« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: Spit 16  (Read 12233 times)

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
Spit 16
« Reply #75 on: February 24, 2007, 08:04:05 PM »
Thats what I figured, I knew under some circumstances they got close to the 2000hp mark, but that wasnt typical for a wartime example of a P-38L.

Like you say, 8th AF didnt use them. P-51 and P-47 did get the fuel though. Even at that, would you have a "typical" P-51 or P-47 with 150 octane? hardly fair unless you go and boost up all the other fighters too, from all the other countries, which was my point.
Logged
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline Benny Moore

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
Spit 16
« Reply #76 on: February 24, 2007, 08:18:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Squire
[...] the 1600 hp rating they were actually "advertised as" by Lockheed and Allison, and were the "official" ratings.


That's not quite right.  Allison always maintained that they were capable of far more than 1,600 hp., but the U.S.A.A.F. wanted to save wear and tear on the engines.  They never did update the Pilots Manual with the new ratings, but Allison did send their people into the field to show the ground crews how to use the higher ratings.  1725 hp. was obtained from 64" Hg. MAP, but at least 66" was officially approved by the U.S.A.A.F. (not that it stopped many from using more).  Sixty six inches yielded about 1780 hp., using calculations which are not quite precise.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2007, 08:22:55 PM by Benny Moore »
Logged

Offline dtango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
Spit 16
« Reply #77 on: February 24, 2007, 08:21:50 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Squire
Thats what I figured, I knew under some circumstances they got close to the 2000hp mark, but that wasnt typical for a wartime example of a P-38L.

Like you say, 8th AF didnt use them. P-51 and P-47 did get the fuel though. Even at that, would you have a "typical" P-51 or P-47 with 150 octane? hardly fair unless you go and boost up all the other fighters too, from all the other countries, which was my point.


Well, the 109K-4 we have is the 1.98 ata version.  So if we've used performance data for the higher HP output for the K-4 why don't we use the performance numbers for the higher rated P-51's and P-47's?

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
Logged
Tango / Tango412 412th FS Braunco Mustangs
"At times it seems like people think they can chuck bunch of anecdotes into some converter which comes up with the flight model." (Wmaker)

Offline Benny Moore

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
Spit 16
« Reply #78 on: February 24, 2007, 08:23:33 PM »
It seems there's still debate on that point.  Even the Me-109 fantatics can't agree on which version we have.
Logged

Offline dtango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
Spit 16
« Reply #79 on: February 24, 2007, 09:02:57 PM »
Oh is that so?  I thought that was answered here:

http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=194384&referrerid=3699

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
Logged
Tango / Tango412 412th FS Braunco Mustangs
"At times it seems like people think they can chuck bunch of anecdotes into some converter which comes up with the flight model." (Wmaker)

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
Spit 16
« Reply #80 on: February 24, 2007, 09:57:20 PM »
Fair enough re: the P-38L. I was only generalising.

Re: The 109K-4, I have no idea what specs they are using. It seems to match the historic speeds and climb from what I can tell. Post different if you have something.

How about a +25 lb (1850hp) Spit XVI from RAF 2nd TAF, which they did use in the war? I can hear the screams from the MA now...

Like I said, there is no end to it once you demand the "bestest" ratings from all these fighters, its a pandoras box. The best method imho, is using more average wartime ratings and keeping the "X-fighter" factor out of it.
Logged
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline Benny Moore

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
Spit 16
« Reply #81 on: February 24, 2007, 10:38:40 PM »
Well, when you use the "official" ratings for all fighters, the American ships tend to suffer.  Firstly, the higher the ratings are for all fighters, the better off the American airplanes are.  Secondly, American ships often used higher than official ratings, while other countries sometimes used lower than official ratings.

I skimmed that thread, Dtango, and I didn't see any definite answer.  I still have no idea what the Aces High II Me-109K is rated at.
Logged

Offline dtango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
Spit 16
« Reply #82 on: February 24, 2007, 11:18:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Squire
Re: The 109K-4, I have no idea what specs they are using. It seems to match the historic speeds and climb from what I can tell. Post different if you have something.

How about a +25 lb (1850hp) Spit XVI from RAF 2nd TAF, which they did use in the war? I can hear the screams from the MA now...

Like I said, there is no end to it once you demand the "bestest" ratings from all these fighters, its a pandoras box. The best method imho, is using more average wartime ratings and keeping the "X-fighter" factor out of it.


So why does the K-4 get the benefit of the use of C3 fuel + MW50 but the allied planes don't get to use 150 octane fuel?  We have performance stats for aircraft using 150 octane fuel.  On top of that C3 fuel was hard to come by compared to B4 fuel.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
Logged
Tango / Tango412 412th FS Braunco Mustangs
"At times it seems like people think they can chuck bunch of anecdotes into some converter which comes up with the flight model." (Wmaker)

Offline Benny Moore

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
Spit 16
« Reply #83 on: February 25, 2007, 12:21:33 AM »
That is a most excellent point.  At the very least, we could get 66 inches for the P-38, which was not only officially approved but also did not need any special fuel to run.  It was quite possible to run at that pressure using ordinary 100/130 fuel.
Logged

Offline 1K3

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3449
Spit 16
« Reply #84 on: February 25, 2007, 12:57:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by dtango
So why does the K-4 get the benefit of the use of C3 fuel + MW50 but the allied planes don't get to use 150 octane fuel?  We have performance stats for aircraft using 150 octane fuel.  On top of that C3 fuel was hard to come by compared to B4 fuel.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs


NOTE:  Fair Play

You see if Allies get their way with having 150,000 octane fuel and Axis with just  vegetable oil, no one will ever play this game

You want your fantasy planes with racing fuel?  Go fly in Il-2/Pacific fighters:aok

Every Luftwaffe, allied, and even Japanese planes use racing fuel there.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2007, 01:01:14 AM by 1K3 »
Logged

Offline Benny Moore

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
Spit 16
« Reply #85 on: February 25, 2007, 01:35:30 AM »
By your tone I gather that you disapprove of using higher than the lowest official boost for any given model.  So I suppose it's good with you if the Me-109K is given its standard rating of 1.8 atmospheres instead of the 1.98 which we apparently have?  1.8 ata is to the Me-109K what 60" is to the P-38L, and 1.98 ata is to the Me-109K what 66" or 75" is to the P-38L.  Right now we have a high end boost for the Me-109K but a low end boost for the P-38 (and P-51, and P-47, et cetera).  Surely you don't claim that's fair play?
« Last Edit: February 25, 2007, 01:37:42 AM by Benny Moore »
Logged

Offline Neil Stirling

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 50
Spit 16
« Reply #86 on: February 25, 2007, 09:47:13 AM »
dtango, very interesting chart you have there. Some questions if I may?

Is there a reference that I can quote to get a copy?

Is there a date with the document?

Is it flight tested data? As it looks very much like this:-

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/109G14_May44trials/109G14_GLCE-may44_trials.html

BTW thank you very much for posting it.

Neil.
Logged

Offline dtango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
Spit 16
« Reply #87 on: February 25, 2007, 03:27:20 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Neil Stirling
dtango, very interesting chart you have there. Some questions if I may?

Is there a reference that I can quote to get a copy?

Is there a date with the document?

Is it flight tested data? As it looks very much like this:-

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/109G14_May44trials/109G14_GLCE-may44_trials.html

BTW thank you very much for posting it.

Neil.


Neil:

I have no reference or date but I'll check with my source.  Just have the single pic.  Also we don't know if this is flight tested data or not.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
« Last Edit: February 25, 2007, 03:31:22 PM by dtango »
Logged
Tango / Tango412 412th FS Braunco Mustangs
"At times it seems like people think they can chuck bunch of anecdotes into some converter which comes up with the flight model." (Wmaker)

Offline dtango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
Spit 16
« Reply #88 on: February 25, 2007, 03:41:26 PM »
For the record, I'm not on any "damned fool crusade" (as Obi Wan Kenobi would say!) to get the higher performance numbers for the allied aircraft.  It may be a healthy discussion but at the end of the day HTC get's to make the call regarding what they think is in the best interest of Aces High.

Of course I wouldn't mind if something like perked 150 fuel performance or even a perked P-51H became available :D.  But that's just making known my wish list vs. trying to demand HTC to make it so.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
Logged
Tango / Tango412 412th FS Braunco Mustangs
"At times it seems like people think they can chuck bunch of anecdotes into some converter which comes up with the flight model." (Wmaker)

Offline aerosaber

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 93
      • http://www.tampapi.com
Zeke
« Reply #89 on: February 25, 2007, 04:08:49 PM »
Never seen a a spit turn inside my M2 or 5. May have been extending on you.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 ... 11   Go Up
« previous next »