Regardless of where it took off, the BF109T saw battle and scored kills.
It also took off in wartime from fields smaller than our current ports and GV fields.
sheesh
dont you get it?
It was basically an E-model. It would not be drastically different from its predecessor.
It have never flown from a carryer. Ergo, it wont be enabled from a carrier.
So what you are asking for, is to add an other 109E, disabled on CVs. I cant see why would it be any good.
The main 109 variants not being modelled in AH:
109D - very early model, would be close to an even more underpowered E with 4*BBs. Would not be competitive.
E-7 - an ~1150Hp version of the E-4
F-2 - something simmilar to the F4, but ~1150Hp isntead of 1350.
G-6, tater enabled - because it did exist. Also, would give a reason to choose the G-6 over the G-2.
G-6/AS or G-14/AS, they were very simmilar - now it would really cover a gap as a version optimized for higher altitudes. They could use the current 3D model, M-jug style. This would be my 109 of choice.
G-10 - not the old "quasi-K4", but the real G-10. As the G-14 has the top speed of ~412mph and the K-4 can sprint at ~442, this bird with its ~426mph might have a place.
H-1 - only a few were converted from F-4 and G-2 models, in the simmilar style as the 152, with much longer wings. Not sure about their combat record though.
Any ways, the russian planeset (or even the japaneese) has much bigger holes than to add one more to the already 6 109-versions...
