Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: JScore on January 28, 2008, 08:55:53 AM
-
I'm relatively new, and after doing a forum search for the 109G-10 I noticed that it had been removed. Was just wondering the reason behind it, afterall, it seems a bit odd, that HTC would remove a plane that had already been implemented. Albeit, there are already a handful of 109's in-game, maybe someone could shed some light on the subject for yours truly. Tks in advance.
-
It has been replaced by the K-4, which is almost identical to the old G-10 in most respects. Biggest difference: No wing gunpods.
-
lol, I don't know about you, but gunpods on K sounds like a pretty good time to me!
-
There was a speed difference between the two. I'd rather have the K-4 but it would be nice to have something different in addition just for the sake of it.
-
No, there was no speed difference in AH. Our G-10 was modeled at K-4 speeds.
-
I didn't mean anyting hostile by the post, I just thought it odd that instead of just "adding" the K, they removed the G10, and added the K. Eh.
-
Notice no one has really answered your question, yet.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Notice no one has really answered your question, yet.
Well, why don't you do it then? ;)
-
lol, this is exactly where I ended up when i did the forum search! There wasn't any definitive reason for removing it? Might be one for Skuzzy. In the meantime, I'll start making the picket line signs for "Bring back the G10!" lol.
-
Originally posted by JScore
lol, this is exactly where I ended up when i did the forum search! There wasn't any definitive reason for removing it? Might be one for Skuzzy. In the meantime, I'll start making the picket line signs for "Bring back the G10!" lol.
That line is pretty long so find a place at the back.. thx
;)
-
I'd like to have the G-10 just for the option of an MG 151 instead of the Mk 108.
In the early versions of Warbirds they did something similar when they got rid of the G-2 and replaced it with the G-6. It makes no sense I tell ya, and they only do it to the 109 family.:cry
-
I know! I did a little pokin' around and come to find out, over 2600 G10's we're produced. I'm sure that number could be argued, but the point is, it was there, and it was there in substantial numbers. A lot of guys come on here wanting new aircraft that could easily be described as "niche" or saw very limited service. This is not the case. PLUS, it was in-game at one time anyway. This could get heated, lol.
-
Originally posted by Lusche
It has been replaced by the K-4, which is almost identical to the old G-10 in most respects. Biggest difference: No wing gunpods.
No 20mm hub. Biggest downside to the Kurfuerst.
-
When a new remodelling of Spitfires and 109s were announced, there were some speculations on how the new roster would be. We had the G-2, G-6, and G-10 at that time, and there had been many opinions on the "ideal" roster representing mid-late war 109s.
One consistent opinion, seemingly gaining consensus among 109 fans, was that;
1) a "stop gap" G-14 should be introduced..
2) the "hypothetical" G-10, should be redesignated as a K-4, since by all means it really WAS a K-4..
3) a separate G-10 should be introduced
This way, we had the G-2 of 1942, G-6 of 1943, G-14 of 1944, a high-alt operations Gustav of 1944 in the form of G-10, and the final "superplane" K-4. I still view this as the most ideal form.
My guess on why the G-10 was left out, is that it was probably to shorten development time. Instead of modelling both new G-14 and G-10, I guess HTC decided to just add in a G-14 as a new plane, redesignate the old G-10 as a "K-4" and be done with the G-10.
As for now, one can only hope.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
No, there was no speed difference in AH. Our G-10 was modeled at K-4 speeds.
I never flew the G-10, I was referring to the actual aircraft.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
a high-alt operations Gustav of 1944
Der Gross Schlag scenario highlighted this short-fall in the German planeset. It would surely be much easier to knock the appropriate speed off the K4 model, tighten the turn radius a tiny bit and change the load-out options and 'paste' that onto a a 'G10'.
Visual differences were minor.
It seems like such a small change that would please so many.
-
Excellent responses. I believe Kweassa hit the nail on the head. This G10 kick that I'm on kind of spawned from all of the P-39Q buzz, and the subsequent rants of what aircraft should be modeled next. I have a problem when folks start clamoring for obscure or very early war aircraft that, aside from historical events, would be hangar queens in the MA. At least with a G10 we would have an a/c that would get everyday use and provide a useful stop-gap between an overloaded and underpowered G14 and a dragracing monster armed with a jugs machine. Heres for hoping.
-
Originally posted by JScore
a useful stop-gap between an overloaded and underpowered G14
:huh
Underpowered? G-14?? OUR G-14??? One of the very best climbers and fastest accelerating planes in game?
:rofl
-
our G10 was modelled on the K4 pretty much. they just switched the names because it was just better that way. the g10 was all over the place in real life, so many different engines, armaments etc. HTC just wanted a standardised plane that didn't have data that conflicted on everything.
-
Lusche, at very high altitudes the G-14 of AH is underpowered: MW50 was only effective boost at lower altitudes. For high altitude work the real Luftwaffe had the G6/AS and G14/AS, which both shared the DB605A powerplant coupled with the larger supercharger of the DB603. These aircraft lacked the characteristic breach bulges of the G series.
-
Originally posted by Anaxogoras
Lusche, at very high altitudes the G-14 of AH is underpowered: MW50 was only effective boost at lower altitudes. For high altitude work the real Luftwaffe had the G6/AS and G14/AS, which both shared the DB605A powerplant coupled with the larger supercharger of the DB603. These aircraft lacked the characteristic breach bulges of the G series.
Only because it has less power than some other variants at a specific altitude doesn't make it underpowered
-
ehh, i think we missing tanks, just my opinion
-
I wouldn't mind hearing from the "management" just what it would entail putting it back into the game. In my nieve-coding-modeling-oversimplifying mind, since it was in the game at one time, one would think it wouldn't be that big of a deal putting it back in the hangar.
-
The problem I have and had with the Bf109G-10 is that its service entry was actually after the service entry of the Bf109K-4. As such, it doesn't fill any gaps.
What we actually need is a Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS.
-
Wasn't the G10 a G14 field modified to match K4 standards?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
What we actually need is a Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS.
I'd be inclined to agree with you there. The Mk 108 cannon should be added to the G-6 load out options, too.
-
Originally posted by Xasthur
The Mk 108 cannon should be added to the G-6 load out options, too.
+1, we used to have it, it was t3h shizzle.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The problem I have and had with the Bf109G-10 is that its service entry was actually after the service entry of the Bf109K-4. As such, it doesn't fill any gaps.
What we actually need is a Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS.
"The G-10 was an attempt to match the proven Bf 109 G-6/G-14 airframe with the new and more powerful DB 605D engine with minimal disruption of the production lines. Despite what the designation would suggest, it appeared in service after the G-14 and somewhat before the K-4 in November 1944. Early production G-10s used fuselages taken from the G-14 production lines, this was probably a source of confusion as many authors still believe many G-10 were based on recycled G-series fuselages. The most recognizable change was the standardized use of the "Erla-Haube" canopy, sometimes referred to (incorrectly) as the "Galland" hood. This canopy improved the pilot's view by reducing the number of support struts, which was often criticized before. The G-10 was produced in very substantial numbers, with some 2,600 G-10s produced until the war's end. The Bf 109 G-10, AS-engined G-5s, G-6s and G-14s as well as the K-4 saw a refinement of the bulges covering the breeches of the cowl mounted MG 131, these taking on a more elongated and streamlined form, barely discernible on the upper sides of the cowl panels, as the large engine supercharger required a redesign of the cowling."
-
The problem I have and had with the Bf109G-10 is that its service entry was actually after the service entry of the Bf109K-4. As such, it doesn't fill any gaps.
What we actually need is a Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS.
It could work that way too.
The Bf109G-14/AS (or /ASM; indicating that it is mounted with a DB605ASM engine) is quoted at 348 mph at seal level, and 423 mph at 25,000 ft. Although the G-10 is mounted with a DB605D, the performance is very comparable. Also, considering the K-4 tops out in max speed at 22k, the higher FTH is a clear indicator of the high-alt /AS engine.
Therefore, I'd expect the Bf109G-14/AS could very closely stand in for the G-10 when required to do so - thus, it is a good choice.
-
If they let me put a MG-151 in the 109K-4 and pretend it's a G-10 I would be happy and shut up.
-
So, 1x20mm + 2x13mm option for you Anaxoras? Most are after 3x20mm + 2x13mm when they want g10:D
That 30mm potatogun works just nice in K4;)
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
It could work that way too.
The Bf109G-14/AS (or /ASM; indicating that it is mounted with a DB605ASM engine) is quoted at 348 mph at seal level, and 423 mph at 25,000 ft. Although the G-10 is mounted with a DB605D, the performance is very comparable. Also, considering the K-4 tops out in max speed at 22k, the higher FTH is a clear indicator of the high-alt /AS engine.
Therefore, I'd expect the Bf109G-14/AS could very closely stand in for the G-10 when required to do so - thus, it is a good choice.
I agree with you for the most part. But, why consider a -14/AS, which was fairly rare, when the -10 was mass produced, and a front-line combatant. This whole post has been great, but can anyone really give a straight answer for why it isn't in-game right now? *cough* .....HTC jump in here anytime..... *cough*
-
I agree with you for the most part. But, why consider a -14/AS, which was fairly rare, when the -10 was mass produced, and a front-line combatant.
What do you mean by "mass produced?"
There were approximatley 1000 G6/AS aircraft delivered, and even more G14/AS delivered. I don't have my books in front of me, but I can give you more accurate numbers when I get home.
One reason for a G6/AS is that it would be available for scenarios that take place at a far earlier time than a G-10 would be.
That 30mm potatogun works just nice in K4
But more so against weak opponents pjk.;) Against someone like you the MG151 is a better weapon.
-
The only thing the gondolas would be useful for would be buff hunting.
IIRC the G-14/AS would be a better addition in that case as it had a higher performance ceiling?
-
Actually, Anaxogoras, if you have some good documentation for production numbers, please post them. I have a rough number of approx. 2600 G-10's produced, but that is off of a website, so I'll take that with a grain of salt. My main reason for campaigning the -10 is that it would have more MA value than over a high-alt performer such as the AS equiped -14's. Furthermore, if the -10 was in-game at one time, I think that justifies it more so than modeling an entire new aircraft. I wasn't around AH when it WAS in the game, so maybe some of the old salts could jump in here and explain why it was removed.
-
Wishful thinking always colors my memory:
According to Prien and Rodeike , about 1000 G14/AS aircraft were produced, and they say that's more than the number of G6/AS.
-
Originally posted by JScore
I wasn't around AH when it WAS in the game, so maybe some of the old salts could jump in here and explain why it was removed.
I dont think anyone really knows. See this thread for example.
There are some possibilities:
1.) The community demanded a K4. They got a K4. The G10 may have been removed because it was basically just a K4 with a 20mm hub option and a 20mm gondola option. HTC may have not seen the point in keeping it.
2.) The G10 is arguably not as 'standardized' as the K4 and HTC may have wanted to include an aircraft whose performance figures werent open to so much debate as the result of deviation.
3.) The 109G10, in the right hands, was uber. Far, far more potent than the K4 is, and thats due 100% to armament, IMO. The 30mm works wonderfully well - if you can hit with it. No matter what anyone says in an effort to make themselves appear to be the ultimate WWII sim pilot, the tater tosser reduces your ability to effectively kill a target beyond 300 yards, at the maximum, and deflection shooting is a crap shoot, at best. If you bring back lethality in the 400-600 range, in the form of one or three 151's, youve basically got a flying engine that climbs like a raped ape all the while possessing 75% of the hitting power of an A8. HTC may have simply removed it for playability reasons.
Much like the arena caps and why they are 'necessary,' however, Ive never really seen a 'real' explanation surrounding the disappearance of what was my absolute favorite ride years ago. If a reason was communicated, maybe I could get on board with it. The lack of communication, however, spawns threads like this one.
I agree that it doesnt seem as though all that much would need to be done to put it back into the game. Use the K4 cockpit, get some new skins going, maybe change a few parts of the model and kick it back out. Either that or give us 20mm options in the K4. Either way, Im happy, and I think for very minimal effort, HTC could make a lot of other people happy, too.
-
Hear, hear! Well said Saur.
-
Ideally I'd love to have both the g-14/AS and g-10, but if I had to pick one I'd rather see a g-14/AS than a g-10 for the following reasons:
- we already have the k-4 which is basically a faster g-10 with a 30mm hub cannon
- g-10 entered service at the same time as the k-4, with the g-14/as entering service months before either
- g-14/AS has similar performance to g-10 at WEP
- g-14/AS weighs less than g-10 (I may be wrong about this one, but I think g-10 has similar weight to k-4)
- g-14/AS could have 20mm hub cannon and gondolas like the g-10
- g-14/AS and g-10 look almost exactly the same, so no difference there
- finally, 14 is a bigger number than 10, so it must be a better plane, right? :lol
Also, has anyone ever seen a speed or climb chart for a Bf 109g-10? If so could they please post a scan or link?
-
In response to TUXC, the only speed/climb charts I've seen of the G-10 are on the OLD side-by-side comparison charts for AH. I've posted a link, but again, as this was before my time, I don't know if there have been FM changes.
http://www.musketeers.org/kumori/planeset.html
-
Originally posted by JScore
In response to TUXC, the only speed/climb charts I've seen of the G-10 are on the OLD side-by-side comparison charts for AH. I've posted a link, but again, as this was before my time, I don't know if there have been FM changes.
http://www.musketeers.org/kumori/planeset.html
Yeah, that's all I've seen too. I'm hoping for some actual primary source test data. I don't think that any 109g-10 ever had that performance as those numbers are what our current 109k is modeled on. The g-10 will be slower than the k-4 since ever though it has the same engine, it has higher drag caused by a non-retractable tail wheel and no main wheel covers.
-
Originally posted by TUXC
Yeah, that's all I've seen too. I'm hoping for some actual primary source test data. I don't think that any 109g-10 ever had that performance as those numbers are what our current 109k is modeled on. The g-10 will be slower than the k-4 since ever though it has the same engine, it has higher drag caused by a non-retractable tail wheel and no main wheel covers.
While true, top speed has never been the K4's primary asset - acceleration and climb rate are 1 and 2. The former should be only marginally affected and the latter, almost entirely unaffected.
-
"I don't think that any 109g-10 ever had that performance as those numbers are what our current 109k is modeled on."
I was talking about speed when I mentioned this, not climb and acceleration. The g-14 we have does both of those as well as the k-4 anyways at low and medium altitudes.
-
Been over this a few times..........
I would LOVE a G10 and repeatedly stated I did NOT want a K4!!!
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=193234&highlight=109G10
-
Originally posted by TUXC
"I don't think that any 109g-10 ever had that performance as those numbers are what our current 109k is modeled on."
I was talking about speed when I mentioned this, not climb and acceleration. The g-14 we have does both of those as well as the k-4 anyways at low and medium altitudes.
Sorry I must disagree with you on this statement in PART.
The G14 we have is the LOW alt version!
It REALLY suffers above 17K.
Had to fly it in the DGS during the 1st frame at 30K and it preformed very POORLY!
We got the K4 all frames after that 1st one.
Made a HUGH difference IMHO.
Got a book that says the G10 could climb to 20 K in 6 minutes.
Many sites claim the K4 was basically an attempt to standardize all the g10 and g14 variants that proceeded it.
Also the G10 came out after the G14 and just BEFORE the K4 according to much of what I read.
IMHO AH needs a G10 badly! If for no other reason then the coming CT will need it!
It SHOULD fit right in between the G14 and the K4 AND be perhaps 25mph slower then the K4.
OR I would love a K4 with the 20mm option and perhaps the 20mm gonds option.
-
Originally posted by wrag
Sorry I must disagree with you on this statement in PART.
The G14 we have is the LOW alt version!
It REALLY suffers above 17K.
Had to fly it in the DGS during the 1st frame at 30K and it preformed very POORLY!
We got the K4 all frames after that 1st one.
Made a HUGH difference IMHO.
Got a book that says the G10 could climb to 20 K in 6 minutes.
Many sites claim the K4 was basically an attempt to standardize all the g10 and g14 variants that proceeded it.
Also the G10 came out after the G14 and just BEFORE the K4 according to much of what I read.
IMHO AH needs a G10 badly! If for no other reason then the coming CT will need it!
It SHOULD fit right in between the G14 and the K4 AND be perhaps 25mph slower then the K4.
OR I would love a K4 with the 20mm option and perhaps the 20mm gonds option.
Wrag,
I never said I didn't think we need the g-10 because the we already have the g-14. I said I'd rather see a g-14/AS added before the g-10 for the reasons I posted above. The 109g-14/AS had the db605ASM engine which gave better altitude performance than the standard g-14 with the db605AM engine and similar performance to the 109g-10.
g-14/AS performance:
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/109G_DB-G6AS_wMW/109G_605ASMW50.jpg
As you can see, top speed is similar to the g-10. I don't believe the k-4 was ever equipped with a 20mm hub cannon or gondolas, so the fastest 109s with those options would be g-10 or g-14/AS, both of which have top speeds in the 425-430mph range. G-10 performs a little better at low altitude, but I believe it also weighs almost as much as a k-4. Since the g-14/AS is lighter, it should be a little more maneuverable than the g-10. The g-10 does perform a little better at military power and is a little faster at lower altitudes than the g-14/AS, but by the time the g-10 it entered service (after some delays) the k-4 was also becoming operational and is faster than the g-10 at all altitudes.
Ideally we should get a g-6/AS or g-5/AS (410-415mph @27000ft), g-14/AS (425-430mph @23000ft), and g-10 (425-430mph @22000ft). Then we'd have every 109 for 1944-45 special events and CT on the western front. As it is now we don't have any of the high altitude 109 versions which were used from spring of 1944 until late '44 when the k-4 entered service.
Edit
Also, see: http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/systems/engine/as_vs_d/as_vs_d.htm
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/systems/engine/as_vs_d/asd2.htm
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/#Gustav
-
Tux, I think you make a very valid argument. But, in terms of raw usage, the -10 would be a far better MA contender than the other models you listed. I don't doubt your numbers, I'm just saying that those high-alt versions would probably be taking up hangar space right next to the 152. Nothing wrong with the 152, it's a fine bird. But in the video game/flight sim world, she's left out in the cold. Just the name of the game. I'm assuming the powers at be go to great pains in accuately modeling new a/c. I hate seeing all that time and effort go into a/c that are relegated to either historical events or the back row in the MA hangar. A guy sees a lot of posts on these boards of adding this, or that plane so that, "then we would have X years covered for historical events". Yes, it would be nice to be able to say that, but the late-war MA is where this game pays the bills. Why not add a/c that would directly diversify that arena's usual suspects? Ooops, my rant-o-meter just went off. Sry.
-
I think the 109G-6AS/U4 would be a great 109 for the Late war arena. It is fast, has C3 fuel and the GM1 N2O2 injection to the intake of the supercharger to boost it's high altitude performance. Aditionally it has the 30mm Mk.108 firing through the drive shaft. What is not to love about that? Lets re-cap C3 fuel (100 octante), GM1 (High altitude boost), 30mm Mk.108. I say yepper to more 109s with the DB605ASM, Lord knows they are sorely needed, the ones we have are good enough for low to mid altitude running on B4 and WM50.
Adidionally does any one know if we have the Bf.109K-4 with the DB.605DB with B4 fuel + MW50 setup creating 1850PS at 1,8 ata at takeoff or the Bf.109K-4C3 with the DB.605DC with C3 fuel + MW50 setup creating 2000PS at 1,98ata at takeoff? Just wondering as this would really have an effect on game play and validade the exsistance of the G-10 again.
-
I'd be happy with any new 109 introduction, be it G-10, G-14AS, G-6AS or G-5As.
All have valid reasons for addition and would require minimal effort to code and model.
I also volunteer my services as a skinner for these new aircraft, I have a few photos for reference and I have more in the mail as we speak.
-
Well, at least that end is covered, lol.
-
If you bring back lethality in the 400-600 range, in the form of one or three 151's, youve basically got a flying engine that climbs like a raped ape all the while possessing 75% of the hitting power of an A8. HTC may have simply removed it for playability reasons.
Hmmm, sounds like the La-7.:noid
Bring back the 109G-10.
-
Sure as sh$% does, lol.
-
I liked the G-10, I prefer it to the K-4. that is unless it is a K-4C3 wich it is not. I still would prefer a G-6AS/U4 over all.
-
Hartmann stated many times that he hated going to the K4. He liked the Gustav's and preferred the G-10 as his favorite performer.
-
The Bf.109G-6AS/U4 is basically a G-10, it even has a 30mm Mk.108 in the spinner.:D
-
If you bring back lethality in the 400-600 range, in the form of one or three 151's, youve basically got a flying engine that climbs like a raped ape all the while possessing 75% of the hitting power of an A8. HTC may have simply removed it for playability reasons.
LOL, yes, to many whines from buff drivers. The gondolas armed G-10 was the best at scrambling and buff killing. Especially those score-potatos going for the HQ's at 30K from one side of the map to the other.
-
Why was the G10 removed?
First, you must answer this:
Why was the G10 added in the first place?
ANSWER: HTC had the data for the K-4. They even modeled it in WB. Same data. So waaaaay back, when the planeset was VERY small, they added the 109K-4. The idea was that they could get 2 planes for 1 model if they just stuck a 20mm nose gun option and "called it a G-10" (instead of a K4). The G10s had lesser performance than the K4. Some varried wildy but even the best were still below the specs our K4 has. So in all but name we've always had a K-4 model. Always.
The point was that the planeset was extremely limited, and HTC wanted to give the idea of having 2 planes but really only having to do the work to model one of them.
Why was the G10 removed?
ANSWER: It was never really there to remove in the first place. Now that HTC has the time and ability to flesh out the woefully lacking planeset in many areas (and let's face it, spitfires and 109s were 2 of the worst representative planesets before they got updated), they can include specific models. These models will apply to specific timelines also, so that use in SEA and events is better facilitated. One major problem with the old 109G6 was that it had a 30mm gun, which the early 1943 models didn't have. 1/3 the total had this, but only the LATER models of this total had it. So it was extremely over-powered when setting up events pitting it against early '43 bombers and the like. For the same reason we lost the gondolas on the 109F. It wasn't representative for the time frame involved.
You can see there's a reason to choose a specific model, and not lump all features into every plane.
Why does it NOT MATTER?
ANSWER: Look at the power curves. The 109G14 closely matches the K-4 in performance up to 16k. It even out-climbs it for a low-alt band below 5k. This G14 has a 20mm hub option, a 30mm hub option, gondolas option, and WGr 21 option.
IF YOU WANT THE G10 JUST FLY THE G14!!!!!!!
(p.s. Don't say "but at 25k it's not as good!" because if you are hunting bombers at 25k the gondolas will screw you over til it FEELS like you're in a G14 anyways! Any action at that alt should only be done with a single hub 30mm gun, and viola the K-4 already has this!
-
Been around this stuff with Krusty before.
IMHO talk like this from someone that INSISTED you burn off the AUX tank in the A8 and F8 before you burn off the AFT.............
????
I have ALWAYS (when I remembered to burn off a tank) burned the AFT tank 1st.
Talked with WideWing he said he SEEMED to recall AFT 1st in the 190a8 and f8!
AND From my own experience flyin either plane, burning off AFT before AUX makes a BIGGER, GREATER, and QUICKER difference to the 190 a8 or f8 handling.
So I must say here that IMHO I'm not real sure Mr. Krusty knows what he's talking about when it concerns LW Iron.
As to the differences between the K4, G14, and G10.
K4 top speed reported as just over 450. @24K?
G14 top speed reported as about 408. @ 16.5K
G10 top speed reported at a bit over 425. @ 20K
Reports of the G10 climbing to 20k in 6 minutes FLAT!
SOOOO there is a difference!
If HTC choses to give us a G10 it would fit right in between the G14 and the K4 AND for CT and the MA be a IMHO extremely viable aircraft from about 5K up given the G14 low level performance figures.
I would LOVE having the 20mm hub cannon option and possibly the gonds BACK!
Also the performance of the a G10 at 25K or higher even with GONDS should EXCEED what we had to put up with in a G14 at those alts in the DGS scenario. REMEMBER that 25K is nearly 10K higher then the G14 we have was designed for!
Suggest you try out a yak up there!
Also a book I have says G14 was used MAINLY for GROUND ATTACK! Thus it had MORE armour! Thus it was HEAVIER then either the G10 or the K4?
Also the G10 is reported as OUT turning the P51D during REAL flight test by 2 well known individuals in an article in Aircraft Journal. I pointed HTC to said article.
P.S. I tried the top speed thing a few months back and I was unable to get a G14 to exceed 400 MPH straight and level???? Am I not waiting long enough for the plane to reach full speed? Note I did not dive to get speed I took off and climbed to 16k, no gonds no DT and went level and waited awhile then went to wep.
If as someone suggested it is a playability issue....
WHY?
Many Allied Pilots did NOT return from missions due to LW planes and Pilots especially in the earlier years of the war.
It was NOT EZ for them!
Not even a little bit!
Numbers helped the Allied side a GREAT DEAL!
To try and pad things to favor allied ( AND I want to state here that I'm Not sure HTC would do such a thing ) or deny it is IMHO an INSULT to the bravery, daring, and ability of those Allied pilots!
Also it would REMOVE some of the challenge to flying Allied rides. Kinda an EZ mode thing for those flying Allied.
-
Wrag: It's physics with the 190. The aux is behind the aft. The aft and fwd are right next to each other. The reason burning all of your "AFT" helps a bit more than burning all of your "aux" is because it's noticably larger -- given 100% internal you've lost more weight overall. Doesn't make the balance better, just makes your plane lighter. Used to be (long ago) the fue burn order was reversed. That was fixed due to player request. Now just leave it on auto select, always.
This is how it's modeled in-game, right now:
http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=109k4&p2=109g14
You'll note that at 16k (g14s best speed) there's only about 10mph difference between it and the K-4. Like I said in my previous post. You'll note that climb rate is almost equal up to 21k, and doesn't drop much at all past that.
Like I said, folks only want "g10" for weapons options, which the G14 already has. Same performance up to 16-20k (depending what curve you're looking at) and if you took gondolas up that high you would feel like you were in the g14 anyways.
Please don't insult me. You got a point say it. I've made my point. Whether I've made it clearly or not, that's something I can try to clarify.
-
Krusty mate, you make me think you have never ever hunted buffs at 25K+ with the old G-10. You'd never say that a gondolas armed G-10 is similar to a light G-14. Its a sin.
-
Originally posted by gatt
Krusty mate, you make me think you have never ever hunted buffs at 25K+ with the old G-10. You'd never say that a gondolas armed G-10 is similar to a light G-14. Its a sin.
No, that's not what I meant.
I meant that IF you're hunting anything at 25k, you're not going to do it with gondolas, period. Not even if they were on the K-4. It would be like taking 100% internal fuel in a P-47N and full drop tanks up to 30k just to do a fighter sweep.
I'm saying that IF you go that high, you're going to go clean. IF you go clean, the 30mm is by far the better choice, and the K4 already gives you that.
IF you want gondolas, you will not be going much above 15k in most cases. IF you want gondolas, almost every time you take them will be below 16k, in which case there's 5mph difference between G10 and G14.
It self-balances, if you get my point. Above a certain alt, it doesn't matter what version you're flying, you don't want 'em. Below that alt, you have 'em. So it works out by itself.
-
I meant that IF you're hunting anything at 25k, you're not going to do it with gondolas, period.
Just what is it with you and your "periods"? Is it some monthly biological urge to contradict people just to show how annoying you can be?
Do you feel some need to redefine the reality to a clandestine abstraction of your own imagination so it fits your own bogus views that clearly contradicts how people actually play the game?
How about a poll?
There are some fine Luftwaffe AC veterans in these boards. Let's ask them how often they've used gondolas in the G-10 to hunt down buffs at over 25k. If they say they've all did it, are you going to redefine it again so for some reason their real life experiences and tendencies in flying 109s become pointless, and all that matters is your own interpretation of reality on how 109s aren't going to hit buffs with gondolas over 25k?
Not even if they were on the K-4. It would be like taking 100% internal fuel in a P-47N and full drop tanks up to 30k just to do a fighter sweep. I'm saying that IF you go that high, you're going to go clean.
Er... let's see.
Hmm...
Nope.
How many different versions of "no, I don't fly the way you think people fly, nor the experienced LW aces of AH" do you want to hear?
IF you go clean, the 30mm is by far the better choice, and the K4 already gives you that.
No.
Ever heard the word, "preference"?
IF you want gondolas, you will not be going much above 15k in most cases. IF you want gondolas, almost every time you take them will be below 16k, in which case there's 5mph difference between G10 and G14.
No, I've used them at altitudes according to the situation that warrants it. Who are you to dictate what I am going to do, or not do?
It self-balances, if you get my point. Above a certain alt, it doesn't matter what version you're flying, you don't want 'em.
Didn't the people above already tell you that they want them?
Hello, Earth to Krusty, we have a message for you:
" People loved the gondelwaffens in G-10s, they loved to use it against buffs, and they loved flying high. "[/b][/i]
Below that alt, you have 'em. So it works out by itself.
No, it doesn't.
-
Hrm... you see, insulting TROLLS like this are why I keep leaving the forums... I keep saying "Nah, they're not that bad, give them another try" and then see this crap every time.
Insults, face slapping, chest thumping.
And usually from the same selection/pool of folks every time.
Kweassa, I KNOW you can be civil. I've seen you do it before. I'm puzzled why you choose not to be.
FYI: 190a8s CAN carry WGr 21 rockets. They CAN take them up to 25k. They won't ever in practical use because of the performance loss. BELOW this altitude, they have 'em. The same is true of the 109s and gondolas. You may argue folks want 'em, but prove it. I've never seen anybody with any gondolas in any 109 variant that was above 20k in almost the entire time I've been playing this game (since early-mid 2000). The ONLY exception is AFKers on auto climb that you pull up behind and kill without effort.
Your argumentative post throws more BS on the issue than you accuse me of flinging.
And no, a poll won't count, because of the 5-10 thousand subscribers that might actually USE any given 109, only a small fraction actually read the forum that might reply. For example, I don't do polls even if I have an opinion.
So, about being civil? Can we try it?
EDIT: P.S. Way to edit your post and make it MORE insulting than it originally was, after I replied. Class act...
-
Krusty, G10 with gondolas and 30mm hub was the first high altitude intercept choice I'd make, pretty much everytime. This is back in 2000 or so.
I remember loving the fact the thing WEP'd like nothing else, right up to 30k (or something huge like that).
-
I've never seen anybody with any gondolas in any 109 variant that was above 20k in almost the entire time I've been playing this game (since early-mid 2000). The ONLY exception is AFKers on auto climb that you pull up behind and kill without effort.
Krusty I've taken a G14 up to 20k+ many many times to intercept Buffs. Ive done it in the AvA, SEA, and MA. I'll agree that once you top 22k the performance just drops out and its a struggle to gain any sort of "advantage". But to say it doesnt happen is stretching it a bit. On the G14 I almost never take the 30mm package unless im attacking GVs. I will agree with you that the G10 really isnt needed simply because we have the G14. Also if I remember right, and i probably dont, wasnt the G10 produced as a stop gap for the K4. Also wasnt the G10 mostly operational with the Romainian or Hungarian Air Forces do to the fact that they were the only ones able to produce that model with any great effect? I may be getting the Historical notes on the G10 and G14 mixed up. In short i dont see any point in having the G10 back. We have the G14. It handles just as well or better than the G10 did and I started out flying the G10 when i began playing AH. :aok
-
It's hyperbole. It's obviously hyperbole.
:noid
-
hate to say it krusty, but kweassa's right about the gondies, people used them, they used them a lot, and they used them high...
i would always take gondies if going after buffs. the g10 was an excellent buff hunter :)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
No, that's not what I meant.
I meant that IF you're hunting anything at 25k, you're not going to do it with gondolas, period. Not even if they were on the K-4. It would be like taking 100% internal fuel in a P-47N and full drop tanks up to 30k just to do a fighter sweep.
I'm saying that IF you go that high, you're going to go clean. IF you go clean, the 30mm is by far the better choice, and the K4 already gives you that.
IF you want gondolas, you will not be going much above 15k in most cases. IF you want gondolas, almost every time you take them will be below 16k, in which case there's 5mph difference between G10 and G14.
It self-balances, if you get my point. Above a certain alt, it doesn't matter what version you're flying, you don't want 'em. Below that alt, you have 'em. So it works out by itself.
OH REALLY???
I fought many times ABOVE 20k with the 20mm hub and GONDS in the old G10!
(A little NOTE to you Krusty ...... wrag flew the G10 with gonds nearly ALL the time in AH, and did so most often ABOVE 20K, even got teased by his squadies about it. So your argument has IMHO some VERY BIG HOLES IN IT!)
There are some people that remember some of those fights. IMHO we had a good times and good fights.
Shot down a few buffs up there as well!
Take a G14 up there and EVERYTHING changes!
This discussion is NOT about g14 low level Krusty. I agree I would NOT take a G14 much above 16K with GONDS. Not sure I would take a G14 much above 16 or 17K without gonds! That thing is a DOG up there! BUT I would take a G10 or K4 with gonds up above 20K if the FM was correct!
So IMHO NO they DON'T self-balance NOT even CLOSE!
And the G14 performance starts to fall off above 16K IMHO!
I remember the G10 and it flew very much like the K4 we have now.
EVERYTHING I've read says the G10 will OUT PREFORM the G14 above 16K.
That is what this discussion is about!
Further more it's in reference to both the MA and CT.
That and the FACT that the 30mm is a CLOSE in weapon when compared to the 20mm equipped aircraft.
It's about a GAP that IMHO needs to be filled.
AND can you get the G14 to travel at 400 mph at 16.5K WITHOUT diving 1st? By just climbing to alt and going level?
If so HOW LONG does it take you?
Please record your flight from take off to reaching 400 mph at 16.5K I would really like to see it, and how long it takes.
Cause I've tried it with just the 20mm hub and 30mm hub NO DT at 16.5K and thus far I can't get it to do better then 380 with wep. (perhaps I don't wait long enough?) I've tried it online and offline with 50% fuel etc.
As to your argument about AUX vs AFT on the 190a8 and f8 SORRY I disagree! I tried burning off the aux 1st, AFTER you made your claim, and the 190a8 or f8 will flip a wing on you! I then went BACK to burning off the AFT 1st and SURPRISE!!! the 190 was much LESS apt to flip that wing! It behaved itself MUCH better! So while your argument may SEEM valid to you, when I fly a 190a8 or f8, and I'm pretty sure others will agree, the 190a8 and f8 SEEM to disagree with your assessment!!!!
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Hrm... you see, insulting TROLLS like this are why I keep leaving the forums... I keep saying "Nah, they're not that bad, give them another try" and then see this crap every time.
Insults, face slapping, chest thumping.
And usually from the same selection/pool of folks every time.
Kweassa, I KNOW you can be civil. I've seen you do it before. I'm puzzled why you choose not to be.
FYI: 190a8s CAN carry WGr 21 rockets. They CAN take them up to 25k. They won't ever in practical use because of the performance loss. BELOW this altitude, they have 'em. The same is true of the 109s and gondolas. You may argue folks want 'em, but prove it. I've never seen anybody with any gondolas in any 109 variant that was above 20k in almost the entire time I've been playing this game (since early-mid 2000). The ONLY exception is AFKers on auto climb that you pull up behind and kill without effort.
Your argumentative post throws more BS on the issue than you accuse me of flinging.
And no, a poll won't count, because of the 5-10 thousand subscribers that might actually USE any given 109, only a small fraction actually read the forum that might reply. For example, I don't do polls even if I have an opinion.
So, about being civil? Can we try it?
EDIT: P.S. Way to edit your post and make it MORE insulting than it originally was, after I replied. Class act...
Krusty what is it exactly that makes you think you are an authority on LW iron?
Several people including myself have INFORMED you that we did not and do not fly LW iron the way you claim we did or should!
Please look CLOSELY at my post just above this one!
You will hopefully NOTE that my favorite plane in AH until it was removed was the G10.
I flew it almost exclusively in AH!
Ask my squadies!
AND I flew it most OFTEN with the 20mm hub AND GONDS!
AND I flew it most often at 20K or HIGHER!
I even developed little tricks for diving in it so I wouldn't compress.
I fought with people from 30K all the way to the deck in the 109G10 with gonds.
Ask around!
Look at some of the old tours when we still had the G10.
You're quite welcome to check my old scores if you like, same name I have now!
-
He's right about the AFT/AUX thing, though.
-
Originally posted by moot
He's right about the AFT/AUX thing, though.
Who?
-
I want the G-10 too, Wrag, but it seems that you're missing a critical point here.
By all accounts the old G-10 flew as a K4 performance wise. If the G-10 was to be re-added it would not be as you remembered it.
The G-10 will be slower.... then if you add the gondolas you'll add a further speed penalty... It will still be better than the G-14 at altitude but it will not behave like a K4.
Also, on un-related note... 109s don't compress. They won't go into an un-recoverable dive like a P-38 will (until you reach ridiculous speeds that is... and any other aircraft will do the same thing). The air disturbance over the control surfaces doesn't happen like it does in the P-38, which is compressibility as I understand it.
The unresponsiveness of the elevators at high speeds in the 109 is not a compression issue, the elevators just become very heavy thus negating regular control inputs.
Manually controlling the elevator trim will counter this and allow the 109 to turn at high speeds with almost anything. As a matter of fact, manual control of the elevators completely removes the issue of heavy elevators and introduces the trouble of blacking-out.
An over-trimmed 109 in a high-speed dive that has otherwise rendered joystick input useless will have you pulling heavy G's and on the verge of black-out for an extended period.
Recently I put a 109K into a very high-speed dive chasing something down, I took the shot and went to pull out.... no response from joystick inputs. After combat trim was disabled I trimmed out the elevators too much and blacked out (I'm still getting used to the trim wheel on my X52). After what was probably the longest G-induced black-out I've had in-game I 'came-too' with the 109 in a tight vertical loop. I had pulled out just above the deck at what was at least 400MPH+ IIRC and completed a full loop at ground level, when the black-out wore off I was already half-way through what had to be at least the second loop.
Trim is everything at high speeds in the 109. Don't sell yourself short by thinking they will compress.
:aok
-
Weren't you saying Krusty was wrong about the best burn order being AUX,AFT,FWD in 190s?
-
Originally posted by moot
Weren't you saying Krusty was wrong about the best burn order being AUX,AFT,FWD in 190s?
Yes I was.
I tried it both ways and found the 190a8 and f8 preform BETTER if you burn off the AFT tank 1st.
Burn off the AUX 1st and the a8 and f8 have tendency to flip a wing on you in a hard turn or maneuver.
But don't take my word for it ask WideWing his opinion.
And while you're at it fly the a8 or f8 and one time burn off the AUX and try hard maneuvers and the next burn off the AFT tank and try the same maneuvers.
See what you think.
IMHO the planes themselves disagree with Krusty's argument.
-
Hrm... you see, insulting TROLLS like this are why I keep leaving the forums... I keep saying "Nah, they're not that bad, give them another try" and then see this crap every time.
Insults, face slapping, chest thumping.
And usually from the same selection/pool of folks every time.
Funny.
It is our impression you leave the forums everytime you've been proven wrong. Wait a week until the thread dies out, and then come back pretending nothing happened, and start making authorative and patronizing posts again about how everybody else is wrong.
Kweassa, I KNOW you can be civil. I've seen you do it before. I'm puzzled why you choose not to be.
It's because I've just about had enough of you dressing up irresponsible and unvalidated claims in one of your weird, perverted aphorisms - period this, period that... as if its some kind of common sense amongst all people. However, most often you are the only one making such claims against every other people who've come up with a variety of evidence to prove you wrong.
It's also because I'm the local forum cynic and prettythang, and I can detect bullshi* outside of a 50 mile radius. Because throwing around cynical bullshi* is my specialty, I immediately recognize someone else's pile of crap.
FYI: 190a8s CAN carry WGr 21 rockets. They CAN take them up to 25k. They won't ever in practical use because of the performance loss. BELOW this altitude, they have 'em. The same is true of the 109s and gondolas. You may argue folks want 'em, but prove it. I've never seen anybody with any gondolas in any 109 variant that was above 20k in almost the entire time I've been playing this game (since early-mid 2000).
There's your proof right up there, few posts up. See some of those LW experts above? Besides, I myself, am a living proof - I used to fly with gondies regularly above 25k to hunt buffs.
Do you need more?
It's really amusing to see you make these grandioso and exaggerated expressions such as "I've never seen blahblah... the entire time I've been playing...", because the existence of "proof", like wrag and others, just proved in turn how your own experience may be seriously lacking and incorrect.
So I suggest you try refraining from using conclusive expressions, especially when you don't really have anything to back it up. Otherwise you might have to "disappear" from the boards again.
The ONLY exception is AFKers on auto climb that you pull up behind and kill without effort.
There you go using that weird conclusive tone again. Want to ask these people who've already proved you wrong?
Your argumentative post throws more BS on the issue than you accuse me of flinging.
"Argumentative", out of your mouth.
Hold on while I take a screenshot of this post.
And no, a poll won't count, because of the 5-10 thousand subscribers that might actually USE any given 109, only a small fraction actually read the forum that might reply. For example, I don't do polls even if I have an opinion.
Ah yes.. it doesn't count. ROFL
Why am I not surprised?
So, about being civil? Can we try it?
Not unless you realize that your opinions on the matter are hardly substantiated by any amount of fact, and stop quoting them as truths.
Until that happens, my cynical mouth will treat you as you deserve.
EDIT: P.S. Way to edit your post and make it MORE insulting than it originally was, after I replied. Class act...
Why thank you. I was kinda hoping it had that effect.
-
I've never seen anybody with any gondolas in any 109 variant that was above 20k in almost the entire time I've been playing this game (since early-mid 2000)
Here I am mate. Before tour 77 my kills were almost only buffs. I used the G-10 for hi alt intercept and the 205 for mid-low. Check my stats and see what the heavy G-10 was good for.
-
Wrag the AUX tank is tiny. Consider the AUX and AFT tank as a single mass and you will see that burning the AUX tank is better done first.
Burn an equal amount of fuel from the AFT tank as the AUX tank contains before tapping the AUX tank at all, and you'll see the plane handles worse than if you emptied the AUX tank first.
-
Originally posted by Xasthur
I want the G-10 too, Wrag, but it seems that you're missing a critical point here.
By all accounts the old G-10 flew as a K4 performance wise. If the G-10 was to be re-added it would not be as you remembered it.
The G-10 will be slower.... then if you add the gondolas you'll add a further speed penalty... It will still be better than the G-14 at altitude but it will not behave like a K4.
Also, on un-related note... 109s don't compress. They won't go into an un-recoverable dive like a P-38 will (until you reach ridiculous speeds that is... and any other aircraft will do the same thing). The air disturbance over the control surfaces doesn't happen like it does in the P-38, which is compressibility as I understand it.
The unresponsiveness of the elevators at high speeds in the 109 is not a compression issue, the elevators just become very heavy thus negating regular control inputs.
Manually controlling the elevator trim will counter this and allow the 109 to turn at high speeds with almost anything. As a matter of fact, manual control of the elevators completely removes the issue of heavy elevators and introduces the trouble of blacking-out.
An over-trimmed 109 in a high-speed dive that has otherwise rendered joystick input useless will have you pulling heavy G's and on the verge of black-out for an extended period.
Recently I put a 109K into a very high-speed dive chasing something down, I took the shot and went to pull out.... no response from joystick inputs. After combat trim was disabled I trimmed out the elevators too much and blacked out (I'm still getting used to the trim wheel on my X52). After what was probably the longest G-induced black-out I've had in-game I 'came-too' with the 109 in a tight vertical loop. I had pulled out just above the deck at what was at least 400MPH+ IIRC and completed a full loop at ground level, when the black-out wore off I was already half-way through what had to be at least the second loop.
Trim is everything at high speeds in the 109. Don't sell yourself short by thinking they will compress.
:aok
Perhaps you didn't read my earlier post?
I stated that I'am FULLY aware of the performance differences between the G14, G10 and K4.
I also stated that I'm FULLY aware of the differences in handling with and without gonds.
Please reread my earlier post. ( I suspect STRONGLY that had you read my post you would NOT have made yours. )
As too the 109 diving characteristics I think you will find the P38 will recover using the same technique.
IIRC the La7 can have the same thing happen.
Try rolling one wing high and sideslipping the nose to the high wing in the 109 when you're in a dive. May take you longer to reach your target but lack of control SEEMS less of an issue.
Also something I have noticed is the speed at which the lack of control happens SEEMS to depend on ALT. The higher you are in the AH 109 the faster you SEEM to be able to dive and still recover without using up trim.
-
Originally posted by moot
Wrag the AUX tank is tiny. Consider the AUX and AFT tank as a single mass and you will see that burning the AUX tank is better done first.
Burn an equal amount of fuel from the AFT tank as the AUX tank contains before tapping the AUX tank at all, and you'll see the plane handles worse than if you emptied the AUX tank first.
I understand your argument.
I can't agree with you statement.
Been flyin a8's and f8's for a long time in AH and IMHO I've found the AFT tank is the KEY to handling with those planes.
Did so for years in AH.
Only tried the AUX out because I actually thought a there may have been a minor FM CG change and Krusty knew about it and I did not. My BAD I guess. Had differences with Krusty's post several times in the past. Guess I was giving the benefit of the doubt where I shouldn't have.
Near as I can tell there has been NO FM CG change to the a8 or f8 that justifies burning Auto vs AFT 1st.
IMHO A single mass or not burning off that TINY aux tank does VERY little and the result of burning off the AFT 1st then going to auto-burn creates so nearly the same result, the quicker you lower the level in the aft tank the quicker your 190a8 or f8 will preform better.
Wanna improve your A5 handling? Take a DT and 75% fuel. Soon as your dump that DT your A5 is at fighting weight.
This SEEMS to be the case with the 109s as well. You WILL have handling/performance issues with a full (100%) tank UNTIL you reach 75% fuel then the issues nearly disappear.
Yes most all the planes in AH handle better with less fuel BUT the LW iron SEEMS to have a GREATER 100% fuel CG issue then the other planes.
That's my OPINION and I'm sticking to it!!!! NEENER NEENER so there!:D
-
There has been no change, it has always been this way. It's one of the reasons for snap stalls in the A8, wing dips, etc. Less so since the airflow recode, but still there.
Historically the weight of the ETC rack balanced this aux tank out, and it was left on at all times. However in AH I found out the ETC rack weighs nothing because HTC didn't know how heavy to make it, so there's no COG benefit.
IMHO A single mass or not burning off that TINY aux tank does VERY little and the result of burning off the AFT 1st then going to auto-burn creates so nearly the same result, the quicker you lower the level in the aft tank the quicker your 190a8 or f8 will preform better.
That's the same as folks who say "burn the fuselage tank in the Ki84 first! It turns like a zeke on steroids!" --- but only because you've burned off the majority of your fuel.
Aux tank holds 30 gals. AFT tank holds about 70 gals. Burning aux off will save you 180lbs. Burning off all of AFT will save you 420lbs.
The difference you've seen is NOT one of balance, but pure weight. In such a case you might as well fly with 50% and a DT and drop the tank at the first enemy you see.
We are talking, however, not about pure weight (wing loading) but about the handling at any given weight. Same way the rocket racks on the F-8 help its handling (but not its weight) because they move the CoG forward. We're on different pages here.
-
You're not seeing what I'm trying to show you.
The AUX tank is 30 gallons, AFT 77. Burning the first 30 gallons from the AFT tank rather than from the AUX tank dry is not a favorable trade off.
The Aux tank is furthest back of all tanks, it's a boost container used as fuel tank as you know. AFT is ahead of AUX, FWD ahead of AFT, and drop tanks are ahead of FWD and wing tanks (in the 152). Wing tanks and drop tank are pretty much on the same spot, length-wise.
Having weight furthest ahead is the best CoG you can have for maneuverability, for the same reason you have door handles furthest from the axis of rotation, also for the same reason that if you'd rather the door of your fridge open easily as opposed to heavily (as well as banging against whatever's behind it if you forget to stop it) you'll have all the stuff in it pushed closest to the axis of rotation.
This is seen everywhere, "mass centralization" as a way to make things more efficient when you want to maximize rotation or minimize energy/effort required for this rotation. e.g. Racing motorcycles attempt to compact everything near the roll axis so that the rider gains time, tires work less, etc. Same deal with 190s: that's partly why they roll so well, it's thanks to mass being near the axis.
Analogous to this is the pitch axis - it's more efficient if you've got mass distributed as much towards the axis as possible, and on a plane that's near the prop, towards the front, away from the elevators which'll effect the rotation the same way you effect rotation on a door.
So, AUX being furthest back is what you want to get rid of first, if what you're after is agility. I suppose if you wanted a plane's nose to remain as solid as possible (at the cost of agility), you'd do the inverse. E.G. if you were shooting at precise (and immobile for the sake of your E) targets such as a bomber's cockpit or a vehicle's driver.
Another analogous model is hunting arrows. You don't put weight back near the directing tail feathers for a good reason, that's the one I'm trying to illustrate..
I lost a schematic of this I had made a while back, it shows all tanks' positions on the 109/190s length.
So the reason a DT helps pitch agility is the same reason that makes AUX the best tank to burn first.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
There has been no change, it has always been this way. It's one of the reasons for snap stalls in the A8, wing dips, etc. Less so since the airflow recode, but still there.
Historically the weight of the ETC rack balanced this aux tank out, and it was left on at all times. However in AH I found out the ETC rack weighs nothing because HTC didn't know how heavy to make it, so there's no COG benefit.
That's the same as folks who say "burn the fuselage tank in the Ki84 first! It turns like a zeke on steroids!" --- but only because you've burned off the majority of your fuel.
Aux tank holds 30 gals. AFT tank holds about 70 gals. Burning aux off will save you 180lbs. Burning off all of AFT will save you 420lbs.
The difference you've seen is NOT one of balance, but pure weight. In such a case you might as well fly with 50% and a DT and drop the tank at the first enemy you see.
We are talking, however, not about pure weight (wing loading) but about the handling at any given weight. Same way the rocket racks on the F-8 help its handling (but not its weight) because they move the CoG forward. We're on different pages here.
Excuse me.................
Pure weight?
Center of Gravity is a WEIGHT thing!
As in WHERE the weight is LOCATED!
Sure that AFT tank is furthest back....
But burnin off that AFT tank gives ME better handling. And it gives it to me quicker then burnin off that AUX 1st!
How can I say this? FROM MY EXPERIENCE flying in AH.
You prefer burning off that AUX tank 1st you go ahead.
Me I find that the A8 and F8 SNAP stall much less if I burn off the AFT tank BEFORE I go to the AUX and auto-burn.
YES I agree it is a PURE WEIGHT thing.
IMHO we are on the SAME PAGE.
I understand what you are saying, I DISAGREE with what you are saying.
IMHO there is a considerable difference between 420 lbs and 180 lbs.
-
Originally posted by moot
You're not seeing what I'm trying to show you.
The AUX tank is 30 gallons, AFT 77. Burning the first 30 gallons from the AFT tank rather than from the AUX tank dry is not a favorable trade off.
The Aux tank is furthest back of all tanks, it's a boost container used as fuel tank as you know. AFT is ahead of AUX, FWD ahead of AFT, and drop tanks are ahead of FWD and wing tanks (in the 152). Wing tanks and drop tank are pretty much on the same spot, length-wise.
Having weight furthest ahead is the best CoG you can have for maneuverability, for the same reason you have door handles furthest from the axis of rotation, also for the same reason that if you'd rather the door of your fridge open easily as opposed to heavily (as well as banging against whatever's behind it if you forget to stop it) you'll have all the stuff in it pushed closest to the axis of rotation.
This is seen everywhere, "mass centralization" as a way to make things more efficient when you want to maximize rotation or minimize energy/effort required for this rotation. e.g. Racing motorcycles attempt to compact everything near the roll axis so that the rider gains time, tires work less, etc. Same deal with 190s: that's partly why they roll so well, it's thanks to mass being near the axis.
Analogous to this is the pitch axis - it's more efficient if you've got mass distributed as much towards the axis as possible, and on a plane that's near the prop, towards the front, away from the elevators which'll effect the rotation the same way you effect rotation on a door.
So, AUX being furthest back is what you want to get rid of first, if what you're after is agility. I suppose if you wanted a plane's nose to remain as solid as possible (at the cost of agility), you'd do the inverse. E.G. if you were shooting at precise (and immobile for the sake of your E) targets such as a bomber's cockpit or a vehicle's driver.
Another analogous model is hunting arrows. You don't put weight back near the directing tail feathers for a good reason, that's the one I'm trying to illustrate..
I lost a schematic of this I had made a while back, it shows all tanks' positions on the 109/190s length.
So the reason a DT helps pitch agility is the same reason that makes AUX the best tank to burn first.
I do see what you're saying. Yes it SOUNDS correct.
AND I KEEP saying that in my experience flying in AH that burning off the AFT tank 1st gives a greater benefit QUICKER.
The A8 and F8 snap stall LESS.
Again there is a considerable difference between 420lbs and 180lbs.
Sure that AUX tank is further back then the AFT BUT flyin in AH burning off the AFT 1st IMHO gives you better handling quicker then burning off the AUX tank 1st. That is MY FINDING.
As to the 109s they only have 1 internal tank. Haven't seen or heard of one with more then 1 internal tank?
-
NOW can we get back to the subject of this thread?
The 109g10 PLEASE!
HiTech can you post that page regarding BRIBES again SIR????????:D :D :D
-
Originally posted by wrag
NOW can we get back to the subject of this thread?
The 109g10 PLEASE!
HiTech can you post that page regarding BRIBES again SIR????????:D :D :D
Just so you know. He wanted 200 bottles for a Mk XII spit. Soooo GL with that .:D
-
FYI Wrag, that's our point. Your reduction of weight is reducing it in the place that makes the plane tail heavy and less stable.
If you burn 70 gallons off before you get to a fight, you burn 70 gallons. It's a given, let's say. WHICH 70 gallons you burn makes a difference. So forget that they're named "AUX" or "AFT"
one holds 70, one holds 30. It takes the same time to burn the one as it does to burn the smaller one and 40 of the larger one. It takes the same time to burn the fuel, no matter where it's stored.
So, why not burn off the tank that destabilizes your plane and makes you tail heavy?
Maybe the issue is you don't feel it... Are you taking 100% internal? If you don't, the aux tank isn't filled and you won't be feeling what we feel. I ask only because I know a lot of folks take 50%/75% and DT to save weight, or don't plan on longer sorties.
Take a 190a8 up offline, switch to AFT, increase fuel burn to 100, burn it off,, and before switching tanks turn it back to 0.01 burn. Fly around, pull some hard manuvers. Starts feeling pretty squirrelly, compared to the same loadout with full FWD and 1/2 listed on AFT (about the same gas loadout)
As for the G10, I still say it's got little to no use in MA. That said, I *am* for a G-14/AS for scenario use and all that.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
As for the G10, I still say it's got little to no use in MA. That said, I *am* for a G-14/AS for scenario use and all that.
I disagree: I'd think the G10 would get the same or equal use to the K4 simply because of the MG151. I know I'd fly it.
-
Originally posted by wrag
As too the 109 diving characteristics I think you will find the P38 will recover using the same technique.
IIRC the La7 can have the same thing happen.
Try rolling one wing high and sideslipping the nose to the high wing in the 109 when you're in a dive. May take you longer to reach your target but lack of control SEEMS less of an issue.
Also something I have noticed is the speed at which the lack of control happens SEEMS to depend on ALT. The higher you are in the AH 109 the faster you SEEM to be able to dive and still recover without using up trim.
It's the shape of the aircraft that causes it to compress. At high speeds the air disturbance caused by the leading edge of the wing is so great that the air that flows over the rear control surfaces is so disrupted that moving the control surfaces to full deflection achieves very little if anything at all.
This is not the case in the 109 as it is in the P-38.
I just tested offline and a 450 mph IAS dive (Below 20k) will put the P-38 into a state of compression. It is possible to recover from this at this speed with the use of trim and even dive flaps once the speed increases beyond 450MPH. I suspect that a state of total compression occours at a higher speed. I didn't have time to check this.
In the same testing the 109 K4 reacts to regular elevator input (no trim) up to well over 500 MPH IAS. The elevators are heavy but at that speed any further input on the elevators would have the pilot on the edge of blacking out anyway, so it doesn't really matter. It is not until over 600 mph TAS at higher altitudes that the 109 starts to lock up and this is after the aircraft has been buffeting heavily for a while. Manual trim in this situation was more than enough to sharply climb out of this dive and pull enough G to cause black out.
In any case the point of this whole side-discussion here is that the 109 does not suffer from compressability as the P-38 does
On topic, the G-10 would be a nice addition to the list as would the G-14AS
-
Originally posted by wrag
I do see what you're saying. Yes it SOUNDS correct.
AND I KEEP saying that in my experience flying in AH that burning off the AFT tank 1st gives a greater benefit QUICKER.
The A8 and F8 snap stall LESS.
Again there is a considerable difference between 420lbs and 180lbs.
Sure that AUX tank is further back then the AFT BUT flyin in AH burning off the AFT 1st IMHO gives you better handling quicker then burning off the AUX tank 1st. That is MY FINDING.
As to the 109s they only have 1 internal tank. Haven't seen or heard of one with more then 1 internal tank?
Wrag the fuel burn rate is the same on both tanks. Of course an empty AFT tank and full FWD & AUX are better than empty AUX and full AFT & FWD, that's because AUX is barely further aft than AFT and half AFT's volume.
What you seem to be saying is that you don't want to manualy burn AUX and then switch to AFT. Nevertheless burning AUX's 30gal first is better than burning 30gal from the AFT. To get that greater agility from burning AFT before AUX you need to burn the whole AFT tank which takes X amount of time, and in this same X amount of time you could've burnt the whole AUX tank + more than half the AFT tank.
I'm not making it up, AUX is the best one to burn first. It's elementary :)
edit- and I just saw that Krusty typed out the exact same thing I came up with :p
And I mentioned 109s because you mentioned their confirmation that having a DT helped agility. The 109's DT is furthest ahead too, IIRC. So it may even be advantageous to have a full DT and empty MAIN at speeds where the extra drag isn't too large yet..
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Just so you know. He wanted 200 bottles for a Mk XII spit. Soooo GL with that .:D
200 bottles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OK this is gonna require some assistance from others!
We need to create a BRIBERY fund!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Guess it will require an all new thread though
-
Originally posted by Krusty
FYI Wrag, that's our point. Your reduction of weight is reducing it in the place that makes the plane tail heavy and less stable.
If you burn 70 gallons off before you get to a fight, you burn 70 gallons. It's a given, let's say. WHICH 70 gallons you burn makes a difference. So forget that they're named "AUX" or "AFT"
one holds 70, one holds 30. It takes the same time to burn the one as it does to burn the smaller one and 40 of the larger one. It takes the same time to burn the fuel, no matter where it's stored.
So, why not burn off the tank that destabilizes your plane and makes you tail heavy?
Maybe the issue is you don't feel it... Are you taking 100% internal? If you don't, the aux tank isn't filled and you won't be feeling what we feel. I ask only because I know a lot of folks take 50%/75% and DT to save weight, or don't plan on longer sorties.
Take a 190a8 up offline, switch to AFT, increase fuel burn to 100, burn it off,, and before switching tanks turn it back to 0.01 burn. Fly around, pull some hard manuvers. Starts feeling pretty squirrelly, compared to the same loadout with full FWD and 1/2 listed on AFT (about the same gas loadout)
As for the G10, I still say it's got little to no use in MA. That said, I *am* for a G-14/AS for scenario use and all that.
Krusty..............
I'm thinkin the best way to deal with this is to drop it!
I DISAGREE with you!
From my experience flying A8's and F8's I burn the AFT tank 1st!
Why?
Because the plane PREFORMS better SOONER.
It's that SIMPLE!
Now I've said this several times.
MOST people would get the HINT.
I suggest you drop the matter UNLESS you can somehow PROVE the A8's and F8's preform better your way.
I have NOT found that to be the case!
-
Originally posted by moot
Wrag the fuel burn rate is the same on both tanks. Of course an empty AFT tank and full FWD & AUX are better than empty AUX and full AFT & FWD, that's because AUX is barely further aft than AFT and half AFT's volume.
What you seem to be saying is that you don't want to manualy burn AUX and then switch to AFT. Nevertheless burning AUX's 30gal first is better than burning 30gal from the AFT. To get that greater agility from burning AFT before AUX you need to burn the whole AFT tank which takes X amount of time, and in this same X amount of time you could've burnt the whole AUX tank + more than half the AFT tank.
I'm not making it up, AUX is the best one to burn first. It's elementary :)
edit- and I just saw that Krusty typed out the exact same thing I came up with :p
And I mentioned 109s because you mentioned their confirmation that having a DT helped agility. The 109's DT is furthest ahead too, IIRC. So it may even be advantageous to have a full DT and empty MAIN at speeds where the extra drag isn't too large yet..
Please see my reply to Krusty.
-
We can agree to disagree but you're wrong wrag. It's plain physics.
1) The engine's fuel consumption is the same no matter what the tank.
2) An equal amount of ballast removed from aft will be more beneficial than from fwd.
3) AUX is further aft than AFT.
-
Originally posted by moot
We can agree to disagree but you're wrong wrag. It's plain physics.
1) The engine's fuel consumption is the same no matter what the tank.
2) An equal amount of ballast removed from aft will be more beneficial than from fwd.
3) AUX is further aft than AFT.
You keep sayin that and I keep tellin you that when I fly those planes IF I do what you suggest I get SNAP STALLS (one wing snaps down or up and the plane rolls with VERY little actual maneuver affect!), BUT when I burn off the AFT 1st the SNAP STALL are MUCH harder to induce and the plane actually MANEUVERS.
I'm NOT ARGUING physics here!
I'm referring to how the plane preforms in AH.
You apparently have a problem with that. I however do NOT. I will fly the plane the way it preforms BEST for ME NOT YOU!
The PHYSICS you refer to may be OFF in the AH FM I don't know. Ask HTC.
NOW do YOU perhaps finally understand what I AM TALKING ABOUT?
WHEN the plane we're are talking about ACTUALLY preforms as you say it does I will GLADLY burn the fuel tanks in the order you claim works better.
SOOOOOOOOOOOO do YOU UNDERSTAND that i'm telling you? Do YOU understand I don't CARE what argument you put forward?
Why? Because IMHO your argument SEEMS about as accurate as Krusty's math!
AND IMHO you Sir are WRONG!
In the mean time how about you fly the planes yourself, try using BOTH techniques, and see what happens.
DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU?
BTW I normally fly both the F8 and A8 with 100% fuel.
-
I first noticed and understood how fuel burn orders affected agility while flying the A8, as a matter of fact. It was obvious to me then (I don't fly it much at all anymore) that aux was the worst thing to have, much the same way it is in 47s and 51s.
I'm going to try it out, since empirical proof is what means anything to you.
-
I love this thread :-)
-
Das Ist Kapoot!!
-
If they deleted it, don't they have the original G10 files stored somewhere?