PDA

View Full Version : Oleg please, is there any chance we get Fuw190A6



alert_1
10-24-2005, 04:05 AM
boosted at 1.68 ATA? It was common "power up" setting from spring/summer on all A6. "Red" now have their bossted P38L/P47D, so maybe a little more balance and historical correctness we might have those Fw190? I hope it should't be too much work to adjust FM slightly, reflecting the higher boost.

OldMan____
10-24-2005, 04:37 AM
Wasn't it 1.58 ATA ? Even then I don think Oleg would spend much timeon it since we have good amount of FW's.

p1ngu666
10-24-2005, 08:23 AM
a6 at higher boost would make it better than teh 109s
cant be having that now, can we? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MEGILE
10-24-2005, 08:38 AM
That A6 would be a killer for sure...
I believe Faustnik asked, and got a stern No. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

WOLFMondo
10-24-2005, 08:42 AM
Its a killer already:P

Hows about an A7 to complete the sethttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kwiatos
10-24-2005, 08:47 AM
I would rather have A-4 with higher boost

jagdmailer
10-24-2005, 09:17 AM
How about having both uprated Fw 190A-4 and Fw 190A-6 while we are at it? It should not be too much to ask for really......nothing much if any different here than the recently made available boosted P-51, boosted P-47, boosted Yak-7B......

"Perks" trend lately is definately with the Red side.....

BTW, before anyone starts any flames, I play STRICTLY offline.

Jagd

[Kwiatos Posted Mon October 24 2005 07:47
I would rather have A-4 with higher boost]

faustnik
10-24-2005, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by jagdmailer:

"Perks" trend lately is definately with the Red side.....



Jagd,

The USAAF got some much needed uprated a/c but, we've had out Ta's and Doras for a long time now. The RAF is still missing its very common +25 Spit IX.

I'm really hoping we can get an A7 (same power as A8 only lighter) and Spit IX +25 in the sim. No graphics changes are required just some power/weight tweakage.

VW-IceFire
10-24-2005, 03:43 PM
I have to agree with Faustnik as usual (the man is wise http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).

The Dora's and the Ta-152H are top notch aircraft. You can beat any Allied fighter with them and perhaps even have performance room to spare. What more is needed in that regard?

If we're going to get another Focke Wulf then I heartily vote for a F-9 with Panzerblitz rocket packs. A nice Axis jabo with rockets, a high top speed, and the well known FW190 reliability and I'd be very happy indeed!

And yes a Spitfire IX +25lb would be a good balance as well. Good for that NW Germany map!

p1ngu666
10-24-2005, 04:08 PM
probably a good time to inject

oh but teh warclouds!

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

jagdmailer
10-24-2005, 04:11 PM
Except I do not fly Doras not Ta.....

Jagd


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 jagdmailer:

"Perks" trend lately is definately with the Red side.....



Jagd,

The USAAF got some much needed uprated a/c but, we've had out Ta's and Doras for a long time now. The RAF is still missing its very common +25 Spit IX.

I'm really hoping we can get an A7 (same power as A8 only lighter) and Spit IX +25 in the sim. No graphics changes are required just some power/weight tweakage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

HeinzBar
10-24-2005, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
What more is needed in that regard?

<span class="ev_code_RED">How about fw190d 13? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif</span>

If we're going to get another Focke Wulf then I heartily vote for a F-9 with Panzerblitz rocket packs. A nice Axis jabo with rockets, a high top speed, and the well known FW190 reliability and I'd be very happy indeed!

<span class="ev_code_RED">With this current patch, the fw190 reliability is gone, especially in regards to the fw190f8. Try zipping in at 600+kph against any US M16 and you'll soon find out how powerful and accurate those AI .50s are and how inefficient the F8's armor is. There is no difference in the Anton's when it comes to receiving damage. After having to hear all the whining about how indestructible it was in 4.01 (which it was), it seems that a point had to be made to reassure that FW's DM was fixed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif It's gone from being armored joke to being a wet tissue farce. It appears that the FW's DM has pulled a complete 180 deg turn for the worse. </span>

And yes a Spitfire IX +25lb would be a good balance as well.

<span class="ev_code_RED">I agree w/ the addition of the +25lb spits. However, if the Tempest is released there's no need for it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif</span>

WWMaxGunz
10-24-2005, 06:03 PM
I've looked over many RAE docs on the big Spitfire site to find +25 speed at alt and +25
climbs and... I don't see any. I only see +25 being used on takeoff and noted that's the
only place it was used. Why? Could the plane not generate +25 except at near sea level?
Also the docs note a short time limit at +25.
This is for the Spit IX's. So before the servers get full of +25 Spits vs 1.68 ATA FW's
and 1.98 ATA 109K's it's maybe time to show docs where those boosts were used by line AC
in the war and not just a few prototypes or special trials.
It's like the people who think game P-51's should be able to use mach .82 because a test
pilot did over Wright Field.....

darkhorizon11
10-24-2005, 06:27 PM
Panzerblitz would be nice but Oleg has made it clear were not seeing any more new weapons in the game for now.

Kuna15
10-24-2005, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Its a killer already:P

Hows about an A7 to complete the sethttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/smileys/ditto.gif afaik the only difference between types were nose machine guns, 7,62mm > 13mm.

Evil.Merlin
10-24-2005, 08:28 PM
I doubt we will see the A6.

It needs a new wing, and different gunnery models. Not to mention there were several issues with the "up boost" killing engines very early.

CUJO_1970
10-24-2005, 08:33 PM
We need the FW190A-7 to bridge the gap between Autumn 1943 and Spring 1944, serial production of the A-6 and A-8.

There were over 700 FW190A-7 built 43/44.

What we really need for the Focke-Wulfs is just a simple drop tank for the A-8/9 and the Dora.

That they don't have external tanks is just silly.

CUJO_1970
10-24-2005, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Evil.Merlin:
I doubt we will see the A6.

It needs a new wing, and different gunnery models. Not to mention there were several issues with the "up boost" killing engines very early.


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif we already have the A-6.

Viper2005_
10-24-2005, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I've looked over many RAE docs on the big Spitfire site to find +25 speed at alt and +25
climbs and... I don't see any. I only see +25 being used on takeoff and noted that's the
only place it was used. Why? Could the plane not generate +25 except at near sea level?
Also the docs note a short time limit at +25.
This is for the Spit IX's. So before the servers get full of +25 Spits vs 1.68 ATA FW's
and 1.98 ATA 109K's it's maybe time to show docs where those boosts were used by line AC
in the war and not just a few prototypes or special trials.
It's like the people who think game P-51's should be able to use mach .82 because a test
pilot did over Wright Field.....

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165rr.html

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165.html

The +25 psi Spitfire IX was a very real bit of kit and in my view would still be valid even after we get a Tempest because of its deadly combination of speed, turn and climb performance.

It is worth while to note that the +25 psi Mk IX is quite close in performance to the early XIV @ +18 psi at low altitude. Of course at high altitude (or in the looks department) there is no contest... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I would go digging for utilisation data on +25 psi in the Mk IX, but this is in danger of turning into a hijack, so I'll just say 1944 and shut up.

Hunde_3.JG51
10-24-2005, 09:02 PM
FW-190fan, all of my sources (including "FW-190: Production Line to Frontline") say only about 80 A-7's were produced as an interim model. Have you found something different in your readings?

Anyway, just wanted to say hello to you, Faustnik, HeinzBar, etc.

As for others I would agree that the F-9 would be nice, but I would much rather have an A-1 or A-2. But that would require alot of work so we are not going to see them until BoB (which should be amazing).

Actually, give me a G-3 because it was the first to use the Focke-Wulf Tragers which allowed it to carry a 500kg (1,102 .lb) on centerline with a 250kg (551 .lb) under each wing.

Oh, and I agree it is about time the Brits are taken care of. Can't wait for the Italian aircraft also, Mc.205 Veltro or G.55 should be sweet (although I'll see much more action in the more often used Mc.202 Folgore).

Later.

HeinzBar
10-24-2005, 09:40 PM
S! Hunde,
Interesting find on the F-3. I never heard about it being able to carry 1000kg of bombs. I think Shaklady states something like 3x250kg for the F3. But, I do remember reading about modified F8/G8 being able to carry SC1000, SC1600, and even SC1800! How many of these field mods were there? I can't recall. I'll try to find it, but I think it's in one of Norwarra's books.

Oh, Swanborough & Green also state that only 80 A-7 being produced w/ the only difference between it and the A6 being the MGs (7.9 vs 13.0).

HB

WWMaxGunz
10-24-2005, 09:44 PM
How much runway those modified F8/G8's need with SC1800's?!

For that matter, how much runway for a fully loaded P-47?

HeinzBar
10-24-2005, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
How much runway those modified F8/G8's need with SC1800's?!


Depends.....Which patch are we talking about 4.01 or 4.02? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HB

WWMaxGunz
10-24-2005, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I've looked over many RAE docs on the big Spitfire site to find +25 speed at alt and +25
climbs and... I don't see any. I only see +25 being used on takeoff and noted that's the
only place it was used. Why? Could the plane not generate +25 except at near sea level?
Also the docs note a short time limit at +25.
This is for the Spit IX's. So before the servers get full of +25 Spits vs 1.68 ATA FW's
and 1.98 ATA 109K's it's maybe time to show docs where those boosts were used by line AC
in the war and not just a few prototypes or special trials.
It's like the people who think game P-51's should be able to use mach .82 because a test
pilot did over Wright Field.....

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165rr.html

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165.html

The +25 psi Spitfire IX was a very real bit of kit and in my view would still be valid even after we get a Tempest because of its deadly combination of speed, turn and climb performance.

It is worth while to note that the +25 psi Mk IX is quite close in performance to the early XIV @ +18 psi at low altitude. Of course at high altitude (or in the looks department) there is no contest... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I would go digging for utilisation data on +25 psi in the Mk IX, but this is in danger of turning into a hijack, so I'll just say 1944 and shut up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to be hijacking but we do get side trips here.

And I'll just point out that's a specially modified Spitfire, JL 165 did not stay production
and is the basic Spitfan darling. The doc of that first link spells out exactly what they
did in the way of mechanical modifications and also notes that specially formulated 160 fuel
had to be used for their experimental test.
So when did this become SOP for line Spitfires?

One positive note to me was that without change to the cooling system they did run those tests
over England with the rad flaps wired shut and no engine damage. For sure not gonna work in
the Med or the Pacific like that but hey, those planes had heat endurance.

Hunde_3.JG51
10-24-2005, 10:08 PM
Heinz, it is the G-3 not the F-3. The G-3 with its new under-wing trays were capable of carrying any combination of drop-tanks and bombs. They would use:

-Under-wing tanks and centerline bomb for long range missions (its intended role from the start)

-Two underwing bombs and a drop-tank on center for medium range missions

-Three bombs for shorter range missions.

The short range missions were necessary as the war progressed, and I believe the G-3 was used heavily in the Med. As for the exact bomb-load when carrying all three bombs I will have to look into it more, I just remember seeing it somewhere. I am sure it had the capability to carry the 500/250/250, but again I could be wrong. It is also more likely that they used 3 250's so you may be correct. Either way I'll take it!

Max, I imagine it took quite a bit of runway with an SC-1000 on board, and there is a good pic that floats around of one slung under a 190 which had to have its rear undercarriage lengthened IIRC and the bottom fin of the bomb removed.

From "Production Line to Frontline":

"Normally, a bomb of up to 500kg could be hung under the fuselage, although with some modification a bomb of 1000kg could also be carried there. The theoretical maximum external load was some 1000kg. This could include a 500kg bomb beneath the fuselage plus (on later examples) a 250kg bomb beneath each wing on an ETC-503 pylon..." It goes on to say that the most common load was the 500kg under center with two 50kg bombs under each wing. This is certainly true for "F" variants but not for "G" variants which usually carried some form of external fuel except for short range missions as stated above. I believe later in the war some "G" variants were retrofitted with equipment that made them more similar to "F" variants IIRC, but I would have to look into that.

Edit: I checked and some were retrofitted with ETC-50 racks and designated G-3/R1.

Btw, I believe the G-3 had a PKS 11 or 12 autopilot system. Some were tropicalized, while a small amount were fitted with "fluted" exhaust dampeners and port wing landing lights for night missions (Nacht Jabo-Rei).

Like I said, give me a G-3 and I'll drop my 3 bombs all day and night, in any weather condition http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif.

p1ngu666
10-24-2005, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I've looked over many RAE docs on the big Spitfire site to find +25 speed at alt and +25
climbs and... I don't see any. I only see +25 being used on takeoff and noted that's the
only place it was used. Why? Could the plane not generate +25 except at near sea level?
Also the docs note a short time limit at +25.
This is for the Spit IX's. So before the servers get full of +25 Spits vs 1.68 ATA FW's
and 1.98 ATA 109K's it's maybe time to show docs where those boosts were used by line AC
in the war and not just a few prototypes or special trials.
It's like the people who think game P-51's should be able to use mach .82 because a test
pilot did over Wright Field.....

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165rr.html

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165.html

The +25 psi Spitfire IX was a very real bit of kit and in my view would still be valid even after we get a Tempest because of its deadly combination of speed, turn and climb performance.

It is worth while to note that the +25 psi Mk IX is quite close in performance to the early XIV @ +18 psi at low altitude. Of course at high altitude (or in the looks department) there is no contest... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I would go digging for utilisation data on +25 psi in the Mk IX, but this is in danger of turning into a hijack, so I'll just say 1944 and shut up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to be hijacking but we do get side trips here.

And I'll just point out that's a specially modified Spitfire, JL 165 did not stay production
and is the basic Spitfan darling. The doc of that first link spells out exactly what they
did in the way of mechanical modifications and also notes that specially formulated 160 fuel
had to be used for their experimental test.
So when did this become SOP for line Spitfires?

One positive note to me was that without change to the cooling system they did run those tests
over England with the rad flaps wired shut and no engine damage. For sure not gonna work in
the Med or the Pacific like that but hey, those planes had heat endurance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

iirec the JL165 spit was bulit as a Vb, then upgraded to IX, it was very much a test hack

25lb boost spit would make it perform roughly like the alcholic 109s, similer speed and climb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

extra 30mph or so at sea level

want 25lb mossie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

only the tempest, p51mk3, dora and la7 would stand a reasonable chance of catching it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

p1ngu666
10-24-2005, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Heinz, it is the G-3 not the F-3. The G-3 with its new under-wing trays were capable of carrying any combination of drop-tanks and bombs. They would use:

-Under-wing tanks and centerline bomb for long range missions (its intended role from the start)

-Two underwing bombs and a drop-tank on center for medium range missions

-Three bombs for shorter range missions.

The short range missions were necessary as the war progressed, and I believe the G-3 was used heavily in the Med. As for the exact bomb-load when carrying all three bombs I will have to look into it more, I just remember seeing it somewhere. I am sure it had the capability to carry the 500/250/250, but again I could be wrong. It is also more likely that they used 3 250's so you may be correct. Either way I'll take it!

Max, I imagine it took quite a bit of runway with an SC-1000 on board, and there is a good pic that floats around of one slung under a 190 which had to have its rear undercarriage lengthened IIRC and the bottom fin of the bomb removed.

From "Production Line to Frontline":

"Normally, a bomb of up to 500kg could be hung under the fuselage, although with some modification a bomb of 1000kg could also be carried there. The theoretical maximum external load was some 1000kg. This could include a 500kg bomb beneath the fuselage plus (on later examples) a 250kg bomb beneath each wing on an ETC-503 pylon..." It goes on to say that the most common load was the 500kg under center with two 50kg bombs under each wing. This is certainly true for "F" variants but not for "G" variants which usually carried some form of external fuel except for short range missions as stated above. I believe later in the war some "G" variants were retrofitted with equipment that made them more similar to "F" variants IIRC, but I would have to look into that.

Edit: I checked and some were retrofitted with ETC-50 racks and designated G-3/R1.

Btw, I believe the G-3 had a PKS 11 or 12 autopilot system. Some were tropicalized, while a small amount were fitted with "fluted" exhaust dampeners and port wing landing lights for night missions (Nacht Jabo-Rei).

Like I said, give me a G-3 and I'll drop my 3 bombs all day and night, in any weather condition http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif.

be cool to have more loadouts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The-Pizza-Man
10-25-2005, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I've looked over many RAE docs on the big Spitfire site to find +25 speed at alt and +25
climbs and... I don't see any. I only see +25 being used on takeoff and noted that's the
only place it was used. Why? Could the plane not generate +25 except at near sea level?
Also the docs note a short time limit at +25.
This is for the Spit IX's. So before the servers get full of +25 Spits vs 1.68 ATA FW's
and 1.98 ATA 109K's it's maybe time to show docs where those boosts were used by line AC
in the war and not just a few prototypes or special trials.
It's like the people who think game P-51's should be able to use mach .82 because a test
pilot did over Wright Field.....

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165rr.html

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165.html

The +25 psi Spitfire IX was a very real bit of kit and in my view would still be valid even after we get a Tempest because of its deadly combination of speed, turn and climb performance.

It is worth while to note that the +25 psi Mk IX is quite close in performance to the early XIV @ +18 psi at low altitude. Of course at high altitude (or in the looks department) there is no contest... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I would go digging for utilisation data on +25 psi in the Mk IX, but this is in danger of turning into a hijack, so I'll just say 1944 and shut up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to be hijacking but we do get side trips here.

And I'll just point out that's a specially modified Spitfire, JL 165 did not stay production
and is the basic Spitfan darling. The doc of that first link spells out exactly what they
did in the way of mechanical modifications and also notes that specially formulated 160 fuel
had to be used for their experimental test.
So when did this become SOP for line Spitfires?

One positive note to me was that without change to the cooling system they did run those tests
over England with the rad flaps wired shut and no engine damage. For sure not gonna work in
the Med or the Pacific like that but hey, those planes had heat endurance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In may 1944
from the same sight:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/2taf150_112044.gif
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/adgbs29867g.gif

HellToupee
10-25-2005, 05:42 AM
160grade fuel wont be any differnt performace to 150grade at 25ibs boost. It still has the same engine as a normal mk9 cant see how it would be widly different. At 25 boost the mk9 should be very close to the mw50 109s in performace down low.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-25-2005, 08:02 AM
We can't even get a 190 with a consistent, non-ridiculous DM. How on Earth do you expect to get an overboosted one?

You're wasting your breath...or keyboard.

ta,
norris

Willey
10-25-2005, 10:25 AM
I want an A-9 with full 2300hp first. I't just a duplicate of the A-8 right now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Anyway, a complete Anton set would include at least:

A-1
A-3
A-4 1,3ata (100%)
A-4 1,42ata (110% - overheating troubles!)
A-5 1,42ata (110%)
A-5 1,58ata (110%+W)
A-6 1,42ata
A-6 1,58ata
A-7 1,62ata (110%+W)
A-8 1,62ata
A-9 *don'tknowtheboostrightnow*

Then we need proper loadouts... Biggest error is A-6 with A-5 loadouts - A-8 loadouts would be more correct, as the A-6 introduced these with the new wings.
All bomb types, all sizes, all possible, useful combinations. Drop tanks!

Then F and Gs:
A-4/U3 = F-1.
A-4/U8 = G-1.
A-5/U3 = F-2.
A-5/U8 = G-2.
A-5/U17 = F-3.
A-6 with Messerschmitt underwing racks capable of carrying 250kg bombs or 300l tanks = G-3 (was actually based on A-5/U13, but had A-6 wings).
F-8 as we have it.
F-9 same plane with 2300hp.
G-8 and G-9 just as F-8 and F-9, but those 250kg wing racks instead of 50kg racks.

Of course, all F/G-8/9 with Panzerblitz... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Not to mention the option with different guns for the fighters.

So how about a A-9 with just wing guns - 151/20s and 108s? Was quite common.
F-8 with 8 SC-50.
G-9 with a 500 and two 250kg bombs as a fast and powerful JaBo.
1780hp A-4 with just the inner wing guns.
A-5 boosted with a single SC-500.
F-3 with an AB-250 and four AB-24t (one of these contains 24 SD-2)
etc... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

luftluuver
10-25-2005, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I've looked over many RAE docs on the big Spitfire site to find +25 speed at alt and +25
climbs and... I don't see any. I only see +25 being used on takeoff and noted that's the
only place it was used. Why? Could the plane not generate +25 except at near sea level?
Also the docs note a short time limit at +25.
This is for the Spit IX's. So before the servers get full of +25 Spits vs 1.68 ATA FW's
and 1.98 ATA 109K's it's maybe time to show docs where those boosts were used by line AC
in the war and not just a few prototypes or special trials.

Must have missed the tables where +25 boost was usable to 11,400ft and +24.3 at 12,000ft on the Spitfire IX. Not exactly sea level or take off use. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Better take another look see.

25lb Spitfires became operational in mid 1944.

25lb was limited to 5 miniutes like every other Spitfire. This 5 minutes is only a suggestion for if the temperature of the oil or coolant did not reach the temperature limits, the time could be exceeded.

Oh and it was 100/150 fuel not 160. JL165 was an old tired airframe, first produced as a Mk V in 25.3.43.

190As from -5 did used 1.58/1.65 boost.

You always seem to be pumping nothing but hot air.

Viper2005_
10-25-2005, 12:09 PM
JL165 was tested with 100/150 - it's stated at the top of the second link I posted.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165.html

I suspect that the 160 thing in the first report may have been a typo (there are a few in there if you look). Alternatively it may have been a special test fuel. It doesn't matter because it was still a +25 psi test.

Thankyou for the backup luftluuver and pizza man.