Narushima

Who told you that? All of the models were named Wurger. Same way the P-51 was named the Mustang. Or do you think only the Allison engined P-51 were nicknamed the Mustang? There was no special name for radial engined 190s. Each version had it's name designated from the phonetic alphabet. Just search "fw 190 D-9 wurger" in google and see how many hits you get.

All FW 190A models from the A-4 onwards had the rear auxilary tank required for MW-50. In fact, some A-4 and A-5 with MW-50 models were used during the channel battles for combat trials. That said MW-50 was never used operationally prior to A-9 because it was not needed (C3 allowed high boost ratings). The A-9 on the other hand saw a high increase in manifold pressure, from 1.58 ata (1st gear)/ 1.65 ata (2nd gear) to 1.82 ata (both gears), which increased speed performance by 20-30 km/h. See chart: http://www.degnans.com/markd/Fw190A9_Boost.jpg Ignore the table on the top, because for some reason the 1.82 ata is not listed, but it's there on the graph. EDIT: Correction, not sure if the A-6 and A-7 had the rear fuselage tank. The A-8 most definitively had it though.

Actually, all FW 190 were named Würger. It means "Shrike" in German, and it was the nickname given to the FW 190. Some time after the name was given to them, the allies mistranslated the word into "Butcher bird". It was a honest mistake, because some Shrikes are called butcher birds in English speaking countries, due to their eating habits. The reason the D-9 was called the Dora was because of the German military phonetic alphabet. So the name Dora came from the D in D-9. The A models were called Antons. Same thing with the 109. F models were called Friedrich, G Gustav, K Kurfurst, etc... See here for entire German alphabet: EDIT: Note that some letters could have multiple names. Like the F (Frik, Friedrich) or K (Konrad, Kurfurst). You actually said "The Dora fuel seems just as complex:" So I assumed you meant that the Dora used the 801. I guess I misunderstood you?

First of all, the D-9 used the Jumo 213A engine, not the BMW 801. The Jumo ran on B4 fuel, with a small sample of engines configured to run on C3. Second of all, the text you've posted has some inaccuracies. MW-50 was never used on BMW 801D engines outside of operational trials. In 1944 an order was given to increase to manifold pressure to 1.58/1.65 ata, without the use of C3 fuel injection or MW-50 injection, which can be seen in the FW 190 A-8 manual. MW-50 was used on the BMW 801TS (used by the FW 190 A-9) engines. EDIT: Also, the BMW 801F was just a test bed engine, and it was never intended to enter full production status. Many inovations from the F series were used on operational engines, like the D-2 but mostly on the S(TS) series.

They were the same engine. The C in 605DC meant that it was a 605D configured to run on C3 fuel. So no, a 605DB could not run on C3 fuel, because if it did it would be named 605DC.

And prop aircraft have gearing as well. Or do you think the propeller spins at the same speed as the engine revs? A whole bunch of post war car engine innovations came precisely from ww2 aircraft engine developments.

The pilot didn't change RPM or MP, but throttle/thrust lever. The mechanical computer controlling the engine adjusted RPM, prop pitch, manifold pressure, etc... automatically depending on thrust lever position.

So what engine are they using now in the D-9?

Doesn't look like a FW to me. Looks like a replica with a R-2800 in the nose and fw 190 A-6/A-7 frame.

They weren't a suicide group. They were supposed to survive the ram and ditch the aircraft, only to do it again. That's why they didn't drink poison like the Kamikaze pilots, and were given reinforced planes and a parachute. And how was defending their friends and families from bombs a wrong cause? I agree with Hans-Joachim Marseille, they were probably among the bravest, if not the bravest men of WW2. EDIT: Just for clarification, in 1944/45 these people weren't fighting for an ideology or a leader, they were fighting for their people. On the east they fought so that the civilians could flee from the incoming soviet horde (and we all know what happened to those that could not escape), and on the west they were fighting to keep the bombs from falling on their cities.

Reading this, I wonder, does DCS simulate pilot fatigue? Meaning after 20 minutes of doing aileron rolls will the pilot get tired and subsequently the roll rate will drop?

Depends on the circumstances. In a dog fight I'd take the 109. It simply excels at that sort of fighting. At higher altitudes, again, the 109 is the winner. For low altitude, high speed combat (which I prefer) the 190 is the clear winner. If the 190 can stick to pure BnZ tactics and resist any temptation to bleed energy to cut corners, the 109 can never touch it. At higher speeds (400+ km/h) the 190 has better elevator authority, rolls much better, zooms much better, dives much better, and can therefore choose when to engage and disengage at will.

Well, safely, it could be used for up to 10 minutes at a time, with 5 minute breaks for cool down in between, but I'm sure there were pilots who pushed it further. Or at least engineers on the ground. Example, maximum limit for the BMW 801D at 2700 RPM/1,65 ata was 10 minutes (due to risk of overheating), but tests with this engine show that it could take far longer than that. Of 5 engines the first one died out after 45 minutes, and 3 of them made it to completion of the test in 3 hours. The Jumo 213 J was pushed to 3700RPM, and could produce a staggering 2600PS. The 213A has some leeway. The 213A could also be pushed to 2.03 ata, increasing the power out-put by 150 hp. So yeah, German engines were quite rugged and could take a punishment. American and British engines as well. Just look at what the Soviets did to the Allison when they got the P-39s. Soviet engine weren't so rugged though, with their average fighter built for 5 sorties. Japanese engines also had reliability difficulties, especially towards the end of the war.

This looks much better. And it was such a simple change.

And consumers have to do what's best for them. You know, there's such a thing as consumer rights. ED knew what they were doing when they entered into this. They gambled and they lost. But apparently, we have to pay for it. Apparently, it's the consumer that's at fault here. We were stupid to trust RRG and ED. It's all our fault. Of course, we have to look out for poor ED's profits. We should all just bend over and take it, huh?

Aye, that sound good. Especially for those that backed less than 20$, which now get absolutely nothing of value. The whole name in the manual thing is just a slap in the face. Might as well call that part of the manual "suckers that we've scammed".

Let's do some math, shall we? Let's say a person backed 30$, he was promised 5 planes but he really wanted a Spitfire and a P-47. Now all he gets is a P-51, which he has no interest in having, and a map he was promised would be free any way. He's pissed off, and wants nothing to do with ED. He sells his 30$ reward (which is identical to the 20$ one, go figure...) for 30$, and never buys another thing from ED ever again. ED has now lost 1 customer who will never buy anything from them, and 1 customer who has bought the map and the P-51 from him (assuming full prices, a total loss of profit in the range of 60 to 80$, minus the backer's pledge money). As we can see, EDs greed in this case did not save them any money, but in fact cost them some future profits.

They said they'll do their best to honour kickstarter commitments. This doesn't look like their best. Not at all. It's a cheap cop-out.

I backed 20$ to get 4 aircraft, but more specifically to get the Dora. I don't care about the P-51 and it was not a part of my reward so I don't understand why it is now. If I wanted the P-51 I would have bought it when it was on sale for 10$... I'd much rather have my promised Dora or my money refunded. And just a heads up, promising something, then going back on your word when it's inconvenient for you, is not how you retain loyal customers.

Eric Brown certainly was impressed by it, calling it the second best prop fighter of ww2. The first was the Spit XIV, but only because he was biased towards it for being British, by his own admission. It's quite obvious that the D-9 was either damaged or improperly calibrated in those tests. Same story with the FW 190 A-4 they captured. They complained about the poor aileron control and engine noise. Why? Because the ailerons needed to be carefully adjusted by ground crews (which the allies did not know) and the engine was in a serious need of an overhaul. That and the report states they only flew it for 6 hours... EDIT: Apparently, the D-9 tested was rebuilt after the war.

The comparison is flawed. The D-9 in his comparison is running at 2250PS (which may or may not have been used operationally, I'm pretty sure the DCS Dora has 2100PS). And even then the top speed and climb performance are wrong.

Even math and logic may be wrong, due to things like the simulation hypothesis. The chance might be one in a googol, but it's still there. Though that is a discussion for another thread. :) According to who? There might have been some prototypes that were faster than the K-4, but I've certainly never saw any evidence that suggest the G-10 was the fastest operational 109.

I fail to understand why this discussion is still going on. It's impossible to 100% prove whether or not the K-4 used 1,98 ata. It's impossible to prove anything completely. Historians never get the full picture, there's always something missing. The stuff they teach at school comes from small fragments of documents, archaeological findings, and secondary sources. And history is always changing as new evidence comes to light. When I was at school we were still taught that slaves built the pyramids (which we now know is not true). Keep an open mind and try not to stick to what you believe is the true history as dogma. What we can always do is assume though. If an airfield has fuel and aircraft capable of using 1,98 ata, and if the process of conversion is relatively simple, then we can assume that at least some planes flew with 1,98 ata, can't we? Especially with the state of the war as it was, when everyone knew the war was lost, so engine longevity was a non issue. You will probably never prove that the screwdriver turned, but you most definitively will never prove that it didn't.

4x10 minutes, with 5 minute cool down at reduced power in between.

He was asking whether we'll be able to change the trim on the ground. Change it something else than default.