Nevermind

[Bruno]

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.

No they didn't have the same air frames. There are clear visible differences. They all had MG131 feed chutes. The bulges disappeared because they had to do something about the larger supercharger on the DB605D and AS engines. That's why the cowl was re-designed...

You stated:

I'm fairly sure the K had gondolas, as it was just an improved version of the G14

Anyway you try to twist that its untrue...

[Krusty]

Wait, I think I'm mis understanding.....


There's the plane. There's the bomb rack. The bomb rack can hold a bomb, an adapter, or a drop tank.

The adapter can hold 4x50kg bombs.

The "bomb rack" is called ETC50, is what I thought. The "adapter" was something else entirely. The "bomb rack" can hold a 250kg, a 500kg, or an adapter with 4x50kg, or a DT.

I'm thinking of a tear-shaped bomb rack that sits flush with the belly of the 109 and minimizes drag underneath the plane.

[Bruno]

ust on an off topic historical note, I would have been quite surprised to hear JG 26 using that option for the 109Ks very often,

They hated them and took umm off..

[Bruno]

Wait, I think I'm mis understanding.....

Or I misundestood you, but either way I am off to bed...

No biggie, Pyro will figure it out...

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Bruno
No they didn't have the same air frames. There are clear visible differences.

What differences? Please, tell me. Antenna don't count, as they're external. Really, what chances do you see in the air frame? They used the exact same production line. The exact same parts for G6/G14s. They literally took existing air frames and stuck a MW system inside them (there was a sub production line, but it didn't make new stuff, just took existing stuff and put extra pipes in).

They all had MG131 feed chutes. The bulges disappeared because they had to do something about the larger supercharger on the DB605D and AS engines. That's why the cowl was re-designed...[/b]

That's what I said.

Anyway you try to twist that its untrue... [/B]

I don't see how. I'm not twisting anything. The K4 had the SAME freakin' airframe as the G6, G14, and G10. The aircraft did not change in any way except forward of the firewall. I'm not sure why all the sudden anxiety over a simple comment I made.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Bruno
They hated them and took umm off..

Hrm.. hey bruno! Do you have any sources on that? That might solve the problem! If you read a book or something and it said this, then that means they had them taken off. Which means that K4s had them in the first place (for them to be taken off).

[Meyer]

The Kurfurst was different internally... some things were moved in the fuselage.
Also you have a different armament, retractable tailwheel, cover for the main gear, different cockpit instrumentation, some modifications in the control surfaces etc...

About the RIV option, the Japo says that the only known case was with the III/JG26 in nov/dec 44.... but only if those weren't actually G10/U4

[GRUNHERZ]

Bf109G6 and G14 should most certainly keep the 30mm MK108 as an option in addition to the MG151/20.  

The K4 only had the 30mm engine canon, btw the 30mm installation on K4 was different than on G series. K4 ejected spent 30mm cases from under the center of the wing while G series with 30mm did not have shell ejection.

G2, G4, G6, G14, and K4 all had 20mm gondola.

Gondolas on 109F, that I'm not so sure of.

Some ground attack 109s had the 4 x 50kg bomb rack. I think even  the E model may have used that too.

The little butterfly bombs wouldb be an awesome touch.

Pyro since you are asking about 109s, may I suggest that the new Bf109G6 get the clear glass rear head armor with its early style canopy. This was quite common on G6 and it would be a nice differentiator from the G2.

[butch2k]

Late G-6/G-14 did not use the same airframe as the K-4 !!!

Part                                G-14           K-4
Rumpfwerk                     109F108   109F144
Tragwerk links                109F58   109F541/109F542
Tragwerk rechts             109F59   109F542/109F543
Triebwerk                       109F67   109F620/109F623

According to Dec. 44 manufacturing part references.

The "Abwurfwaffen - Einbau für ETC 4 x 50" Part number 109.853 was standard for Gustav but its use seems to have been dropped by 1945 as no 1945 production doc mentions them anymore.

The 209.952/209.953 left/right gondolas parts were available from F4/R1 hence, same stuff was used all war long.

[justin_g]

Originally posted by 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.

No, of course the extra ~400lbs of cannons + ammo added to a 4-cannon Spitfire makes no difference to performance!!

[Charge]

I don't see any sensible use for ETC50 or for the "bomblets".

-C+

[Crumpp]

I don't see any sensible use for ETC50 or for the "bomblets".

For the ETC 50 I would agree.  

However the SD-2 (AP) and the SD-4 (AT) along with the AB250 container give the Luftwaffe their historical tactical support mainstay.

Panzerblitz rockets are a late war development.  The AB250 and AB500 container's gave the Luftwaffe the same capability of an area effect weapon to repel infantry and armour throughout the war.

While the Bf-109 was restricted to the AB250 container in 1942, IIRC, the FW190 series used both.

The ETC 500 rack was capable of loading 500kg bombs but the Bf-109 did not have the ground clearence to carry them safely.  IIRC a variety of measures were tried to adopt the plane.

G2, G4, G6, G14, and K4 all had 20mm gondola.

Not claiming to be a Bf-109 expert but I do have some information for the "great 109K gondola debate":



Rüstzüstand kits changed designations during the Bf109K4 service life.

Bf-109K4/R4 - Heavy fighter with 2 underwing MG151/20 cannon.

Was changed in November 1944 to:

Bf-109K4/R5 - Heeavy fighter with 2 underwing Mg151/20 cannon.

Perhaps Butch2K can add to this.

All the best,

Crumpp

[1K3]

A 109F-4 with no gondolas would be a nice differentiator from the Gs (game wise)

[Squire]

Its true that the Spit Vc with the 4 cannons also had extra weight, and drag, thats inevitable. As was the case with the 109F-4/R6 it was not well thought of as a fighter but more of a ground attack a/c. The 4x 20mm cannon option on the Malta Spits were commonly changed over to 2 x 20mm and 4 303s there as they were used as interceptors.

As for the 109K-4/R? I still think they were rarer than the other /R6 varients used by the LW...but it will be PYROs call.

[Crumpp]

Its true that the Spit Vc with the 4 cannons also had extra weight, and drag, thats inevitable. As was the case with the 109F-4/R6 it was not well thought of as a fighter but more of a ground attack a/c.

Off topic, but what is up with the Hurricane II?  Turns like a Zeke, armoured like a tank, surprisingly fast in a dive, and armed with XM9 space modulator laser beam refractor.....

If our Hurri II is an accurate simulation, the RAF was stupid for ever removing that one off the fighter dockets!!

I get the feeling it is another design that paid the price of heavier armament than it's designers intended.

Ok, back on topic....

Sorry for the rant.

All the best,

Crumpp