Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Pyro on October 13, 2005, 11:06:43 AM
-
Nevermind.
-
Franz? who's that...:p
F = Fritz i.e. Freidrich
The 109F-4 shouldn't have gondolas...
Another thing to consider is eliminating the 3cm option from the the G-6.
see this post:
G-6 MK 108 production numbers (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=161351)
F-4s and E-4s (suffix b on these) used the ETC 50 to carry 4 x 50 kg on the center line. I am not sure how useful these would be in ToD. I haven't seen any real life pictures of Gustavs with the ETC 50 but I will let the other experts answer that.
Gondola options for the G-2 / G-6 and K-4 should be good. I haven't seen any pictures of G-14s with gondolas, again I defer to the experts.
-
..and all 109Gs should have 200 rounds of Mg151/20 ammo..not 150.
wastel
-
150 and 200 rounds are both correct.
200 was maximum capacity. However, to reduce problems with jamming it wasn't unusual to load less then the maximum i.e. 150. Since AH doesn't model gun jams and since other aircraft get over loaded I agree 200 should be an option at the very least.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
I need to decide what armament options are to be included on the various 109s. What ordnance should be available for the different variants? Did the ETC 50 see much use? Remove gondolas from the Franz?
If I can be of any help....
- Gondolas were option on Bf 109s, F*, G or K. Ie., there was no different versions like '109 w. gondolas' or '109 w/o gondolas'.
They were factory prepeared to carry it (from the Gustav onwards). ALL subtypes. Pretty much like droptanks, or bombs, wiring etc. was there in the wings, if they were felt to be needed, the groundcrew would remove the lower wing panels, and could install the the whole gondola rather quickly, or remove them if they were unneccesary for the mission.
Briefly, it should be an option for all Bf 109 F*, G K subtype.
- The MK 108 was not really an option, but you can handle it as such. On the G-series, it was a different subtype, produced with this weapon in the factory, and the aircraft stayed with this gun after that.
It designated with /U4. Ie. G-6/U4, G-14/U4, G-10/U4. It would be fair to say that about 1/3 of these planes were produced as /U4.
'Normal ones', designated G-6, G-14, G-10 would carry the MG 151/20. It couldn't be changed in the field.
On the 109K, the gun mounted was always the MK 108, so not an option but a rule.
- ETC 50 was used on Bf 109E, F and G series. ALL subtypes. The 109K did not have this listed, though I am rather certain it was merely a choice, there were better weapons, ie. cluster bombs.
Instead of dropping 4x50kg bombs, bomblet dispensers were introduced, first used in June 1941. Initially they were fixed bomb bay-like stuff attached to the aircraft's belly, that would drop the bomblets, later bomb-like containers were introduced, these being 250kg (or 500kg) 'mother bombs', that carried many smaller bomblets of 2kg, 10 kg, etc. size, which opened after dropped and ejected the smaller ones, a bit like modern cluster bombs.
There were quite a few variations, most being different sized and quantity fragmantation bomblets, which were great against soft targets, but there were one with cumulative (HEAT) bomblets for anti-armor work. Imho at least the AB 250-I with 96x2kg SD2 bombs should be added. It was carried on the usual ETC 500 bombrack.
AB 250 :
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/ab250-3-1.jpg)
And it's contents.... 96 pieces of SD 2 'butterfly' frag bomblets :
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/sd2-2.jpg)
- Ordonance : Bf 109E, F, G were limited to 250 kg bombs, because of ground clearance issues with larger bombs (the bombrack could handle a 500kger though).
The 109K had the long tail unit as standard fitting, giving the needed clearance, and according to the datasheet and manual, it was cleared for up to 500kg (or 250kg, of course) bomb. I suppose the late 109G-10 or G-14 could also carry such, if they had the long tailwheel as well, but that varied from plane to plane, ie not standard for all planes.
* of the 109F series, the later production Bf 109F-4/R1 had the neccesary factory prepeations to carry gondolas, ie. not all 109Fs could mount it. So imho do not remove it as an option.
If you have any questions, I'd be glad to help, contact me at kurfurst@atw.hu !
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
- Gondolas were option on Bf 109s, F*, G or K. Ie., there was no different versions like '109 w. gondolas' or '109 w/o gondolas'.
It was possible to put gondies on the F-4. Later models, sure, but it WAS possible. Some did have them. Because of that I say include them. Only half the people in AH use 'em anyways.
- The MK 108 was not really an option, but you can handle it as such. On the G-series, it was a different subtype, produced with this weapon in the factory, and the aircraft stayed with this gun after that.
It designated with /U4. Ie. G-6/U4, G-14/U4, G-10/U4. It would be fair to say that about 1/3 of these planes were produced as /U4.
'Normal ones', designated G-6, G-14, G-10 would carry the MG 151/20. It couldn't be changed in the field.
The only difference between these planes is the hub cannon. Literally no other changes were made. While there was no simple way to change it (like taking gondolas off) whenever they changed the engine they could have.
Given the fact that 1/3 of all G6s had 30mm and there are NO other changes to the flight model (other than internal weight) I see no reason to remove this gun option. In fact, the G6 actually needs 30mm a lot of times in order to get kills, as there are times when a single 20mm just doesn't cut it.
I say leave both on.
Pyro, question: Are you open to semi-outlandish suggestions? E-1 armament option on the E4? E1s were still serving with E3/4s and many were upgraded to E3/4 standards in the field. The main difference is that the wing guns were 2x7mm's instead of MG/FF. :P Any chance this might be a second guns option on the E4? :P
-
On the Friedrich Gondolas were only available on the F-4/R1 which featured different wings from previous versions, a Rüstsatz (R VII ; MG151/20 Gondolas) was made available for that variant only.
E-4 were E-3 with MG-FFM replacing MG-FF, that's the only textbook change made to the design. At the same time armor and cockpit changes were introduced but could be found on both E-3 and E-4.
E-1 and E-3 were upgraded to E-4 standard (MG-FFM) and alter to E-7 standard (Belly Tank)
-
Originally posted by butch2k
E-4 were E-3 with MG-FFM replacing MG-FF, that's the only textbook change made to the design. At the same time armor and cockpit changes were introduced but could be found on both E-3 and E-4.
E-1 and E-3 were upgraded to E-4 standard (MG-FFM) and alter to E-7 standard (Belly Tank)
[EDIT: I misread-you on that, I thought you meant the MG/FF were added only on the E4, and the E3 had 7mms, sorry about that, I'll leave the rest up for the sake of whole-ness]
Not so. The E3 is the model that introduced the wing mounted MG/FF. The E3 and E4 differed only in the canopy and head armor. It was a very minor change, and it is why everybody usually counts the E-3/E-4 as identical.
The E1 is the last major version (heck if I know what happened to E-2!) that had 7mms in the wings, but it did serve with 7mms in the wings through the BOB. The canopy and pilot armor was upgradable in the field, but the wing guns must have been harder, because I know there were many 4x7mm armed 109Es fighting over the channel in 1940.
[EDIT 2: I'm not totally obsessed with 4x7mms. Just wanted to ask. If it's a no-go that's fine (as we don't have an E1, we have an E4, there's reason NOT to add it). ]
-
* of the 109F series, the later production Bf 109F-4/R1 had the neccesary factory prepeations to carry gondolas, ie. not all 109Fs could mount it. So imho do not remove it as an option.
In AH I don't think you can currently regulate 'load out' options. Armament options are basically just that, 'load out options' and selectable as you spawn. There's no separate selection for F-4/R1, G-6/U4 etc.. Anyone spawning an F-4 or G-6 will be able to take an F-4/R1 or G-6/U4 and they are available in unlimited numbers (or at least only limited by the total number of F-4s in use, if there were 16 F-4s in the write-up then all 16 in the event could be F-4/R1s).
There's no reason for the F-4 to have the option for gondolas (how many F-4/R1s saw service?) as it will be an option that gets 'abused'. Meaning that gondolas will be selected more often and thus you end up with more F-4/R1s in game then ever saw service.
Given the fact that 1/3 of all G6s had 30mm and there are NO other changes to the flight model (other than internal weight) I see no reason to remove this gun option.
1/3 of all G-6s didn't have 3cm, you were shown this in the other thread. Since the G-6 has been re-done to reflect an earlier G-6 (framed canopy, regular tail) its a G-6 that would rarely have 3cm, especially in '43. As I said to Kurfurst about the F-4 gondolas a G-6 with 3cm as an option will get 'abused' and you end up seeing far more G-6/U4s then ever saw service. See Butch's post in the linked thread. In '43 there were only 181 G-6/U4 produced. Less then 15% of the total number of G-6s (12k) produced overall were G-6/U4s.
Even the G-14/U4 was rare. Again see Butch's post in the thread I linked:
G-14/U4
08/1944 : 59
09/1944 : 32
10/1944 : 228
11/1944 : 118
12/1944 : 56
01/1945 : 47
02/1945 : 2
Out of a total of 5500 G-14s produced (about 1000 of were G-14/AS).
Not so. The E3 is the model that introduced the wing mounted MG/FF. The E3 and E4 differed only in the canopy and head armor. It was a very minor change, and it is why everybody usually counts the E-3/E-4 as identical.
That's not what Butch said. He said E-1s and E-3s were 'upgraded' (correct word?) to E-4s. That means same armament...
If there's a way for CMs to control what load out options are available, or regulate the total number of a particular load out then these things can be regulated and not over 'abused' (provided the CM goes along with 'history rather then his own opinions). If they can not, then just get rid of them all together.
-
-
I'm not sure if this helps, but here's what I've seen
Bf 109G-1 through Bf 109G-5:
Addition of ETC 50/VIIId ventral rack for 1 SC 250 bomb or 4 SC 50 bombs
-
from http://www.bf109.com/armament.html
Bf 109F-4
Increased caliber of the MG 151 from 15mm to 20mm. Also utilized the Revi C/12D reflector gunsight that were standard on the earlier F-series. In addition, two further sub-type conversions were produced under the Bf 109F-4 designation. The first of these was the Bf 109F-4/R6 which was fitted with an extra pair of 20mm MG 151 cannon in underwing gondolas. The increase in firepower was made at the request of General Adolf Galland and other top Luftwaffe fighter aces. The additional armament of the F-4/R6 was well recieved. The increased weight and added drag had a detrimental effect on the aircraft's handling qualities, however, reducing its capability as a "dogfighter", and the aircraft were used strictly as bomber-interceptors. The second conversion was similar to that of the earlier fighter-bomber modifications to the Bf 109E-4/B and included the attachment of the ventrally-mounted ETC 250 bomb rack capable of carrying a 250 kg (550-lb.) bomb, a 300 Litre (66 Imp gal.) jettisonable fuel tank, or with an ER 4 adapter, four 50 kg (110-lb.) SC 50 bombs.
-
The 4-bomb adapter may not have been too common, but from my understanding the ETC 50 belly rack was standard for all belly mountings, be they DTs or bombs. (That's what I understood, at any rate).
-
"and you end up seeing far more G-6/U4s then ever saw service."
Im not at all sure about that. The 30mm is a rather hard gun to master and I usually prefer 1 or 3 20mms over it.
-C+
-
Well, if your going by common wartime service I would go with something like this:
Gondolas for 109G-2, 109G-6 and 109G-14. Common service.
Air to air Mortars for 109G-6 and 109G-14 as well. Common service.
No gondos for the 109F-4 as its in the same category as the Spitfire Vs 4 x 20mm. Room for lots of abuse where few saw service, for both types.
No gondos for the 109K-4 as it didnt carry them.
Although the 109E-4/b was not a common BoB varient, it may be a usefull option to have the ETC 50 rack, for setups where you want a 109E fighter-bomber (say N. Africa)...
All the 109s after the E-4 should have a Drop Tank option of course, and a wide range of LW bombs should be given for the types that could carry them in centerline racks (109F-109K inclusive).
***************************
If your going by "here is my extensive list of every available option" I will leave that to the others.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Well, if your going by common wartime service I would go with something like this:
Gondolas for 109G-2, 109G-6 and 109G-14. Common service.
Air to air Mortars for 109G-6 and 109G-14 as well. Common service.
No gondos for the 109F-4 as its in the same category as the Spitfire Vs 4 x 20mm. Room for lots of abuse where few saw service, for both types.
No gondos for the 109K-4 as it didnt carry them.
Although the 109E-4/b was not a common BoB varient, it may be a usefull option to have the ETC 50 rack, for setups where you want a 109E fighter-bomber (say N. Africa)...
All the 109s after the E-4 should have a Drop Tank option of course, and a wide range of LW bombs should be given for the types that could carry them in centerline racks (109F-109K inclusive).
***************************
If your going by "here is my extensive list of every available option" I will leave that to the others.
are you sure about 109K-4 did not have that option?:huh
i wonder if the real pilots of 109K actually shot down anything... with just 2 peas (MG 131) and a potato (MK 108)!
i totally agree that 109F-4 should not have GONDOLAS. The 109s started installing GONDOLAS when USAAF heavy bombers and Russian IL-2 Flying Tanks appeared in great numbers.
-
I'm fairly sure the K had gondolas, as it was just an improved version of the G14 (the rest of it was nearly identical, including wing)
-
(Disclaimer), Im not the resident 109 expert, and I make no such pretensions.
...but im fairly certain only the 109K-6 had a gondola option...and im not even certain any actually saw combat. Most references I have seen indicate only the 109K-2 and 109K-4 actually saw service. Even if a 109K-6 did see action, are there any pics or refs of one with the gondolas? I think it was a very rare bird.
Did a 109K ever fly with them? probably, but I think the inclusion as a common wartime varient should be a higher yardstick than that.
...and just for the record, I voted "No" to the Spits 4 x 20mm cannons, and I also asked for the Spit F IXs .50s to be removed, before im accused of being some LW hater or something. There was a thread talking about the 2 x 20mm and 4 x 50s option for the F6F Hellcat, and I said no to that too, for the same reasons as above. Too rare, too much room for abuse.
-
Also consider that just because it was a K-4 doesn't mean it was special for the LW pilots. They used it for whatever was needed. They used K-4s for Jabo.
I doubt they "never" used the gondolas.
-
CC, no GONDOS for 109F-4s. A 109F-4 with GONDOLAS is like having a spitfire 5 with 4x 20mm options:) Both 109F4 and Spit 5 with these kinds of armament options were rare.
Spit fans voted NO for 4x 20mm cannon for Spit 5 and favored to remove .50 cals, rockets, and bombs on early spit 9 (early spit 9s did not carry ground weapons and 50 cals). IMO its time for 109 fans to agree on removeing GONDOLAS for 109F-4. It's just a small sacrifice :)
-
A 109F with gondolas is not in the least like a spitV. Gondolas restrict roll rate severly, hinder climb rate by a large margine, reduce top speed (on a SLOW plane already, it can matter) and all in all make the 109F a very sluggish and "poor" fighter. A SpitV with 4x20mms would lose nothing. The 109F with gondolas loses a lot.
There's a BIG difference between the two concepts, in my opinion.
I don't use them that often on the F. But I do use 'em once in a while. I don't see how there's some mad epidemic going around where 100% of the Fs flown are flown with gondolas. Most I've ever seen tend to leave gondolas behind.
-
I'm fairly sure the K had gondolas, as it was just an improved version of the G14 (the rest of it was nearly identical, including wing)
The K-4 has nothing to do with a G-14 and it certainly isn't an 'improved G-14'.
The 4-bomb adapter may not have been too common, but from my understanding the ETC 50 belly rack was standard for all belly mountings, be they DTs or bombs. (That's what I understood, at any rate).
No the ETC 50 was not a standard bomb rack for all under belly ordnance on the 109. What do think the 50 means in ETC 50? How about the 250 in the ETC 250 etc..?
Squire,
but im fairly certain only the 109K-6 had a gondola option...
You mean G-6? Yes G-6s had the gondola option, so did the G-2, G-14, G-10 and the K-4. Have you read Caldwell's JG26 book? It mentions JG26 receiving K-4s with gondolas. Gondolas could be fit on all the Gustavs and the K-4. I just have never seen an image of them on a G-14 but I don't see any technical reason why they couldn't have them. The F-4/R1 as Butch said had a different wing and was very rare.
If you meant the K-6 it never saw production...
So all Gustavs and K-4 should have the gondola option.
The F-4 should have no gondola option.
No 3cm option for the G-6 (unless of course at some points there is a CM tool that allows them to restrict/allow certain load outs).
3cm option for the G-14.
The K-4 only gets 3cm.
The E-4 in AH can already carry bombs, adding a 4 x 50kg option won't make any difference in terms of game play. In fact can anyone state a use for 50kg bombs in AH? They are even useless on the F-8. In IL2 they are usefull given the wider array of ground targets.
Also, some E-4s were altered to E-7 standards and able to carry DTs... But that's not much of a concern either.
Charge,
Im not at all sure about that. The 30mm is a rather hard gun to master and I usually prefer 1 or 3 20mms over it.
The 3cm in AH is easy for me and most others I know who flew the G-6 regularly in AH. I flew the G-6 for years in AH and preferred as a dog fighter over the G-10. My lifetime KD is probably 5 or 6 to 1 in it. I only ever took 3cm.
As I said if the CMs are given the tools to regulate particular load outs then it doesn't matter. However, it would completely unfair to the allies in '43 to have large numbers of G-6s tooling about with 3cm. In the main, who cares but I am concerned about events, scenarios, ToD and the CT etc...
Editorial,
Talk about confusing the issues here, some of you really have no clue as to what you are posting about. I am no experte by any means and I will certainly defer to those more qualified but it sure sseems like ome folks just post for postings sake...
-
Bruno, I was commenting on the various versions.
In regards to the 109K specifically, I have only seen references to a 109K-6 as having "kanoneboot" gondolas, not the 109K-4. I have never seen any pics or docs reffering to 109Ks actually using gondos in WW2, but like I say if somebody has some good info, fire away. I admitt I could be wrong. If what you say is correct in that only the 109K-4 saw service then I think you guys need to be sure it was a real varient that was actually used (109K-4/R6 or whatever it was called).
The 109G-6 obviously had them, and the mortar bombs as well. It was a very common type of 109G-6 in 1944.
"No the ETC 50 was not a standard bomb rack for all under belly ordnance on the 109"
I will take your word on that.
I think PYRO was asking for some historical justification regarding the various field kits for the 109s, if I read the intent of his Q correctly.
"but I am concerned about events, scenarios, ToD and the CT etc..."
Yup, me 2.
-
No the ETC 50 was not a standard bomb rack for all under belly ordnance on the 109
That was directed at Krusty who said:
from my understanding the ETC 50 belly rack was standard for all belly mountings,
The number 50 on the end tells us something...
In reference to the K-4 / K-6.
We need not worry about the K-6. However, the K-4 definitely could carry gondolas and did... If you read Caldwell's JG26 you will see that when JG26 first received K-4s they came with gondolas.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Bruno, I was commenting on the various versions.
In regards to the 109K specifically, I have only seen references to a 109K-6 as having "kanoneboot" gondolas, not the 109K-4..
Actually, the K-6 could not carry gondolas,but it didn't need to, as it had wing integrated Mk108s ;)
The gondola option is listed in the K-4 manual, but how widely was used i have no idea.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
The K-4 has nothing to do with a G-14 and it certainly isn't an 'improved G-14'.
Bruno... The G14 was the standardization of all the G-6 variants and late G's. From that (directly from that) comes the G10/K4, both having the SAME wing as the G14. So yes, the K4 does come directly from the G14.
No the ETC 50 was not a standard bomb rack for all under belly ordnance on the 109. What do think the 50 means in ETC 50? How about the 250 in the ETC 250 etc..?
[/b]
It's the model number of the rack, NOT the weight the rack carried. When you say SC50, that's a 50kg bomb. The ETC50 is a rack that can hold various weights. The 190 has an ETC508 rack. Doesn't mean it can only hold a 508kg bomb (odd number, that).
No 3cm option for the G-6 (unless of course at some points there is a CM tool that allows them to restrict/allow certain load outs).[/b]
Have to disagree there. That'd be like saying "No light loadouts for the P47s" or "No 2-gun option for the P51D" -- it was very common. It's not supposed to reflect on-the-spot field swapping, it's supposed to reflect the numerous planes that had it, and at any given airfield you could walk to plane "A" if you wanted 20mm or walk to plane "B" if you wanted 30mm (hypothetically).
-
Bruno... The G14 was the standardization of all the G-6 variants and late G's. From that (directly from that) comes the G10/K4, both having the SAME wing as the G14. So yes, the K4 does come directly from the G14.
No it wasn't:
The G-14 was the evolution of G-6 with DB605A with MW-50.
The G-10 was produced alongside the G-14 as an evolution of the G-6 with DB605D and MW-50.
The K-4 doesn't come directly from the G-10 or G-14. The G-10 was supposed to be a stop gap while the K-4 production was run up. Problems with DB605D delayed the G-10 and thus both the K-4 and G-10 entered service about the same time (Oct '44).
The G-14 had little to do with K-4 development.
-
Thats cool, if its in that book like you say I am satisifed with that. There were many options envisioned for LW a/c that never saw the light of day...so one has to be carefull.
Just on an off topic historical note, I would have been quite surprised to hear JG 26 using that option for the 109Ks very often, I think the tradeoff in performance would not be worth it in 1945...I would have left the "formation destroyers" to the Fw190A-8s and 109G-14s. Screwing gondolas on a 109K-4 is counter productive imho. Same as with a Fw190D-9, even if they came with an option like that, why would you want to?
-
Semantics Bruno. The G14 (essentially a G6 with a standardized name) and a G10 and a K4 (K4s being almost identical to late G10s) all share the exact same airframes, tails, fuselages, cockpits, wings. The only difference is the engine and in some cases the MG131 feed chute bulges.
That was my point. They're all the same. They all have the same parts. Including the wings and the ability to mount gondolas (which was why I said it, being this is a thread about 109 armament and all).
-
It's the model number of the rack, NOT the weight the rack carried. When you say SC50, that's a 50kg bomb. The ETC50 is a rack that can hold various weights. The 190 has an ETC508 rack. Doesn't mean it can only hold a 508kg bomb (odd number, that).
an ETC 50 carried 50 kgs (or see Kurfurst's post), a ETC 250 250 kgs etc..
The 190As used a ETC 501 which could carry up to a 500kg bomb (or 250kg or dt etc..)
Question for the experts...
Could the ETC 250 carry 4 x 50kgs or would that be a ETC 50VIIB? Or both?
-
Semantics Bruno. The G14 (essentially a G6 with a standardized name) and a G10 and a K4 (K4s being almost identical to late G10s) all share the exact same airframes, tails, fuselages, cockpits, wings. The only difference is the engine and in some cases the MG131 feed chute bulges.
No they didn't have the same air frames. There are clear visible differences. They all had MG131 feed chutes. The bulges disappeared because they had to do something about the larger supercharger on the DB605D and AS engines. That's why the cowl was re-designed...
You stated:
I'm fairly sure the K had gondolas, as it was just an improved version of the G14
Anyway you try to twist that its untrue...
-
Wait, I think I'm mis understanding.....
There's the plane. There's the bomb rack. The bomb rack can hold a bomb, an adapter, or a drop tank.
The adapter can hold 4x50kg bombs.
The "bomb rack" is called ETC50, is what I thought. The "adapter" was something else entirely. The "bomb rack" can hold a 250kg, a 500kg, or an adapter with 4x50kg, or a DT.
I'm thinking of a tear-shaped bomb rack that sits flush with the belly of the 109 and minimizes drag underneath the plane.
-
ust on an off topic historical note, I would have been quite surprised to hear JG 26 using that option for the 109Ks very often,
They hated them and took umm off..
-
Wait, I think I'm mis understanding.....
Or I misundestood you, but either way I am off to bed...
No biggie, Pyro will figure it out...
-
Originally posted by Bruno
No they didn't have the same air frames. There are clear visible differences.
What differences? Please, tell me. Antenna don't count, as they're external. Really, what chances do you see in the air frame? They used the exact same production line. The exact same parts for G6/G14s. They literally took existing air frames and stuck a MW system inside them (there was a sub production line, but it didn't make new stuff, just took existing stuff and put extra pipes in).
They all had MG131 feed chutes. The bulges disappeared because they had to do something about the larger supercharger on the DB605D and AS engines. That's why the cowl was re-designed...[/b]
That's what I said.
Anyway you try to twist that its untrue... [/B]
I don't see how. I'm not twisting anything. The K4 had the SAME freakin' airframe as the G6, G14, and G10. The aircraft did not change in any way except forward of the firewall. I'm not sure why all the sudden anxiety over a simple comment I made.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
They hated them and took umm off..
Hrm.. hey bruno! Do you have any sources on that? That might solve the problem! If you read a book or something and it said this, then that means they had them taken off. Which means that K4s had them in the first place (for them to be taken off).
-
The Kurfurst was different internally... some things were moved in the fuselage.
Also you have a different armament, retractable tailwheel, cover for the main gear, different cockpit instrumentation, some modifications in the control surfaces etc...
About the RIV option, the Japo says that the only known case was with the III/JG26 in nov/dec 44.... but only if those weren't actually G10/U4 :)
-
Bf109G6 and G14 should most certainly keep the 30mm MK108 as an option in addition to the MG151/20.
The K4 only had the 30mm engine canon, btw the 30mm installation on K4 was different than on G series. K4 ejected spent 30mm cases from under the center of the wing while G series with 30mm did not have shell ejection.
G2, G4, G6, G14, and K4 all had 20mm gondola.
Gondolas on 109F, that I'm not so sure of.
Some ground attack 109s had the 4 x 50kg bomb rack. I think even the E model may have used that too.
The little butterfly bombs wouldb be an awesome touch. :)
Pyro since you are asking about 109s, may I suggest that the new Bf109G6 get the clear glass rear head armor with its early style canopy. This was quite common on G6 and it would be a nice differentiator from the G2.
-
Late G-6/G-14 did not use the same airframe as the K-4 !!!
Part G-14 K-4
Rumpfwerk 109F108 109F144
Tragwerk links 109F58 109F541/109F542
Tragwerk rechts 109F59 109F542/109F543
Triebwerk 109F67 109F620/109F623
According to Dec. 44 manufacturing part references.
The "Abwurfwaffen - Einbau für ETC 4 x 50" Part number 109.853 was standard for Gustav but its use seems to have been dropped by 1945 as no 1945 production doc mentions them anymore.
The 209.952/209.953 left/right gondolas parts were available from F4/R1 hence, same stuff was used all war long.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
A 109F with gondolas is not in the least like a spitV. Gondolas restrict roll rate severly, hinder climb rate by a large margine, reduce top speed (on a SLOW plane already, it can matter) and all in all make the 109F a very sluggish and "poor" fighter. A SpitV with 4x20mms would lose nothing. The 109F with gondolas loses a lot.
No, of course the extra ~400lbs of cannons + ammo added to a 4-cannon Spitfire makes no difference to performance!! :huh
-
I don't see any sensible use for ETC50 or for the "bomblets".
-C+
-
I don't see any sensible use for ETC50 or for the "bomblets".
For the ETC 50 I would agree.
However the SD-2 (AP) and the SD-4 (AT) along with the AB250 container give the Luftwaffe their historical tactical support mainstay.
Panzerblitz rockets are a late war development. The AB250 and AB500 container's gave the Luftwaffe the same capability of an area effect weapon to repel infantry and armour throughout the war.
While the Bf-109 was restricted to the AB250 container in 1942, IIRC, the FW190 series used both.
The ETC 500 rack was capable of loading 500kg bombs but the Bf-109 did not have the ground clearence to carry them safely. IIRC a variety of measures were tried to adopt the plane.
G2, G4, G6, G14, and K4 all had 20mm gondola.
Not claiming to be a Bf-109 expert but I do have some information for the "great 109K gondola debate":
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1129292004_109k4gondies.jpg)
Rüstzüstand kits changed designations during the Bf109K4 service life.
Bf-109K4/R4 - Heavy fighter with 2 underwing MG151/20 cannon.
Was changed in November 1944 to:
Bf-109K4/R5 - Heeavy fighter with 2 underwing Mg151/20 cannon.
Perhaps Butch2K can add to this.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
A 109F-4 with no gondolas would be a nice differentiator from the Gs (game wise)
-
Its true that the Spit Vc with the 4 cannons also had extra weight, and drag, thats inevitable. As was the case with the 109F-4/R6 it was not well thought of as a fighter but more of a ground attack a/c. The 4x 20mm cannon option on the Malta Spits were commonly changed over to 2 x 20mm and 4 303s there as they were used as interceptors.
As for the 109K-4/R? I still think they were rarer than the other /R6 varients used by the LW...but it will be PYROs call.
-
Its true that the Spit Vc with the 4 cannons also had extra weight, and drag, thats inevitable. As was the case with the 109F-4/R6 it was not well thought of as a fighter but more of a ground attack a/c.
Off topic, but what is up with the Hurricane II? Turns like a Zeke, armoured like a tank, surprisingly fast in a dive, and armed with XM9 space modulator laser beam refractor.....
If our Hurri II is an accurate simulation, the RAF was stupid for ever removing that one off the fighter dockets!!
I get the feeling it is another design that paid the price of heavier armament than it's designers intended.
Ok, back on topic....
Sorry for the rant.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
signal /noise
Nevermind.
-
In matters of balance, my opinion is that the F-4 gondolas should be removed.
Either that, or give the new Spit5 a quad hizooka loadout as an option. (+12 boost this time, I assume..?)
The Bf109F-4 and Spit5 are comparable planes of same time frame... If the F-4 can use gondolas despite the historical scarcity, then there's no reason why a Spit5 with a universal wing with officially designated armament of 4x20mms, should ever be held back.
Since I'd friggin hate to see a quad-hizooka Spit, I say take away the gondies for the F-4.
-
Fly the Hurry II for a while and then you'll find out that it doesn't turn like a Zeke (which it didn't) although well (which it did), it is robust (which it was), does not dive so fast unless you have lots of alt, but won't compress (!!!!true, - wish I could get my hands on documents from Hawkers about a plane that was dived full power from 30K in 1940), and it is well armed (if somebody is armed with 4 Hizookies and on yer tail, take it seriously), and the only reason you didn't have more of those is that the RAF needed something faster and Hawkers was busy building something faster.
Still 13000+ Hurricanes in WW2.
;)
-
Not on topic but is the new spit9 a spit9c that can carry 4x 20mms?
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Nevermind.
Originally posted by Pyro
signal /noise
Nevermind.
I bet this is about as successful as herding cats...
-
signal /noise
Nevermind.
Sorry Pyro......
:(
I think modeling the Bf-109F4 without gondolawaffen would be appropriate. The Rüstzätze 7 kit was quasi-experimental and did not come into it's own until the Gustav series. AFAIK, even late production Bf-109F4 were not wired for the installation. If the kit was mounted, the wings would have be wired for installation.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Also sorry... I seemed to have gotten confused and then made the thread confused along with me. :huh
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Sorry Pyro......
:(
I think modeling the Bf-109F4 without gondolawaffen would be appropriate. The Rüstzätze 7 kit was quasi-experimental and did not come into it's own until the Gustav series. AFAIK, even late production Bf-109F4 were not wired for the installation. If the kit was mounted, the wings would have be wired for installation.
All the best,
Crumpp
AFAIR only 240 /R1 a/c were produced.
-
The F-4 doesn't need gondolas.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
signal /noise
Nevermind.
ROTFL! Some guys really can't understand what they read can they?
For those who don't know what "never mind" means:
Never Mind (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=never%20mind)
-
ROTFL! Some guys really can't understand what they read can they?
I find it hard to believe that an AH employee is not familiar with culture of their own BBS or that thin skinned.
You give Pyro way to little credit.
I mean check out some of the Spitfire threads!
AFAIR only 240 /R1 a/c were produced.
So the ETC 500 was rare, what about the ETC 50/VIId?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
"Originally posted by Pyro
signal /noise
Nevermind."
There are a few posts that are off topic, but its been a civilised discussion, with some info coming out on the types. Nobodys yelling or anything... repectfully disagree.
:confused:
In fairness its a fairly broad topic "armament options for 109s".
I will leave this thread as well.
-
Someone makes announcement from a podium.
A crowd gathers and offers a few replies.
The speaker at the podium retires.
The crowd breaks off into smaller groups and chats amongst themselves.
Speaker returns but walks off in frustration because the crowd is making 'noise'...
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
AFAIR only 240 /R1 a/c were produced.
So the ETC 500 was rare, what about the ETC 50/VIId?
[/B]
Butch was talking about the F-4/R1, which is the F-4 with MG151 gondolas.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
So the ETC 500 was rare, what about the ETC 50/VIId?
All the best,
Crumpp
I think you mixed up the designations (I was too until recently!).
So here's the story... field kits - like bombs, droptanks were called 'Ruestsaetze' in the LW, and were not noted in the plane's designation! Ie. a 109G-6 carrying Ruestsatz VI (gondolas) was NOT a G-6/R6!!
The /Rx suffix always designates some factory installed kit (Ruestzustand)
All in all, the 109F-4/R1 designates F-4 factory conversion that was prepeared to carry gondola weapons, not the basic 109F-4 with the Rustsatz I field kit (the ETC 500 bombrack). The ETC 500 was definitely not rare anyway.
As for the 109F with gondolas. Let's see just the facts. The F-4/R1 was able to mount gondolas, it was produced in some numbers, and in fact there are pictures of 109Fs with gondolas, so it was there, and was used. It certainly wasn't around in big numbers (240 out of 1841 F-4s produced had this option). I think Pyro should decide.
109F-4 production :
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1129370844_109f4prod.jpg)
From Prien/Rodeike. F-4/Z is the one with GM-1 boost btw.
Gondola weight and speed loss at SL (Bf 109G) :
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1129371315_109g_drag.jpg)
If Pyro needs it, I have the whole document, it lists the speed loss for every item (bombs, droptanks, cowlings, tailwheels etc).
The Bf 109K definietely HAD gondola option. The 109K-4 Handbuch, Teil0, page 34 lists the available field kits (note though that another doc, GLC/E datasheet listing fighter variants also lists the 21cm rocket launchers for the 109K-4. OTOH, it was probably never used.) :
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1129371371_k4rustsatz.gif)
So it should be debated wheter it was an option or not. It was. The 109K definietely needs it. And as the JG 26 war diary mentions, it was also used sometime. This has imho rather more to do with the war situation (overwhelming number of escorts didn't allow for ANY performance loss), but not modelling it based on this is silly imho, as AH2's arena doesn't recreate historical but hypothetical scenerios. In real life pilots choose not to use it in 44/45 because the numbers of the enemy - you can rarely see any 109G mounting gondolos in late 1944 either. But in the sim, it could be a reversed situation which would make gondolas a very viable choice.
Now as for the K-6, it didn't carried gondolas but MK 108s (MG 151 was also considered) inside the wings, bulging out of the surface ! Plus it carried a lot of armor, basically it was the 109 equivalant of the FW190 'sturmbocks'.
What I think would be definietely needed is the AB 250 (for 109F/G) and AB 500 (for 190s and 109K) bomb dispenser containers, in two forms :
- one loaded with lots of SD 2 'butterfly' bomblets for soft targets
- and one with SD 4HL (HEAT) cumulative bomblets for anti-armor work.
These two imho are absultely neccesary. The reasons you can't find rockets on German fighters is that they had these equivalent weapons systems for ground work, and they were used very widespreadly, they covered a good area with those many little bombs.
Now as for the G-6/U4, I see validity in the concerns that it would lead to abuse if say in an 1943 scenario everyone would suddenly fly with 109G-6s with the MK 108, even though they were produced in considerable numbers in that year (180-odd).No, sorry Bruno, not all 12 000ish G-6 was produced alone in 1943... far from it. But it should definietely and option for the G-14 (which can be seen as a late G-6 of 1944) and G-10, and of course it's the only weapon for K-4.
BTW the U4 kit was certainly not convertible in the field, it was factory mod. The MK 108 required compressed air for operation, which was provided from comp. air bootles, and some piping, ie. it was quite clearly an afterthought installation in the factory.
The 109K relied on another (neater) system, compressed air was gained from the supercharger itself.
-
No, sorry Bruno, not all 12 000ish G-6 was produced alone in 1943... far from it.
I never said 12k G-6s were produced in '43 alone. I said:
Less then 15% of the total number of G-6s (12k) produced overall were G-6/U4s.
This was in reply to Kursty's claiming 1/3rd of all G-6s were /U4s.
, as AH2's arena doesn't recreate historical but hypothetical scenarios. In real life pilots choose not to use it in 44/45 because the numbers of the enemy - you can rarely see any 109G mounting gondolas in late 1944 either.
Well this is true in AH's main arena, but there are other arenas. There's the Combat Theater, which at one time or another was to be used to re-create historical plane match ups for air combat. There's the Special Events Arena where by scenarios and other events are run that can be either historical or not (or somewhere in between) depending on the designer (CM).
Then there' the new and upcoming arena Tour Of Duty, which is mission / theater based. I am only concerned with these arenas. In the main a 109F with or without gondolas gets little overall usage, same with the G-6 (with or with out MK 108s). None of the decisions Pyro has to make really have an effect on the Main Arena.
That's why I said if there are no CM (community manager) tools that allow the regulation of load-outs, or maybe even the number or percentage of a particular load-out (say 12 F-4/R1s and the rest standard), then in these other arenas the 'historical immersion' and to a degree the 'historical balance' gets upset.
As an example in a NA event where 90% of the F-4s are tooling about with gondolas just for extra ammo / fire power. Or in '43 unescorted bombers flying to target get attacked by G-6s with all with MK 108s (and / or gondolas as well). This gives a significant and 'non-historical' advantage that could come close to ruining game play. 181 G-6/U4s in '43 is certainly not significant by any use of the word.
'44 is different story but going into '44 the G-14 becomes available by Jun / Jul and the K-4 by Oct... Not to mention the A-8s and 110s, 262s ect all with 3cm...
I think if we try to balance game play so that it better reflects reality then this is better then saying 'well there were 240 F-4/R1s produced so we gotta have them game play be damned'.
My 2 cents...
-
"BTW the U4 kit was certainly not convertible in the field, it was factory mod."
Umrustbausatz=Factory conversion kit?
Rustasatz=Field conversion kit?
-C+
-
Yep, something like that.
Basically there are (ie. German, just to give HoHun the creeps with my 'kitchen-german' :lol : Rüstung = 'equipment', zustand = 'state/quality of stg' , satz = ~'material'; bau = building, producing -> umbau = 'conversion')
Rüstsatz : field kits, available for all planes, like droptanks, bombs, gondolas. Noted with Roman numbers (Rüstsatz IV - gondolas, for 109K), does not change the plane designation!
Rüstzustand : something like additional equipment from the factory. Recce camares (ie. G-6/R2), piping for underwing droptanks on LR reccess, autopilot etc. It is noted in the designation, ie. K-4/R6 was to be a bad weather fighter version with autopilot, not one with gondolas!
Umbausatz and Umrüstsatz : No idea between the exact difference between the two, perhaps butch can tell, but these are more like serious conversions rather than adding just something extra, also factory done. Things like GM-1 (G-6/U2) or MK 108 fitting (G-6/U4).
Trouble is, that sometimes the same thing has two designations, or the designations changed, or disappered when something became standard fitting.
-
Kitchen German lol, quite nice.
I've heard "Sandkistendeutch", - guess it is a description for it :lol