Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Krusty on September 29, 2004, 11:48:41 AM
-
There were some REALLY old posts a while back asking for the 109E7 because it had drop tanks, and was identical to the 109E4.
Well it was NOT identical. It was, in fact, an advanced version
But that's not important. From what I understand, MANY E-4s were upgraded in the field to allow drop tanks to be mounted, as WELL as a single bomb. I'm thinking of trop variants, and the Akrika Corps, etc.
Well, AH has the 109E4 with the centerline bomb mount, BUT we don't have a drop tank for it. Well the Default E-4 didn't even have a bomb mount! It had to be added. Since we have one WITH it added, just give us a drop tank for it!
Very little code involved with that, I would think. Simply designate where the tank is. How much it holds, release points (if those are even coded), and then factor weight into the COG, add a hint of drag, and you're all set!
-
How about no.
Adding drop tanks would make any BoB scenario/setup impossible to even add the fuel problem.
-
I'd like it if I wanted to fly the E-4 in the main. Since the E-4 is pretty useless in the main anyway, I don't really see the point.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
There were some REALLY old posts a while back asking for the 109E7 because it had drop tanks, and was identical to the 109E4.
Well it was NOT identical. It was, in fact, an advanced version
But that's not important. From what I understand, MANY E-4s were upgraded in the field to allow drop tanks to be mounted, as WELL as a single bomb. I'm thinking of trop variants, and the Akrika Corps, etc.
Well, AH has the 109E4 with the centerline bomb mount, BUT we don't have a drop tank for it. Well the Default E-4 didn't even have a bomb mount! It had to be added. Since we have one WITH it added, just give us a drop tank for it!
Very little code involved with that, I would think. Simply designate where the tank is. How much it holds, release points (if those are even coded), and then factor weight into the COG, add a hint of drag, and you're all set!
Only if you let the Spit V have a drop tank like it should be able to as well :)
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Karnak
How about no.
Adding drop tanks would make any BoB scenario/setup impossible to even add the fuel problem.
Why? The Axis side would just have to have a "no DT" rule applied to them just like the RAF's "sit on the rnw until scrambled" rule.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Why? The Axis side would just have to have a "no DT" rule applied to them just like the RAF's "sit on the rnw until scrambled" rule.
That does not work for freeform setups like the CT.
Why give the Bf109E-4 a DT? It adds very, very little to the game. IMO much less than it takes away.
-
Karnak, I think you're freaking out too much.
IF the BOB scenario is played, IF (and it's only been done once in... forever, and only for a week then before everybody yelled to have it changed), then it's VERY simple to limit fuel levels for the LW to only go to 100% (if I recall, you need fuel at 125 to have DT enabled).
For every OTHER setup out there, INCLUDING N. Africa (which I hope somebody is mapping.. *cough*hint*cough*), the DT helps the 109E-4 a lot, as it was an offensive weapon on every front, whilst the Spitfire was meant as a defensive interceptor with a short range.
SpitV is overmodeled as it is. Once that's fixed then talk about giving it a DT. Or hell, take the Spit9. I think that HAS then enabled.
109E needs a DT, for most scenarios. Spit doesn't.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Karnak, I think you're freaking out too much.
IF the BOB scenario is played, IF (and it's only been done once in... forever, and only for a week then before everybody yelled to have it changed), then it's VERY simple to limit fuel levels for the LW to only go to 100% (if I recall, you need fuel at 125 to have DT enabled).
For every OTHER setup out there, INCLUDING N. Africa (which I hope somebody is mapping.. *cough*hint*cough*), the DT helps the 109E-4 a lot, as it was an offensive weapon on every front, whilst the Spitfire was meant as a defensive interceptor with a short range.
SpitV is overmodeled as it is. Once that's fixed then talk about giving it a DT. Or hell, take the Spit9. I think that HAS then enabled.
109E needs a DT, for most scenarios. Spit doesn't.
Come on Krusty, I'm on your side, but lets not get carried away. Both 109 and Spit were interceptors. Both were used as offensive fighters. Spit from 41 on when the 109 was the defensive fighter.
If the 109E-4 had the DT as it did post B of B, then it should have it. I wouldn't use it in a B of B scenario.
Spit V had the drop tank for the same reason as the 109. When it started heading out over the channel they needed more range. You ever see the photos of the modified Spit IIs with the extral fuel tank permanently on the port wing? That's how much they wanted the extra range.
What's good for one is good for the other.
As for the comment about 109Es using DTs for most scenarios. Which would those be. NOT B of B. Early Russia, North Africa and briefly in the Med. Where else?
Spit Vs would have access to them at Malta, North Africa, Channel coast from 42 on, D-Day, with the Aussies in the Pacific and in China Burma India..
Image is of a couple of those operational Spit IIs with the port wing tanks
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1096486506_spitiitanks.jpg)
-
Just out of curiosity Krusty, as I'm and Emil fan. When you say the E-7 was much more advanced then the E-4, what do you mean.
Everything I've seen says it was identical except for the ability to accept the drop tanks, or the bomb racks.
The E-4B had the bomb rack, but I don't see where the E-4s had drop tanks.
Source for that info?
An E7 profile I did a while back from JG27
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1096487300_109e7tropsicilyjg27.jpg)
-
E7s had different engine setups, including additional oil tanks and slightly better performance.
Also: No, I had not seen those pictures of spitIIs with tanks like that. Nor do I think you'd want to fly with them like that lol.
109Es were in use until well into 1942, well after the F was in service. They didn't just stop instantly the second the F came out. They had to use them for a long time. Especially on the Eastern front and in other theaters.
109Es DID use a lot of DTs. The -7s and the retrofitted -4s.
I'm not against the spitv getting a DT. I'm just MORE for the E-4 getting one. One request at a time, eh? HTC too damn busy as it is.
Plus, drop tanks are more synonymous with 109Es than with spitVs. They both may have had them, but the 109Es had more of them and used them more often. A lot of pictures I've seen have spits with nothing and 109s with DTs. It completes the plane's image, so to speak.
-
E-3/4
Daimler-Benz DB 601Aa producing 876kW
E-7
Daimler-Benz DB601N producing 985Kw
So it produced an eigth more kW, it would seem. Seems like a more powerful engine to me.
Did a google search and the first non-model-kit related link that came up also has the E-4 with DTs. Some page about Fighter Ace (a Microsoft game, if I recall). Regardless of how it's done in a different game, they'd not have done it if there wasn't evidence somewhere.
DTs on E-4s did exist. Same as on SpitVs, like you say.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
E-3/4
Daimler-Benz DB 601Aa producing 876kW
E-7
Daimler-Benz DB601N producing 985Kw
So it produced an eigth more kW, it would seem. Seems like a more powerful engine to me.
Ok that makes sense. I see there was a batch of E-4/Ns with that more powerful engine too.
Still not finding anything in my stuff that has the E-4 with the drop tank. Bombs most definately, but no DTs.
Dan/Slack
-
Just for fun I grabbed my copy of "JG54 a Photographic History of the Grunherzjager" by Werner Held, Hannes Trautloft and Ekkehard Bob.
I wanted to see if there were any photos of 109Es with DTs in it.
Not a single one. In fact not a single photo of any 109 variant carrying a drop tank in the air or on the ground.
There were images of bomb laden 109E7s, but nothing else.
Then it occured to me that they would not neccesarily have used DTs in Russia as they would have been closer to the Frontlines where range was less of an issue, and where carrying bombs would have been a much more important asset.
So the I grab the copy of BF109 Aces of North Africa and the Med off the shelf. Lots more drop tanks, but mainly for those based in Sicily or flying overwater flights. None seen on North Africa based 109Es. Some on 109Fs.
But it did contain a photo of what is identified as a 109E4 in 1941 based on Sicily with JG27. The spinner would seem to back up the claim as it is not the pointed spinner of the E7
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1096489201_109e4.jpg)
-
Whoops, forgot the quote/link
Additionally, experiments were made with mounting a rudimentary bomb rack on E-3s in combat. This proved successful enough that a bomb rack was mounted on the special E-4/B model at the factory, which was used to equip Erpobungsgruppe 210 for field testing. In addition to bombs, the rack could carry a 300 liter drop tank, thus increasing the range of the fighter.
http://fighterace.jaleco.com/Information/museum/109E4.htm (http://fighterace.jaleco.com/Information/museum/109E4.htm)
-
Nice photo. Although I read somewhere that 109E-4s were also upgraded with rounded spinners.
In one of Bill Gunston's books he has a profile of a 109E-4 at De Kooy (I/JG 1, Holland, 1941) with a pointed spinner, and makes note that not all had the blunt spinner. Maybe it is the very close resemblence between the E-4/E-7 that leads to this confusion. E-4s had the DTs, and had pointed spinners, so maybe people see the pointed spinner and say "Oh, it's an E-7" and give no more thought to it. There was one webpage I was at where they were debating whether or not the plane in a picture was an E-4 or E-7, and it had a well-used DT next to the plane (but not mounted on it) -- it was JG 26 I think, N. African picture.
-
I just don't think it is something that should be done.
I don't know if there is a global way to eliminate DTs.
In all those other setups you have the Bf109F-4, which has a DT option. Why the Bf109E-4 needs one so badly I don't know.
As to the Spit V being overmodeled, how so? I see this trotted out like it's common knowledge now and then and the only thing I notice is that it is always Luftwaffe fans saying it and they never back it up with data.
Personally I don't think it's boost should have been raised to +16lbs, but Spit V's did fly with those settings. What I think it demonstrates is how hard it is to do setups with so few models. A early 1941 Spit V is not a late 1941 Spit V is not a 1942 and beyond Spit V, yet we are forced to use a 1942 and on Spit V for all of them.
-
krusty just be happy you dont have to deal with a late war RAF plane that they should have
then you will realy be crying about overmodel spits:rolleyes:
care to tell me how the Spit5 is overmodel?
-
s it just me or does Karnak have a negative opinion about everything?:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by allmetal
s it just me or does Karnak have a negative opinion about everything?:rolleyes:
Not everything, just things I think are bad ideas.
Most ideas are bad, including most of mine. I used to post a lot more ideas, but since concluding that I am full of bad ideas I don't post them if they can't get through my own vetting process.
Most people don't seem to try to tear their own ideas apart. many are stunningly narrow in their focus and most often written towards making them more effective in the game. At the very least at trying to get new toys without considering the impact on the game.
Critisism is a vital process to separate the good ideas from the legion of bad ideas.
HiTech and Pyro are the only people who can make any decision regarding AH's future, the rest of us just present arguments.
-
Originally posted by allmetal
s it just me or does Karnak have a negative opinion about everything?:rolleyes:
He likes bad hiakus. that would constitute a good opinion of something.
-
As to the Spit V being overmodeled, how so? I see this trotted out like it's common knowledge now and then and the only thing I notice is that it is always Luftwaffe fans saying it and they never back it up with data.
The Spit V is overmodeled in the same fashion the FW-190A5 is overmodeled.
Both Aircraft had maximum boost pressures that could only be applied for 3 minutes at a time. In AH the engines take much longer to heat up.
Crumpp
-
The E-4 we have in AH has a different eng then the E7.
The E-7 had a DB601N.
They aeren't the same airplane...
Here's the most "prolific" DB601A numbers I have found:
DB601A-1
SL@1100PS@2400rpm@1.40ata (1' minute)
SL@990PS@2400rpm@1.30ata (5' minutes)
SL@910PS@2300rpm@1.23ata (30' minutes)
SL@810PS@2200rpm@1.15ata
4.5km@1020PS@2400rpm@1.30ata (5' minutes)
5.0km@960PS@2400rpm@1.23ata (30' minutes)
5.7km@890PS@2400rpm@1.15ata
4.9km@860PS@2200rpm@1.15ata
5.5km@800PS@2200rpm@1.10ata
10km@500PS@2400rpm@0.70ata
DB601N numbers
DB601N
SL@1175PS@2600rpm@1.35ata (5 minutes)
SL@1020PS@2400rpm@1.25ata (30 minutes)
SL@910PS@2300rpm@1.15ata
5.5km@1190PS@2600rpm@1.35ata (5 minutes)
5.4km@1060PS@2400rpm@1.25ata (30 minutes)
6.1km@970PS@2300rpm@1.15ata
(times according to the original 109T-2 manual)
-
Originally posted by Wotan
The E-4 we have in AH has a different eng then the E7.
The E-7 had a DB601N.
They aeren't the same airplane...
Yeah. I know that. It's been established.
The point is that E-4s (which we *have* in AH) had drop tanks as well. I was saying,
"Why ask for the E-7? There's little point! Just add drop tanks to the E-4 that we already have!"
That's all.
-
The 109E-4 that is modeled in AH didn't have DTs.
Using image captions as proof is no evidence at all. I can post many images from reputable authors that have miss captioned photos.
The Emil's used by Erprobungsgruppe 210 (As you see FA misspelled it by leaving out an 'r' which changes the translation completely; so mush for their accuracy :p ) of course had a bomb rack (ETC 250 rack) that could hold a DT. But those E-4s didn’t have the plumbing to feed fuel from the tank.
In fact you can read as much in this book
MESSERSCHMITT BF 110 BOMBSIGHTS OVER ENGLAND: Erprobungsgruppe 210 in the Battle of Britain
ISBN:
0 7643 1445 9
Fighter Ace isn’t a game that is based "historical accuracy" they are just like any other and open to errors. In fact a quick review of their FM shows just how wrong they can be.
As the LW transitioned from the E-4 to the E-7 there were many E-4s still on the assembly lines, some were fitted with the same bomb rack as on the E-7 (ETC 250 rack) and re-designated as the E-4/B. It followed from the E-1/B. They could not carry DTs because there were no fuel lines from the tank to the eng.
Some E-4s had the DB605N, some had a pointed prop hub, and some E-7s had the blunt nosed hub.
You haven't proven anything.
What we do know is that the E-4 that is modeled in AH is a BoB E-4 with a DB605A and didn’t carry DTs.
-
That was me who posted the photo Wotan, not Krusty. Not trying to prove anything by it as I don't have anything to prove an E4 had drop tanks.
All I've seen is the references to the E-4/B
The image surprised me as it is a 1941 image and at that point I didn't think you'd find many if any of the older blunt nosed spinners on 109Es which gave me reason to believe it wasn't neccesarily an E-7 and obviously the caption ID'd it as an E4. I'd also agree with you that captions aren't always right.
But it's a bit like coming across photos of E models with JG54 in Russia with the early style unarmored canopies in 41. It stands out from the other period photos and gives one pause to question the what and why of it.
Out of curiousity Do you know if the E-4s operated in Sicily by JG27 were E-4/Ns? And would E-4/Ns have been updated to E-7 standard?
Slack
-
I dunno what that is a picture of Guppy...
However,I can post images of emils that are labeled as E-7s with the blunt nose hub.
EDIT can't remote link to the images:
However go here and look at the 190E-7 images and you will see 2 with a blunt nose...
http://www.bf-109.com/index-1024.php
What we do know is that the 190E-4 we have modeled in AH is that of an E-4 during BoB and it didnt carry a DT.
-
Hi Wotan,
Sorry I wasn't very clear on what I asked. I wasn't referring to the photo at all. And I'm just curious if you know if JG27 had E4/Ns?
Interesting site btw. Did you see the Aeroplane article recently about the E-7 that came out of the Russian Lake? Paint looked almost new. Now in England for restoration
Dan/Slack
-
According to a source of mine (book) the /N (109E-7/N and 109E-4/N) both had the DB 601N engine, thus the /N suffix.
I think these were later E-4s that were upgraded to E-7 status on the production line, but cannot be certain.
-
No E-4/N, those were kept in western europe because of fuel supply problem associated with their need for C2 fuel.
They still had a few E-4 but most were E-7 and E-7/Trp, the picture you posted is of an E-7/trp not an E-4, the early round spinner tip is pure white and nearly invisible on this copy.
I know for sure because i know at least three other pictures of white 10 (WkNr 3777) of Uffz. Hans Sippel clearly showing the the white rounded tip. ;)
-
Originally posted by butch2k
No E-4/N, those were kept in western europe because of fuel supply problem associated with their need for C2 fuel.
They still had a few E-4 but most were E-7 and E-7/Trp, the picture you posted is of an E-7/trp not an E-4, the early round spinner tip is pure white and nearly invisible on this copy.
I know for sure because i know at least three other pictures of white 10 (WkNr 3777) of Uffz. Hans Sippel clearly showing the the white rounded tip. ;)
Thank you sir for the info :)
Dan/Slack