Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by VO101Kurfurst

  1. If I read correctly the datasets kindly provided by @JV69badatflyski, which records the history of each and every XIV's fate from their data card records, there were only 44 Mk XIVe built in total (.50 variant) , with 15 lost to Enemy Action and 6 more to misc. reasons by the end of the war. I hope he does not mind if I post his table summary. The dates would indicate that the 'date of commencement of production' in April 1944 is a highly optimistic statement (and as is the general case with Spitfires), in this case it really means that they built a single prototype, followed by a very low rate of production, so this date its not to be taken as a face value for serial production. The first (and in that month, the only) Mk XIVe is issued to 91 Sqn. is RM 726 in mid July (between 11-20), then its transferred to 402. Squadron in early September 1944. Two more (RM 796 and 799) are issued to 41 Sqn in September, one (RM 806) in October to No 83 Sqn and so on - 19 Mk XIVe appears to have been issued in 1944 in all. The remaining 25 seem to start to be issued mostly in the 1945 period, including 5 issued to India in April 1945, and the maximum number in Squadron usage is cc 20, from late November 1944 till the end of the war, and are scattered amongst all Squadrons, with about half of them with 430 Sqn. Issues of Mk XIVe to Squadrons, via JV69badatflyski (note that the single issue of RM 726 to 91 Sqn in July 1944 is not included in the table for some reason, but included with No 402 listings). jún.44 júl.44 aug.44 szept.44 okt.44 nov.44 dec.44 jan.45 febr.45 Mars-45 ápr.45 máj.45 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 SQ-130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 SQ-130 SQ-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 4 4 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 2 1 SQ-2 SQ-350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 SQ-350 SQ-401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 SQ-401 SQ-402 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 1 1 3 3 3 0 0 0 SQ-402 SQ-41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SQ-41 SQ-412 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SQ-412 SQ-430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 6 5 8 10 10 10 9 9 9 10 9 9 9 8 6 SQ-430 SQ-610 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 SQ-610
  2. Except that they did not. To put it into perspective, Fighter Command flew 20 495 offensive day fighter sorties and lost 416 fighters (in addition to 108 daylight Bomber Command losses) in the process between July and December 1941. On the opposing side of the Channel, Luftflotte 3 day fighters (chiefly equipped with 109Fs) lost only 98 fighters in the same period, an very favourable exchange ratio of 4–5 to 1. In the course of the entire year of 1942 (January - December), when the Fw 190 was deployed in large numbers in the fast, the figures were as follows. During 1942, RAF fighter command flew 43 339 daylight offensive fighter sorties, and lost 587 fighters (Bomber command lost 62 bombers in the daylight). In addition the then fledling USAAF 8th AAF lost 30 heavy, 2 Light/Medium bombers, and just 10 Fighters on offensive missions. I am looking for LW losses in the West but it’s quite clear that they did not do better in 1942, when the 190 was introduced, than in the 2nd half of 1941, when the 109F was the mainstay fighter. In the 2nd half of 1941, the RAF was losing, on avarage, 87 fighters and bombers on avarage per month on daylight offensive operations; in the course 1942, the RAF and the USAAF lost cc. 57 fighters and bombers on avarage in every month on offensive daylight operations. Allied losses, in fact, went down and not up when the Fw 190 was introduced, but there were probably a lot more reasons to that than the introduction of a new fighter plane. The appearance of the 190 did not change the success rate of Western Luftwaffe fighter units in any meaningful way, however, it gave the RAF FC top brass a convinient excuse to stop and rethink operations that were never really working or achieving anything else at any time than to give the Germans easy pickings.
  3. Whatever the case is with individual planes, the video of the downed 109K certainly shows that the current cocpit model is not wrong per se, and at the very least it corresponds to (some? all?) historical examples.
  4. As I understand the 109s with the tall vertical stabilizer and rudder (besides it presumably being lighter at high speed due to the Flettner) were also cleared for higher diving speeds, i.e. qual to that of the 109K (Vne=850 kph as opposed to Vne=750 kph). So that may be a noticable difference.
  5. In the 109K Flight Handbook, Part 9A there is a picture of the cocpit instruments, but there is only two ammo counters - I suppose that ammo counters were for the MG 131 only on the 109K.
  6. True for the ASM, but for Late /AS (cc 1945) appears to have been equipped with ASB/ASC series engines with the same output as the DB/DC. The ASB/ASC appears to be some kind of A/D series hybrid (upgraded A series engine blocks with D series parts?) as shown by the K-4 like oil system bulges on the lower cowling chin of late G14/AS. note - DB and DC is simply a marking coming into use in the end of 1944 for different boost used for the SAME 605 D series engine. In other words there is only DB 605D which received different subdesignations (mainly for the groundcrew’s information) during its development as max boost went from 1,75, 1,8, and 1,98. You could simply ‘convert’ one into the other (i.e. DB into a DC and vica versa) by a few tenths of mm adjustment in the fuel flow valve, and of course increase the manifold pressure settings (plus of course use the correct spark plugs and fuel). This itself probably takes an hour or two for the crew in the field because you need to remove the supercharger assembly to access the said fuel flow screw, as I have been told by an actual 109 mechanic. So it you consider that in the winter months many Ks had their wheel well covers removed and operated with fixed tailwheels, natural performance variance in between serial production place, there was a marginal difference in performance between late G-14/AS, G-10 and K-4. They all had the same supercharger, same ratings and roughly the same aerodynamics. Thats also logical as the /AS was just a step in until the improved 605D could be produced, and the G-10 was brought alive by the desire that factories would not have to retool for K airframe production, as the K different in many small details from the G airframe.
  7. K-4 is only listed with the MK 108. The K-10 was supposed to be the variant with the Mk 103mot (a slightly modified mk103 variant, for which some drawings exist, i believe it was streamlined in the barrel-receiver area to fit into an engine cannon installation), but it was not built, only a rough project drawing indicates its planned existence. In any case, 109 further development was dropped altogether in March 1945 in favor of jets (which was in any case a highly optimistic assumption). The MK 108 and MG 151 had slightly different installation. The MG 151 had its ammo box in the port wing root, the MK 108 had it right above the cannon, in the fusalage. Not impossible to do, as its still a 109, and you probably have the space in the wing, but its not a simple ‘field swap’, you probably need done this in the factory as a conversion, with gun, ammo box mountsX Note that MK 108 109Gs were designated officially as /U4 and listed as such in every case, signifying that they were significant modifications. They were a different series than the rest of them standard MG 151 armed variants.
  8. The K-4 had MK 108 motor cannon as default, there are only two aircraft that may be exceptions. Both were test machines, and are not representative of serial production. One is a supposed to be a K-2 WNr. 600056, this was sent to Tarnetwitz weapon testing station, the other is an early production aircraft (note that the earliest production were typically used for various in-house and LW trials only) Wnr. 330112, also for Tarnewitz. That is all. There simply wasn't an MG 151/20 armed serial production K-4. That would have been the K-2, but it was never serially produced. It is not a coincidence, that they 'started' the K series production by jumping to '4' already. Its called a K-4 for the very reason it has MK 108 as the default and only option. The K-2 that would have been the MG 151 version and was allocated the WNr. 6xx xxx serial numbers, the K-4 the MK 108 version. However the K-2 was eventually canceled in the spring of 1944 and instead the G-10 took its place and its assigned serial blocks. This way Regensburg could switch to K airframes while the others could keep producing hybrid G/K airframes (G airframe, K internals) without production loss. The designation system in the LW had a strict logic behind them. Letters indicated the airframe type and the numbers the equipment state (including engine, radio equipment, weapons). If you changed some equipment in the aircraft, the designation would change. All other weapon variables would have had different designation, but these were all canceled or were not proceeded with. Hence the K-4 designation always means a K series airframe, and the -4 indicated the DB 605D engine, two MG 131 and 1 MK 108, basic FuG 16ZY radio set etc. Its like this in all official listing for the K-4, no expections. Besides the K-2, there were other planned, but never materialized versions. The K-6 would have been a heavily armed and armored heavy fighter variant (3 MK 108s, two of them inside the wings + 2 x MG 131, also tripled the armor weight), but with the same DB 605D engine; K-8/10 were either recon variants or with a potent MK 103mot, but it keeps getting mixed even in the original papers. K-14 would have been the same style heavy fighter as the K-6 but with a super high altitude two staged DB 605L; this latter was a backup project for the Ta 152 and was canceled in late 1944 since the Ta was proceeding well. But like the K-2, neither these were produced. You will have to wait for a G-10 expansion for an MG 151/20 armed one, or a G-6/ASM or G-14/AS if it makes it to BoN, since its pretty much the same thing as the G-10 for practical purposes.
  9. Its a modification tested for the G-4 at the start of 1943 with a centrally mounted 20mm gondola (originally intended for the Me 163) in addition to the wing mounted gondola. There was some talk about at Luftflotte 3 in early 1943 to equip G-3s with it with the MGs removed to lighten the plane, and G-4s for normal night and day fighter duties, but in the end the idea was dropped and this modification never seems to have been standardised or used.
  10. 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.
  11. Usually 20-22 aircraft for fighter squadrons, 12 being the operational aircraft that flew tactical missions, the rest being reserves/spares.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Interesting engine sound - very 'raw' and 'smooth' at the same time.
  17. 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.
  18. 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!
  19. This looks like the best update in code so far. Thank you, team. Thank you, Jason.
  20. Yes, thats him, although other big names incl. Garland have contributed.
  21. 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.
  22. @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.
  23. 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.
  24. Well I guess they were just not terribly consistent or perhaps there was no agreed nomenclature for big caliber automatic weapons. They were kind of new at the time, although the first ones appeared in WW1, just were not very widespread. Some Flight articles in the 30s refer to them as ‘shell guns’, for example. Or maybe the fact that the 2cm was mounted on a carriage made it some sort of an artillery piece in the minds of the ordnance departments, I don’t really know. The gun itself was still referred to as MG C30, and the later version as MG C38 (c standing for Construction year, which was common in pre-ww1 german naval nomenclature), yet when the same thing was put into a tank, they started calling it KwK 30 or KwK 38, a tank cannon.. In MG FF the second part simply stands for Fest, Flugel, or ‘fixed, wing (installation) machine gun’, although that was of Swiss origin. Add to that the ever present ‘anything 18’ designations, which was simply a ruse to circumvent development bans of versailles, by suggesting its some kind of end of the great war era legacy gun, the designation system was perhaps intentionally confusing.
  • Create New...