DCS Bf 109K-4

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

not that i have a clue, but i imagine that should be a really easy fix?if it is indeed not already removable that is...

[NineLine]

not that i have a clue, but i imagine that should be a really easy fix?if it is indeed not already removable that is...

 

I always lean to the side of nothing is an easy fix :)

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

well, looking at those screenshots and not only of the 109, seeing what ED is capable off, i cant imagine that beeing too much of a challenge for them...hey they were able to put that gun in there in the first place. :)

but as i said, i have no clue about such things...just hoping it will be made optional in the end

[DB 605]

Personally i don't care too much about flare gun as i use TiR, and those who doesen't: do yourself favor and get some kind of head tracking system now! You won't regret it. In my opinion it is _essential_ with DCS, no way i would fly without it anymore. Not to mention immersion it adds.

Edited November 27, 2014 by DB 605

[SilentGun]

Anyone got the list of advantages and disadvantages of the bf 109 compared to the p-51d

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

@Maler!

[JST]

@Maler!

 

Camo pattern seems to match the wrecked K-4 posted earlier.

 

Port side had no yellow stripe on engine cowling:

 

 

 

 

Other pic of the captured plane:

Edited November 27, 2014 by JST
Pics!

[Maler]

@Maler!

Yea, work in progress:)

[golani79]

Personally i don't care too much about flare gun as i use TiR, and those who doesen't: do yourself favor and get some kind of head tracking system now! You won't regret it. In my opinion it is _essential_ with DCS, no way i would fly without it anymore. Not to mention immersion it adds.

 

Even if you use Track IR you´d still have to look around the flare gun everytime you want to take a look at the instruments which in my opinion isn´t really helping during flight or in stressful situations.

 

There´s also a flare gun in BoS which can be removed and an opening for a flare gun is also modelled in the P-51 (only that there is no gun in it)

 

So why shouldn´t it be removable?

And I´m pretty sure that you will care about the flare gun sooner or later ;)

[fastfreddie]

Even if you use Track IR you´d still have to look around the flare gun everytime you want to take a look at the instruments which in my opinion isn´t really helping during flight or in stressful situations.

 

There´s also a flare gun in BoS which can be removed and an opening for a flare gun is also modelled in the P-51 (only that there is no gun in it)

 

So why shouldn´t it be removable?

And I´m pretty sure that you will care about the flare gun sooner or later ;)

 

Good find. Never knew that was even there ... now let the flare gun battles commence.

[Pilum]

Do somebody know if a report exists about high Mach measurements of 109F,G,K maximum lift? Or something similar for NACA 2R1 airfoil - it was not very popular for European and American high-speed designs.

 

The only thing I have on high speed Clmax for the Me109K4 is a momentaneous turn diagram (attached) in which the Clmax is given as 1.13. The diagram states that the loadfactor 5 is held up to 8 s into the turn at which time there is a transition to a Clmax of 1.13. Since the speed is 161.7 m/s at this time this translates to about M=0.51 at 6 Km altitude so a point value for the K4 if taken from this diagram is Clmax 1.13 at M=0.51.

 

So a good starting point for the Me109K4 would IMHO be a low Mach Clmax of 1.40-1.45 reduced to around 1.13 at M=0.51.

 

Incidentally this tabs rather well with some wind tunnel tests NACA did on a NACA 230-series profile (similar to NACA 2R1) aspect ratio 6 configuration which seeing it incorporated twist and had different profile thickness was somewhat different but still had quite similar Clmax at both these speeds: Clmax=1.45 at low mach and Clmax=1 at M=0.5.(See NACA Wartime Report WR-L-51 page 22 figure 8.)

 

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930092809

Edited November 27, 2014 by Pilum

[Yo-Yo]

The only thing I have on high speed Clmax for the Me109K4 is a momentaneous turn diagram (attached) in which the Clmax is given as 1.13. The diagram states that the loadfactor 5 is held up to 8 s into the turn at which time there is a transition to a Clmax of 1.13. Since the speed is 161.7 m/s at this time this translates to about M=0.51 at 6 Km altitude so a point value for the K4 if taken from this diagram is Clmax 1.13 at M=0.51.

 

So a good starting point for the Me109K4 would IMHO be a low Mach Clmax of 1.40-1.45 reduced to around 1.13 at M=0.51.

 

Incidentally this tabs rather well with some wind tunnel tests NACA did on a NACA 230-series profile (similar to NACA 2R1) aspect ratio 6 configuration which seeing it incorporated twist and had different profile thickness was somewhat different but still had quite similar Clmax at both these speeds: Clmax=1.45 at low mach and Clmax=1 at M=0.5.(See NACA Wartime Report WR-L-51 page 22 figure 8.)

 

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930092809

 

Yes, 1.13 at 0.51 is just the value I obtained using a little bit different methods... but what source stated that 2R1 is similar to 230 especially at high M?

 

And, yes, as I see, I already saw this report - anyway, thanks for .pdf!

Edited November 27, 2014 by Yo-Yo

[DB 605]

Even if you use Track IR you´d still have to look around the flare gun everytime you want to take a look at the instruments which in my opinion isn´t really helping during flight or in stressful situations.

 

So why shouldn´t it be removable?

And I´m pretty sure that you will care about the flare gun sooner or later ;)

 

Well i do agree here and i also wish it will be removable in future, what i meant is that it is not that urgent issue for us who use headtracking especially because it only blocks prop clock (not really needed as long as automatics work) and fuel gauge (rarely issue on game, critical in real life tought).

[SlipBall]

that would suck, running out of gas due to a hit or 2 in game

[Pilum]

Yes, 1.13 at 0.51 is just the value I obtained using a little bit different methods... but what source stated that 2R1 is similar to 230 especially at high M?

 

I don't remember the source offhand but IIRC they both were similar in that they had what is called a forward loading camber, i.e. the camber line was not arched in a circular fashion but had the maximum height of camber further forward compared to more conventional profiles. This gave them the characteristic that made them popular with designers at the time: A lower pitching moment than more conventional rear loading camber profiles which in turn lead to lower trim forces and less need to retrim with speed. However, AFAIK the NACA 230-series and also the similarly cambered 2R1 had good high Mach number characteristics, but that was purely fortuitous and not by design.

 

This was also true for the Mustang laminar profile and the Spitfire also did well but that was not due to the profile but due to the thin wing section used. So interestingly, they all had rather good profiles in terms of compressibility characteristics not by design, but by chance. ;)

Edited November 28, 2014 by Pilum

[Kurfürst]

This might help.

 

 

I remember seeing a similar 109(G?) wing plan, which seemed original, and on which the 2R1 was also noted to be NACA 23xx series. But it is true its somewhat of a mystery profile.

 

This is for the 109F tail assembly for interest.

 

[Kurfürst]

PS - one some of the pictures found on 109K, some planes have a notice painted on the radiator flaps that the opening is limited to 220 mm. The normal opening was ca. 350 mm.

 

My question is if anyone knows the reason for this (lower drag..?) and if this is implemented in DCS 109K model ?

[JST]

Curious as well.

 

Some pics, the most clear from Borchers' plane, rest not so clear but can still be seen:

 

 

 

 

 

[SyntaxError]

Curious as well.

 

Some pics, the most clear from Borchers' plane, rest not so clear but can still be seen:

 

Off topic but my surname is Borchers, and my great grandparents were German. Wonder if there's any sort of relation with the 3 Borchers brother fighter aces. Wishful thinking but would be very cool.

[Friedrich-4B]

Curious as well.

 

Some pics, the most clear from Borchers' plane, rest not so clear but can still be seen:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting. One possibility is that the wider flap setting wasn't needed because the 109 was no longer operating in extremely hot climates (eg: Nth Africa, the Russian Steppes)?

Another is that the cooling system had been developed enough not require larger openings.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Friedrich-4/B

[Yo-Yo]

This might help.

 

 

I remember seeing a similar 109(G?) wing plan, which seemed original, and on which the 2R1 was also noted to be NACA 23xx series. But it is true its somewhat of a mystery profile.

 

This is for the 109F tail assembly for interest.

 

 

1.7 degrees is an inclination angle,yes?

[JST]

Off topic but my surname is Borchers, and my great grandparents were German. Wonder if there's any sort of relation with the 3 Borchers brother fighter aces. Wishful thinking but would be very cool.

 

And you haven't looked into this?

[DB 605]

New Screens on Facebook:

 

By the way, wich FB pages you found these? Because i can't find screens from Eagle Dynamics or DCS world pages?

[Pilum]

Interesting. One possibility is that the wider flap setting wasn't needed because the 109 was no longer operating in extremely hot climates (eg: Nth Africa, the Russian Steppes)?

Another is that the cooling system had been developed enough not require larger openings.

 

I guess you would need a lot more cooling if you are running at high hp output like the K4's with MW 50 boost did so in those cases you would most likely need all the cooling you could get, at least on a hot summers day in the climb. So it seems strange to limit the radiator cooling performance.

 

However, could well be that they reduced the max opening in colder operating conditions. I guess it would make sense to have a smaller max opening in wintertime for example. As an analogy, in colder climates it is not unusual to cover up the radiator intake on your car in winter time to allow the engine to get up into suitable operating temperatures.

 

BTW: Has there been any info on what boost the K4 is getting? I would assume it's the 1.8 ata we will see in DCS?

[Pilum]

1.7 degrees is an inclination angle,yes?

 

Yes, the Me109 had a combination of a fin offset and an unsymmmetrical profile to balance torque. IIRC then this was set to give no sideslip at some cruising speed and could be adjusted somewhat with the trim tab IRL. How will this be implemented in DCS? To a set trim speed or will it get trimmed to the "spawn" speed?