Eurpean thatre : Normandy Approrpiate Bf109? - Page 5 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-11-2018, 05:14 PM   #41
erniedaoage
Junior Member
 
erniedaoage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Vienna
Posts: 72
Default

A little bit off-topic but it would also be quite nice to get 2 russian warbirds which would fit in the period and like a "graphical" update to the caucasus map where buildings get changed to appropriate ones from the time period and those nuclear powerplants get removed and u have a pretty good theatre for the eastern front. I mean an update where u just change buildings or remove some to make cities a bit smaller should not consume as much time as a completely new does.
__________________
WIN7 //I7-4790K // ASUS MAXIMUS RANGER VII // 16GB G.Skill DDR3 1866 // PALIT SUPERJETSTREAM 1080 // SSD // TM T-16000 FCS FLIGHT PACK // JETSEAT TURBOJET // TRACKHAT CLIP PLUS

-= A10C - AJS-37 - AV8B - BF109K4 - CA - F/A18C - F5EII - F86F - FC3 - FW190D9 - KA50 - M2000C - MI8TV2 - MIG15BIS - MIG21BIS - P51D - SA342 - SPITFIRE - UH1H - NORMANDY - PERSIAN GULF =-


erniedaoage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2018, 09:22 AM   #42
Kurfürst
Member
 
Kurfürst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 792
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reflected View Post
I agree that a G-14 wouldn't be different enough to validate all the work that needs to go into it. A G-6 on the other hand would open up new dimensions for 1943 scenarios too.
Well, it’s worth considering that if you have no MW 50 booster in the tank, the G-14 becomes a (from the visual point of view late production) G-6 performance wise. You can have two aircraft for the price of one.

It’s also worth considering that while the standardised late G-6 under the designation did indeed came into production and use over Normandy in July 1944, de facto equivalents in the form of G-6s retrofitted with MW boost did exist and were used for some months by that time. In fact the official description of the G-14 in German type sheet suggest that the main difference between the G-6 and G-14 by that time was that the former used pressurised bottles to actuate the mw system while the latter tapped the supercharger for the same purpose.
__________________
www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site

Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse!
-Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment
The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945.
Kurfürst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2018, 09:51 AM   #43
DefaultFace
Member
 
DefaultFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 500
Default

Kurfürst do you know how much weight the MW-50 system added when the tank was empty or used for fuel instead? Other than that and maybe the large rudder and Erla canopy which may not have made it on to all late G-6s (but don't significantly alter flight performance as far as I can tell) there doesn't seem to be much difference as you say.

I still think if we DCS wants to continue to develop the era in which its already in (which would make the most sense tbh) which is late 44 to 45, a low altitude G-6/G-14 would add the most to the simulation. A G-10 or an AS model would be pretty much the same as a K-4 but with the option for a 20mm cannon. Certainly the 1945 109s with ASB/ASC engines are very similar in performance to the K-4. While the 44 ones are a bit slower its still IMO not a huge enough difference that Id want to see one of them before seeing something new added to DCS (like a Tempest or a P-38 or a Me 410 etc etc, some aircraft which we don't have at all yet).

I'd love an F-4 too, and while I'd probably still fly it against Spit IXs and Mustangs, by the time we get the appropriate oponnents and maps etc we'll all be old men.
__________________
9./JG27

"If you can't hit anything, it's because you suck. If you get shot down, it's because you suck. You and me, we know we suck, and that makes it ok." - Worst person in all of DCS

"In the end, which will never come, we will all be satisifed... we must fight them on forum, we will fight them on reddit..." - Dunravin
DefaultFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2018, 11:28 AM   #44
Kurfürst
Member
 
Kurfürst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 792
Default

The light alloy tank itself curiously added zero, as it weighted 32 kg but it was built in the place of the laminated dural armoured bulkhead behind the fuel tank, which was removed to make place for the tank and which also weighted 32 kg, so they cancelled out each other.

The mw liquid weighted about 1 kg / liter, and 70 to 85 liter seems to be the official norm, though in practice it could be more or less. So the liquid itself adds about 70-75 kg. The tank itself had a volume of 115 litres. On the 109K it could be tapped fully with fuel as well, and CoG would remain still the same because of lower density of fuel.

I agree that the other high altitude 109s would be a waste of time, as they are almost entirely identical to the 109K in performance (the only meaningful difference is that they are a bit slower, purely due to aerodynamics).

F-4 would be totally out of place, as it was long retired by this time. Gs almost completely replaced it by 1943.
__________________
www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site

Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse!
-Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment
The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945.
Kurfürst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2018, 11:38 AM   #45
DefaultFace
Member
 
DefaultFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 500
Default

Very interesting!
__________________
9./JG27

"If you can't hit anything, it's because you suck. If you get shot down, it's because you suck. You and me, we know we suck, and that makes it ok." - Worst person in all of DCS

"In the end, which will never come, we will all be satisifed... we must fight them on forum, we will fight them on reddit..." - Dunravin
DefaultFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:05 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.