Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: simshell on January 27, 2004, 03:23:59 PM
-
i looked at the help file and it says
109G-6
Normal loaded weight:
6940 lbs
109G-2
Normal loaded weight:
6834 lbs.
how did the 109G-6 suffer so bad from only 100ibs more on the airframe does this cause a plane to suffer this bad
if so then why did the seafire not suffer from 300ibs extra
or did somebody not do the flight model right
-
"The differences between the G2 and G6 were small. It was the armament, just nothing else. The engine was the same. The G6 had better armament and the undercarriage was stronger and wheels wider, else the difference with G2 was small. The larger wheels resulted in bulges on the top of the wing.
- The G2 also had the wing bulges due to wheels. They extended half the wheel width from the wing surface. Did those bulges affect flying characteristics?
The bulges on the nose had a bigger effect on air resistance, they were quite large and no way beautiful. There were bulges in the wings of the previous models before the G6 was introduced. "
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
-
I must say that our G6 handles suspiciously like a G2 with gondies. The RAF test data on the G6 was that of an R6 version with gondies. The top speed of the G6 should certainly suffer due to the added drag of the new bumps and bulges, but not the low speed handling.
-
If the G6 handled like a G2 it would kick arse.
-
I posted this in another thread
Here's a question, does anyone know if HT bases the 109G6 specs from the 109G6R6 as tested by Brown. The 109G6R6 had gondolas and roughly matches the AH 109g6 specs.
The speeds of the AH 109G6 in clean configuration are similar to the speeds of the 109G6R6 original with gondolas.
The top speed of our clean g6 is around 635km/H at alt when it should be 650km/h.
It's not a big deal either way as 10 mph isn't that significant.
As grendel said the G6 had a "strengthened" undercarriage and larger wheels. The G6 had mg131s which created bulges as seen on the left / right of the upper eng cowl. So you end up with added weight and added drag.
Instead of a sleek and maneuverable interceptor like the F4 and G2 the plane became known as "The Flying Blister" due to the modifications done on the airframe.
I have read pilot anecdotes that claim the feel of flying the G6 was no different then the G2.
-
Doesn't "feel" any different to me. Course, the G10 doesn't feel any less manueverable than the G6 to me, so maybe I'm flying it wrong.
-
g6 flys like porky pig to me, but thats just me g2 feels spritly, g6 feels like a dump truck, and if one sticks gondolas on it.lol.
It still kicks arse.
I remember way back when when I was a n00b hunting ET's b-26 with 30mm gondolas on g6. was only reason I flew it. for the 30mm gondolas. Whered they go. they used to have a line of them next to g6.
-
G-6 has 20mm Mauser MG151/20 cannons in the gondolas too, so no 30mms in the wings.
There is a difference in the handling between G-2 and G-6 but I don't see it as big difference as some see it. I'm willing to guess that G-6 with 25% of fuel handles a tad better or similarly as G-2 with 75% of fuel.
-
G2 to G6 was an weight increase of 110kg.
problem in all sims is following:
FM is based on the RAF/US test that was flown with an G6/R6.
after some time most forgot the R6 in further translations.
other problem is, that the test was done with "climb & combat" power, what is 100% power in AH/WB/IL2-FB
but all sims modell the speed for the "WEP"(110% power)
takeoff & emegency power setting.
speed of the 109G6 should be 10-15km/h less than of the G2
means (with 100% power):
520-520km/h on sealevel (G2 530)
640km/h at 6km alt (G2 650)
this can be found after any well done research about the 109.
wastel
PS: there where 200rounds of 20mm in the nose gun :-)!
-
You know in every photo I have seen of the RAE's "Eric Brown" G-6, the gondolas had been removed...
-
original Messerschmitt Augsburg comparison sheet from 17.09.43:
Bf109G2/R6
(weight 3240kg (208kg are the gondolars))
speed on 0m, with 100%power (NO WEP)
512km/h
speed on 6,6km
636km/h
->with 100% power and gondolars!
Bf109G6/R6 (NO WEP)
(3350kg(208kg gondolars)
502 at 0m
620km/h at 6,5km
->with 100% power and gondolars
now...put the gondolars away (-drag,-208kg)
=+around 20km/h
=640km/h (Still with 100% power only)
now add the takeoff&emergency power (5min max)
=650-655km/h for an G6
from numbers above:
109G2-G6 an lose of 10km/h at 0m alt
a lose of 16km/h at rated alt (6,5-6,7km)
and these 16km/h are the +110kg of the G6 and the little
worser aerodynamic
wastel
-
The G6 does feel anemic compared to G2, and much much heavier.
-
Bf109G2/R6
(weight 3240kg (208kg are the gondolars))
speed on 0m, with 100%power (NO WEP)
512km/h
speed on 6,6km
636km/h
->with 100% power and gondolars!
now...put the gondolars away (-drag,-208kg)
=+around 20km/h
The Reichlin figures for the 109G1 with 100% power and no gondolas are
525 km/h at 0m
642 km/h at 6km
649 km/h at 7km
That gives about 12 - 13 km/h gain from removing gondolas
=640km/h (Still with 100% power only)
now add the takeoff&emergency power (5min max)
=650-655km/h for an G6
More like 632 km/h
now add the takeoff&emergency power (5min max)
=650-655km/h for an G6
Increasing allowable boost reduces critical altitude, and doesn't increase the speed by very much.
-
on the same chart, an G1/R6 reaches the same
speeds like the G2/R6.
G1 is just only 20kg (preasurized cockpit) heavier.
100-110% power added 105PS at rated alt for an static Db605A1
wastel
-
The AH G-6 by HTs chart:
635km/h (395mph) at 6.5km with wep (takeoff & emergency power)
620km/h (385mph) at 6.7km with military power (climb & combat power)
From the AH charts:
Normal loaded weight: 6940 lbs. (3148kg).
The AH G-6 has the larger wooden tail and the Erla Haube canopy.
It seems HT's numbers match up well with the 109G-6/R6 (except weight which seems to show minus gondolas).
I will leave it to you experts but I was under the impressions that Brown's test was with the gondolas on not removed.
-
wow cool how are you shure what test they used?
-
Actually I don't fly the G-6 or the G-2 much, so I don't really know if they are similar or not.
Flew the G-6 some today, my impression is that it is slower and less manueverable than a G-10. Dunno how it stacks up to the G-2, but it probably isnt favorably. All in all, there isn't any reason to fly a G-6, anything it can do the G-10 can do better.
-
Right now, I'm reading Gunther Rall's biography. He comments on the 109G series as being "overdeveloped". Well, they are fast and climb good (18500 feet in 6 minutes, that is 1/6 slower than our AH 109G2, but I don't know which exact model he is referring to). Anyway, his words are that 109F was the finest, and after that the plane just suffered from heavier loads with more power.
Landing was difficult, the U/C was weak, and the plane behaved badly at low speed.
-
don't count on these statements.
i can say you book where an eperte describes how he turnfough at low level in an G10/R6 against an la5...and he won in that turnfight.
now ..should an g10 now outturn an la5...??? no
wastel
-
Hi Angus,
>Anyway, his words are that 109F was the finest, and after that the plane just suffered from heavier loads with more power.
Well, here's a quote from Nowarra:
>Hermann Graf von der 9./JG 52, der gerade seinen 111. Abschuß erzielt hate, schrieb am 10.7.1942 in sein Tagebuch: "Aus Deutschland waren neue Me 109 angekündigt, solche der G-Serie. Die Herren vom Geschwaderstab wetterten über
diesen Vogel. Er sei schlecht, der Motor tauge nichts, und so weiter: Meine Staffel mußte als erste dran glauben. Es ging also zurück nach Charkow zur Umrüstung. Schon beim ersten Flug war ich von der Maschine aber hellauf begeistert. Sie war bedeutend besser als die frühere 'F'."
Summary: Graf's diary entry tells us that the Me 109G had a bad reputation before it even arrived at his unit, but the first flight made him greatly enthusiastic about the G series. He states that it was considerably better than the F.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I read German.
Well, some guys just like the faster birds :)
Anyway, where did you find stuff from Herman Graf? Would really love to see some!
(been looking at quotes from Graf, Barkhorn, Nowotny, etc)
-
Unfortunately Gunther Rall's book is somewhat dissapointing. Some woman wrote it and she knows nothing about air combat. :(
FWIW it's known Rall liked the G2 the best...
-
Here you go:
"Although the mass produced G version accounted for almost two-thirds of all 109s built, it proved in Rall's view to be a mixed bag because of its over-development, loss of maneuverability and all the worst characteristics of the earlier version. In spite of Rall's opinion of its shortcoming it was his favourite model."
P 148
Later on same page:
"Its more powerful engine ment higher power settings whose initial climb rate sent it soaring to 18700 feet in six minutes but at low speed the plane was difficult to handle"
"Most of us considered the 109G over-developed. Poor landing characteristics added to its woes"
And here is an interesting bit:
"Piloting his new fighter plane on May 5 Rall shot down his first Spitfire piloted by the VVS. Pleased with the victory Rall quickly filled out a report but was immediately told to keep it quiet.
"Orders were issued that same evening that we were not to reveal Spitfires were now engaged on the eastern front. Apparently, it would make our pilots nervous""
Hehe, NERVOUS about the little Spitty. But Rall flew many allied types, so what did he think of them?
In the BoB (P 53), fighting against Spitfires Rall remarks:
"The elliptical wings on the Spitfires had fantastic characteristics, great lift. They were very maneuverable. We could not catch them in a steep climb"
I wish he had written the whole book himself, but there are many straight quotes
-
Hi Angus,
>Anyway, where did you find stuff from Herman Graf? Would really love to see some!
I quoted Heinz J. Nowarra, "Die 109", ISBN 3-87943-620-7.
There's also B. K. Joachim, "Oberst Hermann Graf: 200 Luftsiege in 13 Monaten", ISBN 3-8118-1455-9.
If you read German, don't miss the latter, it's a bargain at ca. EUR 5.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
"Die 109"
Now that's my kinda book!
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
"Die 109"
Now that's my kinda book!
Is it in English?
TBolt
-
"die 109" has lots of failurs in it...which are copied and copied.
it is moderate, but sucks in technical /perfomance details
wastel
-
The Reichlin figures for the 109G1 with 100% power and no gondolas are
525 km/h at 0m
642 km/h at 6km
649 km/h at 7km
That gives about 12 - 13 km/h gain from removing gondolas
The drag docs atteched to the Rechlin tests state -8 km/h speed loss for the G-1 at 1.3ata at SL. I would expect more loss of speed at altitude (loss of ram etc.). In fact Soviet tests done with G-2 at 1.42 ata show 665 km/h w/o gondolas, and 650 km/h w. gondolas both at 7000m, ie. -15 km/h at FTH, which goes well with the rule of thumb of 50% more speed loss at FTH than at SL.
More like 632 km/h
G-6`s max. speed was 640 km/h (1.42ata) and 630 km/h (1.3ata) at 6600m according the GLC charts. However I believe those are for the old canopy, the Erla canopy improved aerodynamics somewhat, so would except circa 650 km/h for a late G-6.
now add the takeoff&emergency power (5min max)
=650-655km/h for an G6
Increasing allowable boost reduces critical altitude, and doesn't increase the speed by very much.
Maybe true for Spits, but not for 109s or 190s. There boost was linked to RPM on those planes, both were increased at the same time (from 1.3ata/2600RPM to 1.42ata/2800RPM) and amount, so there was no reducement of critical altitude, as the supercharger`s capacity was increased linearly with boost, and could provide enough oxygene. On British a/c, the reduction of FTH when boost alone is increased is because the engine RPM remains constant, and so is the superchargers`s RPM (which is fixed ratio to the engine`s RPM).