Friedrich-4B

The article quoted isn't worth bothering with for serious research. That aside, it's interesting to read Hugh Dowding's admonishment to his Fighter Command pilots during the battle of Britain, regarding the use of +12lbs WEP: use it, but be careful and don't abuse it is the main message.

From: Plus there was a weapons handbuch 8A Schußwaffenanlage for the K-4 describing the Flügelgondelbewaffnung MG 151:

Indeed the Spitfire V could be considered; counting those in frontline service in the Mediterranean, S.E Asia and with the RAAF and the USSR, it was the most numerous variant still in service in early 1944, albeit it was being rapidly superseded by VIIIs and IXs. In 2 TAF not so much; eg: strength returns, 15 November 1943 show only 5 Spitfire V squadrons in operational, frontline service vs 20 Spitfire IX There were numerous 2 TAF squadrons, either in training or resting and re-equipping on rear-echelon airfields, that were still equipped with the MK V, but they hardly count as being fully operational or taking part in frontline duties, unless one wishes to be churlish. As it is, by D-Day the Spitfire L.F. Mk IX was by far the predominant variant in 2 TAF and ADGB service. Then there are those who would still like to buy well modeled Spitfire or 109 variants: if the money can be found, and the aviation enthusiasts in ED who develop the models have the time, there's no reason not to follow dreams of Spitfires, 109s, Yak 3s, Tempests or F4Us or Ki-84s.

Phew! It would take a while to develop every option for the Spitfire IX alone - but why not? Other options could include the enlarged, pointed rudder, Merlin 70 series (H.F Mk. IX), Packard Merlin 266 (including the later, slightly bulged upper engine cowling) etc. And after the Spitfire IX and Thunderbolt? Roll on the Hawker Tempest V! :pilotfly:

If Kurfurst actually bothered reading Ron's post it doesn't say anything of the sort: AFAIK there's nothing wrong with asking that ED create a +25lb Spitfire IX for future scenarios; judging by how they've handled other projects, Ed are likely to have more info about the Merlin's power settings than is available to most of us. Whether or not an individual forum member doubts +25 lbs was ever used should, thankfully, have no bearing on ED's choices. Anyway, with the Spitfire IX pending, here's some colour/markings info from Shores & Thomas' excellent 2 TAF Volume 4: arguably, one of the most famous Spitfire IX pilots and one of his mounts:

Yep, he's one Tough Hombre...

I don't think the DCS P-51D is modeling a specific block number, because it has features from at least two production blocks: ED's P-51D products site, for example, mentions "fabric-covered elevator and rudder control surfaces", indicative of up to early -20NA -25NT, yet it can also be armed with HVARs on zero-length pylons, typical of -25s & 30s. No doubt the same thing happened with real P-51Ds as they were overhauled. Attached is a PDF file on the P-51D's armament and gun-sights (from the P-51D/K Maintenance & Erection manual):

+1. From the P-51D & K Training Manual:

Or you could sack the ground crew and requisition new personnel...

Had you actually been involved in that conversation waay back in August (some 500 posts and 50 pages back), or followed the thread somewhat more carefully, you would have realised that I wasn't the only one raising any "ballistics issues" with the Mk 108. As it is my response is still the same as it was then: Perhaps it would be better to open another thread and discuss it with other participants who were raising "ballistics issues" of the MK 108, rather than further disrupting a thread that has moved on from there? As it is I do have the relevant handbuchs on the MK 108 etc, thanks very much.

Having ten + ten minutes of WEP was probably nice to have, but hardly essential. Looking through lots of combat reports from NW Europe in 1944, the average fight was over in less than a minute.* Extended use of WEP would have been handy when trying to catch a fast flying opponent, or trying to get away from a persistent pursuer. *Albeit, in flight sims combat might take a lot longer, but, then again, WEP isn't much use in turning dogfights.

Never thought about 30's Luftwaffe pilots learning to fly on gliders, but it makes sense. Good one! :thumbup:

What was the SOP for the flare gun for 109 pilots? AFAIK it was normally attached to their flight overalls or life-jacket, so it may well have been up to individual pilots as to whether or not it was permanently attached to the flare chute during operations.

From Jean-Claude Mermet Messerschmitt Bf 109G-1 through K-4 Engines and Fittings The power ratings are wrong in that Mermet should have used PS, not hp as the unit - 1 PS = 0.9863 hp, thus the ratings are: 2,000 PS = 1,973 hp (rounded up) 1,850 PS = 1,825 hp (rounded up) 1,800 PS = 1,775 hp 1,600 PS = 1,578 hp 1,430 PS = 1,410 hp 1,370 PS = 1,351 hp 1,285 PS = 1,267 hp 1,160 PS = 1,144 hp 1,120 PS = 1,105 hp (rounded up) 1,100 PS = 1,085 hp (rounded up)

Just looking at this, no flaps for take-off, radiator shutters open https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnpC_BcK7xY Here's a vid on cockpit procedure; pity the lighting isn't better! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Sz5t-m9IOE

Note the highly provisional statements about or It is highly doubtful that the "special treatments" were ever adopted on the production lines at Regensburg, considering the poor construction standards that prevailed: eg; from Nest of Eagles . More often than not, the units receiving the new-built K-4s had to spend a great deal of time just rectifying mechanical faults and/or sabotage, let alone wasting even more time trying to apply special finishes. As it is, there was only enough fuel for a 15 minute flight test. Plus, the MK 108s suffered from jams because of poorly insulated fuses. What we can expect, from the data provided by ED, is a well maintained, reasonably well finished, K-4 running at 1.8 ata. http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/kurfurst/

Interesting. One possibility is that the wider flap setting wasn't needed because the 109 was no longer operating in extremely hot climates (eg: Nth Africa, the Russian Steppes)? Another is that the cooling system had been developed enough not require larger openings.

Yep, 109s against F-16s - it was a short campaign. Good to know the K-4 will be available soon.

The photo of Pingel's F-2 shows the end of the flare chute was closed or plugged, suggesting that the pilot probably wore the pistol on his flight overalls until needed. If the chute stayed open, it would have been like a small wind tunnel, directing a high-speed blast into the cockpit.

It looks like the opening could be covered, probably doped fabric(?): G-6 showing circular patch over flare port: With this K-4 it almost looks like there was a semi-circular fairing over the opening? Whereas on this G-14 and K-4 the ports were uncovered

No way it was a Mauser - the December 1944 K-4 Handbuch says quite clearly it was 45 Halterung für Leuchtpistole [mounting for flarepistol] see attached cockpit diagram. AFAIK Luftwaffe pilots carried their own flare pistols The butt of the flare pistol can be seen under the strap on the lifejacket: The flares could be strapped to the boots Or in pockets on the leg:

Add another big +1

Best thing for ED to do is to give a time frame, rather than a specific date, which would reduce frustration on both sides. As it is, delays should always be expected when it comes to developing new computer programs; even if the developers have plenty of experience with similar programs, there's no guarantee that there won't be problems sticking to proposed schedules, particularly if there are other programs that need to be sorted. :juggle: Best thing to do, while waiting for a favourite aircraft to emerge is relax - fretting about exactly when things are going to happen and putting pressure on (possibly) overworked developers doesn't help anyone and just makes people and mods (:smilewink:) tetchy. :joystick: :badmood:

Apart from the fantastic gunnery, what's the backing track? My lovely GF has offered to buy me a copy of DCS's Dora or Mustang, for Xmas, plus she wants me to train her to fly an advanced flight sim. Looking at this footage, and others in the thread, I've got a long ways to go to become even 1/3rd as good, and I have no idea where I'm going to find the spare time to be a trainee, and train at the same time. It'll be fun when I find the time. :joystick: :pilotfly:

Thanks guys, good info. What are the comparative distances for full throttle plus brakes, vs slow and smooth?