rel4y

The engine of the 109 was angled slightly downwards in real life as well. The barrel should be in line with the holllow hub. So might be just that. I dont know what the reference grid is though. I checked the trajectory some time ago and it is pretty much on the point. Only the belt pieces are slightly too heavy afaik. As long as you spare me your pseude science, Im fine with whatever you think.

Hey Krupi! Can you check at how many Gs the wings break off? You probably know this already, but its Ctrl + Z twice for me and you can read out the real TAS and Gs of the plane from the bottom bar. Maybe if you have some spare time, could you check the exact Gs the wings fall off? That would be really helpful. I cant buy the Spit until its out of Beta, its not on Steam yet.

Nooo you cant use RDX as propellant, too high expansion and burn rate. That's a secure way to get everyone involved killed and the gun destroyed. Noone would do that, that's completely stupid. Peak pressure would bust any chamber. That one is called a bomb. These explosives were used as a explosive charge within the round, but as propellant you always have to use slow burning powdered charges. With more powder in the same cartidge you lose burn efficiency if you are over the optimal fill percentage. That's were the neck angle comes into play as well. Rifle twist is adjusted at an optimal target v0, if this is exceeded the round well slip over the twist and the projectile becomes unstable. A higher cartridge propellant load must not mean higher peak or effective chamber pressures and higher pressure peak rates don't automatically mean a better trajectory. Like I said, this can't be done with 7th grade physics. Now to the historical view of this. The Germans used throughout the war the same propellant in their cartridges. There were higher v0 8x57mm cartridges produced for the Luftwaffe since 1940, because the cartridge allowed for that. And this was certainly not done by adding RDX to the propellant. The MK108 was a modified and down sized MK101/103 cartridge which limited it's usefulness from the very inception. The case was basically filled to the brim with propellant already, but it was small and comparatively light. The MK108 has a complex design by itself. Let me put it in simple words. The breech is non locking and the cartridge is fired before it is completely inserted into the barrel. This is practical as much of the recoil is absorbed by mass inertia of the heavy breech, but also means RPM is directly tied to effective pressure and recoil of the cartridge. The barrel had to be kept a stump so the pressure rates would not exceed cartridge and gun limits. Late in the war there were experiments done to increase RPM of the MK108, this was actually done by strengthening the buffer springs and decreasing breech weight for lower breech inertia and faster cycle rates. They reached theoretical RPMs of up to 1200 but the bad quality stamped sheet metal and she'll casing could not support it. Higher v0 was never really an option, as that would have needed a longer barrel to allow for the propellant load to actually be converted into velocity. But the resulting peak pressure rates would have destroyed the gun. I hope I kept it simple enough to be understandable. PS: like I said earlier, the shell ballistics are correct, but the shell is mislabeled. It is actually the heavier (370g) M-Brandgranatpatrone and not the normal Brandgranatpatrone (330g), which explains the lower v0.

Well sorry.. you come to the party with this: First of all the rounds for MK101, 103 and 108 were all developed in the 40s. The one I mentioned earlier as late as 44. In the late 30s was the first time that cannons were introduced at all for german aircraft and these were the 20mms based on Oerlikon designs. Next you are saying they used RDX as a propellant.. There is a nice anecdote where this was actually done. In Vietnam the US forces dropped "modified" 7.62x39mm for the AKs of the North Vietnamese, when actually firing one of these doctored shells the whole rifle blew up in the face of the poor guy and either blew his head of or wounded him badly. So hopefully now you have realized that the type of explosive of the filler has no relevance to v0 of the projectile. So a FLAK shell is not from FLAK artillery? That sounds like a sassy comment of a 14 year old. That whole paragraph is ridiculous.. No you can certainly not calculate v0 based on the chemical reaction, mass and gas pressure. Theres barrel length, there is barrel twist dependent on target v0, there is cartridge neck angle, there is powder burn rate, powder burn efficiency. What the heck do you even mean by calculating based on chemical reaction? I had 3 years of chemistry and 5 years of physics in university, so you can stop trying to sound smart its not gonna work. The kinetic energy of a projectile is useless for trajectory characterization. You can derive it at any time point of the function, but it tells you just about zero about the trajectory. The ballistic coefficiant is important to look at, as a projectile with higher v0 will loose its kinetic energy initially at a higher rate than a slower one. Drag effects are exponential, so its not a linear dependancy. I can derive the BC of the MK108 projectile tomorrow as I have all the ballistic tables at home for these rounds. Then I can calculate the difference in drop, but I can predict today that its gonna be sub MOA. And sub MOA means that the gun dispersion is larger than the difference in drop, which makes this whole discussion senseless.. You cant simply look at this with 7th grade physics and claim this: I dont know what and where you checked, but this is an insult to all the great work ED has done..

lol :D your funny. I like you.

So you say the germans should have used Hexogen and Cyclonite (which are the same thing by the way) in the shells as propellant.. lol :D May I ask you where you got your knowledge about explosives from? Cause that is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Hexogen was used as an explosive compound in artillery shells. The 30mm rounds were filled with PETN or Nitropenta as it is called in Germany and most often Tetryl as a charge booster.

What do you mean? The top mentioned round was introduced in 1944, so what exactly is 1940 about the DCS ammo?

How do we know how much fuel the aircraft has loaded in the video? Anybody mentioned speculations here? What I do see for a fact is the small rudder type and very little rudder deflection on takeoff. The take off run was 650m +-30m measured with google earth. Flaps are set to ~6-8 deg, horizontal stab at 0. Thats a starting point I would say.

The ballistics are correct for the modelled round. It is simply mislabled, actually its called Minen-Brandgranatpatrone and its functionally a mix of the Brandgranatpatrone and Minengranatpatrone. Truth is, the Brandgranatpatrone has not been modeled at all as of yet. See here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=170408

Yeah.. the rudder is utterly ineffective in DCS. Californischer riesenslip (sideslip)? No way. Snap roll? Not a chance. Taxiing with rudder, even at high RPM? Nope! This always has thrown me off a bit tbh.

I am not sure I get what you are saying.. I know the ZSK is correctly labled, but there was never a Zusatzgerätebrett with 4 lights built into a K-4 in serial production. The RII of former 109s with 4x 50kg bomb rack was canceled for the K-4, no 4x 50kg bomb rack was ever used in WW2 on a K-4 officially, ED is not planning on modelling one either as it never was used on a K-4. I know you know the deutscheluftwaffe site as you have pmed me about it some time ago. Take a look at number 27, they say the same thing. Putting in 4 lights would have been a waste of resources, although the ZSK certainly supported the lamps and 4x 50kg bombs as it was in earlier 109 models. http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/Flugzeuge/Jeager/Me109K/Cockpit/Analyse/Hauptseite.htm Das Zusatzgerätebrett is wirklich nur ein Brett in dem die Lampen befestigt werden, das ZSK bleibt das gleiche. Da RII gestrichen wurde, waren 4 Lampen unnötig und es wurde auf den Einbau der überflüssigen 3 Lampen in diesem Brett verzichtet.

Well, the three further lamps serve no purpose at all. As there currently is not and it is not planned to be included a four bomb rack. The four bomb rack was used since 109 E models early in the war (probably earlier), later in the war the AB cluster bomb containers were preferred. The low res light is definitely an alpha channel issue of said texture, as I tried modifying the dds and it looked much better.

For the K4 the Rüstsatz RII (ETC 50/VIII mit 4 50kg Bomben) was canceled and only RI remained in term of bombloads, which was a single 250kg or 500kg bomb. Therefore the Zusatzgerätebrett was simplified for production K4 and only one bomb indicator light was installed instead of four. What actually annoys me though is the very low resolution of the bomb indicator light texture. This is probably due to the weird bf109cpt_light.dds alpha channel. It doesnt really fit in the otherwise beautiful high res cockpit. The following picture is of White 8, a force landed K-4 April 45.

...you do realize that Lancasters, B-24s and B-17s and the like killed maybe a million german civilians alone, right? That doesnt even count french, italian, netherlands, belgian, bulgarian, romanian, etc.. victims. And B-17s and Lancs are what exactly to you then? The Allied Horror machines that rained death from above to kill as many civilians as possible? Moral bombing at its best I guess. Its a plane for gods sake.. and its history. Dont buy it, dont play the moral (bombing) apostle..

+100

The germans measured real G loads as well during combat missions and established a nice tree graph with G-loads vs incidence. A lot of weird things being said in this thread anyway... Comparing static G load trials with real life loads is pretty useless, these were done to compare with factory spec static loads. The most stress will be caused ba asymmetrical loading and torsion of the wings. Also in WWII there were quite some cases where resonance caused an otherwise sound structure to collapse, simply because certain things were not known at the time. I think people proposing 20 G limits cant possibly know what this would mean from an engineering point of view. Thats pretty crazy for a flying structure with non modern alloys nor honeycomb structures..

It was just coincidence that I looked up the thickness and posted it Krupi, no worries. I dont know the rest of the plating gauge, I only have a drawing of the XI/XIX D-Box tank. There was a high speed dive test performed with BS310 (Mk IX) in March 44. They tested to Mach .83. The results were in a nutshell: the elevators became very heavy, the aircraft developed a longitudinal pitching movement and there was considerable turbulence around the cockpit. No structural damage though. Skin wrinkling in high G dive bombing pull outs or when flying armed recce was apparently a concern for the RAF. No. 125 reported several such incidents within a few weeks and it was investigated in November 44. No mention of broken wings though. I guess the prop will be the limiting factor in high speed dives anyway, as above Mach .85 the drag of the prop sykrockets and will likely be shed to pieces before anything else.

The leading edge dural sheet of Mk XI and XIX and was 10 gauge. This is a PR XI / XIX wing btw I found over google pics (all credit to the photographer), you can see even in the photo the thick leading edge skin. It is also the only part of the skin thats not completely eroded.

Well the roll stick forces & roll speeds are now spot on to a 1944 DVL test. I don't know what the guys from the Me foundation well tell you, but unless they have altered the aileron mechanism they will likely have the same results. The K model line had different elevator gearing than the G line, so I am not completely convinced it is perfect yet. I don't believe in (pilot)feelings as a basis for FMs, there are enough systematic and well documented tests around and the corresponding maths describe the envelope much less error prone than feelings.

The M2000C regularly takes two AIM120s and goes supersonic at MSL right afterwards. :P

Yeah the leading edge dural plate was about twice as thick and there was an extra dural sheet inserted orthogonal to close off the tank volume. Ammo compartments were reinforced with struts and some other small changes. I am 99% sure there is a section in Spitfire The History where I read the specifics. When I come home from vacation I'll gladly post the page number.

Please look it up yourself, it's not hard to find blueprints. There is even a section about it in Spitfire the History including sketches.

Well I think you can't ignore the significantly thicker aluminum sheets being used on the Mk XI wings. These contribute a large share to structural integrity. It is really not appropriate in my eyes to compare a Mk IX wing to a Mk XI one.

A Spit XI has completely different wing structure than a IX. The test is somewhere online btw maybe it was on WWII aircraft performance, not sure. If I remember correctly the engineers themselves doubted the results of that test our it was severely damaged. Can't really remember.

Hehe, I was asking you as I honestly dont know. :thumbup: So far I very much like the new stick forces, good job and thank you Yo-Yo!