Author Topic: 109 it fly wrong (Read 16950 times)

Crumpp · « **Reply #105 on:** May 13, 2004, 06:19:05 PM »

Ok I need a little help in posting the image. Could somebody give me a quick tutorial on this bulletin board. What do I have to do? Save the image as a web page and hyperlink it? WTF??

All the DB605D's in the RLM test data I have are fitted with GM-1. Only the DB605L uses MW50 in these documents.

It does state in "Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G, and K Series : An Illustrated Study" by Jochen Prien and Peter Rodeike that the 109G10's were fitted in every instance with a DB605DM.

It also says the 109G10 was an attempt to bring older varients of the 109 up to 109K standards and that many retained much of their original equipment. Most of us already know that. It was a "bastard aircraft" and impossible to standardize. The 109G-6 was outfitted with GM-1 is some cases and I have to wonder if they just didn't hook up the GM-1 system to the DB-605D and send the plane out of the factory door?

Crumpp

GScholz · « **Reply #106 on:** May 13, 2004, 06:26:56 PM »

Go here and upload the picture (create a user first). Then link the picture to your post using the IMG button.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/index.php

Crumpp · « **Reply #107 on:** May 13, 2004, 06:27:18 PM »

Some of you guys are still confusing the Game modeling with the actual performance. NONE of the reference material I have list's the 109G10's top speed as high as AH has it modeled.
Someone please show me where the 109G10 (the real one) was that fast.

Crumpp

GScholz · « **Reply #108 on:** May 13, 2004, 06:28:27 PM »

Isegrim will be here any minute.

... but I bet HiTech has those.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #109 on:** May 13, 2004, 06:39:15 PM »

Lots of performance graphs in this PDF file Crummp.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/109_projekt.pdf

DB605 data (scans not the best) here

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/DB605_varianten.pdf

Crumpp · « **Reply #110 on:** May 13, 2004, 06:50:00 PM »

Here is the Graph,

Crumpp

Crumpp · « **Reply #111 on:** May 13, 2004, 06:51:09 PM »

Nevermind,

Milo posted the graph...refer to his link.

Crumpp

Batz · « **Reply #112 on:** May 13, 2004, 06:52:34 PM »

IIRC The AH G10 has the performance of C3 fuel and 1.98 ata.

Quote

in March 1945 only two units of the Luftflotte 6 both equipped with G-10 were using C3, one being IV/JG 4 the other being II/JG 11, and no K-4 units at all.

1.98ata was cleared in Feb 45.

In fact the default paint scheme of the AH G10 is that of Hptm. Franz Wienhusen IV./JG 4.

Crumpp no one has to prove anything to you and HT isn’t going to show you his data. It really doesn’t matter whether you ever see it or not. It’s clear from your reliance on Carson that you wouldn't really understand what you were reading any way.

GScholz · « **Reply #113 on:** May 13, 2004, 06:55:44 PM »

For your information Crumpp, the AH 109G10 has the DB605DC engine with MW50. It has been said that we have the best possible version of the "bastard" G10 ... almost a K4.

Here is the engine specs of the DB605DC ... it's a 2000PS engine with MW50 (I have the complete PDF of all DB605s if you're interested Edit: NM, Milo posted the complete pdf.).

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1084492281_pages_from_db605_varianten-2.zip

Crumpp · « **Reply #114 on:** May 13, 2004, 07:55:09 PM »

If the 109 was a competative fighter Why did HT feel the need to model a varient that saw such little use?

Why don't we have a much more common model late war 109?

Crumpp

Batz · « **Reply #115 on:** May 13, 2004, 08:01:11 PM »

All the 109s in AH are competitive, I only fly the G-6 and kill far more late war monster then ever could kill me...

So whats your point? I think the G6 is the best 109 in AH....

GScholz · « **Reply #116 on:** May 13, 2004, 08:07:06 PM »

*lol* I mostly flew the 1941 F4 model in AH with a 5 to 1 k/d. I'm considering picking up a G2 in AH2.

Crumpp · « **Reply #117 on:** May 13, 2004, 08:50:00 PM »

Niether the 109G-2 nor the F4 were late war 109's. No one is claiming the early-mid war 109's were obsolete. Again why do we have such an uncommon late war varient IF the more common ones were competative?

Crumpp

Kweassa · « **Reply #118 on:** May 13, 2004, 09:01:31 PM »

Because HT and Pyro were trying to avoid using the same planes as WB had in the early days of AH. Instead of giving the Bf109K-4 as the "final version" of 109s, they've decided to use the G-10 with the DB605DCM instead.

The decision to use an "uncommon" 109 has nothing common with your implications: it was just because the developers wanted to do something else than the usual K-4, so naturally they picked the last Gustav of them all, which was pretty close to the K-4 in performance.

..

And just exactly in what ways is the late war 109s "obsolete"?

You seem to be arguing the same things over and over again, except I've yet to see any specific comparisons in speed, agility, climb, acceleration or anything other attribute that might be considered viable determining whether a plane is obsolete or not.

Just what exactly are the grounds that you're implying it was "obsolete"?

Batz · « **Reply #119 on:** May 13, 2004, 09:03:02 PM »

What difference does it make what variant of 109 HT models? Unless you are claiming HT modelled the "best" G-10 for AH because its the only one that would be competitive. If that's the case both GS and I are telling (and which you can varify) all the 109s in AH are very competitive.

Also, why wouldn't HT model the E-4 with a DB601N? or a g14 instead of the g6? or g1 with gm1 instead of the g2?

So again what's your point?

Maybe he thought he could add a G10 that could sub as a K-4 that way creating a "unique" planeset for AH while filling gaps in the planeset? It could be any 1 of 1000 reasons, so who cares?

We have plenty of "uncommon" variants of all sorts in AH...