Hawkeye91

Are the carrier catapult launch physics and post launch flight model accurate? I remember reading a few things from SMEs that the Tomcat was NOT a hands off aircraft like the F18 after a cat launch. In the F18, the FBW seeks the post launch AoA in combination with the trim setting. In the Tomcat, you're suppose to actually hand fly the plane off the deck once out of the shuttle. It seems the current iteration, it acts like an F18 on launch and hits that AoA on launch without the need for much input. Am I way off the mark here? Perhaps is a DCS core limitation like a lot of carrier related things are.

There are hundreds of videos out there of doing overhead breaks but not a single one talks about the proper USAF procedure for entering the upwind for the overhead break. I want to create some realistic mission scenarios and I'm just curios what the procedure would be fo getting to the upwind. I'm guessing more than anything its ATC vectors onto the upwind course of the runway, but even if it is, is there a standard way they sequence you into the pattern? Another appreciated tid bit would be, what is the standard descent profile to pattern altitude?

It’s still better than not having it. More than just the crew, I don’t like that there are no shuttle physics, no hold back bar, no driving onto the shuttle until the launch bar falls into place and the shuttle tightening against the launch bar. All these little details won’t be present. They add so much more than just pressing U and shift + u

Yeah and I don’t want to trash anyone’s work. I’m sure the artists worked their butts off on the Forrestal. Looks amazing from what I saw. I just don’t see myself using it over the super carrier because I never liked the Stennis loop of lining myself up, and pressing U to hook up, and shift+u launch. Felt too artificial and no crew makes it feel lifeless and non-immersive. Wish we could have had a compromise with SC features for those that owned the module on the Forrestal.

Did they? I must have missed it. I was figuring with all of the delays and set backs that it would have a ton of features. I guess I was hoping for a a reason to use it over a SC other than era accuracy.

From what it looks like, on the Forrestal we'll be back to the F2 to line up on the cat, press U to hook up, and shift-U to launch" Doesn't look like we'll be getting the launch bar/shuttle interactions or hold back bar like on the super carrier. Bummer

After touching down and decelerating I'd say as it slows through 200kph the nose gear begins to shimmy back and forth. It didn't use to do this the last time I started flying the Fishbed.

@NineLineHere's a test track I made using the GP 500lb short tails. Got it to happen on the first try. The bombs steadily drifted into each other and detonated after a few seconds and damage my plane. Mossie Bomb Collision.trk

they will as far as you tell them to complete the mission via the comm menu and you watch them go do it, they won't fly along side you and drop their bombs on target with you in formation. and again, I mostly play auto generated mission from Briefing Room or Liberation. I don't want to fuss around scripting the AI in the ME

yeah that's not what I want, I dont like fussing with the mission editor and that is a chincy work around because they will still only complete the task solo, not as your wingman with you as lead in formation.

It did all of the above, but I'm not saying "carpet bombing." It still does level bombing, just low level and still in formation. For instance, if I'm coming in low at 50' I'd like my wingman to be able to pickle his bomb a little in trail after I do so we can try to get as much iron dropped in once pass as possible, you know, how it would be done realistically. Not this circle the target and 5000' and drop one bomb at a time stuff.

With DCS now having the Mosquito, I think we need AI that is capable of bombing in formation with the player. Something to the effect of the AI pickling at an approximate same location as the player that will create an impact zone. bombing missions in WWII were not about accuracy, but about getting as much iron on target to increase the odds of a hit. It would be great if there was some way to simulate this dynamically with an AI flight following the player as opposed to have to preprogram everything in the ME and just watch the AI go to work from afar.

Who cares, at least I can play in a more realistic manner if they did. That is far more important. I can’t see when my bombs pickle and no clip each other, but I sure as hell know when my bombs explode 50’ below me and take out my plane Bomb collision physics is purely for eye candy and doesn’t add to the simulation unless they add realistic bomb ballistics where they wobble and fall more randomly. again, I just want a temporary solution because I don’t want to deal with these instant arming bugs blowing me up for a year before ED releases the actual fuse mechanics. Not to bash ED, I know these things take time to get right and I don’t want them to do a rush job on anything, but a simple fix to make it playable while we waited would make the wait more bearable.

not really, that's not realistic.

Maybe I’m just unlucky, but I’ve had around a 50/50 occurrence of my bombings colliding on release causing me to frag myself. I know there’s plans for a new fusing system for everything, but we have no timeline on how long that will take. In the interim, a fix where the bombs would just ignore collision and no clip through each other would go a long way.

+1 for this. The Mosquito even while trimmed out is pretty unstable and always requires a bit of control pressure to make small corrections and if you aren't constantly making those little corrections, your attitude will run away pretty quick on you. This is realistic for a warbird as they are made a bit inherently unstable as they trade instability for maneuverability. I see nothing wrong with a little AI that hold straight and level only while you manipulate the radios. Seems harmless enough. Just make it an option in the mission editor if MP sever admins would get their knickers in too much of a twist about it.

Check out this website. It’s a treasure trove of WWII manuals. There’s a few manuals related to bombing under training manuals. https://aircorpslibrary.com/ it is pay for access but only $6 USD a month.

This could be from a phenomenon called "magnetic deviation" or a variance caused by local electrical magnetic fields from the aircraft itself (generators/alternators, electrical equipment, ect). In modern aircraft we have a compass deviation card which is filled in by mechanics when they test for magnetic deviation errors caused by the specific equipment installed in the aircraft. No idea if ED has modeled anything like this though.

You're not getting the picture man, that is an extreme slope landing, very difficult. If you have a slope gradient of only 3 degrees, you would be descending around 500 FPM to match the gradient (ie never touching down if the runway went for ever). So the sight picture for touch down is going to be wildly different for these guys, not to mention, that the aircraft is going to touch down on the slope at a different attitude in relation to the ground (more nose up) which will increase the bouncing tendency. Also, a lot of these guys flying the Warbirds actually have fairly low time respectively. Flying warbirds is expensive as hell, and all of the guys are just volunteers and probably only fly 10 or so hours a month. Not to say they aren't skilled, but I bet most are fairly low time relatively speaking and don’t have near the proficiency the OG WWII pilots had. Also they’re just skipping mostly, with exception to the one Spitfire, which aren’t really an issue, theyre not what I would call a bounce.

Yeah that's kinda my point, in real draggers you some times get little skips if you touch down a little firm, which are a minor occurrence and typically after 1 little skip of like 1 foot or less vertical, you are slow enough that it won't happen again, in DCS it seems like you are either down or you get an extreme bounce up 20' in the air and float it for another 1000' and not much middle ground or nuance.

That's not the best example as they are wheel landing on quite a steep decline gradient (landing. downhill) and those are quite minor skips, not so much of "bounced" landing. Here's a better example. 19:40 you can see a good Mosquito wheel landing. You can't touch down with that much sink rate in the DCS mosquito and not bounce.

Also look at this, here's why the spitfire doesn't bounce The Spitfire's CG is right above the mains gear, so when it touches down, you'll have almost no tail down tendency, where as most warbirds have a CG aft of the main gear: Having that CG aft of the main gear will increase the bounce tendency of aircraft which I'm guessing is why you don't see the same results in our Spitfire, but as I said, the drag of deceleration on touch down creates a torque effect that would raise the tail a little to counter that aft CG tail down tendency on landing. Especially for a plane like the Mosquito with big fat tires and lower tire pressure. It should tons of wheel friction drag. Also with the tail being made out of wood, it would be extremely light and have little momentum force on touch down compared to metal birds.

uh, it really is the only thing concerning bounces atm. Other than not pulling back on the stick on touchdown, there's not really much else you can do to influence bounce tendencies other than just being on airspeed and at a normal approach angle. Which I have been. I can grease all of these planes on for a 3 point landing no problem, and here's the quote from the FAA's airplane flying handbook.

I'm not being defeatist, I'm saying there's something off about the physics of landing these aircraft that they are too unforgiving for bounces on wheel landings. I literally touched down on the mains in the Mosquito yesterday, with near zero FPM and it skipped right off the runway. I was below approach speed, I wasn't looking at the airspeed but I was 120 MPH on approach when I started rounding out and reducing throttle, I touched down with less sink rate then that video of the Spitfire you edited into your post, so low of a sink rate, it was almost imperceptible, and the plane still skipped off the runway a few feet, back into the air. I'm not home, so I can't upload the track file otherwise I would. And I've noticed this in all of the other warbirds too as they all seem like they have this extreme tendency to drop the tail with little to no sink rate, and send the plane flying again.

If you watch that video, he 3 pointed that landing, that wasn't a wheel landing. He touched down at the same attitude as the roll out. So no, he hasn't show me its possible. I've tried wheel landings on every warbird I own (109, 190A, P47, Mosquito) and they all bounce on a wheel landings.