PDA

View Full Version : What is ata of present 109k-4



blackpulpit1970
02-01-2006, 06:26 AM
Question says it all. What is the ATA of the k-4 we have in game now?

blackpulpit1970
02-01-2006, 06:26 AM
Question says it all. What is the ATA of the k-4 we have in game now?

stathem
02-01-2006, 06:35 AM
1.8 I think.

Hristo_
02-01-2006, 06:53 AM
Well, it is pretty irrelevant, to be honest.

What matters is the effect of 1.98 Ata announcement on Allied whiners http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stathem
02-01-2006, 06:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
Well, it is pretty irrelevant, to be honest.

What matters is the effect of 1.98 Ata announcement on Allied whiners http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's no more, and no less, than the effect of the earlier (possible) announcement of the +25lb spitfire on Axis whiners... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Hristo_
02-01-2006, 07:01 AM
Not so sure about that, we are fairly used to Allies getting superboosted planes as of few last patches.

Just compare number of posts on 1.98 Ata K-4 vs 25 lbs Spit and you will see.

Personally, new Spit doesnt' worry me. And I'm sorry we didn't get the Spit XIV with the Tempest. Both of them make the 262 closer than ever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

WOLFMondo
02-01-2006, 07:08 AM
I don't think we'll ever see an XIV in this sim which is sad because its part of one of the greatest families of aircraft ever made. I don't know why people are worried about a 25lbs boosted Spitfire. As a frequent 190 driver theres only 1 aircraft I'll be worried about from now on and its far superior to any Spitfire and the best drivers will have years of 190 experiance to put to good usehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

HellToupee
02-01-2006, 08:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
Not so sure about that, we are fairly used to Allies getting superboosted planes as of few last patches.

Just compare number of posts on 1.98 Ata K-4 vs 25 lbs Spit and you will see.

Personally, new Spit doesnt' worry me. And I'm sorry we didn't get the Spit XIV with the Tempest. Both of them make the 262 closer than ever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well differnce is 25lbs boost spit is only to bring a contemporary spitfire to latewar german types(tho they will still all be faster), compareable to flying a g6 vs a XIV. Also 25lbs boost was used in numbers and in 1944. A contemporary to the boosted k4 would be a 21lbs boost XIV.

As for these superboosted allied planes which ones are super? the p47d is a small improvement still slower than axis types low and no faster than its unboosted variant high. The p38 which well i finda complete push over with the d9 let alone a k4.

Allies just wanted planes that could compete evenly down low, which to axis types wasnt in their best interests.

Kurfurst__
02-01-2006, 08:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
Also 25lbs boost was used in numbers and in 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if you mean those 30-odd V-1 chasing MkIXs that used it out of the 900+ MkIXs around...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A contemporary to the boosted k4 would be a 21lbs boost XIV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fully agree, we should have it - but we don't have cocpit/external for it.
Just be happy with the half a dozen high boosted allied types you already have, and don't whine that god forbid the Axis would get a SINLGE high boosted model that saw service just as well.

lrrp22
02-01-2006, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
Also 25lbs boost was used in numbers and in 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if you mean those 30-odd V-1 chasing MkIXs that used it out of the 900+ MkIXs around...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A contemporary to the boosted k4 would be a 21lbs boost XIV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fully agree, we should have it - but we don't have cocpit/external for it.
Just be happy with the half a dozen high boosted allied types you already have, and don't whine that god forbid the Axis would get a SINLGE high boosted model that saw service just as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrim,

Congratulations on your 1.98 ata K-4. But please, don't imply that it saw service on even remotely the same scale as the 150 grade Allied aircraft. If 1.98 ata/C3 was used at all, it was by a few dozen 109's for 4-6 weeks while 150 grade and increased boost was used by Allied fighters in the thousands for months and months. This is not an arguable fact.

Besides, 1.8 ata is already a 1945 boost level for both the 109 and D-9 since neither type used the setting until very late '44/early 45.

Again-Congrats http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LRRP

butch2k
02-01-2006, 12:39 PM
A 1944 K-4 should be equipped with a DB605DM at 1.75ata since delivery of DB605DB did not occur until mid january 1945. The DC which were basically the same engine were to be delivered in the DB configuration until the 1.98ata boost was cleared.
By february 1945 orders were issued to begin tests of the DB605DC set to 1.98ata, and plans were made to convert existing squadron with DB605DB engines to DB605DC standard.
What is not known is to what extend it was done before war ended as we do not know whether testing was positive or negative and if the former at what time the DC was considered operational.

butch2k
02-01-2006, 12:46 PM
Just to correct some confusion about the C3 issue.
When first issued the DB605DM/ASM/AM were required to use C3 fuel, and it was not until some time that those engine were cleared to use B4 as well. It required some timing adjustement as well as some nerves since a failure of the MW-50 system in such a configuration broke the engine almost immediatly.
So it's quite normal to see C3 markings on a K-4 or G-10 it does not mean by anyway that the a/c is actually using a DB605DC.
for instance almost all K-4 of the 330xxx-333xxx batches wear a C3 triangle while the later 334xxx batch a/c are wearing a B4 triangle.

luftluuver
02-01-2006, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by butch2k:
A 1944 K-4 should be equipped with a DB605DM at 1.75ata since delivery of DB605DB did not occur until mid january 1945. The DC which were basically the same engine were to be delivered in the DB configuration until the 1.98ata boost was cleared.
By february 1945 orders were issued to begin tests of the DB605DC set to 1.98ata, and plans were made to convert existing squadron with DB605DB engines to DB605DC standard.
What is not known is to what extend it was done before war ended as we do not know whether testing was positive or negative and if the former at what time the DC was considered operational. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just to correct some confusion about the C3 issue.
When first issued the DB605DM/ASM/AM were required to use C3 fuel, and it was not until some time that those engine were cleared to use B4 as well. It required some timing adjustement as well as some nerves since a failure of the MW-50 system in such a configuration broke the engine almost immediatly.
So it's quite normal to see C3 markings on a K-4 or G-10 it does not mean by anyway that the a/c is actually using a DB605DC.
for instance almost all K-4 of the 330xxx-333xxx batches wear a C3 triangle while the later 334xxx batch a/c are wearing a B4 triangle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting, very interesting. Thanks for the input. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

SlickStick
02-01-2006, 12:55 PM
I think the funny part of the whole 109-K4 C3 thing is that the K4 we have now already outclimbs the real life version of the 109-K4 C3. And the 109-G2, a 1942 plane, is not too far behind, LOL!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Any LW flyer that says the 109-G2 is correctly modeled in v4.02 is a blatant and country-biased fibber. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Vipez-
02-01-2006, 01:32 PM
Slick, 109, it's hardly not the only plane having better climb rate, than it's real life equivalent, but for some reason 109s allways gets the attention..

SlickStick
02-01-2006, 01:45 PM
I'm know there are other planes with climb issues, but the 109-G2 is very noticable in it's currently overmodelled climb rate.

I like how the Spitfires test versus reality though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I feel much better about flying them these days and will enjoy the +25lb boost Spitfire as well.

Climb rates and roll rates need to be corrected across the board in this sim. I feel that recent implementations of increased FM physics has revealed limitations/errors in the code that have always been there and are now more pronounced due to the increased physics modeling.

Example: All Laggs were 300kg too light and have been so for some time. Yet, it wasn't as noticeable until things changed in V4.01/V4.02.

ploughman
02-01-2006, 01:51 PM
Does anyone have any Bf 109 and Fw-190 sites they can recommend?