Who is going to buy and fly the G-6?

[AWC]

You nailed it: It is THE most produced and so far iconic 109. And the "Beule" has the best look. THAT are the reasons to buy it. And maybe the MK108.

For the reasons of performance and flight experience its just another (albeit a tad havier) 109.

 

 

BUT it is THE 109....

  

 

Hmm ok

 

Do you like flying the Bf109 series? Then you might want it simply because its another option in the lineup and this one does come with some unique attributes (the heavy machine guns, MK108 cannon option, etc.). If you don't normally fly the 109 then probably not

 

I don't mind the BF109, in fact they're really fun to fly. When I have some more money I think I'll invest 

[Barnacles]

The question is : when out of 30mm's ammo (60 rounds I believe) will the 2*13mm be enough ?

 

Personally I think the twin MG17s in the older 109s are effective enough to continue to fight; they have an excellent muzzle velocity and good harmonization so the MG131s will be even better, I hope,

[IVJG4-Knight]

Personally i don't want mw50 for g6 .

 

But some people should realize that a la5fn had severe limitations imposed on boost like:

- severely damaging the engine in prelonged turning perticularly at low speed.

-High risk of damaging engine or explosion in sustained climb.

-Risk of supercooling the engine in a dive while using high trottle, which again would damage the engine or ruin it beyond repair.

 

Whithout these it's as 'realistic' as a g6 with mw50 in 1943.

 

Personally i'm not after stats and even if

I were after i would know how to get them regardless of boost.

Edited January 7, 2018 by IVJG4-Knight

[ICDP]

Not much anyone can do to make it better, it's half a step back while the other sides were taking big strides forward.

 

You need to take things in context of what the needs of the Luftwaffe were when the design changes of the G6 were requested.

 

1. By mid 1943 the Luftwaffe required heavier armament to increase the damage done on the heavy bobmers, not more speed or maneuverability.  The improved 13mm MGs were worth the loss of 20 KPH.  A few seconds turn time means nothing when your main target is slow heavy bombers like the B17.
2. When the 109G6 was introduced in 1943 it was quite common that allied heavy bombers were not even escorted all the way to their targets deep inside Germany.  Look at the Schweinfurt raids for examples of this.
3. By mid 1943 the Luftwaffe were not able to spend as much time training pilots.  So it was more important to have aircraft that had a better survivability for these rookies.  The 109 with larger main wheel and the longer unretractable tail wheel had improved ground handling.  As such it was easier for the rookies to handle.
4. The the Allied airforces were introducing design refinements to their fighters to improve performance.  The Germans were refining their fighters to take on the heavy bombers.  So more armour and armament was the main aim and this had the effect of reducing performance.
5. The fact is the 109G6 was still a capable fighter despite this fundamental and necessary change in design philosophy.

Edited January 8, 2018 by ICDP

[GridiroN]

 

You need to take things in context of what the needs of the Luftwaffe were when the design changes of the G6 were requested.

 

1. By mid 1943 the Luftwaffe required heavier armament to increase the damage done on the heavy bobmers, not more speed or maneuverability.  The improved 13mm MGs were worth the loss of 20 KPH.  A few seconds turn time means nothing when your main target is slow heavy bombers like the B17.
2. When the 109G6 was introduced in 1943 it was quite common that allied heavy bombers were not even escorted all the way to their targets deep inside Germany.  Look at the Schweinfurt raids for examples of this.
3. By mid 1943 the Luftwaffe were not able to spend as much time training pilots.  So it was more important to have aircraft that had a better survivability for these rookies.  The 109 with larger main wheel and the longer unretractable tail wheel had improved ground handling.  As such it was easier for the rookies to handle.
4. So in contrast the the Allied airforces introducing design refinements to their fighters to improve performance.  The Germans were refinging their fighters to take on the heavy bombers.  So more armour and armament was the main aim and this had the effect of reducing performance.
5. The fact is the 109G6 was still a capable fighter despite this fundamental and necessary change in design philosophy.

 

 

It's funny how real life variables can completely change people's outlook on a vehicle. In sim, no one ever wants a G2 over an F4, but in real life I've read real 109 pilots claiming they felt the G2/G4 was a much more desirable plane. 

[FTC_Riksen]

It's funny how real life variables can completely change people's outlook on a vehicle. In sim, no one ever wants a G2 over an F4, but in real life I've read real 109 pilots claiming they felt the G2/G4 was a much more desirable plane.

 

G4 is way better than a F4. I'll take the G4 any time

[Huntsman]

Alone the artificial horizon introduced in the G-series of the 109 was worth the loss of a bit performance in real life. If you die trying to land during bad weather a bit better turning capability seems not that important for me...

 

Next thing which is good in the G-4 and onwards is the better radio equipment. People tend to forget that those things ARE important if your life depends on good communication and stuff like this.

 

The better landing gear was already mentioned and it suits your chance to survive harsh landings quite good.

 

And a last thing would be the radio direction finding (AFAIK the G-6 had this) which would also suit you in real life but not in sim.

 

So all in all people should note the Germans were not just stupid morons who made the 109 after the Friedrich just worse without of any reason 

 

In my eyes the G-6 has a bit of an exagreggated bad reputation. The whole 109 thing starts to show its age in 1944, thats for sure.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Huntsman

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

It's funny how real life variables can completely change people's outlook on a vehicle. In sim, no one ever wants a G2 over an F4, but in real life I've read real 109 pilots claiming they felt the G2/G4 was a much more desirable plane. 

 

False. When presented with the G2/G4, I will take the G2/G4 over the F4 every time.

[Boaty-McBoatface]

False. When presented with the G2/G4, I will take the G2/G4 over the F4 every time.

Just wondering what your (and Riksen above) reasons for this are?

 

I'm the same for the most part. The G2 is only 100kg heavier (2800kg vs 2900kg) and basically the same airframe. With a constant 1310hp (an almighty 1475 for 1 minute with G4) vs 1200hp F4 this weight difference is essentially negligible.

 

For me personally the only

drawback to flying G2/4 is the horrendous cockpit visibility from the more obstructive struts. I don't use track IR and I've heard this is much less a problem if using it. That's the reason I still go for F4 very often.

 

Would be interested to hear your take on this.

 

Regards

 

McBoat

Edited January 8, 2018 by boaty_McBoatface

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

I too only ever take the G2/G4 even when F4s are available. I like the cockpit layout. The bars are not an issue in VR you almost always have one eye that can see past a bar.

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

Just wondering what your (and Riksen above) reasons for this are?

 

I'm the same for the most part. The G2 is only 100kg heavier (2800kg vs 2900kg) and basically the same airframe. With a constant 1310hp (an almighty 1475 for 1 minute with G4) vs 1200hp F4 this weight difference is essentially negligible.

 

For me personally the only

drawback to flying G2/4 is the horrendous cockpit visibility from the more obstructive struts. I don't use track IR and I've heard this is much less a problem if using it. That's the reason I still go for F4 very often.

 

Would be interested to hear your take on this.

 

Regards

 

McBoat

 

My main reason is, I don't have to baby the engine as much, and, the reasons Tripwire mentioned above (though I use TrackIR not VR). The G series engine is much more tolerant of my "abuse". It also suits my flying style much better. It allows me to engage and disengage fairly easily and has excellent acceleration. I don't like to linger in combat for long periods, and the G series allows me to attack and reset at will as long as the enemy does not have superior energy advantage. It's not without mentioning though, if you get "caught with your pants down" so-to-speak in the G, you're toast.

[1_Robert_]

Did the mw50 make it into the 109s at the beginning of ‘44?

What kind of performance should we expect to see from it? Will it help cool the engine as well?

Thanks

[Finkeren]

Did the mw50 make it into the 109s at the beginning of ‘44?

What kind of performance should we expect to see from it? Will it help cool the engine as well?

Thanks

Yes, it cools the engine and could help the engine reach up to 2000hp for ~10min duration - a very substantial boost to performance.

 

Unlike the GM-1 it was only effective at lower altitudes. Above 6000m the performance gain had become neglible.

[Mac_Messer]

It's funny how real life variables can completely change people's outlook on a vehicle. In sim, no one ever wants a G2 over an F4, but in real life I've read real 109 pilots claiming they felt the G2/G4 was a much more desirable plane. 

In old IL2 online wars G2 always had priority amongst LW pilots, even over the FW190.

 

In 1942 online planeset the G2 (over F4) has such a significant margin of perfomance over VVS aircraft that players often took 250kg bombs or MG151/20 gondolas (my pick) and still did very good. In 1943 planeset doing such a thing is much more risky.

 

I wager when given a choice between G2/G4/G6 most ppl will pick G2/G4 since the G6 is famous or underperforming and it is hidden behind a paywall.

[Warpig]

Let's not forget that the G6 gets its own song to fly to.

 

[ITAF_Rani]

Didn't realize we were getting the MK-108

 

LOOOOOOOL

[GP*]

Just bought it. Very excited for its release. I thought I was the only one who loved the look of it (despite the decreased performance).

 

Just purchased the La-5FN as well. It's always been my favorite VVS bird.

[E69_geramos109]

 

G6 is a first standard G6, like La-5F is a first standard La-5F,

G6/U2 /MW-50 is the improved version of G6, like La-5 FN is the improved version of La-5F

La-5F had worst performances than La-5FN don´t forget it.

And first batch of La-5FN was delivered from production line in June 1943, they were not used massively in combat until October of 1944.   

ALL La-5F aircrafts were not FN. 

 

From the beginning of G6 production in february of 1943 the G6/U2 (with GM-1) was available. 

In june of 1944 all G6/U2 can be retrofitted to MW-50 with a field modification kit.

In may of 1944 the first batches of G6  equipped with the DB-605AM engine capable to use C3 fuel (96 octane), and MW-50 injection was delivered,.

 

I think yes, ..G6/U2(MW-50)  is very relevant in 1943, same as ASh-82FN engine was relevant for the La-5F series 

Same as G6/U2 (MW-50) the La-5FN was not massively produced until 1944..

 

 

 

And when does the G6 have the 30 min limitation 1.42 ata? I know that power was released on the G6 but not sure about the date. Can we have this version on kuban G6 or will be necessary to run the 1 min limited 1.42 ata version?

Woul be nice if devs provide us some nice Tas and Clim of rate complete grafics of each planes as with IL2 1946 but we dont know why we dont have the grafics yet... i wrote a mail about that to Jason but still no answer.

[przybysz86]

I got (as in ordered) both and I am personally not much afraid about La-5FN dominating games.

Both nations have their strong and weak sides. Sure La-5FN will rise the bar for LW pilots but that's not as bad give that, in my opinion*, they have little bit easier life nowadays.

*I play mostly LW but I do fly VVS from time to time as well

Edited January 9, 2018 by przybysz86

[Jade_Monkey]

... I am personally not much afraid about La-5FN dominating games.

I agree. The La5FN is being overhyped like no other plane before.

 

Also there is this assumption that the planes will be flown by a perfect pilot that will push the plane to its limits. The reality is that there will be a lot of mediocre flying (including me) and the FNs will fall off the sky in flames like all other plane models in the game.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Jade_Monkey

[Corsair]

And when does the G6 have the 30 min limitation 1.42 ata? I know that power was released on the G6 but not sure about the date. Can we have this version on kuban G6 or will be necessary to run the 1 min limited 1.42 ata version?

DB 605 À on 109s were never limited at 1 minute of 1,42 ata when the rating was cleared in the first place.

Edited January 9, 2018 by EC.5/25.Corsair

[D3adCZE]

Just wondering what your (and Riksen above) reasons for this are?

 

I'm the same for the most part. The G2 is only 100kg heavier (2800kg vs 2900kg) and basically the same airframe. With a constant 1310hp (an almighty 1475 for 1 minute with G4) vs 1200hp F4 this weight difference is essentially negligible.

 

For me personally the only

drawback to flying G2/4 is the horrendous cockpit visibility from the more obstructive struts. I don't use track IR and I've heard this is much less a problem if using it. That's the reason I still go for F4 very often.

 

Would be interested to hear your take on this.

 

Regards

 

McBoat

To me, G2 feels better and flies better. It has better E retention than F4, better high speed handling(subjectively, I dove after LA5Fs and while flying above 650kph I was able to stay on their 6, they try scissors? Go up and dive again). It has much better stall characteristic than F4, regarding the torque, so I can hammerhead all day long, can withstand higher speeds and survives more damage than F4. And it has 3 minutes and 30 seconds of some sort of WEP, where you can run on 2800RPM, gaining only a bit worse acceleration and climb rate to F4 on WEP, but F4 blows after a minute, you can go 2 and half more :D

[przybysz86]

And it has 3 minutes and 30 seconds of some sort of WEP, where you can run on 2800RPM, gaining only a bit worse acceleration and climb rate to F4 on WEP, but F4 blows after a minute, you can go 2 and half more :D

that. only problem is keeping RPM but in climb that's not huge problem

[curiousGamblerr]

G6 ... is hidden behind a paywall.

Lol

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Hidden paywall? That term is not applicable here.

 

If you want free, low polygon, copy paste flight model aircraft, those are found in war thunder. In IL 2, you get a carefully designed, properly modelled aircraft with high poly cockpit as well. For that, the designers can take money per aircraft. Demand matches supply that way very effectively.

[Tuesday]

[...] since the G6 is famous or underperforming and it is hidden behind a paywall.

 

That's the most absurd thing I think I'll read today [will avoid FM Discussion sub-section to maintain that].

 

You want the product?  You pay for the product.  Nothing hidden about that.

Edited January 10, 2018 by 19//Tuesday

[Mac_Messer]

Hidden paywall? That term is not applicable here.

 

If you want free, low polygon, copy paste flight model aircraft, those are found in war thunder. In IL 2, you get a carefully designed, properly modelled aircraft with high poly cockpit as well. For that, the designers can take money per aircraft. Demand matches supply that way very effectively.

Then release the G6 in standard package instead of the G4. Not my fault the devs made it different. The G6 is far more relevant Luftwaffe aircraft than the G4, and for multiple theaters of operations. The G6 will be present where the G4 is not, but in online missions you won`t get that because it`s not standard game content, not even Premium Edition content. That makes creating scenarios that featured the G6 and not the G4 largely impossible, unless ofcourse you want to pretend flying it. It will seriously hinder creation of online coop scenarios, as G6 slots will not be fulfillable by human players and so make no sense to include at all or any operations that featured only this model.

 

Yes...demand and supply...Ju52...uhuh.

I wonder how VVS players would feel if instead Yak7 they got P40. You want one of the most relevant aircraft in WWII? Buy it separately.

[Finkeren]

By your logic Mac, nobody should have bought the Yak-1B, yet it’s probably the single most common VVS fighter online.

 

Many, many people will buy the G6, simply because it’s iconic (I’ve bought 3 so far and will buy more) How many will fly it online depends to some degree on its capabilities, which we have yet to see, and of course on mission designers.

[Asgar]

Then release the G6 in standard package instead of the G4. Not my fault the devs made it different. The G6 is far more relevant Luftwaffe aircraft than the G4, and for multiple theaters of operations. The G6 will be present where the G4 is not, but in online missions you won`t get that because it`s not standard game content, not even Premium Edition content. That makes creating scenarios that featured the G6 and not the G4 largely impossible, unless ofcourse you want to pretend flying it. It will seriously hinder creation of online coop scenarios, as G6 slots will not be fulfillable by human players and so make no sense to include at all or any operations that featured only this model.

 

Yes...demand and supply...Ju52...uhuh.

I wonder how VVS players would feel if instead Yak7 they got P40. You want one of the most relevant aircraft in WWII? Buy it separately.

yep, you're so right, that's why there are absolutely NO SERVERS that use the Yak-1b

[Tuesday]

[ Post full of complete horse crap]

 

Okay you're upset with their business decision?  Then don't buy it - and don't whine about not having what you won't pay for.

 

Go try tell Jason how to run their business - let me know how that goes for you...

[Warpig]

It seems the F2P genre of games (with their heavy grind for life mechanics), has seriously infected the ways some gamers think a title should be sold.

 

I much prefer the old ways of buying the game in full without being conned to play ridiculous hours, and pay more money for a faster grind, just to "unlock" the games content.

 

People don't realize how much more ethical IL-2's model of business is, over these F2P conman pay models. 

[Dakpilot]

Then release the G6 in standard package instead of the G4. Not my fault the devs made it different. The G6 is far more relevant Luftwaffe aircraft than the G4, and for multiple theaters of operations. The G6 will be present where the G4 is not, but in online missions you won`t get that because it`s not standard game content, not even Premium Edition content. That makes creating scenarios that featured the G6 and not the G4 largely impossible, unless ofcourse you want to pretend flying it. It will seriously hinder creation of online coop scenarios, as G6 slots will not be fulfillable by human players and so make no sense to include at all or any operations that featured only this model.

 

Yes...demand and supply...Ju52...uhuh.

I wonder how VVS players would feel if instead Yak7 they got P40. You want one of the most relevant aircraft in WWII? Buy it separately.

 

 

If 'you' bought BoK as standalone and were unable to fly a 109 until nearly the end of the campaign there would be lots of (justifiable) complaining! and of 'price gouging' if you had to buy the G4 separately to start the campaign 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[curiousGamblerr]

It seems the F2P genre of games (with their heavy grind for life mechanics), has seriously infected the ways some gamers think a title should be sold.

 

I much prefer the old ways of buying the game in full without being conned to play ridiculous hours, and pay more money for a faster grind, just to "unlock" the games content.

 

People don't realize how much more ethical IL-2's model of business is, over these F2P conman pay models.

Yeah, this is why people are pissed at Mac's use of the word paywall. It brings to mind the absurd, pay-to-win models of games like Star Wars Battlefront 2 that aim to suck every penny out of their customers. That's not what's going on here- the G6 is an additional product, only announced well after the Kuban project started and completely separate, despite the coinciding release coming up.

 

As further evidence, if you only bought BoS years ago, you've been enjoying constant improvements to this game. Yet you don't see the devs demanding you pay for the latest FM improvements or the improved graphics and so on.

Edited January 10, 2018 by 19//curiousGamblerr

[wtornado]

I bought the Bf-109 G-6 and the La-5FN

 

I bought the 109 for the 108 and the La-5FN  to get chased by the Bf-109 G-6

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Even if im not going to fly them ill probably slowly buy all premiums and collector planes (even fighters)
just to help support the devs as they not big company and more support means more better content.

 

[=EXPEND=Capt_Yorkshire]

I'll buy it and shoot you in the face.

[Cpt_Cool]

I just moved, so I am waiting for the next paycheck or two then i will get them both. I just hope that I get a little heads up if they release late Jan so I can still get them on preorder. 

[Babayega]

I will! I love all variants of the 109...ive been flying it since the very first il-2 back in the early 2000's. 

[1_Robert_]

I've slowly evolved to the point now where I prefer the G2 over the F4. So in a sense, the G6 is becoming even more appealing to me as I envision it handling closer to the G2 than the F4? One thing I've noticed is the G2 seems more durable than the F4. I have nothing to back that claim up with, it just seems that when taking damage, I'm able to limp back home at a greater rate. Are the G's more durable in their structure or is this my imagination? 

[Finkeren]

IIRC the G2 has an armoured plate in the rear fuselage to protect the fuel tank and somewhat strengthened wing structure, so it should feel slightly more durable.