Jump to content
dogeness

Engine Settings (Manifold Pressure) in Bodenplatte

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

So no indication of 1.98 being cleared for general operations beyond II/JG 11 testing?

 

Sondernotleistungsstufe mit 1,98 ata seitens der Firma direkt an Herron General gegeben worden sei... seitens des Technisches Aussendienstes diese Leistungen direkt der Truppe angeboten wurden und die Motoren umgestellt werden...die 1,98 ata in der entsprechenden TAGL gleichzeitig mit Freigabe des Ladedruckes 1,8 ata herausgegangen sind.’

 

‘Special emergency stage 1,98 ata have been given directly to Mr General Galland on behalf of the Firm.. on behalf of the Technical Office, these power ratings have been handled over to the troops and the engines were modified accordingly.. the 1,98 ata went out at the same time in the same TAGL (~technical instruction) as clearance of 1,8 ata’

 

Reported in mid January 1945. Note the use of past tense. Note both ratings cleared in the 1 December 1944 engine manual pages.

 

Cleared. Promulgated. Modified. Used. 

8 hours ago, Walrusboy said:

Here's a wild idea: Why couldn't the Devs just make Fuel Octane a choice in loadout screen? They can attach dates of operation to attachments now, so they can make it historically legitimate. And if they can have whole engines as a select-able choice I really don't see different fuel performance as much of a hurdle for the team.

 

 

have a little faith.jpg

 

The devs have been asking around for the aircraft types German units between the automn of 1944 and April 1945. That would make you think it won’t be just a snapshot of the December/early January period, which also means that several historically accurate may be presented for the appropriate periods, for both Allied and Axis planes.

Edited by VO101Kurfurst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2018 at 4:34 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

Well, whatever manifold pressure the US planes will be allowed to have, you can bet they will seize their engines a few seconds after running at that setting.

 

Be very sure.

 

Well, with the "low blower" setting on the P-51D  was rated to withstand WEP for ~5 minutes. (67" 3000 RPM on the earlier models).

 

However, on the "high blower" setting that engine will seize pretty quickly, especially if you push to throttle to max too fast, as you will over speed the engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Cleared. Promulgated. Modified. Used. 

 

Well, actually your source shows 1 and 2 but of itself shows no specific evidence of 3 (which engines, for whom, when?) or 4 (used by whom, when, with what evidence?), which are both assumptions on your part.

 

If this had been a reference to anything for the RAF, you would have totally dismissed it as an indication of something that might have occurred :biggrin:

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your frustration with the evidence clearly showing the Germans using their high engine power settings in their latest fighters while the RAF is still using what amounted to fighters and boost levels from the year before at the time, and I also understand that you wish it would be the opposite, but that is that and there would be probably more dignity in it if you would just come to terms with that instead of trying so hard to put an arguement in denial.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People will want to use these aircraft to replicate more than just the TAF, I wouldn't be surprised if all these end-war planes got their best operational settings as a mod just for the sake of versatility. I will be genuinely surprised if the P-51 doesn't get 72"HG, for example. Also, G-suits for the western allies

 

image.png.2a496a071da86d1003f8912bc4ce94c7.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am fairly sure that the timeframe indicated by some of the devs public research allow us to experience the historical boosts and mods used at the time. I would be surprised if we would not see high boost stangs, spits and messers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget the Focke-Wulves, the D-9 ran on a few different set ups depending on how well production was going and who they were being assigned to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =621=Samikatz said:

Don't forget the Focke-Wulves, the D-9 ran on a few different set ups depending on how well production was going and who they were being assigned to

 

Indeed. At least 3 types of outputs between September and December, from what I understand.

 

Man, it WAS the glory days of big piston engine tech development!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Indeed. At least 3 types of outputs between September and December, from what I understand.

 

Man, it WAS the glory days of big piston engine tech development!

 

I believe the initial production run shipped without MW50 and were a bit of a dog until retrofitted; when the Russians captured a few that they put into service as high alt interceptors they were quite unimpressed with them. With MW50 as I understand they were quite fast, though, and I've heard something about a more powerful boost used for airfield defense squadrons

 

On that note, a Soviet skin for the Dora might be fun to roleplay some cold war gone hot scenarios along with the La-5fn? Seeing as we don't have any other late war Russian aircraft

 

image.png.f57bcb292f8bc1974f8de1d091e6003b.pngimage.png.40946299c71e228e9adeef85d7e66135.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An original copy of  OKL, GdJ-Grp. Qu-, Br. B. Nr. 1561/45 g.Kdos. has never been posted in almost 20 years the 1.98ata discussions have  been taken place. Only a home made facsimile.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the USSBS

 

"Methanol production, necessary among other things for TNT, hexogen and other high explosives, was as severely affected as nitrogen production. Allocations to the principal consumers was heavily cut, and eventually the production of hexogen was abandoned. The loss of methanol coupled with the reduction in nitrogen was followed by a precipitate decline in production of explosives. "

 

Yet there methanol available for 1.98ata K-4s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding use of higher boost on the Eastern front, from the memoires of Lt. TOBAK Tibor of 101. Fighter Regiment of the RHAF (stationed at Veszprém airfield at the time), reflecting on the period between 26th February - 21st March 1945.
 
'Aztán félórás beszélgetés során sok mindent megtudtam. A lényeg: amolyan vihar előtti csend van. Új gépeket kapott az ezred, a G-10-esek beceneve „Kövér Messzer", mert nagyobb a kompresszoruk meg a motordekli, vagyis a motorháztető. A légcsavarlapátok is szélesebbek, nagyobb az oldalkormány is. A motor maximális teljesítménye 8000 méteren 2000 LE, de a fiúk szerint 6000-ig jobb lenne egy Fritz — az „F" jelű sorozatból — vagy a Győrben gyártott G—6-osok.'
 
"Then in half an hour chat, I have learned a lot. The main point is, there is a kind of silence before the storm. The Regiment has received new machines. the G-10s are nicknamed "Fat Messer," due to their bigger compressor and a bonnet. The propeller blades are also wider, and the rudder is larger too. The engine's maximum output is 2000 horsepower at 8000 meters, but the boys say a 'Fritz' - from the "F" series - or for the G-6s manufactured in Győr would be better up 6000."
 
Via TOBAK Tibor's 'Pumák földön-égen' - Pumas on the ground and in the sky, pp. 217.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I understand your frustration with the evidence clearly showing the Germans using their high engine power settings in their latest fighters while the RAF is still using what amounted to fighters and boost levels from the year before at the time, and I also understand that you wish it would be the opposite, but that is that and there would be probably more dignity in it if you would just come to terms with that instead of trying so hard to put an arguement in denial.

 

From the man who continually tries to derail debates and never accepts the true situation of his beloved Luftwaffe; a whole host of types running a variety of settings and generating a a host of paper-work proving very little but highly open to interpretation, much like the difference (which you always fudge) about 266s produced, delivered, used or serviceable. Your comment about 'fighter from a year before' is very telling on this, given the 1.98 ata debate is notable from your end on vague time frames - more on this below.

 

Personally, I am in no way opposed to the K-4 using 1.98 ata and it would be nice if this were a modification. I like flying 109s and an example of the swansong model at the edge of available performance would be nice. It would be nice if there were also a mod for the Mk IX / XVI at higher boost settings to reflect both aircraft as of Feb-March 1945, which is the more likely time frame of the 605 using 1.98 ata and hence 2TAF using the higher octane fuel and 25lb boost on its E-wing, clipped Spits

 

Now, since you seem to be short on logic I'll lay it out simply:  the document you posted does not show how many engines were modified, for whom or the degree to which they were or were not used in that setting, Sorry, but it simply does not, much as you wish that it did. Does not mean it did not occur, simply does not support your pithy summary of 'all proven and wrapped-up'.

 

Now, a certain chap called Kurfurt (any relation?) posted this list a few years back citing OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45:

 

Quote

No. Unit Present type Convert to Notes
1. III./ JG 1 Bf 109 G-10 He 162 (April/May) -
2. II. / JG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
3. III. / JG 3 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
4. III. / JG 4 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
5. IV. / JG 4 Bf 109 K-4 K-4 -
6. III. / JG 5 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
7. IV. / JG 5 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
8. III. / JG 6 Bf 109 G-14/AS K-4 when deliveries permit -
9. II. / JG 11 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
10. I. / JG 27 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
11. II. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
12. III. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
13. I. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
14. III. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
15. IV. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
16. II. / JG 52 Bf 109 G-14/U4 K-4 when deliveries permit -
17. III. / JG 52 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
18. II. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
19. III. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
20. IV. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata

21. I. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-14/U4 K-4 when deliveries permit -
22. II. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
23. III. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
24. III. / JG 300 Bf 109 G-10/R6 via K-4 to Me 262 planned, deadline
25. IV. / JG 300 Bf 109 G-10/R6 via K-4 to Me 262 -
26. I. / KG(J) 6 Bf 109 G-10/R6 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
27. II. / KG(J) 6 Bf 109 K-4 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
30. I. / KG(J) 27 Bf 109 G-10/R6 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
31. I. / KG(J) 55 Bf 109 G-10/R6 - -
32. II. / KG(J) 55 Bf 109 K-4 - to industrial defense
33. Ist Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
34. IInd Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
35. IIIrd Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -

 

Now, if we are looking at March 1945 and most of these units are still listed as 'when deliveries permit', it suggests that a lot of this was work in progress (understandable), likely including use of higher boost. This post goes on to say:
 

Quote

 

This order notes in relation of I./JG 27, III./JG 27, III./JG 53, IV./JG 53 to increase the maximum boost pressures to 1,98 ata manifold pressure. It is not known if and how many units had converted to 1,98ata before that order came, but it should be noted these units, in particular III./JG 27, III./JG 53 and IV./JG 53 were the major users of the Bf 109 K-4 in the Lufwaffe.

It is also known these were the Bf 109 units in 1945 that stayed in the West and continued to perform actions against the Western Allies, as opposed to the most of the Jagdwaffe that tied to slow the down the Red advance in the east.

The four Wings/Gruppes tasked to increase boost pressure to 1.98ata could still muster considerable strenght - and basically they were the only units remaining on the Western front in the last months.

Overview of unit strenghts for the units that used 1,98ata. As per 9th April 1945.
Source : Alfred Price : The Last year of the Luftwaffe


Unit - On hand - Servicable

I./JG 27 - 29 - 13
III./JG 27 - 19 - 15
III./JG 53 - 40 - 24
IV./JG 53 - 54 - 27
---------------------
Total : 142 on hand, out of which 79 is servicable at the given date

 

 

So we have 80 serviceable aircraft in April using 1.98 ata, not exactly an overwhelming number. Maybe there were more before this, maybe not. I am in no ways opposed to this boost level being available on the 109K-4, but the hysterical, binary argument put forward is a little tiring. As with other arguments from the same source, the facts behind are not that clear cut but rather than a rationale debate over this, it becomes an absolute of one poster's certainty and anyone who doubts this receives an ad hominem.

Edited by EAF19_Marsh
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marsh, a Gruppe establishment strength at that time was 68 a/c.

 

On Jan 1 1945 I./JG27 it was 14 - 14 and for III./JG27 it was 27 - 18. Not that much different than 3 months later.

 

To shine a light on this considerable strength:

I./JG 27 - 29 - 13 > ~1 staffel (squadron) serviceable
III./JG 27 - 19 - 15 > ~1 staffel (squadron) serviceable
III./JG 53 - 40 - 24 > ~2 staffel (squadron) serviceable
IV./JG 53 - 54 - 27 > ~2 staffel (squadron) serviceable

 

Also, it should be noted that almost 1600 K-4s had been built til the end of Mar 1945.

 

Considerable Strength?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

Marsh, a Gruppe establishment strength at that time was 68 a/c.

 

On Jan 1 1945 I./JG27 it was 14 - 14 and for III./JG27 it was 27 - 18. Not that much different than 3 months later.

 

To shine a light on this considerable strength:

I./JG 27 - 29 - 13 > ~1 staffel (squadron) serviceable
III./JG 27 - 19 - 15 > ~1 staffel (squadron) serviceable
III./JG 53 - 40 - 24 > ~2 staffel (squadron) serviceable
IV./JG 53 - 54 - 27 > ~2 staffel (squadron) serviceable

 

Also, it should be noted that almost 1600 K-4s had been built til the end of Mar 1945.

 

Considerable Strength?

 

Regarding 1600 built, the Germans continuosly lowered the standards for what accounted a completed aircraft, just to provide planned numbers. Only a fraction of those 1600 can be considered battle ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True Zach.

 

..an extract from Lorant/Goyat "Bataille dans le ciel d'Allemagne" ...(a translation)
 
At Kleinkarolinenfeld, around ten pilots who no longer had aircraft piled into a truck at dawn on 27 April 1945 in order to drive to the airfield at Bad Wörishofen and take delivery of Messerschmitt 109s fresh out of the factories. Fw. Arnulf Meyer (9. Staffel) never forgot the scenes they witnessed that day:  
 
Rows of Messerschmitt 109s and Focke-Wulf 190s lined up around the airfield perimeter, others out in the open (!) under the odd camouflage net. Teams of oxen in yokes in the midst of all this enabled the aircraft to be moved around without utilizing any manpower or fuel… At least one hundred fighters from the assembly lines were dispersed around the field. The Officer that met us showed us the latest sub-types to be delivered: Focke-Wulfs with in-line engines and in particular the Messerschmitt Bf 109 K, an improved sub-type of our “Gustav” model. There was bustling activity on the field. Aircraft were landing and taking off constantly. There was no airfield protection Rotte in the air. Our surprise was even greater when we were told that thirty brand new aircraft were due to arrive at the depot that day if the necessary pilots to ferry them in could be found. We were presented to the airfield commander who had set up his office in a comfortably appointed wooden shack: a fatherly Major who gave us a pleasant welcome. Of course we wanted to take the Bf 109 Ks… He asked us for our papers indicating our various type ratings but after scrutinizing them, he handed them back with a shake of the head and simply said: “sorry, I can’t give you any K-4s. You’ve only flown the G-10, so take the G-10s!”
We tried to explain to him that whether they were the G or K variant, they were still Messerschmitt 109s and any mods were almost certainly to be of a minor nature, unlikely to impact on the handling qualities of the aircraft. He did not appear particularly convinced by our arguments, but I noted how keenly he eyed us smoking our American cigarettes. These were retrieved from US prisoners and our Spieß always had them in his stocks. As naturally as possible, I offered the Major one of these cigarettes. His face lit up. Just for good measure, I left a barely started packet on his desk. He thanked me and told us that he was going to see what he ‘‘could do”. In the minute that followed, more packets of cigarettes changed hands and in this way we soon had authorization to take the Messerschmitt Bf 109 K-4s!
 
We went to select our Messerschmitts in the company of the line chief, who asked us what our destination airfield was. The fuel crisis had also reached this field. Our aircraft were fueled with enough for thirty minutes flying time, which was largely sufficient to get back to Kleinkarolinenfeld. On the other hand the armament magazines were empty. We were given parachutes and life jackets. Suddenly we saw a car drawing up and out climbed the depot commander. He told us in a voice bereft of emotion that he was not sorry that we were taking the 109 Ks. Then he read the text of a teleprinter message he had just received. The presence of American troops and tanks was reported ten kilometers from Bad Wörishofen and he was ordered to immediately destroy all the aircraft housed on the airfield. The Major explained to us that the 109s were easier to blow up than the 190s, as they carried as standard a delayed-action 3 kg explosive charge in the fuselage housed next to the fuselage fuel tank. We smoked a last cigarette together with the officer. The imminent debacle seemed more of a relief to him than anything else. He had fought during the First World War and had been wounded but was of the opinion that the disaster befalling our country was of a much more serious nature on this occasion. He hoped that we would soon be back among our families and that we would not risk our lives pointlessly. He started up his car and drove off.
 
My first takeoff in the Bf 109 K held no surprises. The aircraft was poorly trimmed and the compass was not functioning, which meant that I had to follow my comrades blindly. A typical product of our war industry in 1945: the instruments were incorrectly calibrated and there was nothing coming through the oxygen mask. Fortunately our flight level did not exceed 1,000 meters. We all landed without incident at Kleinkarolinenfeld. Happily enough the brakes worked…
 
The pilots were from III./JG53 and was based at Kleinkarolinenfeld from Apr 13 1945. Note also the 109s only got about a half tank of fuel. It would not have been C3 as the depot had Fw190s.
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Marsh, a Gruppe establishment strength at that time was 68 a/c.

 

Does that not depend on whether Galland's 33% increase (4 Stafflen, 4 Schawrm) had been followed or not - I understood it was mixed by JG?

Quote

 

Also, it should be noted that almost 1600 K-4s had been built til the end of Mar 1945.

 

Considerable Strength?

 

 

Built vs. delivered vs. accepted vs. used. Always tricky are such statistics :happy:

 

Again, happy to accept that much of this is true and am certaintly not opposed to a 1.98 ata version if applicable, merely the way in which the argument in favour is delivered by sleight of hand and an aggressive / zero-sum-game position.

 

IIRC, the previous arguments (including Spit IX boost and 262 numbers), were in reference to December 1944 (ie strengths and likelihood of service 1st to 31st) in time for 1st Jan. Now - suddenly and apparently without shame - we have 1.98 'confirmed'.....but without specifics on how many, for whom, actually used, any issues etc (all leveled at any debate about US / UK aircraft) and - amusingly - with reference to documents in March 1945. Ie no evidence for December 1944. Which was the point of the debate about which aircraft are most important for inclusion. Since the new package is about Bodenplatte

 

Now:

a) That is moving the goal posts to a considerable degreee

b) March 1945 was probably not a month in whcih the Luftwaffe was best positioned to adopt new modifications to its fighter fleet (time, spares, POL, expertise etc being in slightly short supply), but lets ignore that for now

c) If the new Bodenplate package runs Autumn 1944 - Spring 1945 then absolutely late versions of all aircraft should be considered

d) But I have yet to see any evidence of the primary point of contentions, namely 1.98 cleared, used etc for the 1st January operation.

 

TBH, I care little about it, but it would be nice to see those in favour showing  a little appreciation of the pros and cons of their case, without firing off against irrelevant points in an effort to distract attention. Still, we can always ignore this and talk about how many Spit Vs were not in service on the Channel front in Spring 1944...

Edited by EAF19_Marsh
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there is evidence it existed in late war (dates may be unclear for both sides), why not make the higher manifolds for the Bodenplate aircraft and let the mission editors decide to lock/unlock in their mission? The more mods we can have, the better in my opinion and the more fun it will be.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Since there is evidence it existed in late war (dates may be unclear for both sides), why not make the higher manifolds for the Bodenplate aircraft and let the mission editors decide to lock/unlock in their mission? The more mods we can have, the better in my opinion and the more fun it will be

 

Exactly. If the BoBp is restricted to only that whcih existed on 1st Jan. 1945 then it is a little shaky. If the battle covers events until April 1945 then there is certainly an argument for it as a mod.

 

My overriding point was merely that the debate remains pleasant and acknowledges that there are a lot of uncertainties and there is room for doubt. Hell, look at current fighter programmes (such as the Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, SU-35 etc.) and consider that given announcements and supposed standards are absolutely not reflected in operational aircraft, nor do they become standard until some time after nominal 'adoption' or 'clearance'.

 

So 'I found a document saying x was OK' does not necessarily reflect anything concrete, especially standards or events 3 months prior to date of said document :cool:

Edited by EAF19_Marsh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty obvious, indeed, that it would be preferable to have multiple engine settings available, as modifications. That said, I'd assume it would represent a lot of additional work for the devs?

I'm pretty sure whichever way they go, we're gonna see endless streams of complaints anyway, so... If modifications weren't a thing, I'd personally go for a balanced setup rather than a purely historical one, if anything because it'd make multiplayer campaigns better. We've seen what the high boost K-4 vs low boost Mustang results in in DCS.

 

Personally I'm wondering about how they 'll go about the Tempest V. For the given setting, it'd seem reasonable to have a +11lbs boost/3850rpm Sabre IIB Series II Tempest. That would make it a very strong contender, but still usable without the balance going down the drain. But it seems pretty hard to find actual performance data on such an aircraft. So maybe only 3700 rpm?

Then there is the Late Batch 2 series II, with the Sabre IIC, +13lbs boost/3850 rpm, but while I'd love it, it would maybe become a little too powerful.

 

Does anybody have any info about how emergency power worked in the Tempest? If it even existed (since for all I know, Clostermann was the only one to ever mention it, but he was running a very late tempest by the end of the war. He claimed he could go to nearly 4000rmp, 3000hp for very short burst of use. That would be ridiculously overpowered, though)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SCG_Riksen said:

Since there is evidence it existed in late war (dates may be unclear for both sides), why not make the higher manifolds for the Bodenplate aircraft and let the mission editors decide to lock/unlock in their mission? The more mods we can have, the better in my opinion and the more fun it will be.

 

As noted and proved in the previous posts supported with ample evidence (which was ignored by some of the very vocal members course), the 1,98 ata rating cleared, promulgated and used in the Battle of the Bulge period. I.e. see the records of a meeting on 24 January 1945, which notes in past tense that 1,98ata was cleared by Daimler Benz, promulgated by the Technical Office to the Troops/Units and the Troops/Units have set up the engines to it. Unfortunately we cannot say for certain by which units, though this potentially means any unit with G-14/AS, G-10 or K-4. All of it is report in past tense, referred back to events occurring before 24 January 1945, when the meeting took place. 

 

Now, we also have the DB 605DB/DC manual from 1 December 1944, which has both 1,8 and 1,98 ata boosts cleared for use, and we have also papers from late November 1944 instructing how to mark engines for 1.8 and 1.98 ata respectively.  Now, to complicate matters, they have decided to withdraw 1.98ata in 24 January 1945 as they felt more field testing is required and then cleared again in early March 1945 again, ordering some 109 Gruppen in mid-March to switch back to 1.98 ata.

 

At least to any reasonably thinking man, this points that that 1.8ata and 1.98ata was being used by frontline units between 1 December 1944 - 24 January 1945, then it was withdrawn and only 1.8ata was used (with reduced settings), then was re-instated from March 1945. The first clearance BTW is firmly set within the Battel of the Bulge (16 Dec 44 - 16 January 45) / Bodenplatte (1 Jan 45) timeline.

 

This has been posted at least 3 times now in this thread, yet some guys curiously ignore it and apparently also  can't make up their mind wheter
(i) they did not see any eivdence at all
(ii) they did see evidence after all but but but it does not say what it says, because, you know, reasons.
(iii) a bizarre combination of ''I did not see anything' of the January 1945 documents but now I can suddenly see the March 1945 papers that re-instated the clearance the boost in March, so this MUST BE some sort of weird cabal :D

 

So let's see it for the fourth time so as to make the denial even more entertaining! :)

 

Sondernotleistungsstufe mit 1,98 ata seitens der Firma direkt an Herron General gegeben worden sei... seitens des Technisches Aussendienstes diese Leistungen direkt der Truppe angeboten wurden und die Motoren umgestellt werden...die 1,98 ata in der entsprechenden TAGL gleichzeitig mit Freigabe des Ladedruckes 1,8 ata herausgegangen sind.’

 

‘Special emergency stage 1,98 ata have been given directly to Mr General Galland on behalf of the Firm.. on behalf of the Technical Office, these power ratings have been handled over to the troops and the engines were modified/set up ('umgestellt') accordingly.. the 1,98 ata went out at the same time in the same TAGL (~technical instruction) as clearance of 1,8 ata'

42 minutes ago, Quinte said:

We've seen what the high boost K-4 vs low boost Mustang results in in DCS.

 

A bit of a correction - in DCS, we had 'low-boost' (1.8ata) K-4 vs a 'low boost' (67") P-51D, albeit the speed specs of the P-51D were very optimistic, close to some of the ''high boost'' P-51D tests. 

 

I'm pretty sure whichever way they go, we're gonna see endless streams of complaints anyway, so... 

 

Oh, I am pretty sure of that too. Apparently anything less than a +21 lbs, clipped, E-wing XIV with teardrop canopy is considered hideously unfair for the Spitfire-snowflakes, so if that's the case, the Jerries must not, under any circumstance have their own historical toys either. ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2018 at 12:38 PM, Farky said:

 

We will see, developers can choose 150 Grade fuel ratings, who knows. Mustangs will be ok against Bf 109s anyway, don't worry.

Mustang performance will depend on fuel loads..........  will we be able to determine where our fuel is... wings, behind the pilot, drop tanks.... Since most of the missions will be of relatively short duration compared to escort missions, will the fuel load be in the wings so the plane is more stable or behind the pilot to offset CG and make it unstable?.     100% fuel both wings and fuselage tanks full, 50% fuel only wings full or Fuselage tank full?...  You never had this option in legacy IL2, and I'm not sure how it's modeled in DCS...  and if the engine over rev in the Mustang is modeled like DCS i'd be a bit miffed....

 

    No matter what the engine specs are in BoBp I'll just be happy to have new planes and more options to blow shit up with............  I don't sweat the small stuff, I'll make what ever I'm using operate to the full potential I'm capable of doing and live with it like the real pilots did at the time...... I could just hear the Allied pilots at briefing complaining that the 109's are running at 1,9 ata, how come we can't have 150 octane fuel so it's a balanced war?.... :o:  Looking forward to the P-47 and P-38... and Tempest.....

 

Cheers

 

Hoss

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018. 05. 01. at 3:38 PM, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

From the man who continually tries to derail debates and never accepts the true situation of his beloved Luftwaffe;

 

much like the difference (which you always fudge) about 266s produced, delivered, used or serviceable.

 

Now, since you seem to be short on logic I'll lay it out simply: 

 

the hysterical, binary argument put forward is a little tiring.

 

As with other arguments from the same source, the facts behind are not that clear cut but rather than a rationale debate over this, it becomes an absolute of one poster's certainty and anyone who doubts this receives an ad hominem.

 

Awww, you and your concerns of ad hominem, how genuinely moving. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if the Germans had 1,98 ata, did the Allied planes during this time have higher boost levels as well, for instance 75" for the Stang and +25lbs for the Spitfire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Quinte said:

<snip>

Does anybody have any info about how emergency power worked in the Tempest? If it even existed (since for all I know, Clostermann was the only one to ever mention it, but he was running a very late tempest by the end of the war. He claimed he could go to nearly 4000rmp, 3000hp for very short burst of use. That would be ridiculously overpowered, though)

 

No mention of it in the pilots' notes for the Sabre IIA version - ie no boost over-ride as in the Spitfire V. Just regular boost, rpm and temperature limits for the usual regimes of flight, with bracketed additions for specific engine mods. 

 

BTW you can buy these notes from Amazon, not too expensive. I assume the dev team has already got them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but then those deal with a Sabre IIA limited at +9lbs, on 100 octane fuel. Which, I hope, is not what we'll get.

In any case, I've learned not to trust Clostermann that much, but I was always intrigued by how he described a copper wire holding the throttle, that you had to break to go into WEP. That seems like a lot of stuff to make up, especially since he mentions it a few times. But then again, nobody else seems to ever mention it, so... Maybe he just "confused" it with the gate between normal and combat power?

 

The only other option I see is that the very late versions (practically sabre VI versions) with the strenghthened drive shaft and the Rotol prop were indeed able to take that much more and were equipped with such a device. Which I'd love to know, but isn't important since we clearly are never getting those anyway.

Edited by Quinte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ATAG_Flare said:

So, if the Germans had 1,98 ata, did the Allied planes during this time have higher boost levels as well, for instance 75" for the Stang and +25lbs for the Spitfire?

 

If it fits the timeframe, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

No mention of it in the pilots' notes for the Sabre IIA version - ie no boost over-ride as in the Spitfire V. Just regular boost, rpm and temperature limits for the usual regimes of flight, with bracketed additions for specific engine mods. 

 

BTW you can buy these notes from Amazon, not too expensive. I assume the dev team has already got them. 

 

Clostermann specifically described pushing the throttle lever through the lead wire seal various times.

 

As he wrote this after the missions on behalf of his parents, I see little reason why he should make up something like this in such a specific manner.

 

It appears to me that the Sabre engine was at least politically not a very happy engine Rolls Royce doing any shennanigan possible to kill it, even though it actually was a higher performing engine than the competition. Or could be that official manuals did not keep up with the rapidly improving settings. In cars, power output at rated settings used to devuate as much as emissions do from stated values lately.

4 minutes ago, Quinte said:

Yeah, but then those deal with a Sabre IIA limited at +9lbs, on 100 octane fuel. Which, I hope, is not what we'll get.

In any case, I've learned not to trust Clostermann that much, but I was always intrigued by how he described a copper wire holding the throttle, that you had to break to go into WEP. That seems like a lot of stuff to make up, especially since he mentions it a few times. But then again, nobody else seems to ever mention it, so... Maybe he just "confused" it with the gate between normal and combat power?

 

The only other option I see is that the very late versions (practically sabre VI versions) with the strenghthened drive shaft and the Rotol prop were indeed able to take that much more and were equipped with such a device. Which I'd love to know, but isn't important since we clearly are never getting those anyway.

I doubt that one who actually went to university studying such would mistake that. Besides it seems in any squadron he was, he was „man who explains everything“. Would be interessting to see cockpit photos of varoius Tempest V‘s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the PNs do not say what maximum boost was achievable - simply the recommended limits. So if a given model is capable of producing a higher boost than the limits there may well have been a later modification order or unit specific practice to use a wire gate to give an indication of the limit of normal boost and allow the erks to see that it has been used for maintenance checks.

 

Since take off setting is the same as the combat setting (in these PNs at any rate), if there was a wire gate it I think it would have to be above that level: ie more than the combat boost limit.

 

We shall see.....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Well the PNs do not say what maximum boost was achievable - simply the recommended limits. So if a given model is capable of producing a higher boost than the limits there may well have been a later modification order or unit specific practice to use a wire gate to give an indication of the limit of normal boost and allow the erks to see that it has been used for maintenance checks.

 

Since take off setting is the same as the combat setting (in these PNs at any rate), if there was a wire gate it I think it would have to be above that level: ie more than the combat boost limit.

 

We shall see.....

 

 

 

It definitely must have been above that level. AFAIR the PN even discourage using highest rating for takeoff, as it woud only produce problematic tendencies to veer of the runway while hardly shortening takeoff distance.

 

We knoe Napier was under severe pressure producing those engines and at the time of the second batch delivered, there was a strike at Hawkers and production came to a halt.

 

If there was indeed a gradual increase of allowed ratings (the engine was soon capable of almost 3500 hp, so there was plenty headroom), there is a good possibility that documentation did not keep up.

 

The Water/Metanol injection could well have been a feature „unlocked“ by the safety wire. It may well be that engines were fitted gradually with the new perks that made Sablre VII eventually. It is of note that Clostermann mentiones such AFAR for his latest Tempest that he got in May.

 

Earlier Tempests came from Britain, where they used 150 octane fuel and converted to 130 octane (and possibly lower boost) on the continent at the end of 1944. I also can’t find anything in PN that reflects this change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a 1.98ata K-4 is included with only a penny-packet number operational irl, then there should be no complaints for a 25lb boost Spitfire XIV.

 

Roland Beamont commented that with ADGB he saw 415 mph on his Tempest's ASI while at an altitude of 500ft. (11lb boost)

 

The testing done in late 1944 by II./JG11 was at 1.9 ata. II./JG11 received 12 K-4s on 20 Dec 1944 and 11 were operation at month end.

Edited by MiloMorai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radical idea: For every plane there is a range of historical performance data that could be used. Since this is a game for enjoyment, not a training simulator for real  flight or current warfare game design choices should aim at 1.Enough parity among the planes so there is a rough balance* ,  necessary for fun and 2. encouraging/favoring tactics that were used by real pilots. These factors IMO will lead to a happier player base than excessive hair splitting about exactly how fast a Dora at 6K should go on Saturday December 16th 1944 at 9:30 AM.

*Currently the fighter planes we have are EXCELLENT, better than other sims in terms of every plane having a decent chance in a scrap with every other plane.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

It definitely must have been above that level. AFAIR the PN even discourage using highest rating for takeoff, as it woud only produce problematic tendencies to veer of the runway while hardly shortening takeoff distance.

 

We knoe Napier was under severe pressure producing those engines and at the time of the second batch delivered, there was a strike at Hawkers and production came to a halt.

 

If there was indeed a gradual increase of allowed ratings (the engine was soon capable of almost 3500 hp, so there was plenty headroom), there is a good possibility that documentation did not keep up.

 

The Water/Metanol injection could well have been a feature „unlocked“ by the safety wire. It may well be that engines were fitted gradually with the new perks that made Sablre VII eventually. It is of note that Clostermann mentiones such AFAR for his latest Tempest that he got in May.

 

Earlier Tempests came from Britain, where they used 150 octane fuel and converted to 130 octane (and possibly lower boost) on the continent at the end of 1944. I also can’t find anything in PN that reflects this change.

 

About take off it says "Full throttle may be used on take-off, but there is little reduction in take off run if more than +4lb/sq.in boost is used." That would imply that the limit for take-off: (+7lb/sq.in) was full throttle, except for the "Sable mods 158,297,276, which are allowed +9 on Combat power". So maybe the "wire" allowed climb setting (+6lb) and had to be broken for the combat setting, with the full throttle not being used for take-off.

  

Swing is only mentioned as an effect of using flaps on take-off. 

 

As you say things changed: just as in the German 1.98 case we may never get complete documentation, but presumably someone has some more details. Anyway, the devs have to make their decisions, and then we can all complain about them... ;)

 

21 minutes ago, CMBailey said:

Radical idea: For every plane there is a range of historical performance data that could be used. Since this is a game for enjoyment, not a training simulator for real  flight or current warfare game design choices should aim at 1.Enough parity among the planes so there is a rough balance* ,  necessary for fun and 2. encouraging/favoring tactics that were used by real pilots. These factors IMO will lead to a happier player base than excessive hair splitting about exactly how fast a Dora at 6K should go on Saturday December 16th 1944 at 9:30 AM.

*Currently the fighter planes we have are EXCELLENT, better than other sims in terms of every plane having a decent chance in a scrap with every other plane.

 

 

Welcome to the forum.  Your idea is not radical (possible sarcasm?) - it is more or less what the developers try to do with their plane set choices. You are, however, missing the point. A certain sub-set of flight sim users have always, and will always, enjoy hair splitting about the details of flight and engine performance modeling.  That is part of the point of a flight sim forum (indeed of a flight sim) for many people.  Then there are those competitive MP typres who have a particular idea of how the planes on one "side" should perform: some of them are always going to be waving their documents claiming an unfair representation of their favourite ride.

 

Those who do not wish to join in can always skip these posts or threads: they are not going to stop. 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the old documents and tech talk are fascinating. I’m just saying that there is usually quite a bit of deviation in the surviving performance figures for even the exact same models of  WWII AC, so game devs inevitably end up having to make some judgement calls.  

For instance, say you have two airplanes, and because one has higher wingloading it’s gonna turn like a dump truck compared to the other. My idea is that if there are a range of documented overlapping speeds in performance tests for both these craft, one might consider giving the dump truck top speed in game from the higher end of historical figures, and the relatively more turny kite gets figures from the low end of its documentation. Advantage balanced by disadvantage. Like handicapping horses you might say. Of course there are way more factors and more than two planes so I can see how things could get complicated very quickly.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that philosophy (of exaggerating historical differences) has been followed in some earlier sims, to give a paper/rock/scissors type of game, but the developers here do not go for it. They have said that they try to get as near to a historical type performance as possible, based on tests of a "factory fresh" example each type. Where such tests are not available they have to read between the lines a bit: I quite agree that sometimes the developers have to guess.  Hence those of us who like this sort of nit-picking can happily argue about what those performance figures should be.

 

Personally I do not like the approach you are suggesting, since it is in effect trying to force players to fly a particular plane in a certain way using artificial handicapping. I do not see the need for this and suspect that most would agree: but this is academic since they are not going to do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2018 at 5:08 PM, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

The US planes have 5 min War Emergency Power manual times. 

 

Depends on the aircraft, for instance the P-47 had 15 min WEP total.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

exaggerating historical differences”-No one mentioned “exaggerating” differences.

 

” historical type performance as possible, based on tests of a "factory fresh" example each type.”

Of course. But invariably where than more than one testing session for a given airplane type exists the results will be at least somewhat different. Thus in deciding even seemingly simple  questions as “how fast is it?” a game dev is going to be forced to make some judgement calls. 

 

historical type performance as possible, based on tests of a "factory fresh" example each type.”-Okay bud, it’s annoying when someone reads one’s clear words and then in the reply states riffing off of things that *one never said* in the first place. Not one word did I type about “forcing” players to fly a certain way, nor did I say anything  about anything “artificial”.

What I did say was that documentation of  different performance tests conducted on the *same model of WWII airplane” usually show variance in the  results. Therefore devs of this sort of game are always going to have to choose which figures to use from a range, rather than being able to say “Every single P-51D on any given day would go exactly 368mph at sea level, no less no more.” IMO since these choices will have to be made anyway one might as well use the available wiggle room in service of game balance.  

I feel like the devs have actually done this, since the plane set is currently so balanced. Example: In many other games of this type the 190A would not have a snowball’s chance in hell in a maneuvering scrap against an La or a Yak, but in IL2 it can be a fun and competitive knife-fight. And that’s a good thing.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"one might consider giving the dump truck top speed in game from the higher end of historical figures, and the relatively more turny kite gets figures from the low end of its documentation. Advantage balanced by disadvantage. Like handicapping horses you might say."  Actually it is not like handicapping horses, since that works by giving more weight to the horses with the best record to equalize predicted performance: quite the reverse.


Of course your proposal would exaggerate historical differences, even if you never said it. To fit a preconception about what is a "turny kite" etc. IMHO, the effect would be to force players to play according to this pre-conceived style, at least if they expect to have any success, whether you intended that or not. I very much doubt that is what most of us want.

 

Really if you are going to enjoy this forum you might want to consider developing a thicker skin:  my comments are about your specific proposal, you should not take them as some kind of personal attack or misrepresentation.  Since we have got off on the wrong foot I will not reply to your further posts for a while.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Legioneod said:

 

Depends on the aircraft, for instance the P-47 had 15 min WEP total.

It had 15 minutes worth of water, manual still says 5 min WEP, devs will give it 5 minutes of WEP if we are lucky.

 

Edited by RoflSeal
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

It had 15 minutes worth of water, manual still says 5 min WEP, devs will give it 5 minutes of WEP if we are lucky.

 

Would you fill in 15 min worth of water if you could use only water for 5 min?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...