Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: SUP0NGO on April 01, 2002, 05:51:31 AM
-
G10 and K4 is not equal in real life
G10 and K4 is not equal in AH.
I need BF 109 K4 in AH. Is possible?
greetings
Supongo
-
We have more 109's than you know what to do with. Let's add other type of aircraft that we don't have. Such as the A-26. Or even more carrier aircraft. We could use some dive bombers, SBD, Val's and even the Stuka.
-
Oh yes. Definitely. Because we have so few 109s to play with now.
-
Like the P-40 will ever see use in MA.
Like the introduction of the Panther or Tigers will affect ground warfare in AH.
Like the SpitXIV gave a reasonable alternative to the 1942 Spitfires. (for 60 perks?)
..
We may not 'need' a K-4, but then again, we don't really 'need' anything else.
We never really 'needed' to improve anything from AH Beta.
...
The number of planes are totally irrelevant whether a plane should be modeled or not. All it can say is "maybe later, but just not now." And that's definately the case with the K-4. As long as history admits it, all planes are on the list of coming AH versions(I like to think so). Just a matter of priority.
Would like to see it in the future, but other things seem to be more urgent.
-
Nahhh firbal....:
The Me 109 was one of the world's great fighter planes, and it enjoyed the distinction of having been built in greater numbers than any other single-engine fighter in history; some 35,000 were built. It was mass-produced in Germany from 1936 through 1945, and it was built in other countries after the War, serving in Spain until 1967.
AH dont have a fully representative hangar of the migthy 109 until G-14 and K-4 be modelled.
And then we can ask for mistel and zwilling and...
-
Compared to the AH Bf109G10 the K4 would be:
Better!
Faster at alt, maybe 12mph.
Faster on the deck.
Better balanced.
It would roll better at high speeds. (This is best thing IMHO)
Worse!
Heavier.
Less stable at very high alts, lets say over 25,000ft.
No we don't need it really, but I see no reason why it can't be in AH. Maybe after we get a P40 or P39 or F4F3, or Zero 21.
Oh yea we should get a G6 MW50 or a G14 (Basically a standardized tall tail G6 MW50) first too.
-
Why is it faster? Landing gear doors? why does it roll better?
-
sure ... at 60 perk points
-
Nope fd, at 120 perks, minimun.
You cant compare the K4 to this crappy Spit-XIV
-
Pongo AFAIR model K's had a flettner-tabs in ailerons to lighten hi-speed controls. Not sure if elevators had them.
-
i too would like a K-4 but if memory serves correctly it had the worst roll and was the heaviest of the 109s.
the K4 had better armor and a pressurized cabin.
-
I agree, lets add the P-47M or N.
-
amen ammo!
[hijackmode]
We could even settle to P-47D-23, couldn't we?
Just for HT: D-23 would not require much additional work! :D
[/hijackmode]
-
Garbage...
Add the P-51H
Thanks
-
Why don't you P-47 guys go polish your knobs? There's nothing for you in this thread.
Bf-109 K-4 overloaded weight 7438lbs = 3374kg
Bf-109 K-4 normal loaded weight 6834lbs = 3100kg
Bf-109 G-6 overloaded weight 7496lbs = 3400kg
Bf-109 G-6 normal loaded weight 6940lbs =3148kg
-
Staga, the overloaded weight is for a K armed with mk103?
-
although staga is on my ignore list I can only guess that his remark was addressed to me. In that case, staga, go to church.
-
Mandoble I don't think any 109 had a Mk103; maybe in test planes but not in fighter units.
AFAIR model K's had some internal devices re-located and it was having better balance than in G models.
-
Supongo I'm a huge 109 fan. I fly a G-6 almost exclusively and think its a fine aircraft, but I think there are many other planes that are screaming out to be added before we get yet another late model anything--least of all another 109.
I'd much rather see an A-20G, P-40, F4F or SBD. A Kate, Val or an Oscar(or dare I say it--a Ki-84). A He-111, Ju-87 or a Pe-2--or even a Yak-3 would be cool. We just got a Mossie a while back but--a Beaufighter would be nice too. These are gaping holes in the planeset and I hope to see some of them sooner. Just MHO.
Drano
Originally posted by SUP0NGO
G10 and K4 is not equal in real life
G10 and K4 is not equal in AH.
I need BF 109 K4 in AH. Is possible?
greetings
Supongo
-
Spitfire F 21 please!
-
Funked why did you came back?
Hey now I know: I'll head to that another board and start to pour some watermelon over you. Have a nice day and see you in there :)
-
If the Spit14 is crap
The G-10 or K-4 is a maggot ridden trash.
I don't see why anyone would assume the Spit14 "sucks".
Does almost everything better than the P-51 or the 109G-10.
What it doesn't do is turn like a Spit9.
Why in the hell is the Spit14 'crap' :confused: ?
-
K-4 is faster than Spit 14, especially down low. Climbs as well or better than the 14. Only drawback is one less cannon and less turning ability. And of course, it's ugly as sin. For a pilot who is a good shot and has learned how to get kills without turning, K-4 will be a great ride.
-
Staga, one for you.
(http://www.raf303.org/funked/spankthemonkey.gif)
:D
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Why is it faster? Landing gear doors? why does it roll better?
It was faster thanks to aerodynamic refinements like the main gear covers and retractable, covered tail wheel .In reality, most K-4's had their main wheel doors removed and quite a few had their tail wheels fixed in the down position.
The K-4's use of tabbed ailerons allowed it to roll better at high speeds.Don't get me wrong - even then its rate of roll wasn't spectacular, but it was certainly better than late model Gustavs like the G-14 and G-10.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Compared to the AH Bf109G10 the K4 would be:
Worse!
Heavier.
Less stable at very high alts, lets say over 25,000ft.
Heavier? By how much- you have some specific figures there? Except for the tail and main gear doors, where is all this excess weight coming from?
As far as the MW 50 powered G-6 or G-14, I agree 100%.I say keep the unboosted G-6 as it is and bring on a G-14 with AM powerplant.That way we have a distinct difference between the current AH G-6 and the G-14.Besides which there are a load of great G-14 camo schemes out there ;)
-
Originally posted by fd ski
sure ... at 60 perk points
You *have* to be joking!!! Guys, the K-4 can be seen as a refined G-10.It's a little faster and handles a little better at high speed!!! If you perked it, you would have to perk the Pony too.Besides which, it carried the 30mm MK 108 - the MG 151/20 was never carried.How many AH pilots know how to handle the MK 108 efficiently?The answer is not bloody many.
You have an a/c with better low alt performance than the Spit14 but lower performance at 25-30k.Climb rate would be similar.The Spit14 had superior handling in comparison.
If the G-10 has an ENY of 22 in AH, then IMHO the K-4 would have an ENY of 16-18.
-
Model it, perk it and it'll never be seen again- sounds like a good idea to me.:D
Model the spit21 HT!! .....and the spitVIII while you're at it. The spit1 and spit14 have just been done this version i see no reason why the spitVIII and spit21 can't be done in time for 1.10.:)
-
Hey Thrila, how come you never displayed these poetry talents when we were in 501 together?
-
oh well lets Hijack the Hijackers and while you're at it model a FW190D12 and a Ta152C since we're going with a fantasy never saw action model he162 .
-
Yes to all points made so far. The P-47M would be an excellent addition to the AH planeset.
-
Ammo do you get somekind of wierd satisfaction when you're trying to waste a good topic like this?
Search some help before it's too late...
-
Perked of course....
-
estoy de acuerdo en agregar todo tipo de aviones a AH, seria fantastico, se podria hacer enonces un excelente RPS tanto de cazas, como bombarderos o tanques o .... cualquier otro medio de combate que se nos ocurra y que realmente existiese en la WWII, pero debe hacerse con cierto criterio imparcial.
Cuando se pide un determinado tipo de avion, debe tenerse en cuenta que papel jugo en la WWII o por lo menos, cuantas unidades intervinieron en dicho conflicto, he visto a veces pedir la inclusion en AH del G55, pero, cuantos aviones entraron en produccion? 15? 20? tal vez 40? no es suficiente, no debebmos dejarnos llevar por gusto particulares, yo pediria el DO335, otros el HE 162, otros el P 80, pero estos aparatos no representaron nada, absolutamente nada en la WWII, incluso otros, que fueron construidos en gran cantidad en los meses finales de la Guerra como el P51H o el P47M/N no llegaron a estar operativos en numero suficiente o no entraron en combate antes del fin de las hostilidades, por lo menos, no en Europa.
Propongo los siguientes criterios para poder añadir aviones a AH (a menos que AH no sea un simulador exclusivo del periodo Septiembre de 1939 a Agosto de 1945, y continue hasta la guerra de Corea o Vietnam, o Afgansitan).
Nº de unidades que entraron en combate (minimo 400)
Si, el numero de unidades entradas en combate no fuesen suficientes, pero sin embargo, dicho avion represento de alguna manera una filosofia de la epoca, o una ruptura de las ideas sobre el concepto de la lucha en el aire. Como ejemplos, bien podrian servir los Gloster Glatiator, El Buffalo F2F o el Fairey SWORDFISH.
Creo que la inclusion, basandonos en estos metodos de aviones como el K4, Spit XIV, o G14 (entre otros muchos) estaria justificado, asi como el uso de MW50 y/o GM1 en otros aviones, pero diganme de corazon, realmente, que harian aviones como el P80, DO335 o Spitfire XXI en AH?.
P.D.: Todos los 109 llevaban Trim adjustan en los elevadores, pero de distinta manera que en los aviones de otros paises, en el 109 no habia parte movil en la superficiel movil del elevador, sino que, toda la superficie del elevador, movil o no, se ajustaba desde el interior de la cabina.
Un saludo
Supongo
-
K-4 would be a great counter balance for Spit XIV. I would agree to have it perked.
Spit XIV is a superb plane if flown right... which of cource most spit dweebs cannot comprehend in their turning frenzy. You AMI and Spit whiners, please go to some other thread.
-
If ya think teh Spit 14 is bad you're doing something wrong.
Add the K4!
-
Had a helluva time translating your post there.......
Not a bad idea on the surface, but how many planes in AH would be excluded using your idea? For sure the Ta152 would be, likely the N1K2J and several others if we used the 400 units produced criteria.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Why in the hell is the Spit14 'crap' :confused: ?
Didn't you all noticed it already? Isn't it clear enough that all this 'Spit 14 is crap' is just a huge all-spit driver's conspiracy to lure HT to make Spit XIV cheaper or perk free ride? We must not let that happen! ;) :D :p
-
(spanish)
Supo, en AH no hay forma de controlar el uso de los aviones para emular a la 2GM. Podrías tener la MA llena de C202 o flaks, y, si bien esto es historicamente incorrecto, en AH es perfectamente viable incluso teniendo activado un RPS. Es decir, el numero de unidades fabricadas no deber representar un obstaculo para el desarrollo de nuevos aviones.
(barbarian lenguage ;) )
Supo, in AH there is no way to control the plane usage to emulate the numbers present during WWII, that is, we may have the MA full of C202 or Flaks and while this would be historically incorrect even with an active RPS, here is perfectly viable. So, the magnufactured units should not be an obstacle for new plane developments.
-
Eso, tu traduce y calla melona :D
saludos
Supongo
-
I have all the help I need, thx.
Just practicing my thread hijack capabilities. I shall do this frequently.
-
So you try to ruin threads like this just for fun ?
-
Not ruin, add spice. Dont make it anything more than it is. I am sorry if I have hurt your or anyone elses feelings.
Do you guys really think that HTC should spend their valueable time creating a sixth 109? It is already the most representated model in AH. I dont know if they will but it doesnt seem logical to me.
And whoever is saying that the spit14 is undermodeled or not worth the price...I dont agree with that at all. That thing is a beast.
-
Look I think its fairly obvious here that ANY aircraft that challenges the superiority of the P51D in AH is perked.
The spit 14 is ONLY 11mph faster than the P51D and it costs 60 perks!
the tempest is 1 MPH SLOWER than the p51D and it costs 60 perks
the F4U-4 is 9MPH faster than the P51D and it costs 60 perks
the Ta-152 is 35MPH faster than the P51D and it costs 30 perks(although this is at 41k!)
although climbing/manouverability/firepower comes into it too we have a basic pattern here that obvious.
HTC want the P51D to be the top plane that is perk free.
so the 109K4 at 451MPH will be 15mph faster so expect a minimum of 60 perks.
at this price it will be popular for the first tour its introduced,then as people lose more and more perks it will ,like the other perk rides , become a barely used novelty.
Personally i think the MA needs a lot more non perked aircraft.So we are looking at any aircraft that is SUB 436MPH as we can plainly see the P51D HAS to keep its crown.sad but true.
-
I agree with Ammo thing is the turning dweebs are accostumed to pull the stick to the crotch tricks and don't use their plane properly.
-
Hazed, the 109G10 and 190D9 are not perked, what do you have to say to that?
The fact that you are looking for some sort of half-assed less than thought out explanation as to why a 109K-4 would be perked only says to me that you actually believe what you type.
I'm positive all planes are perked because they might actually make the P51D less popular... nevermind the 4x Hispanos on the Tempest, or the 2x20mm and 1x30mm on the Ta152... I could go on, fact is these planes could easily dominate. The P51D doesn't do much except fly around at high speeds and miss.
Why don't you just give up on the whole favoritism thing and look at the facts. Before it was an allied conspiracy, but since the Tempest and Spit14 are perked... then it's gotta be a P51D conspiracy... right?!?!?!
Don't think so, besides, the B model is a better dogfighter. The D model is for those guys who like to fly around on cruise control waiting for someone to be bored to tears and fly straight so they can come in and kill it.
-SW
-
Ammo maybe you should look at this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49830) and think about your behavior after that. Right now there's just a small, intelligent conversation going on unlike in this thread thanks to you.
I don't know how old are you but you're acting like a child.
Grow up.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Ammo maybe you should look at this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49830) and think about your behavior after that. Right now there's just a small, intelligent conversation going on unlike in this thread thanks to you.
I don't know how old are you but you're acting like a child.
Grow up.
He won't. Remember the 110-is-so-porked-thread?
-
Ammo- I laughed my bellybutton off. Dry humour is indeed the best kind :).
I truly doubt there is some kind of "P-51D conspiracy". If this is the case then they obviously forgot about the Typhoon, La-7, 109G-10, and 190D-9 (All of which can and will give a P-51D a good bellybutton kicking :D ).
-
Originally posted by Staga
Ammo maybe you should look at this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49830) and think about your behavior after that. Right now there's just a small, intelligent conversation going on unlike in this thread thanks to you.
I don't know how old are you but you're acting like a child.
Grow up.
For what it's worth (not much) most "X Plane Must be added!" threads get porked. Just look at the P-40 thread that was turned into a "Are Spitfires Dweeb planes?" thread, or the Hurricain Mk I thread that somehow ended up talking about the P-40 (I was a big part of that, and honestly didn't notice it change from one topic to the other... ooops.) The Jug topic you posted wasn't a complaint, or an addition request, simply someone asking what the difference between three versions of the same aircraft is. I guess I see a difference there.
-Sikboy
-
Why do they leave out eh 109k4. Its not an remarkable
dogfitre, but a plane that can bnz and hunt buffs, and get the pilot home alive. Ive posted the 'i want a 109k-4' thread
before and been basically ridiculed.
"its identical to the g10"
"its top speed is 422mph"
"its not going to be in AH, case closed"
"we have too many 109's as it is"
" get a clue, what we really need is the Fairy Firefly"
Not even close to a plane technician, but didnt the
K-4 top speed go over 450mph at alt?
Doesnt it have a redesigned wing (with the anti compression
surfaces on the leading ege of the wing).
Doesnt it have a stock 2x15mm, 1X30mm gun package.
Doesnt it look really fricken cool??
Maybe if we keep puonding away,. we'll get the k-4
-
Well, there you have it. The Pros and Cons of the plane summed up nicely :)
-Sikboy
PS: For the record, I'd love to see the K4, but after some other stuff that has been covered in other threads
-
Sad to see if this is where this discussion board is going.
-
Naah whatta heck; I can play that game too :D
Now: Who's gonna post next topic for getting a new U.S or British plane ?
-
There's one open for the B-25 right now. Hurry and you can be the first one to derail it.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Sad to see if this is where this discussion board is going.
Hmmm I only see you continuing this in this thread and you already made your girlish revenge post to Makofan's thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49830) where he asked the differences between the jugs in AH.
Ok, we all want to have some fun every now and then, but you cross the line there. I'd pick the threads more carefully...
-
Vector it was Ammo, You, and that spitdweeb fnkd who started this.
You reap what you sow etc. Cya in the next thread eh ? :)
-
hmm maybe Ammo and I could have a competition who hijacks more threads in a month?
Naah... make it two in the same price and you, Vector, are welcome to join us having fun :)
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Hazed, the 109G10 and 190D9 are not perked, what do you have to say to that?
what about them? both are slower, in fact the dora is EXACTLY 11mph slower than the P51d.The SAME advantage a spit14 would have over the P51d at high alt.
The fact that you are looking for some sort of half-assed less than thought out explanation as to why a 109K-4 would be perked only says to me that you actually believe what you type. [/b]
to be honest i dont care about the 109K-4 SW, its not about a LW aircraft.Ive only been dissapointed that ANY aircraft that outperforms the P51D has been perked.As to the 190D9 I would happily have 109g10,p51d and dora (La7?)perked for the same sort of price as the f4u4c just so long as we have a new non perked 'top speed plane' and maybe we can veer away from this dumb late war one upmanship which makes people want these faster and faster planes?.but when i see the spit14 perked just because 'basically' its 11mph faster than the p51 (and so could catch it when it invariably runs away,an old tactic which its been able to do for over a year!) its fairly annoying.SW you tell me why its perked? and before you say because all the spit dweebs would fly it,remember its a totally new aircraft and it doesnt furball as well.Why is it perked and what is it COMPARED against? whats the perk limit/line?
BTW i wont be flying it much as my interest does lie with LW.But why shouldnt fans of that aircraft(spit14), or people that read about the aircraft and try to get an idea of how each aircraft beat the next by flying them in here have to be limited to flying the P51d as the fastest plane non perked.sure it was the fastest in WW2 FOR A WHILE but not for well over the year it has been in AH! Its like having a false impression of it dominance in speed. All im asking here is to let ANY aircraft to take over the top speed slot(or lower it by perking the p51d,dora,109g10 or any other 400+ mph aircraft for small amounts if we have to).I realise the race will still be on but at least it would be a change.please drop this looking for a conspiricy crap.What annoys me is the constant boasting about which plane is better than the next.THEY ALL HAD THEIR MOMENT IN HISTORY.so they should in here imo.
I'm positive all planes are perked because they might actually make the P51D less popular... nevermind the 4x Hispanos on the Tempest, or the 2x20mm and 1x30mm on the Ta152... I could go on, fact is these planes could easily dominate. The P51D doesn't do much except fly around at high speeds and miss.[/b]
EXACTLY MY POINT SW.its about time we had something to catch the damn thing, engage it without fear of losing 2 months worth of kill awards!.
and if you actually read my post, i already said this about weapons and climb etc being a factor also.but why did we have the F4uc for absolutely months while a lot of people felt it was being used purely for the incredible guns and quite excellent speed?(at the time few could catch it if flown correctly) they didnt change it to a perk ride instantly did they? when its USE got too much THEN HTC changed it. No other aircraft has even had its few tours of over use.they havent even had the chance to become the most popular or 'top plane'.besides this as you well know this affects the newbies much more than anyone else as they cant even try the spit14,tempest out!
Unperk the spit14 and you would see most of the pilots who 'like' (the escape affording speed of) the p51d switching to the NEW fastest ride.
Why don't you just give up on the whole favoritism thing and look at the facts. Before it was an allied conspiracy, but since the Tempest and Spit14 are perked... then it's gotta be a P51D conspiracy... right?!?!?![/b]
fine label it, and constantly repeat the same crap until we get bored of mentioning it.'luftwhiner' 'cry conspiricy' are pure nonsense.this is a game(like a boardgame) with peices to choose from.the fact remains that the fastest ride a new player can fly (or an older player who doesnt want to lose perks and therefore fly more causiously) is the p51d. The dora/109g10 I'll admit are in a 'similar' position but BOTH can be caught by the p51d or outrun by it.Id like to see the spit14 show how much better it is for a while. The p51d and la7s or niks or whatever the most overused planes are for their suited roles need to be knocked off their perch once in a while.Its really a shame we were all spoiled with the late war planes first.No one wants to go backwards(use older planes) in the MA because you barely stand a chance in them.
Don't think so, besides, the B model is a better dogfighter. The D model is for those guys who like to fly around on cruise control waiting for someone to be bored to tears and fly straight so they can come in and kill it.
-SW [/B]
so what youre saying is the p51B beats the p51D in one area and i should be happy with that? lol, If i dont want to fly the p51d theres always the P51b, you really have missed my point havent you. Your too quick with the nonsense to take any notice of what im saying.I would like to fly the spit14,tempest,ta152,(f4u4-1 even) without worrying about losing 60 perks FOR A WHILE (same as the f4uc had) so i can learn its positive and negative abilities.I DONT mind small perk costs like the f4uc because 1-10 perks is no big deal. 60 and even 30 IS.
If the spit14 was a better aircraft and a common one then let people USE it.If an aircraft is a rare low production version then hell fair enough it should be rare in AH to reflect the lack of chance of seeing one in the war.IF we are going to ignore the actual numbers used then why bother perking anything? (with the exception maybe of the me262) what is the REASON for perking them? if its because they would be overused, then overused compared to what? I was all for the perk system but envisioned a system to control the aircraft according to their rarity in the actual war OR if they approached the level of use we saw the F4uc approach (25%?)thus incuring a mild penalty cost.IF we are going to use the perk system for the latter then AT LEAST let people try them first before they are condemned to the 60 perk scrap heap.
We can fly certain planes but not others.Id like to know how its decided myself and what aircraft is considered the limit of the free rides.
thats ALL im questioning.I say we need a PROGRESSIVE perk system not the nothing to 30 or 60 LEAP we have now.
p.s. "The D model is for those guys who like to fly around on cruise control waiting for someone to be bored to tears and fly straight so they can come in and kill it." is BS and you know it.
-
"I don't know how old are you but you're acting like a child. " --Staga
Who's acting like a child?
-
Wow this thread got off topic quick.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Doesnt it have a redesigned wing (with the anti compression
surfaces on the leading ege of the wing).
Doesnt it have a stock 2x15mm, 1X30mm gun package.
Doesnt it look really fricken cool??
Maybe if we keep puonding away,. we'll get the k-4
Maybe they will give us a repainted G10 and tell you its a K4. You wont know the difference but you will feel better.
-
Personally, if I had it my way it would be like this:
* Perk everything post 1944 - P-51D, 190D-9, 109G-10 and etc..
* the gap between the G-6/R6 and K-4 is huge, give us the G-14 instead of putting in an additional K-4 when the G-10 already exists.
* Then, add a bit more speed, give marginally better rolling abilities and a new paint job to G-10 -> rename the "G-10" to "K-4"
* the same sort of gap exists between 1942 Spit9s and 1944 Spit14s. Give us the 1943 Spit9.
I'm sure this would make many people happy.
-
Sure, AH needs a 109K4.........just not right now, or anytime real soon IMO.
Too many people talk parity in the planesets, but all they really want is that "edge" they think a particular plane will give them.
Aside from the highly perked Spit14, what fast climbing interceptor do the Allies have? The LW already had the G10, now they have the 262 also....slower to alt, but untouchable when it gets there.
Let's talk some parity in that area before we add another hi alt LW ride.
P47M would be nice, as would several of the Spit variants.
Just my two cents worth........
-
An excellent source of information about the 109 is William Green's "Augsburg Eagle...The Story of the Messerschmitt 109."
Green's data on the 109 G-10 lists its weight in clean condition as 6,834 lbs. Its maximum speed ranged from 342 mph at sea level to 426 mph at 24,280 feet, making it the fastest of the G-series aircraft. A 20-mm MG 151 with 150 rounds or a 30-mm MK 108 with 60 rounds was optional as the engine-mounted weapon, and was supplemented by two 13-mm MG 131 machine guns in the cowling with 300 r.p.g.
Martin Caidin states that the G-10 under full power could reach 20,000 feet in six minutes from a standing start.
By way of comparison, Green states that the 109 K-4 in clean condition weighed 7,440 lbs. Maximum speed ranged from 378 mph at sea level to 452 mph at 19,685 feet. The engine mounted weapon could be either a 30-mm MK 108 or MK 103. The MK 103 was a far superior weapon to the MK 108 but was considerably heavier. Instead of the 13-mm cowling guns which were mounted on the G-10, the K-4 mounted two 15-mm Mauser MG 151 cannon with 220 r.p.g. After takeoff, once its landing gear was retracted, the K-4 could reach at altitude of 39,370 feet in 10.2 minutes.
The above data illustrates that, while the G-10 was certainly a formidable aircraft, it couldn't quite compare with the K-4.
To the suggestion in an earlier post that the Spitfire XXI be added to Aces High I would offer the following observations. First, the Spit XXI, with a redesigned wing and a much-strengthened internal structure, was, basically a different aircraft from the models which had preceded it. Secondly, only 120 were constructed before production ended, and only four front-line squadrons were equipped with it. This variant, therefore, had almost no impact on the outcome of the war. Thirdly, the performance of the Spit XXI was only marginally better than that of the Spit XIV.
Any aircraft added to the Aces High hanger should have at least been produced in enough numbers to have been a substantive factor in the fighting. If the Spit XXI is added, then why not add the 109 K-14? Powered by a DB 605 L engine, the K-14 could reach a maximum speed of 452 mph at an altitude of 37,730 ft!
Why should we care that only two of them made it into combat?!
Regards, Shuckins
-
"Ive only been dissapointed that ANY aircraft that outperforms the P51D has been perked."
:rolleyes:
Wow, I wasn't aware that the FW-190D-9, 109G-10, and LA7 were all perk rides now! Oh yeah, the P-51B too.
Your post is funny in that it shows your anti P-51 agenda quite blantantly. The Spit 14 is perked not because of speed, but because it's fast AND climbs at 5K/min AND handles almost as good as a Spit 9 AND accelerates like it has RATOs. It's quite simply the best plane in the game for the AH arena and if left unperked it would ruin the game (unless you like fighting against 75% Spit 14's). The currently unperked planes--P-51, Dora, LA7, N1K2--don't do that so they're not perked. It's that simple (although you seem unable or unwilling to comprehend that fact).
By the way, although you seem to not realize it, the P-51D is NOT the fastest unperked plane in AH and hasn't held that distinction since beta, if ever. A LW plane--the 109G-10--holds that distinction. Another LW plane--the FW-190D-9--is faster than the P-51D at most altitudes. Of course, I wouldn't expect a rabid LW supporter to let facts stand in the way of his rants.
Sounds like you've just been smoked by P-51's once too often. A shame. That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.
J_A_B
-
Hazed, TA152 modelling is wrong, it just reaches 460mph at 35k, which is about 10-12mph too slow at 6k too low alt.
-
"Any aircraft added to the Aces High hanger should have at least been produced in enough numbers to have been a substantive factor in the fighting. If the Spit XXI is added, then why not add the 109 K-14? Powered by a DB 605 L engine, the K-14 could reach a maximum speed of 452 mph at an altitude of 37,730 ft!
Why should we care that only two of them made it into combat?! "
Now go look at the Ta152 that was introduced to AH. Numbers produced of all variants were extremely low, yet we still had it rammed down our throats. I agree with your viewpoints on some grounds, disagree on others.
The AH G10 is faster than your top speed posted due to Pyro modelling it with an optional engine. Unfortunately, no one knows how many G10's were made with this engine, one, two, or five hundred, so we just have to take it as it is. Are you saying the AH G10 should be toned down, it's FM reworked to reflect the commonly advertised speed of 426mph? Do that and there are several pilots in the game who would be mightily offended, no matter how "correct" the move was.
The problem as I see it is that the LW was in such a state of disarray that no one can truly say "this plane came with XYZ engine, and anything else was an anomaly". Such is the case with the 109 series. I can't count how many engines 109 afficiandos have listed for the G series alone; each is "technically" correct, so which one do you choose?
-
Spit 21 had 4 cannons and better performance and roll than the Spit XIV. And it served in combat with 91 Sqn in the Spring of 1945. It makes as much sense to add it to the planeset as planes like Ta 152 or Me 109K. But I think maybe the AH double standard will continue.
Ta 152 used by one squadron in the final months of the war... In game, perked.
Spit 21 used by one squadron in the final months of the war... Not in game.
Spit 14 used by many squadrons in the last 16 months of the war... In game, heavily perked.
La-7, N1K2-J, Bf 109G-10 and Fw 190D-9 used by many squadrons in the last 9 months of the war... In game, unperked.
Do you see a pattern? I do. I doubt it's some kind of evil HTC anti-RAF conspiracy, but the pattern is there nonetheless.
This has been a test of the Spitdweeb emergency whining system!
-
thank you
in the same light, the P-47M flew in small numbers with the 56th FG as a buzzbomb interceptor among other things.
The P-47N flew in great numbers in the Pacific in 1945.
Both of these AC would likely be perked.
-
Yes good point, P-47M probably fits in the category with the Ta 152 and the Spit 21.
P-47N is in a whole other league, shooting down tons of planes over Japan. More comparable to Dora or K-4.
-
J_A_B reread my post will you.
I dont care for your statements at all.Im argueing for the RAF players and if you check my stats you will see i hardly ever fly them.Im perfectly happy with the Dora and the P51d is not a problem for me until i end up chasing one for 5 sectors only to grow tired of it.The aircraft isnt the problem here.
The fact that you fly it almost exclusively that has clouded your judgement.YOU are obviously the RABID fan if ever there was one.
you are misinterpreting what im saying totally.Ive made my points in the last post and im not about to repeat them to ppoint out the flaws in your accusations.
I havent asked for the 109K-4. I dont demand the P51D be perked unless all the late planes be perked.So where is this 'rabid lw crap' you speak of?
Im talking here of the disparity between one set of aircraft and another.The p51d is only receiving my attention because its free and at 20k its the fastest plane i meet not the most dangerous.
hers a rundown on what i consider the perk value should be on scale of 1 to 10 perks
P51D its an easy aircraft to fly if you ask me and also easy to hit with but less than spectacular in its killing ability( 2 or 3 perks).I find the dora pretty easy to kill with(after plenty of practice with those guns!) as it suits my style and if flown well its pretty untouchable also(2 or 3 perks).I find the p47D25/30 easy to kill with BNZ but less than easy to dogfight in(1 perk).The La7 i dont fly much but assume its easy from what i hear (i dont comment on it because of this).The 109g10 i dont find particularly easy to fly or hit with and im not disciplined with my ammo and soon run out of it(2 perk).the spit14 is easy to fly but ammo load isnt up to much same as most spits(ive flown it twice!)worth 60 perks? nope imo but should be among the higher costing on a scale of 1-10perks(7 perks).Nik is easy to fly, easy to kill with but is also not quite the demon it was.I no longer consider a flyer of the nikdweebs anyhow(1 perk).Ta152 isnt suited to MA and by that definition is no way worth 30 perks(5 perks).The tempest is great in performance but those guns although deadly really move the plane around and tend to make me waste ammo again.worth 60 perks? i dont think so(mid scale 1-10 perks say 5 or 6).me 262 just too good and easy to kill with if patiently flown (100 perks)
F4u-4 is just so fast but hasnt got cannons but plenty of ammo and easy to hit with(7-8 perks).F4uc.(5 perks) F4u-d (1 perk) F6f(1 perk)
see where im going J_A_B?
as to planes i think should be added
P47M or N (4 perks)
109K-4 (4 perks)
P51H (5 perks)
if planes start to flood the arena we penalise them with 2 or 3 more perks until we see them in the numbers we can all accept.
probably some late war ones ive missed but this is what id like to see in MA. we had me262s in CT for 25 perks! and it didnt flood that arena.We should try something different.If all those spit dweebs as people call them had the chance to fly these late war monsters they will learn to change their fighting styles to suit these aircraft.but as most of them fight until they die they wont last too long constantly upping in them.
Also the possibility of reseting perks to zero now and then wouldnt be such a terrible thing if costs were as low as this.say every 3 or 4 tours?
please drop this anti LW crap J_A_B and turn your brain on.
the reason i single out the p51d? because it has enjoyed a lead in performance not so disimilar to the lead the spit14 has over 'it' for over a year if not 2? I fail to understand the reasoning behind the huge pricing of aircraft that are only out performing the p51d as much as the p51d has been outperforming others for all this time.You say they will flood the arena and i think they will too but at least during that period we all get a chance to learn them before the 'perk penalty' adds up and up until they just arent worth the risk to fly all the time.
clear now?
-
What I'm failing to grasp, both in your earlier post and the one above, is where you get the impression that the P-51D is so much better than the rest of the planes in AH. The P-51D is decent, and it fits in well with the current un-perked planes; it doesn't dominate. The Spt 9 is more dominant than the P-51D is.
The reason I accuse you of being a "rabid LW" guy is you make statements such as this:
"have to be limited to flying the P51d as the fastest plane non perked.sure it was the fastest in WW2 FOR A WHILE but not for well over the year it has been in AH!"
Anyway, you make statements (accusations) like that and don't even have your facts straight--the P-51 is not the fastest unperked plane in AH nor ever has been (except maybe in beta). The Bf-109G-10 is faster at the 20K altitude you mentioned, and the FW-190D-9 probably is too. I can't think of ANY altitude where the P-51D is the fastest unperked plane. And, as you pointed out, I fly it pretty exclusively so I should know.
I've got nothing against your opinion of what the perk system should be--everyone is entitled to an opinion. What got on my nerves was the "anti-P51" feeling I got from your post....so I made my reply.
J_A_B
-
Hello friends:
All these discussions are podrian to avoid with a RPS (September
1939-Agosto 1945) in which "podrian" (translate pleae) to have capacity all the airplanes,
boats or vehicles that had had a representation with certain number
of units or that his " glamour " made attractive XD.
I create very necessary the RPS.
Greetings
Supongo
-
Pongo, 109K4 did use a pair of MG151/15 in combination with a single Mk108 or Mk103 (yep, Mk103 was used in this plane). Fuselage was refined and it had control tabs not present in previous versions that, supposedly, would improve the control of the plane at hi speeds. The fuselage refinements would imply, probably, a better acceleration. While speed advantage may be marginal compared with our G10, the rest of the points make this plane worth to be modeled.
J_A_B, in overal, P51D is noticeably faster than 190D9 (except at sea level and 17k) and much faster than La7 (look at the charts up to 30k). La7 is uber cause its acceleration, but this plane is really fast only up to 10k. G10 may be on pair in speed with P51D at most alts, but P51D control at medium and hi speeds is much better. In any case, IMO, top speed alone is not a factor to perk a plane, P51D or whatever. Handling, E retention, acceleration and weapons package are more important factors.
A last point about the AH charts. These show a 100% fuel loaded P51 performance, and while most 190 / 109 pilots need to take off with 100% and even an external DT, P51D is normally flown with 50% and DTs or 75% without DTs.
-
K4 did not mount MK103.
The standard MK103 barrel was too wide at the rear to fit inside engine shaft. However late in the war the MK103 was modified to fit inside the DB605 but it was planned to use it only in later Ks.
So no K4 with MK103.
Also there was no use of MG151/15 in the K4, this is a total myth.
All K4 armament was 2xMG131 and 1xMk108.
Also 20mm gunpods were sometimes fitted.
And Funked please be honest in what numbers and when the Spit F21 was used. It's in no way comporable to 109K4. The 109K4 had nearly 1,000 examples and entered service in october 1944. The Spit F21 only reached service in late April 1945, and the war ended in the first week of May......
The Spit F21 compares most similar to the He162 in terms of service date, numbers, and effect on war. The He162 only shot down a few fighters while the F21s greatest achivement was sinking a pair of converted torpedo one man midget submarines.
-
Spit 21s were in service in January and in combat in March.
Otherwise a good post Grun. :)
And those were super elite nuclear ninja subs they sunk! Turning point in modern world history!
-
Wether a plane was produced in 30,000 or just 2 shouldn't affect the perk points in the main arena. It's been pointed out before, except for WW2 planes there is nothing what so ever historical about the MA and thus the number of a plane produced should have no affect.
IMO a plane should be perked ONLY because of overuse, in the case of the 262, we shouldn't discuss, it should be perked, 200 is a great price.
All other planes should be unperked for a tour or so and then perked for good numbers, most would be bellow 20 IMO.
Just to add, the planes are there to be flown, not just to sit in the hanger and look pretty, personally I wouldn't mind seeing Tempest, F4u4's, Ta152's and Spit 14's a little more then we do now.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Personally, if I had it my way it would be like this:
* Perk everything post 1944 - P-51D, 190D-9, 109G-10 and etc..
* the gap between the G-6/R6 and K-4 is huge, give us the G-14 instead of putting in an additional K-4 when the G-10 already exists.
* Then, add a bit more speed, give marginally better rolling abilities and a new paint job to G-10 -> rename the "G-10" to "K-4"
* the same sort of gap exists between 1942 Spit9s and 1944 Spit14s. Give us the 1943 Spit9.
I'm sure this would make many people happy.
Yes I agree. 190A-5 and 190A-8 need 190A-6 in gap between them. To perk lightly all post 1944 planes would be great. RPS would be even better.
(http://www.jg2.org/images/picture_black_1.gif)
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
(yep, Mk103 was used in this plane).
Dr. Tony Williams, paging Dr. Tony Williams. We have a case of Mk103in 109K4 again. Dr. Williams !!!
:D
Topic was covered in aircraft section of the forum at great length. I believe that conclusion was that 103 wouldn't fit into the engine block.
-
The only fighter with a hub mounted Mk103 was AFAIK the Do335, it also had two cowl mounted 15mm heavy machine guns.
Was the single seat version.
-
Mk103 or 108 for K4 and K6, MG151/15 for K4 and Mg131 for K6 (also two optional gun pods).
The Mk103, and the 108 dont need to fit "into" the engine. These guns are composed by a barrel and a main body. The main body rest behind the engine, in the case of 108, the gun main body rest between the engine and the pilot seat, and only the very short barrel was fitted really into the engine. The engine only needs to be long enough for the barrel.
But... ...I may be wrong.
-
Mandoble your wrong, no Mk103's in 109K4's period.
And the whole Mg151/15's in K models is a mistake first started by I believe Green, and then perpetuated by several following authors who were too lazy too do their own research and copied his error verbatim.
If my memory serves me correctly (and I'd have to get my books out to be exactly sure), the only 109 equipped with a MG151/15 was one of the early F models (F1 or F2?), and it was mounted in the centerline hub mounting where it was eventually replaced by the MG151/20.
Like Fd-Ski said, Tony Williams wrote an extensive article on this subject and the myths that have grown up around it. I'll look around and see if I can find the link too it.
-
Differences:
G10 powerplant DB605A-1 with rated 1475HP with MW50 boost
or other sub typed DB605D rated at 1800 using MW50 boost.
K4 powerplant DB605ASCM/DCM 1550 HP rated 2000HP with MW50 Boost
Climb rate G models 2700 to 4000ft/min
Climb rate K4 4823ft/min
weights G Models 5,880 lbs to 6180 lbs
weights K4 6000lbs fully loaded
speeds G-10 428mph
K4 452mph (yes Virgina, faster then a P51D)
Ceiling G Models arond 38K
Ceiling K-4 41K
Source: Axis Fighters of WWII Major fighters and attack aircraft of the Axis Powers
Author: Bill Gunston
Looks like an obivious major difference in speed and climb rate to me
Armanent K-4 two MG 151 above the engine and one MK 108 or 103
Vermillion as you can see the above source states that the 108 or 103 was used in the K4
:p
-
I'm almost sure the Mk103 was first used in the K4. As far as I remember, it was a modiffied version of the original Mk103 design used in pods for the 190s.
I see more problems fitting two Mg151/15 in the nose of a 109 than fitting a Mk103.
-
1943/1944 planes should be perked low... like between 4 and 12 points.
Of course, other planes like the SpitXIV, Tempest, 109K-4(if it's added), Ta-152, Me-262, P-47M/N, P51H(did it even see combat?) and other planes of that nature- ones that can easily dominate the arena should be perked high.
Why? Keep it out of the hands of experienced players and keep them rare.
Imagine if the currently perked high planes were perked in the 8-12 perk range. "I'm going to take up a 205 today...." After 7 minutes of climbing, to your surprise virtually every con in the sky is a Spit.... not a SpitV, Spit I, Seafire II, or SpitIX... nope... it's got the dreaded Spit14 icon on it. And what's this? All the other cons are Tempests, F4U-4s and Ta-152s with the occasional 262 pilot.
Sweet, now that's what I talk about a fun arena. Hey, you wanna learn the aircraft before you pay for it Hazed.. try H2H or the TA. The MA has a price on it, otherwise what's the point of having the perk system in the first place?
Verm, MG151/15s were in 109F-2s. 109F-4 was the first model to incorporate the MG151/20.
Hajo, you are using incorrect data. The G10 in AH is not modelled after that G10 you have there....
(http://hitechcreations.com/models/charts/109g10speed.gif)
Maybe you guys should try comparing the in-game G-10 to the K-4 data you have.
-SW
-
AH's G-10 has DB 605DCM engine. Depending on sources its out put is 2000-2200hp.
Generally...the older the material about 109s the less accurate it is, yes, including Green's books. Almost every web-page I've seen about 109s has errors too numerous to list...
Our G-10 compared to K-4...
-No noticable weight difference.
-AH's G-10 has DB 605D with MW-50 as many K-4s had.
-Biggest aerodynamical differencies between AH's G-10 and the K-4 are antenna mast (not visible in AH's 3d-model but AH's example had it IRL, K-4s didn't), non-recractable tail wheel and landing gear doors in K-4 which were usually removed in field.
-At alt K-4 is 7-12 mph faster than AH's G-10.
I remember Pyro stating on this board that of the late 109s HTC picked G-10 because that was the variant they could get most options out of (K-4 didn't have WrG-rockets).
If and when HTC decides to do another 109 I hope it will be something to fill the cap between 109G-6 and G-10. My choise would be G-14 with DB 605AM engine. While being AH-wise essentially G-6 with MW-50, -14 -designation would make it easy to distiguish.
-
Both 109 F1 and F2 used the Mg151/15 in the Hub.
No 109 was ever used in combat with a hub mounted Mk103, there may have been some protoypes but that's all. The gun it self weighs nearly 150 kg (more then 300lbs) and each round weights 330 gram (bout .7 or so lbs).
The gun had a velocity of around 2700 feet per second, which is equal to the Hispano.
Fit this in a small plane like the 109, in the nose, and not only will it be VERY nose heavy, but it is doubtfull wether the structure can handle it at all when fired.
-
Wilbus, at least the first F-1s (probably all of them) had MG-FF 20mm cannon mounted in the hub.
F-2s had hub mounted MG 151/15 until mid 1941 when they were all fitted (probably F-1's too) with MG 151/20s.
-
The DB605D with MW50 is the same engine as the sometimes quoted DB605DCM.
The CM code is for the fuel and the MW50.
My point is there has been a lot of nonsense about some "mystery engine" on the 109G-10 that the one in AH models.
Its NOT a mystery engine. Its the standard 605D with MW50 boost (all of them had boost, no such thing as an operational 109G-10 without boost)
Speed 428mph (not 452).
Just a post for those who were goin on about how the AH G-10 is too slow (cripes what a laugh, too slow, right, 440 mph).
Lots of folks repeating everybody elses guesswork, as usual.
In regards to the 109K-4, well, if its that important to model a 109 thats all of 10pmh faster than a G-10, go ahead I guess .
Oh ya, Spitfire F21, I wouldnt bother with it IMHO (give us a Stuka instead), but please dont throw too many rocks from your glass houses, how many TA152s were there??? Ya.
Regards.
-
Just because lots of books have repeated the old " G-10 top speed :- 426mph" stuff does *not* make it true.Anyone who does some digging soon realises that most WW2 aviation books simply spew out the same tired old (and often inaccurate) data first published in early post WW2 literature.
For one thing, there is no one " standard" G-10.The whole G-10 program was an attempt to produce a Gustav with near K-4 performance using existing airframes .The G-10's were manufactured from the parts of various 109s - some of them were recycled, some were brand new.Early G-10's used the DB 605AS powerplant due to the shortage of DB 605Ds which had been given to the K-4 program as a priority.These G-10s were referred to as G-10/AS and externally looked almost identical to DB 605D powered models (the chin blisters were missing for example).The AS powerplant used the enlarged supercharger of the DB 603.It was a remarkable single-stage variable blower that could match the performance of the famed 2-stage Merlins .Although it posessed only one stage, the compressor was constantly varied according to the external air pressure by use of a built-in barometric sensor.
Later model G-10s used the DB 605D engine.The D was essentially a refinement of the AS.Those G-10's that used the DB 605DC powerplant (often referred to as the DB 605DCM) used exactly the same engine as the K-4.For those who don't recognise Daimler Benz nomenclature, DCM signified the following:- 'D' :-model type / 'C' :- C3 avgas used (96 octane) / 'M' :- MW 50 injection.
G-10s using DCM powerplants would have had performances only slightly lower than the similarly powered K-4.And keep in mind that many K-4s had their wheel doors removed and/or tail-wheels fixed in the down position.The extra drag this would have induced would have made K-4's so-equipped slower and probably near equal to G-10s in performance.
-
"Just because lots of books have repeated the old " G-10 top speed :- 426mph" stuff does *not* make it true"
Indeed. It's true because that's as fast as the airplane would go (as tested at Wright-Patt). There probably were some 440+ MPH Me-109's, but they certainly weren't the norm.
J_A_B
-
"Just because lots of books have repeated the old " G-10 top speed :- 426mph" stuff does *not* make it true.Anyone who does some digging soon realises that most WW2 aviation books simply spew out the same tired old (and often inaccurate) data first published in early post WW2 literature"
Agree 100 percent, funny thing is though most folks almost always decide the error is listing them too slow as opposed to too fast?
In any case the AH G-10 does @440 mph which is plenty fast (and is as fast as many sources that give the K-4 that speed as opposed to the often quoted and copied 452).
Btw the SpitXIV in AH does @435 tops, not 448, and I think thats probably ok too, as an operational model, close enough.
Way too much debate on +/- 5-10 mph fed by folks with an axe to grind, as opposed to being objective, but hey, sim games are competative and it brings that out.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
1943/1944 planes should be perked low... like between 4 and 12 points.
Of course, other planes like the SpitXIV, Tempest, 109K-4(if it's added), Ta-152, Me-262, P-47M/N, P51H(did it even see combat?) and other planes of that nature- ones that can easily dominate the arena should be perked high.
Why? Keep it out of the hands of experienced players and keep them rare.
Imagine if the currently perked high planes were perked in the 8-12 perk range. "I'm going to take up a 205 today...." After 7 minutes of climbing, to your surprise virtually every con in the sky is a Spit.... not a SpitV, Spit I, Seafire II, or SpitIX... nope... it's got the dreaded Spit14 icon on it. And what's this? All the other cons are Tempests, F4U-4s and Ta-152s with the occasional 262 pilot.
Sweet, now that's what I talk about a fun arena. Hey, you wanna learn the aircraft before you pay for it Hazed.. try H2H or the TA. The MA has a price on it, otherwise what's the point of having the perk system in the first place?
-SW
The reason I dont want to try it in the H2H is i dont want to fight vs 8 players of no skill whatsoever and the training arena offers no reason to be using these aircraft and again fewer numbers.
as to the perk system. I didnt envision it being used the way it is currently used.As it stands i dont agree with the way its being used.Ive hardly flown the tempest or spit14 or f4u4 because i need all my perks to fly the me262 once in a while.I would explain what i did envision it to be but ive already run through it all in another thread. Fd skis one on the stats.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49959
(btw nice overdramatic arguement lol)
-
I gotta jump in here as I fly-n-die in the 109 exclusive.
I fly the 109 because it makes you a better pilot in almost every other plane. For those that play billiards one who practices on the snooker table ussually wins the 8 ball tournament.
Do we need another 109??? Hell I would settle for HTC mixing up the paint schemes a bit with what we already have. The 109 served on many fronts so why are we limited to drab green camo on most and by the way, drop the finland G2 color scheme, it makes me ill.
I support the development of new aircraft for the primary purpose of more accurate historical scenarios. I enjoy the fact we have now the 109E for the Battle of Britain. The Betty an excelent choice to round out the Pacific scenarios . As far as the Main arenas concerned, HTC should limit the number of different aircraft to keep the whining to a minimum, race of champions if you IROC fans know what I mean.
For those who concern themselves with the drag coefficient of the 109K serial#1573 <3rd plane in from the left> on a warm summers day....Nobody cares!!!...It's the strategy & technic that makes this flight sim fun and interesting, not the nutz & boltz....IMHO.
KEEP EM FLYIN!!
-
...
Let's have the F8F Bearcat ! :D
-
I should agree on adding all type of airplanes to AH, that would be really cool, It could be then make an excellent RPS, for fighters, bombers or tanks or.... any other mean of combat that happened and that really were in the WWII, but it should be made with a certain impartial approach.
When a certain airplane type is requested, should it be kept in mind the role it played in WWII or, at least, how many units were involved in the struggle.
I have sometimes seen the request for inclusion in AH of the G55, but, how many airplanes did they enter in production? 15? 20? perhaps 40? it is not enough. We can not let us to focus only in our preferences.
I would request the DO335, other the HE162, other the P 80, but these planes didn't represent anything, absolutely anything in the WWII, even that which were built in great quantities in the WWII’s final months like the P51H or the P47M/N, didn't end up being operative in numbers enough or they didn't arrive to fronts in time to fire a single shot, at least, not in Europe.
I propose the following criteria in order to choice the airplanes to be added to AH (unless AH is not an exclusive sim for of the period September 1939 - August 1945, and it continues developing until the war of Korea or Vietnam, or even Afgansitan):
Nº of units that actually entered in combat: minimum 400.
Or allow then even if the figure of units entered in combat was not 400, but however, this airplane represented in any way a philosophy of its time, or a rupture for the ideas and concept of the air fight.
For instance to this: the Gloster Glatiator, The Buffalo F2F or the Fairey SWORDFISH.
Do I believe that the inclusion, taking into account what I said above, of airplanes like the K4, XIV Spit, or G14 (among other many) would be justified, as well as the use of MW50 and/or GM1 in other airplanes.
But tell me of honestly, really that airplanes like the P80, DO335 or XXI Spitfire would do in AH?.
P.S.: All the 109 models carried Trim adjuster in the elevators, but in a different way that in the airplanes of other countries, in the 109 there was not small mobile tab on the edge of the elevator, but rather, the whole surface of the elevator, mobile or not, was adjusted from the cockpit.
Greetings
Supongo
-
Originally posted by SUP0NGO
I have sometimes seen the request for inclusion in AH of the G55, but, how many airplanes did they enter in production? 15? 20? perhaps 40? it is not enough. We can not let us to focus only in our preferences.
I don't think we have to look for new plane considering the number produced
IMO they have to fit the MA and be usefull for scenario that all
-
To Strafo:
No? I need Go 229 :D
Supongo
-
ding !
don't fit scenario :)
try again ;)
-
Originally posted by WHog81st
...
Let's have the F8F Bearcat ! :D
Yes please! :D
-
Originally posted by MaxImm13
drop the finland G2 color scheme, it makes me ill.
Just for your information...there's a significant finnish player base in AH that really appreciates the paint scheme that is given to Bf 109G-2 and flies it with pride. If the paint scheme makes you ill it's your own problem.
Originally posted by MaxImm13
For those who concern themselves with the drag coefficient of the 109K serial#1573 <3rd plane in from the left> on a warm summers day....Nobody cares!!!...It's the strategy & technic that makes this flight sim fun and interesting, not the nutz & boltz....IMHO.
Nobody cares? Somebody must care because there have been some pretty technical discussions about the planes in AH on this board. If people are interested in the systems and technical features of these aircraft I think they are free to talk about them just as much as you are free to not care.
-
About the 426mph for the G10. This speed was reached without MW-50, using the "normal" emergency power setting that produced 1550hp near ground (605D).
No 605 engine could produce full boost (1,8-1,94ata) for MW-50 in 24k, it must have been normal emergency power.
nik
-
Hajo, thats one of the sources that spouts the same old inaccuracies because he basically copied the errors straight out of Green's book.
I still can't find the link to the complete article that Tony Williams wrote on the 109 armament, but here is one post he made on this BBS that should at least clear up some of these myths.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47504&highlight=109
-
This is a problem in every flight sim (as may have already been mentioned).
Late war models vs. early war models. One way to be realistic or "fair" is to restrict planes to a set that actually flew against each other in a particular theater (i.e., Japanese vs Allies or German vs. Allies but NEVER Japanese and German together vs. Allies). But who wants THAT ?!? :eek:
AH isn't a formal historical recreation (like WWII Online was trying to be) where certain models are introduced at certain times in the "war". The way certain aircraft are restricted in AH is through perks and not arbitrary allocation according to historical percentages. ME-262's really existed in WWII, should we disallow them because they have a jet engine advantage over everything else - maybe... but Chuck Yeager still shot down 2 with his P-51... so maybe it's the pilot and not the plane...;)
my 2c...
"WHog"
81st Krewsaderz
http://www.81st.net
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Spit 21 had 4 cannons and better performance and roll than the Spit XIV. And it served in combat with 91 Sqn in the Spring of 1945. It makes as much sense to add it to the planeset as planes like Ta 152 or Me 109K. But I think maybe the AH double standard will continue.
Ta 152 used by one squadron in the final months of the war... In game, perked.
Spit 21 used by one squadron in the final months of the war... Not in game.
Spit 14 used by many squadrons in the last 16 months of the war... In game, heavily perked.
La-7, N1K2-J, Bf 109G-10 and Fw 190D-9 used by many squadrons in the last 9 months of the war... In game, unperked.
Do you see a pattern? I do. I doubt it's some kind of evil HTC anti-RAF conspiracy, but the pattern is there nonetheless.
This has been a test of the Spitdweeb emergency whining system!
Funkedup, you must really be :p Just n case you didn't understand it the 1st time you read it in this thread, whether an a/c appears in the planeset and is perked/unperked has NOTHING to do with its combat availability during WW2 !!! It has to do with PLAY BALANCE.Now whether the current planeset and perk system is balanced is another argument altogether.But plz, plz, stop your RAFwhining using the "this Luftwobble a/c hardly saw any action so that means we should get a Spit XXI" argument.It is t-i-r-e-d and o---l---d :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
Just for your information...there's a significant finnish player base in AH that really appreciates the paint scheme that is given to Bf 109G-2 and flies it with pride. If the paint scheme makes you ill it's your own problem.
I personally don't mind the Finnish camo scheme for the G-2.It's not particularly appealing , maybe even unattractive IMHO, but we do have a Finnish player component in AH and since they don't have a Brewster to fly, why not give 'em the G-2 ? That said, we have at *least* as many Australians playing AH and we don't have a single camo scheme to our name that I can see.Heck, even the Brazilians have a P-47 to call home.That said, I don't begrudge the Finns having a camo scheme of their own, no matter how damned ugly it is ;)
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
Hajo, thats one of the sources that spouts the same old inaccuracies because he basically copied the errors straight out of Green's book.
The error you refer to was included in Green's titanic opus, "Warplanes Of The Third Reich" which was 1st published around 1970.He realised his error and when his tome on the Bf 109, "The Augsburg Eagle" was released several years later, it included the amendment re: the K-4's armamament (ie MG 151/15s became MG 131s).It also included amended profiles of the G-10 and K-4 if I remember rightly.I have both books so I can check if needs be.
-
Originally posted by eddiek
The AH G10 is faster than your top speed posted due to Pyro modelling it with an optional engine. Unfortunately, no one knows how many G10's were made with this engine, one, two, or five hundred, so we just have to take it as it is. Are you saying the AH G10 should be toned down, it's FM reworked to reflect the commonly advertised speed of 426mph? Do that and there are several pilots in the game who would be mightily offended, no matter how "correct" the move was.
Pyro and HT decided to model a late-model G-10 using the DB 605DCM engine.There are plenty of photos of such a/c in service during the last months of the war.Why did they choose to do this? Whilst I've not seen the thread where they explained their motivation, I think it is obvious.The G-10 with DCM powerplant (the same one used by the K-4) had a performance envelope very similar to the K-4, which was in fact the ultimate aim of the G-10 project, btw, but at the same time it could carry a wider range of armament than the K-4 .The Kurfurst-4 only carried the 30mm MK 108 cannon, whilst the G-10 could also carry the 20mm MG 151/20.The G-10 could also carry 21cm air2air rocket-mortars which the K-4 could not.
Finally, there is a trade-off as far as playability is concerned with the G-10 modelled in AH ,and its RL counterpart for that matter. The K-4's use of flettner trim tabs gave it superior high speed handling (we're not talking 190-like handling, but definitely better).IMHO, I think the choice of the late model G-10 with DCM powerplant was an inspired one.It gives players who are not comfortable using the mighty MK 108 a chance to fly a 109 with near K-4 performance with the trade-off of poorer high speed handling.
Would I personally like to see the K-4 in AH? You betcha!!! Do I think we are going to get one? I doubt it very much.IMO it doesn't make sense to have both a DCM powered G-10 *and* the K-4 in the planeset.What would make a LOT of sense is if the huge gap between the G-6 and G-10 was plugged.The G-6 modelled in AH does not use MW 50 injection.What we need is something like the G-14 which was in effect a late model G-6 with certain features like the DB 605AM engine standardised (AM = DB 605A + MW 50 injection).The G-14's performance would be significanty superior to the current G-6 when using WEP.
The Spitwhiners can wail all they like, but when it comes to single-engined LW piston fighters there are only 2 models to choose from - the 109 and 190.The fact we may have 5 Bf 109 variants at the moment is irrelevant when you consider the Allies have Spits, Hurris, Typhoons, Tempests, P-38s, P-47s, P-51s, F6Fs, and F4Us to choose from, with many of these a/c having multiple variants themselves!! So some of us want a 6th Bf 109 to fill the gap between the AH G-6 and G-10 - BIG deal :eek: !!!
-
Originally posted by niklas
About the 426mph for the G10. This speed was reached without MW-50, using the "normal" emergency power setting that produced 1550hp near ground (605D).
No 605 engine could produce full boost (1,8-1,94ata) for MW-50 in 24k, it must have been normal emergency power.
nik
Exactly Nik.The inaccuracy which is oft repeated regarding the 426mp G-10 (sometimes a speed of 428 mph is mentioned) is two-fold .Firstly, this speed is often mentioned as being attained when using a DB 605D powerplant w/ MW 50 injection, and secondly that the figure of 426mph was the fastest achieved by any G-10 model. AFAIK, neither statement is correct as late model G-10s with the DB 605DCM powerplant could achieve a max TAS *roughly* comparable to a K-4's.
-
I agree that a Bf109G-6/U2 or Bf109G-14 would be a good addition. Somthing to fill the gap between the Bf109G-6 and Bf109G-10.
I do think that Japanese and early war American stuff is much more pressing at this time.
How many versions have brought multiple aircraft for the German and British planesets? Lots. How mny releases have even brought a single Japanese aircraft? Three. One third of the releases. The other six had none.
-
Caldwell:
I recall reading somewhere that some of the first K-4s came with 20mm from the factory.
// fats
-
Here is what bothers me, and it isn't meant as an insult to anyone. I fly the friggin Dora myself, so I can't understand why some think I'm anti-luftwaffe.
But the guys that are screaming the loudest about how much more effective the K4 would be over our late model G10, are the same ones that repeatedly bring up the issues concerning the Mk103 and the MG151/15's, which are well known errors to people who have truely researched the aircraft. Which to be honest, leads me to believe that those same guys, don't really know what they're talking about on this whole G10 vs K4 issue.
Caldwell, you seem to have a good library on 109's, do you have any information concerning the different control tabs on the K4 ? I keep hearing that they would improve high speed roll rates (but not even how effective they would be), but when I ask for information on this, no one can provide any. All I get is "well if they put them on, it must have been better", which I know from my experience in engineering is pure horsepucky.
I'm not an aerospace engineer (but I am an engineer) so please help me out here since this is an honest question, but to me a control tab would change the ability to trim the aircraft, not the overall ability to roll the aircraft at high speeds.
They didn't change the airlerons (ie size/shape), which is what generates the forces that roll the aircraft. They didn't change the wings, which are what generates the forces that resist the roll rate (ie clipped wing aircraft increased roll rate). They didn't boost the control systems (ie hydraulically or electrically) to change the stick forces, which the pilot must overcome to apply the force to the airlerons. And lastly they did not significantly change the weight of the aircraft or the placement of that weight in the aircraft to change the moments of inertia (ie remove fuel tanks or other weight in the wings to increase the ability to change roll directions for instance the changes from the F4U-1A to the F4U-1D). So exactly how do these Flettner control tabs, increase the ability to roll at high speeds ??
Hazed, are you going to post those climb charts that you keep referencing concerning how different the climb rates are?
We seem to have this "we need a K4 !!" discussion every couple of months, and after two years of them in just AH (and the other 6 years of discussions on 109's in AW & WB's) , the best issue I have seen yet is that potentially the K4 had better high speed roll rates, but the jury is still out on that even.
Armament options are the same, Speed is the same (both suppose to be 452mph at alt even though in AH right now its slightly slow), overall control & responsiveness is the same, and while I hear that climb rates are different I can't get anyone to post the charts or references to prove it.
So why do we need a K4 ?
-
Aside weapons, tabs or top speed stuff, will the K4 climb better than our G10? Will it accelerate better?
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
So why do we need a K4 ?
[joke]Just to see how undermodeled it is[/joke]
-Sikboy
-
I am a 109 fan. I have flown them since day 1 of this game. I love to fly the 109G10.
Having said all that, we need another 109 like we need a hole in our head. P40b, F4F, etc. etc. are much more important to the game right now IMO. I'd like to see the older (older as in older in this game) planes like the G10, P51D, 190A5 and 190A8, etc. get their cockpit art reworked before we get another 109.
Just my opinion of course. :)
-
BTW, the G10 is still a very competitive plane in the main arena if flown correctly.
-
Vermillion,
A flettner tab isn't like a trim tab. It is an automatic tab that moves in the opposite direction to the aileron. The drag generated helps to move the aileron in the initial direction. The maximun roll rate is the same, but at high speeds, where the pilot can't reach max aileron deflection (and thus that maximun theoretical roll rate) due lack of strenght, improves the roll rate.
In other words, an aileron with a flettner tab is a boosted aileron (BTW, if I remember well, Ta 152 had also flettner tabs).
For example, in K series aileron moved up 22º 40'. In this position, flettner has moved down 9º. If the aileron moves down to max position at 11º 20', the flettner is up 9º.
-
As I understood it the "Flettner Tabs" acted as posted above, in essence providing a 'boost' to pilot strength at high airspeeds.
Also, the K-4 could come equipped with an MG-151/20 in the nose instead of the Mk108. According to my books, the nose-mounted machineguns were Mg131's, never Mg151/15's.
I am also a 109 enthusiast, but I also don't really think we need a 109K4. Our 109G10 is a good representative of a late-war 109. I do think we could use a 109G14, but it can wait until the rest of the planeset gets filled out (I.E. early and late war Japanese, mid-war British, early war USAAF and USN, early war Soviet, and the Stuka :)).
Our 109G10 handles good enough at high speed, you just have to learn to compensate for the poor aileron control at high speed. If you want a REAL uber 109, you should ask for the K6. It had a nose mounted Mk108, 2 Mg131s, and 2 wingmounted Mk103s. Don't think it ever got much beyond the prototype stage though.
-
_____________________________ ______________________
Maybe they will give us a repainted G10 and tell you its a K4. You wont know the difference but you will feel better.
_____________________________ _______________________
^ Thats PONGOS input.
The LW engineers really pulled one over on the fuhrer eh
PONGO:D
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
___________________________________________________
Maybe they will give us a repainted G10 and tell you its a K4. You wont know the difference but you will feel better.
_____________________________ _______________________
I assure you that someone on this board would find a disparity and then cry foul even if the FM was exactly the same. (high drag paint or something).
-Sikboy
-
bah hblair! :)
the 109G-2 is a credible foe if flown correctly. The 109 G10 is for girly-men who base their manhood on the size of their extensions.
:cool:
-
I would like to see a G-14.
-
Thank You Porta :) In two years of bickering and squeaking on this board, your the first person to come forward and actually explain what a flettner tab actually is. Now, does anyone have any actual data on how effective they are? Also, its my understanding that G10's were mostly old aircraft remanufactured to K4 standards, why did the G10's not have the tabs, or do we know that they did not have the same control tabs for sure?
-
In theory, they could be fitted to any late 109 variant. There is a photo in "Messerschmitt Bf 109K Camouflage & Marking" that shows half-assembled G-10s in WNF from 613 xxx batch whose ailerons have flettner tabs.
OTOH, looks like a great number of K-4s didn't have such tabs.
Sorry, no data about perfomance hit.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
Caldwell, you seem to have a good library on 109's, do you have any information concerning the different control tabs on the K4 ? I keep hearing that they would improve high speed roll rates (but not even how effective they would be), but when I ask for information on this, no one can provide any. All I get is "well if they put them on, it must have been better", which I know from my experience in engineering is pure horsepucky.
Vermillion, read Porta's post on Flettner tabs - i couldn't have explained it better if I'd tried...
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
_____________________________ __________________
Maybe they will give us a repainted G10 and tell you its a K4. You wont know the difference but you will feel better.
_____________________________ _____________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assure you that someone on this board would find a disparity and then cry foul even if the FM was exactly the same. (high drag paint or something).
-Sikboy
I assure you that someone on this board would find a disparity and then cry foul even if the FM was exactly the same. (high drag paint or something).
-Sikboy
You have heard of sarcasm and irony, have you not? ;)
-
Originally posted by fats
Caldwell:
I recall reading somewhere that some of the first K-4s came with 20mm from the factory.
// fats
Some books state that the 1st K-4's out of the factory were equipped with MG 151/20s but I can't find any evidence that that ever occured.
-
Sheesh!
I explained flettner tabs a long time ago in another K4 thread.... :D
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
Thank You Porta :) In two years of bickering and squeaking on this board, your the first person to come forward and actually explain what a flettner tab actually is. Now, does anyone have any actual data on how effective they are? Also, its my understanding that G10's were mostly old aircraft remanufactured to K4 standards, why did the G10's not have the tabs, or do we know that they did not have the same control tabs for sure?
A not insignificant minority of K-4s did not use Flettner tabs, but from what I have read, most (that is over 50%) did.Don't forget that the K-4 also had geared elevator tabs - not just the ailerons.As far as why they weren't fitted to G-10's, I am not totally sure.
Plans were for the G-14 to also have geared tabs on both ailerons and elevators but, for some reason, they came off the production lines with geared tabs only on the elevators (the ailerons only had fixed trim tabs).This resulted in a very large disparity between the stick force that had to be applied by the pilot to move the elevators and ailerons.To put it at its most basic, the pilot could could move the stick back or down much more easily than he could left/right.
This lack of control harmony was simply too great and G-14s had their geared elevator tabs modified in the field so that they remained in a fixed position, thereby reinstating some measure of control harmony at the expense of ease of handling in the pitching plane.Why weren't the flettner tabs just applied to the ailerons to also improve handling in the rolling plane? To be truthful, I am not exactly sure, especially since most K-4s were equipped thusly.The same answer (or lack of it) applies as to why most G-10s weren't equipped with flettner tabs.
As far as what G-10s were made from, Manfred Griehl's book on the Bf 109G/K states that G-10s were made from the following components (recycled as much as possible from existing airframes but from newly manufactured parts when absolutely necessary):-
- External stores of the Bf 109G-14 or K-4
- Electrical system of the Bf 109G-5 (modified)
- Undercarriage of the Bf 109G-2 or K-4
- Radio installation of the Bf 109G-5
- MW 50 system of Bf 109G-6/R2 but with 115L MW tank
- Fuselage of the Bf 109G-6 or K-4
- Fixed armament from the Bf 109G-5
- Flying controls of the Bf 109G-2
- Wings of the Bf 109G-2, G-14, and K-4
- Powerplant of the K-4 (where possible)
-
Originally posted by hblair
I am a 109 fan. I have flown them since day 1 of this game. I love to fly the 109G10.
Having said all that, we need another 109 like we need a hole in our head. P40b, F4F, etc. etc. are much more important to the game right now IMO. I'd like to see the older (older as in older in this game) planes like the G10, P51D, 190A5 and 190A8, etc. get their cockpit art reworked before we get another 109.
Just my opinion of course. :)
I agree wholeheartedly with regards to what a/c we really need. Personally I'd like to see a P-40E rather than a B, though I agree the F4F is a necessary evil ;) .I'd personally also like to see more Jap a/c including, but not limited to, the Ki-44, Ki-84 (perked if necessary to quell the whining mob), and my personal favourite, the J2M (the J2M5 if possible), as well as the G4M2.I'd like to see 2 more Italian a/c as well - the G.55 and SM.79-II (yeah, I do believe pigs may be able to fly).
As far as the G-14 however, it would take very little work to bring to fruition, hb.The AH G-6 already uses the necessary 3D model.All we would need is a modified FM and a new camo scheme.For those who haven't noticed, the AH Gustav-6 uses the 3D model of the G-10 (if it was going to use an existing AH 3D model it should've been the G-2s) and simply adds breech-block humps as well as the angled rudder of earlier Gustavs whilst still (incorrectly) keeping the G-10s larger, tall tail which was used by all but the very earliest G-14s.
Still, I'd be happy to have the existing Bf 109's cockpit improved instead (both 3D and 2D art).For that matter, I'd like to see some of the existing 3D models reworked.Primarily the G-10 which seems to have a butt-ugly 4 polygon represantation of the asymmetric "refined" cowling carried by DB 605AS or DB 605D powered 109s (I'm not a big fan of WB3, but their K-4 cowling is 100% better).The G-6 should use the G-2's 3D model as a basis for its won model - not the G-10s.Finally, I'd like to see the AH 109s use an oil cooler of appropriate width.Look at the AH 109s from front on.The oil coolers are, for some reason, ridiculously narrow.Now if we could have those areas looked at rather than getting a new 109, I'd be elated.
Oops, suddenly reality just kicked in and I realised I'm prolly not going to get either :rolleyes:
-
I have been asking for those changes especially the 109 oil cooler width for over 6 months. :( PLEEZ HTC.
-
Originally posted by C_R_Caldwell
For those who haven't noticed, the AH Gustav-6 uses the 3D model of the G-10 (if it was going to use an existing AH 3D model it should've been the G-2s) and simply adds breech-block humps as well as the angled rudder of earlier Gustavs whilst still (incorrectly) keeping the G-10s larger, tall tail which was used by all but the very earliest G-14s.
Starting from early 1944 G-6s on the production line were fitted with those higher vertical stabs. They were also fitted to many G-6s during repairs.
About the Mg-151/20 in the K-4 issue. According to Jochen Prien and Peter Rodeike some K-4s were fitted with Mg-151/20.
These guys have done the latest study on the variants of 109 going though various archives and their book MESSERSCHMITT Bf 109 F, G, K Series An Illustrated Study is widely recognized as the most accurate study on the subject.
What comes to the facelift of the 109 3d models in AH. HTC has started redoing older models...they did the spitfires for 1.09 allready. Personally I think there's a good change of seeing updated 109s in 1.10.