Notes for Mk XIV / 109 K comparison article

[Kurfürst]

An article was posted on the following address, correcting some errorsin the article presented on the Spitfire Performance testing page. Apart from the correction of errors, it also contains various information that could be of interest. The URL has been also posted on various aviation forums.

http://www.kurfurst.atw.hu/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm


Bon apetit.  

[thrila]

I would view the site, but i know what it's gonna say already.

[Kurfürst]

Then you know there are two sides of the coin.

[MiloMorai]

Just another of his usual rambling rants.

Complete waste of time.

[GREENTENERAL]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
An article was posted on the following address, correcting some errorsin the article presented on the Spitfire Performance testing page. Apart from the correction of errors, it also contains various information that could be of interest. The URL has been also posted on various aviation forums.

http://www.kurfurst.atw.hu/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm


I've often wondered about testing parameters of these fighters, and wheather they were standardised or weather they were not not from country to country.  I can't imagine how much crap the people that make this game had to sift through just get what they have.

The Lw would have to be very diffucult to assess for many reasons. One that comes to mind is that they had so many variants within one model. Another would have to be that alot of 109s and 190s were tailored to the pilot in many ways.  Germans cannot resist tweaking things.  The 109 may always be a bit of an enigma, but it certainly does not help when there are so many biased and predjudiced bits of info out there. German engineering was a bit superior to that of American or British, and in those days were about even with the Russians whom I beleive were just a little ahead on number crunching at that time. They all had one thing in common though, they designed what THEY thought was important in a fighter, and one the biggest earmarks of propaganda and nationalistic pride is that they mess with the numbers in areas that THEY deem the most important even if the enemy did not put much value on them.

I don't know why there is so much debate over 109s and spits. They are like peanutbutter and jelly, sure, you'll find them in the same sandwitch, but they are of different substance. Why can't they just be happy focusing on the supiority of their pilots.

These wobbly numbers remind me of these 2 old ranchers that used to put their posts out an extra foot every time they mended fence. It finally got so bad that they had to call a surveyor in to fix the mess. Left to their own devises, they would have traded places eventually.

[Karnak]

I can't open the page.

[HoHun]

Hi Karnak,

>I can't open the page.

Use Monopoly Explorer like the rest of us ;-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Kurfürst]

It works fine for me with IE 6.0, maybe you can`t access the webspace provider, i don`t know, but it seems to work for others - some 620 hits up to now..

[Grendel]

I'm only getting banners at the top of the page, no content comes visible at all.

[MANDO]

It works fine for me, just a little slow to start loading.

[HoHun]

Hi Kurfürst,

>It works fine for me with IE 6.0, maybe you can`t access the webspace provider, i don`t know, but it seems to work for others - some 620 hits up to now..

Hm, are you sure that people who only get a black page are not included in those 620 hits?

I tried two or three times to load the page with my favourite browser Opera, but no luck. Changing to my least favourite browser Internet Explorer brought the page up on the first try.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Kurfürst]

Well all I can do is to note 'it`s best viewed with IE', or upload it to a server you can recommend... i dont like M$ either, but as long as their product work, I`ll use it. OK-ok, it doesn`t work, it`s more correct to say it works with anything.

One the second tough, black page... the background is black, so maybe some of you have your browser set with black fonts on a black background. Or maybe it`s a disable popup - I can`t do anything about the latter.

Here`s a light background/black text version :

http://www.kurfurst.atw.hu/articles/MW_KvsXIV_W.htm

And please note parts which you may be disagree with, if underlined by evidence, I promise to change it.

[Angus]

Worked for me, just took a bit of time.
Have to look into the data later

[MiloMorai]

At wars end the following RAF squadrons were flying Spit XIVs: 453, 414, 222, 430, 130, 610, 41, 268, 350, 401, 2, 451, 412, 322, 215, 402, 91, 403, 322.

He also forgets about the serious German fuel supply problems in 1945. C3 was required by the 190s. C3 was required for 1.98ata boost by the 109s.

"As for the fuel supply, I own copies showing detailed stockpile status for February-April 1945... But yes the C3 was definitely scarce.

As of March 1945 only a handful of 109 gruppen were using C3 for their mounts, one of the few being the II/JG11 which were responsible for testing the 605DB/DC over January-March 1945. According to a document dated late January 1945 coming from DB the 1.80 had just been cleared following serious troubles (pre-ignition) reported by the unit testing the 1.80 ata boost. It is also noted that following the clearance of the 1.8ata boost the 1.98ata operational tests could now begin but with concern about the sparkplugs thermal resistance IIRC. C3 was not used by 109 units until the 1.98ata boost was cleared, they relied on B4+MW-50 so that C3 could go to the 190 units. And even after the clearance only few gruppen got it because of shortages due not only to C3 production but also to C3 delivery to the units.

AFAIK 1.98ata boost was cleared late February but it seems to have been slowly introduced into service, I suspect the adjustments needed on the engine and the change of sparkplugs type (supply problems ???) took longer than expected. From other documents I know that C3 and B4 had severe quality problems beginning in late 1944. While it was not much of a problem with low boost, it had some serious effect on higher boost, so it might also have slowed down the introduction of 1.98ata boost. At least DB documents underlined the need for cleaner fuels than those in use at that time. You can safely assume that by March 1945 1.98 ata boost was being introduced, unfortunately I do not have much details for April 1945, but I doubt it would have changed much, given the situation."

He tries to imply that all of II./JG11 was testing at 1.98ata but he say only one staffel (11 a/c) was on strength in Jan 1945 that had K-4s. The LW had only 79 flyable a/c (6 staffels) in April 1945, some of which were Gs, while there was 19 Spitfire XIV squadrons.

[Kurfürst]

"The LW had only 79 flyable a/c (6 staffels) in April 1945, some of which were Gs, while there was 19 Spitfire XIV squadrons."


sources and references ? Your claim that the LW had only 79 flyable a/c is outright laughable, and the claim about 19 Spitfire squadrons is just as silly.

the fun thing of all, that the XIV squadron info comes from Neil stirling and mike williams. Now according to Milo, both Neil and Mike are liars.

It`s also not nice calling butch a liar for stating II/JG 11 was responsible for the testing.

As for the alleged 'scarcity' of C-3, there is no single evidence pointing towards this, in fact even the Italians were denied from being supplied with the lower quality B-4, and were supplied with C-3 instead.

The Fischer Tropsch archieves note that 2/3s of the avgas production in Germany was C-3.