Friedrich-4B
-
Posts
709 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Friedrich-4B
-
-
Here is the maintenance manual for the General Electric CJ610 turbojet, cleverly disguised as a Jumo 004 B-1 Handbuch.
-
Merry Christmas :pilotfly:
-
1
-
-
Sorry, but :pain: .
S!
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.
-
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.
-
No...
... but it should still be accurate to it. Otherwise it is no longer simulation, but speculation.
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".
-
Why don't you put all of those in context of the conversation where I have to defend the right to choice from a few who want to be viewed taking 40% fuel as historical and a simulation.
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?
...Net_Man was a gentleman and very nicely confessed to the practice of taking reduced fuel.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).
-
A choice and a realistic load out menu is not asking for all combats to be at the same fuel state.
Right from the start Crumpp has been using prejudicial and judgmental terms such as:
In playing online there appears to be some "room for abuse"unrealistic reduction in fuel capacity. To me, this is the aerial combat simulator version of the first person shooter jumping around with his weapon on full auto.
Gamey and a big turn off that destroys the fun.
It is gamey because it introduces a culture and thinking that is not present in the thing we are trying to simulate in a study sim.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.
All of DCS is a game. People enjoy that game differently.Exactly, Crumpp should take his own advice...:music_whistling:
-
They enforce historical load outs for weapons, why not fuel?
Give us the option to enforce it.
It keeps the situation developing where we have one side spawning with drop tanks vs another section launching with greatly reduced fuel loads.
It gives the server and mission editor a universal setting to help prevent abuse.
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.
-
Hang about, has she got wing tanks then? Wasn't expecting that...
I spotted the switches in the electrical panel (on the port frame, by the seat). However, it had been my impression that the mkIX didn't possess wing tanks.
"The leading edge fuel tank was peculiar to this mark (VIII) and was not mounted on Spitfires Mk. V and IX." Quoted from:
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html/2
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):
That's for beer barrels.:pilotfly:Transferred directly to the pilot? :drunk:
-
If there is choice between the arcade slider and full tankage based on the authorized load out sheets....
The only one who is saying the slider is "arcade" like, while accusing other players of
is Crumpp.the aerial combat simulator version of the first person shooter jumping around with his weapon on full autoCrumpp 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".
Well, I can only show you facts. I cannot change your emotional beliefs.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.
-
Again, apples & oranges. It is physically impossible to put an infinite ammunition load on a real aircraft. It is entirely physically possible to put a short fuel load on a real aircraft. Not usually advisable, in real life, but it is not in the slightest unrealistic for a pilot to be able to choose to take a foolish fuel load. See?
Recommended /= possible. A high-fidelity simulator isn't supposed to let you do things that are impossible in the real thing (barring basic functionality like respawning). A high-fidelity simulator is, however, supposed to let you do things that are possible in the real thing, even if it would be a dumb idea to do it in the real thing.
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.
Couple of points:Standard tankage would offer an easy solution for such options as was actually used by the 8th USAAF for example. It became the "Fix" for plug fouling in 1945.
Wing tanks could be filled with 100/130 grade to taxi, take off, and ingress. 100/150 Grade in the wing tanks for combat, egress, and landing.
"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.
-
ok do i have this correct; there will be a DCS spitfire and a VEAO spitfire? any eta?
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?
-
You must taxi to the runway which why some of the 8th USAAF P-51 accidents occurred at take off.
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.
Unlike gamers, real aircraft operate at cruise power settings and do not fly around with the throttle fire walled.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)
-
I think I remember P-38 pilots being instructed to do this periodically when cruising, for this reason. No source at hand; sorry.
Source at hand:
-
Fouling occurred at partial throttle. Opening up the throttle cleared the plugs.
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).
-
Whether using the (by then, rather obsolate) available Mark V resources to the maximum an intentional choice (if so, outright crazy) decision or out of necessity because the Mk IX L.F. wasn't produced in sufficient numbers for the better part of 1943 (as it was the case) and/or because its Merlin 66 was still trouble plagued for the better part of 1943 at its increased boost and was too prone for failure to permit wider operational use (as it was the case) is, in the end a matter of historical interest and debate, but doesn't change a bit on the basic fact that the IX L.F. was simply wasn't an operational reality until 1944 for all practical purposes. By the the time it seen operational service that worth speaking of it was on the edge of becoming obsolete itself, since the fighters introduced parallel with it had become very considerably faster.
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)
-
Too bad for your friends, missing out on a fun plane, though this thread is for the Spitfire.
As for the variant being chosen, its pretty much set in stone now, its not changing. I would like to see more variants of all of them in the future, but for now, this is where we are at.
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?
-
The Air Ministry disagrees with this notion. Force as of 1st January 1944:
Spitfire V - 24 Squadrons
Spitfire VII - 2 Squadrons
Spitfire IXF - 11 Squadrons
Spitfire IXHF - none
Spitfire IXLF - 9 Squadrons
Spitfire XII - 2 Squadrons
Spitfire XIV - none, one Squadron (610) re-equipping
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:
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....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.)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:
-
Define early. The Mark IX LF with Merlin 66 did not see mass operational deployment until spring 1944, when Squadrons began to swtich to it from the Mk V en masse. The early 1944 Spitfire would be the Mk V, actually.
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.)
The Mk IX LF at +18 lbs became by far the most numerous Spitfire Mark in most 1944. So I do not see whats wrong with the choice of having the Nine.: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)
:pain: .
DCS: Me 262 Discussion (Development on hold currently)
in Western Europe 1944-1945
Posted
And, to keep the ball rolling from 5tuka's post, attached is the complementary article on the Me 262's airframe, plus an article on Anselm Franz, designer of the Jumo 004