Kurfürst

Also, could you provide a couple of examples perhaps when said Squadrons have actually engaged manned Luftwaffe aircraft?

Nope on all accounts, since its all just basically fantasy. ADGB used it for a couple of months in 1944 while the V-1 campaign necessitated it, and as far as the threads topic is concerned, by only two (2) Spit IX Squadrons, then it withdraw it completely. You would be also hard pressed to find trace of these two Squadrons (nos 1 and 165) over German territory or meeting German fighters in 1944. The next substantial use is when the 2nd TAF begun converting in its Mark Niner Squadrons in February 1945. BTW do you even have any German fighter in DCS? In fact they all run on B-4 fuel and a similarly 'modest' boost rating, just as the Mustang does and the Spit will...

Technically speaking yes, but in practice? +25 lbs was simply not common at all in 1944, +18 was. In any case ED has already seems to have choosen the +18 lbs variant for the time being (and what else would they choose, when at the time there were 2 Spit IX Squads on trials / V-1 hunting vs 30+ Spit IX Squadrons operating on +18 lbs and engaging German fighters...?) so the issue seems moot. Hopefully oneday selectable fuel (i.e. B-4/C-3, 130/150 grade) will be present for all aircraft, along with the über-boosts everyone is crying out for. Since as I understand mostly all thats needs to be done is some slight tuning of the engine model (greater air and fuel delivery), and the rest could be hopefully calculated correctly by the engine, it should be too hard to do 1945 scenarios as well.

Its quite clear the memo was just circulated to all groups for info, in case some "Spit special" would happen to land there for any reason. Topping the tank with 130 grade or mixing the two fuels and then using the maximum boost w/o having the required fuel grade in the tanks could be catastrophic hence why the effected 1 and 165 Sqns are specifically mentioned. Read paragraph 5 and it becomes quite clear.

Glad we all agree on two Squadrons, 1 and 165, being on operational trials. ;) Check the tested weight on the chart, 7234 lbs, so its missing some 200 lbs (sans ammo...? of the normal take off weight). The other JL 165 testing at full weight has both closed and open radiators, the closed one produced some impressive results as well, but quite clearly with ?Moderate Supercharging (1st gear) providing +25 lbs boost was not practically possible - the 500 feet fth practically means tree hugging and afterwards your boost will fall until the 2nd gear kicks in. Essentially both just reduce drag. Lower weight means lesser angle of attack is required, this induced drag is reduced, and a closed radiator of course means less parasitic drag. All aircraft will be effected by this, but the scale might not be the same. For example the P-51 or Yaks had rather tiny radiator flaps compared to the Spit or the 109, so its movement probably had less effect on drag.

And it shows you are not telling the truth...

Source please. Indeed. Reading the link shows that you have been providing misinformation, ie. reading the snippet in ref. no 41 shows that out of the Spitfires listed, only 2 Spitfire IX Squadrons" (but already being replaced by XIVs) and 3 Spitfire XIV Sqdns ("mostly completed") being employed and strictly for anti diver duties. The rest are a handful of Tempest, Mosquito and Mustang III units which we know were also employed as anti V-1 units. So now we know two things. First, that only 2 Spitfire IX units were involved, out of the apprx. 30-35 Squadrons in Britain, only briefly, and only for anti-diver duties and were quickly withdrawn. That's hardly "half of the Squadrons". Second, it would appear that its another enthusiastic attempt of yours to fudge a bit of history with which you of course accuse others.

Neither the K-4 or D-9 were rare, in fact they were very common, this has been discussed multiple times, so please read back on that. Just to recap the rough production numbers from memory, some 1600 K-4s, 1800 D-9s and 2600 G-10s were produced, so yeah, 'rare'... compared to what, the 4000-odd Spitt Mark IX LFs...? MW-50 was also not rare, it was standard fitting in the period (I think you are referring to that the earliest D-9s not having that fitted, but that was also introduced by We have a P-51D with gyro gunsight, which was not introduced until October 1944, and with further control surface modifications that essentially make it an 1945 plane, so its high time people would stop complaining about also having a German bird from September 1944 and one from October 1944. QUOTE]Only time and new aircraft like the G6 and A8 will solve this issue, I.e. Another 2/3 years. The A-8 and G-6 is kinda OKish, IMHO it would make a great counterpart for the P-47D-10 or the Spit IX, atlhough the G-6 was just getting out of service by the time the IX LF was being introduced in meaningful numbers. As far as I go, the more the better, but understand this, there is absolutely no problem with the current selection of planes. They are from the very same historical timeframe. Uhm, because the +25 lbs Spitfire IXs of 1944 are a bit of a semi-fantasy. Despite the March 1944 'clearance' of +25 lbs, subsequent months of testing showed that there were serious problems in practice (backfires and fouling). The former was solved by about May but there was no operational introduction in the whole 1944: only two Mk Squadrons (=20-30 odd planes) were selected for operational trials and they did not see much, if any air combat, and the trials were closed in the automn of 1944 and they reverted to +18. It was just a testing unit for the feasibility of the boost. Furthermore the supply needs of the USAAF for the high grade fuels were preventive for the RAF to also embark on any widespread operational use, which the Brits had to begrudgingly accept. They couldn't get the first handful Mark IX Squadrons to change over to 150 grade and +25 lbs until February-March 1945, and even then only gradually and with engine troubles because of the fuel's tendency to foul spark plugs and sometimes cause stopping engines at takeoff, with predictable results. We know for sure from Bergers memoirs that the Canadian 126 Wing converted (thats again, 4-5 Spit Squadron, or roughly 60 operational planes). There might have been others, but you get an idea about the scale. Just to put the +25 lbs Spits for 1944 operation into context. Its a fantasy that never was. Uhm, why would the G-10, a plane introduced in late October 1944 in initially lesser numbers than the K-4 introduced in early October 1944 would be a better choice, especially as its very poorly documented? Also the almost masoistic insistence of this forum to have a G-14 for balance reasons in beyond me. If anything, it would be even worse to fight the G-14 under 4000 meters (which is what people do 95% of the time). Just imagine the G-14 as slightly slower, lighter, better turning and better climbing K-4 with a sniper cannon with proper ballistics and long firing time. I honestly can't grasp why anyone flying an Allied plane would want that so desperately. Well I guess because the +25 lbs Spit IX would be indeed a purely 1945 plane and none of the other are really are. The K-4 is a pure early variant from late 1944, not the 2000 PS beast from 1945. The P-51D is a somewhat odd mix with the 1945ish metal elevator and all, but its basically an October 1944 variant performance and gunsight wise, although imho it could use the 72" boost the 8th AF fighter command was running its planes (15th AF in MTO did not, however, so its not entirely out of place). Again the D-9 has the MW boost it had in 1944; I am not sure about the EZ 42 gunsight, which was introduced in August 1944 but may have not fitted to Doras until end 44/early 45.

But you are going to get an late 1944 (CC. Ocotber 1944) scenario Project with the historical +18 lbs Spitfire IX, P-51D, P-47D, Me 109K and Fw 190D and Me 262 with their historically relevant equipment and setup. The list is of course by no means complete and we could have small series and rarely used variants, but in my opinion its still a good setup. Perhaps read up a bit what was actually used in 1944. And the Spit IX will be fine. Its a good claimber and turner, if maybe a bit slow, but that's what the actual plane look like and I am sure ED will faithfully recreate it in the end. People wanting ahistorical variants flying with ahistorical equipment, experimental boost will be disappointed however.

They are not giving us an 1943 version, ED's choice is correct and they are giving is us what is exactly the historic 1944 Spitfire, a Spitfire Mk IXc L.F. with 18 lbs boost, althouh the flight model is still alpha and will need a bit of tuning at and above the FTH region. VEAO is already working hard to bring us a super late and super rare version of the XIVe - which is what also the RAF was doing back in 1944/45 when the IX did not quite cut it.

In Luftwaffe fighters the reason of standardizing the FuG 16ZY (the Y designating that is has the Y-Verfahren device as well) was not as much providing Lorenz transmitters for airfields but as a practical operational guidance in the West (in the East it wasnt used) They used it to guide fighter formations on Allied bomber streams for easy and accurate interception - usually only the flight or combat group leader turned on the "Y-Verfahren" or Y-Guidance in his fighter, and he was "guided", along with the whole group of fighters, without having the need to manually navigate to a constantly moving target. It was in essence a modified use of the previous pathfinder systems (i.e. X, Y Gereat or Kninckebein) used on Luftwaffe bombers most famously in the Battle of Britain for night bombing and as a navigational aid. It was a very integral part of Reichsverteidung, so it needs to be working if we want historical bomber intercept missions... Thanks for the heads up, lets hope so... its not like we would like the module to have an A-10 level of external loads. :thumbup:

There were a great variaty of bomb load configurations with different size and number of small bomblets in the AB "mother bomb" container, but IMHO we should have the ones that are most iconic and cover pretty much every use possible here - the one with the SD 2 "butterfly bombs" for anti personall/soft skin work and the one with the SD 4 HL shaped charged anti armor bomblets. In any case the bombs are generic and could be used for all Luftwaffe planes (Me 262/109 and Fw 190, also for any Luftwaffe bomber if they are coming) so its a model it once, use it thrice development.

Excellent. Will there also be some variety in the bombloads - currently there is only SC 250 and SC 500. How about SD series bombs and AB 250 and 500 series cluster bomb containers? 21cm Wurfgranate rocket option for K-4? They could be reusable for 190D-9 and Me 262 as well (not the 21 cm rockets though).

Looks nice. Do you have it? Is it an improvement over the old Mermet 109 booklet? I found that very interesting and through, but the info in it is a bit dusty by now.

Wouldn't be all that difficult if Sound Blaster and to a lesser extent, Microsoft's development of Windows sound API-s would have not killed off the only viable 3d sound API 15 years ago... Integrated on-board "sound cards" did the rest. Currently there is no seriously supported PC 3d sound hardware, or software for that matter. What is out there is a joke. Now, AMD has something that is somewhat similar with its True Audio but its AMD exclusive only and probably end up just as bad since nvidia/intel dominates the market.

The short answer is that the Bendix-Stromberg injection carb was introduced with the Merlin 66 in 1943, and was standard (this was also the first carburattor that effectively solved the negative G problem, the previous "solution" was more like bandaging) However the S.U. type of pump injection carburetor never was introduced on the Mark IX, or Merlin 66, although several types (or Marks) of it were proposed and tested for use. As I understand the SU type as opposed to the Bendix type is a very different and simplier design, and as an advantage the SU carb improved the full throttle height of the engine under rammed conditions, by at least 1300 feet compared to the Bendix - probably because the carburetor caused losses in the SU design rammed air were less. That's one part of it of course, and this experimental design was anything like the SU carbs used later on cars, it had several disadvantages such as inaccurate fuel metering during cruise conditions and more sluggish throttle response. The trials with MA 648 was just a test bed for this new type of proposed, better, but never introduced SU carburetor. This fact is very clear from the report. It also clearly states that BS 543 results were odd (BS 543 report itself states the same). Also there is nothing wrong with that, most trials during the war were about finding out how a proposed new equipment changes things, if its worth the trouble of making it standard, and not about how "in production" type performs. In fact you do not have to look further than the results of BS 354 to get just how odd the BS 543 test run yielded when it came to FTH and altitude results, quite similar to the DCS Spitfire IXPerimental FM model which also yields a 2000 feet increase in the FTH, even in a 170 mph climb...

Terminal ballistics also useful?

Lets focus instead at the plane the June 1944 G-6s and A-8 would fight - the P-47D and Spitfire. Far more common than Mustangs, especially the yet barely seen P-51D.

People bought the A-10, too. :music_whistling:

Part 1. If the results originally re-calculated/achieved with only 95% weight (as they are - see your own test papers and yellow specs paper) they cannot be used as a basis of reference for a model for 100% weight, obviously. It will introduce increasing margin of errors with weight in level speeds - and indirectly will also skew other related specs - see the difference on airspeed for another aircraft shown in the manual. I find it interesting because the DCS model also shows the very same symptoms that only the blind cannot see - it quite close the real world reference but as altitude increase, the DCS model also increasingly diverges from the reference flight trial results (which I consider a dubious choice for already explained and proven reasons, but may just aggravate the problem, but is not the cause of it). "Instrument/measurement error" is not really an explanation since its impossible that ALL (good or bad) results were effected by such a series of "instrument errors". Moreover, a single or two error it would not shows a clear trendline. On the real world data I just posted, this is quite clearly caused by difference in weight and resulting required increased/decreased Angle of attack and resulting drag change. The question is, what causes the divergence on the DCS dataset...?

+1 plus that the bullets fired being dispersed all over a ca. 2 m x 2 m doesn't really help. The .50 caliber rounds are individually not so destructive as cannon shells, you either have to hit something vital with them or get a good number of hits on the same spot. The latter is difficult to consistently achieve with convergence + dispersion working against it.

Another wall of red herring and speculation, designed to sidetrack the thread and bury the evidence under a pile of rubbish. The report on MA 648 says: It will seen that the above full throttle heights vary considerably. Differences in ram effect due to speed variations account to some extent for this; for instance if the speed of JL.165 were increased to that of MA.648 the full throttle height would be increased roughly 500 ft. The effect of difference in ram effect on the other aircraft would not exceed 150 feet. The mean full throttle heights for BS.310, JL.165 and BS.543 are 9,200 ft. in MS gear and 20,300 ft. in FS gear, but the engine of BS.543 has full throttle heights far above average. Even then, the full throttle heights of MA.648 with the injection pump are above average by 200 ft. in MS gear and 800 ft. in FS gear. The new type intake on MA.648 is expected to reduce the full throttle heights by a small amount, so these figures may be rather pessimistic. The improvement is attributed chiefly to the reduction in pressure losses occuring before the air enters the supercharger by the elimination of the choke and other obstructions of the normal carburettor. Owing to large variations in the performance of the four aircraft tested it is not possible to obtain an accurate value for the improvement in performance but the above quoted figures for increase in full throttle height give an average increase of about 3 mph. around the full throttle height. The only satisfactory way to obtain exact figures would be to repeat the tests with the normal carburettor substituted for the injection pump. When this was done on Spitfire VB W.3322 (Merln 46 S.U. Mark I injection pump), the increase in speed at full throttle was about 5 mph, and the improvement in full throttle height 1300 ft. The increase in full throttle height indicated by the present report therefore seems to be pessimistic. BS 543 report notes: The powers of the RM-9SM and the Merlin 66 engines in F.S. gear should be identical, since the high speed supercharger gear ratio is the same. It will be seen that on the climb, the performance and boost pressures were similar, within the limits of experimental error, but in level flight above the full throttle height the Merlin 66 engine was developing about 1 lb/sq.inch higher boost pressure than the 9 SM engine, with a consequent higher full throttle height and improved performance. This discrepancy must be due to variations in the manufacture of the engines and possibly of the air intakes, but it should be borne in mind that any small differences in performance of a high compression ratio supercharger or of the intake will be more noticeable at high speeds because of the increase in the dynamic head. Thus: (i) The British considered the full throttle height of BS 543 abnormal, hinting at production differences (ii) The same report also report carburrator richness problems with BS 551, but BS 543 also shows the exact same abberation, very noticable in the curves (far too good low/medium performance, sudden drop as altitude increases - mixture is too rich) (iii) BOTH BS 543 and BS 551 trials were repeated later ;) (iv) MA 648 had a new type of S.U. carburetor, which in previous trials resulted in 1300 feet improvement in FTH. (iv) Despite this, BS 543 had higher FTH than MA 648, even with the Bendix carburator. (v) Considering how much trouble carburetors gave , one just wonders if it really worth sticking to them (vi) Since several members took such an interest in this new type of intake, and claim that is was widely used in fact, we should note that MA 648 report says that: "The new type intake on MA.648 is expected to reduce the full throttle heights by a small amount" and that the FTH on the early serial production aircraft must be far too optimistic then.

I am sure someone is very confused, but its certainly not me.

Speculation (with a good measure of good will) without any evidence. If it was fitted to the "vast majority" of Spitfires, why do they call it a "new type" in MARCH 1944 as opposed to the "standard" - in addition to that the Vokes air filter was around for years by that time already on Malta Spit Vs? There is no evidence that the experimental air intake with larger dimensions and the S.U. fuel injection pump was ever fitted to operational Spitfires.