Friedrich-4B

Its very simple really - no Modification number (mod) from Supermarine means no such modification; it was the SOP, which anyone who understands by-the-book procedure should know well This particular barrow of the Mk IX's so-called longitudinal instability has been pushed many times by the same person, both here and in plenty of other forums. :yawn::sleep: It's a bust.

Yep, the claim that Mk IXs were routinely fitted with enlarged tailplanes post-war is erroneous, with absolutely no evidence provided. Tests of an enlarged tailplane on one or two Mk IXs took place at Farnborough in July 1946, partly to compensate for the rear fuselage tank fitted into some late Mk IXs and late Mk XVIs. However, the enlarged tailplane did not become a standard production feature, nor was it fitted retrospectively, nor is there a mod number covering such a conversion.

Here's a brief resume of MH434's career MH434 LFIX CBAF.IX.5562 CBAF M66 222S 13-8-43 shot down Fw190 9-43 84GSU 15-6-44 ros 7-7-44 76MU 27-7-46 RNethAF 17-3-47 as H-68 WUL later H-105 BAF as SM-41 3-53 sold COGEA as civil OO-ARA target tug sold T Davies G-ASJV sold A Swire 'AC-S' normal wing fitted used as photo aircraft in BoB film extant G-ASJV reported M76 install [c/n 552?] It's possible that MH434 had the short intake because it was built during the transition from the original style to the later Vokes 'universal' filter in the extended fairing. Actually, it had nothing to do with someone in Supermarine or the AM allocating numbers and letters at random. The designation Spitfire IXB was devised and used by pilots soon after the IX with the Merlin 66 was introduced (spring '43), thus differentiating the new variant from those powered by the Merlin 61/63, which was unofficially called the IXA. A couple of months later, the official designations of F, L.F and H.F Mk IX were introduced, yet the pilots, and unit record books still continued referring to IXAs and IXBs for months afterwards.

I dunno about that - even sitting in front of a computer screen it's possible to feel the effects of any of the above, except the end results won't be as dangerous (hopefully)! :joystick: This Mayday episode on the effects of fatigue is interesting... And here's a chart showing the approximate size of a small, single-engine aircraft at various distances; the times to collision will usually be a lot quicker during WW2 air-to-air combat.

Good stuff; pity you can't add "No Spitfire IXs were harmed during the making of this film"... In the real world - apart from the odd "blue-on-blue" encounter during WW 2 - Israeli P-51Ds more than likely encountered Egyptian Spitfire IXs during the 1948-49 Israeli-Egypt war, although, according to this article, no Spitfires were shot down by the Mustangs. :pilotfly:

The British .303 Browning was the Browning .30 M1919 adapted to use the standard .303 7.7 x 56 rimmed rifle/mg cartridge, although by 1940 the British had devised rounds such as the Incendiary B Mk VI Generally, the .303 wasn't quite as powerful as the standard American .30 06 (7.62 x 63) rimless ( .303 ballistics ); albeit this, of course, varied according to the bullet weight & loading etc. Here's a comparison of aircraft guns of WW 2 by Tony Williams

Looking really good, except, because all Spitfire IXs were equipped with UHF radios, the aerial wire between the fin and mast had been long gone, meaning the mast didn't have the triangular brace for a wire. In fact, the aerial wire seldom appeared on in-service RAF Spitfires post late-1940: (Spitfire II 54 Sqn spring 1941) Spitfire F Mk IX 611 Sqn mid 1942; one of the first IX equipped units. A small detail, but worth mentioning.

I, too, totally agree that the Texan/Harvard series would be a first choice for trainer; the master was put forward as being an interesting choice, because it was a more powerful advanced trainer, with flight characteristics and performance being closer to that of a fighter. (Just for interest, attached is a 1941 article from Flight magazine)

An excellent biography of Johnson, "Spitfire Ace of Aces" by Dilip Sarkar, adds a great deal of detail to Johnson's autobiography http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spitfire-Ace-Aces-Wartime-Johnnie/dp/1445604752 Re: point 3: If Johnson wrote that he had the weapons set to a different convergence, he did so; there's no reason to second guess his word 70 odd years later. Anyway, reading the thread starter, in context: so this discussion is not solely about what the USAAF may or may not have practiced during the war; thus it is perfectly valid to point out that a famous RAF pilot had his weapons set to his specifications (no doubt after proper discussions and calculations with his armourers). The original point shadepiece is making is that it would be desirable "to add multiple, historically correct, presents to choose in the mission Editor". I second that because, however historically inaccurate the practice might be, we are talking about individual players, flying their own aircraft on their own systems! Where's the harm to the community or to the sims if people want to experiment with their armament settings (albeit the chances of shooting anything down, or hitting ground targets might be sharply reduced, in which case it is useful to have default settings)? As it is, Sith has pointed out that featuring variable convergences isn't likely to happen, so it seems that any further discussion on this particular point is moot anyway.

The Miles Master series would be an interesting choice, albeit good data might be hard to find The Master I used a Rolls-Royce Kestrel The Master II a Bristol Mercury, and the Master III (below) a Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp Junior

Which is why the manual incorporated all the mathematical formula and ballistics data to preclude "well meaning ignorance." An "individual station" could mean anything from a large, fully equipped airbase to a small jungle dirt strip. "...an organizational level task" is meaningless jargon. Nor does it mean the almost complete lack of options being advocated by Crumpp. No doubt the DCS developers have all the data needed to ensure that they will provide the right ballistics & harmonization, no matter what the setting.

Para 4. ...any questions or discrepancies concerning this data... In other words: If problems arise when using the published data, or the operational unit finds that the published data does not match their own experience, such issues should be referred back to the Ballistics Laboratory at Aberdeen. Why? Machine guns and/or ammunition, like any other mass produced item produced by different manufacturers, might produce different ballistics to the data gathered by the testing agencies. Should such variances cause problems in the field, such problems should be referred back to Aberdeen. As I have already noted, by 1944 pilots on operational units often didn't fly their own aircraft, even if the aircraft was "personalized": this meant that it was better for all the aircraft on that unit to have consistent harmonization patterns. Also, aircraft could be swapped from unit to unit. The USAAF devised a basic set of harmonization patterns that were effective in most combat scenarios, but, as Milo has pointed out from the manual (below), this did not preclude operational units devising "custom" settings to suit local conditions. The USAAF was not stupid and inflexible enough to enforce absolute conformity, when long experience showed that such inflexibility didn't work in wartime conditions. On a flight sim, where each player flies their own aircraft, denying individual players the choice of customizing their own harmonization patterns is just too restrictive and unfair.

Yep, the "two step" rudder pedals were adopted for the Spitfire in early 1940; the upper set were about 6" higher than the original.

Except that nowhere, in any of the manuals quoted or linked, is there a categorical statement that other harmonization patterns/ranges must not be used; eg: AF Manual 200-1 Section A Para 8: "It is recommended that for most cases..." There was nothing mandatory about this, except these were the harmonization procedures that yielded the best results for the majority of fighter pilots Section B is titled A Boresighting Procedure not The Boresighting... Sections C & D provided all the calculations and ballistics data required to enable armourers to set the weapons for ranges from 200 to 3000 feet for the .50 cal, not just the 250-350 yards cited in the P-47 and P-51 manuals. No doubt the majority of pilots were perfectly happy to use the standard set-up, but it did not preclude them from consulting with the armourers to use a custom set up, as long as it was done thoroughly and carefully (that said, few pilots in 1944 always used the same "personal" aircraft, so chances are few aircraft used custom settings). However, this is a flight sim, where individual players have their own personal aircraft; as such, it should not incorporate a "follow these harmonization patterns alone, or else" scenario. If individual players feel that they are good enough to use harmonization patterns or ranges other than those shown in flight manuals, more power to them.

Not all Modellers are that hyper-critical. Those who are have either lost the enjoyment of the hobby, or like to feel superior through bagging others. I build to satisfy myself, not others - albeit it is fun winning the odd competition...:smilewink: As it is, the quality of the skins being produced by various DCS forum members is a credit to the community; I can't wait to see what people produce for the P-47D-30, because there were some stunning colour schemes on the "Jug".

The standard British tank was the Cromwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwell_tank while the standard heavy armoured car was the T17 Staghound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T17_%28armored_car%29 . Light armoured vehicles included the Humber Scout Car https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humber_Scout_Car ([sir] Micheal Caine charged around in one during A Bridge too Far): and Daimler Dingo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler_Dingo.

Ditto - a Spitfire L.F Mk XVI w/Merlin 266, E armament, slightly bulged upper cowling and late large area "pointed" rudder could marry the V-1650-7 of the P-51D with the Spitfire IX airframe. (see http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-mk-ix-xi-and-xvi-variants-much-varied.html )

I thought that the German charts were based on a PS (Pferdestärke) power rating, rather than hp or bhp - thus 1800 hp = 1824 PS: 1850 Hp = 1876 PS: 2000 hp = 2028 PS (all figures rounded up) or 1800 PS = 1775 hp: 1850 PS = 1824 hp; 2000 PS = 1972 PS Shouldn't any power conversions use PS rather than hp? The differences are small, but they do exist.

Another project in hand is a Bf 109G-12, which should be really interesting: http://www.meiermotors.com/index.php/projekte/messerschmitt-bf109/messerschmitt-bf109-g-12?showall=&start=1 And one of my favourite Italian fighters, a Fiat G-55, also for the Fighter factory: http://www.meiermotors.com/index.php/projekte/fiat-g-55-fighter-factory Unfortunately, there's very little chance of seeing any of these in action here in the Antipodes. :(

MeierMotors GmbH has just completed out its latest project, a Messerschmitt Bf 109G-4, Double Chevron - "Schwartz 1": http://www.meiermotors.com/index.php/projekte/messerschmitt-bf109/messerschmitt-bf109-g-fighterfactory?showall=&start=1 First engine run was in February 2015: It is in the markings of I./JG 3 Gruppenkommandeur Major Klaus Quaet-Faslem, who was killed crashing his aircraft in bad weather on 30 January 1944. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Quaet-Faslem

Milsurps.com is a site that I have only recently discovered; for those who don't know, it is a really interesting compilation of various types of material on military weapons and equipment; http://www.milsurps.com/content.php Included is a series of books, written in 1951 thru '56 (Volumes I thru IV) and 1987 (Volume V) by Lieutenant Colonel, USMCR George M Chinn, on the history and technical development of machine guns and cannon, including all aircraft weapons. In total, there are 3010 pages, 532 MB. Fortunately, they have been broken down into logical, relatively small pdf files that can be downloaded quickly and, if required, combined back into their respective volumes (Volume V, 1956 to 1987 is downloadable in its entirety): http://www.milsurps.com/content.php?r=347-The-Machine-Gun-%28by-George-M.-Chinn

The F4U is also one of my favourites; AFAIK post "bird-cage" Corsairs omitted the outer wing tanks in favour of drop tanks.

Note that according to the instructions on the gun-bay doors, the P-51D's guns were sighted in for 250 or 300 yards (228.6 or 274.3 m); these seem to be the normal harmonisation distances, while 335 metres (366.3 yards) doesn't seem to have been standard. I can't see where the latter figure came from, because all of the P-51 manuals I have show 250 or 300 yards, even with the K-14 gyro sight (P-51D-5 E & M Manual March 1944 - pre K-14)) (P-51D-5 thru -25 and K-1 thru 15; addition of K-14 sight on bay door instruction plate)

The fuel flow rate for the P-51D's V-1650-7 at WEP was between 194 gal per hr @ 67' HG in low blower and 187 gal per hr in high blower (corresponding figures for the V-1650-3 were 165 & 160 gal per hr):

Wow!. (quick exit to download) :punk: