Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Midway on August 03, 2012, 11:26:48 PM
-
I understand this was available during WWII on a limited basis in late war. My wish is that we can choose this fuel by using perks for 150 octane fuel loadout on those aeroplanes where it was an option during combat. :aok
-
Where's my "eating popcorn" smiley when I need it/
Though I suppose board's been cleansed of the worst offenders on this one.
-
Ok if you reset everyone's perks.
But I'd be concerned that the MA would be even more all allied than before
-
While I would personally find a 380mph on the deck Mosquito amusing, I don't think this would be good for the game.
Also, as I understand it AH does not have the capability to modify the base flight model in the hangar, so for 150 octane to be added we would need a second Spitfire Mk XIV, Spitfire Mk XVI, P-51D, Tempest Mk V, P-47M and Mosquito Mk VI in the list.
The one exception to my disagreement is the aircraft I would like to see redone with 150 octane, the already perked Spitfire Mk XIV. If it were running on 150 octane it would truly be worthy of being perked.
-
Here are the official summaries on the 150 octaine fuel with the USAAF and RAF.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
Into Service with the Royal Air Force
Following successful testing, the Spitfire IX's Merlin 66 was cleared in March 1944 to use +25 lbs, obtainable with 150 grade fuel. 29 In early May, No. 1 and No. 165 Squadrons comprising the Predannack Wing, were the first to convert their Spitfires to +25 lbs boost and employ 150 grade fuel on operations. Air Defense Great Britain (A.D.G.B.) shared a report, dated 16th June 1944 with A.E.A.F. summarizing the RAF's experience with using 150 Grade Fuel in Merlin 66 engines. All pilots reported most favorably on the value of the high boost pressures obtainable with 150 Grade Fuel, however, Technical Staff felt that before the fuel was introduced on a large scale that the causes of backfires must be established and that at least 12 engines should complete 200 hours each. 30 Eventually the backfire problem was sorted out, see: Backfire trouble resulting from use of 150 grade fuel. 27 July, 1944 and Backfire trouble resulting from use of 150 grade fuel. 12 August, 1944 31, 32
The increased performance obtained with 150 Grade Fuel was put to good use by Mustangs, Tempests and Spitfires in intercepting Buzz Bombs launched against Britain beginning mid June. Performance increases at sea level were as follows:
------------------------------130 Grade---- 150 Grade
Spitfire IX --------------------335 mph----- 358 mph +25 lb
Spitfire XIV ------------------359 mph------ 366 mph +21 lb
Tempest V -------------------372 mph------ 386 mph +11 lb
Mustang III (V-1650-3) -----360 mph------ 390 mph +25 lb
-
Here are the official summaries on the 150 octaine fuel with the USAAF and RAF.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
Into Service with the Royal Air Force
Following successful testing, the Spitfire IX's Merlin 66 was cleared in March 1944 to use +25 lbs, obtainable with 150 grade fuel. 29 In early May, No. 1 and No. 165 Squadrons comprising the Predannack Wing, were the first to convert their Spitfires to +25 lbs boost and employ 150 grade fuel on operations. Air Defense Great Britain (A.D.G.B.) shared a report, dated 16th June 1944 with A.E.A.F. summarizing the RAF's experience with using 150 Grade Fuel in Merlin 66 engines. All pilots reported most favorably on the value of the high boost pressures obtainable with 150 Grade Fuel, however, Technical Staff felt that before the fuel was introduced on a large scale that the causes of backfires must be established and that at least 12 engines should complete 200 hours each. 30 Eventually the backfire problem was sorted out, see: Backfire trouble resulting from use of 150 grade fuel. 27 July, 1944 and Backfire trouble resulting from use of 150 grade fuel. 12 August, 1944 31, 32
The increased performance obtained with 150 Grade Fuel was put to good use by Mustangs, Tempests and Spitfires in intercepting Buzz Bombs launched against Britain beginning mid June. Performance increases at sea level were as follows:
------------------------------130 Grade---- 150 Grade
Spitfire IX --------------------335 mph----- 358 mph +25 lb
Spitfire XIV ------------------359 mph------ 366 mph +21 lb
Tempest V -------------------372 mph------ 386 mph +11 lb
Mustang III (V-1650-3) -----360 mph------ 390 mph +25 lb
:O :pray :pray :pray
-
Maybe then the Mustang would cruise at the speed it is listed as being instead of being nerfed.
I see lots of 109 and 190 drivers still flying their planes. And not just the K4 or the D9. They like those planes and know them VERY well.
Nope, give it to us so I can stop flying with a handicap.
-
I'm with midway on this one,
Spits need to be able to catch all those runners!! Give the 150 octane and lets hear the :ahand
-
Only if I us luft dweebs get a K4 with C3 fuel. :neener:
-
If you get that, I want the MW 50 boost and C3 fuel for all aplicable planes. Even then, Japan gets screwed over, Russia gets screwed over, Italy gets screwed over, etc. Besides, we need a 150-octane fuel like we need Hitech to sell Aces High.
Unperk the spit 14 and then theres no real reason to completely screw up all of the perk prices, ENY levels, restrictions, etc.
Really, this just sounds like a way to make the P-51 live up to its runstang legacy, and to give the spitfire almost de jure noob/skilless-pilot-ride status.
-1
-
This document shows that 150 was OK'd as a standard for these aircraft by 8\44 for both airforces. Only 4 JG of 35 in the west flying G10\K4 were OK'd for 1.98 ata with C3 by 3\45 per a single document at Kurfurst.org. Fw190's were the primary single engine users of C3. Bf109 for the most part used B4. Before 3\45 the Luft basicly had ceased to exist and our over use of the K4 in the game is more like a what if 1946 scenario.
If anyone bothered to read WW2 history, yes the US beat the Germans and the Japanese because the US kept improving it's technology and output volumes to beat their enemies while blowing the snot out of them with hoards of hot aircraft. And the P51D and P51B\C were both OKed to run on 150 by 8\44 as a standard. With Merlin 66 spits, P51D, spit14 and TempestV on 150, maybe adjusting perk assingments and values would need their occasional review by HTC. Then the LWMA furballs might get more intersting because the K4 would not be able to hang everyone up beneith it with it's WEP. It would simply be one of several unperked WEP monster late war rides available in the LWMA instead of "the" unperked monster WEP ride. I really couldn't see the P51D using 150 perked more than 8-10 or even that.
From Spitfire Performance Spit XIV vs 109G\K
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html
The Spitfire XIV was the most marvellous aeroplane at that time and I consider it to have been the best operational fighter of them all as it could out-climb virtually anything. The earlier Merlin-Spitifre may have had a slight edge when it came to turning performance but the Mark XIV was certainly better in this respect than the opposition we were faced with. The only thing it couldn't do was keep up with the FW 190D in a dive. It could be a bit tricky on take off if one opened the throttle too quickly as you just couldn't hold it staight because the torque was so great from the enormous power developed from the Griffon engine. One big advantage that we had over the Germans was that we ran our aircraft on advanced fuels which gave us more power. The 150 octane fuel that we used was strange looking stuff as it was bright green and had an awful smell - it had to be heavily leaded to cope with the extra compression of the engine.
The 150 octane report document now shines some light on the statement by this spitXIV pilot.
-
Links:
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/tech_rpt_145_45/rpt_145_45_sec2.htm
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/605D_clearance198.html
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB_Niederschrift6730_DB605DBDC_20-1-45.pdf
If you get 150 octane fuel, I want my C3!!@! :furious
-
Still no reason to give 150 octane fuel to the US/UK aircraft. Really, I can just see it completely screwing things up for quite a while.
-
Search the aircraft and vehicles forum. This has been beaten to death and all the info in the world you could want can be found there.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,159985.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,170295.0.html
There are more threads as well.
-
My mustang isnt fast enough!!
My spit outturns everything but i want it to outrun everything too!!
Sometimes it just cant be good enough.
Oh and wi ahr teh Luftwheeneez, right?
<sigh>
-
My mustang isnt fast enough!!
My spit outturns everything but i want it to outrun everything too!!
Sometimes its just cant be good enough.
Oh and wi ahr teh Luftwheeneez, right?
<sigh>
Careful Debrody. If you read those threads it was some of the greatest Luftwhiners of our time involved. You don't want to sound like one :)
And I'm not suggesting the addition of 150 octane fuel either :)
-
Kurfurst, huh? :lol
-
Krup,
By the time those clearances were passed the Luft was all but none existant and they were willing to do anything that might help as an after thought including letting them burn up engines since the air war was pretty much over. Bondenplate finished the Luft. C3 was used primarily in the FW's DB801 series becasue it was an air cooled engine and with C3 it ran cooler while giving it high performance.
150 octane was a response to creating air superiority by the US and England over both the existing and last of the Luft designs. Eisenhower pushed for it to be in force for D-Day to help ensure dominace over the Luft but it didn't get approval until after the landing in July. The British 2nd Tac AF was cleared in 11\44. It was hard on engines reducing the mission life and fouling sparkplugs but, those issues were not seen as bad enough to stop using it for the performance increase.
Obviuosly it worked very well as a strategy from 8\44 until the end and each airforce resolved their issues with 150. Implementing 150 for the specified aircraft from the performance document in the game is not a species of a 1946 arena like C3 in a K4, Do335 becasue some were seen flying, or P80's becasue several were in the ETO before the surrender.
Implementing it is not going to suddenly put 4 - 30mm in each plane while strapping two turbo jets under their wings. Though the 262 was probably one of the reasons for getting 150 into the ETO. Since HTC gives us perfict aircraft without the known mechanical issues that plauged many including the sabatouge on german fighters by german slave labor. Modeling 150 octane without the reduced engine life and need to change spark plugs after 2 missions won't be an issue.
-
C3 was used even in Italy. There was a group of K4s lead by Adriano Visconti from late January. The amount of fuel sent from Germany was very little tho (not only from the C3).
Also... "DB801" in the FWs... uhm.. haha
Anyway, wtf man, you want a spit that does 360 on the deck, really? This would turn the MA into an allied arena, seriously. Not if it isnt already bad enough.
Well... im just totally effed up nowadays, sorry for my mode.
-
Your mode is fine debrody, I don't want to open this can o'worms either.
-
Does anyone know roughly what percentage of allied fighters used 150 octane toward the end of the war? Was the 150 octane widespread and common or just something that existed but was rarely used. What about for the axis fighters. How widespread was the C3 (or whatever it is called) used late in the war?
-
Does anyone know roughly what percentage of allied fighters used 150 octane toward the end of the war? Was the 150 octane widespread and common or just something that existed but was rarely used. What about for the axis fighters. How widespread was the C3 (or whatever it is called) used late in the war?
Any Fw190 powered by a BMW 801 engine required C3 fuel. Me109s used mostly B4 fuel. Best to take anything Kurfurst had to say with a very large pinch of salt.
As for 150 fuel,
Consumption of 150 Grade Fuel - Barrels
UK consumption North West Europe
June 1944 184,000 (25,205 tons)
July 1944 283,000 (38,767 tons)
August 1944 218,000 (29,863 tons)
September 1944 169,000 (23,150 tons)
October 1944 183,000 (25,068 tons)
November 1944 140,000 (19,178 tons)
December 1944 193,000 (26,438 tons)
January 1945 138,000 (18,904 tons) of which 15,000 (2,054 tons)
February 1945 148,000 (20,273 tons) of which 17,000 (2,328 tons
March 1945 201,000 (27,534 tons) of which 52,000 (7,123 tons)
April 1945 208,000 (28,493 tons) of which 89,000 (12,191 tons)
May 1945 49,000 (6,712 tons) of which 32,000 (4,383 tons)
UK = 8th AAF and ADGB. Northwest Europe = 2nd TAF.
Other figures.
August 1944 USAAF 182,000 (24,931 tons) RAF 49,000 (6712 tons)
October 1944 estimated USAAF 225,000 RAF 45,000
December 1944 issues USAAF 133,000 RAF 0
December 1944 exports USAAF 8,000 RAF 88,000
December 1944 issues on continent. USAAF 0 RAF 13,000
7.3 Barrels = 1 ton.
Data from POWE 33/990 33/991 33/992 33/985
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/Consumption_150_Grade_fuel_Barrels.html
-
I'm with midway on this one,
Spits need to be able to catch all those runners!! Give the 150 octane and lets hear the :ahand
Your handycap should be watered downed 85 octane from
a cheap gas station.
-
Your handycap should be watered downed 85 octane from
a cheap gas station.
:rofl
-
So Allied fighter performance in the ETO is not modeled in Aces High POST D-Day?
6\44 to 5\7\45, is this being ignored? 11 months using 100\150 fuel by the Allies over the continent.
If spitfires, Tempest and P51 with the british and 8th AF for the last 11 months of the war could chase K4 down on the deck and destroy them. Then why isn't that modeled in our game?
------------------------------------------------------------
Eventually the backfire problem was sorted out, see: Backfire trouble resulting from use of 150 grade fuel. 27 July, 1944 and Backfire trouble resulting from use of 150 grade fuel. 12 August, 1944 31, 32
The increased performance obtained with 150 Grade Fuel was put to good use by Mustangs, Tempests and Spitfires in intercepting Buzz Bombs launched against Britain beginning mid June. Performance increases at sea level were as follows: 33
--------------------------------130 Grade--- 150 Grade
SpitfireIX-------------------- 335 mph----- 358 mph +25 lb
SpitfireXIV------------------ 359 mph------ 366 mph +21 lb
Tempest V------------------- 372 mph------ 386 mph +11 lb
Mustang III (V-1650-3)----- 360 mph------ 390 mph +25 lb
Sea Level------------B4 Grade
BF109-K4 -----------368mph
We are playing in a LWMA dominated by a 10\44 german fighter competing against fighters castrated to their pre 7\44 preformance levels. Seems when the K4 was introduced in October it was just another fast competitive fighter against the Allies. Not the fastest thing on Boost like our "Late War" main arena.
Looks like a late war P51D on 100\150 qualifies for a perk while the spitXIV may live up to the legend finaly. Wonder what this will do to the P47M?
-
Sorry Bustr but that just dont make any sense.
If you feel that the allied aircrafts are dominated by the G14s and K4s, you are doing something horribly wrong.
-
Why are we fixing something that's not broken? :headscratch:
-
My mustang isnt fast enough!!
My spit outturns everything but i want it to outrun everything too!!
Sometimes it just cant be good enough.
Oh and wi ahr teh Luftwheeneez, right?
<sigh>
Who would think it...but I agree with Debrody :rofl
-
Sorry Bustr but that just dont make any sense.
If you feel that the allied aircrafts are dominated by the G14s and K4s, you are doing something horribly wrong.
...statistical snippet...
At least by killstats the K-4 has been all over them in all of 2011, and largely the G-14 too. The K-4 had an impressive K/D of 1.4 ( 20,995 kills to 14,905 deaths) vs all UK+US fighters, the only real exceptions being the F4U-4 and -C and the Tempest.
... statistical snippet...
-
Lusche,
how many totalnewbs are flying the K4, as they do it with the pony or the spixteen?
How many K4s are doing kamikaze missions augering into the VHs?
The k4 is a great fighter aircraft, but stats cant show everything.
-
I want a Horten 229! :old:
(http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Pictures/Horten2.gif)
-
Lusche,
how many totalnewbs are flying the K4, as they do it with the pony or the spixteen?
How many K4s are doing kamikaze missions augering into the VHs?
The k4 is a great fighter aircraft, but stats cant show everything.
It is was it is. The stats show what is actually happening in the arena vs hypothetical "what if Clark Kent would..." And no matter what the reasons are, fact is that the K-4 does largely dominate the Allied fighters in the MA. It shoots them down much more than it's getting killed by them.
So the UK and US planes are in practice dominated by the K4.
It just like the F4U-4 is in theory the much better fighter than the Tempest, but in fact the Tempest is littering the MA landscape with F4U-4 wrecks, thus having the significantly higher perk price.
(By the way "How many K4s are doing kamikaze missions augering into the VHs?" - Just to be clear: the K/D I stated above is not just the overall K/D, but the specific plane vs plane K/D.)
-
Sir,
you are missing my main point, the pilot factor. I "think" the K4-flying population is averagely better than the pony-f4u-spit-flying players.
Again, the K4 is a potent fighter aircraft, but it wont tolerate the mistakes like a spitfire or F4U. Or its just me being a newb.
-
I want a Horten 229! :old:
(http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Pictures/Horten2.gif)
:x
-
Sir,
you are missing my main point, the pilot factor.
I'm not missing it, I am explicitely ignoring it. :)
(The reason why I do so is laid out in my post above)
-
When the G10 and K4 entered the skys in 10\44 it was against allied fighters updated with 150 Grade. Not into a pre D-Day sky of 125&130 Grade fighters. Allied command being aware that Germany still had more powerful fighters to introduce over the continent pre D-Day, the upgrade to 150 Grade 11 months before the war ends and 3 months before the emergence of the G10 and K4 makes it an acceptable part of the arms race this game purports to represent.
The K4 met allied fighters burning 150 Grade which made the technological differences far narrower than in our LWMA where the K4 is competing against the same generation of aircraft burning 125 or 130 Grade. Especialy with the way we conduct flight operations in the LWMA most of the time below 15k where it's obvious the 150 Grade turned the K4 into an equal and not an unperked WEP monster.
So why do we have an unperked 10\44 WEP monster flying against it's 1944 Allied rivals down graded in performance by pre 7\44 125, 130 AvGas? The K4 performance in the LWMA especialy on the deck versus the spitXIV on 125 or 130 show cases why the Allies began the move to 150 Grade in 7\44 months before the introduction of the K4.
Or do we need a Post D-Day "Really Late War" arena with only 109G6-14\K4, Fw190A8\D9, Ta152, 262, 163 versus Merlin66 spit, spit14, tempest, P51D, 38J\L, P47D-40\M burning 150 AvGas? And maybe a Meteor for grins and giggels.
----------------------------------------------
So what were the Allies over the ETO doing with all of this 150 Grade fuel for the last 11 months of the war, starting before the introduction of the K4?
Sea Level---------------------130 Grade--- 150 Grade
SpitfireIX-------------------- 335 mph----- 358 mph +25 lb
SpitfireXIV------------------ 359 mph------ 366 mph +21 lb
Tempest V------------------- 372 mph------ 386 mph +11 lb
Mustang III (V-1650-3)----- 360 mph------ 390 mph +25 lb
Sea Level------------B4 Grade
BF109-K4 -----------368mph
-----------------------------------------------
Consumption of 150 Grade Fuel - Barrels
UK consumption North West Europe
June 1944 184,000 (25,205 tons)
July 1944 283,000 (38,767 tons)
August 1944 218,000 (29,863 tons)
September 1944 169,000 (23,150 tons)
October 1944 183,000 (25,068 tons)
November 1944 140,000 (19,178 tons)
December 1944 193,000 (26,438 tons)
January 1945 138,000 (18,904 tons) of which 15,000 (2,054 tons)
February 1945 148,000 (20,273 tons) of which 17,000 (2,328 tons
March 1945 201,000 (27,534 tons) of which 52,000 (7,123 tons)
April 1945 208,000 (28,493 tons) of which 89,000 (12,191 tons)
May 1945 49,000 (6,712 tons) of which 32,000 (4,383 tons)
UK = 8th AAF and ADGB. Northwest Europe = 2nd TAF.
Other figures.
August 1944 USAAF 182,000 (24,931 tons) RAF 49,000 (6712 tons)
October 1944 estimated USAAF 225,000 RAF 45,000
December 1944 issues USAAF 133,000 RAF 0
December 1944 exports USAAF 8,000 RAF 88,000
December 1944 issues on continent. USAAF 0 RAF 13,000
7.3 Barrels = 1 ton.
Data from POWE 33/990 33/991 33/992 33/985
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/Consumption_150_Grade_fuel_Barrels.html
-
I want a Horten 229! :old:
(http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Pictures/Horten2.gif)
+100 :rofl
-
Bustr, good sir, once again...
if you cant completely pwn the whole luft army in a spit16 or an A-hog, you are doing something horribly wrong. If thats not enough for you, keep posting the same wall of text again and again, maybe you can find success.
Respectfully,
Debrődy the newb
-
Midway just wants the muppets to fly spits... hahah if we did.. then he'd follow up with a new set of whine based whishlists...
"I can't win" -> "It must be the plane"
hahahaha.... same old whine... same old stupid...
-
If the P51D had a perk octane option you'd have trouble getting me to fly something else :bolt:
-
Debrody,
I think you are selling the Bf109K-4 pretty short. Its only real shortcomings are the ballistics of the 30mm cannon and the short ammo clip.
The thing is truly a monster.
From my perspective as a Mossie driver:
Bf109K-4 = dead Mossie
P-51D = lots of perk points
-
Debrody,
The K4 emerged into a sky full of 150 octane burning fighters specificly because it's emergence and performance was predicted and planned for. The LWMA is about the Late WW2 Air War. What is the problem with introducing the K4's real 150 octane burning contemporaries into the MA? It would no longer be an unperked WEP monster but, have unperked equals in power.
Or, including the K4 have a new class of perked rides.
But, our K4 in the MA, is not flying against it's technologicaly enhanced contemporaries from post July 1944 like itself. It's flying against the Allied rides from pre 150 octane 1944 that the predicted emergance of K4 type technology could out perfrom the limitations of 125, 130 octanes used by the RAF and 8th AF. Our current SpitXIV on the deck against the K4 show cases what the Allies predictions presented if 150 octane was not being burned. Our SpitXIV on the deck is a dog but, with 150 Grade becomes an equal against the K4.
Debrody what are you afraind of? I thought it was all about the "Man" and not the machine with you? I'm concerned with the parity of the truth from the period. You don't seem to have much of a wall of debate to the that or the content of the 150 octane fuel report. If this game is about WW2 aviation technology and parity by era, the K4 is unperked in an arena of unperked fighters inferior to it. Not it's Oct\44 contemporaries it was forced to compete against and was destroyed by in the real WW2.
-
I agree using mid war planes against K4's is crazy! :aok
-
Bustr I would say its like that for a reason, it is the man not the plane, but if its the plane simply running away theres not a lot any man can do :D, and lets be fair theres a lot of that in the MA already especially 51s would that be good for gameplay :headscratch:
-
Bustr I would say its like that for a reason, it is the man not the plane, but if its the plane simply running away theres not a lot any man can do :D, and lets be fair theres a lot of that in the MA already especially 51s would that be good for gameplay :headscratch:
Perhaps not, but why not at least run the Spitfire Mk XIV on 150 octane? It is already controlled by a perk cost. It is also hardly ever used due to its poor performance. Perhaps 150 octane would boost its performance enough to get used more often.
-
Perhaps not, but why not at least run the Spitfire Mk XIV on 150 octane? It is already controlled by a perk cost. It is also hardly ever used due to its poor performance. Perhaps 150 octane would boost its performance enough to get used more often.
Regardless of the speed I think it does not get used because its quite tricky to fly :D rather un spit like :old:
-
Regardless of the speed I think it does not get used because its quite tricky to fly :D rather un spit like :old:
The only reason I don't fly it more is the short fuel range.
-
Do it! Give us the uber 190s. :devil
-
I'd like a P38 on 150 octane... :huh :x
-
Regardless of the speed I think it does not get used because its quite tricky to fly :D rather un spit like :old:
If it actually outperformed the free Bf109K-4 there might be a reason to use it, but as it is the Spitfire Mk XIV is just a perked Bf109K-4 with some slight advantages and some disadvantages as compared to the free Bf109K-4.
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/Bf_109K-4
I don't know how recent this speedchart is but maxspeed is a bit too much for a production prop (9-12159). It somehow matches the special/experimental Dünnblattprop (9-12199) though.
Fuel duration data smells a bit strange - should be a couple of minutes more.
BTW the K-4 achieved these speeds only with C3 fuel + MW-injection
-
...statistical snippet...
At least by killstats the K-4 has been all over them in all of 2011, and largely the G-14 too. The K-4 had an impressive K/D of 1.4 ( 20,995 kills to 14,905 deaths) vs all UK+US fighters, the only real exceptions being the F4U-4 and -C and the Tempest.
... statistical snippet...
Yeah, I think that has more to do with pilot skill than the plane.
I mean lets face it, the spitfire IS a noob ride. It has a relatively high number of new or lesser-skilled pilots, largely because it is very forgiving, and almost coddles the pilots. Same with the P-51, for a combination of being the most famous american fighter, and because its also fairly forgiving.
The 109's, on the other hand, are not at all forgiving. Even the K4 can really only run unless the pilot is both fairly skilled and fairly experienced with the K4 or another later model 109. The balistics are poorer or, in the case of the K4's 30mm, just terrible.
This means that newer pilots are going to be pushed away from it. The K4 also draws some of the better sticks, because of its high skill ceiling.
And regardless of how much it was used, or if its perfectly representative of post D-day WWII, 150 octane fuel is still a bad idea for every fighter save possible the Spit 14.
Why? It will make allied fighters MUCH more prevelant in the MA's, and it will completely screw the axis out of any chance at winning a post D-day scenario.
-
would the difference in Fuel be that major?
serious question.
-
The Spit is not a noob ride, nor is the K4 some kind of "experten need only apply" ride. And with 10 minutes of WEP and the ability to climb to mars, the K4 is forgiving enough for the noobs. Problem is it doesn't have a History Channel special on it, and unfortunately that's where most noobs get their info.
And by the way I have no dog in the fight. I don't see HTC doing this and it wouldn't matter much to me if they did. Just commenting on the Noobs part :joystick:
-
If it actually outperformed the free Bf109K-4 there might be a reason to use it, but as it is the Spitfire Mk XIV is just a perked Bf109K-4 with some slight advantages and some disadvantages as compared to the free Bf109K-4.
I see more disadvantages than advantages when comparing the two. There's really not much besides the armament difference, better hi-alt performance (pointless since no one ever fights that high in the MA), and slightly better climb.
The armament is certainly decent, but it doesn't matter if you can't get your guns on the K4. The climb difference is not that noticeable against a K4, and 90% of MA fights are under 20K.
I'm a K4 lover but I really think its ENY needs to be dropped to 10.0 or 8.0.
-
The Spit is not a noob ride, nor is the K4 some kind of "experten need only apply" ride. And with 10 minutes of WEP and the ability to climb to mars, the K4 is forgiving enough for the noobs. Problem is it doesn't have a History Channel special on it, and unfortunately that's where most noobs get their info.
And by the way I have no dog in the fight. I don't see HTC doing this and it wouldn't matter much to me if they did. Just commenting on the Noobs part :joystick:
Spit is kind of a noob ride, no way to argue otherwise. Even if you completely ignore how easy it is to fight in one, there still the fact that it has a higher-than-average number of noob pilots.
Saying the K4 is forgiving at 20k, while technically true, is entirely irrelevent. Most MA fights happen at 10K or lower, where the K4 isn't forgiving. Fact is that noobs will tend to shy away from the K4, and that higher-level pilots will be drawn to it for the reasons I listed.
Does that mean you're a noob if you fly a spit? No, it means you fly a spit. I've done it a few times, just never felt any real challenge flying it. Does that mean you have to be an experten to fly a K4? No, it just means that the odds of encountering a noob or unskilled pilot in a 109K4 are lower than they are for something like a spitfire or a P-51.
-
Does that mean you're a noob if you fly a spit? No, it means you fly a spit. I've done it a few times, just never felt any real challenge flying it. Does that mean you have to be an experten to fly a K4? No, it just means that the odds of encountering a noob or unskilled pilot in a 109K4 are lower than they are for something like a spitfire or a P-51.
I actually see quite a few "noobs" in K4s. It's funny though because while a noob might get a lucky hit with a 20mm in a Spit, the one in a K4 can't even ping you once. :lol
-
IDK, maybe it got more popular in the past year. Just back in August of '11, I rarely saw another 109K, and only a small fraction of the ones I did see were making noob mistakes.
-
would the difference in Fuel be that major?
serious question.
Ki-84 on Japanese fuel: 392mph at ~20,000ft.
Ki-84 on American fuel: 424mph at ~20,000ft.
-
I confess I'm unmoved by arguments based on historical opponents. Mossies never had to worry about F4Us for example.
-
Ki-84 on Japanese fuel: 392mph at ~20,000ft.
Ki-84 on American fuel: 424mph at ~20,000ft.
hell don't do that...just means my parts will rip of faster :O
-
hell don't do that...just means my parts will rip of faster :O
:lol Cheap aeroplanes. Try the Spitfires instead... they can handle it. :aok
-
:lol Cheap aeroplanes. Try the Spitfires instead... they can handle it. :aok
I like the spits, great for fighting the Gangs...the responsiveness in them is awesome....but sadly you will never be able to really utilize it....until you get out of it and learn how to use proper ACM.....if you stayed out of the spits for at least 4 months, then went back and flew the spits....you would be far more dangerous in one.
-
hell don't do that...just means my parts will rip of faster :O
I am not aware of the historical Ki-84 having problems retaining control surfaces like the one in AH.
-
:lol Cheap aeroplanes. Try the Spitfires instead... they can handle it. :aok
Spit14 was the first plane I pulled the wings off in a dive. Going 450mph, give or take 10mph. :old:
-
Spit14 was the first plane I pulled the wings off in a dive. Going 450mph, give or take 10mph. :old:
Have never lost parts on a Spitfire due to speed. Only in very high G turns have I lost the wings. Ki84, you go too fast, it falls apart.
-
I am not aware of the historical Ki-84 having problems retaining control surfaces like the one in AH.
Really?
there has to be something there why would HTC program that in otherwise?
I am not sure honestly I am not a WW2 history buff or plane expert by any means...hell I only really knew of the p40 and 51's before I came to AH....
-
Have never lost parts on a Spitfire due to speed. Only in very high G turns have I lost the wings. Ki84, you go too fast, it falls apart.
Never lost parts in a dive with a Ki-84...you wanna switch bodies for a day Midway? :banana:
-
Never lost parts in a dive with a Ki-84...you wanna switch bodies for a day Midway? :banana:
"The Ki-84 simply doesn’t handle anything over 400mph well and by 475mph you may start shedding aircraft components."
http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/Ki-84
Seen it happen many times.
-
"The Ki-84 simply doesn’t handle anything over 400mph well and by 475mph you may start shedding aircraft components."
http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/Ki-84
Seen it happen many times.
none of what you typed is correct :aok
-
Really?
there has to be something there why would HTC program that in otherwise?
I am not sure honestly I am not a WW2 history buff or plane expert by any means...hell I only really knew of the p40 and 51's before I came to AH....
I've looked for it but never found it.
That said, the Mosquito Mk VI in AH also sheds control surfaces and likewise I've never found a reason for it. The Mosquito Mk XVI, which uses the same tail as the Mk VI and the same stronger wing introduced with Mk VI, does not shed control surfaces in AH.
I am not sure the reasoning behind these things.
-
:headscratch:
-
none of what you typed is correct :aok
:headscratch: I think I can make it happen any time you want to join my KI84. Think the ailerons or elevators are the first to rip off. Maybe you avoid those speeds, but I'm use to high speeds chasing runstangs in my Spitfire. I actually flew the KI for a couple weeks, but got frustrated with it falling apart on me. :frown:
-
:headscratch: I think I can make it happen any time you want to join my KI84. Think the ailerons or elevators are the first to rip off. Maybe you avoid those speeds, but I'm use to high speeds chasing runstangs in my Spitfire. I actually flew the KI for a couple weeks, but got frustrated with it falling apart on me. :frown:
Don't let yourself over speed in a dive and you won't have to worry about parts falling off.
ack-ack
-
Don't let yourself over speed in a dive and you won't have to worry about parts falling off.
ack-ack
I want to catch the runstangs... have to go fast, ergo Spitfire better than KI for that purpose, among others. :aok
-
:headscratch: I think I can make it happen any time you want to join my KI84. Think the ailerons or elevators are the first to rip off. Maybe you avoid those speeds, but I'm use to high speeds chasing runstangs in my Spitfire. I actually flew the KI for a couple weeks, but got frustrated with it falling apart on me. :frown:
I reached those speeds before, just don't pull hard on the stick. Tap K and the plane levels itself. I think the problem with the Spits is that once you start overspeeding, the elevator controls/responsiveness are still there while other planes begin to lose it. Making it easier to yank on the stick and pull massive Gs (which is what I did because I didn't know it at the time). With the 109s, P38s, Ki84, yank all the stick you want, it's not going anywhere unless you trim.
-
:headscratch: I think I can make it happen any time you want to join my KI84. Think the ailerons or elevators are the first to rip off. Maybe you avoid those speeds, but I'm use to high speeds chasing runstangs in my Spitfire. I actually flew the KI for a couple weeks, but got frustrated with it falling apart on me. :frown:
my point was what you typed was wrong...I have a feeling I flew the Ki a few times and Know exactly when pieces come off, and its not at 475...nor does the KI become hard to handle or not handle 400 plus well.
pieces come off right about 500 mph
and if you are doing 400 mph it will climb like a banshee..... :aok
-
my point was what you typed was wrong...I have a feeling I flew the Ki a few times and Know exactly when pieces come off, and its not at 475...nor does the KI become hard to handle or not handle 400 plus well.
pieces come off right about 500 mph
and if you are doing 400 mph it will climb like a banshee..... :aok
Understood. I don't know what the exact speeds were, was quoting from the write-up. Point is it falls apart chasing runners and Spitfires do not. :)
-
The planes with the higher octane basically become new variants that are 20-30 mph faster on the deck, per the information in this thread. If it doesn't take much work to implement, why wouldn't these new variants be added. The main argument so far against this is that it will benefit the allies more than the axis and therefore shouldn't be done. I vote to control the usage via perks and eny and then add any and all plane variants from all countries that were used with higher octane.
-
Okay once again Mr Bustr.
The spit14 is completely pwned by the k4 on the deck? I agree that the spit14 and the k4 should have nearly equal ENY rating (somewhere around 10 maybe), but that statement is just completely nonsense.
What im afraid of? Well, come, duel me in the same rides (nearly any ride) and see what i can do. Then grab a spit against my 109G6 and i die every single time.
You might want to call out my ego: i dont have any ego anymore. I just wanted good fights. Some spits are already running from me, what else do you want? Would you give me a chance?
The allies got wonderful toys to play with, i only got an eny30 brick that only barely does 335 on the deck and 385 at the best alt. Yet you want even more...
Im done.
:cry
-
Okay once again Mr Bustr.
The spit14 is completely pwned by the k4 on the deck? I agree that the spit14 and the k4 should have nearly equal ENY rating (somewhere around 10 maybe), but that statement is just completely nonsense.
What im afraid of? Well, come, duel me in the same rides (nearly any ride) and see what i can do. Then grab a spit against my 109G6 and i die every single time.
You might want to call out my ego: i dont have any ego anymore. I just wanted good fights. Some spits are already running from me, what else do you want? Would you give me a chance?
The allies got wonderful toys to play with, i only got an eny30 brick that only barely does 335 on the deck and 385 at the best alt. Yet you want even more...
Im done.
:cry
The problem is that while the Bf109K-4 and Spitfire Mk XIV are roughly comparable, though I think the Bf109K-4's 10 minutes of WEP and 1:1 cooldown ratio on that WEP makes it much better in actual non-duel combat, the Bf109K-4 is a free ENY 20 aircraft and the Spitfire Mk XIV is a 5 ENY 8 perk point airplane.
If you want the XIV to be perked, justify that perk with actual superior performance and give it the +21lbs boost of 150 octane. Otherwise it is just an expensive, crappier Bf109K-4.
-
Sir!!
I have never mentioned that i want the spit14 perked.
I stated that the K4's 20 ENY value should less, while the spit14 should be unperked, and with about the same ENY with the K4. There were threads about it in the past. Both aircraft have some minor advantages and disadvantages on the other one, but the differences between them are as minor... both are great aircrafts. Saying that the spit14 is crappy.. eh.
But adding 150 octane to the spit16 is something entirely different.
-
Sir!!
I have never mentioned that i want the spit14 perked.
I stated that the K4's 20 ENY value should less, while the spit14 should be unperked, and with about the same ENY with the K4. There were threads about it in the past. Both aircraft have some minor advantages and disadvantages on the other one, but the differences between them are as minor... both are great aircrafts. Saying that the spit14 is crappy.. eh.
I didn't say it was crappy. It will, for example, utterly kick the snot out of a P-51. I said it was crappier than the Bf109K-4, which I believe it to be due to its 5 minutes of WEP with a 10 minute cooldown while having mediocre performance on MIL while the Bf109K-4 has 10 minutes of WEP with a 10 minute cooldown while having decent MIL performance. The Spitfire Mk XIV is all about its WEP and its WEP is very limited.
But adding 150 octane to the spit16 is something entirely different.
If that were done the Spitfire Mk XVI would need to be perked.
-
+1 on the 150 octane fuel but only in LWMA arena need my p38G to go a little faster for them pony dweebs :devil
-
+1 on the 150 octane fuel but only in LWMA arena need my p38G to go a little faster for them pony dweebs :devil
38g never used it. Out of the front line long before. You are talking about a limited number or late 44-45 allied birds. More pain then it's worth and I fly allied rides
-
... Mustang ... nerfed.
thanks! that made my day :rofl
edit: Im -0.5 on this request, although it may be historical I dont think widening the gap to the late-war monsters would be good from a gameplay perspective. plus I'm pretty certain that if unlimited quality fuel was available in WWII like it is in AH, every aircraft would be using 150 :)
-
Understood. I don't know what the exact speeds were, was quoting from the write-up. Point is it falls apart chasing runners and Spitfires do not. :)
who cares about chasing runners...I am here to fight the guys that want to fight....as soon as someone turns and runs I ignore them.
-
Tried to warn everyone, but gramps is in too deep now to pull out.
Stole my line! :devil
D9 is the same it's been with this recent patch (Kovel it's most likely because you're flying with a heavy aft tank)... the A8 though is another matter me and Bustr are still debating over. (he's thinking WEP or powerplant up-tweak, I'm thinking somewhere along how it seems maybe more stable but it's probabley nothing at all (or, alternatively, how gramps got into my smoke box))
So does the 150 octane have anything to do with you looking into the WEP differences you've been suspecting?
-
I'm not sure how you'd model the shorter engine life and the problems that came with the higher octane fuel. We're not chasing V-1s either.
-
I'm not sure how you'd model the shorter engine life and the problems that came with the higher octane fuel. We're not chasing V-1s either.
meteor?? :pray :D
-
meteor?? :pray :D
do-335. 1:1
-
meteor?? :pray :D
And we're still not chasing V-1s :)
-
If anyone bothered to read WW2 history, yes the US, UK, Poland, USSR, New Zealand, Rhodesia, Australia, India, France, Greece, Netherlands, China and many many others beat the Germans and the Japanese because the US, UK, USSR and many others kept improving their technology and output volumes to beat their enemies while blowing the snot out of them with hoards of hot aircraft. And the P51D and P51B\C were both OKed to run on 150 by 8\44 as a standard. With Merlin 66 spits, P51D, spit14 and TempestV on 150, maybe adjusting perk assingments and values would need their occasional review by HTC. Then the LWMA furballs might get more intersting because the K4 would not be able to hang everyone up beneith it with it's WEP. It would simply be one of several unperked WEP monster late war rides available in the LWMA instead of "the" unperked monster WEP ride. I really couldn't see the P51D using 150 perked more than 8-10 or even that.
Fixed that for you :salute
-
chasing runners
don't chase, they wont run. usually if you turn around, they get bold and chase back, just like an ill-trained dog. they're all yours at that point.
-
The K4 as modeled in AH emerged into a war with Allied late war fighters running on 150 Grade.
This made it an equal, not the current unperked WEP monster we see in the LWMA. The SpitXIV as is does not warrent it's perk modeled on Brit 125 octane. It cannot out run the spit8 or 16 on the deck modeled for 125 octane. Put it on 150 and it warrents a much higher perk than it currently is at including out running the Merlin66 powered spits. The K4's WEP will cease being the deciding factor in so many fights. K4 drivers who are exellent 109 drivers will still be excellent 109 drivers. They just won't have WEP as the final extra bit that makes the K4 more equal than it's 125 and 130 octane contemporaries that it didn't meet over the continent.
If the K4's WEP in WW2 at the time it emerged was as magical as it is in Aces High, we would be reading Brit and US documents warning about engaging with the K4. When it was encountered, Allied fighters on 150 Grade saw it as another 109 varient that their aircraft wasn't out classed by. Even the 262 faced a sky full of 150 ocatne burning allied fighters and they succeded in countering it's jet engines. Fuel additives for the Allies were as viable and valid a technology as the engine technology improvments in the DB605 engine that achived 2000hp on boost.
I understand the 262's jet technology being radicly superior over piston technology and that it was a historic fact of the war. The same kind of technology historical fact, is that the K4 emerged into a sky competeing against 150 octane powered fighters that were its equal. Specificly because the allies forsaw needing to introduce fuel additive technology to make their fighters equal competitors or superior to what they beleived germany would feild in the last 12 months of the war.
The K4 faced the 150 octane burning SpitXIV and had littel perceptable advantage over it unlike the current 125 octane burning SpitXIV in the game.
Knowing this fact of WW2 history that the K4 faced 150 octane burning fighters only as an equal. Why do you gentelmen really want Merlin66 spits, spitXIV, Tempest and P51 limited to pre D-Day allied fuel technology with the known performance limitations? You have the tonnage reports that proves this fact for the last 11 months of the war starting 3 months before the K4 emerged into the conflict as only an equal.
What are you afraid of?
-
Give allied 150 or 200 octane fuel, i dont give a damn, only makes humiliation greater when they get shot up in an overweight A8 :cool:
Just make sure Lancaster and A20 still out turn A8s with full bomb load as before, and add 20mm Hispanos for the A20 instead of puny little mg's they have now, Im sure they had them somewhere. and let the drones follow through all these stupid manoeuvres Lancs can do, still shooting with deadly accuracy at 4g turns 1000 out.
How much faster could a Lanc, A20 fly with 150 octance ?
And something really is wrong with the spit14, it fly like s*th as it is now. t was considered to be one of the best fighters during the war.
-
This made it an equal, not the current unperked WEP monster we see in the LWMA. The SpitXIV as is does not warrent it's perk modeled on Brit 125 octane. It cannot out run the spit8 or 16 on the deck modeled for 125 octane.
Stopped reading here. Plain nonsense.
Visit this place: http://www.hitechcreations.com/component/option,com_ahplaneperf/Itemid,221/view,ahplaneperf/index.php
One thing: what im afraid of: the spit16 already outturns, outruns, outaccelerates, outguns, ouclimbs, outrolls, outUPLIFTS my aircraft yet they are already running from me.
If thats not enough for you, idk what else you want, Mr Wall-O-Text. This conversation is totally retarded when one has everything and he is the one whining for even more.
This is what im afraid of. DOH But it looks more like its your Spit16 being afraid of a G6. Cheers.
<holding breath> <moving away from what smells> <deep sigh>
-
What are you afraid of?
Power creep. This will render anything not 1945 on 150 fuel even more disadvantaged. There currently is no great K4 scourge - when there is one, it can be solved with a token perk cost. Works like a charm on the Chog and its not like there aren't other perfectly capable and free 109s to fly, if somehow you cannot afford a single digit perk cost.
If I was running the show, this game would have been mid-war arena. I am sure most players glad I don't.
-
IMO, K4 is fine, it's the only German fighter that can catch and outfly most Allied planes (190D cannot out fly but they'll BnZ you to death). You don't see hordes of K4s and Doras, but you see a crap ton of P51s and Spit16s. I don't see AH as a 100% historical sim, because if it was, well, it wouldn't be a very fun game.
I see the K4 as a balancing factor, each country gets their own LW monster that can compete in the MA.
109K4, 190D, Me-262
Spit16, P51D, P47M, Tempest
La-7, Yak-9U (to a lesser extent)
The Japs and the Italians should be the ones that are against this wish.
Add the G.55 for the Italians (hey, we have the Ta-152, G.55 meets the criteria). And for the Japanese, I'm not sure what their LW monster ride is.
-
IMO, K4 is fine, it's the only German fighter that can catch and outfly most Allied planes (190D cannot out fly but they'll BnZ you to death). You don't see hordes of K4s and Doras, but you see a crap ton of P51s and Spit16s. I don't see AH as a 100% historical sim, because if it was, well, it wouldn't be a very fun game.
I see the K4 as a balancing factor, each country gets their own LW monster that can compete in the MA.
109K4, 190D, Me-262
Spit16, P51D, P47M, Tempest
La-7, Yak-9U (to a lesser extent)
The Japs and the Italians should be the ones that are against this wish.
Add the G.55 for the Italians (hey, we have the Ta-152, G.55 meets the criteria). And for the Japanese, I'm not sure what their LW monster ride is.
the 4 20 mm KI84 :pray
-
the 4 20 mm KI84 :pray
Hmm, I'm curious though, if we get the Ki-84 Otsu, does the N1K turn into a hangar queen? :uhoh
-
For Germany, which plane versions used the higher octane fuel? The allied planes show 20-30 mph at sea level improvement. How much was the improvement in speed and climb for the German planes using C3 (or whatever they called it)?
-
Hmm, I'm curious though, if we get the Ki-84 Otsu, does the N1K turn into a hangar queen? :uhoh
No. The N1K2-J carries a lot more ammo, each round of which is more potent and, due to the low rate of fire of the Type 99 Model 2s the N1K2-J has the high rate of fire the Ki-84 has, the ammo endurance is even more exaggerated.
do-335. 1:1
Except, you know, the Meteor saw active service and combat and the Do335 saw neither....
-
ROF rules! :bolt:
-
Except, you know, the Meteor saw active service and combat and the Do335 saw neither....
of course, Karnak. Still they are at the same level in my eyes. Was just the anger speaking instead of me.
-
the Meteor saw active service and combat and the Do335 saw neither....
The only service the Meteor saw was chasing v1s... AH doesn't have v1s, so from an AH perspective, it did not see relevant service and might as well not have seen service.
-
The only service the Meteor saw was chasing v1s... AH doesn't have v1s, so from an AH perspective, it did not see relevant service and might as well not have seen service.
No V1s in Belgium and Holland where Meteors were stationed in 1945.
With the arrival of the Meteor F Mk.III in December 1944 the RAF finally decided that the Meteor was ready for combat over Europe. On 20 January 1945 a flight of four Meteors moved to Melsbrook in Belgium becoming the first Allied jet squadron to operate from the continent. Their initial purpose was to provide air defence for the airfield, but it was also hoped that their presence might provoke the Germans into sending Me 262s against them. At this point the Meteor pilots were still forbidden to fly over German occupied territory, or to go east of Eindhoven, to prevent a downed aircraft being captured by the Germans or the Soviets.
In March 1945 the entire squadron moved to Gilze-Rijen in Holland, and on 13 April moved again to Nijmegen. Finally, on 17 April the Meteor entered combat over Europe, carrying out a ground attack mission near Ijmuiden. For the rest of the war the squadron flew a mix of ground attack and armed reconnaissance missions.
-
No V1s in Belgium and Holland where Meteors were stationed in 1945.
With the arrival of the Meteor F Mk.III in December 1944 the RAF finally decided that the Meteor was ready for combat over Europe. On 20 January 1945 a flight of four Meteors moved to Melsbrook in Belgium becoming the first Allied jet squadron to operate from the continent. Their initial purpose was to provide air defence for the airfield, but it was also hoped that their presence might provoke the Germans into sending Me 262s against them. At this point the Meteor pilots were still forbidden to fly over German occupied territory, or to go east of Eindhoven, to prevent a downed aircraft being captured by the Germans or the Soviets.
In March 1945 the entire squadron moved to Gilze-Rijen in Holland, and on 13 April moved again to Nijmegen. Finally, on 17 April the Meteor entered combat over Europe, carrying out a ground attack mission near Ijmuiden. For the rest of the war the squadron flew a mix of ground attack and armed reconnaissance missions.
sounds to me like NO we dont need a fast ground attack plane. i think people only want this to counter the 262. Why does everyone always want a counter. we got king tiger and people want m26 and is2. we have 262 people want meteor. they are top tier for a reason and dont need counters. so many other planes & tanks should be added first and then maybe in 20+ yrs after 100s of other things are added and there is nothing left for AH to do then ok meteor
-
No V1s in Belgium and Holland where Meteors were stationed in 1945.
With the arrival of the Meteor F Mk.III in December 1944 the RAF finally decided that the Meteor was ready for combat over Europe. On 20 January 1945 a flight of four Meteors moved to Melsbrook in Belgium becoming the first Allied jet squadron to operate from the continent. Their initial purpose was to provide air defence for the airfield, but it was also hoped that their presence might provoke the Germans into sending Me 262s against them. At this point the Meteor pilots were still forbidden to fly over German occupied territory, or to go east of Eindhoven, to prevent a downed aircraft being captured by the Germans or the Soviets.
In March 1945 the entire squadron moved to Gilze-Rijen in Holland, and on 13 April moved again to Nijmegen. Finally, on 17 April the Meteor entered combat over Europe, carrying out a ground attack mission near Ijmuiden. For the rest of the war the squadron flew a mix of ground attack and armed reconnaissance missions.
Cool didn't know that...
-
sounds to me like NO we dont need a fast ground attack plane. i think people only want this to counter the 262. Why does everyone always want a counter. we got king tiger and people want m26 and is2. we have 262 people want meteor. they are top tier for a reason and dont need counters. so many other planes & tanks should be added first and then maybe in 20+ yrs after 100s of other things are added and there is nothing left for AH to do then ok meteor
Reading comprehension problem?
Was only posted for Ardy's information.
-
The only service the Meteor saw was chasing v1s... AH doesn't have v1s, so from an AH perspective, it did not see relevant service and might as well not have seen service.
Please let's not get into the "what constitutes combat" argument again :bhead
-
Not sure where Bustr is getting his rant material, but the K-4 is modeled on well known information and verifiable by many sources. If he's implying we have the C3-fueled 2000hp variant, then he's just plain wrong as well. If he's not implying that... then ... he's clue-less IMO.
-
sounds to me like NO we dont need a fast ground attack plane. i think people only want this to counter the 262. Why does everyone always want a counter. we got king tiger and people want m26 and is2. we have 262 people want meteor. they are top tier for a reason and dont need counters. so many other planes & tanks should be added first and then maybe in 20+ yrs after 100s of other things are added and there is nothing left for AH to do then ok meteor
They just might prefer Allied rides for any number of reasons, mostly historical and want to fly the Allied counter to the Luftwaffe version. Your logic then suggest that any prop driven Allied ride should be un perked since the only LW birds perked are Jets and the Allies have none.
I'm not anti-Meteor, but more anti end of the war anything since it all becomes about the latest and greatest regardless of their actual impact during WW2.
Understand the Meteor was operational before the 190D9 by a few months. It beat the K4 into operational status too as well as the Ta152. Consider the Spitfire XIV and Tempest, both in combat long before any of those three LW birds yet they are perked and the LW birds are not. If any crowd has the right to gripe it's the RAF guys as their best prop jobs are early 44 entries and they're all perked. Basically the last of the freebee RAF birds are 1943 era. And don't say Spit XVI as that's nothing more then a Spitfire LFIX which is 1943
-
Guppy, this is a game, there's a reason the Allies won the war, if they got all their 1945 planes with 150 octane, very few would fly Axis planes. Same reason we don't have the AvA as the main arena. Anytime a 1944+ event shows up, the Axis side would get decimated if the Allies have the 150 octane and everything else that boosted their planes.
There's a balance between gameplay and historical accuracy, I think AH has it right. If you add in the 150 octane, it would be historical, but then gameplay would have to be rebalanced. I don't see how it can be balanced without adding an Axis superweapon. Otherwise, all you're going to see is hordes of Allied planes vs hordes of Allied planes.
The game is fine as it is, there's room for improvement, but no need for something as drastic as 150 octane.
-
Guppy, this is a game, there's a reason the Allies won the war, if they got all their 1945 planes with 150 octane, very few would fly Axis planes. Same reason we don't have the AvA as the main arena. Anytime a 1944+ event shows up, the Axis side would get decimated if the Allies have the 150 octane and everything else that boosted their planes.
There's a balance between gameplay and historical accuracy, I think AH has it right. If you add in the 150 octane, it would be historical, but then gameplay would have to be rebalanced. I don't see how it can be balanced without adding an Axis superweapon. Otherwise, all you're going to see is hordes of Allied planes vs hordes of Allied planes.
The game is fine as it is, there's room for improvement, but no need for something as drastic as 150 octane.
It's a game? No! Really? :)
Where did I ask for 150 fuel? Ive never asked for it, ever.
Ironically what you are saying is we need to cater to the Luftwaffe crowd, or they won't play. Funny how that works :aok
-
When I used to fly with the Pigs, Bustr would always tell us about his 150 octane beer farts when he got drunk.... and hell yeah...I ran that watermelon could be smelt over the interdweebs... still not sure how :headscratch:
so I can't support 150 octane... it just gets too smelly....
-
I'm not anti-Meteor, but more anti end of the war anything since it all becomes about the latest and greatest regardless of their actual impact during WW2.
This.
Having a meteor as an "allied 262" is fine, but it is way way down the bottom of my wish list. For the time being, 262s counter 262s just fine. All 3 chess pieces got the technology.
-
if 150 octane fuel was introduced, would not wep/cooldown change quite some ?
-
save do you truly believe that a lanc with full ord can out turn a 190A8?? let's not get hysterical here.
I'm more than willing to go to the TA and experiment this with you. :salute
-
It's a game? No! Really? :)
Where did I ask for 150 fuel? Ive never asked for it, ever.
Ironically what you are saying is we need to cater to the Luftwaffe crowd, or they won't play. Funny how that works :aok
Sure, add it, whatever. But when the LW crowd stops playing, that's your problem.
EDIT: Or when a 1945 scenario or FSO comes up, don't whine when you get stuck on the Axis side.
-
I don't agree with the argument that you shouldn't add something because it is too good, which is basically what several people as saying. If you use that argument, you wouldn't add the King Tiger or ME262, etc, etc. One could say that the King Tiger and ME 262 were good and saw service during the war so they should be included in the game. If that is the case though, why shouldn't the 150 octane allied planes be added. They could be perked as necessary to avoid unbalancing the game.
-
No, you add these things, you make it nearly impossible for an Axis plane to kill an Allied plane as they can just dive and run away. It's already extremely hard to catch and kill a Tempest, and you guys want 10 more of them in the form of P51s, Spits and an even faster Tempest? :huh No one would ever want to fly LW in special events post 1944 as they would just get decimated.
-
The war was pretty much won before 150 octane showed up.............but, if it was used in the war, why not allow it?
That said, any usage of methanol/ethanol/water injection and nitrous oxide...........if proven to have been used in squadron strength even for a short period, should also be in game.
If we required pilots in aces high to be tasked with managing an engine, most wouldn't know how to get anything out of 150 octane anyway.
My thought is that our planeset is way too top heavy and more should be done to fix the glaring holes in it rather than making every late war plane into a tempest.
-
To Guppy (and Fox):
the Ah's spit16 is far from being a clipped spit9. It has the spit8's engine, ergo its much more effective at lower altitudes. For me its more like a lighter, faster, more nimble spit8.
As a former member of the "Luftwaffe crowd", can i ask you to phrase a bit milder? Look, my aircraft does 335 at sea level, 388 at 21k, climbs 4000 feet/min, turns around in 18.5 seconds, yet there is a spitfire mark16 what does 344 at sea level, 408 at altitude, climbs 4600 feet/min and turns around in 15.6 secs. If the allied players get 150 octane, they get an aircraft that does ~360 at sea level, ~415 at altitude, climbs ~5000+ feet/min, and turns around in less than 15 seconds, whats the reason that i should continue to fly my "1944" ride? Yes sir, even the "Luftwaffe crowd" needs a minor chance to win. And i still hold that the spit14 should have nearly the same ENY as the K4: ~10.
To Titan:
Guppy have never asked for 150 octane, even more, he is against it. I dont know if you have noticed it : ) Please dont make an elephant from the mouse. Thank you.
Debrődy
-
No, you add these things, you make it nearly impossible for an Axis plane to kill an Allied plane as they can just dive and run away. It's already extremely hard to catch and kill a Tempest, and you guys want 10 more of them in the form of P51s, Spits and an even faster Tempest? :huh No one would ever want to fly LW in special events post 1944 as they would just get decimated.
I disagree. Now I am at best a comprehensively useless cartoon pilot, but I have killed Tiffs and 262's in Brewsters and Hurri's and Spits. All this would mean is that the timid guys would just run quicker (or hopefully overspeed and compress right past me). Would an extra few mph make all that much difference? I think not. And when you get down to brass tacks, they had the fuel, they used the fuel, and we are trying to play a simulator of WW2 air combat, based on the realities of the technologies of the time. Well, as far as I'm concerned anyhoo :joystick:
-
I disagree. Now I am at best a comprehensively useless cartoon pilot, but I have killed Tiffs and 262's in Brewsters and Hurri's and Spits. All this would mean is that the timid guys would just run quicker (or hopefully overspeed and compress right past me). Would an extra few mph make all that much difference? I think not. And when you get down to brass tacks, they had the fuel, they used the fuel, and we are trying to play a simulator of WW2 air combat, based on the realities of the technologies of the time. Well, as far as I'm concerned anyhoo :joystick:
The key is the balance, Danny. How many times you have died in that brewster til you could kill one tempest?
Imagine this: random Luftdude upping his 365mph, 4600feet/min, 19secs turn rate K4. The enemy is a spit16: 360mph, 5000feet/min, 15secs. Or a 390mph pony. Or a 395mph Tempest. What would be the kill/killed ratio?
What would motivate the given Luftdude to continue to fly his aircraft when its allied (and probably much more popular) counterparts outdoes it in every single aspect?
What if the given Luftdude is a patriotic idiot like me and dont wanna fly allied rides? What would keep him here, what would motivate him to play this game anymore?
I already know top20 ranked players who dont fly anything else but spixteens at 20k+ and run 2 sectors from my g6 when he cant BnZ bore me to death. God save them.
-
Please, no 150 octane in AH.
-
I disagree. Now I am at best a comprehensively useless cartoon pilot, but I have killed Tiffs and 262's in Brewsters and Hurri's and Spits. All this would mean is that the timid guys would just run quicker (or hopefully overspeed and compress right past me). Would an extra few mph make all that much difference? I think not. And when you get down to brass tacks, they had the fuel, they used the fuel, and we are trying to play a simulator of WW2 air combat, based on the realities of the technologies of the time. Well, as far as I'm concerned anyhoo :joystick:
So have I...because regardless of what plane they're in, noobs are gonna die against a better player. For players that's even mildly decent, they'll KNOW when to run and when to engage, it'll be a pickfest even more than it is now. And it's not just a "few extra mph", it's speed boosts ranging from 7 to 30. The Mustang basically becomes a long legged Tempest. Climb rate is also increased.
It's not a sim, it's a game that uses WWII planes with realistic physics. If it was a sim, you would be taking 5 minutes to prep your engine to take off. You have to balance a game, otherwise, one side (in this case the Allies) gets the upper hand and a huge huge advantage. Would you play a game where all you have is a Lee Enfield going up against M107s and M249s? Would you play a game where all you have is a Honda Civic against an Aston Martin and Spyker C8? And would you play a game where your favorite plane is forced to go up against planes that are flying 20-40 mph faster, climbs better, turns better, and has better range?
-
OMG not this topic again. :O
-
OK it would be bad for the luftwaffe, but these 150 octane planes would be perked.
-
Titan, I am not saying the 150 octane should be added to the current plane with the same ENY. Given the performance improvements, many of the planes (I don't even know which planes would get the higher octane) would be perked. If I understand correctly, some of the German planes used the higher octane fuel as well, so this isn't an allied only improvement.
As long as the new versions are basically different variants with different perks or ENY, I don't understand the reason why people are against them. They will be faster than the current planes, but still slower that the 262 for example. If the concern is having fast perk planes that put unperked planes at a huge disadvantage, that situation already exists today with the current perk planes. Adding more perk planes will just add more variety to the game and give players more options, which I don't think is a bad thing as long as the perk price is set to keep them from overrunning the arena.
-
No, you add these things, you make it nearly impossible for an Axis plane to kill an Allied plane as they can just dive and run away. It's already extremely hard to catch and kill a Tempest, and you guys want 10 more of them in the form of P51s, Spits and an even faster Tempest? :huh No one would ever want to fly LW in special events post 1944 as they would just get decimated.
So we need to make sure that the Luftwaffe always wins so they will keep playing? I'd suggest you've done a fine job insulting a lot of good Lutwaffe cartoon pilots just now.
-
So we need to make sure that the Luftwaffe always wins so they will keep playing? I'd suggest you've done a fine job insulting a lot of good Lutwaffe cartoon pilots just now.
How bout giving them a fighting chance? :huh
-
special events wouldn't necessarily give the 150 octane...
along with the octane how about giving the LW a bone with a late 190A, and a revised radiator on the 190D?
-
To Guppy (and Fox):
the Ah's spit16 is far from being a clipped spit9. It has the spit8's engine, ergo its much more effective at lower altitudes. For me its more like a lighter, faster, more nimble spit8.
As a former member of the "Luftwaffe crowd", can i ask you to phrase a bit milder? Look, my aircraft does 335 at sea level, 388 at 21k, climbs 4000 feet/min, turns around in 18.5 seconds, yet there is a spitfire mark16 what does 344 at sea level, 408 at altitude, climbs 4600 feet/min and turns around in 15.6 secs. If the allied players get 150 octane, they get an aircraft that does ~360 at sea level, ~415 at altitude, climbs ~5000+ feet/min, and turns around in less than 15 seconds, whats the reason that i should continue to fly my "1944" ride? Yes sir, even the "Luftwaffe crowd" needs a minor chance to win. And i still hold that the spit14 should have nearly the same ENY as the K4: ~10.
To Titan:
Guppy have never asked for 150 octane, even more, he is against it. I dont know if you have noticed it : ) Please dont make an elephant from the mouse. Thank you.
Debrődy
The Spit LF IX was the same Merlin 66 that the Spit 8 had. The Spit XVI has the American produced version of the Merkin 66, the Packard Merlin 266. The AH Spit IX has the Merlin 61 that came in the 1942 Spit IX. By far the majority of Spit IX had Merlin 66.
-
Thats what im talking about, Guppy. You are speaking about the spit9 as it were an 1942 bird (as AH's spit9 is) yet the 16 had an improved engine.
So, the majority of the spit9s were closer to AH's spit8s except the extra fuel tanks, right?
Noir: so all the late allied birds get a 20mph/500ftpm boost for adding an other 190a8 and making a minor non-performance adjustment on the dora? No, thank you, no dirty business for you! :lol
Edit: to Guppy: now both the Luft and the Allies have advantages on each other, with 150 octane, the luft would be totally without any chance. Couse i cant fight against a 370mph spitfire, im too unskilled to catch it running. Thats what Titan is speaking about. So please, chill, cause your argument is invalid here.
Edit2: Nuke: dont be silly and selfish. Enough selfish stuff happened in 1922, if you know what i am talking about. hint hint
-
How bout giving them a fighting chance? :huh
Now you are being silly. Please tell me when the cartoon Luftwaffe hasn't had a fighting chance?
-
Noir: so all the late allied birds get a 20mph/500ftpm boost for adding an other 190a8 and making a minor non-performance adjustment on the dora? No, thank you, no dirty business for you! :lol
Well that's all I can do for you, not my fault if germany lost the war! :lol
-
Thats what im talking about, Guppy. You are speaking about the spit9 as it were an 1942 bird (as AH's spit9 is) yet the 16 had an improved engine.
So, the majority of the spit9s were closer to AH's spit8s except the extra fuel tanks, right?
Noir: so all the late allied birds get a 20mph/500ftpm boost for adding an other 190a8 and making a minor non-performance adjustment on the dora? No, thank you, no dirty business for you! :lol
The majority of Spit IXs were LFIX which is all the XVI is. It just has the American produced version of the same engine as theLFIX. Put an XVI engine in an IX and it's an XVI. Same airframe, same performance. LFIX was a 43 introduction.
-
debrody,
The "Spitfire MK XVI" in AH is actually a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe. It has a Merlin 66 in it, not a Merlin 266 which had a slightly higher critical altitude. Check the Mk XVI's critical altitude compared to the Mk VIII's Merlin 66's in AH:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=85&p2=86&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
The most common Spitfire Mk IX was probably the Spitfire LF.Mk IX with the universal wing, but the only difference we'd see in AH is the lack of wing ordnance and having four .303s instead of two .50s alongside the cannons. The wing tips could be changed out in about 30 minutes by ground crew.
-
If we required pilots in aces high to be tasked with managing an engine, most wouldn't know how to get anything out of 150 octane anyway.
How exactly?
You pull the throttle "through the gate" and watch your MAP-gauge to keep the MAP within the allovable setting when 150 octane fuel is used?
What is hard about that?
-
Exuse me Karnak, i cant see anything on that graph... im blind tho.
My knowledge about the allied birds is very short tho, i accept that you are right.
-
How exactly?
You pull the throttle "through the gate" and watch your MAP-gauge to keep the MAP within the allovable setting when 150 octane fuel is used?
What is hard about that?
LOL if you think that's all the engine management needed.
-
Seems the ETO P51D operated on 150 Grade.
Deliveries of Grade 100/150 aviation fuel to Eighth Air Force fighter airfields commenced in June 1944. 8 9 10 This coincidentally occured about the same time as the introduction of the P-51D into service. Even though the USAAF had cleared the P-51 for 75" Hg., the Eighth Air Force chose 72" Hg as the P-51's War Emergency Rating. 11 12 Apparently there is more to the story, however, as Encounter Reports demonstrate that 75" Hg was used operationally. 13 14
By January 1945, fourteen of the Eighth Air Force's fifteen Fighter Groups were operating Mustangs, the sole holdout being the 56th FG in P-47's. Maintenance difficulties with spark plug fouling led to the decision to convert all fighter groups to 100/150 grade fuel reformulated with increased levels of ethylene dibromide (1.5T). Deliveries of PEP, as the new 100/150 blend was called, began to be issued to all fighter groups in February 1945. The use of PEP, however, cooroded the valve seats of the V-1650 at an unacceptable level. Consequently, the standard 100/150 (1T) grade fuel was reverted to by the end of March 1945. 15 16 The Eighth Air Force also had hoped to supply the 352nd and 361st Fighter Groups based on the continent with 100/150 grade fuel. This was deemed impractical from a logistical viewpoint, although admittedly such difficulties did not prevent the RAF's 2nd TAF from being supplied with 100/150 grade fuel. 17
Those RAF Mustang units tasked with defending against the V-1 were modified to operated at +25 lbs./sq.in. - the equivalent of 80" Hg. 21 22 On 24 August 1944, by which time the V-1 threat had subsided, the Ministry of Aircraft Production directed Rolls Royce: "all Packard Merlin V.1650-7 engines to be modified to operate at 25 lbs. boost". 23 Raising the WER rating from 67" Hg to 80" Hg increased Sea Level speed by 30 mph. 24 On 18 September 1944 ADGB noted, that with respect to the Mustang III/Packard Merlin 1650-7, "A total of over 7,000 hours have been flown at a maximum boost pressure of + 25 lbs./sq. in.". 25 The RAF's Mustang Pilot's Notes gives the Combat Engine Limitation as "81 ins. boost for 5 minutes when using 150 grade fuel". 26 Combat Reports show +25 lbs was used operationally over the continent by UK based Mustangs of ADGB. 27
Encounter Reports noting high boost obtained with 150 grade fuel
1st Lt. Raymond R. Flowers, 1 November 1944, 20th FG “I closed steadily pulling over 70 inches.”
1st Lt. James F. Hinchey, 14 November 1944, 353rd FG “For fifteen minutes at 74” hg and indicating 600 mph…”
2nd Lt. Thomas R. Drybrough, 27 November 1944, 353rd FG "I had been pulling over 70" H.G. and was indicating about 425 MPH at approximately 14,000 feet."
1st Lt. Charles E. Yeager, 13 September 1944, 357th FG “I rolled over and was pulling around 70”Hg.”
Capt. Charles E. Yeager, 6 November 1944, 357th FG “I got behind him and was pulling 75” Hg.”
Lt. Col. Roy A. Webb, 25 June 1944, 361st FG “I closed very slowly and pulled as much as 70 inches of mercury.”
1st Lt. Thomas H. Hall, 15 August 1944, 364th FG “I put on 70 inches and gradually pulled up on them.”
Lt. Col. Kyle L. Riddle, 24 December 1944, 479th FG "I pulled about 70" to 75" mercury..."
F/Lt Pearson, 5 April 45, 65 Squadron "Opening up to 70 inches I overtook him..."
F/Lt. G. M. Davis, 23 March 1945, 129 Squadron "Opened up to +25 lbs of boost 3,000 revs and dived down to engage."
---------------------------------------------
Summary of RAF 100\150 use.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/appendixa.pdf
-
I would like to have a list of all fighter / buff performance much like soda's table, and I' willing to put effort and time in it.
I've seen buffs do incredible stunts with them,and I do not know if their gunners stop shooting at different G's or same , and what the limit is
Also i would like to test all our planes with different loadout/fuel settings. maybe someone can find a formula to find out speed/turn without testing IRL.
I know some take as little as 50% fuel in 190A's 2*20mm and to compete with the late plane set we have in Main arena, and understandably some Pony pilots don't bring full bag
since they have endurance to stay "up there" for a very long time.
save do you truly believe that a lanc with full ord can out turn a 190A8?? let's not get hysterical here.
I'm more than willing to go to the TA and experiment this with you. :salute
-
All this info has already been gone over before. I'm still not seeing how implementing it into the game is worth the time and effort. And that's saying it as one who has a Mustang group in the upcoming scenario and one who has been flying the 51 lately int the MA.
I would rather have 108 gallon DTs for the scenario :aok
-
LOL if you think that's all the engine management needed.
As far as 150 octane fuel goes, yes. It doesn't change the engine management itself really. It simply enables the engine run at higher boost which generates more horsepower provided that the supercharger is able to deliver the air needed at the altitude in question.
Only real difference in engine management would be the different value which the boost gauge would be showing as the throttle is pushed to max. allowable power.
How exactly wouldn't people in AH know how to take advantage of the higher boost/power output??
It is true that most here wouldn't know how to start a real WWII fighter but the engine management doesn't change with the grade of fuel. They wouldn't know how to start one no matter which fuel it has in its' tanks and none of this is applicable to AH anyway.
-
If you ever look at the manifold and boost gauges for the affected aircraft, they can register the numbers.
70-75HG
25lbs
I will venture for Hitech it's very likely changing numbers in a formula.
The P51D flew it's combat career on 150. By 11\44 british units operating on the continent were using 150. Parity is not achived by forceing them to operate with the fuel they didn't historicly burn while in the same skys as the aircraft they were upgraded to 150 to defeat. Otherwise perk the K4. These aircraft burned 150 to give them the ability to fight the K4, chase the D9, and stand a chance of diving after a 262 with parity. These three Uber aircraft emerged into a war with their nemisis burning 150 octane fuel.
WEP or speed is the whole reason the SpitXIV, F4U-4, TempestV, 163 and 262 are perked. (The CHog is a tactical HO addict's nuisancemobile.) We have other none perked aircraft with powerful gun configurations that just don't have the WEP or speed. Thier powerful guns don't destabalise the arena even in missions with 20+ of them. It's just the ones with the monsterous WEP or speed and cannons. On top of that has anyone ever considered in scenarios you are not getting Historical performance from the P51D becasue it's not running on 150 octane?
Wonder how many of you over the years might have caught that K4 on the zoom climb with another 500ft\sec at 75HG? Or just a littel bit more Umpfh getting that nose around up there in that thin cold air with 1-2 notches of flaps to get a peice of a con going by and enough damage to put it out of the fight. Think about it. What would the P47M do on 150 octane? You are flying the P51D limited to 67HG which was a state side limitation due to 130 Grade fuel. In July 1944 when the P51D began operations over the continent they were fueled with 150 Grade and 72-75HG. Or all these years in all of these high altitiude escort scenario no one told you your P51D was neutered where it needed all the historicly accurate horsepower it was capable of?
Here are the real escorts reports:
Encounter Reports noting high boost obtained with 150 grade fuel
1st Lt. Raymond R. Flowers, 1 November 1944, 20th FG “I closed steadily pulling over 70 inches.”
1st Lt. James F. Hinchey, 14 November 1944, 353rd FG “For fifteen minutes at 74” hg and indicating 600 mph…”
2nd Lt. Thomas R. Drybrough, 27 November 1944, 353rd FG "I had been pulling over 70" H.G. and was indicating about 425 MPH at approximately 14,000 feet."
1st Lt. Charles E. Yeager, 13 September 1944, 357th FG “I rolled over and was pulling around 70”Hg.”
Capt. Charles E. Yeager, 6 November 1944, 357th FG “I got behind him and was pulling 75” Hg.”
Lt. Col. Roy A. Webb, 25 June 1944, 361st FG “I closed very slowly and pulled as much as 70 inches of mercury.”
1st Lt. Thomas H. Hall, 15 August 1944, 364th FG “I put on 70 inches and gradually pulled up on them.”
Lt. Col. Kyle L. Riddle, 24 December 1944, 479th FG "I pulled about 70" to 75" mercury..."
F/Lt Pearson, 5 April 45, 65 Squadron "Opening up to 70 inches I overtook him..."
-
I know I am a certified nobody on the boards and in game so I am not issued an opinion or anything, but if we just perk the BBS this wouldn't be such an issue would it? :noid
Sorry, I haven't been to bed yet reading all of this... :bolt:
-
Were not getting 150 octane fuel, chill kids, its a worthy wish but won't happen.
-
As far as 150 octane fuel goes, yes. It doesn't change the engine management itself really. It simply enables the engine run at higher boost which generates more horsepower provided that the supercharger is able to deliver the air needed at the altitude in question.
Only real difference in engine management would be the different value which the boost gauge would be showing as the throttle is pushed to max. allowable power.
How exactly wouldn't people in AH know how to take advantage of the higher boost/power output??
It is true that most here wouldn't know how to start a real WWII fighter but the engine management doesn't change with the grade of fuel. They wouldn't know how to start one no matter which fuel it has in its' tanks and none of this is applicable to AH anyway.
I started my mechanical career working on radials.
I am currently an engine management system engineer.
Read this f4u manual and get back to me on the complexities of engine management.
http://wwarii.com/content/Manuals/%5Baviation%5D%20-%20%5Bmanuals%5D%20-%20F4U%20Corsair%20Pilots%20Manual.pdf
-
I started my mechanical career working on radials.
I am currently an engine management system engineer.
Read this f4u manual and get back to me on the complexities of engine management.
http://wwarii.com/content/Manuals/%5Baviation%5D%20-%20%5Bmanuals%5D%20-%20F4U%20Corsair%20Pilots%20Manual.pdf
I really don't care what is your position or what you do. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Instead of telling me about yourself, why don't you address my arguments instead?
Tell me, what exactly is incorrect in my post?
-
If we required pilots in aces high to be tasked with managing an engine, most wouldn't know how to get anything out of 150 octane anyway.
Since you decided the above text was worth quoting, why not actually address the quote as quoted instead of making an assumption and diverging from the quote you are answering?
-
Since you decided the above text was worth quoting, why not actually address the quote as quoted instead of making an assumption and diverging from the quote you are answering?
I already did. Right here:
As far as 150 octane fuel goes, yes. It doesn't change the engine management itself really. It simply enables the engine run at higher boost which generates more horsepower provided that the supercharger is able to deliver the air needed at the altitude in question.
Only real difference in engine management would be the different value which the boost gauge would be showing as the throttle is pushed to max. allowable power.
How exactly wouldn't people in AH know how to take advantage of the higher boost/power output??
It is true that most here wouldn't know how to start a real WWII fighter but the engine management doesn't change with the grade of fuel. They wouldn't know how to start one no matter which fuel it has in its' tanks and none of this is applicable to AH anyway.
The issue itself won't change no matter where you work or how much you spin it. Only thing different from the pilot's perpective is what the MAP gauge reads and the increased power output and the increased flight performance due to it.
-
The quote you are responding to is a general quote on how the average aces high pilot would not have a clue managing an engine.
If they can't manage an engine, then 150 octane is a pearl before swine.
-
The quote you are responding to is a general quote on how the average aces high pilot would not have a clue managing an engine.
If they can't manage an engine, then 150 octane is a pearl before swine.
:rolleyes:
Whatever. Spin it as much as you wan.t the fuel doesn't change the little "engine management" is in game nor does it change engine management in real life, which is what you said initially.
I don't care about you not understanding or knowing about it, it's just that I didn't want anyone who's reading this thread to get wrong impression about the issue.
-
The MAP and Boost guages can already register 75Hg or 25 Boost.
You guys are certaintly shy of history and the truth about the last 11 months of the war. What next Guppy, you going to ask that all Spitfires post 6\42 be reduced to +10 boost to help make the MA less dominated by dweebfires in low furballs?
I understand the Merlin66\266 spits mostly pounded mud during the last 11 months and probably never saw a D9 or K4. The first merlin66 squaderons to convert to 150 happened in 3\44. The P51D and SpitXIV ranged all over the continent as air supieriority fighters. And you don't even want to see the SpitXIV at 150 Grade.
I can understand HTC needing to "Phar Lap" the P51D in favor of every Jonny, George, and Bubba wanting to up our American WW2 pride unperked. Most of the player base will never know it's a castraty pony with some voicing discontent about the performance. Not ever being able to place a finger on just whats wrong. While many of this audience will do everything they can to help them beleive they are uneducated ideots rather than tell them the truth about their pretty little pony's vet visit validating their suspicions.
Guppy, the spit14 flys like a dump truck on the deck on 125 or 130 grade and we both know it was cleared for and flown on 150 Grade as an air superiority fighter over the continent. They were using 150 for anti-Diver operations. That would be worth a perk increase for the spit14 since it's already perked for it's sort of uber performance. At least it would be worth paying the perks on a 150 Grade burning SpitXIV.
-
At least it would be worth paying the perks on a 150 Grade burning SpitXIV.
That is my take. I can understand not putting the 150 octane on the P-51B, P-51D, P-47M, Mosquito Mk VI and Spitfire Mk XVI. The Spitfire Mk XIV is already perked, and does badly as a perk plane, and thus seems ripe for getting 150 octane. They could add it to the Tempest Mk V as well, but that would need a perk increase.
-
The MAP and Boost guages can already register 75Hg or 25 Boost.
You guys are certaintly shy of history and the truth about the last 11 months of the war. What next Guppy, you going to ask that all Spitfires post 6\42 be reduced to +10 boost to help make the MA less dominated by dweebfires in low furballs?
I understand the Merlin66\266 spits mostly pounded mud during the last 11 months and probably never saw a D9 or K4. The first merlin66 squaderons to convert to 150 happened in 3\44. The P51D and SpitXIV ranged all over the continent as air supieriority fighters. And you don't even want to see the SpitXIV at 150 Grade.
I can understand HTC needing to "Phar Lap" the P51D in favor of every Jonny, George, and Bubba wanting to up our American WW2 pride unperked. Most of the player base will never know it's a castraty pony with some voicing discontent about the performance. Not ever being able to place a finger on just whats wrong. While many of this audience will do everything they can to help them beleive they are uneducated ideots rather than tell them the truth about their pretty little pony's vet visit validating their suspicions.
Guppy, the spit14 flys like a dump truck on the deck on 125 or 130 grade and we both know it was cleared for and flown on 150 Grade as an air superiority fighter over the continent. They were using 150 for anti-Diver operations. That would be worth a perk increase for the spit14 since it's already perked for it's sort of uber performance. At least it would be worth paying the perks on a 150 Grade burning SpitXIV.
Ok so add 150 octane. Are we going to add the different German fuels that gave them more oomph? I guess I've flown the 38g so long that now flying the Mustang it sure feels like a hot rod. In the end my only concern is does it create more problems then it helps by adding new higher octane fuels. Does it create better play or worse. Will it create more hanger queens or less.
Please don't throw the history at me though bustr. I know the history. I'm trying to look at the overall. Funny part is it isn't really up to me anyway :)
-
fuel is like reliability - HT models all aircraft with the same reliability so its a level playing field and the fight depends on the aircraft spec and the pilot. in AH reliability is 100% and everyone gets the same fuel. if you want realism give tigers a 50% chance of a transmission failure due to sabotaged components by slave labour and just the LW RAF aircraft get 150 ...
-
I do not think its a good idea at all.
If I'm in my aircraft, flying against my enemy I know my planes strengths and weaknesses vs my opponent.
If I attack a spitfire in my fw190 I know what my plane is better at, and worse at. The last thing I want is the unknown, which would be "am i fighting a super spit, or a regular one" It completly throws off how I would attack and fight it. For gameplay purposes this is bad.
A specific aircraft should have the performace of the typical version as was historically used. No more, no less, and in the context of the game. (i.e ignore the V1 defense units for example, it is not in context with our game)
If I fight a spit14, they should all fly like a spit14, not a regular model or a super model. I do not want to guess at my opponents performance, I have the ability right now to figure it out. Adding perked performance ruins that.
-
MK-84,
The suggestion for the Spitfire Mk XIV is that it would be redone with 150 octane, +21lbs boost. Every Spitfire Mk XIV that you meet would be the same, all on 150 octane. As it is the perk price is not justified, boosting it from +18lbs boost to +21lbs boost might actually make it a worthy perk fighter.
-
I am confused about some of the information Bustr posted about the 150 octane and the P51D. I thought that the P51D started out using 130 (?) octane and then later was upgraded to 150. However by the dates Bustr shows, the P51D was introduced about the same time as the start of the 150 octane fuel. Did the P51D ever really use the lower octane fuel or did most of them use the 150 octane?
Also, didn't the octane of the fuel used by the allies change more than once during the war. Wasn't the fuel octane increased from 87 to 100 during the Battle of Britian and then increased again at a later point to 130 octane? If so, I would assume that the planes are modeled with the fuel that was in use at the time they saw service. I believe the same sort of situation happened with the Germans.
-
It was not introduced for the P51D. It was used by any number of birds in the later part of 44 and into 45 but it was not universally used by all Allied fighters. Initial use would have been for those chasing the V-1s and stationed in England during the summer of 44. What made it to the continent and was used and how consistently has been debated before. Widewing I believe posted a bunch of info on it in one of the old threads I linked to the last time this became a long discussion.
I do recall him posting a couple of photos of Mustangs that had used 150 fuel and the indicator was the fuselage Data Block like the one below. This is off a restored, combat vet 78th FG Mustang and has the markings it would have worn at the time in early 45. Note the 100/130 fuel noted.
On a 150 octane Mustang that would have been changed to reflect it's use. I'll see if I can find a modified Data Block photo. No luck yet
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/DGS%20Scenario%20bits/dataplate.jpg)
-
OK found a couple, both from 45, roughly March-April. Understand I'm not advocating either way. It just wasn't quite so clear cut as to how much it was used, and my interest is in what's best for AH not what will make me go faster so I can catch someone :)
78th FG P51D. Same fighter group as the one I posted above. 100/150 can be seen in the data block meaning it's been modified for that fuel.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/DGS%20Scenario%20bits/Data2.jpg)
4th FG CO's bird. Hard to see in the scan from a book, but it also says 100/150 in the Data Block
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/DGS%20Scenario%20bits/Data3.jpg)
370th FG 51D also from early 45
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/DGS%20Scenario%20bits/Data4.jpg)
-
This one is from the Fall of 44 and is a 479th FG P51D. Still marked 100/130.
The pilot of this bird was KIA when his engine quit and he was forced to bail out. He had his engine set to allow for extra boost and the general consensus is the wear on his engine cost him.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/DGS%20Scenario%20bits/Data5.jpg)
-
Guppy,
Aircraft went down for many other non combat reasons. I think the numbers of lost due to malfunctions and pilot error were higher than due to combat. It was a war, you went with what gave your people an edge along with the issues that happens with all new technology. 150 octane didn't kill everyone who burned it in their fighter, and the AAf And RAF worked out the issues just like the issues were worked out with the Typhoon that kept killing test pilots and combat pilots from 42. Hitech gives us perfict aircraft unlike many of the 109's and FW that were delivered at the end.
This is a "kiddy game" in 2012 that offers simulations of aircraft from WW2 in supposidly a faithful rendition of their types and performance. This is not WW2 1940's and nobody has ever died in this game from a malfunctioning anything while playing it. We are 70 years removed from what you just posted whizzing at each other in a kiddy cartoon. Leave the dead alone. It does them no honor to be used as a guilt ploy while arguing over a kiddy cartoon featuring cartoon ariplanes.
What ploy next? You going to start arguing for Saxon reparations from the american decendants of William I and use the Bayeux Tapestry to show them how horribly William treated the Saxons at Hastings? Poor Harold Godwinson ate it on Senlac Hill. Along with excerps from the Doomsday Book to prove he fleeched England 927 years ago? I bet a few Godwins want some payback. Heck, dig up some Irish americans who still remember Cromwell and the Siege of Drogheda for some really colorful guilt triping.
Peopel die in wars for many reasons that have absolutly nothing to do with this 2012 cartoon game where no one dies. And the aircraft in question are only partialy faitfuly being rendered per the documents from the ww2 aircraft performance site. Some of our rides done been Phar Lap't.
Phar Lap was a 1920's australian race horse who was so strong that he was handicapped with 138lb's of lead to give other horses a fighting chance to race him in australia. Even outside of australia he was forced to wear 129lbs of lead at the Agua Caliente Handicap in mexico which he still set a track record. He was too fast I guess like our resident Phar Laps. To this day some still think the Mafia caused his death by poisoning him becasue they had too much to loose. He was just too fast and they didn't like it.
-
the Typhoon that kept killing test pilots and combat pilots from 42.
Are you referring to the tail failures?
-
Guppy,
Aircraft went down for many other non combat reasons. I think the numbers of lost due to malfunctions and pilot error were higher than due to combat. It was a war, you went with what gave your people an edge along with the issues that happens with all new technology. 150 octane didn't kill everyone who burned it in their fighter, and the AAf And RAF worked out the issues just like the issues were worked out with the Typhoon that kept killing test pilots and combat pilots from 42. Hitech gives us perfict aircraft unlike many of the 109's and FW that were delivered at the end.
This is a "kiddy game" in 2012 that offers simulations of aircraft from WW2 in supposidly a faithful rendition of their types and performance. This is not WW2 1940's and nobody has ever died in this game from a malfunctioning anything while playing it. We are 70 years removed from what you just posted whizzing at each other in a kiddy cartoon. Leave the dead alone. It does them no honor to be used as a guilt ploy while arguing over a kiddy cartoon featuring cartoon ariplanes.
What ploy next? You going to start arguing for Saxon reparations from the american decendants of William I and use the Bayeux Tapestry to show them how horribly William treated the Saxons at Hastings? Poor Harold Godwinson ate it on Senlac Hill. Along with excerps from the Doomsday Book to prove he fleeched England 927 years ago? I bet a few Godwins want some payback. Heck, dig up some Irish americans who still remember Cromwell and the Siege of Drogheda for some really colorful guilt triping.
Peopel die in wars for many reasons that have absolutly nothing to do with this 2012 cartoon game where no one dies. And the aircraft in question are only partialy faitfuly being rendered per the documents from the ww2 aircraft performance site. Some of our rides done been Phar Lap't.
Phar Lap was a 1920's australian race horse who was so strong that he was handicapped with 138lb's of lead to give other horses a fighting chance to race him in australia. Even outside of australia he was forced to wear 129lbs of lead at the Agua Caliente Handicap in mexico which he still set a track record. He was too fast I guess like our resident Phar Laps. To this day some still think the Mafia caused his death by poisoning him becasue they had too much to loose. He was just too fast and they didn't like it.
What part about it's not up to me and I don't care either way Isn't setting in buster? You seem intent on arguing with me about this. Fox asked if all 51Ds used the fuel. I posted pics of how you would know based on the aircraft data block. Adding the story on the one bird from the 479th was trivia done because that photo complete shows the pilot and is from my photo collection. It was not meant to support on position or the other. So please save me the wall of text and get over your idea that I am leading the charge against 150 octane fuel other then yo make sure that the same selective fact picking that went on the last five times the discussion happened, doesn't happen again.
-
Guppy, thanks for the info.
-
if you add 150 octane...and pay with perks....you would have to add the methanol/water injection to german planes and the nitrous oxide option to german planes...perked ofcourse
-
if you add 150 octane...and pay with perks....you would have to add the methanol/water injection to german planes and the nitrous oxide option to german planes...perked ofcourse
They already have it.
-
if you add 150 octane...and pay with perks....you would have to add the methanol/water injection to german planes and the nitrous oxide option to german planes...perked ofcourse
wep 190:) water
-
Came across this comment from a Mustang pilot while looking for something completely different regarding the 364th FG Mustangs. I'd suggest this guys memory was fairly good at the time as he was being interviewed by the head of the National Air & Space museum. He's been a two tour combat pilot in WW2, retired as a 4 Star general, leading the Minuteman Rocket program as one of his assignments, directing the NASA lunar landing program and also head of NSA at one point.
Posted purely for the insight, not to get anyone worked up. I just thought it interesting. General Samuel Phillips His group started to transition to 51s at the end of July 1944:
"Fairly quickly after the appearance of the ME-262, our Air Force's counter was a fuel additive. The fuel that we'd been using was 100 octane, and I remember the maximum power setting, military power in the P-51 was 3000 RPM and 65 inches of manifold pressure. I've forgotten exactly what it gave but that's somewhere in the ballpark I guess of 2000 horsepower on that engine. At full military power the P-51--I'd have to go back and check to get numbers--but at low altitude the air speed had to have been somewhere getting up around 300 miles an hour, but it was still well short of what the ME-262 could do. So with the fuel additive that was provided at our bases fairly quickly, we could go up to 85 inches of manifold pressure, and that increased the horsepower output of the engine by a lot. One of the penalties was that the engine had to be changed after each mission, because it would virtually burn up the engine to run it very long at those high powers. But the speed difference was not so great. The P-51 chasing an ME-262 couldn't catch it. In other words it was short of the 262 speed. But there was more than one ME-262 that were shot down by P-51s in that period. I don't know the statistics, but I guess I was impressed in retrospect with the speed with which fuel additives were provided, so the knowledge of how to do that had to be there. And with the performance increase that that provided. But it was still well short of the jet engine"
-
1st Lt. James F. Hinchey, 14 November 1944, 353rd FG “For fifteen minutes at 74” hg and indicating 600 mph…”
2nd Lt. Thomas R. Drybrough, 27 November 1944, 353rd FG "I had been pulling over 70" H.G. and was indicating about 425 MPH at approximately 14,000 feet."
yep, sounds about right. :huh :confused:
-
OK, just to be clear, is there ANYONE here who actually thinks that modeling the use of 150 octane fuel AS STANDARD (because its been stated that its impossible to change the flight model from the hanger) is a good idea?
I mean basically, about 1/2 of the allied aircraft would be about perk worthy. P-51 would have to be perked, Mossie would need to be perked and perked higher, several spitfires would probably have to be perked, some P-47's would need to be perked, typhoon/temp might need a perk/perk increase.
In addition to that, you destroy ANY AND ALL chance of having a fun, competative, and fair special event. Allies will win automatically. Japanese aircraft will be portrayed as even less competative than they were historically.
Reasons to add
"I wanna be in an uber plane so I can beat people who are better than me"
"I want my spit to have no disadvantage"
Its representative of the ETO for post-D-day situations
Reasons not to add
It will require a major overhaul of the perk points of all exisiting perk airframes
Many LW allied aircraft would need to be perked
It will be unrepresentative of pre-D-day situation
It will be unrepresentative of the PTO and CBI
It will destroy any and all special events
It will likely shoot the MA's in the face, as far as fun-factor is concerned
-
I mean basically, about 1/2 of the allied aircraft would be about perk worthy.
Bullhocky.
P-51 would have to be perked
True.
Mossie would need to be perked and perked higher
Maybe, maybe not. For the "Perked higher" comment I take it you are referring to the Mk XVI, but the Mk XVI never used 150 octane.
several spitfires would probably have to be perked
Only the Mk XVI would need to be perked. None of the others used 150 octane other than the already perked Mk XIV.
some P-47's would need to be perked
Only the P-47M used 150 octane, and yes it'd be a perk.
typhoon/temp might need a perk/perk increase.
Typhoons didn't use 150 octane. Tempest might need an increase in price.
That said, the only aircraft I personally want to see 150 octane modeled on is the Spitfire Mk XIV as it is already perked and is woefully underused due to being out performed by a number of free fighters. Remodeling it with 150 octane might actually make it worthy of its 8 perk price.
-
Alright, thanks for the info.
But I still stand by what I said: its a bad idea to make 150 octane fuel the norm for fighters that used it.
And I would agree with the Spit XIV, depending on the preformance increases we'd be talking about here. I mean even increasing its deck speed to, say, 368ish, and its climb up to over 5000 won't make it perk worthy if its only slightly faster at altitude.
-
OK, just to be clear, is there ANYONE here who actually thinks that modeling the use of 150 octane fuel AS STANDARD (because its been stated that its impossible to change the flight model from the hanger) is a good idea?
I mean basically, about 1/2 of the allied aircraft would be about perk worthy. P-51 would have to be perked, Mossie would need to be perked and perked higher, several spitfires would probably have to be perked, some P-47's would need to be perked, typhoon/temp might need a perk/perk increase.
In addition to that, you destroy ANY AND ALL chance of having a fun, competative, and fair special event. Allies will win automatically. Japanese aircraft will be portrayed as even less competative than they were historically.
Reasons to add
"I wanna be in an uber plane so I can beat people who are better than me"
"I want my spit to have no disadvantage"
Its representative of the ETO for post-D-day situations
Reasons not to add
It will require a major overhaul of the perk points of all exisiting perk airframes
Many LW allied aircraft would need to be perked
It will be unrepresentative of pre-D-day situation
It will be unrepresentative of the PTO and CBI
It will destroy any and all special events
It will likely shoot the MA's in the face, as far as fun-factor is concerned
Any commentary from a Luftwaffe focused type gets thrown out for bias. Do not use special events as an excuse. If anything they would be a justification for 150 fuel. I am not advocating for it at all, but the poor overmatched, under modeled Lutwaffe excuse gets real old.
How bout we perk the 109K and D9 since the were introduced after the Spit XIV and Tempest?
Can you imagine the whining on that?
-
No, special events is a perfectly fine reason not to model 150 octane fuel.
Why? We couldn't do any event pre D-day and have it be historically accurate. We couldn't do PTO events with the P-51 and have them be accurate.
K4? maybe, even if it would be both stupid and unpopular, but only because its about comparable to the already-perked spit 14. However, I think you know full well that perking has nothing what so ever to do with service dates.
No, its not a "oh poor luftwaffe" argument. I would just enjoy a fighting chance in a post D-day scenario. I mean, if the P-51 and spit 14 had 150 octane fuel modeled, about the only chance the axis would have is if about 1/2 of all points/objectives are GV based.
I mean, historically speaking, well over half the fight was fought on the ground. You want to historically represent 150 octane fuel, then theres no reason not to historically represent the fighting on the ground.
-
No, special events is a perfectly fine reason not to model 150 octane fuel.
Why? We couldn't do any event pre D-day and have it be historically accurate. We couldn't do PTO events with the P-51 and have them be accurate.
K4? maybe, even if it would be both stupid and unpopular, but only because its about comparable to the already-perked spit 14. However, I think you know full well that perking has nothing what so ever to do with service dates.
No, its not a "oh poor luftwaffe" argument. I would just enjoy a fighting chance in a post D-day scenario. I mean, if the P-51 and spit 14 had 150 octane fuel modeled, about the only chance the axis would have is if about 1/2 of all points/objectives are GV based.
I mean, historically speaking, well over half the fight was fought on the ground. You want to historically represent 150 octane fuel, then theres no reason not to historically represent the fighting on the ground.
And this is where you don't get it. A fighting chance in a post D-Day Scenario. We're running one btw. The LW has more fighters, and will get more sorties then the Allied fighters can manage by about half if not more since it's over their turf. Anytime you run a 44-45 scenario that's the case. The Luftwaffe always has a fighting chance and then some. If anything the 150 octane would give the escorts a chance since they've got 1 chance to get it right.
150 octane didn't get used in the PTO so it's a non issue for the 51s.
And be clear, I am not advocating for 150 fuel. But think for half a second before you drag special events into it and the Luftwaffe guys. In fact point me to one scenario in the past 15 years where the Luftwaffe didn't have a fighting chance or point to one where 150 octane fuel would have made it that way. You won't find one.
-
I confess I no longer know quite what the argument is about, other than I don't want to see 150 in AH. I think the cogent argument is the one posted above re: wanting to know what it is the opponent is flying - P-51 or ueber monster P-51.
Great pics Guppy. I well remember that a (thankfully) former member of the board used the"Special Project" notation on the 100/150 craft to reach for his well-worn "that's what I was saying all along" catchphrase, emphasis this time on "it was just a special project", until it was pointed out to him that all the 51s, regardless of octane, had the "special project" notation.
For what it's worth, various bits and pieces re: German testing of captured Allied fuels, with special focus on 150.
The "'Mustang 130" sample is from an aircraft brought down on 9 August 1944, the 150 from a Mustang on 18 August. The Mosquito is a PR machine.
The Germans plotted mixture response curves for a variety of fuels (the B4 curve is from a previous report) and also for C3 vs 160 only. They also did tests for the "super-charge-ability" of 150 and C3.
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/4oppmany.jpg)
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/3opp150.jpg)
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/1mmhg.jpg)
There's a translation of the method used to calculate the "Oppauer Octane Number" (=OOZ on the graphs above) herr:
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom%20Reels/Linked/TOM%20248/TOM-248-0364-0370%20FD2866-46-Lt92.pdf
The original report is here, towards the end of the file:
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom%20Reels/Linked/TOM%20117%20Partial/TOM-117-1001-1090.pdf
For those that are interested, the allies also undertook testing of German fuels:
http://fischer-tropsch.org/Tom%20Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0638-0654%20Item%206A.pdf
-
And this is where you don't get it. A fighting chance in a post D-Day Scenario. We're running one btw. The LW has more fighters, and will get more sorties then the Allied fighters can manage by about half if not more since it's over their turf. Anytime you run a 44-45 scenario that's the case. The Luftwaffe always has a fighting chance and then some. If anything the 150 octane would give the escorts a chance since they've got 1 chance to get it right.
150 octane didn't get used in the PTO so it's a non issue for the 51s.
And be clear, I am not advocating for 150 fuel. But think for half a second before you drag special events into it and the Luftwaffe guys. In fact point me to one scenario in the past 15 years where the Luftwaffe didn't have a fighting chance or point to one where 150 octane fuel would have made it that way. You won't find one.
If you change the P-51D (and maybe B, too, IDK) to be modeled with 150 octane fuel, you change how it preforms not just in the MA, but also in special events. And not just in post D-day late special events, but also pre d-day MW events, and PTO events as well.
If you add 150 octane fuel, its a permenant change, as its already been stated we can't change the flight model in the hanger.
-
You didn't answer the question. But you continue to be concerned on how it would impact your planes of choice. Why does the Axis have to have the performance edge for the Luftwaffe guys to consider things fair?
-
You didn't answer the question. But you continue to be concerned on how it would impact your planes of choice. Why does the Axis have to have the performance edge for the Luftwaffe guys to consider things fair?
Well, Germans. The Japanese seem to be stuck with their ~87 octane. :p
-
You didn't answer the question. But you continue to be concerned on how it would impact your planes of choice. Why does the Axis have to have the performance edge for the Luftwaffe guys to consider things fair?
I continue to be concerned about how it would affect the playability of a scenario, you dimwit. 150 octane fuel pretty much gives the allies a win, unless the axis flys uncommonly well.
Reason I don't like vulching in special events isn't that it makes it harder to win. Its because it goes against the spirit of a scenario; a fair, structured fight with clearly outlined objectives between two sides. Same reason I oppose 150 octane fuel; goes against the 'fair' part in the 'fair and structured'
And at 30K, the 109K doesn't nessicarily have the edge on the P-51.
Its not about having the edge, nobody made it about that except you. What its about is having a decent chance, and a P-51 that can do 390 on the deck, and probably would see similar increases at altitude would not make for a fair fight.
How can the fight be fair if we can't get at the bombers? How can the fight be fair if we can't defend our own bombers?
And again, what about everything pre D-day, where the P-51 would be INcorrectly modeled for that time period? What about the PTO where the P-51 with 150 octane fuel would be entirely unrepresentative of the situation in that theater?
Besides having a performance edge, what reason is there to ask for 150 octane fuel? It doesn't represent the norm, and not having 150 octane fuel represented doesn't make the game any less realistic. Why do the Allies always have to have the preformance edge for the US/UK guys to consider things fair?
Guppy, get it through your skull. Its NOT about being out-preformed. Its about things being pretty much cut and dried as far as who wins. Its about 150 octane fuel being ENTIRELY unfair for any PTO scenario.
Would I be fine with a speperate P-51 modeled with 150 octane fuel for specifically for events where P-51's used 150 octane fuel? Sure, so long as it was perked in the MA. I wouldn't even mind seeing the P-47M be modled with 150 octane fuel, and made into a perk aircraft.
-
Would I be fine with a speperate P-51 modeled with 150 octane fuel for specifically for events where P-51's used 150 octane fuel? Sure, so long as it was perked in the MA. I wouldn't even mind seeing the P-47M be modled with 150 octane fuel, and made into a perk aircraft.
that's what we are asking from the start :bhead
-
If they do that, at least differentiate the icons so we know which Pony will run and which Pony will sprint. :rolleyes
-
I continue to be concerned about how it would affect the playability of a scenario, you dimwit. 150 octane fuel pretty much gives the allies a win, unless the axis flys uncommonly well.
Reason I don't like vulching in special events isn't that it makes it harder to win. Its because it goes against the spirit of a scenario; a fair, structured fight with clearly outlined objectives between two sides. Same reason I oppose 150 octane fuel; goes against the 'fair' part in the 'fair and structured'
And at 30K, the 109K doesn't nessicarily have the edge on the P-51.
Its not about having the edge, nobody made it about that except you. What its about is having a decent chance, and a P-51 that can do 390 on the deck, and probably would see similar increases at altitude would not make for a fair fight.
How can the fight be fair if we can't get at the bombers? How can the fight be fair if we can't defend our own bombers?
And again, what about everything pre D-day, where the P-51 would be INcorrectly modeled for that time period? What about the PTO where the P-51 with 150 octane fuel would be entirely unrepresentative of the situation in that theater?
Besides having a performance edge, what reason is there to ask for 150 octane fuel? It doesn't represent the norm, and not having 150 octane fuel represented doesn't make the game any less realistic. Why do the Allies always have to have the preformance edge for the US/UK guys to consider things fair?
Guppy, get it through your skull. Its NOT about being out-preformed. Its about things being pretty much cut and dried as far as who wins. Its about 150 octane fuel being ENTIRELY unfair for any PTO scenario.
Would I be fine with a speperate P-51 modeled with 150 octane fuel for specifically for events where P-51's used 150 octane fuel? Sure, so long as it was perked in the MA. I wouldn't even mind seeing the P-47M be modled with 150 octane fuel, and made into a perk aircraft.
Go back and read what I wrote. They did not use 150 fuel in the PTO. The primary Mustang well into July 1944 was the B/C.
No one said anything about 150 fuel being the norm and I'm not asking for it. Your argument smelled of Luftwhine and still does now.
-
If they do that, at least differentiate the icons so we know which Pony will run and which Pony will sprint. :rolleyes
yeah like "P51D+" for the high octane P51Ds. As a sidenote a P51D with higher engine power would be able to fly much aggressively, being less limited on the vertical.
-
So we're all forced to fly 150oct planes if we want to catch a runner? It's already hard as it is in a K4 (190D is the only other fast Axis ride but it can't TnB at all) to catch the current Tempests and P51s, you want to make it even harder? I thought this game was about combat...not running around until 5 friendlies show up. Or..actually, nvm, I'll be in a 262 killing the runners and when they whine, I'll just laugh. +1 to 150oct. The game needs less combat.
-
much ado about nothing :old:
-
They did not use 150 fuel in the PTO.
There was 115/145 used late in the war in the Pacific theater.
-
There was 115/145 used late in the war in the Pacific theater.
Right, but I was being specific to 150 :)
No one asking for 115/145 Milo so shhhhhh! :)
-
So we're all forced to fly 150oct planes if we want to catch a runner? It's already hard as it is in a K4 (190D is the only other fast Axis ride but it can't TnB at all) to catch the current Tempests and P51s, you want to make it even harder? I thought this game was about combat...not running around until 5 friendlies show up. Or..actually, nvm, I'll be in a 262 killing the runners and when they whine, I'll just laugh. +1 to 150oct. The game needs less combat.
Where is it written that the Luftwaffe birds have to be better then the Allied birds? All I'm seeing here is if we choose to fly LW birds we won't be fastest and that's not fair. Interesting how that works.
-
Where is it written that the Luftwaffe birds have to be better then the Allied birds? All I'm seeing here is if we choose to fly LW birds we won't be fastest and that's not fair. Interesting how that works.
The LW is still not the fastest planeset in the game anyhow, 262 and 163 aside. Tempest, La-7, P51D, are the top speed monsters. and you want these planes to be faster?
-
with WEP on, and above 8K, the K4 is faster than a tempest!
I know, it surprised me as well
With wep on again, K4 is faster than a la7 above 5K, and faster than a P51 at all alts.
-
P-51D is not faster than the Fw190D-9 at AH combat alts. It is the same speed as the Bf109K-4, but with half the WEP duration.
-
P-51D is not faster than the Fw190D-9 at AH combat alts. It is the same speed as the Bf109K-4, but with half the WEP duration.
Yet it carries 2x 1000lb bombs and 6x HVARs.
with WEP on, and above 8K, the K4 is faster than a tempest!
I know, it surprised me as well
With wep on again, K4 is faster than a la7 above 5K, and faster than a P51 at all alts.
Right, but if any of those planes decides to dive, the K4 can't keep up with it.
-
with WEP on, and above 8K, the K4 is faster than a tempest!
I know, it surprised me as well
With wep on again, K4 is faster than a la7 above 5K, and faster than a P51 at all alts.
Why should that be a surprise as the Tempest is a low/medium altitude a/c. Same for the La-7.
-
The LW is still not the fastest planeset in the game anyhow, 262 and 163 aside. Tempest, La-7, P51D, are the top speed monsters. and you want these planes to be faster?
No. Not one place in this thread have I asked for 150 octane fuel. I don't think it is worth the time to do. I tried to slow this thread before it got going as we've had this discussion a number of times before.
I just tire of the Luftwaffe guys who think somehow they must have the highest performing birds to make the game fair for everyone. I also tire of them being so jumpy about their cartoon Luftwaffe birds that they don't read and comprehend very well and argue with people who never suggested doing the thing the Luftwhiners are arguing against.
I get it. You are new to this stuff, German stuff is cool and the bestest and that's the stuff you use.
-
*IF*, and I do mean speculatively, we got a higher octane rated fuel in the LW plane set, wouldn't that greatly effect (ie: almost half) the perk cost of the 262, 163 and 234?
-
*IF*, and I do mean speculatively, we got a higher octane rated fuel in the LW plane set, wouldn't that greatly effect (ie: almost half) the perk cost of the 262, 163 and 234?
Why would it? They would all still vastly out perform any piston engined aircraft.
-
Why would it? They would all still vastly out perform any piston engined aircraft.
Just not so vastly anymore... I proposed halving the perk price of them, not removing it.
-
Just not so vastly anymore... I proposed halving the perk price of them, not removing it.
Spitfire Mk XIV goes from 358mph to 366mph on the deck. The change is not that dramatic.
Halving the perk prices would be a massive over reaction. Particularly on the Me163 which wouldn't be affected by the higher boost Spitfire at all.
-
They would still have the advantage, but would have a harder time operating in a theater/arena with it than without it. Think of how the 262's cost is guaged... The higher octane fuel would increase other planes acceleration and top speed and even their top power-on dive speeds. We all already know how great the jets are at flat turns and acceleration and how much that weighs on their current perk cost... That's where Im getting about half from, I really do think they'll get away half as likely from a bad situation, and we all know how much slack those 262s get in this game after putting themselves in a vulnerable situation.
-
Yeah, it'd be so much harder that the Me262 might need a reduction to 195.
More apt would be simply to increase the perk costs of the 150 boosted fighters, though that seems silly in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.
-
*IF*, and I do mean speculatively, we got a higher octane rated fuel in the LW plane set, wouldn't that greatly effect (ie: almost half) the perk cost of the 262, 163 and 234?
What higher octane fuel would that be?
-
Go back and read what I wrote. They did not use 150 fuel in the PTO. The primary Mustang well into July 1944 was the B/C.
How is that at all relevent? If we CHANGE the P-51 to be modeled as using 150 octane fuel, well then it will be modeled as using 150 octane fuel regardless of what theater of war we're doing the special event in.
The only even POSSIBLE solution would be to make a seperate P-51 for 150 octane fuel use. Even then, I'd be opposed to it because different fuels used at diffent periods of time is a big can of worms I'd rather not open.
No one said anything about 150 fuel being the norm and I'm not asking for it. Your argument smelled of Luftwhine and still does now.
And you, sir, reeked of incomprehension, and still do now.
-
No. Not one place in this thread have I asked for 150 octane fuel. I don't think it is worth the time to do. I tried to slow this thread before it got going as we've had this discussion a number of times before.
I just tire of the Luftwaffe guys who think somehow they must have the highest performing birds to make the game fair for everyone. I also tire of them being so jumpy about their cartoon Luftwaffe birds that they don't read and comprehend very well and argue with people who never suggested doing the thing the Luftwhiners are arguing against.
I get it. You are new to this stuff, German stuff is cool and the bestest and that's the stuff you use.
"Bestest"? Maybe you should check out first grade again.
The top prop planes in this game are mostly Allied planes already, only two Axis prop planes comes close to match their speed (K4 and D9, you can also argue the 152 but not at the typical MA alt). No Luftwaffe guy is whining about it. However, when people are asking for these already top prop planes to be even FASTER and climb BETTER, then we have a problem. You already have some of the fastest planes in the game, yet you want more? ("you" meaning everyone who is asking for 150oct, not you - Guppy - the guy who thinks bestest is a word)
IIRC, at sea level:
Tempest
La-7
190D9
P51D
109K4
Are the fastest prop planes in descending order. Add 150oct and almost every single LW American and RAF planes becomes a pick-and-run plane. Can you imagine how ridiculously easy it would be to BnZ in a P47 and rack up 10 kills with that ammo load?
TL;DR Some of the fastest planes in the game are already Allied and only a handful of Axis pilots actually complains about it. No one really cares about that right now. So why on earth do the Allied planes need to have 150oct? They already have no problem running and chasing down Axis planes, why on earth would you need to make them faster?
-
"Bestest"? Maybe you should check out first grade again.
The top prop planes in this game are mostly Allied planes already, only two Axis prop planes comes close to match their speed (K4 and D9, you can also argue the 152 but not at the typical MA alt). No Luftwaffe guy is whining about it. However, when people are asking for these already top prop planes to be even FASTER and climb BETTER, then we have a problem. You already have some of the fastest planes in the game, yet you want more? ("you" meaning everyone who is asking for 150oct, not you - Guppy - the guy who thinks bestest is a word)
IIRC, at sea level:
Tempest
La-7
190D9
P51D
109K4
Are the fastest prop planes in descending order. Add 150oct and almost every single LW American and RAF planes becomes a pick-and-run plane. Can you imagine how ridiculously easy it would be to BnZ in a P47 and rack up 10 kills with that ammo load?
TL;DR Some of the fastest planes in the game are already Allied and only a handful of Axis pilots actually complains about it. No one really cares about that right now. So why on earth do the Allied planes need to have 150oct? They already have no problem running and chasing down Axis planes, why on earth would you need to make them faster?
LOL your comprehension is amazing. Focus on Bestest . Why am I not surprised? I was talking down to you when using the word and clearly it was the right way to go.
Please show me, anywhere in this thread where I asked for 150 octane fuel. Please point to the exact quote too please? Cause you won't find it. You are so wired into the possible impact on your Luftwaffe ride that you can't even see that I have said many times that I don't see the need for 150 fuel. Heaven forbid if you had to work a bit harder in your 109K :)
-
How is that at all relevent? If we CHANGE the P-51 to be modeled as using 150 octane fuel, well then it will be modeled as using 150 octane fuel regardless of what theater of war we're doing the special event in.
The only even POSSIBLE solution would be to make a seperate P-51 for 150 octane fuel use. Even then, I'd be opposed to it because different fuels used at diffent periods of time is a big can of worms I'd rather not open.
And you, sir, reeked of incomprehension, and still do now.
A brilliant response as always TankAce.
You keep bringing up arguments against 150 that aren't valid. I point them out. And it's my comprehension that's a problem. Hate to break it to you that I see no need for 150 fuel either.
I must confess though, this is the first thread where I've been jumped by both sides in the argument. You guys should have been around the first few times we had it, when Kurfurst and Crumpp got going. They make you guys look like amateurs :aok
Right Milo? :)
-
LOL your comprehension is amazing. Focus on Bestest . Why am I not surprised? I was talking down to you when using the word and clearly it was the right way to go.
Please show me, anywhere in this thread where I asked for 150 octane fuel. Please point to the exact quote too please? Cause you won't find it. You are so wired into the possible impact on your Luftwaffe ride that you can't even see that I have said many times that I don't see the need for 150 fuel. Heaven forbid if you had to work a bit harder in your 109K :)
Take your own advice lil man. I'm not asking whether YOU want 150oct in that post, I'm asking the people who are while using the word "you". Which I even specified. So if YOU would be so kind, please keep quiet until the people who I'm directing my question at answers it.
-
Take your own advice lil man. I'm not asking whether YOU want 150oct in that post, I'm asking the people who are while using the word "you". Which I even specified. So if YOU would be so kind, please keep quiet until the people who I'm directing my question at answers it.
LOL! Because you said it, I'll be quiet. "Little man?" my three year old is a little man. I feel like I'm talking to one too.
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question btw. Maybe you should read things first before responding?
-
LOL! Because you said it, I'll be quiet. "Little man?" my three year old is a little man. I feel like I'm talking to one too.
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question btw. Maybe you should read things first before responding?
I feel bad for that lil man then.
And which one of your questions would that be?
Please show me, anywhere in this thread where I asked for 150 octane fuel. Please point to the exact quote too please?
*facepalm* I already told YOU that I am not asking YOU, I am asking the people who are requesting 150oct. Mary, Joseph and Jesus, you wouldn't happen to be senile? Do I have to post everything twice for you? Thrice?
-
I feel bad for that lil man then.
And which one of your questions would that be?
*facepalm* I already told YOU that I am not asking YOU, I am asking the people who are requesting 150oct. Mary, Joseph and Jesus, you wouldn't happen to be senile? Do I have to post everything twice for you? Thrice?
Jeez you aren't even good at this. You are quoting my posts in your comments. I responded. How is that not talking to me? You were quoting me and talking to someone else? Why quote my reply then?
-
I'd pay perkies for it. It makes more sense than running late war German fighters with early war ponies set up. This is supposed to be a simulation according to the website, so lets simulate that. It would give me a valid use for perkies and I would be more than willing to do it.
-
Jeez you aren't even good at this. You are quoting my posts in your comments. I responded. How is that not talking to me? You were quoting me and talking to someone else? Why quote my reply then?
Because your replies are supporting the people who want 150oct...
-
I'd pay perkies for it. It makes more sense than running late war German fighters with early war ponies set up. This is supposed to be a simulation according to the website, so lets simulate that. It would give me a valid use for perkies and I would be more than willing to do it.
:aok :)
-
I'm not in favor of the 150 octane, it was used in one theater on a limited basis. Worse yet, since the potential damage to the engines aren't modeled so it would be horribly abused/over used.
Spending perks for it would be ridiculous as well, some of us have more than 70k perks.
-
I would pay perkies to fly a non-overweight A8 :bolt:
I'd pay perkies for it. It makes more sense than running late war German fighters with early war ponies set up. This is supposed to be a simulation according to the website, so lets simulate that. It would give me a valid use for perkies and I would be more than willing to do it.
-
really? even 1perk seems expensive to make your plane ~30lb lighter :bolt:
-
Somebody explain why changing the Spitfire Mk XIV, and only the Spitfire Mk XIV, to 150 octane would be a bad thing?
It is already controlled by a perk price and is hardly ever used due to the fact that a number of free aircraft out perform it.
-
Somebody explain why changing the Spitfire Mk XIV, and only the Spitfire Mk XIV, to 150 octane would be a bad thing?
It is already controlled by a perk price and is hardly ever used due to the fact that a number of free aircraft out perform it.
Because its more fun to listen to you guys whine about how your buts are being handed to you by luftweenies because you don't have 150 super fuel?
just a possibility...
-
Because its more fun to listen to you guys whine about how your buts are being handed to you by luftweenies because you don't have 150 super fuel?
just a possibility...
Well, luftweenies do get a super luftweenie aeroplane, the Me 262, so what's wrong with the Allies using their super fuel for perkies as well? Luftweenies afraid their luftweenie super plane might be challenged more frequently? :rolleyes:
-
Well luftweenies do get a super luftweenie aeroplane, the Me 262, so what's wrong with the Allies using their super fuel for perkies as well? Luftweenies afraid their luftweenie super plane might be challanged more frequently? :rolleyes:
A crap ton of Allied planes already run from Luftwaffe planes..and people actually want them to run faster? :headscratch: :huh
-
This is supposed to be a simulation according to the website, so lets simulate that.
It simulates the flight models of the planes, not the scenarios. At least not in the arenas it doesn't. I searched and searched history books and found lots about knights and bishops involved in fighting, but they had little to do with planes. It seems as if Rook as a nation never existed.
The choice which plane to model and with which details are HTC choice. They choose what they think is best and I have a strange feeling that they dont think that 150 oct fuel is what AH needs right now. If somehow they run out of new planes to add, updated the graphic engine, improved the damage models, implemented perked ordnance system, added active AI and new mission system to the arenas and find themselves coming to work wondering what else is left to do - I am sure that THEN would be the perfect time to consider 150 oct fuel.
-
Because its more fun to listen to you guys whine about how your buts are being handed to you by luftweenies because you don't have 150 super fuel?
just a possibility...
I have made no such claim or insinuation in this thread so please don't accuse me of it. Frankly, my participation in this thread is exclusively to promote making the Spitfire Mk XIV possibly be worth the perk cost it has.
-
Just like its my choice to make a request to up the sim potential. As far as Delirium (I spelled it wrong, sorry D) WEP did damage in most planes too. My pony for instance had to be stripped down after WEP was used which is not modeled.
As for you guys talking about us running... Hrm... Of course we do when we know we are no longer fighting our fight. But K4s flew how many sorties? Compared to P51s? C'mon guys.
When was the last time you fought the Debden boys?
-
Well, luftweenies do get a super luftweenie aeroplane, the Me 262, so what's wrong with the Allies using their super fuel for perkies as well? Luftweenies afraid their luftweenie super plane might be challenged more frequently? :rolleyes:
no but midway is afraid to admit his loss is due to his lack of skill.... :ahand
-
Just like its my choice to make a request to up the sim potential. As far as Delirium (I spelled it wrong, sorry D) WEP did damage in most planes too. My pony for instance had to be stripped down after WEP was used which is not modeled.
I read somewhere that without wep, many planes had their engines replaced after 50 hours of flight... Also, engine failure was common. The lack of scarcity alone makes the use of wep, super fuels, etc... abused above and beyond realistic parameters.
-
no but midway is afraid to admit his loss is due to his lack of skill.... :ahand
Huh????? :huh :huh :huh
150 Octane to catch more runners. :old:
Many are so scared of my Spitfire MK VIII, they run... run like the wind!
:airplane: - - - - :airplane: :joystick:
-
A brilliant response as always TankAce.
You keep bringing up arguments against 150 that aren't valid. I point them out. And it's my comprehension that's a problem. Hate to break it to you that I see no need for 150 fuel either.
I must confess though, this is the first thread where I've been jumped by both sides in the argument. You guys should have been around the first few times we had it, when Kurfurst and Crumpp got going. They make you guys look like amateurs :aok
Right Milo? :)
If the preformance of the P-51 were changed, that change would be present in any and all use of the aircraft, even if we want differnt preformance to reflect a different time period or theater of operations. Hence, PTO is relevent to the question of "Should we change the P-51 to use 150 octane fuel?".
-
I must confess though, this is the first thread where I've been jumped by both sides in the argument. You guys should have been around the first few times we had it, when Kurfurst and Crumpp got going. They make you guys look like amateurs :aok
Right Milo? :)
You bet. :cheers:
The Dynamic Duo make those now appear to be fresh out of their diapers. Hip waders and a bilge pump was required when those two posted for the amount of sewage spewed.
Just be thankful Crumpp isn't still around. The Banana forum on the Spit I, http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=33245 Kurfurst (Barbi) didn't post as he was on a forum vacation (temporary ban) for his revisionist Nazi history.
-
You bet. :cheers:
The Dynamic Duo make those now appear to be fresh out of their diapers. Hip waders and a bilge pump was required when those two posted for the amount of sewage spewed.
Just be thankful Crumpp isn't still around. The Banana forum on the Spit I, http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=33245 Kurfurst (Barbi) didn't post as he was on a forum vacation (temporary ban) for his revisionist Nazi history.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
I try to stay out of these,errr discussions, but Milo's comment was just too funny,true but funny nonetheless! :devil
:salute
-
Kurfurst (Barbi) didn't post as he was on a forum vacation (temporary ban) for his revisionist Nazi history.
I'd say "again?", but that would imply surprise.
-
the 200lb overweight that Baumer showed, suported with german documents, yes I would pay a perkie.
That would give me 8500 sorties to fly, even if I died in every sortie :devil
really? even 1perk seems expensive to make your plane ~30lb lighter :bolt:
-
the ~200lb "overweight" was down to a schoolboy error - Imp and US gallons are not the same. see:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,321238.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,321238.0.html)
our A8 is either; 35lb too light, or 20lb too heavy, depending on whether the winter equipment was fitted.