|
Author
|
Topic: PP6.1, more notes for the Bf 109's
|
Maury Markowitz
Pilot
|
posted 02-18- 11:28 PM
   
The G-6 comes with either a MK108 or the MK151/20 for the engine mounted cannon. I believe the G-6 was shipped only with the 108. The plane was also available with underwing MK151/20's, but these are not modeled in the game.The K-4 does not have any rocket loads, but I believe it was capable of use them. Maury IP: Logged |
Maury Markowitz
Pilot
|
posted 02-18- 11:33 PM
I also note that the K-4 seems to have MG151/20's in it, but I believe it used MG131's in the wing roots?Maury IP: Logged |
LLv34_Camouflage
Pilot
|
posted 02-19- 03:38 AM
The G-6 certainly came equipped with the 151/20. I'd say that MOST of the G-6's were equipped with the 20mm Mauser, not 100% sure though.  Camo ------------------
Camouflage
XO, Lentolaivue 34
www.muodos.fi/LLv34 "The really good pilots use their superior judgment to keep them out of situations
where they might be required to demonstrate their superior skill." IP: Logged |
LLv34_Camouflage
Pilot
|
posted 02-19- 03:49 AM
And to my knowledge no 109's after the Emil series had any other than cannons in the wings. So no machine guns in wings. The standard armament from the Franz onwards was a 20mm cannon shooting through the prop hub. From G-6 onwards (I think) a 30mm cannon became optional. The K-series had the 30mm MK108 cannon as the standard, I believe? The 2 cowling mounted machine guns were 7.9mm MG17's from the Franz until G-2 (I think). Not sure of G-3 (was there a G-3? ), G-4 or G-5, but atleast G-6 and later models had 13mm MG131's. Unlike some sources say, no cannons were fitted instead of the machine guns in to the cowling, afaik. Unless it was some weird one-time field modification. Additionally, 20mm wing cannon pods were fitted in the 109. They hampered the flight characteristics so much that they were usually fitted only for the bomber-busting duty. I don't know if there were 30mm cannons used in the wings, for the 109. The Focke Wulf certainly had 30mm's in the wings. But I'm sure the K-series 109s didn't have any machine guns in the wings. Only cannons. Camo IP: Logged |
LLv34_Camouflage
Pilot
|
posted 02-19- 03:50 AM
In other words - the 109 gun loadouts in the PP are quite correct.  Camo IP: Logged |
Yardstick
Pilot
|
posted 02-19- 04:51 AM
We put an option in the G-6 loadout for the Mk108 30mm cannon. I read conflicting information on the K-4, but I believe the modelled loadout of 2 cowling mounted 15mm MGs and 1 30mm Mk108 firing through the hub was most typical.------------------
Yardstick painted this
 IP: Logged |
LLv34_Camouflage
Pilot
|
posted 02-19- 08:08 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Yardstick:
We put an option in the G-6 loadout for the Mk108 30mm cannon. I read conflicting information on the K-4, but I believe the modelled loadout of 2 cowling mounted 15mm MGs and 1 30mm Mk108 firing through the hub was most typical.
Errr, you mean two cowling mounted 13mm MG131's, right? Camo IP: Logged |
Yardstick
Pilot
|
posted 02-19- 09:06 AM
MG131s correct - my mistake.I was thinking imperial and typing metric. It's the trouble with using both systems here in the UK It has it's advantages though. If something is 1 inch long I can say it's an inch long not 2.54cm and if something's 1cm long I can describe it as such and not 7/16th of an inch IP: Logged |
LLv34_Camouflage
Pilot
|
posted 02-19- 10:44 AM
Oh no, I'm not stepping into that discussion, lol.  Camo IP: Logged |
Nat
Pilot
|
posted 02-19- 10:54 AM
isn't this all rather irrelevant now since it seems spoonmans loadouts will be adopted for pp6.1? I mean, whats the point in discussing the MG size when they are going to be almost as powerful as a cannon now but have a high rate of fire?I've never been against the loadouts, just against making them standard, make them standard and you might aswell forget about what MG's/cannon an aircraft really had and just put in a figure that you know will do damage but is less that a cannon. So, does it really matter if it had 131's or 151's aslong as they get put in the right place? Damn I almost feel like I'm talking about Crimson Skies lol IP: Logged |
jedi
Pilot
|
posted 02-19- 11:42 AM
Hehe THIS discussion always opens a can of worms... I'm singularly uninformed on the permutations of 109 armament, but I READ somewhere that Galland had his "personal" plane armed with internal wing cannons like a 109E. Can't remember if this was a Franz or Gustav, but he had the 3 usual nose guns and 2 wing cannon, not in pods, but in the wings. Or so the story goes...
------------------
--jedi-- IP: Logged |
spin
Pilot
|
posted 02-19- 01:15 PM
Nat,To reassure you on the loadouts and the use of Spoonman's modifications, all of the loadouts in pp6.1 (beta) currently have been edited to include a new set of identical loadouts with the online modification. Players will not have to make any changes to their installation to play online or offline. In other words, if the pp6.0 plane had "guns" and "heavy bombing" it now has "NETguns", "NETheavy bombing, "guns" and "heavy bombing" etc. This will give you the option of continuing to fly offline with "realistic" loadouts and flying online with either "realistic" or "enhanced" loadouts without having to make any changes. It is up to mission editors to decide if they want NET loadouts used where available. I have suggested that all missions using the NET loadouts have NET included in the mission title so players know before starting the game what they are up against. These only exist for planes that had the smaller calibre guns as were changed by Spoonman. Some planes, eg) the p51, do not have "NET" loadouts because there weren't any differences between Spoonman's loadout and the current standard. IP: Logged |
Zurawski
Pilot
|
posted 02-19- 01:35 PM
...Spin,I do have to question the decision to not update all loadouts to use the NET naming consessions... Simply for ease of idenitification and consistancy, it should be done. Otherwise it's asking for mission developers to be 100% sure the plane uses the NET consessions... There is now way to be sure the mission sender has done this. I forsee people questioning/accusing others of not adhearing to the NET conssesions. JMHO... IP: Logged |
Maury Markowitz
Pilot
|
posted 02-19- 01:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by LLv34_Camouflage:
And to my knowledge no 109's after the Emil series had any other than cannons in the wings. So no machine guns in wings.
Sorry, that was a typo, I meant cowling. quote:
The standard armament from the Franz onwards was a 20mm cannon shooting through the prop hub. From G-6 onwards (I think) a 30mm cannon became optional.
Further reading suggests that the MK108 was supposed to be in most of the G-6's (as G-6/U4), but the supply was limited and many got the MG151/20 by default. On the other hand the wing-mounted 20's were very real, but I can't seem to find a picture of them for you. I _think_ this was called the G-6/R6 modification, it was also used on the F-4's. quote:
The K-series had the 30mm MK108 cannon as the standard, I believe?
Yup. quote:
The 2 cowling mounted machine guns were 7.9mm MG17's from the Franz until G-2 (I think).
G-5. That's when it got the bulges. quote:
Not sure of G-3 (was there a G-3?
Yes, although I don't believe they made many. Pressurized cockpit IIRC. quote:
Additionally, 20mm wing cannon pods were fitted in the 109. They hampered the flight characteristics so much that they were usually fitted only for the bomber-busting duty. I don't know if there were 30mm cannons used in the wings, for the 109. The Focke Wulf certainly had 30mm's in the wings.
Correct on both counts. The 20's for the 109 were MG151/20's in a sort of flat pack. The 190 used an interesting system where the outer pair of MG151's were replaced with MK108's, but the ammo was too large to fit in the wing so they added a "pod" under the wing to hold it. Wierd. Maury IP: Logged |
Maury Markowitz
Pilot
|
posted 02-19- 02:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by LLv34_Camouflage:
In other words - the 109 gun loadouts in the PP are quite correct.
Uhhh, no. We don't have the underwing packs for the G-6, and we have the wrong cowl guns in the K-4. Should I change/add them? Maury IP: Logged |
Yardstick
Pilot
|
posted 02-19- 02:31 PM
I think the easiest option given the polarity over including them in the on-line planepack is to set Spoons loadouts as the on-line standard (much as we do now for the squad war). I know its a separate download and adds to the confusions but I can't see everyone who plays online editing all the hundreds of missions that there are.The benefit of this is that should a future patch sort out the packet loss problems, the handful of us on-line flyers can easily go back to the stock planepack. ------------------
Yardstick painted this
[This message has been edited by Yardstick (edited 02-19-2001).] IP: Logged |
Spanky the Mad Dog
Pilot
|
posted 02-19- 05:39 PM
Actually I love the idea of the net loadouts and netmissions, Cause then that will force us to make some new missions finally, Finally missions that are more historicaly correct and use the newer planes. I can dream can't I? IP: Logged |
Mirthain
Pilot
|
posted 02-19- 07:32 PM
Zur,
You missed the part about only the planes with lower caliber MG's being the planes changed by the Spoonmans loadouts. The other planes didn't need the modification, so they don't have a "Net" loadout. So to make one, would be to say they are different, but they aren't. Pretty much any 7.92, .303 and .30 cal mg's were changed. I am not sure of the list but I am sure that someone would post which planes are which, and perhaps even a list in the PP readme file so that mission builders could be aware. ;}
------------------
Mirthain=FC=
 IP: Logged |
Nat
Pilot
|
posted 02-19- 08:05 PM
Spin, thanks man thats very good news, and a good idea aswell, I hadn't even thought of doing it that way, far simpler than multiple loadouts IP: Logged |
Himdog
Pilot
|
posted 02-20- 12:24 PM
This is just IMO but I really don't think having the NET stuff is the right way to go. What is going to happen is this: Someone will edit a mission with NET stuff but will not change the mission name so that mission will over write my mission with the same name! This happens now, someone will take a mission and edit something in it then it will over write my version of the mission with their version. Do you see where I am going with this? It is a fact of life, choice your path, will it be path "A" or "B"? I would say leave out Spoon's loadouts because in offline they are too much. We can always add spoon's loadouts in for something like the squad war.------------------
7./JG3_Himdog out
www.luftwaffe.net IP: Logged |
spin
Pilot
|
posted 02-20- 07:30 PM
I don't think I can possibly make everyone happy with this. To me it didn't make sense to edit planes without loadout changes to include NET loadouts. That's why I didn't do it. Plus it was another 10-15 (guessing) loadouts I was going to have to edit. To me I like playing offline - and most of you know I spend a lot of time online - offline the NET loadouts are ridiculous. So as I see it this is a good compromise. On the mission side - it takes a conscious effort to change the loadout to NET configuration - I hope the same conscious effort will be excerised by builders to name their missions accurately. Obviously there is no guarantee. IP: Logged |
FSIC Messageboard
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
