Kurfürst

IMHO a light bomber along the lines of the Mossie XVI or VI, Me 410 or an A-20 would be the ideal compromise for most people. The best of both worlds that neither forces to player to just fly target to others, but still possess some marginal dogfighting capability, bomb sight etc, and could make some bomber missions that are fun for everyone.

1. I believe its a fitting place for the (very rarely used) telescopic sight on 109s. 2. The K-4s controls are I believe to be the same as the Gustav's etc. Even the DCS model is closely built from Soviet and German control graphs of F-2 and 109G. It is, and was not as bad as portrayed by some games. Pretty hefty stickforce, giving you the bucket in cement feeling yes (which you can't perceive in the sim), but the plane remained maneuverable. Now, for the K-4 there were some control upgrades planned (ailerons with Flettners, these were more often seen on G series), and change of elevator gearing for the elevator for lighter forces. I believe it wasn't serialized by the war's end, since they stopped developing the K in around February 1945 and concentrated on jets, while the chief designer wanted to have both modifications 'in' together, to maintain control harmony I suppose. 3. The Revi is similar to a Red Dot or similar reflector sight. In real life you use it with both eyes open, it doesn't matter which, your brain puts together the picture and you perceive it as if the crosshair would hover in space. Its completely natural. I suppose the offset was done to keep the sight picture parallel to one dominant eye's line of vision, and hence eliminate aiming problems from conflict between how the two eyes would see it. In the game however, I guess VR just can't handle it very well. Haven't tried VR myself, but I would believe the good solution in this case would be if the Revi would be an overlay seen only by the right eye. 4. Earlier boxy canopies had a sliding side panel, the Erla style late canopy did not have this. In any case, there is a pretty hefty weight on the canopy in a form of a large slab of armor and armored glass, I guess nobody wants to be slammed on the head if the plane bumps during taxying... 5, The K-4 wasn't pressurized, and all aircraft had oxygene system. At 8000 meter there is not much oxygene outside, so just relying on one tiny cocpits worth of oxygene on a 5 hour cruise is probably not a good idea. 6. The MG 131 wasn't particularly powerful, it was a very compact gun with sufficient power to punch through armor and that's just about it. The M2 is a more potent gun ballistics wise , originating in ground based HMG that was supposed to take on things like bunkers and thinly armored early tanks in trench warfare etc. Bottomline though - both guns make cc 13 mm tiny holes in laughably thin aluminium sheets. Both bullets have laughable amounts of content in the relatively tiny bullets. Both guns are powerful enough to break anything in an aircraft. So guess it just comes down to rate of fire and better concentration of hits from the fuselage mounted MG 131s. Wing mounted guns have shotgun accuracy and the M2 is not an exception.

I thought octane discussions were banned on this board by the order of state commisariat.

25 000 feet is hardly ideal for this LF Spitfire, it has a low-medium altitude engine that best works anywhere around (or under) 16-20 000 feet. At 25 000 feet, its running out of breath (engine power). You must be thinking the HF variant or the XIV, which we do not have.

We have a historically correct planeset for the Battle of the Bulge, flying over Normandy though. The odd choice is Normandy when you already have a late Mustang and a late Dora. If you want to fly a historically correct planeset for Normandy, fly the Spitfire IX offline over it, because that is actually the only strictly historically correct plane for that map. Now. As noted before, this 'I don't like the planeset of 1944' was done through many times already. Its boring to keep getting back to it. It also will not change a bit whether you like it or not.. Please refer back to earlier posts no. 111 and no. 125 for further information and just DEAL WITH IT. In any case, DCS is not a prime choice for multiplayer yet. Not with this netcode and optimalization, where you get around HALF the fps you get offline, and not without a working DM.

I agree. I am not sure what the 'new' Mustang is going to be anyway. If (and its a big if) its the octane upgrade that was whined about so much, its just a bit of power increase. Going from cc 1700 hp to 1800 hp is not all that significant, you still have cc 4,5 ton plane vs a 3,4 ton plane with very similar engines. A new DM would mean much, much more for the Mustang and it's .50s.

I have an idea. If you think the Spit/51 is so underpowered, why don't you just fly 109/190s? Given you seem to be more interested in the relative competitiveness part than actually getting as close as possible to the experience of how yout favourite aircraft flew, that would probably work out for you and remove much of that frustration you have with the perceived lack of 'balance'.

Modelling the 1944 G-6, G-14 or G-10 or A-8 or any other aircraft is certainly possible. You 'only' need their complete flight and maintainace manuals describing their internal systems in depth and of course things like flight tests and/or estimates for the given model. Thing about the K-4 and D-9 is that, being more or less completely redesigned 'new' models they were issued with a complete set of their own parts and maintainace manuals describing every bit of tiny details, whereas the older models, being mere modifications and as such typically have nothing more issued than what is basically and amendment of older existing manuals. Same goes to all aircraft, I believe this is oddly the issue with the P-47D. Pretty common IRL, but, as I understand, the Republic archieves being more or less completely destroyed, its a bit iffy to do research on it.

IMO the 109K and the XIV are very close run affairs, which holds true still if you look at their low/high boosted incarnations, i.e. 1,8/+18 for 1944 and 1,98/+21 for 1945. The XIV is better at high altitudes (i.e. 7-8000 m and above) by the merit of its engine and large wings, the 109K is similarly slightly better at low/medium altitudes. I consider the G-14 overall superior to the IX at the +18 setting, and very similar for the +25 lbs version of 1945. Overall IMO there are tiny differences, but generally these planes have very similar climb, speed and maneuverability etc. envelope. For example, for both the rolling was considerably impaired at higher speeds, even though for different reasons. I generally prefer the 109s control characteristics though, because the controls are more balanced and more foolproof. The major advantage of the 109s is IMO lies in their operational, rather than tactical advantages. Namely, their range and endurance, ease of production and maintenance, as well as their much higher cruising speeds which is often overlooked in preference to max speeds. And of course the most important difference was that the newest 109 models were generally appearing and becoming widespread with operational units much faster than the newest Spits.

Since this notion repeatedly crawls back to discussions, there is already a separate thread addressing the issue of availability and difference in performance etc. between late 109G and K models of 1944. There is no need to spill that discussion over and over again to other threads. Short version: the G-14 would be actually a tougher costumer at these typical sub 4000 meter altitudes in DCS. Its basically lighter, marginally slower but otherwise better-at-everything 109K, with a 20mm instead of the Rainbow 108.

IF there is *any* stickforce on the elevator and ailerons in the beta Spit, that is. The rolling agility, which should be severly curtailed by aileron forces at speed suggest there isn't, and basically you would get instant, linear control input. Meaning that you can probably induce very sudden, momentary g-loads (from even a signal spike in the control input for example) that does overload the airframe and induce a wing failure. Considering that the early beta 109 did not have stickforces modelled and the beta Spits breaking behaviour is suspiciously similar to that, I strongly suspect that missing stick forces could be the culprit.

Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 Yak 3 In no particular order of preference. :)

Thing I do not see is why the 2nd P-51 cannot do the same thing instead of the Spitfire. I.e. teamwork. While he is busy shooting down the 1st P-51, his buddy can get him the sights. Using the same tactics.

AB (Abwurfbehalter - Drop Container) series bomb dispensers could contain a number of submuntions, with corresponding stencil change in designation. The number corresponds to nominal weight (i.e. 250 or 500 kg) AB 250-2 bomb containers COLOR AND MARKINGS: Khaki overall with two red stripes on tail cone: Stenciled on container for SD 1 bombs: AB 250-2 224 SD-1 Gew 215 kg (79) A (69) D Stenciled on container for SD 10 A bombs: AB 250-2 17 SD 10A (69) E (89) B The body is of mild sheet steel in two longitudinal halves hinged at the tail. It is divided into three compartments; dome-shaped nose compartment, cylindrical central compartment and cone shaped tail compartment. The nose compartment houses the fuze pocket welded to a bracket which, in turn, is welded to the upper half of the container. The two halves of the container are presumably held together by a securing nut and a shear wire which pases through an anvil in the lower half of the fuze pocket. (see illustration). The sheet steel tail of four fins, braced by two bars riveted to opposite fins, is welded to both the central cylindircal and cone-shaped tail portions of the container. The SD 1 bombs are housed in the central compartment. No packing pieces have been found. When the SD 10A bombs are carried, a three plywood or cardboard partition is inserted making two compartments. The front compartment holds eight bombs and the rear nine. The bombs are positioned by a wooden structure placed in the center of the compartments. The odd bomb at the rear is stowed within this structure. Each cluster is held by smll wooden blocks bound by two steel tapes. Possible Fillings 224 SD 1 bombs, 17 SD 10A bombs, 144 SD 2 bombs. AB 500, the nominally 500 kg version, the largest practical for single engined fighters. -SD 1, 1 kg 'mortar' anti-personnel bomblets 392 SD-1 bomblets in AB 500-1 224 SD 1 bomblets in AB 250-2 -SD 2, 2 kg, the famous'butterfly' anti-personnel bomblets -SD 10, 10 kg 'butterfly' anti-personnel fragmentation bombs 17 SD 10A in AB 250-2 container -SD 4HL, 4 kg HEAT/shaped charge anti-tank bomblets 74 bombs in AB 500-1 container, 40 bombs in AB 250 container Bombs are packed nose in tail, thus increasing fuze safety.

I start this thread to gather resources for ED to model the whole range of ordnance for the DCS Bf 109K-4 (mostly also valid for Fw 190D9 and upcoming Me 262 modules). Keep discussion to minimal, just gather and post resources.

Fabric on the ailerons, later changed to metal skinned ailerons, improving their effectiveness. However the issue caused by fabric ailerons was lack of effectiveness at high speeds, even though the manual warns again using too much force on the ailerons in dives because of twisting loads on the wings. Aircraft of the 1940s were typically designed to resist one-axis bending loads well, but not a combination of twisting loads. So if anything, the more effective metal ailerons caused more twisting overloads and had to be used sparingly in dives. Later Spitfire diving procedures explicitly advise caution when using aircraft fitted with metal ailerons. However I doubt these sort of twisting loads are modelled on any WW2 DCS model, so its probably not an issue. If the Mark I would be indeed limited to 350 mph in dive it would have been a very poor fighter, but it was not. The Mk I was already cleared to 400+ mph dive speeds (430 mpoh IIRC), the later variant's manuals did not change that much, but detailed it a bit more with corresponding Mach number. Confirmed, where, I may have missed that. Skin was mostly very thin on even the Mark IX, since the main load bearing element was the D-shaped leading edge and the main spar. In any case, dive speed limits are not imposed by 'skin thickness' and such, but aerodynamic behaviour, stability in dive. It practically does not matter how marginally thicker the very thin plating on the Spitfire is, if you encounter massive forces when you for example encounter flutter. No matter what plane, it will fall apart when this happens. Dive limit speeds have thus next to nothing to do with permissable g-load. What DOES influence permissible g-load is weight, and permissable g-loads are always referred to and valid for a specific weight, as the g-load linearly changes with more or less weight being present. So if for example the Mk Is when tested at 6200 lbs would fail at about 12 g, at Mk IX weight (7450 lbs, or cc 20% more) it would fail at 20% less load, or at 10 g, and vica versa. Presumably though the airframe was somewhat reinforced during its development to take into account of the weight creep, as was done on other designs. Its very much doubtful however that the later variants g-limits were higher, than the early versions.

Could be right. My impression that the stick forces are not modelled at all on the Spitfire. Could be violent and sudden control surface deflections imposing sudden load-peaks, even beyond to extent the Spitfire pilot could pull out of his sleeve.

AB series Cluster bombs, for example (also from K4, which in addition misses its 21 cm rockets and 20 mm gunpods too). I don't get why ED doesn't work WW2 German cluster bombs in the 250-500 kg range,having been so typical in late war bombing missions. Model it once, (re)usable on all 3 German birds... Three birds with one stone if you like.

Happily. Oh and I forgot the most obvious solution. Turbochargers. Its one straight power curve all the way to the top. No need to loose power to having to mechanically drive the supercharger. Good for fuel economy, too. Its technically the best solution. Well, mostly, unless we consider other than the engine department's point of view, as you also need half-a-ton of turbo ducting that fits only into a 6 ton plane of the size of a locomotive, and requires generous application of rare alloys so critical in wartime and the loss of engine exhaust thrust. Great for bombers though, where most of this is not an issue.

More or less. Individual machines vary and most manufacturer's are likely on the safe side to avoid... unpleasant complaints from the customer and the unfortunate end user's families. Anyway, if you have regular failures below 10 g, it means probably a similar issue that the K-4 beta head. Hence why the point of failure needs t be established, otherwise it not much of a bug report. All wings will fail at some point. Anyway, here is the page from the Spitfire II manual addressing this issue, it might prove useful for better understanding the diving and control limitations for this plane, perhaps even more so for the more forgetful who may have already seen this dozens of times, but perhaps not nearly enough, considering the denial that such Spitfire manual would have ever existed. :music_whistling:

Any road map for when having the full weapons loadout options for D9/K4? After the (otherwise very much appreciated) DM upgrade?

Not any, though it is true for most multi-speed supercharged engine's. On the DB 600 series engines (i.e. K-4) the supercharger's 2nd speed is variable and has infinite number of speed gradually increased with altitude by a hydraulic clutch, rather than fixed ratio gears, hence the supercharger always delivers roughly the same amount of air corresponding to the engine's needs. There's a slight overpressure which is throttled but otherwise you do not get anywhere near to huge engine outpit hit between supercharger speeds. Another smart solution for improving supercharger control effiency was the SZYDLOWSKI - PLANIOL supercharger, which used tilting vanes on fixed supercharger speed, however it had the limitation that it was not very suitable for very high tip speeds. It was a French design - but I believe the Jumo 213 in our D-9 follows a similar idea. Basically as I understand as opposed to the DB design (which controlled air pressure with the driving the supercharger itself at optimum speeds), the S-P supercharger effectively had an air throttle before the supercharger itself, thus preventing too much air being entering into the supercharger in the first place. The two stage Merlin (and most engines in WW2) in contrast just lets in as much air as possible into the supercharger (which runs at either of the two fixed supercharging speeds, so in effect its only operates optimally at two fixed altitude points), cools the supercharged (and very much heated) air with an intercooler and then throttles the excess air . There is much unnecessary temperature rise with air and a lot of engine power or air 'wasted' in this kind system, hence the phenomenon you encountered.

Wheter its correct or not, DCS seem to differ from all previous flight sims I have flown with when it comes to coolant temperature... it goes up and down far more quickly then I was used to. I can only guess its probably more correct though. Those systems generate an awful lot of heat, the exhangers (radiators) are fairly big and the coolant is circulated very fast in the sytem too... just guesswork, though, but what if in the model the heat exchange is happening without time considerations, i.e. cooling/heating is immidiate, rather than taking some time to take effect...? After all it takes some time to boil 70 liters of water and glykol that circulates (and cools) all the time, even if you have a cc 1000 kW boiler... same goes for cooling. Just because engine is idling and does not generate heat, the metal is still very hot.

I am not sure if its ironed out completely... with current version, if I do a negative G bunt, the engine stutters (fuel pressure is lost) like a BoB-era Hurricane, only that its not immidiate but with a couple of seconds of delaz. When leveled out, the fuel pressure comes back. I am not sure if its correct or not, surely the fuel systems have their limits, but certainlly it is a odd match with historical accounts. Perhaps its partly a control-related issue, since control forces were implemented and perhaps its only indirectly caused by the negative gs being present longer than before, due to relative control ineffectiveness. With negative G dives being the Luftwaffe's favourite escape manouvre through the war and all that. I am sure some of them would notice the caughing of the engine at the beginning of the dive.

IIRC either of the fuel pumps can handle the full fuel delivery, you have two as a sort of backup / redundancy. Odd.