Hummingbird

Do some sustained turn tests and see if you can match this EM diagram (7500 kg weight 2x P-3C's): If you can't, something could be amiss.

Like I said the performance with the new prop 9-129 (aka Dünblatt) was calculated, but there's litterally zero reason to believe the performance illustrated with the series prop is, as the aircraft had long since gone operational by then. Also the real life performance with the series prop would be needed in order to accurately estimate any improvement with the new prop.

Question is wether this was removed later then?

Many thanks for the information Spectre, that was just what I was looking for :) Also, 15 G/sec, holy smokes ! Definitely need that 0.5 G overshoot capability then.

I see, would love more information on this! Imagine a Su35 with care free handling in DCS, that would be a dream come true.

Since the thread concering the G limit was deleted altogether instead of just removing the troll posts by Thinder, and since the question is FM related, I'll repost my question for the TG team here: How much of an overshoot past 9 G's does the DFLCS allow for in the EF ? 9.3, 9.5 G ? and is it a constant hard limit that can be maintained in a sustained turn, or just a brief overshoot ? Also how is the G limiter overridden (i.e. is it with a button, or just a harder pull on the stick), and what G's can be attained when doing so?

~518 km/h @ 1.3 ata ~535 km/h @ 1.4 ata This is with the ETC501 rack ofcourse. Top speed without the ETC rack was 548 km/h @ 1.42 ata, and 564 km/h @ 1.58/1.65 ata. This is according to the last performance charts dated 12.1.1945, which we therefore must assume are the most accurate.

Many things broken with new patch, is there any hope for a quick hotfix today? or are we sadly stuck with this for the weekend at least?

Std. Operating limit was 10 min at a time with a 5 min interval in between, but afaik you could run with it for all 40 min without risking damage due to how effective the cooling effect of MW50 was.

Performance we can actually tell wether is close or not with authority when we have the official performance charts for the real aircraft available, which we do for most of the jets in DCS. Hence why we're anxious to know wether or not atleast the TG devs have access to the ones for the EF, as we don't ourselves and want to be sure the sim is accurate - which is the whole reason why most play this sim and not just a random flying game.

How does that in any way prove that the series prop curve was calculated? It's pretty obvious that the R&D department would have access to flight test results for an aircraft that has been in active service for over 3 months, and would use this known performance to compare with and calculate the performance of the Dünnblatt. Otherwise the blunt statement that "this performance will be reached with well built series production aircraft for certain" probably wouldn't be made either.

Again, where's the proof that the curves for the series prop are calculated? The aircraft had been flying in combat for months at the time the graph was drawn, hence only the Dünnblatt & K6 curves can be ascertained as calculated. But if our model is flying with 1800 PS instead of 1850 PS, then maybe that's what is causing the slightly lower performance.

Just out of curiousity, what PS figure is used, 1800 or 1850 PS? Asking as the German chart shows results with 1850 PS.

Nope, same prop = 9-12159.

So you believe the series prop figure is calculated despite the fact that the aircraft had been in active frontline service for 4 months by that point ? The source of the charts is Kurfurst, and he also provides MTT comparisons between calculated & flight test results for the 109 where the general trend is that flight tested performance is slightly higher.

I find it hard to believe that the series prop curve is calculated Yo Yo, the K4 had afterall been in service for quite a while before this graph was written on January 19th 1945. The Dünnblatt curve, sure, this is calculated, and also what the report concerns, i.e. projected performance gain with the new prop. Hence this had to be based on something solid first, which obviously would be the established performance (from test flights), with the series prop, which by then would've been long achieved as the K4 had been in active operational service since October 1944. Finally MTT calculated performance is in general conservative, i.e. the real aircraft in general flew slightly faster than the calculated performance, hence why the engineers in the same report write "this performance will be reached for certain by well built series produced examples".

It does appear there might be a drag issue at low speed. The lack of ITR at high speed is an FLCS issue however, which is being worked on according to NineLine.

Is there any ETA on the next update for the F-16's FM ?

Latest round of STR & ITR testing, this time plotted on the RL EM diagram for the identical configuration: From this it appears that the STR is noticably too low below 300 KTAS (M 0.46), but spot on to very close above that. As for ITR, it oddly appears noticably too low below 250 KTAS (M 0.39), then basically spot on between 250 to 350 KTAS, however then above this it again appears noticably too low.

Hi, Just tested the top SL speed of the DCS K4 which turned out to be 316 KTAS (585 km/h), which is is 10 km/h lower than the real life figure: Curiously I was able to achieve ~600 km/h @ SL a few months ago, not sure what changed, maybe it's related to the issue with the D-9.

What we know: - Very low wing loading - Very high thrust to weight ratio - Delta canard configuration - Large LE slats In addition the EF can generate G-onset rates of over 10 G's pr. sec, so it will most certainly not be lacking in pitch agility. Links: https://www.flightglobal.com/eurofighter-typhoon-special-storm-force- https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/united-kingdom/news/thales-high-g-training-fit-modern-aircraft-pilots https://i.imgur.com/D8kTivq.png (!!)Full disclaimer(!!): The below are educated guesses, nothing more! In terms of instantaneous and sustained rate / load factor at the configuration you mentioned, based on the wing loading, large LE devices, carnard setup & very high thrust to weight ratio I'd predict instantanous rates in the order of ~28-30 deg/sec and sustained rates of ~24-26 deg/sec.

Just tested the K4 ingame, and I can get 316 KTAS (585 km/h) @ SL, so 10 km/h too slow compared with the conservative German figures.

No, you should be using the thin line which shows performance with the series production prop 9-12159, and it shows 595 km/h @ SL and 713 km/h @ FTH: As you can see the experimental "Dünnblatt" prop 9-12199 (which is represented by the thick line), provided no advantage at SL, however it did provide increased speed with altitude, resulting in a top speed of 727 km/h @ FTH compared with the 713 km/h with the series prop.

It would obviously be faster, question is just by how much. Anyway the main point is that a K4 with MW50 is way closer to a G6 (or G14) with MW50, than a K4 without it.

For what it's worth the author "Erich" over at AHF wrote the following: "I./JG 3 Bf 109G-6AS were all equipped with MW 50 injection as noted by vets flying the crate in April 44 to Normandies beginnings as well into that ugly campaign Moskito-Jagern of 10. N. JG 300 flew the bird with MW 50 as well as gruppen of NJG 11 chasing Mossies and 4 engine jobs. JG 27 were to receive theirs a bit later as portions of I and III./JG 300 combating P-51's at over 25,000 ft to 30,000 feet"