Kurfürst

Dive bombing prohibited on Spitfire Mark VIII:

Emergency exit in dive is difficult (Mark II):

Spitfire IX dive behaviour in trials:

Its difficult to argue with elegant lines like these:

So, only a out 1/3 in the 2nd TAF, and no Spitfire squadrons in the Englanc based ADGB (ex Fighter Command), no Spitfires elsewhere and no other Spitfire Marks involved, and no other aircraft types receiving the sight - if we can trust some unsourced and undated snippets thrown around. In any case, the showned 'sources' show it was a definite and atypical minority.

Imagine the face of a brand new Mustang's owner when he still gets beaten in drag race by a 20 year old Honda Civic. He just cant get why it happens, now can he. ;)

I always liked to fly the underdog anyway. That is if that underdog has nearly 600 hp for every ton. :D

Definietely not - out of all Spitfire squadrons, only about 10 were more or kedd equipped with the new sight by mid 1944. It took a while, and it never became a 'standard' fit during the war - a lot pictures of late war spitfires still show the old revi sight. In any case the IX had a fairly long nose because of the two stage Merlin, which blocked a lot of the sighting view which was fairly poor. Interestingly the Griffon Spits were better in this regard since the engine mount was lower.

What's the release plan for the spit anyways? November - december ? In any case, whatever variant we get I will happy with it, it would be nice to try a real serious FM at last... that goes for all planes.

109.. Especially as this last variant is extremely powerful and for sheer performance, it is slightly better the D-9, not to mention handling. As much as I tried being good in 190s, it just doesn't work for me, the harsh departures are big put off for me, and the fantastic roll rate is as Amazing as it makes me dizzy. :D You usually have ruggedness and roll rate with you, but these are more useful traits for defense. And as u have two 2cm Mausers vs one 3 cm Rheinmetall Borsig gun even the firepower question isn't clear cut, as it is with the 190A and in doubt you can still put an extra two Mausers on your late 109. A bit better vision isn't that much of a temptation, as the Erla/Galland combination is quite okay. Perhaps in a multi plane enviroment, where speed and firepower and vision is the most important, and individual manouveribility not so much, I would pick the Dora, but one on one, the 109K has most of the aces.

DCS will probably model the most typical variant, which would be the Mark IX with a Merlin 66 medium-low altitude engine with +18 lbs boost. Gun sight would be the normal revi, as the GGS was use was atypical compared to the USAAF Mustang and was used only by a small number of fighter squadrons. If DCS considers a very late war scenario, perhaps a +25 lbs variant, as some Squadrons might have used this trouble plagued boost in the last months of the war. It would give the poor old bugger some chance, at least. There should be however the ability to mount fuselage and wing bombs racks, albit for smaller sized 250/500 lbs bombs only, as the semi-obsolate Mark IX was increasingly used for risky ground attack duties. There should be also an option to clip the wing, which would improve roll rate as well - recoveries after dive bombing often wing deformation on the Spit, which tendency was reduced by wing clipping. Teardrop canopy is also basically a non common item. Dishing out with Jerries at angels 30 might be a problem with the Mark IX, as (largely due to its superior aerodynamics) the late war 109K would cruise faster than you can speed at full throttle with the Mark IX. The best tactical option would be to stay at low altitudes where the Merlin can still compete - or better still, a P-47.

100 octane boosted aircraft saw considerable extent during the BoB, everyone knows that for 50 years, since even old books mention it. Its just not known to how "widespread" use was as opposet to blanket claims that each and every unit used it. Same for the +25 lbs IXs. Certainly a considerable number of units may have used it from the spring of 1945 and certainly not before. +21 lbs XIV, a possibility too, but given how semi-obsolate the Mark IX was, I would bet the IXs had priority over the XIV.

With the same engine but without the retractable tailwheel and wheel well covers, I'd say no. I have some G-10 curves for 2000 PS - its slower and climbs marginally worse than the K-4. The idea of the G-10 was to make the same G airframe w/o resetting tools for the K airframe (which might look similar but in there were some 1500 tiny details differences - if you ever put together an IKEA furniture, you know it matters ;). At the same time, internals were all K-4, so the operational unit could use the same engine, generator etc. spare parts.

Wisest words so far in this... "discussion". Also known as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Unfortunately it was, read back the subject. If you wish to deny the historical evidence, its your problem. Ok so the subject does not interest you at all yet you keep arguing about it... I haven't insulted any other historians. There are none here, and certainly none at that spitfire fan site, the main creators being an aircraft mechanic and some lorry mam. Definitely none of them are historians, by a long shot. In fact I have discussed the matter with historians and there is an agreement on the matter - which goes against your take on it. Sorry but that's just the way it is. The articles from these historians were provided to you here by me and others - and it is you who insult them by implying them false reporting on the matter you do not care about. Yes, it's an outright lie - your lie, as I haven't ever made such a "claim". You still can't see the difference between relevant sources and a lot of irrelevant ones just put their to bedazzle the reader with the quantity and fail to deliver on the content. Let me explain to you how it works - you provide one source which clearly states something, then that thing is sufficiently proven. If you, on the other hand, litter a page with hundred of completely irrelevant trivia, than it worths nothing as far as proving power goes - at least for a man of education (addenda: please do not use expression you do not understand i.e. in dubio pro reo - that has, unfortunately the exact opposite meaning you believe it has). That's your opinion. You're entitled to it. If you have problems with my person or have suggestions how to improve my site, please do so in the future in its official email address and not here. Alas, I must also ask you to refrain from addressing me here any further with your rants. I have been quite patient about that, but as none of your posts so far you provided any sort evidence, documentation or source, nor thought, nor anything that would particularly interest me, I must ask you to take that elsewhere.

Lots of nothing is, however, still nothing. You seem to be confused about the nature of primary sources vs secondary source. All the information about the resetting of engines to 1.98 ata, the order to set the engines for 1.98 ata, the relevant unit strengths and the number of aircraft available, the evidence of C-3 fuel being available in Bavarian airfields (even down the details of storage individual airfields at given dates), photographic evidence of aircraft fueled with C-3 fuel - its all laid in down and supported primary sources. OKL, GdJ-Grp. Qu-, Br. B. Nr. 1561/45 g. Kdos von 20. März 1945 is a primary source. The Kriegstagebuch Luftflottenkommando 6 for April 1945 is a primary source. Photographs of events and aircraft with C-3 are as primary sources as you can get. There are secondary sources as well, i.e. respected historians coming to the same conclusion based on the same primary sources. In contrast, there is only circumstantial evidence pointing towards the use of increased boost pressures with Spitfire aircraft in the 2nd TAF in 1945. These Spitfire aircraft also required modification of their engines to be present - unlike G-10s, G-14/AS and K-4s running at 1.98 ata which required no modification at all. So far the only documented indication of such modification taking place is a single report snippet that about a dozen Mark XIVs can be delivered at some time from late March 1945. That's still not being employed in an operational unit, that still lacks evidence that the required fuel was supplied to the relevant airbase, it tells nothing about the number of aircraft using higher boost and has absolutely no weight of evidence towards combat use. Out of the dozens of Mk IX and XIV combat reports, there is not a single one mentioning the use of either +21 or +25 lbs. Odd, isn't it. I also invite you to present your evidence that OKL, GdJ-Grp. Qu-, Br. B. Nr. 1561/45 g. Kdos von 20. März 1945 order was not executed as ordered. Of course you are entitled to have an opinion that it was not and decide to believe such absurd explanations that the units for some unknown reason simply refused to turn two screws in an engine and gain 200 HP.

Like I said, I wish we would have nearly the same high level of evidence for the use of +21 / + 25 lbs boost by the 2nd TAF. But apparantly there are some double standards for evidence...

Well well ain't Milosh has his uses now and then. Nice find. It seems it has been proven beyond doubt that all 109K units that were switching to 1.98 ata had access to C-3 fuel in their home airfields. I guess its now down to screwdriver-access denial, water-access denial and stories of ground crews flat out refusing to fill C-3 marked aircraft from the C-3 storage on the relevant airfields. :) I wish there would be anything even remotely comparable for supposedly 150 grade Spitfires in 1945. Or 1940 for that matter. ;)

Dietmar Hermann

Supposed screwdrivers! :lol:

"In Rechlin begann am 19.2.45. die 2000 PS-Erprobung des DB 605 mit der Ju 52. Die Tests vom 19.2.45. bis 3.3.45. mit einer Flugzeit von 2 h 46 min, davon 1 h 40 min mit 2000 PS Motorlauf, verliefen einwandfrei. Nur eine Kerze wurde gewechselt."

Quite true, Milosh and very observant. We only know that 1,98 ata successfully employed and tested by an operational unit without particular problems and that Rechlins trials were successful and that the boost has been cleared and ordered for four Gruppen of JG 27 and 53 apart from JG 11 already using it and that the aircraft of JG 27 and 53 had access to C-3 fuel in Bavaria even at the end of the war and that their planes carried fuel triangles that indicated the use of C-3 fuel. What remains in question wheter the groundcrews of JG 27 and JG 53 ever managed to set the boost regulator valve to from 1,8 ata to 1,98a and the injection pump's limiter screw from 15 mm to 13.8 mm, which was how a D series engine was set to "C" type. I wonder if, during the last chaotic days of the Nazi Reich, if there was even a single screwdriver in Bavarian airfields. Certainly no document and even more importantly, IMAGE of DOCUMENT has been posted so far that would prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there were screwdrivers around! :megalol:

The tank has 115 liters capacity, but it was needed to maintain the CoG, also it was in some cases dual-purpose, and could be used for either to store MW-50 or aviation fuel. Since aviation fuel has a density of about 3/4 that of MW-50, the same weight was filled (ie. ca 80 liter MW or 115 liter methanol, both weight about 75-80 kg), at least on the 109K. I think its very likely the D-9 followed the same procedure.

I believe so. IIRC Sabre IIB could run on +11 by default, and IIA if the engines propeller reduction gear was strengthened. Its a pity that the Tempest is not featured in DCS. :/

:megalol: Do you have any evidence of (i) C-3 not being available to the 109 units concerned or that (ii) the 109 units concerned refused to carry out their operational orders to increase manifold pressure to 1.98ata? (iii) or evidence of combat use of +25 lbs boost on Mk IXs in 1945? (iv) or evidence of combat use of +21 lbs boost on Mk XIVs in 1945?