PDA

View Full Version : 109K-4 and 1.98ata



luftluuver
12-11-2005, 09:17 AM
Reading Kurfurst's article on the K-4 I can only find that 1.98 had been cleared for operational use. I could not find any info in the article stating that the 4 Gruppen authorized had converted to 1.98.

The questions:

How many a/c had converted to 1.98?

Also, he says of the 142 K-4s and some Gs on hand, only 79 were servicable.

How many each of the K-4s and the Gs in the 4 Gruppen?

What model(s) of G?

What was the major reason why the 63 a/c were non-servicable?

Was there enough C3 fuel for the converted a/c?

luftluuver
12-11-2005, 09:17 AM
Reading Kurfurst's article on the K-4 I can only find that 1.98 had been cleared for operational use. I could not find any info in the article stating that the 4 Gruppen authorized had converted to 1.98.

The questions:

How many a/c had converted to 1.98?

Also, he says of the 142 K-4s and some Gs on hand, only 79 were servicable.

How many each of the K-4s and the Gs in the 4 Gruppen?

What model(s) of G?

What was the major reason why the 63 a/c were non-servicable?

Was there enough C3 fuel for the converted a/c?

AKA_TAGERT
01-12-2006, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Reading Kurfurst's article on the K-4 I can only find that 1.98 had been cleared for operational use. I could not find any info in the article stating that the 4 Gruppen authorized had converted to 1.98.

The questions:

How many a/c had converted to 1.98?

Also, he says of the 142 K-4s and some Gs on hand, only 79 were servicable.

How many each of the K-4s and the Gs in the 4 Gruppen?

What model(s) of G?

What was the major reason why the 63 a/c were non-servicable?

Was there enough C3 fuel for the converted a/c? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting.. So, Kurfurst, show us what you got. I would love to see it! I would also love to see how the P38 66"MP naysayers get in line to kiss the ring of Kurfurst and acept the 1 or 2 document references of a 109 *using* 1.98 as if god himself wrote them in stone. This would be perfect timing what with the P38 70"MP+ thread running at the same time to see how even handed the smack-tards are.

Daiichidoku
01-12-2006, 09:46 AM
welcome to Kurfy's rope-a-dope http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

AustinPowers_
01-12-2006, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
welcome to Kurfy's rope-a-dope http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

You savvy? 獸 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

faustnik
01-12-2006, 10:19 AM
Megile,

Why did you change your nickname? It confuses me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Unknown-Pilot
01-12-2006, 10:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Megile,

Why did you change your nickname? It confuses me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He got banned by a King Kong mod. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

hugohugo37
01-12-2006, 10:52 AM
Dumb question-

What does ata stand for and what does it mean in this context?

Thanks

AKA_TAGERT
01-12-2006, 10:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
welcome to Kurfy's rope-a-dope http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL!

Hristo_
01-12-2006, 11:17 PM
naysaying smacktard http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-13-2006, 12:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
naysaying smacktard http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! How orginal!

alert_1
01-13-2006, 01:02 AM
I'm trzing to imagine but failing to: you have fighter technically capable of 1.98 ata and you have lot of them, but what you dont have is pilots and fuel and you desperately need to outperform enemy fighters under these conditions.You are gradually running short of everything and situation is more and more embarrasing. But you're still patiently waiting for "clearing" to use yoour diminishing potential to full stop....

Abbuzze
01-13-2006, 02:41 AM
A few things I have found:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/6731-198.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/db-minute-6730.pdf
(both in german)

The Erprobungstelle (Testcenter) reports problems with 1.98at체 engines, while Daimler Benz tests were positive.
The Erprobungstelle forbid further deliveries of 1.90at체 engines to the units. Units with this engines are allowed to use them till they are worn out. Gruppe 2/11 will do more test with 1.98at체.
24th Jan. 1945

Short version, sorry no more time at the moment.
So at least 1.9at체 engines were deliverd to frontline units. (no number is mentioned)

carguy_
01-13-2006, 04:53 AM
Entirely not needed IMO.If any,we need a high altitude Me109 that could maintain power up to say 8500m.

Not hijecking the thread but this thread is of no real use.

I would like to see boosted G6/early.Just to have some fun with 태갵vochkins.


And on a side note,I think Tagert has flipped his wig http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

AustinPowers_
01-13-2006, 04:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Megile,

Why did you change your nickname? It confuses me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was ace hated.

luftluuver
01-13-2006, 05:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
Entirely not needed IMO.If any,we need a high altitude Me109 that could maintain power up to say 8500m.

Not hijecking the thread but this thread is of no real use. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't need your 'IMO' since am not asking for a 1.98 K-4? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Not interested in a/c? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


hugo 1.98ata is the boost level. 1ata is approx 29"Hg.

danjama
01-13-2006, 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 AustinPowers_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Megile,

Why did you change your nickname? It confuses me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was ace hated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a guy! Welcome back Meg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

carguy_
01-13-2006, 06:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Don't need your 'IMO' since am not asking for a 1.98 K-4? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Not interested in a/c? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh,alright.I don`t see the point in this discoussion other than thatit "should" be flyable.

If this is only talking then it appears I`m not so passionate about it.

You`re making Tagert nervous though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Carry on then chip chip cheeerioh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-13-2006, 09:37 AM
I can not tell you how happy it makes me to know that my P38 75" thread rattled your cage so hard that you feel the need to mention me in every responce! Thanks for the feedback! Nice to know it worked!

WOLFMondo
01-13-2006, 09:49 AM
Got your very own groupie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-13-2006, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Got your very own groupie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL

darkhorizon11
01-13-2006, 11:16 AM
okay children lets make it fair (i say this without bias to either side) blue gets its 1.98ata K-4 or G-6 and red gets its 70"MAP P-38

AKA_TAGERT
01-13-2006, 11:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
okay children lets make it fair (i say this without bias to either side) blue gets its 1.98ata K-4 or G-6 and red gets its 70"MAP P-38 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Make it 75"MP and you got a deal!

Kocur_
01-13-2006, 02:16 PM
A-a-a! D-11/12/13!

darkhorizon11
01-14-2006, 12:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
okay children lets make it fair (i say this without bias to either side) blue gets its 1.98ata K-4 or G-6 and red gets its 70"MAP P-38 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Make it 75"MP and you got a deal! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets see proof, evidence only shows a 74.92" P-38...kiddin. For once were in agreement Tagert, deal! although I ussually fly red or the Me 262 personally I'm generally not a blue flyer.

robban75
01-14-2006, 09:10 AM
I'd like an A-lader Dora.

Kurfurst__
01-16-2006, 04:57 AM
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 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.-F체hr체ngstab, 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)


The stuff on MW's Spitty page is quite funny, given that he claims the DC did not see service etc (it's the uphteenth version of the story) and qoutes the reperaturanweisenung from the same period in March 1945 with the ratings for the DB 605 - DB! A rating of a different engine altogether, which was never meant to run above 1.8ata anyway. Curious why not the full page, perhaps because it also references to the DC at 1.98ata, in fact the document itself is a repair directive to menchanics how to convert 605DB engines into DC... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AustinPowers_
01-16-2006, 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 Kurfurst__:

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 up to six Wings of G-10/K-4.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's interesting Kurfy... you "suspect" and you "say" up to six wings.... based on engine Clearance and available fuel..

Yet P-38 at 66" MP is "fantasy"... even though we have engine clearance, and proof the fuel was available

What gives?

luftluuver
01-16-2006, 07:01 AM
A Gruppe should have an establishment of 52 a/c or 208 a/c for the 4 Gruppen. Yet, there was only 142 a/c in those 4 Gruppen or 68.3% of establishment strength. Servicable strength was only 37.5% of establishment strength.

At the end of Dec 1944, II./JG11 only had 11 K-4s (a staffel) of which only 4 were servicable(5.9% of establishment strength of 68 a/c), or 16.2% of establishement strength(68 a/c). Saying II./JG11 was a test unit is being rather deceitful.

Kurfurst__
01-16-2006, 07:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
That's interesting Kurfy... you "suspect" and you "say" up to six wings.... based on engine Clearance and available fuel.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, the documentation say 4 Gruppe from JG 27 and 53 used 1.98ata. No guessing here. These had 142 Bf 109 aircraft on 9th April 1942 on hand.

Neither is there guessing about II/JG11, since DB transscripts are clear the unit was using 1.98ata from February 1945. On 10th January 1945 II/JG 11 had 37 Bf 109 (31 servicable).

So 5 Wings using it for quite certain (4 in the West, 1(2?) in the East), whereas a 6th Wing may or may not, but it's kinda odd that it's receiving 100 octane fuel for it's G-10 like the 1.98ata II/JG11, whereas all the other 109 Gruppen rely on 87 octane on the East, curious, isn't it?

luftluuver
01-16-2006, 07:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Neither is there guessing about II/JG11, since DB transscripts are clear the unit was using 1.98ata from February 1945. On 10th January 1945 II/JG 11 had 37 Bf 109 (31 servicable).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
On Jan 1 1945 II./JG11 had:

109G-6/U2 - 1 on hand/1 servicable
109G-14/AS - 38/26
109K-4 - 11/4
total - 50/31

Olivier Lefebvre:
As for the fuel supply, I own copies showing detailed stockpile status for February-April 1945... But yes the C3 was definitely scarce.

C3 was not used by 109 units until the 1.98ata boost was cleared, they relied on B4+MW-50 so that C3 could go to the 190 units. And even after the clearance only few gruppen got it because of shortages due not only to C3 production but also to C3 delivery to the units.

Of the LWs se a/c (109+190), 109s made up 40.3%, the 190s 59.7%.
190s required C3

Kurfurst__
01-16-2006, 09:02 AM
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.-F체hr체ngstab, 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)

luftluuver
01-16-2006, 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 Kurfurst__:

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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is nice but how many of those 109s were G-10/K-4s?

p1ngu666
01-16-2006, 11:25 PM
whats j2?
ive never heard of it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

they certainly have alot of it anyways http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

the supply cituation, while they had some fuel, getting it too units seems to have been very hard.

read about oxen use to move aircraft about, so as not to waste fuel, for example http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

80% of 262's never saw service, a similer "missing" rate on fuel is entirely probable.

specialy as allied aircrews would love to blow up fuel, not simpley because its important, but but because of the huge explosiion it would make http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

when tallboys where first used, the crews where very disapointed, just a little red dot that flashed, very underwelming considering the size of the bomb.
they cheered up when the PR returned with pictures of mass destruction http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

they had bombed in the dark, and the bombs exploded underground too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Abbuzze
01-17-2006, 02:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
whats j2?
ive never heard of it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

they certainly have alot of it anyways http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

the supply cituation, while they had some fuel, getting it too units seems to have been very hard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just googeled a bit, it讐큦 jetfuel made of coal tar.

Kurfurst__
01-17-2006, 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 p1ngu666:
whats j2?
ive never heard of it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
they certainly have alot of it anyways http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

J-2 is a kind of diesel fuel, that was used by the jets with Jumo 004B, ie. the Me 262 and the Ar234. The He 162s BMW engine would rely on B4 though. Yep it's quite a low, though the jets also consumed it at an immense rate compared to piston engined fighters.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the supply cituation, while they had some fuel, getting it too units seems to have been very hard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How come, it's just the storage immidiately available on airfields. It's not the entire supply, just the supply that was ready for daily use on the airfields of the Luftwaffenkommando West's units (which is just another part of the whole thing). The standard was to keep enough fuel on the a/fs for a few weeks of consumption. Strategical/central reserves, even grearly reduced this time to a few tenthousend tons by this time, were stored elsewhere in bunkers.

I am quite certain that even with all the difficulties they faced, the germans would be able to transport a fuel barrel from one corner on the airfield to the other. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

luftluuver
01-17-2006, 06:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">C-3 = 284,000 liters </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is only enough fuel for 2 days with all the 197 109s and 42 190s flying with drop tanks.

AKA_TAGERT
01-17-2006, 09:46 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">C-3 = 284,000 liters </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is only enough fuel for 2 days with all the 197 109s and 42 190s flying with drop tanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Good Point!

p1ngu666
01-17-2006, 10:11 PM
luft, got a sortie number?

but if its only 2 days worth, then u understand the oxen, and other thingss

that j2 sounds like nasty stuff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

pourshot
01-17-2006, 10:23 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">C-3 = 284,000 liters </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is only enough fuel for 2 days with all the 197 109s and 42 190s flying with drop tanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe so no shortages aye http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Abbuzze
01-18-2006, 02:25 AM
<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">C-3 = 284,000 liters </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is only enough fuel for 2 days with all the 197 109s and 42 190s flying with drop tanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many planes did you assumed as ready for service, and how many flown missions per day did you calculate?
Or was this just a "funny" calculation?

luftluuver
01-18-2006, 02:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<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">C-3 = 284,000 liters </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is only enough fuel for 2 days with <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">all</span> the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">197</span> 109s and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">42</span> 190s flying with drop tanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many planes did you assumed as ready for service, and how many flown missions per day did you calculate?
Or was this just a "funny" calculation? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't know how to use a calculator? Does the yellow text help?

Abbuzze
01-18-2006, 03:04 AM
<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 Abbuzze:
<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">C-3 = 284,000 liters </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is only enough fuel for 2 days with <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">all</span> the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">197</span> 109s and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">42</span> 190s flying with drop tanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many planes did you assumed as ready for service, and how many flown missions per day did you calculate?
Or was this just a "funny" calculation? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't know how to use a calculator? Does the yellow text help? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It helps! So nothing serious. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst__
01-19-2006, 05:38 AM
It's just a funny one, it was discussed already on butch's board, kutscha is just throwing it in again.

He seems to calculate that if all ~200 109s would rely on C3 even if only the 70-odd ones from JG 53 needed it to operate on augmented power, the rest could use B4 with the same performance. Then of course every day 100% of the planes are servicable, 100% of them flies sorties, they take droptanks and empty them 100% as well. Yep, typical. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Under more realistic conditions (far from every plane on every day flew missions - for one reason, wheater), and the interceptions/ground strafings they did were short. So I'd say the fuel stock (look at the date) was pretty much enough until the wars end, even if there was no resupply of the airfields at all.

BTW, kutcha claimed IIRC there were only around 800 German fighters servicable on the West in December, these flew 10 000 sorties in the month month, so it's ca 12.5 sortie/month/plane, or about once in every 3 days on avarage (there was always planes on the ground etc.), which seems more realistic, even if December was a rather busy month. I'd very much doubt that every plane would fly on every day on the allied side either.

luftluuver
01-19-2006, 06:26 AM
Who is this kutscha, Kurfurst? Is your paranoid schizophrenia taking on a down turn? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

You do have your troubles with Englsh, don't you? I did say <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">ALL</span>. It was just an example of how much fuel there was.

Those 73 109s and 42 190s, using drop tanks, and flying 1 sortie <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">every day</span>, only had fuel for <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">3 days</span>. Considering the crappy range they had, they needed drop tanks. Stooging around in an unfriendly sky at most economical speed is a good way to get killed. A typical radius for a 109 was ~135mi without drop tanks.

The Aces High board is so nice to brose now with your <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">permanent banning </span>. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
01-19-2006, 11:24 AM
so, .5 sorties a day plus some scraping up, would give u enuff for a week..

Gibbage1
01-19-2006, 01:09 PM
Didnt I read the Luftwaffe pilots were flying 5+ sorties a day near the end?

p1ngu666
01-19-2006, 01:38 PM
read where gibb?

faustnik
01-19-2006, 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 Gibbage1:
Didnt I read the Luftwaffe pilots were flying 5+ sorties a day near the end? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not in most cases. It was really difficult for the LW pilots just to get off the field with all the Allied jabos just waiting for them to try. Weather was a factor in the winter and spring too. If they did get off the ground, they had some limited successes. They might locate and bounce an Allied jabo unit but, they were in turn quickly bounced by other Allied fighters. A very grim picture for the LW in the west. Operations in the East were easier.

berg417448
01-19-2006, 02:20 PM
Yeah...it was tough going for them at the end. I read in Steinhoff's book about an Me-262 pilot in his unit who was shot down on four consecutive missions.