Main differences Bf 109 G6 vs Late Version

[AndytotheD]

Just now, sevenless said:

 

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

Hah, I can certainly believe that. Hell, even the Dora takes a while to run them down that high.

[PainGod85]

25 minutes ago, III/JG53Frankyboy said:

wwiiperformance is as always a good Google

 

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

 

There would be literally no sense in adding a G-6 that has the exact same engine as the collector's G-6.

The methanol-water injection system was retrofitted to G-5 and G-6 planes starting some time around May/June '44. There is no reason to disregard the option for it out of hand. The G-14 was test flown with it in July, the G-6 itself in May and June.

[Voyager]

5 hours ago, GP* said:

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

 

They do those by having separate meshes for each mod, so the Spitfire has two sets of wingtips in the skin, one for the wingtips, and another set for the caps. 

 

The 109's have three sets of head rests for each version. To have two different noses would require about 30% more fuselage mesh. There just is not enough space in the skin to fit it. They had enough trouble fitting the blisters on after all. I expect they've got different distortions applied to them too. I suspect of you swapped a Bf-109K-4 and a 109G-14 skin it would show the level of differences you'd be looking at. 

[sevenless]

Well they have all the necessary data available. Up to them to make a business decision. Maybe we hear something about that early next year.

[Danziger]

Yeah I don't see the two different hoods working out. If it were just a case of adding or removing the blisters it could be doable but if each hood are different sizes and shapes I think that would probably be too much to fit on the 109 texture templates. Unless they are planning on remaking the 109 in the higher detail style of the D9/P38/P47/P51 and such.

[GP*]

9 hours ago, Voyager said:

 

They do those by having separate meshes for each mod, so the Spitfire has two sets of wingtips in the skin, one for the wingtips, and another set for the caps. 

 

The 109's have three sets of head rests for each version. To have two different noses would require about 30% more fuselage mesh. There just is not enough space in the skin to fit it. They had enough trouble fitting the blisters on after all. I expect they've got different distortions applied to them too. I suspect of you swapped a Bf-109K-4 and a 109G-14 skin it would show the level of differences you'd be looking at. 

Your technical expertise on this matter absolutely exceeds mine. I just think we‘re „missing the forest for the trees“ when we say that an AS isn’t likely because of what you mentioned, whereas the bigger issue is that this plane needs something more than just a canopy and MW-50 to differentiate it from the G6 CP and G14, respectively. 
 

I totally understand that this plane could basically just be a CP G6 (w/Erla canopy) with the justification that new players to the GB series need a 109. However, I believe that Jason knows that his core of supporters bought both BoBP and the G6 CP in the past. A G6/AS (I.e. a G6 Late with DB-605AS and, ideally, DB-605ASM as available engine mods) is an excellent answer to this issue. 

Edited December 2, 2019 by GP*

[TWC_Ace]

The main difference is emptier pocket of a seducted customer.

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

why ?

This 109 is in the BoN package....

[=RvE=Windmills]

54 minutes ago, =VARP=Tvrdi said:

The main difference is emptier pocket of a seducted customer.

 

Dude, we get it, really we do. You do not need to keep posting in every single thread to make your point clear, you've done it a hundred times. 

 

Make a post in the technical support, then relax and take a break from the forums and the game until its fixed. 

[TWC_Ace]

On 12/2/2019 at 12:47 PM, =RvE=Windmills said:

 

Dude, we get it, really we do. You do not need to keep posting in every single thread to make your point clear, you've done it a hundred times. 

 

Make a post in the technical support, then relax and take a break from the forums and the game until its fixed. 

Tell that to yourself after simming for  30 yrs .....

[AndytotheD]

12 hours ago, =VARP=Tvrdi said:

Tell that to yourself after simming for  30 yrs .....

If this were Facebook, I'd advocate you for a "top fan" badge.

[zan64]

12 hours ago, =VARP=Tvrdi said:

Tell that to yourself after simming for  30 yrs .....

so, its what , $7 of plane? so what if it is null. i drop $50-70 on A2A and DCS planes without blinking an eye

[DD_Fenrir]

Ultimately, whether people like it or not there were 109G-6 series flying around,  still officially recognised by the RLM as G-6, despite the presence of some features of the later sub-models.

 

Just cos it's kinda, almost, not-quite exactly the same as G-14 makes no odds; If I wanna make a late 1943 to mid 1944 scenario, I DON'T WANT TO BE OBLIGED TO USE A G-14, because that is not historically accurate.

 

Neither should I be obliged to use a 1943 version of the aircraft as that would not reflect the characteristics in performance (better or worse) that the later modifications imbued the sub-series with.

 

If the Luftwaffe and RLM did not deem fit to recognise modified G-6 as G-14 then why should we?

[Soilworker]

What I reckon they should do is put the collector G6 into BoN, give it all the required additions as modifications, then release a new collector plane and give it to those of us who bought the G6. (Or something along those lines anyway.) 

[Notclear]

I don't think they have legaly the rigth to do that.

 

Someone have infos about the use of MW-30 ? It could be an interesting solution to have a G-6 using it, a water injection-methanol system which is not used in our early G-6 but heavier and less performing than the one in our G-14 with the DB-605 AM.

What was the fuel used with MW-30 (C3 ?) and when did it appeared in units if it is earlier than the MW-50 it could be viable.

 

G-6 with a tall tail, Herla hood and a MW-30 could be a good compromise. But, is it historically correct and enough widespread to appear in the game ? 

[69TD_Hajo_Garlic]

8 minutes ago, Notclear said:

I don't think they have legaly the rigth to do that.

 

Someone have infos about the use of MW-30 ? It could be an interesting solution to have a G-6 using it, a water injection-methanol system which is not used in our early G-6 but heavier and less performing than the one in our G-14 with the DB-605 AM.

What was the fuel used with MW-30 (C3 ?) and when did it appeared in units if it is earlier than the MW-50 it could be viable.

 

G-6 with a tall tail, Herla hood and a MW-30 could be a good compromise. But, is it historically correct and enough widespread to appear in the game ? 

Mw30 I think was used at lower alts because it froze easier so I’m not sure how often it would have been used in the west. 

[JtD]

Whether MW30 or MW50 doesn't really make a lot of difference in terms of performance. It's the same system, just with a 70-30 mix instead of a 50-50. MW30 gives a slightly higher effect at the expense of a higher freezing point (-18°C vs. -50°C), as Hajo_Garlic already stated. If you wanted to use the same amount of water you could reduce the amount injected and it would last longer, but that wasn't typically done.

 

Main reasons to use it were lack of methanol and/or high enough outside temperatures. MW30 was permitted for use as long as temperatures on the ground were -15°C or above. Below that, MW50 was mandatory.

 

[Notclear]

Ok, in that case no reason to have it, it was more a troubleshooting solution for the lack of MW-50 and it was use consequently in the same period.

 

A G-6 with a tall tail, Herla hood, DB 605A, will be what we'll get.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

On 12/5/2019 at 9:12 PM, Notclear said:

Ok, in that case no reason to have it, it was more a troubleshooting solution for the lack of MW-50 and it was use consequently in the same period.

 

A G-6 with a tall tail, Herla hood, DB 605A, will be what we'll get.

I believe the G-6 will be the most modifiable 109 we will ever get.

 

Here is what I bet it will be (coming from the Kuban G-6)

It will be represantative of a Production Line Model of the Winter of 1944.

 

100% Certain:

Erla Haube and Galland Panzer as standard now, as well as Radio Navigation.

Large Tail as an Option, Trade Off in Level Speed for later Flutter at High Speed and better handling due to more Rearward CG. The main Reason for the new Tail was the overbalanced Nature of the small one in a Dive. The Tail, as the clipped Wing Tips on the Spit, was an easy, Plug In Field or Factory Mod.

MW50 Installation.

 

66% Certain:

DB605AS Engine, but only usable in Combination with the large Tail Unit.

 

Almost completely Certain won't come:

Flettner Tab Ailerons.

 

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

Winter 44 for a scenario spring to summer 44 ? ?

meanwhile i expect more an AS modification than a MW50 one. future will tell.

Edited December 7, 2019 by III/JG53Frankyboy

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

On 12/7/2019 at 8:21 PM, III/JG53Frankyboy said:

Winter 44 for a scenario spring to summer 44 ? ?

meanwhile i expect more an AS modification than a MW50 one. future will tell.

It would still allow for the small Tail while having Erla Haube and Galland Panzer as Standard. Any Later than Winter 44 would put it too close to the G-14 to have any meaningful distinction. And it would of course be most representative for the Aircraft at the Front of early Spring 44.

 

And just because I personally would prefer to have a Short Tail G-6 with MW50, meaning some Extra Speed over the G-14.

[Mac_Messer]

On 12/4/2019 at 11:01 AM, DD_Fenrir said:

Just cos it's kinda, almost, not-quite exactly the same as G-14 makes no odds; If I wanna make a late 1943 to mid 1944 scenario, I DON'T WANT TO BE OBLIGED TO USE A G-14, because that is not historically accurate.

 

Neither should I be obliged to use a 1943 version of the aircraft as that would not reflect the characteristics in performance (better or worse) that the later modifications imbued the sub-series with.

I think some people have a problem realising that if you were fighter pilot in the Luftwaffe, 109/190s was all that you flew for the whole war. Additionally with LW desperate situation in `44 there was a lot of old hardware flying around.

 

I remember in 1946 flying some pretty funny but realistic coop scenarios. LW vs Romanian / Hungarian , both equipped with 109s although the LW had the latest equipment to fly.  Needless to say what was the outcome of those sorties.

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

Axis planes for the allied side was always fun .

in VOW we had Swiss 109E versus LW 109E (no 110C available in these times)

finnish Hurricanes versus soviet Hurricanes

and yes, a Luftwaffe versus Rumanian 109s (from G-2, G-6Late to G-14) - the reds loved the MK108

and we had a Mission were the soviets flew the Fw190D .............

 

i loved those COOP online wars