Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: gyrene81 on March 17, 2011, 12:10:40 PM
-
i just ran across a pilot manual on the 109-g6/u4...and got curious...basic info i have found thus far shows it had a 30mm hub cannon instead of the 20mm...and the same engine as the g14...now it has me wondering if this was the precursor to the g14 and k4??? :headscratch:
does anyone have more info on this model? seems it wasn't a mass production version but from what i've been able to gather, a couple of squadrons had them issued.
-
As i know, that wasnt a serial production aircraft, but rather a kit installed on the earlyer g-6s in '44, to update the earlyer models to the g-14 standards. Not all the tater g-6s had MW50, and not all the MW50 birds had tater tho.
But plz give us the tater availabled on the g-6 :pray
-
G-6 and G-14 are the exact same airframe. The only difference is the engine, hood and the guns. I do know that there were many g-6s with the 'new' hood and the 30mm.
-
i'd rather have the g6/as personally...even if it was a perked option in the hangar...it was a production model, but i won't go there.
bad thing about rummaging around wwii german documents...i can't read german...all the english stuff shows that g6/u4 as having an upgraded engine too but... :rolleyes:
-
You think the AS engine will give you insane performance? The only difference was in the supercharger, compared to the db-605a used in the standard g-6.
g-6/as had the top speed of 328mph on the deck, but topped out at 408mph at 27k. To compare, our g-6 can do 338 on the deck and about 395 at 21k. The g-10/as could do 415mph at alt, due to the inproved mg-cowling, bad had a poorer performance than the normal g-10 with the db-605d.
-
As i know, that wasnt a serial production aircraft, but rather a kit installed on the earlyer g-6s in '44, to update the earlyer models to the g-14 standards.
/U4 aircraft came from the factory. There are complete production batches of G-6s produced as G-6/U4.
You think the AS engine will give you insane performance? The only difference was in the supercharger, compared to the db-605a used in the standard g-6.
g-6/as had the top speed of 328mph on the deck, but topped out at 408mph at 27k.
If the G-6/AS would have MW-50 injection the speed would be very close to that of the G-14 on the deck.
-
debrody...the g6/as had much better performance at high alt than the g6 we have in ah...i believe it had the 605 engine with the 603 super charger (or was that the opposite?)...low alt performance for the standard g6 is ok as it is "balanced"...but it would be more than nice to have a g6 that could do more than 250mph ias at 28k...if you have ever taken one that high in ah would would notice it kinda flops around like a fish out of water.
-
Here's one 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
-
lol the hungarians got the /u4 upgrade as a kit, to modernize their old planes... i ate the bait, again.
gyrene, 405mph at 27k is much better than 365mph at 27k... MW50 would increase the low alt speed to about 350 or so, then the machine would be quite fast, even in the '44 standards. Here comes the über and (almost) experimental 109 : )
-
:lol omg debrody...what 109's are you comparing?
i'm just talking about the factory modification on the 109g6 which increased it's service ceiling and made it faster at high alt...using the db605as engine (db605 and supercharger from db603)...nothing "uber"...and far from "experimental"...it would be a mid war unit unlike it's successors the g14 and k4.
-
:lol omg debrody...what 109's are you comparing?
i'm just talking about the factory modification on the 109g6 which increased it's service ceiling and made it faster at high alt...using the db605as engine (db605 and supercharger from db603)...nothing "uber"...and far from "experimental"...it would be a mid war unit unlike it's successors the g14 and k4.
some of the /as models had MW50
-
g-6 / AS +MW50, before '44??
-
wrong model...the g6/as late 43 was without the mw50 injection system...that accounts for the mediocre low alt performance gain...the mw50 was put in spring 44
-
ok, thats midwar, but without the MW50, right?
AS + MW50 is almost experimental, yet awsome combo. Some were built, but wasnt common til late 44
-
that's my understanding from the data i've been able to find...krusty probably has more data than i've been able to put together.
-
Almost all the G-6/ASs were conversions of G-6 a/c and built from May to Aug 1944. The G-/AS ac should have the Erla haube, the larger fin and rudder and wider prop blades.
-
Taller rudder is g-10 and k-4 only. If im right.
-
dang debrody...do you read german? i have some manuals i could share with you if you do...i can't make heads or tails of them... :lol
i'm going to correct myself...late 43 was the 109g6/u2 (eastern front) which had a wooden rudder and had increased performance at low altitude...the g6/as db605a with db603 super charger (no mw50) was spring 44...the introduction of the mw50 system came late spring 44 early summer 44...production models rolled off the assembly line with the erla haube canopy.
now i'm starting to wonder if we could get the 109g5... :headscratch:
-
Taller rudder is g-10 and k-4 only. If im right.
Note I said larger not taller.
Production batches 163000, 164900, 165000, 166000, 411000, 412000, 413000, 44200, (G-6) as well as G-6/AS.
-
YES!! Bring us more 109s.... my Hawker needs MORE!!! NOM NOM NOM!!!
(http://www.aviationart.nl/Hawker_Tempest_mk5.jpg)
:rofl
Seriously, I've been flying the 109s in BoG and it's a very nice bird.... and you guys amaze me your the knowledge of the different models/variations/iterations.
:salute
-
I would love to see the K4 get the 20mm too. . .since you are asking.
-
Problem is, asking for the 30mm on the Bf109G-6 we have in AH is like asking for +16lbs boost and 120 rounds per cannon on the Spitfire Mk V. You can find lots of documents supporting it, but the aircraft in AH are supposed to represent earlier aircraft in their series than the 30mm armed Bf109G-6 and +16lbs boost Spitfire Vs.
I would love to see the Bf109G-6/AS added as an additional aircraft though. It is badly needed for scenarios involving combat with high altitude American bomber streams prior to the introduction of the Bf109K-4.
I would love to see the K4 get the 20mm too. . .since you are asking.
To the best of my knowledge, the Bf109K-4 was never built with the 20mm cannon in the nose. That was specifically why AH used to have a "Bf109G-10" that performed exactly like a Bf109K-4, but had the 20mm option.
-
The 109G-14/AS would be, imho, be a better a/c to have than the G-6/AS. Much more common (~1400) and introduced about the same time as the G-6/AS.
-
At Karnak:
whats the ratio to choose the g-6 against the g-2? Two 12.7mm guns instead of two 7.7mms, with 7mph speed, 7% climb and about 5% turn rate penality?
I dont fly anything but the g-6, and this is the worst 109 by far. That tater option would at least add a reason why to fly it. Would be still overshadowed by the g-14.
-
I dont fly anything but the g-6, and this is the worst 109 by far. That tater option would at least add a reason why to fly it. Would be still overshadowed by the g-14.
Karnak is correct, I think. The AH G6 - which once did have the 30mm option - had its armament limited when we got the G14, so that the G6 would be flown in its typical 1943 form. This isn't so important in the MAs (but in the MAs you can fly K4 if you want), but it is very important in scenarios and special events and the AvA.
- oldman
-
karnak is a bit off but not far...the 109-g6/as (db605a with db603 super charger) was developed and factory produced months before the 109-g4/as and in slightly greater numbers (14-1600 units depending on the source)...the 109-g6/as would give high alt (30k alt) performance like the 109-g14 we have in ah, with better maneuverability than the 109-g14...the g14 was more of a standardization of modifications between the g10 and k4...
-
Problem is, asking for the 30mm on the Bf109G-6 we have in AH is like asking for +16lbs boost and 120 rounds per cannon on the Spitfire Mk V. You can find lots of documents supporting it, but the aircraft in AH are supposed to represent earlier aircraft in their series than the 30mm armed Bf109G-6 and +16lbs boost Spitfire Vs.
I don't think boost levels/limitations can be compared with loadout options that are selectable from the hangar and can now be disabled by the CMs for special events. G-6 was introduced in the beginning of 1943 and first 30mm equipped versions came off the line in the summer of '43. G-6 faces '44 vintage bombers in the MidWar arena.
I would love to see the Bf109G-6/AS added as an additional aircraft though. It is badly needed for scenarios involving combat with high altitude American bomber streams prior to the introduction of the Bf109K-4.
G-6/AS had a relatively short production run (for 109) of 686 aircraft. So I don't really see it as a hole plugger per se. Wouldn't mind one either though at some point. Finns had two of them.
To the best of my knowledge, the Bf109K-4 was never built with the 20mm cannon in the nose. That was specifically why AH used to have a "Bf109G-10" that performed exactly like a Bf109K-4, but had the 20mm option.
The fact that part of the K-4 production had MG151/20 in place of the MK108 has been mentioned in Prien & Rodeike's Messerschmitt Bf109 F, G, and K: An Illustrated Study.
MK108 was the preferred weapon for the K-4 but because of Rheinmetall Borsig's difficulties in producing enough MK108s, electrical wiring was installed for both cannons so that when MK108 was unavailable, MG151/20 could be installed instead. I haven't seen any specific figures on how many of the K-4 actually had the MG151/20...and it is quite probable that such numbers don't exist or never will be found.
This isn't so important in the MAs (but in the MAs you can fly K4 if you want), but it is very important in scenarios and special events and the AvA.
There's feature currently in the game which enables CMs to disable loadouts for special events.
-
I would love to see the K4 get the 20mm too. . .since you are asking.
IMO the 30mm is what makes a k4 good, adding a 20mm will make it easy mode
-
IMO the 30mm is what makes a k4 good, adding a 20mm will make it easy mode
lol
30 mm makes the k-4 easy more, in my opinion. one shot, one kill, no luck justn skill thats the k-4's motto
For those who can aim well, 30mm is WAY better than the 20mm.
Thats why i sukk in the g-6. Have to spend alot of time the opponents six, the red guys have lotsa time to pick me.
-
lol
30 mm makes the k-4 easy more, in my opinion. one shot, one kill, no luck justn skill thats the k-4's motto
For those who can aim well, 30mm is WAY better than the 20mm.
Thats why i sukk in the g-6. Have to spend alot of time the opponents six, the red guys have lotsa time to pick me.
Well, most AH playing can't shoot a mk108 to save their own lives, adding a fast, hard hitting 20mm will make it easier for most AH players
-
I don't think boost levels/limitations can be compared with loadout options that are selectable from the hangar and can now be disabled by the CMs for special events. G-6 was introduced in the beginning of 1943 and first 30mm equipped versions came off the line in the summer of '43. G-6 faces '44 vintage bombers in the MidWar arena.
G-6 had a relatively short production run (for 109) of 686 aircraft. So I don't really see it as a hole plugger per se. Wouldn't mind one either though at some point. Finns had two of them.
where are you getting those numbers? 686 total 109-g6 produced or are you saying that's the number of g6/u4's produced?
-
where are you getting those numbers? 686 total 109-g6 produced or are you saying that's the number of g6/u4's produced?
Meant to say G-6/AS. I edited my post and corrected it.
-
Meant to say G-6/AS. I edited my post and corrected it.
ah ok...still seems a bit low...i'm wondering if that number is just what rolled off the assembly line with the modified engines and doesn't include the models with the mw50 system that came later...krusty probably has more solid information but 2 references i found claimed total 14-1600 units but...that may have been an estimation all units including the field modified.
-
ah ok...still seems a bit low...i'm wondering if that number is just what rolled off the assembly line with the modified engines and doesn't include the models with the mw50 system that came later...krusty probably has more solid information but 2 references i found claimed total 14-1600 units but...that may have been an estimation all units including the field modified.
My figures come from Finnish aviation historian Hannu Valtonen's book MESSERSCHMITT BF 109 JA SAKSAN SOTATALOUS. He often uses Prien & Rodeike as reference like in this case. So in other words, those numbers pretty reliable.
First 226 aircraft were new production, rest were modified/repaired from old airframes.
-
My figures come from Finnish aviation historian Hannu Valtonen's book MESSERSCHMITT BF 109 JA SAKSAN SOTATALOUS. He often uses Prien & Rodeike as reference like in this case. So in other words, those numbers pretty reliable.
First 226 aircraft were new production, rest were modified/repaired from old airframes.
Only one G-6/AS was neubau (built Sept 1944), all the rest were modified a/c. Prien has admitted he used old info for his number.
Mttr built 1270 neubau and Erla built 107 neubau G-14/AS.
-
The 109G-14/AS would be, imho, be a better a/c to have than the G-6/AS. Much more common (~1400) and introduced about the same time as the G-6/AS.
I'd agree with this Milo but I still think we could use both in the planeset. IMHO it seems that I'd rather fly the G2 over the G6 in any event that requires high alt flying,once your above 25k the G6 just seems to struggle and you may as well forget about bringing gondies up that high.
YMMV.
:salute
-
There's feature currently in the game which enables CMs to disable loadouts for special events.
True, now. Wasn't so when the G6 lost it's 30mm.
- oldman
-
Anyway, now what is the reason to choose the g-6 against the g-2? No, those MGs doesnt mean as much. The hub cannon will be the one what causes the real damage. The performance penality is much larger.
Plz give us back the tater on the g-6. :salute
-
Anyway, now what is the reason to choose the g-6 against the g-2?
The 12.7s do make a noticeable difference. That, AND the fact that the G6 is harder to fly, make the G6 the plane of choice for true 109 afficionados.
- oldman
-
Karnak is correct, I think. The AH G6 - which once did have the 30mm option - had its armament limited when we got the G14, so that the G6 would be flown in its typical 1943 form. This isn't so important in the MAs (but in the MAs you can fly K4 if you want), but it is very important in scenarios and special events and the AvA.
- oldman
There were very few Bf 109 G-6 with 3cm MK 108s in 1943 - some general info:
The Bf 109 G-6/U4 was a sub-series of the G-6 that was fitted with a 3cm MK 108 as centrally mounted weapon instead of the regular 2cm MG151/20. It was built by WNF, the planned production figure for 1943 being 800, or 810 according to another official source, beginning in May 1943 with the delivery of the first two aircraft. The actual production figure was considerably lower, in fact only 181 Bf 109 G-6/U4 being delivered until the end of 1943.
E-Stelle Tarnewitz was given the task to install and assess the MK 108 in the Bf 109 G-6, beginning in June 1943. They handled two pre-series aircraft, the first of 27 aircraft, the second of almost the same number of aircraft. The first deliveries began in the second half of July 1943, the 27 aircraft of the first pre-series being delivered to front line units until August 22nd, 1943 with the second pre-series aircraft being completely delivered until October 23rd, 1943.
In the Tarnewitz report for 21.7.43 with the title "Einbau und Funktionsüberprüfung der MK 108 in den ersten 30 Flugzeugen Bf 109 G6/U4" (Installation and functional testing of the MK 108 in the first 30 Bf 109 G6/U4s) gives an overview of the testing. Originally to they were simply to install the MK 108s in the aircraft, and then to give them a series of simple functional test.
The implementation of this simple plan would consist of the following: The aircraft were accepted minus the weapons, which I assume meant only the MK 108, rather than also the MG 131s. The weapons came from the final production line at DWM-Posen. The associated units for remote firing of the weapon came from Rheinmetall-Borsig, Berlin-Tagel and its sub-contractors. Anticipated was a short firing of the weapon on the firing stand, then a short firing of the installed weapon on the ground, and finally a short firing of the installed weapon in the air. But, in the rush to make the MK 108 operational it had not undergone the complete testing as specified by GL/C-E6.
Results: The 9 MK 108s delivered at the end of May 1943 had so many problems on the firing stand that installing them in aircraft was out of the question. In mid-June 1943, 24 improved MK 108s were delivered. They worked well enough that one was installed in an aircraft for testing. But, there were numerous problems with the installation that required extensive firing on the firing stand. The report then listed 8 major problems encountered. It also mentions that the training ammunition supplied by DWM had a different fuse cap than the Rheinemetall training ammunition with the result that 3 cannon were destroyed by the exploding cartridge casings.
In the end, everything was fixed up; and at the date of the report (21 July 1943), of the original 30 aircraft, 10 were still at Tarnewitz, and the others had been sent on to Schwerin or to Lärz.
So, according to the wording of the report, it would appear that the 30 aircraft mentioned were, in fact, accepted by Tarnewitz as genuine production G6/U4s rather than any other modified aircraft. The factory of origin of these aircraft is never mentioned, nor were any aircraft W.Nrs.
We can with good reason assume that the aircraft fitted with MK 108 at Tarnewitz - 1st and 2nd pre-series - were in fact the first Bf 109 G-6/U4 to roll off the assembly lines at WNF albeit minus their MK 108, and that it was at E-Stelle Tarnewitz, where these newly developed weapons were to be added to the aircraft. This is born out by the one WerkNr. that is mentioned in one of the weekly reports, which refers to a Bf 109 G-6 that was definitely built at WNF. Only after the more or less successful elimination of the many faults of the early MK 108 with the completion of the 2nd pre-series aircraft at Tarnewitz was it possible, to install the weapons already on the assembly line at WNF and deliver the complete aircraft as Bf 109 G-6/U4, which seems to have started with approximately the 60th aircraft to be completed.
Source - George Hopp / Dr. Jochen Prien
-
I'd agree with this Milo but I still think we could use both in the planeset. IMHO it seems that I'd rather fly the G2 over the G6 in any event that requires high alt flying,once your above 25k the G6 just seems to struggle and you may as well forget about bringing gondies up that high.
YMMV.
:salute
Absolutely! Take the BoG scenario, it was supposed to be '44-'45, according to the description. The G6's we got stuck with were '43 models, couldnt hold a candle to the Allied rides at alt. Adding the '44 model would fix this.
-
Absolutely! Take the BoG scenario, it was supposed to be '44-'45, according to the description. The G6's we got stuck with were '43 models, couldnt hold a candle to the Allied rides at alt. Adding the '44 model would fix this.
This is the same problem the Spitfires have in scenarios.
For the Bf109s, the G-14 should have been used as a stand in for earlier high altitude Bf109s.
For the Spitfires, the Mk IX we have is a Merlin 61 F.Mk IX from mid 1942, yet it is used as the Spitfire for any European setting until almost 1945 when the Spitfire Mk VIII should be used for for late 1943/early 1944 and the Spitfire Mk XVI for mid-1944 to the end, along with the Griffon Mk XIV.
-
For the Bf109s, the G-14 should have been used as a stand in for earlier high altitude Bf109s.
Man I keep saying this... There is no difference in the g14 over the g6 without wep.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=15&p2=84&pw=0>ype=0)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=15&p2=84&pw=0>ype=2)
If you want something that would be historically accurate then we need to get the /AS versions with the GM instillation for high alt.
-
True, now. Wasn't so when the G6 lost it's 30mm.
- oldman
Doesn't really fit, still. The 30mm was on later models. These models had different tail fins, different radio masts, different engine boost additives (MW50, GM1, etc) different allowed BOOST settings, different canopies, with different head rest armor and differing ranges of view.
You can't just put a gun on and say "It still fits because you can lock that gun out in scenarios" -- because the gun is specific to later models, and ours is the earlier version with the clear back armor (although, not the EARLIEST version with solid headrest armor).
[Edit: To previous comment:]
Saying the G6 is the worst of the in-game 109s ignores the lack of speed and firepower on the E4 and F4. The G6 proved itself quite capable against even jugs, ponies, p38s, in the most recent scenario. In an MA situation it's still a very lethal plane.
In short, you want the 30mm, fly a G14. Fly a K4. You don't fly the G6 if you want 30mm. Nobody is locking you into one ride. If you really want that gun, fly a plane that has it, rather than request a gun be added that doesn't fit the model in question.
P.S. The higher FTH on the G6/AS would be quite useful, even though top speed wasn't much better. Even without the MW50 (which a G6/AS shouldn't get in-game IMO) its available power would be much more impressive up at 30k and above. At those alts, 109G6s with the 20k FTH are seriously struggling, but a /AS would only just start slowing down. Makes an important difference, and could sub in for a number of variants with high alt gearings, like G-5, etc... I'm all for some sort of /AS or high-alt version of the 109 as long as it's not a G10. There is a big performance drop that rears its head in scenarios/FSOs.
-
Ardy: the g-14 is a little bit heavyer, so it should climb a little bit slower without wep, and im pretty sure it is in game. With the same weapon loadout, of course.
Krusty: "Saying the G6 is the worst of the in-game 109s ignores the lack of speed and firepower on the E4 and F4. The G6 proved itself quite capable against even jugs, ponies, p38s, in the most recent scenario. In an MA situation it's still a very lethal plane."
??? after the g-6 ANY other ride feels like cheating. The e-4 is pretty bad compared to the F, but still, to its era, the g-6 is the worst, by far. Just calculate the (speed and climb)*(turn rate) to every ride, and you will see which one is the worst.
-
What do you have against the g10?
I mean they most likely have it on a file somewhere to be added with 2 clicks of a mouse, it would give newer Luft enthusiasts a plane that can compete with the allied latewar uberrides that has a much easier gun to use than the tater (extremely hard for new guys to hit with)
-
Hijack alert
What was the difference between the g-10 and the k-4? I know the g-10s were mostly converted from g-6s equipped with the k-4s stuff, but i dont know the performance/tech spec. differences between the two.
Shemp, those g-10s were mostly equipped with the tater gun, just like the g-14s. That was the standardized hub cannon for the newly produced 109s from mid-'44. Some operating g-6s still had the 151/20 in '45 Spring tho.
-
"Gerd" Barkhorn said he loved the G6 more than any other model of 109...
-
Hijack alert
What was the difference between the g-10 and the k-4? I know the g-10s were mostly converted from g-6s equipped with the k-4s stuff, but i dont know the performance/tech spec. differences between the two.
Shemp, those g-10s were mostly equipped with the tater gun, just like the g-14s. That was the standardized hub cannon for the newly produced 109s from mid-'44. Some operating g-6s still had the 151/20 in '45 Spring tho.
If I remember correctly when we had the G10 it was a K4 with a 20mm gun instead of the 30mm. So you got all the speed, with a gun that was easier to hit with.
-
Hijack alert
What was the difference between the g-10 and the k-4? I know the g-10s were mostly converted from g-6s equipped with the k-4s stuff, but i dont know the performance/tech spec. differences between the two.
Shemp, those g-10s were mostly equipped with the tater gun, just like the g-14s. That was the standardized hub cannon for the newly produced 109s from mid-'44. Some operating g-6s still had the 151/20 in '45 Spring tho.
Prien says about 2600 G-10 a/c were built. Of this number 2048, were neubau a/c.
-
What do you have against the g10?
I mean they most likely have it on a file somewhere to be added with 2 clicks of a mouse, it would give newer Luft enthusiasts a plane that can compete with the allied latewar uberrides that has a much easier gun to use than the tater (extremely hard for new guys to hit with)
No, they don't have it on file because we never had a Bf109G-10. We had a Bf109K-4 that was labeled as a Bf109G-10 so that they could give it the 20mm hub option.
Bf109G-10s did not do 452mph. They did something more like 420-430mph.
As to why we don't need it, well, it fills no gap as it entered service after the Bf109K-4. The gap we want filled in the Bf109 lineup is the lack of any Bf109 capable of performing decently much above 20,000ft at an earlier point in the war.
-
got my hands on some relic 109 technical documents and pilot manuals in german...translated some using google translate...there is some highly interesting technical data o the 109g6-u4 and the 109-f1/f2 series...just one question, the documentation is via 109lair.com and it is claimed to be orginal scanned to pdf documents...how reliable/valid should i consider the documentation to be?
-
Just calculate the (speed and climb)*(turn rate) to every ride
What utter nonsense. That does nothing. Might as well bring numerology into it. G6 turns about the same as the G2. It's basically as fast as a G2 and climbs like a G2. There's no debating the G2 appears to be a superior plane to the F4, right?
G6 outclimbs F4 at almost all alts (F4 takes lead right at its FTH then drops off).
G6 outruns F4 at almost all alts (F4 again takes small lead at FTH then drops off)
G6 has a turn radius only 10 feet wider than the G2. G2 is still only less than 40 feet wider than the F4.
It's hardly the dumptruck you seem to suggest. It is quite a versatile E fighter, and more nimble than most rides it goes up against. For the 109s I find the heavier K4/G14 to be less manuverable. Both of which the G6 outmanuvers and turns tighter than. They have more horsepower so they may "feel" lighter by being able to hold the nose up in high AoA longer, but this is not to ignore the fact they turn worse for their added weights.
-
What utter nonsense. That does nothing. Might as well bring numerology into it. G6 turns about the same as the G2. It's basically as fast as a G2 and climbs like a G2. There's no debating the G2 appears to be a superior plane to the F4, right?
G6 outclimbs F4 at almost all alts (F4 takes lead right at its FTH then drops off).
G6 outruns F4 at almost all alts (F4 again takes small lead at FTH then drops off)
G6 has a turn radius only 10 feet wider than the G2. G2 is still only less than 40 feet wider than the F4.
It's hardly the dumptruck you seem to suggest. It is quite a versatile E fighter, and more nimble than most rides it goes up against. For the 109s I find the heavier K4/G14 to be less manuverable. Both of which the G6 outmanuvers and turns tighter than. They have more horsepower so they may "feel" lighter by being able to hold the nose up in high AoA longer, but this is not to ignore the fact they turn worse for their added weights.
Krusty,
The G2 is a better ride than the g6 (G2 is prob the best 109), and the G2 is faster, out climbs & out turns the g6. Although marginal, it does make a noticeable difference.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=14&p2=15&pw=2>ype=2)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=14&p2=15&pw=2>ype=0)
The G2 turns has a turn radius about 20ft tighter than the g6 (~480 vs ~460).
I agree that the K4 does not turn like the G2 or the G6 (~65ft difference).
-
Krusty, up a g-6, ill up an f-4, lets see who will be the winner. Or better, up 10 g-6s, ill call my squad in f-4s, lets see who will be the winner. Even tho the g-6 has more chance in the 10v10, it will lose.
I never said the g-2 is superior to the f-4. Its faster, climbs better, but also lost something from its turn rate. Even tho in a g-2 vs g-6 fight the plane wont decide the outcome, the g-2 pilot has more chance. The difference is even more noticable when you fly against a bird who can outturn you, ki-84, spit16 etc. You will find the job much easyer in the g-2, than in the g-6. Heck, the f-4 can do 334 on the deck with wep, the g-6 can do 337, thats a huge difference, isnt it? The g-2 can do 344 while the g-14 can do 355. I tested the f-4, with fuel for 20 mins, on the deck sustained turn rate (with the weaker engine, the difference in the instanteous turn rate is much larger): with any flap settings, it can turn around in 17.8-17.2 seconds. The g-6 can do a circle in 18.9-18.1 seconds, depends on the flap usage. G-2: 18.6-18.0 g-14: 19.0-18.4
Dangit, through my whole career, im flying that g-6 in 90% of my flight time. Even tho im far from a real top stick, i know what it can do against other rides. Its an über spit-outturner, pony-outrunner bird, belive me... lol
-
If your only criteria is float-like-a-butterfly stall speeds, then the 109E has the F4 beat. The G6 has marginally better climb and speed. I'm not saying the F4 isn't capable. I'm saying the G6 is more capable and has slightly more potential.
Again, unless your only criteria is stall speed handling in stall fights with narrow turn radii.
you're saying it's the worst of the entire 109 line despite having better stats than the F4, similar turn radius to the G2, and better turn radius than the G14/K4.
Does not track. Maybe you like one better than the other, but to decry it so? Nope. Don't buy it.
-
If your only criteria is float-like-a-butterfly stall speeds, then the 109E has the F4 beat. The G6 has marginally better climb and speed. I'm not saying the F4 isn't capable. I'm saying the G6 is more capable and has slightly more potential.
Again, unless your only criteria is stall speed handling in stall fights with narrow turn radii.
you're saying it's the worst of the entire 109 line despite having better stats than the F4, similar turn radius to the G2, and better turn radius than the G14/K4.
Does not track. Maybe you like one better than the other, but to decry it so? Nope. Don't buy it.
Krusty,
G14/K4 make up for loss of turn in climb rate by having enormous climb rates and the torque of the engine is so great that some crazy post stall moves can be done to 'cut' other planes turn radius...
The G6 doesn't have the torque of the K4 or even the g14 (on wep).
Also, unlike the G6 and before, the G14, and K4 have the tater which changes the fight as you strive for crossing snap shots because you don't need a stream of bullets to knock the other guy out of the sky.
I find the G2 as the best 109, better than the f4, as the climb is better but it still can turn well too. The G2 is just the best balance, that being said, I think I could kill myself in a k4 (ie K4 bunnies fighting G2 bunnies).
-
The G2 accelerates better. . thats really important I think and thats where the difference is most marked. The G6 is a fine 109 for sure like all 109s are, but the g2 is my ride of choise because its balanced, it accelerates well, it can do the vert and the horz game and its stable.
Of course the k4 is the most pleasurable to fly (for me) - but that 30mm is such a pain.
-
Grizz and I did some non-scientific test G6 V G2 a while back. At the time we about equal skill level 1v1. we were playing about the same hours per tour.The player in the G6 won 8 out of 10. We found the G6 to be the better plane because of its stability in the stall. You don't have to fight as much at the top of a rolling scissor, and when you did go over the edge, the G6 recovered faster. For MA use the only significant difference is firepower.