Author Topic: What about new 109's  (Read 5866 times)

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
What about new 109's
« Reply #75 on: August 08, 2005, 12:05:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak

EDIT:

The Ta152H-1 only has one known combat encounter that I know of, vs Tempests in a 2v2 which the Ta152's won 2 to 1 IIRC.


Only one Tempest of #486 was lost piloted by Mitchell and even then he spun in. One 152 was also lost of the 4 flying (Sattler(killed), Reschke, Auffhammer, ???) that April 15 1945 but this was not due to being shot down in combat.

There was several encounter with Soviet a/c with several claims. (Reschke and Loos being the major claiments)

Offline FalconSix

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 246
What about new 109's
« Reply #76 on: August 09, 2005, 12:48:51 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
FalconSix,

For you info, HTC does model poor fuel  and reduced engine performance from it for the Japanese.  They don't seem to just go with the top end, ideal aircraft or the Ki-84 would be doing about 370mph on the deck and 425mph at 20,000ft.  That is what it was capable of with good maintainance and good fuel, as the tests in the US showed.  Instead it does 344mph on the deck and 388mph at 20,000ft.


They model the Frank using Japanese fuel, the fuel it was designed to run on. Not the US fuel used in the 425mph test of a captured Frank. The Frank was never designed to run on US high-octane gas. A 1.98 ata K-4 would be running on German fuel, produced and used by Germany during the entire war (C3).

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
What about new 109's
« Reply #77 on: August 09, 2005, 04:32:19 AM »
C3 was produced and used thoughout the entire war?

Didn't know that, but always willing to learn new stuff.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline FalconSix

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 246
What about new 109's
« Reply #78 on: August 09, 2005, 04:38:35 AM »
The BMW801 radial engine used in the 190A series could only run on C3 fuel (roughly equivalent to US/UK 100/130 octane). So from 1941 onwards all 190 squadrons used C3 exclusively.

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
What about new 109's
« Reply #79 on: August 09, 2005, 04:45:08 AM »
Ok thanks.

Not quite the entire war though.
I know picky, but shows how a slight error in a claim could cause problems (I should know lol, I made a few last few days, but i learn't from them, so it's all good), no offense meant.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2005, 04:48:21 AM by Kev367th »
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
What about new 109's
« Reply #80 on: August 09, 2005, 04:47:42 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by FalconSix The BMW801 radial engine used in the 190A series could only run on C3 fuel (roughly equivalent to US/UK 100/130 octane). So from 1941 onwards all 190 squadrons used C3 exclusively.


Not true, only the BMW801D-2 and after engine used C3 fuel. Previous models used B4 fuel. C3 was equivalent to Allied 100/150 fuel.

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
What about new 109's
« Reply #81 on: August 09, 2005, 05:12:54 AM »
And this would push C3 usage back to - Spring 1942?

Thank God Merlins are easier to keep track of.

What are definately LW equivalents (seen various claims)-
87 - B4?
100/130 -C3?
100/150

Any others?

Gotta admit I thought 100/130 was roughly equivalent to C3.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2005, 05:59:01 AM by Kev367th »
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline FalconSix

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 246
What about new 109's
« Reply #82 on: August 09, 2005, 05:22:05 AM »
Thanks Milo. Do you know when the Germans started producing C3 fuel?

And btw. you should be careful using words like "not true". "Incorrect" would have served the same purpose without implying I was lying.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2005, 05:33:57 AM by FalconSix »

Offline mora

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
What about new 109's
« Reply #83 on: August 09, 2005, 07:54:17 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kev367th
I also think HT should set a minimum # on that type of aircraft or variant produced, prevents all these discussions.

That would be a huge injustice. It would eliminate M205 and all other late war Italian planes. It would also eliminate Brewster B-239 which had a much bigger impact than many planes we currently have. Numbers don't tell squat about a planes impact on the war.

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
What about new 109's
« Reply #84 on: August 09, 2005, 08:15:58 AM »
Whoa dont get upset,
I totally agree numbers don't, but would be nice to have some standard that planes should reach to be introduced.
Be it impact, numbers made or anything else you can think of, or a combination, rather than the haphazard method used now.
Wouldn't it also depend at what level HT set the number?

This is only a discussion, everyone has their own ideas and point of view.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline FalconSix

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 246
What about new 109's
« Reply #85 on: August 09, 2005, 10:03:27 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kev367th
... but would be nice to have some standard that planes should reach to be introduced ...


Why? HTC decides which planes they want to have in the game. The "standard" is whatever HTC wants.

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
What about new 109's
« Reply #86 on: August 09, 2005, 11:00:11 AM »
You do realise these are public forums for people to express an opinion.
An opinion that may differ with your high and mighty one, but an opinion none the less.
Which is why when Mora quite correctly raised conscerns about certain planes, I asked him what he thought in his opinion would be a good idea or yardstick.

Yes it's HT game and he runs it as he sees fit, but he also listens to and agrees with some stuff on the forums.
If it wasn't for that you wouldn't have a Ki-84 with WEP.
You wouldn't have side ENY limits
You wouldn't have a minimum of 75% fuel
HQ would still be old hardness
The list goes on, and on ,and on.

Forums are for suggestions and discussions, guess thats why they call them forums, you don't agree with a suggestion , fine. You'd be surprised how many discussions  (some heated) by the community have actually led to game changes.

I just happen to think some common yardstick could be used, you don't.
Leave it at that.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2005, 11:14:53 AM by Kev367th »
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
What about new 109's
« Reply #87 on: August 09, 2005, 11:04:47 AM »
FalconSix,

The Ki-84 was designed to use the higher octane fuel, not the crap the Japanese had.  You're flat wrong.  It used their fuel because that is all they had.

Why else do you think it is using a derated engine?
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
What about new 109's
« Reply #88 on: August 09, 2005, 11:25:31 AM »
Karnak - C3 Fuel, 100/130 or 100/150?

Seen both suggested, not just here either.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
What about new 109's
« Reply #89 on: August 09, 2005, 11:44:21 AM »
if it was for realism all late 109 would be for newbies and perked for the experten :D