So now that we have the Anton......

Will you tell us if you're working on a 109G or not? :)

Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please...

According to Yo-Yo we already have the G, as the K is modelled after it. Try to change my mind! :)

According to Yo-Yo we already have the G, as the K is modelled after it. Try to change my mind! :)

 

The saying the "G" covers a wide range of types, not particularly fair to take what Yo-Yo said out of context.

 

I assume he was saying that the K4 and G14 are essentially the same aircraft?

Still whipping that expired equine amazingme?

 

Considering how thoroughly Yo-Yo disassembled Rel4ys arguments one would have thought that his expertise in this area should be apparent, but no, as is the modern idiom, experts know nothing apparently, and you are the wiser in the simulation of 109 aerodynamics and control systems...:music_whistling:

 

As for 109G, yes, I would love to see a late G-6 with:

 

Erla hood

Optional tick box for MW-50

Rüstsatz I - ETC 501/IX b bomb rack under the fuselage, fusing equipment for an SC 250 or SD 250 type 250 kg (550 lb) bomb

Rüstsatz II - ETC 50/VIII d bomb rack under the fuselage, fusing equipment, for four SC 50 type 50 kg (110 lb) bombs

Rüstsatz IV - 2x 30 mm Rheinmetall-Borsig MK 108 underwing gunpods

Rüstsatz III - Schloß 503A-1 rack for one fuselage drop tank (300 L/80 US gal)

Rüstsatz VI - 2x 20 mm Mauser MG 151/20 underwing gunpods with 135 rpg

Rüstsatz VII - 2x 21cm Wfr. Gr. 21 underwing rocket pods

Edited June 10, 2019 by DD_Fenrir

According to Yo-Yo we already have the G, as the K is modelled after it. Try to change my mind! :)

I wish, but I don't recall any time he said so. Those models share features, that obvious, but "K being modelled after G", I don't remember at all such a statement unless you mean the other obvious fact that historically K is a G development.

 

 

Do you have a link to that?

 

 

 

S!

No amzingme refers to the use of some G-6 data in reference to the elevator control circuit calculations for the K-4.

 

His attempt at humour.

 

It's his little axe to grind cos the 109K-4 doesn't fly like he thinks it should.

I assume he was saying that the K4 and G14 are essentially the same aircraft?

 

Has to be. The G14 is the only Gustav anything close to the K4. Nonetheless, we don't have a Gustav.

A 6 would be appropriate.

 

Additionally, I'd like to see a Mustang B/C, a Typhoon, and a Spitfire V.

The saying the "G" covers a wide range of types, not particularly fair to take what Yo-Yo said out of context.

 

I assume he was saying that the K4 and G14 are essentially the same aircraft?

 

K-4 and G-14 are much difrent way much difrent then G-14 and G-6

look how much aerodnyamical improvment got k-4 that are missing in G-14

and i think engine was quite difrent too

Edited June 10, 2019 by grafspee

p-51b or c

spit mk V

G-6 or g-14

hawker typhoon

Whatever chum.

 

I trust the workings of a highly experienced aerodynamicist WHO INCIDENTALLY APPARENTLY HAS ENOUGH TALENT TO GET PAID TO WORK FULLTIME DEVELOPING FLIGHT SIMULATION SOFTWARE AND HAS IN HIS PORTFOLIO WORK TRUSTED BY THE USAF AND AN OPERATOR OF REAL WARBIRDS.

 

What exactly are your credentials?

 

And no, sorry, but the hopping around the forums sycophantically supporting the most meagre of evidence that could possibly infer that your argument has legitimacy whilst others more knowledgeable than you argue the case, doesn't count.

 

Keep trying though.

Yes. Because - and here we go again, since you didn't seem to grasp the concept the first time - Yo-Yo is:

 

a highly experienced aerodynamicist WHO INCIDENTALLY APPARENTLY HAS ENOUGH TALENT TO GET PAID TO WORK FULLTIME DEVELOPING FLIGHT SIMULATION SOFTWARE AND HAS IN HIS PORTFOLIO WORK TRUSTED BY THE USAF AND AN OPERATOR OF REAL WARBIRDS.

 

You expect to change my mind by use of a paraphrased and out of context quotation?

 

Please.

 

I'd ask you to try harder but I get the feeling I'm going to be blisteringly underwhelmed by whatever tired and highly predictable stratagem you roll out. Hint: try sprinkling some glitter on it to make it shiny and distracting; that might work!

so right now we have g-6 with k-4 engine right since all data was taken from G tests right ??

so its easy just add g-6's engine and we will have g-6

if 30% difrence is insignificant why it was done at all what was all the affort to change stick elevator gear ratio

i think it was helping at high speeds dives to recover or high speed turns where G series was handicapped in this regard not be able to follow enemy planes in high speed turns

Edited June 11, 2019 by grafspee

so right now we have g-6 with k-4 engine right since all data was taken from G tests right ??

so its easy just add g-6's engine and we will have g-6

if 30% difrence is insignificant why it was done at all what was all the affort to change stick elevator gear ratio

i think it was helping at high speeds dives to recover or high speed turns where G series was handicapped in this regard not be able to follow enemy planes in high speed turns

 

:doh:

.

 

.

 

stop this bickering

...but I get the feeling I'm going to be blisteringly underwhelmed by whatever tired and highly predictable stratagem you roll out.

 

Sometimes I hate it when I'm right.

Edited June 11, 2019 by DD_Fenrir

@grafspee - you seriously misapprehended the 30% comment. this related to one specific part of the elevator control circuit and is now a certain rabid one-oh-whiners holy hand grenade.

 

There are quite profound differences between the G-6 and the K-4, highly dependant on which of the many sub-variants of the G-6 you are referring.

 

from a stock early G-6 the K-4 has:

 

• DB 605D powerplant
  
• three-bladed VDM 9-12159A propeller
  
• MK 108 Motorkanone
  
• redesigned wings
  
• redesigned and taller vertical stab
  
• retractable tailwheel
  
• more aerodynamic cowling
  
• Erla canopy & panzer glass
  
• main wheel gear doors
  
• radio equipment hatch was moved forward
  
• D/F loop was moved aft
  
• filler point for the fuselage fuel tank was moved forward
  
• oxygen bottles were relocated from the rear fuselage to the right wing
  
• relocated main radio antenna under the port wing
  

 

And these are just the one's I can think of - I'm sure there are further details that changed.

Edited June 11, 2019 by DD_Fenrir

Well.. I doubt, therefore I think.. You should try it sometimes, it really feels good once you succeed and liberate yourself from the nails of ignorance.

 

Irony and hypocrisy are often such comfortable bedfellows.

@grafspee - you seriously misapprehended the 30% comment. this related to one specific part of the elevator control circuit and his now a certain rabid one-oh-whiners holy hand grenade.

 

There are quite profound differences between the G-6 and the K-4, highly dependant on which of the many sub-variants of the G-6 you are referring.

 

from a stock early G-6 the K-4 has:

 

• DB 605D powerplant
  
• three-bladed VDM 9-12159A propeller
  
• MK 108 Motorkanone
  
• redesigned wings
  
• redesigned and taller vertical stab
  
• retractable tailwheel
  
• more aerodynamic cowling
  
• Erla canopy & panzer glass
  
• main wheel gear doors
  
• radio equipment hatch was moved forward
  
• D/F loop was moved aft
  
• filler point for the fuselage fuel tank was moved forward
  
• oxygen bottles were relocated from the rear fuselage to the right wing
  
• relocated main radio antenna under the port wing
  

 

And these are just the one's I can think of - I'm sure there are further details that changed.

 

ok

long list of changes

i think cocpit layout was changed too

mw-50 pressure gage

But read somewhere that yo-yo used russian g-2 tests for this not k-4 tests

what i am thinking is why k-4 "improved version" cant pull hard turn at high speed i think this issue shopuld be fixed right in k-4

its hard to pull more then 4 g at high speed when wings can handle 8g for sure

Edited June 11, 2019 by grafspee

Yeah, well… :doh:

 

 

No mate, please, don't chime in with false statements cherrypicked here and there. You guys apparently weren't here by the time all the discuss about K4 happened. Go search for that and read all of it before starting over again.

 

S!

 

i used question mark at the end.

so all data was taken from k-4 right ??

i used question mark at the end.

so all data was taken from k-4 right ??

Apparently IIRC all of it except for a trim table taken from a G2 as apparently no other source in the World is available for that exact data, don't ask me why. But if you understand what the engineer's job is, explained by Yo-yo several times, that table is good enough to calculate what it should be for an otherwise similar airframe, and apparently since every other performance chart available matches the result, we have to agree the job is more than well done.

 

 

Unless you want it to fly following some esoteric and somewhat 'magic' statements without further evidence that a bunch of people try to spread here and there, then of course it's not enough because anything is ever enough for those. I'm sure even if they could fly the real thing they would say it's wrongly made because they can't do this or that…

 

 

 

S!

Okay guys, you chaps are being goaded.

 

DCS clearly don't believe that they need to change the 109 so he is just trying to stir up a fuss here. We all know it so don't rise to it.

 

The whole thing is quite ironic given that the K4 is an absolute beast even without the rare features that could be implemented.

The bottom line is.. the 109 that we have in DCS is modelled with a software 'filter' that emulates the so called 'stick forces'. The 'fuss' was about the doubling of the elevator trim tabs for the K4 together with some changes of the mechanical assembly which translated into 30% less stick forces. The documents brought by rel4y seemed genuine.. so questions arisen.

This, of course, doesn't mean that the plane should turn faster or retain its energy, it means that having these elevator trim tabs, would allow me to trim the plane on the ground so that @450km/h I won't have to trim the hell up ALL the plane to -4 so I can stay behind a cospeed P51 and when doing a simple roll it actually does a barrel roll.. The second improvement would be.. to actually pull more than 5 Gs instantly which looks like an impossible thing to do right now.

 

 

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

I find the 109K4 more than competitive for its opposers right now, I don't see it fit for an upgrade.

 

Back on topic though, we were speculating what plane will come after the A8. We already know the P-47 and F4U-1D by Leatherneck are on the way. I'm pretty curious to see how both ED's and LN's own versions of the R-2800 will compare, or maybe they'll share data. I think the Mosquito is going to be the next addition to DCS WWII. It looks the most complete, and because both the A8 and Mossie were announced either at the same time or within a close time frame of each other (can't recall). Honestly I'd never even heard of the Mosquito before ED mentioned it, which boggles my mind. I remember maybe 1.5 or 2 years ago, there was a poll on this forum for the first twin engined aircraft, and I was really...really hoping for a P-38, and it was winning for a while...and then the sun rose for Europe I do hope it will be multicrew. Two pairs of eyes are better than one, and flying with a friend guarantees a good time.

I'd enjoy a 109G6 and a Spitfire V, like I mentioned above. I'd definitely go out and fight with those. A Typhoon would be good fun as well.

 

 

Correct me, but wasn't the Ju-87 getting phased out on the western front by D-day? If not, I'd like to see those included as well.

 

 

I'm thinking eventually, as WWII fleshes out more, servers will have to section off different times of WWII, between early war and late war.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Magic Zach

Back on topic though, we were speculating what plane will come after the A8. We already know the P-47 and F4U-1D by Leatherneck are on the way.

Not long ago Nineline commented both Fw190A-8 and P-47 were more or less in a similar development stage, I gues they focused on A-8 for launch. So luckily P-47 won't be far away too. Hope so.

 

 

S!