GrapeJam

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html By the time the K4 was introduced into service, the 2nd tactical airforce was using 150 octane fuel. And only 1 Canadian wing reverted back to 100/130 to perform aerobatics over defeated Germany.

Is it going to be modeled with 18lbs boost or 25lbs boost? 18 boost were no longer used by DDay as pretty much every Spitfire squadron was running 25lbs boost.

Right click -> View image.

In this pic we can see nothing but API being loaded (identified by the silver tip)

API was found to be the most effective type of ammuntion used by the Browning HMG, so currently the Mustang's missing a big chunk of it's damage. Also I've love to have the ability to customize your belt, you can also see reports of pilot loading nothing but incendiary rounds into their guns.

15%-20 is significant, yeah. All and all it's nowhere near the uber thing you're trying to hype it out to be. And I'm interested it the formula that made you got that 15-20% number out of it, hopefully it's not something out of your optimistic "SWAG".

Yeah, but was that even about the 1/3 wing span slat style of the 109?

Did you even read the last links? Nope, it was added even before the German invasion.

Oh so what are these?: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2371074&postcount=59 http://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Crafts/Craft31461.htm You really need to drop the habit of ignoring things that don't support your argument and keep repeating debulked myths.

The question is though, were the slats on the 109 large enough to provide significant amount of lift during turning? Or were they mainly there to retain ailerons control and the amount of additional lift provided was insignificant? As German test'd showed.

You talk about facts, eh? This is fact: This is fact: Oh you want me to bring the real quote? http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/ This bolded part is often omitted(or as I like to call it, "cherry picked out") when this quite is brought up when talked about 109 outturning spitfire. Early spitfires were fitted with 2 blades 2 pitches propeller and had poor acceleration. And the fact that the Germans tested a captured Spitfire and it handily outturned the 109.

And you got war time pilots who said the Spitfire easily outturned the 109, so which one are you gonna take as more credible, modern pilots who fly unarmed planes loaded with low fuel for air show or war time pilots who actually flew pristine planes in combat condition? Soviet tests put a Spitfire LF MK IX running at low boost (because of the lack of high octane fuel) turning 3-4 seconds faster than the G2. And the G2 was in good condition as it achieved it's speed correctly. Or are you just gonna cherry pick what support your argument again? And stop with the "The Brits didn't know what the slats were for" because of one test that wasn't even actually carried out, just a post war guess comparison for the press. Tons of other tests by the British showed they clearly understood how the slats worked, after all the slats were invented by them. Stop repeating debulked myth.

BTW, the TF51D weights 3790kg,full load. The P51D weights 4566kg, full load.

The condition of this Mustang is no indication of a realy WW2 period P51D, the test itself was done in 1990 so the conditions of all aircrafts in the test were questionable. Please don't ever use this test as a performance indication of the Mustang again.

Incorrect, the 109 had a stick force of over 20 lbs per G at 500km/h and rapidly increased as the speed got higher. The Spitfire V had a stick force of 20lbs for a 4 G pull at 400 mph with the trim set at nose heavy position.

To be fair, at 8000 meters the T bird would be dancing around while even the F4U4 would be choking. But yeah, other than high altitude performance the F4U was far superior. I'm not sure if the P47's massive turbo charger could justify the sacrifice made to and medium altitude performance and agility.

Since we're talking the late 1944 I hope that it'll be the F4U-4. ;)

Well I think we've got the answer to our problem.

This is gotta be one of most straw man things I've read. That is assume that all of the bullets hits, you're not accounting spread from barrel heat, degraded accuracy with range, maneuvering target, etc.... And I've seen mods that more complex than this type of thing, done by a single guy, and released one day after the game's just launched, check the Nexus site.

He's not forcing his preferences on anybody, he's asking for the option to adjust the convergence according to one's own preference. With weapons that rely greatly on kinetic energy, having the capability to maximize the damage at closer range is a big plus. I don't think writing a script that adjust the lua files accordingly plus making a simple interface bar is anything but trivial.

Chop throttle, rudder to the opposite direction of the spin, push the stick forward. Standard spin recovery procedure.

Nope, this is CAS, indicated the F4U's stall speed is quite a bit lower. Source? Yep, G2 can outturn F4U, Hellcat, Spitfire IX you hear it first from Hummingbird. Now would you mind buying a DCS Jet module, get in, do a climb test and see that even climbing at 60" the AOA is the same as level flight?

The F4U stalled in power on clean configuration at 84 knots, not mph. 84 knots is 99mph, which is whoop de doo, 5 mph lower than power off. I hope you're not telling me because the G2 can prop hang at 140km/h, thus it's gonna outturn a Corsair, a Hellcat or a Spitfire IX.

Source of 130km/h power on stall. http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/ Since when is "hanging from the prop at 60" nose-up altitude" level flight? And it's clearly stated as IAS.

He meant 130km/h power on prop hang.