109G-10

[Karnak]

Mus51,

It would require a lot of flight model work too.  It is not just a K-4 with 20mm options.

[Wmaker]

Bf109G-10 entered service after the Bf109K-4.  G-10 is a hodgepodge of fixes for the G series basically.  Due to its service entry date it isn't very useful for AH.  A Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS would be very nice though.

Considering the number produced and the similar workload as with the P-47M, it is a significant variant which would bring that least loadout options that aren't available with the K-4.

Why?  Its useless to AH.

Pretty silly comment. Not a single WWII/WWI plane would be "useless" in AH.

More than enough 109 variants already. Japanese planeset seriously needs work.

Japanese planeset just like the Soviet planeset seriously needs work. That work load however isn't really comparable with adding one new 109 which practically doesn't need any additional 3D-work. 109 fought from the beginning almost to the end and is the most produced fighter of the war. It is only natural that there is several variants.

Frankly, they don't need to add a Bf109G-14/AS, just change the current Bf109G-14 in the /AS model.

Heh, that would need more 3D-work than adding the G-10.

Not appropriate on Bf109K-4 performance.

Incorrect. There were K-4s produced with the MG151/20.

It would require a lot of flight model work too.  It is not just a K-4 with 20mm options.

Not anymore flight model work than P-47M.

[Krusty]

No, the G10 (if modeled correctly) would need a new flight model. What you flew before was never (NEVER) representative of what a G10 could pull off in real life. It was a K4 always in flght envelope. The G10 would have different climb charts, weights, acclerations, level speeds, milpower speeds, etc.

It's not just a matter of slapping the K4 flight data onto a new plane and tweaking the weights. That's what they did with the P-47N flight model to make the P-47M. It doesn't apply to the G10, IMO.


As an aside: Last time this debate came up a long while back, I believe somebody posted info that almost no K-4s flew with 20mm hub guns.

[Wmaker]

No, the G10 (if modeled correctly) would need a new flight model. What you flew before was never (NEVER) representative of what a G10 could pull off in real life. It was a K4 always in flght envelope. The G10 would have different climb charts, weights, acclerations, level speeds, milpower speeds, etc.

It's not just a matter of slapping the K4 flight data onto a new plane and tweaking the weights. That's what they did with the P-47N flight model to make the P-47M. It doesn't apply to the G10, IMO.

What exactly did I say? Did I say it wouldn't need a new flight model?

I said that it wouldn't need any more work than P-47M. There are G-10s that had the same engine as the K-4 we have now. But I say it now, if the same engine is used, it is a matter of getting the weight and drag correct.

Why would the 47M be based on FM of the N when it is flight model-wise basically a D-40 with more power? N has a different wing.

As an aside: Last time this debate came up a long while back, I believe somebody posted info that almost no K-4s flew with 20mm hub guns.

I haven't seen a specific mention on the numbers produced with the 20mm cannon as there's a good probability that such numbers don't exist at all. But when considering rocket/1000lbs armed P-51D and 37mm armed Il-2 already in the game, I don't see a problem. And, if the 20mm isn't added to the K-4 it is a good incentive to have a G-10. It has been wished many times and it's relatively easy to produce (like the P-47M). It was mass produced and definately saw loads of action.

[Krusty]

The 47M in-game was specifically made from the 47N flight model. That's not debatable. They listed the wing tanks and had the fuel loading tables from the 47N for a while, until those bugs were removed. They used the 47N because it already had that horsepower (exactly the same engine, same output) and all the power curves were already modeled. They then (I infer) changed the wing area and reduced the weight.


Fact of the matter is that 109G-10s had a number of engines. The best of the best, the most polished, refined, and optomistic of examples had the same engine that the 109K4 has in-game. Even with that they still could not match its performance. The others, more representative models, would have significantly lower engine power, requiring their own power curves and their own flight model calculations (climbs, accelerations, fuel consumption, prop thrust, torque, and all that fun stuff that goes into creating a flight model from scratch).

So, no it's not the same as the P-47M example. Unless you want a 109K4 clone with G10 weapons (oh, wait, that's the entire point of this repetitive never-ending G10 request subject anyways, isn't it?)

[Wmaker]

The 47M in-game was specifically made from the 47N flight model. That's not debatable. They listed the wing tanks and had the fuel loading tables from the 47N for a while, until those bugs were removed. They used the 47N because it already had that horsepower (exactly the same engine, same output) and all the power curves were already modeled. They then (I infer) changed the wing area and reduced the weight.

Could well be, I just find it odd. Maybe it is easier change the other parameters instead of the engine. Doesn't really change my point in anyway though.

Fact of the matter is that 109G-10s had a number of engines. The best of the best, the most polished, refined, and optomistic of examples had the same engine that the 109K4 has in-game. Even with that they still could not match its performance. The others, more representative models, would have significantly lower engine power, requiring their own power curves and their own flight model calculations (climbs, accelerations, fuel consumption, prop thrust, torque, and all that fun stuff that goes into creating a flight model from scratch).

So, no it's not the same as the P-47M example. Unless you want a 109K4 clone with G10 weapons (oh, wait, that's the entire point of this repetitive never-ending G10 request subject anyways, isn't it?)

"most optimistic" geeze...

Krusty, your blah blah blahing isn't enough for me to dig hard data to this thread, just not worth it knowing you.

It is exactly like the P-47M. Ie. recycling already done 3D-model for a new variant with slightly different performance ie. flight model. You know just as little about the procedure Pyro goes through with the FMs as I. I'm not gonna start arguing with you how much less or more time the G-10 flight model would take compared to the P-47Ms model. That would be just stupid...exactly as stupid as it is to argue that there would be significant difference there actually.

..................


Wheater or not Pyro sees modelling the G-10 worthwhile is one thing. That's up to Pyro. But saying that it would be useless and comparing the workload to totally new aircraft is just BS.

[dirt911]

  I have started something for sure now.

[Karnak]

Well, it wouldn't be exactly like the P-47M.  The P-47M is a hot rod compared to the other P-47s.  The Bf109G-10 would be a downgrade compared to the Bf109K-4.

[dirt911]

 








 

[whipster22]

 

[Wmaker]

Well, it wouldn't be exactly like the P-47M. 

It should be quite clear what I meant.

The P-47M is a hot rod compared to the other P-47s.  The Bf109G-10 would be a downgrade compared to the Bf109K-4.

In terms of speed it would be downgrade. In terms of climbrate it would be practically identical compared to the K-4. The most common reason why people are asking the G-10 seems to be a want for a latewar 109 with a 20mm fuselage cannon that has better high alt performance than our current G-14. Considering that around 2600 G-10s were made and the fact that it wouldn't be very rescource intensive addition I don't find it at all an unreasonable request. Considering that not everybody has mastered the use of the MK108 cannon but still like to fly 109s, I'm sure it would see very good amount of use compared to the time it would take to implement. Therefore I see it as "a cost effective" addition, much like the P-47M was.

Also, G-14/AS and G-10 with 605AS engine are practically same planes anyway.

[Ardy123]

I would prefer a G14/AS and a G6/AS, esp for the scenarios.
My understanding is that there were 3 engines used...
1) DB 605 A(M)   - 1435 PS(non-wep), 1800 PS(wep)
2) DB 605 AS(M) - 1800 PS(wep)
3) DB 605 ASC    - 2000 PS(wep)

The difference being the fuel octane they used. The AS(M) used B4 and the ASC used C3.

Now the K4 did not have any of the stated engines above, it had either

1)DB 605 DB -  1850PS (non-wep)
2)DB 605 DC -  2000 PS (non-wep)

and again the 605DB was for B4 fuel and the DB 605 DC had C3 fuel.

Now, which engines are modeled today in the G14 & K4. The difference between the a G14 with the DB 605A(M)n and a G14 with the DB 605 ASC could be a noticeable performance impact considering the 200PS difference in engine output. Also, the ASC being a 'high alt' version, should also improve its high alt performance.

[Karnak]

I would prefer a G14/AS and a G6/AS, esp for the scenarios.

This.

[pervert]

If AS was just a different engine option why not just have it as a option selection in the hanger for the planes we have now?

[Karnak]

If AS was just a different engine option why not just have it as a option selection in the hanger for the planes we have now?

Loadout options aren't capable of doing that sort of stuff, different power curves or added armor.