Author Topic: Bf-109G6/AS (Read 356 times)

Soviet · « **on:** May 30, 2002, 08:48:00 PM »

It would be nice to have an aircraft in between the G6 and G10 and I think the G6/AS would fit that spot well, it's not quite as fast as the G10 but not as slow and pigish as the G6.

Basicially it's just a 109G6 with a DB605ASM engine and MW-50. Plus it also has a few aerodynamic changes such as the redesigned breach coverings for the Mg-131 guns.

It's be pretty easy to do too. Just take the G10, reskin it and change the performance a bit and voila you have a G6ASM

butch2k · « **Reply #1 on:** May 31, 2002, 02:27:31 AM »

The G6/AS did not have DB605ASM, the MW50 and the DB605ASM were not yet available when those aircraft were produced. And according to my original production documents none were produced with it. The allegedy G6/AS with DB605ASM are in fact G14/AS using reconditionned G6/U2 airframe which already had the piping and tank for MW50 use.

Pongo · « **Reply #2 on:** May 31, 2002, 10:27:26 AM »

I have seen picures that are identified as g6/as.
They have the deeper radiator and different cowl scoops to justify the designation as apperently those mods are associated with the ASM engine. Where cowls modified but the plane equiped with the eariler engine? Or was the plane a G14 not a g6?
As far as I know prien and co tracked each airframe by werk no back to the factory docs......
They certainly maintian and identify many g6/as airframes in thier book and they are pretty specific as to why they are g6/as types...
hmmmm

Karnak · « **Reply #3 on:** May 31, 2002, 01:06:18 PM »

I thought that the Bf109G-6/UT was the G-6 with MW50?

butch2k · « **Reply #4 on:** May 31, 2002, 02:29:03 PM »

Unfortunately Prien's book is not without errors.
For example he attributes the G-6/U3 to the MW50 mod while it was a recce version, predecessor to the G-8.
The /U2 was both the GM1 and MW50 mod which were pretty similar and it was easy to convert one into the other. The first aircraft on which the MW50 system was installed was the G-6/MW50.
The G-6/AS were fitted with the DB605AS without MW50 boost, not the DB605ASM this too engine were not identical.

HoHun · « **Reply #5 on:** May 31, 2002, 03:06:28 PM »

Hi Butch,

>The /U2 was both the GM1 and MW50 mod which were pretty similar and it was easy to convert one into the other.

Are you sure about that? At least the storage tank had to be quite different for liquid nitrous oxide (which required a heavy, insulated pressure vessel) than for MW50 (which could be stored in a normal tank). As far as I know, GM-1 was also used long before MW50 was introduced in operational units.

>The first aircraft on which the MW50 system was installed was the G-6/MW50.

Do you have any information on when exactly MW50 was introduced? I can't seem to find anything about it.

>For example he attributes the G-6/U3 to the MW50 mod while it was a recce version, predecessor to the G-8.

Griehl mentions the G-6/R2 as MW50 Rüstsatz-equipped and the G-6/U3 as MW50 field conversion, with the G-8/U3 being an MW50-equipped recconnaissance fighter.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Don · « **Reply #6 on:** May 31, 2002, 03:37:57 PM »

>>it's not quite as fast as the G10 but not as slow and pigish as the G6. <<

IMO the G6 in AH has become porked. The speed is okay in level flight but, in a dive it is awful; wasn't always this way. I took one up the other night and around 350 kias in a dive the controls became very heavy, and even as I leveled out at 400 kias I was unable to manuever well at all. By manuever, I don't mean hairpin turning and other forms of TnB, I mean simply, a simple merge turn and dropping of the nose...didn't happen.
The G6 didnt have a pressurized cockpit and therefore lacked the heavier framing which reduced manuverability, so the G6 shouldn't be the dog it is in AH. If it compresses in a dive at certain speeds, it shouldn't retain the mushiness over control surfaces in the 350 to 400 kias range that occurs now.
I should also be able to zero G dive away from the likes of Spits etc but, this doesn't happen at all anymore.
There is something wrong with the plane.

Don · « **Reply #7 on:** May 31, 2002, 04:02:07 PM »

>>Do you have any information on when exactly MW50 was introduced? I can't seem to find anything about it. <<

Following is what I have found:

"..or, from early 1944, the DB605A engine, and had a 25.3imp gal. (115 litre) insulated tank for nitrous oxide or a methanol/water mixture so that either the GM or MW50 power boost systems could be used.

The Bf 109G-10: "was the result of a major effort to standardise a single model that could then be built in very large numbers. Introduced in the spring of 1944, the BF 109G was basically the Bf109G-6 with the revised powerplant of one DB 605D engine with the MW50 methanol/water power boost system for ratings of 1,850 hp" etc.

It looks as if it was spring of 1944 and the MW was not in the 109 G6 but in the G-10.

illo · « **Reply #8 on:** May 31, 2002, 06:51:02 PM »

Bf109g-6/AS

HoHun · « **Reply #9 on:** June 01, 2002, 05:35:53 AM »

Hi Don,

>"..or, from early 1944, the DB605A engine, and had a 25.3imp gal. (115 litre) insulated tank for nitrous oxide or a methanol/water mixture so that either the GM or MW50 power boost systems could be used.

Thanks! But I'm afraid this is slightly inaccurate: The insulated GM-1 pressure vessel only held 85 L and was quite different from the 115 L MW50 tank. Additionally, GM-1 had been in use from the Emil on, with low-temperature liquid (opposed to pressurized) storage as used in the Gustav introduced with the Friedrich. MW50 apparently was an option introduced with the G-6 (but seemingly not for the contemporary G-5 high-altitude fighter).

>It looks as if it was spring of 1944 and the MW was not in the 109 G6 but in the G-10.

The G-10 was only introduced in late summer 1944 (according to Manfred Griehl). The G-14 (many of them re-engined G-6s) which also could be equipped with MW50 actually predated it, being introduced in June 1944.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

MiloMorai · « **Reply #10 on:** June 01, 2002, 08:25:54 AM »

HoHun,

by late summer do you mean August? I have seen Oct '44 as the start of G-10 production.

Do you have a date for the first lose of a G-10? Other Me109 versions seem to have lost an a/c within one month of service introduction. The G-10 should be simular, yes?

HoHun · « **Reply #11 on:** June 01, 2002, 08:53:41 AM »

Hi Milo,

>by late summer do you mean August? I have seen Oct '44 as the start of G-10 production.

I was cautious to quote Griehl verbatim, so that's all the detail I have :-) It could mean September, which would be close enough to the October 1944 (which I've seen mentioned, too) to appear plausible.

>Do you have a date for the first lose of a G-10? Other Me109 versions seem to have lost an a/c within one month of service introduction. The G-10 should be simular, yes?

I'd think so, though of course the smaller the number of the aircraft produced, the less reliable this indicator becomes. Griehl doesn't provide a loss date, though it would be interesting to know.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)