PDA

View Full Version : petition: more +21/25lbs BOOST planes in the next patch!



Cokol_88IAP
01-06-2006, 06:41 AM
We have so many beautifull late ware planes, but a high performance P-51D is still missing.

25lbs result 1940hp, 28lbs even more (>2150)

From feb44 to march45 55% of the produced aviationfuel was 100/150 grade, so lets assume most fighters used it and exploited higher MPs.

I like to see:

P-51D using 25 lbs
SpitIX using 25/28lbs

This would be soooooo nice!


Btw: I would be also very nice to raise the stallspeeds of Fw-190 series, nowadays it should be around 200km/h clear, not 160 IAS.


UPDATED WISHLIST:

some proposal to change existing types for more realism and better gameplay

SpitIXc, Merlin 61: 16lbs: '43
SpitIXe, Merlin 66: 25lbs: '44

P-51D-20NA- V-1650-7, 100/150grade +21/25lbs
Bf-109 G-6/AS to normal AS with 1435hp - 1944

check stallspeed of Fw-190 series
check cal.50 armament (desync)
check P-51 structural strenght

Dear programers, if necessary I may provide original docs for specification, just mail me-> sokol@88-iap.de

Cokol_88IAP
01-06-2006, 06:41 AM
We have so many beautifull late ware planes, but a high performance P-51D is still missing.

25lbs result 1940hp, 28lbs even more (>2150)

From feb44 to march45 55% of the produced aviationfuel was 100/150 grade, so lets assume most fighters used it and exploited higher MPs.

I like to see:

P-51D using 25 lbs
SpitIX using 25/28lbs

This would be soooooo nice!


Btw: I would be also very nice to raise the stallspeeds of Fw-190 series, nowadays it should be around 200km/h clear, not 160 IAS.


UPDATED WISHLIST:

some proposal to change existing types for more realism and better gameplay

SpitIXc, Merlin 61: 16lbs: '43
SpitIXe, Merlin 66: 25lbs: '44

P-51D-20NA- V-1650-7, 100/150grade +21/25lbs
Bf-109 G-6/AS to normal AS with 1435hp - 1944

check stallspeed of Fw-190 series
check cal.50 armament (desync)
check P-51 structural strenght

Dear programers, if necessary I may provide original docs for specification, just mail me-> sokol@88-iap.de

IIJG69_Kartofe
01-06-2006, 06:46 AM
Yes and it would be sooo nice to see modeled the engine failures the allied encountered when testing 150 grade fuel! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG53Frankyboy
01-06-2006, 07:08 AM
the higher boost settings for already existing planes would give the late war western front missions more chances for red.

im sick to give the alies more and more planes in the missions - at the end they are nothing more than more targets for the LW late war crates !

but thats an already very dead horse !
my only hopes are going to the Tempest !


in general it would be nice to change the performances of the following planes to higher boost settings:
-P-51D-20NA:
so we would have the P-51D-5 with the lower setting - also it would bring more differences between these two planes

-Spitfire MK.IXe & LF.MkIXe :
with still having the MkIXc (and Mk.VIII) with the lower setting.

that would not need to add new planes ! "just" to edit the FMs of already existing planes.

at least a high boost Spit would be important - thinking of the NWGermany map.
if a new model:
the LF.Mk.IXe (CW) model as an high boost Mk.XVI http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

carguy_
01-06-2006, 07:27 AM
Not necessary.Just desynch those 50cal,If it can be done on the field mod P40,it can be done on others too.

Other than that,there is no other more welcome plane than the Tmpest/Typhoon.

JG53Frankyboy
01-06-2006, 07:50 AM
desynch the .50cal would sure be helpfull - but thats not all.

an not only the western front suffers from missing performances !
so far i know the Iwo Jima based P-51D s flying over Kyusho in summer 1945 also used higher boost seetings !
not to speak of the perfomance gap betwenn a P-47N (that actually flew over Japan) and the in game P-47D (late).

JG53Harti
01-06-2006, 08:11 AM
yes and a boosted Dora too. would be nice to have

II_JG1Schpam
01-06-2006, 08:18 AM
I say the more the merrier.

I'd like to see a 72" MP P-51D. But then I'd also like to see a true '41 SpitV with +9" boost vice the Spit V we have in-game which is really a +16" boost 1942 version. And an early Spit IX with lesser boost than we have in-game. And a true '44 Fw190D-9 with 1900PS vice the one we have now that outperforms the '45 MW-50 2100PS version.

Heck I'm all for creating generic cockpits for the AI-only planes to make them all flyable. But that's a topic for another thread.

Brain32
01-06-2006, 08:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> yes and a boosted Dora too. would be nice to have </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Transforming late Dora9 to D13 would be awsome.
I wan't the D13.
Hristo, come and join the request http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG53Harti
01-06-2006, 08:40 AM
to less Dora 13`s build so i think we don`t need a D13 in the game.
But it was a nice plane !

JG53Frankyboy
01-06-2006, 08:47 AM
espacially the higher boost Spit IX was far from beeing a seldom plane over Germany late44/45.

the Tempest as Fightercover with such a Spit 9 as fighterbomber would be a fantastic team over the NWGermany map !

hop2002
01-06-2006, 08:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But then I'd also like to see a true '41 SpitV with +9" boost vice the Spit V we have in-game which is really a +16" boost 1942 version. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There never was a 9 lbs boost Spitfire V, not in Western Europe, anyway. WEP was 12 lbs from the start.

And the current Spitfire V has the climb rate for 16 lbs, but the speed of something less than 9 lbs, iirc.

AKA_TAGERT
01-06-2006, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 88.IAP_SOKOL:
We have so many beautifull late ware planes, but a high performance P-51D is still missing.

25lbs result 1940hp, 28lbs even more (&gt;2150)

From feb44 to march45 55% of the produced aviationfuel was 100/150 grade, so lets assume most fighters used it and exploited higher MPs.

I like to see:

P-51D using 25 lbs
SpitIX using 25/28lbs

This would be soooooo nice!


Btw: I would be also very nice to raise the stallspeeds of Fw-190 series, nowadays it should be around 200km/h clear, not 160 IAS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/78thfg-p51-150grade.jpg

Kwiatos
01-06-2006, 09:18 AM
I would rather have Fw190 A-4 with normal power setting 1.42ata 2700 rpm first.

Kocur_
01-06-2006, 09:24 AM
We do need western allies late WW2 planes with high boost. And while working on P-51D why not get rid of this BS thing with wings getting broken at high speed? And why not de-synch M2s? And why not correct P-47 fuselage DM? In fact why not switch it with LaGGs? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

robban75
01-06-2006, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 88.IAP_SOKOL:
Btw: I would be also very nice to raise the stallspeeds of Fw-190 series, nowadays it should be around 200km/h clear, not 160 IAS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, what a great idea! Let's correct the stall speed only on the Fw 190, and leave all the others untouched! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Higher boosted Spits and Mustangs would be a great addition I think. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

II_JG1Schpam
01-06-2006, 09:27 AM
Thanks for the corrections, Hop. All I know is that according to Oleg the '41 Spit V we have in-game is mislabeled and should be labeled '42 Spit V due to different HP.

AustinPowers_
01-06-2006, 09:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I would rather have Fw190 A-4 with normal power setting 1.42ata 2700 rpm first. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah baby!

Cokol_88IAP
01-06-2006, 09:38 AM
robban, P-51 stall speeds seem correct, spit too, only Fw-190 series is an exeption.

Unknown-Pilot
01-06-2006, 09:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
the higher boost settings for already existing planes would give the late war western front missions more chances for red. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Say what?!

The Mustang Mk3, P-47D Late, UFOrsair, and Spits are amazing performers. To say nothing of the La7 and Yak3.

The Japanese planes are slow enough that they can be easily dealt with by skillful allied flying, and everything else can be beaten either by turning, or with alt advantage, or with group tactics.

Don't get me wrong, the boosted hot rods would be cool. But if we do that, let's get the 190A4 up to proper spec, and bring in the Pfeil and maybe the low alt Ta-152 and the 190D13.
EDIT - and let's fix the high speed roll rate of all the planes, most roll too fast at speed, and the 190 rolls too slowly.

Neither side at the moment has any clear and decisive advantage. Sounds like you want red to have one (again, like it traditionally has in this series).

(But who cares about boosted mustangs anyway? Scew that, bring on the Tigercat, Bearcat and P-47M!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif )

Kira1985
01-06-2006, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Transforming late Dora9 to D13 would be awsome.
I wan't the D13.
Hristo, come and join the request http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

JtD
01-06-2006, 10:04 AM
To cut it short:

Many of us would like to see boost modifications of a lot of already existing planes to close historical gaps, make other interesting scenarios and to get even more variety into this already huge selection.

My most wanted boost mod is the 25lb Spit IX.

faustnik
01-06-2006, 10:09 AM
Another vote here for Spit IX +25 and Mustang IV. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

hop2002
01-06-2006, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thanks for the corrections, Hop. All I know is that according to Oleg the '41 Spit V we have in-game is mislabeled and should be labeled '42 Spit V due to different HP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know, but I think he's wrong.

The thread where he said it is:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/807101562/p/2

But when I pointed out speed was modelled after 9 lbs, Oleg responded with this link to prove it was correct:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030510130758/www.fourthfig...om/eagles/w3134.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20030510130758/www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html)

If you follow the link, you'll see it's for a Spitfire being tested at 9 lbs. The date of the report was 18th June 1941.

That was all a long time ago, though, and I don't know what the current speed of the Spit V in game is. If you test it at sea level, 470 km/h would be roughly correct for 9 lbs, 490 km/h would be about right for 12 lbs, and 510+ for 16 lbs.

Brain32
01-06-2006, 10:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Say what?!

The Mustang Mk3, P-47D Late, UFOrsair, and Spits are amazing performers. To say nothing of the La7 and Yak3.

The Japanese planes are slow enough that they can be easily dealt with by skillful allied flying, and everything else can be beaten either by turning, or with alt advantage, or with group tactics.

Don't get me wrong, the boosted hot rods would be cool. But if we do that, let's get the 190A4 up to proper spec, and bring in the Pfeil and maybe the low alt Ta-152 and the 190D13.
EDIT - and let's fix the high speed roll rate of all the planes, most roll too fast at speed, and the 190 rolls too slowly.

Neither side at the moment has any clear and decisive advantage. Sounds like you want red to have one (again, like it traditionally has in this series).

(But who cares about boosted mustangs anyway? Scew that, bring on the Tigercat, Bearcat and P-47M!!!! ) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely agree with every word(especially the D13 and P47M part). Not to mention that Lufties only have 2 fighter planes, so we should have more variants for different purposes and fighting styles. Allied forces have plenty completely different planes AND their variants...
I'm not saying it's not fair or anything ,it's just that my view of things is that if anybody should complain it should be Blue and by that I mean German blue because even Japan Blue have more different plane types...

robban75
01-06-2006, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 88.IAP_SOKOL:
robban, P-51 stall speeds seem correct, spit too, only Fw-190 series is an exeption. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In clean config I stall the Fw 190A-4 at 170 IAS and 190TAS, I stall the D-9 at 180IAS and 204TAS.

The Spit VIII regular wing and CW stalled at 140IAS and 150TAS, the Vb stalled at 120IAS and 139TAS.

The P-51D stalled at 170IAS and 189TAS.

Many things have changed with the latest patches. I don't know at which speeds the Spit and Mustang should stall.

HayateAce
01-06-2006, 11:23 AM
Yes!

1) Boosted P51D

2) Desynch M2 HMG

3) Allow P51 Fuselage tank to be emptied first

"Just think, someday this plane will be depicted as a joke." *Laughter erupts from group*

http://www.geocities.com/koala51d/Mg-015.jpg

ImpStarDuece
01-06-2006, 02:33 PM
The Spitfire IX/VIII was never declared operational at +28lbs boost, although they were 'tinkered' that way by ground crew..

Rolls Royce were confident that the Merlin 66 family could be run reliably at those pressures, but it was never accepted as a service rating by the RAF. They already had the Griffon running at 2035 hp on +18 lbs, and Rolls Royce were testing the Merlin 145 M at +30lbs boost/ 2,300 hp, so there was little need to push the engines that hard.

While +25lbs would be nice, and give the Spitfire flyers a more competitive plane below 20,000 feet, I think that there are several other Spitfire marks/ modifications that are much more important.

A Spitfire Mk IX with a Merlin 61 @ +16lbs would give the game a true 1942 Spitfire, and also a type that saw solid and continual service for 3 years, instead of just 11-12 months. It was a very important mark, being the first RAF plane capable of taking on the FW 190 in even terms. Similarly a Mk IX with a Merlin 63 @ +18lbs would be appropriate; giving slightly better performance below 22,000 feet without sacrificing the excellent performance above 25,000 feet of the Merlin 61 engined variants.

Kurfurst__
01-06-2006, 02:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 88.IAP_SOKOL:
We have so many beautifull late ware planes, but a high performance P-51D is still missing.

25lbs result 1940hp, 28lbs even more (&gt;2150) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

28 lbs was not cleared in service for the P-51D. Ithink it was tested on the Merlin though.
+25 lbs or 81" was the maximum for them in the RAF, so it should be called "Mustang IV" instead. A handful were around in the RAF, chasing V-1s.

P-51Ds in USAAF service were cleared to 71" boost with 150 grade fuel, and there were very serious problems with engine reliability even then. Looks like the British were really agressive with their engines, though the possibility of an engine failure over England while chasing V-1s is not as bad as over Berlin.. The 71" boost was more of a standard, it was used by a large number of P-51Ds in the 8th AAAF in England, but not in other theatres, say, Italy. Some claims are there about being used in the PTO at the end of the war.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From feb44 to march45 55% of the produced aviationfuel was 100/150 grade, so lets assume most fighters used it and exploited higher MPs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's true - for the production of avgas in the UK. There's a little twist on this data by the guy who dig it up. The - practically - only producer of 150 grade fuel was the UK, which itself was heavily reliedon US import of 100 octane fuel. So the story was that the UK produced a smaller quantity of 150 grade fuel (ca 30 000 tons a month in mid-1944), while importint hundreds of thousends of tons from the US. The amount was enough for about half a dozen of RAF V-1 chasing squadrons, and the to feed the 8th AAF escort fighters. The rest had to do with 100 octane fuel and lower boosts (represented in the game). One just wonders if there would have been so much fuel around, why was it used only the 8th AAAF's fighters for such a long time.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I like to see:

P-51D using 25 lbs
SpitIX using 25/28lbs

This would be soooooo nice!. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Spit IX never used +28lbs boost. +25 lbs is claimed to be introduced in service in 1945 in some squadrons of the 2nd TAF on the continent, which probably happened. The MkXVIs were limited to +21 with their license Packard Merlin engines though.

It would be nice to see the Axis counterparts with high-boost as well, meaning the 109G-10 and 109K-4 at 1.98ata as well, which was introduced at about the same time when +25 lbs began to be used in numbers in the RAF's Spitfire IXs. The original concept in Il-2 was to produce only the 'standard', common boost types, ie. the lower ones. This was applied until the latewar Allied planes came into the sim. The Axis planeset should be treated the same. We only have low powered 109 line in the game, ie. the F4 is at 1.3 ata (no 1.42ata version), the G-2 also at 1.3ata only (no 1.42ata version), G-10/K-4 only 1.8ata version, no 1.98ata version either.

Considering Oleg's lack of interest in those planes and with the development of BoB, I guess we won't see those high powered Allied planes either. A pity, since the +25 lbs SpitIX would be, and was, a nice counterpart for the 109G-14.

BTW, Hop is wrong about +9lbs. In the whole of 1941, the only boost used by the MkV is +9, there's not a single document I've seen showing +12 for 1941. All the Spitfire V tests from 1941 were done with a limitation of +9. The first mention of the +12 is in mid-1942 (August), when it was replaced w. +16 boost, the paper mentioning that engine failures are no longer need to be feared, hmm...

ImpStarDuece
01-06-2006, 04:34 PM
+25lbs was introduced into limited use in May, 1944 Two squadrons, Nos 1 and 165 Squadrons, started to use 150 octane and +25lbs in cross channel sorties.

General use seems to have come in between November 1944-January 1945, by which time the RAF was ordering conversion of 25 Spitfire IX squadrons.

Anti-diver Spitfire IX squadrons also saw use with +25lbs boost levels and then continued using it operationally after the V1 threat had passed.

It seems that there was a reversion to 130 octane in mid-late 1944, mostly for logistics reasons.

faustnik
01-06-2006, 04:52 PM
See article here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

Cokol_88IAP
01-06-2006, 05:03 PM
wishlist:

some proposal to change existing types for more realism and better gameplay

SpitIXc, Merlin 61: 16lbs: '43
SpitIXe, Merlin 66: 25lbs: '44

P-51D-20NA- V-1650-7, 100/150grade +21/25lbs
Bf-109 G-6/AS to normal AS with 1435hp - 1944

check stallspeed of Fw-190 series
check cal.50 armament (desync)
check P-51 structural strenght

Badsight.
01-06-2006, 05:06 PM
the Spitfire Mk14 could use the Mk9 cockpit . . . .

the 25lb boost Mk9 is a pure no-brainer

faustnik
01-06-2006, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 88.IAP_SOKOL:
wishlist:

some proposal to change existing types for more realism and better gameplay

SpitIXc, Merlin 61: 16lbs: '43
SpitIXe, Merlin 66: 25lbs: '44

P-51D-20NA- V-1650-7, 100/150grade +21/25lbs
Bf-109 G-6/AS to normal AS with 1435hp - 1944

check stallspeed of Fw-190 series
check cal.50 armament (desync)
check P-51 structural strenght </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are going to complain about the Fw190 stall speed, you better check a lot of a/c, including the Spitfire "for better realism". Your wishlist seems a little "one-sided". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-06-2006, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
See article here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>NIIIIIIIIICE! Thanks for the link!

And while there I started looking around.. CHECK THIS ONE OUT!

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/25225-doc.html

The P38 was cleared for not 60"MP, not 66"MP, not 70"MP, but 75"MP!

I would LOVE to hear what the NAY SAYERS SAY NOW with regards to the P38L LATE being some kind of UFO! The in-game P38L LATE is only using 66"MP! Oleg should clear it for 75"MP!

p1ngu666
01-06-2006, 06:54 PM
hmmm

25lb boost tempest please, should be rather quick http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

p1ngu666
01-06-2006, 06:55 PM
and mossie too, thinkin about it, plus the obivous spit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

DIRTY-MAC
01-06-2006, 07:02 PM
How about a +13lbs boosted Tempest!
Just need to re chape the prop blades a bit,
to a Rotol configuration,
Hopefully we will get both the +9 lbs and the +11 lbs boosted ones,
and if Alex could model a Rotol prop and send it to Oleg, maybe even a +13lbs tempest http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG53Frankyboy
01-06-2006, 08:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 88.IAP_SOKOL:
wishlist:

some proposal to change existing types for more realism and better gameplay

SpitIXc, Merlin 61: 16lbs: '43
SpitIXe, Merlin 66: 25lbs: '44

P-51D-20NA- V-1650-7, 100/150grade +21/25lbs
Bf-109 G-6/AS to normal AS with 1435hp - 1944

check stallspeed of Fw-190 series
check cal.50 armament (desync)
check P-51 structural strenght </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a Spitfire Mk.IXc with Merlin 61 (the so called Mk.IXA ) of 1942 (!) would need a graphical overwork - no ponted rudder , so , VERY low chances (=0) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
nevertheless it would be nice for some 1942 channel action http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

and IF the Bf109G6/AS would loose its MW50 ( im in for that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) - a Bf109G14 with MG151/20 in the nose would be "needed" to avoid the MK108 overkill of the late war 109s.

but we were there too already long time ago in this forums http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

hop2002
01-06-2006, 08:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BTW, Hop is wrong about +9lbs. In the whole of 1941, the only boost used by the MkV is +9, there's not a single document I've seen showing +12 for 1941. All the Spitfire V tests from 1941 were done with a limitation of +9. The first mention of the +12 is in mid-1942 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Letter from the Ministry of Production
to British Air Commission in the US stating fuel requirements. Date January 3, 1942.

"Our need of British 100 O.N. fuel is not based on any fastidious or academic policy, but dictated by grim war necessities."

"The following are specific examples of increased boosts already cleared or iminent:"

"Merlin 45, 46, 47, covering large proportion of 1942 production fighters introduced in 100 O.N. fuel with emergency boost of 54盻 inch now increased to 60 inch"

faustnik
01-06-2006, 10:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

The P38 was cleared for not 60"MP, not 66"MP, not 70"MP, but 75"MP!

I would LOVE to hear what the NAY SAYERS SAY NOW with regards to the P38L LATE being some kind of UFO! The in-game P38L LATE is only using 66"MP! Oleg should clear it for 75"MP! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

150 grade and P-38 together at last!

Good luck with the 70" MP Tagert. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-06-2006, 11:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
150 grade and P-38 together at last!

Good luck with the 70" MP Tagert. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well it wont happen.. I just like the fact that more an more info on the subjec is comming out that proves Oleg was right to do the LATE and that all the nay sayers were wrong, and that Oleg was being conservtive.. in that he could have made the P38 ever more powerful than he did. That has got to hurt! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif In that not only is it NOT uber... but it the in-game P38L LATE has less power than it really had.

Cokol_88IAP
01-07-2006, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 88.IAP_SOKOL:
wishlist:

some proposal to change existing types for more realism and better gameplay

SpitIXc, Merlin 61: 16lbs: '43
SpitIXe, Merlin 66: 25lbs: '44

P-51D-20NA- V-1650-7, 100/150grade +21/25lbs
Bf-109 G-6/AS to normal AS with 1435hp - 1944

check stallspeed of Fw-190 series
check cal.50 armament (desync)
check P-51 structural strenght </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a Spitfire Mk.IXc with Merlin 61 (the so called Mk.IXA ) of 1942 (!) would need a graphical overwork - no ponted rudder , so , VERY low chances (=0) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
nevertheless it would be nice for some 1942 channel action http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

and IF the Bf109G6/AS would loose its MW50 ( im in for that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) - a Bf109G14 with MG151/20 in the nose would be "needed" to avoid the MK108 overkill of the late war 109s.

but we were there too already long time ago in this forums http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Indeed for fighter combat MG-151 was considered more usefull, well, so makke MG151 selectable for G-14, please!!!

For SpitIX merlin61: well I'dont care about the rudder if the performance is right for mid 43.

Btw. A-5 in game must be a 43 late version, becuase of its low level boost, that was not available earlier. Till novenmber 42, A-4 is the right plane, sucessively replaced by our ingame A-5 ;-)

badatflyski
01-07-2006, 11:38 AM
yeah, ask for the boosted versions, but then, put a Me262 in evey dog where those boosted planes are available, i'm sure there were much more 262 in service than those boosted planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Why are people never happy with what they got? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif if someone has difficulties to kill a 190A4 with his spit5...then he should learn how to fly....or he should take a La5/7...
don't ask for boosted planes if you have UFO's already! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hristo_
01-07-2006, 01:43 PM
What these hotrod pushers don't realize is that they are making the 262 more and more valid for DF servers.

keep it up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-07-2006, 01:55 PM
I love 262 servers.. nothing burns as bright as a 262.. It is about the only plane the .50s work well on

JtD
01-07-2006, 01:55 PM
Actually I am more interested in getting a Spitfire that is competetive with the late Focke Wulfs and Messerschmitts than getting a plane able to tangle with jets. There were several thousand Allied planes that recieved a boost increase in the last year of the war. How many Me 262 do you think were in service?

darkhorizon11
01-07-2006, 02:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Harti:
to less Dora 13`s build so i think we don`t need a D13 in the game.
But it was a nice plane ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. Cool airplane, very rare.

darkhorizon11
01-07-2006, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Actually I am more interested in getting a Spitfire that is competetive with the late Focke Wulfs and Messerschmitts than getting a plane able to tangle with jets. There were several thousand Allied planes that recieved a boost increase in the last year of the war. How many Me 262 do you think were in service? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1300 262s built, something like 300 saw combat for sure, almost all on the Western Front. They were relatively rare, the most launched was 52 in one day sometime in Feb? or March? of 1945. Although the Luftwaffe in general was rare at this point in the war with a few decent sized operations.

I've read through all kinds of combat diaries of US and British pilots specificially later in the war and I'd say the 262 was definitely the rarest type encountered with the exception of the Ar 234.

Kocur_
01-07-2006, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Harti:
to less Dora 13`s build so i think we don`t need a D13 in the game.
But it was a nice plane ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. Cool airplane, very rare. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OTOH no more rare than say... I-185, MiG-3U, Yak-3P...

robban75
01-07-2006, 03:49 PM
Yellow 10 was the 17th built D-13. As many as 30 may have left the factory before the war ended.

badatflyski
01-07-2006, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Actually I am more interested in getting a Spitfire that is competetive with the late Focke Wulfs and Messerschmitts than getting a plane able to tangle with jets. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">There were several thousand Allied planes that recieved a boost increase in the last year of the war</span>. How many Me 262 do you think were in service? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got Original Sources and Numbers From the differents army forces???? with an authentical source? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
did You knew that the most English squadrons finished the war with an standard Mk9c?absolutely not modified...(if i'm not wrong... )

JG53Harti
01-07-2006, 04:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
Yellow 10 was the 17th built D-13. As many as 30 may have left the factory before the war ended. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You has the WerksNr. ??
I don`t think so that 30 D13 were built

robban75
01-07-2006, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Harti:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
Yellow 10 was the 17th built D-13. As many as 30 may have left the factory before the war ended. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You has the WerksNr. ??
I don`t think so that 30 D13 were built </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The WerksNr for Yellow 10 is 836017. I borrowed a book from a friend that said that up 30 D-13 might have been built. I can't remember which book it was, I'm sorry. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

faustnik
01-07-2006, 05:01 PM
"Yellow 10, The story of the ultimate Fw 190 D-13" says "17 or more". I've seen pictures of D-11s in operation with Jg302, but, not many of D-13s other than Yellow 10.

Personally, I'd like the firepower of the D-11. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif That would be a fun plane.

p1ngu666
01-07-2006, 05:17 PM
the problem wasnt buliding them, it was getting them where they needed to go, the german transport system was under constant attack. 262's where mostly bulit in despersed centres, so u can see the effect of the lack of transport, 1500~bulit, and 200-300 in service (depending on source) 1500/300 = 5, so 1 in 5 262s actully saw service.

sure, alot still had standard mk9, same on axis side, heck alot of axis pilots found themselves as infantry as they didnt have everything needed to fly...

funny how the raf felt that the situation was so dire in europe, that XIV's where sent to far east, lincons, hornets, tempests mk2's and other aircraft where put by for the tiger force, or shipped to the east already.

incidently, its no use claiming 25lb IX's, XIV's, p51s, p38s, p47s, tempests and others all just turned up in april 45, while happly using k4's, dora's etc throughout 44.

amusingly, if we went with the naming/yearing of the game with the ta152, the XIV would be a 43 plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

25lb boost and higher boosts, xiv and tempest came out before there contempories, but there was a slower rollout compaired to lw stuff. heck there was a strike by ppl assembling tempests, u wouldnt get that in germany..., would probably get a slave silently sabotaging some equipment he was forced to bulid...

ImpStarDuece
01-07-2006, 05:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by badatflyski:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Actually I am more interested in getting a Spitfire that is competetive with the late Focke Wulfs and Messerschmitts than getting a plane able to tangle with jets. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">There were several thousand Allied planes that recieved a boost increase in the last year of the war</span>. How many Me 262 do you think were in service? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got Original Sources and Numbers From the differents army forces???? with an authentical source? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
did You knew that the most English squadrons finished the war with an standard Mk9c?absolutely not modified...(if i'm not wrong... ) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a 2TAF order for 25 Soitfire Mk IX, 5 Spitfire Mk XVI and 5 Spitfire Mk XIV squadrons to be converted to use 150 octane, dated 20/11/44.

Given an RAF squadron strength of 20 airplanes, thats a minimum figure of 600 Spitfire IX/XVIs, without including combat losses and reserve aircraft. Note that this figure doesn't include Fighter Command squadrons.

p1ngu666
01-07-2006, 06:19 PM
the XIV's would use 21lbs of boost? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kurfurst__
01-08-2006, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
Letter from the Ministry of Production
to British Air Commission in the US stating fuel requirements. Date January 3, 1942.

"Our need of British 100 O.N. fuel is not based on any fastidious or academic policy, but dictated by grim war necessities." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure in 1942 the USAAF was supplied with British octane. Of course in 1942, not a drop of 150 grade fuel was produced, and the USAAF was still small, and could by supplied by British production, especially as the RAF-FC wasn't flying much. Low quality of british fuel lead to well known problems with the P-38.

Consumption of 100 ON fuel in the British Isles.

http://img107.imagevenue.com/loc228/th_da654_100_GRADE_FUEL.JPG (http://img107.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc228&image=da654_100_GRADE_FUEL.JPG)

In May 1944, the weekly consumption of 100 octane fuel was 100 000 tons. That means 400 000 tons in a month.
British production of 100 octane fuel, however, only 38329 tons.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/150production.html

In other words, Britain's own production of 100/130 grade fuel could not satisfy even 1/10th of it's own needs. It relied on heavily on US supplied (like pretty much on everything since 1942)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
"The following are specific examples of increased boosts already cleared or iminent:"

"Merlin 45, 46, 47, covering large proportion of 1942 production fighters introduced in 100 O.N. fuel with emergency boost of 54盻 inch now increased to 60 inch" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, by January 1942, +12 was cleared for the Merlin 45 and co. This same document also claims the Merlin 61 will be cleared for +18 lbs. Which we all know never happened. Appearantly it lists the possible developments.

In 1941, the only documentation shows +9. Which is understandable, since the Merlin 45 were based on the Merlin XX, which was only cleared for +9 when it was introduced.

As for +16 lbs, and it's quite funny to note that in August 1942, there are three other documents noting that at that time +12 was increased to +16 :

1, Faber's AFDU, which we all know mention the boost in the meantime of the tests, the MkV was cleared from +12 to +16. The tests/report was done between July 1942 - Automn 1942 iirc.

2, Another RAF leaflet issued in mid-August, 1942, 'No need to fear the little FW', gives tactical hints to RAF pilots, notes that NOW +16 is cleared, and 'there's no need to fear engine failures'. Hmm... It could be +16 was cleared before, resulted in too many engine failures and was recalled/banned, then re-issued in Augst 1942.

3,
Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment
Boscombe Down
25 November 1942
Spitfire Mk. VC AA.878
(Merlin 45)
Climb, speed, and cooling tests at combat rating

"The operational limitations of the Merlin 45 have been increased, the use of 3000 R.P.M. and +16 lb/sq.in. boost being now permitted for periods not exceeding 3 minutes during combat. Tests have been made to determine the performance of the aeroplane at this new rating, and also whether the oil and radiator cooling are adequate. "

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-V.html


+9 boost being the standard for 1941 :

1,

Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment
Boscombe Down
29 April 1941
Spitfire Mk. VA X.4922
(Merlin XLV)
Brief Performance Trials

SUMMARY

Aeroplane Spitfire V. No. X.4922
Engine Merlin XLV
At 2850 R.P.M. and +9 lb. boost
At 3000 R.P.M. and +9 lb. boost
Total weight = 6,450 lb.
C.G. position 6.2" aft of the datum


2,

Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment
Boscombe Down
18 June 1941
Spitfire Mk. VB W.3134
(Merlin 45)
Brief Performance Trials

SUMMARY

.......Brief performance trials were required of a Spitfire Mk VB fully operationally equipped for comparison with two other aircraft of the type not operationally equipped and previously tested at this establishment.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/w3134speed.gif

+9 again.


No single evidence of higher than +9 boost being used in 1941 I am afraid.

Cokol_88IAP
01-08-2006, 06:58 AM
Kurf端rst, du you have consumption figures for 100/150 grade as well?

Kurfurst__
01-08-2006, 07:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 88.IAP_SOKOL:
Kurf端rst, du you have consumption figures for 100/150 grade as well? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/1-supply-23nov44s.jpg

As per November 1944, monthly consumption was 23 000 tons of 150 grade total, 20 000 by the USAAF in England, and a mere 2000 by the RAF.

On 5th February 1945 the USAAf estimated that 1640 tons of 150 grade fuel is the monthly requirement for one fighter group (ca 3 Squadrons), thus we can estimate that in November 1944 apprx.

4-5 Squadrons in the RAF
and
15 US FGs were usin 150 grade fuel.

That should mean around 60 RAF fighters and a minimum of 450 US fighters using 150 grade fuel (but keep in mind that the US was boosting the planes much more conservatively with the new fuel, to 71" boost), in England.

JG53Harti
01-08-2006, 08:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
"Yellow 10, The story of the ultimate Fw 190 D-13" says "17 or more". I've seen pictures of D-11s in operation with Jg302, but, not many of D-13s other than Yellow 10.

Personally, I'd like the firepower of the D-11. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif That would be a fun plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


D13 were more than 5 build but not for sure how many else.
In the book you can`t find the correct WerksNr but there you can read that some Dora`s were rebuild to D13. So it may be correct with 30 D13 but nobody knows for sure



But for more Doras`S used the A-Lader

luftluuver
01-08-2006, 08:32 AM
Kurfurst, I see no Nov on the document you posted. Sure it is not for Dec?

That mere 2000t of fuel is enough for a mere 7320 Spitfire sorties.

Nice twist you try to put on. Naturally the USAAF would need more fuel as its missions were at 3-4 time the range of British missions and had many more a/c with a much greater fuel capacity requiring 150 fuel.


Btw, I heard a rumor that you were given a 'persona non grata' status ie. a permanent ban from the Aces High board. Unacceptable behavior I was told.

p1ngu666
01-08-2006, 11:59 AM
244 sorties per day that works out as http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

crazyivan1970
01-08-2006, 12:06 PM
lets keep adding more boost, ect ect to allied planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Will that help.... doubt it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
01-08-2006, 12:23 PM
ya, who needs a extra 30mph and climbrate increase..., just yesterday i was on a map with only spits vs 109s, every single one was a alcholic 109.... apart from me in a g6late http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

i got shot down alot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

mind the extra power would perhaps make the spitfire even more unstable and wobbly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

robban75
01-08-2006, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Harti:
But for more Doras`S used the A-Lader </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have any info on Dora's using the A-lader that you'd like to share with us? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

faustnik
01-08-2006, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Harti:
But for more Doras`S used the A-Lader </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have any info on Dora's using the A-lader that you'd like to share with us? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I'd like to hear that one too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Cokol_88IAP
01-09-2006, 04:45 AM
solid work, kurf端rst, what is the source for the full report? I'd klike to read it...

For the germans: A 1,98ATA 2000PS K-4 would also roundup the scene.
But i do think we need no more Fw-190 D s, that were not produced in numbers.

robban75
01-09-2006, 05:36 AM
I'd like a late war Fw 190A-5. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif And once and for all, the removal of the ETC 501. Also, it'd be nice if the were was some way to chose between the plain and bulged canopy. Plus, I'd like to see an ETC 504 rack for the D-9's. It was fitted most of the time on the real aircraft.

WOLFMondo
01-09-2006, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
the Spitfire Mk14 could use the Mk9 cockpit . . . .

the 25lb boost Mk9 is a pure no-brainer </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The MkXIV cockpit was a revised VIII cockpit which is slightly different to the IX's. The main difference between the XIV and the previous versions was the throttle unit was in a different place and the levers were longer, AFAIK.

WOLFMondo
01-09-2006, 06:08 AM
Maybe add a 25lbs Spit but I'd rather Oleg spent the little time he has adding in the last of the new planes and tweaking what we have already.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:

incidently, its no use claiming 25lb IX's, XIV's, p51s, p38s, p47s, tempests and others all just turned up in april 45, while happly using k4's, dora's etc throughout 44.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tempest on 25lbs boost? . Most they were cleared for was 11lbs, and only the IIC version was 13lbs. Overboosting was a different matter but never 25lbs.

Kurfurst__
01-09-2006, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Maybe add a 25lbs Spit but I'd rather Oleg spent the little time he has adding in the last of the new planes and tweaking what we have already. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd love to have anything new in the game, but I have to agree with that... the FM is a complete mess still, speeds are wrong, climbs are wrong, roll rate seems to be out of ballpark for all planes.

And why add a Spitfire XIV anyway if we already have it, as the HF IX is just as fast as the XIV, being a mere 40 kph overmodelled...? And when the MkV Spit can climb with the high altitude MkIX and G-10 at altitude with no problem, it's ROC being 'just' twice as much as it should be? When will be these issues fixed ?

p1ngu666
01-09-2006, 07:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Maybe add a 25lbs Spit but I'd rather Oleg spent the little time he has adding in the last of the new planes and tweaking what we have already.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:

incidently, its no use claiming 25lb IX's, XIV's, p51s, p38s, p47s, tempests and others all just turned up in april 45, while happly using k4's, dora's etc throughout 44.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tempest on 25lbs boost? . Most they were cleared for was 11lbs, and only the IIC version was 13lbs. Overboosting was a different matter but never 25lbs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

waitin for someone to pick that up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif. 25lb boost on a sabre engine would give a unholy amount of power http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

AustinPowers_
01-09-2006, 07:51 AM
+25 boost Tempest. I've seen it somewhere.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JS312RAF
01-09-2006, 08:26 AM
u have my vote to boosted spit.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HellToupee
01-09-2006, 11:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Maybe add a 25lbs Spit but I'd rather Oleg spent the little time he has adding in the last of the new planes and tweaking what we have already. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd love to have anything new in the game, but I have to agree with that... the FM is a complete mess still, speeds are wrong, climbs are wrong, roll rate seems to be out of ballpark for all planes.

And why add a Spitfire XIV anyway if we already have it, as the HF IX is just as fast as the XIV, being a mere 40 kph overmodelled...? And when the MkV Spit can climb with the high altitude MkIX and G-10 at altitude with no problem, it's ROC being 'just' twice as much as it should be? When will be these issues fixed ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

your joking about the HF right please tell me you are. No mkv can keep up with me at alt in a mk9 just ask bna.

I think u just fear the total an uttery complete domination a xiv will have over that hunk of junk the kurfust.

HayateAce
01-09-2006, 11:27 AM
BOOST!

p1ngu666
01-09-2006, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
+25 boost Tempest. I've seen it somewhere.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

be around 5000hp http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

&lt;prop&gt;NO WAI! *cries*

luftluuver
01-09-2006, 01:24 PM
Napier tested a Sabre at 3850rpm, 70.6"Hg and got 3500hp. With ADI, this was increased to 4000hp.

IIJG69_Kartofe
01-09-2006, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Harti:
But for more Doras`S used the A-Lader </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have any info on Dora's using the A-lader that you'd like to share with us? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I'd like to hear that one too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the D13 will be a banned plane as the MW50 dora is! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

p1ngu666
01-09-2006, 02:22 PM
dont think the mw50 dora is banned cos its uber, its just due to slimming of planesets. how often u see yak9's?

and u often only see the zero 5c on servers, which was the worst zero ever made, so its not so bad for 190 fliers..

Kurfurst__
01-09-2006, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
your joking about the HF right please tell me you are. No mkv can keep up with me at alt in a mk9 just ask bna. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't need to ask him, il2compare shows how badly the MkV is overmodelled in it's ROC at high altitude, and i've experienced it myself. It would seem that Oleg modelled it's ROC as per the boost line of MkVc. Seriously. It shouldn't keep up with 109s and MkIXs at 6-7000m in slow climbs, yet it does.
IMHO adressing these issues is more important than another add-on with a flawed FM.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think u just fear the total an uttery complete domination a xiv will have over that hunk of junk the kurfust. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not worried about it's performance - the XIV will find it hard to come close to the 109K - I am only worried about people's whines about the lack of that expected total domination. We have seen it for dozens of 109-backbreaker wannabe uberplanes.. high hopes, mediocre performance.

Little chance for that, looking at the progress of the 3d model. Pity.

II_JG1Schpam
01-09-2006, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Harti:
But for more Doras`S used the A-Lader </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have any info on Dora's using the A-lader that you'd like to share with us? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I'd like to hear that one too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the D13 will be a banned plane as the MW50 dora is! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The D-9 '45 isn't banned but rather the '44 D-9 performs better than the '45 Dora so there is no need for it. Just follow the link in Faustnik's sig to the "190 Consortium" and look at the thread marked "190 Speeds in 4.02".

Hush! Or you'll get us the lesser performing plane on DF servers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HellToupee
01-09-2006, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I am not worried about it's performance - the XIV will find it hard to come close to the 109K - I am only worried about people's whines about the lack of that expected total domination. We have seen it for dozens of 109-backbreaker wannabe uberplanes.. high hopes, mediocre performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mediocre performance? with its deck speeds and climb pretty much equal and then superior at altitude, and its vastly superior manoverabilty at all alts and speeds, at the moment i find 109s the easy kill from the g2 to the k4 in a spit 9. XIV is for keeping up with late 190s not them push over 109s

JtD
01-09-2006, 10:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

I don't need to ask him, il2compare shows how badly the MkV is overmodelled in it's ROC at high altitude... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Kurf端rst. You are the reason we'll never get a new version of IL-2 compare. Not only you are abusing it to take out performance figures that are not present in the game, you actually post that BS in the ORR. IX HF 40 kph too fast...if it wasn't so sad you'd make me laugh.

Btw, what should the roc for a Spit V be at say 26.000 ft? Maybe about 1800 feet/minute as shown in IL-2 compare?

luftluuver
01-10-2006, 03:58 AM
Careful JtD or Kurfurst will go on one of his tirades like he did at Aces High resently that got himself banned.

Kurfurst__
01-10-2006, 04:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Thanks Kurf端rst. You are the reason we'll never get a new version of IL-2 compare. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously.

Kurfurst__
01-10-2006, 04:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
Mediocre performance? with its deck speeds and climb pretty much equal and then superior at altitude, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, it's deck speed is 580 kph, not an ounce better than any 109 we have in the game. It's low level climb rate is the same as the MkIX. So what's so frigging scary about it? Yep above 8000m it's probably the best plane along with the Ta 152H - I am sure that one out of 500 dogfights happen at that altitude.. At the typical 0-4000m alt range, it has nothing extra to offer, La-7s are much better in all respects yet nobody whines about the La-7.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and its vastly superior manoverabilty at all alts and speeds, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, a plane that's offers 1100 lbs extra weight should be 'vastly more manouverable at all heights'. Or perhaps not. Even JJ Johnson said it's nice and powerful, but handling detoriated so much that it wasn't a Spitfire anymore. Speed was more important.
it's the heaviest of all Spitfires, half a ton heavier than the IX you are flying now, and it will be felt.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> at the moment i find 109s the easy kill from the g2 to the k4 in a spit 9. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because of two reasons, a being the Spitfire's speed is still not corrected, the IXHF and LF doing around 30-40kph more at altitude than it should, second, many people flying their w 109 poor tactics. They should rely on their speed advantage, giving you no chance to even shoot at them. Personally I never find Spitfires to be any particularly challanging opponents, they are far too slow for that, it's always me decides wheter to engage them or not, and even in dogfights they seem to be just a match in manouveribility, it's all about who flies them. Even in a G-6 I don't feel outmatched, just - matched. No, I am not particularly concerned about the XIV. As I said with every allied plane add-on it was claimed to Da Uhber Doh-min-a-tor 109-breaker unstoppable killing machine and when it came... it didn't really change anyting.

ImpStarDuece
01-10-2006, 04:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


That's because of two reasons, a being the Spitfire's speed is still not corrected, the IXHF and LF doing around 30-40kph more at altitude than it should </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, their not. In fact the modelling seems to be on the lower side of the published performance specs, not the high side. Still within acceptable limits though.

We've gone over this before, and I've tested all Spitfires since 3.03m and put the data up every time you have mentioned this. But you keep coming back to this completely false claim. Can you actually give us any proof of an in-game Mk IX doing 30-40 km faster than real world tested performance, at any altitude?

*EDIT*

I just tested the HF IX at sea level, 10,000 feet, 20,000 feet and 30,000 feet. Speeds matched RAF figures to within +/- 2 mph, which i'll put down to a lack of piloting skills.

Altitude------In game data------- RAF tests

Sea-level: 533 kph/331 mph 331 mph

10,000 feet: 598 kph/ 372 mph 373 mph

20,000 feet: 677 kph/ 390 mph 392 mph

30,000 feet: 665 kph/ 414 mph 413 mph

Kurfurst__
01-10-2006, 06:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
We've gone over this before, and I've tested all Spitfires since 3.03m and put the data up every time you have mentioned this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, sure you have, funny, I can't remember this happening. Can you actually show me where 'mentioned this every time' - are you sure you did not just make the whole story up?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Can you actually give us any proof of an in-game Mk IX doing 30-40 km faster than real world tested performance, at any altitude? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Be careful what you ask for, you might as get it...

http://img125.imagevenue.com/loc133/th_cc87d_spit9speed.JPG (http://img125.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc133&image=cc87d_spit9speed.JPG)

Here you are, the LF IX doing 685 kph instead of ~650kph (+40 kph too fast), the HF IX doing ~710kph. That's a good 40 kph faster than the real life specs.


I think issues like this should be adressed first before adding new planes.

Cokol_88IAP
01-10-2006, 06:54 AM
Kurf端rst, ypur information regarding Spit IX is not correct, try yourself, speed is modelled correctly.

Kurfurst__
01-10-2006, 07:51 AM
Roger Sokol, I checked the speeds myself on the okinawa map, and the IXHF speeds indeed seem to have been corrected. I've got around ~675 kph at 8000m.

Comparing ImpSD's test with real life tests with IXHF EN 524, which had correctly set fuel mixture :

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/en524speed.gif

Sea-level: 533 kph/331 mph 331 mph -OK

10,000 feet: 598 kph/ 372 mph 372 mph -OK

20,000 feet: 677* kph/ 390 mph 382 mph +8mph

30,000 feet: 665 kph/ 414 mph 408 mph +6mph


*prob. conv. typo

JtD
01-10-2006, 09:06 AM
And if you wouldn't pick the worst chart and wouldn't additionally read it wrong you'd notice that the Spits performance is very much on spot - or worded differently: In terms of level speed very close to the original.

20000 ft: Your chart: 392 mph, not 382.
30000 ft: Another chart of a Spit that did only suffer at high altitude because of a too rich mixture: 413 mph.
The other chart at 20000ft: 392 mph

Congrats on overcoming your ignorance with regards to the modelled Spitfire top speeds, but good try to post another IL-2compare screenshot nonetheless. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kurfurst__
01-10-2006, 09:39 AM
You sound like a 40+ woman during her period. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AustinPowers_
01-10-2006, 10:08 AM
Kurfurst once again proving he has 0 credibility.

I guess it hurt when you got laughed out of your own thread regarding numbers of SpitIXs in the RAF?

WWMaxGunz
01-10-2006, 10:11 AM
The sim has changed more than a little since the last IL2Compare was out yet it lives on here!

Really, what was possible or tried or saw limited use should not be a basis for what we get to
represent all of any limited model in the sim. What was used and is chosen is what we got.

Give it a rest!

HellToupee
01-10-2006, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
yet nobody whines about the La-7.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Sure, a plane that's offers 1100 lbs extra weight should be 'vastly more manouverable at all heights'. Or perhaps not. Even JJ Johnson said it's nice and powerful, but handling detoriated so much that it wasn't a Spitfire anymore. Speed was more important.
it's the heaviest of all Spitfires, half a ton heavier than the IX you are flying now, and it will be felt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"it was both fast and powerful but it's not a Spitfire anymore"

i dont see him saying the xiv is so bad, the xiv had a much differnt feel the propeller rotated ina completly differnt direction and generated alot of torque and the plane required constant trimming, there was also bubble top spitfire xivs which to some no longer looked like spitfires.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
It's low level climb rate is the same as the MkIX. So what's so frigging scary about it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://users.atw.hu/kurfurst/articles/spit14v109k-climb.jpg

from ur own web page

Kocur_
01-10-2006, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
yet nobody whines about the La-7.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

EXCUSE ME http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I did "whine" about La-7 (et consortes), with tiny bit of positive response. But game's official policy of making tired (by ignoring them or responding with some B(e)S(ure)) those who have objections regarding MIRACULOUS FM, DM and even history of soviet planes - works http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

p1ngu666
01-10-2006, 12:11 PM
i whine about la7 too, but think we've given up as a community, we've whine about it since i start to fly FB, and im sure before that too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

kurfy is right tho, k4 will outclimb XIV ingame cos k4 does 28-30metres a sec upto 5k http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

roc doesnt decay with height, so its very overmodeled at some heights, but ok at others...

max, il2c is still widely used as it gives alot of information simply and clearly about what WAS in the game. without looking at all sorts of tests etc, (which id haveto find, for each plane) its the best source of data for us fliers. i use it mainly for coop buliding, so i can have good plane matchups

luftluuver
01-10-2006, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
Kurfurst once again proving he has 0 credibility.

I guess it hurt when you got laughed out of your own thread regarding numbers of SpitIXs in the RAF? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have noticed the same on many occasions, the lastest being a 51 thread. Or Ivan comes along and locks the tread when he is getting thrashed too much because of his bs. Did Kurfurst whine to Ivan?

Why is he crying croc tears about the performances at altitude? It was my understanding that high altitude performnce was not well done because of coding as a low altitude game.

ImpStarDuece
01-10-2006, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Roger Sokol, I checked the speeds myself on the okinawa map, and the IXHF speeds indeed seem to have been corrected. I've got around ~675 kph at 8000m.

Comparing ImpSD's test with real life tests with IXHF EN 524, which had correctly set fuel mixture :

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/en524speed.gif

Sea-level: 533 kph/331 mph 331 mph -OK

10,000 feet: 598 kph/ 372 mph 372 mph -OK

20,000 feet: 677* kph/ 390 mph 382 mph +8mph

30,000 feet: 665 kph/ 414 mph 408 mph +6mph


*prob. conv. typo </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your comparing LF IX speeeds, not HF IX speeds http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Convinient typo my lilly white aspidistras.

From your own documenet it is CLEAR that at 20,000 feet the HF IX recorded speeds of 392-395 mph, and at 30,000 feet 408-413, depending on the reduction gear ratio.

Your not even reading the graphs you poseted correctly. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kurfurst__
01-10-2006, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
Kurfurst once again proving he has 0 credibility.

I guess it hurt when you got laughed out of your own thread regarding numbers of SpitIXs in the RAF? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have noticed the same on many occasions, the lastest being a 51 thread. Or Ivan comes along and locks the tread when he is getting thrashed too much because of his bs. Did Kurfurst whine to Ivan?

Why is he crying croc tears about the performances at altitude? It was my understanding that high altitude performnce was not well done because of coding as a low altitude game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AustinPowers_ Posts: 28 | Registered: Wed January 04 2006

Appearantly the long-banned MiloMorai had renewed an old habit of his, ie. running 3 nick at a time (AustinPowers_, dadada1, luftluuver), and responding to his own posts... feeling lonely Milo, nobody cares of your garbage right? Nothing produces freaks like the internet... a lonely guy, spending his days running different nicks, responding his own posts.. how sorry is that?

Or at least it's funny from Mr. 'AustinPowers' who registered only a week ago, claiming to know me so well...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee
http://users.atw.hu/kurfurst/articles/spit14v109k-climb.jpg

from ur own web page </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not my graph, it's a home made graph from Mike Williams who's article I criticize there. Probably closer to fiction than reality. But anyway, can you point out what's so scary about it?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece
Your comparing LF IX speeeds, not HF IX speeds </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really, the graphs says it has Merlin 70. You say the Merlin 70 was used in the LF ones, not HF? Well that's news.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From your own documenet it is CLEAR that at 20,000 feet the HF IX recorded speeds of 392-395 mph, and at 30,000 feet 408-413, depending on the reduction gear ratio. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Expect for one small detail, the reduction gear ratio that resulted 413 was not serialized. It's all there in the report.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Your not even reading the graphs you poseted correctly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given the above, sure it's not your problem...?

II_JG1Schpam
01-10-2006, 02:17 PM
Well so much for what was actually a worthwhile thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Thanks to all who took it into the mud and endeavor to keep it there.

AustinPowers_
01-10-2006, 02:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


AustinPowers_ Posts: 28 | Registered: Wed January 04 2006

Appearantly the long-banned MiloMorai had renewed an old habit of his, ie. running 3 nick at a time (AustinPowers_, dadada1, luftluuver), and responding to his own posts... feeling lonely Milo, nobody cares of your garbage right? Nothing produces freaks like the internet... a lonely guy, spending his days running different nicks, responding his own posts.. how sorry is that?

Or at least it's funny from Mr. 'AustinPowers' who registered only a week ago, claiming to know me so well...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not even close http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But you are correct, I was registerd here before. Yeah baby, yeah!

luftluuver
01-10-2006, 03:03 PM
This paranoia you have for this Milo Morai really has you going off the deep end Kurfurst. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Do you constantly look over your shoulder while walking down the street?

Who is this Milo Morai that has you so disturbed? You need professional help, badly.

The only freak I see here is you with your very transparent agenda of the superior German war machine and an unhealthy hatred for the British. There are sites around that you would fit perfectly in at. Go to them so you won't be so lonely.


<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">How are you enjoying your permanent banning from Aces High?</span> To bad the Mods here at Ubi don't have the ****** to do the same.


Schpam, if you have not noticed, every thread Kurfurst particpates in rapdily goes downhill, fast. That should tell you something.

Kurfurst whines about single tests of 109s, yet he takes a single test of a Spitfire as gospel. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif He constantly takes the worst data for the Spitfire and the best data for the 109. He constantly whines about Mike William's site but constantly use Mike's site. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Where would he be without Mike's site with his anti-Spitfire agenda?

ImpStarDuece
01-10-2006, 04:48 PM
I too can provide links to graphs Kurfurst, and other data besides:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/lfhfspeed.gif

Check the speeds of the HF IX at 0, 10, 20 and 30 thousand feet on this one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hmmm, Spitfire B 551 seems to disagree with you.

331 at 0 feet
372 at 10,000
392 at 20,000, and
413 at 30,000

Or we can get the level speeds as measured by the RAE from here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bs543.html

Haha, your google-fu is old, and now you must die! (said with bad lip-synching and horribly strong Chinese accented English)

II_JG1Schpam
01-10-2006, 08:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Schpam, if you have not noticed, every thread Kurfurst particpates in rapdily goes downhill, fast. That should tell you something.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I have noticed. While I don't post here a lot I do read these forums. Sort of like a series of train wrecks - repulsed yet oddly attracted.

But you know he feeds off these battles. It's oxygen to him. The more you fight with him the more he comes back, the more energy he gets. You want to know how to defeat him? Absolutely ignore him. Don't address him. Don't respond to him. Act like he didn't even post. Go on as if he wasn't there. It's how you get your toddler to stop throwing temper tantrums. Ignore it and he'll realize the temper tantrum gets him no where in fact it gets him ignored which is the entire opposite of what he wants.

You guys legitimize Kurfurst by doing exactly what you have been doing for the past two days.

Cokol_88IAP
01-11-2006, 03:00 AM
Can you stop bashing Kurf端rst please, he was in error about Spit IX performance and has accepted it.

Of cause a Spit IX would be nice, but i see no domination about a late model K-4 or a La-7 and Yak-3.

Kurfurst__
01-11-2006, 03:59 AM
Schpam,

I suggest you visit this thread : http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m...451067583#4451067583 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4451067583/r/4451067583#4451067583)

Looks like your description perfectly fits someone else, and your 'cure' is already applied by the members of his forum.

Just so you know, I've come accross this cretin 4-5 years ago, and ever since the only meaning of his life seems to be to wage some kind of feud on me, and others,he runs 2-3 nicks and sometimes responds to his own posts.. He used to post here as Milo Morai, until he was banned for his behaviour. For some reason it seems the only meaning of his life is to incite flamewars and then bath in them, I guess it's his way to get some attention. The guy's real name is Shaun Innes btw. And it's not limited to this board only, he does the same, see 'Kutscha's posts : http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=744&page=6 (http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=744&amp;page=6)

Now, let's get back to the original issue of this thread, we spent too much time on him already.

DIRTY-MAC
01-11-2006, 04:56 AM
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c15/HOOTCHIE-MAMA/clown.jpg

luftluuver
01-11-2006, 05:36 AM
I don't know how you could have come across me 4-5 years ago Kurfurst when this is the first forum on the web I have particiapted in. Do you have a HD filled with every post by this Milo Morai? You should get some professional help for this unhealthy obsession/sickness/hatred you have for this Milo Morai. Any good schrinks in Hungary?

Btw, I asked this Milo Morai by PM over at Aces High about you. He said his first post, when questioning you about some statements you made about German radar on the On War forum, you lit into him like a rabid dog.

I don't see people ignoring my posts. On the contrary and the threads don't degenerate into flame wars like your posts do. Why?

My name is not Shaun Innes. I would give it but am afraid of your *sickness* since sick people, like you, do bad things.

In the many forums I visit in search of WW2 aviation info, everyone that you are a member of, I see you fueding (in flame wars) with many many posters. Why?

You did not reply to my post of Dec 11. Is this because you are incapable of answering some simple questions about the 1.98ata K-4s, or what are you hiding?

p1ngu666
01-11-2006, 07:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c15/HOOTCHIE-MAMA/clown.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that looks like rosanne? the famous funny woman who did sitcoms, dunno what shes upto now, apart from being **** rich

Vipez-
01-11-2006, 10:11 AM
Kurfurst__ you are using very old version of IL-2 compare, it has not been updated for a long time. And probably will not be updated. What bothers me about Spitfires, is Spit V is really weird, I mean it seems to overheat extremely easily, over 5000 meters I seem to get constant overheating message..On the other hand in the Spitfire IX it's the other way around, I can use Boost for very long periods of time, If I get overheat-message couple of seconds trottle back seems to cool it down very rapidly (matter of seconds), and again I can use full boost for quite a while... just my impression.. I am pretty happy how the Spits are modelled with 4.02 (apart with the overheating issues).

lrrp22
01-11-2006, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
He used to post here as Milo Morai, until he was banned for his behaviour. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...And you used to post here as VO101_Isegrim until you were banned for your behavior.

LRRP

AustinPowers_
01-11-2006, 01:29 PM
I sure as hell aint this Milo character. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst__
01-11-2006, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
I sure as hell aint this Milo character. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for offending you Megile. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BTW, why Sir Austin?

Kurfurst__
01-11-2006, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:
Kurfurst__ you are using very old version of IL-2 compare, it has not been updated for a long time. And probably will not be updated. What bothers me about Spitfires, is Spit V is really weird, I mean it seems to overheat extremely easily, over 5000 meters I seem to get constant overheating message..On the other hand in the Spitfire IX it's the other way around, I can use Boost for very long periods of time, If I get overheat-message couple of seconds trottle back seems to cool it down very rapidly (matter of seconds), and again I can use full boost for quite a while... just my impression.. I am pretty happy how the Spits are modelled with 4.02 (apart with the overheating issues). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah sorry I realized my error. As for the Spit overheating.. some of the MkV cooling tests I have show that the radiator suitabilty was below requirements by when +16 boost introduced (it only had a single rad, and no intercooler for charge cooling). The IX had two, + and IC, and seems it was quite OK. In the sim, it's odd like others..

And as for the FM fixes.... I gave up a good while ago that those leaks everywhere in the Il2 engine will be fixed, I put my faith in BoB. Simply the original engine was only meant to fly the Il-2 at low altitude, plus a couple of flyable Soviet fighters vs. AI Luftwaffe... we got far from that, there are masses of planes, some with special features that were not considered when the original engine was laid down - turbochargers, hydraulic couplings and so on, they all seem to be just bridged with an alternate solution. There is too many planes to fix, and Oleg's team has new commitments. Frankly, they gave an INCREDIBLE support to the playerbase already not none expect the charged net-based sims give to the playerbase.

WWMaxGunz
01-11-2006, 07:40 PM
Vipez-
Since you don't know how far into overheat you are when you see the message or just how far
below overheat you are when the message says normal and you don't specify what the heat
capacity of said plane is then what does a quick cool-off mean?

We see messages; overheat, normal, power 100%, power 110%, pitch 100%, etc, and many posts
compare the same message on one plane as directly the same on all others. This sim has so
many different modes of engine, prop and management that the matches don't match perhaps
half or more of the time.

HellToupee
01-11-2006, 10:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:
Kurfurst__ you are using very old version of IL-2 compare, it has not been updated for a long time. And probably will not be updated. What bothers me about Spitfires, is Spit V is really weird, I mean it seems to overheat extremely easily, over 5000 meters I seem to get constant overheating message..On the other hand in the Spitfire IX it's the other way around, I can use Boost for very long periods of time, If I get overheat-message couple of seconds trottle back seems to cool it down very rapidly (matter of seconds), and again I can use full boost for quite a while... just my impression.. I am pretty happy how the Spits are modelled with 4.02 (apart with the overheating issues). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The spit 9 has weird issues to, u might notice it dosnt overheat when at full throttle boost etc if you fly slow the faster you go the more it overheats, i can overheat it at 86% throttle at 7k just flying fast yet if i engage boost 100% and climb steeply or turn circles and bleed all my speed no move overheat.

AKA_TAGERT
01-11-2006, 11:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Appearantly the long-banned MiloMorai had renewed an old habit of his, ie. running 3 nick at a time (AustinPowers_, dadada1, luftluuver) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.socalcomics.com/spartacus.jpg

NO I AM SPARTACUS!

Izzy.. u so paranoid! ROTFLMFAO!

Cokol_88IAP
01-13-2006, 02:45 AM
indeed someone should take a look on Spits overheating issues.

pourshot
01-13-2006, 03:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:

The spit 9 has weird issues to, u might notice it dosnt overheat when at full throttle boost etc if you fly slow the faster you go the more it overheats, i can overheat it at 86% throttle at 7k just flying fast yet if i engage boost 100% and climb steeply or turn circles and bleed all my speed no move overheat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is exactly how I see it, very strange overheat

Brain32
01-13-2006, 03:58 AM
Yes this should be carefully looked at, it caused many wtf's for me...

GR142_Astro
01-13-2006, 09:43 AM
Bump for Boost!

Grey_Mouser67
01-13-2006, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pourshot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:

The spit 9 has weird issues to, u might notice it dosnt overheat when at full throttle boost etc if you fly slow the faster you go the more it overheats, i can overheat it at 86% throttle at 7k just flying fast yet if i engage boost 100% and climb steeply or turn circles and bleed all my speed no move overheat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is exactly how I see it, very strange overheat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought this was odd too, but now I understand that the Spit overheats its OIL, but not its glycol.

So if you climb or reduce RPM's you'll cool your engine...when you dive, the oil heats up and you get overheat. The Spit is the only plane with an automatic radiator that you can not close so it is possible that, due to its difference and the fact it can't go to 110% of throttle, that it should not overheat like other engines....don't really know for sure but its slower speed is probably tested with radiator open as opposed to radiator closed like other engines....

I just wonder, maybe someone has the answer...when the P-51 Mustang was flown and its top speed was found to be 440mph...was this with radiator closed or in auto?

My understanding of the aircraf is that it had a very unique radiator that allowed it to operate in auto and cause very little speed penalty...if any. I've seen some debate, but I've done the testing and the plane, in game, has the same 20km/hr penalty for radiator in auto that every aircraft has.

p1ngu666
01-14-2006, 01:03 PM
irl, at high alt there probably wasnt a big difference in the opening size between auto and closed.

not ingame ofcourse http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

anarchy52
01-14-2006, 06:33 PM
The planes I'd like to see:

USA: A-36
Germany: I'd like a 109E that's not the pathetic cr@p we have now
Russian: none
British: Tempest, Mosquito (that about wraps it up for the British anyway, except viermots which we are not likely to have)

Brain32
01-14-2006, 07:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Germany: I'd like a 109E that's not the pathetic cr@p we have now
British: Tempest,... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have my vote http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

p1ngu666
01-14-2006, 07:14 PM
brain32, u forgot about teh mossie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

a fatal mistake http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Brain32
01-14-2006, 07:22 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG29_Morgoth
01-14-2006, 07:50 PM
yeahhh spit 51 47 bla bla bla bla whe have enough stereoid airplans,REALLY man give a good airplan for god gamedepht ,give a ju88 !!!the axis have the porest bomber He111 ,give not the 29842 yak ,the 461741 sp誕t baaaahhhhhh ,have not enough "high end" airplans??? g誕っ造誕hhhhn schnarch ick penn ein

srry my english is verry poor

p1ngu666
01-15-2006, 11:39 AM
he111 compairs favourably to other bombers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

eg, 4000kg bombload vs 800kg (betty) and 1500ish for b25

defensive guns wise, its middlish

speed, its rather lacking (wrongly) should be a hair quicker than b25

we still dont have a british flyable bomber either...

JG29_Morgoth
01-15-2006, 12:40 PM
see 2 mot bomber the alliert (1943 and and and )see 2 mot bomber from axis ,yeahhh verry nice game balance boaaaaaa great ,give me a 7665745 sp誕t or the 4265256 yak ......

JG29_Morgoth
01-15-2006, 12:44 PM
favorite ju 88 ,little bombs than must better hitting ,when this not can yeahhh 2x2000 kg bomb...)))He 111 is verry poor bomber...really 1939 to old for war

p1ngu666
01-15-2006, 04:54 PM
sure, ju88 is nice, but from my reading it isnt masses better than he111, or b25, or a betty

its abit faster, but still sub 300mph, defensive wise its okish, how that is ingame who knows (i just got shot down in a betty, because i couldnt see the fighter who was attackin me in the rear turret. waste lots of ammo firing blind cos of the ****ing framing

itll handle better, and its got dive brakes which will be handy.

imo the only bomber that where really special/good are

mossie:good loadout, range, faster than the luftwaffe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (applies to ju88 S types, aswell)

lanc: best vermot or whatever, in terms of bombload, handling

b17: more 50cals plz!

b29: very good all round

ju88: best medium bomber

all the bombers we have ingame arent that good really, i dont think they want us to fly bombers, and allies have only 1 effective level bomber, b25. tb3 is too slow, just get shot down http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

id like a british bomber because im british, its rather a forgotten battle, and they where atleast as good as anyone elses. also we quite afew bad ones too.

plus they where used *alot*

we have tons of secondary aircraft (fighters) but very few primary ones (recon, bombers)

Cokol_88IAP
01-18-2006, 07:29 AM
Kurf端rst convinced me:

I also vote for a 1,98ATA 2000PS Bf-109 K-4

In game we have the climbrate already, but not the speed. If 2 K-4 are too comlicated, a G-10 with 1800PS and a K-4 with 2000PS is okay ;-)

jeroen_R90S
01-18-2006, 02:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
The planes I'd like to see:

USA: A-36
Germany: I'd like a 109E that's not the pathetic cr@p we have now
Russian: none
British: Tempest, Mosquito (that about wraps it up for the British anyway, except viermots which we are not likely to have) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

USA: P-36 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Germany: Agreed!!
Russian: Pe-2
British: Agreed!!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jeroen

Kurfurst__
01-19-2006, 06:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 88.IAP_SOKOL:
Kurf端rst convinced me:

I also vote for a 1,98ATA 2000PS Bf-109 K-4

In game we have the climbrate already, but not the speed. If 2 K-4 are too comlicated, a G-10 with 1800PS and a K-4 with 2000PS is okay ;-) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed the climb rate is *bit* wrong. Speed's also strange at SL, if it would be a 2000PS K-4, it should be 607kph.

Frankly it would be nice to give the RAF a +25lbs IX of 1945 (would give them a G-14 equivalent), and I am all for a XIV, but that's a 3D modeller issue.

OTOH, the Allies are getting their umpteenth, 'late war high-boosted' fighter, I guess it's not unfar to ask for just one similiar fighter for the LW side or is it? There's is just as much historical evidence for it.

lrrp22
01-19-2006, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

OTOH, the Allies are getting their umpteenth, 'late war high-boosted' fighter, I guess it's not unfar to ask for just one similiar fighter for the LW side or is it? There's is just as much historical evidence for it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


All the 1944-45 Luftwaffe fighters are 'late war high-boosted'. Even the 1.8 ata Jumo 213 and DB05DB are primarily 1945 boost levels. 1.98 ata K-4's are certainly not just as well documented as higher boost Allied aircraft. Even if they did see service, they were exceedingly rare.

LRRP

WOLFMondo
01-19-2006, 11:27 AM
Just because something was exceedingly rare yet was cleared for service and was used isn't an excuse not to have them if there easy to model.

If the documentation is there and is authentic then what is the issue? Its for map builders and server hosts to decide if they ever put them into missions or servers.

hop2002
01-19-2006, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In game we have the climbrate already, but not the speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the climb rate results someone posted earlier are correct, we have William Green's 109K4, not any version that ever flew with the Luftwaffe (3 mins to 5000m is an average of 27.8 m/s, the real K4 at 1.98 peaked at less than 25 m/s and averaged 3 mins 37 secs, 23 m/s to 5000m)

Kurfurst__
01-20-2006, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
All the 1944-45 Luftwaffe fighters are 'late war high-boosted'. Even the 1.8 ata Jumo 213 and DB05DB are primarily 1945 boost levels. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong on both accounts. First we seem to have the early 605DM for 109 from 1944, not the 605DB, second the Jumo213 already had used this boost in 1944 with a quick mod (Oldenburg), it just wasn't on all planes. Neither were all Allied fighters high boosed either. None of the other G-10 or G-14 or G-6/AS running on extra high boost, we don't have DB 605ASC/DC for the G-10 or G-14.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1.98 ata K-4's are certainly not just as well documented as higher boost Allied aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's curious, because we have every information available that is available for the high boosted Allied planes and more. For example, we know exactly what units operated 1.98ata aircraft :

II/JG27, cleared for 1.98ata
III/JG27, cleared for 1.98ata
III/JG53 - see LWKdo W.'s fuel supply
IV/JG53 - see LWKdo W.'s fuel supply
as per the k.Dos of March 1945

Luftlotte 6' - of the Eastern Front - table for operational equipment and fuel type also lists, as per 19th March 1945 :

IV/JG4 - running on C-3 fuel, G-10s
II/JG11 (confirmed to have supplied with DC engines AND C-3 fuel, documented to used 1.98ata before in February), G-10s

From DB memo 6730 we know II/JG 11 was responsible for the operational testing of 1.98ata in February, leading to the clearance of 1.98ata by late February as per butch2k.

We have the fuel deliveres of C-3 used for high boost documented as well :

On April 22 1945 Luftwaffenkommando West reported the following fuel stocks on airfields in Bavaria:

B-4 = 350,000 liters
C-3 = 284,000 liters
J-2 = 1,897,000 liters


On April 12, `45, Lw.Kdo. West had 42 FW 190As on-hand (Stab/JG300, II./JG300, Stab/NAGr.13), and 197 Bf 109s, (1./NAGr.13, 2./NAGr.13, 3./NAGr.13, Stab/JG53, II./JG53, III./JG53, IV./JG53, III./JG300, IV./JG300,1./NJG11).

110 of these Bf 109s were from Stab/JG53, II./JG53, III./JG53, IV./JG53.
III/JG 53 and IV/JG 53 had 73 Bf 109s with 75 fighter pilots on hand.

These two Gruppe of JG 53 had been cleared for 1.98ata in 21 March 1945 by OKL, Lw.-F端hr端ngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45.

In addition, KG 51 could muster 16 Me 262s, and 1.(F)/100 five Ar234s, and various other types (Ju88/188, Ju87, FW 189, Bf110)

As of 20th March 1945

http://img130.imagevenue.com/loc239/th_edbc0_fuelc3.jpg (http://img130.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc239&image=edbc0_fuelc3.jpg)

Note that G-10 and K-4 used the same engine.

Fw. Strebel of II. / JG3 (some say it's from another unit), and his 109K 'Ingeborg'.
http://img135.imagevenue.com/loc16/th_df108_FwStrebel109K.jpg (http://img135.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc16&image=df108_FwStrebel109K.jpg)



The DB/DC engines were introduced in service in mid-January according to butch. The two were convertible to each other, DB would run for 1850 PS, the DC would run either 1800 or 2000Ps (1.8 / 1.98ata boost) with higher grade fuel.

The DB/DC manual which I own shows the 1.98ata rating as in December 1944. However there seem to be some quality problems with the spark plugs (The 605DC had to use the Beru F280 E43 plug for operation @1.98ata. ), so even when DB's own tests were throughly positive, at Askania and Rechlin the tests were negative at 1.98ata. Basically what was done was more operational testing at a single Gruppe (Wing of 3 Squadrons) to gather experience before relaesing the boost for all combat units. At the same time more strict quality control of the spark plugs using X-Ray analysis was introduced. The operational testing was complete in February with II/JG11, and as per butch, the 1.98ata rating was cleared in late February for all units. What's known next is the OKL (LW high command) order from March 19 1945 issued for I/JG 27, III/JG 27, III/JG53 and IV/JG 53. That's four Gruppen/Wings in total. I also suspect IV/JG 4 and II/JG 11 were also used 1.98ata boost at that time, since on the 19th March 1945 both Gruppen had G-10 with DB 605DC engine as per butch, and the fuel deliveries show they relied on C-3 fuel as well, and the engine itself was cleared by that time, plus II/JG11 had definientely used this rating in February 1945 already.. So I'd say at least four, and up to six Wings of G-10/K-4.

Butch2k :

"it took a lot of time to clear clear 1.98ata boost for operational use.

Indeed operational tests began in february 1945 with just one Gruppe, and it seems that it was cleared for use by all gruppe in march 1945.
Butch "

and


"1.98ata boost was cleared late February but it seems to have been slowly introduced into service, I suspect the adjustments needed on the engine and the change of sparkplugs type (supply problems ???) took longer than expected. From other documents I know that C3 and B4 had severe quality problems beginning in late 1944. While it was not much of a problem with low boost, it had some serious effect on higher boost, so it might also have slowed down the introduction of 1.98ata boost. At least DB documents underlined the need for cleaner fuels than those in use at that time. You can safely assume that by March 1945 1.98 ata boost was being introduced,"

And the OKL orders from a book, from 20th March 1945 (OKL, Lw.-F端hr端ngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45 )

http://img137.imagevenue.com/loc22/th_d7f39_198ataMarch1945.jpg (http://img137.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc22&image=d7f39_198ataMarch1945.jpg)


Now since you claim the documentation of high boosted Allied planes is even better documented, care to list which units operated high boosted :

Spit IXs?
Spit XIVs?
Tempests?
Mustang IVs?
P-38 'late's?
P-47D 'lates'?

None of them is anywhere near well documented, yet nobody complain like you do.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Even if they did see service, they were exceedingly rare. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You repeat the same claim every time but you have no facts. Let's see, we have around 140 planes in service with the units from JG 53 and 27 that were cleared for 1.98ata, not counting the Eastern front units. Now 140 planes is not rare, it's about half the 109K in service that time. That's actually slightly more than the total number of normal boosted or high boosted MkXIVs or Tempests in service at the same time.

AKA_TAGERT
01-20-2006, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Now since you claim the documentation of high boosted Allied planes is even better documented, care to list which units operated high boosted :

Spit IXs?
Spit XIVs?
Tempests?
Mustang IVs?
P-38 'late's?
P-47D 'lates'?

None of them is anywhere near well documented, yet nobody complain like you do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>As allways, you could NOT be more wrong if you tried!

www.spitfireperformance.com By Mike Williams and Neil Stirling (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/p-38.html)

Now, which one of the smak-tards was trying to say the Allison only hit 70"MP on a dyno meter! You is wrong too, be sure.

lrrp22
01-20-2006, 10:58 PM
Isegrim,

All these "we's" you refer to is actually "you" posting your own agenda-based 'proofs' on every discussion board that doesn't ban you (which most do eventually). You come here throwing around butch2k's name to support your agenda, yet he has repeatedly contested many of your claims on his very own board. Why don't you post his latest response to your crusade?

The fact remains that even if a few dozen servicable K-4's did actually implement 1.98 ata for the last few weeks of the war, they were extremely rare. Then again, you haven't shown a single example of a single K-4 staffel using 1.98 ata operationally- the best you can do is post part of a page from a book which shows that 4 Gruppen were intended to convert to 1.98 ata at some point. That same page shows many intended changes, such as Doras to JG5 in Norway and widespread use of Ta 152C/Hs that also never happened. Shouldn't be too suprising though- the Nazis had many grandiose plans in March of 1945 that amounted to nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Like I said, it's possible that a handful of K-4's ran 1.98 ata (ran poorly, if the testing regime is any indication) during the waning days of the war. However, you certainly do set the bar higher for others' 'proofs' than you do for our own, don't you?

LRRP

luftluuver
01-21-2006, 02:58 AM
Lrrp22, what was Butch2k's latest response?

BigKahuna_GS
01-21-2006, 11:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lrrp--Shouldn't be too suprising though- the Nazis had many grandiose plans in March of 1945 that amounted to nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


LOL, Now that's a good late war analogy for the Luftwaffe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


+

BigKahuna_GS
01-21-2006, 11:30 AM
S!

Heres the P47D on grade 150 fuel specs:

The new 1944 P47D is about 10-15mph too slow depending on the altitude. Also notice dive acceleration--see below :

I hope Lrrp sees this because we both thought the new P47D was way too slow above 22,000ft. It looks like it is too slow at lower alts also.

Flight Test Engineering Branch
Memo Report No. Eng-47-1774-A
15 July 1944

FLIGHT TESTS ON THE REPUBLIC
P-47D AIRPLANE, AAF NO. 42-26167
USING 44-1 FUEL
I Introduction

Flight test have been conducted at Wright Field on the P-47D airplane, AAF NO. 42-26167, at the request of the Power Plant Laboratory, Engineering Division. These tests were made to determine the increased performance of the airplane using the higher powers allowable by use 44-1 fuel as compared with powers allowable with the standard fuel, grade 100/130, Spec. No. AN-F-28. From 15 April to 30 June 1944 approximately 30 hours were flown by Captain R. B. Johnston.

The P-47D is a single engine, high altitude figher. It is equipped with a Pratt & Whitney R-2800-63 engine furnished with a water injection system and a four-bladed Curtiss Electric controllable propeller, blad design No. 836-2C2-18.

II Summary

Preliminary tests were run to clear the airplane for performance with higher powers with and without water injection. Detonation equipment was installed to determine if any flight condition became marginal as to detonation, cooling or improper operation of auxiliary parts. No detonation was observed in level flight up to 65.0" Hg. without water and 70.0" with water. No detonation was observed in climb up to 65" Hg. without water. Detonation occurred at 65.0" with water in climb but was remedied by using a No. 18 water jet. Cylinder head and carburetor air temperatures remained below the limits in level flight. Excessive cylinder head and carburetor air temperatures were encountered in climbs, limiting the duration of any climb to a point where limits are reached.

The airplane and engine handled well at all altitudes at the higher powers. At 70.0" Hg., water injection, a maximum speed of 444 MPH was obtained at 23,200 feet. At 65.0" Hg., with water a high speed of 439 MPH at 25,200 feet and a maximum rate of climb of 3260 ft/min. at 10,000 feet were obtained. At 65.0" Hg., without water a high speed of 430 MPH at 25,400 feet and a maximum rate of climb of 2850 ft/min. at 12,000 feet were obtained. At 56.0" Hg. without water a high speed of 418 MPH at 29,600 feet and a maximum rate of climb of 2330 ft/min. at 12,000 feet were obtained. At 52.0" Hg. without water a high speed of 412 MPH at 31,400 feet and a maximum rate of climb of 2030 ft/min. at 12,000 feet were obtained.

III Condition of Aircraft Relative to Tests

A. Flight tests were conducted at a take-off gross weight of 13,230 lbs. with the c.g. at 29.9 MAC, wheels up. This weight corresponds to the full combat weight of the airplane aand includes full internal fuel, 15 gallons of water and ballast for 300 rounds of ammunition per gun.

B. All tests were conducted with landing gear retracted and wing flaps neutral. In level flight the cowl flaps were closed and the oil and intercooler flaps neutral; in climb cowl flaps, oil intercooler flaps were wide open. Gun blast tubes and wing racks were installed and all antennae were in place.

C. The airplane was finished with standard, service camouflage finish.

IV Flight Characteristics

A. Taxiing and Ground Handling

This airplane is easy to taxi and handles well on the ground as compared to other fighter planes with conventional landing gear. The brakes are touchy for the first one or two times used but after this they are smooth and respnd well without excessive pressure. The tail wheel is full swivel when unlocked and responds very easily. There is a handle on the right side of the cockpit to lock and unlock the tail wheel., When in the "lock" position the wheel locks when returned to the center for taxiing straight and for take-offs and landings. At times it is hard to unlock the tail wheel after landing but it unlocks if the cable leading back from the handle is "flipped".

Crosswind has very little effect on taxiing and ground handling. The tail wheel reacts well and the airplane handles sell in rough ground landings.

B. Take-off

Handling for take-off is good. WIth tail wheel in "lock" position, the airplane rolls straight and torque is very easily corrected for by using rudder and a few degrees right rudder trim. Aileron and elevator trim tabs are set in the neutral psoition for take-off. At lower power settings the take-off roll is very long but is greatly decreased by high power. Take-offs were not measured but they seem very short with War Emergency power and improve the pilot's confidence in the airplane. After the airplane is airborne, only a small change in rudder and elevator trim tabs is required to maintain climb.

All take-offs were made without flaps.

C. Stability

When trimmed in level flight for rated or normal power, the airplane is statically and dynamically stable directionally and longitudinally. Laterally, it has neutral stability. Also, when trimmed for 180 MPH glide, the stability is the same as with power.

D. Trim and Balance

Trim is easily maintained by using the aileron, elevator and rudder trim tab controls which are conveniently located on the left side of the cockpit. The trim tab controls work easily and are very sensitive. It takes considerable practive to trim the airplane and keep it trimmed because as on trim control is changed it requires changing others. At all altitudes and speeds the airplane can be trimmed to fly hands off. The auxiliary fuselage tank causes little extra trim when the gasoline from it is used first. If it is not used firstm the airplane becomes slightly tail heavy. When opening shutters or putting down wheels and flaps, a medium amount of trim is needed.

E. Controllability

Control can be maintained in all attitudes and speeds up to the diving limits. Changes in speed require change in trim and if trim is not made or controls held, the airplane yaws violenly. Thus, it requires quite a bit of practice for the pilot to maintain perfect control. For this reason, this airplane is not good on instruments. When the airplane gets out of trim it is very hard to retrim it on instruments.

F. Maneuvrability

No acrobatics were tried but rolling into turns and changing directions is very easily accomplished because of very light aileron forces. Rudder and elevator have somewhat heavier forces but not objectionably so. The radius of turn is large and the stick forces become very heavy in a turn requiring both hands on the stick.

The water control switch is objectionable because it must be held "on" by the pilot. This occupies the pilot's left hand and he cannot trim the plane or use both hands on the stick which is necessary to make a tight turn.

G. Stalling Characteristics

There is sufficient warning to the pilot of a stall. Slight buffeting of elevators can be felt in the stick, especially with cowl flaps open. Landing is not recommended with cowl flaps open because f false warning of stall and buffeting of elevator. Another warning of a stall is a jerking of the stick to the left. It will snatch the stick from the pilot's hand if he is holding it lossely. The stall is normal and the nose falls straight forward and normal recovery is easy.

H. Spinning Characteristics

No spins were attempted.

I. Diving Characteristics

Acceleration in a dive is fast with control forces building up and becoming high above 350 MPH indicated. There is little vibration except as the speed approaches compressibility. A normal amount of trim is required but the forces on stick and rudder could be held by the pilot. However, the trim tab controls are easily accessible and the airplane can be trimmed easily for a dive.

In a pull out from a trimmed eive of approximately 450 MPH indicated the stick forces increase with the number of "g's" applied during pull out. At apporximately 5 "g's" the forces are very heavy. There is no tendency toward stick reversals.

J. Operation on reduced Number of Engines

Not applicable

K. High Altitude Trials

Several flights were made over 30,000 ft. and no objectionable characteristics were noticed. The airplane performs and handles very similar to the way it does at lower altitudes. Sufficient heat from the engine and heater keep the pilot comfortable.

L. Approaches and Landings

There is good visibility to the sides and front for approaches though the nose partially blocks view ahead and below. Three point landings are very easily made in this airplane with full flaps and elevator trim well back. It will flare out nicely or can be forced on the ground by pulling the stick back abruptly and it will stay on the ground. Ground roll is straight wth very little tendecny for the nose to swing. Brakes can be applied with safety either to stop the roll or the keep the roll straight though the rudder is effective down to a very slow speed. Ground roll is fairly long though brakes can be safely used and greatly shortens this distance.

M. Night Flying

No night flying was done

N. Noise and Vibration Level tests at Crew Stations

Not applicable

O. Pilot's Report on Vision and Cockpit Layout

Vision is generally good from the cockpit. In level flight vision over the nose is good though this decreases with speed. For take-off with cowl flaps open and tail down the pilot can only see out the sides. The canopy is clear and there is no distortion. The struts are placed so that the pilot can look around them as necessary. The only blind spot is a cone af about 15? around the tail. A rear view mirror is installed but is very little help.

Cockpit layout is very good with conventional controls in convenient places and plenty of room for the pilot's comfort. There are no projections which catch clothing. Adjustable seat, rudder pedals, safety belt and harness can be easilty adjusted on the ground or in the air. The cockpit is easily accessable with sliding canopy and sufficient hand holds and steps for the pilot. The emergency exit is satisfactory with a handle that releases the canopy which slides back out of the way. Also, the panels on each side can be released in case of nosing over on its back.

The instruments are very well grouped and are easy to see with the flight instruments in the center and engine instruments grouped around them. The electrical panel is on the lower left side of the cockpit and is easily accessable.

P. Crew Report on Layout of Indivdual Stations

Not applicable

V Performance Data

A. Airspeed Calibration

1. The location of the airspeed position correction are given in Fig. 1.

B. Speed in Level Flight

1. The maximum speed at 2700 RPM. 70.0" Hg. (water injection) was 444 MPH at 23,200 ft.
3. The high speed at 56.0" Hg., 2700 RPM, was 418 MPH at 29,600 feet. The high speed at 52.0" Hg., 2700 RPM was 412 MPH at 31,900 feet.

4. Curves of Speed vs Altitude are given in Fig. 2 for a take-off gross weight of 13,230 lbs.

5. Power data for level flight is given in Fig 3, 4, 5.

C. Climbs

1. The service ceiling for 2700 RPM was 38,000 feet. The maximum rate of climb for 2700 RPM, 65.0" Hg., water injection was 3260 ft/min. at 10,000 feet. Without water at 65.0" Hg. the maximum rate of climb was 420 ft/min. less.

2. The rate of climb at 56.0" Hg., 2700 RPM, was 2330 ft/min. at 12,000 ft. and at 52.0" Hg., 2700 RPM, 2030 ft/min. at 12,000 ft.

3. Results of climbs made at take-off gross weight of 13,230 lbs. are given in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7.

4. Power data for climb is given in Fig. 8, 9, 10.

D. Stalling Speeds

Stalling speeds are given in the following table.


Wing
Flaps Landing
Gear Shutters Power IAS
MPH*
Up Up Closed Idling 116
Up Up Open Idling 116
Up Down Closed Idling 114
1/4 Down Closed Idling 109
1/2 Down Closed Idling 105
3/4 Down Closed Idling 101
Full Down Closed Idling 98
Up Down Closed Idling 114
Up Down Open 35" Hg. 2200 RPM 107
Up Up Open 45" Hg. 2550 RPM 103
Up Up Open 35" Hg. 2200 RPM 106
Up Down Open 45" Hg. 2550 RPM 104
Up Down Open 35" Hg. 2200 RPM 107

*This speed is the ship's uncorrected indicator speed, and is effected by attitude of airplane and balance of airspeed lines.

VI Curves

All data given in the following curves has been reduced to NACA Standard Atmospheric Conditions.

Speed in Level Flight
Rate of Climb & Ceiling
Time to Climb

VII Conclusions

A. The R-2800-63 can be operated at 65.0" Hg., 2700 RPM, in level flight and climb without water injection when using 44-1 fuel. It can be operated at 70.0" Hg., 2700 RPM with water injection with 44-1 fuel. Climbs at high power must be limited because of high cylinder head temperatures and carburetor air temperatures. Short climbs can be made without dificulty.

B. A gain of 19 MPH can be realized by using 65.0" Hg., 2700 RPM over 56" Hg., 2700 RPM. 8 MPH can be gained at 65.0" Hg. by using water injection. With water injection at 70.0" Hg., 2700 RPM, 7 MPH can be gained over 65.0" Hg., 2700, water injection.

C. In climb operation a gain of 510 ft/min. by using 65.0" Hg., 2700 RPM over 56.0" Hg., 2700 RPM can be realized. 410 ft/min can be gained at 65.0" Hg., 2700 RPM using wate injection. No 70.0" Hg. climbs were made.

VIII Recommendations

1. It is recommended the Pratt & Whitney R-2800-63 engines be rated at 65.0" Hg. with and without water injection when using 44-1 fuel or its equivalent.

2. It is recommended that the use of 70.0" Hg. be further investigated.

3. It is recommended that pilots using these higher powers be cautioned concerning the high cylinder head temperatures and carburetor air temperatures which may be encountered in extended climbs or level flight.


Main P-47 Performance Trials



http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-47/p47d-44-1-level.jpg


__

p1ngu666
01-21-2006, 01:16 PM
cool, so with enuff power the p47 could hawl itself along as fast as any other ww2 prop http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Grey_Mouser67
01-21-2006, 01:42 PM
Hmmmmm....the in game P-47D is only 10 km/hr faster than the D-27....that is a whopping 6 mph.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Anyone see a patten?

AustinPowers_
01-21-2006, 01:51 PM
Who knew the RAF being so anal about book keeping would pay off 60 years later for flight simmers..

anyway

No. 1 squadron flying Spit IXLF @ 25 BOOST http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no1_25lbs.jpg

No. 610 squadron flying Spit XIV F @ 21 Boost
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no610orb.jpg

No. 316 Squadron flying Mustang MKIII @ 25 boost

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/316sqdn-orb.jpg

Heck even Mosquitos were getting 150 octane

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/now-being-introduced.jpg

That's just one example for the RAF's front line fighters.... you can find more if you open your eyes.

Kocur_
01-21-2006, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Hmmmmm....the in game P-47D is only 10 km/hr faster than the D-27....that is a whopping 6 mph.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Anyone see a patten? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You want high boosted allied fighters? Cheer up and enjoy soon coming La-7R http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Grey_Mouser67
01-22-2006, 09:45 AM
I will look forward to that if there is one coming! I've been flying Russian planes more lately than I have in the past and those La's and later Lagg's are really awesome below 4000 meters!

I'd rather have the Late Jug performing properly, the L and J Lightnings brought into their rightful perfromance envelope, the 43 Spit MkVb with the more powerful Merline and some ordinance options, a late boost Mustang D model with proper weapons and proper handling on all.

I hope the person/people who provided Oleg with the information on the P-47D go back to him and let him know that the aircraft needs tuning....much too slow....we got a 6 mph boost and it should have been 16 mph.

Slickun
01-22-2006, 10:47 AM
GREAT STUFF, Kahuna.

Say, is there a web site for that? The spitfire performance site is a great one for Spit and Mustang stuff, is there one for the P-47?

Now. What have we got for documentation? How widespread was this 70" P-47? Did I miss it in your post?

444 is screaming.

JtD
01-22-2006, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Hmmmmm....the in game P-47D is only 10 km/hr faster than the D-27....that is a whopping 6 mph.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With water injection at 70.0" Hg., 2700 RPM, 7 MPH can be gained over 65.0" Hg., 2700, water injection. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also check chart.

Grey_Mouser67
01-22-2006, 11:44 AM
444 mph...check verbage

vs 428 mph commonly documented...

1. The maximum speed at 2700 RPM. 70.0" Hg. (water injection) was 444 MPH at 23,200 ft.

Kurfurst__
01-23-2006, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Isegrim,

All these "we's" you refer to is actually "you" posting your own agenda-based 'proofs' on every discussion board that doesn't ban you (which most do eventually). You come here throwing around butch2k's name to support your agenda, yet he has repeatedly contested many of your claims on his very own board. Why don't you post his latest response to your crusade? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

....agenda-based.... 'proofs' .... agenda... repeatedly contested.... crusade.

Big Empty Words from Mr. Grand-Claims No-Facts Lotsa-Noise.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The fact remains.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who's 'fact'? You have posted none, just repeated the same partisan opinion. Sorry I asked you a question, you couldn't answer, you are just throwing around your poor rhetorics.


II/JG27, - proof for being cleared for 1.98ata
III/JG27,- proof for being cleared for 1.98ata
III/JG53 - proof for being cleared for 1.98ata, proof of fuel supply - see LWKdo W.'s fuel supply
IV/JG53 - proof for being cleared for 1.98ata, proof of fuel supply - see LWKdo W.'s fuel supply
as per the k.Dos of March.

IV/JG4 - issued C-3 fuel
II/JG11 - butch confirmed to have supplied with DC engines, issued C-3 fuel, plus documented to used 1.98ata before in February during operational testing)
as per Luftlotte 6's fuel and equipment tables.

and possbly some planes from
II. / JG3 (Streibel's K-4 marekd with C-3, which as per butch either means early DM or DC engine. however the DM is quite unlikely by March 1945. DC was fitted from Jan45, and by March the existing DMs in service surely have reached their replacement time.

That's 5 to 7 Gruppe that is using 1.98ata. A Gruppe is an equivalent of an Allied Wing. Every Gruppe should have 4 Squadron established, each, from mid-1944.

These are the hard facts, you have just rhetorics and denial. AOh, and pretty please list those 'exceedingly well documented' allied Squadrons using high boost.

We have established so far that

No. 1 squadron flying Spit IXLF @ 25 BOOST
No. 610 squadron flying Spit XIV F @ 21 Boost
No. 316 Squadron flying Mustang MKIII @ 25 boost

used high boost during the summer 1944 V-1 raids until the automn when they returned to normal boost, at least the XIVs did.

That's not even a single Gruppe/Wing strenght, m8. I am sure there were a couple of more, it's just that the documentation to it is nowhere to be seen, well, at least we haven't seen that :

a, List of specific squadrons allowed to run at high boost
b, List of 150 grade fuel deliveries to these units
c, proof for every single unit that it had the neccesary modifications
d, proof for every single unit that it had used the boost in combat

Which is just what you are asking for the Luftwaffe high boosted birds, but couldn't even satisfy your own first requirement a, for Allied birds. You apply double standards, make boasting claims but lack the facts to back them up, so you try to make so much noise with such big words to conceal it.

luftluuver
01-23-2006, 11:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">II/JG27, - proof for being cleared for 1.98ata
III/JG27,- proof for being cleared for 1.98ata
III/JG53 - proof for being cleared for 1.98ata, proof of fuel supply - see LWKdo W.'s fuel supply
IV/JG53 - proof for being cleared for 1.98ata, proof of fuel supply - see LWKdo W.'s fuel supply
as per the k.Dos of March. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So 'cleared' means operational useage? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So what, Bavaria had quantities of C3. That does not mean that there was C3 on the bases. Got delivery reports?

I have seen a photo of a K-4 marked for B4, from the same unit, JG3, taken at the same time as Strebel's K-4. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif You want to claim that all of JG3 was using C3? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

p1ngu666
01-23-2006, 11:04 AM
aaaaaannnnnndddddddd here we go again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kurfurst__
01-23-2006, 11:09 AM
Don't worry, we are not going anywhere. It's just milo and lrrp, making their usual stuff, they will never change and we all know what it's worth.

The facts are posted, and I think you uses his head can decide the case for himself, regardless of the noise that will made to make up for the lack of facts. Most people here I think have no problems accepting that high boosted planes appeared on both 'sides' late in the war, or have problems to see them in the sim. There always be some fanatic partisans, of course.

luftluuver
01-23-2006, 11:40 AM
Milo?? Do something about your PS.

If you want to claim that there was 284,000 liters of C3 in Bavaria and it was used, then you have to accept the 21lb and 25lb boosted Spitfires since the British had produced 7,332,500 Impgal (209,500bbls(1bbl=35gal)) of 100/150 fuel in March 1945.

7,332,500 Impgal = 3,184,511,545 litres

Bavaria only had 0.85% of C3 of what the British had of 100/150.

Production for:
Jan 45 - 284,300bbls (9,950,500gal)
Feb 45 - 298,000bbls (10,430,000gal)

Bavaria was to be the 'last stand' of the Third Reich, so would make sense to stockpile fuel for all the Fw190As that would be flying in. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

C3 and B4 had severe quality problems beginning <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">in late 1944</span>. While it was not much of a problem with low boost, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW"> it had some serious effect on higher boost</span>.

lrrp22
01-23-2006, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
GREAT STUFF, Kahuna.

Say, is there a web site for that? The spitfire performance site is a great one for Spit and Mustang stuff, is there one for the P-47?

Now. What have we got for documentation? How widespread was this 70" P-47? Did I miss it in your post?

444 is screaming. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hey Slickun,

Not suprisingly, this *does* come from www.spitifireperformance.com (http://www.spitfireperformance.com) . Mike Williams has been a very, very busy boy of late!

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-47/p-47.html

LRRP

TheGozr
01-23-2006, 12:21 PM
If they add the high performance US plane why not add the missing high peformance yak's as well and with out forgeting the yak9-U etc.. special designed high altitude ultra light.

AustinPowers_
01-23-2006, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">II/JG27, - proof for being cleared for 1.98ata
III/JG27,- proof for being cleared for 1.98ata
III/JG53 - proof for being cleared for 1.98ata, proof of fuel supply - see LWKdo W.'s fuel supply
IV/JG53 - proof for being cleared for 1.98ata, proof of fuel supply - see LWKdo W.'s fuel supply
as per the k.Dos of March. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So 'cleared' means operational useage? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So what, Bavaria had quantities of C3. That does not mean that there was C3 on the bases. Got delivery reports?

I have seen a photo of a K-4 marked for B4, from the same unit, JG3, taken at the same time as Strebel's K-4. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif You want to claim that all of JG3 was using C3? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/2taf150_112044.gif

Oh my. Kurfurst must believe that the whole of the 2nd TAF was running on 150 octane then?

lrrp22
01-23-2006, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
These are the hard facts, you have just rhetorics and denial. AOh, and pretty please list those 'exceedingly well documented' allied Squadrons using high boost.

We have established so far that

No. 1 squadron flying Spit IXLF @ 25 BOOST
No. 610 squadron flying Spit XIV F @ 21 Boost
No. 316 Squadron flying Mustang MKIII @ 25 boost

used high boost during the summer 1944 V-1 raids until the automn when they returned to normal boost, at least the XIVs did.

That's not even a single Gruppe/Wing strenght, m8. I am sure there were a couple of more, it's just that the documentation to it is nowhere to be seen, well, at least we haven't seen that :

a, List of specific squadrons allowed to run at high boost
b, List of 150 grade fuel deliveries to these units
c, proof for every single unit that it had the neccesary modifications
d, proof for every single unit that it had used the boost in combat

Which is just what you are asking for the Luftwaffe high boosted birds, but couldn't even satisfy your own first requirement a, for Allied birds. You apply double standards, make boasting claims but lack the facts to back them up, so you try to make so much noise with such big words to conceal it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Typically, it is amazing how much information you left out there, information that you are fully aware of and have been presented with time after time. How about those 45 squadrons from the VIII Fighter Command? VIII FC's Mustangs received just as much of a performance boost as did any K-4 going from 1.8 to 1.98 ata, its P-47's even more.

How about you present us with a single document or pilot account of a staffeln 109 pilot referring to 1.98 ata boost? Again, I'm not saying it didn't happen- it was just exceedingly rare if it did.

It's all there...

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

...hundreds of thousands of tons of 100/150 grade being consumed from Summer '44 on.

LRRP

AustinPowers_
01-23-2006, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


We have established so far that

No. 1 squadron flying Spit IXLF @ 25 BOOST
No. 610 squadron flying Spit XIV F @ 21 Boost
No. 316 Squadron flying Mustang MKIII @ 25 boost

used high boost during the summer 1944 V-1 raids until the automn when they returned to normal boost, at least the XIVs did.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>



units using 150 octane fuel were by no means limited to catching V1s.

Just look what No. 1 and No 165 squadrons were doing in the week after they were modified to run on 150 octane

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no1_25lbs.jpg

JU-88 hunting...

"apparently they decided discretion was the better part of valour" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

lrrp22
01-23-2006, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AustinPowers_:

Oh my. Kurfurst must believe that the whole of the 2nd TAF was running on 150 octane then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LRRP

AustinPowers_
01-23-2006, 12:38 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Must give the poor chap nightmares.

luftluuver
01-23-2006, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Must give the poor chap nightmares. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What about paranoid schizophrenia?

Schizophrenia (SKITS-oh-FREEN-ee-uh)---one of the most damaging of all mental disorders---causes its <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">victims to lose touch with reality. They often begin to hear, see, or feel things that aren't really there (hallucinations) or become convinced of things that simply aren't true (delusional)</span>.

JtD
01-23-2006, 01:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
444 mph...check verbage

vs 428 mph commonly documented...

1. The maximum speed at 2700 RPM. 70.0" Hg. (water injection) was 444 MPH at 23,200 ft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both the D-27 and the D have 435 at 23200 ft.

If you ask me, the D simply runs out of breath too early (too low). D-27 is certainly a 65 + water variant and seems to match the numbers given (439 mph @ 25000ft). 10 kph is about the proper advantage of the D. Have you tested up to which altitude the D is actually faster than the D-27?

Down low the D will go in the range of 360+ mph, which indeed is only 6 mph faster than the D-27, but certainly not slower than any data shown in this topic.

stathem
01-23-2006, 01:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
Who knew the RAF being so anal about book keeping would pay off 60 years later for flight simmers..

anyway

No. 1 squadron flying Spit IXLF @ 25 BOOST

No. 610 squadron flying Spit XIV F @ 21 Boost


No. 316 Squadron flying Mustang MKIII @ 25 boost


Heck even Mosquitos were getting 150 octane


That's just one example for the RAF's front line fighters.... you can find more if you open your eyes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know it has no relation to the Spitfire/Mustang 150 Octane case, but in 'Night Flyer', Lewis Brandon (DSO,DFC and Bar) talks about modifications to their Mossie Nightfighters for anti-diver patrols:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
...the exhaust shrouds were dispensed with, extra boost was given to the engines, we were supplied with 150 octane petrol, and of course, the noses were strengthened. With the exception of the exhaust shrouds,all these modifications were retained when we returned to our Bomber Support role. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brandon was a navigator and doesn't go in much for keeping up with the mark of Mosquito he and his pilot James Gilles Benson were using at any given time. Date for the above is about June/July '44.

Grey_Mouser67
01-23-2006, 06:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
444 mph...check verbage

vs 428 mph commonly documented...

1. The maximum speed at 2700 RPM. 70.0" Hg. (water injection) was 444 MPH at 23,200 ft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both the D-27 and the D have 435 at 23200 ft.

If you ask me, the D simply runs out of breath too early (too low). D-27 is certainly a 65 + water variant and seems to match the numbers given (439 mph @ 25000ft). 10 kph is about the proper advantage of the D. Have you tested up to which altitude the D is actually faster than the D-27?

Down low the D will go in the range of 360+ mph, which indeed is only 6 mph faster than the D-27, but certainly not slower than any data shown in this topic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With my usual disclaimer of possible error I can get 575 km/hr out of the D-27 at sea level and 585 km/hr out of the P-47D. That would be 360 mph for the former and 366 for the latter.

I keep a chart of the planes that I test, but I did the P-47D testing prior to the making of that chart. What I do remember about doing the testing is the top speed was low...and I started at like 8000 meters, but was beyond its critical altitude...seems to me it was looking like its critical altitude was in the neighborhood of 6500 meters but I'm going by memory.

It was the first thing I did when I got the last patch as myself and a whole lot of others were really wondering what "near M" performance was. I wasn't discouraged as I didn't know what to expect, but I'd have to say now given the above numbers it is lack luster to say the least.

If my memory serves me, the P-47D might not be as fast as the D-27 and both planes critical altiude is well below 30,000 ft...that may be correct because so many books just copy the same old errors over and over...anyways, with the amazing boost the Mustang III got, I was dissappointed at the performance in level speed, not climb, of the P-47D.

luftluuver
01-24-2006, 08:29 AM
Looks like Kurfurst has done another retreat after getting pwnd, again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif At least he did not have to get Ivan to lock the thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stathem
01-24-2006, 11:32 AM
No, he's probably busta bloodvessel due to this (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/8111082204)

Kurfurst__
01-25-2006, 06:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Typically, it is amazing how much information you left out there, information that you are fully aware of and have been presented with time after time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rhetorics again - reference to mysterious facts that nobody seen, but lrrp22... but he wouldn't show. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Yeah-yeah.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How about those 45 squadrons from the VIII Fighter Command? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about them, I don't think I've ever seen a single source mentioning 45 squadrons from VIII FC, which points to that it's merely your speculation. Please post the source that notes 45 Squadrons from the VIII FC operating on 150 grade fuel/high boost. Not say it I am sure it was used a lot, the USAAF consumed a lot of 150 grade fuel in England. What I am saying that I'd be interested to know how many and for what lenght they used such boost, rather to rely on GUESSWORK from some very biased people.

Of course you only tell half the story - the USAAF also run on much more conservative boosts than the handful of RAF units units chasing V-1s, there were severe troubles plaguing the engines and spark plugs etc. The usual stuff that comes with engine development, it was as well experienced by the German developments, they aimed for the same, and came to similiar hardships. It's just that you try to picture it as if one side was a constant success story with no troubles.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">VIII FC's Mustangs received just as much of a performance boost as did any K-4 going from 1.8 to 1.98 ata, its P-47's even more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the VIII FC Mustangs seem to boost from 67" to 71" with high octane fuel, which would boost their power ca. 100 HP. Going 1.8 to 1.98ata added 200 HP.

As for the P-47D, I am sure it gained a lot, the max. it was cleared seems to be 66" according to Neil Stirling. This was very helpful to make it more competitive.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How about you present us with a single document or pilot account of a staffeln 109 pilot referring to 1.98 ata boost? Again, I'm not saying it didn't happen- it was just exceedingly rare if it did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why you repeat yourself pretending to be blind? Evidence was posted, you pretend it's not there - yeah I am sure that would prove utterly convincing. Butch was pretty clear on which GRUPPE was using 1.98ata in February, and the documentation was posted. It was also posted which four GRUPPE were operating 1.98ata from March 1945 onwards. It was shown what two OTHER GRUPPE was likely to operate 1.98ata as well.

Now regardless of the 'exceedingly rare' mantra you keep putting up, we know that at least 4 to 6 GRUPPE, or WING were using 1.98ata. That translates minimum a hundred or two such boosted aircraft.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
It's all there...

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

...hundreds of thousands of tons of 100/150 grade being consumed from Summer '44 on.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The site you posted says :

"J.H Houghton Colonel A.C. Director of Supply described the supply position as of 23 November 1944:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/1-supply-23nov44s.jpg

22 000 tons consumed in the month by the air forces. I can't see hundreds and hundreds of thousend tons.

luftluuver
01-25-2006, 08:55 AM
8th AF FGs

4thFG
20thFG
55thFG
56thFG
78thFG
339thFG
352cdFG
353rdFG
355thFG
356thFG
357thFG
359thFG
361stFG
364thFG
479thFG

15FGs = 45 squadrons with a full establishment of a/c compared to 5 <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">understrength</span> Gruppen that did not have a full compliment of K-4 a/c, let alone be composed of nothing but K-4s.

The 8th had 3 TIMES the number of Groups/Gruppen. To be added must be the 35 fighter squadrons using 25lb boost. This you have to accept Kurfurst since you claim the Gruppen were cleared for 1.98.

From Feb 44 to Mar 45, the British produced 293,385tons of 100/150 fuel. I would say that is hundreds of thousands of tons. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Just so it sinks in that is <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">11,491,900</span> Imp gal or some <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">52,242,177</span> litres.

Kurfurst__
01-25-2006, 09:23 AM
Thank you for confirming the '45 Squadrons' came from speculation, ie. claiming that all units of the 8th AF had converted to 150 grade fuel, when there's no evidence that 'ALL converted' - at all.

So, lrrp22 just speculatesas I suspected.

lrrp22
01-25-2006, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Rhetorics again - reference to mysterious facts that nobody seen, but lrrp22... but he wouldn't show. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Yeah-yeah. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

It's all there. To any thinking person, it is extrememly clear that increased boost was the norm in the ETO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
What about them, I don't think I've ever seen a single source mentioning 45 squadrons from VIII FC, which points to that it's merely your speculation. Please post the source that notes 45 Squadrons from the VIII FC operating on 150 grade fuel/high boost. Not say it I am sure it was used a lot, the USAAF consumed a lot of 150 grade fuel in England. What I am saying that I'd be interested to know how many and for what length they used such boost, rather to rely on GUESSWORK from some very biased people.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

15 Fighter Groups at 3 Fighter Squadrons per group = 45 squadrons.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Of course you only tell half the story - the USAAF also run on much more conservative boosts than the handful of RAF units units chasing V-1s, there were severe troubles plaguing the engines and spark plugs etc. The usual stuff that comes with engine development, it was as well experienced by the German developments, they aimed for the same, and came to similiar hardships. It's just that you try to picture it as if one side was a constant success story with no troubles.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

VIII FC Mustangs gained 10+ mph going from 67" to 72" Hg WEP. The K-4 was *estimated* to gain 11 mph due to the increase from 1.8 to 1.98 ata.

The Luftwaffe had infinitely more problems getting the DB605DC to run at higher boost than did the Allies with the Merlin and R-2800.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">VIII FC's Mustangs received just as much of a performance boost as did any K-4 going from 1.8 to 1.98 ata, its P-47's even more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the VIII FC Mustangs seem to boost from 67" to 71" with high octane fuel, which would boost their power ca. 100 HP. Going 1.8 to 1.98ata added 200 HP.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-51 gained approximatley 125 HP at 72", the K-4 gained less than 150 HP. Just more Isegrim fact-fudging.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
As for the P-47D, I am sure it gained a lot, the max. it was cleared seems to be 66" according to Neil Stirling. This was very helpful to make it more competitive.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. Except that the P-47D was authorized 70" Hg by the end of 1944. The 56th FG's P-47M's got 72" Hg, but a 56th pilot reports outclimbing 109's with 78" Hg.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How about you present us with a single document or pilot account of a staffeln 109 pilot referring to 1.98 ata boost? Again, I'm not saying it didn't happen- it was just exceedingly rare if it did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why you repeat yourself pretending to be blind? Evidence was posted, you pretend it's not there - yeah I am sure that would prove utterly convincing. Butch was pretty clear on which GRUPPE was using 1.98ata in February, and the documentation was posted. It was also posted which four GRUPPE were operating 1.98ata from March 1945 onwards. It was shown what two OTHER GRUPPE was likely to operate 1.98ata as well.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I repeat it because it is true. You have presented not a single document or pilot account of 1.98 ata being used operationally. You have posted a page from a book which indicates that four Gruppen were intended to convert. That same page also indicates that several other changes were intended that we know never happened. Again, anything the Luftwaffe intended in March '45 was likely just that- an intention.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Now regardless of the 'exceedingly rare' mantra you keep putting up, we know that at least 4 to 6 GRUPPE, or WING were using 1.98ata. That translates minimum a hundred or two such boosted aircraft.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt as to your 4-6 Gruppen, you're still talking around a hundred servicable aircraft vs well over a thousand VIII FC fighters and a similar number or more of RAF fighters.

So, yes, exceedingly rare.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
It's all there...

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

...hundreds of thousands of tons of 100/150 grade being consumed from Summer '44 on.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The site you posted says :

"J.H Houghton Colonel A.C. Director of Supply described the supply position as of 23 November 1944:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/1-supply-23nov44s.jpg

22 000 tons consumed in the month by the air forces. I can't see hundreds and hundreds of thousend tons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yep, hundreds of thousands of tons. 8th AAF alone was using 20,000 tons per month beginning in July '44 with the RAF using anywhere from 2,000 to 12,000 tons per month from May to December '44, with RAF usage approaching or exceeding 8th AAF's 20k per month beginning in January '45.

LRRP

luftluuver
01-25-2006, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Thank you for confirming the '45 Squadrons' came from speculation, ie. claiming that all units of the 8th AF had converted to 150 grade fuel, when there's no evidence that 'ALL converted' - at all.

So, lrrp22 just speculatesas I suspected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where do you get "confirming the '45 Squadrons' came from speculation" from?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif No more than your speculation that 4-6 understrength and not completly K-4 equiped Gruppen had <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">COMPLETLY</span> converted to C3 and 1.98.

Kurfurst's twisted thought train:

- *cleared* means *all converted* for the Germans

- *cleared* does not mean *all converted* for the Allies.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

lrrp22
01-25-2006, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Thank you for confirming the '45 Squadrons' came from speculation, ie. claiming that all units of the 8th AF had converted to 150 grade fuel, when there's no evidence that 'ALL converted' - at all.

So, lrrp22 just speculatesas I suspected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, it comes from the fact that from July '44 on, VIII FC receieved more than enough 150 grade ecvery month to fuel every single minute of flight time. It comes from the fact that by Mid-June of '44, every single VIII FC fighter airfield, hence every single fighter group, was stocked with 150 grade fuel. It comes from the fact that, in no uncertain terms, Roger Freeman stated in two seperate works (Mighty Eighth 'War Manual' and 'Combat Profile: Mustang') that VIII FC converted -not 'intended to conver't, not 'cleared to convert', but converted- to 100/150 grade during the summer of '44, and continued to use it until *at least* April of '45.

20,000 tons per month Isegrim- 20,000 tons per month.

LRRP

Kurfurst__
01-25-2006, 12:14 PM
Edit : realized I wasted too much time on him already.. one shouldn't spend any time on people who can just repeat high boost was the norm, 1.98ata was 'exceedingly rare', regardless of anything.

Texan...
01-25-2006, 12:51 PM
Bump for boost!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

lrrp22
01-25-2006, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Edit : realized I wasted too much time on him already.. one shouldn't spend any time on people who can just repeat high boost was the norm, 1.98ata was 'exceedingly rare', regardless of anything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Got tired of tilting at windmills, eh Isegrim?

LRRP

luftluuver
01-25-2006, 01:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Edit : realized I wasted too much time on him already.. one shouldn't spend any time on people who can just repeat high boost was the norm, 1.98ata was 'exceedingly rare', regardless of anything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... and Kurfurst exits stage left, after being <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">PWND</span> again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

p1ngu666
01-25-2006, 05:54 PM
until the next time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BigKahuna_GS
01-26-2006, 02:22 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ _________
Grey_Mouser67 Posted Sun January 22 2006 08:45

I'd rather have the Late Jug performing properly, the L and J Lightnings brought into their rightful perfromance envelope, the 43 Spit MkVb with the more powerful Merline and some ordinance options, a late boost Mustang D model with proper weapons and proper handling on all.

I hope the person/people who provided Oleg with the information on the P-47D go back to him and let him know that the aircraft needs tuning....much too slow....
__________________________________________________ ________



Rgr that

Consider it done Mouser !
The proper info was sent in and now patiently waiting for a reply back. The P38J also needs it's climb rate increased.


I have speed tested the P47D-27 (V-max 430mph TAS at 29,000ft & P47D 429mph at 21,500ft. The new P47D needs some serious PEP added to it.

P47D on 150 Grade Fuel Real World Speeds

444mph TAS at 23,200 feet (WEP 70" MAP)
439MPH TAS at 25,200 feet
430MPH TAS at 25,400 feet without water (No WEP 65"MAP)
430MPH TAS at 27,000 Feet
420MPH TAS at 30,000 feet



P38J Flight Tests

Notice the part on manueverability & stall.

A power on stall with flaps is an incredible 53mph.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/p-38.html


ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM
REPORT SERIAL No. Eng-47-1706-A
4 FEBRUARY 1944
Flight Tests on the Lockheed
P-38J Airplane, AAF No. 42-67869


Summary
The P-38J is designed as a high altitude fighter interceptor. This airplane has a fast rate of climb and performs well at high altitude, however, caution must be used in acrobatics and diving maneuvers at all altitudes to keep below limiting airspeeds. These airspeed limitations are low due to tail buffeting which may eventually cause structural failure and are definitely objectionable and hazardous from a combat viewpoint. The stability about all axis is good, the radius of turn is fairly large for a fighter and the rate of roll is fair at medium speeds, but slow at high speeds because of heavy aileron forces. The single engine operations, visibility on the ground and in the air and cockpit layout is good.
High speed and climb performance have been completed on this airplane at a take-off weight of 16,597 lb. This loading corresponds to the average P-38 combat weight with full oil, 300 gallons of fuel and specified armament and ammunition.

The principal results are as follows:

Max speed at critical altitude, 25,800'
(60.0" Hg. Man. Pr. & 3000 rpm) = 421.5 mph

Max speed at sea level
(60.0" Hg. Man. Pr. & 3000 rpm) = 345.0 mph

Rate of climb at sea level
(60.0" Hg. Man. Pr. & 3000 rpm) = 4000'/min.

Rate of climb at critical altitude, 23,400 ft.
(60.0" Hg. Man. Pr. & 3000 rpm) = 2900'/min.

Time to climb to critical altitude, 23,400 ft.
(60.0" Hg. Man. Pr. & 3000 rpm) = 6.49 min.

Service Ceiling = 40,000'

III Condition of Aircraft Relative to Tests
A. The airplane was equipped with wing racks, otherwise the configuration was normal with all flights at a gross weight at take-off of 16,597 pounds with the c.g at 24.75 m.a.c., gear down; and 28.5% m.a.c. , gear up. Gross weight included 300 gallons of fuel, 26 gallons of oil, 457 lbs. of ballast for ammunition, 100 pounds of ballast in the nose to locate the center of gravity within the allowable range, and automatic observer, complet radio equipment and antenna, and 200 pounds for the pilot. All items effecting the drag of the airplane may be seen in the photgraphs which are included at the end of the report.

B. The airplane was equipped with Allison V-1710-89 & 91 engines, type B-33 turbo superchargers with A-13 turbo regulators and Curtiss Electric three blade propellers, blade design numbers 89303-18 and 88996-18, left and right respectively. All power figures are based on a power curve from Eng. Spec. No. 162, dated 30 November 1942.

C. The armament consisted of four 50 caliber machine guns and one 20 mm. cannon in the nose with 457.5 lb. of ballast corresponding to the weight of 1200 rounds of 50 caliber and 150 rounds of 20 mm. ammunition.

D. All flights were made with flaps neutral, gear up, air filter off, coolant and oil shutters automatic, and mixture automatic rich unless otherwise stated.

IV Flight Characteristics

A. Taxiing and Ground Handling

The airplane is easy to taxi and vision is excellent. Response to throttles in turning is good and brakes are readily applied for all positions of the rudder making directional control easy.

B. Take-off

The take-off characteristics of the P-38J are normal for a tricycle gear airplane except for the absence of any noticable torque effect due to the opposite rotating propellers. The airplane takes off after a short ground run and has a steep initial angle of climb. Vision during take-off and climb is good.

C. Stability

The airplane has good longitudinal, directional and lateral stability at all normal speeds, however, there is a slight tendency to hunt directionally in rough air or when flown with external wing tanks. It must be noted, however, that all stability tests were run with full ammunition and an additional 100 lbs. of ballast in the nose to keep the c.g. ahead of 28.5% whcih was the maximum allowable rearward c.g. position at the time of the test. Recent tests on other P-38J's show that it is permissible to move the c.g. back to 32% of the m.a.c.

D. Trim and Balance

The airplane is readily trimmed for all normal flight conditions. Due to the opposite rotating propellers, rudder and aileron trim tab settings do not require adjustment with changes in speed and power. The airplane becomes very noticeably nose heavy when flaps and landing gear are extended, but this change in balance can be easily corrected by use of elevator trim tab.

E. Controllability

Handling qualities of this airplane are generally good. Control forces are moderate and controls are responsive to a high degree at all normal speeds. However, at extremely high speeds beyond the P-38's dive speed limits, the airplane tends to become rapidly nose heavy and elevator effectiveness decreases, making it difficult to pull out.

F. Maneuverability

The airplane is highly maneuverable considering the high wing loading. It has a fairly large radius of turn for a fighter but this is greatly improved by the use of maneuvering flaps. Response to controls in rolls, loops, immelmans is good and these maneuvers are easily executed.

G. Stalling Characteristics

In either power on or power off stalls with flaps and landing gear up the airplane stalls straight forward in a well controlled stall. With flaps and gear down there is a slight tendency for a wing to drop, but there is no tendecy to spin. Ailerons remain effective giving adequate control throughout the stall. Warning of the approaching stall is given by a noticable buffeting and shaking of the airplane and controls. See Part IV F. for stalling speeds for different configurations.

H. Spinning Characteristics

No spin tests were performed.

I. Diving Characteristics

At extremely high speeds in dives the airplane rapidly becomes nose heavy and starts to buffet as if it were about to stall. If this condition is allowed to develop the nose heavy condition becomes more pronounced making the pull out difficult.

J. Single Engine Operation

The airplane has excellent single engine performance. The indicated speed for best climb on one engine is approximately 145 mph and the minimum indicated airspeed at which control can be maintained at rated power is 110 mph. Normal single engine procedure is used.

K. High Altitude Trials

The general operation of the airplane and all controls at high altitudes and low temperatures is satisfactory, however, tail buffeting is experienced even at maximum speeds in level flight at altitudes over 30000 feet. Although the buffeting causes an uneasy feeling, controls remain effective, and it is not dangerous if the dive speed limits are not exceeded.

L. Approach and Landing

The airplane has a normal glide angle and landing technique used is similar to that for airplanes with tailwheels. Vision is excellent on the approach and landing and the tricycle gear reduces the hazards from landing in a cross wind.

M. Night Flying

The cockpit lighting in general is good. Direct or reflected glare from the instrument board lights is not objectionable, however, considerable glare is caused by the cockpit lamps. A retractable landing light is mounted under the left wing and provides adequate lighting for landing, but causes considerable buffeting when fully extended.

N. Noise and Virbration Level Tests at Crew Stations

The noise level of the airplane is low and is not objectionable at any time.

O. Pilot's report on vision and cockpit layout

The vision from the cockpit is good except to the side and down where the engine nacelles interfere. All controls in the cockpit are easily accessible to the pilot and in general the cockpit layout is satisfactory.

V Ship Board Tests

No tests performed.

VI Performance Data (War Emergency Power, 60.0" Hg. Man. Press. & 3000 rpm and 16,597 lb.)

A. Airspeed indicator and altimeter calibration (See Fig. 1 &2)

Airspeed indiator error with Kollsman type D-2 ship's standard pitot head located 8' 1-1/2" inboard left wing tip, 14-5/16" below the wing with the static holes 25-3/4" aft of the leading edge of the wing.


Indicated
Airspeed
MPH Water Col.
Airpseed
MPH Calibrated
Airpseed
MPH Installation
Error
MPH Altimeter
Installation
Error - Feet
360 361.0 347.0 14.0 385.0
330 331.5 319.0 12.5 295.0
300 301.5 291.5 10.0 215.0
270 272.0 264.5 7.5 140.0
240 242.0 237.5 4.5 80.0
210 212.0 211.0 1.0 20.0
180 182.0 184.5 -2.5 -25.0
150 151.5 158.0 -6.5 -60.0

B. High Speed (see Fig. 3)
High speeds in level flight at 3000 rpm, oil shutters flush, coolant shutters automatic, and intercooler shutters closed.


Altitude
Feet True Speed
MPH Intake Man
Press "Hg. Exh Back
Press "Hg Turbo
RPM Brake
Horsepower Coolant Sc
Pos for 105?C
" open
0 345.0 60.0 38.2 8900 1548 4.4
5000 362.5 60.0 36.5 12200 1558 4.4
10000 379.0 60.0 35.3 15200 1567 4.5
15000 394.5 60.0 35.0 18100 1572 4.7
20000 409.0 60.0 35.7 12300 1564 4.9
*25800 421.5 60.0 40.5 26400 1505 5.2
30000 413.5 51.2 35.2 26400 1312 5.4
35000 400.0 42.5 29.2 26400 1136 5.0

*Critical altitude for 26,400 limiting turbo speed and 60.0" Hg. manifold pressure.
C. Cruise Data

Cruising speed at 11,850 feet with mixture as specified, oil shutters flush, coolant shutters automatic, and intercooler closed. This cruise data was obtained on the original right engine and the new left engine and is not comparable to the other reported (see part VI. Sec. G) speed data.


Brake
Horsepower True Speed
MPH Manifold
Pressure
"Hg. Engine
Mixture
Setting Coolant pos. for
105?C "open
1612 383.5 60.8 3000 AR 5.2
1396 370.5 51.6 2800 AR 4.7
1185 351.0 43.4 2600 AR 3.8
893 313.5 33.0 2300 AR 3.8
836 308.0 31.2 2150 AL 3.8
739 291.5 28.1 1900 AL 3.8
619 268.5 24.4 1600 AL 3.8

D. Climb Data (See Fig. 4)
Climb performance at 3000 rpm with oil and coolant shutters automatic, and intercooler shutters wide open.


Alt.
Ft. Rate of
Climb
Ft/Min. Time of
Climb-Min. Intake
Man. Pr.
"Hg. Brake
Horse-
power True
Speed
MPH Oil Sh.
Pos for
85?C "open Coolant
Sh. Pos. for
105?C "open
0 4000 0 60.0 1550 160.0 0.2 12.5
5000 3960 1.25 60.0 1570 170.0 0.3 11.5
10000 3820 2.54 60.0 1575 183.5 1.5 10.5
15000 3550 3.89 60.0 1560 198.0 2.0 10.0
20000 3190 5.37 60.0 1523 214.0 3.0 10.0
*23400 2900 6.49 60.0 1478 224.0 3.0 9.5
25000 2665 7.06 56.7 1415 229.0 3.0 9.5
30000 1830 9.32 47.4 1220 243.5 3.5 9.5
35000 985 12.99 39.0 1020 259.0 3.5 9.0
S/C 40000 100 25.14 31.0 825 275.0 4.0 9.0
A/C 20500 0 - - - - - -

*Critical altitude in climb for 26400 limiting turbo speed and 60.0" Hg. manifold pressure.
E. Cooling Shutter Tests

The average temperatures maintained by the thermostatic controls on the oil and coolant shutters were 85?C and 105?C respectively; therefore, all performance was corrected to shutter positions that would maintain these temperatures on a standard day with the exception of the oil shutters, whixh were corrected to the flush position for level flight.

No standard Air Corps cooling tests were made, however, from all indications the airplane will meet the requirements (125?C coolant temperature and 95?C oil temperature) in both level flight and climb with the exception that the oil temperature would be critical in climb above 35000' on an army hot day.

(1) Oil and coolant shutter calibrations in level flight at 5000 feet altitude with 50" Hg. manifold pressure and 3000 rpm.


Constant coolant shutter position Oil shutters flush
Intercooler closed Intercooler closed
Oil shutter as specified Coolant shutter as specified


Oil shutter
Position- "open " IAS
From W.O. position Coolant shutter
Position- "open " IAS
From W.O. position
5.55 W.O. 0.0 13.55 W.O. 0
4.45 +6.0 2.4 +23
3.35 +8.0 0 +16
2.2 +10.0
1.1 +12.0
0 +11.0

F. Stalling Speeds

Position
of Position
of Indicated airspeed
Correctedfor instrument error
Landing gear Flaps Power Off Power on*
Up Up 99.0 74
Down Up 95.0 73
Down Down 78.0 53

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/p-38j-67869-climb.jpg


http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/p-38j-67869-climb.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
01-26-2006, 02:32 AM
Try again

P38J Climb Chart

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/p-38j-67869-climb.jpg

p1ngu666
01-26-2006, 03:01 AM
your new sig is pretty nice http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

stathem
01-26-2006, 03:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
your new sig is pretty nice http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Second that.

BigKahuna_GS
01-26-2006, 03:40 AM
S!
__________________________________________________ ________
p1ngu66
your new sig is pretty nice
__________________________________________________ ________



And I thought you were just talking about the P38J climb rate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

What could be better than a hot babe on the wing of a Corsair with 16 rising sun kill marks-- http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/p-38j-67869-climb.jpg

p1ngu666
01-26-2006, 03:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!
__________________________________________________ ________
p1ngu66
your new sig is pretty nice
__________________________________________________ ________



And I thought you were just talking about the P38J climb rate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

What could be better than a hot babe on the wing of a Corsair with 16 rising sun kill marks-- http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think thats pretty obivous.
a hot babe on me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Texan...
01-26-2006, 04:14 AM
Third.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

AustinPowers_
01-26-2006, 04:16 AM
THe P-47D must only be underperforming above 23,000FT.. because below that altitude I can hit real world figures.

I got 443MPH at 23,200FT in game.

Although I did notice a considerable drop in manifold pressure.. too early now doubt.

Kurfurst__
01-26-2006, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Got tired of tilting at windmills, eh Isegrim?

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's no windmill you poor thing, as for your performance of denial and prooving things, I'd compare that to the effect of a sick man's f@rt in the whirlwind. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I just realized there's no point wasting time to a parrot and his no-life friend. You'll probably never realize that repeating the same without any facts and declearing yourself 'victorious' because you had the last word doesn't actually convince anybody over an age of 8 and/or 60 IQ points.If you haven't noticed, nobody takes you here seriously, you are a two-man club of internet freaks with the sorry milomoron forming your own audiance. The evidence has been posted, people can make up their minds about it, and it's just doesn't matter even 1% in that how much noise you make about it.

ImpStarDuece
01-26-2006, 06:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

There's no windmill you poor thing, as for your performance of denial and prooving things, I'd compare that to the effect of a sick man's f@rt in the whirlwind. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I just realized there's no point wasting time to a parrot and his no-life friend. You'll probably never realize that repeating the same without any facts and declearing yourself 'victorious' because you had the last word doesn't actually convince anybody over an age of 8 and/or 60 IQ points.If you haven't noticed, nobody takes you here seriously, you are a two-man club of internet freaks with the sorry milomoron forming your own audiance. The evidence has been posted, people can make up their minds about it, and it's just doesn't matter even 1% in that how much noise you make about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personal attacks are SO 2005. Get with the program Kurfurst http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

BigKahuna_GS
01-26-2006, 11:59 AM
S!
_______________________________________________
AustinPowers_ Posted Thu January 26 2006 03:16
THe P-47D must only be underperforming above 23,000FT.. because below that altitude I can hit real world figures.

I got 443MPH at 23,200FT in game.
_______________________________________________



Congrats you the first guy to hit them.

The best I could after much testing was 430mph at 23,000ft. Also the Map/Hg drops considerably fast above this altitude.


__

Willey
01-28-2006, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Hmmmmm....the in game P-47D is only 10 km/hr faster than the D-27....that is a whopping 6 mph.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Anyone see a patten? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I also noticed it's almost non existent advantage, and did some tests (no tracks, made it on the online mountain map in DF mode)

I had Wind&Turbulences and overheating off (therefore always 110% rads closed), unlimited fuel, 25% default loadout and made excessive use of elevator and rudder trim to keep the machine as stable as possible. First I took the deck speed, then climbed at 270-280kph IAS on the deck till 250-260kph IAS at 8km, read the climb gauge, took the time to reach 1km and 8km, then I took the level speed at 7500m (Il-2 Compare topspeed of the D-27 is ~710@7500).

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> D-27 D 25lb
Deck speed 565 570
Initial climb 4500 4500
Time to 1000 0:40 0:45
Time to 8000 6:30 6:30
7500 speed 710 690</pre>

Remarkably, the 25lb version is just a very little tad faster on the deck, and does even lag 20kph behind the D-27 at altitude - everything else is very, very close (there were some differences in climb like 2-3 seconds to 8k in favor for the D-27, but that may have been my flight attitude).

My guess: The D-27 once got a performance boost in some patch, which was explained with the better paddle blade prop it had over the other models (I remember the D-22 should also have it).
Now the new one has higher boost, but I'd bet it doesn't have the paddle blade prop, therefore it's hardly better. Imagine it had the same speed up there like the D-27, that's 20 more. That would mean at least 20 more on the deck, which would be 590, maybe it could even scratch 600 then. That's what I expected, and a better climb rate.

fordfan25
01-28-2006, 11:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Harti:
yes and a boosted Dora too. would be nice to have </div></BLOCKQUOTE> already done. TA-152 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Grey_Mouser67
01-29-2006, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Willey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Hmmmmm....the in game P-47D is only 10 km/hr faster than the D-27....that is a whopping 6 mph.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Anyone see a patten? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I also noticed it's almost non existent advantage, and did some tests (no tracks, made it on the online mountain map in DF mode)

I had Wind&Turbulences and overheating off (therefore always 110% rads closed), unlimited fuel, 25% default loadout and made excessive use of elevator and rudder trim to keep the machine as stable as possible. First I took the deck speed, then climbed at 270-280kph IAS on the deck till 250-260kph IAS at 8km, read the climb gauge, took the time to reach 1km and 8km, then I took the level speed at 7500m (Il-2 Compare topspeed of the D-27 is ~710@7500).

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> D-27 D 25lb
Deck speed 565 570
Initial climb 4500 4500
Time to 1000 0:40 0:45
Time to 8000 6:30 6:30
7500 speed 710 690</pre>

Remarkably, the 25lb version is just a very little tad faster on the deck, and does even lag 20kph behind the D-27 at altitude - everything else is very, very close (there were some differences in climb like 2-3 seconds to 8k in favor for the D-27, but that may have been my flight attitude).

My guess: The D-27 once got a performance boost in some patch, which was explained with the better paddle blade prop it had over the other models (I remember the D-22 should also have it).
Now the new one has higher boost, but I'd bet it doesn't have the paddle blade prop, therefore it's hardly better. Imagine it had the same speed up there like the D-27, that's 20 more. That would mean at least 20 more on the deck, which would be 590, maybe it could even scratch 600 then. That's what I expected, and a better climb rate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looks like a Placebo

And it continues....

Willey
01-29-2006, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Harti:
yes and a boosted Dora too. would be nice to have </div></BLOCKQUOTE> already done. TA-152 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice, retroboost http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif It's slower on the deck http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Anyways, before we'll get a boosted D-9, I want a correct D-9 with 621/612 on the deck ('44/'45).

mole_boy
01-29-2006, 08:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you haven't noticed, nobody takes you here seriously, you are a two-man club of internet freaks with the sorry milomoron forming your own audiance. The evidence has been posted, people can make up their minds about it, and it's just doesn't matter even 1% in that how much noise you make about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black m8?

fordfan25
01-29-2006, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Willey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Harti:
yes and a boosted Dora too. would be nice to have </div></BLOCKQUOTE> already done. TA-152 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice, retroboost http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif It's slower on the deck http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Anyways, before we'll get a boosted D-9, I want a correct D-9 with 621/612 on the deck ('44/'45). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and realistic DM for the double wasp. correct dive rates and unsyched .50s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Kira1985
01-29-2006, 11:56 PM
Yes, the Dora's speed better be fixed in the add-ons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif Bring on the D-11/12/13 too, or 152C

robban75
01-30-2006, 02:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Willey:

Anyways, before we'll get a boosted D-9, I want a correct D-9 with 621/612 on the deck ('44/'45). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The D-9 '45 can already reach 612km/h at sealevel. Problem is, it's about 30km/h too slow at 2000m. It's also too slow at 3000m, by about 10km/h.

The D-9 '44 is too slow between 0 and 3000m. It lacks around 13-14 km/h at SL, 20km/h at 2000 and 3000m and it is 6-7km/h too fast at 5500m. It also lacks an acceleration advantage over the '45 version. Looking at the speeds obtained by the '44 version it should have some 100HP more than the '45 version. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The D-13 should have similar or better performance compared to the (real) D-9 '44 up to 5700m, after that it should just walk away from it.

Danschnell
01-30-2006, 08:04 AM
Yes I completely agree. Speed is the Dora's only advantage, so I don't know why they reduced its speed in the first place.

As for all those people wanting those boosted allied planes, I really hope they aren't successful with their requests. Allied planes are already more manouverable, and faster (because of messed up Axis speeds from real life) and if they get boost as well, they'll be unbeatable. Won't be any gameplay left.

HellToupee
01-30-2006, 08:45 AM
u arnt flying the dora i know, it can outmanover many allied types, not a spitfire but p38s p51s and 47s for sure.

robban75
01-30-2006, 08:58 AM
I'd say the Dora is on par with the P-51, and slightly more manouverable than the P-47. At least down low.

Hetzer_II
01-30-2006, 09:59 AM
I would say Dora ist better than 51 on speeds...

But: I dont fear any boosted 51 or 47.. what i fear is a boostes IX because it already lacks a normal fm... its already more than competetive in a 44-45 szenario.. you almost have no chance in a 1vs1 fight in any 190... only if the Spit pilot is a noob... what happens quiet often ;-) or if you have pleeeeeennntyyyy energy.. everything else is a onesided gamecard...

If there will be a boosted IX than please give them a fm..

jagdmailer
01-30-2006, 10:34 AM
YES!!! We are getting a 1945 Bf 109K-4 C3 fuel @1.98 ATA!!!!!

See: http://www.pacific-fighters.com/en/home.php

THANK YOU OLEG!!!!

Jagdmailer

p1ngu666
01-30-2006, 10:37 AM
pics dont work http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

p1ngu666
01-30-2006, 12:00 PM
ah do now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Viper2005_
01-30-2006, 12:09 PM
I think I might have to discard my A9 and learn to fly the K4 when the patch comes out...

Kurfurst__
01-30-2006, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jagdmailer:
YES!!! We are getting a 1945 Bf 109K-4 C3 fuel @1.98 ATA!!!!!

See: http://www.pacific-fighters.com/en/home.php

THANK YOU OLEG!!!!

Jagdmailer </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

crazyivan1970
01-30-2006, 04:29 PM
Well, since you got what you wanted... is it safe to close this 11 pages wonder?

lrrp22
01-30-2006, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Well, since you got what you wanted... is it safe to close this 11 pages wonder? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+13 lbs boost Tempest anyone? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

HayateAce
01-30-2006, 05:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jagdmailer:
YES!!! We are getting a 1945 Bf 109K-4 C3 fuel @1.98 ATA!!!!!

See: http://www.pacific-fighters.com/en/home.php

THANK YOU OLEG!!!!

Jagdmailer </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Standart blue behaviour: Cryballing=Overboosted UFOs=Come into forum and gloat. I suspect the result is typical. Blue logs onto server, selects 109K4@UFOboost, gets shot down, cries in chat box, returns to forum to cry for more. Has always been this way, since orig IL2 game.

Whaaaaaaa Tempest, whaaaaaaaaaaaa.


HORRIDO! is the cry.

http://www.nla.gov.au/pub/nlanews/2000/october00/images/crying-child.jpg

faustnik
01-30-2006, 06:19 PM
Well, the clown arrived. Thread is over.

Jetbuff
01-30-2006, 06:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Well, the clown arrived. Thread is over. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Clown? Don't you mean the entire circus? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ivan, please, in the immortal words of Oleg, "close it and never open again..."

BigKahuna_GS
01-31-2006, 10:58 AM
S!

______________________________________________
p1ngu666
cool, so with enuff power the p47 could hawl itself along as fast as any other ww2 prop
______________________________________________




Faster--look at the P47M & P47N http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Though 70" MAP was the "official" boost level, P47 FG's were using up to 78" boost prior to the P47M arriving. Imagine the speed and climb these P47D's were attaining with 8" more boost.

Now imagine the P47M over boosted to 78" MAP!


_______________________________________________

JtD--Both the D-27 and the D have 435 at 23200 ft.

AustinPowers_
THe P-47D must only be underperforming above 23,000FT.. because below that altitude I can hit real world figures.

I got 443MPH at 23,200FT in game.
_______________________________________________




With all due respect and not knowing "how" you tested, all of these speeds are incorrect for the P47D.

from Oleg--"We will correct P-47D"


--