Author Topic: Full Rolling PlaneSet Rough Draft  (Read 2940 times)

Offline gear

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Full Rolling PlaneSet Rough Draft
« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2006, 04:51:44 PM »
ETO/PTO..... How about a map to reflect the NATO:aok

(NORTH AFRICA THEATER )

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Full Rolling PlaneSet Rough Draft
« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2006, 06:18:14 PM »
You've got some fundamental flaws in the system as you outlined it now.

First thing I noticed was that the spit9 comes out quite a few days before the 190a5 does. The 190A actually came out FIRST and created the need for the spit9. I know the a5 isn't the a3, but introducing the spit9 with the next closest enemy being the 109G-2 isn't going to be the same as spit9 vs 190a5.

Offline TheBug

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5652
Full Rolling PlaneSet Rough Draft
« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2006, 07:34:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
You've got some fundamental flaws in the system as you outlined it now.

First thing I noticed was that the spit9 comes out quite a few days before the 190a5 does. The 190A actually came out FIRST and created the need for the spit9. I know the a5 isn't the a3, but introducing the spit9 with the next closest enemy being the 109G-2 isn't going to be the same as spit9 vs 190a5.


Layout is a rough draft only, using service dates as the only criteria(except for the p40s which I kinda fit in as the Kittyhawks).  As I mentioned gameplay would become the next limiting factor and also the point where ideas like yours and Loddar's come in very handy. That being the case I don't see any "flaws" in my service dates, but maybe that's just a poor choice of words on your part??

The idea isn't to say here's a set-up, like it or leave but to generate a dialogue as a community of adults and come to some common, globally beneficial ground.

How could it be expected of us to come together and create models for the game if we can't even maturely generate setups for this arena.

This message isn't directly intended for ANY posts in this thread, just trying to make sure we all keep on track.  I can sense this subject being a flashpoint, hence my preemptive  post. :-)

So far a good case has been made to drop planes from the planeset as time goes on, also an equally good counter-point to this has been made.  But in the name of gameplay I myself tend to lean towards dropping planes, and to keep from that MA feel.  Next excellent point is placement of the 190A5.  Should Spit IX and 190A5 arrive together?  One arriving before the other is definitely going to be an imbalance(not something I am totally trying to avoid) and at least the Spit IX has the correct date over the 190A5.


Keep the opinions coming.  I think this one done right has the chance to draw the best numbers seen in AvA since AH1.  But it's going to take putting our heads together.

Thanks for the replies so far.
“It's a big ocean, you don't have to find the enemy if you don't want to."
  -Richard O'Kane

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Full Rolling PlaneSet Rough Draft
« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2006, 08:02:36 PM »
By "flaws" I did not mean in the dates, as in "errors", I meant mis-matches, and the like.

EDIT: oh, and you suggest enabling spit9 and 190a5 on the same day -- this would probably be best. If you go by type introduction (190a5 sub for a3) the spitV is outclassed by the 190a5 for several days, and if you go by service dates the spit9 outclasses the rest of the axis for several days. I think having them both show up at the same time is a good compromise. However, that's just 1 opinion :)
« Last Edit: February 27, 2006, 08:05:20 PM by Krusty »

Offline Kongkyuk

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Full Rolling PlaneSet Rough Draft
« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2006, 09:21:04 PM »
F4u's  whoohooo!!!!!

storch

  • Guest
Full Rolling PlaneSet Rough Draft
« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2006, 09:22:24 PM »
he's pitting the spitV against 109E as well

Offline TheBug

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5652
Full Rolling PlaneSet Rough Draft
« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2006, 09:28:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by storch
he's pitting the spitV against 109E as well


No I'm not.  The service dates are.

Avoid the controversy, there is nothing to be gained.  You have no effect upon me.

A legitimate complaint a crappy approach.  What is the true goal you are striving for?  I wish it was for a good setup, but if it is what I think you are aiming at... You will never win against me.
“It's a big ocean, you don't have to find the enemy if you don't want to."
  -Richard O'Kane

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Full Rolling PlaneSet Rough Draft
« Reply #22 on: February 27, 2006, 11:40:34 PM »
That was another problem I had with the setup. Malta showed us that the 109E just cannot stand up to spitVs or hurr2s. It's no comparison. However, I really don't see any way around it. We don't have the later E7s and the like that kept pressure on until the F-2s showed up (in real life, I mean). There's really not too much we can do except maybe introduce the F4 early as an F-2 substitute.

storch

  • Guest
Full Rolling PlaneSet Rough Draft
« Reply #23 on: February 28, 2006, 06:14:32 AM »
not likely krusty, the slant favoring the allies is so engrained that it will never be otherwise.  we have ack that does not die on allied bases such as at A9 vs ack that does not come back on axis bases, furthermore the allies have roving ack wagons cruising a stone's throw from the beach at A10.  meanwhile the german bases to the south are denied panzers.  still if we look at the K/D ratio I suspect the axis are giving as good or better than they are getting even if the allied players seldomly leave the more than generous ack sphere they are afforded.

Offline gear

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Me 109 ,Hurricane Mk 1,Spit Mk 1
« Reply #24 on: February 28, 2006, 06:29:52 AM »
May be old info to the vets but not for noobs.




Me109e

Me 109E. A major change came with the Me 109E, which used the 960hp Daimler-Benz DB 600 engine (an inverted V-12 like the Jumo) but had a three-blade propeller and a markedly different radiator arrangement under the nose. Production Es with 1,100hp DB 600A engines entered service with the Luftwaffe early in 1939. During its production life, a wide variety of armament was incorporated in the E, and the nose-mounted cannon was standard equipment.

Certain other Es had cannon in their wings. Provision was also made for the installation of under-wing bomb racks, and a 300-liter drop tank or a 550-pound bomb could be carried under the fuselage.


In the early spring of 1944, Bf 109G-10 production
replaced Bf 109G-6 production. The G-10 was to use the
DB 605B series engine, which had an increased-
diameter supercharger and a raised compression ratio.

 

In combat, the Me 109E was slightly superior to the British Hurricane I and far better than the Curtiss Kittyhawk. Its performance equaled that of the early British Spitfires.

Hurricane

The Hawker Hurricane was the first operational R.A.F. aircraft capable of a top speed in excess of 300 m.p.h. The design of the Hurricane, directed by Sydney Camm, was the outcome of discussions with the Directorate of Technical Development towards the end of 1933, aimed at breaking the deadlocked biplane formula. In these discussions Camm proposed a monoplane, based otherwise on his Fury biplane, using the proposed new Rolls-Royce P.V.12 engine (later to become the Merlin), and in time incorporating a retractable undercarriage. Originally, in concert with current armament requirements, a four-gun battery was proposed; but in 1934, with successful negotiations to licence-build the reliable Colt machine gun, it was deemed possible to mount an eight-gun battery in the wings, unrestricted by the propeller arc and thus dispensing with synchronising gear.

The first Fighter Command squadron to receive Hurricanes was No. 111, commanded by Sqdn. Ldr. John Gillan, based at Northolt before Christmas 1937; and it was the squadron's C.O. who flew one of the new fighters from Turnhouse, Edinburgh to Northolt, London at an average ground speed of 408.75 mph (659.27km/h) - a feat which earned the pilot the nickname "Downwind Gillan" for all time. Nos. 3 and 56 Squadrons took delivery during 1938, though the latter was not operational at the time of the Munich Crisis in September of that year. By the outbreak of war a year later 497 Hurricanes had been completed from an order book totalling no less than 3,500. At about this time the Gloster Aircraft Company started sub-contract manufacture of the standard Mark 1, which was now emerging from the factories with metal wings and three-blade variable-pitch propellers. One final refinement was adopted between the outbreak of war and the opening of the Battle of Britain; this was the Rotol constant-speed propeller which, apart from enabling the pilot to select an optimum pitch for take-off, climb, cruise And combat (thus bestowing a better performance under some of these conditions) also prevented the engine from overheating in a dive.

Spit Mk 1
The ancestry of the Spitfire can be traced back to the failed Supermarine Type 224, designed to meet the Air Ministry specification F.7/30 by Reginald J. Mitchell, creator of the magnificent Supermarine seaplanes which won three successive Schneider Trophy contests. The Type 224 was a gull-winged monoplane with a fixed "trousered" undercarriage, powered by a 600-h.p. Rolls-Royce engine, and Mitchell was dissatisfied with it even before it flew. He began to design a new aircraft as a private venture; the conception was revised twice, to incorporate the new P.V.12 (Merlin) engine and an eight-gun battery and the final design was accepted by the Air Ministry in January 1935, the new specification F.37/34 being "written around it" for contract purposes. The prototype first flew on 5th March 1936.

The first order for 310 machines was placed three months later, followed by a further 200 the following year shortly before the tragic death of its designer at the age of 42. In April 1938 the Nuffield Organisation was awarded an order for 1,000 Spitfires to be built at a shadow plant planned for Castle Bromwich near Birmingham, and further orders in 1939 brought the number of aircraft on the order book to a total of 2,143 by the outbreak of war.

Between August and December 1938 No. 19 Squadron at Duxford was equipped with the Spitfire Mk.1. By the outbreak of war nine squadrons were fully equipped and two others were in the process of conversion. A total of 1,583 Spitfire Is were built. Deliveries of the Mk. II (basically a Mk. I powered by a 1,175-h.p. Merlin XII) began in June 1940, but widespread re-equipment with the new version did not commence until the following winter, and it was the Mk. 1 which bore the brunt of the fighting during the Battle of Britain; by July 7th nineteen Fighter Command Squadrons were operational with the type

The performance of the Spitfire Mk I and the Messershmitt Bf-109E was very similar. The former possessed a better turning radius at any height and was slightly faster below 15,000 feet, but the Messerschmitt was superior in the climb and marginally faster above 20,000 feet. The Messerschmitt's Daimler-Benz DB 601A engine had the advantage of fuel injection which enabled the aircraft to bunt (push negative g at the top of a manoeuvre or climb) without losing power. The Merlin engine of the Spitfire had a float-type carburettor which necessitated the aircraft performing the longer manoeuvre of rolling inverted before diving to maintain positive g, thus preventing the engine from cutting out as a result of fuel starvation.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Me 109 ,Hurricane Mk 1,Spit Mk 1
« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2006, 07:56:28 AM »
Gear, common error in several books (keeps getting re-published, it seems) -- the 109E never had a nose cannon in any production model. It was only tested and evaluated but the severe vibrations caused instant jamming (or some such). The 109E never had a hub cannon, despite being designed to take one. This is oft-quoted and always wrong.

I believe the G-14 replaced the G-6, and the G-10 came later, towards the end of 1944.

Quote
Originally posted by gear
and the nose-mounted cannon was standard equipment.

[snip]

In the early spring of 1944, Bf 109G-10 production
replaced Bf 109G-6 production.  


Just a little spin control :)

Otherwise an informative post for those wanting to know.

Offline gear

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Full Rolling PlaneSet Rough Draft
« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2006, 08:16:55 AM »
« Last Edit: February 28, 2006, 08:47:54 AM by gear »

Offline gear

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Full Rolling PlaneSet Rough Draft
« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2006, 08:40:35 AM »
Here's the 109 I fly on a regular basis.Note the target on the side:aok


Offline gear

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
A little more info.
« Reply #28 on: February 28, 2006, 08:51:20 AM »
BF-109E
* The first really satisfactory version of the Bf-109 was the "Bf-109E". The Bf-109-V13, mentioned above, was the first "Bf-109E-0", and was followed by seven more Bf-109E-0s ("Bf-109-V14" through "Bf-109-V20"), with minor variations in equipment fit.

The "Bf-109-V21" and "Bf-109-V22" are stated in some sources as being Bf-109E-0s, but these two prototype numbers are also applied to the initial two "F" series prototypes, discussed in the next chapter. Duplication of the designations seems unlikely, and given the fact that earlier prototype versions underwent changes in definition, it is plausible that they started out as "E" prototypes and ended up being "F" prototypes instead.

The initial "Bf-109E-1" subvariant was first delivered to the Luftwaffe in early 1939 and featured the DB-601A-1 engine, as well as a three-bladed variable-pitch propeller. Although earlier Bf-109 variants had featured a "chin" engine radiator, the Bf-109E moved it to twin radiators, mounted one under each wing. The Bf-109E was not quite as agile as the Bf-109D but it was substantially faster, and in fact was one of the most potent fighters in the world at the time.

The Bf-109E-1 featured armament of four MG-17 7.9-millimeter machine guns, with two in the cowling and two in the wings. The cowling guns had 1,000 RPG, while the wing guns had 420 RPG.

Twenty Bf-109E-1s were turned out in time to be sent to Condor Legion in Spain before the civil war ended in March 1939. By this time, Nationalist resistance was faltering, and the new fighters met little opposition. In the end, a total of some 200 Luftwaffe pilots served with the Condor Legion, obtaining combat experience that would make Germany's fighter pilots an elite in the campaigns to come. They left the twenty Bf-109E-1s behind for the Spaniards.

Manufacture of the Bf-109E, presently referred to as the "Emil" by Luftwaffe pilots, continued to ramp up, although Messerschmitt production was shifted from Augsburg to Regensburg to make way for the Bf-110 twin-engine fighter. Other aircraft manufacturers were brought in to help feed the Luftwaffe's appetite for the Bf-109.

* By the time Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, the Luftwaffe was flying about 850 Bf-109Es and 235 Bf-109Ds. The invasion was a complete success, overwhelming Polish resistance in a rapid "Blitzkrieg (Lightning War)". A little over 200 Bf-109s participated in the invasion, with 67 being lost, mostly to ground fire. After the invasion, things went quiet again as the British and French went passive, resulting in the "Sitzkrieg (Sitting War)".

However, from the start of the war the British Royal Air Force (RAF) performed small-scale raids on German territory. These actions climaxed in the biggest air battle of 1939, on 18 December 1939, when the RAF attacked Wilhelmshaven in daylight with 24 unescorted Vickers Wellington bombers. The Luftwaffe had a party with them, shooting down 12 of the Wellingtons and damaging three others badly. The Luftwaffe lost of two Bf-109s. The British began to seriously reconsider their tactics.

Air skirmishes over the French border during the Sitzkrieg were intermittent. However, in November, a confused Luftwaffe pilot set an Emil down on the wrong side of the border, with the aircraft eventually ending up in England the following spring for flight tests and mock dogfights with British fighters. An Emil had similarly fallen into French hands back in September, but it had been lost in a mid-air collision before serious evaluation could be conducted with it.

The evaluation showed the Emil completely superior to the Hawker Hurricane in almost all respects, and generally superior to a Spitfire Mark I equipped with a two-bladed propeller. With a three-bladed Rotol propeller, the Spitfire Mark I had the upper hand at high altitude. This particular Messerschmitt is now in the RAF museum at Hendon.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2006, 08:54:18 AM by gear »

Offline gear

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
part 2
« Reply #29 on: February 28, 2006, 08:54:38 AM »
The Doras were gradually phased out as new Emil subvariants were introduced. The "Bf-109E-2" was supposed to have been fitted with the MG-FF 20 millimeter Motorkanone, but this subvariant was not actually built.

The "Bf-109E-3" featured a DB-601Aa engine with 1,200 horsepower for take-off. The Bf-109E-3 also had a stronger canopy design; armor plate in the seat and above the pilot's head; and replaced the MG-17 wing guns to MG-FF 20 millimeter cannons with 60 RPG. The bigger weapons required the design of a blister for the lower wing to accommodate them. The pilot had a selector switch to allow firing of one or both cannons.

The definitive Emil variant, the "Bf-109E-4", was very similar to the Bf-109E-3 , but the MG-FF wing cannon were updated to MG-FF/M cannon. The MG-FF/M was externally identical to the MG-FF, but had a "softened" recoil mechanism to allow it to fire high-explosive "mine" shells that proved highly effective. The softened recoil mechanism also resulted in a higher rate of fire.

   MESSERSCHMITT BF-109E-3:
   _____________________   _________________   _______________________
 
   spec                    metric              english
   _____________________   _________________   _______________________

   wingspan                9.87 meters         32 feet 4 inches
   length                  8.64 meters         28 feet 4 inches
   height                  2.50 meters         8 feet 2 inches

   empty weight            1,900 kilograms     4,190 pounds
   loaded weight           2,665 kilograms     5,875 pounds

   max speed at altitude   560 KPH             350 MPH / 300 KT
   service ceiling         10,500 meters       34,500 feet
   range                   660 kilometers      410 MI / 355 NMI
   _____________________   _________________   _______________________


When the Blitzkrieg against the Low Countries and France began in the spring of 1940, the Emil led the way, quickly gaining mastery over all contenders. The offensive was over in a matter of weeks.
The campaign in France had suggested the need for fighter-bomber ("Jagdbomber" or "Jabo") aircraft, and a number of Bf-109s and Bf-110s were experimentally fitted with centerline bomb racks. They performed attacks on Channel shipping, and the combat tests proved so successful that the Luftwaffe decided to create Jabo Bf-109 squadrons.

The first Bf-109 Jabo subvariant, the "Bf-109E-1/B", was a field conversion of existing Bf-109E-1s, featuring a centerline rack for a single 250 kilogram (550 pound) bomb, though more normally they carried a single 50 kilogram (110 pound) bomb to achieve greater range. Bf-109-E4s were also fitted with the rack in production, this modification being given the designation "Bf-109-E4/B". These Jabo subvariants were not fitted with a bombsight as such, but the standard Revi gunsight could be used in dive attacks with some accuracy, and a line was painted on the windscreen to help the pilot with his attack.

The subject of the Bf-109's centerline rack is a confusing issue. Such racks would be fitted to subvariants or modifications of the aircraft through the rest of its evolution, allowing the carriage of a 250 kilogram (550 pound) bomb, four 50 kilogram (110 pound) bombs, or a 300 liter (80 US gallon) drop tank. However, it is very unclear whether the same rack could be alternatively fitted with all three of these stores configurations, or whether different racks handled different subsets of them. As the issue is both insignificant and difficult to resolve, this document makes no judgement on it.

* Despite the success of the Bf-109E in the French campaign, some worries cropped up. For one, the Bf-109's range had proven inadequate. For another, the Bf-109E had come up against the British Supermarine Spitfire fighter while the Luftwaffe had ineffectually tried to stop the mass evacuation of Allied troops at Dunkirk, and the British fighter had proven a formidable opponent.

These worries would become critical as the Luftwaffe shifted its attention across the English Channel. At first, things went well for the Luftwaffe. After the beginning of the Battle of Britain on 13 August 1940, the Bf-109s were allowed to range freely and engage British fighters at will, using the fluid tactics devised by Moelders in Spain. The British were trained in traditional inflexible formation tactics that put them at a disadvantage, but the RAF quickly adopted the Luftwaffe's tactics.

While the Bf-109s ranged freely, the job of protecting the bombers fell to the twin-engine Bf-110s. It didn't work. The Bf-110s were slaughtered, and so by early September the Bf-109s were ordered to operate as bomber escorts. Forced into a defensive posture, the Bf-109 was at a disadvantage relative to Hurricanes and Spitfires.

The limited range of the Bf-109 was also proving a liability, as it could not stay over the battle area for long before having to return home. After the bombings campaign was switched from British airfields to British cities, the RAF began to gain the upper hand.

The last action of the Battle of Britain was on 31 October 1940. The British had lost 631 Hurricanes, 403 Spitfires, and 115 Blenheim fighters, for a total of 1,149. The Luftwaffe lost 610 Bf-109s, along with 235 Bf-110s and 937 bombers, for a total of 1,782. Worse, many of the British pilots who had to bail out returned to battle the next day. Luftwaffe pilots who bailed out went to prisoner of war camps.

From a tactical point of view, the battle was not all that lopsided and could be regarded as a stand-off. However, it was a moral victory for the British, who had been the first to stand up to Hitler and make him back off, and a moral defeat for the Luftwaffe, who had been used to victories.

* Nonetheless, the Bf-109 was still a dangerous adversary, and its cannon armament was devastatingly effective against RAF fighters armed with rifle-caliber machine guns, another lesson the RAF would absorb. Werner Moelders was the first of Hitler's Luftwaffe pilots to exceed 50 kills, with Adolf Galland close behind him.

The Luftwaffe was still enthusiastic for the Bf-109, and new versions of the Emil were rolled out. The uprated DB-601N powerplant, with 1,200 horsepower for take-off, was fitted to the to produce the "Bf-109E-4/N" modification.

"Fighter reconnaissance" subvariants were produced, such as the "Bf-109E-5" and "Bf-109E-6", which deleted the wing guns and featured a camera in the rear fuselage. The Bf-109E-5 was fitted with the DB-601Aa engine, while the Bf-109E-6 was fitted with the uprated DB-601N engine.

A long-range fighter / Jabo variant, the "Bf-109E-7", was produced with a rack for a 300 liter (80 US gallon) centerline drop tank or 250 kilogram (550 pound) bomb. A "Bf-109E-7/U2" modification was produced for ground attack with armor protection for critical engine systems, and a "Bf-109E-7/Z" modification was built for high-altitude operation using GM-1 nitrous oxide engine boost. The nitrous oxide provided supplemental oxidizer for the engine, with the nitrous oxide bottle placed under the pilot's seat. However, the gear was heavy, and its placement disturbed the balance of the aircraft, leading to unpleasant stall-spin characteristics.

Meanwhile, in Africa, after being introduced to the theater in April 1941, the Bf-109E was enjoying the success to which it had been accustomed, racking up large numbers of kills against RAF Hurricanes and Kittyhawks. The Emil was modified for African operations by being fitted with engine sand filters and a desert survival kit. The survival kit contained food and water, a lightweight carbine, signal equipment, and other gear. The result were the "tropicalized" subvariant modifications, designated with the suffix "Trop". "Bf-109E-4/Trop", "Bf-109E-5/Trop", and "Bf-109E-7/Trop" subvariants were introduced.

The last two major subvariants of the Emil were the "Bf-109E-8" and the "Bf-109E-9". The Bf-109E-8 was similar to the Bf-109E-1 in having an armament of four MG-17 7.9 millimeter guns, but had a DB-601E engine with 1,350 horsepower for take-off, and a centerline rack for a bomb or drop tank.

The Bf-109E-9 was a long-range reconnaissance version, with a camera in the rear fuselage, two 7.9 millimeter machine guns in the cowling, and a centerline rack. Some sources claim it had the DB-601E engine and no wing guns, while others say it had the earlier DB-601N engine and an MG-FF 20 millimeter cannon under each wing. The first configuration seems slightly more plausible, since the DB-601N would have been a throwback to earlier subvariants, and wing guns were not fitted to other reconnaissance subvariants of the Bf-109. The mission did not call for heavy armament and removal of the wing guns compensated for the weight of the camera.

In any case, the Bf-109E-8 and Bf-109E-9 were only built in small quantities. They were the last of the roughly 4,000 Emils built. Luftwaffe interest had clearly moved on to something more advanced.