Author Topic: Spits anounced, what about the 109s? (Read 2078 times)

Guppy35 · « **Reply #30 on:** August 03, 2005, 08:11:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wilbus
Would be no need to perk the K4 Wotan. The current G10 doesn't need to be perked due to overuse. The K4 would be less leathal in most pilots hands due to no 20mm nose cannon option.

Of course, just my opinion. We'll see what happens.

Yep, don't perk it. Let em fly

Dan/CorkyJr

Kev367th · « **Reply #31 on:** August 03, 2005, 08:45:54 PM »

Hell dont perk it, only planes worth perking are post 1943 Spits.

Planes perked due to overuse, hmmm, few fall into that category. I always thought main reason was some performance aspects (plural) it had that totally dominated other planes.

Does that mean if we all fly Zekes this tour it will get perked?

DipStick · « **Reply #32 on:** August 03, 2005, 09:36:52 PM »

Thanks Kev, I notice nothing appears to be "in concrete". Moving along...

Wotan · « **Reply #33 on:** August 03, 2005, 10:06:33 PM »

Quote

I thought it was common knowledge that our G10 was based off of K4 stats? We're basically "losing" the G10 because now it's called what it was -- a K4.

EDIT: I don't know that for a fact we're just getting a renamed plane. But that's my best guess, as it's already fully modeled.

Pyro has said the G-10 in AH really is a K-4 with a 20mm option.. period. Do a forum search in the A & V forums and you will see...

Now if he says that there will be no more G-10 in AH then the logical conclusion is they will take away the 2cm option from the current G-10 and just call it what it really is, a K-4.

You aren't losing anything except the 2cm option, performance will be the same.

Wilbus,

With a 109 line up as follows:

109E-4
109F-4
109G-2
109G-6
109G-14
109G-10 (if they decide to keep keep a 'G-10' in the line up, 425 mph or so..)

Then the K-4, at 452 mph, being perked is only logical.. I would suggest a 5-10 perk...

1 sortie in an F-4 can easily earn you a K-4...

Besides every one will be flying the G-14 because its the roXXor...

You can't very well justify perking the Spit 14 and not a K-4...

Both the free G-14 and G-10 will be more then enough...

The G-10 will also allow it as a sub for the G-6/AS and G-14/AS. These have the same supercharger as the G-10 (DB603) and K-4. This would allow a 109 with better high alt performance which is especially needed for the WETO. A G-14 alone wont give that high alt performance. It will only be faster then the G-6 we currently have with MW-50 below FTH.

So you are left with using the K-4 as a sub. At 452 mph its not fair for the allies. If you don't use it as a sub for the AS engined 109s you have no high altitude 109 to fight the bomber war over WETO.

A G-14 is needed for low altitude speed, the G-10 will fill the gap between the K-4 and G-14 (the AS engined 109s).

As I stated above its not like it would take a whole lot more to get a line up of:

G-6 (late, restricted 3cm option)
G-14

Same model different performance / skin..

G-10
K-4 (no 2cm option)

Same model different performance / skin...

I am only really interested in ToD. So perk or unperking doesn't really bother me at all. If the perk system is to be used for anything then perking the late war birds ought to be it. Or just get rid of perks (exception jet and rocket) and let the eny system balance the arena.

In ToD if the plan still is to let higher ranking players get access to the better performing aircraft then just jumping right from the G-6 to the K-4 leaves a lot out. Keeping a G-14 and a G-10 adds room for progression...

Kev367th · « **Reply #34 on:** August 03, 2005, 10:23:49 PM »

Looks good Wotan

109E-4
109F-4
109G-2
109G-6
109G-14
109K-4 (perked, but I would say same cost as Spit 14, only 15 perks now)

Nice spread, good matched opponents to the Spit lineup.

Wilbus · « **Reply #35 on:** August 04, 2005, 02:23:03 AM »

Quote

Then the K-4, at 452 mph, being perked is only logical.. I would suggest a 5-10 perk...

P47 D-11
P47 D-25
P47 D-40
P47 N

The same could be said for the P47 N really since it is for the P47 what our G10 (K4) is for the 109 series.

Then again, the POS Ta152 is still perked, be it at a low cost, so...

Well Wotan, Pyro just said the G10 will be taken out of the 109 lineup so no more G10 of any kind if I understand it correct. K4 would be most logical choice instead of the G10.

Btw, what would the difference between our G10 and a G14? I don't have any books here at the moment so can't check.

Kev367th · « **Reply #36 on:** August 04, 2005, 04:48:54 AM »

Seem to remeber Pyro considered perking the P47N in a thread he posted to.
I would imagine it's rattling around in his head and he's waiting to see how the first complete tour winds up with it unperked.

Judging from current usage, yes it's used a lot, but boy a lot of them are getting creamed once they are on the deck.
My prediction, will be left unperked unless they start getting a lot more kills without dieing. From what I've encountered, once on the deck and slowed down it's easy meat for a variety of planes, its not the uber Jug I'd thought it would be.
I thought it would be perked, but can't see a justification based on its current showing.

Things may be different in TOD were it will be more structured.

But isn't that always the problem? If you flew the P47N around at it's best alt of 31k you'd be mighty lonely. (might see the odd Rook shuttle on re-entry), so you end up having to come down to lower alts were other planes start getting the edge. In fact down at typical MA furball alts it doesnt seem to have a lot going for it.
Such is the MA.

Wotan · « **Reply #37 on:** August 04, 2005, 06:57:32 AM »

Quote

Well Wotan, Pyro just said the G10 will be taken out of the 109 lineup so no more G10 of any kind if I understand it correct. K4 would be most logical choice instead of the G10.

Well hopefully we change his mind about that. The G-10 could be kept if they just adjust the FM/performance. It could use the same model as the K-4.

That's the reason for my replies in this thread. Hopefully we can put together a case for keeping an adjusted G-10 as well as to educate soem of the other folks.

Quote

Btw, what would the difference between our G10 and a G14? I don't have any books here at the moment so can't check.

I posted the following in the A & V forums but here it is again:

A G-14 is just a G-6 (just like the one in AH now) with MW-50.

All MW-50 does is allow if higher boost to be run below FTH. It does this but cooling the charge.

The current G-6 does a max of 386 mph. A G-14 would be a round 415 mph.

The G-6 and G-14 wouldn't have any where near the performance of the AH G-10 at altitude. The G-10 and K-4 have a larger supercharger (DB603). It provided better performance at altitude...

The reason I prefer a G-14 is it will give better speed then the current G-6 at and below FTH (low alt speed) and still be as maneuverable as the G-6.

I will provide a few SS comparisons taken from IL2 compare. I only provide these to give a general understanding of the performance differences in the 109s in question. There's no need to debate the specifics here.

First the G-6 - G-14

At mil power the G-6 and G-14 are about the same. Only at wep do you really see a difference.

Quote

G-6 Entered service and saw action with II/JG 53, II/JG 77, JG 27 and JG 51 in February 1943. (Prien & Rodeike)

So the G-6 is a '43 aircraft

Quote

About 5500 made (abt. 1000 of which were G-14/AS versions)
G-14 entered service with II/JG 11 and Stab/JG 53 in July 1944.

G-14 would be July '44.

If Pyro keeps the a 'G-10' then we need not worry about a G-14/AS or G-6/AS. The G-10 can sub...

Next the G-14 - G-10 (real G-10 not AH's hybrid G-10/K-4):

The G-10 is faster all round plus has a higher FTH then the G-14 at both mil power and wep. In WETO ToD the higher FTH will be important in dealing with the escorts and bombers. Neither the G-6 nor G-14 can match the G-10 (or the G-6/AS, G-14/AS; which the G-10 can sub for).

The G-10 entered service Oct '44. The G-6/AS entered service in May '44, the G-14/AS in or about July...

Here's a G-14/AS - G-10 comparison:

Its labeled as a G-6/AS in FB but it really is a G-14/AS because it has MW-50 (remember G-6 + MW-50 = G-14)

Now a real G-10 - K-4 comparison:

Now you see there's quite a difference.

IMHO the 109s (covering '43 onward...) needed for AH would be:

G-6 '43
G-14 July '44
G-10 May - Oct '44 (depends on if used as a sub or not for the AS')
K-4 Oct '44 with a small perk...

All of these have their roll.

The G-6 is needed for '43 WETO and Ost Front

G-14 would be preferred over the G-2 and G-6 in the main but not any where near the performance of the current G-10. Used in both WETO and Ost front. They could use the same Late G-56 model and adjust the FM/performance.

G-10 why get rid of it? Just adjust the FM/performance. It will use same model as K-4. Just a different skin.

K-4 - final late war 109...

Wmaker · « **Reply #38 on:** August 04, 2005, 09:48:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wotan
G-10 why get rid of it? Just adjust the FM/performance. It will use same model as K-4. Just a different skin.

Hiya Wotan,

The external differences between G-10 and K-4 are small but they can't be handeled with the skin alone (K-4s recractable tailwheel etc.).

About the MG 151/20 in the K-4...are you aware of any new research that has totally removed the possibility that some K-4s carried the Mauser cannon in the nose? Prien & Rodeike state that it was mounted on some K-4s.

As an anecdote I remember Pyro talking about implementing 20mm option to the K-4 in WarBirds many years ago.

Personally I don't really see why G-10 should be swapped with K-4. If the 452mph is the problem just take a few mph off which would account the drag of the tailwheel...but I do agree that if K-4 is coming then slower G-10 should be there aswell for the reasons you stated.

Wotan · « **Reply #39 on:** August 04, 2005, 10:02:43 AM »

A retractable tail wheel would just be a matter of eliminating the animation on the G-10 right?

None of the aircraft models are 100% in AH. Even so the differences between the K-4 and G-10 could either be handled by the skin or they would be minor enough for all but a few to notice... (same with a G-14).

I don't know if they will keep the 2cm option for a K-4 or not (the by far majority were armed with 3cm). He may just change the name then.

But a 452 mph G-10 or K4 (whatever they decide to call it) will still leave a gap. With no G-14/AS (or G-6/AS) the LW will be missing a higher alt 109 on the western front for combating escorts and bombers...

Maybe they will just do a G-14/AS and then a 425 mph G-10 would be come redundant. Who knows...

If they just add a G-14 (standard, no AS) then there will be a gap that will either just go empty or subbed with the K-4. That would be unfair to the allies in early mid - 44.

We will just have to wait and see...

Wotan · « **Reply #40 on:** August 04, 2005, 10:07:05 AM »

FYI, Here's the quote by Pyro made some time ago in the A & V forum's:

Quote

The G-10 in AH is basically a K-4. The reason the G-10 was chosen over the K-4 is because the K-4 had standardized the armament to the MK 108 while the G-10 allows you the choice between that and the MG 151/20.

__________________
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

Krusty · « **Reply #41 on:** August 04, 2005, 02:22:37 PM »

There's been some mention of a plan to include G6, G14, early G10, and newly renamed K4.

Considering that the speeds listed the early G10 as a whopping whoop-dee-doo 10mph faster than the G14, I don't think it's needed at all.

Pyro's said there won't be a G10. I have to agree with this decision. If we find an intermediate between the G6 and the K4, we only need one gap filler, not two 99% identical gap fillers.

I'm liking the idea of the G14. From memory it's about 25mph or so faster than the G6, and about 30+mph slower than the G10 -- EDIT: The CURRENT G10 -- (big enough difference).

E-4
(E-7/F-2? Possible gap filler?)
F-4
G-2
G-6
G-14
K-4

Sounds like we're getting there, to me.

I have a couple of questions, though. The G-6 has 30mm, but apparently the G10 didn't? Did the G14 have 20mm and 30mm, or is it only one of the two? More of an armament question.

Karnak · « **Reply #42 on:** August 04, 2005, 03:31:56 PM »

Krusty,

The thing the G-10 wold add is a Bf109 suited to the altitudes the the big American bombers fly at. It may only be 10mph faster, but the altitude it is faster at is what matters in this context. Really, it would be a fighter for ToD and not the MA.

Like with the Spits though, I'll gladly take the Bf109s Pyro gives us. Based on Wotan's info on the G-14 it looks like a lot of fun.

Krusty · « **Reply #43 on:** August 04, 2005, 03:49:25 PM »

From memory, the 109s did not have the altitude variations the spitfires had (no LF, F, HF), they all were optimized for high alt because the war started there, and once the bombers came in the war stayed there (for the LW, that had to shoot at the bombers).

So from memory the difference between a G6 (or G14) and a G10 would be minimal, altitude performance wise. The top speed might be at a slightly different altitude, but it's still so darn close I honestly can't understand why we'd need both. Both would fly the same way at 20k when chasing down bombers, and 10mph isn't going to help at all. Seems like "bulk" to me.

Karnak · « **Reply #44 on:** August 04, 2005, 03:54:17 PM »

What Wotan said was the the G-10 had the DB603 with the larger blower, unlike the G-6 or G-14.

Here:

Quote

The current G-6 does a max of 386 mph. A G-14 would be a round 415 mph.

The G-6 and G-14 wouldn't have any where near the performance of the AH G-10 at altitude. The G-10 and K-4 have a larger supercharger (DB603). It provided better performance at altitude...