Even with the Spitfire, the bf-109 and the fw-190 will keep making the law in the sky - Page 15 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-20-2016, 12:35 PM   #141
AndytotheD
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 25
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst View Post
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.
AndytotheD is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 12:35 PM   #142
=Pedro=
Senior Member
 
=Pedro='s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: CENTRAL POLAND
Posts: 1,126
Default

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)
__________________
i7 6700K @ 4.8GHz | Gigabyte GTX 1080 8 GB | 16 GB DDR4 | Win7 Ultimate X64 | TrackIR 5 | TM Warthog HOTAS | MFG Croswinds Pedals

Last edited by =Pedro=; 12-20-2016 at 12:36 PM. Reason: Link
=Pedro= is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 12:36 PM   #143
howie87
Member
 
howie87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 990
Default

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.
howie87 is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 12:37 PM   #144
MiloMorai+
Posting Rights Revoked
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 666
Default

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
MiloMorai is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 12:45 PM   #145
Krupi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by howie87 View Post
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
__________________
Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| EVGA GTX 780 | 16GB Ram | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | Oculus Rift CV1 | MFG crosswind Pedals

Project IX Cockpit

Last edited by Krupi; 12-20-2016 at 12:47 PM.
Krupi is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 12:47 PM   #146
otto
Member
 
otto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Where Hartman fought p51's
Posts: 571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by howie87 View Post
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
otto is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 12:49 PM   #147
Tomsk
Member
 
Tomsk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst View Post
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.
Tomsk is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 01:03 PM   #148
Tomsk
Member
 
Tomsk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by howie87 View Post
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
Tomsk is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 01:07 PM   #149
iFoxRomeo
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 394
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst View Post
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

Last edited by iFoxRomeo; 12-20-2016 at 01:09 PM.
iFoxRomeo is offline  
Old 12-20-2016, 10:17 PM   #150
NineLine
Community Manager
 
NineLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 21,941
Default

I am closing this thread because:

1) its off topic, I asked for people to share info on fuel in a NEW thread, that didnt happen.
2) The same guys, arguing with the same guys, arguing about the same topics

As for the fuel issue in reference to the Spitfire, if someone wants to talk about the SPITFIRE then start a new thread, but dont do it unless you have full reports proving it was used on a regular basis besides special missions such as knocking down V1s or something of that sort. Right now I am not seeing enough to say it needs to be switched, maybe an option one day, but even that isnt gonna be a priority, no more than the German fuel options.

If the same guys come back with the same song and dance above, warnings will be issued.
__________________
Nick Grey - "I have had the privilege of flying most marks of Spit, the I, V, IX, XIV, XIX and enjoyed working with Eagle to make this simulation of the IX the 'mutt's nuts'."
Artist formerly known as SiThSpAwN
Forum RulesForum Rules Guidelines
ED Facebook PageED YouTube PageWags YouTubeMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine #0440
**How to Report a Bug**
NineLine is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
109, 190, luftwaffe, spitfire

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:11 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.