Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Urchin on September 29, 2001, 02:41:00 PM
-
Seems to be a waste of resources to me, honestly. Of the 4, only 2 have any qualities that make them "useful" in the MA.
109F4- Slower than a SpitIX, best turning 109 (which isn't saying a whole lot, sort of like saying that a 600 pound man is 'slender' because he is standing next to a 900 pound man). Armnament is clearly inferior to the Spit's, even with gondolas.
109G2- this one actually has some good qualities, in my opinion. It is the second fastest 109, and the second best turner. You can fly this plane and have some success in the MA.
109G6- Why? Turns worse than a G2.. and is slower than a G2. You get machineguns with marginally more power. Why is this in the game?
109G10- Have to keep this one, it is the only one that has a decent shot at returning to base. Fastest and best climbing 109, plus you can load a 30mm cannon, which just about brings you to parity with a Spit for firepower.
Why are the 109F4 and the 109G6 even IN the game? Why not replace them with something that would have a point? Wouldn't even have to be a German airplane, just one that wouldn't be a deathtrap when you got in it.
[ 09-29-2001: Message edited by: Urchin ]
-
what would be gained by removing these planes?
FM's are complete. sure we want more planes, hell we want every plane. but i see nothing to be gained by getting read of any planes we already have
-
Why Not ?
Why Spit V is in the game? La-5? P-51B?
For A)Versatility and B)Scenarios C)Easy to model from basic frame.
-
Ur nuts Urchin, the 109G6 is the best fighter in AH.....
-
109's are tasty. I like my 4 flavours.
-
The four varients are sufficiently different from one another so as to provide unique flying experiences. Why does it matter how they stack up to other planes? Some people like Ferraris, some like classic Ford Model Ts, and others prefer trucks or motorcycles. Not everyone desires the best-turning, fastest, hardest-hitting plane in the game; variety improves AH.
Plus, they're useful for historical scenarios.
-- Todd/DMF
[ 09-29-2001: Message edited by: Dead Man Flying ]
-
I bet it only takes a small fraction of the effort, time and cost to build a variant once a model has been produced. Change the skin, and some of the aspects of the FM, presto - new plane! The 109 was the most mass produced fighter ever and its variants differed greatly in their capabilities.
I love the 109s and fly them all.
IMHO, an E and K model need to be added.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by Staga:
Why Not ?
Why Spit V is in the game? La-5? P-51B?
For A)Versatility and B)Scenarios C)Easy to model from basic frame.
Spit V can turn. It is the second best turning aircraft in the game, and I believe it is faster than the Zero is as well. La-5 is a very good plane, I guess the only reason they added the La-7 was because it was considered to "early" in the war to be representative of the Soviet Air Force. The La-5 is fast, and it turns pretty well.
P-51B? Good question. Thats another plane that I look at and go "why?". The D is faster, has better visibility, and more firepower. I think the B turns marginally better, but you can't use that to 'surprise' someone, since the two planes have totally different paint schemes.
The 109F4 enjoys none of the advantages of turn-fighters, and in return gets.... none of the advantages that speed provides. Same deal with the 109G6, in my opinion.
I understand having 3 varients of the 190, because they handle differently and do different things (except for the F version.. have to go 'WHY?' again on that one). But having a slow version of the 109 just doesn't make sense to me. I suppose it was added for scenarios, which makes sense since it obviously wasn't added to be competitive in the Main Arena. I feel the same way about the c202... that one just blows my mind.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2:
I bet it only takes a small fraction of the effort, time and cost to build a variant once a model has been produced. Change the skin, and some of the aspects of the FM, presto - new plane! The 109 was the most mass produced fighter ever and its variants differed greatly in their capabilities.
I love the 109s and fly them all.
IMHO, an E and K model need to be added.
eskimo
I would want the K model, because I've heard that it rolled better than the G model did. The E model would be pointless, not to mention useless, in the Main Arena. Furthermore, unless we get Hurricanes and Spitfires armed with only the .303s, it would be pointless, useless, and worthless in scenarios.
-
S! Urchin
Some of us have a preference for Scenarios with the actual historical matchups.
The Hurricane IIC is not going to be a World Beater, but it does have its place in a '41-'42 scenario set in NW Europe or the Med.
Same with all the various models of the 109's.
It is interesting to see and experience flying the different models. Then you can live the ebb and flow of technical superiority.
For example in '41, the 109F4 was a dominant aircraft. In '43, the G6 was considerably less so, in fact didn't shape up too well to its opposition. In '44 the G10 began to regain the lost ground and to supersede the Allied fighters it was matched against.
I think this is what we miss in the MA. It's always the same plane matchups, no real variety.
-
I want the 'E'!
And a Spit I and a Hurri I to go with it. Not to mention a Stuka!
anRky
-
i didn't choose to fly the g2 because it's "the bestest", i chose i because i like it for historical reasons - i imagine people that prefer the other 109s do the same.
it's not just performance that makes people fly one plane or another, there are a host of other reasons. i just deal with getting whomped a lot by faster better turners :)
-
Urchin,
If the Spitfire MkV were removed the Spitfire MkIX would be the 2nd best turn aircrat in the game. That isn't a functional change.
The Spitfire MkV stacks up to the Spitfire MkIX in exactly the same way that the Bf109F-4 stacks up to the Bf109G-2.
AH 1.00 had 4 Bf109s, none have been added since. The biggest reason, I think, is due to the ease of creating new versions of an existing airframe.
What would you have liked to have seen added at that time instead?
The aircraft available in 1.00 were:
B-17G
B-26B
Bf109F-4, Bf109G-2, Bf109G-6, Bf109G-10
C.205
C-47A
F4U-1C, F4U-1D
Fw190A-8
La-5FN
N1K2-J
P-51D
Spitfire MkIX
Using those airframes, what would you have rather seen than the Bf109F-4 and Bf109G-6?
-
I love the bf109f4 and g6.
I hate the g2
-
Bf109F4 . Turns like a dream (in the CT, first week, I was able to turn with a Spitfire V. The Spit turns closer, the 109 faster. With the current planeset the 109F4 is one of the bests TnBers around). Accelerates very well, Climbs very well is JUST A TAD SLOWER THAN A G2 (yeah right ,take a glance to the speed charts and you'll notice that the F4 is even as fast at certain altitudes). And it is HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT.
Bf109G2: Worse turner than F4. A bit faster than F4,but with a little difference. Accelerates and climbs quite comparable. Is better at very high altitude. But IMO the loss of turnrate is not worth the minimal gain in speed and the very high altitude performances of the plane. But it is painted in finnish markings, and it also honors the HISTORIC role of the 109G2s.
Bf109G6: Is a terrible aircraft IMO, the worse of the 109s (and by far). Turns worse than the 109G10 (maybe turns a tad closer, but believe me that the G10 has better sustained turnrate), is slower than the 109G2. But hell, it has 30mm and 13mm.
And is as simple as that you CANT leave out of the planeset the MOST BUILT 109 SERIES OF THE WAR.
109G10 - Far from being the 2000hp "monster" they are selling to us, I think that this is a 1800hp-engined 109 wich is taking the place it should take the 109G14.
We lack an emil
We lack a K4 (the 109G10 is FAR FROM being the performer the K4 was -and the K4 was lighter and had WAY BETTER controls).
IMHO the only 109 wich could be out of place in AH is the 109G10. So if you want to get rid of it, and replace it with a G14, bringing an E-4 and a REAL K4 too, then I wont discuss the wisdom of that recomendation :).
But never erase the 109F4 nor the G6.
BTW urchin I am quite sure you dont fly 109F4 too much :) Because is a REAL beauty.
BTW I would guess that you would throw the Fw190A8 too, isnt it? the D9 is better BnZ-er, the A5 is better E-fighter. Why to have the cumbersome, clumsy turning and relatively (in this planeset)slow Fw190A8?...
Because it has its place in this planeset. Because it was the most used 190A8 in Real life. And hell, because if you dont want it, I AM AS SURE AS HELL THAT I DO ;) - and same goes for the 109s.
Why to design a P47D25 and D30?. Throw the D25, is worse jabo!!! and to fight you have the D11 isnt it?.
The D25 has also the right to be in AH. And is GREAT to have it, even if ppl dont fly it much.
Why to have a C202?...hell it has peashooters!!!!. We have the C205, so why have a C202?...
Because it was one of the most used italian fighters in WWII, thats why.
Why to have a P51B?...the P51D is faster under 20k and has 2 MGs more!!!!
Because the P51B was the mustang wich WON the battle over europe, breaking the LW's backs, way before the P51D was there.
Why to have a Spit V, or a Spit I?...the IX and XIV were WAY better!!!! throw them!!!.
No, sir, both deserve a place here...as the Hurri I, the Emil, the A6M2, the F4F, the...
:)
[ 09-29-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Originally posted by R4M:
Bf109F4 . Turns like a dream (in the CT, first week, I was able to turn with a Spitfire V. The Spit turns closer, the 109 faster. With the current planeset the 109F4 is one of the bests TnBers around). Accelerates very well, Climbs very well is JUST A TAD SLOWER THAN A G2 (yeah right ,take a glance to the speed charts and you'll notice that the F4 is even as fast at certain altitudes). And it is HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT.
Bf109G2: Worse turner than F4. A bit faster than F4,but with a little difference. Accelerates and climbs quite comparable. Is better at very high altitude. But IMO the loss of turnrate is not worth the minimal gain in speed and the very high altitude performances of the plane. But it is painted in finnish markings, and it also honors the HISTORIC role of the 109G2s.
Bf109G6: Is a terrible aircraft IMO, the worse of the 109s (and by far). Turns worse than the 109G10 (maybe turns a tad closer, but believe me that the G10 has better sustained turnrate), is slower than the 109G2. But hell, it has 30mm and 13mm.
And is as simple as that you CANT leave out of the planeset the MOST BUILT 109 SERIES OF THE WAR.
109G10 - Far from being the 2000hp "monster" they are selling to us, I think that this is a 1800hp-engined 109 wich is taking the place it should take the 109G14.
Whats the difference between a 109G10 and a 109G14? I am no expert on German planes, that is why I ask.
We lack an emil.
Yes, but a 109E would probably get its bellybutton handed to it by every plane in this planeset. I do believe that the 109F actually turned better than the E series, did it not? The only nice thing about the E is the wing mounted cannon, but they only have 60 rounds per gun I think.
We lack a K4 (the 109G10 is FAR FROM being the performer the K4 was -and the K4 was lighter and had WAY BETTER controls).
Again... whats the difference between a G10 and a K-series? I've heard the K rolled much better at high speeds, but I believe the AH G-10 is as fast as the real life K-4 (and in any case, the 109 isn't the most manueverable plane anyway).
IMHO the only 109 wich could be out of place in AH is the 109G10. So if you want to get rid of it, and replace it with a G14, bringing an E-4 and a REAL K4 too, then I wont discuss the wisdom of that recomendation :).
But never erase the 109F4 nor the G6.
BTW urchin I am quite sure you dont fly 109F4 too much :) Because is a REAL beauty.
No, I haven't flown it much. Orka was telling me it could turn as well as a spit at low speeds (I assume he meant below 50 mph, with both planes rolling in circles on the ground, since I haven't outturned a Spit yet at ANY speed in it), so I have been flying it a little lately.
BTW I would guess that you would throw the Fw190A8 too, isnt it? the D9 is better BnZ-er, the A5 is better E-fighter. Why to have the cumbersome, clumsy turning and relatively (in this planeset)slow Fw190A8?...
Because it has its place in this planeset. Because it was the most used 190A8 in Real life. And hell, because if you dont want it, I AM AS SURE AS HELL THAT I DO ;) - and same goes for the 109s.
Not at all, the 190A8 brings stuff to the table that the 190A5 and the 190D9 cannot. I believe that the extra ammo for the 20mm (or the twin 30mm if you swing that way) makes up for the minor loss in manueverability.
Why to design a P47D25 and D30?. Throw the D25, is worse jabo!!! and to fight you have the D11 isnt it?.
The D25 has also the right to be in AH. And is GREAT to have it, even if ppl dont fly it much.
Good question, I hadn't even thought of the P-47s. As far as I know the handling differences are extremely minor, this would also seem to be a waste of resources in my opinion. Unless, of course, the only reason the three varients were included was for use in scenarios.
Why to have a C202?...hell it has peashooters!!!!. We have the C205, so why have a C202?...
Because it was one of the most used italian fighters in WWII, thats why.
Again, very good question. For all the use that the c202 sees, it is a valid question to ask "Why did they bother putting this in the game?" The fact that it was the most used Italian fighter of the war really doesn't hold any weight in my opinion, because this game isn't really based on history. The N1K2 sure as HELL wasn't the most common Japanese airplane of the war, but it is in the game. So performance must play some small role in deciding what plane goes in- so why not pick an Italian plane that might see some use? (The Re. 2005 comes to mind [at least I think it was the 2005]).
Why to have a P51B?...the P51D is faster under 20k and has 2 MGs more!!!!
Because the P51B was the mustang wich WON the battle over europe, breaking the LW's backs, way before the P51D was there.
I wonder myself why the P-51B is in the game, but at least you have a half a chance of surviving in it, since it can outrun the N1K2 and the SpitIX, and stands a decent chance of turning with the LA7.
Why to have a Spit V, or a Spit I?...the IX and XIV were WAY better!!!! throw them!!!.
No, sir, both deserve a place here...as the Hurri I, the Emil, the A6M2, the F4F, the...
If the .303 armed Spit I is put in the game, I'd wager that it will see less use than the C202. There just isn't really any point in putting these planes in, because only suicidal maniacs will want to fly a 1940 plane in an arena where most of the other planes flying are from 1944-1945. It just won't happen. How many people fly the c202 as their 'main ride'?
:)
[ 09-29-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
The more the merrier, dont like one.. dont fly it :)
A better thing to do would be to request just additional planes..not to remove current ones
-
It is quite simple. They can do a varient in a fraction of the time that it takes to do a completely new aircraft.
Plus, I like alot of the varients.
Hans.
-
Actually I very much like the trend I'm seeing with earlier war varients being added to AH. (For example the Hurricanes and F4u-1.) In a WW2 flight sim the more planes we've got from WW2 the better. :) I personally enjoy flying the older (or less competitive) planes because I feel they improve your skills more than the later war planes. (You have to be REAL good in a F6f to beat a N1k on equal terms for example. )
As far as the 109f4 goes, I fear it more than the other 109s. The reason is that when I'm flying against a 109 I assume I have a turn advantage against it. If I'm facing an f4 I sometimes get tricked into turning with it, which plays to its strengths. I rarely get killed by the 109g10 because it's so easy to avoid its attacks, as it can't roll, dive, or turn well if you dive to avoid it. I've even found that if you can trick the 109g10 into following you into a dive that its elevator response is so poor at high speeds you can pull up into it and get a quick shot as it tries to zoom away if you are flying a plane with good dive characteristics. :D Even managing 1 ping will often scare the 109 driver so badly he will try to split s at that point and then he is dead for sure. (I could probably rtb and fly back to the area by the time the 109 rolls 180 degrees at 400 mph. ;) )
-
Whats the difference between a 109G10 and a 109G14? I am no expert on German planes, that is why I ask.
The 109G14 was bassically a 109G6 with MW50 and all the stuff wich was added to the bassic 109G6 design as time passed by. G14 had better ailerons, modified tail, Galland canopy (wich the G6 we have shouldnt have), etc etc etc. The 109G14 was slightly slower than the 1800hp 109G10 I think we have.
Yes, but a 109E would probably get its bellybutton handed to it by every plane in this planeset. I do believe that the 109F actually turned better than the E series, did it not? The only nice thing about the E is the wing mounted cannon, but they only have 60 rounds per gun I think.
the E turned closer than the F. I'm not sure about sustained turnrates, but I would think that the emil was not far behind the Franz... the Emil turned quite well, be sure of it.
But once again is not about the MA usage. we have a CT, we have scenarios. WE NEED THAT PLANE to recreate certain scenarios (BoB, early russia, 1941-1942 Africa Korps scenarios...)
Again... whats the difference between a G10 and a K-series? I've heard the K rolled much better at high speeds, but I believe the AH G-10 is as fast as the real life K-4 (and in any case, the 109 isn't the most manueverable plane anyway).
The 109K4 was lighter than the G10, had way better control surfaces for high speed fighting, and a retractable tailwheel.
And IMO AH's G10 is NOT comparable to a K-4.
The K-4 fully loaded climbrate at sea level was around 5200fpm IIRC (you might want to Ask supongo about that, he has a REAL collection of magnific books about the 109), and the plane was just 75-100kg lighter than the G10 at take off weight. The K-4 had a Daimler Benz DB605D engine rated at 2000hp, the same we are supposed to have in the 109G10 of Aces High.
Now take a look at the G10's charts in the HTC's main page. AH's 109G10 has little more than 4700fpm climbrate at sea level. With the same power, a plane just 3% heavier shouldnt lose so much climb and acceleration (is a loss of more than 10%) .
The 109G10 is listed in the HTC webpage as reaching 450mph TAS at 25K more or less. I have never tested it, but some people who has, has told me they never go over 440mph. Wich matches the top speed of a DB605ASM engined 109G10, not the DB605D we are supposed to have. But as I havent tested this one first-hand I just can tell what I was told.
What I can say is that the 109K4 could reach 375mph at sea level and the one in AH is good only for around 365mph. Again, something to think about.
I think we have the 1800hp-engined 109G10. not the 2000hp some people around here say.
In other words ,we lack the K-4 ;)
No, I haven't flown it much. Orka was telling me it could turn as well as a spit at low speeds
It can. the spit turns closer. The F4 turns faster. Is not difficult to outturn a Spitfire IX in an stall fight with a 109F4. You just have to avoid turning inside him except when you have the shot guaranteed :)
[ 09-29-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
S!
Personally, I think there should be more variants of the 109.
The one most needed is the G6 with methanol injection. (DB605AM engine)
The existing G10 is very close to a K4.
Maybe a more interesting variant would be the K6.
This was armed with two pod mounted Mk103 30mm wing cannon as well as the standard 30mm through the prop hub and twin 13mm in the cowling. The Mk103 is not the standard low velocity Mk108 30mm, but a high velocity, very accurate weapon. This plane would be the ultimate bomber nightmare.
The K6 had the usual good 109 climb and a top speed of 440mph.
But I would put these variants behind the requirement for a P-38J, a Razorback P-47D with Paddle blade props, and Spitfire IX LF.
-
I agree with grunherz, The G6 is the best fighter in the game in my opinion. Fly it to it's strenghths, and all you have to fear are other 109s, cons you never see, and your own stupidity. Granted, it does take a small amount of time to 'get used to' those strengths.
I get a laugh every time some fool in a N1k HOs me, not realising they are facing 2x20mm, 1x30mm and 2x 13mm.......or if they do realise it, they seem to ignore the fact.
A little gunsight zoom ( a dweeby cheat trick that I cant get out of the habit of using ) carefull aim, a quick burst of cannon and a well timed rollout, and the HO'ing con becomes another statistic ;)
IMHO the 109s greatest strength is stability in a stall, and what I call 'recoverability' from a stall, using trim and carefull elevater and rudder, it is possible to make a 109 climb straight up, come to an almost complete stop, flip end for end and come straight back down into a following con....your classic Hammerhead I s'pose.
Rolling scissors works great in a Gustav Six too.
The 109G6 CAN turn well, it CAN maintain enough speed to run if needed, it accelerates nicely, handles great at low speed,climbs great, packs a decent punch and can roll with the best of them.
It just isnt the 'easiest' plane to do ANYTHING in, takes time and practice to figure out what not to do.
Also, having a fairly slender fusalage, the 109s seem to be a fairly small, and hard target to hit, especially while rolling.
[Kenny Rogers voice....] " Ya gotta know when to hold up, know when to fold up, know when to walk away, know when to run....."
<S> Blue :)
-
ya the 109G6 is my favorite fight. Get's you good points and has excellent strengths if you exploit them. It's great at BnZ fighting. I love to get alt and the swoop in take shots with the 30MM and zoom back up usually straight up. I never fly with gondolas though unless it's against bombers, it makes you turn and climb worse and i never need the extra firepower 1 30MM hit and the guys usally down. Also it's not a scramble fighter, you pretty much need an alt advantage. I usally use the Yak-9U when my base is under attack since it's kinda like a 109 but it can turn.
-
Urchin,
109g6 best 109 in AH. I flew em all long time. Best results in g6.
-
A bit off-topic but I find the G6 extremelly difficult to maneouvre (specially rolling) or accelerate in a 100% fuel configuration, anything but an average stall turner. And less than 100% fuel gives it a too small combat radious.
So, why you find G6 better than G10?
[ 09-30-2001: Message edited by: MANDOBLE ]
-
It turns and handles much better and is more surviable if you get caught by La7s or such. Ive not found the speed and climb loss compared to G10 that much of a problem If you fly correctly.
-
naaa 109s are kewl do not flame them :D
F4 was my favorit 109 in CT, was cool fighter versus spitIX,V
:cool:
-
109g6 is not the easiest 109 to fly, not in terms of handling and stall recovery (it does that very well) but more in terms of getting the most out of the plane.
I flew 109 allot (all models) and prefer the 109g6. In my opinion it outperforms the 109g2 in combat. I had best results in 109g6.
Flew it 3 tours as only choise of plane and was surprised what U can do with it.
-
Prolly the single most important element of G6 flying is your aim with the 30mm. Its hard to describe without sounding kooky or wierd but 30mm aiming is more mental than physical. You dont aim using the gunsight, rather you point the plane and fire, you either know it will hit or you take a risk it wont. Thats why 30mm aim is lost so quickly if you fly other planes even for a few days. If you have that "30mm feel" its an amazing weapon, rather easily capable of consistent 400yd high deflection snapshots. My best was against a P51 at about 650yds intial diagonal distance when I fired. He was coming from my left at 90degrees chasing a frendly. I fired a burst of 2 30mm shells and he exploded.
-
keep all 109s please....just add more :)
-
109 G6 is my #1 109 ride.It as far as I can tell turns better than 109G10 and is faster/climbs better than 109F/G2.I never use wing pods and if I have less than 50% gas,I out-turn all those F4U's/P51's and G10's.If you hunt those planes you will do very well and you will also find very few of those planes will pass on combat with you if they have alt.Makes for great Bait N' Bag.. :D
-
well gee urchin.... now you've got it. germany was faced with the exact same question.... what to do with all these worthless 109's that they didn't have a worthwile (modern) replacement for... Sorta like the P40... they just kept tarting it up.
If we had an early, mid and late war arena or area's in the arena.... we could use even one more 109... the 109e.... most 109 pilots said it was the most fun of all of em.
lazs
-
lazs2:
------------------------------------------
most 109 pilots said it was the most fun of all of em.
------------------------------------------
Ummm, lazs, no one in here wants to have fun.
Most of us want to spend all our time piling up worthless vulch/gangbang kills, and the rest just want to bomb fighter hangers from 30k.
Or at least, that's what the MA means to me :(
anRky
-
Actually, nevermind. I'm a love muffin. The more I fly the 109F4 the more I like it. I've turned with Niki's with some success, haven't been able to outturn a Spit yet, but I'm sure I'll get there. Only problem with the F4 is you aren't fast enough to run, so if you get attacked by 3 or 4 guys, it is dying time.
-
Today I dedicated a lot of time to G6 ... ...OK, I admite it, the best 109.
-
WTG Mandoble, <S>. Took me a while to figure that one out myself, I Looooove the 109g6.
But was time to switch to something new, so spend most of my time in 190's now (all of em, hehe). No Urchin we don't wont to give up one of the 4 190's either, :D
-
109g6 is pretty damn good.......
Its my favorite but the g2 aint no slacker.
I was an early lover of the f4 when I believe eagler and I were the only 2 flying it regularly.
The entire planeset really is the best in AH.
-
My main reason to be convinced so quickly was the next:
Yesterday I found a plane that turns well, accelerates well, climbs well, has a decent control at 400 mph and a very precisse centerline gun able to kill 6 or 7 planes in a single sortie. But the best thing, in one of my last sorties I noticed that I have been flying with a 250kg bomb all the time (hate this hangar bug).
-
im with fester....G6 and F4 are awsome. i dont even touch the G10 and G2
-
One of my squaddies took up a g6 for a tour and got like a 6/1 kill death in it. He ended up in the top end of the top ten for that tour... he said it was very easy to fly and get kills in.
lazs
-
109's are just Pony Food!
-
Ponies are just G10 food ! whooops I just slipped again ! ;)
-
*sigh* here we go again
The late model G10 is essentially a K4. R4M makes claims to the contrary but has NEVER, EVER provided the proof. Please share this data with us, because every time this comes up all I see is data that shows that our G10 and the K4 are essentially identical. Over the history of AH there has been like 8-10 very indepth (100+ post threads) discussions on the subject.
Until I see substantial evidence otherwise, I'm of the opinon that our G10 performs to the K4 specs.
Also the K4 was the last production 109, and even it was produced in very small numbers.
If there were anything beyond that they were prototypes or in numbers so small you can count them on your fingers and toes.
-
Ummm verm there were at least 1734 K4 made and saw service from autumn 44 till the end of the war....
Is that very few??? You have 1734 fingers and toes??? Wow I,d love to see that man, post a pic! :) (joke)
As for K4 differences. The only one Id really like to see are the improved ailerons with automatic flettner asssist tabs. These made it roll better at high speeds.
-
109f with gonds, 50% fuel and dt most of the time. Can T&B will all but the best, then you have to get rid of gonds. great perks too but nothing to spend them on :)
g6(if I have to turn at all :)) & g10 with gonds, 30mm, 50% fuel and dt for HOing and bomber smashin.
don't fly much else of anything else
-
There's a very simple explanation why some planes are in the game that just don't seem like they should be. It's so people can whine about them being there! :D
-
Vermillion:
The 109K4's top speed at SL was 375mph. The AH G10's is 365.
The 109K4's top speed at 25K was 450mph. AH's G10's is around 440mph (that is according to what I've been told, and can't test it by myself until I'm back at home next week. You can do the test and then post the results if you want.)
The 109K4's climrate at SL was 5200fpm (According to Supongo's data). AH's G10's climbrate at SL is 4700fpm.
The 109K4 had way better control surfaces than the 109G10.
AH's 109G10 is FAR from performing like a 109K4 in speed/climb/acceleration performance and hispeed maneouverability. AH's 109G10 performs like a WWII Bf109G10 with DB605ASM engine, but not as a K4 with DB605D.
And as grunherz said, about 1750 109K4s saw service in WWII. How many N1K2-js saw service? ;)
[ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Grunherz, where is the 1750 number coming from? The number I have seen consistently (from memory, so I may be wrong) is roughly about 700 K4's. Its an honest question, of where your getting your numbers.
Oh :p and I said the number of aircraft BEYOND the k4 could be counted on your fingers and toes, note the emphasis on beyond.
Edit: A quick check of 2 of my sources, both say that approximately 700 K series 109's were produced.
RAM,
The 109K4's top speed at SL was 375mph. The AH G10's is 365
The 109K4's climrate at SL was 5200fpm (According to Supongo's data).
Again, just show me where these come from. Both are assertions that I've seen over and over, but no one even produces a simple chart to prove it.
Edit: Again, a check of my sources say that the initial climbrate of a 109K4, at a loaded weight of 7,410lbs, was 4,820 ft/min. This is awful close to the 4,700 ft/min that you guys are claiming for the AH 109G10. My bet is that it was tested with a 30mm cannon, while the historical data is for the 20mm cannon.
The 109K4's top speed at 25K was 450mph. AH's G10's is around 440mph (that is according to what I've been told,
The last time I tested the speed of the G10 in AH its top speed hit almost exactly 452mph (no gondola's and 20mm). And if you check the performance chart on the AH help page it indicates a top speed of 452mph. If its not getting that speed anymore its broke and needs to be brought to Pyro's attention.
The 109K4 had way better control surfaces than the 109G10
Way better? I haven't done a lot of research on the differences in the aelirons, but even Grunherz says the differences were in Flettner control tabs. Do you honestly think these would make a big difference? Some yes, but again, I think your way overestimating the difference.
All I know is that you guys are making big claims without any supporting data. If you have something I haven't seen, please share it. :)
[ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: Vermillion ]
[ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: Vermillion ]
-
The Prien/Rodieke book verm.
They say 534 by November 30 1944 and at least 1200 more till the end of the war.
Another source I have, the JAPO book on the K4 says that at least 1200 were made.
Two sources confirm at least 1200 and one says at least 1200 plus 534 more by late 1944.
The Prien/Rodieke book is the best 109 book ever written covering the F-G-K model 109s.
-
Whats the Title and ISBN on that book?
-
just want to clarify something here, the p-51B is/was(in RL) faster than the p-51D, the differences were the p-51D had more range due to the wing design which also slowed it down. It had two more 50 cal, p-51B pilots say that 4 50 cal were more than sufficient for shooting the enemy down though, also the p-51D had better visability. Oh yes and over 4Gs the guns in the wings of the p-51B would not fire due to the wing design and how they were put in, and if you tried to fire them they would jam and could not be charged from the cockpit so you were out of the fight :).
Sorry if someone else posted this I just wanted to let him know why the p-51B is a good plane to have.
Pup out