Robi-wan
-
Posts
62 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Robi-wan
-
-
-
On 5/25/2024 at 2:55 AM, Indianajon said:
Hi all, I wonder if someone can help as I've been through the manual and thought I understood but I don't. When finding a tanker via tacan we use the A/A TR but i can't seem to get it to work? I have tried both via Jester and on my tacan and I have tried adding/subtracting 63 from the channel value. I have tacan selected on the front dash also. What am I doing wrong?
IRL if I was leading the rendezvouz, I'd ask the tanker to go A/A. It was pretty common to use TACAN channels 29/92.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 5/23/2024 at 3:51 AM, Qcumber said:
Do you have a good guide on this as the F4E HB manual, and most online secondary sources that I can find, say that the F4E was introduced into Thailand in 1967 with more delivered into active duty in 1968. I am not sure of the ratio of F4E vs F4Ds over that period and throughout the war.
If you want a really good explanation, Marshall Michel's book Clashes [Chapter 8 Stalemate] explains how a "new" 555th TFS showed up in SEA with new LES equipped airplanes in November 1972, prior to Linebacker II.
-
1
-
-
On 6/25/2022 at 5:01 PM, Bozon said:
We have two switches that operate the left/right radiators. I see no practical scenario in which I will want to operate them separately. For the pilot in the real plane this makes no difference since he flicks both up/down in one movement - "we" however need to bind 2 precious buttons for these toggles. Therefore I wish to have an additional binding for "toggle both radiators" as 1 button.
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.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, peachmonkey said:
I've raised all 5 hands. If that helps.
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.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, HotTom said:
Robi-Wan, one thing I learned "How to be a Writer School" many decades ago, was Never Use Acronyms or NUA in your parlance. I know. It sounds cool to "talk the talk" but it's pointless if your audience has no idea what you mean.
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.
On 5/21/2022 at 3:11 AM, Mogster said:For WW2 night fighting you really need vectors by ground stations. Night fighters would be vectored onto a target then use their own radar in the general area it seems.
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.
On 5/21/2022 at 3:11 AM, Mogster said:One mystery is why the Luftwaffe failed to attack landing RAF and USAAF heavy bombers more often when the occasional dawn/dusk attacks of this type were quite successful. One suggestion is that the Germany high command preferred the propaganda value of allied aircraft being brought down over German held territory rather than on English soil.
That's certainly what Theo Boiten posits. Apparently Herr Hitler ordered the halt of Fernnachtjagd ops over the UK.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, Art-J said:
Just to keep in mind various old plane design peculiarities, Spitfires and 109s for example required nose down trimming for level flight all the time (in the latter - full nose down for anything above econo-cruise speed actually), so I don't consider Mossie's case to be particularly strange in this regard.
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.
7 hours ago, Art-J said:Granted, based on docs posted, trim indicator itself seems be simulated incorrectly here, but honestly the only time I use it in Mossie (or any other DCS warbird for that matter) is before takeoff, not really needing it through the rest of the flight.
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.
-
5 hours ago, grafspee said:
It looks like that neutral trim is not exactly trim tab aligned with trailing edge.
That's what the first highlighted note states, and it could be either up or down.
5 hours ago, grafspee said:It looks like that neutral trim is not exactly trim tab aligned with trailing edge.
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.
5 hours ago, grafspee said:Fix easy to implement i think. It is indicator pointer problem
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.
-
1
-
-
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...
-
7 hours ago, Art-J said:
Re. trim requirements in level flight - Yo-Yo posted on 1st page of that thread why he modelled things the way he did:
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.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
50 minutes ago, grafspee said:
Ofc that all trims have neutral position in terms of trim tabs being aligned with trailing edges, but setting trim tabs that way do not guarantee that plane will fly straight.
To be clear, I've never said (or suggested or implied) that neutral trim would give you straight (& level) flight. But you posted this...
12 hours ago, grafspee said:But remember there is no neutral position in elevator trim
And that is factually incorrect. You may know this, but readers that are not RL pilots might believe you.
53 minutes ago, grafspee said:From mosquito manual, trim expected to be nose heavy for take off, so trim is modeled ok
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.
-
8 hours ago, grafspee said:
are you sure that you don't have game flight mode checked, because i have to trim a lot when i deploy gear or flaps.
8 hours ago, grafspee said:But remember there is no neutral position in elevator trim,
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.
-
On 4/1/2022 at 1:07 PM, Bozon said:
However, I can’t find any situation where I trim past the “neutral” center position into the “nose up” side. Maybe during landing when I am too busy to notice?
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.
-
10 hours ago, Terry Dactil said:
It is a propeller aircraft, so any time you change power or speed you need to set a new trim position.
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.
10 hours ago, Terry Dactil said:There is no 'center' position to reset it to
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).
-
1
-
-
On 9/22/2021 at 8:55 PM, pocketedition said:
Runway lights turned on for even short periods could have bought down all kinds of unwanted mayhem.
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.
On 9/22/2021 at 8:55 PM, pocketedition said:However, for the sake of simulating WW2 conditions, the runway lights are a no. A “Put that light out” no.
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.
-
1
-
-
I confess I cannot post with certainty about a) no oil pressure because I don't have the reference document (AP 1538D, Vol I) for the de Havilland hydromatic propeller. On modern twin engine airplanes the loss of engine oil would allow the oil to drain from the constant speed unit with the piston in the hub driving the prop toward the feathered position. It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the idea. I don't know if the de Havilland prop worked like that.
A fine unit history of the 345th BG, Warpath Across the Pacific Vol I frequently mentions losses where the pilots were unable to feather a (Hamilton Standard) prop and they abandoned the aircraft.
I agree with you that b) the propeller hub receives hits makes more sense. In my reading of Mosquito squadron ORBs, I can't think of a single mention of the inability to feather a prop. Obviously those samples are limited to guys that survived. At the same time coming home on one engine with battle damage was a frequent occurrence. It's pretty eye opening the number of single engine accidents in the OTUs and Operational squadrons resulting in aircraft damaged beyond repair.
-
On 11/1/2021 at 1:00 PM, NineLine said:
Thanks guys, taking a look today.
Any progress to report regarding the attitude indicator?
On 11/8/2021 at 5:35 AM, scoobie said:That would mean the artificial horizon's gyro self-erection actually works and we were all wrong.
I'm still experiencing a completely u/s attitude indicator when starting with a cold/dark airplane. Even with 15+ minute legs of wings level, unaccelerated flight the attitude gyro does not erect.
-
1 hour ago, Bozon said:
I had my starboard engine destroyed by ground fire in MP yesterday. The engine died immediately and the prop was stopped. I hit the feather button without doing anything else and to my surprise it feathered just fine.
So I guess your bug happens only on some specific conditions.
Cool, so at least with a reported sample of one, a seized/destroyed engine's prop will feather. That's something to work with. Have you successfully feathered the prop to a damaged/smoking engine with the prop still turning? How about shutting down a damaged engine with turning the fuel cock to off or the mags off? You probably have over a hundred hours "flying" this, I'm just getting started.
And to be clear, I have zero knowledge of the Dev's damage criteria that renders feathering u/s.
-
8 hours ago, grafspee said:
So your prop wasn't feathered, if you got combat damage feathering mechanism could be damaged or prop it self could be damage and pitch mechanism could be jammed.
Aye laddie, I genuinely understand that. [edit] In my case the rpm did vary with moving the prop levers, down to ~1800 if you zoom in on the screen above.[/edit]The point I was trying to make but apparently failed to communicate, was this. After realizing the prop would not feather I tried UNSUCCESSFULLY to shut the engine down by removing the fuel source and turning the mags off. Damage to the prop governor would not affect them.
Currently with a small sample size of this thread, it appears that ANY engine battle damage renders the prop governor u/s 100% of the time. That IMHO makes modeling prop feathering a questionable effort or a bug.
I'll report back if I take engine damage and successfully feather the prop.
-
So I had this issue today as well. And I understand about needing oil to feather the prop, I've feathered a prop or two IRL. These are the steps and the order I took within seconds of sensing engine/airframe vibration.
Left throttle -- Closed/Idle
Left prop control -- Aft/Coarse
Left feather button -- Push (it stayed in)
Now I'm in DCS test pilot mode...asking myself, "Self do you think the engine will stop if you turn off the fuel cock and turn off both Left mags?" I tell myself, "Sure, no fuel, no spark engine's gonna quit."
Left fuel cock -- Off
Left Magnetos both -- Off
And for another 15 minutes (until I quit the mission) the fan kept turning.
-
@352nd_Hoss I appreciate the offer, I have my device profiles sorted.
AOA Indexers
in Bugs & Problems
Posted · Edited by Robi-wan
Interesting, that was from the Feb 1979 1F-4E-1, also the 1F-4G-1 has the same description. All USAF F-4E were LES equipped by then (JSDAF didn't have LES). F-4Es with serials that started with the year 71-XXXX came off the line at McD in St Louis with LES. I would expect in 1979 there would be a caveat stating something like "except TCTO-556 or prior to Block 48."
Mind posting a screenshot of a later 1F-4E-1 that shows your assertion? I tossed my mid-80s dash 1 out two years ago. Thanks in advance.