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

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

Lol. Any chance to talk about fuel for the P-51 on the internet and look who shows up 

[Mac_Messer]

2 reasons: 

 

1. Extra work required to make that mod. A mod that suddenly adds several hundred horsepower to a plane and requires a completely new heat modeling for the engine is not something you do in an afternoon.

 

2. You know as well as I do, that that mod won't be locked on most servers. 

 

I conversely ask: Why are you so dead set on flying a 1944 aircraft against 1943 aircraft?

 

1. I don`t seem to remember you opposed fitting mods on VVS planes because "extra work".

 

2. Completely irrelevant to the matter, as long as it can be locked out.

 

Because it is a nice feature to have, period.

Some players:  "We want MW-50 because it was available about a year after the BoK timeframe, close enough".

 

Fine then, can I have a P51B now too?

 

kthanksbye

That`s funny. I don`t have time nor the energy to follow your posts around here but I`m pretty sure the next thing happening to on this forum is the plead for the gyro gunsight.

 

And yes, I`d buy a P51B right now.

[CUJO_1970]

Some players:  "We want MW-50 because it was available about a year after the BoK timeframe, close enough".

 

Fine then, can I have a P51B now too?

 

kthanksbye

 

[Finkeren]

1. I don`t seem to remember you opposed fitting mods on VVS planes because "extra work".

Actually that was my second main argument against modeling the MiG-3 with at AM-38 - the first argument being that it’s pretty much a unicorn (not unlike a Bf 109G6 with long radio mast and a MW-50)

[Cpt_Cool]

P-51 B would be cool

[CUJO_1970]

Exactly, but if you say that you want 72'hg power for P51D in December 1944 because 8th AAF used it they will tell you that not enough planes had it even if it is well documented.

 

I suppose it's never too early to start whining about the P-51, but this has got to be some sort of record, right?

[CUJO_1970]

Actually that was my second main argument against modeling the MiG-3 with at AM-38 - the first argument being that it’s pretty much a unicorn (not unlike a Bf 109G6 with long radio mast and a MW-50)

 

So, what you are saying here is that the development team has already set a precedent - because they have. (and that's fine)

 

Nobody is complaining about the P-38L being included in Bodenplatte, because the precedent was already set by development team with adding FW190A-3 as collector plane. The precedent being that although the 190 wasn't map/battle specific, it was timeline specific. So, although P-38L had nothing at all to do with Bodenplatte, the (correct) precedent has already been set. Although the P-38L is basically an ETO unicorn - it is there as timeline specific.

 

So, we have both precedents already set by development team regarding options and timeline.

 

It is not necessary for development team to spend time or resources adding MW-50 or Erla canopy to be included in BoK, in fact I'm sure they won't include them ( hopefully this will stem the flow of tears from those so opposed to it ).

 

There is, however plenty of precedent (both in this sim and historically) to add them soon after release if the development team chooses to do so.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I suppose it's never too early to start whining about the P-51, but this has got to be some sort of record, right?

And its never too late to whine about 109, some people almost reach a decade of experience in that regard. 

[Trooper117]

P-38's were based at Le Culot (A-89) airfield when Bodenplatte hit weren't they?  (not sure if they were the L version though)

P-51 B would be cool

 

It would only be cool if it had an RAF 'Malcomb' hood...

[Dakpilot]

 So, although P-38L had nothing at all to do with Bodenplatte, the (correct) precedent has already been set. Although the P-38L is basically an ETO unicorn - it is there as timeline specific.

 

 

 

I thought there were 3 US fighter groups operating P-38 L at time of Bodenplatte, and the 474th operated it until the end of hostilities in ETO, the others converting to P-51, and P-47 later in 45

 

JG2 and JG4 had the highest loss rates when attacking the fields of St Truiden (P-47) and Le Culot (P-38) during Bodenplatte

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[dburne]

I must say.

 

When a " who is going to buy and fly the G6" thread gets 340 replies and over 9k views in two weeks that tells me one thing:

We are in dire need of a new Developer Diary!

 

 

Edited January 18, 2018 by dburne

[skline00]

I saws the chocolate "discussion" and want to mention that I live near Hershey, PA so if you need some Milk Chocolate, I'm close to the "epicenter"  of Milk Chocolate!

[EAF19_Marsh]

Cadbury Crunchie for preference.

 

And a a G-6 with whatever.

[[N.O.G.F]_Cathal_Brugha]

 Although the P-38L is basically an ETO unicorn - it is there as timeline specific.

 

 

How is the P-38 a "unicorn"? It certainly was not that uncommon. 

Edited January 18, 2018 by Cathal_Brugha

[GP*]

I’m fine with no MW-50, as long as the G-6 gets this option (and others) later for BoBp. Like others have said, a G-6 late...

[Rabitzky]

​How about a Bf 109 G-10 with variometer, DB 605 DM and/or DB and U4 option (MK 108) as additional collector plan for BoBp. That would close the loop.

Development can be done in parallel with K-4.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Rabitzky

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

How is the P-38 a "unicorn"? It certainly was not that uncommon. 

By this time in France/Low Countries, only 3 FGs used P-38s in the WTO. By the end of the war it was only one, the other fighter groups converted to P-51 and P-47 in 1945. P-38 was certainly a rare sight over Western Europe in this period of the war

Edited January 18, 2018 by RoflSeal

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Milk! Definitely milk!

 

What barbarism.

 

There is no real chocolate with less than 70% cocoa! 

No wonder you lost Schleswig! 

[Wolfram-Harms]

What barbarism.

 

There is no real chocolate with less than 70% cocoa! 

No wonder you lost Schleswig! 

 

Maybe I can reconcile here! You guys should visit the RAUSCH Chocolate Company in Berlin!

You will definitely find your chocolate type there, and forget all other disputes eating it!

 

https://www.rausch.de/

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well, as something to keep you away in the Cockpit I do really like Scho Ka Kola. It's properly good Chocolate and has some Proper Caffeine in it. And the Tin makes it really durable in Backpacks. It's very pleasant. not very sweet, and just the right amount of bitter. 

 

 

I saws the chocolate "discussion" and want to mention that I live near Hershey, PA so if you need some Milk Chocolate, I'm close to the "epicenter"  of Milk Chocolate!

Well, American Chocolate tends to be too Sweet for the European Palette. Over all our Foods contain a lot less Sugar and no High Fructose Corn Syrup at all. 

That's why most American Chocolate Brands here are a lot less sweet to begin with and are often offered in Dark Chocolate Varieties. 

 

 

 

Given that the Tall Tail was standardized on in early 1944, and that MW50 became a more common Fitment only shortly afterwards, I think an MW50 boosted G-6 with the normal tail would have been somewhere between exceedingly rare if ever available. 

So I doubt it will ever be available as even a mod. Maybe a Late G-6 will become available for mid 1944 Scenarios with it as a Mod, but not ours, as a 1943 model. 

[Trooper117]

 

I didn't know the Japanese made chocolate?

[=X51=VC_]

Given that the Tall Tail was standardized on in early 1944, and that MW50 became a more common Fitment only shortly afterwards, I think an MW50 boosted G-6 with the normal tail would have been somewhere between exceedingly rare if ever available.

The tall tail was far from standardised. There are aircraft that are G-14 by serial number and have MW50 and a short tail. Hartmann's "White 1" is documented as being a G-6 with MW50, that also has a short tail. I doubt these were uncommon.

[A_radek]

A 1985 bike and now this chocolate. Can't condemn just yet but for the love of love, moderators need to be informed of any hipster activity.
 

 

 

I didn't know the Japanese made chocolate?

The design is beautiful and there's an older version of that packaging. Not allowed to show here.

 

[ST_ami7b5]

Just grab the G6 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

 

 

The design is beautiful and there's an older version of that packaging. Not allowed to show here.

 

It shouldn't ever be again. I tried it once while flying and was halfway to Warsaw when the Effects wore off. 

 

But I'm modernizing my Fleet by replacing my '86 BMW R65 with a Dnepr MT11 2 or 3 years younger. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Well I love good dark chocolate, none of the sweet milk stuff for me.  Hence I gladly pay more for the stuff imported from Europe.

 

I even purchased the G6.

 

[GridiroN]

I think the FN will be advantageous purely by having rear visibility. I've been flying the La5F on maps that allow it on WoL for practice for the FN and I'd say 85%+ of the time I die in the F is because I have 0 visibility from my 5 to 7, canopy bars right at eye level and I never saw the guy behind me, not from being outflown.

 

I'm very curious for all of those who said they prefer the G series 109s: the manual and some users claim the G2 is better in every way to the F (except maneuverability) but especially in climb rate. However, many users claim the 109 F4 has a better climb rate because of weight to power and because the F4 has 1min 1.4ata. Does anyone know if this is true or not?

 

Also the F4 seems to have a tendency to "helicopter" due to thinner propellor.

[CUJO_1970]

I thought there were 3 US fighter groups operating P-38 L at time of Bodenplatte, and the 474th operated it until the end of hostilities in ETO, the others converting to P-51, and P-47 later in 45

 

JG2 and JG4 had the highest loss rates when attacking the fields of St Truiden (P-47) and Le Culot (P-38) during Bodenplatte

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

Le Culot was not attacked by JG4 (or any other LW unit), they instead attacked St Truiden (mistaking it for Le Culot as it was close by), Asch, and Ophoven.

 

There were no P-38L at Le Culot anyway and it was the only airfield in the Bodenplatte area of attack that had P-38s.

 

There were no P-38L in 8th Air Force, with the exception of a single one in Bovington for evaluation. Any P-38L they would be in 9th AF in Florennes and in very small numbers, mixed with P-38J - I'm pretty sure I've seen a picture of one.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

I think the FN will be advantageous purely by having rear visibility. I've been flying the La5F on maps that allow it on WoL for practice for the FN and I'd say 85%+ of the time I die in the F is because I have 0 visibility from my 5 to 7, canopy bars right at eye level and I never saw the guy behind me, not from being outflown.

 

I'm very curious for all of those who said they prefer the G series 109s: the manual and some users claim the G2 is better in every way to the F (except maneuverability) but especially in climb rate. However, many users claim the 109 F4 has a better climb rate because of weight to power and because the F4 has 1min 1.4ata. Does anyone know if this is true or not?

 

Also the F4 seems to have a tendency to "helicopter" due to thinner propellor.

Regarding the climbrate: The Gustav should have more PS on full combat power than the F4. The Friedrich just is a bit lighter and able to push a tiny bit of more power for a minute. Hence the G2 does climb to altitude better.

[=X51=VC_]

The G-2 has only 40hp less at 1.3 ata than the F-4 has at 1.42 ata, then after a minute in the F-4 you need to give up on 150hp while in the G-2 you can keep that up for half an hour. What's the actual weight difference between the F-4, G-2 and G-4?

Edited January 20, 2018 by VC_

[Wolfram-Harms]

What's the actual weight difference between the F-4, G-2 and G-4?

 

Can't help you for the G-2 and G-4, but here are some data for the G-6:

 

F-4 Weight empty:   2080 kg

F-4 Weight at start:  2890 kg

 

G-6 weight empty: 2250 kg

G-6 weight at start: 3200 kg

 

You can find A LOT of info in the German WIKIPEDIA site on the Messerschmitt Bf 109 - but you won't find so much detailed data on the English version.

So, here is the German link:

 

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

The G-2 has only 40hp less at 1.3 ata than the F-4 has at 1.42 ata, then after a minute in the F-4 you need to give up on 150hp while in the G-2 you can keep that up for half an hour. What's the actual weight difference between the F-4, G-2 and G-4?

 

 

Can't help you for the G-2 and G-4, but here are some data for the G-6:

 

F-4 Weight empty:   2080 kg

F-4 Weight at start:  2890 kg

 

G-6 weight empty: 2250 kg

G-6 weight at start: 3200 kg

 

You can find A LOT of info in the German WIKIPEDIA site on the Messerschmitt Bf 109 - but you won't find so much detailed data on the English version.

So, here is the German link:

 

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109

 

Ingame it empty weights of the aircraft are

F-4: 2382kg

G-2:2486kg

 

 

Standard Weight

F-4 : 2890kg

G-2 : 2992kg

[Bucket109]

Found this about MW-50 run time on Deutsch wikipedia

 

The power increase was allowed with sufficient engine cooling up to a duration of ten minutes, before a repeated use of the engine had to be operated at least five minutes at a lower power level. Unless the engine overheated, only the life of the spark plugs was reduced. Later, the operation was extended to up to 20 minutes for engines with good cooling performance. The power gain at a consumption of 150 l / h was about 300 hp depending on the engine. The Fw 190 D was able to run the injection for a total of 40 minutes with its 115 liter container.

 

Die Leistungssteigerung war bei ausreichender Motorkühlung bis zu einer Dauer von zehn Minuten zulässig, vor einer nochmaligen Nutzung musste der Motor mindestens fünf Minuten auf geringerer Leistungsstufe betrieben werden. Sofern der Motor nicht überhitzte, wurde nur die Lebensdauer der Zündkerzen verringert. Später wurde der Betrieb bei Motoren mit guten Kühlleistungen auf bis zu 20 Minuten verlängert. Der Leistungsgewinn bei einem Verbrauch von 150 l/h betrug je nach Motor etwa 300 PS. Die Fw 190 D konnte mit ihrem 115-Liter-Behälter die Einspritzung insgesamt 40 Minuten lang betreiben.

 

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MW-50

Edited January 20, 2018 by bucket_109

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

I had posted quite a few links, but some folks against MW50 ignored it and the thread got spammed. Now that they gave up trying to get the G-6 released without MW50, and the winds have settled, I can repost something I posted on page 2, in case you are interested, the most resourceful page imho:

 

http://www.klueser.eu/Me109.php

 

There is a lot of information to be found there. Everything is given with sources, etc. But beware, most sources, including this one on the Me109 are in German. The interested reader I recommend to use Chrome, there is a direct Google-translation function included that would ease the lecture. You can also learn a lot about the introduction of MW50 reading German sources, how the injection systems weren't enough in the beginning, but each G-6 was fitted with the necessary fuel tank behind the pilot, and as many (few) injection systems were delivered as possible, but a year later it was considered standard to have enough Umrüstsätze (modification kits to apply later) and Rüstsätze (aircraft variants delivered with it installed) available already for when needed, when the production-bottleneck of the subcontractors was overcome. It's all very interesting, and there's so much on it, that I'd ask for a refund if the G-6 would get released without one of its most important mod kits.

 

Have fun with the read!

 

 

 

P.S. Another, very good one is also found here https://de.scribd.com/document/228639708/Flugzeug-Profile-No-44-Messerschmitt-Bf-109-G-K

It also explains how GM-1 was ready for series in '41, but not put in anymore since G-5 due to fuel supply issues for it (no, they couldn't use oxygen from the atmosphere), how gunpods would mean that the MG17 were usually taken out and their holes bolted shut to reduce weight and improve speed, mentions the G-6/R2 and G-6/U3 (both mw50, one as standard, the other one modkit dubbed "Truppenumbau"), etc etc etc.

 

The 21cm Raketenwerfer were also sexy. It werfs Raketen.   

Edited January 20, 2018 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf

[InProgress]

I will buy anything that is axis even tho i am not big fan of fighters. I really hope that we can get more non fighter planes as premium, hs129 was nice but still hoping for more, especially bf110 and ju87.

[4thFG_Cap_D_Gentile]

Cheerio,

 

because most of the people who fly 109s preffering the F-4 over the other and later types the G-2 and G-4 I asked myself who the hell wants to fly the G-6?

 

The reason for the question is obvious, the G-6 performs in most terms worse as its predecessors! 

 

So I would like to know of you guys who is buying and flying this most important variant of the 109?

 

By the way, I am an absolute lover of the G-6, it is MY personal favorite variant of the 109 and of the WW2 warbirds. It is for sure NOT the best one but a solid workhorse and the interesting part is the insane amount of variants inside the G-6 series itself. It is kind of an underdog and I like it very much. And it was in production for almost 2 years, which is astonishing enough.

 

So, I hope for a whole lot of oppinions, go on!

 

I will and all the other planes I don't have yet when they fix the Allison and I get my faith back.

[Wolfram-Harms]

The 21cm Raketenwerfer were also sexy.

 

No, they were not, Fenris - they looked like stove pipes, they must have caused quite some drag - and I doubt you could really hit anything smaller than a townhouse with them.

Cool is a fighter without any such dubious outfits.

I might just accept an additional tank - if it is really needed.

[Mac_Messer]

No, they were not, Fenris - they looked like stove pipes, they must have caused quite some drag - and I doubt you could really hit anything smaller than a townhouse with them.

Cool is a fighter without any such dubious outfits.

I might just accept an additional tank - if it is really needed.

About the droptank, I really hope it would be added later...? You know the drill : takeoff with 600 liters, arrive to combat area with 350 liters, drop them tanks and ready for combat with 150 liters

[Kurfurst]

About the droptank, I really hope it would be added later...? You know the drill : takeoff with 600 liters, arrive to combat area with 350 liters, drop them tanks and ready for combat with 150 liters

Actually you will be ready for combat with 400 litres since those sneaky droptanks on the 109 only fill into the main. They do not direct feed to the engine and there is no selector switch.

 

The trick should work on most if not allied planes though.

[GridiroN]

If the G2 has more useable horsepower and is negligibly heavier, why do they feel like two different planes in this sim?