Bf-109F-4B Fighter-Bomber

[Tank-Ace]

So the B-models were factory-built to carry the bombs, as opposed to field-upgraded?


If thats the case, then its entirely irrelevent unless there were differences in preformance.

[Guppy35]

We do have the E-4B

[Denniss]

Early E-series had no wirings or other preparations to carry external loads, the B-models were either new-built at the factory or rebuilt/modified at the depot level.

[Devil 505]

Sorry I haven't researched the 109F model lately, can the 151/15 be added to the late F-4? or is it strictly F-1/F-2 which is totally different variation and require a new remodeling for the F4?

I'm sure that it would be possible to physically mount the weapon, but the 15 mm versions were phased out during F-2 production.

As for modelling the F-2 in game, the supercharger intake and oil cooler would have to be changed. I believe that there would also be a drop in engine power.

But the gun would be the largest difference, as the 20mm mine shell was 6-8 times more explosive than the 15mm round, which still relied on kinetic impact to do most of its damage.

from wiki

To create the MG 151/20 round, Mauser simply necked out the MG 151/15's case (i.e. enlarged the opening of the case where the shell fits in) to fit a 20 mm shell—which, incidentally, was the same shell used in the MG FF cannon—and shortened the length of the case so that the total length of the complete round was the same for both calibres. These measures simplified conversion of the cannon between calibres, so that it was possible to convert the 15 mm to the 20 mm MG 151/20 simply by changing the barrel and making other small modifications. However, this simple modification-based approach was not without its drawbacks. The relatively short case of the 20 mm round, coupled with the larger and heavier 20 mm projectile cost some muzzle velocity (950 m/s for the 15 mm round vs. 800 m/s for the 20 mm round—a 16% drop).[citation needed] However, in comparison to the earlier MG FF cannon, the MG 151 had a higher muzzle velocity which gave it a more predictable trajectory and higher impact velocity/longer range.
 
Nevertheless, the extra HE capacity was considered well worth the loss in muzzle velocity. The basic 20 mm HE round, for example, had almost 30% more explosive content by weight than the 15 mm shell. Furthermore, the MG 151/20 also used the Minengeschoß ("mine shell"), which was made using drawn steel (similar to making cartridge cases) instead of being cast, as was typically done to make cannon shells at the time. The result was a shell with very thin yet strong walls, and hence a very large explosive (or incendiary) capacity. Indeed, the 20 mm M-shell carried 6-8 times the amount of explosives contained in the 15 mm shell.

[Butcher]

I'm sure that it would be possible to physically mount the weapon, but the 15 mm versions were phased out during F-2 production.

As for modelling the F-2 in game, the supercharger intake and oil cooler would have to be changed. I believe that there would also be a drop in engine power.

But the gun would be the largest difference, as the 20mm mine shell was 6-8 times more explosive than the 15mm round, which still relied on kinetic impact to do most of its damage.

from wiki

ah good info, thanks

[Krusty]

Ignore the commentary about the gondolas being removed to match parity with the spitV. That simply is a whiner's regret at not having them anymore.


Fact of the matter is that only so many airframes came from the factory with the wings even capable to fit them -- this does NOT mean they were fitted! Just that the wings had the proper setup.

Actual airframes that carried them were few and far far between. They were unrepresentative of the Bf109F model.


We did, however, have a bomb rack. At the time we did NOT have a server command to limit ord for setups and scenarios, so I assume this was to limit the planes to pure fighter modes for historic setups, etc. I think that since we NOW have the capability to limit ord via CM setup, we have a good chance of getting the bomb rack back on the 109F. I would love to see it, personally.

[Karnak]

240 or so F-4 came from the W.N.F. factory with the R-1 modification and we used to have it till the silly little stink-in spit 5 got neutered....... it certainly wouldn't be fair to have a 109f with gondies  
Used to have the egg aswell

It was taken to make a fair match up for the spit 5 not because it didn't see use.... it saw plenty.

You do realize that the Spitfire Mk V was 'neutered' at the request of a number of us Spitfire fans so as to make the progression of Spitfires in AH smoother, right?  You do realize that there was absolutely no request or mention or care about the Bf109F-4, or any other Bf109, when we posted our recommendations about the Spitfire lineup, right?

Unlike some people, we were concerned about historical accuracy, not getting the bestest thing possible so that we could win scenarios by flying aircraft that are better than what was had.

[Megalodon]

You do realize that the Spitfire Mk V was 'neutered' at the request of a number of us Spitfire fans so as to make the progression of Spitfires in AH smoother, right?  You do realize that there was absolutely no request or mention or care about the Bf109F-4, or any other Bf109, when we posted our recommendations about the Spitfire lineup, right?

Unlike some people, we were concerned about historical accuracy, not getting the bestest thing possible so that we could win scenarios by flying aircraft that are better than what was had.

 Spitfire Phanns  

Get ready

Lurks,

Da DAA, Da DA, Da DAA, DUM



 In all Honesty .. at the time I had been here about 4-5 months maybe more or less ...I wasn't attending the Boards at that time and didn't even relise it was happening to the 109F-4 till it was to late .....I had just been enjoying it, and if I did at the time it was to late ... of course my "friends" were always very supportive.  

[Butcher]

You do realize that the Spitfire Mk V was 'neutered' at the request of a number of us Spitfire fans so as to make the progression of Spitfires in AH smoother, right?  You do realize that there was absolutely no request or mention or care about the Bf109F-4, or any other Bf109, when we posted our recommendations about the Spitfire lineup, right?

Unlike some people, we were concerned about historical accuracy, not getting the bestest thing possible so that we could win scenarios by flying aircraft that are better than what was had.

Spit V was a little over-exaggerated, 190a5 should easily slaughter it at alt - which the A6m3 recently got nerfed to be a little more you know historical.

Its not about "neutered" as much as it was unhistorically accurate to begin with, Spit V completely outclassed the A5 in which case historically it was opposite by a long shot.

[STEELE]

It was taken to make a fair match up for the spit 5 not because it didn't see use.... it saw plenty.

Too much  from the spit pile-its?
possible reason for deleting the G10 when the K4 was added as well?    
In other words, 20 mil on K4 too deadly for the allies?* (Easier to hit with and less weight in nose)


*Karnak says we had a K4 that was labeled G10, (if that was the case, adjust the speed to match actual G10 info and have both models)

[Karnak]

Spit V was a little over-exaggerated, 190a5 should easily slaughter it at alt - which the A6m3 recently got nerfed to be a little more you know historical.

Its not about "neutered" as much as it was unhistorically accurate to begin with, Spit V completely outclassed the A5 in which case historically it was opposite by a long shot.

Not really.  We just had a 1943 Spitfire Mk V, which made it silly for 1941 and 1942 settings.  The Fw190A-5 has always stomped the snot out of it at altitude, and now with the proper 1941 Spitfire V it does so at low altitude as well.

I agree it was not about 'neutering', but rather about getting the appropriate Spitfire Mk V into the game.  I was just using that word, in quotes, because I was talking to Megalodon and that was the term he used.

As you can see from his most recent post he has no comprehension that there are actually people who like the Spitfire for what it was, hence his derogatory implication using the "phanns" misspelling that only gamers like the Spitfire.

Too much  from the spit pile-its?
possible reason for deleting the G10 when the K4 was added as well?    
In other words, 20 mil on K4 too deadly for the allies?* (Easier to hit with and less weight in nose)


*Karnak says we had a K4 that was labeled G10, (if that was the case, adjust the speed to match actual G10 info and have both models)

Find me a German chart that puts the Bf109G-10 at 452mph....

Yeah, it was a Bf109K-4 mislabeled as a Bf109G-10 to justify the 20mm options.  Bf109G-10 should top out at about 425mph.

The primary reason we don't need the Bf109G-10 is that it is inferior to the Bf109K-4 and entered service after the Bf109K-4.

[R 105]

 For me the 109K-4 is inferior to the 109G-10 because I can't hit the ground with that 30mm in the K model lol. I myself am much more interested in a historically correct modeled planes over any over modeling of any aircraft in the game just for the sake of winning for personal gain. I don't want anything that did not exist but I would understand if the modeling on some planes are at the bottom of it's performance or else everyone would fly the same planes and how boring is that? As for the 109s my personal favorites are the 109F-4 and the 109G-2s. Both are clean light planes and in better hands than mine are hard to beat even with their gun packages.

 The two bombs in tandem in one of the posted photos on the 109 would be a cool option since it looks historically correct. But there are  already much better ground attack planes in the game now than a 109. I know for younger player born into the computer age it is easy to overlook just how good Aces High is. As a kid toys were made of steal and a toy with a battery was high tech. I always wanted to fly a WWII fighter plane but the best I did was BL-65 Taylorcrafts and Cessna 150s and 172s. This game is as close to WWII planes as I and 99% of us will ever get, so enjoy it.

[Karnak]

What we need, Bf109wise, is the Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS.

If we got the Bf109G-6/AS that would even give us a late Bf109G-6 in addition to our early Bf109G-6.  That means it might have a later canopy and would have the 30mm option that some people miss having on the Bf109G-6.

[Butcher]

What we need, Bf109wise, is the Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS.

If we got the Bf109G-6/AS that would even give us a late Bf109G-6 in addition to our early Bf109G-6.  That means it might have a later canopy and would have the 30mm option that some people miss having on the Bf109G-6.

I was wondering why when they remodeled the late 109s they didn't add these options, I can't remember the thread but it turned into "oh well we need another spitfire then..."

[Karnak]

I was wondering why when they remodeled the late 109s they didn't add these options, I can't remember the thread but it turned into "oh well we need another spitfire then..."

The Bf109G-6 is intended to be an early model, like the Spitfires Mk V and Mk IX, and thus the later options aren't appropriate for it.  Remember, this predates the ability for loadouts to be limited by the person setting it up.  The Spitfire Mk V lost 120 rounds of cannon ammo and engine performance and the Spitfire Mk IX lost the .50 cal, bomb and rocket options for the same reason.

Unfortunately AH does not have the ability to select different engines in the hangar.