Author Topic: 109 K-4 with 1.98ata (Read 10172 times)

Kev367th · « **Reply #45 on:** August 08, 2005, 04:27:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Kev, just a little bit of trivia.

Slighty more Dora 9s(~1800) were built than Kurfurst 4s(~1700).

Not worried about how many were actually built (dont think anyone disagrees with that bit), just how many actually used C3 1.98ata, if any.

Judging by the fact the the LW only used enough C3 in total for 18 sorties per day for a 5 day day period (23-28 Apr 45). This is all plane types, not just the K4, so I would say it doesn't look good.

But trivia is good

wrag · « **Reply #46 on:** August 08, 2005, 05:09:29 PM »

This talk of perking the K-4.........

Fly one and then fly a Spit14 and see which one is both easier to fly and easier to get kills in.

The Spit14 has a deffinately large edge on the K-4 where turning and manuvering is concerned.

This is VERY true if the K-4 has gonds.

If no gonds and 30mm ..... you ever try to hit anything with that DANG TATTER gun LOL.

If no gonds and 20mm .... edge to spit AGAIN in firepower. This would be the case even if the 109 had 2 20mm because of the velocity differences.

I'm of the opinion that the K-4 will pretty much be the same as our current G10 so why perk it? And if the new K-4 only has the 30mm and no 20 .... again why perk it? The weight of the 30mm gun and ammo vs the weight of the 20mm and ammo vs aircraft preformance hmmmmmmmm....

Also I'm thinkin HT and Pyro will do the same with it as they have done in the past. They'll put it into AH and see what happens BEFORE they perk it or not.

This seems IMHO to be both WISE and proper regarding any new or remodeled plane additions.

Kev367th · « **Reply #47 on:** August 08, 2005, 05:28:28 PM »

The current spit 14 is handfull and by no means easy to fly, check the Spit 14 usage thread.
But to say 'my plane is hard to fly, don't perk it' .
Come on.
I'll say the same thing to you that everyone says to me when I mention chasing faster planes.....fly a different plane then.

Not so easy now the boots on the other hand is it?
I don't doubt that the K9 is harder to fly, not my fault, not my problem, plenty others to choose from.

Kurfys site puts the K4 faster at all alts, and superior in climb to the XIV, so in theory the K4 should control the fight and be able to disengage if needed.
But what you want is to be able to keep on engaging, because you risk nothing but a simulated death, whereas the Spit guy is also risking perks, not a lot admitedly.

Wouldn't see what was wrong with an extremely mild 5-8 perk for it? Or even on par with a TA-152 (even cheaper?).
In all honesty there are only 3 planes that deserve perking - 163/262/Tempest, but that aint likely to happen.
So back to the age old question - on what basis to decide what to perk? rarity?, performance?, usage?, easy to fly (lol)?, all of them or a combination?

I believe the concensus is you will get the 20mm gondie option.

Correct me if I'm wrong the K4/152 were primarily supposed to be used for high alt buff interception?

Some tours ago I tried a 190-D9 out a few times - not hard at all, easy to get in get kills and haul a** outta there. Got into and out of situations I'd have never got out of in a Spit, even in a spit XIV.

wrag · « **Reply #48 on:** August 08, 2005, 05:45:59 PM »

Harder to fly so don't perk it?

That is NOT what I'm saying.

What I AM saying is ......

look at the results!!!

The current Spit14 is perked because????

Ask Pyro, ask HT, they will tell you it is because of the Spit14's affect on the MA.

Try fighting a Spit14 while using our current G10. Also try it with gonds on the 109.

It's not an issue about harder to fly, it's an issue of "the general outcome" where the survival rate is more the question.

I think you will find that on the average or in general the Spit14 is a much meaner fighter in a fighter vs fighter situation.

Why? Hey you said it not me, the K-4 was for BOMBER intercept!

It is not a good fighter when put up against the likes of the Spit14.

Can it survive that fight? Yes, but hey a P40B can survive such a fight, but more frequently it will NOT.

Average pilots will do far better flying a Spit14 then a 109G10 or K4 because of the fighter itself.

This is the way it is in the MA. Are there some that will beat a Spit14 using a G10 or K4. Yes but it's the pilot not the plane. Too many 109's try to dive out of such a fight and that is a mistake. The Spit14 is far more manuverable in a high speed dive and the 109 becomes easy meat.

The Spit14 is perked for a reason. That same reason in our current MA as been applied to the G10 and the G10 does not meet the test and is NOT perked for that same reason.

I don't believe the K4 will be much better then our current G10. It may even be worse. So IMHO it will NOT, and should not, be perked.

And thats my $0.02

Kev367th · « **Reply #49 on:** August 08, 2005, 05:57:52 PM »

OK so the K4 was a bomber interceptor, so why fly it a fighter?
I'll tell you why, because you get a high alt FAST plane, that is also fairly nippy down low.
So you choose to fly it outside its role, outside its best operating limits and because any pure fighter could kill it given the right circumstances thats an excuse not perk it.
It has nothing to do with being hard to fly.
I use a g-10 (really K4) with gondies purely for buff interception, don't fly it any other way. But then thats what it was MEANT for.
not dogfighting pure fighters down on the deck.

Spit XIV is a perfect example, seen a lot more since reduction in price, all that I have seen shot down are below 5K, way out of its operating realm. Believe me the Spit down low isn't exactly the fastest plane in the set.

Lost count of the La7 I've found over 20k, and they wonder why a Spit IX can kill them. Obvious aint it.

Finally impact and balance on the MA - You all flown in the MA the last 6 months or so, when was the last time you seen it balanced?
Impact and balance are a convenient excuse to keep aircraft out of the MA that may compete with the late war monsters on sometihng approaching and even basis.

I actually started the 109-G14 thread as a snare -
I already knew what the best matchup for a G-14 was, even according to Kurfy.
All but 1 have said a Merlin 66 25lbs boosted Spit. Guess what? We aint getting it, its being neutered to 18 lbs on the grounds of balance. A sub 400mph plane at ALL alts, even at 25lbs.

Anyway this is all off topic (gotta stop rambling Kev), still awaiting Kurfys hard evidence the K4 in 1945 used 1.98ata.

Wotan · « **Reply #50 on:** August 08, 2005, 09:00:55 PM »

Quote

If anything there is a much much stronger case for a C3 based 190 than a 109-K4.

You know you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about..

The 190 A and F series required C3 fuel...

There's no 'case to be made' its 100% certain fact...

I am not going bother with the rest of the nonsense posted but much of it is completely inaccurate as well...

Kev367th · « **Reply #51 on:** August 08, 2005, 10:42:00 PM »

Isn't that what I said?
Was comparing the number of 190s on C3 to K4s

April 19 1945 - wish I had whole doc.

If you'd take the statement in view of what the whole thread is about, you'd have felt no reason to jump in FOOT IN MOUTH.

Kurfy and a few others are trying to make case for K4 C3 1.98ata, the document clearly show the 190s have a stronger case...not incorrect, you just chose to jump in. Doesn't imply 190's didnt use C3, quite the opposite.

Only nonsense has been Kurfys constant assumptions, presumptions and downright misinterpretations without one single piece of hard evidence to back it up. Sorry but 'we can safely assume' does not amount to anything.
I have even taken figures from his own site, and other posts in forums he posts to, and shown that in any logical persons opinion what he is claiming is preposterous.

Wotan · « **Reply #52 on:** August 08, 2005, 11:40:03 PM »

This what said:

Quote

If anything there is a much much stronger case for a C3 based 190 than a 109-K4.

What 'case'? 190As and Fs used C3 fuel period...

People who seek to make a 'case' are trying to 'prove' something.

You had no idea what fuel 190s used...

K-4s were flown at 1.98 ata...

Its not in doubt, its been posted about many times on this forum and on others. Not only by Kurfürst, read Butch's reply. Search this forum for previous post of his on this subject...

The only question is how wide was its use by 109s.

The K-4 wasn't a bomber interceptor...:

Quote

so the K4 was a bomber interceptor, so why fly it a fighter?

All the crap above plus much more that has been posted by you in this thread is incorrect.

Kev367th · « **Reply #53 on:** August 09, 2005, 12:21:47 AM »

I asked someone if it was a buff interceptor, they said yes.
I go off what people tell me when I am unsure, thats why I ask.
OK he was wrong, so was I, I now know better.

I don't say no K4's were flown at 1.98ata, what I do say is that not ALL the remaining 79 K4's 9 Apr 1945 were flying 1.98ata, as claimed by Kurfurst.

Geez now your splitting hairs, the Doc from 19 Mar 1945 I posted shows 190's using C3.
Case is mentioned as in Kurfurst trying to prove all 79 K-4's were flying 1.98ata 9 Mar 1945, was not intended to say 190 weren't in fact the doc shows the opposite. I apologise if it came over that way, wasn't intended.

I had no idea what fuel the 190 used - Guess I can't read the doc I posted.

All I ask is that someone, I don't care if its you, Kurfurst or the tooth fairy PROVES that K4 were flying 1.98ata Apr 1945.

Not proof based on -
a) Well they were ordered to convert (same doc also lists 20 units to get the K4 - didn't happen)
Or
b) We can safely assume that.

All I have have seen that IS factual is the 1 unit of 109G-10s (11 or 10 planes?) used 1.98 Jan 1945.
Seen no evidence of converison or use of 1.98ata by 109K-4s. Yet I am willing to concede that some must have.

So - YOU prove 1 of 2 things
1) All 79 used it
or
2)

number of planes used it

Remember - If you want an K4 1.98ata, it's up to you prove it happened. Prove as in docs etc, not assumptions, or presumptions. Basically the same proof you wanted and got in the Spit 100 grade thread. Or are we to be held to higher standard than you?

I anxiously await the flood of evidence, until then I'll "wait out".

FalconSix · « **Reply #54 on:** August 09, 2005, 01:09:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
All I ask is that someone, I don't care if its you, Kurfurst or the tooth fairy PROVES that K4 were flying 1.98ata Apr 1945.

Not proof based on -
a) Well they were ordered to convert (same doc also lists 20 units to get the K4 - didn't happen)

All I have have seen that IS factual is the 1 unit of 109G-10s (11 or 10 planes?) used 1.98 Jan 1945.
Seen no evidence of converison or use of 1.98ata by 109K-4s. Yet I am willing to concede that some must have.

The G-10 was nothing more than a G series airframe modified to K-4 standards, including the engine. If the G-10 was running 1.98 ata in January 1945 then the K-4 could do the same; it had the same engine. The G-10 and K-4 where practically the same aircraft; G-10 = field conversion of a G to a K; K-4 = new factory built K. There were only minor differences like the retractable tail wheel of the K-4.

So I'm afraid you yourself has proved that the K-4 could run on 1.98 ata as early as January 1945. Whether any K-4 actually ran on C-3 fuel is irrelevant from a game standpoint.

Kev367th · « **Reply #55 on:** August 09, 2005, 01:26:16 AM »

Who's saying they couldn't? Certainly not me.
Did you actually bother reading the entire last post?

Irrelevent from game standpoint?
Would love an explanation of why.
Considering the game is meant to be historical, I would suggest it is highly relevant.

In fact this can all be settled easily - Why dont ONE of you do what I did with the Spits - CALL Pyro AND ASK HIM
Or does that make too much sense?
Just make sure he gives you permission to post the discussion on the BB, I specifically asked if it was OK.

EASY.

After all in then makes all the claims and counterclaims irrelevant, he decides.

Over and OUT.

FalconSix · « **Reply #56 on:** August 09, 2005, 02:29:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Irrelevent from game standpoint?
Would love an explanation of why.
Considering the game is meant to be historical, I would suggest it is highly relevant.

If you think AH gameplay is anything like "historical" you need to pick up a history book or two.

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
In fact this can all be settled easily - Why dont ONE of you do what I did with the Spits - CALL Pyro AND ASK HIM

We don't need to. Pyro has made his opinions clear in the past. The ONLY reason why we have had a G-10 instead of a K-4 is that the G-10 has a 20mm option while the K-4 had the 30mm standardized. The G-10 in AH is a K-4 in everything but the name.

OUR 109G-10 RUNS ON 1.98 ATA NOW! PYRO MADE IT SO!

Kev367th · « **Reply #57 on:** August 09, 2005, 03:15:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by FalconSix
If you think AH gameplay is anything like "historical" you need to pick up a history book or two.

We don't need to. Pyro has made his opinions clear in the past. The ONLY reason why we have had a G-10 instead of a K-4 is that the G-10 has a 20mm option while the K-4 had the 30mm standardized. The G-10 in AH is a K-4 in everything but the name.

OUR 109G-10 RUNS ON 1.98 ATA NOW! PYRO MADE IT SO!

Historical as in the aircraft involved, but then again you realised that's what I was on about.

FalconSix · « **Reply #58 on:** August 09, 2005, 03:33:35 AM »

Why can't you just stay on topic? Your feeble attempt at insult is rather boring. I'm a Pony driver, not 109. I just know more about the 109 (and probably everything) than you. Insults are all you can offer because you don't know the first thing about the topic at hand, and you're a sore loser (why do people behave like these threads are some sort of contests?).

And now you presume to tell the moderators what to do? Jeez, can you possibly be more full of yourself?

Kev367th · « **Reply #59 on:** August 09, 2005, 03:39:32 AM »

"And prob everything", wow thats a mighty big statement considering you know nothing about me.

Agreed the last comment about inferior complexes was out of order, I will edit after this post, and you have my apologies.

Staying on topic -
Got pretty pointless didn't it?
Kept asking for evidence, all I got was 'you know nothing', 'I have no idea' etc.

OK lets stay on topic, please post the evidence I requested.

In all honesty though I do believe we have reached an en-passe.

[Edit] as promised edited previous post to remove off topic, pointless and out of order comments.