G4

[LittleJP]

So, it's basically a G2 with 1.42 ATA unlocked?

 

What are the wing bulgies? Looks a bit slower than the G2, is it mainly the increased drag from wing bulgies and larger undercarriage?

[LukeFF]

 

 

What are the wing bulgies?

 

They are for the larger tires. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

So, it's basically a G2 with 1.42 ATA unlocked?

 

What are the wing bulgies? Looks a bit slower than the G2, is it mainly the increased drag from wing bulgies and larger undercarriage?

 

Yep.

 

It's still faster even if it "looks" slower.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

I did a qucik test at 3000m it slower than G2 7kph at this altitude.

[LittleJP]

Yep.

 

It's still faster even if it "looks" slower.

 

It's faster at WEP, which seems to be limited at 1 minute. Otherwise, it seems a bit slower across the board.

 

Guess it's the start of the trend of the G series getting slower and slower as they tack more stuff on the airframe.

[Finkeren]

At similar power settings the G4 should be a bit slower than the G2 due to extra parasitic drag (wing bulges and fixed tail wheel)

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I did a qucik test at 3000m it slower than G2 7kph at this altitude.

Seems a bit much compared to real life tests. Difference should be rather 1 or 2 kph

Edited December 20, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

G-2 is restricted to 1.3 Ata, G-4 can get up to 1.42 Ata for 1 minute if I'm not mistaken. Imo best way to get more of the airframe but not kill the engine is to run between 1.35-1.37 Ata. 

[Irgendjemand]

Heh, best advice remains to just fly the F4 when it comes to 109s in BOX. At least up until today.

[Sgt_Joch]

very nice, so this is the spring 1943 G4 version with the larger tyres and non retractable tail wheel.

 

according to Kurfurst, the non retractable tail wheel causes a speed loss of up to -12 kmh:

 

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_Leistungzusammenstellung/Leistungzusammenstellung109G.html

 

took it up for a few QMBs, it feels basically like a G2 without the boost limiter. Now the Luftwaffe has a plane to take on the Yak-1b.

[303_Kwiatek]

I doubt 1 minut 1.42 Ata make  a big difference. 3 minutes could be something but not 1 minute. Dunno what was RL 1.42 time rating for 605A.

Edited December 20, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[III/JG2Gustav05]

At kampfleistung, it's slower than G2, climb is also worse than G2 according to the specification presented in game. 1 min notleistung is too short to make anything change in practice. I will stay on G2 anyway.

[Irgendjemand]

Well, has this crate anything to offer over F4 and G2?
More armor? Right now to me it looks like an option noone will even consider if theres a G2 or F4 to choose from.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[Dutchvdm]

Well, has this crate anything to offer over F4 and G2?

More armor? Right now to me it looks like an option noone will even consider if theres a G2 or F4 to choose from.

 

Maybe not performance wise, but for the sake of historical accuracy people could use as soon as Kuban get's released.

 

Grt M 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Maybe not performance wise, but for the sake of historical accuracy people could use as soon as Kuban get's released.

 

Grt M 

 

G2 was there as well, so no need to fly the G4. For me it will stay in the hangar, don't see any need for it

[Finkeren]

Heh, best advice remains to just fly the F4 when it comes to 109s in BOX. At least up until today.

Well, many Luftwaffe pilots did consider the F4 to be the overall best of the bunch.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Well, many Luftwaffe pilots did consider the F4 to be the overall best of the bunch.

 

Always in comparison to their contemporary counterparts, yes. 

[216th_Jordan]

In testing I had quite some situations where the at least 1 minute 1.42 Ata gave me the edge I needed. But true, it is the least different aircraft from BoK, it is more for people who don't own BoS.

[Irgendjemand]

So was the development of the G4 pretty much done to fill the pockets of some partsmanufacturers. Heh nepotism everywhere:)

There must have been a goal they wanted to achieve with the development of the G4. If its the tailwheel and the bulges that took away the performance the bigger engine brought then why didnt they realize that and avoided it? Stupid.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[Jade_Monkey]

I find the FM is less wobbly, much closer to the stability of the E7.

 

Love it.

 

Also i like the small details like the new speeds in the speedometer, the decals in the gear and bigger intake on the left(?).

Edited December 20, 2016 by Jade_Monkey

[Aap]

So was the development of the G4 pretty much done to fill the pockets of some partsmanufacturers. Heh nepotism everywhere:)

There must have been a goal they wanted to achieve with the development of the G4. If its the tailwheel and the bulges that took away the performance the bigger engine brought then why didnt they realize that and avoided it? Stupid.

 

It is not stupid, if they were able to reduce the percentage of takeoff/landing accidents with bigger wheels and also having a better radio could make a difference in real life, even if in the game it makes no real difference. The real main difference between the G2 and G4 is the radio. The bigger wheels and lifted engine limitation were already part of late G2 models.

Edited December 20, 2016 by II./JG77_Kemp

[Sim]

So was the development of the G4 pretty much done to fill the pockets of some partsmanufacturers. Heh nepotism everywhere:)

There must have been a goal they wanted to achieve with the development of the G4. If its the tailwheel and the bulges that took away the performance the bigger engine brought then why didnt they realize that and avoided it? Stupid.

 

I think G-4 also introduced some new radio equipment that is not really represented in the game. And by the way, first G-4s were already tested during late Stalingrad battle (with Stab/JG 3).

Edited December 20, 2016 by Sim

[Dakpilot]

Bigger main/tail wheels (new larger tail wheel would not fit so not retractable) were obviously a needed thing, some G2's were retrofitted with this, with the needed wing bulge 

 

One can only assume that this along with the different gear angle improved landing/taxi/takeoff handling/safety enough to warrant it

 

The better radio with three times the range in G4 was also welcomed, engine was same size though as G2, just had boost restriction lifted

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[BlitzPig_EL]

The larger wheels and tires would have been a great benefit on the unimproved airfields encountered in the East.

That would have meant a lot to a real pilot then, though it is of no utility to us "gamers", as we do not face real conditions in our little pixel world.

 

The aircraft is there for historical accuracy, nothing more, and that in and of itself is a good thing.

Edited December 20, 2016 by BlitzPig_EL

[Dutchvdm]

The larger wheels and tires would have been a great benefit on the unimproved airfields encountered in the East.

That would have meant a lot to a real pilot then, though it is of no utility to us "gamers", as we do not face real conditions in our little pixel world.

 

The aircraft is there for historical accuracy, nothing more, and that in and of itself is a good thing.

 

That's what i tried to say, but i think gamers in general are used to progression and in that way the G4 doesn't really makes any sense. 

 

Grt M

[150GCT_Veltro]

Why 1.42 it's just only 1 minute (1'30'' and it's broken)?

Edited December 20, 2016 by 150GCT_Veltro

[216th_Jordan]

Why 1.42 it's just only 1 minute (1'30'' and it's broken)?

 

I guess they went by the manual as with every plane until now.

[76IAP-Black]

How do you use WEP, 1 min in total so you can Switch it on and off as you Need it? Or do you apply it and fly away for 1 min?

[II./JG77_Manu*]

That's what i tried to say, but i think gamers in general are used to progression and in that way the G4 doesn't really makes any sense. 

 

Grt M

 

Well, it's up to the representation of the game/Sim. You could possibly introduce game mechanics that show off more aspects of aircraft, not only the fighting performance.

I imagine if you'd have to handle the La5 like you had to in real life, it would be a lot harder to fly, let alone fight..same can be said for pretty much any aicraft without auto-mixture.

Game mechanics like a little bubble at the map around your own aircraft in case you have a radio, showing frienldy AC that also have a radio would also add something. Increasing this bubble with a better radio would bring some importance to this aspect of the game. Same for messages like "enemy sighted in square XY at altitude Z", like Cliffs of Dover has it.

Modeling the airstrips more realistic (not like a flat concrete underground, but modeling a 3D ground with wheels sinking in more or less, depending on humidity of the ground) would also show off the advantages of some aircraft. 

But if you take all those possible advantages of some birds away, the "gamer" is being left with a similar/worse aircraft then before. No wonder that rarely anybody wants to fly it then, if it doesn't bring anything new to the table. 

Edited December 20, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Dutchvdm]

Well, it's up to the representation of the game/Sim. You could possibly introduce game mechanics that show off more aspects of aircraft, not only the fighting performance.

I imagine if you'd have to handle the La5 like you had to in real life, it would be a lot harder to fly, let alone fight..same can be said for pretty much any aicraft without auto-mixture.

Game mechanics like a little bubble at the map around your own aircraft in case you have a radio, showing frienldy AC that also have a radio would also add something. Increasing this bubble with a better radio would bring some importance to this aspect of the game. Same for messages like "enemy sighted in square XY at altitude Z", like Cliffs of Dover has it.

Modeling the airstrips more realistic (not like a flat concrete underground, but modeling a 3D ground with wheels sinking in more or less, depending on humidity of the ground) would also show off the advantages of some aircraft. 

But if you take all those possible advantages of some birds away, the "gamer" is being left with a similar/worse aircraft then before. No wonder that rarely anybody wants to fly it then, if it doesn't bring anything new to the table. 

 

Good valid points. Let's just wait and see what they will bring us in 2017. 

 

Grt M

[216th_Jordan]

Wheels do sink in and bigger wheels do actually have an advantage in this sim. (Just not depending on wetness)

[Ropalcz]

Maybe not performance wise, but for the sake of historical accuracy people could use as soon as Kuban get's released.

 

 

So there isn´t any actual reason for people to fly it except of historical accuracy?

[Roo5ter]

If you read through the thread above your comment, you will see people discussing the answer to your question past the post that you are quoting.

[Sgt_Joch]

If anyone is interested, here is the link to the june 1943 G series manual. 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/BF109_G-2-4-6_Bedienungsvorschrift_June43.pdf

 

1.42 boost is limited to 1 minute, although technically, use of 1.42 ata was forbidden (see note 1):

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Sgt_Joch

[ElPerk]

So was the development of the G4 pretty much done to fill the pockets of some partsmanufacturers. Heh nepotism everywhere:)

There must have been a goal they wanted to achieve with the development of the G4. If its the tailwheel and the bulges that took away the performance the bigger engine brought then why didnt they realize that and avoided it? Stupid.

Shortly, no, the bigger wheels and better radio equipment are vital.

 

The funnier thing is that G-2, G-4, G-6, G-14, G-10 and K-4 are mostly just temporary standardizations of incremental advances inthe same airframe. That's why there can be stuff like Beule blisters in G-6 or non-retractable tailwheel in G-4 which were removed in later variants. It doesn't make any sort of sense, and that's a big feature of Nazi procurement.

 

Basically Nazis rejected the concepts such as "make standard runs", "less incremental changes mean less compability issues", "perhaps not producing 100 different variants of the same vehicle is not effective", "how about we redesign this vehicle from the ground up" and other capitalist lies. Hell, they only standardized 109 production in 1944 and even that failed! 

109 Gs are a great example of this. Basically as soon as a defect or fault was detected, someone came up with a solution. Note: he/she didn't necessarily communicate to solution to other facilities building the same model). Then the solution would be added to currently ongoing run or created as a field mod kit. Sadly, some other guy in some other factory had already made some other hotfixes, so all these modifications and repair kits might or might not work with other planes sharing the same name. 

 

At some point someone looks at the entire mess and loads a pistol. Then a new standard is decided. In this case the lack of radios and small wheels in 109 are a fault. The easiest solution is just to install these into G-2 production run. But for who knows what reason they decide to call this thing G-4. As the result, you frequently run into situations where:

1. You have G-2s, say airframes A and B. Since they are built at different times at the same factory, they are very different.

2. You have G-2s, airframe A from factory 1 and airframe K from factory 2. They are built at the same time. But since they are built at different factories, they are different.

3. You have G-2 airframe B and G-4 airframe whatever. They might be completely identical, but in books they are different Gustav models.

 

Then of course you have to ask that what is the point of still updating this 1935 airframe with more heavy stuff it was clearly not well-suited to carry. "Why are you doing stuff like Bf 109G-4 or G-6 or G-XX when you should be doing [Manufacturer] [Number] that was developed in 1941?" Because Nazis really sucked in procurement, that's why. 

 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

If anyone is interested, here is the link to the june 1943 G series manual. 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/BF109_G-2-4-6_Bedienungsvorschrift_June43.pdf

 

1.42 boost is limited to 1 minute, although technically, use of 1.42 ata was forbidden (see note 1):

 

Yes, it was only cleared later this year, in autumn 43.

The part about Steig und Kampfleistung is interesting though. That it could be used up to 1.33 ata in 30min rating. Didn't know about that. I am wondering if this is the case in game? Did someone already try 1.33ata for a longer time?

[Irgendjemand]

Thanks for the insight guys! This forums are a goldmine when it comes to WWII aircraft knowledge:)

[Finkeren]

So there isn´t any actual reason for people to fly it except of historical accuracy?

It ought to be safer to land under adverse conditions, but since the 109s are easy as pie to land already, that benefit is rather inconsequential.

 

The default skin also looks cooler.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

So was the development of the G4 pretty much done to fill the pockets of some partsmanufacturers. Heh nepotism everywhere:)

There must have been a goal they wanted to achieve with the development of the G4. If its the tailwheel and the bulges that took away the performance the bigger engine brought then why didnt they realize that and avoided it? Stupid.

It was much more pilot friendly for ground handling and landings due to the larger wheels and slightly easier to manufacture/maintain due to the fixed tail wheel. The goal was to reduce the number of pilots killed outside of combat. Actually kinda smart.

[Sgt_Joch]

yes, one issue the Luftwaffe was starting to deal with in 41-42 was the fact that pilot skills were decreasing. Due to losses, flight training was cut short and the final part of training was done with combat units. Since many airfields in Russia were just rough fields, this lead to an increase in accidents:

 

 

Besides maintaining aircraft "in commission," the Luftwaffe had the concomitant problem of filling cockpits. The loss rate, as already suggested, had reached the point where the Luftwaffe pushed pilots out of training schools as rapidly as possible to bring aircrew strength to acceptable levels. What now happened was that operational units completed what the schools could no longer finish. The process in many units involved working new pilots into squadron operations on a gradual basis while hopefully minimizing their exposure to hazardous missions. Then as experience increased, squadrons assigned the pilots to more dangerous tasks until they were fully combat-ready.¹²⁵ Such a system was undoubtedly the only one that frontline units could follow given the state of pilot

training. It had, however, two pernicious side effects. The first was that it maximized the exposure to danger of experienced aircrews, thus increasing their losses. This, in turn, led to higher percentages of untrained or partially trained personnel in the combat units. The second, and equally disastrous, effect was that untrained pilots in the dangerous and primitive conditions of frontline airfields had a higher accident rate than normal. The normal rate was high enough given a lax attitude towards flying safety throughout the war.¹²⁶ But the combination of a weak flying safety program along with untrained and unskilled pilots flying off primitive airstrips was deadly. As Table XVII indicates, the Luftwaffe was destroying three of its own aircraft for every four destroyed by the enemy, and the number of damaged aircraft from noncombat accidents was an intolerable burden on an already overstrained maintenance system.

 

 

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/AAF-Luftwaffe-3.html