PDA

View Full Version : MG 151/20 for late 109s



3.JG51_Stecher
06-15-2005, 06:24 AM
I know this has been brought up before, but now that we have the correct ammo it is more important than ever. How hard would it be to give the G-10, G-14, and K-4 an optional MG 151/20, like they had in real life? Has there been any word on this happening?

3.JG51_Stecher
06-15-2005, 06:24 AM
I know this has been brought up before, but now that we have the correct ammo it is more important than ever. How hard would it be to give the G-10, G-14, and K-4 an optional MG 151/20, like they had in real life? Has there been any word on this happening?

LLv34_Stafroty
06-15-2005, 06:32 AM
yea, now i would like to use 20mm as well with lter series of 109s, cos earlier it was just useless.

hobnail
06-15-2005, 06:33 AM
Oleg has said that he'd have to de-rate the -10 and -14 if that was the case as the Hungarian models (which only had Mk108) were better quality build. This then led to a further frantic production of faded spreadsheets and I lost interest in the topic....

I profess ignorance but I didn't think that the Kurfurst carried the MG151/20 at all.

JG53Frankyboy
06-15-2005, 06:42 AM
K4 had a MK108 as standart - no MG151.

well, if oleg is thinking so - then he should ad a totaly new 109:
a "Bf109G14/MG151" . in this he can than tone down the performance if he wants.

alert_1
06-15-2005, 11:53 AM
As I recollect "quality build" was never an issue in IL2Series, if it was, early LaGG series would be unflyable...

WWMaxGunz
06-15-2005, 12:38 PM
I think it was only LaGGs from one factory that were really bad.
All other minor problems were corrected as well as new management for that factory,
he was shot or put in prison and the new man had incentive not to cut corners.

But it's always the negative reports that people want to remember.

3.JG51_Stecher
06-15-2005, 04:33 PM
For what it's worth, here's a quote from page 174 of Prien and Rodeike's Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G, & K Series, ISBN: 0-88740-424-3, one of the better 109 books out there.

"Armament of the K-4 consisted of an engine-mounted MK 108 cannon, which by now was installed on the production line, as well as two MG 131 machine-guns above the engine. There were aircraft, however, which were delivered with an MG 151/20 engine-mounted cannon."

As far as changing the quality of the build, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Not a single other aircraft in the IL-2 series has been subject to its relative production location or mass produced quality or armament options. Why these three?

hobnail
06-15-2005, 07:28 PM
Because Oleg has said that performance figures, graphs and numbers for Hungarian-produced planes differed from the German-built ones.

I'm not defending this, merely repeating what has been already said.

It's like comparing the P51C to the MkIII I guess.

Levon1981
06-16-2005, 01:29 PM
I'm absolutely agree that there were enough G-10s, G-14s and even K-4s with an engine mounted MG-151/20. I state that all the three fighters should have an option to carry MG-151/20 in the nose, and it doesn't matter wether they were Hungarian or not. Besides, after Feb 1945 some K-4s carried MK-103 in the nose instead of the MK-108. Yes they were comparetively fiew but, without any doubt, thery were some used in the battle. So I think that this gun should be on the K-4 as an optional one too.
On top of that, the MG-151/20s and MK-108s in underwing gondollas on G-10 and K-4 were never used. Iven if there were some on these planes , they all have been removed.

hobnail
06-16-2005, 04:34 PM
Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. I've read a bit and seen posts by some experts (like Butch2k) that no production 109K carried the Mk103 EVER. This is one of the greatest hystorical "facts" of German WWII aviation...

BSS_CUDA
06-16-2005, 04:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_Stecher:
I know this has been brought up before, but now that we have the correct ammo it is more important than ever. How hard would it be to give the G-10, G-14, and K-4 an optional MG 151/20, like they had in real life? Has there been any word on this happening? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if your talking the gun pods I'm all for it. as long as they adjust the FM to screw up the handling as is Historicaly correct. it was a know fact that 109's equiped with gun pods needed non-equiped 109's to fly cover for them because they lost so much manouverability, so by all means add the gun pods adjust the FM and get out turned by the p47's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
06-16-2005, 06:43 PM
Cuda, what are you talking about? So you are opposed to G-14 and G-10 having a nose mounted 151/20, even though these aircraft used this weapon historically? That is like saying I am all for P-38 having a nose mounted 20mm, as long as it has rockets to screw up its handling. Makes no sense.

p1ngu666
06-16-2005, 07:32 PM
some recon 109's had a mk103 only, a really odd choice imo.

mk103 and mk108 often get mixed up in text

p1ngu666
06-16-2005, 07:33 PM
incedently, loadouts change the fm, or can, so if u choose mg151 on ur g10 say, u lose 10kph or whatever.

BSS_CUDA
06-17-2005, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Cuda, what are you talking about? So you are opposed to G-14 and G-10 having a nose mounted 151/20, even though these aircraft used this weapon historically? That is like saying I am all for P-38 having a nose mounted 20mm, as long as it has rockets to screw up its handling. Makes no sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you need to reread my post again, I was not refering to the nose mounted guns, I was refering to the wing mounted gun pods, we do know that some of the 109's had the wing mounted gun which have little or no effect in the handling of the plane

JG53Frankyboy
06-17-2005, 05:42 PM
last time i was forced , due to weaponrestriction, to fly a G6/R6 in a COOP, there was sure a serious negative effect on performance.

p1ngu666
06-17-2005, 05:59 PM
some F series had 2 20mm cannons installed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

gallends squadron?

Hunde_3.JG51
06-17-2005, 11:55 PM
Cuda, I think it was pretty obvious he was referring to nose mounted cannon and not gunpods, especially since 151/20 gunpods are already available for G-14 and G-10 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. So again your response:

"if your talking the gun pods I'm all for it. as long as they adjust the FM to screw up the handling as is Historicaly correct. it was a know fact that 109's equiped with gun pods needed non-equiped 109's to fly cover for them because they lost so much manouverability, so by all means add the gun pods adjust the FM and get out turned by the p47's."

...doesn't make much sense.

OrkaJG52
06-18-2005, 02:41 AM
Only K4 had 30mm as a standard, those with 20mm are from early series, and i mean almost prototypes.

G10,G14 had 20mm as standard. The one that fitted 30mm were /U4. So, in this series 30mm is the option.

And for the perfomance for 20mm mounted... less than 2% variation, and only in climb numbers.

regards

diomedes33
06-18-2005, 02:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
some F series had 2 20mm cannons installed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It boggles the mind. No nose mounted cannon and gunpods? or one in the nose and ... ?

OrkaJG52
06-18-2005, 02:58 AM
p1ngu666 mean

F4/R1 : 2x MG151/20 Gondolas (135rpg) (most probably /R1 was used to distinguish aircraft which could actually use the Rüstsatz VII : the MG151/20 gondolas, from aircraft which couldn’t)

Hunde_3.JG51
06-18-2005, 02:58 AM
Specter, classic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

JG53Frankyboy
06-18-2005, 07:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OrkaJG52:
p1ngu666 mean

F4/R1 : 2x MG151/20 Gondolas (135rpg) (most probably /R1 was used to distinguish aircraft which could actually use the Rüstsatz VII : the MG151/20 gondolas, from aircraft which couldn’t) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ore he ment Gallands special early Bf109F , with 2 MGff in the wings

p1ngu666
06-18-2005, 06:58 PM
i ment the one with them in the wings. looked like a nice install tbh, dunno why they didnt use it instead of the pods. barrels stuck out abit like on the il2.

k14 or something was going to have mk108 in the wings too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

OrkaJG52
06-19-2005, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
ore he ment Gallands special early Bf109F , with 2 MGff in the wings </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure Franky, but he was referring to a hole wing, not an specially armed a/c. Gess he mixed up the ideas.

regards

JG52Karaya-X
06-21-2005, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
some recon 109's had a mk103 only, a really odd choice imo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Are you sure m8? No 109 was EVER equipped with a Mk103... that would NEVER ever fit into the engine compartment - and the weight hit would be enormous http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">mk103 and mk108 often get mixed up in text </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea seems you did http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif - but you know p1ngu I'm just kidding http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif