Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: justin_g on August 05, 2005, 08:59:05 PM

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: justin_g on August 05, 2005, 08:59:05 PM

All these Spitfire threads, but isn't the 109 getting a makeover too?

What additions and/or changes are needed in the 109 lineup?

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Karnak on August 06, 2005, 12:23:12 AM

Pyro said there will be changes and the Bf109G-10 will no longer be in the lineup.

What I'd guess is:

Bf109E-4
Bf109F-4
Bf109G-2
Bf109G-6
Bf109G-14
Bf109K-4


What I'd like is:

Bf109E-4
Bf109E-7 or Bf109F-2
Bf109F-4
Bf109G-2
Bf109G-6
Bf109G-14
Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS or Bf109G-10
Bf109K-4

I don't know enough about Bf109s to comment on boost levels other than the K-4 at 1.98ata would apparently be very nice.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 06, 2005, 01:05:19 AM

First list looks good (keeping in mind TOD), can't see 8 getting done, would hope the K4 is perked (mildly).

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: MiloMorai on August 06, 2005, 02:57:30 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
First list looks good (keeping in mind TOD), can't see 8 getting done, would hope the K4 is perked (mildly).

Only if it is boosted to 1.98ata. The majority of K-4s used 1.80 ata boost. 1.98 did not appear til very late (last 2-3 months of the war), and that with 4 Gruppen who could only manage to get somewhat less than 100 a/c flyable. Even then it is questionable how many really could use 1.98ata.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 06, 2005, 04:15:50 AM

Irrespective of perked or not, it shouldn't be using 1.98 in that case, it would hardly be a 'representative' K-4.

Gotta keep thinking TOD not just the MA.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: justin_g on August 06, 2005, 04:58:54 AM

Hmm, lets see...

Bf109E-4  - DB 601A - 1.3ata, 1100ps = 570kph@4.5km
Bf109F-4  - DB 601E - limited boost: 1.3ata, 1200ps = 640kph@6km
Bf109G-2  - DB 605A - limited boost: 1.3ata, 1310ps = 630kph@6.6km

Bf109G-6  - DB 605A - full boost: 1.42ata, 1475ps = 635kph@6.6km

Bf109G-14 - DB 605AM - MW50: 1.75ata, 1800ps = 665kph@5km
Bf109K-4  - DB 605DB - MW50: 1.8ata, 1850ps = 710kph@7.5km

The issues I can see are:

1. G-2 has to cover alot of time until the G-6 becomes useable because full boost(1.42ata) wasn't authorised until early '44 iirc.

2. No high-altitude model until the K-4. Either need G-14/AS or G-10 with a plain DB 605D.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 06, 2005, 05:23:54 AM

Always going to be a problem having some gaps.
Spits have same probs, 12 months in some cases, its just a question of getting along with the bare minimum.
Trying to spread the gaps evenly.

eg a Vc and LF IX would have been nice, just overkill.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: MiloMorai on August 06, 2005, 05:25:26 AM

service introduction dates

F-2 - Oct 1940
F-4 - June 1941
G-2 - May 1942
G-4 - Nov 1942
G-6 - Feb 1943
G-6/AS - early 1944
G-14 - July 1944
G-10 - Oct 1944
K-4 - Oct 1944

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 06, 2005, 05:26:30 AM

Lol you actually think youll get 9?
Hard enough getting 6, maybe only 5 Spits, might be time to start thinking realistically.
Pyro monitored out Spit lineup thread, and we came up with an acceptable bare minimum of 6, he agrees with 5 and is thinking about the last one.

K-4 and G-14 I can see getting in, do'nt know enough about the 1943 and earlier stuff, apart from the E4 (missing off your list so that makes 10 lol)

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: MiloMorai on August 06, 2005, 05:39:51 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Lol you actually think youll get 9?
Hard enough getting 6, maybe only 5 Spits, might be time to start thinking realistically.
Pyro monitored out Spit lineup thread, and we came up with an acceptable bare minimum of 6, he agrees with 5 and is thinking about the last one.

K-4 and G-14 I can see getting in, do'nt know enough about the 1943 and earlier stuff, apart from the E4 (missing off your list so that makes 10 lol)

Kev was not asking for 9. People can lobby for the ones they think would be the most appropriate.

No E as the book I took the dates from is for the F to K.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 06, 2005, 05:43:32 AM

Ah OK sorry, so out of the 10 including an E-4 what would be your 'bare' minimum choice? Guessing the LW will get around 6 also.

Quick question
k4 using 1.98ata - pushes it up to 2000HP?

Still think Karnak list has the best chance, with a 1.8ata K-4

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: MiloMorai on August 06, 2005, 06:04:36 AM

F-2 - Oct 1940 no, as the E-4 covers
F-4 - June 1941
G-2 - May 1942
G-4 - Nov 1942 no, too close to the G-6
G-6 - Feb 1943  
G-6/AS - early 1944
G-14 - July 1944 no, G-6/AS covers
G-10 - Oct 1944 no as the K-4 covers
K-4 - Oct 1944 1.80ata

Thinks that spreads the dates out to cover.

K-4 - yes as long as C3 and MW50 was used with 1.98

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 06, 2005, 06:09:18 AM

Pretty well close to Karnaks, apart from the extra G6 and missing the G-14.

Think it's getting close to a concensus for you guys.

Still say because of the rarity of 1.98ata K-4's and bearing in mind TOD, it won't happen.
Definately see the 1.8ata K-4 though (as per your list).

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: MiloMorai on August 06, 2005, 06:13:04 AM

Only reason went with the G-6/AS is that there is a large time gap between the G-6 and G-14. The /AS fills this hole.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 06, 2005, 06:15:34 AM

I see, like I said apart from the E4 dont know a lot about 109's 1943 and earlier.

Would guess the common 5 will get in +1 of the others.

Still betting on a very mild perk for the K-4 (5 or something around there).
I know the P47N - Well up to now unless a country is ENY'ed about every P47 you run across is an 'N', so who knows, Pyro considered perking it on introduction.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kurfürst on August 06, 2005, 08:31:53 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Irrespective of perked or not, it shouldn't be using 1.98 in that case, it would hardly be a 'representative' K-4.

Gotta keep thinking TOD not just the MA.

Well in that case we shouldn`t have +21 lbs boost Spit XIVs, which were even rarer than 1.98ata K-4s, and did not see much airal combat at that boost until Janurary/February 1945.

I find it very 'funny' that you ask for +21lbs Spitfire XIVs in the Spit thread, used by only 5 Squadrons from February 1945,
while you are against the 1.98ata K-4 which was used by 4x3= 12 Squadrons...

'Slight' bias, eh?

Given that at that time there were around 300 109Ks around on strenght, and about 150 of them in four Wings were using 1.98ata (50%),.it`s hardly rare or not representative or should not be included. Let`s not have MkXIV at all then, since it was so rare it was not a representive type at all, right?

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Bronk on August 06, 2005, 09:21:37 AM

IF kufurst is correct. Then both planes  both planes should be implemented in there rare form.  Because we have the uber rare 3 cannon la7. Just my thoughts.



Bronk

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: MiloMorai on August 06, 2005, 09:52:12 AM

Actually it was a total of 142 on hand with only 79 servicable in the 4 Gruppen. So we have only 6 or 7 K-4s @ 1.98 per Staffel and even less if the Stabs have any. This is less than 1/2 of the servicable Spit XIVs in the ETO.

Quote

Well in that case we shouldn`t have +21 lbs boost Spit XIVs, which were even rarer than 1.98ata K-4s, and did not see much aerial combat at that boost until Janurary/February 1945.

The RAE commented on the Griffon 65 engine in Tech. Note No. Eng. 316 from July 1944 "Due to main bearing troubles, these engines are at present limited to + 21 lb./sq.in. boost pressure although they will be capable of operation at +25 lb./sq.in. boost pressure in the future".

So when has July 1944 become Jan/Feb 1945.

So out of the ~1700 K-4s built, the K-4 @ 1.98 represents only ~8% (with ~92% @ 1.80) of the build. This is in contrast to the greater percentage number for Spit XIVs which were 21lb boost.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: 1K3 on August 06, 2005, 12:51:03 PM

Final verdict (for me)

* Give 109K-4 the 1.98 ata boost (and yes, these are limited)
* Give Spitfire 14  the +21 (and yes, these are limited)
* Perk them both

:)

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Krusty on August 06, 2005, 01:03:05 PM

I see no need for a G-4. We have the G-2 and the G-6. There's no real gap between them, performance wise.

However, I see a gap after the 1940 E-4. It cannot really substitute for a mid-range 109 until the f-4 entered the scene, as it is woefully obsolete compared to all other planes between the E-4 and the F-4. I think the slightly more powerful E-7/n with pointed spinner and drop tank capability would bridge the gap, and allow use in several theaters and fill an important role (that of the 109E after the BOB, it *did* serve on until 1942, let's remember)

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kurfürst on August 06, 2005, 01:19:06 PM

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Actually it was a total of 142 on hand with only 79 servicable in the 4 Gruppen. So we have only 6 or 7 K-4s @ 1.98 per Staffel and even less if the Stabs have any. This is less than 1/2 of the servicable Spit XIVs in the ETO.

[/B]

Wrong.

The maximum number of Spit XIV was 120 in Europe, in 6 Sqns., by the end of 1944.This includes unservicable planes, as well as unit reserves -
vs. 300+ K-4s in service at the time, almost three times the number.

Each RAF Sqn would fly 12 planes into combat sortie, if those were available. 12x6 =72 operational planes (vs. about 200-250 operational K-4s).

Only 5 XIV Sqns were cleared for +21 lbs begining in 1945 :
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/2taf150_112044.gif

That`s 5 x 20 planes being modified = 100 XIVs,

vs 142 1.98ata K-4s, 42% higher.

but only

5 x 12 = max 60 flying operational sorties on +21 lbs (provided the planes were serviceable),

vs. 79 K-4s which we know were servicable.


The RAE commented on the Griffon 65 engine in Tech. Note No. Eng. 316 from July 1944 "Due to main bearing troubles, these engines are at present limited to + 21 lb./sq.in. boost pressure although they will be capable of operation at +25 lb./sq.in. boost pressure in the future".

So when has July 1944 become Jan/Feb 1945.

No more than +21 lbs was allowed even in OCTOBER 1945 :


"Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment
Boscombe Down
10 October 1945
Spitfire F. Mk. 21 LA.187
(Griffon 61)

Climb and Level Speed Trials

The relevant limatations at the time of the test were :-


Condition.................... .............  Boost lb/sq.in. R.P.M.  
Maximum for climbing (normal rating) +9 2600  
Maximum for combat (5 mins. limit *) +21 2750  

.....* A concession has been granted to allow combat rating to be used continuously on the climb at this Establishment. "


Moreover, there`s no evidence at all that +25 lbs was ever cleared but there`s evidence it was strictly forbidden.

Given the number of K-4s being about 3 times that of XIVs, and given that there were about 50% more K-4s operating on high boost than XIVs, it would make sense to model both at +21/1.98ata, and perk the XIV 50% with higher value than the 109K, also because on the whole, XIVs were very rare amongst Spits while 109Ks were rather common (25% of all 109 types was a 109K, XIV percantage amongst Spits was less than 10%)

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 06, 2005, 02:00:12 PM

120 in 6 sqns - thought you would have learnt by now (in fact it was 7)

1 sqn in the RAF INCLUDING unserviceables/reserves by the RAF's OWN figures is measured at 30 planes not 20.
You have been told this countless times but as usual continue to ignore it.

So were now up to 210 MINIMUM (ie 7x30). NB:Your own site including reserves list over 200

They won't be at 25, only 21. (do you bother reading ANYTHING)

Anyway this was about 1.98.
If MiloMorai is correct in that ata1.98 only became available the last few months of the war how many K4s were available in 1944 doesn't matter.
What would matter is how many were around then and out of them how many could use it. ( <100 around, how many could use it).
No point comparing end of 1944 strengths when what you would like was only available last few months of war (150 grade 1st used May 1944). So no it wouldn't make sense to model both the same.
Unless you can show that over 50% of the remaining K4's in the last few months used 1.98ata.

RE: WE know 79 were serviceable. Was this pick 1 figure for the best looking day? What was the average serviceable for the last few months when ata1.98 was available?
Because you can guarentee the 14's would be at full strength, i.e. 84 (7x12), and thats ASSUMING that no more operational squadrons went to the Spit 14 after 1944 (unlikely).

As I said - Picking 1944 figures and using them to justify the last few months of the war - doesnt work.
Post figures for the last few months when ata1.98 was available and we'll get somewhere then.

Even perking the Spit 50% higher puts the K4 at 10 perks, only you and Krusty accept a perked K4, everyone else wants it free.
Should be perked irregardless of 1.98ata or not.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: MiloMorai on August 06, 2005, 03:12:54 PM

Kev took the data 'straight from the horse's mouth', Kurfy's own site on the K-4.

He list 7 Spit XIV squadrons as of 14th December 1944: #41 Squadron, #130 Squadron, #350 Squadron, #402 Squadron, #610 Squadron, #430 Squadron, #2 Squadron.

You might like to amend your Spit number. :)

Remember he sees only that which supports his agenda and ignore all that does not. He also at times has a comprehension problem and is easily sidetracked. ie his rant in reply to my post, and below.

So a test done from Mar to July 1945 means that 21lb was not authorized til Oct 45.:rolleyes:  And this was for a Griffon 61, not the Griffon 65. Crasping at straws are we?

To refresh your memory:

The RAE commented on the Griffon 65 engine in Tech. Note No. Eng. 316 from July 1944 "Due to main bearing troubles, these engines are at present limited to + 21 lb./sq.in. boost pressure although they will be capable of operation at +25 lb./sq.in. boost pressure in the future".

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 06, 2005, 03:29:11 PM

RE: Kurfursts suggested perk rate -

Perk is not based on rarity alone, or the 152 would be considerably higher that it is. But rather on that and overall performance.

Bearing in mind -
"Perhaps it has to do with the 15-30 mph level speed advantage displayed by the 109K-4 over the Mk XIV Spitfire, at all practical combat altitudes from Sea Level all the way up to 24 000 ft, even when compared to Mike`s own estimation/imagination of it`s +21 boost performance."

Nice Kurfurst (from your own site), you just proved a K4 should be at least equal to Spit XIV in perks, thankyou.

Whats sad is that all the latest Spit/109 threads have been hotly debated but cordial, until Kurfurst showed up accusing people of lying etc. Posting data that it selective and in some cases contradicts his own site.

Another from his site -
Olivier Lefebvre, noted authority on the BF 109, has stated:

AFAIK 1.98ata boost was cleared late February but it seems to have been slowly introduced into service, I suspect the adjustments needed on the engine and the change of sparkplugs type (supply problems ???) took longer than expected. From other documents I know that C3 and B4 had severe quality problems beginning in late 1944. While it was not much of a problem with low boost, it had some serious effect on higher boost, so it might also have slowed down the introduction of 1.98ata boost. At least DB documents underlined the need for cleaner fuels than those in use at that time. You can safely assume that by March 1945 1.98 ata boost was being introduced, unfortunately I do not have much details for April 1945, but I doubt it would have changed much, given the situation.

So we can ASSUME 1.98 was introduced from March 1945, and on another thread hes complaining about 150 grade fuel we KNOW started use in May 1944. (admitted on his site surprisingly)

Be very wary about Kurfursts comparisons - While the data is usually very accurate he will take data from say 1942 and use it to justify his claims for 1944.
Check the 100 grade in Spit 1 thread. He uses 1944 8th AF fuel usage to try a disprove RAF 100 grade fuel usage in 1940, ignoring the fact 1944 aircraft were more thirsty and carried many times more fuel than a 1940 Spit/Hurri.
The same is happening here using 1944 strengths to justify a 1945 1.98ATA K-4.

We know 79 were serviceable - When? Which date? How many day before, how many 2 days after, or is it pick the date which best suits you?
I worked on helis for 9 years, out of 12 aircraft an average of 2 or 3 would be U/S on any given day, but someitmes it would be all 12 were OK, other days 6 might be down. So I could pick a good day and say we know 12 were serviceable.

Everything on your own site site Kurfurst shows there is NO reason to have a 1.98 K-4 in AH2.

To sum up
VE Day was May 1945, 'maybe' (a big maybe) K4 using 1.98ata at the earliest March 1945, more likely April (if at all).  

Anyone with sanity got something constructive to add to this interesting debate.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 06, 2005, 05:33:19 PM

Sorry guys tried to delete last post , as the K-4 using 1.98 deserves it own thread, this should more correctly be kept to 109 lineup suggestions, rather than rare and fancyfull variations.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Meyer on August 06, 2005, 11:38:00 PM

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Only reason went with the G-6/AS is that there is a large time gap between the G-6 and G-14. The /AS fills this hole.

Negative, G-6/AS didn't had MW50.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 06, 2005, 11:58:10 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Meyer
Negative, G-6/AS didn't had MW50.

Prob Karnaks list is better then?

Thats what I like, I learn something new every day, thanks Meyer.

How is the MW50 modelled in AH2.
I believe there was enough carried for 26 mins, with a max duration of 10 mins?
Anyone ever been up long enough to see if you can exceed 26 mins?

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: justin_g on August 07, 2005, 04:18:36 AM

Considering service dates & performance differences

1940: Bf 109E-4 - DB601A-1 with 4.5km rated altitude = 360mph@16,400ft
1941: Bf 109F-4 - DB601E, limited boost of 1.3ata = 395mph@19,680ft
1942: Bf 109G-2 - DB605A-1, limited boost of 1.3ata = 391mph@21,650ft
1943: Bf 109G-6 - DB605A-1, limited boost of 1.3ata = ???
1944 early: Bf 109G-14[/i] - DB605AM(MW50) = 352mph@S/L, 413mph@16,400ft (new model, basically G-6 with MW50, tall rudder and "Erla Haube")
1944 late: Bf 109G-10 - DB605D(MW50) = 348mph@S/L, 428mph@24,500ft (de-tuned from current G-10 to realistic performance)
1945: Bf 109K-4 - DB605DB(1.8ata) = 370mph@S/L, 444mph @ 24,500ft (new model, but with similar performance to current G-10)

1. It would seem that more than half of the G-14 actually had the high altitude ASM engine, but keeping it with the medium altitude AM engine would allow it to substitute for the existing G-6 that had MW50 kits fitted in 1944.

2. The G-10 with it's high altitude D engine and MW50 would cover for the G-14/AS and represent the 109 in the latter part of 1944.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kurfürst on August 07, 2005, 05:01:25 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
120 in 6 sqns - thought you would have learnt by now (in fact it was 7)

1 sqn in the RAF INCLUDING unserviceables/reserves by the RAF's OWN figures is measured at 30 planes not 20.

No, a RAF squadron is 12 planes, + 8 reserves.

Quote

[So were now up to 210 MINIMUM (ie 7x30). NB:Your own site including reserves list over 200

They won't be at 25, only 21. (do you bother reading ANYTHING

No, now we have an idition at the minimum, who is making up wet dreams about it, eh?

You keep ignoring the RAF`s own strenght reports, that say there were only 120 maximum at a time, and these included the unit`s reserves as well.

In fact that`s less than the number of Me 262 is service (160-200).

As for the 7 MkXIV sqns, no, 6 fighters, an one FR unit that used FRXIV in mix with Mustang Is. Hardly counts, it wasn`t tasked with fighter sorties.

Quote

nyway this was about 1.98.
If MiloMorai is correct in that ata1.98 only became available the last few months of the war how many K4s were available in 1944 doesn't matter.

Tell us why....

Quote

What would matter is how many were around then and out of them how many could use it. ( <100 around, how many could use it).

Well there were 142 109K-4s around that used 1.98ata, and that`s around half the K-4s.

One can see the use of 1.98ata was very common. More common then the use of +21 lbs boost.

Quote

No point comparing end of 1944 strengths when what you would like was only available last few months of war (150 grade 1st used May 1944). So no it wouldn't make sense to model both the same.

Quote

Unless you can show that over 50% of the remaining K4's in the last few months used 1.98ata.

But I already did.

Quote

As I said - Picking 1944 figures and using them to justify the last few months of the war - doesnt work.

Right. You were picking 1944 figures for +21 lbs boost for the XIV, so there should be NO +21lbs XIV at all, just perked XIVs at +18.

Unlike you, I picked figures from 1945, so 1.98ata is justified as a perked plane, because of it`s performance.

Quote

Post figures for the last few months when ata1.98 was available and we'll get somewhere then.

It has been already posted on the site that 1.98ata was available in January, at least in as much number as +21lbs in the RAF.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kurfürst on August 07, 2005, 05:04:04 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Meyer
Negative, G-6/AS didn't had MW50.

Errr, this is half correct. It`s better to say that not ALL G-6/AS had MW50. They were conversions, and many of them were converted from G-6/U2, resulting in G-6/AS/U2. These /U2 machines most likely had MW50, while the other had.

Ie. The /U2 and /U3 designatation meant the installation of GM-1 or MW50 tank and system in the plane, and these could be easily converted to each other, just nozzles were changed afaik. Early MW50 109s were generally converted from G-6/U2.

There`s also evidence for G-5/AS w. MW50 from Knoke.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: MiloMorai on August 07, 2005, 05:10:35 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Meyer
Negative, G-6/AS didn't had MW50.

Did I say it did? It did have the larger supercharger which gave it better altitude performance over the 'plain Jane' G-6 of '43.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: MiloMorai on August 07, 2005, 06:26:48 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Kurfürst
As for the 7 MkXIV sqns, no, 6 fighters, an one FR unit that used FRXIV in mix with Mustang Is. Hardly counts, it wasn`t tasked with fighter sorties.


My dear Kurfy, FR XIVs still had guns.  You have no idea of the operations of FR a/c.


Well there were 142 109K-4s around that used 1.98ata, and that`s around half the K-4s.

One can see the use of 1.98ata was very common. More common then the use of +21 lbs boost.


But only 55% were operational while all XIV squadrons had fully operational a/c. The question remains of how many were really flying using 1.98.

There is still the question of the availabilty of C3 fuel which was required with 1.98. You still have not produced official documented proof of C3 deliveries to the 4 Gruppen, only speculation.


But I already did.


No, you have only shown that they were cleared for 1.98


Right. You were picking 1944 figures for +21 lbs boost for the XIV, so there should be NO +21lbs XIV at all, just perked XIVs at +18.


21lb boost was cleared from July 1944 dispite your feeble attemps to say other wise.


Unlike you, I picked figures from 1945, so 1.98ata is justified as a perked plane, because of it`s performance.


Yes, a highly perked a/c.


It has been already posted on the site that 1.98ata was available in January, at least in as much number as +21lbs in the RAF.

Is that so? Since when is  a grand total of 10 a/c (less than a Staffel) that were being used for testing equal to the number of operational XIVs? 1.98 was not cleared officially for another couple of months. Maybe the XIV should get 25lb boost since it was being tested.

This is part of a rough translation posted by wastel, http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=730&st=0

The JG’s (this is the testing unit, JG11) in field complain about the plug failurs. Especially in the last time the number of failurs increased. DB reports about improoved plug modells and better quality control e.g. with x-ray controlling. Again DB points out that the cooling of the 109 is insufficient and wishes that the LW will solve this problem asap. This was mentioned by Gen.-Ing Paul and arrangements where done instandly.
DB points out that the performance of the “cell” (fuselage/wings) is extremely bad, and even worser J. It makes no sense to increase the power output of the engine when on the other side the plane quality is decreasing dramatically. Is is reported that a coparison of a 109 with a mustang was arranged for Mr. Sauer, but he failed to come.
The result of the comparison was, spoken of produktion quality only, shocking for the 109.

I don't remember seeing this in Kurfy's article but it is understandable why it is not.

Title: G2 boost pressure
Post by: mora on August 07, 2005, 06:59:47 AM

The Finnish G2 flight manual (http://www.bf109.com/acrobat/bf109g2.pdf) from march 1943 states that the G2 has a max. boost pressure of 1.42 ata. As the G2 we have is a Finnish one, it should have 1.42 ata boost pressure. We need two G2 variants, or the Finnish one has to be omitted, if the future G2 will have 1.3 ata.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: justin_g on August 07, 2005, 07:08:40 AM

The Finnish manual also says:

Quote

*Note: Takeoff and WEP setting must not be used. The particular switch has therefore been disconnected.

1.42ata wasn't approved for use until late '43 iirc.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kurfürst on August 07, 2005, 07:12:51 AM

AFAIK, the 1.42ata rating was either approved in June 1943 or Sept/Oct 1943. Butch2k says the latter is valid.

Until this date, 109G-2 run on 1.3ata, with a max speed of 666 kph at altitude, about 415mph.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: mora on August 07, 2005, 09:12:45 AM

Quote

Originally posted by justin_g
The Finnish manual also says:

1.42ata wasn't approved for use until late '43 iirc.

oops..:(

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Charge on August 07, 2005, 05:09:52 PM

"*Note: Takeoff and WEP setting must not be used. The particular switch has therefore been disconnected."

Wasn't that because the Finns had to fly double or triple the hours with those engines than the Germans? So it was logical to prevent the use of higher boost which, by experience, was the cause of most engine failures and rapid wear. The speed of G2 with lower boost was enough at that time.

-C+

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: MiloMorai on August 07, 2005, 06:15:50 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Only diff between an F and FR verison of ANY Spit was the FR had cameras fitted - it still carried a FULL complement of guns and ammo - Hence FR - Fighter Recconaissence, NOT PR - Photographis Recon which carried no guns.

I.e. 1 sqn of Pink FR IX's on D-Day. :)

Ooops it missed out all the original quote - pertains to kurfys/Milos post above.

NP Kev.:)

It is just another of his crasping at straws.  

To help with his education, the PR version of the XIV was the XIX. This a/c carried no guns. 220 of the PR XIX saw service in the ET and a few more in other theatres. (ref StH)

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 07, 2005, 06:23:10 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Well in that case we shouldn`t have +21 lbs boost Spit XIVs, which were even rarer than 1.98ata K-4s, and did not see much airal combat at that boost until Janurary/February 1945.

I find it very 'funny' that you ask for +21lbs Spitfire XIVs in the Spit thread, used by only 5 Squadrons from February 1945,
while you are against the 1.98ata K-4 which was used by 4x3= 12 Squadrons...

'Slight' bias, eh?

Given that at that time there were around 300 109Ks around on strenght, and about 150 of them in four Wings were using 1.98ata (50%),.it`s hardly rare or not representative or should not be included. Let`s not have MkXIV at all then, since it was so rare it was not a representive type at all, right?

You still haven't produced ANY evidence to backup all 79 remaining K4's used 1.98ata.

Actaully there were 7 sqns including an FR one, yes they carried guns also as MiloMoria said. So that now makes 84 operational Spit 14's.

What you are trying to say is - there were 11 K4 aircaft using 1.98ata in Jan 45 (operational testing only), therefore all remaining K4's in April 1945 must have been using it also, despite evidence from

Mar 20 1945 - The only 4 x K4 wings remaining TO BE boosted to 1.98ata , not already boosted.
Converison was SLOW, the expert assumes problems getting parts.
April 1945 - 79 K4's left operational, where does 150 come from? Oh yeah I forgot - NON OPERATIONAL aircraft. In that case its 7 Spit 14 squadrons including non op = 140 aicraft (thats Jan 45 NOT Apr 45).

So you want me to believe that despite -
Supply problems
Fuel problems
- every one of the remaining K4's in Apr 1945 were miraculously (engine fairies?) boosted to 1.98 all within 1 month of the end of the war? and within the 20 day period allowed from Mar 20 to April 9?
This isn't as simple as going from regular unleaded to super unleaded fuel you realise?

PROVE IT.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Squire on August 07, 2005, 06:24:33 PM

You know, we had several very long threads on the Spitfire series, without it immediately sinking into a mud slinging s*** storm. :mad:

Try harder boys.

The topic was new 109s. Stick to that. Give reasons and references.

If you want another endless rant a thon, create a thread for that.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 07, 2005, 06:33:54 PM

I just ref Kurfys own site, its, easier.

Actaully it was a nice discussion (without Spits) until Kurfy appeared spreading his BS again.

Spit 14 only came into it because of his inaccurate comparisons of Dec 1944/Jan 1945 Spit 14 operational only strengths vs 150 April 45 combined op and non operational K4 strengths.  

Its an easy logical conclusion -

a) Mar 20th 1945 - Ordered that the remaining 3 K-4 units and 1 G10 unit are boosted to 1.98ata (note ordered, not already boosted).

b) Conversion to 1.98ata was slow (off Kurfys site again)

c) April 9th (20 days later) - 79 operational K4's left.

d) May 1945 - End of war

So what is more reasonable? Given a country that was around 10 weeks from surrendering from the Mar 20 order, and was getting attacked 24 hrs a day.

1) There were K-4 1.98ata birds, but very very few in numbers must have been a lot less than 79

or

2) everyone of the remaining 79 K-4's had been converted.

or

3) I need a drink (double preferably ;) ).

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kweassa on August 07, 2005, 07:33:58 PM

No more, no less.

1940: Bf 109E-4
1941: Bf 109F-4
1942: Bf 109G-2
1943: Bf 109G-6
1944: Bf 109G-14
1944: Bf 109G-10
1945: Bf 109K-4

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Krusty on August 07, 2005, 08:23:27 PM

Kweassa, I honestly think we can get by without 2 planes inserted between the G-6 and the "AH2 G10". I think we can do it in 1

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Meyer on August 07, 2005, 10:25:08 PM

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Did I say it did? It did have the larger supercharger which gave it better altitude performance over the 'plain Jane' G-6 of '43.

You didn't .. but I don't know how a G6/AS would "fills the hole" of a G14, when a G14 is a G6 with MW50.

So you take out a 109 with a good low alt performance (G14)  and want to replace it with a 109 with high alt perfomance (G6/AS).

I think that is wrong...


@Kurfurst: rgr that, but can we agree that most G-6/AS didn't had MW50, and it would be a better representation of the 6/AS if is modeled without it?

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: MiloMorai on August 07, 2005, 10:47:52 PM

Let me repeat myself Meyer.

Only reason went with the G-6/AS is that there is a large time gap between the G-6 and G-14 introduction. The /AS fills this hole.

You point does have some merit though, but what does the LW use to fill the time gap? You want the LW to wait a year and a half to have a competive a/c? And the K-4 shows up only a few months later than the G-14.

I would be OK with giving the G-6/AS MW50 as a concession.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: justin_g on August 08, 2005, 04:22:13 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Kweassa, I honestly think we can get by without 2 planes inserted between the G-6 and the "AH2 G10". I think we can do it in 1

G-14 would represent the medium altitude 1944 Gustav(G-5,6,14) with the AM engine, I believe existing previous versions of the Gustav still in use were converted to this standard - this a/c would be useful in Ost Front scenarios.

G-10 would represent the high altitude 1944 Gustav(G-14/AS, G-10) with the ASM engine(DB 605D engine used in the G-10 offers very similar performance to ASM) - this would be the a/c of choice for the Western Front scenarios.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: butch2k on August 08, 2005, 04:56:29 AM

No conversion of the previous aiframe to the new standard, 200 G-14 were even produced w/o MW-50 due to lack of parts...

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: hogenbor on August 08, 2005, 05:01:35 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
So what is more reasonable? Given a country that was around 10 weeks from surrendering from the Mar 20 order, and was getting attacked 24 hrs a day.

Don't believe al that anti-German propaganda, they never lost the war. Daimler owns Chrysler, Volkswagen owns Bentley and BMW owns Rolls-Royce. And it can only be a matter of time before Toyota buys GM. How did that ever happen? :D

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Charge on August 08, 2005, 05:19:57 AM

Quote

Originally posted by hogenbor
Don't believe al that anti-German propaganda, they never lost the war. Daimler owns Chrysler, Volkswagen owns Bentley and BMW owns Rolls-Royce. And it can only be a matter of time before Toyota buys GM. How did that ever happen? :D

Awww, such nice posts. Hey, lets ask HTC to model those planes in relation to the situation they were manufatured in. Im sure would be fun zipping around in 2000+ hp spits blasting down 109s and 190s flying with speeds and manuverability equal to C47. That would be fair as they did lose the war after all? :D :D

-C+

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 08, 2005, 05:27:26 AM

Lol
According to Kurfys own figures there were approx 33 sqns (396 op aircraft 660 total), Spit IX at 25 boost jan 45.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: justin_g on August 08, 2005, 05:34:31 AM

Quote

Originally posted by butch2k
No conversion of the previous aiframe to the new standard, 200 G-14 were even produced w/o MW-50 due to lack of parts...

Didn't know that. I always thought the G-14 was a standardisation of the mess of G-6 variants in service.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: FalconSix on August 08, 2005, 05:39:43 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Irrespective of perked or not, it shouldn't be using 1.98 in that case, it would hardly be a 'representative' K-4.

Gotta keep thinking TOD not just the MA.

Fuel availability is really irrelevant. IIRC HTC models the planes in ideal conditions, i.e. no production quality problems, fuel problems etc.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 08, 2005, 06:07:33 AM

Why -
Without fuel it wouldn't fly.
I could have 1000 uberboostedspithizookamonster s requiring 2000 grade fuel for top performance, or 1000 grade fuel for a lesser performance.
If I only had enough 2000 grade to run 10 of them would that be considered fair to include it in AH2?
Or would it more properly be at its lower performace on a lower grade fuel that was more available.

Exaggerated I know, but shows what I'm getting at.

The whole K4 1.98ata is based on
1700 produced, by April 9 1945 there were 79 left operational = 4.6%.

What is being suggested is that that whole 4.6% was running 1.98ata, without 1 piece of solid evidence, lots of assume, likely assume, presume etc.
This is despite numerous holes being blown in Kurfys assumptions.
His own C3 fuel consumption figures for April 1945 can't even support it!!!!

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: FalconSix on August 08, 2005, 06:26:26 AM

Kev, the 109G-10 and K-4 engine was designed to run at 1.98 ata. You're talking about boosting an engine beyond designed limitations. Quite the difference.

The G-10 we have already runs on 1.98 if I'm not mistaken.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Charge on August 08, 2005, 06:37:54 AM

I doubt it would not make much difference if it were 1.98 in practice. But if it was not it would be another "coffin nail" for ToD LW. (FW190A8 is already one of those...)

I think it is a fact that in MA it would be a rare bird even unperked if it only has 30mm because IMO that gun reduces its effectiviness quite a lot.

-C+

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: FalconSix on August 08, 2005, 06:50:13 AM

We have "the best possible" G-10 configuration in AH. It is practically a K-4 with an optional 20mm. The K-4 would be only slightly faster due to some reduced drag. 370-380mph on the deck compared to the 367mph of our current G-10.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 08, 2005, 07:01:35 AM

Quote

Originally posted by FalconSix
Kev, the 109G-10 and K-4 engine was designed to run at 1.98 ata. You're talking about boosting an engine beyond designed limitations. Quite the difference.

The G-10 we have already runs on 1.98 if I'm not mistaken.

G-10 is being dropped according to Pyro.

Designed or not, there is actually a greater case for a 190 on C3 than any 109.
Designed doesn't mean it ran it, in fact everything points to the conclusion that the primary user of C3 was the 190s, up until as late as March 19 1945.

(http://www.jg300.de/images/Dokumente/RLM07_-_558_Auszug.gif)

Shame it isn't all visible, but at least shows -
190 using C3 extensively, only K4 unit visible is on B4. Bearing in mind C3 is required for 1.98ata.

1 day later an order was issued to convert the 3 K4 units to 1.98ata, but nothing has been produced to show this actually happened. Look at the date, the war ended 1.5 months later!!!

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: FalconSix on August 08, 2005, 07:04:01 AM

Arguing over fuel availability might be interesting from a historical standpoint, but for game play it is a mute point. The Aces High main arena is nothing like a historical WWII simulator. It's a game played using simulated WWII equipment. And if you're wondering why it is called the main arena, just think about where HTC makes its money. The MA or the CT? *holds up the proverbial scale*

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: FalconSix on August 08, 2005, 07:06:43 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
G-10 is being dropped according to Pyro.

Designed or not, there is actually a greater case for a 190 on C3 than any 109.
Designed doesn't mean it ran it, in fact everything points to the conclusion that the primary user of C3 was the 190s, up until as late as March 1945.

It does not matter what it ran on 60 years ago. AH is not a historical WWII game. All radial engined 190s ran on C3. The BMW801 engine could not run on B4.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 08, 2005, 07:08:21 AM

I totally agree, but considering the apparent rarity of a K4 @ 1.98ata and bearing in mind TOD and scenarios (could only be used April 45 onwards).
Do you not think a K4 1.8ata which covers 1944/45 is more useful?

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: FalconSix on August 08, 2005, 07:12:23 AM

And btw. what possible scenario would feature a K-4 anyways? A 1000 B-24s and 100 P-51s against 30 109s perhaps? Let's face it, none of the late war LW planes can possibly be used for a "historic" setup that would be remotely fair or fun for the LW guys. Mid 1944 before D-day would be the last playable historic date for the LW. Perhaps some sort of Bodenplatte scenario could be set up, but that's about it.

The 109G-10 and K-4 are MA birds, nothing more. The only reason the G-10 has been used in scenarios so far is because we have no G-14.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 08, 2005, 07:15:40 AM

Well I would assume that as TOD is initally 8th AF based that it may well go all the way to 44 and beyond.
Speaking to Pyro re: the Spit lineup, he consistently mentioned TOD and scenarios. Hence no MA only Spits, and there could be quite a few of them.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: FalconSix on August 08, 2005, 07:23:49 AM

I don't see how any late '44 and '45 TOD tours could be anything like historical. Do you?

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 08, 2005, 07:25:05 AM

Considering it will include AI aircraft, why not?

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: FalconSix on August 08, 2005, 07:27:10 AM

1000+ allied planes against perhaps 50-100 LW. Does that sound doable in a game to you?

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 08, 2005, 07:31:44 AM

No idea.

Would guess it isn't impossible, problem is lack of details on TOD.
Maybe Pyro will cover that angle (1944-->) just in case.
As I said he did constantly mention it to the point where not only was the Spit IX/XVI @25lbs (late 44/early45) unsuitable for the MA but also for TOD and scenarios.

Despite it apparently being the best matchup for a G-14 at any boost.

Who knows lol.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: hogenbor on August 08, 2005, 07:32:40 AM

Quote

Originally posted by FalconSix
And btw. what possible scenario would feature a K-4 anyways? A 1000 B-24s and 100 P-51s against 30 109s perhaps? Let's face it, none of the late war LW planes can possibly be used for a "historic" setup that would be remotely fair or fun for the LW guys. Mid 1944 before D-day would be the last playable historic date for the LW. Perhaps some sort of Bodenplatte scenario could be set up, but that's about it.

The 109G-10 and K-4 are MA birds, nothing more. The only reason the G-10 has been used in scenarios so far is because we have no G-14.

Too true.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: FalconSix on August 08, 2005, 07:34:02 AM

Good luck finding players to fly those 50 LW rides. I sure won't. If that's how TOD turns out HTC can just save their time and drop the whole thing, because the players will be in the MA.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 08, 2005, 07:35:15 AM

Don't think it will go over too well period, once the novelty wears off.
Just another CT with bells and whistles.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: FalconSix on August 08, 2005, 07:36:57 AM

So you agree that the MA is the primary product of HTC and the plane set should reflect that?

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 08, 2005, 08:24:23 AM

Me personally, yes, and it will probably remain so.

But I still think 'exotic' aircraft should be kept to a minimum, maybe 1 or 2 each country, and that all should be perked.

I also think HT should set a minimum # on that type of aircraft or variant produced, prevents all these discussions.

for e.g. no aircraft that had less than 200 of that type or variant produced. Yes I realise we would lose a Spit 14 @ 21lbs, to be replaced by one @ 18lbs.
But somewhere a line has to drawn or it starts to get ridiculous.
200 is just a figure for example purposes, HT would decide on the final number be it higher or lower.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: FalconSix on August 08, 2005, 10:29:27 AM

I think the "line" is fine where it is. If it saw combat it's good. We have already established that the MA is not a historical setup, and that the MA is the main product of HTC. Wtf do you care if a rare WWII bird is represented? So what if there were only 200 F4U-1C's made or +21lbs spit16's. Who the f cares in a game environment? The perk cost is supposed to balance usage (not historical rareness).

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: justin_g on August 08, 2005, 10:48:01 AM

"It saw combat" seems to be the only criteria. One of the fighters already in AH only had 1 of it's type proven to "see combat"!! ;)

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: FalconSix on August 08, 2005, 11:20:21 AM

Which fighter is that Justin?

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Karnak on August 08, 2005, 11:44:08 AM

FalconSix,

For you info, HTC does model poor fuel  and reduced engine performance from it for the Japanese.  They don't seem to just go with the top end, ideal aircraft or the Ki-84 would be doing about 370mph on the deck and 425mph at 20,000ft.  That is what it was capable of with good maintainance and good fuel, as the tests in the US showed.  Instead it does 344mph on the deck and 388mph at 20,000ft.  Likewise the Spit XIV has is not modeled with 150 octane fuel, but rather with 100 octane.



EDIT:

The Ta152H-1 only has one known combat encounter that I know of, vs Tempests in a 2v2 which the Ta152's won 2 to 1 IIRC.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: MiloMorai on August 08, 2005, 12:05:27 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak

EDIT:

The Ta152H-1 only has one known combat encounter that I know of, vs Tempests in a 2v2 which the Ta152's won 2 to 1 IIRC.

Only one Tempest of #486 was lost piloted by Mitchell and even then he spun in. One 152 was also lost of the 4 flying (Sattler(killed), Reschke, Auffhammer, ???) that April 15 1945 but this was not due to being shot down in combat.

There was several encounter with Soviet a/c with several claims. (Reschke and Loos being the major claiments)

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: FalconSix on August 09, 2005, 12:48:51 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
FalconSix,

For you info, HTC does model poor fuel  and reduced engine performance from it for the Japanese.  They don't seem to just go with the top end, ideal aircraft or the Ki-84 would be doing about 370mph on the deck and 425mph at 20,000ft.  That is what it was capable of with good maintainance and good fuel, as the tests in the US showed.  Instead it does 344mph on the deck and 388mph at 20,000ft.

They model the Frank using Japanese fuel, the fuel it was designed to run on. Not the US fuel used in the 425mph test of a captured Frank. The Frank was never designed to run on US high-octane gas. A 1.98 ata K-4 would be running on German fuel, produced and used by Germany during the entire war (C3).

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 09, 2005, 04:32:19 AM

C3 was produced and used thoughout the entire war?

Didn't know that, but always willing to learn new stuff.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: FalconSix on August 09, 2005, 04:38:35 AM

The BMW801 radial engine used in the 190A series could only run on C3 fuel (roughly equivalent to US/UK 100/130 octane). So from 1941 onwards all 190 squadrons used C3 exclusively.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 09, 2005, 04:45:08 AM

Ok thanks.

Not quite the entire war though.
I know picky, but shows how a slight error in a claim could cause problems (I should know lol, I made a few last few days, but i learn't from them, so it's all good), no offense meant.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: MiloMorai on August 09, 2005, 04:47:42 AM

Quote

Originally posted by FalconSix The BMW801 radial engine used in the 190A series could only run on C3 fuel (roughly equivalent to US/UK 100/130 octane). So from 1941 onwards all 190 squadrons used C3 exclusively.

Not true, only the BMW801D-2 and after engine used C3 fuel. Previous models used B4 fuel. C3 was equivalent to Allied 100/150 fuel.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 09, 2005, 05:12:54 AM

And this would push C3 usage back to - Spring 1942?

Thank God Merlins are easier to keep track of.

What are definately LW equivalents (seen various claims)-
87 - B4?
100/130 -C3?
100/150

Any others?

Gotta admit I thought 100/130 was roughly equivalent to C3.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: FalconSix on August 09, 2005, 05:22:05 AM

Thanks Milo. Do you know when the Germans started producing C3 fuel?

And btw. you should be careful using words like "not true". "Incorrect" would have served the same purpose without implying I was lying.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: mora on August 09, 2005, 07:54:17 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
I also think HT should set a minimum # on that type of aircraft or variant produced, prevents all these discussions.

That would be a huge injustice. It would eliminate M205 and all other late war Italian planes. It would also eliminate Brewster B-239 which had a much bigger impact than many planes we currently have. Numbers don't tell squat about a planes impact on the war.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 09, 2005, 08:15:58 AM

Whoa dont get upset,
I totally agree numbers don't, but would be nice to have some standard that planes should reach to be introduced.
Be it impact, numbers made or anything else you can think of, or a combination, rather than the haphazard method used now.
Wouldn't it also depend at what level HT set the number?

This is only a discussion, everyone has their own ideas and point of view.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: FalconSix on August 09, 2005, 10:03:27 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
... but would be nice to have some standard that planes should reach to be introduced ...

Why? HTC decides which planes they want to have in the game. The "standard" is whatever HTC wants.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 09, 2005, 11:00:11 AM

You do realise these are public forums for people to express an opinion.
An opinion that may differ with your high and mighty one, but an opinion none the less.
Which is why when Mora quite correctly raised conscerns about certain planes, I asked him what he thought in his opinion would be a good idea or yardstick.

Yes it's HT game and he runs it as he sees fit, but he also listens to and agrees with some stuff on the forums.
If it wasn't for that you wouldn't have a Ki-84 with WEP.
You wouldn't have side ENY limits
You wouldn't have a minimum of 75% fuel
HQ would still be old hardness
The list goes on, and on ,and on.

Forums are for suggestions and discussions, guess thats why they call them forums, you don't agree with a suggestion , fine. You'd be surprised how many discussions  (some heated) by the community have actually led to game changes.

I just happen to think some common yardstick could be used, you don't.
Leave it at that.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Karnak on August 09, 2005, 11:04:47 AM

FalconSix,

The Ki-84 was designed to use the higher octane fuel, not the crap the Japanese had.  You're flat wrong.  It used their fuel because that is all they had.

Why else do you think it is using a derated engine?

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 09, 2005, 11:25:31 AM

Karnak - C3 Fuel, 100/130 or 100/150?

Seen both suggested, not just here either.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: straffo on August 09, 2005, 11:44:21 AM

if it was for realism all late 109 would be for newbies and perked for the experten :D

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Wotan on August 09, 2005, 11:50:09 AM

It's not that simple Kev...

C3 fuel had good rich mixture performance almost equal to 100/150 fuel.  Lean mixture performance was somewhat poorer.

Fischer-Tropsch (http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/tech_rpt_145_45/rpt_145_45_sec2.htm#Supply%20and%20sources.)

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Karnak on August 09, 2005, 12:14:03 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Karnak - C3 Fuel, 100/130 or 100/150?

Seen both suggested, not just here either.

I know it is a complex issue, I was just pointing out that AH does not model aircraft on an ideal best, it models them as the performed as closely as can be determined.

I don't personally have enough info to comment of the Bf109K-4 1.8ata vs 1.98ata.  I trust Pyro to do what is best.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 09, 2005, 12:58:48 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Wotan
It's not that simple Kev...

C3 fuel had good rich mixture performance almost equal to 100/150 fuel.  Lean mixture performance was somewhat poorer.

Fischer-Tropsch (http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/tech_rpt_145_45/rpt_145_45_sec2.htm#Supply%20and%20sources.)

Probably explain why both are stated as equivalent?

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: FalconSix on August 09, 2005, 03:14:31 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
FalconSix,

The Ki-84 was designed to use the higher octane fuel, not the crap the Japanese had.  You're flat wrong.  It used their fuel because that is all they had.

Why else do you think it is using a derated engine?

When did the Japanese use more than 87 octane avgas?

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Karnak on August 09, 2005, 03:20:43 PM

Ki-84 was designed for 90, and was running on 84, if that. I'd not be surprised if the late war crap was even below 80 octane.

The Japanese fuel in '44 and '45 was complete junk with stuff like pine additives to try to boost it.  We had crushed their ability to refine even 87 octane.

The Ki-84's engine was designed for fuel the Japanese couldn't produce anymore.  In addition it was designed to use Methanol/Water injection, the lack of which in the US test was used to justify the higher octane American fuel used.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: FalconSix on August 09, 2005, 03:23:55 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
In addition it was designed to use Methanol/Water injection, the lack of which in the US test was used to justify the higher octane American fuel used.

In that case shouldn't the Frank be faster in AH?

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: MiloMorai on August 09, 2005, 03:52:58 PM

Quote

Originally posted by FalconSix
And btw. you should be careful using words like "not true". "Incorrect" would have served the same purpose without implying I was lying.

If I wanted to call you a liar I would have said 'you lie'. ;)  :p  :)

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Karnak on August 09, 2005, 05:22:07 PM

Quote

Originally posted by FalconSix
In that case shouldn't the Frank be faster in AH?

My guess would be that due to the fuel and poor manufacturing quality in the late war the methanol/water wasn't used much, if at all.  Documentation is scarce though.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 10, 2005, 02:44:35 AM

Quote

Originally posted by FalconSix
The BMW801 radial engine used in the 190A series could only run on C3 fuel (roughly equivalent to US/UK 100/130 octane). So from 1941 onwards all 190 squadrons used C3 exclusively.

This doc seems to show that captured C3 samples were avaiable as early as Battle of Britain in 1940.

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom%20Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0560-0635%20Item%205.pdf

Would do a 'proper' image but the doc is 7mb+

Note the heading says samples obtained 1940 to 1943.

First paragraph
Spread over a period of 3 1/2 years, since the introduction during the Battle of Britain in the late summer of 1940, some 22 authentic samples of the green C3 type of aviation gasoline have been examined.

Interesting huh? Any idea which aircraft?

I agreeing with FalconSix original post that Germany used C3 throughout the war. (the worlds coming to and end :)

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: FalconSix on August 10, 2005, 04:12:35 AM

lol yeah, the end is near. ;)

I seem to remember reading that the German race planes used C3 in the 1930s. That's why (+the 190) I assumed C3 was available throughout the entire war.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Kev367th on August 10, 2005, 04:41:40 AM

Lol.

Hey there lots of interesting stuff on that site.
Lot of declassified docs etc regarding fuel and oil estimates, methods, in fact all sorts of stuff.

mostly here
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/gvt-reports_toc.htm

I think a forum where we could post links to this sort of info(historical docs etc) would be useful.
Not links to sites with personal interpretations, but to sites that hold archives.

Title: What about new 109's
Post by: Wotan on August 10, 2005, 05:01:57 AM

Quote

This doc seems to show that captured C3 samples were avaiable as early as Battle of Britain in 1940.

The DB601N (109E-4N / BF 109E-7 / 110C-4/B (C-7) all used C2 (C2 was the natural 100 octane fuel which was replaced by the synthetic C3 early on) and / or C-3...