Kurfürst

It seems reasonable. Removing one wing removes a lot of unneccesary drag, while burning off surplus fuel does wonders to flying weight and thus, induced drag. Therefore it should fly faster, since thrust remains the same.

It is easily possible to overload the Spitfire with the elevators alone by exceeding cc. 10 g. Its manual explicitely warns against that. What g-loads do you record when the wing fails?

Additionally fuel manual pump does not work here, fuel pressure remains the same so engine wont start..

Check if they open at 105 celsius. Thats the historical control value.

I do not see a bug detailed anywhere. Unless provided, thread is redundant and can be closed or moved to the offtopic/general section.

No, its just that that you have a serious problem reading understanding documents, hence why your brain runs into insurmountable obstacles in telling apart the difference between 'numbers for XIVe' in service in squadrons and numbers for aircraft (both XIV and XIVe, although the latter did not exist yet at the time) reported by No. 41 Squadron in another paper.Really, that's the problem. You have serious issues understanding written text. Its called, I believe, functional illiteracy. Again, I can't help you with your PEBCAK issues, I would just like to point out that the document clearly gives separate settings for DB (1.8ata) and DC (1.98ata) engine configurations. Otherwise it merely lists amended (reduced, because of B-4 fuel quality issues) settings for the DB, while stating that DC engines will keep their original settings and no change is needed as C-3 (required for 1.98ata rating) is available in uncompromising quality for use.

I do agree, very much so, but that's the job of the dogfight server admins, not ED's isn't it. ED's job IMO is to pump out as many correctly modeled planes as possible. In as many configurations as possible... with complete loadouts, multiple fuel and 'boost' choices... oh we can dream. Especially as I see DCS as more of an offline sim... and offline users just wanting to have the fullest possible experience with their favorite aircraft(s) shouldn't be penalized due players with multiplayer preference who OTOH wish for a balanced and fun experience on the servers.. like I said, MP server hosts can solve that with planesets, limited number of spawns, better planes taking off from distant bases etc.

What about them, Krupi, tell me. BTW the 2nd one actually states very clearly 1.98ata for use again. I never ceased to be amazed how much Mike Williams like to shoot himself in the leg with the documents he puts up on his site. :megalol: Probably he does not even understands what is in them. If he would do, he would certainly pull them off... like he used to do with the other documents. ;) Long story short the rating was released and used in December 1944 but was recalled by Rechlin because they though that it wasn't properly tested first operationally, which they did perform with a combat unit's G-14s, G-10s and K-4s, II/JG 11 in February 1945 without much of an issue, and re-released it for service in March 1945. The technical settings used on the engine are listed in the 2nd technical instruction you posted. Basically it says the DC engines (i.e. 1.98ata settings) can be used without any modifications required. And here is the order (OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45), that tells 4 Wings (4x4=16 Squadrons) from JG 27 and JG 53 in the West to reconfigure their engines to 1.98ata manifold pressure. http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/605D_clearance198.html Roughly at the same time the 2nd TAF begins receiving 150 grade fuel and resetting Mark IXs to +25 lbs BTW. We know that one Canadian Wing, No 126 actually done that, albeit they had some serious technical difficulties with the fuel (engines stopping mid air after takeoff, probably due to plug fouling).

It refers back in past tense to past events, i.e. that "DB adds that a good test basis had existed for the clearance and specifies the course of the completed test runs on a list in detail. It should also be noted that 1.98 ata have been released in the corresponding TAGL at the same time as the clearance of the 1.8 ata manifold pressure." I.e. the 1.98 ata rating was cleared for the DB 605DB/DC in the 1st December 1944, 3rd edition of the 605D engine manual (" 'Entwurf einer vorläufigen Motorenkarte 9 - 605 DB u. DC, Ausgabe C, Stand: 1. Dezember 1944'"), and to qoute verbatim the previous document, at the same time as 1.8ata rating for the same engine in DB configuration. The relevant page scanned from the 1st December 1944 DB 605DB/DC manual: Which was, to qoute again verbatim the document "...seitens des Technisches Aussendienst diese Leistungen direkt der Truppe angeboten wurden und die Motoren umgestellt werden...." or in English '...these outputs were on the behalf of the Technical Service promulgated directly to the troops and the engines were converted...". Crystal clear, isn't it. Name those Mark IX Squadrons then. Operating on 150 octane fuel. In 1944. Now as for the fantasies of wwiiaircraftperformance on 150 octane fuel. Who cares, really. Their own documentation do not support their claims. They also claim that 1.98ata did not see service... then, as in an absurd comedy they link the 'evidence' to that, the very document that I just qouted and which says in clear terms ''...these outputs were on the behalf of the Technical Service promulgated directly to the troops and the engines were converted...". :megalol: Same with 150 octane. Those '16 Squadrons' are a mix of Mosquitoes, Mustangs, Tempests, the four XIV Squadrons, ... and the 2 (two) Mark IX Squadrons (Nos 1 and 165) involved in operational trials for half a year and which were almost immediately pulled from diver operations as they lacked the low level performance of Tempests and Mustangs to catch the V-1s. They used to post the +25 lbs trial curves for the XIV as evidence that +25 was cleared for the Griffon, only that the same doc also states that the engine failed after 2 minutes on that boost and had to be replaced, while subsequent documents, even those from September 1945 all unequivocally state that the Griffon is facing main bearing troubles and at best, +21 lbs is the maximum permissible.

Really. Indeed, most prominently by Mustangs, 190s and 109s though.

Well, DCS seems to model all our planes in their late 1944, most typical configuration. We have a late P-51D-25 or D-30 block with metal control surfaces, K-14 gunsight, tail warning radar and fuselage fin added. This corresponds to a configuration that appeared somewhere between October 1944 and March 1945. The only, IMO valid issue is if should get the raised 72" boost with 100/150 grade fuel that would correspond specifically to it's 8th AAF Fighter Command configuration at the time (9th AAF, 15th AAF, Far east units still used the same 67" we have modelled). Similarly our Dora and Kurfürst are in their cc. 1944 October-November configuration, i.e. the K-4 is the 1.8ata boost version instead of the 1.98ata one. There is nothing wrong with the current IX's so-called 'mid-late 1943' configuration, because its really the same as the 'mid-late 1944' configuration, i.e. +18 lbs boost with some smaller improvements and modifications to the airframe. The actual 'mid-1943' configuration for the Mk IXLF is that it doesn't exist in the first place and everyone would be flying the Mk Vs which were the most common Spits at the time, with a handful of IXLFs in service. They did not appear in greater numbers in service until about April-May 1944... and 100/150 octane fuel was not released for operational use until about February-March 1945, and its open to question how common it was even then. Same goes to VEAO's ultra-rare and ultra-rare war XIVe config with teardrop canopy and +21 boost. These all appeared in the srping of 1945 by which time you should also see improvements like increased engine powers to German planes as well. So even if the playing field is not 'level', it corresponds accurately (except for the missing 8th AAF config for the Mustang) to the late 1944 configuration of these planes. IF they want to model a Mark IXLF in its very late war configuration with 100/150 octane fuel and +25 lbs, I am sure the same standards should apply to Germans planes, i.e. you should also see a 109K in its very late war configuration, i.e. the one with 2000 HP engine output.

Your Tempest and XIV production figures also contain post VE day production, I see, whereas the German planes production ran only up to Don't loose too much hair over it Krupi, it's just how it worked everywhere. Nobody was deploying 100% of the aircraft produced to the frontline. You need to keep reserves to replace losses. You need to pull back units from the front-line when re-arming them with a new type so that pilots can train and familiarize themselves with the new planes. New planes and engines need to be flown in as well, their quirks like misadjustments worked out, just like with new cars. And you loose quite a few in the meantime, in accidents and in combat. Hence why you see about 314 K-4s on the frontlines, with units out of the cc 1100 produced by the end of January 1945. Hence why you see only about 120 XIVs (or about 70 operational really, because the RAF kept almost the same number of planes in reserves that directly allocated to Squadrons) out the cc. 300 produced by the end of 1944. In short, its pretty normal.

Number of Spitfire Mark XIVe assigned to Squadrons, compiled by JV69badatflyski from Spitfire aircraft records. I can't even fathom the reaction from those who keep on claiming how those cc 3500 K-4s and D9s shouldn't be in DCS, because they were 'rare'. :megalol:

Two flights of 4 planes in No. 610 Sqn... this should put the XIV's operational role in context - number assigned in 1944. Note that the RAF's fighter Squadrons contained 20 aircraft at the time, with 12 flying and the rest being immidiate reserve aircraft. Graph data was compiled by JV69badatflyski. Number of Mk XIVs issued to Squadrons.

Yak 3, yumm yumm.

It has a slower top speed by about 20-25 km/h, but that's about it. OTOH its lighter a bit, so its a marginally better climber and turner and it has an easier to use 20mm cannon instead of the 30 mm elephant gun of the 109K. It always amuses me when people are asking for G-14s though. Since at the typical DCS alttiudes (below 4000), its actually does better than the 109K in all but speed. Bottomline, the differences are quite marginal. With MW, all of them had about 1800 HP at low altitudes (or if you compere later ones, all had 2000, with engine upgrades). In practical terms, you have two kind of 109s in the 1944 scenario, medium altitude ones, "109 L.F." if you like (G-6/G-14) and high altitude types (G-14/AS, G-10 and K-4) with the latter really having very similar power and performance curves and only really 'better' than the former group about 6000 m and above. The K-4 is mostly just prettier and sleeker than the rest of them, but it's ain't that a big difference. Its also the heaviest of the bunch, not by much but for example compared to the G-14, its noticable. IMO you would not want to fly against a G-14 instead of the K-4 in these altitudes in DCS.

The switch is a manual override for testing. Otherwise the Spit radiators ar automatic only. So yeah, eo not touch it. It will open at 115 celsius.

The Spit IX is much slower (by about 40-50 mph) than all three other prop jobs so it cannot pick its fights, and cannot exit if its loosing... I think that was what Clostermann described as being "powerless". But its also probably the best turning of them all three... soo... if it drags you down for a dogfight, you still probably gonna loose against it. Thats the only golden rule you have to keep in mind, although I think the 109K will be quite close on its heels even in turn. Minding these two basic rules I myself usually just ignored them in past sims, presumably much to their frustration and hit them when they werent looking... Spit pilots love to chase their own tail in a furball so there are plenty of opportunities to shoot but no second chances when the MK 108 starts singing - and connects.. and if anything goes wrong, just dive out and then zoom. Spit cannot follow that. Then come around once he gave up the futile attempt to catch you.

Best release trailer so far.. absolutely splendid! :thumbup:

Well technically speaking, the highest data set measured was for 760 km/h TAS. As I said, they did tests up to 760 km/h TAS. The rest could be calculated, they have like 20 tables for various roll characteristics like stick force per deflection, aileron effectiveness per deflection, reversal speeds etc. etc. Like everybody else did BTW. Thats what math is for. Copernicus have not been space, now has he, yet he came up with all sort of extrapolations how our Solar system looks like. As if he seen it. What a load of rubbish, aint it, we should believe him until he goes out and personally measures this stuff with a centimeter. While standing on the surface of the Sun. For accurate measurements.

I am not so surprised, its pretty consistent with every account (for example, Morgan's report in 1940 for the 109E, or Southwood's comments on the 109G Black Six) I wrote, they all praise the 109 for having the 'right' control for anywhere between 200 and 300 mph IAS. Its just that the controls are well matched, you have the right amount of control movements, right amount of matching forces between the elevator and ailerons, and a nice linear force curve. Resulting in that the aircraft could be flown precisely to the edge and thus the pilot finding that utilizing its maneuverability close to the maximum possible is relatively easy. The Spit is another matter.. lets just say the good part about its controls is that that the elevator stick forces and very light and require little physical effort from the pilot, and that there's ample stall warning. The rest can be read from its manuals and flight test reports. :music_whistling:

At last. Yes, the control forces were high. But David's video shows they are pretty absurdly high in DCS. Full stick back only possible at 210 km/h IAS...? Come on. The elevator forces/deflection achieved with may be right though and it may very well be that our virtual pilot is just a virtual clone of Woody Allen and he can't even cope with those forces reasonably occurring, even at low speeds. Ultimately the deflection doesn't matter, since its the effect of the deflection we are after. Since even though you can pull less control surface deflection at high speed, the maneuvering effort for effect (pulling gs) will be roughly similar across the range. Stick force per g. I.e. you achieve less deflection at high speed, but more Gs per deflection angle. And as your table shows, with 65 lbs force, which is far from the impossible for any healthy human being, you ought to pull a 4 g turn in a 109. If you can't do that, something is fishy. As for the Spit. If my hunch is right, and indeed our virtual pilot (who I assume is the same in all cocpit) can only make very low forces, Spit pilots will be in trouble in the roll department (not the elevator department, obviously), because aileron forces on the Spit were huge. We are talking about 24 lbs for 8.5 degrees aileron deflection (i.e. roughly 1/4) at 300 mph IAS, and 71 lbs for 10 degrees aileron deflection at 400 mph IAS. Now everything so far indicates that our virtual pilot cannot use more than about 17 lbs side force for the ailerons.. on any plane. It just doesn't show right now, because the Mustang has very light aileron forces, and so does the 190.

Krupi, the table you posted compares the elevator forces of the Spit and 109. Not the ailerons. You don't 'pull' 1 g, 2g, 3g with the ailerons either. Neither do ailerons contribute to 'positive dynamic stability'. If you disagree, I'd like to see a video of you pulling those 4 gs with the 109s ailerons. Now that would be a sight to behold. Now, can we please go back to 109. Roll characteristics. And aileron control. In DCS.

Sticks force per g... for ailerons. Right.