Author Topic: Spits anounced, what about the 109s? (Read 2069 times)

Krusty · « **on:** August 03, 2005, 02:12:47 PM »

Word is our that Pyro's made some decisions on the new spit lineup. It sounds interesting. However I'm curious if there's going to be any changes to the 109 lineup.

I'm not asking for obscure models or anything. For the most part I think we have a fairly good 109 lineup. But I have a suggestion or two.

From what I understand (gurus PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong) the only difference between the E-1 and the E-3/E-4 is the wing guns, which were 7mm in the E-1. I believe they had the same engine and everything else.

Would it then be possible to add a weapons option to the 109E-4 in AH, to replace the MG/FF with 7mm guns? For early matchups if possible?

It's a thought.

We currently have:

109E-4
109F-4
109G-2
109G-6
109G-10

That's a pretty good lineup. What I might see as a possible gap is between the E4 and the F4, performance-wise there was the E-7 (which also had a DT). Other than that, I see no real need for an F2 (weaker gun? Engine problems? No thanks).

Some have called for a G14. This would be a bit faster than the G6 (slower than the G10) and be a later model, but it would be almost the same and when you've got the G10 there's no need for a G14.

Some have called for the G10 to be renamed K4 and only given the 30mm option (and some have suggested a perk price for this ride), and then putting in an early G10 or a G14 with 20mm only option, unperked.

I'm just bringing the subject up for discussion. There are one or two minor things that can be done (that I can see) but for the most part it looks decent. No real need for new planes, but if an E-1 or E-7 were put in they might see scenario use, or setup use, or just "fly for fun" use, but they'd not be any powerhouse when it comes to MA use.

EagleEyes · « **Reply #1 on:** August 03, 2005, 02:14:07 PM »

Good suggestions Krusty

Karnak · « **Reply #2 on:** August 03, 2005, 02:15:49 PM »

Krusty,

There is a huge gap from the early 1943 G-6 to the late 1944 G-10. The G-14 is a early 1944 109 that would fill that huge performance gap. It is not the same time as the G-10.

Right now we go from a 386mph G-6 to a 452mph G-10 with no mid point. This is a big problem for historical setups.

Krusty · « **Reply #3 on:** August 03, 2005, 02:17:46 PM »

I realize there were large performance leaps at the end of the war, but the G-6 was used for a long time, historically from 43 through 44. The changes and modifications got so varried that the G14 was (from what I understand) basically just the latest version of the G6, but standardized (all were the same, instead of some having X, some having Y, etc).

I guess what I'm asking is -- do you think we really need one in between there? Towards the end of the war the LW was forced to take on better performing aircraft (they had no choice but to fight). Isn't that sort of what we have modeled now?

Karnak · « **Reply #4 on:** August 03, 2005, 02:22:36 PM »

Well, that is a oversimplification.

Our G-6 lacks MW50. The Bf109G-6/AS had MW50 and is also an early 1944 109 with much the same performance as the G-14.

To fill the gap they need to do one of the following:

Add the Bf109G-6/AS (which has the awkwardness of having two Bf109G-6s)

Add the Bf109G-14

Add the Bf109K-4 and reduce the performance of the Bf109G-10 levels to the lower standard Bf109G-10

It is just a matter of which is the best option.

The Bf109G-14 did about 415mph as I recall.

So:

Bf109G-2: 402mph, no 30mm and 7.92mm cowl guns
Bf109G-6: 386mph
Bf109G-14: 415mph
Bf109G-10: 452mph

Krusty · « **Reply #5 on:** August 03, 2005, 02:28:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Add the Bf109K-4 and reduce the performance of the Bf109G-10 levels to the lower standard Bf109G-10

I see what you're saying about the G14/G6AS.

However I don't think we need both G14 and separate K4/G10. What was the performance on the early G10s? I know the late G10s were nearly identical to the K4 (and we have a K4 modeled in AH now), so would an early G10 take the place of a G14, as a step here:

G-6
(MISSING)
G10 (really K4)

I'm all for ditching the G10 and just saying we have a K4 (name change). Unless there is a big performance difference (like say it's an early G10) I don't see a need for both.

Karnak · « **Reply #6 on:** August 03, 2005, 02:35:04 PM »

I agree we don't need both a K-4 and a G-10 that performs like a K-4.

We just need something to fill in that "missing" step. The G-14 just looks like the most expedient way to do it.

The G-14 isn't good enough to represent the 109s from early 1944 to the end so we need a G-10 or K-4 for that purpose.

What would be nice would be:

Bf109E-4
Bf109F-2
Bf109F-4
Bf109G-2
Bf109G-6
Bf109G-14
Bf109G-10 or Bf109K-4

I would pick the F-2 to oppose the Spitfire Mk Vb as the Mk Vb will eat a Bf109E-7 for lunch.

Krusty · « **Reply #7 on:** August 03, 2005, 02:50:25 PM »

F-2 was almost identical to F4, and you'd have to model a gun weaker than the MG151/20... it would essentially be a MG13 (13mm, 15mm, pretty close) with very little hitting power. I think an F-4 can substitute well, especially considering all the people that claim the current F4 v. the +12 spitV was one of THE best matchups ever in AH history (gameplay wise). I think the F4 will do nicely, and I suppose that is why we are going back to a +12 spitV -- for the better match against its historical opponent.

But I think the E-7 would have its place, as it served in the Afrika Corps, it served in the Eastern front until late '42, and it would be an interesting thing to pit against various early war planes.

Bf109E-4
Bf109E-7
Bf109F-4
Bf109G-2
Bf109G-6
Bf109G-14 or early G10
Bf109K-4 (a rose by any other name...)

I'd love to see the possibility of pre-BOB setups, too, so I personally like the idea of the E-1, but I doubt anybody but myself would stand behind it.

Karnak · « **Reply #8 on:** August 03, 2005, 03:01:25 PM »

Our Bf109F-4 is operating at 1942 boost levels just like the +16lbs boost Spit V, so it is not the same as an early 1941 Bf109F-2.

I'm not sure what the E-7 would bring really. We already have the E-4 for the BoB and the E-7 would be meat to the Mk Vb.

Adding the E-7 seems like adding the Spitfire Mk IIa to me.

But the bigest gap is the one between our G-6 and G-10.

Krusty · « **Reply #9 on:** August 03, 2005, 03:09:19 PM »

The SpitV had 6 months before the F4 came out, and then had to fight against the F4 for a year. That was a quote from another thread (might be the spit thread). The F-0 through the F-4 were built and developed inside of 6 months, and didn't last very long before the F-4 came out. I don't think that's a long enough timespan to allow for a variant.

The E-7, however, was faster than the E-4, had a better engine, better high alt performance with an improved WEP system, and served for years. Not necessarily against the SpitV, as the 109F was being developed to counter the spitV. However the E-7 fought all other types of aircraft, including hurris and other lend-lease aircraft sent to Russia (think FinRus setups), if you want an early setup you really can't put the E4 in because often the setup is unbalanced, so they F4 is put in to make it more playable. With the E-7 you'd not need to compromise.

With Tunisia or Med setups you'd have the E-7, which flew against hurris, spits, and other aircraft in the desert setting. 109E4 vs hurriMk1 is one thing, but E4 vs HurrMk2 is another. The E-7 would be better able to handle the intermediate aircraft, including FAA wildcats and the like.

Hey I'm not 100% attached to the E7, don't think I've gone totally nuts. If there are no 109 additions I'll be fine with that. I'm just sharing why I think it'd be more useful than an F-2

Kev367th · « **Reply #10 on:** August 03, 2005, 03:27:51 PM »

How about you do what I did, call Pyro and ask him.

You could just do what we did in the Spit thread -
Find one model for each of the years 1940-1945 that is representative.
And yes is it that simple, we just looked at each year, which Mk was the most produced and posted our results.
From speaking to Pyro he read the threads and agreed that what we came up was 'representative'.
e.g. No small run production variants, thats why no Spit XII (although al ot of us would have liked it)

One thing - He will be looking for models that can be used in scenarios, as well as the MA. So maybe base it on the Spit lineup and pick the historical 109/190 that goes with it.

So take -

1940 - Spit 1
1941 - Spit Vb
1942 - Spit F IX
1943 - Spit LF VIII (you get a free here no 109/190 historic opponent)
1944 - Spit LF XVI
1945 - Spit F XIV

Put one 109/190 behind each date - easy.

Eagler · « **Reply #11 on:** August 03, 2005, 03:28:20 PM »

they need to fix the 109 guns before they add more 109's

Krusty · « **Reply #12 on:** August 03, 2005, 03:34:42 PM »

From what I understand there's nothing to fix. They are the way they are. They fire from your plane, and if you've moved your plane into the proper position they will hit other planes. Sounds like they work, to me!

Pyro · « **Reply #13 on:** August 03, 2005, 03:35:18 PM »

We are going to make some changes. The G-10 will no longer be part of the 109 lineup.

Krusty · « **Reply #14 on:** August 03, 2005, 03:37:03 PM »

Interesting, thanks for the news, Pyro!

Am I to guess that the G10 as we knew it is going to be listed as a K4 now?