The K4 and gun pods

[Krusty]

No, it wouldn't. It would be a waste. A G-6/AS would nice. A G-10 would be redundant and people that have been crying for one for the past years would only complain that it's not as good as a K-4, and they want the G10 they used to have -- when they never had one and their memories are all based off the performance of a totally different variant.

[Tank-Ace]

You're an idiot Krusty. It's not an either-or situation, and it's not a waste if it's fun and legitimately adds to the game.

 A G-10 would be damn near the only 109 I would use if we had it. I suspect a good many would use it as well, even if you wouldn't.

[Krusty]

I'm afraid you're ignorant of the issues, tank-ace. And calling me an idiot doesn't change that.

No, a G-10 would not be a good idea, because what you THINK of as a G-10 is not what you'd get. What you want and what you are calling a G-10 would much more closely resemble a G-6/AS, and this would also fill a large planeset hole in the game that ranges from 1943 until the beginning of 1945.

I have no doubt if we got this G-6/AS, many folks like yourselves would fly it exclusively amongst 109 variants. All the weapons options of a G-6 (including 30mm), the high-alt supercharger of a K-4, and in service years before a "real" G-10.

[Butcher]

A G-10 would still be nice.

Why? as Krusty just pointed out it serves no purpose and it fills no gap in the game. I would much rather see 106/AS added instead, even 109g2/as

[Krusty]

Not sure about G-2/AS and whether that actually existed.

[Karnak]

G-6/AS would be my pick, but G-14/AS wouldn't be bad to have either.

[BaldEagl]

Finally, I've already told you they are de facto requirements, you senile twit.

You're an idiot Krusty.

How to make friends and influence people.   

[Tank-Ace]

How to make friends and influence people.   

More flys with honey? Perhaps you have a point with morfiend; he has just seemed grumpy with me lately, and this has been an ongoing discussion. I just lost my temper a bit.

However I emphatically don't want to catch Krusty. He had the same value to me regardless of if he's pissed or amiable. And this way I don't have to keep cool when he's exposing his ignorance.

[Tank-Ace]

I'm afraid you're ignorant of the issues, tank-ace. And calling me an idiot doesn't change that.

You go on to prove you have literally no clue later in this post. You are, in fact, an idiot

No, a G-10 would not be a good idea, because what you THINK of as a G-10 is not what you'd get. What you want and what you are calling a G-10 would much more closely resemble a G-6/AS, and this would also fill a large planeset hole in the game that ranges from 1943 until the beginning of 1945.

I have no doubt if we got this G-6/AS, many folks like yourselves would fly it exclusively amongst 109 variants. All the weapons options of a G-6 (including 30mm), the high-alt supercharger of a K-4, and in service years before a "real" G-10.

I wasn't here for the faux G-10. I want it based on its paper stats, not because I think it will be a K4 with a 20mm. How you think you can see into my motivation, I'll never know, but wherever you draw your conclusions from, they're about as wrong as they can be.


I rarely fly over 10K. I value the high altitude performance very little, save in special events. Thus I want low altitude performance more than I want high altitude performance in the MA.

Do I want a G-10? Yes. do I want a G-10 instead of a G-6/AS or - 14/AS? No, and that's what you seem not to understand.

[Zacherof]

Thanks for answering my questions guys

[Gman]

Notice I said "our G10" not "the G10" - but thanks for the lecture Krusty, I've not heard it in about a year, and it's good to repeat things every now and then just to make sure nobody missed anything.

[jeffdn]

G-6/AS would be my pick, but G-14/AS wouldn't be bad to have either.

Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top? 

[Denniss]

As for the G10,it was made of leftover and repaired G6 and G14's that they put the motor from the K4 in so ya they had the 13mm humps.

You should burn the books you have read that in, G-10 were new production aircraft. They initially used airframes diverted from G-14 production, that's some author came up with this "old airframes" myth. An no, just like the /AS versions they had no bumps for the MG 131.

[morfiend]

You should burn the books you have read that in, G-10 were new production aircraft. They initially used airframes diverted from G-14 production, that's some author came up with this "old airframes" myth. An no, just like the /AS versions they had no bumps for the MG 131.

  I was going by what Prien and Roddeck{sp}  wrote,I guess they are just propagating the myth. They even go so far as to mislabel A/C,G14;s that they call G10"s,if no G10 had the mg humps.

   I don't have first hand knowledge and can only go by what I read,when they say the G10 was made with repaired or unused airframes I can only except that they did the research.


   If you have other information I'd be glad to read it.


   

[morfiend]

  I was curious so I looked up my source and it appears you are correct Denniss,the G10 for the most part had no humps!  It looks like they used AS cowls as you said,however they still mention that initially leftover G6 and G14 frames were used,atleast in the beginning.

  It was planned to produce 6000 G10's but the figure was changed many times and it looks like the number was nearer to 2200 or so. And yes many new airframes were used.


    I stand corrected!