Let's talk about the G6

[CUJO_1970]

People are remembering the old La5FN from IL/2. Let's just say it was an interesting and generous interpretation. The La5 in BoX I think is one of the more realistic FM we have in the sim, even with it's over-modeled roll rate.

 

The G6 will be what pilots make of it. Those 13mm should make a very big difference.

[ShamrockOneFive]

People are remembering the old La5FN from IL/2. Let's just say it was an interesting and generous interpretation. The La5 in BoX I think is one of the more realistic FM we have in the sim, even with it's over-modeled roll rate.

 

The G6 will be what pilots make of it. Those 13mm should make a very big difference.

 

Agreed. The La-5FN was generous and also modeled by many standards at a late 1944 spec in IL-2: Forgotten Battles and on. Basically an aircraft used for the attack on Berlin and some of the earlier options despite having a 1943 mark beside its name. We always subbed in the La-5F and that was always a pretty fair fight between it and the Bf109G-6 and FW190A-5. I think we'll see something similar here with an excellent aircraft that has a ton of improvements over the La-5 Series 8 that we already have.

[Gambit21]

People are remembering the old La5FN from IL/2. Let's just say it was an interesting and generous interpretation..

As was the the Yak 3 and Yak 9 - UFO's both of them,

Friggen Oleg.

[Livai]

The La-5FN and Yak-9 summer of 1943 participated in battle of Kursk

The G-6 with MW-50 late summer 1943 participated against USAAF bombers with MK108 @ 30mm cannon.

 

Different theatre but same timeframe as kuban bridgehead make a G-6 with MW-50 armed with MK108 @ 30mm cannon even more interesting to have if the Devs plan to add La-5FN and Yak-9......................

[LukeFF]

 

 

The G-6 with MW-50 late summer 1943 participated against USAAF bombers with MK108 @ 30mm cannon.

 

Source? 

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

My understanding was that MW50 only really showed up early-mid 44 at best.

[Finkeren]

And let's keep it real: The MW50 was intented as an aid to bomber interceptors to quickly get to altitude and catch up to some of the faster bombers. It was not intented as a "quickly get the upper hand in a dogfight"-tool.

 

It belongs on the very late G6s and high altitude G6/AS - and of course on the 1944 G14. It doesn't really belong on summer-autumn 1943 standard G6s on the Eastern Front.

 

It's the same reason we don't have the Wfr.Gr.21.

[DB605]

And let's keep it real: The MW50 was intented as an aid to bomber interceptors to quickly get to altitude and catch up to some of the faster bombers. It was not intented as a "quickly get the upper hand in a dogfight"-tool.

 

It belongs on the very late G6s and high altitude G6/AS - and of course on the 1944 G14. It doesn't really belong on summer-autumn 1943 standard G6s on the Eastern Front.

 

It's the same reason we don't have the Wfr.Gr.21.

 

Actually it was intented as a power boost to any situation, of course just as much to dogfight as to get quickly altitude. It was standard feature since late G6s till the end of 109s.

 

But i do agree it does not belong eastern front 1943.

 

 

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by DB605

[Finkeren]

Actually it was intented as a power boost to any situation, of course just as much to dogfight as to get quickly altitude. It was standard feature since late G6s till the end of 109s.

 

They first tried to install it on the BMW 801 for the Fw 190, which suffered mainly from inferior climb rate compared to the Bf 109, a project that quickly failed because the BMW couldn't handle it. It was then first put into action on the high-alt G6/AS, why would they do that if not to boost climb performance given that the MW50 was pretty ineffective at the altitudes the MW50 was designed for? It would only really benefit during the climb to intercept altitude.

[DB605]

They first tried to install it on the BMW 801 for the Fw 190, which suffered mainly from inferior climb rate compared to the Bf 109, a project that quickly failed because the BMW couldn't handle it. It was then first put into action on the high-alt G6/AS, why would they do that if not to boost climb performance given that the MW50 was pretty ineffective at the altitudes the MW50 was designed for? It would only really benefit during the climb to intercept altitude.

 

MW/50 system was never designed for AS engines only but to give easy and cheap power boost for all 109s. And sure even AS models benefit quite lot for +250hp power boost in any combat situation between 0-6000 meters, not only in climbing.

[Finkeren]

MW/50 system was never designed for AS engines only but to give easy and cheap power boost for all 109s. And sure even AS models benefit quite lot for +250hp power boost in any combat situation between 0-6000 meters, not only in climbing.

True, and there is a reason it was made standard, but my point is: Why install it on the G6/AS first, the fighter least likely to benefit from it in actual combat? I say the original intent has to be to boost climb up to 6000m to facilitate quicker interception.

[Kurfurst]

True, and there is a reason it was made standard, but my point is: Why install it on the G6/AS first, the fighter least likely to benefit from it in actual combat? I say the original intent has to be to boost climb up to 6000m to facilitate quicker interception.

 

I think it was a matter of practicality. The first MW conversions to see action were the (pressurized) G-5/AS of JG 11 and (non-pressurized) G-6/U2s. I suppose the G-5s were G-5/U2s originally, and the /U2 sub-types already had the fuselage tank and plumbing installed for high altitude GM-1 boost, so it was really easy the convert this system to MW 50. They used the same tank and the injected stuff in the supercharger just the same, the main difference was that in the case of the "standardized" MW fitting (i.e. G-14) the pressure was provided by tapping the supercharger, while the systems with /U2 (GM1) origin relied on pressurized air bottles.

 

Plus the Western front where high altitude work was required was generally more demanding tactically, on the Eastern Front they rarely actually used MW 50 even it was installed. My guess is the usual tactics of swooping down on Il-2s below and the subsequently disengaging did not require it as much. 

[JG27*Kornezov]

 

Finkeren Are you male or female?

 

[Finkeren]

Finkeren Are you male or female?

Look at my profile.

 

Gotta ask though: Why would it matter?

[Finkeren]

I think it was a matter of practicality. The first MW conversions to see action were the (pressurized) G-5/AS of JG 11 and (non-pressurized) G-6/U2s. I suppose the G-5s were G-5/U2s originally, and the /U2 sub-types already had the fuselage tank and plumbing installed for high altitude GM-1 boost, so it was really easy the convert this system to MW 50. They used the same tank and the injected stuff in the supercharger just the same, the main difference was that in the case of the "standardized" MW fitting (i.e. G-14) the pressure was provided by tapping the supercharger, while the systems with /U2 (GM1) origin relied on pressurized air bottles.

 

Plus the Western front where high altitude work was required was generally more demanding tactically, on the Eastern Front they rarely actually used MW 50 even it was installed. My guess is the usual tactics of swooping down on Il-2s below and the subsequently disengaging did not require it as much.

That seems like a plausible explanation. Thanks for that input

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

I believe that GM-1 was the high altitude boost system. MW50 was apparently only effective at increasing power below FTH. Above 6000m it seems to have been used more for the secondary effects than to increase Power.

[CIA_Yankee_]

Am I right in the Guess someone has watched too much History Channel? Propaganda like "Dogfights" maybe?

 

This is what we like to call "fighting words", my friend. It is unsafe to assume everyone is american watching terrible war documentaries on the Hitler Channel.

 

Edit: Hum, ok, my callsign is Yankee... that probably doesn't help. But rest assured that it was given to me by unit-mates in the best tradition of callsigns everywhere, and is very much ironic.

 

No, I have an extensive library on military history, and warbirds in particular. The high wing loading of the 109 is a common theme in many of these, cited as one of the drawbacks of the Messer design. It may be, however, that I am misremembering and conflating wing loading with other wing-related concepts (thickness to chord ratio, surface area, or some such).

 

Either way, I would certainly not mind if someone were to explain the aeronautics involved in why the 109 was such a great E fighter, yet tended to lose energy more than its competitors in the horizontal.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Yankee_

[von-Luck]

Generally speaking a plane with a higher wing loading requires a greater angle of attack (AoA) to perform a turn. Greater AoA translates to a less efficient turn which means you will more quickly bleed E and reach the critical stall angle. Contrasted by a plane with a lower wing loading gives you a greater capacity to turn tighter by virtue of needing less AoA to accomplish this. Here is a good video which covers the issue.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=etkqsaYP-nk

 

von Luck

Edited October 4, 2017 by von-Luck

[ITAF_Rani]

I wonder if drop-tank will be added..

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

This is what we like to call "fighting words", my friend. It is unsafe to assume everyone is american watching terrible war documentaries on the Hitler Channel.

 

Edit: Hum, ok, my callsign is Yankee... that probably doesn't help. But rest assured that it was given to me by unit-mates in the best tradition of callsigns everywhere, and is very much ironic.

 

No, I have an extensive library on military history, and warbirds in particular. The high wing loading of the 109 is a common theme in many of these, cited as one of the drawbacks of the Messer design. It may be, however, that I am misremembering and conflating wing loading with other wing-related concepts (thickness to chord ratio, surface area, or some such).

 

Either way, I would certainly not mind if someone were to explain the aeronautics involved in why the 109 was such a great E fighter, yet tended to lose energy more than its competitors in the horizontal.

This dates to the Time up to the Battle of Britain, where Bf109s Wingloading was high in Comparison to the best Fighter the Allies had at the Time, the Spitfire, as well as the Hurricane and early P-40s, as well as P-36s. 

They also conveniently forget that it was also the lightest´Major Modern Production Fighter of the Period and that it was fitted with High Lift Devices which aided it's Low Speed Performance massively. 

 

The other Factor that played into the Bf109s good manouverability was the massively good VDM Prop which had a Sweetspot at Speeds 250-350 which would counteract the Loss of Energy in a Turn. 

 

The High Wing Loading was really only disadvantegous at Altitudes above 6k, same for the 190. And this is where a Spitfire excelled and probably the Starter for the whole Wing Loading Argument.

 

As a generalization you could make the claim that a Small Winged Aircraft is more suitable for Low Altitude Work, while a Large Wing Aircraft works well high up. 

 

As an Aside: Despite it's Wing Loading the 109s had some of the shortest Take-Off and Landing Distances of any WWII Fighter. According to Brown it took half the Distance of a Hurricane  and a Quarter of the Spitifres Take-Off Run. 

That is one of the most important Reasons it was so well liked in Finnland as well, where Airfields didn't have Long Runways. 

 

 

P.S.: [Edited]

Edited October 5, 2017 by Bearcat

[Jade_Monkey]

I wonder if drop-tank will be added..

My guess is no because all the aditional development of fuel mgmgt it requires. Unless they have to work on that for the pacific anyways, which could result in the G6 becoming a good way to test it before BoMi (?).

[6./ZG26_Custard]

My guess is no because all the aditional development of fuel mgmgt it requires. Unless they have to work on that for the pacific anyways, which could result in the G6 becoming a good way to test it before BoMi (?).

We have been surprised before and I guess they have to implemented it sooner or later.  

[Finkeren]

My guess is no because all the aditional development of fuel mgmgt it requires. Unless they have to work on that for the pacific anyways, which could result in the G6 becoming a good way to test it before BoMi (?).

A long while ago, back before BoK was announced I think, Han said in a comment on the forum, that more complex modeling of fuel loads and a manual fuel management system was on their short list of things they wanted to do.

[Jade_Monkey]

I'm all for surprises, especially the ones these devs consistently deliver!

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

The G6 effect online will be the servers running out of 190s after 30 minutes

[Willy__]

 

 

The G6 effect online will be the servers running out of 190s after 30 minutes

 

No difference from nowadays then.....    

[von-Luck]

The amount of dire predictions about the G6 is silly. Newer pilots already avoid anything but the F4 and will still die trying to dogfight in it. People who know what they are doing in a 109 will appreciate the added lethality of the G6. When the chips are down you'll have fewer options for a reversal but honestly getting bounced is undesirable no matter what you fly in. The trick is mitigating that risk by flying smarter. If I am consciously being risk averse then I find my flying is better due to smarter choices. Anyways I'm confident the G6 will be capable if slightly worst in performance - old hands will appreciate added lethality and new players will continue to do silly things until they learn better - Just like the 190's.

 

von Luck

Edited October 4, 2017 by von-Luck

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I wonder if drop-tank will be added..

Unlikely, couple DEV posts on it over the years. It may be a long term goal but probably not on the table at the moment.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

[Edited]

 

[Edited]

 

[Edited]

[Edited]

Now that there is German Humor, not at it's best, but should suffice. But we all know the Yanks  to Irony, so they will probably accept. 

 

I hope the point is made.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Bearcat

[LLv24_Zami]

Why is it so hard to just stay on topic?

 

Tired of reading other bs in this thread.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Why is it so hard to just stay on topic?

 

Tired of reading other bs in this thread.

Pretty much everything of Value has been said. 

 

If someone can maybe add some Historical Context and Detailed Accounts of how, where and when G-6s were used in the Black Sea Theater and Finland this thread would be a bit more Worthwhile. But otherwise it's condemned to die. 

[Leaf]

Personally I'm thrilled by the prospect of seeing the G6, albeit the early variant. 

I wonder to what extent the 1.42 ata can offset the added weight and how severe the impact on the rate of climb will be, the latter consistently being the 109's saving grace.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Personally I'm thrilled by the prospect of seeing the G6, albeit the early variant. 

I wonder to what extent the 1.42 ata can offset the added weight and how severe the impact on the rate of climb will be, the latter consistently being the 109's saving grace.

Well, since 1.42 ata can't really be used extensively, you will just have to live with a slower Aircraft and Offset that Lack with Skill and Firepower. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

Is it exactly the same engine or is the 1.42ATA allowed for a longer period of time? That would certainly make up for at least some of the performance downsides to the added weight.

 

Honestly I'm interested and will buy the G-6 variant so long as the team will model it up to their usual visual and model standards. The interest is of course in the aircraft and the history regardless of it being higher performing or lower performing. Its a unique type (despite similarities to earlier versions) and that is enough for me!

[MrNoice]

if they only would change the way the germans engines work... and not loosing 100% power after limit overdraft

[III/JG2Gustav05]

I found it really funny when many people here are basing their expectations to old il2 or arcade games like WT and thinks there will be dramatic effects to turning etc.

 

Early G6 is basically G4 with 13mm mg's. That's it, weight difference to G4 is less than 50kg's. Top speed is around ~15km/h slower. No big dramas in FM's, just some more punch.

Bf109G6's MG131 bulges decrease 9km/h top speed.http://www.wwiiaircr...9g-16476-b.html

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Bf109G6's MG131 bulges decrease 9km/h top speed.http://www.wwiiaircr...9g-16476-b.html

That's gonna hurt a little.

[Royal_Flight]

[Edited]

 

Now that there is German Humor, not at it's best, but should suffice. But we all know the Yanks to Irony, so they will probably accept.

I'm not even American but this is such a silly thing to say, you sound like an angsty teenager who's just watched a Michael Moore documentary.

Wise up, kid.

 

And it maybe wouldn't do to go around throwing stones at other countries' historical politics when you're in such a big glass house yourself.

 

Governments =/= people

Edited October 5, 2017 by Bearcat

[Irgendjemand]

Is this really the appropriate forum for your anti-American leftist rants?  To save you having to engage your brain, the answer is no.

Hey buddy. My advice: "/ignore". There comes nothing but BS from him. Looking at guys like that I regret coming from the same nation.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Irgendjemand

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Lets try and get the thread back on course (trolling derails threads)

 

I think there is a bit of this going on.

 

 

Edit I am curious as to what modifications the G6 will come with, any ideas?

Edited October 5, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Custard