rel4y

It sustained 10.8 Gs on the 3rd video. That sounds pretty good for dynamic loads. I guess you really have to be careful with that elevator... Good tests! Thank you very much! +1

Remember the elevator thread? The large wheel well bulges were introduced late October 1944 and are mainly a MK XVI thing. The cannon shrouds are mid 44 as you found out yourself. Like this no Spit could have flown over Normandy. But like I said, why argue based on such things.. lets rather enjoy the awesome Spitfire.

The DCS Spitfire actually has Nov 1944 features, but who cares honestly..

whatever you do, please dont turn off the IC. That opens the doors for all sorts of unwanted mods...

The ground adjustable rudder/aileron trim tab is a feature I value very highly in DCS. I can fly perfectly hands & feet off at my preferred power settings after careful adjustment.

Oh yeah, the new gliders are aerodynamically very clean, with low parasite drag. Without airbreaks you are not slowing down any time soon. But you can't really compare that to a WWII prop job, especially as the prop if creating no thrust essentially acts as a 3m diameter airbrake. You can assume the whole disc area as creating drag when the prop is being pushed by the airflow. You want high RPM to maximize drag effect, that's why I put the prop pitch at 12.

Sooo friends, I did a takeoff without MW50, 0% ammo and 33 % fuel (2999 kg total weight). Flew around for a while, burnt some fuel at that and tried sideslipping starting at 1 - 1,5k m altitude. Atmosphere at ICAO values. At downwards angles of merely 7° I am actually gaining speed in a full deflection sideslip, with prop pitch at 12 and idle throttle.

Yes, I wasnt sure if you guys knew that it wasnt a reference to Mr. Brunotte but is a rather common german phrase in aviation. No smart ass intentions, I for example wouldnt know such phrases in english being a non native speaker. I would gladly offer my help in translation as well.

I am glad you accept my apology! No bad feelings and a friendlier discussion for us all! :)

@amazing: First of all I am sorry for being a bit of a dick to you in the first place. But you gotta admit as well that you provoked that... So lets get this crap settled, OK? Hey funkyfranky! You are right, obviously v is not the exponent. The exponent is 2, which makes it a quadratic dependency. Valid criticism! When saying impulse is more important I mean that the mass is "more important" in terms of deformation/damage to structure than the velocity, or lets say velocity is not "quadratically relevant". At least when looking at solid body impact and not plasma. This is especially true for armor penetration. So basically when assessing damage you would get a better picture by comparing the absolutes of the impulse instead of looking at kinetic energy. Thats empirically based though and obviously doesnt give the whole picture. Shape, material properties being a big player. This is only valid as a thumb guide for the same projectile shapes at different velocities/masses. While having the same kinetic energy a heavier projectile will generally conserve its energy better and do more damage than a lighter, faster one. I hope Im making sense.

At 400m the Ekin at delta 40 m/s will vary by about 14% but in terminal ballistics the impulse would be much more important so that the exponential influence of v would be diminished. For a pure explosive shell it honestly doesnt matter much at all. Almost 100% of the effect will be chemical. But else I agree about everything you said.

Kalifornischer Riesenslip is a common german funny reference and nothing that Mr. Brunotte made up himself. This is the Dora though in the video. Remember what you responded to my question some weeks ago? You said this: And I understand the problem, as there are no documents on this exact rudder variant. I am not saying anything is wrong, I am just asking e.g. why I cant slow down at idle throttle in a full sideslip with prop pitch at 12, say in the steady range of 300 to 500 kph.

Sure the ballistics are implemented. Thats why they corrospond to the charts! The K4 is not the first model with guns. This is probably modeled since some Flanker game 10 years ago.

Hehe, now were getting to the interesting things. ;) 1. Wind certainly is, but the rest as I said, no clue. 2. Look below at the graph. I also have the corresponding table here and REVI height is 74,5 cm over the MK 108 barrel line. Edit: Graph reuploaded.

Yes. This manufacturer document disagrees with you. http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/MK%20108/Text/Munition/Munitionentwicklung/Entwicklung%20Mu%20MK%20108.pdf The op stated it should be 20-40 m/s faster. I dont know based on which source, but I just used 40 m/s as a demonstration. The values of the Lua are perfect in my eyes, for the M-Geschoss (330g) and M-Brandgranatpatrone (370g). So thats why I dont get all the fuzz. This table is for the M-Brandgranatpatrone (370g). It is mislabled as well, thats why in my bug report I suspected thats where EDs mistake comes from. To prove my point I posted the technical drawings of the shells which sho the correct weights and names.

Oh thats quite easy, its 1 complete turn in 630mm. 630mm is 24,8 inches, so you get 1/24,8 inches twist. :)

I know that, but someone in this thread says 30 m/s is gonna make a huuuge impact on trajectory, because of kinetic Energy! Yes you hear right, kinetic Energy is the key here! ;) The difference for delta 40 m/s (500 vs 540 m/s) is 66 ms flight time at 400m. twist rate is 630mm and barrel length is 545mm.

Which dimensions do you need? Btw quickly ran the calc for v0 delta of 20 m/s, the difference in drop is around 27 cm at 400 m. The difference for delta 40 m/s (500 vs 540 m/s) is 1 MOA at 100m, so 67% of the gun dispersion at that range. Like I said earlier... this is kinda sensless.

Both G1 and G7 drag profiles will give good approximations. G1 will in my opinion be closer. I can tell you that the delta v0 is modeled with an 0,8% randomization, but if altitude effects are modeled.. no clue. ;)

Well if using the Rechlin charts you need to stay at ISA, so altitude at 0. The kestrel is probably using the same calculations that all ballistic calculators are, so shouldnt be much of a difference. I dont really know how you want to use your kestrel without BC input? I dont think there will be presets for german WWII ammo? Sorry made a stupid imperial units conversion mistake.. Try 0.852 as BC. 0.332 looked awfully low for such a massy projectile. This is for a G1 drag curve btw.

Sooo I quickly ran the calculation and arrived at an BC of 0.332. :) Let me hear what you get.

You can derive the BC from the ballisticc table I posted earlier. The kestrel should support that. Its more precise than these G profiles for small arms.

Does your kestrel support 30mm ammo? Otherwise you would need to manually input the BC. The shells look like that: amazingme says this is a blunt lead nose (apparently called G7 at hornady)

Well what BC did you use and how did you arrive at it? Do you think you get away with googling a ballistic calc and then hornady does all the thinking for you? Why on earth did you include winddrift in he first one and are these at ISA values? :D Why does your 30 mm shell have less E0 than a .308? So many mistakes..

Oh my... "in physics", yes cause these are the simplified formulas for school kids. If you actually wanna get close to real world results then maybe you should quote the next paragraph from wikipedia or wherever you got that from.. and sure trajectory depends on v0, I have said that more than once. Just kinetic E doesnt give you jack info about it like you started off. Just let it be ok?! Im done. The ballistic tables are from the official Rechlin documents and the rest is from the Luftwaffe LDv (Dienstvorschriften) of 1944. By the way the same ones Yo-Yo used with 99% safety. I have named my sources in the other thread that obviously noone bothers to read.