Barfly

I agree with Nerd1000.... bearing durability seemed to be on the minds of line pilots, outside of what the factory specified... This probably had something to do with a combination of a move to plain as opposed to roller bearings, again lack of hard alloys, and lower quality oil. The Jumo, which ran at higher rpm at emergency power, didn't seem to have as many problems with this. Has anyone seen any tech data on metal composition of DB or Jumo blocks, heads, bearings, etc? It would be interesting to compare those to what's know about western types. Perhaps Calum's book will shed light on these issues when it comes out.

G14 high altitude variants running DB603 compressors had reduced engine life due to excessive cylinder bore wear, like down to 15 hrs or so before replacement - AFAIR. Those were 1.7-8 ATA boost, so its not unreasonable to assume that a DB605D would suffer similar wear as a result of "excessive use of MW50". There was a severe shortage of hard metals at that time, so it can't necessarily be assumed that newer 605s were 'hardened' for higher boost durability. It may have happened, but I doubt it. Engine use limits in operating manuals seem to have been established as a projection / expectation before the actual motors were fully developed. Of course you have inexperienced pilots abusing the motors, or the motors weren't properly broken in, various POL quality problems affecting output and durability etc. I'm SURE that loss of cylinder compression as a result of cylinder bore deterioration was a real problem, and was mentioned in several sources, which I am too lazy to rediscover, lol.

http://www.calum-douglas.com/ Link to an upcoming research project / book that I think will provide more insight into the engineering and capability of ww2 German recip engines than anything that's out there now. A must have item IMO if you are fanatical about this subject... I know there's a few of you out there lol. It should provide a lot more insight into the actual performance and durability of late DB605 motors, as there seems to be a big information gap between known charts of projected performance, and anecdotal pilot reports. i.e. - no actual flight test data available to the public. In current news, it looks like 1.8 and 1.98 ATA 109s will be represented soon in the Bodenplatte addon to IL2 Great Battles series, that will be interesting.

P47 - vs ground and period appropriate axis AI flying adversaries...

I would not be concerned about running a few to 5 minutes at 18" boost in flight, knowing that the motor had been stressed at that power setting and survived for 7+ hours in destructive testing. The entire point of that testing was to induce accelerated wear on the engine to find areas that could be improved, that would lead lower probability of failure at all settings and increase overall engine life. A method of improvement deemed more expeditious than just flight testing and reviewing engine issues during operational deployment.

I think you nailed the value of FFB... it models trimmed, hands off stick position... where you would have to apply constant forward pressure on a traditional PC joystick. Nice if you have FFB, more work and less realistic if you don't.

Also, the deal to develop the Captor-E was only signed this past November... I doubt it will be developed and fielded within a year.... Right now the only AESA fielded are in the US and on the UAE Block 60/61 F-16s.

It probably does accelerate and climb better at combat speeds, but it's launch range will be relatively short compared to the F35, even with it's upgraded radar. The Typhoon will still be at a significant BVR disadvantage. I look at the Typhoon, once it is upgraded, as in the same relative class as the Block 60 F-16 the UAE already has in the field. The Typhoon would have slightly better thrust to weight and maneuverability WVR, but probably almost identical overall as small multi-role aircraft.

I think the combination of AESA radar, DAS (Distributed Aperature System - for 360 degree sense/vision), and stealth will allow the F35 to defeat a Typhoon class aircraft most of the time. It will have a significant detect / avoid-detect period, with faster acquisition and launch of equivalent weapons. WVR the F35 has F16 class maneuverability, which is probably close to the Typhoon if it is carrying typical combat stores. As far as I know, the current Typhoon has no AESA, and the Meteor is not yet available. The F35 would have a significant advantage in ground attack missions against heavy air defenses.

..."look at us, look at us... give us attention". Real professional." Well the consortium that builds the Typhoon is trying to promote and get sales abroad. It seems everyone building and an affordable, exportable modern fighter aircraft is doing some of the same. I agree it's kind of unprofessional for a pilot to make that comment if that's what happened.

What exactly is the current Typhoon radar and weapons suite? Everywhere you look on the web there seems to be an overemphasis on what future upgrades will bring, overlooking current capability.

And it has a different prop... more like wider chord paddle-blade on late T-bolt - more efficient at translating thrust in the climb speed region, not as efficient for max speed. All props are not equal at different speeds.

compared to the A model FW

Could be FW190D prop is more efficient at combat and climb speeds - pilot anecdotes indicate better combat acceleration and that is probably the reason... I doubt it is a better climber than the mkivX. Bf109 I would expect to have better angle of climb due to wing character but not necessarily rate of climb. Think of effect of automotive gear on acceleration at different speeds...

Same here.... it is excellent! Obviously need a little tweaking, but much better overall. Thanks for keeping at this Mr Yo-Yo :)