FW190D9 can't dogfight.

[DD_Fenrir]

Another point that you're missing here is that the K-4 with MW-50 will fly differently than the G-6 or another K-4 w/o it. I want to fly the K-4 as it WAS, not a handicapped one. This is Digital COMBAT Simulator, not Digital MAP Simulator.. just sayin'..

 

:doh:

 

How blissfully ignorant are you? The stated case TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN is to provide an approximation to a HISTORICAL SCENARIO given the constraints of DCS.

 

Christ I'm starting to understand that playing chess with a pidgeon analogy!

[amazingme]

:doh:

 

How blissfully ignorant are you? The stated case TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN is to provide an approximation to a HISTORICAL SCENARIO given the constraints of DCS.

 

Christ I'm starting to understand that playing chess with a pidgeon analogy!

 

You should be banned from this forum with these ad hominem.

[DD_Fenrir]

Be wary of some of the 109 performance charts - there are a selection floating around out there that are of predicted performance based on mathematically calculated performance increase with HP uplift and tend to be a little optimistic when compared to actually test flown examples.

[philstyle]

Here's how it breaks down. And this works for more than just a couple of axis aircraft. There are allied aircraft which have similar problems.

 

Ideally, we'd love situation X

But X is impossible.

We only have Y, Z and 0

 

0 is the least desired option, if either Y or Z can be implemented

It is currently understood that Y is closer to X than Z is, so Y is being adopted.

 

If it can be proven that Z is, in fact, closer to X than Y is, then Z can be adopted instead of Y.

 

But neither Y nor Z are considered to be equal to X. Nobody at SoW is making that argument. there is no excuse for pretending that we are.

[Hummingbird]

Sure, but where's the comparative data?

I know that turning Mw50 off causes losses in performance... no-body's disagreeing with that.

 

This is not the first time I've opened the door for people to make the case, only for them to go tangential.

 

Data which shows that, in fact, 109-K4 with MW50 is closer to the 109-G6 in terms of level speeds, climb rates, turn rates, roll rates and max dive speeds that it is without. That would make for a pretty convincing argument to enable to MW50 in the K4.

But that means sourcing three sets of data for each category and mapping them together for comparison. If people really want to do the leg work, then I'd be happy to see the results.

 

So you're going to ignore the fact that 109's with MW50 equipped were fighting over Normandy?

 

As already stated the G6/AS had been flying around with it since before the invasion, and the G14 arrived in numbers with it as std. in July 44 (the first operational ones flew in June).

[Hummingbird]

Be wary of some of the 109 performance charts - there are a selection floating around out there that are of predicted performance based on mathematically calculated performance increase with HP uplift and tend to be a little optimistic when compared to actually test flown examples.

 

No, as you can see with the G14 it's the other way round, the calculated performance is usually (and necessarily) conservative, ending up below actual test flown results.

 

 

Calculated:

 

 

Test flown (Erflogene werte):

 

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by Hummingbird

[philstyle]

So you're going to ignore the fact that 109's with MW50 equipped were fighting over Normandy?

 

Not at all.

For the FORTH damned time in an hour. I'd happily entertain:

 

. . . Data which shows that, in fact, 109-K4 with MW50 is closer to the 109-G6 in terms of level speeds, climb rates, turn rates, roll rates and max dive speeds that it is without. That would make for a pretty convincing argument to enable to MW50 in the K4.

But that means sourcing three sets of data for each category and mapping them together for comparison. If people really want to do the leg work, then I'd be happy to see the results.

[Hummingbird]

Where does ~650 km/h come from, without MW50... :music_whistling:

 

From actual test flights...

[Hummingbird]

Not at all.

For the FORTH damned time in an hour. I'd happily entertain:

 

. . . Data which shows that, in fact, 109-K4 with MW50 is closer to the 109-G6 in terms of level speeds, climb rates, turn rates, roll rates and max dive speeds that it is without. That would make for a pretty convincing argument to enable to MW50 in the K4.

But that means sourcing three sets of data for each category and mapping them together for comparison. If people really want to do the leg work, then I'd be happy to see the results.

 

Well considering its the fourth time it's surprising you didn't notice you wrote "109-G6", i.e. no MW50, and not G14.

[Krupi]

Actual test flown G14 performance (May 1944) under same conditions (gondolas + 300 L drop tank):

.

 

From the Kurfurst website the graph you claim to show has gondola & 300L drop Tank actually states

 

"The tested aircraft appears to be in it's standard, 'clean' fighter configuration and does not carry gondola weapons (note 1x MG 151 + 2x MG 131)."

[Krupi]

It is also comparable to the graph I posted that you stated was a G14 with Gondola & Drop Tank however the page I took the graph from stays nothing regarding a 300L drop tank?}

 

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_PBLeistungen/Leistungen_g14u4_am-asm.html

[philstyle]

Well considering its the fourth time it's surprising you didn't notice you wrote "109-G6", i.e. no MW50, and not G14.

 

 

OK, so is the G6 still part of the discussion now, or are you dropping it in favor of the G14? (July 1944)?

 

Or do both aircraft still matter - i.e the G6 for pre-July and the G14 for July onwards?

I was assuming you were still using the G6 as an argument for pre-July (exact date not yet specified, and no sources yet provided).

However, if the G6 is not part of your argument, then we can stop going around in circles. None of the SoW missions are set in July 1944.

 

IF the G6 is still relevant, the I revert to this,.

. . . Data which shows that, in fact, 109-K4 with MW50 is closer to the 109-G6 in terms of level speeds, climb rates, turn rates, roll rates and max dive speeds that it is without. That would make for a pretty convincing argument to enable to MW50 in the K4.

But that means sourcing three sets of data for each category and mapping them together for comparison. If people really want to do the leg work, then I'd be happy to see the results.

 

If the G-6 is not relevant any more then SoW missions are not relevant either.

[philstyle]

From actual test flights...

 

 

Interesting, would like to see those tests.

link?

[Hummingbird]

OK, so is the G6 still part of the discussion now, or are you dropping it in favor of the G14? (July 1944)?

 

Or do both aircraft still matter - i.e the G6 for pre-July and the G14 for July onwards?

I was assuming you were still using the G6 as an argument for pre-July (exact date not yet specified, and no sources yet provided).

However, if the G6 is not part of your argument, then we can stop going around in circles. None of the SoW missions are set in July 1944.

 

IF the G6 is still relevant, the I revert to this,.

. . . Data which shows that, in fact, 109-K4 with MW50 is closer to the 109-G6 in terms of level speeds, climb rates, turn rates, roll rates and max dive speeds that it is without. That would make for a pretty convincing argument to enable to MW50 in the K4.

But that means sourcing three sets of data for each category and mapping them together for comparison. If people really want to do the leg work, then I'd be happy to see the results.

 

If the G-6 is not relevant any more then SoW missions are not relevant either.

 

That would be the G6/AS.

 

As for G6/AS performance, it would be around the same as that of the G14, i.e. ~580 km/h @ SL, and ~680 km/h @ FTH.

[DD_Fenrir]

So you're going to ignore the fact that 109's with MW50 equipped were fighting over Normandy?

 

As already stated the G6/AS had been flying around with it since before the invasion, and the G14 arrived in numbers with it as std. in July 44 (the first operational ones flew in June).

 

Which Jagdgeshwader? My research indicates that it's very difficult to pin down any allocations as with units being moved around so much the situation even on the Luftwaffe side was confused to say the best. G-14s may have started being issued to units in July but I can't find any hard data on when these were operational and I find it highly unlikely that the entire Western Jagdwaffe was either a) re-equipped overnight or b) took immediate priority over other fronts. III./JG26 shows it still being equipped with G-6s in September of 1944!

 

The same applies to G-6 with MW50; in late May/early June the only units in France with any Bf 109G-6 were III./JG26, and whilst I'd put money on at most of them having MW50 there's no actual hard evidence.

 

And again the argument isn't over MW50 or not; it's about trying to get the closest approximation in performance to a late G-6/G-14.

[Extranajero]

I'm not sure why anyone thinks this is worth arguing about, given that the DCS D9 is underperforming with or without MW50 and it certainly doesn't belong in June 1944

 

I thought I was the only person daft enough to fly the Dora regularly in MP anyway.

[Krupi]

I'm not sure why anyone thinks this is worth arguing about, given that the DCS D9 is underperforming with or without MW50 and it certainly doesn't belong in June 1944

 

I thought I was the only person daft enough to fly the Dora regularly in MP anyway.

 

:thumbup: you are correct we should move this to another thread... one of the billions that have endured this fruitless endeavour endlessly :helpsmilie:

[Krupi]

From actual test flights...

 

of what aircraft? You have lost me completely

[philstyle]

That would be the G6/AS.

 

As for G6/AS performance, it would be around the same as that of the G14, i.e. ~580 km/h @ SL, and ~680 km/h @ FTH.

 

 

Care to link your source?

The only/ best data I can find is from Versuchs-Bericht Nr. 109 20 L 43. But these speeds are only at Kampfleistung.

It is provided by Kurfürst:

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G5AS_Lmessung/messung_109g5AS.html

[philstyle]

Which Jagdgeshwader? My research indicates that it's very difficult to pin down any allocations as with units being moved around so much the situation even on the Luftwaffe side was confused to say the best. G-14s may have started being issued to units in July but I can't find any hard data on when these were operational and I find it highly unlikely that the entire Western Jagdwaffe was either a) re-equipped overnight or b) took immediate priority over other fronts. III./JG26 shows it still being equipped with G-6s in September of 1944!

 

The same applies to G-6 with MW50; in late May/early June the only units in France with any Bf 109G-6 were III./JG26, and whilst I'd put money on at most of them having MW50 there's no actual hard evidence.

 

And again the argument isn't over MW50 or not; it's about trying to get the closest approximation in performance to a late G-6/G-14.

 

 

The only reference I can find to G14 operating in Normandy in July is a single line in Wikipedia... It's apparently from the book by Prien and Rodeike. I don't have the book and wiki doesn't say what date in july... could be 31st, or the 1st for all we know.

[Krupi]

Care to link your source?

The only/ best data I can find is from Versuchs-Bericht Nr. 109 20 L 43. But these speeds are only at Kampfleistung.

It is provided by Kurfürst:

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G5AS_Lmessung/messung_109g5AS.html

 

G6

 

 

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_May44trials/109G6_DB605A.html

 

 

G14 (MW30)

 

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_May44trials/109G14_GLCE-may44_trials.html

Edited August 12, 2020 by Krupi

[philstyle]

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_May44trials/109G6_DB605A.html

 

 

Is that with the A/S engine?

I thought it was, given the 1.42 ATA, but wasn't 100% sure. The title just has "A" not "AS" (AS or ASM being the MW50 equipped engines).

[Krupi]

Is that with the A/S engine?

I thought it was, given the 1.42 ATA, but wasn't 100% sure. The title just has "A" not "AS" (AS or ASM being the MW50 equipped engines).

 

DB605A

[philstyle]

DB605A

 

 

Apparently that's no the MW50 engine... although the 1.42 ATA is telling. . .

[Hummingbird]

of what aircraft? You have lost me completely

 

He was asking about the G6, which had a top speed of around 659 km/h at altitude, clean. The top speed with a 300 L drop tank was listed as 645 km/h.

 

The G14 with the ASM engined reached 550 km/h @ SL & 668 km/h @ FTH with gondolas (3598 kg), which when clean @ ~3250 kg translates to about 570-575 km/h @ SL and ~675-680 km/h @ FTH.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Hummingbird