The K-4 Isn't Special

[LukeFF]

19 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

German ones are also generally well built, on average, probably somewhat less so.

 

"Probably somewhat"? Geeze, there's an understatement. Slave labor wasn't going to build anything that would pass proper quality control standards. 

[MiloMorai]

The bases of I./JG27 (orange), III./JG27 (green), III./JG53 (red) and IV./JG53 (blue) after Mar 20 1945 with regards to the cut-off date for the Bodenplatte map.

 

[Kurfurst]

18 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

"Probably somewhat"? Geeze, there's an understatement. Slave labor wasn't going to build anything that would pass proper quality control standards. 

 

The United States Survey seems to disagree with this assessment on several points. “Slave labour” was still atypical at the wars end, and since it was unskilled labour, was limited to largely non-productive tasks, such as moving materials and so on. 

 

To qoute the USSBS on the German Aircraft industry:

 

http://www.angelfire.com/super/ussbs/airrep.html#ChVI

 

“d. The quality of the working force declined. Germany's best workers went into the military services. Their places were taken by women and older men, foreigners, prisoners of war and part-time workers. The proportion of these several groups for each company as of October 1944 are shown in Exhibit IV. The proportions for the total working force were as follows:

(a) German Men and Women	52%
(b) Prisoners of War and Jews	12%
(c) Foreign	36%
Women	23%

e. Not all of the foreigners were "slave" workers. A large number came voluntarily to Germany to take an active part in Hitler's New Order. As a general matter, however, they were considered less efficient than the Germans. Many foreigners were coerced by devious means into coming to Germany; these were the "slave" workers. They were less efficient than the voluntary group. The Dutch were the least cooperative, the Belgians and French were somewhat better, and Russians, especially Ukrainian women, reasonably well regarded.”

 

Regarding declining build quality:

 

”

13. Effects of Bombing on Quality of Production

a. The manner in which an airplane design is carried out in the factory determines by at least a small margin the quality of its performance. Strategic bombing, by multiplying production difficulties, undoubtedly tended to lower the quality of German airplanes. In spite of this fact, however, there is no conclusive evidence that there was a more than 5 to 10 percent reduction in performance because of factors attributed to production. Even this, however, is an important amount. At the end of the war, an American commander indicated his respect for German models by stating that except for the limited range of German fighters, he would have been willing to trade airplanes for individual combat.

b. Some of the ways in which the quality of the production job was affected directly and directly by bombing are as follows:

(1) Especially in the case of high performance aircraft the tolerance of the airfoil must be kept very close. German practice with production tools was excellent for this purpose, but it depended upon the circulation of master tools and checking fixtures. This circulation was interrupted and eventually stopped when transportation broke down.

89

---

(2) Dispersal was not accomplished smoothly as to complete items of manufacturing equipment, and frequently operations had to be resumed in the dispersed locations with inadquate, or unproven, tools and equipment. In the case of such facilities as heat-treating equipment, the proper physical qualities of structural aluminium parts sometimes were not attained.

(3) During the summer of 1944 the shortage of fuel caused a reduction from two hours to one-half hour in the final run-in time on engines. The shortage of ammunition caused the discontinuance of test firing of guns. Pilots were warned by a tag to be careful when making the first shots.

(4) Workmanship became inferior for many reasons, one of which was bombing. In the case of the finish of the skin, which affected the drag, gaps were often found where sheets came together. The Main Committee for Aircraft arranged to have wing panels of American planes sent around to German factories to show the relative superiority of American workmanship in this regard, and serve as an incentive to do as well.

(5) The maintenance of manufacturers' inspection became very difficult with dispersal. There were not enough competent inspectors to place in each location, and the administrative problem of coordinating and enforcing inspection standards was greatly increased.

(6) In so far as bombing interrupted the flow of materials and components, emergency substitutions sometimes were necessary. Such substitutions, though approved by qualified engineers, gave support to the comment by German pilots toward the end of the war that the airplanes they flew were "backyard" airplanes. This comment could have been an alibi to cover up inadquate pilot training and competency.”

 

Regarding quality control, it appears that BAL maintained high inspection standards till the end:

 

”

14. Air Ministry Inspection

a. The responsibility for acceptance of aircraft and their principal components lay with the Inspection Office (Bau Aufsichts Leitung). This office was part of the Technical Office of the Air Ministry, and coordinated with the Production Division of the Ministry.

90

---

The head of the Technical Office was responsible for the accomplishment of engineering, production and inspection functions. the head of the Inspection Office was under no pressure to lower his standards to permit the Production Division to make a better showing, unless directed by the head of the Technical Office. There is no indication that any such instructions were given, even when bombing was causing (directly or indirectly) rejections and consequent loss of airplane production.

b. The Inspection Office had representatives in each of the main aircraft, engine and accessories plants. The inspector in charge supervised the inspection of products made in the main and branch plants of the company. The professional standards of this organization were high. Throughout the war the Inspection Office stamp of acceptance was held in high respect. Dispersal, however, presented a serious problem. During the winter of 1943-1944, along with serious inroads caused by the drafting of men into the army, it became necessary to provide inspectors for several times the number of plants. It was an impossible assignment. An arrangement was made whereby the Inspection Office deputized the company inspectors to make detailed acceptance. This worked satisfactorily. Production managers complained that standards were higher on this basis than when the Inspection Office representative inspected. When Saur became chief of the Fighter Staff in March 1944 he insisted that the Inspection Office discontinue the deputizing of company inspectors. Officially this was done, but the same arrangement continued, because the Inspection Office did not have a sufficient staff to do the whole job. It is not surprising under such circumstances, if the number of rejections and spoiled parts increased.

c. Goering stated that under dispersal, quality suffered considerably. Fittings sometimes did not meet tolerances. Because there was more than one source for each component and subassembly, there was not satisfactory interchangeability. Goering gave as an illustration that landing gear wheels did not always match. It was this situation that contributed in part to the decision to concentrate production in single underground plants.

d. The inspection of purchased parts, such as rivets and bolts, was carried on by the Aircraft Manufacturers' Association. This non-governmental organization had established standards for such items, and employed inspectors who covered all producers of those items. In addition to the high professional code of these inspectors, civilians who passed faulty parts or materials were subject to special courts-martial as saboteurs.”

 

Quality of production was maintained up until the last. Fighters did not decline in quality.

 

15. Effect of Declining Quality on Operational Losses

a. The greatly increased production of fighter airplanes in 1943-1944 was not reflected in a conspicuous increase in the operational strength of the Luftwaffe. This general problem is considered in the report of the Operations Division of the Survey. Leading officials of the Speer Ministry Armament Staff and of German aircraft companies stated that they could not understand the discrepancy. Dr. Frydag said that he had raised the question repeatedly as to why the aircraft industry should make such strenuous efforts to produce airplanes when the number in operation appeared to remain the same. The present analysis is concerned only with design and production considerations which might throw light on the puzzle.

b. Fighter and destroyer types, which included the Me 109, 110, FW 190 and Ju 88, did not decline in quality. The only plausible factor relating to production which might explain a high operational loss rate, has to do with spares. It is known that in 1944 Saur minimized the diversion of parts and subassemblies as spares in order to maximize the score of his production record of new airplanes.

c. The case of the Me 262 jet fighter is a particular one. Its great speed consitituted a great threat to the Combined Bomber Offensive and a great hope for the German Air Force. From the production point of view, however, several design difficulties that were encountered must be noted:

(1) The Me 262 was forced through its developmental stages at such a speed that many design problems were not adquately solved.

(2) The engine for the Me 262 was not ready for line production until June 1944 and even then the engine starter and fuel regulating mechanism were not fool-proof. Pilots were continually opening the throttle too quickly with the result that the engine stopped or burned up.

(3) Goering stated that the landing gear and brakes were poorly designed and, unless operated carefully, caused ground loops.

(4) Repair parts, especially turbine blades, were not in good supply. Saur insisted that the line requirements have first claim. (The life of turbine blades ranged between 25 and 36 hours.)

92

---

16. Conclusions Regarding Production Quality

a. Design and inspection standards were not substantially lowered.

b. The inspection organizations of the manufacturers and of the Air Ministry had a difficult time coping with production and operations under dispersal conditions, and administrative control of the situation was lost. There is no evidence, however, that manufacturers took advantage of the situation.

c. Production under dispersal conditions created serious problems as to interchangeability of parts.

d. The continuous effort that was expended on the improvement of design resulted in better performance of a magnitude at least equal to the loss caused by reduced quality of production.

e. Tentative conclusions from actual tests of the performance of German aircraft conducted in England in 1945, indicated that quality was maintained up to the last. Wood was used in the empennage assembly of the Me 109, in the flaps of the FW 190 and in several places on the Me 262. This substitution apparently did not affect performance.“

 

 

In addition, here is a part of interview with Hans Fey, a Me 262 test pilot who states that the aircraft had to satisfy the industrial minimum margin of tolerance on speed achieved the acceptence flight, and planes that did not meet were rejected until they were improved. Poor performers were sent to training units. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Talon_]

"Full measurements cannot be taken because of engine damage at 1.98ata"

 

January 4th, 1945

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Aspera_VDM_4427.pdf

 

@VO101Kurfurst I am more than happy to respect your claim for 1.98 ata post-March 1945 until I find further documents to counter them but I think it's disingenuous to argue that it was operationally deployed any earlier when you like to point out the troubles with 150 octane in the Merlin 266 so regularly. I do not get the impression from the available documentation that 1.98ata was successfully deployed before April 1945 or the very end of March - and regarding those dates, I am still researching.

 

January 17th, Daimler-Benz notify that during testing on January 10th all 4 available DC engines failed (pistons, piston rods or superchargers) during testing therefore 1.98 is not released:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Interner_Aktenvermerk_Nr_6642.pdf

 

January 19th, engines are delivered at 1.8 with B4:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Niederschrift_Nr_6717.pdf

 

Jan 24th, strict punishment to be applied if engines are supplied above 1.8ata:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Niederschrift_Nr_6730.pdf

 

Feb 22nd, Messerschmitt state that 1.98ata is blocked:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Erprobungsbericht_15.pdf

 

The table from this report dated 14th March shows emergency power at 1.8:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Reparatur_Anweisung_2_Nachtrag_Nr_191-345.pdf

 

 

 

[Mauf]

2 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

@VO101Kurfurst I am more than happy to respect your claim for 1.98 ata post-March 1945 until I find further documents to counter them but I think it's disingenuous to argue that it was operationally deployed any earlier when you like to point out the troubles with 150 octane in the Merlin 266 so regularly. I do not get the impression from the available documentation that 1.98ata was successfully deployed before April 1945 or the very end of March - and regarding those dates, I am still researching.

 

 

And there you nicely pointed out why this whole debate is so loaded. Just like Riksen said earlier, we shouldn't be arguing about what shouldn't be in the game. More options (so long as they're real and fit into the rough time window) are always better than less and it's in the mission designers hands to make sure the scenario stays historical or fair (depending on what's wanted). Both the 1.98 and 150 Oct are close enough to BOBP to be at least an option (again, whether they should be allowed or not goes to the mission designers conscience).

 

Because this whole "you shouldn't have but I should have" discussion stuff just reeks of trying to game for advantages rather than improving the sim as a whole.

[Kurfurst]

Dear Talon, the documentation you have posted simply do not support your claims.

 

For example: 

 

‘The table from this report dated 14th March shows emergency power at 1.8:’

 

In fact it shows the 1,8 rating for the DB 605DB setup, which has been always running at 1,8. Actually it still does, but a delayed ignition is being introduced for it, as long as the B-4 fuel used in this setup had quality issues.

 

The 1,98 ata setup was designated DC. The paper does note that there are no changes to the DC setup, since the C-3 fuel it used have no quality issues. The DC setup continues runs at 1,98 ata, as it always has been.

 

 

Two questions for you:

 

1. Do you understand the German text at all?

 

2. Decision  has been made on the 24th January 1945 meeting to block the 1,98 ATA rating (which Btw has been also noted to have been cleared; promulgated, and used by the ‘troops’) until further testing - why it was it even neccesary to block (gesperr) a rating that, as you claim, was not used before? 

Edited September 14, 2018 by VO101Kurfurst

[Talon_]

9 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Dear Talon, the documentation you have posted simply do not support your claims.

 

Two questions for you:

 

1. Do you understand the German text at all?

  

2. Decision  has been made on the 24th January 1945 meeting to block the 1,98 ATA rating (which Btw has been also noted to have been cleared; promulgated, and used by the ‘troops’) until further testing - why it was it even neccesary to block (gesperr) a rating that, as you claim, was not used before? 

2

Thanks to the magic of the internet, I don't have to speak German.

 

"The 1.98 was blocked from the testing". They're talking about testing. They're saying "test the engines at 1.80 because they are not being used at 1.98."

 

Click the spoiler for translations.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by Talon_

[MiloMorai]

2 minutes ago, Mauf said:

 

And there you nicely pointed out why this whole debate is so loaded. Just like Riksen said earlier, we shouldn't be arguing about what shouldn't be in the game. More options (so long as they're real and fit into the rough time window) are always better than less and it's in the mission designers hands to make sure the scenario stays historical or fair (depending on what's wanted). Both the 1.98 and 150 Oct are close enough to BOBP to be at least an option (again, whether they should be allowed or not goes to the mission designers conscience).

 

Because this whole "you shouldn't have but I should have" discussion stuff just reeks of trying to game for advantages rather than improving the sim as a whole.

 

Which a 1.98ata K-4 would do. When 25lb Spitfire XIV becomes available then a 1.98ata K-4 can be considered for inclusion even tho not historical.

[Talon_]

10 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

The 1,98 ata setup was designated DC. The paper does note that there are no changes to the DC setup, since the C-3 fuel it used have no quality issues. The DC setup continues runs at 1,98 ata, as it always has been.

 

 

The devs have repeatedly stated that the aircraft we get are the types that allow us their earliest use in the sim - Spitfire IXe (not XIVe), P-47D-28 (not 30/40), P-51D-15 (not 20/25/30). This means the Bf109K-4 with the DB605DM on 1700PS.

[Kurfurst]

2 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

Thanks to the magic of the internet, I don't have to speak German.

 

That is where the problem lies; you do not understand the meaning of the documents at all, and thus arrive at wrong conclusions and report incorrectly what they actually say.

 

 

 

[MiloMorai]

LOL, so says the person who doesn't understand 'establishment strength'.

[JtD]

8 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

Click the spoiler for translations.

 

The document you had translated basically makes no mention of DC engines, which would be the ones to use 1.98ata, if or when it was used. It simply states DB engines stay at 1.8ata for Sondernotleistung, which is obvious from any manual.

 

What we can take away from that document is that different figures applied for the DC, that they existed at the time and that nearly all engines were delivered and used as DB, so DC's were only a small quantity.

[Talon_]

2 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

The document you had translated basically makes no mention of DC engines, which would be the ones to use 1.98ata, if or when it was used. It simply states DB engines stay at 1.8ata for Sondernotleistung, which is obvious from any manual.

 

What we can take away from that document is that different figures applied for the DC, that they existed at the time and that nearly all engines were delivered and used as DB, so DC's were only a small quantity.

 

As I mentioned above, for 1C to remain consistent we should be seeing the K-4 with the DM engine regardless.

[Kurfurst]

28 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

The document you had translated basically makes no mention of DC engines, which would be the ones to use 1.98ata, if or when it was used. It simply states DB engines stay at 1.8ata for Sondernotleistung, which is obvious from any manual.

What we can take away from that document is that different figures applied for the DC, that they existed at the time and that nearly all engines were delivered and used as DB, so DC's were only a small quantity.

 

Indeed.

 

However, it is worthwhile to mention that the DB and the DC was the same engine; any DB could be set up as a DC and vica versa. All it took was to change the manifold pressure, the fuel delivery rate and the supercharger’s control parameters. 

 

Since the DB setup could run on either on B-4 or C-3, it did make sense that factories would deliver them in this setup, since it would be compatible with whatever the unit had at hand; where C-3 was available at the unit’s station, they could simply setup it as a DC.

[MiloMorai]

2 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Of course it was. All DB 605D and ASB-ASC engines were cleared for 1,98 ata at that time (i.e. the month before and after Bodenplatte)

 

DB 605 DB-DC Motorenkarte from 1 December 1944 clears 1,98 ata (also 1,8ata). On 5 December, DB also issued a very detailed technical letter for mechanics with detailed instructions how to set up the engines for these rating exactly, what spark plugs to use, how to adjust ignition timing, set up the throttle and so forth.

 

 

Yet it was only II./JG11 that did the operational testing for a few weeks and then the usage was revoked.

[PainGod85]

On 9/13/2018 at 1:40 PM, 6./ZG26_5tuka said:

Alternative facts?

 

What do you think 81" of manifold air pressure translates to? That's just a hair above 2.7 ATA.

[JtD]

1 hour ago, Talon_ said:

As I mentioned above, for 1C to remain consistent we should be seeing the K-4 with the DM engine regardless.

 

The DM version wasn't mass produced, so it would be an odd choice. Like choosing a Merlin63A powered SpitfireIX.

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

3 hours ago, Legioneod said:

They'd still need 150 fuel in order to fly at higher settings. 150 fuel is what gave them tha ability to have higher ratings.

Good point

 

But apparently they took "Planes Pilots and Crews" with them. So it wasn't like they just flew over there and relied on the 9th for everything else. That being said not sure you can cram any meaningful amount of fuel into a DC3 though.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

10 minutes ago, 9./JG27DefaultFace said:

Good point

 

But apparently they took "Planes Pilots and Crews" with them. So it wasn't like they just flew over there and relied on the 9th for everything else. That being said not sure you can cram any meaningful amount of fuel into a DC3 though.

150 Octane wasn't supplied to US units on the continent. This is made clear in the request for 8th Air Force request to supply 150 Octane to units on the continent in February 1945

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

Edited September 14, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Talon_]

23 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

The DM version wasn't mass produced, so it would be an odd choice. Like choosing a Merlin63A powered SpitfireIX.

 

The Merlin 63 wasn't present during the campaign according to the 3 2TAF volumes, meanwhile the DM is the earliest K-4 produced inline with the P-51D-15 and P-47D-28 - if we were getting a later K-4 we should be seeing a P-51D-20 and a P-47D-30 at the very least.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Talon_

[HagarTheHorrible]

You all "obviously" have this in your reference library !

 

Messerschmitt BF 109 G-1 through K-4

[FTC_Riksen]

8 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

 

So far you have produced no facts for your favorite airplane.

 

1.98ata required C3 avgas. Show me how much C3 avgas was at Horn/Hamburg (19.3 - 3.30) and Helmstedt (30.3 - 8.4) when I./JG27 were based there and Gutersloh (18.3 - 29.3) and Goslar (29.3 - 8.4) when III./JG27 were based there before April 1 1945.

 

III./JG53 and IV./JG53 were nowhere near the Bodenplatte map when they were cleared for 1.98ata. That only leaves the JG27 units bases which depending on the map which might or might not be on the map, and have C3 avgas.

 

An original of the March 20 document has never been produced.

 

Im not the one claiming anything here ... you are. So where is ur evidence of 0 bf-109 k4 1.98 ata?

6 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

 

I./JG27 wasn't cleared to use 1.98ata at that time.

 

at that time? Oh wait ... are you saying there were 1.98ata K4s? Make up your mind ... you just said there were 0 K4 1.98 ata ...

[MiloMorai]

The best way to rebut a statement is to show proof that what is said is false. I have produced enough evidence that it is unlikely that any used the boost after 3.20.45.

, therefor 0.

[FTC_Riksen]

K has also produced proof that there was K4 1.98 but you choose to ignore them. Anyways, your claim is for 0 K4 1.98 ata and yet you say urself that 1.98 ata was cleared for the higher rating. If there were 0, how come they were cleared?

[MiloMorai]

LOL!!! Do you understand what 'cleared' means? 'Cleared' doesn't mean 'used'. Kurfy has produced no proof, and never has, that 1.98ata was used after 20.3.45.

 

As for Dec '44 Kurfy is the one claiming units, other than a staffel of  II./JG11 doing an operational test, used 1.98ata. He is also claiming other 109s of that unit tested 1.98ata, yet only the K-4 was cleared 20.3.45. So why is it no other DB605 engine 109s were 'cleared' for 1.98ata.

[Ehret]

44 minutes ago, SCG_Riksen said:

Im not the one claiming anything here ... you are. So where is ur evidence of 0 bf-109 k4 1.98 ata?

 

You demand proving a non-existence - a form of logical fallacy. Anyone can claim anything that way - where is your proof that the Cthulhu doesn't exist? Can you provide any? If not then the Cthulhu is real!

[SCG_Syn]

Seems like some allied pilots are scared of the 109 k4 being 10-20 kph faster. 

[Talon_]

13 minutes ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

Seems like some allied pilots are scared of the 109 k4 being 10-20 kph faster. 

 

It still won't outrun a Tempest regardless. My main interest is historicity (incidentally why I am also pushing for +25lbs Spitfire IXs) and I am happy to support a 1.98ata K-4 if documents come to light that support it's existence in operational capacity during our career timeframe.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Talon_

[Mauf]

3 minutes ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

Seems like some allied pilots are scared of the 109 k4 being 10-20 kph faster. 

"Spitfires didn't have 150 Oct fuel so no 25 lbs"

"Seems like some axis pilots are scared of the SpitIX being 10-24 mph faster."

Just to turn the vapid joke around on you:P

 

Effectively this is a lot of unnecessary hot air about a topic where the consensus should be "Just advocate for both 1.98 ata and 25 pounds to come out together within the BoBP timeframe or not at all and leave it to the mission builders to keep it historically accurate".

 

 

[FTC_Riksen]

47 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

You demand proving a non-existence - a form of logical fallacy. Anyone can claim anything that way - where is your proof that the Cthulhu doesn't exist? Can you provide any? If not then the Cthulhu is real!

 

I don't think you are paying attention to the topics. Evidence that K4 1.98 ata were already provided and despite of the proof they keep saying K-4 1.98 did not exist. I'm not arguing they were rare but rare is not the same as "fantasy plane" as some claim.

[Talon_]

2 minutes ago, SCG_Riksen said:

 

I don't think you are paying attention to the topics. Evidence that K4 1.98 ata were already provided and despite of the proof they keep saying K-4 1.98 did not exist. I'm not arguing they were rare but rare is not the same as "fantasy plane" as some claim.

 

I haven't seen anything that convinces me the K-4 saw 1.98ata operationally within the timeframe of our campaign.

 

Testing is not operational service.

[NZTyphoon]

8 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

The United States Survey seems to disagree with this assessment on several points. “Slave labour” was still atypical at the wars end, and since it was unskilled labour, was limited to largely non-productive tasks, such as moving materials and so on. 

 

To qoute the USSBS on the German Aircraft industry:

 

http://www.angelfire.com/super/ussbs/airrep.html#ChVI

 

"Seems to disagree" is correct: what hasn't been noted is a paragraph that appears in the introduction:

 

Quote

5. The report is based on field team investigation of a selected list of key targets in Germany, on interrogations of important German aircraft officials taken into custody after the collapse, and on analysis of government records of aircraft programs and production found hidden in caves, cellars and attics throughout Germany.

Naturally, important German aircraft officials were falling over themselves admitting to using slave labour in their aircraft factories. As it is, the USSBS was compiled in 1947; since then a great deal of evidence for the use of slave labour (Schmoll mentions concentration camp inmates) has been found. See, for example https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=35028

 

In addition, the USSBS reports did not take into account eye-witness statements from front-line units, confirming the numerous faults and incidents of deliberate sabotage found in newly delivered, factory fresh Bf 109s

 

? Over the past couple of days, almost every time I try to upload a file from my computer, I get the message "There was a problem processing the uploaded file. -200"

If anyone can help sort this out, it would be appreciated.

Edited September 15, 2018 by NZTyphoon
Once again, uploaded files failing to be processed

[Garven]

3 hours ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

Seems like some allied pilots are scared of the 109 k4 being 10-20 kph faster. 

It sometimes seems like some blue pilots want to play out a fantasy where the allies have inferior equipment and don't win.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Garven_Dreis

[Legioneod]

7 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

The Merlin 63 wasn't present during the campaign according to the 3 2TAF volumes, meanwhile the DM is the earliest K-4 produced inline with the P-51D-15 and P-47D-28 - if we were getting a later K-4 we should be seeing a P-51D-20 and a P-47D-30 at the very least.

P-47D-28 and the D-30 have the same exact power rating so there is no reason to have the D-30 apat from the dive flaps (which aren't really needed)

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 This thread reminds me of UBI Zoo. Same arguing goes on after decades almost. Spit/Stang/whatever whiners want their warp drive and 150oct fuel. Lufties their 1.98ata Kurfürst. Russians get scifi values anyway. :P Devs did mention at some point the planes in game are not affected by poor labor, morale or finish of products, which would be very true on both Russian quality and late war Germans. All planes are "as intended", not as in reality. Arguers seem to be the same sticking into their narrow field of view "my plane of fav has to have this or that no matter what, but the other guy has to adhere to MY rules what he gets". This is a game where mission makers can enable or disable features/planes to match their view of accuracy or desired gameplay. Devs should just give the tools and means to do so, like 150oct, warp drive Sissyfire or ultraboost K-4, not to forget "I once had a dream of such a plane" for eastern population. Let the players do the rest and it evens out.

[LukeFF]

9 minutes ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

Russians get scifi values anyway. Devs did mention at some point the planes in game are not affected by poor labor, morale or finish of products, which would be very true on both Russian quality and late war Germans. All planes are "as intended", not as in reality.

 

Just because you keep repeating this tripe doesn't make it any more true. You been told and shown over and over again how the developers are NOT using data from specially-prepared Soviet planes, but for some unknown reason you refuse to believe them. Why is that? They've shown their sources, so you can't claim they are being dishonest.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

LukeFF, they have shown a small clipped bit of an document with a few lines and number that proves absolutely nothing. Nothing at all. A real document states conditions, setup etc. I¨ve read the Russian test report on captured Bf109G-2 for example, quite a different than this "proof" of yours. That was just a snip where a speed was shown and out of context without the rest of the document. I wonder what magic data they have got what Oleg did not have, for example? And yes, I refuse to believe them as they are affiliated to RMHS thru 1C. Do some digging on Russian news, state funding, RMHS and 1C  

[MiloMorai]

4 hours ago, SCG_Riksen said:

 

I don't think you are paying attention to the topics. Evidence that K4 1.98 ata were already provided and despite of the proof they keep saying K-4 1.98 did not exist. I'm not arguing they were rare but rare is not the same as "fantasy plane" as some claim.

 

Please refresh my memory of this proof you say has been provided of operational 1.98ata K-4s after 20.3.45.

[JtD]

8 hours ago, Talon_ said:

the DM is the earliest K-4 produced inline with the P-51D-15 and P-47D-28 - if we were getting a later K-4 we should be seeing a P-51D-20 and a P-47D-30 at the very least

 

The P-51D-15 and P-47D-28 and their engines were mass produced, as opposed to the DM K-4.

 

I don't think the DM was technically different enough from a DB/DC to actually argue about that - as I understand it the major bit missing was the option to chose between B4 and C3 fuel settings. Questions would be what boost to chose, which could be 1.7, 1.75 or 1.8 ata, all of which are supported by contemporary documentation.

 

Glad I'm not in the developers shoes here, whatever they pick, there'll be people whining.

[Kurfurst]

5 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

I haven't seen anything that convinces me the K-4 saw 1.98ata operationally within the timeframe of our campaign.

 

Testing is not operational service.

 

Would you kindly translate the following German text for us. Which you have seen, many times.

 

 

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

Edited September 15, 2018 by VO101Kurfurst