rel4y

OK, so lets take RB152 as example. FF 3-12-43 39MU 27-12-43 610S 14-2-44 AST 8-5-44 'Gem' mods 610S CAC ops 24-6-44 ros 350S 22-2-45 CAC ops 28-2-45 130S 5-4-45 3BRU CE 23-11-46 610S CAC ops 24-6-44 -> So, with 610 Sqd the ac during operations sustained category AC damage on 24.06.44. Next entry is: ros 350S 22-2-45 -> On 22.02.45 the ac was repaired on site by 350 Sqd. How is this correctly interpreted? Category AC repair is beyond unit capacity, thats clear. So was it transferred to RSU/MU/factory sometime after 24.06.44, repaired there and returned to 610 Sqd or afterwards directly reassigned to 350 Sqd. Or was it repaired on site by 350 Sqd at 22.02.45, or is the ros entry related to a second accident? This is all but unambiguous.

I dont think this is it, as CB and CAC are damage assessment codes for the British Air Ministry. Usually the listed aircraft also goes to RSUs and or AST/H after a CAC/CB ops incident. http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/abbreviations.html http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/damage.html It must be something related to aircraft damage or repair.

Yes I am working mainly with this site. Do you by any chance know what "CAC ops" or "CB ops" abbreviates for? I would really like to know what ops stands for.

I sadly only have reliable info for 2 Sqd yet which flew the last Mustang I sortie on 17/1/45. Lets see if something useful turns up. :) BTW: I think you were right and I was wrong about Squadrons 91 and 32. After equipping with Mk IXs in Aug 44, they seem to have started reequipping with new Mk. XIVe again in November 44. It may very well be they were mostly Mk. XIVs in Dec 44. So Ill take everything back and claim the opposite! :D

Not exactly. Attrition was much much higher and as I have said numerous times now 2 Sqd and 430 Sdq were mixed with Mustangs till Jan 45. But there were some more Squadrons equipped with Mk. XIVs as well. So in the end there were probably somewhere above 100 examples in service in Dec 44. I am currently compiling a sheet based on SNs mostly from (airhistory.org.uk) for all Mk. XIVs and should be able to give almost pinpoint numbers after I am done. It just takes time to do. If someone meanwhile could tell me what the abbreviations "CAC ops" or "CB ops" means I would be very grateful. I am guessing it has smething to do with parts salvage after Cat AC/B damage classification.

Haha you are funny. I even posted of two squadrons flying mixed sorties already. There were also almost no squadrons equipped permanently with 20 aircraft. Ever heard of attrition? Bodenplatte alone cost ten XIVs. For a start you could tell me how many spits 2 and 430 Squadron really had in Jan 45, plus which other types and I will start taking you seriously.

@MiloMorai, the OOBs you posted have quite a number of mistakes. They are in principal mostly correct but are off about the dates. I wonder what his sources are. PS: I will not involve myself in this pointless discussion here, but doing some serious research on the Spitfires in the last weeks I can not yet find trace of more than ~90 Mk XIVs in the wohle RAF/RCAF/Recce in Jan 45.

Yes, these are good books indeed MoloMorai! :thumbup: I personally only have the last one, but probably all of them are well worth acquiring.

Not with MK XIVs. ;) It is only mentioned if they were stationed in Europe with that specific Mk. PS: Both Squadrons are equipped with Mk IXBs in Dec 44. The Mk IX list is a monster and took me ages.. :(

Corresponds pretty much with what I have on the Mk XIV so far. Mk XIV 41 Squadron (9/44 - 9/45) to Europe 05/12/44 (5/11/44 2nd TAF, armed recon) 91 Squadron (3/44 - 8/44) not in Europe 130 Squadron (8/44 - 5/45) to Europe ? 322 Squadron (3/44 - 8/44) not in Europe 350 Squadron (8/44 - 11/45) to Europe 03/12/44 402 Squadron (8/44 - 1/45) to Europe 30/09/44 (XIVe) 610 Squadron (1/44 - 3/3/45) to Europe 04/12/44 Recce Mk XIV FR 2 Squadron (11/44 - 09/45) to Europe 29/06/44 (Mustang sorties until 17/1/45) 268 Squadron XIVB (4/45 - 9/45) to Europe 8/44 414 Squadron XIV (4/45 - 7/8/45) 430 Squadron XIV (11/44 - 8/45) (full conversion 1/45/ F converted into FR)

True, I just have all "400s" in one sheet. I was missing mainly info on the RCAFs though. :) I also havent done the XVIs yet.

Ok I just missed it, here is what I have found so far. Looking much better than before! :) Thank you for the response. 401 Squadron IXB (8/42 - 12/42); IXB (10/43 - 4/45) to Europe 18/06/44 402 Squadron IX (8/42 - 3/43); IXc (7/44 - 8/44) 403 Squadron IXb (1/43 - 12/44) to Europe 16/06/44 411 Squadron IXb (10/43 - 09/44); IXe (9/44 - 5/45) to Europe 19/06/44 412 Squadron IXb (11/43 - 9/44); IXe (9/44 - 5/45) to Europe 18/06/44 414 Squadron IX (08/44 - 4/45) 416 Squadron IX (3/43 - 6/43); IXB (6/44 - 12/44) to Europe 16/06/44 417 Squadron IX (3/44 - 5/44); IX (4/45 - 7/45) MTO 421 Squadron IX (5/43 - 2/44); IXB (2/44 - 12/44) to Europe 16/06/44 441 Squadron IXB (3/44 - 1/45); IX (1/45 - 5/45) to Europe 15/06/44 442 Squadron IXB (3/44 - 9/44); IXe (9/44 - 4/45) to Europe 15/06/44 443 Squadron IXB (4/44 - 2/45) to Europe 15/06/44 451 Squadron IX (12/43 - 1/45) 453 Squadron IXB (3/43 - 6/43); IXB/IXe (1/44 - 11/44) to Europe 25/06/44 485 Squadron IXB (7/43 - 11/43); IXB (2/44 - 7/44); IXB (4/45 - 8/45); IXe (7/44 - 2/45) to Europe 31/08/44 402 Squadron XIVe (8/44 - 1/45) to Europe 30/09/44 414 Squadron XIV (4/45 - 7/8/45) 430 Squadron XIV (11/44 - 8/45) (full conversion 1/45/ F converted into FR)

I have compiled an extensive list of all squadrons flying mostly Mk. IXs, which subtype and the corresponding time period of operation. However, I am missing some information regarding RCAF squadrons.The RAF documents are not very yielding in regards to RCAF squadrons. And I have no acces to possible RCAF documentation. Does anybody have reliable information on dates concerning the following Squadrons? 411 Squadron IXb (10/43 - 09/44); IXe (09/44 - ?/45) to Europe 19/06/44 412 Squadron IXb (11/43 - ?/45) to Europe 18/06/44 416 Squadron IX (3/43 - ???) to Europe 16/06/44 421 Squadron IXb (5/43 - ???) to Europe 16/06/44 402 Squadron (8/44 - ???) to Europe 30/09/44 (XIVe) Recce 430 Squadron (between 6 to 12 ?/44 - 8/45) (partly converted/ F converted into FR) PS: I am sorry, I didnt want to hijack your thread! Good read, thank you!

That sounds great! Thanks for the answer Yo-Yo.

Has anybody of ED looked into this?

Sure! All you have to do is look at the respective AN 01-60JE-4 Parts Catalog P-51D and P-51K Aircraft, British model Mustang IV. (I used 10. March 1945, they go up to 1953.) Then find the part/ part number and check the usage code. With the usage code you can allocate a specific part number to a SN range of aircraft which were factory built with that particular part. Now I have effectively surrendered my little secret to IDing and "Block" assigning every little part of the P-51. :smilewink: But thats not bad because you actually made me look up the specifics again and I realized I was mistaken. So the AN/APS-13 was actually introduced on late 20NA models instead of 25NA as I incorrectly remembered. SN 44-72127 upwards. The first batch to be equipped with AN/APS-13s (SN 44-72127 to SN 44-72226) ran off the production line between 12/44 and 1/45. Somewhere around March and April 45 they first saw action in the ETO. PS: Pilots usually turned it off and used their mirrors instead, as the warning radio did not differentiate between friend and foe.

Yeah he is right, a D5NA is an ill choice. If we want a contemporary to the axis planes we have currently a block 20NA would be a good choice. The very first 20NAs were introduced in October 44. It would be the first type to be equipped with the K-14 gyro gunsight from the factory (mid/late production) and wouldnt need too many adjustments 3D wise to the current model. The only real loss would be the HVAR rockets, but those werent really used in the european theatre at all by Mustangs. The three cell "christmas tree" launchers instead were used in the anti armor role. Well and the AN/APS-13 was introduced much later, around mid 25NA production. 25NA models first arrived in Europe around March 45.

I think we are both saying the same thing really. :) You are a bit misinterpreting what I was saying. I said "you cant really desire" putting a 109 F instead of a K against a Mk. IX LF, not because it would be totally wrong but because in terms of relative performance it is much worse than Mk. IX LF against a 109 K. So the people complaining about a misfit are suggesting as solution an even bigger misfit. ;) While saying that I also implied the mid/late production G models are a well fitting opponent to the Mk. IX LF. For the rest I just want to add some comments for consideration. Please differentiate between the early converted (Mk V to) Mk. IXs (Merlin 61 etc) and the later Mk. IX LF/HF (Merlin 66/70). The Mk IX LF/HF was used operationally until the end of the war and by all means was competetive. I posted the Order of Battle for D-Day in another thread including comments on Mk. V and Mk XIV. (http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2748861&postcount=1218) Absolutely true, but the G-10 was introduced even after the K-4, so I dont really understand what you are supposing. Every army will have a mixture of equipment until they are completely replaced, but you said that as well. So let me rephrase that I am saying the DCS Mk IX LF has a late 1943 motor config because what are we really comparing here anyways... Airframe wise the 109 F onwards is a 1939 aircraft and the Spit 1936 with minor changes. I stand by my point saying the DCS Mk IX LF will be a worthy opponent. :) PS: We are basically agreeing, arent we? I am a bit confused tbh. It is also drifting somewhat offtopic from MW50.

No you cant really desire a F versus a Mk IX. The 109 G serial production startet in Feb 42 while the very first Mk IXs were introduced maybe June/ July 42. So the very first IXs arrived as the F model was already phased out and the DCS one is a more developed version of the Mk IX. (late 43 at least) Also dont forget that the Spits main advantage is not level speed, it is not a boom and zoomer. It doesnt need to be faster, but it accelerates about equally well as the 109 K4 (better than the 51/ Dora) and outturns them all. I expect it will be a worthy opponent, while the Mk XIV will be superior to everything. The higher boost will alter many factors besides boost (eg fuel consuption, FTH, etc), you cant just do parallel transition of the velocity graphs. The immense high altitude performance of the DCS IX LF is actually where my mind starts to putter around as it outperforms the HF variants.

I personally havent seen a diference in level speeds. The 51 always was and rightly so is a few kph faster than the K4. The Dora again should be a little faster than the 51. I dont believe there was a change in this regard.

For some reason there are many spelling mistakes in that diagram... It is an original though. Fürerraum, Entfeineruna? I cant tell you why. Well my point is the early production models with Werfer 21 support had the MW switch below in the sources I know of. Later types didnt have these switches at all.

I should have posted this link as well. Very good info, which shows a MW50 switch installed on top in a single switch configuration. There is also an original photo of a captured K4 with the MW50 switch in the lower position. http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/Flugzeuge/Jeager/Me109K/Cockpit/cockpit.htm

Ok third and last report for today. :smilewink: So I noticed the weapons.lua says the Brandgranatpatrone is modeled, but it actually is a different one which is called the Minen- Brandgranatpatrone. Between 1943 and mid 1944 several new types of 30mm ammo were designed and produced. The June 1944 loadout recommendation (LDv 4000/10) for the MK 108 is as correctly scripted in DCS 1x Minen-Geschosspatrone and 1x Brandgranatpatrone. (Dont mind the Gl. Spur and L.Spur, its irrelevant. Gl.Spur is for Nightfighters and Brandgranatpatrone doesnt have L.Spur.) The other possibility is to only load M- Brandgranatpatrone, which is pretty much a mix of the both types. The culprit is actually that the Brandgranatpatrone is not modeled, but instead the Minen- Brandgranatpatrone. Following are pictures of the two. Now there is also a difference in mass between M-Geschosspatrone/ Brandgranatpatrone (~330g) and M- Brandgranatpatrone (~370g) with the corresponding ballistic differences. The following ballistic tables correspond to M-Geschosspatrone/ Brandgranatpatrone (~330g) and M- Brandgranatpatrone (~370g) which is actually mislabeled there as well. Maybe thats were the mistake originally came from? But as you can see in the technical drawings above the M-Geschosspatrone & Brandgranatpatrone both have the same mass of ~330g. The ballistic tables are from Handbuch der Flugzeugbordwaffenmunition 1936-1945. The colored drawings are taken from LDv 4000/10. (de.scribd.com/doc/214886494/L-Dv-4000-10-Munitionsvorschrift-fur-Fliegerbordwaffen-Teil-10-1944) The weight of the MK 108 cartridge is pretty much spot on. The beltpieces were actually 5g lighter than DCS puts them in the weapons.lua. 105g instead of 110g. So to conclude, as loadout either only M-Brandgranatpatrone should be used or the (more frequently used) M-Geschosspatrone/ Brandgranatpatrone combination. For the latter version the Brandgranatpatrone needs to be modeled. As shown above in terms of ballistics it is the same as the M-Geschosspatrone. Also the belt pieces are a tad to heavy. Thanks for reading!

So not sure what the cockpit layout is based on, but the in this December 44 K4 manual the following switches are swapped. The function of switch 15 (DCS)/ 26 (manual) is also a bit different. (deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me%20109/Bf%20109%20K-4%20Teil%209A.pdf)

I know that, thats why I gave you the tables for exact numbers. My text is just there for explanation and as you may see the numbers are always with a ~ before them. The tables are measured numbers and not calculated so temperature is factored in. And this is what I wrote about compressibility in the text above: