Crumpp

Probably because Junkers did not provide an estimate to them. The power curves in the report simply show thrust horsepower expected from the engine. Basically, you are looking at a rough performance estimate and concluding that the aircraft was not developed beyond that point.

This isn't a question for ED developers. I think they have their hands full with Edge and the other aircraft under development. DoW had a great server last night. It had AI bombers (AN-26) to defend and intercept as they hit targets on a schedule. Lots of fun and really showed the possibilities in the game. In the future perhaps, waves of AI B-17's and B-24's escorted by player P-51's/P-47's. For now, I noticed there is a mod for ground vehicles for World War II. Is it possible for the community to mod the AN-26 to a B-26?

I love the B-25. It just wasn't a significant player in the ETO. It would be as immersive as an AN-26. BTW, DoW has a great map that has AI AN-26's bombers which the P-51's have to protect and the Axis intercepts. Great Map and lots of fun. It would be great to get some AI medium and heavy bombers in the game ASAP.

So without exhaust thrust your results match the Flugmechanik estimate.

No it does not work this way. If you look at the published performance, the percentage represents the distance from the average. 426x 1.03 = 439mph But not always. That is up to the manufacturer. What appears to be the case is Focke Wulfs internal performance estimates represent the lower end of the range as minimum performance. The climb rate using what is called "Top of the Climb" at 6Km on the November 1944 Kennblatt shows 15m/s for a 4350Kg aircraft at normal climb rating. In June 1944 Focke Wulf reported to the RLM the design was expected to only achieve a 12.8 m/s at normal climb rating at a top of the climb to 5.8Km. First of all you have to understand what that means. 15 m/s is not the "average" climb rate. That is the climb rate from sea level to the altitude defined as the top of the climb to achieve our time to climb curve. The June of 1944 performance is far below the November of 1944 kennblatt.

When Yo-Yo say's the Dora's climb rate is NOT a bug...you have issues? When the math backs up Yo-Yo's conclusions.... You have issues. I would say the burden of proof is on you.

Look at the power characteristics of the Jumo 213A... The Dora does not outclimb the Bf-109K4.

You do understand that is a range? + or - 10% is a range of 20%.... https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/range.html

Read what Yo-Yo posted.... 26/22.9 x 100 = 113.5% 27/22.9 x 100 = 117.9% 28/22.9 x 100 = 122.3% 22.9% is the bottom of the range. So 122.3% - 100 = 22.3% 22.3%-10% = The average performance is 12.3% higher than the 22.9. 22.9 x 1.123 = 25 m/s 28/25 = 11%

The calculated performance from Focke Wulf is 10% lower than the Kennblatt performance and other flight measurements according to Yo-Yo findings. It appears that the calcs represent the minimum performance within a + or - 10% range. You would have to add 10% to get the average and another 10% to reach the far side of the range. Pretty smart if you think about it. The customer buys off on the lower estimate and is thrilled when they get the finished product. Might even make the designer an honorary title and allow his name to be used as an official aircraft designation!!

Right here... Ok... Quick climb swag at 1.8ata @3250 rpm using a Jumo 213 power chart with n = .85; climbing just above the stall like the pathological climb test's we see in this thread: Something like Maximum Angle of Climb at SEA LEVEL reproducing the test climb profiles found in this thread: [(1827thp*550) - (308thp*550)] / 9038lbs = 92.4fps x 60 = 5546fpm = 28 m/s [(1827thp*550) - (308thp*550)] / 9370lbs = 89.1fps X 60 = 5349.73 = 27 m/s Now let's do it at Best ROC speed ~300kph [(1827thp*550) - (367thp*550)] / 9038lbs = 88.8fps X 60 = 5330fpm = 27 m/s [(1827thp*550) - (367thp*550)] / 9370lbs = 85.6fps X 60 = 5141fpm = 26 m/s That is 11% using a quick very rough SWAG from the 22.9 m/s Focke Wulf publishes in their calculated performance. It very much agrees with what Yo-Yo is saying.

You are taking this a little personally. Because you do not know how to run the math and Yo-Yo does to make a performance estimate does not mean it is simply made up. It is physics. A given amount of power available to power required at a specified weight will yield a specific climb performance. Nothing to do with "making up" anything. Again, The calculated performance represents the minimum performance Focke Wulf expected. It marks the lower 10% of their guaranteed average. The Kennblatt performance is 10% higher than the calculated. The kennblatt is the mean average. Understand? The DCS Dora is not over-performing by 10%.... It gives very good agreement with flight tested data. This is not pulled out thin air. It is a performance estimate based on the physics of flight. The accepted methods give good agreement with performance in the air. Not really when it comes to climb rate. It is harder to estimate than level speed and most manufacturers had some pretty large percentage range over average. Yes, If we do not have flight tested data and the math works out.

About 100 hp or more...see chart below Find a flight measured climb test at 1.8ata... That is problem...there is no flight measurement. You are either ignoring what Yo-Yo said or do not understand it. I do not doubt it. Much heavier and a lot more power required. Not to mention, that aircraft used a lot lower power setting to make the climb. WNr 210006 used a much lower manifold pressure in the climb than the 1.8 ata of MW50.....

Well, that is because the non-methanol performance is easier to predict. Methanol Water power production is highly dependent upon the charge air temperature. That changes as the system is run. The question becomes do you want to show the performance you will get when you first turn the system on; after the charge air stabilizes in a few minutes, or do you want to pick a middle of the road estimate for average performance. The more MW you inject (to a point) and the longer you allow the system to run (to a point), the more power it will produce.

Have you run the math? It is right above using the power Junkers says the Jumo 213 produced at 1.8ata!!

Ok... Quick climb swag at 1.8ata @3250 rpm using a Jumo 213 power chart with n = .85; climbing just above the stall like the pathological climb test's we see in this thread: Something like Maximum Angle of Climb at SEA LEVEL reproducing the test climb profiles found in this thread: [(1827thp*550) - (308thp*550)] / 9038lbs = 92.4fps x 60 = 5546fpm = 28 m/s [(1827thp*550) - (308thp*550)] / 9370lbs = 89.1fps X 60 = 5349.73 = 27 m/s Now let's do it at Best ROC speed ~300kph [(1827thp*550) - (367thp*550)] / 9038lbs = 88.8fps X 60 = 5330fpm = 27 m/s [(1827thp*550) - (367thp*550)] / 9370lbs = 85.6fps X 60 = 5141fpm = 26 m/s That is 11% using a quick very rough SWAG from the 22.9 m/s Focke Wulf publishes in their calculated performance. It very much agrees with what Yo-Yo is saying.

Weight has a huge effect on climb performance. The basic formula for climb performance is: (Power Available - Power Required) / Weight Read Yo-Yo's post. They are not all the same. USAStarkey, I appears Yo-Yo is saying the estimates are running 10% below actual flight measured data. Now, take into account Focke Wulf's factory guarantee for performance in the climb was 10% variance over the published average and we begin the picture of what is going on. Focke Wulf's calculated estimate that is being referenced by those who think the type is over performing ensures they will be able to deliver on that promise. The actual flight performance can be 20% greater than the calculated performance and still give good agreement when compared to that calculated climb data Pilum attached. The actual flight performance will NEVER be lower than the calculated climb data. The calculated performance data represents Focke Wulf's factory guarantee minimum. If you know what you are doing USAStarkey, it is not hard to add additional power to an existing design and estimate the results.

I would suggest having a Ladeplan. The type of rack, internal plumbing, equipment, and set up makes a huge difference. The Dora will be anywhere from ~4100Kg to 4350Kg depending on set up. The 4175kg weight is very close to a clean configuration aircraft without an equipment rack, associated fittings, and no gear doors. I do not know what kind of ladeplan DCS is referencing but I am sure Yo-Yo would note this and tell us if there was an error.

No it was not nor was there any intention of starting another Spitfire thread. I am sure there will be plenty in the future! It was actually a comment on neutral to unstable designs. That is the topic Yo-Yo was referring too and was just using the Spitfire and I-16 as an example. It really has nothing to do with discussing the Spitfire except is a good example of how instability effects the aircraft as a fighter. Neutral or unstable is not a requirement for good maneuverability either. Neutral to unstable designs do not make good shooting platforms because of their stability characteristics. They tend to be "twitchy" airplanes and difficult to precisely control. Which brings us back to the topic, the Bf-109 was good stable gun platform. Having to fight a fixed trim tab that is out of trim is not really representative of that gun platform. The fixed trim tab should not left at neutral but rather should be adjusted to the cruise position at Höchstzul. Dauerleistung. That is setting in the Flugzeug Handbuch, IIRC.

I will understand his pain..... :noexpression: Because there will be those people..... :thumbup:

You can do a three point take off in the Dora. It is not hard. It works best if you follow the manuals instructions. Here is a track of a short field take off I just did in her. Three point take off Dora.trk

It means they are going to have a harder time shooting accurately compared to a more stable airplane. That does not mean it is impossible but it will be different from a more stable design and it will take some time to get used too. With its Neutral Stick Fixed and Stick Free neutral to unstable at normal CG, short stick travel, sensitive elevator, and deep high energy buffet zone, the Spitfire is going to be a fun airplane to master but it was a pilot's airplane.

Here is a good resource. Shaw's Fighter Combat-Tactics and Maneuvering. Read the gun solution chapter and dissimilar tactics to start out. The whole book is good but not all is applicable to WWII era fighters. That being said, I highly recommend a copy for the bookshelf, too. It is a great read. The second one was written for another game. The tactics are sound and in most cases mirror Shaw's. Fighter_Combat-Tactics_and_Maneuvering.part1.rar Fighter_Combat-Tactics_and_Maneuvering.part2.rar inpursuit.pdf

Worked fine for me but if others have an issue..we got two links.

Here is the P-47 sorties on 6 June 1944: All done without 100/150 grade... Here is it looks like they DID NOT just get shot out the sky as poor sitting ducks. All done without 100/150 grade... :music_whistling: