Author Topic: 109g-10 (Read 3924 times)

TUXC · « **Reply #45 on:** January 30, 2008, 10:08:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by wrag
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.

Wrag,

I never said I didn't think we need the g-10 because the we already have the g-14. I said I'd rather see a g-14/AS added before the g-10 for the reasons I posted above. The 109g-14/AS had the db605ASM engine which gave better altitude performance than the standard g-14 with the db605AM engine and similar performance to the 109g-10.

g-14/AS performance:
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/109G_DB-G6AS_wMW/109G_605ASMW50.jpg

As you can see, top speed is similar to the g-10. I don't believe the k-4 was ever equipped with a 20mm hub cannon or gondolas, so the fastest 109s with those options would be g-10 or g-14/AS, both of which have top speeds in the 425-430mph range. G-10 performs a little better at low altitude, but I believe it also weighs almost as much as a k-4. Since the g-14/AS is lighter, it should be a little more maneuverable than the g-10. The g-10 does perform a little better at military power and is a little faster at lower altitudes than the g-14/AS, but by the time the g-10 it entered service (after some delays) the k-4 was also becoming operational and is faster than the g-10 at all altitudes.

Ideally we should get a g-6/AS or g-5/AS (410-415mph @27000ft), g-14/AS (425-430mph @23000ft), and g-10 (425-430mph @22000ft). Then we'd have every 109 for 1944-45 special events and CT on the western front. As it is now we don't have any of the high altitude 109 versions which were used from spring of 1944 until late '44 when the k-4 entered service.

Edit
Also, see: http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/systems/engine/as_vs_d/as_vs_d.htm
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/systems/engine/as_vs_d/asd2.htm
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/#Gustav

JScore · « **Reply #46 on:** January 30, 2008, 10:51:18 PM »

Tux, I think you make a very valid argument. But, in terms of raw usage, the -10 would be a far better MA contender than the other models you listed. I don't doubt your numbers, I'm just saying that those high-alt versions would probably be taking up hangar space right next to the 152. Nothing wrong with the 152, it's a fine bird. But in the video game/flight sim world, she's left out in the cold. Just the name of the game. I'm assuming the powers at be go to great pains in accuately modeling new a/c. I hate seeing all that time and effort go into a/c that are relegated to either historical events or the back row in the MA hangar. A guy sees a lot of posts on these boards of adding this, or that plane so that, "then we would have X years covered for historical events". Yes, it would be nice to be able to say that, but the late-war MA is where this game pays the bills. Why not add a/c that would directly diversify that arena's usual suspects? Ooops, my rant-o-meter just went off. Sry.

DaddyAck · « **Reply #47 on:** January 31, 2008, 04:21:12 AM »

I think the 109G-6AS/U4 would be a great 109 for the Late war arena. It is fast, has C3 fuel and the GM1 N2O2 injection to the intake of the supercharger to boost it's high altitude performance. Aditionally it has the 30mm Mk.108 firing through the drive shaft. What is not to love about that? Lets re-cap C3 fuel (100 octante), GM1 (High altitude boost), 30mm Mk.108. I say yepper to more 109s with the DB605ASM, Lord knows they are sorely needed, the ones we have are good enough for low to mid altitude running on B4 and WM50.

Adidionally does any one know if we have the Bf.109K-4 with the DB.605DB with B4 fuel + MW50 setup creating 1850PS at 1,8 ata at takeoff or the Bf.109K-4C3 with the DB.605DC with C3 fuel + MW50 setup creating 2000PS at 1,98ata at takeoff? Just wondering as this would really have an effect on game play and validade the exsistance of the G-10 again.

Xasthur · « **Reply #48 on:** January 31, 2008, 07:20:07 AM »

I'd be happy with any new 109 introduction, be it G-10, G-14AS, G-6AS or G-5As.

All have valid reasons for addition and would require minimal effort to code and model.

I also volunteer my services as a skinner for these new aircraft, I have a few photos for reference and I have more in the mail as we speak.

JScore · « **Reply #49 on:** January 31, 2008, 08:47:09 AM »

Well, at least that end is covered, lol.

Anaxogoras · « **Reply #50 on:** February 01, 2008, 02:33:54 AM »

Quote

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.

Hmmm, sounds like the La-7.

Bring back the 109G-10.

JScore · « **Reply #51 on:** February 01, 2008, 07:24:41 AM »

Sure as sh$% does, lol.

DaddyAck · « **Reply #52 on:** February 05, 2008, 09:35:58 PM »

I liked the G-10, I prefer it to the K-4. that is unless it is a K-4C3 wich it is not. I still would prefer a G-6AS/U4 over all.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #53 on:** February 05, 2008, 09:41:05 PM »

Hartmann stated many times that he hated going to the K4. He liked the Gustav's and preferred the G-10 as his favorite performer.

DaddyAck · « **Reply #54 on:** February 06, 2008, 10:06:52 AM »

The Bf.109G-6AS/U4 is basically a G-10, it even has a 30mm Mk.108 in the spinner.

gatt · « **Reply #55 on:** February 07, 2008, 10:14:28 AM »

Quote

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.

LOL, yes, to many whines from buff drivers. The gondolas armed G-10 was the best at scrambling and buff killing. Especially those score-potatos going for the HQ's at 30K from one side of the map to the other.

Krusty · « **Reply #56 on:** February 07, 2008, 10:27:43 AM »

Why was the G10 removed?

First, you must answer this:

Why was the G10 added in the first place?

ANSWER: HTC had the data for the K-4. They even modeled it in WB. Same data. So waaaaay back, when the planeset was VERY small, they added the 109K-4. The idea was that they could get 2 planes for 1 model if they just stuck a 20mm nose gun option and "called it a G-10" (instead of a K4). The G10s had lesser performance than the K4. Some varried wildy but even the best were still below the specs our K4 has. So in all but name we've always had a K-4 model. Always.

The point was that the planeset was extremely limited, and HTC wanted to give the idea of having 2 planes but really only having to do the work to model one of them.

Why was the G10 removed?
ANSWER: It was never really there to remove in the first place. Now that HTC has the time and ability to flesh out the woefully lacking planeset in many areas (and let's face it, spitfires and 109s were 2 of the worst representative planesets before they got updated), they can include specific models. These models will apply to specific timelines also, so that use in SEA and events is better facilitated. One major problem with the old 109G6 was that it had a 30mm gun, which the early 1943 models didn't have. 1/3 the total had this, but only the LATER models of this total had it. So it was extremely over-powered when setting up events pitting it against early '43 bombers and the like. For the same reason we lost the gondolas on the 109F. It wasn't representative for the time frame involved.

You can see there's a reason to choose a specific model, and not lump all features into every plane.

Why does it NOT MATTER?
ANSWER: Look at the power curves. The 109G14 closely matches the K-4 in performance up to 16k. It even out-climbs it for a low-alt band below 5k. This G14 has a 20mm hub option, a 30mm hub option, gondolas option, and WGr 21 option.

IF YOU WANT THE G10 JUST FLY THE G14!!!!!!!

(p.s. Don't say "but at 25k it's not as good!" because if you are hunting bombers at 25k the gondolas will screw you over til it FEELS like you're in a G14 anyways! Any action at that alt should only be done with a single hub 30mm gun, and viola the K-4 already has this!

wrag · « **Reply #57 on:** February 07, 2008, 01:09:35 PM »

Been around this stuff with Krusty before.

IMHO talk like this from someone that INSISTED you burn off the AUX tank in the A8 and F8 before you burn off the AFT.............

????

I have ALWAYS (when I remembered to burn off a tank) burned the AFT tank 1st.

Talked with WideWing he said he SEEMED to recall AFT 1st in the 190a8 and f8!

AND From my own experience flyin either plane, burning off AFT before AUX makes a BIGGER, GREATER, and QUICKER difference to the 190 a8 or f8 handling.

So I must say here that IMHO I'm not real sure Mr. Krusty knows what he's talking about when it concerns LW Iron.

As to the differences between the K4, G14, and G10.

K4 top speed reported as just over 450. @24K?

G14 top speed reported as about 408. @ 16.5K

G10 top speed reported at a bit over 425. @ 20K

Reports of the G10 climbing to 20k in 6 minutes FLAT!

SOOOO there is a difference!

If HTC choses to give us a G10 it would fit right in between the G14 and the K4 AND for CT and the MA be a IMHO extremely viable aircraft from about 5K up given the G14 low level performance figures.

I would LOVE having the 20mm hub cannon option and possibly the gonds BACK!

Also the performance of the a G10 at 25K or higher even with GONDS should EXCEED what we had to put up with in a G14 at those alts in the DGS scenario. REMEMBER that 25K is nearly 10K higher then the G14 we have was designed for!

Suggest you try out a yak up there!

Also a book I have says G14 was used MAINLY for GROUND ATTACK! Thus it had MORE armour! Thus it was HEAVIER then either the G10 or the K4?

Also the G10 is reported as OUT turning the P51D during REAL flight test by 2 well known individuals in an article in Aircraft Journal. I pointed HTC to said article.

P.S. I tried the top speed thing a few months back and I was unable to get a G14 to exceed 400 MPH straight and level???? Am I not waiting long enough for the plane to reach full speed? Note I did not dive to get speed I took off and climbed to 16k, no gonds no DT and went level and waited awhile then went to wep.

If as someone suggested it is a playability issue....

WHY?

Many Allied Pilots did NOT return from missions due to LW planes and Pilots especially in the earlier years of the war.

It was NOT EZ for them!

Not even a little bit!

Numbers helped the Allied side a GREAT DEAL!

To try and pad things to favor allied ( AND I want to state here that I'm Not sure HTC would do such a thing ) or deny it is IMHO an INSULT to the bravery, daring, and ability of those Allied pilots!

Also it would REMOVE some of the challenge to flying Allied rides. Kinda an EZ mode thing for those flying Allied.

Krusty · « **Reply #58 on:** February 07, 2008, 01:20:57 PM »

Wrag: It's physics with the 190. The aux is behind the aft. The aft and fwd are right next to each other. The reason burning all of your "AFT" helps a bit more than burning all of your "aux" is because it's noticably larger -- given 100% internal you've lost more weight overall. Doesn't make the balance better, just makes your plane lighter. Used to be (long ago) the fue burn order was reversed. That was fixed due to player request. Now just leave it on auto select, always.

This is how it's modeled in-game, right now:
http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=109k4&p2=109g14

You'll note that at 16k (g14s best speed) there's only about 10mph difference between it and the K-4. Like I said in my previous post. You'll note that climb rate is almost equal up to 21k, and doesn't drop much at all past that.

Like I said, folks only want "g10" for weapons options, which the G14 already has. Same performance up to 16-20k (depending what curve you're looking at) and if you took gondolas up that high you would feel like you were in the g14 anyways.

Please don't insult me. You got a point say it. I've made my point. Whether I've made it clearly or not, that's something I can try to clarify.

gatt · « **Reply #59 on:** February 07, 2008, 02:14:47 PM »

Krusty mate, you make me think you have never ever hunted buffs at 25K+ with the old G-10. You'd never say that a gondolas armed G-10 is similar to a light G-14. Its a sin.