FW190D9 can't dogfight.

There should be a delineation between G-6 with MW50 and G-6/AS:

 

G-6: DB 605A

 

G-6/AS: DB 605AS - Altitude optimized version using the larger DB 603 supercharger

 

Note: there appears to be no offical Rüstsatz or Umrüst-Bausätze designations covering the installation of MW50 to these airframes; if it was fitted it appeared that /U1 (GM-1) aircraft were converted, sometime during and after April 1944. Records are non-existent to establish any kind of numbers on this.

 

Three Gruppen that I know of ( (III/JG1, 1/JG5, and II./JG11) employed the Bf-109G-6/AS in Defence of the Reich in 1944.

 

III/JG1 was sent to France to support the Defence of Normandy landings but was in such poor condition it did not become operational over Normandy and returned to Germany on 14 June.

 

JG5 were based in Norway but it seems I. Gruppe may have ben transferred to reinforce Luftotte 3.

 

II./JG11 were again Defence of the Reich sent to Normandy, withdrawn in early July. Sources indicate they received G-14s of unspecified engine type in July, but whether this was before or after they withdrew to Wunsdorf is unknown. I suspect the latter.

 

That leaves the following Gruppen equipped with DB605A engined airframes:

 

III./JG2

III./JG26

 

Who were Luftotte 3 from the start of the Normandy Campaign, with the following units transferred in from Reichs Defence:

 

II./JG3

III./JG3

I./JG27

II./JG53

 

Thus there were twice as many G-6 as G-6/AS equipped units in the Normandy theatre.

For what it's worth the author "Erich" over at AHF wrote the following:

"I./JG 3 Bf 109G-6AS were all equipped with MW 50 injection as noted by vets flying the crate in April 44 to Normandies beginnings as well into that ugly campaign

Moskito-Jagern of 10. N. JG 300 flew the bird with MW 50 as well as gruppen of NJG 11 chasing Mossies and 4 engine jobs.

JG 27 were to receive theirs a bit later as portions of I and III./JG 300 combating P-51's at over 25,000 ft to 30,000 feet"

+1 it appears he cannot grasp the simple context of what we want.

I know exactly what you want. You want easy wins and use historical accuracy as an excuse. Your not fooling me.

Well for starters SL top speed for the K4 with MW50 @ 1.8ata is 595 km/h:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026-27_DBSonder_MW_geschw.jpg

You accidently used the K6 figure.

Also top speed is ~713 km/h @ 7.2 km, not 718 km/h.

As for the G6/AS performance, consider that the series production G14 was test flown to 568 km/h @ SL w/ MW30 @ 1.7ata in May 1944. So what do you think a G6/AS with a lower drag cowling & running with MW50 would do?

OK cheers, I can update with the K4 figure as opposed to the K6... those hand written charts are a bit of a mess to read sometimes :)

I have no idea what a G6/AS with a lower drag cowling & running with MW50 would do, that's exactly why I ask for source documents - cos I'd be guessing like everyone else otherwise. - graphing my own made up data is just silly :)

Arguments over which compromise is more historically accurate will go nowhere. There is no overcoming the anachronism that is the DCS:WW2 planeset and maps. Cherrypicking on or two dimensions, e.g. airspeed, to justify turning a 109K-4 into a 109G-6 by removing MW50 ignores other important considerations, like sustained turn. There is no convincing way to make the substitution. The point that the G-14 was in service at this time is well made, too.

All of that said, when you have an inaccurate planeset there should be adjustments for balance. Some of you will break out in a rash when you read these words, but there, I said it, balance. If I'm going to choose between two servers, and both are historically inaccurate, I'll go for the one where the inaccuracies do not excessively favor one side or the other.

Maybe we'll have a 109G-6 and G-14 someday, and a P-51D with 72" Hg that doesn't blow a rod the moment you engage WEP. Until then it is pointless to bang the "historical accuracy" hammer in these arguments.

All of that said, when you have an inaccurate planeset there should be adjustments for balance. Some of you will break out in a rash when you read these words, but there, I said it, balance. If I'm going to choose between two servers, and both are historically inaccurate, I'll go for the one where the inaccuracies do not excessively favor one side or the other.

This is well said Gavagai. :thumbup:

For me, "balance" is something that mission makers try to achieve, rather than ED. It's Ed's job to provide the most accurate aircraft, maps and assets and a smooth, beautiful and intuitive platform to play on.

The mission maker's job is to think not only about what aircraft to add, but WHERE to spawn them, which fuels might be available, what kinds of targets there are for them to engage, how the AA works, what ordnance can be used (and where is it available) whether or not certain stats recording can affect game-play - all those things.

I believe a K4 with MW50 could be added to SoW missions without really having much effect overall on the server and the mission balance - because lots of tricks and mission design elements are at my disposal in order to allow tactical changes or environmental changes in response to any particular air-frame.

The real question is one of "as close as possible" to something that is historical given the constraints of DCS whilst also not creating a too much work for myself. I don't consider that to be banging any hammers at all. It's simply about holding history in one hand and the present (i.e. how many hours there are in a day) in the other.

Game-play balance isn't too much of an issue, smart mission design can achieve that. Having to re-work hundreds of hours of work on already completed missions... that's a real problem. I need to be absolutely rock certain before making wholesale changes to missions that might cost me days of effort.

If SoW were a dogfight server, it'd not be an issue. A couple of dogfight missions could be updated in an hour. This is partly why I repeatedly demand sources AND that people provide a compelling and concise case for major changes.

You've done a great job with your server, too. Thanks for your hard work!

I have no idea what a G6/AS with a lower drag cowling & running with MW50 would do, that's exactly why I ask for source documents - cos I'd be guessing like everyone else otherwise. - graphing my own made up data is just silly :)

It would obviously be faster, question is just by how much.

Anyway the main point is that a K4 with MW50 is way closer to a G6 (or G14) with MW50, than a K4 without it.

It would obviously be faster, question is just by how much.

 

Anyway the main point is that a K4 with MW50 is way closer to a G6 (or G14) with MW50, than a K4 without it.

Of course, just calculate the PWR for both in different configurations..

Well for starters SL top speed for the K4 with MW50 @ 1.8ata is 595 km/h:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026-27_DBSonder_MW_geschw.jpg

You accidently used the K6 figure.

Also top speed is ~713 km/h @ 7.2 km, not 718 km/h.

Just to confirm, are you saying I should be using the figure that I have circled in RED in this image?

Just to confirm, are you saying I should be using the figure that I have circled in RED in this image?

 

The question is, do we have the new "Dünnblattschraube 9-12199" or the standard "Serienschraube 9-12159" in the DCS K4?

Fox

The question is, do we have the new "Dünnblattschraube 9-12199" or the standard "Serienschraube 9-12159" in the DCS K4?

Fox

Good question. If you recall, when we did those max sea-level speed tests for SoW, the results (with MW50) were: 567, 590, 582 and 583 kph. All slower than the graph (the graph does have the Dünnblattschraube).

But the range of results we had was too wide to be reliable. I'd love to be able to plot the max achievable speeds of the DCS K4 with MW50 activated at a few different altitudes.... but I don't own the module so I can never test it.

Just to confirm, are you saying I should be using the figure that I have circled in RED in this image?

 

No, you should be using the thin line which shows performance with the series production prop 9-12159, and it shows 595 km/h @ SL and 713 km/h @ FTH:

As you can see the experimental "Dünnblatt" prop 9-12199 (which is represented by the thick line), provided no advantage at SL, however it did provide increased speed with altitude, resulting in a top speed of 727 km/h @ FTH compared with the 713 km/h with the series prop.

No, you should be using the thin line which shows performance with the series production prop 9-12159, and it shows 595 km/h @ SL and 713 km/h @ FTH:

excellent, will revise. thanks.

Just tested the K4 ingame, and I can get 316 KTAS (585 km/h) @ SL, so 10 km/h too slow compared with the conservative German figures.

Just tested the K4 ingame, and I can get 316 KTAS (585 km/h) @ SL, so 10 km/h too slow compared with the conservative German figures.

depends on how you measure it and the conditions, not to mention that the german figures are with different prop and not the one we have, iirc after i tested it the trend was that it was slower but climbed better then the graphs by about 5% margin.

I have re-plotted the max level speeds, which now shows the following:

(nb. this uses the theoretical chart lines as provided by people in this thread. No one has provided the full set of verified actual speeds at altitude for me to plot)

Then I've made a plot of the basic differential between the G6@1.7ATA and the two K4 options. It shows this:

So, for the most par, the blue line (K4 with MW50) does track closer to the ZERO line, than the red line does. This strongly suggests that, at least for level speeds, the K4 WITH MW50 is a better fit to the 109-G6@1.7 ATA.

Now, given that people were raising OTHER attributes such as acceleration and climb rates into their arguments, here is the deal:

Produce for me, the same comparison chart for those missing values and if the same result is consistent for 2 out of three overall, then I'll take the results to the other server admins.

Having now added in the speeds achieved in DCS by iFoxRomeo (see here: )

The update differential now has an even closer match between the DCS K4 with MW50 and the 09 G6 with MW50, at least for this one specific performance measure.

The line that tracks closest to the ZERO line is the aircraft configuration with the closest fit (the least variance).

Philstyle you might want to see this thread, especially Yo-Yo's comment.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4454175#post4454175

EDIT:

Looks like you already saw it :thumbup:

depends on how you measure it and the conditions, not to mention that the german figures are with different prop and not the one we have, iirc after i tested it the trend was that it was slower but climbed better then the graphs by about 5% margin.

Nope, same prop = 9-12159.

I thought this thread was about the FW-190D; but all I read here is about the Bf-109.

new valve springs!

DCS FW 190 D-9 by ED

replaced sagged valve springs in the engine.

cool, my Dora got new valve springs.... When I get home I will see if it runs any better.....

I got home and flew the Dora last night, and try as I may, I could not blow it up. I didn't do a very scientific test, just flew with wep on and did combat maneuvers for about 20 mins, that was all the time I had, I will test more by the books limits tonight.

I got home and flew the Dora last night, and try as I may, I could not blow it up. I didn't do a very scientific test, just flew with wep on and did combat maneuvers for about 20 mins, that was all the time I had, I will test more by the books limits tonight.

Please provide a full video with combat maneuvers (against AI will do), because on my side, the engine quits frequently..

I got home and flew the Dora last night, and try as I may, I could not blow it up. I didn't do a very scientific test, just flew with wep on and did combat maneuvers for about 20 mins, that was all the time I had, I will test more by the books limits tonight.

Yeah, it seems to be working for me so far though I have not flown it much.