PDA

View Full Version : Should the 109G6AS be renamed the G14AS



XyZspineZyX
01-21-2006, 08:45 AM
What does the community think, rename the 109G6AS to the G14AS. The reason for this is the following

The G6AS has better performance than the G14
The G6AS appears to have a very similar airframe to the G10, with the exeption of armament G6AS 20mm G10 30mm They could be the same plane!

XyZspineZyX
01-21-2006, 08:45 AM
What does the community think, rename the 109G6AS to the G14AS. The reason for this is the following

The G6AS has better performance than the G14
The G6AS appears to have a very similar airframe to the G10, with the exeption of armament G6AS 20mm G10 30mm They could be the same plane!

p1ngu666
01-21-2006, 09:08 AM
yeah, our g6as most closly matches g14as from what teh 109 experts say.

be nice to correct it, if it didnt mess up all the missions already made etc.

the real g6as, was a g6 with a higher altitude engine, which would be pretty nice to have too

Grey_Mouser67
01-21-2006, 01:50 PM
yes

Thijs_JG3
01-21-2006, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dasriech:
What does the community think, rename the 109G6AS to the G14AS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Bf109G-6 later variants ( With late design tail and rudder and Erla Haube ) and the early Bf109G-14s were pretty much the same except for a new radio ( FuG 16ZY) and the standardisation of having an MW50 boost system for the G-14. (1)
Most of the early G-14€s were equipped with MG151/20 Cannon. Messerschmitt BF109G-14€s built by the Messerschmitt factory at Regensburg and at Erla at Leipzig had the MG 151/20 installed while G-14€s build at WNF (Wiener Neustadter Flugzeugwerke) mostly were fitted with an MK 108. (2) This is the BF109G-14 we have in the game.
The later production series of the Bf109G-14 had an DB 605 AS engine and were designated as Bf109G-14/AS. The only difference the G-14/AS and the G-6/AS was a change of Oil cooler: Instead of a Fo 870 it had a Fo 987, externally this could been recognized because of a larger and deeper oil cowling beneath the engine. (2)

Conclusion: In this game The G-6/AS should either be named G-6/ASM ( the extra M indicates MW50 boost) if it has a DB605 AS engine of which I€m not sure it has at the minute or it should be named BF109G-6/M when it has a normal DB 605 A. The G-14 has to be changed into G-14/U4 (U4 for MK108) and it should have a MG151/20 cannon optional and then it can just be called a G-14.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dasriech:
The G6AS appears to have a very similar airframe to the G10, with the exeption of armament G6AS 20mm G10 30mm They could be the same plane! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The main difference between a G-6/AS and the G-10 is the engine ( In this game at least). In real the main difference was that instead of a DB 605 AS engine for the G-6/AS the G-10 had a DB 605 DM engine which had significantly more performance. Because of this the front of the aircraft was also slightly modified to let the engine fit in properly.
Since the 605 DM engines weren€t available in large numbers many G-10€s were fitted with a DB605 AS engine which made the designation BF109G-10/AS which were virtually the same as a series G-14/AS (2)
The G-10€s that were build at Erla were fitted with a MG151/20 cannon while the two third of the planned production at WNF was fitted with an MK108 and about one third of the production at WNF with a MG151/20.

Conclusion: The version of the G10 we have in game is basically the one with the DB605 DM engine and the MK108 cannon so it should be named a Bf109G-10/U4 or there should be a G10 with a MG 151/20 and a DB 605 DM engine which then can be designated as a standard G-10.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:

the real g6as, was a g6 with a higher altitude engine, which would be pretty nice to have too </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree on you there Pingu, it would indeed be nice to have some high altitude 109€s in the game. Like a Bf109G-6/U2 with a high altitude boost would be nice or a proper G-6/AS


The (1) and the (2) are referring to the follwing books: 1) Jochen Prien and Peter Rodeike, Messerchmitt Bf 109 F,G & K Series ( second print; USA) ISBN:0-88740-424
and 2) Marco Fernández-Sommerau, Messerschmitt Bf109 Recognition Manual A Guide to Variants, Weapons and Equipment ( Hersham, 2004) ISBN 1-903223-27

Ratsack
01-21-2006, 07:08 PM
No.

Firstly, the DB605AS motor was fitted to G6s before the G14 appeared. It was a modification often done to white-bread G-6s that were damaged and sent back to the factory to be rebuilt. The Bf109G-6 on static display at the Australian War Memorial is an example of this. It started life in 1943 as a G-6, was damaged and rebuilt in early 1944 as a G-6AS with the tall tail and Erla canopy, then damaged again in late 1944, and finally rebuilt as a G-6 again.

Secondly, MW50 was fitted to G-6s before the G-14 appeared. It was done as the U3 conversion, and I recall Butch2k saying that some U2s had MW50 instead of GM1, just to confuse the issue further.

In other words, just because the plane has MW-50, it does not follow that it is a G-14. It's not as cut and dried as some people think.

So the current designation is not incorrect.

Ratsack

DangerForward
01-21-2006, 07:23 PM
I thought the current G14 and G10 we have represented Hungarian produced 109s. Does anyone remember?

LuftWulf190
01-23-2006, 12:11 AM
Not all G-14s had a FuG 16ZY. The G-14 is some aspects is an odd ball in the fact that it tried to combine all the little tweaks and fixes that were sportaticaly introduced in the G-6 line. Some G-6's were upgraded to G-14 status, but didn't have the radio set, or at least did not have that lower antenna on the underside of the wing.

I really wish the G-14 had a 20mm cannon rather then that Mk108!

jagdmailer
01-23-2006, 12:58 AM
The Bf 109G-10 and G-14 are pretty much useless in pure fighter role with the 30mm MK108.

This is a real travesty that neither has the 20mm MG151/20 option at least, no matter the rather poor "hungarian made" units excuse.

Jagd

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LuftWulf190:
Not all G-14s had a FuG 16ZY. The G-14 is some aspects is an odd ball in the fact that it tried to combine all the little tweaks and fixes that were sportaticaly introduced in the G-6 line. Some G-6's were upgraded to G-14 status, but didn't have the radio set, or at least did not have that lower antenna on the underside of the wing.

I really wish the G-14 had a 20mm cannon rather then that Mk108! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ratsack
01-23-2006, 06:16 AM
Agree with you entirely regarding the need for the MG151/20 option on the G-14.

Ratsack

p1ngu666
01-23-2006, 10:38 AM
thijs, thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

so in summery, the 109 late war, where a confusing mess of engines and various equipment sets.

sure glad i didnt haveto run a spares dept for them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

IL2-chuter
01-23-2006, 01:03 PM
With all the remanufacturing going on and all the supply issues that cropped up I really don't believe (this is a fact cleverly disguised as an opinion . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) that there really is a lot of sense to the late war designation and models of 109s. If you throw a 605D cowling on an AS engine (it fits fine and has been documented) you have an ID problem. Factories were known to make do with available parts supplies and it's not known whether designations (or W.N. blocks) were strictly adhered to. So . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif . . . I beieve the designation of a late war 109 is whatever the data plate says. (I know, I own a genuine 109 gas cap. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif)

LuftWulf190
01-23-2006, 07:41 PM
"thijs, thanks

so in summery, the 109 late war, where a confusing mess of engines and various equipment sets.

sure glad i didnt haveto run a spares dept for them."

Yeah, that pretty much sums up the Bf-109G-6. I still can't get over all the modifications! Not just the Rustaz or U variants, but the different kinds of radios, and engines (especialy AS engines) which were used and tried! Not to mension the use of the MW50, and GM-1 systems! What a blooming headache!

I can see a G-6 Pilot now, trying to figure out what his new ride comes equipped with when compared to the others in his squadron! I'd really hate to see the POH for the G-6 line!

butch2k
01-24-2006, 02:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thijs_JG3:
The Bf109G-6 later variants ( With late design tail and rudder and Erla Haube ) and the early Bf109G-14s were pretty much the same except for a new radio ( FuG 16ZY) and the standardisation of having an MW50 boost system for the G-14. (1)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
G-6/U2 served as a basis for the G-14, actually the early batches of G-14 while apperaing on production listings as G-14 had their dataplate stamped G-6/U2 and the other way round.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Most of the early G-14€s were equipped with MG151/20 Cannon. Messerschmitt BF109G-14€s built by the Messerschmitt factory at Regensburg and at Erla at Leipzig had the MG 151/20 installed while G-14€s build at WNF (Wiener Neustadter Flugzeugwerke) mostly were fitted with an MK 108. (2) This is the BF109G-14 we have in the game.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Most G-10 and G-14 had the MG-151/20 has standard armament, WNF indeed produced the G-14/U4 which were equipped with the MK108.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The later production series of the Bf109G-14 had an DB 605 AS engine and were designated as Bf109G-14/AS. The only difference the G-14/AS and the G-6/AS was a change of Oil cooler: Instead of a Fo 870 it had a Fo 987, externally this could been recognized because of a larger and deeper oil cowling beneath the engine. (2)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As much as the G-14 was the new name of the G-6/U2 with DB605AM engine, the G-14/AS was just the new name of the G-6/AS/U2 with DB605ASM engine and some early G-14/AS still had the old Oil cooler model.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Conclusion: In this game The G-6/AS should either be named G-6/ASM ( the extra M indicates MW50 boost) if it has a DB605 AS engine of which I€m not sure it has at the minute or it should be named BF109G-6/M when it has a normal DB 605 A. The G-14 has to be changed into G-14/U4 (U4 for MK108) and it should have a MG151/20 cannon optional and then it can just be called a G-14.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Either name it G-6/U2/AS or G-14/AS those are the only names fitting the current a/c. The in-game G-14 should indeed be a G-14/U4.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The main difference between a G-6/AS and the G-10 is the engine ( In this game at least). In real the main difference was that instead of a DB 605 AS engine for the G-6/AS the G-10 had a DB 605 DM engine which had significantly more performance. Because of this the front of the aircraft was also slightly modified to let the engine fit in properly.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
G-14 and G-10 were indeed evolutions of the G-6 and are described as MW-50 equipped Gustav with either the DB605AM or newer DB605DM engine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Since the 605 DM engines weren€t available in large numbers many G-10€s were fitted with a DB605 AS engine which made the designation BF109G-10/AS which were virtually the same as a series G-14/AS (2)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There were no such things as G-10/AS, Our Friend Ferdinando D'Amico thought while writing his monogram book that the Erla G-10 were fitted with AS engine due to their slightly different outlook. It was not the case and the designation G-10/AS has no ground and was not used. Yet a small batch of 50 G-10 with DB605AS engine were produced but this did not incur any change in the a/c name. As a side note some G-14 were produced w/o MW-50 capabilities as well and this dis not change designation either.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The G-10€s that were build at Erla were fitted with a MG151/20 cannon while the two third of the planned production at WNF was fitted with an MK108 and about one third of the production at WNF with a MG151/20.

Conclusion: The version of the G10 we have in game is basically the one with the DB605 DM engine and the MK108 cannon so it should be named a Bf109G-10/U4 or there should be a G10 with a MG 151/20 and a DB 605 DM engine which then can be designated as a standard G-10.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

G-10 were equipped with DB605DB and DB605DC as well begining mid January 45 for the former. Indeed The in-game G-10 should have been called G-10/U4.

IL2-chuter
01-24-2006, 03:21 AM
The G-10 wasn't so much an evolution of the G-6 (although ALL subsequent 109s could be considered its descendants) as a K-4 made from used G-6 parts. The G-14, I guess, would be a K-4 with a lesser motor and a desire not to interupt the existing 109 production . . . reaching for that one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

butch2k
01-24-2006, 03:54 AM
The G-10 WAS an evolution of the G-6 as stated in Mtt minutes documents. Both G-14 and G-10 were introduced as a stopgap between G-6 and K-4 and both models were built side by side and differed only by the engine.
Both are called in the 1944 Mtt minutes as evolutions of the G-6 with MW-50 design, the one equipped with DB605AM was to be from now on called G-14 and the one to enter in production equipped with DB605DM was to be called G-10.

IL2-chuter
01-24-2006, 12:22 PM
Well . . . G-10 production began about the same time as K-4 production and were remanufactured airframes using, mostly, the 605D. The K-4 airframes were new and using, mostly, the 605D. It would appear that they are two paths to one aircraft type. I guess the G-10 is an evolution of the G-6 in that it literally used to be a G-6 (mostly) and the K-4 didn't. The G-14 was, sortof, the G-10 but with not enough 605D production capacity was equipped with the 605A. This all pretty much comes down to engine type supply because one might otherwise assume you would simply build all K-4s, eh?


I want my fully featherable 109 prop . . . had to get that in. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Oh, and Willi himself always called it an Me109 . . . had to get that one in, too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

butch2k
01-24-2006, 01:34 PM
While it's true that airframes from damaged a/c were used in some cases (true for all variants, some 109E being rebuilt from 109D for instance), it was not generaly the case. The G-10 was as such no different from the other variants.

If one look at the Bf 109G-10 Flugzeug Handbuch dated January 1945, he would find that common part between the two are quite limited to the engine and landing gear as well s the associated modification to the oil and electrical systems.
The G-10 was designed so as to accomodate the newer engine in the basic G-6 airframe. It had the advantage of rationalizing production, limiting the number of tools to be changed hence hasting production compared to the K-4. And there were few differences in performance between the two designs.
G-14/AS had about hte same performances as well and once again the goal was to maximize the use of what was already available. Hence using DB605AS which were rebuilt from DB605A was a very efficient solution production wise.

Btw On the 109F and up the prop was not fully featherable same goes for the 190A.

Bf and Me were used both by the RLM and Mtt, one could find the to terms in hte very same documents...

IL2-chuter
01-25-2006, 03:56 AM
There are so many variations of the G-10 that it's impossible to establish a good specific standard. Maybe that's why Messerschmitt called it a "bastard aircraft". For instance, virtually all possible combinations of long and short tailwheels, medium and large main tires exist. Medium tired wings (G-4 type) and short tailwheel (G-6 configuration) are documented in 613000 block. G-4 wing and long tailwheel are documented in 130000, 490000 and 491000 but were not the only combinations within those blocks. Large tire wings and short tailwheel versions are documented in 611000, 612000, 770000 and 771000 blocks and again they are not exclusive configurations within those blocks. There are even a few early G-10s with the Messerschmitt fin/rudder. Some very early G-10s didn't even get the D motor, they got the AS as a substitute (Ds were late arriving) but were still called G-10s instead of G-14s. On the other hand, K-4 production is rediculously consistant, one notable exception being the short tailwheel installed on a few early planes. And oddly both the G-10 and K-4 were introduced at about the same time . . . like when production 605D engines started showing up. Early G-14s were basically G-6s, later G-14s were basically G-10s with engines other than the D.

The best 109 books I have say that the G-10 was not a new manufactured airframe. Other 109 books I have are riddled with enough known errors to make their statements on anything suspect by themselves. As far as the handbook you're referencing, I'm not sure what you're saying . . . that the G-10 and K-4 are different? That's my point. They are different because they aren't using K parts to make the G-10 (that would be a K http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) but are using G-6 parts to make a K. They didn't want to throw away good used parts when they could make something close to the K with them.

Also, both the 190F-8 and 109G-6 in the Smithsonian are documented dual serial number aircraft. The 109 is both an early and late G-6 mix.

PS. I guess Heinz Knoke should have checked his handbook before he repeatedly shut down his coolant system damaged G-6 (on its first combat mission), feathered the prop and glided till the engine was cool and restarted to power his way a little closer to base (he didn't make it).

luftluuver
01-25-2006, 04:34 AM
chuter,

from what I have seen, butch2k is an expert on the 109. I bet he has more documentation just on the 109 than you have in your whole library, multiple times over.

If you don't want to look like an idiot, don't question what he says about the 109. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif