Kurfürst

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_mil#Metric_Mil-dot_formula

The GAU 8 is not really comparable to the MK 108, as its a radically different setup (multiple barrels, extremely powerful round and obscene rate of fire) which greatly contributes to that its accuracy (dispersion) is much worse at 5+ mils, as given by the report. Of course the GAU just literally obliterates any target with the sheer amount of rounds fired - it very much works like a huge shotgun firing #000 DU shots. The MK 108 is, in contrast, a rather accurate weapons system (with dispersion ca. 1,5 mils IIRC) that fires fewer shells with much lower muzzle velocity and is meant for air targets. I suppose there is not much of a point firing its HE and Incendiary rounds at anything else than similarly flimsily built unarmored ground targets, though hitting a truck, an open topped half-track or gun position with the equivalent of 10 hand grenades per second sounds effective. For everything else, there is MasterCard and/or the MK 103, a very different beast meant for the K-10 variant, despite the comparable ballistics performance GAU 8, with a dispersion of 2 mils but only about 1/10th of the rate of fire.

Relative to the target, yes, but ballistics of the shell - no. A shell fired at 500 m/sec from a plane travelling at 200 m/sec will have a velocity of 700 m/sec, or so.

Ballistics table for MK 108 Minengeschoss, Type A. I believe there were other developments for the same ammo, with more pointed noses than the blunt nosed Ausf. A, which retained muzzle velocity much better, however I am not sure if these were developments only or were used in regular service as well. Note that velocity will also effected by air density (altitude!) and aircraft speed (100-200 m/s is added to the speed of the projectile) as well.

11th - if you manage shred that 109/190 despite all this, it won't bring back flashy gun camera footage back to base to be shown weekly on Hitler Channel... the dead tell no tales, same thing with victory reports, only those guys make those who suceeded and survived to tell about it.

Quite a recoil!

So whats the difference between a Rockwell Commander and a Heinkel 111? Because curiously, the two can have rather similar wingloading and powerloading. That and of course the RC is quite a bit slower.

You say that a virtual pilot shouldn't be able to do something a real life pilot won't be willing to do. But there is no logical or physical connection between the two whatsoever. Ok, lets try to use a picture then to illustrate it...

So which one is it?

Low probability of success and the lack of any chance of success are not the same things. And how many real world pilots would like to risk a manouver that works perfectly well, say 8 out of 10 times..?

Well if you can have both... ;)

Thanks for the quick aero lesson BitMaster! :)

Thanks YoYo! Out of curiousity, what defines max roll rate? I understand what assists it, but what gives the limit, i.e. what stops the airplane from rolling even faster when it reaches to max rolling angular speed? Air resistance of wings themselves that is from the wings moving perpendicular to the rolling plane, or some lift equilibrium (since roll is from changed lift, negative and positive of the two wings from aileron displacement as I understan) I cannot seem to figure out...

Ah, the He 111 issue. The roll may be off, but lacking data, I can't tell. Size however nothing to do with it, except inertial moments and structural load limits. Apart from that, its all relative to the other numbers. But aside from these, I think what many people miss in those hotly discusses BOS videos is how ridiculusly low the He 111 wing loading can get, especially with lighter load. Go check it out. One would need to crunch numbers, of course, but such low wingloading should assist looping ability. Its not all about power loading - yes, power loading can be used to overcome aerodynamic limits, and even a brick will fly with enough thrust. A low wing loading plane will however require less thrust to manouvre, including in loops, at lower speeds. If you can build up enough speed, I don't see problem. And by decreasing weight - this varies a lot more on a bomber than on a fighter - even thrust-to-weight ratio isn't all that poor either. IRL use of course pointless to the extent of being dangerous, but theoretically, doing loops in a 111 does not seem to be impossible.

Fantastic video DB605, thank you very much for sharing! Its great to see Rote 7 is back in business again. Also the quality of the video is fantastic, especially the audio recording. Its head and shoulders above anything else, and the sound of the DB engine is a blast, as always.

I am almost certain that it reads "Klappen-Ausshlag auf 220 m/m begrenzt", m/m being for milimeters and meaning that the radiator flap opening is limited to 220mm wide. That's roughly 2/3s of the max opening (350 mm) of the 109G As to cause of this note or solution, I can only guess this was to limit drag. I have seen the 220mm max opening on some original drawings for 109K, and I can guess that perhaps the original 350 mm radiator opening was excessive and found unneccesary. Perhaps it means that this note refers to the implementation/installation of an improved radiator with optimized flow ("verbesserter Kühlerdurchlauf"), that mentioned in 1945 January performance calculation for improved propellers. http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026-17_conditions.jpg Another possibility is that IIRC the 605D engines fitted to the 109K-4/G-10 had increased temperature limits, which the radiator could maintain at 220 mm max opening. The K-4 may have sported a new radiator type of 36 sq. decimeters area, though there are some who doubt this and maintain that it used the same as 109G series. Opening the radiator fully came with considerable drag, so limiting their maximum opening would also limit drag rise. See this drag chart for January 1944 for 109G

Sounds interesting, I was somewhat sceptical about these 2cm K-4s, even from the venerable dr. Prien. If that is true, I would be surprised if there would be more than a handful. While technically it must have possible, I have seen no trace of it in original documentation. Even the K-2 sheets I have show MK 108. So any chance of seeing these Werknummer blocks?

It could mount 20mm gondolas though. It would need be checked if the firing scheme could be altered during flight, iirc it could be but I would not say it for sure before checking the manuals. In any case there were two fire triggers and iirc the default setup was fuselage (108+131s) guns mapped for the MG muttons and and wing guns (2cm cannon) on the cannon button.

No-one, of course, but its worth noting that the 1.4ish cl figures for the 109E thrown around by some refer to the exact same condition - power at idle. Pretty pointless excercise IMO, as CLmax figures vary with g-load etc. as well, so a CLmax figure referring to "dirty" landing (ie. flaps /gears down, power off, 1g) flight regime won't get you an inch closer to estimate turn rate at multiple g-s, power max etc, ie the flight regime of turning... ;)

Yes, the UV light was used to light the flourescent gauges in the cocpit. UV lights were used beacause they wouldn't blind the pilot in the darkness compared to traditional bright lighting, and also because they would not to give away the position of the fighters in night operations. (for this reason, night fighters used special toned-down tracers, exhaust flame hiders etc.)

Just some random picture of a guy testing electricity in the 109G cocpit, but I abolsutely love it. Hundreds of other nice 109 pictures at to kill time until November :)

You still seem to be confused. I only use this and this nickname only on all discussion boards, and of course for my site. In contrast, you run several nicknames like Pilum and Holtzauge and others, because they seem to get worn out rather quickly. Oh, I see, you are trying to drag me into a fight. Sorry, not interested. As for DCS, I believe they have all the relevant documentation already, including all the documents you have referred to. I have provided what assistance I could provide for them, just as I did when I am approached or asked to do so with other combat flight sims, researchers or magazines etc. I ask nothing in return and I do that as my spare time permits. It does not concern me if you get frustrated by that, and/or by the general disinterest in C++ based guesstimates. I am also fully confident in DCS's ability to correctly interpret that documentation. In my opinion, they have a most impartial, professional team with utmost respect to historical accuracy and true dedication for very detailed modelling.

In fact all of your posts on this board are about fighting Hummingbird with hot puffs of smoke about the Clmax figures. If you're confused or paranoid about who is being who, let me help you out - you argue with Hummingbird, and that's and not me. So kindly stop intentionally mixing me up with someone else. Be assured and rejoice, DCS already have the relevant documentation on this and other subjects.

Yak 3 FTW! :)

Honestly, the only whine I can see as probable will be about the firepower given that planes in DCS tend to soak up hits... seeing the number of rounds required from 2cm/.50cal to down a fighter, I have some reservations for the MK 108s effectiveness in DCS.