Let's stop this 1min engine limitation madness

[csThor]

I don't like such generalizations, kinda like the urban myth of Tigers being more often unavailable than available which is too sweeping a generalization to be useful (a Tiger was maintenance intensive, but then it was neither a main battle tank nor a cr@ppy piece of trash if properly maintained and used according to regs). For example until the onset of bad weather the Luftwaffe actually managed a decent availability rate, then the shoestring logistics on which  it had operated started to break down. With decent maintenance you can actually coax a lot out of these aircraft, even in hostile environments (as for example the air war in North Africa proved as well as the comparison of availability rates between units "out in the open" and those on proper air bases). The great advantage the VVS had at Moscow was the presence of many well-off air bases with solid buildings and hangars which actually allowed for proper maintenance whereas many Luftwaffe units struggled on temporary airstrips with a few tents at best.

Edited January 28, 2016 by csThor

[Sgt_Joch]

"VVS pilots usually flew the P-40 at War Emergency Power settings while in combat, bringing the acceleration and speed performance closer to that of their German rivals, but could burn out engines in a matter of weeks"

sources:

Osprey's "P40 aces of the Eastern Front"

Romanenko, Valeriy, James F. Gebhardt "The P-40 in Soviet aviation"

 

 

"It is true that initially the pilots attempted to improve its flight characteristics, primarily by using "war emergency power" during battle. They did this intuitively - if Soviet engines at maximum power roared like beasts, then the Allison only changed its tone slightly and everything seemed normal.

At "war emergency power" (all of 10 minutes with the Allison engine) the engine quickly wore out and the power fell off markedly. As a result (according to reports from the regiment engineer), over a period of a month the maximum speed of the Kittyhawks did not exceed 350 - 400 kmh."

Source

 

 

 

Different sources all claim, that Soviet pilots used to fly this bird at full power all day.

In game the engine breaks not after one month, not after 10 minutes (which is emergency time), but after 1 goddamn single minute. 

So you can't even closely do in game, what Soviet pilots used to do regularly in real life

 

Don't wanna even start talking about the other aircraft (190, 109E7..)

 

 

It is always dangerous to make blanket statements based on one quote.

 

If you boost the compression ratio high enough, you can very quickly destroy any engine, that is just how a 4 stroke internal combustion engine works:

 

 

In the case of highly supercharged or high compression multi-cylinder engines particularly ones that use methanol (or other fuels prone to pre-ignition) pre-ignition can quickly melt or burn pistons since the power generated by other still functioning pistons will force the overheated ones along no matter how early the mix pre-ignites. Many engines have suffered such failure where improper fuel delivery is present. Often one injector may clog while the others carry on normally allowing mild detonation in one cylinder that leads to serious detonation, then pre-ignition.^[4]

 

OTOH, even if the CR is a bit high for the octane rating of the fuel you are using, the engine may suffer only progressive damage:

 

 

While it is not uncommon for an automobile engine to continue on for thousands of kilometers with mild detonation, pre-ignition can destroy an engine in just a few strokes of the piston.

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_knocking

 

Now on to the actual quote, there could be many reasons why you only see progressive damage: what WEP setting was used? What type of fuel ?  what altitude? what air temp? etc., etc.

[Sgt_Joch]

found a chart which puts this in perspective. Of course this is for car engines at sea level, so not a direct comparaison:

 

1.42 ata and 44hg both correspond to roughly +6 PSI.

 

the DB 601E (109 F4)  has a static CR of 7:1, 1.42 ATA brings it to 9.9:1. It is running on B4 fuel which has an effective octane rating of around 91-92.

 

the Allison (P40E) has a static CR of 6.6:1, 44hg brings it to 9.2:1. By early 43, it is probably running on Lend Lease 100/130 octane fuel.

[JtD]

1.42 ata and 44hg both correspond to roughly +6 PSI.

Not quite, 1.42ata being 41hg the difference is not insignificant, as both engines end up with pretty much 10 if you use 1 ata outside pressure.

[Sgt_Joch]

my mistake, +7 at 44.5 inHg.

 

would be nice if we had some actual hard data on what these engines could and could not do. I presume all air forces built in large safety factors when they said do not use this setting for more than x minutes.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

- snip - 

 

Sgt_Joch, of course any engine can be destroyed when overboosting. But definitely not with 10 or 15% more then "continuous power rating". Maybe with 200% or more.

Funny that you brought up cars..let's take a look at the Turbo race cars from the 70s or 80s..they had up to 2.5 or 3.0 ata. Of course the engines of them broke down sometimes - as did the Klimovs of the Yaks - but you could more or less safely drive a few races, trainings, qualifying etc, before the engine had to be replaced...and we are talking about double the pressure in the engine, then the aircraft we are talking about.

And it isn't "one quote". It's two different quotes...i have similar quotes about other aircraft...109 Emils boosting away from England over the Channel with 1.4ata all the way back to their airbases..190s flying with full throttle all day. It's definitely not an individual case. 

In this game it's quite ridiculous, how they measure with 2 different weights...

In divespeed the aircraft have a huge tolerance...diving way faster then the manuals say

In engine limitation they die the second, you go 1sec over the manual "safety zone". I wonder what people would say, if their plane breaks apart, when you overstep the manual dive speed by one kph. Because that's whats happening regarding engine limitations right now. 

With the P40 it gets that ridiculous, that you can't even reconstruct the Air Force climb and speedtests in the game without destroying your engine. And those have surely been done with a lot of safety zone. That renders the P40 completely useless. 

It's rewriting history at it's best whats happening here. Giving the Mig and the Yak some magical prototyp performance, and on the other side putting in a P40 that's useless. P40 should definitely be a way better turnfighter then the Mig3 or the Lagg.Should be on par with the Yak (not performance, but turnfight). It should pretty much be on par to enter an old fashioned turnfight against a P40 in a 109F. In game that's laughable right now. When you take bombs and rockets, you can't even take off with the P40 without reaching your "emergency/combat rating max time".

The P40 was in no means a superduper fighter plane. But in game right now, even the flying coffin Lagg3 outperformes it by a mile. 

When i got time (2 weeks) i'll definitely have a chat with the Devs about that issue. They are reasonable after all. Last time there was such a broken plane, the 190 back then in early alpha, they fixed it pretty quickly (to a certain extent).

Edited January 30, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Sgt_Joch]

field tests of the P-38 to see how high you could go without destroying the engine:

 

 

The first P-38s to arrive in England were rated at 42" up to about 20,000 feet, 40" at 25,000 feet, with further reductions above that. Colonel Hough decided the best way to find out how much power was actually available without blowing up the engines was to remove the throttle stops and find out for himself. This made full throttle available at any altitude. Operating like this, Hough spent two weeks "abusing the engines", searching for their maximum limit. "We found that below 25,000 feet we could pull up to 60" of manifold pressure without material harm, and we could run as high as 40" at 40,000 feet (60" would yield around 1600 + bhp/ engine). He did warn that this kind of abuse should be of short duration. Col. Kelsey was busy doing the same thing at the Lockheed plant in California.

 

In a February 1943, P-38 Progress Report, Kelsey described how he had been "beating engines unmercifully". The F-10 engines in the P-38G had been run at 51" (1440 bhp) or more for periods of 7 and 8 minutes. "A series of climbs have been made at this power from takeoff to 22,000 feet…" "From our best previous estimates of limiting carburetor air temperature to 45 degrees, 51" could not be pulled above 15,000 feet." "Actually, 70 degrees C. has been run satisfactorily". "We have not yet established actual limits".

 

In March Kelsey reports: "I finally succeeded in reaching limiting carburetor air temperature at altitude. I got excessive roughness, cutting out, and backfires at 190 and 200 degrees F [88 and 93 degrees C]. at about 25,000 feet"… one intercooler was actually blown up". "We very evidently have much larger tolerances in temperature, back pressure and carburetor air pressure than we anticipate".

 

Kelsey and Hough were looking for a compromise…they wanted the most power available without engine damage. Kelsey recommended a combat rating of 47" at 3000 rpm (1325 bhp) to 20,000 feet. He also recommended a 5-minute limit at 50 degrees CAT. Eighth Fighter Command was more conservative; they eventually established a War Emergency Power rating of 45" up to 25,000 feet. Wright Field, with more responsibility, was even more conservative and recommended a Military Power of only 41” (1150 bhp). War Emergency Power was not recommended. This was essentially the same power available to the XP-38 in 1939!

 

In the end, the various U.S. Air Forces set their limits somewhere between Kelsey and Wright Field. Actually, it was the fighter pilots and their crew chiefs that often had the last word on how the powerplant controls were rigged, and it was not uncommon practice to remove the throttle stops on operational P-38s. This provided full throttle (60-70" of manifold pressure) at lower altitudes, but it greatly increased the chance of blowing the engine. Many pilots thought that since they were the ones risking their lives on the cutting edge, it was only fair that they should decide how to use the power. The author has a friend who flew the P-38H, J and L models with the 55th Fighter Group, Eighth Air Force. He told me that he had the throttle stops taken off all three aircraft and, when necessary, used full throttle in combat. He had no problems with the H model overheating.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-wayne.html

 

The P38 uses the same engine as the P40. However the P38 had better cooling. It had an intercooler, for example, which the P40s lacked, so the limits on the P40 would be lower.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Sgt_Joch

[56RAF_phoenix56]

Well, I guess it would have to be an identity based system. (My silly Ideas)

 

You'd have maybe three pilots/identites per nation, one Fighter, one Bomber/Ground Attacker and a Recon/Transport Pilot.

You'd select an aircraft for each pilot, and when you fly, depending on how you do it, the aircraft wears out, more or less. 

 

You cannot change aircraft unless they are destroyed or not flown, after a waiting period of 2 to 5 days. 

 

Back at base you'd have repair timers for different kinds of damage

-slight damage --> 1-3 hours until aircraft is fully repaired but still worn. 

-heavy damage --> 3-8 hours until fully repaired. If entire parts are broken (Wings, Props, Engines) they will be replaced with new ones.

-Outlandings would add 2 hours to the damage, Outlandings in enemy territory count as complete Loss. 

-Complete Loss of Aircraft --> 12h - 3 days until replacement

-If you don't fly for more than 2-5 days this counts as time for major maintenance and your aircraft will be back in factory-fresh condition with refurbishing the paintjob, engine maintenance, polishing glass etc.  (Also, if you die you have to wait for same time span)

 

 

The repair times depend on a number of different factors. 

 

-First of all, commonality, how many of these are in service? The more there are of one type, the harder it is to come by parts. Thus a common aircraft like the Yak will be great for air combat, but if something goes wrong it's a long wait for you. A LaGG-3 is a better choice in that case and will repair more quickly.  I think the Server side could also give certain types preferential treatment by reducing repair times by aircraft type as well, so the I-16s, 109E-7s and G-2s and LaGG-3s don't go extinct on the battlefields. 

 

-Secondly, what do you do while your Fw190 is under repair? Well, you can help the cause by dropping Stuka-Eggs on Iwans. Since this is quite risky you will get quite severe waiting time reductions for flying a single mission.

Or you can take out a 111 Transport and Supply your front airfields. (Or become a Ju.52 Pilot once it becomes available)

Or you can take an unarmed Bf110 or Ju-88 and fly a high altitude Recce.

All this keeps you busy and your aircraft willl be back in working order in no time. 

 

 

You can switch to another identity and /or nation so if your Luftwaffe Pilot is waiting for repairs you can take out your Yak and fly for the enemy side, same rules apply of course, but your time on that side only translates to repairs for aircraft of that nation as well. 

 

 

Have I just blown your minds? I like the idea actually. 

 

As Klaus may know, the CloD Storm of War server has a simpler version of this. Each registered squad has an allocated airfield, aircraft supplies are limited so losses mean shortages.

 

I just hope one day it'll go further and individual aircraft will be allocated to pilots. Even better, an initial level of random wear could be set based on a hash of the identity (but its level limited by factory test flight), then carried forward to further flights.

 

The SoW system has already changed flying behavior dramatically, pilots now fly to survive and get their 'planes home.

 

I hope BoS/BoM goes the same way.

 

56RAF_phoenix

[II./JG77_Manu*]

field tests of the P-38 to see how high you could go without destroying the engine:

 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-wayne.html

 

The P38 uses the same engine as the P40. However the P38 had better cooling. It had an intercooler, for example, which the P40s lacked, so the limits on the P40 would be lower.

Yeah you just backed my claims up, thanks for that. Btw combat power for the P40 should be 45hg at 3000rpm. So it is way lower then the tests with the P38. But in game the engine will break after 2 or 3 min regardless.

[DD_Arthur]

I suppose this is a difficult one for the dev's.  I certainly think the engine limits should be "stretched" some how.  The manuals provided for these aircraft give limits for safe engine operation.  I think the article about the P38 posted above gives an excellent idea of what the the problem is.

 

In operational use, when their lives depended on it, pilots learned to ignore these limits.  In BoS the LW fighter set is hampered by these limits to a certain extent but the poor old P40 has had its balls cut off!

[II./JG77_Manu*]

In operational use, when their lives depended on it, pilots learned to ignore these limits.  In BoS the LW fighter set is hampered by these limits to a certain extent but the poor old P40 has had its balls cut off!

 

Sums it up pretty perfect. And it will be the case for pretty much any US fighter..all of those have a huge span between "continuous power" and combat/wep. Don't wanna even imagine the outcry when the Kobra comes out, and is less combat effective then the Lagg3..

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Especially when their are stories of Soviet Cobra pilots trashing their engines within 5 missions, you knew they were hammering them, ingame it will probably be limited to 45" at 2600rpm for 5 minutes lol while Klimov can run 47" @2700rpm until it runs out of fuel.

Edited January 30, 2016 by RoflSeal

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Especially when their are stories of Soviet Cobra pilots trashing their engines within 5 missions, you knew they were hammering them, ingame it will probably be limited to 45" at 2600rpm for 5 minutes lol while Klimov can run 47" @2700rpm until it runs out of fuel.

yeah..if they don't change anything regarding engine limits, it will be this way...that will result in a combat effective topspeed around 480 at ground level, 540 around 3km, and a climb rate comparable with the Lagg. Hooraaay 

Edited January 30, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[JtD]

The P38 uses the same engine as the P40. However the P38 had better cooling. It had an intercooler, for example, which the P40s lacked, so the limits on the P40 would be lower.

That's so simplified that it becomes wrong. The Allison's in the P-38 were turbocharged with an additional supercharger at the engine, with the intercooler in between. The throttle manages besides engine boost turbo load as well. If you run 40" of boost at sea level or at 40000feet makes no big difference to the engine, provided your intercooler works well, but a lot of difference to the turbo.

If the turbosupercharged variant or the direct gear supercharger variant is more critical, depends on external parameters and specifics of the system. The P-38's cooling in the early variants (up to J) was known to be so poor in that they were a limiting factor in P-38 performance (hence investigations into actual limits). I've never heard something like that about the P-40.

 

Guess I'm getting off topic, the point you've made with that example - that handbook limits and technical limits are not the same thing - is of course 100% valid.

Edited January 30, 2016 by JtD

[Sgt_Joch]

Yeah you just backed my claims up, thanks for that. Btw combat power for the P40 should be 45hg at 3000rpm. So it is way lower then the tests with the P38. But in game the engine will break after 2 or 3 min regardless.

I thought your point was that engines should never break which is obviously wrong. Regardless I am not trying to win an argument, just trying to find out the RL limits on these birds but as usual there is very limited data.

[Sgt_Joch]

That's so simplified that it becomes wrong. The Allison's in the P-38 were turbocharged with an additional supercharger at the engine, with the intercooler in between. The throttle manages besides engine boost turbo load as well. If you run 40" of boost at sea level or at 40000feet makes no big difference to the engine, provided your intercooler works well, but a lot of difference to the turbo.

If the turbosupercharged variant or the direct gear supercharger variant is more critical, depends on external parameters and specifics of the system. The P-38's cooling in the early variants (up to J) was known to be so poor in that they were a limiting factor in P-38 performance (hence investigations into actual limits). I've never heard something like that about the P-40.

 

Guess I'm getting off topic, the point you've made with that example - that handbook limits and technical limits are not the same thing - is of course 100% valid.

No, an intercooler improves design performance by allowing higher boost, other factors being equal of course. Initial teething issues on the P38 are irrelevant.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I thought your point was that engines should never break which is obviously wrong. Regardless I am not trying to win an argument, just trying to find out the RL limits on these birds but as usual there is very limited data.

No, you should have read more carefully, i didn't say that. I said only with a high overboost "like 200%", those have been my words. And 60hg is almost double the continuos rating (35), so you pretty much made a good example from what i was telling.

Apart form that, this P38 story was definitely interesting, and one more backup for the fact, that currents system is blatantly wrong. And nothing more i am trying to say here. Thanks for backing that up.

[Sgt_Joch]

so more info, quote from a P51 pilot:

 

 

"I pulled 67 inches for 30 seconds and when I got detonation reduced throttle to 55 inches"

 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=ccVUI85IcFoC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=me109+detonation+engine&source=bl&ots=lXL2chKKLo&sig=7MqkK2bRmky_7ibajgEp_bzMowc&hl=en&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiJqe3PiNLKAhUIwj4KHYNRCkkQ6AEIPjAF#v=onepage&q=me109%20detonation%20engine&f=false

 

This was in September 1944. No mention of P51 type, but both Merlin and Packard engines had a static CR of 6:1.

 

67 in HG is roughly +17 psi so around 13.5:1 CR, 55 in HG is roughly +12 psi so around 10.9:1 CR. OTOH, both engines had intercoolers and at that time standard USAF avgas was 100/150 with an equivalent octane rating of around 115.

 

50 in HG is roughly +10 psi which brings the P40's engine to 10.9:1 which is close to the limit, but should be survivable on 100/130 gas I would guess. OTOH, the Devs could be postulating that in 1941, it would use Russian gas, probably B-78 with a 92-93 octane rating which would be more problematic.

 

either way 50+ in HG is close to the limit, hard to say the Devs got it wrong with the available data.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

so more info, quote from a P51 pilot:

 

 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=ccVUI85IcFoC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=me109+detonation+engine&source=bl&ots=lXL2chKKLo&sig=7MqkK2bRmky_7ibajgEp_bzMowc&hl=en&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiJqe3PiNLKAhUIwj4KHYNRCkkQ6AEIPjAF#v=onepage&q=me109%20detonation%20engine&f=false

 

This was in September 1944. No mention of P51 type, but both Merlin and Packard engines had a static CR of 6:1.

 

67 in HG is roughly +17 psi so around 13.5:1 CR, 55 in HG is roughly +12 psi so around 10.9:1 CR. OTOH, both engines had intercoolers and at that time standard USAF avgas was 100/150 with an equivalent octane rating of around 115.

 

50 in HG is roughly +10 psi which brings the P40's engine to 10.9:1 which is close to the limit, but should be survivable on 100/130 gas I would guess. OTOH, the Devs could be postulating that in 1941, it would use Russian gas, probably B-78 with a 92-93 octane rating which would be more problematic.

 

either way 50+ in HG is close to the limit, hard to say the Devs got it wrong with the available data.

Must of been something wrong with the engine or guage showing wrong figure as 67" was the WEP rating of the Mustang IV, 67" should not be detonating a healthy V-1650-7, you can find quotes of Mustang pilots pulling 72". We don't know the state of the engine, if it that particular Mustang was running 100/150 then sparkplugs had to be changed every 10 hours of running (roughly 2 missions), plus problems with engine running at high power settings if the engine had been at cruise setting for a long time

 

Again, why are we talking about Merlin anyway, P-40E-1 V-1710-39 over boosting was common enough in the Mediterranean and Pacific that Allison themselves commented on it saying up to 60" was fine, and updating the V-1710-39 datasheet, extending Military power from 5 minutes to 15 minutes and setting a WEP of 56"@3000rpm

 

http://i.imgur.com/nFbmOHh.png

 

http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/Allison%201710-39%20abuse.pdf

[JtD]

No, an intercooler improves design performance by allowing higher boost, other factors being equal of course. Initial teething issues on the P38 are irrelevant.

P-40 engine installation and P-38 engine installation are not the same, that is what I am saying, no matter how "no" you go. It indeed has got nothing to do with initial teething problems.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

either way 50+ in HG is close to the limit, hard to say the Devs got it wrong with the available data.

Your automobile matrix chart and your rule of three calculation about a complete different aircraft - both heavily off topic, and bringing nothing valuable to the discussion - are not changing the fact, that you can't even replicate the peace time climb tests, without damaging your engine permanently. 

Pretty ignorant to still say that there is nothing wrong. Hilarious. Talking to a wall here. From the very beginning of this discussion trying to dismiss everything in that regard makes your agenda crystal clear.

[Reflected]

Current p40 engine limits are pre war recommendations by the allison factory. Wartime limits were quite different. This has been presented to the devs along with original documents. The ball is in their court...

[Sgt_Joch]

Your automobile matrix chart and your rule of three calculation about a complete different aircraft - both heavily off topic, and bringing nothing valuable to the discussion - are not changing the fact, that you can't even replicate the peace time climb tests, without damaging your engine permanently.

Pretty ignorant to still say that there is nothing wrong. Hilarious. Talking to a wall here. From the very beginning of this discussion trying to dismiss everything in that regard makes your agenda crystal clear.

 

I see you making blanket statements that the modeling is wrong based on no hard data whatsoever and you seem to have a very limited knowledge of the subject matter. Then when someone posts a different interpretation, you throw a temper tantrum.

 

I really have to ask are you even 18? I don't want to want to waste my time educating a child.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I see you making blanket statements that the modeling is wrong based on no hard data whatsoever and you seem to have a very limited knowledge of the subject matter. Then when someone posts a different interpretation, you throw a temper tantrum.

 

I really have to ask are you even 18? I don't want to want to waste my time educating a child.

Blanket? You are really carrying on? No hard data? Now you are even fooling yourself. Pilot accounts played a huge part in creating any flight model in here, so they are the same hard data, like performance charts (which i also provided, by the way). Plenty of hard data, RoflSeal also posted two more sources. Like already said..just ignorant. The only one in this whole discussion with limited knowledge is you, my dear. All the other participants brought useful input to the cause..because everyone who has any clue about aircraft, knows that the P40 is wrong how it is right now. Hence, even without any data you know that it's wrong, as soon as you fly it. It doesn't correlate with any performance test, or any pilot account at all. 

Your "different interpretation" from the very beginning had nothing to do with the P40..you derailed that topic from the very beginning, throwing in cars, other aircraft etc...very scientific, i have to say. I will just ignore your latest statement, no need to put the boot in. People can be mistaken sometimes, that's natural. Just walk on, and don't embarrass yourself further in here. 

Edited January 30, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Dakpilot]

For a youngster you do like to throw it about a bit don't you 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

For a youngster you do like to throw it about a bit don't you 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

I really really waited for your comment. Took em quite a while this time

But please let's stay on topic from now on, again, and only discuss the issue. At least i won't take part in any off-topic discussion anymore. 

[Dakpilot]

But it is getting a bit ridiculous..you are being rude in pretty much every thread you are posting in, perhaps you should review a lot of your recent posts and look at your attitude

 

We don't want you having a tantrum and leaving the game again, maybe time to take a chill pill 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

But it is getting a bit ridiculous..you are being rude in pretty much every thread you are posting in, perhaps you should review a lot of your recent posts and look at your attitude

 

We don't want you having a tantrum and leaving the game again, maybe time to take a chill pill 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Rude? You kidding right? There are always the same 2 people, again and again and again, who try to dismiss anything i write..no matter what topic, no matter what case (not at all looking at you right now  ). They observe any discussion, and as soon as they see the slightest comment they could use to discredit me, they are there (not at all looking at you right now    ). 

Btw you don't do this only with me, you do it with anyone, who dares to present something, that could shed your beloved Soviet technology in a slightly bad (worse) light. Nowadays it's enough to present a chart about roll rates, showing them let's say "different" then in the game, you jump on them, using any subordinate clause they write, to drag the issue off topic (not looking at you...ok this starts to get old..), and discredit the person itself, to make them less believable. That's manipulative at best. And then you are "surprised", if you get angry responses?

Gosh..your constant manipulative undermining is way way worse, then just openly say "f**k you". I suggest you answer me in PM if any questions remain..otherwise i will ask a moderator to delete your posts, because they are way off topic, and only have one aim..i think i don't have to explain anymore which one this is.

 

 

 

We don't want you having a tantrum

 

No worries. Won't happen. Quite the opposite. Having a good laugh about you frequently

Edited January 30, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[LukeFF]

Manu, you do need to dial it down a notch.