Kurfürst

:thumbup:, Pman!

Personally, I think someone just mixed up the files of of the Kamov and the Kurfürst, Maj. Death. ;) Its impossible to do that in DCS with the stock K-4, unless you are taking off, and even then only for a very short period and in a much more violent manner. :D

ROFLOL :megalol:

Or how about the Mark V, the most important Spitfire variant of the war and still the most numerous at the start of 1944. But quite frankly, I would rather buy a Yak 3 or Tempest instead of the umpteenth Spitfire or 109 variant. Dreaming is free, but It all cost a lot of work and money.

Personally I found that against all logic, the simplest way to take off is the slam the throttle forward with full right rudder. Every time I tried to do things nicely with flaps and careful throttle it just made the thing skid on its side, bust its wingtips and so on...

Also the Automatic function seems to be flawed - the automatics should work (open and close the radiator flaps) to keep the coolant temperature between 85-90 degrees Celsius. In DCS K-4, they seem to attempt to keep them at much higher temperatures. See this test with 109G (if anyone knows of different radiator kinematics for the 109K, please let me know)

All the others are the low boost 1944 version, why should the Spit be an exception, for balance reason? Besides, only the Merlin 266 powered Mk. XVI was planned to use +21 but this never happened. The Mk. IX LF was +18 standard (except early 61 version, which were +15) and was tested for +25, but its doubtful if the latter was ever used in combat. Perhaps later it will be possible, the switchable contents of the mw tank in the K is a good sign. But I am looking forward to it, what matters is that we finally will have a properly modelled Spit IX, without the usual 'dumbed down' control characteristics we have seen in other sims.

Suspicios. Could be a placeholder though.

Very, VERY nice! :)

Same here.

Actually... the G-10 is even less documented than the K.

Well the taking off with the thing isn't done much easier by that bug with being unable to set manual prop pitch. The wing breaking thing is obviously a bug an being looked at and fixed. The slats seem to work odd, they seem to be (at least graphically) deployed in an instant and stay there with a delay, even after which normal Angle of Attack is restored. Also something smeells fishy about the undercarriage. It doesn't seem to damp the contact with terry firma, its almost if I would roll on fixed steel wheels. Also had odd moments of skidding almost sidewards on one undercarriage, with predictable results. I would say the damping and friction could be looked at, or its simply a problem with concrete runways. Compared to takeoff, landing seems comperatively easy.

Yes, the E had manual oil cooler control, the F-K models had it fully automatic.

True, but the guy who designed that longitudinal canopy frame in the center top of the D-9 canopy should have been fired from Focke-Wulf early on... and then maybe crucified, hanged and impaled.

I don't get this excitement with the "MW boost running out"... It simply never did in practice, since by the you'd use it up, you'd also use up the fuel tank as well, and no air combat lasts for 30 mins, all the time at full throttle... I don't get the 10 minute thing either - this was a soft limit to increase engine lifespan (same as the Mustang, in which WEP was allowed for 'only'' 5 minutes). The engine wouldn't just blow in the 6th or 11th minute - during clearance test they would run these engines for hours at max power..

It was full auto, no manual backup.

That's entirely true of course, however apart from good piloting, which is a must, you must also understand the performance envelope of both planes and to base tactics on that... yes against worser pilots that can even be skipped, but nobody can assume meeting inferior pilots all the time.

Here's a quick recap for P-51D15's and the Bf 109K-4's speed and climb rates with the boost we have for them in DCS (67" Hg and 1.8 ata) The climb chart explains quickly why the P-51D gets raped by the K-4 in climbs, turns and most energy maneuvers.. it is clear that its entirely wrong to even attempt to beat the K-4 pilot in these. The 51D was probably the best test results (others are slower) from 15 June 1945, Ohio, P-51D Airplane, AAF No. 44-15342. The aircraft had standard wing racks and 67" boost. K-4 figures are from manufacturer for multiple propeller types, the one we have in DCS (VDM 12159) is marked with red.

And the D we have is from past June 1944, so definitely not an "early vs late" plane setup, the D-9, K-4 and P-51D all saw combat in the 2nd half of 1944. There is about 2 months between the operational introduction of the P-51D and D-9 and maybe three with the K-4. They are also fairly close performance wise.

That would be the P-51B..

One Gruppe, that is one fighter wing with a nominal strenght of ca 68 aircraft (though usually much less in practice). Anyway the point was that some D9 units used C-3, even on the Eastern Front where usually they supplied B4. That may also not necessarily mean there was a more powerful variant of the Jumo 213 in them, but where there is smoke.. It may well be if would have a 8th AAF P-51D (15th AAF didnt get the 150 grade), but in the end the powers that be decided that the our prop jobs will get the lower boosted versions - we have the lower power K-4, the lower powered 51 and we will probably get the lower powered Mk.IX Spitty. You have to adjust the tactics accordingly - besides, I am not convinced that 72" boost would help the P--51D very much against the K-4. You would just have the same power (ca 1800 HP) in a much heavier aircraft and it would just open Pandora's box for everyone to ask for the "boosted" variant. And that would mean 2000 HP in the case of the K-4... given how much of a beast it is already with 'just' 1850 HP, you probably don't want that to happen. You better be off with a wingman.

No, Rüstsatz IV - 2 cm MG151/20 Gondelnwaffen (different nomenclature on 109K!)

Caldwell alleges in JG 26 war diary that the unit's K's were delivered with the R IV Gondelnwaffen.

Luftflotte 6 on the Eastern Front, March 1945. Check II./JG 6's D-9s.

Is there a way to get engine info like actual output listed during flight...? I can see that the throttle (ata) is MW 50 switch independent, which seems right. Also MW 50 only engages above 1.45ata or so, which is also right. The suspicious part is that USK has measured 20 mph or so speed difference, there can't be so much differnece at the same ata and rpm, mw-50 or not..