DCS WW2 fighter comparison

and that the aircraft of JG 27 and 53 had access to C-3 fuel in Bavaria even at the end of the war and that their planes carried fuel triangles that indicated the use of C-3 fuel.

 

I wonder if, during the last chaotic days of the Nazi Reich, if there was even a single screwdriver in Bavarian airfields.

As has been already shown, the C3 fuel triangle doesn't mean a whole lot because Eastern front 109s, that were only using B4, also had C3 triangles.

I. & III./JG 27 (and III./JG 4; 1,4,7 staffel NJG 11 and NAG 1) were the only 109 equipped units belonging to Luftflotte Reich; there was no guarantee that JG 27 was supplied with C3 in light of the 13 Fw 190 Gruppen and 22 Ju 88 Gruppen requiring C3. I. & III./JG 27 staged through one of the airfields around Prague, then stayed at one Bavarian airfield before packing it in:

18.3.45 - 29.3.45Gütersloh; Bf 109G/K: 9 days (OKL directive = 20/3/45)

29.3.45 - 8.4.45 Goslar; Bf 109G/K: 11 days

8.4.45 - 11.4.45 Halberstadt; Bf 109G/K: 4 days

11.4.45 - 4.45 Grossenhain; Bf 109G/K

4.45 - 20.4.45 Prague-Gbell; Bf 109G/K: 10 days between 2 airfields.

As there was no C3 at Prag for III./JG27 (4.45 - 20.4.45), no boost increase.

20.4.45 - 2.5.45 Bad Aibling; Bf 109G/K:

13 days I./JG27 (21.4.45 - 3.5.45) and III./JG27 (20.4.45 - 2.5.45) were at Bad Aibling having only enough C3 for 5 sorties on the 22 April and 15 sorties on the 25 April, if no drop tanks were fueled.

2.5.45 - 5.45 Salzburg 109G/Ks parked and abandoned:

5.45 - 8.5.45 Saalbach no aircraft

according to John Weal's Jagdgeschwader 27 'Afrika' (page 120), I. & III. JG 27's last victories were on 19 and 21 April respectively (printing error in book says II./JG 27) while suffering seven more losses to the end of April. After parking their 109s at Salzburg the unit marched, on foot to Saalbach.

III./JG 53

17.12.44 - 23.3.45 Kirrlach; Bf 109G/K : 4 days

23.3.45 - 26.3.45 Nellingen;Bf 109G/K : 4 days

26.3.45 - 7.4.45 Neuhausen ob Eck;Bf 109G/K : 13 days

7.4.45 - 13.4.45 Fürstenfeldbruck;Bf 109G/K : 7 days

13.4.45 - 1.5.45 Kreuzstrasse/Klein-Karolinenfeld;Bf 109G/K : 18 days

(III./JG53) (13.4.45 - 1.5.45) was a little better off with enough C3 fuel for 25 and 37 sorties on each of the days, if no drop tanks were fueled. Left Fürstenfeldbruck 13.4.45 so any fuel there was unavailable for use.

1.5.45 - 8.5.45 Prien am Chiemsee;Bf 109G/K : 8 days

Between them they visited three bases in Bavaria between early April and early May: so, some C3 from mid-April but then there's no guarantee of methanol to make either MW 50 or MW 30; would have thought methanol would have been included in a list of fuel supplies.

As has been already shown, (Where?) the C3 fuel triangle doesn't mean a whole lot because Eastern front 109s, that were only using B4, also had C3 triangles (Source?)

Of more relevance though, does John Weal in his magnus opus, have anything to say about use of C3 + Mw50 by these units on their travels?

What was the fuel situation at the airfields you have listed when these units were present?

Know what would solve all this? If it were possible to model multiple fuel and powee adders for all the aircraft it was an option. I doubt thats possible though.

Well well ain't Milosh has his uses now and then. Nice find.

It seems it has been proven beyond doubt that all 109K units that were switching to 1.98 ata had access to C-3 fuel in their home airfields.

I guess its now down to screwdriver-access denial, water-access denial and stories of ground crews flat out refusing to fill C-3 marked aircraft from the C-3 storage on the relevant airfields. :)

I wish there would be anything even remotely comparable for supposedly 150 grade Spitfires in 1945. Or 1940 for that matter. ;)

We still don't know which units were switching to 1.98 ata, because all we have is a secondary source stating a plan, we have no primary source, no order and no confirmation. We also don't have a primary source clearing 1.98 ata for service use, outside of field testing, and no confirmation that it actually was used, outside of field testing. We have some indicative arguments but they lack in number and quality to make it conclusive evidence. In dubio pro reo, which at this point means every one can pretty much be entitled to have is own opinion.

And just so you know, the manuals very strictly recommend to use C3 fuel with MW50, even at lower boost settings. Permitting use of B4 "in case of emergency". Obviously, losing the war kind of qualifies as a permanent case of emergency, but just because a 109 has a C3 triangle on the fuselage and/or C3 available at the base, it doesn't necessarily mean highest boost levels.

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

But apparantly there are some double standards for evidence...

Well well ain't Milosh has his uses now and then. Nice find.

 

It seems it has been proven beyond doubt that all 109K units that were switching to 1.98 ata had access to C-3 fuel in their home airfields.

It has been proven beyond doubt that there was some C3 fuel on three Bavarian airfields used, however briefly, by the four Gruppen concerned, yet there didn't seem to be any supplies of Methanol, nor is there any evidence that Methanol was delivered, so we still have 109s able to use C3 and 1.8 ata. How many K-4s were left amongst the four Gruppen of JG 27 and JG 53 by the time they reached the "safety" of the Bavarian "home airfields" ?

I guess its now down to screwdriver-access denial, water-access denial and stories of ground crews flat out refusing to fill C-3 marked aircraft from the C-3 storage on the relevant airfields.

The only ones who have raised "screwdriver-access denial" are Kurfurst and Otto...:music_whistling:

apparantly there are some double standards for evidence...

Such as those who cannot accept 60 primary source documents as evidence of something they don't want to believe, yet believe that a partial transcript of a document from a secondary source and several other often unrelated secondary sources are proof positive of something they are desperate to believe. :thumbup:

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

We have a better level there, because we have primary sources about plans, decisions and fuel shipments. Plenty of them. Imperfect still, but beats a few snippets from secondary sources by a mile.

We have a better level there, because we have primary sources about plans, decisions and fuel shipments.

Lots of nothing is, however, still nothing.

Plenty of them. Imperfect still, but beats a few snippets from secondary sources by a mile.

You seem to be confused about the nature of primary sources vs secondary source.

All the information about the resetting of engines to 1.98 ata, the order to set the engines for 1.98 ata, the relevant unit strengths and the number of aircraft available, the evidence of C-3 fuel being available in Bavarian airfields (even down the details of storage individual airfields at given dates), photographic evidence of aircraft fueled with C-3 fuel - its all laid in down and supported primary sources.

OKL, GdJ-Grp. Qu-, Br. B. Nr. 1561/45 g. Kdos von 20. März 1945 is a primary source.

The Kriegstagebuch Luftflottenkommando 6 for April 1945 is a primary source.

Photographs of events and aircraft with C-3 are as primary sources as you can get.

There are secondary sources as well, i.e. respected historians coming to the same conclusion based on the same primary sources.

In contrast, there is only circumstantial evidence pointing towards the use of increased boost pressures with Spitfire aircraft in the 2nd TAF in 1945. These Spitfire aircraft also required modification of their engines to be present - unlike G-10s, G-14/AS and K-4s running at 1.98 ata which required no modification at all.

So far the only documented indication of such modification taking place is a single report snippet that about a dozen Mark XIVs can be delivered at some time from late March 1945. That's still not being employed in an operational unit, that still lacks evidence that the required fuel was supplied to the relevant airbase, it tells nothing about the number of aircraft using higher boost and has absolutely no weight of evidence towards combat use. Out of the dozens of Mk IX and XIV combat reports, there is not a single one mentioning the use of either +21 or +25 lbs. Odd, isn't it.

I also invite you to present your evidence that OKL, GdJ-Grp. Qu-, Br. B. Nr. 1561/45 g. Kdos von 20. März 1945 order was not executed as ordered. Of course you are entitled to have an opinion that it was not and decide to believe such absurd explanations that the units for some unknown reason simply refused to turn two screws in an engine and gain 200 HP.

OKL, GdJ-Grp. Qu-, Br. B. Nr. 1561/45 g. Kdos von 20. März 1945 is a primary source.

Only if the original document can be produced, which it hasn't been.

L

OKL, GdJ-Grp. Qu-, Br. B. Nr. 1561/45 g. Kdos von 20. März 1945 is a primary source.

The Kriegstagebuch Luftflottenkommando 6 for April 1945 is a primary source.

Photographs of events and aircraft with C-3 are as primary sources as you can get.

You seem to mistake me for someone who cares about the issue. Fact, in a conclusive 1000 page encyclopedia of the WW2 air war, the use or not use of 1.98 ata for a few minutes by a few aircraft of a few groups for a few days well after the air war was lost, wouldn't even be worth a footnote. Which is how much I care about it. I don't even have decided on an opinion, because the issue isn't worth the effort of a well thought out decision.

I care about you insulting other historians, because they disagree with you. You claim you've made an article that contains 60 primary sources, equivalent to their work on another issue, but that's an outright lie. You've managed an article that is based on a mere handful of secondary sources and a couple of pictures. I don't know what in the world you think gives you the right to insult others, in particular when they clearly know their job better than you.

Not shown here. .. Not shown here.

Unfortunately it was, read back the subject. If you wish to deny the historical evidence, its your problem.

You seem to mistake me for someone who cares about the issue. Fact, in a conclusive 1000 page encyclopedia of the WW2 air war, the use or not use of 1.98 ata for a few minutes by a few aircraft of a few groups for a few days well after the air war was lost, wouldn't even be worth a footnote. Which is how much I care about it. I don't even have decided on an opinion, because the issue isn't worth the effort of a well thought out decision.

Ok so the subject does not interest you at all yet you keep arguing about it...

I care about you insulting other historians, because they disagree with you.

I haven't insulted any other historians. There are none here, and certainly none at that spitfire fan site, the main creators being an aircraft mechanic and some lorry mam. Definitely none of them are historians, by a long shot.

In fact I have discussed the matter with historians and there is an agreement on the matter - which goes against your take on it. Sorry but that's just the way it is. The articles from these historians were provided to you here by me and others - and it is you who insult them by implying them false reporting on the matter you do not care about.

You claim you've made an article that contains 60 primary sources, equivalent to their work on another issue, but that's an outright lie.

Yes, it's an outright lie - your lie, as I haven't ever made such a "claim".

You've managed an article that is based on a mere handful of secondary sources and a couple of pictures.

You still can't see the difference between relevant sources and a lot of irrelevant ones just put their to bedazzle the reader with the quantity and fail to deliver on the content.

Let me explain to you how it works - you provide one source which clearly states something, then that thing is sufficiently proven. If you, on the other hand, litter a page with hundred of completely irrelevant trivia, than it worths nothing as far as proving power goes - at least for a man of education (addenda: please do not use expression you do not understand i.e. in dubio pro reo - that has, unfortunately the exact opposite meaning you believe it has).

I don't know what in the world you think gives you the right to insult others, in particular when they clearly know their job better than you.

That's your opinion. You're entitled to it. If you have problems with my person or have suggestions how to improve my site, please do so in the future in its official email address and not here. Alas, I must also ask you to refrain from addressing me here any further with your rants. I have been quite patient about that, but as none of your posts so far you provided any sort evidence, documentation or source, nor thought, nor anything that would particularly interest me, I must ask you to take that elsewhere.

I fail to understand why this discussion is still going on. It's impossible to 100% prove whether or not the K-4 used 1,98 ata.

It's impossible to prove anything completely. Historians never get the full picture, there's always something missing. The stuff they teach at school comes from small fragments of documents, archaeological findings, and secondary sources. And history is always changing as new evidence comes to light. When I was at school we were still taught that slaves built the pyramids (which we now know is not true). Keep an open mind and try not to stick to what you believe is the true history as dogma.

What we can always do is assume though. If an airfield has fuel and aircraft capable of using 1,98 ata, and if the process of conversion is relatively simple, then we can assume that at least some planes flew with 1,98 ata, can't we? Especially with the state of the war as it was, when everyone knew the war was lost, so engine longevity was a non issue.

You will probably never prove that the screwdriver turned, but you most definitively will never prove that it didn't.

It's impossible to prove anything completely.

Except in logic and mathematics, but otherwise I agree. The word "prove" is drastically misused in forum discussions. Mostly it is used as a rhetorical bludgeon when things get personal.

Would your newly found open mind be prepared to consider the possibility that some G10's (Erla block no 155 ### to name but one) were the fastest 109's?

Except in logic and mathematics, but otherwise I agree. The word "prove" is drastically misused in forum discussions. Mostly it is used as a rhetorical bludgeon when things get personal.

Even math and logic may be wrong, due to things like the simulation hypothesis. The chance might be one in a googol, but it's still there.

Though that is a discussion for another thread. :)

Would your newly found open mind be prepared to consider the possibility that some G10's (Erla block no 155 ### to name but one) were the fastest 109's?

According to who? There might have been some prototypes that were faster than the K-4, but I've certainly never saw any evidence that suggest the G-10 was the fastest operational 109.

A quick comparison between the P-51D and the Fw-190D9 (from this forum post here).

Fw-190 D-9 Statistics:

 

Engine: Junkers Jumo 213A1 with MW-50 boost.

Power: 2,240 HP.

Max. Speed: 704 km/h. (438 mph.)

Max. Climb: 1110 m/min (3,642 ft/min.)

Empty Weight: 3,490 kg. (7,694 lbs.)

Loaded Weight *Clean*: 4,293 kg. (9,464 lbs.)

Max. Weight: 4,839 kg. (10,670 lbs.)

Wing-Span: 10.50 m. (34.4 ft.)

Wing-Area: 18.3 sq.m. (197 sq.ft.)

Armament: 2x 13mm HMG's (MG 131) & 2x 20mm cannons (MG 151/20).

 

Fw-190 D-9 Aerodynamic statistics:

 

Wing-loading *Loaded*: 234.59 kg/sq.m. (48 lbs/sq.ft.)

Wing Aspect-Ratio: 6.02.

Airfoil: NACA 23015.3 - NACA 23009.

Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 15.3% Tip= 9% .

Wing CL-max *Freeflow*: 1.52 .

 

Lift-loading *Loaded*: 154.33 kg/sq.m. (31.5 lbs/sq.ft.)

Power-loading *Loaded*: 1.91 kg/hp. (4.22 lbs/hp.)

 

Fw-190 D-9 Additional features:

 

-Bubble-canopy

-Inclined seat position for better G-load resistance & "Kommandogerat".

 

 

P-51D Mustang Statistics:

 

Engine: Packard Merlin V-1650-7.

Power: 1,790 HP.

Max.Speed: 703 km/h (437mph).

Max. Climb: 1011 m/min. (3,320 ft/min)

Empty Weight: 3,466 kg. (7,641 lbs.)

Loaded Weight *Clean*: 5,034 kg. (11,100 lbs.)

Max. Weight: 5,489 kg. (12,100 lbs.)

Wing-Span: 11.3 m. (37.07 ft.)

Wing-Area: 21.64 sq.m. (233 sq.ft.)

Armament: 6x .50 cal HMG's (M2).

 

P-51D Mustang Aerodynamic statistics:

 

Wing-Loading *Loaded*: 232.62 kg/sq.m. (47.6 lbs/sq.ft.)

Wing Aspect-Ratio: 5.81 .

Airfoil: "Laminar" NAA/NACA 45-100 - NAA/NACA 45-100.

Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 14.8 or 15% Tip= 12%.

Wing CL-max: 1.28 .

 

Lift-loading *Loaded*: 181.73 kg/sq.m. (37.18 lbs/sq.ft.)

Power-loading *Loaded*: 2.81 kg/hp. (6.2 lbs/hp.)

 

P-51D Mustang Additional features:

 

-Laminar wing & Tear-shaped canopy.

-Gyro-Gunsight.

As you can see, the two aircraft are relatively equal.

I fail to understand why this discussion is still going on. It's impossible to 100% prove whether or not the K-4 used 1,98 ata.

 

It's impossible to prove anything completely. Historians never get the full picture, there's always something missing. The stuff they teach at school comes from small fragments of documents, archaeological findings, and secondary sources. And history is always changing as new evidence comes to light. When I was at school we were still taught that slaves built the pyramids (which we now know is not true). Keep an open mind and try not to stick to what you believe is the true history as dogma.

 

What we can always do is assume though. If an airfield has fuel and aircraft capable of using 1,98 ata, and if the process of conversion is relatively simple, then we can assume that at least some planes flew with 1,98 ata, can't we? Especially with the state of the war as it was, when everyone knew the war was lost, so engine longevity was a non issue.

 

You will probably never prove that the screwdriver turned, but you most definitively will never prove that it didn't.

Wisest words so far in this... "discussion".

Also known as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

So Kurfurst, you now accept 150PN 25lb/21lb boost for Spitfires and 100 octane was in widespread use during the BoB?

Would your newly found open mind be prepared to consider the possibility that some G10's (Erla block no 155 ### to name but one) were the fastest 109's?

With the same engine but without the retractable tailwheel and wheel well covers, I'd say no. I have some G-10 curves for 2000 PS - its slower and climbs marginally worse than the K-4.

The idea of the G-10 was to make the same G airframe w/o resetting tools for the K airframe (which might look similar but in there were some 1500 tiny details differences - if you ever put together an IKEA furniture, you know it matters ;). At the same time, internals were all K-4, so the operational unit could use the same engine, generator etc. spare parts.

So Kurfurst, you now accept 150PN 25lb/21lb boost for Spitfires and 100 octane was in widespread use during the BoB?

100 octane boosted aircraft saw considerable extent during the BoB, everyone knows that for 50 years, since even old books mention it. Its just not known to how "widespread" use was as opposet to blanket claims that each and every unit used it.

Same for the +25 lbs IXs. Certainly a considerable number of units may have used it from the spring of 1945 and certainly not before. +21 lbs XIV, a possibility too, but given how semi-obsolate the Mark IX was, I would bet the IXs had priority over the XIV.

Well it is certainly many more than the 16 squadrons you claim.

Yes the Spit IXs were as semi obsolete as the G-6 and G-14s.

A quick comparison between the P-51D and the Fw-190D9 (from this forum post here).

 

 

 

As you can see, the two aircraft are relatively equal.

The comparison is flawed. The D-9 in his comparison is running at 2250PS (which may or may not have been used operationally, I'm pretty sure the DCS Dora has 2100PS).

And even then the top speed and climb performance are wrong.

...you provide one source which clearly states something...

I was asking for one primary source. Not transcripts. Not empty blabber. All I ever asked for, for pages, nothing delivered but excuses, insults and arrogance. I'd ask again, but then you'd just do the tenth iteration of empty blabber.

As for you lying - you stated that eight years ago you had supported you case with an article with "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.". And there is NOTHING like that.

Maybe you fail to deliver what I expect because you and I clearly have a different opinion on "relevant", seeing that I consider clearances, orders and logs relevant, whereas you consider transcripts from books that state some plans you'd like to believe has become true as relevant. To each his own, I guess. Over and out.