Author Topic: 109g-10 (Read 3864 times)

-pjk-- · « **Reply #30 on:** January 29, 2008, 11:06:47 AM »

So, 1x20mm + 2x13mm option for you Anaxoras? Most are after 3x20mm + 2x13mm when they want g10:D

That 30mm potatogun works just nice in K4;)

JScore · « **Reply #31 on:** January 29, 2008, 02:55:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
It could work that way too.

The Bf109G-14/AS (or /ASM; indicating that it is mounted with a DB605ASM engine) is quoted at 348 mph at seal level, and 423 mph at 25,000 ft. Although the G-10 is mounted with a DB605D, the performance is very comparable. Also, considering the K-4 tops out in max speed at 22k, the higher FTH is a clear indicator of the high-alt /AS engine.

Therefore, I'd expect the Bf109G-14/AS could very closely stand in for the G-10 when required to do so - thus, it is a good choice.

I agree with you for the most part. But, why consider a -14/AS, which was fairly rare, when the -10 was mass produced, and a front-line combatant. This whole post has been great, but can anyone really give a straight answer for why it isn't in-game right now? *cough* .....HTC jump in here anytime..... *cough*

Anaxogoras · « **Reply #32 on:** January 29, 2008, 08:12:37 PM »

Quote

I agree with you for the most part. But, why consider a -14/AS, which was fairly rare, when the -10 was mass produced, and a front-line combatant.

What do you mean by "mass produced?"

There were approximatley 1000 G6/AS aircraft delivered, and even more G14/AS delivered. I don't have my books in front of me, but I can give you more accurate numbers when I get home.

One reason for a G6/AS is that it would be available for scenarios that take place at a far earlier time than a G-10 would be.

Quote

That 30mm potatogun works just nice in K4

But more so against weak opponents pjk.

Against someone like you the MG151 is a better weapon.

Xasthur · « **Reply #33 on:** January 29, 2008, 08:22:47 PM »

The only thing the gondolas would be useful for would be buff hunting.

IIRC the G-14/AS would be a better addition in that case as it had a higher performance ceiling?

JScore · « **Reply #34 on:** January 29, 2008, 08:55:33 PM »

Actually, Anaxogoras, if you have some good documentation for production numbers, please post them. I have a rough number of approx. 2600 G-10's produced, but that is off of a website, so I'll take that with a grain of salt. My main reason for campaigning the -10 is that it would have more MA value than over a high-alt performer such as the AS equiped -14's. Furthermore, if the -10 was in-game at one time, I think that justifies it more so than modeling an entire new aircraft. I wasn't around AH when it WAS in the game, so maybe some of the old salts could jump in here and explain why it was removed.

Anaxogoras · « **Reply #35 on:** January 30, 2008, 08:28:21 AM »

Wishful thinking always colors my memory:

According to Prien and Rodeike , about 1000 G14/AS aircraft were produced, and they say that's more than the number of G6/AS.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #36 on:** January 30, 2008, 09:08:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by JScore
I wasn't around AH when it WAS in the game, so maybe some of the old salts could jump in here and explain why it was removed.

I dont think anyone really knows. See this thread for example.

There are some possibilities:

1.) The community demanded a K4. They got a K4. The G10 may have been removed because it was basically just a K4 with a 20mm hub option and a 20mm gondola option. HTC may have not seen the point in keeping it.

2.) The G10 is arguably not as 'standardized' as the K4 and HTC may have wanted to include an aircraft whose performance figures werent open to so much debate as the result of deviation.

3.) The 109G10, in the right hands, was uber. Far, far more potent than the K4 is, and thats due 100% to armament, IMO. The 30mm works wonderfully well - if you can hit with it. No matter what anyone says in an effort to make themselves appear to be the ultimate WWII sim pilot, the tater tosser reduces your ability to effectively kill a target beyond 300 yards, at the maximum, and deflection shooting is a crap shoot, at best. If you bring back lethality in the 400-600 range, in the form of one or three 151's, youve basically got a flying engine that climbs like a raped ape all the while possessing 75% of the hitting power of an A8. HTC may have simply removed it for playability reasons.

Much like the arena caps and why they are 'necessary,' however, Ive never really seen a 'real' explanation surrounding the disappearance of what was my absolute favorite ride years ago. If a reason was communicated, maybe I could get on board with it. The lack of communication, however, spawns threads like this one.

I agree that it doesnt seem as though all that much would need to be done to put it back into the game. Use the K4 cockpit, get some new skins going, maybe change a few parts of the model and kick it back out. Either that or give us 20mm options in the K4. Either way, Im happy, and I think for very minimal effort, HTC could make a lot of other people happy, too.

JScore · « **Reply #37 on:** January 30, 2008, 10:30:54 AM »

Hear, hear! Well said Saur.

TUXC · « **Reply #38 on:** January 30, 2008, 12:49:57 PM »

Ideally I'd love to have both the g-14/AS and g-10, but if I had to pick one I'd rather see a g-14/AS than a g-10 for the following reasons:

- we already have the k-4 which is basically a faster g-10 with a 30mm hub cannon
- g-10 entered service at the same time as the k-4, with the g-14/as entering service months before either
- g-14/AS has similar performance to g-10 at WEP
- g-14/AS weighs less than g-10 (I may be wrong about this one, but I think g-10 has similar weight to k-4)
- g-14/AS could have 20mm hub cannon and gondolas like the g-10
- g-14/AS and g-10 look almost exactly the same, so no difference there
- finally, 14 is a bigger number than 10, so it must be a better plane, right?

Also, has anyone ever seen a speed or climb chart for a Bf 109g-10? If so could they please post a scan or link?

JScore · « **Reply #39 on:** January 30, 2008, 02:15:04 PM »

In response to TUXC, the only speed/climb charts I've seen of the G-10 are on the OLD side-by-side comparison charts for AH. I've posted a link, but again, as this was before my time, I don't know if there have been FM changes.

http://www.musketeers.org/kumori/planeset.html

TUXC · « **Reply #40 on:** January 30, 2008, 03:04:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by JScore
In response to TUXC, the only speed/climb charts I've seen of the G-10 are on the OLD side-by-side comparison charts for AH. I've posted a link, but again, as this was before my time, I don't know if there have been FM changes.

http://www.musketeers.org/kumori/planeset.html

Yeah, that's all I've seen too. I'm hoping for some actual primary source test data. I don't think that any 109g-10 ever had that performance as those numbers are what our current 109k is modeled on. The g-10 will be slower than the k-4 since ever though it has the same engine, it has higher drag caused by a non-retractable tail wheel and no main wheel covers.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #41 on:** January 30, 2008, 06:22:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TUXC
Yeah, that's all I've seen too. I'm hoping for some actual primary source test data. I don't think that any 109g-10 ever had that performance as those numbers are what our current 109k is modeled on. The g-10 will be slower than the k-4 since ever though it has the same engine, it has higher drag caused by a non-retractable tail wheel and no main wheel covers.

While true, top speed has never been the K4's primary asset - acceleration and climb rate are 1 and 2. The former should be only marginally affected and the latter, almost entirely unaffected.

TUXC · « **Reply #42 on:** January 30, 2008, 06:39:02 PM »

"I don't think that any 109g-10 ever had that performance as those numbers are what our current 109k is modeled on."

I was talking about speed when I mentioned this, not climb and acceleration. The g-14 we have does both of those as well as the k-4 anyways at low and medium altitudes.

wrag · « **Reply #43 on:** January 30, 2008, 07:16:22 PM »

Been over this a few times..........

I would LOVE a G10 and repeatedly stated I did NOT want a K4!!!

http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=193234&highlight=109G10

wrag · « **Reply #44 on:** January 30, 2008, 07:33:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TUXC
"I don't think that any 109g-10 ever had that performance as those numbers are what our current 109k is modeled on."

I was talking about speed when I mentioned this, not climb and acceleration. The g-14 we have does both of those as well as the k-4 anyways at low and medium altitudes.

Sorry I must disagree with you on this statement in PART.

The G14 we have is the LOW alt version!

It REALLY suffers above 17K.

Had to fly it in the DGS during the 1st frame at 30K and it preformed very POORLY!

We got the K4 all frames after that 1st one.

Made a HUGH difference IMHO.

Got a book that says the G10 could climb to 20 K in 6 minutes.

Many sites claim the K4 was basically an attempt to standardize all the g10 and g14 variants that proceeded it.

Also the G10 came out after the G14 and just BEFORE the K4 according to much of what I read.

IMHO AH needs a G10 badly! If for no other reason then the coming CT will need it!

It SHOULD fit right in between the G14 and the K4 AND be perhaps 25mph slower then the K4.

OR I would love a K4 with the 20mm option and perhaps the 20mm gonds option.