109-g6/u4 N

[Butcher]

Sorry Latrobe.  NO carrier combat service so it would not be able to take off the carrier as much as I wish it could.

109-T could be added to Aces high, they were in combat strength and operational.

[wpeters]

109-T could be added to Aces high, they were in combat strength and operational.

Sorry My point was it was never carrier operational..  It could be used as a land based plane... In that case rather see the E4/n since it was not as heavy

[Butcher]

Sorry My point was it was never carrier operational..  It could be used as a land based plane... In that case rather see the E4/n since it was not as heavy

yep, unfortunately the T is available to be added in game, although it would be highly useless when someone could just take an E4

[Slade]

+1  for 109T

[asterix]

It had a slightly different version of the DB605, without MW50 and tuned for a different altitude band.

The biggest boon to the 109G series that Hitech could implement in this game would be giving us the 109G6 and 109G14 with the DB605AS engine. The high-altitude performance in our non-AS versions is pretty dismal. Just for a comparison:

G14: 568 km/h (353 mph) at sea level, 665 km/h (413 mph) at 5 km (16,400 ft) altitude
G14/AS: 560 km/h (348 mph) at sea level, 680 km/h (422 mph) at 7.5 km (24,600 ft) altitude

Most of the heavy bombers and their escorts are allied ones anyway so why not give the interceptors a little better performing options. Would give the axis vs allies two side arena supporters a chance to have a more historic experience too.

[Karnak]

What is with the 109T fascination some seem to have?

[Zacherof]

What is with the 109T fascination some seem to have?

I want a faster mossie

[Karnak]

I want a faster mossie

Not going to get one down low as the Mk VI was the fastest low altitude Mossie of the war.  Well, barring getting 150 octane modeled for the Mossie VI.

Up high the Mk 30 is markedly faster than the Mk VI, by about 40mph.

[bozon]

Not going to get one down low as the Mk VI was the fastest low altitude Mossie of the war.  Well, barring getting 150 octane modeled for the Mossie VI.

Up high the Mk 30 is markedly faster than the Mk VI, by about 40mph.

mmmm.... Mossie Mk.XXX 

You know XXX means mossie pr0n, right?

I would like to add that I think the high altitude G-6/AS would be a nice addition as well, especially for scenario usage.

if HTC is to add another 109, that would be my vote.

[Karnak]

mmmm.... Mossie Mk.XXX 

You know XXX means mossie pr0n, right?

You know it wasn't really labeled as the Mk XXX, right? 

The RAF switched to Arabic numerals by that point because the Roman numerals become too clunky.

Mosquito NF.Mk 30 is the proper formatting.

(I know some books, and probably some RAF documents refer to it as the Mk XXX, but it isn't supposed to be written that way.  Same for the Spitfire F.Mk 21.)

[Tank-Ace]

What is with the 109T fascination some seem to have?

Carrier-borne 109. In other words, instant success of any CV attack  .

[Karnak]

Carrier-borne 109. In other words, instant success of any CV attack  .

No, it wasn't carrier borne.  It never had carrier gear operationally and its carrier was never finished.

Also, an A6M5b will dominate the Bf109E (Bf109T), much less something like the F6F-5 or any F4U.

[Arlo]

While we're on the topic on 109's I'd like to throw the 109T out there. 

You pretty much have it in the E. If you're wanting to land on carriers, you can
manage without the tail hook. If you're wanting to spawn off them, sorry,
you really don't have an historical leg to stand on. 

[ReVo]

You pretty much have it in the E. If you're wanting to land on carriers, you can
manage without the tail hook. If you're wanting to spawn off them, sorry,
you really don't have an historical leg to stand on. 

Then we should prevent the launch of early F4U's from carriers without a British skin. 

[Arlo]

Then we should prevent the launch of early F4U's from carriers without a British skin.  

*ShruG* Ok (though you don't seem to have a recommendation on how to limit such
via skin selection). The real point is, 109s didn't fly off a sailing CV. Any model. Ever.
The Ts had their hooks stripped and were essentially Es, not deploying from carriers.
(It's not worth Dale's time to model an E with slightly longer wingspan.) Corsairs flew off
sailing CVs.

What part of not having an historical leg to stand on did you not get?