rel4y

At sea level IAS and TAS should be the same, only difference being wind. If you turn off wind then it will be the same. :)

I think its the mission editor that is somehow bugged. I started missions several times with changed aircraft altitude for speed testing and it didnt accept the change.

Full fuel and rads on auto I also get around 587 kph at MSL. The charts had it at 595 kph, so I think 587 is very reasonable. Good fix from Yo-Yo, thank you! You can hit even 590 kph once some fuel/MW has been spent and the plane is a bit lighter. Edit: MW tank weight has not been integrated in ME yet.

Trees sometimes flicker for me even in the absence of clouds. Contrails are flickering as well, to be more specific the part where 2 seperate streams overlap. Visibility and shadows on ultra.

Hey guys! I noticed since the first 1.5 release the menu option (Options > MISC. > F2 view effects) shows no effect on my machine. Does it work for you guys? I would really like to have this option available, since I very much disklike the floating effect. :(

Working perfectly here in MP and SP. :noexpression: Are you using any mods? Maybe try a repair?

Yeah I noticed as well! Nice update ED!

Pretty much with every real life test you can just calculate the speed which is to be expected on the K4. Afterwards we look at the chart and check if it matches. Ill do it this time on a G14/U4 real flight test. Three flights were measured and the mean is listed. They tested the new high altitude version of the DB605 in this plane and wanted comparison data. The motors tested were DB605AM and DB605ASM, both in the same plane. http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_PBLeistungen/Leistungen_g14u4_am-asm.html Config of this G14/U4: MK108 prop, 151/20 gunpods So pretty close to the K4, except for gunpods, wheel covers and spornwheel. The speed values which I will quote are from (http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_Leistungzusammenstellung/Leistungzusammenstellung109G.html) for which Kurfurst somewhere in this thread posted the original document. The data is valid for MSL (0 m) and for speeds around 500 kph. Since the relationship of drag and velocity is exponential, the speed reduction caused by drag will be higher for higher speeds! level speed at MSL (0 m) DB605AM: 1.3 Ata -> 1300PS = 486 kph level speed at MSL (0 m) DB605ASM: 1.3 Ata -> 1210PS = 480 kph So at 1.3 Ata there seems to be a difference of 90PS in the output of the motors, which results in a 6 kph difference in speed (remember its the same aircraft so no drag difference). On the DB605ASM the prop was also changed from 9-12078 to the newer 9-12159 (same as the K-4 chart reference). Now you could argue there is a difference, but its hard to know which prop is more efficient at MSL and what influence it would have in the end. So lets assume them to be equal for now. Edit: Before some smart guy shows up and claims that in the K-4 charts it is an experimental prop and therefore cant be valid.. Please read before and you might just find out that for MSL the reference (9-12159) and the thin bladed test prop (9-12199) achieve the same level speed. Lets take the DB605ASM speeds as baseline because it is like the DB605DB (K-4) equipped with the slightly larger DB603 supercharger. In the chart there is a line for Steig und Kampfleistung (1.45 Ata for the K-4 -> 1430PS). 1430-1210=220 So we have a difference in power of 220PS. This power is not transferred linearly into speed but a power increase of 90PS caused a 6 kph increase and drag does not decrease speed linearly as well, so lets assume this cancels each other out. 220PS/90PS=2.44 2.44*6kph=14.64kph So lets be conservative and assume the difference of power accounts for roughly 14kph. 480 +14 (220 PS difference) +08 (gondolas) +10 (wheel well covers) +17 (sporn wheel) 529 So now we take a look at the charts and see the 1.45 Ata line starts depending on which chart you look at around 530-537. You can repeat this with every real life test and the numbers in the charts will be affirmed. Sometimes a bit lower, sometimes a bit higher but all in the ballpark. I would conclude, that if we cannot reach MSL level speeds around 590 kph after the fix there is still something wrong. Now lets wait for the fix.

Large retractable tailwheel reduction is -17kph in the list of measured data. Drag reduction being 0,054 m^2. If it was a small wheel G14 then it would be -12 kph, thats correct. If theres a picture, or description it would make sense. Alright, wonder when its coming? :joystick:

Has it been implemented in the latest patch? With the same rad settings as on page 2 I am getting 575 kph max after a few tests.

It is quite interesting that the Dora is considered the inferior plane. It is actually the most evolved dogfighter of the three in my eyes. Perfect control harmony, more than adequate armament, good energy retention and in general no flaws. People are simply not employing it the right way, rarely they make use of the superior roll rate. Take a look at guys like Ze Hairy on youtube an learn. He would rape pretty much all the P-51 pilots I have seen online even if they had korean era birds. Or look at guys like Karaya, gr00ve over at CloD, they simply destroy everyone. When they fly for RAF side they diminish the germans even though some allied fanboys complain all the time about being at a disadvantage.. Its the same everywhere really. :huh:

There is just no room for the IFF system (SCR-695-A). Behind the fuselage tank the oxygen bottles are stored and further behind there is the warning radar unit AN/APS-13 located. On top of the tank there is the VHF radio (SCR-552-A) as well as the battery located. No further space, except if the battery was moved to the engine compartment. The antenna below the fuselage looks exactly as the VHF double antennas on the upper back fuselage. Something at least is wrong! Either the cockpit panel or the 3D model.

Upon further investigation the corrosponding antenna for the IFF seems to not be modeled. It would be a small rod located on the underside of the outer right wing. I was also wondering what these antennas do. Now I could find out that the dual antenna on the back was apparently used at Iwo Jima. The planes were equipped with an AN/ARA-8 homing adapter and MD-34 modulator keying unit nicknamed "Uncle Dog". The AN/ARA-8 panel is connected with the IFF panel in the DCS model. http://www.506thfightergroup.org/mustangsofiwo.asp Is the lower centerline antenna maybe for the IFF (SCR-695-A)? It looks different from the AN-95 antenna in the manual, but I dont know what else it could be?! So maybe everything is correct and we have a special Iwo Jima stationed (PTO) version in DCS? These flew operations from April to August of 1945. Edit: ETO stationed Mustangs did not seem to have employed the Detrola (BC-1206) radio and therefore had no overspan antenna wire. Very interesting read on that topic: http://de.scribd.com/doc/39145899/WWII-Radar-Comm-Equipment

It actually seems to be a block 30-NA or at least to be in a 30-NA configuration, which would be post war (ETO) nontheless. Take a look at the thread i recently opened.

So last night I tried to figure out which exact P-51D block was modeled in DCS. I came to the conclusion that a P-51D-NA-30 must be modeled. Of these aircraft 800 units were built in total and they arrived too late in europe to see combat. They did however arrive in time to see combat in the pacific theatre. This observation is based on a few highly indicative modifications in the cockpit. The landing gear lights were shifted to make room for the gyro gunsight control panel. The K-14 installation is not a field modded N-9 attachment and is instead the later K-14 attachment. It has the late style twistable throttle grip (definitely block 30-NA). Externally the DCS Pony has all the features expected of a block 30-NA as well. This includes metal elevators, rocket hardpoints, ass saving radar (AN/APS-13). So since it is cleared up now that we have a post war (ETO) Mustang going against late 1944 configuration Luftwaffe planes, I dont want to hear anymore complaints! :smilewink: Now while thumbing through manuals I found in the "Erection and Maintainance Instructions" (AN 01-60JE-2) a passage which contradicts the current DCS configuration. In DCS the IFF (SCR-695-A) is modeled. The cockpit panel can be seen in the following picture. The problem being, that you cant install the IFF and the fuselage tank at the same time. The following pictures show where the fuselage tank is installed and how the configuration looks in DCS at the moment. (I mislabeled the fuel gauge as filler pipe in the picture.) In the following picture it is very obvious why there can not be a simultanous installation of fuselage tank and IFF. Both would occupy the exact same space in the fuselage. You can hower see the SCR-552-A (radio) and in behind the battery are located exactly as in the DCS version. Furthermore there are corrosponding text passages which make note of this limitation. It is described on two seperate occasions in the manual. Now I checked if there were other options, but the only version which would allow a simultaneous installation of IFF and tank would be the following one. This is described as a korean era version and includes relocation of the battery into the engine compartment. http://s212.photobucket.com/user/tourist-51/media/Picture1-51.png.html It would be nice if someone of the ED staff could take a look into this. :thumbup:

http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/variants/p51d Nice site. It even quotes the exact same thing I just did. One of the most important improvements to the P-51 was not structural. The K-14 gun sight was introduced in October of 1944 to the -20NA and later blocks. This new gun sight helped the pilots score more hits especially in higher deflection angle attacks. The K-14 utilized an analog computer. The pilot had to dial in the wingspan of the enemy aircraft and the range. Then all he had to do (sounds easy) was to put the enemy aircraft in the gun sight and pull the trigger. Metal elevators were added in February 1945. The P-51D continued to have a fabric rudder. Here is a link to the first P-51D-20NA to receive metal elevators. S/N44-63560, the 401st produced P-51D-20NA. http://www.americanairmuseum.com/aircraft/18937 You do know that the MSL output power of G14 motors, be it AM, ASM or ASB was 1800 HP. The DB had 1850 HP, thats a 50HP increase. The P-51D had a 1685HP motor and the P-51H 2200HP. Thats a 515HP difference, so factor 10 to the difference of G14 to K4. You will probably want to rethink your statement now.

I completely agree. The main strength and importance of the Pony was the enormous range. Continental european warbirds at the time had a flight endurance of ~1.5 hours. Now the Pony could escort Bombers deep into enemy territory. Even though the close escort missions right after introduction went badly as germans amassed fighters and attacked frontally only once, the change in paradigm soon afterwards brought the P-51 to full potential. The following fighter sweep missions crippled the Luftwaffe and Göring even called the air war lost after almost 20% of Luftwaffe pilots were killed within a week. People have a very false perception of the plane. It wasnt so much a highly potent dogfighter as much as it could shine with incredible endurance. The Me 262s shot down by P-51s were mostly after starting or right before landing of the mentioned. Look at Chuck Yeagers kills for example. It was the right plane for the right job! In DCS some people feel cheated because of unrealistic expectations. In real life, pilots in addition had to put up with keeping fuel levels high enough to be able to return to their home base 500-600 miles away.

I very much agree with Kurfursts line of argumentation. I just would like to add on more thought. I wasnt sure initially, but I just looked it up. Metal elevator P-51Ds first arrived over Europe in February 1945. As we have metal elevators modeled in the DCS version, it must be an early 1945 P-51D. PS: Now mind, I am just going by the rivet looks of the 3D model on them here. Feel free to correct me. Also the -25NA blocks were the first to be fitted with rocket attachment points.

Well the introduction of one of my favorite goodies in the P51D, the MK II/K-14 gyro sight, started in October 1944. This was with the introduction of -20NA blocks. So the first P51Ds modeled in DCS were actually later introduced than the 109 K4s. I think they are matched fairly well. Now that I would also like to see introduction of higher boost rates doesnt change the fact, the match is there. It also doesnt change the fact that a mid 1944 Normandy map doesnt fit the modeled planes.

You are talking about the bomb rack fitted, quickly slapped together JaBo varients. Which were later manned with poor inexperienced pilots whom have had maybe 10 hours of glider training. The sole fighter role planes were built as allied fighter killers and by no means suffered in production quality. You mentioned the Erla plant at Leipzig yourself. I was getting at the fact he said quote "There was no well built aircraft". Would you agree with this statement? Obviously not, since you seem to be in knowledge that Erla produced highly capable fighter planes. And guess how flew these? Well I mentioned fighter aces as Hartmann for example. You have underlined my very point. Edit: Now I know I was being cynical, but I find it questionable to dismiss data which state to be valid for well built serial machines with certainty, by saying there were no well built serial machines. Sure I agree there were many shortcomings in late war production, but you just cant dismiss data with a (non)argument like this. Thats absurd.

What did I just read?! Yes, after further careful inspection these data tell me exactly this as well. There were no well built aircraft! How could I miss this... A shining figure with sharp perception of truth and facts knew even before. How come? Well he condescended to fly and disapprove of every single producton line aircraft. Regretfully to have stepped a foot in these piles of worthless german engineering failures, he decided to give them to lesser men. Barkhorn, Hartmann, Rall & worse, gratefully accepted these more scrap metal than aircraft to hide their utter incompetence and blame it on the best and yet the worst machinery the Third Reich had to offer.. Sorry for off topic! I thought a bit of entertainment couldnt hurt this meaningful argument. :pilotfly:

This is about surface finish, improved radiator passthrough & symmetrical ailerons as the test with Leistungsmaschine I shows? This has nothing to do with drag reduction due to wheel well covers and retractable sporn. Did you not even read what you just cited? These measures were never implemented in serial production and it talks about further increase, which was thus not depicted in the charts yet. The speed increase will only be due to drag reduction in the aerodynamic modelling of the aircraft. This means engine model will not change at all, since Yo-Yo said the model fits very well after the output power correction. We do not know yet by how much the level speed may increase, since it was only accepted to adjust the airflow vector calculation in respect to drag. If you dont know what that implies, please dont post. The change to flat area drag was done already by Yo-Yo, so what are you guys even discussing right now?

Yes, thats why all people other than Hummingbird have repeatedly told you the documentation validates a speed increase to about 595 kph. If you would have read and comprehended what has been said in this thread, there would be no need for further discussion. I think it might be a language barrier. The adjustment has already been made, so lets just wait for the outcome. Anyway, I give in..

I would really appreciate that as well. Now since the last update to the MW50 tank I think tail heaviness is less of an issue, but still a few elevator trim tabs would be awesome! I have been using aileron trim tabs with great effect since the implementation. :thumbup:

Thanks for the info Sith! And guys.. please, this is just littering the thread. Why dont you just wait until the fix is incorporated into a release version and the results can be tested. Everything sensible has already been said, now its just trolling.