Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Babalonian on December 16, 2010, 03:44:09 PM

Title: A shame...
Post by: Babalonian on December 16, 2010, 03:44:09 PM
... we won't have a proper 109G-10 for frames 3 and 4 in the upcoming scenario.   :noid   :bolt:
Title: Re: A shame...
Post by: Krusty on December 16, 2010, 04:17:47 PM
No need for one......  :bolt:
Title: Re: A shame...
Post by: IamSalem on December 16, 2010, 04:21:42 PM
...or that we dont have blue nosed 51Bs for 352nd  :cry
Title: Re: A shame...
Post by: Karnak on December 17, 2010, 12:04:17 AM
... we won't have a proper 109G-10 for frames 3 and 4 in the upcoming scenario.   :noid   :bolt:
Your implication is that the Bf109G-10 would fill a gap.  This is false as it would not.

If you want a gap filling Bf109, ask for a Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS.  The Bf109G-10 entered service about a month after the Bf109K-4.
Title: Re: A shame...
Post by: Krusty on December 17, 2010, 12:12:12 AM
A G-6/AS could fill a lot of gaps. As early as the G-4 and G-5 you had the high-alt superchargers showing up. They weren't as widespread, but they weren't rare either. A G-6/AS could serve from '42 all the way to '45 in Aces High setups.
Title: Re: A shame...
Post by: Debrody on December 17, 2010, 02:02:46 AM
As i know, the g-10 had the same DB 605D as the k-4, but with the old g-airframe (with improved gun cowling, of course). As a result, it was almost as heavy as the k-4, but couldnt run as fast. The g-14 was only a standardised late-production g-6 with Erla canopy and MW50. The AS engines could perform the best at 25-27K (not sure), so the g6/as would fit much better for the events and scenarios as a real high-altitude 109.