FW190 D9 difference between early and late model

[303_Bies]

11 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

So a '45 edition of the D-9 is totally cool but I have this feeling that the [slightly bizarre] enthusiasm for Luft '46 will trump reality when it comes to the aircraft here. I hate to think what will happen if the US contingent find themselves saddled with Sept '44 aircraft settings versus the penny-packets of German fighters with everything turned up to 11

You have many points here but don't compare Allies and Germans using absolute numbers - but relative numbers. 

How big percentage of planes were using this or that device, this imatters.

Absolute numbers are pointless because Allies had maybe 10-20 times more planes than Luftwaffe at this time.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

 

And similarly if Spitfire IX is given 25 lbs boost in a modification, people will use nothing but it. Nobody will fly the 18lbs Spitfire IXe that flew from mid 1943 to January 1945. It'd be similar to certain other modifications already in game.

 

It should be an option but its up to mission builders to balance what planes and modifications are available both performance and historical availability wise. Problem for dogfight servers with lazy or biased mission builder, perhaps, but not for campaigns like TAW.

 

 

Exactly, so Spring '45 aircraft for Blue, Summer '44 aircrfat for Red and guess what happens online? ? The point of this is balance, not that more aircraft or versions are a bad thing

 

Quote

No, it's not - it's up to the server operators & mission designers to decide what they want and don't want to allow. You know that. 

 

 

What I meant was, there are enough vagueries with the RAF given their rough record-keeping, opening the 'I want one of those 'coz' debate to every single last hair-brained scheme of the dying 3rd Reich is a waste of time. What is known? What saw service? What accounted for more than 5% of the force? Probably a better set of rules than: ' Maybe saw service, records were lost'
 

 

 

Quote

Absolute numbers are pointless because Allies had maybe 10-20 times more planes than Luftwaffe at this time

 

 

Sure, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. If it is accepted - by necessity - that Luftwaffe sorties equal Allied / Soviet then having the Ez-42 available despite there being maybe 30 examples is something of a stretch. Even as % of force it would be maybe 5 - 10% of aircraft?

 

That it is available is great, but the argument that the Spit gets rockets {yay! - not the most useful trick in the book] equals German aircraft should get much higher engine settings is a little one-sided.

 

Being honest here, I am more worried about my Tempest - please don't let it be released as a I Series with a pathetic 9lb boost!

Edited August 15, 2018 by EAF19_Marsh

[LeLv76_Erkki]

The point is, even if Spitfire for whatever reason doesnt get 25 lbs boost but D-9 does get MW50, the mission builder can choose to prohibit it. That is likely preferred to me anyway, because 18lbs Spit and earlier D-9 keep other aircraft all the way to 109 G-6(still very numerous in late 1944) and 190 A-5 and A-8 more competitive.

[Bremspropeller]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

We know it wasn't used from the known available records. You know as well as I that a lot of German records were lost at the war's end. 

 

That, and seeing how this was the January 1945 edition of this particular manual, apparently someone somewhere saw the loadout as still being relevant.

 

Fair and square.

What we do know, though, is that the Werfergranaten don't show up in either pictoral or anecdotal evidence. Also in the primary role the Doras were used in, Werfergranaten didn't bring any benefit and pilots generally detested it. So we would very surely know if there had been any plan to equip Doras with Werfergranaten or even actual missions flown in that configuration.

It's safe to assume the lack of evidence points to a definitive lack of use.

 

If somebody desperately wants to model rockets for the Dora, R4M is a much closer bet. We know that some arframes had the grills attached and we know that all Fw 190 were supposed to be delivered with the capability installed by the factory starting some time in April 45 (I'd have to dig that up).

If the R4Ms have actually been used on an actual mission with Doras is a whole different question, though. So far, I haven't read of anything in that directoin - but here I'd much more wager to use the "incomplete" data argument than on the Werfergranate issue.

 

What clearly seems unappropriate to me (well, maybe it's a marketing issue) is the EZ 42. That thing truly is a black unicorn.

[LukeFF]

20 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

What I meant was, there are enough vagueries with the RAF given their rough record-keeping, opening the 'I want one of those 'coz' debate to every single last hair-brained scheme of the dying 3rd Reich is a waste of time. What is known? What saw service? What accounted for more than 5% of the force? Probably a better set of rules than: ' Maybe saw service, records were lost'

 

I really think you are going down a slippery slope here. No one's arguing for Luftwaffe planes and mods that were never more than random scribblings on Hermann Goering's tablecloth.  The thing about the Luftwaffe by this stage of the war is that everything was rare, be it MW 50 boost on D-9s, EZ42s, Mistels, whatever. So, you're either faced with not modeling that stuff at all (and never hear the end of it from German fans) or model it and let people decide what they want on their server. And, that's the way it should be. Arbitrarily not deciding to model something because it doesn't reach some "percent of the overall force" threshold doesn't really solve anything in a satisfactory way. 

 

Short version: if it was in service, model it. If not, then leave it out.

1 minute ago, Bremspropeller said:

Fair and square.

What we do know, though, is that the Werfergranaten don't show up in either pictoral or anecdotal evidence. Also in the primary role the Doras were used in, Werfergranaten didn't bring any benefit and pilots generally detested it. So we would very surely know if there had been any plan to equip Doras with Werfergranaten or even actual missions flown in that configuration.

It's safe to assume the lack of evidence points to a definitive lack of use.

 

Fair enough.  I've also read a lot on the D-9's operational use, and yes, it was a rarity for it to be used against heavy bombers, so in all likelihood the 21 cm rockets were never used by them. My main point in posting the manual extract was to show that, at the least, the D-9 was cleared to use the 21 cm BR. My fault for not making it clearer in my original post that this was a loadout not likely ever used.

 

5 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

If somebody desperately wants to model rockets for the Dora, R4M is a much closer bet. We know that some arframes had the grills attached and we know that all Fw 190 were supposed to be delivered with the capability installed by the factory starting some time in April 45 (I'd have to dig that up).

If the R4Ms have actually been used on an actual mission with Doras is a whole different question, though. So far, I haven't read of anything in that directoin - but here I'd much more wager to use the "incomplete" data argument than on the Werfergranate issue.

 

Yes, I'm hoping for the R4Ms as well. Since they're likely to appear on the 262, it's also likely they'll appear on the D-9. 

[Talon_]

27 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Short version: if it was in service, model it. If not, then leave it out.

 

And this is why we should see +25lbs of boost.

 

Also British Mark II Gyro gunsights and dorsal fins on P-47s, K-14s and tail warning radar on Mustangs.

[303_Bies]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

What clearly seems unappropriate to me (well, maybe it's a marketing issue) is the EZ 42. That thing truly is a black unicorn.

They spent a time coding the gyro gunsight mechanics to the detail so that's the reason they want to include EZ 42 (K14 also i think). It seams reasonable.

First mission author can lock this, second - DCS included it also in their Dora.

But you're right it wasn't used that often.

Edited August 15, 2018 by bies

[Asgar]

42 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

And this is why we should see +25lbs of boost.

 

Also British Mark II Gyro gunsights and dorsal fins on P-47s, K-14s and tail warning radar on Mustangs.

let's just say, Kuban gave the Germans the 109 G-4 that had nothing new gameplay-wise compared to the G-2 already in game, even thought the G-6 was available for half the timeframe modelled in BoK. but that wasn't enough. So i'd say +25lbs being available for 1 month of the modelled timeframe in Bodenplatte, takes it out of the reasonable, same as the G-6 in Kuban. Wait for the Collector planes and enjoy your Mk XIV or whatever else we'll get. I'm sure we'll see a couple collectors to fill out the theater.  

[Kurfurst]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Fair and square.

What we do know, though, is that the Werfergranaten don't show up in either pictoral or anecdotal evidence. Also in the primary role the Doras were used in, Werfergranaten didn't bring any benefit and pilots generally detested it. So we would very surely know if there had been any plan to equip Doras with Werfergranaten or even actual missions flown in that configuration.

It's safe to assume the lack of evidence points to a definitive lack of use.

 

Actually the WGr is well documented and have been used with regularity in a ground attack role in the fall of 1944. I do not know if it was used specically on Doras, but it was definitely used in general by German fighters. 

 

In the spring 1945 scenarios, it appears that bombs, cluster bombs and strafing by German fighter bombers were the primary methods in low level attacks against advancing Allied troops, as well as extensive use of Panzerblitz I on the Eastern front.

 

As for +25 lbs IXs, dunno. There is a lot of hearsay, wishful speculation, unconfirmed reports of how many, where, with what and but even their most ardent defender admits that this amounted to perhaps 20 - 40 planes, started in around February 1945, suffered  technical wrangle and then stopped again in April. Same for the GGS sight. Absolute drop in the ocean. Its cool to have it modelled though, its a rather nice gimmick to play with.

 

Now, what I would like to see is a Gloster Meteor. A handful were deployed in NW Europe at the time. Now especially as the 262 is in the development pipeline, and it would make an interesting 'what if' too see what would happen if the RAF would have accepted the challenge.

 

[Asgar]

Meteors were never allowed anywhere close to the frontlines...pls no

[Talon_]

11 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

but even their most ardent defender admits that this amounted to perhaps 20 - 40 planes, started in around February 1945, 

 

 

We know it was 25 Squadrons, the entire Spitfire complement of 2TAF. I've shut you down with sources in other threads on this topic too and I'll happily repost them here if you insist on this revisionism.

[Kurfurst]

7 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

Meteors were never allowed anywhere close to the frontlines...pls no

 

That's not entirely correct. No 616 had moved a puny force of four early Meteors to Melsbroek in Belgium in late January 1945. At this time they were indeed used a purely defensive roles, without offensive sorties beyond the frontline. In March and April they moved to Gilze-Rijen, and to Fassberg in Germany. At this point they were authorized to do armed recon missions over the frontline, and allagedly even had some ground targets destroyed.

 

So while the plane was indeed not very significant operationally, it appear there and would be a nice choice for a Collector plane. 

[Talon_]

23 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

So i'd say +25lbs being available for 1 month of the modelled timeframe in Bodenplatte, takes it out of the reasonable, same as the G-6 in Kuban. 

 

This isn't a whole new plane like the G-6. It's simply a modification that works exactly like hitting the "boost" switch in the current Vb to allow more throttle, but in the Mk IX. It should be available for around 10 weeks of a 26 week campaign based on history.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

2 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

That's not entirely correct. No 616 had moved a puny force of four early Meteors to Melsbroek in Belgium in late January 1945. At this time they were indeed used a purely defensive roles, without offensive sorties beyond the frontline. In March and April they moved to Gilze-Rijen, and to Fassberg in Germany. At this point they were authorized to do armed recon missions over the frontline, and allagedly even had some ground targets destroyed.

 

So while the plane was indeed not very significant operationally, it appear there and would be a nice choice for a Collector plane. 

 

 

It never flew in air combat during the war.  Better to include aircraft that actually did, I think.

[Kurfurst]

11 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

We know it was 25 Squadrons, the entire Spitfire complement of 2TAF. I've shut you down with sources in other threads on this topic too and I'll happily repost them here if you insist on this revisionism.

 

Actually you have made a complete fool of yourself there, see: 

 

Hearsay from a handful of units, belonging to the same Wing, later reporting that they are crashing aircraft all the time at take off after the new fuel is being introduced due to engines cutting out, that the pilots were hating it, and that the stocks of the fuel curiously 'catched fire' under suspicious circumstances and everyone is 'relieved' to finally get rid of in April...

 

If your intention is to proceed to further establish yourself as a hapless, disingenuous revisionist, as it appears to be your sacred vow, I shall enjoy the meager entertainment that may offer.

Edited August 15, 2018 by VO101Kurfurst

[Talon_]

9 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Actually you have made a complete fool of yourself there, see: 

 

If your intention is to proceed to further establish yourself as a hapless, disingenuous revisionist, as it appears to be your sacred vow, I shall enjoy the meager entertainment that may offer.

 

Please. You're a joke Barbi.

 

25 squadrons authorised for 150 grade fuel

 

 

Oh look, that's more Spitfire squadrons that were even present in 2TAF by Bodenplatte. But 40-60 aircraft right? ?

 

 

And you just quoted a link to the pilot accounts from 3 of the 9 total Wings of 83/84grp (a third of the entire force) yourself ?

Edited August 15, 2018 by Talon_

[Kurfurst]

5 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

 

It never flew in air combat during the war.  Better to include aircraft that actually did, I think.

 

True, the priority should go to important types, but we have already have that with Bodenplatte. I am more thinking about ideas for Collector planes, and this one could use the jet engine model developed for the 262.

[Barnacles]

Just now, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

True, the priority should go to important types, but we have already have that with Bodenplatte. I am more thinking about ideas for Collector planes, and this one could use the jet engine model developed for the 262.

Indeed, it would be a shame to not use the jet tech more than once. Meteor and Arado A234 would be nice

[Talon_]

17 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

1. Hearsay from a handful of units, belonging to the same Wing,

 

2. later reporting that they are crashing aircraft all the time at take off after the new fuel is being introduced due to engines cutting out, that the pilots were hating it, and that the stocks of the fuel curiously 'catched fire' under suspicious circumstances and everyone is 'relieved' to finally get rid of in April...

2

 

I'm glad you brought this up:

 

1. Three different wings (126, 127, 144) of the nine total in use by 2TAF. One third of the entire force.

2. This account is isolated and based on time period from an RCAF Merlin 266 Spitfire XVI squadron,  not a Spitfire LF IX squadron. The 266s were known for problems with 150 grade fuel thanks to their American standards. These problems never presented on the LF IX with the Merlin 66 as we have in game. That account also directly supports 150 grade fuel as having arrived in Early Feb.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Talon_
added link

[Kurfurst]

9 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Indeed, it would be a shame to not use the jet tech more than once. Meteor and Arado A234 would be nice

 

That, and I think in order to have jets on MP servers you oughta have some jet opposition as well. Otherwise there is little chance of jets happening at all. Nobody would like to fly target for 262s with their massive speed advantage.

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

Good example why you should make your own thread about the fuel spitfire issue. 

 

Right now you have completely hijacked this thread. 

[Talon_]

Just now, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

Good example why you should make your own thread about the fuel spitfire issue. 

 

Right now you have completely hijacked this thread. 

 

Revisionism should be corrected immediately.

[=27=Davesteu]

Guys,

 

There are plenty of other threads dealing with the 25 lbs, like the one quoted by Kurfurst. If you want to discuss possible future aircraft:

 

Now back to the D-9 itself, if you don't mind.

I think the 21-cm BR would be a strange addition, potentially opening Pandora's box. Haven the option of non-bulged and bulged canopy would be very cool.

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

That's completely beside the point. 

 

I am baffled by your reluctance to write an actual report on this issue. You claim you have sources and you definitely have the time to write it. Whats the problem?. At the moment you become more and more bothersome to people by jumping into threads with your issue and hijacking them. 

[Kurfurst]

2 minutes ago, =27=Davesteu said:

I think the 21-cm BR would be a strange addition, potentially opening Pandora's box. Haven the option of non-bulged and bulged canopy would be very cool.

 

Its more or less a copy paste job from the G-14. Same rockets, same launch tubes. If the 21cm rockets are in the Dora manual, why not.

[Talon_]

Just now, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

That's completely beside the point. 

 

I am baffled by your reluctance to write an actual report on this issue. You claim you have sources and you definitely have the time to write it. Whats the problem?. At the moment you become more and more bothersome to people by jumping into threads with your issue and hijacking them. 

 

If I write a report thread it'll get filled up with the same mistruths and revisionism all the others do (just like this one). This is why I'm talking with the devs privately about this issue.

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

Just now, Talon_ said:

 

If I write a report thread it'll get filled up with the same mistruths and revisionism all the others do (just like this one). This is why I'm talking with the devs privately about this issue.

 

This might be the case. However this would prevent other threads from getting hijacked by this and you can prove them wrong there as well instead of doing it in an unrelated thread. It also helps to get the attention of the devs, who are very busy and most likely won't reply to your message to begin with. 

 

The best way to battle "revisionism" is to write up a well written conclusive thread and not by trying to put out one wildfire after another. It seriously gets bothersome and annoying. As i am aware that i am part of the problem right now, i am going to stop replying to this.

 

Back to topic please.

[Kurfurst]

Good, give the Devs a good time, too, and maybe keep it limited to that way, because nobody wants to have that incredibly juvenile 'buff allied, nerf axis' kind of whining in every thread.

[=27=Davesteu]

2 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Its more or less a copy paste job from the G-14. Same rockets, same launch tubes. If the 21cm rockets are in the Dora manual, why not.

Never came across any evidence of it being used, but others discussed this argument before. Theoretically they could have added the outer guns as well.

[Bremspropeller]

57 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Actually the WGr is well documented and have been used with regularity in a ground attack role in the fall of 1944. I do not know if it was used specically on Doras, but it was definitely used in general by German fighters.  

 

In the spring 1945 scenarios, it appears that bombs, cluster bombs and strafing by German fighter bombers were the primary methods in low level attacks against advancing Allied troops, as well as extensive use of Panzerblitz I on the Eastern front.

 

No Werfergranaten on Doras. Fall of 44 saw the first Dora unit forming and they mostly dealt with 2nd TAF fighters/ Jabos and they also did some short-lived Platzschutz for Kdo. Nowotny.

 

Cluster bombs would be a real nice adition (AB 250 and AB 500, SD 4 and others), just as SD 500 bombs would be.

Hopefully the Dora does have an ETC 504 + ETC 70 option, enabling Schlachtflieger operations.

AFAIK, there was no special armor in those airframes, but somebody might be quick and have references proving otherwise.

 

 

Please, fur eff's sake - no Spitfire or 109 chartmonkey action in this thread.

[HBPencil]

Anyway, back to the OP's question... @dog1 am I right in thinking you might be referring to the two different Fw190D (1944 and 1945 versions) from the old IL2 1946 game?

[LuftManu]

Going back at the topic too I am looking forward to fly the Dora here. I am not a big fan of the long nosed 190s but I will get a grip on it to make some justice after the "Pig" of an A8.

It will be sure a great ride.

 

I think we will be getting a mod for the MW50? for me it should be it is now with the A8 but with an option for the Water-Methanol injection as a mod. We should have the normal increased boost and then this one.

 

For the armament and mod options I also looking forward to use the EZ42 and of course I support the idea of having it. Let the mission designer choose or even ourselves. We can sim on a 190 without it, Why can't we sim we are on one with it? ?

 

I also would love to know wich cockpits are we getting. Maybe rounded one? Let's see if we get some info tomorrow or Friday and like @6./ZG26_Asgar said, we likely get more planes as time comes by so I expect a Mossie, B25 and some german counterparts. 

 

Kind regards

Edited August 15, 2018 by LF_ManuV

[Sgt_Joch]

1 hour ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

That's not entirely correct. No 616 had moved a puny force of four early Meteors to Melsbroek in Belgium in late January 1945. At this time they were indeed used a purely defensive roles, without offensive sorties beyond the frontline. In March and April they moved to Gilze-Rijen, and to Fassberg in Germany. At this point they were authorized to do armed recon missions over the frontline, and allagedly even had some ground targets destroyed.

 

So while the plane was indeed not very significant operationally, it appear there and would be a nice choice for a Collector plane. 

 

for once, I agree with Kurfurst. Meteors were deployed on the continent specifically for an air-to-air role and carried out many missions in jan-may 1945. The reason they never engaged any LW planes was because the LW in 1945 only appeared on the western front episodically.

 

if you are talking about online combat which is pretty unrealistic in any event, a Meteor is a much better fighter than a 25 lbs spitfire IX.

[=27=Davesteu]

37 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Hopefully the Dora does have an ETC 504 + ETC 70 option, enabling Schlachtflieger operations.

Should be ETC 71 - sorry for nitpicking.
Not a "BoBP modification" and rare, but possibly going to be included nonetheless, just like the F-8/U1

 

37 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Cluster bombs would be a real nice adition (AB 250 and AB 500, SD 4 and others), just as SD 500 bombs would be.

Yep, Abwurfbehälter (AB) would be very nice considering their historical importance to the Luftwaffe arsenal.

Edited August 15, 2018 by =27=Davesteu

[Asgar]

1 hour ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

True, the priority should go to important types, but we have already have that with Bodenplatte. I am more thinking about ideas for Collector planes, and this one could use the jet engine model developed for the 262.

i still think there are so many other aircraft fitting more closely with the BoBP timeframe. (on both sides) i think the flyable B-25 is still the most likely candidate. and another twin engine German would be nice to meet it. be it a prop or a 234 jet i don't really care. I'm a simple guy, a simple ZG26 guy and ZG26 had Me 410s at one point late in the war ?

18 minutes ago, LF_ManuV said:

Going back at the topic too I am looking forward to fly the Dora here. I am not a big fan of the long nosed 190s but I will get a grip on it to make some justice after the "Pig" of an A8.

It will be sure a great ride.

 

I think we will be getting a mod for the MW50? for me it should be it is now with the A8 but with an option for the Water-Methanol injection as a mod. We should have the normal increased boost and then this one.

 

For the armament and mod options I also looking forward to use the EZ42 and of course I support the idea of having it. Let the mission designer choose or even ourselves. We can sim on a 190 without it, Why can't we sim we are on one with it? ?

 

I also would love to know wich cockpits are we getting. Maybe rounded one? Let's see if we get some info tomorrow or Friday and like @6./ZG26_Asgar said, we likely get more planes as time comes by so I expect a Mossie, B25 and some german counterparts. 

 

Kind regards

gib DD devs  

[MiloMorai]

2 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Actually the WGr is well documented and have been used with regularity in a ground attack role in the fall of 1944. I do not know if it was used specically on Doras, but it was definitely used in general by German fighters. 

 

In the spring 1945 scenarios, it appears that bombs, cluster bombs and strafing by German fighter bombers were the primary methods in low level attacks against advancing Allied troops, as well as extensive use of Panzerblitz I on the Eastern front.

 

As for +25 lbs IXs, dunno. There is a lot of hearsay, wishful speculation, unconfirmed reports of how many, where, with what and but even their most ardent defender admits that this amounted to perhaps 20 - 40 planes, started in around February 1945, suffered  technical wrangle and then stopped again in April. Same for the GGS sight. Absolute drop in the ocean. Its cool to have it modelled though, its a rather nice gimmick to play with.

 

Now, what I would like to see is a Gloster Meteor. A handful were deployed in NW Europe at the time. Now especially as the 262 is in the development pipeline, and it would make an interesting 'what if' too see what would happen if the RAF would have accepted the challenge.

 

Hilarious. Yes this is by the same person who champions 1.98ata, an even more hearsay wishful speculation and no reports of use after late March 1945 when it was 'cleared' for operational use.

[PainGod85]

2 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

As for +25 lbs IXs, dunno. There is a lot of hearsay, wishful speculation, unconfirmed reports of how many, where, with what and but even their most ardent defender admits that this amounted to perhaps 20 - 40 planes, started in around February 1945, suffered  technical wrangle and then stopped again in April. Same for the GGS sight. Absolute drop in the ocean. Its cool to have it modelled though, its a rather nice gimmick to play with.

 

You mean the unconfirmed reports from the relevant squadrons' Operations Record Books (401, 411, 421, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442 Squadrons, No 126 Wing)? Or maybe the contents of No. 424 Aviation Fuel and Ammunition Park, 2nd T.A.F. ORB, 2 January 1945?

The things that are regarded as legal instruments?

 

It doesn't get any more official than that, and there is neither hearsay nor wishful speculation nor are these unconfirmed reports of something that might have happened. Unlike the 'sources' you are constantly 'citing'.

 

You keep on yapping about information on extremely high boost DB engines contained in letters of people trying to cover their asses (these are not legal instruments BTW), citing them as incontrovertible proof for your narrative while completely disregarding multiple sources from several squadrons' ORBs, which are by definition much more trustworthy than letters.

 

150 grade fuel started rolling in in February, got changed to a version meant to preserve sparkplugs that would after four weeks of use(!) cause engines to fail, after which they reverted to the old fuel recipe for 150 grade, thinning the 'pep' with 130 grade to reduce the contents of ethylene dibromide to the old fuel's and continuing the use of that type of fuel until the end of hostilities.

 

In all, during the time engine failures ended up occurring, they'd reverted back to 130 grade fuel for all of two weeks.

 

Just stop with your disingenuous assertions.

[Bremspropeller]

Can you please take you OT discussion to another thread?

 

Nobody gives a flying feck about octane grades and the age-old ata/ boost discussion here.

[Kurfurst]

Ah, more wishful speculation in the Dora thread about Wishfires and Octane Fantasies. Just what the thread needs. And its sad.

Edited August 15, 2018 by VO101Kurfurst

[=621=Samikatz]

I think all of us would like both sides to have early and late war modelling for each aircraft, but like Jason in the reddit AMA said the issue is time and people. While 2.02 ATA and whatever is probably unreasonable (from what I've seen argued on the internet it was maybe possibly used for defending 262 airfields? very small numbers anyway) I definitely think MW50 is worth modelling. Apparently without it the aircraft was a bit of a dog, if you believe the Soviets who pressed it into squadron service

 

3 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

That, and I think in order to have jets on MP servers you oughta have some jet opposition as well. Otherwise there is little chance of jets happening at all. Nobody would like to fly target for 262s with their massive speed advantage.

 

262s can be kept in check by good mission design. Put them on their own (destroyable?) airfield in small numbers. Make them something to protect that, if lost, the germans will feel them missing. The Meteor's service history is much too short to really justify it ahead of more important allied types like the Mosquito, Typhoon, XIV, etc, amounting to a handful of sorties on the continent, a few trucks destroyed, and a single liason aircraft startled

 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DgakDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=gloster+meteor+melsbroek&source=bl&ots=wQFmGd2KPT&sig=gwLBxqGNeB4Cfn5Cadq_w6DtKuI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiF9LvvqI_bAhUmLsAKHYJ2AJw4ChDoAQg2MAE#v=onepage&q&f=false