Jump to content
dogeness

Engine Settings (Manifold Pressure) in Bodenplatte

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

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?

 

The 1.45 to 1.40 reduction effected the 605DB, given in more detail the Repatur Anweisung 191/345 (3rd version) of March 1945; this was a reduction of the 30 minute rating only, which operated without MW injection - but  did not effect or was applicable to the 605DC config.

 

You need to read it in context with other documents from around the same time and the characteristics of the 605DB/DC engines in mind - that is, that the DB and DC are the same engine with different settings foi max. manifold pressure, fuel delivery and supercharger setup

 

The testing reports from January - February add to that story that the Bosch spark plugs worked OK, and Mtt also put into serial production an improved cooling for the spark plugs in the airframe (very likely these were small changes to well-known double teardrop-shaped cooling openings found in the lower front of the cowling of 109s, first appearing on early G/late F - when spark plugs gave trouble on 109Fs, they too simply doubled their numbers).

 

Note that the document document is but a short summary at SHQ level and confirms the difficulties encountered  earlier (thermal overload of the pistons - due to various causes of pre ignition) and that  remedies were successfully found and put into series production (ignition/spark plug related, certain manufacturing improvements). The other documents detail these improvements - for example, that BERU 250 spark plugs worked unreliably at high thermal, leading to pre-ignition, which was probably not helped by fluctuations in B-4 fuel production variance at the time, and perhaps (wheter it had basis or DB was just pointing fingers) cooling of the spark plugs specifically in the 109 installation. DB also had troubles with one of the subcontractors supplying oversized piston heads in December, and poor assembly of the valves, however this was already ractified in December. BOSCH spark plugs worked, on the other hand, reliably.

 

When you read the Reperatur Anweisung 191/345 (RA) for the 605D (cc. repairs/maintanance instructions) from March 1945 (3rd version), it also confirms that 'the various modifications used allows the engines with  output increase to use compromised quality B-4'. What is interesting the introduction of this maintaince memo also notes that there  was an original or 1st RA, issued in November 1944 (191/1144), which was temporarily superseded by a 2nd memo in Feburary (191/245), and this was now being invalidated by this 3rd maintaince memo in March (191/345).

 

The contents of the first maintaince memo from November are unknown but given that the engine's manual issued in early December list the full ratings for both as do misc. other documents - for example, on how to mark the engines with letters 'B' and 'C' for 1.8 and 1.98ata respectively, it is quite logical the the first maintaince memo originally gave the full ratings (i.e. DB config - 1,8, DC config - 1,98). 

 

The contents of the second maintaince memo are also unknown - but again in the context of the records of meetings from this period, which speak of operational banning 1.98ata with further testing and reference to earlier clearances and use of 1.98 ata - it is quite clear that the 2nd maintance memo must have been about the maintaince details for blocking 1,98 ata for the DC and until settings for 1.8ata for the DB config with late ignition for the spark plugs, can be worked out and tested, as discussed ie. in DB memo 6730.

 

What is certain that the 3rd maintaince memo, 191/345, had declared that the second maintaince memo was no longer valid and its text was superceded by the instructions of the 3rd memo. Otherwise, all of this 3rd maintaince memos instructions are exclusively related to the DB setup only, there is no mention of the DC at all. In short the maintaince memo shows that the DB setup (1.8 with B-4) will see changes to operate safely, the but the DC setup (1.98ata with C-3) will have none.

 

For the DB setup the rationale behind these changes, i.e. in addition to the late ignition of the spark plugs (which reduced top output by about 50 PS), and the reduction of manifold pressure from 1.45ata to 1.40ata was that the detonation margins of B-4 were much lower than with C-3, so it needed MW 50 injection to compensate but this system was not yet engaged in the 1.45/1.40 ata throttle position, only at higher outputs. Given that B-4 also exhibited fluctuations in production quality at that time, it was 'better safe than sorry' when using DB setup. C-3 fuel, on the other hand, hand no quality issues and had far higher margins to start with. 

 

What the 3rd Reperatur Anweisung issued in March 1945 states is that the DC (and ASC) setup will see no changes to the setup, 'as has been told earlier/so far' ('unverändert wie bisher abgegeben'). This effectively meant that the 191/345 memo was thus replacing older instructions for only the DB setup that were promulgated so far, and was restoring the original instructions into force for the DC setup - effectively, it cleared 1.98 ata again.

 

Again, wheter this was the case or not can be again confirmed by the context of other documents - i.e. by the low-level operational orders from very same time period, issued 20 March 1945, which ordered four Wings of JG 27 and JG 53 to increase manifold pressure on their planes to 1.98 ata - which they would not have not done unless the rating has been made clear again earlier.

Edited by VO101Kurfurst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

You need to read it in context with other documents from around the same time and the characteristics of the 605DB/DC engines in mind

I did not know those docs. Thnx for your answer.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

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

 

Got a source for that?

Rodeike claims roundabout 1805 airframes delivered (not just produced - delivered).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares about documents from 20th March? The game timeframe is basically over by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Know deliveries is 670 D-9s. Deliveries for Dec, Feb and March not known.

 

FW was the largest producer of D-9s with 40 in Sept, 70 in Oct, 142 in Nov, 96 in Jan. Notice the large reduction between Nov and Jan. So unless there was some kind of miracle to produce over 1100 more...….

 

Data comes from a thread here, http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1800+ is what I read, too. About 700 in Cottbus, 700 in Kassel, and 400 in other factories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2018 at 4:43 AM, MiloMorai said:

That works out to 2 Allied squadrons

 

So, it's like I said - a not-insignificant number.

8 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

should be introduced as an option.

 

It's already been said it will be an option.

Share this post


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

 

The contents of the first maintaince memo from November are unknown but given that the engine's manual issued in early December list the full ratings for both as do misc. other documents - for example, on how to mark the engines with letters 'B' and 'C' for 1.8 and 1.98ata respectively, it is quite logical the the first maintaince memo originally gave the full ratings (i.e. DB config - 1,8, DC config - 1,98). 

 

The contents of the second maintaince memo are also unknown - but again in the context of the records of meetings from this period, which speak of operational banning 1.98ata with further testing and reference to earlier clearances and use of 1.98 ata - it is quite clear that the 2nd maintance memo must have been about the maintaince details for blocking 1,98 ata for the DC and until settings for 1.8ata for the DB config with late ignition for the spark plugs, can be worked out and tested, as discussed ie. in DB memo 6730.

 

What is certain that the 3rd maintaince memo, 191/345, had declared that the second maintaince memo was no longer valid and its text was superceded by the instructions of the 3rd memo. Otherwise, all of this 3rd maintaince memos instructions are exclusively related to the DB setup only, there is no mention of the DC at all. In short the maintaince memo shows that the DB setup (1.8 with B-4) will see changes to operate safely, the but the DC setup (1.98ata with C-3) will have none.

 

 

 

I had to read this a few times before I could understand your rationale. Correct me if I am wrong:

 

1. there is a 1st document in December which you have never seen and is no longer available but you think it cleared 1.98 even though you have no proof;

 

2. there is a 2nd document  which you have  also never seen and is no longer available but you think it blocked 1.98;

 

3. there is a 3rd document which does not mention 1.98 at all, but since it revokes the 2nd document, you argue it reinstates the 1st document and therefore 1.98 even though you have no idea if the 1st document mentions 1.98 at all.

 

Interesting theory. I can see how you can argue that there were "hundreds" of K4s flying around at 1.98 if that is your standard of proof, but you have no actual proof any of this is true or even probable.

 

The most probable explanation is still the one shown in black and white by the documents on the WW2 Aircraft Performance site, namely that 1.98 was blocked until the end of march 1945. JG 11 was the only unit "testing" 1.98, although we have no idea if any ever flew in combat. The LW officially cleared 1.98 at the end of march 1945, but given the conditions at that time, we have no idea if any or more than a handful ever flew at 1.98 in combat.

Edited by Sgt_Joch
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


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

 

I had to read this a few times before I could understand your rationale. Correct me if I am wrong:

 

1. there is a 1st document in December which you have never seen and is no longer available but you think it cleared 1.98 even though you have no proof;

 

2. there is a 2nd document  which you have  also never seen and is no longer available but you think it blocked 1.98;

 

3. there is a 3rd document which does not mention 1.98 at all, but since it revokes the 2nd document, you argue it reinstates the 1st document and therefore 1.98 even though you have no idea if the 1st document mentions 1.98 at all.

 

Well, re-read the documents then and try not to be so selective.

 

You are right that we do not know the exact contents of the 1st and 2nd DB technical memos, we only know the contents of the 3rd one. However, we do know the contents of other manuals and instructions issued at the same time, and there is no reason to believe that the Germans would have issued technical docs at the same time, stating the exact opposite.

 

Such as we do not know the contents of the 1st RA in November 1944, but we do know that this type of document contains technical info on how to setup engines for various boosts and that there is an engine manual issued in 1st December 1944 which we know to have cleared both 1.8 and 1.98ata. Its more than reasonable to assume that the 1st RA simply gave the precice technical instructions for these rating (since the engine manual do not go into such depths).

 

Such as we do not know the contents of the 2nd RA issued February 1944, but we do know the contents of the discussions in mid/late January 1945 that put restrictions on spark plug timing for 1.8 and temporarily banned 1.98ata until further testing. Its more than reasonable to assume that the 2nd RA simply gave the precice technical instructions for these changes, since revisions of technical instructions do not appear randomly, but when something has changed and the mechanics need to be instructed accordingly.

 

Finally, we know that the 3rd RA issued in March 1945 revoked the earlier instructions, and that subsequently orders went out for several Gruppen to switch engines to 1.98 ata. Again, its more than reasonable to assume that the technical instructions issued by DB at the time simply mirrored the operational orders and provided technological background for it. 

 

In short, based on circumstantial evidence, we can make reasonable deductions as to what the contents of the earlier technical intructions were. Not that it would matter very much, since we know anyway from later docs that order several Gruppen to switch to 1.98ata anyway, so we know anyway that the rating have been cleared for use some time before that order went out for the troops.

 

You can of course keep arguing that it all went against common sense. Lets see your version then.

 

DB issued an engine manual in December 1944, clearing both 1.8 ata and 1.98ata. It also issued a technical instruction in November 1944, but you claim it could not contain instructions for how to set engines for 1.8 ata or 1.98ata. Even though there are known instructions for how to mark engines with a big white letter 'C' when set to 1.98ata. Even though it is mentioned in January meetings (DB memo 6730) that the RLM is p*ssed off at DB about why clearing 1.98ata for the troops and why the engines were set to 1.98ata without proper approval and testing procedures at Rechlin...

Then, for some odd reason, DB issued a new technical instruction in February. Of course it cannot be about how block 1.98ata and what spark plugs setthings are to be used for 1.8ata, even though that was exactly what was decided in January.

The oddity continues in March 1945, where DB for some unfathomable reason decides to issue a new technical instruction revoking the 2nd one in February and breifly mentioning that no technical changes are needed for setting up the 1.98ata DC engines, but some of instructions are altered for the DB engines. Coincidentally, the Luftwaffe decides in March that several Gruppen are instructed to set engines to 1.98ata... and in your version, without any technical instruction ever issued for the mechanics how to do so... 

 

Your version simply does not make any sense, mine, on the other hand can be logically fitted into the stream of known documents.

 

Quote

 

Interesting theory. I can see how you can argue that there were "hundreds" of K4s flying around at 1.98 if that is your standard of proof, but you have no actual proof any of this is true or even probable.

 

Well, lets see whats your standard of proof - wishful statements in an web article written on a notoriously biased site, who's author hates German aircraft, and the 109 in particular with passion, who doesn't reads or understands German at all, and who supports his case with selectively choosen German documents covering a fraction of the involved time period, which he also quoutes and uses selectively.

 

I can see now how you can believe in virtually anything on these aircraft since its sole basis is a source that completely refuses and ignores any evidence laid down in historical documents that would disprove a well definable agenda.

 

Such as:

 

Ignoring the evidence that the DB 605DB/DC manual clears both 1.8 and 1.98ata in December 1944.

Ignoring the evidence that the DB 605DB/DC instructions that 1.8 ata engines are to be marked with letter B, and 1.98ata with letter C, again issued in December 1944.

Ignoring the evidence that the DB memo 6730 states in January 1945, in past tense, that engines have been cleared and set up for 1.98ata by the troops.

Ignoring the evidence that the DB memo 6730 states in January 1945, that aircraft engines of II/JG 11 are to be set up for 1.98ata for further testing.

Ignoring the evidence that the II/JG 11 does indeed report that the engines have been set up for 1.98ata and no issues have been noted.

Ignoring the evidence in German SHQ diary in March 1945 noting the issues with the DB 605 have been fixed and there are no troubles now in service..

Ignoring the evidence of the 20th March 1945 orders further four Wings of JG 27 and JG 53 to set up engines for 1.98ata.

Ignoring strenght reports and TOE for the four Wings of JG 27 and JG 53.

 

Quote

The most probable explanation is still the one shown in black and white by the documents on the WW2 Aircraft Performance site, namely that 1.98 was blocked until the end of march 1945. JG 11 was the only unit "testing" 1.98, although we no idea if any ever flew in combat. The LW officially cleared 1.98 at the end of march 1945, but given the conditions at that time, we have no idea if any or more than a handful ever flew at 1.98 in combat.

 

Nope, that's just the usual bias propagated by WW2 Aircraft Performance site and what's even more sad, its bad at it as the statements are not even supported by its own 'black and white' documentation. What it does is simply ignoring the documents from pre-January 1945, when 1.98ata was cleared and used (see memo 6730, DB engine manual etc.), and ignores the documentation from March 1945, when 1.98ata was cleared and used again, and concentrates on saturating the article with various iterations and minute details of a single meeting held in mid-January where it was discussed that 1.98ata should be temporily withdrawn from service until further testing.

 

As usual, one thing is stated these articles but even the (rather carefully selected) evidence shows something completely different.. since the author of the article evidently cannot even understand German or what is in that documentation, so he just picks a few negative sentences from them and ignores the rest.

 

Then the completely fantastical stuff like JG 11 not flying in combat? A 'testing unit'? Sure thing ! Anything else?

 

Zum Jahreswechsel 1944 / 45 lag die II. Gruppe des Jagdgeschwaders 11 in Zellhausen und war in die Ardennen-Offensive eingebunden. Am 1. Januar 1945 war die Gruppe am Unternehmen "Bodenplatte", dem Einsatz deutscher Jagdverbände gegen die alliierten Flugplätze in Holland, Belgien und Frankreich. Hierzu konnte die Gruppe 36 Flugzeuge zum Einsatz bringen. Ziel der Gruppe war der Flugplatz Asch. Auf Grund starker feindlicher Jagdabwehr mußte die Gruppe sechs Gefallene hinnehmen, denen fünf Luftsiege gegenüberstanden. Die Erfolge gegen die am Boden abgestellten Maschinen waren ebenfalls sehr gering. Nach Beendigung des Einsatzes wurde die Gruppe einige Tage geschont, um die entstandenen Verluste auszugleichen. Anschließend wurde sie wieder über den deutschen Einheiten, die an der Ardennen-Offensive teilgenommen hatten und sich jetzt auf dem Rückzug befanden, eingesetzt. Am 23. Januar 1945 endete für die Gruppe der Einsatz im Westen und sie verlegte nach Strausberg bei Berlin, um von hier aus an der Ostfront eingesetzt zu werden. Vor allem die Oderfront wurde zum Ziel zahlreicher Feindflüge. Am 3. April 1945 wurde die Gruppe aufgelöst. Die erfahrensten Piloten wurden zu Jagdeinheiten mit Strahlflugzeugen versetzt, während die jungen, unerfahrenen Flugzeugführer zu Erdkampfverbänden kamen. Die restlichen Flugzeugführer wurden auf die I. und III. Gruppe verteilt.

Edited by VO101Kurfurst
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

Ignoring the evidence of the 20th March 1945 orders further four Wings of JG 27 and JG 53 to set up engines for 1.98ata.

Ignoring strenght reports and TOE for the four Wings of JG 27 and JG 53.

 

No one is ignoring but one person is failing to provide proof that those JG27, 53 units actual did.

 

How much C3 and methanol at Bad Aibling, , Stuttgart-Echterdingen, Reichenbach, Ketterschwang, Holzkirchen, Nellingen,  Neuhausen ob Eck, Fürstenfeldbruck, Kreuzstrasse/Klein-Karolinenfeld, Prien am Chiemsee, Prague-Gbell, Salzburg, Saalbach?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2018 at 3:25 AM, 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.

It is an insignificant number Luke. In other times you could consider this a combat testing or evaluation by a small group of pilots in one or two units. Furthermore were those units participating in combat in the area and timeframe covered by Bodenplatte expansion ? 

Make no mistake. I'm not against Ez 42 but there seems to be a lack of consistency or at least clear rules for selection of certain modifications while others get omitted. 

 

I mean, there is a whole argument as to why Spitfire IX is not provided with 25 lbs boost while a significantly higher number of Spitfires operated at that rating, than a number of D-9s was provided with EZ 42.  

Furthermore if we stick by the precedence given above (EZ 42) than P-47s should also be provided with K-14 gunsight as modification. For now I only Viks asking about Mark VIII gunsight, but hopefully its not going to be the only option. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

I mean, there is a whole argument as to why Spitfire IX is not provided with 25 lbs boost while a significantly higher number of Spitfires operated at that rating, than a number of D-9s was provided with EZ 42.

 

 

A small problem with such claims is that there is no evidence to the number of Spitfires operating at 25 lbs boost, nor to the number D-9s with EZ-42s... 

 

But hey, who needs facts when you can just spout out claims. 

Share this post


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

 

A small problem with such claims is that there is no evidence to the number of Spitfires operating at 25 lbs boost, nor to the number D-9s with EZ-42s... 

 

But hey, who needs facts when you can just spout out claims. 

So far you are the one doing so mate.

 

To put it bluntly, you do not need exact numbers (to the last machine, to the last unit), to assess the significance of usage. We dont know (or at least I dont) the exact number of Spitfires cleared for such rating, but we do know that it was certainly a higher number than 27 (for instance you can estimate that based on fuel consumption). Now I dont mind giving Lutfwaffe this rare prize in form of EZ 42, but lets be consequent and give similar benefits to other aircraft.   

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

So far you are the one doing so mate.

 

Yeah right, the Tu Quoque Defence. You must have missed like, the half this thread. 

 

19 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

 

To put it bluntly, you do not need exact numbers (to the last machine, to the last unit), to assess the significance of usage.

 

When it comes to Allied aircraft, yeah, we never need that one. Nor evidence. ;) When it comes to German aircraft, on the other hand...

 

19 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

We dont know (or at least I dont) the exact number of Spitfires cleared for such rating, but we do know that it was certainly a higher number than 27 (for instance you can estimate that based on fuel consumption). Now I dont mind giving Lutfwaffe this rare prize in form of EZ 42, but lets be consequent and give similar benefits to other aircraft.   

 

The number 27 referred to the number of aircraft that were reportedly fitted in February - March only. With a gunsight which was produced since mid-1944. Of which 800 were made IIRC and about 200 was fitted in total. Now, I agree in principle that you do not need to count down the last rivet, but you are clearly streching the goal posts here quite a bit in order to make the operational use of EZ 42 look something completely insignificant, which it was not, and play the poor allies are mistreated again victim card. The EZ 42 is interesting, and fun for gameplay, with the mechanics already present, since they are doing GGS anyway. 25 lbs Spitfires OTOH are poorly documented, and give little more than satisfaction to the stereotypical Spitwhining band wanting for best possible variant.

 

As for giving similar benefits, balance and similar stuff - there is even a Merlin 70 modification for the IX planned. Something that we can both agree that as far as 'signicance of usage' goes, it was close to, or precisely ZERO when it comes to representing the combat theatre of NW Europe in 1944/45. At least I can't recall a single Squadron using it in the 2nd TAF, and probably not a single example of it flying there. Or P-38s for that matter, not very significant by late 1944 in the ETO, now, was it. I can understand why they put in there - first its easy to do, just modify the supercharger of an existing M66 model. Secondly, since there is no XIV, the RAF probably needs it's rare prize to have a plane that is reasonably competive at high altitudes, since the normal IX and the Tempest certainly isn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 7,000,000 Imp gal of 150 fuel was consumed in NW Europe from Jan to May 1945.

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

 

Even in Dec '44 almost 500,00 Imp gal of 150 was issued in NW Europe.

 

If one uses the logic another uses from documentation for 1.98ata use, then one can use the same logic from documentation for 150 use in NW Europe. There is also squadron documentation for 150 fuel use which is totally lacking for 1.98ata use by the 4 Gruppes cleared to use 1.98ata.

 

There was several 1000 GGS produced and less than 800 EZ42s.

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

25 lbs Spitfires OTOH are poorly documented, 

 

Ouch, this is gonna hurt.

 

150_Grade_20-11-44.jpg

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

Yeah right, the Tu Quoque Defence. You must have missed like, the half this thread. 

Quite contrary. I've been following it closely since the beginning, just saw no reason to post until recently. Also, what defence ? I'm not defending anything. I'm advocating for something, not even specific modifications, but merely for consistency and clear rules by which certain mods are implemented and others not. 

So I'm not entirely sure you understand the difference.

 

And speaking of defence.

1 hour ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

When it comes to Allied aircraft, yeah, we never need that one. Nor evidence. ;) When it comes to German aircraft, on the other hand...

Nice words about sources, coming from a guy who posted on a previous page picture taken from document, failing to provide details of the document itself and context in which document appeared. Once called out, replied with:

On 7/17/2018 at 5:13 PM, VO101Kurfurst said:

You need to read it in context with other documents from around the same time and the characteristics of the 605DB/DC engines in mind - that is, that the DB and DC are the same engine with different settings foi max. manifold pressure, fuel delivery and supercharger setup.

So to understand a tiny bit of larger, unknown document, one has to refer to context which consists of other documents from "around the same time" and something as fleeting as characteristics of an engine. And then turns out you do not even know the contents of the two out of three documents you are basing your entire point on. 

For instance I also know that there was such document titled "Printed assembly and flight inspection records of Ki-84 model C No 1389" issued by Nakajima Aircraft Co Ltd in November 1944 and got an idea of what it contains. But since I dont know exact content, what is the point of referring to it ? 

 

1 hour ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

The number 27 referred to the number of aircraft that were reportedly fitted in February - March only. With a gunsight which was produced since mid-1944. Of which 800 were made IIRC and about 200 was fitted in total. Now, I agree in principle that you do not need to count down the last rivet, but you are clearly streching the goal posts here quite a bit in order to make the operational use of EZ 42 look something completely insignificant, which it was not, and play the poor allies are mistreated again victim card. The EZ 42 is interesting, and fun for gameplay, with the mechanics already present, since they are doing GGS anyway.

And this is entirely moot point since I am not against EZ 42. 

 

1 hour ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

25 lbs Spitfires OTOH are poorly documented, and give little more than satisfaction to the stereotypical Spitwhining band wanting for best possible variant.

How so ? Spitfireperformance has a very well documented article about 150 octane av gas itself, but furthermore in Spitfire IX section provides other details. I know you do not speak and think highly of Mr Williams, but documents and pictures are there. 

Anyway, the point was not about how well or not they are documented but how many were more or less in operation. For that I do acknowledge that certain number is unknown. But so is a number of D-9s issues with EZ-42 as you presented it yourself mate. Also, if we get into poorly documented argument, and if we assume (for the purpose of this discussion) that 150 octane av gas in Spitfire IX is poorly documented, than what about 1.98 Ata ? You make entire argument based on :

5 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

However, we do know the contents of other manuals and instructions issued at the same time, and there is no reason to believe that the Germans would have issued technical docs at the same time, stating the exact opposite.

 

Ps. I'm very happy for Merlin 70 and rockets Spitfire was provided with. Doesnt change the argument about 25 lbs boost however mate ;) 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

485 Squadron (New Zealand) was trained in using gyro sight already in March 1944. At least 12 squadrons were already equipped with MK II GGS by May which equals to about 240 Spitfire IXs. I'd say gyro sight and bubble canopy for Bodenplatte should be a standard. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holland:

 

Spoiler

 

401-ORB-31Jan45.jpg

 

 

Spoiler

411-ORB-31Jan45-150grade.jpg

 

 

Spoiler

126wing-31jan45-change-in-fuel.jpg

 

Spoiler

401-26feb45-form540.jpg

 

Spoiler

402_ORB_26Feb45.jpg

 

Spoiler

442-orb-26feb45.jpg

 

Belgium

 

Spoiler

421-orb-6feb45.jpg

 

Spoiler

421-orb-12feb45.jpg

 

Spoiler

421-diary-12feb45.jpg

 

We even know units were weaned off it in May, well beyond the end of our campaign:

 

Spoiler

126-orb-1-3may45.jpg

 

Anyway I guess these are fabricated documents from a biased website and are just pure fiction.

Edited by Talon_
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of 2TAF's Spitfires used 150 gade fuel? I hear you ask

 

Well we can't know for sure just how many planes exactly, but we can know this:

 

The 2TAF Order of Battle consisted of No. 2, No. 83, No. 84 and No. 85 (Base) Groups. Within these Groups, only No. 83 and No 84 Groups contained Spitfire squadrons that would later move to the Continent.

 

No. 83 Group:

 

125 Wing

132 Sqn RAF
453 Sqn RAAF

602 Sqn RAF

 

144 Wing

441 Sqn RCAF

443 Sqn RCAF

 

126 Wing

401 Sqn RCAF
411 Sqn RCAF

412 Sqn RCAF

 

127 Wing

403 Sqn RCAF
416 Sqn RCAF*
421 Sqn RCAF

 

No. 84 Group:

 

131 Wing

302 Sqn (Polish)

308 Sqn (Polish)

317 Sqn (Polish)

 

132 Wing

66 Sqn RAF

331 Sqn (Norway)

332 Sqn (Norway)

 

134 Wing

310 Sqn (Czech)
312 Sqn (Czech)
313 Sqn (Czech)

 

135 Wing

349th Sqn (Belgium)

485 Sqn RNZAF

 

145 Wing

329 Squadron (Free French)
340 Squadron (Free French)
341 Squadron (Free French)

 

This totals 24 squadrons of Spitfires, not including the photo-recon squadrons.

 

You will notice that this aligns pretty closely with the number of 2TAF Spitfire squadrons that were authorised for increased boost and 150 grade in the memo I linked above^

 

We know for a fact that *all* Spitfires of 83 and 84 group were starting to run on 150-grade fuel/+25lbs boost from this memorandum on 11th January 1945, requesting that the Mosquitos of 85 group get the same treatment.

 

With these documents in mind, plus the combat reports I posted above, we can conclude that the majority of 2TAF Spitfires were running on 150 grade fuel/+25lbs boost pressure.

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how did we arrive from a couple of Squadron/Wing logbooks, mentioning ‘lecturing’ and occasionally ‘modifying’ (the two not being the same) but referring back to the same Squadrons within No 126 Wing, through ‘we do not know how many were there’, to suddenly ‘all’ Spitfires, hmm (which the document does not state anyway - it mentioned modifications being done within these higher units, not to ‘all aircraft - hence documentary evidence of several units only beginning the work much later, in mid/late February).

 

A (fairly big) leap of faith? Not that it is much in quesition that the 2nd TAF finally begun to introduce improved ratings through late January - March 1945, since that is well known from secondary sources from a long time and there is not much news in it. We also know of the troubles involved and that they reverted in April.

 

The question is the double standards that are being applied, the ease of how you jump form traces of evidence of several units converting through a period of several months to a (inprobable) conclusion of ALL units and IMMIDIATELY.

 

Remember you need to present the same level of evidence that you require for German aircraft.

 

If evidence for modification to German aircraft is required, the so it applies to RAF aircraft.

 

If logbooks must be presented to every German unit as evidence, then so it applies to every RAF unit.

 

If evidence to shipments of fuel (Btw, standard German fuel gradr that was used since 1940) to ‘all’ airfields is required for all German units,  so it applies to all RAF units.

 

If knowing precise numbers for modified aircraft is required for German aircraft, then so it is required for RAF aircraft.

 

Remember that if several RAF Wings converting through a period of several months is significant use, then so is several Luftwaffe Wings converting through a period of several months.

 

Remeber if use in the ‘last months in 1945’ is too late for the Luftwaffe for significance, then so it is for the RAF.

 

At least if you wish to apply the same standards. Perhaps you do, some others certainly do not.

 

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

-snip-

 

 

 

I can only assume you were writing this as I posted my 2nd update listing all of 2TAF's Spitfire squadrons and showing that there were roughly the same number of Spitfire LF Sqns as that document showed were converting. In fact this post reads as if you paid no attention to my most recent post at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Talon_ said:

 

I can only assume you were writing this as I posted my 2nd update listing all of 2TAF's Spitfire squadrons and showing that there were roughly the same number of Spitfire LF Sqns as that document showed were converting. In fact this post reads as if you paid no attention to my most recent post at all.

 

Oh, quite the contary.

 

I did notice your Squadron logbooks simply repeat the same thing for the same units, or Squadrons under the same wing.

 

I suppose you thought nobody will notice that the large number of pages posted mostly relate to more or less the same units.

 

I do wonder how posting so many Pages from the logbook if of single Wing, no 126, constitues evidence for the other wing. Tell me. Pardon me, there is also a page form 414 Squadron, under 127 Wing. 

 

A far cry from 30 odd IX / XVI Squadrons you are pushing for.

 

 

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only one document, and not an original document, saying 1.98ata is cleared for use.

 

There has been no proof posted that the units cleared actually used 1.98ata, only speculation.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll make things clear for you:

 

25 squadrons of Spitfires cleared for new spark plugs for +25lbs boost, November 1944:

 

Spoiler

image.png.112009f267445b3aebf0dc363fa968a6.png

 

25 Squadrons of Spitfires went over with the 2nd Tactical Air Force under 83 and 84 group

 

 

Spoiler

image.thumb.png.5c81417b75ca82a2fc88b457867c9246.png

 

 

If only we had a letter stating all the squadrons of 83/84 group were being modified to 150 grade fuel dated 11th January... oh yes we do

 

Spoiler

image.png.967302e6328802e7de1151934564baf2.png

 

 

So we have 2TAF with 25 sqns of Spitfires in Europe and they're all getting new spark plugs for 150 octane fuel between 11th of January and those pilot logs a few weeks later.

Edited by Talon_
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

I'll make things clear for you:

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

25 squadrons of Spitfires cleared for new spark plugs for +25lbs boost, November 1944:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

image.png.112009f267445b3aebf0dc363fa968a6.png

 

Grand.

 

6 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

25 Squadrons of Spitfires went over with the 2nd Tactical Air Force under 83 and 84 group

 

Evidenced by showing the 2nd TAF's order valid for the period on the eve of the Normandy landings, which changed a bit by 1945. Ok... 

 

6 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

image.thumb.png.5c81417b75ca82a2fc88b457867c9246.png

 

 

If only we had a letter stating all the squadrons of 83/84 group were being modified to 150 grade fuel dated 11th January... oh yes we do

 

Which actually does not say 'all Squadrons' anywhere...

 

6 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

image.png.967302e6328802e7de1151934564baf2.png

 

 

So we have 2TAF with 25 sqns of Spitfires in Europe and they're all getting new spark plugs for 150 octane fuel between 11th of January and those pilot logs a few weeks later.

 

In reality in a period of a few months, not few weeks, and logbooks are present for a couple of units only. Mostly show they are for a single Wing, No 126 actually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

I suppose you thought nobody will notice that the large number of pages posted mostly relate to more or less the same units.

 

I do wonder how posting so many Pages from the logbook if of single Wing, no 126, constitues evidence for the other wing. Tell me. Pardon me, there is also a page form 414 Squadron, under 127 Wing. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

In reality in a period of a few months, not few weeks, and logbooks are present for a couple of units only. Mostly show they are for a single Wing, No 126 actually. 

 

 

If you're going to respond to my documents, please read them at the very least. They represent five squadrons across three wings. There were only nine wings flying Spitfires in 2TAF at this time anyway so it is a significant number.

 

No. 83 Group:

126 wing, 401 sqn document AB and C

126 wing, 402 sqn document A

126 wing, 411 sqn document A

127 wing, 421 sqn document A and B

144 wing, 442 sqn document A

 

 

Share this post


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

Or P-38s for that matter, not very significant by late 1944 in the ETO, now, was it.

 

There were still lots of squadrons flying the P-38 on the Continent in late 1944-early 1945.

Share this post


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

 

 

 

Lets put the spam of large pictures under a bit scrutiny, shall we.

 

 

Quote

Holland:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

401-ORB-31Jan45.jpg

 

 

31 January, No 401 Squadron's a/c being modified , fuel is changed. Its the 126 Wing.

 

Quote
  Reveal hidden contents

411-ORB-31Jan45-150grade.jpg

 

31 January, 411 Squadron. They are 'being lectured'. Its the 126 Wing, again.

 

Quote

 

  Reveal hidden contents

126wing-31jan45-change-in-fuel.jpg

 

31 January, Modifications to all aircraft for new fuel... guess what, 126 Wing's logbook again.

 

 

Quote
  Reveal hidden contents

401-26feb45-form540.jpg

 

26 February, 'briefing on 150 grade fuel.. No 401 Squadron, which is... 126 Wing again.

 

 

Quote
  Reveal hidden contents

402_ORB_26Feb45.jpg

 

 

26 February, more talk in briefing room on 150 grade.... again, 126 Wing. I see a pattern here. The same stuff is being posted over and over again to make it look impressive.

 

 

Quote
  Reveal hidden contents

442-orb-26feb45.jpg

 

26 February, more talk in briefing room on 150 grade.... again, a 126 Wing squadron, No 442. Who would have guessed.

 

 

Quote

Belgium

 

  Reveal hidden contents

421-orb-6feb45.jpg

 

6 Febuary, this time for 421 Squadron changing to +25. Its 127 Wing for a change.

 

Quote
  Reveal hidden contents

421-orb-12feb45.jpg

 

12 February, 412 Squadron... yes, its 126 Wing again.

 

 

Quote
  Reveal hidden contents

421-diary-12feb45.jpg

 

We even know units were weaned off it in May, well beyond the end of our campaign:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

126-orb-1-3may45.jpg

 

Doesn't say which unit, but let's guess its the umpteenth document for the same 126 wing.

 

Quote

Anyway I guess these are fabricated documents from a biased website and are just pure fiction.

 

I guess the documents you have spammed here for shock and awe proved that... a single Spitfire Wing converted to +25 lbs in the first two weeks of February.

 Pardon, there was also a Squadron from 127 and perhaps one Sqn from the 144.

 

Now do not get me wrong I am not saying its insignificant and perhaps there are a couple more, perhaps at a later time, if you scratch the surface a bit more. But I do not see the point of posting a dozen documents with all pointing to the same single Wing. Its a bit misleading.

 

But, at least it puts those five Luftwaffe Wings associated with 1.98ata in a bit better context. 

Edited by VO101Kurfurst
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

There were still lots of squadrons flying the P-38 on the Continent in late 1944-early 1945.

 

Yes the 370, 474 and 367FGs (9 squadrons) flew the P-38 and were stationed on the continent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Evidenced by showing the 2nd TAF's order valid for the period on the eve of the Normandy landings, which changed a bit by 1945. Ok... 

 

 

In fact we can see from the Bodenplatte order of battle that the Allies had added very few squadrons.

 

image.png.cc382154f646f3314698296d0b70a0b4.png

 

Thanks to the reorganisation and renumeration of the Squadrons through late 1944 however we can see that the total of combat wings (not recon) is now actually 24!

 

All I can say is that I'm sorry real life doesn't agree with your fantasy @VO101Kurfurst

Edited by Talon_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

All I can say is that I'm sorry real life doesn't agree with your fantasy @VO101Kurfurst

 

Talon EXIT, STAGE LEFT.

 

Anyway, since we are talking soooooo much about No. 126 Wing, here's a a small passage (pg 199) from "Invasion Without Tears", Street/Berger, ISBN#0-394-22277-6 (Random House) (from accounts by Monty Berger, Senior Intel Officer of 126 (RCAF) Spitfire Wing, 2 TAF).

 

He noted [in his day's (apr 20 '45) operational summary]as well that two pilots had walked away-"more or less"-with only slight injuries from wrecked and flaming aircraft at B 116 [Wunstorf, Germany]. actually, it was a miracle either man survived. flying officer F R Dennison of 411(sqn)-a Grizzly Bear from Buffalo, NY-crashed while taking off and broke his back. later in the day, flt leiutenant E B Mossing of 401(sqd), who also had his engine cut during take off, scraped his spitfire's belly tank over an obstacle and came down so hard the impact ripped it's wings off, broke the fuselage at the instrument panel and left what remained of the aircraft a mass of flames-yet Mossing "extricated himself with one bone broken in his leg. the incidents followed a number of engine problems that were attributed to the introduction of 150-grade fuel in early feb. pilots mistrusted it, and were no doubt relieved when the AF brass decided to revert to 130-grade. "the vast majority of pilots, im sure, were beginning to wonder if the additional seven pounds of boost they got from 150-grade fuel were worth the price being paid." the matter was being dicussed at Wunstorf when, incredibly, a spark at the petrol dump ignited and two petrol bowsers containing almost two thousand gallons of the much-despised fuel burst into flames."

 

Edited by VO101Kurfurst
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Talon EXIT, STAGE LEFT.

 

You are welcome to provide realistic counterarguments, until then I will be in each of your threads where you try to tell lies and falsify history with these same facts waiting.

 

I suppose you were hoping there were 100 squadrons of Spitfires in 2TAF by 1945 so you could try to tell me the 25 cleared were a minority?

Edited by Talon_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least Talon has produced documentation that 25lb/150 was used while there has been no proof posted of 1.98ata by the 4 units cleared to do so.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

when the AF brass decided to revert to 130-grade.

 

Feel free to post about this when we get a game based in May 1945

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Talon_ said:

 

You are welcome to provide realistic counterarguments, until then I will be in each of your threads where you try to tell lies and falsify history with these same facts waiting.

 

You see Milo here is doing the same thing for the past 15 years, and look where it got him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

You see Milo here is doing the same thing for the past 15 years, and look where it got him.

 

You are doggedly reposting the same "information" you made up in your head with nobody taking any notice of you. What a waste of 15 years.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you Barbi have been trying to flog your fantasy for the same amount of time. One would think you would have produced some real proof in that time, but no just the same old over and over again. 

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...