Author Topic: why did the 109g-6 suffer so bad from only a 107ibs extra from the 109g2 (Read 2811 times)

simshell · « **on:** January 27, 2004, 03:23:59 PM »

i looked at the help file and it says

109G-6
Normal loaded weight:
6940 lbs
109G-2
Normal loaded weight:
6834 lbs.

how did the 109G-6 suffer so bad from only 100ibs more on the airframe does this cause a plane to suffer this bad

if so then why did the seafire not suffer from 300ibs extra

or did somebody not do the flight model right

Grendel · « **Reply #1 on:** January 27, 2004, 03:41:23 PM »

"The differences between the G2 and G6 were small. It was the armament, just nothing else. The engine was the same. The G6 had better armament and the undercarriage was stronger and wheels wider, else the difference with G2 was small. The larger wheels resulted in bulges on the top of the wing.
- The G2 also had the wing bulges due to wheels. They extended half the wheel width from the wing surface. Did those bulges affect flying characteristics?
The bulges on the nose had a bigger effect on air resistance, they were quite large and no way beautiful. There were bulges in the wings of the previous models before the G6 was introduced. "
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

GScholz · « **Reply #2 on:** January 27, 2004, 04:26:50 PM »

I must say that our G6 handles suspiciously like a G2 with gondies. The RAF test data on the G6 was that of an R6 version with gondies. The top speed of the G6 should certainly suffer due to the added drag of the new bumps and bulges, but not the low speed handling.

ra · « **Reply #3 on:** January 27, 2004, 05:03:43 PM »

If the G6 handled like a G2 it would kick arse.

Batz · « **Reply #4 on:** January 27, 2004, 05:06:04 PM »

I posted this in another thread

Quote

Here's a question, does anyone know if HT bases the 109G6 specs from the 109G6R6 as tested by Brown. The 109G6R6 had gondolas and roughly matches the AH 109g6 specs.

The speeds of the AH 109G6 in clean configuration are similar to the speeds of the 109G6R6 original with gondolas.

The top speed of our clean g6 is around 635km/H at alt when it should be 650km/h.

It's not a big deal either way as 10 mph isn't that significant.

As grendel said the G6 had a "strengthened" undercarriage and larger wheels. The G6 had mg131s which created bulges as seen on the left / right of the upper eng cowl. So you end up with added weight and added drag.

Instead of a sleek and maneuverable interceptor like the F4 and G2 the plane became known as "The Flying Blister" due to the modifications done on the airframe.

I have read pilot anecdotes that claim the feel of flying the G6 was no different then the G2.

Urchin · « **Reply #5 on:** January 28, 2004, 06:43:34 AM »

Doesn't "feel" any different to me. Course, the G10 doesn't feel any less manueverable than the G6 to me, so maybe I'm flying it wrong.

Pooh21 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 28, 2004, 07:25:38 AM »

g6 flys like porky pig to me, but thats just me g2 feels spritly, g6 feels like a dump truck, and if one sticks gondolas on it.lol.
It still kicks arse.

I remember way back when when I was a n00b hunting ET's b-26 with 30mm gondolas on g6. was only reason I flew it. for the 30mm gondolas. Whered they go. they used to have a line of them next to g6.

Wmaker · « **Reply #7 on:** January 28, 2004, 07:32:48 AM »

G-6 has 20mm Mauser MG151/20 cannons in the gondolas too, so no 30mms in the wings.

There is a difference in the handling between G-2 and G-6 but I don't see it as big difference as some see it. I'm willing to guess that G-6 with 25% of fuel handles a tad better or similarly as G-2 with 75% of fuel.

wastel1 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 28, 2004, 10:00:13 AM »

G2 to G6 was an weight increase of 110kg.

problem in all sims is following:

FM is based on the RAF/US test that was flown with an G6/R6.
after some time most forgot the R6 in further translations.

other problem is, that the test was done with "climb & combat" power, what is 100% power in AH/WB/IL2-FB

but all sims modell the speed for the "WEP"(110% power)
takeoff & emegency power setting.

speed of the 109G6 should be 10-15km/h less than of the G2

means (with 100% power):
520-520km/h on sealevel (G2 530)
640km/h at 6km alt (G2 650)

this can be found after any well done research about the 109.

wastel

PS: there where 200rounds of 20mm in the nose gun :-)!

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 28, 2004, 11:58:15 AM »

You know in every photo I have seen of the RAE's "Eric Brown" G-6, the gondolas had been removed...

wastel1 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 28, 2004, 12:53:20 PM »

original Messerschmitt Augsburg comparison sheet from 17.09.43:

Bf109G2/R6
(weight 3240kg (208kg are the gondolars))
speed on 0m, with 100%power (NO WEP)
512km/h
speed on 6,6km
636km/h
->with 100% power and gondolars!

Bf109G6/R6 (NO WEP)
(3350kg(208kg gondolars)
502 at 0m
620km/h at 6,5km
->with 100% power and gondolars

now...put the gondolars away (-drag,-208kg)
=+around 20km/h
=640km/h (Still with 100% power only)
now add the takeoff&emergency power (5min max)
=650-655km/h for an G6

from numbers above:
109G2-G6 an lose of 10km/h at 0m alt
a lose of 16km/h at rated alt (6,5-6,7km)

and these 16km/h are the +110kg of the G6 and the little
worser aerodynamic

wastel

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #11 on:** January 28, 2004, 01:10:47 PM »

The G6 does feel anemic compared to G2, and much much heavier.

Nashwan · « **Reply #12 on:** January 28, 2004, 01:19:33 PM »

Quote

Bf109G2/R6
(weight 3240kg (208kg are the gondolars))
speed on 0m, with 100%power (NO WEP)
512km/h
speed on 6,6km
636km/h
->with 100% power and gondolars!

now...put the gondolars away (-drag,-208kg)
=+around 20km/h

The Reichlin figures for the 109G1 with 100% power and no gondolas are

525 km/h at 0m
642 km/h at 6km
649 km/h at 7km

That gives about 12 - 13 km/h gain from removing gondolas

Quote

=640km/h (Still with 100% power only)
now add the takeoff&emergency power (5min max)
=650-655km/h for an G6

More like 632 km/h

Quote

now add the takeoff&emergency power (5min max)
=650-655km/h for an G6

Increasing allowable boost reduces critical altitude, and doesn't increase the speed by very much.

wastel1 · « **Reply #13 on:** January 28, 2004, 01:31:06 PM »

on the same chart, an G1/R6 reaches the same
speeds like the G2/R6.
G1 is just only 20kg (preasurized cockpit) heavier.

100-110% power added 105PS at rated alt for an static Db605A1

wastel

Batz · « **Reply #14 on:** January 28, 2004, 02:15:34 PM »

The AH G-6 by HTs chart:

635km/h (395mph) at 6.5km with wep (takeoff & emergency power)

620km/h (385mph) at 6.7km with military power (climb & combat power)

From the AH charts:

Normal loaded weight: 6940 lbs. (3148kg).

The AH G-6 has the larger wooden tail and the Erla Haube canopy.

It seems HT's numbers match up well with the 109G-6/R6 (except weight which seems to show minus gondolas).

I will leave it to you experts but I was under the impressions that Brown's test was with the gondolas on not removed.