We got a Bf-109 G6/Late which is great but why no AS Version and why is the fastest plane the G10 Version not in the simulation?

[RaFiGer]

@Community & Delvelopers

 

I think this was themed already but reading books about the late air war in europe you will stumple many times that especially the fighter group covering the assault group related on the fastest series devoloped as a supplement production to the K-series with the biggest advantage to be cheaper and easier to manufacture because of possibility to use of older or existing parts from G6 and G14 models.

 

Between October 1944 and as late of August 1945 (e.g. Prien & Rodeike page 156 to 165) a number of 6000 plane was manufactured within 13 W.Nr. Blocks.

 

So for my understanding and the usage of these planes, which is covered in many historical reviews  you read about these G10 models, which was because of the use of the DB 605 AS in the  G10/AS and the G14/AS a the later avaliable DB 605 D.

 

The G10 served with all major front day and night units and therefor I thing would take a great place the the battle series.

 

Ok, I can understand that the goal to standardize the Bf-series was not achived with the G10, but due to the possible use of older airframes with the newer engine it was a plane which helped the Luftwaffe and their pilot in there struggle to compete with the RAF and U.S. planes.

Edited March 8, 2021 by RaFiGer

[Eisenfaustus]

1st we still need one late 109 for a late war eastern front scenario

 

2nd the only title in which's timeframe the G10 would fit Bodenplatte and that has 2 109s already

 

3rd the K4 is faster than the G10

[RaFiGer]

@Eisenfaustus

 

to your points:

 

1st: Yes, that would be the G10 (eastern Front)

2nd: You're right, periode is August 1944 and beginning 1945 at that time the K4 was in numbers available to front units

3rd: it depends on the use of WEP tbu the G10/U4 (with MK 108) was very close to K4, but of course you are mainly correct!

 

The G10 WNF was a result of urgent demand on fighter planes which coul not be coverd by the new K4 and also not by use of G14 and with the possibility to use older airframes as the G6 with MW 50 the G10 was born and mostly manufactored by the WNF factories (Neustadt, Czech workshops (Diana) using the DB 605 A and due to the lack of K4 frames the DB 605 D. The G10 is described in officlal documents as "Bastard Flugzeug der Fertigung Erla"

 

So, for me it would anyway make sense to have a G10/AS or G14/AS easier a 109 without bulges  besides the K4.

 

Just for information from Kurfürst page :

Ausrüstung der Jagdverbände 19.3.1945

Edited March 5, 2021 by RaFiGer

[SJ_Butcher]

I prefer the 109 G10 instead the K4, the lack of 20mm kills me on the K4.

The 109 G6 AS would be fun to have

[ShamrockOneFive]

I think the point of there still needing to be a Bf109 for a potential late eastern front swansong is probably the biggest reason for this.

 

I should point to this thread every time someone tells me that we don't need another 109. There's clearly interest for at least two more

[BlitzPig_EL]

We're not the 109T models that were meant for the abortive, and laughable, Graf Zeppelin carrier, used in Norway after the Germans gave up on the carrier project?

[BMA_FlyingShark]

2 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I should point to this thread every time someone tells me that we don't need another 109. There's clearly interest for at least two more

I'd be glad to buy the G10, the G6AS and any other earlier version (for over the Channel for instance).

 

Have a nice day.

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

1 minute ago, FlyingShark said:

I'd be glad to buy the G10, the G6AS and any other earlier version (for over the Channel for instance).

 

Have a nice day.

 

 

Hey, I'm in too! ?

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I think the point of there still needing to be a Bf109 for a potential late eastern front swansong is probably the biggest reason for this.

 

I should point to this thread every time someone tells me that we don't need another 109. There's clearly interest for at least two more

 

Yup, I'd be stunned if the Fall of the Reich or Last Battles of the East is not the next module after Normandy. And probably the last one for the Eastern Front before the strategic decision is made on where we go next.

[40plus]

G10 is at the top of my wish list. followed by the the early variants from the Spanish civil war.

 

All 109s all the time is just fine with me 

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

Yup, I'd be stunned if the Fall of the Reich or Last Battles of the East is not the next module after Normandy. 

 

Personally I’m as interested in that as I am a hole in the head - but it would find a decent Russian audience obviously. I feel the same about more 109’s, yet at the same time I’m happy for the enthusiasts like 40plus who are living the dream

 

The next time I boot up a simulated WWII aircraft it will be a PTO bird - however long that is. If it’s never - then it’s never.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

9 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Personally I’m as interested in that as I am a hole in the head - but it would find a decent Russian audience obviously. I feel the same about more 109’s, yet at the same time I’m happy for the enthusiasts like 40plus who are living the dream

 

The next time I boot up a simulated WWII aircraft it will be a PTO bird - however long that is. If it’s never - then it’s never.

 

I haven't given up on PTO yet, either. I think it will actually get done even if it means going with the best educated guesses on certain items. It is money on the table and Jason will eventually yield to both economics and desire (his and ours). I consider it a dream defered.

[Gambit21]

12 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

I haven't given up on PTO yet, either. I think it will actually get done even if it means going with the best educated guesses on certain items. It is money on the table and Jason will eventually yield to both economics and desire (his and ours). I consider it a dream defered.

 

Same page.

There are quite a few WWII theaters, there are however far fewer plausible, widely marketable theaters. The list grows thin.

 

I’m guessing PTO eventually with a new engine.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Gambit21

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

OOOoooohhhh, new engine you say? I must start my rumor pot a'boilin

 

I keed, I keed, I hope, but I keed!

[Rjel]

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Same page.

There are quite a few WWII theaters, there are however far fewer plausible, widely marketable theaters. The list grows thin.

 

I’m guessing PTO eventually with a new engine.

 

 

 

 

I'd only want a new game engine if some of what we have now would be portable. For me, the existing plane models and a lot of ground assets are detailed well enough. I can't wait another 10 years for more late model P series USAAF fighters to reappear. So much of the British and U.S. aircraft we have currently would transition to an updated PTO map seamlessly. They'd only need to be supplemented by earlier models of the same plane sets and the addition of PTO naval A/C. 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Rjel
existing not exiting. Doh

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

10 minutes ago, Rjel said:

I'd only want a new game engine if some of what we have now would be portable. For me, the exiting plane models and a lot of ground assets are detailed well enough. I can't wait another 10 years for more late model P series USAAF fighters to reappear. So much of the British and U.S. aircraft we have currently would transition to an updated PTO map seamlessly. They'd only need to be supplemented by earlier models of the same plane sets and the addition of PTO naval A/C. 

 

Objects are portable and our current models are generally topnotch. I think a new engine would mostly give you better AI scripts, physics and graphics draw calls. Hopefully better optimization for online as well.

[Rjel]

8 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

Objects are portable and our current models are generally topnotch. I think a new engine would mostly give you better AI scripts, physics and graphics draw calls. Hopefully better optimization for online as well.

If so, I'm all in. Sign me up yesterday. Still wanting to see highly detailed B-17s and B-24s in formation. Maybe not 1000 strong but enough to give a feel of a later war scenario.

Edited March 5, 2021 by Rjel
Can't spell for s*** today.

[oc2209]

4 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Personally I’m as interested in that as I am a hole in the head - but it would find a decent Russian audience obviously.

 

Russians are the only people who want to fly Russian planes?

 

I understand there's always going to be national bias, but I assume most people fly whatever works best for them.

 

As an American of (mostly) German descent, I can't stand American planes (aside from the P-38, which still suffers from .50s that lack sufficient punch, and the cannon that just isn't special no matter what simulation it's in), and I only like the 109 because I do very well with it in career mode. I don't like the 190 despite trying, I don't like the 110 because it's a slug, and I don't like the 262 because it can't dogfight.

 

I'd like the Yak just as much as the 109--if Russian guns had more ammo, and if Russian careers gave me as many intercept sorties as German careers do.

 

Likewise, if the P-39 wasn't a slug with lousy guns (relatively speaking), I'd like it too; the basic design principles. Even politically indoctrinated Russians in WW2 didn't turn their noses up at Western tech--when it happened to be designed along the lines Russian pilots preferred. They thought little of the Spitfire; not for nationalist reasons, but because it didn't fit in their comfort zone.

 

2 hours ago, Rjel said:

I'd only want a new game engine if some of what we have now would be portable. For me, the existing plane models and a lot of ground assets are detailed well enough. I can't wait another 10 years for more late model P series USAAF fighters to reappear. So much of the British and U.S. aircraft we have currently would transition to an updated PTO map seamlessly. They'd only need to be supplemented by earlier models of the same plane sets and the addition of PTO naval A/C. 

 

Agreed. I don't want to endure another production cycle with everything being re-released for slightly better visuals and minor improvements in other areas.

 

Everything right now is, in my opinion, damn well good enough to go on into infinity. Unless the devs have their own reasons for wanting/needing to change engines, I'm certainly not clamoring for it.

Edited March 5, 2021 by oc2209

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

28 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

Russians are the only people who want to fly Russian planes?

 

I understand there's always going to be national bias, but I assume most people fly whatever works best for them.

 

As an American of (mostly) German descent, I can't stand American planes (aside from the P-38, which still suffers from .50s that lack sufficient punch, and the cannon that just isn't special no matter what simulation it's in), and I only like the 109 because I do very well with it in career mode. I don't like the 190 despite trying, I don't like the 110 because it's a slug, and I don't like the 262 because it can't dogfight.

 

I'd like the Yak just as much as the 109--if Russian guns had more ammo, and if Russian careers gave me as many intercept sorties as German careers do.

 

Likewise, if the P-39 wasn't a slug with lousy guns (relatively speaking), I'd like it too; the basic design principles. Even politically indoctrinated Russians in WW2 didn't turn their noses up at Western tech--when it happened to be designed along the lines Russian pilots preferred. They thought little of the Spitfire; not for nationalist reasons, but because it didn't fit in their comfort zone.

 

 

Agreed. I don't want to endure another production cycle with everything being re-released for slightly better visuals and minor improvements in other areas.

 

Everything right now is, in my opinion, damn well good enough to go on into infinity. Unless the devs have their own reasons for wanting/needing to change engines, I'm certainly not clamoring for it.

 

Don't overthink it. Gambit has just been pining for the Pacific Theater for a very long time. It's OK to dream. A new engine wouldn't just be window dressing. If done well it would allow an exponential leap in graphics, logic and physics........and hopefully netcode for the online crowd.

[Gambit21]

41 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

Russians are the only people who want to fly Russian planes?

 

No sir, I said nothing of the sort...the word "only" did not emanate from my finger tips at any point.

 

The only point being, that a large number of those enthused with another Russian Front expansion would have Russian addresses.

While far fewer in this hemisphere (I'm not saying none) would be doing backflips over going back to the Eastern Front yet again.

 Nothing more or less was implied.

 

 

[Mac_Messer]

17 hours ago, RaFiGer said:

@Eisenfaustus

 

to your points:

 

1st: Yes, that would be the G10 (eastern Front)

2nd: You're right, periode is August 1944 and beginning 1945 at that time the K4 was in numbers available to front units

3rd: it depends on the use of WEP tbu the G10/U4 (with MK 108) was very close to K4, but of course you are mainly correct!

Any idea if the streamlined Beule are reachable for non AS G6?

[oc2209]

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

No sir, I said nothing of the sort...the word "only" did not emanate from my finger tips at any point.

 

The only point being, that a large number of those enthused with another Russian Front expansion would have Russian addresses.

While far fewer in this hemisphere (I'm not saying none) would be doing backflips over going back to the Eastern Front yet again.

 Nothing more or less was implied.

 

 

 

Fair enough, but I will be one of those few doing backflips.

 

The thing about late Eastern Front versus early, is that Russian planes will be perfected by that stage in the war. They had a rough beginning. This is the total opposite of Germany, where the earlier 109 and 190 series were the most balanced/most aerobatic. Russian planes started out relatively underpowered and overweight. As better engines became available and more metal was used to replace wood, they finally became truly modernized and efficient. Instead of gaining weight as a sacrifice for extra speed or heavier armament as the Germans had to, Russian designs will gain speed and firepower while staying roughly the same weight and therefore sacrificing very little agility. That's why it's crucial to see solid plane designs (Yak, La-5) mature to the fullest.

 

And yes, engineering minutiae excites me. It's positively riveting.

[Gambit21]

Just now, oc2209 said:

 

Fair enough, but I will be one of those few doing backflips.

 

The thing about late Eastern Front versus early, is that Russian planes will be perfected by that stage in the war. They had a rough beginning. This is the total opposite of Germany, where the earlier 109 and 190 series were the most balanced/most aerobatic. Russian planes started out relatively underpowered and overweight. As better engines became available and more metal was used to replace wood, they finally became truly modernized and efficient. Instead of gaining weight as a sacrifice for extra speed or heavier armament as the Germans had to, Russian designs will gain speed and firepower while staying roughly the same weight and therefore sacrificing very little agility. That's why it's crucial to see solid plane designs (Yak, La-5) mature to the fullest.

 

And yes, engineering minutiae excites me. It's positively riveting.

 

I actually like early war much better - everywhere. I’d rather fly a 109E, an I16, a MiG 3 or a P-40. Same goes for my love, the PTO. Give me Zekes and Wildcats.

 

 

 

[oc2209]

1 minute ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I actually like early war much better - everywhere. I’d rather fly a 109E, an I16, a MiG 3 or a P-40. Same goes for my love, the PTO. Give me Zekes and Wildcats.

 

 

That's natural for the Japanese, at least. Their Zeros did nothing but gain weight as the war progressed, like the 109.

 

As for the Wildcat, I don't know much about it--beyond that I think it was considerably more agile than it's commonly given credit for.

 

I also respect the MiG-3. With an alternate gun selection (anything but default) it's actually more broadly useful than the early Yak-1.

 

I'm too much a coward to fly the I-16 in career. A gnat striking one of their wingtips will send them into a fatal spin, it seems. At least in the hands of AI.

 

As for the P-40, I'm allergic to boom and zoom planes. I prefer the gentleman boxing equivalent of chasing each other in circles. It's more polite and dignified.

[migmadmarine]

Echoing what some have said above, I can see the Bf-109G-10 as well as G-6AS and G-14AS being used as the German Fighter delegate in future packages, so I figure they will come at some point. 

[RaFiGer]

@Community

 

Thanks for agreeing with my suggestion

I hope there is a chance to implement at least a Bf-109 G without Bulges  The G10 is because of it's performance a very good choice and also for example german Ace Hptm. Erich Hartmann's last plan as CO of I./JG 52 in April 1945 at Görliz was a Bf-109 G10 or the last plane of Cap. Ugo Drago, CO of 4a Squadriglia, 2o Gruppo Caccia, Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana, Aviano, Italy, February 1945.

 

And of course do it as paid model and 1C will find a bunch of customer's for this bird

 

 

[Cybermat47]

14 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

The next time I boot up a simulated WWII aircraft it will be a PTO bird - however long that is. If it’s never - then it’s never.

Very poor choice of words.

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by [Pb]Cybermat47

[354thFG_Panda_]

I hope if they do add the g10 it has a mod for the erlaG10 with a slightly different cowling, oil cooler design and no frontal bulges like on the k4 at the front

Edited March 6, 2021 by -Astra-TheRedPanda

[RaFiGer]

10 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

No sir, I said nothing of the sort...the word "only" did not emanate from my finger tips at any point.

 

The only point being, that a large number of those enthused with another Russian Front expansion would have Russian addresses.

While far fewer in this hemisphere (I'm not saying none) would be doing backflips over going back to the Eastern Front yet again.

 Nothing more or less was implied.

 

 

 

But northern war with it's area's Norway, Finland, Baltic Sea and Staates,Leningrad oblast and more was actually not really convered besides IL2-Forgotten Battles. Not to mention the middle and southern part like Czech Territory, Rumanian and Hungary, Italy and so on...

 

Great Battles is historical as name for a series well placed, but the Pacific sounds well to have a differnent theatre with a different plane set.

[the_emperor]

Personaly, I would love to see the AS Versions of the G-6 (MW)/G-14 and G-10 modelled, but one has to keep in mind that below the full throttle hight (6600m for the DB605A and 5000m for the DB605A/MW) the non-AS versions are a little bit faster and a bit lighter. 

But yes, I would very much like to see them in the game.

 

[CUJO_1970]

RaFiGer -  many of us have wanted these aircraft for years. The G14/AS really would have been nice to have it in Bodenplatte as it was one of the most heavily used 109s in that battle and after all it's just a G14 with the big supercharger. The G6/AS - well, really would like to have seen it in Normandy for the same reason.

 

The G10 has a pretty complex history - the Erla built G10 has an entire mythology built up around it, but a clean G10 would give you a better dogfighter than the K-4 with a better 20mm dogfighting gun to go with it. Think of it as a slightly better G14.

 

Notice many times it was the G10 that was assigned to the Stab flight - many considered them to be the ultimate dogfighting 109s.

 

 

 

[RaFiGer]

5 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

RaFiGer -  many of us have wanted these aircraft for years. The G14/AS really would have been nice to have it in Bodenplatte as it was one of the most heavily used 109s in that battle and after all it's just a G14 with the big supercharger. The G6/AS - well, really would like to have seen it in Normandy for the same reason.

 

The G10 has a pretty complex history - the Erla built G10 has an entire mythology built up around it, but a clean G10 would give you a better dogfighter than the K-4 with a better 20mm dogfighting gun to go with it. Think of it as a slightly better G14.

 

Notice many times it was the G10 that was assigned to the Stab flight - many considered them to be the ultimate dogfighting 109s.

 

 

 

@CUJO_1970

 

Yes that is one if not the biggest point, the G10 was indeed a very good dogfighter and therefore your point is absolutly valid in my opinion, proof are the "Ausrüstungslisten", where Top Cover Units for Heavy Fighters engaging the Bombers and the planes of the Stabgruppen of front units was equiped with the G10 mainly rather than having used the K4 because of numbers or because of the use of "lighter" weapon set-ups

 

Really any G-version with AS optimization would be a big addition, for myself I would prefere the G10 but I'm willing to pay for each and every palne with AS

 

Edited March 8, 2021 by RaFiGer

[Eisenfaustus]

Due to ingame stats the K4 is roughly 100 kg heavier in standart config compared to the G14:

 

G14 weight:

Empty weight: 2680 kg
Minimum weight (no ammo, 10% fuel): 2899 kg
Standard weight: 3266 kg
Maximum takeoff weight: 3565 kg
Fuel load: 304 kg / 400 l
Useful load: 885 kg

 

K4 weight:

Empty weight: 2754 kg
Minimum weight (no ammo, 10% fuel): 3006 kg
Standard weight: 3361 kg
Maximum takeoff weight: 3891 kg
Fuel load: 304 kg / 400 l
Useful load: 1137 kg

 

That means the K4 is 3% heavier than the G14. With DB engine it also has 2,8% more power - so roughly equal. With DC on the other hand it has 11% more power.

So shouldn't the better thrust to weight ratio and less drag lead to a highter turnrate at least for the DC engined K4 in spite of the larger turn radius?

Fighting AI it even feels like that imho.

 

But what did add the weight in comparison to the 14? Retraction mechanism for the tailwheel? Gearcovers? Enginehood? Or mainly the more powerfull engine? Honest question...

 

If it was mainly the engine, shoudln't the the same weight also be added to the G10? Just without the gear covers and retraction mechanism?

[[URU]Panzer-uy]

G10  DB 605 DB/DC  ( K4 Engine ) 

 

[Chief_Mouser]

On 3/6/2021 at 4:51 AM, Gambit21 said:

 

I actually like early war much better - everywhere. I’d rather fly a 109E, an I16, a MiG 3 or a P-40. Same goes for my love, the PTO. Give me Zekes and Wildcats.

 

 

 

 

I'm so with you here. The 109E is the only interesting one we have IMO. I'd much rather fly aircraft where you have to put a bit of thought into keeping them running sweetly.

[[URU]Panzer-uy]

G14 DB 605 ASM , DB 605 ASC/ASC , Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-1 to K-4 Engines & Fittings

[RaFiGer]

@Community

 

There have to be a break point compering ingame features to historical facts related to the G10. Overall as many as  6000 units was build and it saw service in most if not all front line units geginning August/October 1944 there never was a standard Bf-109 G-10, it was as Bastart plane and the components used are airframes from G4, G6 and G14 series. It got different tail wheels, mostly the longer not retractable one and different tail units. The deeper oil cooler made it necessary to attached the "chin bulges" underneath the cowling (used with G10/AS and G14/AS) and many things more...

 

For a possible ingame G10 I would suggest an AS version and with the DB 605 DM (with MW 50) boost, featuring the lighter cannon setup with the longer non-retractable tailwheel and the Tail section with no fixed trim tabs to differ it from the G14 model and the 660 x 190 main wheels (K4) because of the "real" build numbers of this type.

 

The G10 should be the fastest ingame G-series, but for me any AS-Version would be a dream 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by RaFiGer

[Mac_Messer]

That makes sence imo, except I`d really prefer making the GM boost a detachable module to make it suit all G series.

[C6_Claymore]

On 3/9/2021 at 6:55 AM, RaFiGer said:

@Community

 

There have to be a break point compering ingame features to historical facts related to the G10. Overall as many as  6000 units was build and it saw service in most if not all front line units geginning August/October 1944 there never was a standard Bf-109 G-10, it was as Bastart plane and the components used are airframes from G4, G6 and G14 series. It got different tail wheels, mostly the longer not retractable one and different tail units. The deeper oil cooler made it necessary to attached the "chin bulges" underneath the cowling (used with G10/AS and G14/AS) and many things more...

 

For a possible ingame G10 I would suggest an AS version and with the DB 605 DM (with MW 50) boost, featuring the lighter cannon setup with the longer non-retractable tailwheel and the Tail section with no fixed trim tabs to differ it from the G14 model and the 660 x 190 main wheels (K4) because of the "real" build numbers of this type.

 

The G10 should be the fastest ingame G-series, but for me any AS-Version would be a dream 

 

 

Full agree with you !

 

Why not a collector plane with many options ? (tail wheel, fin rudder etc...)

[the_emperor]

On 3/9/2021 at 6:55 AM, RaFiGer said:

The G10 should be the fastest ingame G-series, but for me any AS-Version would be a dream

Is much as I would love the see the G-10/G-14/AS implemented, below full throttle height, the DB605A(M) plane is faster than its AS Counterpart.

But I would realy love to see the AS-Versions, I cant hit any thing with that 30mm potato thrower....