The K4 and gun pods

[Wmaker]

Wmaker: Thanks for the clarification of the glass armor. I was mixing up my details for a moment. There was a very legitimate reason to remove the 30mm at the time. Of the 7500+ G-6s built, only 1500 or so received the Mk108, and those were predominantly in 1944. That leaves almost a year where the G-6 served that we couldn't use it (again, at the time) because the 30mm gun option totally unbalanced it. It was like subbing a 110G for a 110C. Checking the numbers, in the entire first year of production, a smaller percentage received Mk108s than did 109Fs that were capable of carrying gondolas. In all of 1943, only 181 G6/U4 were delivered. Of those, the first 60 were developmental and still working out how to install them. It was only after the 60th that the weapons were installed on the production lines. Of those, the first batches were shipped without cannons and everything had to be worked out with testing, especially ground-firing tests. These were not combat craft. The number of G6/U4s in 1943 to see any actual combat is probably smaller than a statistical margin for error.

You, yourself, once said that the graphics on our 109G-6 are almost entirely an early model, save for the glass armor. I pulled up the quote. You said if that armor were changed it would totally be an early model. You said that was only put in at player request after seeing screenshots of the metal armor. That suggests the intent was for an early model, since it originally had the metal armor. Further: considering that most G-6s that did receive a Mk108 did so in 1944, it makes more sense that these G6/U4 would have 1944-specific performance, such as MW50 (which became common place in Summer 1944). That would be more fitting of a G-14 designation. There are probably a few other performance enhancements through 1944 (higher takeoff settings, less restrictions on power ratings for the engine, etc). Looking at HTC's speed chart it definitely looks like we have an early variant, as it's much slower than a normal (read: "later") g-6 ought to be. At 1.42ata and 2800rpm a clean G-6 should easily break 400mph. Ours is at least 10mph too slow to represent a 1944 G-6.

NOW, we currently have a CM command tool that will allow disabling of certain loadouts in the SEA events. In theory, you could add the 30mm. However, overall isn't it far more desirable to have a period-specific model with period-specific (and representative?) armaments? Such as the Spit Mk.Vb? And then, when you need a later-era armament option, you can simply choose another airframe specific to that? Such as the 1942-era Spit Mk.IX? Instead of adding the Mk.IXs weapons loadouts to the Vbs airframe? I feel that our G-6 doesn't need a Mk108 option, and IMO based on HTCs efforts and intent it is clear they wanted a time-specific variant which didn't have one.

The answer is: yes, it is more desirable to have specific time-frames in mind when modeling any particular plane variant. It is less desirable to have weapons spanning multiple time-frames on a fixed-time plane variant.


P.S. I may be wrong, but I seem to recall Pyro or somebody saying the tail wheel on our G-6 is purely a graphics issue, and the flight model is still built upon a fixed tail wheel.

None of this matters currently, none. Yes, I indeed requested for the glass armor when 109 models were redone. And if the steel armor would be there it would be an accurate initial production example (save for the currently retractable tail wheel which no G-6s had). I haven't seen Pyro say anything about the tail wheel nor am I assuming that it has any effect to the flight model. That wasn't the point. The point was that if you are going to start picking apart minute visual details that have no effect to the performance of the plane in the sim, I'd say the tail wheel is far bigger visual detail than the D/F-loop. Also at least currently (with the advent of a CM-tool for removing load outs) there's absolutely no reason for the G-6 to be an early model graphically to begin with. Adding D/F-loop, MK108-loadout and correcting the tail wheel would be a totally sensible thing to do as the performance of the plane didn't really change until the use of ADI.

There is nothing sensible about banning historical, used load outs from one plane and then keep much more rare loadouts for others.

Also, again I have to ask what is your source on the 181 figure of 109G-6/U4s produced during 1943? It is rather annoying that you won't post your sources when you claim something. Not that it matters anyway, we have a load out in the Il-2 that only 96 examples had while thousands upon thousands of Il-2's were built. Same thing about 3x20mm La-7 and P-51D carrying rockets.

Also, I already said, that whole production run was most likely without MW-50. There's no fairing for the MW-50 tank to be seen in the back of the cockpit. You keep saying/implying that MK108 equipped planes had MW-50. There's more proof to support the fact that most didn't have MW-50 as they left the production line. I'm sure many got the tank later. All in all, that's not any kind of argument to keep the MK108 from the G-6 in AH.

As for the speed of the G-6. I'd say the whole speed range could be looked again, just for accuracy's sake and due to the fact that new data is available. Probably won't happen any time soon though. As for the point about later and early. It already runs at 1.42 ata, so what later "performance enhancements" are you then talking about??? Next thing was adding ADI which G-14 has. G-6s first arrived into the units in feb '43 (nothing to with 1942 as you mentioned before, source: Prien/Rodeike) and the 1.42 ata power setting (which AHs G-6 has) was cleared 8th of June '43 (source: Radinger/Otto). So I guess it could be said that it already has a later "performance enhancement" as you put it.

For the record, I'm not too hopeful that the MK108 gets added nor does it affect me a lot either, it's just a matter of logic and consistency.

What is your source for the above???

For example, regarding the availability of the MK108, authors (Japo's 109K book) T. Poruba and A. Janda have come to exactly opposite conclusion.

So Krusty again, what is your source that MK108s were plentiful?? Where did you see that mention you talk about?

Since you failed to reply to the quote above I'll just assume that you just pulled your arguments up from thin air...once again, and that you are unable to back them up.

[Wmaker]

Krusty has a point about scenario driven loadout, great post btw krusty.

I don't see how since currently CMs can choose their load outs.

Also, in many events I've been in over the years, the selection of loads worked just fine via "gentleman agreement". Many many times the bomb loads for both Jabos and Bombers were restricted via the MOTD/briefing and CMs just telling so. I don't recall any violations. At least back of the day, the people who went to events didn't really have any motivation to cheat. Also many times the fuel load was regulated. You still can't control that in anyway. It all lies in people being honest. All that "point" has ever really been is an excuse more than anything else in this discussion regarding the G-6s MK108 load out.

[Wmaker]

Actually ~1700 G-6/U4 + ~700 G-14/U4 and ~400 G-10/U4

Yes, hundreds. Over fourteen hundred in one prodution batch. I'm sure some were later fitted with the MW-50 tank tough.

[Butcher]

I don't see how since currently CMs can choose their load outs.

Also, in many events I've been in over the years, the selection of loads worked just fine via "gentleman agreement". Many many times the bomb loads for both Jabos and Bombers were restricted via the MOTD/briefing and CMs just telling so. I don't recall any violations. At least back of the day, the people who went to events didn't really have any motivation to cheat. Also many times the fuel load was regulated. You still can't control that in anyway. It all lies in people being honest. All that "point" has ever really been is an excuse more than anything else in this discussion regarding the G-6s MK108 load out.

Gentleman agreement, I remember enough times people foolishly ignored ALT caps or tried any advantage they could to win. True some agree, some did not. Until the wind was turned on hard to force planes below an alt limit, people were routinely breaking it, including bombers which were suppose to fly at a certain alt and were well above it.

Don't pretend everyone is honest, My squad was when there was an alt cap once in a scenario and we were NOT informed and flew at 30k when we were suppose to be at 24k (max). It was explained via orders to everyone except our squad. When we were confronted we explained no orders were given.
Its the only time I do recall an entire squad admitted they actually broke the rules I am not bashing the Aces community and saying everyone lies and cheats, but there is a reason the wind for example forces down at a certain ALT now.

With good reason, it cannot be the only time when people flew above the alt they were told and you can't tell me "i didnt see my alt limiter"

[Wmaker]

Don't pretend everyone is honest,

I don't "pretend" anything. The only one I can control is myself. The whole point has been moot for a while now anyway so don't really feel like arguing about it with you. The load out's can be restricted, a moot point as far as events go. So it is not but a moot point. Seems to be amazingly hard to grasp. As far as people being dishonest -part goes...ah well...

As said, one can still cheat if CM puts in fuel limitations for example. There's still no way to monitor that.

[GScholz]

Krusty is right that by the summer of 1944 the MK 108 was in good supply, but that means little because we are not talking about the summer of 1944. By December 1944 Rheinmetall's facilities in Poland had been overrun by the Soviets. By the end of January 1945 their facilities in Guben fell to the Soviet advance. In the west the Allies captured even more Rheinmetall facilities west of Düsseldorf and near the border with Holland. However, even more damaging to Germany's war effort was the fact that at this time just transporting the guns to the aircraft production sites was a near-impossible task, with German rail and transportation network in ruins, fuel in short suppy, and Allied fighter-bombers interdicting everything that moved.

[Karnak]

Since the advent of the ability to limit loadout options there is no reason for the 30mm MK108 option not to be available for the Bf109G-6.  I say this as somebody who had supported its removal.

[bustr]

These 109 version arguments are often more confusing than the 190 version arguments. It appears to me that the 190's are missing possibly two versions while the 109 arguments seem to be variants along with evolution inside of each version. Along with the normal personal gravitation towards wanting the most uber version of each version possible. At some point HTC cannot afford to make every single variation of anyone's rides. This seems apparent in some of the load out options regardless of the designator title given to the ride.

How close is the current G14 with 30mm and gondolas to the first or second generation of G6/U4 for AH purposes above 18k in the SEA?

Have the half dozen of you 109 aficionados considered trying to get a "crowd funding" grant to pay HTC the actual cost to have all of your 109 variant's, 3 legged puppies, and other chimera produced? It's not like Hitech and Pyro are unschooled in the vagaries of the 109 family. I suspect they instead have a business to run.

[Tank-Ace]

Just stick the 30mm back on the G-6, remove the gear covers of a K4 and give it a 20mm, and lets just be done with it!

[LCADolby]

This is one of those times I'm going to have to type phonetically in my own local dialect.

Bustr, you don't arf write some crap.

[titanic3]

This is one of those times I'm going to have to type phonetically in my own local dialect.

Bustr, you don't arf write some crap.

Lol

[Krusty]

Wmaker, it all does matter. Yes, it does. There are similarities but there are key differences as well. Those differences, along with the performance difference, also dictate that our G-6 is an early G-6. This works fine for scenarios and planesets as well. 1.42ata wasn't cleared until around December 1943 (or was it October?). Further, regardless of what our cockpit says for our G-6, it's over 10mph too slow to be using 1.42ata. It should hit about 406mph clean at FTH. I'm not implying that all of them had MW50, but that such improvements were much more common in 1944, and absent in 1943. Having a better performing variant for 1944 makes more sense. If you asked any bf109 afficianado what the most representative performance for a 1944 Bf109G is, they'd say one that ran at 1.42ata, had MW50, and could carry a Mk108 hub gun.

Guess what?

That's what our G-14 does.

Ask the same person about an early G-6 from 1943 (my previous 1942 must be a typo) and they'd say it would be slower, have only 20mm, and would have a few different external features.

Just like our in-game G-6.

The production numbers were very nicely compiled by Wotan in a post you dismiss when talking about the removal of the Mk108. You suggest back-handedly that he alone was responsible for its removal, when in fact all he did was illustrate a very well typed list of facts explaining how few of these Mk108s were in existence. I didn't feel the need to quote citations (an excuse you hide behind, to throw in peoples' faces) because you were well aware of the details and had read the nicely-typed-up facts from Wotan himself. I'm sure he has posted the info in several places. Doing a search this is the first one that came up:

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,309008.msg3996405.html#msg3996405

He cites Hopp and Prien. I only type that so you can't pretend to throw it back in my face. Because you assume too much. You know the old saying about when you assume? You make an bellybutton out of yourself and... Me? Well, I just laugh at you for it.

As for your totally biased and loaded words, "banned loadouts" etc... that's hogwash. It WASN'T common, and it WASN'T used, at least not on our G-6. That's the point. You're trying to blur the lines and down-playing the differences just to make an argument for a weapon you want. As for other planes in this game with rare loadouts, you also ASSUME (again) that I'm trying to argue for them somehow. I'm not. You bring that into the equation for no reason. You are quite aware of HTCs slow timeline for adding or removing or changing anything with their planes. You know first-hand as well as I do that you will never get a sweeping change, and that it must come piece by piece. This is one of those pieces. It's a step towards better modelling for individual variants. You can't bring up the 3-gun La7 as a justified excuse to add a Mk108 on the G-6 we currently have.

2 wrongs don't make a right.

[Wmaker]

1.42ata wasn't cleared until around December 1943 (or was it October?).

I already gave you date with a source where it is from in my post, 8th of June '43. You obviously just decided to ignore it and throw another date in without any source.

Further, regardless of what our cockpit says for our G-6, it's over 10mph too slow to be using 1.42ata. It should hit about 406mph clean at FTH.

There's absolutely no single simple answer on the speed, none. There are different data sets showing different results even when they were ran at similar power settings. G-6 in AH does 337mph (542kph) on the deck. I haven't seen those kind of speeds with 1.3 ata anywhere. AH is very fast on the deck when comparing to the most of the data sets published, and very slow at best altitude.

I'm not implying that all of them had MW50,

Well that is exactly what you implied right here:

Our previous 109G-6 was set up more as a later-war mixup, with a 30mm option but without the later-war engine power. So it was a bit of a Frankenstein. It also wasn't very useful in scenarios and setups and planesets that needed the early variant of a G-6. The 30mm threw it all out of balance.

Considering that AH G-6 is already running at 1.42 ata, the only "late-war engine more" (as you put it) improvement would be with MW-50 (and larger supercharger on the /AS models but those aren't under discussion here). So that is baiscally the only improvement in out put you could be talking about to begin with.

Guess what?

That's what our G-14 does.

Ask the same person about an early G-6 from 1943 (my previous 1942 must be a typo) and they'd say it would be slower, have only 20mm, and would have a few different external features.

Just like our in-game G-6.

Blah blah blah. Is this just your illogical babbling or have you ran a poll?

You suggest back-handedly that he alone was responsible for its removal,

Oh please.

Quote me on it, quote me on how I "back-handedly" suggested something. I simply mentioned that Wotan had suggested on MK108's removal and Pyro most likely took it away based on his opinion since Wotan was the only one to suggest the cannon's removal. I wasn't attacking Wotan in anyway, I was simply mentioned it as the most likely cause.

when in fact all he did was illustrate a very well typed list of facts explaining how few of these Mk108s were in existence.

Yep, oh so few. Based on the production numbers I've seen on various sources the total G-6/U4 production was around 1650 aircraft.

I didn't feel the need to quote citations (an excuse you hide behind, to throw in peoples' faces) because you were well aware of the details and had read the nicely-typed-up facts from Wotan himself. I'm sure he has posted the info in several places. Doing a search this is the first one that came up:

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,309008.msg3996405.html#msg3996405

He cites Hopp and Prien. I only type that so you can't pretend to throw it back in my face. Because you assume too much. You know the old saying about when you assume? You make an bellybutton out of yourself and... Me? Well, I just laugh at you for it.

WTF?

In this kind of discussion when you quote numbers like that it's pretty clear that sources should be given. As said, the production numbers during 1943 hardly matter. The cannon can be removed by the CMs. You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

As for your totally biased and loaded words, "banned loadouts" etc... that's hogwash. It WASN'T common, and it WASN'T used, at least not on our G-6. That's the point. You're trying to blur the lines and down-playing the differences just to make an argument for a weapon you want.

Oh go cry a river.

I haven't flown G-6 a lot for years. When I flew it I practically always used the 20mm, same goes for the G-14. It is a matter of principle.

As for other planes in this game with rare loadouts, you also ASSUME (again) that I'm trying to argue for them somehow. I'm not. You bring that into the equation for no reason. You are quite aware of HTCs slow timeline for adding or removing or changing anything with their planes. You know first-hand as well as I do that you will never get a sweeping change, and that it must come piece by piece. This is one of those pieces. It's a step towards better modelling for individual variants. You can't bring up the 3-gun La7 as a justified excuse to add a Mk108 on the G-6 we currently have.

I don't assume anything. It is a matter of consistency. Pyro himself recently said that now that CMs can remove load outs that are not desirable for events, rarer loads can be included:

Originally I tried to keep things fairly tight on loadouts because that could have a big effect on special events.  The CM's couldn't restrict loadouts in events back then.  They can now so it's not as big of an issue.  I'm not sure what's meant by the axis being held to a tougher standard.

Won't get much more clearer than that.

[Denniss]

AFAIR the June 1943 clearance of 1.42 ata was only for those Bf 109 with modified/overhauled engines and I remember this clearance was temporarily withdrawn and cleared again in October.
406 mph is a bit too much for the G-6 especially if you consider the dropping production quality(especially in 44). Test showed about ~642 km/h as max speed without MW.

The only G-6 with MW-50 were the /U2 variants that got their GM-1 system changed to MW-50 and a small series of G-6/MW (basically a fore-runner of the G-14). The /U2 fed their MW with compressed air from bottles in the wings, the /MW may have already had the bleed-air system with compressed air taken from the supercharger.

[bustr]

This is one of those times I'm going to have to type phonetically in my own local dialect.

Bustr, you don't arf write some crap.

If you guys are confusing me but, Denniss is able speak with clarity. Then this is less about changing something in the game but, the bromance going on between you eruo gents and Krusty. Ewww...Krusty as a love object.

If you can get a price from Hitech of what it would cost to create your 109 dream stable in the game. Crowed funding grants have generated the funds for stupider things. So you might have a chance with a silver tunged solicitor selling your dream. But, then it's probably far cheaper to have a quarrel with Krustykins...