Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: giggy on January 02, 2003, 09:05:17 PM
-
Is there any chance of bringing in the 109-K series to AH? :D
-
GIGGY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D
The word around is that the G10 we have is actually a Ksomething... but I don't known much about 109s.
-
Giggy, our 109G-10 is a K-4 in all but name. Same engine and everything, even the guns.
-
Another one:D :D
-
Urchin, knowing that Hitech corrects it's mistakes. For the many times this subject have been brought up, if it has not been corrected yet, you guys are probably wrong.:confused:
-
Have to try that one again Frenchy, don't understand what you are trying to say bud.
-
If I understand HT's thoughts coming from :
152 thread (http://hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74243&pagenumber=2)
It looks like that they read the BBS. They don't answer/implement change if they think the "proof given" is incorrect. There have been many posts about the G10 being a K4. So if HT didn't changed it yet, it's probably because according to him, you are wrong. :)
Would that make more sense to you now?
-
Oh, yes, that makes more sense now.
However, the G-10 was basically not a 'production run' like say a 109F-4 or a 109G-2. The 109G-10 program took old, tired 109s, and retrofitted them with equipment to bring them to 109K-4 standards.
There were several varients of the 109G-10 (since the correct equipment wasn't always available to bring them to K-4 standards). Our "109G-10" is merely the best POSSIBLE retrofit, making it identical to a 109K-4 in all but name? Understand?
-
Hes saying our "g10" is if fact not a "k-4"
g10s were a mixed bag some were refitted g6s some were new some used different eng etc......
109g6asm should be the preferred lw choice for a 109. It would fill the gap between our current g6 and the g10.
But the lw planeset is pretty full. Theres certainly no need for any more "wunderwaffe" planes.
The k-4 has its place but given that other countries lack some pretty basic planes one would hope that they would get attention 1st.
VVS
IJA/N
RAF
Italy
France
US (more early war variants of most of the us set: p38s, p47s, p39s, etc)
Then fill out the german set
109e7b, 109f2 (these two will be needed if early eastfront is developed; plus they have a use in NA) finally 109g6 or g14/asm
190a1 190a2 190a3 190a4 190a6 190a7 190a9 190g3/8 :)
-
simply, we cannot have all version of all airplanes used in ww2........................ yeat
It will be great for SE to have all, but now /like Wotan type/ AH need to add more early planes from oher countries. To make game more historical correct /special events i mean/.
Other reason is /imho/ we dont need every version of airplane in AH. Bicose diferences between som versions of airplanes are really small from gameplay point of view
Im sure another version of 109 is not on next update list
ramzey
-
Hehehe, this subject have been brought up alot of times.
What the G10 is, is a G10 with very high performance making it as good as a K4. The K4 was it's own production plane though while the G10 was a plane that, depending from plane to plane had many different engines.
Not sure if the K4 had some refined aerodynamics aswell, think it's been said that it handeled high speed better but not sure about it.
-
Hi Wilbus,
>Not sure if the K4 had some refined aerodynamics aswell, think it's been said that it handeled high speed better but not sure about it.
A Me 109K-4 with all the improvements featured:
- complete gear well cover
- a fully retractable tail wheel with complete covers
- Flettner-assisted ailerons.
As far as I know, no Me 109G-10 had these features, so the K-4 would have been superior in direct comparison even on the same engine.
However, servicability problems sometimes meant that the independend gear doors were removed, and leaking hydraulics could lead to locking the tail wheel down as a quick fix.
Still, the Me 109G-10 is not the same as the Me 109K-4.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hey HoHun!
Long time no see! When are you going to start flying again bro??
See yas around!
-
I've always wondered,
just what exactly is a "Flettner Tab" ?
How does it effect a plane, and by how much?
-
From what I've heard the biggest gain from having a 109k over a g-10 would be improved roll rates at high speeds (due to the aileron improvement), and a mk103 centerline gun option. A Ta-152 with a mk103 would rock too.
-
Hi Kweassa,
>just what exactly is a "Flettner Tab" ?
A Flettner tab is an auxiliary control surface. Control inputs deflect the the Flettner tab, creating a force that assists in moving the primary control surface.
The amount of assistance depends on the exact design of the control linkage. In the extreme, it's possible to have no linkage to the primary surface at all - the entire control force is generated by the Flettner tab then. (Shorts actually built some flying boats that way.)
How the Flettner tab works is easy to understand if you see its initial implementations - it was just a small wing suspended rigidly from the primary control surface and riding right behind it.
With a Fletter-assisted rudder, when the pilot pushed the right pedal, the Flettner tab would be deflected to the left. As the Flettner tab was a little wing, it would aerodynamically create a force to the right. Since it was connected rigidly to the main rudder, this force would deflect the main rudder to the right - the direction desired by the pilot.
Flettner tabs were used because they made it possible to create much larger control forces than human strength could provide. Without force assistance, it would have been necessary to reduce the stability of large aircraft to get low control forces, which was not a way of designing safe aircraft :-)
Stability was the reason for not always relying on the Flettner tabs alone. Balanced controls were fine, but if the control forces became too small, oscillations or loss of control could result when aerodynamic forces became strong enough to move them against the will of the pilot.
The inventor Anton Flettner had a nautic background, and the Flettner rudder was employed with ships as well as with aircraft (starting in the 1920s). Among his other inventions was the Flettner rotor ship which used large upright rotating cylinders as sails (which, unlike often stated, worked perfectly). Flettner also contributed to the development of practical helicopters, designing the Fl 282 and Fl 285 Kolibri observation helos for the Luftwaffe and working on a large transport helo at the end of the war.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Rollio
From what I've heard the biggest gain from having a 109k over a g-10 would be improved roll rates at high speeds (due to the aileron improvement), and a mk103 centerline gun option. A Ta-152 with a mk103 would rock too.
Are you sure about that MK103?;) The MK103M(??) was tried. Note, the MG151 was supposed to be there according to some authors.
-
Hi Milo,
>Are you sure about that MK103?;) The MK103M(??) was tried. Note, the MG151 was supposed to be there according to some authors.
The MK103 was the desired weapon for the Me 109K, but it had to be re-designed to fit between the cylinder banks of the Me 109's engine which wasn't finished in time for production.
The MG151/20 certainly was not used in the Me 109K-4, though the normal gondola cannon Rüstsatz was available for the Me 109K as well, for some reason under the R4 designation.
The planned Me 109K-6 would have had an integral 30 mm MK108 in each wing. The Luftwaffe at first planned bomber destroyer units to have the Me 109K-4/R6 (referring to the gondola cannon Rüstsatz which was R6 for the Gustav), but later dropped them in favour of the Me 109K-6 which was never built.
In late 1944 and early 1945, the K-6's cannon wings were tested at Tarnewitz on an old G-6 airframe, and the Messerschmitt factory at Wiener Neustadt was scheduled to produce the K-6, but the war ended before it came to that.
The cannon wing would have been able to take two MG151/20 instead of the MK108 (which probably gave birth to the popular myth of the K-4's cowl MG151s), but it seems this variant existed on the drawing board only.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
The Rodeike book says few K-4 were delivered with MG 151/20. No idea what's their source on that.
// fats
-
Henning, yes I know all that;) but thanks. I believe it was Green who started the myth of the K-4 with the fuselage weapons mentioned as standard.
-
The K series 109 was agreat dissappointment to those who flew it, it had serious handling issues at high altitude. Somewhere here I posted a little clip on one flight where a JG26 pilot had to bail (from 30k) and then listen as all three other members of his flight augered in from 30k due to same problem. The 109G10 AH has was the final model which had the engine upgrade minus the specific hi alt modifications which caused the problems...only thing I think would be nice is a K14 (I think) with the buble canopy.