109 G6 missing something?

[Wmaker]

So is the plan to set the 109 convergence to historical ranges but not for the rest of the aircraft in AH?

The convergence for the 109 hub cannon was fixed. The cannon was bolted into it's mount and the think was constructed so that it gave convergence of 400 meters which couldn't be changed. But to think that every other plane's convergence could be changed between 150-600 isn't quite true either. Very rarely pilots had much say on how the guns were harmonized. There were usually harmonized to certain table values by test firing. So just as much as 109's hub cannon should be fixed these table values should be used.

The fact that Stoney waved this "horrible possibility" of fixed hub cannon on my face like one would wave garlic at a vampire made me chuckle. It tells that he doesn't have much experience on using the cannon in AH. I've used it quite a lot over the years and haven't really noticed much difference no matter where I set the convergence. Nothing bad about it, I just found it funny. Of course I maybe wrong and he actually has used it, but has a different experience. Didn't bother to check any stats.

EDIT/Stoney replied as I was typing up the above./EDIT

[BiPoLaR]

The con. being set at 400 isn't the issue.
The issue is that the 109 G6 doesn't have it 30mm cannon. (Which it should)

[scot12b]

The con. being set at 400 isn't the issue.
The issue is that the 109 G6 doesn't have it 30mm cannon. (Which it should)

WORD!

[Squire]

I didnt say in my post the retracting tail wheel was the "only" reason. I also didnt say I was opposed to adding it. 

...and for all the posts I have seen so far, not one giving any further info on it, I was the one that identified what varient it was, and what units flew it, and at what @ time period.

Where is the info on what other equipment the 109G-6/U4 had or didnt have? canopy type? wooden or metal tail type? other equippment, ect? go ahead and use all those "superior sources" and flesh out your case. Your the ones so decided it should be included, so make your case.

[BiPoLaR]

here bud.
go here read then come back and post your thoughts

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Messerschmitt-Bf-109#Bf_109G_.22Gustav.22


Read the whole thing on 109s

[Squire]

Ok, gives some good basic info.

I would say the thing that needs to be really nailed down is this: The 109G-6 we have in Aces High has a standard canopy, and a metal tail, and a standard engine for the 109G-6. Is that a proper "fit" for the 109G-6/U4? if it is, then I would say that goes a long way to making the case.

It would also be helpfull to flesh out some #s produced if at all possible, and other details, pics ect.

...By the way the 109 is not the only a/c to have changes made to its armament after a revision; the Spitfire IX used to have .50 cals as wing gun options, which were removed because the Spitfire IX we have is a 1942 model Spit IX with a Merlin 61, and the E wing with 50s were in use in 1944 on later models. Just illustrating how that can happen. It is a seperate issue, of course.

[Wmaker]

Where is the info on what other equipment the 109G-6/U4 had or didnt have? canopy type? wooden or metal tail type? other equippment, ect? go ahead and use all those "superior sources" and flesh out your case. Your the ones so decided it should be included, so make your case.

...If you would have read the whole thread you would have noticed that I already posted this info earlier.

[Wmaker]

Just for Squire, I'll quote myself yet again...

AHs G-6 has features that suggest it being from early production (high antenna mast and the lack of D/F) and it also has glass armor in place of the steel armor which suggests that it's a mid production aircraft. Most of the later production aircraft had the Revi 16B gunsight while the early production aircraft had the gunsight that is on AH G-6 right now, the Revi C/12D. Although many G-6s that were produced as late as mid-44 still had the C/12D sight and the same canopy that is featured in AH (can be seen in many G-6s that went to Finland, for example). Glass armor was added as a number of players (me included) wished its inclusion as we saw the preview shots that featured the steel armor.

Copy-pasting D/F-loop antenna's 3d-model from G-14 to G-6 and clipping its radio mast a bit would essentially make it an accurate representation of a mid-production G-6. Of course one could argue that changing the Glass armor back to steel armor would then make it an accurate early-production plane, but I have to ask...what purpose exactly would that serve? Right now we have a nice selection of all the major mass-produced canopy-variations which adds nice variety. G-6 was the most produced variant of the BF 109. Why should it be only restricted to depict the earliest model possible? Saying that 30mm gets abused in events doesn't really fly as long as we have P-51s with 4 .50s and 3xB-20 La-7s for example. There should rather be efforts for adding tools for CMs to define the available loadouts in events than for removal of loadouts that actually saw a lot of use. Lets think about a re-run of The Ruhr-scenario for example without the MK-108 option. By late summer of '43 the cannons were available. Again, there were plenty of G-6s flying with 30mm cannons AND featuring the exact same canopy that AH's G-6 already has (Canopy is the only feature that changed in production that matters AH-wise.). So, as it really isn't in HTC's interest to add 5 different G-6 subvariants they chose the one we have now. Weather it has the shorter antenna mast/d/f-loop or not shouldn't really matter...hell, it doesn't have a pitot tube either and since last version it started having a retractable tail wheel!

I think the reason why the MK-108 was removed in the first place was because Wotan suggested it when pyro asked about the 109-load outs and pyro went ahead with it. I disagree with the decision for the above reasons. Since it is removed I doubt it will be re-introduced anytime soon unfortunately.

EDIT/Just to clarify, WNF /U4 production run (440000-441000) is one of these production batches which I refer as "mid-production". That means framed canopy, galland panzer, D/F-loop, normal metal tail./EDIT

[Wmaker]

WNF's 440000-441000 batch of U4s (1000 aircraft) was produced on latter half of 1943. There were also about 80 U4s in WNF's 20000-20800 batch. So there were at least around 1080 U4s produced. I'm sure there were more inside WNF's other production batches but these are the ones that are known with any certainty. AFAIK that is more than 5 times the number of La-7s produced with 3xB-20 cannon during the war.

[Squire]

It does seem that almost all the 109G-6/U4s were delivered on strength to the JGs between 2-44 and 7-44, according to the Bundesarchiv data. It would be helpfull to have a photo or something to indicate some of the equippment issues ala canopy, tail, ect, because that seems very close to being "late model" to me.   

In addition, are you asking for another version to be added? or just the 30mm option included in the current model of 109G-6? because that makes a difference. My understanding was you guys just wanted the option added.

...and for the record im not a fan of the LA-7s rare 3 cannons either, but thats another issue.

[BiPoLaR]

It does seem that almost all the 109G-6/U4s were delivered on strength to the JGs between 2-44 and 7-44, according to the Bundesarchiv data. It would be helpfull to have a photo or something to indicate some of the equippment issues ala canopy, tail, ect, because that seems very close to being "late model" to me.   

In addition, are you asking for another version to be added? or just the 30mm option included in the current model of 109G-6? because that makes a difference. My understanding was you guys just wanted the option added.

...and for the record im not a fan of the LA-7s rare 3 cannons either, but thats another issue.

Thats all i want is the 30mm

[FlyinFin]

G6 is not the only 1 missing something
109F-4 [using 20mm cal guns in engine mounted position and using a ReviC12/D reflector sight]
109F-4/Trop [desert equipped version]
109F-4/B [fighter bomber version]
109F-4/R1 [fitted with 2x 20mm MG151 cannon in underwing gondolas]
109F-4/R6 [fitted with ETC 250 fuselage rack for 66 gal drop tank 551 lb bomb or ER4 adapter for 4x110 LB bombs]
109F-4/Z [fitted nitrous oxide booster]

P-51D-1NA
P-51D-5NA
P-51D-10NA [dorsal fin was added during the P-51D-10NA and later versions at the factory. Many other P-51s received this mod in the field.]
P-51D-15NA
P-51D-20NA[The K-14 gun sight was introduced in October of 1944 to the -20NA and later blocks]
P-51D-25NA[The -25 blocks and later were fitted with attachment points for various forms of rockets and rocket launchers.]
P-51D-30NA

we have 1 51D that has it all?

[BiPoLaR]

But the G6 was Neutered

[Anaxogoras]

I'm still waiting for any 109 with GM-1.

[wrag]

The version in question is the Bf-109G-6/U4

It had a retractable tail wheel, and so would not work as just a gun package on the AH 109G-6.

As for #s used, it seems about 3 staffels had them in the Fall of 1944; 1/JG52, II/JG52, and III/JG52 having about one staffel each.

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bjagd.htm

As for adding it, well, im not sure what it adds to the game considering we already have the 109G-14. Thats not to say it could not be looked at, but appreciate that there are many varients of other a/c as well not in Aces High, and there is no way we will ever see them all. HTC makes decisions (it seems to me I dont work for them), on varients that fill gaps.

G14?  Now you did it! 

IMHO you can take the G14 and shov............... nevermind.......

The G14 we have SEEMS to have the performance of the GROUND ATTACK version.  It doesn't do well above 16K.  Many found that out during the DGS Scenario.

Try fighting a G6 above 16K with your G14! (choose someone reasonably competent in 109s to do this BTW)

AND although others have said they achieved 408 mph with our g14 at 16.5K (reported alt and  speed) I NEVER have!  ( OTD yes but NOT at alt)

IMHO It accelerates like a 59 VW beetle dragging a LARGE school bus that has four flat tires! (OK I'll say it..........as a 109 it's a POS IMHO)

Personally I prefer the 190f8 or the 110 for LW ground attack!

The 30mm for the G6 made sense to me.  Taking it away, to me, SEEMED like Allied slanting.

The 20mm gonds on the F4 made sense to me.  Taking it away, to me, SEEMED like Allied slanting.

Gotta let the pony drivers win cause they won WWII sorta thing?  Perhaps... me I'm of the opinion, from everything I've read, that the 109s were DEADLY in the hands of an experienced pilot and 1 v 1 MOST allied pilots would be in some REAL trouble meeting such.  The EDGE the allies had wasn't so much the P51 but more the NUMBERS fielded.  Germany had some of the finest tanks but the number of T34's and sherman's  just overwhelmed them.  And I think CT would be BETTER for all and more of a challenge and show just how truly difficult it really was for the allies with a better 109.

I WANT A G10 VARIANT!  SAME performance as or K4 but about 25 mph slower then our  K4 AT ALT but with an optional 20mm hub cannon and optional gonds!  (It would not be hard to add this aircraft! AND IMHO it would greatly IMPROVE CT!)

Something that is bothering me is the SEEMING slant towards UBBER allied rides and variants (example already given 3X20mm la7), but the 109's SEEM like they have been gradually NEUTERED?

IIRC 109s USED to have same down vator authority as up, and pretty sure that is historic.  The climbing left turn skid and roll around onto their enemies 6 o'clock 109s were SUPPOSED to be good at is GONE!  In fact IMHO many of those maneuvers that gave the 109 the term NIBBLE are NO MORE, now it SEEMS more like a slower P51? (which I find strange as the airfoil, size, weight, CG, etc. are considerably different?).

But that's just my opinion and don't mean much.