antagonist

TBH the G-10 and K-4 were largely identical. One came with a fixed tailwheel and (usually the 20mm MG151/20 in the nose), the other with completely retractable undercarriage, complete wheel well covers and the MK108 (and explicitly retaining the wiring for installation of the MG151/20 as a factory standard).

While I agree regarding loss of wings etc, wing paneling should still be able to be blown off from mine shells, especially 30 mm. I don't think a P-47 would survive more than 2 mine shells hitting its wing, considering a Spitfire would not survive even one. From the test report, paraphrased: "Probably lethal due to structural damage (= aerodynamic forces finishing the job and ripping off the wing), definitely lethal due to control loss (= asymmetric lift dooming the plane)."

You are very welcome. =)

I'd be interested in which type of 109G it was. If that's versus a late G-6/14 with 1.7 ATA, a 2800 hp Thunderbolt would have a much larger speed range in which its energy maneuverability graph lets it sustain maneuvers against it. Then again, I'm reasonably sure this is against a 109 running 1.42 ATA.

It is compatible with 2.0. If you bought the module on Steam, you need to copy the product key and redeem it for your profile on the website. Only then will the 2.0 client ask you to download the module files.

Which were all fixed in subsequent patches. My Dora module was affected with the engine unable to produce any power for some reason. Now it's fixed.

The P-47D was cleared for 70" in June 1944: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/24june44-progress-report.pdf Also, that performance increase was mostly useful at low altitude as at high alt, the turbo's RPM limit essentially capped maximum attainable boost.

Just saying, the Fw 190 also has no trim controls with the exception of the elevator. And Tank was not a designer of gliders - in fact, the 190 was purposefully designed to be a warplane. I think trim controls weren't used because generally, German fighter aviation wasn't usually supposed to fly long sorties, unlike the American P-51, P-38 and P-47. That said, neither was the Spitfire, so here my comparison goes off the rails a bit. I think outside of using necromancy, the particulars of this question will remain unanswered. :P

I'm guessing the engine was a casualty?

The flaps would cause buffeting due to inducing turbulence over the tail surfaces.

Just saying, we're talking about an engine hat had P&W engineers laughing about the acceptance criteria the USAAF mandated. "Oh, you want a few minutes of water injected WEP? No problem, we took this engine off the assembly line and ran it at WEP for over a day!" From what I've been able to gather, the highest boost achieved on an R-2800C test was 150", where it produced 3800 hp. I really want the P-47 to receive 70" boost, which was essentially what the D-30 was running at for most of its service life. If I don't have my timeline confused, the lowest possible maximum permissible boost was 65".

Also note our Fw 190D isn't actually running the highest possible settings - IIRC Platzschutzstaffel planes were rocking 1.98 ATA compared our 1.8. So the engine would definitely still have some durability reserves even with (I think) B4 fuel in DCS. As such, he manual limitation (10 min at Sondernotleisting, 5 at Kampfleistung and another 10 at Sondernotleistung) should be achievable as long as there is sufficient airspeed to ensure there is enough airflow though the radiator. Just my 0.02$.

From what I've gathered, the differences between the B and D are some systems getting switched from analog to digital, notably the radar. I might be completely wrong about it, but I don't think the D is significantly different from the B. Same engines, same radar, same missiles, just with fewer cathodes and more transistors.

Roger that. I will.

And how would I go about that if I have the module activated on a PC I can't currently get to, and won't be able to until June?

I'm reasonably sure the P-47D powerplant was one of the few that didn't actually need 150 grade fuel to pull 72" of MAP.

Eh, the one thing that somewhat annoys me about the Spitfire is the moment you push negative elevator for a split second (say, to avoid crashing into the plane you're chasing), you black out immediately.

You do not use flaps for cruising, ever.

Does anybody know how much hard disk space this map is expected to require?

By the way, what is taking ED so long to do it? Is the 2.0 client still being considered too immature internally, has the Caucasus map not been redone yet or is it something else entirely?

Well, there are so many backlogged modules that nobody has even started coding for yet that I honestly think more teams to make them is a good thing. All the best! (And fix my Viggen for 2.0) ;_; (I know it's not a bug on your side :P)

Welp, this is unexpected. The best of luck to all of you.

Yeah, my feelings exactly. Got notified by friends how the map and its assets were going to be split up, went 'dafuq', went ahead and read up on stuff to either warrant or void voicing my aggravation, then went on to find the price for both was not any more reasonable or unreasonable (YMMV) than the one for NTTR. Now I'm sitting here asking what the goddamned problem was in the first place. *shrug*

According to LNS's own product information, it uses the RM8A, whereas the fighter version uses the RM8B which is slightly longer due to an additional compressor stage.