Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: BiPoLaR on October 21, 2008, 08:38:18 AM
-
The G-6 model, the most produced Bf 109 version, had heavier armament. The G-6/U4 variant with Rüstsatz R6 was armed with two 13 mm MG 131 above the engine, a 30 mm MK 108 cannon shooting through the propeller hub and one 20 mm MG 151/20 in a 'pod' under each wing. The G-6 was very often fitted with assembly sets, used to carry bombs or a drop tank, for use as nightfighter, or to increase fire power by adding rockets or extra guns. During 1943, a number of improvements were gradually introduced for the type's benefit : armoured glass head-rest ('Galland Panzer') (early 1943), and the introduction of the clear-view 'Erla Haube' canopy (autumn 1943) improved visibility -especially to the rear, and a taller tail unit improved stability at high speeds. The introduction of the WGr. 21cm under-wing mortar/rockets and the 30 mm MK 108 cannon increased firepower. Certain production batches of the Gustav were fitted with aileron Flettner tabs to decrease stick forces at high speeds. Advanced radio/navigational equipment was also introduced. The MK 108 (German: Maschinenkanone - Machine Cannon) was an autocannon (30mm calibre) manufactured in Germany during World War II by Rheinmetall-Borsig for use in aircraft. ... The MK 108 (German: Maschinenkanone - Machine Cannon) was an autocannon (30mm calibre) manufactured in Germany during World War II by Rheinmetall-Borsig for use in aircraft. ...
My question is: Why dont we have the option of having a 30mm for it?
And how hard would it be to put one in?
-
My guess would be that there where to few of the 30mm version produced, IIRC it was a high alt varient.
-
I'll quote myself 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.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,238516.15.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,238516.15.html)
-
I'll quote myself again:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,238516.15.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,238516.15.html)
Ty, I just read those posts.
So we use to have the 30mm option.
why dont we still have it?
and yes we need the 109s to be updated BAD.
-
why dont we still have it?
and yes we need the 109s to be updated BAD.
Read my quote again:
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.
109's are already updated (2005) and look quite ok IMO. Here's the thread pyro started about 109 load outs before the graphical update of the 109s: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,162110.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,162110.0.html). Pyro probably got frustrated about the usual bickering/signal-noise ratio of that thread and edited out his post. Anyway, he was asking for which load out should be included to the new updated 109s.
-
With the removal of the 30mm, I personally quit taking it up as much. Was a personal favorite of mine. But that is me and I cannot speak for everyone. :frown:
:salute
-
I would fly the other 109 models more if they had a 30mm.
As it stands now, the K4 is the best non-perk plane in the game. :rock
-
I would fly the other 109 models more if they had a 30mm.
As it stands now, the K4 is the best non-perk plane in the game. :rock
The K4 is my favorite plane but it's far from uber. It's a very hard plane to fly if you fly it to it's full potential, which is the main reason I like it. The thing flys like a brick compared to even the other 109's. The only clear advantage it has is the power the engine produces which makes it a pure killing machine down on the deck, if you know how to fly it.
Calling it uber has always irritated me, because that plane is a challenge to fly to it's limits. I don't think there is any other aircraft in the game that I have to work the throttle, flaps and rudder so much in a fight. While the plane is a out right killing machine in the right hands, it's far from uber in the hands of a average AH player. Which is the reason you don't see lots of K4's in the mix compared to other aircraft, even though a lot of kills are landed in K4's.
Typically when you come across a K4, you have a pretty high chance that they will be a reasonably good pilot. Reason I say that is because the K4 really has no other purpose in life but to kill things in the air, It doesn't carry bombs it just carries big slugs. You aren't going to run into noobs who are there to shoot radar's or kill ords, you will 9 times out of 10 be up aginst someone whom wants to fight. Typically people that are looking for easy kills don't fly K4's unless they know what they are doing which tends make it seem like the plane is uber.
As for the other 109's wih 20mm's like the G6.. Well I'll admit, I don't fly them because they only have 20mm's, so I'd love to see the G6 get a 30mm. I'll be honest and say I live on 1 shot kills hence the main reason I like the K4. :devil
-
The K4 is my favorite plane but it's far from uber. It's a very hard plane to fly if you fly it to it's full potential, which is the main reason I like it. The thing flys like a brick compared to even the other 109's. The only clear advantage it has is the power the engine produces which makes it a pure killing machine down on the deck, if you know how to fly it.
Calling it uber has always irritated me, because that plane is a challenge to fly to it's limits. I don't think there is any other aircraft in the game that I have to work the throttle, flaps and rudder so much in a fight. While the plane is a out right killing machine in the right hands, it's far from uber in the hands of a average AH player. Which is the reason you don't see lots of K4's in the mix compared to other aircraft, even though a lot of kills are landed in K4's.
Typically when you come across a K4, you have a pretty high chance that they will be a reasonably good pilot. Reason I say that is because the K4 really has no other purpose in life but to kill things in the air, It doesn't carry bombs it just carries big slugs. You aren't going to run into noobs who are there to shoot radar's or kill ords, you will 9 times out of 10 be up aginst someone whom wants to fight. Typically people that are looking for easy kills don't fly K4's unless they know what they are doing which tends make it seem like the plane is uber.
As for the other 109's wih 20mm's like the G6.. Well I'll admit, I don't fly them because they only have 20mm's, so I'd love to see the G6 get a 30mm. I'll be honest and say I live on 1 shot kills hence the main reason I like the K4. :devil
Well said, I totally agree. :salute
-
what that strafing chic said. :aok
-
I didn't say it was uber, I said it was the best plane in the game.
This Spit 16 is uber.
-
Our current 109G-6 is supposed to represent an early '43 version when the Mk 108 cannon was rare. However, by the summer of '43, many, many 109G-6s were either delivered with the Mk 108, or had it installed in the field. It would not be an exaggeration to say that out of the 12,000+ produced, thousands of 109G-6s were armed with the Mk 108 cannon.
But, as usual, the 109 gets snubbed. We still don't have a G6/AS or G14/AS high altitude variant, we still don't have the G-10, nor a scenario friendly (Africa) 109E-7. :furious If Il-2 can include these aircraft, and many more, why can't AH? :rolleyes:
-
If Il-2 can include these aircraft, and many more, why can't AH? :rolleyes:
hmm the difference is a huge devolpment staff :rolleyes:
-
Nah, the point is that these are variants and shouldn't be too hard to include. Creating a whole new aircraft, yeah, it helps to have a large development staff. But another 109 or another Spit shouldn't be such a big deal.
-
There were not "many, many" Bf109G-6s produced in 1943 with the 30mm cannon. "Many, many" would imply close to 50%, if not the majority of those produced.
If you want to be convincing, post actual production numbers of both 20mm and 30mm armed Bf109G-6s, broken down by at least to quarterly numbers, preferably monthly. Don't use completely subjective language like "many, many".
-
Werknummer block 440000-441000 were 109G-6/U4 delivered from WNF, starting in the summer of '43.
Bf 109F, G & K Series, by Prien and Rodeike.
Of course, it's difficult to put a number on how many more of the remaining 11,000 were conversions.
-
If HTC can update planes like the La5 and the IL2.
I dont see why they couldnt throw a 30mm in the G6.
-
I didn't say it was uber, I said it was the best plane in the game.
This Spit 16 is uber.
Yea I know.. it's just one of my pet peeves, I heart my K4 but it's far from being one of the best planes. It just has a lot of skilled players whom fly it. The plane it's self is a brick with wings and a big gun.
-
Werknummer block 440000-441000 were 109G-6/U4 delivered from WNF, starting in the summer of '43.
Bf 109F, G & K Series, by Prien and Rodeike.
Of course, it's difficult to put a number on how many more of the remaining 11,000 were conversions.
This does not meet the critera I listed.
-
That's as good as I got. I think your criteria are over-modeled. :D Basically, you just don't want to see a 30mm armed 109G-6, even though we know they were there.
-
and yes we need the 109s to be updated BAD.
The 109's were already updated.... that's when they took away the Mk108 from the G6 and I think the gondolas from the F4 (though the gondolas are on the skin :) ).
BTW we still need WGr 210's on the G2 as well :)
-
There were not "many, many" Bf109G-6s produced in 1943 with the 30mm cannon. "Many, many" would imply close to 50%, if not the majority of those produced.
If you want to be convincing, post actual production numbers of both 20mm and 30mm armed Bf109G-6s, broken down by at least to quarterly numbers, preferably monthly. Don't use completely subjective language like "many, many".
Don't worry about Karnak, Anaxogoras. He couldn't have done it in the case of IL-2's NS-37 cannons either when they weren't in the game, they are here now as you can see. When it comes to this issue he seems to be one big double standard at work...
From another thread:
Many of us asked for the NS-37 gun package on the IL-2. I think I first requested it when the IL-2 was originally added without them.
He keeps saying how the MK-108 in G-6 will get abused in events and yet he himself asks a rare gun package to another aircraft which most definately would get abused in scenarios like Niemen, Kurland, Stalins Fourth and so on. Oh wait, no it wouldn't...these kind of load out restrictions (like no bombs should be carried) will be and have been dealt with gentlemans agreements before. Many times Snapshot-event's rules state that 100% fuel should be carried also. Of course the best way would be to have a tool for the CM's so that they could define only the allowed load outs available as an arena setting for events.
G-6 is the 109 for events from 2/43 until spring/summer of '44 no matter what canopy it carries or from what serial number-block the external features of the AH's 3D-model come from. It also has to engage '44 US heavy bombers in the midwar-arena.
So as long as there are load out options like NS-37 for Il-2 and 3xB-20 for La-7 in AH, 109G-6 should have its 30mm cannon just for sake of consistency alone.
-
...not to mention the super rare 3x20mm armament of the La-7. :noid
Thank you wmaker. :aok
-
Let's put this in perspective, I landed an 8 kill run on the weekend in a G2 with 25 rounds of cannon ammo left (no rearm, single cannon no pods). And I'm a noob.
-
So as long as there are load out options like NS-37 for Il-2 and 3xB-20 for La-7 in AH, 109G-6 should have its 30mm cannon just for sake of consistency alone.
:aok could not agree more
-
Let's put this in perspective, I landed an 8 kill run on the weekend in a G2 with 25 rounds of cannon ammo left (no rearm, single cannon no pods). And I'm a noob.
I bow in the humbling presence of true greatness...
...my bowing or your comment has nothing to do with the topic at hand, though.
-
Don't worry about Karnak, Anaxogoras. He couldn't have done it in the case of IL-2's NS-37 cannons either when they weren't in the game, they are here now as you can see. When it comes to this issue he seems to be one big double standard at work...
From another thread:
He keeps saying how the MK-108 in G-6 will get abused in events and yet he himself asks a rare gun package to another aircraft which most definately would get abused in scenarios like Niemen, Kurland, Stalins Fourth and so on. Oh wait, no it wouldn't...these kind of load out restrictions (like no bombs should be carried) will be and have been dealt with gentlemans agreements before. Many times Snapshot-event's rules state that 100% fuel should be carried also. Of course the best way would be to have a tool for the CM's so that they could define only the allowed load outs available as an arena setting for events.
G-6 is the 109 for events from 2/43 until spring/summer of '44 no matter what canopy it carries or from what serial number-block the external features of the AH's 3D-model come from. It also has to engage '44 US heavy bombers in the midwar-arena.
So as long as there are load out options like NS-37 for Il-2 and 3xB-20 for La-7 in AH, 109G-6 should have its 30mm cannon just for sake of consistency alone.
Good post. I've been out of AH for many years and coming back I'm... well stumped as to why the 109s that had MK-108s don't anymore (as well as some variants that had ord capabilities on paper but don't in the game). Especialy when you look at some of the very rare gun packages that are available on a couple of the other planes as you mentioned in your post. It doesn't make sence to me (but a lot of other things in life don't too) but more importantly to me is that it's very bad consistency to the game.
-
The F4U-1C was one of the rarest Corsair variants produced. Only 200 were built :noid
The super rare guns for the Current LA :noid
And we don't have the common 30mm for the G6 :noid
Doesn't make any since to me
-
Don't want to attempt a Hijack or anything like that folks, but I remember Kev 367th (What ever happened to him btw?) posting about the super rare Seafire that we have in the game, apparently the model and engine type we have account for around 200 of total built :O
So there's another point that should be brought up someday.
As a footnote, I bet Kurfurst would know how many 30mm G6's were built and ordered, here's his website, bet it's in here somewhere.
http://www.kurfurst.org/
-
Yea I know.. it's just one of my pet peeves, I heart my K4 but it's far from being one of the best planes. It just has a lot of skilled players whom fly it. The plane it's self is a brick with wings and a big gun.
Not it's a brick with a rocket engine and a small gun. :D
<S>...-Gixer
-
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.
-
As for adding it, well, im not sure what it adds to the game considering we already have the 109G-14.
:huh<smacks forhead>
-
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.
Yes, it is U4.
Squire, are you serious here? :)
First of all, G-6 is the most produced variant of the 109-series. As HTC isn't keen on adding multiple G-6s, you would still say with a straight face that a difference in tail wheel is a reason not to have it, riiight. :) Second, you've read some bad source, all G-6s had fixed tail wheels. And third AH's G-6's tail wheel retracts in the current version. :rofl Yes, it is a bug. :)
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.
You talk like it would be something new and difficult to add. It was removed, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to put back in the game. What it adds to the game, well take a look on my previous posts and to some others have also stated that they prefer it over the 20mm. The gun was there in enough numbers to warrant inclusion. Whether it was there in numbers or not in 1943 shouldn't really matter. I'm sure the La-7s with the 3xB-20 setup weren't the first La-7s to roll off the production line either.
-
Yes, it is U4.
all G-6s had fixed tail wheels. And third AH's G-6's tail wheel retracts in the current version. :rofl Yes, it is a bug. :)
i was gonna comment on that. But you beat me to it.
and yes squire, please find new sources bud :aok
-
As HTC isn't keen on adding multiple G-6s
A 109G-6/AS would be different enough to justify its addition, and it's an absolute must for any early '44 ETO scenario.
-
G-10
I was sad when it went away... As it was my ride of choice.... I am sure this has been discussed ??? But why did the G-10 go away
thanks
Gatr
-
Wmaker,
You already got the (incorrect) increased cannon ammo amount (G-6), and (incorrect) Finnish G-14 skin. WTG for good lobbying.
But still not satisfied yet, you want to milk them more ?
-
Wmaker,
You already got the (incorrect) increased cannon ammo amount (G-6), and (incorrect) Finnish G-14 skin. WTG for good lobbying.
But still not satisfied yet, you want to milk them more ?
you dont understand do ya?
-
Wmaker,
You already got the (incorrect) increased cannon ammo amount (G-6), and (incorrect) Finnish G-14 skin. WTG for good lobbying.
But still not satisfied yet, you want to milk them more ?
:)
Here you go Timras, take one of these...
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/prozac.jpg)
...with glass of water and a deep breath that terrible paint scheme and all those 20mm rounds will be nothing but a distant bad dream. :)
-
So, if the 30mm was added, should they go ahead and fix the convergence on the Mk108 as it was historically, at 400 meters, and fix the 109K4 as well? If its historical precision you're looking for...
-
So, if the 30mm was added, should they go ahead and fix the convergence on the Mk108 as it was historically, at 400 meters, and fix the 109K4 as well? If its historical precision you're looking for...
I'd like to go that route, yes. As long as the numbers can be found for all the planes in AH and changes apply all planes, I see no problem with it.
What I'm looking for is consistency. I do wonder sometimes why people like yourself seem to object it so much.
P.S. In 109s I use the horribly unhistorical 600 yards convergence for the MK-108. Haven't really used the MK-108 since the DGS-scenario, though.
-
So, if the 30mm was added, should they go ahead and fix the convergence on the Mk108 as it was historically, at 400 meters, and fix the 109K4 as well? If its historical precision you're looking for...
wouldn't bother me at all. Thats where mine is set now
-
So is the plan to set the 109 convergence to historical ranges but not for the rest of the aircraft in AH? :rofl
-
Let's put this in perspective, I landed an 8 kill run on the weekend in a G2 with 25 rounds of cannon ammo left (no rearm, single cannon no pods). And I'm a noob.
Jeeps don't count. :rofl
:salute
-
I'd like to go that route, yes. As long as the numbers can be found for all the planes in AH and changes apply all planes, I see no problem with it.
What I'm looking for is consistency. I do wonder sometimes why people like yourself seem to object it so much.
P.S. In 109s I use the horribly unhistorical 600 yards convergence for the MK-108. Haven't really used the MK-108 since the DGS-scenario, though.
I'm all for consistency. Sorry. I suppose I was trolling a bit, but my point was that we, as a community, will sometimes cherry pick certain details that are missing for specific aircraft. Hub mounted Mk108s left the factory with the convergence set at 400m and it couldn't be changed ( http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html ). If indeed the G6 had the Mk108 available, I say add it--just make sure the adjustable range is removed.
-
So is the plan to set the 109 convergence to historical ranges but not for the rest of the aircraft in AH? :rofl
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. :D 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
-
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)
-
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! (http://www.v-rodforums.com/forums/images/smilies/them.gif)(http://forum.explosm.net/images/smilies/facts3.gif)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
But the G6 was Neutered
-
I'm still waiting for any 109 with GM-1. :noid
-
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.
-
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)
You got a 109G-14 up to 408mph on the deck in level flight? :huh I know you feel strongly about this stuff, but let's not derail this thread with rants. ;)
-
You 109 guys crack me up, you have different models,load options and gun packages galore to choose from. Yet you still get owned by a simple Yak almost every time. :D
Groza fashchistov (Terror of the fascists) :devil
<S>...-Gixer
-
Well, when it started, this thread sure degenerated fast...
Wrag,
Why did you have to vomit that garbage of yours into a yet another thread? I've seen you do that about dozen times now and it gets old really fast. There was no dedicated ground attack model, nor do 109s accelerate poorly. Having dueled against you in 109s I can say that your biggest problem is firmly between stick and the seat.
BiPolar,
This silly "Neutered" BS doesn't help your cause at all.
Anaxogoras,
You tell Wrag not to derail the thread and yet you babble about wanting a GM-1 -equipped in a thread about MK 108 load out option for G-6.
FlyinFin,
109F-4 has nothing to do with this thread, stay on topic. Make your own thread about its load out options if you must.
Squire,
I get back to you after I've counted to 10.
-
Ohh it's Gixer with his usual "I fly a rare plane like the Yak-9T! I'm l33t in it! Therefore LOOK AT ME! I'm so special!" ...that he manages to vomit into about every thread imaginable.
-
Anaxogoras,
You tell Wrag not to derail the thread and yet you babble about wanting a GM-1 -equipped in a thread about MK 108 load out option for G-6.
Since when is one sentence babbling? You'll have to forgive the small digressions. You know very well why the creep up when talking about the 109.
-
Ohh it's Gixer with his usual "I fly a rare plane like the Yak-9T! I'm l33t in it! Therefore LOOK AT ME! I'm so special!"
What's the matter miss out on your Weet-Bix this morning? Didn't you notice the big smilie face? Maybe I should just fly uber rides and everything under the sun including 262s like you just to maintain my score.. :lol
<S>...-Gixer
-
What's the matter miss out on your Weet-Bix this morning?
Nah, just seeing you do it over and over again in threads that have nothing to do with Yak-9T it just started to get old fast and my glass of it obviously got full today. I hardly fly uber rides (Ki-84, 190A-8 this tour) and the occational 262 won't do much for my score. But let's rather keep this thread on topic.
-
You 109 guys crack me up, you have different models,load options and gun packages galore to choose from. Yet you still get owned by a simple Yak almost every time. :D
Groza fashchistov (Terror of the fascists) :devil
<S>...-Gixer
Eeeeeeaaaasy Gix......... :cool:
:salute
-
Well, when it started, this thread sure degenerated fast...
Wrag,
Why did you have to vomit that garbage of yours into a yet another thread? I've seen you do that about dozen times now and it gets old really fast. There was no dedicated ground attack model, nor do 109s accelerate poorly. Having dueled against you in 109s I can say that your biggest problem is firmly between stick and the seat.
BiPolar,
This silly "Neutered" BS doesn't help your cause at all.
Anaxogoras,
You tell Wrag not to derail the thread and yet you babble about wanting a GM-1 -equipped in a thread about MK 108 load out option for G-6.
FlyinFin,
109F-4 has nothing to do with this thread, stay on topic. Make your own thread about its load out options if you must.
Squire,
I get back to you after I've counted to 10.
I was trying to point out a fact.
you bashing every person that has posted in this thread doesn't help yours.
You need a hug. You're one very angry person.
Group hug for Wmaker
-
I emailed Kurfurst last night via his website and so hopefully he'll be able to come up with hard numbers and data etc, I remember he used to post quite a lot in the Aircraft and vehicle section, he was a bit of an eccentric fellow though, but one thing about him was undeniable, he did know the specs and data on the 109 inside out. He could produce originall documents etc showing all manner of things about the 109, some of you guys that have been on the bbs will no doubt remember him.
Anyway, if I ever hear back from the guy then I'll post it up here. (S)
-
some of you guys that have been on the bbs will no doubt remember him.
I'm not holding my breath...
-
You're one very angry person.
Actually I'm not.
I just try to make you guys see how you come across; "neutered this, neutered that", "slanting for allies" bla bla bla...
It just does not help your case. Most of you know next to nothing about the subject and just fill the thread with noise. That simply does not help your cause.
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.
Squire,
Here's another listing on the G-6/U4s produced. It's from Hannu Valtonen's book MESSERSCHMITT BF 109 JA SAKSAN SOTATALOUS.
WNr. 20000-20800---------85 U4s, 06.1943-08.1943
WNr. 440000-442099-----1419 U4s, 09.1943-08.1944
WNr. 510600-510999------130 U4s, 08.1944-10.1944
So according to this listing a total of 1634 /U4s were produced.
About the outside appearance of the plane,
I really don't understand why you just can't just trust me when I say that starting from 440000 batch they had the same canopy as AH's G-6 has right now. Framed canopy with that Gallandpanzer (like the one in AH) started appearing mid-1943 around the same time as that big production batch of U4's was started. AHs G-6 is bit of a bastardazation (is that a word :D) of the most earlies production batches and the mid production batches. To make AHs G-6 totally accurate in outside appearance for the MK 108 it would need to have the shorter antenna mast and the D/F-loop behind the cockpit...as I've already explained before. I'm sure the later aircraft (the ones produced '44) in the 440000 batch and all (or most) aircraft in the 510600 had Erla Haube. In the end I don't really see how any of this has any meaning since I'm suspecting that HTC isn't keen on adding multiple DB605A-1 -engined G-6s in the game just for the sake of outside appearance.
All in all, I'm not really asking anything. Pyro took the loadout away, I suspect it's not coming back anytime soon. I do think that he took it away for the wrong reasons and that that decision isn't consistant with other desicions made about other loadouts in the game. La-7's three cannons might be a separate issue but it is a good example in demostrating this inconsistency that I'm talking about.
And before someone starts screaming it...no, I really don't think pyro or anyone at HTC has any kind of bias regarding this issue or anything else. I do suspect that they are extremely busy. Pyro who usually handles these plane related matters, as a game producer has a helluva lot more on his plate than only the fine tuning loadouts for almost 80 odd virtual aircraft.
My theory is that pyro removed the 30mm loadout as Wotan asked him to do so. I do think he asked pyro to do so for all the wrong reasons. Pyro was in a hurry to get the 109 loadouts done (that is why he asked the community's help in the first place) and he just deleted the loadout and was done with it. I'm sure that at the time he had stuff to do and bigger things to worry about than a single loadout-option and he didn't have the time to do all this research himself. In the grand scheme of things 5 guys bickering over one imaginary cannon probably doesn't raise much concern at Grapewine. :D
EDIT/Just for clarification Squire. You weren't the reason why I had to count to 10. :)/EDIT
-
I suppose my question is what a G6 with a 30mm brings that we don't already have better in the K4.
I'm serious; I'm not being argumentative here.
If I had a G6 with the 30mm and the K4 with the 30mm, both sitting in the hangar, why would I choose the G6 over the K4, other than for variety?
-
And Stoney, you're not allowed to post anymore until you put away your elf costume and strap on a scarf and goggles again.
You're the one that got me flying these evil 109's in the first place. :furious
-
Ok, here's how the /U4 or most of the mid-production 109G-6s look:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/109G-6U4.jpg)
The above is from Prien's and Rodeike's MESSERSCHMITT Bf 109 F, G, & K Series, page 101.
Sorry about the quality. Didn't feel like shoving the big book into scanner so took a pic instead.
-
terrible paint scheme and all those 20mm rounds...
The skin is awesome, made by Kanttori. The next is for K-4. ?
All this is really not important, it just shows that that you are a bit fanatic.
(I hope not more Prozac commercials in return) :)
-
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.
Spitfire cannons could not be converged closer than, if I recall, 250 yards. The bays were too narrow to allow the cannon to be pointed inward enough to converge earlier than that.
-
Spitfire cannons could not be converged closer than, if I recall, 250 yards. The bays were too narrow to allow the cannon to be pointed inward enough to converge earlier than that.
Yes, I remember Tony Williams talking about it aswell. The pilots actually would have wanted them closer.
-
I suppose my question is what a G6 with a 30mm brings that we don't already have better in the K4.
I'm serious; I'm not being argumentative here.
If I had a G6 with the 30mm and the K4 with the 30mm, both sitting in the hangar, why would I choose the G6 over the K4, other than for variety?
Some of us like to fly the G-6 for the challenge it presents vs zooming around with impunity in a K-4. ;)
-
Ok, copy that!
Now, to the more important question...why is Stoney more interested in play Forest Elf than cartoon Fighter Pilot?! :O
-
Space Elf...not Forest
-
If I had a G6 with the 30mm and the K4 with the 30mm, both sitting in the hangar, why would I choose the G6 over the K4, other than for variety?
Well, in the MW arena, you don't have a K4, but you do have a G-6. Ultimately though, if it was available in relevant numbers during the war, it should be available to us, regardless of LW MA capability. That goes for armament, aircraft, paint schemes, you name it--at least IMO.
-
Ultimately though, if it was available in relevant numbers during the war, it should be available to us, regardless of LW MA capability. That goes for armament, aircraft, paint schemes, you name it--at least IMO.
Heck yeah! Now convince HTC. :pray Fwiw, the 109 is not the only victim here, but I'll stay on topic to make wmaker happy. ;)
-
Well, in the MW arena, you don't have a K4, but you do have a G-6. Ultimately though, if it was available in relevant numbers during the war, it should be available to us, regardless of LW MA capability. That goes for armament, aircraft, paint schemes, you name it--at least IMO.
Well, in the EW arena, you don't have a G, but you do have a F-4. Ultimately though, if it was available in relevant numbers during the war, it should be available to us, regardless of LW MA capability. That goes for armament, loadout, aircraft, paint schemes, you name it--IHMO. :salute :aok
-
Well, when it started, this thread sure degenerated fast...
Wrag,
Why did you have to vomit that garbage of yours into a yet another thread? I've seen you do that about dozen times now and it gets old really fast. There was no dedicated ground attack model, nor do 109s accelerate poorly. Having dueled against you in 109s I can say that your biggest problem is firmly between stick and the seat.
BiPolar,
This silly "Neutered" BS doesn't help your cause at all.
Anaxogoras,
You tell Wrag not to derail the thread and yet you babble about wanting a GM-1 -equipped in a thread about MK 108 load out option for G-6.
FlyinFin,
109F-4 has nothing to do with this thread, stay on topic. Make your own thread about its load out options if you must.
Squire,
I get back to you after I've counted to 10.
FYI pointed HTC at an article in Flight Journal that was about ACTUAL flight test of a Pony AGAINST a 109g10 that was recently done by 2 rather famous individuals (sadly one of them died in a P38 accident not too long afterward). THEY REPORTED that the 109G10 OUT TURNS the Pony and the ONLY thing the Pony had on that 109 was SPEED.
https://secure.rcstore.com/pcd/eServCart?iServ=MDY3QUo0NjYzMSZpUGFnZUlkPTc4NzA2JmlJbnZJZD0yNzA1NyZpU2t1TGlzdD0maVN1YlRlcm09MA==
Also pointed HTC at an article in the same mag about a 190 vs an f6f. AND the 190 did fairly well considering. I noticed that OUR 190s SEEMED to turn a little better AFTERWARD.
So actual facts?
Maybe you need a cookie?
As to the duel :) maybe we should do it again some time. PERHAPS you will find things a little different?
-
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)
I have spoke to many Luftwaffe pilots over the years Gunther Rall, Walter Schuck and many others a little less known. From what I gathered about all planes that the Luftwaffe flew especially on front line bases is that many were changed, altered to the pilot's suiting and or to what was available. Just because our 109 G-6 doesn't have a 30mm option doesn't mean it shouldn't be available. They put just about every Spitfire variant in here with people screaming for more so what's the big deal about having a 30mm option.
-
screaming? I remember the last spitfire thread being a lot more civil than this one. :D
-
"Squire,
I get back to you after I've counted to 10."
Count to 10. I was just trying to have a civil conversation, but you seem hell bent on getting "upset", so I will bow out. Regards.
EDIT: I will leave you with Wotan/Brunos comments on it:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,162110.0.html
"1/3 of all G-6s didn't have 3cm, you were shown this in the other thread. Since the G-6 has been re-done to reflect an earlier G-6 (framed canopy, regular tail) its a G-6 that would rarely have 3cm, especially in '43. As I said to Kurfurst about the F-4 gondolas a G-6 with 3cm as an option will get 'abused' and you end up seeing far more G-6/U4s then ever saw service. See Butch's post in the linked thread. In '43 there were only 181 G-6/U4 produced. Less then 15% of the total number of G-6s (12k) produced overall were G-6/U4s."
-
Heck yeah! Now convince HTC. :pray Fwiw, the 109 is not the only victim here, but I'll stay on topic to make wmaker happy. ;)
To be honest, I think that is HTC's intent. I believe that ultimately, HTC wants everything that had a credible representation during the war, in the game. The priorities and timeline with which they accomplish that feat is completely up to them.
-
"Squire,
I get back to you after I've counted to 10."
Count to 10. I was just trying to have a civil conversation, but you seem hell bent on getting "upset", so I will bow out. Regards.
:huh What exactly was wrong with my last reply to you?
Whatever.
The information you asked for can be found from my last reply to you.
I think you might have mixed Gallandpanzer with Erla Haube and that was the reason you thought the plane's appearance hinted later into the war.
-
... 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.
Of course numbers wasn't the entire answer. Certainly by 1944, the Luftwaffe was suffering from the losses of their more experienced pilots and the lack of training they were able to give their new pilots. I've always been of the school of thought that it was much more the quality of the pilot rather than the quality of the equipment that mattered.
-
I bow in the humbling presence of true greatness...
...my bowing or your comment has nothing to do with the topic at hand, though.
You sure have a chip on your shoulder don't you :)
Actually I'm not that good, if you look at my k/d ratio etc you'll see I'm decidedly average.
-
Well Squire my friend, I'm glad I didn't layout any cash on good ol' Kurfurst getting back to me, was a forlon hope I know, but worth the effort. Thing is, I really enjoyed is posts, they were usually very interesting to read.
Can't remember who it was that had almost daily battles with him on the bbs RE: Engine and flight performance, think it might have been Angus?
Anyway no news as of yet!
-
As it stands now, the K4 is the best non-perk plane in the game. :rock
I strongly disagree with this statement.
-
I strongly disagree with this statement.
Not sure if I'd say the best either, though not far behind. But it's certainly up there in the top 5 non perk rides and the best LW ride.
<S>...-Gixer
-
Sorry, double post..
-
To be honest, I think that is HTC's intent. I believe that ultimately, HTC wants everything that had a credible representation during the war, in the game. The priorities and timeline with which they accomplish that feat is completely up to them.
I wish I agreed with you. Naturally, it's true that priorities and timelines are up to them, but a rational reconstruction of what they've done up to this point doesn't support the notion that they want everything that had a credible representation during the war, in the game. First of all, no aircraft should ever be removed from the game if your goal is to represent as much as possible, nor should they have loadouts removed that were used in combat. However, the Spitfire V had 120 rpg for its 20mm cannon, but was downgraded to an earlier version with only 60 rpg. I don't even wanna get into the arguments over the 109G-10, but it's clear the 109G-6 suffered a fate similar to the Spit V. If HTC's goal were as you say, then both loadouts would have remained in the game, and the ENY system would take care of the rest. Secondly, you wouldn't add aircraft like the Ta-152. As cool as I think it is, adding it in front of other aircraft that were produced in larger numbers and which saw more combat is backwards, e.g. J2M, Ki-43, 109G-6/AS, Do-217, G4M, 190A-3, Yak-9D, I-16, Pe-2, Yak-1, A6M3...the list goes on and on.
The pattern of behavior I see is this: Start with popular, late war aircraft that make for a playable main arena. 2/3 of new additions will also be popular, mid/late war rides that can compete in the main arena, and 1/3 of new additions will be less competitive rides that work well for scenarios (this strategy will require dubious substitutions and the near absence of entire theaters of war). Once the bare minimum in aircraft diversity has been met, focus on other stuff like ground vehicles and pipe dreams like combat tour.
Fwiw, I agree with step 1, starting with popular, late war aircraft that make for a playable main arena. It's all the subsequent steps that I disagree with. Once you get a fun arena going, it's time to start adding aircraft that complete scenario planesets, e.g. don't stop with the Ju88 and say it's good enough for the BoB. Then you might move on to Africa and say, hmmmm... The 109F-4 isn't enough, we'll also need a 109E-7 and a 109F-2...and so on. That's how you would go about adding everything that had a credible representation during the war, in the game.
-
First thought: I wonder if it is, perhaps, possible to have too many choices in the hangar. Kind of like having too many people in one main arena. It gets to the point that, by having too many planes, you somehow dillute the experience in some manner. This idea isn't fleshed out, but think on it for a bit. It's one thing to have 50 choices...it's another to have 150 choices. At some point they start to blur together...
Second thought: If you're going to disagree with my assertion about the K4, you have to post a reason why. :rock
-
Oh, and to be fair, I think the K4 is the best non-perk fighter because:
1. one shot, one kill ability
2. extremely fast
3. extremely good climb rate
4. good 'all around' performance- turn rate, acceleration, speed, climb, hitting power, fuel
The K4 is one of the few planes in the set where, finding myself in a bad situation, I go UP instead of DOWN. In fact, the only thing I really find a disadvantage with the K4 is that it compresses so easily in a dive.
-
The K4 is one of the few planes in the set where, finding myself in a bad situation, I go UP instead of DOWN. In fact, the only thing I really find a disadvantage with the K4 is that it compresses so easily in a dive.
It has heavy controls, the opposite of compression.
-
EDIT: I will leave you with Wotan/Brunos comments on it:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,162110.0.html
"1/3 of all G-6s didn't have 3cm, you were shown this in the other thread. Since the G-6 has been re-done to reflect an earlier G-6 (framed canopy, regular tail) its a G-6 that would rarely have 3cm, especially in '43. As I said to Kurfurst about the F-4 gondolas a G-6 with 3cm as an option will get 'abused' and you end up seeing far more G-6/U4s then ever saw service. See Butch's post in the linked thread. In '43 there were only 181 G-6/U4 produced. Less then 15% of the total number of G-6s (12k) produced overall were G-6/U4s."
I have already adressed pretty much all these issues. The fact that you insist on posting same arguments over and over again (the canopy) tells me you either haven't read my posts at all or that your mind was made up before you even came to this thread. I suspect the latter. It was funny how you said that how guys who want this loadout option should make a good case about while at the same time you yourself weren't even considering changing your mind no matter what evidence came up. :)
Consistency, consistency, consistency, that is all I want, nothing more, nothing less.
"1/3 of all G-6s didn't have 3cm, you were shown this in the other thread. Since the G-6 has been re-done to reflect an earlier G-6 (framed canopy, regular tail) its a G-6 that would rarely have 3cm, especially in '43."
It is true that 1/3 of the G-6s weren't /U4s. Atleast 1634 of 12000 G-6s produced were /U4s. That is 13,6% of the total production compared to 10,7% La-7s delivered with 3xB-20 (368/3442). It is also good to remember that AH-wise La-7 changed very little during it's production while even inside the G-6 subvariant changes were a lot more prominent. That 12000 figure includes both G-6/ASs and G-6/U3s (MW-50) which have different performance compared to AHs G-6. To have fair comparison, only DB605A-1 engined G-6s should be counted.
"Since the G-6 has been re-done to reflect an earlier G-6 (framed canopy, regular tail) its a G-6 that would rarely have 3cm, especially in '43."
Like I've shown, hundreds of /U4s (the majority of the /U4s, most probably) actually had exactly the same canopy as AHs G-6 currently has. Framed canopy with Gallandpanzer started appearing in production roughly at the same time with /U4-variant (mid-1943). G-6s with same canopy as in AH were produced well into '44.
This is how a big portion ot the 109G-6/U4s looked:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/109G-6U4.jpg)
"G-6 with 3cm as an option will get 'abused' and you end up seeing far more G-6/U4s then ever saw service."
Exactly the same thing can be said about La-7 with three cannons and NS-37 cannons on IL-2 for example. It doesn't matter in the MA anyway and as a loadout option /U4 is exactly in the same boat as La-7 with three cannons when it comes to special events.
"In '43 there were only 181 G-6/U4 produced."
Prien and Rodeike for example seem to disagree with this. It is entirely possible that Butch2k has discovered some better sources, though. Either way it really does not matter at all. Why should G-6 be the only plane that shouldn't have loadouts which were introduced later in it's service life? We have Panzerblitz-rockets for the 109F-8, 3xB-20 option for the La-7, Rockets for the P-51D and so on.
-
It is true that 1/3 of the G-6s weren't /U4s. Atleast 1634 of 12000 G-6s produced were /U4s. That is 13,6% of the total production compared to 10,7% La-7s delivered with 3xB-20 (368/3442). It is also good to remember that AH-wise La-7 changed very little during it's production while even inside the G-6 subvariant changes were a lot more prominent. That 12000 figure includes both G-6/ASs and G-6/U3s (MW-50) which have different performance compared to AHs G-6. To have fair comparison, only DB605A-1 engined G-6s should be counted.
Don't forget the 109G-6/U2 with GM-1! :aok
-
Don't forget the 109G-6/U2 with GM-1! :aok
Rgr, those too.
Except the /AS-versions, they aren't all too easy to identify from the WNr.-blocks, or at least I don't have such data.
EDIT/Heh, checked again, (most) /U2s can be found easily too, it's those /U3s that and embedded into the bigger blocks that I don't have the info for.
345 /U2s I know of, plus 686 /ASs./EDIT
-
Here is what I have for the G-6 AS from Bf 109 F, G & K Series, by Prien and Rodeike.
"Total Production of the G-6/AS was thus 686 machines, broken down as follows:
Mtt Reg. G-6/AS 226 aircraft - new production, batch 165000
Erla Antw. G-6/AS 11 aircraft - conversion
Erla Antw. G-6/U4/AS 1 aircraft - conversion
Erla Antw. G-6/U2/AS 95 aircraft - conversion
Erla Antw. G-6/U2/R2/AS 23 aircraft - conversion
Mi-Metall G-6/U4/AS 132 aircraft - conversion
Mi-Metall G-6/U2/AS 98 aircraft - conversion
Blohm und Voss G-6/U4/AS 20 aircraft - conversion
Blohm und Voss G-6/U2/AS 80 aircraft - conversion
...One of the first losses was suffered on 8 May 1944 when Fw. Karemitz of 8./JG 1 was killed in combat with P-47s while flying Werknummer 20629; base on its Werknummer this aircraft was a converted G-6, as production block 20600 was delivered from August 1943."
So converted G-6/AS did not receive their own Werknummer. Do these aircraft count in the total production of 12,000?
-
Just my personal estimate, based on a few numbers...I'd say that around 16,5% of the DB605A-1 engined G-6s produced were U4s.
-
Don't want to attempt a Hijack or anything like that folks, but I remember Kev 367th (What ever happened to him btw?) posting about the super rare Seafire that we have in the game, apparently the model and engine type we have account for around 200 of total built :O
So there's another point that should be brought up someday.
As a footnote, I bet Kurfurst would know how many 30mm G6's were built and ordered, here's his website, bet it's in here somewhere.
http://www.kurfurst.org/
I would like to inform those of you who read “Kurvewendigkeit der Me-typen II Telberich” at www.kurfurst.org that this document is the result of research work on my part and that Kurfurst has manipulated my images with his own watermark and posted these in a secured pdf file at his site without my consent.
I have asked Kurfurst a number of times through private channels to remove my research work from his site but he refuses to do so. I intend to contact the moderators of this forum to ask them to remove links to his site but in the mean time I would like to warn others that material shared with him on a personal basis may against your wishes be stamped with his watermark and end up on his site without your consent.
Holtzauge
-
I would like to inform those of you who read “Kurvewendigkeit der Me-typen II Telberich” at www.kurfurst.org that this document is the result of research work on my part and that Kurfurst has manipulated my images with his own watermark and posted these in a secured pdf file at his site without my consent.
I have asked Kurfurst a number of times through private channels to remove my research work from his site but he refuses to do so. I intend to contact the moderators of this forum to ask them to remove links to his site but in the mean time I would like to warn others that material shared with him on a personal basis may against your wishes be stamped with his watermark and end up on his site without your consent.
Holtzauge
That sucks that hes claiming your work as his own sadly the internet is rife with this type of thing and stamping his watermark on it is just plain rude.
Hope you get it sorted.
-
Read the discussion page for the 109 at wikipedia. Kurfurst gets into arguments with other users because he tries to edit the article by citing his own website. :lol
Wing armament and records
The reason for the deletion of these entries:
which, contrary to popular belief, did not induce any greater drag or weight penalty than a wing-housed armament,...
Is that no evidence has been shown to back this information up. Adding new information "contrary to popular belief" without citing a source comes under Wikipedia:No original research. It may well be that there was no added weight imposed, that has not been proven by any cited source. That the addition of the cannon gondolas "accentuated the fighter's tendency to swing pendulum fashion" and reduced manoeuvrability indicates that there was an aerodynamic penalty.
In a serial production Bf 109G-1/R2 with GM-1 injection, R. Klein had achieved 680 km/h at 12,000 m and a ceiling of 13,800 m. Hermann Graf with another serial Bf 109G achieved 14,300 meter altitude.
Again this in new, un-sourced information which comes under Wikipedia:No original research. The other records described have cited sources, and there should be no reason for this additional material to be added as fact without some confirmation.Minorhistorian (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: wing armament: Again, it has not been claimed it did not add weight or drag. It did. The claim is that it did not give any greater weight or drag. I think I have noted that once already. You should read the sentence. Kurfürst (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: altitude achievements: This one comes from one of the Schiffer volumes IIRC. I will try to find the exact source, and make you happy. Kurfürst (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There's no practical way for an added weapon pod housed in the wing to NOT have extra drag. Just sayin'... Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It has. It just do not have any more than wing installations. Kurfürst (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
From the adverse effects the weapons pods had on the flight qualities of the Bf 109 there might not have been added drag, but there must have been some interesting changes to the airflow.
Also, the records section, from my read, deals with records set and recognised as records by the FAI, so any unofficial records, set while testing aircraft, for example, don't really belong here. One another thing; a lot of material in this article is based on information from:
self-published sources whose reliability has not been established (spitfireperformance.com and aboutwarfare.com)websites: if contributors to these articles can find reliable, secondary sources...
As I have explained elsewhere, I have deleted citations based on Spitfire Performance and have replaced it with reliable, secondary sources. Material from aboutwarefare.com is also considered as unacceptable on Wikipedia and should also, in all fairness, be removed. And would you Kurfürst please NOT interleave your comments with other people's? You've been asked to stop several times.Minorhistorian (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
For the third time, I've taken Kurfürst's additions and pulled them from out of the inside of other editor's talk page entries. This is getting very tiresome! One last time, Kurfürst, I am asking you to place every single portion of your response below the signature of the editor whose talk entry you are replying to. Further violations of established Talk page flow will be considered purposeful disruption and will be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Kurfürst you are still using material which is self-published sources and, as you well know is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Minorhistorian (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
-
The G-6 model, the most produced Bf 109 version, had heavier armament. The G-6/U4 variant with Rüstsatz R6 was armed with two 13 mm MG 131 above the engine, a 30 mm MK 108 cannon shooting through the propeller hub and one 20 mm MG 151/20 in a 'pod' under each wing. The G-6 was very often fitted with assembly sets, used to carry bombs or a drop tank, for use as nightfighter, or to increase fire power by adding rockets or extra guns. During 1943, a number of improvements were gradually introduced for the type's benefit : armoured glass head-rest ('Galland Panzer') (early 1943), and the introduction of the clear-view 'Erla Haube' canopy (autumn 1943) improved visibility -especially to the rear, and a taller tail unit improved stability at high speeds. The introduction of the WGr. 21cm under-wing mortar/rockets and the 30 mm MK 108 cannon increased firepower. Certain production batches of the Gustav were fitted with aileron Flettner tabs to decrease stick forces at high speeds. Advanced radio/navigational equipment was also introduced. The MK 108 (German: Maschinenkanone - Machine Cannon) was an autocannon (30mm calibre) manufactured in Germany during World War II by Rheinmetall-Borsig for use in aircraft. ... The MK 108 (German: Maschinenkanone - Machine Cannon) was an autocannon (30mm calibre) manufactured in Germany during World War II by Rheinmetall-Borsig for use in aircraft. ...
My question is: Why dont we have the option of having a 30mm for it?
And how hard would it be to put one in?
Many times the 30 was removed or left out all together as the bird had a boiling problem when on the ground.
-
Ty, I just read those posts.
So we use to have the 30mm option.
why dont we still have it?
and yes we need the 109s to be updated BAD.
Look fine and updated to me. :huh
-
Look fine and updated to me. :huh
The 109K-4 has a 3d model error: the right cowl gun does not look the same as the left.
-
What about early, mid, and late 1943 setups in the FSO, AVA, SEO, and snapshots where you need to pit a 109G-6 against early bombers. The 30mm (not representative of this time) prohibited using the G-6 most of the time and usually G-2s were wrongfully substituted in a number of setups, simply because it didn't have the 30mm option.
The 30mm was left off because it kicked the entire plane into a later time frame, creating a large hole in the planeset with nothing between the 1942 109G-2 and the 1944 109G-6. NOW, with a 20mm-only, 1943-version we have a more representative planeset. If we need to use the 30mm we can use the G-14, which is more representative of a later G-6 anyways (MW50, but not an /AS).
It's a good thing our G-6 has no 30mm. Also, since the 20mm has *finally* been bumped to include 200 rounds it is more than capable of holding its own. I've repeatedly taken down an entire formation of B-17s by myself using only the 1x20mm (200 round) option. The 20mm/30mm weaponry doesn't change the overall effectiveness of the fighting craft itself, because you can get tons more killshots with the 20mm due to its ballistics and firing qualities, instead of fighting for a single crossing snapshot with 30mm.
-
Add to this - the 109 series could use flaps from 700 km/h !
I have posted the chart elsewhere in another thread.
-
My favorite plane is the G14 with the 30mm. (cant stand the K4). A G6 with 30mm and perhaps some other loadout options in both the G6 and G14 to be able to use them as more effective jabo and bomber hunters would be very welcomed. Actually that would be the case for more of the planes that had a variety of loadout options. It brings new life to the planes we have and there is nothing wrong with that :)
That beeing said, I still think we really need to update the graphics and some loadout options on the Ju88 AFTER we get the He-111 ;)
-
My favorite plane is the G14 with the 30mm. (cant stand the K4).
What does the G-14 have over the K-4 except a marginally better turn rate/radius? If I'm flying a G-14 (20mm) one of the worst aircraft to run into is a K-4.
-
What does the G-14 have over the K-4 except a marginally better turn rate/radius? If I'm flying a G-14 (20mm) one of the worst aircraft to run into is a K-4.
A tad better turn rate, a tad better turn radius, a tad better climb rate up to 10k. Which makes the G-14 a slightly better "pure" dogfighter in my opinion.
-
Nothing. On paper the K4 is better.
The G14 just "feels" better to me and fighting K4's are usually no problem. The G14 doesnt get as fast either so it doesnt get into the zone where the controls gets heavy as fast as the K4.
Everyone tells me the K4 is better and ask me the same question every time i mention that i prefer the G14 with tater and the best answer i have is "because i say so" :)
-
a tad better climb rate from 4-7k ft, <100ft/min.
Fixed. ;)
The G14 doesnt get as fast either so it doesnt get into the zone where the controls gets heavy as fast as the K4.
Back off the throttle?
-
Nilsen drives a prius.
-
Nilsen drives a prius.
OH!!!!! Such an INSULT! :O :O :O
Get em Nilsen! :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
... Nooo I have proof of what he drives...
(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q96/Shuff_photos/nilsencar.jpg)
-
What about early, mid, and late 1943 setups in the FSO, AVA, SEO, and snapshots where you need to pit a 109G-6 against early bombers. The 30mm (not representative of this time) prohibited using the G-6 most of the time and usually G-2s were wrongfully substituted in a number of setups, simply because it didn't have the 30mm option.
The 30mm was left off because it kicked the entire plane into a later time frame, creating a large hole in the planeset with nothing between the 1942 109G-2 and the 1944 109G-6. NOW, with a 20mm-only, 1943-version we have a more representative planeset. If we need to use the 30mm we can use the G-14, which is more representative of a later G-6 anyways (MW50, but not an /AS).
On the CM side, we've figured out a way to regulate this. I don't know how it would impact the AvA, but we can handle a G6 with a 20mm/30mm hub option (like the G14) in the SEA.
-
I just found this thread so I may have missed the answer to my question buried in all of this civil conversation :D. Most of this thread seems to be about getting the G6 back its tator but what I'd like to know is if the K4 ever came equipped with a 20? The K4 is probably my favorite ride in game, flys like a missile and can wrench about with the best turners in the game if you throw the vertical in. Unfortunately I find myself flying the G14 more because of its 20... I can shoot the 30 but it takes some time to get used to its ballistics and I don't have as much time for the gam..... war as I used to.
-
I just found this thread so I may have missed the answer to my question buried in all of this civil conversation :D. Most of this thread seems to be about getting the G6 back its tator but what I'd like to know is if the K4 ever came equipped with a 20? The K4 is probably my favorite ride in game, flys like a missile and can wrench about with the best turners in the game if you throw the vertical in. Unfortunately I find myself flying the G14 more because of its 20... I can shoot the 30 but it takes some time to get used to its ballistics and I don't have as much time for the gam..... war as I used to.
Some 109K-4s were delivered with the MG 151/20 even though the MK 108 was supposed to be standard. How many, I don't know.
-
Ty :salute
I thought I remember some of them coming equipped. I hope it was enough so HTC will eventally make that option available.
-
Usually when I see one it is missing a wing or a tail.... :aok
-
On the CM side, we've figured out a way to regulate this. I don't know how it would impact the AvA, but we can handle a G6 with a 20mm/30mm hub option (like the G14) in the SEA.
On the CM side you can check the logs and change the scores after the fact, but you can't look at a live report that says "Hey, dude, 10 pilots took off with 30mm instead" and eject them then and there.
It's not something you can regulate or prohibit, it's just something you can track after the fact. By then the damage is done.
There currently is no tool/feature to disable specific weapons options in a single aircraft and not others.
-
Fixed. ;)
Back off the throttle?
i dont have one. only button i have is wep :uhoh
-
On the CM side you can check the logs and change the scores after the fact, but you can't look at a live report that says "Hey, dude, 10 pilots took off with 30mm instead" and eject them then and there.
It's not something you can regulate or prohibit, it's just something you can track after the fact. By then the damage is done.
There currently is no tool/feature to disable specific weapons options in a single aircraft and not others.
So? How do you think we enforce the other 99% of our rules? Punish those that choose to break the rules. Furthermore, if I catch someone in the logs, their kills or damage is thrown out, and that individual is dealt with. You're correct in saying that I can't turn off a certain ordnance configuration, but I'm telling you right now as an Admin CM for FSO, I'd have no problem including a G6 in a mid-war event, even though a 30mm option was available.
My personal opinion on the matter, as it is with every other aircraft in-game, is that if it was available and saw combat, it should be represented in-game. Let the CM's determine how we're going to regulate something after-the-fact, and give us all the aircraft and different configurations as possible. It only adds to the game.
For whatever it's worth... :aok
-
My personal opinion on the matter, as it is with every other aircraft in-game, is that if it was available and saw combat, it should be represented in-game. Let the CM's determine how we're going to regulate something after-the-fact, and give us all the aircraft and different configurations as possible. It only adds to the game.
You do wish there were a way to regulate it, though. In an FSO you have a dedicated crowd, most of whom probably want to come back next time and therefore will try to conform to the rules. In an open arena you can't do that, and you probably shouldn't do it anyway. People being what they are, everyone grabs the best weapons package. I'm glad that the current G6 is stuck with the 20mm just for that reason - it is the best weapon package, so you can better manage the aircraft available for the time period.
Where we have the real problem in AvA is with the B-25C. There are plenty of times we'd like to use it, but people always run out and grab the strafer version (which might work in the PAC setups, but clearly is wrong for ETO).
- oldman
-
People being what they are, everyone grabs the best weapons package. I'm glad that the current G6 is stuck with the 20mm just for that reason - it is the best weapon package, so you can better manage the aircraft available for the time period.
Some people disagree and prefer the 30mm MK 108.
-
You do wish there were a way to regulate it, though. In an FSO you have a dedicated crowd, most of whom probably want to come back next time and therefore will try to conform to the rules.
That's why I said this earlier...
I don't know how it would impact the AvA...
There are a number of examples of aircraft being out of place. F6F-5 with rockets and WEP in the Mid-War. TBM with rockets in the Mid-War. So lets not act like a 30mm 109G6 would be an anomoly.
-
Better yet, get the Bf.109G-6AS...
High Alt, 30MMs, And generally a shmexy ride all together.
Now that is a plane.
I love to fly it in IL2, perhaps my favorite variant.
-
Some people disagree and prefer the 30mm MK 108.
Bad phrasing on my part. I like the 30mm best, too. My point was that if the 20mm is the only option you have, it is necessarily the best option.
- oldman