rel4y

No I was not aware and I am sorry that a hobby of yours was taken away like that, but that does in no way influence the way I would argue with you. And I did patiently answer your questions until you accused me of - I still dont know what and repped me negatively. How was I accusing you here of something, its a rhetorical question: Why not stay historical, cause I think every historical match in this list is good. I have been saying for years give it 72" MAP, its historically accurate for 8th AF. But I also look at the effects realistically and have posted a very objective assessment of the before/after situation several times now. By the way Kurfürst and many others you consider as diehard 109 fans approve 72" as well. The only problem I see with this is the FW 190, but FW pilots are usually more experienced than the average P-51 pilots on servers anyway. I would really like to see sources for this, as I have never heard of that and I honestly doubt it as the Merlin at 27l displacement was already overboosted for the 130 grade fuel. I expect it would be knocking like crazy at 70" MAP and above without higher octane fuel or some sort of ADI like water. Once 150 grade (44-1) fuel was available the 8th AF allowed 72" WEP rating. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/supplymemo-11july44.pdf) I am also not unreasonable, but you have to understand that I and I am sure many others really felt like you were deliberately not reading/ acknowledging anything members of this forum were telling you. And yes, I probably do favor the 109. Mostly the E and F models but I also like to fly all other planes except russian warbirds really. But even if someone may be biased to some extend, a fact stays a fact and when one is pulling numbers out of his ass he usually gets called out rather quickly on this forum. A lot of knowledgable people around here. What I am trying say: if you dont trust some members of this forum thats perfectly fine, check if its true and then continue discussing. The data is out there all over the internet and only one google search away. But please dont attack people and argue with them based on hearsay. Now lets stay civil and agree to agree on some points and not so much on others.

You have got to be kidding me.. The following quotes are from two/three weeks ago. This goes on and on.. Do you actually read what other people are trying to tell you? Absolutely correct when looking at March 45, from when this quote is dated. No I am taking a pro fact stance. I never said the P-51 was anything less it was. You are the one propagating superpowers. I think the assessment I made earlier in this thread is by all means very objective. I own and fly all the warbirds, may I ask you if you even own any german DCS aircraft? No, this was fuel dependent for both the Luftwaffe and the USAAF. With german C3 fuel the MAP could be increased to 1.8 ata without MW50 because its anti detonant properties were not necessary for the higher octane fuel. With C3 + MW50 the MAP could be further increased. With 44-1 fuel the USAAF increased their MAP as well. As said before when talking 8th AF some pilots chose to increase boost, some didnt. But looking at 9th AF, none of them increased boost beyond 67". Implying the average P-51D was boosted to above 70" MAP simply is not true. Anyway, this is getting nerve wrecking and I give up. You either dont read what other people tell you, are extremely forgetful or trolling us and laughing to yourself about us not realizing it.

That test is the only test showing these speeds and it was conducted with a sanded and polished aircraft. There are photos around of the wings with paper covering the wings against insects at start. Sounds like standard procedure of the 8th AF, doesn't it. D type wing racks btw only subtracted around 1-2 mph and should not be compared to B type racks. But anyway, I'm perfectly fine with it, just don't cry about it underperforming... There is also a test about sanding the 109 which added 10-12 kph, wouldn't it be fair..? Right, but with wing racks. 3 percent for 72", like we keep saying. Well in a NASA published document some random guy with only a habil and PhD says, that the bubble canopy introduced significant turbulences and drag compared to the razorback. And these turbulences are btw why the pre tailfin was added, which adds about zero drag itself. But I'm sure you know what you're talking about.

I think 4 people have told you by now at least a dozen times that starting spring 44 MW50 was standardized and these were mainly sent to the higher tech western front. After that there were no more "low end" G6 produced. So repeating this false statement for the tenth time doesn't make it any less false. Maybe the B models historically met mostly the early G6, but what do you even base this statement on concerning the D model? Just by looking at the introduction date of the 5NA it doesn't make any sense. Allied reports of May/ June clearly state most aircraft that could be ided had methanol injection and caused some concern in the British intel units. And before you mention it again, no there is no intermediate version.

I mainly agree with you here, but the whole success rate percentages are nonsense imo. You are using btw many of the same arguments you vigorously attacked me for on the 109 discussion recently. But I wouldnt hype people too much for the benefits, they might be disappointed once its actually here. It wont change the tactics used in combat. The Mustang will still be faster than the K-4, it will still roll better at high speeds, it will still turn better at high speeds, it will still turn worse at low speeds, it will still climb significantly worse at all altitudes, it will still accelerate worse in level, it will still be about a ton heavier. Sure there may be a bit more room for error with more excess power, but on the contrary not so much in engine management. Now comparing to the Dora, the Dora will have pretty much no advantages left except low speed roll rate.

Dont get confused, the percentage in boost increase does in no way linearly translate into speed. The actual level speed increase would add up to around 3%. Although the DCS P-51D already performs pretty close to a real life 80" test and almost on par with the aerodynamically cleaner P-51B at 75". The black line to the very right (~375 mph MSL) is what the DCS Mustang is modeled after at 67".

Local airflow over an airfoil will be supersonic way before the whole aircraft will move at supersonic speeds. If the aircraft goes beyond critical Mach, the first part of the airflow over its airfoil will start to be supersonic and form a shockwave at transition point to subsonic speeds. Generally the thicker the airfoil is, the lower the critical Mach number is going to be, the earlier it is going into "compressibility". Simply speaking, the larger the displaced air volume in front of the wing, the faster it has to get out of the way eg by getting supersonic in the process. Thats actually one of the problems of fluid dynamics scientists in the 30s/ early 40s didnt quite understand yet. Ineffective elevators btw can be avoided completely if the whole airfoil changes AoA. That is why nowadays supersonic aircraft dont have classic elevators, but instead move the whole stabilizer. A trick they have in common with german WWII fighters (in theory).

Compressibility is a problem for any airfoil including the elevator. The actual effect making the elevator near useless is flow seperation caused by a shock wave at the transition point of supersonic to subsonic flow over the airfoil. The thickness of the airfoil being the main factor in this effect, hence modern supersonic airfoils being very thin.

Actually not all all. The early/mid war - like 41/42 - JUMOs had significantly higher power output and better reliability than the serial production. The culprit was not that they were underdeveloped, but by 43/44 the rare metals needed could not be acquired in necessary amounts. So a bunch of sub par alloys were used in the turbine which caused massive problems. To alleviate these problems the engine output was decreased and a bunch of changes and new features introduced. That is btw the same reason the germans didnt bother with turbochargers, the materials withstanding the massive exhaust heat simply couldnt be acquired The speed graphs you posted are btw for the 605DC/ASC with C3 config without MW50 at 1.8 ata and the comparison sheet is for the pre production model with 1800 PS engine. Not really meaningful to the 1850 PS 605DB + MW50 DCS model. In DCS the K-4 does 595-600 kph at deck and around 710 kph at altitude.

No, as said many times before a G-6/14AM will climb and accelerate better below rated altitude because: Take a look at what flight regimes parasitic drag matters and why weight (difference ~5% of total) will be the decisive factor for the "same" airframe if the difference in parasitic drag is a mere 0.0812 m^2. Several german data sheets confirm this btw. We dont make this stuff up and it has been said numerous times now.

So from this: And this: You arrive at this?: Explain please.

Erm whatever man, I am not setting up anything. I merely answered pretty much all your questions.

I didn't suggest anything, it was a rhetoric question. Also you were talking about quote: competitive match, which usually implies balancing of some sort. But all the historic matches were quite competitive, wouldn't you agree?

Sorry my mistake, the delta drag figure includes the bulges already (also tailwheel, wheelwell covers). The faired cowling gives a speed increase over the bulges of about 5-6 kph.

I know I am not Kurfürst, but here are my thoughts anyway. ;) Why not stay historical? Block 5NA/10NA vs G-6/14 Block 15NA and up vs G-6/10/14/K-4 What does competetive in this case even mean? Both aircaft are better in some ways than the other and have their advantages. 9th airforce never went higher than 67" boost and 8th did. I still dont know what you mean by an intermediate/ in between 109. Either with or without MW, there is your variation. You can do that in the ME right know. The change in approximate frontal flat area drag between K-4 and G-6AM is 0.0812 m^2 and the difference in weight ~150-200kg.

Very few Erla G-10s of the earliest batch were ever made with ASM engines and none whatsoever with AM. A few also had ASB engines which are basically A type engines with most of the 605DB/DC improvements. ASB vs ASC and respectively DB vs DC engines had no mechanical difference, just engine settings eg fuel type & boost. A G-14 is a relabled G-6 with standardized Methanol injection, the same as the G-6 AM/ASM produced in 44 after the very first batch of GM1 to MW conversion aircraft. In some factories there was no discrimination between G-6 and G-14, or the name was based on which U/R was used and so it was that G-6/14 production ran alongside having no real discernable difference. G-6/14 ASM/ASB/ASC variants again having almost no different specs & performance than a G-10. The whole G line past spring 44 was pretty much one and the same thing independent of the numeration as JST and Kurfürst have already said. Some optimized for low alt and some optimized for high alt, some for shoting fighters some for bombers.

Here is a nice read about bullet damage on german aircraft. (supposedly 13mm, but Do 17 sounds more like BoB) german fighter damage.pdf

In DCS none at all really. I usually pump once for good measure. German docs say between 3-5 pumps, more in very cold weather conditions. Yes, I always do. Keep the starter clutch pulled for really long, it will catch on eventually. Also open the throttle about 1/4th to 1/3rd, once the engine catches on retract it to idle.

Naw, the third option is auto. This is imho the best option and switches the view according to if you have the gunsight up or folded down. The TrackIR for me sometimes gets stuck "below" the gunsight somehow, is that your problem as well? I havent had this in other planes.

There you go! :) https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3078785&postcount=1 https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AHoyjviaoyY6Ssc&id=DAC6B63213478C56%2148683&cid=DAC6B63213478C56

Very interesting! Thank you! +1

Thank you for the honest response Wags! I hope the release can be realized a bit earlier than end of May. For what its worth, the Asset Pack is what it is now and a lot of 3D models seem to be ready. So at least for me a finished AI Anton, Liberator or G6 isnt a game changer and I would rather have the map earlier than wait for additional AI aircraft to finish.

I did, thats why I said sell the map at 60$. The bundle will be 60$, so where is the problem? Even more well deserved money in for ED overall and noone would have cared. Well it is how it is I guess. Doesnt have to make sense to me in the end, I am gonna buy it anyway. Even though I am a bit irritated overall.

Thank you. But then I still dont see how this is coherent to the current mechanism, where I am able to place a module from eg CA or any other DLC aircraft as AI. And if I want to drive all the ground forces I need to buy CA. Instead now I will need a second module even though controllable ground forces is the very selling point of CA. I dont mind the money as the kit price is very reasonable, but I simply cant quite get behind the logic of this decision. Why not sell the map for 60$ and include the units for free. Noone would have complained, as it stands now I basically pay with my purchases also for stuff I dont care about, such as new SAM models and Igla soldiers and whatnot. But I dont care about that at all, but its ok. They can neither be used for WWII nor Korean scenarios. And now suddenly WWII models are excluded from the usual treatment. I really dont get the point of it.

Just saw the news. I totally dont understand how this is supposed to work if someone doesnt own the asset pack and joins a server where they are placed on the map somewhere. So can he not join in the first place? Will there be no units at all instead? Does this include AI aircraft? So can I not build missions with these AI ac if I dont own the asset pack? Is this really thought through yet? :noexpression: PS: So will I not be able to drive around WWII tanks with CA? This is one of the reasons I bought the module actually. I thought ground forces are mannable via CA. "DCS: Combined Arms gives you control of ground forces during the battle." :(