Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Buzzbait on April 18, 2001, 02:09:00 AM
-
S! all
There is too big a model gap between the 109G6 and the G10. The G10 is essentially a K-4. So the gap is early 1943 to late '44.
A large number of 109G6's (AM model) were equipped with MW-50 Methanol injection in '43 and early '44. (especially in the West) Some had the larger Supercharger as well. (ASM model)
The G-6 right now is not an aircraft many will fly. On the other hand, a G-6 with the DB605AM or DB605ASM would be more popular. It would also allow for historical match-ups with the P-47D-11, P-51B and (hopefully) P-38J.
Creating this model would be quite simple. The largest effort required is for the new paintjob. Maneuver performance would be very similar to the G-6. The AM or ASM mod only adds max. 150lbs.
Another thing to consider as a loadout option for the 109's is the GM-1 Nitrous Oxide injection system. This adds around 300lbs to the aircraft and was a possibility for all the 109G's as well as the late F's. Performance was generally enhanced above 22,000 feet, with no advantage seen below this altitude.
Cheers Buzzbait
-
Merlin 66! Merlin 66!
-
you are right, but you do not insist, do not make anything remedy it, the 109 this striped one in AH.
ejemm, and G10 is not K4, exist many differences.
I have used a translator, I hope that my is understood post.
greeting
Supongo (the 109 defender)
-
S!
I agree!Bring the more powerful Bf109G-6 with MW50/GM1 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)Some 109G-6's had the turbocharger of the DB603-engine in the DB605.This made it the high alt plane.
------------------
DB603
3.Lentue
Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34/)
-
Actually this is something I would support.
I was kinda shocked to find that our G2 actually outperforms our G6 in almost every regard but armament.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Verm a stock G2 should always outperform a stock G6, they both have the same engine DB605A but G2 is is lighter and more aerodynamic due to lack of MG131 bulges, and also cleaner due to the G2s retractible tailwheel and no wing bulges. Many LW pilots actually said the G2 was the best 109 preferring it even over the F4, apparently it was more than fully competive vs its main competition of late 1942 and early 1943.
But we should add add MW50 to our G6, the real one ours was modeled after did have the DB605AM engine with MW50, this raised its power to around 1850hp, which would be really nice.
-
MW 50 would be a really nice addition to the G-6. Like Buzzbait said, there is too much gap between G-2 and G-10. This is a real problem for scenario designers. If they add MW 50 to the G-6 then there is a nice progression of performance from F-4 -> G-2 -> G-6 -> G-10.
-
Funked deserves at least an LFIX for that ... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I agree. I dont think we need a new plane, just make the plane we have now perform like it should, since the paintschekme we have IRL had mw50.
Also, I agree with having a LF.IX added. I think the spit XIV will be so good as to require perking, but the brits really need a spit better than the old one they have now.
Please add these two very simple to add planes pyro (for the g6, all you need to do is adjust horsepower almost!) ad add a little weight.
-
sounds like a solid idea.
it will be faster than g2 but slower than g10 correct?
if it brings more people to fly the G6 the it is good (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
right, the g6 would be about in between ...mabye 355 MPH onthe deck,or about as fast as a la5.
it would make a good early 1944 airplaneto go alongwith the p38L, P47 D25, and P51 B
-
S!
The reason the poorer performing G-6 replaced the G-2 was two reasons:
#1 The heavier armarment of the 2 13mm MG's was felt nessesary to help take down aircraft such as the IL-2. Not to mention the heavy Allied Bombers. As mentioned above, this created bulges which increased drag and slowed the aircraft.
#2 More importantly in an operational sense, the added weight of the G2 over the F4 had finally stretched the durability and strength of the 109's landing gear to the breaking point. A large number of G2's had their landing gear collapse after regular usage. (something which is not modelled in AH) So it was replaced with heavier gear, with larger wheels. This however, nesessitated the creation of bulges in the wings to make room for the increased size. Which increased the aircraft's drag and slowed it down more.
This was the beginning of the design compromises which ended in the very unmaneuverable K-4. (G10)
I totally agree that we need a Spitfire Mk IX LF or Spitfire Mk VIII. The current one is not a proper representation of a Mid/Late war Spit IX.
-
S!
Personally I don't think the G6 with the DB605AM or DB605ASM should replace the standard G6 with DB605A. There should be an additional 109. The standard G6 was still the more common, especially on the Eastern Front. It is still nessesary for 1943 scenarios.
-
just got done flying the 109g6.
perhaps an additional variant w mw50 would be ok but its a fact that the majority of 109g6's were configured the same as the Aces High g6 w/o mw50 or gm1
that and its fun to fly the way it is (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
the g6 we have tho (we have hartmann's g6) had mw50 irl
they should make this one mw50 then add a non mw50 109 g6
my preference would be a green JG54 109 g6 paintscheme since the non mw50 g6 saw alot of action vs russia
you can thank me now santa (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
the g6 they add without mw50 should not have galland hood either, since i think almost all g6 with galland hood also had mw50?
but im not an expert
-
OK lets talk paint schemes..
Whatever is done, please mix it up a bit!
109F4 > Marseille's - "Yellow 14"
109G2 > Schroer's - "Red 1"
109G6 > Bartels - "Red 13"
109G10 > No change
I've posted this before so I've already heard all the reasons why we have the current schemes. Just pluggin the ideas when and where I can.
-
S!
Hmm..change paint scheme for G-2?!UHOH!It is good as it is now. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)It is paint scheme of best scoring Finnish Ace Ilmari Juutilainen with 94 confirmed kills.Beats any Allied pilot any day (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Every 109 doesn't need to represent a German ace...
------------------
DB603
3.Lentue
Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34/)
[This message has been edited by DB603 (edited 04-19-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Buzzbait:
The reason the poorer performing G-6 replaced the G-2 was two reasons:
#1 The heavier armarment of the 2 13mm MG's was felt nessesary to help take down aircraft such as the IL-2. Not to mention the heavy Allied Bombers. As mentioned above, this created bulges which increased drag and slowed the aircraft.
I don't think that those 13mm MG's could make any difference at all versus an Il-2 or much less a heavy bomber. In AH they are of no use even against fighters. Thus the G6 is inferior to the G2 in pretty much every respect.
------------------
---
SageFIN
"I think IŽll believe in Gosh instead of God. If you donŽt
believe in Gosh too, youŽll be darned to heck."
---
-
Sagefin, 13mm were enough against fighters. I discussed this with Georg Amanns grandson ossi.
His granpa stated that at close ranges (under 50m) he used mostly 13mm machineguns. When he could get good burst in it was almost sure kill. 20mm was enough from further away (250m if i remember right)
I think he talked about 109. He also flew 190 and 262.
-
C.202s downed Hurricanes and P-40 with only two 12,7mm. C.202s downed even B-17s with 2x12,7mm during the defence of Italy. Same thing did Japanese fighters with "light" armament during home defence.
Here lethality is tuned down. Imagine what 20mm and 30mm could do if things were like the Real Thing.
-
Lethality is not "tuned down", it's not that simple.
The digital damage model is largely to blame.
-
Blah, hell with it, I've shot down a B-17 with pair of 7.92mm pea shots..
Though, that needs whole load of ammunition even from 50 yards behind (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
goes easy with 202 compared to that.
-
S!
The DM needs some adjustment.It is either on or off.And varies VERY much with net lag.
About 20/30mm lethality.The 20/30mm could rip the plane apart,but the only 20mm here doing that from extreme ranges is the Hispano (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
DB603
3.Lentue
Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34/)
-
Blah Fishu... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I shot down a Lanc with 13mm last week... luckily I disabled his rear gunner with the last few cannon shells - parked 100 yards off his six - put about 500 MG rounds into his tail until it fell off... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
With 13mm you can light up even fighters for minutes without doing any real damage. Hey, I want an option to remove em on the 190A5!!
Back on topic... hmm a faster G6? Fine with me altough I got caught in the fangs of Tanks desings now... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
PUNT! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I have a great idea (at least i think so)
Lets give current 109g-6 finnish markings and
add 109g6AM (mw50) with current 109g6 artwork.(AH 109g6 has artwork of RL 109g6AM)
WE WANT G6 AM! :O
hih!
-
G6 + DB605AM = G14 ?
-
Pretty much. Afaik the G-14 was an attempt to standardise the late model G-6 with all the various mods.
-
Originally posted by Elk:
G6 + DB605AM = G14 ?
Negative. G14 had a modified tail aswell,IIRC. And some of them used DB605ASM engines for better high altitude performance.
-
HOw about giving that "other" 109 Hungarian markings(Yugoslav?) and give it MW50 it really needs.
------------------
Glasses---I may have 4 eyes ,but you only have one wing.
Besser tot als rot