Crumpp

:music_whistling: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/MuseumExhibits/FactSheets/Display/tabid/509/Article/196264/messerschmitt-bf-109g-10.aspx Yes, whatever new air-frames were on the production line when the conversion's began became Bf-109G10's.

Extremely important fact to understand in this discussion. Stick Force Per G is not a static quality.

You are most welcome and I would love to link up and fly online with you, Jcomm!

The forward CG limit which is the maximum stick force per G the aircraft can accept is determined by the elevator design and arm of the fuselage. Moving the seat forward on a two seat mustang does nothing to change that relationship.

Much of that data is representative. The stick forces growth in the P-51 is correct in that it has much higher forces than many modern pilots are used too. A P-51D in world war II could have pull forces in excess of 90 lbs. That is not a bad thing and keeps the pilot from killing himself. :thumbup:

The basic point of those instructions is uncoordinated flight makes the sights ineffective. If you want to shoot accurately, keep the aircraft coordinated when you pull the trigger.

Exactly. Also forget about the ball when maneuvering during the transition from one condition of flight to another. Use the movement of the nose or rather enough rudder to eliminate any yawing moments. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=140143

Why don't you learn to fly the other modules and you won't be so worried about them. Anytime you want to fly a Dora or Bf-109K4 I would be happy to do some mock combats in the P51 to help you out.

I think it is right or at least very close. Look at the size of the forces and you will see it. People look at the raw production numbers and get the wrong impression because they do not have an idea of the relative size of the forces. They see the large numbers of Allied production vs the smaller numbers of Luftwaffe production as the basis of comparison. That produces a skewed picture. You do not need many aircraft to have a significant impact on the operational percentage when the force is small. The United States States Army Air Forces was able to send more aircraft on a single mission than the entire Luftwaffe Dayfighter Force on all Fronts. If we look at the numbers of P51's on hand in September 1944 vs the total USAAF fighter Force: 2993 P-51's / 16183 = 18.5% of the USAAF fighters are P-51's. Now I am sure not all of those are P-51D's but it is not significant to the fact it makes up about the same percentage of the force. Now let's look at the Luftwaffe dayfighter force size in September of 1944: 1610 Fighters * .185 = 297 Bf-109K4/Bf-109G10's That is not a whole lot of airframes required to be a significant contributor to the force considering the much smaller scale of the Luftwaffe. Considering the fact the Bf-109G10 is an older airframe upgraded to Bf-109K4 standards much like the Spitfire MkV's were upgraded to Spitfire Mk IX's.... http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2558472&postcount=848 It does not appear to me that the Bf-109K was insignificant or even rare in late 1944. No more so than encountering the latest version of the P-51D complete with tail warning radar.

You are most welcome. The P-51 flown in that article is a dual seat modification. The rear tank/radio equipment is replaced with a rear seat and I believe the normal pilot seating position is moved forward.

DCS seems to be aligning for a late 1944 timeline. In late 1944, I think the FW-190D9, Bf-109K4, Spitfire Mk IX, and P51D series are equally common as a percentage of the overall forces.

Which is exactly my point! :thumbup: Correct. The vast majority of the Luftwaffe Dayfighter pilots were grist for the mill and did not survive their first few missions. If they learned to fly their airplanes and survived the first few missions, the chances they would survive the entire war went up astronomically. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/AAF-Luftwaffe-8.html

I think you put too much emphasis on the aircraft. Each of those instances, I can think of something that counters the Bf-109 moves in the P-51 that does not play into the Bf-109's hands. The reality is is that a smart P-51 pilot will always come up on top. Feel free to PM me. I would be willing to link up and have a few mock combats, P-51 to P-51!

Buff it right out you could have ran another 50 hours at +18lbs War Emergency Power!!! :music_whistling:

There is no bias in Yo-Yo. The FW-190D9 is equally as successful as the Mustang. They are different aircraft but very equal dog-fighters. You have to fly them to their numbers and strengths. I cannot decide which is my favorite! I kill Bf-109K4's in DCS in the Mustang on a regular basis. I have even outturned them. The Mustang is the best dogfighter in the game IMHO. I love it. Some key elements in every success: 1. Baby the engine. I treat it like I would a real aircraft and do not abuse it. I use WEP only in an emergency. I cruise at cruise power and climb at climb power with the aircraft configured properly for the climb. I use best angle and best rate of climb speeds. Fly the plane by the numbers. 2. Proper turn entry. Coordinated turns and I keep a power reserve for maneuvering. Once the turn is established, I pull for best rate and keep it there. If my best rate of turn speed is faster than my opponent....then I establish a lag turn. Look at the Bf-109 and you will lose. Look several aircraft lengths behind him where you want to put the nose of your Mustang. 3. I pick my fights. Every time I have been shot down, it has been my fault....not the airplane. I do not engage if I can help it without having an exit strategy. 4. Keep the aircraft at the speed it maintains best turn rate. Keep the aircraft at the speed it maintains best turn rate. 5. Keep the aircraft at the speed it maintains best turn rate. That means backing off the stick back pressure if you see the rate slow down. Pull harder while looking at the Bf-109 and you will die. 6. Use combat flaps appropriately.

And there were also appropriate design changes that allowed to run at 25 lbs boost for 5 minutes. :music_whistling:

:megalol:

PM sent SithSpawn. I would be happy to walk you through it with some easy techniques to gauge aircraft performance.

Simple math using the lift formula.

Which is nothing special for World War II fighter aircraft engine development. The results of these engineering investigations can be seen in every Pilot Operating Instructions limitations for the Merlin 66/Packard 266/ V-1650-7 engine flown during World War II. 5 minute limitation at War Emergency Power... That time must be reported, logged, and the engine inspected at each use before being returned to service. Practically the same as every other engine using an extremely over-boosted power setting during the war.

I imagine that they would have complained. There is a danger if the pilot suddenly letting go of the stick in a maneuver as well as PIO on a bounced landing with inertial weights. The weight will act in the opposite manner the designer intends. I would look for them to added weight forward of the hinge line on the elevator or increase the cable tension/friction. I would be interested in knowing what they did to increase the stick force per G limit on the Mk IX.

Which is exactly why the NACA adopted a Stability and Control standard! I love the RAE report on the Spitfire Mk IX fuselage tanks for this very reason. It really highlights the engineers dilemma. One pilot says the aircraft is absolutely not suitable for formation flying and the next few days, Jeffery Quill comes back and says the aircraft is fine for formation flying! :thumbup:

The airport elevation changes depending on where you are at. Go to the data point which will be listed on the Sochi Taxi diagram or go to a runway touchdown zone. Elevation for Rwy 24 touchdown is 85 meters Rwy 06 touchdown zone is 35 meters Rwy 02 touchdown zone is 50 meters Rwy 20 touchdown zone is 90 meters Hope this helps!

I think what he means is that the instability was divided by pilot opinion.

Oh absolutely! :thumbup: That is the personality of the Spitfire. The experienced pilots who were used to the longitudinal instability love it. In fact, many complained when the bob-weights were added saying it ruined the "feel" of the aircraft. The heavy buffet, short stick travel, harsh accelerated stall, and longitudinal instability will have those new to the type complaining that you "porked" the airplane. Experienced players will come to appreciate some of those characteristics which help to stay in the envelope or contribute to the maneuverability. They will find they have the best level turning aircraft on the western front and an excellent dog-fighter in their hands. That is the dichotomy of the Spitfire and why it is discussed in Stability and Control engineering classes. Characteristics that in isolation are not that desirable combine in such a manner as to play off each other creating an end result that is desirable. It is like a beautiful woman and must be caressed around the sky to perform its dance! :smilewink: Something most pilots get used to in 10-20 hours of flying it. I am guessing, but I think players in DCS will like the increased stick force per G. If you implement it like the Bf-109K4, it will slow the stick acceleration increasing control.