Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: LCADolby on September 02, 2013, 08:51:07 AM
-
It is my understanding that the 109Ks could manage MG151 (as with the G series) and Mk108 in under wing gun pods/gondolas.
I hear the K6 had the 108s in the wings :O
Is there any particular reason they are absent on the AH K4?
-
Were they ever used?
-
K6 never entered mass production, IIRC. And I think the 30mm gondolas weren't ready before the war ended.
-
My K series knowledge is very lacking, thanks jager. But, what about the MG 151 gunpods?
-
The K4's wings were quite capable of carrying the gondolas,they had the wiring and attachments from the factory.
I read once that,IIRC JG26 got K4's with the gondies attached direct from the factory! They then promptly removed them! I have spent many hours searching for even just 1 picture of a K4 with gondies and have never been successful.
The only K series 109 that made production was the K4. They may have built 2 K6's but they were more test beds than anything else.
:salute
PS: several early production K4's were equipped with 20mm hub guns because of a lack of 108's.
-
It is my understanding that the 109Ks could manage MG151 (as with the G series) and Mk108 in under wing gun pods/gondolas.
I hear the K6 had the 108s in the wings :O
Is there any particular reason they are absent on the AH K4?
3 108's? Sheesh!
So much fun that would be.
-
The K4's wings were quite capable of carrying the gondolas,they had the wiring and attachments from the factory.
I read once that,IIRC JG26 got K4's with the gondies attached direct from the factory! They then promptly removed them! I have spent many hours searching for even just 1 picture of a K4 with gondies and have never been successful.
20mm or 30mm gondies? Could have sworn I've read the 30mm's weren't ready. Something to do with insufficient ammo in the then-current configuration, IIRC.
PS: several early production K4's were equipped with 20mm hub guns because of a lack of 108's.
So essentially hot-rod G-10's :D
-
20mm or 30mm gondies? Could have sworn I've read the 30mm's weren't ready. Something to do with insufficient ammo in the then-current configuration, IIRC.
So essentially hot-rod G-10's :D
So what's the difference between the g14 and g10?
Both have the same guns, top speed and relatively same climb rate.
-
So what's the difference between the g14 and g10?
Both have the same guns, top speed and relatively same climb rate.
G-10 is faster and has better altitude performance. It is basically a G with a K's engine. It is draggier than the K so it is slower, but it would have the same critical altitudes.
-
20mm or 30mm gondies? Could have sworn I've read the 30mm's weren't ready. Something to do with insufficient ammo in the then-current configuration, IIRC.
So essentially hot-rod G-10's :D
You were the only one who mentioned 30mm gondies,the K6 had them in the wing,not a gondola package!
The 109's only used 20mm gondolas and those are what I was talking about.
Also, no it wouldn't be a hot-rodded G10 it would be a K4 with a 20 mm hubgun,atleast 25 mph faster than the G10. However it wasn't put in series production so according to your rule for inclusion it shouldn't be allowed! Just because they had to put a 20 mm in a few planes do to lack of the proper weapon doesn't mean it deserves to be ingame..........
See how that works...... However it's complete hogwash because I've never seen or read any ``rules`` other than they would like to have seen service.
:salute
-
You were the only one who mentioned 30mm gondies,the K6 had them in the wing,not a gondola package!
The 109's only used 20mm gondolas and those are what I was talking about.
Also, no it wouldn't be a hot-rodded G10 it would be a K4 with a 20 mm hubgun,atleast 25 mph faster than the G10. However it wasn't put in series production so according to your rule for inclusion it shouldn't be allowed! Just because they had to put a 20 mm in a few planes do to lack of the proper weapon doesn't mean it deserves to be ingame..........
See how that works...... However it's complete hogwash because I've never seen or read any ``rules`` other than they would like to have seen service.
:salute
Hmm... Must be misremembering it then.
And sounds a hell of a lot like a faster G-10, considering it had the same engine, critical altitude, and similar handling.
No, I don't want it in the game if only a few carried then.
Finally, I've already told you they are de facto requirements, you senile twit. HTC has yet to break them in going on 14 years, and I can't see them changing that for something as stupid as the P-63.
-
Hmm... Must be misremembering it then.
And sounds a hell of a lot like a faster G-10, considering it had the same engine, critical altitude, and similar handling.
No, I don't want it in the game if only a few carried then.
Finally, I've already told you they are de facto requirements, you senile twit. HTC has yet to break them in going on 14 years, and I can't see them changing that for something as stupid as the P-63.
This is where your ignorance comes in, Its been proven the P-63 seen service. Sorry your prototype won't see aces high because its a prototype.
Lets say it again. Prototypes do not get added in Aces High. Repeat 9 more times now. Now do you understand the difference between the P-63 and K-6?
Jumping up and down and screaming because you don't get your way is just a fact of life. Sorry you don't want the P-63 to enter aces high but fact is you won't get your way on it.
P-63 will enter aces high eventually no matter how much of a temper tantrum you throw.
-
Hmm... Must be misremembering it then.
And sounds a hell of a lot like a faster G-10, considering it had the same engine, critical altitude, and similar handling.
No, I don't want it in the game if only a few carried then.
Finally, I've already told you they are de facto requirements, you senile twit. HTC has yet to break them in going on 14 years, and I can't see them changing that for something as stupid as the P-63.
Hmm you misremember and I'm the senile twit......ya right! Even if those socalled rules of inclusion are taken as fact the P63 would qualify.... :neener:
You seem to know so much about AH maybe you should be the trainer and not this senile twit,lets see how that goes for you!
:salute
-
PS: several early production K4's were equipped with 20mm hub guns because of a lack of 108's.
I've been trying to find a photo of a K4 with a 20mm just to prove a case it could be added, however I cannot find any photos.
-
Hmm you misremember and I'm the senile twit......ya right! Even if those socalled rules of inclusion are taken as fact the P63 would qualify.... :neener:
Since this isn't the first time, yes, yes you are.
You seem to know so much about AH maybe you should be the trainer and not this senile twit,lets see how that goes for you!
:salute
Not a good enough stick to train.
-
I've been trying to find a photo of a K4 with a 20mm just to prove a case it could be added, however I cannot find any photos.
Butch,you'd have to find factory pix because they were only maybe a dozen preproduction units that Willy made to impress the bigwigs.
Like I said I've spent hours looking for a pic of the K4 with either the 20 mm hub or the gondies. Unfortunately because of all the subassembly and the war state I don't think you will ever see a picture of either.
Of course I could be wrong,afterall I'm a senile twit..... :rolleyes:
Someone needs their mouth washed with soap,or do they still do that these days... :old:
:salute
-
I've been trying to find a photo of a K4 with a 20mm just to prove a case it could be added, however I cannot find any photos.
Can our G6 get the mk-108 first? :pray
As for the G10 vs G14 did the G10 have the same 13mm nose "humps"?
and btw K-14 would be way better than the K6 :neener:
And did any production model 109's ever try the mk-103 instead of the 108?
-
Butch,you'd have to find factory pix because they were only maybe a dozen preproduction units that Willy made to impress the bigwigs.
Like I said I've spent hours looking for a pic of the K4 with either the 20 mm hub or the gondies. Unfortunately because of all the subassembly and the war state I don't think you will ever see a picture of either.
:salute
Yeah, its hard to find photos of P-63s in combat over Berlin too for the same reason.
-
Can our G6 get the mk-108 first? :pray
As for the G10 vs G14 did the G10 have the same 13mm nose "humps"?
and btw K-14 would be way better than the K6 :neener:
And did any production model 109's ever try the mk-103 instead of the 108?
The Mk103 was basically to big and to heavy to mount, far as I know it was used in very limited aircraft but not a 109.
-
Can our G6 get the mk-108 first? :pray
As for the G10 vs G14 did the G10 have the same 13mm nose "humps"?
and btw K-14 would be way better than the K6 :neener:
And did any production model 109's ever try the mk-103 instead of the 108?
Zac,
Our G6 needs to have an AS motor to go with the 30mm hub! As for the G10,it was made of leftover and repaired G6 and G14's that they put the motor from the K4 in so ya they had the 13mm humps.The whole cowl area on the K4 was redesigned to be more aero.
As I said the K4 is the only K series 109 that made production,the K6 and K14 were paper airplanes and some mock ups.
:salute
-
Since this isn't the first time, yes, yes you are.
Not a good enough stick to train.
Please find and quote those rules. I have never found any but I might not have been around as long as you either.
:salute
-
I see your rules, and present the P51B with the field mod Malcolm hood
-
Please find and quote those rules. I have never found any but I might not have been around as long as you either.
:salute
Entirely serious question: do you know what de facto means?
-
Entirely serious question: do you know what de facto means?
That would depend on it's use,as an adverb or as an adjective, really seriously!
:salute
-
And did any production model 109's ever try the mk-103 instead of the 108?
There was a modified MK103 that was suppose to be installed in the 109 but it was problem ridden and never was tried (afaik).
-
No 109s EVER used 30mm gunpods. I suspect you're getting this from IL2 and its various mod upgrades, which ALWAYS put what-if schemes in the loadout options.
K-4s were actually built with MG151/20s but they never reached the troops that way. They were systematically removed (on every last plane) at the depot level before deployment to actual units.
There were some on-paper plans for later models. K-6s, and K-14s, etc, that had more weaponry inside the wings -- inside, like the E-4s MG/FF, rather than underneath like gunpods -- but these were never realized before the war was over.
-
Back in early Aces High days, our G6 DID have the 30mm as an option. Our G10 also had hub 20mm and 20mm gondola options too, if I`m remembering correctly. It had the hub 20mm for sure, but I`m fairly sure we could add gondolas to the G10 as well.
-
I see your rules, and present the P51B with the field mod Malcolm hood
The malcolm hood was not a field modification. It was NAA engineers that designed it. It wasn't just a spitfire canopy bolted on. It was a custom built part that NAA issued to replace canopies at the depot level. It actually took a lot of effort to install.
From: http://www.mustangsmustangs.us/thehangar/index.php?PHPSESSID=sfvdf5rtbq58jkso2shkdfcq30&topic=846.msg3649#msg3649
The history of the Malcolm hood on the P-51 is full of misconceptions. First, it is not an adaption of a (much smaller) Spitfire hood. They are totally different airplanes, with different dimensions and cross sections. The blown hood was merely inspired by that produced for the Spitfire. RAF test records indicate that the engineering work for the blown Mustang hood was done in the UK by North American Aviation engineers (i.e., it was an NAA engineered design, not a British one, thus factory approved and "official" as opposed to some cobbled up field mod.) Once a prototype was tested (on a Mustang I), production was turned over to Malcolm Ltd. to refine it for production, and produce the kits. The engineering required a lot of internal airframe modifications, and the stresses and aerodynamics were all considered. The Malcolm hood kit took about 135 manhours to install. It wasn't simply an unbolt the old one and bolt on the new one affair. Kits were issued at both depot and squadron levels. New canopy side rails had to built up, the runners for the canopy installed, the internal structure for supporting the hood rails had to be added, the hand cranking mechanism had to be installed and a new jettison mechanism fitted.
-
Back in early Aces High days, our G6 DID have the 30mm as an option. Our G10 also had hub 20mm and 20mm gondola options too, if I`m remembering correctly. It had the hub 20mm for sure, but I`m fairly sure we could add gondolas to the G10 as well.
2 points:
Our previous 109G-6 was set up more as a later-war mixup, with a 30mm option but without the later-war engine power. So it was a bit of a Frankenstein. It also wasn't very useful in scenarios and setups and planesets that needed the early variant of a G-6. The 30mm threw it all out of balance.
Second: We never EVER had a G-10. That's the issue with your second comment. We always had a K-4. The performance specs were always K-4. K-4s and G-10s were not identical. The G-10s had a LOT of variation in performance. Some were literally no better than late model G-6s from which they were converted. The G-10s were to hedge bets in case the K-4 took too long, but then the G-10 ended up taking just as long and they both came out at the same time, with the G-10 being inferior to the K-4. It didn't even fill a planeset hole, since both airframes went operational in the same month of the same year. The best of the best of the best, the most pristine examples, in the best case scenarios, were still 10+ mph slower than a K-4 in similar loadout conditions. This, however, is not representative of actual war-time performance, and is a "clean" test on a perfect machine. Most were much slower. What we had was a K-4 with extra guns options. It was called a G-10 to justify the guns options. Why? Because it was a first-gen fighter when this game was new, and there were a very small number of planes in the game. It was called a G10 and given those guns options to simply get more variety from a game that needed more time to grow.
Now that we have grown, grown, and grown some more, we have long-since outlived the need to lie about what variant we had. The guns options were removed, the name was changed back to what it always was (K-4) and we are better off for it. Nor do we need a "real" G-10 to be added to the lineup. Instead, what would be MOST beneficial would be a G-6/AS, which has all the loadout options of a later G-6 (and what our old "G-10" used to have) but with the high-alt supercharger setup for better performance in the thinner air.
-
A G-10 would still be nice.
-
No, it wouldn't. It would be a waste. A G-6/AS would nice. A G-10 would be redundant and people that have been crying for one for the past years would only complain that it's not as good as a K-4, and they want the G10 they used to have -- when they never had one and their memories are all based off the performance of a totally different variant.
-
You're an idiot Krusty. It's not an either-or situation, and it's not a waste if it's fun and legitimately adds to the game.
A G-10 would be damn near the only 109 I would use if we had it. I suspect a good many would use it as well, even if you wouldn't.
-
I'm afraid you're ignorant of the issues, tank-ace. And calling me an idiot doesn't change that.
No, a G-10 would not be a good idea, because what you THINK of as a G-10 is not what you'd get. What you want and what you are calling a G-10 would much more closely resemble a G-6/AS, and this would also fill a large planeset hole in the game that ranges from 1943 until the beginning of 1945.
I have no doubt if we got this G-6/AS, many folks like yourselves would fly it exclusively amongst 109 variants. All the weapons options of a G-6 (including 30mm), the high-alt supercharger of a K-4, and in service years before a "real" G-10.
-
A G-10 would still be nice.
Why? as Krusty just pointed out it serves no purpose and it fills no gap in the game. I would much rather see 106/AS added instead, even 109g2/as
-
Not sure about G-2/AS and whether that actually existed.
-
G-6/AS would be my pick, but G-14/AS wouldn't be bad to have either.
-
Finally, I've already told you they are de facto requirements, you senile twit.
You're an idiot Krusty.
How to make friends and influence people. :rolleyes:
-
How to make friends and influence people. :rolleyes:
More flys with honey? Perhaps you have a point with morfiend; he has just seemed grumpy with me lately, and this has been an ongoing discussion. I just lost my temper a bit.
However I emphatically don't want to catch Krusty. He had the same value to me regardless of if he's pissed or amiable. And this way I don't have to keep cool when he's exposing his ignorance.
-
I'm afraid you're ignorant of the issues, tank-ace. And calling me an idiot doesn't change that.
You go on to prove you have literally no clue later in this post. You are, in fact, an idiot
No, a G-10 would not be a good idea, because what you THINK of as a G-10 is not what you'd get. What you want and what you are calling a G-10 would much more closely resemble a G-6/AS, and this would also fill a large planeset hole in the game that ranges from 1943 until the beginning of 1945.
I have no doubt if we got this G-6/AS, many folks like yourselves would fly it exclusively amongst 109 variants. All the weapons options of a G-6 (including 30mm), the high-alt supercharger of a K-4, and in service years before a "real" G-10.
I wasn't here for the faux G-10. I want it based on its paper stats, not because I think it will be a K4 with a 20mm. How you think you can see into my motivation, I'll never know, but wherever you draw your conclusions from, they're about as wrong as they can be.
I rarely fly over 10K. I value the high altitude performance very little, save in special events. Thus I want low altitude performance more than I want high altitude performance in the MA.
Do I want a G-10? Yes. do I want a G-10 instead of a G-6/AS or - 14/AS? No, and that's what you seem not to understand.
-
Thanks for answering my questions guys :salute
-
Notice I said "our G10" not "the G10" - but thanks for the lecture Krusty, I've not heard it in about a year, and it's good to repeat things every now and then just to make sure nobody missed anything.
-
G-6/AS would be my pick, but G-14/AS wouldn't be bad to have either.
Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top? :pray :pray :pray :pray :pray :pray :salute
-
As for the G10,it was made of leftover and repaired G6 and G14's that they put the motor from the K4 in so ya they had the 13mm humps.
You should burn the books you have read that in, G-10 were new production aircraft. They initially used airframes diverted from G-14 production, that's some author came up with this "old airframes" myth. An no, just like the /AS versions they had no bumps for the MG 131.
-
You should burn the books you have read that in, G-10 were new production aircraft. They initially used airframes diverted from G-14 production, that's some author came up with this "old airframes" myth. An no, just like the /AS versions they had no bumps for the MG 131.
I was going by what Prien and Roddeck{sp} wrote,I guess they are just propagating the myth. They even go so far as to mislabel A/C,G14;s that they call G10"s,if no G10 had the mg humps.
I don't have first hand knowledge and can only go by what I read,when they say the G10 was made with repaired or unused airframes I can only except that they did the research.
If you have other information I'd be glad to read it.
:salute
-
I was curious so I looked up my source and it appears you are correct Denniss,the G10 for the most part had no humps! It looks like they used AS cowls as you said,however they still mention that initially leftover G6 and G14 frames were used,atleast in the beginning.
It was planned to produce 6000 G10's but the figure was changed many times and it looks like the number was nearer to 2200 or so. And yes many new airframes were used.
I stand corrected!
:salute
-
See post #28 for a summary of neabau 109s from Jan 1944,
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=2462&page=3&highlight=neubau+109
-
If they had no cowl humps, and used the K4's engine, would that essentially make them K4's with 20mm's?
Or were there other aerodynamic differences as well?
-
Messerschmitt Foundation's G-10
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Bf109_G10_1.jpg)
-
Messerschmitt Foundation's G-10
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Bf109_G10_1.jpg)
God that's sexy
-
There is little or no appreciable difference between a G-10, G-14/AS or a K-4 in 1945 production models. The same paneling and external parts are used. The tail wheel on K models were locked down and closed over, just like on a G-10. Even the oil fillers are in the same spot, because the ASB(M) engine uses the DB engine main block and heads, only difference is supercharger.
The differences are more noticeable around October 1944 when early G-10s combine G-6 surplus parts/tooling with as many K-4 components as was available. The G-10 was always the equivalent to the contemporary K-4, usually just a bit lighter because the K series has a lot more optional fittings installed at the factory.
-
How much weight are we talking? Would it be reasonable to put the 20mm back in the K4?
-
Messerschmitt Foundation's G-10
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Bf109_G10_1.jpg)
AHs K4 doesn't have that gun bulge, which is a shame.
-
It does. It's just not as clearly defined since the modeler who did the 3d model chose not to use more polygons to define the shape in that area.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/c/c5/109k4main.jpg)
-
How much weight are we talking? Would it be reasonable to put the 20mm back in the K4?
Not much. We're talking mounting brackets and other minor modifications. As with the G-14/AS and G-10, there also were examples og K-4s with the MG 151/20 motor cannon. However the majority of K-4s had the MK 108.
-
So it would work to have the Mg 151 put back in the K4 to make a late G-10.
Do you have sources? This may become my new #1 wish.
-
2 points:
Our previous 109G-6 was set up more as a later-war mixup, with a 30mm option but without the later-war engine power. So it was a bit of a Frankenstein.
There were hundreds of Bf109G-6/U4s built that didn't have MW-50 injection but had the MK108 cannon. Nothing "Frankenstein" about it.
-
So it would work to have the Mg 151 put back in the K4 to make a late G-10.
Do you have sources? This may become my new #1 wish.
You wouldn't have to make it a G-10; there were a few K-4s with the MG 151 too. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Messerschmitt-Bf-109-Series-Illustrated/dp/0887404243
-
7/Jg26's Klaus Mietusch reported on a conference mid-44 the 30mm was well worth the extra weight.
-
You wouldn't have to make it a G-10; there were a few K-4s with the MG 151 too. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Messerschmitt-Bf-109-Series-Illustrated/dp/0887404243
I don't think a dozen or so warrants adding it. Besides that, it would make it easier to control for events. And we wouldn't have to mix skins for a G-10 in with the K4.
If we're essential just dropping the Mg 151 into the K4, I'd rather just make a separate model, and be done with it.
And thank you. I was about to place an Amazon order, actually :lol.
-
More like hundreds of K-4s with the 20mm. The K-4 we have is not really representative of those that flew operationally anyway. The tail wheel should be fixed and the main landing gear doors removed. This would reduce top speed to about 425-430 mph.
-
More like hundreds of K-4s with the 20mm. The K-4 we have is not really representative of those that flew operationally anyway. The tail wheel should be fixed and the main landing gear doors removed. This would reduce top speed to about 425-430 mph.
Is there any documentation to show that hundreds of k4s had the 20mm? I can never find anything other then a handful actually had 20mms.
-
So it would work to have the Mg 151 put back in the K4 to make a late G-10.
Do you have sources? This may become my new #1 wish.
I concur although I'm used to the mk-108 now.
Is there a better alternative than trying to get a "colliding" shot?
-
Finding an exact number is probably impossible due to the chaotic situation in Germany in the closing months of the war. However, the MK 108 was often unavailable due to limited production, so they put surplus MG 151 in them instead. I don't know if this was even recorded at the factory or if the armorers only found out when they inspected the aircraft for the first time.
-
Note: At this time in the war "factory" means "a clearing in the woods where they made 109s with hand tools".
-
Finding an exact number is probably impossible due to the chaotic situation in Germany in the closing months of the war. However, the MK 108 was often unavailable due to limited production, so they put surplus MG 151 in them instead. I don't know if this was even recorded at the factory or if the armorers only found out when they inspected the aircraft for the first time.
Its understandable just like anything with the russians its damn near impossible to get any information on them period. I just wish I could get any kind of info, I'd love to see the 20mm added on the K4 but everything I have state "very few had the 20mm" very few could mean 10? 100? Problem is I cannot say without a doubt the K4 carried a 20mm, which means I really cannot support or deny it.
I would love to have it added if it could be, I always admired the 109K I just hated that damn 30mm.
-
MK108 was the preferred weapon for the K-4 but because of Rheinmetall Borsig's difficulties in producing enough MK108s, electrical wiring was installed for both cannons so that when MK108 was unavailable, MG151/20 could be installed instead (this was done so that the lack of 30mm cannons wouldn't jeopardize the whole K-4 production).
Source: Japo's Messerschmitt Bf 109K
As mentioned Prien & Rodeike mention that part of the K-4 production was equipped with Mauser 20mm.
I haven't seen any specific figures on how many of the K-4 actually had the MG151/20 either...and it is quite probable that such numbers don't exist or never will be found.
-
We know MG151's could be added on the K4 and some used them, why couldn't we have it in game? Its not like it was a prototype, simply they didn't have enough 108s so it makes sense.
-
Well, in either case, it's time to start lobbying.
-
:x 20mms...on...K4s...
(http://i.imgur.com/yJ2qgbM.gif)
-
lol ... Personally I prefer the spud gun, but to each his own. :)
-
I've always preferred fire rate over damage in any game I ever played an AH is no exception. Pew pew.
-
lol ... Personally I prefer the spud gun, but to each his own. :)
Even on the g14 I use the 108 :D
Well, in either case, it's time to start lobbying.
Boing!!!! Wish granted
-
I've always preferred fire rate over damage in any game I ever played an AH is no exception. Pew pew.
There is little difference in rate of fire between the 151 and 108. Don't let the inaccurate sound fool you; look at the ammo counter. Both guns fire approx. 10-12 rounds per second.
-
There is little difference in rate of fire between the 151 and 108. Don't let the inaccurate sound fool you; look at the ammo counter. Both guns fire approx. 10-12 rounds per second.
:headscratch:
You sure?
-
There is little difference in rate of fire between the 151 and 108. Don't let the inaccurate sound fool you; look at the ammo counter. Both guns fire approx. 10-12 rounds per second.
Hmm, but the low ammo load and poor ballistics mean you have to force yourself to tap fire. Effectively lowering fire rate. Though I don't doubt your statement, no one ever holds the trigger down that long. I like the MK108s, but I'll take a MG151 any day.
-
Mk108 - 650 rpm
MG151/20 - 750 rpm
-
MG151/20 - 750 rpm
As non-synchronised motor cannon, 780-800
-
:headscratch:
You sure?
Yes. :) Both guns are about 10-12 rounds per second/ 650-750 rounds per minute.
-
Yes. Both guns are about 10-12 rounds per second/ 650-750 rounds per minute.
I was looking at the wrong gun at my notes.
Disregard my statement. :salute
-
Good luck with your lobbying efforts ;)
-
There were hundreds of Bf109G-6/U4s built that didn't have MW-50 injection but had the MK108 cannon. Nothing "Frankenstein" about it.
Actually ~1700 G-6/U4 + ~700 G-14/U4 and ~400 G-10/U4
-
There were hundreds of Bf109G-6/U4s built that didn't have MW-50 injection but had the MK108 cannon. Nothing "Frankenstein" about it.
Those planes didn't have the low-rudder, the thin cocpit framing, the early style armor, and generally looked like later-era planes. We got an early-war external graphics aircraft with a late-war gun, but still had early-war performance.
That's why it was a bit of a frankenstein.
-
Just remember. In the G6/U4 armorers manual is an addendum telling the armorer that when MG151\20 gondolas are mounted, to wire the firing of the gondola and MG onto the same button. The MK108 ballistics was so bad the pilots demanded this. Our G14 with MK108 and gondola should be setup this way. When the MG151\20 is mounted in the engine the MG and HUB 20mm are wired together with the gondola on a separate button.
-
More like hundreds of K-4s with the 20mm. The K-4 we have is not really representative of those that flew operationally anyway. The tail wheel should be fixed and the main landing gear doors removed. This would reduce top speed to about 425-430 mph.
Oh, you mean like this one?
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/401Squadron/9B.jpg
Oops, that has gear doors. So do these:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/744194-2/Bf-109K4-WNr-330209-Italy-1944
http://farm8.static.flickr.com/7439/9036196994_24ae18faa9_m.jpg
http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/212938-5/13jg27-109k4
In fact, I just spent 10 minutes combing google, scrolling through many pages of Bf109K-4 pictures in both Osprey and Squdaron publications, and in EVERY photo, probably nearly 100 or so, all but 1 109K-4 has its gear doors on. That ONE was a completely stripped hulk of a frame canibalized for parts.
The only time they removed main gear doors was during the muddy or snow season because it could jam the gear and clogged the wheel wells. That wasn't even universal, and varied from field to field. This goes back all the way to the beginning of the war, and is NOT something specific to Bf109K-4s.
I think you are confusing the outer gear doors which were removed almost universally, as seen here:
(http://www.hyperscale.com/features/2001/images/K4_wheelsdoors.JPG)
These are not present in AH and that drag is already modeled, as it is on all other 109s with openings for the wheels.
As for 'hundreds" of K4s with 20mm? Uh.. wishful thinking much? Only some of the early ones had them... Mk108s were by this time plentiful. They were even converted at the depot level to Mk108s before distribution to the pilots. There was a quoted notation from some field armorer or something at the time commenting about how they were getting more new 109Ks, and these had the Mk108s installed from the factory. The wording implied they were doing it themselves, and now they didn't have to anymore.
Very few 109Ks had the 20mms, and much like the wing gondolas, it's likely that none saw combat in that configuration. In 1945 Mk108s were quite plentiful. The problems developing and producing the Mk108 were from 1943 and 1944. By summer of 1944 those problems were long gone and the gun was tried and true, and being put on every airframe available. They were THE primary cannon on any figher plane in the war. At least... that is until the Mk103 could replace that (which never happened).
-
Those planes didn't have the low-rudder, the thin cocpit framing, the early style armor, and generally looked like later-era planes. We got an early-war external graphics aircraft with a late-war gun, but still had early-war performance.
That's why it was a bit of a frankenstein.
Been discussed before. AH G-6 has a glass armor not the earlier steel one. Only external difference between AH G-6 and many many of the U4's is the fact that AH G-6 lacks the D/F-loop antenna. Then again AH G-6 also currently has a retractable tail wheel which real G-6s never had either.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/109G-6U4.jpg)
The above is how Bf109G-6/U4 looked in those production batches mentioned by the caption. For example in the 440000 production batch, 1419 G-6/U4s were built between 9.1943 - 8.1944.
(Sources: Prien & Rodeike / Hannu Valtonen)
There's absolutely no excuses left any more why AH G-6 shouldn't have the MK108 back.
As for 'hundreds" of K4s with 20mm? Uh.. wishful thinking much? Only some of the early ones had them... Mk108s were by this time plentiful. They were even converted at the depot level to Mk108s before distribution to the pilots. There was a quoted notation from some field armorer or something at the time commenting about how they were getting more new 109Ks, and these had the Mk108s installed from the factory. The wording implied they were doing it themselves, and now they didn't have to anymore.
Very few 109Ks had the 20mms, and much like the wing gondolas, it's likely that none saw combat in that configuration. In 1945 Mk108s were quite plentiful. The problems developing and producing the Mk108 were from 1943 and 1944. By summer of 1944 those problems were long gone and the gun was tried and true, and being put on every airframe available. They were THE primary cannon on any figher plane in the war. At least... that is until the Mk103 could replace that (which never happened).
What is your source for the above???
For example, regarding the availability of the MK108, authors (Japo's 109K book) T. Poruba and A. Janda have come to exactly opposite conclusion.
So Krusty again, what is your source that MK108s were plentiful?? Where did you see that mention you talk about?
-
Guys... GScholz is right, the mk-108 eats its 65 rounds in like 6 seconds, while on the G6 i had an about 17 seconds firing time for the 200 rounds.
Titan: the fact that You cant aim the mk-108 perfectly (i cant either) does not mean that those two guns had different ROF. That inaccuracy and ballistics are only take effect on the effective firing range: it was about 400 yards for the G6 (for me), and like 200-250 yards for the K4. But! Took effective snapshots even at 400+ with the 262, also at 500-600 in the Dora. Ammo count and the amount of the flying lead/exlosive is a deciding factor too, but thats an other story.
-
Krusty, those small door are the ones I was talking about. I do not consider the surfaces attached to the landing gear itself to be doors. The rest of your post is not worth commenting.
-
Yup Krusty is confused between land gear covers and landing gear doors. Most doors have a hinge.
-
Milo, gshulz, the "covers" you are talking about are considered the landing gear doors, just as much as the hinged parts are. Call them covers, or doors, the semantics of it don't matter. Considering they are the only covering we have on our K-4, and you were saying the covering on our K-4 shouldn't be there, one can only assume you were making the statement that these shouldn't be there.
gshulz, if you read my post you would have noticed I also pointed out that HTC has already modeled the aircraft without the outer-hinged doors, and that drag is already a factor in this game. This is directly worth commenting about because YOU'RE the one saying what we have isn't representative... When some of your points are not logical, it is worth commenting on.
Wmaker: Thanks for the clarification of the glass armor. I was mixing up my details for a moment. There was a very legitimate reason to remove the 30mm at the time. Of the 7500+ G-6s built, only 1500 or so received the Mk108, and those were predominantly in 1944. That leaves almost a year where the G-6 served that we couldn't use it (again, at the time) because the 30mm gun option totally unbalanced it. It was like subbing a 110G for a 110C. Checking the numbers, in the entire first year of production, a smaller percentage received Mk108s than did 109Fs that were capable of carrying gondolas. In all of 1943, only 181 G6/U4 were delivered. Of those, the first 60 were developmental and still working out how to install them. It was only after the 60th that the weapons were installed on the production lines. Of those, the first batches were shipped without cannons and everything had to be worked out with testing, especially ground-firing tests. These were not combat craft. The number of G6/U4s in 1943 to see any actual combat is probably smaller than a statistical margin for error.
You, yourself, once said that the graphics on our 109G-6 are almost entirely an early model, save for the glass armor. I pulled up the quote. You said if that armor were changed it would totally be an early model. You said that was only put in at player request after seeing screenshots of the metal armor. That suggests the intent was for an early model, since it originally had the metal armor. Further: considering that most G-6s that did receive a Mk108 did so in 1944, it makes more sense that these G6/U4 would have 1944-specific performance, such as MW50 (which became common place in Summer 1944). That would be more fitting of a G-14 designation. There are probably a few other performance enhancements through 1944 (higher takeoff settings, less restrictions on power ratings for the engine, etc). Looking at HTC's speed chart it definitely looks like we have an early variant, as it's much slower than a normal (read: "later") g-6 ought to be. At 1.42ata and 2800rpm a clean G-6 should easily break 400mph. Ours is at least 10mph too slow to represent a 1944 G-6.
NOW, we currently have a CM command tool that will allow disabling of certain loadouts in the SEA events. In theory, you could add the 30mm. However, overall isn't it far more desirable to have a period-specific model with period-specific (and representative?) armaments? Such as the Spit Mk.Vb? And then, when you need a later-era armament option, you can simply choose another airframe specific to that? Such as the 1942-era Spit Mk.IX? Instead of adding the Mk.IXs weapons loadouts to the Vbs airframe? I feel that our G-6 doesn't need a Mk108 option, and IMO based on HTCs efforts and intent it is clear they wanted a time-specific variant which didn't have one.
The answer is: yes, it is more desirable to have specific time-frames in mind when modeling any particular plane variant. It is less desirable to have weapons spanning multiple time-frames on a fixed-time plane variant.
P.S. I may be wrong, but I seem to recall Pyro or somebody saying the tail wheel on our G-6 is purely a graphics issue, and the flight model is still built upon a fixed tail wheel.
P.P.S. Mk108s did get off to a rocky start, but by Summer 1944 they were so common that EVERY plane in the arsenal was carrying them. It was the primary armament on every fighter designed (unless the Mk103 was the primary -- in which case often the Mk108 filled in because that wasn't ready). From 190A8s to 190D-9 and later marks, to all subsequent Bf109 variants, to the Ta152s, to to 110Gs, to almost all the figher jets, to the Ta154, He219, Ju388, even the what-if pipe dream planes were being designed to carry the Mk108s. Not to mention every night fighter had at least a couple pairs of them (often designed with 2 or 4 firing upwards, and 2 firing forwards). There were enough of them that not only did they put them on every fighter plane currently in use, they also exported them to allies. The Hungarians even got Mk108 upgrade kits to keep their aging Bf109s competitive against the allies. I would suggest that logistics became more of a problem, rather than supply. The guns were available, but getting them where they were needed ON TIME may have been difficult. There were many cases where they had to be converted after leaving the factory. Even later K-4s initially had to have a small number converted to Mk108s.
edit: typo fix
-
Krusty has a point about scenario driven loadout, great post btw krusty.
-
Wmaker: Thanks for the clarification of the glass armor. I was mixing up my details for a moment. There was a very legitimate reason to remove the 30mm at the time. Of the 7500+ G-6s built, only 1500 or so received the Mk108, and those were predominantly in 1944. That leaves almost a year where the G-6 served that we couldn't use it (again, at the time) because the 30mm gun option totally unbalanced it. It was like subbing a 110G for a 110C. Checking the numbers, in the entire first year of production, a smaller percentage received Mk108s than did 109Fs that were capable of carrying gondolas. In all of 1943, only 181 G6/U4 were delivered. Of those, the first 60 were developmental and still working out how to install them. It was only after the 60th that the weapons were installed on the production lines. Of those, the first batches were shipped without cannons and everything had to be worked out with testing, especially ground-firing tests. These were not combat craft. The number of G6/U4s in 1943 to see any actual combat is probably smaller than a statistical margin for error.
You, yourself, once said that the graphics on our 109G-6 are almost entirely an early model, save for the glass armor. I pulled up the quote. You said if that armor were changed it would totally be an early model. You said that was only put in at player request after seeing screenshots of the metal armor. That suggests the intent was for an early model, since it originally had the metal armor. Further: considering that most G-6s that did receive a Mk108 did so in 1944, it makes more sense that these G6/U4 would have 1944-specific performance, such as MW50 (which became common place in Summer 1944). That would be more fitting of a G-14 designation. There are probably a few other performance enhancements through 1944 (higher takeoff settings, less restrictions on power ratings for the engine, etc). Looking at HTC's speed chart it definitely looks like we have an early variant, as it's much slower than a normal (read: "later") g-6 ought to be. At 1.42ata and 2800rpm a clean G-6 should easily break 400mph. Ours is at least 10mph too slow to represent a 1944 G-6.
NOW, we currently have a CM command tool that will allow disabling of certain loadouts in the SEA events. In theory, you could add the 30mm. However, overall isn't it far more desirable to have a period-specific model with period-specific (and representative?) armaments? Such as the Spit Mk.Vb? And then, when you need a later-era armament option, you can simply choose another airframe specific to that? Such as the 1942-era Spit Mk.IX? Instead of adding the Mk.IXs weapons loadouts to the Vbs airframe? I feel that our G-6 doesn't need a Mk108 option, and IMO based on HTCs efforts and intent it is clear they wanted a time-specific variant which didn't have one.
The answer is: yes, it is more desirable to have specific time-frames in mind when modeling any particular plane variant. It is less desirable to have weapons spanning multiple time-frames on a fixed-time plane variant.
P.S. I may be wrong, but I seem to recall Pyro or somebody saying the tail wheel on our G-6 is purely a graphics issue, and the flight model is still built upon a fixed tail wheel.
None of this matters currently, none. Yes, I indeed requested for the glass armor when 109 models were redone. And if the steel armor would be there it would be an accurate initial production example (save for the currently retractable tail wheel which no G-6s had). I haven't seen Pyro say anything about the tail wheel nor am I assuming that it has any effect to the flight model. That wasn't the point. The point was that if you are going to start picking apart minute visual details that have no effect to the performance of the plane in the sim, I'd say the tail wheel is far bigger visual detail than the D/F-loop. Also at least currently (with the advent of a CM-tool for removing load outs) there's absolutely no reason for the G-6 to be an early model graphically to begin with. Adding D/F-loop, MK108-loadout and correcting the tail wheel would be a totally sensible thing to do as the performance of the plane didn't really change until the use of ADI.
There is nothing sensible about banning historical, used load outs from one plane and then keep much more rare loadouts for others.
Also, again I have to ask what is your source on the 181 figure of 109G-6/U4s produced during 1943? It is rather annoying that you won't post your sources when you claim something. Not that it matters anyway, we have a load out in the Il-2 that only 96 examples had while thousands upon thousands of Il-2's were built. Same thing about 3x20mm La-7 and P-51D carrying rockets.
Also, I already said, that whole production run was most likely without MW-50. There's no fairing for the MW-50 tank to be seen in the back of the cockpit. You keep saying/implying that MK108 equipped planes had MW-50. There's more proof to support the fact that most didn't have MW-50 as they left the production line. I'm sure many got the tank later. All in all, that's not any kind of argument to keep the MK108 from the G-6 in AH.
As for the speed of the G-6. I'd say the whole speed range could be looked again, just for accuracy's sake and due to the fact that new data is available. Probably won't happen any time soon though. As for the point about later and early. It already runs at 1.42 ata, so what later "performance enhancements" are you then talking about??? Next thing was adding ADI which G-14 has. G-6s first arrived into the units in feb '43 (nothing to with 1942 as you mentioned before, source: Prien/Rodeike) and the 1.42 ata power setting (which AHs G-6 has) was cleared 8th of June '43 (source: Radinger/Otto). So I guess it could be said that it already has a later "performance enhancement" as you put it. :)
For the record, I'm not too hopeful that the MK108 gets added nor does it affect me a lot either, it's just a matter of logic and consistency.
What is your source for the above???
For example, regarding the availability of the MK108, authors (Japo's 109K book) T. Poruba and A. Janda have come to exactly opposite conclusion.
So Krusty again, what is your source that MK108s were plentiful?? Where did you see that mention you talk about?
Since you failed to reply to the quote above I'll just assume that you just pulled your arguments up from thin air...once again, and that you are unable to back them up.
-
Krusty has a point about scenario driven loadout, great post btw krusty.
I don't see how since currently CMs can choose their load outs.
Also, in many events I've been in over the years, the selection of loads worked just fine via "gentleman agreement". Many many times the bomb loads for both Jabos and Bombers were restricted via the MOTD/briefing and CMs just telling so. I don't recall any violations. At least back of the day, the people who went to events didn't really have any motivation to cheat. Also many times the fuel load was regulated. You still can't control that in anyway. It all lies in people being honest. All that "point" has ever really been is an excuse more than anything else in this discussion regarding the G-6s MK108 load out.
-
Actually ~1700 G-6/U4 + ~700 G-14/U4 and ~400 G-10/U4
Yes, hundreds. Over fourteen hundred in one prodution batch. I'm sure some were later fitted with the MW-50 tank tough.
-
I don't see how since currently CMs can choose their load outs.
Also, in many events I've been in over the years, the selection of loads worked just fine via "gentleman agreement". Many many times the bomb loads for both Jabos and Bombers were restricted via the MOTD/briefing and CMs just telling so. I don't recall any violations. At least back of the day, the people who went to events didn't really have any motivation to cheat. Also many times the fuel load was regulated. You still can't control that in anyway. It all lies in people being honest. All that "point" has ever really been is an excuse more than anything else in this discussion regarding the G-6s MK108 load out.
Gentleman agreement, I remember enough times people foolishly ignored ALT caps or tried any advantage they could to win. True some agree, some did not. Until the wind was turned on hard to force planes below an alt limit, people were routinely breaking it, including bombers which were suppose to fly at a certain alt and were well above it.
Don't pretend everyone is honest, My squad was when there was an alt cap once in a scenario and we were NOT informed and flew at 30k when we were suppose to be at 24k (max). It was explained via orders to everyone except our squad. When we were confronted we explained no orders were given.
Its the only time I do recall an entire squad admitted they actually broke the rules :) I am not bashing the Aces community and saying everyone lies and cheats, but there is a reason the wind for example forces down at a certain ALT now.
With good reason, it cannot be the only time when people flew above the alt they were told and you can't tell me "i didnt see my alt limiter"
-
Don't pretend everyone is honest,
I don't "pretend" anything. The only one I can control is myself. The whole point has been moot for a while now anyway so don't really feel like arguing about it with you. The load out's can be restricted, a moot point as far as events go. So it is not but a moot point. Seems to be amazingly hard to grasp. As far as people being dishonest -part goes...ah well... ;)
As said, one can still cheat if CM puts in fuel limitations for example. There's still no way to monitor that.
-
Krusty is right that by the summer of 1944 the MK 108 was in good supply, but that means little because we are not talking about the summer of 1944. By December 1944 Rheinmetall's facilities in Poland had been overrun by the Soviets. By the end of January 1945 their facilities in Guben fell to the Soviet advance. In the west the Allies captured even more Rheinmetall facilities west of Düsseldorf and near the border with Holland. However, even more damaging to Germany's war effort was the fact that at this time just transporting the guns to the aircraft production sites was a near-impossible task, with German rail and transportation network in ruins, fuel in short suppy, and Allied fighter-bombers interdicting everything that moved.
-
Since the advent of the ability to limit loadout options there is no reason for the 30mm MK108 option not to be available for the Bf109G-6. I say this as somebody who had supported its removal.
-
These 109 version arguments are often more confusing than the 190 version arguments. It appears to me that the 190's are missing possibly two versions while the 109 arguments seem to be variants along with evolution inside of each version. Along with the normal personal gravitation towards wanting the most uber version of each version possible. At some point HTC cannot afford to make every single variation of anyone's rides. This seems apparent in some of the load out options regardless of the designator title given to the ride.
How close is the current G14 with 30mm and gondolas to the first or second generation of G6/U4 for AH purposes above 18k in the SEA?
Have the half dozen of you 109 aficionados considered trying to get a "crowd funding" grant to pay HTC the actual cost to have all of your 109 variant's, 3 legged puppies, and other chimera produced? It's not like Hitech and Pyro are unschooled in the vagaries of the 109 family. I suspect they instead have a business to run.
-
Just stick the 30mm back on the G-6, remove the gear covers of a K4 and give it a 20mm, and lets just be done with it!
-
This is one of those times I'm going to have to type phonetically in my own local dialect.
Bustr, you don't arf write some crap.
-
This is one of those times I'm going to have to type phonetically in my own local dialect.
Bustr, you don't arf write some crap.
Lol
-
Wmaker, it all does matter. Yes, it does. There are similarities but there are key differences as well. Those differences, along with the performance difference, also dictate that our G-6 is an early G-6. This works fine for scenarios and planesets as well. 1.42ata wasn't cleared until around December 1943 (or was it October?). Further, regardless of what our cockpit says for our G-6, it's over 10mph too slow to be using 1.42ata. It should hit about 406mph clean at FTH. I'm not implying that all of them had MW50, but that such improvements were much more common in 1944, and absent in 1943. Having a better performing variant for 1944 makes more sense. If you asked any bf109 afficianado what the most representative performance for a 1944 Bf109G is, they'd say one that ran at 1.42ata, had MW50, and could carry a Mk108 hub gun.
Guess what?
That's what our G-14 does.
Ask the same person about an early G-6 from 1943 (my previous 1942 must be a typo) and they'd say it would be slower, have only 20mm, and would have a few different external features.
Just like our in-game G-6.
The production numbers were very nicely compiled by Wotan in a post you dismiss when talking about the removal of the Mk108. You suggest back-handedly that he alone was responsible for its removal, when in fact all he did was illustrate a very well typed list of facts explaining how few of these Mk108s were in existence. I didn't feel the need to quote citations (an excuse you hide behind, to throw in peoples' faces) because you were well aware of the details and had read the nicely-typed-up facts from Wotan himself. I'm sure he has posted the info in several places. Doing a search this is the first one that came up:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,309008.msg3996405.html#msg3996405
He cites Hopp and Prien. I only type that so you can't pretend to throw it back in my face. Because you assume too much. You know the old saying about when you assume? You make an bellybutton out of yourself and... Me? Well, I just laugh at you for it.
As for your totally biased and loaded words, "banned loadouts" etc... that's hogwash. It WASN'T common, and it WASN'T used, at least not on our G-6. That's the point. You're trying to blur the lines and down-playing the differences just to make an argument for a weapon you want. As for other planes in this game with rare loadouts, you also ASSUME (again) that I'm trying to argue for them somehow. I'm not. You bring that into the equation for no reason. You are quite aware of HTCs slow timeline for adding or removing or changing anything with their planes. You know first-hand as well as I do that you will never get a sweeping change, and that it must come piece by piece. This is one of those pieces. It's a step towards better modelling for individual variants. You can't bring up the 3-gun La7 as a justified excuse to add a Mk108 on the G-6 we currently have.
2 wrongs don't make a right.
-
1.42ata wasn't cleared until around December 1943 (or was it October?).
I already gave you date with a source where it is from in my post, 8th of June '43. You obviously just decided to ignore it and throw another date in without any source.
Further, regardless of what our cockpit says for our G-6, it's over 10mph too slow to be using 1.42ata. It should hit about 406mph clean at FTH.
There's absolutely no single simple answer on the speed, none. There are different data sets showing different results even when they were ran at similar power settings. G-6 in AH does 337mph (542kph) on the deck. I haven't seen those kind of speeds with 1.3 ata anywhere. AH is very fast on the deck when comparing to the most of the data sets published, and very slow at best altitude.
I'm not implying that all of them had MW50,
Well that is exactly what you implied right here:
Our previous 109G-6 was set up more as a later-war mixup, with a 30mm option but without the later-war engine power. So it was a bit of a Frankenstein. It also wasn't very useful in scenarios and setups and planesets that needed the early variant of a G-6. The 30mm threw it all out of balance.
Considering that AH G-6 is already running at 1.42 ata, the only "late-war engine more" (as you put it) improvement would be with MW-50 (and larger supercharger on the /AS models but those aren't under discussion here). So that is baiscally the only improvement in out put you could be talking about to begin with.
Guess what?
That's what our G-14 does.
Ask the same person about an early G-6 from 1943 (my previous 1942 must be a typo) and they'd say it would be slower, have only 20mm, and would have a few different external features.
Just like our in-game G-6.
Blah blah blah. Is this just your illogical babbling or have you ran a poll? :lol
You suggest back-handedly that he alone was responsible for its removal,
Oh please.
Quote me on it, quote me on how I "back-handedly" suggested something. I simply mentioned that Wotan had suggested on MK108's removal and Pyro most likely took it away based on his opinion since Wotan was the only one to suggest the cannon's removal. I wasn't attacking Wotan in anyway, I was simply mentioned it as the most likely cause.
when in fact all he did was illustrate a very well typed list of facts explaining how few of these Mk108s were in existence.
Yep, oh so few. Based on the production numbers I've seen on various sources the total G-6/U4 production was around 1650 aircraft. :)
I didn't feel the need to quote citations (an excuse you hide behind, to throw in peoples' faces) because you were well aware of the details and had read the nicely-typed-up facts from Wotan himself. I'm sure he has posted the info in several places. Doing a search this is the first one that came up:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,309008.msg3996405.html#msg3996405
He cites Hopp and Prien. I only type that so you can't pretend to throw it back in my face. Because you assume too much. You know the old saying about when you assume? You make an bellybutton out of yourself and... Me? Well, I just laugh at you for it.
WTF? :huh
In this kind of discussion when you quote numbers like that it's pretty clear that sources should be given. As said, the production numbers during 1943 hardly matter. The cannon can be removed by the CMs. You are arguing for the sake of arguing.
As for your totally biased and loaded words, "banned loadouts" etc... that's hogwash. It WASN'T common, and it WASN'T used, at least not on our G-6. That's the point. You're trying to blur the lines and down-playing the differences just to make an argument for a weapon you want.
Oh go cry a river.
I haven't flown G-6 a lot for years. When I flew it I practically always used the 20mm, same goes for the G-14. It is a matter of principle.
As for other planes in this game with rare loadouts, you also ASSUME (again) that I'm trying to argue for them somehow. I'm not. You bring that into the equation for no reason. You are quite aware of HTCs slow timeline for adding or removing or changing anything with their planes. You know first-hand as well as I do that you will never get a sweeping change, and that it must come piece by piece. This is one of those pieces. It's a step towards better modelling for individual variants. You can't bring up the 3-gun La7 as a justified excuse to add a Mk108 on the G-6 we currently have.
I don't assume anything. It is a matter of consistency. Pyro himself recently said that now that CMs can remove load outs that are not desirable for events, rarer loads can be included:
Originally I tried to keep things fairly tight on loadouts because that could have a big effect on special events. The CM's couldn't restrict loadouts in events back then. They can now so it's not as big of an issue. I'm not sure what's meant by the axis being held to a tougher standard.
Won't get much more clearer than that.
-
AFAIR the June 1943 clearance of 1.42 ata was only for those Bf 109 with modified/overhauled engines and I remember this clearance was temporarily withdrawn and cleared again in October.
406 mph is a bit too much for the G-6 especially if you consider the dropping production quality(especially in 44). Test showed about ~642 km/h as max speed without MW.
The only G-6 with MW-50 were the /U2 variants that got their GM-1 system changed to MW-50 and a small series of G-6/MW (basically a fore-runner of the G-14). The /U2 fed their MW with compressed air from bottles in the wings, the /MW may have already had the bleed-air system with compressed air taken from the supercharger.
-
This is one of those times I'm going to have to type phonetically in my own local dialect.
Bustr, you don't arf write some crap.
If you guys are confusing me but, Denniss is able speak with clarity. Then this is less about changing something in the game but, the bromance going on between you eruo gents and Krusty. Ewww...Krusty as a love object.
If you can get a price from Hitech of what it would cost to create your 109 dream stable in the game. Crowed funding grants have generated the funds for stupider things. So you might have a chance with a silver tunged solicitor selling your dream. But, then it's probably far cheaper to have a quarrel with Krustykins...
-
If you guys are confusing me but, Denniss is able speak with clarity. Then this is less about changing something in the game but, the bromance going on between you eruo gents and Krusty. Ewww...Krusty as a love object.
If you can get a price from Hitech of what it would cost to create your 109 dream stable in the game. Crowed funding grants have generated the funds for stupider things. So you might have a chance with a silver tunged solicitor selling your dream. But, then it's probably far cheaper to have a quarrel with Krustykins...
It's like white noise, there's a whole lot of it and it don't mean jack.
Pass the water spray; Baaaad bustr!
-
I didn't know you were a walking wet T-shirt instigator. Please, my wife has dibs on me and guys just don't smell right. No matter what they promise with their allusions. It just don't smell right.
I'll PM Krusty that you need more bromance time with him and to wear a tanktop. Mrs. Krusty is probably far more used to you hanging around and chatting up on "The Krusty".
-
(http://i.imgur.com/dnMjc.gif)
-
Its a fact 109g6 used the 30mm Mk108, more then enough were fitted to a fill a squadron in 1943.
I would much rather see the 109g6/AS instead, I need to go through my books and post what I have on the 109G6 series, I'm sorry I haven't done so but if I have anything I can add anything as far as numbers or information I will.
-
The Bf109G-6/AS were conversions from regular G-6s.
-
The Bf109G-6/AS were conversions from regular G-6s.
Only the initial versions + the G-5/AS. MttR built 325 G-6/AS but I don't have an exeact timeframe for these builts (I assume later Summer 44).
The conversions were made by Erla Antwerpen, a factory coded RWE (Reparaturwerk Erfurt? or another Erla factory?) and B&V was supposed to convert some starting in May 44.
-
I didn't know you were a walking wet T-shirt instigator. Please, my wife has dibs on me and guys just don't smell right. No matter what they promise with their allusions. It just don't smell right.
I'll PM Krusty that you need more bromance time with him and to wear a tanktop. Mrs. Krusty is probably far more used to you hanging around and chatting up on "The Krusty".
:headscratch: Considering what I have posted in this thread, this is utter bollocks.
I thank you for re-affirming what I said earlier bustr.