Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on November 02, 2001, 02:49:00 PM
-
Thanks for informing me of the difference GRUNHERZ. I was thinking of the Bf109E-7Z. Bf109 history is not mt strongest point of WWII aviation knowledge.
I don't think the Bf109E-7 is appropriate for the BoB planeset. The addition of the droptank is hardly a minor matter in this context. That ability would probably have won the BoB for the Germans as inadequate fuel range was, by far, the biggest failing of the Bf109 in the BoB. Its combat performance certainly wasn't lacking.
-
yup but in a scenario you could include in the rules "no drop tanks". the log should show what load outs the planes up with.
so 109e-7 without dts = 109e-4 the only effect the dt would have would be in the main. I dont think it matters that much in the main whether it has dts or not.
Heck if we can have typhies fer beaufighters I think we could get by with a 109e-7 minus the dts fer a bob scenario. But the current plane set we are far from A bob scenario.
-
You didn't just say 'typhies for beaufighters', did you? If that were the case, we could have Mustangs for 109Es! :)
-
kratzer were you guys around fer Afrika Korp?
they replacement plane fer the beufighter was typhies.
I flew in a g2. In the first frame we came upon the typhies and they out ran us of course.
The typhies didn't have dts modelled then. The supporters of the inclusion of the typh point that all the typhies in frame one died at the hands of 202s. In fact us g2s chased umm around in circles till most of there gas was gone then the 202s stumbled upon them rtbing and got credit fer killing umm.
There impact was minimal in the scenario but the beufighter (if one was modelled) would have suffered far worse then them typhies.
If we can do this certainly the ability of a 109e-7 to carry dts should not be relevant if one is modelled to a bob scenario. I dont care which e-4 or e-7. I would love to see either one. The e-4 would be the right plane but I would not be upset by an e-7.
Even if an e-4 were modelled sadly we are far from a bob scenario.
One can always hope though.
-
The E7 would be perfect, I agree - disabling the tanks for scenarios would be perfectly reasonable.
Wish I'd been around for Afrika Korps, but was not :(
-
I was XO for the Tiffie squadron in Afrika and commanded the squad for a couple of frames.
In the first frame a mission planner bug gave us a loadout of 75% fuel and half the squad ran out of fuel in the middle of a dog-fight with some 109s and 202s. With the obvious result. The survivors, Swoop and I managed to drop our bombs on the target field and refuel and rearm. We then killed 5 tanks and nearly helped secure a v-base.
In the next frame we wiped out the tanks defending a v-base and it was captured.
In other frames we were given escort duty (strange I know) and pummelled another airfield.
FYI, from the horses mouth. ;)
-
rgr dowding me and supongo chased 2 typhs to the field (a9) i think never got close'
the other 109s engage the rest of the typhs.
My memory is bad but the 1st frame I know I was the only 109 in my flight to survive.
All around it was fun.
-
Yeah, that was it. A9, on the East coast of the peninsula. Two 109s chased us so it must have been you. We almost turned and fought, but our fuel was too low.
I enjoyed it overall. I think I only survived one or two frames though. :)
[ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
I agree Karnak the 109E7 shouldnt be allowed to use it DTs during any real BoB scenario. I think its just easier to model the E7 to get the DTs anyway then just restrict their use in screnarios as appropriate. But I think the E7 did get into service in the later stages of BoB in late 1940 so if there is ever any sort of late late BoB scenario then maybe let E7 have DTs, but only if its a late scenarion and not in majority of BoB. Plus the E7 with DT would be great in any North Africa scenarion right away. I think it would be best and most logical to model the E7 as the first 109E.
Now the only thing left to consider is wheter the E4Z/E7Z should be made with their uprated engines and more power.
-
GRUNHERZ,
I don't doubt that some E-7s saw combat in the BoB, but then so did Spit IIs.
The E-7 can at least mimic an E-4, something that the Spit II cannot do for the Spit I.
-
Is there a performance or armament difference between Spit I and SpitII.
Because there is no performance difference between a standard (nonZ) E7 and a standard (nonZ) E4. The only difference is that the E7 can carry a DT as standard from the factory. In scenarios the DT can be disallowed and you have a standard E4.
Oh ok I see now Karnak....
The Spitfire II has a more powerful engine, self sealing tanks, more internal armor, and in the IIb a cannon armament, and apparently capable of dropping bombs Well you comparing the SpitII to the E7 is really unfair and very deceptive with regards to standard BoB scenario. SpitII has much higher ability and armament than SpitI. The nonZ E7 with DT disabled has no performance or armament advantage over E4.
E7 is just an E7 that can carry DTs. Disable DT and you have E4.
-
Doh, double post! :)
[ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: GRUNHERZ ]
-
GRUNHERZ,
When I refer to the Spit II I mean Spitfire MkIIa, by far the most common Spit II, armed with 8 .303s just like the MkI. Furthermore the armor protection on Spit Is and Spits IIs is the same, unless you are looking at the initial runs of Spit Is and not the way they served. Nearly all Spit Is had their protection upgraded. The first Spit IIs shipped without protection as well.
But beyond all of that, you entirely missed my point as well as my statement that the Bf109E-7 could mimic the Bf109E-4 whereas the Spitfire MkIIa could not mimic the Spitfire MkIa.
In the context of BoB scenarios, droptanks for the Bf109 are a much bigger issue than a slightly more powerful engine in Spitfires. Neither is representative of the majority of aircraft that fought in the BoB.
The desire for droptanks, and more work for the CMs in denying the use of the droptanks, on the Bf109E is silly, IMHO.
In what context does it need droptanks? The Bf109E is hardly going to see service in the MA, and in the service it will see I doubt that droptanks will be used in anything other than extremely rare circumstances.
What scenario do we want a Bf109E with droptanks for?
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
In what context does it need droptanks? The Bf109E is hardly going to see service in the MA, and in the service it will see I doubt that droptanks will be used in anything other than extremely rare circumstances.
What scenario do we want a Bf109E with droptanks for?
You are not forcing CMs to develop anything new in order to force a no-DT flight. CMs can destroy/rebuild structures at will. Destroy one fuel depot in the field where the 109s are going out from, and they can't load more than 100% fuel. Nothing new needed.
109E7s would be nice for East Front scenarios (the Emil was used up to very late '42 in Russia), and for Mediterranean scenarios (where the E-7 had a lot to say too).
I hope you are talking in your own name when you say you wont fly a E-7 in the Main. I would take my rides in the Emil happily. And in the MA the ability to carry DT is quite important, even more with the already handicapped range the emil has , and the fuel multiplier of the MA. Deny this plane a DT, and THEN you indeed would see even less Emils in the MA.
Said in short words:
-An E-7 is good for both scenarios and MA.
-An E-4 only for scenarios 'cause has no range to speak of in the MA.
-An E-4 can take the role of the E-4 only in scenarios.
-An E-7 can take the role of both the E-7 and E-4 in scenarios.
Other than the Drop tank, the planes are identical. To vote for a E-4 and not for a E-7 is simply not intelligent because with that plane you are in fact modelling TWO for the price of one.
[ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Hi R4M,
according to what I've read, the Me 109E-7 was equipped with the DB601N engine which was more powerful than the Me 109E-4's DB601A.
(The E-7/Z merely had an additional power boost from an GM-1 injection system, but the same basic engine.)
Other than that, your suggestion seems very reasonable. Did the E-4/B (with the fuselage bomb rack) have the drop tank option, too? In that case, we'd have the perfect solution.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
O toejam Karnak ur right im sorry, im retarded and very very tired from studying so much. Many many apologies here. <S> :)
To be honest it dont matter what we get as long as its early war. I especially like to get some early war P40, preferably the one used by AVG or the types used in the Pearl Harbor fighting. But not ever the P40N, that canopy design is ugly. I would also love the P39D. And of course the A6M2 and Wildcat to give them naval company.
-
Karnak 109E7s used DTs a lot in the Med and North Africa. This was a very important battle area.
BTW there is no real additional work for CMs they can specify what the plane carries in the mission plan. Its easy to verify and thats all. I see no real DT issue here. Just disallow DT as appropriate.
[ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: GRUNHERZ ]
-
Well that and Spit MKI Had fixed pitch prop floating Carb that cut off under Gs and once the engine was gone it was gone no RPM setting was allowed.
-
Glasses,
Only the first 70 Spit Is had fixed pitch props.
All Spitfire MkIs and Spitfire MkIIs had float carbs. Many Spit Vs and some Spit IXs did as well.
I've never heard that about the RPM setting.