Forget 109E-7, give 109E-4 droptanks!

[Karnak]

I just don't think it is something that should be done.

I don't know if there is a global way to eliminate DTs.


In all those other setups you have the Bf109F-4, which has a DT option.  Why the Bf109E-4 needs one so badly I don't know.



As to the Spit V being overmodeled, how so?  I see this trotted out like it's common  knowledge now and then and the only thing I notice is that it is always Luftwaffe fans saying it and they never back it up with data.

Personally I don't think it's boost should have been raised to +16lbs, but Spit V's did fly with those settings.  What I think it demonstrates is how hard it is to do setups with so few models.  A early 1941 Spit V is not a late 1941 Spit V is not a 1942 and beyond Spit V, yet we are forced to use a 1942 and on Spit V for all of them.

[simshell]

krusty just be happy you dont have to deal with a late war RAF plane that they should have


then you will realy be crying about overmodel spits:rolleyes:

care to tell me how the Spit5 is overmodel?

[allmetal]

s it just me or does Karnak have a negative opinion about everything?

[Karnak]

Originally posted by allmetal
s it just me or does Karnak have a negative opinion about everything?

Not everything, just things I think are bad ideas.

Most ideas are bad, including most of mine.  I used to post a lot more ideas, but since concluding that I am full of bad ideas I don't post them if they can't get through my own vetting process.

Most people don't seem to try to tear their own ideas apart.  many are stunningly narrow in their focus and most often written towards making them more effective in the game. At the very least at trying to get new toys without considering the impact on the game.

Critisism is a vital process to separate the good ideas from the legion of bad ideas.

HiTech and Pyro are the only people who can make any decision regarding AH's future, the rest of us just present arguments.

[storch]

Originally posted by allmetal
s it just me or does Karnak have a negative opinion about everything?

He likes bad hiakus.  that would constitute a good opinion of something.

[Crumpp]

As to the Spit V being overmodeled, how so? I see this trotted out like it's common knowledge now and then and the only thing I notice is that it is always Luftwaffe fans saying it and they never back it up with data.

The Spit V is overmodeled in the same fashion the FW-190A5 is overmodeled.
Both Aircraft had maximum boost pressures that could only be applied for 3 minutes at a time.  In AH the engines take much longer to heat up.

Crumpp

[Wotan]

The E-4 we have in AH has a different eng then the E7.

The E-7 had a DB601N.

They aeren't the same airplane...

Here's the most "prolific" DB601A numbers I have found:

DB601A-1
SL@1100PS@2400rpm@1.40ata (1' minute)
SL@990PS@2400rpm@1.30ata (5' minutes)
SL@910PS@2300rpm@1.23ata (30' minutes)
SL@810PS@2200rpm@1.15ata

4.5km@1020PS@2400rpm@1.30ata (5' minutes)
5.0km@960PS@2400rpm@1.23ata (30' minutes)
5.7km@890PS@2400rpm@1.15ata

4.9km@860PS@2200rpm@1.15ata
5.5km@800PS@2200rpm@1.10ata

10km@500PS@2400rpm@0.70ata

DB601N numbers

DB601N
SL@1175PS@2600rpm@1.35ata (5 minutes)
SL@1020PS@2400rpm@1.25ata (30 minutes)
SL@910PS@2300rpm@1.15ata
5.5km@1190PS@2600rpm@1.35ata (5 minutes)
5.4km@1060PS@2400rpm@1.25ata (30 minutes)
6.1km@970PS@2300rpm@1.15ata
(times according to the original 109T-2 manual)

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Wotan
The E-4 we have in AH has a different eng then the E7.

The E-7 had a DB601N.

They aeren't the same airplane...

Yeah. I know that. It's been established.

The point is that E-4s (which we *have* in AH) had drop tanks as well. I was saying,

"Why ask for the E-7? There's little point! Just add drop tanks to the E-4 that we already have!"

That's all.

[Wotan]

The 109E-4 that is modeled in AH didn't have DTs.

Using image captions as proof is no evidence at all. I can post many images from reputable authors that have miss captioned photos.

The Emil's used by Erprobungsgruppe 210 (As you see FA misspelled it by leaving out an 'r' which changes the translation completely; so mush for their accuracy ) of course had a bomb rack (ETC 250 rack) that could hold a DT. But those E-4s didn’t have the plumbing to feed fuel from the tank.

In fact you can read as much in this book

MESSERSCHMITT BF 110 BOMBSIGHTS OVER ENGLAND: Erprobungsgruppe 210 in the Battle of Britain

ISBN:
0 7643 1445 9

Fighter Ace isn’t a game that is based "historical accuracy" they are just like any other and open to errors. In fact a quick review of their FM shows just how wrong they can be.

As the LW transitioned from the E-4 to the E-7 there were many E-4s still on the assembly lines, some were fitted with the same bomb rack as on the E-7 (ETC 250 rack) and re-designated as the E-4/B. It followed from the E-1/B. They could not carry DTs because there were no fuel lines from the tank to the eng.

Some E-4s had the DB605N, some had a pointed prop hub, and some E-7s had the blunt nosed hub.

You haven't proven anything.

What we do know is that the E-4 that is modeled in AH is a BoB E-4 with a DB605A and didn’t carry DTs.

[Guppy35]

That was me who posted the photo Wotan, not Krusty.  Not trying to prove anything by it as I don't have anything to prove an E4 had drop tanks.

All I've seen is the references to the E-4/B

The image surprised me as it is a 1941 image and at that point I didn't think you'd find many if any of the older blunt nosed spinners on 109Es which gave me reason to believe it wasn't neccesarily an E-7 and obviously the caption ID'd it as an E4. I'd also agree with you that captions aren't always right.  

But it's a bit like coming across photos of E models with JG54 in Russia with the early style unarmored canopies in 41.  It stands out from the other period photos and gives one pause to question the what and why of it.


Out of curiousity Do you know if the E-4s operated in Sicily by JG27 were E-4/Ns?  And would E-4/Ns have been updated to E-7 standard?

Slack

[Wotan]

I dunno what that is a picture of Guppy...

However,I can post images of emils that are labeled as E-7s with the blunt nose hub.

EDIT can't remote link to the images:

However go here and look at the 190E-7 images and you will see 2 with a blunt nose...

http://www.bf-109.com/index-1024.php

What we do know is that the 190E-4 we have modeled in AH is that of an E-4 during BoB and it didnt carry a DT.

[Guppy35]

Hi Wotan,

Sorry I wasn't very clear on what I asked.  I wasn't referring to the photo at all.  And I'm just curious if you know if JG27 had E4/Ns?

Interesting site btw.  Did you see the Aeroplane article recently about the E-7 that came out of the Russian Lake?  Paint looked almost new.  Now in England for restoration

Dan/Slack

[Krusty]

According to a source of mine (book) the /N (109E-7/N and 109E-4/N) both had the DB 601N engine, thus the /N suffix.

I think these were later E-4s that were upgraded to E-7 status on the production line, but cannot be certain.

[butch2k]

No E-4/N, those were kept in western europe because of fuel supply problem associated with their need for C2 fuel.
They still had a few E-4 but most were E-7 and E-7/Trp, the picture you posted is of an E-7/trp not an E-4, the early round spinner tip is pure white and nearly invisible on this copy.

I know for sure because i know at least three other pictures of white 10 (WkNr 3777) of Uffz. Hans Sippel clearly showing the the white rounded tip.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by butch2k
No E-4/N, those were kept in western europe because of fuel supply problem associated with their need for C2 fuel.
They still had a few E-4 but most were E-7 and E-7/Trp, the picture you posted is of an E-7/trp not an E-4, the early round spinner tip is pure white and nearly invisible on this copy.

I know for sure because i know at least three other pictures of white 10 (WkNr 3777) of Uffz. Hans Sippel clearly showing the the white rounded tip.

Thank you sir for the info

Dan/Slack