DCS Bf 109K-4

Guys, someone has reliable drawings for K4 in good quality?

Guys, someone has reliable drawings for K4 in good quality?

Don't know is this is enough, but wikipedia has nice ones http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Bf109K_3Seiten_neu.jpg

thanks, but it's a bad sample

I wish that there was a demo for dcs modules because I really like the bf 109 k-4 but I'm not a WWII kind of guy. also will the k-4 have the 30mm cannons or the 20mm version

I wish that there was a demo for dcs modules because I really like the bf 109 k-4 but I'm not a WWII kind of guy. also will the k-4 have the 30mm cannons or the 20mm version

There is a "demo" of a WWII aircraft in the TF-51D.

Most likely the MK108 30mm for the K4, as it was the weapon used irl.

Guys, someone has reliable drawings for K4 in good quality?

These are from JaPo's Messerschmitt Bf 109 K book:

I wish that there was a demo for dcs modules because I really like the bf 109 k-4 but I'm not a WWII kind of guy. also will the k-4 have the 30mm cannons or the 20mm version

Em... Sorry I don't understand you. That's why you can buy only one plane, not whole WWII theater, isn't that grate?

coming soon to a theatre near you

Ahh yiss . . .

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2159646#post2159646

thanks for the line drawings

Why does a company that prides itself on detail have the wrong RD band on the K-4? Red/yellow was assigned to JG301 and JG301 never had K-4s.

Why does a company that prides itself on detail have the wrong RD band on the K-4? Red/yellow was assigned to JG301 and JG301 never had K-4s.

because red and yellow are the most attractive and garish colors for the human eyes :D

I really look forward to the Kurfurst as well and seeing how good a job DCS has done on the Pony and Dora I have a couple of wishes for the Kurfurst:

1) Do not like a certain predecessor sim make the elevator seize up unduly early: Problem with unnamed predecessor to DCS was that the elevator seized up at a certain speed irrespective of the altitude, i.e. it was modeled based on TAS not IAS. So up high, even if the dynamic pressure was low, the elevator seized up even though the Mach was way lower than the critical Mach for the elevator which of course was not very realistic.

2) In the same sim, the Mk108 was modeled with terrible accuracy and was spreading the shells all over the place even though the K4 manual listed a spread for a burst with the Mk108 which was way lower than what was seen in the sim. Granted, the Mk108 does have issues with low muzzle velocity and a relatively slow rate of fire which should of course be reflected in the sim. However, it did not chuck shells all over the place.

So DCS, please do not like unnamed predecessor pork the Kurfurst Mk108 and elevator! :smilewink:

Seeing how authentic the Dora is. I have confidence that such things won't happen.

Compared to the Dora we have, the Dora in that sim accelerates like a deflated truck.

I really look forward to the Kurfurst as well and seeing how good a job DCS has done on the Pony and Dora I have a couple of wishes for the Kurfurst:

 

1) Do not like a certain predecessor sim make the elevator seize up unduly early: Problem with unnamed predecessor to DCS was that the elevator seized up at a certain speed irrespective of the altitude, i.e. it was modeled based on TAS not IAS. So up high, even if the dynamic pressure was low, the elevator seized up even though the Mach was way lower than the critical Mach for the elevator which of course was not very realistic.

 

Well according to Mark Hanna, control surfaces of the 109 become stiff at around 500kph and you need power of both hands to maneuver agressively. It was not done by the critical mach value(not compressibility), but by the force of the air that was pushing on the controls. That was hard to counter due to short stick and control surfaces beeing small. The game you are talking about had no real simulation above 3000m, so... yeah. I figure that 109 should perform at high speed as it should. It is ED anyway :smartass: Just look at the Pony. It is just briliant.

http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Documenti/Storia/Flying_%20109_ENG.pdf

When not taking compressibility in to account, the force on the control surfaces is proportional to IAS (pressure related) and not to TAS (speed relative to MSL)... I guess the 500kph is in IAS as old warbirds have no indication of TAS nor groundspeed (=TAS + wind)

[EDIT] For clarification:

ground speed (GS): the speed of the aircraft relative to the ground -> what you would see on your moving map in all weather conditions

true air speed (TAS): the speed of the aircraft relative to the `local' air (ground speed - wind) -> what you would see on your moving map without any wind

indicated air speed (IAS): the speed of the aircraft as measured by the pitot-static tubes (pressure differential between static and dynamic air pressure) -> related to the local air density and temperature

calibrated airspeed (CAS): indicated airspeed corrected for instrument measurement errors (such as aerodynamic flow interaction etc.) -> what is shown to the pilot by the speed gauge

CAS is shown to the pilot because (roughly said) the value of the stall speed of the aircraft stays the same at all altitudes. However, this value says nothing about how fast you are actually going relative to the ground!

[EDIT 2] My point being, Pilum is right by saying that the seize in that other sim is incorrect if it really works as he describes, Solty is right by saying that the stiffness occurs at a certain CAS value =)

Many K4s had Flettner tabs on the ailerons to reduce stick forces at high ias. Hanna flew a G2. Would be nice to have an evaluation that gives actual lbs of lateral force.

Fwiw, the P51 already has high stick forces among American WW2 fighters, e.g. P47 and F4U were much lighter.

If that is the most you can find wrong with it, I'll take it...

If something so basic is wrong, then one must question what other more important things did they get wrong.

http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Fw-190D/Focke-Wulf-Fw-190D/pages/Arteork-Jagdwaffe-Vol-5-Section-3-Defending-the-Reich-1943-44-pages-220-1.html

If something so basic is wrong, then one must question what other more important things did they get wrong.

 

http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Fw-190D/Focke-Wulf-Fw-190D/pages/Arteork-Jagdwaffe-Vol-5-Section-3-Defending-the-Reich-1943-44-pages-220-1.html

Not necessarily, it could be the only thing they got wrong.

Since this is only (box) artwork, it's not as bad. The in-game liveries -- based on the screenshots -- seem to be correct.

See you can do it without using a thinly veiled insult.... goes a lot farther.

Maybe some people shouldn't be so thin skinned seeing something that isn't there, AT ALL.

If it's wrong it's wrong. Could have said what the correct options were though. Black might be good.