Jump to content

Retnek

Members
  • Content Count

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Retnek

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 06/26/1965

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    IL2-46, IL2-CoD+, IL2-GB, DCS, MSFS-2020, x-plane
  • Location
    Old Europe
  • Interests
    Strategic Air WW2, radar, radio

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hello Mikhail, please add me to your list: Ulrich, Germany Thx in advance!
  2. I've tried to find any hint on this - sorry, nothing. Just one note on the optional long-range fuel-tanks sometimes placed in the bomb-bays. Imho there's a strong hint on a very limited use of the A-4/torp as a horizontal bomber. At the right-hand side of the cabin the instruments for the torpedo-settings had to be build in. There are a few pictures showing torpedo-bomber crew members at work right at the place where usually the instruments for bomb-spacing etc were placed. Since the Ju-88 cabin was badly cramped I suspect the torpedo-conversion enforced to remove (some/all?) instruments for p
  3. German bomber sorties are a minor, but interesting aspect of D-Day. Finding suitable Luftwaffe bombers to build up an Asset Pack for Normandy must have been a problem. If you need them flying during daylight at least. Checking some of my books dealing with Luftwaffe-units specialized on maritime warfare it was difficult to find hints on bomber operations during daytime at all. The only kind of large-scale bomber-operations during daylight wasn't done by bombers. But by Ju-88-destroyer planes from ZG1. A re-named group of former long-range fighters from KG 40. Build up for maritime long-ra
  4. You point on it - to build just this rare sub-model of the Luftwaffe's work-horse is another mystery. Fog of war!
  5. The Ju-88 modelled in DCS is a quite significant conversion of the Ju-88 A4. From 1942 on the standard-bomber model A-4 was re-equipped using a large kit into a Ju-88 A4/torp. This conversion changed the inner under-wing-bomb-racks, deleted the outer ones and the dive-brakes were removed, too. That bulb on the right hand side of the cabin contained the mechanically driven shafts for manipulating torpedo-settings in flight. After the conversion the options for dropping bombs were limited by the options of the heavy-duty bomb-racks type PVC1006B. According to the part of the Ju-88-handbook
  6. Very good - the speech was held by this guy: https://www.calum-douglas.com/ and that's the book https://www.calum-douglas.com/current-book-the-secret-horsepower-race/ It's very well written and will enjoy engineers as historians. A milestone in WW2-aviation literature.
  7. This film tells another story, worth the time: The origins of ARM
  8. Aircraft performance Takeoff weight: - normal (including 2xR-27R + 2xR-73, 5270 kg fuel), kg 23,430 - maximum, kg 33,000 Maximum landing weight, kg 24,500 Landing weight limit, kg 26,000 Maximum internal fuel, kg 9,500 Maximum ordnance, kg - Air-To-Air 3,200 - Air-To-Ground 6,500 Service ceiling (without external ordnance and stores), m 17,000 Maximum flight speed at sea level (without external ordnance and stores), km/h 1,300 Max Mach (without external ordnance and stores) 2.17 G-limit (operational) 8.5
  9. Check https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/252239-fw-190-d-9-dora-engine-bug/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-4537091 for details. @NineLine: no offence intended, just a hint. It would be fine to hear a problem by the engine sound itself. And to read an advice in the manual how each kind of engine will react on ignoring the upper limits. The sudden jam is fixed and a new water-cooling system coming up: Thank you. (Meanwhile happy hunting with a fast bird)
  10. Really? The D-9 now does 75 min with 100% thrust - not ok according to the sources. Same for the (maybe, who knows for sure?) missing warm-up time: no rough running, no power loss, no hint on problems at all. Just a sudden "bang" and the engine is dead and frozen. Imho not ok for a simulation.
  11. This has been discussed in some more detail here: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/207807-mw-50-or-gm-1/?do=findComment&comment=3919117 So for me there are three modifications for the 190s: - "Erhöhte Notleistung" via extra C3-fuel-injection into the air-intake, in 1943 for the F/G-models up to 1000 m - in mid-44 a new form of "Erhöhte Notleistung" (Enhanced emergency power) by a special configuration of the engine-regulator. Resulting in a higher boost and much higher fuel consumption, too. From A-8 on for both compressor stages up to critical height. In late 44 more and
  12. A bit more complicated ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_801#801D-2_and_801G-2 "... The D-2 models were tested with a system for injecting a 50–50 water-methanol mixture known as MW50 into the supercharger primarily for its anti-detonation effect, allowing the use of increased boost pressures. Secondary effects were cooling of the engine and charge cooling. Some performance was gained, but at the cost of engine service life. This was replaced by a system that injected fuel instead of MW50, known as C3-injection, and this was used until 1944. The serious fuel shortag
  13. Maximum engine-load test tonight: instant action Channel map -> Cold Start -> added 300 l drop tank -> take-off. From that moment on non-stop 100 % throttle, never touched it again during the flight. Several times up to 7000 m (ca. 1.7 ata) and down below 3000 m (ca. 1.5 ata), very few minimal cooler adjustments to stay a trifle below 100 degree C. 75 min later plane was out of fuel, engine ran smooth all the time. Ca. 820 l fuel for 75 min is ca. 660 l / h, within 10% of the 600 l / h given in the DCS-D9-manual. Track-file is available (27 MB), TacView, too. PS: Looking a
  14. Nice experiment, Rolds. Did the same on-line, well above 3100 rpm from take-off up to cruise at nearly 6000 to 7500 m for ca. 25 min. Disturbing to hear the engine running that high all the time. But no problems at all. Last 10 - 15 min chasing a P-47 high-up and all-out with 100 % throttle above 1.5 ATA - engine still happy. Came down more or less like a sail-plane with the very last drop of fuel. Problem of that engine-modelling seems to be even short times of "under-load" below 3000 rpm.
  15. There's one important reason for giving a minimum "straight-and-level-option" to the users. Together with the time-compression it would offer the chance to check long-time effects on features like engine-stress, over-heating, fuel consumption etc. Given the results are the same under time-compression it would be possible to support the developers by detailed community input on that kind of questions, too. (Maybe there's a work-around for this already - if so, please give me a hint)
×
×
  • Create New...