A shame...

[Babalonian]

... we won't have a proper 109G-10 for frames 3 and 4 in the upcoming scenario.      

[Krusty]

No need for one...... 

[IamSalem]

...or that we dont have blue nosed 51Bs for 352nd 

[Karnak]

... we won't have a proper 109G-10 for frames 3 and 4 in the upcoming scenario.      

Your implication is that the Bf109G-10 would fill a gap.  This is false as it would not.

If you want a gap filling Bf109, ask for a Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS.  The Bf109G-10 entered service about a month after the Bf109K-4.

[Krusty]

A G-6/AS could fill a lot of gaps. As early as the G-4 and G-5 you had the high-alt superchargers showing up. They weren't as widespread, but they weren't rare either. A G-6/AS could serve from '42 all the way to '45 in Aces High setups.

[Debrody]

As i know, the g-10 had the same DB 605D as the k-4, but with the old g-airframe (with improved gun cowling, of course). As a result, it was almost as heavy as the k-4, but couldnt run as fast. The g-14 was only a standardised late-production g-6 with Erla canopy and MW50. The AS engines could perform the best at 25-27K (not sure), so the g6/as would fit much better for the events and scenarios as a real high-altitude 109.