Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Debrody on April 06, 2011, 02:48:08 PM
-
Just made a comprasion.
f-4 climbs better, faster, turns way better also has longer range... the g-6 only have advantage in speed under military power. Those MGs really dont mean anything, if you cant hit with the 20mm, your target wont die... Willy Messerschmidt did something really wrong.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/planeperf.php?gtype=0&pw=1&p1=13&p2=15&submitButtonName=Generate+Chart
-
Bold statement. Stepping up to the G-6, I see a plane that is faster at most altitudes under both mil and wep. (16-22k exceptions) It also climbs significantly faster under 11k under both wep and mil, and has only a minor disadvantage way up in the clouds. I think you are also underestimating the difference in hitting power and ballistics between the 7.6 and 12.7 mm guns. I am fairly certain that if the G series was inferior, they would not have produced quite so many of them. I'm certainly no 109 expert, though.
-
Definitely not negligible difference between 131s and 17s. Especially centered as cowl guns are.
-
Bold statement. Stepping up to the G-6, I see a plane that is faster at most altitudes under both mil and wep. (16-22k exceptions) It also climbs significantly faster under 11k under both wep and mil, and has only a minor disadvantage way up in the clouds. I think you are also underestimating the difference in hitting power and ballistics between the 7.6 and 12.7 mm guns. I am fairly certain that if the G series was inferior, they would not have produced quite so many of them. I'm certainly no 109 expert, though.
Our g6 is an attempt to find the middle ground on the 'g6'. The g6 was a smörgåsbord of field mods, etc... There were 6's with different canopies, different tails, different hub guns, different engine mods, different clearance for max manifold pressure, etc.. On top of that, ground crews were always moding them, tuning the engines better, etc... on and on it goes...
It was so bad the the G14 was really an attempt by the Germans to standardize the 'g6' but even some g14s had different engines etc... It is more like the k4 was more consistent in its specs.
Personally, if your going to go with a 'g' model, I'd go with the g2 or the g14. G2 in my opinion was the 'best' 109. G2 is much better than the in game g6, and the g14 has the 30 mm which changes the fight entirely.
-
Maybe i understimate the 13mm guns, but as long as you cant hit with the 20mm, your opponent wont go down in either model. The g-6 is about 6-10mph faster at low alts, but its maneuverability isnt comparable to the f-4. I just cant understand it why was it in production when the Fritz could dodfight way better.
-
Maybe i understimate the 13mm guns, but as long as you cant hit with the 20mm, your opponent wont go down in either model. The g-6 is about 6-10mph faster at low alts, but its maneuverability isnt comparable to the f-4. I just cant understand it why was it in production when the Fritz could dodfight way better.
I am by no means a LW expert so I'm happy to be corrected here but it was my understanding that the 109F series was a little controversial in that it actually reduced the number of guns available to 3 (from 4 on the E series). This was fine for the veterans and aces who had excellent aim but was seen as a step back for newer pilots. I also think the mission profiles being flown changed between the F and G series. By the time the G was introduced the LW was facing more and more heavy bombers over the continent and a premium had to be placed on firepower as a result the machine guns were beefed up and the option added for the 20mm gondolas. I found a bit from Galland's book "The First & The Last" that seems to back this up.
The 2nd Fighter Wing, Richthofen, under it's commander, Egon Meyer, had already developed it's own technique for a frontal attack, but the results in aircraft shot down were still very small. The was chiefly a question of armament. The ME-109 carried only one 20mm cannon and two normal machine guns. This could by no means be regarded as sufficient in the fight against multi-engined bombers. This armament, too, constituted an incomprehensible regression in the new ME-109F compared with the E series, whose production had stopped in the previous year. The later had two 20mm cannons mounted in the wings and two normal machine guns. The one cannon of the new ME109F was of course more modern, had a quicker rate of fire, a better trajectory, and what is more was centrally mounted over the engine and fired through the hub of the propeller. Nevertheless there was conflicting opinions as to whether the new armament should be regarded as a step forward or backward. Molders shared Udet's opinion that one centrally mounted cannon was better than two in the wings. I regarded one cannon as absolutely inadequate, particularly as I considered machine guns outdated for aerial combat, merely senseless fireworks. One could hardly impress an enemy fighter with them any more, to say nothing of a multiengined bomber. Naturally I recognized the advantages of centrally mounted weapons. But if the armament consisted of one cannon only then I preferred two decentralized cannons, especially when I thought of the gradually declining standards in skill and training of the majority of our new pilots, which was unavoidable as the war dragged on. Not every pilot was as good a sharpshooter as Udet or Molders.
He goes on to say
This problem of the ME-109 armament was also brought to Hitler's notice, how and by whom I do not know. During a conversation he asked me for my opinion. Did I consider the better armament for the ME-09 a cannon in the central axis or two in the wings? I did not ponder long: "Better all three." Hitler was pleased. My answer corresponded with his ideas. He used the fact that later development provd him repeatedly correct as an argument in his attempts to pt into practice odd ideas of his own in the field of armament and technics, against the advice of experts
Immediately after this conversation came the order to increase the armament of the ME-109F. Two additional 20mm cannons were mounted below the wings. These "gondolas", or "bathtubs" as we called them naturally affected the performance of the plane badly. The aircraft defaced in this was was as good as useless for fighter combat. But at least with three cannons she had now a firing power with which one could achieve something in the battle with the Flying Fortresses.
-
Thank you, i think i got it now. <S>!
-
Thank you, i think i got it now. <S>!
Mate, it is also question of production efficiency and equipment. G series of 109s were cheaper and faster to build, could be equipped with more modern radios and navigational aids, for example, and had in-built capability of much much more additional eqiupment for different missions.
P-51D was slower and poorer turner than P-51B - but it was still built and pushed to use, as it could perform its tasks better. Same with 109F vs. 109G. G was more usable and better fighter, even if it was worse _dogfighter_.
Cheers!
-
P-51D was slower and poorer turner than P-51B - but it was still built and pushed to use, as it could perform its tasks better. Same with 109F vs. 109G. G was more usable and better fighter, even if it was worse _dogfighter_.
Cheers!
D is a better performer down low. Its a matter of engine tuning. The difference in top speed is 427 vs. 441-tiny, and largely caused by the bubble canopy, an innovation well worth it, I'd say. The much-spoken of "maneuverability difference" is marginal at best. Not a fight decider. And the D is far more adequately armed.
Too many compromises in the G6. The G2 trumps both the G6 and F of course. I agree that the 20MM is the "main show" and two HMGs in the cowl don't make up for the loss of performance.
-
Too many compromises in the G6.
The G6 is clearly the most difficult of all the 109s to get kills with. But once you've spent some time with it, it's a sweet flying plane. I much prefer it to the G2 because the 12.7s do add a noticeable effect. The F is the easy-mode version, the Emil really is limited to early and midwar opponents, and the other two are just late-war monsters for people who enjoy that time frame.
- oldman
-
My thought about the 109's is they were, in later years, tweaked to help knock down bombers. Don't suppose "dog fighting" as we understand it was part of the deal.
-
D is a better performer down low. Its a matter of engine tuning. The difference in top speed is 427 vs. 441-tiny, and largely caused by the bubble canopy, an innovation well worth it, I'd say. The much-spoken of "maneuverability difference" is marginal at best. Not a fight decider. And the D is far more adequately armed.
Too many compromises in the G6. The G2 trumps both the G6 and F of course. I agree that the 20MM is the "main show" and two HMGs in the cowl don't make up for the loss of performance.
The G6 and the G14 have the same power and climb rate when wep is not used. G6 has a better turn radius too. G14's only adv is climb and speed with wep, otherwise they are almost the same.
-
This isn't about JUGS, damn I thought you might talk about what JUGS do to 109s :x
:noid
In all seriousness the G6 can't hold a candle to the K4, in other words: Bunnies in a K4 PWNS Bunnies in a G6 IMHO
JUGgler
-
The G6 and the G14 have the same power and climb rate when wep is not used. G6 has a better turn radius too. G14's only adv is climb and speed with wep, otherwise they are almost the same.
That. The difference between the g-2s and the g-6s handling isnt as much tho, it mostly depends on the pilot, not the plane. The g-2 is about 7mph faster (with and without wep too) what is noticable. But still, the (turn rate)*(speed and climb) remained on the same level compared to the F.
Its interesting becouse while the spitires upgrades were pretty much effective and had only a minimal impact on the maneuverability, the 109G wasnt a really good way to improve the F. The K is a different story tho.
Btw, lol juggler : )
Anyway, note that i only can "feel" the g-6s stall charateristics, im pretty lame in any other bird. But me in a k-4 > me in a fritz > me in a g-6
-
I prefer the F4.
-
Mate, it is also question of production efficiency and equipment. G series of 109s were cheaper and faster to build, could be equipped with more modern radios and navigational aids, for example, and had in-built capability of much much more additional eqiupment for different missions.
P-51D was slower and poorer turner than P-51B - but it was still built and pushed to use, as it could perform its tasks better. Same with 109F vs. 109G. G was more usable and better fighter, even if it was worse _dogfighter_.
Cheers!
the 51D is much faster at low alts as the 51B was geared for higher altitudes. both 51s have advantages and disadvantages to be used against the enemy.
-
That. The difference between the g-2s and the g-6s handling isnt as much tho, it mostly depends on the pilot, not the plane. The g-2 is about 7mph faster (with and without wep too) what is noticable. But still, the (turn rate)*(speed and climb) remained on the same level compared to the F.
The G2 is better than the F in almost every way under 10,000 ft. The F may have a slight advantage in instantaneous turn. The extra horses under the hood do make a difference, even if not a huge one.
-
I have finished off many a plane, or been forced to start then finish off new planes with the 2x 13mm guns in later model 109s. They are not for show. They are a noticable step up. I've taken out 1 or 2 planes with 13mm alone in G14s or K4s I've landed kill streaks of 8-10 in a 109G6 (no gondolas) with single hotpads halfway through. It's quite capable.
In a G-2 or F-4 you have to put more rounds into target. Say the 20mm that you land does 90% of the required damage to break something, then that extra few 7mm rounds does 8% more, well the target keeps on flying.
In a G-6 and later, those 13mms round for round equal about 3 7mm rounds. Now all of a sudden instead of doing 98% damage and having the con keep fighting, you've done 120% or so and he's dead. You can move on to the next target.
At least, that's how it feels from my perspective.
-
in G14s or K4s I've landed kill streaks of 8-10 in a 109G6 (no gondolas) with single hotpads halfway through. It's quite capable.
Any film of that? 8-10 kills in one flight? (My max was 9, and I didn't make it back to base) :headscratch: :headscratch:
-
1 hotpad means 4 kills per stint if Im reading it right.
-
My best in the g-6 was 13 with one rearm, 8 without rearm (no, i wasnt vulching). 8-10, you speakin about it like an usual thing WTF you must be damn good then <S>
-
A couple of older films maybe, but film viewer doesn't play older stuff so well anymore. I'd have to go digging, but have 100s of film files in a sub directory.
-
1 hotpad means 4 kills per stint if Im reading it right.
Quite so. That's 50 20mm rounds per kill, or in some cases where you use too much 20mm you kill the last 1 or 2 with the 13mms only.
-
i prefer the 109F over G6, the G6 has more hitting power with the MG's as stated above. i am no means a "top stick" in a 109 (F or G6) but have held my own against those who are and fly K4's.
-
i prefer the 109g6 due to its better lethality, to me its a significant difference difference shooting @400 yards or less , and due to the fact it does'nt give you pw's as often as i get in the G2/F4, it has much better pilot protection.
-
Quite so. That's 50 20mm rounds per kill, or in some cases where you use too much 20mm you kill the last 1 or 2 with the 13mms only.
Oh, thats more believable... I've only gotten 9 kills in one flight, once. That was in a K4 and that was about 11 slugs per kill.
-
For Krusty, not to hijack the other 109 thread:
Your head is hard like a rock. The g-6 is faster and climbs better than the f-4?
Look at this:
(http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m601/Debrody/genchart3.png)
Climb, military power. The g has advantage under 13k, while the f overtakes. Almost equal, isnt it?
(http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m601/Debrody/genchart4.png)
Climb, wep. Pretty much the same story.
(http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m601/Debrody/genchart1.png)
Speed, military power. The g-6 is only 5 mph faster on the deck, even tho it increases to 15mph at 6k. The F is faster between 17 and 23k. Little advantage on the g-6
(http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m601/Debrody/genchart2.png)
Speed, emergency power: g-6 is average 5mph faster up to 13k, and over 22k. Between theese alts, the F is faster by 5mph. Pretty much equal, isnt it?
109Fs turn radius is about 410-425 feet, not sure. G-6s turn radius is around 480 feet.
F-4 can turn around in 17.4 seconds on the deck, the g-6s best time i could reach was 18.1.
Those MGs instantly kill the enemy when you point them on it, right? This advantage goes for the g-6, its valid in a many vs many situation, but still, til you cant hit with the 20mm, the enemy wont crash.
I dont know why you think the g-6 is a better dogfighter. Have you ever tryed to turn it against a spitfire? And the F? Try it then tell me which one is the better dogfighter.
GL
:aok
Edit: my fav ride is the g-6. But if you dont belive me, come, duel me, you will be in the g-6, me in the f-4. Im a noob, but im almost sure i will get you. Couse the g-6 isnt über.
-
http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=109f4&p2=109g2&p3=109g6
I wouldn't compare milpower settings much. Both planes have 10 mins of WEP and if engaged wouldn't be doing it on continuous power.
Further, Bf109F4 turn radius is 591 feet sans flaps. With flaps G6 does 481 with full flaps. Why do I compare flaps to no flaps? Just one indicator that shows the G6 isn't quite the dump truck. The F4 even without flaps is fairly tight turning. Spit9 minimum radius is 632 feet whilst G6 minimum is 648 (both sans flaps). So the 109G6 is comparable to a spit9 in turn radius.
As you yourself have shown, the G6 is faster and climbs better. Marginally faster and marginally better, but "better" nonetheless, and does so with more horsepower and more firepower. It's no slouch in the manuverability department either. It's not as if it turns like a P-51 for these advantages it holds over the F-4.
So, several benefits, almost no detriment, just as capable as a 109F or 109G2, and you maintain that it's the worst of the 109s?
In fact it's really one of the nicer ones. Your main contention is that it doesn't turn with spits as nicely. Again see my previous comment "Well sure... If turn radius is your ONLY criteria for a dogfighter!"
P.S. You said worst of all 109s, not "worst compared to 109F" not "worst compared to 109G2 and F4" -- you said it was the worst. That's like saying a spit9 is the worst of the spits. It's a misleading and not entirely true statement.
-
http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=109f4&p2=109g2&p3=109g6
I wouldn't compare milpower settings much. Both planes have 10 mins of WEP and if engaged wouldn't be doing it on continuous power.
Further, Bf109F4 turn radius is 591 feet sans flaps. With flaps G6 does 481 with full flaps. Why do I compare flaps to no flaps? Just one indicator that shows the G6 isn't quite the dump truck. The F4 even without flaps is fairly tight turning. Spit9 minimum radius is 632 feet whilst G6 minimum is 648 (both sans flaps). So the 109G6 is comparable to a spit9 in turn radius.
As you yourself have shown, the G6 is faster and climbs better. Marginally faster and marginally better, but "better" nonetheless, and does so with more horsepower and more firepower. It's no slouch in the manuverability department either. It's not as if it turns like a P-51 for these advantages it holds over the F-4.
So, several benefits, almost no detriment, just as capable as a 109F or 109G2, and you maintain that it's the worst of the 109s?
In fact it's really one of the nicer ones. Your main contention is that it doesn't turn with spits as nicely. Again see my previous comment "Well sure... If turn radius is your ONLY criteria for a dogfighter!"
P.S. You said worst of all 109s, not "worst compared to 109F" not "worst compared to 109G2 and F4" -- you said it was the worst. That's like saying a spit9 is the worst of the spits. It's a misleading and not entirely true statement.
Krusty,
It doesn't show in the graphs but in my experience, once the g6 is slow, it doesn't turn up as fast as say the g2 or the g14. This has a noticeable impact when engaged in a tight rolling scissors fight (a fight that is frequently engaged in when fighting with a 109).
-
K-4 :noid
-
the 51D is much faster at low alts as the 51B was geared for higher altitudes. both 51s have advantages and disadvantages to be used against the enemy.
You are referring to AH right?
The B and D models for real worked quite well together and often with the introduction of the D model in late May 44. B/Cs flew alongside the D/K models til the end.
One of my favorite 51 pictures. November 44, a mix of 51B/C and D models of the 359th. Early canopy, Malcom B/C, Bubble top Ds. There isn't anyway they were operating two different engine types at one time with one geared for high alt, and one for low.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/51sMixed.jpg)
-
You are referring to AH right?
The B and D models for real worked quite well together and often with the introduction of the D model in late May 44. B/Cs flew alongside the D/K models til the end.
One of my favorite 51 pictures. November 44, a mix of 51B/C and D models of the 359th. Early canopy, Malcom B/C, Bubble top Ds. There isn't anyway they were operating two different engine types at one time with one geared for high alt, and one for low.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/51sMixed.jpg)
yes. but quite honestly although their differences are very subtle, they still are differences that can count at pressure moments. D has 6 guns (im game usually) but is also heavier and geared for lower altitudes while the B has less guns but is lighter and faster higher up and geared also to fly at higher alts better. Whats even better than that, everyone who flew both 51s in the BoG knows exactly what i mean when the 51D couldnt climb above 31k well when the 51B could still pull some maneuvers up that high. So i really was speaking the truth about it in game (definitely) and possibly in real life. if the two were modeled after WWII counterparts exactly i'd take the 51B over the 51D anyday at alt and in turning abilities (although like i said both are very similar)
-
http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/pony_reversal_rad_g6_1409.ahf
A quick film clip on the awesomeness of the 109-G6
That is all.
edit: ok, I was wrong, there is more :D
http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/g6_4_on_1.ahf
and even more
http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/109g6_vs_g14.ahf
-
yes. but quite honestly although their differences are very subtle, they still are differences that can count at pressure moments. D has 6 guns (im game usually) but is also heavier and geared for lower altitudes while the B has less guns but is lighter and faster higher up and geared also to fly at higher alts better. Whats even better than that, everyone who flew both 51s in the BoG knows exactly what i mean when the 51D couldnt climb above 31k well when the 51B could still pull some maneuvers up that high. So i really was speaking the truth about it in game (definitely) and possibly in real life. if the two were modeled after WWII counterparts exactly i'd take the 51B over the 51D anyday at alt and in turning abilities (although like i said both are very similar)
The difference between game and 'real life' is that the 51B/C or D/K could use the same engines rated for the same altitudes. In game I believe the B has the -3 Merlin while the D has the -7 Merlin. This is similar to what the Spitfire FIX has in game in the Merlin 61 and the Spitfire XVI has in game the Packard Merlin 266. One rated for higher alts and the other one with better performance at medium to low alts.
That being said. The majority of B/C Ponies had the -7 Merlin, just as the majority of Spitfire IXs had the Merlin 66 instead of 61.
That mix of Mustangs in the photo I posted all would have had -7 Merlins.
I suppose that a good wishlist item might be the P51B/C with a -7 Merlin to go with the 51D, in particular for scenario use etc :)
-
Initially, the P-51B and C had the Packard V-1560-3 engine rated at 1400 hp for takeoff and 1450 hp at 19,800 feet. There were 400 P-51B-1-NAs and 250 P-51C-1-NTs built.
total of 1990 P-51Bs
total of 1750 P-51Cs
V1650-3 production was ~17% of all P-51B/C production.
At 61" of Hg
V-1650-3
critical altitude, low blower - 13,750'
critical altitude, high blower - 25,800'
V-1650-7
critical altitude, low blower - 8,500''
critical altitude, high blower - 21,400'
-
The difference between game and 'real life' is that the 51B/C or D/K could use the same engines rated for the same altitudes. In game I believe the B has the -3 Merlin while the D has the -7 Merlin. This is similar to what the Spitfire FIX has in game in the Merlin 61 and the Spitfire XVI has in game the Packard Merlin 266. One rated for higher alts and the other one with better performance at medium to low alts.
That being said. The majority of B/C Ponies had the -7 Merlin, just as the majority of Spitfire IXs had the Merlin 66 instead of 61.
That mix of Mustangs in the photo I posted all would have had -7 Merlins.
I suppose that a good wishlist item might be the P51B/C with a -7 Merlin to go with the 51D, in particular for scenario use etc :)
learn something everyday. <S> thank you
-
The F4 is more nimble, you can dump speed in a turn or with some high G moves, then pick it back up quickly. This translates to really nice vert and extention options that the G6 lacks. The F4 feels more forgiving in the E fight, the G6 is really nice if you start with some altitude and can control the fight from start to finish - the F4 just feels a lot lighter.
-
To me, it feels like the 109g can dive faster with control than the F-series.
-
To me, it feels like the 109g can dive faster with control than the F-series.
aerodynamic improvements between the G and F series. They do come at a price tho.
-
You think?
Im not fammiliar with the F, but the G-6 is able to reach the blackout with autotrim up to 430mph. Not as bad. Any Fritz experts?
But once more, i dont fly anything but the G-6, and still, me in a Fritz owns me in the G-6 8/10 times.
-
You think?
Im not fammiliar with the F, but the G-6 is able to reach the blackout with autotrim up to 430mph. Not as bad. Any Fritz experts?
But once more, i dont fly anything but the G-6, and still, me in a Fritz owns me in the G-6 8/10 times.
I'm not sure your comparison method is a viable one. A G6 should be able to outzoom a F4 but not outclimb it...think spit5 VS spit9. at very high speed a G blackout limit is the same for all the planes.
-
Just made a comprasion.
Those MGs really dont mean anything,
Haven't flown in a real war obviously but at least in AH, this is compelete nonsense. Especially considering how the AH damage model works. 13mms make a considerable difference.
-
I'm not sure your comparison method is a viable one. A G6 should be able to outzoom a F4 but not outclimb it...think spit5 VS spit9. at very high speed a G blackout limit is the same for all the planes.
Tell me that the G-6 is better... its FAR from the spit5 vs spit9. The spit9 is 20 to 40 mph faster than the spit5 at ALL altitudes.
ehm G blackout limit... there is a lil thing called compression. Try to BnZ in a 109g6 like you do in your dora or pony, and lets see what happens.
Maker: ok you won, my plane is the best from the planeset, idk wtf im beyotching here. :bolt:
-
haha I didn't see, the G2 is faster than the G6, and it is more maneuverable! Why are you flying this piece of toejam again? As a sidenote the 13mm in aces high can get you a couple of kills alone, while it is almost impossible to do the same with the 7mm.
I have yet to hear about a reliable compressibility measuring test, but again I would expect the 109G6 to bleed less E in a dive, as various parts of the wings and the fuselage were redesigned in an effort to increase speed.
looking at the charts all you can do in a G6 against earlier 109's is run, or outfly them, or die :D
-
looking at the charts all you can do in a G6 against earlier 109's is run, or outfly them, or die :D
Running: i never run from a 109, let it be any subtype, flown by anyone. The problem is that they are faster and climb better than me, even the F at some altitudes.
Outfly: trying trying.
Die: i very rarely die to 109s.
-
Maker: ok you won, my plane is the best from the planeset, idk wtf im beyotching here. :bolt:
Get a cheap reading comprehension plugin.
-
Get a cheap reading comprehension plugin.
Sorry, got a bit angry. Just associated where you were going. And nope, you are not able to get kills from 800 out even with those big-step-forward MGs. Even the best set up snapshot makes minor damage unless you can hit the opponents pilot, summa summarum you have to get in his six and stay there to finish your opponent, whos able to do two things: outturn you OR dive away. There are no planes in the planeset what cant do either (ok the p40B, but how many p40b-s have you seen this year?). In the F youre at least able to turn with the spits for a while, being about average 5mph slower, still being outran by the spit8 and still being able to catch the spit9.