Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: wrag on January 29, 2007, 05:09:55 AM
-
PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So OK it would be slower then the K4. Fine!
BUT FASTER then the G14! (IMHO the G14 is a POS, that can't reach It's reported top speed (408 at 16.5K), and is a ground support version of the 109)
And it would have 20mm nose gun with 30mm option :aok :aok :aok
And option for GONDS!!!
Might not be too hard to set up! Would be same FM as K4 but set to top out at a little lower speed!
And would fix the gapping hole in the LW plane set for TOD!
Already posted info in previous post about the G10.
BTW I NEVER requested the K4!!! I did not want the K4
I put the above in for the person that may come here and say "you asked for it" Cause I NEVER did! I even posted saying NO NO NO leave the G10!
-
Originally posted by wrag
Waaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
The G-10 would be considerably slower than the K-4. They had a very wide range of performance, from "Just barely better than a G-6" to "somewhat less than a K-4". If you took the average it would be only slightly better than the G-14. The G-14 in AH breaks 400mph easily at 15k. If you're not making this you have DTs, gondolas and other drag-inducing elements onboard.
Considering the G-14 is only 20mph slower than the K-4 across most altitudes, there's little call for a "true G-10". You just want the old K-4 specs with G-10 guns, which was not a historically accurate representation of what the plane could do. Either you outrun everything in a K-4 but pay for it by being unable to hit anything, or you get guns that are worth a damn in the G-14 but you're 20mph slower.
It's a fair trade.
EDIT: P.S. http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=109g14&p2=109k4
-
Originally posted by wrag
BTW I NEVER requested the K4!!! I did not want the K4
Yea shame the OLD G-10 was a K-4 just with a 20mm gun option.
Your basing your expectations that a reintroduced G-10 will perform like the old one.
Bronk
-
Let me get the picture here...
1. Is 109G-14 a mid-grade 109G-6 (with a max speed of ~380) and 109G-10 (with a max speed of ~430)
2. Is 109G-10 a mid-grade 109G-14 (with max speed of ~410) and 109K-4 (with a max speed of ~450)
3. Is our 109G-14 optimised only for low alt to medium alt just like the Spit XVI? This leads me to believe that 109G-10 is optimised for medium alt to high alt (backed by data)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The G-10 would be considerably slower than the K-4. They had a very wide range of performance, from "Just barely better than a G-6" to "somewhat less than a K-4". If you took the average it would be only slightly better than the G-14. The G-14 in AH breaks 400mph easily at 15k. If you're not making this you have DTs, gondolas and other drag-inducing elements onboard.
Considering the G-14 is only 20mph slower than the K-4 across most altitudes, there's little call for a "true G-10". You just want the old K-4 specs with G-10 guns, which was not a historically accurate representation of what the plane could do. Either you outrun everything in a K-4 but pay for it by being unable to hit anything, or you get guns that are worth a damn in the G-14 but you're 20mph slower.
It's a fair trade.
EDIT: P.S. http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=109g14&p2=109k4
Tried it at 15K no DT, no Gonds, no Bombs, just 20mm nose cannon and cowl mgs.
Let it fly on auto for nearly 7 minutes. Never got above 397. Reported top speed = 408.
408 is NOT 20 mph slower the K4??????? OTD G14 is only 20 mph slower then K4????
either you are flying a different G14 and different K4 then me or my copy of AH is messed up.
Although I did try it before the last patch. Will try it again.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Yea shame the OLD G-10 was a K-4 just with a 20mm gun option.
Your basing your expectations that a reintroduced G-10 will perform like the old one.
Bronk
No I do not. think maybe you didn't bother to FULLY read my post?
http://www.adlertag.de/mainindex.htm
Look at the G10 specs listed. 426 mph is not K4 speed. And yes I have looked at other sources, and yes they pretty much say the same thing.
Look at the G14 specs 408 mph top speed. Ground support is it's most reported configuration.
What You didn't read that I stated a g10 would be slower then a K4 but faster then a g14?????
Thinkin both you and Krusty got a thing about LW planes maybe?
Seen you both reply in earlier post re this same subject.
-
Fine, take your G10 but leave my G-14! I like hood much better, which is also why I fly the G6 and not the G2.
-
Well I suppose that's my fault. I should have said "about 15k". Looking at the chart it's above that. I tried it offline just now and got to 406mph at 16.5k (and that might not be the best alt, but it's close). It took a long time to get to 406, so it was near the limit, but I didn't want to wait so I stopped at 406.
EDIT: They had custom-made FW190s for ground attack. G-14s were G-6s with MW50 installed. You don't need high-alt boost when you're in a ground pounder. I don't "have a thing for" these planes. I enjoy flying them sometimes, but note I fly other planes more than LW planes. I think you "have a thing" -- you were spoiled with the K-4 of old and want it back. Well, just like the single-room arena, it's not coming back.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
Let me get the picture here...
1. Is 109G-14 a mid-grade 109G-6 (with a max speed of ~380) and 109G-10 (with a max speed of ~430)
2. Is 109G-10 a mid-grade 109G-14 (with max speed of ~410) and 109K-4 (with a max speed of ~450)
3. Is our 109G-14 optimised only for low alt to medium alt just like the Spit XVI? This leads me to believe that 109G-10 is optimised for medium alt to high alt (backed by data)
Pretty close to my understanding!
Although most of what I've read says the G14 tops out at 408, or should, as I have already stated I never could get the AH g14 to do 400 in straight and level flight as Krusty reports but going to try again. Perhaps he dove first? I climbed out using autospeed climb and then went level at reported alt and waited for it to top out then hit wep. NO DT, NO GONDS, just 20mm hub cannon and mg and 100% fuel loadout. Took it to 15k and tried, and the reported 16.5K and tried. I have to say that once I went level and stayed level 397 was the best I got. OTD think the G2 can catch the G14?
G10 top speed is reported as 426. G14 = 408
K4 speeds 452 at alt and 320 OTD
http://www.adlertag.de/mainindex.htm
So G10 fits right in between the K4 and the G14.
-
See my previous reply.
Also you might be wary of using that webpage. They state that the "G6" had a 30mm hub, 2 20mm on the wings and 13mm under the cowlings. Very brief, no details about all the changes the G-6 went through, or the fact that the 30mm were mostly later-war, more equivelant to G-14s without MW50 than G6s.
It also says the G10 "was the fastest 109 of the war" and that the K-4 was directly developed from the G-10. Both of these are false.
Under the details for the G-14 it says "only a low number produced"
Note under the G-10 it says DB605D and "other engines used" but supplies the best speed for the best configuration. The reality is that G-10s didn't have enough high-end engines. They were being built in parallel with the K-4s, and those engines weren't ready either. More G-10s had lesser engines (i.e. the engine from a G-6/AS [edit: I admit I don't know the engines' names very well, and am guessing here]), and had lower performance specs.
That's a misleading and inaccurate website.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Well I suppose that's my fault. I should have said "about 15k". Looking at the chart it's above that. I tried it offline just now and got to 406mph at 16.5k (and that might not be the best alt, but it's close). It took a long time to get to 406, so it was near the limit, but I didn't want to wait so I stopped at 406.
EDIT: They had custom-made FW190s for ground attack. G-14s were G-6s with MW50 installed. You don't need high-alt boost when you're in a ground pounder. I don't "have a thing for" these planes. I enjoy flying them sometimes, but note I fly other planes more than LW planes. I think you "have a thing" -- you were spoiled with the K-4 of old and want it back. Well, just like the single-room arena, it's not coming back.
Don't try it offline try it ONLINE.
That is where I tried it.
Long time? Wanna time that? 10 minutes?
I want a ground pounder I'll fly a 110 of 190f8 thank you. as to the G10 vs the G14 406 and 426 are nearly the same speed?
G14 = 406 (by your report)
G10 = 426 (by most every report I've found)
K4 = 452 (by most every report I've found)
G10 SHOULD handle like a K4, perhaps a tad better if 20mm hub selected over 30mm, but be about 25mph slower. With Gond option preformance would of course suffer.
NOT about 50mph slower as in the groundpounder G14.
For TOD there is at this time a hole in the LW plane set IMHO. A G10 would patch it nicely.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
See my previous reply.
Also you might be wary of using that webpage. They state that the "G6" had a 30mm hub, 2 20mm on the wings and 13mm under the cowlings. Very brief, no details about all the changes the G-6 went through, or the fact that the 30mm were mostly later-war, more equivelant to G-14s without MW50 than G6s.
It also says the G10 "was the fastest 109 of the war" and that the K-4 was directly developed from the G-10. Both of these are false.
Under the details for the G-14 it says "only a low number produced"
Note under the G-10 it says DB605D and "other engines used" but supplies the best speed for the best configuration. The reality is that G-10s didn't have enough high-end engines. They were being built in parallel with the K-4s, and those engines weren't ready either. More G-10s had lesser engines (i.e. the engine from a G-6/AS [edit: I admit I don't know the engines' names very well, and am guessing here]), and had lower performance specs.
That's a misleading and inaccurate website.
Really? What I've read elsewhere pretty well matchs this site. G14 came 1st? G10 and K models came later and were being built same time? These people were desperate figure allot was going on same time. 190 info is pretty mixed as well but AH 190s now seem to handle and fly much better then they used to.
-
The G-14 was a late G-6 with MW50. Most G6s that had MW50 installed were re-labeled G-14s. There were quite a few of them.
The K-4 was planned to be the ultimate version, but it was taking too long. So they brought out some plans to produce the G-10 while waiting for the K-4, only they both ended up coming out a month apart, with the K-4 having better performance.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The G-14 was a late G-6 with MW50. Most G6s that had MW50 installed were re-labeled G-14s. There were quite a few of them.
The K-4 was planned to be the ultimate version, but it was taking too long. So they brought out some plans to produce the G-10 while waiting for the K-4, only they both ended up coming out a month apart, with the K-4 having better performance.
OK lets get on the same page?
I'm not asking for a G10 that has the SAME preformance as the K4.
I'm asking to file the gap between the G14 and the K4.
There is about a 50 mph speed difference. The preformance differences would be takin care of as well.
With the allied planes any preformance gap is pretty close to nil.
The G10 IMHO fills that 50mph gap and sets very nearly in the middle between the G14 and the K4.
Further it gives the pilot greater flexability on the load out.
I'm NOT asking for the K4 with 30mm gonds as some historians report were available. Not asking for a K4 with 20mm gonds either although I'm pretty sure there were some.
-
Originally posted by wrag
Don't try it offline try it ONLINE.
That is where I tried it.
Long time? Wanna time that? 10 minutes?
I want a ground pounder I'll fly a 110 of 190f8 thank you. as to the G10 vs the G14 406 and 426 are nearly the same speed?
G14 = 406 (by your report)
G10 = 426 (by most every report I've found)
K4 = 452 (by most every report I've found)
G10 SHOULD handle like a K4, perhaps a tad better if 20mm hub selected over 30mm, but be about 25mph slower. With Gond option preformance would of course suffer.
NOT about 50mph slower as in the groundpounder G14.
For TOD there is at this time a hole in the LW plane set IMHO. A G10 would patch it nicely.
I didn't see this until now.
First of all, online and offline speeds are the same. Second, it took less than a sector to get to 400mph, and doing an average of 350mph that's less than 5 minutes. It took half a sector to get from 400 to 406mph, and doing 400mph that's about 2 minutes. Total of about 7-8 minutes after leveling. You only get 10 minutes of WEP so I'd climb up there without it. I started at an 8k field, and no I didn't dive to the alt in question.
YOU are the one that said G-14 was "mostly ground attack". I was replying to this comment. That is inaccurate. Sure it was used to haul bombs (so were 109Ks and G10s), but it was not dedicated to this role.
And finally the speed issue.
You state the top speed of the G14 is 408 and the top speed of the K4 as 450mph. What you fail to state is that the altitudes they reach these speeds are almost 10k apart! (G14 at ~16.5, K4 at ~24 thousand feet).
Up to the G14s top speed, the K4 is ****ONLY**** 20mph faster than the G14. The G14 drops off 17k and above, and the K4 drops off later. That is the only reason it has a higher top speed.
If you insert a G10 in there, you ONLY have a 20mph difference. Even if you split the difference between the two, you have a model identical to the G14 but only 10mph faster. Please click this link and compare the two. I posted it before but it doesn't seem you looked at it.
http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=109g14&p2=109k4
Note the very narrow difference between the two aircraft, all the way up to 16-17k? That comes out to about 20mph at sea level up to 25mph at ~16.5k. Adding a G10 would do nothing but give you a G14 with a higher top speed.
The speed difference is negligable below 15k, and I doubt you'd be flying it at 25k where it gets its top speed.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I didn't see this until now.
First of all, online and offline speeds are the same. Second, it took less than a sector to get to 400mph, and doing an average of 350mph that's less than 5 minutes. It took half a sector to get from 400 to 406mph, and doing 400mph that's about 2 minutes. Total of about 7-8 minutes after leveling. You only get 10 minutes of WEP so I'd climb up there without it. I started at an 8k field, and no I didn't dive to the alt in question.
YOU are the one that said G-14 was "mostly ground attack". I was replying to this comment. That is inaccurate. Sure it was used to haul bombs (so were 109Ks and G10s), but it was not dedicated to this role.
And finally the speed issue.
You state the top speed of the G14 is 408 and the top speed of the K4 as 450mph. What you fail to state is that the altitudes they reach these speeds are almost 10k apart! (G14 at ~16.5, K4 at ~24 thousand feet).
Up to the G14s top speed, the K4 is ****ONLY**** 20mph faster than the G14. The G14 drops off 17k and above, and the K4 drops off later. That is the only reason it has a higher top speed.
If you insert a G10 in there, you ONLY have a 20mph difference. Even if you split the difference between the two, you have a model identical to the G14 but only 10mph faster. Please click this link and compare the two. I posted it before but it doesn't seem you looked at it.
http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=109g14&p2=109k4
Note the very narrow difference between the two aircraft, all the way up to 16-17k? That comes out to about 20mph at sea level up to 25mph at ~16.5k. Adding a G10 would do nothing but give you a G14 with a higher top speed.
The speed difference is negligable below 15k, and I doubt you'd be flying it at 25k where it gets its top speed.
E retention!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The G14 loses speed VERY FAST! Perhaps due to all the bumps and bulges.
The K4 SEEMS to regain speed FASTER.
The G10 is a cleaner airframe nearly identical to the K4.
That 10 mph would make a considerable difference if the G10 retained E better then the G14.
G14 IMHO loses E quickest of ALL 109s. And SEEMS to take longer to get it back.
G14 turns well, BUT.......................... ...
-
I'd have thought the luffenwaffle sticks would rather see a Fiat G.55/I Centauro before a G-10
-
We won't get it. Only about 50 were made, most if not all of those sat in a factory after the switch. It's doubtful even a handful ever saw action, from what I've read. It just wasn't developed in time.
-
u talking about the me-163, right?
i can't tell if you only use pronouns:furious :furious :furious
-
No, that was a direct response to ted's mention of the G.55 Centauro
-
forget it.
-
here is how everyone reacted when they lost their 109g10 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=kBVmfIUR1DA)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
We won't get it. Only about 50 were made, most if not all of those sat in a factory after the switch. It's doubtful even a handful ever saw action, from what I've read. It just wasn't developed in time.
From several G.55 sites and references.... think they all quote the same book:
"Around 130 Centauro were produced, most of them seeing service with the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana in northern Italy"
"The Germans were very interested in producing the G.55 for themselves but the labor cost and manpower hours was too great. A Fiat G.55 took 9,000 man hours to produce where it only took 5,000 man hours to produce a Me 109."
The G.55 was a redesigned G.50 Freccia (1937 production, about 780 produced, and one of best fighters in Spanish Civil War, also exported to Finland), which we also do not have in the game.
So, only 130 built..... only about 415 N1K2-J Shiden-KAI "Georges" were produced, including all versions and the prototype, IIRC, and we see how prolific they are in the war arenas. 1,435 total produced N1K2-J Shiden-KAI, N1K1-J Shiden, N1K1 Kyofu floatplanes, and N1K 3 through 5's.
The G.55 was superior to the Me 109's, just too labor intensive to build in quantities, then their plant was bombed.
In it's favor, probably the best Italian plane built (was built and exported after the war as well), was a good bomber interceptor, and gives the game's German-plane pilots a treat .... probably for a small perk cost.
And it's not another 190 or 109 version, where as the G10 would be. I suggest it for variety in response to the original thread.
-
I had read the 130-ish number as well, but I had read that, similar to the C205, more were made than saw combat. The logistics in Italy were atrocious, often when C205s were shipped out, only 1 would go to a squadron, and some would get none. I read the G.55 was even worse because it was right before the armistice that it was introduced, and after the armistice the production lines were .... inefficient, to say the least.
EDIT: don't get me wrong, I'd fly it often if we had it in-game. 3x MG151/20s and 2x 13mms!!
-
that is by far the funnyest crap i seen yet (german kid)
-
It is amazing how many G.55's have been found to be produced in the last couple of months!
-
bring back the G-10!
-
Originally posted by tikky
bring back the G-10!
-
Originally posted by tikky Bring back the G10
Leave the K4 in, though.
-
Tikky, don't bump dead posts.
Had you READ this thread, (doubt it) you'd find that wrag in his quest to request the G-10 had some blinders on.
Don't get me wrong, we've all done it once or twice. This was just one of his times.
The gap between G-14 and K-4 "right now" is minimal. There is a very small performance gap between the two up until the G14s FTH. Then the K-4 keeps going.
G10s came out the same time as K4s. So putting both in would fill no time gap. The performance difference would be so small (10mph up to 16k if you split the difference between G14 and K4) that it would be the same plane. If anything, a G6/AS or a G14/AS would be a better gap-filler.
Wrag just wants more weapons options back on his 109K-4, like it used to have. That wasn't historically accurate. We aren't getting that back.
P.S. Stop bumping dead threads.
-
I want a plane that accelerates more like a K4.
The acceleration on the G14 is sooooo slow! Even with wep.
And the preformance difference, even it it was just 10mph, IMHO would be worth it.
AND I'd be happy with a G10 if it ONLY had a 20mm hub, 13mm cowl guns, NO GONDS option!!!!!!
It could be like a G2, with slightly better speed, climb, and acceleration, but with 13mm cowl guns and 20mm hub, and i'd be happy.
Krusty keeps claiming they are the same planes. I differ on that opinion. Everything I have read so far the G10 is faster [408 G14 vs 425 G10] (perhaps just slightly by some reports), climbs slightly better, and accelerates better then the G14.
So IMHO they are NOT identical planes with identical preformance. The G10, from what I've read, would fit right between the G14 and the K4 in ALL catagories, speed, acceleration, climb, better E retention, etc.
In fact much of what I've read the K4 was developed form the G10 and NOT the G14 for a REASON!
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Tikky, don't bump dead posts.
Had you READ this thread, (doubt it) you'd find that wrag in his quest to request the G-10 had some blinders on.
Don't get me wrong, we've all done it once or twice. This was just one of his times.
The gap between G-14 and K-4 "right now" is minimal. There is a very small performance gap between the two up until the G14s FTH. Then the K-4 keeps going.
G10s came out the same time as K4s. So putting both in would fill no time gap. The performance difference would be so small (10mph up to 16k if you split the difference between G14 and K4) that it would be the same plane. If anything, a G6/AS or a G14/AS would be a better gap-filler.
Wrag just wants more weapons options back on his 109K-4, like it used to have. That wasn't historically accurate. We aren't getting that back.
P.S. Stop bumping dead threads.
It's just possible that some others see the preformance GAP between the G14 and the K4?
A gap that a G10 would and could fill. I've read what you posted and followed the links.
I disagree! The preformance differences even if it was just better acceleration would be worth it!
-
Bump
G10 is great for new players who want to fly LW planes.
-
Bump
G10 is great for new players who want to fly LW planes.
How? It offers nothing the G-14 and K-4 don't already offer. It is slower than the K-4 at altitude and was introduced a month later than the K-4.
The only additional Bf109 that we truly need is a Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14AS.
-
The G-14 is closer to the K-4 that most think. No, the low level speed is not the same, and the G-2 is faster up high, but the G-14's strength is in it's WEP and low-mid level climb. Also, it is no where as quirky as the K-4, either.
I'd be happy with HTC adding in the 30mm option for the G-6. Then AH has covered the 109 series as well as the Spitfires, P40's, P47's, P38's, and now the Hurricanes. :aok
-
a thread necromancer, can it really be true?
-
a thread necromancer, can it really be true?
Ignoring the thread. The video in your sig is very well done.
-
Thank you very much, sir :)
pm sent.
-
The G-14 is closer to the K-4 that most think. No, the low level speed is not the same, and the G-2 is faster up high, but the G-14's strength is in it's WEP and low-mid level climb. Also, it is no where as quirky as the K-4, either.
I'd be happy with HTC adding in the 30mm option for the G-6. Then AH has covered the 109 series as well as the Spitfires, P40's, P47's, P38's, and now the Hurricanes. :aok
Bf109s are covered as well as the Spitfires right now. Both airframes are missing a single needed model. The Bf109s need a high altitude version with an earlier entry date than the Bf109K-4 such as the Bf109G-6/As or Bf109G-14/AS and the Spitfires need the major Seafire model, the L.Mk III.
-
I still have nightmares from where we used to have the G-10 :noid
-
I still have nightmares from where we used to have to G-10 :noid
We never had the Bf109G-10. We had a Bf109K-4 labeled as a Bf109G-10 with options for 20mm cannons. Its performance was that of a Bf109K-4. So far as I know, the old "Bf109G-10" and our current Bf109K-4 perform exactly the same if you took the "Bf109G-10" with just the 30mm cannon.
-
Missed the point!!!!! :old:
-
I think HTC is always going to have a problem modeling the 109s - there are just too many variations to take into account for each model. You have 6 different models of the DB-605, plus 2 different sets of boost equipment all being installed into the same model airframe. A G-14 might have a DB605A, AS, AM, ASB, ASC, ASM, or D model engine -- and each one has a different maximum output at different altitudes. Couple that with the MW-50 injection, or the GM-1 nitrous injection and you have even more variations to deal with. Throw in the armament variations and all the various R mods and it is a nightmare.
That said - the G14 we have is a medium altitude model. The G10 is essentially a high-altitude (DB605D) equipped G series airframe and because of this has some armament options that were different from the K-4. My Janes has the G-10 doing a max of 428mph at 24,250 ft and the K-4 doing 440mph at 24,600 ft. Our G-14, while it COULD have the DB605D (and thus fill the role of a hi-alt 109 with MG151s) obviously does not.
To my mind the G-10 / G-14 difference is the same as the Spit VIII / Spit IX difference, or the Spit XIV / XVI difference - pretty much the same airframe, just optimized for a different altitude band.
I wouldn't mind seeing the G-10 make a comeback as an ACTUAL G-10 (and not the K-4 with 20mm option that we had) so that we have a high-altitude 109 with 20mms. If you want to differentiate it even more, you could give the G-10 the DB-605 DB (C3 fuel, or B4 fuel + MW 50 boost @ 1,850 hp) and the K-4 the DB-605 DC (C3 fuel + MW 50 boost @ 2,000 hp).
-
Ignoring the thread. The video in your sig is very well done.
Wow that is one awesome video. :O Nice filmwork. :salute
Oh and uh......hijack complete! :devil
-
EagleDNY,
Problem is that the Bf109G-10 could not be used in scenarios where a high blown, 20mm armed Bf109 is needed because it first saw service in November of 1944, a month after the Bf109K-4 entered service.
A Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS are really the only good options to fix that gap.
(A note: The Spitfire Mk IX and Mk XVI have the same airframe with different engines. The Spitfire Mk XIV was developed from the Spitfire Mk VIII's airframe, but both the Mk VIII and Mk XIV are their own beasts.)
-
A Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS are really the only good options to fix that gap.
This, finally something I can agree on - I've said it in the past, I'd like to see AS version 109s - their were more then a few squadrons that flew.
I flew the G-10 early in aces high, however its to late in the war and the K-4 was already coming into production - so no thanks.
Gap fillers would be better off, I believe if were going to add anymore 109s/spitfires - we need to be very wise in what we add, G-10 being so late war, would really NOT be a gap filler, more of another version that's so extremely limited to use. G-6 A/S for example would serve in a larger span of time, vs G-10 which would be limited to very Late war.
As a Joke I posed this a long time ago - if we DO add anymore 109s/spitfires, lets add one of each in a patch - kind of a tribute to both planes rather then have one group of "fanboys" whine about the latter not being added.
-
Butcher,
I do think we need one more Bf109 and one more Spitfire. Anything beyond that isn't needed and would just fall into the "I want my favorite which is the "Bf109G-10/Spitfire Mk XII!" sort of request.
The two needed versions are the Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS and the Seafire Mk III.
-
Bump
G10 is great for new players who want to fly LW planes.
you didnt bother to read the thread did ya? specifically the reasons why the g10 doesnt need to be added.
midway
-
Butcher,
I do think we need one more Bf109 and one more Spitfire. Anything beyond that isn't needed and would just fall into the "I want my favorite which is the "Bf109G-10/Spitfire Mk XII!" sort of request.
The two needed versions are the Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS and the Seafire Mk III.
I totally agree, much as I want to see OTHER aircraft added in game, eventually we need to fill out the gaps of existing plane sets to finish them off, with the most useful plane sets.
-
Butcher,
I do think we need one more Bf109 and one more Spitfire. Anything beyond that isn't needed and would just fall into the "I want my favorite which is the "Bf109G-10/Spitfire Mk XII!" sort of request.
The two needed versions are the Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS and the Seafire Mk III.
How much 3D remodelling theese aircrafts would require? Guessing, nearly zero.
Why not then?
-
An AS 109 would be a little work, being that you need the K-4 style cowling on the G-6 or G-14 airframe. Ideally, I'd like the G-6 AS with the Galland canopy and the low tail.
-
How much 3D remodelling theese aircrafts would require? Guessing, nearly zero.
Why not then?
I understand there is about a month of research that Pyro does for each new aircraft.
An AS 109 would be a little work, being that you need the K-4 style cowling on the G-6 or G-14 airframe. Ideally, I'd like the G-6 AS with the Galland canopy and the low tail.
The Bf109G-6/AS would be my preference too.
-
For scenarios, I would rather see the F2 =(
-
EagleDNY,
Problem is that the Bf109G-10 could not be used in scenarios where a high blown, 20mm armed Bf109 is needed because it first saw service in November of 1944, a month after the Bf109K-4 entered service.
A Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS are really the only good options to fix that gap.
(A note: The Spitfire Mk IX and Mk XVI have the same airframe with different engines. The Spitfire Mk XIV was developed from the Spitfire Mk VIII's airframe, but both the Mk VIII and Mk XIV are their own beasts.)
We don't have 1945 scenarios? Do agree that one fix would be to give our G-14 the DB-605ASM (note the ASM not AS - C3+MW50). The DB605ASM is slightly less powerful than the DB605D series, but still has decent power at high altitude. I don't know what is modeled in the thing now - the ata would seem to indicate an ASM, but he power curve seems strange. I did find some interesting DB605 power charts, so maybe I'll do some testing and see what boost and speed I can get at various altitudes and do a comparison to find out.
-
Butcher,
I do think we need one more Bf109 and one more Spitfire. Anything beyond that isn't needed and would just fall into the "I want my favorite which is the "Bf109G-10/Spitfire Mk XII!" sort of request.
The two needed versions are the Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS and the Seafire Mk III.
Would definitely like to see the Seafire Mk. III as well.
-
I agree PLEASE bring the G10 back!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I agree PLEASE bring the G10 back!!!!!!!!!!!
We never had the Bf109G-10. Therefor it cannot be brought back.
-
Don't forget the Emil-7 :angel:
-
Don't forget the Emil-7 :angel:
Not needed.
Would be nice, but it isn't needed.
-
I would like to see a 109/AS version added to the game. Been waiting on this for a long time. G-10 not so much.
-
As I indicated up the thread, I did some 109G-14 testing to try to figure out exactly what we had. I'm still at a loss.
At 25% fuel and 6500lbs (I shot off all the ammo) - I was getting 312 and 347 WEP at Sea Level. That was about right. I WEP climbed for a while and at NO time could I match the climb rate on HTCs charts. I topped out at 4590 ft/min at about 4K and went down steadily from there - the chart showing 4900 ft/min WEP climb at 5K must be with an attached rocket motor which I don't seem to have access to.
I flew the G-14 around, and at low to medium alt, I think we are getting most of the rated performance, but the climb is still suspect.
I think what this tells me more than anything else is that we need a defined testing regimen for aircraft and more testing.
-
Where should the Bf109G-14's performance be according to German tests?
-
Late war German fighters give me a total headache when trying to find actual numbers, I pretty much given up hope on getting them correct.
-
Not needed.
Would be nice, but it isn't needed.
Yes it is :old:
-
Yes it is :old:
Make your sales pitch. Tell me why the Bf109E-7 is needed like a Bf109G-6/AS.
For the record, I currently see the Bf109E-7 in the same category as the Spitfire Mk II, nice to have, but not needed at all. I do think that if the Bf109E-7 is added then the Spitfire Mk II goes from being nice to have to required to have.
-
Make your sales pitch. Tell me why the Bf109E-7 is needed like a Bf109G-6/AS.
For the record, I currently see the Bf109E-7 in the same category as the Spitfire Mk II, nice to have, but not needed at all. I do think that if the Bf109E-7 is added then the Spitfire Mk II goes from being nice to have to required to have.
I dont see the Spit II as the counterpart to the E-7 as much as the Yak-1, Mig-3, and Lagg-3.
-
I dont see the Spit II as the counterpart to the E-7 as much as the Yak-1, Mig-3, and Lagg-3.
None of which we have.
The reason the Bf109E-7 makes the Spitfire Mk II a requirement is that the Bf109E-7 would be used in BoB scenarios, tilting it more in favor of the Germans, as it did see service in the BoB. The Spitfire Mk II would be needed to balance that.
-
None of which we have.
The reason the Bf109E-7 makes the Spitfire Mk II a requirement is that the Bf109E-7 would be used in BoB scenarios, tilting it more in favor of the Germans, as it did see service in the BoB. The Spitfire Mk II would be needed to balance that.
the E-7 wouln't be used for BoB, because it never participated in the BoB.
-
Where should the Bf109G-14's performance be according to German tests?
That is one of the big problems - the performance numbers depend upon which DB605 you have installed (AM / AS / ASM / D) - I suspect we have an AM, but how are we to know? Without knowing that, all I can tell you is that I am unable to match the speed and climb charts that HTC has posted for the G-14 online, despite having less weight and a clean airframe. Kurfurst has engine charts for all the DB605s, but I will need to translate them from german before I can use them.
-
the E-7 wouln't be used for BoB, because it never participated in the BoB.
It has been stated on this forum many times that it did enter the BoB in, IIRC, October of 1940 and I've seen requests for it specifically to get a drop tank enabled Bf109 to use in the BoB.
-
It has been stated on this forum many times that it did enter the BoB in, IIRC, October of 1940 and I've seen requests for it specifically to get a drop tank enabled Bf109 to use in the BoB.
E-7 and Spitfire II, Hurricane IIa were introduced the very end of BoB, what is needed is the 190E-4/B.
What I would like to see is a 1941 BoB, Spitfire V's, 109F's - kind of a what if scenario if Germany waited for drop tanks on fighters to actually have range to hit the primary fields.
-
E-7 and Spitfire II, Hurricane IIa were introduced the very end of BoB, what is needed is the 190E-4/B.
What I would like to see is a 1941 BoB, Spitfire V's, 109F's - kind of a what if scenario if Germany waited for drop tanks on fighters to actually have range to hit the primary fields.
At the same time the poor bombers would be facing cannon armed Hurricanes and Spitfires.
-
It has been stated on this forum many times that it did enter the BoB in, IIRC, October of 1940 and I've seen requests for it specifically to get a drop tank enabled Bf109 to use in the BoB.
Fair enough. My point reguarding the E-7 was that is still saw action throughout '41 in every theater the Luftwaffe participated, especially the eastern front. The spit2 was quickly suplanted by the spit5. I think that places the 109E-7 very much ahead of the Spitfire mk2 as far as "needing" in AH.
-
Fair enough. My point reguarding the E-7 was that is still saw action throughout '41 in every theater the Luftwaffe participated, especially the eastern front. The spit2 was quickly suplanted by the spit5. I think that places the 109E-7 very much ahead of the Spitfire mk2 as far as "needing" in AH.
I'll grant you that in the absence of both, but if we also don't have the MiG-3, LaGG-3 and Yak-1 that eliminates the need for the Bf109E-7 as the only remaining place to use it within the existing AH planeset is in the late BoB.
The other point stands that the moment the Bf109E-7 is added the Spitfire Mk II goes from "Would be kinda nice" to "Required".
Also, the Bf109E-7 doesn't approach the Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS because of the importance of the American Bomber offensive from the standpoint of the player base and the existing planeset.
-
I'll grant you that in the absence of both, but if we also don't have the MiG-3, LaGG-3 and Yak-1 that eliminates the need for the Bf109E-7 as the only remaining place to use it within the existing AH planeset is in the late BoB.
You forgot North Africa.
And I mentioned those Soviet planes because they are all very much needed in AH. Maybe not the MiG, but it looks so cool.
Also, the Bf109E-7 doesn't approach the Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS because of the importance of the American Bomber offensive from the standpoint of the player base and the existing planeset.
indeed.