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 :)

But the Mustang wing has a better drag profile at the speed ranges we're talking about, and that factors into best sustained turn rate.

Maybe check for cross-controls in the axis setup menu? Seems every time I get an aircraft update, and controls are reset, the game mixes some saitek rudder pedals and T16000 controls, or they are inverted. Also make sure you're not using natural view or 'head movement with g forces' option, as those will make identifying aircraft attitude changes more difficult. With those view agitations you will be reacting like a mongoose, lol.

Maybe they trimmed slightly negative to assist in ease of pitch control during formation flying? That's not an uncommon technique, might have worked well with the 190.

Yes! Finally.. lol. Are you asking me in Russian if we are talking about the same simulator? :)

No, I was not clear enough. I mean deviation of the model, not the control input. The control sensitivity issue is a different problem, but does exacerbate the issue of control.

No, control sensitivity aside, loss of control occurs with too small an attitude deviation of the virtual aircraft. There should be a larger envelope of deviation that can be countered by control forces.

I think it's the only gross shortcoming in the model..... takeoff should and is a delicate thing with some very dark corners that will kill you quickly if you don't know what to expect.... it's just the observed attitude deviations on takeoff roll are too small when loss of control occurs...room for error is too small. It feels as if aerodynamic stability which should start to occur at relatively low speed is missing... as well as flight control effectivity.

I'm with Ballenato here...... the effect of 'flying' on the ground at appropriate speeds feels underrepresented.... I don't have a problem with other forces in effect, it's just that they easily overwhelm control authority, to a degree that is inconsistent with ease of takeoff and landing in this aircraft as noted by test pilots.

These simulated prop models can't be beat overall for flight fidelity, IMO, but they are still approximations and fidelity varies in quality in different aspects of the sim. I feel like I'm flying a Dora when airborne and flight forces are reasonable and believable. Taxiing control at low speed seems reasonable (not sure if it's accurate, but it is reasonable). Aircraft control between less than takeoff speed and taxi speed however is poor, seemingly a result of 'slipstream' along the longitudinal axis not having a proper effect on control surfaces and the stabilizing force of the vertical tail and fuselage... so a degree of pilot control over other forces acting on the aircraft is in large part missing. Yes you can takeoff following a very narrow margin of control, and it looks and 'feels' great until you have a small deviation that can't be countered. The Mustang feels very realistic on takeoff roll through liftoff, based on pilots reports, flight manual advice etc it's apparent that real recent Mustang drivers gave input..... but they don't test the limits of controllability on a takeoff roll or don't know it, and obviously didn't give that feedback. The force calculations outside of that narrow band of ideal control don't inform the pilots where reasonable limits of control are on the takeoff run or landing roll, IMO. I have no trail dragger experience, just single engine recip, twin turboprop, military jet trainers and heavy jets. An analogy: if you were zipping around a corner in your Ford Focus and a wheel came off, would you notice it? If you were zipping around a racetrack at high speed and lost a wheel from your race car would you notice it? There is something missing, the same thing, and it's fundamental to basic forces in effect between two four wheeled cars going around a corner.... it's just a matter of degree.