Jump to content
Huntsman

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

Recommended Posts

No. You two would start duking it out over milk vs dark :P

 

Milk! Definitely milk!

 

 

What inch and mile are you talking about here? There is a discussion of what mods could be possible. People might be quite happy with limited options. I can understand how people might be even happier with more options. What is a bit harder to understand, why some people are so strongly against these options and try to come up with all kinds of "reasons" why there should be less options. 

 

 

What some of us were trying to convey is why the MW-50 will likely not be a mod for the G6. Apparently that really got people up in arms and extremely mad throwing around ad hominems etc. 

 

Personally I want options that fit the timeframe of the sim, because I personally feel like a bit of a cheater using mods or planes that doesn't fit a scenario (though I have been known to make exceptions when it comes to Fw 190s over Stalingrad ;) ) but I'm not gonna freak out, if the MW-50 makes it into our G6. Who knows? Maybe I might even make an exception for that myself. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

I do wonder: What would those same people have said, if the PTAB had been made available for the IL-2 mod. 42 back when BoS was first released? It's not like they couldn't carry them, they just didn't exist at the time.

Edited by Finkeren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I do wonder: What would those same people have said, if the PTAB had been made available for the IL-2 mod. 42 back when BoS was first released? It's not like they couldn't carry them, they just didn't exist at the time.

 

A wild guess would be that if that option did not exist for real, then people would not want it, and if that option existed for real, then having that modelled in the sim would only be good thing.

I do wonder though, as some people feel so strongly against having more options in the game and there will be lots of new stuff and features coming with BoK, doesn't it carry an additional heart attack risk for these people...  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Works for me, but only if the Malcolm Hood is an option!!!

 

I can see why people would want the option to have a "late" G6 in their collection apart from getting an unfair advantage against the VVS online. For instance it would be fun to fly a juiced-up G6 offline against the bot hordes. Honestly it feels good sometimes to club the hell out of those guys after a frustrating day at the office.

 

The other thing that people are assuming here is that everyone will buy BoBp and thereby get access to the G14...building later-war capability into the collector G6 would allow G6 owners who don't have BoBp to reasonably play online with those who did buy it. Which now that I say it would be a disincentive for the devs to include the MW50 etc. so they probably won't do it.

 

Won't break my heart either way, I bought the G6 primarily to support the project and to put eyeballs on the beule.

Edited by 19//Rekt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder though, as some people feel so strongly against having more options in the game and there will be lots of new stuff and features coming with BoK, doesn't it carry an additional heart attack risk for these people... ;)

I wouldn’t know about that. You’ll have to ask someone who feels strongly about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did someone mention chocolate? Count me in!

 

To be honest, I will be happy they are producing the G6 in any form...

Along with the E-7, (the E series being my favourite 109) the G-6 is a close second as it is the 109 that also stands out from the crowd with it's large 'blisters'.

Not only do they make it easily recognisable, but it makes it look more of a brute than the E version. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

I want this for the side windows of my car!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

 

:biggrin: 

Edited by dburne
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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 by Cathal_Brugha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​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 by Rabitzky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Milk! Definitely milk!

 

What barbarism.

 

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

No wonder you lost Schleswig!  :megaphone:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What barbarism.

 

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

No wonder you lost Schleswig!  :megaphone:

 

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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

220px-Schokakola_1941.jpg250px-2014_Scho-ka-kola_tin.jpg

 

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! :P

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
 

 

250px-2014_Scho-ka-kola_tin.jpg

 

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.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

:biggrin:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by VC_
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...