Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kev367th on August 06, 2005, 05:19:27 PM
-
OK lets put this to rest once and for all.
I am using stuff from the proclaimed 109s expert own site - Kurfurst.
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.
1) We can safely assume March 1945 (introduced only), more likely April 1945. OK lets go along with an assumption and not a FACT
.
2) Kurfurst states 79 serviceable K-4, OK give him the benefit of the doubt and assume (again) this was March/April 1945 and probably a best day figure.
3) We also have to assume that everyone of the 79 could use or be converted to use 1.98ata. Very very unlikely given Gernamys overall condition at the time.
4) End of war May 1945
So for a two month period (thats the longest time period possible allowing for ALL the assumptions to be correct) there 'may' have been some (probably a lot less than 79), if indeed any K-4 using 1.98ata.
That would make it if introduced one of, if not the rarest bird in the game, and hardly suitable for TOD.
AINT GONNA HAPPEN - Be happy with your 1.8ata K-4.
-
Now you have gone and done it Kev. :p :D
He did post the link in a threads he started awhile ago for his article on several forums including here. Every thread on those forums, except for one where it was ignored, were so sweet, NOT
-
Actaully as I said his data tends to be fairly accurate, its the interpretation and comparisons that are lacking and misleading.
i.e. He mentions perking of K-4, this is his reasoning
Because in 1944 K-4 outnumbered Spit 14 by - amount, that the Spit 14 should be perked at 1.5 times the K-4.
Great no problems with that, would put the K-4 at about 10 compared to the spit 14 (15 perk at moment)
BUT -
He uses that to justify a perk cost of a 1945 1.98ata K-4 which was much much lower in numbers compared to 1944 levels.
Assuming (again) ALL 79 K-4's were at 1.98ata even comparing them to 7 sqns (210 aircraft inc spares etc, 84 actually flying) of Spit 14 in 1944 shows how absurd that it is.
That would in fact make it RARER than a Spit 14 and would be perked higher accordingly.
But like I said thats assuming all 79 K-4 used 1.98ata and comparing it to Spit 14 1944 strengths, not March/April/May 1945 strengths.
A cost of 10 for a K-4 at 1.8ata is reasonable.
There will be no 1.98ata K-4.
-
I don't think it should be perked, but I think it needs to be de-rated. Sure there were TONS of logistical and technical problems facing the LW at the end of the war. Quality is going to suffer.
I think we need a slightly slower K-4 model. Reduce its speed a bit to reflect a less-than-optimum K-4, and then you don't need 2 gap-fillers between the G-6 and K-4. You only need the G14, NOT the G14 and a G10. By having a slightly slower K4 than what we have now, the K-4 can double as a G10 without giving the axis a large speed boost in any given setup/scenario.
The following is what I'd suggest
E4
E7 - new? (I'd like to see it)
F4
G2
G6
G14 - new?
K-4 (current G10 tweaked, slower)
That's better than the following, which I'd like to avoid:
E4
E7 - new?
F4
G2
G6
G14 - new?
G10 - new, almost identical in top speed to G14 but handles better at altitude
K-4 - super fast late war variant we have now
It reduces redundancy in the G14/G10/K4 set, and allows the K4 to play a part in more realistic setups.
-
As always Krusty - logical.
But - since when has logic ever played a part.
-
But.. um... I want that K-4 with the proposed .. um... /u234 rutsatz with .. um... the cowl guns replaced with MG151/20s and the gondolas carrying 30mms with 100 rounds each.... yeah... um..
(* ^^ okay a hint for those that can't guess, that's a JOKE!! ^^ *)
-
Lol, i'm sure kurfurst could use some data to prove it existed in the 1000's.
Seriously, very unlikely will be derated, so why not perked?
Great climb from sea level all the way up, good speed sea level and at alt, 1x30mm, 2x 15 (or 12 can't remember), +option of 2x20mm, 10 mins WEP
Only plane I can see close to being equal is the perked Spit 14, but the 14 has a few advantages so 10 perks for the K-4 seems reasonable.
Breakdown -
K-4 Climb and top speed
14 - guns and turn (although 1 30mm coke bottle can ruin your day, edge on guns goes to Spit I think)
Seem a fairly even match.
-
G-14, DB605AM: 413mph @ 16,400ft BUT - apparently most G-14 built had the ASM engine, which has similar performance to G-10(5mph diff.)
G-10, DB605DM: 428mph @ 24,600ft
K-4, DB605DB(1.8ata): 444mph @ 24,600ft
G-14 with the medium altitude engine covers for the many G-6 that would have been converted to MW50 in early '44.
G-10 covers for the 2,000 or so G-6/G-14 using the ASM engine from early '44.
-
Why can't we just have higher boost variants from Spit's and 109's and what not, and just perk the hell out of them? What's wrong with adding more variants, especially when they reguire very little effort from HTC? They will be useful in late war events and CT setups.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
OK lets put this to rest once and for all.
I am using stuff from the proclaimed 109s expert own site - Kurfurst.
[/B]
I have never called myself a 109 expert, but I call Kev a liar.
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.
1) We can safely assume March 1945 (introduced only), more likely April 1945. OK lets go along with an assumption and not a FACT
[/B]
What FACT? Kev`s, the liars 'facts'?
Well let`s see the facts :
- One Wing of 109K was operating on 1.98ata in January/February 1945, for operational trials, as noted in DB meetings.
- 1.98ata was cleared for the DB 605D engine of G-10 and K-4 in late February 1945, according to the French 109 researcher Olivier Lefebvre, aka butch2k.
- There`s written order from the OKL, dated 20th March 1945, noting 4 Fighter Wings from JG 27 and JG 53 to convert to 1.98ata.
- Olivier Lefebvre notes in agreement that this conversion took place.
- Alfred Price lists these four wings in a close date 2.5 weeks later, having 142 aircraft on strenght, out of which 79 were servicable at the time.
All facts...
2) Kurfurst states 79 serviceable K-4, OK give him the benefit of the doubt and assume (again) this was March/April 1945 and probably a best day figure.
Kev has read my site, it`s clearly states where the info comes from and what it`s about... and when the info refers to.
It was clearly stated that the unit strenghts were taken from Alfred Price (and not my data), and refer to 9th April 1945.
Both the date and source is given. Kev distorts these facts.
3) We also have to assume that everyone of the 79 could use or be converted to use 1.98ata. Very very unlikely given Gernamys overall condition at the time.
We don`t have to assume anything. You are assuming the conversion did not take place, against the written orders from the German high command.
It`s facts vs. your assumptions.
So for a two month period (thats the longest time period possible allowing for ALL the assumptions to be correct) there 'may' have been some (probably a lot less than 79), if indeed any K-4 using 1.98ata.
That would make it if introduced one of, if not the rarest bird in the game, and hardly suitable for TOD.
No, the rarest bird would be the MkXIV Spitfire at +21 lbs boost, which is the what Kev wants. There were only 60 planes maximum using that boost, from Jan/February 1945.
That`s fewer planes, and in a comparable period. I don`t see much difference between 100 Spits using high boost in the last four months of the war, and 142 109s using high boost in the last 2 months of the war.
Of course, Kev wants double standards.
He wants to have the rarest Spitfire on the best peformance, and at the same time, he refuses to have it`s equivalent 109 on it`s best performance.
It`s stinking of agenda. One that are interested in the true facts and not Kev`s lies should visit my site, the URL is in the sig.
We should either have perked 1.98ata 109K and +21 lbs SpitXIV on high boost, or just 1.8ata 109K and +18lbs MkXIV.
Not best vs. worst, which is what Kev asks for in a typical spitdweeb fashion.
-
Originally posted by mora
Why can't we just have higher boost variants from Spit's and 109's and what not, and just perk the hell out of them? What's wrong with adding more variants, especially when they reguire very little effort from HTC? They will be useful in late war events and CT setups.
100% agree, but I tell you what`s wrong with it : it would result in a balanced setup... Kev doesn`t wants historical or game balance. He wants his side having all the advantages, and the other side being forced to use the worser variants only.
-
A bit on why the 109K should not be a perked plane (though for higher powered 1.98ata versions, I think it could be perked).
It was not a rare plane, unlike the SpitXIV. In fact, it was a major version of the 109 in service in large numbers.
From : RL2III/1158
On 31 January 1945 the combat units of the Luftwaffe had the following strength in Bf109 types. Included are all aircraft operational and non-operational at the time.
Bf109G1/5 : 0
Bf109G6 : 71
Bf109G14 and G14U4 : 431
Bf109G10, G10/U4 and G14/AS : 568
Bf109G10/R6 : 51
Bf109K4 : 314
Total : 1435 of Bf 109 types
One can see there were 314 109Ks with the frontline units, which is 25% of the total force, and there were 4 times as many 109K.
Considering G-10 and G-14/AS types are presented as one, it may be that the 109K was the second most numerous 109 next to the G-14.
Total production of the 109K amounted 1700 aircraft until the end of the war, 856 being completed until the end of 1944.
In comparision, around 800-900 SpitMkXIVs were produced until the end of the war.
-
Tuhhh
"It was not a rare plane, unlike the SpitXIV. In fact, it was a major version of the 109 in service in large numbers. "
Yet on the 1st of January 1945, after scraping together almost every sevicable fighter, the once mighty LW amounted to less than a 1000 .
Same story as always, - the illusion that in 1945 the skies were filled with black-crossed aircraft running on uberboosts.
I'd take yer stats with a grain of salt, for what was sent in the air on that morning in Jan 1945 is a very well documented and absolute figure.
-
G-14, DB605AM: 413mph @ 16,400ft BUT - apparently most G-14 built had the ASM engine, which has similar performance to G-10(5mph diff.)
Only about 1000 G-14s were equipped withthe DB605ASM.
This was posted over on Butchs forum in a thread entitled 'Aircraft Service dates' (or something similiar)
*109G-14 July 1944.
Adam
BF 109 G-14:
About 5500 made (abt. 1000 of which were G-14/AS versions)
G-14 entered service with II/JG 11 and Stab/JG 53 in July 1944.
Squadron Service Entry-date: July 1944 (limited numbers)
"Full deployment": August 1944
Kossu.
*109G-14/AS July 1944.
Adam
G-14/AS entered service with II/JG 27 and I/JG 77 in August 1944. (Prien & Rodeike)
Kossu.
The G-6/AS was produced in even fewer numbers...
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
We should either have perked 1.98ata 109K and +21 lbs SpitXIV on high boost, or just 1.8ata 109K and +18lbs MkXIV.
Not best vs. worst, which is what Kev asks for in a typical spitdweeb fashion.
'we'?
do you play this game?
(i honestly don't know - im not just taking the piss)
-
Kuffie plays Il-2.
We fly in AH :D
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I have never called myself a 109 expert, but I call Kev a liar.
For sure we can all plainly see that you are not.
What FACT? Kev`s, the liars 'facts'?
Well let`s see the facts :
- One Wing of 109K was operating on 1.98ata in January/February 1945, for operational trials, as noted in DB meetings.
- 1.98ata was cleared for the DB 605D engine of G-10 and K-4 in late February 1945, according to the French 109 researcher Olivier Lefebvre, aka butch2k.
- There`s written order from the OKL, dated 20th March 1945, noting 4 Fighter Wings from JG 27 and JG 53 to convert to 1.98ata.
- Olivier Lefebvre notes in agreement that this conversion took place.
- Alfred Price lists these four wings in a close date 2.5 weeks later, having 142 aircraft on strenght, out of which 79 were servicable at the time.
All facts...
Yup, one whole wing (II./JG11) with 10 a/c (so could be 2./JG11). Manipulating data again Kurfy, you are.
Complete conversion of all K-4s in those 4 Gruppen to 1.98 is only pure speculation on your part.
Kev has read my site, it`s clearly states where the info comes from and what it`s about... and when the info refers to.
It was clearly stated that the unit strenghts were taken from Alfred Price (and not my data), and refer to 9th April 1945.
Both the date and source is given. Kev distorts these facts.
We don`t have to assume anything. You are assuming the conversion did not take place, against the written orders from the German high command.
It`s facts vs. your assumptions.
The only one distorting facts is Kurfy. You are assuming that complete conversion took place, dispite you having not ever ever ever produced official documents that C3 fuel, which 1.98 most definately required, was ever delivered in enough quantity for those 79 servicable K-4s to be able to use 1.98.
No, the rarest bird would be the MkXIV Spitfire at +21 lbs boost, which is the what Kev wants. There were only 60 planes maximum using that boost, from Jan/February 1945.
That`s fewer planes, and in a comparable period. I don`t see much difference between 100 Spits using high boost in the last four months of the war, and 142 109s using high boost in the last 2 months of the war.
21lb boost was cleared from July 1944. It would be nice if Kurfy could make up his mind on how many XIVs were around.
Of course, Kev wants double standards.
He wants to have the rarest Spitfire on the best peformance, and at the same time, he refuses to have it`s equivalent 109 on it`s best performance.
Rarest Spit? The K-4 at 1.98 was rare being only 8% (according to Kurfy's numbers for K-4s that were suppose to be able to use 1.98) of the K-4s production of 1700 a/c while just about all the XIVs could run at 21lb.
It`s stinking of agenda. One that are interested in the true facts and not Kev`s lies should visit my site, the URL is in the sig.
We should either have perked 1.98ata 109K and +21 lbs SpitXIV on high boost, or just 1.8ata 109K and +18lbs MkXIV.
Not best vs. worst, which is what Kev asks for in a typical spitdweeb fashion.
For those that do, beware only the part of the story that supports his uber German agenda is told.
-
Angus - I think you misunderstand me. The 109K itself wasn't a rare plane, BUT a 109K-4 with 1.98ata was a rare plane.
Kurfurst - Well there you go again, one complete wing makes it sound like a hell of lot of planes until, you realize how many aircraft were in that wing.
I didn't distort the date, in fact you even highlighted the "March probably April" part of my post, and then went on to say they were operational 9th April 1945, wheres the distortion?
My only question to you is - is that a best day date? i.e. was it pulled to show the best number of aircraft, or is it a reasonable average for March?
OK, by your own figures that puts 'maybe' 45 K-4's operating 1.98ata the 1st week of April.
The war ended in May for Gods sake.
As I said that would make a 109K-4 on ata1.98 the RAREST bird in AH2 (45 only, and only in the last month or so of the war),nowhere near being a REPRESENTATIVE 109k-4, and will therefore not make it in.
As I said - your comparison of Spit 14 to 109k-4 numbers in 1944 and using that to justify a perk price for a k-4 in the last month or so of the war is what is distorting.
Getting the order to convert, getting the parts and getting the time to convert are completely different animals. As I said, from your post - 79 aircraft - but I doubted that all that were converted, you stated 4.5 wings converted, thats around 45 aircraft (assuming the wings were fully equipped), so I guess I wasn't wrong or lieing after all.
Actually Kurfurst what is funny is the way you and a very few other want the rarest uberboosted LW planes and yet scream like hell when a Spit is suggested that operated in higher numbers.
45 109K-4 vs 100 spit XII (all operational), and theres no way we would get a Spit XII.
Or 2 squadrons of IX (40-60 ac total including spares etc) converted AND used 150 grade as early as May 44 (got scan of sqn records).
Yet there is no way we would get a 150 grade IX. Why use 40-60? Well your LW strengths include non-op aircraft.
Its not even a case of best vs worst (in fact it seems to work the other way round) - What you want is the best rarest LW rides up against the average RAF ride. If a 109k-4 ata 1.98 made it in FREE, there no reason why the XVI shouldn,t be in at 25lbs boost (more common than a k4-1.98 in April '45) FREE, or even a IX at 25lbs boost FREE (definately more common April '45).
So what rarer? 60 Spits minimum Jan 45 at 21lbs boost, or 45 maximum K-4 ata1.98 April 1945?
As usual you muddy the waters by mentioning total production numbers, we are not talking total production numbers, but a small part of those numbers. Even that you got wrong, 800-900 Spit 14? In fact 957 were produced.
Finally - what has Jan 1945 strengths got to do with what was available 3 months later in April 1945? Post April 45 strengths.
I too urge people to visit his site - use your common sense and you'll realize a 109-k4 1.98ata is as rare as rocking horse sh**.
-
btw DB605DB were authorized mid January 1945, before that only DB 605DM were fitted.
-
This grows tiresome. I've made my recommendation. So has Wotan. So has Kev. Hell so has Kurfurst. Others have chipped in as well and a fine discussion has taken place.
However this smells of unfinished (old) business between kurfurst and others (all others?? everyone??)
I'm going to let Pyro and HTC et al make the decision, but for the record I'd say we could benefit from a lesser K-4, not a better K-4. And I fly 109s relatively often, too!
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
100% agree, but I tell you what`s wrong with it : it would result in a balanced setup... Kev doesn`t wants historical or game balance. He wants his side having all the advantages, and the other side being forced to use the worser variants only.
Actually I 100% agree, in which case -
Spit XVI should be at 25lbs boost.
A Spit IX at 25lbs boost should be introduced.
A Spit XII should be introduced.
None will happen, and I'll bet Kurfurst would be the biggest opponent to them.
But we wont get them anyway, Why?
In the first two cases it has already been decided the either of them at 25lbs would be to good for the MA because of their climb rate at low alt coupled with the guns, turning ability and acceleration.
Spit XII won't be introduced because the last thing the MA needs is a low alt Griffon engined Spit screaming around. Yes there were only 100 made but all were operational (more than 109k4 1.98ata, and the TA-152)
So tell me again, who gets the uberboosted aircraft? Bearing in the mind the uberboosted Spit V is being reduced back to a more proper 12lbs.
Just shows how ignorant and assinine your comments are Kurfurst.
In fact what would help is if HT said there would be no planes major or sub-variants allowed under a certain number produced or flown operationaly.
Saying that, each country should be allowed one rare bird (ie one below the figure set by HT).
-
wooooooo!
talk about very late planes...
Btw OUR La-7 (with 3 guns) was very very rare and AH La-7s (with current peformancee in AH) did not achieve this level of performance until the last few weeks of the war.
(sry, got side-tracted)
-
Spit XII, pretty please, with sugar on top? :)
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1103870266_41spitxiis.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Tuhhh
"It was not a rare plane, unlike the SpitXIV. In fact, it was a major version of the 109 in service in large numbers. "
Yet on the 1st of January 1945, after scraping together almost every sevicable fighter, the once mighty LW amounted to less than a 1000 .
Same story as always, - the illusion that in 1945 the skies were filled with black-crossed aircraft running on uberboosts.
I'd take yer stats with a grain of salt, for what was sent in the air on that morning in Jan 1945 is a very well documented and absolute figure.
You misunderstanding what I'm talking about -
957 Spit XIV vs 1700 K-4 total production.
So yes on that the Spit 14 is rarer.
But Kurfy uses that to justify a perk cost of a specific version (1.98ata)109K-4 of which probably there were only 45 or so.
He has already conceded Jan 45 there were 60 or so SPit 14 at 21lbs boost, so that makes that version of the K4 RARER.
In fact by his calculations current Spit 14 is 15 perks, that would make a 109K-4 1.98ata 20 perks, and thats basing it on Jan 45 Spit 14's NOT April 45.
Anyone have Spit 14 at 21lbs boost numbers in April 45?
Dan- If we got a Spit 12, I'd go down to Dallas and treat ALL of AH staff to a night out at the bar....hello Pyro, Skuzzy etc, listening?
I'd even expect to pay a small perk for it using Kurfys way would only be 5 perks :) .
-
For the purpose of making a game, shouldn't parity be more important than strict historical numbers?
War isn't fair; indeed, the entire point of a war is to make it as unfair for the other guy as possible. Make a game that way, however, and you'll have a game nobody wants to play. A game needs to be fair. When you're making a game based on a historical situation which was NOT fair (the end of WW2), then you have to make choices.
If the Spit 14 and 109K can be expected to be common adversaries in AH2 and in ToD, then identify reasonably common versions which match up well against each other and other contemporary models. The point shouldn't be to try to gain the advantage for your own pet ride (and BOTH sides are guilty of this in this discussion), but to identify which model will "fit" in with the rest of the set the best.
Both sides of this discussion seem to agree that 1.98ata 109K's were only present in relatively small numbers for the last couple months of the war. As such, the 1.8ata 109K becomes the logical addition as it was vastly more common for a much longer and more important period of time. Which boost value for the Spit 14 will result in an airplane which will match up nicely against the 1.8 ata 109K in the AH2 / ToD environment?
I don't know the performance figures for +18 and +21 lbs boost Spit 14's off the top of my head. Can someone give me the rundown?
J_A_B
-
J_A_B
Thereby hangs the problem.
Perk the Spit whatever it's boost is at, have the 109K-4 free?
If your going to perk the Spit and leave the 109K unperked, it has to have something over the standard 14.
Usual excuse is it so easy to fly a Spit - not my problem.
Not my problem Mr Mitchell produced a plane that flys with you whereas Willy and Kurt produced a plane that flies against you.
Not my problem hispano produced an excellent cannon.
I'm all for parity, but at the first sign of Spit with decent performance its either, you can't have it, or perk it.
Meanwhile the cry goes up for a specific 109 version that is rarer than a virgin in a red light district, and unlike a lady of the night they expect it free.
-
Kev that was total production. War time production til VE-day was ~750 Spit XIVs. Hard to get an accurate number as some of the production orders ran from before to after VE-day unless one checks every serial number in StH.
Krusty, it is always unfinished business when we are told the warped Hungarian version WW2 history continually. :D Dispite being shown the error of his conclusions, he still comes back with the same parroted misintereptations and manipulations like a skipping 33.
Yes it is tiring but would rather have him spreading his version of history to the unknowing of the world. Yes I have seen some use his data and then been shown the 'real' truth. They then relized they had been given a 'snow job'.
-
Ah CC thanks for the correction.
From another Kurfy rant - proposed changes
OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45
No. Unit Present type Convert to Notes
1. III./ JG 1 Bf 109 G-10 He 162 (April/May) -
2. II. / JG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
3. III. / JG 3 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
4. III. / JG 4 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
5. IV. / JG 4 Bf 109 K-4 K-4 -
6. III. / JG 5 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
7. IV. / JG 5 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
8. III. / JG 6 Bf 109 G-14/AS K-4 when deliveries permit -
9. II. / JG 11 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
10. I. / JG 27 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
11. II. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
12. III. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
13. I. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
14. III. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
15. IV. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
16. II. / JG 52 Bf 109 G-14/U4 K-4 when deliveries permit -
17. III. / JG 52 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
18. II. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
19. III. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
20. IV. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
21. I. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-14/U4 K-4 when deliveries permit -
22. II. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
23. III. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
24. III. / JG 300 Bf 109 G-10/R6 via K-4 to Me 262 planned, deadline
25. IV. / JG 300 Bf 109 G-10/R6 via K-4 to Me 262 -
26. I. / KG(J) 6 Bf 109 G-10/R6 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
27. II. / KG(J) 6 Bf 109 K-4 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
30. I. / KG(J) 27 Bf 109 G-10/R6 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
31. I. / KG(J) 55 Bf 109 G-10/R6 - -
32. II. / KG(J) 55 Bf 109 K-4 - to industrial defense
33. Ist Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
34. IInd Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
35. IIIrd Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
So 20 out of 32 "When deliveries permit" didn't in fact take place, yet we are supposed to quite happily go along with the 4 "boost increase to 1.98ata" did.
I have no problem in conceding that some must have been boosted to 1.98ata (never said anytihng else), what I won't concede is that everyone of the remaining 79 usable K-4 were (his argument). Especially in light of the previuos document that clearly states converisons were going on SLOWLY.
Any logical perosn can put it all together and safely say yup there were K4's at 1.98ata, but it isn't going to be all 79 of them, prob lucky if 1/2.
Unless Kurfy can produce 1 single document that proves otherwise. Not assumptions, not guesswork just one cold hard piece of evidence.
An example Kurfy - I claim that in May 1944 2 ENTIRE Spitfire sqns converted to 150 grade fuel.
Proof - http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no1_25lbs.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no165_25lbs.jpg
Easy aint it.
Unitl then Kurfy, stop spewing your garbage.
-
"Perk the Spit whatever it's boost is at, have the 109K-4 free? "
Assumming you find a version of Spitfire which matches up well against the rest of the plane set, I see no reason why it'd have to be perked just on the basis of its being a Spitfire. The argument made by some is that with early models like the Spit 5 and Spit 9 being so popular in the MA, virtually any later model added would rapidly become even more dominant. It isn't really "hate" which drives people's opinions on the Spit, so much as fear of what it might do to the MA--fear which is fueled by memories of the freely available F4U-1C and the fact that the SPIT tag is already really common.
I don't know what boost value the current AH Spit 14 uses, but the plane certainly warranted a perk tag as it was one of the most dominant fighters in the set when it was introduced. However, the "unperked performance threshold" has gradually crept upward with additions such as the LA7 and P-47N, so there is certainly room for debate as to whether the Spit 14 in AH2 is still truly a "perk quality" aircraft. A lowered price should reflect this.
The key for the MA is to try to find a Spitfire which fits in well with the other AH2 fighters. This is what you appeared to try to do in the thread about the clipped Spit 16. For ToD, it is likewise important to find models which display some level of parity with their expected opponents. This is where the 109K figures into the discussion--it has to be pretty competative with any opponent it can be expected to face in ToD. Let's face it--traditionally in AH, Spitfires are simply better than their 109 counterparts and usage confirms that. This might be fine for the MA, but that won't work for ToD.
How do various models of late-war Spitfires match up against a 1.8ata 109K4? For that matter, how does the 1.8ata 109 stack up against other late-model Allied fighters? Does it perform well enough to justify its existance, or does it need to be 1.98ata in order to not be pointless?
Since the Spits and 109's haven't been added yet but the P-47's, P-38's, and P-51's are now their final form, those American planes can serve as a useful "basis" to compare potential additions against.
J_A_B
-
The only Spit that matches up against a K4 is a 14 (uses 18lbs boost). Yet Kurfys own site shows the K4 is supposedly superior at all alts.
all the others (remodel)-
IX 1942
V -1941
I - 1940
The XVI and VIII are low alt versions and don't compare with K4 in any form.
The whole problem with the Spit/109/190 lineup has been the mismatch, up until recently (remodel) we had the choice of 1942 and earlier Spits or pay for a 1944 Spit 14.
We proposed a Spit lineup minus rare eg (Spit 7 etc) lineup and Pyro who had been monitoring the thread agreed with 99% of it.
Maybe we should have asked for stuff like Spit VII's,XII's etc, but we wanted to keep it to a REALSTIC minimum.
Seen some 109 suggestions with up to 10 aircraft!!!! Most including the 1945 last 2 months of war K4 1.98.
Hell and we can't even get a full boost free late 1944 Spit XVI or even a full boost (25lbs) May 1944 Mk IX.
In Pyros own words - "No place for a 2000HP Spit XVI", so why would there suddenly be a place for a rarer 2000HP K4 1.98ata?
Re: TOD - I assumed this was going to a realistic re-creation of a European campaign. To say aircraft should be included/excluded based on a competitive basis kinda deafeat this wouldn't you say. We will see 262's yet under your premise they shouldn't be in TOD, nothing is comaprable to a 262.
Nor would we see the early war Spit V vs 190 matchup (pre F IX), comparbale in terms of performance very rarely happens.
What you can find is a representative historical opponent be it superioir or inferior. It swayed both ways during the war. A last two months of the war K4 is hardly a representative version of the aircraft. Maybe 2 versions? A lightly perked 1.80ata and a heavier perked 1.98ata version.
Using Kurfy own logic - 1.80ata @ 10 perks, 1.98ata @ 20 perks, that I would have no problems with.
i.e based on total production spit 14 should be 1.5x the cost of a K4 1.8ata
Spit 14 (18lbs) - 15 perks / K4 1.8ata - 10 perks
Based on 21lbs boost vs 1.98ata #s are approx 60/40 in favour Spit 14
so if we now have a spit 14 at 21lbs still at 15 perks the K4 1.98 comes in at 20 perks.
Now slighly reduce the price of both lower boosted Spit 14 and K4 and I think we have an amicable solution?
Summary
Spit 14 18lbs - 12 perks
K4 1.8ata - 8 perks
Spit 14 21lbs - 15 perks
K4 1.98ata - 20 perks
Reflects numbers available, to be more accurate would need # Spit 14 21 lbs boost Mar 45 NOT Jan 45.
Of course its not amicable they want their K4 FREE
Fairness , equality, lol.
-
"AINT GONNA HAPPEN - Be happy with your 1.8ata K-4."
"There will be no 1.98ata K-4."
Do you know this by fact or is this extremely wishful thinking?
Fairness? Slight addittion to 109's boost and its unfair? I guess you don't fly that bird too much?
It certainly would be too much if 109s would manage to get away from a fight and you couldn't outturn, outroll, outenergy, outgun them, huh?
:D :D :D
Jayzuz...
-C+
-
"To say aircraft should be included/excluded based on a competitive basis kinda deafeat this wouldn't you say. "
We all know that every single sub-type which saw action won't be included--not even close. If you're going to pick and choose, then pick and choose the ones that match up the best.
I would bet you that 262's are somehow restricted, or scenarios using them simply won't happen very often. Shooting fish in a barrel might be fun for the guy doing the shooting, but it isn't much fun for the fish. If you want to build a game where you're flying against people and not AI, you have to keep things competative for both sides. It doesn't have to be perfect, but it has to be reasonably close.
What is the boost level of the Spit 14 as currently available in AH2?
Charge--can you give me performance info for the 1.8 and 1.98ata 109's? By "slight addition", am I right to assume the current AH2 109G-10 is equal to 1.8ata?
J_A_B
-
Oh, Kev, don't get me wrong:
"957 Spit XIV vs 1700 K-4 total production.
So yes on that the Spit 14 is rarer. "
A much more accurate figure about how common the aircraft was would be to count sorties. Just harder to get the data, - but I'll put my money on the XIV.
Some allied fighter pilots finished a whole TOD without ever even getting into combat.
Knew this old stick who described his escort missions (P51, to Berlin) as totally tedious and rather uneventful.
-
J_A_B current boost is 18.
-
Originally posted by Charge
"AINT GONNA HAPPEN - Be happy with your 1.8ata K-4."
"There will be no 1.98ata K-4."
Do you know this by fact or is this extremely wishful thinking?
Fairness? Slight addittion to 109's boost and its unfair? I guess you don't fly that bird too much?
It certainly would be too much if 109s would manage to get away from a fight and you couldn't outturn, outroll, outenergy, outgun them, huh?
:D :D :D
Jayzuz...
-C+
No it wouldn't, by why expect other people to put up with the same situation?
Works both ways you know.
No 1.98 - Depends if you think another LW plane thats rarer than rocking horse sh** will get added. (we already have 1). I don't.
I still remember the fuss over 4 cannoned (1942 Mk V ingame) Spits, there were more of them flying around lol. Followed by the invetible it would have to be perked BS.
Would you also consider it right that a perk plane would be needed to combat it, unless you were in the same plane?
Any thoughts on
Spit 14 18lbs - 12 perks (won't be in new lineup, just in for comparison)
K4 1.8ata - 8 perks
Spit 14 21lbs - 15 perks
K4 1.98ata - 20 perks
I wish the LW guys had got together and done their list 1st, then us Spit guys would have come out with opponents for them. Then the situation would be in reverse. i.e. an F.21 - did see combat (sort of), and were 120 delivered, not the 79 operational K4's in April 45.
In fact the whole jist is not how many - but how many of the 79 were on 1.98ata, so far Kurfy has produced no solid evidence whatsover, just assumptions.
So far all we have is (not disputed)-
4 units were ordered to convert Mar 20 1945
20 units were to be refitted with K4's
Another expert who says the conversions were SLOW.
April 9 1945 there were 79 operational K4
The 20 units never recieved K4's
So we are to believe that all 79 of the remianing K4's upgraded to 1.98ata, I don't dispute some probably did, but a lot less 79 would be a REASONABLE guess given Germanys predicament 1 month before the end of the war.
Unless Kurfy can produce solid evidence to the contrary of course.
Would you be happy giving the RAF a May 1944 25lbs boost Spit IX?
-
Sorry guys had to add this - found on another forum Kurfy posts to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3441006933/r/3831072243
Dated July 28 2005.
C3 fuel stocks- needed for 1.98ata
23 april 45- 116,000l
28 april 45 - 80,000l
This he says demonstrates heavy reiliance on C3 fuel - DOES IT
116,000-80,000=36000/5 days = 7200l per day
Divide that by 400l (fuel capacity of K4/G10 without drops) = 18 sorties per day.
Even allowing returning home with 1/4 tank that only = 24 per day
These are total sorties for ALL C3 1.98ata aircraft not just K4
Ok benefit of doubt:
They all returned home safely with a 1/4 tank
NONE were shot down
NONE were lost on the ground
NO aircraft flew more than 1 sortie per day (ie 24 sorties, 24 aircraft).
Even allowing for a 50% swing on odd days i.e 1 day 12 sorties, next day 36, that still isn't even 1/2 of the K4 available, and that still assuming ALL C3 went to the K4 only.
So we have an average of 24 sorties per day for 5 days for ALL C3 aircraft (K4, G10 etc), and this supports 79 K4's all running 1.98ata?
What is more likely as I have speculated is that very few of the remaining 79 K4 could use 1.98ata.
The more you dig into Kurfys 'assumptions' the more unbelievable they become.
So Kurfy get all the benfits of the doubt and it still doesn't add up: Is it just me or can anyone see the flaw in Kurfys logic, if its just me, please say so.
-
"Charge--can you give me performance info for the 1.8 and 1.98ata 109's? By "slight addition", am I right to assume the current AH2 109G-10 is equal to 1.8ata?"
If it is equal, so what? Is it too fast?
What is the only asset 109 has over Spit?
If it dives it compresses so bad it is an easy target, if it tries to climb away the slight advantage in climb rate is not enough to take it away before the hizookas rip it to pieces (talking about 1k wonderkill).
Turn? Maybe in a perfect world it would be remotely possible, but this is not it so that is probably not a good idea either.
Armed with a 30mm I would have to get so close to that Spit that getting away would need huge advantage in speed and you know how good 109 is in high speed...
If I were the 109 I'd prolly just fly through merge full throttle and seek for easier prey.
These are, of course, my assumptions based on their relative performance in the MA. Maybe some 109 ace could prove me wrong -I wouldn't mind that.
-C+
-
Actually best person to ask is 'Yaws', he's an absolute nightmare in the G-10.
-
IIRC HTC doesn't model production quality problems or fuel problems. Every aircraft in AH is in ideal condition burning the fuel it was designed to burn, not what was available on the battlefield 60 years ago.
-
Originally posted by Charge
"Charge--can you give me performance info for the 1.8 and 1.98ata 109's? By "slight addition", am I right to assume the current AH2 109G-10 is equal to 1.8ata?"
If it is equal, so what? Is it too fast?
What is the only asset 109 has over Spit?
If it dives it compresses so bad it is an easy target, if it tries to climb away the slight advantage in climb rate is not enough to take it away before the hizookas rip it to pieces (talking about 1k wonderkill).
Turn? Maybe in a perfect world it would be remotely possible, but this is not it so that is probably not a good idea either.
Armed with a 30mm I would have to get so close to that Spit that getting away would need huge advantage in speed and you know how good 109 is in high speed...
If I were the 109 I'd prolly just fly through merge full throttle and seek for easier prey.
These are, of course, my assumptions based on their relative performance in the MA. Maybe some 109 ace could prove me wrong -I wouldn't mind that.
-C+
I happily take on 'our' Spit IX in 'our' G-2, if the pilot is of my own (average) skill. But when flying a G-6 or G-10 with the 30mm it is indeed very hard to hit a well known Spit. Shooting is what I'm best at in this game, but it still is hard for all but the best.
The current G-10's performance is not much different from a XIV, maybe the biggest difference is low level speed. I never flew the XIV much but it being a Spit I expect it to be a lot more maneuverable and easier to handle than a G-10. Not a good match. If the performance gap closes, the G-10 is at a big disadvantage to late war Spits as it handles so much worse than the F-4 and G-2.
That having said, I like flying 109's, they are much more demanding to fly than Spits but they are still very capable. Yesterday I had a co-alt merge in a 109-E with a well flown Niki and was surprised how well I did. I even pinged him twice before we ended up on the deck, stallfighting. I lost, but a most satisfying fight.
-
Scan from doc Dated Mar 19 1945, 1 day before the order to modify 3 K4 units to 1.98ata C3.
Can clearly see at least 1 K4 unit is running B4 fuel. Shame we can't see the rest, would be nice to see if all were running B4.
If so this would mean -
All K4's miraculously converted in <20 days (April 9th) despite shortage of plugs and as said conversions going SLOWLY.
That they suddenly started recieving C3 fuel, most of which was already allocated to the 190s.
Bearing in mind previous post that 36000l of C3 was used in 5 days, I guess the fuel fairies are at it again.
(http://www.jg300.de/images/Dokumente/RLM07_-_558_Auszug.gif)
If anything there is a much much stronger case for a C3 based 190 than a 109-K4.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Spit XII, pretty please, with sugar on top? :)
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1103870266_41spitxiis.jpg)
HT needs to post his bribe link again ;)
-
Well if you have plenty of evidence Angus, please post it, for we are lacking evidence in this thread.
Say, the amount of 87 vs. 100 octane fuel consumed by FC during to battle would be a good start.
Otherwise, the 100 octane was norm statements looks like wishful thinking...
This from the Spit I thread.
Is it a one way street Kurfy?
You ask for 87-100 octane fuel consumption but you continually fail to post any official documents that shows the quantity of C3 fuel delivered and consummed to/by K-4 units.
For sure, your continued statements of any/all K-4s using 1.98 is nothing but wishful thinking.... Naw, more like wishful dreaming.
-
Interesting - for an idea of what may be considered as evidence of fuel usage by ANY plane look at the Spit I climb rate thread
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=156774
The major difference - Kurfys claim that as they were ordered to do it, they must have carried it out vs actual scanned docs of fuel usage, pilot reports of 12lbs Spit I's, stockpile lists. etc
Thats all I'm asking for - same set of standards for both sides.
Not we have to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt yet Kurfys assumptions are good enough here.
-
Kev, just a little bit of trivia.
Slighty more Dora 9s(~1800) were built than Kurfurst 4s(~1700).
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Kev, just a little bit of trivia.
Slighty more Dora 9s(~1800) were built than Kurfurst 4s(~1700).
Not worried about how many were actually built (dont think anyone disagrees with that bit), just how many actually used C3 1.98ata, if any.
Judging by the fact the the LW only used enough C3 in total for 18 sorties per day for a 5 day day period (23-28 Apr 45). This is all plane types, not just the K4, so I would say it doesn't look good.
But trivia is good :)
-
This talk of perking the K-4.........
Fly one and then fly a Spit14 and see which one is both easier to fly and easier to get kills in.
The Spit14 has a deffinately large edge on the K-4 where turning and manuvering is concerned.
This is VERY true if the K-4 has gonds.
If no gonds and 30mm ..... you ever try to hit anything with that DANG TATTER gun LOL.
If no gonds and 20mm .... edge to spit AGAIN in firepower. This would be the case even if the 109 had 2 20mm because of the velocity differences.
I'm of the opinion that the K-4 will pretty much be the same as our current G10 so why perk it? And if the new K-4 only has the 30mm and no 20 .... again why perk it? The weight of the 30mm gun and ammo vs the weight of the 20mm and ammo vs aircraft preformance hmmmmmmmm....
Also I'm thinkin HT and Pyro will do the same with it as they have done in the past. They'll put it into AH and see what happens BEFORE they perk it or not.
This seems IMHO to be both WISE and proper regarding any new or remodeled plane additions.
-
The current spit 14 is handfull and by no means easy to fly, check the Spit 14 usage thread.
But to say 'my plane is hard to fly, don't perk it' .
Come on.
I'll say the same thing to you that everyone says to me when I mention chasing faster planes.....fly a different plane then.
Not so easy now the boots on the other hand is it?
I don't doubt that the K9 is harder to fly, not my fault, not my problem, plenty others to choose from.
Kurfys site puts the K4 faster at all alts, and superior in climb to the XIV, so in theory the K4 should control the fight and be able to disengage if needed.
But what you want is to be able to keep on engaging, because you risk nothing but a simulated death, whereas the Spit guy is also risking perks, not a lot admitedly.
Wouldn't see what was wrong with an extremely mild 5-8 perk for it? Or even on par with a TA-152 (even cheaper?).
In all honesty there are only 3 planes that deserve perking - 163/262/Tempest, but that aint likely to happen.
So back to the age old question - on what basis to decide what to perk? rarity?, performance?, usage?, easy to fly (lol)?, all of them or a combination?
I believe the concensus is you will get the 20mm gondie option.
Correct me if I'm wrong the K4/152 were primarily supposed to be used for high alt buff interception?
Some tours ago I tried a 190-D9 out a few times - not hard at all, easy to get in get kills and haul a** outta there. Got into and out of situations I'd have never got out of in a Spit, even in a spit XIV.
-
Harder to fly so don't perk it?
That is NOT what I'm saying.
What I AM saying is ......
look at the results!!!
The current Spit14 is perked because????
Ask Pyro, ask HT, they will tell you it is because of the Spit14's affect on the MA.
Try fighting a Spit14 while using our current G10. Also try it with gonds on the 109.
It's not an issue about harder to fly, it's an issue of "the general outcome" where the survival rate is more the question.
I think you will find that on the average or in general the Spit14 is a much meaner fighter in a fighter vs fighter situation.
Why? Hey you said it not me, the K-4 was for BOMBER intercept!
It is not a good fighter when put up against the likes of the Spit14.
Can it survive that fight? Yes, but hey a P40B can survive such a fight, but more frequently it will NOT.
Average pilots will do far better flying a Spit14 then a 109G10 or K4 because of the fighter itself.
This is the way it is in the MA. Are there some that will beat a Spit14 using a G10 or K4. Yes but it's the pilot not the plane. Too many 109's try to dive out of such a fight and that is a mistake. The Spit14 is far more manuverable in a high speed dive and the 109 becomes easy meat.
The Spit14 is perked for a reason. That same reason in our current MA as been applied to the G10 and the G10 does not meet the test and is NOT perked for that same reason.
I don't believe the K4 will be much better then our current G10. It may even be worse. So IMHO it will NOT, and should not, be perked.
And thats my $0.02
-
OK so the K4 was a bomber interceptor, so why fly it a fighter?
I'll tell you why, because you get a high alt FAST plane, that is also fairly nippy down low.
So you choose to fly it outside its role, outside its best operating limits and because any pure fighter could kill it given the right circumstances thats an excuse not perk it.
It has nothing to do with being hard to fly.
I use a g-10 (really K4) with gondies purely for buff interception, don't fly it any other way. But then thats what it was MEANT for.
not dogfighting pure fighters down on the deck.
Spit XIV is a perfect example, seen a lot more since reduction in price, all that I have seen shot down are below 5K, way out of its operating realm. Believe me the Spit down low isn't exactly the fastest plane in the set.
Lost count of the La7 I've found over 20k, and they wonder why a Spit IX can kill them. Obvious aint it.
Finally impact and balance on the MA - You all flown in the MA the last 6 months or so, when was the last time you seen it balanced?
Impact and balance are a convenient excuse to keep aircraft out of the MA that may compete with the late war monsters on sometihng approaching and even basis.
I actually started the 109-G14 thread as a snare -
I already knew what the best matchup for a G-14 was, even according to Kurfy.
All but 1 have said a Merlin 66 25lbs boosted Spit. Guess what? We aint getting it, its being neutered to 18 lbs on the grounds of balance. A sub 400mph plane at ALL alts, even at 25lbs.
Anyway this is all off topic (gotta stop rambling Kev), still awaiting Kurfys hard evidence the K4 in 1945 used 1.98ata.
-
If anything there is a much much stronger case for a C3 based 190 than a 109-K4.
You know you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about..
The 190 A and F series required C3 fuel...
There's no 'case to be made' its 100% certain fact...
I am not going bother with the rest of the nonsense posted but much of it is completely inaccurate as well...
-
Isn't that what I said?
Was comparing the number of 190s on C3 to K4s
April 19 1945 - wish I had whole doc.
If you'd take the statement in view of what the whole thread is about, you'd have felt no reason to jump in FOOT IN MOUTH.
Kurfy and a few others are trying to make case for K4 C3 1.98ata, the document clearly show the 190s have a stronger case...not incorrect, you just chose to jump in. Doesn't imply 190's didnt use C3, quite the opposite.
(http://www.jg300.de/images/Dokumente/RLM07_-_558_Auszug.gif)
Only nonsense has been Kurfys constant assumptions, presumptions and downright misinterpretations without one single piece of hard evidence to back it up. Sorry but 'we can safely assume' does not amount to anything.
I have even taken figures from his own site, and other posts in forums he posts to, and shown that in any logical persons opinion what he is claiming is preposterous.
-
This what said:
If anything there is a much much stronger case for a C3 based 190 than a 109-K4.
What 'case'? 190As and Fs used C3 fuel period...
People who seek to make a 'case' are trying to 'prove' something.
You had no idea what fuel 190s used...
K-4s were flown at 1.98 ata...
Its not in doubt, its been posted about many times on this forum and on others. Not only by Kurfürst, read Butch's reply. Search this forum for previous post of his on this subject...
The only question is how wide was its use by 109s.
The K-4 wasn't a bomber interceptor...:
so the K4 was a bomber interceptor, so why fly it a fighter?
All the crap above plus much more that has been posted by you in this thread is incorrect.
-
I asked someone if it was a buff interceptor, they said yes.
I go off what people tell me when I am unsure, thats why I ask.
OK he was wrong, so was I, I now know better.
I don't say no K4's were flown at 1.98ata, what I do say is that not ALL the remaining 79 K4's 9 Apr 1945 were flying 1.98ata, as claimed by Kurfurst.
Geez now your splitting hairs, the Doc from 19 Mar 1945 I posted shows 190's using C3.
Case is mentioned as in Kurfurst trying to prove all 79 K-4's were flying 1.98ata 9 Mar 1945, was not intended to say 190 weren't in fact the doc shows the opposite. I apologise if it came over that way, wasn't intended.
I had no idea what fuel the 190 used - Guess I can't read the doc I posted.
All I ask is that someone, I don't care if its you, Kurfurst or the tooth fairy PROVES that K4 were flying 1.98ata Apr 1945.
Not proof based on -
a) Well they were ordered to convert (same doc also lists 20 units to get the K4 - didn't happen)
Or
b) We can safely assume that.
All I have have seen that IS factual is the 1 unit of 109G-10s (11 or 10 planes?) used 1.98 Jan 1945.
Seen no evidence of converison or use of 1.98ata by 109K-4s. Yet I am willing to concede that some must have.
So - YOU prove 1 of 2 things
1) All 79 used it
or
2)
Remember - If you want an K4 1.98ata, it's up to you prove it happened. Prove as in docs etc, not assumptions, or presumptions. Basically the same proof you wanted and got in the Spit 100 grade thread. Or are we to be held to higher standard than you?
I anxiously await the flood of evidence, until then I'll "wait out".
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
All I ask is that someone, I don't care if its you, Kurfurst or the tooth fairy PROVES that K4 were flying 1.98ata Apr 1945.
Not proof based on -
a) Well they were ordered to convert (same doc also lists 20 units to get the K4 - didn't happen)
All I have have seen that IS factual is the 1 unit of 109G-10s (11 or 10 planes?) used 1.98 Jan 1945.
Seen no evidence of converison or use of 1.98ata by 109K-4s. Yet I am willing to concede that some must have.
The G-10 was nothing more than a G series airframe modified to K-4 standards, including the engine. If the G-10 was running 1.98 ata in January 1945 then the K-4 could do the same; it had the same engine. The G-10 and K-4 where practically the same aircraft; G-10 = field conversion of a G to a K; K-4 = new factory built K. There were only minor differences like the retractable tail wheel of the K-4.
So I'm afraid you yourself has proved that the K-4 could run on 1.98 ata as early as January 1945. Whether any K-4 actually ran on C-3 fuel is irrelevant from a game standpoint.
-
Who's saying they couldn't? Certainly not me.
Did you actually bother reading the entire last post?
Irrelevent from game standpoint?
Would love an explanation of why.
Considering the game is meant to be historical, I would suggest it is highly relevant.
In fact this can all be settled easily - Why dont ONE of you do what I did with the Spits - CALL Pyro AND ASK HIM
Or does that make too much sense?
Just make sure he gives you permission to post the discussion on the BB, I specifically asked if it was OK.
EASY.
After all in then makes all the claims and counterclaims irrelevant, he decides.
Over and OUT.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Irrelevent from game standpoint?
Would love an explanation of why.
Considering the game is meant to be historical, I would suggest it is highly relevant.
If you think AH gameplay is anything like "historical" you need to pick up a history book or two.
Originally posted by Kev367th
In fact this can all be settled easily - Why dont ONE of you do what I did with the Spits - CALL Pyro AND ASK HIM
We don't need to. Pyro has made his opinions clear in the past. The ONLY reason why we have had a G-10 instead of a K-4 is that the G-10 has a 20mm option while the K-4 had the 30mm standardized. The G-10 in AH is a K-4 in everything but the name.
OUR 109G-10 RUNS ON 1.98 ATA NOW! PYRO MADE IT SO!
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
If you think AH gameplay is anything like "historical" you need to pick up a history book or two.
We don't need to. Pyro has made his opinions clear in the past. The ONLY reason why we have had a G-10 instead of a K-4 is that the G-10 has a 20mm option while the K-4 had the 30mm standardized. The G-10 in AH is a K-4 in everything but the name.
OUR 109G-10 RUNS ON 1.98 ATA NOW! PYRO MADE IT SO!
Historical as in the aircraft involved, but then again you realised that's what I was on about.
-
Why can't you just stay on topic? Your feeble attempt at insult is rather boring. I'm a Pony driver, not 109. I just know more about the 109 (and probably everything) than you. Insults are all you can offer because you don't know the first thing about the topic at hand, and you're a sore loser (why do people behave like these threads are some sort of contests?).
And now you presume to tell the moderators what to do? Jeez, can you possibly be more full of yourself?
-
"And prob everything", wow thats a mighty big statement considering you know nothing about me.
Agreed the last comment about inferior complexes was out of order, I will edit after this post, and you have my apologies.
Staying on topic -
Got pretty pointless didn't it?
Kept asking for evidence, all I got was 'you know nothing', 'I have no idea' etc.
OK lets stay on topic, please post the evidence I requested.
In all honesty though I do believe we have reached an en-passe.
[Edit] as promised edited previous post to remove off topic, pointless and out of order comments.
-
You're still presumptuous. Why do I have to prove anything to you? Who made you an authority figure on this BBS? And yes, you don't know anything, but you sure act like you do Mr. 110G-2 in Battle of Britain. You have clearly shown you know very little about anything, and don't even understand the operating basics of piston engines, yet you presume to lecture others.
Why I even bother replying to you I don't know.
-
Operating basics of pistons lol.
For 9 years I was mechanic on gas turbine and piston engined aircraft.
Airframes and Engines.
Lynx, Gazelle, Scout, islander.
Then 3 years on commercial airliners, airframes mainly.
727, 737, 767, Airbus, Do 228, Do 328 and Cessna Citation.
I wouldn't bother either if I was you.
Re: The BoB 110 - I believe the one we use in the BoB scenario wasn't the common one in the BoB (I think 1 or 2 units were equipped with it? Or so I've been told), I just picked the wrong one in the AH2 lineup, not hard to do at 5.00am after only being BACK from work a short period.
Hey if you get the K4 @1.98 fine, just would have liked to seen some evidence.
Signing off, before it turns into a slanging match.
-
I just found a major flaw in my fuel consumption figures, I overlooked something and made an incorrect comparison/assumption.
Can hardly keep them valid since its something I accuse others of.
Ignore them.
Ok thats definately the end for me.
-
Ok thats definately the end for me.
We can only hope...
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
OUR 109G-10 RUNS ON 1.98 ATA NOW! PYRO MADE IT SO!
E6B shows 52.1"= 1.80 ata
-
You couldn't resist it could you Wotan? Fine.
As neither you of Kurfurst can't/won't provide any evidence of C3 usage here is Allied estimates of total (B4, C3, A3) fuel usage by the LW Jan thru Mar 1945.
(Figures are in tons)
(http://www.cyberonic.com/~kreed/fuel.jpg)
Total estimates for all parts including those not included in the chart eg training etc are:
Jan : 32000, Feb: 29000, Mar: 23500, Apr: ? prob well below 20000
Original doc here
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom%20Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0519-0539%20Item%204B.pdf
OK granted it's allied estimates - But its more than either of you two have shown.
Interesting is the point that the doc dated Mar 20 that calls for 20 units to convert to K4's is at the same time fuel usage by the German aircraft industry hit an all time low!
Before you get all excited - The increase in front line op's was achived by cutting back fuel usage in all other areas. The overall fuel usage Jan to Mar is declining. Theres a lot more in the doc that is not included in the total column, used those categoies to show OVERALL decline.
So put YOUR evidence up for all too see (if you have any).
Will not comment any futher until the day anyone can show C3 usage/stockpiles, the challenge is there.
-
"Hey if you get the K4 @1.98 fine, just would have liked to seen some evidence."
"Interesting is the point that the doc dated Mar 20 that calls for 20 units to convert to K4's is at the same time fuel usage by the German aircraft industry hit an all time low!"
Well, is that a surprise?
I think the point is will the K4 be modelled using B4 or C3, and WHY?
The aircraft version was designed to use C3 even if it was possibly not available at the time. If the Ki84 is modelled using the available fuel, and not the fuel the a/c was designed to use, it is pretty clear what the policy of HTC will be on this matter no matter what we say.
It will be realistic for scenarios, from that point of view, but then again a bunch of K4s facing allied armadas does not sound too facy a scenario anyway. Considering the competitiveness of K4 to other planes in MA, and numerical restrictions in scenarios, IMO it would be advisable to give K4 its C3.
-C+
-
OK granted it's allied estimates - But its more than either of you two have shown.
I am the one gave the link to Fischer-Tropsch... :rolleyes:
All you have to do is search for Butch's replies on this subject on this forum...
Why don't follow your own advice:
Ignore them.
Ok thats definately the end for me.
and go start another thread about how the AH world hates Spitfires...
-
The Fischer-Tropsch link I found on another BB, I didn't realise you had posted it also.
Just gotta get the last word in haven't you?
But I see still no proof, just the usual skip over it.
Nothing to do with 'hating spitfires', just the double standards and HYPOCRISY both you and Kurfurst demonstrate.
This will be my last as it's obvious neither of you have any intention of backing up any claims, yet expect other people to do so.
BYEEEEE
-
At about the time of the Spitfire XIV's entry into service its Me 109 counterpart was the Me 109 G-6 with the DB-605 A cleared for 1.42 ata take-off and emergency. The DB-605 AS, with improved altitude performance, came into service during the spring of 1944. MW-50 was introduced that summer in the Me 109 G-6/R2 and Me 109 G-14 enabling improved low altitude performance.
The following chart demonstates how the Spitfire XIV performed during the first half of its wartime service relative to its Me 109 rival. For more on the Spitfire data refer to the Spitfire XIV section of this site. The +18 lb. level speed performance is from AFDS which is nearly identical to that charted by Rolls Royce. 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". The same report gives 393 mph at 3,000 ft. as the total possible a/c speed using +21 lb boost, extrapolating to 377 mph at sea level. Back in June Rolls Royce had obtained 366 mph at sea level. Calculated estimates indicate that actual performance was probably somewhere between the two, or about 370 mph at SL. For comparison, the first production Spitfire 21 with Griffon 61 at +21 lbs. boost achieved 368 mph at SL. Absolute max speed at full throttle height would only have increased a few mph with the increase from +18 to +21 lb. boost. No 610 Operations Record Book shows that by July 18, 1944 their Spitfire XIVs were undergoing modifications to operate at +21 boost.
All Me 109 data used in the following charts comes from German sources. The curve of Me 109 G-5 with DB 605 AS engine at 1.3 ata is the only Me 109 curve below reflecting data from actual flight trials. It can be seen that the effect of the hydraulic coupled supercharger is properly represented (for more Me 109 G curves derived from flight trials see: HERE). Unfortunately this feature is often missing from estimated performance curves. The Me 109 G-5 and 6 curves at Start and Notleistung (take-off and Emergency) shown below are approximations, whereas the curve for the Me 109 G6/R-2 again accounts for the effect of the hydraulic coupled supercharger, although with rather less precision than that of the flight tested Me 109 G-5. The Me 109 G-14/U4 curve is an estimate by Messerschmitt's Projecktburo assumming DB 605 ASM engine using MW-50, Gondelwaffen and weight of 7,817 lbs. The GL/C-E2 for a clean G-14 with ASM engine gives 348 mph at Sea Level and 422 mph at FTH. Messerschmitt's Flugbericht Nr. M 35/25 dated 4 July 1944 determined that the MW-50 installation on the DB 605 AM engine allowed for a brief increase in boost pressure to 1,75 ata/2800 rpm, increasing sea level speeds from 315 mph to 352 mph. This corresponds well with the G6/R-2 curve below, which is equivalent to the G-14 with AM engine.
Unfortunately there is little known documentation for climb performance of the Me 109 G using 1.42 ata. The following charts reflect performance of the Spitfire XIV and Me 109 K from the introduction of the K in mid October 1944 through to VE day. The Spitfire XIV's performance was rather stable, new development going toward the Spitfire Mk 21, whereas efforts were taken to increase the output of the DB 605 D series in order to make the Me 109 K-4 more competitive. Unfortunately, flight trials of Me 109 Ks appear not to exist. The following 109 K curves were produced by Messerschmitt's Project Bureau at Oberammergau. While the curves are rather simplistic estimates (the effect of the hydraulic coupled supercharger being absent for example), they should give some idea of potential, however, they should be treated with reserve.
The Projektbüro estimate from 19.1.45 assumes 9-12159 propeller, and a weight of 7,496 lbs. Documentation listed below demonstrates that the most prevalant configuration for the ME 109 K beginning in around January 1945 would be DB 605 DB engine with 1.80 ata/2800 rpm engine limitations. GL/C-E2 from 1.11.44 gives 360 mph at SL, 441 mph at 24,606 ft. with production 9-12159 propeller. Various engine and propeller configurations were experimented with. The 9-12159 propeller was the standard production propeller but various German curves are extant showing estimated performance of the 109 K4 with 9-12199.10 and 9-17018.10 thin blade (Dünnblatt) props and Projektschraube with 4 light-metal blades. The 452 mph figure often cited as the top speed of the Me 109 K-4 derives from an estimate assumming an experimental 9-12199 Dünnblatt propeller. The DB 605 DC at 1.8 ata without MW-50 was tried but did not find favour. (Die E-stelle hat Bedenken gegen den Betrieb mit 1,8 ata Aufladung ohne MW mit C 3 Kraftstoff.) The DB 605 DC at 1.98 ata with MW was tested but seems not to have made it into service (Nach Mitteilung der E'Stelle sind 1,98 ata gesperrt.)
The November 1944 edition of the Bf 109 K-4 Flugzeug-Handbuch states:
which translates to: The MW installation serves to increase the emergency power of the engine. With 1,75 ata boost pressure, additional injection of MW increases emergency power (special emergency power) and can occasionally be used to increase level speed and rate of climb. The MW additive serves for the interior cooling of the engine and for the avoidance of overheating during flight with special emergency power. The use of the special emergency power without MW injection is forbidden! The engine is endangered without MW injection. The withdrawal of the special emergency power is done via putting the throttle lever forward on 1,75 ata boost pressure (number of revolutions 2850 U/min).
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 .
JB12
-
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 troop is not released (die Sondernotleistung DC (1,98 ata Ladedruck) für die Truppe nicht freigegeben).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reparatur-Anweisung 2. Nachtrag Nr. 191/345 from des Reichministers für Rüstung und Kriegproduktion dated 14 March 1945 gives instructions for the adjustment of engine settings. Sämtliche Änderungen sind durch die Forderung bedingt, für die leistungsgesteigerten Motoren auch B4 Kraftstoff minderer Qualität ohne Gefahr verwenden zu können. Da kraftstoff C3 in unverminderter Qualität zur Verfügung steht, werden Motoren 605 ASC und 605 DC, falls sie in dieser Ausführung aufgebaut werden, unverändert wie bisher abgegeben; da jedoch, sowohl von Neubaufertigung als auch Reparatur, die Abgabe gewöhnlich in Ausführung 605 ASB und 605 DB erfolgt, werden nahezu alle 605 Motoren von diesen Änderungen erfasst. The following table from this report shows that special emergency power remained at 1.8 ata, further power levels being reduced by about .05 ata
No evidence has yet been found that +25 lbs boost was employed in service by Spitfire XIV squadrons prior to VE day. Even at +25 lbs. the Spitfire XIV still fell short of the sea level performance of the Tempest V and highly boosted Mustangs. Ceding the low altitude role to those types, the Spitfire XIV happily carried out its medium and high altitude role providing her pilots the confidence to "mix it" with any opposition that came their way.
JB12
-
Olivier Lefebvre, noted authority on the BF 109, has stated:
The DB605DM was cleared up to 1.75ata, the DB605DB pushed the limit up to 1.8ata, both could be sustained with use of either B4+MW-50 (as mentionned in various documents, even if it was an afterthought in the DM case) or C3-MW-50. However the DB605DC max boost at 1.98ata could be achieved with use of C3+MW-50 only.
As for the fuel supply, I own copies showing detailed stockpile status for February-April 1945... But yes the C3 was definitely scarce.
As of March 1945 only a handful of 109 gruppen were using C3 for their mounts, one of the few being the II/JG11 which were responsible for testing the 605DB/DC over January-March 1945. According to a document dated late January 1945 coming from DB the 1.80 had just been cleared following serious troubles (pre-ignition) reported by the unit testing the 1.80 ata boost. It is also noted that following the clearance of the 1.8ata boost the 1.98ata operational tests could now begin but with concern about the sparkplugs thermal resistance IIRC. C3 was not used by 109 units until the 1.98ata boost was cleared, they relied on B4+MW-50 so that C3 could go to the 190 units. And even after the clearance only few gruppen got it because of shortages due not only to C3 production but also to C3 delivery to the units.
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.
JB12
-
Thanks JB12 - finally, should of guessed would come from someone else.
Seen the last post details before, never seen the first post details before.
Up to you but you may want to remove the 2nd to last paragraph in the 1st post, some may find some of the langugage inapropriate, your call. The one that starts "No evidence has come to light proving operational use of 1.98 ata ". As I said your call. I don't think it affects the overall content.
RE: the 2nd post
As I said I've seen that before.
Couple of questions -
a) As for the fuel supply, I own copies showing detailed stockpile status for February-April 1945... But yes the C3 was definitely scarce.
He the only guy with these reports?
b)"You can safely assume that by March 1945 1.98 ata boost was being introduced" -
Safely assume? Be nice to have some form of corroboration.
c)II/JG11 - that was the unit of G10s?
d) April 9 operational 79 aircraft were a mix of K4/G10, anyone got more accurate figures than "K4's and some g-10".
e)1.98ata boost was cleared late February
But not ordered/proposed until 20 Mar according to docs. In fact a German document dated 19 Mar listing unit, equipment and fuel shows no K4 unit on C3.
So we know prior to 19 Mar B4 was the fuel for K4 units.
(http://www.cyberonic.com/~kreed/RLM07.jpg)
Apologies poor quality, to see it well you need to print out then blow it up.
Thanks for the help and info JB12
No one got any links to any documents at all?
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
In fact a German document dated 19 Mar listing unit, equipment and fuel shows no K4 unit on C3.
So we know prior to 19 Mar B4 was the fuel for K4 units.
Now you're making the assumptions. The only thing that document tells you is that on March 19th no K-4 unit had stocks of C-3. The document does not tell you that they didn't have C-3 earlier or later than March 19th 1945. IIRC switching between B4 and C3 fuel in the field was an effortless matter of tuning the DB605, to the point of being little more than flipping a switch under the cowl.
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
Now you're making the assumptions. The only thing that document tells you is that on March 19th no K-4 unit had stocks of C-3. The document does not tell you that they didn't have C-3 earlier or later than March 19th 1945. IIRC switching between B4 and C3 fuel in the field was an effortless matter of tuning the DB605, to the point of being little more than flipping a switch under the cowl.
Not quite look further up -
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 ???)
Hardly flipping a switch.
Yuor correct is doen't help after 19th March, still looking for stuff on that, hard to find. Or anyone with links.
-
If they were cleared for 1.98 then tuning to 1.80 B4 would be little more then flipping a switch on the DB605D. JFYI the current tuning of the DB605D would be indicated by either DB605DB if tuned for B4, or DB605DC if tuned for C3.
-
In order to use 1.98ata further modifications/adjustments were required even 'if' they were using C3 prior to the Mar 19 doc.
Oliver Lefebvre - "But yes the C3 was definitely scarce."
So wouldn't it make more sense they were using common B4 as the Doc says, and the rarer C3 was going to the 190's who needed it? Its not as if they had C3 to throw around.
In fact by Feb/March fuel was being decreased to non-combatant units and transferred to front line units.
The 1.98ata mod wasn't proposed/ordered until Mar 20, theres a doc further back showing this.
Hoping to find some April stuff, but looking bleak :( .
I don't actually think theres any disagrement
At least we seem to be getting something of a timeline.
-
If there was C3 at an airfield I doubt very much they would ship it out. They would tune their engines and use it. You yourself have stated that you've seen evidence of a G-10 unit using C-3 as early as January '45. Why is it then so inconceivable to you that some was available in February? Your document does not tell you what fuel was where in late February. You're just making assumptions.
-
That one G-10 unit was using C3 1.98ata for Operational Testing and is listed as using C3 on the doc. It was also the only unit Jan 45 authorised to use 1.98ata.
Thats not in question.
Neither is that C3 was avialable, it just makes sense that the only ones getting it (due to scarcity) were the units who needed it ie the 190's and the single G-10 unit that needed it, as shown on the doc.
I've said the fact that C3 was available is not in question. But from the doc it would suggest that only the units needing it got it.
That would apply to Jan, Feb also.
Actually I like your thinking -
That also means just because it was proposed/ordered that the 4 K4 units were to upgrade to 1.98, doesn't mean it happened.
Judging by the scarcity of April documentation it may just end up we agree to dis-agree :)
-
Of course all undocumented arguments are only assumptions. In fact proving anything from the last desperate months of war ravaged Germany is very difficult due to lack of documentation.
-
Yeah, but hoping I can dig up at least something, you never know, but it's looking real bleak for April 45.
Was hoping somebody here would share some links to docs.
-
Yes April '45 was very bleak indeed for the Germans. Not many would be occupied with performing tests and filing reports. Most were too preoccupied with burning every document they had.
-
I've said the fact that C3 was available is not in question.
Nonsense, you repeat over and over that C3 'is in doubt'...
In fact just a few posts up you stated this...
neither you of Kurfurst can't/won't provide any evidence of C3 usage
You keep changing your line of argument. As I said the fact that 1.98 ata /C-3 was used is not in question... Its just a matter of how many...
You want proof go over to Butch's (Olivier Lefebvre) forum ( All About Warfare II - Aviation Board (http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forums/index.php?act=idx)) and register and then ask your questions. Or you can do as I suggested and search this forum for his previous replies on the subject...
It now appears you have changed your tone once again to accepting that 1.98/C-3 was tested and used by at least some 109s...
The next post you will be denying it again...
Also Italian 109 units were received C-3 from the Germans from Nov '44 at least until December '44. Kurfurst has shown that Italian ANR units had C-3 in 'storage' in April and May '45. Search this forum and you will find the image he posted. He also notes his source...
-
Geez just go twisting things again.
If you read and reread the posts all the way through all I have been skeptical of is Kurfusts claims that all 79 (not even all K4s) aircraft were all converted to 1.98ata.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
neither you of Kurfurst can't/won't provide any evidence of C3 usage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesnt equate to no C3 was used, equates to I am after C3 usage figures.
In the same post I have allied estimates of ALL (B4,C3 and A3) fuel usage. Hardly supports your I said C3 was in doubt statement.
A few posts up from that I say I believe the available C3 was going to the 190 units - Hardly supports your I said C3 was in doubt statement.
Check back again I have referenced the G10s using C3 1.98ata Jan 45 for operational Testing on numerous occasions.
Since when has Italian stocks got anything to do with Germany (yes I read the same thread). No-one apart from Kurfy seemed to think it had anything do it.
So yet again you go off half cocked.
Yes I did search the threads, I'm guessing because of his book Butch2k can put too much about what he knows on the forums.
But nothing there, despite reading through God knows how many threads I'm still left with the same question.
Wheres the proof that 1.98ata was used with K4's?
Lots of conjecture and assumptions and theories, no proof.
Maybe when his book comes out it will settle things.
-
Im pretty full of myself too:
"If the Ki84 is modelled using the available fuel, and not the fuel the a/c was designed to use, it is pretty clear what the policy of HTC will be on this matter no matter what we say." :D
-C+
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
But Kurfy uses that to justify a perk cost of a specific version (1.98ata)109K-4 of which probably there were only 45 or so.
He has already conceded Jan 45 there were 60 or so SPit 14 at 21lbs boost, so that makes that version of the K4 RARER.
Kev, can you tell us where you pulled this "only 45 1.98ata 109Ks"? Out of your arnold?
Just because there were over 300 Bf 109Ks around at that time, it`s a documented fact, and it`s also a documented fact that 4 Wings, which contained _142_, and not 45 aircraft, were ordered to convert to 1.98ata.
The 45 plane figure is pure bull**** coming out of only you.
-
The only one with the shovel is you Kurfy.
How about giving us C3 fuel deliveries, and consumption, for those 4 Gruppen that only had 79 operational K-4s with only 3-4 weeks left until the German unconditional surrender.
Do you have OFFICIAL documention that those 4 Gruppen had converted, TOTALLY, to 1.98? Or is this more dreaming speculation on your part?
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Angus - I think you misunderstand me. The 109K itself wasn't a rare plane, BUT a 109K-4 with 1.98ata was a rare plane.
Not it`s not, even if you parrot it like a madman.
Kurfurst - Well there you go again, one complete wing makes it sound like a hell of lot of planes until, you realize how many aircraft were in that wing.
One Mk XIV Wing on +21 is just one Mk XIV wing.
FOUR K-4s Wings are four Wings, four times as many, simple as that.
OK, by your own figures that puts 'maybe' 45 K-4's operating 1.98ata the 1st week of April.The war ended in May for Gods sake.
No, the "45 K-4's operating 1.98ata" is pulled out off your bellybutton and has no base.
Orders show 142 K-4/G-10 has coverted. Fact.
As I said that would make a 109K-4 on ata1.98 the RAREST bird in AH2 (45 only, and only in the last month or so of the war),nowhere near being a REPRESENTATIVE 109k-4, and will therefore not make it in.
Yes, YOU said it... and it`s hardly more than wet dreams of spitBoi.
Getting the order to convert, getting the parts and getting the time to convert are completely different animals. As I said, from your post - 79 aircraft - but I doubted that all that were converted, you stated 4.5 wings converted, thats around 45 aircraft (assuming the wings were fully equipped), so I guess I wasn't wrong or lieing after all.
Well considering a LW fighter wing was authorized with 68 aircraft, so I wonder how it is, that there were 4 Wings converting...
4 x 68 is not = 45.
Actually Kurfurst what is funny is the way you and a very few other want the rarest uberboosted LW planes and yet scream like hell when a Spit is suggested that operated in higher numbers.
Actually it`s funny how WetSpitBoi crying like a baby when it is mentioned that a slightly higher boost with about 150 more HP was cleared in Feburary 1945, and used by four fighter wings with 142 aircraft from March 1945.
45 109K-4 vs 100 spit XII (all operational), and theres no way we would get a Spit XII.
Actually it`s 1700 K-4s vs 100 Spit XII, the rest is SpitBoi`s Wet Dream. But yeah of course, get the XII, no problem with it.
Only YOU have problem of getting variants that can give ya trouble.
Or 2 squadrons of IX (40-60 ac total including spares etc) converted AND used 150 grade as early as May 44 (got scan of sqn records).Yet there is no way we would get a 150 grade IX. Why use 40-60?
A RAF sqn is 20 plans on paper, 8 of them being spares, and often they fell down well below established strenght as it happens in war. Two RAF sqns are 40 planes, and much less in practice, the rest is SpitBoi`s Wet Dreams.
But of course, get the +25 lbs MkIXs, I am all for it. True it was rare in 1944 (2-3 Sqns operating), but there were plenty from 1945. You see, I have no prob with having 'best' variants on the other side... only YOU have.
Well your LW strengths include non-op aircraft.
But that`s just the BS lies of SpitBoi Kev.
Its not even a case of best vs worst (in fact it seems to work the other way round) -
What you want is the best rarest LW rides up against the average RAF ride.
Where you got that BS again?
If a 109k-4 ata 1.98 made it in FREE, there no reason why the XVI shouldn,t be in at 25lbs boost (more common than a k4-1.98 in April '45) FREE, or even a IX at 25lbs boost FREE (definately more common April '45).
I am all for free MkIX/XVI at +25 lbs boost.
1.98ata K-4 would make a nice low-perk plane, considering the 109K was widespread, and there were about half of them running at 1.98ata.
So what rarer? 60 Spits minimum Jan 45 at 21lbs boost, or 45 maximum K-4 ata1.98 April 1945?
But that`s just WetSpitBoi`s own fantasy without a base, fictive numbers pulled out of the ass, so why take it seriously?
As usual you muddy the waters by mentioning total production numbers, we are not talking total production numbers, but a small part of those numbers. Even that you got wrong, 800-900 Spit 14? In fact 957 were produced.
Yes, 957 includeing Fighter recon variants and post war production...
I too urge people to visit his site - use your common sense and you'll realize a 109-k4 1.98ata is as rare as rocking horse sh**.
Well I urge them too. It is useful to see what a pathethic liar SpitBoi Kev is, who is distorting and maniplulating the sources stated there....
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Sorry guys had to add this - found on another forum Kurfy posts to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3441006933/r/3831072243
Dated July 28 2005.
C3 fuel stocks- needed for 1.98ata
23 april 45- 116,000l
28 april 45 - 80,000l
This he says demonstrates heavy reiliance on C3 fuel - DOES IT
116,000-80,000=36000/5 days = 7200l per day
Divide that by 400l (fuel capacity of K4/G10 without drops) = 18 sorties per day.
Even allowing returning home with 1/4 tank that only = 24 per day
These are total sorties for ALL C3 1.98ata aircraft not just K4
Ok benefit of doubt:
They all returned home safely with a 1/4 tank
NONE were shot down
NONE were lost on the ground
NO aircraft flew more than 1 sortie per day (ie 24 sorties, 24 aircraft).
Even allowing for a 50% swing on odd days i.e 1 day 12 sorties, next day 36, that still isn't even 1/2 of the K4 available, and that still assuming ALL C3 went to the K4 only.
So we have an average of 24 sorties per day for 5 days for ALL C3 aircraft (K4, G10 etc), and this supports 79 K4's all running 1.98ata?
What is more likely as I have speculated is that very few of the remaining 79 K4 could use 1.98ata.
The more you dig into Kurfys 'assumptions' the more unbelievable they become.
So Kurfy get all the benfits of the doubt and it still doesn't add up: Is it just me or can anyone see the flaw in Kurfys logic, if its just me, please say so.
The problem is that Kev is getting lower and lower into the sewer of lies, manipulating every info in desperation..
I posted this info on ubi.com, and also at butch`s board. It shows the C-3 stock of a single Italian 109 unit, that had 39 109G-10, 3 K-4s and 30 G-6s/G-14 : 72 fighters in total.
Kev grew happy and came up with an absurd story about it, that it`s kinda the entire C-3 fuel stock of the Germans in 1945, which the Germans would need to share along all units etc. etc.
It`s simply not. NOT for all the LW, all 109 units, or all 109K units as Kev likes to twist it.
This is not consumption either, it`s simply the stock state at day. Consumption figures cannot be exactly deducted, as supplies were recevied and this made up for some of the consumption : ie. on April 29th there was 10 000 liter C-3, a day late 13 000 liter. Perhaps the 109 could make fuel, too? :lol
Just the fuel stocks of a unit with 70-odd 109s, and they use C-3 fuel for their mounts, even when it`s not required.
In fact, it relates to the use of C-3 fuel by the Axis-Italian air force (ANR) in the last days of the war. I guess they were not preferred over genuie Luftwaffe units in being supplied with high octane fuel...
Noteworthy that this unit is not even listed as having to convert to 1.98ata which would require.. in other words, this unit used C-3 fuel even when it absolutely didn`t need to...
Aircrafts of this unit :
Bf 109s
7 G-6s
27 G-14s
39 G-10
3 K-4s
2 G-12 trainers
Futher 12 S.79 transports, I take these operated on B-4.
As seen, the most important engine was the DB 605D in the 109K and G-10, developing 1850 PS w. B-4 fuel and 2000 HP w. C-3 fuel.
The DB 605 A and AM engines of the G-6/G-14 could run on either fuel, but the output would remain the same.
The fuel stocks were as the following, and suggest that the primary fuel used by the Italian 109s was C-3.
Noteworthy that the Germans choosed to supply only C-3 fuel to Italy, but not B-4.
Source : "Air War over Italy".
Moreover, the claimed specific shortage of C-3 against B-4 seems odd, in view that 2/3s of the production was C-3 grade... :
The relative volumes of production of the two grades cannot be accurately given, but in the last war years the major volume, perhaps two-thirds (2/3) of this total has the C-3 grade. Every effort was being made toward the end of the war to increase isoparaffin production so that C-3 volume could be increased for fighter plane use. The isoparaffin usage in that grade had already been cut to a minimum.
via Fischer-Tropsch : http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_doc...20and%20sources.
In short, Kev has no idea of the whole thing.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Geez just go twisting things again.
If you read and reread the posts all the way through all I have been skeptical of is Kurfusts claims that all 79 (not even all K4s) aircraft were all converted to 1.98ata.
[/B]
You are playing with the statistics again. Facts :
4 Wings were ordered to convert to 1.98ata
these had 142 aircraft
out of these 79 were operational at the moment of filling out the report
Since when has Italian stocks got anything to do with Germany (yes I read the same thread). No-one apart from Kurfy seemed to think it had anything do it.
Well the Italians were supplied with fuel from Germany and nowhere else. Therefore their situation is the same as the Germans`s, their fuel came from the same stocks, and were probalbly were not preferred by the German units...
Interestingly, they received plenty of C-3 fuel. In fact, it was decided in Germany in a meeting on 8th Nov 1944 that they should receive no B-4 at all, just C-3.
Funny isn`t it, if C-3 was so rare, why it was supplied to the the 'lowly' allies of the germans instead of their own units, and why was the cheaper fuel not supplied at all..?
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
e)1.98ata boost was cleared late February
But not ordered/proposed until 20 Mar according to docs. In fact a German document dated 19 Mar listing unit, equipment and fuel shows no K4 unit on C3.
So we know prior to 19 Mar B4 was the fuel for K4 units.
(http://www.cyberonic.com/~kreed/RLM07.jpg)
Apologies poor quality, to see it well you need to print out then blow it up.
In fact the paper you have shown DO NOT show ALL Bf 109s units, there are quite a few more than just that.
In fact it just shows one of the Luftflottes out of the many, Lflotte 6 if I take it out correctly.
Most important of all, it doesn`t show any of the units that were ordered for use of 1.98ata/C-3 : it doesn`t show the JG 27 or JG 53 at all.
Moreover it`s funny to state that a 19 March doc, which doesn`t show all units (far from it) anyway, would tell what was the feul situation on October, November, December, January, February, April, May...
Of course, if I`d show an October to December 1944 doc for MkXIV squadrons, it would show none of them has 150 grade fuel. That was a period when it was not available to them, but it`s stupid to say so it wasn`t avaiable in August 44 or in 1945 either.
-
Just to see what`s the fuss all about... 1.8ata K-4 vs. 1.98ata K-4.
SL speeds :
595 kph vs. 607 kph
SL climb :
22 m/sec vs 24.5 m/sec...
Basically, the effect of higher boost disappears for speed over 6000m, and for climb over 5000m, as the higher boost can be maintained for relatively lower altitudes by the supercharger.
-
Hey Izzy, sometimes you take a fit. Well, here's a letter for you.
From yourself:
"Angus - I think you misunderstand me. The 109K itself wasn't a rare plane, BUT a 109K-4 with 1.98ata was a rare plane.
Not it`s not, even if you parrot it like a madman. "
And the letter:
I have not seen anything that proves that there were ever any of those in combat.
Doubtlessly tested though.
I will check though, for I think it's an interesting thing, - i.e. where at were the ultimate 109's IN SERVICE when the war ended, - or at all.
As far as numbers count, you can calculate as you want, WW2 still ended with the LW in ruins, and it had more or less been so for half a year or more.
Remember once again the slow "truck convoy" to Arnhem where some thousands of aircraft made it through at very slow speeds without an interception. then again and again, with rather little losses to the LW. (worse to flak)
Remember the operation Bodenplatte, where the LW, after saving it's aircraft quite a bit could muster some 800, - one day later they had like 600 or so.
Remember that many an allied pilod flew a whole TOD without ever getting into a firing range of an enemy ac.
So keep calculating untill you have some 1000 109K's all servicable at the end of the war, and please be happy about it.
Going to sleep, -gotta storm Iwo Jima tomorrow.
Best regards
Angus
-
Only pure unadulterated dreaming/speculation on your part Kurfy the K-4 units received C3 because Italy got some. :rolleyes:
Again you pick and chose what you want to fit your uber German agenda and TOTALLY ignore what others, such as Butch, say about C3 fuel avialability.
You are also having another of your convenient memory lapses. There might have been Avgas in storage but the units had a/c sitting on the ground because AvGas could not be delivered to them. :eek: You might be able to get away with your bs methods in court with unknowledgable jurors but not here.
Every Fw190A required 50% more fuel to fill its tanks than what the uber 109 needed. Now which a/c type would get preference? Not your uber, greatest fighter a/c of WW2, for sure.
You wanted numbers for 87-100 fuel numbers during BoB, which had proof given, which you ignore, naturally, so produce some numbers for those 4 Gruppen for C3 fuel deliveries. Oh, I forgot you don't need to supply proof like others even though you require others to do so.:( :(
You are playing with the statistics again. Facts :
4 Wings were ordered to convert to 1.98ata
these had 142 aircraft
out of these 79 were operational at the moment of filling out the report
So are you Kurfy for it was an order to convert, NOT that the order had been complied with. Only pure speculation on your part all those K-4s had been converted to 1.98. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Only pure unadulterated dreaming/speculation on your part Kurfy the K-4 units received C3 because Italy got some. :rolleyes:
Well some guys are speculating the 109K units that were to run on 1.98ata had no C-3 fuel, and they have no proof.
OTOH, we have proof that even those 109 units had C-3 fuel weren`t even running on 1.98ata.
How about showing the fuel deliveries of 150 grade to units? For how many RAF Sqns is there proof of receiving shipments of 150 grade fuel, let`s see... ZERO?
You are also having another of your convenient memory lapses. There might have been Avgas in storage but the units had a/c sitting on the ground because AvGas could not be delivered to them. :eek: [/B]
I see.... so about 100 000 liter of C-3 fuel just.... er.. evaporated from the fuel tanks in a few days.. :lol
Every Fw190A required 50% more fuel to fill its tanks than what the uber 109 needed. Now which a/c type would get preference? Not your uber, greatest fighter a/c of WW2, for sure.[/B]
Now that`s REAL proof, lololol.
You wanted numbers for 87-100 fuel numbers during BoB, which had proof given, which you ignore, naturally, so produce some numbers for those 4 Gruppen for C3 fuel deliveries. [/B]
Oh I am sorry I must have missed those... because you know, every time I asks our dear friend Neil Stirling about that, he suddenly goes MIA... like being scared of the subject.
So are you Kurfy for it was an order to convert, NOT that the order had been complied with. Only pure speculation on your part all those K-4s had been converted to 1.98. :rolleyes: [/B]
Well not anymore speculation than Spits running on +25 lbs or +21 lbs boost.
-
Originally posted by Kurf�rst
Well some guys are speculating the 109K units that were to run on 1.98ata had no C-3 fuel, and they have no proof.
OTOH, we have proof that even those 109 units had C-3 fuel weren`t even running on 1.98ata.
K-4s COULD NOT RUN 1.98 without C3 AND MW50.
We do? Only pure speculation on your part for you have not given any C3 delivery quantaties to those units. It is up to you to show real proof with official documents.
How about showing the fuel deliveries of 150 grade to units? For how many RAF Sqns is there proof of receiving shipments of 150 grade fuel, let`s see... ZERO?
Start a new thread.
I see.... so about 100 000 liter of C-3 fuel just.... er.. evaporated from the fuel tanks in a few days.. :lol
100,000l is only enough fuel for 166 Fw190A without drop tank sorties. Or 142 109 sorties with drop tank. It would be gone in only a couple of hours.
Now that`s REAL proof, lololol.
The expected dumb reply. The 190A had preference on C3 fuel, not your uber 109 @ 1.98.
Oh I am sorry I must have missed those... because you know, every time I asks our dear friend Neil Stirling about that, he suddenly goes MIA... like being scared of the subject.
Why do you expect Neil to reply when all we see is another of your name calling beserker rants?. It would not matter if he did, for you would ignore/write it of as more lies, as you do always.
Well not anymore speculation than Spits running on +25 lbs or +21 lbs boost.
21lb boost was cleared as of July 1944. Now we all know you think the Brits are bumbling idiots. You have been shown proof that it was used, but in typical Kurfy denial style you ignore.
Come on Kurfy show C3 production numbers from Jan to May 1945. Give us numbers of C3 delivery and to what units. This a 109 tread not a Spit thread so stop derailing the thread when you are up against the edge of the cliff.
When are you going to fix the discreptency in your article?
12. III. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10
III./JG 27 Bf 109 K and some 109 Gs
So what is it G-10 or K-4?
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Well some guys are speculating the 109K units that were to run on 1.98ata had no C-3 fuel, and they have no proof.
OTOH, we have proof that even those 109 units had C-3 fuel
weren`t even running on 1.98ata. [/B]
If your referring to your webisite, all you've proved is that C3 was available for 109's in Italy..NOT Germany.
Look a few posts back I posted a document that shows German 109K-4s as of 19 Mar were running B4 fuel.
Of course this doesn't account for the 109G-10's running C3/1.98ata for Operational Testing (they are listed as doing this on the doc).
So you may want to correct your websites " It is not known if and how many units had converted to 1,98ata before that order came", because according to that doc - it was ZERO, they weren't even running C3.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Well not anymore speculation than Spits running on +25 lbs or +21 lbs boost.
On countless occasions you have been shown squadron records and logs showing Spits converted over to 150 grade, so its hardly speculation. Is it.
Heres just one to refresh your memory.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no1_25lbs.jpg
Thats speculation...lolololol.
Still one more than any single K4 (never mind squadron) you have ever proved ran 1.98ata.
On the other hand despite your claims in this and other forums and having been asked to provide evidence, as of this time you have provided nothing.
I'm sorry a document proposing conversion to 1.98ata does not quite show ACTUAL conversion to 1.98ata.
Or is it we have to show Spits at 25lbs but are supposed to be happy with a lot less that that from you?
Of course solution is simple, post your evidence.
Milo - Don't hold your breath, been that long that he has had plenty time to post any evidence.
-
all you've proved is that C3 was available for 109's in Italy..NOT Germany.
Who do you think was supplying ANR with 109s and C-3 fuel? the Greeks..? How about the Somalis..? Maybe the Chileans..?
Go ahead take a guess...
Also Horst Petzschler's Bf 109G-10 of JG51 (Regensburg built w/ 100-type cowling - Wnr. 130297 Gelb 5 + 0297) can be seen on the web or in 'Bf 109 at War' page 92.
This G-10 had it's under carriage painted a dark color. This quite possibly be red-brown primer or "winerot" which was typically used on those 109s using C-3. This suggests that this 109G-10 of 11./JG 51 (Petzschler was in 10./JG 51 and its been suggested that he 'stole' this aircraft from another pilot to escape the advancing Soviets, he had 'engine trouble' and crash landed in Sweden. The pilot he stole the plane from was captured and interned by the Soviets) was using C-3 fuel.
As I told you several times the fact that C-3 was used by 109 units isn't in question. It's just a matter of how many and how wide spread.
But this is your red-herring no one who plays AH expects a 1.98 ata K-4. Stick with the 'why does the world hate Spitfire threads...'