Bf 109G-14

[Kweassa]

From top to bottom: early version G-14, latter version G-14, G-14/AS(early version), G-14/AS(latter version)


 If we can have a G-14 to fill the gap between a normal G-6 and a G-10, which one would be good? The early version G-14 with the bumps but with out the Galland haube seems nice to me. It does about 412mph at 16,500 ft alt, which would be a bit better match up against planes like Spit9 than G-6, which is currently admittably outclassed.

 The G-14/AS, is a lot closer to our G-10 in performance, about 421mph top speed, but this seems inappropriate.
 

[ 12-25-2001: Message edited by: Kweassa ]

[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Kweassa ]

[Wotan]

we absolutely need this plane. It closes the gap between the g6 and the g10.

Piss on a 109k. give us a g14

even though there are bigger holes to fill in other plansets the g14 is what i want and i'm biased so what  

[Urchin]

I'd guess it is about as likely we'll get a different varient of the 109 as it is that pigs will be taking off around the globe.

[Vermillion]

Actually I wish Pyro would give our G6, MW50, which would fill that niche in performance between the G2 and the G10 nicely. Whereas right now its bellybutton backwards.

[HoHun]

Hi Kweassa,

according to Manfred Griehl, the Me 109G-14 closed a small gap, the first G-14 examples being delivered in June 1944, and the first G-10 and K-14 being delivered around October 1944.

Since the first G-10 examples were delivered with DB605AS, too, as the DB605D wasn't available in sufficient numbers yet, I think the gap-closing G-14 would be the G-14/AS anyway.

It's my impression that the G-10 and G-14 should have very similar performance when equipped with the same engine model, anyway. A difference could result if the G-14 were not equipped with MW50: According to Griehl, MW50 was standard for the DB605DC-equipped G-10.

I think Vermillion's suggestion of an MW50-eqipped Me 109G-6 would close a larger gap, though :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[whels]

Originally posted by HoHun:
Hi Kweassa,

according to Manfred Griehl, the Me 109G-14 closed a small gap, the first G-14 examples being delivered in June 1944, and the first G-10 and K-14 being delivered around October 1944.

Since the first G-10 examples were delivered with DB605AS, too, as the DB605D wasn't available in sufficient numbers yet, I think the gap-closing G-14 would be the G-14/AS anyway.

It's my impression that the G-10 and G-14 should have very similar performance when equipped with the same engine model, anyway. A difference could result if the G-14 were not equipped with MW50: According to Griehl, MW50 was standard for the DB605DC-equipped G-10.

I think Vermillion's suggestion of an MW50-eqipped Me 109G-6 would close a larger gap, though :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

I  am all for MW50, and GM1 weps when HT can or does model a tank with a certain minute
capasity. when u use it up(tied to fuel multiplier)  to get that wep back u would need to either rearm or replane.

whels

[SageFIN]

Introducing G14 would fill the gap between G2 and G10 but would leave G6 useless. I like Vermillion's idea better. Adjusting the FM would also probably be easier than doing an altogether new plane. Also, IIRC the paint scheme already represents a plane equipped with MW50?

[GRUNHERZ]

A G6 with MW50 would be nice, in fact I beove that our G6 in AH had MW50 in RL,  plus it may actually be a G14, but thats up to debate.

[Wotan]

the g6 we have now I believe should have mw50 but even if we keep as it is the g14 would not make it useless . The 109f gets use so does the g2 as does the g6 now.

The g6 in ah is a good fun ride that wont change with a g6 with mw50 or a g14.

[Kweassa]

Isn't our 109G-6 paint scheme that of Erich Hartmann's G-14? I tried searching for some of the examples that match the scheme of our Bf 109G-6, but I couldn't find any image on a G6 that exactly matches our one. Hartmann's unqiue paint scheme on the cowling part(the spikes) can be found in number of crafts Hartmann used from G-6 to G-14,but generally, a G-14 paint scheme I have dug up matches ours best.


 Compare:


 


 

Erich Hartmann, Bf 109G-14/AM

 ...

 any other opinions?

[GRUNHERZ]

Thats the plane though I have seen it depicted as a G6 (std tail) as well.

[rammjagr]

Yes, I was thinking this the other day, the G-14 was the main 109 variant in 1944 and 1945. I want it :-) would be cool :-)

of course any 109 with MW50 would be nice, why is Mw50 not available in WB ? ? will the sissy fire pilots complain?  

[Vermillion]

Ummmm.... the AH 109G10 already has MW50

[Karnak]

Originally posted by rammjagr:
of course any 109 with MW50 would be nice, why is Mw50 not available in WB ? ? will the sissy fire pilots complain?  

That's rather insulting, considering that none of us have ever complained about the G-10's MW50, or the Fw190D-9's for that matter, and the vast amount of complaining don by Luftwaffe fans whenever a post 1942 Spit is requested.  Not only is that insulting, it is also extremely arrogant.

For the record, I would like to see a G-6 with MW50 in AH.  And that is from a "Sissyfire" driver.

[Kweassa]

I tried searching for some more data on the internet. It seems like there are two paint schemes for the 109 Erich Hartmann used which is almost identical to our 109G-6.

 The image I have put up previously is a 109G-14/AM, and there is a paint scheme that is exactly the same:

 

 This aircraft has the caption
 
 "Bf 109G-6 7/JG52 Staffelkapitan Erich Hartmann"

 I guess our G-6 scheme IS the scheme of G-6 after all...

 Any more info on this?