G4

[150GCT_Veltro]

The G-2 G-4 video would be better done if the two aircraft had started wing tip to wing tip and climbed at the same AoA.

 

G2 is behind the G4, and the AoA seems to be the same.

 

I really hope this track is just a joke....

 

Feedback from Devs would be welcome of course.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

G2 is behind the G4, and the AoA seems to be the same.

 

I really hope this track is just a joke....

 

Feedback from Devs would be welcome of course.

It's Bullshit. I tried it today and the G-4 when flown at like 83% throttle will climb exactly as well as the G-2 at full. I don't know if one came in without fuel and Ammo against a fully laden G-4 or what they did, but there is no big Difference between the two. 

[150GCT_Veltro]

Some more info.

 

https://stormbirds.wordpress.com/2016/12/23/reviewing-the-bf109g-4/

[Trooper117]

Enjoyed the report... 

[Matt]

Just did a short test, climb from 1000 to 5000 meters at 300 km/h IAS (not best climb speed, but doesn't matter for comparison):

 

G-2 (1.32 ATA) = 3 min 24 sec

G-4 (1.38 ATA) = 3 min 14 sec

 

I obviously did not test 1.42 ATA, but i doubt the G-4 climbs slower with 1.42 ATA than with 1.38 ATA.

[StG2_Manfred]

Just did a short test, climb from 1000 to 5000 meters at 300 km/h IAS (not best climb speed, but doesn't matter for comparison):

 

G-2 (1.32 ATA) = 3 min 24 sec

G-4 (1.38 ATA) = 3 min 14 sec

 

I obviously did not test 1.42 ATA, but i doubt the G-4 climbs slower with 1.42 ATA than with 1.38 ATA.

 

Same here. Made just a test with a friend of mine. At G-2 1.3 ATA and G-4 1.3 ATA we had almost the same climb rate. And when he used 1.42 ATA he definitely outclimbed me.

 

Performed on Berloga, 30% fuel both.

Edited January 25, 2017 by StG2_Manfred

[Finkeren]

I just tested them in quick mission Autumn map. 1000 to 5000, gunning for 275km/h IAS (in reality the average was probably closer to 280, but with no discrepancy between the G2 and G4), 100% fuel, default loadout, rads and prop on auto, 6 flights each:

 

G2 (1.32 ATA) = 3min 20sec

 

G4 (1.38 ATA) = 3min 18sec

 

Results were very consistent for both planes varying by no more than 4-5 sec, though for some reason, the G4 just seemed to climb at a slightly steeper angle to keep 275, but that was probably just my imagination.

 

Seems like there really is no disadvantage in climb rate at combat power for the G4.

[Finkeren]

Also did a little speed test just for fun:

 

All speeds are IAS since we're just comparing the two.

 

                                 300m                   3000m                    6000m

 

G2 (1.32 ATA)            521                      507                          472

 

G4 (1.38 ATA)            518                      501                          465

 

G4 (1.42 ATA)            534                      509                          469

 

Interesting to note, that there is almost no benefit at all to using 1.42 ATA anywhere but at low level (at least as far as top speed is concerned)

 

From what I can see here, the G2 and the G4 are basically the same aircraft, the differences are so marginal that not even the most anal e-sports pilot should care. 

[JG4_dingsda]

 

 

From what I can see here, the G2 and the G4 are basically the same aircraft, the differences are so marginal that not even the most anal e-sports pilot should care.

but ... but ... it has a really nice radio?

[Finkeren]

but ... but ... it has a really nice radio?

There are lotsa good reasons why the G3/G4 version existed in the first place, but for the purposes of this sim, I'll have to agree with some of the people here, that modeling the G6 and unlocking 1.42 ATA for the G2 would have been a more interesting choice.

[Asgar]

i'm not one to say i told you so, but.... 

[Dakpilot]

Although if you removed 10 seconds from the climb and 15kmh from top speed from the G2 at low level, there surely would be some whining...what is not to like about the G4?

 

why on earth is it not surprising to have two pages of drama such as

 

 

 

 "looks like the G-2 climbs better while at the same time not killing itself...surprise, not?"

 

What was done makes complete historical sense in terms of BoK, even if it is not very exciting for serious Lufties, I understood that by the time 1.42 was allowed the G2 was already replaced by the G4 and the G6 was not present until the main air battle over Kuban was long over

 

There is enough to be happy about..Hs-129, FW-190 A5, Bf 110-G2, improved Bf 109 and He-111

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Danziger]

I think some people should have disclaimers automatically attached to each post they make stating how they are notorious trolls and should not be taken seriously. This way random people cruising the forums wouldn't accidentally believe these people know what they are talking about. It could avoid a lot of confusion and snowballing of negativity over non-issues.

[Asgar]

so you want to be the first one the get such a disclaimer i take it?

[Danziger]

so you want to be the first one the get such a disclaimer i take it?

I don't recall ever making false claims about planes underperforming or saying the developers are biased. 

[CUJO_1970]

I think it's great the developers did the G4...it's like histories forgotten Gustav.

 

I would absolutely love to see a G6 some day, hopefully just a matter of time.

[Asgar]

well, since the next theater is going to be in the pacific and it's going to take a lot of work, i don't think we'll have the time for an extra pair of collector planes

[ShamrockOneFive]

Question: How much of a performance difference is there between the Bf109G-4 and the Bf109G-6? As I understand it the G-6 added on some more extra weight so that couldn't have been great for the overall numbers.

[Asgar]

it's not about performance game, the performance gain with the G-4 is negligible. difference it the G-6 has better armor, 13mm MG 131 and optionally the MK 108 30mm cannon. Gameplay wise it would feel a lot different than the G-2. the G-4 on the other hand is basically the exact same aircraft in terms of gameplay

edit: it's also the most produced variant of the 109

Edited January 26, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Asgar

[Dakpilot]

And when exactly did the 109 G6 with 30mm cannon enter service on the Eastern front, and where?

 

It may feel different but where does it fit?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[ShamrockOneFive]

it's not about performance game, the performance gain with the G-4 is negligible. difference it the G-6 has better armor, 13mm MG 131 and optionally the MK 108 30mm cannon. Gameplay wise it would feel a lot different than the G-2. the G-4 on the other hand is basically the exact same aircraft in terms of gameplay

 

edit: it's also the most produced variant of the 109

 

My question was purely a question of comparison. It also wasn't a leading question.

Also did a little speed test just for fun:

 

All speeds are IAS since we're just comparing the two.

 

                                 300m                   3000m                    6000m

 

G2 (1.32 ATA)            521                      507                          472

 

G4 (1.38 ATA)            518                      501                          465

 

G4 (1.42 ATA)            534                      509                          469

 

Interesting to note, that there is almost no benefit at all to using 1.42 ATA anywhere but at low level (at least as far as top speed is concerned)

 

From what I can see here, the G2 and the G4 are basically the same aircraft, the differences are so marginal that not even the most anal e-sports pilot should care. 

 

Thanks for doing this kind of testing. I feel like this gives us a better real world rather than hypothetical look.

 

I'm also curious about how the turn times hold up. It's not something talked about much but in comparing the stats on the G-2 and G-4 as stated by the devs (https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25993-aircraft-flight-and-technical-specifications-and-operational/) the G-4 appears to turn a full second faster than the G-2 does at sea level and at 3000 meters. I'm not sure what the methodology is on how they do a maximum performance turn but I'm assuming its at full throttle. So the 1.42ATA might be, if I'm interpreting maximum performance correctly, also a benefit in a very tight turn situation. I'd keep that 1.42 ATA in reserve during a close in dogfight if it does give me an extra second in turn performance... I realize this isn't the Bf109s forte but it isn't bad at it either.

 

For reference:

 

 

Bf109G-2

Maximum performance turn at sea level: 22.2 s, at 270 km/h IAS.

Maximum performance turn at 3000 m: 28.3 s, at 270 km/h IAS.

 

Bf109G-4

Maximum performance turn at sea level: 21.2 s, at 270 km/h IAS.

Maximum performance turn at 3000 m: 27.2 s, at 270 km/h IAS.

Edited January 26, 2017 by ShamrockOneFive

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

-snip-

 

What was done makes complete historical sense in terms of BoK, even if it is not very exciting for serious Lufties, I understood that by the time 1.42 was allowed the G2 was already replaced by the G4 and the G6 was not present until the main air battle over Kuban was long over

 

There is enough to be happy about..Hs-129, FW-190 A5, Bf 110-G2, improved Bf 109 and He-111

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

This! ^^^^ There is so much to be excited about, why are we even worried about it? To me the performance of the G-4 is just semantics. But, flight simmers as whole are a very passionate lot by nature, so I am enjoying the facts and lively debate as well.

 

And when exactly did the 109 G6 with 30mm cannon enter service on the Eastern front, and where?

 

It may feel different but where does it fit?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Honestly Dakpilot, even if we did have the 30mm, I would opt for the 20mm anyway. I like to get in close, but not close enough to compensate for the low muzzle velocity of the 30mm. It would be nice for hunting those pesky Peshka's and IL-2's though!

 

Great points Dakpilot!

[303_Kwiatek]

My question was purely a question of comparison. It also wasn't a leading question.

 

 

Thanks for doing this kind of testing. I feel like this gives us a better real world rather than hypothetical look.

 

I'm also curious about how the turn times hold up. It's not something talked about much but in comparing the stats on the G-2 and G-4 as stated by the devs (https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25993-aircraft-flight-and-technical-specifications-and-operational/) the G-4 appears to turn a full second faster than the G-2 does at sea level and at 3000 meters. I'm not sure what the methodology is on how they do a maximum performance turn but I'm assuming its at full throttle. So the 1.42ATA might be, if I'm interpreting maximum performance correctly, also a benefit in a very tight turn situation. I'd keep that 1.42 ATA in reserve during a close in dogfight if it does give me an extra second in turn performance... I realize this isn't the Bf109s forte but it isn't bad at it either.

 

For reference:

Anyone notice that most 109 in BOS got at least 1 second higher turn times then VVS test show? Its for F-2, F4, G2 and G4 too

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Anyone notice that most 109 in BOS got at least 1 second higher turn times then VVS test show? Its for F-2, F4, G2 and G4 too

These are not Sustained Turns, but "Performance Turns, whatever that means. I tried it some time ago and the F-4 will turn with a Yak at Combat Power, there is half a Second Difference between the two. The Gustavs will turn with LaGGs and everything else. 

[Finkeren]

These are not Sustained Turns, but "Performance Turns, whatever that means. I tried it some time ago and the F-4 will turn with a Yak at Combat Power, there is half a Second Difference between the two. The Gustavs will turn with LaGGs and everything else.

Except the I-16 of course. Otherwise you're right.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Is the Performance turn when you enter at Speed and just a single 360° circle bleeding energy in the tightest Possible turn? 

[Finkeren]

Is the Performance turn when you enter at Speed and just a single 360° circle bleeding energy in the tightest Possible turn?

Honestly that sounds like something that would be very hard to replicate consistently.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Honestly that sounds like something that would be very hard to replicate consistently.

Yep, it's pretty much only their AI Tester that can do it. And I wouldn't expect the 109s to be Brilliant at it. 

[Finkeren]

I'm also curious about how the turn times hold up. It's not something talked about much but in comparing the stats on the G-2 and G-4 as stated by the devs (https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25993-aircraft-flight-and-technical-specifications-and-operational/) the G-4 appears to turn a full second faster than the G-2 does at sea level and at 3000 meters. I'm not sure what the methodology is on how they do a maximum performance turn but I'm assuming its at full throttle. So the 1.42ATA might be, if I'm interpreting maximum performance correctly, also a benefit in a very tight turn situation. I'd keep that 1.42 ATA in reserve during a close in dogfight if it does give me an extra second in turn performance... I realize this isn't the Bf109s forte but it isn't bad at it either:

I don't feel qualified to do proper turn time tests, but personally I don't feel any difference at all between the G2 and G4 in handling and turn performance.

 

As for using 1.42 ATA as a way to boost a turn: Yeah it might allow you to pull just a bit tighter in a low speed turn to pull a lead, especially at low altitude but really if you are in a low speed turn fight situation on the deck in the G4 you have already screwed up and given up your major advantage.

 

Personally I like to think of the 1.42 ATA as an accellerator boost, to be applied for a few seconds at a time whenever extra accelleration is needed like right at the start of a pursuit or right at the beginning of a combat climb. If you can get a head start on acceleration in a pursuit you can add that extra speed to your advantage all the way through.

 

Just my .02$

Edited January 26, 2017 by Finkeren

[Finkeren]

Yep, it's pretty much only their AI Tester that can do it. And I wouldn't expect the 109s to be Brilliant at it.

The 109s bleed a fair amount of energy in a turn, but on the other hand their slats keep them fairly safe from accelerated stalls when pulling tight turns at high speeds, so they might do quite well in such a test when it comes to maximum turn rate, but they would bleed more speed doing it than, say, a Yak.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

The 109s bleed a fair amount of energy in a turn, but on the other hand their slats keep them fairly safe from accelerated stalls when pulling tight turns at high speeds, so they might do quite well in such a test when it comes to maximum turn rate, but they would bleed more speed doing it than, say, a Yak.

It would probably win the first 90° or 180°, but after that the Yak will pull ahead for some time, may even get inside the 109 before the two somewhat even out. With 20° of Flaps the 109 can be turned and climb down to 180kph. 

[Finkeren]

It would probably win the first 90° or 180°, but after that the Yak will pull ahead for some time, may even get inside the 109 before the two somewhat even out. With 20° of Flaps the 109 can be turned and climb down to 180kph.

When I fly the 109s (which is not that often) and I find it beneficial to turn with a Yak (which is even less often) I usually just stay with him through most of the turn, only pulling a lead at the very last second before I fire. That way I make sure, that he has the least possible energy to evade and to take up pursuit in case I miss and have to break off.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

When I fly the 109s (which is not that often) and I find it beneficial to turn with a Yak (which is even less often) I usually just stay with him through most of the turn, only pulling a lead at the very last second before I fire. That way I make sure, that he has the least possible energy to evade and to take up pursuit in case I miss and have to break off.

Against Players or AI? I very rarely fly 109s online anymore, too many Wannabe Hartmanns out there as it is. 

[Finkeren]

Against Players or AI? I very rarely fly 109s online anymore, too many Wannabe Hartmanns out there as it is.

That's MP.

 

Against AI in a 109 (any 109) I'm pretty much free to do as I please, because even if I screw up, I can just pull up sharply and I know they won't follow me. For that reason I usually fly either E7 or F2 against AI, because they are the most pleasant to fly and I don't really need the extra power.

[unreasonable]

Is the Performance turn when you enter at Speed and just a single 360° circle bleeding energy in the tightest Possible turn? 

 

Where did you read that? I just interpreted the the language of "Peformance turn" as a Russian trying to say "Best turn". After all they give a speed as well, so presumably this is the speed that is maintained throughout the turn.

 

So surely the Tech Specs turn times are for sustained turns.

Edited January 26, 2017 by unreasonable

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Best turn = turn at corner velocity

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well, the russians gave it 20 Seconds in one and 21.5 in the other Direction. Don't remember which was which. 

[LukeFF]

 

 

What was done makes complete historical sense in terms of BoK, even if it is not very exciting for serious Lufties, I understood that by the time 1.42 was allowed the G2 was already replaced by the G4 and the G6 was not present until the main air battle over Kuban was long over

 

The first G-6s starting showing up over Kuban in June of 1943, though when the MK 108 first appeared I'm not sure about. 

[III/JG2Gustav05]

Ok, tried the two Gustavs: Automatic Rads, -15% Stabilizer, 270kph +/- 5kph Tolerance, Full Fuel, no Modifications. 500-1500m, 2600RPM, 1.3ata, did a couple tests each, can't guarantee the times are 100% correct but I really tried. (G-2 100%, G-4: 80% exactly)

 

Same Conditions in the Tests. 

G-2: 51 Seconds consistently (19.6m/s)

G-4: 52 Seconds consistently (19.25m/s)

G-4 with 2700RPM: 47 Seconds consistently (21.2m/s)

 

Also: Top Speeds at Sea Level:

G-2: 528

G-4: 519

G-4 2700rpm: 533

 

2700RPM can be used for 3 Minutes, Damage after a bit more than 3:30. 

Thank you Klaus for this measurement. I think maybe I did something wrong in my test, I need to check. The video I post is just from the Russian forum, I do not speak Russian, so only the video there is what I can interpret.