Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: croduh on November 30, 2007, 05:17:32 AM
-
I am making a map for SEA and hopefully some snapshots will be run on it.Problem is most of the messerschmidt's owned by ZNDH were g10s, which we don't have?What can be used to replace them?How big was the difference between g6,g10 and k4?
Can i use overskinned k4s?
-
Our K-4 is the exact same thing as what we had for the G-10. They renamed it as a K-4.
The G-10 was basically an attempt to take older G series 109s and refit them to K-4 standards.
-
Not exactly true, Urchin.
The G-10 was designed to be a faster/better high alt performance 109.
The K4 was introduced in an attempt to standardise the production of the 109, as it had become a mess.
The ended up rolling before the G10 if i'm not mistaken and was improvement upon the G-10.
Faster, a few aerodynamics improvements and a pressurised cockpit.
Croduh, the closest 109 to the G-10 is the K4.
all G-10 skins are submitted as K4s ingame.
-
G6 < G14 < G10 < K4
The G-10, would be somewhere in between our K4 and G14. If you have to substitute it with one plane, I'd do it with the K-4 than the G-14.
-
IT has been long time since we lost 109g10 from game, i forgot, was there difference in gunas (i remember g10 having gondolas?)
-
I believe the G10 was fitted with several field mods, including wing mounted gondolas.
I have seen photos of 30mm gondolas, I'm not sure if they were fitted to the G10 but it would seem likely to me. 20mm gondolas were more common so they were probably used too.
The G10 was also fitted with a 20 or 30mm cannon in the hub.
-
There were only 20 mm gondola guns, 30 mm MK 108 were only tested as wooden mockup but were planned for K-6.
The standard G-10 hat the standard MG 151/20 hub gun, the G-10/U4 had the MK 108 (as did the G-6/U4 and G-14/U4).
It is a common myth to believe older airframes were refurbished/upgraded to G-10 specs, they were all new built aircraft. The confusion may have started with the initial airframes used for G-10 production. The initial airframes were originally assigned to G-14 production but were diverted and used for G-10.
-
Originally posted by Denniss
There were only 20 mm gondola guns, 30 mm MK 108 were only tested as wooden mockup but were planned for K-6.
I have photographic evidence that says otherwise.
Osprey Books 'Bf 109 Defence of the Reich Aces'.
Mk 108 cannon in an under-wing gondola.
my image storage site is not working at the moment but the image is on page 51 if anyone else has this book.
The K6 was to feature Mk 108 cannons IN the wings, not in gondolas.
-
Croduh don't design a terrain around a specific plane. Leave field/plane assignments to the CMs in the events
-
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i253/plague_06/Image014.jpg)
-
The G-10 was not a production plane, but a factory conversion of older G models to K-4 standards. Unfortunately for the Luftwaffe the G-10's were far from "standard" in any way, most just incorporating some, but not all of the K-4 upgrades. The G-10's performance depended mostly on which engine it got.
So the "family tree" should look something like this:
G-6/G-6AS > G-14/G-14AS > K-4 > G-10
My only gripe with the 109 plane set is that we have none of the AS model G-6 or G-14. A true representation of the airwar in western Europe is therefore impossible. One third of all 109's produced had AS engines or the DB 605D (K-4/G-10).
-
IMHO (i've said this before)
Our current G14 SEEMS to preform best BLOW 16K. Many paid a price for that in the DGS scenario (IMHO)
Flyin that thing at 30K + was .... ugh, wallowed and had difficulty maintaining alt much less fighting!
Our K4 SEEMS to preform best ABOVE 6k. Compared to the G14 was a joy to fly at 30k+ and you could fight with it up there!
We lack a plane!
IMHO the G10 with a slightly altered FM from the K4 ( about 25mph slower at altitude maybe) would be perfect for scenarios and such. It would fit right in!
Plus the G10 was a HIGH alt fighter!
The G14, from what I've read, was a GROUND attack plane. In some cases it was reported to carry 2 gondolas under each wing and in rare cases even another 2 gondolas in some cases for a total of 5 20mm cannons, and a 500k bomb. This was during it's ground attack role!
Yes in a pinch the G14 was used against high alt bombers.
As to the field modifications thing....
the F4 was equipped with gonds (many were used to attack allied bombers during the early years of the allied bombing efforts) and used to have that option in AH but at some point that option was removed. Perhaps this was due to complaints of it's effectiveness? (loved the F4 with gonds!) :(
lets see, 109 ALL used to have excellent down elevator performance (which BTW was/is SUPPOSED? to be the case) And could do a snap roll that was difficult for other planes to follow. But when AHII came out that was GONE. :(
109g6 used to have the 30mm options but was removed. Not sure why this happened. :(
109g10 was a great plane! Had options for a 20mm or 30mm hub and you could add 20mm gonds. Flew poorly with the gonds mind you but oh could it hit! (BTW referred HTC to an article about a current comparison of a G10 (ORIGINAL) to a pony, and 2 aviations greats both claimed the G10 OUT TURNED the pony! The pony could out run the G10 of course.) :)
Would love a slightly slower G10 with the 20mm or 30mm hub option and a gonds option. :)
IMHO would make the CT and scenarios much more enjoyable if these things were put back in BUT....................
Guess all the noob pony, spit, n lala7 drivers cried to much?????
What? they want a free ride or something?
The Allies won the war so their planes must have been UBER?
Superiority thing? Allied rides were just better? Only by a small margin. AND that margin isn't enough, and IMHO shouldn't be enough, to protect a noob pilot in AHII.
GEEZ it's like these people automatically think the allies had it EASY in the airwar during WWII?
IF SO, NOT TRUE! MANY Allied pilots did not RTB due to LW planes and pilots!
The fightin was HARD! and furious and dangerous for ALL involved.
Several writers have made reference to the NUMBERS put forward by the Allied effort being a telling factor in the war. Get that? NUMBERS! Yes the NUMBER of planes flying and fighting on the Allied side was a BIG contributing factor!
Sorta like the Sherman against the Tiger. The Allies figured they would lose 3 or 4 Shermans for every Tiger taken out. They didn't try to field a superior tank (at 1st anyway) they fielded MORE tanks. And overwhelmed with NUMBERS.
Now I see someone wants the pony to turn better? IMHO it turns about where it should?
-
Originally posted by wrag
IMHO (i've said this before)
Our current G14 SEEMS to preform best BLOW 16K. Many paid a price for that in the DGS scenario (IMHO)
Flyin that thing at 30K + was .... ugh, wallowed and had difficulty maintaining alt much less fighting!
Our K4 SEEMS to preform best ABOVE 6k. Compared to the G14 was a joy to fly at 30k+ and you could fight with it up there!
We lack a plane!
IMHO the G10 with a slightly altered FM from the K4 ( about 25mph slower at altitude maybe) would be perfect for scenarios and such. It would fit right in!
Plus the G10 was a HIGH alt fighter!
No the old G-10 had the same performance as the K-4 we have now (452 mph at altitude), but you are right in that we lack a plane. We lack a G-6/G-14 with the DB 605AS/ASM engine. That was the high-alt version of the DB 605A (using the bigger blower of the DB 603). The G-6 and G-14 we now have were the low-medium alt version. The AS 109's flew almost exclusively in the west against the USAF.
-
The G14, from what I've read, was a GROUND attack plane. In some cases it was reported to carry 2 gondolas under each wing and in rare cases even another 2 gondolas in some cases for a total of 5 20mm cannons, and a 500k bomb. This was during it's ground attack role!
Further research definitely required.
-
The maximum amount of gondolas carried by the Bf 109 was two, one per wing. Do not mix it up with the Fw 190, it was able to carry a twin-MG 151 pod instead of the outer-wing MG 151. The G-14 was not able to carry a 500 kg bomb, if any 109 was able to carry 500 kg bombs then the K-4.
And, as I said before, the G-10 was a production aircraft and not old repaired/refurbished G-series airframes with a new engine. And almost all G-10 had a DB 605D engine, D-2, DM or DB. A very low number may have got an AS subtype especially at the end of the war when they used what was avaliable.
That's an old myth repeated over and over and it's almost impossible to remove this BS.
And, BTW, the K-4 only reached 715 km/h (444 mph) with a production propeller. The 452 mph figure was only achieved with an experimental prop.
-
What are your sources Denniss?
-
According to Prien and Rodeike , about 1000 G14/AS aircraft were produced, and they say that's more than the number of G6/AS. That's a pretty small proportion of the total # of 109s, or so it seems to me.
There's a better argument for a true G-10 simply based on the #s.
-
2064 G-6/AS and G-14/AS plus 3600 DB 605D G-10's and K-4's. That’s 5664 high altitude 109's out of some 17,000 produced in 1944/45. One in three 109's.
The reason the AS variants are more important is that they were available from December 1943. This is very important for scenarios and especially for the upcoming CT which will focus on the LW vs. USAAF. These high altitude 109's were the escorts for the bomber interceptors, and would try to draw the USAAF fighters away from the bombers. A critical mission. Without the AS engines, come spring 1944 and it will be no point in flying LW. They will be totally outclassed at altitude.
-
Originally posted by Viking
No the old G-10 had the same performance as the K-4 we have now (452 mph at altitude), but you are right in that we lack a plane. We lack a G-6/G-14 with the DB 605AS/ASM engine. That was the high-alt version of the DB 605A (using the bigger blower of the DB 603). The G-6 and G-14 we now have were the low-medium alt version. The AS 109's flew almost exclusively in the west against the USAF.
You read some of it but how did you miss this part??????????
"IMHO the G10 with a slightly altered FM from the K4 ( about 25mph slower at altitude maybe) would be perfect for scenarios and such. It would fit right in!"
I was NOT and have NOT requested the OLD g10's return!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I HAVE requested a G10 based on what I've read online and elsewhere!
Try looking here..............
http://www.adlertag.de/mainindex.htm
Look up the G10 listed and look at the speed listed!
Then look here at the G14..............
http://www.adlertag.de/mainindex.htm
You can also look at the same site for the K4 and see the DIFFERENCES!
Why have 2 versions of the G6 or G14 (confusing some I'm sure) when the G10 will do?????
-
Originally posted by Denniss
The maximum amount of gondolas carried by the Bf 109 was two, one per wing. Do not mix it up with the Fw 190, it was able to carry a twin-MG 151 pod instead of the outer-wing MG 151. The G-14 was not able to carry a 500 kg bomb, if any 109 was able to carry 500 kg bombs then the K-4.
As far as I know the K4 was the only 109 (aside from the earliest Emils) that did not carry bombs if required.
-
Originally posted by Viking
2064 G-6/AS and G-14/AS plus 3600 DB 605D G-10's and K-4's. That’s 5664 high altitude 109's out of some 17,000 produced in 1944/45. One in three 109's.
The reason the AS variants are more important is that they were available from December 1943. This is very important for scenarios and especially for the upcoming CT which will focus on the LW vs. USAAF. These high altitude 109's were the escorts for the bomber interceptors, and would try to draw the USAAF fighters away from the bombers. A critical mission. Without the AS engines, come spring 1944 and it will be no point in flying LW. They will be totally outclassed at altitude.
There was no more than 226 a/c built (converted) as /AS between May and Aug 1944.
The 1st G-6/ASs was delivered to III./JG1, I./JG5 and II./JG11 in the spring of 1944.
There was 1 new build G-6/AS built in Sept 44.
There was 1377 new build G-14/ASs built between Oct 44 and Mar 45.
-
From Kurfurst's site:
The first AS engined aircraft were produced from December 1943, at the same period the production of the MkXIV Spitfires commenced.
Altogether 686 G-6/AS aircraft were built or converted from existing airfames, along with 76 G-5/AS, 16 G-5/R2/AS, 68 G-5/R6/AS, the only difference being G-5s having pressurized cocpits for the pilot`s comfort at high altitudes.
From spring of 1944 - and not during the summer as Williams suggests - MW 50 injection appeared on the Bf 109s, resulting two 'new' engines, the DB 605 AM with 1800 PS and a rated altitude of 4km / 13 125ft, and the DB 605 ASM with 1800 PS and a rated altitude of 6.5km / 21 000 ft. Both were essentially modified DB 605 A and AS engines (AS itself was based on the DB 605A-1, with it`s supercharger replaced by a larger one taken from the DB 603 G engine) equipped with MW-50 boost, boosting low altitude output up to the rated altitude, above which the MW injection ceased and performance was the same. These engines were built into both G-5/AS and G-6/AS aircraft, and was noted by Heinz Knoke`s war diary above. In addition, Olivier Lefebvre noted about conversion kits for the G-6/U2 subtype, which featered a nitrous-oxide booster (GM-1) tank, that could be converted to use MW booster with little difficulty :
"250 conversion kit were issued early spring 1944 for the already produced /U2 aircraft and switch on the production lines from GM-1 to /U2 occured at that time as well. The G-6/U2 convertion was standardized over the next few months, with replacement of the heavy tank with a thin aluminium one and some modifications in the MW-50 piping. While those aircraft were still produced as G-6/U2 the name switched to G-14 during summer 1944, the late G-6/U2 being identical to G-14."
From July 1944 the production of these improved G-6s was standardized, re-designated as G-14 (with medium altitude 1800 PS DB 605 AM) and G-14/AS (with high altitude DB 605 ASM), but otherwise differed in little from those late production G-6s. Some 1830 G-14/AS aircraft were built, bringing the number of 605AS and ASM engined G-5s, G-6s and G-14s to ca. 2500 examples. The number of G-14s built in total is unknown, an estimated about 3-4000 examples, the exact number being difficult to tell because of the many converted/repaired airframes.
-
Yes Viking I made a mistake. The 226 was from MTT Regensburg. A further 460 were conversions.
When it comes to Kurfurst, one must take what he says with a very small grain of salt.
-
Denniss,
the myth may be that ALL G-10:s were repaired/refurbished G-series planes. One of my pretty trustworthy sources (Valtonen, H.) also mentions this common misconception, but continues to correct it: ".. but in reality some of them [G-10:s] were new production based on newly built 109G-6 fuselages." Note, "some of them".
Also many of the fuselages were over painted (like expected from rebuilt/refurbished planes) and had 2 production plates; one G-6 and one G-10. The plate is attached only when the plane is finished. Why else would there be those 2 plates?
-
I know Milo. His conclusions are most of the problem though, his data is usually good.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Yes Viking I made a mistake. The 226 was from MTT Regensburg. A further 460 were conversions.
... in addition to 160 G-5/AS, which brings the total of AS engined 109's built in the first 5-6 months of 1944 to: 846 aircraft. A not at all insignificant number considering the short time span and their vital role in the ETO.
-
Originally posted by Denniss
... if any 109 was able to carry 500 kg bombs then the K-4.
With the proper Rüstsatze all G-series 109's could carry a 500 kg bomb. Few ever did this however since it was far less practical than just using the 250 kg bomb. The G-2/R1 could even carry two wing-mounted drop tanks in addition to a 500 kg bomb.
(http://www.luchtoorlog.be/img/me109g/g23.jpg)
Bf 109G-2/R1 with 500 kg bomb and two wing mounted 300 litre drop tanks.
-
Not a single Bf 109G (maybe except the G-10, I do not really have enough information to be sure about this) was able to carry a 500 kg bomb, not enough ground clearance.
The often mentioned G-2/R1 with a 500 kg bomb was in reality a prototype based on the G-2/R1 modified with that special tail wheel to achieve more ground clearance.
The standard G-2/R1 (Rüststand 1, do not confuse with Rüstsatz 1!) was a long range fighter-bomber with two drop tanks and a single bomb of 250 kg or four of 50 kg.
-
Again Denniss, what is your source?
-
Actually that special tail wheel is quite visible in the pic above ;)
-
I know it is there, that was not my question.
-
Originally posted by BlauK
Actually that special tail wheel is quite visible in the pic above ;)
I know it's there but it does not belong to Rüststand 1 but to the experimental 500 kg bomb installation.
-
I believe the ETC-500 bomb rack could take a 500kg bomb in other planes, but in 109G series the 500kg bomb would just not have enough space under the plane. Maybe that causes the contradiction?
In K-series there was a higher tail wheel (almost normal one) in the rear in some models.
-
Originally posted by Denniss
Rüststand
You are the only one I've ever seen using that word. What is your source? I see your a wikipedian ... and only your articles use this word in context with the 109.
-
Does anyone have any test data on the g-10? I've seen many for g-6s and g-14s and a few for k-4s, but never seen any speed or climb charts for a g-10.
A lot of good data on late war 109s can be found at these sites:
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/#Gustav
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/#Kurfurst
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109-gj-fx.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109g-level.jpg
As stated before, look at the data and not the conclusions since both of these guys tend to make some interesting ones.
Also take a look at http://109lair.hobbyvista.com for info, pictures, and drawings.
-
Originally posted by Viking
You are the only one I've ever seen using that word. What is your source? I see your a wikipedian ... and only your articles use this word in context with the 109.
Lots of people that are digging into the Bf 109 stuff use both Rüststand and Rüstsatz. Rüstsatz is just the add-on kit like additional guns or bombs. Rüststand is a more or less deep conversion to fulfil a specific mission task. Thus we have the R1 long-range fighter-bomber, the R2-R5 reconnaisssance aircraft (long/short range, different cameras and/or radio equipment) and the R6 all-weather capable aircraft. That's what the /Rx designation stands for (also stamped onto the aircraft dataplate).
Adding a Rüstsatz does not change the aircraft designation, a G-6/R6 will always be an all-weather capable G-6, the G-6 with wing gondolas is just a G-6 with atached R6 (in some Mtt docs also referred as Rüstsatz VI, probably to avoid confusion with Rüststand 6).
-
But is the Rüststand a field conversion or a factory conversion like the various Umrüst-Bausätze?
-
Originally posted by Denniss
And, as I said before, the G-10 was a production aircraft and not old repaired/refurbished G-series airframes with a new engine.
Artie Bob's listings gives 2048 built as "Neubau" while Mermet gives total 4500 of which 3500 were recycled G-6s. Difficult to say if the the term recycled mean repaired or unused airframes converted to G-10. Nothing concrete can be said based on Valtonen either. I can only quess that there were actually three kind of G-10 airframes:
1. Repaired airframes
2. Converted new built airframes
3. Originally built as G-10 airframes
But that is only speculation based on evidence.
Originally posted by Denniss
The often mentioned G-2/R1 with a 500 kg bomb was in reality a prototype based on the G-2/R1 modified with that special tail wheel to achieve more ground clearance.
IIRC this was in Luftfahrt International, anyway, one of proto. Viking apparently likes the idea a lot.
Regarding the appearance of the AS; two protypes flew late 1943 and the earliest pictures in units I 've seen are from March or April 1944. With MW50 I have no exact date, earliest pictures I'm aware are early summer 1944 (May-June).
-
Originally posted by gripen
Regarding the appearance of the AS; two protypes flew late 1943 and the earliest pictures in units I 've seen are from March or April 1944. With MW50 I have no exact date, earliest pictures I'm aware are early summer 1944 (May-June).
This ties in nicely with the first loss of a G-6/AS, being May 8 1944 when Fw Karemiyz of 8./JG 1 in WNr 20629 was killed in combat with P-47s. This was a converted G-6.
Don't take anything that Kurfurst says at face value.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Don't take anything that Kurfurst says at face value.
Of course not. Nor do I take anything you or Gripen says at face value, and I assume the feeling is mutual.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Of course not. Nor do I take anything you or Gripen says at face value, and I assume the feeling is mutual.
Glad you don't but your good buddy has a well know reputation for manipulation, fabrication, half truths and mis-interpretation of facts.
This is in contrast to you Viking, as well as gripen, myself and the ones on his hate list who don't do it deliberately.
-
"Rüststand" is the condition of the plane according to the Rüstsatz it carries, not the kit itself.
Example:
A 109 with "Rüstsatz XY" has the "Rüststand XY".
In english directly:
A 109 with "Ordnance/Equipment kit XY" has the "Ordnance/Equipment condition XY"
Hope that clears it up!
Regards,
Matt
-
Originally posted by Keiler
"Rüststand" is the condition of the plane according to the Rüstsatz it carries, not the kit itself.
Example:
A 109 with "Rüstsatz XY" has the "Rüststand XY".
In english directly:
A 109 with "Ordnance/Equipment kit XY" has the "Ordnance/Equipment condition XY"
Hope that clears it up!
Regards,
Matt
Nope, you are mixing Rüstzustand with Rüststand. Rüstzustand = setup condition (translation may not 100% correct but it should fit)
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=50
-
Originally posted by Denniss
Nope, you are mixing Rüstzustand with Rüststand. Rüstzustand = setup condition (translation may not 100% correct but it should fit)
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=50
GOSH, german engineers and their terminology. I know what I am talking about, since I am one of this ilk...
:o Thanks!
Matt
-
Originally posted by Raptor
Croduh don't design a terrain around a specific plane. Leave field/plane assignments to the CMs in the events
I'm not designing the terrain around one plane, just would like to know what plane could be used as a replacement if the map gets approved.
Was hoping to embed some skins too, if h2h would ever come back...