rel4y

Some sources say 485 had their own installation of .50s with Hispanos retained on the inner cannon bays. They got some Mk IXe in early May (actually even end of April eg ML407 Grace Spitfire) from CB and converted apparantly some their own without mod 1029 of Supermarine. There is not much data about this though, evidence is only brought up at Spitfiresite and some ww2 forum. So I am not sure its true, but there were some pictures shown of Spits with .50s in the outer bay. 1 June 44 Order of battle of 2nd TAF shows 222 and 485 equipped with. 50 cals. Some of the former 485 sqd aircraft went to 349 sqd.

I just looked at the first page and indeed I mentioned the Emil, but that statement still stands true! I used an ata setting (just below 1 ata) at which I could sustain 500 kph, the F-2 graph shown is for Steig und Kampfleistung I believe. Now I dont know how much torque a F-2 with its DB 601 N engine produces at 1.3 ata (2400 rpm, 1020 HP MSL), but I figured the torque produced by a DB 605 DB at sub 1 ata should not be higher (engine output below 1000 PS). At 1.45 ata the DB 605 puts out 1430 HP (MSL). I believe the lengthened tail on the dora and inline engine compared to radial engine will have the highest effect. Do you have by any chance a figure for roll rates of different FW 190 models so we can compare how weight influenced this?

Where am I talking about Emils? Engines can be set at only at full power? How do wing bulges affect roll rate? I think landing gear is the same width as for the F models. Now the weight of the tires is reasonable and I actually havent thought about it. But we are talking 20% decrease of rollrate here. I am not saying its incorrect, I am merely asking for ideas.

The different wing should make it roll faster, different engine is totally irrelevant if torque is the same, for wing loading please read the first page and since that goes hand in hand with weight, weight increase is near center of rotation.

Hey guys! So I tested a bit today and measured average time for a complete roll after about 45° of initial roll to ignore the time of acceleration to maximum roll rate. Weather was set to ISA conditions, starting altitude was 3050m, 500 kph TAS, engine was set to 1,0 ata, fuel was set to 5% and infinite fuel in the menu, MW50 was set to empty and total aircraft weight was 3001kg in the ME. I choose 500 kph because the DCS pilot strength is unknown and 20 kg (44 lbs) should not be limiting. The aircraft weight for a fully loaded F-2 is stated as 2728 kg in this document (kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109F1F2_Kennblatt/Kennblatt_fur_Bf109F1F2_DB601N.PDF). So the weight difference between the tested aircraft is 273 kg. The time for a full roll to the left averaged 5.5-5.6 s and to the right 5.1-5.2 s. Altitude loss for a full roll amounted to about 150-180 m. I tested 6 times in each direction and measured the time while reviewing the track. I didnt touch the rudder and had elevator trim set to -2. The DVL report states an angular velocity of ~1.4 at 500 kph TAS. That is about 80°/s, so for a full 360° turn it would take an F-2 4.5 s at 500 kph TAS. From what I could gather the Frise type ailerons remained unchanged from F-2 to K-4. The wings were apparently strengthened for G & K in comparison to F models which would in turn mean less wing twist. Is there any reason that a K-4 should roll about a second slower than a F-2 with a weight difference of 273kg?

Racoon has already answered that question. A european block 20NA is likely in my eyes.

Was the shadow quality somehow changed? I seem to get very blurry sawtooth shadows in cockpit at shadow quality ultra and MSAA 4x. It happens for me with every module. I seem to remember that in cockpit shadows were fairly sharp and smooth. :huh:

How much fuel did you guys take? You dont usually need to take more than 35%, its just a waste of turning/climbing performance. Always keep your energy up. Take a look at t4trouble on youtube and how he manhandles K-4s. ;)

The DVL report however is in principle applicable, as it shows measured sustained angular velocity including roll inertia and sideslip. Difference being here the model F-2 vs K-4. For which one has to consider different mechanical/structural features of the wing, different center of gravity, mass and power output. Also the maximum stick pressure of the DCS pilot has to be considered at higher velocity. A lot of hard to tell variables going on here and I have not yet seen the full DVL report. Now mass increase (max 350 kg close to the center of rotation) and COG should only have marginal effect. Power settings can be manually adjusted once known, therefore the engine torque can be closely replicated. Structural improvements and mechanical changes would lead to a stiffer wing and different de facto maximum deflection angles of the ailerons. Thus possible increasing rollrate, though the margin would be pure guesswork. Not easy at all.

I am not sure I get what you are saying. Your calculation is correct, you just need to look at the right curve. (gemessen) :o

No 1.42 rad/s -> ~82°/s (if in question always look at "gemessen") ;)

I just tested at ICAO ISA, 3000 m 550 kph TAS and got a roll rate of about 5.5 s/turn. That would be just short of 65.5 °/s. Now I dont have the full DVL report so I cant say much about the fuel load etc. If you could post it Kurfürst I would be glad. Also I dont know how strong the pilot is in DCS. They talk about turning capability, because in general the heavier the plane the worse its turns. Roll rate is a completely different horse. While you would have worse turn radius with higher wing loading you will actually increase roll rate. One cant compare Doras-Emils to later variants though. Different Wing different roll characteristics.

You are kind of comparing apples to oranges here. The chart shows a P-51B which has different wing root chord and less mass in its wings than a D variant. For example the D has 3 .50s compared to the 2 .50s of the B. Also the chart is for IAS, so you would have to adjust for instrument/ position error. Now for the 109 its really hard finding data on the rollrate. There are a few russian documents around and then there is the DVL data. Which was measured on a 109 F-2. This chart gives a maximum of ~82°/s at 550 kph, 3km height. There is a good chart by Ze Hairy on the BoS forums. These data are for TAS btw so dont confuse it with the NACA data above. Also it needs to be noted, that wing stiffness increased for G and K models, so the rollrate will be slightly higher. If the aileron deflection angle or mechanism changed as well I cant say from the top of my head.

Youre a smart one arent ya.. So DCS is not simulating flying, its simulating combat. Well then I guess I have completely misused the jet trainers the whole time. I have just been simulating flying the aircraft while instead I should have been simulating combatting in it! Oh boy. Tell me please whats the great optical difference between lets say a G-2, late G-14, G-10 or an Avia S-199 to a K-4. Please feel free to fight in an I-16 against a K-4 and also feel free to show me where exactly an I-16 type 24 was involved in the spanish civil war... Have fun winning with your 20-something google accounts and by the way your skin is certainly well done. I did not downvote it in any way, I only voted on those which I liked best and gave them 5 Stars. I just dont see why fantasy skins should be included in an official DCS release when this community is striving for historical accuracy of flight models and 3D models the whole time.

Thats simply not true. 25NA models first arrived in Europe around March, by the time these were assembled and distributed it was April. These were the earliest 25NA types, so they already had metal elevators, most likely wing rack hard points, but no AN/APS-13 radar yet. So the very first planes were operational maybe a month before the war ended. These can hardly be called the "european standard". Now I am pretty sure you are quickly going to yell at me how every P-51 could easily be modified for the newest Block in the field. And indeed, that did happen, but only during planned overhauls and only if there was a technical order around. I have an extensive collection of technical orders on my HDD and am certainly willing to check the validity of everything you come up with. Furthermore the parts needed for field-modification mostly were shipped with the newer block planes that had these modifications already installed.

The C and E type wings were structurally the same and also the attachment points for the wing racks were the same. Thus only difference being the armament itself. Interestingly 485 (New Zealand) Squadron converted their C-type wings to E-type wings just prior to D-day. Only threw out the .303s and put in some M2 .50s. No magic going on there.

Mhh weird.. Different source tells me this. I cant find anything on the s/n 44-15660 but the SN tells me its not a 25NA. :o 1945: May 07, delivered, USAAF 44-74202 1945: May, assigned, 445th FS, 4th AF, Bakersfield CA 1945: Jul, assigned, Santa Maria AAF CA 1945: Oct, assigned, 412th FG, Santa Maria AAF CA 1945: Dec, assigned, 420th AAF Base Unit, March AAF CA 1946: Feb, stored, 4160th AAF Base Unit - AMC, Hobbs AAF NM 1947: Jun, stored, San Antonio Air Materiel Center, Kelly AFB TX 1948: Jul, assigned, 27th FG - SAC, Kearney AFB NE 1949: Mar, assigned, 120th FS - CO ANG, Buckley Field CO 1950: Nov, assigned, 140th FW - CO ANG, Buckley Field CO 1951: Apr, assigned, 140th FBW - TAC, Buckley Field CO 1952: May, assigned, Clovis AFB NM 1953: Jan, assigned, 50th FBW - TAC, Clovis AFB NM 1953: Jul, assigned, 165th FBS - KY ANG, Standiford AP KY 1956: Oct, stored, Sacramento Air Materiel Area, McClellan AFB CA 1957: surplus, McClellan AFB Sacramento CA ---------------------- 1958: N5420V, black w/ red lightning stripe, Oakland CA 1966: N5420V, Michael Coutches, Hayward CA 1984: N5420V, sale, Mike Bogue, Oakland CA 1990: N5420V, sale, Michael Coutches, Hayward CA 1999: N5420V, reg, Robert Coutches, Hayward CA 2007: N5420V, sale, N5420V, Jack Croul, Chino CA, restoration 2010: P-51 on the gear nearing completion 2012: May, first-flight, airworthy in plain stars and bars 2012: Jul 05, N5420V, sale, FOX51 LLC / Robert Dickson Jr, Concord NC ---------------------- 2012: Dec 02, "Swamp Fox" was flown in WWII by Lt. Col Will Foard, who enjoyed a P-51 formation flight in 44-74202 Edit: http://www.mustang.gaetanmarie.com/documents/serials.htm looking for the SN 44-15660 it says its a 15NA. So apparently the 25NA 44-74202 delivered May 07 45 now has the painting scheme of the 15NA 44-15660 which arrived in Europe on 10 November 44. The 25NA 44-74202 has never seen Europe and was delivered to the USAAF one day before the war ended in Europe.

Yes

I think the 20NA was introduced in October 44 and the 25NA arrived in Europe not before March 45. So if we want a contemporary to the axis planes we have currently a block 20NA would be a good choice. 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. If you guys want help on what these changes are exactly, feel free to open a topic. :) 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. I also think the ass saving radar was introduced later, maybe mid 25NA production. I would need to check up on this though. As for 72" boost, it may turn out to be really complicated finding good hard data on this rating. Maybe thats also the reason for hesitation on EDs side here.

This vote is a joke.. Have people even tried the skins? I dont think so.. I am sorry for JST. He is my skinning hero as well! And I am probably stepping on someones toes here, but what the heck am I to do with a spanish civil war skin for a K-4.. I thought this was a flight simulator and not war thunder.

Well I just think the beer barrels are heavier than the bombs usually carried.. Many Spitfires of 2nd TAF carried 250 lbs bombs under their wings. Here is a picture of 317 squadron for example. http://www.polishsquadronsremembered.com/317/a26.jpg PS: Here is some information on the bomb racks for Mk IXs. http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x224/ausflyboy/spit20a.jpg http://s165.photobucket.com/user/EdgarBrooks/media/wingrack22_zpscf63d0c0.jpg.html And here is an interesting read ob the "Spitbomber". :D http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/405/language/en-CA/Spitbomber.aspx

Mhh, that sounds weird.. How are two .303s per wing easier on the structure than a second Hispano? Also there is a lot of pictures of Mk IX Spits flying heavy stuff around. http://bestetotnutoe.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/spitfire-beer-3.jpg

Well there it goes again. For comparison purposes of the DCS Spit Mk IX, here is the chart posted before but added with a G-6/G14 AM. :smilewink: The data is based on real flight tests.

Sorry but these numbers were calculated by the author himself with data unknown and are what they are. A table you have no info whatsoever about. If you want accurate numbers check primary sources. Here is one for the start.

The italic part is very right. 2nd TAF used 150 grade starting early 45. Well then please feel free to show me documents stating exactly that (bold part), or show me single squadron documents that prove the use of more than the 16 (evaluation) squadrons in ADGB.