Some Questions about DCS:WWII

I'm interested to see if the 262 has any flaws that translate to DCS. I've read that the turbines were prone to flameout. At any rate it should be an exciting addition, for both the axis and allies!

 

Ditto. I'm hoping for the full range of early jet problems. Flamout, snaking, extremely slow throttle response and sensitivity to EGT etc.

 

What will be especially interesting to me is the 262 vs Meteor F.3 if VEAO and ED get both out at a similar time. 262 should roll faster. Out run and out dive the meatbox but the meteor should out turn, climb and accelerate.

 

Gonna be great!

I'm seriously hoping that the Ho229 comes together. The prodigal stealth fighter as a DCS bird? Hell yeah!

 

Actually, the stealthiness was incidental to the design. The flying wing configuration was chosen as a low-drag solution in an attempt to meet a requirement for a strike aircraft with a 1000km range and 1000km/h speed.

 

Though, Reimar Horten did mix in charcoal dust with the aircraft's wood glue to help absorb British early warning radar waves...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

Maybe not actual flight time, but I think wind tunnel data and such, there is plenty.

 

The Horten brothers built over 30 all wing gliders and 6 motorized all wing a/c. Not to say there isn't any wind tunnel data but I have never came across any reference of the brothers using a wind tunnel.

 

How much data on an obscure a/c like the Horten can there be when the Bf109G-6, or Bf109G-14, couldn't be modeled because of a lack of data?

I've seen some wind tunnel data in my travels, you just need to travel down lesser known roads... as for the part about the G-6 and G-14, I dont buy that either.

Especially that our K4 seems to be modeled with G6 wings and additional G2 data about control stiffness and responsivnes and CG position and we have G6 models standing whole in museums

 

According to Wiki this 109 is airworthy in USA: Bf 109 G-14 610937 (N109EV), ex-Bf 109 G-10/U-4, ex-Bulgarian AF, Ex-Yugoslavian AF 9664, 172 Group / 83rd SQ "44", Green << , Evergreen Aviation Museum, McMinnville, Oregon.

 

So yeah, I am waiting for Bf109G14:pilotfly::smilewink:

Especially that our K4 seems to be modeled with G6 wings and additional G2 data about control stiffness and responsivnes and CG position and we have G6 models standing whole in museums

 

According to Wiki this 109 is airworthy in USA: Bf 109 G-14 610937 (N109EV), ex-Bf 109 G-10/U-4, ex-Bulgarian AF, Ex-Yugoslavian AF 9664, 172 Group / 83rd SQ "44", Green << , Evergreen Aviation Museum, McMinnville, Oregon.

 

So yeah, I am waiting for Bf109G14:pilotfly::smilewink:

Airworthiness doesn't mean it to be flown, she's just in good museum condition. But the subject has been talked about before, having a flying aircraft doesn't help for the module, will you pay the cost to get her in a wind tunel?

 

About the Horten she's been in a wind tunel in USA after the war for sure, finding those papers should they still exist and are publicly available is the quest.

 

S!

Airworthiness doesn't mean it to be flown, she's just in good museum condition. But the subject has been talked about before, having a flying aircraft doesn't help for the module, will you pay the cost to get her in a wind tunel?

 

S!

Mate, do you think we have a single Bf109K4 around? No. We don't, and yet we have Bf109K4 in the game. And thats why I agree with Sithspawn.

 

I was just saying that it is easier to access their database about the 109's internal components. If it is airworthy it has everything in place and can be used as a model for the module creation. (unlike K4 that I haven't seen a single one even in a museum)

 

No matter what, the 109G will fly like a 109G (I am talking about control surface forces), just that there is a good oportunity to get the 109's specs out of existing plane. And you can make flight trials with Bf109G10 that is in flying condition. For example they can measure the rudder stiffness at different speeds because thats the only thing that is lacking in the WW2 data it seems. And that can be done with other proven aircraft like the G4 from Germany and G2 from England. Just talk to the pilots and ground crew, done.

 

And actually no, airworthieness means it can fly. If it's not airworthy it can't fly and those are listed seperately.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Solty

There is a Bf 109G-10 at the Air Force Museum in Dayton Ohio, but there is a snowball's chance in hell of it flying or visiting a wind tunnel.

I know there no K4 around Solty (there is one being built but...). Internal components aren't any problem, there's 109 handbooks out there listing them (I mean original ones, ground crews handbooks, they're on the net), and modern aircraft doesn't have all of the original components so they aren't any reliable source. IMHO the flight model subject is quite more a trouble, anyway if you want a G14 like the one you name, kinda underrated K4 that would be easy to have, not to mention a G10. For instance I've seen rudder stiffness/speed graphic in one of the endless discussions about control stiffness and trim in a German source, of course no K4 specific but.

 

 

 

And actually no, airworthieness means it can fly. If it's not airworthy it can't fly and those are listed seperately.

Yes mate, I know what you mean, but museums usually lists their aircraft as airworthy in a restoration/conservation meaning as it's a value increasing point for their crown jewels. That doesn't means at all they will or sometimes even can fly. Some example, Hendon museum Bf109G2 Black 6 is airworthy, actually she was flying until the accident, she could fly and is really airworthy but won't because conservation reasons. FHC Dora 13 is airworthy, she was twice restored and is airworthy because have ~95% original spares, will she fly nor even would pass a legal airworthiness certificate? No but her museum value is unmeasurable because it's "airworthiness" condition. Glacier B-29, in the 70's aircraft enthusiasts looked for and found an ice trapped B-29 and tried to save her, she was airworthy (fresh from factory indeed) and landed only because a minor failure, they fixed and wanted to fly home her, what happen to their airworthy original 30 years old B-29? An electrical fire, luckily still on ground, burnt her to the bones... And that's why "airworthy" museum aircraft actually don't fly even being airworthy.

 

S!

-

Glacier B-29, in the 70's aircraft enthusiasts looked for and found an ice trapped B-29 and tried to save her, she was airworthy (fresh from factory indeed) and landed only because a minor failure, they fixed and wanted to fly home her, what happen to their airworthy original 30 years old B-29? An electrical fire, luckily still on ground, burnt her to the bones... And that's why "airworthy" museum aircraft actually don't fly even being airworthy.

 

Actually, from the documentary, the B-29 incident was even more tragically unlucky:

The had an APU running in the tail to power her during the startup, but they had not secured it properly. The vibrations from the big engines unseated the fuel tank and dropped its fuel on the running APU..

:(

I've seen some wind tunnel data in my travels, you just need to travel down lesser known roads... as for the part about the G-6 and G-14, I dont buy that either.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116391&highlight=Bf109G-6&page=23

 

Post #229 which mentions another discussion.

@ManOWar

Hmmmm. Thats wierd. I mean, it's a bit dishonest on their part. I mean, I am ok if it can fly and is now under maintnance, but plane that can't realy fly and is listed as air worthy (theoretically) thats a bit dishonest (just my opinion).

 

Thx for that educational info.

 

I've seen only the 109's elevator and aileron curves, haven't seen the one for rudder. I was realy trying to find it on internet for a week and finaly gave up. :(

Edited September 4, 2015 by Solty

Rudder graph is together with elevator forces where I saw it. Will try to find it if you want to give a look at it.

 

 

Hmmmm. Thats wierd. I mean, it's a bit dishonest on their part. I mean, I am ok if it can fly and is now under maintnance, but plane that can't realy fly and is listed as air worthy (theoretically) thats a bit dishonest (just my opinion).

Well, it is from our enthusiast point of view who want to see them flying :). But look from a museum's POV, they are right saying the aircraft is "airworthy condition conserved", but I doubt you should try to fly a 30-40-50 years old aircraft that hasn't been revised and overhauled, but overhaul would destroy it's original unaltered condition. It's an endless dilemma. On the other side, every "original" airworthy aircraft actually flying out there in shows aren't originals (even "restorations" as claimed, restored means "newly build" most of the time) since they have to be overhauled periodically to keep them flying safely. Again a dilemma, but enthusiasts like us like to think those are "real original aircraft" so their owners do.

 

S!

That would be great to see it. :3 No rush though. If you have time ;) (we should realy make a thread that would store all the documents found on the internet...)