rel4y

Well thats the picture I posted before, but it apparently is a post WWII doc. When I was looking for confirmation of my guess, I couldnt find any technical order describing the changes necessary. :/

Was the battery relocated to the engine compartment as was the case in korean era 51s? I couldnt find any useful sources nor pictures at the time I compiled the info into this thread. This must have been the only possibility all the radio equipment of the Iwo Jima 51s could be fitted into the plane while also retaining the fuselage tank. PS: While were at it, here is a document (1990) publicized by NASA stating what I have done several times so far. Laminar flow on the Mustang is a persistent myth. [ame]http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/crgis/images/6/62/NACA_Contributions_to_the_N.A.A._P-51_Airplane_Reeder.pdf[/ame] crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/crgis/images/6/62/NACA_Contributions_to_the_N.A.A._P-51_Airplane_Reeder.pdf

Then we shall fight in the shade! :pilotfly:

Absolutely! AI B17 + improved netcode + good visibility settings and DCS WWII will take off into orbit like a Saturn V! :joystick:

Thats what I thought. Thank you Sithspawn!

I sadly dont have time because of an important deadline tomorrow. Ill explain quickly again. If you have the slider set to 10% fuel you have only 8.5l (10%) of 85l (100%) MW50 in the tank. Thats how it is programmed in the flight model. The ME however shows these 8.5l as well as full tank (85l) to weigh ~70kg. It has been confirmed by ED that the MW50 tank is filled proportional to fuel % loaded and I tested and confirmed it the way I described above. I am perfectly sure I am correct on this one. Just test for yourself as I did, I will just quote myself. Or just take 50% fuel (& MW50) and forget about the external fuel tank, I just didnt like to waist time. The MW50 tank will empty after ~15 min and that is because it is only 50% aka 42.5l aka 35kg filled, while ME indicated a 100% aka 85l aka 70kg filled MW50 tank. Just switch MW50 on & off in the according tab at 100% and at 50% and look at the weight in ME. Get it? Another thing is that density seems weirdly calculated for MW50. I calculated in another thread and 85l should actually weigh around 76.5 kg not 70 kg.

There were no flight model changes in this update as far as I can tell. The changes have been included since a few updates ago. Fact is the MW50 weight in ME is still being displayed incorrectly. In the flight model it is adjusted according to fuet tank % and in ME it either shows the weight of the full or empty tank. Apparently this was not adressed after I reported this for the open beta last week. :noexpression:

I am on open beta version 1.5.3.51171.34 and nothing changed for me compared to the previous version.. :huh: Edit: It does seem to work, but then the information is wrong that MW50 is loaded according to fuel%. The MW50 tank is either completely full or completely empty, however much fuel you load. Edit2: Just checked. MW50 is added ingame according to fuel%, but mission editor always displays incorrectly as full MW.. Come on, ED.. Why not do it correctly the first time? But if its not on stable release yet, I think it should be an easy fix! :thumbup: If you want to test for yourself, this is how I did. A full load MW50 takes 26 min till pressure drops and at around 28 min it is completely empty. Therefore if you load 10% fuel there should be enough MW50 for 26 * 10% = 2.6 min. Now add the remaining 2 min till complete depletion and you get around 4.6 min till the engine should start running rough. For a testflight add the external fuel tank, so you dont run out of fuel and after around 4.5 min the engine starts running rough. Just look at the onboard clock and speed it up. ;)

I dont think anything changed to be honest. In mission editor it isnt working as far as I can tell and ingame it was working since a a few updates ago.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangIV-divetest.html Id suspect for a BnZer/ energy fighter it is not unimportand to fix longitudinal instability issues as done in February 45 (Block-25NA). Also I guess not many would like to miss the K-14 gyro gunsight first introduced in October 44 (Block-20NA). ;) Sure it could be and was retrofitted, but it was done for a reason.

Well I didnt go as far as calculating with 3 digits since there is also ~1.5 % Volume of some oil in MW50 which I dont know the density of. :P Tires have 2.0 - 2.7 bar overpressure, so in absolute pressure (3.0 - 3.7) are not that much different from the 3.5 - 4.5 bar pressure in the early MW tanks. I think the system was adapted for MW from the earlier GM-1 systems, so the tank should be a lot more sturdy and much heavier as well. Modern charged Diesel aggregates are actually closing in on 200 bar point pressure. Talk about a strong engine right there! :thumbup: I think when I have the spare time Ill test for how long I can fly with MW50 enabled and this way find out whats the maximum MW fill volume in DCS is. Hehe, with time lapse its actually no problem.. so the MW50 pressure starts to drop after ~25 minutes, at the 28-29 minute mark the engine starts knocking. Thats a clear sign, at that time point there is no more MW50 injected. Conclusion in DCS a full MW50 tank contains ~85 l! Perfect!:megalol: Now if the mission editor would show the MW50 weight, we could check if density is correct. But I suspect it is. :thumbup:

Oh.. Thats quite a strange way of doing things. :huh: A slider would be the perfect solution, though I am not sure if that is possible in the model? Can anybody of ED tell us whats the max fill volume or mass of a full MW tank (well the content) and if weight of MW is according to density? I know for fuel it is.

Sadly we cant adjust convergence in DCS, its a good feature in CloD. The Dora and Mustang at least have hardcoded convergence though, dont they? I think the 109 as well for the MGs. But I was talking mainly about real life. : ) Contrary to common believe the 108 has comparatively moderate recoil. The rounds were ignited before the slide had completely moved forward, thus absorbing much of the recoil energy produced instantly through inertia. This is also the reason why the gun could never be harmonized although electrically ignited. The short barrel had small oscillations and therefore bullet spread was never as high as for the long barrel, high velocity MG151. It is a good aircraft cannon but the low velocity and thus high bullet drop made it somewhat useless in deflection shooting. There was also a tendency to jam under high G loads, which was a problem for many guns/ canons at the time actually.

Thanks for the answers. The tank was pressurized with around 4 bar overpressure when using MW50, so in this case it should have actually worked to empty it almost completely. You are probably right, a few liters being reserve makes sense. 85kg MW50 are actually ~95 l while 85kg of fuel corresponds to ~115 l. Therefore my confusion in usage time. I really always thought the tanks were filled to the maximum, with both fuel and MW. So how much MW50 is actually modeled in the DCS tank? If it is full it may contribute to the CoG/ pitch up problem.. PS: If the MW pressure on K-4s was produced by the supercharger, it wouldnt really make sense if the pressure was ~4 bar. The 4 bar one was probably the earlier type pressurized by compressed air bottles.

It should als be possible to adjust the guns in term of horizontal and vertical convergence in the 262. Now that isnt possible with a prop mounted gun, so shells will quickly fall below the nose at high ark trajectories. The MK108 is a really a much better fit in 262 than in the 109 as you said.

Ok thanks. I dont have access to my manuals at the moment, so ill trust you on this one. :) 180 l/h = 3 l/min 3 l/min * 26 min = 78 l 78 l * 0.9 kg/l = 70 kg :huh: 85 kg MW50 are enough for ~32 min Sondernotleistung. Why?! :cry:

I understand it this way, that with MW50 the tank was filled completely, while with fuel it was filled completely as well while it only weighed 85kg due to density of fuel (~.75 kg/l). I have never read anything about CoG reasons. Now in theory the MW50 should also have a density below 1, probably something around 0.9 kg/l that would result in a weight of ~106 kg for a full tank. The engine chart on your site says MW50 consumption at Sondernotleistung is 180 l/h, so 118l would lead to 39,3 min of total usage time. I have always read about 40 min of total MW50 usage time, is that incorrect?

You are being bit harsh on the MK108s Kurfürst! ; ) Sure they have a comparatively arked ballistic trajectory (probably close to a naval gun :D ) , but in terms of precision/spread are actually a bit better than the higher velocity MG151/20s. Anyway, I wouldnt like to be on the receiving end of 4x MK108 nose canons with or without an EZ42. :surrender: PS: Please include R4M rockets!

Quote from the document. I am guessing they didnt have to make it slower to fit the calculations.. ;) I have posted this before, in some speed tests NA covered wings with paper on startup to not risk dead insects and dirt disrupting airflow over the wing. Also surfaces were specially prepared including filling rivets and sanding the whole thing to perfection. In the end it was covered with special smooth paint and off you go. Problem was that wind tunnel performance of the wing was a lot better than real world performance, since laminar flow could not be achieved in a real world environment and thus the desired drag reduction was missing. I can quote a lot of sources on this if you wish. Now I am not going to argue if its fast enough or to fast, because I dont really care.

Legitimate question by Echo, will we get the 004B Jumos with throttle governor? Will the aircraft feature the EZ42 as does the Dora?

Yes, press Ctrl+Y twice and you will have TAS. I just recently camo to know as well.

Thanks for the info, Sith!

I have already sent you a PM explaining my thoughts, but since you edited your post i will answer shortly. So with this logic the current P-51 has military power and normal power ratings as well, correct? So it is actually flying on the highest of the three ratings already. Wheres the problem? We were always talking WEP ratings. There is an air force order on the 150 fuel grade page on wwiiaircraftperformance stating exactly what I did. It did not need adjustmen for flying mind a 150 set engine at 130 as I said in my post. If you wish I can link it. Doesnt really contribute to the discussion though.

Ok one last try. So we agree 1.45 ata is military power, then what is the WEP engine rating lower than 1.8 ata? When not using MW of course you can still engange 1.8 ata... The engine/ throttle has not been modified and was not in the field. It is just a form of russian roulette and the whole engine knocking and shaking part is quite unpleasent. Main problem being engine overheating, when going above 1.45 without MW you will bust your engine when not carefully watching cooler temps. There simply is no rating below 1.8 ata! It was the same with 150 grade fuel modified allied planes. They could fly on 130 grade just as well but 67" or 72" (cant remember exactly) should not be exceeded or one would risk engine failure. No adjustment to throttle and engine was done.

Yes a Hurricane was much, much weaker for example in turning performance than a 109E... Wait what? This would be an interesting topic for the CloD ACG server though.I dont think you will get much love for this statement though.