Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: DingHao2 on September 29, 2002, 09:51:37 PM
-
Is that Bf-109 "G-10" a G-10 or a K-4?? I notice it has a K-4 flight model, but a G-10 armament and model.
If it's a G-10, it should have a G-10 FM.
If it's a K-4, it should have a K-4 model and 2 MG 151/15's in the nose decking and an option of a Mk-108 or Mk-103 in the spinner.
Either way, it's about time to fix it.
-
The 109-K4 had 2 Mg131s in the nose just like every other 109. The myth of it having Mg151/15s in the nose is just that.
And actually, the G-10 production series was a program to bring older 109s up to K-4 standards, so it isn't really unusual that our G-10 would perform like a K-4.
-
How would you know it had a K-4 flight model. What are you basing this claim off of. Have you done tests? Where are they, and btw. Wrong forum.
-
"Warplanes of the Luftwaffe" (Aerospace Publishing London/AIRTime Publishing USA, ©1994, reprinted 1999) mentions the use of MG151/15's (15 mm cannons) in place of the MG 131's on the K-4. It also mentions the option of a Mk 103 or Mk 108 30mm cannon mounted in the spinner.
Here is the performance data for the AH Bf-109 G-10/K-4:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/models/charts/109g10speed.gif)
The K-4 had a top speed of 450 mph. The G-10 had a top speed of 429 mph. From the chart above, the AH 109 G-10/K-4 makes 450 mph. That makes the flight model a K-4 model.
The K-4's profile was different from the G-10's shape in that it had a slightly taller vertical stabilizer and a retractable tailwheel. In addition, it had a slightly smaller spinner and a slighty bulged nose to accomodate the MG 151/15's. The AH G-10 shape has none of these features, making it a G-10 shape instead of a K-4 shape.
In AH, there is no MG 151/15's replacing the MG 131's and no option of a Mk-103 to replace the Mk-108. This armament set makes it a G-10.
Oh, and sorry about the forum. I don't use the BBS too often.
-
it does 450 with WEP, and 429 without.
-
once again. there were no K4s with 151/15s. No 109 ever had a mk103 in the engine mount.
those are oft repeated errors.
If you saw a 151/15 beside a 131/13 you would see that no bulge would allow it to fit in the cowl of the 109. It would have to be on the pilots lap. The same is true of the 103. It is entirly larger then the 108 and cannot possible be fitted behind a db605 in the cockpit of the 109. The 108 itself had to have the control column wraped arround the breach to make it fit. there is not another inch for a bigger gun.
The late G10 with a db605D engine as depicted in the game has nearly identical performance to a db605d powered K4. The Db605as powered G10 has nearly identical performance to the Db605As powered early K4.
You need to find more detailed sources and more credible ones befor you decide how accuratly Pyro has modeled the Aircraft in the game.
-
Thanks Pongo :). I'm not real good at explaining the plane things. I have got a book called "Bf109 F,G, and K" by somebody or another that explains the different 109s really well.
The 109G-10 had quite a few different engines in it, because it wasnt a 'standard' production run out of factories like the other 109s. It was more of a 'refit' to older models to bring them up to K-4 Specs. The 109-G10 could have a number of different tail units and tail wheels and all kinds of other stuff. The 109G-10 that we have modelled is just the very best possible 109-G10.
-
As Urchin said, the G10 didn't just use one engine type, thus it didn't just have one speed. The speed printed in most books about the G10 is 429mph, which is true, but what they don't mention is another 10 or so different G10 sub versions (without any sub version numbers) also flew, it is one of these we have modelled. As for the Mk 103 cannon, there was no way a 109 could carry it unless it had been in underwing pods (which is highly unlikely).
Take a look at the Ta152, its engine compartment was lengthened by mre then 70 cm. This was mainly to fit the Jumo engine but to fit that engine they didn't need 70cm more. The reason they made it 70cm longer was that RLM had made a requirement to take either the Mk108 aswell as the Mk103.
The 109 was too small, too light, too short and too small engine compartment to take that big powerfull gun.
Same thing with the MG 151/15mm, they just didn't fit.
Another thing the K modells had was improved flight surfaces to alow it better high speed control, something our G10 doesn't have.
-
There was some very good discussion on this matter about 6~7 months back in the A/V forums, but the Search option is haywire and I can't seem to find the link to it.
However, what I remember from the discussion is:
1) The Bf109G-10 was intended from the first place to bring existing Bf109G-6 frames up to the planned Bf109K standards. Since the introduction of the K-4 was coming later than expected, the G-10 project was also delayed, and as a pinch hitter, the G-14 was conceived.
2) When Bf109G-10 project was in motion, in attempt to upgrade existing G-6s and G-14s up to K-4 standards, it used many variations of engines and modifications. Therefore, the characteristics of the Bf109G-10s varied upon which "base" it used.
3) So, what the AH community participating in the discussion seemed to generally agree on was that though no documented case exists, theoretically, there could have been a Bf109G-10 which performed almost on par with the Bf109K-4. Therefore, the Bf109G-10 in Aces High is to be considered as a hypothetical possibility, (as Urchin elaborately mentioned) "the very best possible" Bf109G-10.
....
However, it is also my understanding that in the first days of AH, the HTC staff were trying to have the least number of plane choices duplicating WB. Our 'hypothetical' Bf109G-10 was probably introduced as a means to introduce a high performing late-war Bf109 which wasn't a Bf109K-4.
Therefore, I agree on the general sense that this problem should be corrected, whether be it sooner or later.
Of the possibilities, I, with along many other Bf109 fans have suggested the introduction of either a Bf109G-14 or a Bf109G-14/AS. With minor corrections in FM and paint schemes, modelling, the Bf109G-10 should be redesignated as Bf109K-4 and perked. (And as an equivalent gesture, the RAF should receive a 1943~44 standard Spitfire lfMkIX - wing clipped, bubble canopied).
....
Of the MG151/15 installed at the cowls, I remember people identifying this problem as a mistake on the part of Mr. William Greene - from this point all the arguments for 15mm cowl guns on the K-4 originate.
-
Remember that discussion Kweassa, was good indeed and some it gave results, not jsut whine/flame fest.
Search engine doesn't seem to go that far back, or the post has been removed.
-
once again. there were no K4s with 151/15s. No 109 ever had a mk103 in the engine mount. those are oft repeated errors.
Given the German predilection for playing with the designs of aircraft, I'd be real leery of saying no 109 ever had a MK103 in the engine mount, or MG151/15s for cowl guns. No production aircraft, though, and therefore nothing that should be modelled in AH.
-
No 109 never (99.9% sure) had a Mk 103 in the engine mount, the engine mount would need to be extended quite a bit more to fit it. Take my example of the Ta152 in my previous post.
-
I wouldn't say MK103 never found a home from a Bf109 thought if it did then only in few prototypes.
K-6 with MK108 cannon
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/guns/bf109k6_guns.jpg)
K-8 with MK103 cannon
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/guns/bf109k8_guns.jpg)
Pic of Bf109K-4/R3. Looks like K-model sure doesn't have enough room for any MG151 cannons over the engine. IIRC some 109s had MG151 cannons in wings just like K-6 and K-8 could carry MK108.
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/guns/bf109k4r3.jpg)
-
MK103 in underwing installation in Hs129
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/guns/MK103.jpg)
-
Big a** guns, want it bad. Thus I want an Hs129, Me 410 and a He219 :)
Staga, was the K8 actually flown with a Mk 103 or were there just drawings of it?
-
what a sweet buff-hunter.. kabooom
-
PERK IT!!!
:D
-
Sweet buff hunter would be the He 219 or Me 410. Me 410 with 2xMg 151, 2xMk 103 and one 50 mm cannon.
Or the He219 with 2xMg151 and 4xMk 103 :)
-
Originally posted by Shiva
Given the German predilection for playing with the designs of aircraft, I'd be real leery of saying no 109 ever had a MK103 in the engine mount, or MG151/15s for cowl guns. No production aircraft, though, and therefore nothing that should be modelled in AH.
Granted.
But with just that drawing to go on. And looking at the engineering challenge to implement, with no record of one existing. why would we assume that it ever did?
But you are right. knitting two he111s together doesnt seem very likely either.
-
I had the great pleashure/discomfort and serious suffering, in handeling a MK 103. The local military Museum has a MK 103 amongst other aircraft cannon and I must say that thing is a freaking Beast.
-
I bet..not a compact little breach like the 108...look at the picture..a pilot is going to fly with that monster between his legs..not to mention the ammo is twice as long.
He wouldnt be able to push the stick forward at all.
-
IIRC 109s sticks movement was very short, something like 4-5 inches measured from handle so in halfway of the stick it would be something like 2 inches.
I wouldn't say pilot would be unable to push the stick.
Edit:
From Bf109.com:
"The designer has also penalized himself by the unusually small stick-top travel of four inches, giving a poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron."
From same source: Lenghts of the MG151 and MK103:
MG151/15: 193cm
MG151/20: 177cm
MK103: 235cm
And continues:
"Bf 109K-10 Represented a simple change in armament from the K-4, being fitted with a pair of fuselage-mounted MG 131 machine-guns and a nose-mounted MK 103M cannon. Also allowed for the R5 modification. There is considerable doubt whether a K-10 ever flew."
So what is that "M" letter after the cannon type ?
-
Pics from Finnish AF's Bf109G-6 cockpit:
http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/photo/planes/bf109/cockpit.html
(http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/photo/planes/bf109/mersu_ohjaamo2.jpg)
And another nice pic: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/photoreports/blenheim2001/mt018.jpg
-
Staga, believe the M after Mk 103 stands for Minengeschoss indicating that it carried Minengeschoss rounds shells only, no armor piercing.
-
From the information that I've seen over the years, and all the information presented in these discussions, the last production K model was the K4.
A few prototypes of the K6 (a few as in 2 or 3) were built, and anything after that was drawings and dreams.
-
Two K14 saw action Verm.
Wether this can be considerd to be production or not can be discussed though.
-
Not that I'm too picky ;) But I do have to laugh at situations like this.
It was the hard core Luftwaffe community that scream, yelled, gnashed their teeth, rent their clothing, and wailed like professional mourners, about the F4U-1C (200 aircraft) and the N1K2 (450 aircraft?). And how stupid it was to include them in the game because they were unrepresentative and therefore shouldn't have been modeled.
So then along came the Ta152H ( only 2 or 3 H1's) at 43 total aircraft, and now we get into discussions like this about 2 or 3 aircraft of odd varients of whichever 109 or 190 is the current object of lust ;)
Just pointing out the irony, not trying to rag on anyone in particular. :)
Realistically, and back to the point. IMO if it didn't serve in squadron level service it wasn't a production plane, it was a prototype, or maybe "pre-production" if you prefer that term.
-
I've never complained about the F4u 1C or the niki saying they shouldn't be in the game due to numbers. I mean NEVER EVER. I have said multiple times I wanted the F4u 1C perked and some time the Niki aswell. The niki after being fixed is, although it's chopper like, not worth perking.
The K14, saw combat, I haven't requested it to be added have I? Just said it saw combat. I'm not very interestead in it.
The Ta152 is definatly a plane worth adding, now if they could only fix it with the GM1 so it gets the 35k+ performance it should have I'd be very happy.
-
Verm
we are discussing whether the beasty existed. not whether is should be in the game. No agenda here. Just plane fans talking.
Look at stagas picture of the G6 cockpit. that is certainly the breach enclosure arround a mg151/20. a very compact weapon compared to almost any 20mm in existance at the time. Now look at that picture of the 103 slung under a wing. Where is that going to go? not in the little box that holds the 151/20, or a mk108.
If this was ever tried it was only to show that it was not practical. Its not the length of the barrel cause there is lots of blast tube length in the engine. Its the size of the breach. Mayby they had a differnt 103 that was more lightly built and only stressed for mine rounds not AP rounds. maybe that is possible But then we have to look at the ballistics of the gun and know it wont have the hispano like ballistics of the 103 we all read about.
What is a K14?
-
What does the P80 have to do with this? I haven't said the K14 should be in the game, I don't think it should and I DEFINATLY don't think the P80 should.
-
Didn't we do this thread about 100 times in the Aircraft forum? :D
DingHao, still confused?
-
But for the record. I never asked for the P-80 to be included either
Right back at me :D
-
Seriously, where did that info from the K14 come from?
Everything I've seen says that only two or three K6's were made and were the last of the line. And even those sources say that the existence of the K6's were potentially just myths.
-
The "M" most likely stands for "Motoren", indicating it was made to be mounted between the banks of engine cylinders. I've never seen a Mk103 referred to like this, but you'll see some cases of the MG-FF with this designator for the Bf109E-3. They were never able to eliminate vibration problems and this was not widely used in combat. (I think the maojority were removed in the field.) More commonly, you'll see the M designator at the end of the MG-FF to indicate as was posted earlier that they were redesigned to handle minengeschoss rounds. This involved some breech work and a different spring due to the lighter round weight.
-
I think your right.
-
Search in Google with words MK 103M brought up a link to Tony William's site about his books updates:
Chapter 5: Weapons for air fighting-> The German Arsenal
...MK 108 and 108A; MK 103 and 103M; BK 3.7..
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/rfweb.htm
-
mmkay.. (sp?)
Let me put that another way: Does anyone have that book?
-
Yes. At home. I think it says the engine mount 103 in a 109 is a fantasy. I will look tonight
-
While you're at it could you chect the penetration values for 37mm H Pzgr Patr FlaK 18 with tungsten core, the one used in Ju-87G if that book has anything about it.
Source I have gives pretty impressive penetration for that ammunition and I was wondering if that can be correct...
range 100m, impact in 90 degrees, penetr. 140mm
---------------------60-------------------68mm.
range 600m,--------- 90------------------95mm
---------------------60-------------------47mm.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
Seriously, where did that info from the K14 come from?
Everything I've seen says that only two or three K6's were made and were the last of the line. And even those sources say that the existence of the K6's were potentially just myths.
Don't have the source for this statement. But it has something about the possible K-14.
Here you go:
The last of the projeeted K variants - the Bf 109K-14 -was perceived at the turn of 1944/45. Its basis was the DB 605L powerplant with the MW device, although a decision was made in November 1944 not to produce this drive unit.
The reasons for this decision were not poor performances of the engine, but the lack ot Daimler-Benz assembly capacity. Their assembly line were fully charged with production of the DB 605A, AS, D and also DB 603 powerplants, the last one being supposed to be used in the new standard fighter of the Luftwaffe - the Ta-152C. Nevertheless, this did not obstruct the Bf 109K-14 development.
Its armament consisted ot three MK 108 cannons, two ot them wing-mounted the last one engine-mounted. and two MG 131 machine guns. The inner equipment corresponded with that of the Bf 109K-4s, but was being constantly improved, e.g. a gyrocompass was to be placed in the upper part ot the fifth section, the port wing leading edge contour was intermitted by a BSK 16 camera. It is believed that some of the proposed aerodynamic and construction improvements, demanded by the Rechlin Testing Centre already for Bt 109K-4s, might have been applied there.
The tests were condueted on DB 605L-powered Bf 109K-4s, a suitable airscrew was sought for in particular. The results favoured a four-blade realization, which was to become standard (probably the VDM 9-12199).
Serial produetion did not materialize, ot course, and an alleged assignment of two Bf 109K-14s to II/JG 52 is not confirmed by its commander Maj. W. Batz. He does not remember any four-blade propelled Bf 109Ks coming to his unit. There is a theoretieal possibility that in the end-of-war mess, prototypes came to operational units, when a testing airfield was used by such a unit. But these craft would not have been the Bf 109K-14s but DB 605L-powered Bf l09K-4s! We can find similar stories in the history ot Me 262, Fw 190D and Ta 152 as well, but we need not go so far for an example. The already mentioned Bf I09K-4. W. Nr. 330112 prototype with an atypical MG 151/20 in the engine was finally assigned to 11./JG 3 and ended its career in a belly landing on January 30, 1945, after its engine was hit north ot Friedeberg. The craft had to be condemned after the landing. At the time it carried a "Yellow 4" marking. In this context a testimony by Maj. Julio Maimberg, a II/JG 53 officer is very interesting.
At the turn ot February and March 1945 he was visited by a Daimler-Benz employee.
After an obvious chat on aircraft topics, the employee said they had a Bf 109 in Malmsheim, that had all possible improvements "from engine to cockpit". So, it was the best Bt 109 they had. Meimberg, ot course, wanted to try such a maehine. After a short talk the Daimler-Benz employee "presented" the Bf 109 to Meimberg. Ofhr. Severin, Meimberg's wingman, was to fly the aircraft from Malmsheim. He took off for the flight with the Bf 109 on March 11, 1945 but on his way he crashed into a slope near Geislingen and died.
The Bf 109 had serial number 331446, i.e. it was a Bf I09K-4. It is highly probable that the craft was a Bf 109K-14-adapted one since the improvements were said to have involved the engine as well, whieh could have ment installation of a DB 605L. One of the Bf 109K-14s seems to have crashed near Geislingen then. The Bf 109K-14 description coneludes the list ot anticipated Bf 109K variants.
Subsequently the Bf 109 did not continue to develop as a classical fighter, because Me 262s and Ta 152C,Hs were chosen as frontline fighters. The original 1935 airframe had reached the peak of development.
-
Wow, nice and interesting info :)
-
Thanks WMaker ! :) Nice Read.
So did I read it right to say that even the "two" K14's were most likely prototypes?
-
Yes Verm, I never sai dthey were production airplanes inmy other posts. Just that two saw action, prototypes or not. It is not sure they saw action though. I have read it in several different books but just like the Mk103 is could be from one source.
-
Ripsnort, I've been playing AH under various names (Speedy1, DocFalconer) since 1.04. I figure that if this issue has been around a while, why hasn't anything been done to fix it?
Now perhaps the data I have on the armaments is incorrect, but my book does state that the G-10 made 429 mph with MW-50 injection. The AH "G-10" makes 450 mph, but has a G-10 shape.
-
Because your book only has part of the data. There were several different engines used in the G10. With one engine (I'm too lazy to get up and go to my bookcase to pull out the reference) the maximum speed was 429mph. However the late model G10 used a different engine. Its top speed was 450-452 mph. This is the G10 we have in AH.
It doesn't need fixed, because it isn't broken.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
(I'm too lazy to get up and go to my bookcase to pull out the reference)
Don't you usually need sources?
-
Dinghao, it's been discussed many times before on this BBS, last time we did it our conclusions were we had one of the later G10's with better engine. G10's flew with many different engines.
-
I read Firepower last night and Tony has some good specutlation that I will put in here. The 103m is mentioned in detail and its use in a 109 is speculated at.(he thinks here may have been a prototype with the gun mounted...)
I will post what he says maybe tonight.
Get his book if you havent. excellent reference.
-
I just spent about 70-80$ for books today, have to wait few weeks :)