109s AGAIN

[parin]

Does our Bf 109G-14 have the wood tail? And What engine did we get?

[Viking]

A little advice from an old 109 driver:

When chasing P-51's, Tiffies, Doras and LaLas never dive below 5k. Let the Pony dive to the deck, but you level out above 5k. Nothing un-perked is faster than a 109-K4 above 5k, and you will overtake the Pony much faster and be in a superior position for attack (high 6).

[Krusty]

OMG! Proof that the 109 is porked! See, IK3 posted it right there! It's even on the side of the plane!!!

FYI: Porked is a civilized way of saying f***ed. People can't go around swearing all the time, especially on BBS forums. "Porked" is a relatively recent word with no roots [EDIT: to pork something might literally mean to prepare it in the way one prepares pork meat, or to add pork meat to it, neither of which is remotely related to the common game-related use here] , other than it sounds like the F word, and sometimes folks use "porking" as a synonym with f***ing.

So by saying "it's porked" you're saying "it's f***ed", which means (naturally) it's broken.

Don't go all semantic on us, now. Porked means messed up, broken, "something's wrong", etc and so forth.

[storch]

I'd like to see the 30mm available on the G6 again.  I don't think the G14 is antwhere near as versatile as the old G6 was.  I'm either in the F, G2, G6 or K4.

[Krusty]

In what way, Storch? The G14 has the old G6's canopy. It has the old G6's guns packages. It also has a bit more speed than the old G6, climbs and accelerates a helluva lot faster, and turns with an almost identical turn radius... So it's got all the benefits of the old G6, but with more speed.

What's not to love?

[hubsonfire]

Originally posted by zorstorer
Just wait for the semantic dancing....

ie...."saying it's porked is NOT saying it's broken"

Originally posted by wrag
Porked and BROKE are 2 different things.

I also said IMHO the G14 is correctly modeled.

Selective reposting?

Originally posted by wrag
The G14 was known as the Super Bulge with a top speed of 408. Which BTW I can't get out of our G14.

Originally posted by wrag
Further I am unable to get our G14 to do 408 mph, which was it's reported top speed.  

I guess when you maintain that the G14 is correctly modelled, but not as fast as it's supposed to be, that I got confused. So, as you say, there is nothing wrong with any of the 109s, and this thread can die, correct?

[storch]

I may be wrong here krusty but the old G6 was a heck of a turner compared to the G14.  I only flew the G14 a few times when it was introduced and found it to be sluggish and unresponsive when compared to the G6 which I was in almost daily.  perhaps I should revisit it in the near future but that ws my initial impression when the comparisson was fresh.

[Krusty]

Well, going by the handy dandy comparison page:

http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=109g6&p2=109g14

It's pretty close. G6 tuns a little tighter without flaps, but with flaps they're only 8 feet apart from each other.

[hubsonfire]

Isn't that the "new G6" in the charts?

I also felt the old G6 was a marginally better performer, but being a lackluster 109 pilot on a good day, can't say that with any certainty. I like the newer models, overall, far more than the old.

Oh, and the changes the FM, drag tables, ground effects, etc have undergone are probably factoring in here as well.

[Krusty]

the "old" 109s flopped around because of bugs in the airflow code. Bring it under 250mph and it tip stalled like crazy (same with the "old" 190s). So that's not a valid comparison anymore, since the airflow recoding. Everything flies better after that patch.

EDIT: For the record the old G6 was the worst of all the 109s, in my opinion. It was sluggish in turns to say the best, and the G2 was faster than it, turned far far tighter than it, and had more 20mm ammo than it. Even the old K-4 seemed to turn better than the G-6. The G-6 was the lemon of the group, in my mind. (this amongst all the "old" 109s)

[hubsonfire]

On the contrary Krusty, the opinions are valid only because the models are changed. We couldn't very well have a discussion on the differences if there weren't any differences, could we?

[Bruno]

Originally posted by storch
I may be wrong here krusty but the old G6 was a heck of a turner compared to the G14.  I only flew the G14 a few times when it was introduced and found it to be sluggish and unresponsive when compared to the G6 which I was in almost daily.  perhaps I should revisit it in the near future but that ws my initial impression when the comparisson was fresh.

The G-14 is just a G-6 with MW-50. The G-14 is mentioned in Mtt meetings minutes as the official name of the G-6/MW50 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-14 was the evolution of G-6 with DB605AM with MW-50. The G-14 will be a bit heavier then the G-6 and with out WEP will be only a few mph faster then the G-6. FTH for the G-14 is 16400FT.

The G-10 was the evolution of G-6 coupled with DB605D and MW-50 and supercharger of the DB603. The G-10 was to be an interim aiorcraft while the K-4 came online. However, problems with the DB605D lead to both the K-4 and G-10 entering service about the same time. Some sources say the G-10 was 'made from old G-6 airframes' but this isn't necessarily correct. 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. This is why the twin data plate can be found on some G-10s. Some G-10s were fitted with the cowling from the G-6/As / G-14/AS leading to the confusing designation G-10/AS found in some sources.

A couple of folks, including myself, tested the G-14 when it first came out and there were problems. I posted them in the bug forum and Pyro fixed them in a later patch. See Here: FTH G-14

The G-14/U4 should hit about 410- 415 mph. The last time I tested it in AH I could only get 404 mph at FTH. It seemed to me that the 404 moh is the FTH speed with gondolas but thats what I get with it clean in AH. Still a bit slow but not as bad as when it was first released.

I argued (alone mind you) that the HTC shouldn't drop the G-10 but just fix its FM to match a real life G-10 (428 mph at FTH). The old G-10 was always a K-4 with 2cm option, Pyro said exactly that a while back. A correctly modeled G-10 could have stood in for a G-14/AS (June/July service date as opposed to October with the G-10/K-4) with a G-6 / G-14 / G-10 / K-4 combo it would have filled all the holes in the 109 plane set for ToD. The G-14 isn't a high altitude plane and once the 8 TH AF CT comes around it will be a marginal bomber interceptor and its performance above 16400ft will be well behind the allied fighters. Above 16400ft its just marginally faster then the current G-6. That means there is a huge whole from Feb '43 (G-14 above FTH performance wise) and Oct '44 (K-4). The wholes in the 109 plane set are no greater then the wholes in the rest of the plane set.

That said I have no other criticisms of the 109s.

[EagleDNY]

The 109G10 we had here was nice, but it wasn't actually representative of the real 109G10.  From my reading of all the 109 threads, I think the real issues with 109s are the flap deployment speeds, availability of gondolas on certain models, and engine boost on the K4.

IMHO:
1.  20mm gondolas option should be available on the F4.  From my reading this was the F-4/R6, and although it was limited to bomber interceptor roles, it was available.

2. 20mm gondolas should NOT be available for the K4.  I can't find any pictures of them actually being carried (you can for the F4/R6), and if someone can show me a set on a K4, I'll happily concede the point.

3.  The K4 should have the 1.98ata boost / 2,000 hp engine power on WEP.  There are plenty of docs out there to show that it was the top-end K4 variant, even though it used a more scarce fuel which was in short supply (along with everything else) at that point in the war.  

4.  Flap deployment speeds on all the 109s should be looked at and the flight model adjusted.  There are a number of sources out there for this data, so it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out a more reasonable flap deployment number.  

EagleDNY
$.02

[Krusty]

Bruno, I'm curious...

If the G10 and the K4 came out at about the same time, what hole would it fill?

It wouldn't fill the timeline hole between the G14 and the K4, because by the time the G10 shows up the K4 is already out (and we already have that). It might fill a performance gap, but the performance isn't that different. 20mph is nice, yes, but given what we have I "could live with" what we've got.

[Ball]

run your 109K4 at 80% throttle and fill that speed void left by the G-10.