rel4y

Where does it say ADGB is using 150 grade fuel in this paper? How many squadrons in 20/11/44? Wait what?! Then where does the paper say "25! Spitfire IX Squadrons" were converted to 150 grade fuel in 1944? It requests future changes to enable the use. If it tells us one thing for sure, then it is that 2nd TAF Spitfires did not employ 150 grade fuel as long as at least 20/11/44. The Order of battle for December 31 44 shows exactly 25 squadrons of Spitfires by the way, now thats interesting for a change. I just named two of the Mosquito XIX squadrons which were converted to 150 grad in 44 for evaluation. These are 2 out of the 16 mentioned. What have you guys shown so far? The facts still stand, 16 squadrons of ADGB were using 150 grade in 44 none of 2nd TAF.

Did you even read the paper? That is the 20/11/44 and it says clearly necessitates modifications to the following aircraft! The switch took over in early 45 and I can even give you squadron logbooks. What?! :mad: Im out... In 44 there were exactly 16 RAF squadrons that we know of to employ 150 grade fuel.

What? :o Are you completely out of your mind? Seriously, whats your problem? 85 and 157 Squadrons, converted 2nd and 3rd of July 44 respectively. In mid 44 ADGB had 55 Squadrons assigned of which 16 were using 150 grade fuel. Is that supposed to be very common? How is B4 fuel cutting edge? Please guys, stick to the facts.

Yes I can, but can you name me 16 MK IX Squadrons which were supposedly converted to 150 grade in 44?

Youre a very special person indeed! It is really nice that for example 3 squadrons Mosquitos were converted to 150 grade, but who cares?

If one thing wasnt rare, then its MW50. Otherwise I agree with you. I am just unsure if a 25" boost Spit wouldnt be too powerful for the Axis planeset. Better turnrate, better climbrate (almost 26 m/s), better anti fighter armament than the K4 and almost the same level speed (585 kph at 850 m). Maybe 18" boost is not such a bad decision after all. Would you mind telling me what exactly these cutting edge fuels are? They dont even have C3 modeled and C3 was available since the BoB.

Yeah, spot on! (Spit special :D ) 1 and 165 Sqns were using 150 fuel and exactly nada of all the other groups mentioned. I was just genuinely confused why he kept posting this.. I think for a timeframe before early 45 25" boost/ 150 grade fuel is not easily justified for the Spit IX. Now when thinking about fighting a K4 or D9 I think early 45 is a good timeframe and 25" boost would be a valid option. The Normandy timeframe is beyond me anyway. Kurfurst, I just looked at the weights and rad settings of these tests and a maximum climb of 25-26 m/s looks about right, everything above is just fantasy.

Yeah thats hardly interesting.. No 9 Group wasnt operational starting at latest August 4 1944 and some of the other Groups were disbanded as well. I dont think all groups mentioned even had Mk IXs. I dont see were it says these groups were using 150 grade fuel. Mind, this is a group level information and not a squadron order.

29 m/s at deck!?!?! You have got to be sh*tting me! That is an ungodly jet like climb rate.. 25.8 m/s up to 500ft sounds more reasonable though. Now we just have to convince Yo-Yo. :D HiJack please look at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/backfire-2.jpg! There you have your 16 squadrons, with two of them being MK IXs as we just all agreed on. :P

I didnt take it as bad intentions, sometimes one just overlooks stuff. I think its pretty obvious that by January 45 a significant (probably most) Spits were flying on 150 grade and 25 boost. So are there any graphs for 25" climb rate around? It is probably a beast! :joystick:

Well not exactly MiloMorai. Out of these 16 squadrons I think only two were Spitfire Mk IXs. Take a look at the last paper you quoted. Or did I miss something? Also the list I posted is just 2nd TAF and does not include the whole ADGB list. ADGB should have had a total of 10 squadrons MK IXs (HF, LF & early models) in June 44. From what I have read there did seem to be quite a lot of issues with Merlins and heavily leaded 150 grade fuel. I still think the spit will hold its own against any opponent atm.

How is the Spitfire IX a 1943 airplane? It was the main RAF fighter workhorse during the invasion of Normandy, during Operation Bodenplatte and even till the end of the war. There were also a bunch of Tyffies around, but I would much prefer a Spit IX over a Tyffie anyday. Reserve units were still equipped with Mark Vs at that time and there were two Squads of Mark XIVs around which were used for trials and recon. I think the Spit will fare pretty well online. It will outturn anything and climb as good as the 109. I am excited! THough I hope the LF doesnt outperform the HF at high alt, because thats just plain wrong.. ORDER OF BATTLE 6th JUNE 1944 No2 Group 137 Wing 88 Squadron Boston IIIA 342 (French) Squadron Boston IIIA 226 Squadron Mitchell II 138 Wing 107 Squadron Mosquito VI 305 (Polish) Squadron Mosquito VI 613 Squadron Mosquito VI 139 Wing 98 Squadron Mitchell II 180 Squadron Mitchell II 320 (Dutch) Squadron Mitchell II 140 Wing 21 Squadron Mosquito VI 464 (RAAF) Squadron Mosquito VI 487 (RNZAF) Squadron Mosquito VI No 83 Group 39 (RCAF) Reconnaissance Wing 400 (RCAF) Squadron Spitfire IX SP 168 Squadron Mustang I 414 (RCAF) Squadron Mustang I RU 430 (RCAF) Squadron Mustang I G9 15 Sector 122 Wing 19 Squadron Mustang III QV 65 Squadron Mustang III YT 122 Squadron Mustang III MT 125 Wing 132 Squadron Spitfire IX FF 453 (RAAF) Squadron Spitfire IX FU 602 Squadron Spitfire IX LO 129 Wing 184 Squadron Typhoon IB BR 17 Sector 126 Wing 401 (RCAF) Squadron Spitfire IX YO 411 (RCAF) Squadron Spitfire IX DB 412 (RCAF) Squadron Spitfire IX VZ 127 Wing 403 (RCAF) Squadron Spitfire IX KH 416 (RCAF) Squadron Spitfire IX DN 421 (RCAF) Squadron Spitfire IX AU 144 Wing 441 (RCAF) Squadron Spitfire IX 9G 442 (RCAF) Squadron Spitfire IX Y2 443 (RCAF) Squadron Spitfire IX Z1 22 Sector 121 Wing 174 Squadron Typhoon IB XP 175 Squadron Typhoon IB HH 245 Squadron Typhoon IB MR 124 Wing 181 Squadron Typhoon IB EL 182 Squadron Typhoon IB XM 247 Squadron Typhoon IB ZY 143 Wing 438 (RCAF) Squadron Typhoon IB F3 439 (RCAF) Squadron Typhoon IB 5V 440 (RCAF) Squadron Typhoon IB I8 83 Group Reserve with ADGB 64 Squadron Spitfire V SH 234 Squadron Spitfire V AZ 303 (Polish) Squadron Spitfire V RF 345 (French) Squadron Spitfire Vb 2Y 350 (Belgian) Squadron Spitfire Vb MN 402 (Canadian) Squadron Spitfire V AE 501 Squadron Spitfire V SD 611 Squadron Spitfire V FY No 84 Group 35 Reconnaissance Wing 2 Squadron Mustang IA OI 268 Squadron Mustang IA 4 Squadron Spitfire XI TV 18 Sector 131 Wing 302 (Polish) Squadron Spitfire IX WX 308 (Polish) Squadron Spitfire IX ZF 317 (Polish) Squadron Spitfire IX JH 132 Wing 66 Squadron Spitfire IX LZ 331 (Norwegian) Squadron Spitfire IX FN 332 (Norwegian) Squadron Spitfire IX AH 134 Wing 310 (Czech) Squadron Spitfire IX NN 312 (Czech) Squadron Spitfire IX DU 313 (Czech) Squadron Spitfire IX 19 Sector 135 Wing 222 Squadron Spitfire IX ZD 349 (Belgian) Squadron Spitfire IX GE 485 (RNZAF) Squadron Spitfire IX OU 133 Wing 129 Squadron Mustang III DV 306 (Polish) Squadron Mustang III UZ 315 (Polish) Squadron Mustang III PK 145 Wing 329 (French) Squadron Spitfire IX 340 (French) Squadron Spitfire IX GW 341 (French) Squadron Spitfire IX NL 20 Sector 123 Wing 198 Squadron Typhoon IB TP 609 Squadron Typhoon IB PR 146 Wing 193 Squadron Typhoon IB DD 197 Squadron Typhoon IB OV 257 Squadron Typhoon IB FM 266 Squadron Typhoon IB ZH 136 Wing 164 Squadron Typhoon IB FJ 183 Squadron Typhoon IB HF No 84 Group Reserve with ADGB 149 Wing 33 Squadron Spitfire IX 5R 74 Squadron Spitfire IX 4D 233 Wing 80 Squadron Spitfire IX WZ 229 Squadron Spitfire IX 9R 274 Squadron Spitfire IX JJ No 85 Group 141 Wing 91 Squadron Spitfire XIV DL 124 Squadron Spitfire VII ON 322 (Dutch) Squadron Spitfire XIV 3W 142 Wing 264 Squadron Mosquito XIII PS 604 Squadron Mosquito XIII NG 147 Wing 29 Squadron Mosquito XIII RO 148 Wing 409 (RCAF) Squadron Mosquito XIII KP 149 Wing 410 (RCAF) Squadron Mosquito XIII RA 488 (RNZAF) Squadron Mosquito XIII ME 150 Wing 56 Squadron Spitfire IX US 3 Squadron Tempest V JF 486 (RNZAF) Squadron Tempest V SA 34 Reconnaissance Wing 16 Squadron Spitfire XI 140 Squadron Mosquito IX/XVI 69 Squadron Wellington XIII 85 Group Reserve with ADGB 406 Squadron Beaufighter HV 418 (Canadian) Squadron Mosquito III TH Air Spotting Pool 26 Squadron Spitfire V 63 Squadron Spitfire V 808 (FAA) Squadron Spitfire V 897 (FAA) Squadron Seafire III 885 (FAA) Squadron Seafire III 886 (FAA) Squadron Seafire III 1320 Special Duty Flight Typhoon

Is the map update ED has been talking about coming anyway? Especially terrain mesh and trees. Will this DLC then be compatible with the updated Caucasus map? I thought the terrain engine will be upgraded, so the textures will very likely not be compatible. I am a bit confused on this one.. ED update March 25th 2016:

The round is already modeled and you can as I said above load and shoot it, in your plane, at the moment, with this very version of DCS, offline and online. And it packs a better punch than HEI for sure while also having a higher v0 and a tracer stream. Edit: For all you lazy people, every second round is a tracer Mine shell. Mine and Mine-T 1:1 mix. This works offline and online for me. And now at least give me some rep for making your life that much more enjoyable! :D Just throw it in your DCS directory or use with JSGME. Enjoy! Bf109MK108tracer.zip

I cant help but notice, these Bertha - Emil skins while surely well done just look completely out of place on a Kurfürst! Reflected you have done some nice work! Just tested two of your skins.

At least mine is not and never was. As far as I can remember it has always been Minengeschoss and HEI in a 1:1 ratio. With HEI being pretty much a useless round with the current damage model. You can however manually change to Mine-tracer in the lua and it works perfectly fine offline as well as online.

Awesome work JST and golani79! All looking really good! JST you should also rework and turn in your awesome white 4 JG4 and Hartmann G10! These are two of my absolute favorites!

Sounds correct. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangIV-divetest.html Metal elevators were first introduced with 25NA models. Onwards of Mach .76 compressibility and vibration will be experienced anyway.

Interesting! It really is a clever and practical design by the brits and much better than the Mk V one. So type A would resemble the dotted line in the graph (forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=137453&d=1459196786) and type B the dash dot line. As for type C, I dont really see any benefits to the design. Do you have any info when these were introduced?

I am enjoying the discussion Yo-Yo. :) You are absolutely correct. But to be fair I did say "It is also clear why this will have adverse effects at lower altitude." While not going into detail, this is exactly what I was referring to. Now we both know the Merlin 66/70 etc family also used an intercooler to adress the problem of compression heating. Yes and I am not sure how and why that is possible. You say it is measurement dispersion, that may certainly be one explanation. Looking at the data distribution of the individual test flights I clearly see a trend when looking at your graph (http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=137589&d=1459344523). The red air filter test above 14k ft doesnt really fit into the distribution. I dont have the charts here in excel to calculate exact numbers, but just by eyeballing it can be seen. The blue DCS line fits perfectly up until FTH to MA 648, to the spec sheet data, to BS 543 and all other tests. Above it develops an unusual bump at 36k ft and also surpasses every real life test above 34k. Now we have already elaborated why MA 648 can not really be considered a production line aircraft. Sadly I still know nothing about the air filter test, I cant find it anywhere. But something has to be different about this test! The supercharger intake sat below the engine prone to dust and dirt at the ground. The mechanism was as you said pilot operated and there were three different switch types IIRC. It definitely had to be used on unpaved airfields, otherwise one would risk major engine or charger damage. Since there were different filters for tropical usage as Friedrich pointed out, the normal filter certainly was employed as standard in the field and not blotted off. The small gain in performance would not justify risking engine failure or unnecessary deterioration when it can easily be avoided.

Well thats what I figured as well. As said the first problem I have is that a LF variant should not outperform an HF at high altitude (by such massive amounts btw) and it should not have higher FTH (which isnt the case to be clear). This would make the very existence of an HF supercharger obsolete, but the RAF used these HF models specifically as high altitude escorts and interceptors. So the RAF at least must have seen a benefit in the HF over the LF in terms of high alt performance. To get more into the physics context: It is obvious why an increase in supercharger gear ratio will positively effect air compression and thus oxigen supply to combustion. It is also clear why this will have adverse effects at lower altitude. Therefore physics tells me that a supercharger with lower compression output can not deliver the same or even higher combustion efficiency with - mind - the same engine parameters. Secondly, I do not have access to this air filter test so I cant really comment much on details of the subject. However I can see that this is an obvious outlier compared to the other results and thus my scientific sense tells me to rather question the outlier, than all the other results being in good agreement to each other. Now I dont know what, but I am pretty sure something had to be different in this test compared to the others. The red line you plotted is for the cleaner elements blanked off. More appropriate would be the Louvred plate fitted one which performs worse, but resembles actual configuration of the universal filter design. Above 34k ft the DCS one will even outperform this outlier by ~9 mph max. :noexpression: Dont get me wrong, I love DCS and all the flight model work you have done and feel it is as close as it gets to real life. However the community is not uneducated and has contributed several times to improvements of a DCS module and this time I feel its no different. Though I dont know what may be the cause, I still say something is not exactly right here.

Well, in all honesty I have some doubts about the MA 648 test specifically. Maybe someone could help me out about info on the S.U. pump injection carburetor tested. The engine spec sheet posted by Friedrich as well as this scan on spitfireperformance (below) list the normal Bendix-Stromberg carburetor as the standard injection mechanism. This is also the way I remember things to be. wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Aircraft_Engines_of_the_World_Rolls-Royce_Merlin.pdf So my question is: when was the injection carburetor design employed in Mk IX production, because I am not sure it was. :huh: Furthermore as stated in the report this S.U. pump version is a non production model. Which in turn makes this statement in the test, very relevant. Thanks for the response. This is an impressively perfoming Spit indeed. My main concerns respective high alt performance is, that the DCS LF variant performs better at high alt than the HF variants tested by the A. & A.E.E. (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bs310.html) The graph of the current DCS model hits ~401 mph at 33.000 ft and the test of Mk. IX HF BS.310 give exactly a number of 391 mph at same altitude. That makes the LF 10 mph faster than the HF! Take a look at the table at the very bottom. And from interpolating the curves at altitudes above 33k ft the DCS LF will perform close to a 2 digit percentage better than the HF variant tested by A. & A.E.E. This makes me wonder why the change in supercharger gear ratios from 7.06 to 8.03 for the second stage was jusified in the first place when the LF one performs better than the HF one at high alts. Yo-Yo I am with you that a 2.4% relative error in FTH is perfectly fine, but please take a look at high alt performance again!

Neither me nor the quoted text said Uncle Dog was the reason for battery movement. As shown in the opening post, simultaneous use of IFF (SCR-695-A) and fuselage tank made the battery relocation necessary. I have read, that some production line 25NA had the battery relocated to the engine compartment. Some people say with block 30NA it became standard. As I said, I cant really confirm this.

If performance (410 mph at 21500 ft) of the DCS model relates to the quoted spec sheet, there is a discrepancy of ~6 mph (1.5% higher) as it states that max. speed of 404 mph is reached at 21000 ft with an aircraft weighing 7106 lbs. The relative error in FTH is 2.4%. I wouldnt really call these percentages a significant relative error. Now looking at higher altitudes, namely 36k ft and taking an approximate mean value (~375 mph) of the best high alt performing tests MA 648 and BS 543 only, the relative error will be ~5.3%, which in term is significant. The spec sheet doesnt give any numbers at these alts, so theres no comparison possible. The spec sheet data seemed to be more in agreement with the BS 543 test though, for which the resulting relative error would be in the range of 6.5-7.5%. I am quite sure in practice not many people will ever fly at these altitudes in DCS, but accuracy to real world data has been the premiss for a DCS flight model so far and it should stay this way.

Makes sense. Here is a guy claiming the battery relocation was a modification done to Uncle Dog installed, as well as block 30NA models. Cant confirm the latter though.