Author Topic: bf 109-g6/u4?  (Read 7252 times)

Offline gyrene81

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11629
Re: bf 109-g6/u4?
« Reply #30 on: March 20, 2011, 12:48:25 PM »
I don't think boost levels/limitations can be compared with loadout options that are selectable from the hangar and can now be disabled by the CMs for special events. G-6 was introduced in the beginning of 1943 and first 30mm equipped versions came off the line in the summer of '43. G-6 faces '44 vintage bombers in the MidWar arena.


G-6 had a relatively short production run (for 109) of 686 aircraft. So I don't really see it as a hole plugger per se. Wouldn't mind one either though at some point. Finns had two of them.
where are you getting those numbers? 686 total 109-g6 produced or are you saying that's the number of g6/u4's produced?
jarhed  
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: bf 109-g6/u4?
« Reply #31 on: March 20, 2011, 12:53:17 PM »
where are you getting those numbers? 686 total 109-g6 produced or are you saying that's the number of g6/u4's produced?

Meant to say G-6/AS. I edited my post and corrected it.
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline gyrene81

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11629
Re: bf 109-g6/u4?
« Reply #32 on: March 20, 2011, 01:18:00 PM »
Meant to say G-6/AS. I edited my post and corrected it.
ah ok...still seems a bit low...i'm wondering if that number is just what rolled off the assembly line with the modified engines and doesn't include the models with the mw50 system that came later...krusty probably has more solid information but 2 references i found claimed total 14-1600 units but...that may have been an estimation all units including the field modified.
jarhed  
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: bf 109-g6/u4?
« Reply #33 on: March 20, 2011, 01:46:18 PM »
ah ok...still seems a bit low...i'm wondering if that number is just what rolled off the assembly line with the modified engines and doesn't include the models with the mw50 system that came later...krusty probably has more solid information but 2 references i found claimed total 14-1600 units but...that may have been an estimation all units including the field modified.

My figures come from Finnish aviation historian Hannu Valtonen's book MESSERSCHMITT BF 109 JA SAKSAN SOTATALOUS. He often uses Prien & Rodeike as reference like in this case. So in other words, those numbers pretty reliable.

First 226 aircraft were new production, rest were modified/repaired from old airframes.
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6863
Re: bf 109-g6/u4?
« Reply #34 on: March 20, 2011, 05:29:44 PM »
My figures come from Finnish aviation historian Hannu Valtonen's book MESSERSCHMITT BF 109 JA SAKSAN SOTATALOUS. He often uses Prien & Rodeike as reference like in this case. So in other words, those numbers pretty reliable.

First 226 aircraft were new production, rest were modified/repaired from old airframes.

Only one G-6/AS was neubau (built Sept 1944), all the rest were modified a/c. Prien has admitted he used old info for his number.

Mttr built 1270 neubau and Erla built 107 neubau G-14/AS.

Offline morfiend

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10373
Re: bf 109-g6/u4?
« Reply #35 on: March 20, 2011, 05:54:30 PM »
The 109G-14/AS would be, imho, be a better a/c to have than the G-6/AS. Much more common (~1400) and introduced about the same time as the G-6/AS.


  I'd agree with this Milo but I still think we could use both in the planeset. IMHO it seems that I'd rather fly the G2 over the G6 in any event that requires high alt flying,once your above 25k the G6 just seems to struggle and you may as well forget about bringing gondies up that high.

  YMMV.



      :salute

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9323
Re: bf 109-g6/u4?
« Reply #36 on: March 20, 2011, 06:57:48 PM »
There's feature currently in the game which enables CMs to disable loadouts for special events.

True, now.  Wasn't so when the G6 lost it's 30mm.

- oldman

Offline Debrody

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4486
Re: bf 109-g6/u4?
« Reply #37 on: March 20, 2011, 07:26:42 PM »
Anyway, now what is the reason to choose the g-6 against the g-2? No, those MGs doesnt mean as much. The hub cannon will be the one what causes the real damage. The performance penality is much larger.
Plz give us back the tater on the g-6.   :salute
AoM
City of ice

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9323
Re: bf 109-g6/u4?
« Reply #38 on: March 20, 2011, 09:05:31 PM »
Anyway, now what is the reason to choose the g-6 against the g-2?


The 12.7s do make a noticeable difference.  That, AND the fact that the G6 is harder to fly, make the G6 the plane of choice for true 109 afficionados.

- oldman

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
Re: bf 109-g6/u4?
« Reply #39 on: March 21, 2011, 08:36:46 AM »
Karnak is correct, I think.  The AH G6 - which once did have the 30mm option - had its armament limited when we got the G14, so that the G6 would be flown in its typical 1943 form.  This isn't so important in the MAs (but in the MAs you can fly K4 if you want), but it is very important in scenarios and special events and the AvA.

- oldman

There were very few Bf 109 G-6 with 3cm MK 108s in 1943 - some general info:

The Bf 109 G-6/U4 was a sub-series of the G-6 that was fitted with a 3cm MK 108 as centrally mounted weapon instead of the regular 2cm MG151/20. It was built by WNF, the planned production figure for 1943 being 800, or 810 according to another official source, beginning in May 1943 with the delivery of the first two aircraft. The actual production figure was considerably lower, in fact only 181 Bf 109 G-6/U4 being delivered until the end of 1943.

E-Stelle Tarnewitz was given the task to install and assess the MK 108 in the Bf 109 G-6, beginning in June 1943. They handled two pre-series aircraft, the first of 27 aircraft, the second of almost the same number of aircraft. The first deliveries began in the second half of July 1943, the 27 aircraft of the first pre-series being delivered to front line units until August 22nd, 1943 with the second pre-series aircraft being completely delivered until October 23rd, 1943.

In the Tarnewitz report for 21.7.43 with the title "Einbau und Funktionsüberprüfung der MK 108 in den ersten 30 Flugzeugen Bf 109 G6/U4" (Installation and functional testing of the MK 108 in the first 30 Bf 109 G6/U4s) gives an overview of the testing. Originally to they were simply to install the MK 108s in the aircraft, and then to give them a series of simple functional test.

The implementation of this simple plan would consist of the following: The aircraft were accepted minus the weapons, which I assume meant only the MK 108, rather than also the MG 131s. The weapons came from the final production line at DWM-Posen. The associated units for remote firing of the weapon came from Rheinmetall-Borsig, Berlin-Tagel and its sub-contractors. Anticipated was a short firing of the weapon on the firing stand, then a short firing of the installed weapon on the ground, and finally a short firing of the installed weapon in the air. But, in the rush to make the MK 108 operational it had not undergone the complete testing as specified by GL/C-E6.

Results: The 9 MK 108s delivered at the end of May 1943 had so many problems on the firing stand that installing them in aircraft was out of the question. In mid-June 1943, 24 improved MK 108s were delivered. They worked well enough that one was installed in an aircraft for testing. But, there were numerous problems with the installation that required extensive firing on the firing stand. The report then listed 8 major problems encountered. It also mentions that the training ammunition supplied by DWM had a different fuse cap than the Rheinemetall training ammunition with the result that 3 cannon were destroyed by the exploding cartridge casings.

In the end, everything was fixed up; and at the date of the report (21 July 1943), of the original 30 aircraft, 10 were still at Tarnewitz, and the others had been sent on to Schwerin or to Lärz.

So, according to the wording of the report, it would appear that the 30 aircraft mentioned were, in fact, accepted by Tarnewitz as genuine production G6/U4s rather than any other modified aircraft. The factory of origin of these aircraft is never mentioned, nor were any aircraft W.Nrs.

We can with good reason assume that the aircraft fitted with MK 108 at Tarnewitz - 1st and 2nd pre-series - were in fact the first Bf 109 G-6/U4 to roll off the assembly lines at WNF albeit minus their MK 108, and that it was at E-Stelle Tarnewitz, where these newly developed weapons were to be added to the aircraft. This is born out by the one WerkNr. that is mentioned in one of the weekly reports, which refers to a Bf 109 G-6 that was definitely built at WNF. Only after the more or less successful elimination of the many faults of the early MK 108 with the completion of the 2nd pre-series aircraft at Tarnewitz was it possible, to install the weapons already on the assembly line at WNF and deliver the complete aircraft as Bf 109 G-6/U4, which seems to have started with approximately the 60th aircraft to be completed.

Source - George Hopp / Dr. Jochen Prien

Offline STEELE

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 541
Re: bf 109-g6/u4?
« Reply #40 on: April 09, 2011, 06:17:25 PM »

  I'd agree with this Milo but I still think we could use both in the planeset. IMHO it seems that I'd rather fly the G2 over the G6 in any event that requires high alt flying,once your above 25k the G6 just seems to struggle and you may as well forget about bringing gondies up that high.

  YMMV.



      :salute
Absolutely! Take the BoG scenario, it was supposed to be '44-'45, according to the description.  The G6's we got stuck with were '43 models, couldnt hold a candle to the Allied rides at alt. Adding the '44 model would fix this.
The Kanonenvogel had 6 rounds per pod, this is not even close to being open for debate.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Re: bf 109-g6/u4?
« Reply #41 on: April 09, 2011, 06:58:21 PM »
Absolutely! Take the BoG scenario, it was supposed to be '44-'45, according to the description.  The G6's we got stuck with were '43 models, couldnt hold a candle to the Allied rides at alt. Adding the '44 model would fix this.
This is the same problem the Spitfires have in scenarios.

For the Bf109s, the G-14 should have been used as a stand in for earlier high altitude Bf109s.


For the Spitfires, the Mk IX we have is a Merlin 61 F.Mk IX from mid 1942, yet it is used as the Spitfire for any European setting until almost 1945 when the Spitfire Mk VIII should be used for for late 1943/early 1944 and the Spitfire Mk XVI for mid-1944 to the end, along with the Griffon Mk XIV.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2011, 09:00:55 PM by Karnak »
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Ardy123

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3417
Re: bf 109-g6/u4?
« Reply #42 on: April 09, 2011, 08:53:38 PM »
For the Bf109s, the G-14 should have been used as a stand in for earlier high altitude Bf109s.

Man I keep saying this... There is no difference in the g14 over the g6 without wep.



If you want something that would be historically accurate then we need to get the /AS versions with the GM instillation for high alt.

Yeah, that's right, you just got your rear handed to you by a fuggly puppet!
==Army of Muppets==
(Bunnies)

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: bf 109-g6/u4?
« Reply #43 on: April 09, 2011, 09:27:18 PM »
True, now.  Wasn't so when the G6 lost it's 30mm.

- oldman

Doesn't really fit, still. The 30mm was on later models. These models had different tail fins, different radio masts, different engine boost additives (MW50, GM1, etc) different allowed BOOST settings, different canopies, with different head rest armor and differing ranges of view.


You can't just put a gun on and say "It still fits because you can lock that gun out in scenarios" -- because the gun is specific to later models, and ours is the earlier version with the clear back armor (although, not the EARLIEST version with solid headrest armor).

[Edit: To previous comment:]

Saying the G6 is the worst of the in-game 109s ignores the lack of speed and firepower on the E4 and F4. The G6 proved itself quite capable against even jugs, ponies, p38s, in the most recent scenario. In an MA situation it's still a very lethal plane.

In short, you want the 30mm, fly a G14. Fly a K4. You don't fly the G6 if you want 30mm. Nobody is locking you into one ride. If you really want that gun, fly a plane that has it, rather than request a gun be added that doesn't fit the model in question.


P.S. The higher FTH on the G6/AS would be quite useful, even though top speed wasn't much better. Even without the MW50 (which a G6/AS shouldn't get in-game IMO) its available power would be much more impressive up at 30k and above. At those alts, 109G6s with the 20k FTH are seriously struggling, but a /AS would only just start slowing down. Makes an important difference, and could sub in for a number of variants with high alt gearings, like G-5, etc... I'm all for some sort of /AS or high-alt version of the 109 as long as it's not a G10. There is a big performance drop that rears its head in scenarios/FSOs.

Offline Debrody

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4486
Re: bf 109-g6/u4?
« Reply #44 on: April 09, 2011, 11:26:41 PM »
Ardy: the g-14 is a little bit heavyer, so it should climb a little bit slower without wep, and im pretty sure it is in game. With the same weapon loadout, of course.

Krusty: "Saying the G6 is the worst of the in-game 109s ignores the lack of speed and firepower on the E4 and F4. The G6 proved itself quite capable against even jugs, ponies, p38s, in the most recent scenario. In an MA situation it's still a very lethal plane." 
 ???  after the g-6 ANY other ride feels like cheating.  The e-4 is pretty bad compared to the F, but still, to its era, the g-6 is the worst, by far. Just calculate the (speed and climb)*(turn rate) to every ride, and you will see which one is the worst.
AoM
City of ice