Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Bino on July 03, 2012, 10:48:42 PM
-
Could we have the option to carry a bomb on the Bf-109F? Thanks!
-
An F-4B does not exist and never existed. All Bf 109 since the E-7 had the capability to carry bombs.
-
I just did a quick search and found this info;
I'm not sure how accurate this information is. Check out the link
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_bf_109F.html
It basically says that;
3 common field mods were used with the 109F-4.
Rustatze (Field conversion kits)
R-1 MG 151/20 cannon mounted under each wing
R-5 A 300 litre drop tank mounted under the fuselage (Is this a Rustatze mod' that we have in game or was it capable of carrying it as standard?)
R-6 ETC 250 bomb rack for a 250Kg bomb
Some more digging around has to be done to validate any claims that it indeed carried a bomb. Or that the Rustatze mods were carried out in sufficient numbers.
If the 300 L drop tank we have in game refers to the R-5 Rustatze then the R-1 and R-6 may be applicable.
-
3 common field mods were used with the 109F-4.
Rustatze (Field conversion kits)
R-1 MG 151/20 cannon mounted under each wing
R-5 A 300 litre drop tank mounted under the fuselage (Is this a Rustatze mod' that we have in game or was it capable of carrying it as standard?)
R-6 ETC 250 bomb rack for a 250Kg bomb
Some more digging around has to be done to validate any claims that it indeed carried a bomb. Or that the Rustatze mods were carried out in sufficient numbers.
If the 300 L drop tank we have in game refers to the R-5 Rustatze then the R-1 and R-6 may be applicable.
Our F-4 used to have the R-1 option, but it was taken away logn ago when it was shown that it did see little (any?) operational use at all.
-
Probably before I started playing. Although it was many tours before I got to fly the 109F-4
So the R-1 mod' was available but has been withdrawn from AH.
I guess that the 300L drop tank ingame does refer to the R-5 mod'.
Rustatze R-6 bomb rack and 250Kg bomb would seem to be a valid addition.
I like the 109F-4 it would be nice to use it as an attacker.
-
Here are some photos of what appear to be F models rigged to haul a bomb. I think the first two are likely F-1 or very early F-2 models, since they have the external stiffeners near the tail. The third photo may be an F-4, because it seems to have a different supercharger intake...
(http://kenshelby.us/images/ME-109F-1-R1-1.jpg)
(http://kenshelby.us/images/ME-109F-1-R1-2.jpg)
(http://kenshelby.us/images/ME-109F-4-R1.jpg)
-
There's been some questions about having the 15mm and bomb option, I think it should be allowed after all it was used in russia.
-
There's been some questions about having the 15mm and bomb option, I think it should be allowed after all it was used in russia.
The mg 151/15 only saw use in the F-1 and F-2 models. Our F-4 is most similar a late F-4, with the deeper oil cooler under the nose.
-
I just did a quick search and found this info;
I'm not sure how accurate this information is. Check out the link
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_bf_109F.html
It basically says that;
3 common field mods were used with the 109F-4.
Rustatze (Field conversion kits)
R-1 MG 151/20 cannon mounted under each wing
R-5 A 300 litre drop tank mounted under the fuselage (Is this a Rustatze mod' that we have in game or was it capable of carrying it as standard?)
R-6 ETC 250 bomb rack for a 250Kg bomb
Some more digging around has to be done to validate any claims that it indeed carried a bomb. Or that the Rustatze mods were carried out in sufficient numbers.
If the 300 L drop tank we have in game refers to the R-5 Rustatze then the R-1 and R-6 may be applicable.
240 or so F-4 came from the W.N.F. factory with the R-1 modification and we used to have it till the silly little stink-in spit 5 got neutered....... it certainly wouldn't be fair to have a 109f with gondies :rolleyes:
Used to have the egg aswell
-
Our F-4 used to have the R-1 option, but it was taken away logn ago when it was shown that it did see little (any?) operational use at all.
It was taken to make a fair match up for the spit 5 not because it didn't see use.... it saw plenty.
-
The mg 151/15 only saw use in the F-1 and F-2 models. Our F-4 is most similar a late F-4, with the deeper oil cooler under the nose.
Sorry I haven't researched the 109F model lately, can the 151/15 be added to the late F-4? or is it strictly F-1/F-2 which is totally different variation and require a new remodeling for the F4?
-
F-4B
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/109_f4b.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/109F4b.jpg)
-
I don't see why HTC would try and make a 'fair match' for the spit 5, when the only place it matters (special events) we can put restrictions on their useage.
-
An F-4B does not exist and never existed. All Bf 109 since the E-7 had the capability to carry bombs.
E-4b
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_AQZRtRcYS54/TDzD2o43xRI/AAAAAAAAGTQ/fHamxOij7_8/s1600/420119039_9805c83d1a_o.jpg)
-
Early E-series had a special B-model, these were special Fighter-bomber mods. This was not necessary anymore for E-7 and later as these were prepared to carry a DT or Bomb. They carried and ETC 500 bomb rack if used as FB.
The F-4/R1 was not a Rüstsatz, it was a Rüststand. This was a F-4 factory-built with wiring and attachment points for gondola cannons. I don't know whether they were actually delivered with gondolas or not. 240 were built by WNF.
-
So the B-models were factory-built to carry the bombs, as opposed to field-upgraded?
If thats the case, then its entirely irrelevent unless there were differences in preformance.
-
We do have the E-4B
-
Early E-series had no wirings or other preparations to carry external loads, the B-models were either new-built at the factory or rebuilt/modified at the depot level.
-
Sorry I haven't researched the 109F model lately, can the 151/15 be added to the late F-4? or is it strictly F-1/F-2 which is totally different variation and require a new remodeling for the F4?
I'm sure that it would be possible to physically mount the weapon, but the 15 mm versions were phased out during F-2 production.
As for modelling the F-2 in game, the supercharger intake and oil cooler would have to be changed. I believe that there would also be a drop in engine power.
But the gun would be the largest difference, as the 20mm mine shell was 6-8 times more explosive than the 15mm round, which still relied on kinetic impact to do most of its damage.
from wiki
To create the MG 151/20 round, Mauser simply necked out the MG 151/15's case (i.e. enlarged the opening of the case where the shell fits in) to fit a 20 mm shell—which, incidentally, was the same shell used in the MG FF cannon—and shortened the length of the case so that the total length of the complete round was the same for both calibres. These measures simplified conversion of the cannon between calibres, so that it was possible to convert the 15 mm to the 20 mm MG 151/20 simply by changing the barrel and making other small modifications. However, this simple modification-based approach was not without its drawbacks. The relatively short case of the 20 mm round, coupled with the larger and heavier 20 mm projectile cost some muzzle velocity (950 m/s for the 15 mm round vs. 800 m/s for the 20 mm round—a 16% drop).[citation needed] However, in comparison to the earlier MG FF cannon, the MG 151 had a higher muzzle velocity which gave it a more predictable trajectory and higher impact velocity/longer range.
Nevertheless, the extra HE capacity was considered well worth the loss in muzzle velocity. The basic 20 mm HE round, for example, had almost 30% more explosive content by weight than the 15 mm shell. Furthermore, the MG 151/20 also used the Minengeschoß ("mine shell"), which was made using drawn steel (similar to making cartridge cases) instead of being cast, as was typically done to make cannon shells at the time. The result was a shell with very thin yet strong walls, and hence a very large explosive (or incendiary) capacity. Indeed, the 20 mm M-shell carried 6-8 times the amount of explosives contained in the 15 mm shell.
-
I'm sure that it would be possible to physically mount the weapon, but the 15 mm versions were phased out during F-2 production.
As for modelling the F-2 in game, the supercharger intake and oil cooler would have to be changed. I believe that there would also be a drop in engine power.
But the gun would be the largest difference, as the 20mm mine shell was 6-8 times more explosive than the 15mm round, which still relied on kinetic impact to do most of its damage.
from wiki
ah good info, thanks
-
Ignore the commentary about the gondolas being removed to match parity with the spitV. That simply is a whiner's regret at not having them anymore.
Fact of the matter is that only so many airframes came from the factory with the wings even capable to fit them -- this does NOT mean they were fitted! Just that the wings had the proper setup.
Actual airframes that carried them were few and far far between. They were unrepresentative of the Bf109F model.
We did, however, have a bomb rack. At the time we did NOT have a server command to limit ord for setups and scenarios, so I assume this was to limit the planes to pure fighter modes for historic setups, etc. I think that since we NOW have the capability to limit ord via CM setup, we have a good chance of getting the bomb rack back on the 109F. I would love to see it, personally.
-
240 or so F-4 came from the W.N.F. factory with the R-1 modification and we used to have it till the silly little stink-in spit 5 got neutered....... it certainly wouldn't be fair to have a 109f with gondies :rolleyes:
Used to have the egg aswell
It was taken to make a fair match up for the spit 5 not because it didn't see use.... it saw plenty.
You do realize that the Spitfire Mk V was 'neutered' at the request of a number of us Spitfire fans so as to make the progression of Spitfires in AH smoother, right? You do realize that there was absolutely no request or mention or care about the Bf109F-4, or any other Bf109, when we posted our recommendations about the Spitfire lineup, right?
Unlike some people, we were concerned about historical accuracy, not getting the bestest thing possible so that we could win scenarios by flying aircraft that are better than what was had.
-
You do realize that the Spitfire Mk V was 'neutered' at the request of a number of us Spitfire fans so as to make the progression of Spitfires in AH smoother, right? You do realize that there was absolutely no request or mention or care about the Bf109F-4, or any other Bf109, when we posted our recommendations about the Spitfire lineup, right?
Unlike some people, we were concerned about historical accuracy, not getting the bestest thing possible so that we could win scenarios by flying aircraft that are better than what was had.
Spitfire Phanns :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Get ready
Lurks,
Da DAA, Da DA, Da DAA, DUM
In all Honesty .. at the time I had been here about 4-5 months maybe more or less ...I wasn't attending the Boards at that time and didn't even relise it was happening to the 109F-4 till it was to late .....I had just been enjoying it, and if I did at the time it was to late ... of course my "friends" were always very supportive. :rolleyes:
-
You do realize that the Spitfire Mk V was 'neutered' at the request of a number of us Spitfire fans so as to make the progression of Spitfires in AH smoother, right? You do realize that there was absolutely no request or mention or care about the Bf109F-4, or any other Bf109, when we posted our recommendations about the Spitfire lineup, right?
Unlike some people, we were concerned about historical accuracy, not getting the bestest thing possible so that we could win scenarios by flying aircraft that are better than what was had.
Spit V was a little over-exaggerated, 190a5 should easily slaughter it at alt - which the A6m3 recently got nerfed to be a little more you know historical.
Its not about "neutered" as much as it was unhistorically accurate to begin with, Spit V completely outclassed the A5 in which case historically it was opposite by a long shot.
-
It was taken to make a fair match up for the spit 5 not because it didn't see use.... it saw plenty.
Too much :cry from the spit pile-its?
possible reason for deleting the G10 when the K4 was added as well? :noid :bolt:
In other words, 20 mil on K4 too deadly for the allies?* (Easier to hit with and less weight in nose)
*Karnak says we had a K4 that was labeled G10, (if that was the case, adjust the speed to match actual G10 info and have both models)
-
Spit V was a little over-exaggerated, 190a5 should easily slaughter it at alt - which the A6m3 recently got nerfed to be a little more you know historical.
Its not about "neutered" as much as it was unhistorically accurate to begin with, Spit V completely outclassed the A5 in which case historically it was opposite by a long shot.
Not really. We just had a 1943 Spitfire Mk V, which made it silly for 1941 and 1942 settings. The Fw190A-5 has always stomped the snot out of it at altitude, and now with the proper 1941 Spitfire V it does so at low altitude as well.
I agree it was not about 'neutering', but rather about getting the appropriate Spitfire Mk V into the game. I was just using that word, in quotes, because I was talking to Megalodon and that was the term he used.
As you can see from his most recent post he has no comprehension that there are actually people who like the Spitfire for what it was, hence his derogatory implication using the "phanns" misspelling that only gamers like the Spitfire.
Too much :cry from the spit pile-its?
possible reason for deleting the G10 when the K4 was added as well? :noid :bolt:
In other words, 20 mil on K4 too deadly for the allies?* (Easier to hit with and less weight in nose)
*Karnak says we had a K4 that was labeled G10, (if that was the case, adjust the speed to match actual G10 info and have both models)
Find me a German chart that puts the Bf109G-10 at 452mph....
Yeah, it was a Bf109K-4 mislabeled as a Bf109G-10 to justify the 20mm options. Bf109G-10 should top out at about 425mph.
The primary reason we don't need the Bf109G-10 is that it is inferior to the Bf109K-4 and entered service after the Bf109K-4.
-
For me the 109K-4 is inferior to the 109G-10 because I can't hit the ground with that 30mm in the K model lol. I myself am much more interested in a historically correct modeled planes over any over modeling of any aircraft in the game just for the sake of winning for personal gain. I don't want anything that did not exist but I would understand if the modeling on some planes are at the bottom of it's performance or else everyone would fly the same planes and how boring is that? As for the 109s my personal favorites are the 109F-4 and the 109G-2s. Both are clean light planes and in better hands than mine are hard to beat even with their gun packages.
The two bombs in tandem in one of the posted photos on the 109 would be a cool option since it looks historically correct. But there are already much better ground attack planes in the game now than a 109. I know for younger player born into the computer age it is easy to overlook just how good Aces High is. As a kid toys were made of steal and a toy with a battery was high tech. I always wanted to fly a WWII fighter plane but the best I did was BL-65 Taylorcrafts and Cessna 150s and 172s. This game is as close to WWII planes as I and 99% of us will ever get, so enjoy it.
-
What we need, Bf109wise, is the Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS.
If we got the Bf109G-6/AS that would even give us a late Bf109G-6 in addition to our early Bf109G-6. That means it might have a later canopy and would have the 30mm option that some people miss having on the Bf109G-6.
-
What we need, Bf109wise, is the Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS.
If we got the Bf109G-6/AS that would even give us a late Bf109G-6 in addition to our early Bf109G-6. That means it might have a later canopy and would have the 30mm option that some people miss having on the Bf109G-6.
I was wondering why when they remodeled the late 109s they didn't add these options, I can't remember the thread but it turned into "oh well we need another spitfire then..."
-
I was wondering why when they remodeled the late 109s they didn't add these options, I can't remember the thread but it turned into "oh well we need another spitfire then..."
The Bf109G-6 is intended to be an early model, like the Spitfires Mk V and Mk IX, and thus the later options aren't appropriate for it. Remember, this predates the ability for loadouts to be limited by the person setting it up. The Spitfire Mk V lost 120 rounds of cannon ammo and engine performance and the Spitfire Mk IX lost the .50 cal, bomb and rocket options for the same reason.
Unfortunately AH does not have the ability to select different engines in the hangar.
-
What we need, Bf109wise, is the Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS.
If we got the Bf109G-6/AS that would even give us a late Bf109G-6 in addition to our early Bf109G-6. That means it might have a later canopy and would have the 30mm option that some people miss having on the Bf109G-6.
The AS versions of the G-6 and G-14 would be nice additions.
-
The Bf109G-6 is intended to be an early model, like the Spitfires Mk V and Mk IX, and thus the later options aren't appropriate for it. Remember, this predates the ability for loadouts to be limited by the person setting it up. The Spitfire Mk V lost 120 rounds of cannon ammo and engine performance and the Spitfire Mk IX lost the .50 cal, bomb and rocket options for the same reason.
Unfortunately AH does not have the ability to select different engines in the hangar.
I agree with Corky on adding some late war varients like another spitfire and 109-AS series
-
The only additions I really think are needed for those lines are the Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS and Seafire Mk III.
-
I think there's also a big gap between the 109E4 and the 109F4. It could be filled adequately by either the 109E7 (better option IMO) or the 109f2. Their performance wasn't that far off from each other, but it did push the speed advantage back to Germany's favor vs the SpitVb, if only by a few mph.
-
The E-7 is not a single bit faster than the E-4 unless you want to model it as E-7/N or the GM-1 equipped E-7/NZ. Even with derated DB 601N the E-7/N should be ~15 km/h faster. The F-2 with derated 601N was specified at 595 km/h and without restriction at 615 km/h. It could do 565 km/h at 9km while the E-series (601A) maxed out with this speed at 5km.
-
The E-4 was powered by default by the DB601A engine. The E-7 by default was already powered by the DB601N. There really wasn't an E-7/N, in the sense that N was redundant, and that was the standard.
Also of note: The reason the E-7 and F-2 were similar in performance was that they both used the exact same engine. The F-2 had a different supercharger, though, resulting in different power curves. The 109F-2 was not the same as the F-4 we have in-game. It had a DB 601N powerplant. It was a short lived variant, but still would be nice for those early clashes post-BOB.
I used to know of a very nice speed chart that compared both the E-7 and the F-2 and I believe also the E-4. I wish I could find it right now, but it seems to be lost to me at the moment.
-
No, the E-7 had by default the 601A engine, some may have had the 601Aa engine bot none hat the 601N, that's why they had the /N subdesignation/Rüststand for them. 601N production was not very high as DB had a multitude of problems with them and they were requested by other aircraft as well (some Bf 110 recon/FB or Do 215 recons).
The only short-lived production variant of the 109F was the F-1 with just over 200 produced, F-2 had more than 1200 built and F-4 over 1800.
-
It was possible to put gondies on the F-4. Later models, sure, but it WAS possible. Some did have them. Because of that I say include them. Only half the people in AH use 'em anyways.
This must have been before when you were for it ... and now you are against it.
You would make a good politician,
-
My mind was changed by a vast collection of evidence showing how little gondolas were ever put on the F-4.
Denniss, I see you're on LEMB but please note there is a serious issue with the commentary about the DB601Aa on that forum -- this is an EXPORT engine. The lowercase a was denoted for supplies meant to be exported. Just because at some point in the war this engine found its way onto an airframe serving far longer than was expected doesn't mean that was the standard issue engine.
It means that somewhere up until December 1942 it had to replace its engine and they didn't have anything else. Many E-7s were war-weary by the time they were withdrawn from the fight. You see the same with Soviets replacing P-40 engines as well, simply because they didn't have an infinite supply and used the older airframes for a longer time than was probably expected.
The flaw in the LEMB discussion about the Aa is assuming it came from the factory that way. The DB601N was the standard from the factory for the E-7. I have no doubt the 601As were installed, but more than likely as a stop-gap at the beginning of the production. I have no doubt once the fight kept dragging on and the F had already taken to the skies that the Es had any old engine crammed in them that could be overhauled, but this shouldn't be taken as a standard setup, nor typical of a frontline fighter in its prime. That's just the second-rate jabos being kept in service as long as they could be.
P.S. Your commentary on the F-2 isn't quite accurate. It was short lived, regardless of the numbers. The time frame in which it served wasn't very long (hence, short lived) before the F-4 was rapidly introduced and replaced them.
-
I'll dig into the E-7 again bu I'm pretty sure they were still built with the 601A/Aa and some special models received the 601N.
F-4: not a single F-4 flew with gondola guns. Only one of the 240 built F-4/R1 could use them.
The DB 601Aa was often seen factory-installed in fighter-bomber versions of the Bf 109/110 because if the increased power it offered. I know it was originally meant as export engine but Luftwaffe saw need for a higher powered 601 and could live with the reduced FTH.
-
JG54
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/1-Bf-109F4R1-7JG54.jpg)
Jg52
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/Bf109F4_R1_JG_52.jpg)
Oblt. Max-Hellmuth Ostermann May 10 in the vicinity of Chudovo, Novgorod Region., He shot down a fighter, but then his Bf-109F-4/R1 W.Nr.13088 got hit in the radiator. As a result, Ostermann made an emergency landing "on his stomach," the north-west of Chudovo, near the highway to Luban.
Oblt. Max-Hellmuth Ostermann, staffelkapitan 8./JG 54, Bf109F-4/R1 wnr.13125 (черная "1 + ~"), сбит в воздушном бою в районе Любани, тяжелое ранение - выбыл до августа 1942 года. На момент ранения 100 побед, RK.
Morning of May 12 in a battle near Luban he shot down an I-16 and two F-40, reaching the milestone of 100 victories. However, in the same battle, was shot down in his Bf-109F-4/R1 W.Nr.13125, 12.05.1942
08.06.1942
Lt. Hermann Leiste, 4./JG 54, Bf109F-4/R1 wnr.13131 (белая "7+"), сбит ПВО в районе Кресцы, пропал без вести. 29 побед, DKG.
"8 June 1942: Leutnant Hermann Leiste of 4./JG 54 listed as missing in Bf 109 F-4/R1 "White 7" (W.Nr. 13131) due to Flak 10 kilometers north of Krestzy at 15:15"
Uffz. Gerhard Raimann of 7./JG54 On 8 May, the tail of his Bf 109F-4/R1,'White 5', WNr. 13171, received a direct hit by anti-aircraft fire. Although a damage assessment estimated the aircraft had been 10 per cent destroyed
He recorded his 10th victory on 13 November Hans-Joachim Heyer was shot down by flak near Ramtzmy on 23 April 1942. He crash-landed his Bf 109 F-4/R1 (W.Nr. 13104) and was injured in the incident.
-24.08.1942 Grigoriy S. Danilov (807 ShAP) Bf.109F-4/R1 W.Nr.13388 Obltn. Erwin Stracnicky Staffelkapitan 2./JG 3 Experte with 35 victories
On July 22 Mikhail Dmitrievich Baranov shot down a Bf.109F-4/R1 flown by Unteroffizier Johann Dowoby of 5./JG 52 who passed away.
Lt Waldemar Semelka, But then in May - June, he shot down 38 aircraft, and June 22, overcame the barrier of 40 victories. In this May 12 Bf-109F-4/R1 W.Nr.13057 it too was shot down in combat behind enemy lines, but was able to avoid capture Zemelka and safely returned to the squadron
-
The top picture is of a G-2. The small triangle behind the "7" indicates where the fuel filler hatch is. On the F model, the fuel filler hatch is below the canopy.
The good news is that the lower picture is defanately an F.
-
The top picture is of a G-2. The small triangle behind the "7" indicates where the fuel filler hatch is. On the F model, the fuel filler hatch is below the canopy.
The good news is that the lower picture is defanately an F.
I'll go look for it again it may have been the other plane.
-
Meanwhile, back at the original post...
Could we have the option to carry a bomb on the Bf-109F? Thanks!
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/BF109F4R1GUNBOATS.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/BF109F4R1GUNBOATSjpg1JG52.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/BF109F4R1GUNBOATS4-1.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/BF109F4R1GUNBOATS3.jpg)
Meanwhile, back at the original post...
sorry no problem
:cheers:
-
Fail thread.
-
Early E-series had a special B-model, these were special Fighter-bomber mods. This was not necessary anymore for E-7 and later as these were prepared to carry a DT or Bomb. They carried and ETC 500 bomb rack if used as FB.
Which Bf 109E's flew with Erprobungsgruppe 210 during the BoB?
-
Which Bf 109E's flew with Erprobungsgruppe 210 during the BoB?
I have no hard data on hand (may find something going though several books) but from what I remember they started with E-4/B but they may have gotten some E-4/BN as well.