190 A-6 and Bf 109 G-6 Late

[Raven109]

@flagdjmetcher, since this is mainly off topic, my answer is enclosed below:

 

Spoiler

15 hours ago, flagdjmetcher said:

Well...they did make that game, or pretty close to.  It's called career mode.  I just flew an airfield relocation mission (no contact), then a long-distance bomber escort mission (no contact), then a no-fly day, then a ground attack escort mission where we got annihilated and lost all of the squadron's rookie pilots.  Fun was had, and at no point was anyone thinking about k/d ratios, balance, or making their "ace in a flight" videos.  IIRC SP numbers are way higher than MP numbers, although I don't know the breakdown between career, scripted, and qmb.  So in terms of sales, I would guess that MP players who prioritize "balance" are very much the minority.

 

Don't get me wrong, I want you guys to have an awesome MP experience, and I enjoy watching the expert videos as much as anyone, but I don't really see that the perception of a particular planeset as unbalanced is going to materially affect sales.

 

Sales aside, I also don't really get why it matters even in the MP niche, for two reasons. 

I constantly hear that pilot skill is the main factor, and that being in the right position with good SA is critical.  OK, so if you come across an enemy with the same energy, neutral positioning, you're both aware of each other and you have equal skill - sure, at that point which G6 you're in might matter.  But how often does that really happen?

My other question is: can't server admins tweak the planeset as much as they like?  Surely the tools for chasing balance are already there.  Are there really hardcore yet impoverished MP aces out there who are disadvantaged by not being able to afford to buy (e.g.) a G14?

 

Great to hear you're having fun. Yes, career mode might be close to what I was imagining, but that is not MP.

 

The quote to which you answered was part of something I wrote to explain why I think there are high attrition rates on servers. Balance in general is needed in MP because it is a much more unforgiving environment, especially to the beginner players - and you do want to make servers accessible. It also matters, when one cares about having a fair chance at winning the map/campaign. If one doesn't care about anything, then nothing is needed, of course. People who prefer (extreme?) balance in MP are probably the people who look at it like it's a team sport. I can't think of a high profile sport where one team has less players than the other and/or worse equipment than the other as a rule. (there are of course marginal differences in equipment, but that exists in MP as well, depending on the plane-set - and cannot be eliminated unless everyone is flying the same type of aircraft, same quantity of fuel, etc - practically impossible).

 

The point of MP usually is to get together with people and play with and/or against them; if one does like not seeing anyone for days, and doesn't appreciate going against people, that person might just as well play alone, in SP, there is no point in connecting to a server. 

Single player, usually means that you're not that interested in playing with/against other players, and the emphasis is on other aspects (e.g history, procedures, etc). SP is much easier to get closer to history because what goes on in SP can be controlled to a larger extent than it can be controlled in MP. The scenario can be run several times, tweaked and re-run, and the AI generally reacts in a predictable manner (as opposed to players), and so you can tune it to your liking. To the ones who prefer history, this is the place to be. No doubt about it.

 

Can you have the same level of historical detail in MP? Sure, with a lot of organisation, procedures, cooperation, like-minded people, people who know history, you can get to great scenarios (see mil-sims, organised squads, etc). Can you do this on a public server where random people join when they want and do what they mostly want? Not really.

 

Also, regarding this apparent aversion against K/D, "ace in a flight" videos and the like, I'd say that wars are also highly competitive environments where there are somewhat clear goals and everybody is pushing towards them, more or less. Pilots used to mark their victories on their ride, and they used to receive medals for them, clearly encouraging the fact that victory count... counts. MP just borrows this aspect from the environment it's trying to emulate. Of course, not all care about K/D nowadays, just like they didn't back then, but still the people who do care are normal to what this game is trying to represent.

 

"My other question is: can't server admins tweak the planeset as much as they like?  Surely the tools for chasing balance are already there.  Are there really hardcore yet impoverished MP aces out there who are disadvantaged by not being able to afford to buy (e.g.) a G14?"

 

Yes, there are tools, and yes server admins do have control over the plane set and I assume that they will tweak them. This is why I said that people will be able to use either the existing G6 (aka G6 early) or G14 (aka G6 late). They don't have to get anything else to play BoN on-line.

 

Anyway, both MP and SP players are an important part of the community, in my opinion.

 

There is a lot to be said, since it's a broad subject which probably deserves its own thread, and I know my response might be incomplete, but it is a wall of text as is, and this is a 109/190 thread.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Raven109

[Pikestance]

50 minutes ago, MattS said:

 

Well you've certainly got one part of this right ?

 

Well, I was being facetious. 

[MattS]

1 hour ago, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

 

Well, I was being facetious. 

 

Same here!

 

Topic drift is definitely a real phenomenon but our weapons are powerless against it ?

[LuftManu]

As a wise man said some pages ago, we should argue when we know what we are getting.  In the meantime it's okay to say that I would like X or Y.

[CUJO_1970]

On 6/17/2020 at 8:16 AM, Bremspropeller said:

Still wondering whether the Erhöhte Notleistung will be pulled from the "standard" A-8 (and becoma a mod), since it was a late summer '44 addition...

It was not really a “late summer" addition - it was in serial production in June 1944, but prior to that BMW began producing piping and blinds for the dry boost systems for field modifications in March 1944. It could be added to any non-derated engine.

 

It was not a complicated thing to add. There were no A8 early and A8 late - IMO what we have is very much a spring 1944 FW190A-8. Already by summer some airframes were starting to be redesignated A9 as those engines slowly started to become available.

Edited June 20, 2020 by CUJO_1970

[41Sqn_Skipper]

8 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

It was not really a “late summer" addition - it was in serial production in June 1944, but prior to that BMW began producing piping and blinds for the wet boost systems for field modifications in March 1944. It could be added to any non-derated engine.

 

Are you talking about MW50 or C3?

 

The sources I've seen state that MW50 didn't provide enough benefits and was not introduced.

 

There seem to be sources for introduction of C3 from June 1944 on, but only for F8. The use of C3 in A8 is not proven by any available source.

 

Bremspropeller talks about clearance for increase of manifold pressure from 1.42 to 1.58/1.65 in July 1944. Achieved only by modification of boost control only (So basically at cost of engine durability)

See: "Baubeschreibung Nr. 284" of Fw 190 A-8

 

https://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Motoren/BMW/Leistungssteigerung/BMW 801 D Leistungssteigerung.html

 

As you can see I the following document the boost increase for fighters (A8) was certainly not cleared in March 1944 and didn't utilise C3:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_A-8_15-3-44.pdf

 

 

Would be great to have the higher boost settings as a mod to allow the use in pre-invasion scenarios, just like the 150 octane mods on allied fighters.

Edited June 20, 2020 by 41Sqn_Skipper

[CUJO_1970]

No I meant to say dry boost EN system, I went back and corrected the typo, so no I’m not talking about MW50 or C3 injection as used on the Jabos. The A8 used a completely different EN system.

 

I don’t care if we get A8 without EN or not...but it is incorrect to conclude that all A8 prior to Normandy did not have EN as any D2 F600 powerplant and all TU power plants could utilize it...and in fact the same web site you use shows BMW began producing the piping and blinds for the system already in March 1944.

 

The mistake being made here is that it was not available prior to serial production dates listed in manuals since BMW began producing kits for it in March.

 

It is the same scenario with 8th AF P-47 (only a much simpler process for 190) being retro fitted with water in spring 1944 as their aircraft were not serially produced with it.

As a temporary measure, Bremspropeller could fly in spring 1944 scenario while conscientiously not hitting that B key ?
 

[Bremspropeller]

FWIW:

 

I scrambled through a couple of books, trying to find evidence of "yellow rings". Well, I haven't found many. The rings probably disappered when the Erhöhte Notleistung was standardized in July 44, yet there is still photographic evidence of aircraft in late '44 having the rings on their noses.

 

What I could find in J-B Frappé's "Luftwaffe fauce au Débarquement" (# = W.Nr.):

 

p.19 shows an A-8 (#171002, supposedly built in may '44) alledgedly around D-Day with a yellow ring

p. 61 shows an A-8 in supposedly in early July (# 171079) without the ring => either non retrofitted or the ground-crew didn't bother marking the aircraft

p. 149 shows an A-8 (black 6) with the yellow ring not visible on the photo, but clearly identifiable on another photo shot from just a slightly different angle as printed in Jochen Prien's vol. 2 on Jagdgeschwaders 1 and 11 (p. 1074)

 

One interesting addendum - out of an excerpt of Peter Schmoll's book on the 109, based on the experiences of Messerschmitt engineer Mr. Göttel during his frontal units visit from June 28 to July 6 1944:

Quote

[...] Neuerdings wird auch bei der Fw 190 durch eine für 10 Minuten zugelassene Ladedruckerhöhung eine Leistungssteigerung in Bodennähe (sic!) ermöglicht. Als Maßstab für die Leistungen der Feindflugzeuge wurde mir von einem Gruppenkommandeur angegeben, dass die Fw 190 mit 801D-Motor ohne diese Leistungssteigerung den Abstand von verfolgenden Feindflugzeugen nicht merklich vergrößern kann, dagegen lässt sich bei der Zuschaltung der Leistungssteigerung dieser Abstand sehr rasch vergrößern. Von der Me 109 wird behauptet, dass sie mit MW50 der Fw 190 ohne Leistungssteigerung bezüglich Höchstgeschwindigkeit am Boden entspricht. Der Vorteil der Me 109 mit MW50 liegt deshalb nur in der wesentlich besseren Steigleistung, wodurch es dann der Me 109 möglich ist, entweder dem Gegner wegzusteigen oder sich in günstigere Kampfposition zu setzen. [...]

 

Loosely translated:

As of lately, the Fw 190 also has been offered the opportunity of increased performance close to the ground (sic!) by an increase in boost-pressure for a duration of 10 minutes. As a reference for the enemy aircraft's performance, I was told by a Gruppenkommandeur that a 190 with a 801D-engine - without increased boost - could not open the distance to enemy aircraft in pursuit, while increased boost equipped aircraft can open the distance very quickly*. Concerning the Me 109, it is alledged that with MW50 their top speed close to the ground is similar to the Fw 190 without increased boost. The advantage of MW50 equipped Me109s thus mainly lies in their improved climb-performance, either outclimbing the enemy or attaining a favourable initial attacking position.

 

___

* I don't think this statement is all too accurate - especially concerning allied fighters with 150 octane gas available at that time. This might have come out of encounters with lower octane-fueled fighters or generally poorer performing aircraft.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Bremspropeller

[41Sqn_Skipper]

5 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

but it is incorrect to conclude that all A8 prior to Normandy did not have EN as any D2 F600 powerplant and all TU power plants could utilize it...and in fact the same web site you use shows BMW began producing the piping and blinds for the system already in March 1944.

 

You mean this? 

 

 

It doesn't state that these parts are already in production, only that they can be delivered from March 1944 on. Sounds a bit like "If you order now, we produce it and it can be delivered in 2 weeks". Which would makes sense as the document clearly states: 

 

 

"Values at the moment not yet allowed by Rechelin". BMW would not mass-produce parts that are not cleared for service use. Clearance happend in July 1944 by Baubeschreibung Nr. 284. This date is even backed up by the eye 

-witness account posted above. 

 

Regarding the claimed earlier availablitiy of field modification kits compared to production:

 

 

Aircraft in service the were cleared with Änderungsanweisung 133.

 

Regarding 801 TU engine: was available from July 1944 on.

 

So yes, it's save to conclude that there was no Fw 190 A8 in service that used Erhöhte Notleistung before July 1944, as it was not cleared/allowed (even if the engine was capable of doing it after minor modification, no one is denying that). 

Edited June 20, 2020 by 41Sqn_Skipper

[CUJO_1970]

53 minutes ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

The in-game Fw190 has a 801D engine (see official aircraft specs), the allowed boost of D2 or TU engines is therefore irrelevant.

 

 

The allowed boost of these engines is relevant as the engine in our A8 is a D2 F600 and it was cleared for EN just as the TU was.

 

 

  

Edited June 20, 2020 by CUJO_1970

[41Sqn_Skipper]

17 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

The allowed boost of these engines is relevant as the engine in our A8 is a D2 F600.

  

 

And as multiple sources state: BMW 801 D was cleared for higher boost in July 1944. BMW 801 Q was delivered in July 1944 (see post above).

 

Not a single source was presented that show use of Erhöhte Notleistung in A8 fighters before July 1944.

 

Edited June 20, 2020 by 41Sqn_Skipper

[CUJO_1970]

6 minutes ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

Not a single source was presented that show use of Erhöhte Notleistung in A8 fighters before July 1944.

 

Would you consider an A8 built in May 1944 and using EN as a source?

[41Sqn_Skipper]

17 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Would you consider an A8 built in May 1944 and using EN as a source?

 

Sure, a documented use before July by A8 service aircraft is what I'm looking for. (Operational use, not experimental/testing and no F8/G8 using C3 of course).

 

And production date of the A8 doesn't matter. It's pretty clear that any A8 ever built was capable of "Erhöhte Notleistung". It was only not allowed to use it before July 1944. Sure, befure using it, it certainly needed at least changes in boost control (But main limiting factor is of course the missing clearance to use it, not a technical inability).

 

 

Btw text from Baubeschreinbung 284:

 

Btw I hope you find a source for that, so I can sleep peacefully even when I encounter A8 using EN in pre-July-1944 scenarios ?

Edited June 20, 2020 by 41Sqn_Skipper

[JV69badatflyski]

On 6/21/2020 at 1:10 AM, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

Sure, a documented use before July by A8 service aircraft is what I'm looking for. (Operational use, not experimental/testing and no F8/G8 using C3 of course).

 

And production date of the A8 doesn't matter. It's pretty clear that any A8 ever built was capable of "Erhöhte Notleistung". It was only not allowed to use it before July 1944. Sure, befure using it, it certainly needed at least changes in boost control (But main limiting factor is of course the missing clearance to use it, not a technical inability).

 

 

 

 

Actually the game of you can/can't use the "EN" happenned like3 times in44, you just posted 1 of them.
But you know what?
The Crews didn' t care, just like they didn't care they weren't allowed to remove the external guns starting with the A6 series (strictly verbotten by FW, see manual), or remove the ETC501 , or remove the rear tank, or mounting an bf-109 Erla tank holder , or remove the mg131 or even pushing the801d to1.8ata. Those guys did what was needed to maximize their chances of survival.
in 44 a german airframe had an average life of 20hours, those were tools to get a job done, loosing one was'nt dramatic, ther were hundreds new waiting to be picked, adapted to unit's needs, do the job and being thrown away.
Wash, rince, repeat.

[41Sqn_Skipper]

45 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

pushing the801d to1.8ata

 

Source?

[Jaws2002]

3 hours ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

Source?

 

He's right. A lot of "verboten" stuff was done at the unit, simply because they wanted to stay alive. 

 There's a story, in Dieter Herman's book, about a training unit equiped with FW-190A6, that had their engines derated, to save fuel.  The throttle had some hardware riveted to stop it from going to full throttle. After the unit got bounced by some P-51s and they lost a few trainees, the instructor ordered the mechanics to remove all the stops and boost their engines to the maximum power, because their lives were more important.

 Just because something is written in an official document, in some office, it doesn't mean all this rules and guidelines were followed by the units that went up to fight every day.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Jaws2002

[41Sqn_Skipper]

2 hours ago, Jaws2002 said:

There's a story, in Dieter Herman's book, about a training unit equiped with FW-190A6, that had their engines derated, to save fuel.  The throttle had some hardware riveted to stop it from going to full throttle. After the unit got bounced by some P-51s and they lost a few trainees, the instructor ordered the mechanics to remove all the stops and boost their engines to the maximum power, because their lives were more important.

 

I was unable to find anything on a Luftwaffe pilot named "Dieter Herman", what's the name of the book? Can you or anyone else quote that section?

 

Does "maximum power" mean

 1.42 ATA or "ungoverned manfold pressure"? How does a Fw190 with disabled boost control work then, considering that the RPM and mixture is linked to the throttle?

 

Anyway: no date given so could after July 1944, no A8, no operational unit, not sure if they used it or were only able to use it.

 

2 hours ago, Jaws2002 said:

Just because something is written in an official document, in some office, it doesn't mean all this rules and guidelines were followed by the units that went up to fight every day.

 

Not sure if it's a good baseline for a simulation when everyone can select it's own aircraft parameter. Sounds a bit like "mods-on"?

 

------------------

 

Considering that use of EN needed some new parts produced by BMW, I wonder why they would be delivered to frontline units in any substential number if there was no authorized need for them? 

Edited June 23, 2020 by 41Sqn_Skipper

[Jaws2002]

1 hour ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

I was unable to find anything on a Luftwaffe pilot named "Dieter Herman", what's the name of the book?

 

He is not a ww2 pilot. He's a contemporary author. The book is called "Focke-Wulf Fw 190A." by Dietmar Hermann

https://www.amazon.com/Focke-Wulf-190A-Dietmar-Hermann-2004-01-01/dp/B01HC1Q1KW

 

I think that's where i read the story. It's not about a FW-190A8, but about an A6 that got derated engine for fighter schools. 

Edited June 23, 2020 by Jaws2002

[Bremspropeller]

6 hours ago, Jaws2002 said:

He's right. A lot of "verboten" stuff was done at the unit, simply because they wanted to stay alive. 

 There's a story, in Dieter Herman's book, about a training unit equiped with FW-190A6, that had their engines derated, to save fuel.  The throttle had some hardware riveted to stop it from going to full throttle. After the unit got bounced by some P-51s and they lost a few trainees, the instructor ordered the mechanics to remove all the stops and boost their engines to the maximum power, because their lives were more important.

 

I just searched through my german copy of that book, but I couldn't find the story - do you have the pilot's name by any chance?

 

Keep in mind that un-derating (or would that be re-rating?) the engine is different to installing a Rüstsatz to increase performance.

 

3 hours ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

Does "maximum power" mean

 1.42 ATA or "ungoverned manfold pressure"? How does a Fw190 with disabled boost control work then, considering that the RPM and mixture is linked to the throttle?

 

I don't think there's any ungoverned boost-control in the 801.

Jule Meimberg wrote of de-rated 190A-2s during his time flying them at the channel. They also just used to block a portion of the throttle-travel to physically limit the commanded MAP.

[SAS_Storebror]

10 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

pushing the801d to1.8ata

 

Sounds a bit out of bounds to me.

Even with the latest late war "Leistungssteigerung", where the boost pressure regulator ran in a kind of "uncapped overdrive" mode using a simple valve, the pressure in the low blower gear was limited to 1.58 ATA and in the high blower gear it was 1.65 ATA.

I've seen a couple of mentionings of this "Leistungssteigerung" where apparently people made a typo and quoted 1.8 ATA where instead it should read 1.58 ATA - it becomes apparent when the "1.8 ATA" guys state that the engine provides 2050hp power in that mode - that's the power at 1.58 ATA.

 

Link for german readers, others might want to use Google Translate: https://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Motoren/BMW/Leistungssteigerung/BMW 801 D Leistungssteigerung.html

 

Mike

[sevenless]

I can´t find no 1,8 ATA. See post of Mike above. English translation of the Fw190-A8 manual here:

 

https://de.scribd.com/document/174412677/Manual-Focke-Wulf-190A-8

 

 

-----

 

 

 

2 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Link for german readers, others might want to use Google Translate: https://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Motoren/BMW/Leistungssteigerung/BMW 801 D Leistungssteigerung.html

 

Sadly they had to close it down due to excessive abuse.

 

Quote:

Quote

 

Aufgrund von erhöhtem Missbrauchs des Archivgutes in den letzten Monaten ist dieses bis auf weiteres geschlossen. Wir suchen nach einer neuen Lösung.

 

Due to excessive abuse of our archives, it is closed until we found a new solution for it.

 

 

https://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/category/aktuelles

Edited June 23, 2020 by sevenless

[SAS_Storebror]

53 minutes ago, sevenless said:

Sadly they had to close it down due to excessive abuse.

 

I had to refresh the page a couple of times, but finally it came up after all the 503 errors.

 

Mike

[Guest deleted@191198]

It was logical to see such a list, but not all in one.

Yes, this wiki.

[CountZero]

SO best option is to have all options as modifications, Earla Hood, Longer Tail, MW-50 and AS option. I realy dont belive they gona be making 3rd 109 just to add AS version and fined enough succers who gona spend 20$ on another 109G6.

[PatrickAWlson]

42 minutes ago, CountZero said:

SO best option is to have all options as modifications, Earla Hood, Longer Tail, MW-50 and AS option. I realy dont belive they gona be making 3rd 109 just to add AS version and fined enough succers who gona spend 20$ on another 109G6.

 

They are not going to spend $20 on another G6.  They are spending $80 on ten planes and a map that can provide two to three years of simming given the current plane set available across the product.  One of those planes happens to be another Me109G.  Another happens to be another FW190A.  Another Mustang, P47, and Spitfire too.  Another Ju88.  Some might even refer to the Typhoon as another Tempest.  The, Arado 234, Mosquito, Me410 are unique.  If you want to talk $20 per plane there's $60 in value right there.  The map alone is worth almost $80 to me.  Think of the 109, 190, P47, P51, Spitfire, Ju88 and Typhoon as freebies  

 

And if that doesn't convince you ... Buzz Bomb!

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Patrick's post has inadvertently made me less excited for BoN, and I can't put my finger on why...  ?

[Stoopy]

8 minutes ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said:

Patrick's post has inadvertently made me less excited for BoN, and I can't put my finger on why...  ?

 

Conversely, it made me feel even better about it.

 

$80 for 10 planes and one whole new map.  That's like $10 for the map and $7.00 per plane.   Amortized over the course of 2+ years.  I cannot complain in the least. 

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Stoopy

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, Stoopy said:

 

Conversely, it made me feel even better about it.

 

$80 for 10 planes and one whole new map.  That's like $10 for the map and $7.00 per plane.   Amortized over the course of 2+ years.  I cannot complain in the least. 

 

Ye I got so exited that I bought it twice. Now I got two maps....eh wait...

[Yogiflight]

4 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

Ye I got so exited that I bought it twice. Now I got two maps....eh wait...

No you just think so, because you play in VR

[ShamrockOneFive]

7 hours ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said:

Patrick's post has inadvertently made me less excited for BoN, and I can't put my finger on why...  ?

 

Not sure what aircraft are drawing you to this title, however, despite the "variants" that we are getting I think this is a very compelling set of aircraft.

 

It's been probably two decades since a sim did a decent version of the Spitfire XIV or Typhoon Mark IB. A little bit less for the Mosquito FB.VI. I don't think a sim has done a flyable Me410 ever (outside of mods... a War Thunder). And more front and centre is the P-47D-22 which I've never seen look this nice in any sim previously. Combine that together with an impressively scaled map and I think we have a winner here.

[Enceladus828]

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

It's been probably two decades since a sim did a decent version of the Spitfire XIV or Typhoon Mark IB. A little bit less for the Mosquito FB.VI. I don't think a sim has done a flyable Me410 ever (outside of mods... a War Thunder).

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Spitfire XIV in a game before, and up until the Battle of Normandy was announced, I assumed that any Spitfire after the Mk.IX saw action in the closing days of the war. Looks like I was wrong. I recall the Typhoon being in CFS3, the only game with it except for Mods and BoN. Mosquito Mk.IV B., FB. VI. and Mk.XVIII ‘TseTse’ are in IL-2 1946 and the Mk. VI is in CFS3. The Me-410 flyable is in the CFS3 expansion, Firepower.  But. Nothing can beat aircraft and cockpits made today IMO.

 

10 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Another Mustang, P47, and Spitfire too.  Another Ju88.  Some might even refer to the Typhoon as another Tempest.  The, Arado 234, Mosquito, Me410 are unique.

Currently the Bodenplatte Career seems kind of boring; I haven’t even started a British Career yet because there are just 2 planes (Everyone. This is totally understandable, and in no way am I criticizing the devs on this decision). But with people who have Bodenplatte and Normandy we are going get another Spitfire, a Mosquito, a Typhoon, so several more planes fly than just the Spitfire IX and Tempest. Same thing goes with the American planes, we’ll get a few more planes and another bomber so our B-25 friend has a buddy to fly with.

 

I started a Poll a few months ago, asking if you could have one... what would it be. And I picked BoN as one of my answers. I am greatly excited for the Arado 234 and the Me-410, and the Mosquito and B-26.

 

BoN is the best. Buy if you haven’t.

 

Cheers.

[357th_KW]

On 6/22/2020 at 10:13 PM, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

I was unable to find anything on a Luftwaffe pilot named "Dieter Herman", what's the name of the book? Can you or anyone else quote that section?

 

Does "maximum power" mean

 1.42 ATA or "ungoverned manfold pressure"? How does a Fw190 with disabled boost control work then, considering that the RPM and mixture is linked to the throttle?

 

 

On 6/23/2020 at 1:30 AM, Bremspropeller said:

 

I just searched through my german copy of that book, but I couldn't find the story - do you have the pilot's name by any chance?

 

Keep in mind that un-derating (or would that be re-rating?) the engine is different to installing a Rüstsatz to increase performance.

 

 

I don't think there's any ungoverned boost-control in the 801.

Jule Meimberg wrote of de-rated 190A-2s during his time flying them at the channel. They also just used to block a portion of the throttle-travel to physically limit the commanded MAP.

 

I'm not sure if its the same story that was being referenced, but Norbert Hannig mentioned this in his book "Luftwaffe Fighter Ace".  While working as an instructor with 1/Jgr Ost they were sent into combat against an 8th Air Force raid.  In the book he mentions that they were using 190A-6s at this time and described the limiter as follows:

 

"When I climbed into the cockpit of my machine and checked the controls I discovered that a screw was inhibiting the full travel of the throttle.  This had the effect of reducing engine output by ten percent, which was a justifiable measure on a training aircraft.  It helped to protect the engine and increased its number of flying hours.  But in combat it could mean the difference between life or death if maximum engine power was not available.  When I asked the mechanic why this locking screw had not been removed his answer was "Orders from above ..."

 

A few pages later he wrote: "I rammed the throttle forward - I'd made sure all the Einsatzstaffel machines had had those damned inhibitor screws removed ... "

[=X51=VC_]

While I would love to see AS and ASM engine variants of the Bf 109G, and we do have precedent for different engines as modifications on several planes, we do not have any precedent for modifications that alter the 3D model of the fuselage. So I find such mods on the 109G-6 late in Normandy unlikely.

[CUJO_1970]

1 hour ago, =X51=VC_ said:

While I would love to see AS and ASM engine variants of the Bf 109G, and we do have precedent for different engines as modifications on several planes, we do not have any precedent for modifications that alter the 3D model of the fuselage. So I find such mods on the 109G-6 late in Normandy unlikely.

 

lol, they are already altering the 3D model if they add Erla Haub and tall tail...this is such a weak excuse, for so many reasons.

 

No wonder Luke liked it ?

[CUJO_1970]

[MattS]

19 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Hey man I think you might have missed the point here. Those changes you've listed are what turned the G6 Early into a new model sold separately called G6 Late. By extension the G6 late +  AS fuselage change = marketed as a new model called G6 AS, in the same way that the Yak-9 and Yak-9T were presented separately.

 

100% accurate to say that is how the marketing has been up to now. One can acknowledge this reality while still wanting and thinking the sim should have the AS/ASM models. We might be pleasantly surprised to find it included in BON but I suspect we'll have to pay extra for it, if the past is any guide to the future.

 

 

 

[silvergun]

36 minutes ago, MattS said:

 

Hey man I think you might have missed the point here. Those changes you've listed are what turned the G6 Early into a new model sold separately called G6 Late. By extension the G6 late +  AS fuselage change = marketed as a new model called G6 AS, in the same way that the Yak-9 and Yak-9T were presented separately.

 

100% accurate to say that is how the marketing has been up to now. One can acknowledge this reality while still wanting and thinking the sim should have the AS/ASM models. We might be pleasantly surprised to find it included in BON but I suspect we'll have to pay extra for it, if the past is any guide to the future.

 

 

 

 

The Spitfire Mk.IXe says hello with Merlin 66 on the LF Mk.IX, or Merlin 70 on the HF Mk.IX, not to mention the Clipped Wings and the MkII Gyro Gunsight, these last two with new exterior and interior 3D modeling, respectively.

 

And the Yak-9 and 9T are collector planes.

 

The 3D job for Bf 109 G-6 "Late" are done = G-14, and the sleek cowling for AS too = K-4 (with minor differences).

 

[MattS]

10 minutes ago, silvergun said:

 

The Spitfire Mk.IXe says hello

 

"False. An airplane is an inanimate object and cannot say hello."

 

- D. Shrute

 

10 minutes ago, silvergun said:

 

with Merlin 66 on the LF Mk.IX, or Merlin 70 on the HF Mk.IX, not to mention the Clipped Wings and the MkII Gyro Gunsight, these last two with new exterior and interior 3D modeling, respectively.

 

And the Yak-9 and 9T are collector planes.

 

The 3D job for Bf 109 G-6 "Late" are done = G-14, and the sleek cowling for AS too = K-4 (with minor differences).

 

 

Fair points. The clipped wings are the only one that I see as being in direct contrast to what I was describing since it's a major exterior model (and FM) difference.

 

Please understand that I'm not saying I like the idea of buying an AS separately, I just would not be surprised. Maybe the wing clip on the Spits should give us hope.

 

THOUGH the 800lb gorilla remains of what kind of BOX combat would even make use of the AS/ASM capabilties? I feel like the P-47s are even a waste as it is ?

[=621=Samikatz]

I think the issue is texture mapping. With the Spitfire's clipped wings they just need to make the old tips transparent and cap off the edge, which can still be there with full length wings, just hidden. The 109 engine swap would change the geometry of the aircraft and would require a new texture

[CUJO_1970]

59 minutes ago, MattS said:

"False. An airplane is an inanimate object and cannot say hello."

- D. Shrute

 

Listen here mister...I watched every episode of the office and Dwight never said that.

2 hours ago, MattS said:

By extension the G6 late +  AS fuselage change = marketed as a new model called G6 AS, in the same way that the Yak-9 and Yak-9T were presented separately.

 

I'm in marketing unfortunately.

 

This is what's known as a = marketing failure (Taught at LukeFF School of Business.)

 

Add that big supercharger and watch those dollars roll in = marketing victory. (Taught at CUJO School of Winning*)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*not to be confused with the CUJO School of Whining