Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ITAF_Rani

Main differences Bf 109 G6 vs Late Version

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

II./JG 11 - nope

I./JG 5 - nope

I./JG 3 - yes

III./JG 1 - nope

 

I don't know what docs you are looking at, but surely you can do better than that.

 

I am long aware of the research pitfall you have encountered.


Umbau vs Neubau. 
Conversions vs New Production issue.

 

The reason is that converted planes (which is practically all G-5/AS and most of the G-6/AS) does not show up in the stocks & movement list you are looking at az WW2.DK.


They seem to list converted planes with their original designation (logical btw) but looking at loss lists, memoirs and photographs reveals the actual types.

 

JG 3 shows up in June probably because they start receiving new production (Neubau) G-6/AS, which were totally new planes, equipped with AS engines from the start.

 

Hence why the picture of Specht’s G-5/AS from II/Jg11photographed provably in early April when he was awarded/promoted etc. Read up sevenless’s post. 
 

Furthermore read up Knoke’s diary for April 1944 who was with the same unit, he specifically mentions receiving new planes ‘with methanol and new supercharger’, the latter which he finds ‘fantastic’ when he climbs to 9000m a few days later. Hint, Hint.

Then there is Oseau, shot down in May 1944 in his new G-6/AS when Goring accused him with cowardice (he was bed rotten with fever).

 

Yet none of these show up as proper /AS aircraft in the movements list. They list stuff like receiving new ‘G-5’ and G-5/U2’ etc..

 

Why?

 

Because  these units received planes that are conversions from older, existing aircraft which for some reason still reported in their old designation - and early designation wasn’t that consistent to begin with, until they standardized the things as ‘G-14’ a few months later.

Conversions are the reason why so many were converted from /U2s, originally a GM1 modification - the MW system used the very same tank and setup, and it was an easy conversion to MW instead of the now redundant GM1 system.

 

However Prien and Rodeike, who seems to have access to the loss lists details the units that received the G-5/AS and G-6/AS, with known evidence of /AS losses, pictures and so on, which is what I used to track these units.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sevenless said:

So either implement a standard G6 (late) which undisputably was present in large numbers but gamewise delivers nothing new for old customers over the G6 (43) or G14 (without boost) or implement a G5/6/AS which has some novelty factor for present customers or implement a G5/U2 or G6/U2 which could, with GM-1, give the customer at least some novelty over already existing 109s. Especially since the 109 of BoN could be used also in BoBP and the G14 (with MW50 locked as a G6 late) could in theory be used in BoN, the AS versions or at least a /U2 version would offer more than what "just another standard 109" could offer. Considering the fact that nearly 50% of 109s which were used on 1st January 1945 were of the AS version my personal vote would go for a G5/6/AS implementation in BoN. All else would be a lost opportunity for both games. IMHO of course.

     

Absolutely. At this stage when we have BoBP already, BoN plays also role of supplementing variants that were available before Bodenplatte. And that means fleshing out the entire G6 family plus any Rustsatze/Umrustsatze created. Other than that LW flying customer gets a 410 and that`s it.

 

Besides that the meta of BoN is obvious - each and all BoN servers will be swarming with Spitfire XIV which flies circles around any G5/G6.

Edited by Mac_Messer
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

JG 3 shows up in June probably because they start receiving new production (Neubau) G-6/AS, which were totally new planes, equipped with AS engines from the start

 

There was only 1 G-6/AS built and that was in Sept '44.

 

I asked Jochen in a thread that had a neubau list of 109s about the 226 he stated in his book. He replied that his book needs an update and this is one of the updates required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

 

There was only 1 G-6/AS built and that was in Sept '44.

 

I stated earlier that retrofitting AS engines in G5 and G6 machines was common practice, so no surprise there.  325 G6/AS were build by Mtt Regensburg according to Peter Schmoll. Retrofitting of G5 and G6 was carried out by Erla in Antwerp, RWE (Erfurth) and Blom+Voss.

mtt.jpg

G5AS.jpg

 

G6AS.jpg

 

 

JG1_G6AS.jpg

Edited by sevenless
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2019 at 9:17 AM, RAY-EU said:

It would be great the Bf 109 G10 ? 
 

The Messerschmitt Bf109G-10

 

By V. Kermorgant (profiles by G. Elegoët), March 2002

In the Reich Luft Ministerium ( RLM) vision, the G6 was designed to be the last version of the Gustav to be ever produced. Consequently, as early as 1943, Messerschmitt started working on an improved 109, the K. The K was essentially a refined G6 with emphasis on improving the aerodynamics, flight controls and cockpit ergonomics. There was no engine limitation and as with the G, a wide selection of versions powered with the DB605A & D families were forecast.

 Implementation differed from design, however, and in the spring 1944, the G6 was still the only 109 mass produced. It had evolved a bit from the first G6 produced, having seen the following changes :

 

  • Erla Haube
  • Glass head armor
  • DB605AS
  • DB605AM
  • Tall metal tail & Rudder
  • Tall wood tail & Rudder
  • Tall tail wheel
  • MW-50 Water-methanol overboost
  • MK108 axial canon

 

Most of these above became standard as production continued.

 Because of these delays and other new high performance fighters entering mass production (Ta152, Fw190D, Me262), the conversion of all existing factory lines to the K production was meaningless. Having developed the type for some time, Messerschmitt was however allowed  to switch from the G6 to the K4 as soon as possible.

 Sometime during June 44, a new interim version of the G was planned. It was supposed to incorporate the latest equipments found on the G6 and K4 (Erla Haube, tall tail, tall tail wheel, Fug 16ZY & MW-50)  and to be powered by the same DB605D. The version number was the first available for unpressurized planes : G10.

The aim of this new version was to provide a K4-level fighter without retooling existing production lines and to use up the massive stock of G6 components.  The plan was to have the 2 licensed factories (Erla and WNF) switch to the G10.   However, the lack of DB605D prevented the G10 and the K4  from becoming a reality for months to come.

 Externally, the G10 airframe was identical to the G6-MW50 . It had the Erla canopy, the tall tail wheel, the extra hatch on the right side to refill the MW50, the Morane antenna and the “battery box” behind the head armor. However, because factories switched to the G10 production at different times, big differences existed.

 

The Erla-built Me 109 G10

Erla-manufactured G10s are the most misidentified ones, and have been often referred as G10/AS in the past. Firstly, they did not use the fuselage “moon” fairing on the left side as with the previous AS version.  Instead, they used a square panel totally integrated in the fuselage. They also used different cowls, covering the nose without the chin bulges found on the K4. The oil cooler was also different, larger and slimmer than the K4 model. It was most probably designed for the H version as well.

 The Erla solution for covering the DB605D on the G10 was overall the most elegant one and naturally begs one question : Why were they the only factory doing so, especially when Messerschmitt itself was using “moons and bulges” on the brand new K4?  We may never know for sure. However, the planned 109 H was designed to use covers strangely similar to the one used by Erla on the G10.  A very possible explanation is that the items and tooling pre-produced for the H version were redirected to the Erla production at the time of the G10 introduction.

Since Erla started the G10 production quite early, the first a/c still used G6 wings with “small” wheels and the Erla canopy with antenna mast. Later, Erla used the same new wing with larger wheels as the other manufacturers.

 

Erla production :

490130 – 490399 : G10 (Sept –Oct 44)

490400 – 490799 : G10R6 (Oct – Nov 44)

491100 – 491500 : G10R6 (Dec 44 – Jan 45)

 

Initial layout of the Erla made G10s :

 

g10.ht1.gif

g10.ht2.gif

g10.ht3.gif                 g10.ht4.gif

 

Final  layout of the Erla made G10s :

g10.ht5.gif

g10.ht6.gif

g10.ht7.gif            g10.ht4.gif

 

 

 

The WNF made Me 109 G10

The WNF-manufactured G10 are the only ones which survive to this day. Heavily based on the G6 MW50, they used the fuselage "moons" on both sides and the cowl sets from the K4 model.  As their production started at a much later date than Erla, all WNF G10s seem to have used the larger wheels and the new wing.

 The first WNF produced G10 were not new a/c. Instead, WNF converted new G14/U4 to the G10 standard by replacing the DB605AM with the DB605D. These planes can be recognized by the presence of 2 manufacturer data plates on the left forward fuselage.

 

WNF production :  

 

610300 – 611099 : G10/U4 (Dec 44 – Jan 45)

611900 – 612010 : G10/U4 (Jan 45)

612700 – 613199 : G10/U4 (Jan 45-February 45)

770100 – 770399 : G10/R2 (Jan 45- March 45)

770900 – 771199 : G10/R2 (March 45)

 

Layout of the WNF made G10s :

 

g10.ht8.gif

g10.ht9.gif

 

I would love to see a Bf109G10 in IL-2 Bon or IL2-Bodp.

As a collector plane or whatever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JG_deserteagle540 said:

I would love to see a Bf109G10 in IL-2 Bon or IL2-Bodp.

As a collector plane or whatever.

 

They will save that for a possible eastfront 44/45 setting.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean we are getting other planes that feel more oriented toward Bodenplatte. The career for Normandy isn't going to be for the day of June 6 only. We have other planes that barely fit to their module. I don't see what the big deal is for making a G6 with mods that make it useable for a larger time frame and other modules. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Danziger said:

I mean we are getting other planes that feel more oriented toward Bodenplatte. The career for Normandy isn't going to be for the day of June 6 only. We have other planes that barely fit to their module. I don't see what the big deal is for making a G6 with mods that make it useable for a larger time frame and other modules. 


You’re right, it’s not a big deal. A G-6/AS makes sense from historical (BoN + BoBP), gameplay, and sales standpoints. Not sure what people think they’re going to lose by including it. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Danziger said:

I mean we are getting other planes that feel more oriented toward Bodenplatte. The career for Normandy isn't going to be for the day of June 6 only. We have other planes that barely fit to their module. I don't see what the big deal is for making a G6 with mods that make it useable for a larger time frame and other modules. 

This. It would really fit BoBp too and the normal plane can be used for normal BoN. If the team can make it it would be great. But we don't know the requirements or the time needed for it.

 

We don't know the scheme even if it works in our heads, they have a business to run

Edited by LF_Gallahad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems premature to argue about the G6/AS seeing as we don't even know what mods the G6 Late will have on release. It would be nice if they included it, but that depends on the dev's having the resources for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

I am long aware of the research pitfall you have encountered.


Umbau vs Neubau. 
Conversions vs New Production issue.

 

The reason is that converted planes (which is practically all G-5/AS and most of the G-6/AS) does not show up in the stocks & movement list you are looking at az WW2.DK.


They seem to list converted planes with their original designation (logical btw) but looking at loss lists, memoirs and photographs reveals the actual types.

 

JG 3 shows up in June probably because they start receiving new production (Neubau) G-6/AS, which were totally new planes, equipped with AS engines from the start.

 

Hence why the picture of Specht’s G-5/AS from II/Jg11photographed provably in early April when he was awarded/promoted etc. Read up sevenless’s post. 
 

Furthermore read up Knoke’s diary for April 1944 who was with the same unit, he specifically mentions receiving new planes ‘with methanol and new supercharger’, the latter which he finds ‘fantastic’ when he climbs to 9000m a few days later. Hint, Hint.

Then there is Oseau, shot down in May 1944 in his new G-6/AS when Goring accused him with cowardice (he was bed rotten with fever).

 

Yet none of these show up as proper /AS aircraft in the movements list. They list stuff like receiving new ‘G-5’ and G-5/U2’ etc..

 

Why?

 

Because  these units received planes that are conversions from older, existing aircraft which for some reason still reported in their old designation - and early designation wasn’t that consistent to begin with, until they standardized the things as ‘G-14’ a few months later.

Conversions are the reason why so many were converted from /U2s, originally a GM1 modification - the MW system used the very same tank and setup, and it was an easy conversion to MW instead of the now redundant GM1 system.

 

However Prien and Rodeike, who seems to have access to the loss lists details the units that received the G-5/AS and G-6/AS, with known evidence of /AS losses, pictures and so on, which is what I used to track these units.

 

That's all well and good, but the G-6/U2 as built had the cowling bulges of the standard Bf 109 G-6, so unless you can show that this conversion of the G-6/U2 to G-6/AS standard included modification of the cowling, then I am going to remain skeptical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LF_Gallahad said:

I am with @VO101Kurfurst with this one.

 

If we get the ability to have a G6/AS I find it reasonable to have another G6 

 

It does not strike me particularly difficult to have a G-6Late with different mods - plain vanilla 1,42ata G-6 with Erla cabin, equitable with 605AS mod and/or MW mod, Y verfahrung and whatnot Kinda like the IXe of Bodenplatte. I am sure if a Merlin 70 and model changes with different tails and wingtips is technically doable then a new cowling and a different engine is doable on this G-6Late.

 

At least it would then make sense to have ‘late G-6’ in the first place that is not just a Collector G-6 or a G-14 but represent a wider number of late mods and conversions that were used in late batches before it got standardised as G14.

12 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

That's all well and good, but the G-6/U2 as built had the cowling bulges of the standard Bf 109 G-6, so unless you can show that this conversion of the G-6/U2 to G-6/AS standard included modification of the cowling, then I am going to remain skeptical. 

 

/U2 simple means a factory modification for GM-1 is present. But a substantial number was converted by:

 

Erla Antwerp, G6/U2/AS, 95 converted airframe
Erla Antwerp, G6/U2/R2/AS, 23 converted airframe
Mi-Metall, G6/U2/AS, 98 converted airframe
Blohm & Voss, G6/U2/AS, 80 converted airframe
 

Naturally every AS conversion necessitated the change of the cowling.

 

The cowling was changed because the AS engine was simply made fitting a DB 605A with the supercharger of a bigger DB 603, and the bigger supercharger would simply not fit otherwise. Hence why it’s asymmetrical and bigger on the port side.

Edited by VO101Kurfurst
Added number of G-6/U2 conversions to /AS
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

I stated earlier that retrofitting AS engines in G5 and G6 machines was common practice, so no surprise there.  325 G6/AS were build by Mtt Regensburg according to Peter Schmoll. Retrofitting of G5 and G6 was carried out by Erla in Antwerp, RWE (Erfurth) and Blom+Voss.

mtt.jpg

G5AS.jpg

 

G6AS.jpg

 

 

JG1_G6AS.jpg

Interesting; I have Peter Schmoll's book, plus his 'Nest of Eagles: Messerschmitt Production and Flight testing at Regensburg 1936-1945, but I can't place the other two references? Anyway, I stand corrected, there were more G-6/AS, especially, in service over Normandy than I assumed from my limited references.

Re, Gunther Specht: coincidentally a kitset manufacturer called Eduard has recently brought out a 1/48 scale kitset of a Bf 109G-6/AS ; a markings options they provide in a so-called 'Bunny Club' edition is Specht's G-5/AS, Wnr. 110064, complete with the double x sized Night's Cross draped over the cowling, commemorating his 31st victory. The drop tank used on Specht's machine was an unusual 'finless bomb' pattern.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, NZTyphoon said:

, but I can't place the other two references?

 

@NZTyphoon, those quotes are from the book you thankfully suggested to me in another thread about G14/AS difference with G10 and how to tell them apart from external features.

Please look up the beginning of each chapter Page 10 Wołowski, Krzysztof. BF 109 Late Versions: Camouflage and Markings (White Series) (Kindle-Position 12). MMPBooks. Kindle-Version. and Page 13 Wołowski, Krzysztof. BF 109 Late Versions: Camouflage and Markings (White Series) (Kindle-Position 15). MMPBooks. Kindle-Version.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

@NZTyphoon, those quotes are from the book you thankfully suggested to me in another thread about G14/AS difference with G10 and how to tell them apart from external features.

Please look up the beginning of each chapter Page 10 Wołowski, Krzysztof. BF 109 Late Versions: Camouflage and Markings (White Series) (Kindle-Position 12). MMPBooks. Kindle-Version. and Page 13 Wołowski, Krzysztof. BF 109 Late Versions: Camouflage and Markings (White Series) (Kindle-Position 15). MMPBooks. Kindle-Version.

😁Doh! But of course they're from Wołowski! The problem is, most of my library has been packed away in boxes, while the house undergoes some renovation: thanks for the reminder (as I look for the relevant box and dig out Wołowski). 😄😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I'm not the biggest fan of the 109, but why not make the "late G-6" the real clusterduck it was:

 

Give it a normal hood, an Erla hood, a tall tail and the AS engines/ cowling as a mod each. Hardly more stuff than what was done on the A-8 in BoBP.

Coming to think of it: Why not go Full Nelson and do the PX cabin and the GM-1 mixture of the G-5 as well?

 

I know, lots of options to implement, but it would justify a new, "late" G-6 and it wouldn't kill off the early collector's model.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

You know, I'm not the biggest fan of the 109, but why not make the "late G-6" the real clusterduck it was:

 

Give it a normal hood, an Erla hood, a tall tail and the AS engines/ cowling as a mod each. Hardly more stuff than what was done on the A-8 in BoBP.

Coming to think of it: Why not go Full Nelson and do the PX cabin and the GM-1 mixture of the G-5 as well?

 

I know, lots of options to implement, but it would justify a new, "late" G-6 and it wouldn't kill off the early collector's model.

 

I think that is a good proposal and they should do that to have this important variant of the 109 represented in the game. That way we both get the G6 (Beule) and the G6 (AS with different cowling) for BoN and also for BoBP, where it played an even more important role with the G14/AS, which represented a huge percentage of all 109s in the west in the late war timeframe. We all need to remember the main job in 44/45 in the west for the 109s was to keep off the allied fighters from attacking the 190s, so daily business was done above 7000 metres and not, as it is in the game right now, at 2-4000 metres altitude.

Edited by sevenless
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

You know, I'm not the biggest fan of the 109, but why not make the "late G-6" the real clusterduck it was:

 

Give it a normal hood, an Erla hood, a tall tail and the AS engines/ cowling as a mod each. Hardly more stuff than what was done on the A-8 in BoBP.

Coming to think of it: Why not go Full Nelson and do the PX cabin and the GM-1 mixture of the G-5 as well?

 

I know, lots of options to implement, but it would justify a new, "late" G-6 and it wouldn't kill off the early collector's model.


Good idea, and whether or not one is a „fan“ of the 109 shouldn’t matter when considering this. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, sevenless said:

We all need to remember the main job in 44/45 in the west for the 109s was to keep off the allied fighters from attacking the 190s, so daily business was done above 7000 metres and not, as it is in the game right now, at 2-4000 metres altitude.

For sure, high altitude missions were carried out against the 8th Air Force, but 2 TAF had long had a policy of forcing the Jagdwaffe to fight at lower altitudes, meaning that most air to air combat in 2 TAF's area of operations took place at medium-low altitudes. As well as 2 TAF, the German fighters also had to deal with the USAAF's 9th [tactical] Air Force fighter-bombers.

 

Tiffievibe006-001.jpg

Tiffievibe007-001.jpg

Tiffievibe008-001.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NZTyphoon said:

meaning that most air to air combat in 2 TAF's area of operations took place at medium-low altitudes. As well as 2 TAF, the German fighters also had to deal with the USAAF's 9th [tactical] Air Force fighter-bombers.

 

You are absolutely correct and I am far from denying that. However the MAIN focus were the bombers, they were priority No.1. They nevertheless tried to make due whatever was thrown at them with whatever they had at disposal. There the allies succeeded to bleed their manpower white, which thankfully contributed to the end of this centannial nightmare and brought peace to europe.

 

Thanks for quoting from 2TAF publication. I whish I had the books, but pricing is absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sevenless said:

We all need to remember the main job in 44/45 in the west for the 109s was to keep off the allied fighters from attacking the 190s

 

I agree with that for later 1944 (BoBP time frame). But early 1944 (up to BoN time frame), the main job of the 109 was to get equipped with gondolas and go for the heavies along with the 190. You can trace that through the kill claims, where you will find 109 equipped units to claim heavies for quite some time into 1944.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had to guess, I'd expect the G-6 Late to be a standard cowling with the Erlhaube hood and tall tail, and options for MW-50 injection, and possibly some different engines. I don't expect them to have the two different hoods as options because that requires two different nose meshes. We might see the G-6 (Early) also get the option for MW-50.

 

I would suspect we will see the Bf-109 campaign using both the early and late G-6's in it, especially if the MW-50 mod is added to it.

 

The main reason I think we're getting the late G-6 is just to cover all the changes in the design that happened between the first Bf-109G-6's rolling off the line, and what eventually got designated the G-14. From looking at the Bf-109 version map, it looks like there are at least three different, only semi-related, version of the Bf-109G-14 as well, due to the sheer level of non-standardization going on at the time.

 

As for why the Bf-109G-6 Late, instead of the Bf-109G-6AS or Bf-109G-10? Likely the same reason we got the Spitfire Mk IX for Battle of Bodenplatte, rather than the Mk XIV: because it was the most common version of its type in the field, and they don't have another plane that could fill that spot. The Bf-109G-6 early is a 1943 version of the 109, and doesn't have most of the things that were added to later 109G-6 units. It's suitable for 1943 scenarios, but with MW-50 it's a bit slow. 

 

You also need to consider how it behaves for the opposition side. Having only the Early G-6 and the G-10, or even G-14, but not the configuration that was actually used at the time could be a bit jarring for the campaign. I'm not saying it would be as weird as only seeing Spitfire Mk V's and Mk XIV's, but no Mk IX's in the Bodenplatte campaign, but it certainly ends up being a little strange.

 

The final thing we need to bear in mind, is different meshes are different planes. Changing the height of the tail, changing the canopy type, and changing the engine hood all require different skinmaps. The way the engine textures aircraft, you cannot have a common skin between a smooth nose and a blistered nose. I expect we'll see the same issue with the tall tail, and the improved canopy. 

 

On the Ju-88C-6, if I had to guess, I'd bet that the dev team is looking to get more time on twin engines, and wanted to do a test balloon for all the people who've been asking for the various fighter mods of German bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Voyager said:

As for why the Bf-109G-6 Late, instead of the Bf-109G-6AS or Bf-109G-10? Likely the same reason we got the Spitfire Mk IX for Battle of Bodenplatte, rather than the Mk XIV: because it was the most common version of its type in the field, and they don't have another plane that could fill that spot.

 

The G-10 was a late-1944 plane, like the Bf 109 K-4. That's why it wasn't a choice for Normandy. Unlike what the numbering system says, the G-14 actually entered service months before the G-10.

Edited by LukeFF
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2019 at 3:50 PM, Sgt_Joch said:

From what Jason posted in the Normandy thread, they don't have the time and resources to build both a brand new ME-410 and Ju-188, so choices had to be made. The Ju-88c6 is based on the A-4 frame we already have in game, so will be quicker to build.

I'm okay with the 88C, it's a cool plane and useable on the Easter front as well. But for the '44 Western front stuff a Ju-88S would be even more interesting to me, simply to have that extra speed to get 1% more survivability in the BON and BOBP scenario. 

P.S. gib "painted nose" modification for the Ju-88C pls. (For those who don't know, some heavy fighter 88 Units painted the noses of the 88Cs to look like the glas nose of the bomber variants to bait allied fighters into attacking them head on)

 

On 11/30/2019 at 1:35 AM, LukeFF said:

 

So, let's see here: 

 

G-6 Late: extremely common before and after D-Day, can be used for every day of career mode well into the fall of 1944.

G-6/AS: shows up only after D-Day, used by one Gruppe before they returned to Germany about 2 weeks later.

 

Why are we debating this? G-6 late is the standard plane, give it a engine modification making it a G-6/AS and be done with it. Extend it's usability to the full BOBP timeframe and give people (wether they already own the G-6 collector or BOBP) a plane that offers something new

Edited by Asgar
typo
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, GP* said:


Good idea, and whether or not one is a „fan“ of the 109 shouldn’t matter when considering this. 

This. I'm not a 109 fanboy or even very knowledgeable about them. I just think it would be good to make it worth having both versions of the G6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will admit to having been extremely confused in the fact we did not receive an AS(M) engined 109G with Bodenplatte - in fact one of the more prolific versions of the mid-late war 109 - and I think it would be folly to disregard adding one now with Normandy.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Asgar @PainGod85 Can the AS(M) fit under the standard blister hood, or does it require a new mesh and separate skin map for it? If it requires a new model mesh, then that's why we likely won't be getting both. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What were the performance specs of the g6/as? How comparable to the current g6 and g14 was it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JtD said:

 

I agree with that for later 1944 (BoBP time frame). But early 1944 (up to BoN time frame), the main job of the 109 was to get equipped with gondolas and go for the heavies along with the 190. You can trace that through the kill claims, where you will find 109 equipped units to claim heavies for quite some time into 1944.

 

Absolutely, that is why the 20mm gondolas were designed for in the first place. The change came in late 1943 when they realized that attacking heavies with 109s didn´t cut the mustard. So they tested different things to enhance anti-bomber effectivity. One of those things were new tactics with introduction of Sturmstaffel 1 and after 6 months in mid-44 this was rolled out to JG 4, JG 3 and JG 300s new build Sturmgruppen. Backdraw was, that those units needed their own escort to get to the bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, HerrBree said:

What were the performance specs of the g6/as? How comparable to the current g6 and g14 was it?

the DB605AS it had less power down low but a higher full throttle height

  than the DB605A.

 

the DB605AM was much more powerfull (with MW50 in use!)  TILL full throttle height (almost the same as the 605A). Above the DB605AS had more power.

 

FTH DB605 A und AM was around 4500m

DB605AS , out of my Brains, betwenn 6000and 7000m IIRC

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, III/JG53Frankyboy said:

the DB605AS it had less power down low but a higher full throttle height

  than the DB605A.

 

the DB605AM was much more powerfull (with MW50 in use!)  TILL full throttle height (almost the same as the 605A). Above the DB605AS had more power.

 

FTH DB605 A und AM was around 4500m

DB605AS , out of my Brains, betwenn 6000and 7000m IIRC

 Very interesting. Thank you! I hope we get both engine models

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, III/JG53Frankyboy said:

the DB605AS it had less power down low but a higher full throttle height

  than the DB605A.

 

the DB605AM was much more powerfull (with MW50 in use!)  TILL full throttle height (almost the same as the 605A). Above the DB605AS had more power.

 

FTH DB605 A und AM was around 4500m

DB605AS , out of my Brains, betwenn 6000and 7000m IIRC

I wish the AS was a modification for the existing G-14 for this reason; catching the recon spitfires in single player is nearly impossible because they fly so damn fast at 7000m where the DB605AM is wheezing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Voyager said:

@Asgar @PainGod85 Can the AS(M) fit under the standard blister hood, or does it require a new mesh and separate skin map for it? If it requires a new model mesh, then that's why we likely won't be getting both. 

 

 

The AS engine basically mated the engine block of the DB605A to the supercharger of the larger DB603. Planes so equipped required the later, larger engine cowling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Voyager said:

@Asgar @PainGod85 Can the AS(M) fit under the standard blister hood, or does it require a new mesh and separate skin map for it? If it requires a new model mesh, then that's why we likely won't be getting both. 

 


If they can clip the wings of the spitfire and add various canopy options to aircraft, the cowling is 100% doable. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HerrBree said:

 Very interesting. Thank you! I hope we get both engine models

wwiiperformance is as always a good Google :lol:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/VB-109-20-L-43.pdf

 

i was a a "little" bit low with my FTH - thats the RAM air effect.

 

and from the good old wikipedia

DB 605 A

5,8 km Volldruckhöhe (FTH)

  • DB 605 A: Standardversion mit 1475 PS Startleistung in 0 m, maximal 1550 PS Notleistung in 2,1 km
  • DB 605 AM: wie 605 A, aber mit MW-50-Anlage bis zu 1800 PS Sondernotleistung in 0 m

DB 605 AS

Höhenmotor mit 7,8 km Volldruckhöhe (FTH)

  • DB 605 AS: ein DB 605 A mit dem großen Lader des DB 603, 1435 PS Startleistung in 0 m
  • DB 605 ASM: wie 605 AS, aber mit MW-50-Anlage bis zu 1800 PS Sondernotleistung in 0 m

 

 

as the charts show, at sealevel this 40PS difference is not much - i guess in this case, the condition of the airframe (drag) is more important.

to summarize, yes, to have this planned BoN Bf109-G6 (Late) with DB605A as default and a DB605AS as a modification sounds very smart. The DB605ASM looks a little bit off IMHO

Edited by III/JG53Frankyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AndytotheD said:

I wish the AS was a modification for the existing G-14 for this reason; catching the recon spitfires in single player is nearly impossible because they fly so damn fast at 7000m where the DB605AM is wheezing.

 

Try that with a Fw-190 A8 in singleplayer and you feel the pain high up beyond 7000metres.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...