Performance charts and sources

[Bellerophon]

Hello together,

 

 

I'm new to DCS and WWII fighters albeit with some experience in 'civil' flight simulation. The K-4 is my first DCS airplane.

 

 

 

I was wondering if there are performance charts available for the WWII fighter modules and on which sources ED has based the simulated flight performance of their models. I was missing both information in the manuals.

 

 

 

Since there is plentiful information openly available on the internet but quite contradicting each other (e.g. if the K-4 was a medium, good or excellent climber), I find it very hard to judge what is the real deal, so to speak.

 

 

Thanks for any illumination!

[DefaultFace]

No one knows what ED bases their stuff on except ED themselves. As far as German ac goes we've been told alot of it comes from the smithsonian (and isnt publically available). That being said there are a number of performance charts for the real aircraft that you can find on the internet. These are good places to start.

 

http://www.kurfurst.org/

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

 

Just remember to keep in mind the conditions of the tests etc etc if you want to start comparing things.

[grafspee]

Hello together,

 

 

I'm new to DCS and WWII fighters albeit with some experience in 'civil' flight simulation. The K-4 is my first DCS airplane.

 

 

 

I was wondering if there are performance charts available for the WWII fighter modules and on which sources ED has based the simulated flight performance of their models. I was missing both information in the manuals.

 

 

 

Since there is plentiful information openly available on the internet but quite contradicting each other (e.g. if the K-4 was a medium, good or excellent climber), I find it very hard to judge what is the real deal, so to speak.

 

 

Thanks for any illumination!

 

i would say that all bf-109 were good climbers

but it is hard to get any charts for k-4 very rare plane during ww2

[Ala13_ManOWar]

i would say that all bf-109 were good climbers

but it is hard to get any charts for k-4 very rare plane during ww2

Well, at some point in the past it was said K4 was actually easier to model since there were more and better data for it than some earlier models. But who knows what's the exact truth among everything that is said around here.

 

 

 

With regard to OP, use the search forum tool, this sub-forum has been plenty of discussion about the subject. Here some hint of it with some source document. Among all warbirds Bf109K4's been the most controversial one by far,

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=200423

 

 

S!

Edited May 19, 2019 by Ala13_ManOWar

[grafspee]

Well, at some point in the past it was said K4 was actually easier to model since there were more and better data for it than some earlier models. But who knows what's the exact truth among everything that is said around here.

 

 

 

With regard to OP, use the search forum tool, this sub-forum is been plenty of discussion about the subject. Here some hint of it with some source document. Among all warbirds Bf109K4's been the most controversial one by far,

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=200423

 

 

S!

as fasr as i know lots of k-4 were not meeting factory specs you know late war etc etc lots of trials could be wrong

Edited May 19, 2019 by grafspee

[Ala13_ManOWar]

as fasr as i know lots of k-4 were not meeting factory specs you know late war etc etc lots of trials could be wrong

Of course, and that can't be taken into account in a simulation since every aircraft would be different from each other. Not to mention online compatibility/synchronization and such.

 

 

I can't remember exact info since discussion of the matter has been so long and heated through years, but IIRC ED as always centred themselves in one example in German charts of the K4 with B4 fuel and 1.8 Ata with MW50. Some people have asked 1.98 Ata and C3 fuel but IIRC there were no official clearance or resources for that IRL, only trials, or at least historical documents about such a thing in real operational use never reached us. That with regard to raw performances of course, then propeller (again there was discussion about that), then CoG and trim (well, what to say, we have a thread for that, again, from this very same week), then loadouts, then… for everything there were chart and documentation shown by Yo-yo and ED.

 

S!