109 G6 missing something?

[Holtzauge]

Don't want to attempt a Hijack or anything like that folks, but I remember Kev 367th (What ever happened to him btw?) posting about the super rare Seafire that we have in the game, apparently the model and engine type we have account for around 200 of total built
So there's another point that should be brought up someday.
As a footnote, I bet Kurfurst would know how many 30mm G6's were built and ordered, here's his website, bet it's in here somewhere.
http://www.kurfurst.org/

I would like to inform those of you who read “Kurvewendigkeit der Me-typen II Telberich” at www.kurfurst.org that this document is the result of research work on my part and that Kurfurst has manipulated my images with his own watermark and posted these in a secured pdf file at his site without my consent.

I have asked Kurfurst a number of times through private channels to remove my research work from his site but he refuses to do so. I intend to contact the moderators of this forum to ask them to remove links to his site but in the mean time I would like to warn others that material shared with him on a personal basis may against your wishes be stamped with his watermark and end up on his site without your consent.

Holtzauge

[pervert]

I would like to inform those of you who read “Kurvewendigkeit der Me-typen II Telberich” at www.kurfurst.org that this document is the result of research work on my part and that Kurfurst has manipulated my images with his own watermark and posted these in a secured pdf file at his site without my consent.

I have asked Kurfurst a number of times through private channels to remove my research work from his site but he refuses to do so. I intend to contact the moderators of this forum to ask them to remove links to his site but in the mean time I would like to warn others that material shared with him on a personal basis may against your wishes be stamped with his watermark and end up on his site without your consent.

Holtzauge

That sucks that hes claiming your work as his own sadly the internet is rife with this type of thing and stamping his watermark on it is just plain rude.
Hope you get it sorted.

[Anaxogoras]

Read the discussion page for the 109 at wikipedia.  Kurfurst gets into arguments with other users because he tries to edit the article by citing his own website.

Wing armament and records

The reason for the deletion of these entries:

    which, contrary to popular belief, did not induce any greater drag or weight penalty than a wing-housed armament,...

Is that no evidence has been shown to back this information up. Adding new information "contrary to popular belief" without citing a source comes under Wikipedia:No original research. It may well be that there was no added weight imposed, that has not been proven by any cited source. That the addition of the cannon gondolas "accentuated the fighter's tendency to swing pendulum fashion" and reduced manoeuvrability indicates that there was an aerodynamic penalty.

    In a serial production Bf 109G-1/R2 with GM-1 injection, R. Klein had achieved 680 km/h at 12,000 m and a ceiling of 13,800 m. Hermann Graf with another serial Bf 109G achieved 14,300 meter altitude.

Again this in new, un-sourced information which comes under Wikipedia:No original research. The other records described have cited sources, and there should be no reason for this additional material to be added as fact without some confirmation.Minorhistorian (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

        Re: wing armament: Again, it has not been claimed it did not add weight or drag. It did. The claim is that it did not give any greater weight or drag. I think I have noted that once already. You should read the sentence. Kurfürst (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

        Re: altitude achievements: This one comes from one of the Schiffer volumes IIRC. I will try to find the exact source, and make you happy. Kurfürst (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

    There's no practical way for an added weapon pod housed in the wing to NOT have extra drag. Just sayin'... Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

        It has. It just do not have any more than wing installations. Kurfürst (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

            From the adverse effects the weapons pods had on the flight qualities of the Bf 109 there might not have been added drag, but there must have been some interesting changes to the airflow.
            Also, the records section, from my read, deals with records set and recognised as records by the FAI, so any unofficial records, set while testing aircraft, for example, don't really belong here. One another thing; a lot of material in this article is based on information from:

    self-published sources whose reliability has not been established (spitfireperformance.com and aboutwarfare.com)websites: if contributors to these articles can find reliable, secondary sources...

            As I have explained elsewhere, I have deleted citations based on Spitfire Performance and have replaced it with reliable, secondary sources. Material from aboutwarefare.com is also considered as unacceptable on Wikipedia and should also, in all fairness, be removed. And would you Kurfürst please NOT interleave your comments with other people's? You've been asked to stop several times.Minorhistorian (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

For the third time, I've taken Kurfürst's additions and pulled them from out of the inside of other editor's talk page entries. This is getting very tiresome! One last time, Kurfürst, I am asking you to place every single portion of your response below the signature of the editor whose talk entry you are replying to. Further violations of established Talk page flow will be considered purposeful disruption and will be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

            Kurfürst you are still using material which is self-published sources and, as you well know is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Minorhistorian (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[Shuffler]

The G-6 model, the most produced Bf 109 version, had heavier armament. The G-6/U4 variant with Rüstsatz R6 was armed with two 13 mm MG 131 above the engine, a 30 mm MK 108 cannon shooting through the propeller hub and one 20 mm MG 151/20 in a 'pod' under each wing. The G-6 was very often fitted with assembly sets, used to carry bombs or a drop tank, for use as nightfighter, or to increase fire power by adding rockets or extra guns. During 1943, a number of improvements were gradually introduced for the type's benefit : armoured glass head-rest ('Galland Panzer') (early 1943), and the introduction of the clear-view 'Erla Haube' canopy (autumn 1943) improved visibility -especially to the rear, and a taller tail unit improved stability at high speeds. The introduction of the WGr. 21cm under-wing mortar/rockets and the 30 mm MK 108 cannon increased firepower. Certain production batches of the Gustav were fitted with aileron Flettner tabs to decrease stick forces at high speeds. Advanced radio/navigational equipment was also introduced. The MK 108 (German: Maschinenkanone - Machine Cannon) was an autocannon (30mm calibre) manufactured in Germany during World War II by Rheinmetall-Borsig for use in aircraft. ... The MK 108 (German: Maschinenkanone - Machine Cannon) was an autocannon (30mm calibre) manufactured in Germany during World War II by Rheinmetall-Borsig for use in aircraft. ...



My question is: Why dont we have the option of having a 30mm for it?
And how hard would it be to put one in?

Many times the 30 was removed or left out all together as the bird had a boiling problem when on the ground.

[1pLUs44]

Ty, I just read those posts.
So we use to have the 30mm option.
why dont we still have it?
and yes we need the 109s to be updated BAD.

Look fine and updated to me. 

[Anaxogoras]

Look fine and updated to me. 

The 109K-4 has a 3d model error: the right cowl gun does not look the same as the left.

[Krusty]

What about early, mid, and late 1943 setups in the FSO, AVA, SEO, and snapshots where you need to pit a 109G-6 against early bombers. The 30mm (not representative of this time) prohibited using the G-6 most of the time and usually G-2s were wrongfully substituted in a number of setups, simply because it didn't have the 30mm option.

The 30mm was left off because it kicked the entire plane into a later time frame, creating a large hole in the planeset with nothing between the 1942 109G-2 and the 1944 109G-6. NOW, with a 20mm-only, 1943-version we have a more representative planeset. If we need to use the 30mm we can use the G-14, which is more representative of a later G-6 anyways (MW50, but not an /AS).

It's a good thing our G-6 has no 30mm. Also, since the 20mm has *finally* been bumped to include 200 rounds it is more than capable of holding its own. I've repeatedly taken down an entire formation of B-17s by myself using only the 1x20mm (200 round) option. The 20mm/30mm weaponry doesn't change the overall effectiveness of the fighting craft itself, because you can get tons more killshots with the 20mm due to its ballistics and firing qualities, instead of fighting for a single crossing snapshot with 30mm.

[save]

Add to this  - the 109 series could use flaps from 700 km/h !

I have posted the chart elsewhere in another thread.

[Nilsen]

My favorite plane is the G14 with the 30mm. (cant stand the K4). A G6 with 30mm and perhaps some other loadout options in both the G6 and G14 to be able to use them as more effective jabo and bomber hunters would be very welcomed. Actually that would be the case for more of the planes that had a variety of loadout options. It brings new life to the planes we have and there is nothing wrong with that

That beeing said, I still think we really need to update the graphics and some loadout options on the Ju88 AFTER we get the He-111

[Anaxogoras]

My favorite plane is the G14 with the 30mm. (cant stand the K4).

What does the G-14 have over the K-4 except a marginally better turn rate/radius?  If I'm flying a G-14 (20mm) one of the worst aircraft to run into is a K-4.

[Lusche]

What does the G-14 have over the K-4 except a marginally better turn rate/radius?  If I'm flying a G-14 (20mm) one of the worst aircraft to run into is a K-4.

A tad better turn rate, a tad better turn radius, a tad better climb rate up to 10k. Which makes the G-14 a slightly better "pure" dogfighter in my opinion.

[Nilsen]

Nothing. On paper the K4 is better.

The G14 just "feels" better to me and fighting K4's are usually no problem. The G14 doesnt get as fast either so it doesnt get into the zone where the controls gets heavy as fast as the K4.

Everyone tells me the K4 is better and ask me the same question every time i mention that i prefer the G14 with tater and the best answer i have is "because i say so"

[Anaxogoras]

a tad better climb rate from 4-7k ft, <100ft/min.

Fixed.

The G14 doesnt get as fast either so it doesnt get into the zone where the controls gets heavy as fast as the K4.

Back off the throttle?

[moot]

Nilsen drives a prius.

[wrag]

Nilsen drives a prius.

OH!!!!!  Such an INSULT!

Get em Nilsen!