MW 50 not working

When I first started flying her I thought maybe I wasn't engaging the system properly, but after reading the manual again there was still no joy. So then I thought maybe one of the mods I've got installed might be interfering with it. After a reinstall and all mods disabled, I still have no joy on why it isn't working so any help would be much appreciated. Thx

Edited July 3, 2016 by Brigg

How do you know it isn't working? The only clue is MW50 pressure gauge, but it's easy to miss it. Give us a bit more information about your problem please.

 

S!

The pressure gauge never moves even when the system is engaged. And at full throttle it always boosts to the same point at 1.4 ata wether I have engaged the system or not. thx

Check your controls to start with. One of the 109 tricks is without MW50 engaged throttle gives your room to 1.8 Ata, so as there's no MW50 it blows the engine pretty quickly. If you aren't able to get over 1.4 Ata with and without MW50 something is happening.

 

MW50 gauge doesn't move a bit until you go over 1.4 Ata hence if you can't go any further 1.4 it may be quite normal you don't see it working and that means nothing about MW50 working or not.

 

S!

Check your controls to start with. One of the 109 tricks is without MW50 engaged throttle gives your room to 1.8 Ata, so as there's no MW50 it blows the engine pretty quickly. If you aren't able to get over 1.4 Ata with and without MW50 something is happening.

 

MW50 gauge doesn't move a bit until you go over 1.4 Ata hence if you can't go any further 1.4 it may be quite normal you don't see it working and that means nothing about MW50 working or not.

 

S!

 

Thx for that fella I've got her sorted now. My throttle Axis wasn't extending enough to allow for the MW 50. :doh:

Edited July 3, 2016 by Brigg

Welcome.

 

S!

If you use the tracer mod on Mk108, it use old core file. Your Bf109K-4 got MW50 tank with B4 fuel, so you cannot use MW50. Remove that mod.

Thx gomwolf, that was the original cause of the problem, but when it was disabled the throttle axis still wasn't going far enough to go past 1.4ata. But all sorted now. :thumbup:

After the last update Bf 109 K4 doesn't have chance to catch up with P51 at 0m alt. Today I tried it but after 10 min of flight at 600-630km/h at 0-300m alt the P51 actually got farther and I couldn't continue because I ran out of MW50. Hmm.. what an interesting update.

I personally havent seen a diference in level speeds. The 51 always was and rightly so is a few kph faster than the K4. The Dora again should be a little faster than the 51. I dont believe there was a change in this regard.

 

Edited July 20, 2016 by rel4y

Thx for posting that graph rel4y it's very informative. Although don't let the spit pilots see it as they wont agree with the mk ix :lol:

Edited July 20, 2016 by Brigg

After the last update Bf 109 K4 doesn't have chance to catch up with P51 at 0m alt. Today I tried it but after 10 min of flight at 600-630km/h at 0-300m alt the P51 actually got farther and I couldn't continue because I ran out of MW50. Hmm.. what an interesting update.

Both of you came out of a dive, am I correct? If that P-51D flew in very well coordinated flight he should be able to keep his energy better than you.

 

I have not seen any improvment for the P-51 yet. If it could fly faster it would need higher power settings, because 604kph is the best the P-51D ever had at that SL, in any known to me tests with the current power setting.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Solty

Yeah don't dive with a p51 in a k4, climb.

Yes, it was a dive from 2,5km to 0m alt... and 15 min flight at 0-300m. Thank you for info rel4y. Mustang can use the emergency power constantly?

Edited July 20, 2016 by edik13

Yes, it was a dive from 2,5km to 0m alt... and 15 min flight at 0-300m. Thank you for info rel4y. Mustang can use the emergency power constantly?

 

No mustang cannot use emergency power constantly. At low alt, though, you can throw both the coolers open fully and not drop speed and run 60" @3000 for a long time before blowing the engine.

No mustang cannot use emergency power constantly. At low alt, though, you can throw both the coolers open fully and not drop speed and run 60" @3000 for a long time before blowing the engine.

 

... and with this configuration can flying over 600km/h constantly?

... and with this configuration can flying over 600km/h constantly?

 

Seems about right would have to test it for sure.

Thx for posting that graph rel4y it's very informative. Although don't let the spit pilots see it as they wont agree with the mk ix :lol:

Which is why the IX should have been a XIV to compete as we are looking at late 44. Now if we were flying FW190A's, BF109 F/G sure the IX makes sense. It's top speed is only around 408 mph.

 

VEAO is supposed to be working on the XIV, though, which is much more powerful.

Sea leve speed of B109K-4 with DB605DB (1.8ata) is 580~595km/h. It is little slower than P-51D. Bf109K-4 can catch the P-51D at 2,000m or higher. However Bf109K-4 have far better thrust to weight ratio in any configuration and longer maximum power limitation. So I suggest when you pursue P-51D with Bf109K-4, try zoom climbing instead level pursue while keep watching. When you got higher altitude (around 500~1,000?), you clearly can catch P-51D.

 

Of course, if more enemies around the P-51D, I recommand you abandon it.

Edited July 20, 2016 by gomwolf

... and with this configuration can flying over 600km/h constantly?

Tested it. At level flight at max power and rads open it held at about 360 mph right at the ground with stable temps for quite a while. Didn't use WEP, so the guy was probably using WEP part of the time at the very least, which would give higher bursts.

 

IF he dove in at a much higher speed, you could probably hold above that for quite a while too.

Thx for posting that graph rel4y it's very informative. Although don't let the spit pilots see it as they wont agree with the mk ix :lol:

what's the deal with the +25lbs spitfire line? Shouldn't it be very similar to the 'DCS Spit IX' line at altitudes where the supercharger can't make more than 18lbs?

Which is why the IX should have been a XIV to compete as we are looking at late 44. Now if we were flying FW190A's, BF109 F/G sure the IX makes sense. It's top speed is only around 408 mph.

 

No you cant really desire a F versus a Mk IX. The 109 G serial production startet in Feb 42 while the very first Mk IXs were introduced maybe June/ July 42. So the very first IXs arrived as the F model was already phased out and the DCS one is a more developed version of the Mk IX. (late 43 at least) Also dont forget that the Spits main advantage is not level speed, it is not a boom and zoomer. It doesnt need to be faster, but it accelerates about equally well as the 109 K4 (better than the 51/ Dora) and outturns them all. I expect it will be a worthy opponent, while the Mk XIV will be superior to everything.

 

 

what's the deal with the +25lbs spitfire line? Shouldn't it be very similar to the 'DCS Spit IX' line at altitudes where the supercharger can't make more than 18lbs?

 

The higher boost will alter many factors besides boost (eg fuel consuption, FTH, etc), you cant just do parallel transition of the velocity graphs. The immense high altitude performance of the DCS IX LF is actually where my mind starts to putter around as it outperforms the HF variants.

Edited July 21, 2016 by rel4y

… So the very first IXs arrived as the F model was already phased out and the DCS one is a more developed version of the Mk IX. (late 43 at least) …

You don't want a F model against a Mk.IX Spit because relative performance, that's fair but the point isn't completely true. During the war a new model didn't mean the previous ones were withdrew from service in the very first day, they were still capable aeroplanes but the main reason is simple, you just cannot through old aeroplanes to the bin as you need them. How were they supposed to be able to fill the squadrons with new models from the very first day they appeared? With time new models slowly replace new ones but not all of them at once, and even those "replaced" planes were scrapped but reused in less demanding tasks but still combat ones.

 

I mean, for instance as late as 1942 you can see Bf109Ds flying not just in training units but in combat service in Norway, not the busiest front, yes, but still combat and also as night fighters in Germany. But weren't Emils, and F, and G models yet there? How is that a sad and old D model could still be there fighting? Not the only example, I've seen units in Russian front using Fw190A-3 in 1943, but weren't A-4 and A-5 there how is that? You can see D Day lists of models used in front units and still they are really mixed, I can see for instance 109 G6, G-10, G-14, G-6AS, G-5 and Fw190A-8, with G-6 and Fw190A-6 as night fighters, but if they had the better and newer G10, how is that they weren't all G-10 and A-8 but still G-6, A-6, G-14 and G-6AS? Regarding Spitfire we all now but people tend to forget, in D-Day 40% of the Spitfires were still Vb, but Mk.IX is a 1942 model, how is that possible?

 

To say in short, yes new models are better and for the sake of kinda "game balance" and playability we want more or less similar models so combat isn't a slaughter every time, yes we all more or less agree with that (although still debatable, but OK), BUT, please stop using that "new models were available and old ones didn't exist any more" point because old ones just didn't disappear magically and were still there for a far longer time than people usually realize.

 

Haven't anybody see those pics of 1945 scrapyards after the war where He-111Bs & Es are still spotted??? How can that be possible provided that model was only used in 1939?? Come on people, try to be a bit more objective.

 

S!

 

P.S.: not to mention, how much Mk.XIV Spitfires were produced? 100? 150? Come on, we can't say German rare models shouldn't be there because they were rare and ask rare aircraft for allies.

 

P.S.: and to be clear, that's not a Luftwhiner rant, I love the Spit just I'm quite happy with the model we are getting. We just have 3 warbirds yet, let others come with time enough.

You don't want a F model against a Mk.IX Spit because relative performance, that's fair but the point isn't completely true.

 

I think we are both saying the same thing really. :) You are a bit misinterpreting what I was saying. I said "you cant really desire" putting a 109 F instead of a K against a Mk. IX LF, not because it would be totally wrong but because in terms of relative performance it is much worse than Mk. IX LF against a 109 K. So the people complaining about a misfit are suggesting as solution an even bigger misfit. ;) While saying that I also implied the mid/late production G models are a well fitting opponent to the Mk. IX LF.

 

For the rest I just want to add some comments for consideration.

Please differentiate between the early converted (Mk V to) Mk. IXs (Merlin 61 etc) and the later Mk. IX LF/HF (Merlin 66/70). The Mk IX LF/HF was used operationally until the end of the war and by all means was competetive. I posted the Order of Battle for D-Day in another thread including comments on Mk. V and Mk XIV. (http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2748861&postcount=1218)

 

I can see for instance 109 G6, G-10, G-14, G-6AS, G-5 and Fw190A-8, with G-6 and Fw190A-6 as night fighters, but if they had the better and newer G10, how is that they weren't all G-10 and A-8 but still G-6, A-6, G-14 and G-6AS?

 

Absolutely true, but the G-10 was introduced even after the K-4, so I dont really understand what you are supposing. Every army will have a mixture of equipment until they are completely replaced, but you said that as well.

 

So let me rephrase that I am saying the DCS Mk IX LF has a late 1943 motor config because what are we really comparing here anyways... Airframe wise the 109 F onwards is a 1939 aircraft and the Spit 1936 with minor changes. I stand by my point saying the DCS Mk IX LF will be a worthy opponent. :)

 

PS: We are basically agreeing, arent we? I am a bit confused tbh. It is also drifting somewhat offtopic from MW50.

Edited July 21, 2016 by rel4y

Yeah of course, we agree on that, IMO Mk.IX is quite fine, is the historical model, and even though people look at top speed charts and freak out we know aerial combat isn't all about that, isn't it? :smilewink: So MW50 K4 is more than enough to counter if we have to get back on topic :lol: :thumbup: .

 

 

May be I didn't emphasized or explained adequately what my point was. I meant only about that moto saying "this or that aircraft shouldn't be there because release date X". Many people use it trying to find reasons for asking one or another model, to one side or another, but that point is far from how it worked. I believe old Il-2 with it's aircraft list and (approximate) dates had done a lot of harm making people think that's real. Following that logic we should match Mk.I and II Spitfires with Bf109F just because a bunch were tested (disbanded from service in a month, what's usually carefully forgotten) in November 1940, what is a nonsense. We can misread data to almost anything we would like it to be. You are probably right you didn't meant that and I took your, may be "sarcasm"?, too literal :smilewink:.

 

S!