109 G6 missing something?

[Squire]

The version in question is the Bf-109G-6/U4

It had a retractable tail wheel, and so would not work as just a gun package on the AH 109G-6.

As for #s used, it seems about 3 staffels had them in the Fall of 1944; 1/JG52, II/JG52, and III/JG52 having about one staffel each.

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bjagd.htm

As for adding it, well, im not sure what it adds to the game considering we already have the 109G-14. Thats not to say it could not be looked at, but appreciate that there are many varients of other a/c as well not in Aces High, and there is no way we will ever see them all. HTC makes decisions (it seems to me I dont work for them), on varients that fill gaps.

[Anaxogoras]

As for adding it, well, im not sure what it adds to the game considering we already have the 109G-14.

 <smacks forhead>

[Wmaker]

The version in question is the Bf-109G-6/U4

It had a retractable tail wheel, and so would not work as just a gun package on the AH 109G-6.

Yes, it is U4.

Squire, are you serious here?

First of all, G-6 is the most produced variant of the 109-series. As HTC isn't keen on adding multiple G-6s, you would still say with a straight face that a difference in tail wheel is a reason not to have it, riiight. Second, you've read some bad source, all G-6s had fixed tail wheels. And third AH's G-6's tail wheel retracts in the current version. Yes, it is a bug.

As for adding it, well, im not sure what it adds to the game considering we already have the 109G-14. Thats not to say it could not be looked at, but appreciate that there are many varients of other a/c as well not in Aces High, and there is no way we will ever see them all. HTC makes decisions (it seems to me I dont work for them), on varients that fill gaps.

You talk like it would be something new and difficult to add. It was removed, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to put back in the game. What it adds to the game, well take a look on my previous posts and to some others have also stated that they prefer it over the 20mm. The gun was there in enough numbers to warrant inclusion. Whether it was there in numbers or not in 1943 shouldn't really matter. I'm sure the La-7s with the 3xB-20 setup weren't the first La-7s to roll off the production line either.

[BiPoLaR]

Yes, it is U4.
 all G-6s had fixed tail wheels. And third AH's G-6's tail wheel retracts in the current version. Yes, it is a bug.

i was gonna comment on that. But you beat me to it.
and yes squire, please find new sources bud 

[Anaxogoras]

As HTC isn't keen on adding multiple G-6s

A 109G-6/AS would be different enough to justify its addition, and it's an absolute must for any early '44 ETO  scenario.

[Gatr]

G-10
 I was sad when it went away... As it was my ride of choice....  I am sure this has been discussed ??? But why did the G-10 go away
thanks
Gatr

[TimRas]

Wmaker,
You already got the (incorrect) increased cannon ammo amount (G-6), and (incorrect) Finnish G-14 skin. WTG for good lobbying.
But still not satisfied yet, you want to milk them more ?

[BiPoLaR]

Wmaker,
You already got the (incorrect) increased cannon ammo amount (G-6), and (incorrect) Finnish G-14 skin. WTG for good lobbying.
But still not satisfied yet, you want to milk them more ?

you dont understand do ya?

[Wmaker]

Wmaker,
You already got the (incorrect) increased cannon ammo amount (G-6), and (incorrect) Finnish G-14 skin. WTG for good lobbying.
But still not satisfied yet, you want to milk them more ?

Here you go Timras, take one of these...



...with glass of water and a deep breath that terrible paint scheme and all those 20mm rounds will be nothing but a distant bad dream.

[Stoney]

So, if the 30mm was added, should they go ahead and fix the convergence on the Mk108 as it was historically, at 400 meters, and fix the 109K4 as well?  If its historical precision you're looking for...

[Wmaker]

So, if the 30mm was added, should they go ahead and fix the convergence on the Mk108 as it was historically, at 400 meters, and fix the 109K4 as well?  If its historical precision you're looking for...

I'd like to go that route, yes. As long as the numbers can be found for all the planes in AH and changes apply all planes, I see no problem with it.

What I'm looking for is consistency. I do wonder sometimes why people like yourself seem to object it so much.

P.S. In 109s I use the horribly unhistorical 600 yards convergence for the MK-108. Haven't really used the MK-108 since the DGS-scenario, though.

[BiPoLaR]

So, if the 30mm was added, should they go ahead and fix the convergence on the Mk108 as it was historically, at 400 meters, and fix the 109K4 as well?  If its historical precision you're looking for...

wouldn't bother me at all. Thats where mine is set now

[Anaxogoras]

So is the plan to set the 109 convergence to historical ranges but not for the rest of the aircraft in AH?

[JB11]

Let's put this in perspective, I landed an 8 kill run on the weekend in a G2 with 25 rounds of cannon ammo left (no rearm, single cannon no pods). And I'm a noob.

Jeeps don't count.   

 

[Stoney]

I'd like to go that route, yes. As long as the numbers can be found for all the planes in AH and changes apply all planes, I see no problem with it.

What I'm looking for is consistency. I do wonder sometimes why people like yourself seem to object it so much.

P.S. In 109s I use the horribly unhistorical 600 yards convergence for the MK-108. Haven't really used the MK-108 since the DGS-scenario, though.

I'm all for consistency.  Sorry.  I suppose I was trolling a bit, but my point was that we, as a community, will sometimes cherry pick certain details that are missing for specific aircraft.  Hub mounted Mk108s left the factory with the convergence set at 400m and it couldn't be changed ( http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html ).  If indeed the G6 had the Mk108 available, I say add it--just make sure the adjustable range is removed.