Author Topic: 72-75inches Pony  (Read 5833 times)

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Re: 72-75inches Pony
« Reply #45 on: September 02, 2014, 10:37:10 PM »
I wonder if the fuel range can be having an impact on the stats also?

I almost never fly the spitfires because of the short range of the gas tanks.  I prefer to have enough fuel to fly longer if I need to rather than RTB for gas all the time.  as many fights have a reasonable time to target flight time the better fuel range of the 51 makes it a more obvious choice.
Try Spitfire Mk VIII with a slipper tank.  It does fine in AH.

Granted, it is the only Spitfire to do fine, but at least it is a decent one.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline shift8

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 193
Re: 72-75inches Pony
« Reply #46 on: September 02, 2014, 11:14:20 PM »
:airplane: I may be way out of line here, because I just can't remember the details, but, the 100/150 you mention was "refined" to a 115/145 and that mix allowed the 51D engine to have a "hotter" burn at TDC than the 100/150, so there was no point in raising the allowable MP.
The "wire" was added in front of the throttle for a reason, when you "break" the wire, you stand a good chance of damaging the engine! In over 400 hours in the "Ponie", I only broke the wire twice, once in a mock dogfight with two Navy Skyraiders and once, trying to clear a line of thunderstorms at 31,000 feet, both times it, the reserve power did what it was supposed to do, get "Tater" out of trouble!

I posted all the applicable information. There is even more on that site. The authorization and use 150grade and 72/75inches is a fact. There are tests that show the performance improvement. Climb rate soared from 3600fpm to 4300 at a weight of 9600lbs. Critical alt was reduced to about 22000ft, top speed only marginally faster at 444mph. Top speeds down low were markedly improved, as deck speed went from 375 to 380 or even 390mph.


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/V-1650-7-Low-Blower-power-chart.jpg

« Last Edit: September 02, 2014, 11:22:26 PM by shift8 »

Offline Xavier

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 249
Re: 72-75inches Pony
« Reply #47 on: September 03, 2014, 02:16:13 AM »
Hey there Shift8, Zoney here, I play as Zoney in game also.  What is your in game name please ?

The plot thickens... :bolt:
Started from the bottom...still at the bottom.

Offline save

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2829
Re: 72-75inches Pony
« Reply #48 on: September 03, 2014, 04:15:00 AM »
quite the opposite, its one of the best reasons.
I fly higher-eny planes and I would have to treat that plane-x as best possible version to counter it.

I know exacly what I can and can not do in a Hippo-8, against a spit8/9/16/14, and I treat them very differently depending on the mark. I outrun all but the spit14 in a shallow dive as an example.

Imagine you  are merging against plane marked FW190a8.
it suddenly spits out 24 air-to-air rockets (r4m) that kill you at 800 yards, as you come in for the merge, you would still treat it the same or would you adapt after that experience?
I guess you would adapt and not merge, treating all A8s as R4m users.

if you introduce 150 octance fuel, 109g6 fw190a5/8 and mid-war planes would all be deathtraps, while they are a real challenge to fly as it is now in the MA.

 
Thats the weakest argument that has been postulated so far. Are you serious? It cant be implemented due to uncertainy?

This already exists in game for the pony and many other planes. P-51 B/D or P-47D or M or the massive difference in Spitfire speeds, or dare I mention the Ta152? Or the F4U-4..............or do you also want those removed?
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 04:45:59 AM by save »
My ammo last for 6 Lancasters, or one Yak3.
"And the Yak 3 ,aka the "flying Yamato"..."
-Caldera

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Re: 72-75inches Pony
« Reply #49 on: September 03, 2014, 07:23:01 AM »
We have been through these 150 octan arguments before. If you allow it to one plane it is a slippery slope - why not allow it to others that used it? Spit14, mossies etc. Why not allow the Grerman upgraded fuels and boosts?

HTC chose to model planes by factory specs. If you dig a little into that archive website you will find p47s authorized for 70" manifold with 100 fuel and mosquitoes using N2O boosts. These were not factory configurations.
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9362
Re: 72-75inches Pony
« Reply #50 on: September 03, 2014, 07:28:16 AM »
It so happens that I am opposed to it as it would make the game less balanced, and ultimately it is a game.


Good lord....

...well....now we have confirmation that Hell has frozen over....

- oldman

Offline BnZs

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4207
Re: 72-75inches Pony
« Reply #51 on: September 03, 2014, 07:41:37 AM »
I chase down P-51Ds in the Mossie VI as it is, give the Mustang a 72" to 75" perked version and I'd likely stop even trying because it would go from difficult to quite possibly a waste of time.

Do you not bother trying to chase down Typhs that are potentially Tempests, Spits that are potentially XIVs, La's that are potentially La7s, Yaks that are potentially 9us, 190s that are potentially D9s, P-47s that are potentially Ms, 109s that are potentially K4s, Corsairs that are potentially -4s? Or are you very conveniently ONLY applying this logic in the case of Mustangs?
"Crikey, sir. I'm looking forward to today. Up diddly up, down diddly down, whoops, poop, twiddly dee - decent scrap with the fiendish Red Baron - bit of a jolly old crash landing behind enemy lines - capture, torture, escape, and then back home in time for tea and medals."

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23871
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: 72-75inches Pony
« Reply #52 on: September 03, 2014, 08:06:54 AM »
I only know that often enemies give up chasing my 190A-5 or Ta-152 on the deck too early, most probably because they think I'm in a D-9  :noid
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

Offline BnZs

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4207
Re: 72-75inches Pony
« Reply #53 on: September 03, 2014, 09:12:02 AM »
I only know that often enemies give up chasing my 190A-5 or Ta-152 on the deck too early, most probably because they think I'm in a D-9  :noid

Yes...and players sometimes end up in futile chases of Tempests they think are Typhs or Hogs they don't realize are -4s...but Karnak thinks it would be horrible for the game if this ever happened to someone chasing a P51 icon?  :headscratch:
"Crikey, sir. I'm looking forward to today. Up diddly up, down diddly down, whoops, poop, twiddly dee - decent scrap with the fiendish Red Baron - bit of a jolly old crash landing behind enemy lines - capture, torture, escape, and then back home in time for tea and medals."

Offline Puma44

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6729
Re: 72-75inches Pony
« Reply #54 on: September 03, 2014, 09:53:31 AM »

Good lord....

...well....now we have confirmation that Hell has frozen over....

- oldman
:rofl



All gave some, Some gave all

Offline shift8

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 193
Re: 72-75inches Pony
« Reply #55 on: September 03, 2014, 10:24:36 AM »
We have been through these 150 octan arguments before. If you allow it to one plane it is a slippery slope - why not allow it to others that used it? Spit14, mossies etc. Why not allow the Grerman upgraded fuels and boosts?

HTC chose to model planes by factory specs. If you dig a little into that archive website you will find p47s authorized for 70" manifold with 100 fuel and mosquitoes using N2O boosts. These were not factory configurations.

Well, because they DO model the German planes at their higher boosts. The G-14 is modeled with MW50. The K4 is modeled with MW50. The K4 109 for example used B4+MW50 or C3 by itself to achieve 1.8ata. 1.8 ata is modeled in game. The FW-190D is modeled with a rubber engine gap seal that no production plane ever used. It is only the allied planes that do not have their late war high boost settings. Beginning with the G-14 MW50 boost was standardized. The germans later introduced the G-10 and K4. On the allied side you have higher octane fuels that take the place of MW50 and Newer model airplanes----except it isnt modeled.

Arguments from the opposition so far consists of the following logic:

1. Icons of 150grade planes would grant fog of war advantages to lesser models of the same type.    Seeing as we already have this problem in game with many many many planes, it is irrelevant and a double standard.

2. It would unbalance the game because 150 grade planes would be OP.                           

 Firstly, history is what it is.   

Secondly: Low ENY values and Perk requirements could easily remedy his problem. Or are you going to argue that the -4 Hog is the most commonly flown variant? This was mentioned in my very first post. I merely want the inclusion of the planes so that they can be flown for fun, and dont mind them requiring perk points.........even if they did enter service far earlier and in larger numbers than planes like the La7, 109K, and 190D.

3. Other nations planes should get their higher boosts.               

They already do get all historically relevant boost options in nearly all cases. The 190 and 109 are performing to standard, in fact they are well past it, as the 109 has performance corresponding to a non-production prop and the 190D is using a non-production engine gap seal. Liberties have already been taken with these planes, so I daresay that the 51's and spit's and mossies should get their well documented use of higher grade fuels.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 10:34:47 AM by shift8 »

Offline shift8

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 193
Re: 72-75inches Pony
« Reply #56 on: September 03, 2014, 10:44:08 AM »
We have been through these 150 octan arguments before. If you allow it to one plane it is a slippery slope - why not allow it to others that used it? Spit14, mossies etc. Why not allow the Grerman upgraded fuels and boosts?

HTC chose to model planes by factory specs. If you dig a little into that archive website you will find p47s authorized for 70" manifold with 100 fuel and mosquitoes using N2O boosts. These were not factory configurations.

Factory specs are irrelevant. What matters is what was used operationally. The P-38's for example, especially the early models, had much higher factory power ratings than what were used-at least officially.


Offline Xavier

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 249
Re: 72-75inches Pony
« Reply #57 on: September 03, 2014, 10:55:07 AM »
Well, because they DO model the German planes at their higher boosts. The G-14 is modeled with MW50. The K4 is modeled with MW50. The K4 109 for example used B4+MW50 or C3 by itself to achieve 1.8ata. 1.8 ata is modeled in game. The FW-190D is modeled with a rubber engine gap seal that no production plane ever used. It is only the allied planes that do not have their late war high boost settings.

The K-4 used 1.98 ata operationally. I guess that you'd also want the 109 boost to be modelled to 1.98 as well, right?

And by the way, what's your game ID?
Started from the bottom...still at the bottom.

Offline shift8

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 193
Re: 72-75inches Pony
« Reply #58 on: September 03, 2014, 11:11:02 AM »
The K-4 used 1.98 ata operationally. I guess that you'd also want the 109 boost to be modelled to 1.98 as well, right?

And by the way, what's your game ID?

The K4 never used 1.98ata operationally except in testing, and it did not find favor. The only document ever shown that might support the idea is a document kurfurst likes to wave about, one dated 20march45, that is clearly a statement of intent and not a operational order. The document also refers jet upgrades and other things that are known to have not happened. There is also zero pilot accounts or maintenance logs etc to support its use operationally. All that is known for certain is that it was tested, and rejected. If there was ever any re-attempt to use it operationally there is no definitive documentation to support it. And as a side note, even if it was proven, which it is not, it would not have happened till the last month of the war....which is hardly significant and does not warrant use in game.

"No evidence has come to light proving operational use of 1.98 ata by combat units, however, its clear from surviving documentation that the Luftwaffe felt a pressing need to increase the performance of the 109 and that 1.98 ata was tested and proposed for use. Prien & Stemmer have written about the desperate situation confronting the Luftwaffe in 1945:

The start of the Russian offensive (note: in mid January 45) resulted in the biggest regrouping of forces by the Luftwaffe since the invasion of the Soviet Union. From this point on, the course of operations in the east dictated the employment of all remaining forces, especially of the air units and the flak. Russian breakthroughs everywhere threatened the very existance of the Reich. Faced with this, the German command reduced defensive operations in the west to a minimum, while the Defense of the Reich was virtually abandoned.

The only units left in action over the west were JG 2, 26, 27, and 53, which operated mainly against the Allied fighter-bombers and twin-engined bombers but not against incursions by the heavy bombers.

A Wehrmacht Operations Staff memo dated 19/1/1945 stated that “a high degree of forces are to be concentrated for the great decisive battle in the eastern theater at the conscious acceptance of the associated serious risk in the western theater”. For the air defense that meant that the flak would bear the main of subsequent defensive operations in the west, while the bulk of the flying units were to be deployed in the east to support the army. To this end the units deployed in the east were to receive prioity in the allocation of the last remaining reserves of fuel. The memo went on to say: "The available fuel is to be allocated accordingly”.

As a result of increased consumption in defensive operations in January and February the fuel shortage had again become acute, and on 4 March 1945 the OKW saw itself forced to issue another directive on future Luftwaffe operations. It decreed that apart from operations by the few jet fighter units, defensive missions against incursions over the Reich by the American and British heavy bombers were now to be halted completely, which nearly meant the end of the Defense of the Reich. There was also a rigorous concentration of remaining forces for operations in the east, in order to make the defensive effort there as effective as possible.

By now deliveries of aircraft had slowed down, which is why, for example, that in March III Gruppe was given a number of old BF 109 G-6s (probably from disbanded training units) in addition to several BF 109 K-4s and G-14s. (Note: Prien has also written that II./JG 53 reverted to old Bf 109 G-6's)

War Diary Luftflotte 6; worthy of note is a note dated 3/4/1945 in the collection “Fuel Situation 1945” which says: “Production of the BF 109 has been halted, six Gruppen in Luftflotte 6’s command are being disbanded immediately in order to create a reserve”. The effected units were I/JG 3, I/JG 4, III/JG 6, II/JG 51, I/JG 53 and III/JG 77. Units were disbanded in the same way by the Luftflotte Reich (IV/JG 301) and Luftwaffe Command West (IV/JG 27). 42

II./JG 11, the Me 109 unit that had earlier experimented with 1.98 ata, also disbanded during the first few days of April:

An den ersten sechs Tagen im April war das JG 11 nicht im Einsatz; nicht etwa schlechtes Wetter, sondern allein der anhaltende Treibstoffmangel verhinderte ein Eingreifen des Geschwaders in das Geschehen an der Oderfront, an der es im übrigen während ruhig blieb. Offensichtlich erfolgte in diesen Tagen die Auflösung der II./JG 11, deren Flugzeugführer danach zum Teil auf die I. und III. Gruppe verteilt wurden, während einige der erfahreneren und erfolgreichen – darunter Hptm Rüdiger Kirchmayr, Olt. Erich und Lt. Walter Köhne – zu dem Strahlerverbänden versetzt wurden. Für viele der jungen, unerfahrenen Flugzeugführer, die zur Katagorie “C” zählten, endete dagegen der Einsatz in einem fliegenden Verband und sie fanden sich in Fallschirmjäger – oder sogar Waffen-SS Einheiten wieder, um dort als Fussoldaten noch eine Verwendung im Sinne des “Führers” zu finden; mit ihnen gingen eine ganze Anzahl von Männern des Bodenpersonals, deren Stellen durch die Auflösung der II. Gruppe entweder überflüssig wurden oder die durch weiteres weibliches Personal ersetzt wurden. 43"

"Aspera G.m.b.H., Kamenz on orders from OKL Chef TLR F1. E. 3 V reports in Geschwindigkeitmessungen mit 4 VDM Luftschrauben auf Me 109 K4 mit DB 605 D dated 4 January 1945 that full measurments could not be reported due to engine damage at 1.98 ata. Trotz mehrerer Stunden schonenden Einfliegens des Motors mit Dauerleistung vor den Messreihen mit Kampfleistung stellte sich bei den ersten Prüfläufen nach der Umstellung auf p = 1,98 ata ein Motorschaden heraus, der einen Motorwechsel notwendig machte. 35 

Interner Aktenvermerk Nr. 6642 from Daimler-Benz (internal memo) dated 17.1.45 reports on a meeting held 10 January 1945 at OKL, Berlin. All 4 DB 605 DC engines supplied to Rechlin from DB-Genshagen failed (pistons, piston rods, supercharger), therefore special emergency power DC (1.98 ata boost pressure) for the troops is not released (die Sondernotleistung DC (1,98 ata Ladedruck) für die Truppe nicht freigegeben). 36 

Niederschrift Nr 6717 from Damiler-Benz, dated 19.1.45, states that DB 605 D engines from Kassel are delivered at 1.80 ata boost with B4 and Mw 50. Die Motoren DB 605 D werden in Kassel allgemein mit Ladedruck 1,80 ata mit B4 und Mw 50 abgenommen. 37 

Niederschrift Nr 6730 of Daimler Benz dated 24 January 1945 details discussion at a conference held 20 January 1945 in the office of the Chief engineer of the Luftwaffe in Berlin: It states that testing of 1.98 boost pressure may be done provisionally at Group 2/11, only engines with 1.8 boost may be supplied and strict punishment is threatened if this instruction is neglected. Also of note is mention of problems due to poor quality fuel as well as a devastating comparison of the Me 109 and the Mustang. 38 

Niederschrift Nr 6731 of Daimler Benz also dated 24 January 1945 discusses a meeting held at Rechlin on 16.1.45. Some of the same material is discussed as in Nr 6730, the conclusions being that 1,98 ata is not to be used on the front line. Testing at Rechlin will continue. 39 

Messerschmitt's Erprobungsbericht Nr. 15 vom 16.1.45 bis 15.2.45 dated 22.2.45 states that 1.98 ata is blocked, testing done at 1.80 ata: WM 50 Betreib - Nach Mitteilung der E'Stelle sind 1,98 ata gesperrt. Die Erprobung (Funktion und Kerzentemperatur) wird vorläufig mit 1,80 ata (2800 U/min) durchgeführt. 40  "

Courtesy of WW2 aircraft performance.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 11:13:50 AM by shift8 »

Offline Scca

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2718
Re: 72-75inches Pony
« Reply #59 on: September 03, 2014, 11:16:09 AM »
By creating uncertainty.

Chasing a Mosquito Mk VI in your Fw190A-8, he has some smash and is pulling away.  Which version is he?  If it is the 100 octane version you might catch it, if 150 octane it is a waste of time.  Many will just give up the chase.

Chasing a Fw190A-8 in your Mosquito Mk VI, you know exactly what his top speed is and whether you have a shot at catching him or not.
We have that now with Tiffy's and hogs... <shrug>
Flying as AkMeathd - CO Arabian Knights
Working on my bbs cred one post at a time

http://www.arabian-knights.org