philstyle

OK cheers, I can update with the K4 figure as opposed to the K6... those hand written charts are a bit of a mess to read sometimes :) I have no idea what a G6/AS with a lower drag cowling & running with MW50 would do, that's exactly why I ask for source documents - cos I'd be guessing like everyone else otherwise. - graphing my own made up data is just silly :)

If someone want's to build a spreadsheet and graph like the one linked below, but showing the correct figures which you all seem to have, then please do so, so it corrects this graph. Once done, let me know and I'll use it to decide if the MW50 K4 should be on the server. Here's as good as I can get, but it seems everyone else has access to better data. So, go to it. https://i.imgur.com/zqriTuE.png .

That's one single altitude.... it's a start, but not much more.

Hey Saburo, do you have a link that supports those dates?

OK, do you have that data, or just your guesses? I've taken a few of the original sources which give just level speeds at altitude that people have posted on this thread and mapped them on the same set of Axis... This is a task I asked the people who cared to do... but of course nobody did it... Here's the result. For me this demonstrates that, at least as far as stright line speed goes: 1. The K4 without MW50 is the Best fit for a 109 G6 without MW50, despite the K4 being quicker at all altitudes, and in fact having a massive advantage at high altitude. 2. The K4 with MW50 is about the same distance from the 109 G6 at 1.7 ATA as the K4 without MW50. Although they sit either side of the G6 until 7500m at which point both K4s are faster than the G6 even with 1.7 ATA.

Jesus, trying to tease source documents out of you is like pulling hens teeth.... Fortunately, Krupi has found something that appears to be making your argument for you. So thanks to him for doing he job.

Nice find. Date to June 44 by the looks of it too. The speeds at altitudes do look more like the K4 with MW50 than without.

Source for that claim? There's mention of an MW50 equipped 109 in April 44 in Knoke's memoir, but the photo he shows in the book does not have any of the MW50 markings (fuel triangle or the supposed "red legs")

Hummingbird, Manage to find that source yet? I'm not just being obtuse, if the data really shows that the K4 with MW50 is more like the 109-G6 (even with MW50) then there is a good argument for adding some MW50 equipped K4s to the server, doing so sure would solve one massive headache, and prevent me from having to do this dull-as-dogs*** discussion for another 10 times.

Are you using "SL" as a stand-in for "sea level" or for "straight and level"? Also, do you have the source links for the G6/AS aircraft?

Even with MW50?

Apparently that's no the MW50 engine... although the 1.42 ATA is telling. . .

Is that with the A/S engine? I thought it was, given the 1.42 ATA, but wasn't 100% sure. The title just has "A" not "AS" (AS or ASM being the MW50 equipped engines).

The only reference I can find to G14 operating in Normandy in July is a single line in Wikipedia... It's apparently from the book by Prien and Rodeike. I don't have the book and wiki doesn't say what date in july... could be 31st, or the 1st for all we know.

Care to link your source? The only/ best data I can find is from Versuchs-Bericht Nr. 109 20 L 43. But these speeds are only at Kampfleistung. It is provided by Kurfürst: http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G5AS_Lmessung/messung_109g5AS.html

Interesting, would like to see those tests. link?

OK, so is the G6 still part of the discussion now, or are you dropping it in favor of the G14? (July 1944)? Or do both aircraft still matter - i.e the G6 for pre-July and the G14 for July onwards? I was assuming you were still using the G6 as an argument for pre-July (exact date not yet specified, and no sources yet provided). However, if the G6 is not part of your argument, then we can stop going around in circles. None of the SoW missions are set in July 1944. IF the G6 is still relevant, the I revert to this,. . . . Data which shows that, in fact, 109-K4 with MW50 is closer to the 109-G6 in terms of level speeds, climb rates, turn rates, roll rates and max dive speeds that it is without. That would make for a pretty convincing argument to enable to MW50 in the K4. But that means sourcing three sets of data for each category and mapping them together for comparison. If people really want to do the leg work, then I'd be happy to see the results. If the G-6 is not relevant any more then SoW missions are not relevant either.

Not at all. For the FORTH damned time in an hour. I'd happily entertain: . . . Data which shows that, in fact, 109-K4 with MW50 is closer to the 109-G6 in terms of level speeds, climb rates, turn rates, roll rates and max dive speeds that it is without. That would make for a pretty convincing argument to enable to MW50 in the K4. But that means sourcing three sets of data for each category and mapping them together for comparison. If people really want to do the leg work, then I'd be happy to see the results.

Here's how it breaks down. And this works for more than just a couple of axis aircraft. There are allied aircraft which have similar problems. Ideally, we'd love situation X But X is impossible. We only have Y, Z and 0 0 is the least desired option, if either Y or Z can be implemented It is currently understood that Y is closer to X than Z is, so Y is being adopted. If it can be proven that Z is, in fact, closer to X than Y is, then Z can be adopted instead of Y. But neither Y nor Z are considered to be equal to X. Nobody at SoW is making that argument. there is no excuse for pretending that we are.

I'm not "missing" that point, I'm just not making an argument that hangs on it. As I've said time and time again, repeated here now fro the third time in less than an hour. I'd like to see .. Data which shows that, in fact, 109-K4 with MW50 is closer to the 109-G6 in terms of level speeds, climb rates, turn rates, roll rates and max dive speeds that it is without. That would make for a pretty convincing argument to enable to MW50 in the K4. But that means sourcing three sets of data for each category and mapping them together for comparison. If people really want to do the leg work, then I'd be happy to see the results.

Sure, but where's the comparative data? I know that turning Mw50 off causes losses in performance... no-body's disagreeing with that. This is not the first time I've opened the door for people to make the case, only for them to go tangential. Data which shows that, in fact, 109-K4 with MW50 is closer to the 109-G6 in terms of level speeds, climb rates, turn rates, roll rates and max dive speeds that it is without. That would make for a pretty convincing argument to enable to MW50 in the K4. But that means sourcing three sets of data for each category and mapping them together for comparison. If people really want to do the leg work, then I'd be happy to see the results.

The reasoning, as stated multiple times, is to provide stand-ins for the missing types. You are absolutely right that they shouldn't be there at all. This is also stated numerous times in SoW related documents and posts. They are "semi-historical" compromises. Including the DORA allows player who, for whatever reason, cannot purchase the ANTON, which is the correct type for the map/ period. Including the K4. Eventually the Dora will be removed from the server, once it's clear that the bulk of the player base is happy to use the other modules. We are getting close to that now, as the current server stats show that the Dora has been the least favored type now for some time. Including the 109-K4 is almost a necessity at the moment, given how ED has decided to deliver aircraft modules. The "right" 109 simply is not there. Having no 109s at all on the server would be a step too far, in our judgement. So, the question is, can the K4 be fudged to stand in as a G6, which is the machine that really belongs there? So far, based on information collected from various online sources (such as the excellent Kurfurst website) the K4 is understood to perform closer to the G6 when the K4 is run at 1.42 ATA than it does with MW50 enabled, even with it being 4% heavier. As one example, the K4 without MW50, at 1.42 ATA is understood to be 0.9% variant from the 109-G6 (under notleistung) at sea level in level flight. The K4 with MW50 enabled is out by 11%. . Other data show similar differentials. I'd be happy to entertain performance data which shows that, in fact, 109-K4 with MW50 is closer to the 109-G6 in terms of level speeds, climb rates, turn rates, roll rates and max dive speeds that it is without. That would make for a pretty convincing argument to enable to MW50 in the K4. But that measns sourcing three sets of data for each category and mapping them together for comparison. If people really want to do the leg work, then I'd be happy to see the results.

Any chance you have a source for the date during July that the G-14s with MW50 entered the Normandy theatre? The original plan was to hold off on the K4s with MW50 until the Falaise pocket missions, however, I'd overlooked the G-14 entry date. If someone knows exactly when the G-14s with MW50 were operating, then we can use that date to bring in the K4s with MW50 as a stand-in for the G-14.

Perhaps, but then they've messed it up, because it's not a 1940 map. It's at least early-mid 1944.

Where is wanting realism specified as the excuse?