Spitfire IX discussion

[Barnacles]

 

The classic 109 vs Spit match up is to have superior turning with the Spit, and superior speed with the 109. Effectively making them both an even matchup.

Does anyone else think this concept of spitfire=great turner 109=rubbish turner has been over egged by us being exposed years of simulators? By a lot of accounts late ww2 spits were less 'turney'. Will the XI be the 109G to the V's 109F?

[Warpig]

Does anyone else think this concept of spitfire=great turner 109=rubbish turner has been over egged by us being exposed years of simulators? By a lot of accounts late ww2 spits were less 'turney'. Will the XI be the 109G to the V's 109F?

That's just a very simplified example. I realize there's numerous other characteristics at play.

[Max_Damage]

Does anyone else think this concept of spitfire=great turner 109=rubbish turner has been over egged by us being exposed years of simulators? By a lot of accounts late ww2 spits were less 'turney'. Will the XI be the 109G to the V's 109F?

Spit V is a worse turner compared to a me109f but only at low speeds ~270 kmh and sustained. Instantaneous turn is much more relevant for air combat and the spit will outturn the109 all the way until both of them drain their speeds to the lowest point possible and by this time its not relevant.

[CIA_Yankee_]

True, but the speed advantage that is currently carried by the axis planes, isn't that great that they can't be caught in a bad spot.

 

A 109/190 pilot still has to be diligent and aware of their surroundings. They don't have an automatic get away free card.

 

Of course, my earlier statement about speed vs maneuverability is a simplified one. There are other factors involved like climb, energy retention, performances at different altitudes etc. My only concern is that we do not have one plane that holds all the cards to such a degree that match ups wouldn't be enjoyable for both sides.

 

Absolutely agreed. And to be fair, the mark of a skilled pilot is to be diligent and aware of their surroundings . A sufficiently skilled and patient LW pilot will always be able to dictate the engagement, all things being equal.

 

Of course, anyone can be caught in a bad spot, and in a tactical scenario like the ETO sometimes you have to come down to shoot those pesky bombers (or shoot the pesky fighters attacking you bombers), and this is why the VVS isn't constantly losing (and probably is why the VVS tends to do better in the ground war: sitting at the edge of space to pick off prey is just not an option... they have to focus on moving mud to carry the day for the Rodina!).

 

But overall, if we're going to compare fighters to determine "balance", we can't just say "this fighter has less speed and climb, but it turns much better so it's balanced". That's just not a valid statement, because speed and climb is FAR more important in air combat than maneuverability, the moment moderately skilled pilots are involved.

 

And this is also why the Spitfire was so highly regarded: it could actually compete with the 109 in the energy aspect (with both airframes leapfrogging each other throughout the war as new models came out), while actually being very maneuverable. If the only thing that made the Spit a good fighter was its maneuverability, the Hurricane would have been equally prized .

 

That being said, as has been previously stated, the 150 octane Spit IX wouldn't be the superplane vs the Kurfurst that some think it would be. The 109K is a later generation than the Spit IX, and is a superior airframe... what +25lbs boost would do is minimize the gap and allow for a more competitive matchup, which would be more fun.

 

And since the main argument for NOT including 150 octane for the Spit IX is historical accuracy in the theatre, and yet we're already ignoring a massive amount of restrictions for the LW in the name of fun (understandably so, mind you... for example being unable to fly because the LW doesn't have enough fuel would suck ), I believe letting the Spit IX have its +25lbs boost is most appropriate.

Does anyone else think this concept of spitfire=great turner 109=rubbish turner has been over egged by us being exposed years of simulators? By a lot of accounts late ww2 spits were less 'turney'. Will the XI be the 109G to the V's 109F?

 

I don't think its just simulators... its generally how history has been related. People just prefer having simpler, easily categorized answers.

 

In reality the Spit was an excellent E fighter, and could compete with the 109 fairly well. The Spit and the 109 essentially took turns being the superior fighter over the years (with the 190 breaking that "stalemate" for a while).

[ShamrockOneFive]

Does anyone else think this concept of spitfire=great turner 109=rubbish turner has been over egged by us being exposed years of simulators? By a lot of accounts late ww2 spits were less 'turney'. Will the XI be the 109G to the V's 109F?

 

I think you meant Mark IX... the XI is a photo recon Spitfire

 

 

Anyways, yes to some extent I do think its been overplayed by the community but not necessarily by the sims. The Spitfire has a very good turn but it does run out of steam and doing a stall turn in a Spitfire and a Bf109 would probably see the 109 potentially pulling some lead (depending on the 109).

 

There's also a huge difference between the Bf109E-1/4 and Spitfire Mark I that everyone compares and the 1944/1945 Spitfire IX and XIV versus the late Bf109G series and Bf109K-4. Almost nobody compares those and things are indeed starting to be a little different in terms of handling. The Spitfire and the Bf109 add a fair bit of weight but also a lot more engine power and I've always seen them as being higher performing but also slightly less well behaved and balanced. The ultimate expressions of both of these are also a bit more of a handful than their earlier variants. And I think that's fun!

[Warpig]

Absolutely agreed. And to be fair, the mark of a skilled pilot is to be diligent and aware of their surroundings . A sufficiently skilled and patient LW pilot will always be able to dictate the engagement, all things being equal.

 

Of course, anyone can be caught in a bad spot, and in a tactical scenario like the ETO sometimes you have to come down to shoot those pesky bombers (or shoot the pesky fighters attacking you bombers), and this is why the VVS isn't constantly losing (and probably is why the VVS tends to do better in the ground war: sitting at the edge of space to pick off prey is just not an option... they have to focus on moving mud to carry the day for the Rodina!).

 

But overall, if we're going to compare fighters to determine "balance", we can't just say "this fighter has less speed and climb, but it turns much better so it's balanced". That's just not a valid statement, because speed and climb is FAR more important in air combat than maneuverability, the moment moderately skilled pilots are involved.

 

And this is also why the Spitfire was so highly regarded: it could actually compete with the 109 in the energy aspect (with both airframes leapfrogging each other throughout the war as new models came out), while actually being very maneuverable. If the only thing that made the Spit a good fighter was its maneuverability, the Hurricane would have been equally prized .

 

That being said, as has been previously stated, the 150 octane Spit IX wouldn't be the superplane vs the Kurfurst that some think it would be. The 109K is a later generation than the Spit IX, and is a superior airframe... what +25lbs boost would do is minimize the gap and allow for a more competitive matchup, which would be more fun.

 

And since the main argument for NOT including 150 octane for the Spit IX is historical accuracy in the theatre, and yet we're already ignoring a massive amount of restrictions for the LW in the name of fun (understandably so, mind you... for example being unable to fly because the LW doesn't have enough fuel would suck ), I believe letting the Spit IX have its +25lbs boost is most appropriate.

 

I don't think its just simulators... its generally how history has been related. People just prefer having simpler, easily categorized answers.

 

In reality the Spit was an excellent E fighter, and could compete with the 109 fairly well. The Spit and the 109 essentially took turns being the superior fighter over the years (with the 190 breaking that "stalemate" for a while).

I'm in agreement with everything you said here. I just thought the expectations of some Spitfire pilots, were getting to be a little bit much is all. 

[Herne]

Does anyone else think this concept of spitfire=great turner 109=rubbish turner has been over egged by us being exposed years of simulators? By a lot of accounts late ww2 spits were less 'turney'. Will the XI be the 109G to the V's 109F?

 

Yes, even in the game if you go to Berloga it's very hard to shake a 109 of any type once its on the spits tail, my experience is the low speed handling of the spit is superior currently in game. As for the war, performance edge oscillated sometimes giving advantage to the spit, sometimes to the 109.

 

Spit MK XIV was built for high altitude performance and speed, I seem to remember reading a test pilot report that suggested that its handling was otherwise very similar to a MK IX. I'm struggling to find that report right now, but found this which has some level speed graphs :- http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

 

I can't speak for the accuracy of the information, my knowledge is "novice" at best, but the test pilot report from 1944 that I remember reading suggested that the spit XIV was a match for the Dora, in all but dive.

 

I do agree though that the notion that Dev's should balance the game through turn fighting vs energy fighting is ridiculous. Personally I want to experience what it might have been like to fly these birds for what they could do, not for any gameplay / balance reasons. VR Really helps with that.

 

Anyway whatever the Dev's give us I'll be happy. So many beauties in the bodenplatte line up, that it kind of makes me laugh that people want to "nerf" the spit.

 

 

[Talisman]

[PainGod85]

Absolutely agreed. And to be fair, the mark of a skilled pilot is to be diligent and aware of their surroundings . A sufficiently skilled and patient LW pilot will always be able to dictate the engagement, all things being equal.

 

Of course, anyone can be caught in a bad spot, and in a tactical scenario like the ETO sometimes you have to come down to shoot those pesky bombers (or shoot the pesky fighters attacking you bombers), and this is why the VVS isn't constantly losing (and probably is why the VVS tends to do better in the ground war: sitting at the edge of space to pick off prey is just not an option... they have to focus on moving mud to carry the day for the Rodina!).

 

But overall, if we're going to compare fighters to determine "balance", we can't just say "this fighter has less speed and climb, but it turns much better so it's balanced". That's just not a valid statement, because speed and climb is FAR more important in air combat than maneuverability, the moment moderately skilled pilots are involved.

 

And this is also why the Spitfire was so highly regarded: it could actually compete with the 109 in the energy aspect (with both airframes leapfrogging each other throughout the war as new models came out), while actually being very maneuverable. If the only thing that made the Spit a good fighter was its maneuverability, the Hurricane would have been equally prized .

 

That being said, as has been previously stated, the 150 octane Spit IX wouldn't be the superplane vs the Kurfurst that some think it would be. The 109K is a later generation than the Spit IX, and is a superior airframe... what +25lbs boost would do is minimize the gap and allow for a more competitive matchup, which would be more fun.

 

And since the main argument for NOT including 150 octane for the Spit IX is historical accuracy in the theatre, and yet we're already ignoring a massive amount of restrictions for the LW in the name of fun (understandably so, mind you... for example being unable to fly because the LW doesn't have enough fuel would suck ), I believe letting the Spit IX have its +25lbs boost is most appropriate.

 

I don't think its just simulators... its generally how history has been related. People just prefer having simpler, easily categorized answers.

 

In reality the Spit was an excellent E fighter, and could compete with the 109 fairly well. The Spit and the 109 essentially took turns being the superior fighter over the years (with the 190 breaking that "stalemate" for a while).

 

Just a tiny bit of research will yield you the fact the RAF had Mustang Mk. IIIs and probably even a squadron of Mk. IVs hit during Bodenplatte - No. 442 squadron, to be exact. These almost certainly ran on the purple juice, and you think the many Spit IX and XIV squadrons that were also stationed on the continent didn't, especially considering the British made more grade 100/150 fuel in 1944 than 100/130?

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150production.html

[Kurfurst]

More se

 

Just a tiny bit of research will yield you the fact the RAF had Mustang Mk. IIIs and probably even a squadron of Mk. IVs hit during Bodenplatte - No. 442 squadron, to be exact. These almost certainly ran on the purple juice, and you think the many Spit IX and XIV squadrons that were also stationed on the continent didn't, especially considering the British made more grade 100/150 fuel in 1944 than 100/130?

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150production.html

 

0.0 Spitfire IXs ran on 150 grade fuel in December 1944. The number is the same for British Mustangs with the 2nd TAF.

 

British 150 grade avgas production indeed exceeded 130 grade fuel, but given that British avgas production was miniscule to start with (they practically relied on US produced 100/130 grade through Lend Lease), that is not saying much.

Edited December 4, 2017 by VO101Kurfurst

[Barnacles]

That's just a very simplified example. I realize there's numerous other characteristics at play.

Sorry Warpig, I wasn't trying to suggest you didn't, more that there are lots of things that we as 21 century sim pilots 'know' about 109vspit that seem to be contradicted by historical accounts. Eg in the Pacific there is chapter and verse about how the USN countered the zero's maneuverability with very specific tactics, but I have seen far less for 109/190 pilots to counter the spitfire. Even some accounts that say the relative turning abilites and speed difference between 109 and spitfire were much less a deciding factor in combat than they are repesented in sims.

[Herne]

More se

 

 

0.0 Spitfire IXs ran on 150 grade fuel in December 1944. The number is the same for British Mustangs.

 

British 150 grade avgas production indeed exceeded 130 grade fuel, but given that British avgas production was miniscule to start with (they practically relied on US produced 100/130 grade through Lend Lease), that is not saying much.

So are you saying the document that RAF Talisman posted is inaccurate /false ? I'm trying to learn stuff and was wondering if you can back that up

[Kurfurst]

Plans....

 

 

 

vs. reality.

 

Its always a good idea not to take Talisman's selection of the facts on their face value, lest you'd believe there were 'fully operational' Mark XIVs in 1943, or that the 2nd TAF units were running on high boost in December 1944, which they weren't. That is hardly a surprise, they were still in planning/stocking change.

 

0 tons of 150 being consumed in December 1944, and a mere 2000 tons of 150 grade consumed in January 1945 vs. 15,000 tons planned for the entire 2nd TAF (13% of the plan) for 35 Squadrons.

 

Judging by the ratio, its safe to say that no more than 4-5 Squadrons may have switched until March 1945 (out of 35). In fact as of April 1945 consumption was still just cc 12000 tons.

 

 

Consumption of 150 Grade Fuel - Barrels

 

UK consumption

North West Europe

June 1944 184,000 (25,205 tons) July 1944 283,000 (38,767 tons) August 1944 218,000 (29,863 tons) September 1944 169,000 (23,150 tons) October 1944 183,000 (25,068 tons) November 1944 140,000 (19,178 tons) December 1944 193,000 (26,438 tons) January 1945 138,000 (18,904 tons) of which 15,000 (2,054 tons) February 1945 148,000 (20,273 tons) of which 17,000 (2,328 tons March 1945 201,000 (27,534 tons) of which 52,000 (7,123 tons) April 1945 208,000 (28,493 tons) of which 89,000 (12,191 tons) May 1945 49,000 (6,712 tons) of which 32,000 (4,383 tons)

[Herne]

 

Plans....

 

 

 

vs. reality.

 

Its always a good idea not to take Talisman's selection of the facts on their face value, lest you'd believe there were 'fully operational' Mark XIVs in 1943, or that the 2nd TAF units were running on high boost in December 1944, which they weren't. That is hardly a surprise, they were still in planning/stocking change.

 

0 tons of 150 being consumed in December 1944, and a mere 2000 tons of 150 grade consumed in January 1945 vs. 15,000 tons planned for the entire 2nd TAF (13% of the plan) for 35 Squadrons.

 

Judging by the ratio, its safe to say that no more than 4-5 Squadrons may have switched until March 1945 (out of 35). In fact as of April 1945 consumption was still just cc 12000 tons.

 

 

Consumption of 150 Grade Fuel - Barrels

 

UK consumption

North West Europe

June 1944 184,000 (25,205 tons) July 1944 283,000 (38,767 tons) August 1944 218,000 (29,863 tons) September 1944 169,000 (23,150 tons) October 1944 183,000 (25,068 tons) November 1944 140,000 (19,178 tons) December 1944 193,000 (26,438 tons) January 1945 138,000 (18,904 tons) of which 15,000 (2,054 tons) February 1945 148,000 (20,273 tons) of which 17,000 (2,328 tons March 1945 201,000 (27,534 tons) of which 52,000 (7,123 tons) April 1945 208,000 (28,493 tons) of which 89,000 (12,191 tons) May 1945 49,000 (6,712 tons) of which 32,000 (4,383 tons)

 

 

Ok, but the bottom document he linked said that the current RAF requirement was 2000 tons, which would rise to 10000 tons per month in January. This suggests that the RAF had a 2000 Ton/ month requirement prior to january ? what were they doing with it, if it wasn't going to their spits ?

[Kurfurst]

So are you saying the document that RAF Talisman posted is inaccurate /false ? I'm trying to learn stuff and was wondering if you can back that up

 

Yes I am stating that Talisman is selecting the facts to be shown to fit his agenda, as he did previously on other boards, albeit without much success.

 

He is basically posting early planning documents implying that those took place much earlier than they did, and ignoring the rest of the documents. 

 

He did the same with the allegedly fully operational Mark XIV, spouting unsubstantiated opinion about the Me 262 not being operational until 1945 etc. 

 

Fact is Squadrons did not start switching to 150 grade in late January, early February 1945, and even then only a few of them. It took time to deliver it from the UK, to deliver it to local storage units and it took time for Squadrons to actually make the modifications.

 

For example, No 401 Sqn did not receive the new grade fuel until 31st January 1945.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/401-ORB-31Jan45.jpg

 

The first lectures on how to use the new fuel only occured on the same date (31st January 1945) with 411 Squadron. 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/411-ORB-31Jan45-150grade.jpg

 

 

No 421. Sqn only begun light  testing the new settings in early February

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/421-orb-6feb45.jpg

 

No 403439 Sqn and 440 only got to the lectures by mid - February 1945

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/439-orb-17feb45-150grade.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/440-orb-17feb45-new-petrol.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/403_Nadon_logbook-150-grade.jpg

 

No 438 and 402, No 442 Sqns on the other hand had to wait until late Febuary 1945 to receive the new fuel.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/438-orb-22feb45-new-petrol.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/402_ORB_26Feb45.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/442-orb-26feb45.jpg

 

And that's still just a a grand total of 9 Squadrons, out of the originally planned 35, and basically all of them converting through February 1945.

 

That BTW agrees fairly well with the lack of 150 grade consumption (cc. 2-3000 tons in January-March vs. the original requirements for 15 000 tons per month to be supplied per month. And it wasn't due to the 2nd TAF's lack of flying.

 

That's a very far cry from the near universal use by November/December Talisman is strongly implying, but then again, allegedly Mark XIVs were fully operational in 1943 or that Me 262 were nowhere to be found until 1945.

 

Fact is, if you want to see Spitfire IXs running at +25 lbs boost or anywhere within the timeframe of the Ardennes offensive (16 December - 16 January), you will need no less than a time machine.

[PainGod85]

 

Plans....

 

 

 

vs. reality.

 

Its always a good idea not to take Talisman's selection of the facts on their face value, lest you'd believe there were 'fully operational' Mark XIVs in 1943, or that the 2nd TAF units were running on high boost in December 1944, which they weren't. That is hardly a surprise, they were still in planning/stocking change.

 

0 tons of 150 being consumed in December 1944, and a mere 2000 tons of 150 grade consumed in January 1945 vs. 15,000 tons planned for the entire 2nd TAF (13% of the plan) for 35 Squadrons.

 

Judging by the ratio, its safe to say that no more than 4-5 Squadrons may have switched until March 1945 (out of 35). In fact as of April 1945 consumption was still just cc 12000 tons.

 

 

Consumption of 150 Grade Fuel - Barrels

 

UK consumption

North West Europe

June 1944 184,000 (25,205 tons) July 1944 283,000 (38,767 tons) August 1944 218,000 (29,863 tons) September 1944 169,000 (23,150 tons) October 1944 183,000 (25,068 tons) November 1944 140,000 (19,178 tons) December 1944 193,000 (26,438 tons) January 1945 138,000 (18,904 tons) of which 15,000 (2,054 tons) February 1945 148,000 (20,273 tons) of which 17,000 (2,328 tons March 1945 201,000 (27,534 tons) of which 52,000 (7,123 tons) April 1945 208,000 (28,493 tons) of which 89,000 (12,191 tons) May 1945 49,000 (6,712 tons) of which 32,000 (4,383 tons)

 

 

Nevermind the 12,000 tons or so they exported to the continent in December. These surely didn't reach any fighter units. 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/Consumption_150_Grade_fuel_Barrels.html

[Kurfurst]

Ok, but the bottom document he linked said that the current RAF requirement was 2000 tons, which would rise to 10000 tons per month in January. This suggests that the RAF had a 2000 Ton/ month requirement prior to january ? what were they doing with it, if it wasn't going to their spits ?

 

"RAF" in this context means all units, not just the 2nd TAF in NW Europe. I believe some of the UK-based Mustang Squadrons kept using it, and there was of course a lot of test flying still going. Engine manufacturers also needed considerable amounts of aviation fuel for testing and safety check run-ins - to give you some idea, the Germans, who were on their last of their reserves, still using up some 7000 tons of avgas to run-in and test new engines, not to mention operational requirements.

[Talisman]

Kurfurst,

 

Why do you not want to see the 150 Octane fuel represented in a 1945 release aircraft set?  All the evidence is there for its use (why you would want to say it is fantasy?), yet when I read the following (see link and extract) about the Me 262 I am still happy to see it simulated because I am an enthusiast for all aircraft/aviation in its historical context:

 

http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/me-262-the-beginning-of-the-jet-fighter-age/

How Many Me-262s Saw Combat?

More than 1,400 Me-262s were built, but only 50 were approved for combat, according to Galland. Of those 50, there were never more than 25 operational at any given time, he said. It is no secret that continuing engine problems, shortages of fuel, and Allied bombing and strafing of airfields and manufacturing facilities took a toll on the number of available jets.

Some reports indicate that there had been more than 180 Me-262s, including those modified as bombers, but reliable German documentation was problematic at best in the final months of the war. The same thing also holds true for proper documentation on the number of victories achieved by the jet pilots, which may have totaled more than 500 before the war’s end.

The Me-262 was well ahead of its time. If the Nazis had had greater access to refined metals for the jet engines, more fuel reserves, and more time, then things might have played out somewhat differently toward the end of the war. The fact remains that the ground-breaking jet truly set the course for the future of aviation history.

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I dont know all details of all aircraft, all their loads and what kind of fuel average Joe had in his Pony or average Hans in his Messer ... but my question is simply why not ?

 

Bodenplatte is the last major air to air battle on the western front. If not in this expansion then when ? It's the best opportunity to do so. I remember exactly same arguments being pulled in DCS Normandy, as it was June 1944 and so on. So here is a 1945 scenario and same set of arguments appears. 

[Talisman]

More se

 

 

0.0 Spitfire IXs ran on 150 grade fuel in December 1944. The number is the same for British Mustangs with the 2nd TAF.

 

British 150 grade avgas production indeed exceeded 130 grade fuel, but given that British avgas production was miniscule to start with (they practically relied on US produced 100/130 grade through Lend Lease), that is not saying much.

 

Kurfurst,

 

These chaps (see above Operational Report), in Spits IX, were flying over the continent in September 1944 with 150 Octane fuel (+25lbs boost), so you might like to reconsider your position.  Do you still say "0.0 Spitfire IXs ran on 150 grade fuel in December 1944" ?

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

[Bullets]

Kurfurst has me speechless at this point..   

 

Ignoring evidence, trying to pass off his opinions as facts, he is on a one man mission and I can't understand why 

Edited December 4, 2017 by Bullets

[Barnacles]

I think you meant Mark IX... the XI is a photo recon Spitfire

 

And what a beautiful paint scheme it has.

[EAF19_Marsh]

 

"RAF" in this context means all units, not just the 2nd TAF in NW Europe. I believe some of the UK-based Mustang Squadrons kept using it, and there was of course a lot of test flying still going. Engine manufacturers also needed considerable amounts of aviation fuel for testing and safety check run-ins - to give you some idea, the Germans, who were on their last of their reserves, still using up some 7000 tons of avgas to run-in and test new engines, not to mention operational requirements.

 

So RAF means all units - including those flying old aircrfat (note carefully when this is or is not stated in K's favour) and that the apparently limited 150 octane was being used for testing rather than front-line units, which sounds improbable and the document cited by Talisman suggest exactly that - it was used, even if it remained only a proportion of overall squadron activities in Europe. Nevertheless, am sure he will be asking for German fighters operating at the highest possible settings in December '44.

 

lest you'd believe there were 'fully operational' Mark XIVs in 1943

 

 

610 received their first in November for conversion in January, in time for operations in the Spring; no one has ever sensibly claimed they were used operationally in 1943 (bringing that up is obfuscation - you recall the term - regarding a debate about Winter '44 Mk IX units)

 

Ignoring evidence, trying to pass off his opinions as facts, he is on a one man mission and I can't understand why

 

 

He is committed to the idea that the Luftwaffe in general and the 109 [note his name] were uber alles and will never admit that maybe other air forces has decent equipment. His bringing up the Mk V is a case in point; a fact introduced only to sour the idea that the RAF in Spring '44 (irrelevant to this discussion) could have handled high performance variants of their aircraft because a 1941 design was still on the books.

 

He has ignored the relatively small number of D-9s and K-4s (let alone 262s) operational by December '44 and instead cherry picks data and adds his own perspective to try and rubbish any balanced debate on the subject.

Edited December 4, 2017 by EAF19_Marsh

[Talisman]

This for interest regarding 150 Octane (25lbs boost) fuel.  Check out Mustang III Unit based in UK, on mission to Bremen, damaged a Me 262 on 23 March 1945.  

 

[CIA_Yankee_]

I dont know all details of all aircraft, all their loads and what kind of fuel average Joe had in his Pony or average Hans in his Messer ... but my question is simply why not ?

 

Bodenplatte is the last major air to air battle on the western front. If not in this expansion then when ? It's the best opportunity to do so. I remember exactly same arguments being pulled in DCS Normandy, as it was June 1944 and so on. So here is a 1945 scenario and same set of arguments appears. 

 

That's a very good point as well. If not now, then when?

 

And, again, any argument about "x did not use y in Bodenplatte theatre and is therefore historically inaccurate" falls flat considering the sim will obviously ignore the historical restrictions faced by the LW at that stage of the war (if it did observe the proper historical restrictions, the LW wouldn't be having much fun).

 

Given that, it's entirely appropriate to bend history a little and give both sides the option to have the competitive hardware they both had at the time (Spits get to have 150 octane fuel, and LW gets to have fuel at all, and to not be fighting under 4 to 1 odds all the time).

[EAF19_Marsh]

Thanks Talisman. Interesting that a long-range escort squadron is using 150 octane, when we have had myriad evidence [sic] that such use destroyed engines and crippled reliability,

 

Clearly if this were so, you would be foolish to provide said fuel to a unit flying long-range missions in a single-engined aircraft...

 

 

Given that, it's entirely appropriate to bend history a little and give both sides the option to have the competitive hardware they both had at the time (Spits get to have 150 octane fuel, and LW gets to have fuel at all, and to not be fighting under 4 to 1 odds all the time).

 

 

Staged release; earlier boost versions first and then later variants towards end of development? So G-10s -14s and IXs, followed by the later marks of each as the team has more time.

Edited December 4, 2017 by EAF19_Marsh

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

I personally think all aircraft in this planeset should have the maximum boost available in some operational capacity as modifications.

[Talisman]

Thanks Talisman. Interesting that a long-range escort squadron is using 150 octane, when we have had myriad evidence [sic] that such use destroyed engines and crippled reliability,

 

Clearly if this were so, you would be foolish to provide said fuel to a unit flying long-range missions in a single-engined aircraft...

 

 

Staged release; earlier boost versions first and then later variants towards end of development? So G-10s -14s and IXs, followed by the later marks of each as the team has more time.

 

It is also interesting because it links the Me 262 for the Axis and the use of 150 Octane (25lbs boost) fuel for the Allies, with March 1945.  Although a Mustang III in this instance, it could have been any one of the many other Allied aircraft types, such as Spitfire, Tempest, etc, whether based in England or on the Continent.  I hope the dev's can see this.

 

P.S.  Although a Me 262 was damaged by an aircraft using 150 Octane fuel in this instance, it could easily have been a damaged 190 Dora or 109K.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

Edited December 4, 2017 by 56RAF_Talisman

[HagarTheHorrible]

Kurfurst, you are making your statements based on the facts that pertained to a certain set of circumstances, the circumstances that 2taf and the Luftwaffe found themselves in on the First of January 1945.  For most of the flying in BoBp those circumstances will not be applicable.

 

1/  The Spitfire IX in BoBp will be seen to be and used as a fighter, not as a fighter bomber.  If the same set of circumstances had prevailed at the beginning of 45 with Spitfire IX's facing numerous "K's" and Doras then the RAF would have pushed for quicker and more widespread adoption of 150 grade to ensure they were as competitive as possible against the latest Luftwaffe fighters.  The only thing stopping them was pressing need to do so.

 

God help you if they actually release a XiV.

 

Arguing that only aircraft found in the immediate vicinity of BP should be included is also erroneous. there wasn't some magical invisible wall surrounding the Bp area of operations.  Given a different set of priorities, i.e a more numerous and well armed enemy, better, faster, more powerful Allied aircraft were readily available to take the fight to the enemy should the need arise.

 

If the Spitfire IX is to be the only Spitfire in the game then it should be able to compete, to the best of it's ability and capacity against all Luftwaffe aircraft and not just as some 1943/44 left overs.

[Barnacles]

Thanks Talisman. Interesting that a long-range escort squadron is using 150 octane, when we have had myriad evidence [sic] that such use destroyed engines and crippled reliability,

 

Clearly if this were so, you would be foolish to provide said fuel to a unit flying long-range missions in a single-engined aircraft...

 

 

Staged release; earlier boost versions first and then later variants towards end of development? So G-10s -14s and IXs, followed by the later marks of each as the team has more time.

 

Worth pointing out that extra octane in fuel alone does not destroy engines (I think. There may have been other chemicals present in 150 and not 130/100 that did). Octane alone is included to prevent detonation. As far as I'm aware, all things being equal, the octane content of a fuel will only have an effect if the content is too low to prevent detonation or knocking.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Worth pointing out that extra octane in fuel alone does not destroy engines (I think. There may have been other chemicals present in 150 and not 130/100 that did). Octane alone is included to prevent detonation. As far as I'm aware, all things being equal, the octane content of a fuel will only have an effect if the content is too low to prevent detonation or knocking.

 

 

Quite: octane rating roughly equals stability of detonation; any issues are less with the fuel and more with the higher pressure setting that the fuel allows. [Edited]

Higher boost setting certainly did lead to issues with aircraft: the 109G2 saga illustrates this as well as Spitfire and Tempest experiences.

 

Let's have none of that.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Bearcat

[PainGod85]

Quite: octane rating roughly equals stability of detonation; any issues are less with the fuel and more with the higher pressure setting that the fuel allows. [Edited]

 

Higher boost setting certainly did lead to issues with aircraft: the 109G2 saga illustrates this as well as Spitfire and Tempest experiences.

 

I'm reasonably sure the initial issues with the G-2 were less caused by boost and more caused by vibrational stresses on the oil tank - something they ended up fixing after a few months.

 

The highly leaded high octane fuel did cause some initial engine trouble, most notably excessive wear on spark plugs. However, these issues weren't debilitating, and the allies at that point could afford to throw away a set of spark plugs per two sorties per plane quite easily, especially after they released SOPs on how to handle engine issues caused by spark plug leading in flight. The one thing they had to roll back because of structural damage caused to the engines by it was PEP fuel, which essentially created large amounts of hydrobromic acid when it was burned - and that ate through valve seats.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Bearcat

[Bullets]

Kurfurst, you are making your statements based on the facts that pertained to a certain set of circumstances, the circumstances that 2taf and the Luftwaffe found themselves in on the First of January 1945.  For most of the flying in BoBp those circumstances will not be applicable.

 

1/  The Spitfire IX in BoBp will be seen to be and used as a fighter, not as a fighter bomber.  If the same set of circumstances had prevailed at the beginning of 45 with Spitfire IX's facing numerous "K's" and Doras then the RAF would have pushed for quicker and more widespread adoption of 150 grade to ensure they were as competitive as possible against the latest Luftwaffe fighters.  The only thing stopping them was pressing need to do so.

 

God help you if they actually release a XiV.

 

Arguing that only aircraft found in the immediate vicinity of BP should be included is also erroneous. there wasn't some magical invisible wall surrounding the Bp area of operations.  Given a different set of priorities, i.e a more numerous and well armed enemy, better, faster, more powerful Allied aircraft were readily available to take the fight to the enemy should the need arise.

 

If the Spitfire IX is to be the only Spitfire in the game then it should be able to compete, to the best of it's ability and capacity against all Luftwaffe aircraft and not just as some 1943/44 left overs.

 

Here here   

 

Please Kurfurst end your crusade... You don't need to admit you are wrong or apologise, just end your war against the spit. 

Edited December 4, 2017 by Bullets

[Kurfurst]

 

Kurfurst,

 

These chaps (see above Operational Report), in Spits IX, were flying over the continent in September 1944 with 150 Octane fuel (+25lbs boost), so you might like to reconsider your position.  Do you still say "0.0 Spitfire IXs ran on 150 grade fuel in December 1944" ?

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

 

No. 165 Squadron, based in the UK/Air Defense Great Britain briefly engaged in operational trials with 150 grade fuel, reverted back to 130 grade after mid-September.

 

Decision to revert ADGB was made two days after this sortie.

 

 

 

 

 

HEADQUARTERS:           

AIR DEFENCE GREAT BRITAIN.                   

ROYAL AIR FORCE                           

BENTLEY PRIORY                                   

STANMORE                                           

MIDDLESEX   18th September 1944.

 

 

Use of 150 Grade Fuel

Sir,

        I have the honor to refer to the above subject, and state that during the last 6 months a considerable amount of experience has been gained in A.D.G.B. with the use of 150 Grade Fuel in operational aircraft. The use of this fuel allowed higher boost pressures, which gave substantial increases in aircraft performance, and these increases were of great value when Squadrons of A.D.G.B. were employed against the flying bomb. Attached at Appendix “A” is a summary of the experience gained.

2.        Because the flying bomb menace no longer exists, and because under existing operational commitments, aircraft of A.D.G.B. will have to refuel at landing grounds in Belgium or Holland, it has been decided to revert to the use of 130 Grade Fuel and to adjust engines to their previous maximum boost pressure. To continue to use 150 Grade Fuel in operational Squadrons is undesirable for the following reasons:-

(i) The free interchange of Squadrons with T.A.F would be complicated in that aircraft would have to be modified for the lower boost pressure on transfer. (ii) To use 150 Grade Fuel when operating from U.K

and to use 130 Grade Fuel when refueling on the Continent

, would call for repeated adjustments of the maximum boost pressure obtainable. (iii) The increased performance obtainable by the use of 150 Grade Fuel is not an essential operational requirement for the role, which A.D.G.B. Squadrons will be called to undertake in the near future. (iv) T

he supply of 150 Grade Fuel is such

that stocks can only be laid down a certain airfields. This imposes a degree of inflexibility, which is undesirable. (v) The use of high boost pressures in Mosquito aircraft calls for the fitting of open exhausts as the night flying exhausts will not withstand the temperatures associated with the higher boost pressures. Therefore, to continue to use the higher boost pressures in Mosquito aircraft makes the aircraft unsuitable for normal Night Fighter operation.

The Air Officer Commanding-in – Chief, 

Headquarters 

Allied Expeditionary Air Force.

Edited December 4, 2017 by VO101Kurfurst

[Bullets]

s e p t e m b e r                  

[Kurfurst]

Kurfurst, you are making your statements based on the facts that pertained to a certain set of circumstances, the circumstances that 2taf and the Luftwaffe found themselves in on the First of January 1945.  For most of the flying in BoBp those circumstances will not be applicable.

 

1/  The Spitfire IX in BoBp will be seen to be and used as a fighter, not as a fighter bomber.  If the same set of circumstances had prevailed at the beginning of 45 with Spitfire IX's facing numerous "K's" and Doras then the RAF would have pushed for quicker and more widespread adoption of 150 grade to ensure they were as competitive as possible against the latest Luftwaffe fighters.  The only thing stopping them was pressing need to do so.

 

God help you if they actually release a XiV.

 

Arguing that only aircraft found in the immediate vicinity of BP should be included is also erroneous. there wasn't some magical invisible wall surrounding the Bp area of operations.  Given a different set of priorities, i.e a more numerous and well armed enemy, better, faster, more powerful Allied aircraft were readily available to take the fight to the enemy should the need arise.

 

If the Spitfire IX is to be the only Spitfire in the game then it should be able to compete, to the best of it's ability and capacity against all Luftwaffe aircraft and not just as some 1943/44 left overs.

 

In fact the need did arise. The solution was to deploy Mk XIV and Tempest Squadrons to the Continent. See Clostermann's appraisal of the situation.

 

As for the XIV, I do not share your sentiment. It would be a potent aircraft, but one that is 1000 lbs heavier than the Mk XIV, and not particularly well of at lower altitudes. Its comes into its element at and above 8000m, so I doubt it would give that much trouble.

 

[Bullets]

[Herne]

No. 165 Squadron, based in the UK/Air Defense Great Britain briefly engaged in operational trials with 150 grade fuel, reverted back to 130 grade after mid-September.

 

Decision to revert ADGB was made two days after this sortie.

 

 

 

 

 

HEADQUARTERS:           

AIR DEFENCE GREAT BRITAIN.                   

ROYAL AIR FORCE                           

BENTLEY PRIORY                                   

STANMORE                                           

MIDDLESEX   18th September 1944.

 

 

Use of 150 Grade Fuel

Sir,

        I have the honor to refer to the above subject, and state that during the last 6 months a considerable amount of experience has been gained in A.D.G.B. with the use of 150 Grade Fuel in operational aircraft. The use of this fuel allowed higher boost pressures, which gave substantial increases in aircraft performance, and these increases were of great value when Squadrons of A.D.G.B. were employed against the flying bomb. Attached at Appendix “A” is a summary of the experience gained.

2.        Because the flying bomb menace no longer exists, and because under existing operational commitments, aircraft of A.D.G.B. will have to refuel at landing grounds in Belgium or Holland, it has been decided to revert to the use of 130 Grade Fuel and to adjust engines to their previous maximum boost pressure. To continue to use 150 Grade Fuel in operational Squadrons is undesirable for the following reasons:-

(i) The free interchange of Squadrons with T.A.F would be complicated in that aircraft would have to be modified for the lower boost pressure on transfer. (ii) To use 150 Grade Fuel when operating from U.K

and to use 130 Grade Fuel when refueling on the Continent

, would call for repeated adjustments of the maximum boost pressure obtainable. (iii) The increased performance obtainable by the use of 150 Grade Fuel is not an essential operational requirement for the role, which A.D.G.B. Squadrons will be called to undertake in the near future. (iv) T

he supply of 150 Grade Fuel is such

that stocks can only be laid down a certain airfields. This imposes a degree of inflexibility, which is undesirable. (v) The use of high boost pressures in Mosquito aircraft calls for the fitting of open exhausts as the night flying exhausts will not withstand the temperatures associated with the higher boost pressures. Therefore, to continue to use the higher boost pressures in Mosquito aircraft makes the aircraft unsuitable for normal Night Fighter operation.

The Air Officer Commanding-in – Chief, 

Headquarters 

Allied Expeditionary Air Force.

 

Assuming that what you say is correct and TAF2 were using 0 * 150 octane fuel on the first of January 1945. It still remains that according to documents that we've seen, if they are to be believed, that the fuel started to be rolled out to squadrons during January.

 

So the real question is what time period will Bodenplatte the game cover ? Surely more than a single day, especially where MP is concerned. Let the Dev's do their thing, they've managed pretty damn well so far from what I can tell.

Edited December 4, 2017 by =11=herne

[VesseL]

I would bet (all in) the XIV will come before end of next year. 100 euros.. ...

Edited December 4, 2017 by VesseL

[DSR_A-24]

I would rather not see it happening it again either. In the old Il-2, you usual dogfight server looked liked this.

 

Everyone was flying either the +25 lbs Spit IXs (trialled by 2 or 3 Squadrons in 1944 and did not see much, if any action), or the so-called "RAF Mustang IIIs" (also on +25 lbs, which existed but again only 2 Squadrons which apart from two (2) engagements did not see much action either. Or some German napkin plane or weird prototypes like the Soviet BI-2 rocket plane, or small series/prototype Yak 3s with VK 107 or VK 108 or some Yak with a monster 37 or 45 mm gun. Because the historically correct planes just won't cut it, no matter how potent they still are. Its the uber plane inflation of flight sims.

 

You can't blame people for choosing the 'über' planes because if someone starts it, people may give a try or two to the 'historical' planes but if they start to perceive (regardless how much it is true) that they could hopelessly outclassed by some weird prototype or super-rare variant, they will start to fly something similar, too. And you end up with everyone is only flying the uber planes syndrome.

 

It is a very unhealthy situation because it soon renders the historical planeset to being hangar queens and the full fidelity and the historical 'feeling' of it just goes out of the window. Then why fly in WW2 flight sim in the first place, if not for the historical accuracy, seeing how you can cope with the other guy's advantages and your own. The term 'balance' does not have a place in flight sims because its not a simulation then anymore, its an PvP MMO. We have plenty of those, where the gameplay is centered around pitting as close as possible planes against each other in a competitive MP environment. I doubt that is the 'mission' of the resurrected Il-2 series though. 

 

Good point. 

However, it doesn't make much of difference if everyone will be flying Tempest Vs, Bf-109K4s, P-51Ds and Fw-190D9s. When the real fighting force on either side were P-47Ds, Fw-190A8s and Bf-109G14s. People will always gravitate to the higher performing planes regardless of historical accuracy. This has to be limited by servers. 

 

Total Serviceable Gustavs  : 233(G14) + 89(Other G series) = 322

Total Serviceable Kurfursts : 82

 

So that's about a 4:1 Gustav to Kurfurst Ratio. Or 3:1 if not including G-10s.

 

Total Serviceable Antons : 247(A8) + 23(A9) + 72(F8) = 342

Total Serviceable Doras  : 157

 

2:1 Anton to Dora ratio. 1.5:1  A8 to D9.

 

I included the F8, because IIRC they had the same engine as the A8. So I'd expect similar performance.

 

After counting its interesting to see that the Dora was chosen as a collectors plane rather than the Me-262 or Bf-109K4

 

"RAF

16 squadrons of Typhoon IB

5 squadrons of Tempest V

2 squadrons of Mustangs (both Recce)

4 squadrons of SpitfireMkXVI

6 squadrons of Spitfire MkXIV

20 squadrons of Spitfire MkIX (including two - Recce)

 

USAAF

24 squadrons of P-47

6 squadrons of P-51

1 squadron of F-5 (unarmed reconnaissanse version of P-38)" 

 

Then again were getting a P-38L which really doesn't make any sense. So we can't draw a line on what should and shouldn't be in the game based off of historical accuracy.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/32255-discussion-bodenplatte-flying-circus-and-tank-crew-announcem/?p=535625

Edited December 5, 2017 by DSR_T-888