The jugfire

[Naudet]

To clear a few things up on GE factory equitment or not.

For GE production there were 3 stages, factory, front yards and squad yards (hope those terms hit it right).

The factory delivered planes to the front yard, were it was checked and weapons etc. were installed, together with some special equitment (MW50/GM-1). Than it was flown to the squads, there in the squads yards each idividual pilot could (if he was a "mechanics" friend) configure his personal machine. Including different boost systems, weapon load outs, extremly poolished surfaces etc.

In january 1945 i.e. GE noticed that it was more efficient to install MW-50 in the factory and not in the front yards for the D9, this is why no D9 had factory installed MW50 in 1944, but from the books i read it got to the front with it.

Also little addition to D9 boosting systems:
there a atleast 3 know typed of boosting for the D9:
1) take-off & emergeny power
Emergency power (i.e. take off or emergency) On aircraft without the "Ladedruckssteigerungs-Ruestatz"this power setting would yeild 1750ps, sustainable for something between 10 to 3 minutes. With the "Ladedruckssteigerungs-Ruestatz" this becomes 1900ps, sustainable for 30 minutes on the deck.
-->this is the "normal emergency power"

with the topspeed of 421mph at 21K (@1750hp)

2)Sonder - Notleistung - Special Emergency
The Special Emergency power is the same principle as in the Fw190A. That is, bleeding of the airline of the blower to induce a petrol surge and use it as a charge cooler. The setting was the same as in the A8. There was a button, or lever, on the control panel to open the valve. To summarize, it was a petrol injection in the eye of the blower. It had the effect of increasing the boost by its charge-cooling effect.  It could only be used at full speed and 3,250 rpm. It was usable for 10 minutes, This power curve is listed with C3 fuel and would produce 2130ps or 2100 hp.
After the use of this Special Emergency power, no form of Emergency power could be used for at least five minutes
--> this is without MW50 but with C3 fuel (widely used in DORA equitment squades i.e. JG26)
with the following top speeds
382 mph/sea
438 mph/18K

3)Sonder - Notleistung mit Laderdruckerhoehung mit MW50 u. 1.8 ata. Special Emergency Power (with MW50)  2100PS at 3,250rpm, MW-50 at 150 l/h and B4 at 800 l/h.

Maximum power with MW50 was 2,100 hp at 3,250 rpm and was not to be used above 16,500ft. (around 5000 meters). In any case, the RAE tested the Jumo 213 A-1 with MW50, and at 21,000ft the engine
produced 1680 hp instead of the 1600 hp. At that altitude the output is the same whether you are using Takeoff & Emergency or Special Emergency power
--> this is with MW50 but also with only low octance B4 fuel (there is also a combination of C3+MW50, but yet no data was found on the exact specifications, but as in some squads there were "race horse" D9 which pilots never feared the speed of any allied fighter, it is to 95% sure that this setting was also used, estiminated power output 2240hp)
Topspeeds for MW50+B4 fuel:
377 mph/sea
430 mph/17,7K

as u can see the AH D9 closely matches this last data

but the prob is such a Dora would have 2 types of emergency power:
MW50 for 4x10 minutes boost
normal emergency setting that could be held for 30 mins due to the ladedrucksteigerungsrüstsatz (this would also be faster than setting 1) cause ladedrucksteigerungsrüstsatz increases emergency output without boost additive from 1750 to 1900hp)
and last but not least the combat and climb setting could be held indefinitivly with the ladedrucksteigerungsrüstsatz

NOTE: all speeds with ETC 504 rack, add 5mph below critical altittude and 7.5mph above it

I have not prob if we get a P47-D11 with paddleprob, but than i also want all the options for the D9 (maybe also the lader-A rüstsatz that gives a SEA level speed of 398mph with ETC 504 rack)

Btw if u say the plane must be "factory new" for the D9 in AH we would need the data from point 2)
which means it is to slow at all altittudes atm.

[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: Naudet ]

[-ammo-]

Originally posted by Staga:
There's already two P-47s with paddle-prop and you want it to that third one too ?

Yes sir, that is the configuration in which it flew in WW2, its not a matter of concession really, or shouldnt be.

Asts-  Who said the inclusion of the D11 and the 109G6 was for 1943 scenarios? Pyro say that? Or was that an arguement created in this BBS?

Whos argueing about the Dora? The dora is configured with MW50. Whether you agree with how the folks at HTC modeled it's performance is not in  question here. That is a personal problem between you and them and whoever else has the same problem.

TY Naudet. will everyone agree that Germany performed modifications in the field just as the other warring nations? Asts himself agrees that they installed gondolas on their AC in the field. Aircrews for the USAAF in England had at their disposal fuel tanks that we dont have in AH but I am not arguing that point.

I dont really understand why you jump in here ram hollering injustice and the LW doesnt get this and that, it is not a LW vs USAAF thing...or it shouldnt be. But I dont expect anything different  

[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: -ammo- ]

[R4M]

Ammo, before the P47D11 was here, and even before ANY P47 was here, when some people asked the 109G6 to have MW50, they were answered that without MW50 they would make better scenario aircraft, and that was it. To an extent I agree (ask supongo, as I have told him many times that the G6 is better without MW50 so we can have a 1943 109G6 for the scenarios).

I recall reading in this same board that the P47D11 (answering a "yet another jug"  wich someone said when the D11 eas announced), would, finally, add a 1943 USA plane actually usable in scenarios...

I guess that a middle line could be reached: model a 109K4 with the 2000hp engine, model the 109G10 with an 1800hp engine,  then model the P47D11 with paddle props and a P47D5 without them.

You say this is not an USAAF vs LW thing, and I agree. I am simply saying that if your reason to lobby for paddle props in the D11 is that they were retrofitted with them, then I say that I can freely lobby for a G6 with MW50, because lots of them were retrofitted with it.

[-ammo-]

Originally posted by R4M:
Ammo, before the P47D11 was here, and even before ANY P47 was here, when some people asked the 109G6 to have MW50, they were answered that without MW50 they would make better scenario aircraft, and that was it. To an extent I agree (ask supongo, as I have told him many times that the G6 is better without MW50 so we can have a 1943 109G6 for the scenarios).

I recall reading in this same board that the P47D11 (answering a "yet another jug"  wich someone said when the D11 eas announced), would, finally, add a 1943 USA plane actually usable in scenarios...

I guess that a middle line could be reached: model a 109K4 with the 2000hp engine, model the 109G10 with an 1800hp engine,  then model the P47D11 with paddle props and a P47D5 without them.

You say this is not an USAAF vs LW thing, and I agree. I am simply saying that if your reason to lobby for paddle props in the D11 is that they were retrofitted with them, then I say that I can freely lobby for a G6 with MW50, because lots of them were retrofitted with it.

"retrofitted" ahhhh TY.

The earliest mention I have of a D11 flying in combat is January 1944, the same month that the paddle blade props were retrofitted to P-47's in the ETO. So without the prop then the D11 is flying in a configuration that maybe a test pilot or a WASP or ferry pilot flew it in..not a combat pilot in operations over France. So which configuration do you guys think the AH D11 would be more representative?

Reference Osprey's book "56th Fighter Group"

note-- the exact same AC that HTC modeled, Gabreski's D11, sn 275510 is noted in this reference as seeing service in January 1944. Pg 71. So I guess the 1943 arguement that someone was making is shot down. It also affirms that the very same AC we have modeled here had the paddle blade prop.

[Hooligan]

HTC adds the aircraft they want to. I believe a fairly important criterion is that additional aircraft add variety to the game (which is why we have the 190a5, Dora and Ta-152 instead of the 190a3, 190a4 and 190a5). Maybe in their view the D-11/paddle variant just isn't that different from the D-25?

OTOH if it is the case that the D11/paddle prop/engine tweaked variant was really the common P-47 for the first half of 1944 I hope that we do end up with that variant in AH in the not too distant future.

For the guys who want this jug, coming up with as much hard data to support your case (including sources so HTC can verify it) is probably the best plan.

Hooligan

[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: Hooligan ]

[Wmaker]

Originally posted by -ammo-:
<S> Yes I see your point and respectfully disagree. You have an opinion and how and why certain AC should be included/excluded from the planeset and in what form they should appear. As a matter of fact you argue your point pretty good. I just dont see it that way. First, I dont believe that the 109G6 came straight from the factory with a Mk 108 cannon, however I do believe that armouror's could and did equip them so. I also know that some 109G6's were equiped with the Mk108 at the factory. This is only an example. By the same token a very small percentage of the FG's equiped with P-47's ( all of them practically prior to the P-51 showing up) actually were equiped with the 6 gun package, however crews may have removed a few at the request of their pilots or to add a camera or whatever. As the war progressed innovations abounded. All sides strived to make their weapons and weapon platforms more deadly and efficient. I think it is silly to suggest that their is any difference between the examples I have stated adn the inclusion of the paddle blade prop. I also know that HTC has their own way of determining what gets in the game and what does not how they come to the decision. I think its simply because they wanted it in the game    . Personally I think since D11's flew in combat with paddle blade props than that is what should be modeled and I cant see how you can argue it down given that it is true. But you have your opinion and that is OK by me. However let the record state that I think my opinion is much better and based on more facts than yours    

<S>!!

<S!> -ammo-

I never ever said that I'm against the paddle blade prop here. I said: "I have nothing against it". Originally I was saying to Buzzbait that you can't compare G-10 and D-11 when talking about getting the best possible version of the latter. And I still think that way.
And as Grunherz said G-6 with MK-108 was designated G-6/U4 and these plane came from the factory and this cannon wasn't retrofitted. If you find a source that says differently I sure would like to see it since it would be the first one for my eyes...

   

Originally posted by Hooligan:
The Ta-152 saw combat because the Germans were losing and badly. If the US had been in the desperate straits of Germany, then undoubtedly the P-51H, F8F and others would have seen combat also.

IF the US had been in the desperate straits...IF. But it never happened in the real world war 2 and as long as AH is air combat sim featuring REAL WW2's aircraft my point remains.

   

Originally posted by Hooligan:
Since anybody can arbitrarily choose criteria to allow or disallow late-war production aircraft, why beat around the bush with “saw combat”, “fully equipped squadrons” etc… Just be honest and say: The XYZ plane should/should not be added to AH because I like/dislike it.

I just can't see how a plane is "a WW2 aircraft" if it didn't fight in the war itself! And don't tell me what I like or dislike. I love aviation and everything with wings in general. Boy what would I do to get my hands on a real Bearcat for example.  
But once again it doesn't belong in a sim featuring WW2 aircraft.

   

Originally posted by Toad:

W,
Check my reply to GRUNHERZ up-thread. I know the Ta-152 was deployed in squadron strength with mechanics and spares.

In short, it was in fact an OPERATIONAL airplane.

I would suggest to you that an undeployed aircraft, without a squadron of trained pilots, mechanics and a supply of spare parts was NOT an OPERATIONAL airplane.

I am not surprised that those who are looking for an edge would NOT want to use those conditions as qualification for inclusion.

Better to use the "well, it was engaged one time" rule if you're looking for an advantage for the losing side, isn't it?

I would suggest that an operational plane is a plane that saw operational use in the conflict in question.

Toad check my stats and you'll see that I'm not looking for an edge when it comes to the plane types I fly. Currently I spend most of my flying time in 109G2, 109G6 and KI-61. Personally I try my best to remain as objective as possibile when it comes to plane sets of different nations.

   

Originally posted by R4M:
ANd the underwing gondolas with MK108s. I also do miss them.

Dear Ram, for the 1001st time. This setup NEVER saw operational use.

(Edited because I posted this on from my GF's house which has dial up modem so I can't be connected to the internet all the time I type...I was repeating what about stuff that came up in the couple of the last replies...finnish phone companies don't know about flat rate billing   )

----------------

1Wmaker1
   

[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: Wmaker ]

[Dmitry]

LW or US? I say lets have a 1944 Spit IX and Yak-3 .... no more arguing plz  

[Toad]

I think you'd have to find a generally accepted definition of "operational use" then.

In my own more recent experience, no weapons system was deemed "operational" until it had finished testing and was deployed to actual combat units.

For example, the B-1 was not "operational" until there was a unit equipped with them that had finished its training, been rated as "combat ready" and been assigned targets in the war plan.

I think that's a pretty good standard. If it was deployed to line combat unit with trained crews and support... it was operational.

I'm sure your opinion will differ.  

[-ammo-]

For the record wmaker, I understand your position and thats cool.

Every one keeps referencing the D11 as a 1943 AC. It was definately built then but it saw action in 1944, there may have been cases of the D11 seeing action in Late December '43, but I dont know of them. The d11 variant served is the first half of '44 and was equiped with the good prop. This is a fact. Why shouldn't the D11 in AH not have it?

As far as the 109G6, I will look through my references, but I know that you LW guys know much more than I do in that concern, so I digress and take your word for it.

As Hooligan stated, HTC has free reign to add AC on their basis, which is the ones they want to add and what configuration they want to add. All I can do is provide some references and maybe they will see it for what it is and give us the P-47 that is most representative of the air war over France.

[Staga]

Heheh Ammo, Your sig-text is bigger than your posts  

[Hooligan]

Widowmaker if you haven't noticed the MA is not at all about what really happened in WWII.  That is what scenarios are for.  Clearly no F8Fs are going to show up in historically based scenarios.  Of course since 12 or less Ta-152's of the AH configuration ever flew combat sorties, I would expect that not many of them are going to show up in any scenarios either.

Consider 2 planes that were in approximately identical stages of development:  One of them got strafed on the runway because the factory happened to be close to the front lines.  One of them never got engaged because the owners were liesurely about introducing new aircraft at the end of the conflict they were winning.  For the purposes of introducing aircraft into the MA, I personally don't think that desperation is a valid criteria.  Nor do I think you choice of critera is at all objective.  It seems patently self-serving to me.

You can define a WWII aircraft as one that "saw combat" (giving preference to desperate circumstances), and I can define a WWII aircraft as having a total production of not less than 555 (coincidentally the number of P-51Hs produced) commencing before the end of hostilities (giving preference to more heavily industrialized countries and those which didn't get kicked out of the war before the game was fully over).  Nonetheless the point remains:  Anybody can pick any criteria they want to favor preferred aircraft, exactly as you do.  But it is a pretty transparent ploy and terribly unlikely to persuade anybody.

Even if your argument is logically consistent (which IMO it is), and not motivated primarily by self-interest the P-51H/Bearcat fans have equally logical criteria.  

The ironic thing is that if AH survives long enough eventually the pressure to add F7Fs, Me-262s, etc... etc... will become overwhelming and all of these planes will make it into the plane set.  Availability will somehow have to be limited and there is little doubt that the special circumstances that allow Ta-152s to be flown will be little different from those that allow P-51Hs to be flown.

Hooligan

[HoHun]

Hi everyone,

maybe it's just because I'm not familiar with AH, only having flown the offline version, but I think it should be perfectly possible to include all of the engine and propeller options mentioned in this thread. The key is to treat them just as what they were - as options.

All we're talking about is weight and power. Both are subject to changes in flight anyhow - it should be perfectly possible to set them to different defaults before take-off, depending on the load-out options selected by the pilot.

The benefits would be far greater than just having one more aircraft type available - you could re-create the entire lifespan of each type with every powerplant modification.

It's 1943? Great, the Razorback Jug just arrived. Early 1944? Hey, look what these paddle props are doing for our Jugs!

It's 1940? Our Me 109E-3 is doing just fine. 1941? Herr Reichsmarschall, I'd like a squadron of Me 109E-7 with the improved DB601N engines. (I'd also appreciate a squadron of Spitfires!) Need even more power? The E-7/Z gets GM-1 boosting, too.

It's 1941? We just got the Spitfire V with +12 lbs manifold pressure. 1942? We can keep it competetive by clearing it for +16 lbs. 1943? +18 lbs boost is hardly enough - we'll call +25 lbs "Basta"!

I don't need to tell you that it's highly unlikely that you'll ever get all these versions if each one has to be modelled as separate aircraft.

However, the weapons loadout options have shown the way to go: We could get all the variants we desire if only AH would include engine options in a similar manner as weapons loadouts are included today.

In spite of the superficial disagreement over which variant of which aircraft should be modelled, I'd say all who have posted in this thread are sharing the same concern: For each fighter variant in use by one side, there should be the proper contemporary available on the other side.

During WW2, the fighter employed on each side were subject to continous development, and though usually one or the other side would lead the technological race, it was a very close race from the start to the finish.

To accurately portray this race, any arbitrary selection of aircraft subvariants won't be enough. Instead of campaigning against the inclusion of each other's pet plane, I think you should join forces and campaign for flexible engine options.

The goal may be farther in the future, but it seems to me that the ultimate reward will be much greater than the inclusion of any specific aircraft type ever could be!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Mark Luper]

Excellent reply Mr. Henning. I really like that idea and it has been mentioned at least once before. Wonder how many "bribes" it would take to implement it  .

[gatt]

LOL, back on the flame-board from my AH holidays and what I find? That cheerleaders dance and sing their "All Is Perfect" song even if HTC itself admits that something must be tweaked and fine-tuned about the D-11. Something absolutely normal in every online sims. And something very honest by a developer. For me would be enuff just knowing that they'll look into it.

Girls, how ahead are you going? Do you sing that song even for M16s killing Pzr MkIVs or M13s having a k/d=2? Well, no wonder if you'll dance and sing even when/if the NIKI will (maybe) be fixed ...      

There are three or four guys jumping into *every* thread and flaming people, no matter how good are their posts. You are the worst part of this beautiful board, the best tech board of every online sim.

Take it easy and enjoy this sim.

[ 08-05-2001: Message edited by: gatt ]

[Buzzbait]

S!

First of all this is not a discussion about the FW190D9.  In any case there were EXHAUSTIVE discussions regarding which performance it should be given PRIOR to it being introduced.  I am sure HTC had many opportunities to examine the facts presented and make their decision.

It seems likely AH made the decision re. the 190D9 configuration on the basis of a STANDARDIZED installation.  Which MW-50 was.  (In January '45, not August '44.  MW-50 was not installed earlier despite space provision being made in the D-9 for just this type of installation due to the fact that the kits were in very short supply)

The occasional use, temporary field modification of the higher octane injection which has been spoken of, giving the top speed at S.L. of 398mph was likely not chosen for the reason that it wasn't a STANDARDIZED installation.  It was a one-off thing, dependent on Squadrons or even individual mechanics.

On the other hand, the Paddle Blade Props were absolutely a STANDARDIZED addition, equipping, yes, EVERY SINGLE '47D after early January '44.  During the period that these aircraft saw the most combat and were most active.  So obviously it should be a part of their equipment.

By the way, if you check the postings, you will see in the past I am on record, not 1, but two times as suggesting the 109G6 with the DB605ASM, (Ie MW-50 and the larger capacity supercharger) be incorporated into the plane set.  

I do not display bias against German aircraft so PLEASE, don't bring your biases into this discussion.