Talisman_VR

Further to above, please find link to source book: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/volume1/index.html Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hi Folks, Further to the above, please find the following link: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=183520 Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman P.S. Looks like by 1942 the standard loading for fixed .303s was half loaded with AP and half with incendiary bullets.

Dear Spitfire Devs, The reference below states that: "By 1942 the standard loading for fixed .303s was half loaded with AP and half with incendiary bullets." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_ammunition Any information you could provide to clarify the .303 belting mix for the final release version of the Spit IX would be gratefully received. Thank you in anticipation. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman Cross reference: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=178037&page=3

Hi Folks, Just a short post to provide a cross reference on this topic as per the link below. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=181978 Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Alphazulu, Thanks very much for this; I am not very PC literate, so all the file code stuff tends to leave me blank. Spitfire Devs, Would it be possible for someone to confirm were we stand regarding the .303 machine gun load out? I stand to be corrected, but at the moment the .303 machine gun load out appears to be more 1940 battle of Britain, rather than to 1943/44/45 specification. Ball rounds and observer rounds were very much 'old hat' once aircraft had more armour protection after the Battle of Britain. Thank you in anticipation of your kind attention to this matter. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Many thanks Yo-yo, but I could not open to view the youtube clip. However, found this: http://www.universalweather.com/blog/2014/09/international-standard-atmosphere-how-it-affects-flight-understanding-the-basics/ As a side note, the following is an interesting extract: "Be aware that aircraft may not perform exactly as listed in the manufacturer’s tables, and some sort of bias may need to be factored in." I would not want the above to be a red herring to this discussion, but I find it interesting that, even in the modern day, there is a caution against aircraft manufacturers bias, LOL. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

I can only guess that the manufacturers needed to test all engines with the same set of parameters and 3,000 rpm was the max rpm for the engines, so it made sense to test each time at max rpm for comparison purposes as engine types were modified and/or advanced. I also guess that using 3,000 rpm provided something of an additional stress test in real flight. I stand to be corrected, but I don't think we are aware of the fine detail of how each different nation or manufacturer tested best sea level speed. For example, did they do a timed trial over a long course like the Schneider Trophy, or did the pilot just read his instruments in flight over a period of time (what period of time might that be?), write them down and then work out an average? Or perhaps the highest speed at any one time was claimed? For all we know we may be comparing apples with oranges as far as test procedures, results and max sea level speed claims are concerned between different nations and manufacturers. Remember the old adage of "lies, damn lies and statistics", lol. Was there some international rule for speed tests followed by all of both the Axis and Allied nation powers? Finally, I am still not convinced that a propeller configured for full power max rpm (3,000 in this case) will deliver the fastest possible sustained speed a sea level. But I stand to be corrected. I would love for someone with more concrete knowledge to contribute to this thread. As for DCS, I suspect that they do their best to gather as much reliable data as possible, apply the mathematics and science and then make reasonable decisions as expert and knowledgeable people for each model. We then give them our feedback and they have to decide how much to take that into account. A hard job to do well I think, but I am grateful for the developers work and passion. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

I am using the latest patch to DCS version 1.5. The map I use is the Spitfire in-game instant mission named 'Free Flight'. I spawn in with the air-start, drop slowly down over the sea and start testing. Always the same place, as sometimes it seems to me I get different results from different maps. I can't do another test today, but if anyone else is able to test on the same map with the same DCS version 1.5, over the sea, then we might actually be able to check apples with apples. Also, perhaps at least 10 to 15 minutes for the test from the point the speed reaches what appears to be a sustainable speed. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hi Phil, Real life manual says forward for take off and landing (filter activated to protect engine from dust and crap, particularly at make-shift airfields), and lever back to de-activate filter in flight. I have presumed that with the filter in operation, as for take off and landing, there would be more drag. Therefore I have assumed that with the filter de-activated (lever fully back) the aircraft will travel faster. But perhaps I am wrong about this. Perhaps someone with accurate knowledge could chime in on this point and educate some of us. P.S. I have not speed tested with carb intake lever full forward. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hi Holbeach, To add to Phil's point, the land undulates and has obstacles, so to run level to test sustained best speed for 15 minutes +, the sea provides a much more equal and sound test environment. It is too easy to move up and down more over the land, which can alter results. I can easily get to speeds higher than 330 mph for a while if the nose is almost unperceptively slightly down, but I try and resist logging such speed and take the level at which I can truly sustain for a good amount of time. So, if I occasionally make 335, 332 or 331 mph, but never drop below 330 for a long period and 330 is the lowest most common figure, then I call it 330 as my best sustained speed. Of course, this is just me testing my way in DCS and I am not claiming real life conditions, just trying to get the best in DCS. Following real life tests at 3000 rpm never seems to work for me in simulators. Also, I seem to remember reading somewhere that, for some technical mathematical reason, real life 3000 rpm will not give best sped at sea level anyway (perhaps someone with more knowledge could chime in on this one as I may be remembering it wrong). So perhaps whatever the 3000 rpm max speed figure is, we should be able to go faster at a slightly lower rpm anyway. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hi Phil, I find that 2750 rpm is always the best setting for this test. My test today with full 18lbs boost and 2750 rpm gives me a sustained (15 mins +) speed of 531 kph (330 mph) at wave tops (prop almost in the water all the way, lol). Carb Air Intake lever fully back, rads auto and trim, trim, trim. Just leave at full boost and 2750 rpm and let the speed build up gives me 531 kph with no bother at all. I use the in-game speed bar for testing as I presume it is more accurate than me reading the cockpit gauge. I find I don't need a power dive to achieve 531 kph. Even using a power dive the speed bleeds off back to 531 kph as the sustainable speed eventually. The speed bar regularly flicks up to 532 kph, but I take 531 kph as my ultimate measure because that is the most sustainable speed I can make without dropping any lower over a long period of time. P.S. I don't use 3000 rpm for this test at all, as it gives a lower speed than 2750 rpm. In combat, I only use 3000 rpm for a very short period of time (seconds) when needed in a climb in a combat situation (tactical egg for example), and lower rpm back down when nose down or level. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Nice one Snapper, but 600 feet is cheating :P Get down man! Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Phil, I believe the manual says that the Spit rads open at 115 deg + So I assume that the max level speed is achieve within that temp range. I certainly manage my max speed at sea level within that temp range and the rads don't open. Under 115 deg, I think the rads are set at min drag position (Meredith effect), but I could be wrong about that. So, I think the rads are never actually closed shut tight, but closed to the minimum drag position. Perhaps a real expert can confirm this. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Phil, I got 535 kph (332 mph) sustainable when the Spit was first released. However, I have not bothered to keep making progress with it as the Spit is so very much slower than every other aircraft that there is simply no advantage in it. Instead I have concentrated on best combat cruise speed, combat settings and all the various economy settings. By the book, at the extreme end, -4lbs boost and 1800 rpm burns 30 gallons per hour and -2 @ 2000 rpm burns 40 gallons per hour. I have found the economy settings more useful than top speed at sea level settings, LOL. However, I must confess that I have not actually tested the book economy settings against the DCS model. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Javelina1, Thanks for pointing this out. I had not seen it before. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Racoon, I have the feeling that you are already ahead of us all and have everything well in hand :) Thank you and good luck to you and all the team with the WWII project. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

I believe that the mainstay of the LW bomber force in 1944 was the JU88. Therefore, may I suggest that a JU88 (1944 specification) would be a welcome addition for DCS WWII. Perhaps an AI model initially, like the B17. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Same issue for me too. I use Win 10 and Edge. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

http://www.rafbeachunits.info/Airmen_on_the_Beach/airmen_on_the_beach.html Some interesting information here regarding RAF Beach Units, including setting up radar and balloon defenses. I must admit I was not aware of this before finding this article. For example this is an interesting extract: "Even more surprising to some might be the fact that the R.A.F. landed on Omaha beach on D-Day. Although the American 9th Air Force was providing tactical air support in the American sector, it was the job of 85 Group, 2nd T.A.F. to provide the radar facilities for directing R.A.F. night fighters in defence of the beach-heads. The first echelon of 21 Base Defence Sector R.A.F. landed with 15082 G.C.I. at around 17:00 near St Laurent, about one mile to the west of Colleville beach." Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hawker Tempest V would be better and more in keeping with the technological time line of the LW opponent aircraft we have at the moment, like the 109K and 109D. The Hawker Tempest V is the aircraft that the Typhoon was supposed to be. The Hawker Tempest V would give us a more 'joined up' aircraft set in terms of the technological time line. With the current opposition being the 190D, 109K and Me 262 that is in the pipe line it would be better to have the Tempest V. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Skip Bombing https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IlcEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=land+skip+bombing+during+WWII&source=bl&ots=81_IhQCzAS&sig=caGYN3HMV8CZM9pq41GIAp_2Pzw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm79bou-_RAhUDK8AKHWJjCvUQ6AEIWTAN#v=onepage&q=land%20skip%20bombing%20during%20WWII&f=false Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

A reasonable point IMHO regarding lack of bomber modules for a WW2 environment. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Thanks :) Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Skip bombing was used over land and water. But my question was also about timed fuses. We need to be able to set timed fuses or we get blown up by our own bombs, and/or blow our squad mates up, with low level attacks. Being able to set timed fuses for bombs is important for air attack. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Possibly yes (modify axis in DCS control settings), but you would need to hold them on, which I would not want to do, so I would not recommend the paddle for speed brake use. I use on/off buttons for speed brakes. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman