PDA

View Full Version : Late war Luftwaffe fighters questions.



Freiwillige
11-19-2008, 12:21 AM
Ive noticed a few things in the cockpits of these birds that I dont recognise.

1. what is the gauge in the 109 G-10 on the upper right that has two needles one horizontal with a pivot point on the right and one vertical with a pivot point on the bottom, Both needles cross each other. I can only specualte that this is some Nav aid?

2. there are 2 Gauges in the right circut switches area of the 190D with the blue bezzal around it. One of the gauges has a Deutsch word
I think Saurstoff. What are these gauges? Are they the gauges to the MW-50?

3. On almost all 109's there is a white marker tab on the boost gauge (ATA) Is this the cruise setting for the boost?

Did 109's have automated radiater flaps? What is he best setting for these? IE is it better to leave them closed or position 2 while using a lower throttle setting or is it better to firewall the throttle and have them air brakes hanging open?

X32Wright
11-19-2008, 12:27 AM
1) Thats the AFN2 homing device:

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/fw190cockpit/afn2.html

I have to go look at the cockpit to answer your other questions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Divine-Wind
11-19-2008, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Ive noticed a few things in the cockpits of these birds that I dont recognise.

1. what is the gauge in the 109 G-10 on the upper right that has two needles one horizontal with a pivot point on the right and one vertical with a pivot point on the bottom, Both needles cross each other. I can only specualte that this is some Nav aid?
Not sure about the rest, but this sounds a lot like a navigational aid... Or maybe a landing aid? I remember reading about and practicing a lot with a similar instrument in Flight Simulator.

Edit: beh, Wright beat me to it. ADF, of course! I knew that... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Vanderstok
11-19-2008, 01:25 AM
There should be a cockpit reference guide like this one ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/41477/Aircraft-Guide )on your DVD of 1946.
"Sauerstoff" means "oxygen", so that's probably the oxygen pressure gauge....

general_kalle
11-19-2008, 02:44 AM
anybody know where you can find something about intruments that are not working in the game? alot of planes have some wierd instruements that i have no idea about but theyre not descriped in cocpit guides as they're not ****tioning in the game....

Hannibales
11-19-2008, 03:00 AM
Blue bezzels were used for all Oxygen related instruments. Usually one with tell you the volume left and one will indicate the status of the system, i.e. on or off.

The 109 (F,G and K) and 190 had fully automatic mixture, pitch and radiator controls, called I believe, commadogerat, thus meaning you only need have a throttle and all the rest is taken care of, including adjustment for temperature and pressure, quite a clever thing indeed!!

Freiwillige
11-19-2008, 05:07 PM
I do not believe that the 109 had the Kommandogerät as it was devolped by BMW for its 801 series of engines. I could be wrong as to its fitting on the DB-601/605 series motors.
at any rate the Kommandogerät system was an amazing leap in piston engine fighter technology. The pilot had one control, The throttle and the Kommandogerät did the rest. It did the mixture, prop pitch, supercharger settings all in real time based on barometric readings, temp, boost levels etc. Simply amazing for its day.

Crikey2008
11-19-2008, 07:21 PM
It seems the K's would have used such an automatic system because low octane fuel was predominant in the fuel supply available to the Luftwaffe in the late war years (first rate fuel stocks were falling quickly). The larger supercharger on the 605D gave a higher max boost pressure (max power) when the fuel was low octane.The K was strenghthened accordingly.

PanzerAce2.0
11-19-2008, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Crikey2008:
The larger supercharger on the 605D gave a higher max boost pressure (max power) when the fuel was low octane.

Um....what? Lower octane rating means that the fuel is MORE likely to detonate, which means that they would have had to run LESS boost for a given CR/head design.

Kurfurst__
11-20-2008, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
I do not believe that the 109 had the Kommandogerät as it was devolped by BMW for its 801 series of engines. I could be wrong as to its fitting on the DB-601/605 series motors.
at any rate the Kommandogerät system was an amazing leap in piston engine fighter technology. The pilot had one control, The throttle and the Kommandogerät did the rest. It did the mixture, prop pitch, supercharger settings all in real time based on barometric readings, temp, boost levels etc. Simply amazing for its day.

The 109E and later had automatic engine managment (supercharger, boost, RPM, mixture). It was a not seperate primitive "computer" unit as in the BMW 801, but rather than a series of mechanical automatism, but it did result in practice in the same result: pilot set engine output with the use of a single throttle lever, and the system took care of the rest.

Automatic prop pitch control was added in 1939 to the Emil (and later), but manual override was still provided. In the 109F and all later, the oil and coolant radiator flaps were automatically controlled to provide optimum coolant temperature via a thermostatic control unit, opening and closing the flaps as required, with manual override option provide for the coolant flaps (on the Emil, the coolant flaps were set manually, no auto control). In short the Emil, with the exception of the coolant flaps, was automatic, and on the 109F, G and K everything was fully automatic. In additon, the droptank system on both LW fighters was a very simple in its execution: fuel was at all time from the internal tanks, and the droptank refilled the internal tank continously using compressed air tapped from the supercharger - this meant that no switching between drop tank and internal tank was necessary, the fighter could be readied for combat by simply jettisoning the drop tank. All this ensured that the pilot did not have to concern himself with managing the engine, and he could concentrate more on combat:

"The layout of the instruments and controls is excellent and is similiar to that of the Me.109E, with the following exceptions: The constant speed airscrew is fully automatic and requires no operation by the pilot, as r.p.m. and pitch setting are governed by the throttle opening and engine load. This is a great advantage in combat, being one thing less for the pilot to worry about. He can, however, control the pitch manually in the event of failure of the automatic control. The oil and coolant temperatures are thermostatically controlled. ... The fact that the airscrew is fully automatic, and the oil and coolant temperatures thermostatically controlled, helps to make the aircraft a simple fighting machine, as the only things then occupying the pilot's attention in combat are his throttle, flying controls and guns."

- TACTICAL TRIALS - Me.109F AIRCRAFT
http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109F2_UK/109F2_ES906_AFDU.html

Freiwillige
11-20-2008, 06:00 PM
Then that makes me question the modeling of allied fighters in this sim. Take the Mustang or the spit for example, You dont really have to do any engine manegment at all just leave prop at 100% and away you go, Altitude doesnt create any special problems either. At least with the pacific fighters you had to shift the supercharger.

tomtheyak
11-20-2008, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Then that makes me question the modeling of allied fighters in this sim. Take the Mustang or the spit for example, You dont really have to do any engine manegment at all just leave prop at 100% and away you go, Altitude doesnt create any special problems either. At least with the pacific fighters you had to shift the supercharger.

Here we go....

I small suggestion... DO SOME BLOODY RESEARCH.

You might then find out that's the way it supposed to be.

Mustangs and Spitfires V onwards and an automatic speed control unit, just like the 109.

Superchargers on both a/c were automatically barometrically controlled to cut in at appropriate alt.

Any more Luftwhining I can nip in the bud for ya?

"It doesn't fly like I want it too...WAH!"

"I get shot down... Eric Hartmann didn't so the FM is porked!"

etc...

etc...

etc...

Freiwillige
11-20-2008, 06:30 PM
Is the war still on?
Look upon reading my last post again I understand how it came off to you. I was not anouncing it as fact that allied aircraft were wrong, just questioning.

IE you ask a question, Somebody answers, everybody learns!

This absolute rudeness on your part was neither asked for nor needed. Actually I was fine with your post until this point

"Any more Luftwhining I can nip in the bud for ya?

"It doesn't fly like I want it too...WAH!"

"I get shot down... Eric Hartmann didn't so the FM is porked!"

etc...

etc...

etc...

Tom

Seriously Tom, If you read any of my posts you will find most of them educating and interesting. And I for my part appologise for for anything in my post that rubbed you the wrong way.

Kurfurst__
11-20-2008, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Then that makes me question the modeling of allied fighters in this sim. Take the Mustang or the spit for example, You dont really have to do any engine manegment at all just leave prop at 100% and away you go, Altitude doesnt create any special problems either. At least with the pacific fighters you had to shift the supercharger.

Here we go....

I small suggestion... DO SOME BLOODY RESEARCH.

You might then find out that's the way it supposed to be.

Mustangs and Spitfires V onwards and an automatic speed control unit, just like the 109.

Superchargers on both a/c were automatically barometrically controlled to cut in at appropriate alt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well perhaps you should take your own advice and take your own time to research, because Frewi is right - and no, the Mustang and Spitfire, and many Allied a/c were not automated on the same level as the 109/190. In the sim you don't have to manage fuel tanks, set RPM and boost seperately with seperate levers, select between AUTO-Rich and AUTO-Lean, all this in a prescibed order (ie. RPM up first, and THEN increase boost, otherwise engine damage could occur), while maintaining prescribed RPM:boost ratios as was on the case on many Allied fighter aircraft. For example, the level of complexity of engine management of the P-38 is not modelled at all, being the type's greatest downside.

I do hope BoBSOW will be an improvement in these aspects.

tomtheyak
11-21-2008, 11:15 AM
@ Freiwillige - My apologies, it was late and I was tired last night when I posted and I interpreted your post badly. I shouldn't have jumped down your throat.

It came also partly in light of your other post regarding the 109s handling qualities which frankly irked me. There's enough partisanship already on these boards without more fuel and though I respect your opinions I beg to differ on some.

Ultimately, these discussions are futile; neither of us have flown a combat ready WW2 a/c and assumptions, estimates and conjecture as to what a specific a/c could or couldn't do are frankly meaningless.

And yeah, some of your posts are educating http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...!

@ Kurfy: I was making a point that referred specifically to the constant speed nature of the later Spit and Mustang props. I generalised camparing it to the 109; I am aware the systems are very different but the nett effect is similar in this case in point.

I agree there are plenty of areas where there is room for improvement; the P-38 as you quoted, also the P-47 is a good example of an a/c requiring careful management of its turbo and boost with alt, and the notoriously complex system governing the La-5/7 engine.

The overall balance is good tho; with the good virtual pilots able to exploit their machines characteristics to the full, it can, and I suggest, does, give a close approximation to the real deal. And thats all we can ask for.

R_Target
11-21-2008, 05:19 PM
I think most P-38 drivers would happily trade in OM's tumbling flat spin and faux compressibility for a more complex twin-engine CEM.

Freiwillige
11-21-2008, 05:34 PM
@ Tom. I appreciate your stance as well on said topics. One thing I have learned over the years is that alot of people have the (I might not always be right but I am never wrong attitude.)
I can admit that I have been quit wrong and re-educated if you will about a great many presumtions I had once had. The more I learn the more I understand that I have far more to learn. Thanks for your return to civility.
And for the record I am not a Luft http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif just a historical http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif ..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Divine-Wind
11-21-2008, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
I think most P-38 drivers would happily trade in OM's tumbling flat spin and faux compressibility for a more complex twin-engine CEM.
I would http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif