Boosted 109G6

[III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson 59]

How prevalent was the boost add-on in the G6 after the end of 1943? Is there a possibility this made be added in BoBP? Would it make sense?

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard 706]

If I am not mistaken the G-6 retrofitted with MW 50 started seeing service around April 1944 in the Western Front (I guess it was later on the Eastern Front) . Having it as a mod alongside the Erla Haube would add some value to this collector plane. Also since with these modifications it ends up being really similar to the G-14, people that have the G-6 but not the BoBP expansion could play in BoBP themed missions/servers without being at a disadvantage.

[LF_Gallahad 938]

I would love to see this implemented

[Pre 213]

33 minutes ago, LF_Gallahad said:

I would love to see this implemented

Same

[SCG_OpticFlow 108]

Would be nice also to add a 1.42 ATA engine power mod for 109 G2..

[II./JG77_Kemp 520]

Devs said around the time when G6 was released that it could be possible that it will get MW50 added later on, though it does not seem very likely that they will get back to doing it and some members of the community felt very passionately against having such mods available for G6 in the game.

Edited September 11 by II./JG77_Kemp

[VO101Kurfurst 688]

Late G-6 with boost =~ G-14. So basically that’s it, there is not much of a point in it. 

 

The only major difference on the G-14 was the Erla canopy, and a minor (non-existing for us, simmers) change in that the MW tank was pressurized with pressure bottles on the G-6 (as the boost was a retrofit), while on the G-14 the pressurized air was tapped from the supercharger.

[sevenless 1191]

A G10 or G14/AS would make more sense for BoBP?

[CSAF-D3adCZE 110]

Since we will have tactical war scenario G10 would make sense, but G14/AS unfortunately not. There is no high alt scenario, even though fighting above 5km happens rather often.

Edited September 24 by CSAF-D3adCZE

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard 706]

6 hours ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

Since we will have tactical war scenario G10 would make sense, but G14/AS unfortunately not. There is no high alt scenario, even though fighting above 5km happens rather often.

The G-10 has very similar performance to the G-14/AS,  slightly slower than the normal G-14 at sea level for what I could find.

Edited September 24 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[sevenless 1191]

7 hours ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

Since we will have tactical war scenario G10 would make sense, but G14/AS unfortunately not. There is no high alt scenario, even though fighting above 5km happens rather often.

 

Either one would make me and a few other folks happy I guess. You could easily create one collector plane 3-D Modell with 2 different engines and have both. You even could expand that to the G6/AS and create 3 planes with one 3D-model and 3 engine mods. All of them (G6/AS, G10, G14/AS) were of relevance during the timeframe of 3/44-3/45.

[CSAF-D3adCZE 110]

As a 109 junkie, I'd love to. However devs have limited time and resources and these modifications might not bring enough revenue they would need.

[-332FG-Ursus_ 29]

You got G-14 for that.

 

Instead, it would be good G-14/AS

[LukeFF 4522]

If the team decides on a Normandy scenario for the next release, you can pretty much count on there being a boosted 109 G-6. You gotta have at least one new, standalone 109 in the title for those who are buying the game for the first time, much like with the 109 G-4 being included in Kuban.

Edited September 27 by LukeFF

[77.CountZero 1065]

Problem for Normandy is 190s, they were most numerous by squadrons in area and almost all were 190A8 that we have in game, so its hard to belive they would be able to do historical SP campaign without having most used LW airplane in 1944 on that area.

[sevenless 1191]

On 9/27/2019 at 9:01 PM, 77.CountZero said:

Problem for Normandy is 190s, they were most numerous by squadrons in area and almost all were 190A8 that we have in game, so its hard to belive they would be able to do historical SP campaign without having most used LW airplane in 1944 on that area.

 

They could use A7s instead, since the A8 received MW50 in 07/44 after the invasion. So until 7/44 there is not much difference between an early A8 and the A7.

[-[HRAF]Roland_HUNter 14]

From 1943 autumn the G-6 got Erla haube aswell.

[YIPPEE 382]

As others said the G-14 is almost literally a G-6 with MW, so there is no point.

 

What would make sense is to have 1.42 ata unrestricted for the G-6 for later scenarios.

[LukeFF 4522]

1 hour ago, YIPPEE said:

As others said the G-14 is almost literally a G-6 with MW, so there is no point.

 

There is a point in having it for those who haven't bought any of the other titles yet (thinking of a Normandy-era scenario). 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard 706]

1 minute ago, LukeFF said:

 

There is a point in having it for those who haven't bought any of the other titles yet (thinking of a Normandy-era scenario). 

I think that spot would be better used with one of an /AS variant. And if it has the late cockpit, tail and MW 50 it can be considered G-14/AS which would also make it really useful in the BoBP scenario as well ^^

[CUJO_1970 993]

On 9/29/2019 at 8:02 PM, sevenless said:

 

They could use A7s instead, since the A8 received MW50 in 07/44 after the invasion. So until 7/44 there is not much difference between an early A8 and the A7.

 

‘No, it was not MW50, it was 801/TU power plant replacing 801/D2 (F-600) power plant in serial production that allowed increase to 1.58/1.65 boost. MW50 was possible but erhöte notleistung injection was used instead as it added no increase in weight.

 

Some aircraft were already retro-fitted with this engine, July is just when it was serially produced in all new A8 aircraft. In fact small numbers of A9 were already starting to be delivered with even more powerful TS power plant at this time.

[MiloMorai 619]

That myth still exists CUJO, which is sad.

[VO101Kurfurst 688]

On 9/27/2019 at 6:56 PM, LukeFF said:

If the team decides on a Normandy scenario for the next release, you can pretty much count on there being a boosted 109 G-6. You gotta have at least one new, standalone 109 in the title for those who are buying the game for the first time, much like with the 109 G-4 being included in Kuban.

 

And a boosted ‘new’ G-6 will be different from a G-14 how..?

 

Plus historically you already have G-14s over Normandy. Which were in fact converted G-6s. And officially called G-14. 

 

Boosted G-5/AS would make some sense because of Knoke and JG 11. But then again it could be just as well be a G-14/AS which is pretty much the same thing.

[LukeFF 4522]

5 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

And a boosted ‘new’ G-6 will be different from a G-14 how..?

 

Plus historically you already have G-14s over Normandy. Which were in fact converted G-6s. And officially called G-14. 

 

Boosted G-5/AS would make some sense because of Knoke and JG 11. But then again it could be just as well be a G-14/AS which is pretty much the same thing.

 

You are missing the_entire_point, which is right in front of you. A G-6 is needed for those who are buying into the game for the first time. Not everyone has bought all of the previous titles. 

[VO101Kurfurst 688]

On 10/16/2019 at 5:01 AM, LukeFF said:

 

You are missing the_entire_point, which is right in front of you. A G-6 is needed for those who are buying into the game for the first time. Not everyone has bought all of the previous titles. 

 

We all miss that point, which isn’t all that complicated. New players need 109s to fly,  (I could wrap my mind around that, thank you) so let’s rename G-14 to ‘boosted G6’, which was something that historically wasn’t all that typical in the first place (it was hard mod present on some G6s) and we have ourself a ‘new’ 109.

 

It would also place us in a weird position as with Bodenplatte, having almost all the cool uberplanes but none of the typical workhorses like Typhoon and G14/AS.

 

New customers apart, there is another issue. Old customers. I have the G-14 myself,  as part of BP, and the G-6 collector which I have also purchased as a standalone. It would be a bit odd if and when there is a Normandy product with a relabelled G-14 for which I will be charged double and behind which there would be little or no actual work. Not that personally I would care about it at all, since 50% of my purchase is merely to support to sims efforts and keep the sim genre alive, but it might not go well with customers and in particular customer protection agencies unless said customers owing identical modules are compensated somehow (discounts, replacement collector plane etc.).

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard 706]

@LukeFF a G-6/AS with MW 50 mod for an hypothetical Normandy expansion would both give new players a 109 to fly and people with BoBP a needed variant as it can be considered a G-14/AS, the second most numerous 109 that took part in Operation Bodenplatte. It also brings a new tactical aspect to the late war 109s with high altitude performance similar to the K-4, that can be used in an earlier timeframe, but at the same time not as good low altitude speed, so the players will have to keep this in mind. And the possibility of having the 20mm gun. 

Edited yesterday at 07:07 PM by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Mac_Messer 187]

On 9/25/2019 at 1:22 AM, sevenless said:

 

Either one would make me and a few other folks happy I guess. You could easily create one collector plane 3-D Modell with 2 different engines and have both. You even could expand that to the G6/AS and create 3 planes with one 3D-model and 3 engine mods. All of them (G6/AS, G10, G14/AS) were of relevance during the timeframe of 3/44-3/45.

Wasn`t it historically that all AS/ASM equipped 109s had different cowling, currently displayed only by the Kurfurst?

[sevenless 1191]

2 minutes ago, Mac_Messer said:

Wasn`t it historically that all AS/ASM equipped 109s had different cowling, currently displayed only by the Kurfurst?

 

Exactly. From external view K4/ G10/ G14/AS/ G6/AS and G5/AS all looked pretty much the same except minor differences.

[Mac_Messer 187]

5 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

New customers apart, there is another issue. Old customers. I have the G-14 myself,  as part of BP, and the G-6 collector which I have also purchased as a standalone. It would be a bit odd if and when there is a Normandy product with a relabelled G-14 for which I will be charged double and behind which there would be little or no actual work. Not that personally I would care about it at all, since 50% of my purchase is merely to support to sims efforts and keep the sim genre alive, but it might not go well with customers and in particular customer protection agencies unless said customers owing identical modules are compensated somehow (discounts, replacement collector plane etc.).

That is why the idea of implementing AS mod as internal "Plane Loadout' option in both G6 and G14 is better. No new (BoN) nor old (BoBP) customers should feel gouged since the G6 is a Collector Plane anyway, independant, the G14 is in BoBP and G10 (with G10/AS mod) could be featured separately having best of both of them - DB605D engine with AS mod available.

[sevenless 1191]

17 minutes ago, Mac_Messer said:

That is why the idea of implementing AS mod as internal "Plane Loadout' option in both G6 and G14 is better. No new (BoN) nor old (BoBP) customers should feel gouged since the G6 is a Collector Plane anyway, independant, the G14 is in BoBP and G10 (with G10/AS mod) could be featured separately having best of both of them - DB605D engine with AS mod available.

 

You can´t take the existing planes for that. They need an adapted K4 3D-Model for the G10/ G14/AS or G6/AS. The G10s and AS versions didn´t have the Bulges the G14 and G6 had.

[Mac_Messer 187]

Why not? Such ideas are already in the game. 3D model changes with addition of mods such as gunpods, mirrors, canopy types, rockets and so on.