PDA

View Full Version : Why we don't have the Me-109 G-4???



Flight_boy1990
06-10-2007, 11:19 AM
Probably noone from the "big bosses" in the Olegs IL-2 team will never see this,buti will question it.
Why we dont have the Messerchmitt-109 G-4 in
IL-2?I've read somewhere,that its faster then the G-2 and still very good manoeuvreble as the G-2,and still very dangerous.So i thing that the G-4 will handle with the damn La-5FN.What you thing?Cause the plane we have in the game after G-2 is G-6 and cause of the new MG-151 on G-6 make the G-6 with bigger weight than the G-2,and is very easy to outturn the G-6 from the La.

XyZspineZyX
06-10-2007, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
Probably noone from the "big bosses" in the Olegs IL-2 team will never see this,buti will question it.

The G-4 is a well known aircraft, you're not the first to notice it


Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
Why we dont have the Messerchmitt-109 G-4 in
IL-2?

Could be a lot of reasons. Perhaps one of them is that we already have 14 seperate Bf 109s in the sim?

The fact is that they are not working on this sim any more. They are putting all effort towards their new sim, the one that is replacing this one. It is very very doubtful that the developer will make a Bf 109G-4 for this sim


Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
I've read somewhere,that its faster then the G-2 and still very good manoeuvreble as the G-2,and still very dangerous.

What are these references? Books, websites? What? It's hard to read your post and think to myself "well, he read this somewhere, I'll just assume that's the facts"


Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
So i thing that the G-4 will handle with the damn La-5FN.What you thing?

What do I think? Based on this, I think you losing against the La-5fn, but you will not entertain the possibility the problem could be you and your tactics. So the answer is the get this plane that you discovered, not find out what you're doing wrong. That's what I think: you're looking for better planes in the beleif that this will solve your ACM problems


Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
Cause the plane we have in the game after G-2 is G-6 and cause of the new MG-151 on G-6 make the G-6 with bigger weight than the G-2,and is very easy to outturn the G-6 from the La.

Stop trying to out-turn the La-5fn. You already seem to realise that the plane is not good in a turn fight against the la-5fn, but it seems your only solution is to go get a better turning aircraft. I suggest that you build on your observations concerning the La-5fn outturning your plane, and adopt tactics that do not put you at a disadvantage

VW-IceFire
06-10-2007, 11:54 AM
What is the 109G-4 anyways? Wikipedia seems to mention something about revised undercarriage and tropical/recon roles. I couldn't find much else about it. Sounds like the differences would be minor or not noticeable. The G-2 we have is, as I understand it, the higher boost version of the G-2 so we already have the performance benefits...

I doubt the G-4 would make any difference against a La-5FN. You'd still need to use the same techniques and tactics to win. Generally speaking not sustaining a turn fight with a La-5FN (which can out power its way through a similar turn) is going to help. Also keep in mind that the La-5FN version that we have should be fighting against Bf109G-6 Late, A/S or G-14...maybe even the G-10. So those are much more powerful variants. The G-2 is more contemporary with the La-5 or La-5F.

XyZspineZyX
06-10-2007, 12:03 PM
My JANE'S encyclopedia glosses over it, but my "Complete Book of Fighters" lists the G-3 and G-4 as being upgraded in terms of better radio and latger mainwheel tires. It mentions the G-4 was a photo-recce variant

larger caliber weapons commenced with the G-5, not the G-4 according to this reference book

page 376, "Complete book of fighters" by William Green and Gordon Swanborough, IBN# 0 84065 269 1

Green was an aviation journalist in WWII, and Swanborough has been an aviation journalist for something like 40 years

JG52Karaya-X
06-10-2007, 12:10 PM
Yes the G4 is basically a G2 with larger main wheels (wing bumps), better radio equipment and a locked-down tailwheel (which already appeared on late production G2s)

Not really much of a performance difference between the two except a slight decrease in topspeed on the G4 because of the extra drag created by the tailwheel and the wing bumps (maybe 10km/h slower at alt)

So all in all it wouldnt make much sense putting it into the sim as it can easily be substituted with the G2

@Ice-Fire: The G2 we have is a mix of two boost models, it has the climbrate of the 1,42ata bird but the speed and turnrate of the normal 1,3ata plane, kind of like the SpitVb

tigertalon
06-10-2007, 05:00 PM
Maaaaan! You want more?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/109s.jpg

Btw, Mg151/20 is both on G2 and G6. It's Mg131 in place of Mg17 that makes 109 look bumpy.

VW-IceFire
06-10-2007, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
@Ice-Fire: The G2 we have is a mix of two boost models, it has the climbrate of the 1,42ata bird but the speed and turnrate of the normal 1,3ata plane, kind of like the SpitVb
Thank ye! So the Spit Vb isn't the only frankenstine performer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Flight_boy1990
06-11-2007, 01:09 AM
Yeah,sry guys my fault G-6 is with 131 MGs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif .I've pressed the "5" not "3" in the middle.I've checked the wikipedia too,and even the G-4 was slower than the G-2,caused by drawing of the stationary taiwheel(this is exactly writen in Wiki),and maybe cause the game is made from russians...you know loosing 10 km/h of the speed cause of the tailwheel,in the game would be 20-25 km/h,easy to be catched.
SO its better,that if we dont have it in the game.

269GA-Veltro
06-11-2007, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
Maaaaan! You want more?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/109s.jpg

Btw, Mg151/20 is both on G2 and G6. It's Mg131 in place of Mg17 that makes 109 look bumpy.

Bf-109 represents 50% of the Axis hangar, so we could have for sure more versions. G4 would be a nice addition considering the Trop version, as for F4 Trop and G6 Trop.
Axis doesn't have many fighter variants, so any new different Bf-109 version's addition is more than wellcome.

alert_1
06-11-2007, 04:56 AM
Problem is NOT with not having Me109g4 but having overmodelled La5FN in 43 planeset. "Our" La5FN is actually '44 production model, dierct predecesor of La7..original La5FN 43 model had bog problems with egnine overhwating and was not as good performer as '44 one.
La5FN (apparently with 1850hp ASh 82FN engine) was tested in Rechlin and in test report was stated that "La5FN is beter turner then Fw190 but worse then Me109..actually both Me109G6 and La5FN should be very close performancewise ..

BH-21
06-11-2007, 06:26 AM
The list of things not right is nearly endless. A couple of examples just from loadout standpoints are:

SBD-3 Could only mount 100 lb bombs on wing racks. It was the SBD-5 and later that could take bigger ones.

FM-2 In the game it has the FM-1 loadout. The FM-2 could carry 250lb'ers or HVARs on the wings.

All US aircraft from 1943 onward could carry the M-10 triple tube 2.75" rocket launcher. It isn't included on any of the P-51s, or P-47s.

After July 1944, the first use of napalm by P-47s on Tinian, all US aircraft could carry it. They simply used drop tanks, the only varriance was the method of arming.

The Corsair Mk I isn't listed as the F4U-1 as it should be, with US skins.

There is plenty one could comment on. But seeing how there has been little or no effort to fix or improve any of these kinds of things since version 1.0 of IL-2, there doesn't seem to be much point in continually bringing them up.

JG4_Helofly
06-11-2007, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
Maaaaan! You want more?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/109s.jpg

Btw, Mg151/20 is both on G2 and G6. It's Mg131 in place of Mg17 that makes 109 look bumpy.

Bf-109 represents 50% of the Axis hangar, so we could have for sure more versions. G4 would be a nice addition considering the Trop version, as for F4 Trop and G6 Trop.
Axis doesn't have many fighter variants, so any new different Bf-109 version's addition is more than wellcome. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's true. How much versions of the spitfire are ingame? Almost as many I would say.
Tanking into account the fact that Germany had only two fighter aircrafts it would not be bad to have more versions. Keep in mind that allied have far more fighter planes in the planeset.

tigertalon
06-11-2007, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
Maaaaan! You want more?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/109s.jpg

Btw, Mg151/20 is both on G2 and G6. It's Mg131 in place of Mg17 that makes 109 look bumpy.

Bf-109 represents 50% of the Axis hangar, so we could have for sure more versions. G4 would be a nice addition considering the Trop version, as for F4 Trop and G6 Trop.
Axis doesn't have many fighter variants, so any new different Bf-109 version's addition is more than wellcome. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's true. How much versions of the spitfire are ingame? Almost as many I would say.
Tanking into account the fact that Germany had only two fighter aircrafts it would not be bad to have more versions. Keep in mind that allied have far more fighter planes in the planeset. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fully agreed lads. Late G-6 (1,42ATA) is also badly needed, as the one we have now is such a poor performer that you are dead in it at the moment you fasten your seatbelts, but late alcoholic G series are too far of a leap forward for some historical 1943/44 scenarios.

RegRag1977
06-11-2007, 10:28 AM
Do you like the 109?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif My little advice is: give a little bump to DKOOR's topic on loadouts...

Help axis pilot to be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Every voice will count http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

KG26_Oranje
06-11-2007, 12:46 PM
U need more 109G sub versians? lol
pic one out than.

Me109G-0 : DB 601E engine. Armament : Two 7.9 mm MG 17 machine guns and one or three 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons.
Pre-produktion series , only 10 bild.
Me109G-1 : DB 605A engine. GM 1 (nitreous-oxide) emergency power boost equipment optional. Pressure cabin.
Armament as G-0.
Me109G-1/Trop : Tropicalized model of G-1.
Me109G-2 : Similar to G-1 but without pressure cabin and GM 1 equipment.
Me109G-2/R2 : Reconnaissance plane with Reihenbildgerät Rb 50/30.
Me109G-2/R3 : Long range sub-type wiht 300 liter drop tank under fuselage.
Me109G-2/R6 : Bomber-destroyer - with one MG 151/20 in underwing gondolas below each wing.
Me109G-2/Trop : Tropicalized model of G-2.
Me109G-3 : Similar to G-1 except for radio equipment (FuG 16Z instead of FuG 7A).
Me109G-3/R6 : As G-3 but with one MG 151/20 in underwing gondolas below each wing.
Me109G-4 : Similar to G-2 except for radio change as in G-3.
Me109G-4/R2 : Reconnaissance plane with Reihenbildgerät Rb 50/30 and a 300 liter drop tank under fuselage.
Me109G-4/R3 : With Rb 50/30 and two 300 liter drop tanks, Armament in wings removed.
Me109G-4/U3 : Tactical reconnaissance plane wiht two Rb 12,5/7.9. All armament removed.
Me109G-4/Trop : Tropicalized model of G-4.
Me109G-4/R3Trop : Tropicalized model of G-4/R3.
Me109G-5 : DB 605A or D engine. Similar to G-1 except for cabin blower and the substitution of two 13 mm MG 131 for the 7.9 mm MG 17 cowling guns.
Me109G-5/R2 : Fighter bomber mdel with ECT50/VIIId bomb rack , carrying 4 SC50`s (50kg).some models chanced ECT50 bomb rack for two 21 cm mortars (Wgr 21) under wings.
Me109G-5/U2 : As G-5 but differed in heaving a wooden tailplane
Me109G-6 : DB 605A, AS, AM or D engine. As G-5 but no pressure cabin.
Me109G-6/Trop : Tropicalized model of G-6.
Me109G-6/R1 : Fighter bomber model of the G-6, ECT500/IXb mounted under fuselage for carrying one 500 kg or 250 kg bomb.
Me109G-6/R2 : As G6/R1 but differed in heaving the two 21 cm mortars (Wgr 21) under wings.
Me109G-6/R1Trop : Tropicalized model of G6/R1.
Me109G-6/R3 : Long range sub-type wiht 300 liter drop tank under fuselage.
Me109G-6/R4 : Heaving the two 30 mm MK 108 cannon in underwing gondolas.
Me109G-6/R6 : Heaving the two 20 mm MG 151 cannon in underwing gondolas.
Me109G-6/U4 : Armament of one or three 30 mm MK 108 cannon and two 13 mm MG 131 machine guns.
Me109G-6/N : Specialized versian in having the FuG 305 "Naxos Z" radar for tracking the H 25 navigation radars of the RAF bombers.
Me109G-8 : DB 605A or D engine. Photographic reconnaissance model fitted with two Rb 12.5/7 or two Rb 32/7 cameras. The MK 108 engine cannon was optional.
Me109G-10 : DB 605D engine. MK 108 engine cannon optional.
Me109G-12 : Two seat trainer. DB 605A engine and reduced tankage.
Me109G-14 : DB 605A, AM, AS, ASB, ASM or D engine. MK 108 engine cannon was optional. later produktion G-14 fitted with wooden tail-unit.
Me109G-16 : DB 605D , fitted with armored oil coolers and radiator, also center-line bomb rack, probebly to late for combat service.

S! I/KG26_Oranje

VW-IceFire
06-11-2007, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
Maaaaan! You want more?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/109s.jpg

Btw, Mg151/20 is both on G2 and G6. It's Mg131 in place of Mg17 that makes 109 look bumpy.

Bf-109 represents 50% of the Axis hangar, so we could have for sure more versions. G4 would be a nice addition considering the Trop version, as for F4 Trop and G6 Trop.
Axis doesn't have many fighter variants, so any new different Bf-109 version's addition is more than wellcome. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's true. How much versions of the spitfire are ingame? Almost as many I would say.
Tanking into account the fact that Germany had only two fighter aircrafts it would not be bad to have more versions. Keep in mind that allied have far more fighter planes in the planeset. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There really isn't that many versions. Most of the "versions" are just clipped wing, different engine (but externally the same), or different armament type and for the 109 the different armament options are covered by the armament type rather than the plane type (for logical and obvious reasons with the Spitfire that the C and E type wings have a different arrangement). So really not that many. The 109 offers far more distinct variations. Which is good seeing as the plane is very important to the series and to the theaters involved. In reading here...I see we don't really need a G-4 although seeing as it seems to be a tropicalized variant I could definitely go for that. Or a F-4 (trop) or anything else that adds some sort of noticeable and worthwhile variation.

As for the La-5FN...just use the La-5F in your scenarios where appropriate and don't look back. It fits perfectly.

Vike
06-12-2007, 10:06 AM
Interesting arguments here! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG52Karaya-X
06-26-2007, 09:05 AM
Dont see the need for a G4 there myself, the G2 is superior as raw performance goes so...

FE_pilot
06-26-2007, 04:26 PM
We have more than enough 109 versions, what we really need is a early version of a FW190, maybe a A1, or A2 model.

VW-IceFire
06-26-2007, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by FE_pilot:
We have more than enough 109 versions, what we really need is a early version of a FW190, maybe a A1, or A2 model.
Thumbs up! That or a F-9 with proper rockets for blasting those darn Allied tanks.

DKoor
06-26-2007, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
As for the La-5FN...just use the La-5F in your scenarios where appropriate and don't look back. It fits perfectly. +1

Codex1971
06-26-2007, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FE_pilot:
We have more than enough 109 versions, what we really need is a early version of a FW190, maybe a A1, or A2 model.
Thumbs up! That or a F-9 with proper rockets for blasting those darn Allied tanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are in desperate need of more flexibility for fighter bombers, only thing that comes to mind that meets the "but it didn't see actual combat whiners" is the Me-262A2, Fw-190F-8 or the Ju-87G (but it's too slow).

I'd like to see the Me-410, Hs-129 & Ju-88C, plus more ground pounding load outs for 109 and 190's.

VW-IceFire
06-26-2007, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Codex1971:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FE_pilot:
We have more than enough 109 versions, what we really need is a early version of a FW190, maybe a A1, or A2 model.
Thumbs up! That or a F-9 with proper rockets for blasting those darn Allied tanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are in desperate need of more flexibility for fighter bombers, only thing that comes to mind that meets the "but it didn't see actual combat whiners" is the Me-262A2, Fw-190F-8 or the Ju-87G (but it's too slow).

I'd like to see the Me-410, Hs-129 & Ju-88C, plus more ground pounding load outs for 109 and 190's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
All of those are good things. I love low altitude ground attack and fighter-bomber operations.

Kurfurst__
06-29-2007, 04:12 PM
The G-4 officially only differed from the G-2 in having a FuG 16Z V.H.F. radio set instead of the G-2's FuG 7 H.F. radio set.

In every other way it's absolutely identical.

VW-IceFire
06-30-2007, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The G-4 officially only differed from the G-2 in having a FuG 16Z V.H.F. radio set instead of the G-2's FuG 7 H.F. radio set.

In every other way it's absolutely identical.
I thought it had a wider track undercarriage and the tail wheel was fixed?

Codex1971
06-30-2007, 10:23 AM
According to my modelling book "Bf-190 in action" the G4 was the non pressurised cousin of the G3. So it pays to start with the G3.

The G3 had larger wheels than the G2 (650mm x 110mm to 660mm to 160mm) and the tail wheel was increased (290mm x 110mm to 350mm x 135mm).

The tail wheel was locked down as the retraction unit was removed; a stiffener was added for the tail wheel opening and a rubber dust cover was fitted. Bulges on the wings were added to accommodate the lager main wheels. The main wheels were now solid smooth wheels instead of the spoked typed.

Radio was updated to the FuG16z with a new antenna set up.

It interesting to read that the G4 went into production before the G3 in mid 1942 and that it was the first mass produced variant to use the 20mm gondolas.

Manu-6S
07-01-2007, 04:50 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
@Ice-Fire: The G2 we have is a mix of two boost models, it has the climbrate of the 1,42ata bird but the speed and turnrate of the normal 1,3ata plane, kind of like the SpitVb
Thank ye! So the Spit Vb isn't the only frankenstine performer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but the Vc is the only version with cannons that fire 15? upward http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

JG53Frankyboy
07-01-2007, 07:39 AM
unfortunatly it seems Maddox decided never to fix the Spit Vc cockpit bug (that is to high in the model)........... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif - such an important plane, even more with the new comming MTO "fake" map of Caspar.

Kurfurst__
07-01-2007, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The G-4 officially only differed from the G-2 in having a FuG 16Z V.H.F. radio set instead of the G-2's FuG 7 H.F. radio set.

In every other way it's absolutely identical.
I thought it had a wider track undercarriage and the tail wheel was fixed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes and no.. The enlarged main and tailwheel (which made the latter non-retractable, it wouldnt fit into the tail) was introduced or retrofitted to 109G in general, from around February/March 1943. The G-2 was running out of production around that time. But there are late production G-2s with non-retractable tailwheel and early G-4s with a retractable tailwheel. But it's not type specific, though it can be expected to appear more on the later production G-4s and of course, all G-6s.

Kurfurst__
07-01-2007, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Codex1971:
It interesting to read that the G4 went into production before the G3 in mid 1942 and that it was the first mass produced variant to use the 20mm gondolas.

That would be the Bf 109F-4/R1 from the end of 1941; otherwise, all Bf 109G (and K) airframe was capable mounting gondolas (bar a few special types, ie. high alt lightened interceptors etc.).

Daisan1981
07-01-2007, 01:17 PM
Why we don't have the Me-109 G-

6/U3 "Field Mod" "March 1944"?

Kurfurst__
07-02-2007, 03:28 AM
It would be redundant, given it's the same plane as the G-14.

What I've would like to see is the G-6Late uprated to 1.42ata performance, given the Erla canopy and the uprating of the DB 605A in the autoumn of 1943 happened around the same time, plus it would be nice for an early 1944 G-6, too.

I realize there's not much chance of that happening now.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Daisan1981
07-02-2007, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
What I've would like to see is the G-6Late uprated to 1.42ata performance
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

F-4 too..

Korolov1986
07-02-2007, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...given the Erla canopy and the uprating of the DB 605A in the autoumn of 1943 happened around the same time, plus it would be nice for an early 1944 G-6, too.

I thought the G-6 Late we have already had the Erla type canopy?

VW-IceFire
07-02-2007, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The G-4 officially only differed from the G-2 in having a FuG 16Z V.H.F. radio set instead of the G-2's FuG 7 H.F. radio set.

In every other way it's absolutely identical.
I thought it had a wider track undercarriage and the tail wheel was fixed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes and no.. The enlarged main and tailwheel (which made the latter non-retractable, it wouldnt fit into the tail) was introduced or retrofitted to 109G in general, from around February/March 1943. The G-2 was running out of production around that time. But there are late production G-2s with non-retractable tailwheel and early G-4s with a retractable tailwheel. But it's not type specific, though it can be expected to appear more on the later production G-4s and of course, all G-6s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got it. Much like other planes...always some changes made that aren't really specific to a version. More of a factory thing. Thanks!