Nevermind

[1K3]

Originally posted by Squire
Well, if your going by common wartime service I would go with something like this:

Gondolas for 109G-2, 109G-6 and 109G-14. Common service.

Air to air Mortars for 109G-6 and 109G-14 as well. Common service.

No gondos for the 109F-4 as its in the same category as the Spitfire Vs 4 x 20mm. Room for lots of abuse where few saw service, for both types.

No gondos for the 109K-4 as it didnt carry them.

Although the 109E-4/b was not a common BoB varient, it may be a usefull option to have the ETC 50 rack, for setups where you want a 109E fighter-bomber (say N. Africa)...

All the 109s after the E-4 should have a Drop Tank option of course, and a wide range of LW bombs should be given for the types that could carry them in centerline racks (109F-109K inclusive).

***************************

If your going by "here is my extensive list of every available option" I will leave that to the others.

are you sure about 109K-4 did not have that option?

i wonder if the real pilots of 109K actually shot down anything... with just 2 peas (MG 131) and a potato (MK 108)!

i totally agree that 109F-4 should not have GONDOLAS.  The 109s started installing GONDOLAS when USAAF heavy bombers and Russian IL-2 Flying Tanks appeared in great numbers.

[Krusty]

I'm fairly sure the K had gondolas, as it was just an improved version of the G14 (the rest of it was nearly identical, including wing)

[Squire]

(Disclaimer), Im not the resident 109 expert, and I make no such pretensions.

...but im fairly certain only the 109K-6 had a gondola option...and im not even certain any actually saw combat. Most references I have seen indicate only the 109K-2 and 109K-4 actually saw service. Even if a 109K-6 did see action, are there  any pics or refs of one with the gondolas? I think it was a very rare bird.

Did a 109K ever fly with them? probably, but I think the inclusion as a common wartime varient should be a higher yardstick than that.

...and just for the record, I voted "No" to the Spits 4 x 20mm cannons, and I also asked for the Spit F IXs .50s to be removed, before im accused of being some LW hater or something. There was a thread talking about the 2 x 20mm and 4 x 50s option for the F6F Hellcat, and I said no to that too, for the same reasons as above. Too rare, too much room for abuse.

[Krusty]

Also consider that just because it was a K-4 doesn't mean it was special for the LW pilots. They used it for whatever was needed. They used K-4s for Jabo.

I doubt they "never" used the gondolas.

[1K3]

CC, no GONDOS for 109F-4s.  A 109F-4 with GONDOLAS is like having a spitfire 5 with 4x 20mm options:)  Both 109F4 and Spit 5 with these kinds of armament options were rare.

Spit fans voted NO for 4x 20mm cannon for Spit 5 and favored to remove .50 cals, rockets, and bombs on early spit 9 (early spit 9s did not carry ground weapons and 50 cals).  IMO its time for 109 fans to agree on removeing GONDOLAS for 109F-4.  It's just a small sacrifice

[Krusty]

A 109F with gondolas is not in the least like a spitV. Gondolas restrict roll rate severly, hinder climb rate by a large margine, reduce top speed (on a SLOW plane already, it can matter) and all in all make the 109F a very sluggish and "poor" fighter. A SpitV with 4x20mms would lose nothing. The 109F with gondolas loses a lot.

There's a BIG difference between the two concepts, in my opinion.

I don't use them that often on the F. But I do use 'em once in a while. I don't see how there's some mad epidemic going around where 100% of the Fs flown are flown with gondolas. Most I've ever seen tend to leave gondolas behind.

[Bruno]

I'm fairly sure the K had gondolas, as it was just an improved version of the G14 (the rest of it was nearly identical, including wing)

The K-4 has nothing to do with a G-14 and it certainly isn't an 'improved G-14'.

The 4-bomb adapter may not have been too common, but from my understanding the ETC 50 belly rack was standard for all belly mountings, be they DTs or bombs. (That's what I understood, at any rate).

No the ETC 50 was not a standard bomb rack for all under belly ordnance on the 109. What do think the 50 means in ETC 50? How about the 250 in the ETC 250 etc..?

Squire,

but im fairly certain only the 109K-6 had a gondola option...

You mean G-6? Yes G-6s had the gondola option, so did the G-2, G-14, G-10 and the K-4. Have you read Caldwell's JG26 book? It mentions JG26 receiving K-4s with gondolas. Gondolas could be fit on all the Gustavs and the K-4. I just have never seen an image of them on a G-14 but I don't see any technical reason why they couldn't have them. The F-4/R1 as Butch said had a different wing and was very rare.

If you meant the K-6 it never saw production...

So all Gustavs and K-4 should have the gondola option.

The F-4 should have no gondola option.

No 3cm option for the G-6 (unless of course at some points there is a CM tool that allows them to restrict/allow certain load outs).

3cm option for the G-14.

The K-4 only gets 3cm.

The E-4 in AH can already carry bombs, adding a 4 x 50kg option won't make any difference in terms of game play. In fact can anyone state a use for 50kg bombs in AH? They are even useless on the F-8. In IL2 they are usefull given the wider array of ground targets.

Also, some E-4s were altered to E-7 standards and able to carry DTs... But that's not much of a concern either.

Charge,

Im not at all sure about that. The 30mm is a rather hard gun to master and I usually prefer 1 or 3 20mms over it.

The 3cm in AH is easy for me and most others I know who flew the G-6 regularly in AH. I flew the G-6 for years in AH and preferred as a dog fighter over the G-10. My lifetime KD is probably 5 or 6 to 1 in it. I only ever took 3cm.

As I said if the CMs are given the tools to regulate particular load outs then it doesn't matter. However, it would completely unfair to the allies in '43 to have large numbers of G-6s tooling about with 3cm. In the main, who cares but I am concerned about events, scenarios, ToD and the CT etc...

Editorial,

Talk about confusing the issues here, some of you really have no clue as to what you are posting about. I am no experte by any means and I will certainly defer to those more qualified but it sure sseems like ome folks just post for postings sake...

[Squire]

Bruno, I was commenting on the various versions.

In regards to the 109K specifically, I have only seen references to a 109K-6 as having "kanoneboot" gondolas, not the 109K-4. I have never seen any pics or docs reffering to 109Ks actually using gondos in WW2, but like I say if somebody has some good info, fire away. I admitt I could be wrong. If what you say is correct in that only the 109K-4 saw service then I think you guys need to be sure it was a real varient that was actually used (109K-4/R6 or whatever it was called).

The 109G-6 obviously had them, and the mortar bombs as well. It was a very common type of 109G-6 in 1944.

"No the ETC 50 was not a standard bomb rack for all under belly ordnance on the 109"

I will take your word on that.

I think PYRO was asking for some historical justification regarding the various field kits for the 109s, if I read the intent of his Q correctly.

"but I am concerned about events, scenarios, ToD and the CT etc..."

Yup, me 2.

[Bruno]

No the ETC 50 was not a standard bomb rack for all under belly ordnance on the 109

That was directed at Krusty who said:

from my understanding the ETC 50 belly rack was standard for all belly mountings,

The number 50 on the end tells us something...

In reference to the K-4 / K-6.

We need not worry about the K-6. However, the K-4 definitely could carry gondolas and did... If you read Caldwell's JG26 you will see that when JG26 first received K-4s they came with gondolas.

[Meyer]

Originally posted by Squire
Bruno, I was commenting on the various versions.

In regards to the 109K specifically, I have only seen references to a 109K-6 as having "kanoneboot" gondolas, not the 109K-4..

Actually, the K-6 could not carry gondolas,but  it didn't need to, as it had wing integrated Mk108s

The gondola option is listed in the K-4 manual, but how widely was used i have no idea.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Bruno
The K-4 has nothing to do with a G-14 and it certainly isn't an 'improved G-14'.

Bruno... The G14 was the standardization of all the G-6 variants and late G's. From that (directly from that) comes the G10/K4, both having the SAME wing as the G14. So yes, the K4 does come directly from the G14.

No the ETC 50 was not a standard bomb rack for all under belly ordnance on the 109. What do think the 50 means in ETC 50? How about the 250 in the ETC 250 etc..?
[/b]

It's the model number of the rack, NOT the weight the rack carried. When you say SC50, that's a 50kg bomb. The ETC50 is a rack that can hold various weights. The 190 has an ETC508 rack. Doesn't mean it can only hold a 508kg bomb (odd number, that).

No 3cm option for the G-6 (unless of course at some points there is a CM tool that allows them to restrict/allow certain load outs).[/b]

Have to disagree there. That'd be like saying "No light loadouts for the P47s" or "No 2-gun option for the P51D" -- it was very common. It's not supposed to reflect on-the-spot field swapping, it's supposed to reflect the numerous planes that had it, and at any given airfield you could walk to plane "A" if you wanted 20mm or walk to plane "B" if you wanted 30mm (hypothetically).

[Bruno]

Bruno... The G14 was the standardization of all the G-6 variants and late G's. From that (directly from that) comes the G10/K4, both having the SAME wing as the G14. So yes, the K4 does come directly from the G14.

No it wasn't:

The G-14 was the evolution of G-6 with DB605A with MW-50.

The G-10 was produced alongside the G-14 as an evolution of the G-6 with DB605D and MW-50.

The K-4 doesn't come directly from the G-10 or G-14. The G-10 was supposed to be a stop gap while the K-4 production was run up. Problems with DB605D delayed the G-10 and thus both the K-4 and G-10 entered service about the same time (Oct '44).

The G-14 had little to do with K-4 development.

[Squire]

Thats cool, if its in that book like you say I am satisifed with that. There were many options envisioned for LW a/c that never saw the light of day...so one has to be carefull.

Just on an off topic historical note, I would have been quite surprised to hear JG 26 using that option for the 109Ks very often, I think the tradeoff in performance would not be worth it in 1945...I would have left the "formation destroyers" to the Fw190A-8s and 109G-14s. Screwing gondolas on a 109K-4 is counter productive imho. Same as with a Fw190D-9, even if they came with an option like that, why would you want to?

[Krusty]

Semantics Bruno. The G14 (essentially a G6 with a standardized name) and a G10 and a K4 (K4s being almost identical to late G10s) all share the exact same airframes, tails, fuselages, cockpits, wings. The only difference is the engine and in some cases the MG131 feed chute bulges.

That was my point. They're all the same. They all have the same parts. Including the wings and the ability to mount gondolas (which was why I said it, being this is a thread about 109 armament and all).

[Bruno]

It's the model number of the rack, NOT the weight the rack carried. When you say SC50, that's a 50kg bomb. The ETC50 is a rack that can hold various weights. The 190 has an ETC508 rack. Doesn't mean it can only hold a 508kg bomb (odd number, that).

an ETC 50 carried 50 kgs (or see Kurfurst's post), a ETC 250 250 kgs etc..

The 190As used a ETC 501 which could carry up to a 500kg bomb (or 250kg or dt etc..)

Question for the experts...

Could the ETC 250 carry 4 x 50kgs or would that be a  ETC 50VIIB? Or both?