Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Mister Fork on October 31, 2005, 01:48:07 PM
-
Changed:
F4U-1D - 4-44
P-51D - 5-44(ETO)
B5N2 - added
What we shoul de attempting to figure out is what dates make sense for SEA and CTA scenarios. Dates reflect a combination of active squadron service dates or if known, first action dates. They'll help SEA and Combat Theatre admins work out scenarios and what aircraft can be available to balance the gameplay. Again everyone, check the dates, and lets see if we can decide what works best.
Aircraft and Vehcile Service Dates
Aircraft
USA
A-20G ... 5-42
B-17G ... 6-43
B-24J ... 5-43
B-26B ... 5-42
C-47A ... 12-41
P-38G ... 11-42
P-38J ... 12-43(ETO) 2-44(PTO)
P-38L ... 7-44
P-40B ... 1-41
P-40E ... 8-41
P-47D-11 ... 3-43(D5) to 1-44(D11)
P-47D-25 ... 5-44
P-47D-40 ... 1-45(ETO)
P-47N ... 6-45
P-51B ... 12-43(ETO),8-44(CBI)
P51D ... 5-44(ETO),1-45(CBI&PTO)
F4F-4 ... 9-41(ETO),5-42(PTO)
FM-2 ... 6-44(ETO),10-44(PTO)
F6F-5 ... 7-44
F4U-1 ... 2-43(ETO),4-44(ETO)
F4U-1D ... 4-44
F4U-1C ... 4-45
F4U-4 ... 4-45
F6F-5 ... 7-44
SBD-5 ... 5-43
TBM-3 ... 2-43
Britain
Boston MK III ... 5-41
Hurricane Mk I ... 5-40
Hurricane IIC ... 10-42
Hurricane IID ... 6-42
Lancaster III ... 3-42
Mosquito Mk VI ... 7-43
Spitfire Mk IA ... 8-40
Seafire IIC ... 10-42,11-43(ETO)
Spitfire V ... 4-41
Spitfire Mk IX ... 7-42
Spitfire Mk XIV ... 9-44
Spitfire Mk XVI ... 7-44,7-45(CBI)
Tempest V ... 6-44
Typhoon IB ... 6-43
Soviet
Il-2 Type 3 ... 10-42
La-5FN ... 3-43
La-7 ... 6-44
Yak-9T ... 1-43
Yak-9U ... 7/8-44
Italy
C.202 ... 11-41
C.205 ... 1-43
Japan
A6M2 ... 7-40
A6M5b ... 8-43
B5N2 ... 7-40
D3A-1 ... 7-40
Ki-61 ... 6-43
Ki-84-la ... 8-44 (CBI),10-44(PTO)
Ki-67 ... 4-44
N1K2-J ... 1-45
Germany
Ar 234B ... 12-44
Bf 109E-4 ... 5-40
Bf 109F-4 ... 6-41
Bf 109G-2 ... 6-42
Bf 109G-6 ... 2-43
Bf 109G-10 ...10-44
Bf 109G-14 ... 7-44
Bf 109K-4 ... 10-44
Bf 110C-4b ... 8-40
Bf 110G-2 ... 5-42
Fw 190A-5 ... 6-43
Fw 190A-8 ... 2-44
Fw 190D-9 ... 9-44
Fw 190F-8 ... 4-44
Ju 88A-4 ... 5-41
Me 262 ... 10-44
Me 163 ... 9-44
Ta 152H ... 1-45
Vehicles
USA
LVT(A)2 ...2-44
LVT(A)4 ...3-44
M-3 ...3-41
M-8 ...9-42
M-16 ...5-43
Germany
Ostwind ... 8-44
Panzer IV Type H ... 8-44
Tiger I ...8-42
Soviet
T-34 ... 2-43
Theatres of Operations
PTO - Pacific
ETO - Europe
CBI - China-Burma-India/CHINA-BURMA-INDIA
-
Fork you can eliminate the G-10 from the list of German aircraft, after the next patch it will be renamed correctly as a 'K-4'.
-
Also the PIV/H
Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf H tanks were issued to Panzer Regiments in Panzer Divisions and were used in that role to the end of the war. On June 6th of 1944, majority of Panzerkampfwagen IV tanks present in France were Ausf H.
Ausf H production began in '43 (Apr. 1943 - July 1944). I am not sure when they were firts issued to Panzer units but its sfae to say well before 8-44.
-
You have the Spitfire Mk XVI listed as 7-45 (CBI). This is incorrect. The Spitfire Mk XVI did not see service in the CBI. The Spitfire MK XIV did though and it's service date there is 7-45. I'll see if I can get the Mosquito Mk VI's CBI service date for you tonight.
I'm not a Hurricane expert, but there is no way that the Hurricane Mk IIc first saw service in Oct., 1942. It was introduced no later than early 1941.
-
I listed 10-42 for the *Sea Hurricane* IIc as ETO in a previous thread.
Hurricane IIC should be 10-41, which I think was its date before.
"F4U-1 ... 2-43(ETO),4-44(ETO)" ? Should be 2-43 (PAC) 4-44 (ETO).
If you like you can go with 1-44 for the P-38J in the PAC. I will quote what I have on that from "P-38 Lightning Aces PAC"- page 51:
"P-38J 42-6713 SCREWY LOUIE of Lt. Lous Scriber, 80thFS/8th FG Finschafen, Jan 44". Assigned operationally. There are several other Js listed for 1-44 as well.
...and you have the F6F-5 listed twice, both at 7-44?
A6M2, B5N, and D3A should all be 12-41 not 7-40, and date prior to 12-41 for the IJN is irrelevent.
-
Squire,
10-41 is still way to late. Stanford Tuck flew Hurri IICs in combat, the moved to Spit Vs, was sent to the USA, then came back and flew Spit Vs more and was shot down and captured in Jan, 1942. Oct, '41 doesn't give enough time.
-
I bow to your sources Karnak, its all I had handy. Could you find that one for us?
PS You sure Tuck didnt fly a Hurricane IIA? or IIB?
And remember we are looking for a service dates, not "Hawker delivered its 1st one on X date". - I have been avoiding anything like that.
Forgot about the Spit V in PAC 1-43 (RAAF in Australia). No.1 Wing, RAAF.
-
Still have a hard time putting the Tiffy as 1943.
Ok it has a bubble cockpit and 4 bladed prop, but the engine seems to be a hybrid. Not early model or any intermediate/late model.
4 bladed prop did 1 thing -
Shortened take off run when 'heavy'. Did little else, even by the Air Ministries own admission.
So putting it as a 1943 Tiff because of the cockpit would be equivalent of making the current Spit IX 1943 because of 50-cal options.
Hopefully will be sorted out when it's remodelled.
-
Its also the loadout, it did not carry bombs prior to 6-43 on ops. So its a combo of its armament and boost.
But if you have a case to make with a source, fire away, its a free country.
-
Lol.
Yup it's akin to our current 'hybrid' Spit IX.
Depends if you want to base it's date based on ord/armament capabilities or engine?
If ord/armament then the current IX would be 1943 also.
If engine, well there seems to be no real world equivalent to whatever is in our Tiffy, seems to be a hybrid.
Most of the mods done to Tiffs were to do with structural strengthening, especially the tail cone area.
As no aircraft seems to be modelled with particular 'weaknesses' I would assume this is a non starter (same as reliability). In fact our current Tiffs big weakness seems to be it's wingtips, despite being big hulking wings.
-
It's not the load or the bubble top, its the performance / engine.
Even though the boost gage says 7lbs that can't be correct for the speed and climb it has in AH.
So its either 9lbs, 11lbs or 13lbs...
The date I gave Fork in the other thread was for:
Typhoon Sabre IIa +9lbs April 1943. The Hawker Typhoon and Tempest. Mason
That is the most conservative guess for the lowest possible boost. Even then it is still faster and climbs better then it should for 9lb boost. In fact it could easily jump into '44 if it is a 13lbs boost Typhoon as some seem to think:
See this thread: Typhoon speed performance (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=151881&highlight=typhoon)
From that thread:
I think +13 lbs/sqin is spot-on! I get 410 mph @ 12800 ft for R7700, and it would be more for RB329.
I guess that must be one of the engine-consuming settings Eric Brown talked about :-)
Does "Langley" refer to a US testing location? What's the story behind this?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
So whatever hard time you have for '1943' is just something you will have to get over..:p
-
I think the combo of bombs, boost, and performance gives a @6-43 date a level of "reasonableness" to it, considering its the only Typhoon AH has. I recall several debates before about it.
Also by summer of 1943 the Typhoon is in service with a more than just a few Squadrons, and the Hurricane IIC is really too long in the tooth by then.
The list isnt a "competition", its a guide for events and such, and that should be kept in mind. I think a few posters keep missing that point, whenever Mr Fork asks for service dates.
BTW I would think a Fw190 date pror to 6-43 would be helpfull. There is no varient prior to the A-5, but what would be a reasonable sub? A-3, A-4? After all the Spit F IX is there as of 7-42.
Perhaps 3-42 (Spring 42). Just a suggestion.
-
OK fair enoguh on the Tiffy.
RE D9 - Sep 1944? at the 1.8ata boost we have in AH2?
Thoguht it was later.
-
oh yes the D-9s.
1st batch that were released in sept 1944 had no MW-50
the 190D-9s with MW-50 is a 1945 plane
190D-9 with MW-50 should be classified as 1945 plane
-
Fw 190D-9 (with MW-50 boost) ... Jan-45
-
The major player before the 190A5 is the A3. It was the earliest one out, and it came out before the spit9 (which was developed as a direct result of spitVs getting their tulips handed to them by 190a3's). However the performance was markedly different from the A-5, so I don't think you can really count it, unless you make a special note that the A5 is standing in for the A3 in any scenario etc.
-
There were multiple 'WEPS' on the D-9...
C3 injection (Erhöhte Notleistung)
Low Pressure MW-50 (Oldenburg system)
High Pressure MW-50
Good luck assigning a date to each 'system'.
I don't have AH2 installed on this CPU so if some one could confirm 1,8ata from the in game E6B please do so. I don't fly that plane much but IIRC I thought max ata was 1,7 WEP / 1,50 mil.
I will take a quick look through Naudet's posts over on Butch's forum...
Of course if you think its something that should be changed please feel free to research it.
EDIT
A quick look turned up this:
Based on the documents i aquired from the german museum at munich, here the first article, an overview about the Special Emergency power settings available for the JUMO213A.
There were four different forms of SEP for the JUMO213A:
1. Increased Boost Pressure (Erhoehte Notleistung)
2. MW50 Injection
3. Special Take-off peak (Sonderstartspitze)
4. GM-1
Increased Boost Pressure was activated by using a switch when engine was running at take-off/emergency power, boost pressure raised by 0.2 ata and produced 1900PS@3250rpm@1,7ata. MW50 was also activated by a switch, when engine was at take-off/emergency power. Boost pressure increased by 0.28 ata and MW50 was injected at a rate of 150 l/h, resulting in 2100PS@3250rpm@1,78ata.
MW50 system came in two types, low and high pressure system. This pressure only refers to the pump pressure inside the MW50 system. In case of the low pressure system, MW50 was pumped to the injection valves at 0,6 atü using charged air from the engine. In case of the high pressure system, delivery pressure was 4 atü using a compressor.
Both forms of SEP were available up to 5000m, for both the change from Bodenlader to Höhenlader had to be readjusted to an altitude of around 1800-2000. Those two forms could not be used on one engine, it was either Increased Boost Pressure OR MW50. If an engine that had increased boost pressure kit installed was intended for MW50 retrofit, the boost pressure kit had to be entirely removed with the exception of the switch which was actually an MW50 switch. Increased boost pressure could be used for take-off, while MW50 was restricted to inflight usage. Both were limited to 10 minutes, but could be used multiple times during a flight.
The Special Take-off peak was only available for engines outfitted with the Motorbediengeräte MBG G-1 (that’s were the JUMO213AG designation comes from, it just indicates that this engine has the MBG G-1 and not the old F-5). By using the Notzugmechanism the engine would produce 1900PS@3250rpm@1,7ata, but only up to a max altitude of 500m. The Special Take-off Peak was available for engines with MW50 injection. But according to an experience report it was withdrawn from service soon after clearance, because the actual power produced varied widely and the system proved unreliable in service. With the prohibition to use the Special Take-Off Peak the designation JUMO213AG also was withdrawn and no differentiation between JUMO213A with MBG F-5 or MBG G-1 were made any longer.
GM-1 could be used above rated altitude (6km). GM-1 could be injected at three different rates 60g, 100g and 150g. This was achieved by using two injection valves, one 60g nozzle for the 60g injection rate, one 100g nozzle for the 100g rate and for the 150g rate both were opened.
Interestingly the GM-1 installation could be used to deliver MW50. The only necessary change were the injection valves. And MW50 was not to be filled into the GM-1 installation before atleast 24 hours passed since GM-1 was pumped out. After MW50 had been used in the system, it was not advised to use GM-1 again, because rests of MW50 could produce crystallisations when coming in contacted with GM-1 and block the lines and valves.
GM-1 and MW50 could have been used in one plane by installation of both systems, but for the JUMO213A GM-1 use was not intended and therefore only MW50 was used operational.
For the JUMO213E/F the MW50 system was also used to work as coolant for the charged air at climb & combat rating or above. Because of this, the MW50 system for the JUMO213E/F also used two injection valves, one for a rate of 90 l/h at climb & combat or take-off/emergency rating to cool down the charged air and the second valve for 150 l/h for Special Emergency power below rated altitude.
This was posted by Naudet on Butch's AAW2 forums...
-
However the performance was markedly different from the A-5, so I don't think you can really count it, unless you make a special note that the A5 is standing in for the A3 in any scenario etc.
There was hardly any difference in the fully rate A-3 and A-5 or the A-4 for that matter. Some early A-3 had still had the BMW 801C and IIRC a some derated due to technical issues.
-
The a5 was heavier, and more heavily armed. The speed and acceleration were better in the A3 if I recall, and the turn capabilities may have been as well, considering how well they spanked the spitVs they met. (that's speculation on my part)
-
And without it laboring into an endless debate about ATA/wep ratings (which is not what we are here for), does anybody have a suggestion with a date re the Dora-9 and a pre 1943 190A?
Personally I think the D-9 should be 9-44, its hardly uber vs all the late war allied rides. Spit XIV, P-51D, P-47D ect ect.
190A-3 date perhaps for the 190A.
We already know there were differences, we need a sound opinion now on dates, please.
-
We already know there were differences, we need a sound opinion now on dates, please.
I think that just giving the correct date (as best we can establish them) for the correct / particular variant is 'good enough'.
We all know the limitations of the AH plane set. Whoever is designing the event, scenario, or CT set up will inevitably be faced with the question of substitutions. It's at this point when the discussion over what plane can be moved up or down on their service date to fill a hole should take place.
If this list is to be used as some sort of guide then just putting out a date range will only mean that that date range will get stretched even farther when looking for a good substitute.
If the A-5 entered service in 6-43, the list should reflect that. The debate over how much earlier the A-5 can substitute for an A-4 or A-3 or how late it can stand in for an A-6 or A-7 should take place then.
However, feel free to disagree...
-
Very well Squire. I will list the date I have for the A3. If you would like it added is another matter: I present it for use or for discarding. I am, as they say, like Switzerland.
One source simply says "Spring '42" for the A-3. Warbirdresourcegroup says autumn '41 (I doubt this, personally).
I know in Feb '42 Galland led a group of 190s as escort for 2 battle cruisers sneaking out through the channel -- shooting 6 Swordfish and fighting with spitfires and hurricanes in the process. I *think* those were A-3s.
The thing with the 190a3 is that the RAF didn't think it was a new plane at first. Not til they got their butts handed to them. Then it took a while for them to learn more about this plane and even planned a raid for stealing one, but called the raid off when an A-3 accidentally landed in perfect condition at an RAF field (bet that pilot felt stupid!). After that the RAF put a new engine on the Spit V and in July '42 the spit9 went into service.
So Feb '42 sounds about right for the delayed reaction the RAF had with the 190, til July when they got a new spit version.
Spit9 went into service July '42
-
Fw 190A-3 March 1942.
II./JG 26. German Aircraft of the Second World War. Smith and Kay.
-
Originally posted by Squire
And without it laboring into an endless debate about ATA/wep ratings (which is not what we are here for), does anybody have a suggestion with a date re the Dora-9 and a pre 1943 190A?
Personally I think the D-9 should be 9-44, its hardly uber vs all the late war allied rides. Spit XIV, P-51D, P-47D ect ect.
190A-3 date perhaps for the 190A.
We already know there were differences, we need a sound opinion now on dates, please.
From what I have read, 190D-9 service began in October 1944 with III/JG-54. I think II/JG26 got their Doras in November.
I have read that the 190A-5 began deliveries in May of 1943. However, Caldwell states that I/JG26 received A-5s in January. :confused:
It seems that the 190A-3 was reaching combat units in late May or early July, 1942. One was mistakenly flown to Britain on July 23, 1942. So, by then they were certainly flying in strength. Caldwell states that JG26 received 190A-3/U3s in June at Le Bourget.
My regards,
Widewing
-
According to Axel Urbanke's 'Green Hearts, First in Combat with the Dora 9' he states that D-9s were deliveries to III./JG54 began in Sept '44 but did not fly combat missions until Nov '44. They were 'fully deployed' to the squadron by the end of Sept '44. D-9 production began in August '44.
Also see here:
Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen III./JG54 (http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg54.html)
-
oops A-5 I listed as Feb '43 (I./JG 26 Caldwell).
Also for confirmation:
Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen I./JG26 (http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg26.html)
Shows 2.43 as well (20 serviceable)...
-
Not saying D9 wasn't Sep 44, but that was at 1.7ata.
I believe the D9 with 1.8 was Jan 45 earliest (big 'maybe' end Dec 44).
Yes ours is 1.8ata according to E6B.
Maybe revise the date?
Squire doesn't matter if its uber or not.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fw190/fw190d9test.html
Toward the end -
By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service. *
* Dietmar Hermann, Focke-Wulf Fw 190 "Long Nose", (Schiffer, Atglen, PA, 2003)
Note - "at the point of entering service" so Jan 45 wouldn't be unreasonable.
-
Ok, CBI Mossies.
PR operations using Mossies were initiated on 23 August, 1943. Mosquito Mk VIs flew eight recon missions in September, one of which landed close behind enemy lines with bullet holes in both oil tanks. It was repaired and flew off of a makeshift runway three weeks later however.
Buildup was very slow though. By October, 1943 there were the grand total Mossies of two Mosquito F.Mk IIs, three FB.Mk VIs and two PR.Mk IXs.
The first strike mission by a Mk VI was flown on November 1st, 1943. The following day a Mk VI sent to survey Japanese airfields failed to return. Japanese radio reported that the Mosquito shot down was "No match for Japanese fighters". The fighter Mossies were used for low-level straffing operations as well as recon and one was forced down by a Zero over Allied territory.
By 22 January the strength had risen to twenty Mossies, mainly FB.Mk VIs and PR.Mk IXs. Success was so great that they decided twenty two of the one hundred planned squadrons for the far east theater would be Mossies.
Operations continued to build in number and intensity until 25 October, 1944 when all Mossies were grounded after a Mossie's wing disintergrated in flight while making an attack run or PR run and it was subsequently found that glue used in the Mossie's structure had succumbed to the tropical heat and humidity, excepting those parts/Mossies glued with the experimental formaldehyde glue. Limited operations were cleared for those aircraft on November 9, 1944. Numbers built up again and by the end of December, 1944 a respectable number of Mk VIs were performing Rhubarbs again. On January 15, 1945 four Oscars (Ki-43s) engaged three of 82 Squadron's Mosquito Mk VIs and shot down Flt. Lt. C.R. Goodwin's Mosquito. Operations grew in intensity for the remainder of the war it seems.
As for what is reasonable for the Mossie's CBI intorduction date, that is up to you. I wouldn't put it any earlier than 11-43 though and they were rare at that point. 1-44 might work as well. Or pick a date in 1944 that feels right.
-
(this's same website that kev used)
Dietmar Hermann wrote of testing the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 "Long Nose"
(... the last paragraph)
In production aircraft it was planned that the MW 50 system could be used to draw fuel or methanol/water from the 115-liter tank. On account of delivery difficulties, however, it was decided to use the tank with methanol-water only, and this was dubbed the "Oldenburg System" (see III./JG 54). This system was installed in production aircraft beginning in November 1944.
-
"With methanol-water, maximum speed at ground level was 585 km/h at 3,300 rpm and 1.76 atm boost?. In production aircraft it was planned that the MW 50 system could be used to draw fuel or methanol/water from the 115-liter tank. On account of delivery difficulties, however, it was decided to use the tank with methanol-water only, and this was dubbed the "Oldenburg System" (see III./JG 54). This system was installed in production aircraft beginning in November 1944. "
1.76atm??????
Installed in production aircraft and entering service are two different things.
Title of thread is "Service Dates".
"and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service." - End Dec 1944
1.8ata was Jan 45.
-
Well, I looked through my books and all any of them said was 1941 for the Hurricane Mk IIc, but I don't have any Hurricane specific books.
This web site (http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/html%20pages/hawker%20hurricane.htm) claims that the Hurricane Mk IIc entered service in April, 1941 and since it is on the internet we know that it has to be true.;)
Seriously, 4-41 seems about right to me, but call it as you will.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Not saying D9 wasn't Sep 44, but that was at 1.7ata.
I believe the D9 with 1.8 was Jan 45 earliest (big 'maybe' end Dec 44).
Yes ours is 1.8ata according to E6B.
Maybe revise the date?
Squire doesn't matter if its uber or not.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fw190/fw190d9test.html
Toward the end -
By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service. *
* Dietmar Hermann, Focke-Wulf Fw 190 "Long Nose", (Schiffer, Atglen, PA, 2003)
Note - "at the point of entering service" so Jan 45 wouldn't be unreasonable.
Some D-9s ran C3 injection (Erhöhte Notleistung) which came earlier then MW-50. However, if you had read the site you linked or been more honest in you selection of quotes you have seen that field conversions for MW-50 began in October for III./JG54
You selectively quoted this:
With methanol-water, maximum speed at ground level was 585 km/h at 3,300 rpm and 1.76 atm boost. In production aircraft it was planned that the MW 50 system could be used to draw fuel or methanol/water from the 115-liter tank. On account of delivery difficulties, however, it was decided to use the tank with methanol-water only, and this was dubbed the "Oldenburg System" (see III./JG 54). This system was installed in production aircraft beginning in November 1944.
But if read on and quoted the rest:
The Junkers technical field service visited III./JG 54 monthly. In October the number of Fw 190 D-9s on strength with the Gruppe rose to 68. Of these, 53 had been converted to 1,900 h.p. and one was delivered by Focke-Wulf with the MW 50 system. The remaining 14 were in the process of being converted and completion was imminent.
In its November report, Junkers noted that all the aircraft of the three new Gruppe were being converted to 1,900 h.p. and that the work was significantly more difficult at frontline airfields where there were no hangers.
By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service
So you may not like the fact that the Typhoon is at minimum '43 plane, but thats no reason to stretch the truth to 'get back' at the D-9...
-
One more thing, don't too caught up on 1.76 ata or 1.80 ata the difference is minimal and could be that AH has E6B shows 1.80 when in fact it chould be 1.76 ata.
Also, again if you read the page, you will see that on 19, October 1944, Flight Report FW 190 D-9/210002 Nr 2., that they were able to get in a range of 1.75 - 1.80 ata over 3 three tests:
Wie aus der Auftragung ersichtlich; entsprach die Zuordnung bei den Flügen 1 und 2 am 12. und 14.10. nicht ganz den Soll werten. For the 1900 PS – power, the boost pressure below full throttle height, pLC = 1,75 ata, lay too high and for methanol operation with pLC 1,77, somewhat too low. Therefore, the speed increases of ΔVa = ~12 mph (20 km/h) (for 1900 HP) and ΔVb = ~20.5 mph (33 km/h) (for methanol) are to be used. After repeated adjustment, the maximum boost pressures lay in the correct range during flight 3 on 14.10, i.e. 1.7 ata for 1900 PS and 1.8 ata for methanol.
14.10 is 14.10.44 or 14 Oct '44...
-
Flight test is a flight test is a flight test - NOT in service.
Who's stretching now?
Thought the title of the thread was In Service, not 1st flew, flight tested etc.
Clearly states that no 1.8ata was ready for IN SERVICE prior to end Dec 1944, so Jan 1945 is a good bet.
-
Flight test is a flight test is a flight test - NOT in service.
What's that got to do with what I posted?
What I said was over 3 test they achieved a range of 1.75-1.80 ata...
They were not testing 1.80 specifically for inclusion into service.
The point being as I stated in the post above it:
One more thing, don't too caught up on 1.76 ata or 1.80 ata the difference is minimal and could be that AH has E6B shows 1.80 when in fact it could be 1.76 ata.
Since in Oct, Nov, Dec III./JG 54 were installing MW-50 kits on site that they may have achieved a similiar range of ata; some lower then 1.76 some higher...
You 1.80 ata is a red herring, what really matters is performance. Have you tested AH's D-9 to see where it falls compared with the tests on Mike's site? If so please post your results... As has been shown sometimes the gages don't match expected performance in AH.
-
Clearly states that no 1.8ata was ready for IN SERVICE prior to end Dec 1944, so Jan 1945 is a good bet.
Who said that, you? pfff...
Here is the quote where you 'deduced' that from:
bold by you:
By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service.
This is where you conclude:
Note - "at the point of entering service" so Jan 45 wouldn't be unreasonable.
I will re-post that quote with my bold:
By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service.
183 in operation by the end of Dec...
But not only that:
The Junkers technical field service visited III./JG 54 monthly. In October the number of Fw 190 D-9s on strength with the Gruppe rose to 68. Of these, 53 had been converted to 1,900 h.p. and one was delivered by Focke-Wulf with the MW 50 system. The remaining 14 were in the process of being converted and completion was imminent.
53 converted in October, 1 delivered from the factory, 14 more in the process of conversion...
So your conclusion about Jan '45 is just you making things up.
-
No you read this -
"[...]In September 1944 an equipment kit was installed which raised boost pressure and increased the Jumo 213 A's emergency output from 1,750 to 1,900 h.p. The installation was carried out on-site by Junker's Tecnical Field Service (TAM). This increased emergency power could be used at altitudes to 5000 meters. At the same time, use of takeoff power (1,750 h.p.) was extended to 30 min., while authorization was given to use combat power (1,620 h.p.) without restriction. "
1900hp was possible on ata1.7 - this is the increased performance mod referred to in your
By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service.
It is NOT the MW-50 and ata1.8 modification.
Let me simplify -
183 Fw-190D9 with the 1st mod by end Dec 1944, 60 with the MW-50 ata1.8 modifcation ABOUT TO ENTER SERVICE by the end of Dec 1944.
You can 'fudge' all you want with dates, but they were still trialling/testing 1.8ata in October 1944.
It was starting to be fitted to production aircraft November 1944
Deliveries to units began end December 1944.
-
That is all academic and interesting but misses the point.
We are not going to get multiple Fw190D-9 versions in AH. Therefor the Fw190D-9 we have, regardless of where it's performance puts it, will get used in all situations where the Fw190D-9 is appropriate. Thus the date on the Fw190D-9 in AH is 10-44. That is just the way it is.
-
From The Hawker Hurricane, An Illustrated History by Francis Mason:
The first Squadrons to recieve the Hurricane IIC, both in April, were No. 3 at Martlesham Heath (squadron leader Russell Faulkner Aitken, later Grp Capt. CBE, AFC) and No. 257 at Coltishall (still commanded by Sqn Ldr Bob Standford Tuck, DFC). The first Service deliveries of Mk IICs with Chatelleraut gun feeds were made to No 46 squadron (still led by Rabagliatti) at Sherburn-in-Elmet at the end of April, it being intended the squadron would take them to the Middle East in May, at the last moment this plan was dropped and, after removal of the tropical filters, the aircraft were handed on to No 87 squadron in Charmy Down
He goes on to say the first Hurricane IICs in the Middle East were with 229 squadron "newley arrived in September".
-
Originally posted by Karnak
That is all academic and interesting but misses the point.
We are not going to get multiple Fw190D-9 versions in AH. Therefor the Fw190D-9 we have, regardless of where it's performance puts it, will get used in all situations where the Fw190D-9 is appropriate. Thus the date on the Fw190D-9 in AH is 10-44. That is just the way it is.
Come off it Karnak -
If your going to base 1 plane at a certain date because of its performance, you place ALL planes at a date because of its performance.
Lets stop this selective date fudging.
We are unlikely to get multiple versions of various planes, yet it's service date should be determined by it's specs, NOT by the base aircraft.
Good e.g. is the current Spit V, at 16lbs boost could hardly be classed as a 1941 aircraft, yet by your standards it would be.
Or just rename thread to -
Aircraft In Service Date (with the best fudging/workarounds/compromises/slanting).
After all it doesn't seem like actual in service dates matter.
-
The difference is that the Spit V is not an end of war fighter and, as you are aware, I advocated for a reduction in it's boost settings to make it applicable to 1941 settings for that reason. If you look at the original list I had suggested and it had been adopted with the actual introduction to service dates. They have changed it to introduction to combat. It is still a moot point as demonstrated in the next paragraph.
With a 10-44 introduction date the Fw190D-9 is already going to be facing everything the Allied set in AH has to offer and still have less than a year of coverage. Saying that it is for March, 1945 and April, 1945 only is silly and it changes nothing. In 10-44 it will already be facing P-38Ls, P-47D-40s, P-51Ds, Spitfire Mk XIVs and Tempest Mk Vs. Pushing it further back does nothing but establish titular and boring Allied dominance.
-
Early/mid/late makes no difference.
At 1.8ata its a Jan 1945 aircraft.
You want to "fudge" the date to make it so it can take part in more scenarios etc, fine.
Like I said actually "in service" doesn't really matter, does it, so why you even bothering?
Pick a date ANY date and say its OK for that aircraft type.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
No you read this -
"[...]In September 1944 an equipment kit was installed which raised boost pressure and increased the Jumo 213 A's emergency output from 1,750 to 1,900 h.p. The installation was carried out on-site by Junker's Tecnical Field Service (TAM). This increased emergency power could be used at altitudes to 5000 meters. At the same time, use of takeoff power (1,750 h.p.) was extended to 30 min., while authorization was given to use combat power (1,620 h.p.) without restriction. "
1900hp was possible on ata1.7 - this is the increased performance mod referred to in your
By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service.
It is NOT the MW-50 and ata1.8 modification.
Let me simplify -
183 Fw-190D9 with the 1st mod by end Dec 1944, 60 with the MW-50 ata1.8 modifcation ABOUT TO ENTER SERVICE by the end of Dec 1944.
You can 'fudge' all you want with dates, but they were still trialling/testing 1.8ata in October 1944.
It was starting to be fitted to production aircraft November 1944
Deliveries to units began end December 1944.
Yup you are right, I had to dig out Dietmar Hermann's book to make sure the quotes weren't mixed up...
Climb & Combat 1620 PS ~ 1,4 ata
Take-off/Emergency 1750 PS ~ 1,5 ata
Increased Emergency 1900 PS ~ 1,7 ata
MW50 injection 2100PS ~ 1,78 ata
But we only talking about a few of months here (Jan '45 rather then Sept '44) and only for WEP at that (10 min on 5 off in AH). If you read MWs site at 1.7 ata / 1900 PS you gain 10 - 11 mph below full throttle height take-off power (above 1750 PS)and gain 20 - 22 mph with MW-50 (1.78 ata 2100 PS) above 1750 PS.
Based on the flight results, and allowing for variations, it can be stated that a gain in speed of 10 to 11 mph (16 to 18 km/h) is obtained below full throttle height using take-off power increased to 1900 PS. 20 ½ to 21 ¾ mph (33 to 35 km/h) can be obtained using MW 50 installation, with the 160 Ltr. - nozzle.
and
The enclosed speed graph shows level flight performance with Increased Take-off power (1900 HP - basis) and Special- Emergency power. As evident, a gain in speed of 13 to 15 km/h is obtained by the gap sealing. Level speeds at Sea Level:
According to Naudet:
And to give a quick glance on the MW50 test, Wk.-Nr. 210 002 reached speeds of 570-580 km/h with Erhoehte Notleitung and 590-595km/h at SL using MW50, without ETC504 attached and a puttied and polished surface.
In a later test were a gap between engine and wing was covered, 002 managed 608km/h at SL using MW50.
But all tests were done using underperforming engines, mentioned in both FW and Junkers documents and so they approve Hennings oppion that the engine of 002 was somewhat "bad". He was right, because the first serial production chargers did not reach intended full boost altitude and airflow, according to Junkers reports of benchtests with there JUMO213 engines from the first serial production batch.
And funny to note, comparative test with Wk.-Nr. 210 001 with standard factory surface finish reached the same speeds as 002. FW was a bit curious why the higher quality surface finish of 002 did not show in better performance and were keen to investigate that issue further.
The conclusion of FW was that with engines performing to the published figures and good factory finish a serial production D9 will reach the calculated performance figures.
According Whels last test on AH deck speeds the AH D-9 does
190D-9 346 mph (557 km/h) MIL
190D-9 375 mph (604 km/h) WEP compared to 378 mph (608 km/h) MW-50
If this is still true the AH2s D-9 may match up well with a Jan '45 D-9 running at max 1.78 / 1.80 ata 2100 PS and should be adjusted to reflect that. However, someone should run full tests to be sure.
here's what Butch said:
The Oldenburg Gerät was indeed an MW-50 system which was not mounted on every airframe, it was based on an MW-50 tank not the dual MW-50/fuel tank which was used on the later serialized system (beginning february 1945).
The Oldenburg Gerät (LP MW-50 system) were installed during production in the early part of November '44 and III./JG54 received 60 by the end of December.
FYI
PS is the metric equivalent of HP (2100 PS = 2071 HP / 1900 PS = 1874 HP) on MW's site HP / PS are inter mixed.
-
It is a matter of what is acceptable fudging. Somewhere between the extremes of "It is a WWII aircraft so we can use it in any WWII scenario" and "Werk# SP5003 entered service on 2-13-1945 and that is the one modeled" there is the optimum point. Some sacrifices to perfect accuracy have to be made when there is a limited planeset unless the performance in question is too dramatically good (see: Spitfire Mk V at +16lbs boost or Typhoon at +11 or +13 lbs boost) for earlier usage and the Fw190D-9 in AH does not reach those levels of performance relative to the Allied aircraft. Therefor it is a reasonable proximization of reality to use it from 10-44 all the way to the end. It is not like using a +13lbs boost Typhoon that is 30+mph faster than it should be for a 1942 +7lbs boost Typhoon when the Axis have nothing that can sustain even the 1942 Typhoon's speed down low.
-
For the 'list' accurate dates should be given (as best as possible). It is then left up to the CM / designer to decide to what degree of fudging is acceptable for his event etc...
If we start off the list by 'fudging' the limits to such 'fudging' will get stretched even more when CMs start looking at substitutions.
Let's just get an 'accurate list' and be done with it...
-
I don't consider 10-44 a "fudge" for the Fw190D-9. A "fudge" is using an aircraft before it, or one very like it, was in service. For example using the Bf109G-10 we have now for D-Day settings is a "fudge".
If you list the Fw190D-9 as a 1-45 aircraft and then it gets used for a 10-44 setup, and it will, there will be at least one person who will use the list as ammunition against whoever did the setup so that their chosen side can have some slight gain in advantage. Except in the case of very significant performace differences it is best to just go with the combat entrance of the given model. Only when the performance difference is too extreme to be considered should boost levels determine the service date.
-
:O
The Dora should be perked! (low production and as rare as 152s)
:)
i also think 190A_6 should be added and AH 190A-8 would need a bit more engine engine performance (hmmm BMW 801 TS?) so that it can match all aliied aircraft in 1944
-
Originally posted by Bruno
For the 'list' accurate dates should be given (as best as possible). It is then left up to the CM / designer to decide to what degree of fudging is acceptable for his event etc...
If we start off the list by 'fudging' the limits to such 'fudging' will get stretched even more when CMs start looking at substitutions.
Let's just get an 'accurate list' and be done with it...
Agreed.
Therefore please amend the 190-D9 MW-50 ata1.8 (as we have) 'service date'.
Leave it up to the CMs etc to decide how much leeway/fudging they are willing to have.
-
So, what is the werk number on the Fw190D-9 we have in AH and when did it enter service? Can't have it any earlier than the one it's modeling is based on. That would be "wrong".
You guys are being silly. It is an Fw190D-9, an end of war aircraft. Nitpicking it down to the last week or whatever of WWII is just being petulant.
-
No, just being accurate for the model with given engine specs in AH2.
Could argue it's the price you pay for having the ultimate boosted late war 190.
For exactly the same reasons the Spit 14 will probably have to amended as it is supposed to go to 21lbs.
Strange its current date is 9/44 despite the fact Spit XIV flew D-Day and before.
-
Its Mr Forks list, im just a helping hand.
I would go with:
Hurricane IIC 4-41
190D-9 9-44
Mosquito VI (PAC) 11-43
From what I read above.
...As for the D-9, obviuusly my previous point has been met with a stone throwing mob of "varient hooligans". I am now asking for teargas to be deployed, and the security forces to issued riot gear. You have been warned! :)
-Seriously, its just a round and round about stuff thats not that relevent. It is a D-9, it does not go 475mph, so relax. 9-44.
190A-5, ya ok, leave it as it is maybe and let the designers sort it out .
-
Since we're not 'fudging" on planes, then I'd suggest changing the Spit XIV from September 44. That's a huge "fudge" since the Spit XIV was operational far earlier then this.
Just using the logbook of the 91 Squadron pilot that I have, he was over France in a Spit XIV on April 26, 1944 and 91 was not the first with XIVs. They were doing sweeps up until they were pulled off them to deal with the V-1s. So to use the V-1 as an excuse not to have the XIV operational before September 44 sure looks like a 'fudge' to me
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Trend here - push the allied aircraft service date beyond their original service date, put the LW planes before their in service date.
Quit your whining...
You only started on the D-9 because of what was posted on the Typhoon...
I don't fly the D-9 so I don't really care what date Fork chooses for his list, Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan... It's only in the interest of maintaining a consistent position that I arrived at Jan '45. As others have pointed out the D-9 will still be fighting the exact same planes, whether its comes in at Sept '44 or Jan '45. Not to mention what Naudet says about the 002 tests and the engines under performing. Which isn't hard to imagine given that this D-9 was set up for multiple 'WEP' and fuel types.
The facts are with the D-9 we are only talking about a net gain of around 12 mph jumping from 1.7 ata @ 1900PS to 1.78 ata @ 2100PS. That's quite a difference between a 7lb boost Typhoon and a 9, 11 or 13lb 4 prop-blade variant. Especially, as it relates to its service entry date. The safe bet here is just to assume its 9 lb 4 blade-prop variant and have in come in at '43. There's no conspiracy to push back the entry dates of all allied planes. It's up to who ever compiles the list to choose whatever date he wants.
I didn't supply any of the dates for the Spitfires, if Guppy says earlier for the current XIV variant then so be it. So who is it that is pushing back allied planes? Many of my contributions to the is thread have pushed back the dates for some LW planes. Also, this list was started many years ago by a guy who was in an Allied / Spitfire squad, blame him. Most of those numbers come from him and his research. Most of the guys supplying dates in these threads fly Allied planes, many fly Spitfires...
You always look for the 'conspiracy'. HTC hates 'Spitfires' and apparently so does everyone else...
-
Just to clarify on the Spit XIV. It appears that 610 and 91 both were flying sweeps over France from the beginning of May 44 so I'd use that date instead of September 44. It's only a couple of squadons, along with 322 squadron that converted to XIVs at the time, but they were definately operational in squadon strength over France in May of 44 flying Sweeps and also Rhubarbs.
Again using the 91 pilots logbook, he notes sweeps to Reims, Dungeness, Calais, Abbeville, Cherbourg and a Ranger SE of Paris as well as bomber escorts and then covering the D-Day landings with lots of ground strafing with mentions of Caen, Brussels, Ostend etc.
As an aside, the logbook is of the pilot who downed the first V-1 in daylight which was June 16, 1944.
-
I will give my opinion on the so called "fudging" thing. This goes back to an old arguement in some CT and Event circles about "no subbing a/c", and so two camps evolved: one camp advocated substitutions that made sense, the other camp was rabidly opposed to any subs at all...
And so the same with "lists", we had a grp advocating a service list that was strictly based on the exact sub types involved (eg. A6M5b), and those that wanted a more "generic list" to cover area where the planseset was small.
As an ex-CM and a fellow who participted in many events I am firmly in the "generic brand" camp.
Imho, a strict, sub type specific, uncompromising list is perhaps interesting to look at....but is also usless on many occasions as a tool, which is what its for. This is where people get lost, the list is not to just look at and say "gee wiz look at that date", its supposed to be of some help to Event organisers, and with the limited set in AH, I think "sensible" substitutions need to be used.
And so, any list needs to reflect that.
As for "service dates" they sometimes reflect deployment to a specfic combat area...rather than a strict 1st in service date. Example the Spit XIV. That is not a "fudged date" its a "deployed to Holland" date, I did not just get "9-44" out of a hat. The F4U-1 of 2-43, thats also a deployed date, which is later than its strict in service date.
The dates are not "accusations" that a certain ac saw no combat at all, prior to the date involved, but are sometimes...sometimes I said, a date that perhaps reflects a more reasonable time frame for sqn service.
But, its not my list. Mr Fork is the one who will decide what he wants to do with it.
I may publish my own list, who knows.
In the immortal words of Dirty Harry "I may just make my own dead pool, and put you on it". :D
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Quit your whining...
You only started on the D-9 because of what was posted on the Typhoon...
I don't fly the D-9 so I don't really care what date Fork chooses for his list, Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan... It's only in the interest of maintaining a consistent position that I arrived at Jan '45. As others have pointed out the D-9 will still be fighting the exact same planes, whether its comes in at Sept '44 or Jan '45. Not to mention what Naudet says about the 002 tests and the engines under performing. Which isn't hard to imagine given that this D-9 was set up for multiple 'WEP' and fuel types.
The facts are with the D-9 we are only talking about a net gain of around 12 mph jumping from 1.7 ata @ 1900PS to 1.78 ata @ 2100PS. That's quite a difference between a 7lb boost Typhoon and a 9, 11 or 13lb 4 prop-blade variant. Especially, as it relates to its service entry date. The safe bet here is just to assume its 9 lb 4 blade-prop variant and have in come in at '43. There's no conspiracy to push back the entry dates of all allied planes. It's up to who ever compiles the list to choose whatever date he wants.
I didn't supply any of the dates for the Spitfires, if Guppy says earlier for the current XIV variant then so be it. So who is it that is pushing back allied planes? Many of my contributions to the is thread have pushed back the dates for some LW planes. Also, this list was started many years ago by a guy who was in an Allied / Spitfire squad, blame him. Most of those numbers come from him and his research. Most of the guys supplying dates in these threads fly Allied planes, many fly Spitfires...
You always look for the 'conspiracy'. HTC hates 'Spitfires' and apparently so does everyone else...
Sorry Bruno, I had removed that part probably while you were replying.
Realised it was not needed.
You did have a valid point regarding dates though -
If you put it at 9-44 then whats to stop a CM thinking, OK so we can squeeze it in for a 7-44 scenario, thats not a 2 month fudge, but at least a 6 month fudge by then.
Start with accurate dates, let the CMs do their own fudging, rather than compound an already incorrect date.
Wasn't implying you supplied Spit dates, wasn't intended that way.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
If you put it at 9-44 then whats to stop a CM thinking, OK so we can squeeze it in for a 7-44 scenario, thats not a 2 month fudge, but at least a 6 month fudge by then.
Because they don't fudge to times when the type wasn't there. By nitpicking the particulars of which D-9 it is you are introducing the fudge room. In addition you are using criteria that are not universally available for all aircraft types. The hard binary of "Before this date there were no aircraft of x type and after it there were" is a much more solid base on which to stand and say "X cannot be used as it wasn't there for another two months."
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Squire,
10-41 is still way to late. Stanford Tuck flew Hurri IICs in combat, the moved to Spit Vs, was sent to the USA, then came back and flew Spit Vs more and was shot down and captured in Jan, 1942. Oct, '41 doesn't give enough time.
Just saw this one.
Hurri IIC went operational in May 1941. By October 1941 57 home based RAF Squadrons were flying Hurri IIs, usually a mix of Hurri IIB and IIC.
Stanford Tuck's bird was a IIB if memory serves. Not a cannon armed bird. He was on Spits again by the time the IIc showed up.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Because they don't fudge to times when the type wasn't there. By nitpicking the particulars of which D-9 it is you are introducing the fudge room. In addition you are using criteria that are not universally available for all aircraft types. The hard binary of "Before this date there were no aircraft of x type and after it there were" is a much more solid base on which to stand and say "X cannot be used as it wasn't there for another two months."
Well have it your way, obviously accuracy gets sacrificed for the sake including 'x' aircraft in a scenario.
"X" cannot be used prior to Jan 1945 because "X" aircraft didn't exist in that configuration prior to Jan 1945.
Call it whine if you will, but until you apply a COMMON set of rules for all aircraft (allied and axis), instead of selective rules for each side, just to fit specific aircraft into scenarios, the whole thing stinks of double standards.
As I said I expect the Spit 14 date to change to the earliest it used 21lbs, not its current (inacurrate for even our present XIV) Sept 44.
Or do you feel comfortable dating a Spit XIV @21lbs at the service introduction date of the XIV - approx May 44 (maybe slightly earlier).
Check this out -
Spit XIV
Trials Feb 44
Equipped/Operational - March 44, not Sept 44
21lbs boost July 44
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no610orb.jpg
Of course how many do you need to class as being "in service"?
I would agree it's not always clear cut, but in the cases it is, the 'proper' date should be used. Other unclear cases a general concensus is usually agreed on.
-
If you put it at 9-44 then whats to stop a CM thinking, OK so we can squeeze it in for a 7-44 scenario, thats not a 2 month fudge, but at least a 6 month fudge by then.
Start with accurate dates, let the CMs do their own fudging, rather than compound an already incorrect date.
I agree 100% with you here, let's just get the dates right and leave the fudging arguments for later....
-
Originally posted by Bruno
I agree 100% with you here, let's just get the dates right and leave the fudging arguments for later....
It's then end of the world, we agree on something (j/k).
Gotta start with an accurate date. Not a 'convenient' one.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Because they don't fudge to times when the type wasn't there. By nitpicking the particulars of which D-9 it is you are introducing the fudge room. In addition you are using criteria that are not universally available for all aircraft types. The hard binary of "Before this date there were no aircraft of x type and after it there were" is a much more solid base on which to stand and say "X cannot be used as it wasn't there for another two months."
Sure they do, the Typhoon stood in for a Beaufighter (extreme example but relevant nonetheless)...
We also had the P-38L in a late '43 bomber scenario/event while the LW flew only G-6s and A-5s. There were F4U-Ds facing just A6M2s in the CT etc... (axis bias showing in those 3 examples but what do you want from me..?) :p
I can go on but for every guy that sees and argues that the D-9 can't be used in a Dec '44 event (one month early for 1.8 ata) you will get another that will see Sept '44 and argue 'why not squeeze it in a bit early like August'.
The list above should give as accurate a date as possible for the variant / type in question and the let CM / designer make the decision and argument whether to 'fudge' or 'not to fudge' as he sees fit. An argument will ensue which ever way he swings, there's no need to argue about it here.
-
"There were F4U-Ds facing just A6M2s in the CT"
BUAHAHAHA!
Must have been before my time bud. We couldnt get a PAC setup even done most weeks.
Every Solomons setup I ever saw featured the N1K2 in 1943 "to make it all fair".
Your memory is failing with age my friend. :rolleyes:
...and now back to to our regular scheduled program, already in progress... :)
-
Hello Gents:
The first Spitfire XIV operational sorties occurred 8 January 1944. The operations were mostly boring convoy patrols and defensive scrambles through February. 610 Squadron could field a full squadron by February, although they were still short a spare or two. Things heated up in March when 91 Squadron went operational with thier XIVs. The first air combat I know about occurred on 7 March 1944. See under Combat Reports here (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html). By April 610, 91, and 322 Squadrons were all operational.
Mike
-
Originally posted by mw
Hello Gents:
The first Spitfire XIV operational sorties occurred 8 January 1944. The operations were mostly boring convoy patrols and defensive scrambles through February. 610 Squadron could field a full squadron by February, although they were still short a spare or two. Things heated up in March when 91 Squadron went operational with thier XIVs. The first air combat I know about occurred on 7 March 1944. See under Combat Reports here (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html). By April 610, 91, and 322 Squadrons were all operational.
Mike
Nice Mike, kinda puts the squish on the Sept 44 intially listed.
To be fair though if I'm gonna argue Jan 45 for D9 1.8ata we need an "in service" date for the Spit XIV at 21lbs also, assuming Pyro goes through with his orignal plans.
hope ya have one.
-
Originally posted by mw
Hello Gents:
The first Spitfire XIV operational sorties occurred 8 January 1944. The operations were mostly boring convoy patrols and defensive scrambles through February. 610 Squadron could field a full squadron by February, although they were still short a spare or two. Things heated up in March when 91 Squadron went operational with thier XIVs. The first air combat I know about occurred on 7 March 1944. See under Combat Reports here (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html). By April 610, 91, and 322 Squadrons were all operational.
Mike
Nothing really tells me they were over France prior to the last bit of April 44. The logbook I have is Bruce Moffett's and he was A Flight CO of 91 Squadron during the transition time from the XII to the XIV and was with them until August 44 when they transitioned to IXs.
His first flight was in RB188 on March 2, 1944. with the month being filled with "air tests", "air to air" firing, "Air to ground" firing, height climbs, flight and squadron formation flying etc. On his first height climb in a Spit XIV he took NH701 DL-A to 42,000 feet. This was March 15, 1944. His first Operational flight in the XIV was April 25, 1944 when he went on a 'recce' to "Somme-Dieppe" and "shot down a barrage balloon in flames."
91 was declared operational on the XIV April 23, 1944
First XIV lost over France was May 28, 1944 when a 610 squadron XIV went down to flak and a forced landing. I've always thought it ironic that the Spit XII drivers were sent out the next day to try and find the wreck and shoot it up. Terry Spencer even mentions it in his diary for the 29th.
-
Originally posted by Squire
"There were F4U-Ds facing just A6M2s in the CT"
BUAHAHAHA!
Must have been before my time bud. We couldnt get a PAC setup even done most weeks.
Every Solomons setup I ever saw featured the N1K2 in 1943 "to make it all fair".
Your memory is failing with age my friend. :rolleyes:
...and now back to to our regular scheduled program, already in progress... :)
I had to make it 'sound good' in order to emphasis my point. Not quite an 'exaggeration' more like 'artistic license'...
:aok
-
So Fork can edit:
FW 190D-9 (1.78 / 1.80 ata @ 2100 PS B4 + MW-50) = Jan '45
What are the other aircraft / dates?
-
"*****Deployed to Holland 9-44 for 1st real non ADGB duty (anti V-1 raids). 1-44 was operational with 610 Sqn in Britain."
From the previous thread re the Spit XIV.
Please stop posting info about the XIV in Jan 44 like this is "news" to us (its not), you guys have not been following along obviously, and are covering old ground already discussed.
1-45 for the D-9? Im surprised but ok.
4-41 for the Hurricane IIC
11-43 for PAC Mosquito
Either 1-44 or 9-44 for the XIV, its Mr Forks call, I made my case, you have made yours, he has the info.
-
I give up -
Rename thread:
"Service Dates Depending On What They Happened To Be Doing At The Time"
Suppose it's irrlevant theres a combat report from Mar 44 of 2 XIV's v 2 190s.
Pretty sure all sorites in the XIV prior to Sep 44 were 'real' to the pilots.
-
The Typhoon for the Beaufighter is a notorious mistake and they learned from it.
The F4U-1D vs A6M2 never happened. It was the A6M2 vs F4U-1, which is accurate for the year it was portraying, but no fun for the Japanese side who lacked any of their intermediate aircraft. I remember it well because I shot down one of the eight F4U-1s that the A6M2s got before they removed the F4U-1 as imbalanced.
-
I do so remember our love fests re the PAC CT setups, makes me all nostalgic...
I think I had a marathon session with Brady over the Ki-61. As I recall being right all the time was a burden on me. :aok
-
Hello Guppy: My copy of 91 Squadron ORB shows they flew thier first operational sorties with the XIVs on 12.3.44. Rawlings concurs if I remember correctly. I'll be happy to send you a copy of the relevant pages, contact me off line if interested. My apologies to anyone offended by my sharing of those tidbits of info. It was not my intention to step on anyone's toes, rather merely to share some info that I've learned with what I thought were like minded prop heads.
Mike
-
Originally posted by mw
Hello Guppy: My copy of 91 Squadron ORB shows they flew thier first operational sorties with the XIVs on 12.3.44. Rawlings concurs if I remember correctly. I'll be happy to send you a copy of the relevant pages, contact me off line if interested. My apologies to anyone offended by my sharing of those tidbits of info. It was not my intention to step on anyone's toes, rather merely to share some info that I've learned with what I thought were like minded prop heads.
Mike
Hi Mike,
Moffett's logbook for March 12, 1944 has him flying a sector recce on one flight and flying 'air to air' on the other. First flight in RB177 DL-J and second in NH701 DL-A. The 12th was the day F/S Sayer was lost. It was their first "operational" mission when two XIVs were scrambled to try and escort in a B24 that in fact needed no help. Sayer crashed in RB188 in bad weather near Turnhouse. Moffett makes mention of this in his logbook as well.
I think it's my mistake in considering the Operational flights over France as when they really got going. Flying out of Drem in Scotland while transitioning to the XIV, just isn't the same thing :)
Again using Moffett's logbook, he was 'scrambled" in an XII DL-C on March 25, 1944 so they still had a few of those around while they were transitioning to the XIV. He differentiates between the XII and XIV specifically too, so it's not a typo. His last flights in an XII were in DL-T which he flew 4 days in April, on the 17th, 18th, 20th and twice on the 21st.
All good fun learning about this stuff and I for one appreciate your contributions a lot :)
-
Ya I didnt mean my reply to sound like that MW. Your input is welcome.
All the relevent info is there re the XIV now, and the list makers can do what they want with the info.
I could see a 3-44 date being a reasonable compromise between 1-44 1st ops and a 9-44 deployment to the Continent.
-
I'll go with 3/44 for our current 18lbs boost Spit XIV.
But if Pyro does bring it in at 21lbs boost as was his intention, what we really need is a service date for that.
Be a little unfair to pit early 44 LW planes against a 21lbs Spit XIV.
Earliest I have seen is July 44, but allowing for deployment etc maybe Aug/Sep more realistic?
-
Hiya Kev:
You know as much as anybody about this subject. We know that 610's ORB states for 17 July 44 "The modification to take 21 lbs boost continues". There's an ADGB doc showing that prior to mid Sept 1944, 610 Sqdn had flown 1,119 hours at a maximum of +21 lbs boost. Neil Stirling and I have been looking into this in an attempt to better understand the larger picture. We've been working on a chapter on 150 Grade Fuel (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html) that hopefully puts things in context. There's still some mysteries, but thats half the fun.
Mike
-
Hello Dan:
I’ve scanned some pages from 91’s ORB for you. Thought you might like a few 41 Sqdn Spitfire XII combat reports too. Check your email :)
You’ll note that Moffett’s log book is generally in good agreement with the ORB. The one notable exception would be that the ORB records Moffett’s scramble of 25 March, 44 as being in Spitfire XIV NH 710. Morgan and Shacklady confirm NH 710 as being a XIV. You’ll also see that all 91’s operational sorties during March and April were in fact with XIV’s.
You're certainly correct that 91’s tempo picked up considerably with the move to West Malling in April.
Some other tidbits that may be of interest to others perhaps not as well versed in the subject:
29.2.44 “They reached Castle Camps at 12.25 hours and found some half a dozen Spitfire XIV’s waiting for us.”
7/3/44 “17 aircraft – 13 XIV’s and 4 XII’s start from Castle Camps”.
24/4/44 West Malling: “The Squadron commenced their activities in this sector with two scrambles in the morning and one in the afternoon though with no results.”
Please understand that I’m not seeking to cross swords, butt heads, or undermine someone's previously stated postion (that I may be unfamiliar with), but to share info on a subject that we share a common interest in.
A cursory look shows 41 Sqdn equipping with Spitfire XIIs in Feb. 43 and 91 in April 43. You know off hand when either first flew ops? I was a little surprised to see combat reports as early as April 43 for 41 Sqdn flying XIIs.
Mike
ps: I’d love to see a page or two from Moffett’s log book if you get around to it; you have my email.
-
Hi Mike,
I'll get the scanner going on Moffett's logbook soon.
41's first operational sortie with the XII was Joe Birbeck and F/S Stonier on April 3, 1943 when they were sent off to try and intercept an unidentified A/C believe to be a Ju88 recce bird. They had no luck. They were flying EN601 and EN609. Don't know the codes on EN601 but EN609 was EB-Y.
This was while they were still transitioning to the XII. 41 moved to Hawkinge to replace 91 while they transitioned to the XII. This was April 12-13th. April 16, 1943 was the first sortie over the Channel when Ray Harries and Rex Poynton flew a recce of Dieppe. Harries of course was 91's CO, so it's interesting that he flew it, although there were 41 pilots flying with 91 prior to that too as Reggie Hoare of 41 for example, was lost flying a 91 Spit Vb on one of those Recces.
91 Squadron returned to Hawkinge on May 21, 1943 and took over the Jim Crow sorties again. And of course they had their first big engagement on May 25, 1943 when they claimed 5 190 fighter bombers from a group that was hitting Folkstone. 91 suffered no losses.
Interesting to note the difference in the ORB and Moffett's logbook. Here's the page. Note how he writes XII and then follows with XIV in the next slot below and that two rows down he notes flying DL-C and XIV. If nothing else we know now that DL-C was NH710. NH701 was DL-A, his usual XIV.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/27/MofLog.jpg)
-
Great stuff Dan, thanks for sharing.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Sure they do, the Typhoon stood in for a Beaufighter (extreme example but relevant nonetheless)...
that's so ... 2000 ;)