Author Topic: Bf 109-K (Read 955 times)

giggy · « **on:** January 02, 2003, 09:05:17 PM »

Is there any chance of bringing in the 109-K series to AH?

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #1 on:** January 02, 2003, 09:19:59 PM »

GIGGY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

The word around is that the G10 we have is actually a Ksomething... but I don't known much about 109s.

Urchin · « **Reply #2 on:** January 02, 2003, 09:22:56 PM »

Giggy, our 109G-10 is a K-4 in all but name. Same engine and everything, even the guns.

ramzey · « **Reply #3 on:** January 02, 2003, 09:22:56 PM »

Another one:D

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #4 on:** January 02, 2003, 09:32:38 PM »

Urchin, knowing that Hitech corrects it's mistakes. For the many times this subject have been brought up, if it has not been corrected yet, you guys are probably wrong.

Urchin · « **Reply #5 on:** January 02, 2003, 09:35:59 PM »

Have to try that one again Frenchy, don't understand what you are trying to say bud.

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #6 on:** January 02, 2003, 09:45:16 PM »

If I understand HT's thoughts coming from :

152 thread

It looks like that they read the BBS. They don't answer/implement change if they think the "proof given" is incorrect. There have been many posts about the G10 being a K4. So if HT didn't changed it yet, it's probably because according to him, you are wrong.

Would that make more sense to you now?

Urchin · « **Reply #7 on:** January 02, 2003, 09:48:52 PM »

Oh, yes, that makes more sense now.

However, the G-10 was basically not a 'production run' like say a 109F-4 or a 109G-2. The 109G-10 program took old, tired 109s, and retrofitted them with equipment to bring them to 109K-4 standards.

There were several varients of the 109G-10 (since the correct equipment wasn't always available to bring them to K-4 standards). Our "109G-10" is merely the best POSSIBLE retrofit, making it identical to a 109K-4 in all but name? Understand?

Wotan · « **Reply #8 on:** January 02, 2003, 09:53:51 PM »

Hes saying our "g10" is if fact not a "k-4"

g10s were a mixed bag some were refitted g6s some were new some used different eng etc......

109g6asm should be the preferred lw choice for a 109. It would fill the gap between our current g6 and the g10.

But the lw planeset is pretty full. Theres certainly no need for any more "wunderwaffe" planes.

The k-4 has its place but given that other countries lack some pretty basic planes one would hope that they would get attention 1st.

VVS
IJA/N
RAF
Italy
France
US (more early war variants of most of the us set: p38s, p47s, p39s, etc)

Then fill out the german set

109e7b, 109f2 (these two will be needed if early eastfront is developed; plus they have a use in NA) finally 109g6 or g14/asm

190a1 190a2 190a3 190a4 190a6 190a7 190a9 190g3/8

ramzey · « **Reply #9 on:** January 02, 2003, 10:05:30 PM »

simply, we cannot have all version of all airplanes used in ww2........................ yeat

It will be great for SE to have all, but now /like Wotan type/ AH need to add more early planes from oher countries. To make game more historical correct /special events i mean/.
Other reason is /imho/ we dont need every version of airplane in AH. Bicose diferences between som versions of airplanes are really small from gameplay point of view
Im sure another version of 109 is not on next update list

ramzey

Wilbus · « **Reply #10 on:** January 03, 2003, 06:08:13 AM »

Hehehe, this subject have been brought up alot of times.

What the G10 is, is a G10 with very high performance making it as good as a K4. The K4 was it's own production plane though while the G10 was a plane that, depending from plane to plane had many different engines.

Not sure if the K4 had some refined aerodynamics aswell, think it's been said that it handeled high speed better but not sure about it.

HoHun · « **Reply #11 on:** January 03, 2003, 02:33:21 PM »

Hi Wilbus,

>Not sure if the K4 had some refined aerodynamics aswell, think it's been said that it handeled high speed better but not sure about it.

A Me 109K-4 with all the improvements featured:

- complete gear well cover
- a fully retractable tail wheel with complete covers
- Flettner-assisted ailerons.

As far as I know, no Me 109G-10 had these features, so the K-4 would have been superior in direct comparison even on the same engine.

However, servicability problems sometimes meant that the independend gear doors were removed, and leaking hydraulics could lead to locking the tail wheel down as a quick fix.

Still, the Me 109G-10 is not the same as the Me 109K-4.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

nuchpatrick · « **Reply #12 on:** January 03, 2003, 03:11:21 PM »

Hey HoHun!

Long time no see! When are you going to start flying again bro??

See yas around!

Kweassa · « **Reply #13 on:** January 03, 2003, 04:35:49 PM »

I've always wondered,

just what exactly is a "Flettner Tab" ?

How does it effect a plane, and by how much?

Rollio · « **Reply #14 on:** January 03, 2003, 05:24:17 PM »

From what I've heard the biggest gain from having a 109k over a g-10 would be improved roll rates at high speeds (due to the aileron improvement), and a mk103 centerline gun option. A Ta-152 with a mk103 would rock too.