Retnek

This has been discussed in some more detail here: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/207807-mw-50-or-gm-1/?do=findComment&comment=3919117 So for me there are three modifications for the 190s: - "Erhöhte Notleistung" via extra C3-fuel-injection into the air-intake, in 1943 for the F/G-models up to 1000 m - in mid-44 a new form of "Erhöhte Notleistung" (Enhanced emergency power) by a special configuration of the engine-regulator. Resulting in a higher boost and much higher fuel consumption, too. From A-8 on for both compressor stages up to critical height. In late 44 more and more with extra-(fuel-)tank build-in behind pilots seat. - end 44 to early 45 MW-50-injection for models A-8 and A-9. MW-50 came from an extra-tank behind pilots seat. Afaik there's no "Erhöhte Notleistung" for the A-8 in DCS now. The mission editor offers an option to fill the additional tank in the rear with C3-fuel. No MW-50 like the D-9. Back on topic: so it would be nice to have both types of engine enhancements. Looking at the sources it might be more easy to find data for the enhanced-boost-option than for the later and maybe more rare MW-50-option.

A bit more complicated ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_801#801D-2_and_801G-2 "... The D-2 models were tested with a system for injecting a 50–50 water-methanol mixture known as MW50 into the supercharger primarily for its anti-detonation effect, allowing the use of increased boost pressures. Secondary effects were cooling of the engine and charge cooling. Some performance was gained, but at the cost of engine service life. This was replaced by a system that injected fuel instead of MW50, known as C3-injection, and this was used until 1944. The serious fuel shortage in 1944 forced installation of MW50 instead of C3-injection. With MW50 boosting turned on, takeoff power increased to 2,000 PS (1,470 kW), the C3-injection was initially only permitted for low altitude use and increased take-off power to 1870 PS. Later C3-injection systems were permitted for low-to-medium altitude use and raised take-off power to more than 1900 PS. ..." this description differs from the Wikipedia-article in German: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_801#Kurzfristige_Leistungssteigerung In short and English: in 1943 the 190-F/G-fighter-bomber models got a first extra-fuel-injection useable up to 1000 m. Replaced in the A-8 from mid 44 by a modified extra-fuel-injection working for both loader stages up to critical height. Due to the grave fuel-shortage this second type of extra-fuel-injection system during end 44/ early 45 was replaced by the MW50-injection. According to my sources (I'm not that much into engines) the sequence presented in the German Wikipedia article seems to be correct.

Maximum engine-load test tonight: instant action Channel map -> Cold Start -> added 300 l drop tank -> take-off. From that moment on non-stop 100 % throttle, never touched it again during the flight. Several times up to 7000 m (ca. 1.7 ata) and down below 3000 m (ca. 1.5 ata), very few minimal cooler adjustments to stay a trifle below 100 degree C. 75 min later plane was out of fuel, engine ran smooth all the time. Ca. 820 l fuel for 75 min is ca. 660 l / h, within 10% of the 600 l / h given in the DCS-D9-manual. Track-file is available (27 MB), TacView, too. PS: Looking at the telemetry-data in TacView the fuel-consumption of my D-9 sometimes shows strange values. Maybe worth to check it.

Nice experiment, Rolds. Did the same on-line, well above 3100 rpm from take-off up to cruise at nearly 6000 to 7500 m for ca. 25 min. Disturbing to hear the engine running that high all the time. But no problems at all. Last 10 - 15 min chasing a P-47 high-up and all-out with 100 % throttle above 1.5 ATA - engine still happy. Came down more or less like a sail-plane with the very last drop of fuel. Problem of that engine-modelling seems to be even short times of "under-load" below 3000 rpm.

There's one important reason for giving a minimum "straight-and-level-option" to the users. Together with the time-compression it would offer the chance to check long-time effects on features like engine-stress, over-heating, fuel consumption etc. Given the results are the same under time-compression it would be possible to support the developers by detailed community input on that kind of questions, too. (Maybe there's a work-around for this already - if so, please give me a hint)

Same here, long ago. You might be right, extra-niche "night bombing" in the already niche "WW2". But DCS would offer important infrastructure for this kind of operations not available in other simulations: radar, radio navigation, ECM etc pp - here some substantial environment would be good already. If DCS would develop war-birds like the Lancaster for MS-FS-2020, too, that would raise the numbers and revenues. Later some small adjustments and add-ons for DCS - voila, a dream came true!

Most interesting and still historically correct would be to simulate the use of fuse 25. 80 ms delay are useful against ships f.e. Don't know if DCS takes into account the much enhanced effect of a bomb exploding near the ship not at the surface but a few meters below. Here the 80 ms will make all there difference to contact-fusing or a 14 s delay. Same for damage against some types of (semi-) hardened targets.

I offer some documents on this topic, about the Luftwaffe use of bomb fuses against different targets. Sorry, scans are in German, I'll try to conclude below. Here is Luftwaffe 1940 table what bomb and fuses were to use against several kinds of target Most prominent is the fuse 55, together with fuses 15 and 25. On the development of that fuses Fuse-55 was a simplified model of the fuse-family-25 originating from fuse 15. German fuses were electric fuses, the values were set by that switch-board low behind the stick. I'm not that deep into this topic, but one can sum up some characteristics from that documents: Fuse 15 - three ways to detonate: contact (no delay = o.V. ohne Verzögerung), with short delay (0.05 sec after impact = m.V. mit Verzögerung) and long delay (8 sec after impact = Vz. Verzögerung) Short delay of 0.05 sec gave not enough time for the bomb to go deep into the target, the short delay had to be 0.08 sec. And long delay of 8 sec was not long enough for a whole squadron passing the target during a low level raid, it went up 14 sec. Resulting in fuse of type 25. Fuse 25 - three ways to detonate: contact (no delay = o.V. ohne Verzögerung), with short delay (0.08 sec after impact = m.V. mit Verzögerung) and long delay (14 sec after impact = Vz. Verzögerung) According to the German tendency of over-perfecting technical stuff it soon was obvious the fuse 25 needed much too much time and resources, even for the still high German standards in 1939. Resulting in fuse 55, afaik the most often used fuse. This should be relevant for the late war scenarios of DCS-WW2, too. But I don't know what type of fuse they are simulating. According to the fuse-delays mentioned it should be fuses of type 25 or 55. Fuse 55 - two ways to detonate: contact (no delay = o.V. ohne Verzögerung) and long delay (14 sec after impact = Vz. Verzögerung). There was no short delay, choosing that value on the switch-board resulted in a long delay of 14 sec, too. (m.V. mit Verzögerung = 14 sec delay) Next to the fuses delay after impact there's another important detail: electric fuses went live directly due to the process of bomb release, not before by choosing the values in the cockpit f.e. . Fuse 15 and early 25-types needed quite a long time to become live. So there was a minimum drop height of 50 m just to give them a sufficient time. Starting with fuse 25 subtype B and for all fuses of type 55 that time was reduced very much. Resulting in minimum drop heights of 12 - 14 m. So what's to expect switching the Luftwaffes fighter bomb-switch-board in 1944: "Aus" - Off - bomb unarmed, fuse inactive - dropping it that way results in a (relatively harmless) dumb bomb "Sturz mv" (one klick to the left) - bomb fuse of type 25 results in a short delay of 0.08 sec, but type 55 has a long delay of 14 sec "Sturz ov" (two klicks to the left) - bomb fuse of type 25 and type 55 explodes immediately on impact "Waagerecht mv" (one klick to the right) - both bomb fuses of type 25 and type 55 use a long delay of 14 sec "Waagerecht ov" (two klicks to the right) - bomb fuse of type 25 and type 55 explodes immediately on impact Using fuse 55 reduced the tactical options, because bombs with 14 sec delay go deep into soft ground and water, exploding possibly without much effect down there. The short delay of 0.08 sec damaged buildings, railroad-tracks or fortifications by detonating within the relevant structures. Sources: Fleischer, Wolfgang (2003): Deutsche Abwurfmunition bis 1945. Sprengbomben, Brandbomben, Sonderabwurfmunition, Abwurfbehälter, Zünder. 1. Aufl. Stuttgart: Motorbuch. For that scan "Zünderübersicht" I can't offer a valid source. I stumbled over it in WWW and copied a few years ago. Because it's uniquely useful and very much looks like scan from a German source. If some-one kindly is able to point on that publication? Finally, to offer an impression on the complex nature of those fuses, fuse 15: Fuse 25 Fuse 55

Had several on-line flights with the D-9 yesterday. Reading about the problems and according to DCS-handbook I've been extra careful. Climbing just below 3000 rpm with the cooler a tick below the 100 degree mark, most of the time cruising with 2700 rpm. Climbing > 300 km/h to keep her cool and just a few times full power, below 2 min each. Three times the engine stopped after ca. 30 min of flight within a second. Cruise flight situation, all data well within limits, no hint, no rough running - just dead. Thx for checking. (PS: the buggy bomb fuses make that kind of sorties somewhat difficult, too)

I just know this by experiment, not by a deeper insight: Afaik the difference using "=1" is your device is seen as a new device in DCS. Not that nice if you did some configurations (who doesn't?) and forgot to save it (a lot do ...) "=0" changes the devices settings, but for your system it remains the old, well known usb-device. Why and when it might be useful to use "1" or "0" I'd gladly hear, too.:helpsmilie:

Guessing it is a model of the AGM-12 Bullpup, light model A

ResetWindowsCalibration=0 Thank you very much - this detail nearly endangered the beautiful friendship between Virpil-products and DCS. Could you please tell us a good reason to reset the windows calibration? After a windows-calibration-reset Il2-BoX offers to replace an old usb-device(s) with new usb-device(s). But afaik DCS does not offer such a comfort. After a windows-calibration-reset in DCS I had to re-program the axis and keys. :joystick: :doh:

Thanks for the video, but isn't there a typo at 0:45? According to the handbook rc1 (p 127) and your mouse clicks it is "Mode A" and "bandwith selector to K". ----snip-------- ... Silent recording | A | G H J K ... Settings: • OFF: Mode 0 Pod is disabled • Preheat: Mode A/F Pod is being preheated and prepared for use. • Silent recording: Modes A/G - A/K The pod will receive and record incoming signals, and will not emit any jamming signals. Mode A/G: Low sensitivity. Mode A/H: High sensitivity. Mode A/J: High sensitivity. Mode A/K: Automatic sensitivity cycling between mode A/G and A/J. ------snip------- Anyone ever tested if there's any difference in the detection capability, precision of triangulation or whatever when using different settings from A/G to A/K against the same emitter? :worthy:

Just for a possible bug-hunt: had to eject (14:27 CEsT) and the moment my Viggen hit the ground I was back in the DCS-startup-screen. Thx for the server ... lot's to learn.

Good advice is given here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3365055&postcount=5

Did a quite a few offline (test-)runs with the three BK-90-mixtures. All went fine (again: offline) in a very simple test-bed. It's just one target area with some trucks placed, no AA, no SAM, no fighters. Any errors here finally were my errors. But that's just true for me flying my Viggen. Anytime I order the wingman to engage, he will crash into the ground. He calls out the ground target from about 10 km away and immediately is ordered to engage by F2 - F1. I found no way to order him before he's having targets in sight (would be essential for preplanned runs) Mostly wingman is able to drop the BK-90 (roughly 50% of those hit the target area), but soon after release he crashes into the ground somewhere near the target area. ADD-ON: TacView is fine, but one should use it ... looking at the last two runs the wingman stays on course with his BK-90, passes directly over the target area and is blown up by the sub-munition. Maybe I'm able to rescue him by a rejoin-order - I'm with stupid. Looks like there is some work to do with Wingman AI. Using the same test-bed I did some CCIP-runs with high-drag-bombs. Fine for me, any errors my errors. But the wingman does strange things again, dropping the high-drags like he would drop low-drag-bombs.

Just in case you missed this gem: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=185454

Thx for that & confirmed, nothing happens with keyboard and controller keys. B/W-options via A0/A1/A2 don't work, too. :joystick:

A little add-on, since I was interested how hard the FFG 11540 Neustrashimy is - remarkable. I took 4 x Su 25 T with SEAD-loadout (2 x Kh-58, 4 x Kh-25 MP), same settings as the Viggen-missions. Released the 8 x Kh-58 within 10 - 20 sec, FFG 11540 wasn't impressed at all. All where shot down by the ship, caught by one 9M330 missile usually. Lauching 12 x Kh-25 MP together with the incoming planes overwhelmed the defences. Still the frigate shot down 6 missile and one plane, but was hit 6 times. Now smoking, still able to cruise and use radar, but no longer firing. 2 further Kh-25 MP did the job, so it was 8 warheads a' 90 kg finally.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11jsJbjifXpNZTAUL_UYYdJoyaZ7aLhG46grgSnwucCk/edit#heading=h.oifa23zi1fgd see p. 12, cited from here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=180927&highlight=lansen Enlightened reading, I'd say. ;-) Can't find the source, but I'm quite sure it was stated somewhere, that the night bombing tactics using the flare-bombs and blind bombs were more or less the same than those used with the Saab 32 Lansen.

Posted it here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3564769#post3564769

FFG 11540 Neustrashimy isn't damaged by the heavy warhead of Viggens RB04-E, while using the same weapon against Krivak II is successful. Further details: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=205465 Since FFG 11540 Neustrashimy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neustrashimyy-class_frigate and FG 1135M Krivak II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krivak-class_frigate#Project_1135M_(Krivak_II) are not much different in size and hardening, the failure of RB04-E against the FFG 11540 very much looks like a bug.

Just for the FFG 11540, tested identical setup with Krivak II, that ship showed expected reaction with one hit, fire, smoke, no radar emissions, no SAM, got 2nd hit, sinking Checking the AI: both ships started a Ka-27 as given in the mission editor. Helis moved as planned. Heli became faint visible on radar in A1 in ca 25 km. Wingman detected it, called out and shot it down when ordered - that has been a nice testing! Sadly wingman was unable to attack using the R4-E - orders via F2 he confirmed, but did nothing, via F3 -> F1 missile -> F1 standard he didn't notice at all

Can confirm this for actual 2.52 - 2x direct hits, explosions, no fire or smoke. FFG completely unimpressed, resumes on course, fires SAMs ...

I found quite a few missing links - thx, this helps a lot!