Mobius_cz

Definitely put a video here :thumbup:

From Wikipedia :-D "In the 1930s, two-speed drives were developed for superchargers. These provided more flexibility for the operation of the aircraft, although they also entailed more complexity of manufacturing and maintenance. The gears connected the supercharger to the engine using a system of hydraulic clutches, which were initially manually engaged or disengaged by the pilot with a control in the cockpit. At low altitudes, the low-speed gear would be used in order to keep the manifold temperatures low. At around 12,000 feet (3,700 m), when the throttle was full forward and the manifold pressure started to drop off, the pilot would retard the throttle and switch to the higher gear, then readjust the throttle to the desired manifold pressure. Later installations automated the gear change according to atmospheric pressure." Well this seems quite logical for me, probably it is true :smilewink:

Ok guys, 1) Supercharger is driven by engine itself (crankshaft i believe), Turbocharger is driven by exhaust gases. So i hope we are on the same level even before i mentioned it :) 2) a) Because of Bediengerat (hydro-mechanical engine control unit) i really do not know how this engine works exactly. I hope you can help me with my thoughts. Good example is V-1650-7 engine in the mustang. You have one lever which operates engine RPM so throttle lever is controlling directly supercharger or whole air intake system am i right? b) Jumo 213 A1 and V-1650-7 have two speeds superchargers. Two speed supercharger means precise revolutions? Like 6000 per minute, 8000 per minute.. (random numbers). My conclusion is that you are controlling how much air is going into the supercharger but supercharger RPM are still the same. Am i right or not? c) Density of air is problem. Because you can not measure density directly (for gases). For density you need to measure pressure, tempreture and even volume or mass flow rate. Even in these days you need digital technology which measure these thing and compute density for you (or you can compute it by yourself of course :smartass: ). And the most important is...for most aplications which are using air or any kind of gases you are using pressure or temperature, flow rate but almost never density. These engines were designed and built in the 40s.. IMO switching speed of a supercharger is based simply on pressure (maybe some kind of membrane i really do not know). Everything what i have said is based only on what i really think how this works and i believe if i am completely wrong you will corect me as much as needed.

Jumo 213 A1 used in FW-190 D9 also had single stage, two speed supercharger like BMW 801D. Jumo 213 is using hydro-mechanical engine control device called "Bediengerät"

Ideal temp for oil is between 110 and 130°C, but for a limited time (i think i read for a few minutes) you can fly with oil temp at 130°C. Everything depends on the cooling system. IMO Bf-109 has very very good cooling system i have never flown it full open. FW-190D9 has also very good cooling system. The offten problem is, that it sometimes does not react quickly enough and if i am not mistaken FW 190D9 can climb on 3250 RPM for 30 minutes. So without MW-50 it is quite hard to overheat :pilotfly:

No we don't. Mig 29 model A and S are not capable for SEAD tasks. Probably it is Mig-29 SMT version, maybe even Mig-29K and new Mig-35 but i am not sure at all about last two versions.

I will use this thread for me also. I will post my track from ILS training but probably i have done something wrong because it was not pointing at the runway lol. I am still learning this aircraft so please help me. ILS.trk

I would love to see He-177, such a nice and unique plane for that time, but it is heavy bomber :-D I can't say why but i really love He-111, simply the plane i like the most.

As for trainers Hawk T1a vs C-101EB vs L-39C (should be released too) there will be difference in speed and manouverability but for "training of how to fly" every plane will be good enough so choose what do you like the most. On the other hand if you want use it as light combat aircraft. Hawk T1A vs C-101CC vs L39ZA.. This is whole new story. Probably the quickest will be Hawk, the best armed one will be Casa and L39ZA will be the last in performance. the first with multiseat as Wags said will be L39 but IMO the rest multiseat aicraft will soon folow after L-39 testing is complete.

During multiplayer games it is very often to have SEAD role in SU-25T but i really do no know for the campaing. As someone said. It is primaly anti tank platform. As far as i know only about 8 production aircrafts were built and i never heard about deployment (maybe it did i just do not know).

Very nice document :thumbup:

I have exactly the same problem and i even can't to reinstall the open beta

I am not sure but i think i read they will make whole new loading system.

Actually first fighter to test aerial refueling in the Russian airforce was SU-27UB. They used aerial refueling for bombers. First Mig 29 which is equiped with aerial refueling system is SMT model, then Mig-29K, SU-33, SU-35, Su-34.....As someone said Mig 21 is short range interceptor, they were used for very quick response to any threat.

F86 vs K4 is a little bit too much. On the other hand P 51 vs Me 262 should be ok. But none will be ever forced to fly anything which simply do not want to fly. Maybe we will see some servers like F 86 + F8F vs k4 nad D9, so just simply do not connect to the server and be happy on the other one.

Normandy 1944 map is for me just a map. I am flying FW 190 over Russia and i don't care. You can't balance something that wasn't balanced. Lets fly P51 vs P51 or 109 vs 109 for balance. What we will do when ME 262 come out? We need to hope that Gloster Meteor will be out too or put an Saber on it :D Oh my god guys please realize it is a flying simulation game. I really like that this game is as real as possible but it should be fun to play in the first place. I do not want to offend anyone and this is only my point of view. I am just starting to feel like not everyone here is understanding how much we should be glad for hard work of ED and the other developers.

I understand your feelings. BF 109 K4 was developed because they had the best kind of documentation needed for this aircraft. I hope everyone understand ED can not make it 100% real as it was in 1944. As someone mentioned Luftwaffe was already weaker so to make it real we will fly our multiplayer games 10 vs 1? (just an example). I am really happy we will getting P-47, spitfire MK IX, ME 262, VEAO is developing also nice aircrafts to fly. I am feeling it is simply just too hard developed every version of every fighter used in WWII when one module takes months and even years to complete...

I agree. A lot of theseweapons was used on F and G models. FW 190 F was ground attack version (supercharger was change to get better low altitude performance, also additional armor plating was added). FW 190 G was meant as long range ground attack, it was capable to take 2 aerodynamic drop tanks under the wings. Some models were used as topedo bombers. For F and G versions it is important to have some variaty of weapons but FW 190 Dora was meant as high altitude fighter plane. It is a little bigger than radial verions of FW 190 and Jumo 213A1 was better at altitudes over 6 km than radial BMW 801 engine. It would be nice to have some other bombs but in real life Dora really was much more fighter than a ground attack plane. So we just have to wait for someone who will develope for example FW 190 F8 :D

A while back i tried some fuel consumption test http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=128415 I am not sure if the most efficient way is to fly at 12 000 m because crusing rpm are set to 2200 - 2400. From 2800-2900 engine starts using rich fuel mixture (i think i read this in manual). My guess is 2300 rpm and 5,5 - 6 km and maximum idle cruising duration for real plane is 2,6 hour without drop tank. Have fun :D

During kickstarter campaing we saw possible aircraft list which includes even JU-88 and Me-410 so by my guess it is possible to develop these aircrafts. But i have a feeling that this is not the way ED wants to go. We will have several WWII era aircrafts. Back to the topic. IL-2 is really an iconic ground attack plane and i hope we will see it one day. Heinkel 111 is by far my most favourite medium bomber plane and i can't really tell why :D Ju-188 is an interesting choice because JU-188 A2 model was equipped with Jumo 213 A engines. As you know this engines is already developed (Fw 190 D9). Off topic: Before the end of 2013 Wags one said we will not get any news on DCS F-18C until August 2014 and hell yeah!! FW-190 Dora 9 was realeased in August and we got news on a lot of project in September. ED has probably very excited development roadmap we will never see :cry: And that leads me to one thing, i want to keep my hope that we will see a lot planes we are talking about now :thumbup:

I don't think so it is planned. From my point of view i like this plane a lot but still it is slow beast. Later in WW2 JU-87 were replaced by fight-bomber version of FW-190. We will have P-47 on the allied side, which is pretty good ground attack plane and even not so bad high altitude fighter. FW-190 F8/U1 is still my favourite choice. Problem with JU-87 is which version to developed. B-2 version is obsolete. D-3, D-5 are good choices because they can use bombs and they were test platforms for dual 37 mm cannon. Final version was G-2 with dual 37 mm. Probably really powerfull armament but i heard they had very limited amount of ammo. I am just thinking loud. Nice plane to add for flying not sure for fighting :)

Manual says you have to press MK 108 trigger for release bomb

Our waiting is finally over i hope :-) I am now in the open beta and rearming + refueling + drop tank bug is gone :thumbup:

Thank you very much :thumbup: