Robi-wan

This immediately came to mind. It mattered IRL, in DCS maybe not so much. Just as a personal preference I would vote against changing the radiator flap switchology.

Absolutely. Hopefully you can re-read my post and easily grasp the content. But remember, books are your friend, get to know them. Read them, and not just the captions of pictures. Take notes. If you get a kindle edition, you can highlight and make notecards. The top three on this topic for me are...but be warned, they use abbreviations and acronyms. The History of Air Intercept Radar and the British Nightfighter by Ian White Instruments of Darkness by Alfred Price Night Fighters by Bill Gunston Here are a couple of worthwhile additional choices on this topic. German Night Fighter Force by Gebhard Aders (the charts at the back are hard to read compared to the hardback edition) Mosquito Aces of World War Two by Andrew Thomas Most Secret War by RV Jones Not available in a kindle edition, hard to find but very worthwhile is Confound and Destroy by Martin Streetly, it's excellent. I also like Mosquitos über Berlin: Nachtjagd mit Messerschmitt Bf 109 und Me 262 by Andreas Zapf. But that's just me.

Fair enough... Okay kids, a show of hands, raise your hand if you were confused by WRT? If so, it stands for With Respect To... Raise your hand if you were confused by or did not understand SOP? SOP is short for Standard Operating Procedure. Raise your hand if you were confused by or did not understand GCI? GCI is short for Ground Control Intercept Raise your hand if you were confused by or did not understand NJ? NJ is short for Nachtjagd, which refers to the WWII (apologies...) make that World War Two, German (in case there was some confusion concerning the nation) Luftwaffe night fighter arm. Not literally an arm mind you, more like a branch, but of a tree or river/stream. Raise your hand if you were confused or did not understand RAF? RAF is short for the Royal Air Force, and in this context it's the Royal Air Force of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But I confess that I took the lazy approach and did not state that I used RAF to imply the inclusion of other Royal Air Force units flying the Mosquito like the RCAF, RAAF, RNZAF and RNoAF squadrons. And for that I am greatly embarrassed and deeply humiliated.

I'm sure you know all of the following, but some folks might not. Only if you're thinking defensive gameplay. However WRT to the Luftwaffe, close GCI control shrunk considerably after the introduction of the Bomber Stream on the night of 30/31 May 1942. Control switched from NJ staying within a short distance of their home field with GCI to ranging all over Europe under the direction of the Fighter Division controllers. Generally speaking, running commentary of the the Bomber Stream became the SOP as did directing groups of NJ to beacons then target cities. NJ had Naxos to home in on the H2S ground mapping radar of RAF bombers, and Flensburg to home in on the tail warning Monica. From early 1942 the RAF had three pretty active Intruder squadrons (23 Sqn, 418 Sqn, & 605 Sqn) using Havocs & Bostons that routinely patrolled Luftwaffe airfields (well beyond RAF radar coverage) at night. They used Mk 1 eyeballs. Around March 1943 they started converting to Mosquitos without radar. In 1943 once Mk VIII AI became widely available the RAF released NF Mk II Mosquitos (with their Mk IV AI) to cross the coast into Europe. Serrate was developed as a result of the defection by a Ju88 crew in May 1943 allowed them to home onto German FuG 202 AI, as did the knowledge of NJ beacon locations. 141 Squadron was the first Serrate operator with Beaufighters and then the cast off NF Mk IIs they converted to in late 1943. Things accelerated pretty quickly as D-Day approached. In May 1944 as Mk X radar came into widespread use Mk VIII radar was cleared for use over Europe. After D-Day Mk X radar equipped airplanes were cleared to operate over the continent. The point being, the lack of GCI control didn't limit radar equipped Mosquitos from operating offensively beyond GCI range. There was also a very robust Bomber Support efforts (including 418 Sqn and 605 Sqn) that used FB Mk VIs and Mk 1 eyeballs of the crew on "Flower" (Intruder) ops around NJ airfields. The take away being, for offensive night gameplay GCI vectors would not be required. Put some AI target drones flying around and some bright moonlight and you'll have a pretty authentic FB Mk VI experience. Throw in that there is no level autopilot, using onboard radar would be an exercise in futility IMO. I would not be interested in a high fidelity Mosquito night fighter module. That's certainly what Theo Boiten posits. Apparently Herr Hitler ordered the halt of Fernnachtjagd ops over the UK.

No disrespect intended, but you make that as a statement of fact based upon what exactly? Game experience or technical manual references? Being the skeptical assh*le by nature that I am, I would expect the Spitfire rigging manual (perhaps one in this book) Spitfire Mk V Manual would have steps similar to the Mosquito regarding installing the horizontal stab (flight testing that installation) and rigging the trim. Since I can't read German, it might be interesting to know what their rigging guidance says. If I think about it, requiring full nose down trim for high speed level flight would essentially eliminate diving after a target because you quickly lose elevator authority as your airspeed increases (resulting in what we called in the USAF as a bananna pass). I read the Mosquito rigging guidance (neutral trim for level cruise) to be consistent with every other airplane I've flown, so forward trim for low AoA and aft trim for high AoA. YMMV. With almost 50 years of flying and trimming, I frequently glance at the trim settings in every game since trimming IRL is done by feel ("trim the pressure off") and that is something I find grossly lacking in the 1GCCFP experience. I even checked the trim settings frequently in RL.

@grafspeeokay, it's all good. We're good mate.

That's what the first highlighted note states, and it could be either up or down. Sorta, in some airplanes it will be exactly aligned, in some/many/most (take your pick of an undetermined number) the trim tab will be slightly out of neutral to achieve ZERO on the indicator at cruise. To say that in ALL cases it won't be aligned is inferring something NOT implied by the documents. Finally we agree. I have to ask you, are you a pilot IRL? And what real airplanes have you flown that requires TWO UNITS of nose down trim in level flight AND in a climb? I've never flown an airplane with such an odd trim requirement, and in my very brief experience with the DCS Mosquito that just screams something was wrong with the trim model or trim indication. A big thank you to @Art-J for pointing out the error back in Oct. As we'd say back in my Jurrassic Era fighter squadrons..."Good on ya!" Without his prompting I wouldn't have kept searching for the documentation.

In response to @Art-J in a different thread. I think he is correct that 2 units nose down in cruise flight is incorrect. My source? A reprint of the 1942/43 flight control rigging guidance used by Mosquito erks. But here's the bottom line...

Thanks for this. I can't fault YoYo's logic if all he's working with are those charts. I have questions about the testing used to arrive at the data chart for DZ294. Meaning, DZ294 was a NF Mk II tested by the Royal Aircraft Establishment Farnborough. YoYo chided another poster about using a forward CG setting as being "not in normal flight" when according to one of his charts, 17000 pounds = 25.4 is actually pretty close to a typical operational weight for a NF Mk.II. Tare (empty) weight and typical operating weight for a Mosquito NF Mk.II (DZ294) Perhaps he has data for a FB Mk.VI with weights somewhat higher... Be that as it may, there are other reference documents out there (the Mosquito Manual shown in a post by me above) that specifically adresses rigging the flight controls AND what pilots should expect to see in the cockpit (i.e. the cockpit trim indications). I knew I had read this a long time ago, but couldn't pin-point it as I thumbed through the book (Homer Simpson D'oh moment) So I posted this earlier to show there is in fact a NEUTRAL elevator trim position. But if you keep reading on the top of the next page it continues... My conclusion? This field document leads me to believe specifically that in cruise flight the trim INDICATOR should be zero or slightly nose down. Who are you going to believe? But clearly it's not my sandbox. [EDIT] Which is essentially validating your position based on the videos where it should be, and the guys that made excuses about it being a museum airplane and not combat weight/loaded are full of hot air.

I'm scratching my cranium. I just spent some time on the Instant Action mission that attacks Abbeville. So with an internal bomb load, and the power set to ~2650 RPM / ~4-6 pounds of boost I was initially shooting for a climb at 170 mph, but accepted this slower speed. It still required almost two units nose down trim. That's just incredibly odd to me.

To be clear, I've never said (or suggested or implied) that neutral trim would give you straight (& level) flight. But you posted this... And that is factually incorrect. You may know this, but readers that are not RL pilots might believe you. Having conducted RL flight tests, accuracy in one data point or phase of flight does NOT mean trim is modeled ok across the entire flight regime. It appears to be correct for takeoff, and perhaps cruise. Respectfully, what @Bozon (I think) and I are trying to communicate, is that in this simulator the ONLY elevator trim positions we have seen are nose down. If you have experience some trimmed up situations with nose up trim, can you share those conditions? And a screen shot to show you have the nose trim up? Otherwise I speculate that this EARLY ACCESS flight model just might have a trim issue. If the Devs have first hand knowledge that the Mosquito always flies around with nose down trim, I'd be happy to hear about it.

Of course there is a NEUTRAL trim position. When the airplane is rigged (installing & adjusting flight control surfaces) the erks follow technical guidance that specifically tells them to set the cockpit trim indicators to NEUTRAL and make sure the corresponding trim tabs are flush (trailing edge of tab aligns with the trailing edge of the tail, elevator, or aileron). There is a specific reason there is a big mark in the middle of the trim indicators. But if you don't believe me, how about actual Mosquito maintenance documents as published in this nifty book? Sorry for the quality, I took the pictures with my phone rather than scanning the pages. Read this regarding elevator trim... For those that aren't sure what the highlighted text means, it means to look at the trim indicator on the left sidewall and set the trim to that mark between the O and S in the word NOSE. Okay, it's not a big mark, but it's pretty obvious to me. That is in fact the NEUTRAL trim setting. With this cockpit setting the erks would adust/fiddle with cables and pulleys to have the trailing edge of elevator trim tabs to be flush with the trailing edge of the elevator. Likewise for rudder trim...that triangle marks where NEUTRAL trim is. And last but not least, the same applies to aileron trim. So please...everybody stop posting that there is no neutral/centered trim position.

I too am finding the persistent nose heavy (down) trim a bit of a puzzle. IMHO the Pilot Notes regarding configuration changes is less than enlightning. It would be more helpful to say something like at cruise with gear and flaps up at XX,XXX weight, anticipate slight/significant/2 units of nose down trim (in relation to neutral/centered). Or possibly Undercarriage down and flaps up ... Nose (slightly up/down from neutral) rather than this. Using the instant action free flight scenario I tried a quick check of 1) slow flight with gear down holding altitude then 2) landing configuration descents with gear down, flaps ~15-20 and 3) landing configuration with gear down and full flaps. I set the RPM to ~2700 and from there only modulated the throttles. Slow flight looks like it requires about 1 unit of nose down trim. Landing configuration with gear down and flaps 15-20 degrees...didn't require a change of the trim, and I had slowed down. Adding full flaps didn't require any trim changes. This was a very quick and dirty check, not a rigorous flight test. I think this needs further testing, but my impression is the current trim model is not correct.

That applies to jets too, at least that was my experience in T-37s, T-38s, RF-4s, (not the F-16A since it autotrimmed to 1 G), DC-9s, MD-80s, B-757s, and A319/320s. There is a "neutral" trim position in all three axis, just look at the trim indicators. To @MarcT-NL, I'm finding the Mosquito requires about 2 units (tick marks) of nose down trim for a level cruise at a nominal airspeed of ~250+ mph (~2300 RPM and ~6 lbs of boost) at low altitude. Neutral rudder trim and slight right aileron (trimmed slightly right).

Yep, that's why RAF intruders would orbit around Nachtjagd aerodromes during "flower" ops, or around LW bomber aerodromes in France in the early years of intruder ops by 23 Sqn, 418 Sqn and 605 Sqn. Respectfully, that completely ignores the historical record. Squadron ORBs are full of references to catching LW aerodromes with various degrees of lighting. Additionally the LW was prolific in establishing dummy aerodromes with lights to enhance the ruse. ORBs are some of my favorite reading material. Here's a sample of ORB entries. From Oct 1943 by 141 Sqn still flying Beaufighters but in the process of converting to Mosquitos. And an example at Coltishall of the RAF's use of airfield lighting in response to an emergency. From 605 Sqn in December of 1943 And 418 Sqn in March 1944 The point is both sides routinely used aerodrome lighting, you simply limit its use during takeoffs and landings. Put them on a timer or trigger. But saying "no" to perimeter, runway, flarepath, or visual Lorenz (approach lighting) systems is omitting a HUGE historical fact and gaming immersion factor.