TAW-Prof

Terry, I would reccommend using nose fuses. Some testing shows that nose fused allow for drops at lower altitude. I use 1 second nose fuses which allow from successful drops at 30-50ft 270 mph without bombing myself. Tail fused bombs don't arm at this altitude.

How about makinbg the sight adjustable, as was the case with rocket equipped Mossies?

The Mosquito was designed as a 2 crew aircraft and like the others in DCS (F-14, MI-24, AH-64) it really needs 2 crew members to operate it effectively. However, unlike the others there is no AI second crew member (Nigel the Nav?). Can we have an AI Nav please? IMHO this would allow the following: Create a route, ideally through the use of the F10 map (as per Viggen & JF-17) but also throught he Mission Editor Get directions from the Nav to the current waypoint (xxx degrees for yy miles) on the route Get heading & distance for previous or next waypoint or home base/landing airfield Change the route (current waypoint) to the previous or next waypoint Tune the radio Select beacon for homing Likewise an AI pilot could be commanded to: Steer heading xxx Set altitude to yy00 ft Set speed to zz0 mph Given the work done on the helicopter copilots I would have thought that it should not be too dificult to port these across to the Mosquito which would make a huge improvement to what is already a great module. Thanks

Joystick Gremlin is very good for sequencing. I have mapped the whole engine start sequence to a single button on my throttle!

Sorted, many thanks

I created a mission with a Mosquito next to both a helicopter FARP and on top of an invisible FARP. Starting with either Ground hot or plain ground it was not possible to contact ground crew. Track attached. Is this normal or a bug? Thanks Prof Mossie FARP.trk

Point well taken. It does not handle 3 axis for 4 axis controls well. I haven't noted (because I haven't looked) that it automatically synced after selecting "both" and waiting without doing anything else.

There is also this: Could be useful BUT it uses the same bindings as SRS so can be a bit of a pain to move

I've had the same problem - once you switch back to "both" they sync level positions. The 2nd time did you happen select "both" engines again?

"Rated Altitude", sorry I'm not sure what this means either - I'm just reproducing what was in the report. Mosquito B Mk IV has either a Merlin 21 or 23 engine, according to the Pilots Notes (page 6) here: https://www.avialogs.com/aircraft-d/de-havilland/item/104130-a-p-2019d-pilot-s-notes-for-mosquito-biv-merlin-21-or-23-engines. This seesm to tally with the Wikiepedia enter here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rolls-Royce_Merlin_variants . Granted this is hardly a definative source! Given that the report is 1942 it can't be using one of the later merlin engines. I a 5-10 degree dive (50% fuel) I can get 350 mph ias with full revs and throttle forward to detent. Boost is about +12. Still accellerating when diving from 25,000 to 20,000. I suppose it all depends on what you class as a "shallow dive" it looks like my shallow is a lot steeper than your shallow. Anyway much of this is academic. IF, and it is an IF, the report is credible then the impact of closing the shutters is larger then currently modelled in DCS. This is NOT to say that its wrong, the source that I am quoting may well be wrong. If you have any other sources that give any indication as to the drag change on opening/closing the radiator shutter then please share it. Thanks Prof

The quote is lifted from the report. I guess they used IAS as that was what the pilot could see. Whether you believe this is credible is a good and worthy question. I'm just putting this up as evidence for the difference in drag with shutters open/closed. There may be better evidence out there. Given that this was written in a WW2 Mosquito squadron it can't have been too outlandish. In Mosquito Intruder (I believe also published as "Terror in the Starboard Seat") Dave McIntosh says that he saw 350 "on the clock" when diving from 10,000 ft after a V1 and that they leveled out doing 400 mph but "[the wing] was flapping up and down like a seagull working in a huricane." According to this: https://aerotoolbox.com/airspeed-conversions/ 350 mph IAS @22,000 ft is 480 mph TAS (M 0.685), my original numbers were TAS in knots (mea culpa and now corrected/editted) Even if these are TAS rather than IAS the drag difference is essentially the same (7.95% if IAS and 8.39% if TAS), so call it 8% either way.

This might be "correct as is" as I only have 1 source. Reading "Target for Tonight" by Sqn Ldr Denys A Braithwaite DFC & Bar (ISBN: 1-84415-159-X), I came across this report of an encounter in a Mosquito (probably B IV) and a pair of FW190. In this (Appendix One, Note (c)) it states: "... Maximum i.a.s. attained by Mosquito at rated altitude (22,000 feet) was 350 m.p.h. i.a.s. in gentle dive. (Note: approximately 15 m.p.h. gined by closing radiator shutters)." Assuming that the 350 was with the shutters closed this would be 335 mph open. This equates to an 8% reduction in drag (TAS open = 461.2 mph, TAS closed = 480.7 mph & drag reduction = 1 - [TAS open]^2/[TAS Closed]^2) This is equivalent to an IAS of 240 mph shutters closed and 250 mph open at sea level. As said, this is a single source so SMEs may have better information but I thought it might help tune to flight model. Keep up the great work.

How about: Ground crew > close cockpit door ? In the JF-17 you now have to remove the intake blanks and cockpit ladder. Even harder to do when strapped in!

When Unlimited munitions are selected there are no issues with rockets for the Mosquito. However, when this is unselected the only rockets availible are the RP3-AP 25lb AP Mk.1 (presumably the "RP-3 AP" in the AG Rockets section), the two other rocket types are missing and cannot be selected when in the aircraft. Thanks

I might give this a go then. Shame it can't just popup by your right knee or place it mid air and turn on/off. Thanks for the info though, very useful.

Useful thread thanks. I was going to get this for use in VR but now I will not. I didn't understand what the "flat mode is incompatible with VR devices" meant but I guess that it means "popup window incompatable with VR". Thanks saved me some troubles.

Many thanks. This is clearly the solution. Solved

Tail letters and aircraft registrations were previously changable (see screenshot 212217) but this now seems to ba broken (see 220113). Track attached. PRFms993 set in the mission editor for Client aircraft (foreground) and different one set for the other (AI). For client checked on the re-arming screen and checked that it was set to "PRFms993". However, as shown this has not fed through to the liveries. Thanks Prof (PRoF MS993) Mossie Livery Test.trk

Putting together a multi-player mission on the Syria map (though not a map specific issue) and I found that columns of T-72 tanks were being halted in their tracks by some relatively small rivers. IRL I'm sure that these would have been crossed by engineers/pioneers prior to the tank's arrival. So the request: Can we have placable "temporary" bridges as part of the static object/structures list. I am thinking something like a Bailey Bridge (https://bridgehunter.com/ca/fresno/bailey/) or an AVLB bridge (an animated AVLB would be nice but probably not worth the effort). If an AVLB bridge then this could be a generic rather than a specific version. Where a placeable bridge be availible this could help players resolve issues (reported elsewhere) where bridges are missing from specific maps. Thanks Prof

@NineLine The primary issue here appears to be the physics involved. Drag = 0.5 * rho * Cd * A * V^2 (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/drageq.html) At the test altitude (7000 ft = 2.1 km) rho (air density) is 0.991471 kg/m^3 (assuming an ICAO standard atmosphere: https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/en-us/calculator/altitude/) For simplicity lets call this 1.0. This also ASSUMES that compressability is not an issue (low Mach number). This may NOT be a valid assumption. The highest Mach number noted is 0.81. A = frontal area (for blunt bodies) = pi * r^2 = 3.14 * (0.152/2) ^2 = 0.01815 m^2 (SAP warhead size from Wikiepedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP-3 ) Cd = drag coefficient. This is an ASSUMUPTION. Baased on this (https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/drag-coefficient-d_627.html) the Cd for a hemishpere is 0.42. This Cd could be wrong by a factor of 2 either way. So at rocket burnout the F7 speed is noted at 479 knots. Assuming that this is IAS/CAS this gives a TAS of 523.5 kts =246.4 m/s Drag = 0.5 * 1 * 0.42 * 0.01815 * 246.4 ^2 = 231.4 N So the rate of deceleration should be (F = m * a source: Mr Newton). Mass of rosket (Wikepedia RP-3 page again) = 44.6 kg at launch and 44.6 - 5.2 = 39.4 kg at end of firing. SO; a = 231.4/39.4 = 5.6 m/s^2 So, ignoring gravity which is OK-ish if the tradjectory is horizontal, then the speed should fall by 5.6 m/s/s (11.4 kts/s^2). Remember that this has errors of a factor of 2 due to Cd AND compressability, if present, will increase this. So speed after 1 second should be somewhere in the range 243 to 230 m/s = 473.3 to 456.2 kts TAS = 432 to 416 kts IAS. From the F7 view (2:39 - 2:41) the speeds are: 479, 367, 338 kts. So we would expect the speed to fall from 479 to 425 +- 10 so 367 is not a credible number. The next step from 367 to 338 IS credible (30 kts = 15m/s approx) which while 3 x the estimate it is high but not incredibly so. I hope that this shows my reasoning for saying that there is something wrong with the physics involved. I'm also cognicent of the fact that I don't know the physics of the DCS world and atmosphere AND recognise the assumptions that I have made to get to this point. So I'm NOT saying that I am correct, I am undoubtedly not just that something appears to be wrong with the rockets. All that being said they are fun and the Mossie is a blast to fly. Keep up the good work. Prof Rocket Test MOZZIE.trk

Looks like it is a TacView issue as the speed doesn't jump when looking on F5. However, the speeds do fall precipitously after the engine stops. At engine stop 479 kts, + 1 sec 367, + 2 sec 338. So 110 kts in 1st second and then 30 in the 2nd. Odd, but at least consistent!

I'll check my versions in case this is a versioning issue. The time scales here are short (1.5 seconds) so you may not notice any step changes visually. However, you may well be correct that this is a TacView rather than DCS issue. If this is then case then that would be useful. I'm trying to create a set of rocket depression tables and I want to check that my rocket model matches in-game performance for tested cases to ensure that it works for untested ones. If I can't rely on tacView then I'll have to find another way to validate my model.

This: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060020828 while it shows Beaufighters, says a 25 lbs head against merchant ships so I guess that it is the solid head one (AP).

Here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.429sqn.ca%2Facmgs.htm&psig=AOvVaw0saUKFeHTN_ikxSM-AMNJv&ust=1640886311951000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAsQjRxqFwoTCICfw4nIifUCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAO is a better image of the sight. Basicalluy a standard sight with a knob to point it downwards by 0 to 5 degrees.

Is it possible to have the current sight modified as per the original sight to allow for proper usage with the rockets? In this document (https://bulletpicker.com/pdf/AP 2802 Vol 1, Aircraft Rocket Installations, Sighting, and Ammunition.pdf) page 19 para 24 & 25 it states that the mod is: "This is basically the standard reflector gun sight ... but modified to permit depression of the line of sight from 0 to 5 [degrees]." And it goes on to explain how this mod is done. This photo: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8824145 appears to be of the Mosquito sight with this modification applied.