Building a player base for WW2

Not at all. IIRC from my aerobatics years, initial acceleration is related to gravity in first place, then engine power. I remember if you didn't catch up with leader in manoeuvres before start you wouldn't until the end because gravity is the main factor, and we were flying the very same aircraft. So yeah, great test of the obvious result you should get in a scenario like that :thumbup: .

 

 

S!

 

 

sounds like your not lying :D

 

 

S!

sounds like your not lying :D

Just watch the video you posted with that new information in mind. When did clearly the 109 start to catch up and get ahead by a bunch to the Spitfire? So that's it :thumbup:.

 

 

 

S!

Sounds like your limiting yourself keeping your realm in the normandy invasion period. Why when the map is totally inaccurate for that period anyways... Your boat :doh:

I share that boat. I would rather fly a more historic scenario that a chaotic kindergarten mashup.

Just watch the video you posted with that new information in mind. When did clearly the 109 start to catch up and get ahead by a bunch to the Spitfire? So that's it :thumbup:.

 

 

 

S!

 

 

at the end of the dive:D

at the end of the dive:D

Exactly, when engine power makes a real difference in the dive and gravity is less the main force there.

 

 

S!

Exactly, when engine power makes a real difference in the dive and gravity is less the main force there.

 

 

S!

 

 

 

 

What did you mean with Gravity? how this matters for the Spit in Acceleration at the Start?

spit mk IX is the fastes diving plane of all ww2 planes it could dive with speeds around 0.9mach

spit mk IX is the fastes diving plane of all ww2 planes it could dive with speeds around 0.9mach

 

 

wasnt it a turn fighter in the first place? never heard of that, snapping wings at high speeds...

 

 

are u serious? :D

wasnt it a turn fighter in the first place? never heard of that, snapping wings at high speeds...

 

 

are u serious? :D

 

yea spit holds dive speed record for prop planes

something like 0.96mach :P

yea spit holds dive speed record for prop planes

something like 0.96mach :P

What variant of Spitfire? I highly doubt it was the IX, or even a Merlin-powered variant. If this is true, I can only imagine a Griffon Spitfire would be able to reach such speeds.

 

Edit: Nevermind. Golly. Very rash thing to do, particularly in a Spitfire. I wonder how the control surfaces didn't tear away.

I'll also point out that airspeed indicators of the time were not entirely accurate.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Magic Zach

What variant of Spitfire? I highly doubt it was the IX, or even a Merlin-powered variant. If this is true, I can only imagine a Griffon Spitfire would be able to reach such speeds.

 

Edit: Nevermind. Golly. Very rash thing to do, particularly in a Spitfire. I wonder how the control surfaces didn't tear away.

I'll also point out that airspeed indicators of the time were not entirely accurate.

 

it was special adopted spit mkIX with fully feathered propeller

it was special adopted spit mkIX with fully feathered propeller

 

 

 

Yes true, but this nothing to do with Dive Acceleration 4t Congrecte Block would be overtake the Spit at some Point despite his bad Aerodynamics?

Pretty sure you are talking about the Spit XI not IX test. That one had substantially reinforced wings. Spitbombers (Mk IXs) were known to get wing skin wrinkling in the pullouts after bombing. At Mach 0.9 pretty much any prop plane would have its prop torn off by drag if not fully feathered. The prop drag would be equal to the flat plate area of the prop diameter. It is at high Mach numbers that engine power doesn't matter but only gravity and not the other way around.

Pretty sure you are talking about the Spit XI not IX test. That one had substantially reinforced wings. Spitbombers (Mk IXs) were known to get wing skin wrinkling in the pullouts after bombing. At Mach 0.9 pretty much any prop plane would have its prop torn off by drag if not fully feathered. The prop drag would be equal to the flat plate area of the prop diameter. It is at high Mach numbers that engine power doesn't matter but only gravity and not the other way around.

 

Yep

 

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160505-the-spitfires-that-nearly-broke-the-sound-barrier

Spitbombers (Mk IXs) were known to get wing skin wrinkling in the pullouts after bombing. .

 

 

Whilst there isn't any visuals to show this, it does effectively happen in DCS already.

If you pull out of a high speed dive at G above 9 (I forget the exact value, someone made a video of it) you can continue flying. However, if you pull high G a second time, one of the wings will rip off.

 

 

The first high-G will weaken the aircraft, rendering it combat ineffective and you need to return home. It's jsut a shame tha we don't have visual effects yet to show this, becasue the pilot has no way of knowing for sure if the aircraft has been weakened until they try a preate maneuver and kill themselves.

What did you mean with Gravity? how this matters for the Spit in Acceleration at the Start?

Read the previous posts :thumbup:.

 

 

S!

It is at high Mach numbers that engine power doesn't matter but only gravity and not the other way around.

Yeah, sure :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbup: .

 

 

S!

Read the previous posts :thumbup:.

 

 

S!

 

 

 

 

Still dont understand what you mean? you say gravity matters where is then differenc between k4 and Spit?

Whilst there isn't any visuals to show this, it does effectively happen in DCS already.

If you pull out of a high speed dive at G above 9 (I forget the exact value, someone made a video of it) you can continue flying. However, if you pull high G a second time, one of the wings will rip off.

 

The first high-G will weaken the aircraft, rendering it combat ineffective and you need to return home. It's jsut a shame tha we don't have visual effects yet to show this, becasue the pilot has no way of knowing for sure if the aircraft has been weakened until they try a preate maneuver and kill themselves.

 

Oh I know Phil, I wasnt trying to say it isnt. I was just a bit surprised by the nonsense being propagated on the last page.

 

Btw, would you consider adding a non MW50 109 in your missions, as the Luftwaffe without a Bf 109 in its rows is a bit offputting. The A-8 wasnt really deployed operationally as a dogfighter, it was used to counter heavy bomber formations (A-8/R6, R7, R8 ), hordes of IL-2s and as a fighter bomber as the factory ETC 501 installation shows. Would be nice if you could somehow still include the only purebred dogfighter the Luftwaffe had, even if it is not quite the correct model. The P-51D-25 also didnt see any operational use before around March 45.

 

 

Yeah, sure :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbup: .

 

What would you say happens in terms of prop efficiency as Mach increases and the airflow around the prop is locally supersonic? What do you think provides pretty much all of the acceleration as these effects become more prominent? Why would you say props get torn off at about Mach 0.85, is it because their thrust is so immense that they simply evaporate? What do you think is more important for prop planes at high Mach, thrust/weight or drag/weight ratio? Where do you think the ratio of motor acceleration/gravitational acceleration is larger, at low Mach or at high Mach?

 

:thumbup:

Ala13_ManOWar u lied to me, no i believe rel4y:megalol::lol::lol::thumbup:

Btw, would you consider adding a non MW50 109 in your missions, as the Luftwaffe without a Bf 109 in its rows is a bit offputting. The A-8 wasnt really deployed operationally as a dogfighter, it was used to counter heavy bomber formations (A-8/R6, R7, R8 ), hordes of IL-2s and as a fighter bomber as the factory ETC 501 installation shows. Would be nice if you could somehow still include the only purebred dogfighter the Luftwaffe had, even if it is not quite the correct model. The P-51D-25 also didnt see any operational use before around March 45.

 

:thumbup:

 

 

Yes, I can put MW50 restricted 109s in. Good idea.

Just gotta work out how to do it :)

What would you say happens in terms of prop efficiency as Mach increases and the airflow around the prop is locally supersonic? What do you think provides pretty much all of the acceleration as these effects become more prominent? Why would you say props get torn off at about Mach 0.85, is it because their thrust is so immense that they simply evaporate? What do you think is more important for prop planes at high Mach, thrust/weight or drag/weight ratio? Where do you think the ratio of motor acceleration/gravitational acceleration is larger, at low Mach or at high Mach?

↓ this. Don't play you didn't understand what I meant :lol:.

 

Still dont understand what you mean? you say gravity matters where is then differenc between k4 and Spit?

The thing is there is not much difference, that's why they both dive more or less the same in that video (Did you see the video?). Initial acceleration, following aerobatic theory, is given by gravity alone and no matter the power setting (talking of props) there will be no difference until deeper in the dive where aerodynamics and terminal velocity starts to obviously slow down one of them more than the other. Watch the video, what do you see there? Why should the Spitfire dive faster than the 109? Aircraft considered good divers are because higher terminal speed, due to aerodynamics and size/weight not because diving acceleration which is almost the same for anything (a stone either) in the initial run.

 

 

Ala13_ManOWar u lied to me, no i believe rel4y:lol::lol:

:doh: :lol: :lol: :lol: Don't . He's talking about a different thing, maximum dive speed and it's limits which nobody cares about right now. What I said is just to explain what was going on that video (was you the poster I think?).

 

 

Edit: the now infamous video

 

 

 

 

S!

Edited May 20, 2019 by Ala13_ManOWar

..mostly emojis..

 

That video shows nothing at all and should quickly be forgotten.

 

Yeah I am also talking about initial acceleration and not maximum dive speed, mate. Gravitational acceleration stays constant, prop efficiency decreases with Mach until at some point the prop creates net drag. So at the beginning of the dive you will have a contribution to initial acceleration based on thrust/weight ratio of the aircraft and with increasing Mach the prop thrust decreases in its relative net until only netting drag. If anywhere, the engine thrust has the absolute highest influence at initial dive acceleration and not in the endphase. In the terminal/ high mach dive lower drag is paramount. Does that make sense to you?

 

So in simple speak:

prop at low Mach > accelearation based on thrust/ weight + gravitational acceleration

prop at high Mach > creates net drag, gravitational acceleration only

Edited May 20, 2019 by rel4y

Yes, I can put MW50 restricted 109s in. Good idea.

Just gotta work out how to do it :)

 

In the mission editor you can put b4 fuel or whatever in the mw50 tank instead of beautiful turbo juice.:thumbup:

The A-8 wasnt really deployed operationally as a dogfighter, it was used to counter heavy bomber formations (A-8/R6, R7, R8 ),...

 

 

rel4y,

 

 

 

I think you have become mixed up about time periods and Luftwaffe (dis)organization by 1944.

 

 

The 190A-8 was only introduced in the spring of 1944 and day fighter shortages were so severe that they were rolled out very quickly on the western front where the greatest fighter threat was.

 

 

 

The first escorted bombing raid on Berlin did not happen until early March so Defence of the Reich day fighters could still use Me 110 and 410s to intercept bombers.

 

 

 

In France there were only ~170 Day Fighters and of those in Normandy, only the Stab and II/JG2 were equipped with the Bf-109G-6 and they were in the process of re-equipping with the Fw-190A-8 by D-Day.

 

 

 

The OOB in France was:

 

 

Stab JG2 Bf-109G-6 was converting to Fw-190A-8 on 31 May 44

I/JG2 Fw-190A-8

 

II/JG2 Bf-109G-6 was converting to Fw-190A-8 on 31 May 44

 

III/JG2 Fw-190A-8

 

 

Stab JG26 Fw-190A-8

I/JG26 Fw-190A-8

II/JG26 Fw-190A-8

III/JG26 Bf-109G-10 as of 3 Jun 44 they had 37 on strength still 22 were operational. They were in Nancy, well out of the Normandy AO and primary task was bomber interception. The strength return for 30 June shows that they were flying the 109G-6 and were outside Paris and had 55 on hand and 36 were operational.