Even with the Spitfire, the bf-109 and the fw-190 will keep making the law in the sky

I agree with Kurfurst on this one and I'd rather see the aircraft stick with the most common late 1944 era 100/130 grade and B4 fuel over their rarer 100/150 grade C3 alternatives.

If you read the above in late 1944 most ADGB squadron were operating 150 :)

I suggest you read this..

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

Yes and the date you cut from that document... 24/01/1945

 

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB_Niederschrift6730_DB605DBDC_20-1-45.pdf

It refers back in past tense to past events, i.e. that "DB adds that a good test basis had existed for the clearance and specifies the course of the completed test runs on a list in detail. It should also be noted that 1.98 ata have been released in the corresponding TAGL at the same time as the clearance of the 1.8 ata manifold pressure."

I.e. the 1.98 ata rating was cleared for the DB 605DB/DC in the 1st December 1944, 3rd edition of the 605D engine manual (" 'Entwurf einer vorläufigen Motorenkarte 9 - 605 DB u. DC, Ausgabe C, Stand: 1. Dezember 1944'"), and to qoute verbatim the previous document, at the same time as 1.8ata rating for the same engine in DB configuration.

The relevant page scanned from the 1st December 1944 DB 605DB/DC manual:

Which was, to qoute again verbatim the document

"...seitens des Technisches Aussendienst diese Leistungen direkt der Truppe angeboten wurden und die Motoren umgestellt werden...."

or in English

'...these outputs were on the behalf of the Technical Service promulgated directly to the troops and the engines were converted...".

Crystal clear, isn't it.

If you read the above in late 1944 most squadron were operating 150

Name those Mark IX Squadrons then. Operating on 150 octane fuel. In 1944.

Now as for the fantasies of wwiiaircraftperformance on 150 octane fuel. Who cares, really. Their own documentation do not support their claims. They also claim that 1.98ata did not see service... then, as in an absurd comedy they link the 'evidence' to that, the very document that I just qouted and which says in clear terms ''...these outputs were on the behalf of the Technical Service promulgated directly to the troops and the engines were converted...". :megalol:

Same with 150 octane. Those '16 Squadrons' are a mix of Mosquitoes, Mustangs, Tempests, the four XIV Squadrons, ... and the 2 (two) Mark IX Squadrons (Nos 1 and 165) involved in operational trials for half a year and which were almost immediately pulled from diver operations as they lacked the low level performance of Tempests and Mustangs to catch the V-1s.

They used to post the +25 lbs trial curves for the XIV as evidence that +25 was cleared for the Griffon, only that the same doc also states that the engine failed after 2 minutes on that boost and had to be replaced, while subsequent documents, even those from September 1945 all unequivocally state that the Griffon is facing main bearing troubles and at best, +21 lbs is the maximum permissible.

What about this document blocking 1.98 ATA :)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Erprobungsbericht_15.pdf

or

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Reparatur_Anweisung_2_Nachtrag_Nr_191-345.pdf

So even if the playing field is not 'level', it corresponds accurately (except for the missing 8th AAF config for the Mustang) to the late 1944 configuration of these planes. IF they want to model a Mark IXLF in its very late war configuration with 100/150 octane fuel and +25 lbs, I am sure the same standards should apply to Germans planes, i.e. you should also see a 109K in its very late war configuration, i.e. the one with 2000 HP engine output.

I don't have any "skin in this game" so to speak, I fly (and love) both German and Allied planes.

The problem is that if you create a multiplayer sim such as DCS, and just put aircraft against each other that historically fought each other ... you don't necessarily get very accurate representation of what historically happened ... or a very fun and engaging simulation.

Take the Me262. The Me262 was definitely a contemporary of the P-51D and Spitfire Mk IX, it fought against them. So does that mean we should let people choose to fly the Me-262 against P-51s and Spit IXs? Would that result in a historically accurate outcome and an engaging simulation? I would argue not really. The problem is people can choose any plane they want, and which side they want to fly on and there is a strong tendency to choose the best plane available. You would see large numbers of Me-262s dominating the allied planes. That's not realistic because the reality of course was that there were so many allied planes flying by that time of the war that even though the Me-262 was superior it didn't much matter. It's also not that much fun, for either side ...

So whilst I do not believe in balancing individual aircraft, they should fly as they really flew. I do however believe in balancing the choice of aircraft available. Large numbers of different aircraft all saw service at overlapping times, we should be choosing aircraft from that set that are all well matched. That's what a multiplayer simulation such as DCS requires to make it fun and engaging.

I don't have any "skin in this game" so to speak, I fly (and love) both German and Allied planes.

 

The problem is that if you create a multiplayer sim such as DCS, and just put aircraft against each other that historically fought each other ... you don't necessarily get very accurate representation of what historically happened ... or a very fun and engaging simulation.

 

Take the Me262. The Me262 was definitely a contemporary of the P-51D and Spitfire Mk IX, it fought against them. So does that mean we should let people choose to fly the Me-262 against P-51s and Spit IXs? Would that result in a historically accurate outcome and an engaging simulation? I would argue not really. The problem is people can choose any plane they want, and which side they want to fly on and there is a strong tendency to choose the best plane available. You would see large numbers of Me-262s dominating the allied planes. That's not realistic because the reality of course was that there were so many allied planes flying by that time of the war that even though the Me-262 was superior it didn't much matter. It's also not that much fun, for either side ...

 

So whilst I do not believe in balancing individual aircraft, they should fly as they really flew. I do however believe in balancing the choice of aircraft available. Large numbers of different aircraft all saw service at overlapping times, we should be choosing aircraft from that set that are all well matched. That's what a multiplayer simulation such as DCS requires to make it fun and engaging.

+1000

I fly for both sides as well :) I am after realism

What about this document blocking 1.98 ATA :)

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Erprobungsbericht_15.pdf

 

or

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Reparatur_Anweisung_2_Nachtrag_Nr_191-345.pdf

What about them, Krupi, tell me.

BTW the 2nd one actually states very clearly 1.98ata for use again. I never ceased to be amazed how much Mike Williams like to shoot himself in the leg with the documents he puts up on his site. :megalol: Probably he does not even understands what is in them. If he would do, he would certainly pull them off... like he used to do with the other documents. ;)

Long story short the rating was released and used in December 1944 but was recalled by Rechlin because they though that it wasn't properly tested first operationally, which they did perform with a combat unit's G-14s, G-10s and K-4s, II/JG 11 in February 1945 without much of an issue, and re-released it for service in March 1945.

The technical settings used on the engine are listed in the 2nd technical instruction you posted. Basically it says the DC engines (i.e. 1.98ata settings) can be used without any modifications required.

And here is the order (OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45), that tells 4 Wings (4x4=16 Squadrons) from JG 27 and JG 53 in the West to reconfigure their engines to 1.98ata manifold pressure. http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/605D_clearance198.html

Roughly at the same time the 2nd TAF begins receiving 150 grade fuel and resetting Mark IXs to +25 lbs BTW. We know that one Canadian Wing, No 126 actually done that, albeit they had some serious technical difficulties with the fuel (engines stopping mid air after takeoff, probably due to plug fouling).

Little bit of info here...

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/41-OpRep-17Sept44.jpg

17/09/44

12 XIV operational with Squad 41

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2991084&postcount=114

Doesn't match your "figures"... of course because they are false.

What about them, Krupi, tell me.

 

BTW the 2nd one actually states very clearly 1.98ata for use again. I never ceased to be amazed how much Mike Williams like to shoot himself in the leg with the documents he puts up on his site. :megalol: Probably he does not even understands what is in them. If he would do, he would certainly pull them off... like he used to do with the other documents. ;)

But the second document doesn't even mention 1.98 ATA :megalol:

I don't have any "skin in this game" so to speak, I fly (and love) both German and Allied planes.

 

The problem is that if you create a multiplayer sim such as DCS, and just put aircraft against each other that historically fought each other ... you don't necessarily get very accurate representation of what historically happened ... or a very fun and engaging simulation.

 

Take the Me262. The Me262 was definitely a contemporary of the P-51D and Spitfire Mk IX, it fought against them. So does that mean we should let people choose to fly the Me-262 against P-51s and Spit IXs? Would that result in a historically accurate outcome and an engaging simulation? I would argue not really. The problem is people can choose any plane they want, and which side they want to fly on and there is a strong tendency to choose the best plane available. You would see large numbers of Me-262s dominating the allied planes. That's not realistic because the reality of course was that there were so many allied planes flying by that time of the war that even though the Me-262 was superior it didn't much matter. It's also not that much fun, for either side ...

 

So whilst I do not believe in balancing individual aircraft, they should fly as they really flew. I do however believe in balancing the choice of aircraft available. Large numbers of different aircraft all saw service at overlapping times, we should be choosing aircraft from that set that are all well matched. That's what a multiplayer simulation such as DCS requires to make it fun and engaging.

I do agree, very much so, but that's the job of the dogfight server admins, not ED's isn't it.

ED's job IMO is to pump out as many correctly modeled planes as possible. In as many configurations as possible... with complete loadouts, multiple fuel and 'boost' choices... oh we can dream. Especially as I see DCS as more of an offline sim... and offline users just wanting to have the fullest possible experience with their favorite aircraft(s) shouldn't be penalized due players with multiplayer preference who OTOH wish for a balanced and fun experience on the servers.. like I said, MP server hosts can solve that with planesets, limited number of spawns, better planes taking off from distant bases etc.

1.98 ata was not cleared for use in 1944.

 

In 45 it was only tested...

 

While 150 octane was used in a variety of aircraft during 1944.

Look man this octane argument is just pointless.

This is just my perspective, but some people i've shot down without mw50, go to the forum and post that it's impossible to get a kill on 109s because they have 1945 configuration :D .

Of course it would make a difference to get 25lbs spit but it will not turn you into an ace overnight and i'm sure ED heard this 100 times by now and it's getting really really old and boring hearing the same argument that goes on and on.

Again this is just my perspective but i'm fine with any 109 from any year.

I'm sure you realize that LW had a lot less planes in the late war, a lot less fuel,untrained pilots.It's just impossible to simulate that.

Maybe the allies had better propeller planes because germans tried to develop jet planes.But even If you get fancy fuels for allied side i don't really care what fuel i get and if i get a 262 or not.Like i posted before no matter what you have the grass will always be greener on the other side.

So whilst I do not believe in balancing individual aircraft, they should fly as they really flew. I do however believe in balancing the choice of aircraft available. Large numbers of different aircraft all saw service at overlapping times, we should be choosing aircraft from that set that are all well matched. That's what a multiplayer simulation such as DCS requires to make it fun and engaging.

I like historical match up as well. But for doing this you have to model the whole situation (both air forces) and force the players play representative number of each plane. But as in DCS we are very far from that picture I think that balancing the choices would be the best option.

In any case, late war scenario is a poor choice (Not DCS one) as air war wasn't as contested as in the past. Allies knew they were going to win the war. The question wasn't "if" but "when". The aircrafts at hand were more than capable of dealing with the situation (busting the Wehrmacht back). There wasn't any need to force production or rushing introducing of new versions or models. On the other hand the Luftwaffe was struggling for its own survival (well more exactly nazi regime) and was pouring everything it has in hand including testing planes. But all of this with a severe lack of fuel problem, very bad pilot training

and even sometimes with production sabotages. Difficult to know how many of those planes got into the air effectively.

Would have been better choosing a true Normandy scenario with warplanes representative of that period.

All in all having the planes we have I do not see any wrong in having a spit XIV or improved boost to the current ones until we can have more options of planes and represent an historically contested period.

Little bit of info here...

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/41-OpRep-17Sept44.jpg

 

17/09/44

 

12 XIV operational with Squad 41

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2991084&postcount=114

 

Doesn't match your "figures"... of course because they are false.

No, its just that that you have a serious problem reading understanding documents, hence why your brain runs into insurmountable obstacles in telling apart the difference between 'numbers for XIVe' in service in squadrons and numbers for aircraft (both XIV and XIVe, although the latter did not exist yet at the time) reported by No. 41 Squadron in another paper.Really, that's the problem. You have serious issues understanding written text. Its called, I believe, functional illiteracy.

But the second document doesn't even mention 1.98 ATA :megalol:

Again, I can't help you with your PEBCAK issues, I would just like to point out that the document clearly gives separate settings for DB (1.8ata) and DC (1.98ata) engine configurations. Otherwise it merely lists amended (reduced, because of B-4 fuel quality issues) settings for the DB, while stating that DC engines will keep their original settings and no change is needed as C-3 (required for 1.98ata rating) is available in uncompromising quality for use.

I like historical match up as well. But for doing this you have to model the whole situation (both air forces) and force the players play representative number of each plane. But as in DCS we are very far from that picture I think that balancing the choices would be the best option.

In any case, late war scenario is a poor choice (Not DCS one) as air war wasn't as contested as in the past. Allies knew they were going to win the war. The question wasn't "if" but "when". The aircrafts at hand were more than capable of dealing with the situation (busting the Wehrmacht back). There wasn't any need to force production or rushing introducing of new versions or models. On the other hand the Luftwaffe was struggling for its own survival (well more exactly nazi regime) and was pouring everything it has in hand including testing planes. But all of this with a severe lack of fuel problem, very bad pilot training

and even sometimes with production sabotages. Difficult to know how many of those planes got into the air effectively.

Would have been better choosing a true Normandy scenario with warplanes representative of that period.

All in all having the planes we have I do not see any wrong in having a spit XIV or improved boost to the current ones until we can have more options of planes and represent an historically contested period.

I think a fw190A would have been a better choice instead of the D9.But it's easy for me to say that now .

No, its just that that you have a serious problem reading understanding documents, hence why your brain runs into insurmountable obstacles in telling apart the difference between 'numbers for XIVe' in service in squadrons and numbers for aircraft (both XIV and XIVe, although the latter did not exist yet at the time) reported by No. 41 Squadron in another paper.Really, that's the problem. You have serious issues understanding written text. Its called, I believe, functional illiteracy.

Seriously... I can read that they have 12 XIV when you tried to tell us previously that they only had 2... :doh:

Again, I can't help you with your PEBCAK issues, I would just like to point out that the document clearly gives separate settings for DB (1.8ata) and DC (1.98ata) engine configurations. Otherwise it merely lists amended (reduced, because of B-4 fuel quality issues) settings for the DB, while stating that DC engines will keep their original settings and no change is needed as C-3 (required for 1.98ata rating) is available in uncompromising quality for use.

So it does'nt say this...

"Sämtliche Änderungen sind durch die Forderung bedingt, für die leistungsgesteigerten Motoren auch B4 Kraftstoff minderer Qualität ohne Gefahr verwenden zu können. Da kraftstoff C3 in unverminderter Qualität zur Verfügung steht, werden Motoren 605 ASC und 605 DC, falls sie in dieser Ausführung aufgebaut werden, unverändert wie bisher abgegeben; da jedoch, sowohl von Neubaufertigung als auch Reparatur, die Abgabe gewöhnlich in Ausführung 605 ASB und 605 DB erfolgt, werden nahezu alle 605 Motoren von diesen Änderungen erfasst."

"All changes are due to the requirement to be able to use B4 fuel of lower quality without danger for the higher performance engines. Since fuel C3 is available in unimpaired quality, motors 605 ASC and 605 DC, if constructed in this design, are delivered unchanged as before; Since, however, both of new production and repair, delivery is usually done in 605 ASB and 605 DB, almost all 605 engines are covered by these changes."

So most aircraft had to use B4, it clearly states it.

and 100/150 octane fuel was not released for operational use until about February-March 1945

No.1 and 165 Squadrons were using 150 Octane fuel in their LF.IXs from May 1944. They were used to great effect against the V-1 offensive in June, July and August 1944, before the role was given more or less entirely to Tempest units. Inded

I can get specific references for this, if you'd like.

Have you ever heard about Polish Division 303 in RAF ? I will definatly recomend to read the book about it ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squadron_303_(book)

I don't agree with the idea that everyone wants to fly the best plane.

Jump on any WW2 server at the moment and you'll see tons of spitfire's with their +18lb boost going up against 'superior' aircraft and not complaining simply because it is a joy to fly.

The Spit might be the slowest aircraft of the bunch but it will out turn all the other WW2 aircraft in the DCS stable including the unreleased Me 262 and for a lot of people's there's more enjoyment to be had in beating a more powerful aircraft in a 'bog standard' LF Mk.IX.

Yesterday I had an FW 190 boom and zoom at me for about 15 minutes without managing to get a single shot on me because I anticipated his attack runs and turned inside his circle. Eventually I had to RTB because I was low on fuel so I disengaged and flew home without firing a single round.

I don't wish I had +25lb boost so I could have beat him either... He came into the fight with the initial an energy advantage and we both flew our aircraft to their strengths and left in one piece with a a decent amount of respect for each other.

There's much more to a simulation like DCS than statistical one-upsmanship.

There has been no proof produced, except for a staffel of JG11 that did some testing, that 1.98ata was ever used operationally.

Even the made up graphic of OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45 is not proof, which has been modified over the years. In fact, there is an error as III./JG27 was equipped with K-4s not G-10s. http://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/jg27.htm

I don't agree with the idea that everyone wants to fly the best plane.

 

Jump on any WW2 server at the moment and you'll see tons of spitfire's with their +18lb boost going up against 'superior' aircraft and not complaining simply because it is a joy to fly.

 

The Spit might be the slowest aircraft of the bunch but it will out turn all the other WW2 aircraft in the DCS stable including the unreleased Me 262 and for a lot of people's there's more enjoyment to be had in beating a more powerful aircraft in a 'bog standard' LF Mk.IX.

 

Yesterday I had an FW 190 boom and zoom at me for about 15 minutes without managing to get a single shot on me because I anticipated his attack runs and turned inside his circle. Eventually I had to RTB because I was low on fuel so I disengaged and flew home without firing a single round.

 

I don't wish I had +25lb boost so I could have beat him either... He came into the fight with the initial an energy advantage and we both flew our aircraft to their strengths and left in one piece with a a decent amount of respect for each other.

 

There's much more to a simulation like DCS than statistical one-upsmanship.

+1 Had the same with a 109

I don't agree with the idea that everyone wants to fly the best plane.

 

Jump on any WW2 server at the moment and you'll see tons of spitfire's with their +18lb boost going up against 'superior' aircraft and not complaining simply because it is a joy to fly.

 

The Spit might be the slowest aircraft of the bunch but it will out turn all the other WW2 aircraft in the DCS stable including the unreleased Me 262 and for a lot of people's there's more enjoyment to be had in beating a more powerful aircraft in a 'bog standard' LF Mk.IX.

 

Yesterday I had an FW 190 boom and zoom at me for about 15 minutes without managing to get a single shot on me because I anticipated his attack runs and turned inside his circle. Eventually I had to RTB because I was low on fuel so I disengaged and flew home without firing a single round.

 

I don't wish I had +25lb boost so I could have beat him either... He came into the fight with the initial an energy advantage and we both flew our aircraft to their strengths and left in one piece with a a decent amount of respect for each other.

 

There's much more to a simulation like DCS than statistical one-upsmanship.

+1

I do agree, very much so, but that's the job of the dogfight server admins, not ED's isn't it.

...

Especially as I see DCS as more of an offline sim... and offline users just wanting to have the fullest possible experience with their favorite aircraft(s) shouldn't be penalized due players with multiplayer preference who OTOH wish for a balanced and fun experience on the servers...

I do think it's partly ED's responsibility, especially when there aren't currently many planes available. It would make more sense to build a core of "well-matched" planes first, and then extend it with more "exotic" options once that core was done.

I like to fly offline as well, but personally I wouldn't have felt short changed if we'd got a 109 G-6 instead of a 109 K-4. Or a FW 190 A8 (or A5) instead of the 190 D9, particularly as I have a special fondness for the A5. Nor would have I complained if we'd got a Spit XIV instead of a Spit IX.

I don't agree with the idea that everyone wants to fly the best plane.

No not everyone does, for sure, and I also like fighting in disadvantage planes ... you learn a lot more and your kills are all the more sweet when you do them from a disadvantage. However, I do think there is a certain "gravity" towards the stronger planes. I'm also not sure I really want to face substantial numbers of Me262s in a Spit, you might out turn them but unless they make a mistake you'll never catch them.

I've argued many times on these forums that the determining factor in any engagement is a combination of the numbers on each side, the skill of the pilots, the energy states and the performance of the planes. With performance of the planes typically being the least important of those things.

None the less, I personally would have preferred ED to have chosen a more well matched set of aircraft :)

Really.

 

 

 

Indeed, most prominently by Mustangs, 190s and 109s though.

Hey Guys,

just chipping in, not taking part in the discussion itself due to not knowing anything about this. But to make some things "clearer". Well, at least I hope so.

Addentum to Kurfuersts "2.) Aufladung 1,98 ata, Kraftstoff C 3"

The text is not 100% readable, but I try my best to translate the meaning, not 100% word by word.

"From the Sirs of the Office Chef-Ing.(Head Engineer) the attached report from Mr Haupting(I think it should be "Haupt Ing." - Main Engineer) Medinger is presented.

According to this report, the testing of 1,9ata and 1,98ata proceeded negative for the time being.

A telegram from "E-Stelle-Rechlin" is read out in which the testing with 4 engines was stated and accordingly the acceptance was refused.

Gen.Ing.(General Engineer)Paul criticizes in this context that this "Sondernotleistungsstufe" with 1,98ata was given directly to General Galland by the company, before a sufficient trial was taken as a basis.

He also vehemently speaks out against (the matter of fact) that on behalf of the "Technische Aussendienst" these (engine)performances were offered to the troops and (that) the engines are being converted.

DB demonstrates that a good basis for clearance exists and shows the testresults(from a test bench) by reference to a table. Besides that it is pointed to the corresponding TAGM approval where 1,98ata was approved together with 1,8ata."

For me it looks like the Company(DB) approves 1,98ata, but "E-Stelle-Rechlin" and several engineers don´t.

Fox