Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on January 29, 2010, 10:04:16 PM

Title: 1092-2 and Bf-109F-2/Z
Post by: DREDIOCK on January 29, 2010, 10:04:16 PM
Nose mounted cannon   :D

and high alt variant

Early Bf-109F variants were armed with two MG-17 7.9 millimeter machine guns in the cowling and an MG-FF/M 20 millimeter Motorkanone. While moving back to the engine-mounted gun must have worried Messerschmitt engineers, pilots had indicated that they preferred concentrating the guns in the nose to obtain more focused and effective firepower than could be obtained by placing guns in the wings. This decision was to prove controversial, since although Luftwaffe aces could make effective use of such armament, other pilots would protest that they required heavier armament and a wider field of fire than needed by the sharp-shooting aces.

The "Bf-109F-2" replaced the MG-FF/M 20 millimeter cannon with an electrically operated MG-151/15 15 millimeter cannon with higher muzzle velocity, faster rate of fire, and 200 RPG, as well as belt instead of drum feed. The Bf-109F-2 was also produced in modifications such as the "Bf-109F-2/B" Jabo aircraft, the "Bf-109F-2/Z" high-altitude fighter with GM-1 nitrous oxide boost

http://www.vectorsite.net/avbf109_2.html#m1


Title: Re: 1092-2 and Bf-109F-2/Z
Post by: Motherland on January 29, 2010, 10:09:35 PM
The MG151/15 was such a lightweight that the F-3 went back to the MG/FF, until the introduction of the MG151/20 20mm cannon in the F4. The F-2 saw pretty significant action though.
A Bf 109F-4/Z would be nice IMO.
As well as a quad bomb rack for the F.
Title: Re: 1092-2 and Bf-109F-2/Z
Post by: jolly22 on January 30, 2010, 07:41:29 AM
I propose no more 109s, F4Us,P47s, and spits...........Anyone seconding my opinion?
Title: Re: 1092-2 and Bf-109F-2/Z
Post by: 10thmd on January 30, 2010, 11:19:35 AM
No Jolly
Title: Re: 1092-2 and Bf-109F-2/Z
Post by: slimmer on January 31, 2010, 10:10:09 AM
 :aok
Title: Re: 1092-2 and Bf-109F-2/Z
Post by: jdbecks on January 31, 2010, 11:04:35 AM
I propose no more 109s, F4Us,P47s, and spits...........Anyone seconding my opinion?

NO,

There still needs some more Luftwaffe, Russian and Japanese Planes...
Title: Re: 1092-2 and Bf-109F-2/Z
Post by: SmokinLoon on January 31, 2010, 02:23:50 PM
NO,

There still needs some more Luftwaffe, Russian and Japanese Planes...

ding ding

and the French D520 wouldn't be out of line, either.
Title: Re: 1092-2 and Bf-109F-2/Z
Post by: Saurdaukar on February 01, 2010, 11:15:33 AM
I would enjoy a 15mm F2.

Really don't think that it would fill a gap as well as a 6 or 14 A/S, though.
Title: Re: 1092-2 and Bf-109F-2/Z
Post by: jolly22 on February 01, 2010, 05:30:35 PM
WHY???? we have like 10 variants of each!
Title: Re: 1092-2 and Bf-109F-2/Z
Post by: Saurdaukar on February 01, 2010, 05:48:27 PM
WHY???? we have like 10 variants of each!

Think of it this way.  German vs. US.

How many US fighters are represented?  P-38, P-40, P-47, P-51, F4F, F6F, F4U.  Seven different airframes; multiple variants for each except the F6F.

The Germans?  109 and 190.  (I'm excluding the 163 and 262).

That's reason number one why we have "so many" 109 and 190 variants.  There were only two airframes used.

Reason number two is that those two planes were continuously upgraded - and significantly so.

The difference between a 109E-3 and a 109K-4 is huge; as is that between the 190A5 and the Ta-152.  Each, respectively, might as well be from a different planet.  

By contrast?  Consider the slight differences between the P-51B and P-51D.

That's my opinion, anyway.  Besides; who would argue against more airplanes, regardless of type?

Title: Re: 1092-2 and Bf-109F-2/Z
Post by: vonKrimm on February 01, 2010, 07:21:29 PM
Think of it this way.  German vs. US.

How many US fighters are represented?  P-38, P-40, P-47, P-51, F4F, F6F, F4U.  Seven different airframes; multiple variants for each except the F6F.

The Germans?  109 and 190.  (I'm excluding the 163 and 262).

That's reason number one why we have "so many" 109 and 190 variants.  There were only two airframes used.

Reason number two is that those two planes were continuously upgraded - and significantly so.

The difference between a 109E-3 and a 109K-4 is huge; as is that between the 190A5 and the Ta-152.  Each, respectively, might as well be from a different planet.  

By contrast?  Consider the slight differences between the P-51B and P-51D.

That's my opinion, anyway.  Besides; who would argue against more airplanes, regardless of type?



ahem....you forgot the P-39 (2 versions) and the 110 (2 versions) for the U.S. and LW, respectively.     :bolt:

and I fully support the 109f/2 15mm model, esp. if it can have the 4x50kg bomb rack.
Title: Re: 1092-2 and Bf-109F-2/Z
Post by: waystin2 on February 02, 2010, 09:06:23 AM
+1
Title: Re: 1092-2 and Bf-109F-2/Z
Post by: VonMessa on February 02, 2010, 09:33:44 AM
I propose no more 109s, F4Us,P47s, and spits...........Anyone seconding my opinion?

Nein

for a better understanding of my disagreement........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zNjQecyjE8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zNjQecyjE8)
Title: Re: 1092-2 and Bf-109F-2/Z
Post by: Boozeman on February 02, 2010, 10:01:22 AM
I propose no more 109s, F4Us,P47s, and spits...........Anyone seconding my opinion?
I do...