DCS WW2 fighter comparison

[MiloMorai]

Old saying Sith, it is not the a/c but the pilot.

[NineLine]

Old saying Sith, it is not the a/c but the pilot.

 

Well there is soooooo many factors, especially debating aircraft from the 40's.... pilot is a huge one for sure...

[Friedrich-4B]

Very good Diving data for fw190!

 

And very good, objective data for several Fw 190A sub-types:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_A-2_216_220.pdf

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_528.pdf

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a4.html

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a8.html

 

and the 190D, with the help of Dietmar Harmann, amongst others...

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9test.html

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9testgerman.html

Edited July 1, 2014 by Friedrich-4/B

[gavagai]

Well there is soooooo many factors, especially debating aircraft from the 40's.... pilot is a huge one for sure...

 

It is a huge one, but there is a good reason why new aircraft are introduced. I only need a small edge in aircraft performance to beat other virtual pilots who I know are more skilled than I am.

[NineLine]

It is a huge one, but there is a good reason why new aircraft are introduced. I only need a small edge in aircraft performance to beat other virtual pilots who I know are more skilled than I am.

 

Provided that pilot lets you in a position to use that advantage...

[MiloMorai]

Unfortunately for you Kurfurst there is production, in stock, and consumption numbers for 100 and 150 fuel. The same can't be said for C3 fuel.

 

All you can give is an in stock number and NO source for this number (ie NO document image) There also has been no document image of OKL, GdJ-Grp. Qu-, Br. B. Nr. 1561/45 g.Kdos. ever posted.

 

I have yet to see a pilot comment from the 4 Gruppen on using 1.98ata but there are numbers of pilot comments on the use of 100 and 150 fuel.

 

In Luftflotte 4 (SE Germany) April 9 1945, there was 116 Fw190Fs (525 l /a/c) which required C3 fuel. Yes I can see these being grounded because C3 was going to 1.98ata K-4s. NOT.

 

[tempestglen]

At the best what we've got is evidence for two Mark IX Squadrons (that's two dozen aircraft for you) experimenting with +25 lbs boost but without any evidence of ever employing it in combat in the spring-summer of 1944. (fun fact - hundreds of equivalent G-14s were used for combat operations at the same time).

 

 

 

 

Reason is very very simple, Spring-summer, the time is when luftwaffe shrank to their motherland's sky and desperately defended 3rd Riech against B17/P47p51 swarms. The combat area is definetly OUT OF SPITFIRE's RANGE. And Spitfires lost their jobs at that time, and USAAF called them Run Away Fast(RAF) :lol:because spitfires always had to "bingo" when reaching france/holand erea. You can imagine how sad the B17ers were seeing your escort fighter turning away.

 

How can you find combat records when spitfire had almost no chance to fight, no enemy to shoot at?

 

Don't forget low-countries were in german's hand, Bf109 can take off from France base while spitfire couldn't.

Edited July 2, 2014 by tempestglen

[gavagai]

Provided that pilot lets you in a position to use that advantage...

 

Let me? They seek it out! :thumbup:

[JtD]

Look Kurfürst, if you want to make a case for anything, try an approach like this. There's a list with more than 60 primary sources on the bottom which support the authors point of view - plans, technical feasibility, factory tests, field tests, service introduction, service use. All there, documented. Do the same.

 

But please spare me and the world your tiresome kindergarten style forum debates, where you show no intention at all to actually share information. And while you seem to be desperately trying to prove your intellectual superiority with smart ass comments and cheap shots at absent people, you are in fact achieving the opposite. One liners followed by :megalol::doh::lol: are pathetic. You're destroying any reputation you might have built with your other contributions, be it your website or other, good quality forum posts.

[Friedrich-4B]

All you can give is an in stock number and NO source for this number (ie NO document image) There also has been no document image of OKL, GdJ-Grp. Qu-, Br. B. Nr. 1561/45 g.Kdos. ever posted.

 

Kurfurst hasn't actually seen the document, except as a partial reproduction in a book called Messerschmitt Bf 109 im Einsatz by Zobel, Fritz X., and Mathmann, Jakob Maria: Waffen-Arsenal, Sonderband S-38. Podzun-Pallas Verlag GmbH. Wölfersheim-Berstadt, 1995. ISBN 3-7909-0541-0.. Without having direct access to the book it is impossible to know whether the transcript and interpretation on Kurfurst's site is accurate.

[Kurfürst]

Kurfurst hasn't actually seen the document, except as a partial reproduction in a book called Messerschmitt Bf 109 im Einsatz by Zobel, Fritz X., and Mathmann, Jakob Maria: Waffen-Arsenal, Sonderband S-38. Podzun-Pallas Verlag GmbH. Wölfersheim-Berstadt, 1995. ISBN 3-7909-0541-0.. Without having direct access to the book it is impossible to know whether the transcript and interpretation on Kurfurst's site is accurate.

 

.... which has been posted a week ago in this very thread.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2099002&postcount=128

[Kurfürst]

Look Kurfürst, if you want to make a case for anything, try an approach like this. There's a list with more than 60 primary sources on the bottom which support the authors point of view - plans, technical feasibility, factory tests, field tests, service introduction, service use. All there, documented. Do the same.

 

It has been done, some eight years ago. Like I said, Mike lost that argument long time ago. Really there is nothing to argue on the 1.98 ata matter anymore, as all the important details of its clearance and use are well researched, published and known. Nobody will seriously bother to stop and argue, or repeat these facts every time a few partisans (who could be really counted on one hand - Milo and his various nicks, "Friedrich" and his various nicks, Mike and Neil) start to speculate what could have been gone differently than it was.

 

If he want to revise history on his site, that's his problem. You seem to have been concerned with him being referred as a 'clown' etc. - I believe you should really ponder on whether this controversial reputation Mike has built up over the years has anything to do with the way he handles historical evidence in those performance comparison articles. Have you ever considered the possibility of him just coming clean, after all these years and after several researchers having sent him documents and advised to correct his articles and correct them? Its his choice to have those articles in the way they are, and have the reputation that comes with it. There is no denying that he is doing some useful work at the same time.

 

But please spare me and the world your tiresome kindergarten style forum debates, where you show no intention at all to actually share information. And while you seem to be desperately trying to prove your intellectual superiority with smart ass comments and cheap shots at absent people, you are in fact achieving the opposite. One liners followed by :megalol::doh::lol: are pathetic. You're destroying any reputation you might have built with your other contributions, be it your website or other, good quality forum posts.

 

Pardon my satirical style and highlighting a few of the most comical takes on historical on that site - I was attempting to keep my criticism on the light side. Of course I could just say it more directly what is in them - selective presentation of facts. If you like that sort of approach on history, by all means, keep reading them.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Kurfürst

[Kurfürst]

Reason is very very simple, Spring-summer, the time is when luftwaffe shrank to their motherland's sky and desperately defended 3rd Riech against B17/P47p51 swarms. The combat area is definetly OUT OF SPITFIRE's RANGE. And Spitfires lost their jobs at that time, and USAAF called them Run Away Fast(RAF) :lol:because spitfires always had to "bingo" when reaching france/holand erea. You can imagine how sad the B17ers were seeing your escort fighter turning away.

 

How can you find combat records when spitfire had almost no chance to fight, no enemy to shoot at?

 

Don't forget low-countries were in german's hand, Bf109 can take off from France base while spitfire couldn't.

 

All valid points of course - the range of Spitfire when operating from bases in the UK was simply inadequate to operate over the continent for any meaningful time, especially when this would involve combat. Consumption of the Merlin 66 would be in the order of 196 imp./gallons per hour and the internal fuel capacity was just 85 gallons - or ca 16 gallons consumed in every 5 minutes at max. boost, or about one-fifth of the tank's capacity. With a range of just about 3-400 miles under high/low cruise conditions, the chances of returning to base would quickly approach to nil.

 

Anyway, the point I was trying to make that the argument of +25 lbs Spits in 1944 is odd given that these in all likelihood were never used in actual combat and the two Squadrons involved in the trials were a small minority among the many Mark IX Squadrons at that time. +25 lbs for the Mark IX is really a spring 1945 scenario, same with the 109K at 1.98 ata. It is remarkable how close these developments run parallel in real life btw.

[tempestglen]

All valid points of course - the range of Spitfire when operating from bases in the UK was simply inadequate to operate over the continent for any meaningful time, especially when this would involve combat. Consumption of the Merlin 66 would be in the order of 196 imp./gallons per hour and the internal fuel capacity was just 85 gallons - or ca 16 gallons consumed in every 5 minutes at max. boost, or about one-fifth of the tank's capacity. With a range of just about 3-400 miles under high/low cruise conditions, the chances of returning to base would quickly approach to nil.

 

Anyway, the point I was trying to make that the argument of +25 lbs Spits in 1944 is odd given that these in all likelihood were never used in actual combat and the two Squadrons involved in the trials were a small minority among the many Mark IX Squadrons at that time. +25 lbs for the Mark IX is really a spring 1945 scenario, same with the 109K at 1.98 ata. It is remarkable how close these developments run parallel in real life btw.

 

Since it's difficult or expensive to find some proof, I suggest both sides accept 1945 scenario where high boost spit/109 dora/tempy/mustang are widely used.

[Kurfürst]

I agree... its a very late war ("über") planeset anyway.

[bongodriver]

it only took 22 pages.

[Kurfürst]

Seven.

[Friedrich-4B]

.... which has been posted a week ago in this very thread.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2099002&postcount=128

 

Fair enough, although it is still an extract of a document cut and pasted from a secondary source.

 

Really there is nothing to argue on the 1.98 ata matter anymore, as all the important details of its clearance and use are well researched, published and known. Nobody will seriously bother to stop and argue, or repeat these facts every time a few partisans (who could be really counted on one hand - Milo and his various nicks, "Friedrich" and his various nicks, Mike and Neil) start to speculate what could have been gone differently than it was.

 

As for the rest of the "evidence" there is nothing whatsoever to show that K-4s ever used 1.98 ata after March 20 1945, no matter what Kurfurst likes to pretend.

 

His own site http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/605D_clearance198.html on the K-4 and 1.98 ata has not been updated with anything new or different in nearly six years because there is nothing new to show, and what is shown is either inconclusive or self-contradictory:

 

None of the reports on C3 in the section titled "Allied Crashed Enemy Aircraft Reports of Bf 109s fueled with C-3 fuel" is dated past 20 January 1945 - albeit there is an undated report on a G-10 - and there is no report on a Bf 109K-4 using C3, even though the Allies captured several K-4s from the units that were supposed to have used 1.98 ata.

 

Two of the four photos of the 109s showing C3 triangles were a K-4 from 11./JG 77 (Fw Böttner, possibly taken November 1944) and a G-10 from 7./JG 52, formally of II./JG 51, all Eastern-front units that, according to http://kurfurst.org/Operations/1945_Ausrustungderjagdverbanden_Lflotte6/Luftflotte6.html, dated 19 March 1945, and the extract of OKL, GdJ-Grp. Qu-, Br. B. Nr. 1561/45 g.Kdos were not using C3 fuel!

(Maybe the Italians were using C3, but no evidence has come to light.)

 

 

In other words documents from Kurfurst's own site contradict Kurfurst's claims. So yeah, the fact is that all that is known about K-4s using 1.98 ata is that the "evidence" is inconclusive and weak at best.

 

I agree with T/Glen, there's no reason not to have a very late war scenario where K-4s use 1.98 ata, but it should always be considered as a possible scenario not a factual.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Friedrich-4/B

[Kurfürst]

How is the extract on the Luftflotte 6 (Eastern front units) is supposed to contradict the fuel use of Lko. West units in Bavaria?

 

Also note that II./JG 11 is operating at C-3 and 1,98ata on the Eastern front (II/JG 11 was stationed near Berlin).

 

Oh yes, G-10 and K-4 had the same engine with the boost possibilities, while the G-14/AS bz that time could have the ASC engine with 1,98ata. Not only the K-4 operated at 1,98 ata, but G-10 and G-14/AS (ASC) as well...

 

Anyway, we can't say there is no new "research" results! Here are two brand new ones:

 

Fw 190F units operating in Hungary prevented Bf 109K units in Bavaria from operating on C-3 fuel

 

and

 

whatever units operating in Prussia/Poland prevented Bf 109K units in Bavaria from operating on C-3 fuel because 7./JG 52 was formally of II./JG 51 which was from the Eastern Front!

 

In addition, the ground crews of 109K units in Bavaria were out of their mind and painted C-3 fuel triangles on their aircraft for no reason, no reason at all.

 

HAHA! See?

Edited July 2, 2014 by Kurfürst

[bongodriver]

Seven.

 

22

[Kurfürst]

Lets compromise in 22 for you, friedrich and milosh, and seven for the rest of us. ;)

[bongodriver]

23

[otto]

Look what kind of proof posts Williams on his site :

 

 

 

This demonstrates his chart held in battle. :lol:

[Kurfürst]

Finally, some convincing evidence at last that Spitfire pilots went to battle armed with Mike Williams charts! :megalol:

[Friedrich-4B]

How is the extract on the Luftflotte 6 (Eastern front units) is supposed to contradict the fuel use of Lko. West units in Bavaria?

 

It shows conclusively that a C3 triangle was no indication of what fuel was being used, although Kurfurst tried to use these images to somehow prove that C3 and 1.98 ata MUST have been used by K-4s.

 

Oh yes, G-10 and K-4 had the same engine with the boost possibilities, while the G-14/AS bz that time could have the ASC engine with 1,98ata. Not only the K-4 operated at 1,98 ata, but G-10 and G-14/AS (ASC) as well...

 

So now we have a claim that G-10s and G-14/As used 1.98 ata although the one extract of a document from a secondary source doesn't mention that any G-10/G-14/AS units were cleared to use 1.98 ata.

 

whatever units operating in Prussia/Poland prevented Bf 109K units in Bavaria from operating on C-3 fuel because 7./JG 52 was formally of II./JG 51 which was from the Eastern Front!

 

Nope, II./JG 52 is listed in OKL, GdJ-Grp. Qu-, Br. B. Nr. 1561/45 g.Kdos under II. / JG 52 Bf 109 G-14/U4 K-4 nachschubmäßig K-4 as deliveries permit but it is not listed as one of the four units that was supposed to switch to using 1.98 ata and neither was II./JG 51 which was on the Eastern Front. The image proves nothing.

 

In addition, the ground crews of 109K units in Bavaria were out of their mind and painted C-3 fuel triangles on their aircraft for no reason, no reason at all. HAHA! See?

 

As already noted 109s on the Eastern also front had C3 triangles, thus the ground crews of those units were also out of their minds and painting them on for no reason, no reason at all...