HTC, I'm confused!

[DingHao2]

Is that Bf-109 "G-10" a G-10 or a K-4??  I notice it has a K-4 flight model, but a G-10 armament and model.

If it's a G-10, it should have a G-10 FM.

If it's a K-4, it should have a K-4 model and 2 MG 151/15's in the nose decking and an option of a Mk-108 or Mk-103 in the spinner.

Either way, it's about time to fix it.

[Urchin]

The 109-K4 had 2 Mg131s in the nose just like every other 109.  The myth of it having Mg151/15s in the nose is just that.

And actually, the G-10 production series was a program to bring older 109s up to K-4 standards, so it isn't really unusual that our G-10 would perform like a K-4.

[XNachoX]

How would you know it had a K-4 flight model.  What are you basing this claim off of.  Have you done tests?  Where are they, and btw.  Wrong forum.

[DingHao2]

"Warplanes of the Luftwaffe" (Aerospace Publishing London/AIRTime Publishing USA, ©1994, reprinted 1999) mentions the use of MG151/15's (15 mm cannons) in place of the MG 131's on the K-4.  It also mentions the option of a Mk 103 or Mk 108 30mm cannon mounted in the spinner.

Here is the performance data for the AH Bf-109 G-10/K-4:



The K-4 had a top speed of 450 mph.  The G-10 had a top speed of 429 mph.  From the chart above, the AH 109 G-10/K-4 makes 450 mph.  That makes the flight model a K-4 model.

The K-4's profile was different from the G-10's shape in that it had a slightly taller vertical stabilizer and a retractable tailwheel.  In addition, it had a slightly smaller spinner and a slighty bulged nose to accomodate the MG 151/15's.  The AH G-10 shape has none of these features, making it a G-10 shape instead of a K-4 shape.

In AH, there is no MG 151/15's replacing the MG 131's and no option of a Mk-103 to replace the Mk-108.  This armament set makes it a G-10.

Oh, and sorry about the forum.  I don't use the BBS too often.

[XNachoX]

it does 450 with WEP, and 429 without.

[Pongo]

once again. there were no K4s with 151/15s. No 109 ever had a mk103 in the engine mount.
those are oft repeated errors.
If you saw a 151/15 beside a 131/13 you would see that no bulge would allow it to fit in the cowl of the 109. It would have to be on the pilots lap. The same is true of the 103. It is entirly larger then the 108 and cannot possible be fitted behind a db605 in the cockpit of the 109. The 108 itself had to have the control column wraped arround the breach to make it fit. there is not another inch for a bigger gun.

The late G10 with a db605D engine as depicted in the game has nearly identical performance to a db605d powered K4. The Db605as powered G10 has nearly identical performance to the Db605As powered early K4.

You need to find more detailed sources and more credible ones befor you decide how accuratly Pyro has modeled the Aircraft in the game.

[Urchin]

Thanks Pongo .  I'm not real good at explaining the plane things.  I have got a book called "Bf109 F,G, and K" by somebody or another that explains the different 109s really well.  

The 109G-10 had quite a few different engines in it, because it wasnt a 'standard' production run out of factories like the other 109s.  It was more of a 'refit' to older models to bring them up to K-4 Specs.  The 109-G10 could have a number of different tail units and tail wheels and all kinds of other stuff.  The 109G-10 that we have modelled is just the very best possible 109-G10.

[Wilbus]

As Urchin said, the G10 didn't just use one engine type, thus it didn't just have one speed. The speed printed in most books about the G10 is 429mph, which is true, but what they don't mention is another 10 or so different G10 sub versions (without any sub version numbers) also flew, it is one of these we have modelled. As for the Mk 103 cannon, there was no way a 109 could carry it unless it had been in underwing pods (which is highly unlikely).

Take a look at the Ta152, its engine compartment was lengthened by mre then 70 cm. This was mainly to fit the Jumo engine but to fit that engine they didn't need 70cm more. The reason they made it 70cm longer was that RLM had made a requirement to take either the Mk108 aswell as the Mk103.

The 109 was too small, too light, too short and too small engine compartment to take that big powerfull gun.

Same thing with the MG 151/15mm, they just didn't fit.

Another thing the K modells had was improved flight surfaces to alow it better high speed control, something our G10 doesn't have.

[Kweassa]

There was some very good discussion on this matter about 6~7 months back in the A/V forums, but the Search option is haywire and I can't seem to find the link to it.

 However, what I remember from the discussion is:

1) The Bf109G-10 was intended from the first place to bring existing Bf109G-6 frames up to the planned Bf109K standards. Since the introduction of the K-4 was coming later than expected, the G-10 project was also delayed, and as a pinch hitter, the G-14 was conceived.

2) When Bf109G-10 project was in motion, in attempt to upgrade existing G-6s and G-14s up to K-4 standards, it used many variations of engines and modifications. Therefore, the characteristics of the Bf109G-10s varied upon which "base" it used.

3) So, what the AH community participating in the discussion seemed to generally agree on was that though no documented case exists, theoretically, there could have been a Bf109G-10 which performed almost on par with the Bf109K-4. Therefore, the Bf109G-10 in Aces High is to be considered as a hypothetical possibility, (as Urchin elaborately mentioned) "the very best possible" Bf109G-10.

 ....

 However, it is also my understanding that in the first days of AH, the HTC staff were trying to have the least number of plane choices duplicating WB. Our 'hypothetical' Bf109G-10 was probably introduced as a means to introduce a high performing late-war Bf109 which wasn't a Bf109K-4.

 Therefore, I agree on the general sense that this problem should be corrected, whether be it sooner or later.

 Of the possibilities, I, with along many other Bf109 fans have suggested the introduction of either a Bf109G-14 or a Bf109G-14/AS. With minor corrections in FM and paint schemes, modelling, the Bf109G-10 should be redesignated as Bf109K-4 and perked. (And as an equivalent gesture, the RAF should receive a 1943~44 standard Spitfire lfMkIX - wing clipped, bubble canopied).

 ....

 Of the MG151/15 installed at the cowls, I remember people identifying this problem as a mistake on the part of Mr. William Greene - from this point all the arguments for 15mm cowl guns  on the K-4 originate.

[Wilbus]

Remember that discussion Kweassa, was good indeed and some it gave results, not jsut whine/flame fest.

Search engine doesn't seem to go that far back, or the post has been removed.

[Shiva]

once again. there were no K4s with 151/15s. No 109 ever had a mk103 in the engine mount. those are oft repeated errors.

Given the German predilection for playing with the designs of aircraft, I'd be real leery of saying no 109 ever had a MK103 in the engine mount, or MG151/15s for cowl guns. No production aircraft, though, and therefore nothing that should be modelled in AH.

[Wilbus]

No 109 never (99.9% sure) had a Mk 103 in the engine mount, the engine mount would need to be extended quite a bit more to fit it. Take my example of the Ta152 in my previous post.

[Staga]

I wouldn't say MK103 never found a home from a Bf109 thought if it did then only in few prototypes.

K-6 with MK108 cannon


K-8 with MK103 cannon



Pic of Bf109K-4/R3. Looks like K-model sure doesn't have enough room for any MG151 cannons over the engine. IIRC some 109s had MG151 cannons in wings just like K-6 and K-8 could carry MK108.

[Staga]

MK103 in underwing installation in Hs129

[Wilbus]

Big a** guns, want it bad. Thus I want an Hs129, Me 410 and a He219

Staga, was the K8 actually flown with a Mk 103 or were there just drawings of it?