So now that we have the Anton......

Hell even if you don't care about the historical side it lends even more credence to having the Hawker Tempest or Spitfire XIV in a quake war against the K4

The G6 was a good aircraft.

 

The K4 is completely historically out of place with the map and assets we currently have.

 

Even at the end of the war the K4 wasn't the most common 109.

 

And ironically you miss the point entirely, given that the Tempest and spitfire XIV were both flying before the K4 and were more than a match performance wise.

 

So yes, my point still stands.... The current lineup is skewed un-historically in favour of the K4 and we need the G6/G14 to change that simple FACT

 

nop we need mkXIV and Tempest becouse if server will give option for k-4 ppl will choose it anyway :)

and it will not change much but adding mkXIV (the best would be 25lbs version)(i know k-4 wont stand a chance vs 25lb mkXIV) or tempest will change a lot

Edited June 28, 2019 by grafspee

You miss my point completely. The spitfire 9 and P 51D are the only variants of those aircraft in DCS.

 

 

 

I am talking about a slow heavy variant of a much faster aircraft that already exists. Why would you buy a 109 G6 when you can buy a 109K4? Its almost the same plane just way worse in many respects. You can say you want a historical match up but historically the 109 G6 was bad vs its contemporary enemies. The P51D and spit 9 completely outclass it. I could understand wanting the 109 F4(excellent turn rate) or maybe the 109 E4(equal or better then its adversaries at the time) or 109 G14 but not the 109 G6. I would like to see an AI 109 G6 maybe but not many people will buy two modules that are almost the same plane.

 

 

"the Spitfire and P-51 pilots could say the same thing about the current lineup" no they can not. The Spitfire 9 is very good vs the 109K4 and FW190D9, the P51D is an even fight vs the FW190D9, better then the 190A8 and can at least dive away from the 109K4. The G6 is much slower then the P51D even in a dive and the Spitfire 9 is faster, turns better and climbs better.

By that logic no one bought the A-8 since we already have a Dora...?

 

Also you do not seem to understand what we are talking about when we say G-6. A late model G-6 (the one that would be appropriate for Normandy in July44) == G-14. The only difference between the two is the way the MW-50 system is pressurised.

 

It is also absolutely not slower than a Spit IX.

 

The G6 was a good aircraft.

 

The K4 is completely historically out of place with the map and assets we currently have.

 

Even at the end of the war the K4 wasn't the most common 109.

 

And ironically you miss the point entirely, given that the Tempest and spitfire XIV were both flying before the K4 and were more than a match performance wise.

 

So yes, my point still stands.... The current lineup is skewed un-historically in favour of the K4 and we need the G6/G14 to change that simple FACT

 

Yes the K-4 did not fly in Normandy, but it is not really extremely different to a G-14/AS which did fly at that time. It is somewhat faster, but not hugely so.

 

Also if we are going to exclude aircraft just because they weren't the most common, then we should never add the Spit XIV in DCS. In fact there were less Spit XIVs built than K-4s, by a large margin.

 

nop we need mkXIV and Tempest becouse if server will give option for k-4 ppl will choose it anyway :)

and it will not change much but adding mkXIV (the best would be 25lbs version)(i know k-4 wont stand a chance vs 25lb mkXIV) or tempest will change a lot

 

There is no evidence that 25lb boost MkXIVs were ever used operationally. Ive only even seen it mentioned twice. The 1st report mentioned that the aircraft shed its propeller when the power was increased. The 2nd one mentions connecting rods being forcefully ejected out the side of the engine and cowling...... I'm all for a Spit XIV, but lets not be silly.

I was only mentioning the fact that it wasn't the only 109 on the front line to make a point, I wasn't implying that that we shouldn't have the K4 because it wasn't the most common 109.

 

That said the K4, Spitfire XIV and Tempest did nothing really to determine the outcome. The spitfire XIV and Tempest arrived way before the K4 but in small numbers.

 

However I have to disagree with you on the speed yes it may not sound like a huge amount but speed is life and 20-30 mph (kmh... Can't recall precisely) is actually a HUMONGOUS advantage to the K4.

 

The K4 speed means that really it can dictate everything in a dogfight as long as the pilot/pilots have patience.

Agreed, 20 or 30 kilometers per hour is a huge speed bump, that will absolutely be noticed in combat. That's all I'm saying though, that's all I'm adding right now.

As you say its about 20-30 kmh. I agree its not negligible. Definitely noticeable, but not humongous. Especially considering that since the K-4 is actually about 10 kmh slower than IRL in DCS, the difference is more like 10 kmh....

 

In a perfect world we would have an AS as well..... But its dcs and everything takes forever. IMO making a non AS and an AS G-6/14 wouldnt be worth it. For me the non AS is different enough to warrant a purchase, another AS might not be.

 

What would be nice, and it may be wishful thinking here but....... ED already has the 605 modeled with the AS supercharger and cowling.... If they were to make a non AS I would think it might be pretty simple to do an AS and include it as one module........

 

Anyway... All we can do is hope for some news about EDs plans for WWII after the DM or the new maps come. The original assets pack list has disappeared from the store page and the forums and after I asked what that meant the thread got closed pretty quick... so not sure if the G-6 AI that was listed there is still a plan or if things have changed... Well have to wait and see.

I am not sure where you are getting 10kmh from, perhaps against the P-51 but unless I am much mistaken the Spitfire can achieve a max level speed of 410mph whilst the K4 can achieve 440mph (not sure what the max is in DCS currently) so it a whopping 30mph (48kmh) faster which IS humongous.

 

Please enlighten me if I am wrong, my GPU has been down for a while now and I can't recall exactly what speeds can be achieved.

I think I see where the miscommunication is.... I usually just compare speeds at sea level since that’s where most of the action is in DCS. It’s very possible that the gap is larger st altitude.

Ah I see, thanks for the clarification :thumbup:

By that logic no one bought the A-8 since we already have a Dora...?

 

 

 

Not the same logic at all. The FW190A8 and FW190D9 are very different. They have completely different engines for one. The fuselage is also significantly different.

 

 

 

But as I said, the 109G6 is almost the same as the 109K4. The K4 is basically all the improvements of the different G6's put in the one plane with in built MW50 system and further improvements on top.

 

 

If you want to experience what a G6 is like just fly the K4 without MW50. Why would you buy an entire new module just for a less streamlined K4 without MW50?

You have clearly not read any of the last several posts, nor do you understand what a G-6 is.

 

The Dora fuselage is also not "significantly different" to an A-8. With the exception of the engine (+cowling & cooler) and the slightly lengthened tail it is the same aircraft.

You have clearly not read any of the last several posts, nor do you understand what a G-6 is.

 

The Dora fuselage is also not "significantly different" to an A-8. With the exception of the engine (+cowling & cooler) and the slightly lengthened tail it is the same aircraft.

Yup, fuselage indeed is the very same with a 50cm? insert between it and the tail IIRC.

 

 

…

But as I said, the 109G6 is almost the same as the 109K4. The K4 is basically all the improvements of the different G6's put in the one plane with in built MW50 system and further improvements on top.

 

 

If you want to experience what a G6 is like just fly the K4 without MW50. Why would you buy an entire new module just for a less streamlined K4 without MW50?

Sorry mate, but no, they're not even close. Watch at performance charts and you'll see almost 100Km/H difference since firsts G6 models and K4 (B4 fuel 1.8 Ata we have). They're like two different Worlds. K4 is a new aircraft, new tooling, new optimised design, G-6 and the myriad of it's variants is an old aircraft amended with patches here and there trying to keep up in the performance race. Of course K4 still look alike a Bf109, because it is, but it's something barely alike Ta152 and Fw190D-9 being alike but two different aircraft. G-6 is a whole different aircraft, it's so much different that a late model would be needed (late G6 or G14, as Krupi said) in order to remain barely competitive with P-51 and upcoming P-47.

 

 

 

nop we need mkXIV and Tempest becouse if server will give option for k-4 ppl will choose it anyway

and it will not change much but adding mkXIV (the best would be 25lbs version)(i know k-4 wont stand a chance vs 25lb mkXIV) or tempest will change a lot

Funnily enough, Eric Brown which was one of the few, if not the only, person to fly all Spitfire XIV, Dora 9, and P-51D, said they were almost a perfect match by a whisker. So bearing his experience in mind, still K4 would probably be a better performer than Mk.XIV in raw numbers.

 

 

All of this doesn't mean I wouldn't welcome any new addition to DCS WWII, on the contrary I want them all, but maybe you people stare too much at those raw numbers. After all you can see how so different aircraft as we have right now can stand each other depending on the scenery. That "performance fanaticism" and the seek of a "perfect match planeset", might not be the best approach to the subject after all.

 

 

 

S!

30cm IIRC, but yes.

Someone said Tempest :) I want iiiiiiit

Otherwise I would appreciate a 109 as well, G-6 or G-10, with a Typhoon as well, so we can have great flyable assets for Normandy. The Mosquito is also a very welcome one, and it's on the list. But I want nothing more than a Tempest!!

Edited July 1, 2019 by Robin885
Writing

There was slated to be a Typhoon AI too, but the list has disappeared from all official sources so who knows what the plans are atm.

There was slated to be a Typhoon AI too, but the list has disappeared from all official sources so who knows what the plans are atm.

 

It appears in this list however I don't know if it can be called official?

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=194333&highlight=Typhoon

 

It would be nice to have a complete list

Edited July 1, 2019 by Krupi

They spoke about a big WWII assets pack update in the newsletter from two or three weeks ago for this summer. We may see some things appear there.

Hmmmm.... the list reappeared.... interesting.

It appears in this list however I don't know if it can be called official?

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=194333&highlight=Typhoon

 

It would be nice to have a complete list

 

That's interesting: that 190A-8 didn't appear in it's AI version did it? They just went and outright built it.

That's interesting: that 190A-8 didn't appear in it's AI version did it? They just went and outright built it.

All that list was meant to be IA. Luckily we got the A-8 flyable, and hope more of those, like the G-6.

 

 

S!

IIRC the Anton is initially an AI listed in the WWII Assets pack, and they eventually just created a full module. Which is awesome. I'd like to see that happen for a Gustav and the Gooney Bird

IIRC the Anton is initially an AI listed in the WWII Assets pack, and they eventually just created a full module. Which is awesome. I'd like to see that happen for a Gustav and the Gooney Bird

 

That's what I mean! And I'm glad for it, perhaps they'll do the same with the others.

At the current pace that DCS WW2 is being developed I think no one here will be live to see it. XD

It's worth understanding the Gustav to understand the late war BF109 variants and subvariants. Anything we say about them will be contextual, just as it is true to say the K is a G and nothing like a G. Probably the most true thing to say would be the K achieved what the G was supposed to be.

 

The BF109G started off as an aim and miss at a series development goal started in 1940, right about when development of the Daimler 601E engine became protracted. As the BF109F was entering production work was already beginning on its successor and a bore increase of the 601E for more power; as the idea was the new Gustav would make use of mission specific loadout kits development work and service trialling began with experimental Friedrich prototypes sent into the field with units like JG54 to test out the MG151/20 gondolas, etc. These became the R6 kit of the Gustav, just as with the FW190A a lot of factory umbaatz kits of the A5 became rustsatze kits in the A6 onwards.

 

So the first characterisation of the G series is to say it is the first 109 variant really designed as a kind of early multirole fighter with a variety of loadout and equipment options for mission specific field orders. The trouble with it is each individual layout really had to be organised and installed during production and assembly, with some kits like the MW50 boost system unavailable until February 1944 and the MK108 aerial gun until October 43. A field unit could order specific assemblies of a G but loosely speaking the rustsatze kits couldn't really be fitted in rough field conditions and were ordered by units during assembly. The big difference between the G and K here is the K has all the internal components of available rustsatze kits already fitted, so units ordered aircraft from parks rather than assembly plants. It was all part of the reorganization by Speer that boosted production, whilst giving field units exactly what they wanted for their specific missions. All series airframe development updates or changes, like wooden tail fins or wider ones and new propellers, generally speaking where adopted across the range of production and assembly plants for all currently produced variants and subvariants, so a late build G6 is basically indistinguishable from some G14 and other G14 are almost indistinguishable from a K4 or a G10 and some G10 can be confused with a G14 and an earlier build G6 is different to all of them. Late build G6 in some instances were updated to G14 standard in the field with a handful of parts and an MW50 kit, they already looked the same to begin with, some pilots even thought the only difference between G6 and G14 was MW50, which is mostly true because it's an administrative designation. G14 represented reorganisation of all existing Gustav subvariant production combined into the one subtype. Again completely the result of Speer's reorganisation and nothing really to do with technical specifications.

 

The area the G missed its mark was the 605A engine, which was supposed to be a simple upscale of the 601E, giving the best Daimler power rating of earlier engine types whilst using widely available B4 fuel. It was supposed to handle the 1.45ata emergency power setting just like the 601E but what it did was promptly cooked the pistons. This became an issue which plagued the 605A and was never completely solved until October 1943. Until then the 605A was boost restricted to 1.35ata, marginal difference to the climb setting and this stifled performance throughout 1943. It took a few months following G2 service entry for the problem to be realized, enough time for Marsielle to lose his life and more than one attempt to fix it with field modification kits and different piston crowns, but these failed. There was a period in early 43 where the 605A was cleared for 1.42ata but it didn't last and it was only finally cleared in October 43.

The problem here is the entire 605 project had design goals of, on B4 fuel 1.5ata normal maximum and 2.0ata in the future with the use of MW50. This was never actually achieved until the D motors in late 1944 and even they needed C3 to get near 2.0ata. So really the first 109 that performed the way the G was originally designed to be was the K4. Between the design board and the field the Gustav missed its mark by that much, if you put a K4 into 1942 that's how the designers thought the G1/2 would be.

And if 605A seemed more fragile than a 601E then the addition of MW50 finally, in Feb44 made them downright unreliable. Hotrodding the Daimler with corrosive C3 never helped field serviceability to start with, records describe the 605AM/ASM motors using 1.7ata with TBO in the dozens of hours and a one shot deal if the pilot isn't careful, over-boost was extremely limited at 1-2mins with long cool down periods. Mainly it was about load bearing off rough fields and getting a head start on time to altitude, or during intercept or ingress a final burst of speed. The 605DB motor of course has ten full minutes of over-boost at 1.8ata between cooldowns, which is as reliable as the extensively developed Jumo 213 series engine and long enough to last an entire aerial engagement.

The D motor also combines the best features of the 605A and 605AS altitude characteristics with a well tuned supercharger casing so both G10 and K4 which share the engine have vastly improved performance throughout over earlier variants and the G14. Since it was lighter than the K4 but shared engines, the Erla built G10 is regarded as the fastest production 109 to see service, apparently these were hand refinished with improved aerodynamics and possibly higher build quality than any other 109, so whilst the K4 was the new model the king of the hill in the aerial combat stakes would be the Erla G10.

 

For historical accuracy, build quality in the late war also has to be some consideration, enough can't be said on the subject. Wright-Patterson postwar review of a captured, pristine Dora, which had to be completely rebuilt for airworthiness gave scathing regard of its build quality, rating its performance equivalent to a P51D but describing it as a hotrod that was hacked together in a backyard shed, whilst the Mustang was built like a Cadillac, it was draughty, unbearably hot, rattly and noisy in the cockpit, the motor sounded like it was going to explode, the airframe felt like it was going to shake apart and the panels didn't fit well so the edges were flapping against their fasteners, altogether he simply couldn't believe it matched up to the Mustang in performance like this and wasn't sure it would survive the flight.

Reviews like this made a lot of passing comments surrounding historical documentation and vet records of late war 109 build quality. Hartman actually refused a G14 upgrade in 44 and instead took an October 43 build G6 from his reserve flights to replace a broken mount, due to the build quality degrading so much. Other examples are comments about Hungarian license produced 605A engines being more reliable than those in Germany during 44.

 

An October 43 G6 would be a good plane. From 1944 build quality is of serious concern in model selection despite dramatic ramping of production, perhaps not helped by it.

Before that you want a late 41 F4 but it has much more limited loadout options.

An earlier Gustav built anytime between 42-43, if accurately simmed would have to model its love of overheating, burning the crowns, opening the oil seals and flaming, which is how Marsielle died when he bailed from his flaming G2 after overheating the 605A. It would have to be boost restricted for these reasons, as per historical and resulting in poor British view of the later build 109 compared to Spitfire evolution.

Similarly if we put in a G14 module it would need to model shocking build quality and engines that might hold together with a rabbit's foot. G10 would be like the Wright-Patterson Dora review, horribly built hotrods incredibly capable of matching Allied performance.

But then here and there or if you got the right build location like Erla you got unremarkable or even very good build quality. You just never knew.

Any variant up to the F2 lacks the aeromechanical pilot interface, with a higher pilot workload so that might actually be a fun variation, the F2 is actually a cool idea, a midwar 109 to dogfight with the I16 module and it has the hotrod 601N running on C3 with a 2min emergency overboost. It was also the first 109 to standardize the jabo role and begin stores carriage development for the forthcoming G series. Unlike the 109F4 onwards the pilot operated a manually adjusted constant speed propeller in a regular throttle quadrant, with an earlier gunsight and more limited equipment, it is a more seat of the pants 109 and might be characterised as the highest performing, old school version little different to any late-30s pilot interface. From the F4 they suddenly became advanced and a late war type, with one touch pilot management and overall refinement.

 

An earlier jump to something like a SCW 109C might be oodles of fun too but contemporary adversaries would all have to be modelled. The F2 through to G4 at least falls into I16 type 18/24 batch mission service but definitely nobody wants a G built before October 43.