PDA

View Full Version : Bf109 G/6



XyZspineZyX
11-03-2002, 01:12 AM
Good God, I can't believe how bad it is compared to the G2... I'm playing the campaign and ever since I got assigned this, I'm getting my *** kicked....

Either bad plane, or bad pilot... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2002, 01:12 AM
Good God, I can't believe how bad it is compared to the G2... I'm playing the campaign and ever since I got assigned this, I'm getting my *** kicked....

Either bad plane, or bad pilot... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2002, 01:31 AM
Bad plane. Probably the worse 109 made.

----------------------------------------
<center>
http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/images/bp_buzz.gif


<center>

http://www.afwing.net/art/wwii/il2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2002, 01:39 AM
Oh man, I haven't gotten that far in the campaign yet. I'm on the G2 now. From what I've heard though I'm dreading the G6. What the hell's wrong with it? Why's it so bad?

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2002, 04:37 AM
Ha ha... good... I thought it was me... wheeew... After tearing the russians to pieces in the G2 the G6 came as a shocker....

Let's see... I think the question is... what's NOT wrong with it... maneuvering is bad... underpowered... non retractable tail wheel - which affects everything.... turn characteristics bad too... very hard to dogfight with it, though not bad as a bomber interceptor...

Armament is not bad, but I can't say that it's good enough for dog fighting... as I don't think I've had one kill yet with it against a fighter... and it's only the second mission.

Is the G6 Late version as bad?

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2002, 10:45 AM
Its a bit better. You'll be glad when you get your hands on a G6/AS. Nice mk108 in the nose. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2002, 11:18 AM
But you can use Mk108 on that dog. Stay away from Yaks, but you can match Aircobras quite well.

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2002, 12:30 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- Bad plane. Probably the worse 109 made.
-


The G-6 was not a bad plane. It`sjsut terrible undermodelled in that game. In reality it was hardly noticably worser than the G-2, tht`s what it`s pilots told. Many pilots preffered the G-6 over the G-2, so it couldn`t be that bad.


The only real differnce between the G-6 and G-2 is about 50 kg plus weight (=nothing) and slightly worser aerodynamcics (meaning some 10-15 km/h max. speed loss). But that should not effect handling at all, that`s much more dependent on wing loading.


If everything would be logical in this game, the G-6 should be more manouverable than the G-6/AS, as the AS version is about 200 kg heavier than the simple G-6... but it`s the exact opposite in thegame, the G-6/AS handles much better.. so really the G-6s should be like between the G-2 and G-6/AS in handling.

http://genji.image.pbase.com/u18/isegrim/upload/5750939.VO101PUMA.jpg Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2002, 01:35 PM
G-6/early is a very bad dogfighter in the game. Late version is better (almost a AS but with less WEP power).

I suggess you use the U4/MK108, and only use B&Z with high energy.

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2002, 06:34 PM
Vo101_Isegrim

I was going by how it feels in the game, because that's what I thought the question was.

----------------------------------------
<center>
http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/images/bp_buzz.gif


<center>

http://www.afwing.net/art/wwii/il2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2002, 09:43 PM
I got most of my kills in G6`43.MK108 was a blast!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2002, 03:25 AM
Good God, you ARE right... the MK108 is a MONSTER!!! Was it like that in reality too? The gun pods are absolutely amazing too... I just got the first mission with the MK108 today... next mission is MK108 AND gun pods... should be fun. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Actually, right now, after having flown it for a while, I'm getting a bit used to it... it's still hard to dog fight, but it's not as bad...

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2002, 03:50 AM
mk108 is a huge gun - one shot kill on almost anything

BUT . the g6as flies a lot sweeter without it .. if you are high enough rank to get a choice leave it off if there is any dogfighting happening

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2002, 11:02 AM
Many things are circumstantial in this matter.

While methods of scientific analysis has developed over the years, the physics of fluid matter and aerodynamics still remain a mystery in many areas. For example, currently, the theory of flight told for so many years - Bernoulli's Theorem - is in question.

With this premise, when people add something to a airplane, sometimes there are impacts and results that are quite unexpected, and people cannot really explain why. For instance, the Macchi C.202 and Bf109E-4 are planes of same era using same Daimler-Benz engine, and people today still can't explain why the C.202 outperforms the Bf109E-4 in such a wide margin.

Another example is the birth of the A6M "Zero". While there are many reasons behind its famous maneuverability, historians believe the overall designing of the Zero was more of a "freak accident" than a carefully planned one. In other words, it was an unexpected success - a plane both faster and more maneuverable than its potential enemy - the F4F Wildcat. Nobody guessed a country with such short history of aviation would suddenly come up with the most powerful plane of the era - neither did the Japanese themselves.

So basically, the G2 and the G6 practically used the same engines, but the drag factor and increased weight did have certain bad influences to the plane. For one thing, while actual speed difference is pretty much slight, conceptually, the G-6 was about as fast as only the Bf109F-4 at its top speed. Considering the two planes had two years in between them, it cannot be doubted that the Bf109G-6 was lacking behind in development. Proud Italians often boasted about the Macchi C.205 being superior to the Bf109G-6, and compared with the MarkIX Spitfire and the P-47C - the two most powerful adversaries of that time - the G-6 can really be considered a failure.

There are many different testimonies on the difference between the G-2 and the G-6. For one thing, the Finns especially didn't seem to notice much of the difference between those two aircrafts. However some of the Luftwaffe pilots and some reports are skeptical about the G-6(for instance, the Typhoon/Tempest evaluation report of the RAF comments the Typhoon and the Tempest was more maneuverable than the Mustang Mk.III, and the Mustang Mk.III more maneuverable than the Bf109G. Though it does not state which exact model, it is highly probable that the Gustavs mentioned were either late model G-6s or G-14s). One thing for certain is the G-2 was faster and climbed better, and more maneuverable than the G-6. Any other characteristics beside these facts are all blurry.

...and considering the circumstances, the G-6 was too little an advancement when the RAF and USAAF were putting up Spit9s and P-47s on large scale. These circumstances might have interfered with objective evaluation from the pilots or the examiners of the G-6 - it remains a possibility.

Ultimately, the Bf109G-6 became the 109 that had so many field modifications, customizations, improvements and tweakings that the Luftwaffe needed a separate variant to put together all the mods into one, the G-14. This can be considered a circumstantial evidence to how the G-6 was viewed - people were certainly not very pleased of its initial performance, that's for sure.

...

As for the IL-2 G-6, I do feel it is rather too much sluggish.. but then again I feel Yak-9Ks and La-5FNs are too forgiving in E-retention and turn circles also. It's Oleg's call, and I guess we can only speculate.







-----------

"It's the machine, not the man"

- Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2002, 05:35 PM
kweassa wrote:

- With this premise, when people add something to a
- airplane, sometimes there are impacts and results
- that are quite unexpected, and people cannot really
- explain why. For instance, the Macchi C.202 and
- Bf109E-4 are planes of same era using same
- Daimler-Benz engine, and people today still can't
- explain why the C.202 outperforms the Bf109E-4 in
- such a wide margin.

Its so easy, the C202 is much more aerodynamic... the E series wasnt too much to be proud for in this respect.

And I doubt the C202 and 109E would be of same era - 109E was for 1939, the C202 was for 1941-42.
Compare MC 202 to 109F of 1941, they are usign same engine... I see no wide marging there, the 109F is better somewhat, due to the great aerodynamic cleanup.



- So basically, the G2 and the G6 practically used
- the same engines, but the drag factor and increased
- weight did have certain bad influences to the plane.

Are you aware that the weight difference was 50kg and the speed difference was 10-25 km/h? This is the same penelty as having an empty bombrack on the G-2.


- For one thing, while actual speed difference is
- pretty much slight, conceptually, the G-6 was about
- as fast as only the Bf109F-4 at its top speed.

That`s not true, the G-6 was much faster than the F-4, and also developed it`s speed higher alts.

Speed F-4: 630 km at 5200m
Speed G-2: 666 km/h at 7000m
Speed G-6: 640 km/h at 7000m
Speed late G-6: 650 km/h at 7000m
Speed 1944 G-6 with MW-50: 666 km/h at 5000m, 660km/h at 7000m.

You probably read speed about the G-6/R6. That was a G-6 with gunpdos, max. speed 621 km/h.


- the
- Bf109G-6, and compared with the MarkIX Spitfire and
- the P-47C - the two most powerful adversaries of
- that time - the G-6 can really be considered a
- failure.

I think I have much more data on these a/c than you to state that it isn`t true. Mk IX Spitifires until the LF variant appeared in 1943 were really inferior in all aspect to the G-6 except high alt. performance and turning. They were slower, climbed worser, etc.

Only the IXLF was better in some respects, somewhat faster, somewhat better climber, at some altitudes.
The IXLF did 652 km/h in 1943. The G-6 did 650 km/h. It ain`t any real difference.

I have also tests for P-47D-10s. Same thing, except that the G-6 turned better.


- However some of the Luftwaffe pilots and some
- reports are skeptical about the G-6(for instance,
- the Typhoon/Tempest evaluation report of the RAF
- comments the Typhoon and the Tempest was more
- maneuverable than the Mustang Mk.III, and the
- Mustang Mk.III more maneuverable than the Bf109G.
- Though it does not state which exact model, it is
- highly probable that the Gustavs mentioned were
- either late model G-6s or G-14s).

It was a G-6 without MW-50 but having 2x20mm gunpods tested agaist clean Allied a/c. That meant that the G-6/R6 there was 208 kg heavier than the standard G-6s, climb dropped by 2.3 m/s, and speed by 19-25 km/h.

The absance of methanol (standardized just when those tests were done) would increase climb by further 3 m/s and speed by 40 km/h up to 7000m.

Gunpods chopped off performance greatly, effecting turn, roll, speed, and climb capabilites. That G-6 tested there was held back by it`s gunpods, (wrongly) beleived by the Brtiish to be standards for the "109G".They were not.


- One thing for
- certain is the G-2 was faster and climbed better,
- and more maneuverable than the G-6. Any other
- characteristics beside these facts are all blurry.

The trobule is that these differencies were minimal in reality. True, favourably towards the G-2. Say where the G-2 climbed 21.2m/s the G-6 perhaps climbed 20.9 m/s.... where the G-2 did 666km/h the G-6 did 650 km/h. Such differencies are hard to feel.



- Ultimately, the Bf109G-6 became the 109 that had so
- many field modifications, customizations,
- improvements and tweakings that the Luftwaffe needed
- a separate variant to put together all the mods into
- one, the G-14. This can be considered a
- circumstantial evidence to how the G-6 was viewed -
- people were certainly not very pleased of its
- initial performance, that's for sure.

Actually there was no difference in performance between G-6s and G-14s when the G-14s reached production. The 14 was simply a standardized G-6, nothign more. Same engine, same speed etc.

http://genji.image.pbase.com/u18/isegrim/upload/5750939.VO101PUMA.jpg Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2002, 06:11 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
- Gunpods chopped off performance greatly, effecting
- turn, roll, speed, and climb capabilites. That G-6
- tested there was held back by it`s gunpods,
- (wrongly) beleived by the Brtiish to be standards
- for the "109G".They were not.
-
-

Why would the British think the gunpod G was standard since they had a G-2(without), a G-6(with) and a G-14(without)? There would also be combat reports mentioning 109 a/c with and without gunpods.


**beware the charge of the rhinos**

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-battleabovetheclouds.jpg

a "crappy" Spifire dispatching a Jerry bandit./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2002, 07:09 PM
MiloMorai wrote:

-
- Why would the British think the gunpod G was
- standard since they had a G-2(without), a G-6(with)
- and a G-14(without)? There would also be combat
- reports mentioning 109 a/c with and without gunpods.


For the same reason the Russians thinking that he G-2 with gunpods was some kind of "new Zestorer type" and given that Eric Brown seems to be fairly convincedthat the "Bf 109G" was suppesed to be this: a 109 with gunpods.

Funnyil there are reports of engagments with "Bf-109Fs" attacking bobmers in 1943, while mentioning "Bf-109Gs" as well.

Most likely they tohugh the F was the version without, while the G with the gunpods. They hardly had any accurate inforamtion on German a/c development (See "Fw190D with DB603" assumptions in 1944, which was long abandoned by then).

http://genji.image.pbase.com/u18/isegrim/upload/5750939.VO101PUMA.jpg Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2002, 07:34 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- MiloMorai wrote:
-
--
-- Why would the British think the gunpod G was
-- standard since they had a G-2(without), a G-6(with)
-- and a G-14(without)? There would also be combat
-- reports mentioning 109 a/c with and without gunpods.
-
-
- For the same reason the Russians thinking that he
- G-2 with gunpods was some kind of "new Zestorer
- type" and given that Eric Brown seems to be fairly
- convincedthat the "Bf 109G" was suppesed to be this:
- a 109 with gunpods.
-

When did Eric Brown become "the British"?

I would like to see where Brown was convinced the gunpod Me109G was standard since the captured G-14 and G-2 did not have gunpods. A rather illogical assumption, if 2 out of the 3 captured Me109G a/c the British have don't have gunpods.

**beware the charge of the rhinos**

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-battleabovetheclouds.jpg

a "crappy" Spifire dispatching a Jerry bandit./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2002, 07:53 PM
Woof-woof. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://genji.image.pbase.com/u18/isegrim/upload/5750939.VO101PUMA.jpg Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2002, 08:05 PM
So you were spewing your usual crap Barbi - no proof shown, so re-writing history.


Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Woof-woof.
-

LOL, what an intelligent response./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

**beware the charge of the rhinos**

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/nutkins-battleabovetheclouds.jpg

a "crappy" Spifire dispatching a Jerry bandit./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2002, 08:37 PM
- But you can use Mk108 on that dog. Stay away from
- Yaks, but you can match Aircobras quite well.

Since the 1.2ov patch i found the P-39Q10 one of the best and most maneuverable fighters, hardly bleeding off speed in turns when compared to german AC, and lining up with the LA-5FN and even YAK-3. In single player i outturned, outclimbed and outaccelerated any 109 with it. It´s also easy and quick to recover from a spin.
Historically most high scoring soviet aces achived the bulk of their kills flying P-39´s.

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2002, 09:34 PM
If no one acknowledges milo and isegrim maybe they will just go away.

--lbhkilla--

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/g6.jpg .

"Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt"

"We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
When Erwin Rommel that British fighter-bombers had shot up my tanks with 40mm shells, the Hermann G¶ring who felt himself touched by this, said: "That's completely impossible. The Americans only know how to make razor blades." and the above was Rommels reply.

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2002, 11:09 PM
LOL...

BTW, I would like to appologize to all of you in retrospect, far from me the thought of starting another flaming post. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2002, 02:20 AM
First, I apologize for the confusion in the time-line, which came to happen mainly due to the fact the E-4 and the C.202 used practically the same engines.

However, that is not the case with the Bf109F(1941) and the C.202.

The Bf109F-4 uses a 1,350hp DB601E engine while the Bf109E-4 uses a DB601Aa rated 1,175hp for take off power. The C.202 uses a 1,175hp Alpha Romeo RA.1000 RC.41-I - C.202 was first tested with an imported DB601A-1, and soon converted to the DB601Aa licensed by Alpha Romeo.

It seems your comparison had the Bf109F-1(DB601N 1,200hp) in mind, but even so, the DB601N is still a better engine than compared with the Alpha Romeo(DB601A). Though the initial differences in hp between the DB601Aa and the N was small, the DB601 permitted both higher RPM and longer continuous power than the DB601Aa.

In short, the Bf109F cannot be compared with the C.202 in the way you did.

Thus, the comparison inevitably falls back to the Bf109E-4 with the DB601Aa and the C.202 with the Alpha Romeo. The differences in initial climb rate between these two planes on take-off power is huge. While the E-4 barely goes over 3,000fpm, the C.202 goes over 3,500fpm with the same engine. Maybe the drag/aerodynamics factor can explain the differences in maximum speed, but it cannot explain the differences in climb rates - climb rates are much less effected by drag... and consider that the C.202 was more than 600lbs heavier than the Bf109E-4, too!

It is definately not "so easy".

....

Therefore, the premise stands valid.

With just the numbers, the 50kg weight difference and 25kph speed difference may seem like "nothing" to you.

However, conceptually, 50kg is equivalent to the weight of small adult or a teenaged woman, and the 25kph speed difference is equivalent to roughly the speed difference between the Spitfire lfMk.IX(411mph by tests of March, 1944) and the P-47D-5(429mph) - 18mph(29kph) difference between those two.

How many people do you know that claims the "Spitfire MkIX was as fast as the P-47Ds?"

....

This is really ironic that while you consider the Bf109G-6 "much faster" than the Bf109F-4 when the speed difference is 10kph by your own data, but you consider the speed differences in the G-2 and the G-6 which has at least 26kph as "minimal"

To justify your claims you keep dragging in the late model G-6s and the "souped-up" methanol-water injected versions into this, but frankly I cannot see how dragging in the modified G-6s into this discussion can help your position, because, with simple reasoning it is all the more clear that the frequent modifications are direct results of unsatisfactory performance.

The later versions of G-6s are pretty much irrelevant as material for comparison.

....

Thus, it is clear the "G-6" we are dealing with here is to be considered as the original version introduced in 1943.

Considering the P-47C was tested at 703kph(clean), and the Spitfire fMk.IX at 652kph(the figures you gave for the lf are in fact the figures for the fMk.IX with the RR-Merlin61. The lfMk.IX was 660~670kph with a Merlin66) - 640kph for the G-6 is not very inspiring. If you really wish to drag the later versions of G-6s into this, then they should be compared with the fMk.XIV and the P-51B.

....

In conclusion, many of your points either deliberately or mistakenly confuse the time-line of the evolutionary table of the G-6s.

It is all the more interesting because I also treat the Bf109s with great enthusiasm and affection, and consider the way IL-2 models them is very "conservative" also. However, the 25kph and 50kg is comparison in mere numbers, and as in the case with the C.202 and the E-4, numbers on paper cannot explain all of the outcome.

The 50kg and 25kph difference just might have been enough to affect the G-6 in a way we cannot perceive(... yet), and frankly, I don't think we'll ever get to know how it was.

It is entirely up to the producer of the game to depict the unknown areas with his own reasoning, and IL-2 is just that. Just like any other games around, Mr.Maddox has chosen to do so. We can object the facts that does not match the numbers, but anything else we cannot.

-----------

"It's the machine, not the man"

- Materialist, and proud of it!

Message Edited on 11/05/0210:23AM by kweassa

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2002, 09:11 PM
kweassa wrote:


- First, I apologize for the confusion in the
- time-line, which came to happen mainly due to the
- fact the E-4 and the C.202 used practically the same
- engines.
-
- However, that is not the case with the Bf109F(1941)
- and the C.202.
-
- The Bf109F-4 uses a 1,350hp DB601E engine while the
- Bf109E-4 uses a DB601Aa rated 1,175hp for take off
- power. The C.202 uses a 1,175hp Alpha Romeo RA.1000
- RC.41-I - C.202 was first tested with an imported
- DB601A-1, and soon converted to the DB601Aa licensed
- by Alpha Romeo.
-
- It seems your comparison had the Bf109F-1(DB601N
- 1,200hp) in mind, but even so, the DB601N is still a
- better engine than compared with the Alpha
- Romeo(DB601A). Though the initial differences in hp
- between the DB601Aa and the N was small, the DB601
- permitted both higher RPM and longer continuous
- power than the DB601Aa.
-


- In short, the Bf109F cannot be compared with the
- C.202 in the way you did.

They can in every way, they have the sme power, they belogn to the same timeframe. With all these conditions, the 109F-1/2 is faster than the Macchie 202 at SL by 20 km/h and climbs better.

Power difference between the DB601Aa and N was 25 HP only. =Nothing.

You started a long theory about the less efficient airframe of the 109 vs. the M202. Example was shown that with the improved aerodynamics the 109F belonging to the same period using the same power power (save a whole 25HP...) yielded better results. It`s hard to understand why you refuse the compariosn, when it`s fair.



- Thus, the comparison inevitably falls back to the
- Bf109E-4 with the DB601Aa and the C.202 with the
- Alpha Romeo. The differences in initial climb rate
- between these two planes on take-off power is huge.
- While the E-4 barely goes over 3,000fpm, the C.202
- goes over 3,500fpm with the same engine.

That`s a joke. "Huge" climb rate difference?

The difference No more than 200 fpm...

I don`t know from which source you got these statements but they are not true at all and so yoru conclusions are wrong.

The E-3 climbed at 1000 m/min at SL, that`s 3280 fpm. You claim "over 3500 fpm" for the M202.

I don`t see no real differnce for the 2 years later M202. It`s a bit of improvement due to better aerodynamics.

And speed difference at SL:


109E: 464 km/h
M202: 492 km/h
Bf109F-1: 515 km/h

It just shows what differencies aerodynamics can make wit hte same engine (ok, +25HP for F-1..).


- Maybe the
- drag/aerodynamics factor can explain the differences
- in maximum speed, but it cannot explain the
- differences in climb rates - climb rates are much
- less effected by drag...

Why do you deny that drag effects climb rate? The less power spent on overcoming drag can be spent on climbing, it`s simple. And the climb difference was not "huge" as was shown. Not to mention how unfair it is to compare an 1939 plane with a 1941 one. When I propose to compare it with an 1941 Bf109 which had the access to the same aerodynamic refinemnts as the M202, you refuse. For me it`s easy to udnerstand: Compared to the 109F the M202 was slower and climbed worser and thus would no longer support your stetments.



- With just the numbers, the 50kg weight difference
- and 25kph speed difference may seem like "nothing"
- to you.

As they were "nothing" in reality as well... The G-2 coudl do 666 km/h only if it`s engine was cleared for 1.42 but it was not until mid 1943, when the G-6 appeared in quantities.

With the 1.3 ata used by the G-2s they could do 525 km/h at SL and 649 km/h at 7000m. That was how they performed with units service.

The G-6s that replaced them could run at 1.42 because their engines were cleared for that and could reach 530 km/h at SL and 640-650 km/h at 7000m. In effect, they were jsut as fast or even a little bit faster than the G-2s previosuly, not to mention they had FAR more firepower, better land stability, and improved visibility.

It`s hard not to see that the G-6 was a good imporvment over the G-2 in most fields. At the expense of 1.6% increase in weight and wingloading which cannot change it`s flight performance in any substantial way.



- However, conceptually, 50kg is equivalent to the
- weight of small adult or a teenaged woman,

If we go to examples, OK.

How does putting one more 50kg teenage women/small adult effects the performance of a over 3 ton truck?

~1.5% weigth increase.

=In no way.


- and the
- 25kph speed difference is equivalent to roughly the
- speed difference between the Spitfire lfMk.IX(411mph
- by tests of March, 1944) and the P-47D-5(429mph) -
- 18mph(29kph) difference between those two.

1, The data is wrong
2, Despite higher acheived max. speed the P-47 was much more sluggish compared to the Sptifire due to it`s much worser power to weight ratio and acceleration.


- How many people do you know that claims the
- "Spitfire MkIX was as fast as the P-47Ds?"

I have plenty of flight tests and one of those show that the P-47 in it`s early versions could not exceed 661 km/h at it`s best altitude. Compared to a G-2, the P-47D-10`s performance was worser or eqaul at best at every altitude...



- This is really ironic that while you consider the
- Bf109G-6 "much faster" than the Bf109F-4 when the
- speed difference is 10kph by your own data, but you
- consider the speed differences in the G-2 and the
- G-6 which has at least 26kph as "minimal"

I do`nt really think I am going to argue much on that. The G-6 could reach slightly lower speeds becasue it`s owrser aerodynamics prevented the efficient use of HP at high speeds. The aerodynamcis played litle role at the releveaant normal speeds, and as a result acceleration of hte G-2 and G-6 was very similiar.



- To justify your claims you keep dragging in the
- late model G-6s and the "souped-up" methanol-water
- injected versions into this, but frankly I cannot
- see how dragging in the modified G-6s into this
- discussion can help your position, because, with
- simple reasoning it is all the more clear that the
- frequent modifications are direct results of
- unsatisfactory performance.

That`s stupid, "direct results of unsatisfactory performance". LOL. All a/c was improved over time. Perhaps all of them were of "unsatisfactory performance"?

Your conclusions only show that they are only fabricated to support your preconception. You built an answer behind what you wanted to prove. You had the reason first, then you developed a the result aroudn it to make a match, and not the other way around. The whole thing is false.



- The later versions of G-6s are pretty much
- irrelevant as material for comparison.

You refuse to take into account anything that ruins your viewpoint, the Bf 109F should not taken into account because it ruins your theory about aerodynamci ineffiency, the 1944 version G-6s should not be taken into account because they ruin your theories about the G-6s ifneriority...



- Thus, it is clear the "G-6" we are dealing with
- here is to be considered as the original version
- introduced in 1943.

OK.

G-6 in 1943 with Erla canopy:

530 km/h at SL, 650 km/h at 7000m.

Compared to it`s archrivals in 1943:

P-47D-10: 537 km/h at SL, 661 km/h at 8200m.
Spitifre IXLF at 6700m: 545 km/h at SL, 655 km/h at 6700m.


Important to add that the G-6 accelerated better than both of thse planes, dived better than the Sptifire and climbed twice as good than the P-47 as well as outturned it. The only part where it was disadvantage was turn agaisnt hte SPit (perhaps climb also) and dive agaisnt the P-47.

Yak-9: 600 km/h at 4200m
LA-5FN: 583 km/h at SL, 634 km/h at 6250 m.


So WHAT makes the G-6 look so bad in 1943? It was a match at minimum.



- Considering the P-47C was tested at 703kph(clean),
- and the Spitfire fMk.IX at 652kph(the figures you
- gave for the lf are in fact
- The lfMk.IX was
- 660~670kph with a Merlin66) - 640kph for the G-6 is
- not very inspiring.

It meant little in air combat what theoretical max. speed these a/c acheived, since these speeds could only be ataiend after runnign the engine for sevaral minutes on max. power at best altitude flying straight and level.

The P-47 even with it`s "wet" verison had the worst acceleration of nealrly all planes in WW2, and acceleration is the thing that counts in air combat. It had 2300 HP for a 6 ton plane. That`s about 0.38 HP for every kg.

The G-6 had 1475HP for 3150 kg. That`s 0.47 HP for every kg.

Now gues which plane could reach higher speeds faster, and thus having speed advnatage for most of tiem in all situations except stragith, level flights which makes you an ideal target for the enemy.


Unfurtunately, "660-670km/h" is dream figure for the M-66 engined SpitIXLF. English tests I have seen show 407 mph for the MkIOXLF and 409mph for the (cleaner) MkVIII at 22 000 feet.

That`s 655 km/h and 658 km/h at 6700m, practically where the G-6 developed 650 km/h in 1943, the same year.

Only HF Spitfires with Merlin 70s could develop 415 mph (668km/h) at higher altitudes (~8200m), but at the expense of low altitude performance. Only 400 of those HF SPits were built. Again ain`t any better than 605AS equipped G-5s or G-6s, which developed 674 km/h at 8250m, without use of MW-50.


- If you really wish to drag the
- later versions of G-6s into this, then they should
- be compared with the fMk.XIV and the P-51B.

You are always evading the question.

The XIV was in only very limited service and enjoyed absolutely no advantage over methanol G-6s uuntil 5000m, and was inferior in some respects to 605ASM powered G-6/AS up to 7000m...

P-51s were widespread, but climbed worser, turned worser, and accelelerated worser than G-6s for the same rasons as with the P-47. They hardly had better firepower, and were only better in speed above 6-7000m.

Again I see no reason to judge the G-6 as being "inferior", it`s only these planes had advantages over each other in some areas while beign at disadvantage in others.



- In conclusion, many of your points either
- deliberately or mistakenly confuse the time-line of
- the evolutionary table of the G-6s.

What kind of clonclusion is that? Sporry m8 it`s you who had presented wrong data, wanted to compare 1939 planes with 1941 ones...

Funny these accusations of yours... as usual when someone runs out of arguemnts starts the mud throwing...


- The 50kg and 25kph difference just might have been
- enough to affect the G-6 in a way we cannot
- perceive(... yet), and frankly, I don't think we'll
- ever get to know how it was.

We don`t know? Why? Aren`t there aerodynamc rules to tell? Aren`t there clibm and speed charst for the G-6 to tell?

Aren`t there pilot`s opion who tell that the way it is in Il-2 is wrong and there was little difference between handling the G-2 and G-6?


http://genji.image.pbase.com/u18/isegrim/upload/5750939.VO101PUMA.jpg Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2002, 09:22 PM
Vo101_Isegrim

Your becoming a master at twisting things around to your favor. To someone who believes you. Your very convincing.

----------------------------------------
<center>
http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/images/bp_buzz.gif


<center>

http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/white27_2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2002, 09:26 PM
FB will have FAF 109G-6 so it will be better. Of course IF Oleg uses "DATA" for modelling the "Gustav".

julle

http://www.sci.fi/~ambush/faf/faf.html

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2002, 10:46 PM
Yes Buzz is he not./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The Me109E-4 was a 1940 a/c NOT a 1939 a/c.

The MC202 first flew in June 1940.

"Erla Haubes" was widely used only on late production (from very late 1943) Me109G a/c. Mw50 was not fitted until mid early 1944 and was only ~5% of total Me109G production.

Sure would be nice to see some 'speed vs height' charts for the Me109G-6.

It would be interesting to know hao many 'gunpod' Me109G were made.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2002, 07:06 AM
Ah well, if you insist Isegrim.

If you want to argue the two engines that were not the same as being the same, ok. (Why would Daimler-Benz even bother making the DB601N then?)

If you want to give the climbrates for a Bf109E-3(whoever compared the E-3 with the C.202?) I guess we can't really stop you.

It's kind of amusing to see things argued in that way. For instance, it is undeniable the P-47C was the fastest plane of that era, and yet. somehow, when this fact falls into your hands it becomes "meaningless". Do you really think level flight acceleration factor is enough to belittle the performance of that plane? If you think so, fine. But not many would agree with this sort of reasoning.

It becomes quite pointless actually, because every data in our hands can easily be manipulated in that sort of way.










-----------

"It's the machine, not the man"

- Materialist, and proud of it!

Message Edited on 11/06/02 03:17PM by kweassa

Message Edited on 11/06/0203:18PM by kweassa

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2002, 08:28 AM
Wow, Isegrim makes my head hurt.

--lbhkilla--

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/g6.jpg .

"Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt"

"We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
When Erwin Rommel that British fighter-bombers had shot up my tanks with 40mm shells, the Hermann G¶ring who felt himself touched by this, said: "That's completely impossible. The Americans only know how to make razor blades." and the above was Rommels reply.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2002, 08:29 AM
In addition.......



.....DIE THREAD DIE!!!

--lbhkilla--

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/g6.jpg .

"Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt"

"We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
When Erwin Rommel that British fighter-bombers had shot up my tanks with 40mm shells, the Hermann G¶ring who felt himself touched by this, said: "That's completely impossible. The Americans only know how to make razor blades." and the above was Rommels reply.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2002, 12:29 PM
There is one easy way to see how odd the G-6 is -

Fly a G-2/R6 with 100% fuel against another player with a standard G-6 with 25% fuel. You'll find that the G-2/R6 still has a very good performance whilst the G-6 can barely dictate the combat situation due to it's poor performance. Even with it's somewhat less aerodynamic shape, logically the G-6 is still a very odd bird in Il-2 (taking this experiment into account) and I still don't see why it should fare so poorly against a heavier G-2 in this sort of situation. It doesn't make sense to me!

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2002, 01:46 PM
Now crack this:

According to object viewer and also logically G-6 all of them 2650 kg + and power 1300 HP (no WEP) and still G-6AS flies 1000 times better. and climbs also without WEP remarkably well. Additionally in the level flight to reach some 500 km/h AS is superior to other 6:s.

I fly AS in fights most of the time without WEP allthough it gives a nice add if need be...

Why are the other G-6:s such dogs...?

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2002, 01:59 PM
Do you know what the /AS signifies?

Time to stop believing what you read in the 'object viewer', which has numerous errors.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2002, 05:45 PM
Right which is easier to make, object viewer or the game. Now, how can I be sure that these errors are not in the game. According to our friend Isegrim here the real G-6 is only some 50 kg heavier than G-2. Well well well, in the real life the pilot's did not address the differences of these two subtypes, only the mechanics did because of more complicated and maintenance unfriendlier technic. AS does not stand for completely improved aerodynamics with antigravity generator.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif bii su¶r as Oleg says

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2002, 07:42 PM
roachclip wrote:

- The Me109E-4 was a 1940 a/c NOT a 1939 a/c.

LOL, that`s why the E-3 (which I was talking about, and which by some strange ay changed ot E-4 in roachlip`s "qoute") made up the LW`s fighter force in 1939 already in the Polish campaign.

Roachlip in his usual blunt way tries to re write history


-
- The MC202 first flew in June 1940.

That`s great it wan`t introduced until 1941 even in the very best case, now again we see how Roachclip.

Now let me see... Roachlip lies about the Bf 109E introduction date in service, and later he wants to compare that date with the first flight of the aeroplane to twist facts around by usuing double standards.

Funny, it`s like as the Fw190 was a 1939 plane... sure, it made it first flight in 1939... and was introduced two years later, in late 1941, and didn`t appeared in numbers until 1942, 3 years after it made it`s first flight.



-Mw50
- was not fitted until mid early 1944 and was only ~5%
- of total Me109G production.

Rocaclip now makes blunt lies. MW-50 was first fitted in the end of 1944, and was found on most of the 16 000 Bf109Gs that were produced in 1944. The 16 000 planes make up around half the entire Bf 109 proudction.

All G-14s, G-10s, K-4s had MW-50. It was also introduced in the G-6s that were manufactured in 1944.

The 5% data is nothing less than a primitve and blunt lie, typcial of roachclip.



-
- Sure would be nice to see some 'speed vs height'
- charts for the Me109G-6.

Sure you can have them if you pay for them.

BTW, you were very keen to see some He-177 docs, you were offered to have them all if you give an offer for them. Ever sicne you remained very silent about that... perhaps your interests just gone away?

http://genji.image.pbase.com/u18/isegrim/upload/5750939.VO101PUMA.jpg Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2002, 08:10 PM
Functio wrote:
- There is one easy way to see how odd the G-6 is -
-
- Fly a G-2/R6 with 100% fuel against another player
- with a standard G-6 with 25% fuel. You'll find that
- the G-2/R6 still has a very good performance whilst
- the G-6 can barely dictate the combat situation due
- to it's poor performance. Even with it's somewhat
- less aerodynamic shape, logically the G-6 is still a
- very odd bird in Il-2 (taking this experiment into
- account) and I still don't see why it should fare so
- poorly against a heavier G-2 in this sort of
- situation. It doesn't make sense to me!


Same goes to the G-6/AS vs. G-6 comaprison.. the AS is supposed to be 150-200kg heavier in loaded condition, yet it handles better at low speeds, high aoA turns etc.

If that giant degrade of handling between the G-2 and G-6 is caused by a mere 50kg added weight, then why the G-6/AS with ___200 kg___ added weight compared to the G-2 handles better than the G-6? Granted the engine performance is much higher, but that does not gives logical explanation to the handling differencies at the same speeds.

Since I was around with the beta testing, I know how it started like. With the first beta vwrsion, the G-6 was asin`t much worser than the G-2. However, soon after soem patch it become a complete dog compared to any, late or early 109.

My guess is that the flight formulas don`t exactly take into account something, and oleg`s team is trying to make some planes that perform under or over compared to factory specs in some areas "Adjust" by changing other factors. Say, we have give every data correct for the G-6, and it does say 680 m/h wen it should only do 640.. so say, let`s increase it`s drag until it becomes as fast as it should be. But in the meantime this effects and ruins other charachteristics so that they beocme undermodelled.

Another theory I can explain is that Oleg modelled the G-6 by some incompatible version, say he had a test which was unclear and reffered to some special conditions degrading performance, but they believed it`s for a "clean" G-6 and modelled the in-game "clean" G-6 by a test that refers to a G-6 with gunpods, drop tank. etc. I have seen some kind of German test which ain`t really clear enough or give description, that can be understand only if you start ot compare it to other performance specs you have for hte plane for different configurations and see which does it matches the most. For example recently I have just found out that a 109 that was listed as "G-6 3350kg" was a G-6/R-6 with gunpods after I have seen it`s speed at given power, tohugh previously I bleived it`s a clean G-6 with Mw-50 and 30mm nose gun (G-6/U4) which was also of similiar weight. It can be confusing sometimes.

http://genji.image.pbase.com/u18/isegrim/upload/5750939.VO101PUMA.jpg Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2002, 12:38 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- roachclip wrote:
-
-- The Me109E-4 was a 1940 a/c NOT a 1939 a/c.
-
- LOL, that`s why the E-3 (which I was talking about,
- and which by some strange ay changed ot E-4 in
- roachlip`s "qoute") made up the LW`s fighter force
- in 1939 already in the Polish campaign.
-
- Roachlip in his usual blunt way tries to re write
- history
-

Another case of Isegrim wondering 'off subject', for kweassa wrote:

" For instance, the Macchi C.202 and Bf109E-4 are planes of same era using same Daimler-Benz engine,....."

You gave the impression that the MC202 was an later design than it really was, which I showed it was not.

As for the E-3, nowhere did I find where you say the 'E-3', only 'E'?


--
-- The MC202 first flew in June 1940.
-
- That`s great it wan`t introduced until 1941 even in
- the very best case, now again we see how Roachclip.
-
- Now let me see... Roachlip lies about the Bf 109E
- introduction date in service, and later he wants to
- compare that date with the first flight of the
- aeroplane to twist facts around by usuing double
- standards.
-

Are you calling me a LIAR Isegrim? That's an personnal insult and could be a banning offence./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif As for the Me109E's introduction date, you have trouble reading, for show where I say the the introduction date.


-
--Mw50
-- was not fitted until mid early 1944 and was only ~5%
-- of total Me109G production.
-
- Rocaclip now makes blunt lies. MW-50 was first
- fitted in the end of 1944, and was found on most of
- the 16 000 Bf109Gs that were produced in 1944. The
- 16 000 planes make up around half the entire Bf 109
- proudction.
-
-
- The 5% data is nothing less than a primitve and
- blunt lie, typcial of roachclip.
-

Still calling me a LIAR, I see. Not a nice word.

The 5% refers to G-6/AS production, my mistake./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

How can the 16,000 Me109G a/c produced in 1944 have MW50 fitted, if it was first fitted at the end of 1944? That is an mighty large number of kits to retro fit in a VERY short time period./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


-
--
-- Sure would be nice to see some 'speed vs height'
-- charts for the Me109G-6.
-
- Sure you can have them if you pay for them.
-
- BTW, you were very keen to see some He-177 docs, you
- were offered to have them all if you give an offer
- for them. Ever sicne you remained very silent about
- that... perhaps your interests just gone away?
-
-

Well Isegrim I see you are asking all the time for freebe info at Butch's, do you pay for that data? You are always asking for proof, so produce it. Are you a 'cheap', selfish person? It seems that way. Produce a sales receit to prove you paid money for the performance graphs. Since you can't produce any graphs, your performance claims are just that, unproven claims.

Yes, produce some He177 docs.

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2002, 01:22 AM
S!

Why to argue about this "old" FM when FB is around the corner?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif After that we truly see what the FM and other things have to offer for us. Before that this is just useless speculations about things we do not know yet.

It is sad to see $hit being throwed on eachother here/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif More than a few times have some threads turned into namecalling and cussing when tempers are lost...One outsider not playing flight sims summed this up pretty nicely:Like a bunch of kids on the playground quarreling about who's father has best this and that...sad but true/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Flanker
Training/Tactics Officer
Lentolaivue 34
http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34

"Let Chaos entvine on defensless soil"
-Dimmu Borgir-

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2002, 01:29 AM
This thread is overmodeled...

Die thread die!!

<a href=http://www.simmania.net/IIIJG11/><img alt="III/JG11 Homepage" src=http://users.bigpond.net.au/hobnail/jg11.jpg>&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://www.simmania.net/IIIJG11/forum/images/avatars/gallery/190Ax/Hob.jpg'</script>

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 05:26 AM
The G-6 A/S is much better, probably the best 109 in my opinion.

<Center>
<table>
<tr>
<TD align="center">
<font color="WHITE">"If one must kill or be killed. It must be done with dignity" (The famous words of Adolf Galland)</font>
</TD>
</TR>
<tr>
<TD align="center">
http://www.d-n-i.net/images/f-22_ote.png
</tr>
</TD>
<tr>
<TD>
<center><font color="white">***F/A-22 Raptor***</font></center>
</TD>
</TR>
</table>
</CENTER>

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 05:37 AM
check out"bf109g6is to heavy.here the reason and the facts"
in the o.r.r if what he says is true might be part of the reason.

After it was refeuled i climbed in.With many manipulations the mechcanics started the turbines.I followed their actions with the greatest of interest.The first one started quite easily.the second caught fire.In no time the whole engine was on fire.Luckily as a fighter pilot i was used to getting quickly out of the cockpit.The fire was quickly put out.The second plane caused no trouble - Adolf Galland (first time in a ME262)

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 05:49 AM
cuski wrote:
- Either bad plane, or bad pilot...

My guess, BAD PLANE! I posted a summary of the main reasons why the 109 series ended up as KRAP

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbho



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 09:24 AM
What the hell? Who dug this one up? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

To anyone that doesn't know what it's all about, I made this thread for IL2 when FB wasn't released.

Somebody's gone fishing again? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://members.shaw.ca/cuski4678/sig.jpg