PDA

View Full Version : Missing Bf 109s



jagdmailer
01-23-2005, 10:46 AM
Oleg & crew,

Please consider adding the following historically missing 109s. Mostly if not all only Flight Model tweaks.

early 1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/MW-50 field conversion kit (converted from original GM-1 apparatus)
late 1944 Bf 109G-14 w/DB605ASC at full rating ie. 2000hp @1.98 ATA
1945 Bf 109G-10 w/DB605DC at full rating ie. 2000hp @1.98 ATA
1945 Bf 109K-4 w/ DB605DC at full rating ie. 2000hp @1.98 ATA

Also, I have not tests lately, but it used to be that we needed a 1942 "late" F-4 (1350hp) and a 1943 "late" G-2 (1475hp) at full rating (ie. not detuned) compaired to the "detuned" 1941 "early" F-2 and the 1942 "early" G-2 we had in the past in the sim if this has not been addressed already.

Thank you,

Jagd

IIJG69_Kartofe
01-23-2005, 12:05 PM
A 109 E3 too !

Maybe too much work to model (new pit) but will be cool.

3.JG51_BigBear
01-23-2005, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:
A 109 E3 too !

Maybe too much work to model (new pit) but will be cool. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We'll definitely get it in BOB, almost 100% positive it will never happen in PF.

J_Weaver
01-23-2005, 02:23 PM
Sorry to disagree, but we have enough 109's. Their are many other aircraft types that arn't in the game at all that would be cool to see. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VVS-Manuc
01-23-2005, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J_Weaver:
Sorry to disagree, but we have enough 109's. Their are many other aircraft types that arn't in the game at all that would be cool to see. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok...so no crying for more Spit/Seafires and F-4U Corsair , too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG7_Rall
01-23-2005, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J_Weaver:
Sorry to disagree, but we have enough 109's. Their are many other aircraft types that arn't in the game at all that would be cool to see. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wouldn't require any plane modelling IIRC. Just a change in game coding I think...

Sig.Hirsch
01-23-2005, 02:52 PM
Maybe in 5 years when BoB switch back to eastern front again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

mazexx
01-23-2005, 03:36 PM
And how about the Bf-109D or the Bf-109T2? The D at least could be a candidate for BoB, or rather a spanish civil war addon for the old IL2. Then naturally the C have to be included... The T2 could be used for some norwegian fjord missions and... Just dreaming, do not flame me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-23-2005, 04:37 PM
Ya, 109Dora, a real Dora, for real flight simmers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Like Email 7/Z, we need Bf~109 Femail with GM~1.

JG53Frankyboy
01-23-2005, 05:24 PM
im also of the opinion that there are laready enough 109s in game.

nevertheless i would welcome a
-Bf109E-7/N , actually the the Bf109E-7/Z without GM1 , so a little bit lighter
-Bf109F-4/B

& a MG151/20 armament option for the Bf109F-2 , well............ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
01-23-2005, 05:37 PM
I don't see a need for all of those 109s but some of them would fill some important gaps. Still, I have to ask...G-14 with full engine rating is different from the G-10 how?

Early 1944 G-6 with MW-50...how is that different from a G-6A/S?

From my perspective, I love to see new planes and new abilities for creating missions. There are a good range of 109s...more in this than any other game, probably more in this game than any three games combined. So when I go to make a mission, I can find a suitable aircraft to add to the scenario based on history and ability and add it in. I have no problems with the 109, 190, Yaks, or Lavochkins. The East front for that respect is excellent. The West front is lacking some important models of Spitfires (you'll never see me asking definitively for a Mark XII for instance because in the grand scheme of things either we should have the IX or the XIV for instance - same applies to 109) and some other notable aircraft. So when I look at adding new aircraft, its a new balance or a new ability not previously allowed.

A FW190F-9 with rockets would be great for instance because it brings us a new ability. I can see wanting the 109G-2 Late...that'd be pretty ultimate (although the G-2 Early is already an excellent top notch aircraft). By the same token, I really want to see a Spitfire XIV, a Typhoon (not going to happen it seems), a Tempest, Mosquito, and even rocket, bomb, and 40mm laiden Hurricanes because these would all add to the color, variety, and interest of any given scenario online or offline.

So I'm of a mixed opinion. I like to see new stuff, but I'd like to be convinced a little more as to why we need these versions. What do they bring? What do they offer? As I said, what does an uprated G-14 bring that the G-10 does not already have? I ask seriously because I do not know...please enlighten http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sig.Hirsch
01-23-2005, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So I'm of a mixed opinion. I like to see new stuff, but I'd like to be convinced a little more as to why we need these versions. What do they bring? What do they offer? As I said, what does an uprated G-14 bring that the G-10 does not already have? I ask seriously because I do not know...please enlighten Smile <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite simple : a new Axis plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I heard some italian planes could be implemented , that's a great news .
We have tons of Allied planes , some of us want more Axis if not German planes .
That's passion of german aircrafts , unexplainable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This said , i agree with you basically , new late-war planes from any side would add very little to this sim , like you i'd love to see a Mosquito , Heinkel 219 - Me410 , or any other twin-engined plane or ground attack plane.
I presume early war planes are already worked on for BoB.

jagdmailer
01-23-2005, 07:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I don't see a need for all of those 109s but some of them would fill some important gaps. Still, I have to ask...G-14 with full engine rating is different from the G-10 how?

Early 1944 G-6 with MW-50...how is that different from a G-6A/S?

From my perspective, I love to see new planes and new abilities for creating missions. There are a good range of 109s...more in this than any other game, probably more in this game than any three games combined. So when I go to make a mission, I can find a suitable aircraft to add to the scenario based on history and ability and add it in. I have no problems with the 109, 190, Yaks, or Lavochkins. The East front for that respect is excellent. The West front is lacking some important models of Spitfires (you'll never see me asking definitively for a Mark XII for instance because in the grand scheme of things either we should have the IX or the XIV for instance - same applies to 109) and some other notable aircraft. So when I look at adding new aircraft, its a new balance or a new ability not previously allowed.

A FW190F-9 with rockets would be great for instance because it brings us a new ability. I can see wanting the 109G-2 Late...that'd be pretty ultimate (although the G-2 Early is already an excellent top notch aircraft). By the same token, I really want to see a Spitfire XIV, a Typhoon (not going to happen it seems), a Tempest, Mosquito, and even rocket, bomb, and 40mm laiden Hurricanes because these would all add to the color, variety, and interest of any given scenario online or offline.

So I'm of a mixed opinion. I like to see new stuff, but I'd like to be convinced a little more as to why we need these versions. What do they bring? What do they offer? As I said, what does an uprated G-14 bring that the G-10 does not already have? I ask seriously because I do not know...please enlighten http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ice,

All those 109s mentioned would require only FM changes. The Bf 109G-6/U2 could use a slightly different skin template from the early G-6 to allow for the GM-1/MW-50 filler cap. I used to have a profile for the G-6/U2 which showed the filler location. May post it later.

Here is from my original spring 2004 request for those 109 variants:

1942 Bf 109F4 Flyable with full boost at 1.42 ATA 1350hp
Bf-109 F-4/Z and F-4/R1 Flyable GM-1 boost?
1943 Bf 109G2 Flyable with full boost at 1.42 ATA 1475hp
1943 Bf 109G6/U2 Flyable with original GM-1 boost system and full 1.42 ATA
1944 Bf 109G6/U2 Flyable 1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 with "Field Mod" GM-1 boost system converted in the field for MW-50

* As a note, Mercedes-Benz AG archives does lists the DB605DCM as a 1944 engine.
(BTW, I know of Oleg's strive to perfection but the Bf 109G-14 we currently have in the
game could easily "pass" as a Bf 109G-6/U2 "Field Mod MW-50" - the external is pretty
much bang-on and the observed perfomance in the sim is pretty close.....worst-case
scenario, they could easily add a Bf 109G-6/U2 "Field Mod" MW50 to the current Bf 109
line-up simply by taking the existing G-14 external & flight model and renaming it
"1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 "Field Mod w/MW-50" & add the G-6 late loadouts options to it.......

1945 Bf 109G-10 Flyable with DB605DC with full boost @ 1.98 ATA 2000hp take-off & 1800 at rated altitude
1945 Bf 109G-14 Flyable with DB605ASC with full boost @ 1.98 ATA 2000hp take-off & 1800 at rated altitude
1945 Bf 109K-4 Flyable with DB605DC with full boost @ 1.98 ATA 2000hp take-off & 1800 at rated altitude

There is indeed a good selection of 109s but it is still missing several, some of which would be so easy to model (ie. only FM changes) virtually no external changes and which would fill-in some of the "holes" in historically accurate campaigns.

As far as details on the Bf 109G-6/U2 with original GM-1 was available in some numbers starting in November 1943. Most were converted to MW-50 in and around March 1944. Total production of new airframes and airframes converted from damaged aircraft at the depot level amounts to several hundred aircrafts (If I recall properly in the 400-600 units). The DB605AM engine has a totally different power curve and horsepower rating than the higher altitude rated DB605AS - (See my charts in my sig). I beleive some of those G-6/U2 (and G-5/U2 for that matter) may likely have received some DB605ASM engines.

Plain Bf 109G-14 please see my notes above. BD605ASC was usually fitted to the G-14 when available while the G-10 would only receive the similarly rated but different DB605DC in early 1945.

On another note, the Jabos Friedrich would be fantastic to have indeed.

All in all, Oleg could easily add richness to the sim with those historically available variants with very little expended effort to satisfy historical accuracy and to the delight of many Il-2 simmers.

Cheers,

Jagd

WUAF_Darkangel
01-23-2005, 09:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
Oleg & crew,

Please consider adding the following historically missing 109s. Mostly if not all only Flight Model tweaks.

early 1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/MW-50 field conversion kit (converted from original GM-1 apparatus)
late 1944 Bf 109G-14 w/DB605ASC at full rating ie. 2000hp @1.98 ATA
1945 Bf 109G-10 w/DB605DC at full rating ie. 2000hp @1.98 ATA
1945 Bf 109K-4 w/ DB605DC at full rating ie. 2000hp @1.98 ATA

Also, I have not tests lately, but it used to be that we needed a 1942 "late" F-4 (1350hp) and a 1943 "late" G-2 (1475hp) at full rating (ie. not detuned) compaired to the "detuned" 1941 "early" F-2 and the 1942 "early" G-2 we had in the past in the sim if this has not been addressed already.

Thank you,

Jagd <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well...from:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14v109.html

Near the bottom of the page it says: "1.98ata boost was cleared late February...No evidence has come to light proving operational use of 1.98 ata by combat units"

If ppl want this sim to be historical then i think 1.98 ata shouldn't be introduced because hardly any german planes used it.

However if ppl want this sim to be a bit more fair then i think 1.98ata should be allowed mainly in response to that 25lb boost thread on the spit and mustang (if oleg decides to model them with 25lb boost that is).

jagdmailer
01-23-2005, 10:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Darkangel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
Oleg & crew,

Please consider adding the following historically missing 109s. Mostly if not all only Flight Model tweaks.

early 1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 w/MW-50 field conversion kit (converted from original GM-1 apparatus)
late 1944 Bf 109G-14 w/DB605ASC at full rating ie. 2000hp @1.98 ATA
1945 Bf 109G-10 w/DB605DC at full rating ie. 2000hp @1.98 ATA
1945 Bf 109K-4 w/ DB605DC at full rating ie. 2000hp @1.98 ATA

Also, I have not tests lately, but it used to be that we needed a 1942 "late" F-4 (1350hp) and a 1943 "late" G-2 (1475hp) at full rating (ie. not detuned) compaired to the "detuned" 1941 "early" F-2 and the 1942 "early" G-2 we had in the past in the sim if this has not been addressed already.

Thank you,

Jagd <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well...from:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14v109.html

Near the bottom of the page it says: "1.98ata boost was cleared late February...No evidence has come to light proving operational use of 1.98 ata by combat units"

If ppl want this sim to be historical then i think 1.98 ata shouldn't be introduced because hardly any german planes used it.

However if ppl want this sim to be a bit more fair then i think 1.98ata should be allowed mainly in response to that 25lb boost thread on the spit and mustang (if oleg decides to model them with 25lb boost that is). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have seen evidence to DB605DC & DB605ASC motored Bf 109 delivered in very small quantity to front line units in March & April 1945. Now, whether there was enough C3 fuel available or not to those units to operate the 1.98 ATA engines is a question in itself.

C3 (96 octane) engines such as DB605DC & DB605ASC could not easily be "detuned" to let's say DB605DB and DB605ASB respectively "levels" so to speak ro accept B4 fuel + MW-50, so they would have indeed needed C3 in order to operate at all.

BTW, according to specialists, German C3 fuel was able to sustain up to about 2.3 ATA (or about 20 PSI British equivalent - 34 PSI absolute boost US equivalent). One thing to keep in mind about boost level when comparing German and British aircraft is the fact that the compression ratio of the DB engines was generally higher than the British RR conterpart - higher CR lending itself less appropriate for higher supercharger boosts levels.

Having said that, the fact is that the 2000hp DB engines was indeed cleared and available by Feb 1945, hence let's have them. This is just a game after all and since it would take little more than a FM tweak to experience the 1.98ATA engines, I would love to take them for a "ride around the block".

In addition, there are enough existing "fantasy" planes in this sim to justify their inclusion given the relative little amount of work required & the overall return on investment.

Basically, we could easily have an additional 6 or 7 variants of Bf 109s for very little work all taken into account.

Cheers,

Jagd

Hetzer_II
01-23-2005, 11:02 PM
"Well...from:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14v109.html

Near the bottom of the page it says: "1.98ata boost was cleared late February...No evidence has come to light proving operational use of 1.98 ata by combat units""

Well... and if you keep reading on 2 more sentenses:

"No evidence has yet been found that +25 lbs boost was employed in service by Spitfire XIV squadrons prior to VE day."

Believe this side, there were no operating Spit XIV before Ve.... so dont model them...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

WUAF_Darkangel
01-24-2005, 05:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
"Well...from:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14v109.html

Near the bottom of the page it says: "1.98ata boost was cleared late February...No evidence has come to light proving operational use of 1.98 ata by combat units""

Well... and if you keep reading on 2 more sentenses:

"No evidence has yet been found that +25 lbs boost was employed in service by Spitfire XIV squadrons prior to VE day."

Believe this side, there were no operating Spit XIV before Ve.... so dont model them...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were 18lb and 21lb boost versions of the mk14 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Hetzer_II
01-24-2005, 05:54 AM
I was just talking about 25lbs boost...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

p1ngu666
01-24-2005, 06:12 AM
supermarine test pilot said 25lb boost was used on a few XIV v1 hunters http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

does the k4 we have perform like 1.98 ata one already? i cant remmber if it can or cant :|


narrow it down to these perhaps?....
1942 Bf 109F4 Flyable with full boost at 1.42 ATA 1350hp
Bf-109 F-4/Z and F-4/R1 Flyable GM-1 boost?
1943 Bf 109G2 Flyable with full boost at 1.42 ATA 1475hp
1943 Bf 109G6/U2 Flyable with original GM-1 boost system and full 1.42 ATA
1944 Bf 109G6/U2 Flyable 1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 with "Field Mod" GM-1 boost system converted in the field for MW-50

and 1 late DC or probably ASC as that looks better, late G or K

Abbuzze
01-24-2005, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I don't see a need for all of those 109s but some of them would fill some important gaps. Still, I have to ask...G-14 with full engine rating is different from the G-10 how?

Early 1944 G-6 with MW-50...how is that different from a G-6A/S?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A G6late with MW50 would be very similar to our G14 both had a DB 605AM engine with 1800HP. G14 (had other gear and other wings)
A G10 had the DB605 with a bigger charger gave the DB a better "high" alt rating/perfomance.

Our G6AS is a G6-ASM (109 never got such subtypenames in reality) Oleg want us to tell that this G6 is equipted with a 605ASM engine. This means basicly a DB605A (like in G2/G6) with "S" Specialcharger from the DB 603engine, the fact that we are able to enable MW50 make it a "M" so it‚¬īs a "ASM".
As far as I know it was mainly used in the west to hunt Mossis- with no succsess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And a K4 was basicly a G10 with aerodynamical refining (cover for maingear- retractable tailgear....)

JG53Frankyboy
01-24-2005, 07:02 AM
the ingame Bf109G-6/AS would realy make more sense if it would loose its MW50 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MrOblongo
01-24-2005, 07:08 AM
Bf109G-1: Single-seat fighter with DB505 A, pressurized cabin, Fug VIIa and Fug 25a
Bf109G-1/R1: Bf109G-1 without rear armor and bomb-rack
Bf109G-1/R2: Reconnoissance aircraft with Rb 50/30, 300-litre drop-tank and GM1 injection system, without armamant.
Bf109G-1/R3: Fighter with 300-litre drop-ank (production by Erla at Leipzig).
Bf109G-1/R6: Fighter with nacelle-mounted armamanet (two MG 151/20).
Bf109G-2: As G-1 but without pressurized cabin and GM1 system.
Bf109G-2/R1: Fighter-bomber with 300 litre drop-tank and ETC 500 IXb.
Bf109G-2/R2: Fighter-bomber with ETC 50 VIIId, no 151/20 cannon.
Bf109G-2/R3: Fighter-bomber with ETC 500 IXb.
Bf109G-2/R4: Reconnoissance aircraft with GM1 and automatic camera.
Bf109G-2/R6: Fighter with nacelle-mounted MG151/20
Bf109G-2/U2: As G-2, but with Me P6 reversible propeller
Bf109G-3: As G-1, but with FuG 16Z replacing the FuG VIIa.
Bf109G-4: Reconnaissance aircraft, as G-2 but with FuG 16 replacing FuG VIIa.
Bf109G-4/R1: ETC 500 IXb for 500kg bomb load.
Bf109G-4/R2: Rb 50/30, no cannon.
Bf109G-4/R3: Built-in automatic camera.
Bf109G-4/R4: Rb 50/30, both MG 17s removed.
Bf109G-4/R6: MG 151/20 as nacelle armamament.
Bf109G-4/R7: Radio Directing Finding equipment (prototype only).
Bf109G-5: Fighter, as G-3, but with two MG 131s replacing MG 17s.
Bf109G-5/R1: Fighter-bomber with ETC 500 IXb.
Bf109G-5/R2: Reconnaissance aircraft with DB605 A-1 and GM1 system.
Bf109G-5/R2/AS:Reconnaissance aircraft with DB 605 AS and GM1 system.
Bf109G-5/R3: Reconnaissance aircraft with Rb 50/30 (no series production).
Bf109G-5/R4: Reconnaissance aircraft with Rb 50/30, no MG 17s in fuselage.
Bf109G-5/R6: Fighter with nacelle-mounted MG 151/20s.
Bf109G-5/R7: Fighter with radio direction finding equipment.
Bf109G-5/U2: High-Altitude Fighter with DB605 A1 and GM1 injection.
Bf109G-5/U2/AS: High-Altitude Fighter with DB605 AS and GM1 injection.
Bf109G-6: As G-4, but with two MG131s replacing MG17s.
Bf109G-6/R1: Fighter-bomber with ETC 500 IXb.
Bf109G-6/R2: Fighter-bomber with MW 50 system.
Bf109G-6/R3: Reconnaissance aircraft with Rb 75/30, 300-litre drop-tank, ETC.
Bf109G-6/R4: Reconnaissance aircraft with Rb 50/30.
Bf109G-6/R6: Fighter with MG 151/20 nacelle-mounted armament.
Bf109G-6/R7: Fighter with radio direction finding system.
Bf109G-6/U2: Retrofit with GM1.
Bf109G-6/U3: Retrofit with MW50 system.
Bf109G-6/U4: MK 108 cannon replacing MG 151/20.
Bf109G-8: Single-seat close-reconnaissance, as G-6 but with two automatic and one Robot II cameras.
Bf109G-8/R1: ETC 500 XIb.
Bf109G-8/R2: Rb 50/30 automatic camera.
Bf109G-8/R3: Two Rb/7x9 automatic cameras.
Bf109G-8/R5: Two Rb 12.5/7x9 auromatic cameras.
Bf109G-8/R6: MG 151/20 nacelle-mounted armament.
Bf109G-8/R7: Radio direction finding equipment.
Bf109G-8/U2: GM1 system from GM1 base.
Bf109G-8/U3: MW 50 system (field conversion).
Bf109G-10: As G-2/G-5/G-6/G-14/K-4, FT equipment of G-5.
Bf109G-10/R1: ETC 500 XIb
Bf109G-10/R2: Close reconnaissance aircraft with Rb 50/30 and MW 50.
Bf109G-10/R3: 300-litre drop-tank
Bf109G-10/R5: Reconnaissance aircraft with Rb 12.5/7x9.
Bf109G-10/R6: Fighter with nacelle-mounted armament and MW50 system.
Bf109G-10/R7: Missile-launcher (12cm BR).
Bf109G-10/U4: Modification with Mk108 cannon, MW 50 system.
Bf109G-12: Two-seat trainer, DB 605A1 engine and smaller fuel tank.
Bf109G-14: Single-seat fighter with DV605 A (Later DB605 AS) engine.
Bf109G-14/R1: Fighter-bomber as Bf109G10/R1.
Bf109G-14/R2: Reconnaissance aircraft as BF109G-10/R2.
Bf109G-14/R3: Fighter as Bf109G-10/R3.
Bf109G-14/R6: Fighter with MG 151/20 nacelle-mounted armament and MW 50 system.
Bf109G-14/U4: MK 108 cannon replacing MG 151/20, MW 50 system.
Bf109G-16: Single-seat fighter with DB605 L engine.
Bf109K-1: No info (Cancelled).
Bf109K-2: No info (Cancelled).
Bf109K-3: No info (Cancelled).
Bf109K-4: Single-seat fighter with DB605 D engine, electro-mechanical automatic propeller control system, two MG 131s and one MK 108 cannon.
Bf109K-4/R1: ETC 500 IXb or enclosed verion 503.
Bf109K-4/R2: Reconnaissance aircraft as Bf109K-2/R2 with MW 50 injection system.
Bf109K-4/R3: Enclosed 503 A-1 with 300-litre drop-tank.
Bf109K-4/R4: Wing-nacelle-mounted MG 151/20.
Bf109K-4/R5: Automatic camera Rb 32/7x9 or two Rb 12.5/7x9s.
Bf109K-4/R6: BSK 16 movie camera built into the port wing along with the armament, GM1 injection system.
Bf109K-6: Sturmj√¬§ger version, two fuselage-mounted MG 131s, one MK 108 cannon, two wing mounted MK 108s, DB 605 ASCM/DCM engine.
Bf109K-8: Reconnaissance airraft, MK 103 replacing MK 108.
Bf109K-10: No info.
Bf109K-12: No info.
Bf109K-14: High-altitude fighter powered by DB 605 L.

*K-6 Was tested at Regensburg.
*K-8/K-10/K-12/K-14 were delivered and used in action.

Hetzer_II
01-24-2005, 07:31 AM
"the ingame Bf109G-6/AS would realy make more sense if it would loose its MW50"

Was meinst Du denn damit Franky?

Marc-David
01-24-2005, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> *K-8/K-10/K-12/K-14 were delivered and used in action. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, never heard of that... where did you get the info from?

Yours, MD

MrOblongo
01-24-2005, 07:54 AM
Source of that info:
"The Luftwaffe album"
Autors: Joachim Dressel and Manfred Griehl

The whole paragraph is like this:

"By mid-1944 the Bf109K-6 with modified armament became available. This consisted of two fuselage-mounted MG 131s, one MK 108 cannon, and two wing-mounted MK 108s. At the beginning of December 1944 a model of this new "Sturmj√¬§ger" was tested at Regensburg. Although, according to a power calculation carried out on 11 December 1944 for the DB 605 ASCM/DCM engine, this series should have had a speed at sea-level of 608km/h, rising to 728km/h at 8000 meters, it was never produced in quantity. However, during the closing months of the war small numbers of the K-8 Reconnaissance version (with an MK 103 in place of the MK 108), the K-10 and the K-12, and the high-altitude fighter Bf109K-14 powered by DB605 L, were delivered."

*Maybe that doesnt mean they saw action, sorry, my fault.

JG53Frankyboy
01-24-2005, 08:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
"the ingame Bf109G-6/AS would realy make more sense if it would loose its MW50"

Was meinst Du denn damit Franky? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, first , there wasnt much Bf109G-6/AS produced, not to speak of ASM .

a Bf109G-6/AS (without MW50) would much better fit the in-game-109 familie - also the timeline.

we would have:
.G-6/Late , the standart version
.G-6/AS , high altitude plane , better performance high, worser low.

THAN
.G-14 , better powered (because of MW50) than G-6/Late
.G-10 , better powerd high alt fighter

it just would be nice to get 20mm MG151 as nose armament for these two planes too.

at the moment , well, G-6/AS(M) and G-10 are roughly the same performer - actually they should.
and for early 1944 missions a Bf109G-6/AS (without MW50) would be more correct.

MrOblongo
01-24-2005, 08:10 AM
Weird but in the list i posted above there is NO Bf109G-6/AS ... the only AS i see are :

Bf109G-5/R2/AS:Reconnaissance aircraft with DB 605 AS and GM1 system.
Bf109G-5/U2/AS: High-Altitude Fighter with DB605 AS and GM1 injection.

No idea why this list dont have G-6/AS ... but it seems accurate.

p1ngu666
01-24-2005, 08:22 AM
Bf109K-8: Reconnaissance airraft, MK 103 replacing MK 108

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

strange armament for a recon plane, even less room in cockpit too?

anymore info anyone?

IIJG69-Niklaus
01-24-2005, 12:03 PM
Lates versions are not so important, I think(already G6AS;G10,G14,K4 and Z... LOL...), some 39/40 and 42/43 are more important for me.

But I prefer new cockpits and loadouts for those which are already avaible,than new others.

ElAurens
01-24-2005, 02:21 PM
I appreciate that everyone has their favorte aircraft and of course we want them all in the game.

However, we have European Theatre and Russian Front late war single seaters in abundance. Really we do. What we do not have, and really need for these areas are the light and medium bombers and attack aircraft that saw such widespread use, and Allied heavy bombers. These are desperately needed to flesh out the original FB/AEP planesets.

As for PF, there are so many ommisions, on both sides, that it would take another thread to cover them all.

And please don't see this as anti Axis, I do fly them now and again, and am slowly getting a grip on how they work. I am really looking forward to the Ju88, but as far as single seaters go the G6/AS and Ki61 are my favs.

S!

jagdmailer
01-24-2005, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
I appreciate that everyone has their favorte aircraft and of course we want them all in the game.

However, we have European Theatre and Russian Front late war single seaters in abundance. Really we do. What we do not have, and really need for these areas are the light and medium bombers and attack aircraft that saw such widespread use, and Allied heavy bombers. These are desperately needed to flesh out the original FB/AEP planesets.

As for PF, there are so many ommisions, on both sides, that it would take another thread to cover them all.

And please don't see this as anti Axis, I do fly them now and again, and am slowly getting a grip on how they work. I am really looking forward to the Ju88, but as far as single seaters go the G6/AS and Ki61 are my favs.

S! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All I am saying is that given the very little time or resource available to do anything for FB/AEP/PF until EOL (End Of Life), any of the 6 or 7 additional variants of Bf 109s would add to the sim without adding too much work for 1C/Maddox. From people "in the know", there is very little time if any at all for completely new aircrafts for FB/AEP/PF.

BTW, Did we get a whole bunch of variants of Yaks and Laggs in AEP 2.02 or 2.03 if I recall ?

Anyhow, that is how I see it.

Jagd

p1ngu666
01-24-2005, 04:07 PM
2.01

got yak3p, yak9B,M,UT i think

i think u need to look at icefires idea, what will a particular 109 u want bring to the game extra. personaly i dont see the point of making say g10 perform same as g14, as we already have g14. the yaks added to the game, yak9b for secret highspeed low level bombing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif, so make a list of the most important to give extra value http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

jagdmailer
01-24-2005, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
2.01

got yak3p, yak9B,M,UT i think

i think u need to look at icefires idea, what will a particular 109 u want bring to the game extra. personaly i dont see the point of making say g10 perform same as g14, as we already have g14. the yaks added to the game, yak9b for secret highspeed low level bombing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif, so make a list of the most important to give extra value http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pingu, what you have to keep in mind also is the date of availability - which do changes things. exemple:

If we had a 1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 "field mod", it would bring an historically accurate MW50 109 available in & around March or April 1944, about the same time that the G-6/AS (non MW-50) began to be delivered. Not sure about date of availability of G-6/ASM (with MW-50), although some "retrofited" (with MW-50) pressurized Bf 109G-5/AS began to appear as well in April 1944. I know MW-50 had been in testing operationally since about summer 1943. (not sure when the G-6/AS we have in the game appear as flyable)

The Bf 109G-14/ASM started to be produced in Regensburg in July 1944 while plain G-14s production started in a month earlier in June 1944. (not sure when the G-14 in the game actually appears as flyable)

Perhaps they should remove MW50 from current Bf 109G-6/AS and/or rename the current Bf 109G-6/AS to Bf 109G-6/ASM (AS engine with MW50) and tweak the available date of availability to the dates the aircraft were available historically just to make the sim a little more accurate that way.

AS is bigger compressor with better higher altitude performance/lower low altitude performance. ASM is same engine but with MW50. AM is the regular size compressor but with MW50.

Max sea level power:

AS: 1435hp @ 2800rpm - 1.42ATA on 87 octane (B4)
AM: 1800hp @ 2800rpm - 1.70ATA on 96 octane (C3) & MW50
ASM: 1800hp @ 2800rpm - 1.75ATA on 96 octane (C3) & MW50

DB605DC & DB605ASC were cleared at 2000hp (1.98ATA) in February 1945, while 1850hp DB605ASB appeared in the fall of 1944. Production of the DB605DB (and most of the DB605D series for that matter) had been severly affected by heavy bombing of the factory that produced that engine series, so the impovements of that series were added to the "A" series ie. DB605ASB/ASC so that there were motors available for the 109s fall of 1944 - early 1945.

All in all, it's a case of adding a few variants using FM mods, renamining some other variants (ie. Bf 109G-6/ASM) and tweaking the dates those aicraft variants become flyable in the campaigns. A system that would be great would be that as the unit aicrafts become depleted by attrition, sometimes newer type become available while in that particular leg of your campaign. ie. You are flying Bf 109G-6 early in Normandy BoE campaign and on the 6th flight of your operation, Bf 109G-6 "late" are issued to your unit, so you can either automatically get upgraded to G-6 "late" or have the option to select G-6 "late" if you care in the loadout screen. I am under the impression that right now, you can only "upgrade" type once you finish the particular "leg" on the campaign you are on. (operation ?)

Cheers,

Jagd

p1ngu666
01-24-2005, 08:39 PM
ah for the offwhiner, i have the onwhine mentality abit tbh, thinking in years rather than months http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Sig.Hirsch
01-24-2005, 09:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:
A 109 E3 too !

Maybe too much work to model (new pit) but will be cool. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well , Kartofe i doubt Oleg would make twice the work for this plane (BoB and FB) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I think IL-2FBAEP will be the only good sim where you can fly late war planes for a very long time , knowing that BoB is planned for 2006 ... midwar patches for 2007... who knows .
FB has a long life in front ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

If any new plane has to be an existing axis plane implemented without doing a new 3D model , LOD , cockpit etc.. , my vote would go for either FW-190 D12 (Jumo 213 F1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif ) or a Ta-152C (yes i know they didn't fought http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) or a Volksj√¬§ger with Mk108 common version , or why not a Bf109 K4 with DB605DC http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif if we were to have a brand new axis plane i'd vote for He-219 , Me-410 or Do-217 of course , an Arado 234 would be great too ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

jagdmailer
01-25-2005, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:
A 109 E3 too !

Maybe too much work to model (new pit) but will be cool. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well , Kartofe i doubt Oleg would make twice the work for this plane (BoB and FB) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I think IL-2FBAEP will be the only good sim where you can fly late war planes for a very long time , knowing that BoB is planned for 2006 ... midwar patches for 2007... who knows .
FB has a long life in front ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

If any new plane has to be an existing axis plane implemented without doing a new 3D model , LOD , cockpit etc.. , my vote would go for either FW-190 D12 (Jumo 213 F1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif ) or a Ta-152C (yes i know they didn't fought http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) or a Volksj√¬§ger with Mk108 common version , or why not a Bf109 K4 with DB605DC http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif if we were to have a brand new axis plane i'd vote for He-219 , Me-410 or Do-217 of course , an Arado 234 would be great too ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not an expert on the Doras but if there are no exteral mods required appart from perhaps some tweaking of the skin template, then I am all for a Fw 190D-12.

Ta 152C-1 & Ta 152C-3 were apparently done and submitted to Oleg by Harti, but it appears Harti has fallen in "disfavor" with Oleg for some reason (modelling issues ?) and the models unfortuanly won't probably make it.

K4 with DB605DC would be likely if Oleg would just do it, since it only requires tweaking of the FM.

Do 217 (6 variants ie. E-2, E-4, E-5, K-1, K-2 & M-1 - along with He 100D-1, Do 17Z-2, & He 177A-5) - all abbandoned by the modeller to work on a/c projects for the PF addon, Me 410 had issues with the accuracy of the cockpit and then deemed too much work by Shark in light of the EOL (end of life) coming very very shortly for FB/AEP/PF. He 219 never really got off the ground. Ar 234 never really got off the ground either.

Cheers,

Jagd

JG53Frankyboy
01-25-2005, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Ar 234 never really got off the ground either.

Cheers,

Jagd <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you are realy sure with that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

jagdmailer
01-25-2005, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Ar 234 never really got off the ground either.

Cheers,

Jagd <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you are realy sure with that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Last time I checked, JV44 Priller wanted to start the model on Netwings early January 2005. There was some negative posts about the chances of it making it given the very soon coming End-Of-Life for FB/AEP/PF and the prior track record of the modeller. He never indicated if he had decided to start it or not in the end to my knowledge.

There may have been another Ar 234 project started by someone else but I guess I am not "in the know" about any other Ar 234.

Perhaps you enlight us ?

Jagd

Abbuzze
01-26-2005, 01:32 AM
Yes, a clean G6AS would be real nice and much more usefull than the ASM... Same performance at high alt (7.8km), but without the weight of the MW50 system, would be real nice to fight vs Mustang and Jug up there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG53Frankyboy
01-26-2005, 03:51 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 JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Ar 234 never really got off the ground either.

Cheers,

Jagd <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you are realy sure with that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Last time I checked, JV44 Priller wanted to start the model on Netwings early January 2005. There was some negative posts about the chances of it making it given the very soon coming End-Of-Life for FB/AEP/PF and the prior track record of the modeller. He never indicated if he had decided to start it or not in the end to my knowledge.

There may have been another Ar 234 project started by someone else but I guess I am not "in the know" about any other Ar 234.

Perhaps you enlight us ?

Jagd <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

sry , was a missunderstanding.
i apologize , and no, i have no information about an Ar234 modell for the game

Sig.Hirsch
01-26-2005, 08:28 AM
Yes Jagd was talking about modells , not real life http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

jagdmailer
01-26-2005, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
Yes Jagd was talking about modells , not real life http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, of course ! I was strictly referring to a potential Ar 234 model in the sim.

Jagd

jagdmailer
01-26-2005, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Yes, a clean G6AS would be real nice and much more usefull than the ASM... Same performance at high alt (7.8km), but without the weight of the MW50 system, would be real nice to fight vs Mustang and Jug up there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definately. They should rename the current G-6/AS to G-6/AS with MW50 (ie. DB605ASM), make available a plain G-6/AS (ie. DB605AS) and ajust if necessary the dates the planes becomes available in the Dynamic campaigns. Starshoy would also need to ensure the planes show up where they need to from historical unit establishment numbers.

Also needs some Bf 109G-6/U2 "field mod" with DB605AM early 1944 & G-14/ASM starting in July 1944.

Cheers,

Jagd