Friedrich-4B

Note: the entire section, including the section titled AIRPLANE, describes the standard inspection made after each flight, regardless of an 'emergency' or the use of WEP. (NB: These extracts are from the P-51D/K Maintenance and Erection Manual)

If Galland said the MK 103 could be fitted as a motorkanone in the 109 he was definitely wrong; The MG 151/20 was 1.76 m (69.2 in) long, with a barrel length of 1.104 m (43.5 in), leaving 0.652 m (25.7 in) to be fitted into the 109's cockpit (from the Bf 109G-5/6 Weapons Manual): The MK 103 measured 2.35 m (92.5 in) long overall, with a barrel length, with muzzle brake, of 1.34 m (52.76 in): To fit even the breech mechanism and receiver's 1.02 m (40.16 in) length into the cockpit would have meant removing the control column, which might have inconvenienced the pilot. I would like to see where Galland said the MK 103 could be fitted otherwise.

:thumbup: Excellent work!!!! :notworthy:

According to the P-51D/K M & E Manual, the Detrola Model-438, aka the BC-1206, was only fitted for ferrying operations: there was an alternative version manufactured by Setchell Carlson http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/setchell_range_receiver_bc_1206.html: This is the Detrola Model-438: (from http://www.rkk-museum.ru/documents/archives/images/52b-43-01.pdf )

So that's where New Zealand's Ki-43-I got to! Dang it, first they grabbed the Ki-43, then they took the brand new NZ restored Mosquito: I say they should gift NZ their Fw 190D-13 and B-25J as a fair swap.

Not forgetting the Ki-43 I that was restored in NZ back in the 1990s...now part of the Flying Heritage Collection but not currently flying. or this Hayabusa... And here's Chino's A6M5 with a genuine Sakae; presumably the A6M2 thru A6M3 series, with their single exhaust stubs, sounded slightly different.

:smilewink:

:helpsmilie: er...er...Ki-27? G4M1?

So maybe the Ki-61 wasn't such a good example? :book:

Flight data is still needed to lay down the basic parameters for developing an accurate flight sim. I didn't necessarily mean quantity of flight data, but a range of good data is more than useful. Take a look at the thread on the DB605's sound in the K-4 section. :smilewink: Although it used a Japanese version of the DB601, the engine didn't necessarily perform in exactly the same way (albeit, possibly close enough); it was definitely less reliable on the ground in the tropical conditions prevailing in New Guinea. However, the real question is, how much accessible, high quality data is there on the Ki-61's flight qualities over its entire performance envelope, from take-off to landing? How much accessible, high quality data is there on the Ki-61's structure, equipment and armament (depending on the version being modeled)? As Pman alluded to earlier, those who are developing the programs don't have access to unlimited funding and mostly have to rely on information that is more immediately available/accessible.

Not really, because to create a program for an accurate flight sim requires a huge amount of research just to gather enough flight data to recreate the flight characteristics accurately. There's also the research needed to get the airframe, armament and equipment accurate. Sound? If that isn't right, the developers get to hear about that. Finally, comes the task of developing the program itself. Developing a computer program for well known aircraft that have the required data available (eg: P-51D, Bf 109K-4) is hard enough; developing a flight sim for an aircraft which might not have as much available information (eg: Ki-61, Ki-84, He 162) would be far more time consuming and expensive - if enough information can be found to develop an accurate flight sim in the first place. Bottom line: the developers have to work with what is available - we might want a fully developed Nakajima Ki-84 to oppose and 'balance" the P-51D, but it might never happen, because there might not be enough information to recreate a Ki-84.

Here are a couple of photos of Spitfire L.F Mk XVIEs, with clipped wings, of 421(Canadian) Sqn. based in Belgium in 1945:Note the unusual camouflage pattern on SM309 AU+H. While not Spitfire L.F Mk IXCs, 421 Sqn were equipped with Spitfire IX/XVIs right through D-Day to VE day. Many of them had the Indian chief insignia on the port lower cowling panel:

Getting slightly more radical, how about having some nighttime scenarios? Fancy flying a Beaufighter against He 111s or Ju 88s over Britain in 1941? Mosquito vs Fw 190, Me 410 or Do 217 over Britain in 1943-44? Bf 110G or He 219 against Lancaster or Halifax or Mosquito in 1944-45?

To get the DCS people to have a look, this topic should be under "Bugs and Problems"; a moderator can re-catergorise the thread for you 109K-4 Bugs and Problems

There were several variations to the engine cowlings and oil coolers of the G-10, according to which factory built it; other differences include the locations of the fuel filler and D/F loop, which were back one fuselage frame cf the K-4, and the radio hatch which was also back one fuselage frame. From Jean-Claude Mermet: Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-1 through K-4; Engine and Fittings pages 78-79:

I ask again: Crumpp do you have a definitive report or reports that prove that the Spitfire IX was longitudinally unstable? Yes/No

You have to admire the fighter pilots, especially, who flew such distances day after day, in unpredictable weather, with nothing but sea or jungle to crash into, or bail-out over, if shot down or something went wrong. Saburō Sakai's flight back to Rabaul while injured after an encounter with an SBD - epic. For gameplay, I wonder whether it would be possible to have the option to 'telescope' time to, say 20 minutes?

Dont forget the coral! I remember talking to an RNZAF ground crewman who worked on Corsairs. When they were based on coral airstrips, the prop blast during engine tests etc. was powerful enough to embed pieces of coral into any exposed skin - he was still picking bits of coral out of his legs some 30 years later.

Let's just cut the entire, laborious process of posting irrelevant reports shall we? Crumpp, do you have any definitive reports, whether from NASA or any other such organisation, proving that the Spitfire IX was longitudinally unstable: Yes/No? If you have, could you please post it or them; all anyone has to go on is your speculation/allegations - a lot of the so-called "emotionalism" would be saved if you would simply provide good evidence for your claims. Apart from that, no-one is interested in your opinions about the competence or otherwise of the British aeronautical industry during WW2, so is there any good reason why you have to continue with your crusade?

The subject of the Spitfire's "bad" flight characteristics, and the apparent inferiority of the entire British aeronautical establishment of WW2, cf the German and American equivalents, seems to be an obsession; http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=33245 http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=33245&page=94 :yawn:

Great thread, great thinking! +110%! Any thoughts about expanding the concept to (eventually) include the likes of the RNZAF and RAAF? RAAF P-40E, M, N CAC Boomerang CAC Wirriway Spitfire VC and VIII Bristol Beaufort w/ Twin Wasps etc etc... Just dreaming...

No worries; all that's happened (predictably) is that this thread has become an impromptu series of lectures dealing with how bad the entire British aero-establishment of WW2 was, compared with those of Germany and America. Apparently the majority of Britain's test pilots, RAE staff, the Air Ministry and those who designed the Spitfire were a bunch of ignorant, ill advised nincompoops who didn't know much about aerodynamics, and couldn't think their way out of a paper bag.:dunno: :helpsmilie: We should all just sit back, relax and learn. :smartass: Happy 2015! :holiday::beer::clap_2:

There is exactly one investigation (not several) into the wrinkling issue mentioned in the book; I provided the full description while several pages later M & S provide a condensed summary (below), with the serial numbers of the Spitfires tested. As it is, only one Spitfire unit, 125 Wing, is mentioned in connection with the problem. Not to mention the radical escape manœuvers, and the ways pilots trimmed, or failed to trim the Spitfire. This in an aircraft not designed to be a dive or glide bomber.

Yep, the poor old Spitfire IX just didn't have the longitudinal stability or control needed for a bomber and bent under the strain because it was so fragile. It was a sad state of affairs that an aircraft originally designed to be a short range interceptor couldn't hack it as a fighter-bomber engaged in intensive operations over hostile territory. :no_sad: (Morgan and Shacklady - Spitfire: the History)

Too right; the weather in this part of the world is fantastic and I can't be bothered wasting any more time chasing my tail over this. I have no doubts that DCS will have more reliable information than what's currently available on the internet. Thanks. You see? It isn't so hard admitting that 398 mph is short of the official figures and that the guesstimate of 390 mph for a Spitfire L.F Mk. IX is way too low, based as it is on a skewed set of figures. Well done!