SpitfireMKIXe

[king1hw]

Would be nice like in the 2.5 version of DCS world we could at least change the from 303 to 50 cal now with 2.7 this is not possible for off line play.

The possibility of creating a new variant is just changing the engine plant to a merlin 70 and the ammo loadout in the file.   Also making it an HF to compete in the arena.

Last but not least and I know others will complain, but this is BS flying against MW50 planes in a spit and not having 150 merlin 66 or 70 engine power...

Sorry the line that you can not make this happen is BS is not up to the module maker to create the variants if they want and present the case...

Also if this bird was built by the DCS team common fellas as easy as adding the CLIPPED WING you could give the server the option of 150 and MW50 gas and make apart of an ONLINE CAMPAIGN as a war advances...

One last question- is the Spitfire weapons set at a convergence point or a cone dispersion!

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Maybe there was a mod or something, .50 cal guns haven't ever been an option in DCS. Search through the forums or downloads page, the mod might be somewhere if you knew it.

In DCS nothing is "just changing a few lines of text", modders do that, devs can't, they have to have correct info and everything to support it the way it's meant to be. So, no "easy new variants", even though we happen to have some variants, sometimes, like clipped wings in Spit, P-51D-25 and D-30, or P-47D-30 early, mid, plus D-40.

For the MW50, it's not that bad, any MP player will tell you, and still server owners usually take that into account and many times MW50 is limited or non present at servers. As said before, you can't just squeeze a few HP more out of LF.Mk.IXc just because. Yes you could be able to model later variants, but you need actual info on those engines, not hearsay or wikipedia.

The clipped wings options wasn't added "as easy", there were actual documentation on the model, even more than from the regular full wing IIRC, but without that documentation it wouldn't have been "that easy", or even possible. I know there are games out there with all those "options", just like that. Wonder yourself what kind of base those actually have, ahem.

As said, everything in DCS tries to be based on actual real data, no guesswork. Indeed, weapon don't just "converge", they are harmonised as per manual, all aircraft got out of factory already harmonised, there are charts of harmonisation and those are the ones used here. British usual harmonisation was 250 yards IIRC, and Spit follows that. American harmonisation was 300 yards I believe, and German one is 600m. If you don't hit a thing you're aiming wrong and biased by other "games" out there giving you laser guns options and absolutely fake "convergences", you can just practice it and soon you'll get used to real life parameters.

Edited May 24, 2022 by Ala13_ManOWar
typo

[DD_Fenrir]

1. Mk IXe indicates change in armament only. There is no inherent indication as to the type of Merlin fitted. For that a prefix is required:

"F" - Merlin 61, rated to 1,565 hp at 3,000 rpm at 12,250 ft, +15psi Boost or Merlin 63, rated to 1,710 hp at 3,000 rpm at 8,500 ft, +18psi Boost (best performance at "medium to high" altitudes)

"LF" - Merlin 66,  1,720 hp at 5,790 ft, +18 psi boost - as we have currently modelled in DCS. (best performance at "low to medium" altitudes)

"HF" - Merlin 70,  1,655 hp at ~10,000 ft, +18 psi boost - as we have currently modelled in DCS. (best performance at "medium to high" altitudes)

Considering most combat in DCS happens in the lower altitude bands a Merlin 70 version would be of marginal value. Also a very small percentage of the Mk.IX fleet were "HF" variants as the majority of real world combat was occurring at low to medium altitude at this time.

 

2. 150 Octane - it has been pointed out to you before that there's a narrow window of very limited use of this fuel. It is also not exclusive to the Mk.IX or the "e" subvariant.

On the run up to D-Day a only two squadrons of the total (30 odd) Spitfire IX equipped in the RAF, Dominion and Allied Air Forces were using it on an operational trials basis. Less than 10%.

With the advent of the Vergeltungswaffen campaign in mid-June there was a move to get all Spitfires, Tempest and Mosquitos involved in the interception of V-1s as part of Air Defence Great Britain (ADGB) onto 150 Octane; this however does NOT extend to 2nd TAF, (who eschewed 150 octane on logistical grounds) and this is the where where the vast majority of Spitfire LF.IXs are allocated. Again there were less than a handful of ADGB squadrons operating Spitfire Mk.IXs.

In September as the V-1 threat evaporated ADGB reverted back to 130 Octane as it simplified the logistics of transferring units between itself and 2nd TAF. During the entirety of the Autumn and Winter of 1944 no Spitfire in the ETO was using 150 grade fuel.

In late February/early March of 1945 2nd TAF based on the continent starts switching to 150 Octane, probably as an attempt to give their aircraft the most performance available in light of the threat from Luftwaffe jets. However by the beginning of May they too revert to 130 Octane.

So for Normandy map, 150 Octane for the Spitfire IX would be 90%+ irrelevant. 

For the Channel Map, if you wish to simulate the 'Diver' sorties of the limited number of Spitfire Mk.IXs involved during the summer of 1944, then there is a case but it's limited.

The best case is if ED should develop a German frontier 1945 map - then you'd be entirely justified asking for 150 Octane. Plus it would be the optimum fit for the Fw 190D-9 and Bf 109K-4.

 

 3. 2x .50 calibre secondary armament - I too have requested for this to be available as 3 squadrons of 2nd TAF were so equipped before D-Day and it sees ever increasing use as 1944 moves on.

However, it was not the exclusive armament on Spitfire IXs until the spring of 1944 and the bulk of Mk IXs meeting the Luftwaffe during 1944 did so armed with 4x 3.03.

 

What does all this mean?

For the Normandy map, set as it is in mid 1944,  the LF Mk.IXc at +18psi on 100/130 Octane is representative of the most common variant you'd likely encounter/be flying.

For the Channel map, set as it seems in early 1944 (though useful for mid-late 1943 scenarios) the LF Mk.IXc at +18psi on 100/130 Octane is representative of the most common variant you'd likely encounter/be flying. Should we get the chance to intercept V-1s at a later date then there is an argument that the 150 Octane should be available.

 

 

[king1hw]

Air Ministry, A.I.2.(g), Whitehall
20 March 1943

 

Spitfire IX v. German Fighters

Spitfire IX

 

..................No sealed cabin or pressurising equipment. ..................Engine Merlin 61. ..................Armament 2 x 20 mm. and 4 x .303" MG's. Max. speeds: At present engine rating (+15 lb. per sq. inch boost and 3,000 r.p.m.):

 

380 m.p.h. at 15,000 ft.

405 m.p.h. at 28,000 ft.

394 m.p.h. at 30,000 ft.

 

..................New aircraft coming into service will be fitted with re-rated engines operating at + 18 lb. per sq. inch boost and 3,000 r.p.m. ..................The maximum speeds will be increased as follows:

 

385 m.p.h. at 15,000 ft.

409 m.p.h. at 28,000 ft.

394 m.p.h. at 30,000 ft.

 

Rate of climb at 20,000 ft: ..................The rate of climb varies according to type of reduction gear fitted. ..................With an 0.42 reduction gear (at + 15 lb. per sq.inch boost) the rate of climb is 2,540 per minute. ..................With the same reduction gear, but at + 18 lb. per sq. inch, the rate of climb is 2,750 ft. per minute. ..................With an 0.477 reduction gear (at + 15 per sq. inch boost) the rate of climb is 2,950 ft. per minute and increases to 3,230 ft. per minute at + 18 lb. per sq. inch boost. Service ceiling (Max., no load):

 

With 0.42 reduction gear: 41,000 ft.

With 0.477 reduction gear: 43,000 ft.

 

Remarks

 

..................Both the Me 109 G and the FW 190 A were originally, and in some cases still are operated at a reduced engine rating. Performances given correspond to the full engine ratings.   Conclusions ..................Me 109 G fighters are slightly faster than the Fw 190 A at 20,000 to 22,000 ft. The difference of speed increases with altitude and is about 25 m.p.h. at 30,000 ft. in favour of the Me 109 G. ..................The rate of climb of the Me 109 G, without additional guns, is slightly better than that of the Fw 109 A. The same remark applies to the service ceiling. ..................The Spitfire IX at 28,000 to 30,000 ft. is superior in speed to the Me 109 G and the Fw 190 A. ..................Its rate of climb at 20,000 ft. with the 0.42 reduction gear is inferior to the Fw 190 A and the Me109 G, even when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost. ..................When fitted with the 0.477 reduction gear and at +15 lb. per sq. inch boost the Spitfire is equal in rate of climb to the Me 109 G-2; when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost it is superior to all German fighters at present in service. ..................The ceiling of the Spitfire IX is considerably higher than that of the Me 109 G or the Fw 190 A at present in service. A.I.2(g) 20.3.43 Ref: 2G/GA113/P

 

---

 

Aircraft Data

 

Aircraft	Engine	Engine Power (B.H.P.)	Max. Speed	Weight Lb.	Service Ceiling Mean weight
Spitfire F IX	Merlin 63	1,710 @ 8,500'   1,520 @ 21,000'	382 mph @ 12,500' MS 408 mph @ 25,000' FS	7,450	44,000'
Spitfire LF IX	Merlin 66	1,720 @ 5,750'   1,595 @ 16,000'	384 mph @ 10,500' MS 404 mph @ 21,000' FS	7,450	42,500
Spitfire HF IX	Merlin 70	1,710 @ 11,000 1,475 @ 23,250'	396 mph @ 15,000' MS 416 mph @ 27,500' FS	7,450	45,000'

 

Operational Highlights

 

No. 64 Squadron at Hornchurch was the first squadron to go operational with Spitfire IXs (28-July-1942). Deliveries of more powerful Spitfire IXs equipped with Merlin 63, 66, or 70s commenced in early 1943. No 611 Squadron at Biggin Hill was the first to use the Merlin 66 engined Spitfire LF IX on operations (March 1943). Full service approval of +25 lbs boost was granted 10 March 1944, providing considerable improvement in low altitude performance. No. 1 and No. 165 squadrons at Predannack were the first to convert their Spitfires to +25 lbs boost, taking 2 days off from operations in early May 44 to do so.

Edited May 24, 2022 by king1hw

[king1hw]

Again it could advance the War in the game and could be a option there is plenty of DATA to give this option...  This flame war was the same crap when il2 1946 finally converted and the data and documents from that war online still exist.  To say that this is not possible is simply a cop out and again giving the advantage as always to the German side when it comes to the RAF aircraft in the game.  I do not wish to get into a pissing contest with you... You have your opinion and I have mine and the game could use another RAF fighter MKIVX or something for the arena that you are fighting with Normandy map... The Channel Map is 1943 and since you have Suntags V1 Rocket Template It would be good to have 150 selectable as we can with the MW50.  It could also progress a campaign server if we get an earlier spitfire like a MKV...  Just trying to see the sim group with detail and accuracy.  Also to the other post it would not be hard to add other variants or Modules would not be a able to be added as they make them.  With this you have the standard block already done.  I know Fenrir fear is that it would tip the scale WHICH is how wars have been fought with advancement.

Edited May 24, 2022 by king1hw

[king1hw]

Some More Data on the RAF 150 Oct:  WITH Ref.

Into Service with the Royal Air Force

Following successful testing, the Spitfire IX's Merlin 66 was cleared in March 1944 to use +25 lbs, obtainable with 150 grade fuel. ³⁶ In early May, No. 1 and No. 165 Squadrons comprising the Predannack Wing, were the first to convert their Spitfires to +25 lbs boost and employ 150 grade fuel on operations. ^37   38   Air Defense Great Britain (A.D.G.B.) shared a report, dated 16th June 1944 with A.E.A.F. summarizing the RAF's experience with using 150 Grade Fuel in Merlin 66 engines. All pilots reported most favorably on the value of the high boost pressures obtainable with 150 Grade Fuel, however, Technical Staff felt that before the fuel was introduced on a large scale that the causes of backfires must be established and that at least 12 engines should complete 200 hours each. ³⁹   By the end of July the backfires were overcome through fairly straightforward adjustments. ⁴⁰   By 12 August 1944, 16 Squadrons in A.D.G.B. had been modified to to operate with 150 grade fuel. ⁴¹  

The increased performance obtained with 150 Grade Fuel was put to good use by Mustangs, Tempests, Spitfires and Mosquitoes in intercepting V-1 Buzz Bombs launched against Britain beginning mid June. Performance increases at sea level were as follows: ^42   43

	130 Grade	150 Grade
Spitfire IX	335 mph	358 mph   +25 lb
Spitfire XIV	359 mph	366 mph   +21 lb
Tempest V	372 mph	386 mph   +11 lb
Mustang III (V-1650-3)	360 mph	390 mph   +25 lb
Mosquito NF. Mk. XIX		363 mph   +25 lb

The Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) reported in Technical Note No.Aero.1501(Flight) that a Mustang III (Merlin V-1650-7), flying at +25 lb./sq.in. as received from Squadron, obtained 382 mph at sea level. ⁴⁴   404 mph was obtained at sea level after "cleaning up" the aircraft by removing the bomb racks and aerial bracket, repainting the wing's leading edge and rubbing down the aircraft. 316 Squadron was one of the Mustang units to convert to 150 grade fuel, their Operations Record Book stating for 1.7.44 "18 A/C test after modification to +25 lbs boost". ⁴⁵   610 Squadron uprated thier Spitfire XIVs on 14 July, the Operations Record Book stating "A technical party visited the unit to modify the aircraft to fly at 21 lbs boost on 150 octane petrol". ⁴⁶   These squadrons did more that just chase "divers" as 315 Squadron demonstrated with their Mustangs when they shot down 6 Me 109's, 1 Me 110 and 1 Fw 190 while escorting Beaufighters to Norway on 30 July 1944. ⁴⁷   85 and 157 Squadrons were two of the Mosquito units operating at +25 lbs boost with 150 grade fuel. ^48   49   By mid August the V-1 diver threat was largly eliminated with the advance of the allied armies beyond the launching areas. The ADGB squadrons that had converted to 150 grade fuel now found more time to operate over the continent. The Spitfire IX Squadrons were permanently pulled off anti-diver duty on 10 August and went over completely to escort work, sweeps and armed recces. They paid their first visit to Germany on 27 August 1944. ^50   51   316 Squadron flying their Mustangs downed 3 Me 109’s and a Fw 190 five miles N. of Chalom on 14 August. ⁵²   315 Squadron met with remarkable success on 18 August, claiming 16 Fw 190’s shot down near Beauvais with their boosted Mustang III’s (II./JG 26 admitted to 8 killed and 2 wounded). ⁵³   By this time Headquarters, Air Defense of Great Britain required all Packard Merlin V-1650-7 engines in the Mustangs to be modified to operate at 25 lbs. boost. ^{54  55  56  57}  The Spitfire XIV squadrons quickly got into the swing of it with 350 Squadron scoring on 19 August by shooting down a Ju 88 on the outskirts of Brussels. ⁵⁸   By early September the Spitfire XIV units were engaged in operations over Germany. ^{59  60  61  62  63}  

On 18 September 1944 A.D.G.B. very positively summarized the experience gained to date using 100/150 grade fuel. However, due primarily to logistical difficulties, such as the interchange of squadrons between A.D.G.B. and 2nd T.A.F., it was decided that UK based fighter squadrons should revert to the use of 130 grade fuel. ⁶⁴   Its uncertain as to the degree to which this decision was carried out as of November 1944 Fighter Command was still using 2,000 tons of 150 grade fuel per month. ⁶⁵   With the adoption of 150 grade fuel by the Second Tactical Air Force, any logistical difficulties to Air Defense of Great Britain (A.D.G.B.) use of 150 grade fuel were removed. By early 1945, United Kingdom based Mustangs of A.D.G.B. were operating at +25 lbs/sq.in/80" hg. with 150 grade fuel on operations over the continent and Germany. ^{66   67   68   69}   Eventually all Rolls-Royce Merlin and Griffon engines were cleared to operate on 150 grade fuel, as well as Centaurus, Hercules, Sabre II and Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp engines. ⁷⁰  

The Second Tactical Air Force

Plans were being made in August to supply the 2nd TAF with 150 Grade Fuel. ⁷¹   During November 1944 S.H.A.E.F cleared 100/150 grade fuel for use by the Second Tactical Air Force: ⁷²

J.H Houghton Colonel A.C. Director of Supply described the supply position as of 23 November 1944: ⁷³

It was decided that the Second Tactical Air force would change over from 100/130 grade fuel to 100/150 grade fuel from the 15th December 1944. ⁷⁴

No. 42 Maintenance Group:

The shipping of fuel from Antwerp started on 2 January, 1945: ⁷⁵

100/150 grade fuel was introduced into Spitfires of 83 and 84 Groups during January 1945: ⁷⁶

On the 5 February 1945, J.H Houghton Brigadier General, U.S.A. Director of Supply, reported that the R.A.F on the Continent were using 100/150 grade fuel: ⁷⁷

Deliveries continued at an increasing rate: ⁷⁸

Units modified their aircraft for increased power with the change over to 150 grade fuel. ^{79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   10   92}     In May 1945, just days before the ultimate defeat of the Nazis, one Canadian Wing of Spitfires reverted to 130 grade fuel just in time to perform "stylish" formation shows over vanquished Germany. ⁹³

Source References

  1.  Spitfire J.L.165 with Merlin 66 at 25 Lbs. Boost Pressure, Dor/Chr/RLS.1/MNH. 8.10.43
  2.  Spitfire IX JL.165 (Merlin 66) Trials at +25 lb/sq.inch boost with Rotol 4 blade propeller. A.& A.E.E. ref: CTO/AS.56/80. 1 February, 1944.
  3.  Estimated P-51B Mustang Performance with Improved Fuel (160 grade), 25 October 1943
  4.  Memorandum on Introduction into Service Use of 150 Grade Aviation Fuel of 25 January, 1944 (AIR 51/373)
  5.  Message from General Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11th February, 1944 (AIR 37/1020)
  6.  Message from General Henry H. Arnold, 13th February, 1944 (AIR 37/1020)
  7.  CTI-1509, Addendum No. 2, Program for Fuel Research, Development and Test., 21 February 1944
  8.  Flight Tests of Fighter Aircraft with 44-1 Fuel. 16 March, 1944
  9.  75" Hg. clearance for V-1650-7. 19 April, 1944
10.  Preliminary 7-1/2 Hour War Emergency Rating Test of the Allison V-1710-91 Engine Operated on Grade 104/150 Fuel
11.  Attempted 7-1/2 Hr. War Emergency Rating of Allison V-1710-89 as Installed in P-38J Airplane Operated on Grade 104/150 Fuel
12.  Preliminary Report of 7-1/2 Hour War Emergency Test of Pratt & Whitney R-2800-63 Engine using Power Plant Fuel 44-1
13.  Performance Tests on P-38J, P-47D and P-51B Airplanes Tested with 44-1 Fuel. (GRADE 100/150), ENG-57-531-306. 15 May, 1944
14.  Preliminary Flight Tests of Fighter Aircraft Using PPF 44-1 Fuel at Increased War Emergency Rating
15.  Flight Tests of the North American P-51B-15 Airplane, AAF No. 43-2477 Using 44-1 Fuel. 20 May 1944
16.  Flight Tests on the P-38J Airplane, AAF No. 43-28392 Using 44-1 Fuel 5 July 1944
17.  Flight Tests on the P-47D Airplane AAF No. 42-26167 Using 44-1 Fuel. 15 July 1944
18.  Commendation of Materiel Command Personnel in Connection with the Test Program of Grade 100/150 Fuel, 29 May 1944
19.  Project P.P.F. - Installation and Operating Instructions, 20 June 1944
20.  P-47D Airplane Performance Tests at 70 In. Hg. MAP, 24 June 1944
21.  Message from General Bradley (POWE 33/1360)
22.  Notes on 150 Grade Fuel, March/April 1944. (AIR51/373)
23.  Modification of Fighter Aircraft for use of Grade 150 Fuel, Technical Instructions 28 March 1944
24.  Project P.P.F., 4 April 1944
25.  Memo from Bernerd F. Johnson. Colonel, Air Corps, Chief, Petroleum Section, 26 May, 1944.
26.  Grade 150 Aviation Fuel, Bernerd F. Johnson. Colonel, Air Corps, Chief, Petroleum Section, 13 June, 1944.
27.  361st FG - 150 Octane Fuel delivered week ending 18 June 1944.
28.  359th FG - Engineering Report for June 1944
29.  Grade 150 Aviation Fuel, 11 July, 1944:
30.  Teletype Message from USSTAF to Wright Field, July 9, 1944
31.  78th FG Supply Report for December 1944
32.  78th FG Engineering Report for December 1944
33.  339th FG Aviation Fuel Report for February 1945
34.  Grade 100/150 (1 ½ T) Fuel Air Technical Service Command in Europe, 28 March 1945
35.  Use of 100/150 Grade Fuel by Eighth Air Force Eighth Air Force,Technical Operations, Memorandum 4 April 1945
36.  Approval of 25 lbs Combat Boost on Merlin 66. 10 March, 1944. (AVIA 8/434)
37.  No. 1 Squadron Operations Record Book
38.  No. 165 Squadron Operations Record Book
39.  Interim Report – Service Trials of Merlin 66 Engines operating at + 25lbs. Boost Pressure. 16 June, 1944. (AIR 51/373)
40.  Backfire trouble resulting from use of 150 grade fuel. 27 July, 1944. (AIR 8/1226)
41.  Squadrons Modified for the use of 150 Grade Fuel 12, August, 1944. (AIR 8/1226)
42.  Spitfire Low Altitude Performance, +25 lbs.
43.  Mustang, Tempest Low Altitude Performance, +25 lbs boost
44.  Technical Note No.Aero.1501(Flight)
45.  No. 316 Squadron Operations Record Book
46.  No. 610 Squadron Operations Record Book
47.  No. 315 Squadron Operations Record Book
48.  No. 85 Squadron Operations Record Book
49.  No. 157 Squadron Operations Record Book
50.  No. 1 Squadron Oprep 27.8.44
51.  No. 165 Squadron Oprep 16.9.44
52.  316 Squadron Operations Record Book
53.  315 Squadron Operations Record Book
54.  Requisition MER/388/43., 24th August 1944
55.  No. 350 Squadron Operations Record Book, August 1944
56.  Packard V-1650 Engine Performance Data, 1 September 1944
57.  Packard/Merlin V.1650-7 - Mustang III +25 lbs. sq./in. Boost Operation Using 150 Grade Fuel, 4th September, 1944
58.  Re-rating of Engines from 18lbs to 25lbs. Boost Pressure, 6th September, 1944
59.  610 Squadron Operations Book
60.  350 Operations Record Book, September 1944
61.  130 Squadron Operations Report, 12 September 1944
62.  402 Form 541, 12 September 1944
63.  41 Squadron Operations Report, 17 September 1944
64.  Use of 150 Grade Fuel, HQ ADGB, ADGB/S.37041/CTO. 18th September 1944. (AIR 51/373)
65.  Grade 100/150 Fuel, J.H Houghton Colonel A.C., Director of Supply, 23 November 1944.
66.  Combat Report: F/Lt. G. M. Davis, 23 March 1945, 129 Squadron
67.  Combat Report: F/Lt Pearson, 5 April 45, 65 Squadron
68.  118 Squadron Operations Record Book, 8 March 1945
69.  309 Squadron Operations Record Book, 27 February 1945
70.  Engines Cleared for Use of Grade 150 Fuel
71.  Memo from Air Commodore F.N.Trinder, 5th August 1944. (AIR 51/373)
72.  Use of Grade 150 Fuel by the Second Tactical Air Force, 20 November, 1944. (AVIA 15/2922)
73.  Grade 100/150 Fuel, J.H Houghton Colonel A.C., Director of Supply, 23 November 1944.
74.  No. 42 Maintenance Group ORB, November 1944. (AIR 25/616)
75.  No. 424 Aviation Fuel and Ammunition Park, 2nd T.A.F. ORB, January, 1945. (AIR 29/822)
76.  Modification of Merlin Engines in Night Fighter Mosquito Aircraft to Give Improved Performance, 11th January 1945. (Avia 15/2922)
77.  Request for Grade 100/150 1.5 T Aviation Fuel for Eighth Air Force Units on the Continent J.H Houghton, Director of Supply, 5 February 1945.
78.  No. 424 Aviation Fuel and Ammunition Park, 2nd T.A.F.(Air 29/822)
79.  401 Squadron Operations Record Book
80.  411 Squadron Operations Record Book
81.  No. 126 Wing Operations Record Book
82.  421 Squadron Operations Record Book
83.  421 Squadron Operations Record Book
84.  421 Squadron Diary
85.  439 Squadron Operations Record Book
86.  438 Squadron Operations Record Book
87.  440 Squadron Operations Record Book
88.  401 Squadron Operations Record Book
89.  402 Squadron Operations Record Book
90.  442 Squadron Operations Record Book
91.  F/L Georges Nadon, 403 Squadron
92.  F/L W. M. Dove Logbook, 403 Squadron
93.  No. 126 Wing Operations Record Book
.  

 

Supplemental Documentation

100/150 Grade Fuel Specification
British 100/150 Grade Fuel Production
Consumption of 150 Grade Fuel (Barrels)
150 Grade Fuel Consumption by Theater (Tons)
CRD Forward Development Programme (AIR 20/1760)
352nd FG Mustang being fueled with 150-OCT GASOLINE
Crossbow Fighters Spitfire, Mustang & Tempest, (Avia 11/15) See also Crossbow Meeting
Use of Grade 150 Fuel by the Second Tactical Air Force, 27/11/44
Use of 150 Grade Fuel by 2nd T.A.F., 26th January, 1945
Operational Notes on Merlin 63, 63A, 66, 70 and 266 Engines in Spitfire Aircraft using 150 Grade Fuel., March 1945
Merlin 66 Engine Data Card, 14-3-44
Merlin 70, 76 and 77 Engines, 31.1.45
Merlin 72 or 73 Operational Warning Card, 24.5.44
Use of Increased Combat Boost on Merlin 72 Engines, June, 1944
Ignition Timing for High Boost Running V-1650-7 & Mer. 266 Engines, 18th September, 1944
Merlin Mks. 130 and 131 - Service Approval, 25 January, 1945
Griffon 65 Auto. Boost Control-Introduction of Aneroid, Gov. Spring and Camshaft for 21 lb./sq.in. Combat Boost (Mod No. Griffon/293)
Rolls-Royce Griffon (65), Flight, September 20th, 1945
Rolls-Royce Griffon 64 and 69, 28th March, 1945
Rolls Royce Griffon 64 and 69
Griffon 64 Operating Limitations
Griffon 69 Operating Limitations

Edited May 24, 2022 by king1hw

[DD_Fenrir]

And...

All the data you have posted just literally confirmed everything I just told you.

Your petulance speaks volumes. It tells me that this whole exercise is a childish cry of frustration from a player who wants the software to compensate for his lack of tactical nous and make up for his shortcomings as a virtual fighter pilot.

I regularly fly the Spitfire against the very same opponents you do, both AI and player. I get some victories, some get away and occasionally a few spank my ass. Do I wish for a more historically consistent plane-set and map combination? Sure. Do I whine like a petty little bitch and make sneering demands and jibes at the developer because my own pet wish is not fulfilled? No. It's called maturity. You want to try developing some.

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by DD_Fenrir

[king1hw]

Another Great Read: https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp03/MQ50093.pdf

The concept that we are fighting over Normandy and we are engaged with a plane that was least built in the war and it is a 1945 Bird. Again I guess I am taking up the cross on many of us pilots and sim pilots love the game and we are not getting any younger.  Especially the ones who enjoy the WWII Genre and this is to DCS hope you think of us when selecting those models to get in the game and the data for planes is really available.  Most of the guys I fly with all are 45 to 85 and really enjoy the WWII side of the sim and I know that you are hard at work.  Can you give us a Battle of Britain plane set over the AMAZING CHANNEL MAP...  We will continue to fly the MKIX against thek4 over the channel but I hope those module builders know that we are retired and would be willing to spend 100 bucks on these planes.  hell to get a Stuka non flyable and HE 111, 109E4 flyable with a few variants, and a SpitfireMIa Rotol 87/100oct. , Hurricane MKia Rotol 87/100oct.  You would make the Channel map come alive for so many....

[king1hw]

Again Fenrir, 16 Squads and data to boot is plenty to give the mission developers the option...  I also fly against many of them online and have flown with you going back on il2 1946  spits vs 109s.  Your attitude has change quite a bit and it seems rather arrogant...  Sad your not maturing in your old age!

 

Come online fly your 109 and see how bad I am LOLOL!

[DD_Fenrir]

16 squadrons total - of all aircraft types, not just Mk IX, and all dedicated to shooting down V-1s. Never crossing the enemy coast, let alone going anywhere near the frontline, just staying over the channel or the UK itself to chase Doodlebugs.

I suggest you go research the squadron ORBs for that period and see just how few encountered any Luftwaffe piloted aircraft... 1 squadron, 64 squadron, 74 Squadron, 234 Squadron or 402 Squadron. 

I get that the K-4 shouldn't be anywhere near any of the maps we have currently and I'm itching to see a Bf109G-6 late/G-14 myself if just for the chronological consistency, but you must bear in mind that the performance of these will be superior to the G-2 you reference in your report and will still outrun an LF Mk.IX at most altitudes if equipped with MW50, which some would have certainly had during the period.

The fact is that real world Spitfire pilots using planes powered 'only' with 130 Octane, were, in the late Autumn and Winter of 1944 facing late model MW50 equipped Bf 109s all across the Dutch/German frontier. It is an entirely historical match-up.

In addition, you seem to be insinuating - rather naively - that 'cleared to use' means that suddenly every RAF fighter unit in the ETO was suddenly using 150 octane the next day. Check actual ORBs and you'll understand that it took several weeks for the supplies to be allocated, diverted and then delivered.

Even then the squadron had to be taken out of service for a few days further to adjust the ignition timing to take advantage of the new fuel. On every engine of every aircraft in the entire squadron. It did not happen overnight. It took 6-8 weeks for that decision to use 150 Octane to be felt at the aircraft level.

Edited May 24, 2022 by DD_Fenrir

[king1hw]

Fen: "I suggest you go research the squadron ORBs for that period and see just how few encountered any Luftwaffe piloted aircraft... 1 squadron, 64 squadron, 74 Squadron, 234 Squadron or 402 Squadron. 

I get that the K-4 shouldn't be anywhere near any of the maps we have currently and I'm itching to see a Bf109G-6 late/G-14 myself if just for the chronological consistency, but you must bear in mind that the performance of these will be superior to the G-2 you reference in your report and will still outrun an LF Mk.IX at most altitudes if equipped with MW50, which some would have certainly had during the period"

So keeping to the HISTORY is bull crap because the k4 was rare in numbers (The data one could collect on the ME 109 Gustav is overwhelming- According to the release of the K4 is was the modelers choice) and yes they did use 150 across the spectrum in Normandy, many spits from 44 to 45 did during the time during and after the invasion... Sorry Disagree with the MW50 Logistics in late 42 through 43 when the Rhubar, Rodeo missions in 41 which I have plenty of data on when we set up Operation Jubilee Server in Cliff of Dover Blitz/Tobruk and other started to cut the supply...  

"In addition, you seem to be insinuating - rather naively - that 'cleared to use' means that suddenly every RAF fighter unit in the ETO was suddenly using 150 octane the next day. Check actual ORBs and you'll understand that it took several weeks for the supplies to be allocated, diverted and then delivered."

The question is: WAS it delivered you are insinuating that they provided NONE to any spitfire suads in the ARENA!  The FUEL of choice in the region for fighter command was 150oct in the data provided.  Do you really think that they changed the refinery back to 100/130 once the jump was made, they were using what they had.  Of course the supply of that type of gas was prevalent, but once the testing on 25lbs was solved they produced it. " November 1944 Fighter Command was still using 2,000 tons of 150 grade fuel per month. ⁶⁵   With the adoption of 150 grade fuel by the Second Tactical Air Force (MEANS ALL PLANES IN THE THEATER WHICH SPIT IXs WERE APART), any logistical difficulties to Air Defense of Great Britain (A.D.G.B.) use of 150 grade fuel were removed."  

The point that I was making is it was being used during the era and the time and is HISTORICAL and the use of it in game and the scripting that could be done for online campaigns or mission building is what I was suggesting...  The aspect that the FIGHT we have now is not historical but you sir throw the historical issue in my face... which is laughable.  YOU CAN NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!  The spitfire in game could be made more HISTORICAL with limits left up to the Designer of the BATTLE that can be played out over a three month server campaign...

The reason I was mentioning it was two fold to keep to the history  (IT WAS USED BY SPITFIRE PILOTS USED DURING PERIOD and that as a campaign and mission builder gives us some different dynamics to use.

Edited May 24, 2022 by king1hw

[king1hw]

Though to keep this Civil:  A Great example for a mission is the Supply chain from South Coast England to Normandy.   Who gets the good gas could be an awesome dynamic for a campaign fight.  Supply convoys of Fuel in the Channel Germans have to slow or stop the flow of 150oct fuel...  Visa versa on the trains running MW50 fuel to bases for low level Mossie runs...

Just a thought!

 

PS with the expansion of the Normandy map could be cool on the home front Spits dealing with last LW push and V1s.  G14 would be great for these battles as well as G6 as you mentioned.  Then from Ford and other bases creating tankers bringing much need supplies to the front line bases.  Also on that note Guys we could do with a Static Dam for busting!!!!  Hey Channel MAP take us to Germany - Operation Chastise!

Edited May 24, 2022 by king1hw

[DD_Fenrir]

I’m done here. You’re bending historical fact to suit your narrative whilst at the same time saying historicity is irrelevant. Your arguments are inconsistent, cherry picked and inaccurate. There is no point in continuing in any reasonable discourse because you fail at every point to make reasoned and rational argument because you are so desperate to justify your position and you are too insecure to concede to any point, because - in your mind - to admit any small wrong would compromise your greater argument. Which is ludicrous.

The sad thing is, ultimately I don’t disagree with you. I would like 150 octane options too. I just can’t agree with your rabid incoherent justifications.

 

[Mr_sukebe]

Some additional thoughts on the "suit your narrative":

• The ratio of allied to Luftwaffe aircraft over Normandy was in reality so bad, that maybe we should ask mission designers to limit Luftwaffe aircraft to 1 per 10 allied aircraft
• Just as only some Allied aircraft had 150 octane, the same is true for MW50 supplies to the Luftwaffe (that is if they had any fuel at all).  Maybe we should simply have each side having say a 10% chance at the start of the mission of having their respective enhancement fuel
• The D9 or K4 weren't available in June 44'.  For that matter, I don't believe that the P51D was either.  So we should definitely remove those

[grafspee]

1 hour ago, Mr_sukebe said:

• The D9 or K4 weren't available in June 44'.  For that matter, I don't believe that the P51D was either.  So we should definitely remove those

So spitfire, mosquito and a-8 left only

[Mr_sukebe]

you missed the P47 and the i16...

Edited May 24, 2022 by Mr_sukebe

[DD_Fenrir]

11 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

Some additional thoughts on the "suit your narrative":

Okay, I'll bite.

 

11 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

• The ratio of allied to Luftwaffe aircraft over Normandy was in reality so bad, that maybe we should ask mission designers to limit Luftwaffe aircraft to 1 per 10 allied aircraft

Yes. But they were never all in the air in one sector at the same time. It allowed the Allies great breadth and depth of defence operations in addition to the ability to mount offensive air operations simultaneously. However, there are numerous occasions when in a local sector the Luftwaffe were able to marshal sufficient forces to concentrate an entire Gruppe and meet the Allied units therein in similar numbers; on some occasions to even outnumber them. E.G, in late July a formation of some 40 odd Fw 190s was engaged by a single section of 4 Spitfire IXs from 442 Squadron over St Lo. This is not an isolated incident and similar incidents occurred to greater or lesser degree till the end of hostilities.

 

11 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

• Just as only some Allied aircraft had 150 octane, the same is true for MW50 supplies to the Luftwaffe (that is if they had any fuel at all).  Maybe we should simply have each side having say a 10% chance at the start of the mission of having their respective enhancement fuel

Agreed that the implementation of MW50 was likely not ubiquitous across the Bf 109 fleet, especially in Normandy in 1944. But your proposal oversimplifies the problem. There is nuance here. We have accurate records of where 150 Octane was available, when, and to what extent it was used and the likelihood of combat occurring. The records simply do not exist for the Luftwaffe's use of MW50 and how prevalent or otherwise it may have been in any sector at any time. 

The simplest summary for 150octane usage is is thus:

For strategic air ops by aircraft based in the UK after June 1944 then yes 150 octane is most likely. For tactical operations the opposite.

The DCS ecosystem is a currently biased towards tactical operations. Ergo the most representative option is those aircraft running 130 octane. And again, I direct you to incontrovertible fact that I  posted earlier:

16 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

The fact is that real world Spitfire pilots using planes powered 'only' with 130 Octane, were, in the late Autumn and Winter of 1944 facing late model MW50 equipped Bf 109s all across the Dutch/German frontier. It is an entirely historical match-up.

Not for the maps we have I grant you, but that's a different problem.

 

11 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

• The D9 or K4 weren't available in June 44'.  For that matter, I don't believe that the P51D was either.  So we should definitely remove those

I've said it once I'll say it again:

• a Bf 109G-6 late would be beneficial for the community and be appropriate to both the Normandy and the Channel map; perhaps with a secondary G-14 variant bundled in the module (like the various P-47 sub-variants) to allow for an even greater timeline to be covered.
• A P-51B/C would have been better representative aircraft for both maps and I would still like to this as an AI or even flyable module
• A P-47D-22 would have been better representative aircraft for both maps and I would still like to this as an AI or even flyable module
• 150 Octane should be an option as soon as a map becomes available that represents an area and chronology where it was the representative fuel in use with the aircraft we have, i.e. German Frontier 1944-45 or a North Sea Strategic Bombing 1944 map.

There is a lot of historical inconsistency in DCS WW2 at this time.

I don't defend it.

I don't like it.

But I have the pragmatism to realise it is what we have.

Am I against efforts to correct this? Of course not! But we can only influence EDs decision making by making rational and appropriate arguments backed by robust evidence.

Compounding existing inaccuracies by proposing further inaccuracies is anathema.

I repeat myself again: I would like 150 octane options too. I just can’t agree with some of the over-emotionally charged and irrational arguments that are put forward to justify it's inclusion currently.

Edited May 25, 2022 by DD_Fenrir

[Mr_sukebe]

I did think that the argument for allowing MW50 was because there were records if it’s availability starting at June 44’

[king1hw]

15 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

I’m done here. You’re bending historical fact to suit your narrative whilst at the same time saying historicity is irrelevant. Your arguments are inconsistent, cherry picked and inaccurate. There is no point in continuing in any reasonable discourse because you fail at every point to make reasoned and rational argument because you are so desperate to justify your position and you are too insecure to concede to any point, because - in your mind - to admit any small wrong would compromise your greater argument. Which is ludicrous.

The sad thing is, ultimately I don’t disagree with you. I would like 150 octane options too. I just can’t agree with your rabid incoherent justifications.

 

I will end this by saying TOM, I do not believe I am cherry picking at all either the fuel was used and present or it was not... THAT SIR IS HISTORICAL! By the Documents presented back when we fought to get it in '46 and I do not want to dig all of those out and present here.  I was just presenting an Idea that would make an Online WWII campaign, if and when those planes ever get built...

Thanks for the time will see you in the skies as I try to develop a campaign over the Channel Map!

Edited May 25, 2022 by king1hw

[Mr_sukebe]

K1 > personal attacks are highly frowned upon, including by myself.

please edit, play within the forum rules and be polite 

[BIGNEWY]

Gentlemen I suggest you have a read of our rules, keep it civil.

thanks

[king1hw]

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

Gentlemen I suggest you have a read of our rules, keep it civil.

thanks

I have tried just to make a suggestion to the team under the spitfire but it applies to all allied aircraft, I was about to get nasty but it seams Fen in his comments just likes to put people down.  The sad thing is I respect his opinion on some of the stuff he said, but see it differently.  He mentioned that DCS is tactical and again the 2nd TAC was using 150oct over Normandy and could give a unique twist to mission building and a long term campaign.  Anyway look forward to seeing anyone over the Channel and hope that a Spitfire MKIa Rotol 100oct vs a 109 E4, maybe a hurricane MIa Rotol 100 as well dueling it out over the channel map with an HE 111.  I have enjoyed the Fights on SOW against good 109 pilots and see more migrating from the other sim over here.  I was trying to build the same type of online campaign server here as I help run on CLOD.  The concept of fuel upgrades could add another twist to the simulation, and not just to get better GAS as it seems I am being attacked on.  If someone wants to fly your server it is all product choice in multiplayer.  The concept of choices and right now the MKIX we have could use another slot with a merlin 70 HF e version, with 50cal and 20s...  This could also play in the campaign concept with a high flyer.  I noticed though most of the younger guys stick to the jets and our community in WWII is about 50 years old to 85 and we are not getting any younger.  The advancement in the genre has been slow to come in DCS because of the modelers choosing to collect the data and make the warbirds.  We have been waiting for the Corsair for some time now and a Historical plane that guys can fly to fight it.  Also one giant map of the Pacific because it is mainly water would be great (HINT)!  Anyway glad to see Normandy Map Expanding.  I hope the Channel map takes us to Berlin some day!

To end this I would like to say looking forward to more LODs and the damage model is coming along great and look forward to even finer tweaks in the WWII side of DCS. 

Thanks for coming I guess since I brought this up I will close by saying Fen(Tom) as I once knew you on spits vs 109s a flew with you often hope we can meet in the skies over 11 Sector and engage whatever German aircraft the guys a DCS throw at us...

Edited May 25, 2022 by king1hw

[BIGNEWY]

6 minutes ago, king1hw said:

I have tried just to make a suggestion to the team under the spitfire but it applies to all allied aircraft, I was about to get nasty but it seams Fen in his comments just likes to put people down.  The sad thing is I respect his opinion on some of the stuff he said, but see it differently.  He mentioned that DCS is tactical and again the 2nd TAC was using 150oct over Normandy and could give a unique twist to mission building and a long term campaign.  Anyway look forward to seeing anyone over the Channel and hope that a Spitfire MKIa Rotol 100oct vs a 109 E4, maybe a hurricane MIa Rotol 100 as well dueling it out over the channel map with an HE 111.  I have enjoyed the Fights on SOW against good 109 pilots and see more migrating from the other sim CLOD here.  I was trying to build the same type of online campaign server here as I help run over there.  The concept of fuel upgrades could add another twist to the simulation, and not just to get better GAS as it seems I am being attacked on.  If someone wants to fly your server it is all product choice in multiplayer.  The concept of choices and right now the MKIX we have could use another slot with a merlin 70 HF e version, with 50cal and 20s...  This could also play in the campaign concept with a high flyer.  I noticed though most of the younger guys stick to the jets and our community in WWII is about 50 years old to 85 and we are not getting any younger.  The advancement in the genre has been slow to come in DCS because of the modelers choosing to collect the data and make the warbirds.  We have been waiting for the Corsair for some time now and a Historical plane that guys can fly to fight it.  Also one giant map of the Pacific because it is mainly water would be great (HINT)!  Anyway glad to see Normandy Map Expanding.  I hope the Channel map takes us to Berlin some day!

To end this I would like to say looking forward to more LODs and the damage model is coming along great and look forward to even finer tweaks in the WWII side of DCS. 

Thanks for coming I guess since I brought this up I will close by saying Fen(Tom) as I once knew you on spits vs 109s a flew with you often hope we can meet in the skies over 11 Sector and engage what ever German aircraft the guys a DCS throw at us...

 

Hi, 

yes our WWII team is a smaller so things do take longer but we have big plans, and the passion is there from us and our community, even if it is smaller than the modern aircraft. 

Our terrain team are currently working on a WWII version of our free Marianas terrain and it is going to be an incredible place for WWII lovers to fly. 

Best regards

Bignewy

[king1hw]

Just now, BIGNEWY said:

Hi, 

yes our WWII team is a smaller team so things do take longer but we have big plans, and the passion is there from us and our community, even if it is smaller than the modern aircraft. 

Our terrain team are currently working on a WWII version of our free Marianas terrain and it is going to be an incredible place for WWII lovers to fly. 

Best regards

Bignewy

Glad to hear and look forward to what you put in the air, hoping you go backwards to 1940 LOLOL...  One of my favorite eras of planes to fly and to see a hurricane flying over the cliffs would be awesome...

Thanks TWC_Blacknight

[rfxcasey]

On 5/24/2022 at 8:05 AM, DD_Fenrir said:

And...

All the data you have posted just literally confirmed everything I just told you.

Your petulance speaks volumes. It tells me that this whole exercise is a childish cry of frustration from a player who wants the software to compensate for his lack of tactical nous and make up for his shortcomings as a virtual fighter pilot.

I regularly fly the Spitfire against the very same opponents you do, both AI and player. I get some victories, some get away and occasionally a few spank my ass. Do I wish for a more historically consistent plane-set and map combination? Sure. Do I whine like a petty little bitch and make sneering demands and jibes at the developer because my own pet wish is not fulfilled? No. It's called maturity. You want to try developing some.

 

 

Maturity? I think you need to check yourself brother, what's with the hostility, it's not becoming of you. Known you for a long time Tom, expect better than this.

Edited May 25, 2022 by rfxcasey