PDA

View Full Version : Oleg - One last plea for the Bf 109 series



jagdmailer
07-19-2005, 08:44 AM
Oleg,

With the recent influx of late Allied hardware (not much for the Lufties to sink their teeth in in the last 2-3 patches) & with FB/AEP/PF fast coming to a close, I think it would be time for a quick boost for the Lufties and as per my prior posts of the last 2 years, mostly FM changes would be needed to rather easily get an additional 4-5 Messerschmitts: (BTW, I fly exclusively offline.....)

1943 Bf 109G-6/U2 with original high altitude GM-1 boost systems circa october/november 1943 (specially with those Mosquitos coming)
1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 "Field mod" (original GM-1 system modified for MW-50 use circa March 1944)
1945 Bf 109G-10 "late" w/ DB605DC @ 2000hp
1945 Bf 109G-14 "late" w/ DB605ASC @ 2000hp
1945 Bf 109K-4 "late" w/ DB605DC @ 2000hp

I would rename also the current Bf 109G-6/AS to Bf 109G-14/AS, and make available a genuine Bf 109G-6/AS (without MW-50 and with the genuine high altitude DB motor - ie. 1944 DB605AS, B4 fuel, 1435 hp @ 1.42 ATA at 0m, 1200 hp at 8000m, 1275 hp 1150 hp at 7800m, 1075 hp 1050 hp at 7700m)

What about ordinance & drop tanks for the "F" series, a MG151/20 option for the Bf 109 G-10 & G-14, and anti-bomber rockets for late Gustavs.

Also, change/ammend if needed the date of availability for some late Gustavs in the offline campaigns....ie. Bf 109G-6/AS should be available January/February 1944, Bf 109G-14 available June 1944, BF 109G-14/AS (current G-6/AS) available July 1944, Bf 109G-10 July/August 1944.....so on so forth.

With the above changes, the Messerchmitt series would be trully well fleshed out IMHO, and with better accuracy than currently.

We are still missing some great "Eastern Front" LW A/C such as Dornier Do-17Z-2, Heinkel He-177A, Ju 88C-6a AI or flyable, and Me 210/410 flyable but with 4.01, one can tell that this sim has attained a level of maturity no other sim could ever come close to up until now. Thank you for your efforts & your time.

Jagd

Bearcat99
07-19-2005, 10:08 AM
YOU WANT EVEN MORE!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Maaaaaaann!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Hey... then we can call the sim...... Bf 109 Forgotten Battles...

(I.... I.... I'm sorry man I.. I.... I just couldnt help it..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif)

csThor
07-19-2005, 10:19 AM
I wouldn't even bet on the G-14 and G-10 getting a MG 151/20 option. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

JG53Frankyboy
07-19-2005, 10:31 AM
my few "wishes" from the view of a COOP missionbuilder for the VOW2:

- Bf109G-14/MG151 , following oleg as no hungarian build 109 and so with a little bit worser performance (sure he can also copy the Bf109G-14/MK108 FM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )
this plane should be the standart 109 fighter of the LW in the last months. and i dont like this MK108 overkill in late war scenarios http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif that you can only prevent with using the 6/AS - a not very common bird , even in late war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

-Droptank for the Bf109G-10

-Bf109F-4/B , with a SC250

- and the last, i know will NEVER happen:
changing the FM of the Bf109G-6/AS to a real early 1944 version without MW50 . could be wonderfull used in some "Big Week" Reichsverteidigungs missions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG54_Lukas
07-19-2005, 11:51 AM
Agreed with the above suggestions - the G-14 and G-10 were the most common of the late-war 109s. At the least, please add the MG151/20 option.

Plus, having Panzerblitz rockets for the 190 F-8 would be nice, too (how long now have we been asking for those?)

p1ngu666
07-19-2005, 06:52 PM
bump

MEGILE
07-19-2005, 07:11 PM
BUMP also. a few more 109 variants before support is stopped would be welcomed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Stackhouse25th
07-19-2005, 07:55 PM
Bump to make the lufties stop crying

FritzGryphon
07-19-2005, 08:11 PM
Does everything have to degenerate to 'the Lufties'?

I don't think the plane list is quite bloated enough yet, with either red or blue planes. You shouldn't feel intimidated by planes you don't like. They can't hurt you, except in your dreams.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-19-2005, 09:33 PM
I'm a luftie and I would like nothing more than to see blue get more fighter variants but at this point I hope the focus is on getting as many new airplanes in as possible rather than subtypes. Subtypes were great little additions to the game when there was a lot of development time left. They were little treats for everybody that gave us something new to play with but didn't take a whole lot of time to implement because they were basically modificiations/additions to existing models, but since this looks like its going to be the last patch/addon I hope the development team just throws in as many new models as possible. Honestly how much use are any new subvariants of 109s or Spits really going to get? Servers like warclouds have started severly limiting the number of plane choices on either side and will all these variants really enhance offline play that much?

Just my two cents. Frankly I'll be happy with whatever is added at this point.

Vike
07-19-2005, 09:41 PM
I agree with the Jagdmailer suggestions and i hope we'll be heard...

I would just add to jagdmailer's post that it would be a good thing to have also rockets "Pulk Zerst├┬Ârer" in the Bf109 armament,as it was the case,like Fw190s:

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

http://www.luchtoorlog.be/Images/me109g/g6r2b.jpg

http://www.luchtoorlog.be/Images/me109g/g6r2a.jpg

And finally,THE small detail that counts for me:
The little tailwheel doors for the 109K:

http://www.tamiyamodelmagazine.com/images/Gallery/109/109e.jpg

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

@+

HelSqnProtos
07-19-2005, 10:16 PM
Fat chance of Oleg reading this, but.....

Oleg you gave them enough with the last patch. Time to fuel the fires of the VVS and give us the Russian Addon to the West. Since we are dreaming, also a useable online North Africa Map. Say 500km x 500km if I get even 1 of those I am quite happy to see the luftwhiners get a few ships they want. Just fix the Yaks,

TAGERT.
07-19-2005, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
YOU WANT EVEN MORE!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Maaaaaaann!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Hey... then we can call the sim...... Bf 109 Forgotten Battles...

(I.... I.... I'm sorry man I.. I.... I just couldnt help it..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif) ROTFL!

gkll
07-19-2005, 11:11 PM
Honestly how much use are any new subvariants of 109s or Spits really going to get?


Well I hear you... however I would also point out that as for spitfires they are stuck in a late 43 time warp. Never mind the XIV introduced in Jan 44, what about the thousands of 25lb boost spits from early 44 and on? We got a Mustang III with the hot motor... didn't seem such a big deal. Anyway the brit birds really have gotten the short end as far as late war. All those spits and nary a 44 model let alone 45.....

LuftWulf190
07-19-2005, 11:55 PM
I deffinatly support the Bf-109G-14 withhte MG151/20. I prefer that cannon over the Mk 108 30mm.

BelaLvgosi
07-20-2005, 12:31 AM
bump for k4 with 605DC http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

IIJG69_Kartofe
07-20-2005, 02:47 AM
-Droptank for the Bf109G-10

-Bf109F-4/B , with a SC250

Yea yea yea

G10 with droptank and a F4 too

Vipez-
07-20-2005, 04:21 AM
ally whiners may laugh, but truth is blue only has two planes, so it is only fair to give them as much variants as possible, that were used in extensive numbers...

JG53Frankyboy
07-20-2005, 04:23 AM
"Blue" is more than only Luftwaffe in PFm !

3.JG51_BigBear
07-20-2005, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by gkll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Honestly how much use are any new subvariants of 109s or Spits really going to get?


Well I hear you... however I would also point out that as for spitfires they are stuck in a late 43 time warp. Never mind the XIV introduced in Jan 44, what about the thousands of 25lb boost spits from early 44 and on? We got a Mustang III with the hot motor... didn't seem such a big deal. Anyway the brit birds really have gotten the short end as far as late war. All those spits and nary a 44 model let alone 45..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see your point, but then again red doesn't just have spittys. Late war is well covered with P-51s, P-47s, P-38s and hopefully the Tempest.

jagdmailer
07-20-2005, 06:18 PM
Well, again, any of the Bf 109s I suggested would be better than nothing, if anything some changes to correct the inacuracies... ie. Bf 109G-6/AS to Bf 109G-14/ASM for July 1944 and a real high altitude motor w/o MW-50 for early 1944 would be great.

Bf 109G-5/U2 or G-6/U2 both with GM-1 nitrous oxide for late 1943 Mosquito busting duties (needed soon :-) would be welcomed!

Jagd

p1ngu666
07-20-2005, 09:32 PM
wouldnt call jagd a luftie in a nasty way, he loves teh luftwaffe tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

1943 Bf 109G-6/U2 with original high altitude GM-1 boost systems circa october/november 1943 (specially with those Mosquitos coming)

1945 Bf 109G-10 "late" w/ DB605DC @ 2000hp
and or normal with 20mm

a correct g6as

think the 2000hp ones are the lowest proitity, as least gain from them, for mission buliders and onwhine wars.

jagdmailer
07-21-2005, 12:04 PM
Having said that in my prior post about at least fixing the inaccuracies with the current Gustavs (ie. rename the G-6/AS to G-14/AS (with DB605ASM) circa July 1944 & give us a real G-6/AS circa Jan 1944 with DB605AS high-altitude motor without MW-50 injection), it would not take much more than an little FM tweak to get us "genuine" 1945 full 2000hp variants of the Bf 109G-10 (DC605DC), Bf 109G-14 (DB605ASC) & Bf 109K-4 (DB605DC) (all circa January 1945) either.....

Jagd

Kurfurst__
07-21-2005, 01:04 PM
Yep, imho the most realistic requests are :

a. Adding the normal MG 151/20 option to the G-14 and G-10. Most planes were finished with this armament anyway,

b, Adding 1.98ata/2000HP engine for the K-4, and possibly G-10.

This would present the 1945 version of the K-4, with increased performance below 7500m, and ca 20kph increase in speed and climb rate. This boost was cleared for the DB 605D in February 1945 after some delays, and were put into effect by an OKL order in March 1945, effecting 4 Jagdgruppes (fighter wings) of a total of about 140 aircraft. It cannot be ruled out that other units were effected a sooner and later. Definietely better documented that some other, khmm, recently added 'ultimate' versions of fighters. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

G-14/ASC, altough were built as well, would be practically the same thing as the G-10/1.98, so it`s unneccesary.

jagdmailer
07-21-2005, 01:47 PM
BTW, by "realistic", you must mean your opinion about what Oleg would likely be doing if he wanted to do anything about the variants and accuracy changes I proposed, I assume ??

I agree with you that 2000hp G-14/ASC would be close to 2000hp G-10/DC but perhaps a little slower/lower climb rate possibly because of slightly worse aerodynamics. Having said that, DB605ASC had slightly better max climbing output at sea level.

BTW, I never use the K-4 as I find the Mk108 30mm absolutely horrible for dogfighting.....the fact that current in game G-10 and G-14 are also "stuck" with Mk108 kind of limits me to the G-6 early/late and current G-6/AS (read G-14/AS).

Still would be neat to get the errors fixed in the 109 line-up anyway. Better late fixing it than never.....

Jagd


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Yep, imho the most realistic requests are :

a. Adding the normal MG 151/20 option to the G-14 and G-10. Most planes were finished with this armament anyway,

b, Adding 1.98ata/2000HP engine for the K-4, and possibly G-10.

This would present the 1945 version of the K-4, with increased performance below 7500m, and ca 20kph increase in speed and climb rate. This boost was cleared for the DB 605D in February 1945 after some delays, and were put into effect by an OKL order in March 1945, effecting 4 Jagdgruppes (fighter wings) of a total of about 140 aircraft. It cannot be ruled out that other units were effected a sooner and later. Definietely better documented that some other, khmm, recently added 'ultimate' versions of fighters. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

G-14/ASC, altough were built as well, would be practically the same thing as the G-10/1.98, so it`s unneccesary.

Kurfurst__
07-21-2005, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by jagdmailer:
BTW, by "realistic", you must mean your opinion about what Oleg would likely be doing if he wanted to do anything about the variants and accuracy changes I proposed, I assume ??

Still would be neat to get the errors fixed in the 109 line-up anyway. Better late fixing it than never.....

Jagd



Yes, I suppose if good, organized evidence is presented, he would be very rational. It would be nice to set up a team and work out a letter to Oleg where we present our ideas about additional 109 types, by working together and focusing our efforts and resources. I`d be very happy to join such enterprise, if someone can get it together...

Tvrdi
07-21-2005, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
YOU WANT EVEN MORE!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Maaaaaaann!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Hey... then we can call the sim...... Bf 109 Forgotten Battles...

(I.... I.... I'm sorry man I.. I.... I just couldnt help it..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif)

your a moderator..can you hold/control your feelings/favorites...after all we have p38late, 10000 types of Spitfire...why not bf109...and I particularly agreed with jagdmailer regarding guns and aircraft type-disposability....months, not years...mg151/20 with late Bfs....

Kwiatos
07-21-2005, 04:29 PM
AND PLZ:

- CORRECT STALL SPEED POWER OFF FOR BF109 FROM G-2 TO K-4

- BRING BACK ACCELERATION STALL FOR ALL BF109 AND OTHER PLANES WITH SLOTS

- CORRECT MANUAL PROP PITCH TO PREVENT PROP CHEATING CAUSING USING IMPOSSIBLE RPM FOR DB 605 ENGINES

vanir
07-21-2005, 11:06 PM
Late war spits definitely. I'm a proud Luftie but it just makes sense.

Tempest too, it's the 190F-8 of the Poms, to go with that other low-heavy from the US the Thunderbolt.

109's are fleshed out great to my mind, the only annoying part is all the best ones don't come out until I'm switching to an Me262 anyway. But there's sure heaps of 109's.

I guess the lateness of 190's will get fixed by my order of AEP/PF next week with the adding of the A2. It's such a bugger you have to wait in FB until late 42 for a Focke Wulf option and there's no flyable 110 for any variety. Let's face it from 1941-42 it's F-4 and G-2 all the way, but it kinda gets boring since after then the allies have the numbers and sheer variety.

Komets is great, can't wait to blow myself up in one.

That Henschel with the artillery piece should've been flyable, oh yes definitely. I'd love to go anti-shipping in that.

But how's these for some Luftwaffe variety:

Focke Wulf Ta-183 jet prototype/later MiG-15
(Maximum speed: 955 km/h (596 mph)) ownage!
Fw-187 single-seat hi-po twin engine (beats a contemporary 109 in performance and leaves 110 for dead, but was cancelled with only 3 in service)
He-110 (kicks 109 butt)
The bubble canopied Bf-309
The quad-jet, forward swept Ju-287
The "Amerika bomber" Me264
and is it just me or are there no Condors in FB?

jagdmailer
07-21-2005, 11:38 PM
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 jagdmailer:
BTW, by "realistic", you must mean your opinion about what Oleg would likely be doing if he wanted to do anything about the variants and accuracy changes I proposed, I assume ??

Still would be neat to get the errors fixed in the 109 line-up anyway. Better late fixing it than never.....

Jagd



Yes, I suppose if good, organized evidence is presented, he would be very rational. It would be nice to set up a team and work out a letter to Oleg where we present our ideas about additional 109 types, by working together and focusing our efforts and resources. I`d be very happy to join such enterprise, if someone can get it together... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Butch2K already confirmed that 2000hp DB605DC/ASC @ 1.98 ATA was approved in Jan/Feb 1945. Sure, not much C3 fuel for them, but the fact of the matter is that it was approved and out there and flying.

Who out there, besides Butch2K has the clout to bring the data to Oleg without the BS and so that it is taken as serious as it can be in the shortest time as it can be?

Gents, it is time to be serious here....

Jagd

ImpStarDuece
07-21-2005, 11:55 PM
There are Condors in FB, look under Fw-200.

I would really like to see the MG151/20 added to the late serise 109s. It would invite a lot more people to try them. The 30mm is gross overkill for a fighter sized target, it really turns me away from the 1944/45 109s. The 20mm is much better, a scalpel rather than a blunderbuss.

As for late war LW birds that never flew, hmmmm. Don't we have enough of them already?

A couple of the 2000hp 109s might not go astray, as long as they are used in the right place; very late in the war. I believe February and March `45 have been mentioned as a possible service dates?

However, speaking as a West-front Allied flyer (and a primarily offline one at that), having the very late 109s (and 190s for that matter) presents us with the problem of having very few historical opponents for them in the game. The La-7, Yak-9UT and Yak-3P are about it.

Sensible counters would be +21 lbs Spitfire XIV (June 1944), high manifold pressure 8th AF Mustangs, the P-47M (which was in and out of service with engine problems but eventually recieved the all clear on March 24th, 1945), the Tempest Serise II with Sabre IIB and the +25lbs Spitfire L.F. IX. Actually a Sabre IIC engined Tempest would go well in the Feb-March time period as well.

The current Mustang III, P-51B/D and P-47D-27 are all early to mid 1944 variants, the Spitfires are mid-43 birds. The P-38L 'late' could be added too, though it's a contentious choice to some. I personally have no problems with a 64-66' HG, 1725 hp P-38L being a 1945 variant in the game. The Allison F-30s were made with the improved 12 cwt crankshaft and an overspeed rating of 4400 rpm, compared to the 6 cwt crankshaft and overspeed of 4100 rpm on the F-17. This meant that they could handle 1725 hp easier (lower bearing and crankcase load) than the F-17 could handle its officially rubberstamped 1600 hp. There are no doubts in my mind, having seen the Northrop and Allison performance data, that the 1725 figure is realistic. Deployment in Europe is another matter though.

deathping---
07-22-2005, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:


Hey... then we can call the sim...... Bf 109 Forgotten Battles...
.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif)

Not bad, not bad at'all. Excellent idea. Only plane worth a **** anyway

Tvrdi
07-22-2005, 01:53 AM
dont you agree that it would be great that we hav more planes...tempest flyable...more Bf109 types to counter late us and raf planes.....corrected Bfs (mg151/20 as option in late BFs, manual prop corrected BUT corrected auto prop also)....CORRECTED FW190 (foking gunsight view!! and other things)..dont you think?....dont you? all of you

Tipo_Man
07-22-2005, 02:12 AM
What about a "Bf-109G2 early" with limited to 1,3ATA boost, to comply with the historical data.
The one we have now is a killing machine for 1942 with its 1,42ATA boost

Kurfurst__
07-22-2005, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
What about a "Bf-109G2 early" with limited to 1,3ATA boost, to comply with the historical data.
The one we have now is a killing machine for 1942 with its 1,42ATA boost

Perhaps it has 1.42ata on the gauge but not in performance... which is what 1.3ata is.

jagdmailer
07-22-2005, 02:41 PM
That was my impression.....along with the in-game Bf 109F-4 which seems also limited to the 1941 1.3 ATA boost restrictions for the DB601E.....read following from Butch2K:

"According to several other Messerschmitt and Daimler-Benz documents, the DB601E engine had to be derated because of overheating hence the loss of speed. Check for instance the F-4/Z or F-4/R1 (20mm gondolas - 240 produced) manuals as well as the August 1941 issue of the DB601E manual. The full boost was not officialy re-instated until may 1942.

Butch"

Based on tests with prior tp 4.01, we have the 1.3 ATA "1941" Bf 109F-4. Not sure if this was addressed in 4.01. One of my original request was to make available the following since the 1941 Bf 109F-4 we have in the game seems to be limited to 1.3ATA:

1942 Bf 109F-4 @1.42 ATA (Full boost) circa May 1942
1943 Bf 109G-2 @1.42 ATA (Full boost) circa Jan/Feb 1943

Jagd


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 Tipo_Man:
What about a "Bf-109G2 early" with limited to 1,3ATA boost, to comply with the historical data.
The one we have now is a killing machine for 1942 with its 1,42ATA boost

Perhaps it has 1.42ata on the gauge but not in performance... which is what 1.3ata is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

HotelBushranger
07-22-2005, 11:07 PM
Come on people, the Bf-109 wasn't the only plane in the entire war. There were a lot of others flying too, and IMO it would be better both for business and consumer pleasure if there was a greater number of other planes, instead of a million variants of 109s and a million variants of Spitfires. It's good for people who like those two planes, but for the rest it's just monotunous and boring.

csThor
07-22-2005, 11:34 PM
I have to agree with HotelBushranger. I don't see the value of having some "obscure" versions of the 109 which had little to no impact on the war.

Instead I'd prefer to see a few changes in the 109 series.

a) MG 151/20 standard for Bf 109 G-14
b) Option for MG 151/20 for Bf 109 G-10
c) WfGr 21 for Bf 109 G-6 + G-6late
d) Droptank for G-14, G-10 and K-4
e) SC250, SC50 and AB250 bombloadouts for all 109s later than G-6

And last but not least:

New standard skins for all Bf 109's - the current ones are among the oldest and worst. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

gkll
07-23-2005, 12:00 AM
instead of a million variants of 109s and a million variants of Spitfires.


..... well I sound like a broken record I know, but I would patiently point out that we have no spit past 43.

We have too many useless variants of early war spits, mainly obscure low performance models (vokes filter v's, porky 4 cannon versions etc.....)but there is no late war stuff at all. The XIV and the 25lb boost IX are obvious... instead we fight obscure spring 45 iron with 43 birds...

Point is everyone seems to think the 109s and spits are overrepresented. Maybe the 109s....

UF-Josse
07-23-2005, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
I have to agree with HotelBushranger. I don't see the value of having some "obscure" versions of the 109 which had little to no impact on the war.

Instead I'd prefer to see a few changes in the 109 series.

a) MG 151/20 standard for Bf 109 G-14
b) Option for MG 151/20 for Bf 109 G-10
c) WfGr 21 for Bf 109 G-6 + G-6late
d) Droptank for G-14, G-10 and K-4
e) SC250, SC50 and AB250 bombloadouts for all 109s later than G-6

And last but not least:

New standard skins for all Bf 109's - the current ones are among the oldest and worst. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Agreed for 109 versions, but, don't forget fw 190 F8 panzerblitz...

And for the skins....... see the IAR80/81..... just an horror http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

zaelu
07-23-2005, 12:30 AM
I would love new cockpits for the 109s... like I185 have http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ...
ok, I'm aware that this would probabily happen in BoB... BUT, could you replace the shadow model at least... pleaseee http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Vike
07-23-2005, 06:44 AM
*bbbBUMPppp*

jagdmailer
07-23-2005, 11:12 AM
HBR,

If you read my post.....given the time available if any, I was proposing variants of the 109 that saw service in numbers and which would take rather little time to make available, based on existing external models & cockpits.

Getting back to the actual variants, there were well over 600 Bf 109G-6/U2 & Bf 109G-5/U2 produced new and from conversion of battle damaged Bf 109 airframes sent back to depot for rebuild from about October 1943 up until June 1944 when the production of the MW-50 Bf 109s was standardized to the "G-14" designation. Bf 109G-14/AS with high-altitude DB605ASM started in July 1944.

As far as the G-6/U2 "Field Mod", at least 250 conversion kits were issued to field units for conversion of the Nitrous Oxide system (GM-1) to MW-50 water-methanol use. From Butch2K: "250 conversion kit were issued early spring 1944 for the already produced /U2 aircraft and switch on the production lines from GM-1 to /U2 occured at that time as well. The G-6/U2 convertion was standardized over the next few months, with replacement of the heavy tank with a thin aluminium one and some modifications in the MW-50 piping."

About the 1945 Bf 109G-10 "late", G-14 "Late" and K-4 "late" with the 2000hp motors (ie. DB605DC & DB605ASC), those were in development since the early fall of 1944, available since at least December 1944 and were authorized for use in January/February 1945. Had the Luftwaffe had the proper fuel available february '45 & on, they would have seen a lot more use. Nevertheless, those 2 or 3 late variants were used in operations and 2000hp variants were intended to be the Luftwaffe main Bf 109 variants to be used in operation in the spring of 1945 & on following the authorization for 1.98 ATA on the DB605DC/DB605ASC engines in 109s in Jan/Feb 1945. BTW, German C3 fuel was capable of supporting up to about 2.2/2.3 ATA (about 19/20 PSI british equivalent).......

All in all, there are nothing obsure about the 109 variants I proposed since they all have been serially built, all served in operations and most if not all can be made available in the game with minimal FM changes and/or minimal skin template editing.

Again, there is no time for new aircrafts, so if we can get another 5-7 genuine variants of the Bf 109 with minimal time investment from Maddox Games, then I would be glad - if nothing else fixing the current inaccuracies with the current 109 lineup would be more than welcomed. (ie. Bf 109G-6/AS to Bf 109G-14/AS..MG151/20 motor-kanone on G-14/G-10 standard, drop-tanks on G-10/G-14, Wfr. 21 on late Gustavs, real high altitude G-6/AS with DB605/AS motor.....)

Provided that the existing in-game G-6/AS would be re-designated to G-14/AS and made available in off-line campaign in July 1944 & that a genuine high altitude motor without MW-50 made available in January 1944 (production started in December 1943), then the G-6/U2 "Field Mod" would come in around March 1944 with the first methanol-injected Bf 109 serially available to the Luftwaffe in operation as it was historically, while originally nitrous oxide (GM-1) equipped G-5/U2 & G-6 /U2 could be used for high altitude recon and Mosquito busting activities for instance in the game starting in October/November 1943. (now that we have the Mosquitos coming in 2-3 months)

That is all I am saying, no time for new aicrafts we know that already....very little time required to add up to 7 new variants of the 109 using existing external models, cockpits with minimal tweaking of the existing flight models and some changes to skin templates where applicable.

Regards,

Jagd


Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
Come on people, the Bf-109 wasn't the only plane in the entire war. There were a lot of others flying too, and IMO it would be better both for business and consumer pleasure if there was a greater number of other planes, instead of a million variants of 109s and a million variants of Spitfires. It's good for people who like those two planes, but for the rest it's just monotunous and boring.

JG52Karaya-X
07-23-2005, 12:45 PM
I wouldn't count with the inclusion of such models - although they would be interesting

however the missing loadouts you mentioned DEFINITELY need to be addressed:

- Bf109F2/4/G10/14 need droptanks and/or bombs
- Bf109G10/14 need MG151/20 as default armament and Mk108 as /U4 modification
- Bf109G starting with G2 would need WGr.21, not sure about Bf109K carrying WGr.21s

I really wonder - we get 30mm pods (which probably NEVER made it into frontline action - only in form of special a/c like the Bf109K6 destroyer) on Bf109G10/14/K4 but no droptanks and bombs on some... doesn't make sense

jagdmailer
07-23-2005, 01:48 PM
For whatever it's worth, adding any of the 1.98 ATA 1945 Bf 109G-10/G-14/K-4 "Late" would not be any harder than the 25lbs boost Mustang Mk III we just got in 4.0.....

Cheers,

Jagd


Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
I wouldn't count with the inclusion of such models - although they would be interesting

Vike
07-24-2005, 04:10 AM
*bbbBUMPppp*

JG52Karaya-X
07-24-2005, 04:13 AM
Oh and BTW,

give the FW190D9s some bombs and droptanks...

Skalgrim
07-24-2005, 04:29 AM
from russain test

i would only like k4 (45 model 1,98 ata) with 611km/h sealevel (half radiator out)


when the spit14 came then you need 611km/h sealevel



Originally posted by jagdmailer:
Oleg,

With the recent influx of late Allied hardware (not much for the Lufties to sink their teeth in in the last 2-3 patches) & with FB/AEP/PF fast coming to a close, I think it would be time for a quick boost for the Lufties and as per my prior posts of the last 2 years, mostly FM changes would be needed to rather easily get an additional 4-5 Messerschmitts: (BTW, I fly exclusively offline.....)

1943 Bf 109G-6/U2 with original high altitude GM-1 boost systems circa october/november 1943 (specially with those Mosquitos coming)
1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 "Field mod" (original GM-1 system modified for MW-50 use circa March 1944)
1945 Bf 109G-10 "late" w/ DB605DC @ 2000hp
1945 Bf 109G-14 "late" w/ DB605ASC @ 2000hp
1945 Bf 109K-4 "late" w/ DB605DC @ 2000hp

I would rename also the current Bf 109G-6/AS to Bf 109G-14/AS, and make available a genuine Bf 109G-6/AS (without MW-50 and with the genuine high altitude DB motor - ie. 1944 DB605AS, B4 fuel, 1435 hp @ 1.42 ATA at 0m, 1200 hp at 8000m, 1275 hp 1150 hp at 7800m, 1075 hp 1050 hp at 7700m)

What about ordinance & drop tanks for the "F" series, a MG151/20 option for the Bf 109 G-10 & G-14, and anti-bomber rockets for late Gustavs.

Also, change/ammend if needed the date of availability for some late Gustavs in the offline campaigns....ie. Bf 109G-6/AS should be available January/February 1944, Bf 109G-14 available June 1944, BF 109G-14/AS (current G-6/AS) available July 1944, Bf 109G-10 July/August 1944.....so on so forth.

With the above changes, the Messerchmitt series would be trully well fleshed out IMHO, and with better accuracy than currently.

We are still missing some great "Eastern Front" LW A/C such as Dornier Do-17Z-2, Heinkel He-177A, Ju 88C-6a AI or flyable, and Me 210/410 flyable but with 4.01, one can tell that this sim has attained a level of maturity no other sim could ever come close to up until now. Thank you for your efforts & your time.

Jagd

Skalgrim
07-24-2005, 04:37 AM
why look not of stall speed from p47 and p39

and the funny rollrate from the p39, p39 was weak rollrate plane from american test, even very weak

is so many wrong, when you make 109 correct than the other plane too, to many work, i am sure






Originally posted by Kwiatos:
AND PLZ:

- CORRECT STALL SPEED POWER OFF FOR BF109 FROM G-2 TO K-4

- BRING BACK ACCELERATION STALL FOR ALL BF109 AND OTHER PLANES WITH SLOTS

- CORRECT MANUAL PROP PITCH TO PREVENT PROP CHEATING CAUSING USING IMPOSSIBLE RPM FOR DB 605 ENGINES

jagdmailer
07-24-2005, 10:14 AM
One of the "3" 1945 1.98 ATA "Late" 109s would certainly better than nothing.

Having said that, it would not take much more to add a second or a third as all of those were present on the battle field, especially with the fact that late in 1944 and early in 1945, the factory producing the DB605DB/DC or series engines were being bombed extensivelly, which forced the RLM into increasing production of the DB605ASC to compensate. The DB605D series was supposed to have taken over the DB605A series on production lines, but because of various issues with production of the late "D" series including bombing of the factories, the enhancements of the "D" series eventually found their way into the "A" series making the 2 engines series very comparable in performance in the end & the DB605A (in DB605ASB/ASC w/ MW-50 form) engines still being fairly common in the last months of the war.

Regards,

Jagd


Originally posted by Skalgrim:
from russain test

i would only like k4 (45 model 1,98 ata) with 611km/h sealevel (half radiator out)


when the spit14 came then you need 611km/h sealevel


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jagdmailer:
Oleg,

With the recent influx of late Allied hardware (not much for the Lufties to sink their teeth in in the last 2-3 patches) & with FB/AEP/PF fast coming to a close, I think it would be time for a quick boost for the Lufties and as per my prior posts of the last 2 years, mostly FM changes would be needed to rather easily get an additional 4-5 Messerschmitts: (BTW, I fly exclusively offline.....)

1943 Bf 109G-6/U2 with original high altitude GM-1 boost systems circa october/november 1943 (specially with those Mosquitos coming)
1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 "Field mod" (original GM-1 system modified for MW-50 use circa March 1944)
1945 Bf 109G-10 "late" w/ DB605DC @ 2000hp
1945 Bf 109G-14 "late" w/ DB605ASC @ 2000hp
1945 Bf 109K-4 "late" w/ DB605DC @ 2000hp

I would rename also the current Bf 109G-6/AS to Bf 109G-14/AS, and make available a genuine Bf 109G-6/AS (without MW-50 and with the genuine high altitude DB motor - ie. 1944 DB605AS, B4 fuel, 1435 hp @ 1.42 ATA at 0m, 1200 hp at 8000m, 1275 hp 1150 hp at 7800m, 1075 hp 1050 hp at 7700m)

What about ordinance & drop tanks for the "F" series, a MG151/20 option for the Bf 109 G-10 & G-14, and anti-bomber rockets for late Gustavs.

Also, change/ammend if needed the date of availability for some late Gustavs in the offline campaigns....ie. Bf 109G-6/AS should be available January/February 1944, Bf 109G-14 available June 1944, BF 109G-14/AS (current G-6/AS) available July 1944, Bf 109G-10 July/August 1944.....so on so forth.

With the above changes, the Messerchmitt series would be trully well fleshed out IMHO, and with better accuracy than currently.

We are still missing some great "Eastern Front" LW A/C such as Dornier Do-17Z-2, Heinkel He-177A, Ju 88C-6a AI or flyable, and Me 210/410 flyable but with 4.01, one can tell that this sim has attained a level of maturity no other sim could ever come close to up until now. Thank you for your efforts & your time.

Jagd </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

jagdmailer
07-24-2005, 11:38 AM
Agreed about a 1945 Bf 109K-4 "Late" w/DB605DC @2000hp - 1.98 ATA, but let's not forget that Bf 109G-10 & Bf 109G-14 composed over 73% of the Bf 109 strenght of the Lutwaffe fighter force by the end of January 1945....

Of course, nowhere near all of those were the 2000hp capable DB605DC & DB605ASC equipped G-10/G-14s, but G-10/G-14 still outnumbered the K-4 by quite a good margin 3 months before the end of the war....basically, besides the very few remaining G-6s, every 3 out of 4 Bf 109 at that time were G-10s/G-14s.

BTW, I did research the engine production extensively and unfortunately, no documentation survived as far as I know of the amount of engine sub-type production of the later of DB605DB/DC & DB605ASB/ASC engines.

Cheers,

Jagd


Originally posted by Skalgrim:
from russain test

i would only like k4 (45 model 1,98 ata) with 611km/h sealevel (half radiator out)


when the spit14 came then you need 611km/h sealevel


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jagdmailer:
Oleg,

With the recent influx of late Allied hardware (not much for the Lufties to sink their teeth in in the last 2-3 patches) & with FB/AEP/PF fast coming to a close, I think it would be time for a quick boost for the Lufties and as per my prior posts of the last 2 years, mostly FM changes would be needed to rather easily get an additional 4-5 Messerschmitts: (BTW, I fly exclusively offline.....)

1943 Bf 109G-6/U2 with original high altitude GM-1 boost systems circa october/november 1943 (specially with those Mosquitos coming)
1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 "Field mod" (original GM-1 system modified for MW-50 use circa March 1944)
1945 Bf 109G-10 "late" w/ DB605DC @ 2000hp
1945 Bf 109G-14 "late" w/ DB605ASC @ 2000hp
1945 Bf 109K-4 "late" w/ DB605DC @ 2000hp

I would rename also the current Bf 109G-6/AS to Bf 109G-14/AS, and make available a genuine Bf 109G-6/AS (without MW-50 and with the genuine high altitude DB motor - ie. 1944 DB605AS, B4 fuel, 1435 hp @ 1.42 ATA at 0m, 1200 hp at 8000m, 1275 hp 1150 hp at 7800m, 1075 hp 1050 hp at 7700m)

What about ordinance & drop tanks for the "F" series, a MG151/20 option for the Bf 109 G-10 & G-14, and anti-bomber rockets for late Gustavs.

Also, change/ammend if needed the date of availability for some late Gustavs in the offline campaigns....ie. Bf 109G-6/AS should be available January/February 1944, Bf 109G-14 available June 1944, BF 109G-14/AS (current G-6/AS) available July 1944, Bf 109G-10 July/August 1944.....so on so forth.

With the above changes, the Messerchmitt series would be trully well fleshed out IMHO, and with better accuracy than currently.

We are still missing some great "Eastern Front" LW A/C such as Dornier Do-17Z-2, Heinkel He-177A, Ju 88C-6a AI or flyable, and Me 210/410 flyable but with 4.01, one can tell that this sim has attained a level of maturity no other sim could ever come close to up until now. Thank you for your efforts & your time.

Jagd </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hoarmurath
07-24-2005, 11:46 AM
Dont forget the Hs123, this plane saw extensive use on the eastern front, and we don't have it at all, not even as AI http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

JG52_wunsch
07-24-2005, 04:13 PM
bump,would be sweet,and not take "a lot" of work,cheers.

do217s
07-26-2005, 09:42 AM
Bmp for 1945 Bf 109s "late" G-10,G-14,K-4 with full rating (1.98 ata), corrected G-6/AS to G-14/AS, jan. 1944 Bf 109G-6/AS with high alt. motor minus the MW-50, nitrus oxide 1943 G-5/G-6 U2s, and MW-50 field mods of the prior G-5/G-6 U2s for march 1944.

MG151/20 engine cannon standard on G-10 & G-14, Wfr. 21s, and drop-tanks too.

Bf109 is bread and butter of the LW. Please fix the G-6 and up variants before the game is closed. Not much work involved mostly FM for historical accuracy's sake and added deepness of ur otherwise great sim.

I am sure butch2K would agree.

Thank you sir,

Do 217

p1ngu666
07-26-2005, 02:04 PM
do217, postcount 109, how apt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

jadg, the problem with engine manufacture numbers if u could find them would be how many made it to units, which would be very hard to find out...

ALOT of equipment was "lost" on trains, carriages just shunted off to get railway line open...

also think its best if we stay ontopic too

jagdmailer
07-26-2005, 03:05 PM
Hey Pingu,

Still hanging around here ?? hehehe...

That list of 109s is in your AEP2 list isn't it??

That how long the 109s series has been begging to get fixed...no ordinance or tanks for Friedrich.....wrong naming convention for G-6/AS, no real G-6/AS, no MG151/20 on G-10 & G-14 (should be standard on those)....

You are right about DB engine production stats.....been looking like mad in the last 2+ years....not much in later war.

I hope Oleg pays attention to this thread for once. I, probably along with many others also want a little "treat" (in ref. to the late allied goodies ....Mustang Mk III, Tempest, Mosquitoes.....) before Il-2/FB/AEP/PF support gets shut down for good.....

Won't take any more time to make a 1945 Bf 109G-10 "late" with DB605DC @ 1.98ATA - 2000hp for instance than it took to make available the Mustang Mk III 25PSI we just got in 4.0......

Regards,

Jagd


Originally posted by p1ngu666:
do217, postcount 109, how apt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

jadg, the problem with engine manufacture numbers if u could find them would be how many made it to units, which would be very hard to find out...

ALOT of equipment was "lost" on trains, carriages just shunted off to get railway line open...

also think its best if we stay ontopic too

Vike
07-27-2005, 01:15 AM
*bbbBBBUMMMPPPppp*


Originally posted by do217s:
Bmp for 1945 Bf 109s "late" G-10,G-14,K-4 with full rating (1.98 ata), corrected G-6/AS to G-14/AS, jan. 1944 Bf 109G-6/AS with high alt. motor minus the MW-50, nitrus oxide 1943 G-5/G-6 U2s, and MW-50 field mods of the prior G-5/G-6 U2s for march 1944.

MG151/20 engine cannon standard on G-10 & G-14, Wfr. 21s, and drop-tanks too.

Bf109 is bread and butter of the LW. Please fix the G-6 and up variants before the game is closed. Not much work involved mostly FM for historical accuracy's sake and added deepness of ur otherwise great sim.

I am sure butch2K would agree.

Thank you sir,

Do 217

I agree too!

BlackStar2000
07-27-2005, 12:45 PM
What about the correct loadout for the 109F2/F4 and F2 late with 20mm cannon would be nice.

p1ngu666
07-27-2005, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by jagdmailer:
Hey Pingu,

Still hanging around here ?? hehehe...

That list of 109s is in your AEP2 list isn't it??

That how long the 109s series has been begging to get fixed...no ordinance or tanks for Friedrich.....wrong naming convention for G-6/AS, no real G-6/AS, no MG151/20 on G-10 & G-14 (should be standard on those)....

You are right about DB engine production stats.....been looking like mad in the last 2+ years....not much in later war.

I hope Oleg pays attention to this thread for once. I, probably along with many others also want a little "treat" (in ref. to the late allied goodies ....Mustang Mk III, Tempest, Mosquitoes.....) before Il-2/FB/AEP/PF support gets shut down for good.....

Won't take any more time to make a 1945 Bf 109G-10 "late" with DB605DC @ 1.98ATA - 2000hp for instance than it took to make available the Mustang Mk III 25PSI we just got in 4.0......

Regards,

Jagd

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
do217, postcount 109, how apt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

jadg, the problem with engine manufacture numbers if u could find them would be how many made it to units, which would be very hard to find out...

ALOT of equipment was "lost" on trains, carriages just shunted off to get railway line open...

also think its best if we stay ontopic too </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i wouldnt call mossie late http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif, its only late in that its not ingame already http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

ElAurens
07-27-2005, 09:12 PM
If we need (as opposed to want) any more aircraft, then we need to flesh out the IJN/IJAAF airfleet. Not that I'm agianst new 109s per se, but the US/GB/USSR/Germany airfleets are positively massive compared to the Japanese side. Very important early war fighters and bombers are missing. There are no attack aircraft for the IJAAF at all... Several very important and needed mid war and onwards fighters are totally missing, and, the Ki61s are a scrambled mess of incorrect details and undermodeled speeds.

As for new Luftwaffe aircraft...

This gets my vote.

http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/other2/bu133-i.jpg

karost
07-27-2005, 10:25 PM
I agree with this...


Originally posted by csThor:
I have to agree with HotelBushranger. I don't see the value of having some "obscure" versions of the 109 which had little to no impact on the war.

Instead I'd prefer to see a few changes in the 109 series.

a) MG 151/20 standard for Bf 109 G-14
b) Option for MG 151/20 for Bf 109 G-10
c) WfGr 21 for Bf 109 G-6 + G-6late
d) Droptank for G-14, G-10 and K-4
e) SC250, SC50 and AB250 bombloadouts for all 109s later than G-6

And last but not least:

New standard skins for all Bf 109's - the current ones are among the oldest and worst. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

and this to :

Originally posted by jagdmailer:
1943 Bf 109G-6/U2 with original high altitude GM-1 boost systems circa october/november 1943 (specially with those Mosquitos coming)
1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 "Field mod" (original GM-1 system modified for MW-50 use circa March 1944)
1945 Bf 109G-10 "late" w/ DB605DC @ 2000hp
1945 Bf 109G-14 "late" w/ DB605ASC @ 2000hp
1945 Bf 109K-4 "late" w/ DB605DC @ 2000hp


and give our red friends with
- template , late P-51 M or L ( I not sure )


S!
[ don't shoot me with MK 108 .... please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ]

p1ngu666
07-27-2005, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
If we need (as opposed to want) any more aircraft, then we need to flesh out the IJN/IJAAF airfleet. Not that I'm agianst new 109s per se, but the US/GB/USSR/Germany airfleets are positively massive compared to the Japanese side. Very important early war fighters and bombers are missing. There are no attack aircraft for the IJAAF at all... Several very important and needed mid war and onwards fighters are totally missing, and, the Ki61s are a scrambled mess of incorrect details and undermodeled speeds.

As for new Luftwaffe aircraft...

This gets my vote.

http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/other2/bu133-i.jpg

italian airfleet is pretty skinny http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif should be fixed soon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

personaly i want raf and japanease stuff most of all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Gibbage1
07-28-2005, 02:24 PM
Question. I have a copy of the DB605 manual and it list's the DC's power output of 2000HP but only using C3 and Mw-50. How many Luftwaffe 109 K4 units had C3 fuel in 1945? From what I heard, it was rather rare, and mainly used for FW-190 A series.

Kurfurst__
07-28-2005, 04:22 PM
Which 'manual' is it?

As for the C-3 shortage, so far no evidence of it. Sure, fuel was on short everywhere, but there`s no specific shortage of C-3.

In fact I just finished digitilizing the fuel and equipemtn state of the Axis-Italian airfroce, the 'ANR' in April 1945. They had a few K-4s, mostly G-10 (same 605D engine as the K), and G-14s :

3 K-4s and 39 G-10s (DB 605D)
27 G-14s, 7 G-6s
2 G-12s amd 12 D.79 transports.

Basically, none of these planes would require C-3 as a must-have, all could run at B-4 if needed.

Their fuel stocks were on 23rd April, 1945 :

B-4 fuel : 143 000 liter
C-3 fuel : 116 000 liter.

They must have relied primarly on C-3, because 5 days later the stocks were :

B-4 fuel : 130 000 liter
C-3 fuel : 80 000 liter.

OldMan____
07-28-2005, 04:27 PM
Some people must understand that rarity is no excuse to not have a LW plane at 1945. EVERYTHING was rare at 1945 on germany! I say.. if it was officially in operation (not prototype).. is valid.

If rarity is a valid point to decide if something was to be included lets just shutdown all serverr 44 onwards and keep on 1943 since after 1944 LW was rare if compared to USAAF. LW pilots with more than 18 years were rare at 1945.. so lets forbidden anyone with a driving license to play on blue side after 1944.

p1ngu666
07-28-2005, 05:25 PM
fuel for 27days flying nearly

that fuel in fuel dumps only kurfy?
from what ive read ppl hadto go all over the place to secure fuel. alot was blown up by allies on route, and also "lost" or delayed because of the transport system being wrecked.

some lw units used oxen to tow aircraft around, as fuel was so short http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Gibbage1
07-28-2005, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


In fact I just finished digitilizing the fuel and equipemtn state of the Axis-Italian airfroce, the 'ANR' in April 1945. They had a few K-4s, mostly G-10 (same 605D engine as the K), and G-14s :

3 K-4s and 39 G-10s (DB 605D)


The DB605 manual I have list's the DB 605D as 1550HP with C3.

faustnik
07-28-2005, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


In fact I just finished digitilizing the fuel and equipemtn state of the Axis-Italian airfroce, the 'ANR' in April 1945. They had a few K-4s, mostly G-10 (same 605D engine as the K), and G-14s :

3 K-4s and 39 G-10s (DB 605D)


The DB605 manual I have list's the DB 605D as 1550HP with C3. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look here:

DB605 info (http://www.axiomdigital.com/db605.htm)

Gibbage1
07-28-2005, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:

Look here:

DB605 info (http://www.axiomdigital.com/db605.htm)

Thats also listing the DB605D as 1550HP. Both my manual and that page only list the DB605ASM and DB605DC as 2000HP at 1.98ATA.

How many K4's were made with the DC engine? Kurd only listed the D engine, not the DC.

jagdmailer
07-28-2005, 07:45 PM
Gib,

1. I have researched this to a great extent: There are no surviving production numbers on the late DB605 engines as far as I have been able to researched.

2. DB605 2000hp engines are: DB605ASC & DB605DC. Both, in their late 1944 - early 1945 incarnations, needed C3+ MW50 to obtain 2000hp @ 1.98ATA. Having said that, it is said that German C3 fuel was able to support up to 2.2/2.3 ATA (about 20 PSI british equivalant)

3. 1.98ATA was cleared January/Feb 1945 for operational use, although it had been in testing with varying results since late 1944.

4. The engine of choice mainly fitted to Bf 109G-10 & Bf 109K-4 was the DB605D variants in its different incarnation, mainly DB605DM (1800hp) in August 1944 until late 1944, then DB605DB (1850hp) fall 1944 and early 1945 and DB605DC (2000hp) cleared from Jan/Feb 1945-on. Little difference exists between the DB605DB & DB605DC. DB605ASB/DB605ASC were also at the same rating as the "D" engine but was of an earlier design and mainly fitted to the Bf 109G-14 (ie. Bf 109G-14/AS). Having said that, the factories producing the "D" series engine (DB605DM/DB605DB/DB605DC) were hit numerous times in late 1944 and early 1945 and getting production to slow down, hence the continuation of the "A" series DB605 well into 1945 and where the development made to the "D" series were basically fitted to the older "A" series engine, as factories producing the "A" series were not hit nearly as bas as the "D" series. IMHO, although G-10 & K-4 were intended to be fitted only with "D" series engines, it is very likely that DB605ASC were indeed fitted to those 2 variants as they were to the G-14 because of the factory production issues of the "D" series.

All in all, I am all with "oldman" as far as I am concerned, as long as it was not only a prototype, then I want it. In the scope of the recent late Allied hardware addition in the last patch or 2 (ie. high blown Mustang Mk III, souped up P-38L "Late", 24 cylinder Tempest....), it would only be fair to ask Oleg and crew similar FM changes to existing in game models to get players "genuine" and historical 1945 variants of the 109 stable with the 1.98ATA engine variants, namely 1945 Bf 109G-10 "late" with 1.98ATA DB605DC, 1945 Bf 109G-14/AS "Late" with 1.98ATA DB605ASC, and 1945 Bf 109K-4 "Late" with 1.98ATA DB605DC.

Again, I only play offline for whomever this may concern.

Cheers,

Jagd


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:

Look here:

DB605 info (http://www.axiomdigital.com/db605.htm)

Thats also listing the DB605D as 1550HP. Both my manual and that page only list the DB605ASM and DB605DC as 2000HP at 1.98ATA.

How many K4's were made with the DC engine? Kurd only listed the D engine, not the DC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage1
07-28-2005, 09:17 PM
Thanks for the reply. Interesting information.

p1ngu666
07-28-2005, 10:27 PM
jagd, do u know what b4 could take in terms of PSI/ata? and also if possible what temp that is rated at..

imo should aim for g10 or g14 with the more powerful engine, similer to the MKIII, its not the best p51 airframe, but its good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

sabre engine in the tempest is "only" 36-7 litres, similer to db engine i think?

Badsight.
07-28-2005, 11:41 PM
if jagdmailer is right then we dont have any 1945 Bf-109s in FB-PF

even the K4 is the low HP 1944 model


Originally posted by jagdmailer:
it would only be fair to ask Oleg and crew similar FM changes to existing in game models to get players "genuine" and historical 1945 variants of the 109 stable with the 1.98ATA engine variants, namely 1945 Bf 109G-10 "late" with 1.98ATA DB605DC, 1945 Bf 109G-14/AS "Late" with 1.98ATA DB605ASC, and 1945 Bf 109K-4 "Late" with 1.98ATA DB605DC.

Vike
07-29-2005, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
if jagdmailer is right then we dont have any 1945 Bf-109s in FB-PF

even the K4 is the low HP 1944 model

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

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


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

AerialTarget
07-29-2005, 03:31 AM
That's okay, we don't have any American nineteen forty five aircraft in the game.

ImpStarDuece
07-29-2005, 07:33 AM
Generally speaking we all want to see more aircraft added to the sim. We all have our personal favourites

The general debate here is WHAT exactly should be added.

From what I have seen posted by Kurfurst, Jadgmailer and Faustnik the 2000 hp, 1.98 ata, DB605DC and DB605ASM were only avialable in Feburary/March 1945. I believe Kurfurst posted that the RLM cleared the 1.98 rating in March of 1945.

This brings me to a couple of conclusions;

a) The 109G or K at 1.98 and 2000 hp is a valid inclusion in the game, epecially considering some of the limited use planes that we have. There should be no objections to it, merely some provisos.

b) Given the current planeset these fighters will have few or any equavilent Allied opponents in their theatre of operations.

Consider this; the current Spitfire IXs are based on mid-1943 Merlin boost levels (16 or 18 lbs). The P-47D-27 and the P-51D-5 variants are both early to mid 1944, the P-51D-20 representing a slightly later Mustang variant, but certainly a pre-1945 variant. P-51s from the 8th AF seemed to generally run at 72" in the ETO, but up to 80" in the PTO (again according to information posted in this and other discussions). The P-38 Late was engined with the Allison F-30s, which I am happy ran at 1725hp in light of Carlo Kopp's excellent article, but that is still a contentious issue and remains undecided on these boards. F-30 engined Allisons would of have seen limited service from spring 1944 until the end of the war (1 fighter group, the 474th, operated J-25s and L-5s until in the ETO until D-Day).

It is the planes that Allied fliers don't have that would have a chance of redressing the balance if we were given several 2000hp 109 variants. As it stands, the plane set for the Allies in the ETO is stuck at around July-Spetember 1944. Even the Tempest seems to be modeled as an early production serise model.

A Merlin 66 engined Spitfire IX would be the first step and probably the easiest. These saw service from June/July 1944 with +25 lbs boost on 150 octane gasoline. Moving along with the Spitfire family, a +21 lbs Spitfire XIV (first operations in July 1944 with 610 squadron) would also serve well as an opponent. A (+11 Late 1944)or +13 lbs (limited 1945 service with the Sabre IIC) Tempest series II with spring tab alierons would also fit the bill. Similarly, a P-47M, which finally saw the end of its engine troubles in April 1945, would also serve as a potential sparring partner.

The best the Allies can currently offer is the Mustang III with a V-1650-7 (Merlin 66 copy) at +25lbs, which again first saw service in the June/July period, chasing V1s.

c) These 109s are still somewhat limited in their service. We are really only talking about the final 3-4 months of the war; February/March through to May 8th. The final 12 months of the war are generally over-represented in the sim; P-51B/C/Ds, 109K, late 109Gs, late 190As, 190D9, P-47Ds, TA-152, La-7, LA-5FN, Yak-3, Me-262, He-162, P-38L ect, ect. Do we really need to fill out that final four month period when the mid1942-44 period could actually do with more planes?

d) Finally, this seems to be part of the general push for the 'uber is better' crowd. I still ownder about the fascination with the final 12 months of the war, but that is just personal.

BlackStar2000
07-29-2005, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by jagdmailer:
Gib,

1. I have researched this to a great extent: There are no surviving production numbers on the late DB605 engines as far as I have been able to researched.

2. DB605 2000hp engines are: DB605ASC & DB605DC. Both, in their late 1944 - early 1945 incarnations, needed C3+ MW50 to obtain 2000hp @ 1.98ATA. Having said that, it is said that German C3 fuel was able to support up to 2.2/2.3 ATA (about 20 PSI british equivalant)

3. 1.98ATA was cleared January/Feb 1945 for operational use, although it had been in testing with varying results since late 1944.

4. The engine of choice mainly fitted to Bf 109G-10 & Bf 109K-4 was the DB605D variants in its different incarnation, mainly DB605DM (1800hp) in August 1944 until late 1944, then DB605DB (1850hp) fall 1944 and early 1945 and DB605DC (2000hp) cleared from Jan/Feb 1945-on. Little difference exists between the DB605DB & DB605DC. DB605ASB/DB605ASC were also at the same rating as the "D" engine but was of an earlier design and mainly fitted to the Bf 109G-14 (ie. Bf 109G-14/AS). Having said that, the factories producing the "D" series engine (DB605DM/DB605DB/DB605DC) were hit numerous times in late 1944 and early 1945 and getting production to slow down, hence the continuation of the "A" series DB605 well into 1945 and where the development made to the "D" series were basically fitted to the older "A" series engine, as factories producing the "A" series were not hit nearly as bas as the "D" series. IMHO, although G-10 & K-4 were intended to be fitted only with "D" series engines, it is very likely that DB605ASC were indeed fitted to those 2 variants as they were to the G-14 because of the factory production issues of the "D" series.

All in all, I am all with "oldman" as far as I am concerned, as long as it was not only a prototype, then I want it. In the scope of the recent late Allied hardware addition in the last patch or 2 (ie. high blown Mustang Mk III, souped up P-38L "Late", 24 cylinder Tempest....), it would only be fair to ask Oleg and crew similar FM changes to existing in game models to get players "genuine" and historical 1945 variants of the 109 stable with the 1.98ATA engine variants, namely 1945 Bf 109G-10 "late" with 1.98ATA DB605DC, 1945 Bf 109G-14/AS "Late" with 1.98ATA DB605ASC, and 1945 Bf 109K-4 "Late" with 1.98ATA DB605DC.

Again, I only play offline for whomever this may concern.

Cheers,

Jagd

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:

Look here:

DB605 info (http://www.axiomdigital.com/db605.htm)

Thats also listing the DB605D as 1550HP. Both my manual and that page only list the DB605ASM and DB605DC as 2000HP at 1.98ATA.

How many K4's were made with the DC engine? Kurd only listed the D engine, not the DC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree 100%

PPl use to come here asking protoypes planes, or overboosted planes beyond imagination, not even proved, why cant we have some very well documented 109?

Hoarmurath
07-29-2005, 07:42 AM
Can we have this too pleeeeeease ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/airplane/image/f1m2_01.jpg

i love seaplanes!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

BlackStar2000
07-29-2005, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
if jagdmailer is right then we dont have any 1945 Bf-109s in FB-PF

even the K4 is the low HP 1944 model

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jagdmailer:
it would only be fair to ask Oleg and crew similar FM changes to existing in game models to get players "genuine" and historical 1945 variants of the 109 stable with the 1.98ATA engine variants, namely 1945 Bf 109G-10 "late" with 1.98ATA DB605DC, 1945 Bf 109G-14/AS "Late" with 1.98ATA DB605ASC, and 1945 Bf 109K-4 "Late" with 1.98ATA DB605DC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep it looks like it!!!

Kwiatos
07-29-2005, 07:51 AM
It would be cool if only Oleg M. just only fix these in BF109:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6941040243

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

Kurfurst__
07-29-2005, 08:33 AM
Briefly, b4 I run off for having festivals all weekend and bath in real wine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

a, pingu, yes it`s only the stock immiditaly for the ANR`s 109s, I guess that`s a fuel dump, not the central reserves etc. Oh, and I want my book, or else. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

b, Gibbage. Stop calling me kurd or I`ll come up with my own ones. You won`t like them + that`s primitive I give ya a fresh start.

The 109K and G-10 had two variations of 605D engine fitted :

605DM, 1800HP max, b-4/c-3, 1.75ata. Earliest machines only, probably a modified 605D-2.

DB/DC. Typical one for 109K. Same engine, can be converted into each other at engine depots easily. So a 605DB engined 109K could be converted to DC engine easily.

DB runs at 1.8ata for 1800-1850 HP, depending on fuel quality, on B-4 or C-3 + MW.

605ASB/ASC are similiar ones, probably converted 605As. ASC was used in some G-14s.

DC can run either 1.8ata or 1.98ata, latter results 2000HP. Cleared late February, ordered for use for 4 Luftwaffe wings in March, requires C-3 fuel. They worked on clearing 2.3ata for it, that`s ca 2300HP, but I don`t think it was operational. 1.9ata was also toyed with before 1.98ata was cleared.

When not using MW injection, DB w. B-4 could use max 1.5ata/1550PS, DC 1.8ata 1800PS. But that`s an oddity, no relevance, except if the MW tank is used as fuel tank instead.

Other 1550PS 605D engines you saw are from 1942. There are half a dozen of them with the same designation. These were just variations of the 605As with higher grade fuel C-3, some s/c variations well. Basically studies and did not see service, only mentioned DM and DB/DC types appearing in 1944. These were then having the large supercharger of the 44.5litre DB 603G, thus high alt performance was much better than ealier 605Ds. The AS and ASM engines were interim solutions with 605A mated with a 603G s/c again.


c, ISD2, I am all for a +25 lbs MkIX. It`s nice matchup for the 109G-14 and very close in performance. It was recently posted by Neil Stilring that 3 Sqns of these +25lbs mkIXs were around in 1944, until some 30 sqns of the 2nd TAF converted in jan45.

ImpStarDuece
07-29-2005, 09:01 AM
Its only fair that IF we were to get these types that they have appropriate adversaries.

Its no good having a late war 109 or 190 go up against a mid war or Spitfire or P-47. The Red whing would approach deafening levels and no servers would use the 1945 rated aircraft.

While more planes are ALWAYS good for primarily offline players like myself, when you get online the relative balance of the simulation must be considered.

I'm not talking about neutering any particular plane because its 'uber' but rather having appropriate, historic, match-ups available. That means having planes of the same time period face off against each other. Its no use matching a Spitfire V against a 190A8, just like its no use matching a Merlin 61 Spitfire IX against a 109K4, with or without the 1.98 ata rating.

Online users seem to crave a couple of very different things, depending on their mindset;

1) Late war uber planes to fly around and dogfight in, although I have seen pretter stuff come out of a meat grinder. Its the "bigger, faster, better " crowd, the B-grade FPS game players in disguise. Also known as 'Air-Quakers' these are the players who just want the fastest, most shooty plane to down their opponent with. Its got to be more and better for them; La-7, Ki-84c, Ta-152 ect

2) Balanced and historic matchups, where the more serious/historically inclined tend to hang ot. This means that a 190A4 is acceptable against a Spitfire Vb, and a 09F ca be flown against a I-153 with little guilt. It also means that there should be a 72' Mustang and a 21 lbs Spitfire XIV to fly against 190D9s and 109K4s. When I do get on-line it is the plane set, not the difficlty, that primarily determins my interest in a server.

jagdmailer
07-29-2005, 09:44 AM
OK....I started it.....

Gents,ladies, my first goal in carrying this thread in the last 2 years off & on was to propose additional aircrafts that could be ratter easily added to the sim, in the name historicaly accuracy & fixing current issues. Hence, with the 109 lineup , fixing the currently "mislabelled" Bf 109G-6/AS (to G-14/AS), perhaps tweaking availability dates of some/all G-6 & up Gustavs, adding missing standard loadouts and making available important variants that are currently MIA.

Secondly, we all know there are extremely slim chances of getting new aircrafts that were not submitted prior to Oleg's late winter deadline. Personally, I wish we could get a Henschel Hs 123, Me 410 or Do 17Z-2. Wishful thinking.... however, it is not going to happen.... Hence, why not add important variants of the 109 that are currently missing & that can be made available with mostly FM changes ? The reason I used the late allied hardware argument is that what was done to add the Mustang Mk III & P-38L "Late" in 4.0 is basically what would need to be done to add any of the 6-7 variants of the 109 I proposed.

Although I did use this argument, I was not trying to turn this debate primarily in a "they got this, I want that" debate. My first goal and still my main motivation is to fix current issues with the 109 lineup, wether it is wrong naming conventions/mislabelling, missing loadouts, missing important variants...etc. while proposing something that can be realisticly done, based on the limited amount of work need to be done & the fact that similar additions were done in 4.0.

I never play online, so there is no "hidden" agenda in my argumentation.

Cheers,

Jagd

LBR_Rommel
07-29-2005, 02:54 PM
jagdmailer

Your request is correct man, it is historical, i see no absurd man go for it.

p1ngu666
07-29-2005, 04:04 PM
most of the planes we have stop at autumn 44 i think
the K4, dora are septemberish

45 aircraft are ta152,he162?

russian yak3p, 9ut (both perform same as there normal varients tho..) la7 3x20

japeanese have the ki100, few zero models but negible difference to earlier marks

ElAurens
07-29-2005, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Can we have this too pleeeeeease ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/airplane/image/f1m2_01.jpg

i love seaplanes!!!

At last we agree!!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

LBR_W.Zellot
07-29-2005, 07:28 PM
IMO the G14/AS and the G6/AS should be fixed and implemented, just like jagdmailer said. But the MOST important features should be the 20mm loadout for the G14 and G10(Even though, as Oleg said, "if we model the 20mm versions we must model the german version of the plane, and it's performance must be reduced due to poor manufacturing" We don't see any VVS aircraft suffering from poor manufacturing, this was agreed in the earlymost stages of the game development, no manufacture problems, so I see no reason for us to keep stuck with the Hungarian 30mm version) and BOMB, ROCKET and DROPTANK loadouts, for all models pointed by jagdmailer and for the F series, and a droptank for the Fw190A8 too!

Gibbage1
07-29-2005, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
b, Gibbage. Stop calling me kurd or I`ll come up with my own ones. You won`t like them + that`s primitive I give ya a fresh start.


Whats wrong with Kurd? I have seen you call me Gib. I call myself Gib. You did not mind Issy. Im not meaning it as an insult.



DC can run either 1.8ata or 1.98ata, latter results 2000HP. Cleared late February, ordered for use for 4 Luftwaffe wings in March, requires C-3 fuel.

So it was used in March 1945. 2 months before VE day? You mean during the days Germany had to haul ammo by mule since they had no fuel or trucks? During the days the allied faced no real threat in the air?

Before you go off, cool down. Im not saying NOT to have this 1.98ATA K4. Im trying to bring up a point. 1.98ATA K4's in the last 2 months of the war must be VERY VERY rare. PLEASE just admit that. C3 was in short supply, and so were pilots and aircraft during those desperate days.

Fehler
07-29-2005, 09:56 PM
The DC was cleared, but was it ever operational?

What I mean here is, what was the reality of front line units receiving the DC? Any numbers would be welcomed.

Now that I am thinking of it, front line could be like 3KM outside Berlin that late in the war... heh

But Gibbage is correct in asserting that the Germans had some logistical nightmares the last few months of the war.

I myself would rather see bombs for the Bf109 F, and for the FW-190D, along with a drop tank!

That would be easier to do, and have more effect on the game than a handful of late model German planes. (My opinion, others are entitled to theirs)

Gibbage1
07-30-2005, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by Fehler:

I myself would rather see bombs for the Bf109 F, and for the FW-190D, along with a drop tank!


Question. I have a few scematics (from my 3D modeling) of FW's and looking through them I dont see any "accessories" and whatnot. Like droptanks or wing gondola gun pods. Did they use the A series ECT carrier? Im guessing (yes, I admit I have limited knoleg of the D) the body is VERY similar to that of the A, so would it fit the ECT rack? And is that what they would use for the drop tanks?

Also, be careful of what you wish for. If it DOES involve the ECT rack, and Oleg DOES give you it, you may not want it. Just try getting rid of the rack on the A series http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif There have been many many request's to take it off (for fighter versions), all of witch have gone on death ears for years.

Maybe they had the slipper tanks for the D? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

A.K.Davis
07-30-2005, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:

I myself would rather see bombs for the Bf109 F, and for the FW-190D, along with a drop tank!


Question. I have a few scematics (from my 3D modeling) of FW's and looking through them I dont see any "accessories" and whatnot. Like droptanks or wing gondola gun pods. Did they use the A series ECT carrier? Im guessing (yes, I admit I have limited knoleg of the D) the body is VERY similar to that of the A, so would it fit the ECT rack? And is that what they would use for the drop tanks?

Also, be careful of what you wish for. If it DOES involve the ECT rack, and Oleg DOES give you it, you may not want it. Just try getting rid of the rack on the A series http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif There have been many many request's to take it off (for fighter versions), all of witch have gone on death ears for years.

Maybe they had the slipper tanks for the D? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, not the same ETC rack from the A series. Lower-drag ETC 504.

p1ngu666
07-30-2005, 09:49 AM
as far as i know, no lw aircraft had slipper tanks, but the more normal pod/ teardrop ones

DuxCorvan
07-30-2005, 10:21 AM
I just would be happy if they replaced some of the horrendous early default skins, so they match later quality. I can't believe it's so difficult. I simply think Oleg doesn't want to disappoint the guy that made them.

And, about the need of new 109s to bust the upcoming Mosquitos...

What Mosquitos? We have not been promised that we'll see Prangster's Mosquito ever never. It's just part of the maybe-maybe 'updates' (?) that make us drol about 20 posible new models and then give us a pair.

Don't ask 'maybes' to match a 'maybe'... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LBR_Rommel
07-30-2005, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
b, Gibbage. Stop calling me kurd or I`ll come up with my own ones. You won`t like them + that`s primitive I give ya a fresh start.


Whats wrong with Kurd? I have seen you call me Gib. I call myself Gib. You did not mind Issy. Im not meaning it as an insult.



DC can run either 1.8ata or 1.98ata, latter results 2000HP. Cleared late February, ordered for use for 4 Luftwaffe wings in March, requires C-3 fuel.

So it was used in March 1945. 2 months before VE day? You mean during the days Germany had to haul ammo by mule since they had no fuel or trucks? During the days the allied faced no real threat in the air?

Before you go off, cool down. Im not saying NOT to have this 1.98ATA K4. Im trying to bring up a point. 1.98ATA K4's in the last 2 months of the war must be VERY VERY rare. PLEASE just admit that. C3 was in short supply, and so were pilots and aircraft during those desperate days. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let think about very rare things in this game:
I-185
YP-80 (Y does it mean prototype?)
Bf109Z (this thing its a joke)

ElAurens
07-30-2005, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by LBR_Rommel:
Let think about very rare things in this game:
I-185
YP-80 (Y does it mean prototype?)
Bf109Z (this thing its a joke)

Not trying to be irritating here, but when was the last time you saw any of those aircraft on any serious historic server, either coop or DF? I never have.

I must agree with an earlier poster who said that we need to flesh out the early~mid war planesets. The late war stuff is cool and all, but the early~mid is much more useful and needed.

Gibbage1
07-30-2005, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by LBR_Rommel:

Let think about very rare things in this game:
I-185
YP-80 (Y does it mean prototype?)
Bf109Z (this thing its a joke)

Dont forget about the Ta-152! Its a "1944" aircraft in IL2 even though its prototype flew in Dec 17 1944.

Fehler
07-31-2005, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LBR_Rommel:

Let think about very rare things in this game:
I-185
YP-80 (Y does it mean prototype?)
Bf109Z (this thing its a joke)

Dont forget about the Ta-152! Its a "1944" aircraft in IL2 even though its prototype flew in Dec 17 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See, this is proof of my theory that Oleg works for the IRS. If you start a business on Dec 30, 2004, you get the tax breaks for the whole year... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Vike
07-31-2005, 07:24 PM
Hello all

I've another observation about 109s;

That concerns 109E7/Z and 109F2,i dunno if it is a bug...

Everyone here knows how powerless the 109E7/Z engine is;http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Yet,just in reading the description of the 109E7/Z and the 109F2 which are in the game,i noticed they have the same engine (with a littlebit more HP for the F2,and the GM-1 boost for the E7/Z) :
The DaimlerBenz DB601-N

I didn't make anymore searches in the Web to see if there is more differences between the E7/Z's DB601-N and the F2's DB601-N,thus sorry if i am wrong...

So,in game,@ 1000m alt @ 100% power:
-The 109E7/Z ATA shows 2250rpm
-The 109F2 ATA shows 2500rpm,and has much much more punch in every situation...

Is it normal?
Is it a bug?
Is the 109E7/Z "porked"!? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

ps:Sorry Jagmailer for that off-subject...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

@+

p1ngu666
07-31-2005, 09:49 PM
think the E has the derated engine...
it is sluggish tho, basicaly same engine as in ki61 and thats a slug..

Kurfurst__
08-01-2005, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Whats wrong with Kurd? I have seen you call me Gib. I call myself Gib. You did not mind Issy. Im not meaning it as an insult.

OK, then NP. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
DC can run either 1.8ata or 1.98ata, latter results 2000HP. Cleared late February, ordered for use for 4 Luftwaffe wings in March, requires C-3 fuel.

So it was used in March 1945. 2 months before VE day? You mean during the days Germany had to haul ammo by mule since they had no fuel or trucks? During the days the allied faced no real threat in the air?

Before you go off, cool down. Im not saying NOT to have this 1.98ATA K4. Im trying to bring up a point. 1.98ATA K4's in the last 2 months of the war must be VERY VERY rare. PLEASE just admit that. C3 was in short supply, and so were pilots and aircraft during those desperate days. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

RARE is relative.. and depends on the definition. What I know is almost exactly 25% of the frontline 109s was a 109K in end of January 1945, 314 examples of them.


As for 1.98ata, it`s a complex story appearantly. What we have is the records from DB summerizing meetings with the LW top brass in mid-jan 1945. The story that unfolds is basically that DB must have given clearance for 1.98ata on it`s own probably in early december (605DB/DC manual is dated 5th Dec and lists 1.98ata), and forwarded it to troops and General Galland, C-in-C of the LW daylight fighters at the time.
However the tests run at state-run Rechlin Test Center (E-Stelle Rechlin) turned out negative for 1.98ata, four engines failed at the rating in the trials. From the mid-Jan45 papers, the head of Rechlin thus critized DB company for giving out the clearance to the troops, while DB was defending itself that it had sufficient tests with positive results. Decision was made to equip a single fighter wing ("Gruppe 2/11", I am not sure which one is it, possibly II/JG2 - old typewriters and roman numbers!) for operational testing and gaining of experience, and the question of fitting sinlge fighter-recce`s with 1.98ata in the meantime was yet to be decided, until then 1.98ata was banned.

Butch says that it was cleared after operational testing ending in late Feb 1945, and there`s the order from March which notes that two wings from each JG 27 and JG 53 fighter regiments are to convert for 1.98ata. Via Alfred Price I checked the LW`s OOB for April 9, the nearest date, it notes around 140 Bf 109 with these units, out of which about 100 were ready for action. These were both 109Ks and 'Gs', the latter I presume mostly if not all being G-10 which were almost the same as the 109K with the same 605D engine, and from other records it can be confirmed the two 'half-brothers' were generally mixed in the units. But both JG 27 and JG 53 were amongst the units which were having the K-4 almost exclusively (see Japo book), plus a few units like Jg 77, that unlike other units who had just a few 109Ks got to them. It wasn`t that much a problem, since the /AS, G-10 and K types were very similiar in performance and not much of a problem in operation to work together.

So I guess about 100 to 150 G-10s and K-4s operated on 1.98ata, in the last 1.5 months of the war... rare? Depends on. Rare compared to the masses of P-47s, P-51s or simple 109s... but then again... there were 160 Me 262 in service at the time. There were less than a 100-100 SpitXIVs and Tempest operational in combat.. Increased boost MkIXs at +25 only appeared during Jan 1945 in numbers, and only amounted about 3-400. I have no idea how many LA-7s or Yak-3s were around. 1.98ata K-4s are quite comparable to those numbers : 5 Squadrons of MkXIVs were using +21 lbs boost from Jan 1945. A RAF squadron is 12+8reserve, that means 60 fighters participating in operations at one time, maximum..

I have no idea how many 109Ks were around by March 1945. Units had mixed 109Gs and Ks, with very varying operational numbers. But the number of them were steadily increaseing since the end of 1944 : 200 in the end of Dec44, 314 in the end of Jan45.. perphaps as much as 400+ by March. So I am thinking about 1/3 to 1/2 of all K-4s could have been using 2000 HP in that last ca 2months of the war. Certainly not a very common type, but I don`t feel it exceptionally rare either, a 100 to 150 fighters are quite significant number to operate, plus the records show these units were operating on the Western Front with their extra performance.

What is definietely true is that the boost was definietely cleared at that time, definietely ordered to be used at that time, and there`s evidence that 96 octane fuel required for it was certainly passed to 109G-10/K-4 units, even to Italian ones. Yes, there was shortage of everything at that time... but shortage is still meaning USE, just LIMITED use. C-3 fuel was appearantly not any more on short supply than the lower quality B-4 one, or pilots etc. And it was used in some numbers, we are not speaking of single factory tests, or a handful of oddball examples somehow getting to see action in desperation. We are speaking about a hundred aircraft here.

So, IMHO, it definietely needs to be implemented. Basically there are no other historical LW fighter types to be added. The increased 1945 boost FW 190D-9 is there. Why not increased 1945 boost Me 109K-4 ? Ain`t THAT much uber... +150 HP, and specs say +2.5m/sec climb rate, and +12 kph at at sea level, up to 5-6000m, then it`s the same as the other one... It won`t outrun the Tempest or La-7 near ground for sure, or the wingrack-less Mustang III for that matter.

csThor
08-01-2005, 07:24 AM
Gruppe 2/11", I am not sure which one is it, possibly II/JG2 - old typewriters and roman numbers!)

A quick look at http://www.ww2.dk makes it probable that II./JG 11 was meant, as II./JG 2 was operating Fw 190s.

Kurfurst__
08-01-2005, 08:27 AM
Yep, you seem to be right, Thor.

More on 605DB/DC engines... these engines are basically the same, not different models. DB and DC can be converted easily to each other depending on needs. This was not done by unit mechanics, but at one higher level maintaince units.

The basic difference is that the DB is meant to operate only on 1.8ata, either on B-4 + MW, or it can be sustained by C-3 alone.

The DC can operate on either 1.8ata or 1.98ata. It uses C-3 fuel. 1.8ata is again possible on C-3 alone, 1.98ata ata required

While the DB/DC conversion was not so simply that could be done by unit level, the boost settings (1.8/1.98) can be altered easily by the unit`s groundcrew by adjusting a screw.

There are references to 605DB engines from maintaince logs, and from maintaince orders issued by high command in March 1945, there are references how to set the DC engines present with the units, and also how to convert the DB/DC into each other. In short, the DC definietely saw service.

Gibbage1
08-02-2005, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

So, IMHO, it definietely needs to be implemented. Basically there are no other historical LW fighter types to be added.

You still dont have early 109 types like the D and early E's for 1938-39 war stuff. MAybe a 1939 E-1 with 4 MG 17's? That would be easy to make I think? The D's would take a lot of modeling to make.

Kurfurst__
08-02-2005, 03:26 AM
Hmm, the E-1 seems a good idea, it was an important fighter even in late 1940, about 1/3 of the 109s were E-1 during the BoB... the 109D imho is unneccesary, a few were still aroud in 1939, and participated in the Polish campaign, but they were mostly trainers for 109s by that time.

Another I can think is the E-4/N or E-7/N version, preferably the latter. It was introduced in mid/late-1940, and had the more powerful DB 601N engine with 1175 HP and 100 octane / C-3 fuel.

ELKASKONE
08-03-2005, 03:07 AM
"Another I can think is the E-4/N or E-7/N version, preferably the latter. It was introduced in mid/late-1940, and had the more powerful DB 601N engine with 1175 HP and 100 octane / C-3 fuel."

Iam not really shure,but all or the most E-7 has
DB 601N engine!
E-3 was at BOB the most assigned airplane of the 109,with DB601Aa!
But the Weapons Versions of the E3 is the Question?

1. 2xMG17/1000(nose) + 1xMGffM/200 (engine)
+ 2xMG17(Wings)/1000

2. 2xMG17/2000(nose) + 2xMGff/ 120 (wings)


3. 2xMG17/1000(nose) + 1xMGffM/200 (engine)
+ 2xMGFF/120 (wings)

For Number 2 there is a "Ladeplan", but many Books write about the other weaponsversions!

csThor
08-03-2005, 03:20 AM
Most of the early Bf 109 E-7 had the DB 601A; AFAIK the DB 601N didn't appear in E-7 production before early 1941.

The difference between E-3 and E-4 is the use of MG FF/M in E-4 (plus a new cockpit canopy) and the use of MG FF in E-3. There was no Emil with a cannon fireing through the propeller hub. This had been planned, but didn't work so it never appeared on production planes.

butch2k
08-03-2005, 05:49 AM
Indeed while planned with DB601N in mind the E-7 was produced with DB601A and only the E-7/N and E-7Z did get the DB601N.

As for the MG-FF being mounted behind the engine this was not done because of troubles with placing the oil tank back into the wing as it was with the Berta.

As for the E-3 vs E-4 the only difference being the MG-FFM, the new canopy was not necessarily being mounted the upgraded E-3 keeping he old canopy.

Vike
08-03-2005, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by butch2k:
Indeed while planned with DB601N in mind the E-7 was produced with DB601A and only the E-7/N and E-7Z did get the DB601N.

So,the E7/Z's DB601-N should be almost as "punchy" as the F2 DB601-N isn't it?

The HP difference between 109E7/Z and F2 can't explain why the E7/Z is so amorphous

Moreover,the GM-1 boost is to be used over 6500m,or,in a very short time,under this altitude in order to provide a 80km/h boost (according to the game description).

Thus,I noticed that nothing happens under 6000/6500m with GM-1 on the E7/Z (until the engine brakes some minutes later http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif)

The E7/Z engine smells bug or a bit porked isn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

p1ngu666
08-03-2005, 10:17 AM
injecting gm1 and nitro (modern equivilent) isnt that good for the engine...

jagdmailer
08-03-2005, 10:42 AM
Butch, if I remember correctly, wasn't the first few batches of DB601N kind of "reserved" for the Bf 110C-4/N which would explain why it only start appearing on some Bf 109E-4 and some E-7 hence Bf 109E-4/N and Bf 109E-7/N ?


Originally posted by butch2k:
Indeed while planned with DB601N in mind the E-7 was produced with DB601A and only the E-7/N and E-7Z did get the DB601N.

As for the MG-FF being mounted behind the engine this was not done because of troubles with placing the oil tank back into the wing as it was with the Berta.

As for the E-3 vs E-4 the only difference being the MG-FFM, the new canopy was not necessarily being mounted the upgraded E-3 keeping he old canopy.

Vike
08-05-2005, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
injecting gm1 and nitro (modern equivilent) isnt that good for the engine...

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

Yes,i tested that (offline,offcourse) because of the anormal lack of power of the anormally powerless E7/Z's DB601-N,comparing to all the lovely punchy BF109s (F to K http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif )...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Maybe maybe maybe,this will be corrected...one day...

@+

p1ngu666
08-05-2005, 10:37 AM
i feel the 109s are okish in acceloration, but the mw50 gives em really big poke...

Vike
08-06-2005, 03:53 PM
Main infos (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3441006933/p/1)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif ***BBUuuummmMMP*** http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

@+

Kurfurst__
08-07-2005, 11:07 AM
Bump for 1.98ata !

Vike
08-08-2005, 06:38 PM
Me in a 109K 1.98ATA (DB605DC engine) in a previous life....

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/VisorVike/images/bfk.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Ehem... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

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

@+

p1ngu666
08-08-2005, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Vike:
Me in a 109K 1.98ATA (DB605DC engine) in a previous life....

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/VisorVike/images/bfk.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Ehem... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

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

@+

that happens VERY easily ingame now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Vike
08-23-2005, 02:45 PM
A great IL2-PFighters screenshot by Rogodin from http://www.Screenshotart.com

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/VisorVike/images/rogodink4.jpg

NOTICE the TAILWHEEL DOORS,perfectly "modeled" by the artist...

A Bf109-K4 with no doubt;
A DB605DC powered one i guess...http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif **BBbuuuuuuuumpPP** http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

@+

jagdmailer
08-25-2005, 12:16 PM
One thing I am wandering about is that it seems nothing is being done on those 6-7 "easy" 109s as far as adding them to the sim, yet appart from the Mustang Mk III, Tempest, P-38 L "Late", we are getting yet another souped-up "late" allied fighters ie. P-47 high octane just anounced for 4.02M.....

Adding any of the 109s I have been proposing for the last 2 years would not take any longer or be any harder. What gives Oleg??

BTW, still rooting hard for at least an AI Ju 88C-6a "Heavy Zerstorer" if it cannot be made flyable......& PC1400 bomb for the 2 X PC1400 loadout for the upcoming flyable Ju 88A-4. (was also a historical loadout for existing in game Ju 87D (ie. 1 X PC1400) & He 111H (ie. 2 X PC1400))

Thanks for your time anyway.

Jagd

Vike
08-25-2005, 01:55 PM
Wait!
The patch 4.02m isn't still released!

We'll argue later... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Sometimes ago,i was totally pleased by the MK108 muzzleflash corrected by patches and some other good corrections brought to the 109s... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

@+

Xiolablu3
08-29-2005, 04:55 PM
I would like a 20mm option on the later 109s.

Im not at all keen on the Mk108.

lrrp22
08-29-2005, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by jagdmailer:
One thing I am wandering about is that it seems nothing is being done on those 6-7 "easy" 109s as far as adding them to the sim, yet appart from the Mustang Mk III, Tempest, P-38 L "Late", we are getting yet another souped-up "late" allied fighters ie. P-47 high octane just anounced for 4.02M.....



Not to say that we shouldn't get some of 109 variants you're requesting, but you have to realize that every one of the 'Late' Allied fighters you mentioned (expect maybe the P-38L, which was probably a boosted J) were in service well before the very first 109G-10/K-4 or Fw 190D-9/Ta 152 entered a Staffel. Most of the Allied fighters considered 'Late' are in fact early- to mid-1944 versions.

Again, not to rain on you're parade- I just wanted to add a little perspective to whole 'Late version' discussion.

regards,
LRRP

Vike
08-31-2005, 12:23 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif * BUUmmMMP * http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

OrkaJG52
09-03-2005, 07:55 PM
Boing!!!!!!

Kurfurst__
09-05-2005, 02:56 AM
Bump.

Kurfurst__
09-05-2005, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
Most of the Allied fighters considered 'Late' are in fact early- to mid-1944 versions.

regards,
LRRP

F4U4...

FritzGryphon
09-05-2005, 03:04 AM
Forget the uberplanes. I want a Bf-109A.

Kurfurst__
09-05-2005, 11:00 AM
The Axis side needs equal treatment as the other.

GIVE THE AXIS THEIR HIGH PERFORMANCE PLANES!

GIVE US THE 2000 HP 1945 BF 109K-4 !

badatflyski
09-05-2005, 11:33 AM
Kurfust:
Wouldn't be better if the german planes could have their REAL caracteristics and FM? Are those boosted version really important?
I would like to see te TA152 getting his real speed of more than 650 km/h at 0 level (as exemple) or the 190A series getting their real climb rate (as an another example) or the 109 getting a better DM and not the one from the original IL2 (as an another example), would like to see a better acceleration (like the real one)for the 190 or even all those planes having their real cruise speed.... but honestly Kurfust, do you thing the german planes would get even one of those demands? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst__
09-05-2005, 11:42 AM
No, not really. We have to understand there is no time, or capacity for major improvements... like correcting all 109/190 DM, FM... correcting the Erla canopy that`s wrong for 5 years... but small ones, like the addition of a half-new planes of higher powered engines is still possible before BoB comes out... for the Allied side in every patch, it is. :/

F19_Olli72
09-05-2005, 02:14 PM
Kurfurst your totally oblivious that axis side gets at least twice as many flyables in the addon (if all of Olegs list makes it)?

Cockpits:

(axis)

D-XXI_Finn3_Early
D-XXI_Finn3_Late
Do-335
J2M3
Ju-88A4
MC-200
MC-202
MC-205

(allies)
Mosquito_FB_MkVI
A-20C
CW-21
TempestMkV


Oh one more thing. You can have your 'late' 109 when we get as many P-47 versions as you have 109s now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif (=never)

You have a dozen 109 versions, compare that to three P-47 versions now. You have nine FW190 versions (TA152 included), theres three P-38 versions currently.

Roast
09-05-2005, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
Kurfurst your totally oblivious that axis side gets at least twice as many flyables in the addon (if all of Olegs list makes it)?

Cockpits:

(axis)

D-XXI_Finn3_Early
D-XXI_Finn3_Late
Do-335
J2M3
Ju-88A4
MC-200
MC-202
MC-205

(allies)
Mosquito_FB_MkVI
A-20C
CW-21
TempestMkV


Oh one more thing. You can have your 'late' 109 when we get as many P-47 versions as you have 109s now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif (=never)

You have a dozen 109 versions, compare that to three P-47 versions now. You have nine FW190 versions (TA152 included), theres three P-38 versions currently.

Hey Olli ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

While I agree with you, in a way the Fokker D.XXI is an Allied plane too, at least when you don't see it purely as a Finnish plane.

Hope to see you soon in HL skies to kick some axis-behind http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Roast

F19_Olli72
09-05-2005, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Roast:
Hey Olli ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

While I agree with you, in a way the Fokker D.XXI is an Allied plane too, at least when you don't see it purely as a Finnish plane.

Hope to see you soon in HL skies to kick some axis-behind http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Roast
Hey Roast http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Yeah it wouldve been cool to have Dutch versions of the Fokker as well. But as i see it, its nothing less than a miracle if we get the finnish versions. Viikate for sure deserves praise (and at least one bottle of Koskenkorva) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Youll find me on GG as usual i guess, cya there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JG53Frankyboy
09-05-2005, 02:52 PM
my points are still:

-Bf109G14 with MG151/20 as default and MK108 as -/U4 armament option

-Droptank and SC250 option for the Bf109F4

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

p1ngu666
09-05-2005, 03:05 PM
2000hp 109s are a 45 plane

the "late" aircraft are around the same time period as k4,d9
summer/autumn 44...

mk3 started in april 44 didnt it?

F19_Olli72
09-05-2005, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
2000hp 109s are a 45 plane

the "late" aircraft are around the same time period as k4,d9
summer/autumn 44...

mk3 started in april 44 didnt it?

Qick google mentions: Known in the RAF as the Mustang Mk. III, it was agreed that the priority in the delivery of the new fighters would be given unreservedly to the US 8th Air Force. As it turned out, the RAF was only ever able to equip two of its fighter wings with Mustang Mk. IIIs. The first wing became operational in February, 1944, and comprised of no. 19, 65 and 122 Squadrons.

The second Mustang wing was the no. 133 Polish Air Force wing. Re-equipped in April 1944, the wing, commanded by the Polish ace Wing Commander Stanislaw Skalski, consisted of no. 306 Torunski , no. 315 Deblinski and no. 316 Warszawski Squadrons. The wing was also joined by no. 129 Sqn RAF, the last of the seven squadrons flying the new Mustangs.

p1ngu666
09-05-2005, 03:35 PM
i ment mk3 at 25lb boost http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

F19_Olli72
09-05-2005, 03:52 PM
Ah gotcha, late spring 44 is all ive read about that.

Vike
09-06-2005, 12:44 AM
Main infos (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3441006933/p/1)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif *BBBbumpPPP* http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

ushawk1
09-07-2005, 08:27 PM
Will the upcoming BoB have early model 109's? Like C and D models? And since were asking for late model 109's, how about the super rare K-14? That was the ultimate 109. I read a few found there way to pilots.
And what about an H model used for recce work? The British couldn't intercept those because they flew to high! A few were built and used. And a T model for carrier use? You could even add a X or L model that had a Jumo in it. We need more 109's. And rockets. I like blowing up Li-2's with those.

jagdmailer
09-09-2005, 08:06 PM
Oleg & dev. team, last call for any of these (and a renamed G-6/AS to G-14/AS):

1943 Bf 109G-6/U2 with original high altitude GM-1 boost systems circa october/november 1943 (specially with those Mosquitos coming)
1944 Bf 109G-6/U2 "Field mod" (original GM-1 system modified for MW-50 use circa March 1944)
1945 Bf 109G-10 "late" w/ DB605DC @ 2000hp
1945 Bf 109G-14 "late" w/ DB605ASC @ 2000hp
1945 Bf 109K-4 "late" w/ DB605DC @ 2000hp

And a "Genuine" high altitude-motor early 1944 Bf 109G-6/AS (without MW-50)


Thank you for your kind attention to this historical matter.

Jagd

Kurfurst__
09-10-2005, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
Kurfurst your totally oblivious that axis side gets at least twice as many flyables in the addon (if all of Olegs list makes it)?


OH, really. Let`s see, we get the old Macchis, while the Allies got or will get :

- fantasy P-38L at uber boost
- P-51B at uber boost
- field mod P-47D at uber boost
- F4U4 at uber boost
- Tempest V
etc.

Compared to that, we have 0, read ZERO highly boosted Bf 109 types at all that represent the peak performance.

What sort of logic is that, that the Allies getting fantasy/rare/field modded fighters that represent the very peak of performance of the type, and the Axis isn`t allowed to get the well documented, and offically cleared and well used Bf 109K at 2000 HP? Huh? Everything for the Allies, all the highest boosts and nothing for the Axis?


Oh one more thing. You can have your 'late' 109 when we get as many P-47 versions as you have 109s now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif (=never)

Brilliant logic, dream on.


You have a dozen 109 versions, compare that to three P-47 versions now. You have nine FW190 versions (TA152 included), theres three P-38 versions currently.

And? The Allies used a great many number of figther types, the Lw used only two. Do you really want to compare the number of variations of Spits, P-51s, P-47s, P-38s, P-40s, P-39s etc in the game to the just two main types of LW fighters, the 109 and 190? Add the fact there were never as many versions of the P-47 than as many versions of the Bf 109, the main fighter of the LW in Europe till the war`s end.

luftluuver
09-10-2005, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
OH, really. Let`s see, we get the old Macchis, while the Allies got or will get :

- fantasy P-38L at uber boost
- P-51B at uber boost
- field mod P-47D at uber boost
- F4U4 at uber boost
- Tempest V
etc.

Compared to that, we have 0, read ZERO highly boosted Bf 109 types at all that represent the peak performance.

What sort of logic is that, that the Allies getting fantasy/rare/field modded fighters that represent the very peak of performance of the type, and the Axis isn`t allowed to get the well documented, and offically cleared and well used Bf 109K at 2000 HP? Huh? Everything for the Allies, all the highest boosts and nothing for the Axis?

You might have a point with the P-38L but NOT with the others.

The K-4 well used at 2000hp? It might have been cleared for 1.98 near wars end but in the real world, how many were operated with 2000hp?

Can you direct me to some good references for these 2000hp K-4s?

F19_Olli72
09-10-2005, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Add the fact there were never as many versions of the P-47 than as many versions of the Bf 109, the main fighter of the LW in Europe till the war`s end.
If you actually read my post i wrote "when we get as many P-47 versions as you have 109s now". The "D" sub-variants only could cover that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Vike
09-10-2005, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Can you direct me to some good references for these 2000hp K-4s?

I found some very interesting infos on 109 Lair (http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm) (>Bf109 pilots,bookmark ithttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Here is a quote:

"In the JaPo book on the Bf109K (p.81), Janda and Poruba mention the differences between the DB605DB and DC as being dependent not on fuel compatibility, but on maximum boost pressure. The maximum manifold pressure figures quoted are as follows:

- DB605DB: 1.80 ata at 2,800 r.p.m., giving 1,850 h.p. (no performance difference noted between B4 and C3 fuel usage)

- DB605DC: (with MW50) 1.98 ata at 2,800 r.p.m., giving 2,000 h.p

(without MW50) 1.80 ata at 2,800 r.p.m., giving 1,850 h.p



However, J.C. Mermet (p. 14, 15) quotes an official Daimler-Benz factory manual dated 5 December 1944 concerning the different designations. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The B designation indicated the engine was capable of using 87 octane B4 fuel WITH MW50, or 96 octane C3 fuel WITHOUT MW50 whereas the C designation indicated the use of 96 octane C3 fuel WITH MW50.</span>

Interestingly, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">the engine could be converted from a B to a C model and back again by the simple expedient of adjusting a screw valve which regulated the flow of MW50 to the engine.</span> This would seem to be the more proper explanation, especially given the chaotic fuel situation in the Reich from 1944 onwards. It can also be seen how the different fuel configurations would account for the maximum permissible boost ratings as noted by Janda and Poruba. There is still discussion on this point, however, and further documentation may yet refine this point.



The maximum power figures between the two sources do agree, although Mermet points out that the 1.98 ata figure of the C motor was attainable only with MW50 at 110% emergency power, and operation of the B motor without MW50 would be limited to a maximum manifold pressure of 1.45 ata, and 100% power was not available anywhere within the flight regime (Note: these restrictions did not apply if MW50 was used with the B motor)"

The page is there (http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/systems/engine/as_vs_d/as_vs_d.htm)

So,according to this site,the differences between the DB605DB & DC wasn't in the fuel usage,but in the ability to use the B4 or C3 fuel with or without MW-50;

Main information i noticed from the site:

The DB605DB could be transformed in DB605DC simply! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ps:
OT,the Erla Haub in details,still from 109 Lair: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/610824/610824rg-19.jpg

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/610824/610824rg-10.jpg

Badsight.
09-10-2005, 07:45 PM
lets raise the top speed of the K4 a tiny bit

lower the current climb power

& whack a 1945 lable on the Bf-109 K4 in FB & bingo , we have a 1.98ATA DB K4

luftluuver
09-11-2005, 06:12 AM
Thanks Vike. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I was looking more for operational use.


Originally posted by Badsight.:
lets raise the top speed of the K4 a tiny bit

lower the current climb power

& whack a 1945 lable on the Bf-109 K4 in FB & bingo , we have a 1.98ATA DB K4

Then we will have the Amis whinning, like Kurfurst does about Allied fantasy airplanes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

x__CRASH__x
09-11-2005, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Vike:
I found some very interesting infos on 109 Lair (http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm) (>Bf109 pilots,bookmark it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Done! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kurfurst__
09-11-2005, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
lets raise the top speed of the K4 a tiny bit

lower the current climb power

& whack a 1945 lable on the Bf-109 K4 in FB & bingo , we have a 1.98ATA DB K4

Sounds reasonable, let`s see what such solution yield in a game enviroment...

ie. Historical stats for SL climb rates of 2000 HP 109K and La-7, P-51d :

109K : 24.5 m/sec - 100%
LA-7 : 24.1 m/sec - 98%
SpitIXlf : 23.6 m/sec 96.3%
P-51D : 17.2 m/sec - 70%


In game stats :

109K : 29 m/sec... 100%
LA-7 : 28.2 m/sec... 97.2%
SpitIXlf : 28 m/sec... 96.5%
P-51D : 22 m/sec... 75%

So while the ROC values are way off for many planes, the relative performance is fairly well modelled.

Now let`s do what badsight suggest and reduce to ROC of the 109K, and only the 109K`s, not any others that are equally flawed and let`s see what gets :

current 1944 109K : 29 m/sec... 100%
Badsight`s 1945 109K : 24.5 m/sec... 84%
LA-7 : 28.2 m/sec... 97.
SpitIXlf : 28 m/sec... 96.5%
P-51D : 22 m/sec... 75%


Yeah, the whole thing get`s scr*wed up, and the 1.98ata 109K gets nerfed. So you still thing it`s a good idea, unless the ROC-FM of ca50 flyable planes will get an overhaul as well, which of course ain`t gonna happen for obvious reasons ?

Kurfurst__
09-11-2005, 04:31 PM
Quite some evidence had been posted in this thread about the use of 2000 HP in this thread :

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/1131042653

Please keep it clean from other Bf 109 request, though.

Badsight.
09-11-2005, 10:56 PM
if those percentages are throttle setting i say BS numbers you have posted WRT the climb m/s

noace
09-12-2005, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
if those percentages are throttle setting i say BS numbers you have posted WRT the climb m/s

Try again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hint: 24.5 equals 100%.

noace

luftluuver
09-12-2005, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
if those percentages are throttle setting i say BS numbers you have posted WRT the climb m/s

Take a refresher math course. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

109K : 24.5 m/sec - 100%
LA-7 : 24.1 m/sec - 98%
SpitIXlf : 23.6 m/sec 96.3%
P-51D : 17.2 m/sec - 70%

24.1/24.5 x 100 = 98%
23.6/24.5 x 100 = 96%
17.2/24.5 x 100 = 70%

OberUberWurst
09-12-2005, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
YOU WANT EVEN MORE!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Maaaaaaann!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Hey... then we can call the sim...... Bf 109 Forgotten Battles...

(I.... I.... I'm sorry man I.. I.... I just couldnt help it..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif)

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

crazyivan1970
09-12-2005, 04:04 PM
This one will be closed pretty soon too...

jagdmailer
09-12-2005, 04:12 PM
Ivan, this tread was civil up to the last page or two.

Guys, for whom this may concern, please keep the name calling and other similar stuff to another thread.

Thank you,

Jagd


Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
This one will be closed pretty soon too...

crazyivan1970
09-12-2005, 04:20 PM
By all means, nothing against you jag... but i think vacation agency will be open for some pretty soon for some people....

p1ngu666
09-12-2005, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by jagdmailer:
Ivan, this tread was civil up to the last page or two.

Guys, for whom this may concern, please keep the name calling and other similar stuff to another thread.

Thank you,

Jagd

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
This one will be closed pretty soon too... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

jagdmailer
09-12-2005, 11:43 PM
Yep, I am still here :-) Haven't been much at my Black Sea retreat lately since I have been very busy building race kart chassis in North America and here is an "action pic" of my latest venture's creation (#95) racing under the hot California sun last July: http://www.gtkarts.com/images/clip_image002_0004.jpg

It may not have wings, but it does really fly..........well sort of.... :-)

hehehe.......

PS: Unfortunately not powered by a DB605 either although we do have 54hp+ ICC pavesi gearbox engines achieving near 1 PSI "ram air" boost (isn't that 1.068 ATA?)....not bad for a 375lbs package complete with driver and protection gear.....

Cheers,

Jagd



Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jagdmailer:
Ivan, this tread was civil up to the last page or two.

Guys, for whom this may concern, please keep the name calling and other similar stuff to another thread.

Thank you,

Jagd

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
This one will be closed pretty soon too... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

jadg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vike
09-19-2005, 03:00 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif * BUuuMP * http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

FritzGryphon
09-19-2005, 03:10 AM
Talk more about the Bf-109C, it is best plane.

More guns than K4! Over 50km/h faster than a CR-42! Had fuel... of some kind. 5 tonnes lighter than P-47! Out-turns a Blenheim.

Danschnell
09-19-2005, 04:50 AM
I definately agree that the 109 series should be focussed on to finalise the game. People are quite right to say that the Luftwaffe only have TWO PLANES, the 109 and 190. The Americans, British, and Russians that they fight altogether have about 50 types. The Luftwaffe pilots really deserve a great variety of these types. I personally want to see a Bf109K with the 2 15mm cannons in place of the 13mm machine guns! Then we'd have a Bf109 with awesome firepower that doesn't have to take gunpods making it useless in a dogfight. Also would like 2000hp 109K. Luftwaffe deserve these beauties when Allied planes have so much variety and better performance than Luftwaffe anyway. Its really essential.

Danschnell
09-19-2005, 04:57 AM
To add... the Germans also have the jet fighters I know, but servers always ban them anyway.

There are other planes that could've been modelled , but it is of course too late now. All Luftwaffe pilots have to use the same tactics... boom and zoom, because all Luftwaffe planes turn worse than all Allied planes, yet the Allies have many different types of fighters that allow many different tactics.

If the HE-112 and 100 had been modelled it would've allowed for Luftwaffe turn fighting against Spits. The Fw187 would've matched the P-38. Those German planes WERE used in combat! Although they were hardly ever used. A He-177 would've filled the Axis heavy bomber gap too. Its a shame that being Luftwaffe has only ever meant B&Z in the 109 and 190, and the occasional fruitless sorties in a hopelessly vulnerable Ju-87 or He-111.

luftluuver
09-19-2005, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by Danschnell:
People are I personally want to see a Bf109K with the 2 15mm cannons in place of the 13mm machine guns! Then we'd have a Bf109 with awesome firepower that doesn't have to take gunpods making it useless in a dogfight.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif You have been suckered. No 15mm cowl cannon ever on the 109. This myth started with Green who misread 131 as 151.

csThor
09-19-2005, 06:12 AM
15mm cowl guns in the K-4 were, are and will always remain a myth.

S.taibanzai
09-19-2005, 07:21 AM
Bumb for al

Cajun76
09-19-2005, 08:46 AM
Danschell, do you actually fly this sim/game?

"all Luftwaffe planes turn worse than all Allied planes"

Have you ever flown the P-47? But your right, Oleg should increase the Fw turn rate to I-153 levels, so it's more balanced. Additionally, since the Germans were so inconsiderate with the number of fighters they fielded in real life in large numbers, perhaps we should just invent some new ones until we get the same number of varieties the Allies have.

The German's do have a turn fighter, it's the 109. But it doesn't turn fight in the classic pull-the-stick-to-your-gut-until-you-pass-out way. That takes the same amount of skill as a strict, mechanical wash-rinse-repeat B&Z attack. What it does do, and well, is E fight, although lots of folks just focus on the good climb instead of piloting it. Depending on the a/c involved, E fighting resembles turn fighting on one end, and B&Z on the other, but is much more dynamic. I "out turn" Zero's in my Jug, not by getting slow, but keeping the fight fast, forcing them to roll to keep on me, and utilizing a constant hit and run in the vertical. Of course, that is how I would like to engage, doesn't always happen.

"People are quite right to say that the Luftwaffe only have TWO PLANES"

Btw, this complaint about the LW having only TWO planes is quite wrong. It reminds of a chap online who was upset his Zero couldn't take as much damage as my Jug, and I was faster... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Vrabac
09-19-2005, 09:04 AM
Not that it will happen, but wouldn't it be nice to have flyable 110C? Or... or... Ju88? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The 109 really deserves to have corrected loadouts, an additional subtype or maybe two, and I guess Panzerblitz for F8, as was already said, would also come in nicely. Also, shoudln't F8 be able to carry 250kg bombs under wings?

I mean, so many Spits, Mustangs, Yaks... And no new german planes in a looong time.

Having a flyable Russian bomber (TB3 isn't enough IMHO), like Il4 or Pe2 or both, would make me very happy too. Did I mention Ju88? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Now I'll be ultra uber bold: How about Ju88A AND C? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But don't worry, all we are going to get will be thousand and first Spit, billionth Mustang and maybe a science fiction item like some ultra-mega-james.t.kirk-darthvader-what-if-it-happened jet-rocket-ramjet-pulsejet-ion-propelled spaceship that we can only fly in quickmission. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

p1ngu666
09-19-2005, 09:40 AM
yes, 2x 250lb bombs on the wings, ive seen a loadout with 4 small bombs on centre rack, needed panzer blitz aswell

jagdmailer
09-19-2005, 11:39 AM
The following is exactly what I am talking about (from 4.02M readme) - therefore, please give us a better rounded Bf 109 plane set and more importantly a more HISTORICAL Bf 109 planeset - same/similar level effort applies here to get us up to 7 historical variants of the 109 that are missing in the sim:

"Flyable aircraft:

Yak-7B, 1942

Notice: This aircraft was released after many requests from online players on both sides that play historical sets for 1942 Eastern front. IT WAS EASY TO RELEASE EVEN WITH OUR COMPLETE LACK OF TIME."

Exact same can be said of the 4.01M Mustang Mk III & the 4.02M P-47D "150 octane".........

269GA-Veltro
09-20-2005, 09:58 AM
Bump for this, thank Jagd!

I agree, we need more Gustav and Kurfurst, with the 151/20mm option...this for sure.

HelSqnProtos
09-20-2005, 10:10 AM
I can't believe that this thread has run so long.

Thankfully most of these calls will be ignored. The Luftwaffe has had a very disproportionate share of 1C's attention for too long.

JG5_UnKle
09-20-2005, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
I can't believe that this thread has run so long.

Thankfully most of these calls will be ignored. The Luftwaffe has had a very disproportionate share of 1C's attention for too long.

LMAO! How can you manage to bring yourself to fly this terrible sim.

Oh the bias....

Oh the irony...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Kocur_
09-20-2005, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
I can't believe that this thread has run so long.

Thankfully most of these calls will be ignored. The Luftwaffe has had a very disproportionate share of 1C's attention for too long.

...for what in the world could Yaks and Las pilots complain about? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

HelSqnProtos
09-20-2005, 10:47 AM
S~!

Right on guys you tell us Allied Pilots how it is. What with all our ufo's with no torque and laser cannon on the nose. Lets not forget about our indestructible dm or our incredible low speed stall handling characteristics. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Fly Red in competition and then see if you have the guts to whine. That always shuts you blue boys down QUITE nicely.

Otherwise please reinsert your pacifiers.

I so can't wait for this patch, even if he only gives you half the torque of the VVS I will be howling with laughter. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

269GA-Veltro
09-20-2005, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
I can't believe that this thread has run so long.

Thankfully most of these calls will be ignored. The Luftwaffe has had a very disproportionate share of 1C's attention for too long.

Sincerly i really don't understand you answer HelSqnProtos... We are talking about aviation or other?

Also we Italians flew the Gustav and Kurfurst, and the our versions (G10-G14) were different from the FB versions (hungarian if i'm not wrong); and the our Gustavs were armed with 151/20mm..for ex... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif..somentimes with the 30mm.

I really hope we could have some more of them....also the G4.

We don't have so many fighters as the red team....so where is the problem if we ask (we would like have..better) for some more Gustav and Kurfurst?

Kocur_
09-20-2005, 10:57 AM
Lets not forget about our indestructible dm
Sure you didnt see burning Fw190 in 4.01 (unless broken fuselage). But have you seen burning Yak-3 in 4.01...?

Vrabac
09-20-2005, 11:26 AM
I don't remember talking about qualities of planes... All most of us want is corrected loadouts for 109s and 190s, a couple of more subtypes of 109, and that's it. I don't think anyone said red planes are UFOs here. But some people seemingly haven't yet developed their reading skills fully.

Protos, about flying red in a competition, you very well know about it. I flew 67 missions so far for VVS in certain virtual war and have 71 air kills. How many do you have? So stop hitting people with your usual nonsense and try to actually write somehting useful instead of setting flames wherever you appear.

jagdmailer
09-20-2005, 11:47 AM
Protos,

I suggest you keep your online rant to another thread as this is a serious thread and a serious request.

I do not want this thread shotdown because of some petulant & childish tamper tantrum(s) without any real connection to the requests in this thread.

Jagd


Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
S~!

Right on guys you tell us Allied Pilots how it is. What with all our ufo's with no torque and laser cannon on the nose. Lets not forget about our indestructible dm or our incredible low speed stall handling characteristics. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Fly Red in competition and then see if you have the guts to whine. That always shuts you blue boys down QUITE nicely.

Otherwise please reinsert your pacifiers.

I so can't wait for this patch, even if he only gives you half the torque of the VVS I will be howling with laughter. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

p1ngu666
09-20-2005, 02:09 PM
well said jagd http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

beeranddrugs
09-20-2005, 03:50 PM
xbox 360 molson fridge dvds and alot more cool prizes
Register HERE (http://www.oddjobjack.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=8518)
Every new area of the site you visit earns you 1 point.
Prizes for the top 10 prize totals and 5 prize levels that are easy to achieve
Prize level 1 is a season 1 dvd
You can even an animation in the cartoon
The shows on saturdays on comedy network at 930pm eastern

Willey
09-20-2005, 04:22 PM
1 0 Cherry!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

HelSqnProtos
09-20-2005, 05:14 PM
S~! Veltro

I will pm my response as i consider you a gentleman.

As for the other lw crybabies whatever. This thread is the most petulant to be posted in quite some time. IF you really were concerned about fairness you would be calling for the spit XIV. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

@Vrabac your hypocracy is unbelievable that is why your squad is the most despised on the net. What happened to your stats when you when from Blue to Red???? Didn;t they drop to less than 30% of what they were flying bf?? Exactly...... enough said hypocrite. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

faustnik
09-20-2005, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:


As for the other lw crybabies whatever. This thread is the most petulant to be posted in quite some time.


Wow! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif You sure are bitter Protos. Take it easy. The 4.02 patch should even things out.

Kurfurst__
09-20-2005, 05:45 PM
Go away Greekwhiner. And you already have the XIV, it`s called IXHF remember? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

ImpStarDuece
09-20-2005, 07:01 PM
IXHF performance is WELL down on what the XIV would be. But we've alredy gone over this Kurfurst and laid that particular gripe to rest. You just seem to like necromancy, or something....

HelSqnProtos
09-20-2005, 07:02 PM
S~!

Leave my nationality out of it or I will come and kick your @ss ~ comprende???

Badsight.
09-20-2005, 10:55 PM
sure , if you also can be so adult as to leave all Nazi & whining insinuations out of your posts also ?

HelSqnProtos
09-21-2005, 01:15 AM
The king of the oneliners is back. The cwos crew is in the house.

another ******o post to add to your collection http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

faustnik
09-21-2005, 01:58 AM
What's with all the anger Protos?

Badsight.
09-21-2005, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
if you also can be so adult . . . . . i guess not

if you think its ******ed to want you to not be so insulting , thats not my problem - but you got communication issues Protos

Vrabac
09-21-2005, 05:56 AM
Isn't he great? I love him! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif He will even kick a*s*s*e*s! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

It's real shame that a normal thread with normal requests has to be runied like that.

p1ngu666
09-21-2005, 07:24 AM
take ur handbags out of this thread, tbh. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

ALL of ya http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Vike
09-26-2005, 04:20 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif * BBUmmMPP * http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Main infos (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3441006933/p/1)


Main infos BIS (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3441006933/r/7711098553#7711098553)

ImpStarDuece
09-26-2005, 06:50 AM
Bump for more engine configurations for the 109. It is about time that we had some more German steel in the game.

Vipez-
09-26-2005, 09:20 AM
Protos, if you honestly think people thinking your posts (well, most of) in CW Forum / Bellum Forum, and here in Ubi-whine-forums to be mature and to-the-point, you obviously have mistaken.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

HelSqnProtos
09-26-2005, 10:52 AM
Clearly they are since your taking the time to post.

Happily though - the days of the UFO are coming to an end http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p1ngu666
09-26-2005, 12:52 PM
there will be a new ufo, there will always be a ufo, be sure

Vike
09-30-2005, 06:11 AM
Interesting reading (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=1101092163&r=8451024263#8451024263) here... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

@+

Vrabac
10-03-2005, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
Clearly they are since your taking the time to post.

You might not be aware of it, but you are very amusing. I bet most people reply only to get more fun reading from you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Now, what UFO's days are coming to an end and why?

HelSqnProtos
10-03-2005, 08:04 PM
S~!

You seem to have a lot you want to say to me.

Spare everyone and send me a pm if that is the case. Or better yet would you like to discuss it in TS ??

Vike
10-03-2005, 11:04 PM
Just a reminder about the Bf109K4's tail wheel doors! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I've found some great photos;
So if 1C Maddox is interested or have a few time:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/VisorVike/images/K4Tailwheel/tw1.jpg

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/VisorVike/images/K4Tailwheel/tw3.jpg

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/VisorVike/images/K4Tailwheel/tw2.jpg

I also notice that the white rear light place on the tail isn't modelled too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif,unlike P-47 for example... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/VisorVike/images/K4Tailwheel/twandrearlight.jpg

Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Now,some other pics i found awesome,among many others as impressive as those ones:

Undergarment of a G14-AS http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/VisorVike/images/K4Tailwheel/gunnery.jpg

Some crazy testing on a G10 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/VisorVike/images/K4Tailwheel/testing.jpg

All of those kind pictures are from http://www.messerschmitt-bf109.de http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

@+

ps:

Main infos (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3441006933/p/1)


Main infos BIS (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3441006933/r/7711098553#7711098553)

Hetzer_II
10-05-2005, 04:10 AM
Why is the test so crazy? They just test the gear and for that they need the pressure of the engine.. i believe is a rather normal test..

scottmal1
10-05-2005, 05:43 AM
I've gota bf109 book by Edward Shacklady and theres a couple of photos of the ground crews checking the landing gear operation, the engine must be running to drive the hydraulic pumps as Hetzer states.

Vrabac
10-05-2005, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
S~!

You seem to have a lot you want to say to me.

Spare everyone and send me a pm if that is the case. Or better yet would you like to discuss it in TS ??

Who, me??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No, I don't want say say much. What I want is hear you say more. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

But would you mind explaining why are you opposed to having F4 with corrected loadouts, or MG151 in G10 or G14, or bombs and fueltank for G10, or having real G6/AS and G14/AS? How come that bothers you?

Vike
10-05-2005, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by scottmal1:
I've gota bf109 book by Edward Shacklady and theres a couple of photos of the ground crews checking the landing gear operation, the engine must be running to drive the hydraulic pumps as Hetzer states.

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

Hey i didn't know that fact!

Hetzer,scottmal1 Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

So,in the sim,it is in a way,abnormal to be able to active landing gear when our DB Engine is jammed,isn'it?

Another overmodelled characteristic of the 109...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif LOL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I thought it was really dangerous to do such a test,because if the plane support fails,the plane could be turning on himself before the blade were bent...Especially if the G10 i show is equipped with the DB605DC @ 2000HP http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

@+

jagdmailer
10-05-2005, 09:20 AM
Vrabac,

With all due respect, please this not invite this trouble maker to this thread again.

This thread was almost shut down before because of this.....

Regards,

Jagd


Originally posted by Vrabac:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
S~!

You seem to have a lot you want to say to me.

Spare everyone and send me a pm if that is the case. Or better yet would you like to discuss it in TS ??

Who, me??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No, I don't want say say much. What I want is hear you say more. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

But would you mind explaining why are you opposed to having F4 with corrected loadouts, or MG151 in G10 or G14, or bombs and fueltank for G10, or having real G6/AS and G14/AS? How come that bothers you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

DangerForward
10-08-2005, 07:50 AM
Has anyone asked for Oleg to do the 109-G1R2(U2?) yet? In a book on Kurt Tank they show speeds of 700kph @ 6600 meters(using GM-1) and 570kph @ sea level. If this is correct that would be one heck of a plane.

JG52_wunsch
10-14-2005, 04:43 PM
bump!

Hetzer_II
10-16-2005, 05:21 AM
"So,in the sim,it is in a way,abnormal to be able to active landing gear when our DB Engine is jammed,isn'it?"

In one way yes... in the other not... if i remeber correctly there was an emergency procedure to down the gear manually....
I believe that the gear is hold up bye the pressuresystem and than is locked by some plugs or a special "device".. so manuel procedure was just to release "device".. so the gear should come down on its own.
And because the 109 doenst has such an manuel mode in this game.. i believe its rather fair to let the gear work even with broken engine...
Next question would be if you realy can feather/idle the prop of a 109 so that it will stop whindmiling in the airflow.... if the pressuresystem is simply connectet with the rotation pressuresystems should work.. not as they were designed to.. but if there is enough pressure...


s!

jagdmailer
10-19-2005, 11:49 AM
At this point, since it was mentioned and it is known that Oleg and crew rarely (if ever) visit the ORR, I would follow the mods advise & common sense and prompt the individuals that are for the rounding up and fixing of the Bf 109 lineup in FB/AEP/PF to email Oleg directly at pf@1c.ru - I did.

Even says in the 4.02M readme that 1942 Yak-7B "PF" was added after numerous requests and they added it since it took minimal effort to model and add to the already "bulging" Yak lineup in this sim.

Minimal effort rule applies to most of the Bf 109 additions and or corrections I suggested initially in this thread and that I have been proposing for the last 2 years.

Let's make it happen!

Jagd

HayateAce
10-19-2005, 12:29 PM
2 years?

You might take this opportunity to explore the possibility of getting a life.

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

neural_dream
10-19-2005, 12:46 PM
No more bitter posts plz. The guy wants a specific model and asks for it the best way he thinks he can. There's nothing wrong with it. We know that we can see a new BF only by a third-party addon, and this forum is a reasonable place for an addon's developer to look at.
Personally, although i like the Bf 109 a lot, i think we have enough variants.

jagdmailer
10-19-2005, 02:14 PM
Well, not wanting to waste time on this kind of garbage but taking a quick look at your recent history of lame & useless posts, perhaps I am not the one that should get a life....

Go troll somewhere else.

Jagd


Originally posted by HayateAce:
2 years?

You might take this opportunity to explore the possibility of getting a life.

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

Vike
10-22-2005, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by jagdmailer:
I would follow the mods advise & common sense and prompt the individuals that are for the rounding up and fixing of the Bf 109 lineup in FB/AEP/PF to email Oleg directly at pf@1c.ru - I did.

I did too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Originally posted by Hetzer_II
Next question would be if you realy can feather/idle the prop of a 109 so that it will stop whindmiling in the airflow.... if the pressuresystem is simply connectet with the rotation pressuresystems should work.. not as they were designed to.. but if there is enough pressure...

Hmm,good question indeed! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

@+