Jump to content
dogeness

Engine Settings (Manifold Pressure) in Bodenplatte

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

(…)

 

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).

 Don't want to spend too much time on this, but do you have a link for that document?

 

7 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

 

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.

 

Do you have any documents showing combat units actually flew with that setting in dec. 44, other than the offhand comment that an order was mistakenly sent to Galland?

7 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

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.

 

 

Again link?

Share this post


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

 

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."

 

 

Not following procedure.

 

Logical decision to take since the Third Reich was a has been.

Sgt Joch, JG11 had 11 K-4s of which 4 were serviceable for Bodenplatte. They must of flown as 2 were lost (1 from Stab II./JG11 and the other from 6./JG11).

Edited by MiloMorai

Share this post


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

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.


Go make a complaint to the red army as they burned the RLM archives in Berlin... took what they found as docs at factories for their own use and what has survived is certainly rotting in a bunker 500meters underground somewhere in the middle of siberia.

On the other hand, kurfust posted also DB reports about the1.98 use.
It's the same story for the 1.65 on 801', cleared end42 for Lowstage, in 43 cleared on both stages, then cancelled, then cleared again, then cancelled again, then definitvely cleared in44...That info was extracted from the FW MoM's, not manuals as you'll never will find a full Me or FW manual on the planet, with all addendums present, intepreting manufacturer's documents is the only way to go.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So somehow in the last few chaotic weeks of WW2, documents got from Bavaria to Berlin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one will be content with whatever decision the developers make. But that's probably an unpopular view to have around here...

Edited by Leaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MiloMorai

 

"i saw your signature that the DCS dev YO-YO knows what he's doing and DCS never refuse to correct something that was found ..."  so you basically agree with them.

 

So why isn't in your signature the post from Yo-yo about how 25lbs for the spitfire will present a very high risk of overheating or destroying the engine .

And that Matt Wagner the producer of the game posted after lots of research done by people payed to do it and not amateurs that 25lbs was so rarely used  they never plan to include it into the game. 

 

I don't automatically agree.My personal opinion is I don't care if allies get better boosts and i don't.Great for them !  

But let's be fair here don't you think this is a little bit of double standard.

 

Also the ww2 performace site.Don't you think it's a little weird they only posts comparisons where the spitfire is better .

 

Sure agent "K" is biased as well and i might be too.You need to be some kind of alien in order to be 100% unbiased.

 

About 1.98 what little i know Is only what i read in a magazine(Flugzeug Classic) that the 1.98 boost was cleared at a very late stage of the war march or april 1945(according to their research) i would have to read it again to say for sure.It's very difficult to know for sure what happened because at the end of the war there was complete chaos in Germany.

It really would depend on what each person or game developer chooses to believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by IVJG4-Knight
  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

25lbs for the spitfire will present a very high risk of overheating or destroying the engine .

 

If you include this in the game you might as well not bother including Jumo-004 powered aircraft at all.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

 

If you include this in the game you might as well not bother including Jumo-004 powered aircraft at all.

 

Il2 devs and DCS devs chose to include Jumo-004 powered aircraft(  you're probably talking about the 262 because it also used AFAIK bmw engines) and not the 25lbs boost.

But like i posted that doesn't mean i agree.

And this will be my last response because i just don't care.Whatever get's produced or not is fine by me.

 

 

 

Edited by IVJG4-Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

 

Il2 devs and DCS devs chose to include Jumo-004 powered aircraft(  you're probably talking about the 262 because it also used AFAIK bmw engines) and not the 25lbs boost.

But like i posted that doesn't mean i agree.

And this will be my last response because i just don't care.Whatever get's produced or not is fine by me.

 

 

 

 

Prototypes used BMW engines but production Me-262s used Jumo-004s which would explode with far higher regularity than the +25lbs Merlin.

Share this post


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

 

Prototypes used BMW engines but production Me-262s used Jumo-004s which would explode with far higher regularity than the +25lbs Merlin.

 

It's not really a literal explosion, it's more of the terrible quality turbine blades were prone to wearing out very quickly, and sudden throttle movements could massively accelerate that already quite quick process. Bits of blade snapping off and tumbling into the engine is, uhh, extremely unhealthy for it

Share this post


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

 

Prototypes used BMW engines but production Me-262s used Jumo-004s which would explode with far higher regularity than the +25lbs Merlin.

 

Great ! 😄

Edited by IVJG4-Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

Bits of blade snapping off and tumbling into the engine is, uhh, extremely unhealthy for it

Do you honestly think that „bits of blade snapping off“ a running gas turbine do really „tumble inside the engine“?

Share this post


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

Do you honestly think that „bits of blade snapping off“ a running gas turbine do really „tumble inside the engine“?

 

It would immediately destroy it, causing catastrophic fires, but I felt that went without saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

It would immediately destroy it, causing catastrophic fires, but I felt that went without saying

Yes, the tumblings are impressive indeed.

20101223A380quantas.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

It's not really a literal explosion, it's more of the terrible quality turbine blades were prone to wearing out very quickly, and sudden throttle movements could massively accelerate that already quite quick process. Bits of blade snapping off and tumbling into the engine is, uhh, extremely unhealthy for it

 

Not quite. You're talking about two different issues.

 

The first is bad alloy quality due to lack of molybdenum and a number of other metals used to strengthen turbine blades. This did cause lots of issues regarding reliability and horribly cut into the MTBO.

 

The second issue is the fact early jet engines generally idled at very low RPMs. For the Jumo 004, idle RPM was around 3000 revs, compared to a maximum permissible RPM of 8700 revs.

Essentially, what happens here is too much fuel being introduced into the ignition chamber to burn properly too quickly for the RPM to catch up with the increased fuel flow, causing a massive surge into the compressor stage and stalling the blades.

 

Compare that to a modern jet engine, which generally idles at around 60% of max RPM.

Share this post


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

The second issue is the fact early jet engines generally idled at very low RPMs. For the Jumo 004, idle RPM was around 3000 revs, compared to a maximum permissible RPM of 8700 revs.

Essentially, what happens here is too much fuel being introduced into the ignition chamber to burn properly too quickly for the RPM to catch up with the increased fuel flow, causing a massive surge into the compressor stage and stalling the blades.

 

Compare that to a modern jet engine, which generally idles at around 60% of max RPM.

 

Interesting! Thank you for that

Share this post


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

Essentially, what happens here is too much fuel being introduced into the ignition chamber to burn properly too quickly for the RPM to catch up with the increased fuel flow, causing a massive surge into the compressor stage and stalling the blades.

Exactly. You get combustion to go forwards as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2018 at 1:00 PM, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

-snip-

 

 

Surely none of this really matters as the K4 we're most likely getting will be the DM engine anyway, 1850hp no C3. That was the engine used on the earliest versions after all, and the plane isn't even introduced until halfway through the campaign. This is inkeeping with the devs' current trends (Spitfire IX and Fw190 on early 1944 engine settings, P-47D-28 unconfirmed but much older plane than the D-30 that was more chronologically paired with the K-4)

Share this post


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

 

Surely none of this really matters as the K4 we're most likely getting will be the DM engine anyway, 1850hp no C3. That was the engine used on the earliest versions after all, and the plane isn't even introduced until halfway through the campaign. This is inkeeping with the devs' current trends (Spitfire IX and Fw190 on early 1944 engine settings, P-47D-28 unconfirmed but much older plane than the D-30 that was more chronologically paired with the K-4)

 

Keep in mind this is early access. The devs are probably just getting the planes working with whatever set of data is easiest to find and most comprehensive before we get the fun stuff later, like how the La-5s8 only got its improved engine later down the line

Share this post


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

The devs are probably just getting the planes working with whatever set of data is easiest to find and most comprehensive before we get the fun stuff later, like how the La-5s8 only got its improved engine later down the line

I'm not sure where this amusing assumptions are coming from. It wasn't a practice ever before to release an aircraft with placeholder flight model (as basically this is what you suggest with statement that something is probably done with whatever set of data is easiest to find) and it generally speaking was not a practice before to release aircraft with some (features ?) missing. Usually whatever is released is final and unless bug or flaw is discovered it stays that way. It's a different style of development if compared to what competition does and I think its better to release aircraft complete.

 

La-5 engine mod is an exception and sets a precedent but not likely to be repeated considering how extremely busy guys are. I mean, even then Jason said that it requires a lot of work in their tight schedule: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 9:14 PM, Sgt_Joch said:

 Don't want to spend too much time on this, but do you have a link for that document?

 

Yes. It is on my site four ages. It has been shared in this discussion, too. Look it up.

 

Quote

Do you have any documents showing combat units actually flew with that setting in dec. 44, other than the offhand comment that an order was mistakenly sent to Galland?

 

Uhm, there is more than just an 'offhand comment to Galland'. It specifically states that combat units have already converted to 1.98ata.

 

....these Special Emergency Power setting with 1.98 ata on behalf of the Company (i.e. DB) was handed over directly to General Galland, without having a prior extensive testing. He [General Engineer Paul] added extraordinarily sharply, that on behalf of the Technical Office these ratings were given directly to the troops and the engines have been changed to it. DB commented that it had a good testing basis for the clearance at hand and had read up the test results. It was added, that the clearance of 1.98ata has been given at the same time and in the same TAGL [technical instruction] as the clearance of 1.80 ata.'

 

Quote

Again link?

 

I am not in the liberty to share links on this one. Suffice to say its the technical experience report of JG 11 touching many subjects, including this one. What was particularly interesting to me anyway that it mentions that the 1.98ata was being used on K-4, G-10 (obviously) and the G-14/AS as well. The ASB/ASC engines by this time also replaced the earlier ASM, and basically G-14s had the same 2000 HP max rating just like the G-10 and K-4.

 

However, its really simple and probably doesn't worth all the bandwith being wasted on it.

 

Daimler Benz cleared the rating in November 1944 for a new model of engine that was being introduced to G-14/AS, G-10 and K-4, with new ratings of 1.8/1.98ata, depending on the fuel used, but after some use they ran into some early teething troubles and manufacturing issues - which is anyway perfectly normal when you introduce a new engine and combine it with a new airframe. Now, they had to recall the rating in January until the problems were ironed out (which lasted a whole 2 months) and then cleared it again. Between the six months November 1944 and May 1945, there was a about 2 months when 1.98 ata rating was not allowed to use (disregarding JG 11 which did use it in the meantime).

 

The end. The whole story does not worth the time that is being spent on it.

Edited by VO101Kurfurst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the war end in Europe on May 8 1945.? Bit of a stretch to include May. Also being cleared and actual use are not the same so that would eliminate Nov of which no Nov date for 'clearance' has been given (maybe I missed this date).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 6:24 AM, VO101Kurfurst said:

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.

 

Notice how numbers are manipulated.

 

7 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Now, they had to recall the rating in January until the problems were ironed out (which lasted a whole 2 months) and then cleared it again. Between the six months November 1944 and May 1945, there was a about 2 months when 1.98 ata rating was not allowed to use (disregarding JG 11 which did use it in the meantime).

 

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2018 at 9:41 PM, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

The end. The whole story does not worth the time that is being spent on it.

Dead right, yet it hasn't stopped Kurfurst bringing "the whole story" up at every opportunity, over many threads and several forums: that Kurfurst is unwilling/not at liberty to share links with more information doesn't help anyone with anything. Bottom line is, unless and until there is evidence that 1.98 ata was being used operationally, on a consistent basis by the Gruppen that were slated to use 1.98 ata after 20 March 1945, "the whole story" will never be told satisfactorily. Should developers choose to include a rating of 1.98 ata when modelling Bf 109K-4s is up to them - otherwise why bother worrying about it, except as a possible historical footnote to the story of the Bf 109?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Didn't the war end in Europe on May 8 1945.? Bit of a stretch to include May. Also being cleared and actual use are not the same so that would eliminate Nov of which no Nov date for 'clearance' has been given (maybe I missed this date).

 

Exactly. Look what was left of Germany at 19th April 1945 and you easily can see there is no point including May 45.

 

 

Final_Operations_-_19_April-7_May_1945.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already asked taht question in another thread but i hope to get an answer here. As i understand C3 Einpritzung, it will increase the manifold pressure due to the fact, that the fuel air mixture is so enriched that not all the fuel is burnt in the burning chamber which increases boost but also cools the engine. Is that correct? And if it is correct, why does the A8 dosent benefit from it ingame?

Share this post


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

A-8 does not have supplementary fuel injection. It increases Ata by tricking the computer to open the throttle wider by bleeding air from the supercharger pressure line, making the Komandogerat think ata is lower then 1.42

 

Thank you very much. I will read the doc you provide. The still 3 minute limit for 1.42 ata is kind of strange. Engine gets hotter with 1.65 ata but can endure it longer then the lower temps and pressure produced at 1.42 ata.

 

I still try to figure out why the La5FN is so cool at both settings. Boost enabled and boost disabled. It is as if the engine dont really need its outlet cowl flaps. Can be closed in autumn at 15°c all the time when you have enough speed. Not so sure about summer but try to close the cowls in the 190 on max throttle at any season and you will quickly overheat. I just want to know what the secret of the La5FNs engine is. The engine produces more hp and is also cooler at the same time while its predecessor is hot as hell even at normal settings and have nearly the same cooling system. Same tiny oil radiator just it is able to open wider which is totally uselsess ingame because you can close it permantly at 50% (which is the same max value as in the normal La5) and have very low oil temps. Can be closed more but it gives nearly no speed adventage so i let it be at 50% and never bother about oil again. Which is kind of strange taht planes like Yaks and La5s are one of the easiest to fly in when it comes to engine management. You just have to use the water radiator on the Yaks to manage your engine according to your speed. If speed is high you can close and if speed is low you have to openj. You can even do it without watching for the temps this way. Everything else can be ignored. Even the mixture can be set at 100% all the time so you dont have to bother about it also.

Edited by Ishtaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The D-9 had cowl flaps. The A-5 and on had adjustable gills on the side of the fuselage.

Share this post


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

The D-9 had cowl flaps. The A-5 and on had adjustable gills on the side of the fuselage.

 

Yeah technically speaking you are right. But how does this explain the cooling efficiency with completely closed cowl flaps of the La5FN? When it is such a superior system, Fokke Wulf should have copied the La5s system then for the Antons. It seems it is the best cooling system according to the game which which will be realistic representation of the real world and not so complicated like the the one on the Antons and less draggy even with its blocky oil cooler. Maybe it is just the engine itself? So it just not heat up like comparable engines and therefore dosent need so much cooling. I mean look at that oil radiator. It is enough to cool the oil to around 75°c(?) if i remember correct at 50% closing at max trottle and rpm in autumn condtions. And you can push oil to about what was it, 105°c? Have to look it up. Ingame manual says 85°c is max but in my testflight i pushed it to slightly over 100°c in QMB autumn conditions. No overheat message appeared and also no damage. And it was not that easy to do. I had to completely close the oil radiator and climb at 230 kph at full power to reach 100°c. Am i missing something here?

 

I wonder why FW havent made these gills like sliders which would not produce so much drag when opened. At least to my understanding. So that they slide over the slits to close and slide back to open. I never understood why the A3 with no adjustible gills but without drag through gills or flaps would produce as much drag as when you fully open the gills in the A5 for example. Where does the drag come from in the A3? Is it the air streaming out of these slits or has it something to do with the cylinder block? Where the air would flow over and vortexes around edges and stuff and this increases more drag the more you let the airflow through? BTW im not denying the fact that it produces drag, im just interested to know how exactly. Also im very curios about the P47 and its cooling performance. Hope it will be one of the next planes comming for early access. I  just like radials in gerenal. :)

Edited by Ishtaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ishtaru I did some tests to compare the different La-5s cooling capacity, at the same speed. At sea level in Kuban Autumn map. Also this is with version 3.004 as I dont have internet in the PC with BoX installed so I couldnt download the patch yet. 

 

Regular La-5 with flat windscreen + bomb pylons (no bombs), both exit shutters and oil radiator closed, max throttle and RPM (1140 mmHg at 2400 RPM; 1700 HP) at 538 km/h:

 

Oil temperature will go past 115 ºC and cause overheating, cylinder head temperature initially is stable at 235 ºC but the overheating oil makes it increase in temperature and overheats it as well (over 240ºC). 

 

You can stabilize it with 10% shutters and 25% oil rad (115 ºC oil and 235 ºC engine), decreasing speed to 532 km/h. 

 

However both the engine and oil temperatures affect each other. So you can also mantain stable temps with 0% exit shutters and 40% oil radiator (same temps as 10%/25%). And this set up causes less drag, speed is 535 km/h.

 

You can do the same the other way around, with 35% shutters and 0% oil rad (115ºC oil and 225ºC engine), however this causes more drag and speed is 524 km/h. 

 

So you can say the oil helps cool the engine and the engine fins help cool the oil. 

 

Also 0% shutters dont close them completely, there is a small gap left. 

 

La-5F with flat windscreen and bomb pylons, max throttle and RPM as well, shutters and oil radiator closed, 538 km/h. 

 

The F engine allowed the 1140mm Hg at 2400 RPM 1700 HP regime as continuous setting, iirc it had improved lubrication and fin density, it is cooler than the regular engine in game. 

 

At both 0% shutters and 0% oil rad it mantains 109ºC oil and 215ºC engine temperature, doesnt overheat at 538 km/h. 

 

The La-5FN, with 100 Kg bombs and open canopy manages around 537 km/h at the same 1140mmHg at 2400 RPM settings as the previous La-5(F). I suppose it also generates 1700 HP but I could be wrong. 

 

With 0% shutters and 0% oil rad the FN mantains 99ºC oil and 185 ºC engine temperature, it has better cooling than the F (if its the same 1700 HP generated). 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Daimler Benz cleared the rating in November 1944 for a new model of engine that was being introduced to G-14/AS, G-10 and K-4, with new ratings of 1.8/1.98ata, depending on the fuel used, but after some use they ran into some early teething troubles and manufacturing issues - which is anyway perfectly normal when you introduce a new engine and combine it with a new airframe. Now, they had to recall the rating in January until the problems were ironed out (which lasted a whole 2 months) and then cleared it again. Between the six months November 1944 and May 1945, there was a about 2 months when 1.98 ata rating was not allowed to use (disregarding JG 11 which did use it in the meantime).

 

But is there actual proof that it was used, with whom, how many, did it work etc.

 

From what you said, it was only approved in November for a new engine - not an existing one? Is that not something of a logistical stretch to suggest these appeared instantaneously with operational units? So you would sensibly posit that actual new aircraft arrived in more than a handful in December (as you point out it is new and hence testing and deliveries take time).

 

You state that it was recalled in January (so that is a month to maybe 6 weeks of operations, depending on when these aircraft - and how many - arrived), but if they had to be recalled this suggests availability of the aircraft / system was probably low given that one does not recall perfectly working systems and Luftwaffe availability was in any case suffering POL and parts issues so working fighters would sensibly be prioritised.

 

2 months from Jan - at its most optimistic - is cleared on 1st March. The state of the Luftwaffe on 1st March does not really suggest there was a lot of man / material support for getting these aircraft back into the air owing to lack of POL / parts as indicated but also an inevitable delay in executing the new clearances given the massive pressures under which the remaining units were operating.

 

In any case, is there  evidence that anyone really executed these clearance? Your documents only indicates that there were issues with the setting and it did not become in any way standard (as you yourself admit) - at the same time, the Luftwaffe and associated industry  had so issues that it did not know where to start (see comments in another thread about the Bf 108 with Panzerfausts and the 1946 jet aircraft production planning) as it was a military-industrial complex on the point of collapse.

 

You mention JG11 - do you have any evidence that they used the setting and if so on how many aircraft over what time period? If so, what percentage of the relevant force is that? You mentioned elsewhere it was II/JG11, a JG which IIRC was never expanded to 4  Stafflen so we have 30 - 40 a/c maybe used the setting at some stage (actual dates uncertain).

 

You would laugh if someone used such evidence for inclusion of a non-German aircraft / type. You need to be a bit more realistic about this.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

II./JG11 received its K-4s Dec 20 1944. Status reports 11 on hand and 1 in overhaul at month end (Dec). Four took part in Bodenplatte and 2 didn't RTB.

 

II./JG11 also had 1 Bf109G-6/U2 and 38 BF109G14/AS of which 26 were serviceable. So 50 on hand out of establishment strength of 68 with 31 (45.6%) serviceable.

 

+25lb boost was cleared  for use by Merlin 66 powered a/c March 1944. Using Kurfurst logic for 1.98ata usage then he should have no objection to +25lb boosted Spitfire IXs.

 

Bf109G-14/AS, G10 and K-4 are not exactly new a/c as have been in production for at least a couple of months.

 

Bf109G-14/AS - Sept '44

Bf109G-10 - Oct 44

Bf109K-4 - Sept '44

Edited by MiloMorai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again using Kurfurst logic for a 1.98ata K-4, the Spitfire F.21 could be included in the plane set.

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...