Jump to content
dogeness

Engine Settings (Manifold Pressure) in Bodenplatte

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

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

 

Yes, if you were allowed to use it three times?

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Yes, if you were allowed to use it three times?

 

 

 

Hopefully. But if such is not connected to any clear signs on when you can do it again, it would be silly to do it such as opposed being able to use it until you run out of water (which would be realistic).

 

There will be sufficient confusion over this topic, as water injection is just a switch that, by incection of water it leans the mixture, creating more internal power while MAP reading remains absolutely steady. You can even keep the throttle all the way forward, you‘ll be just creating black smoke from the overly rich mixture that adjusts itself as soon as you run out of water.

 

There is no pre-detonation that is inhibited by water injection. This means if you are  (artificially) given 5 minutes on water injection, there mustn‘t be any limit with the throttle all the way forward without water injection, as this produces a lot less internal power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are misusing the word “exaggerate”. For instance, if the available documentation for a given plane gives top speed on the deck anywhere between 340-352 one is not exaggerating when one uses any figure in that range for game modeling. If one chose to instead use 355 or 335 THAT would be exaggeration, but no one proposed doing so, thus you are simply straw-manning.

 

preconception about what is a "turny kite" etc.”-There is no preconception involved. Some planes will have higher maximum instantaneous and/or sustained turn rates and smaller minimum turn radii relative others because of lighter wingloading and other physical factors. Is anyone. As someone whose hobby is simulated dogfighting you have surely read the late Shaw’s Fighter Combat and are aware of these things, so why be rhetorically difficult on the point? Now if the plane with significantly better turn performance also has parity or superiority in speed/energy performance that’s not ideal from the standpoint of a *game*. My suggestion (it is not hard to understand) is (again) to use the range of historically documented performance figure for game balance. I absolutely do not suggest veering outside of documented figures and any further use of rhetoric implying the contrary is untruthful.

”play according to a preconceived style”-Absurd. As it is your hands on the throttle and stick no one can force you to fly in any way other than you choose. The efficacy of the tactics and maneuvers you use of course will be partially a function of what performance figures the devs choose to incorporate, but that will always true in any flight combat game under any circumstances. IMO the ideal for interesting play is both sides having different strengths and weaknesses that can be exploited that result in rough parity in actual practice. If your ideal is having the best version of your plane that can be documented so you hold ALL the cards against the other side instead of just some of them, well then we must agree to disagree on what constitutes a good game.

”Thick skin”-This is irrelevant. Through either confusion or dishonesty you misrepresented my point. As I have a explained what I mean yet again, any future misrepresentation that occurs can no longer be chalked up to confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2018 at 2:28 AM, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

In the December 44 -January 45, no. We only know that frontline units were issued clearance of the 1,98 ata rating and that engines were set to that rating.

*Snip*

Luftwaffe transferred to the Eastern Front in mid-January 1945).

 

 

Bravo. This is very much appreciated.

Edited by 1_Robert_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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.

 

Manual says 15 min wep total, some manuals say 11 min. It was only to be used 5min at a time with a break in-between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Manual says 15 min wep total, some manuals say 11 min. It was only to be used 5min at a time with a break in-between.

Depends on the MP that the engine was set for. I believe the 11 mins was for 70" Hg and 15 minutes was for 56" Hg, but I'm speaking from memory here.

Share this post


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

Depends on the MP that the engine was set for. I believe the 11 mins was for 70" Hg and 15 minutes was for 56" Hg, but I'm speaking from memory here.

 

Which would be more an indication of the capacity of the water tank... but 70‘‘? The R-2800-59W was rated for 56‘‘ Emergency (2700 rpm) and 52‘‘ for takeoff/military (2700 rpm).

 

But you would probably get 70‘‘ firewalling the throttle at sea level, no turbo...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

Which would be more an indication of the capacity of the water tank... but 70‘‘? The R-2800-59W was rated for 56‘‘ Emergency (2700 rpm) and 52‘‘ for takeoff/military (2700 rpm).

 

But you would probably get 70‘‘ firewalling the throttle at sea level, no turbo...

It was capable and tested at 70'' but it I don't think it was ever cleared for use during the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2018 at 5:14 PM, Legioneod said:

It was capable and tested at 70'' but it I don't think it was ever cleared for use during the war.

 

On 5/3/2018 at 4:22 PM, ZachariasX said:

 

Which would be more an indication of the capacity of the water tank... but 70‘‘? The R-2800-59W was rated for 56‘‘ Emergency (2700 rpm) and 52‘‘ for takeoff/military (2700 rpm).

 

But you would probably get 70‘‘ firewalling the throttle at sea level, no turbo...

 

70" Hg was both tested and ultimately cleared for use on June 24, 1944 (with 100/150 grade fuel).

The previous rating was 64" Hg, released no later than May 17, 1944 (with 100/130 grade fuel).

And the original WEP rating with water injection was indeed 56" Hg.

 

Another document even notes that, "The rate of water consumption will of course be increased," with the use of 64" Hg with respect to the original rating of 56".

Edited by Silavite
additional reference

Share this post


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

Allied 'cleared' does not mean the same as Luftwaffe 'cleared'.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have never read any of the150 fuel and/or 100 fuel BoB  threads then?

Share this post


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

You have never read any of the150 fuel and/or 100 fuel BoB  threads then?

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, given how heated these things can be), I have not. Even without 100/150 grade fuel, 64" Hg can be used with standard 100/130 grade fuel, providing around 2,535 HP.

I'd rather retain my sanity and not go down the rabbit hole of 150 grade fuel availability, extent of usage, spark plug fouling, use outside of V-1 chases, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21.04.2018 at 5:22 AM, dogeness said:

Examples of some possible settings:

P-51D:  67"Hg, 72"Hg, or 75"Hg

P-47D:  56"Hg, 65"Hg, or 70"Hg

P-38L:  60"Hg or 70"Hg

Bf 109 G -14:  1.42 ata or 1.7 ata

Bf 109 K-4:  1.8 ata or 1.98 ata

FW 190 A-8:  1.58 ata or 1.65 ata

FW 190 D-9:  1.92 ata

Spitfire Mk 9:  +15lb/in2, +18lb/in2, or +25lb/in2

Tempest Mk V:   +12lb/in2

 

I hope all aircrafts will have max settings which were historically used. Maybe sometimes as modifications.

1) Because it is 1945 scenario.

2) Because lower settings for some planes will cause whining, complaining, feelings of unequal treatment and conflicts among players.

 

cheers and have a nice day:salute:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I'd like lower settings available for challenging myself in career mode, personally

 

Just fly at the lower setting, no need to have it limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that means even though 1.98 succeed, but it needs structural change, and due to this change, the speed will possibly not improve (or even worse?)

123124.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Schuee said:

I think that means even though 1.98 succeed, but it needs structural change, and due to this change, the speed will possibly not improve (or even worse?)

123124.JPG

 

No. DB noted that it doesn't make sense to incessantly increase engine boost when the gains made under acceptance of the subsequently increased engine wear are nullified by shoddy airframe construction.

 

The upper paragraph mentions the testing of improved sparkplugs to alleviate increased rates of failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

The upper paragraph mentions the testing of improved sparkplugs to alleviate increased rates of failure.

It exactly doesn't say that. It says that in the field there is a high failure rate and it is intended to alleviate this by more thorough quality control. It it is not done. Intended. If you are in a big company and something is bad and corporate communications utteren something about "an intent" to fix things, then you are litterally on your own.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2018 at 7:55 PM, ZachariasX said:

It exactly doesn't say that. It says that in the field there is a high failure rate and it is intended to alleviate this by more thorough quality control. It it is not done. Intended. If you are in a big company and something is bad and corporate communications utteren something about "an intent" to fix things, then you are litterally on your own.

 

"DB berichtet von dem Stand der Erprobung mit verbesserten Kerzenmustern und von verschärften Prüfmethoden, wie sie jetzt durch Röntgenprüfung eingeführt werden soll."

 

DB reports on the state of testingtrials with improved spark plug designs as well as more stringent quality control, intended to be introduced with x-ray imaging.

 

You were saying?

Edited by PainGod85
Edited for clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

You were saying?

 

16 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

wie sie jetzt durch Röntgenprüfung eingeführt werden soll."

 

I was saying "it should be introduced". This does not equal "is introduced". And they can talk their sorry bum out of the crossfire all day long for producing faulty parts. This is effectively what they did to the guy typing that report. They intend to do X-Ray checks. It nowhere says they have actually have done so. To which extent or when this sort of QC was introduced, I don't know. It is not stated. But I do know that at that point in the war, I wouldn't put too much trust in the manufacturing qualities of those companies. Keep in mind, bypassing quality control was officially the chosen way  to boost production figures on paper. By the RLM.

 

The "state of testing" doesn't mean squat here. This, then and now is simply corporate speech for "all well, ohhh...! look!! That bird!!! There!!"

 

I give you an example: For instance Intel "has understood the problems of their 10 nm process". The quote of the CEO in an investors talk. (The CEO that got fired "over being together with a fellow employee that apporved of such"; honestly?) So all well? No, it doesn't work for two years now and should be out now but it just "slipped into 2019" (read: second half 2019, otherwise they would have said "Q1 2019"). Rest assured,  what "is understood" in "testings" and is "out in the market" (non-volume, lowest end parts, requiring twice the energy over 14 nm process, no size advantage due to deactivated/broken GPU and much less yield) is a dead product, while the 14 nm process is up to the 5th(!!) iteration now. So much for tick-tock. Did I say someone got fired? And do you think "understood in testing" lets the guys at Hewlett Packard sleep at night, a company that bet most of his future on those very parts?

 

The Germans, then and now were very good at such subtleties. And these are not just semantics. Not then. Not now.

 

Like saying that a husband intends to remember their anniversary doesn't mean he actually does so when time comes. ;)

 

 

 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am telling you again - as a German native speaker - that "Stand der Erprobung" means testing of improved spark plugs was underway at the time that report was written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...you do realize that sentence is regarding two different topics referring to the same issue, right? One is the ongoing trialling of improved spark plugs. The other is the intent to commence x-ray quality control.

 

One's already happening. The other is meant to be introduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2018 at 11:16 PM, PainGod85 said:

...you do realize that sentence is regarding two different topics referring to the same issue, right? One is the ongoing trialling of improved spark plugs. The other is the intent to commence x-ray quality control.

 

One's already happening. The other is meant to be introduced.

Yes, I know. I guess I was bad at making my point. So I try in detail.

 

What happened here is the following:

 

1) They produce a *defined* vast amount of sparkplugs, most likely by sourcing through different smaller scale contractor workshops. This would be the typical situation of wartime Nazi enonomy.

 

2) They found out that a good portion of those parts are faulty.

 

3) They take some of those parts to their science lab and find out that the can check the parts by X-Ray (your first point) such that you can sort out the lemons.

At  this stage, the production is still ongoing, delivering the same rate of faulty parts to the field. Another question that they need to adress now is how to QC all parts (again, your first point) and weed out the lemons to only supply good parts to the field.

 

4) Knowing the defects, guessing how they might arise, they said they came up on how to improve (your second point) the still ongoing production process of point 2) while introducing the more stringent QC of point 3).

 

And this is now exactly where we are at the point where that report was written.

 

Now, it is of note that on the whole, we have to assume that at the very moment this report was written, mass manufacturing is still running like point 2) while they at that very moment *intend* (hasn't happened yet) to introduce the new mass manufactuing process of point 4) and disseminate that one to the contractors. The report gives absolutely no clue on how far or to what extent this has been done. It says just that the intend to do so.

 

But one can assume that the X-Ray quatity check is *intended* to be introduced at contractor level, for DB not having to set up an entire QC department solely to check thousands of sparkplugs per month. And this QC introduction might be a problem. Prefoessionally, I am very involved in such and I can tell you even what might seem simple from the outside is most often not straightforward to implement. In this case, you need first a dedicated X-Ray apparatus and you need to teach the personel on how to operate it and prouce the right paperwork for it. We are talking about timeframes to be counted in months.

 

And during this time, faulty parts are still arriving in the field. How long this period is, we can not know as it would depend on how fast all the contractors can implement the new process by aquiring new tools and training their work-slaves, as well as on the extent to which the new process was really implemented.

 

 

It is also very much of note that DB directly attacks Messerschmitt about the "unzureichende Belüftung" ("insuffuicient ventilation") that cannot reflect any creatiue comfort in the cockpit here, but technicalities regarding the engine installation that (as the allegation goes) is at least "also responsible" for the entire aircraft not perforimng to spec (and fouling sparks). Messerschmitt at least "agreed" that do do "something" about it. But whatever they do, it has to be seen in the light of what they are comfortable doing while still reaching production goals. How well that went down with Messerschmitt is visible by the remark that the "Luftwaffe" (read: RLM) had to "notify" Messerschmitt to do something. And that's what they do about it. "Something".

 

You see, there's a lot of coroporate subtleties here that try to cover up responsiblitites while meeting production goals. Never take such messages at face value just like that. This is why I was using the analogy of Intel corporate speech. (But I guess I made myself a disservice here by confusing my point.) And in this report, we obviousl have two companies pointing fingers at each other over a defect. So, whatever you do to make things right, it's NOT gonna be simple.

 

 

That improving manufacturing processes while maintaining huge production goals under ever more avers conditions is a problem, as stated in the second paragraph of the report. Before the war, the Germans would produce aircraft of quality such that they'd deem Spitfiers unflyable. But by now this has completely reversed to the point where poor manufacturing imposes a serions performance penalty (and rises questions aout airworthiness). And they just state there that they know of that and that things are bad, but nothing happens apparently reagarding that.

 

Implementing easy things like propper rivetting are not trivial to large scale production. Elon Musk had to find out the hard way that manufacturing 1'000 cars per month is not the same task as manufacturing 1'000'000 cars per month.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Robert Forsyth's books on the 1944-45 emergency fighter programme (to say nothing of Tooze), planning staff and industry were debating (and creating a lot of paperwork) in March 1945 the technical aspects, sourcing, testing and production of the various aircraft for the coming Summer-Autumn and into 1946.

 

Excuse me if I have mis-read the assessment from posters (I do not speak German so am dependent on others' translations) but the document above does not say:

- When this was actually introduced to units (ie when the acknowledge receipts and due modification for operations) as opposed to 'we sent them a memo to do it'

- With which groups this saw service (i understand II/JG11 is generally acknowledged as the lead unit)

- How many aircraft - either in that group or others - used this setting

- Whether - given the supply situation, available aircraft and time / energy of the personnel - this was a genuine system used or an order (like many emanating from the home front in Spring '45) that totally ignored what was and what was not realistic on the ground.

 

Come May '45 there were quite a few D-13s, Ta-152Cs, He-162, Do-335s and countless latest sub-variant K-4s and D-9s sitting around for want of parts or the will and energy to make them fly. Ez42s and 1.98 ata? Yep, probably a few fitted to a handful of aircraft but it gets a little tiresome if it always the handful (1 Gruppe of 1 wing - actual numbers unknown) that becomes the mainstay of on-line unless all concurrent types get full release with 12th hour settings. The Spits rockets (not really ever used) seem something of a poor trade-off compared to several hundred hp that - when it comes to it - are pretty important for the core of the game which is fighter combat.

 

1.98 ata for the K-4 / Ez-42 for the D-9is cool and fun and may have a modicum of historical basis, but it is a little in keeping with the Luft '46 creep that tends to develop at this stage in titles while the RAF, USAAC and VVS gets Autumn '44 a/c and sucks it up.

 

A minor complaint against the otherwise excellent team and their efforts, but given we are ignoring the 50:1 reality of Spring '45 air operations, can we resist the temptation to manage this with aircrfat modelling that hints a little of 'balance'. Still excited about BoBp, though

 

 

Edited by EAF19_Marsh
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There weren't too many D-13s and 152Cs waiting around for *parts*. They were just too late to the game, because in 1940/41, RLM thought that the air war was going to work out as a walk in the park. Sadly for them, Ken Park disagreed and thigs changed a bit...

 

The lateness of the D-13 and Ta 152 was mostly down to fudged up german airplane procurement planning and a general "chicken without a head" way of allocating engines or pushing engine-development. The air war in 1944 was lost in late '41/ early '42, when the Jumo 211/213 and DB 603 projects were left rotting in the corner, instead of making an effort in matching them to fitting fighter airframes and securing the long-term future of the prop-driven Jagdwaffe.

 

I'm also not in favour of the EZ42 on the Dora. I'd much rather have an ability to carry bombs on the ETC 504 and the odd R4M launcher, if we're talking late-late war '45 ops (March/ April/ May '45).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

The Spits rockets (not really ever used) seem something of a poor trade-off compared to several hundred hp that - when it comes to it - are pretty important for the core of the game which is fighter combat.

 

The Spitfires most definitely used rockets. I posted that info a while ago here.

 

10 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

I'm also not in favour of the EZ42 on the Dora.

 

27 Dora-9s were fitted with the EZ 42 in February / March 1945, including Gerhard Barkhorn's machine. Depending on how one does the numbers, that works out to about half a Gruppe - a not-insignificant number at this stage of the war.

 

10 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

I'd much rather have an ability to carry bombs on the ETC 504 and the odd R4M launcher, if we're talking late-late war '45 ops (March/ April/ May '45).

 

Nothing's been said about those things being included or excluded, so I'd just be patient and wait and see what comes.

Edited by LukeFF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Excuse me if I have mis-read the assessment from posters (I do not speak German so am dependent on others' translations) but the document above does not say:

- When this was actually introduced to units (ie when the acknowledge receipts and due modification for operations) as opposed to 'we sent them a memo to do it'

 

The documents do say the boost was introduced in December 1944. Following temporary recall in january 1945, the II/JG 11 wing modified aircraft in February 1945 for further testing, while four further wings of JG 27 and JG 53 were ordered to do in March 1945. Wh

 

Quote

- With which groups this saw service (i understand II/JG11 is generally acknowledged as the lead unit)

 

II/JG 11, I/27, III/27, III/53 and IV/JG 53, possibly others - IV/JG 4 and II/JG 52 are likely as well.

 

Quote

- How many aircraft - either in that group or others - used this setting

- Whether - given the supply situation, available aircraft and time / energy of the personnel - this was a genuine system used or an order (like many emanating from the home front in Spring '45) that totally ignored what was and what was not realistic on the ground.

 

II/JG 11 had reported twelve aircraft to have been modified, while II/JG 11, I/27, III/27, III/53 and IV/JG 53 had about an average of 130-150 aircraft between them in the spring of 1945. II/JG 11 was disbanded later, aircraft and pilots being dispersed amongst other units.

 

Quote

1.98 ata for the K-4 / Ez-42 for the D-9is cool and fun and may have a modicum of historical basis, but it is a little in keeping with the Luft '46 creep that tends to develop at this stage in titles while the RAF, USAAC and VVS gets Autumn '44 a/c and sucks it up.

 

Well, it’s a bit more a modical of historical basis. Hahn for example states that 200 Me 262s and FW 190s were fitted with EZ 42, while the 1.98ata 109s were very much a reality and effected practically every major 109 unit that still remained in the west by the spring of 1945.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than II./JG11 which was a test unit there has been no proof ever provided, just speculation, that other Gruppes  actually used 1.98ata boost.

 

10 hours ago, LukeFF said:

27 Dora-9s were fitted with the EZ 42 in February / March 1945, including Gerhard Barkhorn's machine. Depending on how one does the numbers, that works out to about half a Gruppe - a not-insignificant number at this stage of the war.

 

That works out to 2 Allied squadrons. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sigh...of course, it is easy to push an agenda and distort history if you only cherry pick documents that support your point of view.

 

Let's see what a "real" objective source has to say:

 

Quote

The DB 605 DC engine running at 1.8 ata boost without MW-50 was tried but did not find favour. (Die E-stelle hat Bedenken gegen den Betrieb mit 1,8 ata Aufladung ohne MW mit C 3 Kraftstoff.) The DB 605 DC engine running at 1.98 ata boost with MW was tested but seems not to have made it into service (Nach Mitteilung der E'Stelle sind 1,98 ata gesperrt.)

 

Aspera G.m.b.H., Kamenz on orders from OKL Chef TLR F1. E. 3 V reports in Geschwindigkeitmessungen mit 4 VDM Luftschrauben auf Me 109 K4 mit DB 605 D dated 4 January 1945 that full measurments could not be reported due to engine damage at 1.98 ata. Trotz mehrerer Stunden schonenden Einfliegens des Motors mit Dauerleistung vor den Messreihen mit Kampfleistung stellte sich bei den ersten Prüfläufen nach der Umstellung auf p = 1,98 ata ein Motorschaden heraus, der einen Motorwechsel notwendig machte. 35  

 

Interner Aktenvermerk Nr. 6642 from Daimler-Benz (internal memo) dated 17.1.45 reports on a meeting held 10 January 1945 at OKL, Berlin. All 4 DB 605 DC engines supplied to Rechlin from DB-Genshagen failed (pistons, piston rods, supercharger), therefore special emergency power DC (1.98 ata boost pressure) for the troops is not released (die Sondernotleistung DC (1,98 ata Ladedruck) für die Truppe nicht freigegeben). 36  

 

Niederschrift Nr 6717 from Damiler-Benz, dated 19.1.45, states that DB 605 D engines from Kassel are delivered at 1.80 ata boost with B4 and Mw 50. Die Motoren DB 605 D werden in Kassel allgemein mit Ladedruck 1,80 ata mit B4 und Mw 50 abgenommen. 37  

 

Niederschrift Nr 6730 of Daimler Benz dated 24 January 1945 details discussion at a conference held 20 January 1945 in the office of the Chief engineer of the Luftwaffe in Berlin: It states that testing of 1.98 boost pressure may be done provisionally at Group 2/11, only engines with 1.8 boost may be supplied and strict punishment is threatened if this instruction is neglected. Also of note is mention of problems due to poor quality fuel as well as a devastating comparison of the Me 109 and the Mustang. 38  

 

Niederschrift Nr 6731 of Daimler Benz also dated 24 January 1945 discusses a meeting held at Rechlin on 16.1.45. Some of the same material is discussed as in Nr 6730, the conclusions being that 1,98 ata is not to be used on the front line. Testing at Rechlin will continue. 39  

 

Messerschmitt's Erprobungsbericht Nr. 15 vom 16.1.45 bis 15.2.45 dated 22.2.45 states that 1.98 ata is blocked, testing done at 1.80 ata: WM 50 Betreib - Nach Mitteilung der E'Stelle sind 1,98 ata gesperrt. Die Erprobung (Funktion und Kerzentemperatur) wird vorläufig mit 1,80 ata (2800 U/min) durchgeführt. 40  

 

Reparatur-Anweisung 2. Nachtrag Nr. 191/345 from des Reichministers für Rüstung und Kriegproduktion dated 14 March 1945 gives instructions for the adjustment of engine settings. Sämtliche Änderungen sind durch die Forderung bedingt, für die leistungsgesteigerten Motoren auch B4 Kraftstoff minderer Qualität ohne Gefahr verwenden zu können. Da kraftstoff C3 in unverminderter Qualität zur Verfügung steht, werden Motoren 605 ASC und 605 DC, falls sie in dieser Ausführung aufgebaut werden, unverändert wie bisher abgegeben; da jedoch, sowohl von Neubaufertigung als auch Reparatur, die Abgabe gewöhnlich in Ausführung 605 ASB und 605 DB erfolgt, werden nahezu alle 605 Motoren von diesen Änderungen erfasst. 41   The following table from this report shows that special emergency power remained at 1.8 ata, further power levels being reduced by about .05 ata.

 

ra191-345table.jpg

No evidence has come to light proving operational use of 1.98 ata by combat units, however, its clear from surviving documentation that the Luftwaffe felt a pressing need to increase the performance of the 109 and that 1.98 ata was tested and proposed for use. Prien & Stemmer have written about the desperate situation confronting the Luftwaffe in 1945:

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

 

so I see eight (8) official documents stating that: 1) K4 engines self-destructed at 1.98 and/or 2) 1.98 was officially blocked and/or 3) 1.98 was not used operationally and/or 4) C3 fuel was not available….but why let facts get in the way of getting an advantage in a GAME.☺️

Edited by Sgt_Joch
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


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

sigh...of course, it is easy to push an agenda and distort history if you only cherry pick documents that support your point of view.

 

Let's see what a "real" objective source has to say:

 

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

 

so I see eight (8) official documents stating that: 1) K4 engines self-destructed at 1.98 and/or 2) 1.98 was officially blocked and/or 3) 1.98 was not used operationally and/or 4) C3 fuel was not available….but why let facts get in the way of getting an advantage in a GAME.☺️

 

Kurfurst is well-known for this sort of revisionism posting so I wouldn't worry too much about him. Certainly while more than 20 Squadrons of 2TAF Spitfires are simply not represented in game at +25lbs as they flew IRL for half the BoBp timeframe I think there's absolutely zero chance of unhistorical 1.98ata Bf109s that at best arrived after it's conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, LukeFF said:

27 Dora-9s were fitted with the EZ 42 in February / March 1945, including Gerhard Barkhorn's machine. Depending on how one does the numbers, that works out to about half a Gruppe - a not-insignificant number at this stage of the war.

Nothing's been said about those things being included or excluded, so I'd just be patient and wait and see what comes.

 

How many of the overall production-run of ~1800 Doras were fitted with the EZ? Even "half a Gruppe" isn't that overwhelming.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

How many of the overall production-run of ~1800 Doras were fitted with the EZ? Even "half a Gruppe" isn't that overwhelming.

 

 

It was about half that number of Doras that were actually produced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

sigh...of course, it is easy to push an agenda and distort history if you only cherry pick documents that support your point of view.

 

Let's see what a "real" objective source has to say:

 

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

 

so I see eight (8) official documents stating that: 1) K4 engines self-destructed at 1.98 and/or 2) 1.98 was officially blocked and/or 3) 1.98 was not used operationally and/or 4) C3 fuel was not available….but why let facts get in the way of getting an advantage in a GAME.☺️

 

I can see only a revisionist site well noted to be cherry picking from the available evidence and a well know for its allied bias but hey, lets not let facts and German historical documents get into the way of your wishful thinking, eh?

 

After all, its the site that origanally showed the performance of German planes at higher ratings with barely visible thin light yellow curves, lest they ‘confuse’ Allied fanboys, declared that it did not amount to anything more than p**ing into the wind, and then removed it alltogether in frustration when the German orders for the manifold pressure increase to 1,98 surfaced in out research 😄 

 

Again, let us not ignore the later documents that clearly state that the incurring problems were successfully fixed and that there are no problems in the serial production. This part of the story is curiously missing from the "real" sources you seem to hold in such high regard. ;)

 

198-040345.thumb.jpg.90b964388c4e56ea9b8d5d21f197ce57.jpg

 

16 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

How many of the overall production-run of ~1800 Doras were fitted with the EZ? Even "half a Gruppe" isn't that overwhelming.

 

 

 

I think this is a question that you will never get proper answer for, only guesswork, just like in the case of the GGS on Spitfire IXs. Yup, we know a couple of Wings that had them fitted here and there, we also know that many kept using the older sights. We do not know for sure and probably never will. 

 

We can make guessworks from the available unit strenghts, though, as we know that there were about 150-200 Doras with the units, and about 100-150 Me 262s at turnover of 44-45, and probably more by the spring of 1945. We also know that the EZ 42 was primarly fitted to these types, as well as some Antons, and that about 200 EZ 42s were operationally fitted (see Hahn). Operational numbers must have been less due to losses, units building up, serviceabilty numbers and various random factors, but its probably not a big stretch to say that about 30 percent of the Doras / Schwalbes had this sight, though it was probably more typical to see one fitted in 1945. It does appear to be a priority of the top brass discussions in 1945 - expected and actual monthly production of EZ 42 was a regular subject in these (otherwise strategic) meetings, so they probably thought it fairly important to fit as many as possible.

Edited by VO101Kurfurst
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Germans were also early experimenters with gyro sights, but were discouraged by technical problems and Luftwaffe indifference. Not until late 1944 did the Askania EZ 42/1-A1 (Einheitszielvorrichtung = standard sighting device), go into production. However, it seems that technical problems had still not been resolved and few saw service, principally in Me 262s, in which it was reported that they were used only as conventional reflector sights."

 

Emmanuel Gunston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The attack on the synthetic oil plants was also found to have cost Germany its synthetic nitrogen and methanol supply and a considerable part of its rubber supply.

 

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.

 

USSBS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

The attack on the synthetic oil plants was also found to have cost Germany its synthetic nitrogen and methanol supply and a considerable part of its rubber supply.

 

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.

 

USSBS

Anecdotal.
Until Methanol production month by month numbers are shown this doesn't provide any kind of proof.

Ez42 was put on A-8's/ A-9/ D-9 and 262, but absolutely not in series.
Mostly provided to squads intercepting the Boxes as it allowed a greater range of fire, thus a better chance of survival. should be introduced as an option. it would be up to the mission creator to allow it's use or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Again, let us not ignore the later documents that clearly state that the incurring problems were successfully fixed and that there are no problems in the serial production. This part of the story is curiously missing from the "real" sources you seem to hold in such high regard. ;)

 

198-040345.thumb.jpg.90b964388c4e56ea9b8d5d21f197ce57.jpg

 

 

I don't quiet follow. In what way documents the statement that "reduction from 1.45 ata to 1.4 ata being a success" (including other tweaks that reduce power) the supposed(?) widespread(?) introduction of 1.98 ata manifold? Or what do you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

Anecdotal.
Until Methanol production month by month numbers are shown this doesn't provide any kind of proof.
 

 

Do you know what the USSBS is? It had the data to back up what was stated in its Summary Report.

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...