72-75inches Pony

[shift8]

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?

I fail entirely to see how my Game ID has anything to do with a historical/game balance debate. UNLESS you intend to see how good or bad I am in game and then use that data to make inferences about the speaker. Funny, I dont need arguments like that. I rely on factual data and my own ability to reason, not by making irrelevant jibs and insinuations about the person I am arguing about. My game ID will remain private, so far you will ever know I could be the worst pilot in game or at the top of the ladder. I could care less how good or bad you are.

[Xavier]

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.

First of all, why won't you tell us your game ID? It would be quite weird that someone who doesn't even play it wants something to get changed  

I'll post a full reply when I get home.

[shift8]

First of all, why won't you tell us your game ID? It would be quite weird that someone who doesn't even play it wants something to get changed  

I'll post a full reply when I get home.

I should be obvious that I play the game from knowledge of what perk and ENY are. Ive been playing this game and other sims for about 10 years.

Why pray tell, do you need my game ID so badly? I should think it has nothing to do with this debate.

[Scca]

Why pray tell, do you need my game ID so badly? I should think it has nothing to do with this debate.

He wants to sit in aw of your uber skorz...  I also like to know who I am sparing with on the boards... 

I don't think we need a faster Pee-51..  It's already the #1 non-engaging plane...  A faster one would be re-donk-U-less...

I am -1 on this one.

[Xavier]

I should be obvious that I play the game from knowledge of what perk and ENY are. Ive been playing this game and other sims for about 10 years.

Why pray tell, do you need my game ID so badly? I should think it has nothing to do with this debate.

As I stated in the previous post, it would be quite weird for someone who doesn't  play the game to want it changed. That's why I asked.

AFAIK, several units with a total of at least 142 aircraft (79 serviceable) used the 1.98 ata manifold pressure operationally. You can find the full list here:

http://users.atw.hu/kurfurst/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm

Galland instructed 109 ground crews to set the maximum ata to 1.98 in 1944. You can find the original orders in that same link.

[Rob52240]

I was expecting this thread to be about the Enumclaw horse incident.

[shift8]

As I stated in the previous post, it would be quite weird for someone who doesn't  play the game to want it changed. That's why I asked.

AFAIK, several units with a total of at least 142 aircraft (79 serviceable) used the 1.98 ata manifold pressure operationally. You can find the full list here:

http://users.atw.hu/kurfurst/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm

Galland instructed 109 ground crews to set the maximum ata to 1.98 in 1944. You can find the original orders in that same link.

If you read from anyone that is not Kurfurst, whose nonsense is continually debunked, his assumption about those units is just that: an assumption. There is actually an entire thread about this on this very forum, as well as many others. There is no definitive evidence of the operational use of 1.98ata.


Once again well end of February....: 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  


There is a very good reason that Mr. Kurfurst is a "parolee" on these forums. He was also banned from ww2 aircraft forums and is well on his way to being banished from the DCS forums.

[Xavier]

There is a very good reason that Mr. Kurfurst is a "parolee" on these forums. He was also banned from ww2 aircraft forums and is well on his way to being banished from the DCS forums.

Funny, I dont need arguments like that. I rely on factual data and my own ability to reason, not by making irrelevant jibs and insinuations about the person I am arguing about.

Looks like cognitive dissonance to me 

I'll leave the K4 topic, but I really wouldn't want to see a manifold pressure increase in Mustangs. Of course it was used operationally, but it would unbalance the game even if it was perked unless it got a new icon. It wouldn't be good for the game for the same reason the R4M wouldn't: balancing issues.

[shift8]

Looks like cognitive dissonance to me  

I'll leave the K4 topic, but I really wouldn't want to see a manifold pressure increase in Mustangs. Of course it was used operationally, but it would unbalance the game even if it was perked unless it got a new icon. It wouldn't be good for the game for the same reason the R4M wouldn't: balancing issues.

Hardly. He repeatedly misuses documents and writes revisionist history. Peoples complaint with him is his factual understanding. Not necessarily his character, game skill, or etc. Not knowing the facts and slanting information to suit your needs/ insisting that vague information in a single document proves something is not a irrelevant insinutation. My game skill is however, quite irrelevant.



Back on topic: Teh game balance concern is irrelevant because you can perk the plane.

[earl1937]

The plot thickens...

  : And something smells!

[Xavier]

Back on topic: Teh game balance concern is irrelevant because you can perk the plane.

So we can have a Me-262 with R4M rockets and it won't unbalance the game? After all, we can perk it!

It's still fishy how someone has devoted 100% of his posts to asking for a faster mustang and a slower 109K4. I almost see a connection there...

[Lusche]

It's still fishy how someone has devoted 100% of his posts to asking for a faster mustang and a slower 109K4.

In this current incarnation, that is  




 

[shift8]

So we can have a Me-262 with R4M rockets and it won't unbalance the game? After all, we can perk it!

It's still fishy how someone has devoted 100% of his posts to asking for a faster mustang and a slower 109K4. I almost see a connection there...

both points are factual. Therefore any sort of "connection" is both irrelevant and mere conjecture. Facts are Facts. Also I am fine with any historical addition so long as it played a significant role. Pointing out that every plane ever made or every weapon ever made is not currently in game is not a valid argument against the inclusion of more planes.

[Xavier]

In this current incarnation, that is  




 

 

[morfiend]

72 inches is way too tall for a pony,it would have to be classed as a horse at that height!



   YMMV.