Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: STXAce8 on May 27, 2010, 03:47:29 PM

Title: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: STXAce8 on May 27, 2010, 03:47:29 PM
         Yes i know hi-tech replaced it with the K-4 a while back, but i say we get it back.

           It had a 30mm cannon with 2 13mm mg.s
            1 Daimler-Benz DB 605D inverted V 1,474hp engine
           Max. speed 386mph at 22,967ft.
            cruising speed 180mph.
           Just think a 109 with OK speed a 30mm cannon and pretty good maneuverability
            
               Please Hi tech bring it back  :pray 
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: StokesAk on May 27, 2010, 05:28:20 PM
Whats wrong with the K4?
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: STXAce8 on May 27, 2010, 05:57:38 PM
I wouldn't turn a K-4
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: MachFly on May 27, 2010, 06:04:02 PM
What's wrong with the G-14?
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: gyrene81 on May 27, 2010, 06:15:17 PM
What's wrong with the G-14?
Beat me to it. It can do what the OP describes.
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: Karnak on May 27, 2010, 06:18:58 PM
We never had a Bf109G-10.  We had a Bf109K-4 that was labeled as a Bf109G-10 so that HTC could give it 20mm options.  What we need is a Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS.


Also, I think your stats are wrong, the engine should be much more powerful than what you listed.
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: shreck on May 27, 2010, 06:40:53 PM
I wouldn't turn a K-4
    :headscratch:





K4 is teh UBER  :aok
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: fuzeman on May 27, 2010, 06:58:11 PM
I thought his name was HiTech.
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: guncrasher on May 27, 2010, 07:00:58 PM
I love the k4 and I don't fly it.  Always a challenge to fite against.


Semp
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: STXAce8 on May 27, 2010, 07:07:29 PM
Ya Fuz it is HiTech spell check did it
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: STXAce8 on May 27, 2010, 07:10:39 PM

Also, I think your stats are wrong, the engine should be much more powerful than what you listed.
I'm not sure that's what I saw when i googled it. Someone told me the 109G-10 was as maneuverable as a G-2 and had a 30mm cannon.
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: Plazus on May 27, 2010, 07:15:38 PM
The G10 was discussed in another recent thread. Adding the G10 is pointless. Its performance is inferior to the K4 and was brought to service AFTER the K4 during the war. Bottom line is, if you want uber late war ride, just fly the K4. Or the G14 if your heart desires.
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: fuzeman on May 27, 2010, 07:31:40 PM
Ya Fuz it is HiTech spell check did it

Ignore me, I was crackin wise. On a serious note, its fuze, like fuse.  :headscratch:
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: 321BAR on May 27, 2010, 07:41:17 PM
Ignore me, I was crackin wise. On a serious note, its fuze, like fuse.  :headscratch:
how many people actually say fuzz? i've seen quite a few fuze
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: fuzeman on May 27, 2010, 09:42:45 PM
how many people actually say fuzz? i've seen quite a few fuze

Too many, in my opinion.  :)   If I wanted to be called fuzz I'd have picked the gameID fuzzman.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fuze, check the pronunciation  :D
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: 2bighorn on May 27, 2010, 09:50:29 PM
Too many, in my opinion.  :)   If I wanted to be called fuzz I'd have picked the gameID fuzzman.

Prove it. I bet you just misspelled fuzz at account creation  :neener:


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fuze, check the pronunciation  :D


Yeah, check it. Fuzz sounds like misspelled fuze.  :devil
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fuzz
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: Ardy123 on May 28, 2010, 04:56:18 AM
What's wrong with the G-14?

G14 is not like a G6 with a tater. The G6 appears to be balanced differently and has a better turn radius than the g14. The G14 can out climb it and has a much bigger engine. The G14 also accelerates better and is faster.
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: STEELE on May 28, 2010, 12:48:23 PM
OK...The G10.  It's actually lighter than the K4-no wooden tail and quite a few were mg151/20, while at the same time shared identical engine (IIRC).   That being said, it should have better turn radius (especially with the 20), and rate of climb 
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: Motherland on May 28, 2010, 02:58:50 PM
G14 is not like a G6 with a tater. The G6 appears to be balanced differently and has a better turn radius than the g14. The G14 can out climb it and has a much bigger engine. The G14 also accelerates better and is faster.
The Bf 109G-14 has the same engine as the G-6. The only difference between the aircraft modeled in this game, performance wise, is that the G-14 has an MW50 power boost system which boosts performance under WEP. The G-14 is actually worse in all categories under military power.
I would imagine most of the balancing difference is from the MW50 installation.

What's wrong with the G-14?
The G-14 is slower than the G-10, especially at altitude, where the performance of both the G-6 and G-14 is terrible.
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: Ardy123 on May 28, 2010, 03:27:35 PM
The Bf 109G-14 has the same engine as the G-6. The only difference between the aircraft modeled in this game, performance wise, is that the G-14 has an MW50 power boost system which boosts performance under WEP. The G-14 is actually worse in all categories under military power.

Kinda, the G14 has a better supercharger...
"By early 1944 tactical requirements resulted in the addition of MW-50 water injection boost and high performance superchargers, boosting engine output to 1,800-2,000 PS" -Wikipedia

The balancing is different because I fly with the 30mm in the G14, which weighs more(and being in the nose makes it a little nose heavy)  and is not available in the G6. Also, the G6 always felt more 'stable' than the G14.

In AH they do have the same speed at mil power, that is correct..
http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php

Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: EDO43 on May 28, 2010, 03:28:53 PM
The G10 was discussed in another recent thread. Adding the G10 is pointless. Its performance is inferior to the K4 and was brought to service AFTER the K4 during the war. Bottom line is, if you want uber late war ride, just fly the K4. Or the G14 if your heart desires.

I think the G-10 entered service before the K-4.  The G-14 entered service before the G-10 from what my memory remembers.  
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: Karnak on May 28, 2010, 04:14:42 PM
I think the G-10 entered service before the K-4.  The G-14 entered service before the G-10 from what my memory remembers.  
G-10 entered service shortly after the K-4.  About a month after, if I recall correctly.  Due to that it plugs no holes in AH and a Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS would be a much better addition.
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: gyrene81 on May 28, 2010, 04:27:29 PM
G-10 entered service shortly after the K-4.  About a month after, if I recall correctly.  Due to that it plugs no holes in AH and a Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS would be a much better addition.
In a way it does. At 426mph it's the fastest 109 G series there was and it had a service ceiling of somewhere around 41,000 feet. Didn't it also have the same canopy as the K4? (erla? galland? or something like that) I read somewhere that the G-10 was not generally a production line model but a G-2/G-6 with improvements to bring it to the G-10 standards.
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: Karnak on May 28, 2010, 04:45:03 PM
In a way it does. At 426mph it's the fastest 109 G series there was and it had a service ceiling of somewhere around 41,000 feet. Didn't it also have the same canopy as the K4? (erla? galland? or something like that) I read somewhere that the G-10 was not generally a production line model but a G-2/G-6 with improvements to bring it to the G-10 standards.
True, as I understand it, but it doesn't plug a hole because the K-4 is already available before the G-10 is.  What we need is a Bf109 that can perform at altitude before the K-4.  All the G-10 would add is having two Bf109s that perform at altitude after Nov. 1944.  That leaves all of 1943 and 1944 before Oct. without any Bf109 capable of opposing the American bomber offensive.
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: gyrene81 on May 28, 2010, 04:59:32 PM
True, as I understand it, but it doesn't plug a hole because the K-4 is already available before the G-10 is.  What we need is a Bf109 that can perform at altitude before the K-4.  All the G-10 would add is having two Bf109s that perform at altitude after Nov. 1944.  That leaves all of 1943 and 1944 before Oct. without any Bf109 capable of opposing the American bomber offensive.
Hmmm...I was under the impression that G-10 being a non-full production mod came before the K4 and the 190-D9 and the 110G-2 filled that role but I see your point.

Is this what you're thinking about?

G-6 AS:
Fighter/fighter-bomber - increased power by the installation of the DB 605 AS engine (DB 605A engine with the DB 603 supercharger)...increased tail-fin and "Erla-Canopy"...aerodynamically improved cowling.
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: Guppy35 on May 28, 2010, 05:09:35 PM
The irony to me is that many of the same guys wanting another 109 variant, would be screaming bloody murder if we were talking about another Spit variant :)

As with the Spits, I'd suggest that HTC has done a nice job covering the bases with enough 109 variants for all.



Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: jdbecks on May 28, 2010, 05:17:10 PM
talking about another Spit variant :)


We have enough damn spits! we need more 109s!!    :noid   :bolt:
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: STEELE on May 28, 2010, 06:23:57 PM
I would imagine HTC has the G10 on a disk somewhere, maybe a few little FM tweaks and...  Viola! EZ planeset addition.   Yeeeee hawwww
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: gyrene81 on May 28, 2010, 06:33:23 PM
The irony to me is that many of the same guys wanting another 109 variant, would be screaming bloody murder if we were talking about another Spit variant :)

As with the Spits, I'd suggest that HTC has done a nice job covering the bases with enough 109 variants for all.
Nope, 7 Spit variants, 6 109s...need one more...  :D
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: Motherland on May 28, 2010, 09:45:54 PM
Hmmm...I was under the impression that G-10 being a non-full production mod came before the K4 and the 190-D9 and the 110G-2 filled that role but I see your point.

Is this what you're thinking about?

G-6 AS:
Fighter/fighter-bomber - increased power by the installation of the DB 605 AS engine (DB 605A engine with the DB 603 supercharger)...increased tail-fin and "Erla-Canopy"...aerodynamically improved cowling.
The G-10 was a supplement to the K-4 as operations of the latter were scaled up. It also was a (failed) attempt to standardize production of the G series. They both came into service around the same time.
Quote
Didn't it also have the same canopy as the K4?
The Erla-Haube canopy was introduced late in the production of the G-6 series and was generally carried on all subsequent models.

Quote
190-D9 and the 110G-2 filled that role
What exactly do you mean by this? The Bf 110G-2 was a twin engined heavy fighter hopelessly obsolete in the day fighter role by the end of 1943, and the Fw 190D-9 didn't enter service until the Fall of 1944.

G-6 AS:
Fighter/fighter-bomber - increased power by the installation of the DB 605 AS engine (DB 605A engine with the DB 603 supercharger)...increased tail-fin and "Erla-Canopy"...aerodynamically improved cowling.
That's not a very good description of the Bf 109G-6/AS... the main advantage that this type had was that the DB605AS engine was actually capable of running competently at high altitudes. Other members of the G series are like bricks with wings above 20-some-thousand-feet.
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: gyrene81 on May 28, 2010, 11:55:01 PM
What exactly do you mean by this? The Bf 110G-2 was a twin engined heavy fighter hopelessly obsolete in the day fighter role by the end of 1943, and the Fw 190D-9 didn't enter service until the Fall of 1944
The 110G-2 and 190D-9 were used as bomber interceptors is what I meant.
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: Karnak on May 29, 2010, 12:22:39 AM
The irony to me is that many of the same guys wanting another 109 variant, would be screaming bloody murder if we were talking about another Spit variant :)

As with the Spits, I'd suggest that HTC has done a nice job covering the bases with enough 109 variants for all.




I'd disagree here, Dan.  The lack of any German aircraft with decent performance at 25,000-30,000ft really hurts scenarios set during the American bomber offensive in 1943 or most of 1944.  I would really like to see a Bf109G-6/AS added, or to see the Bf109G-6 changed to be an /AS model and let the Bf109G-2 hold the low altitude position until the G-14 is available.
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: BaldEagl on May 29, 2010, 01:05:48 AM
I wouldn't turn a K-4

What's wrong with turning a K4?  I do it all the time.
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: gyrene81 on May 29, 2010, 11:30:07 AM
What's wrong with turning a K4?  I do it all the time.
I try to...most of the time I fail though.  :D  If we could get a high alt variant of the G6, I would be a happy luftwhiner.
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: CPW on June 03, 2010, 08:51:02 PM
Some G-10's information

http://www.allaircraftarcade.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7791&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45
Title: Re: BF 109G-10 back
Post by: Krusty on June 03, 2010, 08:56:29 PM
Some G-10's information

http://www.allaircraftarcade.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7791&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

I've frequented AAA enough to know that a lot of their flight modeling is suspect. Other mods out there usually end up redoing the FM work and re-releasing the AAA plane packs.

EDIT: Ah, I read through the link. Not so much about their flight model as it is somebody copy-and-pasting paragraphs of info.