PDA

View Full Version : BOB - Why the Bf 109E-3...?



Kurfurst__
05-24-2006, 09:07 AM
Why are we having the E-3 for the BoB era in the next sim instead of E-4? Most of the E-3s were updated to E-4 standards (that means the cannons were changed from MG FF, to the MG FF/M which fired Mine-shells) just before the battle.. and the E-4 also fought in the Battle of France, the 3d model change is minimal, if existant at all I believe (ie. rounded canopies as now, were used on E4 as well, not sure about cocpit interior), and the E-4 would be useful for future campaigns as well.. also, E-4/N took part from the beginning of battle, so if that would be added, it would be simplier from an E-4.

The E-3 would only make sense for Polish, or early French campaign, but as I understand both are missing from the initial BoB release.

Bf 109E type strenght in the West, 31 August 1940 (JG 77 excluded, did not take part in the battle)

Total (total/servicable)
E1 375/307
E3 125/102
E4 339/304
E7 32/27
871/740

E-1 and E-4 were the most common variants during BoB.

leitmotiv
05-24-2006, 09:56 AM
Great statistics, Kurfurst_. Had no idea the 109E-1 was still 41% of the available 109 strength at the end of August---I thought only a handful fought in the Battle! Were these still fitted with only MG17s or had many been upgraded with cannon?

faustnik
05-24-2006, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Most of the E-3s were updated to E-4 standards (that means the cannons were changed from MG FF, to the MG FF/M which fired Mine-shells) just before the battle...

Kurfurst,

Good call on the Mg-FF/M. That would make a big difference. Where any of the Bf109E-1s upgraded with Mg-FF?

When did DB601N enter service? DB601 equipped planes will make a big difference if +12 boost is allowed in the Spitfires.

csThor
05-24-2006, 10:10 AM
AFAIK the MG FF (or MG FF/M) required a modification of the wing which meant the wing had to be changed. I don't think many E-1's ever got the MG FF or MG FF/M and if they did they were redesignated as E-3 or E-4 even on the type plate. The wing change usually happened when the aircraft had received so much damage that it had to be brought back to a LW repair shop. IMO it's not probable that the units were issued with new weapons and new wings to upgrade the planes.

The reason why we only get the E-3 (which was the least important version according to Kurf├╝rst's statistics) is only known to Maddox Games. Perhaps they're aiming at releasing further versions of several planes post-release - e.g. Bf 109 E-1, E-4 or other BoB-versions of Spitfire and Hurricane. Just a guess.

mazexx
05-24-2006, 12:13 PM
Well, a reasoning behind it could be that we already have the E4 in the IL2 engine and it probably feels a bit more "fresh" with the E3? Besides, the E3 is "more BoB" for me at least as the E4 was used a lot later while the E3:s where converted as Kurfurst said. That sure is a bad argument regarding the usability of the plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Well, with very small changes they can have both, or why not the E1 too? Then they can say that they have three german single seaters on the box with very little work http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

/Mazex

JG53Frankyboy
05-24-2006, 12:18 PM
flyable in IL2, comming again in BoB:
Hurricane Mk.I
Ju87B-2
He111H-2
FIAT Cr.42
FIAT G.50

i doubt a Bf109E-4 would harm here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

hop2002
05-24-2006, 03:18 PM
Perhaps it's chosen as a half way house?
Worst 109 = E1
Best 109 = E4 (in large scale service, anyway)

The E3 fits in between the two in terms of lethality.

Personally, I'd rather see the both E1 and E4 modelled, as the E1 hasn't been included in a major sim to my knowledge, but you can't have BoB without some cannon armed 109s.

VW-IceFire
05-24-2006, 03:22 PM
I'm sort of expecting the Bf109E-4, Spitfire Mark II, and Hurricane Mark II to appear by the time of release or in free addons after. Its not a huge modification for any of those types. I'm not sure when the E-4 was in service or when its peak time was for being in service but with the Italian planes were pushing the dates into October 1940 (shortly after BoB was "officially" considered over) and if we make it to December then the Hurricane Mark II shows up and I'll be willing to be that its probably when the E-4 is in the greatest numbers.

So I too question the E-3 vs E-4 possibility. I suspect we'll just see both in short order.

faustnik
05-24-2006, 03:36 PM
Regardless, that E3 cockpit shot shows that we'll have a nice view when flying blue. The visibility out of the E3 looks really good.

JG4_Helofly
05-24-2006, 06:58 PM
Oleg said ammo belts will be selectable in BoB. Maybe we will be able to simply choose explosive shells in the mg FF. This would be the "field upgrade" to new cannons.

WTE_Galway
05-24-2006, 08:23 PM
Being an early war fan I like the idea that we start with the E3. It offsets the tendency for people to keep pushing towards later and later planesets.

In reality LW pilots of the time often claimed the E4 cannon had too low a ROF against fighters to be all that useful anyway.

One bonus of the E3 is that combined with a future I16 we have a good basis for Spanish Civil war campaigns.

ImpStarDuece
05-24-2006, 10:30 PM
Being a bit odd http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif and obsessive http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif I hope we get the following 109s:

E-1
E-1/B
E-3
E-4
E-4/B
E-4N
E-5 (recce bird)
and possibly an E-7?

as well as:

110C-4
110C-4/B
110C-5 (recce version)

Of course the RAF needs i multitude of variants as well:


Hurricane I w/ 2 blade prop
Hurricane I w/ 3 blade, two pitch prop
Hurricane I w/ 3 blade, constant speed prop
Hurricane IIA (340 mph in a Hurricane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

Spitfire I w/ 2 blade prop
Spitfire I w/ 3 blade, two pitch prop
Spitfire I w/ 3 blade, constant speed prop
Spitfire IIA
Spitfire IB w/ unreliable early cannon unstallation. (I'd love to get to 20,000 feet, manouver past the escort, only to go for a run in on a Dornier and have my cannons go 'fhut' and have to run for home http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif )

ImpStarDuece
05-24-2006, 10:35 PM
P.S.

My 109E production charts give the E-3 as the most produced variants:

E-1: 1183
E-3: 1246
E-4: 496
E-5: 29
E-6: 9
E-7: 452
E-8: 60


Were most E-3s converted to E-4 standard? What went on there?

csThor
05-24-2006, 10:56 PM
The only distinctive difference between the E-3 and the E-4 is the different cannon armament - E-3 has MG FF and E-4 has MG FF/M (M for Mineshell). Since these two weapons were virtually identical exchanging the MG FF for a MG FF/M was easy and was done very often (no numbers here, though). Most E-3 were brought up to E-4 standard when time permitted (e.g. after receiving combat damage in a LW repair shop).

The only other potential difference was the introduction of the new canopy and the armored headrest with the E-4, but this could be added to all E-versions so it's not a unique feature of the E-4.

WWMaxGunz
05-25-2006, 12:09 AM
Cannon difference is, I ask; chamber, bot, barrel length?

Is performance besides MG shell in ROF and/or muzzle velocity?

I read that thinwall shells cannot take acceleration of regular shells as the wall cannot
support the mass of the fuse on firing. That is why the recoilless rifles were needed by
Allieds to get double explosive mass and they still needed to have the fuse at the rear,
a design by a Brit Officer named Burney. But maybe that only applies to larger shells,
his first was IIRC over 75mm and the last was 7.2" concrete smasher.

Kurfurst__
05-25-2006, 02:09 AM
There were several discussion of this about wheter E1 were converted to E3/E4 but it seems the answer is not, the wings were different afaik, and anyway there are plenty of pictures of E1s around in BoB. I'd like this version in, given it's importantance and in fact it would be quite useful against fighters, being all-MG armed with loads of ammo.

The E-3s disappeared as their gun was changed to MG-FF/M type, hence the re-designated and becoming E-4 (practice was that changes in guns, radio, engine changed designation).
As for difference between the guns, it was marginal I believe, and basically it occured because the Mine shells were lighter and required somewhat different recoil forces - this in practice meant changing the bolt or the spring or something along those lines, nothing really serious.

The M-shells were fired at higher MVs, probably due to their lighter weight, ie. 675 m/sec vs 585.


Production of the E-4 begun in early 1940, and it entered service in May 1940. There's a LW quartermaster report around, which shows the losses by subtype, but only between the period of july-oct (hence the earliest date possible is july). The first E-4 loss is mentioned on 4th July on that list, from III/JG 26.

The list is also interesting, since it notes 249 E-1s, 344 E-4s lost to all causes (combat/non-enemy related too), but only 32 E-3s.

As for the E-4/N and others with the 601N engine - this had 1175 PS available instead of 990 of the 601A (the latter had an 1100/1175 rating,. too, but only useable for 1-min and low alts I belive), plus it had better output at altitude. These were present from the very beginning of the battle. Most E-4s had the 601A engine though.

GL meeting on 19 july 40 (GL)notes that so far 3 Gruppen of Me 110 and 1 Gruppe of Me 109 E was already conveted to the new engine, this being the E-4/N variant, of which only these 35 was made, I believe JG 26 was the one getting those. Initially, the surplus 601N engines were retained for Me110s, and the 109F was entrering production at the time as well, appearing in the last part of the battle (both Moelders and Galland were flying it).

More important was the E-7/N version with the same engine, pointed spinner, and ability to carry fuel tank. It seems 452 of these were produced until the end of October 1940, i.e the end of the battle.

'Insignificant, penny pocket numbers towards the end of the battle', some say. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

leitmotiv
05-25-2006, 02:30 AM
Ah, so it was not common to slap a new set of wings on the E-1 to uprate it to a cannoneer, as the damaged G-6 airframes were refurbished to G-10s late in the war? Fascinating info on the 109E series, Kurfurst_. I, too, would very much like an all MG17 E-1. I had no idea they were in the Battle until I studied photographs with care a few years ago and realized how many photos of Es downed over England were E-1s. Had no idea so many were made---thought only a few were produced.

Ugly_Kid
05-25-2006, 04:09 AM
I am afraid that history is going to repeat itself and we are not going to face a historical planeset. Instead we get something here and there and then in the end what some Luther's etc. feel absolutely kewl...I would love to be wrong, though.

F19_Ob
05-25-2006, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Why are we having the E-3 for the BoB era in the next sim instead of E-4? .


Bob probably depicts the time just before the E4 ofcourse.
Don't worry the E4 will surely come later.
Be glad that they make the E3 instead, a welcome change before the same ol' stuff.
Also a plane for the experts to shine in and will separate them from the rookies more clearly I belive.

I for one hope they make more earlier fighters and bombers this time.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG53Frankyboy
05-25-2006, 05:38 AM
let me ad that we have no info so far from the Maddox team wich canon the ingame 109E will get !

if it was so easy to rearm an E-3 with MG-FF/M , who knows http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

and about the canopie , not all E-4 had the new frame , also E-3s were equipted with the new frame.
and the Headarmour. well, when i look in my "JG53 History book" from Prien i see a lot of:
old canopies with armour plate and without.
new canopies with armour plate and without.
all used at the same time.

so i doubt there was "the" 109E during the BoB.

same as Spits and Hurries i think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

butch2k
05-25-2006, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
P.S.

My 109E production charts give the E-3 as the most produced variants:

E-1: 1183
E-3: 1246
E-4: 496
E-5: 29
E-6: 9
E-7: 452
E-8: 60


Were most E-3s converted to E-4 standard? What went on there?

Here is my detailed production list:

E-1 = 1086
E-1/B = 107
E-3 = 1406
E-4 = 250
E-4/N = 20
E-4/B = 212
E-4/BN = 15
E-5 = 29
E-6/N = 9
E-7 = 419
E-7/N = 3
E-7/Z = 17
E-8 = 60
Total = 3633

WWMaxGunz
05-25-2006, 07:58 PM
Salute Butch!

I think the question is about how many were upgraded and when.
Kurfurst does have a point there?
Perhaps losses should also factor?

WWMaxGunz
05-25-2006, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

The M-shells were fired at higher MVs, probably due to their lighter weight, ie. 675 m/sec vs 585.



Understood. Those as opposed to 800+ m/s of some other guns.

The acceleration however is internal ballistics, barrel length comes into play and I am
wondering about if that changed any.

The thinwall shells crushing issue I had read was in respect to anti-tank guns on ground.
The RR's had much less initial accel so they could pack in more explosive by far. Brits
did and I am not sure about US or if/when they finally adopted.
Same is true for howitzers and mortars, what is possible as opposed to not always as practiced. You know these things I am sure. Sometimes things were kept the same for
reasons of manufacture and supply.

The big Burney gun was made unneccessary by the Petard Flying Dustbin bomb. Crude but
as effective and much cheaper to make. I think the smaller Burneys did get used some.

WTE_Galway
05-25-2006, 11:32 PM
Am i correctly in assuming that all E3's were manual pitch ?

CruiseTorpedo
05-26-2006, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Regardless, that E3 cockpit shot shows that we'll have a nice view when flying blue. The visibility out of the E3 looks really good.

Heck ya it does and to top it off we'll finally have 6DOF enabled! I cant wait, it's going to be great! Just the added freedom in the cockpit will make it totally different from IL2 series. Too bad we couldnt have it already http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

butch2k
05-26-2006, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Salute Butch!

I think the question is about how many were upgraded and when.
Kurfurst does have a point there?
Perhaps losses should also factor?

Most of the E-3 were upgraded to E-4 and later standard as they were damaged and sent to repair center. Even E-1 were upgraded to E-4 standard, since modifications were minimal, indeed they shared the same wing.

Conversions are very difficult to trace as currently the umbau documents for that period are not available, but i will probably get them soon...

I mentionned months ago the E-3 problem to Oleg and personnaly i would go for E-1 and E-4. Keep in mind that modifying an E-3 to an E-4 is just a matter of changing the weapon in-game, so it's not a tredemous effort.

butch2k
05-26-2006, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
Am i correctly in assuming that all E3's were manual pitch ?
Nope only the very early batches had the manual prop pitch.

F19_Orheim
05-26-2006, 04:15 AM
I'd pick the E3 anyday, way cooler canopy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kocur_
05-26-2006, 06:00 AM
MG FF(/M) was advanced primer ignition blowback cannon. In any weapon the case can not be let out of the chamber any further, than case design permits or case will be ruptured by pressure. The most common method is rigid locking of bolt behind barrel. MG FF was blowback operated, which means that bolt was not rigidly locked with barrel during projectile movement through the bore. The only thing not letting case to move back too much was bolt weight, or rather momentum. Advanced primer ignition means that weapon is fired a fraction of second before bolt gets into battery. Propellant goes off, starts to push projectile forwards and the case backwards. Initially that backward push has to overcome bolt momentum, then after bolt stops for a tiny moment - its inertia. Case goes backwads out of chamber only as far as its thick part reaches, before projectile leaves muzzle and residual pressure drops. So timing is critical and change in weight of projectile meant necessity of change in timing. That was most probably achieved by changing moment, when firing pin was actuated during very last of bolt movement into battery. That would be achieved by, say repositioning firing pin actuating <span class="ev_code_RED">lug</span>.
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/4134/apib5ba.th.png (http://img62.imageshack.us/my.php?image=apib5ba.png)
So there would be no external changes from MG FF to MG FF/M, thus it seems that no changes in airframe were needed to replace older weapon with newer one.

Higher MV of Minengeschoss was indeed result of lower weight: 92g vs. 115/117g of older ammo.

Thin walls were no issue in such a relatively small caliber weapon even though head fuse was used as projectiles had driving bands. Those thin walls were thick enough not to cause any deformation not only when MG FF/M projectiles were used in MG 151/20 of larger propellant load, but also when MK108 Minengeschoss were used in much more powerful MG103.

Kurfurst__
05-26-2006, 06:18 AM
So basically the bolt is still moving forward when the gun is fired - didI get it right?

Excellent description btw.

butch2k
05-26-2006, 06:24 AM
Definitely no change in the airframe, just a replacement of the weapon acoording to the manuals and tech specifications.


Originally posted by Kocur_:
MG FF(/M) was advanced primer ignition blowback cannon. In any weapon the case can not be let out of the chamber any further, than case design permits or case will be ruptured by pressure. The most common method is rigid locking of bolt behind barrel. MG FF was blowback operated, which means that bolt was not rigidly locked with barrel during projectile movement through the bore. The only thing not letting case to move back too much was bolt weight, or rather momentum. Advanced primer ignition means that weapon is fired a fraction of second before bolt gets into battery. Propellant goes off, starts to push projectile forwards and the case backwards. Initially that backward push has to overcome bolt momentum, then after bolt stops for a tiny moment - its inertia. Case goes backwads out of chamber only as far as its thick part reaches, before projectile leaves muzzle and residual pressure drops. So timing is critical and change in weight of projectile meant necessity of change in timing. That was most probably achieved by changing moment, when firing pin was actuated during very last of bolt movement into battery. That would be achieved by, say repositioning firing pin actuating <span class="ev_code_RED">lug</span>.
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/4134/apib5ba.th.png (http://img62.imageshack.us/my.php?image=apib5ba.png)
So there would be no external changes from MG FF to MG FF/M, thus it seems that no changes in airframe were needed to replace older weapon with newer one.

Higher MV of Minengeschoss was indeed result of lower weight: 92g vs. 115/117g of older ammo.

Thin walls were no issue in such a relatively small caliber weapon even though head fuse was used as projectiles had driving bands. Those thin walls were thick enough not to cause any deformation not only when MG FF/M projectiles were used in MG 151/20 of larger propellant load, but also when MK108 Minengeschoss were used in much more powerful MG103.

WWMaxGunz
05-26-2006, 06:27 AM
Kocur, I think that the elasticity of the mechanism also allowed a lower *initial* accel of
the shell. There is a difference, like but not so much as between divide by zero or by 1/100.
And yes, such a small shell as 20mm it matters less but stop a sec and think how much metal
would have to be removed to make space for and extra 50% explosive unless the shell is longer?

I think I am seeing that no 3D model difference would be needed between E-3 and E-4?
Even the canopies if I understand from Butch are the same, only just the cannon performance.

One can hope for AI 109E-1's perhaps but players should get E-4's if so many were available
and that does seem to be the case.

If few E-3's had not manual prop pitch then how about later 109's? Is the current IL2 109
systems incorrect? Was manual pitch a default if the auto pitch broke down or switch select?
I am a bit mystified on this after what we've had so long now.

Kurfurst__
05-26-2006, 07:09 AM
The earliest mention of the auto-pitch is from the Emil E1/E3 manaul from Dec 1939.

AFAIK the E-4 had different canopy alike to the 109F (more boxy), but, as many E-3 were modded into E-4 you can see a lot with both the older roundd and the new canopies.

My guess is that Oleg took the E-3 because the Russians bought one from the Germans and thus made extensive documentation of it - not only the performance but also the structure. I am not sure if creating an AI (if the cocpit internal is different) E-1 would be hard..

CruiseTorpedo
05-26-2006, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
So basically the bolt is still moving forward when the gun is fired - didI get it right?

Excellent description btw.

I believe the bolt is still moving forword when the gun is fired in blow back systems. The forward movement when the round is actually fired is very very small though. There's still some kick but its not likely to be as bad as a closed bolt setup which is why I think they called this a recoiless gun. Basically the chamber sits open while at rest, you trigger the gun to fire, the bolt moves forward, fires, and the extra pressure from firing the gun is used to push the bolt back into it's resting position with another round ready to be fired again. This is a very common setup in paintball guns today. The bolt sits back with a ball resting in the chamber until it's triggered to fire and the bolt slams the ball into the barrel and fires, then extra gas is used to reset the gun and have it ready to fire again.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not 100% certain on this. I've never fired an actual 20mm cannon or seen one used in person. I've just used a lot of different paintguns and rifles, closed bolt, and open bolt types.

JG53Frankyboy
05-26-2006, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by butch2k:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
Am i correctly in assuming that all E3's were manual pitch ?
Nope only the very early batches had the manual prop pitch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jochen Prien in his JG53 history is sayin gthat the II/JG53 got its first Bf109E with autotmatik pitch on 17.September 1940.
izs Pilot ,Erich Bodendiek, is calling it a "pregnant duck"!
the automodus was far from beeing ready to use - also it was impossible to switch to manual mode in this testplane.
Bodendiek was shoot down over England in his forst combat mission with this plane - he was not able to keep formation with his comrades in thier "old" manaul Emils.

F19_Olli72
05-26-2006, 02:03 PM
Imo it makes more sense to start with a backwards compatible Bf109 E-3 than with a E-4. That way, the 109 is already there for Battle of France addon (assuming it gets done).

Kocur_
05-26-2006, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
So basically the bolt is still moving forward when the gun is fired - didI get it right?


Correct.
And that is not common for blowback operated weapons. If they are fired from open bolt (like WW2 smgs), firing pin causes primer ignition when round stops in chamber (oh, we could split hair and argue, that since firing pin is fixed with bolt face, primer is ignited by movement of bolt thus during that movement, but practically before flame from primer ignites propellant and pressure rises bolt is in battery). If they are fired from closed bolt (like HK UMP, PM84 etc.) bolt is stationary when hammer strikes firing pin.
All those Oerlikon cannons (MG FF was a derivative of Oerlikon FFF, both RN and USN used 20mm AA cannons being licensed FFS, Japanese Type 99-2 was derivative of FFL) were advanced primer ignition blowback operated. That took two things: firnig from open bolt only and a device to cause firing pin to strike primer before round stopped in chamber.

lbhskier37
05-26-2006, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
So basically the bolt is still moving forward when the gun is fired - didI get it right?


Correct.
And that is not common for blowback operated weapons. If they are fired from open bolt (like WW2 smgs), firing pin causes primer ignition when round stops in chamber (oh, we could split hair and argue, that since firing pin is fixed with bolt face, primer is ignited by movement of bolt thus during that movement, but practically before flame from primer ignites propellant and pressure rises bolt is in battery). If they are fired from closed bolt (like HK UMP, PM84 etc.) bolt is stationary when hammer strikes firing pin.
All those Oerlikon cannons (MG FF was a derivative of Oerlikon FFF, both RN and USN used 20mm AA cannons being licensed FFS, Japanese Type 99-2 was derivative of FFL) were advanced primer ignition blowback operated. That took two things: firnig from open bolt only and a device to cause firing pin to strike primer before round stopped in chamber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guns are cool http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

ivankuturkokoff
05-27-2006, 12:01 AM
Butch2K and Kurfurst

Ref the Prop pitch systems (something I have been trying to get hard refrences on for a while) is there a firm refrence to this. Specfically what dates did the various systems come into use on the 109E.

1.Straight out Variable i.e 2 position pilot selectable
2.Fully variable but manual pilot selection
3.Fully Variable with Constant Speed Governing.
4.The "Auto" system we have in FB

WWMaxGunz
05-27-2006, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I am not sure if creating an AI (if the cocpit internal is different) E-1 would be hard..

If it is the cockpit that is the problem, AI-only planes don't get internal view cockpit,
they have the pilot and view through the glass which I for one would hope any difference
could be overlooked for the sake of saving time and effort. It would to me be less
important than say refraction of glass in less even that FW's. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WTE_Galway
05-28-2006, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
Imo it makes more sense to start with a backwards compatible Bf109 E-3 than with a E-4. That way, the 109 is already there for Battle of France addon (assuming it gets done).

agreed

Also the tendency is for the more vocal canvassing for new planes to come from people playing air quake and wanting later model planes. Whatever we start with is quite likely to be the earliest we will get.

WWMaxGunz
05-28-2006, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Higher MV of Minengeschoss was indeed result of lower weight: 92g vs. 115/117g of older ammo.


That could be made the same very easily with change in powder load and empty space filled with
burnable filler. For example and I have fired rounds that used this no problem: Cream of Wheat.
No! Really! Works fine all day, saves on powder and does not foul the rifle.

However to make MG same MV as heavier rounds would be bad. They will not follow the same
complete trajectory but with higher MV they will be closer in arc farther out. And I am more
than sure that was planned closely. German ballistics knowhow goes wayyyyy, way back! How
old is the tradition of Scheutzenfests? I had a teacher with family heirloom pistol, 17th
century with 15 lands and grooves and yes, German.

JG53Frankyboy
05-29-2006, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
Imo it makes more sense to start with a backwards compatible Bf109 E-3 than with a E-4. That way, the 109 is already there for Battle of France addon (assuming it gets done).

agreed

Also the tendency is for the more vocal canvassing for new planes to come from people playing air quake and wanting later model planes. Whatever we start with is quite likely to be the earliest we will get. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

souldnt the selected planeversion not depend on the released game (BoB) than on a doubtfull 3.Party project (BoF) ?!

Kocur_
05-29-2006, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Higher MV of Minengeschoss was indeed result of lower weight: 92g vs. 115/117g of older ammo.


That could be made the same very easily with change in powder load and empty space filled with burnable filler. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not only could, but rather should be, as having too much empty space between propellant and projectile inside case migh be unwanted.

Factors that dictated Minengeschoss muzzle velocity were of complicated nature. Not only external ballistics had its demands, but also internal ballistics had something to say there.
This was case of API blowback operated weapon, i.e. where timing is of the very essence (hey, whats new http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). As we know distance of bolt rearward travel while projectile is moving through the bore, must be less then distance of case thin walls to reach out of chamber. Distance of case and bolt travel is ruled by basic equation of m x D = M x d, where left side stands for weight x travel of projectile and right for the same of bolt. The equation is modified by adding secondary factors like weight of case, part of weight of main spring, case friction and equivalent of bolt momentum since primer is ignited in bolt's forward travel - on bolt side and a very important factor on projectile side, i.e. 'drag of push through' (sorry its just translation of Polish "op├┬│r przet┼"Üoczenia", I have no idea what is English technical term, 'kinectic friction' seems to express most of it - I never reached that deep into internal ballistics out of my mothers tongue http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif), which varies with projectile weight and its construction, generally speaking.
Total round lenght and external ballistics dictated lenght of projectile (caliber/projectile lenght ratio must be kept within certain range because of rotational stabilisation), and that plus projectile walls stiffness and explosive specific weight dictated overall weight of projectile. So what was left for designers to adjust to keep the weapon working properly, was weight of propellant. Neither too much to keep weapon operation safe, which is obvious, but also not too less, to provide bolt with enough energy to operate weapon, which similarly to its travel is ruled by modified equation m x V = M x v. All of this is further complicated by gun gas rocket effect affecting bolt right after projectile exit from muzzle. So muzzle velocity of Minengeschoss was result of projectile weight and weight of propellant, both dictated by other things.

Things are bit simpler in case of locked weapon, because "drag of push through" results there only in increase of pressure - since bolt is rigidly locked with barrel keeping case in place. In recoil operated weapon, such as MG151/20, which used MG FF/M set of projectiles in new rounds, recoilinig group (barrel with bolt) velocity, thus its kinetic energy is ruled by the same modified m x V = M x v equation, so again muzzle velocities of different weight projectiles had to be adjusted, to give recoiling group similar amount of energy to operate weapon and maintain rate of fire as high as possible, while another limitation again was case volume. That was also limiting factor for basic loading, which was dictated by total round lenght, which in turn was dictated by the already existing weapon, i.e. 15mm MG151.
Sorry for OT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-29-2006, 07:17 AM
OT? I think only slightly. You give more detail to what is already discussed.
There is no need for any empty space in the cartridge even if only half is gunpowder
except as you point out the bolt will no longer be given proper push. Really I have
the experience with hand loaded rounds in bolt rifles, we filled the extra space with
Cream of Wheat in our case which is an old handloaders trick.

Length of the shell can be a bit more or less without the thing tumbling within range
that is reasonable. 5.56mm bullets should give enough to understand that as they are
vastly out of ideal dimensional ratio and still able to achieve high accuracy even
past 300 meters. However with the internal ballistics and operation of the bolt that
had to work for the shells mix I can see that yes they had to balance the trick well.

MGFF and MGFF/M guns differ from each other in mechanism as part of that or it would
have been only the one gun, so it was more than just the shell. And as things can be
balanced and traded off that is why I think they had lattitude to make the external
velocity work to achieve a trajectory for the lighter shells that closer matched with
the heavier shells than might have been otherwise. OTOH it may have been just that
they took what they got with trajectory and called it good enough but that has not
been my experience with German crafts traditions. I expect totally that things were
adjusted and balanced well beyond simple needs at least before the war effort made
things into a headlong rush.

Design philosophies differ so much one country and producer to the next. I have read
a quote about the difference of British and American recently. It goes (with some
exaggeration) that the Brits would design a (shell) fuse that is perfectly safe and spend
ten years to make it work while the Americans would design a fuse that works and spend ten
years to make it safe. That is explaining the basic approach, in safety in that case, and
of course the troops get those fuses in whatever revision they are at the time. But I
don't know which group that saying came from and anyway it is about how differently the
approach to design makes all things. Look at the number of parts in a Tiger tank as
compared to a Sherman for instance. To me, the German tradition is towards highly crafted
and deeply, finely thought out and closely toleranced solutions -- better than just needs.

Buzzsaw-
05-29-2006, 10:03 AM
Salute

The real question is why there is no E-1.

41% of the available 109's were E-1's. With only 4 LMG's.

Read "Spitfire on my tail". Many wingmen complained because they had to make do with the E-1 while their Schwarm leader got the E-3.

Since Kurfurst has started the whine, time to look at why the British only get the Spit I, when Spit II was in service and all Spit I's were operating at Spit II levels of boost.

Also we need to look at what octane fuel the Spits and Hurricanes will be using in the game.

British only used 87 octane fuel in 1939, by 1940 they were switching to 100 octane.

In France, due to the reliance on the French supply services and their 87 octane fuel, boost was set to low levels for Hurricanes. When they returned to Britain, boost was raised as the 100 octane British fuel was then standard.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ap1590b.jpg

ImpStarDuece
05-30-2006, 12:37 AM
"Spitfire II levels of boost" are actually a little different to Spitfire I levels of boost.

The Merlin II and III, as fitted to the Spitfire I, was rated at +6 1/4 lbs maximum continous and +12 lbs all out maximum with 100 octane.

The Merlin XII fitted to Spitfire IIs was rated at +9lbs continous and +12 lbs all out maximum with 100 octane.

The Spitfire II was therefore climbed and cruised a little faster at maximum continous than the Spitfire I, depsite being a little heavier.

Peak RoC at 6 1/4 lbs for Spitfire I was around 2900 feet/ minute

Peak RoC at 9 lbs for a Spitfire II was around 3000 feet/ minute

biggs222
05-30-2006, 11:19 AM
if the game continues on past the sept 15th date id like to see the abiltiy to recieve the newer Spit mkIIb (cannon issue was fixed)

lbhskier37
05-30-2006, 12:17 PM
It figures both sides wants the most Uber available http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Sure put in Spit IIs, IIbs, and 109 E4/Ns but only if you are going to put in the Spit Is and E1s. And only if there is going to be a way to limit planes online, I don't want to see a server with 20 Spit IIbs vs. 20 E4/Ns, how different would that be from our current onwhine situation with 20 Spit IX 25lbs. vs. 20 109 K4 C3s.

BRING ON THE **** PLANES!

AWL_Spinner
05-30-2006, 12:56 PM
Continuing with the Forgotten Battles theme I just hope we'll go backwards before we go forwards, if you know what I mean.

AFAIK there are reasonably well developed projects for battles of both Poland and France and I really hope these come to fruition in an official or semi-official manner.

Going right back to Spain would be even better but I won't hold my breath!

Viper2005_
05-30-2006, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
BRING ON THE **** PLANES!

It's a natural feature of human nature to search for the highest performance available in the quest for victory.

It's all relative anyway. Fast forward to Korea and the La7 becomes a ****plane.

Given long enough, the F-22 and the F-35 will become **** planes in their turn. Such is progress!

WTE_Galway
05-30-2006, 07:49 PM
The tendency in IL2/FB has been to move to newer planesets driven more by the demands of online dogfights than offline or co-op players. In a poll someone did in general discussion the E4 came up as one of the most popular planes so there is a great deal of interest in early war.

What is missing from the FB planeset is a whole slab of historically significant planes that predate the period the original Il2 was released for including Spitfire MK1's and II's, Do 17's, the Swordfish and E1 and E3 Emil's.

There are rumoured to be a number of completed 3D models of early war planes for FB that may never be added as the demand for late war stuff has meant there was never time to do the FM's for them.

I would like to say to Oleg I am pleased to see we are starting with the E3 and early Spitfires and Hurricanes, it gives a good foundation to build upon.

WWMaxGunz
05-30-2006, 09:49 PM
E-3 seems a compromise. Less performance but with cannon at all.

I am wondering which prop the flyable Spitfires and Hurricanes get.

faustnik
05-30-2006, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
E-3 seems a compromise. Less performance but with cannon at all.

I am wondering which prop the flyable Spitfires and Hurricanes get.

Yeah, I agree, if there is one version available, the E3 sounds good.

I think RAF began a program to equip all their fighters with CSP props before the BoB. I'll try to find where I read that and post a quote or link.

Kurfurst__
05-31-2006, 01:40 AM
Discuss BoB-related questions about the Spit or RAF in a different thread please.

Now as for the E-3 goes, if we indeed get selectable belt loadings, the E-3 would be only an academical question, since by changing to Mineshells - available to the player after a given date - would effectively mean our plane is a modified E-3, into E-4 standard, which seems to be the case in the majority of real life E-3s as well.

JG53Frankyboy
05-31-2006, 03:30 AM
anyway, it would be nice to have a E-1 beside an E-3.

in a LW campaign you could begin as a Rottenfleiger flying an E-1 and than switch later as a Rottenf├╝hrer to an E-3.

also in COOPs you could arm the leaders with canons, and the rest with MGs - if it will possible to build flights out of different planes in the FMB.

F19_Olli72
05-31-2006, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Now as for the E-3 goes, if we indeed get selectable belt loadings, the E-3 would be only an academical question, since by changing to Mineshells - available to the player after a given date - would effectively mean our plane is a modified E-3, into E-4 standard, which seems to be the case in the majority of real life E-3s as well.

Well it depends of course, just because beltloading options might be available its not certain you can choose minengeschoss in E-3. If it is the 'pure' E-3 i would expect Oleg to stick to history and while letting ppl choose ammo, they would not be able to load minengeschoss in E-3.

While im at it, its a bit fantasy to be able to pick ammoloading unless its done in a way too choose historical loading combos only. No 109 was ever loaded with 100 % minengeschoss, but i have a feeling we might see much such fantasy loadouts specially online if Oleg makes it freely adjustable.

Also a question about minengeschoss: IIRC they hadnt developed timed fuses at the time of BoB?

Kocur_
05-31-2006, 06:02 AM
Also a question about minengeschoss: IIRC they hadnt developed timed fuses at the time of BoB?

AFAIK no, furthermore noone used delayed fuses in aerial cannons then. I guess it took time to figure out, that it would be better if a shell exploded inside. Also it was not a matter of the fuse, but of detonator, i.e. unit, that transferred flame from fuse's primer to explosive load.

Kurfurst__
05-31-2006, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
Well it depends of course, just because beltloading options might be available its not certain you can choose minengeschoss in E-3. If it is the 'pure' E-3 i would expect Oleg to stick to history and while letting ppl choose ammo, they would not be able to load minengeschoss in E-3.

Strictly speaking, only the E-4's MG-FF/M cannons were able to fire the M-Geschoss. Of course, the E-4 in most cases wasn't much than an E-3, with a few recoil parts replaced in the cannon with an other, and the 'E-3' dataplate re-stamped 'E-4', and a large 'M' stamped on the MG FF cannon to signify it's an MG-FFM..

In other words, if it could be solved that loading M-Geschoss into the ammo belt of the E-3 after a given date (at around May-June 1940), it wouldn't be much different than the real life situation, the single difference being our planes not being re-stamped as E-4s, for again, the majority of the so-called E-4s were just E-3s, with a part replaced in the gun.

If Oleg sticks to history, and doesn't allows players to load M-geschoss into the cannon armed 109s that fly during BoB, well that's kinda strange given that 95 or so percent of the BoB-era 109s could load M-Geschoss, practically it was the only cannon variant in use at that time.


While im at it, its a bit fantasy to be able to pick ammoloading unless its done in a way too choose historical loading combos only. No 109 was ever loaded with 100 % minengeschoss, but i have a feeling we might see much such fantasy loadouts specially online if Oleg makes it freely adjustable.

Yeah, though imho using 100% MG belting would have it's own share of disadvantages - no tracers for example.


Also a question about minengeschoss: IIRC they hadnt developed timed fuses at the time of BoB?

I think that was the case, but as most of the target's were to no small extent canvas-covered Hurricane's, I guess there was a point about that. The question is a bit academic, as when flying on the LW side, one would rarely engage bombers where this detail would have more meaning on the DM, on fighters it barely mattered, because of the small dimensions involved.

WWMaxGunz
05-31-2006, 10:14 AM
If 95% or so was able to fire M shells then less than 5% were MG armed E-1's?

Is this by some extension of BoB era? What happened to 41% E-1's just prior to BoB?
I thought they were not able to be converted?

Really all this time I think that E-4 made more sense from numbers with AI E-1 as other.
Discussions on plane types do tend to ratchet upwards when it becomes "you have this so
we must have that". But I feel that if there was a lot then why not players get the
better and AI get the lesser?

Kurfurst__
05-31-2006, 10:40 AM
oops, 95% of the cannon armed Emils I meant.

And I am all for the E-1, even if perhaps AI-only first... it would be a hugely fun plane to fly.. though I think about those faces who with some aganda were asking for an E-1 just because they think it's a sucker - when they find out quite a few planes had no pilot armor at this time..

VW-IceFire
05-31-2006, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Discuss BoB-related questions about the Spit or RAF in a different thread please.

How come you get to talk about the 109 in Spitfire XIV threads? Such as how many 109 squadrons VS Spitfire XIV squadrons? No double standards please.

Back to the E-3...seems like a compromise between the variants as suggested, however, I do agree that having the E-1 or E-4 probably wouldn't be a huge stretch and they simply may not be listed in any documentation at the moment because they don't want to promise variants they cannot deliver (ala Pacific Fighters). So I'm sure we're bound to find a few good surprises with some extra variants or modifications in there.

WTE_Galway
05-31-2006, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If 95% or so was able to fire M shells then less than 5% were MG armed E-1's?

Is this by some extension of BoB era? What happened to 41% E-1's just prior to BoB?
I thought they were not able to be converted?

Really all this time I think that E-4 made more sense from numbers with AI E-1 as other.
Discussions on plane types do tend to ratchet upwards when it becomes "you have this so
we must have that". But I feel that if there was a lot then why not players get the
better and AI get the lesser?

Unless you want a turkey shoot with everyone reaching 5 kill ace status in one mission you are actually better off with the AI planes being better models than the player planes.

Personally I would love to fly an E1, and against fighters I suspect it may be surprisingly effective.

WWMaxGunz
05-31-2006, 08:16 PM
I expect we will have hands full trying to manage the planes alone.
But there will also be many players who will die 1000's of times to become experienced beyond
any complete war ace and still fighting BoB, anything realistic in action and they will make
insane kill numbers... as long as they can learn the whole way along and not get stuck that is.

Me, I really want to see like the server program a version that can run on spare PC's through
eithernet as an AI-only client, does no graphics or controls and only supports AI's. I can
have lesser machines here for that, at least one bare bones used PC for less than even a
semi-good videocard. Plenty of those in the paper every week.

karost
06-09-2006, 05:26 AM
Hi, I need to know about this:

what type of spitfire and Herricane which still use constance pitch setting ? coz the boooook said... if make a sudden push forward on the stick will cause the motor to cut;because the propeller has only two pitch setting ( takeoff and cruise), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the motor is either overspeeding or else is not being used to the full.

and what type of spitfire and Herricane which still use caburator engine ?( not fuel-injected engine like bf109E )a caburator engine can not make a negative-g maneuver for a long run right?

that I remember when I was play EAW. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

all this thing aboves will model in BOB's FM ?

S!

WWMaxGunz
06-09-2006, 09:29 AM
Single speed and 2 speed props are not always underspeeding and overspeeding.
They are not high efficiency either.
What they have is blade twist that is not just to match rotation speed but to give
best thrust along different portions of the blade at different speeds and rpms.
They have a top speed beyond which in a dive gives overspeed but that should be
true of all props as VSP's I read of don't adjust nearly from 0 to 90 degrees but
more -like- 5 to 35 for current civilian models. Hit the stop and you can overrev.

As for carburettors, we now have Hurricanes and Spitfires modelled with the diaphram
that was installed to end the cut-out problem. IIRC that was done in 1941.

So it should be interesting to get the Brit planes with 1 and 2 speed props (someone
had a 3 speed but I dunno if Spit or Hurri ever had that) and needing to be rolled
over in order to dive more than slightly, not just nosed down and lose power for some
seconds.

Consider the trouble that those Spitfires gave the LW and Adolph Gallands famous reply
to Goebels which yes, him explaining that was taped and some of us have the audio file.

Buzzsaw-
06-09-2006, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

As for carburettors, we now have Hurricanes and Spitfires modelled with the diaphram
that was installed to end the cut-out problem. IIRC that was done in 1941.



Once again Max shows his lack of knowledge of Allied planes. Obviously he hasn't actually bothered to fly the Hurricane I or Gladiator, both of which have carburators with the cutout problem.


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

So it should be interesting to get the Brit planes with 1 and 2 speed props (someone
had a 3 speed but I dunno if Spit or Hurri ever had that)



Actually, a considerable number of both the Hurricanes and Spitfires in the BoB had constant speed propellors. Only the older models were equipped with the dual or three speed propellors. In fact these were being phased out in 1939.

Kurfurst__
06-09-2006, 11:24 AM
The first 78 Spitfires were produced with fixed-pitch, 2-bladed propellors.

From the 79th aircraft 3-bladed, but only 2-pich propellers were fitted - this was disadvantageous because of lack of intermediate pitch settings preventing use of full power into thrust.

CSP props were only begun to be installed some time before the battle. On 9th June 1940 Captain McGrath unofficially phoned to de Haviland wheter a CSP prop could be installed on a Spitfire for trial. The trials were successfull, and a conversion programm begun, de Haviland staff proceeding from Squadron to Squadron and modding the planes - it is known that up 15th August 1050 planes could be converted to CSP, so obviously early in the battle two-pitch props were very much around, given the RAF FC had around that many planes overall.

The props and mechanism added quite some weight though, the original two-blade screw was weighting only 83 lbs, the 3-bladed two-ptich 350lbs, and the CSP one 500lbs.

via Dr. Alfred Price.

karost
06-09-2006, 12:27 PM
WWMaxGunz,Kurfurst Thanks for reply S~

just wonder for online game balace about Spitfires MK Ia (8 x .303) and MK Ib (twin 20mm cannons) which one has a good gun platform for RAF pilots in BOB(1940) ?

coz in a web said "The cannon's hitting power was recognised, but jamming was a serious problem."


S!

"Hey Blue friends.. do you like the cigar lighter in Adolf Galland's Bf 109 ?" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

csThor
06-09-2006, 12:30 PM
If Maddox Games left out the more important Emil versions (E-1 and E-4) I cannot think of any reason why they'd include the Spit Ib ... unless they're pulling the same stunt as with the MiG-3U (meaning they choose an obscure plane over the historically more important version). Maybe they'll surprise us and add other Bf 109 and Spit/Hurri versions post release.

lbhskier37
06-09-2006, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by karost:
WWMaxGunz,Kurfurst Thanks for reply S~

just wonder for online game balace about Spitfires MK Ia (8 x .303) and MK Ib (twin 20mm cannons) which one has a good gun platform for RAF pilots in BOB(1940) ?

coz in a web said "The cannon's hitting power was recognised, but jamming was a serious problem."


S!

"Hey Blue friends.. do you like the cigar lighter in Adolf Galland's Bf 109 ?" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

IMHO a Ib would be a dumb addition as they would've been pretty rare due to the jamming. Actually if they model the jamming realistically no one would fly them as the way people yank and bank online they would be jamming them for sure. Same thing would probably be true for Vbs too. Now if jamming isnt modeled descently the Ib would be about is historic as putting in E3s with the third MGFF in the nose.

WWMaxGunz
06-09-2006, 04:03 PM
Nope, haven't played with the Hurricane ONE in IL2 since AEP. Yep it had the cutout.
Note Hurricane ONE would be the original model yet I don't recall any 2 speed prop.

I can find that the 2 speed prop gave a 5 mph boost to speed over 2 blade fixed prop,
but that one was fast in the first place. The 2 blade fixed props were on very few
original Spitfires.
Then I can find that the 2 speed props were replaced in 1940 but just when the start or
end of that was I don't see.
From the 175th Spit IA on they were equipped with DeHavilland CSP's until a later Mark
got Rotol CSP's. How many hundred Spitfires were delivered by August 1940?

So like not getting the 109E-1's with MG's only I expect we get Spitfires with CSP.
I'm not taking time to search out the Hurricanes. Not that it matters, we will get
what we get though I would like to get something with 2 or 3 speed prop. Considering
that the 109's will be E-3's I wouldn't count 2 speed prop Spits out, just unlikely.

Miss Shillings Orifice, the diaphragm with hole, was not installed until March 1941.

JG53Frankyboy
06-09-2006, 04:30 PM
i also think that the BoB Game will have CSP equipted Hurricane Mk.I and Spitfire Mk.I ....... and negG cut outs.

Bf109E-3 with manual pitch only - and propably Bf110C too. that will be no fun, at least for me.

the Cr.42 should have also a CSP , so i think the G.50 will have one also (but not sure).
wondering if one of the 12,7mm weapons of the Cr.42 will be replaced with a 7,7mm weapon - as i sometimes read, to save weight.......

hop2002
06-09-2006, 05:46 PM
According to Spitfire The History, the first CSP was fitted to a Spitfire on or before 17th June, on 22nd June De Havilland were instructed that CSP props must be fitted to all Spitfires and Hurricanes, it was to take priority over all their other contracts.

On 24th June de Havilland engineers went to 12 Spitfire airfields, with 6 prop conversion sets allocated for each airfield. The de Havilland engineers instructed the squadron fitters in how to modify the aircraft.

The work was completed on 16th August, with every Spitfire and Hurricane, including the hundreds in storage, having been converted. The front line squadrons were converted first, and the Spitfire squadrons before the Hurricane squadrons. The estimated completion date for the Spitfire squadrons was 20th July.

11 Group comprised about a third of the RAF Spitfire and Hurricane force in July, and they probably had priority, so I'd be suprised if any Spits or Hurricanes saw action without CSPs after the end of July.

WWMaxGunz
06-09-2006, 08:09 PM
THAT'S the kind of detailed dates I was looking for! TY Hop!

Franky, there were no carb diaphragms in those planes before March 1941. So why expect
Oleg to have them in for BoB in 1940 for his most correctly detailed sim? I don't but
then I have no crystal ball.

Kurfurst__
06-10-2006, 03:37 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
Bf109E-3 with manual pitch only - and propably Bf110C too. that will be no fun, at least for me.

The manual pitch only would be quite strange, since already the dec 1939 Emil manual notes '...those planes with auto prop pitch...'.

Personally, I'd like to see a flyable E-1 and E-3/4 (with belt loading MG becoming available it's an E-4), and an early Spit/Hurri with two-pitch props (Dunkerque/Kanalkampf) and the later ones with CSP.

Can anyone identify from the externals, wheter it's CSP or not?

JG53Frankyboy
06-10-2006, 07:59 AM
@ WWMaxGunz
i said i expect the Merlins will have engigne cut outs when there are negG manouvers.



about the Emil propellers, the few things i read about flying these crates during these perioad are saying the Emils had mostly only manual ptich propellers. we will see what Maddox will use............

JG53Frankyboy
06-10-2006, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
................and an early Spit/Hurri with two-pitch props (Dunkerque/Kanalkampf) and the later ones with CSP.

Can anyone identify from the externals, wheter it's CSP or not?

2 pitch Hurries would propably important if there would ever be a 3.Party Battle of France http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
and AFAIK the belgian Hurricanes had the 2 blade, fix Wood propeller http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

but thats again the il2 thinking, getting as much variants as possible - bad thiking for the BoB series http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif