines on the chart together, instead of fleeting it with the eye and making quick assumptions - the eye can be deceptive.

1. The P-51B, starts outclimbing the P-51D above 10k, with the maximum gap between the climb rates more than 500fpm at 15k. This difference closes down momentarily at 20k, but starts to open up again above 20k, where the P-51B again, starts to gain better climb rates.

2. The P-51D, is 5~7mph faster than the P-51B, from sea level to roughly 12k.

Between 12k to 20k, the P-51B is faster by about 10~12mph max.

Between 20k to 27k, the P-51D is again, faster by about 5~7mph, with the largest gap at 22k, with about 10mph speed advantage.

Over 27k, the P-51B is faster.

..

Quote

If we had the G6 vs the B model pony we would be some what at a close alt, thus the fight would be more evenly matched.

"Evenly matched" ?

You're using the fact that the P-51B being slower 7~10mph max in a limited 7,000feet altitude span is a reason to put in the P-51D.

And yet, you take a plane which is slower than the P-51B, by a considerable margin at all altitudes, which is slower than the P-51B by 20mph even when it is at its fastest altitude, and call that an 'even match'?

How in the world can you state that a fight between the Bf109G-6 and the P-51B, is "evenly matched"? The P-51B is faster at all altitudes. The P-51B climbs simular to the G-6 from 12k on, and starts outclimbing it over 22k. The G-6 for heaven's sake, can't even break the 400mph barrier in level flight.

Sheesh, your definition of "evenly matched" is severely twisted, m8.

Kweassa · « **Reply #18 on:** March 05, 2004, 09:04:03 PM »

Some charts for consideration:

P-51B/P-51D speed comparison

P-51B/P-51D climb rate comparison

Bf109G-6/G-10/P-51B speed comparison

Bf109G-6/G-10/P-51B climb rate comparison

Bf109G/P-51B roll rate comparison

Grits · « **Reply #19 on:** March 05, 2004, 11:11:14 PM »

The planeset is just fine the way it is. Leave the G10 and do not add the 51D. The P-47 is the best Allied plane in this set IMO, but I dont think its being used much.

Kweassa · « **Reply #20 on:** March 06, 2004, 01:05:18 AM »

With all due fairness, the dominant Bf109G of this setup should be neither the G-10 nor the G-6. That much is undeniable.

A DB605AM equipped G-14, or a G-6/AS with a DB605AS engine, should be available to make this setup as balanced as possible, and at the same time even more historical.

Another reason to sincerely request to HTC for a G-14 as a gap filler. And also, the SpitMKIX of late '43~early '44 standards.

The good side is, Pyro showed a bit of interest in the clipped wing LF MkIX - we may not be able to see it anytime soon, but I think we can hope to see it in the game, soon.

Bolt45 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 06, 2004, 07:15:58 AM »

I don't need no stinkin 51D , I'll take a B anyday , outturns G10
easily, just dont let em extend/reverse cause they likes to HO with dat 30 mm Dirk Diggler gun , if ya want a clipped wing Spit LFMk w/ the Merlin Eng..buy Il2 Ace Expansion pack for FB ..alot of a/c to play with now In IL2 from the CR 42 , IAR 80's to 109Z's to He162's etc etc not to mention all the 51 series ( yes the 51C with that bubble hood too "} ....btw Storch cheer up
Florida will be allowing Civil Unions soon

Bolt

Grits · « **Reply #22 on:** March 06, 2004, 08:00:52 AM »

They wont HO you much if your in a Jug. Get outa that sissy Peee-51B and get in a real MAN's plane, the Peee-47!

Squire · « **Reply #23 on:** March 06, 2004, 01:36:10 PM »

"DB605AM equipped G-14, or a G-6/AS with a DB605AS engine, should be available to make this setup as balanced as possible, and at the same time even more historical"

The dominant 109 type in the spring of 1944 is the 109G-6. The 109G-6/AS was a very rare type, serving from June 44 onwards.

The primary 109 opponent of the P-51B from Dec 43 to June 44 was the 109G-6, and almost all the 109 Gruppes were equipped with it (and varients of it) during that period.

The requests for the 109G-14 also intrigue me, since its just a standardised 109G-6 with a few more armament options, also Mid 44 onwards. Some of them had a Galland hood and a wooden tail section, not that I can see a huge advantage in any of that.

Dec 43-October 44 is a bit of a "low water" mark for the 109 series, it fights an increasingly technically superior allied air force before the balance is restored with the 190D-9 and the 109G-10 late in 1944. That they continued to fight effectively is a testament to the organisation they had and the skill of their aircrews.

Batz · « **Reply #24 on:** March 06, 2004, 02:47:19 PM »

The G-14 isn't a standard g6 with armament options. A G-14 is a G-6 + MW50. It would run B4 fuel + MW50. MW50 allowed higher boost below supercharger critical alt. It increased the ATA at which B4 would detonate (anti-detonation properties; just like ADI in Ami planes). It also provided some additional cooling through charge cooling. It could be run for 10 min on 5 min off and IIRC for a max of 26 min.

The G-6/AS would be similar to the G-10 at altitude. It has the same supercharger as the DB605D (from DB 603). The supercharger produced better speed at alt but at low alts (fighting altitudes in AH) a G-6/AS would be slower then our G-6. So there’s no need for a G-6/AS in AH (except for the rare late '44 bombing campaign events).

A G-6/AS with MW50 is a G-14/AS. Those of you that fly FB know that the G6/AS in FB is really a G-14/AS (it has MW50) and if you are basing your opinion on what a G-6/AS should be like from FB, remember MW50 allows for higher boost below the superchargers critical alt (better speed at lower alts).

The G-10 can fill both the roll of the G-6/AS (but it is much faster at low alts) and G-14/AS. However, it’s too good to sub for a standard (non-AS) G-14. The G-14 would fill the gap between our standard G6 and the G-10. With MW50 it can run at higher boost below critical alt.

So if you want a new 109 in AH request a 109G-14. It would give higher “wep speeds” at lower alts (fighting altitudes). MW50 does nothing (not true it still provides charge cooling) above critical alt; the AS adds nothing at lower altitudes. We have a high alt 109, the G-10.

So quit BS'ing the G-10 is not the "correct plane" for this set up, the G-6 is. However, I hate chasing around the farm bois so I suggest leaving it

Quote

The G-14 is mentioned in Mtt meetings minutes as the official name of the G-6/MW50 designation which was used internally by Mtt for G-6 equipped with the MW-50 system previously used on the recce G-6/R2 variant.

The G-10 is described as the evolution of the G-6 using MW-50 (same system as G-6/R2) and the DB605DM.

The G-14 used only the following engines:

DB605AM,
DB605ASM,
DB605ASB/*ASC

*available only in 1945; the ASC (C=C3 fuel) was not cleared for maximum output until March 45 at the same time as the DB605DC.

Neither the DB605A nor the DB605AS were mounted on the G-14, since the main difference from G-6 was the presence of MW-50, which required either the DB605AM or the DB605ASM engine.

The DB605AS (M) used the same supercharger as the DB605D, they were rebuilt using DB605A casing and fitted with the DB603A supercharger. They required the same kind of cowling as the DB605D equipped aircraft. Yet there are some small cowling differences between a G-10 and a G-14/AS, so you can identify one from the other.

The difference between the A and AS in the one hand and the AM and ASM in the other hand is the addition of MW-50. Of course there were other differences such as sparkplugs, timings and other settings etc.

The G-14 was (as the others) produced by Messerschmitt in Regensburg, Erla Maschinenwerke in Leipzig and WNF (Wiener Neustädter Flugzeugwerke).

The minority was built by WNF. Many G-14s built by WNF had their MG 151/20 replaced by a MK 108, which resulted in the designation G-14/U4.

So the majority built by Messerschmitt and Erla kept their MG 151/20.

G-10s were not made from old airframes, they were produced alongside the G-14 as an evolution of the G-6 with DB605D and MW-50 while the G-14 was the evolution of G-6 with DB605AM with MW-50.

It is true some of the first airframes used for the G-10 were from G-6 as they were available, or from airframes planned for mounting the DB605AM (G-14) in case no DB605AM were available. Hence the twin data plate found on some G-10.

Squire · « **Reply #25 on:** March 06, 2004, 03:31:25 PM »

Batz, doesn't the 109G-6 "standard" use MW50? Im still foggy about the "real" difference then between a DB605A 109G-6 and a DB605A 109G-14. I have docs on both ac I cant find anything that suggest a 109G-14 does anything a 109G-6 cant. The 109G-14 has a wooden tail, an "Erla Haub" hood, some different comms equipment and a few other relatively minor differences, as well as some "standardised" armament options. Its a refinement of a late model 109G-6. Its kinda like comparing a Spit LF IXE to a Spit LF XVIE to me. Not enough diff anybody would care to notice.

Im not talking about the "AS" series, just the regular ones.

Batz · « **Reply #26 on:** March 06, 2004, 05:35:01 PM »

If you are asking about power settings I will post them later tonight when I get home. IIRC MW50 = special emergency power. It should be on your G-14 chart.

The difference between the A and AM, besides the addition of MW-50, are things such as sparkplugs, timings and other settings to accomadate the higher boost at MW50 etc.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #27 on:** March 06, 2004, 06:25:25 PM »

Our G6 does not have MW50.

Squire · « **Reply #28 on:** March 06, 2004, 07:06:51 PM »

109G-6/U3 had it, but I am not aware what exact version HTC models. It has some sort of "wep" or "boost" in AH.

Batz · « **Reply #29 on:** March 06, 2004, 08:06:24 PM »

No the AH 109G-6 doesn't have MW50, I believe I read a post by Butch that said the U3 was either rare or the information that it had MW50 is wrong. MW50 Kits weren't readily available until '44. The G14 (as I quoted above) was the name given to what was previously known as the G6/R2 (recce variant with MW50).

MW50 provided about 300 more hp then the standard G-6 with the DB605A. The G14 entered production about 6 months earlier then the G10.

Wep on the G6 should be "take off emergency power". MW50 would be "special emergency power".

The way HT models wep on the 109G-6 is the same way they do over at WBs. I suspect "wep" on the AH G-6 equates to "climb & combat power" (30 min limit) instead of "take off emergency power" (5 min limit). This why I tend to believe the G-6 is a bit slow. @ wep the ah G-6 hits 635kmh where I think that would be non wep speed (climb & combat power). I think the G-6 should hit 650kmh @ take off emergency power. But its not that big of a deal, I could be completely wrong.

The 10 min standard "wep" of the 109s is something you will have to ask HT about.

To be completely honest there isn't a huge difference in the G-14 and the AH G-6. MW50 would still be 10 min "wep" but provide a bit more speed/climb accel etc...

I got to look for the power settings I don't know where I put them.