Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: milesobrian on October 21, 2010, 03:23:03 PM
-
From wiki:
The 1,350 PS (1,332 hp, 993 kW) DB 601E was used in the F-3 and F-4 model together with a VDM 9-12010 propeller with broader blades for improved altitude performance.[30][46] The DB 601 E was initially restricted to 1,200 PS (1,184 hp, 883 kW) at 2,500 rpm;[46] however, the full rating of 1,350 PS at 2,500 rpm was cleared for service use by February 1942.
Is this true and if it is it seems that this is the current model of the f4 is the underrated version, this should not be the case in the late war arena, give us the nonrestricted engine, so the 109f4 can get some competive edge vs other low eny planes.
ALSO
for the 109G series from wiki:
The newly fitted Daimler-Benz DB 605A engine was a development of the DB 601E engine utilised by the preceding Bf 109F-4; displacement and compression ratio were increased as well as other detail improvements. Takeoff and emergency power of 1,475 PS (1,455 hp, 1,085 kW) was achieved with 1.42 atm of boost at 2,800 rpm. The DB605 suffered from reliability problems during the first year of operation, and this output was initially banned by VT-Anw.Nr.2206, forcing Luftwaffe units to limit maximum power output to 1,310 PS (1,292 hp, 964 kW) at 2,600 rpm and 1.3 atm manifold pressure. The full output was not reinstated until 8 June 1943 when Daimler-Benz issued a technical directive.[57] Up to 1944, the G-series was powered by the 1,475 PS Daimler-Benz DB 605 driving a three-blade VDM 9-12087A variable-pitch propeller with a diameter of 3 m (9.8 ft) with even broader blades than used on the...From 1944 a new high-altitude propeller with broader blades was introduced, designated VDM 9-12159, and was fitted to high-altitude variants with the DB 605AS or D-series engines.
so it seems that the g series had this same problem as well, is this true?
-
From wiki:
This is where i stopped reading.
-
You're just pissed at what they say about Woodstock, you Hippie!!!
This is where i stopped reading.
:lol
-
Would it be any different if he posted the direct sources that those wiki posts are cited from? :headscratch:
While I understand anyone can post something on there, from what I've seen, everything gets cited or edited out real quickly.
-
Would it be any different if he posted the direct sources that those wiki posts are cited from? :headscratch:
While I understand anyone can post something on there, from what I've seen, everything gets cited or edited out real quickly.
Its personal with me. I used Wiki as a source for my senior year thesis on Pope John Paul. They were right on all of the big stuff, but almost all the dates were off. I ended up redoing about a quarter of the 20 page paper Because we weren't allowed to use wiki as a source after that. After that I stay as far away as i can.
-
109G-2 should be WEP-less since bf 109g2s didn't operate 1.42 WEP from june 1942 to may 1943.
1.42 WEP should be reserved for 109g6
-
From wiki:
The 1,350 PS (1,332 hp, 993 kW) DB 601E was used in the F-3 and F-4 model together with a VDM 9-12010 propeller with broader blades for improved altitude performance.[30][46] The DB 601 E was initially restricted to 1,200 PS (1,184 hp, 883 kW) at 2,500 rpm;[46] however, the full rating of 1,350 PS at 2,500 rpm was cleared for service use by February 1942.
Is this true and if it is it seems that this is the current model of the f4 is the underrated version, this should not be the case in the late war arena, give us the nonrestricted engine, so the 109f4 can get some competive edge vs other low eny planes.
109f4 in-game is not underrated version, it's got wep. Underrated ones had no wep.
so it's safe to say we have a 1942 109f
i think we should get another 109f (WEP-less version) to cover late 1940 to 1941 time frame
-
Its personal with me. I used Wiki as a source for my senior year thesis on Pope John Paul. They were right on all of the big stuff, but almost all the dates were off. I ended up redoing about a quarter of the 20 page paper Because we weren't allowed to use wiki as a source after that. After that I stay as far away as i can.
then thats your fault for for using that information... this isnt a thesis paper is it....
-
109f4 in-game is not underrated version, it's got wep. Underrated ones had no wep.
so it's safe to say we have a 1942 109f
i think we should get another 109f (WEP-less version) to cover late 1940 to 1941 time frame
but even at wep is still achieves the max speed that is listed for the underrated version.
With its initial engine rating of 1,200 PS, the maximum speed of the F-4 (and F-3) was 635 km/h[52] (394 mph) at rated altitude; and with the clearance of the full rating of 1,350 PS, maximum speed increased to 670 km/h (420 mph)
the 394 seems to correspond to the max speed on this chart http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php
-
What periods of time are appropriate for which settings?
We have a Spitfire Mk Vb with 60 round drum fed Hispano Is, not the later Spitfire Mk Vc with Hispano IIs.
Just because the LW MA is, well, LW does not mean that such aircraft should be in their latest, greatest form. Earlier aircraft are for scenarios and historical settings, which are often undermined by making them the ultimate versions of their kind.
-
The F-4 is fine the way it is....
-
What periods of time are appropriate for which settings?
We have a Spitfire Mk Vb with 60 round drum fed Hispano Is, not the later Spitfire Mk Vc with Hispano IIs.
Just because the LW MA is, well, LW does not mean that such aircraft should be in their latest, greatest form. Earlier aircraft are for scenarios and historical settings, which are often undermined by making them the ultimate versions of their kind.
thats because spitfires are for losers who suck
if im going to let my kid my play im gonna set him up with a late model spitfire because its accessible....
-
thats because spitfires are for losers who suck
And I'm sure you're some "experten" in a Bf 109, right? :rofl
ack-ack
-
thats because spitfires are for losers who suck
if im going to let my kid my play im gonna set him up with a late model spitfire because its accessible....
You really should have a higher opinion of your own children. :old:
-
You really should have a higher opinion of your own children. :old:
why im not going to expect a child under 9 to be able to play an adult game, i mean flying around is hard enough let alone stay alive and get killed, not to mention the whole attention span. if they keep dieing they probably going to get tired of it real quick...
by the way i never claimed to be an expert at anything....just the stuff i read on wiki...
jk
-
Even a child under 9 can learn to respect other people's choices. :old:
While you've made it clear that you'd like an improved Bf109F-4 to get an edge over other early war aircraft you haven't given any reasons why it would be a good idea.
-
I've landed several tri, quad, or quintuple kill sorties in the F4 in the past week alone. It has advantages, or an "edge", over pretty much any plane in the set. It's fine the way it is.
-
thats because spitfires are for losers who suck
if im going to let my kid my play im gonna set him up with a late model spitfire because its accessible....
And with that post you have revealed yourself to be a massively biased fanboy who's opinion isn't worth the electrons it took to transmit it.
Nothing you say from this point forward has any validity.
-
I prefer to 1v1 different planes in the F-4 then any other 109, IMHO its the best 109 for furballing and turning, though I mostly fly the K-4 because I find it much easier to kill with then the F-4,G-2,G-6
-
I think the F4 already has a good competetive edge against all other EW rides that are freely available.
-
The 109F-4 and the 109G-2 are my two favorite 109s in the game. While I like how the K-4s fly, I can't hit anything with the big gun. All 109s in the game have wep. So they are like late war up dates anyway and are fine as they are.
-
I think the OPs is saying our present 109F is a combination of times/airframes. I will consult the 109 parchments when I get home, and ack-ack, I do consider myself a 109 Experten, lol. I am not, however, a Spit hater.
On all other post point, yes the 109 F4 is fine the way it is. It does not have the top end to go head to head with LW planes, so in it's present modelling I find it adequate.
-
109f perfect the way it is now
-
I think the OPs is saying our present 109F is a combination of times/airframes. I will consult the 109 parchments when I get home, and ack-ack, I do consider myself a 109 Experten, lol. I am not, however, a Spit hater.
On all other post point, yes the 109 F4 is fine the way it is. It does not have the top end to go head to head with LW planes, so in it's present modelling I find it adequate.
There are only 10 109 experten in this game, you are not privy to the secret experten's forum therefore you are not a member nor are you entitled to call yourself 'experten' please stop this unsanctioned use of our word or the lawyers will be called in. That is all :noid :noid :noid :noid
-
I shall make a new word for myself then, <experten in training :D
-
Even a child under 9 can learn to respect other people's choices. :old:
While you've made it clear that you'd like an improved Bf109F-4 to get an edge over other early war aircraft you haven't given any reasons why it would be a good idea.
when did i say i wanted an edge against other early war air craft if anything i specifically mentioned the late war arena...this is just more fools putting words into my mouth
-
when did i say i wanted an edge against other early war air craft if anything i specifically mentioned the late war arena...this is just more fools putting words into my mouth
You said this in your original post.
... so the 109f4 can get some competive edge vs other low eny planes...
Your use of "other" was confusing. It seemed like you meant to say aircraft similar to the 109F. It's like your use of "more fools" to refer to a single person. When you don't write clearly you can hardly complain if you are misunderstood.
If you'd like some help with the Bf109F-4 come see me in the Training arena.
-
when did i say i wanted an edge against other early war air craft if anything i specifically mentioned the late war arena...this is just more fools putting words into my mouth
Which was the point I replied against whereupon you went into an anti-Spitfire polemic.
My point was that the intention is not to make things like the 1941 Bf109F-4 and Spitfire Vb their most competitive against 1944/45 aircraft. It is to make them appropriate for 1941 settings. That is why when I suggested a Spitfire lineup I suggested changing the Spitfire Vc to the less competitive, but more appropriate for 1941 and general type progression, Spitfire Vb.
Sadly, you couldn't see through the red haze induced by seeing the word "Spitfire".
-
thats because spitfires are for losers who suck
if im going to let my kid my play im gonna set him up with a late model spitfire because its accessible....
I bet you fly in Spitfires too.
-
Anybody know his ingame? :old:
I bet you fly in Spitfires too.
-
The experten..... hmmmmm sounds like a wanna be S.A.P.P. I guess I will have to wait for the avatars....
Hey, I like the F4 the way it is too. If the F4 which we used was rated for a higher HP, then that should be addressed by altering the the eny or FM.
Be careful what you wish for......
-
There are 3 109 experten in this thread.
-
The 109F-4 and the 109G-2 are my two favorite 109s in the game. While I like how the K-4s fly, I can't hit anything with the big gun. All 109s in the game have wep. So they are like late war up dates anyway and are fine as they are.
umm wether or not they have wep dosent mean they are late war or anything....the f4 has wep but its top speed it it exactly 394 mph....same as what wiki and the source it was taken from says was the max speed of the early f4s are. and looking at the numbers for the g2 and 6 it would seem that they are also the early variant regardless of wep....
-
You said this in your original post.
Your use of "other" was confusing. It seemed like you meant to say aircraft similar to the 109F. It's like your use of "more fools" to refer to a single person. When you don't write clearly you can hardly complain if you are misunderstood.
If you'd like some help with the Bf109F-4 come see me in the Training arena.
LOW ENY PLANES....the planes with the low eny are the LATE WAR planes get it??
-
The experten..... hmmmmm sounds like a wanna be S.A.P.P. I guess I will have to wait for the avatars....
Hey, I like the F4 the way it is too. If the F4 which we used was rated for a higher HP, then that should be addressed by altering the the eny or FM.
Be careful what you wish for......
duh....i dont care about the numbers...i care about how the plane performs....when a plane gets better i would expect the eny to get lower...
-
Totally, 100% wrong..... The RV8 is ENY 40
duh....i dont care about the numbers...i care about how the plane performs....when a plane gets better i would expect the eny to get lower...
You're asking a Trainer, if he gets it? (MUST NOT LAUGH)
LOW ENY PLANES....the planes with the low eny are the LATE WAR planes get it??
What's your ingame name brotha?
-
From Ebert/Kaiser/Peters Willy Messerschmitt book:
109F4 from E series:
- New wing layout with rounded tips
- New cowling with blended spinner
- Aerodynamically improved radiator housing
- Absence of elevator bracing
- More armor
- More gas
- Moved guns to fuse.
As far as the engine, preproduction models were DB601A and E, but main series used DB601N rated at 1,175HP.
Experten note: Ah...so another small elite community I was unaware of, thought Ack-ack was just pulling his chain about the wiki reference....
-
LOW ENY PLANES....the planes with the low eny are the LATE WAR planes get it??
Your statement was that you wanted an early war aircraft to get a competitive edge over late war low eny aircraft by increasing it's thrust slightly. Since that makes no sense I had to guess what you meant. I'll assume that what you meant to say was that you wanted to decrease the disadvantage of the Bf109f-4 while retaining it's high eny rating.
Now that I know you better I'm sure we'll have fewer misunderstandings.
-
The experten..... hmmmmm sounds like a wanna be S.A.P.P. I guess I will have to wait for the avatars....
Hey, I like the F4 the way it is too. If the F4 which we used was rated for a higher HP, then that should be addressed by altering the the eny or FM.
Be careful what you wish for......
Their are avatars but they are invisable to the untrained eye..... :noid :noid :noid
-
Your statement was that you wanted an early war aircraft to get a competitive edge over late war low eny aircraft by increasing it's thrust slightly. Since that makes no sense I had to guess what you meant. I'll assume that what you meant to say was that you wanted to decrease the disadvantage of the Bf109f-4 while retaining it's high eny rating.
Now that I know you better I'm sure we'll have fewer misunderstandings.
26 mph faster at alt (394 to 420) is not a slight thrust increase...
-
Fly a Bf109G-14 or Bf109K-4 in the LWA. The Bf109F-4 needs to be a 1941 version to match settings for 1941. Just because you feel like everything should be balanced as though it is being used in 1945, such is not the case in AH.
Deal with it.
-
Fly a Bf109G-14 or Bf109K-4 in the LWA. The Bf109F-4 needs to be a 1941 version to match settings for 1941. Just because you feel like everything should be balanced as though it is being used in 1945, such is not the case in AH.
Deal with it.
im talking it should be balanced according to what was historically accurate....if a 109f4 is flying with g6 and g14 then it probably would have been the one with the uprated engine....
obviously for the ew mw it can stay as it is, but it dosent make any sense for a 109f4 to be flying around with p51 and la7 with an underrated engine.
-
im talking it should be balanced according to what was historically accurate....if a 109f4 is flying with g6 and g14 then it probably would have been the one with the uprated engine....
obviously for the ew mw it can stay as it is, but it dosent make any sense for a 109f4 to be flying around with p51 and la7 with an underrated engine.
You are misunderstanding how the game works. The only reason you are allowed to fly a Bf109F-4 or P-40B in the LWA is to let people have a challenge against superior aircraft if they want. You aren't going to get a Spitfire Mk Ia for the 1940 settings and a Spitfire Mk Ib so that it can have cannons and be more effective in 1945 settings.
When the EWA, MWA and LWA were originally created you couldn't fly most early war aircraft in the LWA. They simply weren't enabled. People complained, saying they wanted to be able to do so and that it wouldn't be a balance problem and HTC relented.
You also aren't going to get a 420mph Bf109F-4 in the EWA or scenarios.
HTC is also not going to make different versions of the Bf109F-4.
-
You are misunderstanding how the game works. The only reason you are allowed to fly a Bf109F-4 or P-40B in the LWA is to let people have a challenge against superior aircraft if they want. You aren't going to get a Spitfire Mk Ia for the 1940 settings and a Spitfire Mk Ib so that it can have cannons and be more effective in 1945 settings.
When the EWA, MWA and LWA were originally created you couldn't fly most early war aircraft in the LWA. They simply weren't enabled. People complained, saying they wanted to be able to do so and that it wouldn't be a balance problem and HTC relented.
You also aren't going to get a 420mph Bf109F-4 in the EWA or scenarios.
HTC is also not going to make different versions of the Bf109F-4.
i dont play scenarios and ewa nor would i expect an early war variant of the f4 to have a mid war engine...remember historical accuracy....
so tell me what changes will the company have to make to get the 109f4 up to its middle war standard...I dont know if their were any physical changes, so the only thing that will have to be changes is possibly the engine statistics
-
They won't do it. They will keep it consistent so that when a player grabs a Bf109F-4 they know what they are getting.
The Spitfire Mk XVI in AH is actually a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe, but because we already have a Spitfire F.Mk IX that is called a Spitfire Mk IX the new, 1944 version was labeled as the Mk XVI, which was almost, but not the quite, identical. The Mk XVI had a FTH about 1000ft higher than the LF.Mk IX.
You might be able to convince HTC to add a Bf109F-6 or such, if it existed, but you won't get two Bf109F-4s.
-
im talking it should be balanced according to what was historically accurate....if a 109f4 is flying with g6 and g14 then it probably would have been the one with the uprated engine....
obviously for the ew mw it can stay as it is, but it dosent make any sense for a 109f4 to be flying around with p51 and la7 with an underrated engine.
HTC doesn't make planes for the arenas. They made the arenas for the planes. LWA is simply all the planes in the game smashed up with each other.
You obviously don't understand the width of this game.
-
if he gets his "uprated" F-4, I want to have the proper trim tabs on the K-4 as most of them IRL had
-
26 mph faster at alt (394 to 420) is not a slight thrust increase...
That would make it faster than a Spit16 and it would still turn tighter with full flaps. You'd have an aircraft that out-performed a Spit16 regardless of pilot skill. I see your point about historical accuracy.
-
how about make 109F4 and G2 WEP-less?
109G2 is a 1942 plane and WEP was prohibited by the manufacturer at that time.
109F4 is a 1941 plane and had same restrictions as 109g2
save wep for 109g6 only
( btw the in-game 109F at military power is even match for spit 5b with just 5 minute wep.)
-
where did you read the Messerschmitt prohibited WEP on planes ever?
-
where did you read the Messerschmitt prohibited WEP on planes ever?
OP's
-
ah the wiki source, honestly,
there is more room for a 109G-10 then there is for a different 109F-4, or give us a 109G-6/AS with erla-haube, make the one we have now an earlier version without the Galland-Panzer and it will "fill" better then another F-4
-
i think i found something golden :x
http://beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=21&L=1