Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: raven 8 on August 11, 2001, 08:21:00 AM
-
i've been flying the 109 g2 lately. how awsome is this plane. i mean if u keep the speede up and climb ur wayy out of trouble. its practically impossible for anyone to kill you. i use to fly the zeke, sure it was fun dogfighting people, but it was easy and wasnt really challenging.
i was facinated by the decipline and technique required to flyy the g2 effectively. so i decided to give it a shot.
and let me tell u, nothing for satidfying than a well excuted bnz.
i think ill stay with the g2 for awhile:-)
ive read up on techniques in flying the 109s. i think i have the theory down pretty well. just gota put it into practice:-)
one very happy customer:-)
rav(messiah1)
btw.........does the 109 have THE best climb rate in AH or does it only have one of the best. what are the planes that could climb with the 109.......lets say the g2.
[ 08-11-2001: Message edited by: raven 8 ]
-
p38,g10,la7,yak and i think the 205, not sure about the 205.
-
It is a long road to 190. I give him 2 years ;)
-
My personal favorite is the 109F-4. Good overall. I think the G10 probably the best out of the 109's for straight rate of climb and fast also.
-
raven8 - check out the help pages on the HTC website, they have charts of climbrate and speed for most of the fighters in AH. :)
-
with WEP only the g-10 outclimbs it:-)
according to the charts, the other planes, especially the p-38 dont even come close:-).....yay!!
i think ill stick to the g-2........climbs almost as good as the g-10 but i think its nicer to fly if caught in a bad situation:-)
rav(messiah1)
-
109G2 is the best of the bunch, in my opinion. The F4 turns better, but the difference is not one that you would actually notice, in my opinion. The G2 is the 2nd fastest (after the G10), and the 2nd best turner (after the F4)- it turns a LOT better than the G10 does, and you can surprise people with it. The roll rate is slow though, so you really have to be on the ball when you are saddled up on someone. The 7.92mm MGs are also rather useless (I've gotten 1 kill with the MGs ever- and several times I've peppered people with them and had them auger and STILL not gotten credit for a kill LOL, it was awarded as a prox kill to someone on the runway in one case). However, if you pack on the 2 gondolas, your roll rate will go from bad to worse, and they also slow you down and worsen your turning ability. With the gondolas on, a N1K2 can catch you flat out at sea level, without them he can't.
-
The N1K is faster than the g2 <giggle>
-
I've been flying the G2 in the CT and it is impressive. I'm not sure the F4 turns better. And at 18.5K I was getting about 400 mph TAS with WEP in level flight. Not bad for 1942 or so.
ra
-
wow!!!!
i just got back from a h2h match with some good sticks.
i stayed up there for 1hour without geting shot down. shot down 5. my highest so far.
just climb my way out of trouble when caught in bad situation.
most of the kills were bnz, by one was dogfighting down low with a yak!......i thought yaks were suppose to be good down low, but i stayed with him all the way.
these machines are just awsome......pick when to climb away, and u wil never be shot down!!
most important thing is to keep it below 450. and ull be invincible!:-)
one very happy 109 user:-)
rav(messiah1)
-
I don't know how well ailerons of the 109 are modeled in the AH. They appear to be quite slow throughout the speed range. I've seen favorable claims about 109's ailerons at low speeds (those british 109E reports, "ideal controll") but at high speed they should be very heavy, almost immovable (Wings of Luftwaffe and 109E tests). So IMHO ailerons of the AH's 109s should be better at low speeds. Is there some kind of hard data about the ailerons of the F, G or K models available somewhere?
gripen
-
it rolls way better at low speeds, i think it is modeled.....at high speed, there no roll rate to speak of:-)
i was able to do a rolling scissors with a yak down low.....only a few circles though:-)
rav(messiah1)
-
Well, you might get a feeling of security from the good climb rate.
But unless you'rea complete and utter coward, sooner or later a higher enemy will arrive when you're doing yer safe climb out. Even a 190A8 with egs will be able to catch you then :)
Top speed is a better defensive weapon than climb rate, IMHO; takes ya out of the danger zone faster. Climb rate is very effective in 1v1's, but once higher enemies start coming in at a steady pace, it sort of wears off the effect :)
-
S!
A lot of people look at the G2 and ask themselves: Why the heck replace it with the G6, which is obviously a dog compared to it.
The reason has everything to do with operational realities, and nothing to do with performance.
The undercarriage on the F model 109 and G2 was essentially the same as the one on the 109E, and while it was sufficient for the weight increase of the F, the extra poundage of the DB605 in the G2 increased the stress on it to the point that collapses during landing were becoming very common, especially for aircraft which been in service for a few months. The Luftwaffe command staff asked for a redesign to fix the problem.
The Messerschmidt engineers found a way to replace the undercarriage. Unfortunately to do this, they had to create bumps in the wings to accomadate the larger and heavier struts and wheel components.
At the same time they replaced the undercarriage, they also replaced the 7.92mm Mg's with 13mm versions. This in turn nessesitated creating bumps in the engine cowling, and destroyed all the beautiful streamlining work which made the F model 109 the best looking mark of the breed.
All in all with the G6 they ended up with a considerably slower, heavier plane, with bigger guns, but generally inferior to the G2 in performance.
However, it did land without snapping off the wheel struts.
-
yeah i know. everytime i see someone higher than me, i get the heck out of there. but having a good climb rate also means that u get up there pretty fast. and i find it that the higher plane usually let u go and go after the lower ones.
the g2 is sufficiently fast to run away from a fight, but u have to decide this pretty early, because unlike other planes, u cant do splits's:-).......well u can but its not as eefective since ur controls lock up above 400
rav
-
Buzzbait is inccorect in what he says.
The G6 had no wheel or landing gear changes.
-
hmmmmmm.......who do i believe :)
-
Me because Im right and buzzbait is wrong. :)
-
ill take ur word for it:-)
[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: raven 8 ]
-
S!
Take a look at closeup shots of the G6 and you will see circular bumps in the upper side of the wings where the larger wheels fold up into them.
Look at the G2 and you will not see the same thing.
-
Grunherz,
Buzz is quite correct about those wheels and bumps on wings. G-2 did not originally have them. They were introduced to G-4, 650x150mm wheel was replaced with 660x160mm wheels. Also the angle of the wheel became more vertical (in outside positon) while wheel leg remained in same angle. Thus the wheel needed the small bump for the wing to hit inside.
G-6 had this wheel from the beginning and many repaired G-2:s also later got such wings and wheels.
The main differences between G-2 and G-6 are in fuselage mgs (bumps in fuselage), from summer 1943 also option for 30mm cannon, type of radio and later in the canopy. G-6 got a Galland armour behind pilots head and then later an Erla canopy. Some G-6:s also had a higher tail wheel.... another wheel difference.
So G-6 was/is heavier and less aerodynamic but better armed, like Buzz mentioned ;)
Lentolaivue 34 had only 109G-2:s and 109G-6:s so they are the ones I have studied quite a bit.
[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: BlauK ]
-
True Buzzbait, G2 had none G6 had them, but ur still wrong.
Im serious, do some more research and ull find out what im talking about. :)
-
Yep G4 was what I was hinting at, he said it only happend first to G6. :)
-
True Grunherz.... Buzz skipped G-4. This statement below is not correct.
At the same time they replaced the undercarriage, they also replaced the 7.92mm Mg's with 13mm versions.
But it was mainly just the choise of words in his text. The issue after all was about differences between G-2 and G-6 ;)
-
S!
I realize the G4 was the first model with the wheels. It also was production-wise, an irrelevant model. Very few were produced.
The issue I was raising was how the better performing G2 was replaced by the poorer G6. I was making the point that sometimes logistical and maintenance issues take precedence over performance. Many aircraft designs which performed incredibly well in the test stages didn`t go into production because they were impossible, or too expensive to maintain in the field.
-
S!
And Grunherz was obviously wrong in his first statement:
»»»»»»»»»»--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Buzzbait is inccorect in what he says.
The G6 had no wheel or landing gear changes."
--------------------
-
You are wrong again Buzzbait, the G4 was by no means means insignificant.
Total G4 production was about 1242
Total G2 production was about 1586
:)
And I was right the first time, there were no wheel changes on the G6 compared to the previous model the G4. :)
-
S!
At no point in my first post did I mention the G4. I was comparing the G2 and G6.
You obviously have a problem with admitting when you are wrong.
-
Buzzbait you clearly said the wheel changes and Mg17 to Mg131 changes took place at the same time and that that the end result was the 109G6.
This is completly incorrect. You fully missed the 109G4 in which the wheel changes actually took place.
There is no way around it you were wrong in your post, mebbe you have issues admitting that.
-
S!
Please find where I said the change to the wheels didn`t happen in the G4. In fact, find where I mentioned the G4 at all:
»»»»»»
"The undercarriage on the F model 109 and G2 was essentially the same as the one on the 109E, and while it was sufficient for the weight increase of the F, the extra poundage of the DB605 in the G2 increased the stress on it to the point that collapses during landing were becoming very common, especially for aircraft which been in service for a few months. The Luftwaffe command staff asked for a redesign to fix the problem.
The Messerschmidt engineers found a way to replace the undercarriage. Unfortunately to do this, they had to create bumps in the wings to accomadate the larger and heavier struts and wheel components.
At the same time they replaced the undercarriage, they also replaced the 7.92mm Mg's with 13mm versions. This in turn nessesitated creating bumps in the engine cowling, and destroyed all the beautiful streamlining work which made the F model 109 the best looking mark of the breed.
All in all with the G6 they ended up with a considerably slower, heavier plane, with bigger guns, but generally inferior to the G2 in performance."
»»»»»»»
As I say: "...with the G6 they ENDED UP with a considerably slower, heavier plane..."
Get that: ENDED UP. ;)
I never said there was no intervening models of 109G`s. My comparison was between the G2 and G6.
On the other hand, as noted above, you insisted the G6 DIDN`T have wheel changes or bumps in the wings for the wheels.
-
Here:
At the same time they replaced the undercarriage, they also replaced the 7.92mm Mg's with 13mm versions.
The undercarriage changed on G4.
The Mg changed on G6.
You say both happened AT THE SAME TIME, which clearly means on the same plane which you say is the G6.
This is incorrect.
-
No the G6 had no changes on the wheels, it carred over with the G4 wheels and bumps.
-
I had bumps once.. but it went away..
Oh wait.. those were mumps.. my fault.
:)
-SW
-
S!
If you were intending to differentiate between the G4 and G6, why didn`t you mention the G4 in your first response to my post?
Obviously because you didn`t know what you were talking about.
I stand by my original post.
This is my last post on the subject.
-
I was trying to make it fun or like a small challernge for you to check ur references again, sorry bout that. I often forget how direct people are here.
BTW If you stand by first post that means you still belive that the G6 was the model where both the wheel change and gun change took place.
Actually you seem to be misinformed about person the 109, as you incorrectly stated the G4 was only a minor variant when in fact it saw nearly as much production as the G2.
Anyway I honestly feel this is getting pointless and dangerous thread, obviously you dont feel comfortable to admit your error, so I respect that and will not push it further. I hope you agree to this as well and we stop this all now.
<S>
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
No the G6 had no changes on the wheels...
I will carry this on still just a little bit further :rolleyes: and say that is incorrect! :)
G-6 did have changes in wheels! Some variants had a taller tail wheel ;)