PDA

View Full Version : Bf 109K-4 climb. Is it correct?



robban75
03-27-2004, 11:22 AM
I'm no expert on the K-4, so with this topic I hope to find some good and educational answers! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The K-4 is a monster climber, and was so even in RL. In FB it absolutely dominates over all other fighters. Even the dreaded La-7 will have to look out!

Below are some climb times and climbrates that I've managed in the K-4.


Full throttle with MW50, full fuel, auto prop pitch, radiators fully opened, climbspeed between 260-270km/h.

1000m - 0:35
2000m - 1:09
3000m - 1:45
4000m - 2:20
5000m - 2:56
6000m - 3:42
7000m - 4:38
8000m - 5:45

Meters per second.

1000m - 28.6
2000m - 28.6
3000m - 27.8
4000m - 28.6
5000m - 27.8
6000m - 21.7
7000m - 17.9
8000m - 14.9

Now, does these performance figures correlate with RL data?

Thanks for any answer!

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

robban75
03-27-2004, 11:22 AM
I'm no expert on the K-4, so with this topic I hope to find some good and educational answers! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The K-4 is a monster climber, and was so even in RL. In FB it absolutely dominates over all other fighters. Even the dreaded La-7 will have to look out!

Below are some climb times and climbrates that I've managed in the K-4.


Full throttle with MW50, full fuel, auto prop pitch, radiators fully opened, climbspeed between 260-270km/h.

1000m - 0:35
2000m - 1:09
3000m - 1:45
4000m - 2:20
5000m - 2:56
6000m - 3:42
7000m - 4:38
8000m - 5:45

Meters per second.

1000m - 28.6
2000m - 28.6
3000m - 27.8
4000m - 28.6
5000m - 27.8
6000m - 21.7
7000m - 17.9
8000m - 14.9

Now, does these performance figures correlate with RL data?

Thanks for any answer!

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Kurfurst__
03-27-2004, 11:39 AM
Real K-4 could climb at 24,5 m/sec at SL, increasing to 25 m/sec at 600m under the conditions you mention. So it seems a bit too good, I would have to look for the exact climb times to tell more accurately about those.

La-7 was very similiar at low level, at 24,1 m/sec climb. But it fell off quickly after about 2000m altitude.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

robban75
03-27-2004, 11:50 AM
Interesting! Thanks Kurfurst!

Here's the La-7. For comparison. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

(Both test have been done on the Crimea map. There's a slight drop-off at the end of the runway, cirka 30m, this is ~ 1 second for these machines, and so 1 second has been added to the time from 0 to 1000m.)

1000m - 0:36
2000m - 1:16
3000m - 2:05
4000m - 2:57
5000m - 3:46
6000m - 4:41

Meters per second.

1000m - 27.8
2000m - 24.4
3000m - 20.4
4000m - 19.2
5000m - 20.4
6000m - 18.2

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Kurfurst__
03-27-2004, 11:53 AM
These are the apprx. values. The K-4 is not 100% accurate, its actually better below 5000m a bit.

But it should serve as a good guideline.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/TempV-LA7-K4-D9CLIMB.jpg

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

robban75
03-27-2004, 12:04 PM
Below is a link to my climbcharts. Now, bare in mind that these aren't performed on the Crimea map, and because of this the climbrates shown aren't ultimate, and this is also why they differ from the above results. But some planes are very well modelled in the climb.

Also these charts aren't an excact science, but they give good overall view. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/chart.html

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

BBB_Hyperion
03-28-2004, 03:21 AM
So all what is needed now is a K4 original Chart with correct Prop Blades attached ,right engine type as well as normalised Data, and with SNotleistung in this chart.

Good luck .)

Maybe Butch2k has some details about.

K4 3:40 to 5000 m sounds reasonable.

So it really climbs too well.

Regards,
Hyperion

WWMaxGunz
03-28-2004, 04:49 AM
Oleg has posted many times now that climbs at least for the German planes are done under a regimin that does not include WEP. There are certain methods and conditions stated in the German documents that came with or are right on the charts/tables/whatever stating how the climb was achieved.

So is it really overmodelled? Not according to Oleg and the testers who followed the regimins.

big question I can see is how to get these things formalized so that end users who wish may run the same tests? Even if not to check the work at all it would be a very good way to check your own ability to pilot the planes... all of them as each is different. When a player cannot match the figures with power, radiator, etc all set right then it's time to find out what can be improved in the way of flying so the player gets better (Learn to Fly!). When the player beats the values by more than a little then it's time to go back over just how it was done and see if it can be done ===repeatably=== and send off a track! Should be a prize for coming up with an unknown error or FM crack... perhaps a shiny star!


Neal

hop2002
03-28-2004, 05:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Full throttle with MW50, full fuel, auto prop pitch, radiators fully opened, climbspeed between 260-270km/h.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrim's figures for the K4 show climb with half open radiators, so your results are actually lower than would be achieved under the same conditions.

The K4 climbs far, far too well.

The Spit LF IX we're getting in the patch (hopefully) should climb at a similar rate to the K4. The K4 is better up to 2000m or so, the Spit betterfor a bit above that, then the K4 takes the lead again, by 7000m the Spit is in the lead again. There isn't much in it at most altitudes.

(These are for a Spit LF IX running on normal 100 octane fuel)

Is the patch going to correct the K4, or going to model the Spit with a similarly inflated climb rate, or give the K4 an unhistoric advantage in climb?

hop2002
03-28-2004, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Oleg has posted many times now that climbs at least for the German planes are done under a regimin that does not include WEP. There are certain methods and conditions stated in the German documents that came with or are right on the charts/tables/whatever stating how the climb was achieved.

So is it really overmodelled? Not according to Oleg and the testers who followed the regimins.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is. Isegrim's figures show full WEP, 1.98 ata, MW50 injection.

I have the K4 climb chart at climb and combat, and at 1.8 ata.

At climb and combat it ppeaks at 16.5 m/s, at 1.8ata WEP (which was allowed for some time before 1.98 ata was cleared) climb rate peaks at just under 22 m/s.

Jippo01
03-28-2004, 06:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
I have the K4 climb chart at climb and combat, and at 1.8 ata.

At climb and combat it ppeaks at 16.5 m/s, at 1.8ata WEP (which was allowed for some time before 1.98 ata was cleared) climb rate peaks at just under 22 m/s.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So according to your charts K4 at 1.8ATA climbs about as well as 109 G2 at 1.3ATA. Okay...


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

hop2002
03-28-2004, 07:37 AM
Not my chart, Messerschmits.

The K4 climbed about the same at low altitude as the G2, but at higher altitudes the K4 was much better, and the speed was much better at all altitudes.

The G2 did about 525 - 540 - km/h at sea level iirc, at 1.3 ata. The K4 at 1.8 did around 590 km/h.

You can also look at Isegrim's chart. It's based on the only real life docs that exist on K4 climb rates at 1.98, iirc.

It shows a peak of 25 m/s at 1.98 ata, which should show you that 1.8 ata is going to be around the 22 m/s, if nothing else.

Kurfurst__
03-28-2004, 09:59 AM
Official climb time taken from the actual Messerschmitt curve for K-4 at 3400kg, 1.98ata:

40 s to 1000m
1m 22s to 2000m
2m 05s to 3000m
2m 50s to 4000m
3m 38s to 5000m
4m 29s to 6000m
5m 30s to 7000m
6m 42s to 8000m
etc.


Spit Mk IX LF at 100 and 150 grade fuel, Bf 109 G-2 at 1.3ata, and K-4 at 1.98 ata.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/CLIMB_Spit9-G2-K4.jpg

Hop`s reading the Messerschmitt climb chart w/o MW50, just fuel being used. MW 50 injection considerably improves power output at 1.8ata.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

hop2002
03-28-2004, 10:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hop`s reading the Messerschmitt climb chart w/o MW50, just fuel being used. MW 50 injection considerably improves power output at 1.8ata.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I was using your climb chart you posted earlier in the thread. I was comparing it against a real Spit LF IX though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Spit Mk IX LF at 100 and 150 grade fuel, Bf 109 G-2 at 1.3ata, and K-4 at 1.98 ata.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrim, your Spit data in this graph doesn't match any I've ever seen.

For example, you show a shade under 21 m/s at sea level. That's 4133 ft/min.

The Spit LF IX did 4700 ft/min at sea level at 18 lbs boost.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs543.html

At just over 5000m you show 17.8 m/s which is 3503 ft/min. Actual Spit LF IX did 3860 ft/min. That's 19.6 m/s.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs543.html

Kurfurst__
03-28-2004, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
No, I was using your climb chart you posted earlier in the thread. I was comparing it against a real Spit LF IX though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I noted, the previous version was estimation. Refer to the chart just above, it shows actual data from the graph (which I obtained recently).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Isegrim, your Spit data in this graph doesn't match any I've ever seen.
For example, you show a shade under 21 m/s at sea level. That's 4133 ft/min.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is RAF test data for Spit Mk IX LF, No. JL 165 :

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165climb.gif

You can notice that at +18 lbs boost it does just about 4133 fpm in MS gear.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Spit LF IX did 4700 ft/min at sea level at 18 lbs boost.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs543.html

At just over 5000m you show 17.8 m/s which is 3503 ft/min. Actual Spit LF IX did 3860 ft/min. That's 19.6 m/s.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs543.html
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These trials you refer were done betweeb November 1942 to January 1943. There were no serice Mk IXs to IIRC April 1943, with still experimental planes, not equivalent of later serial machines. BS 543 was not a serial Spit Mk IX LF, it was a prototype with an still experimental propellor, Rotol Duralumin XH54D-RM-S5.

Serial Spit IX LFs got a Wooden Rotol F5/4.

Propellor effiency has great effect on speed and climb rate, ie. look at this Spit IX tested w. different props:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs310climb.gif

I used trials with a serially produced IXLF for my charts, not the protypes.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

hop2002
03-28-2004, 11:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This is RAF test data for Spit Mk IX LF, No. JL 165 :

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165climb.gif

You can notice that at +18 lbs boost it does just about 4133 fpm in MS gear.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Isegrim, that isn't test data, it's an estimate, and at sea level it did about 100 ft/min more than you are showing. As this would put it higher than the 109 G on your chart, you simply used a made up figure.

Now, Jl 165 had problems, as shown by the fact that it not only had a substantially lower climb rate than a tested LF IX, but it had a substantially lower climb rate than a tested HF IX, which had basically the same enginge but tuned for high altitude.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs543.html

Note the HF, which should have lower performance at low altitudes than the LF, had a climb rate of 4470 - 4580 ft min at low altitudes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BS 543 was not a serial Spit Mk IX LF, it was a prototype with an still experimental propellor, Rotol Duralumin XH54D-RM-S5.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note the HF had a standard Rotol R5/4F5//4 wooden prop, and climbed about 170 ft/min worse below FTH, which is what you'd expect from a higher alt engine of the same type.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hop`s reading the Messerschmitt climb chart w/o MW50, just fuel being used. MW 50 injection considerably improves power output at 1.8ata.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrim, I have in my notes a claim from you that the climb chart you have for the 109K4 shows 12.5 m/s at 8000m with MW50. That's what your earlier chart shows as well.

You've now redrawn it to show 13.5 m/s, because I pointed out that the Spit LF IX was marginally higher.

What's the source for this? Shall I ask Butch, who I assume is the source for the K4 charts you have, wether that's what it actually shows?

Are you claiming that your earlier chart for the K4 at 1.98 ata didn't include MW50, and now it does? Strange that the low level figures haven't changed, but you've simply added 1 m/s to the high alt figures.

Kurfurst__
03-28-2004, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
No Isegrim, that isn't test data, it's an _estimate_, and at sea level it did about 100 ft/min more than you are showing.
As this would put it higher than the 109 G on your chart, you simply used a made up figure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have not made up anything. That 4133 fpm on the Mk IXLF chart, that`s 21 m/sec. That is on my chart. The data is directly from the RAF. Period.
The 109G would beat it anyways, remember it`s only 1.3ata, by the time the IXLF appeared, so did 1.42ata.

But I happily redraw the chart if you or Neil provides actual data for a _serial_ IXLF at +18. Not the BS... pardon, I mean BS 543 prototype. Prototypes are not representative for serial a/c, Hop.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now, Jl 165 had problems, as shown by the fact that it not only had a substantially lower climb rate than a _tested_ LF IX,but it had a substantially lower climb rate than a _tested_ HF IX, which had basically the same enginge but tuned for high altitude.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If JL 165 had problems, why it isn`t mentioned in the report at all, why the boost seems ok at all altitudes etc. ?
JL 165 was a serial aircraft, Hop, BS 543 wasn`t. A tested prototype with non-standard propellor, Hop. Shall I change all my K-4 charts for the VDM 12199 propellor, and present them every time in the future instead of the serial VDM 9-12159 prop, Hop ? Or even better, VDM 9-17018. What would it change, a small detail, nothing, just a different propellor. Insignificant.
Whadya say, yea or nay ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hop`s reading the Messerschmitt climb chart w/o MW50, just fuel being used. MW 50 injection considerably improves power output at 1.8ata.

[QUOTE]
Isegrim, I have in my notes a claim from you that the climb chart you have for the 109K4 shows 12.5 m/s at 8000m with MW50. That's what your earlier chart shows as well
You've now redrawn it to show 13.5 m/s, because I pointed out that the Spit LF IX was marginally higher.
What's the source for this? Shall I ask Butch, who I assume is the source for the K4 charts you have, wether that's what it actually shows?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, it`s an error, I have uploaded it again it`s as corrected now. Refresh the page so the new version should load. The VDH was mistakenly taken up as 6500m, whereas it`s 6000. I have noticed it and corrected in the table, and *thought* Excell would be smart enough to correct the graph as well. Well it wasn`t.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Are you claiming that your earlier chart for the K4 at 1.98 ata didn't include MW50, and now it does? Strange that the low level figures haven't changed, but you've simply added 1 m/s to the high alt figures.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The earlier chart was an esimation, as I had nothing better, based on rated alts of DB and DC engines from the chart you also know and have. Now I have the original chart, and it showed me that I was pessimistic about the K-4`s performance, as I left out the effects of MW50 injection apart from raising the boost. That`s on the new chart. The high alt figures were due to an Excell error, now are corrected.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

hop2002
03-28-2004, 12:49 PM
Not a very good showing, Isegrim.

You use the estimated data rather than the flight test data, you ignore the point that the HF shows much better figures than JL 165, even though it should be worse because of the higher FTH.

But that's always the case, isn't it Isegrim? You always use the data that fits your preconceptions, rather than the most accurate data.

You use an estimate rather than the real data, and you ignore the data on the HF IX completely, all so it will still fit your agenda.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sorry, it`s an error, I have uploaded it again it`s as corrected now. Refresh the page so the new version should load. The VDH was mistakenly taken up as 6500m, whereas it`s 6000.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strangely the chart you posted earlier on this thread had the correct values, when you saw a genuine Spit LF IX would have similar climb performance to the 109 K4 at high altitude you "accidentally" added 1 m/s to the K4 climb rate.

Kurfurst__
03-28-2004, 01:01 PM
That`s yada yada yada, Hop. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1241.gif

"Strangely the chart you posted earlier on this thread had the correct values, when you saw a genuine Spit LF IX would have similar climb performance to the 109 K4 at high altitude you "accidentally" added 1 m/s to the K4 climb rate."

I don`t care about the MkIX, it`s you who had come up with it, remember? In any case, why should I care about the Mk IX that was basically 60-100 km/h slower than the K-4 at ANY altittude, even if it could climb with it at some points, which it couldn`t? Dear Hoppy, the K-4 could CRUISE faster at a HIGHER altitude and not taking a sweat whereas the MkIX would overheat in 5 mins trying to do the same and burn down in the process. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

Oh, and accidentaly I only "added" 1 m/sec (missed the altitude one point in reality) only to the 1.98ata, and left the 1.8ata curve alone. Yeah, that`s a very smart way of "cheating". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

[This message was edited by Kurfurst__ on Sun March 28 2004 at 12:09 PM.]

ajafoofoo
03-28-2004, 11:37 PM
Can't have k4 climb fixed or changed unless every plane in the game gets fixed along with it.

There are tons of planes that climb too fast in the game.

Forcing realism on one but not others would just be bias.

blabla0001
03-30-2004, 05:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
In any case, why should I care about the Mk IX that was basically 60-100 km/h slower than the K-4 at ANY altittude<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Top speed of the Spitfire IX (Serial number: PA908 C/N: GS.417723) is 675km/h, how can the K4 be 60-100km/h faster if the K4 has a top speed of 710km/h?

BigganD
03-30-2004, 05:43 AM
I fly the k4 alot, but i dont know much about it historicaly, anyway i have read some text about the k-4 and meny of these info says that the K-4 was a bad turner..but it was a master in taking alt..well i have a book about ww2 planes..and i think that there is info about the k-4, i will check it!

No one is an ace!

Kurfurst__
03-30-2004, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigganD:
I fly the k4 alot, but i dont know much about it historicaly, anyway i have read some text about the k-4 and meny of these info says that the K-4 was a bad turner..but it was a master in taking alt..well i have a book about ww2 planes..and i think that there is info about the k-4, i will check it!

No one is an ace!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 109K was not at all a bad turner. I have turn diagram for it, at 6000m while starting from a cruise at high (~650km/h) speed, it took only 21-22 secs to complete a full circle. Turn radius at that altitude was about 550m.

Keep in mind that all planes turn a lot worser at high altitude than at say, 1000m, because air is thinner.

Oh, and something tells me you can except the most detailed site on the 109K series ever on the net.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I plan to finish the site no later than October 2004 if possible. URL will be posted here when it`s up.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

[This message was edited by Kurfurst__ on Tue March 30 2004 at 11:13 AM.]

butch2k
03-30-2004, 12:16 PM
Isegrim, not sure you got my mail about your site.
You u wish me to check the accuracy you can send me the link, i'll do my best within my spare time http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst__
03-30-2004, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
Isegrim, not sure you got my mail about your site.
You u wish me to check the accuracy you can send me the link, i'll do my best within my spare time http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I got that mail.. I think I have responded with a letter loaded very heavily with questions (I think that`s a bad habit of mine http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ).. Did you get that mail? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Your proof reading would be most welcome of course ! I will concentrate on production/subtypes history, performance and powerplant/armament section first maybe, and then add the rest...But it all depends how much time I can spend on it... I think you are familiar with this kind of problem! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

butch2k
03-30-2004, 12:58 PM
I did not get your last Email !
Could you send it back ?