The K-4 Isn't Special

[ShamrockOneFive]

12 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

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! ^^

 

Indeed, the premise is kind of funny. The Bf109K-4 was one of the most talked about Bf109s in the original IL-2 and clearly it is here too already

[PatrickAWlson]

22 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

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! ^^

 

The uber K4, able to single handedly sweep the skies of allied fighters, stopped only by the arrival of the even more uber Spitfire XIV.  Legend?  Myth?  Can it be real!?  We will find out ... after another 15 pages.

 

I have to admit that in between the bickering and obvious attempt to get the best for my side while arguing for the worst for the other,  I am learning stuff about aero engines, the vast number of experiments and field mods, the etc.  If the details provided are argumentative in the sense that they try to make the case for what should be in the game, but the fact that these things were really done is informative.

[IVJG4-Knight]

4 hours ago, Legioneod said:

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

 

German's were not superior at every step during the war .But they were really advanced:

-"After the war F86 saber  was the first American aircraft to take advantage of flight research data seized from the German aerodynamicists at the end of World War II"

-Von Braun's  work at NASA and the moon landings .

To have comparable aircraft with worse materials at your disposal , worse fuel , and while being bombed day and night is not that bad.

 

3 hours ago, NZTyphoon said:

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!

 

These comparisons are quite illogical involving either very rare planes or prototypes  .Spitfire V and He 280 didn't even meet in battle and the disparity in numbers is quite obvious as you observe yourself .

You write about  Me 262 vs Mk 14 when i already posted myself that it's convenient that 262 performance is missing but the plane was built in comparable numbers to spitfire 14.

Practically helping me make my point.

 

3 hours ago, PainGod85 said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

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

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

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

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

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

 

 

Damn, I couldn't find any bias.

 

My claim isn't that he's biased but that it's impossible to claim lack of bias when the comparisons are made in such a way(intentionally cherry picking or by accident) as to highlight the superiority of one side.

If you want to choose 109 vs Spitfire 9 .It's perfectly fine to post 109 g6 vs MK 9.But if you stop there and not post late G models as well in the same graph seems to me like you're not showing the full picture.For example a late war 109 would have a much higher probability to meed in battle an mk 9 than a mk 14 .

By all means post mk14 vs K4 .But after you already posted 2 comparisons picked in such a way that show only one side had the better planes .Shouldn't there be just one  comparison where german planes are shown as being better in at least one way on the graph ? 

 

3 hours 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. 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

 

I forgot about the " pilot accounts" that are also one sided as well .Practically 1000 accounts of pilots shooting german planes and the other side ...i guess germans didn't shoot any planes.

 

I din't make that "implication that a source is biase" claim.And if i did i did it by mistake.But rather it's very hard to claim total lack of bias.

  My point is the situations are chosen in such a way that a person who opens that website and doesn't know that much about ww2 planes will believe one side was greatest at everything .When the reality was somewhat different.

 

 

Edited September 17, 2018 by IVJG4-Knight

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quick eye-balling that looks like 320 on strength and 189 serviceable (60% serviceable):

2 x G-6 - .6%

41 x G-10 - 13%

101 x G-14 - 32%

84 x G-14/AS - 26%

92 x K-4 - 29%

 

K-4 offering 43 serviceable from 92, or 47% serviceable, slightly below standard 109 availability on that day. 4 / 11 is 36% so lower than average but not wildy so.

 

 

 

[PainGod85]

Just now, IVJG4-Knight said:

My claim isn't that he's biased but that it's impossible to claim lack of bias when the comparisons are made in such a way(intentionally cherry picking or by accident) as to highlight the superiority of one side.

If you want to choose 109 vs Spitfire 9 .It's perfectly fine to post 109 g6 vs MK 9.But if you stop there and not post late G models as well in the same graph seems to me like you're not showing the full picture.For example a late war 109 would have a much higher probability to meed in battle an mk 9 than a mk 14 .

By all means post mk14 vs K4 .But after you already posted 2 comparisons picked in such a way that show only one side had the better planes .Shouldn't there be just one  comparison where german planes are shown as being better in at least one way on the graph ? 

 

He posted the Spitfire IX running the boost it was cleared for at the time the Luftwaffe was still flying 1.42 ATA 109 Gs for the most part. If you want to have a later model 109 compared with the Spit IX, the Spit would have to be running on 150 grade fuel because that was what they used flying from British bases.

Funny you'd pick the 109K / XIV comparison, because there the 109 ended up actually being faster at low as well as intermediate altitudes where the Griffon was above its M.S. gear's critical altitude even with +21 PSI.

[HagarTheHorrible]

2 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

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

 

 

 

 

I really hope that's not your willy that you're using to hold the page open while you take the picture ?

 

........in fact, don't answer that I'd rather not know.

[MiloMorai]

1 hour ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

snip

 

 

You do know Knight that Mike Williams tried to work with another person? Every time he made corrections to satisfy this other person he still got crapped on. Yah, it didn't matter what Mike did. So don't blame Mike but the person he attempted to work with if you don't like the way the site portrays 109s.

[MiloMorai]

2 hours ago, NZTyphoon said:

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.)

 

Iirc there was a JG4 photo posted claiming(?) this was also a 1.98ata machine. III./JG4 had 26 K-4 'in repair' and 26 'on hand'. Maybe withdrawal from excessive consumption as well.

1 hour ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Quick eye-balling that looks like 320 on strength and 189 serviceable (60% serviceable):

2 x G-6 - .6%

41 x G-10 - 13%

101 x G-14 - 32%

84 x G-14/AS - 26%

92 x K-4 - 29%

 

K-4 offering 43 serviceable from 92, or 47% serviceable, slightly below standard 109 availability on that day. 4 / 11 is 36% so lower than average but not wildy so.

 

 

 

 

And 5-600 K-4s had been produced til the end of Dec. '44. Also don't forget that a JG Gruppe had an establishment strength of 68 a/c.

[NZTyphoon]

2 hours ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

These comparisons are quite illogical involving either very rare planes or prototypes  .Spitfire V and He 280 didn't even meet in battle and the disparity in numbers is quite obvious as you observe yourself .

You write about  Me 262 vs Mk 14 when i already posted myself that it's convenient that 262 performance is missing but the plane was built in comparable numbers to spitfire 14.

blah, blah, blah...

I'm guessing you don't get sarcasm...

How about you, and others who have complained about the WW2 Aircraft performance website (or, like one person in particular have pursued a nasty little personal vendetta against Mike and his website for years) invest some of your time, money and energy into developing your own sites, correcting the supposed anti-Luftwaffe bias, while compiling the comparisons you would like to see?

Better still, instead of concentrating on complaining about a couple of 109 vs Spitfire comparisons that you don't agree with, how about appreciating the fact that Mike and Neil Stirling have committed a great deal of time and money gathering information on a wide variety of WW 2 aircraft, all of which they have made available for free on the internet. Where else, for example, can you find free, downloadable, pdf documentation on the P-39, or Fw 190D-11, D-12, D-13, the Avro Lancaster, or even Japanese fuel technology on one website?

Edited September 17, 2018 by NZTyphoon

[IVJG4-Knight]

2 hours ago, PainGod85 said:

He posted the Spitfire IX running the boost it was cleared for at the time the Luftwaffe was still flying 1.42 ATA 109 Gs for the most part. If you want to have a later model 109 compared with the Spit IX, the Spit would have to be running on 150 grade fuel because that was what they used flying from British bases.

 

To say spitfires war better than 109s all throughout the war is not accurate.

109 F 4 was better than Spit V and so they made the Spit 9 which was better than 109 F and G .Than germans introduced MW50 and they were again better and then allies introduced 25lbs boost .In my personal opinion the site could do a better job .

 

1 hour ago, MiloMorai said:

You do know Knight that Mike Williams tried to work with another person? Every time he made corrections to satisfy this other person he still got crapped on. Yah, it didn't matter what Mike did. So don't blame Mike but the person he attempted to work with if you don't like the way the site portrays 109s.

 

I din't know that and i'm sure there is at least some truth to that . 

 

10 minutes ago, NZTyphoon said:

2 hours ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

blah, blah, blah...

I'm guessing you don't get sarcasm..

 

Nice emotional argument quoting my words as blah blah.

I got it but i chose to play dumb use it against you.

 

12 minutes ago, NZTyphoon said:

How about you, and others who have complained about the WW2 Aircraft performance website (or, like one person in particular have pursued a nasty little personal vendetta against Mike and his website for years) invest some of your time, money and energy into developing your own sites, correcting the supposed anti-Luftwaffe bias, while compiling the comparisons you would like to see?

Better still, instead of concentrating on complaining about a couple of 109 vs Spitfire comparisons that you don't agree with, how about appreciating the fact that Mike and Neil Stirling have committed a great deal of time and money gathering information on a wide variety of WW 2 aircraft, all of which they have made available for free on the internet. Where else, for example, can you find free, downloadable, pdf documentation on the P-39, or Fw 190D-11, D-12, D-13, the Avro Lancaster, or even Japanese fuel technology on one website?

 

They should donate that money to sick children .Even i waste too much time with this nonsense.

Edited September 17, 2018 by IVJG4-Knight

[Talon_]

4 minutes ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

F 4 was better than Spit V

 

Maybe the 40 series but the 50 series closed that gap right back up.

 

Saying the Mark IX was developed to be better than the F/G isn't quite right. The Mark VIII was that plane - it was already in development when the Fw190 showed up, so the RAF took the new engine for the VIII and put it into a Vc airframe which became the Mark IX to counter the new threat.

[Eicio]

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

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! ^

 

That's because the K4 is the true "wunderwaffe" and not the 262. 

[ZachariasX]

22 minutes ago, Eicio said:

 

That's because the K4 is the true "wunderwaffe" and not the 262. 

"Vundevaffe", please.

[Bremspropeller]

3 hours ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

"After the war F86 saber  was the first American aircraft to take advantage of flight research data seized from the German aerodynamicists at the end of World War II"

-Von Braun's  work at NASA and the moon landings .

 

Cut the misty-eyed nationalist peephole crap.

 

Sweepback had been known before the war and had been studied at NACA during the war. It's just the newly available german data that finally convinced North American to go for a 35° sweepback angle on the XP-86. The Germans had no actual flying data on larger sweepbacks at high Mach and their knowledge was confined to wind-tunnels.

They never designed an operational wing thin enough to go supersonic.

 

Von Braun was a good engineer and an even greater project manager. It is safe to say that his work shaved off a couple of years (maybe even decades) of eventually going to space.

Most of the decisive challenges involved in going to the moon weren't even within Von Braun's department at all. He only did design the Redstone and Saturn boosters.

 

3 hours ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

You write about  Me 262 vs Mk 14 when i already posted myself that it's convenient that 262 performance is missing but the plane was built in comparable numbers to spitfire 14.

 

Why not talk about the Meteor and Vampire then?

 

47 minutes ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

Than germans introduced MW50 and they were again better and then allies introduced 25lbs boost

 

Nope. Way too simplistic.

 

[MiloMorai]

Anyways, for your reading pleasure.

 

http://users.atw.hu/kurfurst/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm

[ZachariasX]

5 hours ago, PainGod85 said:

 

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

Amphetamines?

[PainGod85]

Just now, ZachariasX said:

Amphetamines?

 

Nah, that was the Luftwaffe.

[CUJO_1970]

On 9/15/2018 at 8:18 PM, 15th_JonRedcorn said:

AXIS only flyers that play online get super salty when you take their advantages away. That's apparent.

 

Dude starts a thread saying that K-4 is nothing special - thread goes multi-platinum and is infested with demands for +25lbs boost and Spitfire XIVs - but it's the AXIS guys that are "super-salty"?

 

Got it ?

On 9/16/2018 at 12:13 AM, BraveSirRobin said:

 

lol  At least you'll have some idea what it's like to fly VVS if the Allied fighters get 150 and the 109 is limited to 1.8.

 

Best way to get an idea what it's like to fly VVS would be to gain the ability to fly around at full throttle constantly with no engine damage or overheat.

 

Or to have WW2s fastest, yet undocumented roll rate (La-5FN).

 

Am I doing this right?

[Caudron431]

27 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

 

Best way to get an idea what it's like to fly VVS would be to gain the ability to fly around at full throttle constantly with no engine damage or overheat.

 

 

They actually overheat, but for some reasons you can't notice for it only starts after you're shot down ?

Edited September 17, 2018 by Caudron431Rafale

[Dakpilot]

23 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

 

Best way to get an idea what it's like to fly VVS would be to gain the ability to fly around at full throttle constantly with no engine damage or overheat.

 

 

Am I doing this right?

 

Yes you are... 

 

If misunderstanding how things work is doing it right, LOL 

 

Simply fly axis aircraft at max continuous power setting and you will be able to fly all day without overheat or damage

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Legioneod]

11 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Simply fly axis aircraft at max continuous power setting and you will be able to fly all day without overheat or damage 

Thats pretty much how it's supposed to work, it's called max continuous for a reason.

[CUJO_1970]

13 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Yes you are... 

 

If misunderstanding how things work is doing it right, LOL 

 

Simply fly axis aircraft at max continuous power setting and you will be able to fly all day without overheat or damage

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

So max continuous is the same as full throttle?

 

Thanks for the update.

[Dakpilot]

I wish there was a facepalm reaction emoji

?

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Talon_]

9 hours 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.

 

35 Reconnaissance Wing:

268 sqn

 

39 Reconnaissance Wing

430 sqn

414 sqn

 

122 Wing

41 sqn

 

125 Wing

130 sqn

402 sqn

350 sqn

610 sqn

41 sqn (post transfer)

 

126 Wing

402 sqn (post transfer)

 

127 Wing

350 sqn + 610 sqn for a short period detached from 125 Wing

 

 

[JV69badatflyski]

24 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

35 Reconnaissance Wing:

268 sqn

 

39 Reconnaissance Wing

430 sqn

414 sqn

 

122 Wing

41 sqn

 

125 Wing

130 sqn

402 sqn

350 sqn

610 sqn

41 sqn (post transfer)

 

126 Wing

402 sqn (post transfer)

 

127 Wing

350 sqn + 610 sqn for a short period detached from 125 Wing

 

 

 

Thanks, will filter that tomorrow.
Like i see it from this list, with the wet finger in the wind calculation mode, there were more 14's than 9's ?
Tomorrow exel extraction will provide some more accurate numbers.

[Talon_]

11 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

there were more 14's than 9's

 

Just be aware that list includes FR squadrons which were armed with guns as well as the camera which helps tip the balance.

 

In contrast:

 

Mk IX/XVI

 

126 Wing RCAF

401

411

412

442

 

127 Wing RCAF

403

421

416

443

 

131 Wing Polish

302

317

308

 

132 Wing Norwegian

331

332

66

127

322

 

135 Wing Czech

485

349

 

145 Wing RAF

329

340

341

74

345

 

2TAF aircraft:

 

4th January

 

26th April

 

 

Does not differentiate between Griffon and Merlin Spitfires as I had once believed, however does show PR (Merlin) and FR (armed Griffon) seperately.

 

TOTALS:

 

Spitfire XIV: 5 sqn

Spitfire IX/XVI: 23 however only 18 active by April 1945 (inactive: 442, 485, 349, 329, 345)

Total: 23 as listed above not including F/R + P.R.

Edited September 17, 2018 by Talon_

[Saburo]

22 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

135 Wing Czech

485

349

if Wing Czech, then

134.Czech Wing

with 310, 312 and 313Sq

[BraveSirRobin]

3 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Best way to get an idea what it's like to fly VVS would be to gain the ability to fly around at full throttle constantly with no engine damage or overheat.

 

No, the best way to get an idea what it’s like to fly VVS is to actually spend some time flying VVS.  That’s when you find out that full throttle is still significantly slower than any German fighter.  Which only seems to be a problem for Luft-only players when they’re the one flying the slow crap.

Edited September 17, 2018 by BraveSirRobin

[Talon_]

8 minutes ago, Saburo said:

if Wing Czech, then

134.Czech Wing

with 310, 312 and 313Sq

 

Dispersed from 2TAF before our campaign begins

 

 

Edited September 17, 2018 by Talon_

[JV69badatflyski]

just checked manually, the FR was assigned to squadrons from half April45, as on the 20th april, i got 34 airframes assigned (the 10th i got 7airframes assigned)
The 14E, never got above 21airframes assigned (in total from sept44 to end war!)
The 14FR-E....got 1 airframe assigned! :-)
The most numerous was the "standard" 14.
the pb with the numbers on your pictures is there is no diferenciation between the spit's Marks and i can't compare as the stats for the spits9 with M63/M63a/M66/M70 aren't done, got just the M61 stats available.

[Talon_]

3 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

stats for the spits9 with M63/M63a/M66/M70 aren't done, got just the M61 stats available.

 

Only Merlin 66/266 used by 2TAF. Fighter bombers - low altitude work = low altitude engines.

[Tuesday]

2 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

So max continuous is the same as full throttle?

 

Thanks for the update.

 

You're having a hard time understanding this?

 

VVS engines were rated and "blocked," so that in techno-chat terms, 100% = ~70%

 

So "full throttle" is actually the same as "max continuous."

 

If you think 100% throttle and RPM in game is equivalent to running 1.42ata all day long... that is not correct.

Edited September 17, 2018 by Tuesday

[JV69badatflyski]

14 minutes ago, Tuesday said:

 

You're having a hard time understanding this?

 

VVS engines were rated and "blocked," so that in techno-chat terms, 100% = ~70%

 

So "full throttle" is actually the same as "max continuous."

 

If you think 100% throttle and RPM in game is equivalent to running 1.42ata all day long... that is not correct.

From my little 35years experience with engined vehicules, when men say: "full throttle", it's the same as "pedal to the metal" or "firewall it".
What means i'll unload the shit on the engine, getting it into the red line (or above) in search of the latest Kw the engine can provide and it doesn't mean "keep your engine at the top of your torque(or power)  curve what would translates into apply just enough gas to keep it steady at 5500rpm(in my case)....

And about this:
VVS engines were rated and "blocked," so that in techno-chat terms, 100% = ~70%

Really hard to understand....really.
try with more words as this sentence isn't comprehensive at all ,and then the math 100%=70%...WTF, are we in another dimension?

Thank you.

[MiloMorai]

Many Spitfire XIVs went to India beginning in Jan 1945.

 

It is not hard to understand Bad. The throttle was blocked from opening fully (100%). That is 'peddle to the metal' could only be depressed to 70% of full throttle.

[JonRedcorn]

16 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

From my little 35years experience with engined vehicules, when men say: "full throttle", it's the same as "pedal to the metal" or "firewall it".
What means i'll unload the shit on the engine, getting it into the red line (or above) in search of the latest Kw the engine can provide and it doesn't mean "keep your engine at the top of your torque(or power)  curve what would translates into apply just enough gas to keep it steady at 5500rpm(in my case)....

And about this:
VVS engines were rated and "blocked," so that in techno-chat terms, 100% = ~70%

Really hard to understand....really.
try with more words as this sentence isn't comprehensive at all ,and then the math 100%=70%...WTF, are we in another dimension?

Thank you.

100% on a VVS throttle would be equivalent to 70% in a 109. The issue here is VVS pilots didn't have the option to go full throttle.

Edited September 17, 2018 by 15th_JonRedcorn

[Talon_]

1 hour ago, JV69badatflyski said:

just checked manually, the FR was assigned to squadrons from half April45, as on the 20th april, i got 34 airframes assigned (the 10th i got 7airframes assigned)
The 14E, never got above 21airframes assigned (in total from sept44 to end war!)
The 14FR-E....got 1 airframe assigned! ?
The most numerous was the "standard" 14.

 

The Spitfire Mk. XIV was available in much wider numbers than this.

 

I just went through volumes 2 + 3 of 2nd TAF by C. Shores/C. Thomas for you and added up the 2TAF claims and losses of only Spitfire XIVs and sorted them into a spreadsheet - there are 162 unique aircraft in that table alone:

 

Remember - these are only aircraft that put in claims or were lost. Planes that didn't do anything except cover their wingmen and RTB are not included.

 

Canopy status (bubble/not bubble) and wing status is taken entirely from pictures in those volumes.

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2018 by Talon_
accidentally double claimed a few aircraft, just like a real fighter pilot!

[MiloMorai]

Talon, there is also this site, http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/home.html

[JV69badatflyski]

Thanks milo.

With more words is sooo much better to understand the meaning of this.

 

started writig something but JonRedcorn answered meanwhile so i change slightly my thoughts here.
i'll go with german "power" expressions here:
IF in Russianplanes 100% is "Continuous combat power"  = 80/85% throttle on FW (i don't like the 109) so i'll use the Wurger as example. ?

Now to get the "Emergency power", what has to be done on the russian planes with the copy of the Hispano-suiza in front of the cockpit?
In the wurger, i push the throttle to the firewall, pedal to metal, full throttle. but what in russians then? The pilots has to insert his Red-Card into some magical hole so the plane sees it's allowed by the Politburo to use the engine's full potential?

[Talon_]

7 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Talon, there is also this site, http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/home.html

 

Correct however it doesn't specify which airframes went to 2TAF ?

[JV69badatflyski]

Talon,

I know, i just checked the E/FR/FRE versions as you wrote about the recco squadrons.
Will give you the number by squad tomorrow for the standard 14.

I think openning a new topic about the availibility of the 14 should be a better place than here to discuss it further, don't you think?

3 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Correct however it doesn't specify which airframes went to 2TAF ?

indeed, it doens't, but you get each airframe assignements. i put each frame on a timeline (10days period) and reworked this data manually.... so got the numbers