Spits anounced, what about the 109s?

[Krusty]

Okay, gotcha.

I'd like to counter with this idea, however:

G10 was developed into what eventually became the K4. It was developed in a relatively short span of time, as well (both G10 and K4 are '44 planes). There is a top speed jump from the early G10 to the K4, but for the most part there's nothing else that's changed.

2 planes, identical in construction, and performance, the one being 20mph (?) slower than the other. I'd suggest logically that we just pick one of them. If I had to just pick one of them, it would be the one that is slightly faster. So I'd pick the K4. They're from the same time frame, so there's no role the G10 could play that the K4 could not substitute.

I say use the K4 for anything that would require the G10. It's already got the speed of the best G10's.

It's the same time frame, it's almost the same plane, I'd say just use the K-4, which if it isn't perked now probably won't be perked in the future.

My $0.02, as I'm generally a practical person, is to pick the better of the two and drop the other. That is, pick the K4 and drop the G10 (with whatever G10 stats you pick to model it as)

[Wotan]

The G-14 is mentioned in Mtt meetings minutes as the official name of the G-6/MW5-0 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.

With out a AS or G-10 (425mph) then there is no LW fighter that can fight at escort altitude in WETO ToD. The K-4 would have to be subbed and that would give to great an advantage to the LW, one they didn't have.

Chances are the K-4 wont be subbed and the LW will have to do with basically a  '43 G-6 until Oct '44 (thats what we have now). Above FTH MW-50 on the G-14 will add very little extra 'speed' at beyond whats available to the G-6. It would be the same as the G-6 we have now. A G-14 would be better then our G-6 below FTH only with 'wep' (MW-50).

This leaves a gap in the LW planeset for combating the Ami Escorts in a WETO ToD.

As such why get rid of a G-10? Unless they add a G-14/AS the LW planeset for ToD would be no better off then it is now.

So I would suggest just keep the G-10 and redo its FM/performance, it can fill in for the AS 109s and plug the whole between the G-14 and K-4.

If  it has already been decided that the G-10 designation will be dropped then instead of a standard G-14 please consider a G-14/AS (MW-50 for low alt + DB603 sc for higher alt).

These aircrafta re different, its more then just a few MPH here or there...

[Kweassa]

G10 was developed into what eventually became the K4. It was developed in a relatively short span of time, as well (both G10 and K4 are '44 planes). There is a top speed jump from the early G10 to the K4, but for the most part there's nothing else that's changed.

 Actually, the G-10 came after the K-4.

 IIRC the LW was pushing a binary project  of developing a successor to the Gustav, and then, upgrading all the existing Gustavs to standards of the new variant after it arrived. The former would be designated the Kurfurst, and the latter would be designated the G-10.

 But the K-4 was being delayed too much, so the LW simply put the G-10 on hold, and then kicked off an interim project which would standardize all G-6s and add a Methanol-Water injection to their DB605A engines. These standardized G-6s would be used until the K-4 would come, and then the Gustavs can be finally be upgraded to the K-4 standard G-10. These 'temporary' Gustavs would be designated the G-14.

 The end result was, in 1944 the grand majority of 109s produced would become G-14s. Then the K-4 arrived, and then finally, some of the G-14s were equipped with the DB605D as the K-4, and became the G-10.

 The G-10 was actually the last official 109, not the K-4.

[Kweassa]

I also support the idea of a G-10 separate from a K-4, with a correct performance levels.

 Perk the K-4 lightly, and give out a 427mph Bf109G-10 to be used as the ultimate free 109 for the MA.

 Also, the existence of the G-10 in ToD, like Wotan mentions, would be very useful too.

[Wotan]

IIRC the LW was pushing a binary project of developing a successor to the Gustav, and then, upgrading all the existing Gustavs to standards of the new variant after it arrived. The former would be designated the Kurfurst, and the latter would be designated the G-10.

No the G-10 didn't come after the K-4...

In fact they both began service in Oct '44. Thsi was do to problems with the DB605D. In fact the G-10 was to come before the G-14 but it didn't work out that way.

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.

[Krusty]

Pyro's already said there won't be a G10 anymore. So I guess all we can do is suggest the hole-pluggers for him to include.

If the G6 is about 385 top speed, and the K4 is about 452 top speed, what is the G14/AS's top speed?

G6 - 385
G14 - 415
G14/AS - ???
K4 - 452


Now you mention a valid point with the turbochargers. I personally find the 109s fly pretty well even at 20k. Naturally the G10 (as we have it) performs better but it also has a more powerful engine and 'charger setup. The cynic in me says "Let the K-4 sub for a G10, the axis will need all the help they can get against the flap-using USAAF planes", but the part of me that wouldn't mind a representative gap filler says "Hrm... Maybe a G14/AS is better than just a G14 for this role".

Also, going by the quote that says some had their MG151/20s replaced with Mk108s, but most didn't, I'd see that as probable cause to include 2 gun options for the G14 (like our current G10 has now).

[Wotan]

If the G6 is about 385 top speed, and the K4 is about 452 top speed, what is the G14/AS's top speed?

See the chart I posted in the previous post. The differences in speed / FTH are minimal ,that's why a G-10 at 425 mph or so could easily sub...

But the differences in appearance might requite a whole new model (more work?). Where as using the late G-6 we have now for a standard G-14 and the K-4/G-10 they have now for a new G-10 would mostly entail fixes on the FM/performance side (less work?).

Yes the G-14 and G-10 should keep the 2cm/3cm options...

[Krusty]

Models aren't an issue. They're all being remodeled anyway. Choosing what to model, that's the important thing.

I know it leaves a speed gap between the last two, but the only way I can see to please all the CT/TOD scenario guys is to add 2 planes or add the G14/AS as a gap filler.

G6
G14/AS
K-4

This would replace
G6
G14
G10
K4

Just as a random thought (not sure how happy Pyro would be with this one)

What about a de-rated K4? A slightly slower one? If we have a G6 and a G14 (which I think has more use than a 14/AS or a G10), then the K-4 would be able to sub as a G10 if it were, say, 15-20 mph slower.

The G10s underwent development, and the highest end G10s were comparable to K4s, but what about early K4s? Were they slightly less powerful? Was there a K4 that had a slower top speed, which would bring the K4 into range of "G10 substitute"?

[Wotan]

Models aren't an issue. They're all being remodeled anyway. Choosing what to model, that's the important thing.

Sure it is, the difference being to get a G-6, G-14 (one model); G-10, K-4 (one model) would require just 2 models (1 + 1)...

To get a G-6, G-14/AS, K-4 would require 3 (1 + 1 + 1)...

Do you pay attention to what you read?

There' s no limitation on the number of planes AH can have, so why throw one away when you don't have to and may save work in the long run?

[Krusty]

I've done some 3D modeling and animation. I've taken classes in 3 different animation programs. I think that any minor difference between the 109 models (subtle shapes of the cowling, and what-not) are very easy to manipulate, compared to creating an entirely new model. It's much easier to modify an existing model, and say going from the G6 to the G14 you have minor cowling adjustments, that's simple enough to do. It's not like you have to remodel it from scratch.

So basically, the 3D modeling isn't an issue. It'll get done, regardless.

I'm curious about what the subtle differences were in the engine cowling, as stated for the G10 and G14/AS. What were they, and how subtle?

EDIT: a misunderstanding has occured. My comment before about the models was about the 3d shapes that skinners can put skins on.

I know there are unlimited numbers of planes you can add, but I don't think we need unlimited numbers of 109s, either. I think that a representative lineup can be made by tweaking the K4 and introducing the G14. The K4 is already in the game. The G6 is already in the game. So adding the G14 would only be 1 extra aircraft to model (not counting an E7/F2 model, should there be one)

EDIT 2: You list the K4 as a new model. It would be any G10 that would be a new model. We already have the K4, just thought I'd point that out.

[Wotan]

EDIT 2: You list the K4 as a new model. It would be any G10 that would be a new model. We already have the K4, just thought I'd point that out.

Am I dealing with some with a 'full deck'?

Look bud you just said yourself:

Models aren't an issue. They're all being remodeled anyway.

There's your answer...

They need to re-do the 109 models to bring them up to AH2 standards...

When they do the physical k-4 model that same aircraft model can be used for a G-10 as well. Thus to get both a G-10 and K-4 it may only require some tweaks on the performance/fm end.

Can you follow that?

When they do the physical G-6 model that same aircraft model can be used for a G-14 as well. Thus to get both a G-6 and a G-14 it may only require some tweaks on the performance/fem end.

To do a G-14/AS it may require a whole new model because of the front end. I am not going to bother and go through all the differences with you because I don't think you will grasp them. If you want go look at the G-6 and the G-10 in AH now and see if you spot anything...

[Krusty]

That was a better description of what you were saying, so then my original reply about the 3d models being easy to edit was on-topic (I had feared it was not).

Okay, I understand what you said now. 3D models are still easy enough to edit that it won't be a problem if 5 new 109 models are made or if 6 new 109 models are made (originals = 5, add G14 = 6).

But that's a minor point, I suppose. Very minor. Let's just let it be and move on.

[Kweassa]

Here's some info I gathered;

The 109G-10 was actually the last 'production' Bf-109 built. The plane first flew a few months after the K-4, but no G-10s were new built. Every G-10 was a rebuild of the earlier 109G-6 airframe. These airframes were brought up to as close to K-4 standards as possible with the existing airframe.

 The result for researchers is that the plane is as difficult to identify from photos as just about any 109 variant. Early G-10s did not have the DB.605D engine in them and had to rely on the earlier DB.605AS engine. These 109G-10/AS airframes can be distinguished by the absence of two small 'bumps' under the forward cowling as on the later aircraft. Early G-10s also had the narrower 660x160 wheels and tires so didn't have the long wheel fairings in the upper wing. Those with the 660x190 wheels and tired had the longer fairings.

 All G-10s had the Erla Haube canopy and tall wooden fin and rudder. Some had a short tail wheel strut and others the longer version. There were also two different rudders, one with two additional external trim tabs. In addition, there were two upper cowling designs, the type 100 with a smooth upsweep on the left side and the type 110 with a flat plate fairing instead. While many G-10s had a deeper oil cooler than the earlier G-14, this was not always the case. A final difference was that some had a short antenna mast and some had none at all with the antenna lead going right into the fuselage spine aft of the cockpit.

 Unfortunately, most profiles will not show the upper wing fairings and many photos are such that this feature is not visible. This makes it almost impossible to determine if an airframe is a G-10 or a G-14 or even a later G-6, especially if it had the 605AS engine. Only serials could tell. This has led to several aircraft being identified as a G-14 in one book and a G-10 in another!

Sub-types of 109s proliferated, and not all were as interchangeable as mass-production techniques are supposed to insure.

 The most-produced series, the Gustav, saw attempts to stabilize production and bring everything to one standard with the Bf-109G-6 of 1943-44, and the Bf-109G-14 of late 1944.

 The G-10 was created by remanufacturing older airframes, mostly from the G-6 sub-series, as well as the G-14. Interestingly enough, it became operational in December 1944, after the debut of the Bf-109K-4, the last new-production series.

All following Bf 109G versions were modified older Bf 109Gs. So the G-10 was not an uniform type, but consisted of all kinds of Bf 109Gs being transformed partially to Bf 109G-10 specifications.

 The most recognizable change was the use of the "Erla-Haube" canopy. This canopy improved the pilots view, which was often criticized before. The Bf 109G-10, also called "Super-Bulge" (German: "Super-Beule"), saw a refinement of the bulges covering the breeches of the cowl mounted MG 131, these taking on a more elongated and streamlined form. A similar varying product was the Bf 109G-12. This was a two-seat trainer version of the Bf 109 and was rarely armed.

 Most every info seems to indicate;

1) the G-10 began to appear  AFTER the K-4 had already entered service
2) ..were reusing old G-14 airframes

[Wotan]

That info would be inaccurrate...

Read the quote above that I provided. I believe it originated with Butch and comes from MTT meetings minutes.

Both the G-10 and K-4 entered service around the same time, October '44...

There were two lines of progression -

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.

Delays in the DB605D delayed the introduction of the G-10.

[wetrat]

A 30mm-only 109 as you've suggested should NOT be perked. It takes a lot of practice (and some luck) to learn how to properly use taters. When you only get 65 of them, your sorties are limited to 2-3 kills at BEST if you spray. 2x12mm is more or less useless unless you can shoot in the 20% range (maybe 20 or so active players are capable of this), or are shooting at AFK's, climbers and soft buffs.