:: Bf109 K-4 vs Fw190 A-8

--= Bf 109K-4's =--
The MW50 WEP has been reduced from 1.98 ata to 1.80 ata. This since the absolute majority of Bf 109K-4's used B4 fuel and not C3 fuel during their service. As such both Bf 109K-4's have had their engine setup rebuilt from the DB 605DC to the DB 605DB engine. This results in ~10 mph loss at Bst2, but the K-4's gain ~5 mph at lower altiudes, at Bst1, due to better low alt power output when using manifold pressures at 1.45 ata and lower with the DB 605DB engine.

the DB 605 DB and DC designations, as noted in the above datasheet, referred to the same powerplant, in different configurations,
for use with B-4 or C-3 fuel, or 1,80 or 1,98 ata maximum permissable manifold pressure. Conversion of the DB and DC powerplants
was a simple matter, and could be performed with a simple screwdriver. The DB 605DC configuration could be set for either 1,98 ata
or 1,80 ata 'Grundeinstellung', or 'base setting' maximum manifold pressure. In the former case C-3 fuel was to be used with conjuction
of MW-50 injection. In the case of 1,80 ata Grundeinstellung, C-3 fuel could be used without MW-50 injection.

Author:	lumino [ Thu Nov 01, 2018 1:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Bf109 K-4 vs Fw190 A-8
According to kurfurst.org, the 605DB and DC are the same powerplant, in different configurations, for use with B-4 or C-3 fuel, or 1,80 or 1,98 ata maximum manifold pressure. Of course, the Luftwaffe suffered from fuel shortage, and often only a very limited number of aircraft were supplied enough fuel for a mission. All the later 190 A powered by BMW 801 needed C-3 96 octan fuel as well. IIRC they could not even take off without C-3, in contrast to the DB605 powered 109. My point is, if there is enough C-3 fuel for 190 A-4 to 190 A-8 to take off, there is as well enough C-3 for the K. robert wrote: --= Bf 109K-4's =-- The MW50 WEP has been reduced from 1.98 ata to 1.80 ata. This since the absolute majority of Bf 109K-4's used B4 fuel and not C3 fuel during their service. As such both Bf 109K-4's have had their engine setup rebuilt from the DB 605DC to the DB 605DB engine. This results in ~10 mph loss at Bst2, but the K-4's gain ~5 mph at lower altiudes, at Bst1, due to better low alt power output when using manifold pressures at 1.45 ata and lower with the DB 605DB engine. kurfurst.org wrote: the DB 605 DB and DC designations, as noted in the above datasheet, referred to the same powerplant, in different configurations, for use with B-4 or C-3 fuel, or 1,80 or 1,98 ata maximum permissable manifold pressure. Conversion of the DB and DC powerplants was a simple matter, and could be performed with a simple screwdriver. The DB 605DC configuration could be set for either 1,98 ata or 1,80 ata 'Grundeinstellung', or 'base setting' maximum manifold pressure. In the former case C-3 fuel was to be used with conjuction of MW-50 injection. In the case of 1,80 ata Grundeinstellung, C-3 fuel could be used without MW-50 injection.

Author:	-sakai [ Thu Nov 01, 2018 3:01 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bf109 K-4 vs Fw190 A-8
I thought about this years ago, but only just now recalled... ...in this game/sim, we should NOT concern ourselves with the availability of high-quality fuels. Rather, the sim should evolve to the point where fuel (quality and quantity) is affected by attacks on the fuel stores. For example, on the large ETO map, there is a big fuel depot near Berlin (C96, IIRC)...destruction of that fuel depot would limit the supply of high octane fuel, thus limiting the availability for type-specific airframes, or at the very least, reduce maximum fuel load outs. So my point is, that we should model the airframes to maximum design specifications and let the actual in-game 'war' determine shortages. Ni ¥.

Author:	grumpy [ Thu Nov 01, 2018 10:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bf109 K-4 vs Fw190 A-8
So then I guess we need all fighters running at maximum boost. The P-51D isn't modeled with 80" boost, Spit XIV at 21 lbs boost, 100 " boost on P-47's because one pilot's mechanic set it up that way, etc. We model typical examples of the aircraft used in real life. A 109K at 1.98 ata boost is like finding a four leaf clover. We're their some? It's possible, but there we're more P-51D's at 80" boost by the British, but we won't model them as they weren't typical. Why are you so hung up on this as you've posted about it many times? Can you tell me at what alts. the 605DC at 1.98 ata made 2000 metric HP?

Author:	-jabo- [ Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:49 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bf109 K-4 vs Fw190 A-8
I like Sakai's idea. All possible configurations of an aircraft are modelled. Then when you take down so many fuel depots/plants the high performing fuel model is lost to play. Damage enough munitions plants and maybe the 6 gun version is now a 4 gun version or bomb carrying capability is lost or reduced.

Author:	grumpy [ Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bf109 K-4 vs Fw190 A-8
Yes that would be good, but I was under the impression that the number of placards for aircraft is limited by the code?

http://bhlanding.ient.com/warbirdsforum/

Bf109 K-4 vs Fw190 A-8 http://bhlanding.ient.com/warbirdsforum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=405	Page 1 of 1

Author:	-jabo- [ Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bf109 K-4 vs Fw190 A-8
Pretty sure that has to be changed for any advancement. There are lots of armoured vehicles in the slots now that nobody uses or will ever be in the game.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC-04:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/