Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: wpeters on December 05, 2013, 01:48:00 PM
-
Was the same as the g6 in all aspects except for the gun package. They swapted out the 20mm for a 30 mm/1.18 in MK 108 Motorkanone engine cannon. Extremely easy to do in the game. I love the tater. Would love to fly the g6 30mm :banana: :banana:
-
I would like to add that I think the high altitude G-6/AS would be a nice addition as well, especially for scenario usage.
-
While we're on the topic on 109's I'd like to throw the 109T out there. :)
-
While we're on the topic on 109's I'd like to throw the 109T out there. :)
Yes! :aok
-
While we're on the topic on 109's I'd like to throw the 109T out there. :)
Why don't you simply ask for the Bf 109 E4N with the DB601N in it bathrobe?
-
Why don't you simply ask for the Bf 109 E4N with the DB601N in it bathrobe?
Can we take those off from carriers?
-
Did a german carrier ever get to sea and launch sorties at the allies? Or did it sit in harbor for it's life span as a political tool?
-
Just because the Germans never finished their carrier doesn't mean 109T's weren't used in combat. ;)
I bet the Amercians used their Carrier planes from land bases in the Pacific. Planes like the F4F and SBD which are both in the game.
-
Unlike those planes the 109T never operated from a CV, but from land bases without any CV specific equipment. So IF we ever would see a 109T (much I doubt very much), it would still not available from carriers in the game. :)
-
Unlike those planes the 109T never operated from a CV, but from land bases without any CV specific equipment. So IF we ever would see a 109T (much I doubt very much), it would still not available from carriers in the game. :)
Please let me dream just a little more. :)
-
Just for the record - the 3cm gun option was just the /U4 without additional N, the latter was equipped for night fighting (Wilde Sau).
-
I'm curious how the requested aircraft differs from the 109G-14?
-
I'm curious how the requested aircraft differs from the 109G-14?
It had a slightly different version of the DB605, without MW50 and tuned for a different altitude band.
The biggest boon to the 109G series that Hitech could implement in this game would be giving us the 109G6 and 109G14 with the DB605AS engine. The high-altitude performance in our non-AS versions is pretty dismal. Just for a comparison:
G14: 568 km/h (353 mph) at sea level, 665 km/h (413 mph) at 5 km (16,400 ft) altitude
G14/AS: 560 km/h (348 mph) at sea level, 680 km/h (422 mph) at 7.5 km (24,600 ft) altitude
-
Please let me dream just a little more. :)
Sweet Dreams Trobe. ;)
(http://sklej.pl/layout/images/products/400/05000.jpg)
-
While we're on the topic on 109's I'd like to throw the 109T out there. :)
Sorry Latrobe. NO carrier combat service so it would not be able to take off the carrier as much as I wish it could.
Prior to the war the Kriegsmarine had become fascinated with the idea of the aircraft carrier. Borrowing ideas from the British and Japanese (mainly Akagi), they started the construction of Graf Zeppelin as part of the rebuilding of the navy. The air group for the carrier was settled on Messerschmitt Bf 109T fighters and Ju 87C dive bombers. The suffix 'T' denotes Träger (carrier) in German use.[25]
Despite references to a Bf 109 T-0 version.[25] this version never existed. Seven earlier versions (Bf 109 B, Bf 109 C, Bf 109 E) were converted to test carrier equipment. This included, adding a tail-hook, catapult fittings and increasing the wingspan to 11.08 m (36.35 ft). The ailerons were increased in span, as were the slats, and flap travel was increased. The wings were not modified to be folding since the ship Graf Zeppelin was designed around the intended aircraft, so the lifts could accommodate the Bf 109T with its 11 m (36 ft) wingspan. The wings could, however, be detached from the fuselage for transport purposes, as in every version of the Bf 109.[26][27][28]
Following flight tests, especially the catapult tests, 70 T-1 with DB601Ns were to be produced at Fieseler in Kassel, but after seven T-1s were built, the carrier project was cancelled. The remaining 63 of 70 T-1s were built as T-2s without carrier equipment and some of the T-1s may have been "upgraded" to T-2 standard. It was found that the performance of the T-2 was closely comparable to the E-4/N and, because of its ability to take off and land in shorter distances, these fighters were assigned to I/JG.77, deployed in Norway on landing strips which were both short and subject to frequent, powerful cross-winds.[29] At the end of 1941 the unit was ordered to return their aircraft to Germany and received E-3s as replacements.[30] The armament of the Bf 109T consisted of two 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17s above the engine and one 20 mm MG FF/M cannon in each wing.[25]
Interest in Graf Zeppelin revived when the value of aircraft carriers became obvious, and in 1942 the ship was back in the yards for completion. By this time the Bf 109T was hopelessly outdated and a new fighter would be needed. Messerschmitt responded with the updated Me 155A series, but work on the ship was again canceled and the Me 155 was later re-purposed as a high-altitude interceptor. Design work was transferred to Blohm & Voss and the aircraft was then known as the BV 155. The Bf 109Ts were issued to several training units in 1943. Then, in April 1943 the Jagdstaffel Helgoland was formed[31] and operated from Düne until late 1943 when the unit transferred to Lister in south Norway. The unit was renamed as 11./JG 11 as of 30 November 1943[32] and the Bf 109Ts remained in operations until the summer of 1944, after which some were used in training units in Germany.
-
Sorry Latrobe. NO carrier combat service so it would not be able to take off the carrier as much as I wish it could.
109-T could be added to Aces high, they were in combat strength and operational.
-
109-T could be added to Aces high, they were in combat strength and operational.
Sorry My point was it was never carrier operational.. It could be used as a land based plane... In that case rather see the E4/n since it was not as heavy
-
Sorry My point was it was never carrier operational.. It could be used as a land based plane... In that case rather see the E4/n since it was not as heavy
yep, unfortunately the T is available to be added in game, although it would be highly useless when someone could just take an E4
-
+1 for 109T
-
It had a slightly different version of the DB605, without MW50 and tuned for a different altitude band.
The biggest boon to the 109G series that Hitech could implement in this game would be giving us the 109G6 and 109G14 with the DB605AS engine. The high-altitude performance in our non-AS versions is pretty dismal. Just for a comparison:
G14: 568 km/h (353 mph) at sea level, 665 km/h (413 mph) at 5 km (16,400 ft) altitude
G14/AS: 560 km/h (348 mph) at sea level, 680 km/h (422 mph) at 7.5 km (24,600 ft) altitude
:aok Most of the heavy bombers and their escorts are allied ones anyway so why not give the interceptors a little better performing options. Would give the axis vs allies two side arena supporters a chance to have a more historic experience too.
-
What is with the 109T fascination some seem to have?
-
What is with the 109T fascination some seem to have?
I want a faster mossie :)
-
I want a faster mossie :)
Not going to get one down low as the Mk VI was the fastest low altitude Mossie of the war. Well, barring getting 150 octane modeled for the Mossie VI.
Up high the Mk 30 is markedly faster than the Mk VI, by about 40mph.
-
Not going to get one down low as the Mk VI was the fastest low altitude Mossie of the war. Well, barring getting 150 octane modeled for the Mossie VI.
Up high the Mk 30 is markedly faster than the Mk VI, by about 40mph.
mmmm.... Mossie Mk.XXX :pray
You know XXX means mossie pr0n, right?
I would like to add that I think the high altitude G-6/AS would be a nice addition as well, especially for scenario usage.
if HTC is to add another 109, that would be my vote.
-
mmmm.... Mossie Mk.XXX :pray
You know XXX means mossie pr0n, right?
You know it wasn't really labeled as the Mk XXX, right? :P
The RAF switched to Arabic numerals by that point because the Roman numerals become too clunky.
Mosquito NF.Mk 30 is the proper formatting.
(I know some books, and probably some RAF documents refer to it as the Mk XXX, but it isn't supposed to be written that way. Same for the Spitfire F.Mk 21.)
-
What is with the 109T fascination some seem to have?
Carrier-borne 109. In other words, instant success of any CV attack :O.
-
Carrier-borne 109. In other words, instant success of any CV attack :O.
No, it wasn't carrier borne. It never had carrier gear operationally and its carrier was never finished.
Also, an A6M5b will dominate the Bf109E (Bf109T), much less something like the F6F-5 or any F4U.
-
While we're on the topic on 109's I'd like to throw the 109T out there. :)
You pretty much have it in the E. If you're wanting to land on carriers, you can
manage without the tail hook. If you're wanting to spawn off them, sorry,
you really don't have an historical leg to stand on. :salute :cheers:
-
You pretty much have it in the E. If you're wanting to land on carriers, you can
manage without the tail hook. If you're wanting to spawn off them, sorry,
you really don't have an historical leg to stand on. :salute :cheers:
Then we should prevent the launch of early F4U's from carriers without a British skin. :rolleyes:
-
Then we should prevent the launch of early F4U's from carriers without a British skin. :rolleyes:
*ShruG* Ok (though you don't seem to have a recommendation on how to limit such
via skin selection). The real point is, 109s didn't fly off a sailing CV. Any model. Ever.
The Ts had their hooks stripped and were essentially Es, not deploying from carriers.
(It's not worth Dale's time to model an E with slightly longer wingspan.) Corsairs flew off
sailing CVs.
What part of not having an historical leg to stand on did you not get?
:D ;) :cheers:
-
*ShruG* Ok (though you don't seem to have a recommendation on how to limit such
via skin selection). The real point is, 109s didn't fly off a sailing CV. Any model. Ever.
The Ts had their hooks stripped and were essentially Es, not deploying from carriers.
(It's not worth Dale's time to model an E with slightly longer wingspan.) Corsairs flew off
sailing CVs.
What part of not having an historical leg to stand on did you not get?
:D ;) :cheers:
I would stick to the 109E we have now, far better plane and less weight. the 109T is an obsolete piece of junk when it arrived, the E-7N would be a better version to add. It would certainly give a possible Battle of britain 1941 scenario - I believe if the Luftwaffe waited until the E-7 was readily available with drop tanks, it would of had much larger success over Britain being able to escort the bombers. I know the E-7 had the 300L drop tank, but didn't the N model come with bombs?
/can't remember sorry
-
I would stick to the 109E we have now, far better plane and less weight. the 109T is an obsolete piece of junk when it arrived, the E-7N would be a better version to add. It would certainly give a possible Battle of britain 1941 scenario - I believe if the Luftwaffe waited until the E-7 was readily available with drop tanks, it would of had much larger success over Britain being able to escort the bombers. I know the E-7 had the 300L drop tank, but didn't the N model come with bombs?
/can't remember sorry
Got me. I'd have to research it. I think BoB is relatively well balanced, as is
(with the slight exception of the Ju-88 model). A nail-biter fits the bill.
:)
[edit] "Later variants of the Es introduced a fuselage bomb rack or provision for
a long-range drop-tank, and used the DB 601N engine of higher power output."
^ Green 1980, pp. 41–45, 63–64, 76–81, 82–83
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109
-
*ShruG* Ok (though you don't seem to have a recommendation on how to limit such
via skin selection). The real point is, 109s didn't fly off a sailing CV. Any model. Ever.
The Ts had their hooks stripped and were essentially Es, not deploying from carriers.
(It's not worth Dale's time to model an E with slightly longer wingspan.) Corsairs flew off
sailing CVs.
What part of not having an historical leg to stand on did you not get?
:D ;) :cheers:
We land and re-arm Lancasters and 234's on CV's all the time. We have magical puffy ack and radar guided field ack, we also have bombers that can converge every gun into a 2moa dot at 1.5k and drop an entire field in two passes from 35k. There is surprisingly little about the MA that is historical, so why all the hate on this one thing?
-
No, it wasn't carrier borne. It never had carrier gear operationally and its carrier was never finished.
But we can dream, can't we?
Also, an A6M5b will dominate the Bf109E (Bf109T), much less something like the F6F-5 or any F4U.
Kind of missed the sarcasm.
-
We land and re-arm Lancasters and 234's on CV's all the time. We have magical puffy ack and radar guided field ack, we also have bombers that can converge every gun into a 2moa dot at 1.5k and drop an entire field in two passes from 35k. There is surprisingly little about the MA that is historical, so why all the hate on this one thing?
You're confusing historical aircraft requests with game design. Those things are done because
players are taking advantage of what cannot be coded out or because coding has limitations when it
comes to human fallibility/grey areas. That's a huge difference from asking Dale to code 'what ifs.'
When the 'what if' arena is introduced then there you go. Lead the charge without those of us who
are more into practical history not getting in your way. :aok
-
we also have bombers that can converge every gun into a 2moa dot at 1.5k
No we don't. Learn about what you're babbling about before speaking and revealing yourself as somebody who gets their information on how the game works from channel 200.
-
No we don't. Learn about what you're babbling about before speaking and revealing yourself as somebody who gets their information on how the game works from channel 200.
While a slight exaggeration it's not far from the truth.
-
You're confusing historical aircraft requests with game design. Those things are done because
players are taking advantage of what cannot be coded out or because coding has limitations when it
comes to human fallibility/grey areas. That's a huge difference from asking Dale to code 'what ifs.'
When the 'what if' arena is introduced then there you go. Lead the charge without those of us who
are more into practical history not getting in your way. :aok
This is not some concept aircraft that only ever lived in technical drawings, or something that was a one-off prototype. It's a real aircraft, designed to operate off a carrier, that saw service. (Granted not off a CV)
-
While a slight exaggeration it's not far from the truth.
It is vastly far from the truth.
The guns on a single bomber do not converge, they fire parallel to each other. The guns from each bomber in the formation cross at 500 yards. There is no pinpoint anything anywhere at anytime. There isn't even an attempt at pinpoint anything in the system.
At 1500 yards you might hit with the guns from your bomber. The guns from the drones are going to be wasting ammo.
This is not some concept aircraft that only ever lived in technical drawings, or something that was a one-off prototype. It's a real aircraft, designed to operate off a carrier, that saw service. (Granted not off a CV)
Fly a Bf109E-4. It'll feel very similar. The Bf109T that saw service had its naval gear removed, so yes, asking for a CV capable Bf109T is like asking for a prototype.
-
This is not some concept aircraft that only ever lived in technical drawings, or something that was a one-off prototype. It's a real aircraft, designed to operate off a carrier, that saw service. (Granted not off a CV)
And I've said, time and again, it's essentially an E with slightly longer wings
that had it's hook removed and what few were made were sent to shore operated
109 units. You asking it to be modeled any other way doesn't have an historical leg
to stand on. You asking it to be modeled to historical perspective is a waste of
Dale's time.
I know you get it, you just don't want to. ;)
The shortage of 109 models in the game must feel oppressive (to some). :lol
-
And I've said, time and again, it's essentially an E with slightly longer wings
that had it's hook removed and what few were made were sent to shore operated
109 units. You asking it to be modeled any other way doesn't have an historical leg
to stand on. You asking it to be modeled to historical perspective is a waste of
Dale's time.
I know you get it, you just don't want to. ;)
The shortage of 109 models in the game must feel oppressive (to some). :lol
I understand what you're trying to say, which is you dislike the idea because it wouldn't be 100% historically accurate to allow the 109T to up from a CV. My point is that there is almost nothing historically accurate about the MA so why not simply give us this aircraft with the tailhook and call it a day since it did see service. If you want to be historically accurate then we should at the very least implement a system where all F4U variants are perked when you launch them from a CV since pretty much all of them had their tail hooks removed and were as a direct result unable to land on carriers.
-
I understand what you're trying to say, which is you dislike the idea because it wouldn't be 100% historically accurate to allow the 109T to up from a CV. My point is that there is almost nothing historically accurate about the MA so why not simply give us this aircraft with the tailhook and call it a day since it did see service. If you want to be historically accurate then we should at the very least implement a system where all F4U variants are perked when you launch them from a CV since pretty much all of them had their tail hooks removed and were as a direct result unable to land on carriers.
Now you're just making stuff up.
-
I understand what you're trying to say, which is you dislike the idea because it wouldn't be 100% historically accurate to allow the 109T to up from a CV. My point is that there is almost nothing historically accurate about the MA so why not simply give us this aircraft with the tailhook and call it a day since it did see service. If you want to be historically accurate then we should at the very least implement a system where all F4U variants are perked when you launch them from a CV since pretty much all of them had their tail hooks removed and were as a direct result unable to land on carriers.
Not trying to say, am saying. That reflects you really don't understand. Using the
MA environment to back up a 'what if' wish is not a solid foundation for your
argument in my opinion. Besides, it's not really up to me. You could try to appeal
and get me on your band wagon but it's as unlikely as Dale and co. (the powers
that be) giving you a 109 to fly off the arena CVs in. But if you feel like this is worth
your time, good luck. :aok
p.s. You need to buff up on you F4U history. Start here:
"VF-17 kept its Corsairs, but was removed from its carrier, USS Bunker Hill, due to perceived difficulties in supplying parts at sea.[38] In November 1943, while operating as a shore-based unit in the Solomon Islands, VF-17 reinstalled the tail hooks so its F4Us could land and refuel while providing top cover over the task force participating in the carrier raid on Rabaul. The squadron's pilots landed, refueled, and took off from their former home, Bunker Hill and the USS Essex on 11 November 1943.[39]
Twelve USMC F4U-1s arrived at Henderson Field (Guadalcanal) on 12 February 1943. The U.S. Navy did not get into combat with the type until September 1943, and the Royal Navy's FAA would qualify the type for carrier operations first. The U.S. Navy finally accepted the F4U for shipboard operations in April 1944, after the longer oleo strut was fitted, which finally eliminated the tendency to bounce.[40] The first Corsair unit to be based effectively on a carrier was the pioneer USMC squadron VMF-124, which joined Essex. They were accompanied by VMF-213. The increasing need for fighter protection against kamikaze attacks resulted in more Corsair units being moved to carriers.[41]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F4U_Corsair
Not an 'almost' nor a 'coulda/woulda/shoulda' like the 109T. :D
-
Le Sigh..
Sorry Latrobe, but Arlo and his backup singer Karnak say we can't have it because it's far too silly.
-
Le Sigh..
Sorry Latrobe, but Arlo and his backup singer Karnak say we can't have it because it's far too silly.
Ah, no more 109T vs. F4U comparison to make a sell, I see. You may be getting over that case
of silly, after-all. :)
-
Le Sigh..
Sorry Latrobe, but Arlo and his backup singer Karnak say we can't have it because it's far too silly.
It is basically the same as asking for the YP-80 so the USA can have a jet, even though they didn't.
-
It is basically the same as asking for the YP-80 so the USA can have a jet, even though they didn't.
Well, since silliness goes on in the main arena and such then its a perfectly
decent request (or so I've been told). :D
I'm not sure the 109T would see much air time in a 'what if' arena, though,
what with the F8B, (X)F5U-1, DeHavilland Hornet, Do 335, Douglas Skyraider,
Fiat G.56, P-75, F7F, F8F and that (Y)P-80.
-
It is basically the same as asking for the YP-80 so the USA can have a jet, even though they didn't.
Not quite considering that as I have said before it was a real aircraft that saw service. Some of them were at one time fitted with carrier landing equipment, and were still capable of having the same equipment mounted again if the need had ever arisen.
-
Not quite considering that as I have said before it was a real aircraft that saw service. Some of them were at one time fitted with carrier landing equipment, and were still capable of having the same equipment mounted again if the need had ever arisen.
In other words: Hypothetical "what if" arena.
As far as i am aware no fighter in AH is available in a pure prototype configuration only. All did see service and combat with the equipment they have in the MA. The 109T did never ever use it's naval equipment operationally, ever. It was a pure test version, just like the torpedo carrying 190's. Which were also "real aircraft" which saw service. ;)
-
Basically, they want it because they want it. No amount of logical discourse can make
them not want it. Well, they can want it, I say. :D
It's kinda like wanting:
(http://www.yolo.net/~jeaton/Propplanes/p51/013p51.jpg)
(http://www.yolo.net/~jeaton/Propplanes/p51/015p51.jpg)