PDA

View Full Version : G-10 Performance



Maple_Tiger
09-26-2005, 08:10 PM
I was playen in the QMB, and I have been wondering why it can out climb and out run the P-38J, P-38L, and P-51D at all altitudes.

I found that the P-47 and P-38Late are able to catch it.

Just curiouse lol, and I was wondering if that was historical.

Maple_Tiger
09-26-2005, 08:10 PM
I was playen in the QMB, and I have been wondering why it can out climb and out run the P-38J, P-38L, and P-51D at all altitudes.

I found that the P-47 and P-38Late are able to catch it.

Just curiouse lol, and I was wondering if that was historical.

Grey_Mouser67
09-26-2005, 08:23 PM
The G-10 aught to be comnpetitive with real life J and L lightnings up to 7000 meters but not the Mustang in terms of climb and speed.

The Mustang could out speed them at just about all altitudes and outclimb above 20,000 in real life....

Now in this sim...the AI are exploiting the prop pitch cheat...at least that is what I hypothesize because they can outclimb and outdive everything...even Mustangs and Jugs up to 30K and beyond...a well documented issue.

In addition, the J and L lightning are slow at altitude by a good margin and the J model in particular is very bad off in climb....from what I've read, but not confirmed, the L late is actually very close to 1600 hp Lightning values...what it should be. It's been difficult to piece together, but the P-38L-1LO seems to be the model rated to 1600 hp, introduced in June 1944 and the -5LO and previously manufactured 1LO's were given the 1750hp rating in October of 44...I'm speculating based on a couple of clues but that is how I think it went.

Bottom line, G-10 is second best peformer in game next to K. The G6A/S is better at lower altitudes but peaks out lower than K and G-10. The G-14 is the dog of the late war group...although not much of a dog at all.

NextBarbaPapa
09-26-2005, 08:42 PM
It cannot outrun P51, not down low for sure, and I suppose also not up high. On the deck P51 is third fastest prop in the sim, after Mustang MkIII and Dora 9.

Bf109 was one of best climbing fighters in WW2, however due to superb two speed two stage supercharger equipped merlin P51 should outrun and outclimb it with ease up high. You gave me some ideas to test out!

Maple_Tiger
09-26-2005, 08:45 PM
"Now in this sim...the AI are exploiting the prop pitch cheat...at least that is what I hypothesize because they can outclimb and outdive everything...even Mustangs and Jugs up to 30K and beyond...a well documented issue"

That may very well expain it. In version 4, It didn't seem too bad though. It's in version 4.01m and 4.02m that I have noticed this.

Maple_Tiger
09-26-2005, 08:53 PM
I had no problem catching the G-10 up high, 7km altitude +, while using the P-47D-27.

I haven't ran any test's with human controlled opponents though.

p1ngu666
09-26-2005, 09:02 PM
g10 was better than the g14, g14 just a rush job on making a g6 alcholholic, g10 had abit more refinement.

p38 is too slow up high, not enuff climb

p51 is decently modeled in terms of speed and climb

ColoradoBBQ
09-26-2005, 10:33 PM
Keep your speed up, Maple Tiger. The P-51 high speed climb can leave the G-10 in the dust online and offline, providing that you DON'T start the climb when you're slow and he's gaining.

ImpStarDuece
09-26-2005, 11:05 PM
The G-10 was an attempt to standardize late-war 109 production, and was probably the best performing 109G. It incorportated a lot of the modifications that had gone into earlier high performance sub-types in order to make the 109 competitive with the new Allied types that were seeing service (Sptfire XIV, Mustang III, P-51D, P-47 with paddle prop). Refined cowlings, revised canopy, better radio equipment and in later production an enlarged tail and longer tail wheel leg. The G-10 has the DB650DM with MW-50 boost and produced about 1800 hp at 1.75 ata. Late versions also got the 2000hp DB605DC/ASC, with 1.98 ata approved around

It didn't start to enter production until October 1944, so is pretty much a very late 1944-early 1945 bird.

Climb sould be really good as it has a lot of power and better aerodynamics than a G6. Performance at altitude is pretty sparkling; approx 430 mph (685 km) at 7000m.

Kocur_
09-27-2005, 01:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
On the deck P51 is third fastest prop in the sim, after Mustang MkIII and Dora 9.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if you think about west. "In the sim" its: Mustang Mk.III, La-7/La-7 3xB20, D9, P-51. In terms of acceleration La-7 is the best among those by far.

Maple_Tiger
09-27-2005, 04:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ColoradoBBQ:
Keep your speed up, Maple Tiger. The P-51 high speed climb can leave the G-10 in the dust online and offline, providing that you DON'T start the climb when you're slow and he's gaining. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Tride it already, P-47D/late, P-51MKII or P-38late are the only to that I know of that can catch it.

Badsight.
09-27-2005, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
yada yada yada. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>im wondering why MT - having played this game & read this forum for so long would question & make a thread about this

surely hes with-it enough to realise that AI testing doesnt give an accurate picture ?!?

JG5_UnKle
09-27-2005, 05:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
im wondering why MT - having played this game & read this forum for so long would question & make a thread about this

surely hes with-it enough to realise that AI testing doesnt give an accurate picture ?!? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess not http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
09-27-2005, 05:31 AM
hes a modemer, plus hes slightly special in the head http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG5_UnKle
09-27-2005, 05:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
hes a modemer, plus hes slightly special in the head http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He's a what? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Maple_Tiger
09-27-2005, 09:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
yada yada yada. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>im wondering why MT - having played this game & read this forum for so long would question & make a thread about this

surely hes with-it enough to realise that AI testing doesnt give an accurate picture ?!? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Lets stick to the thread shall we, and keep comments to ones self.

JG52Karaya-X
09-27-2005, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
The G-10 has the DB650DM with MW-50 boost and produced about 1800 hp at 1.75 ata. Late versions also got the 2000hp DB605DC/ASC, with 1.98 ata approved around </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC the G10 could make use of the following engines - the DB605DB/DC (just like the K4) and the ASB/ASC (1,8 - 1,98 - 1,8 - 1,98 ata respectively)...
The 1800hp 1,75ata engines were mounted on earlier models (G14)

carguy_
09-27-2005, 10:23 AM
Don`t feed the troll.

HayateAce
09-27-2005, 01:54 PM
Is this an 109 overmodel tread?

What did I miss?

VW-IceFire
09-27-2005, 02:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Is this an 109 overmodel tread?

What did I miss? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes the tire treads lead off along the road that direction...

*points*

I hadn't noticed the G-10 being really all that special except that I think its one of the nicest of the late war 109s around. In fighting them, I haven't seen much out of them that you don't see a bit more out of the K-4 or G-6A/S.

The AI is another matter...

Grey_Mouser67
09-27-2005, 03:20 PM
G-10, G-6A/S and K are all real good fighters in this game...If the fight was low altitude...ie below 4K, I'd use the G-6A/S because it is every bit as fast as a K on the deck and turns better....slightly lower in climb but not much....from 4K and up the K rules the roost in speed and climb but if the K is not available, the G-10 makes a sweet poor man's K. The G-10 peaks out in performance slightly higher than the G-6A/S so of the G models pick according to altitude I say.

The G-14 is only slightly better than the G-6 late so I avoid the G-14 unless there are no G6A/S, G-10's or K's available....when I build maps though, for offline, I tend to stay away from late model 109's because there are no late model British or US aircraft to combat them other than Mustang Mk III...I'm waiting for the P-47Late and hoping for the P-51D-20 to be moved to high boost settings and getting a 25lb boost spit mk IX and a Spit Mk XIV...but I'm really not going to hold my breath on the Mk XIV

faustnik
09-27-2005, 03:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I hadn't noticed the G-10 being really all that special except that I think its one of the nicest of the late war 109s around. In fighting them, I haven't seen much out of them that you don't see a bit more out of the K-4 or G-6A/S.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the G-10s are pretty good in 4.01. They are more maneuverable than the Ks and almost equal to the K in performance. I've done OK against them in the P-51D (with the squad) using standard Fw190 tactics, but, the Mk108 and a good shooter is just nasty. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I see little difference in the Fw190A/SpitIXc fight and the P-51/Bf109G6/10 in terms of maneuver tactics. you have to keep your speed way up in Fw190 or Mustang and avoid turning. The Spits and Bf109 have super climb ability and can turn on you quickly and regain speed with their super acceleration. You pretty much have to stay close to top speed in the Fw & Mustang. The BIG difference between the P-51 and Fw190 is the kill factor. Fw190 kill stuff quick, P-51s don't.

As far as historical, well the Bf109G10 should outclimb the P-51 at all but very high speeds. The P-51 should be faster at most (if not all) altitudes. ???????

p1ngu666
09-27-2005, 04:53 PM
yeah think p51 should be abit faster, with racks tho, and it loses alot of speed..

infact with racks it might not be much faster than spit IX/VIII but i havent tested it..

the normal p51s i mean, not the hotrod http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
09-27-2005, 05:05 PM
Wow! Looking back at IL-2 compare (yeah, I know it's old data) the G10 is really fast. It's actually faster than the P-51 at 5000 meters and faster at than the Fw190A8 at almost all atitudes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif It climb rate looks about the same as the V2. I didn't realize it was that good.

VW-IceFire
09-27-2005, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Wow! Looking back at IL-2 compare (yeah, I know it's old data) the G10 is really fast. It's actually faster than the P-51 at 5000 meters and faster at than the Fw190A8 at almost all atitudes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif It climb rate looks about the same as the V2. I didn't realize it was that good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes its actually quite quite good.

Take the MW50 out of the equation and its decidedly below par against the best of the Allied stable but put in the MW50 and that thing is a nice hotrod of a fighter.

The Spitfire analogy is definately apt as well. The performance in terms of ability VS opponents is fairly similar. On the other hand, the G-10 represents a much later development of the 109 series while the Spitfire is still 1943 but thats another subject http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Indeed using FW like tactics in a Mustang is the best way to defeat G-10 and K-4 opponents. Its the same style.

Maple_Tiger
09-27-2005, 08:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Is this an 109 overmodel tread?

What did I miss? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes the tire treads lead off along the road that direction...

*points*

I hadn't noticed the G-10 being really all that special except that I think its one of the nicest of the late war 109s around. In fighting them, I haven't seen much out of them that you don't see a bit more out of the K-4 or G-6A/S.

The AI is another matter... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Usualy, when one is messing around in the QMB, AI's are the only other aircraft to fly against. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Yes, I think the G-10 is a little too nice at high altitude. Atleast, when your flying certain aircraft against it.

Kocur_
09-27-2005, 10:14 PM
I used to fly a lot Bf-109 in 3.04. All those late Gs were very similar in performance, K4 was the fastest and best climber, OTOH K4 was considerably less manouverable. Wonder why?

Badsight.
09-27-2005, 10:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Lets stick to the thread shall we, and keep comments to ones self. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>what ?

whats to stick to , your not seeing a true display of plane performance because your flying against AI

you have been around this game too long to not realise this

FritzGryphon
09-27-2005, 11:19 PM
If one really wanted to verify an aircraft's performance, it'd make sense to do tests and compare the results to historical data (or failing that, OV numbers).

No definative lessons can be drawn from in-combat comparisons, AI or human.

Kurfurst__
09-28-2005, 06:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
I used to fly a lot Bf-109 in 3.04. All those late Gs were very similar in performance, K4 was the fastest and best climber, OTOH K4 was considerably less manouverable. Wonder why? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder why, too. The weight difference between the 109K, and all those late 109Gs we have with MK 108 is marginal.

Ie. the G-10/U4 we have weighted 3343 kg at takeoff, the K-4 3362kg... What, 19 kg difference...? Same for the G-14/U4 we have. The aerodynamics of the k should more than balance this out - engines were exactly the same.

carguy_
09-28-2005, 06:24 AM
There should be no noticeable handling difference between MG151/20 and MK108 variants but there it is clearly.

Dunno what you talking bout men.All 109 are disabled over 7500m.

Kocur_
09-28-2005, 07:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
I used to fly a lot Bf-109 in 3.04. All those late Gs were very similar in performance, K4 was the fastest and best climber, OTOH K4 was considerably less manouverable. Wonder why? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder why, too. The weight difference between the 109K, and all those late 109Gs we have with MK 108 is marginal.

Ie. the G-10/U4 we have weighted 3343 kg at takeoff, the K-4 3362kg... What, 19 kg difference...? Same for the G-14/U4 we have. The aerodynamics of the k should more than balance this out - engines were exactly the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fact my question was a bit provocative http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Now lets check wing area of F/G and K in object viewer... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

JG52Karaya-X
09-28-2005, 09:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Now lets check wing area of F/G and K in object viewer... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The wing area values in IL2's object viewer for the Bf109F/Gs are wrong - it says 17,3^2m for F2/F4/G2/G6/G6AS/G10/G14... they confused it with square FEET which is 174!! From the Bf109F onwards the 109 had the same wing area (16,04m^2)

JG52Karaya-X
09-28-2005, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
The G-14 is only slightly better than the G-6 late so I avoid the G-14 unless there are no G6A/S, G-10's or K's available.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the G14 is a big improvement over the G6. It's climbrate is far superior and it's also faster at all altitudes (670km/h max. speed at 6000m compared to the 630 of the G6) and ingame we have the Mk108 pre-installed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Abbuzze
09-28-2005, 11:47 AM
For the G/K4 Handling and wingarea, all 109 with rounded wingtips had 16.17mÔ┬▓
Weight for all late MW50 109 are similart at 3350kg a few kg more and less, the DB605D had a bigger oiltank than the DB605A/AM/ASM.
The K4 would weight a few kg more than a G10 cause of aerodynamical refines, wheeldoors, retractable tailwheel. Maindifference between G10 and K4 beside aerodynamic were position of radios and radio equipment- friend/foe system for groundcontrol for example. No idea why this should have a big influance in handling http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Kocur_
09-28-2005, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Now lets check wing area of F/G and K in object viewer... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The wing area values in IL2's object viewer for the Bf109F/Gs are wrong - it says 17,3^2m for F2/F4/G2/G6/G6AS/G10/G14... they confused it with square FEET which is 174!! From the Bf109F onwards the 109 had the same wing area (16,04m^2) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont think its about confusing units - wingspan is wrong too!

Kwiatos
09-28-2005, 12:34 PM
BF 109 E-3
take off weight 2505kg , wing area 16,2 m2 - 156 kg/m2

BF 109 F-4
take off weight 2890 kg, wing are 16,1 m2 - 179 kg/m2

Bf 109 G-2
take off weight 3100 kg, wing area 16,1 m2 - 192 kg/m2

Bf 109 G-6
take off weight 3196 kg, wing are 16,1m2 - 198 kg/m2

Bf 109 G-10
take of weight 3343 kg, wing are 16,1 m2 - 207 kg/m2

Kocur_
09-28-2005, 12:44 PM
So in short: late Gs and K4 had similar weight IRL. They also had the same wing area IRL, which means they all had very similar wingloading and very similar handling.

OV contains wrong data on wingspan and wing area of all F/Gs, but contains correct data on K4.
The false late Gs values are greater than correct values of wingspan and wing area of K4.

Those wrong values make, mathematically speaking, wingloading of late Gs smaller than wingloading of K4.

In the game late Gs have (or at least had in 3.04) considerably better handling than K4 as if late Gs had smaller wingloading.

Hmm...

Vike
09-30-2005, 06:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
So in short: late Gs and K4 had similar weight IRL. They also had the same wing area IRL, which means they all had very similar wingloading and very similar handling.

OV contains wrong data on wingspan and wing area of all F/Gs, but contains correct data on K4.
The false late Gs values are greater than correct values of wingspan and wing area of K4.

Those wrong values make, mathematically speaking, wingloading of late Gs smaller than wingloading of K4.

In the game late Gs have (or at least had in 3.04) considerably better handling than K4 as if late Gs had smaller wingloading.

Hmm... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting topic! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
So,did the K4 have a similar handling to the previous 109G?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Hmm...

Kurfurst__
09-30-2005, 07:22 AM
Yep, there is hardly any reason to be any noticable difference between the late Gs and the K.

IE. the int fuel load of all 109s were 300kg. Now the use 50% on 109K, you save 150kg weight... 3362 -150 = 3212kg, and i.e. a fully fueled 109G-6 was 3196kg... same weight, wingloading etc, but with 1800-2000HP. Never heard more power would detoriate manouveribility. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I recall reading Franz Stiegler WW2 pilot :

"Franz Stigler liked the 109G as well and also enjoyed flying the K-4. The K-4, he said was very much like the G yet could leave all other fighters behind in climb. In control feel he said the K felt identical to the G. He described on many occasions where they would just bank away from the fighters and climb away from them (my guess this is probably after attacking them?). He also flew a Spitfire once, saying that he liked the aircraft. "

alert_1
09-30-2005, 07:48 AM
Kocur_ is actually saying that late Me109 should have handling like Me109K, that is *worse*. Or am I confused (again) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Kwiatos
09-30-2005, 08:36 AM
Yep probably late G series should have more difficult handling like K-4 due to its near the same (high) wingloading. And of course late Bfs should have much high stall speed then it is in game. For sure they shouldn't fly without stall at speed 150 km/h like in game at poweroff.

Kocur_
09-30-2005, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
Kocur_ is actually saying that late Me109 should have handling like Me109K, that is *worse*. Or am I confused (again) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What Im saying is that there should be little to no difference between G6AS/G14/G10 handling and K4 handling in the game, because their wingloading was very similar IRL. If my impression is correct there is such a difference at least in 3.04.
I would not have a clue what causes that, if I didnt know that OV contains false data, which if was used for FM modelling, would create such a difference. Its not about "better" or "worse", but merely about accurate.
Is modelling of G6AS/G14/G10 handling more accurate than K4 handling? I have no idea.

jagdmailer
09-30-2005, 10:31 AM
I agree with most of this. However, if you are referring to the MW-50 equipped G-6/AS we have had in the sim up until this point, you should really refer to it as G-14/AS as the current G-6/AS should simply be renamed G-14/AS, feature and performance wise.

Then, it make perfect senses as all of those were produced or rebuilt from existing damaged airframes, in succession and sometime concurrently for some variants, within a period of perhaps 6 months or less.

Jagd

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
Kocur_ is actually saying that late Me109 should have handling like Me109K, that is *worse*. Or am I confused (again) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What Im saying is that there should be little to no difference between G6AS/G14/G10 handling and K4 handling in the game, because their wingloading was very similar IRL. If my impression is correct there is such a difference at least in 3.04.
I would not have a clue what causes that, if I didnt know that OV contains false data, which if was used for FM modelling, would create such a difference. Its not about "better" or "worse", but merely about accurate.
Is modelling of G6AS/G14/G10 handling more accurate than K4 handling? I have no idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maple_Tiger
10-01-2005, 08:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Lets stick to the thread shall we, and keep comments to ones self. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>what ?

whats to stick to , your not seeing a true display of plane performance because your flying against AI

you have been around this game too long to not realise this </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Because thast what the thread is about.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


Guess I have to remind you again lol.

In the QMB, certain aircraft, like the P-51D, P-38J, and P-38L, are out performed by the G-10 at all altitudes. Thats basicaly what I said in the begining.

That said, I'm talking about AI controlled planes period.

However, mayby the G-10 is suppose to out climb and out run those aircraft at low to medium alt, but not at high altitude.

JG52Karaya-X
10-01-2005, 09:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
In the QMB, certain aircraft, like the P-51D, P-38J, and P-38L, are out performed by the G-10 at all altitudes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because these planes even at ACE settings fly VERY VERY defensive - they hardly attack at all (only if they have a huge speed and alt advantage)