PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire XIV vs 109G/K



Pinker15
04-11-2006, 05:10 AM
I found some interesting reading about my favorite plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

Pinker15
04-11-2006, 05:10 AM
I found some interesting reading about my favorite plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

Megile_
04-11-2006, 05:15 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

can you hear him coming?

stathem
04-11-2006, 05:25 AM
...can't be long now...what do you think, 8 pages? 10?

Megile_
04-11-2006, 05:26 AM
That page is actually very interesting, and regardless of he who shall not be mentiond's technical objections, it includes a very good look at the state of Germany for the last 5 months of the war.

A squad receiving training G6s as replacements for example shows the dire state of affairs.

p1ngu666
04-11-2006, 07:38 AM
n00b 109's? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
04-11-2006, 07:51 AM
Imagine the whines that would come from getting that plane in the game, I mean many battles in World War 2 banned the awesome MERLIN 25+ boost Spitfire which pounded the Luftwaffe so much. The LW pilots were just crying foul, they could nor outurn it or use their usual, 'run away' tactics, for they could be caught. Hitler banned the 25 pounder for being 'too uber'.

Hope they never have to meet the Griffon powered monster! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kurfurst__
04-11-2006, 08:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile_:
A squad receiving training G6s as replacements for example shows the dire state of affairs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's rather an example of intellectual dishonesty of Mike Williams and his willingness to manipulate sources. German aircraft always at tghe lowest possible, worst condition (the 'K-4 speed curves' for example are not the K-4, but show the K-6's performance on the same papers), whereas the examples Spitfires are either prototypes, or are estimated curves of performances, made by Mike himself of course. Amongst these, such small logical problems like he claims first there is no 109K flight test known (obviously to dismiss the official specs as they are too good for his taste), then he claims a flight test report exists in which the engine failed... now which one?

IMHO the site is interesting as far as the original sources go, unfurtunately there's not much of those as Mike is more interested in his own fictionary version of history then the actual events, ie. +25 lbs Spit XIV, when just about everybody expect him, even Hop and Neil Stirlign seem to accept those never were introduced. It's good for a fiction story, stinking heavily of bias. It's a propagane pamphlet from one biased fanboi to the others, hardly more.

He has been constantly changing the facts in the article, origally he admitted 1.98ata, even qouted butch2k about it, then he withdraw.
This is an older dubunking of his article:
www.kurfurst.bravehost.com (http://www.kurfurst.bravehost.com)

Brain32
04-11-2006, 08:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Hitler banned the 25 pounder for being 'too uber'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who banned Me262? Stalin? Churchill? Roosevelt or Truman maybe?
Oh and in specific case of banning the Hitler name calling is waaaaaaaaay out of the line http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Xiolablu3
04-11-2006, 08:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
as Mike is more interested in his own fictionary version of history then the actual events </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:ie. +25 lbs Spit XIV, when just about everybody expect him, even Hop and Neil Stirlign seem to accept those never were introduced. It's good for a fiction story, stinking heavily of bias. It's a propagane pamphlet from one biased fanboi to the others, hardly more. [/URL] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif sound like a description of anyone else around here? We should on the other hand, believe Kurfy's totally honest and truthful version of history.

Mike actaully states that the Spit 14 at 25+ boost was never introduced into service on the site, he is hardly being dishonest. He even uses Luftwaffe projected 'best case' data which was not tested for some of the K4 curves.

Quoted from the site :-

'No evidence has yet been found that +25 lbs boost was employed in service by
Spitfire XIV squadrons prior to VE day. Even at +25 lbs. the Spitfire XIV
still fell short of the sea level performance of the Tempest V and highly
boosted Mustangs.'

Hardly sounds biased to me.

Megile_
04-11-2006, 08:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
ie. +25 lbs Spit XIV, when just about everybody expect him, even Hop and Neil Stirlign seem to accept those never were introduced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The site clearly states that no evidence for +25 BOOST was ever cleared for use by Spit XIVs.

Two words... "straw" and "man"

Xiolablu3
04-11-2006, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Hitler banned the 25 pounder for being 'too uber'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who banned Me262? Stalin? Churchill? Roosevelt or Truman maybe?
Oh and in specific case of banning the Hitler name calling is waaaaaaaaay out of the line http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errrm it was a joke? Did I call anyone any names?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Did Hitler really have the power to 'ban' planes? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I was only stoking the fire a little, please dont take it litterally. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Megile_
04-11-2006, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Mike actaully states that the Spit 14 at 25+ boost was never introduced into service on the site, he is hardly being dishonest. He even uses Luftwaffe projected 'best case' data which was not tested for some of the K4 curves.

Quoted from the site :-

'No evidence has yet been found that +25 lbs boost was employed in service by
Spitfire XIV squadrons prior to VE day. Even at +25 lbs. the Spitfire XIV
still fell short of the sea level performance of the Tempest V and highly
boosted Mustangs.'

Hardly sounds biased to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You beat me to it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Back to the point of replacement G6s..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Kurt Setzinger of II/JG 53 -

We were to take charge of training machines - old G-6s - as replacements for the aircraft lost at Ristissen </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Prien -

on 23 April the unit had four Bf 109 G-6s, on 24 April this figure had already risen to 32 Bf 109 G-6s, of which none where servicable, however </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Resources were obviously tight if squadrons were receiving old G6s along with K4s and G14s.
And the quality for the new machines was considerably lower..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Hans Knickrehm of I/JG 3

The machines that were delivered were technically obsolete and of considerably lowered quality. The engines proved prone to trouble after much too short a time, because the factories had had to sharply curtail test runs for lack of fuel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen Oleg talk about this before, and he certainly thinks due to low quality of German manufacturing standards towards the end of the war, Luftwaffe planes were not meeting performance charts.

WOLFMondo
04-11-2006, 08:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile_:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

can you hear him coming? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On que as ever. Fishing has never been so easy.

Brain32
04-11-2006, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I was only stoking the fire a little, please dont take it litterally. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, the whole deal was quite firey and it was put out quite recently so I guess I'm still a bit too touchy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

luftluuver
04-11-2006, 09:11 AM
Oh my Kurfurst, and you're a pillar of honesty. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Post some official German K-4 graphs Kurfurst.

I notice that you have errors and dishonesty in your article.

You state:

III./JG 27 &gt; Bf 109 K and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">some 109 Gs</span>
III./JG 53 &gt; Bf 109 K and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">some 109 Gs</span>
IV./JG 53 &gt; Bf 109 K and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">some 109 Gs</span>

Yet, you state:

III./JG 27 Bf 109 &gt; K-4
III. / JG 53 Bf 109 &gt; K-4
IV. / JG 53 Bf 109 &gt; K-4

You try to pass off that these units were all 1.98ata K-4 equiped, yet you include G numbers in your onhand and servicable numbers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif So out of the 142 onhand 109s, how many were 1.80ata K-4s and how many were 1.98 K-4s? How many were Gs? What was the break down of the servicable 109s?

I also noticed you left out a German report that wondered why go to 1.98 when 109 airframes were of such bad quality. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif And you claim Mike is intellectually dishonest. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Your reading ability sucks Kurfurst, for Mike states that there <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">appears</span> there exists no flight test data reports, not that there was no test flights. Post these graphs you claim of exist.

Btw, some of the graphs you have in your article from Mike's site are no longer there. Better do a update on your article.

If Mike was as dishonest as you say he is, then he would just say G-6 without any further info. He does not. Not one official German flight test graph do you post in your article. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

biggs222
04-11-2006, 09:19 AM
the mkXIV belongs in AEP... nuff said.

panther3485
04-11-2006, 09:25 AM
Used to love flying the Mk. XIV in EAW.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

I miss it.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

'twould be nice to have, would it not?


panther3485

Grue_
04-11-2006, 09:31 AM
We need the smilie with the coffee cup they use over at Simhq.

Monty_Thrud
04-11-2006, 10:50 AM
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//popcorn.gif

Lucius_Esox
04-11-2006, 11:16 AM
Kurfurst,, enlighten me,,,, For what reasons would someone do as you say, if they are to be taken seriously?

Kurfurst, Our description of the world says more about us than it does the real world, in other words do you think that subconsciously you are judging others by YOUR own standards.

polak5
04-11-2006, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Hitler banned the 25 pounder for being 'too uber'.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Vipez-
04-11-2006, 01:23 PM
No doubt the Spit 14 would be great addition for the game (really shame we probably never get it). In reality, by the time Spit Mk 14 was debloyed in numbers against the LW, the war was pretty much over, and it's difficult to actually compare how late 109s and Spit 14 would really compair, as LW simply did not have the experienced pilots to fly the planes anymore. Even if we would get it, don't expect it to make same kind of ufo-manouvers Spit 9s used to do in some patches (haven't really flown much lately, so I can't tell about 4.04). It was a lot heavier, and faster than Mk.9. Speed is still life..

VW-IceFire
04-11-2006, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:
No doubt the Spit 14 would be great addition for the game (really shame we probably never get it). In reality, by the time Spit Mk 14 was debloyed in numbers against the LW, the war was pretty much over, and it's difficult to actually compare how late 109s and Spit 14 would really compair, as LW simply did not have the experienced pilots to fly the planes anymore. Even if we would get it, don't expect it to make same kind of ufo-manouvers Spit 9s used to do in some patches (haven't really flown much lately, so I can't tell about 4.04). It was a lot heavier, and faster than Mk.9. Speed is still life.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed...it would be far more interesting to fly. The XIV was powerful and capable but I don't expect it would do the same manuevers nearly as well.

biggs222
04-11-2006, 08:24 PM
We are (were) so close.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/Biggs222/spits/mkXIV3.jpg
and clipped
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/Biggs222/spits/mkXIV5.jpg

i wish oleg would reconsider.

Kurfurst__
04-11-2006, 11:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
as Mike is more interested in his own fictionary version of history then the actual events </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:ie. +25 lbs Spit XIV, when just about everybody expect him, even Hop and Neil Stirlign seem to accept those never were introduced. It's good for a fiction story, stinking heavily of bias. It's a propagane pamphlet from one biased fanboi to the others, hardly more. [/URL] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif sound like a description of anyone else around here? We should on the other hand, believe Kurfy's totally honest and truthful version of history.

Mike actaully states that the Spit 14 at 25+ boost was never introduced into service on the site, he is hardly being dishonest. He even uses Luftwaffe projected 'best case' data which was not tested for some of the K4 curves.

Quoted from the site :-

'No evidence has yet been found that +25 lbs boost was employed in service by
Spitfire XIV squadrons prior to VE day. Even at +25 lbs. the Spitfire XIV
still fell short of the sea level performance of the Tempest V and highly
boosted Mustangs.'

Hardly sounds biased to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Funny how selective reading can be, isnt it?

"No evidence has yet been found that +25 lbs boost was employed in service by Spitfire XIV squadrons prior to VE day. Even at +25 lbs. the Spitfire XIV still fell short of the sea level performance of the Tempest V and highly boosted Mustangs. There is clear documentation that 2nd TAF Spitfire XIVs had their Griffon engines set to +21 lbs boost. Its also clear that the Griffon engine was eventually cleared for +25 lbs. When this occurred is not known at this time. "

It appears Mr. Williams IS claiming +25 was eventually cleared. Funny, since an other report from even later on states the limitations remained at +21, at were problematic even then.

Notice the date, March - July 1945.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/la187.html

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/la187.gif

.....2.3 Engine details and relevant limitations. The tests were commenced with a Griffon engine, number 1650 fitted. This engine failed before the tests were completed and the number of the replacement Griffon 61, was 16680. The following details apply to both engines :-

Reduction gear ratio: 0.45:1
Carburetter, RR. Bendix type 9T, series 40.

.....The jet details were as follows :-

Part No. Diameter
Automatic lean metering jet GN.8239 0.240"
Automatic rich metering jet GN.9294 0.250"
Power enrichment jet D.25251 0.312"

.....The relevant limatations at the time of the test were :-

Condition................................. Boost lb/sq.in. R.P.M.
Maximum for climbing (normal rating) +9 2600
Maximum for combat (5 mins. limit *) +21 2750


Curious it says :

Between March-July 1945, the limitations were still +21 lbs for the Griffons, AND even at that boost, "engine failed before the tests were completed". Add to that the 1946 Spit XIV manual shows they reverted to +18.



Perhaps he had forgotten the very material he had typed in...?

I wonder, he claims "clear documentation that 2nd TAF Spitfire XIVs had their Griffon engines set to +21 lbs boost"... where is it?
He claims, there's @also clear that the Griffon engine was eventually cleared for +25 lbs..." again, where is it, in Mike's private reality?


And this talk about how to treat the Mtt Projeburo's "simplistic estimates", which "are to be treated with reserve... yeah, especially because :

- he misqoutes the report, the speed curves for the "K-4" are actually refer to the original curves K-6 figures (ie. the heavy fighter 109K with MK 108 wing guns and an extra 500 lbs weight), which was noticed towards him many times yet he keep misinforming people.

- the ""simplistic estimates which are to be treated with reserve" are actually very detailed on the small details of the plane, and state explicitely that "no extra was accounted for in the calculations, the given performance is certainly going to be reached with well-built serial production machines". Hmmm. The report's creators explicitely say the values are on the conservative side, yet Mr. Williams tells us the opposite.

- plus his ravings about 'simplistic estimates', well, the Spitfire XIV figures he qoutes, are the same category, they come from the central fighter est. calculated figures as well : http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14speedchart.jpg , not flight tests either.

I kinda don't trust a site that is such highly selective with the facts.

jermin122
04-12-2006, 01:03 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
Very eloquent.

HellToupee
04-12-2006, 01:19 AM
All these words when a simple XIV OWNZORS k4 will do, i mean we all know it does even kurfy deap down knows spit is best.

stathem
04-12-2006, 01:52 AM
I wonder what boost Mk 47 Seafires with contra-rotating props were using over Korea...

Gumtree
04-12-2006, 01:52 AM
I believe that BOB will expand and expand eventually we will reach the 44-45 period and all planes will be in it.

We just have to be patient ,but I must admit that I do not look forward to the complaining that will follow when the late war super planes start to appear in the new game......

I can see it know..'that Spit is too good ' or 'the 262 was only here in limited numbers'
There are times I am glad we run our own server and I know that people will not always agree with our plane sets , but I dont care as I see it if you dont like it dont play it. Simple

AFJ_Locust
04-12-2006, 02:02 AM
LOL

here we goooooooooooo

Excitment has returned

Abbuzze
04-12-2006, 03:49 AM
Spitfire XIV are beautifull planes!
I saw one with counterrotating prop at an airshow.

But the radiatorlayout... such a smooth plane with such big boxes under the wing. I stand with a teammate and watched out, and we mistook it for a Corsair that was also in air, when the spit was directly heading at us!
You should be glad that Kid Carson never wrote a "review" about it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

luftluuver
04-12-2006, 05:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Funny how selective reading can be, isnt it?
.
.
.
- the ""simplistic estimates which are to be treated with reserve" are actually very detailed on the small details of the plane, and state explicitely that "no extra was accounted for in the calculations, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">the given performance is certainly going to be reached with well-built serial production machines</span>". Hmmm. The report's creators explicitely say the values are on the conservative side, yet Mr. Williams tells us the opposite.

- plus his ravings about 'simplistic estimates', well, the Spitfire XIV figures he qoutes, are the same category, they come from the central fighter est. calculated figures as well : http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14speedchart.jpg , not flight tests either.

I kinda don't trust a site that is such highly selective with the facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes we have seen how selective you are. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

What well built 109s? Oh yes Kurfurst forgets that report asking why go to 1.98ata when airframes are of such poor quality.

I see nothing on the graph saying 'estimated'.

Here you go Kurfurst, 25lb boost for the Griffon

Model Griffon 58
Original Application Avro Shackleton reconnaissance plane
Engine Type V-12 Piston Aero Engine, 60? "V" (angle between banks)
Material Aluminum crankcase, cylinder banks and heads; Alloy pistons; Steel liners, rods, cranks, etc.
Bore x Stroke 6.0" x 6.6"
Compression Ratio 6.0:1
Supercharger type Two-speed, single-stage centrifugal 13.4" impeller
Supercharger Ratio Medium Speed (MS) - 6.615:1, Full Speed (FS) 7.70:1
Boost Control Automatic via Rolls-Royce auto boost regulator, w/increased boost when ADI active
Fuel System Speed/Density type Fuel Injection (injected into eye of supercharger)
Weight 2,000 lbs
Power 2,450 HP takeoff at 2,750 RPM at SL with <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">25 psig boost </span> using 115/145 PN fuel
Performance 0.82 lbs/hp, 314 psi BMEP, 0.42 lbs fuel/hp/hr SFC
Max. Piston Speed: 3,025 ft/min

<span class="ev_code_PINK">When are you going to publically apoligize to Mike Williams?</span>

Xiolablu3
04-12-2006, 07:39 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 Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
as Mike is more interested in his own fictionary version of history then the actual events </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:ie. +25 lbs Spit XIV, when just about everybody expect him, even Hop and Neil Stirlign seem to accept those never were introduced. It's good for a fiction story, stinking heavily of bias. It's a propagane pamphlet from one biased fanboi to the others, hardly more. [/URL] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif sound like a description of anyone else around here? We should on the other hand, believe Kurfy's totally honest and truthful version of history.

Mike actaully states that the Spit 14 at 25+ boost was never introduced into service on the site, he is hardly being dishonest. He even uses Luftwaffe projected 'best case' data which was not tested for some of the K4 curves.

Quoted from the site :-

'No evidence has yet been found that +25 lbs boost was employed in service by
Spitfire XIV squadrons prior to VE day. Even at +25 lbs. the Spitfire XIV
still fell short of the sea level performance of the Tempest V and highly
boosted Mustangs.'

Hardly sounds biased to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Funny how selective reading can be, isnt it?

"No evidence has yet been found that +25 lbs boost was employed in service by Spitfire XIV squadrons prior to VE day. Even at +25 lbs. the Spitfire XIV still fell short of the sea level performance of the Tempest V and highly boosted Mustangs. There is clear documentation that 2nd TAF Spitfire XIVs had their Griffon engines set to +21 lbs boost. Its also clear that the Griffon engine was eventually cleared for +25 lbs. When this occurred is not known at this time. "

It appears Mr. Williams IS claiming +25 was eventually cleared. Funny, since an other report from even later on states the limitations remained at +21, at were problematic even then.

Notice the date, March - July 1945.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/la187.html

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/la187.gif

.....2.3 Engine details and relevant limitations. The tests were commenced with a Griffon engine, number 1650 fitted. This engine failed before the tests were completed and the number of the replacement Griffon 61, was 16680. The following details apply to both engines :-

Reduction gear ratio: 0.45:1
Carburetter, RR. Bendix type 9T, series 40.

.....The jet details were as follows :-

Part No. Diameter
Automatic lean metering jet GN.8239 0.240"
Automatic rich metering jet GN.9294 0.250"
Power enrichment jet D.25251 0.312"

.....The relevant limatations at the time of the test were :-

Condition................................. Boost lb/sq.in. R.P.M.
Maximum for climbing (normal rating) +9 2600
Maximum for combat (5 mins. limit *) +21 2750


Curious it says :

Between March-July 1945, the limitations were still +21 lbs for the Griffons, AND even at that boost, "engine failed before the tests were completed". Add to that the 1946 Spit XIV manual shows they reverted to +18.



Perhaps he had forgotten the very material he had typed in...?

I wonder, he claims "clear documentation that 2nd TAF Spitfire XIVs had their Griffon engines set to +21 lbs boost"... where is it?
He claims, there's @also clear that the Griffon engine was eventually cleared for +25 lbs..." again, where is it, in Mike's private reality?


And this talk about how to treat the Mtt Projeburo's "simplistic estimates", which "are to be treated with reserve... yeah, especially because :

- he misqoutes the report, the speed curves for the "K-4" are actually refer to the original curves K-6 figures (ie. the heavy fighter 109K with MK 108 wing guns and an extra 500 lbs weight), which was noticed towards him many times yet he keep misinforming people.

- the ""simplistic estimates which are to be treated with reserve" are actually very detailed on the small details of the plane, and state explicitely that "no extra was accounted for in the calculations, the given performance is certainly going to be reached with well-built serial production machines". Hmmm. The report's creators explicitely say the values are on the conservative side, yet Mr. Williams tells us the opposite.

- plus his ravings about 'simplistic estimates', well, the Spitfire XIV figures he qoutes, are the same category, they come from the central fighter est. calculated figures as well : http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14speedchart.jpg , not flight tests either.

I kinda don't trust a site that is such highly selective with the facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


WHy dont you write to him and ask him? Just because he hasnt put everything on the site does that mean he is as dishonest as you?

I guess you are scared you wouldnt like the reply.

Just because one test failed, does that mean all engines failed?

I dont see him being selective with any facts, I do however see you being selctive all the time. We only have your word that he used a 109K6 'heavy fighter' for his 109K tests, and they were estimated anyway! The reason he says they are simplistic, is because they are ESTIMATED, no other reason.

I see someone complaining about 'being selective' when I find HE HIMSELF is far more selective than the person he is accusing. I am sure you can dig up some reports to make it appear that you are correct, that once examined, will show you yourself are being selective. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif We all know how much you hate anything British and will do anything to put the country down.

I would like to write to Mike and continue this to find out the truth, but the fact is, I really dont care that much http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

EDIT: I see Luftluvver has found the very thing that you were claiming never happened, a Griffon at 25 pounds boost. Case closed I think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

carguy_
04-12-2006, 03:15 PM
Uhuh,yes,that`s right....

There`s still no XIV in IL2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

luftluuver
04-12-2006, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">EDIT: I see Luftluvver has found the very thing that you were claiming never happened, a Griffon at 25 pounds boost. Case closed I think </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I very much doubt it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Should be interesting to see what K comes up with. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

luftluuver
04-14-2006, 05:17 AM
Looks like it was just too much for Kurfurst to find out that the Griffon did use 25lb boost. He can't even come and say 'oops, I was wrong'.

WOLFMondo
04-14-2006, 05:23 AM
You have to admit though, its not a typical Griffon to be used in a Spitfire XIV. ITs from and old Avro Shacklton.

Xiolablu3
04-14-2006, 08:46 AM
Mike Williams simply said the Griffon went on to become 25+ boost and Kurfurst said this was wrong.

It is quite probable that a 25+ boost Griffon was tried in the Spitfire airframe, whether this was put into service or not is the question. Probably not it seems, judging from his paragraph.

'No evidence has yet been found that +25 lbs boost was employed in service by Spitfire XIV squadrons prior to VE day. Even at +25 lbs. the Spitfire XIV still fell short of the sea level performance of the Tempest V and highly boosted Mustangs. There is clear documentation that 2nd TAF Spitfire XIVs had their Griffon engines set to +21 lbs boost. Its also clear that the Griffon engine was eventually cleared for +25 lbs. When this occurred is not known at this time.'

Luftluvver has found the 25+ boost for the Griffon which Mike is talking about.

The fact that Mike doesnt provide the docs for the 21+ boost Spits does NOT mean he is lying like Kurfurst suggests. Perhaps he hasnt had time to edit the page? Perhaps he has seen the doc but doesnt have a scan of it? I dont know, but Kurfy seems to think that because he doesnt show the docs, this is obviously a lie. Typical.

I have even SEEN Kurfurst talking about Spitfire 14's at 21+ boost, he KNOWS they existed.

He carries on his constant crusade to get tiny production runs of 109k's with theoretical speeds (questionable if they even had enough fuel) into other games too. This is for Aces high forums where he carries on his 109 rantings, wanting 109K4's with high boosts yet moaning about Spitfires at high boost levels. Double standards :-

http://beta.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s...=157067&pagenumber=2 (http://beta.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=2d86ebbb2a69b435e1d44ab43335ea6f&threadid=157067&pagenumber=2)

In this thread Kurfusrt himself says :-

'No, the rarest bird would be the MkXIV Spitfire at +21 lbs boost, which is the what Kev wants. There were only 60 planes maximum using that boost, from Jan/February 1945.'

Seems like Kurfy has shot himself in the foot.

Megile_
04-14-2006, 09:36 AM
Kurfurst claims there were more K4s at 1.98 ATA than Spit XIVs on + 21 boost.
Interesting opinion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
04-14-2006, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile_:
Kurfurst claims there were more K4s at 1.98 ATA than Spit XIVs on + 21 boost.
Interesting opinion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Could we expect any less from him? Probably not. I think he has a special search engine that seeks out Spitfire XIV threads and spreads "truth and knowledge" to all. Frankly the numbers of produced Spitfires versus FW190D-9s and Bf109K-4's interests me less every day. Historical impact, importance, and visibility are by far more interesting to me. By the same token, a Spitfire XIV should be complimented by a Ar-234 which served in very small numbers but were definately seen and chased on the Western front.

Spitfire XIV's flew, were involved in combat for several very critical and series months, against the best of what was left of the Luftwaffe and did very well. Not to mention it outperformed or matched virtually all of its opponents. The Spitfire XIV was not for the feint of heart as there were several accidents involving torque roll as well as a few structural incidents here and there. By all means not the perfect airplane...but its no less important than any other type.

The barrier to it being put in the game is simply time. Who knows if they will ever be able to accomodate us in this regard...my hopes were dashed long ago but with the Tempest we at least have one later war RAF fighter to work with and a very capable and beautiful one at that.

Xiolablu3
04-14-2006, 10:34 AM
Icefire, are you up for a game right now? I see you have just posted.

I thought about trying Winds Of War again, but I just shot down a Hurricane - In my Hurricane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif. Came around on a 109, lost sight of him and found a plane which I hammered with my 303's and it was another Hurri. DOH.

Need some moral support before I go back http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


EDIT: Nevermind, just spoken to you on HL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Holtzauge
04-14-2006, 11:32 AM
Here is another log on the boost fire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

This is taken from an article on the RR Griffon 65 in Flight magazine, September 20th 1945:

Page 315, exhaustive table with a lot of detailed engine data : In this table we find: max boost pressure 21 lb/sq in, Max b.h.p 2220 at 2750 rpm.

Excerpt from page 314 in same article:

"We have mentioned that the maximum boost of the Griffon 65 is 21 lf/sq in, but there are other models in existance that have passed 25 lb/sq in in maximum boost (with 100/150 grade fuel) and the maximum power of the respective moderate and full supercharge gears have thus been stepped up to : MS 2375 b.h.p at 1250 ft and FS, 2140 b.h.p at 15500 ft."

So it seems the Griffon 65 was cleared to 21 lb/sq in and that "other models" went all the way up to 25 lb/sq in. However the article is from September 1945 and does not say when 21 lb/sq in was introduced. It does however support the fact that this boost was cleared on the Griffon 65. Would be intersting to know when exactly this was introduced and how widespread was the usage.

I have another article from the journal of the royal aeronautical society from April 1947 with a comprehensive history of the Spitfire and Seafire. This only mentions the Griffon 65 in the Spitfire 14, nothing else.

The Flight article leaves an opening to the pro 25 lb/sq in. lobby too: the mention of "other models". Does anyone know of Spit 14's equipped with "other engine models"? If so, what were they and how many were built and when did they enter service?

Megile_
04-14-2006, 11:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Holtzauge:
However the article is from September 1945 and does not say when 21 lb/sq in was introduced. It does however support the fact that this boost was cleared on the Griffon 65. Would be intersting to know when exactly this was introduced and how widespread was the usage.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

610 sqn upgraded to 21 lbs boost in July of 1944. Several squadrons in the 2nd TAF were cleared for its use in November.

Holtzauge
04-14-2006, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Holtzauge:
However the article is from September 1945 and does not say when 21 lb/sq in was introduced. It does however support the fact that this boost was cleared on the Griffon 65. Would be intersting to know when exactly this was introduced and how widespread was the usage.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

610 sqn upgraded to 21 lbs boost in July of 1944. Several squadrons in the 2nd TAF were cleared for its use in November. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, where is this documented? references?

HellToupee
04-14-2006, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just because one test failed, does that mean all engines failed?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A its a spitfire, B its kurfust so yes one failed test means all engines failed if u even mentioned 21lbs within earshot. Had this been a k4 of course it would be selective fact choosing and not representive of real life war winning k4s.

pourshot
04-14-2006, 03:25 PM
Why does everyone worry about what K say€s after all he€s a lawyer, he makes a living by twisting the truth and out right lying so really he should be treated like something you scrap off your boot he is not to be trusted.

Anyway we will never see the 14 in this Sim so this is all a waste of time.

luftluuver
04-14-2006, 04:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pourshot:
Why does everyone worry about what K say€s after all he€s a lawyer, he makes a living by twisting the truth and out right lying so really he should be treated like something you scrap off your boot he is not to be trusted.

Anyway we will never see the 14 in this Sim so this is all a waste of time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not all who read this forum know he is a lawyer and though many people here are well informed, there are those that are not. Would you like these not so knowledgable people spreading Kurfurst's propaganda?

Some here should join http://forum.axishistory.com/index.php to stop the spread of his propaganda and that of the one that calls himself Huck.

Megile_
04-14-2006, 04:20 PM
Kurfurst and Huck provide enjoyable reading material http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

pourshot
04-14-2006, 06:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Some here should join http://forum.axishistory.com/index.php to stop the spread of his propaganda and that of the one that calls himself Huck.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huck used to post here aswell, he was known as one half of the Uber twins k being the other as soon as one would post the other would be next to back him up it was very funny.

luftluuver
04-14-2006, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pourshot:
Huck used to post here aswell, he was known as one half of the Uber twins k being the other as soon as one would post the other would be next to back him up it was very funny. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Did it get too hot for him here with all the 'propaganda'(is that the correct word http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif?) he puts out?

Nubarus
04-15-2006, 04:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pourshot:
Huck used to post here aswell, he was known as one half of the Uber twins k being the other as soon as one would post the other would be next to back him up it was very funny. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Did it get too hot for him here with all the 'propaganda'(is that the correct word http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif?) he puts out? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He got caught up with his own lies at some point and was unable to lie his way out of that.
So he proceeded to insult people and try to cover up his current situation by turning all threads that displeased him into flame wars.

He got banned a few times because he kept making new accounts but after a while it stopped and we never saw him again.

JG5_UnKle
04-15-2006, 04:42 AM
Bring it on I say - the more the merrier!

Nothing more satisfying than besting an enemy you KNOW has a more capable airframe - be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Holtzauge
04-15-2006, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Holtzauge:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Holtzauge:
However the article is from September 1945 and does not say when 21 lb/sq in was introduced. It does however support the fact that this boost was cleared on the Griffon 65. Would be intersting to know when exactly this was introduced and how widespread was the usage.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

610 sqn upgraded to 21 lbs boost in July of 1944. Several squadrons in the 2nd TAF were cleared for its use in November. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, where is this documented? references? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still waiting...

danjama
04-15-2006, 09:26 AM
This was actually quite an interesting thread...page 2 especially, im glad i read it.

Megile_
04-15-2006, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Holtzauge:


Still waiting... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't aware I was required to answer to you... however, since you insist.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no610orb.jpg

610 sqn, July 18th 1944

"the modification of the aircraft to take 21 boost continues"

it seems the trials were succesful with the ADGB Spit IX, Mustangs and XIVs.. because in November 1944

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/2taf150_112044.gif

Imagine that, 700 2nd TAF fighters all runing about on 150 octane. That doesn't include the Mosquitos and ofcourse USAAF fighters.

No doubt Kurfurst is right, clearance doesn't mean used for definite.. oh wait what did he say about 1.98 ATA? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/now-being-introduced.jpg

I can imagine Kurfurst sayin, that only proves 4 spitfires used 150 octane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
04-15-2006, 01:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:
No doubt the Spit 14 would be great addition for the game (really shame we probably never get it). In reality, by the time Spit Mk 14 was debloyed in numbers against the LW, the war was pretty much over, and it's difficult to actually compare how late 109s and Spit 14 would really compair, as LW simply did not have the experienced pilots to fly the planes anymore. Even if we would get it, don't expect it to make same kind of ufo-manouvers Spit 9s used to do in some patches (haven't really flown much lately, so I can't tell about 4.04). It was a lot heavier, and faster than Mk.9. Speed is still life.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed...it would be far more interesting to fly. The XIV was powerful and capable but I don't expect it would do the same manuevers nearly as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I read a piece from a Spitfire pilot who flew both the Mk9 and Mk14.

He said it was best to think of them as totally different airplanes. While the Mk9 was king of the dogfight, there was no need to risk this in the Mk14 because it had the speed to get in and get out again.

Also being much heavier it wasnt as good a plane as the Mk9 at turn fights, but not bad considering the extra weight.

Holtzauge
04-15-2006, 04:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Holtzauge:


Still waiting... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't aware I was required to answer to you... however, since you insist.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no610orb.jpg

610 sqn, July 18th 1944

"the modification of the aircraft to take 21 boost continues"

it seems the trials were succesful with the ADGB Spit IX, Mustangs and XIVs.. because in November 1944

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/2taf150_112044.gif

Imagine that, 700 2nd TAF fighters all runing about on 150 octane. That doesn't include the Mosquitos and ofcourse USAAF fighters.

No doubt Kurfurst is right, clearance doesn't mean used for definite.. oh wait what did he say about 1.98 ATA? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/now-being-introduced.jpg

I can imagine Kurfurst sayin, that only proves 4 spitfires used 150 octane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, without pointing fingers, let's keep this forum civil, there are a lot of personal attacks in this thread. I do not think this is a civilised way to respond to legitimate questions about data and how the data is processed before being presented.

To the issue at hand: If this is the proof for an early introduction of 21 lb boost in the Griffon then there is certainly need for a smooth mouthed lawyer to pave the way. It will not hold up in court.

Exhibit 1: What does it say?

23/2/44: "Today the the squadron started service trials with 130 octane fuel instead of 100 octane fuel for Spifire 14 aircraft" Analysis: Speaks for itself: Started trials that's all.

31/3/44: Analysis: Speaks of repercussions in conjunction with introducing 130 octane fuel: lead deposits and ways to get around the problem by using different plugs.

18th July: A mention of the boost at last: "The modification of the aircraft to take 21 boost continues. Each day a number of flights are made to test and try out the modified engines"

Conclusion on exhibit 1: Trials with 21 boost have started. There have been problems with lead deposits.

Exhibit 2:

Now we make a jump: The next exhibit mentions not 130 but 150 grade fuel. It also mentions modifications in FUTURE tense: the clearance WILL necessitate MODIFICATIONS to the following a/c.

Conclusion on exhibit 2: Clearance for 150 grade fuel. Merlin boost 25 lb/sq in. No mention of Griffon boost. Modifications to be initiated, i.e the a/c of 2nd TAF were DUE to be modified sometime AFTER 20th November 1944. So DID these modifications actually take place and if so WHEN did they start and a WHAT rate? WHAT was the boost on the Griffons at this time?

Exhibit 3: Which are "these engines"? Am I to understand that this is the case for 25 lb/sq in boost in the Griffon 65? Or are these engines Merlins? The date missing so this does not help. Why? It is impossible to judge the weight of this doc with only this snippet of info.

I must say from where I am standing I kind of see Kurfurst's point:

You guys are quoting/using snippets from the the logs/docs that at least in one case skew what is actually written.

Example: "The modification of the aircraft to take 21 boost continues". Now read in splendid isolation due to your selective quote Megile, it states that the a/c are being modified to take 21 boost. Now the whole sentence together: "The modification of the aircraft to take 21 boost continues. Each day a number of flights are made to test and try out the modified engines". Now this says something else does it not? It says TEST and TRY OUT MODIFIED engines. Where are the results from the trials? Where are the conclusions? Where is clearence?

This example above makes me wonder what point 1 in exhibit 3 said and if there was a point 3 and so on. Why was only point 2 shown and why no date?

Make no mistake. I think the article in Flight from 1945 is evidence that the 21 boost was eventualy introduced on the Griffon 65. But this article is from September 1945.

You guys need to come up with something better than what you presented above to make your case. I'm not a lawyer. I'm an engineer. If an engineer presented this as evidence to support his case he would crash and burn. Hate to think what would happen in court.....

VW-IceFire
04-15-2006, 04:54 PM
This is the earliest I've seen any mention of +21lbs of boost on the Griffon engine.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/125wing-replacement-aircraft.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-XIV.html

My take on the high boost Spitfire XIV is that the RAF prioritized the other aircraft getting higher boost settings over the Spitfire XIV. The Tempest, Mustang, and Spitfire IX/XVI seemed to get priority. Oddly enough, the Tempest could achieve +11lb of boost (we currently have +9lb BTW) without 150 octane and some 2nd TAF aircraft were modified (no idea on numers) for use with +11lb without 150 octane.

It seems in general that the 2nd TAF didn't have full access to 150 octane until December or January 1945.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/are-using-4a.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

This seems to indicate that the 2nd TAF is using 100/150 octane fuel already by this point...dated 27th January 1945. It seems that in general the 150 octane was spread about and used the most in the places where it was needed the most.

Undeniably...it seems to have been used as evidenced by this chart:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/theater_barrels_tons.html

I realize that its a bit dangerous to get all of the information from one website source but the citations are good and the evidence is presented from primary sources so for the purposes of this argument I think its enough.

I don't think that I can say for sure, with the evidence presented, that XIV's were using +21lbs of boost...I think +25lbs is out of the question. But 150 octane fuel was being used and thats been presented to my satisfaction.

The-Pizza-Man
04-15-2006, 05:51 PM
The use of higher octane fuel definately indicates at least some increase in maximum manifold pressure as using high octane fuel would have no advantage and also possible disadvantages unless the correspondingly high boost pressures were expected to be utilized as well.

BfHeFwMe
04-15-2006, 05:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Bring it on I say - the more the merrier!

Nothing more satisfying than besting an enemy you KNOW has a more capable airframe - be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the spirit my man, called a target rich environment. So much easier to hunt and destroy. And when you do get one, Tastes Great! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Xiolablu3
04-15-2006, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Holtzauge:

I must say from where I am standing I kind of see Kurfurst's point:

You guys are quoting/using snippets from the the logs/docs that at least in one case skew what is actually written.

Example: "The modification of the aircraft to take 21 boost continues". Now read in splendid isolation due to your selective quote Megile, it states that the a/c are being modified to take 21 boost. Now the whole sentence together: "The modification of the aircraft to take 21 boost continues. Each day a number of flights are made to test and try out the modified engines". Now this says something else does it not? It says TEST and TRY OUT MODIFIED engines. Where are the results from the trials? Where are the conclusions? Where is clearence?

This example above makes me wonder what point 1 in exhibit 3 said and if there was a point 3 and so on. Why was only point 2 shown and why no date?

Make no mistake. I think the article in Flight from 1945 is evidence that the 21 boost was eventualy introduced on the Griffon 65. But this article is from September 1945.

You guys need to come up with something better than what you presented above to make your case. I'm not a lawyer. I'm an engineer. If an engineer presented this as evidence to support his case he would crash and burn. Hate to think what would happen in court..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 'case' that is being presented is that 21+ boost Spit 14's flew during the war and the Griffon engine was eventually cleared for 25+ boost, nothing else? Kurfurst ALREADY KNOWS that squadrons flew with 21+ boost Griffons during the war.

We are NOT making a case for the Spit 14 with 21 boost in game, as no new planes are to be added anyway!

All people are doing is posting data to prove Kurfurst talks out of his a*s a lot of the time.

YOU made the 'case' up on your own.

BUT - the fact is that tiny production runs of 109 K4's at 1.98 ATA got into the game, if this is the case then surely a Spitfire 14 at 21+ boost with the same small amount produced should be allowed, if it could be added. (which we know it cant) You cant have different rules for each team.

If you cannot see how Kurfurst has been proved wrong here, then you are either a friend of his, or not very bright.

Megile_
04-15-2006, 07:27 PM
The Griffon was cleared for +21 boost and 150 octane

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/engines-cleared-for-150-2.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Where are the results from the trials? Where are the conclusions? Where is clearence? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you can put 2 + 2 together. Trials in July, and in November Clearance for 2nd TAF

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/2taf150_112044.gif

if those July tests were a faliure, then the 2nd TAF is incompetant to clear its use.

Besides.. here is the real show stopper

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/appendixa1.jpg

2,000 hours, no failures of any kind could be associated with the use of the higher boost. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Holtzauge:

Modifications to be initiated, i.e the a/c of 2nd TAF were DUE to be modified sometime AFTER 20th November 1944. So DID these modifications actually take place and if so WHEN did they start and a WHAT rate? WHAT was the boost on the Griffons at this time?


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Logical Answer

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The use of higher octane fuel definately indicates at least some increase in maximum manifold pressure as using high octane fuel would have no advantage and also possible disadvantages unless the correspondingly high boost pressures were expected to be utilized as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the 2nd TAF was supplied with 150 Octane fuel... if you don't increase the manifold pressure there is no benefit.. infact there will be a detrimental effect due to deposits...

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/deliveries-commence.jpg

Imagine.. the RAF delivering all thise 150 Octane.. and not using it? Crazy!

Now I can see your troubled by

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/now-being-introduced.jpg

This comes from - Modification of Merlin Engines in Night Fighter Mosquito Aircraft to Give Improved Performance, 11th January 1945. (Avia 15/2922)

The +25 boost applies to the Spit IX, XVI and Mosquitos.. the Spitfire XIV it doesnt but you can see why 25 boost was placed on there.

I am guessing you aren't convinced... that's cool, I'll get over it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

tomtheyak
04-15-2006, 08:22 PM
Nice work Megile. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Nubarus
04-16-2006, 02:19 AM
You guys are pretty much wasting your time with Holtzauge.
It's pretty obvious he has already made up his mind about this and from the looks of his postings he is either a good friend of Kurfy or Holtzauge is another alias from Kurfy so that he can agree with himself in topics like this.

Megile_
04-16-2006, 04:47 AM
http://spitfireperformance.com/ is a great site Holtzauge, if you are interested in the subject I suggest you visit there.

Xiolablu3
04-16-2006, 05:07 AM
Thanks for doing all the hard work Megile.

Thanks to others posting misleading snippets, it seems people expect the worst from everyone now.

Megile_
04-16-2006, 05:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Thanks for doing all the hard work Megile.

Thanks to others posting misleading snippets, it seems people expect the worst from everyone now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mike Williams and Neil Stirling deserve the credit, I merely summarised.
There's a whole lot more on Mike's site, especially about the Spitfire IX and Mustang on 150 Octane.

luftluuver
04-16-2006, 06:22 AM
Holtzauge what is your take on the 1.98ata K-4?. You have been shown proof of 21lb boost Spitfire XIVs but all we see is 'cleared' for the 1.98ata K-4.

Lets go through Kurfurst's article.

He states 120 Spitfire XIVs in 7 squadrons, yet in the link (SHAEF) it is clearly stated 20 a/c per squadron. So 140 Spitfire XIVs.

Now maybe he got this number from his opening statement but this clearly shows 200 Spitfire XIVs. Further his statement of "of only 12 airplanes to be used on operations, with additional 8 reserves present" is a '<span class="ev_code_RED">red herring</span> for in Mar 44 there was 18 a/c per squadron with 12a/c in reserve and in Aug 44 it was 24 a/c per squadron with 16 a/c in reserve. He does like to 'play' with numbers.

Further down he says that a Gruppe of JG11 was testing 1.98ata. This is a slight misrepresentation of facts as it was only a Staffel size unit.

He fails to mention that there was numerous engine failures during the testing of 1.98ata. Also, he failed to include the query of why should there be 1.98ata when the 109 airframes are in such bad shape. This from the minutes of a meeting.

Later he tries to claim that the 4 Gruppen 'cleared' for 1.98ata were equiped with K-4s, 142 onhand with 79 'servicable'. Yet he states:

III./JG27 Bf 109 K and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">some 109 Gs </span>
III./JG 53 Bf 109 K and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW"> some 109 Gs </span>
IV./JG 53 Bf 109 K and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">some 109 Gs </span>

So these 4 Gruppen were not fully equiped with 1.98 K-4s. He fails to give the true number of 1.98 K-4s in these 4 Gruppen. BTW, that is 55.6% servicable. Even IF, and that is a BIG if, these 4 Gruppen were fully equiped with 1.98 K-4s, it is still less than the number of 21lb boost Spitfire XIVs. (see above with 200 a/c in Aug 1944) To be more accurate, this would be 280 Spitfire XIVs in Dec 1944 in the 7 squadrons.

More of his playing with numbers when he states 1435 onhand 109s on Jan 31 1945. Three weeks before (Jan 10 1945), the LW had only 1462 servicable se fighters. Of these 1462 onhand se fighters, only 782 109s were servicable. Three months later when the 1.98 K-4 had been cleared for use, and not proven completely operational, there was 1305 servicable se fighters in the LW, with only 663 of these being 109s.

He throws out another <span class="ev_code_RED">red herring</span> with his high altitude 109 numbers. These high altitude 109s were mostly concerned with the high altitude bombers and escorts of USAAF's 8th and 15th AFs, while the Spitfires were tasked with air superiority over the battlefield, a low and medium altitude task.

He also mentions 3 squadrons of Hurricanes in the RAF but fails to say what their duties were, like air/sea rescue duties. At the same time, the LW had Go145s, He46s, Ar66s, He50s and Fokker C.Vs in operational service. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Megile_
04-16-2006, 06:35 AM
I was searching 1.98 ATA in google and this thread came up on the first page http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Holtzauge
04-16-2006, 11:18 AM
This is interesting info Megile. Good to have the date on "exhibit 2" (11th January 1945). However, we are now into January 1945 which is some way off from mid 1944 which was mentioned initially. Remember that I am not questioning that the Griffon was cleared to 21 boost. I posted this myself with a reference to September 1945. Obviously it was introduced earlier than this. The issue at hand is WHEN was this introduced and HOW widespread was the usage. I am not saying you are wrong just that the evidence so far has been circumstantial at best and I still think you need to present more info to make your case that it was deployed in numbers to make any difference before the war's end.

Regarding the Spitfireperformance homepage I agree it has a lot of interesting info. However, I have seen Kurfurst homepage too which questions some of the data presented there and I must say that I think he (Kurfurst) raised some valid questions about how the data has been interpreted and presented so I do not agree with the slander made by some people in this thread.

Luftluuver: With regards to 1.98 ata in the Me 109 K4 I have no opinion other than that I would like to see the evidence here as well that this was used in numbers justifying it's inclusion in the game. IMHO I think the sim should focus on what the opposing forces had in general, not what was introduced in small numbers towards the end of the war. Until some solid evidence is presented, I think the high boost Spit's and high ata Me 109's are exceptions to the rule and should be banned.

Just to clear my view up on the Spit 14 and 109 K: I think the Spit 14 is a superior a/c to the Me109 K and so it should be. The Me 109 K is derived from an earlier generation a/c which was long past it's best by 1945. Even Galland held this view and stated that the Me 109 should have been taken out of production in 1943 based on it's performance (ref interrogation held with Galland at Latimer House, England, 23rd October 1945). I still like to fly the Me 109 though, it's a mean looking a/c and has it's merits but I think it would be wrong to argue it as a premier a/c by the end of the war. It was a stop gap that needed to be produced to the end to keep up the numbers in the GAF while they struggled to introduce more technically advanced designs. This was why it was produced. Not because it stood up well to late entrants like the Spit 14.

If the Spit 14 was introduced in enough numbers to matter then I definitely think it should have be included in the game. Boost level TBD. But honestly, I think you guys are splitting hairs if the argument is weather it was 120 or 140 a/c. The same goes for Me 109 K high boost variants with low production numbers. On the other hand I would have preferred to see the Spit 14 before the Do-335. I mean the "Pfeil" was a Zerst¶rer meant to slash through the fighter screen, shoot down a bomber and scoot out. Is this what we want in the sim? Most of us want to do dogfighting and in this case the Spit 14 would have been a better addition than the Do-335.

danjama
04-16-2006, 11:22 AM
Megile you the man bruvva! That is some interestin stuff, thanks for draggin it up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Megile_
04-16-2006, 11:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Holtzauge:
I am not saying you are wrong just that the evidence so far has been circumstantial at best and I still think you need to present more info to make your case that it was deployed in numbers to make any difference before the war's end.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not claiming it was deployed in sufficient numbers to make any difference before the war's end.... it appears you have now changed the requirements for "proof".
The number of Spitfire XIVs was always dwarfed by the number of Spitfire IXs, which conincidently also used 150 octane.

I'm not sure how Log records, Official orders, engine clearance and fuel supplies are "circumstantial" evidence for +21 boost being used.



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luftluuver
04-16-2006, 12:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With regards to 1.98 ata in the Me 109 K4 I have no opinion other than that I would like to see the evidence here as well that this was used in numbers justifying it's inclusion in the game. IMHO I think the sim should focus on what the opposing forces had in general, not what was introduced in small numbers towards the end of the war. Until some solid evidence is presented, I think the high boost Spit's and high ata Me 109's are exceptions to the rule and should be banned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't care one way or the other what a/c are included/added to the game, the more the merrier. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If as you feel the 1.98ata K-4 and 21lb boost Spitfire were not used in numbers to be included then you must feel that the Ta152H should not also be included in the game. Some Russian a/c are in the same boat.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Regarding the Spitfireperformance homepage I agree it has a lot of interesting info. However, I have seen Kurfurst homepage too which questions some of the data presented there and I must say that I think he (Kurfurst) raised some valid questions about how the data has been interpreted and presented so I do not agree with the slander made by some people in this thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Now if you have read Kurfurst's slander filled article, why do you not comment on his slander and character assassination of Mike Williams. He could have wrote his article on the 1.98ata K-4 without this attack on Mike Williams for the whole world to see. Why do you not question what Kurfurst has in his article, Filled with inuendo, the twisting and the leaving out info/data/facts?

Holtzauge
04-16-2006, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Holtzauge:
I am not saying you are wrong just that the evidence so far has been circumstantial at best and I still think you need to present more info to make your case that it was deployed in numbers to make any difference before the war's end.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not claiming it was deployed in sufficient numbers to make any difference before the war's end.... it appears you have now changed the requirements for "proof".
The number of Spitfire XIVs was always dwarfed by the number of Spitfire IXs, which conincidently also used 150 octane.

I'm not sure how Log records, Official orders, engine clearance and fuel supplies are "circumstantial" evidence for +21 boost being used.



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Text in appendix A on Griffon 65 "A total of 2000 hours has been flown at a maximum of + 21 lbs sq/in boost. Of this total 610 Squadron flew 1119 hours. there have been no failures of any kind which could be associated with the use of the higher boost pressure"

Analysis: Of the 2000 h, 1119 have been flown by 619 Sqdrn. OK, so depending on if we go with yours or Kurfurst estimate of a Spit 14 squadron strength we are talking 1119 h flown by 18-20 a/c. This would supports that the trials came out OK but tests with 18-20 a/c does not indicate widespread use.

500 tons to 407 and 422 A.F.A.P's 5/1/45. Do you think 500 tons seems like a lot? Do the math: how long would that keep 2nd AF Griffon Spits operting at 21 lb boost? Seems more like fuel to conduct more tests on squadron level to me.

Conclusion Megile: I agree with your analysis about the showstopper above. But I think it's more of a showstopper for widespread use of higher boost on the Griffon Spits if this is all you can come up with to support your case http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

carguy_
04-16-2006, 03:01 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Very nice huh veeery nice.

Go ahead and talk all you can boys,the IVX aint gettin in this game one way or the other.

You however CAN force Oleg to put in another boosted Luftwaffle eater,say maybe +40 would be anough? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I`m sure you can come up with methods to prove such necessity.

p1ngu666
04-16-2006, 03:09 PM
humoursly the IVX, while abit broken roman (maybe)

thats IV = 4, and X = 10

410
indeed, no me 410 for u http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

pourshot
04-16-2006, 03:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Very nice huh veeery nice.

Go ahead and talk all you can boys,the IVX aint gettin in this game one way or the other.

You however CAN force Oleg to put in another boosted Luftwaffle eater,say maybe +40 would be anough? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I`m sure you can come up with methods to prove such necessity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No one is arguing for the 14 to be included or even a more boosted IX, the question was did the griffin see any use at 21lb and above boost.

Megile_
04-16-2006, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by Holtzauge:
500 tons to 407 and 422 A.F.A.P's 5/1/45. Do you think 500 tons seems like a lot? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

500 tons? Nope that's not much considering the job the 2nd TAF had to do. Thats why between January 1945 and May 1945, the 2nd TAF consumed around 28,000 tons according to POWE 33/990 33/991 33/992 33/985 held at the National Archive, London.

So the Spitfires had the clearance, and the fuel.

CUJO_1970
04-16-2006, 03:42 PM
109s and Spitfires - regardless of boost - they both exist simply to bask in the radiance of the Focke-Wulfs.

It is fun to listen to the arguments of who is second best though.

Viper2005_
04-16-2006, 03:48 PM
Griffon is thermodynamically rather akin to a bigger merlin. Merlin is about 33% efficient.

For the sake of argument it seems reasonable to assume that Griffon has similar efficiency. Let's call it 1/3rd just for the heck of it.

Next comes the question of fuel.

For the sake of argument let's assume an LCV of 43 MJ/Kg.

Now if we assume 2200 bhp, that's a power output of 1640 kW.

Fuel burn = 1640000*3/43000000 kg/s
Or 0.1144 kg/s. That's about 411.907 kg/hour.

Now for a quick sanity check, this website implies an sfc of 0.420 lbs fuel/hp/hr

That's about 924 lb/hour, which is about 419 kg/hour.

http://www.unlimitedexcitement.com/Griffon%20Budweiser/...Griffon%20Engine.htm (http://www.unlimitedexcitement.com/Griffon%20Budweiser/Rolls-Royce%20Griffon%20Engine.htm)

Now that seems to be pretty reasonable agreement to me. So let's assume 420 kg/hour fuel burn.

2000 flying hours therefore comes out at 840000 kg of fuel. That's around 926 short tons, or 827 long tons. You pays your money and you takes your unit.

Of course you need more fuel than that since less than 100% of total flying time is spent at +21.

Megile_
04-16-2006, 04:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:

Of course you need more fuel than that since less than 100% of total flying time is spent at +21. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wouldn't the engine be more fuel efficient at a lower boost, and therefore need less fuel?

If the 2nd TAF did consume around 28k tons of 150 octane over 4 months that would be the equivilent of around 55,000 hours of flight, right?
I'm not suggesting the Griffon was quite that reliable. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
The Fuel would have been split between the different fighter types. ... due to the sheer numbers of Spit IXs I imagine they got the bulk

Where is Lrrp when you need him? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

X_Cuban8_X
04-16-2006, 04:50 PM
Apparently, kurfurst and carguy believe in the easter bunny as well. Hes real!

Happy Easter

Pinker15
04-16-2006, 05:05 PM
LOL I see some suggestions about lack of high grade fuel for spitfires http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Propably Im wrong but I guess that quantity of 150 octane fuel what RAF was used for tests in new engines was some about that what whole LW was have avalible to use for a month. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif If some players are so bothered about fuel for spitfires my suggest is to add "fulel avability feature" to this game and give for Luftwaffe amount of fuel what they was have:P.

luftluuver
04-16-2006, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Analysis: Of the 2000 h, 1119 have been flown by 619 Sqdrn. OK, so depending on if we go with yours or Kurfurst estimate of a Spit 14 squadron strength we are talking 1119 h flown by 18-20 a/c. This would supports that the trials came out OK but tests with 18-20 a/c does not indicate widespread use. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So a staffel size testing unit of 1.98ata K-4s is acceptable?

Why do you keep ignoring the anomilies in Kurfurst's article Holtzauge? Only one of the 4 Gruppen 'cleared', but not proven, for 1.98ata was completely equiped with K-4s, this being I./JG27 with 29 onhand and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">only</span> 13 servicable. That is slightly less than 2 staffels with only the numbers for 1 staffel. Another of Kurfurst's slight of numbers.

500ton of fuel is 4444bbl
1 bbl = 35 Impgal
4444bbl = 155,552 Impgal

That is enough for 1427 Spifire XIVS.

28,000 ton is 8,710,912 gal or enough for ~80,000 sorties or ~20,000 sorties/month or ~666 sorties/day.

Viper2005_
04-16-2006, 08:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:

Of course you need more fuel than that since less than 100% of total flying time is spent at +21. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wouldn't the engine be more fuel efficient at a lower boost, and therefore need less fuel?

If the 2nd TAF did consume around 28k tons of 150 octane over 4 months that would be the equivilent of around 55,000 hours of flight, right?
I'm not suggesting the Griffon was quite that reliable. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
The Fuel would have been split between the different fighter types. ... due to the sheer numbers of Spit IXs I imagine they got the bulk

Where is Lrrp when you need him? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A couple of points;

i) spark ignition engines are always less efficient at part throttle because they modulate power by increasing their pumping losses with a throttle valve. If you want to fly for range, it's much more efficient to control power output by reducing rpm. Low revs and high boost/Brings you safely home to roost.

ii) Whilst the engine only needs 150 grade for operations above +18 psi, it burns it for the whole sortie, the vast majority of which would be spent at considerably reduced boost in the cruise. If flown according to the book you might only expect 5 minutes of +21 operations from a sortie lasting perhaps half an hour or more.

Thus, 2000 hours of operations at +21 might mean 10000 flying hours, which would probably result in fuel burn of perhaps double that suggested by the simple calculation.

Upon re-reading the quote, since it says "maximum" I guess that it means 2000 flying hours with the ABC unit set to allow for +21 flat out instead of +18 flat out, such that only a proportion of those 2000 hours have actually been flown at +21. This would make sense, and obviously in this case the simple calculation represents an overestimate of the hourly fuel burn by perhaps 30-40%.

As with anything like this, interpretation can make a big difference.

I think that 28000 tons of fuel represents perhaps 60000 flying hours in round figures, depending upon the relative numbers of aircraft types, and the weight of the average pilot's left hand...

My supposition is that since boys will be boys, you'd be hard pressed to get more than perhaps 70000 hours from 28000 tons of fuel.

Working from 60000 hours, if we assume a squadron of 12, that gives 5000 squadron hours.

Since 4 months is about 120 days, that's something like 42 squadron-hours per day. Given the size of the 2nd TAF that sounds pretty reasonable, especially if the Typhoon Ib was using it as well...

p1ngu666
04-16-2006, 10:59 PM
its nearly 6am (damn!) but...

42/12 is 3.5

so if im right, and im probably not...

thatll cover u for 3 1hour sorties per day, with a strength of 12 aircraft. *plus* a good amount for testing etc

Slickun
04-17-2006, 08:18 AM
Great discussion, fellas.

TriFire420
04-17-2006, 02:29 PM
I guess Oleg changed his mind was cause the plane would probably dominate this game, but then again thats my point of view http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Megile_
04-17-2006, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TriFire420:
I guess Oleg changed his mind was cause the plane would probably dominate this game, but then again thats my point of view http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amusing, but doubtful http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Time was against the XIV it seems.

pourshot
04-17-2006, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TriFire420:
I guess Oleg changed his mind was cause the plane would probably dominate this game, but then again thats my point of view http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually for the kind of online fighting that€s most common in il2 the 25lb IX is better than the XIV, you would have to keep the combats much higher to see any real benefit from the XIV.

Still I think the XIV is the best looking spit by far and I would fly it for that alone.

Gibbage1
04-17-2006, 03:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile_:

Time was against the XIV it seems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. The XIV was finished a long time ago. At least the external. The cockpit I think was never finished and it only needed some finishing work on the Brit gyro gunsight. No more then a handfull of hours to finish it.

faustnik
04-17-2006, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pourshot:
Actually for the kind of online fighting that€s most common in il2 the 25lb IX is better than the XIV, you would have to keep the combats much higher to see any real benefit from the XIV.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Griffon was faster at all altitudes, right? At least with +21 boost. I'd take the extra speed over the IX's slightly better turn any day.

Megile_
04-17-2006, 04:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pourshot:
Actually for the kind of online fighting that€s most common in il2 the 25lb IX is better than the XIV, you would have to keep the combats much higher to see any real benefit from the XIV.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Griffon was faster at all altitudes, right? At least with +21 boost. I'd take the extra speed over the IX's slightly better turn any day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, Rolls Royce had the Spit XIV 21 Boost around 10 mph faster than the Spit IX 25 boost at sea level.

High Altitude is where the XIV's strength lies, and where a marked divergence in speed occurs between the two variants.

Spit IX LF - 25,000ft 395 MPH
Spit XIV F - 25,000ft 440 MPH

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Dora vs. the XIV would be a good fight for sure.

pourshot
04-18-2006, 05:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pourshot:
Actually for the kind of online fighting that€s most common in il2 the 25lb IX is better than the XIV, you would have to keep the combats much higher to see any real benefit from the XIV.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Griffon was faster at all altitudes, right? At least with +21 boost. I'd take the extra speed over the IX's slightly better turn any day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE IX

13. The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Spitfire XIV has an engine of greater capacity and is the heavier aircraft (weighing 8,400 lbs. against 7,480 lbs. of Spitfire IX).

The Griffin at 21 lb's is faster at SL for sure but it also has alot more weight and the differance in power is less than 200hp so in a low alt dogfight that extra weight may bite you in the butt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I think it's a tuff call. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

HellToupee
04-18-2006, 06:04 AM
yea but when u take her higher and fly faster than doras could u imagine the whine factor.

Megile_
04-18-2006, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pourshot:

The Griffin at 21 lb's is faster at SL for sure but it also has alot more weight and the differance in power is less than 200hp so in a low alt dogfight that extra weight may bite you in the butt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I think it's a tuff call. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think low alt dogfight is Faustnik's style...

but you have just pointed out their intended uses.

The LF IX at low alt, and the XIV at high alt.... and Tempests wherever they feel like it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Hristo_
04-18-2006, 06:50 AM
A Dora with an enterprising pilot never has to worry about Spits, regardless of their plans http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Lucius_Esox
04-18-2006, 07:03 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Probably right,, with the Spits in this game!

Why aren't you back on W/clouds now, surely all is forgiven all round now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

They even seem to have got rid of the "offending" 25 pounder

mynameisroland
04-18-2006, 07:09 AM
Who cares about Spitfire XIV 25lb boost or Bf 109 K4 1.98 ATA pistons were old hat by 45 and the Me 262 owned either of them.

Hristo_
04-18-2006, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Probably right,, with the Spits in this game!

Why aren't you back on W/clouds now, surely all is forgiven all round now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

They even seem to have got rid of the "offending" 25 pounder </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sure would like to annoy them some more, but this sim got a little repetitive for me lately. Also, real life and developed interest in racing sims keeps me away. Say hello to Stacko for me, he always has a kind word for me.

Besides, anyone interested in a racing session among Il-2 vets ?

nicolas10
04-19-2006, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Holtzauge what is your take on the 1.98ata K-4?. You have been shown proof of 21lb boost Spitfire XIVs but all we see is 'cleared' for the 1.98ata K-4. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You realise that by the time the XIV was tested for 21lb boost (july, clear in november), the war had been over for a while? Obviously the 1.98ata 109 was tested before the war was over for obvious reasons.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lets go through Kurfurst's article.

He states 120 Spitfire XIVs in 7 squadrons, yet in the link (SHAEF) it is clearly stated 20 a/c per squadron. So 140 Spitfire XIVs.

Now maybe he got this number from his opening statement but this clearly shows 200 Spitfire XIVs. Further his statement of "of only 12 airplanes to be used on operations, with additional 8 reserves present" is a '<span class="ev_code_RED">red herring</span> for in Mar 44 there was 18 a/c per squadron with 12a/c in reserve and in Aug 44 it was 24 a/c per squadron with 16 a/c in reserve. He does like to 'play' with numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who cares? It's peanuts. 100 or 300, what effect do they have on the war? Some Mig 3 that was produced in 6 units was included in game, others not at all. So basically if your point is the XIV should be included in game, any number is good enough. Even a paper plane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Further down he says that a Gruppe of JG11 was testing 1.98ata. This is a slight misrepresentation of facts as it was only a Staffel size unit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but that was before the war's end http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">He fails to mention that there was numerous engine failures during the testing of 1.98ata. Also, he failed to include the query of why should there be 1.98ata when the 109 airframes are in such bad shape. This from the minutes of a meeting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, how about you find me one german plane that didn't have engine problems at that time of WWII

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Later he tries to claim that the 4 Gruppen 'cleared' for 1.98ata were equiped with K-4s, 142 onhand with 79 'servicable'. Yet he states:

III./JG27 Bf 109 K and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">some 109 Gs </span>
III./JG 53 Bf 109 K and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW"> some 109 Gs </span>
IV./JG 53 Bf 109 K and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">some 109 Gs </span>

So these 4 Gruppen were not fully equiped with 1.98 K-4s. He fails to give the true number of 1.98 K-4s in these 4 Gruppen. BTW, that is 55.6% servicable. Even IF, and that is a BIG if, these 4 Gruppen were fully equiped with 1.98 K-4s, it is still less than the number of 21lb boost Spitfire XIVs. (see above with 200 a/c in Aug 1944) To be more accurate, this would be 280 Spitfire XIVs in Dec 1944 in the 7 squadrons.

More of his playing with numbers when he states 1435 onhand 109s on Jan 31 1945. Three weeks before (Jan 10 1945), the LW had only 1462 servicable se fighters. Of these 1462 onhand se fighters, only 782 109s were servicable. Three months later when the 1.98 K-4 had been cleared for use, and not proven completely operational, there was 1305 servicable se fighters in the LW, with only 663 of these being 109s.

He throws out another <span class="ev_code_RED">red herring</span> with his high altitude 109 numbers. These high altitude 109s were mostly concerned with the high altitude bombers and escorts of USAAF's 8th and 15th AFs, while the Spitfires were tasked with air superiority over the battlefield, a low and medium altitude task.

He also mentions 3 squadrons of Hurricanes in the RAF but fails to say what their duties were, like air/sea rescue duties. At the same time, the LW had Go145s, He46s, Ar66s, He50s and Fokker C.Vs in operational service. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Useless nitpicking... yawn

Nic

nicolas10
04-19-2006, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Dora vs. the XIV would be a good fight for sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah that would have rocked. More so than the Tempest. I was so impatiently waiting for the XIV, but I was crossing fingers for a teardrop canopy version. That's the most beautfull Spit ever.

Nic

luftluuver
04-19-2006, 12:28 PM
Oh, we have another Kurfurst fanboy? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Who cares? ........ So basically if your point is the XIV should be included in game, any number is good enough. Even a paper plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do have a comprehension problem nicolas, besides skipping some threads. It is nothing about having the Spitfire XIV in the game but the about the bogus and slanted info Kurfurst has in his article. And, he whines about the site of Mike Williams. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It is not about the numbers but about Kurfurst's picking numbers for his agenda. Cripes, there was not enough LW a/c to fill out the 4 Gruppen cleared for 1.98 and he wants to restrict the RAF squadron to 12 /ac? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You realise that by the time the XIV was tested for 21lb boost (july, clear in november), the war had been over for a while? Obviously the 1.98ata 109 was tested before the war was over for obvious reasons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> That is July and November <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">1944</span>. Since when did the war in Europe end in 1944? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Yes, with regards to France, the war had been long over. The 1.98 K-4 tested but how many were in operational service with the LW?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Further down he says that a Gruppe of JG11 was testing 1.98ata. This is a slight misrepresentation of facts as it was only a Staffel size unit.

Yeah, but that was before the war's end </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Never said it wasn't. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif But, a staffel of 12 a/c is not a Gruppe of 40 a/c. I guess the misrepresention http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif went over your head?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hey, how about you find me one german plane that didn't have engine problems at that time of WWII </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess you missed Kurfurst's ragging on the testing of the 25lb boost Spitfire XIV? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Like him, you only see one side of the coin. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Reading this thread, http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=99259 Kurfurst, and the one called Huck, don't think there was any problems with German a/c engines.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Useless nitpicking... yawn </div></BLOCKQUOTE> No it is not, for Kurfurst, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">again</span>, misrepresents the number of 1.98 K-4s in LW service with a 'slight of hand' manipulations. And, he whines about the Mike Williams site. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So how many of those servicable 79 109s in the 4 Gruppen 'cleared' for 1.98 were K-4s?

Now if your are blind to the Goebbelistic propaganda of Kurfurst's article, there is no hope for you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The holes are so big in his article 2 super tankers could pass each other with room to spare.

nicolas10
04-19-2006, 12:56 PM
whoa my bad in my mind it was 1945 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

Megile_
04-20-2006, 08:14 AM
The 2nd TAF cleared it in November, but I think ADGB may have used +21 boost on crossbow fighters... not 100% sure though.