Kurfürst

You are perfectly wrong as a matter of fact. And 190A4 for 44/45? :lol: Pleaaase....

Speaking of jet thrust, what kind of thrust is modelled in DCS WW2? Propeller thrust obiviously, but besides exhaust thrust? coolant/oil radiator thrust?

Good question, I would need to check manual..

550 HP / ton vs 392 HP / ton at works...

It is also for unjamming the canon (repeat loading process)

I can simulate a poorly trained LW pilot struggling to take off in a late-war K-4 or D-9 very realistically, LOL. On the serious note, if they do a Buchon making a G-2 would be relatively easy, since there is already a 605 engine model for the FM, you just need to run it on less boost and adjust weight and 3d model as well. An F-4 would be just a tad more difficult, since its very much like the G-2, both in engine (605A being a very close, up-bored derivative of the 601E). A G-10 would not be hard either (most internal systems being the same as on the K-4), but I am not sure what's the point, given that since we have now the K-4 model with the 109G drag, we have exactly that, a G-10. 109E is kinda tricky though, since the engine has significant differences, as is the 3d model and major aerodynamic components like the wing. Its well documented though.

Engine flaming was not a random reliability problem, it was an operating problem - the Jumo 004 blades did not tolerate too fast throttle movement (heat shock?), so you had to be careful with the throttle. The old Il-2 series modelled this quite nicely BTW. IIRC the later Me 262 series cured that with an automatic throttle regulator, but this only cut in above 6000 (or 8000) rpm, so at startup you had to be careful and had to avoid complete throttle backs, but in general high regime flight it was okay (automatic).

There is no pilot, its a calculated climb rate. The little hook is simply the power spike of the engine, the output is 1850 PS at sea level but it increases a little after that. The climb rate just reflects the output characteristics of the engine.

Yoyo already has that paper in full. Its some 40 pages...

I don't care how fast the 51 flies. I want to fly a correctly modelled 109K. That's why I bought the module, at full price to support devs who will give us a correct, deep model. As far as I am concerned, the 51 could fly 2 Mach I do not care.

Here all the tests used to establish drag figures are listed in the same docement. http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_Leistungzusammenstellung/Leistungzusammenstellung109G.html#testdetails Main wheel well doors test is no. 3

3400 KG, ie. 100% guns and fuel full power and MW WEP on (1.8ata manifold pressure, 2800 rpm) Radiators roughly 2/3s open up to 6-7 km. Above rated altitude (7500) coolant radiators gradually closing, reaching 1/4 open at ceiling (probably could be done on AUTO?) This is the condition the figures on the chart represent. Climb at roughly 270 kph IAS.

Here is the historical Messerschmitt curves for the variant we have - K-4 with DB 605DB at 1,8ata / 2800 rpm (1850 PS)- see first, thick continous line. http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/Leist_109K_EN.html

They are obtained from real life flight test. Wheel well drag from multiple tests (I even have picture of aircraft - a true xmas tree with sand filter, gondolas, new engine cover etc. - all attached at once!). I am 99% sure the tailwheel drag figures come from flight test in that table since I was able to track back all the other figures to real life flight tests. 3400 kg GW is a bit much for fully loaded G-2... weight was 3037 kg with ammo and fuel. Otherwise Finnish figures match Soviet [ame]http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109G_Soviet/109G_NIIVVS_1944.pdf[/ame] and Rechlin trials http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_Rechlinkennblatt/R_G1_Datenblatt.jpg quite nicely, except for the first 2500 meter, where Finns admitted of having the radiators closed. Finn trials were conducted At airfield : Atmospheric pressure = 747,6 mm Hg Temperature = +11,2° C Atmospheric pressure measured with onboard manifold pressure gauge = = 1,018 ata Read trial, that is why I link ;) Also pay attention to notes of pilot. Notes of pilot: "At 2500m coolant radiator flaps open fully for the first time. After that varying between open and closed position. Above 5500m manifold pressure dropping during climb. Practical ceiling 10 500m. Climbs were executed with greater than optimal climbing speed, in order to improve cooling. Opening of the radiator flaps noticably decreases the rate of climb." They climbed at 300 kph instead of 260-270. Now as to effect of radiator flaps on climb, German trials of w. G-6 WNr 16550 in June 1944 showed climb influence of radiator opening from 360 mm closing to 180 mm is already +1,7 m/sec... Full closed radiators is something like 40 mm. So full open to full closed there must be considerably gain, much more than +/- 1 m/sec. Good! :thumbup: So basically now we have G-10 instead of the K-4. So I suppose all model needs to be done is to shave off -0,0540 m2 drag for the long tailwheel and -0,0265 m2 for the main wheels, and voila! Its a K-4.

Finnish MT 215 (G-2 w. non/retractable tailwheel) was fully loaded - climb results match other at 1.3ata above ca 2500m. Finns note radiator was operated automatically but thermostat begun opening in at ca 2000m - better climb rates almost certainly result from radiator flaps being in minimum drag (near closed) position at start of climb. English translation of results available at http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_MT215/109G2_MT215_en.html Point of interest from test notes: Notes of pilot: At 2500m coolant radiator flaps open fully for the first time. After that varying between open and closed position.

This is also good, the more detailed figures are from the LZSTG 109G document, which has summary of drag items and the pure drag "cost" of speed (and also: drag is expressed decrease of flat plate are in sq m - here: http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_Leistungzusammenstellung/Leistungzusammenstellung109G.html#dragitems_table No. 19 (wheel well covers, this comes from real life drag installation test in G-6 in 1943), 20 and 21 (short and long tail wheel cost when fully out) are of interest, since those are main changed from G-/AS to K airframe (larger streamlined motor cover already the same). The speed difference in these tables are understood for "standard 109G" speeds at SL (which is 510 km/h, they assumed late G-1 with non-retractable tailwheel, very likely based on WkNr 14 026 tests of August 1942), so at higher speeds the change is slightly different. But for this reason the change in equivalent drag plate area is also expressed in m2 so calculation for greater (or lower) speed should be easy. Regarding tailwheel - document you posted compares possible speed gain to 1/2 retracted to fully retracted tailwheel (F and early G standard). Should be different from difference between fully retracted vs short/long extracted tail-wheel (tables I posted) 19 Fahrwerk Restabdeckung (main wheel well covers) -0,0265 m2 Δ[Fcw] +10 km/h of sea level speed 20 Ausgefahrener Sporn (lowered tailwheel) +0,0350 m2 Δ[Fcw] -12 km/h of sea level speed 21 Erhöhter ausgefahrener Sporn (tall tailwheel, lowered) +0,0540 m2 Δ[Fcw] -17 km/h of sea level speed The LZSGT 109G document gives drag effects for Sea Level; doc you mentioned probably gives range of speed change figures for SL and higher altitudes. Yes I figured out that you probably used 1,3ata throttle then set prop via manual to 2600 to get same rpm as in G-5/AS test. In any case, main point - 109K cannot be the same fast as G-5/AS at the same power, you know why, K is is cleaner aircraft by significant margin, and difference in speed expressed in these drag tables accurately - ca. 27 km/h faster than G at same power. This is 109G with ASM and 1800 PS / 1.7 ata. Real life test. I do get that, but this isn't reason to chop off 30 km/h from the speed of the aircraft... perhaps other aspect of model needs tuning. Climb figures standard were usually understood for radiators being more open (ca 2/3s, 220-250 mm) than in speed.. so I can think of increased drag from radiator needed, or perhaps the missing part is the radiator jet exhaust thrust being lower at greater radiator opening. But I do not wish to take your job. :p

568 km/h for 1,8 ATA K-4 is simply wrong by ca. 30 km/h. If you assume that the power and drag of G-5/AS and K-4 were the same then its clear where the error in the model lies - the drag of the K-4 was significantly lower due to improvements: (a) main wheel well covers: +10 km/h, (b) reatractable, covered tailwheel: +17 km/h. See Leistungzusammenstelkung 109G of January 1944. In short, K-4 had less drag than G-5/AS tested. If you add this missing +10+17 = 27 km/h of drag you get exactly 595 km/h. :) Furthermore 109K 30-min rating speed were also greater because power was significantly greater of 605DB (1,45ata/2600 rpm - 1430 PS) then on 605AS (1,3 ata/2600 - 1240 PS).

Couple of points: 1. The Graph on Mike Williams site has transcription errors, it shows the data for the K-6 intstead of the K-4 2. The original German 109K speed graph show both the thin bladed 12199 propellor and the standard (serial production) wide chord 12159. The latter is shown by the thin continuous line 3. The German 109K charts are calculated references, essentially prepeared to show the improvements with the new 199 propellor compared to the the existing 159 prop. YoYo made calculations and said that the he concluded that that exhaust thrust was probably not factored in the calculated climb rates on the German charts, hence in real life conditions the climb rate is very likely to exceed the calculated figures. 4. German level speed charts assumed the radiator flaps 3/4 closed, or about 50 mm wide radiator exit width. Be sure to use that in tests as it greatly effects speed (up to 50 km/h difference) 5, The K-4 in DCS is modelled as the 1,8ata DB 605DB version with 1850 PS at SL, as this was probably the most common version in 1944, and which, according to the German charts (5026/27) should do 595 km/h at SL and 715 (710 km/h after Mach corrections) at 7500 m.

Its hard to vote for anything else when there is the Tiger II on that list, its such an elegantly brutal design (even if historical relevance to Normandy is close to nil). Although I would be very happy with something fraction of a size, like a Puma (oh boy that would be something fun!) or a clunky but dependable Pz IV, or a Cromwell... I suppose because its somewhere between a Pz IV and a Puma.

Drag has two components, parasite drag (roughly the base drag of the airframe compontents, depending on air resistance) and induced drag (which is largely dependent on the AoA of the airplane). At low speeds and high speeds, these two drag components have different effect, in very basic terms, parasite drag component dominates total drag in high speed flight, induced drag component in low speed flight, such as climb (since at low speed, to maintain enough lift you have to increase the "attitude" of the aircraft, i.e. the angle of attack). The weight, size, the wing area (roughly total lift, but lift coefficient can "cheat" there) - power (thrust) - weight relations (wing loading, power loading, surface/power) can produce different qualities for an aircraft that ultimately decide if its fast in level flight, dive, or climbs well. Greater excess power of course will improve all of these, but usually at the expense of increased weight, which will again take away from it, i.e. likely to increase the AoA needed, that is, induced drag. Speed and climb speed characteristics will mainly depend on how parasite drag and induced drag relate to each other at high/low speed... they add up, parasite drag is always there but induced drag is minimal in high speed flight, but a major component in low speed flight. For example an aircraft with low parasite drag but moderate induced drag will be very fast, but mediocre in climb rate. Back on topic, Willy M essentially aimed for maximum power, minimum parasite drag (small and clean airframe and wing area) and moderate induced drag. The latter was achieved with small wings (increase induced drag) combined with a light airframe (reduce induced drag), also helped out by high lift devices that only add drag when needed, i.e. hard turns and landings (slats and flaps). Yakovlev followed a similar route, albeit he made even cleaner and lighter aircraft, but this was somewhat offset by the lacked powerful engines.

Too rich mixture and/or contrails simulation perhaps...?

Counteract nose heaviness from deploying flaps?

There is no easy answer to this. Historically, the P-51D was gradually introduced from June 1944 to ETO, when a lot of leftover G-6s were still around, and so were many P-38s and P-47s. The D Mustang was the brand new plane that was just getting introduced to combat, at the same time as the G-14 and G-14/AS (high alt version with roughly similar performance characteristics to the K-4, albeit a bit slower due to higher drag). G-6 production was being stopped at the time in favor of the two G-14 models, both which were a stop-gap measure and essentially, G-6s with the latest mods already in existence, the two most important being the MW 50 boost being standard and the new high altitude DB 605 AS in the altitude variant. Maybe this helps: So yup, a P-51D would most likely meet, at least in mid 1944, a G-6, the old and still most numerous 109. It might meet some of the latest modifications of the G-6, with MW-50, AS engine, or both of these, since these were also already around. A G-6 pilot would, however most likely meet a P-47D or a P-51B - not a P-51D, which was just making its appearance in the first USAAF Fighter Groups. What to make of that - quite simply that G-6 and P-51D encounters were atypical at the time, because there were few of the latter around. If we want to have typical scenarios so that human players would meet the likely opponents, P-51D pilots should keep meeting G-6s, and G-6 pilots... P-47Ds or P-51Bs. This is impossible, of course, without having 51Bs in DCS, and that is very unlikely to happen. The P-51D of course was produced in large numbers, and become increasingly prevelent later during 1944/45, replacing P-47s and P-38s and partly replacing the early P-51B/C, but at the same time the same happened in the LW when G-6s were also being replaced by later models. Later in 1944, a P-51 D pilot might meet a G-14, a G-14/AS, a G-10 or a K-4 (and I tend handle these latter 3 together, as they were all high altitude, methanol boosted 109s with very similar performance and engines, while the G-14 was the low-medium altitude variant) with roughly equal chance and of course it might bumble into the remaining G-6s. In timeline, the candidates would be the G-14 and G-14/AS, produced from about the same period and seeing wider use starting from July 1944, parallel to the P-51D. I am just not sure about whether this would make more even combat. The G-14 was pretty strong at low alt, having the same 1800 HP as our low-boosted K-4, but with a propeller better for low altitude. I'd say it would climb and turn even better than our K, up to about 4-5000 meters, where most of the combat happens. So I am not sure Pony pilots would have it easier with that one. G-14/AS is also an option, performance envelope is pretty much the same as the K-4, only about 20 km/h slower, but again about 100 kg lighter, and has the same power, and also good at altitude, and somewhat poorer than the G-14 at lower altitudes. Better than the K-4 in some aspects, worser in speed, but still maybe like 10 km/h slower than the D. And I doubt that Pony pilots complain about the speed of the 109K the most. The headaches actually stem from the sickeningly high power to weight ratio of the 109K, but that will only get worse if you replace it with the even lighter late 109Gs. If you have some kind of balance like this in your mind (slower, but better turner and climber 109 than the 51), you probably narrow it down to the G-14. BUT. Even the G-14 does around 570 kph on the deck, which I believe is pretty close to the DCS 51D... so then we are pretty much at what you wrote, a maybe 1% slower 109 - that climbs and turns even better than our K-4, the only damning feature being that it runs out of steam quickly above 5000 meters where the Pony will be superior. But 5000+ meters is where most combat sim pilots rarely venture. The only 109 that was around and significantly slower than the P-51D was the G-6, but like I said that encounter was increasingly atypical since the G-6 was just phased out of production when the P-51D entered operations. Like I said many times earlier, I just don't get the fetish of getting a late G series instead of the K-4. IMO having a G-14 instead of the K-4 would be even uglier for you, Pony pilots, without the attraction of having to fly the penultimate development of the 109 for us, 109 pilots, with all the shiny cocpit and looks, and not just anoooother Gustav cocpit. The K-4 is a bit overhyped in sims and boards, just like the Ta 152H. The thing was just a refined 109 with a high altitude engine slapped into it, but since there were many interim types introduced before it, its not all that different from those in the performance aspect. Unless we speak of the later 2000 HP variants (which again wasn't K-exclusive, the G-14/AS and G-10 also had this rating), the only difference is the stock MK 108 and that its a little bit faster because of its more streamlined airframe.

I wonder why someone wants a G-6 from early 1943, when the P-51D wasn't available until about July 1944 (three months after the MW boost G-5/AS with near identical performance to our K-4 btw), same month the MW boosted G-14 appeared and just the same 3 months before 109K went on operations. IOWs, a plane that met the P-51D on a regular basis and came three entire months later, just like the P-51D itself came after the G-5/AS(M), yeah, that so grossly unfair, yet stomping G-6s from 15 months earlier isn't. If you ask for the four gunned, razorback, basic boost P-51B I would get it. These things coincided and fought G-6s in the decisive first months of 1944. But yeah, Mustang Stomping Fest Fantasies and Allied Über Boost is a re-occurring theme from Allied pilots on all combat sim forums in my experience. Speaking of P-51Ds and Normandy. How many of those were above Normandy, hmm? How many Fighter Groups in England were equipped with P-51Ds in June 1944? Wiki says (I know...) even by V-E day, half the Mustangs in Europe were still B/C versions.

Well, yes, the same way as the Mark IX is just a renamed Mark V, right?