Author Topic: 109g10 (Read 2292 times)

croduh · « **on:** November 30, 2007, 05:17:32 AM »

I am making a map for SEA and hopefully some snapshots will be run on it.Problem is most of the messerschmidt's owned by ZNDH were g10s, which we don't have?What can be used to replace them?How big was the difference between g6,g10 and k4?

Can i use overskinned k4s?

Urchin · « **Reply #1 on:** November 30, 2007, 07:43:55 AM »

Our K-4 is the exact same thing as what we had for the G-10. They renamed it as a K-4.

The G-10 was basically an attempt to take older G series 109s and refit them to K-4 standards.

Xasthur · « **Reply #2 on:** November 30, 2007, 08:18:17 AM »

Not exactly true, Urchin.

The G-10 was designed to be a faster/better high alt performance 109.

The K4 was introduced in an attempt to standardise the production of the 109, as it had become a mess.

The ended up rolling before the G10 if i'm not mistaken and was improvement upon the G-10.

Faster, a few aerodynamics improvements and a pressurised cockpit.

Croduh, the closest 109 to the G-10 is the K4.

all G-10 skins are submitted as K4s ingame.

Kweassa · « **Reply #3 on:** November 30, 2007, 08:45:49 AM »

G6 < G14 < G10 < K4

The G-10, would be somewhere in between our K4 and G14. If you have to substitute it with one plane, I'd do it with the K-4 than the G-14.

croduh · « **Reply #4 on:** November 30, 2007, 12:29:48 PM »

IT has been long time since we lost 109g10 from game, i forgot, was there difference in gunas (i remember g10 having gondolas?)

Xasthur · « **Reply #5 on:** November 30, 2007, 01:24:14 PM »

I believe the G10 was fitted with several field mods, including wing mounted gondolas.

I have seen photos of 30mm gondolas, I'm not sure if they were fitted to the G10 but it would seem likely to me. 20mm gondolas were more common so they were probably used too.

The G10 was also fitted with a 20 or 30mm cannon in the hub.

Denniss · « **Reply #6 on:** November 30, 2007, 04:19:33 PM »

There were only 20 mm gondola guns, 30 mm MK 108 were only tested as wooden mockup but were planned for K-6.

The standard G-10 hat the standard MG 151/20 hub gun, the G-10/U4 had the MK 108 (as did the G-6/U4 and G-14/U4).

It is a common myth to believe older airframes were refurbished/upgraded to G-10 specs, they were all new built aircraft. The confusion may have started with the initial airframes used for G-10 production. The initial airframes were originally assigned to G-14 production but were diverted and used for G-10.

Xasthur · « **Reply #7 on:** November 30, 2007, 10:37:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Denniss
There were only 20 mm gondola guns, 30 mm MK 108 were only tested as wooden mockup but were planned for K-6.

I have photographic evidence that says otherwise.

Osprey Books 'Bf 109 Defence of the Reich Aces'.

Mk 108 cannon in an under-wing gondola.

my image storage site is not working at the moment but the image is on page 51 if anyone else has this book.

The K6 was to feature Mk 108 cannons IN the wings, not in gondolas.

Raptor · « **Reply #8 on:** December 01, 2007, 01:04:22 AM »

Croduh don't design a terrain around a specific plane. Leave field/plane assignments to the CMs in the events

Xasthur · « **Reply #9 on:** December 01, 2007, 06:52:25 AM »

Viking · « **Reply #10 on:** December 01, 2007, 11:29:41 AM »

The G-10 was not a production plane, but a factory conversion of older G models to K-4 standards. Unfortunately for the Luftwaffe the G-10's were far from "standard" in any way, most just incorporating some, but not all of the K-4 upgrades. The G-10's performance depended mostly on which engine it got.

So the "family tree" should look something like this:

G-6/G-6AS > G-14/G-14AS > K-4 > G-10

My only gripe with the 109 plane set is that we have none of the AS model G-6 or G-14. A true representation of the airwar in western Europe is therefore impossible. One third of all 109's produced had AS engines or the DB 605D (K-4/G-10).

wrag · « **Reply #11 on:** December 01, 2007, 03:03:50 PM »

IMHO (i've said this before)

Our current G14 SEEMS to preform best BLOW 16K. Many paid a price for that in the DGS scenario (IMHO)

Flyin that thing at 30K + was .... ugh, wallowed and had difficulty maintaining alt much less fighting!

Our K4 SEEMS to preform best ABOVE 6k. Compared to the G14 was a joy to fly at 30k+ and you could fight with it up there!

We lack a plane!

IMHO the G10 with a slightly altered FM from the K4 ( about 25mph slower at altitude maybe) would be perfect for scenarios and such. It would fit right in!

Plus the G10 was a HIGH alt fighter!

The G14, from what I've read, was a GROUND attack plane. In some cases it was reported to carry 2 gondolas under each wing and in rare cases even another 2 gondolas in some cases for a total of 5 20mm cannons, and a 500k bomb. This was during it's ground attack role!

Yes in a pinch the G14 was used against high alt bombers.

As to the field modifications thing....

the F4 was equipped with gonds (many were used to attack allied bombers during the early years of the allied bombing efforts) and used to have that option in AH but at some point that option was removed. Perhaps this was due to complaints of it's effectiveness? (loved the F4 with gonds!)

lets see, 109 ALL used to have excellent down elevator performance (which BTW was/is SUPPOSED? to be the case) And could do a snap roll that was difficult for other planes to follow. But when AHII came out that was GONE.

109g6 used to have the 30mm options but was removed. Not sure why this happened.

109g10 was a great plane! Had options for a 20mm or 30mm hub and you could add 20mm gonds. Flew poorly with the gonds mind you but oh could it hit! (BTW referred HTC to an article about a current comparison of a G10 (ORIGINAL) to a pony, and 2 aviations greats both claimed the G10 OUT TURNED the pony! The pony could out run the G10 of course.)

Would love a slightly slower G10 with the 20mm or 30mm hub option and a gonds option.

IMHO would make the CT and scenarios much more enjoyable if these things were put back in BUT....................

Guess all the noob pony, spit, n lala7 drivers cried to much?????

What? they want a free ride or something?

The Allies won the war so their planes must have been UBER?

Superiority thing? Allied rides were just better? Only by a small margin. AND that margin isn't enough, and IMHO shouldn't be enough, to protect a noob pilot in AHII.

GEEZ it's like these people automatically think the allies had it EASY in the airwar during WWII?

IF SO, NOT TRUE! MANY Allied pilots did not RTB due to LW planes and pilots!

The fightin was HARD! and furious and dangerous for ALL involved.

Several writers have made reference to the NUMBERS put forward by the Allied effort being a telling factor in the war. Get that? NUMBERS! Yes the NUMBER of planes flying and fighting on the Allied side was a BIG contributing factor!

Sorta like the Sherman against the Tiger. The Allies figured they would lose 3 or 4 Shermans for every Tiger taken out. They didn't try to field a superior tank (at 1st anyway) they fielded MORE tanks. And overwhelmed with NUMBERS.

Now I see someone wants the pony to turn better? IMHO it turns about where it should?

Viking · « **Reply #12 on:** December 01, 2007, 03:28:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by wrag
IMHO (i've said this before)

Our current G14 SEEMS to preform best BLOW 16K. Many paid a price for that in the DGS scenario (IMHO)

Flyin that thing at 30K + was .... ugh, wallowed and had difficulty maintaining alt much less fighting!

Our K4 SEEMS to preform best ABOVE 6k. Compared to the G14 was a joy to fly at 30k+ and you could fight with it up there!

We lack a plane!

IMHO the G10 with a slightly altered FM from the K4 ( about 25mph slower at altitude maybe) would be perfect for scenarios and such. It would fit right in!

Plus the G10 was a HIGH alt fighter!

No the old G-10 had the same performance as the K-4 we have now (452 mph at altitude), but you are right in that we lack a plane. We lack a G-6/G-14 with the DB 605AS/ASM engine. That was the high-alt version of the DB 605A (using the bigger blower of the DB 603). The G-6 and G-14 we now have were the low-medium alt version. The AS 109's flew almost exclusively in the west against the USAF.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #13 on:** December 01, 2007, 04:14:40 PM »

Quote

The G14, from what I've read, was a GROUND attack plane. In some cases it was reported to carry 2 gondolas under each wing and in rare cases even another 2 gondolas in some cases for a total of 5 20mm cannons, and a 500k bomb. This was during it's ground attack role!

Further research definitely required.

Denniss · « **Reply #14 on:** December 01, 2007, 06:27:21 PM »

The maximum amount of gondolas carried by the Bf 109 was two, one per wing. Do not mix it up with the Fw 190, it was able to carry a twin-MG 151 pod instead of the outer-wing MG 151. The G-14 was not able to carry a 500 kg bomb, if any 109 was able to carry 500 kg bombs then the K-4.

And, as I said before, the G-10 was a production aircraft and not old repaired/refurbished G-series airframes with a new engine. And almost all G-10 had a DB 605D engine, D-2, DM or DB. A very low number may have got an AS subtype especially at the end of the war when they used what was avaliable.
That's an old myth repeated over and over and it's almost impossible to remove this BS.

And, BTW, the K-4 only reached 715 km/h (444 mph) with a production propeller. The 452 mph figure was only achieved with an experimental prop.