If You Like 109's

[morfiend]

Only real difference is the blower. If we had a G-14/AS (high altitude version) the engine would be identical except for designation. The rest of the aircraft would be almost identical too.


Bf 109G-14/AS

(Image removed from quote.)


Bf 109K-4

(Image removed from quote.)

  We'd need a G14 ASM as our G14 has MW50 for boost and the reason it will climb with the K4 up to about 6k or so.

   I'd really like to see a G6AS and a G14ASM,this would balance out the 8th airforce events nicely!


   

[GScholz]

ASM yes. Forgot about the MW50. Brain fart.


I have advocated for the inclusion of AS models for a long time now. They're really needed for just about every 1944 scenario and campaign set in Western Europe.

[Someguy63]

ASM yes. Forgot about the MW50. Brain fart.


I have advocated for the inclusion of AS models for a long time now. They're really needed for just about every 1944 scenario and campaign set in Western Europe.

  We'd need a G14 ASM as our G14 has MW50 for boost and the reason it will climb with the K4 up to about 6k or so.

   I'd really like to see a G6AS and a G14ASM,this would balance out the 8th airforce events nicely!


   

+1 Is like to see these.

[pangea]

I like them all, and fly them all so its very difficult to pick a favorite.

+1 to adding the AS models.

[Someguy63]

I like them all, and fly them all so its very difficult to pick a favorite.

+1 to adding the AS models.
[/quote

Same thing here! I only picked the K4 as my 1st favorite and G14 as my 2nd because I fly those most often, and I greatly appreciate the awesomeness that comes with them.

But out of all, I can't say which is best or which is truly most fun to fly.

[Someguy63]

^^^

I like them all, and fly them all so its very difficult to pick a favorite.

+1 to adding the AS models.

Same thing here! I only picked the K4 as my 1st favorite and G14 as my 2nd because I fly those most often, and I greatly appreciate the awesomeness that comes with them.

But out of all, I can't say which is best or which is truly most fun to fly.

[Stampf]

But out of all, I can't say which is best or which is truly most fun to fly

That's a good thing. 

When I can pry myself from the 190's I fly them(109's) mission specific.

F-4/G-2 - short notice base defense - defending against enemy carrier close offshore - close base/short flight proximity furball actions.

G-6 - when you want to challenge yourself, and look sexy doing it.

G-14 - love this plane.  Really enjoy smacking bombers with the 3x20mil guns.

K-4 - anything.


Willie's finest for sure.

 

 

[Rich46yo]

I flew a G14 for the first time yesterday. I didnt get a shot at anything but I didnt find the heavy gun package particularly cumbersome. The fighter seemed agile.

[Nimrod45]

I flew a G14 for the first time yesterday. I didnt get a shot at anything but I didnt find the heavy gun package particularly cumbersome. The fighter seemed agile.

I have been flying the P-38 and before that the Spitfire's, recently I started messing around in the BF109's and I am shocked by the nimblness of them all (havent tried the K yet though), the 109's seem amazingly responsive especially over the top of a loop, Im suddenly understanding how they beat me there all the time.  The other thing I like is having the guns in the nose, thats where they should be in my opinion.  The last couple nights I have been in the G14 and I love the maneuverability/quickness ratio you get with it.  Amazing birds!! 

What do you more knowledgable fellas think about the flight modeling?  Is it accurate, and where the 109's really this good?  Everything I have ever read descriobes them as less than they seem to be here.

[LCADolby]

What do you more knowledgable fellas think about the flight modeling?  Is it accurate, and where the 109's really this good?  Everything I have ever read descriobes them as less than they seem to be here.

AcesHigh has got the 109 series pretty much as I'd expect.
I've always found the slats inaccurate to what I have seen, heard, read.
I'm of the opinion that they didn't just snap out, especially on later models.

[Brooke]

I've read that they went "bang" when deploying or retracting.

They were free-sliding, so they snapped out or in depending on the air-pressure distribution over them.

[LCADolby]

If the pilot was gentle they deployed with the air pressure slowly.
They were ball bearing slats, they only go BaNg! in hard G where the air pressure is changing rapidly.

[Brooke]

If the pilot was gentle they deployed with the air pressure slowly.
They were ball bearing slats, they only go BaNg! in hard G where the air pressure is changing rapidly.

The main aspect of the physics of it is that there is no damping in the mechanism.  Think of an ice cube in a glass tray.  It starts at one end.  You tilt it.  As you hit a particular angle, the ice cube slides across the tray and goes "tink" into the other side, and vice versa when you tilt it the opposite way.  If you were exceedingly careful and increased your tilt a miniscule bit at a time, you might be able to get the ice cube to slide slowly to the other side, but I don't think the 109 pilot would be that incremental and delicate in practical cases of maneuvering.

[morfiend]

ASM yes. Forgot about the MW50. Brain fart.


I have advocated for the inclusion of AS models for a long time now. They're really needed for just about every 1944 scenario and campaign set in Western Europe.

  I noticed in the pix you posted that the AS version is rated for C3 fuel but the K4 is rated for B4 fuel.

    I thought the K4's used C3 but I'm not totally sure,just seems strange,I guess the C3 fuel was used to resist detonation at higher alts???


   

[LCADolby]

Your ice cube analogy is ok, but without the aerodynamic air pressure changing, utterly irrelevant.

Regardless of anything you want to argue me on, it should absolutely be possible to gently deploy the slats in flight, which it isn't in the realm of AcesHigh.