Altflieger

"IRL the 109 pilot couldn't pull more than 5G pulling with both hands using much strenght at speeds of 550kph and above." Do you have a source for this statement which specifically refers to a K4? "Alerion design was bad for high speed flight, but the alerion design is from 1940.." Are you saying that aileron design was unchanged from 1940? Do you know that the K4's wings and tail section were redesigned to address the problems of high stick forces, the addition of fletner tabs to control surfaces for example, and that stick gearing and linkages were probably also altered to aid in this objective as well. For an aircraft easily able to reach 750kph in a dive, you seriously entertain the thought that the Germans in a 1944 redesign left the ailerons unchanged? We could discuss if DCS has correctly implemented the k4 flight model, but we'd both be guessing, unless you have actually flown one that is. If Yoyo has used two contemporary reports about the K4 for the ingame stick forces, then I believe him unless you have some other documentation that has 1944 and K4 on it that contradicts his information. We would all like to read it if you have it.

http://www.radarworld.org/flightnav.pdf HISTORY OF RADIO FLIGHT NAVIGATION SYSTEMS No pictures but description of Late war Lorenz system, which should interest ED. FIGHTER LANDING SYSTEM This meant that the EB1 2 was not to be the predominately used receivers. To obtain an audio signal when flying over the outer and inner marker beacon, the other receivers operating on 38 MHz were rebuilt to operate on 30 – 33.3 MHz. In this manner they could operate on the same frequency as the new EB1 2 receiver. In addition, the localizer beam transmitter which had a range of 40 km, was located at the far end of the runway. The marker beacon transmitters were also relocated from 3 km to 20 km for the outer marker beacon and from 750 m to 3 km for the inner maker beacon along the side of the runway. With this modification, the pilot was able to approach the airport from above the clouds and fly through the clouds in a straight path without having to make instrument turns. This also allowed more time for altitude corrections which made landings easier for young pilots who did not have the instrument training that the older pilots had.

Turned mine off after start up, taxiied out to runway and crashed on take off. Did the same, crashed again. Third time got up in the air but the wings are fluttering up and down?, turn on pump and effect disappears? And it's not the joystick doing this, just weird. Explanation Yoyo?

In game, you'll have to ask Yoyo, but starting with the throttle closed would seem to be somewhat odd. The main thing is not whether the engine starts but the need to keep the revs down once started so as not to overload the oil pump (I assume) and save engine wear. If it's cold, the oil will be thicker hence the warning in the video to immediately check that the oil pressure is within limits, if not shut the engine down. The prop would be pulled through by hand 3 or 4 times to get some oil to the main bearings (inverted engine) before starting to prevent engine wear. The whole run up period is to get the oil circulating properly, which unless gauges say otherwise, it will be when the oil temp reads 40 degrees. When I start ingame I set the throttle lever to align with red ZU marking of the fuel pump lever, when it starts u\min is about 600 and I raise it gently to about 1200 to heat it up a bit quicker, no problems so far but then only about half a dozen starts so far :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Sz5t-m9IOE

The battery is there to start the engine and nothing else! Correct start proceedure should be something like, open large switch panel on the right and press only the first two buttons... power lever to idle start, mags both on, fuel pump lever fully up. On the small switch panel depress only the two fuel pump buttons (the two after C1), lift start switch cover, push big button under the clock to start second hand, press start button for 20-25 secs, lift start button and start. Once engine is running and warmed up switch in the rest of the buttons on the main panel plus whatever. Do not use the radio without the engine being at least at 2400 rpm. NEVER use it without the engine running. The battery can supply about 300 watts in total, radio in transmit mode uses 560w (from memory), you can do the maths, and result's not good. The red gun lights can be used as a crude generator output indicator, when the lights are glowing brightly it's putting out 2 to 3kw, more than enough for all the toys. Raise your flaps just before take off with engine running at 2400 rpm while holding the plane with the foot brakes, likewise contact ATC at same time whilst the generator is pumping it out, that way there should be no drain on the battery. Exactly when (what rpm) the dynamo puts out full voltage I don't know but 2400rpm or over should be ok.

The latest rumour is that an announcement may shortly be made in the Times Court Circular Column on the birth to DCS Europe 1944 of a Messerschmitt Bf 109 K4, if HRH has a runner at Newmarket in the near future and can make the short trip to Duxford for the unveiling. Otherwise business as usual.

I think it's a great idea. I can just picture shooting down someone who's got no idea what's happening because he's too busy singing along to 1D's latest opus! Cannon fodder, love it. Of course the best option would be dog fighting with an in flight movie playing, might have to pay a bit more to get a stream from netflix though. Red Tails a possible choice. Could just take the dog for a walk. Flight simming who needs it ?

Made me laugh!

Don't know Milo, but I'm sure you're desperate to tell us....Sources please.

Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45 thread here: http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=2462 (Discussion from 2005!) Concerns RLM aircraft production January 1944 - March 1945 based on C-Amts Monatsmeldungen. (Planned vs Actual Production) To see a listing, see here: http://www.luftwaffe.no/SIG/RLM/RLM44.html This table is only for first 3 months 1944, oddly K4 is listed but shows none built over this period. It's based on microfilms from The National Archives and Records Administration, Washington. T-177, reel no. 42. So if anyone wants to do some serious digging, get to it! I do not know if this has now been digitised and is available online, or if it contains more detailed infomation than that given. If it has been digitised I couldn't find a link for it. From the TOCH thread, regarding K4's produced at Erla, "The first mention of Erla K-4 production block 570000 to 5701000 that I am aware of is Prien and Rodeike’s book. They indicate they were only able to confirm one specific W.Nr., 570362, in that block with BAL acceptance on Feb 16,1945. Because of the “staggered” sequencing of RLM W.Nrs. late in the war, this could be the first K-4 accepted in that block (or not). More documentation is needed, knowing the Stammkennzeichen is helpful, as these generally follow in sequence." (Post#31) Jochen Prien replied (post#43) on 14th October 2005, "When we put together the Bf 109 F - K some 12 or more years ago we had only fragments of the C-Amts Listen at our disposal which helped a great deal but also left some questions unanswered. With all the new material that has been unearthed since it would be high time for a new - third - edition if we only had time for it. Right now we are fully booked out with work on the JFV series. The need for a revamping the F - K study is great as - at least in my opinion - nothing has been published since that would mark a real step ahead in the field of '109 research or could even be considered as the definitive work. Not to be misunderstood - we consider our small volume as just what it is labelled - an illustrated study. But as such - and even more so in an updated version - it could hold ist own against anything that has been published since." In a post by "Vanir" on (from memory!) on the SAS IL2 modding forums, he talked about Erla building "well made, 'special' K4's'. I'll try and find the link again. He mentioned photgraphic evidence but didn't post any, lol! Erla were building during the last months of the war, G10's, G6/G14 fuselages + G6 wings and undercarridge or K4 wings/wheels. These were somewhat different to those produced at MTT Regensburg or WNR having a more streamlined nose fitted from the cancelled H2/K2 heavy fighter project. (What other "improvements" transferred from that project to Erla G10's are unknown). They were also fitted as G10 spec with the 20mm gun and were officially designated Lightweight fighters, aka "specials". It's entirely plausible that Erla's K4 batch were in effect G10's built with K4 fuselages + wings/wheels, and thus fitted with the 20mm but numbers produced are unknown, but almost certainly more than W.Nr., 570362. It may be possible to establish if this plane was armed with the 20mm from records? Another post by Vanir from 2009 here: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=157797&p=1378636 where without references makes some interesting points concerning G10's/K4's. Final para re ASM engines, is notable. Most of the information from books about late 109's that we have derives from authors primarily concerned with camoflage colour schemes and physical details for modellers and contain little information regarding performance or technology use (MW50 etc,) other than as asides. We should also note that almost all of these books are OLD relatively speaking, little has been added to the known pool of knowledge since about 1995 AFAIK, and Prien's book based on research 12 years prior to publication, as he states. So to sum up, to insist something is true/not true about late 109's is somewhat problematic. There is still so much unknown, particuarly regarding the ERLA Leipzig factory's output late war. Gavagai still friends, :)

As I said originally, I'm genuinely interested in which was the better gyro sight historically and which, I hope, will be/is reflected in DCS. So "I'm speaking from experience in DCS, not historical information" means nothing in effect, but add, "Good gunnery requires a boresight reference point". Unless you have a reference to back this up, this again is assumption and more hot air on your part, but hey let's get the rumour out there that the German sight is/was crap. Presumably because it ain't made in the good 'ole U S of A, wasn't used by our boys and wasn't fitted to the P51. (But if had of been it would have been the best sight ever, lol.) "That alone makes it a superior sight in my eyes", possibly, but still don't make it true though, does it. Some historical evidence please, gentlemen.

From here:http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Gyro_gunsight#cite_note-5 German pilot didn't agree, "The EZ 42 was compared with the Allied G.G.S. captured from in a P-47 Thunderbolt in September 1944 in Germany. Both sights were tested in the same Fw 190, and by the same pilot. The conclusion was critical of the moving graticule of the G.G.S., which could be obscured by the target. Compared to the EZ 42, the Allied sight's prediction angle was found on average to be 20% less accurate, and vary by 1% per degree. Tracking accuracy with the G.G.S. measured as the mean error of the best 50% of pictures was 20% worse than with the EZ 42.[7] (note 7 refers to reference below) Hahn, Fritz. Deutsche Geheimwaffen 1939-1945. Flugzeugbewaffungen. Heidenheim: Erich Hoffmann Verlag, 1963.

You're forgetting saitek rudder pedals that have a tendency to apply a wheel brake when they're in the mood just to make it more interesting taking off and landing (well mine do).

Die Hard: I do not use the rudder cheat. Had to LOL at this, given that the default is on and the sim doesn't say it's "assisting" and you have no way of knowing if it is on or not, I'd say it's more of a booby trap!