Kurfürst

He means to say 2 Tempest Squadrons with perhaps two dozen aircraft if they are lucky and receive a full compliment of aircraft, with a 3rd struggling to get enough Tempest deliveries so operates as an odd mix of Tempest/Spitfire9 unit, and they see nada action against the Luftwaffe until October. ;)

The brief answer is none - there were several delays with the 605D series engine development - the production was to start in July, and perhaps some air frames were made, but the DB plants in Genshagen received damage in the summer and that delayed engine production. The first 15 Ks rolled out in September, from there a steady 200 were produced every month in Regensburg. Because of the delays of 605D the Germans produced several stopgap solutions for a high altitude 109, i.e. G-5/6/14/AS series from the spring of 1944, which are not too dissimilar from our K. Practically the same high altitude engine, same 1800ish max horsepower, a tad lighter but also a tad slower. Heinz Knoke's book mentions flying the first of these. These are pretty valid for Normandy. In any case, as it is now, a "proper" Normandy map would have only one aicraft flyable, the Spitfire IX, when it comes out. Even our P-51D in a variant that appeared somwhere between October 44 / March 1945...

It would seem you have made some typos/errors while complying that list Milo, for example JG 77 had 75 K-4 at the start of October 1944, and 67 on the last day of the month (8 seems to have been damaged/destroyed in accidents). I am sure these are just honest mistakes, as always. Anyways its funny to see a single K-4 Wing, III/JG 77 could muster more aircraft for operations than all the Mark XIV the RAF had. And yet we have people here on the board like Krupi and Solty who keep on with the mantra how 'rare' that bird was! It looks like to me that ED has made the wise choice by disregarding these isolated hysterics for aircraft that only saw service in insignificant, penny packet numbers and carried on with the commonplace Mark IXc at its historical +18 lbs and the K-4 and D-9.

854 to be precise, compared to about 300 Mk XIV... in about 5 Squadrons, the 1st one IICR deployed to continent in October 1944 (i.e. 12 planes) with another two or three in November and December 1944. That's less than 50 in operation in any practical range to the frontlines. Hugely significant impact compared to the cc 30 Mk IX/XVI Sqns the 2nd TAF employed there at the same time, isn't it. And, I'd like to know which units operated the K-4 on the EF in 1944.

To the first question, I would say the Opel Blitz and English sheep would definitely dominate that pie chart. More seriously, there is no escape from what is there and what is not on the late 1944 2nd TAF OOB and equipment tables. Secondly, I am curious what you would call a plane that turned up in the frontlines in the end of 1944 and never amounted to more than about 50-60 in service, i.e. the Tempest. Hell, there were more 262s around then Tempests and XIVs combined. But then, I might be wrong. Would you list to me, for my enlightenment a) number of Tempest on operational strenght during 1944 (that is, w/o reserves, no aircraft sitting in storage) b) the number of aircraft claims made by Tempest per month to see their operational significance Maybe then we can see a clearer picture of the Tempest's "significane" as a fighter plane (which doesn't change the fact that it's my fav RAF fighter at the same time).

And its perfectly historical to get the IXc. After all in everywhere but the most uninformed/biased circles everyone knows we are getting the K-4's main rival at the end of 1944, the +18 lbs Spitfire IXc and the P-51D-25. We are only missing the P-47D in fact. Now, I can perfectly understand why some would want ridiculously rare and 'uber' planes like the XIV or the Tempest that turned up in insignificant, penny packet numbers at the very end of the conflict, but luckily, the correct and historical choice was already made.

Looks like someone is conjuring up Luftwaffe numbers from his buttocks again. ;) Anyways, we have a K-4 and we will be getting a IXc and rightly so. I consider the rest the twitching of the proverbial dead horse.

The analogy with the PZL is simply flawed. Just look at the 2nd TAF's order of Battle for late 1944/45. You will see that they had like 50 % Spit IXs, 40% Typhoons, 10% being Tempest and XIVs and all the miscellinous aircraft. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the timeline and the Spitfire IX. Its was absolutely the most important, mainstay fighter of the RAF in 44/45. The backbone if you like. Just read back the thread for details, it was done to death already.

Uhm, "some", as in like 90+ % of the Spitfire force?

The only practical advantage the .50 has over the .303 is its better armor piercing capacities and perhaps better ballistics. Otherwise they just do tiny holes in thin metal sheets, with a meager incendiary effect because of the tiny charges. I'd rather have the .303s anyway on the Spit. Its 3 times the ammunition and 3 times the RoF. Once proper damage model is there, I would rather have a higher chance of fuel and radiator leaks than praying for some destruction effect of a slightly larger bullet. Apart from that, .50s are just too American on a British plane for my taste.

Two weeks be sure!!

Thx Hiromachi, so apparantly a water tank in the way doesn't do much at all the incendinary properties, expect for perhaps slowing down the projectile somewhat.

I'd rather a G-14, too. We already have the K-4, and since I tend to lump all high alt late 109s (ie. G-5/AS, G-6/AS, G-14/AS and the G-10 G/K hybrid and the K-4) in the same category, being very similar performance wise (the K being only it faster), the only logical choice would be the G-14. It would make for wonderful RHAF/15thAAF/VVS scenarious too. W/o MW it could easily pose as a stand late G-6 too, since its essentially just a very late, medium altitude G-6. It would be also hilarious to see the reaction of some more vocal members who were asking for a G-14 instead of a K-4 when they get what they asked for. :music_whistling:

DCS doesn't need artificial balance or special treats handed out to those players who whine the longest and loudest, after all its not an airquake MMO, but an accurate and detailed flight systems model, which we already have, for 67" standard boost. I don't give a fig or would like to see development resources wasted until the Spit, 262 and 47 is out, just so that some players could be more immersed in Luftwaffe trashing fantasies under some 'historic' pretext. Once decide to spend development resources to give high boost version to a single plane module, all buyers of other modules will rightfully demand the same treatment.

YA RLY my dear Solty, we had practically a G-10 and the *high-pitched complaints* was just as bad as it is now. Two weeks, yeah, right, that's good little lie, actually, it took about 3 months to fix it, after it has been found out, AND it was fixed despite the odd protests from usual suspects (including you, my dear Solty as I remember) that our 109K is perfectly fine as slow at it is, and lets just keep it that flawed state. Meanwhile after the, uhm, incessant and vocal high-pitch *complaining* finally achieved that the P-51D was even helped a bit and now it reaches the most optimistic (factory tests *caugh-caugh*) speeds ever possible for 67", so optimistic in fact that it rivals the results achieved at tests at 72". No complaints from me or others, why not have a bit optimistically modelled Mustang, if for not else than for sporting spirits, yet here you are, still complaining, that you still can't fight a plane that's only fast as you... Noooooo, nothing is ever good enough for your typical Pony rider, in no flight sim, ever in my experience, unless he can strafe perfectly lined up 109s on ground that dating from the Spanish civil war and have no fuel in them.

We had a G-10/U4 flight model for quite some time, and the voices about how much the Mustang was outclassed by that was just as strong... Thing is this. The Mustang is literally a ton heavier than the 109, and they have roughly the same amount of power available (even with 72"). Unless you get rid of that extra ton, you can't possible get the same dynamism the 109 has exactly because it has stupidly high power-to-weight ratio. Its not going to happen, it will always have this advantage, it will always be better at one on one. So do not fight on one on one, in multi-plane engagements, it solo advantages shrink to next to nothing, since you have longer ranged guns and just as fast.

And what's wrong with fighting them at 67" boost then...?

Wrong on the first account. I'd like to remind you that when the 109Ks speed was bugged in DCS a couple of months ago (20-30 km/h too slow), it was basically just an overweight and slightlly underperforming G-14. Yet I believe the complaning about our bugged DCS 109 "K" was the loudest at that point. I can't cease to remind you that if we would ever get a G-14, at these altitudes, you'd be probably worser off against it than our K-4.

So its high time people would make up their minds about throwing around these "historical" arguments and apply it both way, not only when it suits them and their favorite plane. If I would have got a penny every time I have read how deeply unhistorical the current Axis planeset over not even finished Normandy map was, I could have bought an actual original warbird already.

Right. I take that as that you solemnly swear that there will be no more complaining about 190Ds and 109Ks being present? Because that would be great. Now as for the point because you seem to missed it. You always seem to focus that historical part that suits you, but a different standard is applied when they do not. As you have said, D25s, D9s and K4s were pitted against each other, so please, let there be no more complaining from you about why you have to see late war Axis planes when flying late war Allied planes. OK? As for the 72" boost. 8th AAF used it from about the 2nd half of 1944, the other AAF formations in the MTO (15th AAF ) or in the Pacific did not. I do not see either could be incorrect even on historical grounds. I cannot see either that the P-51D was singled out for using one of the lower than historically possible boost, after all, its the same case in the 109K, it runs at 1,8 ata instead of 1,98 ata, or the upcoming Spitfire IX, which will have +18 lbs instead of +25 lbs. All of them are getting the "base" boost, regardless of what was historically possible or used or to what extend.

Indeed. A spark inside liquid itself has a harder time to ignite a flammable material, because burning will need oxygen, vapours OTOH are not only highly flammable, they are good mix for a violent reaction, i.e. explosion. Filling the fuel tank with neutral gases was thus a good practice, but AFAIK, only the Soviet La 5 series did this by directing exhaust gases into to fuel tank.

You also need a leak and we are dealing with self sealing tanks, and at least Russian testing with their own 12.7mm gun (the US M2 API was actually copied from this Soviet round, as it was better at staying effective) showed the tank on the 109G could seal up to about 3-5 hits IIRC. The older 109s btw laminated alumium armor behind the fuel tank, that pretty much rendered early US API ammo (before they copied the Russian one) ineffective in starting fires. The late ones, like the K did not have this, but they did have a rather large aluminium tank in the same place and in the bullets typical way, filled with water/methanol. The bullet had to pass through this. I wonder how passing through that liquid effected API rounds, esp. compared to the older layered alumium armor. Can an API round pass a barrel of water, AND remain effective for causing fires I wonder. So you will need plenty of hits on a fuel tank, since the first couple of holes will be likely to be self-sealed enough times, and API rounds have varying chance at igniting things, in the order of 30-50% for starting a fire. 80 rounds fired per second sounds good, but even very good shooters hit with about about 5% of the time, and poor shooters even less... that's 4 rounds hitting from a one second bursts, randomly across the plane because of the dispersion of the gun. Point is, its not easy to get enough hits on the fuel tank that is also a very tiny target from behind, so do not expect fireworks every time you hit the other guy for good. Of course, you might just get lucky from time to time and get if fired up in the first shot, but, assuming that every 4th hit randomly lands on the fuel tank, and statistically you need about 5 hits to rupture the tank for good and about 3 hits for a chance of fire with high probability, you would need to achieve about 4x(5+3)=32 hits on the target, and since that even with good shooting every 20th round will actually hit, statistically about 640 rounds need to be fired with good accuracy in about 8 seconds to achieve a statistical fuel fire. Now, the numbers can vary greatly and you might get lucky, but to bottomline - you need lots of bullets in the air to make a fuel tank fire with good probability.

The 109's drop tank just feeds its contents into the main tank, so if your main tank is always full (and on the real one, see the bubbles on the fuel feed line), you know its feeding all right. Same thing with the MW tank, it can be used for fuel, and it works the same, i.e. feeding the main tank. Just don't forget to set the switch for it on the port side to Kraftstoff, so it would feed into the main tank. When the drop tank runs out (300 liters), you are probably in time to head back to base (the 400 liter main tank should be sufficient in all cases, with a 100 liter reserve). With a drop tank and lower setting, you can fly for hours in the 109, up to 6-7 even at very low settings.

Oh wait a minute, Solty, so suddenly that we have found out that there were no P-51D-25s over Normandy at all, that mantra that you have been spouted around in every single thread about no 109Ks over Normandy is now INVALID all the sudden? Its no longer a qualifying criteria for the P-51D-25, right, because whoa, suddenly history does not apply, only if it would serve the Allied fanboys daydream about trashing 1943 planes in his overboosted 1945-ish Mustang, right? But wait a minute. Lets follow that thought. IF history no longer applies, where did the "I want my so-called historical 72" boost" go...? Yup, that's right brother, you flushed that down in the toilet as well. If history will be damned, and we are to have P-51D-25s or 109Ks or 190Ds over Normandy that never were there, explain us why we would need to run them at historical boosts of the historical 8th AAF (and only the 8th AAF).

There was no P-51D-25s over Normandy, so we should not have it in the first place, we should have a P-47D instead, and perhaps a very, very rare P-51B(eta) with the 4 jammy guns and a high alttiude V-1650-3 at 67", and without the aerdynamic fixes the D-25 received. :P