PDA

View Full Version : Bf109G10 and K4 with DB605DC engine PLEASE!



KaRaYa-X
06-01-2004, 06:03 AM
Hi!

As I'm a big fan of the Bf109 so I would really like to see the Bf109G10 and K4 with a DB605DC engine (right now we "only" have the DB605DB equipped ones).

DB605DB:
max. output (without injection): 1550 HP
(with injection): 1800HP

DB605DC:
max. output (without injection): 1800HP
(with injection): 2000HP

Just as a side-note: Both the DB and DC engines became available at the same time; however the majority of G10s and K4s was equipped with the DB engine for only ONE very SIMPLE reason:
The DC engine required relatively high graded fuel to run (IIRC it's the C3 fuel) whereas the DB ran on relatively "bad" fuel (the B2 fuel).
However in 1944 when the Bf109G10 and K4 entered service air raids over the Reich were daily business, destroying many production facilities and factories. As a result the supply of high graded fuel was VERY short - too short to service a whole fleet of Bf109s.
So DC engined G10s and K4s were mainly restriceted for use in the "Reichsverteidigung"


I would love to see these variants because from my point of view they represent late war Bf109s the way they were MEANT to be but could not be used widely because of fuel shortage.
This is not meant as another "We need plane B to counter plane A" thread. I just love these birds and think it would be a delight to fly them.

After all it would only take some editing of the current FM of both the G10 and K4. There are NO visual differences between DB and DC engined planes.
So just think of these versions as the "L.F." variant of Bf109s http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Another thing is that these planes FLEW; they weren't prototypes or "what-if" planes...
They were built (in 1944), they flew, they fought!


Oleg PLEASE introduce these two new version! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

KaRaYa-X
06-01-2004, 06:03 AM
Hi!

As I'm a big fan of the Bf109 so I would really like to see the Bf109G10 and K4 with a DB605DC engine (right now we "only" have the DB605DB equipped ones).

DB605DB:
max. output (without injection): 1550 HP
(with injection): 1800HP

DB605DC:
max. output (without injection): 1800HP
(with injection): 2000HP

Just as a side-note: Both the DB and DC engines became available at the same time; however the majority of G10s and K4s was equipped with the DB engine for only ONE very SIMPLE reason:
The DC engine required relatively high graded fuel to run (IIRC it's the C3 fuel) whereas the DB ran on relatively "bad" fuel (the B2 fuel).
However in 1944 when the Bf109G10 and K4 entered service air raids over the Reich were daily business, destroying many production facilities and factories. As a result the supply of high graded fuel was VERY short - too short to service a whole fleet of Bf109s.
So DC engined G10s and K4s were mainly restriceted for use in the "Reichsverteidigung"


I would love to see these variants because from my point of view they represent late war Bf109s the way they were MEANT to be but could not be used widely because of fuel shortage.
This is not meant as another "We need plane B to counter plane A" thread. I just love these birds and think it would be a delight to fly them.

After all it would only take some editing of the current FM of both the G10 and K4. There are NO visual differences between DB and DC engined planes.
So just think of these versions as the "L.F." variant of Bf109s http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Another thing is that these planes FLEW; they weren't prototypes or "what-if" planes...
They were built (in 1944), they flew, they fought!


Oleg PLEASE introduce these two new version! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

KaRaYa-X
06-01-2004, 06:18 AM
BUMP! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

NN_EnigmuS
06-01-2004, 06:25 AM
lot of us already ask for it bump

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

KaRaYa-X
06-01-2004, 08:56 AM
BumP!

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

carguy_
06-01-2004, 10:07 AM
200more HP make a difference.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

jagdmailer
06-01-2004, 10:19 AM
Karaya,

Those are several Bf 109s that I & some other posters have been requesting for a long time and that can be implemented with mostly some changes to FM for planes currently in the SIM. No new models - No external 3D mods, and no cockpit mods in most cases either: (read - rather easy way for Maddox/1C to give us another 7 aicrafts in the next patch http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

1942 Bf 109F-4 w/ full boost @ 1.42 ATA
1943 Bf 109G-2 w/ full boost @ 1.42 ATA
1943 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/ original GM-1 nitrous-oxide boost system
1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/ "Field Mod" GM-1 system converted for MW-50 boost use.
1945 Bf 109G-10 w/ DB605DCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1945 Bf 109G-14 w/DB605ASCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1945 Bf 109K-4 w/DB605DCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude

As far as the low production variants (we did get many Yaks & Polikarpov that never went into production in the last patch), I would like to see a Bf 109K-14 with DB605L & 4-blade propeller. Several were built in the last few weeks of the war and apparently 2 made it to III./JG52 in April 1945.

Those would fill some nice gaps in the current Bf 109 line-up & I am sure many would be glad to see those as they were available historically & given the recent influx of Yaks, Laggs & Polikarpov in the lastest patch.

Cheers,

JagdMailer

kubanloewe
06-01-2004, 10:35 AM
hm,agree but I also like to see a 190D12 with Jumo213E or D11 with Jumo213F.

I know they were very few but they flew instead of GOÔ┬┤s or some others http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.arcor.de/kubanskiloewe/g14gutspruchsig.jpg
"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherr Manfred von Richthofen

kubanloewe
06-01-2004, 10:37 AM
oh, and the 109G1 with GM1 which was used on the westfront to save 190 AÔ┬┤s for highjacker spitÔ┬┤s http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.arcor.de/kubanskiloewe/g14gutspruchsig.jpg
"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherr Manfred von Richthofen

BigganD
06-01-2004, 10:41 AM
Yes, it would be nice to see the Bf 109K-14 with DB605L & 4-blade propeller, they allready have FW D-9 1945, Yaks 1945. And the american shooting star was used first time 1944 in USA (test fly) but came into service 1945 jan. And was used to shotdown german jet bombers(but they where to fast for them), not for dogfight.
So why not add the K-14 !

"Get close .. when he fills the entire windscreen ... then you can't possibly miss." Erich Hartmann

KaRaYa-X
06-01-2004, 10:46 AM
Carguy:
"200more HP make a difference."

Well, not only 200HP more but a much better engine! The biggest drawback of the late war Bf109s is that they can only fight at their full power for around 30min because after that their MW50 supply is used up and they fall back to only 1550HP.
And with this low engine ouput they are even worse than a 1943 G6 (the DB605A has more power on 110% than the DB605DB with injection off and 110%)

However the DB605DC gives us 1800HP even without the Methanol/Water boost - which is the same as in our current Kurf├╝rst WITH injection!!! And the best is: It doesnt overheat as quick as the DB605DB as you're not running it with MW50...

Another point is that at a certain altitude MW50 becomes useless and you fall back to your 1550HP (with DB605DB). However the DB605DC still gives us 1800HP... nice isn't it!?



PS: Please keep this a Bf109K thread... or at least only request planes that can be made WITHOUT making any 3D model changes to existing IL2:FB ACES models!

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

jagdmailer
06-01-2004, 11:12 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by kubanloewe:
hm,agree but I also like to see a 190D12 with Jumo213E or D11 with Jumo213F.

I know they were very few but they flew instead of GOÔ┬┤s or some others http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kuban,

I agree but the late Doras would require some external model modification in most cases, and Oleg already indicated that they will not happen because of lack of references. (Probably also lack of time)

The list of Bfs above would require no external modifications, and no cockpit's mods (in most cases) - strictly FM. Therefore, little efforts would be needed from Maddox's team to deliver another 7 variants of a very popular aircraft. That is why they should & could be in the sim. Additionally, they were all historically available and would fill some nice gaps in the current Bf 109 line-up.

Cheers,

Jagd

kubanloewe
06-01-2004, 11:36 AM
hm, ok then give the Dora a Bombrack or R4M and Panzerblitz for the F8 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.arcor.de/kubanskiloewe/g14gutspruchsig.jpg
"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherr Manfred von Richthofen

crazyivan1970
06-01-2004, 12:01 PM
Sign me up for that one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

kubanloewe
06-01-2004, 12:18 PM
...and put the 190 Propeller in the correct position in Reviview at last !! haow bad it is to look forward and see the blades off centre...

http://home.arcor.de/kubanskiloewe/g14gutspruchsig.jpg
"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherr Manfred von Richthofen

KaRaYa-X
06-01-2004, 12:44 PM
BUMP!

so the current requests are as follows:

1942 Bf 109F-4 w/ full boost @ 1.42 ATA
1943 Bf 109G-2 w/ full boost @ 1.42 ATA
1943 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/ original GM-1 nitrous-oxide boost system
early 1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/ "Field Mod" GM-1 system converted for MW-50 boost use.
1944 Bf 109G-10 w/ DB605DCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1944 Bf 109G-14 w/DB605ASCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1944 Bf 109K-4 w/DB605DCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1945 Bf109K-14 w/DB605L (don't know exact hp; various sources say different things... some say only 1700hp max. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif)

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

Cragger
06-01-2004, 01:21 PM
Surprised your not begging for the Bf-109 K6.. K4 with a Mk 108 in the spinner and one in each wing root http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.jpg

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
06-01-2004, 01:37 PM
Bumb for new engines:

I'm suporting

G10 / K4 ;
+ G10 / G14 with option for 20mm Gun in the Spinner.

and:

FW190 D9 with A - Lader & Option for ETC 504 with loadout (on all version for D9).

ok i'm a bit daydreaming..^^ but the ETC can be used from A9 (i think) and thats all what would be needed to change (same amount of work as adding the A6)

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg

NN_EnigmuS
06-02-2004, 03:52 AM
oh dear my late war LW dream a 109 with 2000Hp,a Fw190D11/12/13 and panzerblitz for 190F8
and all the things you said indeed for 109 and 190

bump and rebump

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

Prof.Wizard
06-02-2004, 06:06 AM
The G10 (hybrid) version is my favorite. Every work on it is welcome by me.

^bump^

-----------------------------

Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg

KaRaYa-X
06-02-2004, 01:03 PM
BUMP!

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

VOL_Hans
06-02-2004, 02:47 PM
MAJOR BUMP! On this one!

If not the K-14, atleast G-10 and K-4 with the new engines would be nice.

Also a bump for the F-4/G-2 with increased boost, and a bump for the new Dora!

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg

NN_EnigmuS
06-03-2004, 02:18 AM
Jagdmailer they said no data for Fw190D11/12/13 and they will put Ta152C in gamehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

anyway bump again for more 109 and 190

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

Skalgrim
06-03-2004, 08:53 AM
not only 200ps more,

with c3 fuel can db605dc 1,5ata 1550-1600ps supply for 30min

with b4 only 1,3ata 1300ps 30min



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
200more HP make a difference.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Thu June 03 2004 at 08:03 AM.]

Functio
06-03-2004, 09:12 AM
The K-14 and K-6 were only existent on paper, so I don't think they're needed in FB/AEP.

jagdmailer
06-03-2004, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
Jagdmailer they said no data for Fw190D11/12/13 and they will put Ta152C in gamehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

anyway bump again for more 109 and 190

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well,

That is what Oleg said about the late Doras.

About the Ta 152C-1 & Ta 152C-3, Harti has already submitted them to Oleg I beleive, so if Oleg was willing to take the Ta 152C models from Harti for possible inclusion, one has to assume that there is enough data enough on them for Oleg to feel comfortable to include them in his sim.

I am nowhere near an expert on the Doras so I cannot really help there. Perhaps someone else ?

Cheers,

Jagd

Charos
06-03-2004, 06:08 PM
Please sign me up for another 200HP http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Is there a reson why this Uprated Engine is not in the Game - was it in low Supply or somthing?

I got No Idea - Just asking. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

KaRaYa-X
06-04-2004, 10:55 AM
Charos please read my original posting... it's mentioned there:

"Hi!

As I'm a big fan of the Bf109 so I would really like to see the Bf109G10 and K4 with a DB605DC engine (right now we "only" have the DB605DB equipped ones).

DB605DB:
max. output (without injection): 1550 HP
(with injection): 1800HP

DB605DC:
max. output (without injection): 1800HP
(with injection): 2000HP

Just as a side-note: Both the DB and DC engines became available at the same time; however the majority of G10s and K4s was equipped with the DB engine for only ONE very SIMPLE reason:
The DC engine required relatively high graded fuel to run (IIRC it's the C3 fuel) whereas the DB ran on relatively "bad" fuel (the B2 fuel).
However in 1944 when the Bf109G10 and K4 entered service air raids over the Reich were daily business, destroying many production facilities and factories. As a result the supply of high graded fuel was VERY short - too short to service a whole fleet of Bf109s.
So DC engined G10s and K4s were mainly restriceted for use in the "Reichsverteidigung"


I would love to see these variants because from my point of view they represent late war Bf109s the way they were MEANT to be but could not be used widely because of fuel shortage.
This is not meant as another "We need plane B to counter plane A" thread. I just love these birds and think it would be a delight to fly them.

After all it would only take some editing of the current FM of both the G10 and K4. There are NO visual differences between DB and DC engined planes.
So just think of these versions as the "L.F." variant of Bf109s
Another thing is that these planes FLEW; they weren't prototypes or "what-if" planes...
They were built (in 1944), they flew, they fought!


Oleg PLEASE introduce these two new version! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif"

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
06-05-2004, 02:03 AM
bumpedi bump...

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg

Bussard_1
06-05-2004, 03:08 AM
Guys,
Regards "no references" for the Fw190D-12.
Does anyone else here think that the people who put Yellow 10 back together or Jerry Crandell may have a clue where to find specs on this baby?
Have a look at http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm7.showMessageRange?topic ID=26.topic&start=1&stop=20

Bussard_1

Viel' Feind'
Viel' Ehre!

NN_EnigmuS
06-05-2004, 03:17 AM
thanks Bussard and they also can have technical data:

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/FW_DATA.jpg

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

CTO88
06-05-2004, 06:44 AM
according to butch2k only few 2000PS engines were built in 3/45!. you are also wrong about 605db. db has 1850PS and there is no evidence for serial production. every official "kennblatt" i know, 109g10,g14 and k4 reaches 1800PS. g14 mostly had 605asm, g10 605dm. 605dm is a 605d with mw50 = 1800PS.

btw all 2000PS variants needs c3 or c2 fuel. but due shortness of fuel especially c3 (needed for 190a), 109 had to fly with b4.

in spite of these facts, oleg should make 2000PS 109 for stoping whiner.

KaRaYa-X
06-05-2004, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
according to butch2k only few 2000PS engines were built in 3/45!. you are also wrong about 605db. db has 1850PS and there is no evidence for serial production. every official "kennblatt" i know, 109g10,g14 and k4 reaches 1800PS. g14 mostly had 605asm, g10 605dm. 605dm is a 605d with mw50 = 1800PS.

btw all 2000PS variants needs c3 or c2 fuel. but due shortness of fuel especially c3 (needed for 190a), 109 had to fly with b4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you had read my original post you might have seen that I actually mentioned these things...
And about DB605DB/DC: they are 1944 engines and weren't built because of the very same reason you mentioned yourself right above.

you might want to give this a look...
http://w1.1861.telia.com/~u186104874/db605.htm

About your argument that only few examples where built: Would you be so kind and tell me how many Mig3U, I-185, Go229, P80s where built/saw service during WWII?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
in spite of these facts, oleg should make 2000PS 109 for stoping whiner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't see anybody whine in here. You might want to calm down, get a cold one and/or do some yoga...

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

Ironman69
06-05-2004, 09:48 AM
yeah..the 2,000 HP 109K4 would be awesome!! Come on Oleg....PPLLEEEAASSEEE????

ElAurens
06-05-2004, 10:38 AM
Make mine a P51H or F8F please....

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Kurfurst__
06-05-2004, 04:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
according to butch2k only few 2000PS engines were built in 3/45!. you are also wrong about 605db. db has 1850PS and there is no evidence for serial production. every official "kennblatt" i know, 109g10,g14 and k4 reaches 1800PS. g14 mostly had 605asm, g10 605dm. 605dm is a 605d with mw50 = 1800PS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lot`s of wishful thinking and surrealism. As evidenced by dates of 605 DB/DC Motorenkarte, the DB and DC type engines were in existence from about november 1944, perhaps as early as October. In other words, the DB/DC was available at the same time the 109G-10 and K-4 appeared in service. The DB 605DM you speak of was an early variant, fitted only to the earliest 109s only, AFAIK it was a conversion from earlier 605D type engines, that were fitted with MW 50. You appear to repeat and even exaggretate the misinformation being spread by some Spit zealots who also seem to believe the Spit was immune to overheating etc.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>you are also wrong about 605db. db has 1850PS and there is no evidence for serial production. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm.. interesting ? One must ask, if the 605 DB wasn`t even produced, then why there are Allied reports, German docs referring to DB and DC engines built in G-10s and K-4s? There also evidence to DCO and other variants of the 605D powerplant subtypes, most of them you probably never heard of.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>btw all 2000PS variants needs c3 or c2 fuel. but due shortness of fuel especially c3 (needed for 190a), 109 had to fly with b4. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bf 109s flew both with C-3 and B-4 fuels, and there`s evidence of the use of C-3 by quite a few Bf 109s units. As a matter of fact, (German) shipments of avgas to Italian Bf 109 units, empoying G-10s and K-4s, does show they relied primarly on C-3 (in fact, mostly just C-3 was supplied to them in 1945, despite the fact they had few if any FW 190s that would require it. AFAIK, butch commented that G-10 units typically received more C-3 fuel than 109K units (probably because the 109K needed it less, being a better airframe). Interestingly enough, the G-10 climbed better than the 109K, as it was about 60-70 kg lighter.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Kurfurst__
06-05-2004, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
Karaya,

Those are several Bf 109s that I & some other posters have been requesting for a long time and that can be implemented with mostly some changes to FM for planes currently in the SIM. No new models - No external 3D mods, and no cockpit mods in most cases either: (read - rather easy way for Maddox/1C to give us another 7 aicrafts in the next patch http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

1942 Bf 109F-4 w/ full boost @ 1.42 ATA
1943 Bf 109G-2 w/ full boost @ 1.42 ATA
1943 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/ original GM-1 nitrous-oxide boost system
1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/ "Field Mod" GM-1 system converted for MW-50 boost use.
1945 Bf 109G-10 w/ DB605DCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1945 Bf 109G-14 w/DB605ASCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1945 Bf 109K-4 w/DB605DCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude

As far as the low production variants (we did get many Yaks & Polikarpov that never went into production in the last patch), I would like to see a Bf 109K-14 with DB605L & 4-blade propeller. Several were built in the last few weeks of the war and apparently 2 made it to III./JG52 in April 1945.

Those would fill some nice gaps in the current Bf 109 line-up & I am sure many would be glad to see those as they were available historically & given the recent influx of Yaks, Laggs & Polikarpov in the lastest patch.

Cheers,

JagdMailer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, the addition of these planes would make the 109 palette full!

109 F-4 (`42) and G-2 (`43) with their improved boost would be nice additions, and would represent the changes and improvements of time. A 109G variant with GM-1 would aslo be nice for a high altitude fighter for the mid-war years! Only I can disagreed with the G-6/MW50 version, we already have that one in the G-14.

We would also need the basic G-14 and G-10 models with the more usual 20mm engine cannon.

2000 PS 109G-10 and K-4 would be nice additions as well, as mentioned, these models were used in the conflict towards the end of the war. There are plenty of sources pointing towards the existence of 109K-14s/or K-4 equivalents with two-staged DB 605Ds, which would be also nice to see as 1945 planes. While not as good at low levels as the basic K-4, these 109s had high altitude performance that could be only matched by the Ta-152H.

109 K-6 could be considered, as one of such plane is known to be tested at Rechlin in late 1944 iirc. Wouldn`t be much different from current K-4 w. MK 108 pods, though.. only more armor fitted, but it was fairly heavy.

As for a semi 'what-if', variant, I would vote the Bf 109K-10. This improved model of the 109K was similiar to the K-4, but having a high velocity MK 103mot engine cannon instead of the MK 108, with some extra weight due to this of course.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

JG7_Rall
06-05-2004, 05:04 PM
Bump, everything here sounds great, keep this civil guys!

"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!

NN_EnigmuS
06-06-2004, 03:47 AM
agreed everything here sounds great keep it up

Bump!

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

JG53Frankyboy
06-06-2004, 04:05 AM
well, the actual F4 and G2 in game are already 1.42ata engine planes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

so, we would have to call for the less power 1.3ata planes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif do we realy want this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

btw, the 1.42ata G2 could be named Bf109G4 than http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .

but, stay serious , there will be not such changes in FB/AEP anymore in future. this game is more like a dead horse - with PF and BoB at the horizont.

LEXX_Luthor
06-06-2004, 04:18 AM
Kurfurst:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Agreed, the addition of these planes would make the 109 palette full!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Real true Fans of the Luftwaffe who are inspired to Sim the brilliant Rise of the Luftwaffe rather than Sim its brutal Defeat know better. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

jagdmailer
06-06-2004, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
well, the actual F4 and G2 in game are already 1.42ata engine planes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

so, we would have to call for the less power 1.3ata planes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif do we realy want this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

btw, the 1.42ata G2 could be named Bf109G4 than http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .

but, stay serious , there will be not such changes in FB/AEP anymore in future. this game is more like a dead horse - with PF and BoB at the horizont.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is that the 1.42 ATA seems to be a boost gage discrepancy in the F-4 & G-2. Although the gage indicate 1.42 ATA, it appears that the actual in the game performance of the F-4 & the G-2 is most consistant with the "derated" 1.3 ATA setting for both aircrafts. Not surprising at all considering many of the other aircraft's non-fonctional, mis-calibrated or simply un-calibrated gages......

Historically, the F-4 with the 1350hp DB601E engine and the G-2 with the new 1475hp DB605A were both derated "in the field" some time after they entered service because of engine reliability problems when using full boost.

I do not have the in the game test data handy at this very moment, but I am sure someone else will be eager to provide.

The F-4 & G-2 were rated back to their original 1.42 ATA boost setting respectively in 1942 & 1943. All we are asking is for the FM in the game to be adjusted to reflect this fact at that particular time, and a seperate "type" of Bf 109F/G to be added to the game. This way, if you are in a campaign, you could get "issued" a 1941 Bf 109F-4 (FM such as in the game now - rated at 1.3 ATA), then in 1942, your Bf 109F-4 could be rated back to 1.42 ATA to reflect historical events making it a 1942 Bf 109F-4. Same for the G-2 1942/1942. That is all.

Cheers,

JagdMailer

sinlanchon
06-06-2004, 09:42 AM
I you get your DB605DC engined G10 and K4 i want to see my Yak-3 VK107A then....

sinlanchon

ElAurens
06-06-2004, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
The F-4 & G-2 were rated back to their original 1.42 ATA boost setting respectively in 1942 & 1943. All we are asking is for the FM in the game to be adjusted to reflect this fact at that particular time, and a seperate "type" of Bf 109F/G to be added to the game.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please understand this is not a flame.

The performance of the G2 is already stellar, at least online. If you are outclimbed in it , you have done something wrong, or simply misjudged your opponent's energy state. It competes on a equal footing with the P51B/C and Spitfires.
I'm sorry, but I don't see the problem here. If any Bf 109 FM discrepancies exist it is with the maneuverability of the F2/4 series. They are quite the sticks in the mud now.

And I have to agree with sinlanchon.


_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

NN_EnigmuS
06-06-2004, 01:19 PM
you have already lot of new yaks with aep 2.01(2 of 1945,5or6 at all),but there is no 1945 Bf109 yet and some more Fw D variants will be cool

anyway why not having a yak3 with Vk107A engine(100 built and saw action in 1945),if we have some more 109 and 190.

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

jeroen_R90S
06-06-2004, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Kurfurst:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Agreed, the addition of these planes would make the 109 palette full!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Real true _Fans_ of the Luftwaffe who are inspired to Sim the brilliant Rise of the Luftwaffe rather than Sim its brutal Defeat know better. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bump for early war action. Emil needs some older and wiser friends! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Jeroen

VOL_Hans
06-06-2004, 02:34 PM
1942 Bf 109F-4 w/ full boost @ 1.42 ATA
1943 Bf 109G-2 w/ full boost @ 1.42 ATA
1943 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/ original GM-1 nitrous-oxide boost system
1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/ "Field Mod" GM-1 system converted for MW-50 boost use.
1945 Bf 109G-10 w/ DB605DCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1945 Bf 109G-14 w/DB605ASCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1945 Bf 109K-4 w/DB605DCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude

BUMP! as I would love to see all of these aircraft in the game, but, perhaps we could drop the G-14 and G-6/U2 MW-50 from the list?

As somebody pointed out, the G-6/U2 is MW-50 is essentially a G-14, and the G-14 with the uprated engine is essentially a G-10...

I hope that if we dropped those from the list, we might get some of the other planes in. The G-6 GM-1 would be a welcome addition, could use it to simulate G-8's as well.

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg

CTO88
06-07-2004, 02:06 AM
who can give me a proove for an 2000PS serial production before 3/45?

@ kurf├╝rst

wishful thinking seems to be more on you. from earlier discussions, i know you can't handle the truth. if the allies take some prototypes, why not?

and btw take 2000PS in fb. people who will loose with 1800PS k4, will loose then also.

jagdmailer
06-07-2004, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
who can give me a proove for an 2000PS serial production before 3/45?

@ kurf├╝rst

wishful thinking seems to be more on you. from earlier discussions, i know you can't handle the truth. if the allies take some prototypes, why not?

and btw take 2000PS in fb. people who will loose with 1800PS k4, will loose then also.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cokol88,

The DB605DCM was in service in late 1944 according to Mercedes-Benz. (Mercedes-Benz AG, Archives, Stuttgart, Germany). I do not have a date for the DB605ASCM, which had similar output, but since it was mainly fitted to the Bf 109G-14, an earlier aircraft than G-10 & K-4, - then one has to assume it was available at least around the same time, if not earlier.

JagdMailer

butch2k
06-07-2004, 11:55 AM
By late January 1945 the DB605DC at 1.98ata had not even been cleared for the operational testing phase.

jagdmailer
06-07-2004, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
By late January 1945 the DB605DC at 1.98ata had not even been cleared for the operational testing phase.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, that's fine butch. Why the discrepency with Mercedes-Benz's archives ? Just wandering

In any event, there is no deniying that the engines were indeed available well before the end of the conflict.

All I am saying is that with the little amount of work that is needed with the FM only, it would be relatively easy for Maddox/1C to deliver an additional 7 variants of the Bf 109, including the DB605DCM & DB605ASCM equipped variants - namely Bf 109G-10, G-14, & K-4. Note that I have prudently used "1945" in the naming of those particular variant in my original post.

Regards,

JagdMailer

butch2k
06-07-2004, 12:36 PM
No discrepency from the DB archives, since this is coming from the DB archives...

http://mapage.noos.fr/olefebvre/db605dc-doc1-title.jpg

The amount of engine transformed into DB605DC remain to be determined as few 109 units had C3 fuel at hands even in April 1944. So number of converted engine must have been low.

jagdmailer
06-07-2004, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
No discrepency from the DB archives, since this is coming from the DB archives...

http://mapage.noos.fr/olefebvre/db605dc-doc1-title.jpg

The amount of engine transformed into DB605DC remain to be determined as few 109 units had C3 fuel at hands even in April 1944. So number of converted engine must have been low.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK. I had a chance just now to have access to my resources and there must have been a typo (invert the dates) as it lists the DB605DCM @2000hp as a 1944 engine and the DB605ASCM @ 2000hp as a 1945 engine.

I would tend to agree with you as far as the low number of aircraft with either of those engines given the overall fuel shortage situation at the end of the war. However, within the scope of Il-2/AEP where the amount of a particular aircraft produced or even it's existence in some case has no bearing on its inclusion in the game - specially as of late, those later-war 2000hp engined Bf 109s monsters would be great to have & a necessity. The late Bf 109s we have at this point in the game are 1944 aircrafts.

Thanks

Jagd

lrrp22
06-07-2004, 01:00 PM
Butch,

This issue seems to go 'round and 'round on the various boards.

What does your evidence indicate as far as numbers of Gruppen and numbers of aircraft running at 1.98 ata? I believe that some have quoted you as stating that 1.98 ata was limited to one or two Gruppen of JG77. Is that accurate?

TIA

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
No discrepency from the DB archives, since this is coming from the DB archives...

http://mapage.noos.fr/olefebvre/db605dc-doc1-title.jpg

The amount of engine transformed into DB605DC remain to be determined as few 109 units had C3 fuel at hands even in April 1944. So number of converted engine must have been low.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VOL_Hans
06-07-2004, 02:50 PM
Nomatter what the case, I feel that we have enough planes that never flew in the game to justify a Bf-109G-10 and K-4 with a 2000HP engine.

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg

jagdmailer
06-07-2004, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VOL_Hans:
Nomatter what the case, I feel that we have enough planes that never flew in the game to justify a Bf-109G-10 and K-4 with a 2000HP engine.

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vol,

That is exactly what I am referring to. Also, let's not forget the Bf 109G-14 w/ DB605ASCM @ 2000hp.

Cheers,

JagdMailer

lrrp22
06-07-2004, 03:37 PM
That's a valid point.

However, if you boost the K-4 to 1.98 ata then it would reasonably require that the boost level of the Spitfire and Mustang, and probably others, be increased as well. The number of these two aircraft featuring higher boost levels dwarfed the number of K-4's boosted to 1.98 ata and preceded the K-4's implementation of increased boost by many months.

The prototypes, one-offs and Luftwaffe/USAAF '46 types are one thing, but if you start boosting the 'bread and butter' type aircraft then contemporary context requires that Allied aircraft receive the same treatment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VOL_Hans:
Nomatter what the case, I feel that we have enough planes that never flew in the game to justify a Bf-109G-10 and K-4 with a 2000HP engine.

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vol,

That is exactly what I am referring to. Also, let's not forget the Bf 109G-14 w/ DB605ASCM @ 2000hp.

Cheers,

JagdMailer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

jagdmailer
06-07-2004, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
That's a valid point.

However, if you boost the K-4 to 1.98 ata then it would reasonably require that the boost level of the Spitfire and Mustang, and probably others, be increased as well. The number of these two aircraft featuring higher boost levels dwarfed the number of K-4's boosted to 1.98 ata and preceded the K-4's implementation of increased boost by many months.

The prototypes, one-offs and Luftwaffe/USAAF '46 types are one thing, but if you start boosting the 'bread and butter' type aircraft then contemporary context requires that Allied aircraft receive the same treatment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VOL_Hans:
Nomatter what the case, I feel that we have enough planes that never flew in the game to justify a Bf-109G-10 and K-4 with a 2000HP engine.

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vol,

That is exactly what I am referring to. Also, let's not forget the Bf 109G-14 w/ DB605ASCM @ 2000hp.

Cheers,

JagdMailer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK then. Why don't you start your own thread requesting whatever British or American plane you deem appropriate ?

Cheers,

JagdMailer

lrrp22
06-07-2004, 05:25 PM
Hey, I'm just pointing out that you should be carefull what you wish for.

Any thread requesting higher levels of boost for the Mustang or Spitfire is immediately inundated with certain Luftwaffe types (not you) screaming that such performance has no place in-game and is nothing more than Allied propoganda anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
That's a valid point.

However, if you boost the K-4 to 1.98 ata then it would reasonably require that the boost level of the Spitfire and Mustang, and probably others, be increased as well. The number of these two aircraft featuring higher boost levels dwarfed the number of K-4's boosted to 1.98 ata and preceded the K-4's implementation of increased boost by many months.

The prototypes, one-offs and Luftwaffe/USAAF '46 types are one thing, but if you start boosting the 'bread and butter' type aircraft then contemporary context requires that Allied aircraft receive the same treatment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VOL_Hans:
Nomatter what the case, I feel that we have enough planes that never flew in the game to justify a Bf-109G-10 and K-4 with a 2000HP engine.

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vol,

That is exactly what I am referring to. Also, let's not forget the Bf 109G-14 w/ DB605ASCM @ 2000hp.

Cheers,

JagdMailer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK then. Why don't you start your own thread requesting whatever British or American plane you deem appropriate ?

Cheers,

JagdMailer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magister__Ludi
06-07-2004, 08:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Hey, I'm just pointing out that you should be carefull what you wish for.

Any thread requesting higher levels of boost for the Mustang or Spitfire is immediately inundated with certain Luftwaffe types (not you) screaming that such performance has no place in-game and is nothing more than Allied propoganda anyway.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


1.98ata boost is completely legit, since it was used operationally (from Dec '44 IIRC). It should be added as on option for 1945 planeset.

Highly boosted V-1650 never reached operational status with USAAF in ETO, though they were tried for a while. There is not a single document to prove such use which needed 115/145 grade fuel. All documents concerning 150 fuel grade, like those measuring the power of V-1650 at 81" MP boost, or the planned use with British units, or the amount of 150 grade fuel produced, all those documents are NOT proofs of ACTUAL use, they merely proove a PLANNED use, I'm sure everybody can make the difference.

If you want to demonstrate your case you can do it in a very simple manner with only 2 things: a SEFC chart (Specific Engine Flight Chart) for V-1650-3 or -7 which clearly correlates the boost levels with the fuel grade, and an USAAF statistic with 115/145 fuel consumption in ETO. For example I can provide SEFC charts for R-2800 variants of P-47N and F4U-4 (the only ww2 American fighters that were capable of operational use of 115/145 grade fuel) explicitly requesting the use of 115/145 grade fuel for certain boost levels. Do the same for V-1650 and you have a case.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Mon June 07 2004 at 07:24 PM.]

jagdmailer
06-07-2004, 09:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Hey, I'm just pointing out that you should be carefull what you wish for.

Any thread requesting higher levels of boost for the Mustang or Spitfire is immediately inundated with certain Luftwaffe types (not you) screaming that such performance has no place in-game and is nothing more than Allied propoganda anyway.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


1.98ata boost is completely legit, since it was used operationally (from Dec '44 IIRC). It should be added as on option for 1945 planeset.

Highly boosted V-1650 never reached operational status with USAAF in ETO, though they were tried for a while. There is not a single document to prove such use which needed 115/145 grade fuel. All documents concerning 150 fuel grade, like those measuring the power of V-1650 at 81" MP boost, or the planned use with British units, or the amount of 150 grade fuel produced, all those documents are NOT proofs of ACTUAL use, they merely proove a PLANNED use, I'm sure everybody can make the difference.

If you want to demonstrate your case you can do it in a very simple manner with only 2 things: a SEFC chart (Specific Engine Flight Chart) for V-1650-3 or -7 which clearly correlates the boost levels with the fuel grade, and an USAAF statistic with 115/145 fuel consumption in ETO. For example I can provide SEFC charts for R-2800 variants of P-47N and F4U-4 (the only ww2 American fighters that were capable of operational use of 115/145 grade fuel) explicitly requesting the use of 115/145 grade fuel for certain boost levels. Do the same for V-1650 and you have a case.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Mon June 07 2004 at 07:24 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's sound fair Ludi.

In any event, Maddox ought to be thinking about a few things:

1. What to do with people who will NOT buy PF for whatever reason;

2. What to do with helping bridging Maddox/1C until BoB is released.

Sure PF will bring in some revenues, but it's appeal is very limited for Europe-based people & folks based outside of the US/Australia, and the PF revenues will not be as high as if PF would be a complete Maddox/1C product. BoB is a 2005 product and may or may not be released until 2006 given what I know of software developpment, and according to Maddox/1C's own track record for meeting deadline. Therefore:

Here comes AEP2! Give me the following Bf 109s:

1942 Bf 109F-4 w/ full boost @ 1.42 ATA
1943 Bf 109G-2 w/ full boost @ 1.42 ATA
1943 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/ original GM-1 nitrous-oxide boost system
1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/ "Field Mod" GM-1 system converted for MW-50 boost use.
1945 Bf 109G-10 w/ DB605DCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1945 Bf 109G-14 w/DB605ASCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1945 Bf 109K-4 w/DB605DCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude

Along with the prior, give me Jippo's Ju 88s, Brother's Ju 188, the flyable henschel 129, Harti's 2 variants of the Ta 152C & some of the Italian ponies ie. at least flyable Mc 200 & Mc. 202 & some surprises LW planes and I, along with the guys that will not buy PF, will gladly pay my $ 29.95 for FB-AEP2.

There is a great opportunity here for Oleg to milk out some of the last remaining potential out of the 4+ year old Il-2 code in FB-AEP2. Let's hope he will capitalize on it!

My 2 cents,

JagdMailer

ElAurens
06-07-2004, 10:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi: Blah blah blah...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Issy, the 80+ inches of manifold pressure as used on P51s and P47s were done in the field by individual pilots or units and have nothing to do with "official" practice. But you know this.

What's the matter? Afraid of the truth?

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

lrrp22
06-07-2004, 10:48 PM
...and right on cue, HEEEEEEERE'S HUCKEBEIN!!


quote:
"All documents concerning 150 fuel grade, like those measuring the power of V-1650 at 81" MP boost, or the planned use with British units, or the amount of 150 grade fuel produced, all those documents are NOT proofs of ACTUAL use, they merely proove a PLANNED use, I'm sure everybody can make the difference. "
/quote


Well, here goes five minutes of my life I'll never get back... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif


Your willfull ignorance and refusal to accept the obvious does *not* require me to produce further documents that are more to your liking.

Your attempts to confuse the issue does not change the fact that 100/150 grade fuel, **NOT 115/145 grade**, and 72" MAP became the standard configuration for VIIIth Fighter Command beginning June 1944.

Britain-based RAF Mustang and Spitfire units began the transition even earlier but ran their Merlin 66/V-1650-7's at 81" MAP. By the end of 1944 *ALL* ETO RAF Mustang and Spitfire LF IX units were flying at 81" MAP.

With regards to 1.98 ata, butch2k has stated repeatedly that this boost level was not approved until March of '45 and even then only for a couple of Gruppen.

The thing is Huck, you know all this. The problem is is that you take a perverse joy in posting blatantly false and agenda-ridden 'facts' and then requiring ever increasing amounts of "proof" to retort your drivel.


Here's a switch Huckebein- How's about you produce a document that proves that 1.98 ata was *ever* used by K-4's? Not just tested, or considerd, but USED...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Hey, I'm just pointing out that you should be carefull what you wish for.

Any thread requesting higher levels of boost for the Mustang or Spitfire is immediately inundated with certain Luftwaffe types (not you) screaming that such performance has no place in-game and is nothing more than Allied propoganda anyway.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


1.98ata boost is completely legit, since it was used operationally (from Dec '44 IIRC). It should be added as on option for 1945 planeset.

Highly boosted V-1650 never reached operational status with USAAF in ETO, though they were tried for a while. There is not a single document to prove such use which needed 115/145 grade fuel. All documents concerning 150 fuel grade, like those measuring the power of V-1650 at 81" MP boost, or the planned use with British units, or the amount of 150 grade fuel produced, all those documents are NOT proofs of ACTUAL use, they merely proove a PLANNED use, I'm sure everybody can make the difference.

If you want to demonstrate your case you can do it in a very simple manner with only 2 things: a SEFC chart (Specific Engine Flight Chart) for V-1650-3 or -7 which clearly correlates the boost levels with the fuel grade, and an USAAF statistic with 115/145 fuel consumption in ETO. For example I can provide SEFC charts for R-2800 variants of P-47N and F4U-4 (the only ww2 American fighters that were capable of operational use of 115/145 grade fuel) explicitly requesting the use of 115/145 grade fuel for certain boost levels. Do the same for V-1650 and you have a case.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Mon June 07 2004 at 07:24 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
06-07-2004, 10:56 PM
ElAurens,

Actually, Magister_Ludi is the UberTwin formerly known as Huckebein_FW. Isegrim is Kurfurst.

Also 81"/+25 lb boost (2020 HP at ~4000 ft) was the *official* standard for RAF Merlin 66-equipped Spitfires and V-1650-7-equipped Mustang III's beginning in May of '44.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi: Blah blah blah...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Issy, the 80+ inches of manifold pressure as used on P51s and P47s were done in the field by individual pilots or units and have nothing to do with "official" practice. But you know this.

What's the matter? Afraid of the truth?

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

__BlitzPig_EL__<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ElAurens
06-07-2004, 11:22 PM
OOPS, but Huck and Issy are interchangable, no?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

NN_EnigmuS
06-08-2004, 04:30 AM
don't forget Fw190D11/12/13 who flown during the war not like Ta152C lol

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

jagdmailer
06-18-2004, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
Karaya,

Those are several Bf 109s that I & some other posters have been requesting for a long time and that can be implemented with mostly some changes to FM for planes currently in the SIM. No new models - No external 3D mods, and no cockpit mods in most cases either: (read - rather easy way for Maddox/1C to give us another 7 aicrafts in the next patch http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

1942 Bf 109F-4 w/ full boost @ 1.42 ATA
1943 Bf 109G-2 w/ full boost @ 1.42 ATA
1943 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/ original GM-1 nitrous-oxide boost system
1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/ "Field Mod" GM-1 system converted for MW-50 boost use.
1945 Bf 109G-10 w/ DB605DCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1945 Bf 109G-14 w/DB605ASCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1945 Bf 109K-4 w/DB605DCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude

As far as the low production variants (we did get many Yaks & Polikarpov that never went into production in the last patch), I would like to see a Bf 109K-14 with DB605L & 4-blade propeller. Several were built in the last few weeks of the war and apparently 2 made it to III./JG52 in April 1945.

Those would fill some nice gaps in the current Bf 109 line-up & I am sure many would be glad to see those as they were available historically & given the recent influx of Yaks, Laggs & Polikarpov in the lastest patch.

Cheers,

JagdMailer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BUMP!

Jagd

k5054
06-18-2004, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> As far as the low production variants (we did get many Yaks & Polikarpov that never went into production in the last patch), I would like to see a Bf 109K-14 with DB605L & 4-blade propeller. Several were built in the last few weeks of the war and apparently 2 made it to III./JG52 in April 1945. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ever see a photo of a K-14? Any evidence the 605L was built? Any K-14s left after VE day in the copious aircraft dumps?

No, I thought not.

jagdmailer
06-18-2004, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> As far as the low production variants (we did get many Yaks & Polikarpov that never went into production in the last patch), I would like to see a Bf 109K-14 with DB605L & 4-blade propeller. Several were built in the last few weeks of the war and apparently 2 made it to III./JG52 in April 1945. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ever see a photo of a K-14? Any evidence the 605L was built? Any K-14s left after VE day in the copious aircraft dumps?

No, I thought not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well,

Info about the Bf 109K-14 is indeed hard to find.

Dressel & Griehl which are no slouch and they confirmed that several Bf 109K-14 were produced & were delivered in the last few weeks of the war.

Nevertheless, I am not proposing here that production justify the inclusion in FB, as we are well beyond that. Just take a look at the 2.01 patch......

All I am saying is that since we already have many aircrafts that did not or barely made production before the end of WWII, including some very late Yaks, the Go 229, Bf 109Z....., then it justifies in my opinion and would be interesting to have a Bf 109K-14 wether or not it was indeed produced and deliver to front line units.

I am not holding my breath for the K-14 however, and I would much rather have the prior list of 1942-1945 Bf 109s that are currently missing from the Bf 109 line-up in FB/AEP and which most were the bread-and-butter fighters of the Luftwaffe in those years.

Jagd

jagdmailer
06-18-2004, 02:09 PM
As far as the low production variants (we did get many Yaks & Polikarpov that never went into production in the last patch), I would like to see a Bf 109K-14 with DB605L & 4-blade propeller. Several were built in the last few weeks of the war and apparently 2 made it to III./JG52 in April 1945. [/QUOTE]


Bf 109K-14 "primer" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

K-14 model depicted in II./JG52 colors late WWII. Pure evil.....

BTW, I am not basing my assumption about the Bf 109K-14 with II./JG52 on a kitbash....I simply had those saved in my bookmarks & figured they would look "right" in that thread.

Jagd

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/models/bn1/bn1_k14/bn1.k14-2.jpg

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/models/bn1/bn1_k14/bn1.k14-6.jpg

k5054
06-19-2004, 04:25 AM
I agree we have many dubious aircraft already, but all of them flew and were photographed in a complete state, except one, and that is a 109 variant. If we had a K-14, we'd have no performance data at all ( I personally don't think it would be better than the k4 except at high altitudes where no fighting was taking place in 1945 ), and it would be wide open for decades of whining/bashing.
I don't believe the K-14 existed. Who put it into production without a test plane? Who did any testing, or wrote servicing manuals etc for it. Where is the parts list for the 605L? When did that engine complete its ground testing?

You oughta check the book is really by the authors you claim, I suspect it may have been written by the famous German historians the Brothers Grimm, because this is a fairy story, even if it doesn't end 'they all lived happily ever after'.

Rant over, for now.

jagdmailer
06-19-2004, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
I agree we have many dubious aircraft already, but all of them flew and were photographed in a complete state, except one, and that is a 109 variant. If we had a K-14, we'd have no performance data at all ( I personally don't think it would be better than the k4 except at high altitudes where no fighting was taking place in 1945 ), and it would be wide open for decades of whining/bashing.
I don't believe the K-14 existed. Who put it into production without a test plane? Who did any testing, or wrote servicing manuals etc for it. Where is the parts list for the 605L? When did that engine complete its ground testing?

You oughta check the book is really by the authors you claim, I suspect it may have been written by the famous German historians the Brothers Grimm, because this is a fairy story, even if it doesn't end 'they all lived happily ever after'.

Rant over, for now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was from a quick scan in The Luftwaffe album from Dressel & Griehl that I had handy at the time. Will have to search my references when I have a chance.

Anyway, with Oleg's attention turned to PF & BoB, I doubt we will see a Bf 109K-14 since it would require some external changes.

My original post was concerning several important & historically produced and available variants of the Bf 109 that are currently missing from the current Bf 109 line-up and which could be added with no external model changes, no cockpit changes - only some FM changes.

Basically, Oleg/Maddox-1C could add 7 "new" flyable aircrafts to FB with very little efforts.

Regards,

JagdMailer

jagdmailer
06-21-2004, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
I agree we have many dubious aircraft already, but all of them flew and were photographed in a complete state, except one, and that is a 109 variant. If we had a K-14, we'd have no performance data at all ( I personally don't think it would be better than the k4 except at high altitudes where no fighting was taking place in 1945 ), and it would be wide open for decades of whining/bashing.
I don't believe the K-14 existed. Who put it into production without a test plane? Who did any testing, or wrote servicing manuals etc for it. Where is the parts list for the 605L? When did that engine complete its ground testing?

You oughta check the book is really by the authors you claim, I suspect it may have been written by the famous German historians the Brothers Grimm, because this is a fairy story, even if it doesn't end 'they all lived happily ever after'.

Rant over, for now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was from a quick scan in The Luftwaffe album from Dressel & Griehl that I had handy at the time. Will have to search my references when I have a chance.

Anyway, with Oleg's attention turned to PF & BoB, I doubt we will see a Bf 109K-14 since it would require some external changes.

My original post was concerning several important & historically produced and available variants of the Bf 109 that are currently missing from the current Bf 109 line-up and which could be added with no external model changes, no cockpit changes - only some FM changes.

Basically, Oleg/Maddox-1C could add 7 "new" flyable aircrafts to FB with very little efforts.

Regards,

JagdMailer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BUMP for more historically accurate & missing Bf 109s.

Jagd

ASM 1
06-21-2004, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigganD:
Yes, it would be nice to see the Bf 109K-14 with DB605L & 4-blade propeller, they allready have FW D-9 1945, Yaks 1945. And the american shooting star was used first time 1944 in USA (test fly) but came into service 1945 jan. And was used to shotdown german jet bombers(but they where to fast for them), not for dogfight.
So why not add the K-14 !
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man after my own heart... K14 - DB605L http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/heart.gif hehehehe http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

Andrew

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v299/asm016/WW2%20Stuff/Sig_Pic.jpg

ASM 1
06-21-2004, 03:09 PM
jagdmailer - sorry, but I gotta post these man, they look good! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/models/bn1/bn1_k14/bn1.k14-2.jpg

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/models/bn1/bn1_k14/bn1.k14-6.jpg

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

Andrew

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v299/asm016/WW2%20Stuff/Sig_Pic.jpg

ASM 1
06-21-2004, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"The final variant of the BF 109 to go into service was the K-14. Powered by the Daimler Benz dB 605L engine and fitted with a two stage super charger, it was the fastest of all the production BF 109s with a top speed of 452mph at 19,700 feet.

As the war drew to a close, production of the BF 109 still continued, with some 3,000 K variants being delivered in the last 5 months of the war, this despite the fact that there were not enough pilots to fly them or enough fuel to keep them in the air."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From here: http://www.jg53.com/html/history/aircraft/axis-bf109.htm

And

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Only two were delivered, in April, 1945, before the fall of Berlin and the end of the war in Europe.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1154

If this source is to be beleived then thats 2 more than the GO 229, 109Z P80 etc etc http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And something about the engines

http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/bf109/109graf.gif

From
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/bf109/Bf109engines.htm

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

Andrew

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v299/asm016/WW2%20Stuff/Sig_Pic.jpg

k5054
06-22-2004, 02:58 AM
'I read it on the internet' does not constitute proof, yet.

There are no pictures of this aircraft
There are no flight tests
There is no record of the engine ever flying as a test
There is no evidence the engine finished its ground tests
No K-14s were found after the war, by allied teams looking for new a/c

Much of what you read about the 109K is wrong. The site quoted in the previous post still claims that MG151/15 guns were used as cowl guns. This is ridiculous. Underwing MK103s are sometimes claimed. Ridiculous. Engine-mounted 103s too, very hard to believe.

Most of the 7 DCM powered versions desired here are really going to be very similar aren't they?
does it really matter if this one has wheel covers and that a long tailwheel leg? Here an Erla Haube there a bigger oil cooler? Waste of time.

ASM 1
06-22-2004, 03:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
'I read it on the internet' does not constitute proof, yet.

There are no pictures of this aircraft
There are no flight tests
There is no record of the engine ever flying as a test
There is no evidence the engine finished its ground tests
No K-14s were found after the war, by allied teams looking for new a/c

Much of what you read about the 109K is wrong. The site quoted in the previous post still claims that MG151/15 guns were used as cowl guns. This is ridiculous. Underwing MK103s are sometimes claimed. Ridiculous. Engine-mounted 103s too, very hard to believe.

Most of the 7 DCM powered versions desired here are really going to be very similar aren't they?
does it really matter if this one has wheel covers and that a long tailwheel leg? Here an Erla Haube there a bigger oil cooler? Waste of time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Excuse me! I wasn't trying to "Prove" anything, merely offering to share some of the info I found.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif beleive me, this is not me acting all hurt and injured - I couldnt care less. But for you to have a go.... nah nevermind its not worth it....

Whats so ludicrous about underwing 103's? The 190's have them... what makes you so sure that the 109's didn't?

OK OK I'll need to check my sources again in future although I never at any one time claimed that the quoted figures were "gospel" did I? I was just posting information....

&lt;sigh&gt;

S!

Andrew

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v299/asm016/WW2%20Stuff/Sig_Pic.jpg

KaRaYa-X
06-22-2004, 01:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Much of what you read about the 109K is wrong. The site quoted in the previous post still claims that MG151/15 guns were used as cowl guns. This is ridiculous. Underwing MK103s are sometimes claimed. Ridiculous. Engine-mounted 103s too, very hard to believe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that no Bf109K EVER had cowl mounted MG151s or underwing Mk103 gondolas (these would have needed an extra strenghtening of the wing). However it was planned (and maybe even DONE) to equip the Bf109K with engine mounted Mk103s... of course not the exact same model that can be found on the FW190s and Go229. It is a special derivative called the Mk103/M or something like that. It is far smaller than a normal Mk103 but has (almost) the same excellent ballistics as its "big brother". I have to admit that I'm no expert on this matter and other people might give you far more detailed info on this cannon (butch2k talked about it some time ago)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Most of the 7 DCM powered versions desired here are really going to be very similar aren't they?
does it really matter if this one has wheel covers and that a long tailwheel leg? Here an Erla Haube there a bigger oil cooler? Waste of time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I (and many others) already stated it would be VERY small work to include them... so why not? No new externals, no new skins, just modified FMs... what's the matter
I just want to have some new models of my favourite bird

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

Kurfurst__
06-22-2004, 01:19 PM
K5054 andthe other bashers,

I see you have visited this little topic. You must be outraged. People asking for 109 variants that did flew? 'Puh, arrogant luftwheenies!'.

I don`t see what your problem with 1.98ata 109Ks. These did flew, these did exists. 'Only a couple of Gruppen'? Well a Gruppe means 60 to 80 fighters... that already means a large percentage of the 109Ks flew on 1.98ata. It also means that more 109Ks at 1.98ata than all the operational MkXIVs of the RAF.

So if you don`t want 1.98ata 109Ks and Gs, and others, on the same basis go and whine 'we don`t want Spit XIVs because there so few of them'! We know that won`t happen, because it just your bias that awokes these sorry arguements against the LW having those planes it really had.

And what this crying about the K-14 and DB 605L? K054, you seem to be upset even by the possibility of the existence of such types. And what laughalbe arguement you present? 'No pictures of the a/c' - no, only _YOU_ never seen any. What does this prove other than your own state of knowladge? I don`t say there are known photos of such variants, but there`s PLENTY of evidence that leads towards the existence of two-staged Bf 109s being in service in 1945. This would be known to your IF you would have read the available literature - you did not of course. And as for the photos, rather few exists known to public of the entire 109K series, probably no more than a hundreds were published, of a few dozen airframes. Out of the about 1700 produced.... Oh wait, I can`t remember seeing a 109K loaded with bombs, either. So it couldn`t carry bombs for sure, right? Yep, it really surprising the photographic documentation is poor for a rarer variant, which is in any case impossible to distinguish externally from the other Ks.

'No flight tests' - no, only _YOU_ never seen any. Performance data for these planes IS avaiable. 'There is no record of the engine ever flying as a test' and 'There is no evidence the engine finished its ground tests'- since when your own ignorance of it qualifies as proof? 'No K-14s were found after the war, by allied teams looking for new a/c'. Oh yeah, like you know so many K-4 reports by the allies after the war. I guess that means the K-4 didn`t exist, either. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

No, all we have here the usual Allied trolls had their hearts slipped into their trousers at the first hearing of a 109K appearing at it`s full flower and barking against it. Pity on them, as on those few paranoids who develop pathetic conspiracy theories and can`t evenm tell apart two posters with a rather different posting style and often different views. But there are people who can`t draw attention to themselves with their knowladge as others, so they`ll have to put up with conspriacy theories and making a lot of noise. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

k5054
06-22-2004, 01:38 PM
ASM, sorry for the rant, but the wrong things that you posted or referred to (not presenting them as fact) have to be challenged because of the amount of mis- and disinformation going around on the net, some of it from very old and discredited sources.

KarayaX, yes, I'd heard of the 103/M, that's why I put that one as hard to believe, rather than ridiculous.. I think the original 103 was far too big in breech and barrel to fit, but if there was some sort of shrunken version obviously it might work. Poor old 109 would be going backwards at the end of a long burst though.

And yes, by all means have a 2000hp 109, they seem to have existed in the 7 variants, but really only one is needed, and should be a K-4 to get the best advantage.

ASM 1
06-22-2004, 02:22 PM
its cool dont worry

I STILL want a K14 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

S!

Andrew

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v299/asm016/WW2%20Stuff/Sig_Pic.jpg

jagdmailer
06-29-2004, 08:45 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ASM 1:
jagdmailer - sorry, but I gotta post these man, they look good! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/models/bn1/bn1_k14/bn1.k14-2.jpg

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/models/bn1/bn1_k14/bn1.k14-6.jpg

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

Andrew

1942 Bf 109F-4 w/ full boost @ 1.42 ATA
1943 Bf 109G-2 w/ full boost @ 1.42 ATA
1943 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/ original GM-1 nitrous-oxide boost system
1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/ "Field Mod" GM-1 system converted in the field for MW-50 boost use. (Field conversion ordered in around March 1944)
1945 Bf 109G-10 w/ DB605DCM - 2000hp@1.98 ATA at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1945 Bf 109G-14 w/DB605ASCM - 2000hp@1.98 ATA at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1945 Bf 109K-4 w/DB605DCM - 2000hp@1.98 ATA at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude

Very little work to add 7 "new" historically available aircrafts to FB/AEP.

JagdMailer

p1ngu666
06-29-2004, 10:10 AM
i think there was more XIV's with fuel flying more sorties than uber 109s, but meh.

and wasnt the MK108 the small brother of the MK103?, shame there is so much dissinformation about it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

i think butch2k probably has the info onit, i dont mind if we get it if it was actully flown

bit off topic, why did it go from G to K designation on the 109 they look the same to me ?

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

jagdmailer
07-09-2004, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i think there was more XIV's with fuel flying more sorties than uber 109s, but meh.

and wasnt the MK108 the small brother of the MK103?, shame there is so much dissinformation about it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

i think butch2k probably has the info onit, i dont mind if we get it if it was actully flown

bit off topic, why did it go from G to K designation on the 109 they look the same to me ?

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This one deserves a bump.

Jagd

pilas-
07-09-2004, 06:15 PM
el bumpo!

ST__Spyke
07-09-2004, 09:05 PM
ooooohhhh super 109K, id like one of those http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

_____________________________
A hero is no braver than any other man, he's just brave 5 minutes longer...

My Skins (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=Spyke75024&historicalidfilter=all&searchkey=&action=list&ts=1086288095)

lrrp22
07-09-2004, 10:33 PM
jagdmailer,

Sounds good to me- as long as we Allied blokes get our +25 lb boost Mustangs and Spitfires. Deal? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Historically though, hasn't butch2k indicated that 1.98 ATA G-10's and G-14's were just theoreticals while only a couple Gruppen of K-4's ever actually used that setting? I could well be wrong about the operational 1.98 G-10's and G-14's but I would love to see any contradictory evidence.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i think there was more XIV's with fuel flying more sorties than uber 109s, but meh.

and wasnt the MK108 the small brother of the MK103?, shame there is so much dissinformation about it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

i think butch2k probably has the info onit, i dont mind if we get it if it was actully flown

bit off topic, why did it go from G to K designation on the 109 they look the same to me ?

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This one deserves a bump.

Jagd<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

KaRaYa-X
07-10-2004, 06:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
wasnt the MK108 the small brother of the MK103?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the Mk108 and Mk103 are totally different guns. They have the same caliber and are made by the same company (Rheinmetall Borsig) but everything else is different, even the ammunition. Mk103 rounds are a bit bigger than Mk108 shells (More propellant which increases muzzle velocity a lot!). There also is an Mk101 (on the Hs129 IIRC) and this gun is also totally different to the above mentioned.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
shame there is so much dissinformation about it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you mean? Of course no Bf109 ever got equipped with Mk103s in the course of the war. However it is well known that it was intended to do so (with the Mk103/M - read some posts above). Neither did any serial production Bf109K ever have cowling mounted MG151 15mm guns... However it is quite often stated that one of its prototypes had MG151 guns instead of the 13mm MG131 - it's even stated in the IL2 object viewer... If this is really the truth? I don't know, but as it only affects the prototype I don't care...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
bit off topic, why did it go from G to K designation on the 109 they look the same to me ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you look a bit closer you will find many small things that have been changed from the late G-series to K... First of all the Bf109K4 was the first Bf109 to have 2x13mm and 1x30mm as standard armament - most Bf109G10/14 had 2x13mm and 1x20mm. However in FB all Bf109G10 and G14 planes have the same armament as the K4. That's because we have hungarian built machines in the game which were said to be better in terms of production quality and had Mk108s as standard armament.

Another thing is that the Bf109K introduced a more efficient prop which ave it a significant advantage in climbs over earlier models.

It also has bigger wing bumps, which can also be seen on the Bf109G14. These bumps were necessary to accomodate bigger wheels and a more stable landing gear. However if you look at real life pics of Bf109G14s and K4s you will notice that these wings bumps weren't as big and noticeable as they are in-game.

Another thins is that the Bf109 was fitted with more modern instruments and radio equipment than G-series models.
As you can see the K shared a lot of characteristics with various earlier G-models - this is because the Kurf├╝rst was an attempt to standardize the production of Bf109s among the various manufacturers.

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

jagdmailer
07-10-2004, 01:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
jagdmailer,

Sounds good to me- as long as we Allied blokes get our +25 lb boost Mustangs and Spitfires. Deal? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Historically though, hasn't butch2k indicated that 1.98 ATA G-10's and G-14's were just theoreticals while only a couple Gruppen of K-4's ever actually used that setting? I could well be wrong about the operational 1.98 G-10's and G-14's but I would love to see any contradictory evidence.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i think there was more XIV's with fuel flying more sorties than uber 109s, but meh.

and wasnt the MK108 the small brother of the MK103?, shame there is so much dissinformation about it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

i think butch2k probably has the info onit, i dont mind if we get it if it was actully flown

bit off topic, why did it go from G to K designation on the 109 they look the same to me ?

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This one deserves a bump.

Jagd<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

larpy,

Let's not turn that thread in "if they are getting this, then I want that". We are no longer at kindergarten here. Please keep that for the "P-51 in turning combat" thread if you really insist......

If you really want your high blown spits & mustangs, by all means please create your own threads requesting what you deem should be made available. Guarantee I won't come spoil your party and pester.

When I created a thread about the "forgotten Messerschmitts", I have based my request on variants that indeed existed, some in rather large numbers and which would fill some important gaps in the current Bf 109 line-up in FB/AEP. I also based my request on aircrafts that could be made available with minimal amount of work with FM and no external 3D/cockpit model modification that would be required to bring another 7 aircrafts to the sim.

I have not gotten in the "what if there was or wasn't enough C3 fuel or MW50 to run that particular variant of the Bf 109 at that boost level on that particular day of the month, for that particular unit, on that particular area of the front......

Besides the fact that the all variants of the Bf 109 I am requesting have indeed been produced in numbers and used in combat before the end of the conflict, we have enough aircrafts in the sim on both sides that were either unique prototypes or never flown, or been produced in such small number that the fantasy plane argument does no longer apply.

Cheers,

jagdmailer

p1ngu666
07-11-2004, 08:59 AM
kara, thanks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

think ill go make a thread http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

lrrp22
07-12-2004, 12:07 PM
Gee Jagd, thanks for the pissy response. Is 'jagdmailer' just another alias for Kurfurst/Isegrim?

You still haven't answered whether or not any 1.98 ata G-10's or G-14's actually flew operationally. Is that because they didn't? Maybe your 'forgotten Messerscmitt's' were 'forgotten' by the Luftwaffe as well.

One-off's and prototypes are one thing, but if your advocating for a power level increase in a primary type, you should be able to prove that those settings were used operationally. If, in fact, they were then propriety requires that the opposition's contemporary aircraft be likewise modeled to historical power levels.

And in case you haven't noticed, any mention of increased boost levels for RAF/USAAF planes meets with an immediate onslaught by the Luftwaffe faithful. A polite inquiry as to evidence for your 109 claims beats the heck out of the invective that passes for dissent coming the other way.


Larpy? Kindergarten? Hmmm....


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
jagdmailer,

Sounds good to me- as long as we Allied blokes get our +25 lb boost Mustangs and Spitfires. Deal? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Historically though, hasn't butch2k indicated that 1.98 ATA G-10's and G-14's were just theoreticals while only a couple Gruppen of K-4's ever actually used that setting? I could well be wrong about the operational 1.98 G-10's and G-14's but I would love to see any contradictory evidence.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i think there was more XIV's with fuel flying more sorties than uber 109s, but meh.

and wasnt the MK108 the small brother of the MK103?, shame there is so much dissinformation about it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

i think butch2k probably has the info onit, i dont mind if we get it if it was actully flown

bit off topic, why did it go from G to K designation on the 109 they look the same to me ?

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This one deserves a bump.

Jagd<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

larpy,

Let's not turn that thread in "if they are getting this, then I want that". We are no longer at kindergarten here. Please keep that for the "P-51 in turning combat" thread if you really insist......

If you really want your high blown spits & mustangs, by all means please create your own threads requesting what you deem should be made available. Guarantee I won't come spoil your party and pester.

When I created a thread about the "forgotten Messerschmitts", I have based my request on variants that indeed existed, some in rather large numbers and which would fill some important gaps in the current Bf 109 line-up in FB/AEP. I also based my request on aircrafts that could be made available with minimal amount of work with FM and no external 3D/cockpit model modification that would be required to bring another 7 aircrafts to the sim.

I have not gotten in the "what if there was or wasn't enough C3 fuel or MW50 to run that particular variant of the Bf 109 at that boost level on that particular day of the month, for that particular unit, on that particular area of the front......

Besides the fact that the all variants of the Bf 109 I am requesting have indeed been produced in numbers and used in combat before the end of the conflict, we have enough aircrafts in the sim on both sides that were either unique prototypes or never flown, or been produced in such small number that the fantasy plane argument does no longer apply.

Cheers,

jagdmailer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Mon July 12 2004 at 11:20 AM.]

pilas-
07-14-2004, 05:19 AM
hmmm....BUMP!

CTO88
07-14-2004, 06:19 AM
butch2k already posted:
if ever 2000PS engines were installed at 109k4, it was ~3/45.
maybe also g10.

if 109f4 ever had 1350PS it was 4/42.
notleistung (1475PS) for 109g seems to be free at the beginnig or spring 1944.

beside this, 109k4 in game has already 2000PS cause it climbs in 3 minutes at 5000m. 109k4 with 1800PS climbs in 3:30 at 5000m.

there is no proof for 605db (1850PS) engines in 109. if you have any, pls show them.

jagdmailer
07-14-2004, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
butch2k already posted:
if ever 2000PS engines were installed at 109k4, it was ~3/45.
maybe also g10.

if 109f4 ever had 1350PS it was 4/42.
notleistung (1475PS) for 109g seems to be free at the beginnig or spring 1944.

beside this, 109k4 in game has already 2000PS cause it climbs in 3 minutes at 5000m. 109k4 with 1800PS climbs in 3:30 at 5000m.

there is no proof for 605db (1850PS) engines in 109. if you have any, pls show them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cokol,

You should really you read prior posts before posting stuff that's mostly irrelevant by now.

In case it's too hard for you to scroll up, here it is for you:

1942 Bf 109F-4 w/ full boost @ 1.42 ATA
1943 Bf 109G-2 w/ full boost @ 1.42 ATA
1943 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/ original GM-1 nitrous-oxide boost system
1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/ "Field Mod" GM-1 system converted in the field for MW-50 boost use. (Field conversion ordered in around March 1944)
1945 Bf 109G-10 w/ DB605DCM - 2000hp@1.98 ATA at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1945 Bf 109G-14 w/DB605ASCM - 2000hp@1.98 ATA at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1945 Bf 109K-4 w/DB605DCM - 2000hp@1.98 ATA at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude

Just in case you are wandering, most of the above has been confirmed against Butch2K's data already.

As far as DB605DBM @1850hp in 109s, there are no proof against it either.....

Otherwise, I recommend you go troll in your Yak threads.

Jagd

KaRaYa-X
07-19-2004, 10:27 AM
BuMp!

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

jagdmailer
07-21-2004, 12:49 PM
Bump for:

1942 Bf 109F-4 w/ full boost @ 1.42 ATA
1943 Bf 109G-2 w/ full boost @ 1.42 ATA
1943 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/ original GM-1 nitrous-oxide boost system
1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/ "Field Mod" GM-1 system converted for MW-50 boost use.
1945 Bf 109G-10 w/ DB605DCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1945 Bf 109G-14 w/DB605ASCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1945 Bf 109K-4 w/DB605DCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude

Jagd

jagdmailer
07-27-2004, 10:11 AM
Bump for the forgotten Messerschmitts!

Jagd


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
Bump for:

1942 Bf 109F-4 w/ full boost @ 1.42 ATA
1943 Bf 109G-2 w/ full boost @ 1.42 ATA
1943 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/ original GM-1 nitrous-oxide boost system
1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/ "Field Mod" GM-1 system converted for MW-50 boost use.
1945 Bf 109G-10 w/ DB605DCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1945 Bf 109G-14 w/DB605ASCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude
1945 Bf 109K-4 w/DB605DCM @ 2000hp at take-off & 1800hp at rated altitude

Jagd<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VOL_Hans
07-27-2004, 10:33 AM
BUMP! It would be great to have these in IL-2, and should take relatively little time and energy.

Also, what about the Bf-109F-2? Were the F-2 engines ever cleared for a higher boost?

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg

BlackStar2000
07-27-2004, 10:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KaRaYa-X:
Hi!

As I'm a big fan of the Bf109 so I would really like to see the Bf109G10 and K4 with a DB605DC engine (right now we "only" have the DB605DB equipped ones).

DB605DB:
max. output (without injection): 1550 HP
(with injection): 1800HP

DB605DC:
max. output (without injection): 1800HP
(with injection): 2000HP

Just as a side-note: Both the DB and DC engines became available at the same time; however the majority of G10s and K4s was equipped with the DB engine for only ONE very SIMPLE reason:
The DC engine required relatively high graded fuel to run (IIRC it's the C3 fuel) whereas the DB ran on relatively "bad" fuel (the B2 fuel).
However in 1944 when the Bf109G10 and K4 entered service air raids over the Reich were daily business, destroying many production facilities and factories. As a result the supply of high graded fuel was VERY short - too short to service a whole fleet of Bf109s.
So DC engined G10s and K4s were mainly restriceted for use in the "Reichsverteidigung"


I would love to see these variants because from my point of view they represent late war Bf109s the way they were MEANT to be but could not be used widely because of fuel shortage.
This is not meant as another "We need plane B to counter plane A" thread. I just love these birds and think it would be a delight to fly them.

After all it would only take some editing of the current FM of both the G10 and K4. There are NO visual differences between DB and DC engined planes.
So just think of these versions as the "L.F." variant of Bf109s http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Another thing is that these planes FLEW; they weren't prototypes or "what-if" planes...
They were built (in 1944), they flew, they fought!


Oleg PLEASE introduce these two new version! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Cool sugestion man put some late Fws in the basket plz.

jagdmailer
07-27-2004, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VOL_Hans:
BUMP! It would be great to have these in IL-2, and should take relatively little time and energy.

Also, what about the Bf-109F-2? Were the F-2 engines ever cleared for a higher boost?

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

F-2 had the same engines as late Emils ie DB601N at 1275hp (not sure of boost level) - because the DB601E that was destined for the Friedrich was not ready yet. The F-4 had the DB601E which was rated at 1350hp @ 1.42ATA, but which initially had to be de-rated back down to 1.3 ATA in operation until sometime in 1942.

Jagd

jagdmailer
08-25-2004, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VOL_Hans:
BUMP! It would be great to have these in IL-2, and should take relatively little time and energy.

Also, what about the Bf-109F-2? Were the F-2 engines ever cleared for a higher boost?

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

F-2 had the same engines as late Emils ie DB601N at 1275hp (not sure of boost level) - because the DB601E that was destined for the Friedrich was not ready yet. The F-4 had the DB601E which was rated at 1350hp @ 1.42ATA, but which initially had to be de-rated back down to 1.3 ATA in operation until sometime in 1942.

Jagd<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, that is a typo. DB601N was rated at 1175-1200 hp depending the source.

Well deserved bump for more historically available Bf 109s, A-lader Fw 190D-9 & Fw 190D-13.

Jagd

http://www.axiomdigital.com/jagd-db605-charts.jpg (http://www.axiomdigital.com/db605.htm)

http://www.axiomdigital.com/db605.htm

lookatsix
08-25-2004, 08:15 PM
Bf-109 G-14 entered service on the western front starting in July 1944.

Bf-109 G-10 entered service close to K-4 (slightly after first K-4s came into service) in around November 1944.

Bf-109 K-4 entered service in October 1944.


G-14 was using DB605AM engine (meaning DB605A engine with MW-50 system) and using B4 fuel - 87 octane. DB605A is used on G-1 all the way up to G-14.

G-6/AS that we have in IL2/FB is in fact G-14/AS and NOT G-6/AS. "G-6/AS" is a typo but Oleg didn't want to correct it. The reason is because G-6/AS uses DB605AS engine and G-14/AS uses DB605ASM engine; meanind DB605AS + MW-50 system which is what we have in the game.

G-10 & K-4 were using both DB605DB and DB605DC engines (sometimes these engines are also called DB605DBM and DB605DCM because they both use MW-50 boost system). Both of them are the same engine except DB605 DB is "DB605D" engine configured for B4 fuel giving 1800HP (and hence the term DB605DB) and DB605DC engine is "DB605D" engine configured for C3 fuel. DB605DC engine gave 2000HP, C3 I believe was 100 octane fuel. It's a shame that Oleg didn't use the DB605DC engine in G-10s and K-4s I guess he didn't want to scare the allied players away

Mind you DB605D engine was first produced in 1942 but had some techinal difficulties with pressure and reliability so it was delayed into service until fall 1944.

One more thing G-14 is basically G-6 Late with MW50 system.

The only difference between G-6 Early and G-6 Late is that G-6 Late uses the streamlined canopy called "Earla Haube" and high tail unit and this makes it slightly more (about 10km/h) faster than G-6 Early. G-6 Late also has new pilot head protection armour plate called "Galland Panzer".

LLv34_Stafroty
08-25-2004, 09:08 PM
yea, more versions for us. "we need power"