Need BF 109 K4

[C_R_Caldwell]

Originally posted by funkedup
Spit 21 had 4 cannons and better performance and roll than the Spit XIV.  And it served in combat with 91 Sqn in the Spring of 1945.  It makes as much sense to add it to the planeset as planes like Ta 152 or Me 109K.  But I think maybe the AH double standard will continue.

Ta 152 used by one squadron in the final months of the war... In game, perked.

Spit 21 used by one squadron in the final months of the war... Not in game.

Spit 14 used by many squadrons in the last 16 months of the war...  In game, heavily perked.

La-7, N1K2-J, Bf 109G-10 and Fw 190D-9 used by many squadrons in the last 9 months of the war... In game, unperked.


Do you see a pattern?  I do.  I doubt it's some kind of evil HTC anti-RAF conspiracy, but the pattern is there nonetheless.

This has been a test of the Spitdweeb emergency whining system!

Funkedup, you must really be Just n case you didn't understand it the 1st time you read it in this thread, whether an a/c appears in the planeset and is perked/unperked has NOTHING to do with its combat availability during WW2 !!! It has to do with PLAY BALANCE.Now whether the current planeset and perk system is balanced is another argument altogether.But plz, plz, stop your RAFwhining using the "this Luftwobble a/c hardly saw any action so that means we should get a Spit XXI" argument.It is t-i-r-e-d and o---l---d

[C_R_Caldwell]

Originally posted by Wmaker

Just for your information...there's a significant finnish player base in AH that really appreciates the paint scheme that is given to Bf 109G-2 and flies it with pride. If the paint scheme makes you ill it's your own problem.
 

I personally don't mind the Finnish camo scheme for the G-2.It's not particularly appealing , maybe even unattractive IMHO, but we do have a Finnish player component in AH and since they don't have a Brewster to fly, why not give 'em the G-2 ? That said, we have at *least* as many Australians playing AH and we don't have a single camo scheme to our name that I can see.Heck, even the Brazilians have a P-47 to call home.That said, I don't begrudge the Finns having a camo scheme of their own, no matter how damned ugly it is

[C_R_Caldwell]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Hajo, thats one of the sources that spouts the same old inaccuracies because he basically copied the errors straight out of Green's book.

The error you refer to was included in Green's titanic opus, "Warplanes Of The Third Reich" which was 1st published around 1970.He realised his error and when his tome on the Bf 109, "The Augsburg Eagle" was released several years later, it included the amendment re: the K-4's armamament (ie MG 151/15s became MG 131s).It also included amended profiles of the G-10 and K-4 if I remember rightly.I have both books so I can check if needs be.

[C_R_Caldwell]

Originally posted by eddiek

The AH G10 is faster than your top speed posted due to Pyro modelling it with an optional engine.  Unfortunately, no one knows how many G10's were made with this engine, one, two, or five hundred, so we just have to take it as it is.  Are you saying the AH G10 should be toned down, it's FM reworked to reflect the commonly advertised speed of 426mph?  Do that and there are several pilots in the game who would be mightily offended, no matter how "correct" the move was.
 

Pyro and HT decided to model a late-model G-10 using the DB 605DCM engine.There are plenty of photos of such a/c in service during the last months of the war.Why did they choose to do this? Whilst I've not seen the thread where they explained their motivation, I think it is obvious.The G-10 with DCM powerplant (the same one used by the K-4) had a performance envelope very similar to the K-4, which was in fact the ultimate aim of the G-10 project, btw, but at the same time it could carry a wider range of armament than the K-4 .The Kurfurst-4 only carried the 30mm  MK 108 cannon, whilst the G-10 could also carry the 20mm MG 151/20.The G-10 could also carry 21cm air2air rocket-mortars which the K-4 could not.

Finally, there is a trade-off as far as playability is concerned with the G-10 modelled in AH ,and its RL counterpart for that matter. The K-4's use of flettner trim tabs gave it superior high speed handling (we're not talking 190-like handling, but definitely better).IMHO, I think the choice of the late model G-10 with DCM powerplant was an inspired one.It gives players who are not comfortable using the mighty MK 108 a chance to fly a 109 with near K-4 performance with the trade-off of poorer high speed handling.

Would I personally like to see the K-4 in AH? You betcha!!! Do I think we are going to get one? I doubt it very much.IMO it doesn't make sense to have both a DCM powered G-10 *and* the K-4 in the planeset.What would make a LOT of sense is if the huge gap between the G-6 and G-10 was plugged.The G-6 modelled in AH does not use MW 50 injection.What we need is something like the G-14 which was in effect a late model G-6 with certain features like the DB 605AM engine standardised (AM = DB 605A + MW 50 injection).The G-14's performance would be significanty superior to the current G-6 when using WEP.

The Spitwhiners can wail all they like, but when it comes to single-engined LW piston fighters there are only 2 models to choose from - the 109 and 190.The fact we may have 5 Bf 109 variants at the moment is irrelevant when you consider the Allies have Spits, Hurris, Typhoons, Tempests, P-38s, P-47s, P-51s, F6Fs, and F4Us to choose from, with many of these a/c having multiple variants themselves!! So some of us want a 6th Bf 109 to fill the gap between the AH G-6 and G-10 - BIG deal !!!

[C_R_Caldwell]

Originally posted by niklas
About the 426mph for the G10. This speed was reached without MW-50, using the "normal" emergency power setting that produced 1550hp near ground (605D).

No 605 engine could produce full boost (1,8-1,94ata) for MW-50 in 24k, it must have been normal emergency power.

nik

Exactly Nik.The inaccuracy which is oft repeated regarding the 426mp G-10 (sometimes a speed of 428 mph is mentioned) is two-fold .Firstly, this speed is often mentioned as being attained when using a DB 605D powerplant w/ MW 50 injection, and secondly that the figure of 426mph was the fastest achieved by any G-10 model. AFAIK, neither statement is correct as late model G-10s with the DB 605DCM powerplant could achieve a max TAS *roughly* comparable to a K-4's.

[Karnak]

I agree that a Bf109G-6/U2 or Bf109G-14 would be a good addition.  Somthing to fill the gap between the Bf109G-6 and Bf109G-10.

I do think that Japanese and early war American stuff is much more pressing at this time.

How many versions have brought multiple aircraft for the German and British planesets?  Lots.  How mny releases have even brought a single Japanese aircraft?  Three.  One third of the releases.  The other six had none.

[fats]

Caldwell:

I recall reading somewhere that some of the first K-4s came with 20mm from the factory.


// fats

[Vermillion]

Here is what bothers me, and it isn't meant as an insult to anyone.  I fly the friggin Dora myself, so I can't understand why some think I'm anti-luftwaffe.

But the guys that are screaming the loudest about how much more effective the K4 would be over our late model G10, are the same ones that  repeatedly bring up the issues concerning the Mk103 and the MG151/15's, which are well known errors to people who have truely researched the aircraft. Which to be honest, leads me to believe that those same guys,  don't really know what they're talking about on this whole G10 vs K4 issue.

Caldwell, you seem to have a good library on 109's, do you have any information concerning the different control tabs on the K4 ? I keep hearing that they would improve high speed roll rates (but not even how effective they would be), but when I ask for information on this, no one can provide any.  All I get is "well if they put them on, it must have been better", which I know from my experience in engineering is pure horsepucky.  

I'm not an aerospace engineer (but I am an engineer) so please help me out here since this is an honest question,  but to me a control tab would change the ability to trim the aircraft, not the overall ability to roll the aircraft at high speeds.  

They didn't change the airlerons (ie size/shape), which is what generates the forces that roll the aircraft.  They didn't change the wings, which are what generates the forces that resist the roll rate (ie clipped wing aircraft increased roll rate).  They didn't boost the control systems (ie hydraulically or electrically) to change the stick forces, which the pilot must overcome to apply the force to the airlerons.  And lastly they did not significantly change the weight of the aircraft or the placement of that weight in the aircraft to change the moments of inertia (ie remove fuel tanks or other weight in the wings to increase the ability to change roll directions for instance the changes from the F4U-1A to the F4U-1D).  So exactly how do these Flettner control tabs, increase the ability to roll at high speeds ??

Hazed, are you going to post those climb charts that you keep referencing concerning how different the climb rates are?

We seem to have this "we need a K4 !!" discussion every couple of months, and after two years of them in just AH (and the other 6 years of discussions on 109's in AW & WB's) , the best issue I have seen yet is that potentially the K4 had better high speed roll rates, but the jury is still out on that even.

Armament options are the same, Speed is the same (both suppose to be 452mph at alt even though in AH right now its slightly slow), overall control & responsiveness is the same, and while I hear that climb rates are different I can't get anyone to post the charts or references to prove it.

So why do we need a K4 ?

[MANDOBLE]

Aside weapons, tabs or top speed stuff, will the K4 climb better than our G10? Will it accelerate better?

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Vermillion
So why do we need a K4 ?

[joke]Just to see how undermodeled it is[/joke]


-Sikboy

[hblair]

I am a 109 fan. I have flown them since day 1 of this game. I love to fly the 109G10.

Having said all that, we need another 109 like we need a hole in our head. P40b, F4F, etc. etc. are much more important to the game right now IMO. I'd like to see the older (older as in older in this game) planes like the G10, P51D, 190A5 and 190A8, etc. get their cockpit art reworked before we get another 109.

Just my opinion of course.

[hblair]

BTW, the G10 is still a very competitive plane in the main arena if flown correctly.

[Porta]

Vermillion,

A flettner tab isn't like a trim tab. It is an automatic tab that moves in the opposite direction to the aileron. The drag generated helps to move the aileron in the initial direction. The maximun roll rate is the same, but at high speeds, where the pilot can't reach max aileron deflection (and thus that maximun theoretical roll rate) due lack of strenght, improves the roll rate.

In other words, an aileron with a flettner tab is a boosted aileron (BTW, if I remember well, Ta 152 had also flettner tabs).

For example, in K series aileron moved up 22º 40'. In this position, flettner has moved down 9º. If the aileron moves down to max position at 11º 20', the flettner is up 9º.

[Urchin]

As I understood it the "Flettner Tabs" acted as posted above, in essence providing a 'boost' to pilot strength at high airspeeds.  

Also, the K-4 could come equipped with an MG-151/20 in the nose instead of the Mk108.  According to my books, the nose-mounted machineguns were Mg131's, never Mg151/15's.  

I am also a 109 enthusiast, but I also don't really think we need a 109K4.  Our 109G10 is a good representative of a late-war 109.  I do think we could use a 109G14, but it can wait until the rest of the planeset gets filled out (I.E. early and late war Japanese, mid-war British, early war USAAF and USN, early war Soviet, and the Stuka ).

Our 109G10 handles good enough at high speed, you just have to learn to compensate for the poor aileron control at high speed.  If you want a REAL uber 109, you should ask for the K6.  It had a nose mounted Mk108, 2 Mg131s, and 2 wingmounted Mk103s.  Don't think it ever got much beyond the prototype stage though.

[WhiteHawk]

_____________________________ ______________________

Maybe they will give us a repainted G10 and tell you its a K4. You wont know the difference but you will feel better.
_____________________________ _______________________

^ Thats PONGOS input.

The LW engineers really pulled one over on the fuhrer eh
PONGO:D