Author Topic: Our 109 G6 (Read 660 times)

Scrap · « **on:** April 30, 2006, 10:00:06 PM »

What version is it?

AS

R2/AS

U2/AS

U4/AS

Bruno · « **Reply #1 on:** April 30, 2006, 10:24:50 PM »

AH2 109G-6 is a standard G-6 late.

109G-6/AS is a DB605A plus larger super charger of the DB603. It had a different cowling then the standard G-6.

R = Rüstsatz

109G-6/R2/AS is a Recce G-6/AS

U = Umbausatz

109G-6/U2/AS is a G-6/AS plus MW-50.

109G-6/U4/AS is a G-6/AS plus Mk108 3cm nose cannon.

Krusty · « **Reply #2 on:** May 01, 2006, 01:37:24 AM »

Actually we have a early one, because of the canopy. I don't know what engine changes there were early on in the G-6 (the G-6 and later models were very confusing for me)

Bruno · « **Reply #3 on:** May 01, 2006, 11:03:00 AM »

Quote

Actually we have a early one, because of the canopy. I don't know what engine changes there were early on in the G-6 (the G-6 and later models were very confusing for me)

That's correct they re-did the G-6 along with the other 109s. It's a 109G-6 with armored glass, instead of the armored plate head rest, and framed canopy.

All the G-6s had the same engine DB605A, same as the 109G-2.

gripen · « **Reply #4 on:** May 01, 2006, 04:20:47 PM »

The AH G-2, G-6 and G-14 seem to have been modeled with same output and altitude performance at military power. But AFAIK most of G-14s with the MW-50 were AS versions so that could be a better option than the DB 605AM version.

gripen

Bruno · « **Reply #5 on:** May 01, 2006, 04:40:32 PM »

Quote

But AFAIK most of G-14s with the MW-50 were AS versions so that could be a better option than the DB 605AM version.

I argued for the G-14/AS as well. Since HTC decided to get rid of the old G-10 (actually just renamed it as the K-4). A G-14/AS would not have been quite as fast at lower altitudes as the current AH G-14 but it would have had a higher FTH and faster speed up high. As such it would have been usefull in scenarios, events and CT. The current AH G-14 is bets suited for the main arena where altitudes are genrally low.

The K-4 didn't see service until Oct. '44, the G-14 and G-14/AS in June / July '44.

Panzzer · « **Reply #6 on:** May 01, 2006, 04:51:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by gripen
The AH G-2, G-6 and G-14 seem to have been modeled with same output and altitude performance at military power. But AFAIK most of G-14s with the MW-50 were AS versions so that could be a better option than the DB 605AM version.

gripen

So you do play AH? Sorry, I've never seen you in-game, yet you seem to know how the 109's behave in here... Sorry, I was just wondering.

It doesn't matter whether you play or not, it's nice (hm, informative might be a better term) to read your posts anyway here in the Ac&V forum.

Angus · « **Reply #7 on:** May 01, 2006, 06:40:45 PM »

I have that problem too.
Everybody thinks I don't fly AH and absolutely not the 109....

Wonder what Gripen's handle is.....???

gripen · « **Reply #8 on:** May 01, 2006, 11:23:24 PM »

Well, there is no need to have a handle to observe the performance of the AH 109s because the graphs can be found from the AH main page.

When I used to play AH, I used the F-4 and the G-2 most of the time as those are (were?) easy and well behaving planes for a beginner like me (and for the FAF skin of the G-2). There was no G-14 back then.

gripen

gatt · « **Reply #9 on:** May 02, 2006, 02:11:12 AM »

What still puzzles me is that our G-14 has a very good climb performance up to 5.000mt togheter with a very poor horizontal acceleration ....

IMO, obviously.