Need BF 109 K4

[C_R_Caldwell]

Just because lots of books have repeated the old " G-10 top speed :- 426mph" stuff does *not* make it true.Anyone who does some digging soon realises that most WW2 aviation books simply spew out the same tired old (and often inaccurate) data first published in early post WW2 literature.

For one thing, there is no one " standard" G-10.The whole G-10 program was an attempt to produce a Gustav with near K-4 performance using existing airframes .The G-10's were manufactured from the parts of various 109s - some of them were recycled, some were brand new.Early G-10's used the DB 605AS powerplant due to the shortage of DB 605Ds which had been given to the K-4 program as a priority.These G-10s were referred to as G-10/AS  and externally looked almost identical to DB 605D powered models (the chin blisters were missing for example).The AS powerplant used the enlarged supercharger of the DB 603.It was a remarkable single-stage variable blower that could match the performance of the famed 2-stage Merlins .Although it posessed only one stage, the compressor was constantly varied according to the external air pressure by use of a built-in barometric sensor.

Later model G-10s used the DB 605D engine.The D was essentially a refinement of the AS.Those G-10's that used the DB 605DC powerplant (often referred to as the DB 605DCM) used exactly the same engine as the K-4.For those who don't recognise Daimler Benz nomenclature, DCM signified the following:- 'D' :-model type / 'C' :- C3  avgas used (96 octane) / 'M' :- MW 50 injection.

G-10s using DCM powerplants would have had performances only slightly lower than the similarly powered K-4.And keep in mind that many K-4s had their wheel doors removed and/or tail-wheels fixed in the down position.The extra drag this would have induced would have made K-4's so-equipped slower and probably near equal to G-10s in performance.

[J_A_B]

"Just because lots of books have repeated the old " G-10 top speed :- 426mph" stuff does *not* make it true"

Indeed.     It's true because that's as fast as the airplane would go (as tested at Wright-Patt).    There probably were some 440+ MPH Me-109's, but they certainly weren't the norm.  

J_A_B

[Squire]

"Just because lots of books have repeated the old " G-10 top speed :- 426mph" stuff does *not* make it true.Anyone who does some digging soon realises that most WW2 aviation books simply spew out the same tired old (and often inaccurate) data first published in early post WW2 literature"

Agree 100 percent, funny thing is though most folks almost always decide the error is listing them too slow as opposed to too fast?

In any case the AH G-10 does @440 mph which is plenty fast (and is as fast as many sources that give the K-4 that speed as opposed to the often quoted and copied 452).

Btw the SpitXIV in AH does @435 tops, not 448, and I think thats probably ok too, as an operational model, close enough.

Way too much debate on +/- 5-10 mph fed by folks with an axe to grind, as opposed to being objective, but hey, sim games are competative and it brings that out.

[hazed-]

Originally posted by AKSWulfe
1943/1944 planes should be perked low... like between 4 and 12 points.

Of course, other planes like the SpitXIV, Tempest, 109K-4(if it's added), Ta-152, Me-262, P-47M/N, P51H(did it even see combat?) and other planes of that nature- ones that can easily dominate the arena should be perked high.

Why? Keep it out of the hands of experienced players and keep them rare.

Imagine if the currently perked high planes were perked in the 8-12 perk range. "I'm going to take up a 205 today...." After 7 minutes of climbing, to your surprise virtually every con in the sky is a Spit.... not a SpitV, Spit I, Seafire II, or SpitIX... nope... it's got the dreaded Spit14 icon on it. And what's this? All the other cons are Tempests, F4U-4s and Ta-152s with the occasional 262 pilot.

Sweet, now that's what I talk about a fun arena. Hey, you wanna learn the aircraft before you pay for it Hazed.. try H2H or the TA. The MA has a price on it, otherwise what's the point of having the perk system in the first place?

-SW

The reason I dont want to try it in the H2H is i dont want to fight vs 8 players of no skill whatsoever and the training arena offers no reason to be using these aircraft and again fewer numbers.

as to the perk system. I didnt envision it being used the way it is currently used.As it stands i dont agree with the way its being used.Ive hardly flown the tempest or spit14 or f4u4 because i need all my perks to fly the me262 once in a while.I would explain what i did envision it to be but ive already run through it all in another thread. Fd skis one on the stats.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49959

(btw nice overdramatic arguement lol)

[MaxImm13]

I gotta jump in here as I fly-n-die in the 109 exclusive.
I fly the 109 because it makes you a better pilot in almost every other plane.  For those that play billiards one who practices on the snooker table ussually wins the 8 ball tournament.

Do we need another 109??? Hell I would settle for HTC mixing up the paint schemes a bit with what we already have.  The 109 served on many fronts so why are we limited to drab green camo on most and by the way, drop the finland G2 color scheme, it makes me ill.

I support the development of new aircraft for the primary purpose of more accurate historical scenarios.  I enjoy the fact we have now the 109E for the Battle of Britain.  The Betty an excelent choice to round out the Pacific scenarios .  As far as the Main arenas concerned, HTC should limit the number of different aircraft to keep the whining to a minimum, race of champions if you IROC fans know what I mean.

For those who concern themselves with the drag coefficient of the 109K serial#1573 <3rd plane in from the left> on a warm summers day....Nobody cares!!!...It's the strategy & technic that makes this flight sim fun and interesting, not the nutz & boltz....IMHO.

KEEP EM FLYIN!!

[WHog81st]

...

Let's have the F8F Bearcat !

[SUP0NGO]

I should agree on adding all type of airplanes to AH, that would be really cool, It could be then make an excellent RPS, for fighters, bombers or tanks or.... any other mean of combat that happened and that really were in the WWII, but it should be made with a certain impartial approach.

When a certain airplane type is requested, should it be kept in mind the role it played in WWII or, at least, how many units were involved in the struggle.
I have sometimes seen the request for inclusion in AH of the G55, but, how many airplanes did they enter in production? 15? 20? perhaps 40? it is not enough. We can not let us to focus only in our preferences.
I would request the DO335, other the HE162, other the P 80, but these planes didn't represent anything, absolutely anything in the WWII, even that which were built in great quantities in the WWII’s final months like the P51H or the P47M/N, didn't end up being operative in numbers enough or they didn't arrive to fronts in time to fire a single shot, at least, not in Europe.
I propose the following criteria in order to choice the airplanes to be added to AH (unless AH is not an exclusive sim for of the period September 1939 - August 1945, and it continues developing until the war of Korea or Vietnam, or even Afgansitan):

Nº of units that actually entered in combat: minimum 400.
Or allow then even if the figure of units entered in combat was not 400, but however, this airplane represented in any way a philosophy of its time, or a rupture for the ideas and concept of the air fight.
For instance to this: the Gloster Glatiator, The Buffalo F2F or the Fairey SWORDFISH.

Do I believe that the inclusion, taking into account what I said above, of airplanes like the K4, XIV Spit, or G14 (among other many) would be justified, as well as the use of MW50 and/or GM1 in other airplanes.
But tell me of honestly, really that airplanes like the P80, DO335 or XXI Spitfire would do in AH?.

P.S.: All the 109 models carried Trim adjuster in the elevators, but in a different way that in the airplanes of other countries, in the 109 there was not small mobile tab on the edge of the elevator, but rather, the whole surface of the elevator, mobile or not, was adjusted from the cockpit.

Greetings

Supongo

[straffo]

Originally posted by SUP0NGO

I have sometimes seen the request for inclusion in AH of the G55, but, how many airplanes did they enter in production? 15? 20? perhaps 40? it is not enough. We can not let us to focus only in our preferences.

I don't think we have to look for new plane considering the number produced

IMO they have to fit the MA and be usefull for scenario that all

[SUP0NGO]

To Strafo:

No? I need Go 229

Supongo

[straffo]

ding !

don't fit scenario

try again

[Mathman]

Originally posted by WHog81st
...

Let's have the F8F Bearcat !

Yes please!

[Wmaker]

Originally posted by MaxImm13
drop the finland G2 color scheme, it makes me ill.

Just for your information...there's a significant finnish player base in AH that really appreciates the paint scheme that is given to Bf 109G-2 and flies it with pride. If the paint scheme makes you ill it's your own problem.

Originally posted by MaxImm13
For those who concern themselves with the drag coefficient of the 109K serial#1573 <3rd plane in from the left> on a warm summers day....Nobody cares!!!...It's the strategy & technic that makes this flight sim fun and interesting, not the nutz & boltz....IMHO.

Nobody cares? Somebody must care because there have been some pretty technical discussions about the planes in AH on this board. If people are interested in the systems and technical features of these aircraft I think they are free to talk about them just as much as you are free to not care.

[niklas]

About the 426mph for the G10. This speed was reached without MW-50, using the "normal" emergency power setting that produced 1550hp near ground (605D).

No 605 engine could produce full boost (1,8-1,94ata) for MW-50 in 24k, it must have been normal emergency power.

nik

[Vermillion]

Hajo, thats one of the sources that spouts the same old inaccuracies because he basically copied the errors straight out of Green's book.

I still can't find the link to the complete article that Tony Williams wrote on the 109 armament, but here is one post he made on this BBS that should at least clear up some of these myths.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47504&highlight=109

[WHog81st]

This is a problem in every flight sim (as may have already been mentioned).

Late war models vs. early war models. One way to be realistic or "fair" is to restrict planes to a set that actually flew against each other in a particular theater (i.e., Japanese vs Allies or German vs. Allies but NEVER Japanese and German together vs. Allies).  But who wants THAT ?!?

AH isn't a formal historical recreation (like WWII Online was trying to be) where certain models are introduced at certain times in the "war". The way certain aircraft are restricted in AH is through perks and not arbitrary allocation according to historical percentages. ME-262's really existed in WWII, should we disallow them because they have a jet engine advantage over everything else  - maybe... but Chuck Yeager still shot down 2 with his P-51... so maybe it's the pilot and not the plane...

my 2c...

"WHog"
81st Krewsaderz
http://www.81st.net