Friedrich-4B

Now why doesn't that surprise me? Having a 410 to fly? Priceless! :pilotfly:

AFAIK the Me 410 didn't fly over the eastern front in any numbers, apart from the odd recce version. However, the Hungarian built Me 210Ca-1s were used against the Russians That said, an Me 410 would be a good choice; there were lots of armament variations, including the BK 5 50mm, MK 108s, MK 103s, WGr 21s, etc.

How about Pe-2 or Tu-2 for Russia; Ju 88 or Hs 129 for Germany?

For interest, here are two articles on the ME 262's structural details and engines; they were first published in Aviation magazine in the U.S in October and November 1945. Note that there is a small amount of propaganda in the first article, where the pilots are called Nazis and "little Führers", but mostly these are straightforward engineering appraisals. Also attached is an article on Anselm Franz who designed the Junkers Jumo 004. Plus, here is an original Luftwaffe training film with an English translation of the narrative. NB: This was made by Erprobungskommando 262 based at Lechfield from April-September 1944. The instructor is likely to be the unit's commander, Hptm Werner Thierfelder, who was KIA in the 262 on 18 July 1944; the trainee may well be OberLeutnant Günther Wegmann, who was later on Kdo Nowotny then III./JG 7, chalking up 8 victories on the 262. The following is an excerpt from a program on the 262 that features Bob Strobell, who flew 262's for "Watson's Whizzers", and British test pilot Eric Brown.

AFAIK, Crumpp has absolutely no say in what types of documents other forum members can post.

It should be obvious that these NACA reports also have intrinsic historical value, regardless of whatever value ED's developer's may find in them (no doubt, as Yo Yo has indicated, they have more than enough relevant, current information to replicate propeller & slipstream effects), and that other forum members might find them interesting, if not useful. I'll continue to post such documents and let the forum decide. :smilewink:

Sir, you have excelled yourself. :notworthy:

There are lots of wartime NACA reports on how propellers affected flight characteristics; here's a 1943 vintage report, plus a shorter version, published in 1945:

Crumpp is coming even later "into the conversation", so this red-herring has very little to do with anything. Since when did I link "this behaviour as "typical" of this design?" I said that pilots probably used other, similar methods of evasion, using the Fw 190's good aileron control and roll rate. Again, no such statement about a "violent stall" from me, so why bring it up twice, except as an opportunity to indulge in some condescending comments and a needless lecture?

As Kwiatek has pointed out, pilots often didn't remember exactly what they did with the controls, so it may very well be that there were variations in exactly how Fw 190s evaded their pursuers and/or counterattacked. What Eric & Yo Yo is describing is one variation, there were probably others that used the 190's excellent aileron control and rate of roll as a basis.

Was the R4M so named because it would put the wind up anyone at the receiving end? (quick exit stage right...:pilotfly: )

Definitely nasty. And snap rolls were also prohibited, because even attempting a snap roll would lead straight into a power-on spin. Come to think of it, there weren't many WW 2 fighters in which high-speed snap rolls could be performed safely; P-40s could execute snap rolls at <140 mph; perhaps some of the Japanese or Italian fighters?

AFAIK a wing dropped and, if the pilot kept pulling back on the stick, the P-51 fell into a spiral dive. According to the P-51D Pilot Training Manual, as soon as the pilot released the controls, the nose dropped and the Mustang recovered from the stall almost instantly (see attachment).

I wish! :no: What I do have is friends, particularly in the Northern hemisphere, with whom I can trade documents, plus there are websites such as Luftwaffe Cockpits, Avialogs, etc. All excellent resources.

Attached is an original German document on the R4M installation for Fw 190As & Ds and Ta 152s:

Now for the weapons; attached are a Handbuch for the MK 108 and 2 documents dealing with the R4M, plus a plan of the R4M launcher.

Really interesting; thanks for that. :thumbup::pilotfly:

Yes and no: Erprobungskommando means Operational Test Unit - Smith & Creek call it an Experimental Operational Unit - so the aircraft were meant to be used operationally against enemy aircraft, while sorting out any problems that showed up and/or devising tactics. Strictly speaking, 616 Sqn was also an operational test unit for the first few months on the Meteor; it was the only squadron to use the Meteor I and it also was used to help work out the bugs of the aircraft, and devise operational tactics. That's the best way I can put it, others might be able to explain things better.

According to Smith & Creek http://www.amazon.com/262-Volume-Two-Richard-Smith/dp/0952686732, the first Me 262 reached the first operational/trials unit Erprobungskommando (EKdo) 262 on 19 April 1944; the first operational sorties seem to have taken place around mid-July: Hptm. Thierfelder was KIA 18 July while on a sortie against American bombers, and a 544 Sqn PR Mosquito flown by Flt Lt Wall was intercepted on 25 July. According to Shacklady http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Gloster-Meteor-Aircraft-monographs/dp/B0000CLKKP , the first Meteor I, EE219, reached 616 Sqn on 12 July 1944, with the first operational sorties on 27 July (anti-V 1). So, by the look of the info I have, the 262 entered service about 3 months before the Meteor, but beat it into its first operational sorties by only a matter of a couple of weeks - so far I cannot find an exact date for the 262's first operations against enemy aircraft.

I didn't forget the R4Ms, it's rather that I catergorise them as a "Europe 1945" weapon. Nevertheless, they were a significant addition to the Luftwaffe's armoury and are worth having. Some good info can be found in Luftwaffe Cockpit's website goto R - Rockets of the Luftwaffe - Luftwaffe R4M "Orkan" - there are some original documents posted.

Looking forward to a future project. Two jet engines, 2 or 4 x 30mm cannon mit mineshells and (maybe) a couple of bombs? What's not to like about the Me 262? Anyway, here are some primary source documents to peruse: (via Avialogs [first two] and Zenos Warbirds

In fact, according to Bodie's Republic's P-47 Thunderbolt, and other sources, the first P-47s factory fitted with the dorsal fillets were the -40-RAs. Was also fitted to P-47D-30's..... Photos show there was little consistency as to which of the pre- -40-RA 'bubble-top' P-47s were retro-fitted with dorsal fillets; the same thing has been noted about P-47Ms ( http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2313379&postcount=226 ) P-47D-30-RA without dorsal fillet: D-30-RA with: It'll be interesting to see whether Ed's D-30 has the fillet.

Adding some more T.Os and a P-51D & K Parts Catalog:

Attached are Pilot's Notes for the Spitfire IX, XI and XVI, albeit from 1946:

Some more Technical Orders (T.Os) issued in 1944 & '45 dealt with the P-51D's armament and flight limitations with the fuselage fuel tank. Armament Modification P-51D, issued in January 1945, reduced the ammunition capacity of the inner wing guns from 490 rpg to 400 rpg.