The K-4 Isn't Special

[ZachariasX]

9 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

Erm,..the document says "zunächst negativ" which means the first runs were negative and all runs after that were positive. Further the document says that DB prooves that enough evidence for usage (gute Erprobungslage) was existing and also showed the proof (und legt die gefahrenen Läufe ...vor). So according to Daimler-Benz there had been more than enough arguments to release 1,98ata in parallel with 1,8ata to the troops. (based on this document)

 

Do we have any documentation about the blown up engines and the problems stemming from increase to 1,98ata? Not a rethorical question, genuine interest. Are there any documents which reverted or forbade the usage of 1,98ata?

 

As I understand the situation, in principle, it was thought that 1.98 ata power output would be possible, or at least worth a try. This from the side of DB. They very readily wired that oppinion to Galland directly as he must have put considerable pressure on them to produce more powerful units. That internal judgement about the further possibilities must have been based on inhouse prototypes, or whathver they use on their working benches to try out new settings.

 

While that cable went out to Galland, they took production engines (they needed more than just working prototypes for their runs) and realized that what actually came out of the factory didn‘t live up to their ideas as those engines reliably blew up when run at 1.98 ata. The document posted illustrates the situation nicely the screaming contest that took place for people covering their a**es, while wanting to retract that 1.98 ata clearance. K gave some details above what needed to be fixed that the engine possibly could run at 1.98 ata. But to fix that, you have to fix the entire chain of production which in turn takes considerable time.

 

Actually, the document is rather interesting, as it explains that some 1.98 ata clearances were floating around around new year (and we know what channel they took, so we know where to look to find them) plus it makes further possible clearances toward the end of March more reasonable, as I would certainly expect a two month delay for the production chain for engines to be fixed.

 

Regarding the C3 markings, it might well be that some planes got right away converted to C3 and hence got the C3 marking, but I wouldn‘t count on them actually running at 1.98 ata around new year. Some might have tried before the retraction of the clearance came through, but I seriously doubt there were full units running at that rating. That would have been messy given the state of the engines and that would have been documented.

 

 

6 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

Ah Sinerox, the only K-4s that can be confirmed of using 1.98ata are those assigned to II./JG11 Dec 23 1944 (12 ( a short staffel) and down to 9 by Jan 2 1945) for operational testing of 1.98ata. There has never been any proof, even by the resident 109 expert, that 1.98ata was used operational from Mar 20 1945 (this 12 days before the cut-off date for the Bodenplatte map).

This would indeed make sense in light of the document posted. It would mean that indeed orders went out to that unit through Gallands office and that unit immediately started the conversion, while back at DB, the boffins were horrified to find out that the higher setting blew all engines and were screaming fir retraction of the order.

 

For the purpose of the game, I don‘t think it really matters whether we get 1.98 ata or not, as the plane doesn‘t get a clear advantage over the competition at higher speeds. At low speeds, it should be more than competitive even at 1.8 ata.

 

Would be nice to have all ratings as mods and let you (or mission designers) decide how you want to spend your time. But I‘d be happy with „common“ ratings as well. I‘d get shot down equally quick, so no difference.

 

Edited September 16, 2018 by ZachariasX

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

How do you expect the developers to model 150 grade fuel, exactly? Should they include only the blessings and none of the maledictions that 150 grade fuel brought? That's a serious question.

That would be cool to have the effects of these awful fuels modelled. Then again, the 1GCAP always flys at full throttle, so you wouldn‘t notice too much, turning the exercise into wasted money effort.

[IVJG4-Knight]

There are a few pieces of evidence that suggest the 1.98 was used(Fl Classic 109 teil 3 ) :

 

 

Personally i think you can't prove with absolute certainly it was used and the same can be said about proving it wasn't .

 

Edited September 16, 2018 by IVJG4-Knight

[ZachariasX]

10 minutes ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

Personally i think you can't prove with absolute certainly it was used and the same can be said about proving it wasn't .

All points toward that they really tried to get this high rating workable. End of March would make sense in the timeline for when they discovered around or after Christmas that engine production wasn‘t up to specs, it gave them a quater of a year to sort that out somehow. 

 

By April, units became very makeshift organizations, so I would assume that if the rating was used at all, it was even then more sporadic than unit wide. Once you had a new, well made engine, it was rather straight forward to convert to aircraft. Probably individual initiative played a role here as well.

 

In April, people really started to think about the future and less about current technicalities. There is the quote of that Bf110 night fighter pilot, lined up for start along with his squadron. While awaiting takeoff clearance, one of these pilots said via radio: „In half years time, I‘ll be driving a car with a 5 litre engine.“

[Talon_]

6 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

How do you expect the developers to model 150 grade fuel, exactly? Should they include only the blessings and none of the maledictions that 150 grade fuel brought? That's a serious question.

 

There were some benefits to 150 grade fuel - there were also some very big problems. Are you expecting the developers to ignore them?

 

Same way the Jumo 004 won't be constantly exploding. Also those problems presented in 126 Wing's Spitfire XVIs, which is not a model we have in game.

Edited September 16, 2018 by Talon_

[NZTyphoon]

35 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Same way the Jumo 004 won't be constantly exploding. Also those problems presented in 126 Wing's Spitfire XVIs, which is not a model we have in game.

Is there direct evidence that the fuel was the problem with the 126 Wing Spitfires? While the pilots (no mention of the groundcrew) thought that 150 octane fuel was causing engine failure, it's also possible that under pressure of frontline operations, some Spitfire pilots were not keeping to "best practice" when running the engines, particularly the Merlin 266 in the Mk. XVI: see

 

During Operation Crossbow, other units reported that there were no major problems being experienced after a total of 9,268 hours: pilots reported very favourably and were impressed with the increased performance:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/appendixa.pdf

[PainGod85]

7 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

How do you expect the developers to model 150 grade fuel, exactly? Should they include only the blessings and none of the maledictions that 150 grade fuel brought? That's a serious question.

 

There were some benefits to 150 grade fuel - there were also some very big problems. Are you expecting the developers to ignore them?

 

1 hour ago, Talon_ said:

 

Same way the Jumo 004 won't be constantly exploding. Also those problems presented in 126 Wing's Spitfire XVIs, which is not a model we have in game.

 

To add to this, the Spitfires XVI were using US-manufactured Packard-Merlins which were very slightly different as metric measuring units had to be translated to imperial ones for Packard to manufacture them. Unlike the RR manufactured Merlins, the engines from Packard had some issues with the higher boost because of that, not due to any flaw introduced by the fuel itself.

 

We have documented, incontrovertible evidence from multiple sources the 2nd TAF was supplied with 150 grade fuel on the continent from the beginning of 1945, yet some people here think an engine rating on the 109K that ended up reliably blowing up the engines it was applied to in the same timeframe is somehow more believable, and all this due to someone covering their own ass in a letter that's being reposted like some kind of mantra in here.

Edited September 16, 2018 by PainGod85

[Talon_]

10 minutes ago, NZTyphoon said:

Is there direct evidence that the fuel was the problem with the 126 Wing Spitfires? While the pilots (no mention of the groundcrew) thought that 150 octane fuel was causing engine failure, it's also possible that under pressure of frontline operations, some Spitfire pilots were not keeping to "best practice" when running the engines, particularly the Merlin 266 in the Mk. XVI: see

 

 

A fair point.

[MiloMorai]

16 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

 

To add to this, the Spitfires XVI were using US-manufactured Packard-Merlins which were very slightly different as metric measuring units had to be translated to imperial ones for Packard to manufacture them. Unlike the RR manufactured Merlins, the engines from Packard had some issues with the higher boost because of that, not due to any flaw introduced by the fuel itself.

 

We have documented, incontrovertible evidence from multiple sources the 2nd TAF was supplied with 150 grade fuel on the continent from the beginning of 1945, yet some people here think an engine rating on the 109K that ended up reliably blowing up the engines it was applied to in the same timeframe is somehow more believable, and all this due to someone covering their own ass in a letter that's being reposted like some kind of mantra in here.

 

GB hadn't converted to the Metric System in WW2. What had to converted were the drawings as the US used a different drafting protocol than what was used in GB. Fasteners (nuts and bolts) also had to be converted to US standards.

 

Merlins would foul plugs so if the engine wasn't revved before take-off to clean the plugs bad things could happen.

[PainGod85]

1 minute ago, MiloMorai said:

 

GB hadn't converted to the Metric System in WW2. What had to converted were the drawings as the US used a different drafting protocol than what was used in GB. Fasteners (nuts and bolts) also had to be converted to US standards.

 

Merlins would foul plugs so if the engine wasn't revved before take-off to clean the plugs bad things could happen.

 

Oh, right...my bad.

 

I just knew they had to convert some measurements and immediately jumped to the conclusion that it must've been the measuring units. Whoops.

[IVJG4-Knight]

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

All points toward that they really tried to get this high rating workable. End of March would make sense in the timeline for when they discovered around or after Christmas that engine production wasn‘t up to specs, it gave them a quater of a year to sort that out somehow. 

 

By April, units became very makeshift organizations, so I would assume that if the rating was used at all, it was even then more sporadic than unit wide. Once you had a new, well made engine, it was rather straight forward to convert to aircraft. Probably individual initiative played a role here as well.

 

In April, people really started to think about the future and less about current technicalities. There is the quote of that Bf110 night fighter pilot, lined up for start along with his squadron. While awaiting takeoff clearance, one of these pilots said via radio: „In half years time, I‘ll be driving a car with a 5 litre engine.“

 

I think they had a lot to deal with at this stage of the war. I've heard according to Eagle Dynamics info that they planned to use DB 605L but the allied bombings certainly changed their plans  :

"

Engine supply situation has often been a weak spot for the German aircraft industry, and it was especially felt in 1944 and 1945 as the 109K was in production. A variety of DB 605 variants were installed on production K-4s. Initial plans to use the advanced DB 605L with a two-stage supercharger were foiled with a single lucky Allied bomb that took out a high-altitude test chamber, delaying 605L deliveries by nearly a year. As it is, production 109Ks shipped with DB-605B, DB 605DC, DB-605ASC, or DB-605ASC, with some very late production K-14s finally receiving the DB 605L.  "

 

 

[MiloMorai]

K-14s?

 

The Do335 was also to get the 'L' engine.

 

I posted this, tho it doesn't break down by model version, https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/39209-ww2-german-airplane-engine-production/

 

[Eicio]

I've got a way to reconcile all of you guys :

 

Spoiler

 

 

[PainGod85]

1 minute ago, Eicio said:

I've got a way to reconcile all of you guys :

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Ze MesserSpit.

[Eicio]

1 minute ago, PainGod85 said:

Ze MesserSpit.

 

Ze Schmittfire *

[Bremspropeller]

Quote

Auf Augenhöhe mit der Ta 152?

 

Nope. No way - ever.

Not only did the Ta 152 have more and heavier air-ground options (guns, bombs, rockets), it also brought boatloads more gas to the fight and had overall relatively similar performance (safe for climb-rate). The Ta was the better option and this is morrored by the RLM decision to axe the 109 and concentrate on late Doras and Tas as the only prop-fighters to stay in production.

[Sgt_Joch]

4 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

All points toward that they really tried to get this high rating workable. End of March would make sense in the timeline for when they discovered around or after Christmas that engine production wasn‘t up to specs, it gave them a quater of a year to sort that out somehow. 

 

an order from bureaucrats in Berlin sitting behind a desk at HQ when the western allies were already over the Rhine and the Russians were an hour's drive from Berlin really smacks of the kind of desperate fantasy orders you saw as the Nazi regime was crumbling. There is no proof the Germans had effectively resolved the engine issues or even that any GAF fighter units were in a position to implement the directive.

[=621=Samikatz]

34 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

it also brought boatloads more gas to the fight

 

A bigger petrol tank is only really of any use if you actually have the supplies to fill it

[ZachariasX]

6 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

There is no proof the Germans had effectively resolved the engine issues or even that any GAF fighter units were in a position to implement the directive.

I don't have any info documenting that they did so and used it operationally. All I know is that they had a quarter of a year time to mend some known issues. However looking at the actual situation on the ground at in March/April, all I would count on is "personal initiative" by senior personnel at the airfields. There may have been a number of 109K4 >0 that were using that rating, but if there were, they were few and the use sporadic. Methanol was scarce as well.

5 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

A bigger petrol tank is only really of any use if you actually have the supplies to fill it

Same for a methanol tank.

[Bremspropeller]

A half empty larger tank on a more capable airframe is always better than a smaller but full tank on a less capable airframe.

 

Also, the gas-situation is a completely different issue altogether.

[SCG_Syn]

In response to Cujo about the 190 overheating:

Funny thing about the MW-50 system is that it actually cooled down the engine. Yea I know it sounds like witchcraft. I'll post a video about it from Greg's airplanes and automobiles. Ignore the parts about the 109 K4 and P-51 discussion and look for the parts about the mw-50 

Edited September 16, 2018 by SCG_Sinerox

[MiloMorai]

This guy likes to mix fact and fiction. C3 fuel was available in limited quantiles late in the BoB (DB601N engines). The Fw190A using the BMW801D engine required C3 fuel. Mid/late war C3 fuel had a PN of 125 and it has been said late war C3 had a PN of 140.

[FTC_Riksen]

26 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

This guy likes to mix fact and fiction. C3 fuel was available in limited quantiles late in the BoB (DB601N engines). The Fw190A using the BMW801D engine required C3 fuel. Mid/late war C3 fuel had a PN of 125 and it has been said late war C3 had a PN of 140.

 

Here we go again ....

 

lol

[PainGod85]

2 hours ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

In response to Cujo about the 190 overheating:

Funny thing about the MW-50 system is that it actually cooled down the engine. Yea I know it sounds like witchcraft. I'll post a video about it from Greg's airplanes and automobiles. Ignore the parts about the 109 K4 and P-51 discussion and look for the parts about the mw-50 

 

Yes, evaporative cooling is one hell of a performance enhancer. The same principle applies to any WW2 piston engine, though most were actually using excess fuel in the rich mixture for the same purpose. If they had been running at normal or lean mixture they would've all overheated and seized in extremely short order.

[Sgt_Joch]

21 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

Do we have any documentation about the blown up engines and the problems stemming from increase to 1,98ata? Not a rethorical question, genuine interest. Are there any documents which reverted or forbade the usage of 1,98ata?

 

 

There is a discussion and links to documents here:

 

Quote

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Edited September 16, 2018 by Sgt_Joch

[sevenless]

32 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

There is a discussion and links to documents here:

 

 

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

 

Thanks! That is one heck of a data collection. Great referenced infos.

[Kurfurst]

Thank you for the documents Sgt Joch. They prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the 1,8 ata and 1,98 ata rating was cleared by DB and passed to the troops, which employed them already in December 1944.

 

The document also show that the engine itself had no issues, although the spark plugs have trouble, which was fixed in December 1944 by having introduced X-ray control. Luckily DB handled the issue energetically.

 

The cornroversial site site you are using as reference oddly ‘missed’ the following documents and sadly misrepresent the ones that you have posted.

 

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

Bf 109 K-4 Pilots Handbook

[Mauf]

Well, if the 1.98 ata kills your engine in short time as reported in Jochs sources... sure, have at it Hoss. Let's model it proper.

 

Again, I'm not against modelling 1.98 ata (the non instakill your engine fashion) as a "for the near future" mod  but that shouldn't be found in the campaigns nor in multiplayer missions of a proper scenario (aka everything outside of dogfight servers).

Edited September 16, 2018 by Mauf

[Kurfurst]

30 minutes of running at WEP even with faulty spark plugs does not sound that bad TBH compared to current self destruct timers on engines.

 

Shouldn’t be found because of what? We have already established it was operationally from December 1944. Now, it should not be present if the scenario involves the period it was not allowed to use (i.e. February 1945, if you do not count jg 11)

Edited September 16, 2018 by VO101Kurfurst

[Mauf]

5 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

30 minutes of running at WEP even with faulty spark plugs does not sound that bad TBH compared to current self destruct timers on engines.

 

Shouldn’t be found because of what? We have already established it was operationally from December 1944. Now, it should not be present if the scenario involves the period it was not allowed to use (i.e. February 1945, if you do not count jg 11)

 

Where do you take this December 1944 from? I might be missing it but where in the docs is that date mentioned? Is that the charge that went out to Galland that got the higher ups in a tissy to issue the ban because it turned out to be wasting the engines?

[Kurfurst]

5 minutes ago, Mauf said:

 

Where do you take this December 1944 from? I might be missing it but where in the docs is that date mentioned? Is that the charge that went out to Galland that got the higher ups in a tissy to issue the ban because it turned out to be wasting the engines?

 

The DB 605 DB/DC motorenkarte was issued on 1st December 1944 (already the  3rd edition brew) and it lists 1,8 and 1,98 cleared already, plus a number of documents made in late December / early January mention that the units are already using the rating.

 

BTW the rating wasn’t wasting the engines. Both 1,8 and 1,98 ata ratings started to show engine breakups, and there have been more problems with the 1,8 rating, when DB Genshagen factory had assembly errors in Decembe, that wasted engines on the test run, about 60 (out of 700 Gemshagen produced in December). It was found that spark plugs were at the root of the issue.

 

Actually 1,98 ata rating may have been around earlier as pilot accounts from November already refer to it.

Edited September 16, 2018 by VO101Kurfurst

[Sgt_Joch]

1 hour ago, sevenless said:

 

Thanks! That is one heck of a data collection. Great referenced infos.

 

My pleasure, glad to help when I can.

 

WW2 Aircraft Performance is a great site if you want an unbiased source for a lot of primary documents.

[Mauf]

1 minute ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

The DB 605 DB/DC motorenkarte was issued on 1st December 1944, and it lists 1,8 and 1,98 cleared already, plus a number of documents made in late December / early January mention that the units are already using the rating.

 

BTW the rating wasn’t wasting the engines. Both 1,8 and 1,98 ata ratings started to show engine breakups, when DB Genshagen factory had assembly errors in Decembe, that wasted engines on the test run, about 60 (out of 700 Gemshagen produced in December). It was found that spark plugs were at the root of the issue.

 

Thank you (though I don't see a timestamp on it so I'm taking your word for it). Question: What shows that the Motorkarte actually applies as a proof that the 1.98 was generally available? It could be "Cover-it-all" print so they don't have to make new versions later on. Again, I would believe that there where some 1.98 ata K4s out by the time point the ban was put up (wouldn't make sense otherwise) before January 45. What it doesn't tell us is that it was common and makes an argument for including the 1.98 for the BoBP timeframe.

[ZachariasX]

If you are to make an engine variant with a specific rating, you also make a Motorenkarte for it. It is clear and understood that DB has been working on that in the BoBP timeframe. That it also worked in the field succesfully at that time is a different question and highly unlikely as the bulletin on test runs implies. It is hardly possible in German technocratic language to be more negative about an issue than they were about the 1.98 ata conversion around New Year.

[Kurfurst]

I guess the part that is mostly overlooked is that there are no separate DB and DC engines, it’s just a designation used to indicate whether the 605 D engine is running or 1,8 or 1,98 - but otherwise it’s the same engine with two setups (lower boost when only  B-4 type fuel is available, higher when C-3 fuel is available at the airfield, as units were moving around a lot).

 

Both ratings were ‘available’ on all engines. This was intentional to allow ground crews to adjust settings for the fuel. For the same reason it is probably impossible to tell how many were set up as ‘DB’ and as DC’ on any given day (C-3 fuel triangles are hint, though), since the setup could be changed by the next day, and externally there is no difference between the two. In any case by December there are about 300 aircraft fitted with engines that could use these ratings. It’s pretty likely that there were quite a few running on it.

 

There was also a more detailed instruction for mechanics issued on 5th December, this gives you the datails how to set up the engine for either 1,8 or 1,98 - have detailed these earlier this thread. They also issued an instruction how troops must to visibly mark the engines with large B and C, depending on setup, dated late december. Lots of fuss if its a ‘stand in’ manual isn’t it.

 

Then there is of course the references from later date stating the units are using both ratings, so I would just go with Occam’s razor - the simplest answer is that they  issued manuals and instructions with new ratings because those were available, and they mention its use in later docs because, well, they were used.

[MiloMorai]

26 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Actually 1,98 ata rating may have been around earlier as pilot accounts from November already refer to it.

 

What pilot accounts?

1 hour ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

 

So nice of you to post the OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) of  20.03.45 which has nothing to do with 1944.

As these aren't originals, who is to say they are authentic?

 

[IVJG4-Knight]

10 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

WW2 Aircraft Performance is a great site if you want an unbiased source for a lot of primary documents.

 

If it's unbiased why are all performance charts cherry picking situations where the spitfire was the best in every aspect.

Where is 109 K4,G14,G10 vs spitfire 9 chart ? 

Where is the spitfire 14 vs me 262 performance comparison ? Planes build in comparative numbers .

Where is the Spitfire V vs german planes comparison .The fw190 was a far better plane at the time .

 

 

 

 

[ZachariasX]

Now it's getting silly.

[IVJG4-Knight]

2 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Now it's getting silly.

 

That's an emotional argument an i want a logical one.