general aircraft speed bug

[rfh556]

2 hours ago, fidd said:

Bear in mind that the German's had very limited access to tetra-ethyl lead after 1941, and therefore no 100 Octane, so I'd expect their performance figures for trials of captured aircraft to be slightly poorer in relation to allied figures. 

Its a table produced by a US company of a German machine, in theory the access to higher octane fuels should have produced higher speed numbers then the German testing. Either way on reading the test more it looks like the American report was using estimated speed and not actual test data.

[rfh556]

If anybody else enjoys nerding out of stuff like this like I do, Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles is a great youtube channel that goes into almost painful level of detail at times. His series of videos on the P47 and FW190 are great.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCynGrIaI5vsJQgHJAIp9oSg

[fidd]

6 minutes ago, rfh556 said:

Its a table produced by a US company of a German machine, in theory the access to higher octane fuels should have produced higher speed numbers then the German testing. Either way on reading the test more it looks like the American report was using estimated speed and not actual test data.

Er, isn't that what I just said? <grin>

[vanapo]

After the p38 dominating tier3 at will for all those years, now the Babyhawk (!) has been made into the dominant plane of tier 0 and 1? That's just great. I think you should pimp the Hurri2c as well, so it's faster than the 190 (maybe because the difference of IAS and TAS in some British field evaluation guess or something, just produce some facts).

What the air game really needs is a plane that out speeds and out climbs all those pesky German energy fighters for any given tier.

Edit: But seriously, the Über-hawk finally made allied pilots show up in force again. Maybe we should all accept permanently nerfed axis planes so we can keep Allies from being too frustrated with their lack of competitiveness

. Edited January 26, 2021 by vanapo

[rfh556]

26 minutes ago, fidd said:

Er, isn't that what I just said? <grin>

"Bear in mind that the German's had very limited access to tetra-ethyl lead after 1941, and therefore no 100 Octane, so I'd expect their performance figures for trials of captured aircraft to be slightly poorer in relation to allied figures. "

Basically yes,  I just wanted to make sure it was clear that this was a US test of a German machine. The way I read your statement sounded like you were talking about a German test of a Allied machine. Either way the relationship will be the same.

[fidd]

35 minutes ago, vanapo said:

After the p38 dominating tier3 at will for all those years, now the Babyhawk (!) has been made into the dominant plane of tier 0 and 1? That's just great. I think you should pimp the Hurri2c as well, so it's faster than the 190 (maybe because the difference of IAS and TAS in some British field evaluation guess or something, just produce some facts).

What the air game really needs is a plane that out speeds and out climbs all those pesky German energy fighters for any given tier.

Edit: But seriously, the Über-hawk finally made allied pilots show up in force again. Maybe we should all accept permanently nerfed axis planes so we can keep Allies from being too frustrated with their lack of competitiveness

 

.

Dear oh dear. As far as I can recall, the only thing allied pilots have been asking for is the return of AP ammunition. I should think it's the return of AP ammo that's driving a return to FAF?

Although I don't fly in game these days, I'm as nonplussed as you are regarding the Hawk's alledged new turn of speed. I don't think anyone asked for it to be made faster!

[vanapo]

 

53 minutes ago, fidd said:

the only thing allied pilots have been asking for is the return of AP ammunition. I should think it's the return of AP ammo that's driving

All I am asking for is giving the axis some hurricanes. Would be fun watching axis & allied pilots dumping infinite amounts of MG rounds into one another without anybody getting downed.:-D

[madrebel]

4 hours ago, fidd said:

Bear in mind that the German's had very limited access to tetra-ethyl lead after 1941, and therefore no 100 Octane, so I'd expect their performance figures for trials of captured aircraft to be slightly poorer in relation to allied figures. 

Do you do any research before posting or do you enjoy being wrong?

EVERY, SINGLE BMW-801 required 100 octane C3 fuel. Every, single, one. More than 61K of these were produced and every one of them flew on 100 octane C3 fuel.

The 109-F2 produced throughout 1941 used 100 octane for the DB-601N. Yes, most 109s flew on 87 octane 100 octane wasn't unheard of either.

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Fuel/German_fuel_specifications_and_production.html

 

[fidd]

48 minutes ago, madrebel said:

Do you do any research before posting or do you enjoy being wrong?

EVERY, SINGLE BMW-801 required 100 octane C3 fuel. Every, single, one. More than 61K of these were produced and every one of them flew on 100 octane C3 fuel.

The 109-F2 produced throughout 1941 used 100 octane for the DB-601N. Yes, most 109s flew on 87 octane 100 octane wasn't unheard of either.

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Fuel/German_fuel_specifications_and_production.html

 

It quotes the tetra-ethyl lead as being "American", does it not. I imagine this source ceased at the end of '41, which accords both with what I thought I knew about German access to tetra-ethyl lead as a specific fuel additive, and with what I said, namely that after 1940, German access to high octane fuel reduced as a consequence of that. I don't know, exactly when that occurred (when German stocks were exhausted)  nor what other additives the jerry chemists came up with to raise the octanes of their ersatz fuel. So it's quite possible they had a fuel of increased octane, using something other than t-ethyl lead to do so. All I was saying, was if they did, they weren't using t-ethyl lead to achieve it after their stocks ran out. Incidentally, it's perfectly possible to run an engine designed to run on 100 octane on a poorer fuel, however, it affects reliabilty and overall performance, both of which are extensively alluded to in book covering mid to late-war LW operations.

Oh, and finally, the specs you advanced for "100 Octane" are, at best, 95 Octane, which also accords with the 5-10% difference in sustained output between the two fuels.

Like most of us in here, we've all read a lifetime's material on tanks, aircraft and whatnot. No, I do not "research" before every post. Who does? Sometimes I may even be wrong. I'm not a fuel-chemist, so my understanding of the ins and outs of fuel additives, ersatz petrol and what additives worked with that, is somewhat sketchy...

But I can read, and generally resist jumping down someone's throat because I think they're in error. In this case, I think perhaps you'd have been better served not to. I'm not surprised that the 109F was designed to run on 100 Octane, as the period when that was in design was well before the Germans knew they'd be fighting America, from which t-ethyl lead came from.....

[madrebel]

61K BMW-801s produced. FW-190 debuted in August 41. Every FW-190 that flew from 41 to 45 required C3 fuel aka 100 octane.

There was no shortage of C3 in and of itself. fuel shortages in general did occur late 43 till wars end as a result of targeted bombing. This campaign eliminated C4 fuel availability but not C3.

You said

6 hours ago, fidd said:

German's had very limited access to tetra-ethyl lead after 1941, and therefore no 100 Octane

Which isn't true. C3 fuel was used from 1940 to 1945. It powered ALL the BMW radials that flew.

Further you glossed over this

The B-4 grade was produced directly by the addition of tetra-ethyl lead to the entire liquid product from the large coal and coal tar hydrogenation plants. The volatility was adjusted to about 7 pounds Reid vapor pressure by stabilizing and no further refining or blending was done.

B4 was the lower grade fuel used by the majority of DB601s, DB-605s, DB-603s, Jumo 211s, and Jumo 213 engines. This was the base standard fuel ... and it used lead that you claim Germany had no access too.

Edited January 26, 2021 by madrebel

[fidd]

Shrug. You seem to be hell-bent on an argument. I didn't "gloss over" anything, I ignored the B4 because it isn't 100 Octane. I'd be very surprised if Germany didn't have the know-how to produce their own t-ethyl lead, so I don't know if it wasn't they couldn't produce enough, or, that it wasn't suitable for some of the various ersatz fuels they were using after the Roumanian oil-fields were lost. Either way, it's pretty clear they didn't have enough of the stuff, or couldn't use what they had, dating from very roughly '43, as you say. My understanding from prior reading is, however, that they didn't have the ability to manufacture t-ethyl lead. If they were able to produce it, I imagine that would have been a fairly high priority target, so they may have lost that capability in any case.

Either way, I took issue with your implication that "because the F4 and BMW 601's were designed to use it, they therefore MUST have had it". If my contention that the F4 and the BMW 601's were designed before the sudden onset of war with the US is correct, then the fact that they were designed to take it didn't prove that they had it post '41, especially if there previous supply came from the US, which I understand to be the case.

Just so we're clear, I'm NOT advocating any sort of reduction in power for in-game aircraft not using 100 Octane, if that's what's bothering you?

 

[madrebel]

Note the date on this report as well as fuel type used. 190s and every bmw801 flew on C3 fuel equivalent to allied 100/130 grade. Exception being the Dora.

Edited January 27, 2021 by madrebel

[jwilly]

Germany produced all the Fluidin (German term, equivalent to American term "Ethyl", i.e. gasoline additive containing tetraethyl lead and ethyl dibromide) they needed throughout WWII, except for October and November 1943 when ethyl dibromide production was stopped while damage due to an accidental fire was repaired.

Germany had two factories for tetraethyl lead, both built in the 1930s by I.G. Farben at the direction of chemical engineering consultants provided by Dupont and Standard Oil. A plant in Gapel near Berlin, built first to supply TEL for commercial gasoline consumption, had a capacity of 100 tons tetraethyl lead per month. A second plant at Frose near Magdeburg, built starting in 1938 to supply German military needs, had a capacity of 300 tons tetraethyl lead per month. I.G. Farben also built a single plant at Tornesch near Hamburg, to produce all of the ethylene dibromide needed.

Fluidin, like Ethyl, consisted of tetraethyl lead and a lead scavenger in a 1:1 molecular ratio. The lead scavenger reacts with the metallic lead deposited on motor parts during the combustion process, and converts it to a lead-compound gas that can be ejected in the exhaust. Without a lead scavenger, the motor would quickily seize due to metallic lead binding the piston rings. The lead scavenger in Fluidin was ethylene dibromide.

I.G. Farben was substantially controlled by interests with American ties, including the owners of Standard Oil. I.G. Farben in turn was the second largest stockholder of Standard Oil. Standard Oil arranged in 1938 for I.G. Farben to be provided 500 tons of TEL from the inventory of Standard Oil / Dupont production facilities in England  to "tide them over" while the very complex Frose TEL factory was being built. I.G. Farben paid $1 million for that transfer. Standard Oil then provided I.G. Farben with a further $15 million of TEL in 1939.

All of these facilities were known to Allied intelligence throughout the war, having been built essentially at USA direction and using US fabricated specialized reactors. Other than a French TEL production facility captured by Germany with a theoretical capacity of 200 tons per month but that operated at only about 25% of capacity due to "inefficiencies" created by its French workers, there were no backup facilities. Some of the reaction equipment required for the specialized process was very difficult to build, and would have required many months to replace. 

None of these facilities was ever effectively bombed. They weren't unusually protected; they just weren't targeted.

The production process for TEL requires ethyl chloride. Germany had many facilities that produced ethyl chloride, and those facilities were targeted. Because that production capacity could not be repaired or replaced as fast as it was destroyed in the latter part of the war, TEL production was impacted by feedstock shortage starting in late 1944 or early 1945. However, synthetic gasoline production also was decreasing, so there was no shortage of TEL until Germany's industrial economy disintegrated at the end of the war.

- Tornesch near Hamburg, only ethylene dibromide factory
- Gapel near Berlin, 100 tons tetraethyl lead per month
- Frose near Magdeburg, 300 tons tetraethyl lead per month

 

Edited January 27, 2021 by jwilly

[madrebel]

So, jwilly, what you're saying is the below quote isn't accurate. Germany had plenty of C3 fuel to power the 61K BMW-801 engines they produced after 1941 ? ...

13 hours ago, fidd said:

German's had very limited access to tetra-ethyl lead after 1941, and therefore no 100 Octane

[jwilly]

I haven't looked up anything about what fuels were available when. I was only summarizing the history of TEL and Fluidin in 1930s/1940s Germany, from IG Farben historical information.

Edited January 27, 2021 by jwilly

[fidd]

20 minutes ago, madrebel said:

So, jwilly, what you're saying is the below quote isn't accurate. Germany had plenty of C3 fuel to power the 61K BMW-801 engines they produced after 1941 ? ...

I'd ascribed the lack of 100 Octane to a lack of TEL and was unaware of the pre-war Standard Oil supply to IG Farben of TEL. That said neither of the c4 or b4 fuel octanes were equal to, let alone exceeded, the 100 Octane the allies had access to, which is how this topic got started, So, I was right in the sense that German fuel was slightly poorer, and very much poorer (if available at all) by war's end; and you were correct in that German lack of TEL wasn't an issue. 

Which leaves an interesting question, why did the Germans not produce a fuel at least as high an octane as the allies? (The implication being that if they had access to TEL, and no shortages, why put up with an inferior fuel?) Could it be because the allies generally used carburettors, and the Germans fuel-injection?

[rfh556]

From doing some digging around Germany named their fuel by the lean designations vs the allies listing it by the rich designation. I never knew that and always thought the German's ran lower octane as well but I guess this is a misconception because of the nomenclature and both were running 100/130.

Super interesting, I always thought the German development of MW50 was as result of the fact that their fuels were more limited and they need to find another way to counter act the pre-ignition/knock effect of only having access to lower octane fuels.

[JAMES10]

2 hours ago, rfh556 said:

From doing some digging around Germany named their fuel by the lean designations vs the allies listing it by the rich designation. I never knew that and always thought the German's ran lower octane as well but I guess this is a misconception because of the nomenclature and both were running 100/130.

Super interesting, I always thought the German development of MW50 was as result of the fact that their fuels were more limited and they need to find another way to counter act the pre-ignition/knock effect of only having access to lower octane fuels.

That's a very interesting and subtle difference. Nice find.

Cheers.

[fidd]

9 hours ago, rfh556 said:

From doing some digging around Germany named their fuel by the lean designations vs the allies listing it by the rich designation. I never knew that and always thought the German's ran lower octane as well but I guess this is a misconception because of the nomenclature and both were running 100/130.

Super interesting, I always thought the German development of MW50 was as result of the fact that their fuels were more limited and they need to find another way to counter act the pre-ignition/knock effect of only having access to lower octane fuels.

Many thanks for posting that, it nicely answers my question as to "why" the Germans were putting-up with apparently lower octane fuels. I had been wondering if it was due to the differences in delivery of fuel to the engines - carb' v fuel injection, but this makes more sense. Cheers!

[delems]

I thought there were supposed to be less planes this map?   Still seems like 1000s.

[griffon]

11 minutes ago, delems said:

I thought there were supposed to be less planes this map?   Still seems like 1000s.

There not going anywhere man. The more pilots up and over targets the better. I hear you and others on limiting supply making it more valuable, but end of the day the more pilots in at once the better and there not going anywhere dude. 

No planes at all means no pilots which I'm sure you can see is negative thing. Yeah CAS from the enemy team sucks. Welcome to war. It sucks sometimes. 

The fact that this speed bug is still an issue is insane. If you can't fix it tomorrow ground the aircraft and give em more spitfires. 

[raptor34]

Those of us who argue for supply reductions to more reasonable levels have never said none, only that reduced supply or longer spawn times is needed to allow for local air control and attrition. There will always be an aircraft on the map somewhere, you might just have to fly it in to re-supply. There seems to be a split between those who want constant air action and those who prefer rewarding careful flying with aircraft being valuable assets in and of themselves. I'm quite sure you could cut the current levels of supply in half and finding supply would still be quite easy most of the time. 

Just my thoughts.

[delems]

It is completely asinine that there are more aircraft than LMGs in game.

There is no refuting that. (do I really have to go count again?)

I'm all for make sure supply is available in general, but unlimited aircraft is ridiculous.

Anyways, at this point, w/e, fly your bugged unlimited aircraft to your delight.

Edited March 13, 2021 by delems

[vanapo]

28 minutes ago, delems said:

It is completely asinine that there are more aircraft than LMGs in game.

There is no refuting that. (do I really have to go count again?)

Nice whatabout though completely wrong. There are more tanks in game than airplanes.There are more tanks in game than LMGs. Let me repeat:

Operation barbarossa 1941:

German tanks: 3600-4100, planes 2900-4800

Soviet tanks: 11000 - 15700, planes 9900-10700

Furthermore, the 1941 production of German tanks and self propelled guns: 5.200 / German aircraft produced the same year 11.700.

So if you want to argue about historical accuracy, there should be way more planes than tanks in game. If you talk about the game as a game, @delems is completely right - the more players for every branch or cross-branch, the better.

But that's not the topic after all. The topic is the Hawk being broken, making it the best plane of tier 0 and one of the top planes of tier 1, outclassing the complete opposition. This is known for months now, and it is still not banned from the campaign. And now 3 out of 4 allied pilots are exploiting this.

What happened the last time a plane was broken and the balance was shifted due to this?

 

 

Edited March 13, 2021 by vanapo

[madrebel]

42 minutes ago, vanapo said:

What happened the last time a plane was broken and the balance was shifted due to this?

last time i recall a plane being obviously broken was the German 20mm clipping through armor.

it took awhile to fix.

 

*edit* unless you're counting the 109 flop which was a feature of 'fixing' the not broken but continually cried about 109 turn rate.

Edited March 13, 2021 by madrebel