Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: shift8 on September 02, 2014, 12:26:51 PM
-
In mid 1944 72" was standardized for P-51s operating in the Eighth Air Force. I would love to have one in game even if it had to be a perk ride. :airplane:
This would create a Mustang that does about 380mph on the deck and climbs a little over 4000fpm. Presumably turn would improve as well, since for no added weight HP would increase from 1720bhp to around 1900bhp.
-
I would sure like to see some documentation to back that up...
-
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-24771-climb-blue.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-24771-climb-blue.jpg)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/75inch-clearance-v-1650-7.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/75inch-clearance-v-1650-7.jpg)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/ppf-20june44.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/ppf-20june44.pdf)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/ppf-29april44.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/ppf-29april44.jpg)
"On 29 March 1944 the Commanding General, Army Air Forces authorized the procurement of the necessary parts to modify all P-38, P-47 and P-51 airplanes in the United Kingdom for the use of Grade 150 fuel, subject to the relevant engines being cleared to use the fuel. 1 2 During March & April 1944 flight tests were conducted at Wright Field on the P-51B-15 airplane, AAF No. 43-24777, using 44-1 fuel, at the request of the Power Plant Laboratory, Engineering Division. 3 These tests were made to determine the performance of the airplane at the higher powers allowable with 44-1 fuel as compared with the performance at powers allowable for standard aviation fuel. Parallel tests were conducted by Proving Ground Command at Eglin Field, Florida on P-51B airplanes, AAF Nos. 43-24755, 43-24757, and 43-24775. The Power Plant Laboratory concluded in a 19 April 1944 memorandum report that the "Packard built Rolls-Royce V-1650-7 engine will satisfactorily comply with a 75 In. Hg manifold pressure war emergency rating with Grade 44-1 fuel". 4 As a result of the engine clearance and airplane trials the P-51-B airplane was cleared for operation at 75" Hg by late April. 5 The modifications required to the P-51 to use the 150 grade fuel were: modify manifold pressure regulator, modify supercharger volute drain valve, install new type induction center manifold extension gland seals, use of Lodge RS5/5 or KLG RC5/3 spark plugs, installation of bulged exhaust stacks, and reset supercharger aneroid switch. 6 By June 1944, final release on Project P.P.F. had been made approving 75" manifold pressure for the P-51 (both the 1650-3 and 1650-7 engines), as well as increased powers for the P-38 and P-47. 7
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"
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
-
Successful service tests led in May 1944 to the Eighth Air Force Fighter Command requesting that it "be supplied immediately with grade 150 aviation fuel for use in P-47, P-51 and P-38 planes". 25 Deliveries of Grade 100/150 aviation fuel to AAF Stations commenced within a week of the landings in France. 26 27 The change over to 150 grade fuel necessitated the resetting of all aneroid switches on the P-51s. 28
By early July 1944 the 8th AF fighter aircraft were operating at the following power settings: 29 30
150 grade fuel continued to be used by 8th AF units through 1944. 31 The WER engine limitation for the P-51 continued to be 72" Hg. 32 Eighth Air Force Fighter Groups converted to a new blend of 150 grade fuel, with increased amounts of ethylene dibromide (1½ T) in early 1945. 33 P.E.P, as the new fuel was called, was tried in order to remedy lead fouling of spark plugs. While spark plug fouling was eliminated, PEP was found to have an undesirable effect on valve seats. As a result of excessive maintenance required on the V-1650 engines, General Doolittle of the Eighth Air Force decided in late March 1945 to revert to the normal 100/150 (1 T) grade fuel. 34
Technical Operations, Eighth Air Force issued a 4 April 1945 memorandum in which 100/150 grade fuel experience in the Eighth Air Force was summarized. It is reproduced in full below:
1. The following is a summary of 100/150 grade fuel experience in Eighth Air Force.
2. a. This fuel was first service tested by Technical Operations Section, this headquarters, in October 1943, said service test lasting through until March 1944, at which time it was recommended that if extra performance from P-38, P-47 and P-51 aircraft was desired it could be secured by the use of this fuel. It was pointed out at that time that the only apparent deleterious effect of this fuel on any one of the three types was the extra lead fouling of spark plugs.
b. A decision was made in May 1944 to have all fighter units supplied with this fuel no later than 1 June. As of that date operations with this fuel continued until approximately 1 February 1945 when all fighter units switched to “Pep” (100/150 plus 1.5 T’s ethylene dibromide). As of 1 April 1945 all units switched back to 100/150 fuel containing 1.0 T ethylene dibromide.
3. At the time the 150 grade fuel was first used all three fighter types listed above were in operational use by this Air Force. Shortly after June 1 P-38 units were re-equipped with P-51 type aircraft so that experience with 150 grade fuel in P-38 aircraft is limited. Gradually, conversion of P-47 outfits to P-51’s took place during the Summer and Fall of 1944, and as of approximately 1 November only one P-47 group remained in this Air Force.
quoted from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
-
Having some kind of USAAF perk plane would be nice...I used to think that if the P47M was ever modeled it would probably be perked, but it is ENY 10.
There was once a "next plane" poll that had the P-51H on it, or so I hear.
-
In mid 1944 72" was standardized for P-51s operating in the Eighth Air Force. I would love to have one in game even if it had to be a perk ride. :airplane:
This would create a Mustang that does about 380mph on the deck and climbs a little over 4000fpm. Presumably turn would improve as well, since for no added weight HP would increase from 1720bhp to around 1900bhp.
Given the already overwhelming popularity of the P-51D as currently modeled, you see that as a good thing? We could rename the game "P-51Ds High".
-1
-
As its currently stands, you may as well name the game "Aces High Spit XIV" so that logic doesn't hold up.
It could always have low ENY or be perk. Seeing as it entered service well before the 109K or 190D, or La7. it really isnt all the crazy to ask for. TBH, it makes more sense to make this the default setting for the P-51D since the plane entered service right as this boost rating was made standard. But that's not what I'm asking for.
You could even choose to model it as a type or ord, so that it could be disabled through bombing etc. It would be easy to implement relatively speaking, as no new 3d model is required, and the only changes to the existing FM would be max power/thrust and corresponding changes to the supercharger aneroid settings.
-
As its currently stands, you may as well name the game "Aces High Spit XIV" so that logic doesn't hold up.
It could always have low ENY or be perk. Seeing as it entered service well before the 109K or 190D, or La7. it really isnt all the crazy to ask for. TBH, it makes more sense to make this the default setting for the P-51D since the plane entered service right as this boost rating was made standard. But that's not what I'm asking for.
You could even choose to model it as a type or ord, so that it could be disabled through bombing etc. It would be easy to implement relatively speaking, as no new 3d model is required, and the only changes to the existing FM would be max power/thrust and corresponding changes to the supercharger aneroid settings.
I say it does.
Tour 175
#1 Fighter: P-51D (13,733 kills - 10935 deaths)
#2 Fighter: La-7 (7819 kills - 5829 deaths)
#32 Fighter: Spit XIV (1646 kills - 1847 deaths)
-
That hardly proves anything. Spitfires attract alot of new sticks who don't know what they are doing. If you look at more of the campaigns, you will probably find all sorts of different stats for different planes at different times.
It is a fact that the XIV is much more agile than competitors in its speed class, has a ROC to match or exceed the same competition, and is just as fast or nearly as fast down low, and faster up high than the same competition. Given that it possesses equal climb and speed to its equivalents in game, and is FAR more agile, perhaps by your reasoning we should remove the spit XIV? If it does badly in KDR this is the result of poor piloting/aggressive flying-----as it is demonstrably and obviously the superior performer by far.
Furthermore, a airplane being good should not preclude its use in a sim, this is not about balance it is about historical authenticity. If the plane is really good, then it can be perked, like the F4U-4, or 262. A plane should not be nerfed or excluded just because it is good.
-
That hardly proves anything. Spitfires attract alot of new sticks who don't know what they are doing. If you look at more of the campaigns, you will probably find all sorts of different stats for different planes at different times.
It is a fact that the XIV is much more agile than competitors in its speed class, has a ROC to match or exceed the same competition, and is just as fast or nearly as fast down low, and faster up high than the same competition.
Furthermore, a airplane being good should not preclude its use in a sim, this is not about balance it is about historical authenticity. If the plane is really good, then it can be perked, like the F4U-4, or 262. A plane should not be nerfed or excluded just because it is good.
If you look, you will find that each and every tour (going back many years) has been totally dominated by the P-51D. Many times having more kills than the #2 and #3 fighters combined.
Despite being flown by the teeming masses of skilless noobs, it does quite well for itself. If the Spit XIV were so good, why doesn't it get used? If the P-51D was modeled to perform like the P-40, you can be assured that all the "history buffs" that fly it wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. It is easy mode and doesn't need to be made any easier.
-
In mid 1944 72" was standardized for P-51s operating in the Eighth Air Force. I would love to have one in game even if it had to be a perk ride. :airplane:
This would create a Mustang that does about 380mph on the deck and climbs a little over 4000fpm. Presumably turn would improve as well, since for no added weight HP would increase from 1720bhp to around 1900bhp.
I couldn't help but notice that in your very first (and only) posts you only asked for two things: making the P-51D faster and the Bf-109K4 slower.
:noid
-
Its popularity does not make it good. Having large numbers of pilots will inevitably result in large numbers of kills. Lots of people fly planes in Aces High just because they like them. As for the spit, it is routinely recommended to new pilots because of how easy to fly and OP it is. A casual reading of any of the spitfire guides
Easy mode it is not. I see far more 109s, spits, F4U's, and 190s than ponies in the main arena. The 51 in game is faster than most, but the 190D, 109K, and La-7 can all run it down, and 2 of those planes can force a dogfight where the mustang is at a decided disadvantage, since both the La7 and 109K can out climb and out turn it.
Once again though, being good or being better does not matter. What matters is whether or not it existed. It did, can came into service in this configuration far before the La7, Dora, or 109k. And once again, if it is considered too OP it could also be perked like the F4U-4, or do you want than plane removed as well?
-
Its popularity does not make it good. Having large numbers of pilots will inevitably result in large numbers of kills. Lots of people fly planes in Aces High just because they like them. As for the spit, it is routinely recommended to new pilots because of how easy to fly and OP it is. A casual reading of any of the spitfire guides
The P-51 not only has the most raw numebr of kills every tour, it also has a very high K/D despite being the staple of the masses:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/npfa2a_zpsdfe7a057.jpg)
X axis: K/D, y axis 'usage' (k+d). air to air combat data exclusively.
-
I couldn't help but notice that in your very first (and only) posts you only asked for two things: making the P-51D faster and the Bf-109K4 slower.
:noid
Not important if both things are true. I am sure other planes deserve changes as well. The K4 appears to be over-modeled and the P-51D is not getting a boost setting that it received in real life. In the interest of historical fairness, those things should be changed IMO. I have no ulterior motive here, and implying that I do does not refute what I am asking for. Furthermore, these threads are separate and should remain so, so that they can be debated independently and the issues will not become clouded.
-
Its popularity does not make it good. Having large numbers of pilots will inevitably result in large numbers of kills. Lots of people fly planes in Aces High just because they like them. As for the spit, it is routinely recommended to new pilots because of how easy to fly and OP it is. A casual reading of any of the spitfire guides
Easy mode it is not. I see far more 109s, spits, F4U's, and 190s than ponies in the main arena. The 51 in game is faster than most, but the 190D, 109K, and La-7 can all run it down, and 2 of those planes can force a dogfight where the mustang is at a decided disadvantage, since both the La7 and 109K can out climb and out turn it.
Once again though, being good or being better does not matter. What matters is whether or not it existed. It did, can came into service in this configuration far before the La7, Dora, or 109k. And once again, if it is considered too OP it could also be perked like the F4U-4, or do you want than plane removed as well?
All those 109s, Spits, F4Us and 190s must really suck, because the P-51s far outnumber them all in the stats. And it is easy mode. That is the main reason for it's popularity, whether you will admit it or not.
-
The P-51 not only has the most raw numebr of kills every tour, it also has a very high K/D despite being the staple of the masses:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/npfa2a_zpsdfe7a057.jpg)
X axis: K/D, y axis 'usage' (k+d)
This is once again wholly irrelevant. The performance stats of the P-51D do not justify how high it stands on that chart. You cannot simply post the results of sorties and then disregard than actual performance of the planes. Those stats do not show the types of missions those sorties were flown on, it does not show what kinds of planes were shot down or fought etc. It would be more interesting if it was a statistic that included KDR in battles where only La7, P-51, 109K, Dora, and Spit XIV were used. If you used that same KDR logic regarding the Mig 15 and the F-86 over korea to assert the F-86 was superior than you would be equally wrong.
Regardless, given how relatively easy it would be to add, and the historical accuracy it has, it should be added even if perked.
-
All those 109s, Spits, F4Us and 190s must really suck, because the P-51s far outnumber them all in the stats. And it is easy mode. That is the main reason for it's popularity, whether you will admit it or not.
Except it is not easy mode, whether you admit it or not.
-
The performance stats of the P-51D do not justify how high it stands on that chart.
Axtually, they do. You are just selcting a very narrow part of the planes performance .... it's the whole package what makes the P-51D so very successful as a fighter despite the huge number of pilots, especialyl n00bs, flying it.
-
Except it is not easy mode, whether you admit it or not.
I have fought in every plane in the game (have you?) and have scored 100+ verifiable kills in every single one (whoop-dee-doo for me) and know for a fact that it absolutely is easy mode. Your feelings may be hurt because you are an obvious P-51 fanboy. Funny, how you don't notice that despite being heavily outnumbered by all those planes you mentioned, the Mustang magically gets many more kills then all of them: while at the same time, being rather ordinary in fighting capability. Amazing.
-
Shift8, what is your in-game handle please?
-
Axtually, they do. You are just selcting a very narrow part of the planes performance .... it's the whole package what makes the P-51D so very successful as a fighter despite the huge number of pilots, especialyl n00bs, flying it.
I wouldn't regard speed/turn/and climb a small percentage of a planes performance. They are the essential characteristics. Of those, the 51 only really packs speed, and against the planes it does not outtrun, it can only out turn one of them, and out climb none.
And once again, MA stats are not relevant to a planes inclusion or exclusion. They are also not a substitute for a common sense analysis of the aircraft performance data. Nor are they a full story of the KDR, as many different factors effect that.
-
As its currently stands, you may as well name the game "Aces High Spit XIV" so that logic doesn't hold up.
It could always have low ENY or be perk. Seeing as it entered service well before the 109K or 190D, or La7. it really isnt all the crazy to ask for. TBH, it makes more sense to make this the default setting for the P-51D since the plane entered service right as this boost rating was made standard. But that's not what I'm asking for.
You could even choose to model it as a type or ord, so that it could be disabled through bombing etc. It would be easy to implement relatively speaking, as no new 3d model is required, and the only changes to the existing FM would be max power/thrust and corresponding changes to the supercharger aneroid settings.
Spitfire Mk XIV High? Really?
Tour 175:
Spitfire Mk XIV 1646 kills, 1847 deaths, k/d ratio of 0.89
Now lets look at the P-51D in Tour 175:
P-51D 13733 kills, 10935 deaths, k/d ratio of 1.26
Oh, look, the P-51D has almost ten times the kills, and a better K/D ratio, than does the Spitfire Mk XIV. Want to rethink your claim.
Well, maybe you meant Spitfire Mk XVI, lets look at it in Tour 175:
Spitfire Mk XVI 7056 kills, 6132 deaths, k/d ratio of 1.15
Well, that is certainly more like it, but still barely over 50% of the P-51D's kills, so the claim still falls flat.
Now, it is worth noting that the Spitfires Mk XIV, Mk XVI, as well as the Tempest Mk V, Mosquito Mk VI and P-47M were also using 150 octane to get higher performance than they have in AH (P-47M may be modeled with it, not sure, not really a P-47 guy, but the others are not, not sure Spitfire Mk XVI's ever operated without it) just like your P-51D.
-
I have fought in every plane in the game (have you?) and have scored 100+ verifiable kills in every single one (whoop-dee-doo for me) and know for a fact that it absolutely is easy mode. Your feelings may be hurt because you are an obvious P-51 fanboy. Funny, how you don't notice that despite being heavily outnumbered by all those planes you mentioned, the Mustang magically gets many more kills then all of them: while at the same time, being rather ordinary in fighting capability. Amazing.
Nice how when you run out of arguments you resort or making inferences to my character/motives/ability. I have flown all the in game planes...big whoop. Perhaps you are getting your feelings hurt because you didnt realize the mustang was capable of such boost levels? The P-51 isnt even my favorite plane, game or real. I am a spitfire person, and after that I like 190s.
Once again, your analysis of those statistics is irrelevant, myopic and misused. Or are you also going to claim that the F-86 is ten times better than the Mig 15?
-
Nice how when you run out of arguments you resort or making inferences to my character/motives/ability. I have flown all the in game planes...big whoop. Perhaps you are getting your feelings hurt because you didnt realize the mustang was capable of such boost levels? The P-51 isnt even my favorite plane, game or real. I am a spitfire person, and after that I like 190s.
Once again, your analysis of those statistics is irrelevant, myopic and misused. Or are you also going to claim that the F-86 is ten times better than the Mig 15?
Dance the night away! :lol
-
Spitfire Mk XIV High? Really?
Tour 175:
Spitfire Mk XIV 1646 kills, 1847 deaths, k/d ratio of 0.89
Now lets look at the P-51D in Tour 175:
P-51D 13733 kills, 10935 deaths, k/d ratio of 1.26
Oh, look, the P-51D has almost ten times the kills, and a better K/D ratio, than does the Spitfire Mk XIV. Want to rethink your claim.
Well, maybe you meant Spitfire Mk XVI, lets look at it in Tour 175:
Spitfire Mk XVI 7056 kills, 6132 deaths, k/d ratio of 1.15
Well, that is certainly more like it, but still barely over 50% of the P-51D's kills, so the claim still falls flat.
Now, it is worth noting that the Spitfires Mk XIV, Mk XVI, as well as the Tempest Mk V, Mosquito Mk VI and P-47M were also using 150 octane to get higher performance than they have in AH (P-47M may be modeled with it, not sure, not really a P-47 guy, but the others are not, not sure Spitfire Mk XVI's ever operated without it) just like your P-51D.
Yeah......Im not the one here trying to use the MA stats to support my opinion. I dont even know why you posted this.
And I am not opposed to those other planes receiving the boost as well. I think the XIV's are already modeled with it, but im not sure.
-
As for the spit, it is routinely recommended to new pilots because of how easy to fly and OP it is.
The Spitfire Mk XIV is NEVER recommended for new players because it is a beast that has to be constantly controled.
New players usually get pointed at the Spitfire Mk VIII, Spitfire Mk IX or Spitfire Mk XVI.
-
The Spitfire Mk XIV is NEVER recommended for new players because it is a beast that has to be constantly controled.
New players usually get pointed at the Spitfire Mk VIII, Spitfire Mk IX or Spitfire Mk XVI.
I said "spitfires" not spit XIV
-
I said "spitfires" not spit XIV
You said it in a conversation specifically about the Mk XIV, which you had just previously claimed was so dominant, then forced to try to talk away its obviously not dominant stats.
If you were then bringing in other Spitfires, which to that point had not been part of the conversation, you needed to have specified such.
-
Yeah......Im not the one here trying to use the MA stats to support my opinion. I dont even know why you posted this.
And I am not opposed to those other planes receiving the boost as well. I think the XIV's are already modeled with it, but im not sure.
Spitfire Mk XIV in AH is at +18lbs boost and does 358 on the deck, that is 100 octane. At 150 Octane it would be at +21lbs boost and in the 370 to 380 range on the deck, climb would be well over 5,000fpm. Spitfire Mk XVI would be at +25lbs boost (it is at +18lbs boost in AH) and about 355 on the deck, well over 5,000fpm in climb. Mosquito Mk VI would be at +23lbs boost and over 370mph on the deck, perhaps touching 380mph.
-
The Spitfire Mk XIV is NEVER recommended for new players because it is a beast that has to be constantly controled.
New players usually get pointed at the Spitfire Mk VIII, Spitfire Mk IX or Spitfire Mk XVI.Spitfire Mk XIV in AH is at +18lbs boost and does 358 on the deck, that is 100 octane. At 150 Octane it would be at +21lbs boost and in the 370 to 380 range on the deck, climb would be well over 5,000fpm. Spitfire Mk XVI would be at +25lbs boost (it is at +18lbs boost in AH) and about 355 on the deck, well over 5,000fpm in climb. Mosquito Mk VI would be at +23lbs boost and over 370mph on the deck, perhaps touching 380mph.
Not opposed to those planes getting those ratings.
-
You said it in a conversation specifically about the Mk XIV, which you had just previously claimed was so dominant, then forced to try to talk away its obviously not dominant stats.
If you were then bringing in other Spitfires, which to that point had not been part of the conversation, you needed to have specified such.
I did, note how I mentioned something about "any" of the spitfire guides....
When have I ever talked away its stats? I've been the person here saying it is superlative. It is a fact that the Spit XIV possesses a nonpareil combination of speed, turn, climb, roll, and dive.
Anyhow not matter how you slice this it is only a disconnect regarding your interpretation of what I said/meant to say. Allow me to clarify again: I meant spits in general, not the XIV.
-
Not opposed to those planes getting those ratings.
It so happens that I am opposed to it as it would make the game less balanced, and ultimately it is a game. It would be one thing if the P-51 et al were modeled on fuel types they didn't use in order to "nerf" them, it is something else entirely when one performance level is chosen over another for gameplay reasons when either choice is valid.
Even adding perked versions would give the non-perked, 100 octane versions an advantage that other aircraft don't enjoy.
-
It so happens that I am opposed to it as it would make the game less balanced, and ultimately it is a game. It would be one thing if the P-51 et al were modeled on fuel types they didn't use in order to "nerf" them, it is something else entirely when one performance level is chosen over another for gameplay reasons when either choice is valid.
Even adding perked versions would give the non-perked, 100 octane versions an advantage that other aircraft don't enjoy.
Ok, your opposed to it. Never said you werent.
Also that is exactly what is going on. 150 grade was STANDARD, for the Eighth and was authorized for the entire USAAF. Not all the AAF's may have implemented it as early as June 44, but not every 109 or 190 had MW50, even when they were fitted for it. Some 109s used C3, others used B3 + MW50 to achieve the same boost rating. Some didnt get MW50 or C3 and had to run at lower boosts. Not giving it its historical boost rating is doing exactly what you said shouldn't be done.
How on earth does added a perked version help the non-perked versions?
-
How on earth does added a perked version help the non-perked versions?
By creating uncertainty.
Chasing a Mosquito Mk VI in your Fw190A-8, he has some smash and is pulling away. Which version is he? If it is the 100 octane version you might catch it, if 150 octane it is a waste of time. Many will just give up the chase.
Chasing a Fw190A-8 in your Mosquito Mk VI, you know exactly what his top speed is and whether you have a shot at catching him or not.
-
One assumes that the icons would be made different at close range, like Temp/Typhy or the various marks of 190 and Jug. I see no reason why HTC would break this pattern if they chose to add a higher-performing Mustang.
Edit: Don't you think it is *fairly* likely that the P-51s are nerfed just a little bit to offset their enormous popularity with Americans? There is always variable data from tests to choose from. Anyway, there is no "balance" issue that cannot be fixed with sufficient perkage.
By creating uncertainty.
Chasing a Mosquito Mk VI in your Fw190A-8, he has some smash and is pulling away. Which version is he? If it is the 100 octane version you might catch it, if 150 octane it is a waste of time. Many will just give up the chase.
Chasing a Fw190A-8 in your Mosquito Mk VI, you know exactly what his top speed is and whether you have a shot at catching him or not.
-
+1
Perk it if you must but please add it. :salute
-
By creating uncertainty.
Chasing a Mosquito Mk VI in your Fw190A-8, he has some smash and is pulling away. Which version is he? If it is the 100 octane version you might catch it, if 150 octane it is a waste of time. Many will just give up the chase.
Chasing a Fw190A-8 in your Mosquito Mk VI, you know exactly what his top speed is and whether you have a shot at catching him or not.
Thats the weakest argument that has been postulated so far. Are you serious? It cant be implemented due to uncertainy?
This already exists in game for the pony and many other planes. P-51 B/D or P-47D or M or the massive difference in Spitfire speeds, or dare I mention the Ta152? Or the F4U-4..............or do you also want those removed?
-
Hey there Shift8, Zoney here, I play as Zoney in game also. What is your in game name please ?
-
One assumes that the icons would be made different at close range, like Temp/Typhy or the various marks of 190 and Jug. I see no reason why HTC would break this pattern if they chose to add a higher-performing Mustang.
Sorry, no. That only works at short range. The additional advantage exists at longer ranges than sub 1000 yards.
I chase down P-51Ds in the Mossie VI as it is, give the Mustang a 72" to 75" perked version and I'd likely stop even trying because it would go from difficult to quite possibly a waste of time.
In addition I'd love to hear the justification for being able to visually ID a Spit XIV at +18lbs from one at +21lbs boost.
Thats the weakest argument that has been postulated so far. Are you serious? It cant be implemented due to uncertainy?
This already exists in game for the pony and many other planes. P-51 B/D or P-47D or M or the massive difference in Spitfire speeds, or dare I mention the Ta152? Or the F4U-4..............or do you also want those removed?
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it weak or invalid.
-
Sorry, no. That only works at short range. The additional advantage exists at longer ranges than sub 1000 yards.
I chase down P-51Ds in the Mossie VI as it is, give the Mustang a 72" to 75" perked version and I'd likely stop even trying because it would go from difficult to quite possibly a waste of time.
So by your logic the Tempest, P-47M, and 190D9 should also not be in this game either because you can't tell whether it is the fast or slow version until you close the distance to the more revealing icon range.
In addition I'd love to hear the justification for being able to visually ID a Spit XIV at +18lbs from one at +21lbs boost.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it weak or invalid.
The same as the justification for being able to visually tell an M Jug from a D-a concession fore gameplay.
-
Sorry, no. That only works at short range. The additional advantage exists at longer ranges than sub 1000 yards.
I chase down P-51Ds in the Mossie VI as it is, give the Mustang a 72" to 75" perked version and I'd likely stop even trying because it would go from difficult to quite possibly a waste of time.
In addition I'd love to hear the justification for being able to visually ID a Spit XIV at +18lbs from one at +21lbs boost.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it weak or invalid.
Logic dictates that it is weak and invalid. Also, just because you say it is valid doesnt make it any more valid. Pointing out that my disagreement doesn't prove you wrong is about as useful as mentioning both of us are giving our opinions.
So if HTC wanted to add a 109 AS or G10, would you balk at that too because differentiating them from a K4 would be near impossible at any useful range?
Additionally there are all sorts of ways you could make them visually identifiable as distances you might identify one 109 from the other or a spit from another. Without a Icon change all of those planes are hard to tell the difference between unless your already so close it doesn't matter. Given were already in spitting distance, you could change the icon scheme or give it certain paint scheme etc. not to mentions this whole thing is silly because it already is a thing in game with the plane in question and many others.
-
Karnak just doesn't like P-51s because they are way popular...kinda Hipster of him. :devil Me, a target is a target, and Mustangs have fewer inherent advantages than a lot of planes, so why should I complain about their ubiquity? *shrug*
-
Karnak just doesn't like P-51s because they are way popular...kinda Hipster of him. :devil Me, a target is a target, and Mustangs have fewer inherent advantages than a lot of planes, so why should I complain about their ubiquity? *shrug*
I don't want them more popular, Spit XVI's neither.
As it stands I have no problem with P-51s as fighters, just wish that 1000lb bombs were controlled on fighters to give attack aircraft more of a purpose.
-
Nice how when you run out of arguments you resort or making inferences to my character/motives/ability. I have flown all the in game planes...big whoop. Perhaps you are getting your feelings hurt because you didnt realize the mustang was capable of such boost levels? The P-51 isnt even my favorite plane, game or real. I am a spitfire person, and after that I like 190s.
Once again, your analysis of those statistics is irrelevant, myopic and misused. Or are you also going to claim that the F-86 is ten times better than the Mig 15?
:airplane: I may be way out of line here, because I just can't remember the details, but, the 100/150 you mention was "refined" to a 115/145 and that mix allowed the 51D engine to have a "hotter" burn at TDC than the 100/150, so there was no point in raising the allowable MP.
The "wire" was added in front of the throttle for a reason, when you "break" the wire, you stand a good chance of damaging the engine! In over 400 hours in the "Ponie", I only broke the wire twice, once in a mock dogfight with two Navy Skyraiders and once, trying to clear a line of thunderstorms at 31,000 feet, both times it, the reserve power did what it was supposed to do, get "Tater" out of trouble!
-
I wonder if the fuel range can be having an impact on the stats also?
I almost never fly the spitfires because of the short range of the gas tanks. I prefer to have enough fuel to fly longer if I need to rather than RTB for gas all the time. as many fights have a reasonable time to target flight time the better fuel range of the 51 makes it a more obvious choice.
-
I wonder if the fuel range can be having an impact on the stats also?
I almost never fly the spitfires because of the short range of the gas tanks. I prefer to have enough fuel to fly longer if I need to rather than RTB for gas all the time. as many fights have a reasonable time to target flight time the better fuel range of the 51 makes it a more obvious choice.
Try Spitfire Mk VIII with a slipper tank. It does fine in AH.
Granted, it is the only Spitfire to do fine, but at least it is a decent one.
-
:airplane: I may be way out of line here, because I just can't remember the details, but, the 100/150 you mention was "refined" to a 115/145 and that mix allowed the 51D engine to have a "hotter" burn at TDC than the 100/150, so there was no point in raising the allowable MP.
The "wire" was added in front of the throttle for a reason, when you "break" the wire, you stand a good chance of damaging the engine! In over 400 hours in the "Ponie", I only broke the wire twice, once in a mock dogfight with two Navy Skyraiders and once, trying to clear a line of thunderstorms at 31,000 feet, both times it, the reserve power did what it was supposed to do, get "Tater" out of trouble!
I posted all the applicable information. There is even more on that site. The authorization and use 150grade and 72/75inches is a fact. There are tests that show the performance improvement. Climb rate soared from 3600fpm to 4300 at a weight of 9600lbs. Critical alt was reduced to about 22000ft, top speed only marginally faster at 444mph. Top speeds down low were markedly improved, as deck speed went from 375 to 380 or even 390mph.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/V-1650-7-Low-Blower-power-chart.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/V-1650-7-Low-Blower-power-chart.jpg)
-
Hey there Shift8, Zoney here, I play as Zoney in game also. What is your in game name please ?
The plot thickens... :bolt:
-
quite the opposite, its one of the best reasons.
I fly higher-eny planes and I would have to treat that plane-x as best possible version to counter it.
I know exacly what I can and can not do in a Hippo-8, against a spit8/9/16/14, and I treat them very differently depending on the mark. I outrun all but the spit14 in a shallow dive as an example.
Imagine you are merging against plane marked FW190a8.
it suddenly spits out 24 air-to-air rockets (r4m) that kill you at 800 yards, as you come in for the merge, you would still treat it the same or would you adapt after that experience?
I guess you would adapt and not merge, treating all A8s as R4m users.
if you introduce 150 octance fuel, 109g6 fw190a5/8 and mid-war planes would all be deathtraps, while they are a real challenge to fly as it is now in the MA.
Thats the weakest argument that has been postulated so far. Are you serious? It cant be implemented due to uncertainy?
This already exists in game for the pony and many other planes. P-51 B/D or P-47D or M or the massive difference in Spitfire speeds, or dare I mention the Ta152? Or the F4U-4..............or do you also want those removed?
-
We have been through these 150 octan arguments before. If you allow it to one plane it is a slippery slope - why not allow it to others that used it? Spit14, mossies etc. Why not allow the Grerman upgraded fuels and boosts?
HTC chose to model planes by factory specs. If you dig a little into that archive website you will find p47s authorized for 70" manifold with 100 fuel and mosquitoes using N2O boosts. These were not factory configurations.
-
It so happens that I am opposed to it as it would make the game less balanced, and ultimately it is a game.
Good lord....
...well....now we have confirmation that Hell has frozen over....
- oldman
-
I chase down P-51Ds in the Mossie VI as it is, give the Mustang a 72" to 75" perked version and I'd likely stop even trying because it would go from difficult to quite possibly a waste of time.
Do you not bother trying to chase down Typhs that are potentially Tempests, Spits that are potentially XIVs, La's that are potentially La7s, Yaks that are potentially 9us, 190s that are potentially D9s, P-47s that are potentially Ms, 109s that are potentially K4s, Corsairs that are potentially -4s? Or are you very conveniently ONLY applying this logic in the case of Mustangs?
-
I only know that often enemies give up chasing my 190A-5 or Ta-152 on the deck too early, most probably because they think I'm in a D-9 :noid
-
I only know that often enemies give up chasing my 190A-5 or Ta-152 on the deck too early, most probably because they think I'm in a D-9 :noid
Yes...and players sometimes end up in futile chases of Tempests they think are Typhs or Hogs they don't realize are -4s...but Karnak thinks it would be horrible for the game if this ever happened to someone chasing a P51 icon? :headscratch:
-
Good lord....
...well....now we have confirmation that Hell has frozen over....
- oldman
:rofl
-
We have been through these 150 octan arguments before. If you allow it to one plane it is a slippery slope - why not allow it to others that used it? Spit14, mossies etc. Why not allow the Grerman upgraded fuels and boosts?
HTC chose to model planes by factory specs. If you dig a little into that archive website you will find p47s authorized for 70" manifold with 100 fuel and mosquitoes using N2O boosts. These were not factory configurations.
Well, because they DO model the German planes at their higher boosts. The G-14 is modeled with MW50. The K4 is modeled with MW50. The K4 109 for example used B4+MW50 or C3 by itself to achieve 1.8ata. 1.8 ata is modeled in game. The FW-190D is modeled with a rubber engine gap seal that no production plane ever used. It is only the allied planes that do not have their late war high boost settings. Beginning with the G-14 MW50 boost was standardized. The germans later introduced the G-10 and K4. On the allied side you have higher octane fuels that take the place of MW50 and Newer model airplanes----except it isnt modeled.
Arguments from the opposition so far consists of the following logic:
1. Icons of 150grade planes would grant fog of war advantages to lesser models of the same type. Seeing as we already have this problem in game with many many many planes, it is irrelevant and a double standard.
2. It would unbalance the game because 150 grade planes would be OP.
Firstly, history is what it is.
Secondly: Low ENY values and Perk requirements could easily remedy his problem. Or are you going to argue that the -4 Hog is the most commonly flown variant? This was mentioned in my very first post. I merely want the inclusion of the planes so that they can be flown for fun, and dont mind them requiring perk points.........even if they did enter service far earlier and in larger numbers than planes like the La7, 109K, and 190D.
3. Other nations planes should get their higher boosts.
They already do get all historically relevant boost options in nearly all cases. The 190 and 109 are performing to standard, in fact they are well past it, as the 109 has performance corresponding to a non-production prop and the 190D is using a non-production engine gap seal. Liberties have already been taken with these planes, so I daresay that the 51's and spit's and mossies should get their well documented use of higher grade fuels.
-
We have been through these 150 octan arguments before. If you allow it to one plane it is a slippery slope - why not allow it to others that used it? Spit14, mossies etc. Why not allow the Grerman upgraded fuels and boosts?
HTC chose to model planes by factory specs. If you dig a little into that archive website you will find p47s authorized for 70" manifold with 100 fuel and mosquitoes using N2O boosts. These were not factory configurations.
Factory specs are irrelevant. What matters is what was used operationally. The P-38's for example, especially the early models, had much higher factory power ratings than what were used-at least officially.
-
Well, because they DO model the German planes at their higher boosts. The G-14 is modeled with MW50. The K4 is modeled with MW50. The K4 109 for example used B4+MW50 or C3 by itself to achieve 1.8ata. 1.8 ata is modeled in game. The FW-190D is modeled with a rubber engine gap seal that no production plane ever used. It is only the allied planes that do not have their late war high boost settings.
The K-4 used 1.98 ata operationally. I guess that you'd also want the 109 boost to be modelled to 1.98 as well, right?
And by the way, what's your game ID?
-
The K-4 used 1.98 ata operationally. I guess that you'd also want the 109 boost to be modelled to 1.98 as well, right?
And by the way, what's your game ID?
The K4 never used 1.98ata operationally except in testing, and it did not find favor. The only document ever shown that might support the idea is a document kurfurst likes to wave about, one dated 20march45, that is clearly a statement of intent and not a operational order. The document also refers jet upgrades and other things that are known to have not happened. There is also zero pilot accounts or maintenance logs etc to support its use operationally. All that is known for certain is that it was tested, and rejected. If there was ever any re-attempt to use it operationally there is no definitive documentation to support it. And as a side note, even if it was proven, which it is not, it would not have happened till the last month of the war....which is hardly significant and does not warrant use in game.
"No evidence has come to light proving operational use of 1.98 ata by combat units, however, its clear from surviving documentation that the Luftwaffe felt a pressing need to increase the performance of the 109 and that 1.98 ata was tested and proposed for use. Prien & Stemmer have written about the desperate situation confronting the Luftwaffe in 1945:
The start of the Russian offensive (note: in mid January 45) resulted in the biggest regrouping of forces by the Luftwaffe since the invasion of the Soviet Union. From this point on, the course of operations in the east dictated the employment of all remaining forces, especially of the air units and the flak. Russian breakthroughs everywhere threatened the very existance of the Reich. Faced with this, the German command reduced defensive operations in the west to a minimum, while the Defense of the Reich was virtually abandoned.
The only units left in action over the west were JG 2, 26, 27, and 53, which operated mainly against the Allied fighter-bombers and twin-engined bombers but not against incursions by the heavy bombers.
A Wehrmacht Operations Staff memo dated 19/1/1945 stated that “a high degree of forces are to be concentrated for the great decisive battle in the eastern theater at the conscious acceptance of the associated serious risk in the western theater”. For the air defense that meant that the flak would bear the main of subsequent defensive operations in the west, while the bulk of the flying units were to be deployed in the east to support the army. To this end the units deployed in the east were to receive prioity in the allocation of the last remaining reserves of fuel. The memo went on to say: "The available fuel is to be allocated accordingly”.
As a result of increased consumption in defensive operations in January and February the fuel shortage had again become acute, and on 4 March 1945 the OKW saw itself forced to issue another directive on future Luftwaffe operations. It decreed that apart from operations by the few jet fighter units, defensive missions against incursions over the Reich by the American and British heavy bombers were now to be halted completely, which nearly meant the end of the Defense of the Reich. There was also a rigorous concentration of remaining forces for operations in the east, in order to make the defensive effort there as effective as possible.
By now deliveries of aircraft had slowed down, which is why, for example, that in March III Gruppe was given a number of old BF 109 G-6s (probably from disbanded training units) in addition to several BF 109 K-4s and G-14s. (Note: Prien has also written that II./JG 53 reverted to old Bf 109 G-6's)
War Diary Luftflotte 6; worthy of note is a note dated 3/4/1945 in the collection “Fuel Situation 1945” which says: “Production of the BF 109 has been halted, six Gruppen in Luftflotte 6’s command are being disbanded immediately in order to create a reserve”. The effected units were I/JG 3, I/JG 4, III/JG 6, II/JG 51, I/JG 53 and III/JG 77. Units were disbanded in the same way by the Luftflotte Reich (IV/JG 301) and Luftwaffe Command West (IV/JG 27). 42
II./JG 11, the Me 109 unit that had earlier experimented with 1.98 ata, also disbanded during the first few days of April:
An den ersten sechs Tagen im April war das JG 11 nicht im Einsatz; nicht etwa schlechtes Wetter, sondern allein der anhaltende Treibstoffmangel verhinderte ein Eingreifen des Geschwaders in das Geschehen an der Oderfront, an der es im übrigen während ruhig blieb. Offensichtlich erfolgte in diesen Tagen die Auflösung der II./JG 11, deren Flugzeugführer danach zum Teil auf die I. und III. Gruppe verteilt wurden, während einige der erfahreneren und erfolgreichen – darunter Hptm Rüdiger Kirchmayr, Olt. Erich und Lt. Walter Köhne – zu dem Strahlerverbänden versetzt wurden. Für viele der jungen, unerfahrenen Flugzeugführer, die zur Katagorie “C” zählten, endete dagegen der Einsatz in einem fliegenden Verband und sie fanden sich in Fallschirmjäger – oder sogar Waffen-SS Einheiten wieder, um dort als Fussoldaten noch eine Verwendung im Sinne des “Führers” zu finden; mit ihnen gingen eine ganze Anzahl von Männern des Bodenpersonals, deren Stellen durch die Auflösung der II. Gruppe entweder überflüssig wurden oder die durch weiteres weibliches Personal ersetzt wurden. 43"
"Aspera G.m.b.H., Kamenz on orders from OKL Chef TLR F1. E. 3 V reports in Geschwindigkeitmessungen mit 4 VDM Luftschrauben auf Me 109 K4 mit DB 605 D dated 4 January 1945 that full measurments could not be reported due to engine damage at 1.98 ata. Trotz mehrerer Stunden schonenden Einfliegens des Motors mit Dauerleistung vor den Messreihen mit Kampfleistung stellte sich bei den ersten Prüfläufen nach der Umstellung auf p = 1,98 ata ein Motorschaden heraus, der einen Motorwechsel notwendig machte. 35
Interner Aktenvermerk Nr. 6642 from Daimler-Benz (internal memo) dated 17.1.45 reports on a meeting held 10 January 1945 at OKL, Berlin. All 4 DB 605 DC engines supplied to Rechlin from DB-Genshagen failed (pistons, piston rods, supercharger), therefore special emergency power DC (1.98 ata boost pressure) for the troops is not released (die Sondernotleistung DC (1,98 ata Ladedruck) für die Truppe nicht freigegeben). 36
Niederschrift Nr 6717 from Damiler-Benz, dated 19.1.45, states that DB 605 D engines from Kassel are delivered at 1.80 ata boost with B4 and Mw 50. Die Motoren DB 605 D werden in Kassel allgemein mit Ladedruck 1,80 ata mit B4 und Mw 50 abgenommen. 37
Niederschrift Nr 6730 of Daimler Benz dated 24 January 1945 details discussion at a conference held 20 January 1945 in the office of the Chief engineer of the Luftwaffe in Berlin: It states that testing of 1.98 boost pressure may be done provisionally at Group 2/11, only engines with 1.8 boost may be supplied and strict punishment is threatened if this instruction is neglected. Also of note is mention of problems due to poor quality fuel as well as a devastating comparison of the Me 109 and the Mustang. 38
Niederschrift Nr 6731 of Daimler Benz also dated 24 January 1945 discusses a meeting held at Rechlin on 16.1.45. Some of the same material is discussed as in Nr 6730, the conclusions being that 1,98 ata is not to be used on the front line. Testing at Rechlin will continue. 39
Messerschmitt's Erprobungsbericht Nr. 15 vom 16.1.45 bis 15.2.45 dated 22.2.45 states that 1.98 ata is blocked, testing done at 1.80 ata: WM 50 Betreib - Nach Mitteilung der E'Stelle sind 1,98 ata gesperrt. Die Erprobung (Funktion und Kerzentemperatur) wird vorläufig mit 1,80 ata (2800 U/min) durchgeführt. 40 "
Courtesy of WW2 aircraft performance.
-
By creating uncertainty.
Chasing a Mosquito Mk VI in your Fw190A-8, he has some smash and is pulling away. Which version is he? If it is the 100 octane version you might catch it, if 150 octane it is a waste of time. Many will just give up the chase.
Chasing a Fw190A-8 in your Mosquito Mk VI, you know exactly what his top speed is and whether you have a shot at catching him or not.
We have that now with Tiffy's and hogs... <shrug>
-
The K-4 used 1.98 ata operationally. I guess that you'd also want the 109 boost to be modelled to 1.98 as well, right?
And by the way, what's your game ID?
I fail entirely to see how my Game ID has anything to do with a historical/game balance debate. UNLESS you intend to see how good or bad I am in game and then use that data to make inferences about the speaker. Funny, I dont need arguments like that. I rely on factual data and my own ability to reason, not by making irrelevant jibs and insinuations about the person I am arguing about. My game ID will remain private, so far you will ever know I could be the worst pilot in game or at the top of the ladder. I could care less how good or bad you are.
-
The K4 never used 1.98ata operationally except in testing, and it did not find favor. The only document ever shown that might support the idea is a document kurfurst likes to wave about, one dated 20march45, that is clearly a statement of intent and not a operational order. The document also refers jet upgrades and other things that are known to have not happened. There is also zero pilot accounts or maintenance logs etc to support its use operationally. All that is known for certain is that it was tested, and rejected. If there was ever any re-attempt to use it operationally there is no definitive documentation to support it. And as a side note, even if it was proven, which it is not, it would not have happened till the last month of the war....which is hardly significant and does not warrant use in game.
First of all, why won't you tell us your game ID? It would be quite weird that someone who doesn't even play it wants something to get changed ;)
I'll post a full reply when I get home.
-
First of all, why won't you tell us your game ID? It would be quite weird that someone who doesn't even play it wants something to get changed ;)
I'll post a full reply when I get home.
I should be obvious that I play the game from knowledge of what perk and ENY are. Ive been playing this game and other sims for about 10 years.
Why pray tell, do you need my game ID so badly? I should think it has nothing to do with this debate.
-
Why pray tell, do you need my game ID so badly? I should think it has nothing to do with this debate.
He wants to sit in aw of your uber skorz... I also like to know who I am sparing with on the boards...
I don't think we need a faster Pee-51.. It's already the #1 non-engaging plane... A faster one would be re-donk-U-less...
I am -1 on this one.
-
I should be obvious that I play the game from knowledge of what perk and ENY are. Ive been playing this game and other sims for about 10 years.
Why pray tell, do you need my game ID so badly? I should think it has nothing to do with this debate.
As I stated in the previous post, it would be quite weird for someone who doesn't play the game to want it changed. That's why I asked.
AFAIK, several units with a total of at least 142 aircraft (79 serviceable) used the 1.98 ata manifold pressure operationally. You can find the full list here:
http://users.atw.hu/kurfurst/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm
Galland instructed 109 ground crews to set the maximum ata to 1.98 in 1944. You can find the original orders in that same link.
-
I was expecting this thread to be about the Enumclaw horse incident.
-
As I stated in the previous post, it would be quite weird for someone who doesn't play the game to want it changed. That's why I asked.
AFAIK, several units with a total of at least 142 aircraft (79 serviceable) used the 1.98 ata manifold pressure operationally. You can find the full list here:
http://users.atw.hu/kurfurst/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm
Galland instructed 109 ground crews to set the maximum ata to 1.98 in 1944. You can find the original orders in that same link.
If you read from anyone that is not Kurfurst, whose nonsense is continually debunked, his assumption about those units is just that: an assumption. There is actually an entire thread about this on this very forum, as well as many others. There is no definitive evidence of the operational use of 1.98ata.
Once again well end of February....: Messerschmitt's Erprobungsbericht Nr. 15 vom 16.1.45 bis 15.2.45 dated 22.2.45 states that 1.98 ata is blocked, testing done at 1.80 ata: WM 50 Betreib - Nach Mitteilung der E'Stelle sind 1,98 ata gesperrt. Die Erprobung (Funktion und Kerzentemperatur) wird vorläufig mit 1,80 ata (2800 U/min) durchgeführt. 40
There is a very good reason that Mr. Kurfurst is a "parolee" on these forums. He was also banned from ww2 aircraft forums and is well on his way to being banished from the DCS forums.
-
There is a very good reason that Mr. Kurfurst is a "parolee" on these forums. He was also banned from ww2 aircraft forums and is well on his way to being banished from the DCS forums.
Funny, I dont need arguments like that. I rely on factual data and my own ability to reason, not by making irrelevant jibs and insinuations about the person I am arguing about.
Looks like cognitive dissonance to me :noid
I'll leave the K4 topic, but I really wouldn't want to see a manifold pressure increase in Mustangs. Of course it was used operationally, but it would unbalance the game even if it was perked unless it got a new icon. It wouldn't be good for the game for the same reason the R4M wouldn't: balancing issues.
-
Looks like cognitive dissonance to me :noid
I'll leave the K4 topic, but I really wouldn't want to see a manifold pressure increase in Mustangs. Of course it was used operationally, but it would unbalance the game even if it was perked unless it got a new icon. It wouldn't be good for the game for the same reason the R4M wouldn't: balancing issues.
Hardly. He repeatedly misuses documents and writes revisionist history. Peoples complaint with him is his factual understanding. Not necessarily his character, game skill, or etc. Not knowing the facts and slanting information to suit your needs/ insisting that vague information in a single document proves something is not a irrelevant insinutation. My game skill is however, quite irrelevant.
Back on topic: Teh game balance concern is irrelevant because you can perk the plane.
-
The plot thickens... :bolt:
:headscratch:: And something smells!
-
Back on topic: Teh game balance concern is irrelevant because you can perk the plane.
So we can have a Me-262 with R4M rockets and it won't unbalance the game? After all, we can perk it!
It's still fishy how someone has devoted 100% of his posts to asking for a faster mustang and a slower 109K4. I almost see a connection there... :uhoh
-
It's still fishy how someone has devoted 100% of his posts to asking for a faster mustang and a slower 109K4.
In this current incarnation, that is :noid
:bolt:
-
So we can have a Me-262 with R4M rockets and it won't unbalance the game? After all, we can perk it!
It's still fishy how someone has devoted 100% of his posts to asking for a faster mustang and a slower 109K4. I almost see a connection there... :uhoh
both points are factual. Therefore any sort of "connection" is both irrelevant and mere conjecture. Facts are Facts. Also I am fine with any historical addition so long as it played a significant role. Pointing out that every plane ever made or every weapon ever made is not currently in game is not a valid argument against the inclusion of more planes.
-
In this current incarnation, that is :noid
:bolt:
(http://a66c7b.medialib.glogster.com/media/00/00ee68d71a87a32fe9b08c61481156446f29f8dad5e1884cd15488b34c10662f/shades2.jpg)
:uhoh
-
72 inches is way too tall for a pony,it would have to be classed as a horse at that height!
YMMV.
:salute
-
There was once a "next plane" poll that had the P-51H on it, or so I hear.
That surprised me seeing the option to vote for the P-51H in the airplane poll a few years ago, especially since it never saw any combat in its life time.
ack-ack
-
How can we trust a member who Feels the need to hide who he is............... :noid
-
Or are you also going to claim that the F-86 is ten times better than the Mig 15?
The F-86E was better than the MiG-15.
ack-ack
-
This thread has become very deep.
-
It's absolutely amazing to me how we beat the same discussions to death over and over again.
Shift8, I'd suggest you search the Aircraft & Vehicles section on the 150 Octane fuel debate. We've done it to death.
I'm a Mustang fan along with Spits etc. If you can't survive AH with the Spits or Mustangs we have, 150 octane fuel isn't going to make a bit of difference. How much it was used by the 8th or the RAF is open for debate. I'm as history minded as anyone here. That being said, using the history argument to hide your desire for a more uber Mustang isn't working very well.
-
How can we trust a member who Feels the need to hide who he is............... :noid
Nice Deflection. My in game name has nothing to do with this debate---period. IF I gave it to you I could easily just be lying, and if it was the real one, what would that achieve? Youd just know another alias I go by. Everyone on these forums is going by an alias.
-
It's absolutely amazing to me how we beat the same discussions to death over and over again.
Shift8, I'd suggest you search the Aircraft & Vehicles section on the 150 Octane fuel debate. We've done it to death.
I'm a Mustang fan along with Spits etc. If you can't survive AH with the Spits or Mustangs we have, 150 octane fuel isn't going to make a bit of difference. How much it was used by the 8th or the RAF is open for debate. I'm as history minded as anyone here. That being said, using the history argument to hide your desire for a more uber Mustang isn't working very well.
Just because I think a 51 should get 150 because it had it in real life doesn't mean I dont know how to fly. Ive been flying for about a decade in various sims. I fly the current plane just fine thank you, and I find it most effective. Once again, I see that when we dont have any real arguments we resort to assuming motive or incompetence on the part of the OP.
-
The F-86E was better than the MiG-15.
ack-ack
Perhaps. This is a debate for another thread. However, the KDR of the plane is by itself not license to ignore the stats of the plane or the conditions it fought it. The neither the Mig or Sabre was 10 times better than the other.
-
Just because I think a 51 should get 150 because it had it in real life doesn't mean I dont know how to fly. Ive been flying for about a decade in various sims. I fly the current plane just fine thank you, and I find it most effective. Once again, I see that when we dont have any real arguments we resort to assuming motive or incompetence on the part of the OP.
One can also argue that the P-51 should get 100 octane because it had it in real life. It is a choice and HTC chose to make it with 100 octane.
A P-51D on 150 octane would need to be perked, and I am not at all sure that the market would bear the P-51D being perked.
-
Just because I think a 51 should get 150 because it had it in real life doesn't mean I dont know how to fly. Ive been flying for about a decade in various sims. I fly the current plane just fine thank you, and I find it most effective. Once again, I see that when we dont have any real arguments we resort to assuming motive or incompetence on the part of the OP.
I'm not sure how you define real arguments. You claim that 150 Octane fuel was "standard" in the 8th AF. When? Show me the modified Mustang data blocks where they changed the octane number from the standard 100/130.
This is the 'standard' 51 Data Block.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Beaufighters/100130_zps5f7c1b96.jpg)
This 'standard' data block is on a 479th FG P51D in the late Fall of 44. I don't see any mention of 150 Octane on it.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Datablock.jpg)
Here's the restored Combat Vet P51D "Twilight Tear', one of the most accurate of the 51 restorations out there. Not the 100/130 on the data block. 78th had their 51s late in 44 and into 45.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/TT1-1.jpg)
This one is on a 352nd FG 51
inverted the colors so the numbers would show better. 100/130
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Beaufighters/352nd_zps9575b529.jpg)
So was 150 octane used? Yep. It was helpful in the Spits and Mustangs chasing V-1s. Was it standard for the 8th? 100/130 octane was standard. Did they use 100/150? In some instances yes, but I wouldn't call it standard.
-
I know the Russians boosted the poo out of the allisons in the p39 and p40s they received.
Did the f4us and f6fs ever get boosted like the spit and mustang?
-
If you read from anyone that is not Kurfurst, whose nonsense is continually debunked, his assumption about those units is just that: an assumption. There is actually an entire thread about this on this very forum, as well as many others. There is no definitive evidence of the operational use of 1.98ata.
Once again well end of February....: Messerschmitt's Erprobungsbericht Nr. 15 vom 16.1.45 bis 15.2.45 dated 22.2.45 states that 1.98 ata is blocked, testing done at 1.80 ata: WM 50 Betreib - Nach Mitteilung der E'Stelle sind 1,98 ata gesperrt. Die Erprobung (Funktion und Kerzentemperatur) wird vorläufig mit 1,80 ata (2800 U/min) durchgeführt. 40
There is a very good reason that Mr. Kurfurst is a "parolee" on these forums. He was also banned from ww2 aircraft forums and is well on his way to being banished from the DCS forums.
One thing Kurfurst sure does have is a picture of two boost gauges from 109s - 1 of them with 1.8 ata as the top notch, and the other with 1.98 ata as the top notch. Say what you like about the state of German aircraft production in 1945, but they aren't producing 1.98 ata boost gauges because they are unnecessary to their production of new aircraft and conversion kits. He also has pictures of operational K4s with the C3 fuel sticker - one of the prerequisites for flying at the 1.98ata boost level.
Does it bother me that nobody can find mechanics logs or whatever documenting 1.98ata 109s flying in 1945? Not a bit - besides the wholesale deliberate destruction of documents by the luftwaffe as it was retreating from airbases bombed into rubble and operating from highways and open fields, you have the Winter of '45. Read some accounts of people living in postwar Germany trying to keep warm in the Winter of '45 by burning books, furniture, - or anything else they could find - and I don't think a file cabinet of old maintenance records would long stay out of the stove.
-
@shift8:
where are you going with this? Do you really wish that HTC makes AH into the "last day of WWII" combat simulator?
I sure as hell don't!
-
@bozon
Totally agree - in fact some kind of of rotating planeset (and then getting rid of EW/MW) would be how I'd like to see it. But that's off subject.
-
I'm not sure how you define real arguments. You claim that 150 Octane fuel was "standard" in the 8th AF. When? Show me the modified Mustang data blocks where they changed the octane number from the standard 100/130.
This is the 'standard' 51 Data Block.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Beaufighters/100130_zps5f7c1b96.jpg)
This 'standard' data block is on a 479th FG P51D in the late Fall of 44. I don't see any mention of 150 Octane on it.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Datablock.jpg)
Here's the restored Combat Vet P51D "Twilight Tear', one of the most accurate of the 51 restorations out there. Not the 100/130 on the data block. 78th had their 51s late in 44 and into 45.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/TT1-1.jpg)
This one is on a 352nd FG 51
inverted the colors so the numbers would show better. 100/130
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Beaufighters/352nd_zps9575b529.jpg)
So was 150 octane used? Yep. It was helpful in the Spits and Mustangs chasing V-1s. Was it standard for the 8th? 100/130 octane was standard. Did they use 100/150? In some instances yes, but I wouldn't call it standard.
Showing off labels in museums etc has nothing to do with the fuel grades that were actually used. There is a overwhelming amount of doumentation about this, quite a bit of which I already posted. 150grade, and the boost settings associated were standard as of June 1944. The eight airforce certainly converted over and the authorization to do so was USAAF wide. More can be read here:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
In Addition:
"A decision was made in May 1944 to have ALL fighter units supplied with this fuel no later than 1 June. As of that date operations with this fuel continued until approximately 1 February 1945 when all fighter units switched to “Pep” (100/150 plus 1.5 T’s ethylene dibromide). As of 1 April 1945 all units switched back to 100/150 fuel containing 1.0 T ethylene dibromide." Emphasis Mine.
"The Production Division was directed on 28 March 1944, under the authority of the Commmanding General, Army Air Forces, to modify all P-38, P-47 and P-51 airplanes in the United Kingdom for the use of Grade 150 fuel, with the necessary modification kits to be shipped to the European Theater of Operations within 30 days. 23 It was decided that Grade 150 fuel was to be the only fuel available for AAF fighter airplanes in the United Kingdom. 24 "
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/Project_PPF_4april44.jpg
-
@shift8:
where are you going with this? Do you really wish that HTC makes AH into the "last day of WWII" combat simulator?
I sure as hell don't!
A june 44 boost mod is not the last day of the war. Its about a year. Also, if you consider things on that date or beyond "last day" then we should remove the K4, D9, Ta152, La7, G-14, F4U-4, P-47 D40/M etc.
-
if you consider things on that date or beyond "last day" then we should remove the K4, D9, Ta152, La7, G-14, F4U-4, P-47 D40/M etc.
:lol
-
-1
on your wish sir.
This is simply a self serving wish with very little to back it up and a negative impact on balanced gameplay.
-
A june 44 boost mod is not the last day of the war. Its about a year. Also, if you consider things on that date or beyond "last day" then we should remove the K4, D9, Ta152, La7, G-14, F4U-4, P-47 D40/M etc.
June 1944 is not special. Why shouldn't all planes be modeled according to the latest and greatest field mods?
I'll save you the trouble, it was a rhetorical question anyway - because the game will suck!
-
I don't agree with not adding another pony because it's too popular already. It's one of the most commonly known fighter in WW2 by Americans. I'd say adding a perked pony plane is a great idea.
+1 to this.
-
-1
on your wish sir.
This is simply a self serving wish with very little to back it up and a negative impact on balanced gameplay.
I think this is the part the OP hasn't taken in to consideration. I'm HTC has see or heard of every bit of info the OP has posted. As stated by many most of this stuff has been hashed out over and over through the years. HTC has to try and maintain a BALANCE in the game as it is a game and not a war where each side strives for some upper hand that can over balance the other.
Should it ever come to pass, it surely would be perked enough to make it such an easy option to use.
-
Showing off labels in museums etc has nothing to do with the fuel grades that were actually used. There is a overwhelming amount of doumentation about this, quite a bit of which I already posted. 150grade, and the boost settings associated were standard as of June 1944. The eight airforce certainly converted over and the authorization to do so was USAAF wide. More can be read here:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
In Addition:
"A decision was made in May 1944 to have ALL fighter units supplied with this fuel no later than 1 June. As of that date operations with this fuel continued until approximately 1 February 1945 when all fighter units switched to “Pep” (100/150 plus 1.5 T’s ethylene dibromide). As of 1 April 1945 all units switched back to 100/150 fuel containing 1.0 T ethylene dibromide." Emphasis Mine.
"The Production Division was directed on 28 March 1944, under the authority of the Commmanding General, Army Air Forces, to modify all P-38, P-47 and P-51 airplanes in the United Kingdom for the use of Grade 150 fuel, with the necessary modification kits to be shipped to the European Theater of Operations within 30 days. 23 It was decided that Grade 150 fuel was to be the only fuel available for AAF fighter airplanes in the United Kingdom. 24 "
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/Project_PPF_4april44.jpg
You claim it's standard. I'm saying that despite the words on paper it was never 'standard' the 9th AF never got any. Not all of the 8th got it. I posted the 479th bird to show a late 44 bird not updated to 150 octane. I showed the restored combat surviving 51D to picture the Data block more clearly for you on a Mustang. How many more images of 8th AF Mustangs showing no change to the Octane would you like to see? No one is arguing that 150 Octane was not used.
You claim it as 'Standard'. It was not "Standard" for the Mustang in WW2. Suggesting some use by 8th Mustangs late in the war hardly covers the 'standard' for the WW2 Mustang in 44-45. As has been mentioned, there has to be some sort of balance in the game.
I get it. You want to go faster in a 51. It would serve absolutely no purpose to add 150 octane fuel just to up the 51s performance other than to let you go faster. As I said before. If you can't make it in the 51 we have, all the cartoon 150 octane in the world isn't going to help you.
-
Hey, I want a p-39n with a big red star and 70" of boost so that I can come here an' shakes mah boo-tay about it...
Woo-hoo, I is oooo-ber :banana:...
-
You claim it's standard. I'm saying that despite the words on paper it was never 'standard' the 9th AF never got any. Not all of the 8th got it. I posted the 479th bird to show a late 44 bird not updated to 150 octane. I showed the restored combat surviving 51D to picture the Data block more clearly for you on a Mustang. How many more images of 8th AF Mustangs showing no change to the Octane would you like to see? No one is arguing that 150 Octane was not used.
You claim it as 'Standard'. It was not "Standard" for the Mustang in WW2. Suggesting some use by 8th Mustangs late in the war hardly covers the 'standard' for the WW2 Mustang in 44-45. As has been mentioned, there has to be some sort of balance in the game.
I get it. You want to go faster in a 51. It would serve absolutely no purpose to add 150 octane fuel just to up the 51s performance other than to let you go faster. As I said before. If you can't make it in the 51 we have, all the cartoon 150 octane in the world isn't going to help you.
:banana: Amen!!!!
-
All A8's could use R4m from late 1944, all A8's could easy be converted to a Sturmbock that where close to impregnable to .50 cal from front
(think HO without penalty for the A8 against Pony without the 20mm option many pony drivers dream of), they could use GM-1 system, and converted A8 could have 2400hp (effectively A8 converted to A9)
The list would be infinite long for each German plane subtype, and Mossie fan's have their list of options, B29 .... n u k e s. The list go on and on.
Bombing bombers with fused bombs they did IRL is another option I do not want to see in AH.
-
You claim it's standard. I'm saying that despite the words on paper it was never 'standard' the 9th AF never got any. Not all of the 8th got it. I posted the 479th bird to show a late 44 bird not updated to 150 octane. I showed the restored combat surviving 51D to picture the Data block more clearly for you on a Mustang. How many more images of 8th AF Mustangs showing no change to the Octane would you like to see? No one is arguing that 150 Octane was not used.
You claim it as 'Standard'. It was not "Standard" for the Mustang in WW2. Suggesting some use by 8th Mustangs late in the war hardly covers the 'standard' for the WW2 Mustang in 44-45. As has been mentioned, there has to be some sort of balance in the game.
I get it. You want to go faster in a 51. It would serve absolutely no purpose to add 150 octane fuel just to up the 51s performance other than to let you go faster. As I said before. If you can't make it in the 51 we have, all the cartoon 150 octane in the world isn't going to help you.
So you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. There are record of the aviation fuel production and delivery to units. It was only fuel being used 8th from mid june and beyond. The 9th DID receive the fuel. Do you really think that the stamp on the side of planes means anything? Go do a bit of research and you will find BF109 units with C3 fuel icon painted on planes whose squadrons were not receiving the fuel. The eight air-force published documentation talking about their use of fuel and their experience with it, and that document is posted in this thread. The Decision was made to deplete all stocks 100/130 before they used 150grade.
150 Grade fuel was the only fuel grade available to American units operating in England from mid 44 till wars end. That encompasses a MASSIVE chunk of all operational P-51s. It is certainly just as many if not more than all the 109K4's and FW190D9 operating in the same period. Furthermore, Not all D9's had MW even installed, much less available to them. Not all 109s capable of MW50 use received the additive. So I guess that should be removed too? Not all P-47s were D-40's....etc.
"Technical Operations, Eighth Air Force issued a 4 April 1945 memorandum in which 100/150 grade fuel experience in the Eighth Air Force was summarized. It is reproduced in full below:
1. The following is a summary of 100/150 grade fuel experience in Eighth Air Force.
2. a. This fuel was first service tested by Technical Operations Section, this headquarters, in October 1943, said service test lasting through until March 1944, at which time it was recommended that if extra performance from P-38, P-47 and P-51 aircraft was desired it could be secured by the use of this fuel. It was pointed out at that time that the only apparent deleterious effect of this fuel on any one of the three types was the extra lead fouling of spark plugs.
b. A decision was made in May 1944 to have all fighter units supplied with this fuel no later than 1 June. As of that date operations with this fuel continued until approximately 1 February 1945 when all fighter units switched to “Pep” (100/150 plus 1.5 T’s ethylene dibromide). As of 1 April 1945 all units switched back to 100/150 fuel containing 1.0 T ethylene dibromide."
Fuel consumption: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/Consumption_150_Grade_fuel_Barrels.html
Fuel Production vs Requirment: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/100-150_Grade_Supply_23Nov44.pdf
-
All A8's could use R4m from late 1944, all A8's could easy be converted to a Sturmbock that where close to impregnable to .50 cal from front
(think HO without penalty for the A8 against Pony without the 20mm option many pony drivers dream of), they could use GM-1 system, and converted A8 could have 2400hp (effectively A8 converted to A9)
The list would be infinite long for each German plane subtype, and Mossie fan's have their list of options, B29 .... n u k e s. The list go on and on.
Bombing bombers with fused bombs they did IRL is another option I do not want to see in AH.
Right then. So HTC should never add another plane then because not every plane can be added right? Regarding mods, why not take MW50 off the German planes.....cuz you cant add every single mode ever fitting to a plane.
-
So help me out here. You clearly have all the answers and since you are convinced you have the answer there isnt much point in discussing it. That being said you have failed to answer the important question.
Why do you believe we need it in Aces High? What will it allow you to do that you can't do with the Mustang we have modeled? How will in benefit the game?
-
So you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. There are record of the aviation fuel production and delivery to units. It was only fuel being used 8th from mid june and beyond. The 9th DID receive the fuel. Do you really think that the stamp on the side of planes means anything? Go do a bit of research and you will find BF109 units with C3 fuel icon painted on planes whose squadrons were not receiving the fuel. The eight air-force published documentation talking about their use of fuel and their experience with it, and that document is posted in this thread. The Decision was made to deplete all stocks 100/130 before they used 150grade.
150 Grade fuel was the only fuel grade available to American units operating in England from mid 44 till wars end. That encompasses a MASSIVE chunk of all operational P-51s. It is certainly just as many if not more than all the 109K4's and FW190D9 operating in the same period. Furthermore, Not all D9's had MW even installed, much less available to them. Not all 109s capable of MW50 use received the additive. So I guess that should be removed too? Not all P-47s were D-40's....etc.
"Technical Operations, Eighth Air Force issued a 4 April 1945 memorandum in which 100/150 grade fuel experience in the Eighth Air Force was summarized. It is reproduced in full below:
1. The following is a summary of 100/150 grade fuel experience in Eighth Air Force.
2. a. This fuel was first service tested by Technical Operations Section, this headquarters, in October 1943, said service test lasting through until March 1944, at which time it was recommended that if extra performance from P-38, P-47 and P-51 aircraft was desired it could be secured by the use of this fuel. It was pointed out at that time that the only apparent deleterious effect of this fuel on any one of the three types was the extra lead fouling of spark plugs.
b. A decision was made in May 1944 to have all fighter units supplied with this fuel no later than 1 June. As of that date operations with this fuel continued until approximately 1 February 1945 when all fighter units switched to “Pep” (100/150 plus 1.5 T’s ethylene dibromide). As of 1 April 1945 all units switched back to 100/150 fuel containing 1.0 T ethylene dibromide."
Fuel consumption: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/Consumption_150_Grade_fuel_Barrels.html
Fuel Production vs Requirment: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/100-150_Grade_Supply_23Nov44.pdf
I'm sorry but you're barking up the wrong tree!
Guppy has done the research,his stuff is all over the net. Infact you can find pix of "guppy" at a few pilot reunions as he did his "research"......
My reference to 72 inches being too tall to be a pony was really a reference to beating a dead horse.... search the forums from days of past to see just how many times this exact argument has come up.
Could say much more but it's not worth the effort,you obviously dont know who you were addressing!
:salute
-
So help me out here. You clearly have all the answers and since you are convinced you have the answer there isnt much point in discussing it. That being said you have failed to answer the important question.
Why do you believe we need it in Aces High? What will it allow you to do that you can't do with the Mustang we have modeled? How will in benefit the game?
Dan I'd be happy to see if HE could post one picture of a data block WITH 150 octane on it. :devil
-
So you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
...O...K....
I'm beginning to suspect the reason Mr. Shift8 doesn't want to reveal his other handles is because we might recognize one of them from a few years ago.
- oldman
-
The A8 does not use Mw50. they had other boost system, that was standard.
Only the A5, and G14 afaik used it of AH planes.
Both could use other boost system to get same performance.
With the introduction of 150 grade fuel for all allied aircraft, axis side would be ded as it stands now, specially with your non-mw50 190d9, and nerfed 109k, and why not introduce a 2 second delay for axis pilots , they had about 30 hours of flying before entering 1:11 combat odds.
Well it would not be my problem, I would just fly up my 16k of perk points, and then quietly quit.
-
All that aside, I think his argument has some merit. If late 44 had 150 and the higher pressure to go with it, yeah, it might make sense as an add, but you'd also have to do some of the other examples -my own on the p-39 included. And what about Klimov-engined lend lease version and the various induction measures in the Luftwaffe?
I'd like to see what's under the shade, too, though - and also am painfully aware of his motives... Btw, there's another rather argumentative member of this bbs, also known to use shades, who almost exclusively flies the pony d. Guesses?
-
So help me out here. You clearly have all the answers and since you are convinced you have the answer there isnt much point in discussing it. That being said you have failed to answer the important question.
Why do you believe we need it in Aces High? What will it allow you to do that you can't do with the Mustang we have modeled? How will in benefit the game?
It think it should be modeled since we have ultra late war 109s 190s and etc. The 150 Grade pony is a comparable, and earlier upgrade. The Germans made things like the K4 and 190D. Russia has the La-7 etc. The allies had 150grade powered plans of the same mark.
with 150 Grade:
Speed increases at SL 380mph---or parity with Dora and Kurfurst.
Climb increases to 4100-4300fpm at 9600lbs---parity or near parity with dora/kurfurst/la-7
Since there is no weight gain, and a 200bhp power increase, turn would improve as well. Since the K4 and P-51D are very close in game, the mustang being slightly worse, I would imagine the 150grade mustang would achieve at least parity, if not a slight advantage. But that is just a guess.
-
Dan I'd be happy to see if HE could post one picture of a data block WITH 150 octane on it. :devil
You mean like these?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/78thfg-p51-150grade.jpg
http://imgur.com/b339ju6
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/357thfg-desert-rat.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/353fg-macaffee.jpg
-
...O...K....
I'm beginning to suspect the reason Mr. Shift8 doesn't want to reveal his other handles is because we might recognize one of them from a few years ago.
- oldman
You dont have to listen to facts we you can just disregard me as someone you dont like. I dont know who you are refering too, as I have never posted on this forum before. But I dont supposed you realize how crazy you sound. I suppose you accuse everyone who comes on this forum with a small number of posts to his name as someone in disguise and a lunatic...cuz you couldnt possibly have not met everyone on the internet yet right?
-
I'm sorry but you're barking up the wrong tree!
Guppy has done the research,his stuff is all over the net. Infact you can find pix of "guppy" at a few pilot reunions as he did his "research"......
My reference to 72 inches being too tall to be a pony was really a reference to beating a dead horse.... search the forums from days of past to see just how many times this exact argument has come up.
Could say much more but it's not worth the effort,you obviously dont know who you were addressing!
:salute
I always love you self-proclaimed experts mounted on your mountain of a pedestal. You have your circle of people you trust in your closed off little world where anything you aren't fed from said people you ignore. Lots of people write on the internet, and many of them are idiots. Good to know you've read threads on there about 150 grade, and also good to know that you turned off your mind shortly thereafter as you regard something you read on a forum as the end all be all of historical fact and game balance.
You dont know who are addressing either. And it is clear from this thread that you place more stock in inferences you can make about a person you know or dont know than you do about the facts.
-
All that aside, I think his argument has some merit. If late 44 had 150 and the higher pressure to go with it, yeah, it might make sense as an add, but you'd also have to do some of the other examples -my own on the p-39 included. And what about Klimov-engined lend lease version and the various induction measures in the Luftwaffe?
I'd like to see what's under the shade, too, though - and also am painfully aware of his motives... Btw, there's another rather argumentative member of this bbs, also known to use shades, who almost exclusively flies the pony d. Guesses?
What motives are those? That I desire a 150 grade pony? Because thats all I've stated. Been playing this game for awhile and finally decided to go on the forums and post about stuff. I've never been on here before. But of course, you will never believe that because your too busy stapling on ulterior motives, whatever those might be, and pretending im someone else.
-
Your wish is for 150 octane fuel which has been wished for before. It's apparently a game play design choice of the developers. Arguing with other players won't change that.
-
Your wish is for 150 octane fuel which has been wished for before. It's apparently a game play design choice of the developers. Arguing with other players won't change that.
Thats true enough. But things can change with time. So far I haven't seen a dev in here.
-
Can the f4u get a power boost too? I want hogs that can climb
-
Thats true enough. But things can change with time. So far I haven't seen a dev in here.
If you see a dev in here it would probably be to lock this thread. From experience, HTC do not like too vocal requests. If you seriously want a 150 octan (perked) mustang, you'd better be prepared for a LONG campaign - and by "long" I mean years. You'd have to compete with the rest of the Whirlewind, Beaufighter, JU88 variants, He217, D.520, etc. requests that are just as good or better. You'll have to be diplomatic about it because approval by HTC would mean that the P47, P38, Spit14, Mosquito fans will want their 150 rides as well, and that is plenty of work for HTC to introduce what would have to be perked planes.
-
Dan I'd be happy to see if HE could post one picture of a data block WITH 150 octane on it. :devil
I can post a few. The issue isn't that it was used. I've not ever said it wasn't. We are going to disagree that it was standard for 1944-45 Mustangs.
If the argument is claiming the Lutwaffe AH birds are the latest and greatest, then it's not enough. If you can't hold your own with the AH Luftwaffe birds in an AH 51 then it won't make a difference if you have 150 octane fuel.
-
Thats true enough. But things can change with time. So far I haven't seen a dev in here.
Pssst. It's under 'Company Info' and 'About Us' -
HiTech Creations - Customer Relations
HiTech Creations, Inc.
11751 Alta Vista Rd
Suite 203
Keller, TX 76244
(817) 431 - 8840
(817) 431 - 8886 fax
Contact E-mail: info@hitechcreations.com <-
Billing E-mail: billing@hitechcreations.com
Support E-mail: support@hitechcreations.com
~~~~~
Much better than trying to 'whip up support' by referring to challengers as 'stupid' or 'ignorant' (in a public forum where the community knows those individuals much better than you do) and then responding to requests to know you better (offering you a chance to vet your qualifications) with a defensive and surly attitude (avoiding such at all cost).
-
I always love you self-proclaimed experts mounted on your mountain of a pedestal. You have your circle of people you trust in your closed off little world where anything you aren't fed from said people you ignore. Lots of people write on the internet, and many of them are idiots. Good to know you've read threads on there about 150 grade, and also good to know that you turned off your mind shortly thereafter as you regard something you read on a forum as the end all be all of historical fact and game balance.
You dont know who are addressing either. And it is clear from this thread that you place more stock in inferences you can make about a person you know or dont know than you do about the facts.
Wow,talk about inferred...... How you can say I'm a self proclaimed anything is beyond me and speaks of a weak argument...
Personally I could careless if HTC did a perked 150 grade P51,or Mossie or spit as it would make little or no difference to me! Your claims of AH have the latest and greatest LW birds isnt correct either but I fear I'm waisting my breath as you cant see past the point on your head.
I only posted because you told Guppy to do some research.... It was obvious that you had no idea who you were talking down to as Guppy has done more "research" than most around here.
As for your ingame id I could careless about that as I tend to treat all players the same,I've been known to make exceptions though and as a result I dont really want to know who you are so my help or advice will still be made available,ya even to you!
I will stop before I say some thing I might regret,unlike some others around here.... :rolleyes:
:salute :bhead