Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

820 Excellent

About VO101Kurfurst

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2750 profile views
  1. More specifically, for the ~Normandy period, for ADGB and 2nd TAF, 1st of May 1944. 16+2 aircraft, though in practice I have never seen more than 12 flying at one time. Even that is rare. Earlier 12+1 sorties occured (+1 being tail end Charlie) Bombers had different IE and some certain 2nd TAF documents state 20 a/c per Squadrons, so perhaps that was sometime non-official practice with extra reserves. Fighter Command as of January 1944. Coastal Command, May 1944.
  2. Usually 20-22 aircraft for fighter squadrons, 12 being the operational aircraft that flew tactical missions, the rest being reserves/spares.
  3. It worked as a boundary layer separator, to reduce/eliminate turbulant airflow inside the raditor ducting. I haven't seen anything on why its use was discontinued on G and K series. Perhaps it was a wartime simplification, or simply did not give as much benefit to justify the added complexity.
  4. To add to the thread, this is what annoys me about the 109F 3D model - missing boundary layer ducting. Messerschmitt Bf 109 F and G/K water cooler system With boundary layer extraction duct on the F series Without boundary layer suction channel in the G/K series Copyright 2012 by Helmut Schmidt
  5. I wouldnt, there is almost nothing to gain by that, and it will certainly not turn a 8-9 ton plane into a ballerina, just toothless.
  6. I cannot find recorded issues with it, but indeed the main wheel well covers are often missing on early examples and the rear tailwheel seems to be in a locked down position. I tend to believe that was simply a winter mod out of practicality (you do not want undercarriage failures due to mud freezing in the wheel wells), given the aircraft was introduced in the muddy/snowy season. Such removals of covers was commonplace on the Eastern front as well during he winter.
  7. Interesting engine sound - very 'raw' and 'smooth' at the same time.
  8. These tables by Tony Williams are not based on any such reports. Its simply an arbitrary calculation that take the KE of the shell fired as basis and almost completely ignores the CE content of the shell, since explosive charge in the calculation is just a multiplier for damage. Its not a scientific or engineering based approach, but a rough, ballpark estimate that more or less agrees with anecdotal 'data'. But since there is no connection between kinetic energy and explosive energy in real life (hand granade would do the same damage if its in your hands and pretty much the same damage if its thrown at you), relying on these to verify the validity of scientific and engineering based precise calculations that are actually performed in this sim in real time is simply misleading. The tables cannot be used for that, they just give an avarage reader a rough idea but nothing more. BTW Tony himself readily admits that nature of his tables and by no means he wants anyone to take them as a gospel.
  9. DerSheriff is right, the reason the DB configuration dies more easily is due to the more limited knock resistance of the B4 fuel it uses; the 30 min rating limit was only 1.45ata in this configuration, although the engine manual suggest it could sustain 1.5 ata, and perhaps a little beyond that for safety; going above that manifold pressure without MW injection was inviting trouble, as the detonation would certain to occur, and the G-14 Methanol water system manual makes it clear the methanol injection only started if the throttle was pushed fully forward, as it was that position that an electric switch that started the mw injection was engaged by the throttle. So, basically stay at the 30 min rating (combat power) or slam the throttle fully forward, but never in between. Same goes for the G-14. The DC configuration of the engine (note it's the same DB605D engine, but with different settings! DB and DC is only a designation for different engine settings) is more forgiving since it uses high octane C3 fuel, that could sustain up to 1.8ata even without MW injection according to the manual (thermal loading may be an issue with the spark plugs on the longer term in practice though), so the margin of error is wider. Of course, if our DB config in real life would also use C3 instead of B4, there would be no such issue, and C3 was generally prescribed, using B4 fuel was a sort of 'in emergency', but the use of B4 fuel is what we have modelled in the sim for the DB configuration. From what I have seen, its correctly modelled in the sim. I have fell in the same pitfall myself - old Il-2 habits die hard!
  10. This looks like the best update in code so far. Thank you, team. Thank you, Jason.
  11. Yes, thats him, although other big names incl. Garland have contributed.
  12. Let’s do a reality check on this one. German comparison flights between A2 and F4, and they don’t quite match the Bremsprop version Basically they say the BMW powerplant is so unreliable (on average, engines barely making past 25 operational hours at the time) that the plane is unsuited for operation over the sea, desert or enemy territory, and in particular the airframe’s advantages are primarly the higher strength, but the disadvantage is that it will always yield lower performance, in particular in climb and speed. Low engine lifespan also limits its deployment as a large number of replacement engines needs to be supplied. It is also mentioned that the BMW powerplant has very little development potential and performance is unlikely to improve much in the future. The fitting of the DB 603 was considered, but they point out (as opposed to some secret cabal and mine work by Willy) that it’s a completely new engine and as such, teething and development troubles are expected, and it will be very likely not available for at least a year as a practical solution. Hence for a good time, the only truly operations capable will be the F4 and the new 109G, and that the originally suggested 50-50% production of 190s and 109s was considered unwarranted (hence the historical production ratio was rather closer to 1/3s 190 - 2/3s 109, which also more or less corresponds the man hours required; it took about 2/3a the work to produce a 109 compared to a 190). The 190 was, however far better suited for fighter bomber work than the 109 and this is where it came within it’s own in the Luftwaffe. http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109F4_Rechlin_vergleich_190A2/109F_Rvergleichsflg_190A2_de.html Zum bereits festgelegten Produktionsverhältnis der FW 190 zur Bf 109 werden folgende Überlegungen amgestellt: Der Motor ist derzeit so unzuverlässig, dass das Flugzeug nach Ansicht von Oberst G a l l a n d nur bedingt einsatzfähig ist und ein Einsatz über See nach England derzeit nicht in Frage kommt. Nach Aussage von Motor- Fachleuten wird nach Durchführung von vielen Änderungen ( heute schon 20 ) der Motor BMW 801 C und auch D frühestens in einem halben Jahr so betriebs- sicher werden, dass er jede Belastung aushält, also frontreif ist, wie z.B. der DB 601 E. Für die fernere Zukunft ist nicht anzunehmen, dass ein fronteinsatzfähiges luftgekühltes Triebwerk im 2000 PS-Bereich herauskommen wird. Vermitlich wird es die Entwicklung der Feinflugzeuge mit sich bringen, dass wir auf starke flüssigkeitsgekühlte Triebwerke, trotz der grossen Vorteile, luftge- kühlter, zurückgreifen müssen. Es ist beabsichtigt, den DB 603 als nächtsten flüssigkeitsgekühlten nach dem BMW 801 D in die FW 190 einzubauen. Dazu ist zu sagen, dass der DB 603 ein völlig neuer Motor ist, der ebenfalls seine Kinderkrankheiten haben wird. Es ist nicht damit zu rechnen, dass dieser Motor vor einem Jahr an der Front erscheint, dann aber wird der 801 D gerade eben richtig frontreif geworden sein. Der Motor 801 C erreicht heute nur 25 Betriebsstunden im Durchschnitt!! Die technischen Schwierig werden also bei der FW 190 auf längere Zeit dauernd bestehen, während underdessen die einzige, wirklich frontreife Jagdmaschine, die Bf 109 F 4 oder G ( nur weiterentwickelter Motor ! ) bleiben wird. Der Einbau des BMW 801 C und D ist nur als Zwischenlösung zu betrachten, was ja durch die nächsten Einbauabsichten bewiesen wird. Ebenso unnsicher wie der Einsatz über dem Kanal erscheint, bleibt er über anderen Seegebieten oder über Russland. Die Zusammensetzung der Flugzeug- führer ist heute keine solche mehr, dass Verluste aufgrund technischer Mängel hingenommen werden könnten. Ein Einsatz der FW in den Tropen wird auf grössere Motorschwierigkeiten stossen und die Möglichkeit hierzu wird noch sehr lange nicht gegeben sein. Solange der BMW 801 nur so wenig Betriebsstunden aushält, also bei waitem nicht einmal 50 Stunden erreicht, müssen sehr viele Motoren nachgeschoben werden. Dies wird auf Schwierigkeiten stossen, sobald mehrere Verbände auf FW 190 umgerüstet sein werden. Das beabsichtige Produktionsverhältnis von ungefähr 50% FW 190 und 50% Bf 109 bedautet auf baldige Umrüstung anderer Verbände hin. Sobald dies geschehen ist, bleibt aber nicht mehr die Möglichtkeit, diese Verbände nur über eigenem Gebiet einzusetzen und es müssen eben entweder bis dahin diese technischen Mängel am Motor abgestellt sein, oder aber, es müssen soviel Motoren nachgeschoben werden, dass dauernder frühzeitiger Motorenwechsel ermöglicht bleibt, was kaum zu erwarten ist. Die Entwicklung zeigt auch deutlich, dass die Bf 109 immer schneller und steigfähiger bleiben wird, als die FW 190. Auf die beste Steigfähigkeit kann aber nicht verzichtet werden. Wenn sie im Augenblick bei der Eigenart des Einsatzes am Kanal bei der FW 190 auch ausreicht, bzw. keine so ausrei- chende Rolle spielt, so darf darüber ihre Unterlegenheit mit BMW 801 C gegenüber der Bf 109 F 4 mit 50% der Steigzeit der F 4 auf 10000m auf keinen Fall übersehen werden. Mit dem BMW 801 D wird die Unterlegenheit schätzungs- weise noch immer 25 bis 30% der Steigleistung der Bf 109 F 4 betragen. Aus den angestellten Überlegungen heraus erscheint das Verhältnis von 50% für die FW 190 zu hoch gegriffen sein, auch bei Berücksichtung der grösseren Beschussempfindlichkeit der Bf 109.
  13. @Jason_Williams, since this update brings so radical changes to the damage model, is it possible to have some kind of demonstration of the new DM at works, 'behind the scenes', in the fashion your team showed improved ground handling etc.? I mean some kind step-by-step demo that would demonstrate along the lines the difference between AP and HE hits, their effects and how the structural elements like skins, vital systems and load bearing elements suffer from a hit at the same location, so we better visualize the changes. Please do not take this in a wrong way, its not a sort of criticism in any way, I am very much excited about this update, and would like to learn more how it works. I think it would be also a nice demonstration to potential new customers. Also, I understand that your team may have other, more pressing priorities.
  14. Thank you for this heads up Jason. For me this is the most anticipated updates and developments of all - far better than new content like maps, aircraft to be honest. It adds depth and I am quite convinced that such engineering based approach to structural damage is a game changer as far as combat flight sims go.
  • Create New...