Echo38

I've heard of similar hours-at-WEP ground tests on Allisons. The way I heard it, the engine was "unloaded;" the propeller wasn't attached, meaning that the engine wasn't working as hard, and so didn't have as bad of heating problems, and thus could run for much longer than it could in the actual aircraft. Or something like that.

Sounds like my story! I had actually snapped my old IL-2 disks in half, years ago; that's how disgruntled I was with the lack of fidelity in that and other "realistic sims" of the day. I often refer to DCS affectionately as "my miracle sim," because, ten years ago, I would describe a hypothetical simulator to my simming buddies, then conclude "but there'll never be one like that, 'coz there's no market for it." But here it is. Or pretty close, anyway. Nothing's perfect, but DCS meets my practical standards. It's the only flight sim/game that ever has. Now we just need a Yo-Yo-made P-38 ...

In the real thing, there's no synchronization. Minute discrepancies during manufacturing means that the guns have slightly different RoF, even off the same assembly line. The variation can be fairly dramatic, though it's usually slight. The result is that the guns don't fire together; this is actually beneficial, as it creates a constant stream of lead that a target can't "fly through" when the shooting aircraft is turning at a high rate. If the guns fired in synch, then at high turn rates, the "bullet packets" could "go around" an enemy aircraft with none of the bullets hitting. This happened in old IL-2 when Mr. Maddox "ninja-nerfed" the Browning M2 via this unrealistic synchronization.

I've seen one or two, but they're certainly the minority and, regardless, are no reason for an undesired feature being forced on the rest of us.

Well, "serious" might be an overstatement, but, compared to the P-47 & P-51 ...

There were two different effects that the P-38 experienced in high-speed dives (above 15 or 20 thousand feet, depending on air temperature; contrary to popular impression, the P-38 did not have significant issues with high-speed dives below these altitudes). Firstly, the wing could stall (yes, in a high-speed dive) because of vortices causing loss of lift. Secondly, because of the P-38's unique wing & gondola design, "transonic shockwaves" could trap the elevator in place. This isn't wasn't quite the same as normal control stiffness due to high-speed airflow; it was a unique problem for the P-38 caused/exacerbated by the design of its (high-lift) wing & gondola. The P-38 (prior to the L and retrofitted Js with the dive flaps) had a much lower critical mach than the P-51 and P-47. The Me 109 didn't have nearly as bad of a compressibility problem as the P-38, but the 109 did still have serious issues with control stiffness--to a much greater extent than the P-47, P-51, F4U, FW 190, et al. Anyway, there are at least three separate effects that I'm aware of that can result in an inability to pull out of a high-speed dive: normal control stiffness, compressibility stall, and transonic shockwaves. As I understand it, extreme difficulties with the latter was more or less unique to the P-38, and while the second one wasn't, the '38 did experience it sooner (that is, at a lower Mach number) than most fighters, with and without the five flaps (but the dive flaps helped enough that, when they were functioning, dives were safe, if more energy-inefficient than usual). Using trim to pull out of the dive is a good idea if you're experiencing stiffness but not the other two. It's incredibly dangerous, however, to use trim to try to pull out of the dive if you're experiencing one (or both) of the other two, however. Unlike control stiffness, which is gradual and predictable, one can unexpectedly leave the wing-stalled state, at which point the excessive pitch trim can tear the airframe apart. This is what killed Ralph Virden. In the case of the 109, since it did not have an unusual problem with early-onset compressibility, but did have a problem with control stiffness, using trim to pull out of a dive is a good thing (unlike the P-38, in which trim should not be used to assist dive recovery). Disclaimer: not being an engineer, I don't pretend to understand the physics of all that. I'm only reporting what I've carefully gathered from the best sources I could find, as opposed to the popular misinformation which inexplicably plagues the P-38 (now, as then). Corrections from the more knowledgeable are welcome.

"Coordinated" doesn't say anything about altitude gain or loss, or how smooth the maneuvers look. Coordinated simply means no slip or skid. You can lose loads of energy while coordinated, and you can gain energy while uncoordinated, just as the inverse is true for both. The point of coordination is primarily that flying any given maneuver coordinated will result in less energy loss than the same maneuver performed uncoordinated, all else equal. It's also going to make you less spin-prone if you stall, at low power settings; with high power settings (at low speed), engine torque may necessitate that you use more rudder (to fight the torque) than is required to coordinate, in the last few moments before the stall. So, it's a bit counter-intuitive, but, under certain conditions, in conventional prop aircraft with high powerloading, you may be less spin-prone while flying at a specific state of uncoordination during the incipient stage, than when perfectly coordinated during the same. However, in general, being coordinated is going to make you less spin-prone in stalls, especially in modern aircraft.

If our 109 is having a tendency to nose-over upon brake application, under conditions in which the real 109 could not, I would suspect tail mass et al. long before I started to suspect brake strength. Real aircraft brakes are very strong--powerful enough to hold aircraft at very high power settings, and usually powerful enough to cause deadly accidents if applied improperly at high speed. It'd be very hard to model them to be more powerful than they really are. Durability is another question, and it's true that brake durability isn't modelled here, but that issue is irrelevant to any tendency to nose over.

There are two main methods of differential braking. In the USA (among other places), differential braking is independent of rudder input, with the top of each pedal being depressed for the respective brake (as opposed to the normal sliding action for rudder input). In Russia (among other places), differential braking is tied to rudder input, with a single lever being pulled to activate the brakes, and then the rudder pedals being depressed (via the normal action for rudder inputs) to increase pressure on brake and decrease on the other. The US system is superior for control (IIRC, Russian carrier fighters adopted it because of the high demand for fine control on carrier decks) but, as I understand it, the Russian system is superior for cost & ease of maintenance.

Barrett, what's that model? I've been looking at various RC P-47s for a few years, but there's always something wrong with each one. Either the tailwheel doesn't retract, or the main gear isn't to scale, or there are no rivet/panel lines, or something.

I would love to have the Nevada terrain.

I believe the G-14 would be a better competitive match for a 72" P-51D than the K-4 is; at normal combat altitudes, generally speaking, the G-14 would turn & climb better, while the P-51D would be faster. The 109G was also more commonly used than the K, so such a change would also be superior for historical representation. This is all rather moot, of course; the work's already been done, the K-4 being chosen (as I understand it) because reliable data was more readily available.

Your text says, "The suit was little used by the RAF, partly because [...] aircrew were forbidden to use this secret system over enemy territory." If so, then it makes more sense to model no G-suit in the Spitfire. Whoops! My apologies; I had badly misread your post. Somehow, I missed that that the text was differentiating between (Royal Navy?) Seafires and RAF Spitfires. (That's what I get for checking the forum before I've had my coffee.) So, an amendment would be, "If so, then it makes sense to model the G-suit for the Seafire but not for the regular Spitfire."

My opinion on WWII fighters in DCS has always been that historically-common, average examples should be chosen. That they haven't always been, was not my choice. Coincidentally, pushing everything toward historically-common & average would involve the P-51 being more powerful than it is now, not less. However, it would also mean the Spitfire wouldn't get the G-suit, because it wasn't historically-common for that aircraft (if the prior quoted text is accurate--I don't know if it is or not, as I am not very knowledgable about the Spitfire). So, if I had things my way, the P-51 would be more powerful than it is now (by being given historically-common G-suit and historically-common higher WEP rating), while the Me 109 would be less powerful than it is now (by the more historically-common G model being chosen instead of the K). That should solve both problems (relative fighting ability, and historical significance) at once. The Spitfire, too, would be an ~average example of a Spitfire; I don't know what that means for how powerful it would be, but I can't imagine the Spitfire being the underdog in a dogfight against anything other than a Japanese turn-fighter, given the Spitfire's reputation for being a fantastic dogfighter. (In other words, I do not believe anyone need fear that a middle-of-the-road Spitfire will struggle to be competitive without a G-suit.) In such a hypothetical situation, finer balance could then be achieved by further selecting better or worse examples accordingly (if the "average" Spitfire, for example, turned out to be dominant, then a slightly-below-average Spitfire could be chosen instead, and vice versa), but still each one remaining within the realm of common & average. Not that such a hypothetical situation really matters, as things will never be how you or I want it to be; I'm merely expounding on this to demonstrate that my preference is an accurate & fair representation of all of the fighters involved, rather than skewing the balance in favor of one side or the other. As I've noted before, Allied "fanboys" accuse me of being anti-Allied/pro-Axis, and Axis fanboys accuse me of being pro-Allied/anti-Axis. I have angry messages in my PM inbox from each, accusing me of being one of the other. To an extremist, I guess, a moderate looks like an extremist of the opposing viewpoint. That I get heat from both sides, indicates to me that my stance isn't too far from the desired objectivity. ; ) (For the record, if you gave me the choice of flying a real-life P-51 or a real-life Me 109, it would be an agonizing decision and a coin-toss might be necessary to decide the matter. I have no great preference for either of the two fighters; they are both amazing, beautiful airplanes, and each was quite a threat to the other during the actual war.)

It says, "The seat is adjustable vertically." That means that the seat can move up and down; it doesn't say anything about tilting forward and backward.

Got it. Like the WEP wire on the P-51, only on the other end.

Why does this key need to be pressed? It doesn't in the P-51D. Is this a simulation of some unique feature of the FW 190's throttle?

Actually, a correction: I based this off of the P-51D credits, but that was completed before more team members were acquired from the defunct RRG studios. So, there might be a few more now. But, my main point stands, regardless. It's still a small team for the amount of complexity & workload.

My post was addressed at the OP, Solty. This bit here: I have no objection to people providing more information about the proper workings of the rudder, and I highly doubt Yo-Yo does, either. To the contrary, such things are quite useful for everyone interested. : ) It was specifically the notion (from the OP) of starting a, um, crusade (overstatement, but, you know what I mean) about an already-acknowledged issue (which is indeed taking a while to get fixed). That's what my post was aimed at.

You guys ever look at the credits for the WWII modules? There are only about two or three people qualified to do this sort of fix. Yo-Yo (the flight/systems models maths engineer), and one or two of the programmers who implement his models into code. There are indeed a few issues on the existing aircraft that need improvement, and Yo-Yo knows about 'em. But I'm pretty sure he's rather busy with the new birds. I want this sim to be perfect as much as you do--more, perhaps--but rather than starting some sort of forum revolution over your pet issues, I'm exercising a little patience. If you look at the amount of work on the table, and the number of people who are assigned to that work, it's no surprise everything takes a while. "But why doesn't ED hire more people?" Well, that looks like an easy answer to me. At $50 a module (less, on average, 'coz of sales), and the very small number of people who are interested in combat flight sims, enough to buy these modules (how many people are playing multiplayer at any given time, again?), how exactly is ED going to pay the salaries of more highly-qualified engineers & programmers? That's assuming there even are other qualified flight model engineers of this calibre, who are interested in doing work on P.C. flight sims. I certainly don't know of any other flight sim/games with this level of detail in the maths. Do you? Think about the problem a bit before starting polls to try to rally "dissatisfied users," please. I'm all for raising awareness & bringing issues to the attention of those qualified to fix them, but in this case, as has been stated, it's been acknowledged and is on the table. Making a fuss isn't going to accelerate development. Hardcore sim development is slow. I don't like it, but that's how it is. It's really unavoidable--the most complex type of "game" there is, in terms of development work, with a small customer base, paying less per published work than the average gamer. You crunch the numbers. Not that I'm saying that ED can do no wrong. Sometimes problems do need to be pointed out, and I agree that it sometimes seems that these things take forever to fix. I have a number of "pet issues" which have been there for years. However ... perspective. The simple fact is that with such a small workforce, and such a large number of things that need to be done, there's gonna have to be some issues (important ones, even) which get placed on the back burner for long periods of time. That's how this universe works. : /

Right. I shouldn't have used cruise for my example; the question I have is whether that's military power or WEP. Pilots were often told not to use WEP unless it was an actual emergency, and there've been several fighter pilots who saw combat, who said they never activated it. So, it is questionable whether the 50 MPH was lost at MIL or WEP.

Wait, what? At least at normal altitudes, the Thunderbolt didn't come close to out-turning 109s in sustained turns. In the two or three wartime graphs I've seen of sustained turning circle comparisons, the Thunderbolt was way behind the 109 & P-38 et al, and considerably behind the P-51 as well (which, in turn, was behind the P-38 & Me 109). The only major fighter that the P-47 could flat turn with, for more than brief times, was the FW 190. At extremely high altitudes, where the P-47 was really at home, that might change; perhaps there, the Thunderbolt could out-turn the 109. But we don't usually fight at angels 30 & 40 in multiplayer.

What throttle setting? It matters. 50 MPH knocked off at max power wouldn't necessarily mean 50 MPH knocked off at cruise, and vice versa. It could be more or less at other settings.

Yes. For most prop aircraft, flaps-up takeoffs are recommended unless the runway is short. You get into the air faster with flaps, but it's less efficient, so you'll be higher after a minute of climbing if you didn't use flaps.

What Solty said. At normal multiplayer altitudes, sustained turning ability matters more than instantaneous turn, in general, because the fight drops down to sustained speeds quickly. You can't keep up a high-speed fight for long unless you've got loads of altitude to burn. More importantly, a fighter that only turns better at high speed needs to start out with an altitude advantage over his opponent, because these high-speed turns bleed too much energy to do it in a normal situation; in a standard duel merge, by the time the P-51 has "gotten behind" his opponent, his opponent is now too high above him to reach before stalling. And now the opponent can do a nice sustained turn overhead, out-turn on a higher plane, then roll over for the attack. "Out-turn him at high speed" is something that people always recommend to pilots of lesser-turning aircraft like the P-51, but it only works in situations that are unusual in a co-X fight. So, again, my objection: "The P-51 turns better than the 109" is technically true, as part of a larger statement ("the P-51 turns better than the 109 under specific conditions"), but the implied meaning from leaving the statement unfinished like that is dishonest, because the implication is that the P-51 usually or always turns better than the 109, which is false more often than it is true (in normal multiplayer battles, which tend to occur somewhere around ten thousand feet). In the end, what I see is players with a 109 that's performing better than the P-51 (because the P-51 is underperforming for several reasons), expressing disappointment that the 109 isn't doing even better, and then pretending that the P-51 has the advantage (when it usually has the disadvantage, under these conditions). I can't see it as anything else but intellectual dishonesty & poor sportsmanship.