The K-4 Isn't Special

[Legioneod]

11 minutes ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

 

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 .

 

 

 

 

They have that information, just gotta look harder. I've seen those charts somewhere before.

Also, maybe German aircraft werent all that superior? Who'd a thunk.

[Garven]

On 9/15/2018 at 7:08 PM, SCG_Sinerox said:

Yea, go ahead and put the k4 at 1.8 ata. Give the Allies 150000 Oct. I don't care anymore honestly, its fusterating trying to have a discussion when everyone throws evidence out the door because it conflicts with their view. Give the Brits the Meteor, or the Germans the ta 152. 

 

What you can expect is nothing to shoot at in a server as all the German one siding.... Pilots.... won't be flying anymore and you will win the day!!! Good job! You won! Just like real life!

 

Have Fun shooting AI

 

Can I request to fly a V2 while were at it.

 

Call me when were back in 1942. Those were good days. The Russians finally have something against the F4 and it was a struggle of skill... Good days.

Based on the way the TAW server was stacked at one point tonight I think it would be good for the blues to finally get a taste of their own medicine.  Its delusional to think that multiplayer balance depends on 1.98ata and reeks of desperation.  Besides 109's are easy to fly and people will always flock to them resulting in what I will guess is similar team match-ups that we have now especially since you will have D-9 and the almost untouchable 262 which will pick and choose fights at will.  Lufties will have all the benefits of their latest and greatest uber-aircraft and none of their historical short comings such as fuel shortages, low skill pilots, out numbered, and poor manufacturing quality.  

[Cpt_Siddy]

Lets make a compromises, 

 

Wheraboos get K-4 <1.90000 AtA only when server has 1:3 advantage on the allied side and axis are flying under 0.5 pro-mil alcohol blood content (or good whiff of super glue) to simulate rookie pilots.

 

I mean, we want HISTORIKKAL AKKURASI!!11 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2018 by Cpt_Siddy

[NZTyphoon]

11 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

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.

All this suggests is that if the 605DBs could so easily be set up to use 1.98 ata, as 605DCs, they could just as easily have been de-rated back to 1.8 ata when engines started blowing up (in much the same way that Napier Sabre IIas were supposedly de-rated from +11 lbs boost to +9 lbs boost once the anti-V-1 campaign had finished).

 

1 hour ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

 

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 .

 

 

yes and Where is the Spitfire II vs Bf 109F-2 performance comparison??

Where is the Spitfire V vs Heinkel He 280 performance comparison??? (albeit, there were more Spitfire Vs built than He 280s)

Where is the Spitfire XII performance comparison with the Fw 190A-4????!!!

And why, oh why isn't there a Spitfire XIX performance comparison with the Me 262A-1a/U2???

And WHY isn't there an Me262, Ta-152H, Fw 190D-11, He 162 vs Spitfire XIV chart HUH?????!!

Life is so bloody unfair when websites don't provide all the required information on Luftwaffe aircraft vs the Spitfire on demand and when required!

Edited September 17, 2018 by NZTyphoon

[PainGod85]

54 minutes ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

 

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 .

 

 

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

'44 RAF plane versus a '44 Luftwaffe plane. Where's the bias?

Spoiler

 

 

'42-43 RAF planes versus '42-43 Luftwaffe planes. Where's the bias?

 

Spoiler

 

 

A '39-40 RAF plane versus a '39-40 Luftwaffe plane. Where's the bias?

 

 

Damn, I couldn't find any bias.

[=RvE=Windmills]

1 hour ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

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

 

If you actually clicked the link (crazy I know), you'd see it was extremely extensive compilation of performance charts and pilot accounts of these specific engagement. Taking probably dozens of hours to research/compile/edit.

 

Also the implication that a source is biased simply because it does not detail every single WW2 matchup is pretty hilarious.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

LukeFF. You are comedy gold Hitting the nerve every single time. Not changing my ways because of you, be sure.

 

As for the K-4. Why not give it both 1.8ata and 1.98ata and let mission makers sort it out? Same with +25lbs/150oct. It would not hurt anyone. Discussions for sure, but one is free to choose their server. SP crowd would not care really. 

[Kurfurst]

40 minutes ago, Windmills said:

 

If you actually clicked the link (crazy I know), you'd see it was extremely extensive compilation of performance charts and pilot accounts of these specific engagement..

 

Its hardly ‘extensive’ since in each and every case a lot of effort was made to cherry pick the worst figures for the Luftwaffe planes, at the lowest rating possible,  and picking the best figures for the RAF planes, at the highest ratings possible. 

 

Here is an example of the worst 109G tests are cherry picked:

 

 

Hardly and objective approach.

 

 

Quote

Also the implication that a source is biased simply because it does not detail every single WW2 matchup is pretty hilarious.

 

The source is biased simply because it wantonly cherry picks between the tests and documents, with a clear agenda to show allied planes in the best possible light and axis planes in the worst.

 

32 minutes ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

 

As for the K-4. Why not give it both 1.8ata and 1.98ata and let mission makers sort it out? Same with +25lbs/150oct. It would not hurt anyone. Discussions for sure, but one is free to choose their server. SP crowd would not care really. 

 

Stop making sense at once! ? 

Edited September 17, 2018 by VO101Kurfurst

[CountZero]

48 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

 

kingdom for a 14, or atleast 20$ as collectable

[ZachariasX]

13 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

kingdom for a 14, or atleast 20$ as collectable

100$ for 1.98 ata.

[Talon_]

2 hours ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

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

 

Spitfire IX was a fighter bomber at this time, like the P-47. Spitfire XIV is a more appropriate role comparison.

[JV69badatflyski]

On 9/16/2018 at 2:06 AM, Talon_ said:

 

I have a lot of documents that confirm widespread use of 150 octane fuel by the RAF 2TAF from the end of January 1945 until May 1945.

Please enlight us, so desesperate to see any official proof saying 150oct was used on spits in the 2TaF, not just the usual: "fuel was on it's way to"....or the  "were having lectures about the use of 150oct somewhere in feb45"....
you know , something like a squadron's chief engeneer reports.

 

1 hour ago, NZTyphoon said:

 

Where is the Spitfire XII performance comparison with the Fw 190A-4????!!!

 

 

That couldn't have been done, as the spit XII would have been out of fuel after like 20min of  high speed flight ?
the 12 was the worst (statistically spoken) spit ever build  (101build-51lost(struck ofCharge)...9to mech failure, 6 to outoffuel, 5to 190!, 9 to other or unknown type of fighters, 6 to flak, 2 to pilot error, 1 to Ground collision, 6 to air collision(ami-ennemy) , 4 unknown reasons.
Bad Spitty-very bad! Mammy not happy ?
 

1 minute ago, Talon_ said:

 

Spitfire IX was a fighter bomber at this time, like the P-47. Spitfire XIV is a more appropriate role comparison.

What were the 2Taf squads using the MK14? 
thanks

[Talon_]

Just now, JV69badatflyski said:

proof saying 150oct was used on spits in the 2TaF

 

 

Feb 12th, "Spit XVI modified for 25lbs boost + 150 grade fuel"

 

 

126 Wing Reverted in May 1945.

[=RvE=Windmills]

29 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Its hardly ‘extensive’ since in each and every case a lot of effort was made to cherry pick the worst figures for the Luftwaffe planes, at the lowest rating possible,  and picking the best figures for the RAF planes, at the highest ratings possible. 

 

Each article is like 30 pages, that by definition is 'extensive'. 

 

The guy I was replying to literally was claiming bias purely by which comparisons were on the website, with zero claims of any substance.

[PainGod85]

4 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Spitfire IX was a fighter bomber at this time, like the P-47. Spitfire XIV is a more appropriate role comparison.

 

And even then the comparison would have to be made with +25 PSI against a 1.8 ATA 109 as that was the boost the IX was commonly running at in the latter half of '44.

[JV69badatflyski]

Thanks Talon, but really, i can't read that hand written stuff, i'm not a pharmacist?
is there a "computer-written" text of this page available?

And talon, if you missed it: what 2TaF squads used the MK14?
thanks

[Talon_]

2 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

what 2TaF squads used the MK14?

 

I'm at work now so I don't have access to my books but I know the following squadrons did from just photos on my phone here

 

130 Sqn, October-endwar

402 Sqn, October-December 44, December 44-Jan 45

350 Sqn, December 44-endwar

610 Sqn, December 44-March 45

41 Sqn, December 44-Jan 45, then March-endwar

322 Sqn

91 Sqn

 

All those from one double-page spread in the appendices of 2TAF Vol. 3 - there are two more spreads I don't have a photo of but it's safe to assume there were at least double that many until I can get home and confirm.

 

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

You sais it yourself "tiny fraction" which is clearly not the same as 0. Im not contesting they were rare, but saying they did not have a single one is too much ...

 

I did not say there were none – there might have been 1, 10 or 30. There were several modifications of various fighters during the war but this one like many was in very small numbers. How many EZ42s on 190s?

 

Quote

Actually that is entirely false. Luftwaffe führungstab (~Operations Staff) gave the actual Operational order, not the engine manufacturer, and the modifications required were simple and already available - requiring simply to set the engine to higher boost.The ground mechanics had to turn a couple of screws, actually. Unless screwdrivers were in short supply, I doubt it presented too much trouble.

 

Was it not an indication that DB had re-tested this and finally cleared? From your own words, they arrived in December, were de-authorised in Jan (IIRC your post) and re-authorised in March. That is not exactly a long operational period nor does it suggest that in reality the whole procedure was 2 minutes with a screw-driver – it took several months to get the setting working satisfactorily so ‘quick and easy’ it was not.

 

Quote

 

In fact I just stated the opposite - the units concerned by the March 1945 were practically all the 109 units that still remained in the west  (which concerns our map) and put up a sort of guerilla fight in the air - mostly ground attack sorties actually, with the occasional clash with Thunderbolts.

 

Our time period is September to April. Not many K-4s in September. No 1.98 ata a/c in October. 1.98 ata suspended Jan- March.  You previously claimed the unicorn-like fighters were with II/JG11 in 1945, which is a very small number of the entire Western fighter strength for the core purpose of this game – ie the new map that is called Battle of Bodenplatte - arguably the single largest Luftwaffe fighter operation of the entire war. The 1.98 ata 109 model participation in that mission – ie the fulcrum of the game – is how many exactly?

 

Picking - conveniently - the end of March (when let’s face it, 109s were become rare just about everywhere) and then claiming because there were 7 serviceable 109s in the west and 2 ran this setting (again, not proven, simply supposed) that almost 30% of the 109 fleet were thus using this and hence it was a ‘majority’ installation is simply risible.

 

They were never a majority, you yourself have no idea how many actually saw service and are postulating based on very limited evidence. There is nothing wrong with that, but you need to acknowledge the limits of your case here.

Edited September 17, 2018 by EAF19_Marsh

[CountZero]

16 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

100$ for 1.98 ata.

 

nah man it will be free, like F engine mod for La5  you already pay for K4 in BoBp, spend some of thouse 100$ on collectable Yak-9Us and Spitfire MkXIVs ?

Edited September 17, 2018 by 77.CountZero

[JV69badatflyski]

3 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

I'm at work now so I don't have access to my books but I know the following squadrons did from just photos on my phone here

 

130 Sqn, October-endwar

402 Sqn, October-December 44, December 44-Jan 45

350 Sqn, December 44-endwar

610 Sqn, December 44-March 45

41 Sqn, December 44-Jan 45, then March-endwar

322 Sqn

91 Sqn

 

All those from one double-page spread in the appendices of 2TAF Vol. 3 - there are two more spreads I don't have a photo of but it's safe to assume there were at least double that many until I can get home and confirm.

 

 

Thanks, when you have time, please fill the list or send me a PM, i'd like to filter my MK14 database en get the numbers of assigned airframes for the 2Taf only.

[Talon_]

11 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

And even then the comparison would have to be made with +25 PSI against a 1.8 ATA 109 as that was the boost the IX was commonly running at in the latter half of '44.

 

Only with ADGB units in 44. First confirmation I have of 2TAF Spitfires on +25lbs is 31st January 1945 with 126 Wing (401/411/412/442 Squadrons) at B.88 Heesch and 127 Wing (403/416/421/443 Squadrons) at B.56 Evere.

[ZachariasX]

1 minute ago, 77.CountZero said:

spend some of thouse 100$ on collectable Yak-9Us and Spitfire MkXIVs ?

And Mosquito! And Typhoon!!!! And He-162. And, and...

[JV69badatflyski]

1 minute ago, ZachariasX said:

And Mosquito! And Typhoon!!!! And He-162. And, and...

an ar 234 pliz

[PainGod85]

16 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

Thanks Talon, but really, i can't read that hand written stuff, i'm not a pharmacist?
is there a "computer-written" text of this page available?

And talon, if you missed it: what 2TaF squads used the MK14?
thanks

 

Probable: 430 Sqn RCAF, Eindhoven; 412 Sqn, Heesch; 416 Sqn RAF, Brussels-Melsbroek.

 

Definite: 402 Sqn RCAF, Heesch; 130 Sqn RAF, Ophoven; 350 Sqn RAF, Ophoven; 322 (Dutch) Sqn RAF, Woensdrecht; 91 Sqn (Nigeria) RAF, Brussels-Melsbroek.

 

By no means complete, just a quick writeup.

 

E: Handwritten stuff: "25 lbs boost, 150 grade fuel."

Edited September 17, 2018 by PainGod85

[ZachariasX]

Just now, JV69badatflyski said:

an ar 234 pliz

Oh yes!

[Talon_]

1 minute ago, PainGod85 said:

 

Probable: 430 Sqn RCAF, Eindhoven; 412 Sqn, Heesch; 416 Sqn RAF, Brussels-Melsbroek.

 

Definite: 402 Sqn RCAF, Heesch; 130 Sqn RAF, Ophoven; 350 Sqn RAF, Ophoven; 322 (Dutch) Sqn RAF, Woensdrecht; 91 Sqn (Nigeria) RAF, Brussels-Melsbroek.

 

By no means complete, just a quick writeup.

 

Don't worry mate I have all the info at home ? 

 

 

[unreasonable]

9 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

Thanks, when you have time, please fill the list or send me a PM, i'd like to filter my MK14 database en get the numbers of assigned airframes for the 2Taf only.

 

Dec31st 1944 - ie the eve of Bodenplatte, according to Manrho and Putz's book, the following 2TAF squadrons had Spitfire XIV  (not 14!).

 

41,130,350,610,402,430 (this last being part of a recce wing).

 

Six squadrons: that is more than there were Tempest squadrons.  

Edited September 17, 2018 by unreasonable

[JV69badatflyski]

412 not possible, received MK14 btwn the 1st and 10th june45
416 didn't received MK14  as until 30june45
 

1 minute ago, unreasonable said:

 

Dec31st 1944 - ie the eve of Bodenplatte, according to Manrho and Putz's book, the following 2TAF squadrons had Spitfire XIV  (not 14!).

 

41,130,350,610,402,430 (this last being part of a recce wing).

 

Six squadrons: that is more than there were Tempest squadrons.  

Hey, i'm lazy! that's one more push on the keyboard!

[Talon_]

2 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Six squadrons: that is more than there were Tempest squadrons.  

 

There were many more XIV squadrons than Tempest squadrons. They were also more widely dispersed as the Tempests spent pretty much all their time at B.80 Volkel during our campaign.

[unreasonable]

5 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

There were many more XIV squadrons than Tempest squadrons. They were also more widely dispersed as the Tempests spent pretty much all their time at B.80 Volkel during our campaign.

 

I am just giving you the OOB for 83 and 84 Groups, on the eve of Bodenplatte, according to M&P.  That is the number they give. Four of those squadrons were at Ophoven.

 

 No doubt the OOB changed throughout the campaign, but it makes the point that the Spitfire XIV was not especially rare at the highlight of our campaign period. 

 

 

[Talon_]

3 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

I am just giving you the OOB for 83 and 84 Groups, on the eve of Bodenplatte, according to M&P.  That is the number they give. Four of those squadrons were at Ophoven.

 

 No doubt the OOB changed throughout the campaign, but it makes the point that the Spitfire XIV was not especially rare at the highlight of our campaign period. 

 

 

 

No no I am just agreeing with you and seconding your point! ? 

[ZachariasX]

44 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

Thanks Talon, but really, i can't read that hand written stuff, i'm not a pharmacist?
is there a "computer-written" text of this page available?

Just typing off quickly:

 

Feb. 12^th.

 Weather poor whole day – a good deal of rain and low cloud and poor visibility. A non-opo day. L?? and general, discussion at dispersal 10:30. Talk to “Doug” Campbell on Spit XVI, modified for 25 lbs boost + 150 octane fuel. Most of Squadron went swimming in aftermath after we had been released at 1406 hours.

 

Feb. 16^th.

Weather poor in the morning. Heavy fog poor visibility. Squadron now up during day changing over to 25 lbs boost – 150 octane fuel. Several (?) a/c total. Squadron should be fully operational tomorrow evening. Dr/L D Correy (?) / C/O Evans orderly officer/ in hospital (+8 RAF.) with badly out hand (?).

 

His handwriting is a bit casual occasionally. Quiet a challenge for the darn keyboard generation, huh?

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2018 by ZachariasX

[MiloMorai]

If 1.98ata was in use by multiple units as some claim in Dec '44, then why is II./JG11 the only unit doing the operational testing with this boost?

[NZTyphoon]

40 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

Please enlight us, so desesperate to see any official proof saying 150oct was used on spits in the 2TaF, not just the usual: "fuel was on it's way to"....or the  "were having lectures about the use of 150oct somewhere in feb45"....
you know , something like a squadron's chief engeneer reports.

And we're all waiting for exactly the same information saying that, apart from being tested by II./JG11 in late '44, 1.98 ata was routinely used on operations by select Gruppen of JG 27 and JG 53. The fact is that the intelligence officer of 126 (Canadian) Wing wrote a book, in which he that states that 150 grade fuel was used by 126 Wing post-Bodenplatte (is that "official" enough?) - as yet, no such account has emerged describing 1.98 ata being used either by JG 27 or JG 53, nor have there been any chief engineer reports from the said units.

 

46 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

That couldn't have been done, as the spit XII would have been out of fuel after like 20min of  high speed flight ?

the 12 was the worst (statistically spoken) spit ever build  (101build-51lost(struck ofCharge)...9to mech failure, 6 to outoffuel, 5to 190!, 9 to other or unknown type of fighters, 6 to flak, 2 to pilot error, 1 to Ground collision, 6 to air collision(ami-ennemy) , 4 unknown reasons.
Bad Spitty-very bad! Mammy not happy ?

Bad Spitfire XII, naughty Spitfire XII!!! ?

[Talon_]

Quite a few diaries and ORBs about around that date @ZachariasX

 

 

EDIT: See how this report matches up with the 2TAF book:

 

Edited September 17, 2018 by Talon_

[unreasonable]

And... just when I get in the mood to fly again and shoot down a few snappers after being grounded for a few days... the authorization server is down.    

[MiloMorai]

44 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Our time period is September to April. Not many K-4s in September. No 1.98 ata a/c in October. 1.98 ata suspended Jan- March.  You previously claimed the unicorn-like fighters were with II/JG11 in 1945, which is a very small number of the entire Western fighter strength for the core purpose of this game – ie the new map that is called Battle of Bodenplatte - arguably the single largest Luftwaffe fighter operation of the entire war. The 1.98 ata 109 model participation in that mission – ie the fulcrum of the game – is how many exactly?

 

The K-4 arrived at II./JG11 Dec 23 1944. At month end one was already u/s. On Jan 1 1945 only 4 of the 11 were serviceable and 2 were shot down.

[PainGod85]

23 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Just typing off quickly:

 

Feb. 12^th.

 Weather poor whole day – a good deal of rain and low cloud and poor visibility. A non-opo day. L?? and general, discussion at dispersal 10:30. Talk to “Doug” Campbell on Spit XVI, modified for 25 lbs boost + 150 octane fuel. Most of Squadron went swimming in aftermath after we had been released at 1406 hours.

 

Feb. 16^th.

Weather poor in the morning. Heavy fog poor visibility. Squadron now up during day changing over to 25 lbs boost – 150 octane fuel. Several (?) a/c total. Squadron should be fully operational tomorrow evening. Dr/L D Correy (?) / C/O Evans orderly officer/ in hospital (+8 RAF.) with badly out hand (?).

 

His handwriting is a bit casual occasionally. Quiet a challenge for the darn keyboard generation, huh?

 

 

 

 

I usually get accused of having bad handwriting, but that logbook is on a wholly different level.

[NZTyphoon]

39 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

 

The K-4 arrived at II./JG11 Dec 23 1944. At month end one was already u/s. On Jan 1 1945 only 4 of the 11 were serviceable and 2 were shot down.

From Manhro & Pütz, Bodenplatte

 

Could 4 out of 11 K-4s operational = 1.98 withdrawl? (Note: caused by excessive consumption of C-4 plus MW-50; symptoms include head-aches and piston burn.)

Edited September 17, 2018 by NZTyphoon
Still processing problems with jpg images.

[ZachariasX]

Guys, 8 pages now on a „not interesting plane“. One has to admit, there really *is* something to it. 

 

Edit: Holy cow, that made page 9! ^^

Edited September 17, 2018 by ZachariasX