Author Topic: 109 K-4 with 1.98ata (Read 10500 times)

Charge · « **Reply #30 on:** August 07, 2005, 04:39:19 PM »

"AINT GONNA HAPPEN - Be happy with your 1.8ata K-4."

"There will be no 1.98ata K-4."

Do you know this by fact or is this extremely wishful thinking?

Fairness? Slight addittion to 109's boost and its unfair? I guess you don't fly that bird too much?

It certainly would be too much if 109s would manage to get away from a fight and you couldn't outturn, outroll, outenergy, outgun them, huh?

Jayzuz...

-C+

J_A_B · « **Reply #31 on:** August 07, 2005, 04:39:26 PM »

"To say aircraft should be included/excluded based on a competitive basis kinda deafeat this wouldn't you say. "

We all know that every single sub-type which saw action won't be included--not even close. If you're going to pick and choose, then pick and choose the ones that match up the best.

I would bet you that 262's are somehow restricted, or scenarios using them simply won't happen very often. Shooting fish in a barrel might be fun for the guy doing the shooting, but it isn't much fun for the fish. If you want to build a game where you're flying against people and not AI, you have to keep things competative for both sides. It doesn't have to be perfect, but it has to be reasonably close.

What is the boost level of the Spit 14 as currently available in AH2?

Charge--can you give me performance info for the 1.8 and 1.98ata 109's? By "slight addition", am I right to assume the current AH2 109G-10 is equal to 1.8ata?

J_A_B

Angus · « **Reply #32 on:** August 07, 2005, 04:40:22 PM »

Oh, Kev, don't get me wrong:
"957 Spit XIV vs 1700 K-4 total production.
So yes on that the Spit 14 is rarer. "

A much more accurate figure about how common the aircraft was would be to count sorties. Just harder to get the data, - but I'll put my money on the XIV.
Some allied fighter pilots finished a whole TOD without ever even getting into combat.
Knew this old stick who described his escort missions (P51, to Berlin) as totally tedious and rather uneventful.

Kev367th · « **Reply #33 on:** August 07, 2005, 04:45:40 PM »

J_A_B current boost is 18.

Kev367th · « **Reply #34 on:** August 07, 2005, 04:47:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charge
"AINT GONNA HAPPEN - Be happy with your 1.8ata K-4."

"There will be no 1.98ata K-4."

Do you know this by fact or is this extremely wishful thinking?

Fairness? Slight addittion to 109's boost and its unfair? I guess you don't fly that bird too much?

It certainly would be too much if 109s would manage to get away from a fight and you couldn't outturn, outroll, outenergy, outgun them, huh?

Jayzuz...

-C+

No it wouldn't, by why expect other people to put up with the same situation?
Works both ways you know.

No 1.98 - Depends if you think another LW plane thats rarer than rocking horse sh** will get added. (we already have 1). I don't.
I still remember the fuss over 4 cannoned (1942 Mk V ingame) Spits, there were more of them flying around lol. Followed by the invetible it would have to be perked BS.

Would you also consider it right that a perk plane would be needed to combat it, unless you were in the same plane?

Any thoughts on
Spit 14 18lbs - 12 perks (won't be in new lineup, just in for comparison)
K4 1.8ata - 8 perks
Spit 14 21lbs - 15 perks
K4 1.98ata - 20 perks

I wish the LW guys had got together and done their list 1st, then us Spit guys would have come out with opponents for them. Then the situation would be in reverse. i.e. an F.21 - did see combat (sort of), and were 120 delivered, not the 79 operational K4's in April 45.
In fact the whole jist is not how many - but how many of the 79 were on 1.98ata, so far Kurfy has produced no solid evidence whatsover, just assumptions.

So far all we have is (not disputed)-
4 units were ordered to convert Mar 20 1945
20 units were to be refitted with K4's
Another expert who says the conversions were SLOW.
April 9 1945 there were 79 operational K4

The 20 units never recieved K4's
So we are to believe that all 79 of the remianing K4's upgraded to 1.98ata, I don't dispute some probably did, but a lot less 79 would be a REASONABLE guess given Germanys predicament 1 month before the end of the war.

Unless Kurfy can produce solid evidence to the contrary of course.

Would you be happy giving the RAF a May 1944 25lbs boost Spit IX?

Kev367th · « **Reply #35 on:** August 08, 2005, 04:02:58 AM »

Sorry guys had to add this - found on another forum Kurfy posts to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3441006933/r/3831072243
Dated July 28 2005.

C3 fuel stocks- needed for 1.98ata

23 april 45- 116,000l
28 april 45 - 80,000l

This he says demonstrates heavy reiliance on C3 fuel - DOES IT

116,000-80,000=36000/5 days = 7200l per day

Divide that by 400l (fuel capacity of K4/G10 without drops) = 18 sorties per day.
Even allowing returning home with 1/4 tank that only = 24 per day
These are total sorties for ALL C3 1.98ata aircraft not just K4

Ok benefit of doubt:
They all returned home safely with a 1/4 tank
NONE were shot down
NONE were lost on the ground
NO aircraft flew more than 1 sortie per day (ie 24 sorties, 24 aircraft).
Even allowing for a 50% swing on odd days i.e 1 day 12 sorties, next day 36, that still isn't even 1/2 of the K4 available, and that still assuming ALL C3 went to the K4 only.

So we have an average of 24 sorties per day for 5 days for ALL C3 aircraft (K4, G10 etc), and this supports 79 K4's all running 1.98ata?
What is more likely as I have speculated is that very few of the remaining 79 K4 could use 1.98ata.

The more you dig into Kurfys 'assumptions' the more unbelievable they become.

So Kurfy get all the benfits of the doubt and it still doesn't add up: Is it just me or can anyone see the flaw in Kurfys logic, if its just me, please say so.

Charge · « **Reply #36 on:** August 08, 2005, 04:55:55 AM »

"Charge--can you give me performance info for the 1.8 and 1.98ata 109's? By "slight addition", am I right to assume the current AH2 109G-10 is equal to 1.8ata?"

If it is equal, so what? Is it too fast?

What is the only asset 109 has over Spit?

If it dives it compresses so bad it is an easy target, if it tries to climb away the slight advantage in climb rate is not enough to take it away before the hizookas rip it to pieces (talking about 1k wonderkill).

Turn? Maybe in a perfect world it would be remotely possible, but this is not it so that is probably not a good idea either.

Armed with a 30mm I would have to get so close to that Spit that getting away would need huge advantage in speed and you know how good 109 is in high speed...

If I were the 109 I'd prolly just fly through merge full throttle and seek for easier prey.

These are, of course, my assumptions based on their relative performance in the MA. Maybe some 109 ace could prove me wrong -I wouldn't mind that.

-C+

Kev367th · « **Reply #37 on:** August 08, 2005, 05:10:08 AM »

Actually best person to ask is 'Yaws', he's an absolute nightmare in the G-10.

FalconSix · « **Reply #38 on:** August 08, 2005, 05:46:16 AM »

IIRC HTC doesn't model production quality problems or fuel problems. Every aircraft in AH is in ideal condition burning the fuel it was designed to burn, not what was available on the battlefield 60 years ago.

hogenbor · « **Reply #39 on:** August 08, 2005, 06:04:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charge
"Charge--can you give me performance info for the 1.8 and 1.98ata 109's? By "slight addition", am I right to assume the current AH2 109G-10 is equal to 1.8ata?"

If it is equal, so what? Is it too fast?

What is the only asset 109 has over Spit?

If it dives it compresses so bad it is an easy target, if it tries to climb away the slight advantage in climb rate is not enough to take it away before the hizookas rip it to pieces (talking about 1k wonderkill).

Turn? Maybe in a perfect world it would be remotely possible, but this is not it so that is probably not a good idea either.

Armed with a 30mm I would have to get so close to that Spit that getting away would need huge advantage in speed and you know how good 109 is in high speed...

If I were the 109 I'd prolly just fly through merge full throttle and seek for easier prey.

These are, of course, my assumptions based on their relative performance in the MA. Maybe some 109 ace could prove me wrong -I wouldn't mind that.

-C+

I happily take on 'our' Spit IX in 'our' G-2, if the pilot is of my own (average) skill. But when flying a G-6 or G-10 with the 30mm it is indeed very hard to hit a well known Spit. Shooting is what I'm best at in this game, but it still is hard for all but the best.

The current G-10's performance is not much different from a XIV, maybe the biggest difference is low level speed. I never flew the XIV much but it being a Spit I expect it to be a lot more maneuverable and easier to handle than a G-10. Not a good match. If the performance gap closes, the G-10 is at a big disadvantage to late war Spits as it handles so much worse than the F-4 and G-2.

That having said, I like flying 109's, they are much more demanding to fly than Spits but they are still very capable. Yesterday I had a co-alt merge in a 109-E with a well flown Niki and was surprised how well I did. I even pinged him twice before we ended up on the deck, stallfighting. I lost, but a most satisfying fight.

Kev367th · « **Reply #40 on:** August 08, 2005, 06:25:27 AM »

Scan from doc Dated Mar 19 1945, 1 day before the order to modify 3 K4 units to 1.98ata C3.

Can clearly see at least 1 K4 unit is running B4 fuel. Shame we can't see the rest, would be nice to see if all were running B4.

If so this would mean -
All K4's miraculously converted in <20 days (April 9th) despite shortage of plugs and as said conversions going SLOWLY.
That they suddenly started recieving C3 fuel, most of which was already allocated to the 190s.
Bearing in mind previous post that 36000l of C3 was used in 5 days, I guess the fuel fairies are at it again.

If anything there is a much much stronger case for a C3 based 190 than a 109-K4.

Furball · « **Reply #41 on:** August 08, 2005, 12:50:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Guppy35
Spit XII, pretty please, with sugar on top?

Dan/CorkyJr

HT needs to post his bribe link again

MiloMorai · « **Reply #42 on:** August 08, 2005, 01:03:13 PM »

Quote

Well if you have plenty of evidence Angus, please post it, for we are lacking evidence in this thread.

Say, the amount of 87 vs. 100 octane fuel consumed by FC during to battle would be a good start.

Otherwise, the 100 octane was norm statements looks like wishful thinking...

This from the Spit I thread.

Is it a one way street Kurfy?

You ask for 87-100 octane fuel consumption but you continually fail to post any official documents that shows the quantity of C3 fuel delivered and consummed to/by K-4 units.

For sure, your continued statements of any/all K-4s using 1.98 is nothing but wishful thinking.... Naw, more like wishful dreaming.

Kev367th · « **Reply #43 on:** August 08, 2005, 01:58:16 PM »

Interesting - for an idea of what may be considered as evidence of fuel usage by ANY plane look at the Spit I climb rate thread

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=156774

The major difference - Kurfys claim that as they were ordered to do it, they must have carried it out vs actual scanned docs of fuel usage, pilot reports of 12lbs Spit I's, stockpile lists. etc

Thats all I'm asking for - same set of standards for both sides.
Not we have to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt yet Kurfys assumptions are good enough here.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #44 on:** August 08, 2005, 03:33:44 PM »

Kev, just a little bit of trivia.

Slighty more Dora 9s(~1800) were built than Kurfurst 4s(~1700).