Friedrich-4B

:thumbup: It would be great to have PR missions incorporated (even if it might take years) Having PRU aircraft would add some completely new dimensions to flight sims; the only objective is to avoid aerial combat and get the photos back safely. You have no guns to defend yourself and can only rely on evading/outmanœuvering your enemy. Then there's the option of engaging in low-altitude "dicing"; for instance, the pink F.R IXs of 16 Sqn were used on low-medium altitude dicing missions; they were engaged in the pre-Market Garden sorties, when tanks and other vehicles of two Waffen SS divisions were spotted lurking around Arnhem Low altitude dicing involved avoiding enemy aircraft while flying and navigating at high speed at low altitude. Once a target is found the pilot would have to be able to take photos using the oblique camera, meaning he would have to be able to line up the target while flying past at relatively high speed, and know when to trigger the camera shutter. All the while, there's light flak to contend with. Here's an excerpt from Shores and Thomas' 2 TAF Volume 2, detailing 2 TAF's options for single-seat tactical reconnaissance aircraft:

Fortunately, that still allows plenty of scope for skins. The PRU Pink Spitfire F.R IXs of 16 Sqn are an option: Unfortunately, this pink is far too dark: While this photo renders it too light: the PRU Pink should be about this shade (illustrative); or this: The next step would be an option for the L.F Mk IXE, with larger, pointed rudder, .50 cals and slightly humped upper engine cowling; that could also be used as the basis for the L.F XVIE.

The attachment should help (also included is data on munitions colours etc) From

Not forgetting that Pilum's data is gathered from ground based tests, where the ranges were known and there were no in-flight variables to contend with. The results for the GAU-8 were gathered from air-ground attacks under combat conditions.

:thumbup: Thanks for that.

My point in providing the report on the GAU8 is that it represents the types of problems involved in determining an aircraft weapon's ballistic capabilities during combat, as opposed to data gathered from ground-based test rigs or practice ranges, where targets don't fire back - it was never a direct comparison to the Mk 108. Is that 1.5 mil based on air combat statistics, or is it based on data gathered from test rigs on the ground? (Noting that the report on the GAU8 goes on to mention that the data gathered from combat showed that the dispersion in actual combat was greater than the test figures supplied by the aircraft and weapons manufacturers.) At what ranges did the MK 108 achieve a theoretical 1.5 mil, and under what conditions?

Although this deals with a modern 30mm cannon in a modern aircraft, it gives good info on common ballistic problems when flying combat aircraft; albeit against static ground targets. (This will also be added to the A-10 manuals thread.) Incidentally, are there any reports on the MK 108's effectiveness against ground targets?

Attached is an MK 108 Handbuch dated October 1943; it doesn't give specifics on velocities or trajectories, but it is interesting nevertheless, and shows what a simple, advanced weapon the MK 108 was.

Ditto everyone else; excellent video, thanks for posting it.

Photos of three of the above K-4s from the JaPo book on the K series: Yellow 8 "Mary" of 11./JG 3: (is that Mary in the cockpit and sitting on the ground between two pilots?) White 16 ex-9./JG 3: White 1 of 9./JG 77:

Page 79 JaPo's other book on the K series: Preparing the wiring to install the MG 151/20 would have been sensible, especially considering that it was a well tried installation on Bf 109s. Presumably, wiring diagrams for the K-4 (Teil 9B: Elektrisches Bordnetz) would show whether or not the extra wiring was actually installed.

There's more than likely another reason Galland preferred the 2 20 mm cannon of the E to the single weapon of the F. The MG 151/20 didn't arrive until the F-4; until then the F's were armed with either the MG FF/M (F-1) or the 15mm MG 151 (F-2). While the 15mm ammo had a higher muzzle velocity than that of the MG 151/20, the MG 151 didn't have the destructive Minegeßpatrone shells that could be fired by the MG FF/M & MG 151/20: (from MG 151 & 151/20 weapons manual)

Mustang III PNs: stalling speed = 90 mph Flaps and Undercarriage up:

That or the Spitfire pilot can get out and push. :prop:

"Widely criticized" by whom? How credible are these critics? It's always fascinating to read "author/historian X has been widely/heavily criticised/panned"" on internet forums without any real/concrete/credible evidence being presented.

That's because the MW50 cools the engine; once the MW50 is turned off after already overheating the engine of course the engines are going to cook and die.

From Robert Bracken's: Two different events on July 2 and 3 1944: From Shores and Thomas 2 TAF volume 2; 403 Sqn's combat was on July 2: Chevers' Spitfire should have been listed as NH189 of 132Sqn which wasn't written off for future operations: NH189 LFIX CBAF M66 33MU 1-5-44 132S 15-6-44 CAC 3-7-44 453S 'FU-Z' 27-7-44 412S 17-8-44 Combat with Me109s and Fw190s on standing patrol Nijmegen 27-9-44 F/O P E Hurtubise killed

According to The Blitz Then and Now: Volume 1 SC500s were Grey-Green (RLM02) or Buff (RLM??)

Accounts differ re the K-2 and K-6; according to Prien & Rodeike no K-2s were built and there was one K-6; JaPo says one of each. The Flugzeug Profile No 5 on the G/K gives the W.Nr. 600056 for the single K-2 prototype, which first appeared at Tarnewitz at the end of September 1944

III./JG 26 used K-4s equipped with the 20mm cannon gondolas (Rüstsätze IV).

Here's a Jumo 213 Übersichtsmappe from December 1944, showing the "power-egg" installations for the likes of the Ju 88 and Ta 152:

Nice find :thumbup:

Reprise: I was sorting out my attachments page and inadvertently deleted them (a 2 o'clock in the morning thing) so here's the Jumo 213 manual December 1943:

That's good to know; what's important is consistency, rather than having one set of aircraft using super fuels while their foes are stuck with the ordinary grade. :thumbup: Water injection P-47D-30?

AFAIK the last Dallas built P-51D was taken off the assembly line and re-engined with a Packard V-1650-9A Merlin (which didn't have water injection) as the sole P-51M-1-NT; this was a demonstrator for the projected P-51M series: