109.............too damn awsome

[GRUNHERZ]

Buzzbait is inccorect in what he says.

The G6 had no wheel or landing gear changes.

[raven 8]

hmmmmmm.......who do i believe

[GRUNHERZ]

Me because Im right and buzzbait is wrong.  

[raven 8]

ill take ur word for it:-)

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: raven 8 ]

[Buzzbait]

S!

Take a look at closeup shots of the G6 and you will see circular bumps in the upper side of the wings where the larger wheels fold up into them.

Look at the G2 and you will not see the same thing.

[BlauK]

Grunherz,

Buzz is quite correct about those wheels and bumps on wings. G-2 did not originally have them. They were introduced to G-4, 650x150mm wheel was replaced with 660x160mm wheels. Also the angle of the wheel became more vertical (in outside positon) while wheel leg remained in same angle. Thus the wheel needed the small bump for the wing to hit inside.

G-6 had this wheel from the beginning and many repaired G-2:s also later got such wings and wheels.

The main differences between G-2 and G-6 are in fuselage mgs (bumps in fuselage), from summer 1943 also option for 30mm cannon, type of radio and later in the canopy. G-6 got a Galland armour behind pilots head and then later an Erla canopy. Some G-6:s also had a higher tail wheel.... another wheel difference.

So G-6 was/is heavier and less aerodynamic but better armed, like Buzz mentioned  

Lentolaivue 34 had only 109G-2:s and 109G-6:s so they are the ones I have studied quite a bit.

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: BlauK ]

[GRUNHERZ]

True Buzzbait, G2 had none G6 had them, but ur still wrong.

Im serious, do some more research and ull find out what im talking about.  

[GRUNHERZ]

Yep G4 was what I was hinting at, he said it only happend first to G6.  

[BlauK]

True Grunherz.... Buzz skipped G-4. This statement below is not correct.

At the same time they replaced the undercarriage, they also replaced the 7.92mm Mg's with 13mm versions.

But it was mainly just the choise of words in his text. The issue after all was about differences between G-2 and G-6  

[Buzzbait]

S!

I realize the G4 was the first model with the wheels.  It also was production-wise, an irrelevant model.  Very few were produced.

The issue I was raising was how the better performing G2 was replaced by the poorer G6.  I was making the point that sometimes logistical and maintenance issues take precedence over performance.  Many aircraft designs which performed incredibly well in the test stages didn`t go into production because they were impossible, or too expensive to maintain in the field.

[Buzzbait]

S!

And Grunherz was obviously wrong in his first statement:

»»»»»»»»»»--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Buzzbait is inccorect in what he says.
The G6 had no wheel or landing gear changes."

--------------------

[GRUNHERZ]

You are wrong again Buzzbait, the G4 was by no means means insignificant.

Total G4 production was about 1242

Total G2 production was about 1586

 

And I was right the first time, there were no wheel changes on the G6 compared to the previous model the G4.  

[Buzzbait]

S!

At no point in my first post did I mention the G4.  I was comparing the G2 and G6.

You obviously have a problem with admitting when you are wrong.

[GRUNHERZ]

Buzzbait you clearly said the wheel changes and Mg17 to Mg131 changes took place at the same time and that that the end result was the 109G6.

This is completly incorrect. You fully missed the 109G4 in which the wheel changes actually took place.


There is no way around it you were wrong in your post, mebbe you have issues admitting that.

[Buzzbait]

S!

Please find where I said the change to the wheels didn`t happen in the G4.  In fact, find where I mentioned the G4 at all:

»»»»»»

"The undercarriage on the F model 109 and G2 was essentially the same as the one on the 109E, and while it was sufficient for the weight increase of the F, the extra poundage of the DB605 in the G2 increased the stress on it to the point that collapses during landing were becoming very common, especially for aircraft which been in service for a few months. The Luftwaffe command staff asked for a redesign to fix the problem.

The Messerschmidt engineers found a way to replace the undercarriage. Unfortunately to do this, they had to create bumps in the wings to accomadate the larger and heavier struts and wheel components.

At the same time they replaced the undercarriage, they also replaced the 7.92mm Mg's with 13mm versions. This in turn nessesitated creating bumps in the engine cowling, and destroyed all the beautiful streamlining work which made the F model 109 the best looking mark of the breed.

All in all with the G6 they ended up with a considerably slower, heavier plane, with bigger guns, but generally inferior to the G2 in performance."

»»»»»»»

As I say: "...with the G6 they ENDED UP with a considerably slower, heavier plane..."

Get that:  ENDED UP.  

I never said there was no intervening models of 109G`s.  My comparison was between the G2 and G6.

On the other hand, as noted above, you insisted the G6 DIDN`T have wheel changes or bumps in the wings for the wheels.