150 octane fuel for the 2nd TAF on the continent

[PainGod85]

Agreed, the '43 G-6 is a bad comparison to the P-51D, especially if it gets 150 octane fuel. That said, the earlier razorback Merlin-engined Mustang variants did indeed fight the G-6, and there it really was superior to the Messerschmitt.

 

I wouldn't want to compare the D-Stang to any 109 before the G-14, but the 4 MG P-51B/Cs are an entirely different kettle of fish because they were used in the same timeframe and theater - but without high octane fuel.

[MiloMorai]

On ‎7‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 8:26 AM, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

AFAIK by mid 1944 most german fighters had MW50 injection and G14 was much more common than G6, with G10s and K4s on the way. If I am wrong, please correct me.

 

The first G-14s weren't delivered til Aug '44 when ~700 were. Granted the G-6 production was ramping down but to that point (Aug '44) ~5000 G-6s had been produced. In addition to those 'straight' G-6s there was some 600 G-6/ASs iirc.

[FTC_Riksen]

4 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

 

The first G-14s weren't delivered til Aug '44 when ~700 were. Granted the G-6 production was ramping down but to that point (Aug '44) ~5000 G-6s had been produced. In addition to those 'straight' G-6s there was some 600 G-6/ASs iirc.

 

G-14s were introduced into combat over Normandy in June 44 (although there were very little of them) according to this (https://www.scalemates.com/books/book.php?id=100342).

[MiloMorai]

Now it is interesting that you link to that book. In it says 'Production of the G-14 began in July 1944'. (pg 145)

 

The book also lists the units that flew the G-14. So what unit flew the G-14 in June '44?

[303_Bies]

On 7/4/2018 at 8:39 PM, Dutch2 said:

maybe usefull in this 150 octane discussion

please view the whole video, because it is not only Bf109vsP51, as some  sugest.

Greg may be slightly biased towards US and Mustang (comparing P-51D with 150 ocy fuel with Bf109G6 without MW50 was a little bit off), but he also provide some usefull and interesting knowledge. I like his channel.

I.e. Bf109's fluid coupling supercharger

 

According to 150 octane fuel i also would like to see that if it was extensively used in real life during this period but 

the bigger manifolds for 150 fuel modification means modeling just a new engine for each plane (Jason and Andrey told about that in Q&A, it's easier to model different gearing for superchargers like Merlin 66/70).

It also requires fine tuning the new performance. And 150 octane fuel performance tests and documents are less common.

It requires additional time for each plane for modeling and research.

If it was historically used we should see that in some time.

cheers

Edited July 8, 2018 by bies

[MiloMorai]

26 minutes ago, bies said:

bigger manifolds for 150 fuel modification

 

Bigger manifolds? Are you saying that new manifolds were fitted to a/c that went to 150 fuel from 130 fuel?

 

bies, please read, www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

[303_Bies]

Greater manifold pressures were allowed.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

31 minutes ago, bies said:

Greater manifold pressures were allowed.

i.e. the throttle was opened more at lower altitudes to allow more air in.

The manifold of the engine wasn't changed. Changes to allow 150 Octane use for the Merlin was changing ignition timing.

None of this really matters as 150 Octane in game terms would just increase power below the critical altitude of +18psi/67"Hg, and since manifold pressure and power is roughly linear, engine power charts are like this

i.e. like this

Edited July 8, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Talisman]

The thing with this 150 Octane fuel is that people tend to forget that Allied aircraft using 150 Octane fuel, Spitfires, etc, etc, were flying missions over Continental Europe, covered by the upcoming map for BP, during 1944 and 1945.  Launching from the South coast of England, 150 Octane versions of the Tempest, Spitfire (IX and XIV) and Mustang etc, were all used on missions over Europe as covered by the operations and time period stated by the dev's for the BP map. 

So my point is that it should not be all about USAF and 2nd TAF aircraft based in Europe (converted to 150 Octane Jan/Feb 45), it should also be about aircraft launched from the South coast of England too.  OK, England is not to be part of the BP map, but aircraft from the South coast of England were operating in combat all over the area covered by the BP map.  So surely it makes sense to represent that fact, otherwise we have an historically distorted set of Allied aircraft over the operational area of the BP map.  Surely this should not be the case.  Air starts on a map can easily simulate aircraft coming from the South coast of England.

Aircraft launched from England were a major part of the air war over the BP map area for the operations and time line the dev's have stated.  To ignore the historic fact of these aircraft over the battle field could risk misrepresenting the capability of Allied aircraft that took part.

If 150 Octane is not to be modelled for a BP map covering 1944 to 1945, then when is it?  Never?  Surely not?

Happy landings,

Talisman 

 

[PainGod85]

10 minutes ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

The thing with this 150 Octane fuel is that people tend to forget that Allied aircraft using 150 Octane fuel, Spitfires, etc, etc, were flying missions over Continental Europe, covered by the upcoming map for BP, during 1944 and 1945.  Launching from the South coast of England, 150 Octane versions of the Tempest, Spitfire (IX and XIV) and Mustang etc, were all used on missions over Europe as covered by the operations and time period stated by the dev's for the BP map. 

So my point is that it should not be all about USAF and 2nd TAF aircraft based in Europe (converted to 150 Octane Jan/Feb 45), it should also be about aircraft launched from the South coast of England too.  OK, England is not to be part of the BP map, but aircraft from the South coast of England were operating in combat all over the area covered by the BP map.  So surely it makes sense to represent that fact, otherwise we have an historically distorted set of Allied aircraft over the operational area of the BP map.  Surely this should not be the case.  Air starts on a map can easily simulate aircraft coming from the South coast of England.

Aircraft launched from England were a major part of the air war over the BP map area for the operations and time line the dev's have stated.  To ignore the historic fact of these aircraft over the battle field could risk misrepresenting the capability of Allied aircraft that took part.

If 150 Octane is not to be modelled for a BP map covering 1944 to 1945, then when is it?  Never?  Surely not?

Happy landings,

Talisman 

 

 

It is documented fact 2nd TAF planes were flying on 150 grade fuel from airbases on continental Europe.

 

Your point still stands regarding the 8th AF USAAF planes, as 9th AF did not receive 150 grade fuel on the continent through official channels.

 

E: And please take some time to format your posts into a format that's actually legible without causing headaches.

Edited August 15, 2018 by PainGod85

[Kurfurst]

19 minutes ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

The thing with this 150 Octane fuel is that people tend to forget that Allied aircraft using 150 Octane fuel, Spitfires, etc, etc, were flying missions over Continental Europe, covered by the upcoming map for BP, during 1944 and 1945.  Launching from the South coast of England, 150 Octane versions of the Tempest, Spitfire (IX and XIV) and Mustang etc, were all used on missions over Europe as covered by the operations and time period stated by the dev's for the BP map. 

 

That's a cool, tall tale but nothing more.

 

19 minutes ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

 

So my point is that it should not be all about USAF and 2nd TAF aircraft based in Europe (converted to 150 Octane Jan/Feb 45), it should also be about aircraft launched from the South coast of England too. OK, England is not to be part of the BP map, but aircraft from the South coast of England were operating in combat all over the area covered by the BP map.  So surely it makes sense to represent that fact, otherwise we have an historically distorted set of Allied aircraft over the operational area of the BP map.  Surely this should not be the case.  Air starts on a map can easily simulate aircraft coming from the South coast of England.

 

There is no distortion just because the tales you believe in are not represented by real historical facts. Its just revision and wishful thinking. 

 

19 minutes ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

 

Aircraft launched from England were a major part of the air war over the BP map area for the operations and time line the dev's have stated.  To ignore the historic fact of these aircraft over the battle field could risk misrepresenting the capability of Allied aircraft that took part.

 

Actually, the mistake would be to lend credit to such disingenuous falsehoods posted by a small troupe as 'historic facts'. 

 

19 minutes ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

 

If 150 Octane is not to be modelled for a BP map covering 1944 to 1945, then when is it?  Never?  Surely not?
 

 

Its almost like historical reality has conspired with simulator development to make life worse for the champions of wishful thinking and historical revisionism, is it not.

[Legioneod]

2 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

That's a cool, tall tale but nothing more.

 

 

There is no distortion just because the tales you believe in are not represented by real historical facts. Its just revision and wishful thinking. 

 

 

Actually, the mistake would be to lend credit to such disingenuous falsehoods posted by a small troupe as 'historic facts'. 

 

 

Its almost like historical reality has conspired with simulator development to make life worse for the champions of wishful thinking and historical revisionism, is it not.

Not sure what you're going on about, 150 grade fuel was used by the 8th AF from England, and they flew many many missions over the Bodenplatte map. American and British aircraft based in England played a major role in all the operations that will be represented in the Bodenplatte map, everything he stated in his post is true so I'm not sure why you are calling it false. 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Legioneod

[Kurfurst]

10 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Not sure what you're going on about, 150 grade fuel was used by the 8th AF from England, and they flew many many missions over the Bodenplatte map.

 

Indeed, however there are some disingenuous attempt to mish-mash this information and apply the US 8th AAF use of this fuel to the RAF as well. No doubt in any attempt to make some arguements for more Wishfires. 

 

RAF records incontrovertibly show however that in this period, i.e. fall of 1944 RAF aircraft operating from England operated on 130 grade only, and those few that briefly employed 150 grade during the V-1 crisis converted back to 130 grade as well. 

 

 

	HEADQUARTERS:
	AIR DEFENCE GREAT BRITAIN.
	ROYAL AIR FORCE
	BENTLEY PRIORY
	STANMORE
	MIDDLESEX
	18th September 1944.

 

Use of 150 Grade Fuel

Sir,

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

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

(i)	The free interchange of Squadrons with T.A.F would be complicated in that aircraft would have to be modified for the lower boost pressure on transfer.
(ii)	To use 150 Grade Fuel when operating from U.K and to use 130 Grade Fuel when refueling on the Continent, would call for repeated adjustments of the maximum boost pressure obtainable.
(iii)	The increased performance obtainable by the use of 150 Grade Fuel is not an essential operational requirement for the role, which A.D.G.B. Squadrons will be called to undertake in the near future.
(iv)	The supply of 150 Grade Fuel is such that stocks can only be laid down a certain airfields. This imposes a degree of inflexibility, which is undesirable.
(v)	The use of high boost pressures in Mosquito aircraft calls for the fitting of open exhausts as the night flying exhausts will not withstand the temperatures associated with the higher boost pressures. Therefore, to continue to use the higher boost pressures in Mosquito aircraft makes the aircraft unsuitable for normal Night Fighter operation.

The Air Officer Commanding-in – Chief, 
Headquarters 
Allied Expeditionary Air Force.

Edited August 15, 2018 by VO101Kurfurst

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I am not well versed in the topic at all, however, that document is dated September 1944 and is a recommendation, not an order. It is not "incontrovertible" in any way. How it plays against the 8th, 9th and RAF is quite unclear as well.

[Kurfurst]

Well, it comes from a place called headquarters, signed by the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief,  and it says ' it has been decided to revert to the use of 130 Grade Fuel and to adjust engines to their previous maximum boost pressure.'

 

I am fairly sure such papers issued from such places are not considered to be a sort of recommendation, in any armed force in the world.

[Talon_]

Guess this all just leaked into the soil

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Talon_

[Kurfurst]

Pity we do not have the 8th AAF in Bodenplatte, they seem to have used a lot of fuel. 

 

As for the ADGB 'consumption figures', they appear to have been made up by the site's owner - they appear to be based on substracting a rough estimate of predicted consumption made in May 1944 for various USAAF units and stations from the total.

 

One can guess how accurate that is, i.e. the RAF's 'calculated' consumption figures are notthing more than wild guesstimates based on predictions made many months before by the USAAF of their own consumption needs.

 

In any case, the RAF estimated that the 2nd TAF would need some 15 000 tons per month. They never reached that number, even by April 1945.

[PainGod85]

Spoiler

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/dir-supply-5feb45.pdf

 

So many sources, so much revisionism.

Edited August 15, 2018 by PainGod85

[Talon_]

7 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

In any case, the RAF estimated that the 2nd TAF would need some 15 000 tons per month. They never reached that number, even by April 1945.

 

Turns out you don't need much fuel when you're not having to provide fighter cover for your CAS planes since the Luftwaffe stopped showing up

 

Interesting that you choose to misdirect based on ADGB when we are talking about 2TAF's supply which is confirmed by POWE 33/990 33/991 33/992 33/985 - I've been to the national archives and seen them with my own eyes. I think we may even have copies at my museum.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Talon_

[Kurfurst]

18 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/dir-supply-5feb45.pdf

 

So many sources, so much revisionism.

 

 

So many suitable candidates for a circus troupe.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

26 February, more talk in briefing room on 150 grade.... again, 126 Wing.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I see a pattern here. The same stuff is being posted over and over again to make it look impressive.

 

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 singe Squadron from 127 and perhaps another one Sqn from the 144.

 

I do not see the point of posting a dozen documents with all pointing to the same single Wing.

 

Its misleading.

Its a disingenuous.

Edited August 15, 2018 by VO101Kurfurst

[Talon_]

Just now, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

 

So many suitable candidates for a circus troupe. ?

 

When one's opponent resorts to simple insults when confronted with hard data, historical documents and provable fact, one knows they have truly no longer any credibility.

[Kurfurst]

Just now, Talon_ said:

 

When one's opponent resorts to simple insults when confronted with hard data, historical documents and provable fact, one knows they have truly no longer any credibility.

 

Perfect description of the wishful thinking best represented by you and Paingod.

[Talon_]

Just now, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Perfect description of the wishful thinking best represented by you and Paingod.

 

We don't insult you, Barbi. I never would. We just post these factual documents over and over. Perhaps your browser is blocking images?

[PainGod85]

Just now, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Perfect description of the wishful thinking best represented by you and Paingod.

 

Are you accusing me or anyone else of having had these Operations Record Books doctored?

[Kurfurst]

1 minute ago, PainGod85 said:

 

Are you accusing me or anyone else of having had these Operations Record Books doctored?

 

Did you?

3 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

We don't insult you, Barbi. I never would. We just post these factual documents over and over. Perhaps your browser is blocking images?

 

Thats such a poor lie when you have name calling in even this post.

[Talon_]

1 minute ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Thats such a poor lie when you have name calling in even this post.

 

"Barbi"? It's short for your old username, that's all. "Barbarossa Isegrim" was the username you used to use before you started getting banned from various websites. I haven't called you any insults so please stick to the topic of discussion which is not about how you personally feel, but about the historical documents and facts of 2TAF and 150 grade fuel.

[Kurfurst]

3 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

We don't insult you, Barbi. I never would. We just post these factual documents over and over. Perhaps your browser is blocking images?

 

Thats such a poor lie when you have name calling in even this post.

[PainGod85]

5 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Thats such a poor lie when you have name calling in even this post.

 

Just now, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Thats such a poor lie when you have name calling in even this post.

 

You sound like a broken record. Are you okay?

[Kurfurst]

4 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

 

You sound like a broken record. Are you okay?

 

I think that is more of a question you should ask yourself.

 

You keep on yapping about information on extremely high boost RR engines contained in letters concorning a handful of 2nd TAF Squadrons, citing them as incontrovertible proof for your narrative while completely disregarding multiple sources from Headquarters, which are by definition much more trustworthy than letters.

 

Just stop with your disingenuous assertions.

[MiloMorai]

It is still more proof than your fantasy of 1.98ata post March 23 1945. There was no C3 at Stendal and Prag-Gbell when I./JG27 was based there.  Neuhausen had no C3 when III./JG53 was based there.

 

 

[Talon_]

10 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

a handful of 2nd TAF Squadrons

 

• Authorisation for all 25 squadrons from 2TAF HQ
• Pilot accounts from 3 different wings of the 9 Spitfire wings in 2TAF. Wings shared airfields and therefore fuel supplies. That's just Spitfire pilot accounts - @PainGod85 has posted accounts from Typhoon pilots who were at airfields occupied by other Spitfire wings who were also using 150 grade fuel.
• 85 group's jealous letters asking where is their 150 grade fuel
• RAF supply accounts suggesting supplying the Americans wouldn't diminish from their own production rate

It's time to stop posting, Barbi.

[PainGod85]

13 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

I think that is more of a question you should ask yourself.

 

You keep on yapping about information on extremely high boost RR engines contained in letters concorning a handful of 2nd TAF Squadrons, citing them as incontrovertible proof for your narrative while completely disregarding multiple sources from Headquarters, which are by definition much more trustworthy than letters.

 

Just stop with your disingenuous assertions.

 

I'll get right on travelling back in time to tell RAF high command to assign the 2nd TAF more Spitfire squadrons.

 

You are aware almost the entirety of the 2nd TAF's Spitfire squadrons were switched over, yes?

 

Funny how you're calling people who link ORBs disingenuous when their content isn't in accordance with your narrative.

[Talon_]

Just now, PainGod85 said:

Funny how you're calling people who link ORBs disingenuous when their content isn't in accordance with your narrative.

 

I'm starting to think he's just scared of getting shot down by Spitfires in online play.

 

Even with 150 grade fuel, it's still the slowest plane in IL-2 Bodenplatte. Imagine that ?

[Kurfurst]

2 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

I'll get right on travelling back in time to tell RAF high command to assign the 2nd TAF more Spitfire squadrons.

 

Great, so apart from creating things purely out of imagination, you also have the powers of time travel. The ladies must adore you. 

 

2 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

You are aware almost the entirety of the 2nd TAF's Spitfire squadrons were switched over, yes?

 

You are aware not you have provided not a single piece of evidence to that, yes?

 

2 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

Funny how you're calling people who link ORBs disingenuous when their content isn't in accordance with your narrative.

 

Funny how people who are disingenuously spamming whole pages full of pictures with all referring to the same single 126 Wing (who switched back anyway). It looks like you like to switch to goal posts - first its an Octane Fluff about the 'whole 2nd TAF' etc. etc. then post a lot of photos of documents from a single unit, No 126 Wing.

 

You probably expect nobody will notice. Like I said - disingenuous. Funny how you play the offended party when your methods is exposed.

 

Its time to stop the Octane Fluff. It doesn't seem the IX is getting any.

12 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

• Authorisation for all 25 squadrons from 2TAF HQ

 

That's a nice plan. How many actually switched over?

 

12 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

• Pilot accounts from 3 different wings of the 9 Spitfire wings in 2TAF. Wings shared airfields and therefore fuel supplies. That's just Spitfire pilot accounts - @PainGod85 has posted accounts from Typhoon pilots who were at airfields occupied by other Spitfire wings who were also using 150 grade fuel.

 

Oh, so now a single Wing, and two Squadrons are now 3 different Wings suddenly?

 

That's a nice try but no pie. 

 

12 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

• 85 group's jealous letters asking where is their 150 grade fuel
• RAF supply accounts suggesting supplying the Americans wouldn't diminish from their own production rate

 

And?

 

12 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

It's time to stop posting, Barbi.

 

Its time to stop with the juvenile name calling.

[PainGod85]

1 minute ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Great, so apart from creating things purely out of imagination, you also have the powers of time travel. The ladies must adore you. 

 

Not picking up on obvious sarcasm.

 

 

Yeah, I'm done. You're not worth my time.

[sevenless]

2 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

 

 

Well, such a convincing document ist not existing for the german case, that´s for sure.

[MiloMorai]

Talk about spamming with 3 posts saying the same thing.

 

At least those so called handful of Spitfire squadrons is more the  4 Gruppen you clamed that used 1.98ata.

 

April  13 1945

I./JG27: establishment 52, on hand 25, serviceable 16

III./JG27: establishment 52, onhand 19. serviceable 15

III./JG53: establishment 52, onhand 22, serviceable 5

IV./JG53: establishment 52, on hand 31, serviceable 30

[PainGod85]

1 minute ago, sevenless said:

 

Well, such a convincing document ist not existing for the german case, that´s for sure.

 

Indeed. Not even this much is available for the German 1.98 ATA fairytale.

 

Meanwhile: 

So many 2nd TAF ORBs saying their planes had been modified for 150 octane.

[Kurfurst]

9 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

Indeed. Not even this much is available for the German 1.98 ATA fairytale.

 

Ah, more revisionism.

 

 

9 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

Meanwhile: 

So many 2nd TAF ORBs saying their planes had been modified for 150 octane.

 

So many = the single 126 Wing (that had lot of flight accidents as a result, hated it and the units switched back 2 months later)

[Talon_]

42 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Oh, so now a single Wing, and two Squadrons are now 3 different Wings suddenly?

 

I can't believe you would so openly admit to not understanding the wing/squadron structure of the RAF, especially as you like to position yourself as a "trusted historian" on such matters. How embarrassing.

 

Also of note is that the three Wings are across both Groups.

 

14 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Ah, more revisionism.

 

 

 

So many = the single 126 Wing (that had lot of flight accidents as a result, hated it and the units switched back 2 months later)

 

3 questions, please answer them all individually:

 

1. If pilots did not like something that actually happened, should it be excluded from the game on that basis?

 

2. Did German pilots dislike the way the Me262 engines exploded, killing them?

 

3. Is 2nd May two months after the 2nd week of January?

 

29 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Talk about spamming with 3 posts saying the same thing.

 

At least those so called handful of Spitfire squadrons is more the  4 Gruppen you clamed that used 1.98ata.

 

April  13 1945

I./JG27: establishment 52, on hand 25, serviceable 16

III./JG27: establishment 52, onhand 19. serviceable 15

III./JG53: establishment 52, onhand 22, serviceable 5

IV./JG53: establishment 52, on hand 31, serviceable 30

 

April isn't inside our campaign anyway, no 1.98 for K-4 on that basis.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Talon_