Altflieger

Me too. Option to have revi 16b please, or fixed sight option with this ez42 asap. 20mm mineshells bounce off these Ai mustangs btw, hit by four and he's still flying?

Like you no expert but I can get it off the ground without any assistance, so you may like to try what I do and see how you get on. Get to the middle of runway roll forward slowly, less than 1500rpm make absolutely sure your running straight, then pull back stick all the way, lower take off flaps, apply full power 3200rpm. As speed builds move stick forward towards neutral centre also gently applying a bit of right rudder, not perfected this yet myself, but the idea is to get get the stick centred just as the tailwheel lifts and the plane still running straight guided by rudder. It will take off shortly thereafter and you may need to bank it slightly right as it does so, get wheels and flaps up and you're good to go. Good luck.

Agree with GregP, have tir4 with latest tir5 software and have centred view.

Yep all mustangs are uber! They must not be outclassed by any opposition at any time, it's not possible that anything could live with our wonderful fighter, hip hip hooray! Starkey, the mustang is a great fighter but it overwhelmed the opposition with sheer numbers 800 to 50, and a lot of the 50 flown by green pilots. This sim is going to be much harder for the allies. I hope the mustangs gets it's 75hg, seriously, the k4 will be a monster. You might like to note the mustang could only reach 430 odd mph with immaculate clean wings, something probably unheard over Germany in 1944 even with 150 octane and 75hg. It rains a lot in England.

That's about the size of map DCS Europe 1944 should have. If we're going to be serious about it...

I never thought to look to see if it was the default, what cretin put it as default? Got to be easier when only one of us is flying at a time! And brakes had to axis reversed as they were on all the time and the thing wouldn't move!

The 262 isn't great over 6500m IIrc and down low it guzzles fuel severely limiting it's range. The problem with this sim is going to be small maps. Just how some people in their overhyped P51 (200 octane why not?) would cope having to fly for 3 hours just to get to the combat zone and then fight would be interesting. Now we're part of DCS world some people can just fly an f16 if their not happy. :)

I hope take off assist isn't the default setting but it might explain a few things if it is.....

There was that great mod in IL2 where some guy persuaded his wife (Andrea?) to do all the German ATC commands. After having had a hard long mission and feeling a bit tired and stressed, then asking for permission to land, the mood immediately improved on hearing her voice. Probably the best mod ever in IL2. But if we're talking historical accuracy shouldn't we be using Luftwaffe maps and navigation as well as German landing patterns and radio chatter and codenames?

What would you trim to? Surely you'd trim to the situation the aircraft finds itself in most of the time, cruising to and from wherever. Guess what flight condition the German ground crews trimmed the aircraft for? Yes, that's right, give that man a cigar! Jeez!

It's a no from me as well. You have to learn where everything is and it's name anyway so what's the problem? Besides it's more fun, victor,victor!

Oooh! An 8 inch gun! Just the one round then I expect Sith.

USSBS? link please. Did you actually read anything from the link I provided? All WW2 primary sources. Your sturmvogel link gives a copy of data from Alfred Price's Luftwaffe Data Book, 1997. And that about Luftwaffe disposition in May 1943. Then you say "As these thread is about the K-4, any mention of fuel pre-mid 1944 is a distraction and irrelevant to the discussion." Kurfurst brought up early usage of C3 not me, in response to your " no C3 before fw190" IIRC? He may also have some hard data about that but I haven't been looking. The actual process of making B4 and C3 was so flexible they could make either at short notice, as it says clearly in the archive. I'm just giving you the information to read.

Time machine here, see Government Reports on LH side. http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/ Includes post war interviews by Allies with German chemists and manufacturers. Everything you need to know to synthesize avgas from coal :) Apologies Milo but it says Germans manufacturing B4 1/3 and C3 2/3 by volume. Max output 50 000 tonnes total (both) per month in 1943.

Milo not sure that what occured in 1942 has a lot of relevance here. The contention that there were shortages of fuel is undoubtebly true, but to then say all units were short of fuel is a bit of a leap. The Germans restricted use of it for non operational flying late war to keep operational usage relatively normal from what I understand, logistics permitting.

Point being that C3+mw50 was in use for some time prior to introduction of K4 and G10, and as you point out clearance given in early k4 manuals. So my theory is that they never stopped using it just used it more sparingly i.e. short periods of less than a minute. I think pilots very wary of using it tbh.

Thanks for the reply Milo. Here's possible evidence of early C3 +MW50 usage :) Don Bryant P51 Ace being outperformed. Nov 2nd '44. Listen to what he says from 9.00 onwards, try to ignore the voiceover, lol. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er1gOYKmOCE

K, yes understand about normal MW50 usage, but clearance for K4 and G10's not until March 45. From your own site, submission by Peter D Evans 2nd from bottom of page here: http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/605D_clearance198.html speaks of a G14 which crashed with a tank full of C3 and 100 litres of methanol on board. It's dated 20 Jan 1945. I'm saying that usage predates official clearance by some months possibly even from Nov '44.

Apologies double post. Would like to add there appears to be no info about how any of these tests were conducted, at least I've not found any so far. From sketchy pilot interviews about the use of mw, at least one, Stiegler, said he only used it for a minute max, because the engine might blow. What plane and when this was not stated in the interview, but it does open up the possibility that C3+mw was being used but for very short periods only (a minute a long time in combat!). Milo your note about 'cell' performance would tend to support this idea.

Milo do you have any info about the Rechlin 1.98ata+C3 test? Specifically how long these engines were run for? My translation of sheet two shows that one engine blew a hole in the piston crown, the other three had con rod bearing wear. If they were run continuously, for example, for say, an hour per test, the result may not have been that bad overall.

Absolutely thrilled that 20% of the $50 I donated for 6 aircraft and alpha access goes straight into ED's pocket, even under this new financially advantageous arrangement by ED of backers terms and conditions. So screwed over twice in effect. ED wouldn't like to reconsider this decision? Maybe offer a $10 voucher? For only 312 of us?

Would your newly found open mind be prepared to consider the possibility that some G10's (Erla block no 155 ### to name but one) were the fastest 109's?

As has been already shown, (Where?) the C3 fuel triangle doesn't mean a whole lot because Eastern front 109s, that were only using B4, also had C3 triangles (Source?) Of more relevance though, does John Weal in his magnus opus, have anything to say about use of C3 + Mw50 by these units on their travels? What was the fuel situation at the airfields you have listed when these units were present?

So far no one has presented any evidence that 1.98ata with C3 and MW50 wasn't used. Why install a 25 gallon MW tank in every 109 made, including those fitted with DC engines? Why have a Motor Karte for the DB605DC published 1 Dec. 1944 clearly stating 1.98ata was possible and then say it wasn't used?

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=505