The 109 is too good

[DD_Fenrir]

1 hour ago, Krez said:

The FM of the 51 and 47 don't take into account the higher octane fuel they actually used? I find that hard to believe.

 

It ain't that simple.

 

The 9th Tactical Air Force of the US Army Air Force, that providing direct support to the ground forces never operated with 150 octane. Ever. Period. 

However, the 8th Air Force, running the Strategic Bomber Campaign into the heart of the Reich, did.

 

Whilst the 8th Air Force Fighter Command were sequestered to help on the tactical battle field for about 2 weeks over Normandy commencing with D-Day, thereafter they went back to escorting the bombers hitting primarily fuel targets across Germany. There were also some brief interludes around the Battle of the Bulge in December. 

 

So if you were a Reichsverteidigung Jagdflieger you'd have been far more likely to bump into Mustangs pulling 72", and P-47s pulling 67".

 

If you were a front pilot the Mustangs you met would have been 67" and the T-bolts 57".

 

Given the restricted map sizes available in DCS this automatically tends to focus the operations to those of a Tactical nature, ergo 100 octane variants would be most appropriate.

 

 

[Hobel]

2 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

 

Run a search.  Our current allied fighters run on 100 octane, which as you know means reduced power against their potential capabilities.

 

My understanding is that when the warbirds were first being considered, the people voting for the allied planes asked for the most common, e.g. the Spit Mk9.

Unfortunately, the ones voting for the Luftwaffe, requested the best, i.e. the Dora and K4.   You can see it now when people still ask for the T152.

The right thing would have been to create a more even match off, but, we are where we are and simply have to make the best of it.

Where is the problem with dre P51 that is faster on deck than a K4 or D9?

[Mr_sukebe]

29 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

 

It ain't that simple.

 

The 9th Tactical Air Force of the US Army Air Force, that providing direct support to the ground forces never operated with 150 octane. Ever. Period. 

However, the 8th Air Force, running the Strategic Bomber Campaign into the heart of the Reich, did.

 

Whilst the 8th Air Force Fighter Command were sequestered to help on the tactical battle field for about 2 weeks over Normandy commencing with D-Day, thereafter they went back to escorting the bombers hitting primarily fuel targets across Germany. There were also some brief interludes around the Battle of the Bulge in December. 

 

So if you were a Reichsverteidigung Jagdflieger you'd have been far more likely to bump into Mustangs pulling 72", and P-47s pulling 67".

 

If you were a front pilot the Mustangs you met would have been 67" and the T-bolts 57".

 

Given the restricted map sizes available in DCS this automatically tends to focus the operations to those of a Tactical nature, ergo 100 octane variants would be most appropriate.

 

 

 

Which D9 or K4s operated over the DCS maps?  My guess is that it's going to be none.

[Krez]

1 hour ago, Mr_sukebe said:

 

Which D9 or K4s operated over the DCS maps?  My guess is that it's going to be none.

How many A-10C II's flew over the Caucasus? My guess is that's going to be none.
We are limited by what maps we have and the aircraft we have.

How many P-51D-25/30's or P-47D-30/40's saw action during the short window of June-July 44?
Judging by production and serial numbers, my guess is going to be none.
So you can just create missions with the Spitfire LF Mk. IX and the rest are A.I.

[Krez]

1 hour ago, DD_Fenrir said:

 

It ain't that simple.

 

The 9th Tactical Air Force of the US Army Air Force, that providing direct support to the ground forces never operated with 150 octane. Ever. Period. 

However, the 8th Air Force, running the Strategic Bomber Campaign into the heart of the Reich, did.

 

Whilst the 8th Air Force Fighter Command were sequestered to help on the tactical battle field for about 2 weeks over Normandy commencing with D-Day, thereafter they went back to escorting the bombers hitting primarily fuel targets across Germany. There were also some brief interludes around the Battle of the Bulge in December. 

 

So if you were a Reichsverteidigung Jagdflieger you'd have been far more likely to bump into Mustangs pulling 72", and P-47s pulling 67".

 

If you were a front pilot the Mustangs you met would have been 67" and the T-bolts 57".

 

Given the restricted map sizes available in DCS this automatically tends to focus the operations to those of a Tactical nature, ergo 100 octane variants would be most appropriate.

 

 

And that's not that simple.
Many fighter groups from the 9th AF were used as fighter escort for the 8th AF over Germany throughout and up until the end of the war.
 

 

[Krez]

1 hour ago, DD_Fenrir said:

The 9th Tactical Air Force of the US Army Air Force, that providing direct support to the ground forces never operated with 150 octane. Ever. Period.

I'd like to know where you got that "fact."
I can prove the 358th Fighter Group of the 9th Air Force provided bomber escort to the 8th Air Force as their primary role.
The 356th Fighter Squadron was part of the 358th Fighter Group of the 9th Air Force.
The only pilot to receive the Medal of Honour in the European Theater was Major James Howard of the 356th Fighter Squadron, protecting the 401st Bomb Group of the 8th Air Force.
 

[DD_Fenrir]

*Sigh*
 

You have no idea what you’re talking about. If you did you’d realise that your argument holds absolutely no water.

 

The primary source evidence is out there on the internet. I strongly suggest you go educate yourself. 
 

Come back and make informed opinions and then maybe you’ll be worth having a discussion with.

[Krez]

24 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

*Sigh*
 

You have no idea what you’re talking about. If you did you’d realise that your argument holds absolutely no water.

 

The primary source evidence is out there on the internet. I strongly suggest you go educate yourself. 
 

Come back and make informed opinions and then maybe you’ll be worth having a discussion with.

I'll call your bluff.
Show me your proof/evedence that the aircraft of the 9th AF never used 150 octane fuel and were relegated to interdiction/ground attack.
Please educate us.
 

Edited August 17, 2021 by Krez

[IcedVenom]

We need La-9.

[M1Combat]

20 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

*Sigh*
 

You have no idea what you’re talking about. If you did you’d realise that your argument holds absolutely no water.

 

The primary source evidence is out there on the internet. I strongly suggest you go educate yourself. 
 

Come back and make informed opinions and then maybe you’ll be worth having a discussion with.

Yeah...  show us.

 

Back it up friend...

 

To my eye your info is based on orders and what was supposed to happen...  I feel like it doesn't take into account what actually happened in real time during the war.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2021 by M1Combat

[DD_Fenrir]

1 hour ago, M1Combat said:

Yeah...  show us.

 

Back it up friend...

 

To my eye your info is based on orders and what was supposed to happen...  I feel like it doesn't take into account what actually happened in real time during the war.

 

 

 

 

Ha!!

 

Yeah, cos if you're operating on the continent and all your fuel supply has to be shipped to you via a pipeline under the English Channel, you just pick and choose the fuel grade you're supplied with. 

 

Seriously, must try harder.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

 

It's literally the first hit in a google search for "150 grade octane usaaf".

 

Exhibit A:

 

Quote

In late Winter of 1943-44 the Allied Expeditionary Air Force (A.E.A.F.) [that means 9th Air Force btw - Fenrir] decided, pending further trials, not to employ 150 Grade Fuel for Overlord due to spark plug issues, however, it was intended that 150 Grade would be used when proved satisfactory. ²¹   Meanwhile, cross channel operations by two squadrons of P-47’s and one P-38 using 150 Grade fuel revealed an increase of speed and climb characteristics at the expense of spark plug difficulties. ²²   The Production Division was directed on 28 March 1944, under the authority of the Commmanding General, Army Air Forces, to modify all P-38, P-47 and P-51 airplanes in the United Kingdom for the use of Grade 150 fuel, with the necessary modification kits to be shipped to the European Theater of Operations within 30 days. ²³   It was decided that Grade 150 fuel was to be the only fuel available for AAF fighter airplanes in the United Kingdom. ²⁴  

Successful service tests led in May 1944 to the Eighth Air Force Fighter Command [my italics - Fen] requesting that it "be supplied immediately with grade 150 aviation fuel for use in P-47, P-51 and P-38 planes". ²⁵   Deliveries of Grade 100/150 aviation fuel to AAF Stations commenced within a week of the landings in France. ^26   27   The change over to 150 grade fuel necessitated the resetting of all aneroid switches on the P-51s. ²⁸  

 

 

 

Exhibit B:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/2-supply-23nov44s.jpg

 

So whilst 9th Air Force Units in the late winter of 1943 and spring of 1944 did indeed support 8th Air Force bomber formations, they - like 8th Fighter Command - were all still using 100 octane.

 

By the time 150 octane is being introduced the 9th are now busy doing the job they were specifically brought to the ETO for - direct close air support of their troops or escort to mediums striking tactical targets.

 

No P-47 or P-51 operating from the European continent in WW2 was able to benefit from 150 octane. 

 

Done.

[M1Combat]

Thanks for the info friend :).

 

I'm still not sure how this means we shouldn't have 150 for P51's in DCS though?  I'm not seeing that connection.  I mean if all that was needed was new/different plugs...  then why can't ED give us new/different plugs and send us on our way with 150???

 

Are you saying you have some form of proof that the Mustang we have (or one exactly like it) never (ever) ran with 150?  That's a pretty long stretch right?

[Krez]

I stand schooled and reprimanded.

[Art-J]

@M1Combat I think it's more about data available and effort required. There's plenty of flight test data available to cross check for 130 power ratings and we know which test report Yo-Yo settled with eventually when tuning performance of DCS Stang. Not so much out there for 150 though.

 

Also, let's be real, if they struggle even with fixing small bugs or finishing features in recent warbird modules, they sure as hell don't have enough manpower and resources to revise flight model of a 9-year-old P-51 module anytime soon, if ever.

Edited August 18, 2021 by Art-J

[DD_Fenrir]

5 hours ago, M1Combat said:

Thanks for the info friend :).

 

I'm still not sure how this means we shouldn't have 150 for P51's in DCS though?  I'm not seeing that connection.  I mean if all that was needed was new/different plugs...  then why can't ED give us new/different plugs and send us on our way with 150???

 

Are you saying you have some form of proof that the Mustang we have (or one exactly like it) never (ever) ran with 150?  That's a pretty long stretch right?

Not at all. I personally would like to see a 150 grade option for the Jug and Pony, if only for flexibility and options.

 

My point has always been show those elements who demand 150 octane in face of the MW50 fighters and claim it’s unrealistic to not have it, that actually, real USAAF airmen faced this very issue and considering the de facto tactical air focus of DCS, it’s actually a better representation of history considering the available maps to not have it.

 

Should we ever get a North Sea map with 8th Air Force bases and strategic targets for B-17s you will then find me clamouring for 150 octane options. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by DD_Fenrir

[grafspee]

I will add that rating for of standard fuel was 100/130 and rating for 150grade was 100-5/145-150 so for rich mixture 20 octane rating difference not 50

Edited August 18, 2021 by grafspee

[Mr_sukebe]

One question.  Weren’t the D9 and K4 aircraft given the performance enhancements to allow engagement of high altitude bomber formations?  If so, would they have been available to fight against strike aircraft over France?

[DD_Fenrir]

3 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:

One question.  Weren’t the D9 and K4 aircraft given the performance enhancements to allow engagement of high altitude bomber formations?  If so, would they have been available to fight against strike aircraft over France?

 

France was liberated by the time of their introduction into service.

 

 

[iFoxRomeo]

1 hour ago, Mr_sukebe said:

One question.  Weren’t the D9 and K4 aircraft given the performance enhancements to allow engagement of high altitude bomber formations?  If so, would they have been available to fight against strike aircraft over France?

Depends how you define high altitude. Above FTH there is next to zero performance gain with MW50. So ~20-22kft for the D9 and ~26-28kft for the K4 is the point where the Pilot should disengage MW50 as it is a waste of MW above that altitude.

 

Above FTH GM-1 would be usefull as it increases the amount of oxygen for the engine. But afaik neither the D9 nor the K4 used GM-1

 

Fox

[Mr_sukebe]

1 hour ago, DD_Fenrir said:

 

France was liberated by the time of their introduction into service.

 

 

thanks, that answers my earlier question 

[grafspee]

1 hour ago, iFoxRomeo said:

Depends how you define high altitude. Above FTH there is next to zero performance gain with MW50. So ~20-22kft for the D9 and ~26-28kft for the K4 is the point where the Pilot should disengage MW50 as it is a waste of MW above that altitude.

 

Above FTH GM-1 would be usefull as it increases the amount of oxygen for the engine. But afaik neither the D9 nor the K4 used GM-1

 

Fox

Not exactly, FTH height in case of K-4 means that above ~26k ATA will drop below 1.8 but this in no time to disengaged MW50 you need to wait because at 1.7ATA you still need MW50 to run engine safe. You can disengaged MW-50 safely when ATA drops below 1.5, but still you will lose some power due to increase of charge temp. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by grafspee

[iFoxRomeo]

12 minutes ago, grafspee said:

Not exactly, FTH height in case of K-4 means that above ~26k ATA will drop below 1.8 but this in no time to disengaged MW50 you need to wait because at 1.7ATA you still need MW50 to run engine safe. You can disengaged MW-50 safely when ATA drops below 1.5, but still you will lose some power due to increase of charge temp. 

 

I don't have the manual of the K4, but the MW manual of the G-14 is quite clear about that and does not refer to the actual ATA drop, but altitude instead. 

 

[grafspee]

3 hours ago, iFoxRomeo said:

I don't have the manual of the K4, but the MW manual of the G-14 is quite clear about that and does not refer to the actual ATA drop, but altitude instead. 

 

I don't know that, Last time i tried to run more then 1.6ATA w/o mw50 injection cockpit start to shake in K-4 in DCS

605AS has bigger supercharger give high alt performance but BD605 DB could be set up in different way, so MW50 off may happen at higher alt then 8.5km

And DB version i know was intensive improved compare to previous ones.

AS could have safe ATA at 8.5km to shut off mw50

Could be that ED modeled something wrong, but at alt 28k ft which is about 8500m at 1.8ata you cant turn off mw50, if you do that plane shakes very intensive.

Maybe K-4 ram air effect is over done giving more boost then should be. I don't know

I re-test K-4 to refresh my memory.

26k ft FTH MW50 must be on

28k ft FT 1.7 ATA when mw50 off visible shake of the cockpit

29k ft 1.58 ATA mw50 off gentle cockpit shake, quite hard to notice but they are, when switched  mw50 on i can see difference.

30300 ft 1.50 ATA mw50 off no cockpit shake i assume it is safe to fly with mw50 off.

When switching on/off i can see slip spike on slip indicator so there is some power increase when i engage mw50 even when being above FTH.

Still not worth it when below FTH it gives much more power.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by grafspee

[iFoxRomeo]

3 hours ago, grafspee said:

I don't know that, Last time i tried to run more then 1.6ATA w/o mw50 injection cockpit start to shake in K-4 in DCS

605AS has bigger supercharger give high alt performance but BD605 DB could be set up in different way, so MW50 off may happen at higher alt then 8.5km

And DB version i know was intensive improved compare to previous ones.

AS could have safe ATA at 8.5km to shut off mw50

Could be that ED modeled something wrong, but at alt 28k ft which is about 8500m at 1.8ata you cant turn off mw50, if you do that plane shakes very intensive.

Maybe K-4 ram air effect is over done giving more boost then should be. I don't know

I re-test K-4 to refresh my memory.

26k ft FTH MW50 must be on

28k ft FT 1.7 ATA when mw50 off visible shake of the cockpit

29k ft 1.58 ATA mw50 off gentle cockpit shake, quite hard to notice but they are, when switched  mw50 on i can see difference.

30300 ft 1.50 ATA mw50 off no cockpit shake i assume it is safe to fly with mw50 off.

When switching on/off i can see slip spike on slip indicator so there is some power increase when i engage mw50 even when being above FTH.

Still not worth it when below FTH it gives much more power.

 

 

 

 

There is the real K4 and there is the DCS K4.

The real one was projected to switch off MW50 at 7,5km when equipped with the DB605DB/ASB

 

 

You are right that it behaves differently in DCS. I think the DCS K4's supercharger is too effective at high altitude, but I can only base this on the charts from kurfurst.org. Unfortunately there is no chart that shows the course of the (DB)supercharger's pressure at altitude

 

Fox

[grafspee]

@iFoxRomeo I will always refer to DCS K-4 since i have no documentation about real K-4

I can see significant drop in speed when switching of mw50 at 7.5km, so at 7.5 it gives nice power boost then.

Why it is supposed to turn off mw50 i don't know.

I found interesting part from DCS K-4 manual.

This m to ft conversions looks odd for me

9000m = 26528 ft ? this does not look correct for me.

DCS manual states it clear without MW50 at 1.8ata K-4 reached 670km/h at 9000m (26528ft) for me it looks like 8000m, any way at 26500 ft in game i can't turn off MW50, it starts shaking crazy.

I did further tests, actually i can fly w/o mw50 at high alt like 8km it shakes but engine is fine.

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by grafspee