Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Debrody on September 29, 2011, 11:24:11 AM
-
I was dueling with a squaddie today. First in g2s later in g6s, then in g2s again.
I noticed that the g6 "feels" more nose-heavy, does the ultra-low speed snaprolls and the torque rolls more easily, at least as i feel it.
Why is that? Is our g6 modelled with the larger rudder of the later versions?
109 experts, help me out plz
<S>
-
Doesn't have larger MGs in the nose? An higher caliber MG ammo on top of it. That would add some weight to the nose.
-
i don't know dave, looking at the weight differential between the 13mm mg-131 machine guns (37lbs each) and the 7.9mm mg-17 machine guns (22.4lbs each).
600 rounds of 13mm ap weighed about ~52lbs and 1000 rounds of 7.92mm weighed about ~78lbs.
~126lbs for the mg-131 and ~123lbs for the mg-17 fully loaded.
-
So the extra weight mostly comes from the improved canopy/armor, radio equipment?
The difference is only 106lbs tho, zirka 46kg. Just interesting, found the heavier model more controllable near the stall.
-
The G6 definately feels like a smoother platform
-
I personally feel the g2 is the 'better' 109 in terms of flying performance. Its more balanced and does everything better than the g6 except for its guns.
-
oddly for me, the g2 feels like it handles turns better than the g6 and its a bit better at recovering speed.
-
oddly for me, the g2 feels like it handles turns better than the g6 and its a bit better at recovering speed.
its not odd, its correct.
(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)
-
I personally feel the g2 is the 'better' 109 in terms of flying performance. Its more balanced and does everything better than the g6 except for its guns.
i agree with this. i think the G6 is a more stable platform (just me) but i think the G2 is the better performer
-
Bunny, i did some sustained turn tests. With fuel for 20 mins, the g2 does a circle on the deck in 18.0 seconds while in the g6 it lasts 18.3. You are right, its faster, climbs and turns better.
Or it is just me, not fammiliar to the g2s handling characteristics and kept stalling out? But Slimmer had the same experience too...
-
Bunny, i did some sustained turn tests. With fuel for 20 mins, the g2 does a circle on the deck in 18.0 seconds while in the g6 it lasts 18.3. You are right, its faster, climbs and turns better.
Or it is just me, not fammiliar to the g2s handling characteristics and kept stalling out? But Slimmer had the same experience too...
yeah that sounds about right, the turn radius is smaller with the 109 g2 too.
-
So the extra weight mostly comes from the improved canopy/armor, radio equipment?
The difference is only 106lbs tho, zirka 46kg. Just interesting, found the heavier model more controllable near the stall.
I wouldn't think the canopy/armor and radio equipment would make the plane feel more nose heavy. The canopy is pretty close to the CG point I believe, and wouldn't the radio equipment be aft of the CG?
-
I wouldn't think the canopy/armor and radio equipment would make the plane feel more nose heavy. The canopy is pretty close to the CG point I believe, and wouldn't the radio equipment be aft of the CG?
Exactly, this is the dilemma.
-
As a 38G driver I'll tell you I much prefer to run into a G6 before a G2. At least to me the G2 seems to be the better turner, in particular when the fight gets real slow.
That being said, on the rare occasions I fly a 109 and it's not an Emil, I take the G6.
-
That being said, on the rare occasions I fly a 109 and it's not an Emil, I take the G6.
huh? the Emil is the 109 E-4 not the 109 G-2
-
Bunny, i did some sustained turn tests. With fuel for 20 mins, the g2 does a circle on the deck in 18.0 seconds while in the g6 it lasts 18.3. You are right, its faster, climbs and turns better.
Or it is just me, not fammiliar to the g2s handling characteristics and kept stalling out? But Slimmer had the same experience too...
sounds about right, you have to adjust your flying a bit when you switch to the g2 from the g6. i find it very easy to get too aggressive with the g2 and if i get into a stall fight with it, i end up augering.
what puzzles me is the speed graphs ardy posted, i could have sworn the g6 was faster at 20k than the g2 but it would take some digging to find the info and i'm at work...
huh? the Emil is the 109 E-4 not the 109 G-2
lol, read it again dave, he meant that when he does fly a 109 it's usually the emil, but occasionally he takes the 109g6.
-
huh? the Emil is the 109 E-4 not the 109 G-2
My AH 109 of choice has always been the Emil. But if I don't take an Emil I take a G6. The other night when I was flying with you and Silat I took a G6 for fun.
-
lol, read it again dave, he meant that when he does fly a 109 it's usually the emil, but occasionally he takes the 109g6.
lol yeah, I get it now... Im too quick to respond lol
-
and i called you dave... :rofl i'm a dork...
-
and i called you dave... :rofl i'm a dork...
dave's not here man
-
Bunny, i did some sustained turn tests. With fuel for 20 mins, the g2 does a circle on the deck in 18.0 seconds while in the g6 it lasts 18.3. You are right, its faster, climbs and turns better.
Or it is just me, not fammiliar to the g2s handling characteristics and kept stalling out? But Slimmer had the same experience too...
The G2 is the dancer (well...the Friedrich is really the dancer, the G2 is the stand-in); the G6 is the man's plane. G6 needs lots more rudder to keep it going properly. The extra armament is worth it, I've always felt.
G6 is a lot heavier in the nose. A lot. Don't know why, though.
- oldman
-
For me its close enough that pilot skill wins the turn contest. Prefare g6 because of views and weapons personally.
-
Purely anecdotal but FWIW we had this discussion among the squad a while back and Grizz and SunsFan did a series of duels G6 vs. G2 (both participants flying each plane) and the G6 was the clear winner.
-
I prefer the G6 because it suits my stall fighting, E-burning, trick-or-treat flying style. It's a bit like flying a P-51 Delta over the Bravo. Sure the Bravo has some better attributes on paper, but the Delta just suits how I like to fly a pony.
-
stability and performance are always opposing each other. You will almost always lose some of one to gain the other. G2 is the better all around plane IMHO
-
Theres some truth in those, Grumpy. By the way, my flying style is built around the stability, i like to use tailslides, hammerheads, low-speed snaprolls, flying "outta airflow". Theese moves need a quick recover. While i felt comfortable in the g6, i tryed the same moves in the g2 but kept stalling out, had to change my flying style to be more smooth/conservative.
-
They are flown differently for sure as they should be. Successive models while showing improvements overall usually have to sacrifice something from the previous model to achieve it.
-
I've maintained for a long time that the G-6 is a bit more forgiving and easier to handle than the other 109's (minus the E-4). The F-4 and G-2 are the dancers, no doubt.
The G-14 and K-4 are the specialists, when flown inside their comfort zones they are amazing aircraft. The 109's obviously have a long learning curve.
-
I've flown countless duels in 109s, and I favor the 109G2 over all of the other G models. It offers greater stability at the limits, a smaller turn radius and adequate climb against its brethren. On the deck, it's faster than the G6 and a bit slower than the G14. in MIL power, the G-2 is faster than the G14. In WEP, it's faster above 20k. The G2 has better vision over the nose as it lacks the gun breech bulges that come with the 13mm guns. Overall, the 109G2 is the best of the G models, excluding guns. I'd take the G2 over the other G models for any 1v1 contest. In the MA, you may want a later model for the extra killing power, but you'll have a lesser fighter.
-
I personally prefer the G2 over the G6, you are not talking apples to oranges here between the two, but enough difference to notice. Kinda like comparing a -1 Corsair vs a 1a, basically close, but definite differences. The G2 always felt lighter and more agile then the G6, the firepower difference is noticeably better in the G6's favor though. Guess it's all down to preference and fighting style to which you think is better for you.
:salute
BigRat
-
IMO i'd take the G6 over the G2 due to the nose MG's. .50 cals do the job quicker than .30's the roll rate seems about the same to me, and turning ability falls in the G2 but only by a bit.
if i were you, i'd stick with the G6.
-
G2 for me too. Not because it looks better on paper, but because it feels a lot lighter, climbs better, and has slightly better views. Of course the F is nice, but it lacks that little bit of speed when you really need it.
-
Of course the F is nice, but it lacks that little bit of speed when you really need it.
well its WEP seems to last all day...guess that could help in a pinch if your fighting an equally slow plane.
-
G2 for me too. Not because it looks better on paper, but because it feels a lot lighter, climbs better, and has slightly better views.
G2 looks better on paper and looks better in the air too. It just looks better.
Looks is more important than 0.3 vs. 0.5 secondary guns. When I go down in flames my guns don't matter, but at least I look good.
-
Love both birds. G2 is slightly better in all aspects. I have never had issues with the guns on the G2. Just never relied on the machine guns for a kill. I set the machines guns convergence to 500 (just to tickle the opponent - get'm to turn etc.). I set the cannon to 400.
I take the G6 on occasion because it is slightly more difficult to get into a firing solution. More challenging.
Also, in my style\skillset, all the little differences DO make a difference. So I do all I can to keep my birds light. No gondolas (unless bomber hunting) or bombs (bomb mount points slow the bird down slightly 5mph +/-). I take as little fuel as possible, throttle back to save fuel and eventually end up over the target zone with my bird as potent as possible.
It did take me a long time to learn 109s though. Much longer than most it seems. Love those birds now.
Slade :salute
-
G6 for me:
1. Snapshots that really is hurting a G2 ( pilot wound), G6 normally walks away.
2. Extra guns , they give a tracking snapshot kill a chance, whereas the g2 really have to work them over ( over 200 yards I concider 7,9mm useless)
3. Better visibility ,the improved rear visibility is really something I don't want to be without in a many vs many fight.
-
G2 for the Sexy Yellow nose and turn radios. Plus the perks you can get with it :aok
-
G2 for the Sexy Yellow nose and turn radios.
turn radios? :headscratch: that explains why i can't turn as tight as i want, the radios are off...
-
turn radios? :headscratch: that explains why i can't turn as tight as i want, the radios are off...
:rofl
-
turn radios? :headscratch: that explains why i can't turn as tight as i want, the radios are off...
radius. :o
-
Yellow noses only looked good on Emils.
-
Purely anecdotal but FWIW we had this discussion among the squad a while back and Grizz and SunsFan did a series of duels G6 vs. G2 (both participants flying each plane) and the G6 was the clear winner.
Interesting.
-
By the way, for folks who love the G-2 and the G-6, the upcoming scenario, Enemy Coast Ahead, has lots of them.
It's a 1943 matchup on the Channel Front between the RAF and Luftwaffe. Spits, Typhoons, Mossies, and B-25's vs. 109's, 190's, and Ju 88's.
It runs starting mid November.
-
So in preparation for the upcoming scenerio I have (unless pressed) put the k4 in the hangar (noooo) and taken both the G2 and G6 out. I must say. . . the G6 is a lot less stable which, for some really odd reason, is great. When its slow, i can use the rudder to slide it out a lot easier, the nose swings around a lot faster, and it seems to float - especially with very gentle hangeling it seems to reward me.
I will keep flying both but. . .I think the experts are right on this one. . . even though the G6 seems weaker, its oddly more comfortable to fly. And yah, the guns do make a difference - oddly enough.
I need to fly the G6 more. . .such a shame I have been overlooking it. I still prefer the 30mm though - satisfaction of the 30 is hard to top.
-
I suspect in Enemy Coast Ahead, the groups with the ability to take the G-2 will do so, because they specifically registered for those groups vs. the ones that have only the G-6 as a choice.
But, to discuss the merits:
In Battle Over Germany, we were flying around at 34k, where the P-51's and P-47's were 90 mph faster than we were in our G's. Whether we had a slightly faster, slightly better-turning G-2 didn't matter on that scale, so we went with more firepower. The G-6 is 1.3 times as lethal as the G-2 in firepower.
In Enemy Coast Ahead, the most-numerous opponent is the Spit 9, with performace very close to that of the 190G, so the bit of extra speed and turning for the G-2 could make more of a difference. So there, it's a harder call. More firepower doesn't necessarily trump slightly better speed and turning in that situation. I think either choice is a decent one there.
-
I spent more time in the g6 this tour. I really like it! I found that I can get kills at a much further distance than my beloved g2. With the g2 everything is up close and personal to get a kill. With the g6 I set the convergence to 500 and could kill at a further distance and as a result...make it home alive more of the time. :)
With the g6 I am 10-2. That is a really good kill ratio for me.
I fly many different planes each tour though. I look at the map and basically pick what plane I think would be most effective for a given scenario. I also pick what would be fun of course!
-
Purely anecdotal but FWIW we had this discussion among the squad a while back and Grizz and SunsFan did a series of duels G6 vs. G2 (both participants flying each plane) and the G6 was the clear winner.
Me and pervert did this a while back and te g6 was the winner.
-
Me and pervert did this a while back and te g6 was the winner.
Thats how, the g2 has a better sustained turn rate...
Anyway for me its easyer to reverse in a g6, maybe couse its heavyer nose. Slow as crazy and vulnerable to the run-ho-run tactic tho.
Edit: Jo, what kind of power? Now i curious...
-
Thats how, the g2 has a better sustained turn rate...
Anyway for me its easyer to reverse in a g6, maybe couse its heavyer nose. Slow as crazy and vulnerable to the run-ho-run tactic tho.
The g2 turns slightly better, but it isn't enough to counter act the power of the g6 enough...
-
The g2 turns slightly better, but it isn't enough to counter act the power of the g6 enough...
g2 and g6 have the same engine...
-
Beat me to it. Same engine. Same airframe (slightly less draggy on the G2), better view, better weight, same 20mm hub gun on the G2. I don't see the claims that the G6 is "better" than or "owns" the G2. I've flown both and the G6 has a place in my heart, but as the underdog, not as the beast/monster.
-
give it two equally skilled, fairly good but nothing special pilots, the g2 will win every duel.
now let two monsters fly in them, the g6's chances increasing dramatically.
why?
the extra weight is all in the nose, ruining the g2's good balance and make the aircraft nose-heavy. And oddly enough, it dont hurt the turn rate as much (2-3%) as it increases the stability in ultra low speed vertical reversals. And thats definiately the move the top 109 sticks tend to use.
For the same reason, i "feel" the k4 better than my little beast.
-
Beat me to it. Same engine. Same airframe (slightly less draggy on the G2), better view, better weight, same 20mm hub gun on the G2. I don't see the claims that the G6 is "better" than or "owns" the G2. I've flown both and the G6 has a place in my heart, but as the underdog, not as the beast/monster.
The G6 has 2 things over the G2: slightly more firepower (2/13mm vs 2/8mm in the nose), and a more stable platform. The G6 simply is easier to keep in the air when doing maneuvers, it is more forgiving. Otherwise the G2 is faster, climbs better, turns better, accels better, etc.
When people make blatantly incorrect statements, I wonder just how or why they arrived at their answers other than just grabbing their flatulence cloud out of the air.
-
Was that aimed at me, loon?
Well let's see who's grabbing at what. [EDIT: Erm... that seems a lot more pointed than I meant it to. It's intended as a semi-witty turn-around of your words, not as a directed attack. Just clarifying.]
The G-2 is a whopping 3mph faster on the deck. That's within 1%. Even plane to plane the factories usually had a tolerance of 3%-5%. You could have easily found G-6s in our configuration that were faster than G-2s in our configuration.
The climb rates are only different based on the weight creep on the G-6. They're a few fpm off but otherwise nearly identical. Less than 100fpm difference if I recall.
The G-2 has a turn radius of 636 ft while the G-6 has one of 648 ft.
The accelerations on the 2 planes are within 1 second of each other until you get to the top end of the speed range (where the draggier G-6 slows down a bit).
Why do I bring it up? Simply just to illustrate that some folks claim one is vastly better than the others (and some years ago I might have been one) but when you look at the stats they're very nearly the same plane. Many folks promoting one while detracting the other simply have some kind of blinder on for their favored ride (i.e. they're biased). Not aimed at Smokinloon, just aimed at this topic in general which has come up a few times over the years.
I think we all agree that the 13mm are way better than the 7mm. I think the "more stable" is a bit of a placebo effect, though.
Other than that I find that you can pull moves equally in both planes, as far as memory serves. I like the history of the planes when I fly them rather than the actual performance differences. If I'm feeling oldschool I'll take the 7mms. If I'm feeling the need to hunt the allied uber rides I'll take the 13mms.
P.S. I don't think folks give enough credence to the visibility benefit the G-2 has. The G-6 is much more restrictive. Sometimes that alone makes up for the guns package. Just one of my thoughts on the matter.
-
I fly the G2 exclusively for capped bases, since the F4 got its gondolas and egg taken away <which is wrong>, with gondolas, 50% and a egg/drop tank. I think its the better of the 2.
Now,,,if the G6 had the U4 package, I might fly that :)
See ya in the Air,
-
Was that aimed at me, loon?
Well let's see who's grabbing at what. [EDIT: Erm... that seems a lot more pointed than I meant it to. It's intended as a semi-witty turn-around of your words, not as a directed attack. Just clarifying.]
The G-2 is a whopping 3mph faster on the deck. That's within 1%. Even plane to plane the factories usually had a tolerance of 3%-5%. You could have easily found G-6s in our configuration that were faster than G-2s in our configuration.
The climb rates are only different based on the weight creep on the G-6. They're a few fpm off but otherwise nearly identical. Less than 100fpm difference if I recall.
The G-2 has a turn radius of 636 ft while the G-6 has one of 648 ft.
The accelerations on the 2 planes are within 1 second of each other until you get to the top end of the speed range (where the draggier G-6 slows down a bit).
Why do I bring it up? Simply just to illustrate that some folks claim one is vastly better than the others (and some years ago I might have been one) but when you look at the stats they're very nearly the same plane. Many folks promoting one while detracting the other simply have some kind of blinder on for their favored ride (i.e. they're biased). Not aimed at Smokinloon, just aimed at this topic in general which has come up a few times over the years.
I think we all agree that the 13mm are way better than the 7mm. I think the "more stable" is a bit of a placebo effect, though.
Other than that I find that you can pull moves equally in both planes, as far as memory serves. I like the history of the planes when I fly them rather than the actual performance differences. If I'm feeling oldschool I'll take the 7mms. If I'm feeling the need to hunt the allied uber rides I'll take the 13mms.
P.S. I don't think folks give enough credence to the visibility benefit the G-2 has. The G-6 is much more restrictive. Sometimes that alone makes up for the guns package. Just one of my thoughts on the matter.
There's no doubt that the G-6 has certain advantages in the MA environment visa vi the G-2. However, in dueling, the G-2 owns the G-6. With equal pilots, the G-6 will never get guns on the G-2. That's because 3 percent is the difference between winning and losing. Inasmuch as I'm the type who loves to get into classic dogfights, I'll take the G-2 in the MA, and live with its lesser firepower.
The above doesn't mean that I would not fly the G-6, G-14 or the K-4. I do fly those, but typically only in the DA. Besides, I prefer mid-war fighters because I like the challenge of having to fight the uber rides in them. Odds are, I'll fly a P-39 or P-40 more often than the G-2. Nonetheless, I never feel over-matched when flying any 109.
-
That's because 3 percent is the difference between winning and losing.
Well, yes... When you put it that way agree. Sometimes 3% is all it takes to grant an edge.
-
So I'm the only one in love with the G14 eh?
-
I love the G14 second only to the G6. In a 1 on 1 fight I would feel confident in the G14 vs any plane in the set.
-
The G14 is not a K4. . .and that is my problem with it.
sure it does not turn as fast, but it accelerates a lot faster, has slightly better views, and is just a speed demon. I also like the way torque works in the K4, its more predictable in the stall for me. I need to spend a lot more time in the g14 I think. . . but the k4s ability to gain E so fast is hard to give up.
-
The G-2 has a turn radius of 636 ft while the G-6 has one of 648 ft.
How would a non-aerodynamics engineer determine this for any air plane without using the old website that showed it (think it was soda's site)? Just like to know if it is easy to determine dynamically (in-flight).
Thanks.
-
How would a non-aerodynamics engineer determine this for any air plane without using the old website that showed it (think it was soda's site)? Just like to know if it is easy to determine dynamically (in-flight).
Thanks.
Look for Badboy's bootstrap calculator (posted somewhere in Help & Trainig). In a nutshell, you can determine radius by flying a precise, tight circle (no altitude or speed change) at the edge of stall. With the speed and time for a 360° circle known, you can calculate the radius.
-
Yep, do a bunch of full circles to get your plane to its steady turning speed, then time how long it takes (in seconds) to do three full revolutions. (Start a stopwatch when your nose crosses a landmark and stop it when it crosses for the third time.) Also, with the E6B, note your true airspeed during the turn.
(turning radius in feet) = (true airspeed in mph) x (5280 / 3600) x (seconds for three revolutions) / (3 x 2 x 3.14)
Unless I've made a math error, of course.
-
How would a non-aerodynamics engineer determine this for any air plane without using the old website that showed it (think it was soda's site)? Just like to know if it is easy to determine dynamically (in-flight).
Thanks.
You could use Gonzoville
http://www.gonzoville.com/charts/ (http://www.gonzoville.com/charts/)
It is still limited by your ability to perform the tests, and your ability to turn, Badboy's bootstrap is as he states a rough guide, and only as good as the data a pilot can enter or their ability, but very interesting non the less.
Gonzoville also states the aircrafts typical loadout but not the fuel, or if they used wep while making the turns. Weight and wep makes a big big difference to a plane turning. Gonzoville's test also do not state if the fuel burn is set to 0.
Using Badboy's method on the deck with fuel burn at 0
Example FW190 D-9 Full fuel, no wep, full ammo and no flaps has a turn raduis of 949 ft. A much worse result than Gonzoville's 846 ft effort by MOSQ.
Switch on the wep with full ammo no flaps and 25 percent fuel, and that changes to 814 ft a big big difference. It is now better than the 846 ft listed on Gonzoville by MOSQ.
So in short it still comes down to pilot skill in a turn, I think only HTC could perform that kind of turn test perfectly??
-
How would a non-aerodynamics engineer determine this for any air plane without using the old website that showed it (think it was soda's site)? Just like to know if it is easy to determine dynamically (in-flight).
Hi Slade,
Try this:
http://www.leonbadboysmith.com/Files/AH_BootStrap.zip
Hope that helps.
Badboy
-
Unless I've made a math error, of course.
Nope, your math is good :)
Badboy