Friedrich-4B

Merry Christmas :pilotfly:

Yeah, I know the SS was :crazy::censored: ; nevertheless that was Wittmann's rank at the time. As it is, he and his crew were later killed by a Canadian crewed Sherman Firefly. https://ospreypublishing.com/sherman-firefly-vs-tiger-pb

Tiger I, the legendary SS-Obersturmführer Michael Wittmann, Battle of Villers Bocage

Attached: Me 262 A-1 & A-2 handbook Teil 6 & 7 effective September 1944, Issued January 1945

Attached are the cockpit illustrations and fuel flow diagrams from A.P. 1565 I, P & L Pilot's Notes for Spitfire IX, XI & XVI.

That should also include the airfield conditions and normal hazards faced by genuine WW 2 pilots when taking off or landing: Dust (lots of it on Normandy's airfields) Mud Ice and slush Snow The models we fly haven't been put through the stresses and strains of flying off front-line airfields, getting covered in dust or mud as they take-off, or being serviced in the open with no shelter. We have the luxury of flying fully serviced, spotlessly clean, well maintained aircraft off dust and mud free tarmac runways, without needing someone on the wing to direct us because the taxi strips are narrow and visibility limited. We don't face the hazards of landing on soft, possibly water-logged or snow-bound airstrips whilst exhausted after facing air-to-air combat. The point being, there's still a long, long way to go before DCS will be truly, historically accurate and not merely "speculative".

Who exactly was Crumpp having to "defend" himself against, when he started this thread by complaining that those who don't follow the same "rules" as he does are abusing the game, jumping around like first-person shooters and destroying the fun of it for serious-minded folk such as himself? From this it would seem that Net_Man is one of those first person shooters who are abusing the game and destroying the fun of it...thus engendering this poll (even if he was a gentleman about it and confessed his guilt, like some poor first person sinner/gamer).

Right from the start Crumpp has been using prejudicial and judgmental terms such as: all because some people choose to use less fuel; as already mentioned, such things happened in real life air-to-air combat. Crumpp should just get over it and stop labeling what other people choose to do with their DCS aircraft as being "abuse", "gamey" or whatever. Exactly, Crumpp should take his own advice...:music_whistling:

What's been missed in all this, is that in real life, during WW2, fighters with full fuel tanks encountered fighters with low fuel all the time; eg: Battle of Britain: How often did RAF fighters with almost full tanks encounter Bf 109Es with tanks at 40% or lower? Same thing over France 1941-'44: How many Luftwaffe fighters with full tanks encountered RAF fighters with low fuel? 1943-44: How many USAAF fighters with low fuel encountered Luftwaffe fighters with full tanks? Claiming that it's an "abuse" of this flight sim to use low fuel loads is as farcical as B of B era RAF pilots complaining they got shot down because the opposing 109s had a low fuel load. Instead of seeing it as an "abuse" of a so-called "study sim", there's no reason why Crumpp shouldn't see this as an educational opportunity/challenge; learning how to beat opposing fighters using a low fuel load while flying a fighter with full tanks. Real life pilots had to handle the situation all the time.

I'll have to check, but those switches are probably a modern addition to a restored IX - the Spitfire VII/VIII had a "Fuel transfer valve selector lever" (55) on the lower instrument panel - the fuel in the wing tanks was transferred to the main top fuel tank, rather than the engine being run directly from those tanks. (Thumbnails From A.P 1565 G & H Spitfire Mark VII/Mark VIII Pilot's Notes issued in December 1943): Transferred directly to the pilot? :drunk:

The only one who is saying the slider is "arcade" like, while accusing other players of is Crumpp. Crumpp has yet to explain how many/what percentage of people are "exploiting" the sim by using very low fuel loads, thus turning it into a so-called arcade game. So far, no-one else has complained about DCS's slider, no-one else has called into question what a small number of other players might choose to do, nor have the DCS developers seen the use of a slider as being an "issue". The only one who seems to be getting emotional about this non-issue is Crumpp, who seems to regard other players as somehow being "cheats", with no evidence provided.

If players choose to use lighter fuel loads, that's their right/problem; expecting ED to add yet more features to the sim, when there are more important things to be concerned about, will simply slow down the development process. "Standard tankage" had nothing to do with fixing plug fouling, nor did the 8th AF ever use the option of 100/130 Grade to taxi, take off, and ingress, 100/150 Grade in the wing tanks for combat, egress, and landing. It was 100/150 Grade or nothing for all operations from June 1944.

DCS Spitfire L.F. Mk. IX; VEAO Spitfire F. Mk XIVE.

Just noting that the reason the headspace was checked by the pilot before each flight was because normally the weapons were removed and cleaned each day, regardless of whether or not they had been used, or after every mission: (from) And, of course adjusting the headspace occurred each time the .50 was assembled: That the pilot was supposed to check the headspace before flight was no reflection on the reliability of the .50 cal Browning, it was simply part of the daily routine of keeping the weapon cleaned.

The Rolls-Royce Merlin 66 from A.P. 1590 P, S & U Merlin 66, 67, 70, 71, 76, 77 & 85 Maintenance Manual

Just for interest, the P-51D's exhaust stacks were made of stainless steel. Is it possible that this contributes to the popping and crackling at idle?

Naturally some 8th AF Mustangs crashed at take-off, which is one of the trickiest parts of flying. In DCS one normally doesn't keep the engine idling for ages while waiting for other aircraft to take-off, which is when lead fouling could became a problem in real life. Full take-off power normally cleared any fouling that occurred while taxiing. Nor do gamers cruise at low power for hours, such that lead fouling becomes a problem if the pilot forgets to run the engine at high power to clear the plugs...:music_whistling: Anyway just for interest, here are some notes on exhaust flame patterns from the Service Instructions for the V-1650-3, -7 and Merlin 68 & 69 And the Merlin 66/67/70/71/76/85 Maintenance Manual A.P. 1590 P S & U (1944)

Source at hand:

As described in this 8th AF Tech Op memorandum, lead fouling on the V-1650-7 using 100/150 grade only became serious if the lead accumulation was left for too long, or if the engine was allowed to idle for too long while waiting for take-off or the pilot didn't use full power on take-off. As it is, if the pilot followed the instructions on take-off, plug fouling only became evident after a couple of hours of cruising at low power, something that's not likely to happen with the DCS Mustang (should an option to use 100/150 grade be made available); if a DCS player chooses to cruise for (say) seven hours, the plugs can be cleared by running at high power for a couple of minutes after every two hours. Also, spark-plug life would be irrelevant for the DCS P-51D and the Spitfire L.F. Mk. IX, because the engines are factory fresh at the start of every flight (DCS has very efficient ground crew).

Phew! :blink: Judging by the breathless jumble of words, this is someone who wouldn't contemplate for a nano-second buying that horrible, obsolescent clunker of a Spitfire L.F. Mk. IX and that nasty, chronically unreliable Merlin 66, even if it is being modelled by DCS. That's just too bad, 'cos it should be a fun ride...8)

Is there a possibility that the Spitfire L.F. Mk. IXC we're now getting will have the options of bombs and/or a drop tank, or is that yet to be decided?

First question is So What? What does it "prove" that the RAF chose to use the Spitfire V as a transition aircraft to allow RAF squadrons to rest and re-equip on rear-echelon airfields? What it does show is that the RAF was using its available resources to the maximum. As it is, Kurfurst should read what I wrote: Thus, the majority of the Spitfire Vs in Britain were transitional aircraft only, being rotated from one squadron to the next as the frontline Spitfire IX units were rested and re-equipped over the winter of 1943-44 (at a time when front line operations were limited by winter weather). Another problem with Kurfurst's 'point' (what ever it is) is that the list doesn't show whether any of the the squadrons listed as Spitfire V units already had some Spitfire IXs on strength as of Jan 1 1944. Here's a more accurate picture: Anyway, the apparent strength of the Spitfire V vs IX population in January 1944 has little to do with the DCS Spitfire L.F. Mk IX of D-Day and later. :smilewink:

Correction; Starting from August 1943 for the first operational deployments of the L.F Mk. IX, beginning with MH350, MH708, & etc etc etc. What Kurfurst counts as Mk V British-based squadrons in early 1944 were mostly squadrons of 2 TAF that had been using Mk IXs operationally in 1943, then were "rested" while flying Mk Vs on rear-echelon airfields pending re-equipment with new L.F Mk. IXs, or Tempests, Typhoons or Mustang IIIs. The first so-called en masse operational deployments of the L.F. Mk. IX occurred in January-February 1944, after several squadrons had re-equipped. On November 15 1943, for example, 2 TAF had 17 Spitfire Mk. IX squadrons and 5 Spitfire V units; most of the latter were "resting" prior to re-equipping with L.F Mk IXs or other aircraft types: an early 1944 example of the rotational process, where squadrons were rested after operations and traded Mk IXs for Mk Vs, while 2 squadrons using Mk Vs were brought up to operational strength using IXs; with the addition of 453(RAAF) Sqn. plus the three Czech squadrons of 134 Airfield, the relative Spitfire IX vs V strength remained about the same: Thus, Kurfurst's assertion that Mk Vs were the Spitfires of early 1944 is completely wrong, particularly in the frontline units of 2 TAF. (Albeit, he may be right when counting operational and non-operational squadrons combined.) :thumbup: 2 TAF on June 5 1944: The only units using Mk Vs were 6 Air Spotting squadrons of the RAF, FAA and USN. (all pages from 2nd Tactical Airforce Volume One: Spartan to Normandy June 1943 to June 1944 Christopher Shores and Chris Thomas)

:lol: What a shame Kurfurst didn't read all of the cited material properly, instead of conveniently overlooking Harvey-Bailey's comments and favouring just five tests, carried out using two Merlin 66s. Once again; the tests favoured by Kurfurst were carried out from mid-1942 to early 1943 and, as Harvey-Bailey noted, the problems with the Merlin 66s pistons (and with the crankcase) were systematically resolved by Rolls-Royce as they arose.

Actually, DCS is modelling a Spitfire L.F. Mk. IXC with the Merlin 66 - Mk IXb was simply an unofficial designation given to the L.F Mk. IX by the RAF's pilots when it first entered service. (Hopefully, if ED has access to The Fighter Collection's pilots, it will lay to rest any myths about the "longitudinal instability" of the Mk IX so beloved of certain members of this forum.) Maybe we'll get an option for a IXE wing, seeing as so many L.F Mk. IXEs were operational by D-Day.