Author Topic: Need BF 109 K4 (Read 2243 times)

Sikboy · « **Reply #120 on:** April 05, 2002, 01:27:21 PM »

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

Karaya · « **Reply #121 on:** April 05, 2002, 02:14:00 PM »

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.

Squire · « **Reply #122 on:** April 05, 2002, 03:02:42 PM »

I would like to see a G-14.

Vermillion · « **Reply #123 on:** April 05, 2002, 03:19:21 PM »

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?

Porta · « **Reply #124 on:** April 05, 2002, 06:17:55 PM »

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.

C_R_Caldwell · « **Reply #125 on:** April 05, 2002, 10:14:07 PM »

Quote

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...

C_R_Caldwell · « **Reply #126 on:** April 05, 2002, 10:19:12 PM »

Quote

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?

C_R_Caldwell · « **Reply #127 on:** April 05, 2002, 10:32:32 PM »

Quote

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.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #128 on:** April 05, 2002, 10:50:46 PM »

Sheesh!

I explained flettner tabs a long time ago in another K4 thread....

C_R_Caldwell · « **Reply #129 on:** April 05, 2002, 10:58:10 PM »

Quote

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)

C_R_Caldwell · « **Reply #130 on:** April 05, 2002, 11:22:00 PM »

Quote

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

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #131 on:** April 06, 2002, 02:49:41 AM »

I have been asking for those changes especially the 109 oil cooler width for over 6 months.

PLEEZ HTC.

Wmaker · « **Reply #132 on:** April 06, 2002, 11:06:08 AM »

Quote

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.